Jame's Story

[t-pain]

if you can tell me how anything in the first post goes against the 3 prongs of section 8, i'll take back my advice.

[SirLongSmoke]

I do agree with not taking a plea. I let my lawyer Dan Grow know that taking a plea was out of the question before he met with the prosecuting attorney.

[Herb Cannabis]

I do agree with not taking a plea. I let my lawyer Dan Grow know that taking a plea was out of the question before he met with the prosecuting attorney.

 

Good for you!  Stick to your guns.

[MiMedical]

There is a lot of people going through identical situations, I will not take a plea, I have spent way to much money to the state of michigan to legally use cannabis, the more people that refuse plea deals that are "legally allowed" the use of cannabis the more the system gets back logged, my court date has been postponed 4 times now and almost 2 years into it... It's b/s, I know.. You keep your head up and don't back up, we can do this!

[GregS]

My thoughts are that it is best to first file your sec. 8 motion and have that heard before you decide whether to plead as long as the elements in the case can be reasonably said to be covered by that law. Get it filed asap to get down to it as time and cost efficiently as possible. Delays will cost you. Some may be come up unexpectedly if and when the prosecution does not play along well. It may be possible to negotiate a dismissal recommendation with the prosecutor. It has happened. A reasonable one will look at the facts in your case, and if they are up to speed with that sec. they may opt to do just that. Hell. Kingpinn's enclosed locked facility proved adequate, and it was not secured to the ground. 

Edited July 25, 2014 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Glad to hear you are with Dan.  There are a number of good attorneys and he is part of that group. 

 

As for the top, look at my post again, and some of those that followed (i.e. Highlander).  Intent was to enclose and restrict access, which pretty clearly implied a top as part of the cube and specifically exclude another side of the 6 walled cube (the bottom).  But the INTENT was to 'block access to the plants'.  You might well have to prove the top wasn't necessary because the walls were high enough to remove the need for a top.

 

Dan will sort it out and give you good advice based on the law, the mood of the court, and your ability (time, emotional and financial) to fight for the point.  Listen to him and give him a little wiggle room.  Remember that sometimes a very good outcome is much easier to obtain than a perfect outcome.

 

Dr. Bob

[SirLongSmoke]

Thanks Dr. Bob. Will keep in mind.

 

 

Will be at the cannabis cup tomorrow. Even though I'm sure I will indulge some; the true intent is to gain support for my case. I will have a yellow highlighted color shirt with sirlongsmoke on the front. Please stop and visit if you see me. Thanks!!

Edited July 26, 2014 by SirLongSmoke

[SirLongSmoke]

The inconsistency of the law was very much displayed. Total grey without black and white definition, consumed the situation. So Unprofessional leaving a plant still growing in the ground. Who would of known that I would be sitting in the back of my Durango, handing over proof of my situation. Pressed against the wall with nothing to do or say to justify the actions taken against me. Feeling as a women who was raped, not by a man, but by the law;the same vary law set to protect my rights. Shame and disappointment pursued with anger and bitterness.

 

Does anyone care? Am I really protected by the state and federal government, or controlled? Who has the right? Will I peruse a greater destiny or fall to pieces? The story is to be written by me.

 

Never changing for any man or law, only guided by the man above.

Greatness will overturn the negative. The light will be shined,the steeple overtook.

 

Take a stand for a loosing battle for greater good. Who is with me?

[Restorium2]

The inconsistency of the law was very much displayed. Total grey without black and white definition, consumed the situation. So Unprofessional leaving a plant still growing in the ground. Who would of known that I would be sitting in the back of my Durango, handing over proof of my situation. Pressed against the wall with nothing to do or say to justify the actions taken against me. Feeling as a women who was raped, not by a man, but by the law;the same vary law set to protect my rights. Shame and disappointment pursued with anger and bitterness.

 

Does anyone care? Am I really protected by the state and federal government, or controlled? Who has the right? Will I peruse a greater destiny or fall to pieces? The story is to be written by me.

 

Never changing for any man or law, only guided by the man above.

Greatness will overturn the negative. The light will be shined,the steeple overtook.

 

Take a stand for a loosing battle for greater good. Who is with me?

So far you have proven we need a top. If you think you can change that then it's worth a fight. I'm not sure that is even within your reach.

[SirLongSmoke]

How am I guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when it doesn't clarify you need a top. A side is a side, a top is a top or roof. So I highly disagree with you restorium

[t-pain]

you can argue with us all day, but that wont help you much.

 

how can we help?

[Restorium2]

How am I guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when it doesn't clarify you need a top. A side is a side, a top is a top or roof. So I highly disagree with you restorium

I use what is happening to people as information that is more powerful and useful than wording. What happened to you proves we need a top regardless of any interpretation of wording. The only useful thing I see coming from this is a clarification. We already know the intent of the wording so we know what clarification would do for us, make us have a top. Facts from the front are very useful. Thank you for your service. Just before your encounter we had a debate here whether we needed a top. You have colored in the picture well. I believe we do need a top. That's what I have been telling everyone that asks about it.

[Highlander]

How am I guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when it doesn't clarify you need a top. A side is a side, a top is a top or roof. So I highly disagree with you restorium

 

When the law says "enclosed on all sides except the bottom" you need to realize that the the lawmakers considered the bottom a side...and therefore the top is also a side.  We can try to relate this language to any manner of ordinary topics...houses, dice, cubes, dog houses - whatever.  But the bottom line is that the legislature passed an amendment that they were clear about.  They were clear that they wanted a top on any outdoor grow.  So that's the law we now deal with - fair or not.  It is what it is.

 

Consider this definition from webster.com  "a line or surface forming a border or face of an object <a die has six sides"

 

A die has six sides.  It does not have four sides and a bottom and a top.  Six sides.  The law says that all sides must be enclosed, except the bottom.  So if you have a rectangular grow space, you need to have five of those sides enclosed and no need to fence the bottom.

 

Not much grey area here.  Don't grow topless.  It really is pretty clear.

[SirLongSmoke]

Yes I agree. It is clear that you do need a top to be safe. The law doesn't help us in that area. I do hope the law is clarified. I was trying to be within the law and to have this happen was a "slap in the face". I knew going into this ordeal that this was the risk, no matter how legal it was.

 

For the record my fence wasn't in a rectangular fashion. More of a heart shape because it was in a peninsula of a swamp.

[SirLongSmoke]

We are also not talking about dice or die. We're taking about a physically large object

[AmishRnot4ganja]

We are also not talking about dice or die. We're taking about a physically large object

As an example, let's say that you have a greenhouse with a roof. There is no way that anyone would refer to the roof as a "side". It's the same with any outdoor structure. I don't know of any instance in the English language where the top of an outdoor structure is referred to as a side.

 

Wait, there is one:  a pyramid. 

Edited July 30, 2014 by amish4ganja

[t-pain]

so you're saying 'on all sides' just refers to the number of sides. it could be 16 sided.

 

just not the top! 

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

This outdoor grow discussion is fascinating.  I did a search and see that it has been discussed several times on this site.  Don't know that we can get a good answer unless it is clarified by courts or the legislature.  Here is one discussion that brings up the exact points being made here.  Haha, or not.  I tried to cut and paste the url but again this window won't let me paste. 

 

 

[SirLongSmoke]

I want to get my house painted. I want blotches of color of all sides of the house excluding the bottom. Now would a reasonable man paint the roof or top?

[bobandtorey]

The inconsistency of the law was very much displayed. Total grey without black and white definition, consumed the situation. So Unprofessional leaving a plant still growing in the ground. Who would of known that I would be sitting in the back of my Durango, handing over proof of my situation. Pressed against the wall with nothing to do or say to justify the actions taken against me. Feeling as a women who was raped, not by a man, but by the law;the same vary law set to protect my rights. Shame and disappointment pursued with anger and bitterness.

 

Does anyone care? Am I really protected by the state and federal government, or controlled? Who has the right? Will I peruse a greater destiny or fall to pieces? The story is to be written by me.

 

Never changing for any man or law, only guided by the man above.

Greatness will overturn the negative. The light will be shined,the steeple overtook.

 

Take a stand for a loosing battle for greater good. Who is with me?

 

Again  i'am sorry for you and no one should have this happen to  them but their have been many before you and more after thats the sad part you  should   tell your story to as many as you can thats what i did

 

P.S 

 

Thank you for fighting the good fight

 

 

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

I understand you are saying you would paint the sides of the house and you equate sides with walls. You are trying to emphasize that sides mean the walls only by saying that it would be ridiculous to paint the roof. You ask would a reasonable man paint the roof.  I don't think a reasonable man would paint the roof but I also think that same reasonable man would think that if you said you were painting all sides except the bottom that you meant you were leaving a strip unpainted along the bottom of the walls not that you are not going to paint the basement floor.  That's where the argument runs into trouble.  If the law throws bottom into the same general category as a side then I think it also intends to include top as a side.  I also think that no one does the issue any justice by comparing it to a house or some other structure because it isn't a house or other structure it is an outdoor grow.  An outdoor grow presumably doesn't have a roof it probably has some other type of enclosure that lets sun in.  Just like the sides.  They presumably are not walls but some material that lets in light. So if your enclosure is made of chain link then it doesn't really have a roof anyway it has a top.  I think a roof by definition implies it is enclosed anyway because it is a roof.

 

The problem is that I don't think you can compare your house to an outdoor grow that is enclosed because it is a different animal.  I also don't think that a reasonable man standard is what should be used in deciding what needs to be done.  There are 4 or 5 threads with this same discussion and I read them all in an effort to get to understand the meaning in the law.  From what I gather you can't read the law based on what a reasonable man would do but it should be read based on what someone would do who knows how to interpret law.  The amendment to the law was passed by the legislature.  If it was originally part of the people's initiative then I think a reasonable man standard can be used to interpret it but since it is passed by the legislature then you are supposed to use certain legal standards to interpret it.  I suppose that is the very reason why when you are unsure about law people say ask a lawyer they don't say go read the law and decide for yourself.

 

I think it is well explained in other threads that discuss this issue and I would cut and paste text here so it could be read but for some reason the cut and paste feature won't work for me.  Neither does the quoting feature.  I don't know if it is setting on my computer or what because I see others can quote and cut and paste.  But I don't have that problem on other websites.  I guess I would say do a forum search on this topic and I think there are some very good explanations written on this issue. We can argue what a reasonable man would do but that doesn't help because the law isn't interpreted based on what a reasonable man would do.  We can also argue whether a side includes the top and we can compare it to houses and other objects to try and get our point across but that doesn't matter either because the law isn't interpreted based on how we use everyday language. I think that is the main point that people need to understand. I am learning here as I go along and I thought some arguments were good where comparisons were made to other objects until I realized that non of that was relevant when interpreting the law.

[bobandtorey]

Thank you

 

So you are saying we all need Lawyers before we start using or growing Cannabis ?

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

Well when you are dealing with something that has intricate rules that are governed by law where you can potentially be charged with a felony if you wander outside the rules then doesn't it make sense to consult an attorney first?  Think about it, corporations have legal advisors, companies employ tax attorneys, the cops have legal advisors, the legislature has legal advisors.  People hire an attorney to get a divorce but when their liberty is at stake they interpret the law themselves? Makes no sense.  When you buy a house you or the mortgage company hires an inspector to be sure everything conforms with building codes.  Why wouldn't you sit down with an attorney for an hour and discuss your growing facility?  Seems like something a reasonable man would do.

[bobandtorey]

Thanks again for the reply i do agree you should talk to a Lawyer first and i know of some that did just that and are still in Court and have been for over 4 years now they opened a store to sell Cannabis and their Lawyer told them it was OK even the City's Lawyer and  Mayor all agreed to open but they are not the ones in Court facing maybe years in jail 

 

A great Lawyer will tell you what you want to here if you have lots of $$$ 

[FranksHotPeppersAndMarijuana]

No a bad lawyer will tell you what you want to hear.  A great lawyer will advise you of the law and any uncertainties.