People V Provost

[Kingpinn]

.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2011 by Kingpinn

[bobandtorey]

Will Terry recive compensation for the plants that were killed ?? Do i have damages due for them taking my plants and killing them ?? And i had to go else where to get my meds they took ?? For the 1000 watt light i donated to Terry to get his grow op up and running again ??

 

 

NO i hope he does but NO he wont

[bobandtorey]

their are to parts to a dismissal with predigest and with out he could be recharged later i think it's five years the state has

[Kingpinn]

.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2011 by Kingpinn

[bobandtorey]

am glad for him and you will be free soon i know some people that have not even got their MMJ back yet even after a judge told Leo to give it back we did get are 531 $ back they still have my note book and i want it back

we have been told here that people have got their Meds back but i don't see that happening i think you will get your guns back for sure

[bobandtorey]

Well you can bet the question will be brought to the attention of the people that are responsible for the damages to my property. No is not going to be good nu ff answer. And other civil rights issues thank god i dont have to depend on the ACLU

 

Terry's case is over forever

 

 

we may be talking about some one else their are to many cases to keep up with Eric called me today i was thinking he was talking about Terry but may be not anyways

 

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

When a case is dismissed but the plaintiff is allowed to bring a new suit on the same claim.

 

this is how are case went and the Lawyers said know that most of the reason the PA appealed it

how did yours get dismissed with or with out prejudice ?<BR class=clearfloat>

[Kingpinn]

.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2011 by Kingpinn

[Kingpinn]

.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2011 by Kingpinn

[+Annnie]

Man do i agree with that statement!! FREE ARCHIE!! How can his case continue?? He WAS IS AND WILL BE LEGAL!! FREEE ARCHIE!!

[peanutbutter]

Now we have that matter of Malisa Peters, of the MDCH, having a conversation with the PA of Kalkaska talking about Terry's case.

 

Based on what Ms Peters and the PA talked about, she refused to let Terry be a caregiver.

 

Terry might be convicted of a marijuana crime. So she refused the caregiver card. Not that he had already been convicted, but that he may be convicted in the future.

 

According to the law, that is not a valid reason to refuse the card to Terry.

 

This was a renewal application. This refusal modified the numbers of plants Terry was legally able to have.

 

Attempting to turn Terry into a criminal, when he wasn't before.

[bobandtorey]

FREE ARCHIE you said that right FREE ARCHIE we should have the busses go to the jail and have a rally we could bust him out

[Eric L. VanDussen]

Video of affirmative defense dismissal hearing: http://www.upnorthmedia.org/watchupnorthtv.asp?SDBFid=2553#vid

 

Mr. Provost was charged in Kalkaska County with manufacturing approximately 70 marihuana plants in 2009. He claimed that all of the marihuana was intended for medical use by himself and five other patients who had asked him to be their caregiver. During this hearing, the prosecutor voluntarily dismisses all charges against Mr. Provost after being furnished with the patients' medical marihuana registration cards and other paperwork from their doctors.

[peanutbutter]

This judge actually read about section 6 h of the law!!

 

Neither attorney requested the records be sealed. It was the judges idea!

[peanutbutter]

OK folks .. look at the way this judge sees confidentiality.

 

The defense attorney claims HIPPA doesn't apply. The judge says let's look at Michigan regulations.

[bobandtorey]

And it sounded like he got it dismissed because of are case? and the judge was worry about HIPPA Law the PA wanted are Med records also thats when the PA said Judge she only has Overran cancer the judge said No! this is going to end today thats when i knew it was going to be dismissed

 

 

[Kingpinn]

.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2011 by Kingpinn

[peanutbutter]

I rarely look at the MDCH rules.

 

I assume that knowing the law is enough. However I noticed that the rules at the MDCH add light to the understanding of section 6 (h) of the law.

 

Rule 333.121 Confidentiality.

 

Rule 21. (1) Except as provided in subrules (2) and (3) of this rule, Michigan medical marijuana program information shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure in any form or manner. Program information includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:

 

a] Applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients.

 

b] Information related to a qualifying patient’s primary caregiver.

 

c] Names and other identifying information of registry identification cardholders.

 

d] Names and other identifying information of pending applicants and their primary caregivers.

 

(2) Names and other identifying information made confidential under subrule (1) of this rule may only be accessed or released to authorized employees of the department as necessary to perform official duties of the department pursuant to the act, including the production of any reports of non-identifying aggregate data or statistics.

 

(3) The department shall verify upon a request by law enforcement personnel whether a registry identification card is valid, without disclosing more information than is reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the registry identification card.

 

(4) The department may release information to other persons only upon receipt of a properly executed release of information signed by all individuals with legal authority to waive confidentiality regarding that information, whether a registered qualifying patient, a qualifying patient's parent or legal guardian, or a qualifying patient’s registered primary caregiver. The release of information shall specify what information the department is authorized to release and to whom.

 

(5) Violation of these confidentiality rules may subject an individual to the penalties provided for under section 6(h)(4) of the act.

 

I see that the MDCH failed to notice that doctors are provided the same protections as caregivers.

[Kingpinn]

.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2011 by Kingpinn

[peanutbutter]

In the tape one of the patients said that it( Doctor/Patient Info ) was leaked to the internet . Is that true ?? Everyone was chuckling about it would never happen again.Well im here to say it should not have happened in the first place. This will be the second time they have violated me on this issue in the last year and a half also.TV 6 News knows that now this

 

Yep .. someone pointed out to the judge that there might be jail time involved. Just guessing.

[Kingpinn]

.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2011 by Kingpinn

[Eric L. VanDussen]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mememe]

dismissed without prejudice sounds good to me. COngrats!

[Eric L. VanDussen]

"Without prejudice" means that the charges can be re-instituted again. It's not likely, but possible.

[bobandtorey]

 

 

 

 

h

here is a great case for you greg 

[solabeirtan]

Interesting Bob! I'm sure your case dismissed was overturned either Sep 10 or 11th 2009. The significance of that is that was the day I pleaded guilty to possesion of an unregistered firearm [$150]. I had been in divorce court prior to that time for 2 yrs. I was mad as hell and was willing to take it to them. And  was confident to win. But as only a few of us know, It's a massive undertaking, my funds were low, they busted my Lawyer for Duil, he was playin me, I fired him. so I'm shopping for a new Lawyer, with two allready on the payroll for the divorce,  counting my doe, I had to bail. No support from anywhere....   see our cases revolved around the fact cards had not been issued at that time Mar 2009. Yet we were covered because we had qualifying conditions. Didn't even need a card! ha ....at that time. hmmm...  thats ATT! 

 

peace bro,  its history for us ....