Jump to content

Archie Kiel Sentencing Hearing - Video/article

Eric L. VanDussen

By Eric L. VanDussen
in Legal Professionals

Recommended Posts

Bisharoo Advanced Member

Bisharoo

Posted
Posted

It is no wounder why sooooo many fear our government....

 

When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny. – Thomas Paine

 

An Avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he a establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. – Thomas Paine (1795)

 

So, we have all these great quotes "Thanks to thanks2" and many others, but do you think our elected and non-elected officials have ever read any of these? Doesn't seem possible...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply
lawyercaregiver Advanced Member

lawyercaregiver

Posted
Posted

Well we are in agreement nobody should ever go to jail for marijuana.

 

However...no numbers I could see but it looks like he went well above the plant count he was allowed. So with no affirmative defense he gets basically 3 1/2 months time served on a 4 year manufacturing charge? The prosecutor was probably thinking what a waste of his time all that was- and still an appeal pending.

 

It is actually good that she sentenced him now. What if he wins the appeal and gets a re-sentencing or he gets to try the reasonable use/quantity issue? Now she can't stick it to him harder even if he pisses of the court with the appeal allegations.

 

And God bless Van Dussen for all of his wonderful reporting! :goodjob:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wayne'sWorld Advanced Member

Wayne'sWorld

Posted
Posted

Well we are in agreement nobody should ever go to jail for marijuana.

 

However...no numbers I could see but it looks like he went well above the plant count he was allowed. So with no affirmative defense he gets basically 3 1/2 months time served on a 4 year manufacturing charge? The prosecutor was probably thinking what a waste of his time all that was- and still an appeal pending.

 

It is actually good that she sentenced him now. What if he wins the appeal and gets a re-sentencing or he gets to try the reasonable use/quantity issue? Now she can't stick it to him harder even if he pisses of the court with the appeal allegations.

 

And God bless Van Dussen for all of his wonderful reporting! :goodjob:

What the heck are you talking about? Have you read the court transcripts and watched the entire trial video produced by Eric? Were you at the trial watching every second of testimony? Are you really a lawyer? Or just somebody obsessed with reruns of Matlock and Perry Mason who thinks your a lawyer?

 

"Judge, prosecutor, respected jurors, the testimony presented makes it look like my client went well above the plant count he was allowed."

 

By the way the judge ruled he could not invoke the AD, nor could paperwork submitted by two of his patient's be viewed by the jury as valid. The judge directed the jury to count only those patients for which he had MDCH cards in possession. The jury followed these instructions to the letter and determined he was above plant count because two patients were not qualified as Mr Kiel had only their MDCH submitted paperwork but no cards, he was cultivating plants for them and those plants were determined to be illegal by the jurist's based on the judges instructions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
Posted

What the heck are you talking about? Have you read the court transcripts and watched the entire trial video produced by Eric? Were you at the trial watching every second of testimony? Are you really a lawyer? Or just somebody obsessed with reruns of Matlock and Perry Mason who thinks your a lawyer?

 

"Judge, prosecutor, respected jurors, the testimony presented makes it look like my client went well above the plant count he was allowed."

 

By the way the judge ruled he could not invoke the AD, nor could paperwork submitted by two of his patient's be viewed by the jury as valid. The judge directed the jury to count only those patients for which he had MDCH cards in possession. The jury followed these instructions to the letter and determined he was above plant count because two patients were not qualified as Mr Kiel had only their MDCH submitted paperwork but no cards, he was cultivating plants for them and those plants were determined to be illegal by the jurist's based on the judges instructions.

 

i tell this story all the time he had 3 cards and two paper works and how does the judge know the 4 foot plants and who they belonged to :notfair: :notfair:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lawyercaregiver Advanced Member

lawyercaregiver

Posted
Posted

What the heck are you talking about? Have you read the court transcripts and watched the entire trial video produced by Eric? Were you at the trial watching every second of testimony? Are you really a lawyer? Or just somebody obsessed with reruns of Matlock and Perry Mason who thinks your a lawyer?

 

"Judge, prosecutor, respected jurors, the testimony presented makes it look like my client went well above the plant count he was allowed."

 

By the way the judge ruled he could not invoke the AD, nor could paperwork submitted by two of his patient's be viewed by the jury as valid. The judge directed the jury to count only those patients for which he had MDCH cards in possession. The jury followed these instructions to the letter and determined he was above plant count because two patients were not qualified as Mr Kiel had only their MDCH submitted paperwork but no cards, he was cultivating plants for them and those plants were determined to be illegal by the jurist's based on the judges instructions.

 

:lol: Are Matlock and Perry mason even on any more? Of course I did not read the transcript. Thanks for the additional info.

 

Was the submitted paperwork more than the 21 days old at the time of the arrest? In other words can he argue the absent cards were deemed accepted by non-rejection? Does that 21 day rule even work for MDCH card validity for caregivers or is it only patients?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanutbutter Advanced Member

peanutbutter

Posted
Posted

:lol: Are Matlock and Perry mason even on any more? Of course I did not read the transcript. Thanks for the additional info.

 

Was the submitted paperwork more than the 21 days old at the time of the arrest? In other words can he argue the absent cards were deemed accepted by non-rejection? Does that 21 day rule even work for MDCH card validity for caregivers or is it only patients?

 

21 day rule is for section 4 not section 8.

 

In section 8 a caregiver card isn't required.

 

The time requirement for a doctors letter is the day in court. Not the day of arrest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lawyercaregiver Advanced Member

lawyercaregiver

Posted
Posted

21 day rule is for section 4 not section 8.

 

In section 8 a caregiver card isn't required.

 

The time requirement for a doctors letter is the day in court. Not the day of arrest.

:goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob:

 

I still don't understand what happened. Apparently he did not have all the patients connected under the CG registry system and the judge ruled the jury could consider the resulting overage as manufacturing?

 

So the motion to Dismiss on section 4 loses but what about the affirmative defense of section 8? Or did he just plead on this because the previous lawyer put the hammer to him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Annnie Advanced Member

+Annnie

Posted
Posted

:goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob:

 

I still don't understand what happened. Apparently he did not have all the patients connected under the CG registry system and the judge ruled the jury could consider the resulting overage as manufacturing?

 

So the motion to Dismiss on section 4 loses but what about the affirmative defense of section 8? Or did he just plead on this because the previous lawyer put the hammer to him?

The judge ruled that section 8 was dependent on Section 4 being in place so he was not entitled to use section 8. And when the jury asked for a copy of the law to review she decided it would be too confusing and would not grant their request.Also.. Archie had 3 hard cards and two paperworks All of which were submitted to MDCH. I believe they were all 21 days old or more.She beleives and ruled that the paperwork isnt valid .. Just the cards. HE DIDNT PLEAD.. but was railroaded and his old lawyer was none to helpful from what i have gathered. FREE ARCHIE!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lawyercaregiver Advanced Member

lawyercaregiver

Posted
Posted

The judge ruled that section 8 was dependent on Section 4 being in place so he was not entitled to use section 8. And when the jury asked for a copy of the law to review she decided it would be too confusing and would not grant their request.Also.. Archie had 3 hard cards and two paperworks All of which were submitted to MDCH. I believe they were all 21 days old or more.She beleives and ruled that the paperwork isnt valid .. Just the cards. HE DIDNT PLEAD.. but was railroaded and his old lawyer was none to helpful from what i have gathered. FREE ARCHIE!!

 

What a flower bunny muffin ruling. Clearly section 8 and 4 are independent and 8 is acknowledged to orovide broader protections beyond the CG-Patient registry system.

 

I assumed he did not actually go to jail. This sentence should obviously be stayed pending the appeal- right?

 

Then I read the allegation in the emergency appeal: Defendant's counsel "did not ask for a stay even though clearly invited to do so by this court."

 

Yep, I am convinced. This is will make a great story for your book Van- but what an outrageous tragedy.

 

Also Bob I think you are wrong in the time of doctors letter is time of arrest- not time of court. The MDCH gal told Archie he is legal ONLY until the doctor signs the letter at the time (at the WSU conference).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
Posted

What a flower bunny muffin ruling. Clearly section 8 and 4 are independent and 8 is acknowledged to orovide broader protections beyond the CG-Patient registry system.

 

I assumed he did not actually go to jail. This sentence should obviously be stayed pending the appeal- right?

 

Then I read the allegation in the emergency appeal: Defendant's counsel "did not ask for a stay even though clearly invited to do so by this court."

 

Yep, I am convinced. This is will make a great story for your book Van- but what an outrageous tragedy.

 

Also Bob I think you are wrong in the time of doctors letter is time of arrest- not time of court. The MDCH gal told Archie he is legal ONLY until the doctor signs the letter at the time (at the WSU conference).

I'm sorry you must be mistake we had are paper work be for the Raid

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
Posted

now comes the appeal and it ant over for Archie the C.O.A. will have to do something he will never get back his time inn jail but he will win this case and sue them for the days

as we will win but it's going to be some more time like 5 years is the way i see it

they the State will appeal every single word of this Law to try and get a Win because they get paid to do it we have to pay

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EdwardGlen Advanced Member

+EdwardGlen

Posted
Posted

The appointed leaders of Michigan should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this injustice to have proceeded as far as it has!

 

What a travesty!

 

Each and every single mother loving Judge, PA, DA, AG, or dog catcher who does not stand in DEFENSE OF OUR STATE LAW we vote or recall out of office! I'll be god damned if I'm going to pay the salary of a judge who just sent a me to jail for following the law.

 

I'm a little ashamed to be a citizen of Michigan this night.

 

I am. Three million of us voted this law in and yet we are allowing our employees to boss us around?! I don't get it!? You would think that with the potential to earn a decent living helping the sick it would motivate people into action.

 

CNBC showed a couple in Colorado who hinted at a six figure income with their medible line...and I have had some tremendous medibles made by CG's here in Michigan.

 

Michigan NORML is having a membership drive now and if you haven't joined please do so. We're going to need all the help we can get if you really want to stop the arrests.

 

I know I won't be here after 2012 but until I move I swear to do all I can to help make this right.

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...