Jame's Story

[Highlander]

I think the problem arises because the ignorant f*cktards used mathematical terms instead of building terms when describing a building. (Probably because they've never had an honest job and never had to use those terms.)

 

The International Building Code always uses the term "wall" when referring to vertical sides and "roof" when referring to the top. To be proper and clearly understood they should have said "walls and roof".

But they didn't.

 

I was hoping to find a definition that might help your case but the only thing I could find that was close to applicable doesn't help. It only defines the structure you built.

 

Four sides and an open top is defined as a "court".

 

 

You might ask your local building inspector what enclosed on all sides means to him. Email him so you get a written reply.  If he says it only refers to walls you might have an expert witness.

 

"Your Honor I was following common usage and accepted building practices when erecting my structure."

 

Yeah but it the law called for the walls and roof to be enclosed, then it would be impossible to have an outdoor grow, because if you have walls and a roof you are no longer outdoors.  You are indoors.  The legislature could not use standard building/construction terms to define the requirements for an outdoor grow, because an outdoor grow, by definition, is not in a building.  Building terms simply don't apply here.  We really don't want "roof" to be used to try to define an outdoor grow space.  That would screw us worse.  So the legislature tried to come up with new language to describe something we've probably never had to describe before...a fully enclosed space that is still outdoors.

 

Looking to Webster for the definition of "side," there are only two definitions that are relevant:

 

A:  one of the longer bounding surfaces or lines of an object especially contrasted with the ends <the side of a barn>

 

B:  a line or surface forming a border or face of an object <a die has six sides> <the back side of the moon>

 

Definition A doesn't apply.  That would require only the two longer walls of a rectangular structure to be enclosed. 

 

Definition B is the only reasonable fit.  Is a top a "surface forming the face of an object?"  I don't know how anyone can say it isn't.  By dictionary definition, a top is a side.  The Act is pretty clear that a bottom is a side.  So what definition of "side" is there that would include the bottom but exclude a top?

Edited August 13, 2014 by Highlander

[Wild Bill]

Building terms simply don't apply here.  We really don't want "roof" to be used to try to define an outdoor grow space.

 

Why wouldn't building terms be used to describe this structure when they are used to describe every other structure built in the United States?

 

The proper term "roof" could still be used and then to give a legal description of what was considered a "roof".

 

But then I guess that would leave no gray areas for the pigs to jump on.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that they intended to require a top, but if you're in a business that depends on proper use of the language, like law, then you should have some idea of the correct usage of words.

 

I suppose they could have said "outdoor grows need to be in like, one of those places with a thing on top" as long as we all knew what they meant.

[Highlander]

Why wouldn't building terms be used to describe this structure when they are used to describe every other structure built in the United States?

 

 

Because the building terms you refer to (walls and roof) are associated with a building, which isn't an outdoor structure.

 

"Enclosed on all sides" leaves room for enclosing with fence.  If the legislature said "you can grow outdoors as long as you have walls and a roof" then there would be no outdoor grows.  If you have a roof and walls, you are no longer outdoors.  It would be absurd, and we'd be chasing our tails trying to comply when there would be no way to comply.

 

Is a chain-link fence a wall?  No.  Is a chain-link top a roof?  No again.   

[GregS]

Galvanized fence is cheap and easy to work with. I don't see it being a burden. Someone does?

[+Malamute]

I think all arguments to help save this person in court are valid and worth being considered by this persons attorney.

[Highlander]

Galvanized fence is cheap and easy to work with. I don't see it being a burden. Someone does?

 

For under $100 you can buy enough galvanized agricultural fence panels, wire, and cross supports to put a top on a 16' by 16' grow.

[Highlander]

I think all arguments to help save this person in court are valid and worth being considered by this persons attorney.

 

I agree.  And I'd hate for a discussion between reasonable minds to actually have a negative impact on someone's case.  Does any think that these debates we have on-line have any bearing in the courtroom.  Myself, I dunno, but I tend to think not.

 

Similarly, it would be a shame to see someone get tried on one of these so-called "grey areas" and we only discuss one side of the issue, so that not only will the people who were confused before stay confused, but we end up with even more folks who adopt the bad ideas.

 

My post above is meant to tackle this.  We can all argue all day long about what the law really means, or we can present a solution and move forward.  Spend $100 and a couple of hours and put a top on it.  This will help keep LEO and rippers away.

 

People just need to make smart choices.  In my opinion, pushing the envelop and being a case-law pawn are bad decisions for 99%+ of this community.

 

Put a top on it and sleep better at night.

 

Said differently, I believe I'm correct when concluding that the law requires a top.  But if I were of an opposite mindset, I'd be saying "I don't believe the law requires a top because of a, b, c  but I know many reasonably-minded and smart folks disagree.  I don't want to be a test case, so I'm going to spend the $100 and put a top on it.

 

Same with the transport law.  I personally don't believe it applies to us.  But I not only carry my meds in a case in the trunk, I lock the case.  I'm not going to drive around with a pile of buds on a plate in the front seat just because I think I'm right.  Save the case law burden for really oppressive stuff, like denial of section 8 protections, and just roll with it when it comes to the stupid, easy stuff - jump through the hoops, and ring a bell like a circus animal and protect your freedom, finances, and privacy.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Highlander

[Dr. Bob]

I agree with Highlander.  Legal arguments trying to justify something after the fact are for the attorney defending the patient.  

 

Clear plans to keep them out of court in the first place, like put a top on your grow, are simply common sense suggestions from people that have experienced court and know how the system works.

 

Dr. Bob

[Norby]

Because the building terms you refer to (walls and roof) are associated with a building, which isn't an outdoor structure.

 

"Enclosed on all sides" leaves room for enclosing with fence.  If the legislature said "you can grow outdoors as long as you have walls and a roof" then there would be no outdoor grows.  If you have a roof and walls, you are no longer outdoors.  It would be absurd, and we'd be chasing our tails trying to comply when there would be no way to comply.

 

Is a chain-link fence a wall?  No.  Is a chain-link top a roof?  No again.   

But the description of an outdoor grow is the same as indoor.  Completely enclosed and locked.  Why did they even describe an outside grow if it's the same.  I could put fence panels in my basement and get the same enclosure.  That, in and of itself is misleading. 

I'm in no way arguing that people should test the waters and never was. I'm arguing about bad wording, the intent of the law and whether people should be prosecuted.  There is no reason, with that wording and redundancy, that people should be prosecuted over without clarification and time to comply. 

I wonder if the people visited by DEA had tops on their grow from last week?  If your visited once and they say nothing and then you get busted later, it's outright wrong and shows it's a grey area no one should be prosecuted for.  Esp if word gets around that others didn't need tops.

[trichcycler]

I think all who are capable of fighting an unjust law should indeed challenge it. Thanks to the couple who did take it all the way, we need more of you!

[GregS]

Look. The guy needs help to walk him through the Affirmative Defense. Whining about anything else can wait.

[cristinew]

I know of many green houses  that were seen by the air by leo  None were busted  they all had tops.

[trichcycler]

please define the "top" you know of for clarification. ex: visqueen, plastic panels, steel fencing

[Herb Cannabis]

If the prosecution called in an expert witness, a science/math/geometry expert, he would say that the wording describes having a top.

 

A peoples initiative is required by our constitution to be read and comprehended as the average citizen would read it.  I'm told that the average reading and comprehension level in this state is the 6th grade. 

 

How do you square this with your statement?

[Highlander]

A peoples initiative is required by our constitution to be read and comprehended as the average citizen would read it.  I'm told that the average reading and comprehension level in this state is the 6th grade. 

 

How do you square this with your statement?

I'm not debating here, just wondering if anyone can clarify. Are legislative amendments to a citizen initiative interpreted based on a layperson's understanding? Or does this go to standard legal interpretations.

[Restorium2]

I think there are a lot of laws in Michigan that can easily be misunderstood. I haven't been to enough court cases that used misunderstanding a law as a defense to know what the precedent is.

[bobandtorey]

I think the problem arises because the ignorant f*cktards used mathematical terms instead of building terms when describing a building. (Probably because they've never had an honest job and never had to use those terms.)

 

The International Building Code always uses the term "wall" when referring to vertical sides and "roof" when referring to the top. To be proper and clearly understood they should have said "walls and roof".

But they didn't.

 

I was hoping to find a definition that might help your case but the only thing I could find that was close to applicable doesn't help. It only defines the structure you built.

 

Four sides and an open top is defined as a "court".

 

 

You might ask your local building inspector what enclosed on all sides means to him. Email him so you get a written reply.  If he says it only refers to walls you might have an expert witness.

 

"Your Honor I was following common usage and accepted building practices when erecting my structure."

Thanks very good thinking Wild Bill

[bobandtorey]

A peoples initiative is required by our constitution to be read and comprehended as the average citizen would read it.  I'm told that the average reading and comprehension level in this state is the 6th grade. 

 

How do you square this with your statement?

Of course i agree Herb and also the C.O.A agrees they wrote the above statement but if it was to hold up inn a Court room well their would be no room for Lawyers to make their cut = $$

 

for arguing 

 

P.S 

 

Not all Lawyers

[bobandtorey]

I think all who are capable of fighting an unjust law should indeed challenge it. Thanks to the couple who did take it all the way, we need more of you!

Thanks

 

Taking it all the way ? i have been told that Oakland County spent one million dollars trying to prosecute us 

[GregS]

"I think all who are capable of fighting an unjust law should indeed challenge it. Thanks to the couple who did take it all the way, we need more of you!"

 

Who are you referring to gm?

[bobandtorey]

Thanks 

 

I am not gm but he said thanks to all that fount the good fight and took it all the way people like us i would guess and Mr. King but too many to name right now

 

Thanks gm for all your support

 

Peace

 

Bob & 

[+Malamute]

Take a painkiller and a Prozac greg.

 

:-p

[trichcycler]

I'd like to thank all who refused a plea bargain and were able to hold strong in the face of a corrupt system. I don't know if I could do the same, and I admire those who can and do.

[GregS]

Take a painkiller and a Prozac greg.

 

:-p

Prozac is passe. There are better drugs now. Painkillers are fun. Cannabis, alcohol, and pharmaceuticals are a proven fix.

Edited August 15, 2014 by GregS

[painterdan]

Thanks

 

Taking it all the way ? i have been told that Oakland County spent one million dollars trying to prosecute us 

In other words the taxpayers paid for it.They could pay to fix the roads with the money used to prosecute cannabis cases.