Michigan Medical Marihuana - People v Nicholson - MMMA Cardholders - Patients and Caregivers - Criminal Defense Lawyer, Josh Jones

A short yet important topic that impacts Michigan Medical Marijuana patients and caregivers revolves around medical marijuana cards and paperwork. The Court of Appeals indicated that patients and caregivers must have their paper or medical marijuana card on them in order to receive protection under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA). See People v Nicholson.

The facts of the case, in Nicholson, indicated that the defendant was a passenger in a vehicle and was holding one ounce of marijuana. The defendant had applied for his medical marijuana card, yet he had not received actually it. Moreover, the paperwork that indicating he was authorization to use medical marijuana was in his own vehicle, which they were not driving at the time of the arrest.

The court inevitably concluded that immunity would not be granted to the defendant because he did not have his paperwork accessible to him at the time of arrest. However, the court went on to indicate that the defendant is immune from prosecution because he does possess his card prior to the time of prosecution. The court inevitably remanded the case back to the circuit court for further investigation into whether the activities on the date of arrest involved the medical use of marijuana.

Therefore, the issue, in Nicholson, came down to whether he had his card/paperwork prior to prosecution and whether his actions that lead to his arrest qualify as medical use as indicated in the MMMA. It should be noted that the defendant was arrested because he did not have his paperwork on him, which any medical marijuana patient and/or caregiver should take note of. You should ALWAYS carry your paperwork or card, even if you are not holding.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. WE HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON. 

Judges & Medical Marihuana Immunity [People v Jones] - MMMA Case - Michigan Criminal Lawyer, Josh Jones

Judges Deciding Immunity - People v Jones

On July 9, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals brought about further interpretation on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA). More specifically, People v Jones explained that the decision of Section 4 Immunity is left up to the judge, but in what cases or circumstances?

Generally, an issue of fact (or a factual issue) is to be decided by a Jury (or the trier of fact), yet an issue of law (or a legal issue) is to be decided by the judge. This is long standing procedure. However, here in the State of Michigan and in certain situations and instances a judge still determines factual issues within a case. These situations include entrapment, voluntariness of statements, suppression of physical evidence, or consenting to search, to name a few.

The issues at hand in the Jones case dealt with whether or not the Defendant was a resident of the State at the time of her application and whether she was possessing marihuana for the medical use as a caregiver and patient.

The court paralleled Section 4 to the Entrapment Defense, and ultimately determined that Section 4 “fact-finding is a question for the trial court to decide. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision finding that [Section] 4 immunity fact-finding is a question for the jury is reversed.” Jones. 

People v Carruthers - Retroactivity MMMA - Criminal Defense Attorney Josh Jones - July 14, 2013 - Michigan Medical Marihuana Act

People v Carruthers - Part II - Retroactivity 

The Michigan Court of Appeals provided multiple insights into the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA) with its opinion in People v Carruthers. The biggest and boldest was how it defined “usable marihuana.” However, it also explained how the MMMA can be retroactive in his ability to apply its applicable defenses in certain cases or circumstances.

The court explained that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to allow the defendant to raise a Section 8 (Affirmative Defense) during an evidentiary hearing or during trial. The trial court held that the defendant did not meet the strict requirements of Section 4 (Immunity), and thus was precluded from asserting any defense under the MMMA. It must be noted, however, as the Court of Appeals did, that the opinion in People v Kolanek had not yet been penned, and thus was not controlling on the trial court in Carruthers.

Remember, pursuant to Kolanek, the Michigan Supreme Court explained that two identifiable defenses are found within the MMMA, Immunity and an Affirmative Defense. The defendant MUST NOW raise his or her affirmative defense in a pretrial motion in order to maintain his or her right to assert such a defense. Therefore, the trial court in Carruthers did not have the guidance of the Kolanek opinion. The most important part of the Carruthers opinion is that the defendant was able to have his case remanded back to the trial court and assert his affirmative defense, since he did not qualify for Immunity due to the resin based brownies being considered non-usable marihuana. 

When it comes to the MMMA it is essential to not only know the law, but to understand the law, especially when it is constantly in flux with itself. The MMMA protects certain individuals from criminal prosecution, and it provides a defense to others; however, it is imperative to obtain counsel when or if you are in trouble with the law while dealing with the MMMA. We have your back.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

People v Carruthers - Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA) - Defining "Usable Marihuana" - Criminal Defense Attorney Josh Jones

The Plain-Meaning Definition Of “Usable Marihuana

The Court of Appeal on July 11, 2011, provided an opinion that was high in parts, yet very low in other parts. See People v Carruthers. The court specially and repeatedly stated that resin (or THC extract) based brownies are not considered to be “usable marihuana” as explained in Section 4 (Immunity). However, the court also explained that because resin brownies are not considered to be “usable” an individual in possession of such brownies does not qualify for Section 4.

The court, in essence, found a loophole around qualifying an act, involving marihuana, as being covered by Section 4, similarly as the Michigan Supreme Court in People v McQueen found.

So…. Usable Marihuana is what?

Usable Marihuana is defined as:

“dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.” MCL § 333.2642(3)(k). 

Therefore, usable marihuana does not include all parts of the marihuana plant, meaning the resins, nor “every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.” Marihuana on the other hand includes “all parts” of the cannabis plant, as well as “the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. See People v Carruthers.

The court dealt with the resin based product known as “Cannabutter,” which contained THC extract. The THC extract can be taken from any part of the plant, and it would still, under the Court of Appeals opinion, not be considered “usable marihuana” under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA).

So in the end, the Court of Appeals narrowed the definition of what constitutes “usable marihuana,” and explained that substance must contain plant material in order to be considered or attempting consider it “usable,” as required by Section 4. It also went on to explain that Section 8 (Affirmative Defense) does not maintain a narrow definition for marihuana used to treat or alleviate a medical condition. Therefore, it allows for Section 8 to be used when edibles are involved in the factual basis of the act at issue.

The court, however, did note that the potency of resin brownies, under a Section 8 defense, would come into play when determining whether the individual possessed an amount reasonably necessary to alleviate or treat the medical condition.  The court stated that “[g]iven the unmeasurable nature of the highly potent THC contained in such edibles, the health and welfare of Michigan citizens would be threatened, and prosecutions for possession and use of edibles containing higher-than-allowed quantities of THC would be systematically thwarted.” See People v Carruthers.

It is always necessary to know the law, know your rights, and maintain your ability to fight, especially when dealing with the MMMA. This opinion has made Section 4 narrower and more specific on what you can and cannot do in order to qualify for Immunity. So who has your back when you want to smoke or munch carefree?

Controlled Substance Classifications Outlined - Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney Josh Jones

Controlled Substances And Their Classifications Explained, Kind Of

A controlled substance is “a drug, substance, or immediate precursor that is included in schedules 1 to 5.” MCL § 333.7104. The Board of Pharmacy determines which drugs, substances, and immediate precursors are assigned to each of the schedules. As set forth in MCL § 333.7202, the following factors are to be used by the Board of Pharmacy in determining a controlled substance’s placement on one of the five schedules:

1.     The drug’s actual or relative potential for abuse.


2.     If known, the scientific evidence of the drug’s pharmacological effect.

3.     The state of current scientific knowledge about the drug.

4.     The historical and contemporary patterns of the drug’s abuse.

5.     The scope, duration, and significance of the drug’s abuse.

6.     The public health risk related to the drug.

7.     The drug’s potential for producing psychic or physiological dependence liability.

8.     Whether the drug is an immediate precursor of another drug already regulated under the Act.

Schedule 1 Outlined:

MCL § 333.7211, requires that controlled substance classified as schedule 1 drug must have a high potential for abuse and either:

1.     has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or

2.     lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision, and it includes marijuana, opiates and opium derivatives (e.g., heroin), hallucinogenics (e.g., LSD, peyote, mescaline, and psilocybin), synthetic equivalents of the substance found in marijuana, MDMA (ecstasy), BZP, naphyrone (“rave”), mephedrone, methylenedioxypyrovalerone (“bath salts”), and other related substances.

Note: 11‐carboxy‐THC, “a byproduct of metabolism created when the body breaks down the psychoactive ingredient of marijuana,” is not a schedule 1 controlled substance because it fails to meet the requirements of a schedule 1 controlled substance under MCL § 333.7212. See also People v Feezel.

Schedule 2 


MCL § 333.7213 explains that a substance classified as a schedule 2 drug must meet the following requirements:

1.     its potential for abuse is high,

2.     it has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or it has currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions, and 


3.     its abuse could lead to severe psychic or physical dependence. 


Schedule 2 drugs include opium and opiate and their derivatives (e.g., codeine, morphine, methadone, hydrocodone, and oxycodone), coca leaves and derivatives (cocaine and cocaine‐related substances), amphetamines, any substance containing methamphetamine, and central nervous system depressants (e.g., methaqualone and secobarbital). 


Schedule 3 


MCL § 333.7215, classifies a substance as a schedule 3 drug if it meets all of the following requirements:

1.     it has less potential for abuse than the substances in schedules 1 and 2,

2.     it has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and

3.     its abuse could lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. 


Schedule 3 substances include certain stimulants and depressants, and materials, compounds, mixtures, or preparations containing limited quantities of certain listed narcotic drugs, which can be found in MCL § 333.7216.

Schedule 4 and 5 decrease in the amount of abuse that can be found with using the substances listed. The chemical compounds and substances on these lists are determined by MCL § 333.7218 and MCL § 333.7220

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Constructive Possession Explained - Josh Jones, Criminal Defense Attorney

Constructive Possession - It Applies To All Sorts Of Items

The extension of possession without actually having possession is known as constructive possession. This means that an individual can be charged with a possession crime even though he or she may not actually and physically possess the criminal item or thing. 

Constructive possession can only occur if the individual being charged has control or dominion over the thing in question. Meaning, for example, and individual who owns and holds the only key to a security box would always have constructive possession over it. Therefore, if contraband were found inside the box then the owner could be charged for the contraband because he would be the only individual who could access or control what goes in and out of the box. However, there must still be proof shown that the individual owner knew of the contents or existence.

The theories of possession, and thus constructive possession, vary according to statute and the particular item of contraband in question. For example, a conviction for felony-firearm under Michigan law requires knowledge of the firearm and the firearm being reasonably accessible to the defendant. However, for a controlled substance charged, an individual can or could be convicted of a possession charge simply by having it in his house, if he were the sole owner and knew of the substance.

So in the end, constructive possession cases that bring about criminal possession charges will be case-by-case dealings. They will revolve around the circumstances of each individual’s case.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying to represent yourself. You should always consult with an attorney before relying upon any written advice, article, blog etc.

Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney - Controlled Substances - Section 7411 Delay

MCLA 333.7411 POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA

PUBLIC HEALTH CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 368 of 1978

333.7411 Probation of individual with no previous conviction; entering adjudication of guilt upon violation of probation; discharge and dismissal without adjudication of guilt; nonpublic record of arrest and discharge and dismissal; effect of civil fine for first violation; requiring individual to attend course of instruction or rehabilitation program; failure to complete instruction or program as violation of probation; screening and assessment; participation in rehabilitative programs; payment of costs; failure to complete program as violation of probation.

Sec. 7411.

(1) When an individual who has not previously been convicted of an offense under this article or under any statute of the United States or of any state relating to narcotic drugs, coca leaves, marihuana, or stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic drugs, pleads guilty to or is found guilty of possession of a controlled substance under section 7403(2)(a)(v), 7403(2)(b), (c), or (d), or of use of a controlled substance under section 7404, or possession or use of an imitation controlled substance under section 7341 for a second time, the court, without entering a judgment of guilt with the consent of the accused, may defer further proceedings and place the individual on probation upon terms and conditions that shall include, but are not limited to, payment of a probation supervision fee as prescribed in section 3c of chapter XI of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 771.3c. The terms and conditions of probation may include participation in a drug treatment court under chapter 10A of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.1060 to 600.1082. Upon violation of a term or condition, the court may enter an adjudication of guilt and proceed as otherwise provided. Upon fulfillment of the terms and conditions, the court shall discharge the individual and dismiss the proceedings. Discharge and dismissal under this section shall be without adjudication of guilt and, except as provided in subsection (2)(b), is not a conviction for purposes of this section or for purposes of disqualifications or disabilities imposed by law upon conviction of a crime, including the additional penalties imposed for second or subsequent convictions under section 7413. There may be only 1 discharge and dismissal under this section as to an individual.

(2) The records and identifications division of the department of state police shall retain a nonpublic record of an arrest and discharge or dismissal under this section. This record shall be furnished to any or all of the following:

(a) To a court, police agency, or office of a prosecuting attorney upon request for the purpose of showing that a defendant in a criminal action involving the possession or use of a controlled substance, or an imitation controlled substance as defined in section 7341, covered in this article has already once utilized this section.

(b) To a court, police agency, or prosecutor upon request for the purpose of determining whether the defendant in a criminal action is eligible for discharge and dismissal of proceedings by a drug treatment court under section 1076(4) of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.1076.

(c) To the state department of corrections, a law enforcement agency, a court, or the office of a prosecuting attorney upon request of the department, law enforcement agency, court, or office of a prosecuting attorney, subject to all of the following conditions:

(i) At the time of the request, the individual is an employee of the department, law enforcement agency, court, or office of prosecuting attorney or an applicant for employment with the department, law enforcement agency, court, or office of prosecuting attorney.

(ii) If the individual is an employee of the department, law enforcement agency, court, or prosecuting attorney, the date on which the court placed the individual on probation occurred after March 25, 2002.

(iii) The record shall be used by the department of corrections, law enforcement agency, court, or prosecuting attorney only to determine whether an employee has violated his or her conditions of employment or whether an applicant meets criteria for employment.

(3) For purposes of this section, a person subjected to a civil fine for a first violation of section 7341(4) shall not be considered to have previously been convicted of an offense under this article.

(4) Except as provided in subsection (5), if an individual is convicted of a violation of this article, other than a violation of section 7401(2)(a)(i) to (iv) or section 7403(2)(a)(i) to (iv), the court as part of the sentence, during the period of confinement or the period of probation, or both, may require the individual to attend a course of instruction or rehabilitation program approved by the department on the medical, psychological, and social effects of the misuse of drugs. The court may order the individual to pay a fee, as approved by the director, for the instruction or program. Failure to complete the instruction or program shall be considered a violation of the terms of probation.

(5) If an individual is convicted of a second violation of section 7341(4), before imposing sentence under subsection (1), the court shall order the person to undergo screening and assessment by a person or agency designated by the office of substance abuse services, to determine whether the person is likely to benefit from rehabilitative services, including alcohol or drug education and alcohol or drug treatment programs. As part of the sentence imposed under subsection (1), the court may order the person to participate in and successfully complete 1 or more appropriate rehabilitative programs. The person shall pay for the costs of the screening, assessment, and rehabilitative services. Failure to complete a program shall be considered a violation of the terms of the probation.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying to represent yourself. You should always consult with an attorney before relying upon any written advice, article, blog etc.

Controlled Substance Conviction Consequences - Part 1 - Michigan Criminal & Marihuana Attorney - Josh Jones - ALL Felonies & Misdemeanors

Part I – Collateral Consequences For Controlled Substance Convictions: Employment & Student Loans

When it comes to controlled substance (or drug) charges here in the State of Michigan, the legislature has drafted a strict set of consequences to inflict onto those convicted of these various types of crimes, such as marihuana, prescription drugs, cocaine, meth, etc. Not only are there fines, possible jail time, possible drivers’ license sanctions, and other requirements when convicted of a drug crime, but there are also possible consequences that involve an individual’s career, financial aid or other areas of an individual's life (which will be discussed in Part II - Collateral Consequences For Controlled Substance Convictions: Housing & Public Benefits).

The following areas involve possible consequences, and each provides a brief outline of those consequences.

1.     Employment

Health professionals: Relevant Authority: MCL §333.16221(b); Mich. Admin. Code R. 338.3145. A summary suspension of the license will occur if an individual is convicted of a misdemeanor controlled substance crimes involving delivery, possession or use. Individuals previously convicted of a controlled substance crime and currently under a sentence for that conviction cannot work as pharmacists or in related jobs. Moreover, an individual’s controlled substance license would be invalid if suspended, revoked or denied because of a drug crime conviction.

Long-Term Care (adult foster care facilities, nursing homes, hospices, etc.): Relevant Authority: 42 USC 1320a-7; MCL § 330.1134a, MCL § 333.20173a, MCL § 333.20173b. If an individual is convicted of a felony relating to manufacturing, distributing, prescribing, or dispensing of a controlled substance after August 21, 1996, then a lifetime ban in the field will attach to that individual. An individual is banned for five years after the conviction for certain misdemeanor controlled substance offenses, which are listed in the statute, and involve the creation, delivery, possession, or use of a controlled substance. An individual under the age of 18 generally receives a one-year suspension from the date of conviction for most misdemeanor controlled substance offenses. 

Private Security, Security Guard, Security Alarm Contractor: Relevant Authority: MCL § 338.1056(1)(e), MCL § 338.1060(1)(c), MCL § 338.1067. An individual is not allowed to have a conviction involving a controlled substance within the last five years, which includes felonies and/or misdemeanors. Therefore, a 5-year gap rule applies.

2. Federal student loans: Relevant Authority: 20 USC 1091(r)(1) IRC 25A(b)(2)(D). The Federal law suspends an individual’s eligibility for any grants, loans, or work assistance when he or she is convicted (either by state or federal) of a controlled substance that involves the possession or sale of a controlled substance and while receiving student aid. Furthermore, Federal law denies the hope tax credit to a student and his or her family if he or she has a prior felony drug conviction. In possession cases, the period of suspension begins on the date of conviction and will last one-year. There is an enhanced suspension of two years for a second possession offense and complete revocation for a third offense. A delivery drug conviction brings about a two-year suspension for the first conviction and complete revocation for a second conviction. However, there are waiver or rehabilitation provisions that are available to some individuals.

Please stay tuned and look for PartII - Collateral Consequences For Controlled Substance Convictions: Housing & Public Benefits. 

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer - Drunk Driving Overview - Josh Jones - ALL FELONIES AND MISDEMEANORS

The State of Michigan has various criminal charges for alcohol or drug related acts. These charges and/or convictions carry with them possible licensing sanction, jail time, fines, community service and/or counseling.

It is imperative to know what can and will happen to you if you choose to pled guilty to or are convicted of the following crimes:

ZERO TOLERANCE MCL 257.625(6) - applies to individuals under 21 with a Blood Alcohol Content (aka BAC). There is no statutory jail required, but the maximum fine is $250.00 with Licensing Sanctions as follows: 1st offense - 30 day suspension with restrictions after that time; 2nd offense within 7 years is a 90 day suspension.

Operating While Visibly Impaired (aka OWVI) MCL 257.625(3) – has a maximum jail time of 93 days with maximum fines of $300.00 and Licensing Sanctions as followed: 1st offense: 90 day suspension with restrictions; 2nd offense within 7 years or prior MCL 257.625 conviction then it is an indefinite revocation and eligible for restriction after 1 year; 3rd offense or 2 prior MCL 257.625 convictions then it’s a 1-5 year revocation.

Operating While Intoxicated 2nd (aka OWI) has a jail term of 5 days to 1 year and a $200.00 to $1,000.00 fine. The license sanction is a 1-year revocation if prior MCL 257.625 conviction within 7 years. The vehicle may also be subject to immobilization pursuant to MCL 257.625.

Operating While Intoxicated 3rd (OWI 3rd) 30 days to 1 year in jail. The licensing sanction is a 1- to 5-year revocation.

Operating With High BAC – is an OWI charge where the individual has a BAC of .17 or more. The maximum jail up to 180 days with a possible $200-$700 fine.

Moreover, an individual should note that the maximum possible licensing sanction that may be imposed will be based upon the master driving record maintained by the Secretary of State under MCL 257.204 [257.625b(4)]. Prior issues with the drivers license can impact the ability for an individual to obtain his or her license when facing any of the above mentioned crimes.

ALL THE ABOVE MAY BE SUBJECT NOT LIMITED TO, BUT INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:

1. Secretary of State will or may suspend your driver’s license.

3. The Court will suspend your driver’s license.

4. Secretary of State will revoke or deny your driver’s license

5. Screening and Assessment for substance abuse and rehabilitation may be part of any sentence order, all at the defendant’s expense. MCL 257.625b(5)

6. Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (aka BAIRD) placed in defendant’s vehicle for a specified amount of time will be ordered at defendant’s expense.

7. Community Service.

8. In addition, defendant may be ordered to pay restitution, cost of prosecution, and reimburse the county for your jail stay and probation oversight fees.

Always consult an Attorney prior to moving forward in any criminal matter. Criminal charges, especially alcohol and drug related offenses will and can impact an individual in multiple ways. Make sure that you have the right person in your corner. Josh Jones has your back.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.