CDPHE Emergency

[BudGood]

 

[Old time lurker]

Me and the leading attorneys definitely are the ones that misunderstand.

She was granted a medical defense but not allowed testimony of a patient-that is what is at issue here nothing else-get it?

bunch of babies ,if you got pinched you'd be screaming from the top of the tower ,I've been wronged-

Rules are for fucking cowards that cant think for themselves!

I DONT NEED A FUCKING PIECE OF PAPER TO TELL ME ITS OK-I FUCKING KNOW IT.ALL YOU CLOWNS GIVEING ALL THIS POWER TO THE AUTHORETIES DONT DESERVE THE FREEDOMS ARE FOREFATHERS FOUGHT FOR.

FUCK THE POLICE AND ALL THIER CHEERLEADERS!

Hate to break the news to you, Rebel-Yell, but if you ever want to see herb legalized, your going to have bring the authorities around to see your point of view. They'll be less inclined to take you seriously if your busy yelling "fuckin' pigs this!" and "fuck the man that!" Engage them with facts and solutions, not barbs and taunts. Easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar.

 

[StrictlyGateway]

Gateway-All the laweyers are culpable in this, they are part of an archaic punitive system that we have been programed to belive we need.

not really, only corry took it from county court to the state level. and for now, it's the system we have, therefore the system we need (to beat).
i am very familiar with corry's philosophy and tactics...imo, he is the most 'liberal' user of amendment 20. all of the lawyers realize that there is much to be decided through the court system, but we should be taking the most solid cases first. corry advises people that they don't need to register...sure technically the law kind of says that, but this is a liberal interpretation. corry advises his clients to push limits, imo and wants to take everything to court, but we need to take some cases through that DO have ALL of the paperwork at the time of arrest, and pin the court into a ruling that is more benign. then he can start taking more loosey-goosey stuff through.

[/quote]I dont like corry but do you realy think that clendenin should lay down and take this?[/quote]
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

[/quote]she took cutings for another legal caregiver/patient -that is what put her over her limit-and the judge would not allow the testomony of the patient that was to recive the cuts becuse she did not know him ,only his caregiver-That is what the decision is abought and IMO I dont think the pepole of CO Would think that she did wrong if all were given the fair light of day![/quote]
one patient...30 cuttings? look, i don't fault Clendenin in any of this...she tried, she failed. but to use this case to set statewide legal precedence?...well, we are seeing the effects.

what was her punishement anyway?? one year unsupervised, some community service?

 

[Marshmello]

Affirmative?
Negative.....make mine The NUTTN.

This will just be another grey area.
Seems to me it's basically luck of the draw?
Russian Roulette more appropriate for an analogy?

I can see it now: The Nuttn Defense

"I offered the INTERNET to my patient...he didn't need nuttn."

 

[kb5178]

I dont like corry but do you realy think that clendenin should lay down and take this?[/quote]
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

what was her punishement anyway?? one year unsupervised, some community service?[/QUOTE]

She is a felon-this was NOT a money grabing selfish person-she did not trust the registry or the laws and knew she was breaking federal law and did not want to be on any lists-stupid yes ,but criminal -not in any way!

 

[kb5178]

Hate to break the news to you, Rebel-Yell, but if you ever want to see herb legalized, your going to have bring the authorities around to see your point of view. They'll be less inclined to take you seriously if your busy yelling "fuckin' pigs this!" and "fuck the man that!" Engage them with facts and solutions, not barbs and taunts. Easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar.

You are correct oldtime I just loose it when i see other patients support the position of leo in any way.

I'm done -sorry to those that I offended but I cant help it i am passionate and get carried away!

 

[Marshmello]

she did not trust the registry or the laws and knew she was breaking federal law and did not want to be on any lists-stupid yes ,but criminal -not in any way!

This is the person that you are defending and the reason for this fucking emergency meeting bullshit!

AGAIN I ASK......WHY IS NO-ONE STATING THE OBVIOUS??
THIS IS NOT A FUCKING AMENDMENT 20 CASE GOD DAMNED IT TO HELL!

 

[Marshmello]

For her sake, I hope they don't put you on the stand.

 

[cygnus]

This is the person that you are defending and the reason for this fucking emergency meeting bullshit!

AGAIN I ASK......WHY IS NO-ONE STATING THE OBVIOUS??
THIS IS NOT A FUCKING AMENDMENT 20 CASE GOD DAMNED IT TO HELL!

Wow just wow! You fools need to stop! Read the original amendment and get back with me.

 

[BowlPacks]

Haha... I dont think its the "read"ing thats the problem; its the interpretation. Is that what lawyers do? Yes. Did rob corry interpret 20 to mean that he could use a medical defense for somebody using the law as a cover for illegal activity? Yes. Now he's responsible for the fall out. Why dont you call him and ask how many people have asked for a check returning their retainer?
kb5178- lets lay of the "snitching" talk. I think you are part of the problem... homie g thug.

 

[cygnus]

Haha... I dont think its the "read"ing thats the problem; its the interpretation. Is that what lawyers do? Yes. Did rob corry interpret 20 to mean that he could use a medical defense for somebody using the law as a cover for illegal activity? Yes. Now he's responsible for the fall out. Why dont you call him and ask how many people have asked for a check returning their retainer?
kb5178- lets lay of the "snitching" talk. I think you are part of the problem... homie g thug.

No. You tell me how many have asked for a retainer back?

 

[Marshmello]

Wow just wow! You fools need to stop! Read the original amendment and get back with me.

Better Yet, can you show me the part that says if you don't agree with it,
you can just do whatever the fuck you want to?
Or IF YOU KNOW YOU ARE BREAKING FEDERAL LAW,
HOW AMENDMENT 20 CAN BE USED TO SHIELD YOUR ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.
Because apparently, Clendin & kb feels this is all within the Amendment.
I did miss that part though, so PLEASE, verify.

 

[cygnus]

Better Yet, can you show me the part that says if you don't agree with it,
you can just do whatever the fuck you want to?
Or IF YOU KNOW YOU ARE BREAKING FEDERAL LAW,
HOW AMENDMENT 20 CAN BE USED TO SHIELD YOUR ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.
Because apparently, Clendin & kb feels this is all within the Amendment.
I did miss that part though, so PLEASE, verify.

Is this a federal case?

You continue to prove your ignorance.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

What a joke. I guess this is the politricksters way of shitting in our ceral the way we have proverbialy shit in theirs by having legal cannabis. Patients dont want extra caregiving services, and providers certainly dont want to deal with providing the extra services. Oh well, they can try and try, but it is more than obvious after the passing of pro-cannabis laws in breckenridge that we are eventually going to win this ridiculous war. Peace and love and good pot to everyone, legal and not legal, medical or recreational, spiritual or ritual. -BhT

 

[Marshmello]

Part with some of your wisdom.....

Part with some of your wisdom.....

Is this a federal case?

You continue to prove your ignorance.

Are you reading the thread or just shootin' from the hip?
Try and mix in some comprehension.

Let me help since obviously, you are not hooked on phonics:

She is a felon-this was NOT a money grabing selfish person-she did not trust the registry or the laws and knew she was breaking federal law and did not want to be on any lists-stupid yes ,but criminal -not in any way!

Ahhhh, so now that you hopefully grasp what this here "friend" is saying, what's your stance on him spilling her frijoles all over the internet?

 

[Balazar]

Has anyone else made the connection that the Obama administration asked the DEA to back off of medical patients/caregivers that are complying with state law, then the DEA made a statement of compliance, and one week later the health board springs this crap on us instantly making everyone non-compliant? This shit doesn't benefit anyone. Not patients, not caregivers, not the city's of Colorado. Only the DEA benefits from this bullshit.

 

[Marshmello]

Has anyone else made the connection that the Obama administration asked the DEA to back off of medical patients/caregivers that are complying with state law, then the DEA made a statement of compliance, and one week later the health board springs this crap on us instantly making everyone non-compliant? This shit doesn't benefit anyone. Not patients, not caregivers, not the city's of Colorado. Only the DEA benefits from this bullshit.

 

[StrictlyGateway]

Has anyone else made the connection that the Obama administration asked the DEA to back off of medical patients/caregivers that are complying with state law, then the DEA made a statement of compliance, and one week later the health board springs this crap on us instantly making everyone non-compliant? This shit doesn't benefit anyone. Not patients, not caregivers, not the city's of Colorado. Only the DEA benefits from this bullshit.

yes they did make a great statement in our benefit! missing from the statement however, is what degree of state law violations will it take for the DEA to get involved? for instance...somebody growing in their basement is, most likely committing a zoning violation, is that going to trigger DEA involvement?

i just post this to remind us all that we really can't let our guard down until the whole world is breckinridge. i would like to believe that the spirit of obama's announcement does mean that if we are in compliance with the ever ambiguous amendment 20, but who really knows???

 

[pikes peak 69]

Straight from Amendment 20.

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hs/medicalmarijuana/amendment.html


(2) (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (5), (6), and (8) of this section, a patient or primary care-giver charged with a violation of the state's criminal laws related to the patient's medical use of marijuana will be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to such allegation where:



(I) The patient was previously diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition;



(II) The patient was advised by his or her physician, in the context of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the patient might benefit from the medical use of marijuana in connection with a debilitating medical condition; and



(III) The patient and his or her primary care-giver were collectively in possession of amounts of marijuana only as permitted under this section.

This affirmative defense shall not exclude the assertion of any other defense where a patient or primary care-giver is charged with a violation of state law related to the patient's medical use of marijuana.



Nowhere does it state that you must or shall apply for a card. Without a card you do an affirmative defense. If you have a card and within the guidelines you do a simple defense. If you have a card and your outside of the guidelines (more then the Amendment 20 states) then you also do an affirmative defense.


Some people still believe you need a Drs signature to get a card. Nowhere in the law states that the Dr must sign anything. You can send in copies of Drs office notes and in them if he states that you may benefit, that will get you a card. The registry won't tell you that but my wife did it and they have to approve it. I called them on it and they stated that if a patient sends in office notes the registry will call the Dr and ask for signature. She wouldn't tell me if they all did but I know they didn't.

pp69

 

[Marshmello]

.