This doesn't appear to be a THCF problem its another case that wasn't handled very well in the courtroom. This could happen to any doctor even my own doctor. I have never spent more than 10 minutes with my own doctor and usually only once a year to get my prescriptions. So what THCF does it not unusual. They have copies of your medical records, they look them over for a qualifying condition, they give you a quick physical and then you get the authorization. There is nothing shady or illegal about this. Its the way all doctors no matter what field they are in.
During the preliminary examination, the prosecution argued that defendants were not entitled to assert the affirmative defense from § 8 of the MMMA because they did not each have a registry identification card at the time of the offense as required by § 4(a) of the MMMA, MCL 333.26424(a). 3 The prosecution acknowledged that defendants could not have obtained a card previously because the state had yet to begin issuing them. However, the prosecution contended that defendants were required to abstain from marijuana use until they were able to obtain a card. Defendants argued that the plain language of § 8 of the MMMA did not require possession of a card.
This was the main arguement but the patients were still legal. Because you don't need a card.
The district court noted that the MMMA "is probably one of the worst pieces of legislation I've ever seen in my life," and went on to state:

[S]ection 8 says section 4 doesn't really have any meaning. If you don't have a card and you happen to be arrested, just make sure you have a doctor who will testify in court that you needed medical marijuana in order to have that case dismissed.

The burden's on defendant at the evidentiary hearing to have section 8 apply to show what a reasonable amount of marijuana is. It doesn't say what a reasonable amount is. It would seem practical to me that they would have included the same amount that was in section 4 if they believed that was a reasonable amount. But, instead, they just leave it to, I guess, every other judge's decision as to what they think is reasonable.

It -- it's just one of the worst [*10] pieces of legislation I've ever seen. . . . [I]t appears that section 8, the intent of it is to allow anyone who possesses marijuana with a doctor's certification, I guess at the time of the hearing, that the case would have to be dismissed. Because it says in section [8](b) that the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection a. Well, one of the elements in subsection (a) is possessing a reasonable quantity of marijuana.

I still don't know what a reasonable quantity of marijuana is unless I go to section 4. Section 4 says 2-point-5 ounces, I believe, 12 plants, but you also have to have a valid registration card.

So, these people possessed no registration card, but yet they want the benefit of Section 4 to apply to section 8.
This should have been the correct response.
The district court also noted that although Dr. Eisenbud testified regarding defendants' legitimate need to use marijuana for medical purposes, there was no testimony regarding what was a reasonably necessary amount for defendants to possess. The district court concluded that it would simply apply the amount of two and one-half ounces and 12 plants set by § 4 as what was reasonably necessary, [*11] and it granted defendants' motion to dismiss, explaining:

For that reason, I believe that section 8 entitles the defendants to a dismissal, even though they did not possess the valid medical card, because section 8 says if they can show the fact that a doctor believed that they were likely to receive a therapeutic benefit, and this doctor testified to that [sic]. And Dr. Eisenbud is a physician licensed by the State of Michigan. And that's the only requirement that the statute has. You don't have to be any type of physician, you just have to be a licensed physician by the State of Michigan.

So, based on that, I find section 8 does apply. And I believe I'm obligated to dismiss this matter based on section 8 of the statute.

Regarding the prosecution's request for a clarification about whether "the doctor's testimony rose to the level of a bona fide physician-patient relationship," the district court stated:

Based on his testimony, he indicated that he -- he read their medical records, he saw them, and I think his total time was about half an hour totally spent with them, which, based on my own personal experience, I don't find inconsistent with my own doctor. So I guess it's a bona fide [*12] relationship.

The district court then entered an order of dismissal on the same day as the hearing, July 17, 2009.

The prosecution subsequently appealed the order of dismissal to the circuit court. On December 18, 2009, the circuit court issued an opinion and order reversing the district court's order and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. The circuit court ruled that the district court had abused its discretion by not binding defendants over for trial because it had improperly acted as a trier of fact. The circuit court ruled that, in this case, the affirmative defense must be addressed in the trial court in order for proper discovery and rebuttal to take place.

The circuit court also considered questionable the issue regarding whether defendants should be allowed to raise the affirmative defense at all, because defendants did not have valid registry identification cards as required by § 4 of the MMMA, together possessed more than the amount of marijuana permitted under § 4, and did not keep their marijuana plants in "an enclosed, locked facility," which is also required under § 4.

The circuit court then emphasized that there was a disputed question regarding [*13] whether Dr. Eisenbud had a bona fide physician-patient relationship with defendants. The circuit court concluded:

[T]here was competent evidence in support of the bindover. For the district judge to deny the bindover was an abuse of discretion. Specifically, the district judge failed to properly exercise his judgment by relying solely on Dr. Eisenbud's testimony, and by ignoring the evidence presented by the People regarding defendants' actions that showed that they did not meet the criteria of the affirmative defense. The evidence in support of the affirmative defense was not developed sufficiently to support the district judge's decision to deny the bindover.

III. A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD IS NOT REQUIRED FOR A § 8 DEFENSE

Defendants argue that the circuit court erred in ruling that because defendants did not obtain a registry identification card in order to satisfy the conditions of § 4 of the MMMA, they could not assert the affirmative defense contained in § 8. 4
And this is the section that every state is grappling with. Even the legislative attorneys have been unable to draft a clear concise description of what it should take to be legal. But the court is supposed to follow the intent of the law, which the district court did, but then the prosecutor pressed on with an appeal to try and get a different judge that was probably already leaning to the prosecution side to begin with. Anyone that has been envolved in any court case knows that the prosecutor is who holds all the aces in the courtroom. He's the one that gets to decide which attorney gets the case, he has all the money and resources of that county or state at his hands. Its a broke system and not much we can do about it.
But I restate, the first judge made the right legal decision and then it became politics after that.
killerweed420 Reviewed by killerweed420 on . Court rules THCF clinic is a fraud Ouch, THCF does not qualify as an authorizing health care practitioner to write mmj authorizations and as it turns out even a good faith effort on the part of a patient to have an on going (more than once a year) patient relationship with THCF is not tantamount to an ongoing relationship with your health care practitioner. They have been found to provide fraudulent documentation, and now that you know you could be convicted for marijuana crimes without being able to present the statutory Rating: 5