Hartwick And Tuttle Amicus Briefs Filed On Behalf Of Mmma And Cpu

[Michael Komorn]

Yesterday Komorn Law, on behalf of the MMMA, filed the attached Amicus Briefs with the Michigan Supreme Court for the cases People v Hartwick and People v Tuttle. Oral arguments will be held Thursday. We want to acknowledge the tireless efforts of all the contributors who worked diligently in this endeavor. Specifically from the MMMA, Highlander and t-pain contributed great material, research, and arguments. We truly thank all the participants on the forum whose contributions helped develop many of the ideas and arguments we wanted to advance.

 

Jeff Frazier, prose artist, Galapagos guitarist, and attorney extraordinaire, drafted much of the brief. He is and was brilliant at incorporating and articulating many of the big ideas we discuss and complain about every day into rational and persuasive prose. ("One Word - probable cause.") ("One Word - Brilliant!")

 

Also to the clients of Komorn Law (and all the patients, caregivers, and others who have been arrested instead of protected from arrest), and despite the unfortunate circumstances we experienced together, your cases are the (our) motivation. Also we want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of CPU: Hayduke, Malamute, and especially attorney Dan Grow, whose collaboration created a strategic opportunity to address the issues from multiple positions.

Also it should be noted that this project may not have been completed if not for the extraordinary effort, by zapatosunidos (Chad). He was outstanding at managing and overseeing this project and made certain these briefs were finished and filed on behalf of the MMMA. But for his commitment the project would not have been completed. (Also, any grammar or spelling mistakes please complain to Chad.)

 

Tuttle Br. Amicus Curiae.pdf

 

Hartwick Br. Amicus Curiae.pdf

[bobandtorey]

The immunity from arrest only has meaning at the police encounter. 

 

You guy's sure start off Great and to the point 

 

Thanks i will read more

[t-pain]

highlander gets the big ups for finding the way to make the new law apply retroactively. i had declared defeat on that without even looking at it.

 

thanks to all who worked on it and continue to work for patient freedom and rights.

 

reading these laws and crazy opinions will burn you out. it burns me out just reading each opinion.

remember to take a break once in a while!

[+washtenaut]

Thank you to all involved.  Very much appreciated.

[phaquetoo]

Yes Thank You all for what you do for all of us!

 

Peace

Jim

[+Malamute]

Glad to see another amicus.

 

 Should have let me proof read... ;-p

[Chauncy Gardner]

Wow. You guys knocked it out of the park. These briefs are things of beauty. Using words (the courts own in many instances) to dissect the unreasonable conclusions of a few high placed haters and prohibitionists, these briefs bring rationality back into the arguments surrounding the Medical Marijuana Act.

 

Thank you.

[Hayduke]

CPU filed an amicus as well... and Mal you were sleeping that last afternoon...... lol...

amicus of CPU.pdf

[t-pain]

awesome hayduke, i wanted to read cpu's count me in for any future proofreading or ideas on breifs too. i want to help!!

 

(edit: just dont ask me to spell check! haha)

Edited January 14, 2015 by t-pain

[t-pain]

heres the various ideas i wrote and passed on to zap.

 

maybe cpu can use them as well? since not all of my ideas got into these briefs.

 

(its a mix of mazur, tuttle and hartwick ideas, very rough)

brief.txt

Edited January 14, 2015 by t-pain

[GregS]

Nice work all. Thanks.

 

The CPU brief is excellent. The remarks toward confidentiality between a doctor and a patient that further negates any requirement for a caregiver to administer responsibilities that lie with the physician are dead on. But I think it does not go far enough in requesting/demanding to know what further evidentiary requirements exist beyond sec. 4 and possession of a duly authorized card. Sec.8 protections without registry are given short shrift, and I think it is wise to speak to the matter. If, for instance, it is determined or it is a fact that sec. 4 registry protections do not apply, what evidence would constitute proof of a bona fide physician relationship and appropriate designation of a caregiver by a patient qualified by his/her doctor's recommendation in a bona fide relationship only, and when and how should the rules of evidence apply? We know that this happens. I am aware of circumstances where there is more risk to professional and/or personal reputations in registration than patients and caregivers are willing to accept. In inquiring regarding this we are pushing the limits of the law to find clearly articulated and pertinent findings by the court, which I count as necessary.

 

Kormon's briefs touch on several salient points. I am glad to see that those and the CPU briefs compliment each other and without duplication.

 

Is it possible to see any prosecutorial briefs now?

Edited January 15, 2015 by GregS

[t-pain]

greg, you can read prosecutor (and the defendants briefs) here
http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/oral-arguments/2014-2015/Pages/148444.aspx
http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/oral-arguments/2014-2015/Pages/148971.aspx
http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/oral-arguments/2014-2015/Pages/149290.aspx

although some of them include confidential patient info

Edited January 14, 2015 by t-pain

[GregS]

TY tpain.

[GregS]

Hmm. I wonder why Mazur does not argue sec. 8 in her defense. Under that section there is no requirement that a patient have only one caregiver, and an argument that she is one of two caregivers who engage in medical use on behalf of one or more patients could be useful.

[GregS]

Hartwick's appellant brief gets right down to the short hairs.

[GregS]

Jessica Cooper is about to get b!tch slapped again.

[GregS]

Oral arguments are scheduled for tomorrow morning session at the Hall of Justice, 9:30 AM. Does anyone know the link for watching? There is a media request on the docket, though I don't know who will be recording it.

http://courts.mi.gov/courts/michigansupremecourt/oral-arguments/live-streaming/pages/live-streaming.aspx

[tutman2006]

I wanted to say thank you very much for all your support and hard work!  I'm feeling very good about the out come! 

[tutman2006]

thank you chad for your hard work!

Oral arguments are scheduled for tomorrow morning session at the Hall of Justice, 9:30 AM. Does anyone know the link for watching? There is a media request on the docket, though I don't know who will be recording it.

[Bisharoo]

Good luck my friends!!

Peace...

[t-pain]

is anyong going to be there tomorrow?

[Hayduke]

I am going to go

[+Malamute]

CPU Core Principles

 

3) On an immediate day-to-day level, CPU is the eyes and ears of the community; maintaining constant vigilance for any threats that emerge from state legislators, interest groups or regulatory authorities that could be hostile to the MMMA.

 

 

:-)

 

 Sorry, couldn't help myself. 

 

 Just doing what we can.

[jeff from bad axe]

Good Luck!!!!!!!!!Hopefully the intent of the people prevail.

[+Malamute]

http://courts.mi.gov/courts/michigansupremecourt/oral-arguments/live-streaming/pages/live-streaming.aspx

 

Just bumping the topic and the hearing starts in like 25 minutes I do believe.