Komorn Law, Pllc-14 Pound Medical Marihuana Case Dismissed Pursuant To Section 8 Of The Mmma.

[bobandtorey]

Do I have it correct, the CoA ruled that my mmj card establishes prong 1 and 3 of sec 8? Does this mean that lower courts have to accept this as fact?

 

Three cheers for Michael, job well done!

 

Our cards have stickers on the back put on by the court Defendants Exhibit C

has not helped us yet

[bobandtorey]

 

 

ah you're right. looks like you did a great job on every point possible.

its good to know that section 4 also works when you get to court, in front of the right judge...

 

did they weigh the plants without the stalks, like it says in the PHC and MMMA?

actually now i'm curious, if the PHC says stalks dont count. and they cant tamper with evidence. how can they weigh the marijuana without weighing the stalks?

 

did they return his 14 pounds?

is the prosecutor going to appeal? they can appeal at any time for years, cant they? i guess there wasnt a trial, so theres no appeal. but can the prosecutor file charges again?

I think it's 21 days they have to appeal

[CaveatLector]

Nothing like a big fat hard earned dismissal.

[bobandtorey]

I agree and now the Lawyers no how to get the job done its a great thing

Soon the people will start feeling safer

 

Until they drive?

[pic book]

At least there is an example of a section 8 that was fought and won.

 

Dr. Bob

proof that there's one instance of an 8case argued and won!

[Dr. Bob]

proof that there's one instance of an 8case argued and won!

 

Two, my case in Antrim was a Section 8. Three, the gal we were working with in Gladwin had all charges dismissed under section 8, and she didn't even have a valid card.

 

Dr. Bob

[LongHairBri]

the length they'll go to arguing for prosicution. the total disreguard for the simple meaning of the words in the law. I litterally got sick to my stomach and threw up as I read this. I still don't feel well.

 

I got to ask, HOW do these people sleep at night? WHEN did it become their job to contort and spin simple, clearly written words into meanings that make LAW ABIDING patients and caregivers into criminals? WHO are they serving?? it sure isn't the voters/citizens

 

I don't see this changing any time soon.

these people are trying to save us from ourselves.

they believe their views should be the reality.

that the voters were duped and THEY were chosen, by some higher power, to set it right.

It's there calling. their mission in life.

they are an insterment of their lord.

they are our devine intervention.

amen

 

any more zelotcy they'd be strapping on an IED

[shishka]

I'm right there with ya LHB. Absolutely disgusting and terrifying at the same time.

 

These are the same people that for years said "we just enforce the law, if you want it different change the law", then once the law is changed they are all buttt hurt.

 

Reminds me of the last four years folks saying to the disp folks "leave our law alone, if you want dispensaries get your own bill" then once they did get their own bill folks are all buttt hurt.

 

Very similar mindset if you ask me.

[maxmax]

I'm right there with ya LHB. Absolutely disgusting and terrifying at the same time.

 

These are the same people that for years said "we just enforce the law, if you want it different change the law", then once the law is changed they are all buttt hurt.

 

Reminds me of the last four years folks saying to the disp folks "leave our law alone, if you want dispensaries get your own bill" then once they did get their own bill folks are all buttt hurt.

 

Very similar mindset if you ask me.

 

It's not the way things end up in real live it only happens on this site with some people not all

[Dr. Bob]

I think the key to understanding is that they are true believers in what THEY are doing, just as we are true believers in what we are doing. They feel they are doing the right thing.

 

It is up to us, over time, to change their way of thinking by personifying the medical benefits of marijuana and showing them we are just as 'normal' as they view themselves. Over time, things will change. We saw that first in the general public as the polls and voter responses to cannabis show. They will take longer to come around, but in the end, they will.

 

Dr. Bob

[jeff from bad axe]

Awesome.Great attorney.

[Kingpinn]

[maxmax]

Awesome.Great attorney.

That's what I hear if anyone ever needs a Lawyer he's the one

[GregS]

Great work Counselor!

 

By the looks of things, it is actually pretty simple as long as the facts are in line. Getting it through judges' and prosecutors' heads is work.

[t-pain]

to answer my own question, i think mr komorn on planet green trees said that he didnt ask for the marijuana back for his client. possibly he also implied that the police havent been returning seized marijuana in other cases too.

 

which kind of stinks, due to sec4 and i believe sec8 both having that protection...

[maxmax]

Great work Counselor!

 

By the looks of things, it is actually pretty simple as long as the facts are in line. Getting it through judges' and prosecutors' heads is work.

 

Are you asking him something here or making a statement that a judge or a prosecutor can't understand the Law ?

 

 

[thecannabiskid]

to answer my own question, i think mr komorn on planet green trees said that he didnt ask for the marijuana back for his client. possibly he also implied that the police havent been returning seized marijuana in other cases too.

 

which kind of stinks, due to sec4 and i believe sec8 both having that protection...

 

I was told by a leo that "the federal government came down and said, they can not return any medical Mj ".

[GregS]

Are you asking him something here or making a statement that a judge or a prosecutor can't understand the Law ?

 

Neither.

[Herb Cannabis]

I was told by a leo that "the federal government came down and said, they can not return any medical Mj ".

 

Leo has a reputation for lying, don't believe anything that they tell you without doing the research. I seem to remember a case or two in Cali that the courts ordered the return of the victims meds.

[dutchfarm]

Most excellent job Mr Komorn!!!! Am so glad to hear this :>) Am I understanding this right, if they would have had the root balls attatched to the plants, they would have considered the possession to be "plants", instead of "unusable material" ? If that is the case, could one just hang their plants with the root balls attatched and not be in jeopardy????

Farmer Brown

[dutchfarm]

Hello,

I was hoping to hear an opinion from a legal professional on the matter of plants with root balls attatched vs. plants without root balls being considered "unusable materials"

Thank You!

Farmer Brown

[BirdHunter]

That definition dosent make sense. A plant dosent make cotyledons. Seeds do. There is no such thing as a cutting that produces cotyledons. I guess you could cut an embryonic plant that still has them, but a plant will not produce them. The plant embryo uses its cotyledons for energy until it can produce adaquate energy via photosynthesis. This definition is nonsense and nothing can possibly qualify as a plant under those terms.

[GregS]

That definition dosent make sense. A plant dosent make cotyledons. Seeds do. There is no such thing as a cutting that produces cotyledons. I guess you could cut an embryonic plant that still has them, but a plant will not produce them. The plant embryo uses its cotyledons for energy until it can produce adaquate energy via photosynthesis. This definition is nonsense and nothing can possibly qualify as a plant under those terms.

 

The plant produced cotyledons when planted from seed. Clones are cuttings from that plant, so it follows that they have.

Edited March 9, 2013 by GregS

[BirdHunter]

 

 

I think you should read it again. It definitely describes a plant scientifically. It does include cuttings, however, which are not included in other definitions.

 

Do you know what a cotyledon is?

[dutchfarm]

First, "Thank You" for responding to my question!! I am not sure about the cotyledons, as they are the first two leaves that appear after seed sprout, and generally do not stay on the plant throughout the growing season( or cycle). I guess my question, more specifically, would be, if the folks that went to court over the plants were told in court that they( the plants with no root balls attatched) were "unusable material", then would it not be a logical assumption( yes, I know the definition of assume :>) that if the plants had had root balls attatched, would that meet the definition of a "plant"? Thank You again!!