Hartwick And Tuttle Ruling Published

[t-pain]

Have doctor's signed these Greg? They aren't scared of having federal conspiracy charges with this contract as evidence?

[GregS]

"we're talking about a cg who sells to a non-connected patient here, right?"

 

If we are, then the contract protects the caregiver. It is a sworn, duly notarized, statement that the patient represents him/herself as having the necessary bona fides.

[GregS]

Have doctor's signed these Greg? They aren't scared of having federal conspiracy charges with this contract as evidence?

I am told that some have been signed, and know more than one patient who has indeed procured them and who are not registered. How can an agreement to abide by the tenets of the law and documents to support that be counted as conspiracy? Under state law it can't happen, and the feds are backing down.

Edited July 28, 2015 by GregS

[trichcycler]

I do get it Greg, I really do. I'm sorry for the rant but can you imagine how frustrating it is for compliant registrants who are not in the courts, not involved with criminals or cops....to see these things unfold? somebody sells to outside their 5 patients and the next thing you know its about how the courts treated the defendant with ridiculousness, rather than how they got to court in the first place. Next legal registrants are led to believe this is rampant in our registry and registration is not even desired. all because of the way a court treats a few non compliant persons. Its frustrating, not fair, and generally depressing. All court proceedings are this way. Every one I've witnessed was full of jokes. I support all registrants who are compliant, that keeps me busy as heck. Thank you all for supporting those who find themselves in need of help in the court room.

[GregS]

I do get it Greg, I really do. I'm sorry for the rant but can you imagine how frustrating it is for compliant registrants who are not in the courts, not involved with criminals or cops....to see these things unfold? somebody sells to outside their 5 patients and the next thing you know its about how the courts treated the defendant with ridiculousness, rather than how they got to court in the first place. Next legal registrants are led to believe this is rampant in our registry and registration is not even desired. all because of the way a court treats a few non compliant persons. Its frustrating, not fair, and generally depressing. All court proceedings are this way. Every one I've witnessed was full of jokes. I support all registrants who are compliant, that keeps me busy as heck. Thank you all for supporting those who find themselves in need of help in the court room.

No need to apologize gm. In some instances people choose not to register for reasons having to do with their professional standing. They do not want it known within those circles. I agree. It is best not to tell anyone anything they do not need to know.

Edited July 28, 2015 by GregS

[Restorium2]

I do get it Greg, I really do. I'm sorry for the rant but can you imagine how frustrating it is for compliant registrants who are not in the courts, not involved with criminals or cops....to see these things unfold? somebody sells to outside their 5 patients and the next thing you know its about how the courts treated the defendant with ridiculousness, rather than how they got to court in the first place. Next legal registrants are led to believe this is rampant in our registry and registration is not even desired. all because of the way a court treats a few non compliant persons. Its frustrating, not fair, and generally depressing. All court proceedings are this way. Every one I've witnessed was full of jokes. I support all registrants who are compliant, that keeps me busy as heck. Thank you all for supporting those who find themselves in need of help in the court room.

These judges needed no 'excuses' to treat us badly.  They act like we are all a bunch of criminals to start with because that's how they have been instructed over and over. We just voted in the wrong judges. That's the only part that is our fault. You find bad actors in everything, not just cannabis. The judges just pretend we are worse than the rest of the problems they have to deal with every day. When put in context, transfers are a very mild crime. 

[jamieuke]

Special Wednesday night edition of Planet Green Trees Radio! 8-9:30pm July 29

 

A very important decision was released by the Michigan Supreme Court concerning medical marijuana laws.

 

What does it mean?

 

We will discuss the ruling and it's possible implications with some of Michigan's most experienced and knowledgeable legal experts.

 

www.planetgreentrees.com

[GregS]

Re: an amount necessary to treat, if a patient and his/her caregiver possess a pound of the stuff, can it be rightly said that it meets that element in that it is enough to last a long time? If a patient uses an ounce a month, would not a pound be a sixteen month supply?

[GregS]

By Kathleen Gray, Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau 7:18 p.m. EDT July 27, 2015

(Photo: William Archie/Detroit Free Press)

56 CONNECT 31 TWEET 1 LINKEDIN 11 COMMENTEMAILMORE

For the ninth time, the Michigan Supreme Court has weighed in on the state’s medical marijuana law, remanding a pair of cases back to Oakland County Circuit Court to have another hearing on whether two men can claim immunity from prosecution for growing and providing weed to people with medical marijuana cards.

Richard Hartwick and Robert Tuttle were charged in 2011 and 2012, respectively, after police raided their homes and found marijuana and plants. Both men had been certified as medical marijuana users, and Hartwick also was certified as a caregiver, growing and selling marijuana to five other people. Tuttle was charged with selling marijuana to three people, but it was unclear if he was a certified caregiver.

• Related: Police raids of pot dispensaries lead to arrests

In pre-trial motions, both men claimed they should be immune from prosecution because of their medical marijuana user and caregiver status. And they both wanted to assert such a defense. Oakland County Judges Colleen O’Brien and Michael Warren denied the motions for both men, and their decisions were upheld by the state Court of Appeals when attorneys for the two men appealed the rulings.

The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that the Oakland judges must hold hearings on the immunity motion. The high court said that the lower court ruling on what type of information a caregiver needed to have before providing marijuana to a patient — such as proof of the doctor-patient relationship and the nature of the patient’s debilitating condition — isn’t a part of the medical marijuana law.

“When Judge O’Brien entered the opinion that said you’ve got to show the medical relationship, we now know we don’t have to do that,” said Fred Miller, Hartwick’s attorney. “I like that part of the ruling. It clarifies a lot of things.”

DETROIT FREE PRESS

Detroit police make arrests at marijuana dispensary

But the Supreme Court also ruled that the two men couldn’t present an affirmative defense against the charges.

“I’m pleased with the opinion and not terribly surprised by it,” said Oakland County chief deputy Prosecutor Paul Walton. “But I’m going to have to sit down and talk with the prosecutors and see if this changes the complexity of the case at all and I don’t think it will.”

The ruling highlights the confusion surrounding Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act, which was passed by voters in 2008. Law enforcement, the state Legislature and local communities have been grappling with how to deal with medical marijuana and how it’s used, manufactured and sold.

The Supreme Court’s opinion also focused on that confusion.

• Leonard Pitts Jr.: Enough with this silly war on marijuana

“While the MMMA (Michigan Medical Marihuana Act) has been the law in Michigan for just under seven years, this Court has been called on to give meaning to the MMMA in nine different cases,” the justices wrote. “The many inconsistencies in the law have caused confusion for medical marijuana caregivers and patients, law enforcement, attorneys, and judges, and have consumed valuable public and private resources to interpret and apply it.”

“Particularly, we make no judgment as to the wisdom of the medical use of marijuana in Michigan. This state’s electors have made that determination for us,” they continued. “To that end, we do not attempt to limit or extend the statute’s words. We merely bring them meaning derived from the plain language of the statute.”

The Legislature has been working on bills for three years that would allow communities to approve medical marijuana dispensaries in their towns, as well as set guidelines for the sale of nonsmokable forms of medical marijuana, such as brownies or oils. And three groups have formed to gather signatures for ballot proposals that would legalize the use and sale of small portions of marijuana in the state.

“We’re still getting acquainted with medical marijuana use as a medicine. It’s going to take some more normalizing before it’s accepted as a normal form of medicine,” said Denise Policella, an attorney with the Cannabis Attorneys of Michigan. “We’re working very hard to get a comprehensive package of laws so we can have a safe, regulated industry, so that cities who so desperately need guidance will get some regulation.”

Contact Kathleen Gray: 517-372-8661, kgray99@freepress.com or on Twitter @michpoligal.

[keylan]

_{So all I have to do to comply with all of this ruling is have my husband sign the contract you have provided. This is silly. Its another gotcha for LE. Lots of patients and caregivers are not even aware of this ruling - they don't read this site}  

[GregS]

_{So all I have to do to comply with all of this ruling is have my husband sign the contract you have provided. This is silly. Its another gotcha for LE. Lots of patients and caregivers are not even aware of this ruling - they don't read this site}  

IF we arrive at a point where we determine the agreement and its supporting documents to be a benefit, and I argue that they are, it remains to get the word out. The agreement will need to be revised a little due to this ruling. If your husband provides the supporting documents signed by his doctor, or other medical documents that show the doctor has completed a full assessment in a bona fide relationship and concludes that your husband, or any patient for that matter, is likely to benefit from the use of cannabis, that documentation has been ruled adequate to meet that evidentiary burden which establishes the necessary proof of a bona fide recommendation. Cards are not always enough. The Court specifies the evidentiary rule that requires they be introduced into evidence as allowable hearsay http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/rules/Documents/Michigan%20Rules%20of%20Evidence.pdf

(scroll down to 803(6), records of regularly conducted activity).

 

No one is obligated to use this type of legal device, but I think it offers a lot of protection, especially given this ruling. We were expecting the Court to rule that cards, in and of themselves, are adequate. That it did not I think is wrong, and requires supplemental protection.

Edited July 28, 2015 by GregS

[t-pain]

why did the supreme court say this crap about you are your own caregiver?

 

 

Hartwick testified that he was a medical marijuana patient and his

own caregiver, 14

 

We refer to the qualifying patient as being his or her “own caregiver” when the patient has not designated a primary caregiver.

 

54 For example, a registered qualifying patient who is his or her own caregiver and the

caregiver to five other qualifying patients is allowed to possess up to 72 marijuana plants

and up to 15 ounces of usable marijuana.

 

Hartwick is a registered qualifying patient, his own caregiver, and at all times

pertinent to this dispute, a primary caregiver to five registered qualifying patients.

 

 

Tuttle is a registered qualifying patient, his own caregiver, and a primary caregiver

to at least one registered qualifying patient.

 

If Tuttle was his own caregiver and the primary caregiver to two other

qualifying patients, then Tuttle would be permitted to possess no more than a total of 36

marijuana plants.

[trichcycler]

they got that from this site over the years. Many registrants spoke the same language, and still do.

[t-pain]

37

When a patient does not specify a primary caregiver through the state registration

process, the patient is typically considered his or her own caregiver. When no primary

caregiver is properly identified under the law, the patient has legal authority to possess up

to 12 marijuana plants.

why did the court say this over and over again?

[bobandtorey]

The moral is to understand your medical use very well and have your stories very straight. 

Can i add this 

 

Don;t get caught growing or using cannabis for any reason 

[bobandtorey]

it requires all patients and caregivers to own a scale and to measure and make sure they are under their limits as well.

 

how many of the 170,000 patients do you think own a scale? not many i'd say.

 

 

Thanks

 

Scale, Baggies , Cannabis , = selling

[bobandtorey]

it requires all patients and caregivers to own a scale and to measure and make sure they are under their limits as well.

 

how many of the 170,000 patients do you think own a scale? not many i'd say.

 

 

I still use  4 fingers   = a Lid if the judge will let me demonstrate that          

[t-pain]

A court must pay special attention to whether the effective date or expiration date of a registry identification card occurred within this gap and determine whether the conduct occurred when the patient or caregiver possessed a valid registry identification card.

 

why? just so you can criminalize a person for using his/her own medication?

 

A patient seeking to assert a § 8 affirmative defense may have to testify about

whether a specific amount of marijuana alleviated the debilitating medical condition and

if not, what adjustments were made to the consumption rate and the amount of marijuana

consumed to determine an appropriate quantity. Once the patient establishes the amount

of usable marijuana needed to treat the patient’s debilitating medical condition,

determining whether the patient possessed “a quantity of marihuana that was not more

than was reasonably necessary to ensure [its] uninterrupted availability” also depends on

how the patient obtains marijuana and the reliability of this source. This would

necessitate some examination of the patient/caregiver relationship.

 

the judge judges you and your medications. any amount is too much.

 

 

 

Whether a qualifying

patient or primary caregiver was engaged in the medical use of marijuana must be

determined on a charge-by-charge basis.

 

 

will your testimony change depending on the charge? what?

 

 

 

section 4 has 4 prongs, to assert the protections of § 4 must prove four elements by a preponderance of the evidence.:

A qualifying patient must prove that, at the time of the charged offense, he or she

(1) possessed a valid registry identification card;

(2) possessed no more marijuana than allowed under § 4(a); (3) stored any marijuana plants in an enclosed, locked facility; and

(4) was engaged in the medical use of marijuana.

 

If the qualifying patient establishes the first and second elements, then a presumption exists that the qualifying patient was engaged in the medical use of marijuana, thereby establishing the fourth element.

 

 

anyone check what they said sec4 in k/k ruling?

 

 

A primary caregiver has the burden of establishing the elements of § 8(a)(1) for

each patient to whom the primary caregiver is alleged to have unlawfully provided

marijuana. In this context, a primary caregiver who provides marijuana to a putative

patient plainly assumes the risk that the patient does not actually meet the elements of

§ 8(a)(1) or that the patient may not cooperate in a subsequent prosecution of the primary

caregiver, regardless what that person may have otherwise told the primary caregiver. 78

 

this is why i suggest people only be caregivers for family members....

[bobandtorey]

The court did say that the caregiver's medical use can't be rebutted because of the patient's actions outside the Act that where not known to caregiver. 

 

And the patient's medical use can't be rebutted because of something the caregiver did outside of the Act that was not know to the patient. 

 

 

Thanks

 

preponderance of the evidence  i see this a lot in the ruling and their will never be enough Evidence for the judge to give you a trial 

[bobandtorey]

the court ruled against this, it is the caregivers (defendants') burden to prove medical use, every time, which means , in a roundabout way, the caregiver would have to know how much weed the patient used. tricky mother guys.

 

maybe if your contract included what the msc talked about , how much weed, how much was available "reasonably nessecary" etc... then notarized might cover it. but as-is i dont see it happening.

 

 

we're talking about a cg who sells to a non-connected patient here, right?

That is right Imo

 

I'm no Lawyer and most times  i know nothing about this ruling nor any parts of Law 1 of 2008

[bobandtorey]

The contract's supporting documents or other written statements, e.g., office notes, also prevent the need for a physician to testify. So says the Court. That is huge.

 

 

I wouldn't  leave a paper trail for Leo

 

 Imo

[keylan]

IF we arrive at a point where we determine the agreement and its supporting documents to be a benefit, and I argue that they are, it remains to get the word out. The agreement will need to be revised a little due to this ruling. If your husband provides the supporting documents signed by his doctor, or other medical documents that show the doctor has completed a full assessment in a bona fide relationship and concludes that your husband, or any patient for that matter, is likely to benefit from the use of cannabis, that documentation has been ruled adequate to meet that evidentiary burden which establishes the necessary proof of a bona fide recommendation. Cards are not always enough. The Court specifies the evidentiary rule that requires they be introduced into evidence as allowable hearsay http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/rules/Documents/Michigan%20Rules%20of%20Evidence.pdf

(scroll down to 803(6), records of regularly conducted activity).

 

No one is obligated to use this type of legal device, but I think it offers a lot of protection, especially given this ruling. We were expecting the Court to rule that cards, in and of themselves, are adequate. That it did not I think is wrong, and requires supplemental protection.

I am all for supplemental protection - but I still think this is all getting into the absurd, and  the courts are in an alternate reality. But I will do what I have to do to stay out of trouble.

[trichcycler]

I still use  4 fingers   = a Lid if the judge will let me demonstrate that

really?

 

I haven't met a cannabis user since 1970 that didn't own a scale to check their mj, including EVERY patient I ever delivered to. Of course they didn't carry it with them, or even bring it to the meet, but they definitely weighed it at home. how else would they know about the extra 3 grams on every strain?   Everyone at least had a dinky postage scale.

you dinosaurs crack me up.

[trichcycler]

A court must pay special attention to whether the effective date or expiration date of a registry identification card occurred within this gap and determine whether the conduct occurred when the patient or caregiver possessed a valid registry identification card.

 

why? just so you can criminalize a person for using his/her own medication?

 

A patient seeking to assert a § 8 affirmative defense may have to testify about

whether a specific amount of marijuana alleviated the debilitating medical condition and

if not, what adjustments were made to the consumption rate and the amount of marijuana

consumed to determine an appropriate quantity. Once the patient establishes the amount

of usable marijuana needed to treat the patient’s debilitating medical condition,

determining whether the patient possessed “a quantity of marihuana that was not more

than was reasonably necessary to ensure [its] uninterrupted availability” also depends on

how the patient obtains marijuana and the reliability of this source. This would

necessitate some examination of the patient/caregiver relationship.

 

the judge judges you and your medications. any amount is too much.

 

 

 

Whether a qualifying

patient or primary caregiver was engaged in the medical use of marijuana must be

determined on a charge-by-charge basis.

 

 

will your testimony change depending on the charge? what?

 

 

 

section 4 has 4 prongs, to assert the protections of § 4 must prove four elements by a preponderance of the evidence.:

A qualifying patient must prove that, at the time of the charged offense, he or she

(1) possessed a valid registry identification card;

(2) possessed no more marijuana than allowed under § 4(a); (3) stored any marijuana plants in an enclosed, locked facility; and

(4) was engaged in the medical use of marijuana.

 

If the qualifying patient establishes the first and second elements, then a presumption exists that the qualifying patient was engaged in the medical use of marijuana, thereby establishing the fourth element.

 

 

anyone check what they said sec4 in k/k ruling?

 

 

A primary caregiver has the burden of establishing the elements of § 8(a)(1) for

each patient to whom the primary caregiver is alleged to have unlawfully provided

marijuana. In this context, a primary caregiver who provides marijuana to a putative

patient plainly assumes the risk that the patient does not actually meet the elements of

§ 8(a)(1) or that the patient may not cooperate in a subsequent prosecution of the primary

caregiver, regardless what that person may have otherwise told the primary caregiver. 78

 

this is why i suggest people only be caregivers for family members....

this is why I suggest people only sell to their registered five patients

[GregS]

I wouldn't  leave a paper trail for Leo

 

 Imo

We're supposed to trust your judgment? Funny that.