Funding A Cancer Patient's Legal Fight

[Dr. Bob]

I will see if I can find out what the blood level, if any, was.  Last time I spoke with him, which was about 2 weeks ago, the results hadn't been released.  I don't believe he uses very much, because he can't afford it.  But it is a fair point.

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS, might not be a good idea to demand a strict accounting of evidence, never know who reads these and I'd hate to give anyone ammunition to hang this man.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Dr. Bob

[+Malamute]

Question:

 

 Is it possible to request a third party test of the original blood sample?  Personally, I don't think we should be trustin the police lab.  I would think you should be able to have a vial sent to an independent source when it is drawn..

 

 But, If this persons blood level is high, he caused an accident,  seems a little rough.  I would say possession wise, he should or deserves to get off; the impairment issue,... we will see.

[Restorium2]

I disagree that you can tell impairment from a blood test. No accident would make it easier to say he was not impaired. I don't think you should post blood test results.

Only if you refuse/fail the field sobriety/impairment test. Another detail left out of the story.

[GregS]

I disagree that you can tell impairment from a blood test. No accident would make it easier to say he was not impaired. I don't think you should post blood test results.

It is past time that this conversation take place. I could not agree more Zap, but we are not the guys who will prosecute the case. They already have that evidence. Are we ready now to vette the issue and push for objective study to determine impairment? Do we want to continue to let the legislature throw money at law enforcement to bring impairment charges against us without objective proof of impairment?

Edited April 19, 2014 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

If someone is driving High they also still have Sec; 8 ?

[GregS]

Only if you refuse/fail the field sobriety/impairment test. Another detail left out of the story.

That is true enough for alcohol intoxication for which there is objective roadside testing. It is not the case with cannabis because there is no reliable field sobriety/impairment test. The determination to draw blood was little doubt made because there had been an accident, cannabis was found, and the defendant admitted to using it.

Edited April 19, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

If someone is driving High they also still have Sec; 8 ?

Not if impairment is proven. If that is the case he has no protection. Does causing an accident rise to the point of proving impairment? Many would say yes.

 

I am unhappy for and with this man. I am unhappy that he has taken our hard fought for rights and abused them. I am unhappy that there seems no way out for him.

 

I am going to smoke a bowl.

Edited April 19, 2014 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

OK then the Court/Judge/ jury needs too see a video that will/can show impairment because this State does not have a limit on cannabis in the blood test

Edited April 19, 2014 by bobandtorey

[Restorium2]

That is true enough for alcohol intoxication for which there is objective roadside testing. It is not the case with cannabis because there is no field sobriety/impairment test. The determination to draw blood was little doubt made because there had been an accident, cannabis was found, and the defendant admitted to using it.

BS. The same field test applies for any kind of driving impairment.

[Restorium2]

OK then the Court/Judge/ jury needs too see a video that will/can show impairment because this State does not have a limit on cannabis in the blood test

Yes, unless you refused the field test.

[GregS]

BS. The same field test applies for any kind of driving impairment.

If he had failed a sobriety test and had not been using alcohol, roadside breath testing would have let him off the hook. I will be surprised to find that he refused.There is no good reason. But for the objective evidence found he could have come out clean. If I were to concede your point, it would only go to prove he was impaired, even without the other evidence, which we all seem to agree is not possible to determine.

Edited April 19, 2014 by GregS

[Restorium2]

If he had failed a sobriety test and had not been using alcohol, roadside breath testing would have let him off the hook. I will be surprised to find that.There would be no good reason to refuse. But for the objective evidence found he could have come out clean.

I had a friend go through this same thing but no accident, just a tail light out. He refused the field test and they sent him to have a blood test. People refuse it all the time. They are stressed and make bad decisions. There's not a whole lot you can do about it at that point. You could throw money at it but I think that would just make the attorney richer. If the attorney already was paid $2000 I'm wondering why he needs so much more money. Maybe someone can explain that one to me. Where do all these costs, over $2000, come from?

[GregS]

I had a friend go through this same thing but no accident, just a tail light out. He refused the field test and they sent him to have a blood test. People refuse it all the time. They are stressed and make bad decisions. There's not a whole lot you can do about it at that point. You could throw money at it but I think that would just make the attorney richer. If the attorney already was paid $2000 I'm wondering why he needs so much more money. Maybe someone can explain that one to me. Where do all these costs, over $2000, come from?

It has not been determined that he refused.

[GregS]

I had a friend go through this same thing but no accident, just a tail light out. He refused the field test and they sent him to have a blood test. People refuse it all the time. They are stressed and make bad decisions. There's not a whole lot you can do about it at that point. You could throw money at it but I think that would just make the attorney richer. If the attorney already was paid $2000 I'm wondering why he needs so much more money. Maybe someone can explain that one to me. Where do all these costs, over $2000, come from?

There will almost certainly be pro bono work for an attorney other than one court appointed required to bring this defense. You are apparently out of the loop regarding legal fees. $2K might or might not be just enough to enter a guilty plea and maybe negotiate a few minor concessions from the court. Who knows? The right judge, say Judge Frank in Saginaw, might weigh his obvious pain and deformity heavily in a determination. Good doctors who treat RA might be able to contribute to that. Where can we find them? How much do they cost? Are his former certifying doctors prepared to support him? I can't see him getting off the hook, but think there is room for some degree of damage control.

Edited April 19, 2014 by GregS

[Restorium2]

It has not been determined that he refused.

Right. Talking in general terms.

[Restorium2]

There will almost certainly be pro bono work for an attorney other than one court appointed required to bring this defense. You are apparently out of the loop regarding legal fees.

What? I just had a friend go through this. What do you base your imaginary intelligence on?

[GregS]

What? I just had a friend go through this. What do you base your imaginary intelligence on?

Talking in general terms, classroom instruction in the law, and experience in a number of legal forums? That and a reasonably keen intellect and I smoke dope:)))

Edited April 19, 2014 by GregS

[Restorium2]

There will almost certainly be pro bono work for an attorney other than one court appointed required to bring this defense. You are apparently out of the loop regarding legal fees. $2K might or might not be just enough to enter a guilty plea and maybe negotiate a few minor concessions from the court. Who knows? The right judge, say Judge Frank in Saginaw, might weigh his obvious pain and deformity heavily in a determination. Good doctors who treat RA might be able to contribute to that. Where can we find them? How much do they cost? Are his former certifying doctors prepared to support him? I can;'t see him getting off the hook, but think there is room for some degree of damage control.

I see you edited like a mad dog. lol

 

For the OUI? All that is wasted time and money. If they were going to make a federal case out of the possession charge then it would be worth it. I doubt that is the reality of the situation though. My friend had a previous cannabis felony and they let the gram slide with just probation. He had a court appointed attorney.

[GregS]

I see you edited like a mad dog. lol

 

For the OUI? All that is wasted time and money. If they were going to make a federal case out of the possession charge then it would be worth it. I doubt that is the reality of the situation though. My friend had a previous cannabis felony and they let the gram slide with just probation. He had a court appointed attorney.

I do that until there is a response, but not afterward.

 

Agreed that the possession is relatively minor and the impairment is the larger issue. An OUI typically costs easily ten grand, what with defense, traffic fines, attorney fees, state responsibility fees, regular urine tests, court fines and penalties,  a required sobriety class (which is a pathetic joke) and atrociously more expensive auto insurance rates.

Edited April 19, 2014 by GregS

[Restorium2]

I do that until there is a response, but not afterward.

 

Agreed that the possession is relatively minor and the impairment is a larger issue. An OUI typically costs easily ten grand, what with defense, traffic fines, attorney fees, state responsibility fees, court fines and penalties, and atrociously more expensive auto insurance rates.

http://www.fightduicharges.com/michigan/what-to-expect-for-the-cost-of-a-dui-offense-in-michigan/

[GregS]

http://www.fightduicharges.com/michigan/what-to-expect-for-the-cost-of-a-dui-offense-in-michigan/

Great source.

[GregS]

OK then the Court/Judge/ jury needs too see a video that will/can show impairment because this State does not have a limit on cannabis in the blood test

Bob, the guy caused an accident, had cannabis in possession, and admitted use, all without a valid card. Video might be entertaining, but redundant. Townsend is trying to scam us into believing that this guy was compliant and not impaired. The facts, to this point, prove otherwise. B*B has never liked facts. I doubt he'd recognize one if it sat on his face, and he surely wouldn't know what to do with it.

Edited April 19, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

Bail might have been avoided if, at the arraignment, the judge would agree that the defendant is not a flight risk. I have stood and stated that I am a disabled individual with a very sick wife, that I am a long term resident with no prior record, and that there is every reason not to flee. Bail was waived. That was performed before having retained an attorney because there had not been time enough. It was necessary too to tell him I intended to hire one.

Edited April 19, 2014 by GregS

[phaquetoo]

 

I am compelled to assist this person, but am on the fence on this. While I don't condone smoking and driving, and driving while stinking I suppose, I hate to see this old timer in trouble.  I wonder if "no accident" would make it easier? I wonder how I'll feel if he hits a pedestrian the next time he drives under the influence, after I supported him with this charge ? Am I condoning driving while under the influence? Should I automatically serve up support for all crimes marijuana committed ? Is our card =carte blanche now ?  He was expired. He was under the influence(maybe?) He caused an accident.  One guy on the forum said he'd free a murderer with a card, if it meant making marijuana legal.

I don't support higher blood alcohol levels for drivers, and this brings that same taste up once more to me.

I'm still on the fence because I don't know all of the facts. Hopefully they are revealed in time for his defense.

I wish him and his family good fortune and hope this closes well for them.

GM I totaly feel the same way, even after reading the accident report,(which was not easy) I had to donate something to this cancer pt, im not saying he was right, but there but the grace of god go I!

 

All I realy had to do was go back and read Dr.Bobs request and see this guys pic, his knees all messed up, sickly looking, I couldnt turn my back on him, at least he was not dealing or anything else, Ive had the sun blind me and Ive ran into the back of a young kids car and totaled it, his friends got his car out of the road like realy fast, they even swept m55 going thru houghton lake, a very busy road, we all got onto a parking lot and the kid called his mom, They didnt want the cops involved, I just wanted to exchange paper work and leave, I waited for his mom, she came to me and said he just got his liscense 2 weeks ago, and he would lose it if the po po's did an accident report, I asked even though it was totaly my fault? she said yes (she is right) my own son was right around the same age as this kid, man he balled, his car was a camaro or one of them unibody ones, I totaly demolished it lol!

 

long story short, I wound up givint the kid the cash he paid for the car, in hopes if this happened to my own kid some one would do the same, and I donated what I could to this sick pt in hopes some one will help me if I ever need it!

 

It doesnt mean I condone how or what happened, it only means I am human!

 

Peace

[t-pain]

i knew a lady who fell asleep at the wheel due to her medications. she crashed and totalled her vehicle and the one she ran into (no one was hurt). but she didnt get a dui. maybe a failure to stop ticket?

 

knew another guy whos crashed several vehicles (not drunk/not mj) into things and walked away with no tickets. he did have to pay property damage though.

 

my other buddy who turned in front of a car, got t-boned, and the cop gave him a bunch of tickets! he drives without insurance btw. these people are out there, driving around. turning in front of you. be careful.

 

guess it just depends on the cop and what you say to them.

give yourself enough rope and you'll hang.

 

did the cop draw blood in this case due to smelling pot , or due to guy saying he smoked pot yesterday?

 

you can be impaired and not over the legal limit for alcohol.

you can be impaired 24hrs later after eating a medible. it happens.

 

posession is a moo poo charge.

the thing could be that they charge you with posession and oui, and you plead to posession only.

its a quick way to get a conviction. an easy way to scare most people, or people who dont have funds to defend themselves.

 

dont be too quick to call someone an impaired driver. you know exactly how prosecutors charge a bunch of bunny muffin and then get you to plead to a lesser charge. 'maintaining a drug house' 'intent to deliver' 'posession' ... oh if you plead to posession we'll drop the others... yeah, people take that deal every day in the usa. whos going to fight? $5k-$10,000 to fight? or a $600 posses ticket?

 

its why we need to get posession off the table. so prosecutors can focus on REAL CRIME and drop cases that have no merit.