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

[GregS]

It is becoming very clear that sec. 8 has a lot of power.

[GregS]

No, should be dismissed under 4(i).

Yah. That is the way it's headed.

[+Malamute]

Ouch,... aiding... with utensils.

[bobandtorey]

These are some Big case's  for sure and it will define the Act hopefully in all users and growers of marihuana

[bobandtorey]

It is becoming very clear that sec. 8 has a lot of power.

I disagree the courts flip flops around Sec 4 and sec 8

[+Malamute]

This falls under the category that i tell patients who have a spouse to make their spouse their CG and keep your plants to extend protections to the spouse.

[bobandtorey]

Lost it again 

[GregS]

Paraphernalia are devices intended for use in the injestion of the drug by the end user. A post it does not meet that definition.

Edited January 15, 2015 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

Talking to Leo is never good as we can see here

[+Malamute]

Blind Justice smackin down the "royal we"

[GregS]

We can only hope that the opinion published is as much of a rout for Oakland County as the lines of questioning seem to reveal it might be.

 

New Justice Bernstein, nice question on the use of royal "we." Ms. Mazur used the word "we" to describe her husband's caregiving actions to the police when they raided, and Oakland County wants to use it to breach 4(i).

In which case it would be smart to plead under sec. 8.

[bobandtorey]

Stay out of the basement don't wash or dry their stuff ?

[bobandtorey]

7 pounds Wow !

[+Malamute]

7lbs as i recall was using plant weight? 

 

I would have to look at evidence again.

[+Malamute]

Well, that was entertaining.

 

I hope for the best, but ya never know and one should never read too far into questioning.

[GregS]

Is it too late for Mazur to plead a sec. 8 defense?

Edited January 15, 2015 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

Yes he is on probation now the wife is the one fighting 

[garyfisher]

We're getting railroaded.

*honeydicked.

[garyfisher]

Blind Justice smackin down the "royal we"

thats the bernstein advantage.

[GregS]

Yes he is on probation now the wife is the one fighting 

Bob. I'm talking about the wife.

[bobandtorey]

Bob. I'm talking about the wife.

Oh ok she is the one in Court for helping him in the grow room she needed to stay out of the basement i guess

[GregS]

Oh ok she is the one in Court for helping him in the grow room she needed to stay out of the basement i guess

And now she should petition for a sec. 8 hearing. She was acting as a caregiver to her husband's patient(s), albeit without registry connection.

 

Is it still possible for her to bring said hearing?

Edited January 15, 2015 by GregS

[t-pain]

uffh...

 

yeah guys its not any kind of slam dunk yet.

remember we thought the same things in all these MSC cases before. the oral arguments seem to tip in our (patients) favor and then BLAM here comes the smackdown in the opinion later.

 

some small technical word or missing comma and everyone loses all protections for no good reason.

[t-pain]

And now she should petition for a sec. 8 hearing. She was acting as a caregiver to her husband's patient(s), albeit without registry connection.

 

Is it still possible for her to bring said hearing?

gregs, unfortunately, i think with mazur, because her husband pleaded guilty , his "medical use" is in question, therefor if shes an unregistered caregiver, she may find it hard to prove that her post-it was "medical use" under sec8. if her husband patient was not using marijuana for "medical use"....

 

basically they need to appeal the husbands conviction to save her. if possible at all.

Edited January 15, 2015 by t-pain

[GregS]

gregs, unfortunately, i think with mazur, because her husband pleaded guilty , his "medical use" is in question, therefor if shes an unregistered caregiver, she may find it hard to prove that her post-it was "medical use" under sec8. if her husband patient was not using marijuana for "medical use"....

 

basically they need to appeal the husbands conviction to save her. if possible at all.

Is there proof that her husband's patients were not involved for the purpose of medical use?