Before last night’s “#Cannagate” scandal reached new lows in a dramatic late night attempt which may be found to have suborned an act of outright election law fraud – among other possible violations – and which we’ve blogged the first news report of – coverage of the UMCI story had already reached new levels of intensity.

As this story notes, “a formal complaint filed by opponents alleging someone with the medical marijuana campaign offered money for lists of people who signed a form to remove their signatures.

That complaint is set to be reviewed by the Utah Attorney General.”

Meanwhile, as as we await what we expect will many more investigative reports on recent chicanery in coming days, here’s an equally important story. This is detailed analytic coverage of Libertas Institute’s point by point rebuttal of the Kirton-McConkie law firm’s “legal analysis” of the Utah Medical Cannabis Initiative. The document was commissioned by the LDS Church’s leadership.

It likely comes as no surprise that we – looking solely at the evidence and logical merits advance by both sides find Libertas has – by far – the best of the argument.

And, as LDS Leadership has advised, there’s also THIS sentence in their press release, and especially its LAST FOUR WORDS:

“We invite all to read the attached memorandum and to make their own judgment.”

So if you’re LDS – or ANY Utahn, we hear this saying to you:

Make. Your. Own. Judgement.

With that in mind, besides this balanced and interesting article (and as a side note, we’re sorry to hear of the Trib’s recent staff cutbacks – they’ve long been an important, independent voice in the state), here is, first, the aforementioned Kirton-McConkie release…

https://ift.tt/2G8hqn7

And here’s the analysis by Libertas:

https://ift.tt/2IF2BxB

So yes, we also “We invite all to read the attached memoranda and to make their own judgment.”

#MMJ #UTpol #LDS #KirtonMcConkie #TRUCE    

See full article – Libertarian group that helped write Utah’s medical marijuana ballot initiative calls LDS Church’s analysis ‘a political attack piece’