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

[YesMichigan]

yes malamute, but no where in section 8 does it say a prosecutor may rebut the evidence

in fact, section 8 is presumed valid.

 

"and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:"

 

If the Judges weren't working on behalf of the Prosecutors I would say you got it nailed T!

 

I think many of us agree on the accuracy of your statement here - I think few of us have any faith in a judge lower than the COA giving the average citizen the benefit of doubt. They seem to be siding and arguing the Prosecutor's case when it comes to the MMA. They even feel the need to point out they voted against it when they render a ruling favorable to those protected by it.

[+Malamute]

I have seen it go both ways.

 

It is a trier of fact issue indeed t-pain.

[bobandtorey]

Well, Sec. 8 isn't necessarily the most liberal when it comes to amounts. Those amounts could be 5 grams or 5 lbs depending on the courts interpretation and what evidence can be presented to support that amount.  Both good and bad.  Prosecutors will seek "reasonable" as being just under the amount you had, and defense attorneys will argue any amount is reasonable.

And i can agree to that thanks

 

When i was in court the Lawyers told the Judge it was up to him if what we had had been  reasonable and the judge said if it's up tp me then one plant is to many 

 

just saying 

[bobandtorey]

yes malamute, but no where in section 8 does it say a prosecutor may rebut the evidence

in fact, section 8 is presumed valid.

 

"and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:"

Yes i agree and thats why prosectors  don't want it into Courts nor in front of a jury

[t-pain]

i wonder if the supreme court is about to render 333.26423 a (3)

 

(3) The physician has a reasonable expectation that he or she will provide follow-up care to the patient to monitor the efficacy of the use of medical marihuana as a treatment of the patient's debilitating medical condition.

 

as unconstitutional?

 

since doctors cannot aid and abet a schedule 1 substance by law?

[GregS]

I think not t--pain. It was properly legislated and met the criteria for inclusion. We don't have to like it, and given what was proposed, I think we came out kinda clean.

 

It does not require follow up treatment, but only an expectation that it can happen. What would be great would be some kind of statement that prosecutors cannot use it to establish that we have broken the law. We can pick up the phone at any time and schedule an appointment. Our doctors are happy to accommodate us. The law does not require when we do that. We should all be involved with the management of our medical conditions, and whether or not to waste valuable time and expense without good medical cause is our prerogative. I think it essentially says that we do have exactly that. If and when I decide that I need to follow up is entirely up to me.

Edited January 27, 2015 by GregS

[medmanmike]

who desides what is "reasonably necessary"?i think some testimony we've seen in various cases is good. like the people who say they were growing 72 plants because half of them will be male and then culled. because that automatically just takes it down to 36 plants. then a cg can say how good or bad he is at growing plants. how many ounces he gets per plant. some of these new cbd plants dont really make the flowers and you can only get an oz or two off each one.the police have been trying to say you can make 4 harvests a year. you may need to explain why you will or wont be doing that much growing. even though it is possible to run that or more, you may have to explain why you are not doing it. also maybe explain how many plants get budrot, mites, etc.maybe we should come up with a kind of checklist for plant yields, pests, growing problems (hermies due to lights, dead plants due to power outs etc). some kind of document that addresses all facets of patient/caregiver cultivation for evidence showing?

Not sure if this has been addressed, but... It seems to me that those of us, either pt and/or cg, who follow the law as best we can have an "intent" to do so. Now intent may not be a legal term, but if I can "prove" my "intent to follow the law" in a court of law, then I would think, at least in a jury trial, have a chance for a favorable verdict. So, one way to prove that intent would be to do as you've suggested and keep a log, journal or checklist and any other documentation you can of each grow, issues with the grow, meetings with pt/cg, etc. Trying to establish all this documentation after the fact (or before a trial) would be difficult to do and would be less credible imho than maintaining the doc. along the way.

 

Now, not everyone is into extra work that this would entail, etc, but if one is serious about what they're doing then something along this line may just save one's arse down the road.

[bobandtorey]

 keep a log may be great but Leo will use that against you some how just to show the Judge that you are a drug dealer 

[GregS]

Not sure if this has been addressed, but... It seems to me that those of us, either pt and/or cg, who follow the law as best we can have an "intent" to do so. Now intent may not be a legal term, but if I can "prove" my "intent to follow the law" in a court of law, then I would think, at least in a jury trial, have a chance for a favorable verdict. So, one way to prove that intent would be to do as you've suggested and keep a log, journal or checklist and any other documentation you can of each grow, issues with the grow, meetings with pt/cg, etc. Trying to establish all this documentation after the fact (or before a trial) would be difficult to do and would be less credible imho than maintaining the doc. along the way.

 

Now, not everyone is into extra work that this would entail, etc, but if one is serious about what they're doing then something along this line may just save one's arse down the road.

I see no advantage in leaving a paper trail that can be used against you. The courts are and have always been adversarial in nature. I prefer the maxim, "Don't tell anyone anything they don't need to know." It is best that a prosecutor be left to build his/her own case against a defendant.

[medmanmike]

 keep a log may be great but Leo will use that against you some how just to show the Judge that you are a drug dealer

 

When growing only two plants? No offense, but this sounds like a "glass half empty" position to me. I'd rather be more proactive, follow the law, and prove it through my actions, etc.

 

I think too many of us grow/provide for ourselves/patients from a position of fear (of getting busted, etc.) I'm a firm believer that what I think/believe creates my reality. Therefore, I will not broadcast what I'm doing, but I will be prepared if LEO comes a'knocking.

[t-pain]

you have to look at the mazur case, where the prosecutor brought charges for a post-it note as the PRIMARY piece of evidence.

this case made it all the way to the michigan supreme court btw.

 

greg's advice is good.

[medmanmike]

I see no advantage in leaving a paper trail that can be used against you. The courts are and have always been adversarial in nature. I prefer the maxim, "Don't tell anyone anything they don't need to know." It is best that a prosecutor be left to build his/her own case against a defendant.

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.

[medmanmike]

you have to look at the mazur case, where the prosecutor brought charges for a post-it note as the PRIMARY piece of evidence.

this case made it all the way to the michigan supreme court btw.

 

greg's advice is good.

I am aware of the case and watched the recent SC hearing. Do I fully understand it- probably not. My perhaps naive opinion is that technically and legally, she was probably in the wrong. Writing post-it notes at the kitchen table is one thing, but placing them on the plants in the grow room? Doesn't sound winnable to me, just my opinion....

[bobandtorey]

When growing only two plants? No offense, but this sounds like a "glass half empty" position to me. I'd rather be more proactive, follow the law, and prove it through my actions, etc.

 

I think too many of us grow/provide for ourselves/patients from a position of fear (of getting busted, etc.) I'm a firm believer that what I think/believe creates my reality. Therefore, I will not broadcast what I'm doing, but I will be prepared if LEO comes a'knocking.

Am sorry i didn't mean anything against you i just have to see if people can even have a jury here that i have a card then i will also grow well maybe but not likely 

[t-pain]

great, now apply the skepticism that you put on that case to your evidence that your patient needs 3oz and you see gregs' and my point.

[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.

Our smoke and mirrors are better than their smoke and mirrors, and our smoke is much, much better.

Edited February 8, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

When growing only two plants? No offense, but this sounds like a "glass half empty" position to me. I'd rather be more proactive, follow the law, and prove it through my actions, etc.

 

I think too many of us grow/provide for ourselves/patients from a position of fear (of getting busted, etc.) I'm a firm believer that what I think/believe creates my reality. Therefore, I will not broadcast what I'm doing, but I will be prepared if LEO comes a'knocking.

When the glass is half empty we get a smaller glass. When it is half full we get a smaller glass. Works every time.

[GregS]

I am aware of the case and watched the recent SC hearing. Do I fully understand it- probably not. My perhaps naive opinion is that technically and legally, she was probably in the wrong. Writing post-it notes at the kitchen table is one thing, but placing them on the plants in the grow room? Doesn't sound winnable to me, just my opinion....

Unless there is more to this than meets the eye, I see no reason she cannot and should not submit a pleading for a sec. 8 evidentiary hearing and prevail. She was almost certainly acting as caregiver to one or more of those people who had also designated her husband as their caregiver. Sec. 8 does not limit the number of caregivers a patient can have.

[Wild Bill]

Writing post-it notes at the kitchen table is one thing, but placing them on the plants in the grow room?

 

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

[GregS]

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.

Edited February 8, 2015 by GregS

[medmanmike]

Am sorry i didn't mean anything against you i just have to see if people can even have a jury here that i have a card then i will also grow well maybe but not likely

 

No offense taken. These are all great discussions. I learn something everyday. When I first started following the site, a lot didn't make sense to me. Through your and many others' efforts I beginning to get a better understanding of the issues.

 

I'm paying more attention to existing court cases, trying to listen and read between the lines of what our 'friends' in Lansing say/don't say and absorbing the knowledge you and others are sharing based on personal experience.

 

Reading between the lines of what you've posted, I'v gotten the idea you've had your own run in with LEO. Me too. A long time ago. Don't want that again.

[bobandtorey]

No offense taken. These are all great discussions. I learn something everyday. When I first started following the site, a lot didn't make sense to me. Through your and many others' efforts I beginning to get a better understanding of the issues.

 

I'm paying more attention to existing court cases, trying to listen and read between the lines of what our 'friends' in Lansing say/don't say and absorbing the knowledge you and others are sharing based on personal experience.

 

Reading between the lines of what you've posted, I'v gotten the idea you've had your own run in with LEO. Me too. A long time ago. Don't want that again.

Mine wasn't that long ago and is very hard to forget after 1.500 days of it

 

Iam glad you can read between the lines because thats what it takes 

 

Be safe and Peace to you and yours 

[GregS]

Written summaries and audio have been added to the court records.

 

http://courts.mi.gov...ges/148444.aspx

http://courts.mi.gov...ges/148971.aspx

http://courts.mi.gov...ges/149290.aspx

[+Malamute]

Ya messed up your links.

[GregS]

Well hell. Let's try these:

 

http://courts.mi.gov...ges/148444.aspx
http://courts.mi.gov...ges/148971.aspx
http://courts.mi.gov...ges/149290.aspx