AgainstOppression Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 This on woodtv8, I gather it has to do eith multiple grows under one roof, a guy gave free space had 88 plants but not all his, details yet to come. Interesting how much money is being spent of tax payer dollars to circumvent the Law, by those sworn to uphold it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cristinew Posted September 14, 2012 Report Share Posted September 14, 2012 they will rule that they can use the AD and send it back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celliach Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 This on woodtv8, I gather it has to do eith multiple grows under one roof, a guy gave free space had 88 plants but not all his, details yet to come. Interesting how much money is being spent of tax payer dollars to circumvent the Law, by those sworn to uphold it. They aren't circumventing it, they are trying to set the interpretation of the law the way they want it interpreted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 a link would be nice.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledge Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 http://www.woodtv.co...h-supreme-court http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/09/michigan_supreme_court_weighs.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GanjaWarrior Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 They aren't circumventing it, they are trying to set the interpretation of the law the way they want it interpreted. well we can debate semantics.... but i think circumvent is something like to go around....and if you interpreting the law in a manner so as to go around the true intent and twist it to your will id say hes absolutely correct in saying they are circumventing the law....just my op. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmahh Posted September 15, 2012 Report Share Posted September 15, 2012 what this means is they did not care for the way the case was handled by the CoA. if they thought it was fine, they would of refused to hear it. This will be the SC straightening out Bill Schuitte and O'conners reading problems.... but i do believe they will address a co op/collective type grow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.