Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sometimes the law gods smile on us. In a recent OWI case, the police, who had confiscated more than 2.5 oz and a gram of hash were ordered to return itn to a pt/cg. In court, the judge asked the defendant about using cannabis to treat, upon which he granted a tidy discount to the fees and costs associated with the attendant plea. The police, who had violated this disabled individual's right reasonable accommodation for the qualifying conditions and engaged in misconduct are being complained against.

 

The United States Department of Justice is looking at the matter, and, if all goes well, will compel these fools to comply with the law and to pay attention when a patient tells them they are disabled within the defintions of the Americans With Disabilities Act and to refrain from the sick, twisted behavior that is law enforcement SOP that causes undue harm to already injured or diseased patients, among whom we can each count ourselves . With luck some will lose their jobs. With a little more, these state and local departments and municipalities may have to pony up to pay for harm done. This could reach into cannabis use, and might just get judges to start to really scratch their heads; point being that there are some people in key places who get it, and them that don't.

 

Can the ADA be used as a wedge to insert cannabis use as a federally protected right? Cases in varied locations or venues can help to raise the question.

Edited by GregS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

There are basic methods that are being used to negate our MMJ law.

 

The procedure listed above is one method that is uses.

 

I thought the zt law and the "any presence" law were the same.

 

The basic concept is to locate any small detail and order the MMMA out of the court based on a technicality.

 

These kind of "loopholes" were clearly not the desire of the voters.

 

Consider the examination doctors have withstood to prove a bonna fide relationship. What percentage of the population would say that is the proper way to apply the law? It is simply dragging a defendant through the mud.

 

Or the question of usage for only the indication listed. "Did you enjoy smoking your medicine?"

 

There are so many ways that this twisted system can decide the law doesn't apply.

 

Then, with the discovery of a single point of attack, the mmj law is tossed out of the court.

Edited by peanutbutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Medicinal Patient

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

 

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

 

Wow. I wonder if the courts even bother to have you be sworn in before giving your testimony anymore. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth or what truths we want to come out and to hell with the rest lets just censor everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im going to make copies of this http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

and hand it out at the rally,

and info on Gary Johnson

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

Im also sending a letter to the editor of my newspaper about the JN,play it forward and spread this valuable peice of info,thanks PB for that,I really think ppl are sick of wasting $$ on needless MMJ "crimes" and hopefully we will start seeing more of this take place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they won't allow all of the evidence perhaps jurors should just assume that all marijuana trials have tainted evidence and find all defendants 'not guilty' irregardless of the evidence presented in court. This is permissible under the Jury Nullification laws.

 

Jury nullification in the United States has its origins in colonial British America. Similar to British law, in the U.S. jury nullification occurs when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes due to a disagreement with the relevant law.[1] The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal,[2] and the fact that jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return.

 

Jury nullification in the United States

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PB could a lawyer ask the jury to consider nullification at closing argument or anytime during the trial?

 

No. They are considered to be officers of the court.

 

They can not be viewed as doing anything at all that COULD be viewed as undermining the justice system.

 

That is why I get REAL FUZZY answers anytime I mention it to a lawyer.

 

They CAN NOT advise how to do it correctly. They CAN NOT seem to support the process.

 

So the whole thing HAS to be done by lay people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they won't allow all of the evidence perhaps jurors should just assume that all marijuana trials have tainted evidence and find all defendants 'not guilty' irregardless of the evidence presented in court. This is permissible under the Jury Nullification laws.

 

That is exactly why I'm telling everyone to vote not guilty in ANY marijuana case.

 

Pull their plug.

 

One out of twelve is a majority now ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im going to make copies of this http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

and hand it out at the rally,

and info on Gary Johnson

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

Im also sending a letter to the editor of my newspaper about the JN,play it forward and spread this valuable peice of info,thanks PB for that,I really think ppl are sick of wasting $$ on needless MMJ "crimes" and hopefully we will start seeing more of this take place.

 

The fully informed juror is the most powerful person in the courtroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well .. the video has been viewed more than 500 times.

 

It's still being passed from person to person. I can tell this because almost all of the views are via unique IP addresses.

 

I'll put out a new one on the topic .. shorter and more to the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video is now getting near to 800 views.

 

I got to watch "lies of omission" being applied in a Oakland county court today.

 

The jury was told that a woman had marijuana plants. Then the court refused to allow the jury to know she was licensed by the state to have them.

 

Two of the members of the jury asked the judge directly, by way of note, if the defendant was a medical marijuana patient. The judge told the jury the MMMA was not for them to consider.

 

There seems to be hope for this jury. They know they are being kept in the dark.

 

The defendant had written a signed confession .. sort of.

 

"I have marijuana plants at my home." "Which I'm licensed by the state to have."

 

The second sentence was covered and the jury only allowed to see the first part.

 

Justice is supposed to be about the whole truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now it's been seen nearly 900 times. The other video has been viewed nearly 300 times.

 

That's almost 1200 people that have learned about the abuse of Oakland county and jury nullification.

 

The views keep growing .. slowly.

 

Send them to everyone! It's most important to send them to those that live there.

 

Video #1:

 

Video #2

Edited by peanutbutter

Share this post


Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...