Can A Judge Compel Someone To Break The Law?

[peanutbutter]

Can a judge compel someone to break the law?

[lkline300]

Only if that person is morally ready to break the law in the first place...........

 

this kind of person will say "yes"

 

one who thinks for themselves & puts the truth first will say "no"

[phaquetoo]

Unfortunatly I think a judge can do pretty much what ever they want!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[DenturesLost]

Depends on what you mean by "break" the law.

Judges "break" the law all of the time and force others to as well. That's why there is an appeals process. Many times the law isn't clear until the supreme court decides what the law is. The question becomes was the "break" done deliberately.

[peanutbutter]

Only if that person is morally ready to break the law in the first place...........

 

this kind of person will say "yes"

 

one who thinks for themselves & puts the truth first will say "no"

 

In the Dryden case.

 

I assume people have been called to court to confirm that they were sold marijuana.

 

The identities of these people were determined by examining patient applications and copied of ID cards. Another assumption.

 

A officer grabbed the information over the objections of the person in physical charge of them at the time.

 

This information is confidential. As defined by the MMMA itself. This is not in accordance with any other law. But by this law itself. If that "confidential" is different than any other law, is yet to be determined. But within the law itself they are called "confidential."

 

(1) Applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients, including information regarding their primary caregivers and physicians, are confidential.

 

Nothing there to indicate the records become non confidential if it is the patient that divulges it. It is still confidential.

 

(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.

 

It is the confidential information according to this act which can not be divulged by any employee of local government.

 

A judge, PA, police officer are all employees of local government.

[DenturesLost]

In the Dryden case.

 

I assume people have been called to court to confirm that they were sold marijuana.

 

The identities of these people were determined by examining patient applications and copied of ID cards. Another assumption.

 

A officer grabbed the information over the objections of the person in physical charge of them at the time.

 

This information is confidential. As defined by the MMMA itself. This is not in accordance with any other law. But by this law itself. If that "confidential" is different than any other law, is yet to be determined. But within the law itself they are called "confidential."

 

 

 

Nothing there to indicate the records become non confidential if it is the patient that divulges it. It is still confidential.

 

 

 

It is the confidential information according to this act which can not be divulged by any employee of local government.

 

A judge, PA, police officer are all employees of local government.

You're operating under the assumption that the records were not part of the search warrant. For such records to be properly seized they need to be included in the search warrant. If they were then their confidentiality is a moot point.

[peanutbutter]

You're operating under the assumption that the records were not part of the search warrant. For such records to be properly seized they need to be included in the search warrant. If they were then their confidentiality is a moot point.

 

Two points

 

1. Confidentiality as defined by this act. Not any other.

2. These medical records were not specified in warrants for Dryden.

[nkprthrd]

The thing is, anyone can do anything. Whether or not it is legal, is ultimately decided by the judge and/or jury of the case. An innocent person can still be convicted of a crime they did not commit. Also, a person that has committed a lesser crime may receive a harsher sentence should the judge believe, yet cannot prove, they committed a more heinous crime.

 

A judge is someone who decides if the law as written applies to case. If a judge believes that the medical records of MMJ patients are not protected from law enforcement in the execution of a search warrant involving a medical facility, then the case must be appealed to a higher court.

 

Just because it's wrong, doesn't mean it can't (or doesn't) happen. You might get some judge who's kid is a pothead and won't clean his room and borrows the car without asking get presented with a MMJ case and not give a darn about patients rights or the law, because he views MJ as a scourge and needs eliminated.

[peanutbutter]

Yes .. I realize all of that.

 

The judge could order me to commit murder as a condition of probation. I understand what they could order.

 

But if I followed the order to commit murder, it would be me that went to jail.

 

It seems that it would be legal to refuse to follow that order.

 

My questions are about the responsibilities of the judge for an order to commit an illegal act.

 

Does the judge also go to jail for ordering me to break the law?

[nkprthrd]

Yes .. I realize all of that.

 

The judge could order me to commit murder as a condition of probation. I understand what they could order.

...

Does the judge also go to jail for ordering me to break the law?

 

I think it would have to be the state prosecutors that would be the ones that have to charge on behalf of "the People." However, the prosecutor of the case and judge trying the case is likely to be friends with the judge that would be the defendant. Not likely to be a truly fair trial. If the prosecutor tries and fails and the judge is exonerated, do you think that prosecutor has a chance in his court ever again? I think the prosecutor would give a wink and a nod to the defendant Judge making it an easy not guilty.

[+Silverblue]

WOW this is very interesting. Good points to ponder here. Law is fascinating, seeing how it works, and often doesn't work. It's sad that it works sometimes but not all the time. That may be the main point here, just as how it's interpreted. Our community views it a certain way, and the anti MM people view it another way, so it seems to depend on WHO'S viewing it, what side they're on, what they have to gain and lose. HOWEVER, if the law says those records are confidential, that should be the beginning and end of it because Our Law PROTECTS us. Right?

 

Sb

[peanutbutter]

OK .. let's get to the real question ..

 

If a police officer has confidential information, are they able to claim the fifth and refuse to divulge the information on the stand?

 

That information would be the identities of the caregiver and doctor.

[+Silverblue]

Leo has no business having/using our confidential information, so if that info was taken, they can't plead the fifth. IMHO

 

Sb

[peanutbutter]

Leo has no business having/using our confidential information, so if that info was taken, they can't plead the fifth. IMHO

 

Sb

 

What I'm talking about is if the judge can require the officer to commit the criminal act of divulging confidential information from the stand.

[+Silverblue]

Pb I don't think so but I'm no lawyer. It'd be interesting to ask a judge. Keep hammering away on this issue, it needs to be addressed.

 

Sb

[Mr. Wilson]

What I'm talking about is if the judge can require the officer to commit the criminal act of divulging confidential information from the stand.

 

Yes. Of course he can. And he/she can get away with it. Judges are basically free to do whatever they want. They only get reprimanded when they do something so extreme, that something must be done.

 

They order people to break the law all the time. They order juries to break the law. They order lawyers to break the law. They order the police to break the law. It is not considered "breaking the law" to the people who matter in the justice system and they are the ones who would decide if someone goes too far.

 

The only remedy to a victim of this, is the chance for an appeal if you lose. That is the only thing that the Judge has to fear and even then, sometimes they don't care if they lose on appeal, as long as they have done their own thing, the way they wanted to do it.

 

 

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

[peanutbutter]

Yes. Of course he can. And he/she can get away with it. Judges are basically free to do whatever they want. They only get reprimanded when they do something so extreme, that something must be done.

 

They order people to break the law all the time. They order juries to break the law. They order lawyers to break the law. They order the police to break the law. It is not considered "breaking the law" to the people who matter in the justice system and they are the ones who would decide if someone goes too far.

 

The only remedy to a victim of this, is the chance for an appeal if you lose. That is the only thing that the Judge has to fear and even then, sometimes they don't care if they lose on appeal, as long as they have done their own thing, the way they wanted to do it.

 

 

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

So then, there is no such thing as law .. only whim.

[Bisharoo]

So then, there is no such thing as law .. only whim.

 

Correct, as long as subjectivism is allowed exist in an authority role in society. The only solution would be objective laws.

[peanutbutter]

Correct, as long as subjectivism is allowed exist in an authority role in society. The only solution would be objective laws.

 

I guess it would depend on how long the form of government wished to exist.

 

At this time, the question is "who rules?" The courts or the people?

 

Which is not supposed to be a question we need to ask.

[Mr. Wilson]

I guess it would depend on how long the form of government wished to exist.

 

At this time, the question is "who rules?" The courts or the people?

 

Which is not supposed to be a question we need to ask.

 

No, it shouldn't have to be asked.

 

In theory, the people rule. In reality, those who gain power take it upon themselves to do as they wish and the people let it happen. There is no real law and no real justice but people like to pretend there is, because it makes them feel all good inside. They can fantasize about living in the greatest country in the world, where everybody is treated fairly. Problem is, it's all a sham...not that it is any better anywhere else.

[+Silverblue]

Mr. Wilson, The people let it happen? The People are being mislead by many of those who were elected to uphold the laws. The People are being lied to by those who want to get into office. Say I vote for someone because they say what they think I wanna hear, then that person turns around and does something against my wishes. Example: From what I heard, a certain sheriff in Saginaw did that exact thing, he was elected by a majority who believed he'd honor our MM law, then turned around and did unconscionable things against the MM community. Those who get in power are often corrupted and feel they're better than The People who elected them. There's also people who are appointed, who do whatever they want. Don't totally blame the people.

 

Sb

[Mr. Wilson]

Well look,.. How many times do you have to be lied to before you get wise? (not you, but everyone)

 

Bush was a "compassionate conservative" when he ran for President, remember? Probably got him a couple million votes, pretending to care about regular people. And Obama was going to "change" everything.

 

You can't blame an 18year old for being ignorant and having hope, but the older people have no excuse. We've seen it our whole lives. And what do most of us do about it? Nothing. We go out and vote the same way, for the same types, who do the same things over and over and nothing gets changed.

 

The people "let it happen". The "PEOPLE" have the power. What do you think would happen if we had just 10% of the people in this country march on Wahington. 30 million people show up in Washington and take the city basically. They could do anything they wanted. But they are too busy. They want to complain but they don't want to act.

 

THE PEOPLE, could change the system anytime they want to, but not enough of them want to. And I'm not talking about a bunch of small minded, right wing racists like the Tea Party. I'm talking about something BIGGER.

 

Someday a "real leader" will emerge and he/she won't be a Democrat or Republican and that person will lead a revolution (movement)that will change America. But before that happens, Americans have to be forced out of their comfort zone. They have to suffer...a lot. Then they will get the courage to act.

 

Until then, we are stuck with what we have. So work the system to your benefit. There is always a way to work it. We just have to be smart enough to figure it out.

[nkprthrd]

OK .. let's get to the real question ..

 

If a police officer has confidential information, are they able to claim the fifth and refuse to divulge the information on the stand?

 

That information would be the identities of the caregiver and doctor.

 

I suppose anyone could plead the fifth to anything if they can reasonably say that the information they are withholding could be used to incriminate them.

 

I watched a "don't talk to the cops" thing and the professor mentioned a case where someone who was not a suspect in the case plead the fifth against divulging information about the suspect. She felt that if the current suspect were to be proven innocent that she could become a suspect.

 

If the cop has any reason to feel that divulging the information that he knows could in turn incriminate him of any crime in the future, he may plead the fifth and remain silent.

 

Granted, this is my opinion, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know if there are any precedents for this kind of thing.

[peanutbutter]

I suppose anyone could plead the fifth to anything if they can reasonably say that the information they are withholding could be used to incriminate them.

 

I watched a "don't talk to the cops" thing and the professor mentioned a case where someone who was not a suspect in the case plead the fifth against divulging information about the suspect. She felt that if the current suspect were to be proven innocent that she could become a suspect.

 

If the cop has any reason to feel that divulging the information that he knows could in turn incriminate him of any crime in the future, he may plead the fifth and remain silent.

 

Granted, this is my opinion, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know if there are any precedents for this kind of thing.

 

This would not be taking the fifth on a crime that had already taken place.

 

This would be to avoid committing a crime right there on the stand.

 

A crime that could earn the officer up to six months in jail.

[nkprthrd]

This would not be taking the fifth on a crime that had already taken place.

 

This would be to avoid committing a crime right there on the stand.

 

A crime that could earn the officer up to six months in jail.

 

 

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

 

Sounds to me like a Grand Jury would have to indict him as having committed a crime in order to hold him to answer, but then he would not have to be a witness against himself in that indictment. I see this as the LEO in question would have to be convicted of his crime first (without his own testimony) in order to be forced to be a witness in the case.