Good News.. I swear!!

FatMarty said:

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.

Click to expand...

Contact Neil Rocklin, IMO, he is the best attorney in the State working specifically on Medical Cannabis cases.

Murph, Can you be a bit more open as to your identity? any cases you have won/Tried?

FatMarty said:

Jesus Fuck I just gave the Attorney props for correcting me.
Aw fuck it man.

If I read the decision right he gets a hearing and he fails the hearing because of the COA.
Under normal circumstances he had a shot at mercy from the Court out of ignorance for the new law no one else seemed to understand including that Lower Court.
But he went on a media blitz and denigrated, (rightly so I might add for what it's worth), both the Court and the PA.

The PA made his own mistakes and got caught: Larry King made that an issue in his case before the media, online, and in newsprint.
He's fucked.

Click to expand...

no Marty, the MSC states the CoA was erroneous on many levels in their rulings, because they were interpreting Judicially, and NOT per a People Initiative. the SC stated very clearly, if a court is to rule on these cases, they MUST read the ACT as a People Initiative, giving it the BROADEST Understanding possible, not the most limited, which is what most all of them have been doing, and we dont hear about the ones that have been following the Act, because the people are not arrested, or tried. thus No news to report because the Act was properly interpreted by the Officers and/or Courts in that jurisdicition...

SO when King goes back to Trial, and the Original Judge has to allow the Sec 8 defense, his case will be dismissed.

ozzrokk said:

And regardless to what you say bob it is NOT ok for the government or law enforcement to USE THEIR power to get back at you because they did not like you protesting them. We do not live in egypt. You talk alot about what king and others did then we come to find out that you dont know shit about any of the cases you spew about. Sorry rant is over. Continue your undercover.

Click to expand...

Never said it was ok for them to do it to "get back' at you..but they will, and you know

But there is no talking to you,,never has been, never will be...

Timmahh said:

no Marty, the MSC states the CoA was erroneous on many levels in their rulings, because they were interpreting Judicially, and NOT per a People Initiative. the SC stated very clearly, if a court is to rule on these cases, they MUST read the ACT as a People Initiative, giving it the BROADEST Understanding possible, not the most limited, which is what most all of them have been doing, and we dont hear about the ones that have been following the Act, because the people are not arrested, or tried. thus No news to report because the Act was properly interpreted by the Officers and/or Courts in that jurisdicition...

SO when King goes back to Trial, and the Original Judge has to allow the Sec 8 defense, his case will be dismissed.

Click to expand...

But that doesn't mean a dismissal. What was king's 'condirion"? were the big ole outdoor plants a "reasonable" amount? That's where his problem lies...

you just need to 1. OPEN YOUR Mind a bit bob, Read the Ballot, read the Bill, Read the Act as passed, and then Read the MSC ruling that Verifies the 3 prior things you just read. Or you can make your life really simple, and just listen to what Ozz, TomCat, Abe, and Myself have been saying all along.

King had 6 plants outside in a locked/eclosed facility (dog kennel), he had 6 plants in side in an enclosed facility. If he used a sec 4, then he must prove locked and enclosed, if he uses a sec 8, then he only needs to prove the 3 parts of 8, and he was not in violation of any part of 7.

he can do that under a sec 8, thus charges shall be dismissed. If the judge sees a issue of FACT then the Jury can make the decision, and yes he was a Registered Patient.

Bob and Torry's case will also be Dismissed due to this ruling as will literally 1000s of others.

Next up Compassionate Apothecary.

bob harris said:

But that doesn't mean a dismissal. What was king's 'condirion"? were the big ole outdoor plants a "reasonable" amount? That's where his problem lies...

Click to expand...

Wait I thought his problem lies with locked enclosed facitlity? You change your stance on a dime once you are proven wrong on your points you try something else.

Now back to the celebration.

Timmahh said:

no bob. 8 clearly states REASONABLY NECCESSARY. it has nothing to do with 4, the MSC distinctly stated you DO NOT NEED TO qualify for ANY part of Sec 4, to use a Sec 8.

secondly. ANYONE that is foolish enough to go over 99 plants, should be FULLY AWare, they are in Federal Territory, with Zero Doubt of it.


you only need to have a dr rec, and qualify for the 3 parts with in 8, and not violate any of 7, and a section 8 defense will 1, get the charges dropped, or 2, allow a Jury to hear the Facts of the Medical USE. Remember section 8 is a "SAFETY NET"..... the burden of proof is on the Defendant to prove compliance to a Judge, OR a Jury of their Peers.

Click to expand...

I totally get what you are saying...so what is your definition of "reasonable amount" as it would apply to the majority of patients?

Reasonable amount could be easily interpreted as less than section 4 allows by a judge. Removing section 4 limits does not increase them...it makes them subject to review and the judge/juries opinion.

How ever you and ozz would like to interpret the rulings..I just don't want people thinking this opened things up..it didn't. It more defined them for a patient, and made things more difficult for a profiteer...

So if ya think you can now max out your 12 plant yield, because that's a "reasonable amount" for your sore back...well..good luck with that.

Actually these ruling told the courts to quit trying to railroad patients and quit denying them there defenses. That is all we ask for let us use the defense and we will see who wins.

ozzrokk said:

Wait I thought his problem lies with locked enclosed facitlity? You change your stance on a dime once you are proven wrong on your points you try something else.

Click to expand...

He has both problems..

Timmahh said:

King had 6 plants outside in a locked/eclosed facility (dog kennel), he had 6 plants in side in an enclosed facility. If he used a sec 4, then he must prove locked and enclosed, if he uses a sec 8, then he only needs to prove the 3 parts of 8, and he was not in violation of any part of 7.

he can do that under a sec 8, thus charges shall be dismissed. If the judge sees a issue of FACT then the Jury can make the decision, and yes he was a Registered Patient.

Bob and Torry's case will also be Dismissed due to this ruling as will literally 1000s of others.

Next up Compassionate Apothecary.

Click to expand...

The problem with your logic is that you want the defendant to be able to pick and choose between defenses. Your saying that locked and secure, weight and count have in effect, been eliminated from the law as written.

All you do is go section 8 to counter, if found in violation of weight, count or locked and secure regulations? Will never happen that way.

Good luck with that when you try it...

ozzrokk said:

Actually these ruling told the courts to quit trying to railroad patients and quit denying them there defenses. That is all we ask for let us use the defense and we will see who wins.

Click to expand...

That's exactly right...they don't change the law at all..only how it is applied. They will help true patients, and care givers that are doing reasonable things, but will not help the profiteers at all.

If you are growing to have overage and make profit, these rulings won't help you at all. You will fail the "reasonable" amount test every time....that's all I'm saying

Timmahh said:

King had 6 plants outside in a locked/eclosed facility (dog kennel), he had 6 plants in side in an enclosed facility. If he used a sec 4, then he must prove locked and enclosed, if he uses a sec 8, then he only needs to prove the 3 parts of 8, and he was not in violation of any part of 7.

he can do that under a sec 8, thus charges shall be dismissed. If the judge sees a issue of FACT then the Jury can make the decision, and yes he was a Registered Patient.

Bob and Torry's case will also be Dismissed due to this ruling as will literally 1000s of others.

Next up Compassionate Apothecary.

Click to expand...

Man I so hope you are correct.

bob harris said:

I totally get what you are saying...so what is your definition of "reasonable amount" as it would apply to the majority of patients?

Reasonable amount could be easily interpreted as less than section 4 allows by a judge. Removing section 4 limits does not increase them...it makes them subject to review and the judge/juries opinion.

How ever you and ozz would like to interpret the rulings..I just don't want people thinking this opened things up..it didn't. It more defined them for a patient, and made things more difficult for a profiteer...

So if ya think you can now max out your 12 plant yield, because that's a "reasonable amount" for your sore back...well..good luck with that.

Click to expand...

reasonable will the the trier of fact for each case. This is how it was SUPPOSED to work from Day one. If its questionable, the jury decides.. i dont think ANYONE that entered the program was confused about that... If your not Registered... But what is reasonable to you or I may not be to the next pt.

I have a good friend whos mom was just diagnosed with Breast Cancer. It will take 2 lbs to make a Full 60 day supply of Simpson Oil..... Is it not reasonable for a Cancer Patient to have a 60 day supply of medicine? but for you or I to prove that amount is Reasonable to your Parks, or My Chronic Pain, I think would be MUCH Harder to do, in front of a Judge OR a jury... See how that is supposed to work? if it doesnt seem good, let a JURY decide.

bob harris said:

The problem with your logic is that you want the defendant to be able to pick and choose between defenses. Your saying that locked and secure, weight and count have in effect, been eliminated from the law as written.

All you do is go section 8 to counter, if found in violation of weight, count or locked and secure regulations? Will never happen that way.


Good luck with that when you try it...

Click to expand...

If you are asserting a section 8 defense, then weights, counts or locked and secure are not important for the assertion of the Sec 8. ofcourse their is no gaurentee you ll get it from the judge, but the judge can not stop you from presenting it to the jury, so long as you cover the 3 parts of 8, and are not violating any part of sec 7, then the jury shall hear the evidence of the case.

no, the defense depends on the PT. If they ONLY have a Dr Rec, they can ONLY assert a Sec 8 defense, If they have a Card, they shouldnt be arrested if they are under limits ect, but if they are they can assert a sec 4, if on the other hand ,they say have 4 oz instead of 2.5, then 4 may not be available, but they can still use 8 to prove medical, though they ll likely need to see a Jury to do so......
This is Not what I want bob.

Its WHAT WE HAVE

bob harris said:

That's exactly right...they don't change the law at all..only how it is applied. They will help true patients, and care givers that are doing reasonable things, but will not help the profiteers at all.

If you are growing to have overage and make profit, these rulings won't help you at all. You will fail the "reasonable" amount test every time....that's all I'm saying

Click to expand...

1/2 correct. the law didnt change, that is correct, what has changed now is the MSC has told the rest of the state to quit ILLEGALLY reading this Peoples Initiative. The MSC told the rest of the state, specifically the CoA and Bull Schuitte, to quit breaking the law, to get the citizens to be breaking the law.

This act was NEVER setup to help the bill schuette term of "Profiteers". Funny you use So Many of BS' terms. we Legal patients call those guys Dealers, not Profiteers.

bob you foolishly think that someone people are too ignorant (perhaps its just a You thing) to understand and realize,
to even TRY to use a Section 8, they ARE GOING TO JAIL, no passing go, no collecting 200.00, no visitation. you go to jail, you hire a lawyer, you see a judge at the minimum, and in most cases will likely end up in front of a Jury.

But now with the MSC Ruling, we ATLEAST know we Do get to say Medical Cannabis Patient to a Jury on a sec 8.
SO long as you have a Dr rec, have medical Need, and a Reasonable Amount on hand, AND, you are not in breach of any part of sec 7. if all of these I's are dotted and T's are crossed, then the Judge can dismiss, Or let a Jury Decide. If there is ANY issue of LAW, not Fact But LAW, the judge makes the decision to allow 8 or not, If its a matter of Fact then the Jury hears it. otherwise, your a criminal and have to prove innocence as normal.

Who else but a cop would think in your terms bob?

lastly, No Dr Rec, No medical Need, No reasonable amount, or any part of 7 is violated, guess what bob, no right to use a Sec 8.


You Really better educate yourself bob... you are way behind the learning curve....


now Do I also need to school you on how Sec 4 works?

actually, I had better, or you ll have this totally fucking confused too.

Have a registration card (authorized and active), under 2.5, under 12 plants/Patient if a CG, locked and enclosed (no roofs, no separate rooms, no one grow per address ect.. Locked and Enclosed), NO ARREST.... anything else as a registered card holder, you get to tell it to the Jury ,IE Sec 8.


Think with the brain in your head on your shoulders bob, not the head you set on.

on a side note, as the SC UPheld the Act as a People's Initiative. We the People should be able to bring charges against those state agencies, and agents of the State, that used falsified cards to entrap people. They used criminal means to get people to self incriminate.......
I believe that is Entrapment.


Can you Hear Us Now?

It seems to me that it's still beneficial for a patient to get themselves registered, otherwise the patient still risks an arrest and formal charges if confronted by a douche bag overzealous LEO. The $200 it takes to see a doc & get registered seems like the best way to go still. You'd spend much more than that between posting bond, getting your car outta impound, and paying a lawyer to show up for court all because some fuck head cop wants to give me a hard time.