People V Provost

[Hibbyhibby]

Ummm .. I believe that isn't what takes place in a traffic stop. The officer smells something and goes after a search.

 

I guess the officer is then the complaining witness. But not an injured party.

 

Thank you .. please protect the identity of the doctor and caregiver as long as you can.

 

I hate to hit you with a technicality again, but the officer is, in fact, the injured party in the circumstance you describe. He's the one who smells it and is being exposed to a substance that is against the law. He is therefore the injured party and the complaining witness. I'll note that I understand this is legal fiction (aka moo-poo), but it is in fact the way it happens. I further acknowledge that in reality, the only reason their could be the potential for someone to be truly considered a victim of a crime of this nature is due to the official policy of our country. No prohibition = no thugs = no victim.

 

On your last bit, no worries, I'm very discreet. My reputation and livelihood depend upon it.

[Hibbyhibby]

I hate to hit you with a technicality again, but the officer is, in fact, the injured party in the circumstance you describe. He's the one who smells it and is being exposed to a substance that is against the law. He is therefore the injured party and the complaining witness. I'll note that I understand this is legal fiction (aka moo-poo), but it is in fact the way it happens. I further acknowledge that in reality, the only reason their could be the potential for someone to be truly considered a victim of a crime of this nature is due to the official policy of our country. No prohibition = no thugs = no victim.

 

On your last bit, no worries, I'm very discreet. My reputation and livelihood depend upon it.

 

 

For the record, I did not use the term "moo-poo" in the original.

[peanutbutter]

For the record, I did not use the term "moo-poo" in the original.

 

concede on the moo-poo

[Hibbyhibby]

concede on the moo-poo

 

You're all heart, PB!

 

Had another conversation with our mutual friend whose number you provided. I like what I hear.

[peanutbutter]

You're all heart, PB!

 

Had another conversation with our mutual friend whose number you provided. I like what I hear.

 

OK .. hear we go ..

 

real life this time (or is that again)

 

Officers go into a dispensary. Grab confidential patient and caregiver information. The information is used to compel these people to testify before the grand jury. At a minimum their names and addresses have been copied. More likely additional information.

 

So at least one person has transferred information. That would be the officer collecting the information. Who, at a minimum, divulged the information to the prosecutor.

 

Has a crime taken place? Did the officer violate section 6 (h) (4) of the MMA?

[lawyercaregiver]

Gersh,

i agree that a dr should not have to testify, and that the card or even a letter by the dr would be enough to establish prong one of section 8. I have often told other lawyers to object, as least initially to the request for the Dr. to testify. I believe the certification should be enough. I also have been told that the limited testimony of Dr. Eisenbud, was intended for this very reason. I love the policy argument to support this that you stated, suggesting wasted resources. Unfortunately, i think that things will probably go the other way in most jurisdictions and the dr will be required to show the bonafide relationship, i disagree with this, but am concerned that this may be the trend. At greentrees we have been having the patients fill out forms every quarter reflecting on how there cannabis use has effected there condition. Thus unlike Eisenbud testimoy, if ever called to testify, our Dr's can state that they have been monitoring their condition after certification.

Thanks for the orders, i am going to print and review them. Hoping for a big show wednesday. How is Penut Butter?

 

This thread should be required reading. Nice work Hib and greetings counselor from one of those guys on the table to your left.

 

PB, you often raise interesting points. However I often find myself yelling: Because it's just understood to be that way- you didn't sit through 3 years of torture and the life long trauma that is the Bar exam. Trust me, I believe you have the better end of the bargain because lawyers are such a pain and it so constricts the mind. However it does enable better understanding of certain things- like that court documents are public record so the filing of those documents made them public and thus the criminal penalties associated with nondisclosure are null- are so obvious to lawyers we do not even challenge our assumptions: But the discourse flows a lot smoother.

 

Anyway, Michael, Hib, and PB (and anybody else who has a well thought out opinion) do you have any thoughts on exactly what the doctors will be required to prove. In other words, WHAT exactly constitutes a bona-fide doctor-patient relationship?

 

Thanks!

[peanutbutter]

 

PB, you often raise interesting points. However I often find myself yelling: Because it's just understood to be that way- you didn't sit through 3 years of torture and the life long trauma that is the Bar exam. Trust me, I believe you have the better end of the bargain because lawyers are such a pain and it so constricts the mind. However it does enable better understanding of certain things- like that court documents are public record so the filing of those documents made them public and thus the criminal penalties associated with nondisclosure are null- are so obvious to lawyers we do not even challenge our assumptions: But the discourse flows a lot smoother.

 

 

Thanks lc.

 

My training came from theology. Dissection of chapter and verse. Including punctuation. Did it for thirty years.

 

Case law doesn't come into play. Not in any respectable way.

 

Context is very important. example:

The Bible says "there is no God."

Include context and you get "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

 

The training that I went through and practiced serves well in working over law. It is very very similar.

 

There is a softly implied message that is being presented. Our law doesn't exist until it is approved by the Supreme Court.

I consider this to be a similar message: The Word of God doesn't say anything until a priest or pastor says it does.

 

In the first case someone goes to jail. In the second case the results can be much greater.

 

I once asked a leader "If you tell me to do something wrong, do you go to hell in my place?" They quickly kicked me out.

 

If a lawyer tells me to do something wrong, do they go to jail in my place? (please don't kick me out here.)

 

I had a thought about section 6 this morning.

 

The information kept within the MDCH is not patient property. It is state property.

 

As state property, the patient no longer has the right to wave confidentiality. They have no control of state property.

 

"Study to show thyself approved unto God. A workman that needith not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth."

[peanutbutter]

It is the ultimate responsibility of each patient and caregiver to rightly divide this law.

 

They pay the price. They must understand the law. And properly apply it.

 

Error is paid for by way of their time in jail.

[+RevThad]

Pb my friend,

 

I often think that such a regiment should be mandatory for any that choose law as a profession. Not so much because of the Word, but for the very reason you suggest, it strengthens ones ability to follow the subject through logical analysis of the context, and in many cases across many books and back again.

 

I think this is where I honed my skills of textual analysis. Besides, there are quite a few laws included in the various religious books.

[peanutbutter]

It is abhorrent for a judge to even remotely suggest that people should not try to understand this law.

[Hibbyhibby]

This thread should be required reading. Nice work Hib and greetings counselor from one of those guys on the table to your left.

 

PB, you often raise interesting points. However I often find myself yelling: Because it's just understood to be that way- you didn't sit through 3 years of torture and the life long trauma that is the Bar exam. Trust me, I believe you have the better end of the bargain because lawyers are such a pain and it so constricts the mind. However it does enable better understanding of certain things- like that court documents are public record so the filing of those documents made them public and thus the criminal penalties associated with nondisclosure are null- are so obvious to lawyers we do not even challenge our assumptions: But the discourse flows a lot smoother.

 

Anyway, Michael, Hib, and PB (and anybody else who has a well thought out opinion) do you have any thoughts on exactly what the doctors will be required to prove. In other words, WHAT exactly constitutes a bona-fide doctor-patient relationship?

 

Thanks!

 

Thanks for the kind words, Counselor. Even though I'm over here, I still have much respect for what you do and the people you rely on. When I sat over there I couldn't believe the amount of time and money wasted on simple possession matters. Now that there is quasi-legalization-in-certain-circumstances, nothing appears to have changed.

 

I understand your anonymity as I engaged in the same until very recently and only went public after I spoke about things with my wife, my law partner and the rest of the staff to ensure no one would be uncomfortable with my more vocal and active role in this whole thing. Who knows, maybe someday you'll be in the same position I find myself and, like me, be able to quit hiding my beliefs behind the closed door if you so choose. While you may fact that decision some day, I can tell you it's more than a little liberating to be able to say what's on my mind without fear of professional repercussion. What am I going to do...fire me? Regardless, if you're ever in position, please give me a call and I'll let you know how it's worked out.

 

My initial thought on your question re: legitimacy of the dr./patient relationship, is that it really shouldn't be based upon the number of visits. Hell, I went to a ortho surgeon for one visit, got a second opinion with another doctor, and then had knee surgery with the first. In other words, the doctor reviewed my records, visited with me once and made a diagnosis of what would assist me with my problem. I had that confirmed and acted on the original diagnosis/plan. Why should it be any different when the physician specializes in the medicinal benefits of MMJ? I do understand the fly-by-night appearance of it all, but the fact of the matter is that I have a difficult time accepting that the government should be able to so easily challenge the dr./patient relationships in these situations. That challenge should not be removed, but I think the burden for the gov't to meet should be a hell of a lot higher.

 

I am very interested in hearing how you interpret/think of the elements a physician will be required to prove as well. If you want to keep it private, just shoot me an email and we can do some intellectual back and forth to see where we end up.

 

Kirk

[THC Advisor]

I may be wrong (often am) but seems to me the search itself where the 70 plants were found was not legal. If his paperwork was recognized as it should have been the excess plants would not have been found.

 

The search was legal when he consented to a search after the detective told him that they would just wait on his doorstep till they obtained a warrent.

[peanutbutter]

I just received a phone call from Terry Provost.

 

He received a denial letter from the MDCH for being his fathers caregiver.

 

The reason listed was that he might be convicted of a drug related crime.

 

In the future ..

 

Signed by Malissa Peters

[+Silverblue]

It took me a couple of hours to read this whole thread, which I find very interesting.Though I don't have an analytical mind, I've always found the law fascinating. This is very thought provoking and important. Thank you to the professionals that take time to come here to share and explain, and thank you to everyone who takes the time to try understanding the law, the spirit of the law, and its intentions. The confidentiality issue is extremely important, especially since our privacy rights are being chipped away as we speak. The dr/pt relationship is equally as important.

 

I came here to learn, and I'm sure getting an education I never expected. Thank you All.

 

Sincerely, Sb

[+Silverblue]

"he might be... in the future" ? WHAT THE F??? isn't that called, "conjecture?" I'm not much on terminology but.... It sounds to me like someone's setting this guy up, like someone wants him to be convicted of a drug related crime. I have a very suspicious mind, might've been good for something... wanted to be a lawyer. Oh well. :(

 

Sb

[+RevThad]

I just received a phone call from Terry Provost.

 

He received a denial letter from the MDCH for being his fathers caregiver.

 

The reason listed was that he might be convicted of a drug related crime.

 

In the future ..

 

Signed by Malissa Peters

 

Unbelievable. This just goes to help confirm my suspicions about the way MDCH folks are handling these things, that there are political motives being employed in the process, and thus there is no desire on their part to improve the status quo.

 

How can any official body of this state, jump to a conclusion about a currently ongoing court case, that includes a position other than innocent until proven guilty? With such a stance being taken in this case, they are setting a framework for denying all applications, on the grounds, that we all may be convicted of a drug related crime... in the future.

 

I am in shock at such a move by them.

[peanutbutter]

The PA in this case called the MDCH and talked to someone there.

 

I believe it was Ms. Peters directly.

 

One or the other of them must have said "this person is a caregiver."

 

Ms. Peters then contacted Terry and told him that at the moment of conviction all of his caregiver cards would be void.

 

T.M.I. !!!!

 

Wrong information for the PA and the MDCH to be having a chat about.

 

I believe this PA tried to get the state to revoke all of his caregiver cards so they could convict Terry in court.

[Hibbyhibby]

It took me a couple of hours to read this whole thread, which I find very interesting.Though I don't have an analytical mind, I've always found the law fascinating. This is very thought provoking and important. Thank you to the professionals that take time to come here to share and explain, and thank you to everyone who takes the time to try understanding the law, the spirit of the law, and its intentions. The confidentiality issue is extremely important, especially since our privacy rights are being chipped away as we speak. The dr/pt relationship is equally as important.

 

I came here to learn, and I'm sure getting an education I never expected. Thank you All.

 

Sincerely, Sb

 

You're welcome, Sb. I'll be starting up a new thread in the future regarding the AD case I'm handling here up north. Can't yet for attorney/client reasons, but will soon.

[Hibbyhibby]

I just received a phone call from Terry Provost.

 

He received a denial letter from the MDCH for being his fathers caregiver.

 

The reason listed was that he might be convicted of a drug related crime.

 

In the future ..

 

Signed by Malissa Peters

 

Unconscionable.

[peanutbutter]

So then is it likely that someone in Kalkaska county would investigate a crime?

 

Or do I ask Rep. Cushingberry to allow me to explain it to congress? Before the election, I might add.

[peanutbutter]

BTW .. someone told me that they have a file with a few thousand names on it ..

 

Claimed they got it directly the MDCH.

 

I was told it was an accident. Which is why I haven't raised a stink about it.

 

It's time to tighten up on confidentiality.

[+Silverblue]

hello hibbyhibby, thank you for responding to my post. It's interesting that when a law is written, it explains how it's supposed to work, yet, in reality, it doesn't often work the way it was intended, in the spirit of the law. To me it seems like if it's written too liberally, it's likely to be misunderstood and we have claims of gray areas, but if it's written too rigidly, that doesn't work either. A law written for the people, has protections in place to be used in specific situations. If one detail is out of place, the whole thing gets turned upside down and inside out. That's where the courts come in I guess. You see it from your position, a defense lawyer sees it from another, and the judge sees it another way, and that's just the beginning, because every court sees it in its own way. As the law makes its rounds through the courts, it may have to go all the way to the highest court, and hopefully when all is said and done, it will come out being interpreted as the People intended it to be. I hope I'm making sense, I'm just trying to understand it as much as I can. I have another question but it's not about the AD, though it is about our law.

 

Sincerely, Sb

[Hibbyhibby]

hello hibbyhibby, thank you for responding to my post. It's interesting that when a law is written, it explains how it's supposed to work, yet, in reality, it doesn't often work the way it was intended, in the spirit of the law. To me it seems like if it's written too liberally, it's likely to be misunderstood and we have claims of gray areas, but if it's written too rigidly, that doesn't work either. A law written for the people, has protections in place to be used in specific situations. If one detail is out of place, the whole thing gets turned upside down and inside out. That's where the courts come in I guess. You see it from your position, a defense lawyer sees it from another, and the judge sees it another way, and that's just the beginning, because every court sees it in its own way. As the law makes its rounds through the courts, it may have to go all the way to the highest court, and hopefully when all is said and done, it will come out being interpreted as the People intended it to be. I hope I'm making sense, I'm just trying to understand it as much as I can. I have another question but it's not about the AD, though it is about our law.

 

Sincerely, Sb

 

You can send me an email if you'd like to expand on your question privately if you'd like.

 

You are on the mark with much of what you said. However, as a point of clarification, I am now a defense attorney. I used to be a prosecutor, which has proved invaluable in honing my trial skills and in being able to anticipate where they're going with the case and/or their arguments.

[+Silverblue]

hibbyhibby, OK. It's interesting to be able to see from both sides how the system works, or doesn't work. Having experienced that will make you a very good lawyer. I wonder how many do that,. It certainly broadens one's perspective.. Thank you for being here. I will PM you my questions. Thank you again.

 

Sincerely, Sb

[Eric L. VanDussen]