Jump to content

When Judges Ignore The Law And The Voters


Recommended Posts

hey pb

 

how can we get this changed... what do we the people need to do to force a change... is it going to take petitions signed to get these single minded judges out of the court rooms... what will it take to get rid of these bad ones... this i think would be the better road to go down there has to be a way to move these judges out... we need to find the route for this we the people should not have to kick judges out but if there not judging then there useless... there causing harm to folks that dont fit there thinking and that is not being a fair judge... theres a way we just need to find it and do it... there should be more of us than them so change should be easy to get to... with them not allowing the truth in the court room then the court rooms need to be gone as there not working... when judges dont allow the truth to be said then why do we support them... that would be supporting them to do wrong by us... where is the law then... just thoughts...

 

abbe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting video. However, aren't you taking parts of the law out of context? Cite for me where the law says what you say it says.

 

When I was recording it wasn't an exact quote.

 

Here is the section of the law itself:

 

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

 

What they are using is "except as provided in section 7." to prevent anyone from presenting a medical defense.

 

This is being used in such a way that if the judge feels that ANY part of the ENTIRE law has not been complied with, the medical defense isn't allowed to be presented at all.

 

The facts of the entire case is being determined outside the view of the jury.

 

For instance, someone hasn't received their card yet. They just have paper. Since they didn't have their plastic card, they are not allowed to present a section 8 defense.

 

Or a person doesn't have a good enough lock on their room. No medical defense allowed. Even though it is not required in section 8 to force a case dismissed. In a case like this, all that the jury knows is that someone was caught with plants.

 

The judges are manipulating the jury by depriving them of very important information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions of law and what law applies are reserved for the judge to decide. Questions of fact are for the jury. The jury isn't allowed, in any case, to decide what law to apply. They are told what law to apply. Whether the defendant can utilize certain portions of the law is up to the judge. If the defendant doesn't like the outcome that is what appeals are for. The point is that a jury never decides questions of law. That's why the affirmative defense states that the defense is to be brought in a motion--because it is a question of law for the judge and juries don't decide motions.

 

Whether you or I agree with the judge's interpretation of the statue is neither here nor there. Maybe he is interpreting wrongly. But the point is that in our system that is how it works--the judge interprets the statute and not the jury.

 

The facts of the entire case is being determined outside the view of the jury.

 

For instance, someone hasn't received their card yet. They just have paper. Since they didn't have their plastic card, they are not allowed to present a section 8 defense.

 

Or a person doesn't have a good enough lock on their room. No medical defense allowed. Even though it is not required in section 8 to force a case dismissed. In a case like this, all that the jury knows is that someone was caught with plants.

 

The judges are manipulating the jury by depriving them of very important information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions of law and what law applies are reserved for the judge to decide. Questions of fact are for the jury. The jury isn't allowed, in any case, to decide what law to apply. They are told what law to apply. Whether the defendant can utilize certain portions of the law is up to the judge. If the defendant doesn't like the outcome that is what appeals are for. The point is that a jury never decides questions of law. That's why the affirmative defense states that the defense is to be brought in a motion--because it is a question of law for the judge and juries don't decide motions.

 

Whether you or I agree with the judge's interpretation of the statue is neither here nor there. Maybe he is interpreting wrongly. But the point is that in our system that is how it works--the judge interprets the statute and not the jury.

 

There has been at least one COA ruling that says juries are entitled to hear the defense. Even if the motion is used and fails. Even then the COA said the jury can still hear the defense.

 

Next there are a whole lot of facts that are being examined to arrive at their current view. And as you point out, facts are for juries.

 

As for judges doing whatever they wish to, such as ignoring any law they wish, is a very poor system of "justice."

 

There are limits. For instance a judge can not render a death sentence penalty in Michigan.

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...