Typo In Tuttle Amicus Brief

[BirdHunter]

it says "this court made it clear that section 4 is available to patients who do not have a card or fail to meet volume requirements." (I paraphrased because it's not letting me cut and paste from the actual breif)

 

Shouldn't that read "section 8"? Kinda makes the whole argument hold less weight with that statement error I think....

Edited January 6, 2015 by BirdHunter

[t-pain]

oh page 12 of the amicus brief

 

The Court clearly found that Secfion 4 and Section 8 provide distinctly different levels of
protections. Section 4 is available to defendant who either do not possess a registry idenfification
card or who do not meet its volume requirements.

 

yep thats a typo. good eye.

Edited January 6, 2015 by t-pain

[t-pain]

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/oral-arguments/2014-2015/Pages/148971.aspx

if anyone wants to read it

Edited January 6, 2015 by t-pain

[t-pain]

one day a lawyer will listen to me about confidentiality and sealing a case.

then maybe that lawyer will sue the court for breach of confidentiality.

 

the MMMA section 6 is clearly inconsistent with any government/judge/prosecutor immunity law.

[GregS]

This must be the Cannabis Attorneys of Michigan brief. It had some errors.

Were they high?

[Hayduke]

no, not high, just vain, stupid and full of themselves....

 

willfully ignorant

[Wild Bill]

no, not high, just vain, stupid and full of themselves....

 

willfully ignorant

 

They sound like material for future judges and representatives!

[t-pain]

they did this amicus brief for free. not like anyone paid them?

 

think of it this way, an amicus brief is a good advertisement for the lawfirm.

just hope all of those errors arent in your brief when you hire them to take your case!

[YesMichigan]

What a terrible story. But you only have to read the first words of how it starts to say "There is the mistake..." It does help to prove one side of the oft-debated topic "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me."

 

"In November of 2011, the appellant met Dwayne Lalonde online through a medical marijuana patient/caregiver website."

 

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Documents/briefs-archive/2014-2015/148971/148971ATBrf.pdf Page 9

Edited January 6, 2015 by YesMichigan

[Hayduke]

just sloppy is all... whether underfunded who can say... but perhaps...

 

but this group seems to favor big grows and has a some history of saying the right to grow should be surrendered to big grows...

 

So, I don't think so, is the answer to any question they ask...

[GregS]

no, not high, just vain, stupid and full of themselves....

 

willfully ignorant

I guess my expectations were just too damm high.

[BirdHunter]

Can Tuttle "unfriend" them?

Edited January 7, 2015 by BirdHunter