Pretrial

[peanutbutter]

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

 

It's all that gray crap stuck in their heads.

[Restorium2]

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.

You are kidding right? If you have a card you saw the doctor. There was no point for the 'has stated' because the state already checked that out and gave you a card because you saw the doctor. If you had the card at arrest you obviously had seen the doctor prior.

[Highlander]

You are kidding right? If you have a card you saw the doctor. There was no point for the 'has stated' because the state already checked that out and gave you a card because you saw the doctor. If you had the card at arrest you obviously had seen the doctor prior.

 

I'm talking about post arrest. Get arrested then get a card. Then try to skip the prosecution part. I dont see anything in section 4 that says you can't do this. Do you?

[Restorium2]

'has been issued'

[Highlander]

'has been issued'

 

OK

 

A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution,

 

The guy got arrested with no card.... "has been issued." The arrest was legit.

 

The guy has his card now. Now's he is in court. The card has been issued. He "Shall not be subject to prosecution"??

[Restorium2]

It's the same deal as 'has stated'. It doesn't apply retroactively. Besides that, it doesn't make sense that he didn't have to see the doctor first. It looks like a backdoor like you said. If it looks like a back door then it's not going to fly.

[Highlander]

It's the same deal as 'has stated'. It doesn't apply retroactively. Besides that, it doesn't make sense that he didn't have to see the doctor first. It looks like a backdoor like you said. If it looks like a back door then it's not going to fly.

 

So the timing of the "Has been issued" relates to the timing of the medical use - not the timing of the prosecution. So if at the time of medical use a card had been issued, he'd be good. Makes sense. I tried to explore a PB idea. I don't disagree with everything he says.

[Restorium2]

So the timing of the "Has been issued" relates to the timing of the medical use - not the timing of the prosecution. So if at the time of medical use a card had been issued, he'd be good. Makes sense. I tried to explore a PB idea. I don't disagree with everything he says.

All you had to do was look at the heading for section 4. It's for registered patients. If you aren't registered then it doesn't apply to you. We can't cherry pick a sentence out of a section that doesn't apply(Steckler).

[peanutbutter]

All you had to do was look at the heading for section 4. It's for registered patients. If you aren't registered then it doesn't apply to you. We can't cherry pick a sentence out of a section that doesn't apply(Steckler).

 

He is a CARDED patient.

 

He wasn't carded at the time of arrest, so he didn't have that protection at that time.

 

But now that he has the card, he has protections. Which ones?

 

Protection from prosecution is one of those protections as a benefit of having the ID card. Not just arrest, but prosecution also.

Edited November 21, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

He is a CARDED patient.

 

He wasn't carded at the time of arrest, so he doesn't have that protection at that time.

 

But now that he has the card, he has protections. Which ones?

 

Protection from prosecution is one of those protections as a benefit of having the ID card. Not just arrest, but prosecution also.

Doesn't matter what he is now, when you look back at what happened then. No cherry picking the law and applying retro actively. No back doors. That's not what we are looking for here.

[Timmahh]

if the Dr issued a Rec prior to arrest, he atleast has a section 8, or should. If he sent in all info for Registry, prior to arrest, and everything else was in order, ie under amount/plant count, locked enclosed ect, all i's dotted, then it would stand to reason a Section 4 would apply. Not sure this particular point has went beyond a Circuit Ct, but may of seen some CoA time in one case. dont remember for sure.

 

But if there was no Dr Rec prior to incident/arrest, then no part of the act shall apply per Kolanek ruling.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Timmahh

[Restorium2]

if the Dr issued a Rec prior to arrest, he atleast has a section 8, or should. If he sent in all info for Registry, prior to arrest, and everything else was in order, ie under amount/plant count, locked enclosed ect, all i's dotted, then it would stand to reason a Section 4 would apply.

 

but if there was no Dr Rec prior to incident/arrest, then no part of the act shall apply per Konlanek ruling.

IF he sent the registration in 20 days prior to the incident then you are correct. But that's not the case. Good info for others in that window. We need to stay as specific as possible to avoid confusion and looking like we are cherry picking.

[Highlander]

All you had to do was look at the heading for section 4. It's for registered patients. If you aren't registered then it doesn't apply to you. We can't cherry pick a sentence out of a section that doesn't apply(Steckler).

 

The headings for section 4 doesn't say when the section 4 protections take effect.

 

There are three things that can happen to allow a law to be applied retoractively in Michigan. Do you know what those three things are? Those three things would not necessarily appear in a title. They would be in the text. I was looking for wording that met one of those three tests. The title alone wasn't enough to make that call.

[SFC]

It is a compelling argument. I am not sure it has been presented in court under that context. Hell, it is worth a shot.

[Herb Cannabis]

Cards don't mean a thing to the prosecutor/judge, ask Bob and Torrey, King, me and many others.

[Restorium2]

Cards don't mean a thing to the prosecutor/judge, ask Bob and Torrey, King, me and many others.

Actually, I just heard today that a judge in Bay County accepted Dr. Bobs phone testimony so they can use cannabis while on probation. Imagine that? We are making progress. A card has some weight.

[bobandtorey]

Cards don't mean a thing to the prosecutor/judge, ask Bob and Torrey, King, me and many others.

I agree it does not matter Yet but it will soon we and the others have to stand up and keep the good fight going so that other people will not be railroaded as we have

[ozzrokk]

I am not a lawyer either and I am not offering legal advice. That said..... I think it is very interesting about having the card and the protection...... I could see it as another incentive and protection of the card.

[bobandtorey]

Well said

And a I am also not a Lawyer but do play one on these boards

Am I missing something here or do people still think that their are some protection

I will say that if you are lucky and have a run end

With Leo and it ends their your OK but if you end up in Court save your money and chalk it up as a

Fact of life thing

 

[Restorium2]

Well said

And a I am also not a Lawyer but do play one on these boards

Am I missing something here or do people still think that their are some protection

I will say that if you are lucky and have a run end

With Leo and it ends their your OK but if you end up in Court save your money and chalk it up as a

Fact of life thing

Like I said;

Today a guy on probation is using his cannabis because his judge said his card was good after he talked with his doctor on the phone. If you were that guy Bob, you would be kissing your card right now. Maybe sticking it on your forehead, lol.

[bobandtorey]

 

Like I said;

Today a guy on probation is using his cannabis because his judge said his card was good after he talked with his doctor on the phone. If you were that guy Bob, you would be kissing your card right now. Maybe sticking it on your forehead, lol.

I am glad for him but its not the judge that is letting him its the Law that we have

And are Law is for the whole State not just this city and that city

That's were I get confused

[Kingpinn]

I think in my case when all the chips are on the table . My MMJ card is going to have great weight. And when the next guy comes along his or her's card is going to be that much heavier. IMHO

[Kingpinn]

What we need is to get the word out to the tax payers on how much money is being spent over this issue . And get their public opinion on whether they like the way their money is being spent. Public opinion is a very powerful tool

[bobandtorey]

 

Like I said;

Today a guy on probation is using his cannabis because his judge said his card was good after he talked with his doctor on the phone. If you were that guy Bob, you would be kissing your card right now. Maybe sticking it on your forehead, lol.

So did he get probation because of cannabis?

And he was legal

[Restorium2]

So did he get probation because of cannabis?

And he was legal

All I know is he is on probation and he doesn't have to worry about cannabis in his urine test. Priceless ......