Hartwick And Tuttle Ruling Published

[GregS]

why the flower did the supreme court say in k/k that sec8 was three prong and then come back here in tut/wick and say sec8 is six prong?

Because they're fuk/wits?

[jamieuke]

This discussion will continue tonight at the week's second broadcast of PGT- live at O'Mara's family restaurant in Berkley.

 

8-10 pm www.planetgreentrees.com or 347-326-9626

 

The whole conversation from last night- is now archived and can be listened to at any point. The information was great- the discussion helped to better understand the content of the- what I believe to be- confusing decision. The attorneys differed in interpretation in some instances.

 

We will recap and attempt to continue to clarify- as much as possible- what this ruling means.

[GregS]

The decision creates an unreasonable burden to produce evidence that they pulled out of their azzes.

Edited July 30, 2015 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

The decision creates an unreasonable burden to produce evidence that they pulled out of their azzes.

 

preponderance   i guess that  word may work but not in Oakland County in front of a Judge

[GregS]

Am I right in thinking that the decision has more clearly laid out that documents that attest to either patient or caregiver compliance with the requirements of sec. 8, to which the Court spoke in its comments regarding the admissibility of those documents under the rules of evidence is, in fact, making things much better for us? Did it take some discretion away from judges who would otherwise arbitrarily refuse to allow duly performed certifications or medical documentation, and force their hands to allow them? If that is the case, it is a win we can be glad of.

Edited August 12, 2015 by GregS

[t-pain]

They left it wide open to allow judges to deny evidence. Because they didn't rule on it.

 

On the alternative, judges can dismiss cases as well.

[Willy]

sounds to me like the old , baffle with bs if you can't dazzle with brilliance !   pretty poor for a supreme court  ruling.......

[GregS]

Footnote 77 speaks to the business records exemption (MRE 803.6) as an evidentiary rule, of which there are several, that permits, if not requires, that those documents be allowed hearsay. Further, there are hearsay documents that are allowable under other of those rules, one that permits self authenticating documents, and especially those that are notarized.

Edited August 12, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

While how it works in practice remains to be seen, I'd say the legal theory of creating enhanced documents and providing them to the court as permissible hearsay to prove one or more elements of the affirmative defense has been thoroughly vindicated by footnote 77. This is advice given long ago by several attorneys, and there are cases which will avail themselves of this type of documentation, so we will now have the opportunity to see its evidentiary value.

I take it then that you suggesting that these types of documents have been recognized by attorneys as a reasonable step, despite the insulting harangues from a number of bona fide idiots I found in laying them out here, saying that a) there is no such thing as an unregistered caregiver, and b) that those documents are useless and potentially harmful. 

 

Thank you.

Edited August 12, 2015 by GregS

[GregS]

They left it wide open to allow judges to deny evidence. Because they didn't rule on it.

 

On the alternative, judges can dismiss cases as well.

The point is that judges have allllways been given the latitude to allow or deny hearsay evidence, and many have outrightly refused on arbitrary whims rather than good jurisprudence to permit it. The SC has put them on notice that the courts are no longer going to be so readily allowed to capriciously deny it. 

Edited August 13, 2015 by GregS

[+Malamute]

 The SC has put them on notice that it is no longer going to be so readily allowed. 

 

That would be a very liberal interpretation of that in a state filled with conservative anti marijuana judges. Heh.

 

 It is still up to the judge.  If we had more 'friendly'ish' judges in Michigan, we would already be much happier with rulings and judicial enforcement. But unfortunately this is Michigan Judges who are vastly conservative anti marijuana leaning.  This same law in a more liberal state, such as Rhode Island, would already be being enforced and interpreted in a much different manner.

 

So as such,  advice to people should be based on what the Michigan judiciary actually is and will be for decades to come most likely.  

 

 Cautious and conservatively construed and understood, and liberally and expansively fought  in Court.

[GregS]

That would be a very liberal interpretation of that in a state filled with conservative anti marijuana judges. Heh.

 

 It is still up to the judge.  If we had more 'friendly'ish' judges in Michigan, we would already be much happier with rulings and judicial enforcement. But unfortunately this is Michigan Judges who are vastly conservative anti marijuana leaning.  This same law in a more liberal state, such as Rhode Island, would already be being enforced and interpreted in a much different manner.

 

So as such,  advice to people should be based on what the Michigan judiciary actually is and will be for decades to come most likely.  

 

 Cautious and conservatively construed and understood, and liberally and expansively fought  in Court.

Point taken, although I'll be damned before I let anyone diminish our continuing efforts to have the law liberally construed. This decision is an all around win for us. So we did not get the use of cards as prima facie evidence. What we did get is direction from the Court to have our medical records and pertinent legal documents more pointedly allowed beyond the limits of irresponsible judges.

[GregS]

The cards are prima facie evidence of some elements, just not all.

Do they confirm the bona fide requirement?

[t-pain]

no, zahra says a card does not prove bona fied relationship . although many here said 4f cements the bona-fied into the card, the msc did not rule it that way. read footnote 10.

 

0

A valid registry identification card is prima facie evidence that a physician has

determined the registered qualifying patient has a debilitating medical condition and will likely benefit from the medical use of marijuana to treat the debilitating medical

condition. In addition, a valid registry identification card issued after April 1, 2013, the

effective date of 2012 PA 512, is also prima facie evidence that a physician has

conducted a full, in-person assessment of the registered qualifying patient. We reach this

conclusion because § 6© requires the state to verify all the information contained in an

application for a registry identification card; therefore, a valid registry identification card

is prima facie evidence of anything contained in the application. This prima facie

evidence satisfies two elements of § 8(a)(1), but does not satisfy the last element

requiring prima facie evidence of a bona fide physician-patient relationship.

later on , the certification also does not prove bonafied.:

Additionally, the physician certification leaves unsatisfied

the first element of § 8(a)(1) (the existence of a bona fide physician-patient relationship).

the supreme court said your documents may help you gregs. as long as the judge allows it lol.

[+Malamute]

This decision is an all around win for us.

 

 

 I would not agree with that.  This is a painful decision that will stick for decades(most likely), and contains so many barbs to be pricked on.

[+Malamute]

Is it fair to say it is a little better for some things depending on the judge for Sec. 8,... but basically worse across the board for Sec. 4?

[+Malamute]

As in, immunity got eviscerated.

[GregS]

Functionally, immunity has been affirmed. We gained immediate dismissals based on immunity that were being pursued vigorously prior.

You do mean to say vigorously pursued by prosecutors?

[+Malamute]

Functionally, immunity has been affirmed. We gained immediate dismissals based on immunity that were being pursued vigorously prior.

 

 

Immunity from prosecution. Immunity from arrest seems to have leaks now.

[GregS]

Immunity from prosecution. Immunity from arrest seems to have leaks now.

IF anything has been lost under the registry, and I argue that it has not, it has been remedied by the clearer instruction to allow pertinent evidence under the AD, which I am not alone in thinking is the more powerful.

[GregS]

Immunity from prosecution. Immunity from arrest seems to have leaks now.

But for zap's indication that immunity cases that prosecutors were hot for were dropped you might be right.

[t-pain]

i'm not interested in whats better now or later. lets focus on today and the future, shall we?

 

i want a summary or flowchart or guide on whats needed today to establish sec4 or sec8.

 

i want someone to contact LARA head and get the new patient certification paper to include the wording of bona fide. anyone done it yet? also contact the governor, mail him the opinion with the page highlighted that says the supreme court instructs lara to fix this.

 

i want to know exactly what previous rulings this opinion supercedes. it looks like they overturned parts of mcqueen, k/k and others: or merely fleshed out those opinions in a way which i cannot merge together with this opinion.

 

what else...

[bobandtorey]

More confusing for growers and users if they do end up in a Court room 

[+Malamute]

This ruling justified search against any patient and caregiver.

[+Malamute]

Without search, there is no way to prove you are in compliance for immunity from arrest.

 

MM registration card

Drivers license or State ID

Plants within limits

Usable within limits

 

 

Explain how you gain immunity from arrest without proving the third and fourth elements?

 

 This ruling pretty much blows out the assumption.