tomcatjones
Active Member
YOU DO NOT NEED TO FOLLOW THE PROTECTIONS IN SECTION 4.
is that better ozz? lol
is that better ozz? lol
Good News.. I swear!!
- Thread starter tomcatjones
- Start date
ozzrokk
Well-Known Member
or that... Lol
bob harris
Well-Known Member
He sure can..right up until the Judge says that he violated the enclosed and locked part of the deal.
Being allowed to use and argue the defense doesn't automatically mean the defense is going to be accepted..just like you can argue self defense at a murder trial...for the section 4 or 8 defense to work, the act must be complied with.
tomcatjones
Active Member
bob.. you are spewing misinformation now.
there are no specifications to be complied with in section 8.
ozzrokk
Well-Known Member
bob harris
Well-Known Member
It's not that simple...section 8 is a trial defense...section 4 would avoid a trial. Section 8 allows the defendant to argue medical necessity to a jury. Section 4 allows a pre trial motion to dismiss entirely.
A section 8 defendant still has to convince a jury that .1. there was medicinal need (a valid Dr recommendation.
.2.. The amount being cultivated or in possession was reasonable to treat that condition, and 3.. that the operation conformed to the medical laws
Basically, the same conditions apply to get a judge to dismiss a section 4 pre trial argument.
But section 8 is an affirmative defense, presented at trial to a jury....not a dismissal. With a section 8 you have a trial and must get a "not guilty" verdict from a jury...
Murfy
Well-Known Member
actually-
bob couldn't be more wrong. still puttin marks on the ol' spam belt, eh?
section 8 arguments are readily available to anyone, but must be claimed at the time of indictment. contradictory to what bob said, the reason for this is simple; once the locked and secure requirements are not met under 4, you cannot then try and claim section 8 rights. try to keep in mind bob, that the type of circular logic that you insistently employ was criticized, and prejudiced in the decision.
also wrong, in bob's eloquence, is the assertion of the section 8 rights to be a trial defense. the justices quite clearly, give the exploratory hearing the weight. if the conditions are met for section 8, CASE DISMISSED. simple as that. if they are not met, you are disallowed ANY 8 benefit or protection. they specifically say, that once the defense has been shown to not comply with 8, they are NOT allowed to use ANY part of it in the trial.
on a side note. the things you say are easily disprovable. why be that guy. there are sick people who are depending on the outcome of this. WHY? i would advise everyone to actually read this. its not much, and bob makes it painfully obvious that the propaganda machine is in full working order.
bob couldn't be more wrong. still puttin marks on the ol' spam belt, eh?
section 8 arguments are readily available to anyone, but must be claimed at the time of indictment. contradictory to what bob said, the reason for this is simple; once the locked and secure requirements are not met under 4, you cannot then try and claim section 8 rights. try to keep in mind bob, that the type of circular logic that you insistently employ was criticized, and prejudiced in the decision.
also wrong, in bob's eloquence, is the assertion of the section 8 rights to be a trial defense. the justices quite clearly, give the exploratory hearing the weight. if the conditions are met for section 8, CASE DISMISSED. simple as that. if they are not met, you are disallowed ANY 8 benefit or protection. they specifically say, that once the defense has been shown to not comply with 8, they are NOT allowed to use ANY part of it in the trial.
on a side note. the things you say are easily disprovable. why be that guy. there are sick people who are depending on the outcome of this. WHY? i would advise everyone to actually read this. its not much, and bob makes it painfully obvious that the propaganda machine is in full working order.
ozzrokk
Well-Known Member
Bob learn what the fuck you are talking about before you go calling people criminals. You have spewed so much bullshit about how people are breaking the law and hurting our law and you dont have a fucking clue what you are talking about. You never do.................. You dont even know what the law says much less what the recent rulings say. What a tool........................................
Murph you are almost completely correct except for there is a situation where if you do not get a dimissal outright on section 8 at the hearing that you can then present it to the jury.
Murph you are almost completely correct except for there is a situation where if you do not get a dimissal outright on section 8 at the hearing that you can then present it to the jury.
FatMarty
Well-Known Member
Jesus Fuck not everyone can be right here and everyone has a different take.
I'd sure like to know what it all really means.
Let's get back to King: He had a card or app in at the time.
He was growing under Sec. 4.
I don't see how he can argue Sec. eight "exemptions" for security as medically necessary: it does not compute.
Like I said before - he did not even try to comform to the rules.
Maybe I'm just stupid; but I don't see where not securing your grow can be construed as medically necessary, especially in his case.
I'd sure like to know what it all really means.
Let's get back to King: He had a card or app in at the time.
He was growing under Sec. 4.
I don't see how he can argue Sec. eight "exemptions" for security as medically necessary: it does not compute.
Like I said before - he did not even try to comform to the rules.
Maybe I'm just stupid; but I don't see where not securing your grow can be construed as medically necessary, especially in his case.
FatMarty
Well-Known Member
All the Court said was he could get the hearing - he won't meet the parameters of Sec. eight and will be back at the mercy of the lower Court and the PA Akers he called out.
That's my take. I could be wrong.
No - I know - I'm not a lawyer - but I don't think any of you guys are either.
That's my take. I could be wrong.
No - I know - I'm not a lawyer - but I don't think any of you guys are either.
gladstoned
Well-Known Member
Belle went through this and it didn't matter what the judge and PA were told. She had experts from downstate and the judge wouldn't even let them speak. The cop changed his story and claimed that the Michigan State Police officer conveniently lost the felony arrest tape the second the news cameras showed up. Clearly bullshit, every single person saw that, the laws don't mean shit. Once you get in front of small town judges, lawyers, and PA they just make shit up. She said fighting that case was the worst thing she could have ever did. You cannot win against these fucks. If Koons or whoever would have won in c of a, it still wouldn't have been worth fighting. If a democrat that is a wealthy career politician gets fucked by this state over and over, then what chance does a disabled, sick, poor patient have in this state?
tomcatjones
Active Member
well guys the WAY king will get off is this..
"The trial court found Defendant cultivated marijuana in an enclosed, locked facility, satisfied the affirmative defense and granted Defendants motion to dismiss the charges."
Because Defendant failed to comply with the provisions of Section 4 regarding the enclosed, locked facility he was precluded from asserting the Section 8 affirmative defense.
BUT.. now we know that YOU DO NOT NEED to follow to protection in section 4 to use the section 8 defense
this is why SEVERABILITY is in the law like 6 times.
each section is separate.
if you have a doctor's rec. which i have 2 - 1 from my first doc. another from my renewal.
you have to meet 3 things at your hearing.
1- you had spoke to a doctor -don't even need a REC "(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;"
2 - you can show you didn't have any more than a "reasonable amount for a consistent unaided supply"
3 -
"The trial court found Defendant cultivated marijuana in an enclosed, locked facility, satisfied the affirmative defense and granted Defendants motion to dismiss the charges."
Because Defendant failed to comply with the provisions of Section 4 regarding the enclosed, locked facility he was precluded from asserting the Section 8 affirmative defense.
BUT.. now we know that YOU DO NOT NEED to follow to protection in section 4 to use the section 8 defense
this is why SEVERABILITY is in the law like 6 times.
each section is separate.
if you have a doctor's rec. which i have 2 - 1 from my first doc. another from my renewal.
you have to meet 3 things at your hearing.
1- you had spoke to a doctor -don't even need a REC "(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;"
2 - you can show you didn't have any more than a "reasonable amount for a consistent unaided supply"
3 -
the defendants use was
to treat or alleviate the patients serious or debilitating medical condition or
symptoms . . . . As long as a defendant can establish these elements, no question of fact
exists regarding these elements, and none of the circumstances in § 7(b)
of course here is what bob needs to read.
4. Section 8 of the MMMA provides a limited protection for the use of medical
marijuana in criminal prosecutions, which requires dismissal of the charges if all the
elements of the defense are established.
5. A defendant need not establish the elements of § 4 to have a valid affirmative
defense under § 8.
6. A defendant who moves for the dismissal of criminal charges under § 8 must
raise the defense in a pretrial motion to dismiss and for an evidentiary hearing.
33
7. A defendant is entitled to the dismissal of criminal charges under § 8 if, at the
evidentiary hearing, the defendant establishes all the elements of the § 8 affirmative
KING WILL WIN.
he had a card.
to treat or alleviate the patients serious or debilitating medical condition or
symptoms . . . . As long as a defendant can establish these elements, no question of fact
exists regarding these elements, and none of the circumstances in § 7(b)
of course here is what bob needs to read.
4. Section 8 of the MMMA provides a limited protection for the use of medical
marijuana in criminal prosecutions, which requires dismissal of the charges if all the
elements of the defense are established.
5. A defendant need not establish the elements of § 4 to have a valid affirmative
defense under § 8.
6. A defendant who moves for the dismissal of criminal charges under § 8 must
raise the defense in a pretrial motion to dismiss and for an evidentiary hearing.
33
7. A defendant is entitled to the dismissal of criminal charges under § 8 if, at the
evidentiary hearing, the defendant establishes all the elements of the § 8 affirmative
KING WILL WIN.
he had a card.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
Good to see you are still ignorant.
Section 8 IS a trial defense...section 4 allows a dismissal. You agreed with Murph, then corrected him, just to argue with me.
My opinions are to try and keep people from getting in trouble..yours is to tell them to do whatever they want, with an overly broad interpretation of the law.
tomcatjones
Active Member
no bob.
if you can meet the 3 requirements of section 8 and not fail in 7(b).
THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN SAID IN 2008: we do not want to waste our time and money even having a trial!
CASE DISMISSED!
bob harris
Well-Known Member
I stand corrected on the technical aspects of section 8.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
King had a Recommendation at the time of arrest...Kolanda did not..two seperate cases.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
Ok guys...ozz says we can grow 300 plants, outdoors, with no fence...so long as we have a recommendation.....ozz, you are an idiot if you think that section 8 will provide that kind of broad defense coverage.
Section 8 does remove plant and weight counts outlined in section 4. However, if you think that is a good thing, you will prove to be mistaken.
(2) the defendant did not possess an amount of marijuana that
was more than reasonably necessary for this purpose,
The second condition is way open to a judges opinion..or a juries. You guys all want growing as much weed as possible to be legal..it isn't.
by removing the plant count and weight protections under section 4, I bet most judges will allow LESS cannabis, plants or weight, to be viewed as "reasonable". King had maturing outdoor plants..what do you think the weight was going to be?
Do you think that it doesn't matter? Think again...
gladstoned
Well-Known Member
Please PM me your info if you could. I would like to sit down with an attorney at some point.