Jump to content

Redden Section 8 Hearing


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by cristinew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by CaveatLector
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...