Cops Used Fake Patient Ids To Buy Medical Pot;

[The Digital Nomad]

is this going to take all day?

 

The point is you need a way to verify the MDCH card.

 

See you at the next rally

 

-DN

[Guest Happy Guy]

It's obvious they were buying from, and selling to, patients with cards. Isn't that what is important here for the big picture? We need the law defined, not a loop hole opened up.

[peanutbutter]

is this going to take all day?

 

The point is you need a way to verify the MDCH card.

 

See you at the next rally

 

-DN

 

The only current method, to verify, that we have is to double check by looking at the drivers license.

[peanutbutter]

It's obvious they were buying from, and selling to, patients with cards. Isn't that what is important here for the big picture? We need the law defined, not a loop hole opened up.

 

So you wish to change the law also?

[peanutbutter]

There is no indication that "they" would respect a new and improved law than they have respected the one we have.

 

The sheriff of Oakland county claims that the actions in Oakland county support improvement in our current law.

 

So far this law has not been enforced against one single employee or official of the government.

 

Not one single time in two years.

 

If the entire system refuses to enforce a law handed to them by the voters, why would we expect that to change by having a replacement mmj law?

 

It is likely they would ignore the new one also.

[bobandtorey]

If you are suggesting that I support a change in the law, that would be an error.

 

"reasonable" is a test that needs to apply here.

 

They had a real state issued document (drivers license).

 

The name doesn't impact the birth date .. that would be for alcohol purchases. Age is the requirement there.

For mmj age isn't the issue. Medical condition is the issue. This "fake" drivers license was issued to support a fake medical condition. Something that can't "reasonably" be determined by just looking at the person.

 

Looking closely at the drivers license, you could not have determined it was a "fake" made by the state itself.

 

It had a picture of the person .. printed by the state. I'm guessing that it has to do with the imprints in the plastic. The police just didn't have the ability to fake it.

 

Safeguards were in place to avoid diversion at these clinics. Without the efforts by the state and Oakland county to trick these people, the entire series of events could not have taken place.

 

The "fake" state issued drivers license was required for the police to proceed.

Dear Robert: I understand your frustration and anger over the events in Oakland County relating to medical marijuana clinics. Problems similar to this have been occurring all across the state and in our courts as the new law is being implemented. As a result, I am currently serving on a Medical Marijuana Task Force appointed by House Speaker Andy Dillon to look at amending the act to make it more clear and to avoid any issues like those that are occurring around the state currently. We hope to have recommendations made for amending the statutes before the end of this year. Thank you again for contacting me.

 

 

 

[peanutbutter]

Dear Robert: I understand your frustration and anger over the events in Oakland County relating to medical marijuana clinics. Problems similar to this have been occurring all across the state and in our courts as the new law is being implemented. As a result, I am currently serving on a Medical Marijuana Task Force appointed by House Speaker Andy Dillon to look at amending the act to make it more clear and to avoid any issues like those that are occurring around the state currently. We hope to have recommendations made for amending the statutes before the end of this year. Thank you again for contacting me.

 

There is no reason to believe they will respect any new law any better than they have the existing law.

[Guest Happy Guy]

There is no indication that "they" would respect a new and improved law than they have respected the one we have.The sheriff of Oakland county claims that the actions in Oakland county support improvement in our current law.So far this law has not been enforced against one single employee or official of the government.Not one single time in two years.If the entire system refuses to enforce a law handed to them by the voters, why would we expect that to change by having a replacement mmj law?It is likely they would ignore the new one also.

There is only one law. There will be only one law, the one we have. The one that was voted in. It takes time for new laws to be defined. We patients need things to be clear and we need to focus on the important precedents that will help PATIENTS. These precedents are whether a store is protected when they buy and sell to qualified patients. The judge will rule. It will be appealed. Then we will finally have a clear path to follow. It doesn't matter if the credentials were false. It stinks but doesn't matter at all in the big picture.

[peanutbutter]

Beth Hand introduced a ledger book into evidence.

 

That book had a list of names and phone numbers in it.

 

Some of the names had a notation that the person was there to see the doctor.

 

It is probable that most, if not all, such persons went on to become registered patients.

 

Most of these people are not facing criminal charges. They are not involved in this case.

 

Beth Hand disclosed, without the waiver of the patient, the names of registered medical marijuana patients.

 

Section 6 (h) (2) The department shall maintain a confidential list of the persons to whom the department has issued registry identification cards. Individual names and other identifying information on the list is confidential and is exempt from disclosure

[Kingpinn]

See's a story line for a Reality Show. Reefer Madness in Hempville

 

Staring Barney Fife

[Kingpinn]

Can one of the legal professionals on this site explain to me how Oakland County Law enforcement can manufacture a phony state of Mich ID when it is a felony to do so ? A detective for O.C admitted to doing so in court Friday

These people have no concious they lie cheap steal to ruin peoples lives for kicks. Its a game to them like a fox hunt of sorts. Make silly remarks to try and make you feel dirty for their amusement of course. My question is how these types sleep at night

[DenturesLost]

Beth Hand introduced a ledger book into evidence.

 

That book had a list of names and phone numbers in it.

 

Some of the names had a notation that the person was there to see the doctor.

 

It is probable that most, if not all, such persons went on to become registered patients.

 

Most of these people are not facing criminal charges. They are not involved in this case.

 

Beth Hand disclosed, without the waiver of the patient, the names of registered medical marijuana patients.

Entering something into evidence doesn't make it public record. I can't go to the prosecutor's office and ask for a copy of the book just because it is in evidence.

[DenturesLost]

So you wish to change the law also?

I do.

The notion that changing it is somehow bad neglects the fact that so many people will be caught up in court until things are hammered out. Is that okay?

If the law explicitly were to state that a dispensary is legal then a lot of this crap wouldn't be happening. The fact is anyone could come up with a huge list of things that would make the law better.

There are many issues that could be cleared up that would end up saving our state money and our people hardships. WHY IS THAT BAD?

[peanutbutter]

I do.

The notion that changing it is somehow bad neglects the fact that so many people will be caught up in court until things are hammered out. Is that okay?

If the law explicitly were to state that a dispensary is legal then a lot of this crap wouldn't be happening. The fact is anyone could come up with a huge list of things that would make the law better.

There are many issues that could be cleared up that would end up saving our state money and our people hardships. WHY IS THAT BAD?

 

Due to the nature of politics, it is naive to believe things would get better.

 

First you have to assume there are no enemies of mmj. None with any power, at least.

[peanutbutter]

Entering something into evidence doesn't make it public record. I can't go to the prosecutor's office and ask for a copy of the book just because it is in evidence.

 

It doesn't have to be public for it to be disclosure.

 

Breaches of confidentiality take place between two persons all the time.

 

It would be interesting to document the chain of custody of this book.

 

How many disclosed this information to another person? How many hands did it pass through?

[peanutbutter]

If the law explicitly were to state that a dispensary is legal then a lot of this crap wouldn't be happening.

 

hehe ..

 

The proposal smacks of the "law of unintended consequences," said William Schuette, a Michigan Court of Appeals judge and a leader of Citizens Protecting Michigan's Kids. He points to issues in California, including reports of increased crime and federal crackdowns on pot shops. Not explicitly outlawing pot shops implicitly allows them, he said.

[DenturesLost]

It doesn't have to be public for it to be disclosure.

 

Breaches of confidentiality take place between two persons all the time.

 

It would be interesting to document the chain of custody of this book.

 

How many disclosed this information to another person? How many hands did it pass through?

If it was entered into evidence that suggests that it is, or contains, RELEVANT evidence. Confidentiality doesn't mean top secret. There are instances where confidentiality will be overridden for a higher interest. We've had this discussion ad nauseum. If evidence will tend to prove or disprove a fact at issue then it is relevant and should be admitted into evidence.

[peanutbutter]

Now if Attorney General Bill Schuette will simply affirm that everything he said in 2008 is true, we may have already fixed a few of these "gray areas."

[DenturesLost]

hehe ..

So let me get this straight....you're going to use the legal opinion of a person whose legal opinion you disagree with? You're using his words as a sword and a sheild. Give me a break.

 

Not to mention....it doesn't matter what he said. Obviously the Oakland County pros and sheriff both don't agree. So how is his quote even relevant?

[peanutbutter]

If it was entered into evidence that suggests that it is, or contains, RELEVANT evidence. Confidentiality doesn't mean top secret. There are instances where confidentiality will be overridden for a higher interest. We've had this discussion ad nauseum. If evidence will tend to prove or disprove a fact at issue then it is relevant and should be admitted into evidence.

 

Within limits. There are many times that evidence is excluded.

 

In this case, there would be some compelling need to over ride the rights of innocent persons.

 

You seem to cite relevance to a criminal charge as a compelling reason. So I guess the question is "is this compelling enough to ignore rights to protections under the MMMA?"

 

The judge seemed to consider HIPPA. I don't think he is aware of the MMMA protections.

[peanutbutter]

So let me get this straight....you're going to use the legal opinion of a person whose legal opinion you disagree with? You're using his words as a sword and a sheild. Give me a break.

 

Not to mention....it doesn't matter what he said. Obviously the Oakland County pros and sheriff both don't agree. So how is his quote even relevant?

 

I'm just pointing out what he said about the topic.

 

When I was saying the exact same thing, a few folks got ticked off.

 

So this time I quote someone that is already a lawyer. Someone that is obviously not in agreement with me. Someone that is qualified to understand what is in this law. A COA judge that studied this law before it was voted on. Before giving his opinion. Representing to voters in Michigan that this was the contents of this law.

[bobandtorey]

i would be great if we could get the video from the court house it was filmed

[DenturesLost]

Within limits. There are many times that evidence is excluded.

 

In this case, there would be some compelling need to over ride the rights of innocent persons.

 

You seem to cite relevance to a criminal charge as a compelling reason. So I guess the question is "is this compelling enough to ignore rights to protections under the MMMA?"

 

The judge seemed to consider HIPPA. I don't think he is aware of the MMMA protections.

Within limits=more probative than prejudicial.

 

Your position would suggest that nothing could be used as evidence if it has a patient's name on it. The fact that certain people went to the clinic is not confidential under the MMA anymore than their name on a wedding attendance registry is. You are trying to apply the act in an overlybroad manner. The act says info submitted. That doesn't mean that because you submitted your name then any mention of your name anywhere is a violation of confidentiality under the act.

[peanutbutter]

Within limits=more probative than prejudicial.

 

Your position would suggest that nothing could be used as evidence if it has a patient's name on it. The fact that certain people went to the clinic is not confidential under the MMA anymore than their name on a wedding attendance registry is. You are trying to apply the act in an overlybroad manner. The act says info submitted. That doesn't mean that because you submitted your name then any mention of your name anywhere is a violation of confidentiality under the act.

 

I'm thinking that vantage point gets modified when the name is mentioned within a limited context. The law itself says the names are confidential. I believe that would need to be within the context of medical marijuana.

[peanutbutter]

Within limits=more probative than prejudicial.

 

Your position would suggest that nothing could be used as evidence if it has a patient's name on it. The fact that certain people went to the clinic is not confidential under the MMA anymore than their name on a wedding attendance registry is. You are trying to apply the act in an overlybroad manner. The act says info submitted. That doesn't mean that because you submitted your name then any mention of your name anywhere is a violation of confidentiality under the act.

 

Something else .. don't know if I should edit the first post or have a second one .. anyway .. something else:

 

"The act says info submitted."

 

This doctors appointment was the start of the application process. The information about a medical marijuana patient, including the names of the patient, caregiver and doctor are specifically listed as items that are confidential. As defined in the law.

 

This ledger was introduced in a marijuana case. Clearly a medical marijuana case. Many were listed specifically as in the process of gaining their Medical Marijuana ID card. There for that very purpose.

 

I hold that the information is protected on it's way into, while inside and after being released by the MDCH in the form of an ID card.

 

The application and all supporting information.