Hartwick/Tuttle Supreme Court Arguments

GregS

GregS

Well-Known Member
Oral arguments will start tomorrow, 1-15-14, at 9:30 AM.

Briefs can be found here:
http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/oral-arguments/2014-2015/Pages/148444.aspx
http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/oral-arguments/2014-2015/Pages/148971.aspx
http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/oral-arguments/2014-2015/Pages/149290.aspx
http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=3206
http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=3201
http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=3200
 
NurseNancy420

NurseNancy420

Well-Known Member
I understand that at one point the judges actually laughed at the prosecutors from Oakland county?? Not laughed with. Butt laughed at.
Well done
 
GregS

GregS

Well-Known Member
NurseNancy420 said:
I understand that at one point the judges actually laughed at the prosecutors from Oakland county?? Not laughed with. Butt laughed at.
Well done
Click to expand...
Yeah. It was good to watch. The girls were bitch slapped hard. Chief Justice Young inflected some of his humor toward them, letting them know they had no paddle. Several other Justices asked pointed questions. It was weird that the defense attorneys missed so many good points in their arguments and got bogged down with that. The Bench proceeded to walk them through the facts. The Justices, to my mind, demonstrated they will order that our protection will become the law of the land. Evidentiary issues in light of sections four and eight are being closely considered along with a handful of other issues, e.g., that the Court of Appeals showed its ass telling two of the caregiver defendants that they are required to know a patient's condition, their doctor's contact information, have contact with that doctor, and some wild idea that caregivers are required to specify and control dosage. All of that is what they want to have answered to in court in those prosecutions. The Bench made some other nicely delivered comments toward the prosecutors. So call me a geek. The video will be available soon.
 
Last edited:
I

itsbakin

Member
hartwick 44 minutes.....in the court's opinion marijuana is as harmful as asprin.......it's kind of what the court said. over the counter med...yep, I agree.
 
Jimdamick

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member
I read the first 3 attachments, but could not go further ( not allowed?). So, set me straight. The plaintiff was arrested after her husband was arrested by undercover police, after him selling to a narc, while in possession of a firearm, that was not registered.(felony in this case + intent/possession/growing/sale etc.), and the wife want's to get off because she has a card? That is the funniest shit that I have read in a week. If she wins this one, I want her lawyers name.
 
I

itsbakin

Member
the dosage that makes me stable is as much as possible at all times...I'll set about quantifying that in case I ever need to.
Jimdamick said:
I read the first 3 attachments, but could not go further ( not allowed?). So, set me straight. The plaintiff was arrested after her husband was arrested by undercover police, after him selling to a narc, while in possession of a firearm, that was not registered.(felony in this case + intent/possession/growing/sale etc.), and the wife want's to get off because she has a card? That is the funniest shit that I have read in a week. If she wins this one, I want her lawyers name.
Click to expand...
that sounds like bits and pieces from each of the three cases. these are three different cases. What you wrote would make a funny case though, fiction writing suits you.
 
ozzrokk

ozzrokk

Well-Known Member
Jimdamick said:
I read the first 3 attachments, but could not go further ( not allowed?). So, set me straight. The plaintiff was arrested after her husband was arrested by undercover police, after him selling to a narc, while in possession of a firearm, that was not registered.(felony in this case + intent/possession/growing/sale etc.), and the wife want's to get off because she has a card? That is the funniest shit that I have read in a week. If she wins this one, I want her lawyers name.
Click to expand...

Uhhh might want to read again.
 
Jimdamick

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member
itsbakin said:
the dosage that makes me stable is as much as possible at all times...I'll set about quantifying that in case I ever need to.

that sounds like bits and pieces from each of the three cases. these are three different cases. What you wrote would make a funny case though, fiction writing suits you.
Click to expand...
I got it all wrong, I guess that I should have put down that blunt, before I posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top