(State v. Darrell Contee) Possession w/ intent to distribute Marijuana & Firearms charges dismissedSubmitted by go213mph on Tue, 02/05/2013 - 11:46
I was researching Delaware Courts and their legal procedures because I'm trying to put together a paper that explains why so many banks and corporations charter their businesses in Delaware and if by doing so the officers of those corporations become legally sheilded from prosecution. I'm convinced by reading the indemnity clauses in the corporate charters for JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs that they have literally written themselves waivers from criminal prosecution and since the charters are signed off by the government they actually get away with this crap. They are not sheilded from fines...just criminal charges and any possibility of going to jail. However, my research into this is ongoing.
I did come across a very interesting case in which some guy was arrested for having quite a bit of weed in his house when the police raided it and he also had lots of guns. The case was dismissed which surprised the hell out of me, but I was even more amazed at the justification the court gave for dismissing the case. Its a case from 2008 so it wasn't all that long ago.
Given those facts, and assuming for the argument of this Motion that
Defendant possessed illegal substances to support the charges of intent to deliver, maintaining a dwelling and possession of paraphernalia, all within 1000 feet of a school, the question is whether the existence of the aforementioned weaponry can be considered to have been possessed by Defendant during the commission of a felony.
Check out the explanations and the official court ruling at the link below. Considering the world we live in today this ruling seems to have had some outside influence of either money or from powerful connections. It certainly makes me think my research into Delaware corporate law is right on track.
Marijuana charges and possession of firearms dismissed (State v. Darrell Contee)