Pretrial

[CaveatLector]

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

A judge doesn't have to let someone use med mj while they are on probation. So, no, the law isn't what let him use. Seems as though the card, coupled with Dr testimony, is what tipped the scales.

[bobandtorey]

A judge doesn't have to let someone use med mj while they are on probation. So, no, the law isn't what let him use. Seems as though the card, coupled with Dr testimony, is what tipped the scales.

Not sure if I would agree with that

If it is truly his medicine and the judge would not let him use it he could appeal it this guy got lucky

IMHO

[peanutbutter]

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.

 

Nothing retroactive involved.

 

He was not protected from arrest. As he didn't have the card.

Prosecution is a current, present tense action by the state.

 

That protection is a restriction placed on the state, not the patient.

 

As it is a restriction on the state, it is the states actions being examined.

Edited November 22, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

Nothing retroactive involved.

 

He was not protected from arrest. As he didn't have the card.

Prosecution is a current, present tense action by the state.

 

That protection is a restriction placed on the state, not the patient.

 

As it is a restriction on the state, it is the states actions being examined.

The state is restricted by section 4 if you qualified for section 4 at the time of the incident. To qualify for section 4 protections you needed to have submitted your forms at least 20 days before the incident. Your section 8 rights go into effect when the doctor signs the form. That's your patient rights timeline in a nutshell.

[SFC]

Bob, did you have an actual card when you were raided? We all know you guys qualify and are on your side but your case is not about the cards as much as the law and the Dr's recommendation. Your doctor by all accounts totally dropped the ball for you in court.

 

To Dr Bob's credit he has been testifying on behalf of patients in court and doing a good job. Whoever you have sign your rec you better ask them point blank, "will you stand up for me in court?"

[Restorium2]

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

Not to be confused with the position the thread is about. Two totally different situations, when combined, just confuse the heck out of things. Bob's situation is different and the advice will be different.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Restorium2

[SFC]

It sucks you had to be the first one Bob but things have changed a great deal since then. If you are following the law and not out doing high risk things like driving around "crop touring", selling to non-carded people, or growing way too many plants life is good. Awesome if you will. I love this law!

[SFC]

I agree Resto and it is a crazy long shot that has very little probability of succeeding but it is interesting none the less. I guess the right person with deep pockets could test it out.

[Restorium2]

I agree Resto and it is a crazy long shot that has very little probability of succeeding but it is interesting none the less. I guess the right person with deep pockets could test it out.

Just so we are on the same page here, it's beyond a long shot to try to make a case that section 4 covers you if you hadn't even sent your forms in when the incident occured. It's a Steckler(no brainer).

[michaelscott]

I think you need the right player to throw this hail mary. Perhaps a seriously ill patient that was refused a recommendation by their primary care physician because of hospital policy.

[Restorium2]

I think you need the right player to throw this hail mary. Perhaps a seriously ill patient that was refused a recommendation by their primary care physician because of hospital policy.

That would be a hail mary section 8, not a hail mary section 4. But it confuses the issue at hand here.

[SFC]

Either way Resto, it doesn't effect you and me. Why are you digging your heals in? If someone wants to fight a misdemeanor possession charge with everything they have there is a very slim possibility the right lawyer could maybe prevail. I really don't care all that much either way.

[Restorium2]

Either way Resto, it doesn't effect you and me. Why are you digging your heals in? If someone wants to fight a misdemeanor possession charge with everything they have there is a very slim possibility the right lawyer could maybe prevail. I really don't care all that much either way.

It's not productive on the web site to cherry pick a protection out of one section and apply it to someone who obviously only qualifies in another. Call it 'digging in your heals' or call it improvement in the way we give clear advice here for all readers, including those that have negative seminars(judicial conference) on medical cannabis who describe this web site for their purposes, and stuff like that. Understand now?

Edited November 22, 2012 by Restorium2

[SFC]

No...

[Restorium2]

No...

Page 36, towards the bottom of the page.

http://www.filedump.net/dumped/5d2pptdrmalone1353053122.pdf

[SFC]

Have a happy Thanksgiving Resto. You just cannot grasp that people can discuss things that are a little outside the box. Your problem not mine.

[Restorium2]

Have a happy Thanksgiving Resto. You just cannot grasp that people can discuss things that are a little outside the box. Your problem not mine.

Not my problem, it's our problem. Steckler made it so. Might as well do as much damage control as you can as fast as you can. Just proving him wrong one thread at a time.

[peanutbutter]

It's not productive on the web site to cherry pick a protection out of one section and apply it to someone who obviously only qualifies in another. Call it 'digging in your heals' or call it improvement in the way we give clear advice here for all readers, including those that have negative seminars(judicial conference) on medical cannabis who describe this web site for their purposes, and stuff like that. Understand now?

 

Based on your quote, are you saying that this entire site isn't qualified to discuss the law?

[Restorium2]

Based on your quote, are you saying that this entire site isn't qualified to discuss the law?

Read Steckler. Prove him wrong.

[SFC]

Stecklers deal was insulting at every level a little blurb about pro mmj forums is not much of a concer. I doubt the supremes even made it to page 36

Edited November 22, 2012 by SFC

[peanutbutter]

Read Steckler. Prove him wrong.

 

Then we need to consider more interpretations than Steckler approves of.

[Restorium2]

Stecklers deal was insulting at every level a little blurb about pro mmj forums is not much of a concer. I doubt the supremes even made it to page 36

Even if you don't want to prove Steckler wrong, it doesn't do anyone any good to pull a protection from one section and apply it in another. It's kind of childish. There are protections for the registered, and protections for the unregistered, it's hard enough to keep that straight, even harder when regulars here confuse things.

[bobandtorey]

Bob, did you have an actual card when you were raided? We all know you guys qualify and are on your side but your case is not about the cards as much as the law and the Dr's recommendation. Your doctor by all accounts totally dropped the ball for you in court.

 

To Dr Bob's credit he has been testifying on behalf of patients in court and doing a good job. Whoever you have sign your rec you better ask them point blank, "will you stand up for me in court?"

I disagree are Doc did what he saw was best for us by not letting the prosecutor know are medical conditions were he followed the Law We had nothing in are medical records to hide Torey had Cancer at the time and as most people here know

I need two hips replaced and I went to my hip Doc first and he was the one that told me to go to someone that new more about marijuana then he did

He also knew that I had been using it and he was OK with it we have good relationship for over 10 years and I still see him every year and if we get this to a jury and we will some day he will be call to testify to it

Because at the time 4 years ago the Lawyers didn't want the courts to see are records then all of us would have to show them

 

[peanutbutter]

Even if you don't want to prove Steckler wrong, it doesn't do anyone any good to pull a protection from one section and apply it in another. It's kind of childish. There are protections for the registered, and protections for the unregistered, it's hard enough to keep that straight, even harder when regulars here confuse things.

 

Letter before offense .. that's section eight. At a pre trial hearing.

 

Not subject to prosecution. That's section 4. That would be at any time. When invoked, it should end the entire process at that moment.

 

You are correct. Don't apply the yardstick from one section to another.

 

As Greg Schmid taught us., this law is like two laws in one.

Edited November 22, 2012 by peanutbutter

[bobandtorey]

Our case is and never been just about us it's alway been about the Law and so other people

Won't have to go thought

 

I do agree today if you are within your count and have your Rec. you will be fine but that's only because of people like us and Larry standing up

Most people would have just turned some one end

 

That was the first thing Leo said to us if we knew any one else to turn end we could just go home

and forget about it ever happening

 

I told them WHAT you mean if I tell you about someone that was growing and had their Rec.

Yup

Sometimes I think about the people that got raided with lots of plants and Med like the dyden

Dispensary that got only 6 month probation for a trailer from Coronado Med

 

And their are more of that kind of people then most people think

 

KEEP Your bossiness to your self is what I tell people when they ask me how they can avoid being raided

Edited November 22, 2012 by bobandtorey