Quote Originally Posted by justpics
Instead of posting endless blocks of text, if you want people to read your posts, you can read through it and just quote the most relavent sections.

No one is going to read all that.
What is relevant to some is irrelevant to others...I as well as others have read the whole text I posted...it's a mater of what your interested in reading..if it is block text to you, then don't read it...

We can't please everyone now can we?

What was so relevant to me..the court ruled against the way THCF operates to fraud patients..and how the concurring judge explains why...but, to understand why, ya got's to read the whole damn thing or you get the remarks posted above because people don't fully understand why the appeals court ruled like it did...reschedule, instead of THCF pretext to fully legalize cannabis in the u.s.....just as the state of Oregon did.

The court is correct about the bona-fide patient-physician relationship issue, because the owner of THCF is not a licensed healthcare practitioner(which they left out of the current ruling, I am sure if the patients don't plea bargain, it will come out in a trial...). A person signed with THCF is actually doing business with the owner/operator via contract which in turn is invalid, because fee splitting is illegal and to boot THCF website clearly claims they do not "DIAGNOSE" any patients but, are only a IME clinic..in Oregon state, IME clinics can be owned and operated by laypersons....non licensed healthcare laypersons.
jamessr Reviewed by jamessr 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