Judge O’Connell Has Done A Great Disservice For Our State.

[peanutbutter]

Disclosure of this information by the patient is anticipated in this law.

 

A patient is able to present their ID card to an officer of the law. That action by the patient doesn't change what this law defines as confidential.

 

That action by the patient doesn't strip the patient of protections contained within the law.

 

The officer might think "The patient disclosed the information to me so the confidentiality is gone. I can now plug this patients name into our database." And the officer discloses confidential information by plugging the information into the database.

[greenbuddha]

The PA will TRY what ever they believe the 'judge' might listen to in order to win his /her case.

 

The outcome of the case depends 'very' much upon HOW the 'judge' sees the 'issue' before him / her.

 

There is the 'law' and THEN there is the WAY the judge chooses to interpret that law.

 

Once a 'case' is decided the only recourse is to try and have the case taken to a 'higher' court and hope THAT that court finds legal 'irregularities' for a 'mistrial', etc.

 

After the elections 2 weeks from now the anti-MMJ politicians may just HAVE the 3/4 votes in the House / Senate they would need to CHANGE the law.

 

And you can be assured IF that happens one of the FIRST changes made will be to the legal requirements of what the 'patient / doctor relationship' will require, making it easier for PA's and 'judges to 'nullify' a patient's 'card'.

 

We can debate all day long about who is right or wrong regarding the MMM Act, but it will be the ELECTION that will REALLY determine what we will be debating in the VERY near future.

 

I'm choosing to put my energy into helping get people to the POLLS on November 2nd.

 

I've got 8 people lined up to help get there.

 

How about you guys?

 

How many people are you helping get to the polls on November 2nd?

[DenturesLost]

bo·na fide adj.

1. Made or carried out in good faith; sincere: a bona fide offer.

2. Authentic; genuine: a bona fide Rembrandt.

[Latin bon fid : bon, feminine ablative of bonus, good + fid, ablative of fids, faith.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

How would one prove good faith? A prosecutor could ask the doctor "Was your recommendation made in good faith?",but only the doctor could possibly know what went on in his mind. Apparently what the prosecutors are looking for is a long term relationship with a doctor, this however does not speak to intent on the part of the doctor. It is not unreasonable to assume that upon seeing an end stage cancer patient once would be ample to judge that the patient needed something to relieve pain and suffering.

 

The same way anyone proves good faith. Usually when you sign a real estate purchase agreement you have an obligation to expediently pursue financing in good faith. Good faith is a concept everywhere in the law. It implies you did it with the proper intent. A dr. cannot issue ANY prescription unless it is done in good faith. In other words it was done after a proper consultation and the meds were prescribed in the proper amounts, etc. It is not uncommon for a dr to be busted for issuing scripts in bad faith. You see narcotics stings all the time in that regard. Good faith is not an elsusive concept.

[DenturesLost]

So then .. is a application confidential information?

 

Yes it is.

 

Why is it confidential information?

 

Because the law says it is.

 

If I put it on a billboard is it still confidential information?

 

Yes it is. Because the law says so.

You are defining confidential and then redefining it in a different way to fit your needs. It has one definition and is applied in one way in the act. "Confidential" as it is used in the act is pertaining to application materials and physician info SUBMITTED.

 

Confidential information doesn't exist in a vacuum. In order for something to be confidential that means someone has a duty of care to keep it in confidence. It also means that that duty of care is owed to someone. In this case the duty is owed to the submitter of the information. To follow your line of reasoning it is possible for the submitter to breach confidence by revealing their OWN information. If I put my application information on a billboard it is no longer confidential. I cannot logically or legally breach a duty of care to myself. If I could then I could collect from my auto insurance for my own negligence if I hit a tree. Hmmm, I'd say I suffered $100,000 in pain and suffering that I caused myself and so the insurance company now owes me that money. Obviously an illogical position to take. I don't owe a duty of care to myself under the law. Similarly I don't owe a duty of care to myself in regard to the confidentiality of that information. To argue that the information is just plain "confidential" because that's what the law says is ridiculous. It also disregards the rule of statutory construction that states that a word used in a law is to be used in its plain meaning unless otherwise defined in the law. This law has a definition section. No where does it operationally define confidential to mean anything other than what the dictionary defines it as. What you are arguing is akin to the notion of Shakespeare's "a rose by any other name would smell so sweet." In other words a rose is still physically a "rose" even if we decided to rename it sweaty balls. So what you are saying is that the word confidential is basically a term for that information submitted by a patient and after the information no longer meets the dictionary definition of confidential because it has been revealed we will still call it confidential because that it an easier and more tidy way of describing that information than calling it "the application information submitted by the patient." So we may as well make it even easier and just call it "X."

 

Furthermore, you are ignoring the word "disclose" as used in the act. In order for a gov't offical to be held criminally liable under the act they first have to disclose the information. See your friendly webster's dictionary for a definition of disclose and you will find that disclose means: to make known or public. It is a logical impossibility to imply that information can be made public subsequent to it already having been made public. Unless there is a special category of being made "publicer." Or MORE public. Being made public is done once. Once the info is made public you cannot do it again. It was made part of the public record by the defendant who was the one person to whom a duty of care regarding confidentiality was owed. Once they made it public it is, by definition, no longer confidential.

 

However, I would submit that if something can be made MORE public then we should also have other similar animals in life. If you really really love someone maybe you can get REALLY married instead of just the regular "married."

 

Bottom line: There are not degrees of making something public. It was part of the public record and therefore the judge can use it in his opinion.

[greenbuddha]

The same way anyone proves good faith. Usually when you sign a real estate purchase agreement you have an obligation to expediently pursue financing in good faith. Good faith is a concept everywhere in the law. It implies you did it with the proper intent. A dr. cannot issue ANY prescription unless it is done in good faith. In other words it was done after a proper consultation and the meds were prescribed in the proper amounts, etc. It is not uncommon for a dr to be busted for issuing scripts in bad faith. You see narcotics stings all the time in that regard. Good faith is not an elsusive concept.

 

Dentures, It's NOT a 'prescription' that the doctor provides.

 

He / she provides a 'recommendation' which may or may not be seen by the courts as a 'medical' document and therefore the 'recommendation' may not even HAVE protection as Private Health Care Information with 'rights' of 'confidentiality'.

 

A decision a person might get from a court will almost CERTAINLY depend upon how the 'judge' READS the 'law' and THEN what decision a 'higher' court of appeals makes.

 

So on and so forth, blah blah blah , yadda yadda yadda.

[bobandtorey]

The same way anyone proves good faith. Usually when you sign a real estate purchase agreement you have an obligation to expediently pursue financing in good faith. Good faith is a concept everywhere in the law. It implies you did it with the proper intent. A dr. cannot issue ANY prescription unless it is done in good faith. In other words it was done after a proper consultation and the meds were prescribed in the proper amounts, etc. It is not uncommon for a dr to be busted for issuing scripts in bad faith. You see narcotics stings all the time in that regard. Good faith is not an elsusive concept.

 

Thanks you do seam to konw alot about this do you think we will be Free one day?

[greenbuddha]

Thanks you do seam to konw alot about this do you think we will be Free one day?

 

Once 'Dentures' find his teeth... you will know we are on our way.

 

Then he can help us all 'Take A Bite Out of the Crime' that the Drug War perpetuates.

[Bmcqueen]

at least he said this: “THE DEFINITION OF “MEDICAL USE” IS UNEXPECTEDLY BROAD: ALTHOUGH A QUALIFYING PATIENT MAY NOT SELL MARIJUANA, JUST ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE AN INDIVIDUAL CAN DO WITH MARIJUANA WOULD BE CONSIDERED MEDICAL USE UNDER THE MMMA” – APPELLATE JUDGE P.J. O’CONNELL, STATE OF MICHIGAN V. ROBERT LEE REDDEN, STATE OF MICHIGAN V. TOREY ALISON CLARK, SEPT. 14, 2010

[+RevThad]

The case history and rulings by the courts of this state, tell us that a voter initiated law is to be "liberally construed to effectuate rather than hamper the reserved rights by the people."

 

Arguing semantics about whether "using medically", "medical use" or "medically using" have a different meaning, one should look at it as a common reader would. A common reader would read:

 

Use marijuana medically

Medically using marijuana

Medical use of marijuana

 

as being the same thing, just in different tenses.

 

As the courts and the law suggest when needing to construct because of vague notions, the intent of the law must be the first priority, and the construction must provide towards that intent.

[DenturesLost]

Dentures, It's NOT a 'prescription' that the doctor provides.

 

He / she provides a 'recommendation' which may or may not be seen by the courts as a 'medical' document and therefore the 'recommendation' may not even HAVE protection as Private Health Care Information with 'rights' of 'confidentiality'.

 

A decision a person might get from a court will almost CERTAINLY depend upon how the 'judge' READS the 'law' and THEN what decision a 'higher' court of appeals makes.

 

So on and so forth, blah blah blah , yadda yadda yadda.

Yes I know it isn't a script. I was making an analogy.

[DenturesLost]

Thanks you do seam to konw alot about this do you think we will be Free one day?

The states are falling like dominoes. I'm sure some states won't budge such as some in the deep south. However, as more and more states move toward medical use and then probably recreational use then the feds will have to step aside. The results of prop 19 will be very telling. If it passes the feds will have to strongly consider loosening things up or risk some sort of mini rebellion.

[peanutbutter]

You are defining confidential and then redefining it in a different way to fit your needs. It has one definition and is applied in one way in the act. "Confidential" as it is used in the act is pertaining to application materials and physician info SUBMITTED.

 

Confidential information doesn't exist in a vacuum. In order for something to be confidential that means someone has a duty of care to keep it in confidence.

 

There are things that are confidential information, according to this act.

 

Those things are specifically listed.

 

They are confidential information because this law defines them to be so for the purposes of this act.

 

I don't have to go to outside sources to determine what "confidential information" is.

 

You are right about two different items that I'm mixing back and forth. Those are "confidential" and "confidential information."

 

The files at your doctors office are confidential. That has nothing to do with this law. To apply the same rules to your doctors records as to the records in the MDCH is an error. The MMMA confidentiality section doesn't apply to your records at the doctors office.

 

You claim that once anyone makes records public they are no longer confidential. That didn't change the law. The law still says those MDCH records and the information kept within them as confidential.

 

You say they are not confidential and the law says they are. Who is right?

 

Without 3/4 of the congressmen and senators agreeing with you in Lansing I would say you are the one in error.

 

Now then. Looking at the paragraph (section 6 (h) (4)) you'll see that the six month penalty for disclosing the information is for doing so according to this act. Not according to Websters.

 

Paragraphs 1 and 2 have listed exactly those things that are confidential information that paragraph 4 applies to.

 

This is a self contained unit.

paragraph 1 ... "are confidential."

paragraph 2 ... "are confidential."

 

The things listed are confidential information for the purposes of this act.

 

There are at least two other items to discuss once we get past "what is confidential."

 

Those are, as you noted, "disclosure" and the other area would be exactly who the criminal penalties apply to.

 

I understand very well the idea that, as commonly used, "confidential" is no longer the state when an item is public record.

 

But this isn't as commonly used. This is how it's used within this act. Yes there is a definition section. I don't believe that laws are limited to define something within the definition section only.

 

Whatever confidential information is has been defined within this act for the purposed of this act.

 

It is still confidential information, for the purposes of this act, even after I would make a hundred copies of my application and pass them out. That action does not change the law which would still say that information is confidential.

[DenturesLost]

There are things that are confidential information, according to this act.

 

Those things are specifically listed.

 

They are confidential information because this law defines them to be so for the purposes of this act.

 

I don't have to go to outside sources to determine what "confidential information" is.

 

You are right about two different items that I'm mixing back and forth. Those are "confidential" and "confidential information."

 

The files at your doctors office are confidential. That has nothing to do with this law. To apply the same rules to your doctors records as to the records in the MDCH is an error. The MMMA confidentiality section doesn't apply to your records at the doctors office.

 

You claim that once anyone makes records public they are no longer confidential. That didn't change the law. The law still says those MDCH records and the information kept within them as confidential.

 

You say they are not confidential and the law says they are. Who is right?

 

Without 3/4 of the congressmen and senators agreeing with you in Lansing I would say you are the one in error.

 

Now then. Looking at the paragraph (section 6 (h) (4)) you'll see that the six month penalty for disclosing the information is for doing so according to this act. Not according to Websters.

 

Paragraphs 1 and 2 have listed exactly those things that are confidential information that paragraph 4 applies to.

 

This is a self contained unit.

paragraph 1 ... "are confidential."

paragraph 2 ... "are confidential."

 

The things listed are confidential information for the purposes of this act.

 

There are at least two other items to discuss once we get past "what is confidential."

 

Those are, as you noted, "disclosure" and the other area would be exactly who the criminal penalties apply to.

 

I understand very well the idea that, as commonly used, "confidential" is no longer the state when an item is public record.

 

But this isn't as commonly used. This is how it's used within this act. Yes there is a definition section. I don't believe that laws are limited to define something within the definition section only.

 

Whatever confidential information is has been defined within this act for the purposed of this act.

 

It is still confidential information, for the purposes of this act, even after I would make a hundred copies of my application and pass them out. That action does not change the law which would still say that information is confidential.

According to your interpretation the pt himself can violate his OWN confidentiality by disclosing his own info. Furthermore, according to your interpretaton, if a patient uses an application copy as a card and shows it to the cops as the card stand-in until the card arrives then that pt has committed a crime. Your interpretation makes the act contradictory.

 

Your interpretation: On the one hand the act says you can use the app. as a card before the card is received. On the other hand the act says if you reveal the information in the app. then you are guilty of a crime.

 

Absurd.

 

Further absurd to say that no matter how many people know the information it is STILL confidential. What you are saying is that no one can speak of the information. Since the info is in the app then it can't be uttered. If a defendant in court brings an application to prove he had a right to possess, before a card arrived, then no one can look at it because the pt would be breaching his own confidentiality.

 

The act states, in pertinent part:

 

(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.

 

To be guilty someone has to disclose confidential info in violation of the act. Where in the act does it state disclosing the info is a crime? You are looking at the punishment section of the act and applying it as if it were the prohibition against disclosure. It ISN'T. Read the act. Again, to be guilty someone had to disclose confidential info in violation of the act. Point to where the act says no one can disclose info.

 

Subsection h for your reading pleasure:

 

(h) The following confidentiality rules shall apply:

 

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

 

(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 under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.

 

(3) The department shall verify to 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.

 

 

And interpreted:

 

(h)(1) says the info submitted is confidential. It doesn't state that disclosing the info is a violation of the act and it doesn't state that no one can disclose it.

(h)(2) says the submitted info isn't subject to FOIA.

(h)(3) say the dept should give out no more info than necessary to law enforcement.

 

THAT, my friend, is the extent of the prohibitions of disclosing info. That act, in essence, says that the DEPARTMENT has the duty of nondisclosure. The act labels the info confidential but does not put restrictions on joe blow judge or anyone else other than the dept. In fact, consider the section of the act this info falls under. ADMINSTRATION...of the rules by the dept. In other words these are guidelines for the dept to follow in adminstering the program.

 

Bottom line: You cannot simply take the punishment section and use that to make a crime. What you are saying is that the judge violated the act because he disclosed info which was a violation of the act. For ANYONE's action in disclosing info to be a crime it first has to be a violation of the act. The act describes the info as confidential but no where does the act state that breaching confidentiality (disclosing info)is prohibited EXCEPT in (h)(3). The logical flow of the act is that h1 the info is confidential and h2 cannot be disclosed via foia and h3 the dept shouldn't disclose more info than necessary. Where did the judge violate the act? Where does the act prohibit this specific behavior?

[peanutbutter]

A person

 

including

 

employee or official

of the department

or another state agency

or local unit of government,

 

Those people are people not always members of the MDCH. Those that are "of the department" are those that work for the MDCH. "Or other departments" work for the state government but NOT the MDCH. "Or local unit of government" are those that work for local governments .. not the MDCH or any state government.

 

This is good .. Now we are starting to look at who is able to commit this crime. This doesn't apply to those that work at the MDCH only.

 

I hold that sentence formation in this paragraph would limit the list to just those persons named. Not everybody.

If it were to include everyone, including the patient themselves, the sentence would read "including, but not limited to." Since it just says "including" then this is a distinct list that doesn't include anyone else.

 

So when the policeman, who is an employee of a local unit of government, looks at a ID card the patient is not one of the listed parties. But the officer is.

 

Where in the act does it state disclosing the info is a crime?

who discloses confidential information in violation of this act, is guilty of a misdemeanor,

 

It states who .. government officials and employees of state or any local government ..

 

It states what .. confidential information in violation of this act ..

 

It states exactly what confidential information is ..

The application is confidential.

Supporting information is confidential, including information identifying the caregiver and doctor.

Names, and other identifying information, that is in the file kept at the MDCH is confidential information.

 

It states the crime .. guilty of a misdemeanor ..

[peanutbutter]

Now go back and read what the office of attorney general Michael Cox said about confidentiality.

 

His office was asked, by congress, if the MDCH could pass out the job of printing the cards to a business outside the government.

 

The office of Michael Cox replied that it would violate the confidentiality section of the MMMA.

 

In that situation, it is not the press requesting information with a FOIA request.

 

I believe you are trying to imply that confidentiality only applies against the press. The attorney general of Michigan disagrees with you.

[Highlander]

Now go back and read what the office of attorney general Michael Cox said about confidentiality.

 

His office was asked, by congress, if the MDCH could pass out the job of printing the cards to a business outside the government.

 

The office of Michael Cox replied that it would violate the confidentiality section of the MMMA.

 

In that situation, it is not the press requesting information with a FOIA request.

 

I believe you are trying to imply that confidentiality only applies against the press. The attorney general of Michigan disagrees with you.

 

This is inaccurate. The Cox opinion states that the Act does not prevent farming out the card processing, rather the administrative rules do...and he even goes as far as to explain to the MDCH how they can quickly change the rules to allow for contracted card processing.

[+RevThad]

This is inaccurate. The Cox opinion states that the Act does not prevent farming out the card processing, rather the administrative rules do...and he even goes as far as to explain to the MDCH how they can quickly change the rules to allow for contracted card processing.

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2010s/op10327.htm

 

"The MMA's confidentiality provisions apply to a "person," including DCH and other state agencies and local units of government, as well as law enforcement agencies. Section 6(h) of the Act specifically describes the information deemed confidential or expressly exempted from public disclosure:"

 

"Under the MMA, any person who gains access to the confidential information would be required to protect its confidentiality under threat of criminal fines and incarceration: "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." MCL 333.26426(h)(4). "

 

"It is worth observing that R 333.121(4), which authorizes the release of confidential information to additional persons if a waiver is obtained, does not provide a mechanism for allowing DCH to contract with an outside vendor because nothing in the MMA suggests that the processing of an application can be contingent upon a patient's waiver of his or her right to confidentiality. There are also practical concerns with obtaining the necessary waivers from all of the appropriate individuals on a case-by-case basis."

 

 

Just thought I would help with the discussion...

[Highlander]

The act prevents public disclosure but cox comes right out and says that providing the information to a contractor who has a duty to keep the info private is not against the act. Mdch can provide the confidential info to a contractor retained to help mdch implement its duties and still be compliant with the act. It is the administrative rules, which mdch can amend, that prevents providing the info to a contractor.

[peanutbutter]

The act prevents public disclosure but cox comes right out and says that providing the information to a contractor who has a duty to keep the info private is not against the act. Mdch can provide the confidential info to a contractor retained to help mdch implement its duties and still be compliant with the act. It is the administrative rules, which mdch can amend, that prevents providing the info to a contractor.

 

Could you please quote the location you are talking about?

 

So far I've seen in the act where it talks about "disclosure" but not "public disclosure." So if you could quote that location also, please do.

 

thanks

 

pb

[peanutbutter]

Oh thanks for reminding me RevThad ..

 

The rules allow disclosure if the patient signs a waiver ..

 

The law says nothing about disclosing with a waiver .. The law just says disclosure is illegal.

[DenturesLost]

A person

 

including

 

employee or official

of the department

or another state agency

or local unit of government,

 

Those people are people not always members of the MDCH. Those that are "of the department" are those that work for the MDCH. "Or other departments" work for the state government but NOT the MDCH. "Or local unit of government" are those that work for local governments .. not the MDCH or any state government.

 

This is good .. Now we are starting to look at who is able to commit this crime. This doesn't apply to those that work at the MDCH only.

 

I hold that sentence formation in this paragraph would limit the list to just those persons named. Not everybody.

If it were to include everyone, including the patient themselves, the sentence would read "including, but not limited to." Since it just says "including" then this is a distinct list that doesn't include anyone else.

 

So when the policeman, who is an employee of a local unit of government, looks at a ID card the patient is not one of the listed parties. But the officer is.

 

 

[

 

The act states, in pertintent part:

 

(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.

 

Your interpretation is wrong. Simple English rules of grammar state that the word used, "including," is meant to be INCLUSIVE. That means "A person" includes what follows--an employee or official....etc. A person is not EXCLUSIVE of the list "an employee or official..." The phrase "including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government" is offset by commas which also makes it grammatically a nonessential clause. That means it can be removed from the sentence and the sentence still functions properly. That further means that the nonessential clause is meant to complement and not modify "A person." The nonessential clause is put there to make it clear that "an emplyee..." etc, is included as "A person."

 

You contend that the nonessential phrase is meant to LIMIT what "a person" means. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if it were meant to limit then the sentence could more simply be written, "Any employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government who discloses...."

[DenturesLost]

 

I believe you are trying to imply that confidentiality only applies against the press. The attorney general of Michigan disagrees with you.

 

Me? No I'm not implying that at all.

[DenturesLost]

Quote

 

Where in the act does it state disclosing the info is a crime?

 

 

 

who discloses confidential information in violation of this act, is guilty of a misdemeanor,

 

 

The act says that if you disclose information IN VIOLATION OF THIS ACT then it's a crime. It doesn't state "disclosing confidential information IS A VIOLATION OF THIS ACT." So the question becomes WHAT is a violation of the act? The act calls certain information confidential but it doesn't state that disclosing that info IS a violation of the act. The only subpart of the act that states anything about disclosure is:

 

(3) The department shall verify to 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.

 

 

So the only way a disclosure can be made "in violation of this act" is to disclose more info than reasonably necessary to law enforcement.

[peanutbutter]

The act states, in pertintent part:

 

(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.

 

Your interpretation is wrong. Simple English rules of grammar state that the word used, "including," is meant to be INCLUSIVE. That means "A person" includes what follows--an employee or official....etc. A person is not EXCLUSIVE of the list "an employee or official..." The phrase "including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government" is offset by commas which also makes it grammatically a nonessential clause. That means it can be removed from the sentence and the sentence still functions properly. That further means that the nonessential clause is meant to complement and not modify "A person." The nonessential clause is put there to make it clear that "an emplyee..." etc, is included as "A person."

 

You contend that the nonessential phrase is meant to LIMIT what "a person" means. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if it were meant to limit then the sentence could more simply be written, "Any employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government who discloses...."

 

And this is what the attorney general said:

 

The MMA's confidentiality provisions apply to a "person," including DCH and other state agencies and local units of government, as well as law enforcement agencies. Section 6(h) of the Act specifically describes the information deemed confidential or expressly exempted from public disclosure:"

 

"Under the MMA, any person who gains access to the confidential information would be required to protect its confidentiality under threat of criminal fines and incarceration:

 

Some feel as you do. That is the sentence refers to anyone. Even more so with these people highlighted.

 

I guess you can make the law say anything you wish to if you delete words you don't like.

 

So the judge "gained access to confidential information." According to the attorney general the judge "would be required to protect its confidentiality under threat of criminal fines and incarceration."

 

But that's just the attorney general.

 

So it's everyone including the judge or it's everyone on this list which would include the judge. Either way the judge is someone this section of law is written for.

[peanutbutter]

The judge attempted to remove protections afforded to doctors under the MMMA.

 

While doing so the judge set an example of violating the act.