James Story Part 2

[Willy]

There could be some consideration to the crows nest, with someone up there with a semi auto .... they would go that way first, im sure.. and then go for the grow!!

[Wild Bill]

They may not grow it, but you can buy it there.

[Highlander]

No roof here. Is this considered secure in the eyes of the courts?

 

 

I don't see how it matters what we think is secure or not because the law doesn't simply state that the outdoor grow area must be "secure."  The word, "secure" isn't even used when describing the requirements for an "enclosed, locked facility."  The courts can't look at the law and say "oh, well the grow wasn't fully enclosed as required in the law, but it is secure, so we'll let it slide."  That would be legislating from the bench, which is something most of us understand as not only contrary to the responsibilities of the judicial branch, but also a dangerous habit we don't want courts engaging in. 

 

Even if the courts surprise us and tell us that an "enclosed, locked facility" does not require a top, we really can't compare a secure prison yard to any grow I (or likely anyone here) has even seen.  It doesn't do much good to try to use this extreme example to make the point, as there is really no comparison between a 6-foot change link enclosure without a top and a 12+-foot double chain link fence with razor wire that is monitored 24/7 by an armed guard in an observation tower. 

 

It is also worth mentioning that there is probably no zoned community in Michigan that allows use of razor wire on residential property.  That, and it would be illegal for most of this state's population (people south of about Midland) to fire a rifle except in a shooting range.  So the example photo is unrealistic for most, if not all, of us.

[trichcycler]

They may not grow it, but you can buy it there.

not so sure about that....http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/01/24/prisoner-rats-himself-out-with-facebook-selfie-of-cell-grown-cannabis/

[ozzrokk]

I don't see how it matters what we think is secure or not because the law doesn't simply state that the outdoor grow area must be "secure."  The word, "secure" isn't even used when describing the requirements for an "enclosed, locked facility."  The courts can't look at the law and say "oh, well the grow wasn't fully enclosed as required in the law, but it is secure, so we'll let it slide."  That would be legislating from the bench, which is something most of us understand as not only contrary to the responsibilities of the judicial branch, but also a dangerous habit we don't want courts engaging in. 

 

Even if the courts surprise us and tell us that an "enclosed, locked facility" does not require a top, we really can't compare a secure prison yard to any grow I (or likely anyone here) has even seen.  It doesn't do much good to try to use this extreme example to make the point, as there is really no comparison between a 6-foot change link enclosure without a top and a 12+-foot double chain link fence with razor wire that is monitored 24/7 by an armed guard in an observation tower. 

 

It is also worth mentioning that there is probably no zoned community in Michigan that allows use of razor wire on residential property.  That, and it would be illegal for most of this state's population (people south of about Midland) to fire a rifle except in a shooting range.  So the example photo is unrealistic for most, if not all, of us.

 

 

I seem to remember this from the law.................."equipped with secured locks or other functioning security devices"

[Highlander]

I seem to remember this from the law.................."equipped with secured locks or other functioning security devices"

 

Ok, Yes I mis"spoke."    - "secured locks."  But I was referring to the outdoor grow portion of the requirement, "Marihuana plants grown outdoors are considered to be in an enclosed, locked facility if they are not visible to the unaided eye from an adjacent property when viewed by an individual at ground level or from a permanent structure and are grown within a stationary structure that is enclosed on all sides, except for the base, by chain-link fencing, wooden slats, or a similar material that prevents access by the general public and that is anchored, attached, or affixed to the ground"

 

The prison yard, while "secure," doesn't comply with the requirement above.  Being merely "secure" isn't enough.  The area also has to be enclosed on all sides.

 

Let me put it this way, if (and probably when) the courts rule that a top is required, a court will not have the latitude to declare "well, there is no top, but the area is otherwise secure, so we'll let it slide."  If the courts decide that a top is required, then a top is required.  It won't matter if you have a 100-foot high fence surrounded by 100 yards of razor wire and a moat full of alligators.

[trichcycler]

...on all sides except for the base...there's that wording again. I read that as all sides including the top, but not the bottom. I wont grow outside again until this nonsense is cleared up. It stinks, neighbors know, and I couldn't leave the house without a panic/cams....I feel bad for those that cannot grow indoors, that just is not fair to get hassled for producing your own medicine under the sun, of all things.

 

the patient hassles are definitely NOT what I voted for!

[SirLongSmoke]

Thanks again for everyone's support and beneficial information. I have really just been trying to focus on the new school year with my students. This predicament has really made me appreciate trying to make a difference in the classroom. I have taken this job for granted and now it's clear that I love what I do. For now I'm not allowed to drive the students. There is a rotation off so I was advised that the school board does not want me driving considering the circumstances. This really doesn't arise suspension with other coworkers as of now because everyone takes a turn. I'm not mad because I understand the stigma associated with what I do. People are very judgmental and condemning to things they don't understand. From the meeting with the transportation and special ed director; I got the vibe that when my rotation of driving comes at October 20 I will either will be terminated, job decrease or some other form of punishment. They didn't directly say so but I feel that it will happen unless the case is dismissed at the case conference. Hopefully I will get paid leave if so. I will keep you updated as I know more.

 

SirLongSmoke

[pic book]

In other words, they had to break in. If it wasn't secure they could have just walked through an open door.

i see.

[cheapshades]

Thanks again for everyone's support and beneficial information...........................

 

SirLongSmoke

 

We hope for the best for you.

[GregS]

Ya know, a school district is a government entity. They should be enjoined from penalizing you in any way by token of the MMA. It could open them up to a lawsuit. 

 

Knowhatimean Professor?

[SirLongSmoke]

Yes this is true but there are very sneaky ways to get around that. If they go about it the right way I'm sure I will not be happy with the outcome.

[BirdHunter]

The phrase "all sides except the base" infers that the top is a side. Sorry.

[Highlander]

Cornell University Law School provides some pretty easy to understand explanations of many legal matters.

 

Here is what they have to say about statutory interpretation:

 

Any question of statutory interpretation begins with looking at the plain language of the statute to discover its original intent. To discover a statute's original intent, courts first look to the words of the statute and apply their usual and ordinary meanings.

 

If after looking at the language of the statute the meaning of the statute remains unclear, courts attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature by looking at legislative history and other sources. Courts generally steer clear of any interpretation that would create an absurd result which the Legislature did not intend.

 

It is looking at the legislative history that I think is likely to sink the boat and require a top.

[t-pain]

i dont think the judges will rule on what the legislative intent was.

 

that would make an end-run around the courts, and the courts arent going to allow that to happen.

f'instance, if your posit was accurate, whats to stop judges from ruling all laws in favor of the state?

[Habenero]

Yeah they will. That's what they do bro. Read what Highlander wrote. If the meaning is unclear then you look at intent. If judge's don't look at intent then how do they deal with the unclearness?

[Highlander]

Do you have a citation for this Legislative history?

 

I looked through the relevant legislative journals, and there was no documented discussion.  If any documentation exists at the committee level, I don't know how to go about finding it.

 

There were three substitute bills in the senate and seven in the house.  I don't have access to those previous version of the bills (S-1 and S-2 and H-1 through H-6).  This information would be important to determine legislative history - to see how the bill was developed because interpretation by the courts will take into account proposed language that was stricken. (As in, if we found a previous bill that said "all sides, including the top and bottom" then that would be proof that the legislature didn't intend to require a top)

 

The house adopted a substitute bill H-7 (to reflect amendments in the senate).  H-7 did not include the outdoor language.  Before the bill was voted on in the house, on 5-2-12 Cavanagh moved to add the outdoor language.  The motion was successful, the house adopted the amendment, and the final bill was passed by the house the following day.  The senate adopted the amended H-7 as S-3 and passed the bill in December.

 

I don't know the circumstances surrounding the adding of the outdoor grow language.  Maybe Cavanagh's committee discussed it, but I doubt it because H-7 was recommended by the judiciary committee.   It would seem that if the outdoor language was the recommendation of the judiciary committee, it would have been in H-7.  And if you look at the House Journal, it says that Rep. Cavanagh moved to add the outdoor language (just prior to the final vote); it says nothing about his judiciary committee or if he was moving for an amendment endorsed by his committee. 

 

It very well could be that Cavanagh slipped this language in at the last minute before the vote with no previous legislative record.  If that is the case, then there probably won't be any legislative history.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Highlander

[Highlander]

i dont think the judges will rule on what the legislative intent was. that would make an end-run around the courts, and the courts arent going to allow that to happen. f'instance, if your posit was accurate, whats to stop judges from ruling all laws in favor of the state?

 

If you don't like Cornell's statutory information I posted above, here is something a little closer to home, published by the Michigan Supreme Court on 4-20-2012:

 

When interpreting statues, this Court must “ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.”

 

(quotation marks are in the original quote and refer to case law)

 

Edited to add:  The typo, "statues," rather than "statutes" is not my error.  It is an error in the SC's opinion.  Heh, statues.  Someone must have been thinking about Michelangelo's "David" when they wrote the opinion.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Highlander

[SirLongSmoke]

I'm faced with a choice that relatively chooses negative consequences either way. I'm forced,with my hands tied, to make a decision that could impact not just my life, but the life of others. Today, October 17th, I had another hearing to review the case at hand. Dan Grow and I were fighting the fact that it should be a juries decision under section 4 defense to decide if the outdoor grow was in fact, locked and secure. To make a long and strenuous story short,the judge denied that fact. Even though the judge was very understanding even stating that the MMM for outdoor grow is rather misleading and confusing. He also spoke that he directly looked up the definition of a side and agreed that a side is not a top of a structure. But in the reference under the law, "except the base" concludes that it needs a top therefore denying my ability for section 4 defense. Even the judge declared that you should consult a lawyer before doing an outdoor grow because the language is so misleading. What I don't understand is who is the law written for; is it just for the courts to decipher any way they please? Or is the law written for us "we the people"? It again questions the principle of what the court was founded on, guilty beyond reasonable doubt. How can there not be reasonable doubt in my case within those circumstances?

Even though Dan and I appealed the decision, I don't expect anything to occur in my favor. It will be viewed from a panel of grumpier older judges who will not even consider it.

 

So now this leaves a huge dilemma for me to decide. Now that it's a section 8 defense,all my patients will be subpoenaed to court. All there medical issues will be discussed. Everything involving the patients and I's welfare within the MMM program itself will be questioned. Now they will be under scrutiny, the doctors who issued the cards, and last mine as a caregiver and patient. Everyone involved will be assessed and deliberately persecuted negatively within the court system. Anything within the courts view to subject me for the guilty verdict is fair game. Do I want to deal with that or more importantly do I want my patients? It's unfair that this has taken place because the main issue is not involving them to begin with. The most important question and what needs to be addressed, should outdoor grows need a top? When stated in the confusing lingo, it brings question to our court system's practices and legality. Is the court system and practices for or against the people? Is it just established as a money making scheme that greed and power overrule, the variable is questioned.

 

I'm faced with either going through with section 8 defense or a possible plea deal in which I will be found guilty, placed under probation for 6-12 months and then if completed successfully, expunged off my record. I mean not really, not in today's technology driven computer systems. It will always be there, every time a background check is done. A felony takes away my school job and prohibits me from ever being able to get another job anywhere in my field, education. It's all I know, it's all I have ever done.

 

It sucks and makes me very disappointed with the court system. What do I do here? It's like I get to choose a path left or right- one filled with hot coals and the other filled with broken glass, while barefooted. Either way I'm screwed. I just hope this decision will be brought down from above and guided. Thanks for everyone's support!

Edited October 18, 2014 by SirLongSmoke

[GregS]

Cornell University Law School provides some pretty easy to understand explanations of many legal matters.

 

Here is what they have to say about statutory interpretation:

 

Any question of statutory interpretation begins with looking at the plain language of the statute to discover its original intent. To discover a statute's original intent, courts first look to the words of the statute and apply their usual and ordinary meanings.

 

If after looking at the language of the statute the meaning of the statute remains unclear, courts attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature by looking at legislative history and other sources. Courts generally steer clear of any interpretation that would create an absurd result which the Legislature did not intend.

 

It is looking at the legislative history that I think is likely to sink the boat and require a top.

I've seen it too and agree. This is almost a non-issue. It is assured. Just do it and move along. Reasons for not keeping things covered are pretty thin.

 

Sec.8 is your best bet Sir. There is no reason to even consider anything else. Let those ahead in queue set the precedents. At that point we can all go get a beer. Erm, share a pint.

Edited October 18, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

You might see this zap. It is still real squishy:http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/vanlr3&div=34&id=&page=

 

These issues are in the methane judicial scholars blow out their asses.  On their birthdays they can make a wish.

Edited October 18, 2014 by GregS

[Habenero]

I'm faced with either going through with section 8 defense or a possible plea deal in which I will be found guilty, placed under probation for 6-12 months and then if completed successfully, expunged off my record. I mean not really, not in today's technology driven computer systems. It will always be there, every time a background check is done. A felony takes away my school job and prohibits me from ever being able to get another job anywhere in my field, education. It's all I know, it's all I have ever done.

 

 

Don't risk your teaching license bro. Do what zap said and ask for a stay. If you can afford all of that. If the court won't go for that or if they do and hartwick doesn't help u then maybe appeal the top issue and ask for a stay for that appeal. I mean if you appeal and win on the top issue then your case gets dismissed prolly huh? So maybe do that? (edit to add that I guess u can't wait on the top issue since u have time limits to appeal that so maybe ask for a stay to appeal that and a stay for hartwick).

 

If none of that works out then u take the gamble with a section 8 and spend all that money for trial or maybe then u consider the 7411 offer if it's still on the table.

 

The 7411 will be a guaranteed dismissal if u complete probation with success. There was some talk about 7411 here the past few days and too many people misunderstand it.  I done did it so I have experience and can tell you the truth.

 

If u enter a plea agreement where you are offered 7411 then this is what will happen. Go into court and plead guilty to a drug offense of some sort. The judge doesn't enter a judgment against you for a crime he just takes the plea under advisement. You are given probation. If you abide by the terms of probation for the specified time then you complete it successfully. If you complete it successfully then the court dismisses your case. You weren't ever convicted of a crime because the judge didn't accept your plea he took it under advisement. The case is dismissed so there is never any record of conviction there is only a record of dismissal. If you fill out a job app and it asks if u ever have been arrested then I guess you answer yes but you'd hafta answer yes anyway even if you went through trial and won. So your record won't be any different. No criminal conviction so no record of conviction. If a job app asks if u have ever been convicted of a crime the true answer is no. Unless you got other stuff in your past.

 

The law doesn't allow people to access anything on a 7411 plea except for certain exceptions laid out in the law which are basically for prosecutors and stuff so if you are ever charged for a drug crime again then they can check to see if you are eligible for 7411. It's a one shot deal. You can use it once in your life so if arrested again sometime u couldn't use it again so the prosecutor needs to be able to check if u ever used it.

 

The decision is yours but as some1 who has been there done that I can tell you that it has had no effect on my life 12 years later. No job app problems or anything.  A background check by an employer will come up with nothing.

 

Look at it this way. U can drop your felony charge with a 7411 plea. I wasted mine on a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge. But when you come out the other side we're both equal.

Edited October 19, 2014 by Habenero

[bobandtorey]

I'm faced with a choice that relatively chooses negative consequences either way. I'm forced,with my hands tied, to make a decision that could impact not just my life, but the life of others. Today, October 17th, I had another hearing to review the case at hand. Dan Grow and I were fighting the fact that it should be a juries decision under section 4 defense to decide if the outdoor grow was in fact, locked and secure. To make a long and strenuous story short,the judge denied that fact. Even though the judge was very understanding even stating that the MMM for outdoor grow is rather misleading and confusing. He also spoke that he directly looked up the definition of a side and agreed that a side is not a top of a structure. But in the reference under the law, "except the base" concludes that it needs a top therefore denying my ability for section 4 defense. Even the judge declared that you should consult a lawyer before doing an outdoor grow because the language is so misleading. What I don't understand is who is the law written for; is it just for the courts to decipher any way they please? Or is the law written for us "we the people"? It again questions the principle of what the court was founded on, guilty beyond reasonable doubt. How can there not be reasonable doubt in my case within those circumstances?

Even though Dan and I appealed the decision, I don't expect anything to occur in my favor. It will be viewed from a panel of grumpier older judges who will not even consider it.

 

So now this leaves a huge dilemma for me to decide. Now that it's a section 8 defense,all my patients will be subpoenaed to court. All there medical issues will be discussed. Everything involving the patients and I's welfare within the MMM program itself will be questioned. Now they will be under scrutiny, the doctors who issued the cards, and last mine as a caregiver and patient. Everyone involved will be assessed and deliberately persecuted negatively within the court system. Anything within the courts view to subject me for the guilty verdict is fair game. Do I want to deal with that or more importantly do I want my patients? It's unfair that this has taken place because the main issue is not involving them to begin with. The most important question and what needs to be addressed, should outdoor grows need a top? When stated in the confusing lingo, it brings question to our court system's practices and legality. Is the court system and practices for or against the people? Is it just established as a money making scheme that greed and power overrule, the variable is questioned.

 

I'm faced with either going through with section 8 defense or a possible plea deal in which I will be found guilty, placed under probation for 6-12 months and then if completed successfully, expunged off my record. I mean not really, not in today's technology driven computer systems. It will always be there, every time a background check is done. A felony takes away my school job and prohibits me from ever being able to get another job anywhere in my field, education. It's all I know, it's all I have ever done.

 

It sucks and makes me very disappointed with the court system. What do I do here? It's like I get to choose a path left or right- one filled with hot coals and the other filled with broken glass, while barefooted. Either way I'm screwed. I just hope this decision will be brought down from above and guided. Thanks for everyone's support!

 

 

 

What I don't understand is who is the law written for; is it just for the courts to decipher any way they please? 

 

 

 

 

What I don't understand is who is the law written for; is it just for the courts to decipher any way they please?  Yes that is what our Law has become it didn't start out that way when we all voted for it and it became our Law for the people by the people 

 

When we where in Court in 2009 it was the first time Judge's even had read the Law and then the Judge made the first phone call to all the other judges IMHO it went like this Hey Joe you had better call Bill and tell him if we let this Law go on as the people wanted we will all be looking for a job

 

Thank you for standing up for all of us

[Norby]

If this isn't "us against them" I don't know what is.

Couldn't something be done for "cruel and unusual punishment"?  Really, a 4 x 8 piece of chickenwire gets this?

 

In NYS you can release toxic gases into the environment and possibly give people cancer and not even get jail time.  Look up Tonawanda Coke.  You can burn plastic and ruin a town and the EPA will give you a pass until the town bands together and demands something be done.  I think that was Eagle, NY.

 

At some point they became parasites(making their fortunes or living incarcerating victimless crimes and persecuting citizens) on society and every day that a decision like this goes thru and another person gets a ticket for "illegal transport", etc the system is making more and more enemies.  At what point does our gov't(LEO, Judges, prosecuters) become the enemy? Or has it already reached that point?

Edited October 19, 2014 by Norby

[bobandtorey]

If this isn't "us against them" I don't know what is.

 

i agree and is why i tell as many as i can to stay informed yesterday i went to the D.I.A and as always someone saw by button i wear and stopped to talk she was a card holder and didn't even know  of any changes to the Law at all 

 

I told her lots of thing most where tune into PGT every Thursday nights at 8-10 pm  i wish i had a calling card  of some kind too hand out to everyone i talk too but last time i asked if i could make one i got confused because of some king of logo i couldn't use 

Edited October 19, 2014 by bobandtorey