Can Police Use A ‘Borrowed’ Marijuana Card?

[Restorium2]

I'm a card holder and a card promoter. But I'm also grounded in reality and don't want to promote anything beyond what it really is and what it can actually do. 

[trichcycler]

are you now going to now advise people to deviate form state instructions?

 

because the "card is far from bulletproof protection" ?

 

cwazy. I'm done debating whether or not to advise people to

 

Grassmatch =follow state instructions

 

Resto=not necessary

[Restorium2]

are you now going to now advise people to deviate form state instructions?

 

because the "card is far from bulletproof protection" ?

 

cwazy. I'm done debating whether or not to advise people to

 

Grassmatch =follow state instructions

 

Resto=not necessary

grassmatch = will not read and is being silly

Restorium = reads well, understands what he reads and is a realist

 

There you go since you wanted to get all personal about it. Find a way to not go there and you will go further next time. 

[bobandtorey]

are you now going to now advise people to deviate form state instructions?

 

because the "card is far from bulletproof protection" ?

 

cwazy. I'm done debating whether or not to advise people to

 

Grassmatch =follow state instructions

 

Resto=not necessary

Thank you

 

It all sounds too easy imo

[GregS]

I am serious. the state checked the doctors credentials, and I could easily assume they do in each case. Like the criminal background check, valid identification.

 

If a seller in court was defrauded by a dishonest patient aspiring to gain access to marijuana, and only the exchange of a written agreement was presented in lieu of the registration system in place do you think the Judge will favor the seller for his reluctance to use the already in place system of registration to grow and sell mj ?

 

ps-your paper has been published before I was a member here, and came with heated debate. I do not wish to debate the efficacy of the forms legal protections, as it most likely has not been tested yet in court. Since you brought it up though, I felt these were obvious issues, perhaps already remedied/considered by you. I'm sorry for the rehash if you have already considered these issues.

I think that those judges who practice reasonable jurisprudence will have to dismiss the charges if and when the three necessary prongs to a sec. 8 defense have been proved. The plain text of the law requires that. That there are irresponsible judges who fail in their obligation to the laws does not change those laws.

 

Again. We can hope to know better if the evidence those types of agreements and supporting documents can and/or must be permitted when evidentiary issues in Hartwick/Tuttle are decided. My hope and expectation is that they are found adequate and admissible in those cases where they support necessary facts and no other facts diminish the defense.

[t-pain]

Even in the appeals court's opinion in People v Hartwick, it appears that something so basic as a letter could serve as evidence of the affirmative defense:

edit: somehow i doubt the coa will accept evidence that even it said would be useful.

Edited January 9, 2015 by t-pain

[GregS]

Even in the appeals court's opinion in People v Hartwick, it appears that something so basic as a letter could serve as evidence of the affirmative defense:

 

Were the trial court to address this element of § 8, it appears that a letter from a patient’s

physician to the caregiver, which details: (1) a bona-fide physician patient relationship, (2) the

patient’s medical condition, (3) how much marijuana is needed to alleviate the condition, and (4)

for how long a patient should take the drug, could serve as evidence that the marijuana supplied

by the caregiver is actually used for medical purposes under subsection 3.

The law does not require that a physician correspond with a caregiver, state to the caregiver a patient's medical condition, state how much a patient should take, or specify how long a patient should take the drug. The jurists in the cases pulled those requirements straight out of their azzes. That, I think, is an important point that needs to be addressed, and the Supreme Court should rule that the parties need not engage in those.

Edited January 10, 2015 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

edit: somehow i doubt the coa will accept evidence that even it said would be useful.

And i also agree 

[bobandtorey]

The law does not require that a physician correspond with a caregiver, state to the caregiver a patient's medical condition, or specify how long a patient should take the drug. The jurists in the cases pulled those requirements straight out of their azzes. That, I think, is an important point that needs to be addressed, and the Supreme Court should rule that the parties need not engage in those.

Let hope so because they way things are now are not good for cg/pt 

[Restorium2]

The law does not require that a physician correspond with a caregiver, state to the caregiver a patient's medical condition, or specify how long a patient should take the drug. The jurists in the cases pulled those requirements straight out of their azzes. That, I think, is an important point that needs to be addressed, and the Supreme Court should rule that the parties need not engage in those.

No it doesn't BUT I wouldn't mind having a letter like that anytime I went to court to prove medical use. It would make me feel like I had a little more solid ground to stand on. Then when the doctor testified in front of the judge it would show that everyone had been on the same page all along with what was medical use for the patient. 

[bobandtorey]

But will a Judge let something like that into Court ?

Edited January 10, 2015 by bobandtorey

[GregS]

Inasmuch as it is widely stated that

 

No it doesn't BUT I wouldn't mind having a letter like that anytime I went to court to prove medical use. It would make me feel like I had a little more solid ground to stand on. Then when the doctor testified in front of the judge it would show that everyone had been on the same page all along with what was medical use for the patient. 

Agreed. Properly executed written records can only help and may well work to keep the doctor from testifying; something that defense attorneys agree is not a good thing. Any agreement between the parties can and should be tailored to their interests. Maybe the SC will say something about that. These issues can and should be pointed up in the defense amicus briefs that are permitted.

[GregS]

But will a Judge let something like that into Court ? they still won't let a Jury see a card as i know of

Michigan Rules of Evidence

 

General Provisions

 

 

101 - Scope of Rules

- Rules govern proceedings in cts of MI w/ exceptions of Rule 1101. Statutes concerning evidence that do not conflict w/ these or other SCt rules are effective unless superseded by rule or decision of SCt.

 

 

> Rules do not preclude objections to the validity of a rule

> Rules apply to civil & criminal, jury & bench trials

> If statute or case law conflicts, MRE takes precedence

> Arbitration does not use MRE unless specified

 

 

Fed Rule 101 - Fed Rules govern all cts of US & magistrates & subject to applicability of FRE 1101. 2d sentence of MRE 101 not present.

 

 

 

102 - Purpose

- Rules intended to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense & delay, & promotion of growth & development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained & proceedings justly determined.

 

The rest of the rules are here:

General Provisions

 

 

101 - Scope of Rules

- Rules govern proceedings in cts of MI w/ exceptions of Rule 1101. Statutes concerning evidence that do not conflict w/ these or other SCt rules are effective unless superseded by rule or decision of SCt (emphasis mine).

 

 

> Rules do not preclude objections to the validity of a rule

> Rules apply to civil & criminal, jury & bench trials

> If statute or case law conflicts, MRE takes precedence

> Arbitration does not use MRE unless specified

 

 

Fed Rule 101 - Fed Rules govern all cts of US & magistrates & subject to applicability of FRE 1101. 2d sentence of MRE 101 not present.

 

 

 

102 - Purpose

- Rules intended to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense & delay, & promotion of growth & development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained & proceedings justly determined.

 

The rest of the rules, annotated, are here: http://www.legalnut.com/Law_School_Outlines/Evidence/Evidence_Rules_%28Michigan%29/. See especially rules 801 through 903, and consider that there are many permissions throughout that should compel judges to admit them.

Edited January 10, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

I expect Kormon will write or collaborate on defense briefs. Is that about right zap?

[GregS]

This case is already over, Michael was not the defense attorney.

Hartwick/Tuttle? Sorry I was not clear enough.

Edited January 10, 2015 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

This is simply not true, not at all.

Things are getting better in Oakland County i see 

[bobandtorey]

This is simply not true, not at all.

I will fix it

 

We where the first to be able to have our cards introduces as evidence inn the Oakland County Court and then got are case dismissed back in 2009 

[t-pain]

since we're talking about what evidence is allowed in a court, heres a wonderful quote from oakland county asst prosecutor shannon o'brien in people v hartwick transcript from oakland county court (2012):

 

MS. O'BRIEN: And the People object to that

11 exhibit, Judge. because it's hearsay, a statement from

12 a physician

 

MR. MILLER: Judge, it is the document

14 provided by the physician. It's the only document he

15 has. He also provides it to the state of Michigan.

16 That's what he's required to have.

 

see , its bunny muffin like this, where the prosecutor blocks admission of the dr rec into the record, then the COA says 'hey, the defendant didnt provide evidence to show prong 1 of section 8a3'.

[GregS]

since we're talking about what evidence is allowed in a court, heres a wonderful quote from oakland county asst prosecutor shannon o'brien in people v hartwick transcript from oakland county court (2012):

 

MS. O'BRIEN: And the People object to that

11 exhibit, Judge. because it's hearsay, a statement from

12 a physician

 

MR. MILLER: Judge, it is the document

14 provided by the physician. It's the only document he

15 has. He also provides it to the state of Michigan.

16 That's what he's required to have.

 

see , its bunny muffin like this, where the prosecutor blocks admission of the dr rec into the record, then the COA says 'hey, the defendant didnt provide evidence to show prong 1 of section 8a3'.

Did the judge sustain or over rule the objection?

[t-pain]

the defandent lawyer widthdrew it because the prosecutor agreed that defandant had a card. so they went with the card assumption instead.

[t-pain]

but then when the court (judge) denied sec4, they moved into sec8, where the lawyer said he already provided the cards could be used in sec8...

 

but then the judge said this

18 The Court did not hear any testimony of a

19 bona fide physician-patient relationship or a

20 likelihood of receiving therapeutic or palliative

21 benefit from the medical use of marijuana.

 

because the dr rec was not administered 30 minutes ago during the sec4 hearing...

 

i guess a dr rec paper is heresay, and it needs to be notarized in the drs office.

i'll ask my doc about that. good idea gregs for notarization.

[bobandtorey]

since we're talking about what evidence is allowed in a court, heres a wonderful quote from oakland county asst prosecutor shannon o'brien in people v hartwick transcript from oakland county court (2012):

 

MS. O'BRIEN: And the People object to that

11 exhibit, Judge. because it's hearsay, a statement from

12 a physician

 

MR. MILLER: Judge, it is the document

14 provided by the physician. It's the only document he

15 has. He also provides it to the state of Michigan.

16 That's what he's required to have.

 

see , its bunny muffin like this, where the prosecutor blocks admission of the dr rec into the record, then the COA says 'hey, the defendant didnt provide evidence to show prong 1 of section 8a3'.

Thank you 

 

Its the way to trick people while in court so to stress you out even more things like this will do it to anyone 

[GregS]

but then when the court (judge) denied sec4, they moved into sec8, where the lawyer said he already provided the cards could be used in sec8...

 

but then the judge said this

18 The Court did not hear any testimony of a

19 bona fide physician-patient relationship or a

20 likelihood of receiving therapeutic or palliative

21 benefit from the medical use of marijuana.

 

because the dr rec was not administered 30 minutes ago during the sec4 hearing...

 

i guess a dr rec paper is heresay, and it needs to be notarized in the drs office.

i'll ask my doc about that. good idea gregs for notarization.

I think the judge was outa line. Was it argued that the card is prima facie evidence that the bona fide relationship with the necessary caveats exists and has met all the necessary requirements of sec. 8?

Edited January 11, 2015 by GregS

[t-pain]

yes greg, thats why hartwick is in the supreme court, going for oral arguments in a week.

 

the supreme court also sees that the judge did a stupid thing right there. at least thats what we hope...

[GregS]

yes greg, thats why hartwick is in the supreme court, going for oral arguments in a week.

 

the supreme court also sees that the judge did a stupid thing right there. at least thats what we hope...

Wahooo! Another smack down!

 

Hey. I'm cockeyed optimistic.