the Court is unwilling to make. The only acceptable basis for determining the meaning of the settlement is found in the language used therein.
Defendants correctly point out that the value of any interest in property which a debtor wishes to exempt must be ascertained as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(a)(2). They strenuously argue that the value of the cause of action against TWA, as of October 24, 1984, was approximately $10,000.00.
Before Debtor filed her voluntary petition, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania had reversed the unfavorable decision of the Court of Common Pleas and had reinstated the favorable decision of the Commission. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania determined that TWA owed the Debtor a sum of money.
In addition, although damages hadreferendum which created the MMJ system in Montana, is an unconstitutional violation of the right to pursue good health and will only increase the number of illegal users. The group is attempting to repeal the law through both its lawsuit and in a 2012 voter referendum.

Other restrictive provisions of the law which the judge blocked included the ban on MMJ advertising, unannounced searches of providers, and investigations into doctors who prescribe more than 25 MMJ cards a year. Reynolds cited constitutional questions regarding freedom of speech and search and seizure. Reynolds did not block provisions which make it more difficult to get an MMJ card, however.

The law the judge stymied was passed in the legislature after attempts to fully repeal the 2004 voter initiative to legalize medical marijuana