Misconduct In Office, A Felony Charge

[DLD420]

So you are saying it was legal for the cops to get or have made a Drivers license for the fake MM patient because they where stopping a wrong doing from happening? Can we have future cops then, they decide you might run a red light next week so here's your ticket. I don't buy it. It was just as wrong for them to get a fake DL to fool the dispensary as it is for a 17 yr old to get one for purchasing liquor.

[DenturesLost]

So you are saying it was legal for the cops to get or have made a Drivers license for the fake MM patient because they where stopping a wrong doing from happening? Can we have future cops then, they decide you might run a red light next week so here's your ticket. I don't buy it. It was just as wrong for them to get a fake DL to fool the dispensary as it is for a 17 yr old to get one for purchasing liquor.

The 17 year old got the dl to commit a crime. Therein lies the fraud. The cop got the id to catch a crime. That being the sale of mj to a pt to whom you are not registered through the mdch. You aren't understanding the argument. I think a lot of people don't understand it because they are assuming it is legal for the dispensary to sell to just any patient. Whether it is will likely ultimately be decided by the Michigan Supreme Court.

[Otsego County Caregiver]

The 17 year old got the dl to commit a crime. Therein lies the fraud. The cop got the id to catch a crime. That being the sale of mj to a pt to whom you are not registered through the mdch. You aren't understanding the argument. I think a lot of people don't understand it because they are assuming it is legal for the dispensary to sell to just any patient. Whether it is will likely ultimately be decided by the Michigan Supreme Court.

 

Do you think that is a correct or incorrect assumption?

[lurd]

Hello All!

 

CHEETERS NEVER PROSPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Tnx,

 

LURD

[jtgeme]

Too often I am faced with questions that start with "But the law says...." The law is the law, but the interpretation of the law is really more important. But because we don't have any of the interpretation from the courts yet any reasonable interpretation could be accurate. Only time will tell.

 

In my opinion, an undercover LEO having a drivers license is no cause for alarm. A secret identity is necessary for LEO to do their job. I don't like that we (I?) have to deal with that type of activity against me, but its where we are at right now...and hopefully its temporary. I do have a problem with the manufactured MM cards on many levels. But I don't think either activity rises to the level of misconduct or even uttering and publishing. Others do, and I certainly see where they are coming from, and I support their efforts to make their arguments.

 

But honestly, I believe that telling somebody they are wrong, or don't understand the law because of whats written in the statute is misguided at best. Until the court decides just about anything is reasonable and I think the right answer is somewhere out there.

 

For me, I don't want to see a prosecutor, judge, or LEO arrested or charged; to me, that's an emotional (vengeful) response. I would rather see the judge dismiss the charges on entrapment or something similar.

[DLD420]

Basically you are saying the intent of the people driven initiative means squat, it's going to be enforced the way the courts interpret or want it. We the people initiate a law, get it passed and the way it is intended to be used is misdirected to the way the courts want it. Why even bother?

[peanutbutter]

For me, I don't want to see a prosecutor, judge, or LEO arrested or charged; to me, that's an emotional (vengeful) response. I would rather see the judge dismiss the charges on entrapment or something similar.

 

We've had a substantial change in the legal system.

 

It's going to take a while for it to settle in. To sink in. Many within the system wish this change never happened. Some are determined to function as if no change had taken place at all.

 

For those that intentionally ignore the voters for the purpose of putting patients in jail, I do wish the worst of those in jail.

 

Not out of vengeance, but out of a desire to see the change be implemented as quickly as possible with as few victims along the way as possible.

[peanutbutter]

You don't understand the confidentiality section. You just don't.

You don't understand it from an English grammatical context nor from a legal context.

Furthermore, you don't understand the idea of discretionary judicial rulings and how they are protected through immunity and WHY they are protect based on public policy. You also don't understand the interplay between the Michigan Court Rules and Michigan statutes. Nor do you understand the effect of the Constitution.

 

If a law were passed today stating that a judge should say "praise the lord" at the opening of every case called otherwise face a criminal penalty of life in prison it wouldn't matter. The law, whether passed by the legislature or via public initiative would be void on 2 grounds. 1. Unconstitutional and 2. It conflicts with judicial procedure (and as I state above when judcial procedure rules conflict with statute then the rules prevail). That is simply how it is in the law in Michigan.

 

If a judge EVER was charged with a crime for exercising discretion on a ruling it would never get past the the first hearing.

 

Thank you ..

 

You have stated that you don't believe this act will be applied to a judge and listed some of your reasons why.

 

Please tell me who it would apply to. Within a local unit of government.

[jtgeme]

Basically you are saying the intent of the people driven initiative means squat, it's going to be enforced the way the courts interpret or want it. We the people initiate a law, get it passed and the way it is intended to be used is misdirected to the way the courts want it. Why even bother?

 

Certainly not. The intent of the people is the driving force behind the beginning of the change. The intent of the people is the starting point, but in order to ensure that there is equal treatment, the law needs to be interpreted. We could go on for hours on what is an "enclosed locked facility" and we would each be right, but I think in the interest of fairness, a third party would need to look at us both and find the proper meaning somewhere in the middle.

 

Remember, in order for a court to rule, both sides must be represented, whose to say the court of appeals or Mi Supreme Court won't take from the defense argument more than they take from the prosecutor's / states? (more to come on this point I am sure). The defense attorneys that are there are representing more than just their own clients; to some extent they represent the entire MM movement. But its important to remember, the needs of the client come first.

 

To say that court's just make things is up is patently untrue. In each opinion issued is generated from the ideas and arguments advanced at trial. The defense attorney represented the ideas of person.

 

Make no mistake, if we want the law to go a certain way, we can make it happen, it just needs to be done properly. The proper way is the long way, and many innocent people are harmed from beginning to end. We don't get to the freedom's we want just by sitting idle, passing the initiative was step one.

 

Note: it all begins at the ballot box; especially here in Michigan where we vote for Supreme Court justices.

[jtgeme]

 

Not out of vengeance, but out of a desire to see the change be implemented as quickly as possible with as few victims along the way as possible.

 

Agreed!

[DenturesLost]

Do you think that is a correct or incorrect assumption?

It doesn't matter what I think. The fact is no one knows for sure until the courts decide.

[herbnurse]

First of all I never said they can do no wrong. They can do wrong and have. But to understand our system you have to be willing to accept the facts. Just because I point out when people are wrong that does not mean I think cops can do no wrong. The point here is to educate people on how things are...not how some WISH they were. Someone could log onto this site for the first time and if there was no balanced or objective voice then I would guess they would, if educated, be immediately turned off by the site. I support the cause 100% but that doesn't mean I am going to just eat up opinions that make no sense and have no basis in fact. Do I WISH it were easier for pts to obtain without worrying so much about whether they were going to be arrested? Yes. But just because I WISH that doesn't mean I am going to pretend like laws don't exist or that they say something they don't. Whether we like it or not we have to live within the framework

+Rep for this post

[peanutbutter]

You don't understand the confidentiality section. You just don't.

You don't understand it from an English grammatical context nor from a legal context.

Furthermore, you don't understand the idea of discretionary judicial rulings and how they are protected through immunity and WHY they are protect based on public policy. You also don't understand the interplay between the Michigan Court Rules and Michigan statutes. Nor do you understand the effect of the Constitution.

 

If a law were passed today stating that a judge should say "praise the lord" at the opening of every case called otherwise face a criminal penalty of life in prison it wouldn't matter. The law, whether passed by the legislature or via public initiative would be void on 2 grounds. 1. Unconstitutional and 2. It conflicts with judicial procedure (and as I state above when judcial procedure rules conflict with statute then the rules prevail). That is simply how it is in the law in Michigan.

 

If a judge EVER was charged with a crime for exercising discretion on a ruling it would never get past the the first hearing.

Thank you ..

 

You have stated that you don't believe this act will be applied to a judge and listed some of your reasons why.

 

Please tell me who it would apply to. Within a local unit of government.

 

Please. There are police and other officials reading this also. Obviously there lawyers and probably PA's that are looking for answers.

 

To allow the impression that the new law has zero impact on them would be equally neglectful.

 

You have a great deal more education on law than I do.

 

Which of these officials are at risk of jail time under our new law?

[peanutbutter]

Please. There are police and other officials reading this also. Obviously there lawyers and probably PA's that are looking for answers.

 

To allow the impression that the new law has zero impact on them would be equally neglectful.

 

You have a great deal more education on law than I do.

 

Which of these officials are at risk of jail time under our new law?

 

And what about the employees?

 

I think some of the unions might be interested to understand that their local unit of government may be expecting their employees to commit a crime as the normal function of their job. Something that most folks haven't even started to talk about yet.

 

Does the possibility exist?

 

If so they may be interested in learning more about what is being expected of them with the local laws being enacted.

[peanutbutter]

Got any union members out there?

[DLD420]

Got any union members out there?

Retired but still member of Local 7 Z1 Sheetmetal workers

[peanutbutter]

Retired but still member of Local 7 Z1 Sheetmetal workers

 

I believe there may be members of local units of government that some local proposed law may directly impact.

 

How likely of an impact should be examined by those that would be impacted.

 

In this case their employers may be asking the union member to commit a crime.

 

It would be proper to inquire if the general membership would agree with assuming the additional risk related to their workplace.

 

I believe unions with a voice might wish to inquire of their members.