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

[+Malamute]

So?

 

;-p

 

There is some legal precedent on spousal legal issues.

 

:-)

[Highlander]

I guess we're at loggerheads. A farmer keeps records of his/her operations as an aid to cultivation. There are other purposes, but it cannot be denied that they are intended to help to bring in the crop.

I can kinda see where you are coming from. But where do you draw the line? If the wife calls a plow truck to clean the driveway so hubby can deliver meds, if the wife manages the household finances and pays the consumers/DTE bill, if she wakes him up in the morning so he has time to tend the garden before leaving for work, if she pays the mortgage and as a result hubby has a place to continue growing? If she takes him to the hospital so he doesn't die and thereby fail to keep cultivating? I could go on and on. Point is, one could construe any ordinary cooperation between spouses as being helpful for cultivation.

 

How is writing a post-it note different from any of us on-line giving advice on how to get registered, how to grow, etc? It could be said that any of that advice is assisting with cultivation. Also, think about grow stores? They assist in the cultivation of hundreds to thousands of licensed growers? Are grow store employees assisting with cultivation?

 

I see this idea as similar to the weak argument we've heard regarding people trying to make p2p transfers legal by saying, "when I transfer cannabis, it increases my overall feeling of well-being, which helps alleviate my debilitating condition." It has some ring of logic but goes waaaay too far.

 

I'm not bashing your opinion Greg, I'm just hoping PAs take a reasonable approach. I remember watching a "dumbest criminals" show about 20 years ago. A guy climbed up a tree and tried to break into a second story window. The tree swung back and forth and smashed the guy against the window three times. The PA charged him with three counts of attempted B&E. That's kinda similar to a wife getting prosecuted for writing the post-it. There are better uses of our LE dollars.

[+Malamute]

. I remember watching a "dumbest criminals" show about 20 years ago. A guy climbed up a tree and tried to break into a second story window. The tree swung back and forth and smashed the guy against the window three times. The PA charged him with three counts of attempted B&E.

 

 

Hahahaha,.... Now that is funny.

[GregS]

I can kinda see where you are coming from. But where do you draw the line? If the wife calls a plow truck to clean the driveway so hubby can deliver meds, if the wife manages the household finances and pays the consumers/DTE bill, if she wakes him up in the morning so he has time to tend the garden before leaving for work, if she pays the mortgage and as a result hubby has a place to continue growing? If she takes him to the hospital so he doesn't die and thereby fail to keep cultivating? I could go on and on. Point is, one could construe any ordinary cooperation between spouses as being helpful for cultivation.

 

How is writing a post-it note different from any of us on-line giving advice on how to get registered, how to grow, etc? It could be said that any of that advice is assisting with cultivation. Also, think about grow stores? They assist in the cultivation of hundreds to thousands of licensed growers? Are grow store employees assisting with cultivation?

 

I see this idea as similar to the weak argument we've heard regarding people trying to make p2p transfers legal by saying, "when I transfer cannabis, it increases my overall feeling of well-being, which helps alleviate my debilitating condition." It has some ring of logic but goes waaaay too far.

 

I'm not bashing your opinion Greg, I'm just hoping PAs take a reasonable approach. I remember watching a "dumbest criminals" show about 20 years ago. A guy climbed up a tree and tried to break into a second story window. The tree swung back and forth and smashed the guy against the window three times. The PA charged him with three counts of attempted B&E. That's kinda similar to a wife getting prosecuted for writing the post-it. There are better uses of our LE dollars.

That is hysterical. Thanks for the laugh.

 

I think there is a distinction to be made between generalized and specific activity. A note can generally be used for anything. One can be used specifically to yield a given result. It is in the directed motive to engage in an activity where I see it establishing intention. In this case the notes were intended specifically to keep a schedule in the cultivation of cannabis, and beyond that to schedule when and to whom it would be distributed, per court testimony.

 

It is more than just wanting to see some hard justification for CPU's position. I'd like nothing better than for them to prevail in that argument, but it does not seem in any way intuitively okay either, I guess what passes in some corners as gut feeling. I do see some fallacies, in particular non-sequiturs and false equivalencies, in trying to maintain the argument. I want to be convinced, but am not getting what I need for that to happen. To simply say that it is obvious without further explanation would be a mistake. In my experience the law does not permit that kind of lazy thinking. I've been called hard headed, but come nowhere near the courts.

Edited February 13, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

Now we get to Rest's assertion of "Spousal Privilege" in a dangerous attempt to paraphrase him:

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(fww2v0bz5tavo5icdukab245))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-600-2162

 

600.2162 Husband or wife as witness for or against other.

 

Sec. 2162.

 

(7) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), a married person or a person who has been married previously shall not be examined in a criminal prosecution as to any communication made between that person and his or her spouse or former spouse during the marriage without the consent of the person to be examined.

 

The nature of the communication is between the formerly married people. I don't see a valid reason subsection 7 wouldn't apply as no conditions of 3a-f are in contention. The damage to the public was not of such a nature to destroy a sacred facet of spousal law in Michigan. Husbands and wives write things down for each other - this is a common form of "communication".

 

Now that is a good citation and argument. Thank you.

Edited February 13, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

It looks like the cited marriage law would not qualify this circumstance. It plainly provides cover where witnessing is concerned, but Mazur is being taken through the grinder with her own charges. She is not being called on to testify on her husband's or the prosecution's behalf. Maybe the Court will see it as a disingenuous means the prosecutors are using to game the issue, and dismiss her case out of hand. The answer will be found somewhere down in the thick methane fog that is the law.

Edited February 13, 2015 by GregS

[t-pain]

they are using something her husband said against her. that does not fly against the marriage protection stuff, gregs? i'm honestly asking as i havent read the marriage witness laws, i thought they were case law' ruled bunk long ago.

 

that whole 'a husband cannot be compelled to testify against his wife' myth that hollywood likes to perpetuate.

[GregS]

they are using something her husband said against her. that does not fly against the marriage protection stuff, gregs? i'm honestly asking as i havent read the marriage witness laws, i thought they were case law' ruled bunk long ago.

 

that whole 'a husband cannot be compelled to testify against his wife' myth that hollywood likes to perpetuate.

I see your point. Hence the Court might see past the smoke and mirrors to find that way.

[YesMichigan]

It looks like the cited marriage law would not qualify this circumstance. It plainly provides cover where witnessing is concerned, but Mazur is being taken through the grinder with her own charges. She is not being called on to testify on her husband's or the prosecution's behalf. Maybe the Court will see it as a disingenuous means the prosecutors are using to game the issue, and dismiss her case out of hand. The answer will be found somewhere down in the thick methane fog that is the law.

 

"The privilege allows them to refuse to testify about a conversation or a letter that they have privately exchanged as marital partners."

 

The marital communications privilege is available in most jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions offering it allow a witness spouse to choose whether to testify; some automatically disqualify evidence from a spouse.

 

The privilege is not absolute. Because its effect is to deny evidence at trial, courts generally interpret it narrowly.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marital+Communications+Privilege

 

The "testimony" is the letter. Usage of it is a breach of the privilege because it represents a protected exchange between marital partners. The law exists because the court has no authority to divine her intentions for writing down the information. What if those were the days she could go visit her mother because he likes her out of the house on harvest days - but only when he pulls Blue Dream? The Mazur's could have discussed how to grow cannabis every single night and when it will harvest. Without a picture of her watering or harvesting plants she can write or discuss anything she wants for her husband as a privilege of marriage.

 

At least that's what I would argue.

Edited February 13, 2015 by YesMichigan

[GregS]

This is an excellent example to explain why it is best not to keep records that prosecutors can get their hands on.

Edited February 13, 2015 by GregS

[medmanmike]

This is an excellent example to explain why it is best not to keep records that prosecutors can get their hands on.

I know you disagreed with my earlier statement about keeping records AS A MEANS to defend myself, showing my INTENT to follow the law. If I'm legal and following the law, then why should I hide my actions? Doesn't hiding ones actions imply guilt? Perhaps I'm being naive that the system will play fair, but if I'm always sneaking around, telling "lies", so to speak, aren't i part of the problem? I can just hear the prosecutor saying, "He's hiding something, so he must be guilty." Does anyone else feel this way?

 

Maybe I'm all wet. Maybe I'm to Pollyanna-ish. What ever happen to "the truth will set you free"?

 

Ok, LEO and the courts (some of them at least ) as we are seeing don't always play fair. I get that. But the law is the law (however poorly written) and what good does it do us in the long run to put our heads in the sand and play dumb?

 

Finally, how do you, Greg, justify not keeping records when you're so open about posting anything on this site? Don't you worry that LEO is watching and recording what you're saying?

[t-pain]

medmanmike, its like they say in miranda, anything you say CAN and WILL be used AGAINST YOU.

 

gotta be careful of what you write on the internet, for sure.

[Restorium2]

I know you disagreed with my earlier statement about keeping records AS A MEANS to defend myself, showing my INTENT to follow the law. If I'm legal and following the law, then why should I hide my actions? Doesn't hiding ones actions imply guilt? Perhaps I'm being naive that the system will play fair, but if I'm always sneaking around, telling "lies", so to speak, aren't i part of the problem? I can just hear the prosecutor saying, "He's hiding something, so he must be guilty." Does anyone else feel this way?

 

Maybe I'm all wet. Maybe I'm to Pollyanna-ish. What ever happen to "the truth will set you free"?

 

Ok, LEO and the courts (some of them at least ) as we are seeing don't always play fair. I get that. But the law is the law (however poorly written) and what good does it do us in the long run to put our heads in the sand and play dumb?

 

Finally, how do you, Greg, justify not keeping records when you're so open about posting anything on this site? Don't you worry that LEO is watching and recording what you're saying?

It's simple; The more records the more chance they can twist something against you. Just like with the proposed labeling with the new bills. 

[GregS]

I know you disagreed with my earlier statement about keeping records AS A MEANS to defend myself, showing my INTENT to follow the law. If I'm legal and following the law, then why should I hide my actions? Doesn't hiding ones actions imply guilt? Perhaps I'm being naive that the system will play fair, but if I'm always sneaking around, telling "lies", so to speak, aren't i part of the problem? I can just hear the prosecutor saying, "He's hiding something, so he must be guilty." Does anyone else feel this way?

 

Maybe I'm all wet. Maybe I'm to Pollyanna-ish. What ever happen to "the truth will set you free"?

 

Ok, LEO and the courts (some of them at least ) as we are seeing don't always play fair. I get that. But the law is the law (however poorly written) and what good does it do us in the long run to put our heads in the sand and play dumb?

 

Finally, how do you, Greg, justify not keeping records when you're so open about posting anything on this site? Don't you worry that LEO is watching and recording what you're saying?

I've had several (ahem) pleasant conversations with Judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and law enforcement officers without telling them anything they did not need to know. The only records arguably necessary are that card in my wallet and my medical charts. They full well establish my intention to comply. I think it foolhardy to offer anything more. I would be speechless (Yeah. Me) if a defense attorney were to recommend otherwise.

Edited February 13, 2015 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

I know you disagreed with my earlier statement about keeping records AS A MEANS to defend myself, showing my INTENT to follow the law. If I'm legal and following the law, then why should I hide my actions? Doesn't hiding ones actions imply guilt? Perhaps I'm being naive that the system will play fair, but if I'm always sneaking around, telling "lies", so to speak, aren't i part of the problem? I can just hear the prosecutor saying, "He's hiding something, so he must be guilty." Does anyone else feel this way?

 

Maybe I'm all wet. Maybe I'm to Pollyanna-ish. What ever happen to "the truth will set you free"?

 

Ok, LEO and the courts (some of them at least ) as we are seeing don't always play fair. I get that. But the law is the law (however poorly written) and what good does it do us in the long run to put our heads in the sand and play dumb?

 

Finally, how do you, Greg, justify not keeping records when you're so open about posting anything on this site? Don't you worry that LEO is watching and recording what you're saying?

I am so sorry to say that imho it looks like you have never been inn Court and thats a good thing even if you were you would have had to be there  for Marijuana or of some kind of Medical  Cannabis Law that you would have Broken.

 

 Because it would only take a few time going to someones case that you support to really see how it works Oakland County comes to my mind they are their own County i was wants like you i listen to PGT every week and here War stories 

 

Sorry

 

 Peace

[bobandtorey]

It's simple; The more records the more chance they can twist something against you. Just like with the proposed labeling with the new bills. 

Now you Restorium2 You know how it is but it's hard to tell other about the way we both know how things go 95% of the time in a Court Room

[+Malamute]

Seems appropriate to post this again

 

 

 

[t-pain]

It's simple; The more records the more chance they can twist something against you. Just like with the proposed labeling with the new bills.

resto, i believe the labelling is gone from the mmma bill. not that that is permanent or anything.

Edited February 13, 2015 by t-pain

[GregS]

I keep my ducks in a row too, enough that the Birch Run PD at one point had to return 4 zips, a gram of kief, scales, and assorted paraphernalia.

[medmanmike]

Ok guys - Greg, t-pain, Rest, Malamute, Zap, et al - you've convinced me! Mal, the videos really helped.

 

Fortunately, I haven't been in a courtroom, other than for a divorce, for nearly 45 yrs. In the early 70s I was down south partying and ended up with a Conspiracy to Posess charge. A five year felony. I was clean when busted and ened up with probation, which was expunged after 2 years.

 

At the time, I played dumb and that probably helped, as you all have suggested here. Back then, one was constantly looking over one's shoulder. I was hoping that by following the law here, now, to a T, things would be different. I've been convinced otherwise. Thanks.

[t-pain]

sorry for the bad news medmanmike

 

btw if anyone is curious to see the process, pop down to your local courtroom and watch the cases be judged. interesting free life changing education right there.

[bobandtorey]

Ok guys - Greg, t-pain, Rest, Malamute, Zap, et al - you've convinced me! Mal, the videos really helped.

 

Fortunately, I haven't been in a courtroom, other than for a divorce, for nearly 45 yrs. In the early 70s I was down south partying and ended up with a Conspiracy to Posess charge. A five year felony. I was clean when busted and ened up with probation, which was expunged after 2 years.

 

At the time, I played dumb and that probably helped, as you all have suggested here. Back then, one was constantly looking over one's shoulder. I was hoping that by following the law here, now, to a T, things would be different. I've been convinced otherwise. Thanks.

 

 

That  make me happy today  now if you know of anyone that does think like you did please tell them because thats the only way all of us can help stop the sick from being arrest and ending  up in Court 

 

i got a call a few days ago that person told me he follows the Law to a T also and he only had a few extra clones and  he lives in Oakland County i tired telling him and hope he reads this 

 

Thank you

[t-pain]

question about testimony blah blah

Edited February 19, 2015 by t-pain

[Hayduke]

not directly, but they were aware something in the transcript was missing, when there was no prosecution evidence of the plant count....

 

that is one err by the prosecutors, who were hamstrung a bit as they likely did not wish to have Ferguson's bs come to bite them on a bunch of other cases as well...

 

the defense attorney (public defender) did not seem to be aware of what was up with Det Ferguson...

[t-pain]

thanks hayduke.

Edited February 19, 2015 by t-pain