Koon To Serve Up To 15 Years

[trichcycler]

thank you Highlander for the illustration. I understand, I do. something is just not sitting right with me. how could money for the marijuana offense be separated from the manslaughter defense, with judgment coming down on the same day I wonder.

I never heard of group(NRA, MADD, etc) assist in the defense of a gun charge, drunk driving charge, etc,  just to save another aspect of a levied charge, yet.

 

I cant yet see myself supporting criminals here, who make stupid irresponsible mistakes, just so I can get my way and please a minority group of folks, that I love and work for whole heartedly. Most of us do not commit crimes, and do not seek financial support for our woes.  How would it look for the forum MMMA to be in the corner at court yahooing for the drunk driver who happened to be stoned earlier in the day? just to protect our want of driving with thc in our system ?  aint right to me. I've always stood up for what I believe in, regardless of the majority opinion, and I appreciate the same in your posts.

[t-pain]

grassmatch, i'm curious what mmj cases (past or present) you would support?

[trichcycler]

victimless would come to mind. I'm no judge, and my moral compass goes awry too, but I try to do the right thing, and sleep well at night.

 

just seems weird to me to support negative behavior, for the positive selfish outcome.

[Highlander]

thank you Highlander for the illustration. I understand, I do. something is just not sitting right with me. how could money for the marijuana offense be separated from the manslaughter defense, with judgment coming down on the same day I wonder.

I never heard of group(NRA, MADD, etc) assist in the defense of a gun charge, drunk driving charge, etc,  just to save another aspect of a levied charge, yet.

 

I cant yet see myself supporting criminals here, who make stupid irresponsible mistakes, just so I can get my way and please a minority group of folks, that I love and work for whole heartedly. Most of us do not commit crimes, and do not seek financial support for our woes.  How would it look for the forum MMMA to be in the corner at court yahooing for the drunk driver who happened to be stoned earlier in the day? just to protect our want of driving with thc in our system ?  aint right to me. I've always stood up for what I believe in, regardless of the majority opinion, and I appreciate the same in your posts.

Well, yeah.  That's the quandary we find ourselves in.  Our "group" (meaning MMJ folks) is dominated by people who distrust the government and who have indulged in illegal activities for years.  I totally hear you.  A few years ago, if someone on this forum posted such clear-headed ideas like you do, he'd get smashed.  I know, because years ago I did post such clear-headed ideas...and if/when I or anybody posted anything that resembled support for LEO or the government, said posts were smacked down with hate.

 

But unfortunately, we don't get to pick and choose which cases head to the COA and define case law.  I would have loved it if the driving with metabolites issue was adjudicated on a case where an 87-year-old lady was driving home from church and decided to stop and give blood but got pulled over because her blinker wasn't working...and then LEO found her pot brownies.  But we didn't get that..We got a drunk-driving wife beater.

 

But we don't get cases like this...with a squeaky clean gramma.  The poster child for MMJ isn't anyone's grandma.  When we get the domestic-violence-prone, dishonorably military discharged, behind on his child support, high school dropout, opiate-addicted, alcoholic deadbeat dad, then WTF do we do?  We can say "Oh, he's a deadbeat and a drain on society, so `F him' and maybe we end up accepting some really crappy case law or....?  This issue is not at all about any individual.  It is about case law that affects 100,000+ people. 

 

Here's a good example.  There was a case dismissed in the UP I think in 2009 in district court with a guy who was recommenced MJ before the law went into effect...so yeah...by a  traffic court judge....but this judge was clever enough to understand that we in MI had a MMJ law years ago...and said law expired because  the legislature didn't renew it in about 1978.  This judge reasoned that because we in MI had a MMJ law before and said law lapsed, that a patient should enjoy RETROACTIVE protection of the MMMA.  Meaning a Dr. Rec in 2007 was good enough.   Eventually, in another case, the same issue of retroactive application of the law came before the MI supreme court.  And the SC said that a law can only be applied retroactively if it codifies a new right or if it provides a remedy to redress a grievance.  So this jailhouse attorney was in front of the supreme court and was specifically asked by a SC justice if/how the MMMA either codifies a new right or redresses a grievance....and you know how he responded?  He didn't say anything about how the MMMA redresses a grievance...that it takes the place of the state legislature's inaction in 1978...that it codifies a "right" to grow MMJ because the citizens of MI took the time and effort to draft a new law.....No....none of that....he said that it provided a "remedy" to previous law because MMJ is a medical "remedy."  So he totally blew it.  He tried to equate a legal remedy with a medical remedy and got shot down....and the ramifications were that the SC ruled that the MMMA does not codify new rights to patients/caregivers. And as such it can't be applied retroactively.  We were probably one good atty. response away from being able to apply the MMMA retroactively but because this lousy attorney/defendant team blew it, we now have case law that requires a Dr. rec. after the law passed.

 

So here we had an excellent position to assert that the MMMA does in fact codify new rights to people...but a weak and uninformed and probably underpaid attorney blew it.  He flat out F'ed it up on this matter.  And so we had a chance to have the ability to grow our MMJ codified as a new "right" and instead of it being a right, we end up with a "protection" against arrest/prosecution.  

 

Huge valley between these two poles. 

 

It's all about case law  An individual defendant .... serial killer or churchy grandma....is only a pawn.  This isn't about the fate of an individual.

[Highlander]

victimless would come to mind. I'm no judge, and my moral compass goes awry too, but I try to do the right thing, and sleep well at night.

 

just seems weird to me to support negative behavior, for the positive selfish outcome.

 

Some people exhibit both positive and negative behavior.  The key is to support the positive behavior and admonish the negative.  That's kinda the foundation of our legal system.  We don't punish people.  We punish behavior.  So the MJ-growing guy who stabs someone to death is guilty of the same crime that a priest who stabs someone to death is guilty of.

[trichcycler]

how would the murderer/drunk driver victims feel knowing that a relatively small group of folks, while advocating marijuana, was able to fund their defense and show support with their presence?  I really am trying to get a graspon this, and know I'm not alone in these thoughts, even considering both spectrums jay walking to murder as mentioned. I'm no so much posting them to show my opinion, but to cause an examination of all blind support.

 

We don't like big bad dispensaries, but we help free the folks who run with the money. We don't like wife beaters, but we help free them, because they had too much pot on them when the cops came. still not jiving right with me.

theres a case now where a bad man was raping his girlfriends 6 month old baby who died in the assault, and was found guilty of murder and sent to death row. There are other details, google if interested. Now, some group is actually forcing the courts to reopen this, remove him from death row, because no capital crime was actually committed, as in the death was an accident.  Not at all related, but just wrong somewhere, this "group" will have to live with their cause they took up, to prove a court failure. Their pond of cases to choose to support must be really murky, to settle on this one. 

[Highlander]

 We don't like wife beaters, but we help free them, because they had too much pot on them when the cops came. still not jiving right with me.

 

No..I'm saying that if you're a wife beater then you deserve the punishment our society determines is appropriate for wife-beating.  That stands alone.  Whether or not the wife-beater grew/used/sold MJ isn't relevant in the wife-beating issue. 

 

So, with Koon...his internal possession of MJ wasn't a crime.  His sexual assault was a crime.  The courts sort such matters out because distinct crimes require distinct charges/proceedings.  A person isn't charged for "generally being a  goon."   So Koon was charged with some MJ crime and after so much fuss, he was found "good" and in the process, we have case law that says "any presence" of MJ while driving isn't necessarily per se evidence of DUI/a crime.  

 

 

So look at the result.  We have a guy who was charged with DUI and who advanced case law that eliminated the "any presence" standard for 100,000+ people.

 

This same guy got drunk and sexually assaulted someone and will do 6-15 years as a result. 

 

So what's the problem here?

[trichcycler]

 we wont be misjudged while driving with thc in our system, his freedom was granted, a neighbor chick took a sexual assault, one for the team, and he lost his freedom once again.

 

the sexual assault would not have happened if he was jailed for dui for consideration.

 

still resembles fuzzy math to me. but hell, I ain't that bright, so no worries. I know there are representative idioms that are applicable, but can't recall even one. baby/bathwater like, sorta maybe

 

peace

[t-pain]

you're saying 100,000 people shouldnt be allowed to drive (thc stays in the blood for a looooong time) so we can keep one guy in jail.

 

also you're missing the point that he wasnt impaired driving.

the cops smelled smoke and took blood. iirc he passed his sobriety tests.

 

the MMMA specifically says if the driver is impaired its a violation.

 

stop making bunny muffin up.

Edited December 18, 2013 by t-pain

[Highlander]

you're saying 100,000 people shouldnt be allowed to drive (thc stays in the blood for a looooong time) so we can keep one guy in jail.

 

also you're missing the point that he wasnt impaired driving.

the cops smelled smoke and took blood. iirc he passed his sobriety tests.

 

the MMMA specifically says if the driver is impaired its a violation.

 

stop making bunny muffin up.

 

Well, unfortunately, the MMMA doesn't say "impaired."  It says "under the influence."  Big difference.  I can be under the influence of a drug and not impaired by it.  This is just one of the examples of why the law is, as some have said, inartfully drafted.

[trichcycler]

what part did I make up?  I'll correct any errors at once.

you're saying 100,000 people shouldnt be allowed to drive (thc stays in the blood for a looooong time) so we can keep one guy in jail.

 

also you're missing the point that he wasnt impaired driving.

the cops smelled smoke and took blood. iirc he passed his sobriety tests.

 

the MMMA specifically says if the driver is impaired its a violation.

 

stop making bunny muffin up.

[t-pain]

Well, unfortunately, the MMMA doesn't say "impaired."  It says "under the influence."  Big difference.  I can be under the influence of a drug and not impaired by it.  This is just one of the examples of why the law is, as some have said, inartfully drafted.

 

its the same thing.

But two area judges disagreed. They said the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act supersedes a state controlled substance law and ruled Schneider must show that the legal use of medical marijuana impaired Koon's ability to drive a car.

 

"Evidence of impairment is a necessary requirement," wrote 13th Circuit Court Judge Philip Rodgers in upholding a district court judge's decision that prevented a prosecutor in Koon's scheduled Sept. 2 trial from inserting favorable jury instructions. The trial was postponed.

 

"The (prosecutor) has not alleged ... the defendant's actions and mannerisms at that time indicated a visible or substantial impairment with regard to his driving," Rodgers wrote.

Edited December 18, 2013 by t-pain

[t-pain]

then the dui thing hit with medical marijuana, would we support him?

 

he wasnt driving under the influence according to two local judges and the michigan supreme court.

[trichcycler]

true, after the arrest right? I didn't state a fact at all, but a consideration. the sexual assault would not have happened if he was jailed for dui for consideration.

 

no bunny muffin made up in that statement, sorry you misunderstood.

he wasnt driving under the influence according to two local judges and the michigan supreme court.

[trichcycler]

and what good does throwing money at a defense attorney do, if the defendant is fully capable of paying for his own defense ?  I'm sure it assisted the family in their future entrepreneurial endeavors at minimum, and some good may come of his lessons, but that makes these supporters philanthropists, investing in this mans future, not paying an indigent for his defense. 

 

I get it, feel useless, don't know what to do, so we don our tye dye and carry a sign  like we have been for 50 years, in hopes that this year a different result will arise. At the same time in our lessons of futility, we blindly throw cash at criminals who are hiding behind a card, in hopes a favorable result comes our way???/ c'mon now...does the gun rights activist groups support armed robbers who use their ccw to hid the gun when they enter the bank, so that maybe they can keep their ccw in tact?  that's ludicrous, and I think we all know that. could be wrong, after the" support a murderer to legalize pot statement", but there you have it.

 

I'm not claiming to know the right thing to do in these support cases, but the wrong thing stands out clearly, to me, and others reading this.

Yes.  Because the crimes are different, have different penalties, and the outcomes can be far-reaching and affect many others if a legal precedent is set.  If a guy is a murderer, he should pay the penalty a murderer pays.  If there is insufficient evidence to convict him of murder, then our system presumes him innocent.  Our system is based on the idea that it is better to let many guilty folks walk free than to convict one innocent.  The idea that a murderer does not deserve a proper defense for his crime, let alone some other crime (say, growing MJ) is the philosophy of an oppressive government.

 

Let's say you have a CG with a pound of meds in his freezer that are almost dry...but still a little wet so maybe a legal grey area.  He gets drunk and drives home and kills someone in the process.  He flees, parks in his garage, and lays low.  LEO gets a warrant, which must and does articulate what they are searching for (damaged vehicle) and where they might look for it (in the garage).  LEO can't look in the refrigerator because it isn't reasonable  to think that a vehicle would be in the fridge.  LEO finds the car in the garage with blood on the hood and a smashed grille...Then LEO decides to look in the fridge anyway. They find the meds and the guy gets charged with a 4-year delivery felony because he was over his Section 4 limits.  He ends up losing the MJ case, appeals, and loses again.  Now 100,000+ people in Michigan can get nailed for wet MJ.

 

So let the guy get tried and convicted for murder.  Let him do his time.  And toss a few bucks his way to prevent a bad, precedent-setting miscarriage of justice on the MJ charge.

 

The idea that such a defendant doesn't deserve a proper defense to an MJ charge is simply inconsistent with our entire legal/rights philosophy dating back to 1215

[t-pain]

true, after the arrest right? I didn't state a fact at all, but a consideration. the sexual assault would not have happened if he was jailed for dui for consideration.

 

no bunny muffin made up in that statement, sorry you misunderstood.

you want to jail a person who was not driving under the influence... for driving under the influence?

isnt that like jailing a person for a crime he did not commit?

also if he got jailed with the misdemeanor in 2010, he would be out by 2013 anyways.

 

you insist on coming up with reasons why he sexually assaulted someone.

 

why not blame it on the prosecutor who spent 3 years of koon's life haunting him in court?

why not blame the cops who couldnt prove he was dui? did koon pass a roadside sobriety test?

why not blame the condition of his bond that he couldnt use mmj or drink alcohol, thus when he was finally escaped out of court, he goes nuts with drinking?

i blame the legislature that doesnt have mandatory breath testers in every car. we can stop drunk driving with $100 device in each car?

 

ultimately we can only blame koon for his actions.

[imiubu]

Yes.  Because the crimes are different, have different penalties, and the outcomes can be far-reaching and affect many others if a legal precedent is set.  If a guy is a murderer, he should pay the penalty a murderer pays.  If there is insufficient evidence to convict him of murder, then our system presumes him innocent.  Our system is based on the idea that it is better to let many guilty folks walk free than to convict one innocent.  The idea that a murderer does not deserve a proper defense for his crime, let alone some other crime (say, growing MJ) is the philosophy of an oppressive government.

 

Let's say you have a CG with a pound of meds in his freezer that are almost dry...but still a little wet so maybe a legal grey area.  He gets drunk and drives home and kills someone in the process.  He flees, parks in his garage, and lays low.  LEO gets a warrant, which must and does articulate what they are searching for (damaged vehicle) and where they might look for it (in the garage).  LEO can't look in the refrigerator because it isn't reasonable  to think that a vehicle would be in the fridge.  LEO finds the car in the garage with blood on the hood and a smashed grille...Then LEO decides to look in the fridge anyway. They find the meds and the guy gets charged with a 4-year delivery felony because he was over his Section 4 limits.  He ends up losing the MJ case, appeals, and loses again.  Now 100,000+ people in Michigan can get nailed for wet MJ.

 

So let the guy get tried and convicted for murder.  Let him do his time.  And toss a few bucks his way to prevent a bad, precedent-setting miscarriage of justice on the MJ charge.

 

The idea that such a defendant doesn't deserve a proper defense to an MJ charge is simply inconsistent with our entire legal/rights philosophy dating back to 1215

 

Thank you Highlander.  I tried to say the same thing and you stated it sooo much better!

[imiubu]

grassmatch, did you donate to the Carrruthers appeal?

 

What crime did he commit that makes him so 'stupid and irresponsible' ? 

I am growing weary of your assuption that anyone that ends up

in court for mmj was breaking the law and are stupid and irresponsible

people. You are not going to support his SC case because he

opened a dispensary to help people and maybe make some

cash also?  That is capitol gain and what this country is founded

on.  I don't like the way all the dispensaries opened and mucked

things up but, it is what it is and I do not hold it against people

for fighting for what THEY BELIEVE (not yelling, just emphasizing)

to be right, even when I may not agree. Yeah, the largest portion

of the onslaught of dispensaries that opened may have seen $$

signs and were not doing it for altuistic reasons, but does that

make them criminals?  Does Barb Agro deserve to be being dragged

thru the courts system, loosing her husband etc... just because her

children opened a dispensary, she worked there... and she and

her husband grew a few marijuana plants... supposed to be protected

by our law ? There is your grandma grassmatch... see what it has

done to her?

I believe Earl is better suited to fight this fight.  Not only that, he is willing

to do so.

Earl Carruthers is not Koon.

 

We are to be innocent until proven guilty!

This is a victimless crime, if indeed he is found guilty of any crime at all. 

 

Yep, I have an will donate again to Mr. Carruthers' case.

 

Makes me mad as hell that you are so willing to convict people

on an assumption of guilt on your part, when you don't know all

the particulars either. Plus, I thought that the courts decided upon

a persons guilt or innocence.

 

As zap said, we cannot choose the cases that go to the SC.

We have already had the discussion of would it be better to have

Earl fight the fight, or a little old brownie eating grandma.

 

I am so tired of being oppressed for my choice to use cannabis.

 

I wish I could make everyone behave the way I THINK they should too.

It doesn't happen that way and that is kinda what makes life interesting

to begin with, differnces.

What a bore life would be if we were all marching to the same beat.

Edited December 20, 2013 by imiubu

[trichcycler]

I don't think anyone should be jailed for a non violent marijuana offense.

I don't think it right for a gun club to support the defense team of an armed criminal, so the outcome favors gun owners.

I think its strange for vocal anti dispensary poor patients to support an OWNER of a dispensary, who gets pulled over for a warrant with brownies while making deliveries. None of you would have been hassled for the brownies on a routine pull over, less you were a dispensary owner under investigation, imo

 

I think it was stupid for a cop to forge papers, and unfortunate that this gentleman suffered huge loss. I hold nothing personal against Earl. Had I known they would buy my overages, (according to public website) and if it was anon, I would have been there often sharing the big bucks with my fellow caregivers. When I found out he offered to mail marijuana(on the public website) I would have ran, and never looked back. I have some scruples.

 

I think its cool that some supported him despite his incredible risk taking adventures, and even considered it myself. I chose not to financially support him, but he was in my prayers. I see now that others here blindly supported him, and may regret it now. why? I don't know why they would regret it, but surely they will answer.

I may have caused the self examination in other threads and here, but that's good, Facts are not a bad thing. pretending is not healthy. be careful what you wish for, and what you support, and who too.  unfortunately Carruthers was present during the awakening? I wish him well in his new business, and hope the cops leave him alone.

[pic book]

i didnt hear about the sexual assault.

 

http://www.record-eagle.com/local/x1221242831/Koon-to-serve-up-to-15-years

 

“Your honor, I have a disease with alcohol,” said Koon, who added he’s been sober for the past six months and working with Alcohol Anonymous.

 

i thought they got him on drunk driving ? he says he was sober ?

i didn't hear he was Indian until alcohol problems entered the picture.  Sounds like his problem is denial...

Edited December 19, 2013 by pic book

[pic book]

Plato, the last word on being a good citizen, said, 'Know thyself.''  Look at the price of denying the self you know.   

Edited December 19, 2013 by pic book

[bobandtorey]

sorry

Edited December 19, 2013 by bobandtorey

[Natesilver]

So who now regrets supporting Carruthers due to the enlightening points Grassmatch brings up???

[Wild Bill]

I think its strange for vocal anti dispensary poor patients to support an OWNER of a dispensary, who gets pulled over for a warrant with brownies while making deliveries. None of you would have been hassled for the brownies on a routine pull over, less you were a dispensary owner under investigation, imo

 

The Court of Appeals didn't say he was guilty because he was a dispensary owner making deliveries they said the brownies were illegal.

 

Consequently, my brownies are illegal.

My butter is illegal.

My tincture is illegal.

My oil is illegal.

My elixir is illegal.  On and on ad infinitum.

 

Since I am unable to smoke or vape due to health reasons, according to the COA the only way that I can legally use cannabis now is by eating the leaves and flowers.

 

How he makes his living and why he was arrested makes absolutely no difference to me.

 

The problem is why the court said he was guilty.

 

(BTW this has nothing at all to do with Koon.)

Edited December 19, 2013 by Wild Bill

[trichcycler]

in a jury trial, his character, livelihood, and general demeanor would matter to jurors. It mattered enough to the police officer to make the fuss in the first place, surely knowing who he was dealing with.

 

I, and every provider I've met, since 2008, always discussed the weight of our medibles. We inherently knew that a five pound medicated cookie would equate to a five pounds of cannabis mixture. Nowhere has the police separated cocaine from its baking soda buffer, or heroin from its inositol, or the acetaminophen from its Tylenol four codeine pills, before weighing in at prosecution. I never cared about the implications, as I never used any of those, except the medicated cookies. I knew right away in 08 this would one day come to a head. I did not expect it to be related in an illegal mail order dispensary in Detroit though, and figured it to be rooted in a patients closet or fridge. I used to see cakes stacked up at dispensaries, regardless of weights. In a non routine pull over, of an already identified suspect, I expected cops to be one sided in their decision to arrest or not. Cookies and brownies are still offered at their dispensary online, and at every other dispensary I've visited, and read about online.

come to think of it, the meds may have fared better if found to be the only non compliancy in a patients fridge, rather than in the owner of said dispensary under investigation? His perceived character was the deciding factor here

I am confused only by one thing with Earl, why would he leave ounces of marijuana in a car to be valet parked during a dinner date?? that's just nuts, the  possible smell, the loss, the chance of getting into the hands of an unauthorized person, the police, and was he on bond terms at the time ? etc. 

 

His indiscretions are a shot in your eye for sure, and I am glad he's not a bad guy, doing evil things, because that would be harder to support, for the positive hopeful outcome expected in trade for the undying support.  I only scoff at his indiscretions, but truthfully, he might be an associate if I met him earlier. I like entrepreneurs, willing to stick their head out for point. His bold acts could be construed as activism, and maybe rightfully so. Unfortunately for you and countless others, his poor judgment in his lifestyle, marijuana choices, and Act exploitation have caused undue stress upon our community, and our sick. I am positive though, in his defense, he meant no harm to Michigan patients, or the Act, and he believed he was doing good in the community, as they supported him financially in his business ventures.

 

Nobody says you cannot use oil. extraction is and always has been a mixture or preparation thereof. medicate to your hearts content. don't drive high, keep your tickets paid, stay legal, don't stick your head out for profit, use common sense, avoid inviting police into your life, and you'll be fine, like the rest of us.