People Vs Vanderbutts

[Timmahh]

I received this email from Eric VanDuessen in regards to People Vs. Vanderbutts. This is in regards to the CoA ruling in the case.

 

I just realized that the Court of Appeals issued an opinion in this case last month. (See attached PDF) Here's a notable quote from the opinion: "In Redden, this Court determined that “ecause of the differing levels of protection in §§ 4 and 8, the plain language of the [MMMA] establishes that § 8 is applicable for a patient who does not satisfy § 4.” Redden, 290 Mich App at 79-81. In other words, according to Redden, as long as the three requirements of section 8 are satisfied, a person can assert a section 8 affirmative defense, whether or not that person is in possession of a valid registry identification card at the time of the offense." (See page 2 - you can also find the opinion at: http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20111213_c299347_51_299347.opn.pdf )

 

People v Vanderbutts' COA oral arguments can be viewed at:

- The defendant in this MI Court of Appeals case argued that he was unjustly denied his right to present at trial the affirmative defense provisions of Michigan's Medical Marijuana Act. These oral arguments were heard in Grand Rapids, MI on November 8, 2011.

 

--

Eric L. VanDussen - Assistant to:

Attorney Jesse L. Williams, PLLC

125 Park Street - Suite 100

Traverse City, MI 49684

(231) 651-9189

http://vimeo.com/user1676477/videos

 

Thanx for the info Eric. Keep me informed on as much as you can, and i'll see it gets out. Barring a JackBoot Visit.

[Croppled1]

Mr Vanderbutts is non apoligetically pro medical cannabis . He was unjustly convicted , sentanced and required to pay the price yet he fights on for others like many accused . Thank you to every patient participating on the program who share the belief people suffering in need of medical cannabis should never have to worry about criminality .

 

 

 

On a seperate note I did not start out believing our drug laws based in criminality are wrong but I do believe it now . Though a seperate issue drug use at a personal level is a medical issue that should be decriminalized to open up earlier access to help with problems , voluntary maintenence , and detox programs should be subsidized and offered whenever possible to get people out of the manipulative unsafe confines of the black markets . It is more effective and much safer then jail . Law enforcement should only be able to write a civil infraction that requires a simple conferance and education class then its up to the person to avail themselves of help when their ready and want what is offered . I am tired of watching addicts die who are great persons who either made a mistake or were trapped into a situation due to mental or physical health forcing self medication because of zero tolerance detoxes that are so uncomfortable resulting in rebound . Everyone is somebodies child born of the Creator . I apologize if this offends anyone being brought up on the medical cannabis site but its a view that many need to at least consider as they meet discrimination and hatred for their medical use for the first time . Our votes do count only we can change America and Michigan .

[bobandtorey]

I received this email from Eric VanDuessen in regards to People Vs. Vanderbutts. This is in regards to the CoA ruling in the case.

 

 

 

Thanx for the info Eric. Keep me informed on as much as you can, and i'll see it gets out. Barring a JackBoot Visit.

 

 

WHAT??? is this what i thnk it is are we to be FREE???

[Timmahh]

this was from Nov 11th, in the People Vs Vanderbutts case. where it appears the CoA, made referance to your case they ruled upon earlier, to apply that ruling as to how it effects the Vanderbutts case.

 

I have only just started to look into what this actually says, but the end result, is i believe the CoA only made referance to your case, to vindicate how they are ruling in the Vanderbutt case. I do not know if or how it would imply to your case or rulings thus far.

 

In leiu of making faster disclosure of the video Eric VanD has been getting, im trying to post them up to get that info out asap.

[bobandtorey]

What? he did not have a Rec?

[Timmahh]

i havent read the full conclusion yet. just the excerpt pointed out in the email, where they referenced thier decision in your case, stating they make no decision in the Vanderbutts case, in lieu of their ruling in your case. Thats all i have so far.

[bobandtorey]

i do know Mr Vanderbutts i met him in Lansing he is also on my face book page i don't think he had his Rec but can't remember for sure and it's late now so i will read it again tomorrow

[bobandtorey]

i do know Mr Vanderbutts i met him in Lansing he is also on my face book page i don't think he had his Rec but can't remember for sure and it's late now so i will read it again tomorrow

 

 

i have watched the video and he had his Rec: but had 17.5 oz on hand not sure how many plants

[semicaregiver]

As I read the COA opinion, Vanderbutts had his card and COA agreed he would have been eligible for sec 8 defense if he had not testified that he had the 17.5 oz because he was anticipating becoming a c.g. The COA indicated that sec 8 allows for more than 4, i.e. uninterrupted supply, however Vanderbutts appears to have said the quantity was "not" for an uninterrupted supply, but in anticipation of becoming a c.g.

 

Seems like the COA was a good decision for patients in that it allows for use of the sec. 8 defense even if you have a card. The key seems to be keeping your mouth shut and retaining a mmj experienced attorney.

[bobandtorey]

As I read the COA opinion, Vanderbutts had his card and COA agreed he would have been eligible for sec 8 defense if he had not testified that he had the 17.5 oz because he was anticipating becoming a c.g. The COA indicated that sec 8 allows for more than 4, i.e. uninterrupted supply, however Vanderbutts appears to have said the quantity was "not" for an uninterrupted supply, but in anticipation of becoming a c.g.

 

Seems like the COA was a good decision for patients in that it allows for use of the sec. 8 defense even if you have a card. The key seems to be keeping your mouth shut and retaining a mmj experienced attorney.

 

i agree

don't talk to the police

[BirdHunter]

Vanderbutts had one small "good" item: The COA cited and affirmed Redden where a patient can use a section 8 defense without meeting the requirements of section 4. (Enclosed, locked facility, 2.5 oz, 12 plants....)

 

HOWEVER, and this is a big, big, big however, it further ruled that if a JUDGE (not the jury) decides that the requirements in section 8 are not met, the jury does not get to hear about the section 8. Meaning nothing to do with Medical Marijuana will be allowed.

 

In this particular case, the judge decided that Mr. Vanderbutts did not meet the requirements for a section 8 defense because a) he did not have a bona fied physician/patient relationship and b) the amount of marijuana he had was not reasonable for a personal supply.

[BirdHunter]

Again, I'm wondering if a possible strategy is to NOT make a motion to dismiss based on a section 8 and avoid the possibility of the judge barring testimony about a medical defense in front of a jury.

 

So far people either

 

a) were granted immunity by police or prosecutor based on section 4

 

b) had charges dismissed by a judge in an evidentary hearing based on section 8.

 

or

 

c) lost the section 8 hearing and had all mention of medical marijuana banned from trial.

[bobandtorey]

Again, I'm wondering if a possible strategy is to NOT make a motion to dismiss based on a section 8 and avoid the possibility of the judge barring testimony about a medical defense in front of a jury.

 

So far people either

 

a) were granted immunity by police or prosecutor based on section 4 that one i only know 1 person that it this happen and you can look him up as john or ( Trix's) i will look

 

b) had charges dismissed by a judge in an evidently hearing based on section 8. this one is us BobandTorey we were the first to use it and it worked

 

or

 

c) lost the section 8 hearing and had all mention of medical marijuana banned from trial. this is also us

 

those are the million dollars Questions that you are asking and you will not find them out here sorry( if they are Legal ones you are looking for)

[Timmahh]

i would think its a reasonable stratagy. but again, it would with it imply the section 8 defense, is a single chance defense allowed to someone caught during the commision of a crime. Not what it is, which is a right to not be prosecuted for any cannabis offense, so long as you can prove that to a judge or jury, which ever you choose. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL, and that right may be waived if you choose to do so. at any point, you have the right to use a sec 8, even if you have a registration card, you can assert your section 8 defense any time you need.

Now if you waive your right to a jury trial, then you must present the section 8 to a judge, and he must then decide if it you meet the section 8, or do not.

Now her is where I dont understand why someone would choose to waive their right to a trial by their peers. As it seems almost enevidable that you will be making the choice of a trail by jury or by judge, unless you cop a plea...

 

But the Sec 8 is designed to eliminate wasteful spending on un necessary trials. SO its was intended to allow those without cards a way to prove medical use, and those with cards a way to prove reasonable medical use, when they may of been over and been arrested for it. say in the situation of an 8 lb tray of medicated brownies, that only contains 28 grams of cannabis or reduction there of.

 

their Is no crime, because we passed the Act in '08, and the question at hand, the section 8 defense, was implemented with the Act we passed, which takes precedent over other state statutes in the terms of Cannabis and whether is is medical use or not, which is where they (AG and crew, ect..) are missing the point, they are using yesterdays standard and trying to use it to run over todays law.

 

 

Problem is, the AG and the Prosecution Crew, is working the state over on this idea that the Sec 8 is only a one time offer, and ONLY for those that qualify for section 4, but are still being prosecuted. If you meet Section 4, then you have a registration card, or proof of it in your paperwork, and as long as your within the limits of the Act, you again get Case Dismissed. So how you can even go to Section 8, as the AG and the Prosecution Crew states, would mean that even though you were all good in section 4, and you SHOULD HAVE ALL Charges dropped, your still being prosecuted, so that is when you can use Sec 8. Umm Sorry AGBill and the Prosecution Crew, If you are good in 4, you off being charged, so you would have no need for 8.

 

Fact it, Section 8 is a Protecion Statute of the Act, Designed simply to be used by anyone, at any time, to assert their right to PROVE Medical Use of Cannabis. And If that use is indeed termed to be medical in nature, case dismissed. Game Over. It was put into the Act to purposely stop the viscious attacks that AG Bill and the Prosecution Crew, along with Oakland, Gladwin, GR, and most every other county that has been perpitrating these attacks on the sick and ill citizens of Michigan, for choosing to follow a low passed by the will of the people..... and these attacks are being made all in the name of Herr William Schuette. Zieg Heil Der Furer.

[bobandtorey]

i would think its a reasonable stratagy. but again, it would with it imply the section 8 defense, is a single chance defense allowed to someone caught during the commision of a crime. Not what it is, which is a right to not be prosecuted for any cannabis offense, so long as you can prove that to a judge or jury, which ever you choose. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL, and that right may be waived if you choose to do so. at any point, you have the right to use a sec 8, even if you have a registration card, you can assert your section 8 defense any time you need.

Now if you waive your right to a jury trial, then you must present the section 8 to a judge, and he must then decide if it you meet the section 8, or do not.

Now her is where I dont understand why someone would choose to waive their right to a trial by their peers. As it seems almost enevidable that you will be making the choice of a trail by jury or by judge, unless you cop a plea...

 

But the Sec 8 is designed to eliminate wasteful spending on un necessary trials. SO its was intended to allow those without cards a way to prove medical use, and those with cards a way to prove reasonable medical use, when they may of been over and been arrested for it. say in the situation of an 8 lb tray of medicated brownies, that only contains 28 grams of cannabis or reduction there of.

 

their Is no crime, because we passed the Act in '08, and the question at hand, the section 8 defense, was implemented with the Act we passed, which takes precedent over other state statutes in the terms of Cannabis and whether is is medical use or not, which is where they (AG and crew, ect..) are missing the point, they are using yesterdays standard and trying to use it to run over todays law.

 

 

Problem is, the AG and the Prosecution Crew, is working the state over on this idea that the Sec 8 is only a one time offer, and ONLY for those that qualify for section 4, but are still being prosecuted. If you meet Section 4, then you have a registration card, or proof of it in your paperwork, and as long as your within the limits of the Act, you again get Case Dismissed. So how you can even go to Section 8, as the AG and the Prosecution Crew states, would mean that even though you were all good in section 4, and you SHOULD HAVE ALL Charges dropped, your still being prosecuted, so that is when you can use Sec 8. Umm Sorry AGBill and the Prosecution Crew, If you are good in 4, you off being charged, so you would have no need for 8.

 

Fact it, Section 8 is a Protecion Statute of the Act, Designed simply to be used by anyone, at any time, to assert their right to PROVE Medical Use of Cannabis. And If that use is indeed termed to be medical in nature, case dismissed. Game Over. It was put into the Act to purposely stop the viscious attacks that AG Bill and the Prosecution Crew, along with Oakland, Gladwin, GR, and most every other county that has been perpitrating these attacks on the sick and ill citizens of Michigan, for choosing to follow a low passed by the will of the people..... and these attacks are being made all in the name of Herr William Schuette. Zieg Heil Der Furer.

 

i could of not said it better thank you