Well bad news...

[Chuckleberry]

They got a friend of mine with 12 plants in his house. No scales no baggies just 12 plants that were a month old. This happens to be in Michigan and hopefully the laws will be changed once Nov. comes around and we vote medical mj into law. He was not taken into custody, and they tried to get him to talk. I told him to get a lawyer and keep his mouth shut.

He has degenerative spine disease and 2 ruptured herniated disks in his back. I know he will qualify for med mj when/if the law is changed.

If indeed the law changes do you think he will still be obligated to serve time if he is sentenced before the law is changed?

I wonder if he has his attorney postpone everything until after the new law is passed will help him in his defense?

Any input is appreciated

C

 

[FreezerBoy]

My GUESS is he broke the law as it existed and will face the consequences. November will only effect those caught after January 1st, 2009.

12 plants sounds scary. No sales paraphernalia or wads-O-cash at least deprives leo evidence of sales (though it doesn't prove sales didn't take place) If it's a first offense, he can prove his conditions exist, and no sales come to light, probation and diversion may be available.

You gave him great advice. Lets hope he took it to heart. Friend of Chuckleberry, Shut the Fuck up! And I mean that in the nice way. Good luck.

 

[subrob]

i think he is right, i dont believe new laws can be applied retroactively. good luck to your friend. let him know we are thinking of him.....sub

 

[EasyBakeIndica]

They can write the new law to retroactively protect people from prosecution/convictions. Our congress recently did this to protect the telecoms from being sued for letting the NSA spy on American citizens.

Back to topic: They are not allowed to write a law which would retroactively punish an individual. (IE: ex post facto)

I doubt that Michigan's bill has retroactive provisions. If you really want to protect your friend, you might want to contact some attorneys who can help make additions (if at all possible). Either way, your friend could fight the case (plead not guilty) and try and drag it out until the new law passes. Even if they convict him, he may have some luck in appeals.

Then again, how much money is your friend willing to spend over 12 plants? They'll probably offer him a deal he can't refuse.

 

[guest]

Dammit .. ask for a jury trial and pray that at least one person in twelve has some common sense.

Unless the judge is willing to go with a $1 fine. And zero probation and costs.
Sombody make sure to call the newspapers and TV.

 

[kmk420kali]

How did they catch him? That may matter the most as far as getting off--

 

[Storm Crow]

PB's got it right! Scream and yell! Raise holy hell!

Talk to his parents. Contact papers, the local TV news, ASA, NORML, ACLU, Michigan Disabilities Rights Coalition, Michigan Department of Civil Rights, etc... Don't let him be swept under the rug, unnoticed! Put the spotlight on this injustice!

Does he go to college? College students can get quite passionate when it comes to a just cause- especially when one of their own is threatened. Nothing like a trial with a mess of college kids holding up picket signs for TV!

There are several studies in the link below that may be useful for educating those you wish to convince. Or if the lawyer does a "medical necessity" defense.

Thank you for caring about your friend.

-Granny

 

[Chuckleberry]

Well after 5 dys in the mental ward from all this bullshite my friend has contacted a NORML attorney from Michigan.

The advice given was to postpone this as long as possible until the new law is passed. There is a good chance that this case can set a precedent to Michigan marajuana law.

There is also the possibility that the case can be won IF i can prove that the strain hesgrowing was cannabis INDICA as opposed to it being cannabis SATIVA. I know for a fact it was an INDICA, however where would I be able to find someone that can determine exactly which is which in court that is submissible.

No search warrant however they were outside searching before they even knocked on the door. No wrriten consent to search just a verbal "whatever" answer and they had probable cause.

He is keeping his mouth shut as advised...


Is there a compassionate group advocating medical mj that might be able to assist with legalaid? He is in the process of collecting disability and cannot afford the attorney I think he needs and we all know whats going to happen if he has a public defender

Thanks everyone for the advice, it has made him feel alot better knowing there are people out there just like him that has a need for this medicine and are there for support for this matter.

C

 

[vta]

God luck to your friend!

There is also the possibility that the case can be won IF i can prove that the strain hesgrowing was cannabis INDICA as opposed to it being cannabis SATIVA. I know for a fact it was an INDICA, however where would I be able to find someone that can determine exactly which is which in court that is submissible.

How does that work??? Pot is pot as far as the courts go.

 

[guest]

It is possible that he could get a license from the state before his trial.

If he does, his court situation would be in much much better light.

I think that cronic pain may qualify him.

 

[Chuckleberry]

This might be a long read but well worth the time...

From a NORML reccomended attorney:

MOTIONS TO DISMISS, OR FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING, FOR EXAMINATION AND TESTING OF EVIDENCE, AND FOR PUBLIC FUNDS TO HIRE EXPERTS

Matthew R. Abel, attorney for Defendant, moves this court to dismiss this case, or for an evidentiary hearing and requests that this Court invalidate the statute under which Defendant is charged, due to unconstitutionality.

1. Defendant was arrested for possession of marijuana and other controlled substances.

2. The search and seizure was invalid, illegal, and the fruits of the search must be suppressed.

3. Defendant moves to invalidate his arrest as a violation of Defendant’s rights under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan, and dismiss the case with prejudice.

4. Defendant moves that this court find that the Federal classification scheme placing marijuana in Schedule 1 (having no medicinal value) is invalid, and that the prohibition is unconstitutional as a denial of substantive due process.

5. Defendant moves that this court find that the Michigan Controlled Substances Act violates both the Constitution of the State of Michigan and the Constitution of the United States of America, in that, even if no fundamental right is involved, that the law lacks any rational relationship to a legitimate state interest, and is therefore unconstitutional and invalid.

6. Defendant moves that this court find that the state statute under which Defendant is being prosecuted is unconstitutional because it fails to pass strict scrutiny of even having a rational basis toward achieving a legitimate state objective sufficient to curtail Defendant’s fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

IMPROPER SCHEDULE 1 CLASSIFICATION DENIES DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

Michigan statutory controlled substances law relies on and refers to the Federal Schedule Classification Scheme for Controlled Substances. Marijuana is erroneously classified as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, one with no medicinal value. That clearly is in error. Several states in this country, as well as the cities of Detroit, Ann Arbor, and Ferndale in Michigan have authorized the use of marijuana as recommended by a physician. It has been prescribed for such diverse ailments as glaucoma, asthma, chronic wasting disease, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and AIDS. The illegal classification scheme is unconstitutional as a denial of procedural and substantive due process and of equal protection.
Until marijuana is correctly rescheduled as a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance, marijuana cannot be criminalized in Michigan.
Schedule I is reserved for substances having the following characteristics: (1) a high potential for abuse of the substance; (2) no accepted medical use in the United States for the substance; and (3) a lack of accepted safety for use of the substance under medical supervision. None of these requirements pertain to marijuana, and so the scheduling is unconstitutional.
If marijuana is to be criminalized in Michigan, either characterization of Schedule I must be changed by the legislature, or marijuana must be rescheduled.

1. marijuana has much lower potential for abuse than many lesser-scheduled or non-scheduled legal substances:

*

2. even the governments own experts acknowledge medical use. The Institute of Medicine in the 1999 report “Marijuana and Medicine” found:

“The profile of cannabinoid drug effects suggests that they are promising for
treating wasting syndrome in AIDS patients. Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and
anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by
marijuana. Although some medications are more effective than marijuana for
these problems, they are not equally effective in all patients.” [IOM p. 159]

“[T]here will likely always be a subpopulation of patients who do not respond
well to other medications. The combination of cannabinoid drug effects
(anxiety reduction, appetite stimulation, nausea reduction, and pain
relief) suggests that cannabinoids would be moderately well suited for certain
conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS
wasting.” [IOM pp. 3, 4]

“The critical issue is not whether marijuana or cannabinoid drugs might be
superior to the new drugs, but whether some group of patients might obtain
added or better relief from marijuana or cannabinoid drugs.” [IOM p. 153]

“Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes
available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people
suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking
marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting.” [IOM p. 8]

Therapeutic compounds in marijuana act through natural pathways in
the brain. In 1990 researchers identified nerve receptors in the brain
that are stimulated by THC and cloned the gene that gives rise to those
receptors. In 1992 the natural body chemical that binds to those receptors
was identified. It was named anandamide, after a Sanskrit word meaning
“bliss.” Receptors for anandemide are located mainly in the cerebral
cortex, and in the basal ganglia and cerebellum, parts of the brain
associated with body movements. The receptors in the cortex may explain
the cognitive effects of cannabis, and those found in the basal ganglia
and cerebellum may account for the ameliorative effects of THC and/or
other cannabinoids on muscle spasms and other body movement disorders.
[IOM p. 34]

The U.S. Institute of Medicine has recommended that clinical trials of smoked
marijuana should be conducted for the treatment of numerous medical conditions.
[IOM p. 7-8]

“There is no conclusive evidence that [smoking] marijuana causes
cancer in humans, including cancers usually related to tobacco use. …
More definitive evidence that habitual marijuana smoking leads or does
not lead to respiratory cancer awaits the results of well-designed case
control epidemiological studies.” [IOM p. 119]

“t will likely be many years before a safe and effective canna-
binoid delivery system, such as an inhaler, is available for patients. In
the meantime there are patients with debilitating symptoms for whom smoked
marijuana might provide relief.” [IOM p. 7]

Besides THC, there are other medicinally beneficial ingredients in whole
marijuana. [IOM, pp 33-81]
3. There is no lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Many doctors in this country now supervise numerous patients who safely use marijuana.
Allowing medical supervision reduces lawlessness.

THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT LACKS ANY RATIONAL BASIS
AS APPLIED TO CANNABIS

The worst thing about marijuana is that it is against the law. No evidence of physical harm has ever been shown. Even if some harm were shown, there are less restrictive means of accomplishing the governmental objective (assuming that it is a legitimate objective under the Constitution).
As stated by the Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Sinclair, 387 Mich 91, 194 NW 2d 878 (1971): “Comparison of the effects of marijuana use on both the individual and society with the effects of other drug use demonstrates not only that there is no rational basis for classifying marijuana with the “hard narcotics”, but, also, that there is not even a rational basis for treating marijuana as a more dangerous drug than alcohol.”

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT LACKS COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TO IMPACT DEFENDANT’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Regulation which restricts the exercise of certain fundamental rights may be justified only by a compelling state interest. Birth Control Centers, Inc. v. Reize, 508 F. Supp, 1366 (1981).
The U.S. Constitution guarantees people the right to the pursuit of happiness. That includes the right to protect one’s health, Right to Choose v. Byrne, 398 A.2d 587. While the state may impose reasonable limitations on the pursuit, the state has a heavy burden to justify its interference in a person’s right to the pursuit of happiness. Jacobs v. Benedict, 301 N.E. 2d 723.
While a California court has found that there is not a deprivation of the right to the pursuit of happiness by the prohibition of marijuana, NORML v. Gain, 161 Cal Rptr. 181, Defendant asserts that holding to be in error, and in any event, of no precedential value here in Michigan.
The U.S. Constitution also protects Defendants First Amendment right to freedom of expression. The governmental interest in the controlled substances laws, which presumably is to foster the health of the people, is not only not being met by the regulatory scheme, but is actually being harmed by application of the laws.

SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF THE ACT ARE IRRATIONAL , CAUSING CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT

Prison, jail, or probation for possession of a natural growing herb which has homeopathic healing properties for both physical and mental health is cruel and unusual, and the statutes should be held unconstitutional for this reason.

ONLY CANNABIS SATIVA IS PROHIBITED, AND THE PEOPLE ARE UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CANNABIS SATIVA AND CANNABIS INDICA AND CANNABIS RUDERALIS

The Michigan Legislature enacted a statute prohibiting marijuana, which then defines marijuana as cannabis sativa:
333.7106 Definitions; I to M.
Sec. 7106 (3) “Marihuana” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted therefrom, fiber, oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.
History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978

There are other varieties of cannabis which are not sativa, and therefore not prohibited. The people cannot produce any evidence that the substance confiscated was sativa as opposed to any other variety.

Botanists have been at odds since the 16th century over whether cannabis consists of only one species (Cannabis sativa) or more than one species. That there are different strains of cannabis has not been in question; whether these strains possess qualities of a true species or lesser taxonomic designations, such as races, ecotypes, cultivates, chemovars, and so on, has been at issue (Schultes and Hofmann 1980). Current research indicates the classification consists of more than one species. Botanists such as Richard E. Schultes at Harvard University and Loran C. Anderson at Florida State University conclude sufficient scientific evidence exists to support three species of cannabis: Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis. C. sativa grows to a height of 18 feet (6 metres), is loosely branched, and thrives in cool, damp climates. C. indica grows from 3.5 to 4 feet (1.3 metres), is conical in shape, and thrives in hot, dry climates. C. ruderalis grows from 1 to 2.5 feet (0.4 to 0.7 m), is dense and never branches, and is found primarily in Russia. There are other distinguishing features as well, related to cell and leaf structures. There are gelatinous fibers in the wood and vessels that exist singly or in small groups in C. sativa. C. indica has liberiform fibers in its wood and its vessels occur in large groups. C. ruderalis is mostly intermediate in these characteristics. Although the number of leaflets may vary within a species, C. sativa normally has seven leaflets, C. indica has nine , and C. ruderalis has three. The leaflet of C. sativa is narrow, or lanceolate. The C. indica leaflet is broad, or oblanceolate. And the C. ruderalis leaflet is oval, or elliptic, being broadest at the mid-length of the leaf (Anderson 1974, 1980). All three species contain THC; C.indica produces the most and C. ruderalis the least. Cannabis has been cultivated for thousands of years for its intoxicating flowering tops and leaves, its fibrous stems and branches, and its nutritious seeds. A strain that is high in one of these three qualities tends to be low in the other two. C. indica, for example, is very low in fiber content but generates the most potent marijuana. C. sativa produces the hemp fibers that have been used for centuries for making rope and coarse woven produces, but races of C. sativa high in this quality contain very little THC (less than 0.5 percent). The seeds of C. sativa can also be harvested for use as animal feed and for producing oil that is used in cooking and in making paint.
www.bambooweb.com/articles/m/a/Marijuana.html

While courts have held that by prohibiting cannabis sativa, the legislature intended to prohibit all varieties of the genus cannabis, People v. Riddle, 65 Mich App 433, 237 NW2d 491 (1975) that holding cannot stand, for it flies in the face of the settled rule of legislative construction that words enacted by the legislature are intended to have meaning. With the current interpretation of the statute, the word sativa has been rendered superfluous, and we know that cannot be what the legislature intended.
If the legislature acted in a less than delicate way, it is not for the court to clean up their mess, but to send a clear message to the legislature that it is a mess, which will not be tolerated.
If the legislature wants to prohibit all varieties of the genus cannabis, they easily can do so. This court should not be in the position of agreeing that statutory words have no meaning. The statutory definition was enacted AFTER the Michigan Court of Appeals decided Riddle, and the legislature is presumed to have known of the Riddle holding when the statute was enacted. Accordingly, the later statutory construction must prevail over the earlier court decision.
Accordingly, unless the People can prove through admissible evidence that the Defendant was in possession of cannabis SATIVA, the case must be dismissed.

MOTION FOR EXAMINATION AND TESTING OF EVIDENCE

Defendant is entitled to inspect all evidence, and should be allowed to have the evidence examined and tested by a qualified independent expert.

MOTION FOR PUBLIC FUNDS TO HIRE EXPERTS

Defendant has barely been able to afford to retain counsel in this matter, and is without the necessary funds to hire experts to assist in his defense.
Accordingly, Defendant requests that this court grant him sufficient funds to hire independent experts at government expense.

DEMAND FOR SPEEDY TRIAL

Defendant reasserts his demand for a speedy trial by jury.

Respectfully Submitted,
********

 

[guest]

GO Matthew Abel!!!

rip 'em up!!

 

[Storm Crow]

I think everyone should make a copy of that for reference purposes. Thank you for posting that up, Chuckleberry! It's now in my non-medical note book.

Granny

 

[FirstTracks]

There is also the possibility that the case can be won IF i can prove that the strain hesgrowing was cannabis INDICA as opposed to it being cannabis SATIVA. I know for a fact it was an INDICA, however where would I be able to find someone that can determine exactly which is which in court that is submissible.

I'm not sure if you're trying to get around a legal definition of what it was. Just so you know, Cannabis Sativa is what we smoke. There is no Cannabis Indica. Cannabis Sativa has the three branches, if you will. Sativa, Indica, and Ruderellis.

Hopefully you meant some other reason and have a legit argument here.

Sounds like your friend is being smart and I'm glad you're taking the time and effort to help him out!

fight on!

 

[robbiedublu]

Yea, good luck with that motion in court !!

 

[przcvctm]

Hey Chuckleberry, was his "whatever" a response to the cops threatening him that if he denied them consent to search and caused them to go to the effort to go get a warrant, that they would charge him more severly as opposed to leniency if he cooperated?

If so, being coerced into giving consent may be grounds for suppression and his attorney should have his investigators look into previous busts by these cops to see if there is a pattern of this behavior.

 

[Chuckleberry]

Yes, the whatever response was to them wanting to search however no consent was given, written nor verbal. No rights were read before during or after questioning. They for the most part threatened to take his house away, his truck, boat etc.

The poor guy is on the verge of going back into the mental ward over this, he had to quit smoking after 12 years of medicating, as well as quit 120mg of morphine contin a day hes been on for a few years.

No charges yet but im sure any day now...


Thanks again everyone for your input

 

[guest]

No charges yet but im sure any day now...

That's the best news yet. so far ..

 

[BigMo]

Best of luck to your friend. Good for you for standing up for your friend and having his best interests at heart.

Mo,

 

[Chuckleberry]

fookin state trooper showed up at my buddys house with a form tonight trying to get him to sign stating that he gave consent to search when they took the plants

ARENT THEY SUPPOSED TO GET THAT SIGNED BEFORE THEY FKN SEARCH???

WTF