Medical Marijuana Supporters Not Donating To Obama

[peanutbutter]

Oh thank you, THANK YOU for that honor

 

How about . . . no. I know your head is more comfortable in the sand.

 

You'll be happy to know you are the only person I've put on ignore in nearly four years.

 

I take that back. I think I put 'happy guy' on ignore for a little while a couple years back.

Edited October 13, 2012 by peanutbutter

[CaveatLector]

I love it even more when they can't even seat a jury for a marijuana case.

Jury nullification goes BOTH ways. You can get John Public in there being tried for bank robbery and if the jury hears he was convicted of fraud a few years before MANY people would ignore a judge's order to NOT let them be influenced as to whether that fraud meant he committed THIS bank robbery. Many would convict anyway, even on thin evidence. Why? Because they feel like even if he didn't commit the robbery he is still getting what he deserved.

 

Jury nullification is not protection from the government. It's the tyranny of a few. It's a double-edged sword. On the one hand you would jump up and down if it meant you couldn't seat a jury on a marijuana case. On the other, what if someone was being tried for murdering their mailman. It comes out in court that the defendant had shot someone in the back a few years prior and got off with probation. What if that pisses off the jury and they convict for the murder even though the evidence doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Hmmm, jury nullification not so good all of a sudden ay?

[CaveatLector]

You'll be happy to know you are the only person I've put on ignore in nearly four years.

You'll be equally as happy to know that I've put no one on ignore in the 3.5 years I've been here. And it's pretty clear there are some people with whom I take umbrage here, ay? I suppose it is maybe the strength of my constitution as compared to yours. That, and the fact that I have an open mind and am willing hear someone out to the bitter end and consider all angles, even if they are a bit maladjusted. I figure you never know, they may just change my mind. Edited October 13, 2012 by CaveatLector

[peanutbutter]

Jury nullification goes BOTH ways. You can get John Public in there being tried for bank robbery and if the jury hears he was convicted of fraud a few years before MANY people would ignore a judge's order to NOT let them be influenced as to whether that fraud meant he committed THIS bank robbery. Many would convict anyway, even on thin evidence. Why? Because they feel like even if he didn't commit the robbery he is still getting what he deserved.

 

Jury nullification is not protection from the government. It's the tyranny of a few. It's a double-edged sword. On the one hand you would jump up and down if it meant you couldn't seat a jury on a marijuana case. On the other, what if someone was being tried for murdering their mailman. It comes out in court that the defendant had shot someone in the back a few years prior and got off with probation. What if that pisses off the jury and they convict for the murder even though the evidence doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Hmmm, jury nullification not so good all of a sudden ay?

 

Well .. Thomas Jefferson liked it.

 

It happens to be a real part of our system.

[Estimated Prophet]

I have made sure to respond all donation calls and emails with "Not another penny until the the president starts respecting the rights of medical marijuana patients".

[peanutbutter]

You'll be equally as happy to know that I've put no one on ignore in the 3.5 years I've been here.

 

"

CaveatLector

 

Member Since 06 Apr 2012"

 

What was your prior name?

[CaveatLector]

Well .. Thomas Jefferson liked it.

 

It happens to be a real part of our system.

Public corruption is a real part of our system as well. Boss Tweed liked that. So I guess that's good too.

 

FYI, Jefferson also kept slaves. I think I'll stick with what I like and not what someone else likes, thank you.

[CaveatLector]

"

CaveatLector

 

Member Since 06 Apr 2012"

 

What was your prior name?

My prior name was the same. My account was deleted by Tarzan a good 18 months ago or so. I was banned permanently by jojo and I asked Tarzan to remove my account. I re-upped when the MMMA turned the corner and adopted real leadership. Good enough explanation for you? I didn't know you were now the MMMA po po.

Edited October 13, 2012 by CaveatLector

[peanutbutter]

Public corruption is a real part of our system as well. Boss Tweed liked that. So I guess that's good too.

 

FYI, Jefferson also kept slaves. I think I'll stick with what I like and not what someone else likes, thank you.

 

Obviously directed verdicts. With major omissions of facts presented to a jury. Like the defendant had a state issued license to have those plants.

[CaveatLector]

Obviously directed verdicts. With major omissions of facts presented to a jury. Like the defendant had a state issued license to have those plants.

Whaaaaaaaaaat? There is no such thing as a directed verdict of guilty old boy.

[peanutbutter]

Whaaaaaaaaaat? There is no such thing as a directed verdict of guilty old boy.

 

Not officially. But I saw a mother get sent to a cell for answering the question as directed by the judge.

 

What medicine does you son take?

Medical marijuana.

 

Halt proceedings. Send the jury out of the room. Mom goes to jail.

 

The information presented to the jury is tainted and one sided. The jury follows the instructions to the letter.

 

Instructions tell a jury to use their every day life to judge. Then another instruction follows that tells them they are forbidden to use their own standards and must rule by the standards given to them by the judge.

 

I've seen juries threatened by judges if they determine by anything except according to their instructions.

[peanutbutter]

The very first opening statement, in the Declaration of Independence, told us there are times when a government system becomes abusive.

 

The foundations of this nation are based on this truth.

 

Just because a system exists, doesn't make it automatically non-abusive.

[CaveatLector]

Not officially. But I saw a mother get sent to a cell for answering the question as directed by the judge.

 

What medicine does you son take?

Medical marijuana.

 

Halt proceedings. Send the jury out of the room. Mom goes to jail.

 

The information presented to the jury is tainted and one sided. The jury follows the instructions to the letter.

 

Instructions tell a jury to use their every day life to judge. Then another instruction follows that tells them they are forbidden to use their own standards and must rule by the standards given to them by the judge.

 

I've seen juries threatened by judges if they determine by anything except according to their instructions.

Because the idea is to keep irrelevant evidence out. There has been differing opinion as to how to interpret the MMA and the judge in the case you are citing interpreted it as meaning the aff def could not be brought to the jury if it failed at the evid. hearing. The supreme court has now told us it can be brought to the jury. Has that happened since King/Kolanek came down? The solution to the problem is not wilding juries. Why? For the precise reasons I listed above. The solution to the problem is appeals. That's why we have appeals courts. Do you know a better legal system in the world? If you think that allowing juries to drop a hammer based on their own interpretation of a standard is the way to free the masses then you've got another thing coming. Want to go to trial in a community made up of religious zealots whom disregard their instructions and instead substitute their standards of morality? No thank you. That's what you're asking for when you become a proponent of jury nullification. You are asking for different standards applied all of the state. Don't get caught doing something wrong in Kent County if you have a record and jury nullification becomes the standard because they will hold your entire resume' of past evil deeds against you. You fail to see the larger picture.

[CaveatLector]

The very first opening statement, in the Declaration of Independence, told us there are times when a government system becomes abusive.

 

The foundations of this nation are based on this truth.

 

Just because a system exists, doesn't make it automatically non-abusive.

Same goes for Tommy Jefferson. Quoting him matters not in this day and age. Take a swig of your own warnings.

[Herb Cannabis]

I have made sure to respond all donation calls and emails with "Not another penny until the the president starts respecting the rights of medical marijuana patients".

 

 

Thank you brother from another mother, you have the right idea, tell them no and tell them why and tell them often.

 

If enough of us would do what you have, I promise you that they will take notice. I send emails to the campaign on a regular basis with a fact or a link to a medical marijuana fact. The first thing I want them to know is that I volunteer at my County Democratic Headquarters, that I do participate in the mmj program and I vote. I also marched in the FSC Homecoming parade this morning in Big Rapids holding democratic campaign signs next to their float. Believe me, they know of my medicinal choices and it doesn't seem to be a problem for them.

 

I'm just saying, we need to let them know who and what we are. We can accomplish this by volunteering any place we can, allowing them to get to know us and we need to let them know who we are and show them with our deeds that we are good people. I believe that this will go a long way to gaining their respect and acceptance.

[CaveatLector]

FYI the Declaration of Indep. wasn't about reforming government. It was about cutting the cord on a government. Are you advocating starting your own nation? Can I name it? Peanutville? How's that?

[peanutbutter]

FYI the Declaration of Indep. wasn't about reforming government. It was about cutting the cord on a government. Are you advocating starting your own nation? Can I name it? Peanutville? How's that?

 

The proper response from the people falls into two areas .. alter or abolish.

 

The founding fathers left us with several ways to curb an abusive government. One of those is the closed doors the jury is behind.

[peanutbutter]

The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act is an example of "alter."

[CaveatLector]

While I will admit that jury nullification has been a two-edged sword at various times in history (white people acquitting white people for crimes against black people in the aftermath of the Civil War, for instance), it seems to me that it is mostly used these days when juries object to the law itself.

Yes, because it would have been awful to apply that law to O.J. Simpson. Make no mistake, it hurts as much as it helps. You just aren't as likely to hear about it when some prejudiced people convict based on skin color rather than the facts of the case.

[peanutbutter]

Yes, because it would have been awful to apply that law to O.J. Simpson. Make no mistake, it hurts as much as it helps. You just aren't as likely to hear about it when some prejudiced people convict based on skin color rather than the facts of the case.

 

For good or bad, it's a part of our system.

[shishka]

On June 18, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed HB 146, which reads:

"[A] Right of Accused. In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy."

 

This bill was an effort to attract 20,000 new residents. Freedom loving residents.

[shishka]

New Hampshire Jury Acquits Pot-Growing Rastafarian

 

Jacob Sullum| Sep. 14, 2012 1:00 pm

A few months ago, New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch signed a bill declaring that "in all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy." Although the new law does not take effect until next January, a case decided yesterday in Belknap County illustrates the importance of the nullification power it recognizes. A jury unanimously acquitted Doug Darrell, a 59-year-old Rastafarian charged with marijuana cultivation, after his lawyer, Mark Sisti, argued that a conviction would be unjust in light of the fact that Darrell was growing cannabis for his own religious and medicinal use. More remarkably, Judge James O'Neill instructed the jury that "even if you find that the State has proven each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find the defendant not guilty if you have a conscientious feeling that a not guilty verdict would be a fair result in this case."

That is New Hampshire's model jury instruction on the nullification issue, but each judge has discretion whether to give it. In this case, since Sisti argued in favor of nullification and the prosecutor, Stacey Kaelin, argued against it, O'Neill agreed to clarify the law by giving an explicit instruction. The jury, which deliberated for six hours on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning, twice asked to hear the instruction again. Sisti, who has been practicing law for 33 years, says this is the first time he has persuaded a judge to tell jurors they have the power to vote their consciences. He hopes the new law will make such instructions more common, if not standard.

Darrell was arrested in 2009 after members of a marijuana eradication task force spotted his plants from a National Guard helicopter flying over his home in Barnstead. Sisti tried unsuccessfully to have the evidence suppressed, aguing that the aerial surveillance was illegal because the helicopter flew below what the Federal Aviation Administration considers a safe altitude, thereby violating Darrell's reasonable expectation of privacy. The Belknap County Attorney's Office, evidently eager to get rid of a case that involved just 15 plants and no distribution, offered Darrell a series of increasingly lenient plea deals, culminating in an offer that entailed a misdemeanor guilty plea with no jail time or fine. Darrell turned all the offers down, Sisti said, because "he didn't think he was guilty of anything; it's a sacrament in his religion." Instead he went to trial on a charge of manufacturing a controlled drug, a Class B felony that carries a penalty of three and a half to seven years in prison. Darrell's first trial ended in a mistrial last November due to prosecutorial error. His second trial ended in yesterday's acquittal.

"Cases like this shouldn't be brought," Sisti says. "And when they are brought, I think that safety valve, that nullification safety valve, is very important. Other states had better start waking up, because without it, people are going to be convicted of very serious charges through hypocrisy. The jury's going to think they can't do anything else, and that's wrong."

[CaveatLector]

I don't think you can say it hurts as much as it helps. You have only cited one case, and it involved a celebrity.

That's why I cited it, it's well known. Unfortunately most people that are convicted (or not), because of a bad jury, are nobodies. Their cases get zero attention. What you're arguing is that people will ignore their proclivities and prejudices unless they feel that their proclivities and prejudices are in relation to a law they think is wrong. Sp people will engage in conduct they are not supposed to in order to NOT convict someone but they won't engage in that same behavior in order TO convict someone. Strange line of reasoning you are employing there.

[shishka]

That's why I cited it, it's well known. Unfortunately most people that are convicted (or not), because of a bad jury, are nobodies. Their cases get zero attention. What you're arguing is that people will ignore their proclivities and prejudices unless they feel that their proclivities and prejudices are in relation to a law they think is wrong. Sp people will engage in conduct they are not supposed to in order to NOT convict someone but they won't engage in that same behavior in order TO convict someone. Strange line of reasoning you are employing there.

 

Not sure about this. I would think it FAR easier to not convict someone than to convict in most circumstances.

[+Malamute]

Just google "wrongful convictions" to get a peek at the sheer amont of wrongfully jury convicted people and it starts to give ya an idea that this is a much larger percentage than you would think.