Redden Section 8 Hearing

[CaveatLector]

Was scheduled for 1:30pm today. I wanted to go but last minute things kept me away. Anyone know if it is still in-progress, adjourned, or completed? I'm anxious to hear an outcome.

[CaveatLector]

.

Edited February 20, 2013 by CaveatLector

[CaveatLector]

Oh, also, thanks for the update.

Edited February 20, 2013 by CaveatLector

[rhinoman]

unbeliveable.

Edited February 20, 2013 by rhinoman

[rhinoman]

thanx zap.

[CaveatLector]

.

Edited February 20, 2013 by CaveatLector

[ozzrokk]

Wow........ They just cannot let justice be........ Just wow....

[pic book]

Given the prosecutor threatening, will any M.D. testify?

One Nation, under Oakland County.

[BirdHunter]

I guess I don't see the relevance of that section.

[t-pain]

as the doctor is a witness, the judge can compel him to testify.

if the doctor does not he can be held in contempt of court...

 

but it is adviseable for the doctor to lawyer up.

[Kingpinn]

1200 Telegraph rd ???

[CaveatLector]

as the doctor is a witness, the judge can compel him to testify.

if the doctor does not he can be held in contempt of court...

 

but it is adviseable for the doctor to lawyer up.

The judge cannot compel the doc to incriminate himself.

[t-pain]

true, but he can still compel the doctor to get on the stand.

even if the doc pleads the 5th to all questions

 

 

so wheres the trial and what are the upcoming dates/times?

does redden want any spectators?

Edited February 21, 2013 by t-pain

[Herb Cannabis]

I got back about an hour ago. The prosecutor threatened the doctor with charges under MCL 750.492, so he refused to testify without counsel. Anything to conceal the truth in Oakland County circuit court, apparently. The hearing was suspended after that.

 

The hearing continues tomorrow at 1:30.

 

The CoA in the Archie Keil ruling dated July 17, 2012 on page 6 wrote, "The fact that these individuals were registered with the state as medical marijuana users is prima facie evidence of the first and third elements." Does this not help Bob in some way? Am I mistaken about the meaning of that quote, does it in fact apply to a section 8 defense? And, does it in fact establish Sec 8 (a) (1) and (3) elements?

[CaveatLector]

The CoA in the Archie Keil ruling dated July 17, 2012 on page 6 wrote, "The fact that these individuals were registered with the state as medical marijuana users is prima facie evidence of the first and third elements." Does this not help Bob in some way? Am I mistaken about the meaning of that quote, does it in fact apply to a section 8 defense? And, does it in fact establish Sec 8 (a) (1) and (3) elements?

That is dicta and carries no precedential weight. Frankly I think that if this concept were to be tested that it would fail. Section 8 specifically requires more from the doctor than is required to get a card under section 4.

 

Even if that were to survive as a doctrine (which is highly unlikely) it is not hard to overcome prima facie evidence. Prima facie evidence, in layman's terms, just means that the evidence shows something on its face or on the surface. For example, a rear end accident is generally prima facie evidence that the car behind negligently hit the car in front. Of course that can be easily rebutted in many circumstances.

[Herb Cannabis]

I'm sorry they keep screwing you guys around Bob, have you checked your back to see if there is a sign saying screw me, I enjoy it.

[Herb Cannabis]

That is dicta and carries no precedential weight. Frankly I think that if this concept were to be tested that it would fail. Section 8 specifically requires more from the doctor than is required to get a card under section 4.

 

Even if that were to survive as a doctrine (which is highly unlikely) it is not hard to overcome prima facie evidence. Prima facie evidence, in layman's terms, just means that the evidence shows something on its face or on the surface. For example, a rear end accident is generally prima facie evidence that the car behind negligently hit the car in front. Of course that can be easily rebutted in many circumstances.

 

Thank you for clearing that up for me, it is a major bummer to my "Slam Dunk" case. Now I can only hope and pray that I can use the Sec 8 defense. What am I thinking, of course I will be able to use the section 8 defense. To tell you the truth, it should be dismissed on a sec 4 if you ask me.

 

Again, thank you, I appreciate the enlightenment.

[Dr. Bob]

So the doctor is refusing to testify and the prosecutor is threatening to charge him> or was the prosecutor threatening the doctor so the doctor wouldn't testify?

 

Dr. Bob< doesn't understand why a doctor would have a problem standing by his patient and his recommendation.

[cristinew]

with the new law and the new Dr patient law i can see this going on more and less Dr willing to do certs.. compelling dr to ask patients how the cannabis is working .....

 

 

like cal said ..The judge cannot compel the doc to incriminate himself.

now with the new law a patient is compelled to ncriminate himself. with the follow up

Edited February 21, 2013 by cristinew

[Dr. Bob]

The doctor was threatened with MCLA 750.492a if he testified for Bob.

 

Same thing they are trying to do with Harwell. Good luck with that. Would have to be pretty reckless and unfounded to even BEGIN to talk about a prosecution over that, I'd welcome them to try and would counter sue when I handed them their tail.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

In the meantime, it denies justice for Bob, yet again.

 

Maybe not. There was more than one certification doctor on that case. One of them doesn't stand for witness tampering and knows what US Code 42 Section 1983 means. Have your ducks in a row and those little tricks don't work.

 

Nuff said. And it will be free.

 

Dr. Bob

[CaveatLector]

It is a slimy tactic for an office charged with seeking justice.

[Dr. Bob]

It is a slimy tactic for an office charged with seeking justice.

 

I would think that threatening a witness to prevent him from testifying for the defendant would violate some ethical regulations, especially if the charge was completely unfounded. The doctor isn't on trial, Bob is.

 

Dr. Bob

[CaveatLector]

I would think that threatening a witness to prevent him from testifying for the defendant would violate some ethical regulations, especially if the charge was completely unfounded. The doctor isn't on trial, Bob is.

 

Dr. Bob

Ethical standards AND the law. There is a law prohibiting witness intimidation. However, making a "threat" or promise to engage in lawful behavior (charging a doc if he violates a law) is a sneaky way around that. Edited February 21, 2013 by CaveatLector

[knucklehead bob]

Legal Ethics is an oxymoron akin to Military Intelligence & Christian Morals .