Getting back to the thread topic, if I may
Hearing for motion to void Board of Health's medical-marijuana decision set for tomorrow, November 10
Very interesting read! For those who don't want to click the link:
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
CDPHE Emergency
- Thread starter pikes peak 69
- Start date
Very interesting read! For those who don't want to click the link:
Spacecadet01
Member
positive vibes being sent to this hearing..The judge will see the light in this case.
sac beh
Member
Follow the developments:
Live blogging the Denver District Court pot hearing
Well at least the judge has a sense of humor?
Live blogging the Denver District Court pot hearing
Well at least the judge has a sense of humor?
slappyjack
Member
I laughed.
Hopefully I'll be as jovial after the ruling."There are no hollers of "Shut up about your fucking mango," like during the Board of Health's teleconference hearing."
Thanks Westword for the laughs this morning. I needed them.
Spacecadet01
Member
we are gonna win this today! the vibe is good!
slappyjack
Member
This judge is awesome! Lets make him THE judge for all future MMJ litigation!
Balazar
Member
I watching the blog. I think this ruling will be in our favor. Rob Corry's comment at 10:17am pissed me off quite a bit though. Clindenin got a year of unsupervised parole and community service not jail time. If he looses that appeal if will screw us all. Can't he just leave it alone. He says one persons life is "at risk". For no jail time? WTF is he talking about. All of the caregivers and dispensaries in the city are at risk if he goes through with the appeal.
slappyjack
Member
Fucking Aye! We won!
10:50 a.m.: Judge Naves has returned. He only rules on the claimants' first claim of relief, which is that the Board of Appeals violated an court order two years ago that agencies considering marijuana rule changes would first notify people impacted by the rule changes.
"By the evidence presented here today, I find that the defendants have violated the court order when in November there was a meeting without notice that complied with the law and the parties changed the rules," says Naves. "I find that there was no emergency. The justification for an emergency was a Court of appeals decision that was not even final. And the Court of Appeals could not use the [Board of Appeals rule in question]...
"It appears from the transcripts from the meeting on November 3rd did not understand how Court of Appeals decision even worked, even though it was suggested here that the explanation was given off the record...
"Even though the Court of Appeals had an opportunity to say in the ruling that this new rule was in conflict with this decision, they did not do that...
"One concern I have two years ago, and it appears that the board did the exact same thing they promised not to do. One of the reasons they violated the rules is that they seem to forget the plaintiffs in this cae. In the transcript there isn't any mention of the plaintiffs in the case... These people have, without dispute, serious problems for which they have prescriptions for medical marijuana... there was no mention of the impact of this change on these people... There is no consideration of how plaintiffs and others who need medical marijuana would obtain it...
"So, again, I find that the Board in their November 3rd meeting violated the law. Therefore the rule change they enacted is invalid and void....
The defendants are enjoined from enforcing that modification until a meeting in compliance with the court order and open meeting act can be held."
Judge Naves also awards reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiffs for enforcing the 2007 court order.
Court is in recess. The marijuana advocates have won.
10:50 a.m.: Judge Naves has returned. He only rules on the claimants' first claim of relief, which is that the Board of Appeals violated an court order two years ago that agencies considering marijuana rule changes would first notify people impacted by the rule changes.
"By the evidence presented here today, I find that the defendants have violated the court order when in November there was a meeting without notice that complied with the law and the parties changed the rules," says Naves. "I find that there was no emergency. The justification for an emergency was a Court of appeals decision that was not even final. And the Court of Appeals could not use the [Board of Appeals rule in question]...
"It appears from the transcripts from the meeting on November 3rd did not understand how Court of Appeals decision even worked, even though it was suggested here that the explanation was given off the record...
"Even though the Court of Appeals had an opportunity to say in the ruling that this new rule was in conflict with this decision, they did not do that...
"One concern I have two years ago, and it appears that the board did the exact same thing they promised not to do. One of the reasons they violated the rules is that they seem to forget the plaintiffs in this cae. In the transcript there isn't any mention of the plaintiffs in the case... These people have, without dispute, serious problems for which they have prescriptions for medical marijuana... there was no mention of the impact of this change on these people... There is no consideration of how plaintiffs and others who need medical marijuana would obtain it...
"So, again, I find that the Board in their November 3rd meeting violated the law. Therefore the rule change they enacted is invalid and void....
The defendants are enjoined from enforcing that modification until a meeting in compliance with the court order and open meeting act can be held."
Judge Naves also awards reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiffs for enforcing the 2007 court order.
Court is in recess. The marijuana advocates have won.
pikes peak 69
Active member
WE Won!
sac beh
Member
Although a temporary fix, it is a great ruling and one more legal precedent for MMJ patient and caregiver rights. What a level-headed judge! He went out of his way to state his belief that patient rights were violated and that the CDPHE must consider patients in their decisions. Something that seems so obvious.
I sure hope, as Balazar says, that Corry doesn't make a huge mistake by getting the Supreme Court involved.
anyway, congrats to all for today's decision and let's keep this momentum on the right track.... good vibes!
I sure hope, as Balazar says, that Corry doesn't make a huge mistake by getting the Supreme Court involved.
anyway, congrats to all for today's decision and let's keep this momentum on the right track.... good vibes!
Gotta love it when the law is on our side! I am a little confused in how this is all going to play out as well. I think that as long as we keep fighting the good fight, we will have the outcome we want out of this.
slappyjack
Member
I proclaim today "good news day", check it..
AMA Calls for Review of Medical Marijuana’s Legal Status
AMA Ends 72-Year Policy, Says Marijuana has Medical Benefits
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=144786
AMA Calls for Review of Medical Marijuana’s Legal Status
AMA Ends 72-Year Policy, Says Marijuana has Medical Benefits
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=144786
Spacecadet01
Member
That may be..but its another positive conclusion for MMJ.. period. It shows we have positive momentum. Thats how things are won. You get enough momentum and anything is possible. Positive vibes to you all!
Spacecadet01
Member
I think that might have been him puffing himself up. I think if he takes this to the surpeme court for that case he will have a major backlash from the MMJ community. he would in turn hurt his paycheck. All the business people he reps would jump ship for sure! There alot of money at stake..and people dont like to lose money..if you get my drift.
Ms_Weekend
Member
hey guys....im not following this as close as I should be, but you guys are saying the lady that got caught with no license, no patients, only got 1 year proibation and comm. service? for saying she supplied clubs who supplied patients?
how many plants did she have?
it was a completely illegal grow in the eyes of the law correct?
I would consider that LUCKY as hell if I was her.
Thanks for any responses
how many plants did she have?
it was a completely illegal grow in the eyes of the law correct?
I would consider that LUCKY as hell if I was her.
Thanks for any responses
Yep, I agree. If I was in her situation, I would consider that getting off easy.
Anyhow, we won!!!
