Pretrial

[cbenton]

So I've been summoned to appear before the Kent County 61st District Court on Dec 6th for a misdemeanor charge of Use of Marijuana. I was given my medical paperwork after i was charge and still plead not guilty. Any chance this could be thrown out?

The reason I was even given the charge was a unlawful traffic stop, and a breach of our 4th amendment right to unreasonable search and seizure.

 

I asked for a public defender upon pleading not guilty and my request was denied by the Judges clerk.. Is that even legal?

[bobandtorey]

So I've been summoned to appear before the Kent County 61st District Court on Dec 6th for a misdemeanor charge of Use of Marijuana. I was given my medical paperwork after i was charge and still plead not guilty. Any chance this could be thrown out?

The reason I was even given the charge was a unlawful traffic stop, and a breach of our 4th amendment right to unreasonable search and seizure.

 

I asked for a public defender upon pleading not guilty and my request was denied by the Judges clerk.. Is that even legal?

 

Am no Lawyer but the judge can't do that and he know it it maybe his way of saying go pay for one

But remember a court Lawyer ant FREE

I think you can go talk to one for free and then you could at least see what your up against and if you or your right were denied you could contact the ACLU

[cbenton]

While the Patriot Act states officers of the law no longer have to read you your miranda rights, you still HAVE those rights including; If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you. Am I wrong?

[bobandtorey]

While the Patriot Act states officers of the law no longer have to read you your miranda rights, you still HAVE those rights including; If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you. Am I wrong?

I agree we do have them Rights but we are losing them because people won't stand up for them any more

I hope that you will and be able to do it

[cbenton]

Anyone else have a any advice on what I can do ?

[bobandtorey]

We have been fighting them in court for almost 4 years now

Because we were Legal and are Rights were violated

[+Malamute]

Supreme Court Case People v Kolanek

 

 

http://rudoilaw.com/medical-marijuana/michigan-medical-marijuana-history/people-v-kolanek-need-physician-certification-after-enactment-of-the-mmma-but-before-arrest

 

 

You MUST have doctors recommendation before arrest.

 

You are SoL for using a Mmj defense.

[cbenton]

Supreme Court Case People v Kolanek

 

 

http://rudoilaw.com/...t-before-arrest

 

 

You MUST have doctors recommendation before arrest.

 

You are SoL for using a Mmj defense.

 

I never claimed to have paperwork before hand or that I was a medical marijuana patient in court or on the record, I just finally got it today, thats why I asked would they potentially throw it out because I AM a medical marijuana patient? My other question is why am I not given the right to invoke the 6th amendment, the right to an attorney of my choice, being said a public defender?

[mibrains]

sounds like a few details are missing here...

 

not sure...

 

but... IMHO

 

to answer your question as stated the best i can i will say this..

it sounds like it will potentially boil down to procedure in your case...

 

as far as having or obtaining your certification recommendation after the fact..

that probably will not help..

it may even end up a hindrance..

not sure on that but the SC ruled you must have Dr rec before defense can be raised.

 

i have been taught by my life experience.. the best defense is in the details...

 

find a detail orientated lawyer and see if there are procedural errors that can help you file for case dismissal...

 

good luck and i hope you find the answers you are looking for.

 

and as for a clerk denying your request for counsel... go back to the judge... immediately..or at least as soon as possible..

[Celliach]

I never claimed to have paperwork before hand or that I was a medical marijuana patient in court or on the record, I just finally got it today, thats why I asked would they potentially throw it out because I AM a medical marijuana patient? My other question is why am I not given the right to invoke the 6th amendment, the right to an attorney of my choice, being said a public defender?

 

If you did not have your doctor's recommendation at the time of arrest, you cannot use a medical defense. You have to have a doctor's recommendation, even if you don't have a state issued ID card. This has been ruled on by the state supreme court and there is no way out of it.

[mibrains]

While the Patriot Act states officers of the law no longer have to read you your Miranda rights, you still HAVE those rights including; If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you. Am I wrong?

 

Miranda is a notification of your constitutional rights..

it exists to serve notice that they exist...

yes you are correct...

the constitution protects us on many levels including those identified in Miranda and many many more...

[bobandtorey]

 

 

If you did not have your doctor's recommendation at the time of arrest, you cannot use a medical defense. You have to have a doctor's recommendation, even if you don't have a state issued ID card. This has been ruled on by the state supreme court and there is no way out of it.

I agree you can't use it as a defense even if you have the Rec befor arrest

He'll here in this county you can't use it at all so far

But we are fighting to be able to and it's been almost 4 years

[Herb Cannabis]

I agree you can't use it as a defense even if you have the Rec befor arrest

He'll here in this county you can't use it at all so far

But we are fighting to be able to and it's been almost 4 years

 

I'll find out in about an hour if I will be able to use the affirmative defense. I'll let you know how it goes.

[cristinew]

Good Luck Herb

[cbenton]

Yeah let me know how it goes.

[HEMP4LIFE]

If you did not have your doctor's recommendation at the time of arrest, you cannot use a medical defense. You have to have a doctor's recommendation, even if you don't have a state issued ID card. This has been ruled on by the state supreme court and there is no way out of it.

i was wondering if you have the condition and your doctor knows you use mmj DO YOU STILL NEED A CARD.

[peanutbutter]

I never claimed to have paperwork before hand or that I was a medical marijuana patient in court or on the record, I just finally got it today, thats why I asked would they potentially throw it out because I AM a medical marijuana patient? My other question is why am I not given the right to invoke the 6th amendment, the right to an attorney of my choice, being said a public defender?

 

I'm about to be crucified for making this comment.

 

While section eight no longer applies, I believe that section four does. If you have a card you're supposed to be exempt from prosecution.

 

If you tried to work that, they would find a reason to reject it.

[cbenton]

I called the clerk to ask for a public defender, I was told I won't need one unless I'm facing jail time...

[Herb Cannabis]

I'm sorry it took me so long to get back. My Pretrial was delayed until Dec 4, 2012. My lawyer said he needed time to do this right the first time and he got it.

[peanutbutter]

I called the clerk to ask for a public defender, I was told I won't need one unless I'm facing jail time...

 

Yeah .. that's what it is.

 

Section 4 of the law starts this way:

4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution,or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege,

 

So, you could try to print out that page, hand the page and your ID to the judge.

 

The section eight defense depends on when the doctors letter was issues.

Section four depends on having the ID card. Section four wasn't' discussed in the recent Supreme Court decision. Although the judge might say this ruling also applies to section four.

 

It was ruled that you must have had your doctors letter before arrest to use that section (8).

 

Being exempt from prosecution under section 4 wasn't discussed by the SC in that context.

 

Now let me make this clear. I'm NOT a lawyer. Doing this is a crap shoot.

 

But it might work.

 

Here is the page you would want to print out:

http://www.legislatu...e=mcl-333-26424

 

You wouldn't be presenting a defense. You would simply be pointing out that you are currently "not subject to prosecution" because you have the card.

 

I presume that you had less than 2.5 ounces when stopped.

Edited November 21, 2012 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

Someone didn't change the system clock on the server.

[Highlander]

PB's approach is very interesting. The ruling on the need for the Dr. rec. before arrest was based on the langauage in paragraph 1 that states "A physician has stated...." The courts said this (in a grammatical sense) means that the rec. must have come before the arrest.

 

But there is no such requirement in section 4. Got a card? = no arrest, no prosecution. There is no "Has stated" in Section 4.

 

PB may have found a sweet back door defense. I'm trying to find a way to counter this approach, and so far - nothing.

[bobandtorey]

Supreme Court Case People v Kolanek

 

 

http://rudoilaw.com/medical-marijuana/michigan-medical-marijuana-history/people-v-kolanek-need-physician-certification-after-enactment-of-the-mmma-but-before-arrest

 

 

You MUST have doctors recommendation before arrest.

 

You are SoL for using a Mmj defense.

 

I agree

But what good would that do and we have known

That you need the rec befor arrest that came out with the first COA ruling in are case

The thing I don't get is why the score is 19-0 when it should be 18-1

And every one here was so happy that the supreme Court ruled the way it did and still after all this time and all the rulings me and torey and Larry are being used am sure their are others that I have forgotten or we have not heard of they are the people that took the easy way out with a plea deal

If I had it to do over and Torey was not inn this

I would do it all over because if you are legal I think you should stand up tall if more people would do it the better we all would be

But most of the the people 99% are over plant count

And if they (the courts) fine a loop hole to prosecute people it will and send the message

To the rest

Their Will Be No Medical Msrihuana in are Town

 

 

 

[bobandtorey]

PB's approach is very interesting. The ruling on the need for the Dr. rec. before arrest was based on the langauage in paragraph 1 that states "A physician has stated...." The courts said this (in a grammatical sense) means that the rec. must have come before the arrest.

 

But there is no such requirement in section 4. Got a card? = no arrest, no prosecution. There is no "Has stated" in Section 4.

 

PB may have found a sweet back door defense. I'm trying to find a way to counter this approach, and so far - nothing.

And it came from us and the kith Camble me and him were at the COA the same day he got busted 1 year befor the Law and Matt got it dismissed and the prosecutor appealed

 

[bobandtorey]

 

 

Yeah .. that's what it is.

 

Section 4 of the law starts this way:

 

 

So, you could try to print out that page, hand the page and your ID to the judge.

 

The section eight defense depends on when the doctors letter was issues.

Section four depends on having the ID card. Section four wasn't' discussed in the recent Supreme Court decision. Although the judge might say this ruling also applies to section four.

 

It was ruled that you must have had your doctors letter before arrest to use that section (8).

 

Being exempt from prosecution under section 4 wasn't discussed by the SC in that context.

 

Now let me make this clear. I'm NOT a lawyer. Doing this is a crap shoot.

 

But it might work.

 

Here is the page you would want to print out:

http://www.legislatu...e=mcl-333-26424

 

You wouldn't be presenting a defense. You would simply be pointing out that you are currently "not subject to prosecution" because you have the card.

 

I presume that you had less than 2.5 ounces when stopped.

Could it be that easy?

When we were in court the first time the judge maid copy's of are cards it even has a sticker on the back of are cards from the court so why is it that we can't use it because its evidence