From: Extropian Agro Forestry Ventures Inc. (megao@sk.sympatico.ca)
Date: Wed Jan 08 2003 - 19:17:47 MST
Example-
We manufacture a medical food which contains cannabis plant parts of the
non
THC type along with a number of ingredients.
Say a regulator says " I don't like that guy's or his product". I
don't want to spend a lot of effort to keep that product off the
market... but maybe there is an easy way.
I know the guy needs a criminal record check yearly to make his
product.
I know the permits are applied for yearly and usually never issued for a
month
past the year start.
My brother is an RCMP near where the guy lives.
I'll get my brother to go out and check for his permit next jan02 when I
know he has yet to come in for his criminal record check and apply for
his permit. If he can be found not to have a permit I can use that to
charge him for that as an offence thus prevent him from having a clean
record or getting his permit. I know that all other
people like him who apply have a lag period but that does not matter. I
will create guilt and use it to achieve another goal which is motivated
by my personal dislike of the guy.
Malicious prosecution?
"Harvey, Steven" wrote:
>
>
> In response to my previous post:
>
> As a
> > practicing criminal defense attorney, I can attest that this is not
> > the case. Selective prosecution is not a defense. Who to prosecute
>
> > is within the discretion of the prosecutors, & the only remnedy is
> to
> > vote them out of office. The accused cannot prevail on a claim of
> > selective prosecution. What must be shown is that the particular
> > prosecution is malicious, which is very different. Steven Harvey
>
> Rael wrote:
>
> ### Ooops. I guess I made a mistake here. I assumed that availability
> of
> records showing that the prosecutors habitually ignore a crime would
> be
> sufficient to sway a jury. Let's say, if you had video recordings of
> hundreds of cars speeding by a police car, with only one of them being
>
> (apparently randomly) selected for a stop - could you introduce it in
> a case
> defending the selected person? What if that person was minority? What
> is the
> meaning of "malicious prosecution"?
>
> I respond:
>
> Mere randomness isn't objectionable. In fact most speeders,
> drug users, etc. aren't apprehended. Nor do police methods generally
> aim at discovering all offenders. (IMO)
>
> If the person was a minority, then this could form the basis
> for a legal challenge.
> {assuming that many non-minority offenders were seen but ignored.)
> Because minority status is an impermissible basis for the exercise of
> discretion.
>
> Malicious prosecution is where the State prosecutes a case
> having actual knowledge of the innocence of the accused, for some
> ulterior motive. (Rough definition - in my jurisdiction, at least)
>
> Hope this is of general interest
>
> Steven Harvey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST