Jump to content

Lies Of Omission


Recommended Posts

I was taught by my church, years ago, that there are two kinds of lies.

 

The first is overt. Where someone speaks a lie.

 

The other can be more sinister. Called a lie of omission. This is where something is intentionally left out to cause a false impression.

 

There are judges in Michigan that lie to juries. And they lie to juries to gain a conviction against an innocent person.

 

What is the omitted information that is so important? That the defendant was licensed by the state to have marijuana.

 

That may be the defendants entire defense.

 

Hypothetical example:

 

A person has five plants. They are raided and arrested for their five plants.

In court the PA shows that the person had five plants.

The judge has refused to allow the defendant to show the jury they have a license from the state to have the plants.

 

Based on the information allowed by the judge the jury has no option but to convict. No option the jury is aware of.

 

That is where we must now make our mark.

 

We must teach people that as a member of a jury, one person in 12 is a majority.

 

It took more that 50% of "we the people" to force this law on them against their will. It only takes 1 in 12 to enforce this law.

 

Vote not guilty in any case about marijuana. The courts are lying to you. By omission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was taught by my church, years ago, that there are two kinds of lies.

 

The first is overt. Where someone speaks a lie.

 

The other can be more sinister. Called a lie of omission. This is where something is intentionally left out to cause a false impression.

 

There are judges in Michigan that lie to juries. And they lie to juries to gain a conviction against an innocent person.

 

What is the omitted information that is so important? That the defendant was licensed by the state to have marijuana.

 

That may be the defendants entire defense.

 

Hypothetical example:

 

A person has five plants. They are raided and arrested for their five plants.

In court the PA shows that the person had five plants.

The judge has refused to allow the defendant to show the jury they have a license from the state to have the plants.

 

Based on the information allowed by the judge the jury has no option but to convict. No option the jury is aware of.

 

That is where we must now make our mark.

 

We must teach people that as a member of a jury, one person in 12 is a majority.

 

It took more that 50% of "we the people" to force this law on them against their will. It only takes 1 in 12 to enforce this law.

 

Vote not guilty in any case about marijuana. The courts are lying to you. By omission.

 

Way to go their Mr Peanut butter you are so right i have seen it many times inn the court rooms this has got to stop we have to show up inn the 100's to make a difference

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.freep.com/article/20110508/NEWS05/105080534/Medical-marijuana-advocates-protest-Oakland-County-policies

 

Medical marijuana users and caregivers say they'll gather Monday outside the

Oakland County Circuit Court to protest tactics being used against them by

county authorities.

 

The demonstration was to mark the start of the trial of registered patient

Barb Agro, 70, who is charged with illegal drug dealing. But her attorney,

Jerome Sabbota, said Saturday that Monday's hearing would be adjourned.

 

Still, the protest isn't just for Agro, but "for all defendants being denied

their rights," said Jamie Lowell, who runs Third Coast Compassion Club in

Ypsilanti and helped to plan the demonstration.

 

More than two dozen other medical marijuana defendants currently face trials

in Oakland County, Lowell said.

 

Agro of Lake Orion is a retired school bus driver and former dispatcher for

the Lake Orion police who has severe arthritis, her attorney said. She is

charged with conspiracy and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver.

 

Oakland County drug investigators raided her home for marijuana plants on

Aug. 25, the same day they raided numerous other patients' homes and medical

marijuana establishments. Prosecutors contend Agro, her late husband, Sal

Agro, and their two sons were all medical marijuana users tied to commercial

sales of the drug, which amounted to illegal drug dealing.

 

On Friday, eight of nine defendants arrested in connection with Clinical

Relief -- a former medical marijuana dispensary in Ferndale -- were bound

over for trial by Ferndale District Judge Joseph Longo on charges of drug

delivery and conspiracy. Longo dismissed charges against Stacey Ellenbrook,

41, of Chesterfield Township, a secretary-receptionist for Clinical Relief.

 

County drug investigators, who admitted to using phony state medical

marijuana ID cards to get inside Clinical Relief, said they found evidence

of drug dealing there.

 

In cases resulting from the raids, circuit judges were expected to rule on

whether state law allows medical marijuana users to be served by commercial

establishments. Those would include dispensaries such as Clinical Relief

that sell the drug, and compassion clubs that provide social space for using

it, attorney Paul Tylenda said.

 

But that issue might not be decided because, in recent cases, prosecutors

argued that defendants can't even be identified as approved medical

marijuana users in the courtroom, said Tylenda, who defended Ellenbrook.

 

"The Oakland County prosecutor has successfully barred the mention of

medical marijuana to juries numerous times. Funny how this is only happening

in Oakland County," he said Friday.

 

Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper responded that "the judges are the

individuals who are making these decisions" about whether defendants can use

provisions of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act as a legal defense.

 

"Obviously, (judges) make their determinations based on the law," Cooper

said Friday.

 

*** pb comment .. Why would Cooper tell the press something so obviously false. These judges are making their determinations on what existed more than two years ago. Not on current law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Medicinal Patient

Are the defendants allowed to wear 3ma type shirts, bracelets or something with a slogan on it that will clue this jury in on what the hell is really going on? Do we all have to get tats on our hands saying we are legal pts/cgs.

If I was on trial I sure would!

 

And ya know, I really don't think I would be able to control myself around that jessica cooper chick. :thumbsd:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings PB: I was talking to my adult son about this situation a couple of days ago. As a bondsman he is in court most days and he was in complete disbelief when I told him that judges in Michigan were not allowing juries to know that the folks they were judging were patients with (at times) life threatening illnesses. I also don't understand how they can issue such an order. To me it is a fundamental part of the case. Reminds me of the spoof vid that went around last winter......"Jury Ordered to Pretend that Upper Class White Suburban Girl Defendant Is Poor Black Girl from Detroit" or something close to that. It's insane. There is no justice in that sort of instruction. Some days I feel like I just woke up in the twilight zone. Think Michigan? I am beginning to think NOT!

Edited by Glyphia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

pb, doesn't Komorm or Able know of a way to force Judges to follow the law? Or, is there a way to bring suit or charges against a judge who does this? Is there an atty who has a viable answer to this?

 

There are a few possible "loopholes" in our law that are being taken advantage of. By the PA side.

 

Most, and perhaps all, of these "loopholes" would probably be closed given enough time in every level of court in the state.

 

"We the people" had no intentions of allowing "loopholes" for police and courts to attack the mmj patients of Michigan.

 

Fact is fact ..

 

1. We ordered them to stop.

2. They refuse on any sliver of pretext available.

3. It only takes one person in twelve to stop them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the defendants allowed to wear 3ma type shirts, bracelets or something with a slogan on it that will clue this jury in on what the hell is really going on? Do we all have to get tats on our hands saying we are legal pts/cgs.

If I was on trial I sure would!

 

And ya know, I really don't think I would be able to control myself around that jessica cooper chick. :thumbsd:

 

We were ordered to take off our shirts in Oakland county court.

 

The judge was kind to everyone in the court and said I could simply zip up my jacket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that they were going after people that were licensed, but not following the rules.

 

Slightly changed Hypothetical example:

 

A person has 19 plants with no patients. They are raided and arrested for being 7 plants over.

In court the PA shows that the person had 7 plants too many.

The judge has refused to allow the defendant to show the jury they have a license from the state to have the plants, because they were disobeying the law.

 

 

Not that I agree with this. I think if a person has a card, they have a card. It is a fact. It should be entered as evidence regardless of whether they were over or not.

 

 

But, from what I've read, it is only in cases where the person was not following the mm law. (like I said, I don't agree with omitting facts), Is this the case or are there circumstances when people were following the law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that they were going after people that were licensed, but not following the rules.

 

Slightly changed Hypothetical example:

 

A person has 19 plants with no patients. They are raided and arrested for being 7 plants over.

In court the PA shows that the person had 7 plants too many.

The judge has refused to allow the defendant to show the jury they have a license from the state to have the plants, because they were disobeying the law.

 

 

Not that I agree with this. I think if a person has a card, they have a card. It is a fact. It should be entered as evidence regardless of whether they were over or not.

 

 

But, from what I've read, it is only in cases where the person was not following the mm law. (like I said, I don't agree with omitting facts), Is this the case or are there circumstances when people were following the law?

 

Bob Redden and Torey had 21 plants.

They both had their doctors letter.

The state had not begun to accept applications yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CaveatLector

I was under the impression that they were going after people that were licensed, but not following the rules.

 

Slightly changed Hypothetical example:

 

A person has 19 plants with no patients. They are raided and arrested for being 7 plants over.

In court the PA shows that the person had 7 plants too many.

The judge has refused to allow the defendant to show the jury they have a license from the state to have the plants, because they were disobeying the law.

 

 

Not that I agree with this. I think if a person has a card, they have a card. It is a fact. It should be entered as evidence regardless of whether they were over or not.

 

 

But, from what I've read, it is only in cases where the person was not following the mm law. (like I said, I don't agree with omitting facts), Is this the case or are there circumstances when people were following the law?

 

I tend to agree with you. I don't know all of the facts regarding the current case but it seems to me that this is much ado about nothing. I would point out that that case in Livingston county with the kid who was charged with driving under the influence a while back there was a similar decision. The judge ruled that the defense couldn't mention that the kid was a card carrying patient I believe. People put up a big fuss over that but the fact is whether he had a card was not relevant. If he were charged with possession it would be relevant. If he were charged under the zero tolerance it would also be relevant. But being charged with driving under the influence of drugs is not defensible by being a card carrying patient. Mentioning he was a patient would have prejudiced the jury because all it was doing was injecting an element of sympathy. If I'm charged with drunk driving should I be able to argue that the reason I was drunk driving was because I was so depressed after hearing that my son was diagnosed with terminal cancer? No, because that isn't relevant evidence. It would be relevant evidence if the statute stated that it is okay to drive drunk if something tragic just happened in your life. Similarly, it would be okay to drive under the influence of drugs if the statute said you could. But it doesnt. In fact the MMA explicitly states that driving under the influence is not allowed under the MMA.

 

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a driver who broke the law. Then our movement embraces them with the "poor patient" attitude. THEN the general public sees how we think we are all so special that we should be able to break the law and drive under the influence because we are patients -- or that we should be able to evoke feelings of sympathy from jurors because we are patients. Then the public sees us as abusing the law. THAT, my friend, then makes it EASY for our state legislators to change the law because then they have the base support they need. If we are at all concerned about the law changing then we need to be safeguarding it by not making the public think we deserve special treatment beyond what we have in the law.

Edited by CaveatLector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with you. I don't know all of the facts regarding the current case but it seems to me that this is much ado about nothing. I would point out that that case in Livingston county with the kid who was charged with driving under the influence a while back there was a similar decision. The judge ruled that the defense couldn't mention that the kid was a card carrying patient I believe. People put up a big fuss over that but the fact is whether he had a card was not relevant. If he were charged with possession it would be relevant. If he were charged under the zero tolerance it would also be relevant. But being charged with driving under the influence of drugs is not defensible by being a card carrying patient. Mentioning he was a patient would have prejudiced the jury because all it was doing was injecting an element of sympathy. If I'm charged with drunk driving should I be able to argue that the reason I was drunk driving was because I was so depressed after hearing that my son was diagnosed with terminal cancer? No, because that isn't relevant evidence. It would be relevant evidence if the statute stated that it is okay to drive drunk if something tragic just happened in your life. Similarly, it would be okay to drive under the influence of drugs if the statute said you could. But it doesnt. In fact the MMA explicitly states that driving under the influence is not allowed under the MMA.

 

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a driver who broke the law. Then our movement embraces them with the "poor patient" attitude. THEN the general public sees how we think we are all so special that we should be able to break the law and drive under the influence because we are patients -- or that we should be able to evoke feelings of sympathy from jurors because we are patients. Then the public sees us as abusing the law. THAT, my friend, then makes it EASY for our state legislators to change the law because then they have the base support they need. If we are at all concerned about the law changing then we need to be safeguarding it by not making the public think we deserve special treatment beyond what we have in the law.

 

I have to disagree with you. It IS defensible with the mmj law.

 

But thanks for mentioning that example of jury nullification.

 

As I understand it, there are more than ten cases currently where the jury is being deprived of this information.

 

I've gotten to the point where I don't care what the MMMA says. What is most important is talking to potential jurors.

 

And that only takes 1 in 12. Not the majority of voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CaveatLector

I have to disagree with you. It IS defensible with the mmj law.

 

But thanks for mentioning that example of jury nullification.

 

As I understand it, there are more than ten cases currently where the jury is being deprived of this information.

 

I've gotten to the point where I don't care what the MMMA says. What is most important is talking to potential jurors.

 

And that only takes 1 in 12. Not the majority of voters.

Kindly explain your theory of defense against a driving charge using the mma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kindly explain your theory of defense against a driving charge using the mma.

 

The exception for the protection of the MMMA is if the person is under the influence of cannabis. Not merely having it in your system.

 

Internal possession is allowed in the law.

 

Clear signs of intoxication need to be shown in court. Not merely a nanogram or two.

 

The law allows the internal possession while driving as long as the person isn't intoxicated.

 

That conflicts with the zero tolerance law.

 

And that means the zt law doesn't apply. If the zt law doesn't apply, then there needs to be proof of intoxication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CaveatLector

The exception for the protection of the MMMA is if the person is under the influence of cannabis. Not merely having it in your system.

 

Internal possession is allowed in the law.

 

Clear signs of intoxication need to be shown in court. Not merely a nanogram or two.

 

The law allows the internal possession while driving as long as the person isn't intoxicated.

 

That conflicts with the zero tolerance law.

 

And that means the zt law doesn't apply. If the zt law doesn't apply, then there needs to be proof of intoxication.

His wasn't a zero tolerance case which is precisely why I addressed zero tolerance as a non-issue. He was charged with driving under the influence from what I gathered. So the prosecutor has the burden to prove he was, in fact, driving under the influence. How does the revelation of him being a patient contribute to his defense in any way? It doesn't, which means his pt status is not relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His wasn't a zero tolerance case which is precisely why I addressed zero tolerance as a non-issue. He was charged with driving under the influence from what I gathered. So the prosecutor has the burden to prove he was, in fact, driving under the influence. How does the revelation of him being a patient contribute to his defense in any way? It doesn't, which means his pt status is not relevant.

 

Because the zt law still applies to a non patient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CaveatLector

Because the zt law still applies to a non patient.

WOW! AGAIN, this WASN'T a case about zero tolerance so any dicussion regarding zero tolerance is NOT relevant. He wasn't charged with zero tolerance he was charged with driving under the influence! Either he was driving under the influence or he wasn't. Zero tolerance has nothing to do with that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW! AGAIN, this WASN'T a case about zero tolerance so any dicussion regarding zero tolerance is NOT relevant. He wasn't charged with zero tolerance he was charged with driving under the influence! Either he was driving under the influence or he wasn't. Zero tolerance has nothing to do with that!

 

The zt law defined any detectable THC AT ALL is under the influence.

 

It still applies to non patients. It does not apply to mmj patients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His wasn't a zero tolerance case which is precisely why I addressed zero tolerance as a non-issue. He was charged with driving under the influence from what I gathered. So the prosecutor has the burden to prove he was, in fact, driving under the influence. How does the revelation of him being a patient contribute to his defense in any way? It doesn't, which means his pt status is not relevant.

Even though they don't call it zero tolerance, all the PA has to do is prove you had something in your system, and then have the arresting officer say "He appeared intoxicated to me". Well the LEO, being anti-mmj to begin with, is going to say that, or has a gut feeling about it. So, the kid may have been 100% ok to drive, much better off than a normal person with 1 beer in them, but they get a conviction anyway because all the LEO has to do is say "He appeared intoxicated to me".

 

Even if he didn't think the kid appeared intoxicated, the LEO will say he did anyway, and how many juries believe some kid over an officer? These LEO have such hatred for people who are sick and ill that they will do anything they can to lock them up. I think it has to do with people worse off than them who are actually getting relief and feeling better, makes them sad because they are still so miserable. :(

 

So even though it isn't listed as a ZT case, it is treated as one. It is like a speeding ticket where the officer paced you, I.E. had no radar. You go into court and say, "I was only doing 30 mph in a 35mph zone". The cop says you were doing 45. Who are they going to believe, you or the LEO? Yet the only "proof" is the LEO's word. Much like this intoxication charge.

 

Also remember that many people would fail a sobriety test stone cold sober. And it all lies on the word of the officer and a single test that proves he has some amount in his system.

Cedar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though they don't call it zero tolerance, all the PA has to do is prove you had something in your system, and then have the arresting officer say "He appeared intoxicated to me". Well the LEO, being anti-mmj to begin with, is going to say that, or has a gut feeling about it. So, the kid may have been 100% ok to drive, much better off than a normal person with 1 beer in them, but they get a conviction anyway because all the LEO has to do is say "He appeared intoxicated to me".

 

Even if he didn't think the kid appeared intoxicated, the LEO will say he did anyway, and how many juries believe some kid over an officer? These LEO have such hatred for people who are sick and ill that they will do anything they can to lock them up. I think it has to do with people worse off than them who are actually getting relief and feeling better, makes them sad because they are still so miserable. :(

 

So even though it isn't listed as a ZT case, it is treated as one. It is like a speeding ticket where the officer paced you, I.E. had no radar. You go into court and say, "I was only doing 30 mph in a 35mph zone". The cop says you were doing 45. Who are they going to believe, you or the LEO? Yet the only "proof" is the LEO's word. Much like this intoxication charge.

 

Also remember that many people would fail a sobriety test stone cold sober. And it all lies on the word of the officer and a single test that proves he has some amount in his system.

Cedar

The interchange between the patient and officer was captured on video.

 

And the video was played for the jury. With the sound turned off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CaveatLector

Even though they don't call it zero tolerance, all the PA has to do is prove you had something in your system, and then have the arresting officer say "He appeared intoxicated to me". Well the LEO, being anti-mmj to begin with, is going to say that, or has a gut feeling about it. So, the kid may have been 100% ok to drive, much better off than a normal person with 1 beer in them, but they get a conviction anyway because all the LEO has to do is say "He appeared intoxicated to me".

 

Even if he didn't think the kid appeared intoxicated, the LEO will say he did anyway, and how many juries believe some kid over an officer? These LEO have such hatred for people who are sick and ill that they will do anything they can to lock them up. I think it has to do with people worse off than them who are actually getting relief and feeling better, makes them sad because they are still so miserable. :(

 

So even though it isn't listed as a ZT case, it is treated as one. It is like a speeding ticket where the officer paced you, I.E. had no radar. You go into court and say, "I was only doing 30 mph in a 35mph zone". The cop says you were doing 45. Who are they going to believe, you or the LEO? Yet the only "proof" is the LEO's word. Much like this intoxication charge.

 

Also remember that many people would fail a sobriety test stone cold sober. And it all lies on the word of the officer and a single test that proves he has some amount in his system.

Cedar

I agree. Since there is no established level of intoxication for marijuana then it is a lot easier for a cop to get you. And that leads straight into my point that if you are charged with operating while under the influence then you can get convicted pretty easily if the cop says you crossed the centerline, etc. Keep in mind that they have to prove you were under the influence though. I think peanut butter is confusing being under the influence with the any presence law. They are separate violations. They are also separate from the zero tolerance metabolite issue.

 

The supreme court ruled last year that mm pts cannot be convicted under zero tolerance. However, there has been no ruling that I am aware of on the 'any presence" law. Because of that there is no guidance for courts beyond what existed before. So if you were charged with any presence then the first step would be to file a motion for a dismissal based on the same theory as the zero tolerance case. Then, if need be, appeal it upstairs to the court of appeals. As far as I know that was not done in the Livingston county case. So, for that reason, the judge interpreted the law as it stands and decided that being a mm pt has no bearing on being charged with any presence. Ruling in that manner obviates the need for mm status to be an issue in the trial and that would be why it wasn't admitted. As I am not intimately familiar with the facts of the case I can only guess but it would seem to me that the ruling should have been appealed. It potentially could have been the case to make law in regard to the any presence issue.

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...