Hartwick And Tuttle Amicus Briefs Filed On Behalf Of Mmma And Cpu

[t-pain]

re-reading 149290, jessica cooper's response to appeal...not sure if i saw this before.

 

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Documents/briefs-archive/2014-2015/149290/20141120_s149290_40_01_149290_answer_20112014_114455am.pdf

 

Contrary to Defendant's assertions on appeal, there was no evidence that the marihuana in the garage was "wet" - the undisputed testimony was that it was freshly cut and green.

lol!when do you think they will start hiring marijuana experts so they dont make errors like this? Edited April 28, 2015 by t-pain

[+Malamute]

Never.

 

Cooper is just a crusader.

 

Will say and do anything to go after medical marijuana.

 

She thinks it is her job to convict anyone and everyone she can as a prosecutor.

 

Truth and Justice are secondary.

[outsideinthecold]

Cooper may think she is a crusader but I say she is the embodiment of the worst of America's prosecutorial excess.

 

She would also believe she is making society better.

 

I believe folks of her ilk are in large part the cause of the social maladies she thinks she is fighting.

 

While watching last night's sad mayhem in Baltimore it occurred to me if only the police were throwing baggies of confiscated cannabis instead of tear gas canisters the looting would have ended before it began.

 

Prohbitionists have never figured out the cost of their follies.

[+Malamute]

Cooper would burn witches at the stake....

 

 That is just who she is.

 

Icky. Disgusting.

[Willy]

Never.

 

Cooper is just a crusader.

 

Will say and do anything to go after medical marijuana.

 

She thinks it is her job to convict anyone and everyone she can as a prosecutor.

 

Truth and Justice are secondary.

I think they all feel that way, she is not an isolated case..

[bobandtorey]

As soon as Juries are allowed too start hearing case's and knowing someone has a card things will get a lot better If Lansing doesn't do it in another kind of way the way i see it

 

Judge calls some friends in Lansing and says you guy's better do something i am  tired of hearing these cases 

[t-pain]

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/14-15-Term-Opinions/149290-Opinion.pdf

 

now a car or house can be called paraphrenalia under the MMMA.

 

asset forfieture cases can be won with sec4g.

 

 

surely a trowel that one uses for growing cherry tomatoes could also be employed in a marijuana operation and vice versa.

oh, thats what this whole opinion is about.

 

While § 4(g) grants immunity for “providing a registered qualifying patient or a

registered primary caregiver with marihuana paraphernalia,” immunity does not extend

under that provision to other conduct, such as the use of marijuana paraphernalia.

if the prosecutor can prove mazur PUT the paraphrenalia on the plant, then that would be a crime.

 

§ 4(g) does not necessarily exclude all references to the paraphernalia if the evidence supports the conclusion that defendant engaged in conduct for which she is not entitled to immunity under § 4(g).

if she was in the grow room putting notes on plants, 4g does not protect her from possessing marijuana.

 

We deny leave to appeal with respect to defendant’s remaining issue because we are

not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

oh, they didnt care to hear if her sec8 hearing denial was ok because they sent it back to be dismissed under 4g or proceed under more evidence. fart.

 

 

dissenting:

 

 

Under the majority’s holding MCL 333.26424(g) provides that an individual may claim immunity “for providing a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver with [anything imaginable] for purposes of a qualifying patient’s medical use of marihuana.” Because this interpretation fails to provide any discernable independent meaning to the phrase “marihuana paraphernalia,” the majority’s interpretation has in part rendered MCL 333.26424(g) nugatory.

 

note that they dont cite what part is now nugatory.

can you see the subtlety with which they wrote this? their opinion should have been written

for providing a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver with [anything imaginable]

 

for providing a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver with marihuana [anything imaginable]

what they did was try to make "marihuana paraphernalia" into "a phrase" instead of insert the plain definition of paraphernalia to read:

 

for providing a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver with marihuana equipment, apparatus, or furnishings

 

wow. young and zahra went off the map.

they opined that the notes were for the caregiver to decide the date to harvest, but that the patient's USE does not include harvest dates. said another way, the patient's use is not helped by a sticky note of harvest dates. and 4g only gives immunity to the patients' use, not caregivers' use.

 

 

Plainly, “cultivation” and “manufacture” do not pertain to a registered

qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana.

young and zahra are saying that if a patient has a caregiver with plants, the patient is no longer entitled to "cultivation" and "manufacture" immunities. although that goes against "manufacturing" marijuana into edibles of course.

 

basically, a pt gives a caregiver possession of plants, so the patient no longer can cultivate for medical use. this would change the definition of "medical use" in 4g to exclude cultivation or manufacture in the patients use.

 

zahra and young are idiots. this is the same reasoning that made nugatory a patients right to transfer and deliver (unless it was for the patients own medical use, which includes transfer and delivery). complete circular logic moo poo that goes against a plain reading of the act.

[Restorium2]

basically, a pt gives a caregiver possession of plants, so the patient no longer can cultivate for medical use

 

We have been telling people this for 6 years now.

[bobandtorey]

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/14-15-Term-Opinions/149290-Opinion.pdf

 

now a car or house can be called paraphrenalia under the MMMA.

 

asset forfieture cases can be won with sec4g.

 

 

 

oh, thats what this whole opinion is about.

 

 

if the prosecutor can prove mazur PUT the paraphrenalia on the plant, then that would be a crime.

 

 

if she was in the grow room putting notes on plants, 4g does not protect her from possessing marijuana.

 

 

oh, they didnt care to hear if her sec8 hearing denial was ok because they sent it back to be dismissed under 4g or proceed under more evidence. fart.

 

 

dissenting:

 

 

 

 

note that they dont cite what part is now nugatory.

can you see the subtlety with which they wrote this? their opinion should have been written

what they did was try to make "marihuana paraphernalia" into "a phrase" instead of insert the plain definition of paraphernalia to read:

 

 

 

wow. young and zahra went off the map.

they opined that the notes were for the caregiver to decide the date to harvest, but that the patient's USE does not include harvest dates. said another way, the patient's use is not helped by a sticky note of harvest dates. and 4g only gives immunity to the patients' use, not caregivers' use.

 

 

 

young and zahra are saying that if a patient has a caregiver with plants, the patient is no longer entitled to "cultivation" and "manufacture" immunities. although that goes against "manufacturing" marijuana into edibles of course.

 

basically, a pt gives a caregiver possession of plants, so the patient no longer can cultivate for medical use. this would change the definition of "medical use" in 4g to exclude cultivation or manufacture in the patients use.

 

zahra and young are idiots. this is the same reasoning that made nugatory a patients right to transfer and deliver (unless it was for the patients own medical use, which includes transfer and delivery). complete circular logic moo poo that goes against a plain reading of the act.

 

 

 

Thank you t-pain

The cannabis Lawyers are surly going to be making a lot of $$$ with this ruling 

[t-pain]

basically, a pt gives a caregiver possession of plants, so the patient no longer can cultivate for medical use[/size]

 

We have been telling people this for 6 years now.[/size]

you are conflating possession with cultivation.

 

show me where a patient giving his plant possession to a caregiver removes his ability to water plants.

 

sec6a7 does not transfer "cultivation" rights. only possession.

i'm saying a patient could not possess plants, but he could cultivate them, turn water on while they are in a locked cage.

[Restorium2]

turn water on while they are in a locked cage. 

 

They could possibly do that action but who does that? Seems like a 'right with not much use'. Grasping at straws?

[t-pain]

so you concede my point that a patient still has cultivation rights even if he signs a caregiver to take possession?

 

my point is that the dissent opinion claimed sec6a7 got rid of cultivation rights. they are the ones grasping at straws and conflating possession and cultivation, not me.

 

thanks for agreeing with me resto.

[Restorium2]

If the plants need to be locked up, as the courts have ruled, then there could be some sort of remote control cultivation options open to a patient without actually entering the locked facility. In fact, the same rights could possibly apply to anyone, patient or not. 

[Highlander]

zahra and young are idiots. this is the same reasoning that made nugatory a patients right to transfer and deliver (unless it was for the patients own medical use, which includes transfer and delivery). complete circular logic moo poo that goes against a plain reading of the act.

 

I can't agree with your position above, because the court interpreted the law as written with regard to a patient's medical use - that the presumption of Section 4 compliance can be rebutted if evidence shows that the patient's conduct with medical use was not for that patient's medical benefit.  Their interpretation is grammatically correct.  That's what the act says - if you're a patient and do something with MMJ not intended to alleviate your own qualifying condition, you can lose section 4 immunity.

 

Furthermore, § 4(d) creates a presumption of medical use, which informs how § 4 immunity can be asserted or negated:

 

There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

 

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. 

 

The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

The real problem with this ruling lies in the court's opinion of how the Section 4 immunity can be negated.  The attorney arguing the case tried to explain that a PA could try to prove that the patient's conduct was not for his own medical use, such that the presumption would be negated, but Justice Young shut her down.  This is particularly troublesome, because essentially we now have the court telling police that it is OK for the police evaluate the evidence to make a decision as to whether or not the patient's conduct was for his own medical use and therefore if the presumption of compliance (and therefore protection from arrest) applies.  This is not the job of the police.

 

This makes a real mess of things, because the police should not be weighing evidence and making a decision on immunity.  The police should be providing evidence to the PA, who can then take said evidence to a judge and try to prove probable cause that immunity doesn't apply such that an arrest warrant should be issued. 

[teabaggerMMMA]

^{sect 4 cultivatin rights are for IMMUNITY from arrest which is moo poo as many of us who wore 3 pairs of underware every month for a few years!!!! There  is no immunity!!! DO NOT LEGALIZE RACKETEERING AGAINST PATIENTS IN 2016. MMMA patients you are ILLEGAL!!! It's all illegal.}

^{Put about 20k in escrow if not making money... about 100k if you are making money. Then the courts won't be able to treat you like sewer sludge on their shoes.}

^{Bernstien has had plenty of rights from the ADA, I haven't.... I'm calling SAM.}

^{Sam Bernstien MMMA civil cases on TV coming soon. Sam I have great ideas for the commercials FREE of charge.}

 

^{THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON US... A constitutional shame}

[Restorium2]

I can't agree with your position above, because the court interpreted the law as written with regard to a patient's medical use - that the presumption of Section 4 compliance can be rebutted if evidence shows that the patient's conduct with medical use was not for that patient's medical benefit.  Their interpretation is grammatically correct.  That's what the act says - if you're a patient and do something with MMJ not intended to alleviate your own qualifying condition, you can lose section 4 immunity.

 

Furthermore, § 4(d) creates a presumption of medical use, which informs how § 4 immunity can be asserted or negated:

 

There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

 

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. 

 

The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

The real problem with this ruling lies in the court's opinion of how the Section 4 immunity can be negated.  The attorney arguing the case tried to explain that a PA could try to prove that the patient's conduct was not for his own medical use, such that the presumption would be negated, but Justice Young shut her down.  This is particularly troublesome, because essentially we now have the court telling police that it is OK for the police evaluate the evidence to make a decision as to whether or not the patient's conduct was for his own medical use and therefore if the presumption of compliance (and therefore protection from arrest) applies.  This is not the job of the police.

 

This makes a real mess of things, because the police should not be weighing evidence and making a decision on immunity.  The police should be providing evidence to the PA, who can then take said evidence to a judge and try to prove probable cause that immunity doesn't apply such that an arrest warrant should be issued. 

Great point. The police need to be given clear instructions from the court, not latitude to assume anything at the scene. But then they would have to 'assume' things that might hurt the PA's possible case, evidence could be destroyed. So Young decides the assumptions should error on the side of the PA getting to make their case in all possible scenarios. In other words, always believe the cops over patients. Assuming cops don't need a judge to watch over their work, they are always right and never go over the line. Sounds like the general theme these days that leads to social unrest. 

[teabaggerMMMA]

Don't give up your section 8 rights by registering!!! Tuttle is coming soon. The dispensary cases will come in like flood gates, then fake cards w earl. Sure it'll take a few years before all the big money cases fight (while the patients plea guilty) then afew more years of appeals crap.... 8 more years of torture ubder section 8, with no end in sight.

I got a great idea... lets legalize in 2016 so this can last 20 more years.... a whole industry billed in 2 pages WILL CRIMINILIZE THE POOR

[teabaggerMMMA]

I can't agree with your position above, because the court interpreted the law as written with regard to a patient's medical use - that the presumption of Section 4 compliance can be rebutted if evidence shows that the patient's conduct with medical use was not for that patient's medical benefit.  Their interpretation is grammatically correct.  That's what the act says - if you're a patient and do something with MMJ not intended to alleviate your own qualifying condition, you can lose section 4 immunity.

 

Furthermore, § 4(d) creates a presumption of medical use, which informs how § 4 immunity can be asserted or negated:

 

There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

 

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. 

 

The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

The real problem with this ruling lies in the court's opinion of how the Section 4 immunity can be negated.  The attorney arguing the case tried to explain that a PA could try to prove that the patient's conduct was not for his own medical use, such that the presumption would be negated, but Justice Young shut her down.  This is particularly troublesome, because essentially we now have the court telling police that it is OK for the police evaluate the evidence to make a decision as to whether or not the patient's conduct was for his own medical use and therefore if the presumption of compliance (and therefore protection from arrest) applies.  This is not the job of the police.

 

This makes a real mess of things, because the police should not be weighing evidence and making a decision on immunity.  The police should be providing evidence to the PA, who can then take said evidence to a judge and try to prove probable cause that immunity doesn't apply such that an arrest warrant should be issued. 

I AM UN AWARE OF ANY CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA IN WHICH THE PIGS ARE required to take you to jail??? do people here really think that the MMMA outlaws growing of cannabis in its natural environment.... on GAIA!!! so if marijuana is illegal in its natural "god" given environment, how are you NOT going to jail. I can show you cases with 100lbs and high dollar lawyers getting dismissed in the same rooms that victimize the poor!!! Poor gets more trouble for illegal transport than a drug trafficking organazition gets for operating a criminal enterprise... UNDER THE MMMA YOU ARE.

[bobandtorey]

I can't agree with your position above, because the court interpreted the law as written with regard to a patient's medical use - that the presumption of Section 4 compliance can be rebutted if evidence shows that the patient's conduct with medical use was not for that patient's medical benefit.  Their interpretation is grammatically correct.  That's what the act says - if you're a patient and do something with MMJ not intended to alleviate your own qualifying condition, you can lose section 4 immunity.

 

Furthermore, § 4(d) creates a presumption of medical use, which informs how § 4 immunity can be asserted or negated:

 

There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

 

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. 

 

The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

The real problem with this ruling lies in the court's opinion of how the Section 4 immunity can be negated.  The attorney arguing the case tried to explain that a PA could try to prove that the patient's conduct was not for his own medical use, such that the presumption would be negated, but Justice Young shut her down.  This is particularly troublesome, because essentially we now have the court telling police that it is OK for the police evaluate the evidence to make a decision as to whether or not the patient's conduct was for his own medical use and therefore if the presumption of compliance (and therefore protection from arrest) applies.  This is not the job of the police.

 

This makes a real mess of things, because the police should not be weighing evidence and making a decision on immunity.  The police should be providing evidence to the PA, who can then take said evidence to a judge and try to prove probable cause that immunity doesn't apply such that an arrest warrant should be issued. 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2015 by bobandtorey

[bobandtorey]

 

I can't agree with your position above, because the court interpreted the law as written with regard to a patient's medical use - that the presumption of Section 4 compliance can be rebutted if evidence shows that the patient's conduct with medical use was not for that patient's medical benefit.  Their interpretation is grammatically correct.  That's what the act says - if you're a patient and do something with MMJ not intended to alleviate your own qualifying condition, you can lose section 4 immunity.

 

Furthermore, § 4(d) creates a presumption of medical use, which informs how § 4 immunity can be asserted or negated:

 

There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

 

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. 

 

The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient’s debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

The real problem with this ruling lies in the court's opinion of how the Section 4 immunity can be negated.  The attorney arguing the case tried to explain that a PA could try to prove that the patient's conduct was not for his own medical use, such that the presumption would be negated, but Justice Young shut her down.  This is particularly troublesome, because essentially we now have the court telling police that it is OK for the police evaluate the evidence to make a decision as to whether or not the patient's conduct was for his own medical use and therefore if the presumption of compliance (and therefore protection from arrest) applies.  This is not the job of the police.

 

This makes a real mess of things, because the police should not be weighing evidence and making a decision on immunity.  The police should be providing evidence to the PA, who can then take said evidence to a judge and try to prove probable cause that immunity doesn't apply such that an arrest warrant should be issued. 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks   all  of that does sound good on paper but as we know Leo arrest and let the courts figure it out i think thats the part we all want to stop by the time the High Court gets done we won't have a Law 

 

 

2016 looks better everyday  

[t-pain]

The police having the ability to detect violations of the mmma has not been brought before the court as a question, only referenced in briefs. It will not be answered in the opinion imo.

[bobandtorey]

What about getting a warrant for just the small of marihuana ?

[t-pain]

Again not a question that was asked/appealed, so it won't be in the opinion.

[bobandtorey]

Sounds like nothing has changed by the MMMA being voted into Law 

 

Trash-pulls. smelling, electric bills being pulled, 

[GregS]

Don't give up your section 8 rights by registering!!! Tuttle is coming soon. The dispensary cases will come in like flood gates, then fake cards w earl. Sure it'll take a few years before all the big money cases fight (while the patients plea guilty) then afew more years of appeals crap.... 8 more years of torture ubder section 8, with no end in sight.

I got a great idea... lets legalize in 2016 so this can last 20 more years.... a whole industry billed in 2 pages WILL CRIMINILIZE THE POOR

The Affirmative Defense is not given up if an individual registers. It is available to anyone in any prosecution regarding the use of marijuana. Moreover, it is further protection beyond registration. It is important to have proof of a bona fide recommendation, an understanding with a caregiver, if there is one, that they agree to assist a patient in their proven medical use, and that  quantities possessed can be justified. That's it.