Jump to content

They Granted Leave On Hartwick, Consolidated It With Tuttles,


bobandtorey
 Share

Recommended Posts

Attorney Bernard Jacuns is reporting that the Michigan Supreme Court has "denied leave to appeal in Clinical Relief (retroactive application of McQueen), Carruthers (meddibles)."

He also reports, "They granted leave on Hartwick, consolidated it with Tuttles, and held Blysema in abeyance. The Court's order in Hartwick says:

"On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether a defendant’s entitlement to immunity under § 4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421 et seq., is a question of law for the trial court to decide; (2) whether factual disputes regarding § 4 immunity are to be resolved by the trial court; (3) if so, whether the trial court’s finding of fact becomes an established fact that cannot be appealed; (4) whether a defendant’s possession of a valid registry identification card establishes any presumption for purposes of § 4 or § 8; (5) if not, what is a defendant’s evidentiary burden to establish immunity under § 4 or an affirmative defense under § 8; (6) what role, if any, do the verification and confidentiality provisions in § 6 of the act play in establishing entitlement to immunity under § 4 or an affirmative defense under § 8; and (7) whether the Court of Appeals erred in characterizing a qualifying patient’s physician as issuing a prescription for, or prescribing, marijuana.

We direct the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case for the same future session of this Court when it will hear oral argument in People v Tuttle (Docket No. 148971). "

What this means: 1) Concentrates and cannabis-infused foods are still illegal under the MMMAct; 2) The tight restrictions on a Section 8 defense will be reviewed by the high court and are likely to be reversed and/or clarified.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really thought that Carruthers would be a compelling enough issue for the Court to accept on appeal. Is it even possible to somehow push the point? I find it irresponsible for the court to refuse to rule on mixtures and preparations thereof that have been denied by the COA. The bill in the legislature regarding the same is going nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol... I hear ya....

 

you can look back and see the earlier posts... the ones I called out a bit as "over enthusiastic" that Clinical Relief would end well...

 

just sayin'

Thanks again

 

I guess it's just the way I feel about there Mom Barb A now she has too cases going and her kinds are the ones that said she was gliden as long as she got the CARD

 

And so many said the same about us that we wouldn't have gotten raided if we had just waited for that their CARD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you are wrong GregS.

 

I believe both hb 4271 and hb 5104 will be voted out of the Senate Gov Ops Committee before Labor Day.  The real questions surround the changes that are coming to the bills.  And since that language has yet to be discussed or drafted, there still remains legitimate concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you are wrong GregS.

 

I believe both hb 4271 and hb 5104 will be voted out of the Senate Gov Ops Committee before Labor Day.  The real questions surround the changes that are coming to the bills.  And since that language has yet to be discussed or drafted, there still remains legitimate concern.

Thank you, both for your response and your continuing work in the Capitol. Do you agree that it is irresponsible that the Court denied the Carruthers appeal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe when Chief Justice Young indicated in the press that he was tired of medical mj cases, he meant it.  Perhaps Carruthers should have just taken the hit in the lower court to avoid having his case become precedent setting.

 

Hartwick and Tuttle are far worse decisions by Judge Saad (Court of Appeals).  He added layers of requirements that almost neuter the Act. 

 

Much of the damage from Carruthers can be corrected with HB 5104, but if the Supreme Court does not back down Henry Saad's really really bad decisions, section eight defenses are going to be far more difficult...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe when Chief Justice Young indicated in the press that he was tired of medical mj cases, he meant it.  Perhaps Carruthers should have just taken the hit in the lower court to avoid having his case become precedent setting.

 

Hartwick and Tuttle are far worse decisions by Judge Saad (Court of Appeals).  He added layers of requirements that almost neuter the Act. 

 

Much of the damage from Carruthers can be corrected with HB 5104, but if the Supreme Court does not back down Henry Saad's really really bad decisions, section eight defenses are going to be far more difficult...

How does correspondence with Justices work? Is it a conventional practice between the Court and the unwashed masses?

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

(7) whether the Court of Appeals erred in characterizing a qualifying patient’s physician as issuing a prescription for, or prescribing, marijuana.

 

 

lol. i hear a slap coming in the future for court of appeals judges

 

 

(1) whether a defendant’s entitlement to

immunity under § 4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421

et seq., is a question of law for the trial court to decide;

 

this is jury vs judge

 

(2) whether factual disputes

regarding § 4 immunity are to be resolved by the trial court;

 

this is jury vs judge

 

(3) if so, whether the trial

court’s finding of fact becomes an established fact that cannot be appealed;

 

i'm not sure what this is? is this a slap to CoA ?

 

(4) whether a

defendant’s possession of a valid registry identification card establishes any presumption

for purposes of § 4 or § 8;

 

this is a slap for CoA

 

(5) if not, what is a defendant’s evidentiary burden to establish

immunity under § 4 or an affirmative defense under § 8;

 

big slap for CoA and oakland county

 

(6) what role, if any, do the

verification and confidentiality provisions in § 6 of the act play in establishing

entitlement to immunity under § 4 or an affirmative defense under § 8; and

 

someone finally listened to me about section 6 confidentiality? :)

 

 http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/sct/public/orders/20140611_s148444_52_148444_2014-06-11_or.pdf

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I believe when Chief Justice Young indicated in the press that he was tired of medical mj cases, he meant it. Perhaps Carruthers should have just taken the hit in the lower court to avoid having his case become precedent setting.

 

Hartwick and Tuttle are far worse decisions by Judge Saad (Court of Appeals). He added layers of requirements that almost neuter the Act.

 

Much of the damage from Carruthers can be corrected with HB 5104, but if the Supreme Court does not back down Henry Saad's really really bad decisions, section eight defenses are going to be far more difficult...[/quote

 

Thanks again for your opinion

 

section eight is what we where going to do at the SC

Baking down was not what we wanted but they where the Lawyers back then that told us to get out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol. i hear a slap coming in the future for court of appeals judges

 

I agree they don't want everyone requesting a trial

 

 

 

(1) whether a defendant’s entitlement to

immunity under § 4 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421

et seq., is a question of law for the trial court to decide;

 

this is jury vs judge

 

(2) whether factual disputes

regarding § 4 immunity are to be resolved by the trial court;

 

this is jury vs judge

 

(3) if so, whether the trial

court’s finding of fact becomes an established fact that cannot be appealed;

 

i'm not sure what this is? is this a slap to CoA ?

 

(4) whether a

defendant’s possession of a valid registry identification card establishes any presumption

for purposes of § 4 or § 8;

 

this is a slap for CoA

 

(5) if not, what is a defendant’s evidentiary burden to establish

immunity under § 4 or an affirmative defense under § 8;

 

big slap for CoA and oakland county

 

(6) what role, if any, do the

verification and confidentiality provisions in § 6 of the act play in establishing

entitlement to immunity under § 4 or an affirmative defense under § 8; and

 

someone finally listened to me about section 6 confidentiality? :)

 

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/sct/public/orders/20140611_s148444_52_148444_2014-06-11_or.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think they want carruthers to do a sec8 hearing before trying to appeal.

 

is there anyone who thinks carruthers's brownie amounts are under sec4? anyone at all?

 

I believe that the brownie amounts were protected under Section 4 (assuming he used no more than 2.5 oz or whatever his limit to make the brownies.)

 

"Usable marihuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.

 

"Thereof" means "of the items listed."  So with regard to mixture, I guess one could interpret as "thereof" limits what can be mixed together to dried leaves and flowers.  In other words, a mixture of flowers and leaves is a mixture thereof, but a mixture of flowers, leaves, and sugar is not a mixture thereof because the mixture contains more than just the items listed.  So I think the mixture argument breaks down.

 

But I don't see how any sane person could say that an oil extract is not a "preparation" of flowers and/or leaves.  The most relevant definition Webster gives us is "a medicinal substance made ready for use." 

 

The act is pretty clear that MJ is a medicinal substance.  And you'd have to be a fool with an agenda to claim that the purpose of making brownies isn't a way to make MJ ready to use.

 

Then this is where PAs and LEOs get silly and complain how hard it might be to enforce the law if they don't know how much MJ is in the preparation.  But crying that a law is hard to enforce is not and never has been part of the process of interpreting a statute.  Similarly, others will say that making oil is dangerous and that this is the reason why oil preparations are illegal.  But the law makes no mention of the level of danger as a component to interpret the statute. A similarly weak argument might be "it is dangerous to grow MJ indoors, therefore the act should be interpreted to disallow indoor growing."

 

One might argue that difficult enforcement and danger are good reasons to amend the act through the legislature.  I don't share that opinion myself.  But clearly, the law as written makes no provision to interpret it based on ease or difficulty of enforcement or the relative dangers of engaging in the medical use of MJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the MSP only tests "gross weight" and "presence of THC"

 

that is it.  realize other places can test more specifically to determine the amount of THC, but MSP does not, will not, and even then is backed up six months in their lab.

 

hence gross weight is the key to staying a bit safer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes i think the coa will be overturned on 'extracts' but i think brownie weight is pegged at 2.5oz

 

because a brownie, when made from leaves/flowers is usuable marijuana

 

sec4 limits 'usable marijuana aka brownie' to 2.5 oz

 

anyways, the MSC wants to get more people sec8 protection and not have to go to trial on such dumb matters in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes i think the coa will be overturned on 'extracts' but i think brownie weight is pegged at 2.5oz

 

because a brownie, when made from leaves/flowers is usuable marijuana

 

sec4 limits 'usable marijuana aka brownie' to 2.5 oz

 

anyways, the MSC wants to get more people sec8 protection and not have to go to trial on such dumb matters in the first place.

Carruthers is the extracts case, I believe, and it is dead.  Totally.  The Supreme Ct has turned down hearing the case.

 

Whether a brownie is a legal or illegal one is not up to me, and I am not addressing that issue.  But, if the gross weight of your brownies is 2.5 ounces, theoretically you would be within weight limits.  If the gross weight was 1 pound, then they consider the weight of marijuana to be 1 pound.

 

In HB 5104 there will be some relief on the issue, but until that happens it is a hot potato....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...