Jump to content

I Need An Attorney


Oman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I need representation in Lapeer County. I've been left in a very bad position and would appreciate any assistance or suggestions. My home was raided after police came to my home on an old bench warrant for Probation violation. I had completed the requirements over 2 years ago in California (with permission from Lapeer Probation Officer) but the County Probation Department would not accept the Initial documentation. The Therapist was older and almost died. I had been trying to get this straightened out when all of this stuff happened. I have successfully beat this part (Proved I had completed all Probation Requirements in early 2008), but now the rest comes up (search of my home, etc. with absolutely no interest in paperwork or really anything) and they are even tacking on completely false charges. The folks at the County Seat and local law enforcement are specifically targeting patients and caregivers here. I never had any such issues before this law was passed.

 

Either way, I need representation... please help, I do not trust the local situation here, and have grave concerns over the type of collusion that occurs up here between local defense attorneys, and the prosecution/law enforcement.

 

Warm and Appreciative Regards,

Oman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

I need representation in Lapeer County. I've been left in a very bad position and would appreciate any assistance or suggestions. My home was raided after police came to my home on an old bench warrant for Probation violation. I had completed the requirements over 2 years ago in California (with permission from Lapeer Probation Officer) but the County Probation Department would not accept the Initial documentation. The Therapist was older and almost died. I had been trying to get this straightened out when all of this stuff happened. I have successfully beat this part (Proved I had completed all Probation Requirements in early 2008), but now the rest comes up (search of my home, etc. with absolutely no interest in paperwork or really anything) and they are even tacking on completely false charges. The folks at the County Seat and local law enforcement are specifically targeting patients and caregivers here. I never had any such issues before this law was passed.

 

Either way, I need representation... please help, I do not trust the local situation here, and have grave concerns over the type of collusion that occurs up here between local defense attorneys, and the prosecution/law enforcement.

 

Warm and Appreciative Regards,

Oman

 

 

 

Black, Black & Black Attorneys for Justice

www.blackblackandblack.com

1100 South Lapeer Road

Lapeer, MI 48446

(810) 245-2222

Tell Dave that john from 3med sent you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. I also have another case where I may need to litigate very soon... this regards an explosion last 4th of July. I had 4 inches of tibia (shin bone) exposed due to shrapnel hitting me (4" X 8" hole in my shin/calf). So, if someone does litigation and MM that would be great. The Injury would need to be addressed quite soon.

 

Oman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I had used Mr Black in the past and that didn't work out very well for me. Thank you for the suggestion though.

 

Oman

 

Black, Black & Black Attorneys for Justice

www.blackblackandblack.com

1100 South Lapeer Road

Lapeer, MI 48446

(810) 245-2222

Tell Dave that john from 3med sent you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to find out if they are checking all their suspects with the State and then raiding the patients. Any evidence for that charge? Might not be possible to prove. Cant using FOIA and even though you will be able to get discovery in your crim case the cops will never turn over that information anyway- document, what document?

 

Your best bet is finding other patients in your county so you are in the right place!

 

Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LawyerCaregiver, do you mean are the police getting information from the State of Michigan of individuals registered as Medical Marijuana users with the state, and then raiding them? I admit as a conpiracy theorist that is exactly the scenario that kept me from registering initially, but I was under the impression that information was not to be available to law enforcement authorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LawyerCaregiver, do you mean are the police getting information from the State of Michigan of individuals registered as Medical Marijuana users with the state, and then raiding them? I admit as a conpiracy theorist that is exactly the scenario that kept me from registering initially, but I was under the impression that information was not to be available to law enforcement authorities.

 

 

I am NOT saying that at all. I think that is what HE is saying. I don't believe it for a second because that is not how LEO operates (usually, some task forces might try something like that). However, the information is absolutely available to LEO. All they have to do is call in a name and address to 'verify' that the person is a patient. They cannot make a blanket search for the information but I can see a scenario where they verify dozens of names with a single phone call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am NOT saying that at all. I think that is what HE is saying. I don't believe it for a second because that is not how LEO operates (usually, some task forces might try something like that). However, the information is absolutely available to LEO. All they have to do is call in a name and address to 'verify' that the person is a patient. They cannot make a blanket search for the information but I can see a scenario where they verify dozens of names with a single phone call.

 

lol, do I sense a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" implied with that last sentence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I am NOT saying that at all. I think that is what HE is saying. I don't believe it for a second because that is not how LEO operates (usually, some task forces might try something like that). However, the information is absolutely available to LEO. All they have to do is call in a name and address to 'verify' that the person is a patient. They cannot make a blanket search for the information but I can see a scenario where they verify dozens of names with a single phone call.

 

Information exchanges are clearly outlined in the new law.

 

This is the procedure outlined:

 

IFan officer has a ID card number to verify, they may call the MDCH and read the number off the card to the person at the MDCH. The person at the MDCH will then confirm the number is a valid card number.

 

IFThe patient or caregiver has given permission on the application form, THEN and only THENcan the person at the MDCH verify the name that should be on the card.

 

When people say the police have a list, what they are saying is that someone at the MDCH has supplied a batch of information outside of this procedure.

 

If someone has given out information to police outside of this method then this section would apply:

 

(4) A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1, 000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.

 

Please notice this

This is a crime that can ONLY be committed by a government employee. If you don't work for the government, you can not commit this crime. The people voted that government employees SHOULD go to jail if they do this thing.

 

Any release of information AT ALL starts with the law enforcement official already having the ID number.

 

If they don't have that number, then that is supposed to be the end of information exchange.

 

Example:

MDCH employee hands a disk to the janitor.

Janitor hands the disk to their buddy at the MSP

buddy hands the disk to his supervisor

supervisor hands the disk to the IT guy for the MSP

IT guy puts the information on the disk into the LEIN system

desk guy at the local PD checks into LEIN because of a call from a street cop.

 

Who is supposed to go to jail?

Everyone except the street cop. Any one that passed the information to someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Information exchanges are clearly outlined in the new law.

 

This is the procedure outlined:

 

IFan officer has a ID card number to verify, they may call the MDCH and read the number off the card to the person at the MDCH. The person at the MDCH will then confirm the number is a valid card number.

 

IFThe patient or caregiver has given permission on the application form, THEN and only THENcan the person at the MDCH verify the name that should be on the card.

 

When people say the police have a list, what they are saying is that someone at the MDCH has supplied a batch of information outside of this procedure.

 

If someone has given out information to police outside of this method then this section would apply:

 

 

 

Please notice this

This is a crime that can ONLY be committed by a government employee. If you don't work for the government, you can not commit this crime. The people voted that government employees SHOULD go to jail if they do this thing.

 

Any release of information AT ALL starts with the law enforcement official already having the ID number.

 

If they don't have that number, then that is supposed to be the end of information exchange.

 

Thanks p.b. good factual info

peace!

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the information is absolutely available to LEO. All they have to do is call in a name and address to 'verify' that the person is a patient.

 

Are you really a lawyer? Where are you getting this? This is absolutely contrary to the law. LEO needs a patient or CG ID number to provide MDCH in order to verify status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Information exchanges are clearly outlined in the new law.

 

This is the procedure outlined:

 

IFan officer has a ID card number to verify, they may call the MDCH and read the number off the card to the person at the MDCH. The person at the MDCH will then confirm the number is a valid card number.

 

IFThe patient or caregiver has given permission on the application form, THEN and only THENcan the person at the MDCH verify the name that should be on the card.

 

When people say the police have a list, what they are saying is that someone at the MDCH has supplied a batch of information outside of this procedure.

 

If someone has given out information to police outside of this method then this section would apply:

 

 

 

Please notice this

This is a crime that can ONLY be committed by a government employee. If you don't work for the government, you can not commit this crime. The people voted that government employees SHOULD go to jail if they do this thing.

 

Any release of information AT ALL starts with the law enforcement official already having the ID number.

 

If they don't have that number, then that is supposed to be the end of information exchange.

 

Example:

MDCH employee hands a disk to the janitor.

Janitor hands the disk to their buddy at the MSP

buddy hands the disk to his supervisor

supervisor hands the disk to the IT guy for the MSP

IT guy puts the information on the disk into the LIEN system

desk guy at the local PD checks into LEIN because of a call from a street cop.

 

Who is supposed to go to jail?

Everyone except the street cop. Any one that passed the information to someone else.

 

Great post PB i have been talking to him on the phone/E-mail and did talk to his Lawyer also the AD is solid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CaveatLector

Information exchanges are clearly outlined in the new law.

 

 

Please notice this

This is a crime that can ONLY be committed by a government employee. If you don't work for the government, you can not commit this crime. The people voted that government employees SHOULD go to jail if they do this thing.

 

 

 

How do you figure? I don't get how you are interpreting this section. The section reads:

 

(4) A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1, 000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.

 

Eliminating the inclusive parenthetical clause the section would read:

 

(4) A person who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.

 

The parenthetical clause is there to make it clear that "an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government" is included in the definition of "a person." I don't see how you are interpreting the parenthetical clause to make the definition of "a person" exclusive to the parenthetical clause. The way I read the section a person, and not just a government person, is subject to the outlined punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you figure? I don't get how you are interpreting this section. The section reads:

 

(4) A person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1, 000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.

 

Eliminating the inclusive parenthetical clause the section would read:

 

(4) A person who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.

 

The parenthetical clause is there to make it clear that "an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government" is included in the definition of "a person." I don't see how you are interpreting the parenthetical clause to make the definition of "a person" exclusive to the parenthetical clause. The way I read the section a person, and not just a government person, is subject to the outlined punishment.

 

 

:goodjob:i think you both are right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...