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

[t-pain]

i think the prosecutor said since he plead guilty to a crime, he lost all medical use?

 

i have no details of his case at all, and very little details of wife mazur (coa opinion) so i just dont know. you'll have to ask rudoi.

[t-pain]

so i wont be able to watch the oral arguments until they put it online ?

 

dang. probably will take 2-3 weeks. i missed out on most of it. thanks for keeping the running commentary guys.

[Hayduke]

Just back... Eric Van Dussen filmed the proceedings, so they will go up pretty quick I bet.

 

I have not read Mazur, but, as I understand it, her husband has already been found guilty. I do not know if it was a plea.  She filled out a post-it note with dates of harvest for plants, and it was posted in the grow room.  That tied her in, on the original conviction.  I think she has a strong case and certainly the prosecutor was not at a level of David Rudoi.... To me the charge seemed stupid and mean spirited... I hope they cut her some slack.  

 

Malamute and I were talking as I drove home, and we both agree Hartwick has a strong chance to be dismissed, and allow his Section 4 to stand.  That one was blown by the prosecution because they never got the lower court to formally prove his plant numbers.  Hartwick claimed 71 the prosecution claimed 76 or 77.  He was entitled to 72.  With no court finding on that it may save his Section 4 when (and if) it gets sent back down.  Additionally, much of the odious language from Judge Saad came in the Section 8 discussion of the COA trial.  Remember all the stuff about a caregiver having to know their patients medical info and all that bs? Well if it goes back to a successful Section 4 defense, the worst of Judge Saad's nastiness will go away.  It is my opinion the Sp Ct must do this to reign in this activist Judge...

 

Tuttle had a prosecutor that totally gagged during her questioning.  I hope it goes well for you, Tut, I really do... the sale to a legit patient, but not connected to caregiver via the registry, may be a problem even in section 8... I hope not... at least your prosecutor seems incompetent.  Perhaps that can work in your favor.

 

One thing is for sure, Dan Grow's Amicus on Hartwick is going to be very helpful, and if the questions from the Justices are giving us guidance, they were on the same arc as Dan.  That Amicus is for all the patients and caregivers who like the original Act... So if you see Dan Grow, tell him "thanks much"...

 

Mal has more memory and knowledge of the big picture on this type of hearing, than anyone I know.  Driving home and talking to him is a bit like getting hypnotized... suddenly you realize you need to pay attention to the road, and get off the phone....lol.... 

 

Personally, from the second row, I think all three cases were solid.  Now we wait.  

 

Sure have spent a lot of time waiting, these last few months....

 

But it is not over until later... so stay calm....

[Wild Bill]

Tuttle had a prosecutor that totally gagged during her questioning.

 

She actually looked like she realized she didn't have a legitimate argument once she got up there.

[Hayduke]

her back was to me, Wild Bill, but she seemed exactly as you say, to me, as well.  I don't think she impressed the Justices...

[bobandtorey]

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.

You have hit it out of the park 

 

Thank you

[bobandtorey]

I think Mazur will get to a jury but will lose their because of it's in Oakland County and i've seen to many jury pools in that County to know they are fixed 

[bobandtorey]

Just back... Eric Van Dussen filmed the proceedings, so they will go up pretty quick I bet.

 

I have not read Mazur, but, as I understand it, her husband has already been found guilty. I do not know if it was a plea.  She filled out a post-it note with dates of harvest for plants, and it was posted in the grow room.  That tied her in, on the original conviction.  I think she has a strong case and certainly the prosecutor was not at a level of David Rudoi.... To me the charge seemed stupid and mean spirited... I hope they cut her some slack.  

 

Malamute and I were talking as I drove home, and we both agree Hartwick has a strong chance to be dismissed, and allow his Section 4 to stand.  That one was blown by the prosecution because they never got the lower court to formally prove his plant numbers.  Hartwick claimed 71 the prosecution claimed 76 or 77.  He was entitled to 72.  With no court finding on that it may save his Section 4 when (and if) it gets sent back down.  Additionally, much of the odious language from Judge Saad came in the Section 8 discussion of the COA trial.  Remember all the stuff about a caregiver having to know their patients medical info and all that bs? Well if it goes back to a successful Section 4 defense, the worst of Judge Saad's nastiness will go away.  It is my opinion the Sp Ct must do this to reign in this activist Judge...

 

Tuttle had a prosecutor that totally gagged during her questioning.  I hope it goes well for you, Tut, I really do... the sale to a legit patient, but not connected to caregiver via the registry, may be a problem even in section 8... I hope not... at least your prosecutor seems incompetent.  Perhaps that can work in your favor.

 

One thing is for sure, Dan Grow's Amicus on Hartwick is going to be very helpful, and if the questions from the Justices are giving us guidance, they were on the same arc as Dan.  That Amicus is for all the patients and caregivers who like the original Act... So if you see Dan Grow, tell him "thanks much"...

 

Mal has more memory and knowledge of the big picture on this type of hearing, than anyone I know.  Driving home and talking to him is a bit like getting hypnotized... suddenly you realize you need to pay attention to the road, and get off the phone....lol.... 

 

Personally, from the second row, I think all three cases were solid.  Now we wait.  

 

Sure have spent a lot of time waiting, these last few months....

 

But it is not over until later... so stay calm....

 

 

Thanks for the sum up 

[bobandtorey]

sorry

Edited January 16, 2015 by bobandtorey

[blackhorse]

Thank you to all who could make the court hearings and keep us informed.

[Quadcarl]

I watched the live feed, the justices had interesting positions I thought. Doctors can't prescribe scedule I narcotics in conjunction with I know how many aspirin to take made me laugh. Personally I felt like justice young was giving all 3 prosecutors I watched the gears pretty good.

 

The lady's wrong answer on the barbershop analogy was inspiring and funny too.

 

I think the first case is good to go, they seemed annoyed that there was no factual finding on plant count. Seems they don't want to bother people abiding to section 4 in my opinion, the justices.

 

I could be naïve but I'm glad I watched, didn't seem so "doom and gloom"

[t-pain]

great show guys.

[budpuffer]

i just want to thank all the folks involved with this..you're doing alot of good for the community here..thanks guys...bp

[Pain]

Thank You All for Fighting the Fight, We are not Potheads... Just sick folks.....

[t-pain]

brief was put on the website for tuttle. however the copy on court website ends at page 22.

(no idea if this means the brief was accepted or not, its not in the docket)

 

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Documents/briefs-archive/2014-2015/148971/148971_MMMA.amicus.pdf

 

i wonder what the supreme court will say about 333.8109

Edited January 17, 2015 by t-pain

[t-pain]

I can only imagine how difficult this is, but he is not making the point so far.

i was thinking about this. its 7 justices asking you intricate detailed nuanced questions related and not related to the case all in rapid fire. its too bad they dont allow a few lawyers at a time to help out. like tag-in, call a friend, 50/50 or ask the audience ehe.

 

its one thing to memorize the law, the case law, the briefs, but how are you supposed to prepare for all these random new questions? you have to make it up on the fly??? uhhrgh.

[Restorium2]

i was thinking about this. its 7 justices asking you intricate detailed nuanced questions related and not related to the case all in rapid fire. its too bad they dont allow a few lawyers at a time to help out. like tag-in, call a friend, 50/50 or ask the audience ehe.

 

its one thing to memorize the law, the case law, the briefs, but how are you supposed to prepare for all these random new questions? you have to make it up on the fly??? uhhrgh.

Ah... an ear piece? Like a race car driver or those guys on NCIS. Seriously, if you don't have one you are not using all the tools in the tool box. 

[Quadcarl]

Not so sure an earpiece in counsels ear while court is in session is legal or allowed. I didn't Google first to find out, but that would make great TV. Imagine a death sentence appeal and the real killer phones in moments before the end of the hearing, lol!

[+Malamute]

Co-counsel can hand notes.

[Restorium2]

Co-counsel can hand notes.

Then that is precedent for an ear piece ....

[bobandtorey]

Thanks 

[GregS]

MMMA and CPU amicus briefs were accepted by the Supreme Court today:

 

 

Hartwick Order Amicus Accepted.pdf

 

Tuttle Order Amicus Accepted.pdf

Cool beans. In retrospect, and looking forward, we might do well to be vocal about the fact that, as the electorate, we understood the ballot issue to state that transfers can be made only between the closed population of any and all qualified individuals. Judges who posture and say, in their fantasy, that they are interpreting the will of the people in their decisions, but whose desisions say otherwise, are being smart by half and less than disingenuous. Thanks to  the SC for calling them out

Edited January 21, 2015 by GregS

[ozzrokk]

Very nice to hear Zap. This should be very helpful. Thanks to everyone that put time and effort into this.

[t-pain]

oral arguments are up in mp3 and the video oral arguments are up on michbar virtual court website too. finally i can see what i missed.

 

http://michbar.org/courts/virtualcourt.cfm

new url : http://www.michbar.org/courts/virtualcourt

Edited May 31, 2015 by t-pain

[GregS]

Maybe this  goes without saying. Can it be construed that the Court will speak to the notion that sec. 4 possession limits can inform, but  not compel, a sec. 8 claim? This is kinda like case law, in which the decisions in one state are frequently referenced by other state courts who are considering their own questions of law, and the latter having the option to choose.