Meeting In Lansing 7 16 13

[Celliach]

Seen Bob instigated with a health handicap type jab, not cool.

(Since Celli singled out only one party.... in all fairness.)

 

Now commence with infighting again. -

 

As I stated before, all reprimanding which is normally done in private, will now be in public with Greg.  We are tired of his misleading statements about why he is being reprimanded.  All other parties involved will still get PMs as is the usual practice.

[abe supercro]

Oh I missed that. Well maybe you'll allow me to rebuke publically as I feel fit even if I'm only a lowly member here. I'll do my best to be fair to all, trust me.

[phaquetoo]

Oh I missed that. Well maybe you'll allow me to rebuke publically as I feel fit even if I'm only a lowly member here. I'll do my best to be fair to all, trust me.

Good post abe, I think this thread will be best to let run, I agree we need to not get personal with each other, (im sorry for breaking that rule myself in here)  I realy think that this should continue w/o personal attacks, if people dont agree and cant post w/o them, just leave for a while and do your best to get your point across w/o personal attacks, Im very interested in this thread, I want to see both sides of the opinions or facts here!

 

If it only gets this bad, well come on, we have had worse, Im not involved with how the mods do their thing here, but im pretty sure a pm is best used on all that you dont agree with or that are breaking some hidden rule about leading  pts to do wrong an maybe wind up in jail, now that is an opinion, just like the op has an opinion!  lets leave opinions up and let the membership decide not the mods or admin as long as no one is causing irreputable damage, and ive not seen that here,,,,,yet!

 

Peace and Thank You!

Jim

[GregS]

 

Greg, Please stop the personal insults. 

 

As I stated before, all reprimanding which is normally done in private, will now be in public with Greg.  We are tired of his misleading statements about why he is being reprimanded.  All other parties involved will still get PMs as is the usual practice.

[GregS]

I can agree. To single me out is not right though. I wlll readily enough stay away from insults, lies, hyperbole, and speculation about people's motives. Facts will carry my  arguments. I will ask that the same standard apply to others, and most specifically to Townsend. Anything else is not fair to me or the conversation.

 

Agreed?

 

Will you please give facts regarding any misleading statements I have made regarding the AD Celli? Quoted text is appropriate, and I don't believe you will find any. Short of that your statement that I made any such remark is without merit.

Edited July 20, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

You have as much standing as any member abe, and your remarks are welcome.

[GregS]

Now that we have that out of the way, I submit this as the counter argument that unregistered caregivers are not perimitted per Townsend. It is from the SC opinion in Bylsma.

 

[To] establish the elements of the affirmative defense in § 8, a defendant need not establish the elements of § 4. Any defendant, regardless

of registration status (italics mine), who possesses more than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana or 12 plants not kept in an enclosed, locked facility may satisfy the affirmative defense under § 8. As long as the defendant can establish the elements of the § 8 defense and none of the circumstances in § 7(b) [of the MMMA, MCL 333.26427(b)] exists, that defendant is entitled to the dismissal of criminal charges.

Edited July 20, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

There is this from King/Kolanek in regard to the same:

 

§ 8 provides an affirmative defense to “patients” or “a person” generally. As the prosecution in both cases concedes, the language of § 8 permits those individuals who are not registered cardholding patients to assert the § 8 affirmative defense (emphasis added). Under § 8, a patient in any criminal prosecution involving marijuana may establish an affirmative defense requiring dismissal of the charges if the patient canestablish that (1) “[a] physician has statedthat, in the physician’s professional opinion,after having completed a full assessment ofthe patient’s medical history and currentmedical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, thepatient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use ofmarihuana,” (2) the patient did not possess an amount of marijuanathat was more thanreasonably necessary” for this purpose, and (3) the patient’s use was “to treat oralleviate the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms . . .

Edited July 20, 2013 by GregS

[Celliach]

I can agree. To single me out is not right though. I wlll readily enough stay away from insults, lies, hyperbole, and speculation about people's motives. Facts will carry my  arguments. I will ask that the same standard apply to others, and most specifically to Townsend. Anything else is not fair to me or the conversation.

 

Agreed?

 

Will you please give facts regarding any misleading statements I have made regarding the AD Celli? Quoted text is appropriate, and I don't believe you will find any. Short of that your statement that I made any such remark is without merit.

 

Greg, you have been asked several times to stop it.  You said it several times in several threads.  You were asked to stop, denied doing it as you are now.  I actually have a life.  I'm a single father, and run my own non-MMJ related business. I react to the posts as they are made.  I do not have time to go back through the thousands of posts you've made to find one.  Stop being obtuse.  You know why you were reprimanded, and you know what you're not supposed to do anymore.  You have been warned enough times, and been given time-outs,  enough times to know what the rules are and why you were reprimanded.   If you continue to argue about it, you get another time out. 

[GregS]

Greg, you have been asked several times to stop it.  You said it several times in several threads.  You were asked to stop, denied doing it as you are now.  I actually have a life.  I'm a single father, and run my own non-MMJ related business. I react to the posts as they are made.  I do not have time to go back through the thousands of posts you've made to find one.  Stop being obtuse.  You know why you were reprimanded, and you know what you're not supposed to do anymore.  You have been warned enough times, and been given time-outs,  enough times to know what the rules are and why you were reprimanded.   If you continue to argue about it, you get another time out. 

If you don't have time to support your accusations against me, perhaps you should butt out of the conversation altogether. If what you say were true, my posts would be loaded with the remarks you insist I have made. What you do is of no consequence to this conversation.

 

I understand dialectic pretty well. It is no problem to identify lame or inaccurate or misleading statements, and your responses are rife with them. That is a fact.

[GregS]

I guess you can start with facts that support your statement that (in your words) We are tired of his misleading statements about why he is being reprimanded. Will you please post any text that I have posted to that effect?. Without that your remark is another lie.

 

I could not care less about your reasons to censor me

Edited July 20, 2013 by GregS

[phaquetoo]

If you don't have time to support your accusations against me, perhaps you should butt out of the conversation altogether. If what you say were true, my posts would be loaded with the remarks you insist I have made. What you do is of no consequence to this conversation.

 

I understand dialectic pretty well. It is no problem to identify lame or inaccurate or misleading statements, and your responses are rife with them. That is a fact.

Oh dont go there, Ive been banned and timed out by all admins, maybe not this one yet, scensorship to a certain degree is necissarry to try to keep some what of a cival attitude so as not to scare out siders to leave or write neg things about us, every one stops in here to read and make judgments,  LETS GET BACK ON TRACK AND PM THE DISAGREMENTS BETWEEN MODS AND MEMBERS!

 

Peace, enjoy the nicest day we have had in several days!

Jim

[GregS]

Oh dont go there, Ive been banned and timed out by all admins, maybe not this one yet, scensorship to a certain degree is necissarry to try to keep some what of a cival attitude so as not to scare out siders to leave or write neg things about us, every one stops in here to read and make judgments,  LETS GET BACK ON TRACK AND PM THE DISAGREMENTS BETWEEN MODS AND MEMBERS!

 

Peace, enjoy the nicest day we have had in several days!

Jim

I agreed to move on Jim. You will note that celli will not leave things be. What I ask about supporting his accusations is a fair question.

Edited July 20, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Personally, I've backed everything I said up with facts and pointed out how your argument about section 8 is akin to saying as long as you pick the right numbers you will win the lottery.

 

Your only defense to the corrections you get is to demand copies of posts, copies of CV's, copies of this, that and the other thing.  You are being obtuse as Cell mentioned, it is a very good word to describe your actions.  Obtuse and when you have your tail handed to you, as you have repeated by smarter folks than I, you resort to name calling and simply repeat your same, disproven, position again.

 

This is a waste of good binary.  Off to actually do something important and get Mal set up to speak at the GCACC meeting.

 

Have fun with your little experiment Greg, I hope no one goes down with you.  We'll follow you case in the papers.

 

Dr. Bob

[Natesilver]

Per sec. 8, a caregiver is defined: 3(h) "Primary caregiver" or "caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and who has not been convicted of any felony within the past 10 years and has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs or a felony that is an assaultive crime as defined in section 9a of chapter X of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 770.9a.

 

There is no requirement in sec. 8 that requires registry.

 

You could do us all a favor and read King/Kolanek, which clearly determines that sec. 4, which does require registration, and sec. 8 are entirely separate from each other. The court unanimously agreed that unregistered persons can use the AD.

 

These are facts. Will you please produce yours to support your statements? For instance, any indication in the AD that does require registration?

 

Dr Bob, can you please address the above? You have conveniently ignored it.

[GregS]

Personally, I've backed everything I said up with facts and pointed out how your argument about section 8 is akin to saying as long as you pick the right numbers you will win the lottery.

 

Your only defense to the corrections you get is to demand copies of posts, copies of CV's, copies of this, that and the other thing.  You are being obtuse as Cell mentioned, it is a very good word to describe your actions.  Obtuse and when you have your tail handed to you, as you have repeated by smarter folks than I, you resort to name calling and simply repeat your same, disproven, position again.

 

This is a waste of good binary.  Off to actually do something important and get Mal set up to speak at the GCACC meeting.

 

Have fun with your little experiment Greg, I hope no one goes down with you.  We'll follow you case in the papers.

 

Dr. Bob

Will you be so kind to direct us to those facts you insist you have pointed out please? Written communication is the means to get to the bottom of this. It is not too much to ask for verification of your hostile accusations.

 

Can you get any more vague than using "the other thing?"

 

There are only three numbers involved, and they are plainly described as the elements of the AD. The numbers are very much on our side.

 

And hey Celli. Howcome Bob gets away with insults?

Edited July 21, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

What you don't have a clue about is that there is no such thing as an 'unregistered caregiver'.  There is an argument that such a thing 'could' exist, but to base an entire farmers market around the concept of 'unregistered caregivers' and 'section 8 will defend you' is trying to expand a potential loophole for financial gain- specifically your financial gain Mr. Table renter, rather than trying to help grandma next door whose caregiver lost a crop.

 

This is just a variation on a failed scheme and the courts will eat anyone foolish enough to drink your koolaid alive.  

 

Now run along back to your buddies on RIU.  I just look at your little fan club there as an example of Legal Darwinism.  I fully expect you will be culled by the system, my only concern is how much damage you will do in the process.

 

Dr. Bob

How do you square that statement with this, from Bylsma?

 

[T]o establish the elements of the affirmative defense in § 8, a defendant need not establish the elements of § 4.Any defendant, regardless

 of registration status, who possesses more than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana or 12 plants not kept in an enclosed, locked facility may satisfy the affirmative defense under § 8. As long as the defendant can establish the elements of the § 8 defense and none of the circumstances in § 7(b) [of the MMMA, MCL 333.26427(b)] exists, that defendant is entitled to the dismissal of criminal charges.

 

Umm. More insults toward me from Townsend Celli. What do you plan to do about it please?

Edited July 21, 2013 by GregS

[SFC]

At what point does a member become so obstructive and dangerous that we have to send him/her away.  I am sorry Greg but your stripes have never changed.  You have been trying (unsuccessfully) to capitalize upon this law since day one.  In Saginaw you know what Bob said to be true, do not sit here and pretend different.  You are dangerous and I sure hope others are careful in signing on with you.  

 

 

 And Phaq, the silverback family has been enjoying the weather on the water and on two wheels brother.

[Natesilver]

At what point does a member become so obstructive and dangerous that we have to send him/her away.

And here we go again. With the recent COA ruling, I think section 8 compliance discussions should be advocated. But because it doesn't fit within your narrow agenda, let's ban Greg!

LOL

At first when you were discussing obstructive members I thought you were talking about Dr bob

[GregS]

At what point does a member become so obstructive and dangerous that we have to send him/her away.  I am sorry Greg but your stripes have never changed.  You have been trying (unsuccessfully) to capitalize upon this law since day one.  In Saginaw you know what Bob said to be true, do not sit here and pretend different.  You are dangerous and I sure hope others are careful in signing on with you.  

 

 

 And Phaq, the silverback family has been enjoying the weather on the water and on two wheels brother.

I did not try to profit from the Saginaw Club and did not intend to. My mistake was to permit voting privileges to the other officers. When they decided to take it to a profit making scheme I promptly resigned and was never involved again. The most that can be said for making a few bucks is that I was approached by a couple of patients and worked as their caregiver; one temporarily to help her put together a grow and take it on her own once we got it up and running. I think we are in agreement that caregiving is not something you want to rely on for your next meal. I have agreed to stay with facts to maintain my arguments. Will you please do the same?

Edited July 21, 2013 by GregS

[northerngal]

At this time, I do not have anything relevant to add to the topic being discussed......

 

BUT

 

Banning people does not fix the problem.  (Of course, if a person is being assaultive/breaking rules/etc., it becomes necessary.)

 

If a person is doing something that others don't agree with or that puts patients in jeopardy, we need to address it in here, in public.  People need to know and understand why it is potentially dangerous.  People need to be able to look at the facts and/or opinions.  Sweeping things/people under the rug is not the answer to any problem. 

[GregS]

I apologize if cross posting is frowned on, but this belongs here. It is published with acknowledgement to the author, Greg Schmid:

 

DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT
MEDICAL PURPOSE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND MOTION TO DISMISS
What You Need To Prove; How and When to Prove It.
Citation of the law: Cite as the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act
Statutory authority to assert defense and presumption: Section 8(a) authorizes assertion of the affirmative defense,
and crates a presumption of validity of the defense where a showing is made as to its elements. “Patient and a patient's
primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving
marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows the elements of the defense.” Generally, in
asserting affirmative defenses, defendant has the burden of going forward, with proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
At trial, where the defense has been asserted, and the threshold showing has been made by defendant, the prosecutor must
show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the legally excusing elements of the defense do not exist.
Statutory authority to bring a motion to dismiss, and mandatory dismissal:
Section 8(b) establishes the statutory authority for a motion to dismiss. “A person may assert the medical purpose for
using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the
person shows the specified elements of the defense.” The showing must prove the elements by a preponderance of the
evidence, and where this showing is made the dismissal is mandatory.
Standing and Scope of the Affirmative defense:
The affirmative defense is available to the following people:
• Any “patient” who demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant to this section; or
• Any patient's “primary caregiver” who demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant
to this section.
The defense applies to the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of
marihuana or paraphernalia, in these proceedings:
• Any prosecution involving marihuana [section 8(a)]
• Any disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau [section 8©1]; or
• Forfeiture of any interest in or right to property. [section 8©2]
Disqualifications: Section 8(a) provides that the defendant cannot assert the affirmative defense if possessing or engaging
in the use of marijuana was in violation of Section 7(b) of the Act. Section 7(b) lists certain disqualifying criteria that
apply to the Section 8 affirmative defense and to the Act’s other more prophylactic immunities for registry participants.
The defense may not be asserted for any of the following:
• Smoking marijuana “in any public place”;
• Smoking marijuana on any form of public transportation;
• Any use by a person who has no serious or debilitating medical condition;
• Any conduct where being under the influence would constitute negligence or professional malpractice per se;
• Operating, navigating, or being in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat while under
the influence of marihuana.
• Any use or possession in a school bus;
• Any use or possession on the grounds of any preschool, primary, or secondary school;
• Any use or possession in any correctional facility;
Elements of the Affirmative Defense (3 prongs):
1. The Gatekeeper’s Statement [section 8(a)1]:
• A physician (Licensed MD or Osteopath)
• has stated that
• in the physician's professional opinion
• after having completed a full assessment of
• the patient's medical history and
• patient's current medical condition
• which assessment was made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship
• that the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit
• from the medical use of marihuana
• to treat or alleviate
• the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition
2. The Reasonably Necessary Quantity [section 8(a)2]:
• The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively
• in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was
• not more than was reasonably necessary
• to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana
• for the purpose of treating or alleviating
• the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition
3. The Medical Purpose [section 8(a)3]:
• The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any,
• were engaged in the
• acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or
paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana
• to treat or alleviate
• the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical
condition.

 

 Methods of Proving the Elements of the Defense at Evidentiary Hearing   

Proving the Physicians’ statement: On the Cheap.   It is essential that this defense be presentable without live testimony from the doctor. The court will likely make defendant prove the “physician” is licensed, and so a certified record should be obtained early to avoid an MRE 902 emergency. Technically the patient can prove that the physician statement was made without hearsay objection, as the fact that the statement was made is the operative fact in question. As the law does not allow a Judge to second guess the physician[s professional opinion in this regard, so the defendant need only prove the statement was made, not whether it was reasonable.   However, prosecutor will argue that defendant needs also to prove that the statement was a considered one, and that may not be so easy.     The prosecutor will argue that the statute provides the statement must be made “after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and patient's current medical condition”, and that must being the course of a bona fide physician patient relationship. The defendant can testify on personal knowledge that he was there and observed the “complete assessment” taking place, and can establish the bona fide relationship, but will the showing be of sufficient weight to pass the preponderance test? Who is a patient to judge what constitutes a full assessment by a doctor? The Patient can testify that the doctor said he completed the full assessment, but if the question of whether that full assessment really took place is in issue, then such testimony would be hearsay because is would be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted – that the full assessment was made.   Three solutions present themselves. MRE 803(6) Hearsay exception for regularly kept business records could get written medical reports into evidence to prove the complete assessment occurred, and even the bona fide relationship. This would merely require compliance with MCL 902(11), and the assumption that the doctor wrote it all down. [see MRE 902(11)] Certified records of regularly conducted activity.  The original or a duplicate of a record…of regularly conducted business activity that would be admissible under rule 803(6), if accompanied by a w r i t t e n d e c l a r a t i o n u n d e r o a t h b y i t s c u s t o d i a n o r o t h e r q u a li f i e d p e r s o n certifying that….the record is contemporaneous to the complete assessment, in the course of regular activity, and according to regular practice. Counsel should obtain this affidavit early, as prior notice of the declaration is a condition to self authentication. Of course, if seems obvious but that MRE 

803(4) would apply. “ Statements made for purposes of medical treatment o r m e d i c a l d i a g n o s i s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t r e a t m e n t. Statements made for purposes of medical treatment or medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably necessary to such diagnosis and treatment.”   However, counsel may be confronted with the argument that the rule admits patient statements made to aid in diagnosis, not those of the Doctor made to express the completeness of the doctor’s assessment. Counsel may simply wish to argue that the element should be interpreted to mean that the “statement made” language includes the statement that the doctor made a full assessment of the history and current condition. That is, that he has stated,  “that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician patient relationship, the patient is likely….” In this interpretation, the patient’s testimony would be admissible to establish the entire element, and sound something like this, “He stated he had made a full assessment of my medical history and current condition, and that he had formed a professional opinion…, which was that I was likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the use of marijuana to (treat or alleviate) my (serious medical condition or debilitating medical condition or symptoms thereof).”

[SFC]

Here is something to use. If what someone is saying sounds too good to be true, it probably is.  Real simple.

[cristinew]

Just ;let Greg have his own topic  section 8 the dangers and cost,,, and Greg quit hijacking other topics  please,

[GregS]

For you, anything.