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

[Habenero]

Was there any proof presented that she personally placed the notes on the plants or merely that she wrote the notes?

 

 

Either way it can be said that she was involved with cultivation, which is reserved to patients and their caregivers. She is obviously acting in an allowed capacity that must permit a sec. 8 hearing.

Maybe I don't know all the facts but just writing on a sticky note is no more engaging in cultivation than if she had purchased stuff at the grow store for the plants.

[Habenero]

Sorry, double posted.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Habenero

[+Malamute]

 I hear ya habanero.  This is a quote from CPU's Amici:

 

 

In addition, (regard to issues presented in Mazur), it is with great sadness that CPU reports many patients and caregivers in the State of

 

Michigan have been faced with, and often convicted of,  felonies solely because of alleged technical violations of Michigan's Act premised

 

on issues relating to a spouse or immediate family member.  It is CPU's position that the spousal relationship is of such a nature that it must

 

be granted the strongest protections this court can fashion.  The spousal relationship involves the sharing of every conceivable intimate

 

detail, and certainly includes assisting loved ones suffering from debilitating conditions in a way unlike any other institution or governmental

 

agency.  When construing the Act and its protections, it is CPU's position that the spousal relationship is of such significance that for the

 

purposes of the Act, the two individuals must be considered one. The prosecution of a patient or caregiver should never be premised on the

 

role of the spouse.

 

[GregS]

I hear ya habanero.  This is a quote from CPU's Amici:

I truly hope the court agrees with CPU and I had read it. We don't know the details regarding her husband's case, so it would be presumptuous to say that the fix you suggest will be brought to bear. Short of that, I think the AD is her best bet.

Edited February 11, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

s

Edited February 11, 2015 by GregS

[Hayduke]

husband plead out.

 

I believe they are now divorced...

[bobandtorey]

husband plead out.

 

I believe they are now divorced...

 

 

It does happen a lot of times because the Court system is so brutal against relationship's they sometimes put you against each other and the stress is overwhelming it's called the War on Marijuana and the Courts are losing because more and more people are seeing the truth 

[YesMichigan]

It does happen a lot of times because the Court system is so brutal against relationship's they sometimes put you against each other and the stress is overwhelming it's called the War on Marijuana and the Courts are losing because more and more people are seeing the truth 

 

Here is a couple getting divorced and lives put through the ringer. Social status and family relationships damaged. Courts still got paid just the same. They can't lose, they use our money to arrest and harass us.

 

The Defendant is paying the Prosecutor...

[bobandtorey]

Thanks

 

I agree i have said it many times We pay and they get paid

 

Social status and family relationships damaged Oh yes many times we just don't see that part unless we have been in the system people are fast in saying first thing Don't take a plea deal and they have no way of knowing what a relationship has indued and stress  thats comes with a Court date 

[GregS]

Greg, there is freedom in living In the shadows. Believe me I get this. It just seems to me that our law is so full of ambiguity, for example, the point about being over the 2.5 oz limit if there is a "medical" justification, ie the patient needs 3oz/ month, that if I can provide evidence that this is the case, then from what has been discussed many times on this site, I would be in a much better position with the doc. than without.

The only justification that is required is registration with the state or meeting the elements of sec. 8. Anything else is not only unnecessary and risky, but counted by many as stupid. Prosecutors don't need our help to work against us.

[GregS]

"In addition, (regard to issues presented in Mazur), it is with great sadness that CPU reports many patients and caregivers in the State of

 

Michigan have been faced with, and often convicted of,  felonies solely because of alleged technical violations of Michigan's Act premised

 

on issues relating to a spouse or immediate family member.  It is CPU's position that the spousal relationship is of such a nature that it must

 

be granted the strongest protections this court can fashion.  The spousal relationship involves the sharing of every conceivable intimate

 

detail, and certainly includes assisting loved ones suffering from debilitating conditions in a way unlike any other institution or governmental

 

agency.  When construing the Act and its protections, it is CPU's position that the spousal relationship is of such significance that for the

 

purposes of the Act, the two individuals must be considered one. The prosecution of a patient or caregiver should never be premised on the

 

role of the spouse."

 

 

What, please, are your legal theories in support?

Edited February 11, 2015 by GregS

[Restorium2]

Spouses are automatic caregivers when they take the oath. They can't be excluded from the oath or their role as caregiver for their spouse in all health matters as clearly stated in the oath of marriage. There will be no law that locks out a spouse from access and caregiving until death due them part, or divorce. 

[t-pain]

What, please, are your legal theories in support?

did you read cpu's brief? i think its on page 1 of this thread.

[GregS]

did you read cpu's brief? i think its on page 1 of this thread.

Yep. There are citations and good arguments on most, if not all, other points, but I am fail to see any for that. CPU states clearly enough that it maintains that position and asks that it be considered. I am unaware of any legal argument that would support it.

Edited February 12, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

Spouses are automatic caregivers when they take the oath. They can't be excluded from the oath or their role as caregiver for their spouse in all health matters as clearly stated in the oath of marriage. There will be no law that locks out a spouse from access and caregiving until death due them part, or divorce. 

Will you give citations please?

[Restorium2]

Will you give citations please?

I remember the oath of marriage. And the power players all want to hang their hats on that right now for other reasons. 

Edited February 12, 2015 by Restorium2

[GregS]

I remember the oath of marriage. And the power players all want to hang their hats on that right now for other reasons. 

Do you expect that to lend legitimacy to the request?

 

That is no citation.

Edited February 12, 2015 by GregS

[Restorium2]

Do you expect that to lend legitimacy to the request?

 

That is no citation.

It is the only legitimacy to the request and it stands tall above any other.  It's in style with the time and place we live. I believe it will find support among the masses. 

[GregS]

It is the only legitimacy to the request and it stands tall above any other.  It's in style with the time and place we live. I believe it will find support among the masses. 

Thought not.

Edited February 12, 2015 by GregS

[Restorium2]

Thought not.

Blinders on?

[GregS]

Blinders on?

There are no citations given Jim. You have shown that your understanding of law is marginal, if even existent.

[Restorium2]

Example; If a husband is sick and his spouse has to go in the plant room to get the medicine that makes him better because of the oath of marriage the Act does not preclude that care from happening. The oath of marriage trumps that. And the powers that be want to sling marriage as a heavy club right now. We can use that club also.

[GregS]

I do not see that Mazur is charged with caregiving for her husband. We do not have the details to his case, and I so don't like to speculate, but it is indicated that he acted as caregiver for two other patients, for whom the evidence shows she was also cultivating for. My point is that she should be protected from conviction under sec. 8. Everything else is fluff.

Edited February 12, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

Example; If a husband is sick and his spouse has to go in the plant room to get the medicine that makes him better because of the oath of marriage the Act does not preclude that care from happening. The oath of marriage trumps that. And the powers that be want to sling marriage as a heavy club right now. We can use that club also.

Good luck with that.

[Restorium2]

Good luck with that.

It's the heart of the issue in a nutshell. Sorry if it's a little too simple to fit with what you are looking for.