Parts of site failed to load... If you are using an ad blocker addon, you should to disable it (it blocks more than ads and causes parts of the site to not work).
Has any one used CBR medcial for their MMJ card? I have and am just wandering if other people like this company also?:jointsmile:
tango244ns
Reviewed by tango244ns on
.
CBR medical??Has any one used CBR medcial for their MMJ card? I have and am just wandering if other people like this company also?:jointsmile:
Rating: 5
Cbr is fine. James is the only person in wa who that those clinics are not writing legal recommendations, including the DAs.
You fail to mention that he has a case on appeal before the courts that just may determine whose right on that issue. As its well known, all the cases or the majority of the cases that have gone before the courts have ended in convictions on authorizations from THCF. Either because they didn't renew (not in the law), the doctor or Paul were no shows, or one of their conditions was invalidated by the court because of dodgy THCF record keeping. In Jame's case Paul Stanford told the court his authorization by Dr. Orvald was invalid because he didn't pay the yearly pound of flesh to THCF. :smokin:
james has found some case law that says that contracts made by health clinics which are not owned and operated by health care professionals, but have as employees, health care professionals, are not enforceable under the law.
He interprets that to mean that a business who hires an independent contractor who is a health care professional will be writing recommendations that are not legal and would not offer protection under 69.51A.
But the only person who seems to think this is him, and AFAIK not a single district attorney in WA (the guys who actually decide what gets charged) accepts this interpretation.
Gypski;
hypothetical case law, that may or may not offer clarification on this is really not worth mentioning. The cases regarding patients of THCF that have been found guilty AFAIK have had nothing to do with what james is claiming, and that the authorizations were found to not be valid for other reasons.
james has found some case law that says that contracts made by health clinics which are not owned and operated by health care professionals, but have as employees, health care professionals, are not enforceable under the law.
He interprets that to mean that a business who hires an independent contractor who is a health care professional will be writing recommendations that are not legal and would not offer protection under 69.51A.
But the only person who seems to think this is him, and AFAIK not a single district attorney in WA (the guys who actually decide what gets charged) accepts this interpretation.
Gypski;
hypothetical case law, that may or may not offer clarification on this is really not worth mentioning. The cases regarding patients of THCF that have been found guilty AFAIK have had nothing to do with what james is claiming, and that the authorizations were found to not be valid for other reasons.
Well now justpics, I know how to read english and I AM NOT INTERPRETING ANYTHING HERE...THE COURTS ARE BUDDY.
I am just posting what I am finding from our "GOVERNMENT" and showing how it applies to us patients...reality!!!!
As gypski clearly points out(in which he himself has seen first hand, the courts rulings in my case and why) my case will be the deciding factor in wa. about doc-in-the-boxes legal "STANDING" to even sell the crap off their shoes to the public...it was a layman business owner with absolutely no medical anything who stated my authorization was invalid, even in the face of my signing m.d. "CERTIFYING" my authorization was valid as written...WITH NO EXPIRATION DATE..
Justpics, please find any caselaw or law for that matter which allows a contractual relationship with any healthcare provider and a layperson owner/operator...again the same 1000 bucks applies here...just one and the money is yours.!!!!!
None of the lawyers would claim such a thing in the other thcf cases( this would convict their client for sure, DUH.), read the briefs from State v. Barber in whitman co...my son made this claim and was ignored by the court BECAUSE THEY HAD NO-CLUE AS HOW TO PROCEED IN A mmj CASE...that would seriously be a no-no FOR ANY LAWYER TO DO THIS TO A CLIENT UNLESS THEY ALREADY GOT CONVICTED AND ARE ON APPEAL.
Cbr is fine. James is the only person in wa who that those clinics are not writing legal recommendations, including the DAs.
Post exactly the letter you sent to any DA which says I am wrong and I will show you a DA on his way out of this state from practicing any law again...
This happened in "ONE" of my sons case(s) in whitman co...the deputy DA left the state in fear we was going to get him...yes it was a medical marijuana case.
The judge listened to the deputy DA until I spoke up and clearly pointed out the DA was committing crimes in front of the judge...the judge then jumped his ass and agreed CR 11 SANCTIONS ARE EMINENT..
Just in case you are still confused, read the laws, then the caselaw...not just someones words here...
hypothetical case law, that may or may not offer clarification on this is really not worth mentioning. The cases regarding patients of THCF that have been found guilty AFAIK have had nothing to do with what james is claiming, and that the authorizations were found to not be valid for other reasons.
If any law is full of hypotheticals is RCW 69.51a and all it arbitrary conflicting language and numerous different opinions in the lower courts on up to the Supreme Court. Its a minefield or gauntlet for a patient to run through even though they believe they are legal under that statute.:wtf:
hypothetical case law, that may or may not offer clarification on this is really not worth mentioning. The cases regarding patients of THCF that have been found guilty AFAIK have had nothing to do with what james is claiming, and that the authorizations were found to not be valid for other reasons.
If any law is full of hypotheticals its RCW 69.51a and all it arbitrary conflicting language and numerous different opinions in the lower courts on up to the Supreme Court. It a minefield or gauntlet for a patient to run through even though they believe they are legal under that statute.:wtf:
OPMember
Originally Posted by tango244ns
Register To Reply
Staff Online