desert dude
Well-Known Member
End the drug war. Make Buck get a job at Wendy's mopping up shit. I personally vow to visit the Wendy's where you work and shit on the floor next to the toilet.
stop being mean to poor rend pawl!
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that's because in oregon there is basically zero penalty for exceeding your limit, besides them taking it away if they find it.
475.324 Limits on confiscation of marijuana.
A law enforcement officer who determines that a
registry identification cardholder is in possession of
amounts of usable marijuana or numbers of
marijuana plants in excess of the amount or number
authorized by ORS 475.320 may confiscate only
any usable marijuana or plants that are in excess of
the amount or number authorized. [2005 c.822 §10]
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that's a tough thing to do when people like you continue to wish prison time on growers like me and FDD and say we deserve it.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Dude if I grow even one plant I'm over my plant limits.
I don't try claim I'm operating on a non-profit legitimate basis then publicly admit to breaking the laws (which he lambastes others for doing and say the DEA can legitimately and morally raid those places) and not paying taxes on his profits.
He's a hypocrite and by his own standards belongs in prison for not being state compliant.
Yep, your right, they suspend the constitution for CI's.
You are an idiot.
If a CI is going to be a witness, then he MUST be revealed, otherwise he cannot be a witness. The fact that you don't understand even the most basic of your constitutional rights pretty makes you a complete fucking idiot and king of morons.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Has there ever been a DEA raid that you did not cheer lead for, Goebbels?
LULZ.
LULZ.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
I did say that. Remember a few posts ago when I said a person could "like" something for various reasons? The same goes for "voting" when someone starts a poll.
GJ...not republican
When me and Zambonic stood up for Moses Mobetta. You and Carne were needlessly picking on him. After giving Carne a taste of his own medicine, you called me a gay basher and antigay.
Well, come on! It was a picture of 3 black ducks and only 1 white duck. Which one would you think is gonna get mugged?
At the very least you jumped to conclusions. You then spouted things about me as if they were fact, homie.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
He wishes jail on everyone that is not state compliant while not being state compliant.
It is a cry for help from an alcoholic forum troll who has so much self loathing he secretly supports putting people in jail for not doing what the *state* decrees.
What a joke.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Dont feel special, he does that to everyone he disagrees with...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what does that (R) next to his name mean?
why is he at this republican debate?
why did he win the republican nomination for governor in new mexico in 1994?
londonfog
Well-Known Member
dumb ass CI's don't have to be used as a witness. Did you even bother to read
FDD did not even take it to trial to call a witness and read below you foolish muppet.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/learning-the-identity-confidential-informant.html
Information the Prosecution Has to Share With a Criminal Defendant
In a criminal case, the prosecution must disclose information that forms the basis of its case. This process is called discovery. A defendant is entitled to the names and statements of the witnesses that the prosecution plans to call, as well as a list of physical evidence and documents. The prosecution must also disclose any deal it has offered to a witness in exchange for testifying. While normally prosecutors have to disclose all witnesses who are relevant to the case whether or not those witnesses will testify, they often don’t have to reveal the identity of confidential informants (CIs).
Our Little Secret
The government has an interest in not giving up the identity of a confidential informant to a defendant or anyone else. After all, a CI is someone who came to the police voluntarily and doesn’t wish to be identified, often because of a fear of retaliation.
Courts have long recognized the importance of the confidential informant in solving crime. Police gain information and leads from these informants that they may not be able to learn from other sources. If police reveal the identity of an informant, they may not get any more information from that person, and others may be afraid to serve as informants. Given the importance of CIs, courts have granted them privilege, which means that they don’t have to be disclosed in the same way as other witnesses.
Uncovering the Identity a Confidential Informant
The general rule is that the prosecution doesn’t have to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. However, this rule has many exceptions; if a criminal defendant can show the importance of the CI’s identity to the case, it may be possible to find out who’s been talking to the cops.
After a defendant has made a motion to reveal the identity of a CI, the court will evaluate the circumstances and evidence in the case and then make a call about how important knowing the identity of the informant is to the defendant’s defense.
Factors the court will consider in deciding whether a confidential informer’s identity should be revealed include:
- the possible defenses the accused might use
- whether the CI might have information helpful to the defendant’s case
- whether the accused already knows the CI’s identity
- whether the defendant wants to call the informant as a witness, and
- whether there is evidence of guilt apart from the information supplied by the informant.
For example, say the police arrest Joe for embezzlement based on the information provided by a confidential informant, his accountant Ricky. Joe learns from the prosecution that the unnamed CI was involved in the embezzlement and is the main source of evidence for the prosecution. Joe argues that he needs to know the CI’s identity. He claims that the documentation the CI provided the police is false, and that he needs the CI’s identity in order to prove how it was falsified. Given that Ricky’s information is material to the case against Joe, and that the basis for it is an essential part of Joe’s defense, a court might grant a motion to disclose the CI’s identity. But if Ricky was only one piece of the evidence against Joe, and the prosecution had other, independent evidence of Joe’s criminal activities, then the court might decide it’s not necessary to reveal Ricky’s identity to Joe and his attorneys.
“We Don’t Even Know Who He Is!”
The prosecution and police typically don’t have to reveal the identity of an informant if they don’t have it. So if they get an anonymous phone call detailing some of Joe’s shady business activities and use this information as a lead to uncover Joe’s dealings, Joe would be out of luck at trial in discovering the identity of the person who ratted him out. The police are generally not required to conduct investigation to uncover the confidential informant’s identity if it’s unknown to them.
Use It or Lose It
There are two opportunities to find out the identity of a confidential informant: before and during trial. If a defendant doesn’t ask for disclosure of the identity at one of these two times, then the issue is waived (meaning that the defendant can’t find out the identity later).
It can be an uphill battle to learn the identity of a confidential informant, but discovering it can also be crucial to a defendant’s ability to mount an adequate defense. In addition, if a court orders disclosure and a witness refuses to name the confidential informant, then the court may strike the testimony of that witness or dismiss the case, so it’s worth the effort to try and find out who the confidential informant is.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
now all you need is a single example of that. got one?
kelly4
Well-Known Member
I am the only one who can get him to say he was wrong on pretty much everything he though or said about me.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
1994? LOL.what does that (R) next to his name mean?
why is he at this republican debate?
why did he win the republican nomination for governor in new mexico in 1994?
What was he in the LAST election? Too easy...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
in 2012, when he participated in the republican debates and vied for the republican nomination.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he had a choice, he could have vied for the republican, democrat, or libertarian nomination.
gary johnson CHOSE first and foremost to run as a republican.
want me to dig up where i go through his positions one by one and point out how thoroughly republican he is? because you know i will! open houses don;t start for another 20 minutes, i have time, sistah!
Police gain information and leads from these informants that they may not be able to learn from other sources. Information and leads is not witnessing. If a CI is brought in to court to give his testimony, you can be sure his identity will be known. If he isn't a witness, then his ID may not be revealed, but giving the police info such as " I heard Londonfoggybottoms is selling weed on the corner of 4th and Lincoln" that's giving info and isn't being a witness.
Do you understand the difference? Probably not.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
You should start by pointing out Obammy's republican tendencies.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
I see you having trouble spelling like me *Probably
What part of "no trial no witness called" you don't understand. He coped a plea. No need for the CI to come to court to testify. He admitted quilt with the info they showed him. Do you know what happened to KMK and his girlfriend ?