Funding A Cancer Patient's Legal Fight

[bobandtorey]

 GM I totaly feel the same way, even after reading the accident report,(which was not easy) I had to donate something to this cancer pt, im not saying he was right, but there but the grace of god go I!

 

All I realy had to do was go back and read Dr.Bobs request and see this guys pic, his knees all messed up, sickly looking, I couldnt turn my back on him, at least he was not dealing or anything else, Ive had the sun blind me and Ive ran into the back of a young kids car and totaled it, his friends got his car out of the road like realy fast, they even swept m55 going thru houghton lake, a very busy road, we all got onto a parking lot and the kid called his mom, They didnt want the cops involved, I just wanted to exchange paper work and leave, I waited for his mom, she came to me and said he just got his liscense 2 weeks ago, and he would lose it if the po po's did an accident report, I asked even though it was totaly my fault? she said yes (she is right) my own son was right around the same age as this kid, man he balled, his car was a camaro or one of them unibody ones, I totaly demolished it lol!

 

long story short, I wound up givint the kid the cash he paid for the car, in hopes if this happened to my own kid some one would do the same, and I donated what I could to this sick pt in hopes some one will help me if I ever need it!

 

It doesnt mean I condone how or what happened, it only means I am human!

 

Peace

 

 

Thank you Jim

[GregS]

i knew a lady who fell asleep at the wheel due to her medications. she crashed and totalled her vehicle and the one she ran into (no one was hurt). but she didnt get a dui. maybe a failure to stop ticket?

 

knew another guy whos crashed several vehicles (not drunk/not mj) into things and walked away with no tickets. he did have to pay property damage though.

 

my other buddy who turned in front of a car, got t-boned, and the cop gave him a bunch of tickets! he drives without insurance btw. these people are out there, driving around. turning in front of you. be careful.

 

guess it just depends on the cop and what you say to them.

give yourself enough rope and you'll hang.

 

did the cop draw blood in this case due to smelling pot , or due to guy saying he smoked pot yesterday?

 

you can be impaired and not over the legal limit for alcohol.

you can be impaired 24hrs later after eating a medible. it happens.

 

posession is a moo poo charge.

the thing could be that they charge you with posession and oui, and you plead to posession only.

its a quick way to get a conviction. an easy way to scare most people, or people who dont have funds to defend themselves.

 

dont be too quick to call someone an impaired driver. you know exactly how prosecutors charge a bunch of bunny muffin and then get you to plead to a lesser charge. 'maintaining a drug house' 'intent to deliver' 'posession' ... oh if you plead to posession we'll drop the others... yeah, people take that deal every day in the usa. whos going to fight? $5k-$10,000 to fight? or a $600 posses ticket?

 

its why we need to get posession off the table. so prosecutors can focus on REAL CRIME and drop cases that have no merit.

This is breaking down to an impairment charge rather than one of possession. He was charged due to the totality of evidence. Causing an accident with cannabis in your car and admitting so smoking without a current certification while smelling like dope says he had a blatant disregard for public safety, which I think we can all agree is a pretty fukd up thing to do. He's fukd.

Edited April 20, 2014 by GregS

[ozzrokk]

This is breaking down to an impairment charge rather than one of possession. He was charged due to the totality of evidence. Causing an accident with cannabis in your car and admitting so smoking without a current certification while smelling like dope says he had a blatant disregard for public safety, which I think we can all agree is a pretty fukd up thing to do. He's fukd.

 

 

So are you saying that because he had thc in his system then he was impaired? Because he admitted to smoking the day before that he was impaired? That smelling like dope says he had a blatant disregard for public safety? Did I read all that correct?

 

 

Thank you Jim you show  your good side more and more everyday.

[bobandtorey]

Except as provided below, a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion,

 

So my Question is  would  possession be covered ?

 

Impairment charge is not ?

[Restorium2]

This is breaking down to an impairment charge rather than one of possession. He was charged due to the totality of evidence. Causing an accident with cannabis in your car and admitting so smoking without a current certification while smelling like dope says he had a blatant disregard for public safety, which I think we can all agree is a pretty fukd up thing to do. He's fukd.

That's exactly how the judge will see it. This guy is going to need money for fines, classes, and eventually a reinstatement fee if he can ever afford auto insurance again. If this donation attempt will help to cover that then you will be doing him some good. I've seen this first hand.

[trichcycler]

. If this donation attempt will help to cover that then you will be doing him some good. I've seen this first hand.

....if he learns valuable lessons from the experience....

 

 

 I don't know this man, or his past criminal/driving record, but that would be telling. If this man has a perfect record on the road the fact could go a long way in his defense, and support. If he has felonious drug charges and 4 other accidents caused by him, with maybe drugs/alcohol involved....well....

(apologies if I missed a post showing  his past driving record)

[GregS]

So are you saying that because he had thc in his system then he was impaired? Because he admitted to smoking the day before that he was impaired? That smelling like dope says he had a blatant disregard for public safety? Did I read all that correct?

 

 

Thank you Jim you show  your good side more and more everyday.

Reread the post plz. It is the totality, or in courtroom parlance preponderance, of the evidence that will likely prove impairment. The minute he decided to drive, unregistered with cannabis in his car, was his worst mistake. Do you not agree that causing an accident can be used in court with those other factors to prove impairment? Granted, we are waiting on the lab results, which will be telling if they are made available, and possibly more telling if they are not.

 

If we posit that he will be found impaired, he will not be permitted to use a sec. 8 defense. Sec. 7 negates that protection.

Edited April 23, 2014 by GregS

[phaquetoo]

 

Reread the post plz. It is the totality of the evidence that will likely prove impairment. The minute he decided to drive, unregistered with cannabis in his car, that was his worst mistake. Do you not agree that causing an accident can be used in court with those other factors to prove impairment? Granted, we are waiting on the lab results, which will be telling if they are made available, and possibly more telling if they are not.

 

If we posit that he will be found impaired, he will not be permitted to use a sec. 8 defense. Sec. 7 negates that protection.

 

I dont claim to be a big fighter for my mm rights! so I need to say this guy would prob do well to cop a plea that is acceptable to him, It will no doubt be cheaper than a big trial and attny fees!

If it were me I would no all of the details and I may cop a plea, but I would kick and scream all the way lol!

 

Just saying, he prob dont need the extra burden of a long trial that he may lose, I dont care if the donations are more than what he needed in the end, like said maybe it will help him to get thru this hard time he is having with his illness,,,,, sometimes we have to just accept responsibilty for our own actions, im hoping to help him get back on track,,,,,I guess my main concern is not the lil bit of mm they found, he did get into an accident, he hit the rear of another vehicle, it dont matter if people are drunk, drugged, or sober, if you run into the back of some ones vehicle it is your fault lol!

 

I hope a few will just help this fella! he is a pt in need! but I would also understand if you didnt want to help.

 

Peace

[t-pain]

an accident alone is not evidence to prove impairment. neither is a blood test.

 

impairment for mmj patients was covered in people v koon. i hope you guys go back and re-read that opinion.

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/12-13-Term-Opinions/145259%20Opinion.pdf

 

from people v koon:

When defendant was stopped for speeding, he informed the police officer that he
had a medical marijuana registry card and admitted that he had smoked marijuana five to six
hours earlier. A blood test showed that defendant had tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the
physiologically active component of marijuana, in his bloodstream when operating the vehicle.

 

 

Consequently, MCL 257.625(8) does not apply to the medical use of marijuana.

 

For example, Washington has set a legal limit for the blood concentration of THC at 5
ng/ml. See Wash Rev Code 46.61.502(1)(b). Notably, defendant’s THC level was 10
ng/ml.

 

so the cops still have to prove impairment. marijuana in the blood does not prove anything under the MMMA.

internal posession is still protected, even for unregistered patients.

 

also the 750.474 illegal / improper transport of usable marihuana does not apply to registered/unregistered patients due to it being inconsistent with the act.

Edited April 20, 2014 by t-pain

[GregS]

an accident alone is not evidence to prove impairment. neither is a blood test.

 

impairment for mmj patients was covered in people v koon. i hope you guys go back and re-read that opinion.

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/12-13-Term-Opinions/145259%20Opinion.pdf

 

from people v koon:

 

so the cops still have to prove impairment. marijuana in the blood does not prove anything under the MMMA.

internal posession is still protected, even for unregistered patients.

 

also the 750.474 illegal / improper transport of usable marihuana does not apply to registered/unregistered patients due to it being inconsistent with the act.

I understand. Experience with the law, however, is not encouraging. Preponderance of evidence can certainly be argued by a prosecutor and be very effective.

Edited June 7, 2014 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Excellent points Greg, Should we just cancel the fund and tell him to plead guilty?  Would that make you happy?  How have you contributed to his defense or offered any help?

 

Nice job, you would make a great prosecutor of MMJ cases...nothing gets by you.

 

And you wonder why it is not a good idea to put up too many details on the case.

 

I am still going to help him, anyone else want to as well?

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Excellent points Greg, Should we just cancel the fund and tell him to plead guilty?  Would that make you happy?  How have you contributed to his defense or offered any help?

 

Nice job, you would make a great prosecutor of MMJ cases...nothing gets by you.

 

And you wonder why it is not a good idea to put up too many details on the case.

 

I am still going to help him, anyone else want to as well?

 

Dr. Bob

This is not about what will make me happy. I am confident that his adroit legal counsel will maintain a fiduciary duty toward him given the facts of the case. The verdict will not be up to me. My conscience is clear.

 

I do not intend to contribute my money toward this unless it can be demonstrated that he is compliant with the law and was not impaired. I'm not convinced. Give it your best shot. Convince me.

[ozzrokk]

Greg I have reread the post and understand that you MAY be saying that is the way the judge may look at it but I took it as you were saying those things for  yourself. If i am wrong about that then forgive me. See some like to say that I believe that anyone breaking any law and has mj and an mj card then they should get away with it. That is pure nonsense..........  I do however believe that parts of the law should and can be used to protect against SOME THINGS.................... Not every case but surely not everyone is out of compliance.................. If some of you want to believe that leo or the courts would not willingly disregard this law then by all means have at it.............. That thinking is of no help to anyone including yourself........... Well it may be of some help to someone.......... Remember when the senate said that the MMJ community was behind those shameful ammendments that they passed?

[Dr. Bob]

This isn't about convincing folks of his innocence.  That is up to the defense lawyer.  It isn't about shooting holes in his case, that is the job of the prosecution.  It is about coming to the aid of a patient.  A deserving, crippled, elderly cancer patient that ended up in court because he made some mistakes- specifically he allowed his card to expire the week before and admitted he used his cannabis the previous day.  He had the misfortune to come to the attention of the police because he was involved in a minor accident.

 

If people don't want to help this patient, so be it.  But don't attack the patient, or me, or post crap on the funding page designed to discourage others from helping.  When it comes to an old man with cancer, keep your thoughts to yourself if you don't support it.  Your points as to why folks shouldn't help have been made.  Now shut the h ell up and let folks help the guy.  

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS fund is at 380.00 keep up the good work and Happy Easter everyone.

[in vivo]

I think a solid argument can be made as to the accuracy of such testing. Here's an example:

 

 

5. Conclusions

An accurate predictive model to determine the time of last exposure to cannabis or THC is important in clinical, workplace, and forensic contexts, although the degree of accuracy needed may vary with the context. For example, in a drug abuse treatment setting, a positive test may trigger significant consequences, regardless of the time of last exposure, whereas accuracy to within minutes may be important in the context of an accident or crime. These data reaffirm our recent research (Karschner et al., 2009a; 2009b) documenting that low concentrations of THC in whole blood and plasma do not necessarily indicate recent THC exposure. Although plasma and whole blood concentrations and WB/P data predicted time of last THC exposure with acceptable accuracy after single and during multiple oral THC doses, the models were inaccurate during extended abstinence due to residual THC and THCCOOH concentrations. These data document under controlled conditions that predictive models for the estimation of time of last THC exposure are not applicable to individuals consuming oral THC on a daily basis.

 

http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3461265/reload=0;jsessionid=Q8aGZ3Gbqt08jIzK9Dk6.20

 

 

Cannabis smoking history plays a major role in cannabinoid detection. These differences may impact clinical and impaired driving drug detection.

 

http://www.clinchem.org/content/60/4/631.short

Edited April 21, 2014 by in vivo

[GregS]

This isn't about convincing folks of his innocence.  That is up to the defense lawyer.  It isn't about shooting holes in his case, that is the job of the prosecution.  It is about coming to the aid of a patient.  A deserving, crippled, elderly cancer patient that ended up in court because he made some mistakes- specifically he allowed his card to expire the week before and admitted he used his cannabis the previous day.  He had the misfortune to come to the attention of the police because he was involved in a minor accident.

 

If people don't want to help this patient, so be it.  But don't attack the patient, or me, or post crap on the funding page designed to discourage others from helping.  When it comes to an old man with cancer, keep your thoughts to yourself if you don't support it.  Your points as to why folks shouldn't help have been made.  Now shut the h ell up and let folks help the guy.  

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS fund is at 380.00 keep up the good work and Happy Easter everyone.

Hey. You asked. When it comes to you digging in our wallets, you had better bet we are going to seriously consider all angles.

 

You made your bed. Now sleep in it.

Edited April 21, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

Greg I have reread the post and understand that you MAY be saying that is the way the judge may look at it but I took it as you were saying those things for  yourself. If i am wrong about that then forgive me. See some like to say that I believe that anyone breaking any law and has mj and an mj card then they should get away with it. That is pure nonsense..........  I do however believe that parts of the law should and can be used to protect against SOME THINGS.................... Not every case but surely not everyone is out of compliance.................. If some of you want to believe that leo or the courts would not willingly disregard this law then by all means have at it.............. That thinking is of no help to anyone including yourself........... Well it may be of some help to someone.......... Remember when the senate said that the MMJ community was behind those shameful ammendments that they passed?

Given what I know of the law, to include classroom training and experience, it is my opinion that those factors will play much like I've described. If it happens otherwise I will be pleased and surprised.

[ozzrokk]

I agree with Dr. Bob on this................ Help the guy or don't but do not try to prosecute him. He is one of us whether you like it or not.

[ozzrokk]

Given what I know of the law, to include classroom training and experience, it is my opinion that those factors will play much like I've described. If it happens otherwise I will be pleased and surprised.

 

 

That is all I need to hear................. We have enough enemies lets not be each others............. If ya know what I mean.........

 

Edited to add that even if it does play out that way does not mean it is right................. Remember you do not want them establishing that just because it is in your system then you are impaired period. Trust me on that none of us want that. That is zero tolerance and I know for a fact that you Greg do not agree with that. Bottom line is if they can PROVE impairment then that is one thing and if they CANNOT PROVE IMPAIRMENT then that is another.

Edited April 21, 2014 by ozzrokk

[Hayduke]

So for GregS the real consideration is NOT the plight of this poor soul, but rather, attacking Dr. Bob and his credibility.... as evidenced by GregS's awesome legal skills.  Hey GregS, where did you attend law school.

 

More importantly:  If you do not wish to donate, so be it.  But how about shutting the f**k up so that you are not clouding the water.  Your hate of Dr. Bob seems more the root of your conclusions than anything else, and that fact alone really turns me off to your high handed bull pucky.

 

Bitter dude does not come across so well.  Perhaps it is time for you to turn the corner on your hateful ways....

 

It shows....

[GregS]

So for GregS the real consideration is NOT the plight of this poor soul, but rather, attacking Dr. Bob and his credibility.... as evidenced by GregS's awesome legal skills.  Hey GregS, where did you attend law school.

 

More importantly:  If you do not wish to donate, so be it.  But how about shutting the f**k up so that you are not clouding the water.  Your hate of Dr. Bob seems more the root of your conclusions than anything else, and that fact alone really turns me off to your high handed bull pucky.

 

Bitter dude does not come across so well.  Perhaps it is time for you to turn the corner on your hateful ways....

 

It shows....

Whatever.

 

Has CPU been engaged in the Judiciary Committee conversation regarding iimpairment?

 

I've taken tort and criminal law courses in community college. Texts and resources came from Westlaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlaw). I've kept some. The same with paralegal studies, though the text was published for and by a widely recognized paralegal association. I read a lot. I'm a geek who likes to read legal documents. Experience in Federal District Court and County District and Circuit Court in both tort and criminal cases and in government agency administrative litigation hearings fleshes it out nicely.

 

You could not be more correct in that I know Bob to be a fool and a liar. Would I support a debilitated old guy with my money who drives with open intoxicants in the auto, who smells of alcohol, admits to consuming it, and causes an accident on roadways that we use? Don't bet on it.

Edited April 24, 2014 by GregS

[+Malamute]

Blah Blah.

 

CPU has been involved in stopping and opposing such changes in law for years now.

 

If people don't want to give money to this persons defense, than don't.

 

But for frick sakes, let this person present a defense as he and his attorney chooses which hopefully affords this person a chance to walk away or minimize any damages resulting from the charges he is facing.

 

I mean, back when all marijuana was illegal, didn't we all wish the best for our friends(ourselves) to get off any marijuana charge if they could?

 

 I only hope no one was injured in the accident.

[phaquetoo]

I read no one was injured!

 

Peace

[Dr. Bob]

It is in our best interest that he get a good defense and a day in court.  I don't think a community college jailhouse lawyer has any place giving legal opinions.  I think we should leave that to folks that really went the extra mile and went to law school to understand the interplay of the laws in this case (just to clear things up, Section 8 has nothing to do with it, but might come up).

 

I don't need to justify myself, I've been wrong and admitted it on some things, but for the most part I've been right on the money with everything I've ever posted.  I also don't post without thinking and have the background to think through things well.  

 

Let's also remember this has nothing to do with me, my opinions, or personality.  I simply put up a fund for a deserving patient.  I think this whole discussion has defined the participants well.  Actions speak, and so do attitudes.  I'm glad to see many other members of the board not only see the need to help this patient, but who is the problem here has been clearly defined by themselves.  How long the board will tolerate the disruptions is up to the administrators.  Quite frankly, I am surprised they are still allowing him to participate in discussions, but sometimes a bad example is helpful to better define the problem, as it has been here.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited April 21, 2014 by Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Let's see. A self proclaimed authority on the law with NO legal training is calling me out. Silly that.