Jump to content

People V Mcgill - Antrim County, Sec 4 & Sec 8 Defense


Recommended Posts

Jeez, this is starting to get old. People are going to start thinking we patients don't know how to count.

 

Is 36 plants more than 24 plants? You lose on Section 4.

 

I did not see a section 8 argument in this exam (appropriately so, obviously because this is for a motion to dismiss- at the Prelim the standard is to consider all evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution).

 

So the bind over was proper, IMHO.:thumbsd: Now you bring a dismissal motion to the Circuit Court. I guess you have to bring a motion to dismiss before you hold the exam? :hot:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez, this is starting to get old. People are going to start thinking we patients don't know how to count.

 

Is 36 plants more than 24 plants? You lose on Section 4.

 

I did not see a section 8 argument in this exam (appropriately so, obviously because this is for a motion to dismiss- at the Prelim the standard is to consider all evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution).

 

So the bind over was proper, IMHO.:thumbsd: Now you bring a dismissal motion to the Circuit Court. I guess you have to bring a motion to dismiss before you hold the exam? :hot:

He was allowed 36. They ignored the 21 day rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is ;

 

are care givers supposed to wait the 3 + months it's taking to add, change or issue cards to new patients before caring for them ?

 

IMO Copies of all cards &/ or paperwork should be on site at all times.

 

Now that all is known I'm hoping a dismissal is forthcoming.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emphasizing what Ilkline 300 says: "Have copies of all cards and paperwork on site."

 

 

In his testimony Officer Wheatly indicates he concluded that since there was no card or paperwork available of any kind to support the third set of 12 plants (posted on premises or offered by McGill when he arrived) they were "fatal" overage. In my view, lack of photocopies posted or available in his vehicle cost McGill at the least, a chunk of attorney fees and 12 plants and at the most, a feloney conviction, his freedom, and property confiscation. If the result is a conviction I believe it is wrongful on the term of the law, but wrongful convictions are neither impossible nor unknown.

Edited by pic book
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Not casting stones here (glass houses and all that) but why didn't our boy object to the motion to bind-over on the grounds that he also had evidence to present? I seem to recall the defense can also present a case at the prelim. I don't think he caught it until he was making his argument. <_<

 

This is still very, very winnable under the section 8 affirmative defense and possibly even under section 4. He was connected through the CG registry system and the 20 day rule should also apply to Caregivers. :goodjob:

 

So for section 4 no your not supposed to wait 3+ months but you need to wait the full 20 days before counting a patient's plants in your plant count! Are we sure this is the case that he waited 20 full days?

 

For section 8 hopefully he had those cancer patients you are talking about cuz all the medical testimony is coming in....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not casting stones here (glass houses and all that) but why didn't our boy object to the motion to bind-over on the grounds that he also had evidence to present? I seem to recall the defense can also present a case at the prelim. I don't think he caught it until he was making his argument. <_<

 

This is still very, very winnable under the section 8 affirmative defense and possibly even under section 4. He was connected through the CG registry system and the 20 day rule should also apply to Caregivers. :goodjob:

 

So for section 4 no your not supposed to wait 3+ months but you need to wait the full 20 days before counting a patient's plants in your plant count! Are we sure this is the case that he waited 20 full days?

 

For section 8 hopefully he had those cancer patients you are talking about cuz all the medical testimony is coming in....

 

Re: the size of the plants in prosecutors argument (which I find quite amusing): Is it not possible that defendant could have purchased said plants at the size that prosecutor disputes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they now prosecuting on the grounds that the Act is unconstitutional and worthless thus they will just ignore it ourtright? And are they now prosecuting on the predictions of the age of the plants and when the grower actually took

possesion of said plants? And the predicting is being done by the PA?

 

Wow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...