Hartwick And Tuttle Ruling Published

[+Malamute]

We're supposed to trust your judgment? Funny that.

 

As if yours is any better?

 

[GregS]

Special Wednesday night edition of Planet Green Trees Radio! 8-9:30pm July 29

 

A very important decision was released by the Michigan Supreme Court concerning medical marijuana laws.

 

What does it mean?

 

We will discuss the ruling and it's possible implications with some of Michigan's most experienced and knowledgeable legal experts.

 

www.planetgreentrees.com

I was unable to find an option to log in to the live broadcast at that url. How does one do that? Only the archived broadcasts are readily available.

Edited July 29, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

^^^ I am encouraged by the Court's statement that caregivers need not know the patient's conditions, names of physicians, and amount needed. There is some vindication in that.

 

The court said that if a caregiver has one transfer to anyone who is not totally qualified in every way, including how they used the cannabis, their whole business with cannabis is illegal(with all their patients). For this reason I think I would want to know just about everything about a patient's condition before I became their caregiver.

 

For a lot of us the court's ruling didn't change a thing. The doctors I use were already complying. No fuzzy area transfers pretending they are legal. Know the difference between legal and illegal, keep them separated.

I don't think that is entirely right. Per the ruling, non compliant conduct pertaining to one charge can negate otherwise compliant conduct in another charge if there is a nexus between the compliant and non compliant conduct. We have to talk about what that nexus looks like. Any thoughts? Without said nexus non compliant conduct regarding one charge does not taint another.

 

As for knowing everything you need to know as a caregiver, the supplemental documents are intended to help provide that as long as they are properly executed. Had these guys had them between themselves and all of the people they sold to, the documents would be the required allowable hearsay evidence (per footnote 77) needed to prove the required sec. 8 elements. Now Tuttle is in a world of hurt and Hartwick is still in the grinder pending his ability to establish that he was compliant in the number of plants in his possession under sec. 4. Hartwick says 71. Detective Ferguson says 77. If the trial court finds that he was out of compliance he will be gigged for having five plants too many, and a sec.8 defense has already been ruled out because of the obviously wrong headed ruling and bad law that says the written certification necessary to obtain a card does not prove he necessary sec. 8 elements, subsequently the card is useless.. Could he have justified 77 plants under the AD? I think so. Can he prove the police statement of 77 wrong in the remanded sec. 4 hearing? We'll see. If not for this:https://m.facebook.com/notes/neil-rockind-pc-the-law-firm/neil-rockind-comments-on-a-lying-oakland-county-detective-and-the-havoc-he-creat/10151647113192298/ he'd be almost certainly screwed. He is not out of the woods. What we have is a perfect example of the need for supplemental protection in addition to registration and that sec. 8 does not work if someone colors a little outside the lines of sec. 4 compliance using a card or written state certification as evidence.

Edited August 12, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

this is why I suggest people only sell to their registered five patients

Please note that Hartwick did just that. He is nonetheless in harm's way for an alleged minor infraction of sec. 4 and with no recourse to sec. 8.

Edited July 29, 2015 by GregS

[trichcycler]

 ......and stay within plant limits described in the Act ?

[GregS]

As if yours is any better?

 

So Bob does not think that supplemental documentation is in our best interest. How is that reasonable, especially in light of this ruling? There is so much more. For instance his earlier comment here that we should not grow marijuana for any reason. Do you go along with that?

 

 ......and stay within plant limits described in the Act ?

Yep. But that is not the only thing that might go wrong. For instance overlooking a card expiration before a patient acquires a new one. There are a number of real world things that can get screwed up.

Edited July 29, 2015 by GregS

[t-pain]

I was unable to find an option to log in to the live broadcast at that url. How does one do that? Only the archived broadcasts are readily available.

the live show only pops up near 8pm

[trichcycler]

 

 

Yep. But that is not the only thing that might go wrong. For instance overlooking a card expiration before a patient acquires a new one. There are a number of real world things that can get screwed up.

 

That is a very real scenario. I think its nuts that my cg card may say I am registered to assist a patient while his card is expired. just nuts!

 

I use an app to warn me of upcoming xpiry dates, both my card and their patient cards. it alerts me a month ahead of time. I've replaced 4+ patients in my early registry for this very reason. I'd expect lara to have a remedy for this, like let cg's know when a patient xpires ??? seems reasonable.   wonder how that would work out in court....?

[bobandtorey]

I also missed the Show i think it's my first time in over 5 years i missed a show i couldn't fine it eater 

 

Thanks 

[bobandtorey]

That is a very real scenario. I think its nuts that my cg card may say I am registered to assist a patient while his card is expired. just nuts!

 

I use an app to warn me of upcoming xpiry dates, both my card and their patient cards. it alerts me a month ahead of time. I've replaced 4+ patients in my early registry for this very reason. I'd expect lara to have a remedy for this, like let cg's know when a patient xpires ??? seems reasonable.   wonder how that would work out in court....?

If you live in Oakland County it won't work in Court nothing seams to work in this County 

[trichcycler]

I'm betting a cg defending his role with his legit card is not sufficient when selling mj to an expired patient, in any court.  we're supposed to "know" our patients better, and cant use the ignorance card on this one I think.  has it happened yet?

[Restorium2]

I'm betting a cg defending his role with his legit card is not sufficient when selling mj to an expired patient, in any court.  we're supposed to "know" our patients better, and cant use the ignorance card on this one I think.  has it happened yet?

A lot of people have been getting busted with expired cards. None of them have gotten to use a medical defense. 

[GregS]

the live show only pops up near 8pm

I was on from 7:50 to about 8:30.

[GregS]

duplicate

Edited July 29, 2015 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

A lot of people have been getting busted with expired cards. None of them have gotten to use a medical defense. 

 

 

Thanks

 

i haven't seen any one use a medical defense in all the court case's i'v been to   None. ... mostly  Oakland County case's 

[t-pain]

I was on from 7:50 to about 8:30.

what day? last thursday?

today is wednesday. theres a show tonight at a special time.

[Restorium2]

Thanks

 

i haven't seen any one use a medical defense in all the court case's i'v been to   None. ... mostly  Oakland County case's 

A lot of people with cards use a medical defense to get their case dismissed. Most all win if they are in full compliance with the Act as the courts define it. You just don't hear about the winners because they just move on with their lives. Some folks have to plea out because they are in such a position of legal weakness to begin with.  

[bobandtorey]

The last person that told me he won his case i ask him how much did it cost he said 8-10 grand i said that does not seam like a win to me 

[Restorium2]

The last person that told me he won his case i ask him how much did it cost he said 8-10 grand i said that does not seam like a win to me 

Most people in compliance with The Act as the courts have defined it can get off with small attorney fees, or none.

 

You focus on the bad way too much Bob. 

[bobandtorey]

Most people in compliance with The Act as the courts have defined it can get off with small attorney fees, or none.

 

You focus on the bad way too much Bob. 

 

You focus on the bad way too much Bob. 

 

I know i do but i can't get over what they did to us i am sorry i do try to stay Pos+ it gets harder as time goes by that is what PTSD does to people and the ones that have never been to a court room to see it for them selfs just don't understand it 

 

I was at the posted note ladies case yesterday and i watched the Judge put people away all morning long i only knew the posted note lady i didn't know anyone else i just wished they would have come here first i just think they would of knew what not to do i am only trying to help the best i can 

 

i am sorry i will leave this site for a few days maybe that will help me and to take a break 

[Restorium2]

You focus on the bad way too much Bob. 

 

I know i do but i can't get over what they did to us i am sorry i do try to stay Pos+ it gets harder as time goes by that is what PTSD does to people and the ones that have never been to a court room to see it for them selfs just don't understand it 

 

I was at the posted note ladies case yesterday and i watched the Judge put people away all morning long i only knew the posted note lady i didn't know anyone else i just wished they would have come here first i just think they would of knew what not to do i am only trying to help the best i can 

 

i am sorry i will leave this site for a few days maybe that will help me and to take a break 

You do fine but you need to keep what happened to you in context for other patients. Some days, if folks believe you, they would toss their card in the trash and hide. That's just as bad as what law enforcement and judges do to discourage patients. Sometimes people just need a road map, not a horror story. Sometimes they need a horror story told in context. The Act has helped a lot more people than it has hurt and it's FAR from useless.

[GregS]

what day? last thursday?

today is wednesday. theres a show tonight at a special time.

(slaps forehead) No. Last night. I have not been well, and my head was not working right. I'll listen tonight.

Edited July 29, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

Sec. 4 does not require a bona fide relationship, whereas sec. 8 does. That is obviously behind the Court's opinion. The legislature screwed us when it changed the definition of bona fide. It is a construct found in law, philosophy, and pointedly in Kantian ethics and, in simplest terms, means good faith. It cannot be arbitrarily defined in, um, good faith, but that is just what our elected idiots did, engaging in duplicitous and pretentious misfeasance. My arguments to the Judiciary Committee during that fiasco and against establishing a narrowly defined take on it were just that. For that reason we need evidence other than that which satisfies sec. 4 and supports us under section 8 should that need arise. Personal and expert testimony is the other option, and that is not without its problems. We are painfully aware that many physicians refuse to testify, and counting on patients to is a mistake. I think we need to get word out to physicians, and certainly to patients, that at the very least a separate document must be generated by the treating physician that spells out that a bona fide exam has taken place. The court literally spells out the need for this in the decision, even to the point of telling us one of the rules of evidence they can be included under. There are others that are not mentioned.

 

Possession issues have not been well defined in sec. 8, and the Court makes some noise that it can be an issue.

Edited July 29, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

Perhaps we should ask LARA to change the certification form to state to the effect that a the bona fide requirement has been met with in our transactions with our certifying physicians. That would make things simpler by adding seven words to the form, viz., "in a bona fide doctor patient relationship," If that is done cards will become prima facie evidence required to meet the required elements.

Edited July 29, 2015 by GregS

[+Malamute]

Sec. 4 does not require a bona fide relationship, whereas sec. 8 does.

 

 Of course Sec. 4 requires a bona fide relationship.  LARA determines it before issuing a card.

 

 

 The legislature screwed us when it changed the definition of bona fide. It is a construct found in law, philosophy, and pointedly in Kantian ethics and, in simplest terms, means good faith. It cannot be arbitrarily defined in, um, good faith, but that is just what our elected idiots did, engaging in duplicitous and pretentious misfeasance. My arguments to the Judiciary Committee during that fiasco and against establishing a narrowly defined take on it were just that. For that reason we need evidence other than that which satisfies sec. 4 and supports us under section 8 should that need arise.

 

 

 The legislature actually liberalized the definition of bona fide relationship from what LARA had approved.  LARA required a lot of absurd requirements that were nullified with the legislatures definition. 

 

 Also,... did you actually testify on bona fide relationship back then in the judiciary committee?  Or was it just in your head?  I do remember you testifying once I think, I just do not remember the bona fide argument you are suggesting?  It has been awhile. :-)

 

 

 Personal and expert testimony is the other option, and that is not without its problems. We are painfully aware that many physicians refuse to testify, and counting on patients to is a mistake. I think we need to get word out to physicians, and certainly to patients, that at the very least a separate document must be generated by the treating physician that spells out that a bona fide exam has taken place. The court literally spells out the need for this in the decision, even to the point of telling us one of the rules of evidence they can be included under. There are others that are not mentioned.

 

 

 I only know of one physician who thoroughly covers their bases for Sec. 8 defenses and testifies regularly in court for patients under his care.  He has routinely created the extra documents and all facets needed for Sec. 8 defenses dealing with the physician for a long time; well before this current decision because he understood the need to do so.

 

As I recall, you have given him endless crapp for it and I guess he was proven correct in the long run.  Go figure.

 

Greg wrong again about the law.