Judge O’Connell Has Done A Great Disservice For Our State.

[peanutbutter]

So, obligation? No.

Allowed or obligated to turn over a list? No. It violates confidentiality.

Consequences for violating confidentiality? Maybe criminal under the MMA. However, I am not entirely convinced of that as of yet as I have to examine the issue further. Probably civil suit raminifications for violating confidentiality if the act were not seen as an act in the course of or in the furtherance of prosecutorial duties such that pros. immunities applied.

 

So then .. if the PA gets this information without the consent of the patient, can they divulge the information to the press?

 

Would that be a criminal act?

[peanutbutter]

And when the PA of Lapeer county was asked by the press about confidential patient records his response was:

 

"They are not confidential."

 

Was he in error?

 

These were copies of applications.

[DenturesLost]

So then .. if the PA gets this information without the consent of the patient, can they divulge the information to the press?

 

Would that be a criminal act?

The answer to that depends on how he got the info.

[DenturesLost]

And when the PA of Lapeer county was asked by the press about confidential patient records his response was:

 

"They are not confidential."

 

Was he in error?

 

These were copies of applications.

No one can answer that without knowing all of the facts.

However, I will say, it sounds as though they may have been confidential. The question is were they revealed to anyone and whether they were included on the search warrant.

I haven't read much on this story. Do you happen to have a link?

[peanutbutter]

The answer to that depends on how he got the info.

 

In a raid of a dispensary. Where the information was being kept under lock and key.

 

Taken at gunpoint. Passed through the law enforcement system to the PA.

[peanutbutter]

No one can answer that without knowing all of the facts.

However, I will say, it sounds as though they may have been confidential. The question is were they revealed to anyone and whether they were included on the search warrant.

I haven't read much on this story. Do you happen to have a link?

 

The warrant specified records pertaining to the running of the dispensary.

 

Nothing in the warrant about patient records.

 

Police officer captured on video w/ audio leafing through a file commenting about the "great info here" while taking notes. This was followed by more than fifty people from the files being pulled into court.

[peanutbutter]

A real time case.

 

The judge has ordered the defendant to produce the doctor.

 

At the request of the PA.

 

The question that I've asked several times:

 

Can the judge order the violation of confidentiality?

 

Can the judge negate the criminal law by order?

[DenturesLost]

A real time case.

 

The judge has ordered the defendant to produce the doctor.

 

At the request of the PA.

 

The question that I've asked several times:

 

Can the judge order the violation of confidentiality?

 

Can the judge negate the criminal law by order?

What is confidentiality? It is basically a privacy interest. Can a judge order a search warrant on your house? If there is probable cause that a crime was committed and that the items searched for are related in some way then yes. Is that a "violation" of your privacy? No. It's an exception to the privacy laws. Similarly, ordering production of confidential info is an exception. You think it doesn't happen all the time? It does and it's legal. HIPPA makes pt records confidential. Does that mean they can NEVER be revealed? No, of course not. Under the US Const and the Mich Const a search and seizure warrant can issue based on probable cause. How is it bad docs are busted and convicted when they over-prescribe, etc.?

[peanutbutter]

Having the ID card is not probable cause.

 

Again, it seems to me, that you feel this is a protection that only applies if you don't attmept to use the protection. That in attempting to use the protection the protection becomes null and void.

[peanutbutter]

I also find it interesting that a judge could issue an order that negates criminal law that would apply to the judge themselves.

 

ie "I rule that it's OK for me to break the law."

[DenturesLost]

I also find it interesting that a judge could issue an order that negates criminal law that would apply to the judge themselves.

 

ie "I rule that it's OK for me to break the law."

That's like saying a judge is breaking the law by issuing a search warrant. He is, afterall, allowing the cops to break and enter. Right?

[+RevThad]

Just a thought, perhaps this confidentiality thing is one of the grey areas we keep hearing about, from the other side

[peanutbutter]

That's like saying a judge is breaking the law by issuing a search warrant. He is, afterall, allowing the cops to break and enter. Right?

 

Normal execution of duty.

 

That assumes the warrant wasn't issued purely for the purpose of harassment.

 

I'm sure that some law would be being broken if a cop was to ask a judge for a search warrant expressly for the purpose of destroying someones home.

[peanutbutter]

Just a thought, perhaps this confidentiality thing is one of the grey areas we keep hearing about, from the other side

 

There does seem to be a stiff fight to say it isn't really there.

[DenturesLost]

There does seem to be a stiff fight to say it isn't really there.

I don't think anyone is saying it isn't there.

What is being said is that confidential information is not top secret info accessible only by those with such a security clearance. What the law says it that the info is confidential. That means it should be treated as confidential info should be. That doesn't mean there is some absolute standard that prevents confidential info from being disclosed.

Atty/client communications are also confidential but that doesn't mean they are to be locked away and never spoken about, ever.

 

What it comes down to is you are misreading and misinterpreting the law. You tend to make a habit of that.

I've explained it in about as clear a manner as I know how. But you are still not grasping the concepts.

Your interpretations are replete with legal interpretive errors and grammatical errors as well as a lot of equivocating. I think you need a better understanding of grammar and statutory interpretation before you can fully understand why you are wrong. This isn't the forum to teach those topics so I've pretty much given up on attempting to lay things out for you. It's clear to me that it is useless at this point.

 

My concern is that the public sees things like your far-out interpretation and uses that to label us as crazies. Accusing a judge of breaking the law for using public record in his opinion makes people wonder what the heck is going on over here. That's exactly the kind of thing that can turn someone against the movement if they were walking the line as to whether they support it or not. If your point was valid it would be one thing. But the way you arrive at your conclusion is based on what you want the law to read and not what it actually reads. Are there gray areas? Yes. So harp on the gray areas and not on the areas that are fairly straight-forward.

[peanutbutter]

I don't think anyone is saying it isn't there.

What is being said is that confidential information is not top secret info accessible only by those with such a security clearance. What the law says it that the info is confidential. That means it should be treated as confidential info should be. That doesn't mean there is some absolute standard that prevents confidential info from being disclosed.

Atty/client communications are also confidential but that doesn't mean they are to be locked away and never spoken about, ever.

 

What it comes down to is you are misreading and misinterpreting the law. You tend to make a habit of that.

I've explained it in about as clear a manner as I know how. But you are still not grasping the concepts.

Your interpretations are replete with legal interpretive errors and grammatical errors as well as a lot of equivocating. I think you need a better understanding of grammar and statutory interpretation before you can fully understand why you are wrong. This isn't the forum to teach those topics so I've pretty much given up on attempting to lay things out for you. It's clear to me that it is useless at this point.

 

My concern is that the public sees things like your far-out interpretation and uses that to label us as crazies. Accusing a judge of breaking the law for using public record in his opinion makes people wonder what the heck is going on over here. That's exactly the kind of thing that can turn someone against the movement if they were walking the line as to whether they support it or not. If your point was valid it would be one thing. But the way you arrive at your conclusion is based on what you want the law to read and not what it actually reads. Are there gray areas? Yes. So harp on the gray areas and not on the areas that are fairly straight-forward.

 

You have made next to nothing clear at all.

 

75% of what you write is some criticism of my understanding or my grasp of grammar.

 

After wading through the muck, I run into a few crumbs of information.

 

It seems that your intent is to cause confusion. Not understanding.

 

Now was anything I wrote of value to this discussion?

[DenturesLost]

You have made next to nothing clear at all.

 

75% of what you write is some criticism of my understanding or my grasp of grammar.

 

After wading through the muck, I run into a few crumbs of information.

 

It seems that your intent is to cause confusion. Not understanding.

 

Now was anything I wrote of value to this discussion?

Crumbs?

I have given example after example in an effort to explain things. Apparently you see examples as criticisms.

[peanutbutter]

How about this ..

 

Could you try to give a hypothetical example of this crime being committed?

 

What would be the highest office someone could hold and be convicted for violating 6 (h)(4)?

[peanutbutter]

BTW one ongoing case. The judge granted the request to keep any licensing information presented by the defendant as confidential.

 

It's a start.

[peanutbutter]

How about this ..

 

Could you try to give a hypothetical example of this crime being committed?

 

What would be the highest office someone could hold and be convicted for violating 6 (h)(4)?

 

OK .. I'll go first.

 

I think everyone would agree that if someone at the MDCH responded to a FOIA request and supplied a newspaper with everything in the MDCH database, that person would have earned time in jail under 6(h)(4).

 

The sticky point is that a employee of a local unit of government could go to jail for ... something .. under 6 (h)(4).

What that person would be required to do to earn their time in jail is being debated.

 

What information is protected?

Can the protection be lost?

What would cause the protection to be lost?

What actions would result in jail time for a government official?

Are some government officials exempt?

Would that exemption be conditional?

 

Just a few of the questions being explored here.

 

We clearly are intended to have protection by way of this section of law.

If the patient can impact this protection by their own actions, then everyone should be aware of it. The sooner the better.

[Guest knucklehead bob]

but you got your cards AFTER the incident, right?

 

Wrong ! I wonder why Mr. Redden has a plastic patient card that has a Court Evidence sticker on it ?

Edited August 14, 2011 by knucklehead bob

[peanutbutter]

Wrong ! I wonder why Mr. Redden has a plastic patient card that has a Court Evidence sticker on it ?

 

Bob and Torey were raided before the state began to accept applications for cards.

 

They both had their doctors letter and were growing indoors. The raid took place in March of '09. April of '09 was when the state began to accept applications. Bob and Torey were on the bus for opening day. One of the very first to apply.

 

Our law went into effect on 12/4/2008. The question is, what protections were available in that time when the law was in effect yet there were no cards in Michigan at all?

 

The only protections that were available at that time revolved around the doctors letter. Which they both had.

[bobandtorey]

Bob and Torey were raided before the state began to accept applications for cards.

 

They both had their doctors letter and were growing indoors. The raid took place in March of '09. April of '09 was when the state began to accept applications. Bob and Torey were on the bus for opening day. One of the very first to apply.

 

Our law went into effect on 12/4/2008. The question is, what protections were available in that time when the law was in effect yet there were no cards in Michigan at all?

 

The only protections that were available at that time revolved around the doctors letter. Which they both had.

 

and that my friend makes are case so important if their is a MMMA their can never be another case like ares

and we wated the 21 day also

[bobandtorey]

Free Bob and Torey Free Bob and Torey Free Bob and Torey

[Guest knucklehead bob]

Free Bob and Torey Free Bob and Torey Free Bob and Torey

 

Free Bob and Torey Free Bob and Torey Free Bob and Torey