Is it possible?

[Michael420]

Weez, you make an excellent point.

Bad advice is worse than none - and free advice is usually worth whatever you paid for it.

[jamessr]

James, you are potentially harming the very people you seek to protect by failing to mention that your interpretations of the law are your own and have largely not been successfully tested in court. It would be helpful to others if you mentioned that what you argue is solely your opinion and that you have no formal legal education except for that acquired through your experience as a defendant. While this is the internet and anybody taking life-affecting advice from forum posts is a moron, ill people are some times desperate to hear what they want to hear. It would be a shame if someone relied on your advice and ended up getting hurt.

Interesting weez how you can just out your butt say I am using "my" interpretations of the law...no wonder why you don't practice law anymore...you go way out on branches you don't belong and you get broke off..

I have not once posted "any" caselaw used in my case by me the defendant..or my lawyer..all I am posting is the state and the court sua sponte caselaw they both used ....used to convict me....!!

Get a life!!

At least someone is looking out for us patients "INTERESTS" in our state...and the only people being hurt is us patients listening to lawyers who feed on us patients for their own interests...look at all the shit caselaw here in wa. against us patients...if you had any balls at all mr. lawyer man..you would be helping instead of telling people here I am hurting them...

When I am done...we won't need lawyers...keep in mind weez, I ain't no rookie like you seem to think...nor am I a greenhorn...I have won every case I have ever fought but 1. And they have all been "TESTED" in court and succeeded...remember this is my 3rd MMJ case here in wa....

When the ruling comes down on my appeal...you will shit yourself!!! watch and learn, you may actually learn something from a non-lawyer.lol.

[jamessr]

Weez, you make an excellent point.

Bad advice is worse than none - and free advice is usually worth whatever you paid for it.

Your day is coming bushmeat. Sooner than you think.

[Weezing]

Interesting weez how you can just out your butt say I am using "my" interpretations of the law...no wonder why you don't practice law anymore...you go way out on branches you don't belong and you get broke off..

I have not once posted "any" caselaw used in my case by me the defendant..or my lawyer..all I am posting is the state and the court sua sponte caselaw they both used ....used to convict me....!!

Get a life!!

At least someone is looking out for us patients "INTERESTS" in our state...and the only people being hurt is us patients listening to lawyers who feed on us patients for their own interests...look at all the shit caselaw here in wa. against us patients...if you had any balls at all mr. lawyer man..you would be helping instead of telling people here I am hurting them...

When I am done...we won't need lawyers...keep in mind weez, I ain't no rookie like you seem to think...nor am I a greenhorn...I have won every case I have ever fought but 1. And they have all been "TESTED" in court and succeeded...remember this is my 3rd MMJ case here in wa....

When the ruling comes down on my appeal...you will shit yourself!!! watch and learn, you may actually learn something from a non-lawyer.lol.

Actually I explained to you a few months back when we encountered each other for the first time that I don't practice law right now because I am ill, and I do not feel that I would be able to give 100% to clients. You may be surprised, but not all attorneys (in fact not even a simple majority) practice law solely for the money.

I am not sure why you say the things that you do, but whatever the reason is, you're clearly a very angry man. That is not a very good trait when talking about law. In fact it is almost as bad as blanket cites, the wholesale cut and paste of case law that you engage in. You continue to make arguments that are only tangentially related to case law that you cite, you cite inapplicable and possibly outdated cases and there have been several times when you've been just plain incorrect as to the meaning of a decision. That is why I pointed out that it would be helpful to others if you stated exactly what your education and legal status are. Then people can make their own informed decisions on how much credence should be given to your assertions.

All my best, and I hope you do win your appeal. If you do, I will certainly do what I can to learn from the case.

I believe that we both have said all that we had to say on the subject, so good luck in your future endeavors.


P.S. "sua sponte" means "of its own accord", the English cognate is "spontaneous" ... "sua sponte case law" does not make sense.

[iceshark]

Anyone can ask for your medical records. Heck, your neighbor can come over and ask to take a quick look through your chart. If _you_ choose to give it to him, that's your business.

IMO, anybody providing medical marijuana recommendations should ask for medical records or spend quite a bit of time following the patient medically. Anything less is dishonest and legally problematic. Imagine going to a doc and saying "I have a brain tumor", with the doc replying "OK sounds good, let's go get it cut out!".

Believe me, I do not disagree with you. I would think that any doc, natpath, or nurst P should ask for med records. However I do not see where the new standards say they must. It is anothe big grey area. In fact med records are not enough now and it seems not required. A visit is. I guess you could bring your records to a Npath. However they will easily write recomendations. I see they are already advertising all over.

Heck, we really need to be where Cali is anyway. A hangnail and a note from any dime store herbleest will get a permit there.:rastasmoke:

[jamessr]

The most important part about this thread is the person whom started it received the proper health-care practitioner information under the proper legal corp. business rendering lawful services in which the practitioner is licensed.
:thumbsup:

Now this signing physicians MMJ authorizations are as the term of art goes: 100% certified "SOLID" gold.imp:

[jamessr]

P.S. "sua sponte" means "of its own accord", the English cognate is "spontaneous" ... "sua sponte case law" does not make sense.

The court it self decided to entertain it's own case against the defendant, tis why it don't make any sense..the judge went way outside what he was allowed to do... he in fact actually usurp the legislature by doing what he did weez..not only that but, as it turns out, the declaration as a matter of law is a quid-pro-quo...because the judge forged new law into the statute from what he did in my case....declare the law as written, he can't rewrite it thru statutory construction as claim as a matter of law.

I specifically questioned the court if the states claim of criminal liability was under this here: (5) It is a class C felony to fraudulently produce any record purporting to be, or tamper with the content of any record for the purpose of having it accepted as, valid documentation under *RCW 69.51A.010(6)(a).

(Which is the only criminal liability "ANY" patient can be charged for..all charges must come under the act, not the csa. Form over substance.)

The whole chapter requires the lawful use and negates probable cause, not the requirements "clauses" as claimed in State v. Fry...form over substance.

The court replied for the state and then with a smile asked the state if they was charging me under this criminal liability law for all persons producing any document claiming validity.

The state replied, not at all.

Since the legislature did not carve out criminal liability for a 1 yr "expiration date" it is absurd to think I am guilty of any crime at all. If any thing, the liability is on the signing physician and the doc-in-the-box,"ONLY".

There you go..am I nuts still?

[Weezing]

Believe me, I do not disagree with you. I would think that any doc, natpath, or nurst P should ask for med records. However I do not see where the new standards say they must. It is anothe big grey area. In fact med records are not enough now and it seems not required. A visit is. I guess you could bring your records to a Npath. However they will easily write recomendations. I see they are already advertising all over.

Heck, we really need to be where Cali is anyway. A hangnail and a note from any dime store herbleest will get a permit there.:rastasmoke:

Being of the libertarian persuasion, I'd go so far as to say that requiring permission from anyone else for a free adult to consume any substance they own is ridiculous.

On a practical side of things, it seems like those practitioners fortunate enough to live in a sympathetic jurisdiction are going to be a lot more lax in requiring records. Anybody who is practicing in a place where law enforcement looks askance at mmj law would be goofy not to have an ironclad medical file for each patient. So, we're bound to see lots of different standards.

[jackmillions]

am I nuts still?

That was a rhetorical question, right?

Of course you're nuts, and your grasp of the law is infantile at best.

[killerweed420]

And one of the points people are missing is you are not required by law to have a physician sign an authorization for legal MMJ use. You're medical history is enough if it falls clearly within the guidelines. But as we've seen, its hard enough to win some cases even with a physician signed authorization so you could imagine what it would take to win one without any authorization.
As I've stated before, politics in a courtroom play a more important factor than even case law.