Meeting In Lansing 7 16 13

[Natesilver]

No the point was to use the contract and exceed the limits of a registered caregiver.  I can most definitely provide 2 prongs, the patients are protected as they can obtain meds from ANY and I put myself at personal risk to stand behind my certifications every day.  Will anyone stand behind Greg and do this themselves?

 

Dr. Bob 

 

But according to you, simply being an unregistered caregiver isn't covered under section 8. This would be a great way to test whether it is.

[Dr. Bob]

But according to you, simply being an unregistered caregiver isn't covered under section 8. This would be a great way to test whether it is.

Exactly.  And you will find out very quickly that it isn't.  But if you have confidence in the theory, by all means put it to the test.  PM me and I'll set you up with the patients.  I can pull 10 local card holding patients with very solid credentials on short notice.  

[Dr. Bob]

Enough of this nonsense.  Let's get back to the real discussion of section 8 FOR PATIENTS.  The offer stands. 2 prongs solid as the day is long, you bring your ad hoc contract and your self confidence.  This conversation is over until you step up.  Don't expect others to take a risk you are not willing to take yourself.

 

Dr. Bob

[Natesilver]

Exactly.  And you will find out very quickly that it isn't.  But if you have confidence in the theory, by all means put it to the test.  PM me and I'll set you up with the patients.  I can pull 10 local card holding patients with very solid credentials on short notice.  

 

I appreciate the offer. But I would suggest anyone undertaking this "challenge" just transfer to one patient, and transfer less than 2.5 oz. The patient is bulletproof in this scenario. And as long as there is a properly filled out change form and caregiver attestation that has been notarized and NOT sent into the state, it's covered under sec 8

[CaveatLector]

My long view includes a number of things. Perhaps chief among them at this point is taking the fight to the government. Jamming the courts with cases it has little to no chance of winning appeals to me, both in the sense that it will come to be seen as a fruitless endeavor on the part of law enforcement and the courts, and with luck they will come to see that there is an immense waste of time and resources involved in trying to run us through the grinder, and that workable precedent is a likely outcome. For that reason yes, I would like to see a method to raise money to take cases to fruition. In the end, it is a method intended to benefit us.

(The court doesn't win cases).

 

Also, as a practical matter, you cannot jam a court with cases.  It just is not going to happen.  Jamming a court with cases, such that a prosecutor must dismiss, is a theoretical concept that simply would not happen in the real world. 

 

Lansing, for example, has 5 district court judges.  Adding 100 cases a month would barely even be noticeable.  Furthermore, you cannot assume that marijuana cases will be dismissed or just not prosecuted because a caseload gets heavy.  It will be up to the discretion of the prosecutor as to what cases will not go to complaint and warrant should things get crazy busy around the office. 

 

What does that mean?  It means charging decisions will closely follow the prosecutor's agenda.  If you have a Jessica Cooper type then you can expect other cases to be dropped before marijuana cases.  So effectively you are doing criminals a favor in order to allow the prosecutor to pursue her pet project. 

 

Furthermore, even if it came down to having to dismiss some marijuana cases I will guarantee you it would be the cases/people who could more readily absorb the hit if it was prosecuted.  In other words, if the pros. can habitualize you, wants to make an example of you, doesn't like you, etc., then you will be the one playing all innings.  Kind of a natural selection.  Johnny Grandpa, whom has never committed any other crime will have his case dropped.  Bobby Redsox, whom has 2 prior drug convictions in the past 10 years, will be the one gearing up for trial. 

 

Lastly, in theory your idea could work.  But that is theory only.  How many people showed up for Capitol rallies?  Let's be really generous and say 1000.  Let's be even MORE generous and say those are the staunch activists.  Not let's assume these activists want to "jam" a court.  Is 1000 cases spread around the state going to make a difference?  Nope.

[Dr. Bob]

I appreciate the offer. But I would suggest anyone undertaking this "challenge" just transfer to one patient, and transfer less than 2.5 oz. The patient is bulletproof in this scenario. And as long as there is a properly filled out change form and caregiver attestation that has been notarized and NOT sent into the state, it's covered under sec 8

Stop trying to change the parameters of the challenge.  And NO unless the change form is sent it not worth the paper it is written on to protect the caregiver.  And it wasn't addressed to anyone.  It was addressed to those that are promoting this scheme.  And those that support them.  Who will step forward and take the risk themselves?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMx_p98T6C4

 

Dr. Bob

Edited July 23, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[+Malamute]

My long view includes a number of things. Perhaps chief among them at this point is taking the fight to the government. Jamming the courts with cases it has little to no chance of winning appeals to me, both in the sense that it will come to be seen as a fruitless endeavor on the part of law enforcement and the courts, and with luck they will come to see that there is an immense waste of time and resources involved in trying to run us through the grinder, and that workable precedent is a likely outcome. For that reason yes, I would like to see a method to raise money to take cases to fruition. In the end, it is a method intended to benefit us.

 

 

 By asking others to get busted? While using your opinion on Sec 8? And you are unwilling to participate or back up your opinion yourself.

 

That is where your opinion becomes repugnant to some of us.

 

 The convincing of others to do something you are unwilling to do yourself by putting themselves at great risk.

 

 

 

 One thing we know for sure in the courts,.... they will not grow tired of endless defendants when it comes to anything. :-)  So you based your 'orders' of intent on cases you have no idea will win and you may get lucky and deflate the court system if you can convince enough suckers to impale themselves onto the court system.

 

sigh'

[GregS]

Our judge said anyone can understand the Law in one of her opines  she did use a Bigger word in saying it

Bob. You never cease to make me smile.

[GregS]

Let's do a thought experiment, shall we?

 

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich.- The medical marijuana debate is heating up again in West Michigan with prosecutors, judges and police still trying to define the ramifications of the Medical Marijuana Act passed by voters in 2008.

 This week, one of the men leading the fight, the founder of the Mid-Michigan Compassion Club in Grand Rapids, was back in court.  That’s when a Kent County Judge ruled what police would call a dispensary and what the founder calls a club could remain open.  It was also ruled founder David Overholt couldn’t go within 100 feet of it.

 Overholt’s upcoming trial on marijuana charges could set a new legal precedent when it comes to medical marijuana in Michigan.

Assistant Muskegon County Prosecutor Brett Gardner for clarifications on the law and the Supreme Court’s rulings.

 Assistant Muskegon County Prosecutor Brett Gardner explained that the current precedent of State vs. McQueen ruled that patient-to-patient transfers or caregiver-to-patient transfers were in violation of the Medical Marijuana Act.  

 “Caregivers under the law have five patients that they can supply marijuana to, if they go beyond that five and supply it to anyone who is not their registered patients, then they open themselves up for not only civil action for a public nuisance but potential criminal charges,” Gardner said.  

 Overholt argues the ruling was only patient-to-patient specific.

 “If a caregiver and a caregiver are working together they`re both legal Michigan caregivers licensed by the state then the law already tells you that you are immune to prosecution,” Overholt says.

 He’s challenging his charges and is fully ready to go to trial, because if not he says the world of medical marijuana cannot survived.

 “Without the ability to exchange with other caregivers and to keep enough meds, usable meds and quality meds in front of their patients, I think the system is doomed to fail,” he said.

 One thing both men agree on is that the medical marijuana act is hazy, leaving room for questions and legal interpretation.

Read more: http://fox17online.com/2013/07/23/medical-marijuana-debate-heats-up-again-in-west-michigan/#ixzz2ZwfIbk78

 

Had there been notarized agreements between the patients in attendance and the people who were presumably selling to them that proves two of the three elements of the AD (that a physician has stated..., and that the patient and the patient's caregiver were engaged to treat or alleviate the patient's condition) by a preponderance of the evidence, and an amount not more than, say, 1 to 2 oz were mutually possessed,  where would this case go? Would it have been started in the first place? What would the likely outcome(s) have been?

Edited July 24, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

LOL you can't still believe your statement  can you

ask bob and torey how it worked out for them and they where luck 

It has been clearly shown that you did not file a motion to dismiss at an appropriate evidentiary hearing. Without that you had no protection under the AD. Your attorneys appear to have been incompetent in circuit court. Don't blame the law so much as that. Had you stayed with your appeal rather than drop it, you would likely have had the case remanded back to circuit court with instructions that would have required the necessary hearing and permit you to petiion for dismissal. We could have seen the Oakland Co. prosecutor with her cute little brown spot puckered. Damm little luck was involved.

Edited July 24, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

(The court doesn't win cases).

 

Also, as a practical matter, you cannot jam a court with cases.  It just is not going to happen.  Jamming a court with cases, such that a prosecutor must dismiss, is a theoretical concept that simply would not happen in the real world. 

 

Lansing, for example, has 5 district court judges.  Adding 100 cases a month would barely even be noticeable.  Furthermore, you cannot assume that marijuana cases will be dismissed or just not prosecuted because a caseload gets heavy.  It will be up to the discretion of the prosecutor as to what cases will not go to complaint and warrant should things get crazy busy around the office. 

 

What does that mean?  It means charging decisions will closely follow the prosecutor's agenda.  If you have a Jessica Cooper type then you can expect other cases to be dropped before marijuana cases.  So effectively you are doing criminals a favor in order to allow the prosecutor to pursue her pet project. 

 

Furthermore, even if it came down to having to dismiss some marijuana cases I will guarantee you it would be the cases/people who could more readily absorb the hit if it was prosecuted.  In other words, if the pros. can habitualize you, wants to make an example of you, doesn't like you, etc., then you will be the one playing all innings.  Kind of a natural selection.  Johnny Grandpa, whom has never committed any other crime will have his case dropped.  Bobby Redsox, whom has 2 prior drug convictions in the past 10 years, will be the one gearing up for trial. 

 

Lastly, in theory your idea could work.  But that is theory only.  How many people showed up for Capitol rallies?  Let's be really generous and say 1000.  Let's be even MORE generous and say those are the staunch activists.  Not let's assume these activists want to "jam" a court.  Is 1000 cases spread around the state going to make a difference?  Nope.

Interesting that, and good to know.

[GregS]

I find this interesting. Not just the quote, but the source.

 

People V Kolanek

Ruling established that registered and unregistered medical marijuana patients and caregivers are entitled to a medical marijuana defense, so long as they meet the requirement of Section 8 of the MMMA.

 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/page/articles/community/leg/medical_marijuana_case_law.html

Edited July 24, 2013 by GregS

[phaquetoo]

Is any administration needed in this thread or is everybody still good with letting it go?

Please let it go for a while, it seems others are pointing out faults, we dont need a whole thread of disalutions, it would be nice to read more from the other side, alot of times the other side in this thread is the one pushing an agenda, (no offense to any one or party) I for one like to see all sides of the story.

 

but in the end you are the boss, at this point we would need it to flat out disapear if we realy care about what others think of our site, I care but it is nice to see all sides and let people make up their own minds!

 

Peace Zap!

Jim

[pic book]

14 pages devoted to 1 man's desire to copy G3C?

[Natesilver]

14 pages devoted to 1 man's desire to copy G3C?

This is a section 8 discussion.

[Restorium2]

So this was a meeting to raise money to help the COA defendant Earl C with his bid for an appeal to the Supreme Court.  Yet we don't even know that the defendant wants or needs this money. Money that would be raised by assuming that section 8 defenses could be made to cover folks that are selling to any and all 'patients' that would come to a table.

Add to the mix that we have no idea that the courts wouldn't want to see the same restrictions in numbers as dictated in section 4., limiting sales to only 5 per seller.

This reminds me of a dangerous invention, where the inventor intends to send a bunch of naked cannabis sellers through machine that has a lot of very sharp edges that need to be smoothed out before anyone tries it out. To me, this 'invention' is just a human meat grinder invented by a mind desperate to find a way to justify an income.

[bobandtorey]

It has been clearly shown that you did not file a motion to dismiss at an appropriate evidentiary hearing. Without that you had no protection under the AD. Your attorneys appear to have been incompetent in circuit court. Don't blame the law so much as that. Had you stayed with your appeal rather than drop it, you would likely have had the case remanded back to circuit court with instructions that would have required the necessary hearing and permit you to petiion for dismissal. We could have seen the Oakland Co. prosecutor with her cute little brown spot puckered. Damm little luck was involved.

It has been clearly shown that you did not file a motion to dismiss at an appropriate evidentiary hearing.

 

Thank you but i do not agree

when we came out from the C.O.A the court told us to go back to the lower court and we did and also filed many motions i just don't think you have read any of them but thats OK  you need to understand how things work in a court room and the only way to know that is to go to a few like i did 

 

Somedays i think it was a bad thing to go so many times because i found out what does happen in a Court room 

 

i have been trying to tell people to go 

Q. how many court room have you been to?

[bobandtorey]

This has not been clearly shown, and is not true. Bob's case was remanded with instructions for a section 8 defense, from the COA. You are speaking so much on this issue, yet you know so little.

I agree

[bobandtorey]

 

So this was a meeting to raise money to help the COA defendant Earl C with his bid for an appeal to the Supreme Court.  Yet we don't even know that the defendant wants or needs this money. Money that would be raised by assuming that section 8 defenses could be made to cover folks that are selling to any and all 'patients' that would come to a table.

Add to the mix that we have no idea that the courts wouldn't want to see the same restrictions in numbers as dictated in section 4., limiting sales to only 5 per seller.

This reminds me of a dangerous invention, where the inventor intends to send a bunch of naked cannabis sellers through machine that has a lot of very sharp edges that need to be smoothed out before anyone tries it out. To me, this 'invention' is just a human meat grinder invented by a mind desperate to find a way to justify an income.

 

WOW!

very good 

thanks

[GregS]

This has not been clearly shown, and is not true. Bob's case was remanded with instructions for a section 8 defense, from the COA. You are speaking so much on this issue, yet you know so little.

Meaning the appeal was withdrawn and he still did not exercise his option to present an affirmative defense, which was an option?

[phaquetoo]

14 pages devoted to 1 man's desire to copy G3C?

Yea I see your point, if this thread gets locked or disapears, you know another will start up, there already is one started, when personal attacks are left out, it is very interesting to see the different sides, the right, wrong and my side, Lmao! and im not putting my side out there yet, I could, but There are a few people writing in here who I enjoy reading, whether I agree with them or not!

 

Peace

Jim

[GregS]

He filed the motion, and began to present the defense. The deal came from the prosecutor during the section 8 hearing. If you promise to actually read it instead of just continuing to babble without context or knowledge, you can read the register of actions here by searching for case number 2011-238143-FH:

 

https://apps.oakgov.com/crts0004/main

ty

[Natesilver]

 

Let's do a thought experiment, shall we?

 

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich.- The medical marijuana debate is heating up again in West Michigan with prosecutors, judges and police still trying to define the ramifications of the Medical Marijuana Act passed by voters in 2008.

This week, one of the men leading the fight, the founder of the Mid-Michigan Compassion Club in Grand Rapids, was back in court. That’s when a Kent County Judge ruled what police would call a dispensary and what the founder calls a club could remain open. It was also ruled founder David Overholt couldn’t go within 100 feet of it.

Overholt’s upcoming trial on marijuana charges could set a new legal precedent when it comes to medical marijuana in Michigan.

Assistant Muskegon County Prosecutor Brett Gardner for clarifications on the law and the Supreme Court’s rulings.

Assistant Muskegon County Prosecutor Brett Gardner explained that the current precedent of State vs. McQueen ruled that patient-to-patient transfers or caregiver-to-patient transfers were in violation of the Medical Marijuana Act.

“Caregivers under the law have five patients that they can supply marijuana to, if they go beyond that five and supply it to anyone who is not their registered patients, then they open themselves up for not only civil action for a public nuisance but potential criminal charges,” Gardner said.

Overholt argues the ruling was only patient-to-patient specific.

“If a caregiver and a caregiver are working together they`re both legal Michigan caregivers licensed by the state then the law already tells you that you are immune to prosecution,” Overholt says.

He’s challenging his charges and is fully ready to go to trial, because if not he says the world of medical marijuana cannot survived.

“Without the ability to exchange with other caregivers and to keep enough meds, usable meds and quality meds in front of their patients, I think the system is doomed to fail,” he said.

One thing both men agree on is that the medical marijuana act is hazy, leaving room for questions and legal interpretation.

Read more: http://fox17online.com/2013/07/23/medical-marijuana-debate-heats-up-again-in-west-michigan/#ixzz2ZwfIbk78

 

Had there been notarized agreements between the patients in attendance and the people who were presumably selling to them that proves two of the three elements of the AD (that a physician has stated..., and that the patient and the patient's caregiver were engaged to treat or alleviate the patient's condition) by a preponderance of the evidence, and an amount not more than, say, 1 to 2 oz were mutually possessed, where would this case go? Would it have been started in the first place? What would the likely outcome(s) have been?

Had those specific conditions been met, the transfer would fall under sec 8, and ultimately the case most likely would not have been brought.

[Dr. Bob]

This has not been clearly shown, and is not true. Bob's case was remanded with instructions for a section 8 defense, from the COA. You are speaking so much on this issue, yet you know so little.

 

 

14 pages devoted to 1 man's desire to copy G3C?

Pretty much sums things up well.  It would be nice to get back to a section 8 discussion for patients, not a farmers market.  That would be information that people could use.

 

Dr. Bob

[Celliach]

I disagree, those papers wouldn't be allowed in court because they are hearsay evidence.  You need the buyer in court to testify.