Section 8 Defense - People V Redden I Believe Is The Case That Applies

[bobandtorey]

I have no ill will toward Bob.

I know that GregS

nor i ever did think anything like it and is why i stay here i like the MMMA as much as anyone sure i have other forms/Site i go to mostly site for Audio no talking about Cannabis  and i understand there may be a Age difference their the younger ones take about how great Digital is and us older ones talk about the real sound is Analog has been that way for many years 

 

Two different ways of looking at all things ® 

[Highlander]

JKAJR , as long as you have that dr rec, a section 8 will clear you of a posession charge.

just dont take the plea deal. ever.

 

your lawyer will have to file a pre-trial motion to dismiss under section 8.

 

here is the template of the motion to dismiss under section8. give it to your lawyer if he is not well versed on mmma cases.

http://www.michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/ccs_files/downloads/ModelMOTIONTODISMISS.pdf

 

curious what road you were on, was it 7mile or middlebelt or plymouth? the police are on permanent duty on the 'walmart roads'. there was also someone who got popped turning left into the grow store at 7/mbelt , they got him on illegal left turn but found a pipe , he got off with a lawyer helping him.

 

Sadly, a Dr. rec. might not get him very far.  A signed form is merely hearsay.  So he might need the Dr. to show up in court. 

 

Good example of two things:  #1 just do your F'in paperwork and, if you don't  #2 At least see a Dr. willing to testify.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Highlander

[GregS]

I know that GregS

nor i ever did think anything like it and is why i stay here i like the MMMA as much as anyone sure i have other forms/Site i go to mostly site for Audio no talking about Cannabis  and i understand there may be a Age difference their the younger ones take about how great Digital is and us older ones talk about the real sound is Analog has been that way for many years 

 

Two different ways of looking at all things ® 

There is no replacing my first acid trip listening to Apostrophe/Overnight Sensation on a turntable before digital was an itch in analogue's pants.

[GregS]

Sadly, a Dr. rec. might not get him very far.  A signed form is merely hearsay.  So he might need the Dr. to show up in court. 

 

Good example of two things:  #1 just do your F'in paperwork and, if you don't  #2 At least see a Dr. willing to testify.

It would be argued by the defense that it is allowable hearsay, for instance under the business records exemption. There are a few evidentiary rules that might very well allow it.

 

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/CurrentCourtRules/2MichiganRulesOfEvidence.pdf    See 803.6.

 

Records of regularly conducted activity.

A memorandum, report, record, or data

compilation, in any form, of acts, transactions, occurrences, events, conditions,

opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information

transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly

conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business

activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown

by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification that

complies with a rule promulgated by the supreme court or a statute permitting

certification, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of

preparation indicate la

ck of trustworthiness. The term "business" as used in this

paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and

calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.

Edited January 15, 2014 by GregS

[Highlander]

 

It would be argued by the defense that it is allowable hearsay, for instance under the business records exemption. There are a few evidentiary rules that might very well allow it.

 

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/CurrentCourtRules/2MichiganRulesOfEvidence.pdf    See 803.6.

 

Records of regularly conducted activity.

A memorandum, report, record, or data

compilation, in any form, of acts, transactions, occurrences, events, conditions,

opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information

transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly

conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business

activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown

by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification that

complies with a rule promulgated by the supreme court or a statute permitting

certification, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of

preparation indicate la

ck of trustworthiness. The term "business" as used in this

paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and

calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.

"as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness"

 

Who is that? 

[GregS]

"as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness"

 

Who is that? 

In this case, so long as a physician's statement is sought to be put into evidence, a physician who keeps copies of medical records according to common office practice.

[Highlander]

In this case, so long as a physician's statement is sought to be put into evidence, a physician who keeps copies of medical records according to common office practice.

 

Does this require that the Dr. testify in court? 

[GregS]

Does this require that the Dr. testify in court? 

Not always. A corrupt judge and/or prosecutor can make things difficult and require that by disallowing the document(s). If the rules of evidenced are used fairly there would be little problem. We know, however, that is not always the case. It is best to avoid any oral testimony. You might remember the agreement and supporting documents that I offered for consideration. Because those require notarization, there is an evidentiary rule to allow them because they have been.

Edited January 15, 2014 by GregS

[Kingdiamond]

. A corrupt judge and/or prosecutor can make things difficult and require that by disallowing the document(s).

Sounds like you just described how things run in Livonia .

[bobandtorey]

Sounds like you just described how things run in Livonia .

I agree Mr. KD but will add some other County's as well too many to list 

 

Do you think it will change how the counties feel if the 2 Bill's pass  and become Law as they are written ?

[ozzrokk]

Bottom line is if the State can accept the signed recommendation as proof of qualification to issue the ALMIGHTY CARD......... Then why can't or won't the COURT or better yet PROSECUTOR AND LEO?  The answer is simple Corruption and unwillingness to accept and implement the LAW............

 

Edited to add that yes in that area they may want the DR. to testify. Should not be that way but seems it is.... Rule of thumb is make sure the Dr that signs your Rec. will be available for court testimony. Hopefully your Dr. will not be required to be there but will if need be. You should have a classic Section 8. May even be able to help define this whole idiotic medibles ruling.

 

Good luck and good health........

Edited January 16, 2014 by ozzrokk

[Highlander]

Not always. A corrupt judge and/or prosecutor can make things difficult and require that by disallowing the document(s). If the rules of evidenced are used fairly there would be little problem. We know, however, that is not always the case. It is best to avoid any oral testimony. You might remember the agreement and supporting documents that I offered for consideration. Because those require notarization, there is an evidentiary rule to allow them because they have been.

 

Is a non-notarized document hearsay, and a notarized one not hearsay?  I'm not being facetious - I just don't know. 

[GregS]

Is a non-notarized document hearsay, and a notarized one not hearsay?  I'm not being facetious - I just don't know. 

They are both hearsay, which is defined in those rules of evidence as, "a statement, other than the one made by the declarant

while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." IOW anyhing and everything that can be entered without a witesss being present. Notarized statements should rightly be allowed under Rule 902 as a "Self Authenticating Document":

 

Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not

required with respect t

o the following:

(1)

Domestic public documents under seal.

A document bearing a seal purporting to

be that of the United States, or of any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or

insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the

Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof,

and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.

(2)

Domestic public documents not under seal.

A document purporting to bear the

signature in the official capacity of an officer or employee of any entity included in

paragraph (1) hereof, having no seal, if a public officer having a seal and having

official duties in the district or political subdivision of the officer or employee

certifies under seal that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is

genuine.

(3)

Foreign public documents.

A document purporting to be executed or attested in

an official capacity by a person authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make

the exe

cution or attestation, and accompanied by a final certification as to the

genuineness of the signature and official position (A) of the executing or attesting

person, or (B) of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness of signature

and official

position relates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain of

certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the

execution or attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of

embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the

United States, or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or

accredited to the United States. If reasonable opportunity has been given to all

parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official documents, the court

may, for good cause shown, order that they be treated as presumptively authentic

without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary

with or without final certification.

(4)

Certified copies of public records.

A copy of an official record or report or entry

therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually

Michigan Rules of Evidence

Last Updated

1/3/2012

recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified

as

correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by

certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) or complying with any law of

the United States or of this state.

(5)

Official publications.

Books, pamphlets, or other publications purporting to be

issued by public authority.

(6)

Newspapers and periodicals.

Printed materials purporting to be newspapers or

periodicals.

(7)

Trade inscriptions and the like.

Inscriptions, signs, tags, or labels purporting to

have been affixed in the course of business and indicating ownership, control, or

origin.

(8)

Acknowledged documents.

Documents accompanied by a certificate of

acknowledgment executed in the manner provided by law by a notary public or

other officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments.

(9)

Commercial paper and related documents.

Commercial paper, signatures

thereon, and documents relating thereto to the extent provided by general

commercial law.

(10)

Presumptions created by law.

Any signature, document, or other matt

er

declared by any law of the United States or of this state to be presumptively or

prima facie genuine or authentic.

(11)

Certified records of regularly conducted activity.

The original or a duplicate of

a record, whether domestic or foreign, of regularly

conducted business activity that

would be admissible under rule 803(6), if accompanied by a written declaration

under oath by its custodian or other qualified person certifying that

(A) The record was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the mat

ters

set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of

those matters;

(B) The record was kept in the course of the regularly conducted business

activity; and

© It was the regular practice of the business activity to make the re

cord.

A party intending to offer a record into evidence under this paragraph must

provide written notice of that intention to all adverse parties, and must make

the record and declaration available for inspection sufficiently in advance of

their offer into

evidence to provide an adverse party with a fair opportunity to

challenge them.

 

Rule 901 explains many details and can be found at the link:  http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/CurrentCourtRules/2MichiganRulesOfEvidence.pdf

[GregS]

 Prosecutors and defense attorneys argue the merits of their case. The judge, who is in all ways superior to all others in court makes the decision whether or not to allow hearsay as "allowable hearsay" under the rules. Any number of facts or attitudes can play into the determination, and it is not uncommon to see an agenda at work that precludes a judge from adjudicating according to those rules, but rather out of personal bias or garden variety dumbassness.

[GregS]

Bottom line is if the State can accept the signed recommendation as proof of qualification to issue the ALMIGHTY CARD......... Then why can't or won't the COURT or better yet PROSECUTOR AND LEO?  The answer is simple Corruption and unwillingness to accept and implement the LAW............

 

Edited to add that yes in that area they may want the DR. to testify. Should not be that way but seems it is.... Rule of thumb is make sure the Dr that signs your Rec. will be available for court testimony. Hopefully your Dr. will not be required to be there but will if need be. You should have a classic Section 8. May even be able to help define this whole idiotic medibles ruling.

 

Good luck and good health........

Thanks ozz. That is a most pertinent point. The law clearly says that the courts can allow signed documents as allowable hearsay and intends that. The rules require that they be considered fairly. What is not required is that judges make their decisions based on those rules. They answer to no one until and unless they can be shown to have done something egregious enough to require cesure by the legislature or the Judicial Review Panel in Lasing. Your chances are better you will win the Powerball by yourself. The Review Panel does censure and remove judges, It does't happen real often and is not widely spoken of.

Edited January 16, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

Rule

Edited January 16, 2014 by GregS

[Kingdiamond]

I agree Mr. KD but will add some other County's as well too many to list 

 

Do you think it will change how the counties feel if the 2 Bill's pass  and become Law as they are written ?

No not one bit the county's and city's that are anti cannabis medical or recreational currently will still find ways to undermine the law to suit their beliefs even if this comes to fruition which I don't have much faith in becoming reality depending on the feds to buckle and admit that they fought a long battle vs cannabis for 40 + years for nothing just isn't going to be easy .

[Highlander]

 Prosecutors and defense attorneys argue the merits of their case. The judge, who is in all ways superior to all others in court makes the decision whether or not to allow hearsay as "allowable hearsay" under the rules. Any number of facts or attitudes can play into the determination, and it is not uncommon to see an agenda at work that precludes a judge from adjudicating according to those rules, but rather out of personal bias or garden variety dumbassness.

 

I do a lot of writing and am always on the lookout for a new adjective.  I am going to shamelessly steal this from you.  It is genius. 

[GregS]

I do a lot of writing and am always on the lookout for a new adjective.  I am going to shamelessly steal this from you.  It is genius. 

I'm flattered. What do you write?

[Highlander]

I'm flattered. What do you write?

 

I am trying to give Bill Bryson a run for his money.  Of course, I can't...we are both old fat guys and run at about the same speed, but I'm at least 10 years younger, so he will always be ahead of me. 

[GregS]

I just came across George Saunders. He doesn't hold a candle to Barthelme. I guess no one does. I'll check this guy out. Thanks.

Edited January 16, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

Are you published HL?

[JKAJR]

I went to see the Dr. that certified me last year.  I wanted to continue the Dr./Patient relationship and get a current recommendation (that I'm going to mail in with some $$).  Thanks to you all for your support. 

 

I was just reading Dearborn's appeal in people v Navoy.  It seems to me if the District Court shoots down my Affirmative Defense under section 8.  My next step will be to attempt to disqualify him..imo

 

Can any one think of any other steps to bind up the docket and affirm to these jokers that I won't roll. 

 

It seems y'all are my only friends in the world at the moment.  Baby's Mamma is using this against me.  Bob just reminded me of the time she gave him the bums rush rush from our home when she came home to find him and I medicating...it was sort of funny at the time.

[t-pain]

if the judge denies your section8 motion, the supreme court has said you have to file an intermediate appeal on that. (that means as soon as he denies it, file an appeal to challenge his denial). i think this info is in people v king. whichever case detailed the 3 prongs.

 

of course , that will probably stick you in the coa, so be prepared to appeal to msc after that.

Edited January 16, 2014 by t-pain

[GregS]

You might make noise with the Judicial Tenure Commission (http://jtc.courts.mi.gov/). You will find instructions for filing your grievance. If the judge's statements are on the record you may have a better than even chance in my considerable and freakishly optimistic opinion. Now THAT would be entertainment.

Edited January 16, 2014 by GregS