Jump to content

Coa Rules In Redden-Clark Case


Eric L. VanDussen

Recommended Posts

 

- "My main point that I've been pushing lately is that officials have violated this law in a way that is supposed to result in them going to jail."

-

I second this idea. You are absolutley dead on, here, again ...

Congratulations PB on your ascension in the ranks too, and a very astute observation above. Keep up the Good Work! I totally agree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So what ?? going to a doctor for a 2nd oppion is useless. So,,, for every patient out there,, seeing a doctor for a 2nd opion is not allowed. How many times do folks see a surgeon for a 2nd and only see him once before getting hacked on, so his oppion and advise wont hold up in court. Insurance companies will love that. I'm not just talking mj either. Your suit gets tossed becuase you only saw him once ????????????????? Amazing..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has gone on for long enough as you all know we are asking the THC-F for help with the Lawyers i hope they will help us

 

They will have to come back to court also Rob is doing a great job but i don't think he knew it was going to start all over and he needs HELP

 

we went to the THC-F because we were watching Fox 2 news and saw it their just like a lot of people

 

i had talked to my Doctor be for i went their and he was OK with MMJ but could not sign because he worked for a so called broad and the Law was new and he was scared

 

i wish one of the Doc on here could come here and post some thing it may help us feel better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what ?? going to a doctor for a 2nd oppion is useless. So,,, for every patient out there,, seeing a doctor for a 2nd opion is not allowed. How many times do folks see a surgeon for a 2nd and only see him once before getting hacked on, so his oppion and advise wont hold up in court. Insurance companies will love that. I'm not just talking mj either. Your suit gets tossed becuase you only saw him once ????????????????? Amazing..........

Our fearless government at hard work as always trying to circumvent what we as voters passed. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has gone on for long enough as you all know we are asking the THC-F for help with the Lawyers i hope they will help us

 

They will have to come back to court also Rob is doing a great job but i don't think he knew it was going to start all over and he needs HELP

 

we went to the THC-F because we were watching Fox 2 news and saw it their just like a lot of people

 

i had talked to my Doctor be for i went their and he was OK with MMJ but could not sign because he worked for a so called broad and the Law was new and he was scared

 

i wish one of the Doc on here could come here and post some thing it may help us feel better

 

so what are they the COA is saying every one that went to THC-F are not legal or any MMJ doctor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motionforaudio1.jpg

 

Motionforaudio2.jpg

 

Orderdenyingaccesstoaudiorecordings.jpg

 

If you'd like to ask these judges about their opinions, and why they are refusing to release the two-hour audio-recording of the oral arguments in this case, their contact information is provided below:

 

Hon. Peter D. O'Connell (wrote the concurring opinion - http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20100914_c295809_45_295809c.opn.pdf )

Phone: (517) 373-9847

Fax: (517) 373-9870

e-Mail: poconnell@courts.mi.gov

 

Hon. Patrick M. Meter

Phone: (517) 373-6787

Fax: (517) 373-6897

e-Mail: pmeter@courts.mi.gov

 

Hon. Donald S. Owens

Phone: (517) 373-9854

Fax: (517) 373-9817

e-Mail: dowens@courts.mi.gov

 

Or you can send them snail-mail at:

Michigan Court of Appeals

925 W Ottawa St

PO Box 30022

Lansing, MI 48909

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From: Karen O'Keefe <kokeefe@mpp.org>

 

Subject: Oakland Circuit Court decision in Redden/Clark

 

The Oakland Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a patient couple -- Robert Redden and Torey Clark -- yesterday. There was both a majority opinion (2 of the 3 judges) and a concurrence.

 

There was some good news: the majority (2 of 3) found that patients don't have to be registered to raise the defense (as we intended). It seemed to acknowledge that they didn't have to have a defined debilitating condition, too, but could have a non-enumerated "serious" condition. However, they found their doctor didn't have a bona fide relationship with them, which is required by the act. The doctor worked for THC Foundation (I think), only did medical marijuana recommendations, and was licensed in other states. The majority also found that they prove they had serious or debilitating conditions (the doc just said they had "pain" and "nausea").

http://coa.courts.mi..._295809.OPN.PDF

 

The concurrence opined on all kinds of matters that had nothing to do with the case at hand — mostly to say sales are not allowed, etc — and criticizing doctors that only issue MMJ recommendations harshly —— even including photos in the decision and excerpts from ads for medical marijuana doctors. He quoted MPP's campaign spokesperson from 08 saying coops wouldn't be allowed. He also had a narrow interpretation of the affirmative defense.

 

http://coa.courts.mi...295809C.OPN.PDF

 

Be careful, folks!

 

-Karen

 

(As always, this is not legal advice, please consult with a MI-licensed attorney for legal advice.)

 

Karen O'Keefe, Director of State Policies

Marijuana Policy Project

236 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20002

P: 202-462-5747, ext. *2023

F: 202-552-0982

kokeefe@mpp.org

http://www.mpp.org

 

Please visit http://www.mpp.org/subscribe to sign up for MPP's free e-mail alerts.

 

"For certain persons, the medical use of marijuana can literally mean the difference between life and death." -- Lymphoma Foundation of America, HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and American Medical Students Association, Supreme Court amicus brief, 2004

 

http://www.telehealthlawcenter.org/?c=177&a=1946

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am going to start putting some of these links on my Blog's am going to be working on this to help my self and the Lawyers as best as i can

 

i will be working on this harder with every link i can find so that the courts will have to read it we have great Lawyers but they can not do it all

 

so if you have something that may help post it here on send me a PM that might be better because the Leo's come here and reads and i do not want any one doing their work lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After careful discussions with my attorney and others, I have decided that the following will be the policy of Dr. Bob and the Certification Crew in light of the Redden decision.

 

1. I will continue to perform single visit certifications, just as Aviation Medical Examiners, Disability Examiners for the VA and other agencies, and many specialist consultations. This is both appropriate and legal and results in a defensible certification.

 

2. I will recommend a method of use and a maximum amount per week, titrated to effect of marijuana to use. This is exactly like my recommendations for over the counter medications. It is also in line with the Michigan Medical Association's position on medical marijuana.

 

3. A physical exam, along with sufficient documentation from the patient's treating physicians, will be used to determine eligibility. So will a history of missed work, school, daily medication use, etc which will be used to determine if the condition is 'debilitating'.

 

4. I will be available for follow up questions, either at the number noted on the application form as my contact number, the address, or my website www.drbobmmj.com. When seen for a certification appointment, patients sign a release noting that their regular treating physician is responsible for follow up. If they do not have one, they are required to obtain one within 30 days.

 

5. All patients under the age of 30 will be certified only in the case of significant evidence of a disabling chronic disease.

 

These criteria are not new in this practice, they have been in place since early August to make sure our certifications are defensible and I will stand with them in light of the opinion issued in the Redden case. Prior to going to any other clinic, it is my FIRM SUGGESTION that a patient asks the 'clinic' what their safeguards are for a Redden defense. If a patient goes for one of the pop up clinics for price reasons, yet the clinic gives them a blank stare when they ask about Redden, I would recommend RUNNING AWAY and going to a real, physician run clinic such as mine, not a marketing gimmick like the one recently in Houghton out to make a quick buck. If they can't refer you to a club or give you information on the law, as was reported on this board, what on earth makes you think they will look out for you in court to make sure your certification is valid after they take your money?

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After careful discussions with my attorney and others, I have decided that the following will be the policy of Dr. Bob and the Certification Crew in light of the Redden decision.

 

1. I will continue to perform single visit certifications, just as Aviation Medical Examiners, Disability Examiners for the VA and other agencies, and many specialist consultations. This is both appropriate and legal and results in a defensible certification.

 

2. I will recommend a method of use and a maximum amount per week, titrated to effect of marijuana to use. This is exactly like my recommendations for over the counter medications. It is also in line with the Michigan Medical Association's position on medical marijuana.

 

3. A physical exam, along with sufficient documentation from the patient's treating physicians, will be used to determine eligibility. So will a history of missed work, school, daily medication use, etc which will be used to determine if the condition is 'debilitating'.

 

4. I will be available for follow up questions, either at the number noted on the application form as my contact number, the address, or my website www.drbobmmj.com. When seen for a certification appointment, patients sign a release noting that their regular treating physician is responsible for follow up. If they do not have one, they are required to obtain one within 30 days.

 

5. All patients under the age of 30 will be certified only in the case of significant evidence of a disabling chronic disease.

 

These criteria are not new in this practice, they have been in place since early August to make sure our certifications are defensible and I will stand with them in light of the opinion issued in the Redden case. Prior to going to any other clinic, it is my FIRM SUGGESTION that a patient asks the 'clinic' what their safeguards are for a Redden defense. If a patient goes for one of the pop up clinics for price reasons, yet the clinic gives them a blank stare when they ask about Redden, I would recommend RUNNING AWAY and going to a real, physician run clinic such as mine, not a marketing gimmick like the one recently in Houghton out to make a quick buck. If they can't refer you to a club or give you information on the law, as was reported on this board, what on earth makes you think they will look out for you in court to make sure your certification is valid after they take your money?

 

Dr. Bob

 

thanks now i know we are famous but be for you use my name you could of called me to see if it was OK for me to endorse your clinic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not asking you to endorse it, I am addressing the decision which carries your name and my response to it. Please don't read anything else into it.

 

As for you and your partner, you have my support and I have offered to go to bat for THCF if needed in support of their physician, also involved in the case. I understand your distress at the situation you find yourself in, and the injustice of the opinion, but I've clearly indicated that the point of the discussion was the response to the ruling and the changes certification clinics need to make to keep ahead of the curve. This posting is an outgrowth of the ongoing discussion of the subject on the UP Norml site and I am simply formalizing my decision here as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not asking you to endorse it, I am addressing the decision which carries your name and my response to it. Please don't read anything else into it.

 

As for you and your partner, you have my support and I have offered to go to bat for THCF if needed in support of their physician, also involved in the case. I understand your distress at the situation you find yourself in, and the injustice of the opinion, but I've clearly indicated that the point of the discussion was the response to the ruling and the changes certification clinics need to make to keep ahead of the curve. This posting is an outgrowth of the ongoing discussion of the subject on the UP Norml site and I am simply formalizing my decision here as well.

 

 

Thank you for your support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not asking you to endorse it, I am addressing the decision which carries your name and my response to it. Please don't read anything else into it.

 

As for you and your partner, you have my support and I have offered to go to bat for THCF if needed in support of their physician, also involved in the case. I understand your distress at the situation you find yourself in, and the injustice of the opinion, but I've clearly indicated that the point of the discussion was the response to the ruling and the changes certification clinics need to make to keep ahead of the curve. This posting is an outgrowth of the ongoing discussion of the subject on the UP Norml site and I am simply formalizing my decision here as well.

 

it; good to know that we have real Doctors here to help and my Hip Doc will support me also as he knew all about this from the first day this Law was passed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have their play book now, and the clinics need to respond to overcome their strategy. This is my response, and as you previously requested, the physicians on the board here need to step forward and take a stand. I am one of the few certification clinics that takes the time to post. This is my response and how I plan on addressing the concerns of the COA. My issue is to protect my patients from getting into a situation like you find yourself in. Hopefully with this policy, my patients will be safe and I can defend them in court.

 

I am concerned about the pop up hotel clinics, and to separate myself from them I run certifications like a medical practice with policies, procedures and legal defensibility. I've never had a case overturned, and don't want to have any. I've been struggling with the best response to protect both my patients and my practice, and simply am outlining my policy to do just that. Feel free to PM if there is anything I can do for you.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A LOT of people got their recs through those hotel clinics, and were approved for cards. One clinic I read about offers a few free recs, too. I looked at some announcements for them and saw their prices, some were reasonable as well as offering a few freebies. Since I've been at 3MA I've seen mention of much higher fees from clinics.

 

I think the main reason people go to those clinics is because no dr they know will recommend MM for them.

 

Sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They go to them because they want cheap prices because bad things only happen to other people. There are only two kinds of clinics, those that are run by physicians as medical practices, and those run by marketers with hired docs as a money making adventure. Professional clinics have standards of care, you aren't buying a signature as the court seems to want everyone to believe. A big part of the standard of care is making sure that based on my records I can and will mount a valid defense for my patients if they are taken to court over MMJ related charge. If they follow the rules, they stand a decent chance because I do too. If you can't get an answer to your questions at a hotel 'clinic', some follow up, and an examine/review of records, what makes you think you can be defended? Is saving some money (the cost of less than 1 oz of medicine) worth risking jail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They go to them because they want cheap prices because bad things only happen to other people. There are only two kinds of clinics, those that are run by physicians as medical practices, and those run by marketers with hired docs as a money making adventure. Professional clinics have standards of care, you aren't buying a signature as the court seems to want everyone to believe. A big part of the standard of care is making sure that based on my records I can and will mount a valid defense for my patients if they are taken to court over MMJ related charge. If they follow the rules, they stand a decent chance because I do too. If you can't get an answer to your questions at a hotel 'clinic', some follow up, and an examine/review of records, what makes you think you can be defended? Is saving some money (the cost of less than 1 oz of medicine) worth risking jail?

 

I'm pretty sure these people are already spending there money in the attempt not to go to jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They go to them because they want cheap prices because bad things only happen to other people. There are only two kinds of clinics, those that are run by physicians as medical practices, and those run by marketers with hired docs as a money making adventure. Professional clinics have standards of care, you aren't buying a signature as the court seems to want everyone to believe. A big part of the standard of care is making sure that based on my records I can and will mount a valid defense for my patients if they are taken to court over MMJ related charge. If they follow the rules, they stand a decent chance because I do too. If you can't get an answer to your questions at a hotel 'clinic', some follow up, and an examine/review of records, what makes you think you can be defended? Is saving some money (the cost of less than 1 oz of medicine) worth risking jail?

Am sorry Doc i think you are missing the point even if you had signed my Rec we would be in court

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds all bad, both the opinion and the concurrence. As I'm not a lawyer, is this as high as this case can go? What is the impact of the concurring opinion? Is it, too, interpreted as precedent in other cases?

 

I am truly disturbed by some of the conclusions the court has drawn, particularly the concurring opinion. A few low-lights:

 

This one is critical, so it is listed first, not in the order it appears:

 

"Although most qualifying patients and primary caregivers apparently believe they are immune from arrest or prosecution if they possess registration cards, the MMMA makes no such provision. "

"Until our Supreme Court provides a final comprehensive interpretation of this act, it would be prudent for the citizens of this state to avoid all use of marijuana if they do not wish to risk violating state law."

 

"it is becoming increasingly clear that the act is being used as a subterfuge to legalize marijuana in Michigan. It is well crafted in its obfuscations, ambiguous language, and confusingly overlapping sections."

 

"Any assistance that any primary caregiver provides on behalf of any qualifying patient to whom that caregiver is not connected by the registration process is not subject to the protections of the MMMA."

 

"Anyone growing more than 12 plants in one separate enclosed, locked facility should not complain or be surprised when or if a federal drug enforcement agent appears. Again, under federal law, cultivating marijuana is illegal. Growing large quantities of marijuana in an enclosed, locked facility is the same as waving a red flag in front of a 3,000 pound bull. Any questions in this regard are quickly answered by reading the Gus Burns article in the April 22, 2010, Saginaw News, “Federal agents and sheriff’s deputies say seized marijuana in Saginaw County was illegal and not medicine.” http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2010/04/federal_agents_and_sheriffs_de.html (accessed September 13, 2010). Side note: Like how they used the DEA and Sheriff's statements to back up this claim, rather than actual law. "If the sheriff says it is illegal, well then it must be illegal."

 

"In light of these rules concerning what constitutes possession, the MMMA places the entire burden of cultivating a particular qualifying patient’s marijuana plants entirely on one individual (either the qualifying patient or his or her primary caregiver). No other individual can legally even water the plants or enter the enclosed, locked facility to turn on a grow light without risking arrest and prosecution for violating the Public Health Code. This means that primary caregivers and qualifying patients cannot legally form a cooperative and grow marijuana in a shared facility without violating the MMMA and thus being subject to arrest and prosecution under the Public Health Code."

 

"there is no circumstance under the MMMA in which the primary caregiver can provide assistance to any other qualifying patient, and receive compensation in exchange, without being subject to arrest and prosecution"

 

"The statute does not authorize compensation for the labor in cultivating marijuana"

 

"Section 4(i) provides that “a person shall not be subject to arrest . . . solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.” In a possible attempt at chicanery, the drafters of the act thus slipped into this subsection the term “person,” instead of discussing the protections and responsibilities of a “caregiver” or “qualifying patient.”

 

"The MMMA does not give any individual permission to sell marijuana in the state of Michigan for any purpose."

 

"My comments are directed at those who are currently abusing the written certification process, i.e., the majority of the persons who are becoming certified at this time."

 

"For those who instituted the process of placing the proposal on the ballot, the MMMA was both an avenue for allowing society to explore the medical uses of marijuana, but also a first step in legalizing marijuana in Michigan."

Dear Sister Sativa & The Godfather,

 

If I were you, I would read this and study this very, very carefully.

 

Mizerman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...