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

[bobandtorey]

Only other spot that I can think of is, in the very limited disclosure of information to verify that a card is valid. That little provision, requires that LEO have at least some of the information in hand...

 

 

you must mean that BOX that is on the App

[+RevThad]

The court doesn't have an affirmative duty to keep ANYTHING confidential absent a motion by one of the parties.

 

Secondly your reason for keeping info confidential, to keep it out of the feds hands, ain't gonna fly. Can you imagine a court keeping info non-public because if it were public then federal law could lead to prosecution? What if my testimony in regards to my involvement in some theft ring in violation of state law also would incriminate me on federal racketeering? Can I move the court seal the record? Haha! Not gonna happen. Shouldn't happen.

Your premise is flawed, we are discussing something that is legal under state law, and that also has a specific protection built into it. Just as a court has a responsibility to protect other confidential information as stated in other laws (minors identity) is one that comes to mind.

 

I would agree with you though that there may not be an affirmative duty, and that matter will be worked out eventually in the courts. Allowing a prosecutor to disclose this information would be tantamount to harassment or worse. There would be no need to disclose the information if the party is guilty of some state violation, and if the case is thrown out because of state protections, one must ask who is the prosecutor serving if they attempted to pass the information up to the feds? The obvious answer is not the people of the State of Michigan. One could probably even argue that such actions would be retribution or a personal grievance... but most definitely would be a violation of the intent of the law. "Protecting patients and caregivers who legally (under state law) cultivate and use marijuana for medical purposes from arrest and prosecution".

[DenturesLost]

Your premise is flawed, we are discussing something that is legal under state law, and that also has a specific protection built into it. Just as a court has a responsibility to protect other confidential information as stated in other laws (minors identity) is one that comes to mind.

 

I would agree with you though that there may not be an affirmative duty, and that matter will be worked out eventually in the courts. Allowing a prosecutor to disclose this information would be tantamount to harassment or worse. There would be no need to disclose the information if the party is guilty of some state violation, and if the case is thrown out because of state protections, one must ask who is the prosecutor serving if they attempted to pass the information up to the feds? The obvious answer is not the people of the State of Michigan. One could probably even argue that such actions would be retribution or a personal grievance... but most definitely would be a violation of the intent of the law. "Protecting patients and caregivers who legally (under state law) cultivate and use marijuana for medical purposes from arrest and prosecution".

No, my premise isn't flawed. My premise is that if the reason for making the info non-public is solely because it may subject the individual to the violation of federal law then that can't fly. That's correct, not flawed. Every judge in this state takes an oath of office to uphold the constitution of the US. I can get into a long lecture as to why the constitution is NOT upheld if the intent of a court is to subvert the enforcement efforts of US law. If the reason in making the info non-public is not to avoid fed law issues and the avoidance of fed issue is incidental then fine. But you can't meet the standard for keeping something non-public by arguing that the info may subject the defendant to possible fed violations.

 

I would point out that that a prosecutor also takes an oath of office to uphold the US const. There is no hierarchy of law built into that oath whereby the prosecutor is beholden to state laws first.

[peanutbutter]

6(h)(4) is inclusive, meaning that everyone falls under the umbrella. HOWEVER, patients are NATURALLY excluded because of the fact that THEY are the ones to whom the duty of confidentiality is owed.

 

Just noticed this again.

 

Yes .. to whom the confidentiality is owed.

 

It is owed to the state.

 

These are not medical records. These records contain almost entirely identifier information.

 

This is state licensing information. Not patient information.

[DenturesLost]

Just noticed this again.

 

Yes .. to whom the confidentiality is owed.

 

It is owed to the state.

 

These are not medical records. These records contain almost entirely identifier information.

 

This is state licensing information. Not patient information.

How in the heck does the state have an interest in keeping MY private info private yet I don't?

That makes no sense. These don't have to be medical records for me to have an interest in keeping them private. It's a pt's private info and the duty of confidentiality runs to the pt, not the state.

[peanutbutter]

How in the heck does the state have an interest in keeping MY private info private yet I don't?

That makes no sense. These don't have to be medical records for me to have an interest in keeping them private. It's a pt's private info and the duty of confidentiality runs to the pt, not the state.

 

Yes .. an interest. Just not the primary interest.

 

The primary interest is the voters. The people of the State of Michigan.

 

These records, and the information they contain, are confidential because of the order of the people.

[DenturesLost]

Yes .. an interest. Just not the primary interest.

 

The primary interest is the voters. The people of the State of Michigan.

 

These records, and the information they contain, are confidential because of the order of the people.

Uhhhh, yeah. Guess there's no point taking this any further. You are interpreting this law according to your own strange set of statutory interpretation rules. Really. Wow.

[peanutbutter]

Uhhhh, yeah. Guess there's no point taking this any further. You are interpreting this law according to your own strange set of statutory interpretation rules. Really. Wow.

 

This is a set of data that is owned by the state.

 

I can not contact the MDCH and ask them to transfer the information to another location.

 

The information going into the file is confidential.

 

The information proceeding from the file is confidential information. Such as would be contained on the ID card.

 

The file, as a whole, is confidential. And so is every item in the file.

[Highlander]

I can not contact the MDCH and ask them to transfer the information to another location.

 

Ok, well I can.

 

My application, my health records, are mine.

 

They don't belong to the State as you suggest.

 

They are mine.

 

Who here feels that their personal records become property of the state...that we now have a duty to protect the government's records of OUR own personal health information?

 

I don't think you believe that under a guise of expanding our rights we voted for a law that squashed our rights and took our personal medical information and made it property of the State and gave us a duty to protect it with a possible criminal liability if we don't.

 

That's like saying, "I'm going to steal your car, then park it in your driveway, and if anything happens to it, you're paying."

 

This would be a GIANT step backwards and a monumental sacrifice of basic rights.

 

Not me - no way - no how.

 

I didn't vote for that, and I don't think you did either.

 

And if dispensaries are EVER to be found legal under our current framework, then there needs to be a way for patients/customers to allow the MDCH to release information to the dispensary so that the owners/operators are able to confirm the status of those who hope to pass through the doors.

 

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.

[peanutbutter]

(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.

 

Interesting that the MDCH left out information pertaining to the identities of the doctors.

 

They mention caregivers but forgot the doctors.

 

By this, the MDCH will release your information with the right authorization. It looks like they may require a release from the caregiver before they release their information also.

[bobandtorey]

Ok, well I can.

 

My application, my health records, are mine.

 

They don't belong to the State as you suggest.

 

They are mine.

 

Who here feels that their personal records become property of the state...that we now have a duty to protect the government's records of OUR own personal health information?

 

I don't think you believe that under a guise of expanding our rights we voted for a law that squashed our rights and took our personal medical information and made it property of the State and gave us a duty to protect it with a possible criminal liability if we don't.

 

This would be a GIANT step backwards and a monumental sacrifice of basic rights.

 

Not me - no way - no how.

 

I didn't vote for that, and I don't think you did either.

 

ee

And if dispensaries are EVER to be found legal under our current framework, then there needs to be a way for patients/customers to allow the MDCH to release information to the dispensary so that the owners/operators are able to confirm the status of those who hope to pass through the doors.

 

 

 

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.

 

theirs that Box again

[Highlander]

Interesting that the MDCH left out information pertaining to the identities of the doctors.

 

They mention caregivers but forgot the doctors.

 

By this, the MDCH will release your information with the right authorization. It looks like they may require a release from the caregiver before they release their information also.

 

Ok so as we are now turning to the same page, let's explore under what circumstances can a Dr. be outed?

 

Can a patient announce publicly that his Dr. signed the cert?

[+RevThad]

No, my premise isn't flawed. My premise is that if the reason for making the info non-public is solely because it may subject the individual to the violation of federal law then that can't fly. That's correct, not flawed. Every judge in this state takes an oath of office to uphold the constitution of the US. I can get into a long lecture as to why the constitution is NOT upheld if the intent of a court is to subvert the enforcement efforts of US law. If the reason in making the info non-public is not to avoid fed law issues and the avoidance of fed issue is incidental then fine. But you can't meet the standard for keeping something non-public by arguing that the info may subject the defendant to possible fed violations.

 

I would point out that that a prosecutor also takes an oath of office to uphold the US const. There is no hierarchy of law built into that oath whereby the prosecutor is beholden to state laws first.

However, as noted that is not the only reason to keep the information non-public.

 

That being said, you are accurate in your statement about judges and prosecutors taking an oath to uphold the constitutions of the US and Michigan. There is a very defined line on how a prosecutor or judge can act in regards to federal law in state courts. While a judge or prosecutor may be able to look at federal law, and a judge may be able to interpret federal law, they must also adhere to state law and the state constitution. They are free to try and claim standing, in an attempt to challenge the state law as unconstitutional, but that is for a completely different venue. Also, such a communication to the federal government would be in direct violation of the state law.

 

What you are suggesting is that a prosecutor can compile a list of registered patients and caregivers, then supply that to the feds, because they themselves cannot prosecute. Even if what you suggest is legal under federal law, and provides some immunity for turning in a "suspect". Other state laws would put the prosecutor in a rough position to defend themselves in a state court...

 

752.11 Upholding or enforcing the law; duty of public officials.

 

Sec. 1.

 

Any public official, appointed or elected, who is responsible for enforcing or upholding any law of this state and who wilfully and knowingly fails to uphold or enforce the law with the result that any person's legal rights are denied is guilty of a misdemeanor.

[peanutbutter]

Ok so as we are now turning to the same page, let's explore under what circumstances can a Dr. be outed?

 

Can a patient announce publicly that his Dr. signed the cert?

 

Whatever the protections that exist for a caregiver also applies to the doctor. As far as confidentiality goes.

 

I don't believe the crime is something that the patient can commit. The only people that can commit the crime are government employees and officials.

 

That's an issue that needs to be settled in a court. That requires a test case.

[DenturesLost]

However, as noted that is not the only reason to keep the information non-public.

 

That being said, you are accurate in your statement about judges and prosecutors taking an oath to uphold the constitutions of the US and Michigan. There is a very defined line on how a prosecutor or judge can act in regards to federal law in state courts. While a judge or prosecutor may be able to look at federal law, and a judge may be able to interpret federal law, they must also adhere to state law and the state constitution. They are free to try and claim standing, in an attempt to challenge the state law as unconstitutional, but that is for a completely different venue. Also, such a communication to the federal government would be in direct violation of the state law.

 

What you are suggesting is that a prosecutor can compile a list of registered patients and caregivers, then supply that to the feds, because they themselves cannot prosecute. Even if what you suggest is legal under federal law, and provides some immunity for turning in a "suspect". Other state laws would put the prosecutor in a rough position to defend themselves in a state court...

First of all no one said there would be a "communication" to the feds. A communication suggests an active dissemination of information. Denying a motion to seal a court file is not a communication of anything. Secondly, there is this little thing in the US const known as the supremacy clause. The supremeacy clause, in essence, trumps state law. So if there is a conflict between fed and state law then fed law always wins out. You cannot argue that a judge has a duty to follow state law regardless or in spite of fed law. If fed and state law conflict then well-established precedent, as well as the US const, requires that fed law win out. What does that mean? That means there really is no conflict between the 2 because the state law is just automatically void in that instance and for that individual purpose.

 

 

 

No, I am not suggesting the prosecutor can compile a list of anything. There is a huge difference between compiling a list and publishing it and a court keeping hearings and records open to the public.

[peanutbutter]

First of all no one said there would be a "communication" to the feds. A communication suggests an active dissemination of information. Denying a motion to seal a court file is not a communication of anything. Secondly, there is this little thing in the US const known as the supremacy clause. The supremeacy clause, in essence, trumps state law. So if there is a conflict between fed and state law then fed law always wins out. You cannot argue that a judge has a duty to follow state law regardless or in spite of fed law. If fed and state law conflict then well-established precedent, as well as the US const, requires that fed law win out. What does that mean? That means there really is no conflict between the 2 because the state law is just automatically void in that instance and for that individual purpose.

 

 

 

No, I am not suggesting the prosecutor can compile a list of anything. There is a huge difference between compiling a list and publishing it and a court keeping hearings and records open to the public.

 

Federal courts have already ruled about the supremacy clause and local medical marijuana laws.

 

Applied the way you list would require the MDCH to hand over their entire database.

[DenturesLost]

Whatever the protections that exist for a caregiver also applies to the doctor. As far as confidentiality goes.

 

I don't believe the crime is something that the patient can commit. The only people that can commit the crime are government employees and officials.

 

That's an issue that needs to be settled in a court. That requires a test case.

 

First, what makes you think that confidentiality runs to the dr.?

Second, how is the crime one that can be committed only by the govt people? The language is clear as day and we already deconstructed and reconstructed that. You are trying to force the "any person" paragraph to mean something that it distinctly does not. I don't know what interpretive guidelines you are using to decipher that paragraph but whatever they are they make no sense. A plain English reading of the paragraph would tell anyone with an 8th grade education that your interpretation is wrong.

[DenturesLost]

Federal courts have already ruled about the supremacy clause and local medical marijuana laws.

 

Applied the way you list would require the MDCH to hand over their entire database.

Federal courts? That's the same as saying a state court in California has ruled on that issue. Why? Because no fed courts in OUR CIRCUIT have ruled on this matter. The ones that have ruled cannot produce binding precedent in our circuit. So it doesn't matter.

 

Explain exactly how, if applied in that manner, it would require a handover of the database??? That's a strange and unsubstantiated statement.

[peanutbutter]

First, what makes you think that confidentiality runs to the dr.?

Second, how is the crime one that can be committed only by the govt people? The language is clear as day and we already deconstructed and reconstructed that. You are trying to force the "any person" paragraph to mean something that it distinctly does not. I don't know what interpretive guidelines you are using to decipher that paragraph but whatever they are they make no sense. A plain English reading of the paragraph would tell anyone with an 8th grade education that your interpretation is wrong.

 

It doesn't say "any person." It says "a person including" and then lists specific classes of people.

 

I've never agreed that the paragraph applies to "any person."

 

What I've been trying to find out is what excuse government officials might try to grab as justification for publishing the information.

 

I probed a little deeper under the assumption that it applies to "any person." That is it would also apply to the patient. Not that I agree with it, I just wanted to see where that would go.

[peanutbutter]

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

 

Whatever protections apply to the caregiver are the same as given to the physicians.

[peanutbutter]

Federal courts? That's the same as saying a state court in California has ruled on that issue. Why? Because no fed courts in OUR CIRCUIT have ruled on this matter. The ones that have ruled cannot produce binding precedent in our circuit. So it doesn't matter.

 

Explain exactly how, if applied in that manner, it would require a handover of the database??? That's a strange and unsubstantiated statement.

 

The ones that have ruled are federal courts. Including appellate level federal courts. So binding precedent has been set, for federal cases.

 

The claim of requirement to enforce federal law, by local officials, has already been settled.

 

Local authorities have no requirement to enforce federal law. Already binding precedent established in federal court.

 

Next local medical marijuana laws can exist at the same time as federal law. The key is weather or not the local law prevents federal law enforcement from enforcing federal law. Are federal agents able to work in Michigan? Yes they are.

 

Federal courts might be able to force the MDCH to divulge the entire database. But that would require federal officials requesting the information with a federal warrant in hand. There would be no requirement for the MDCH to enforce federal law. No requirement for them to call up the feds and tell them "we have this list of medical marijuana people and you should get a copy of the list."

[+RevThad]

First of all no one said there would be a "communication" to the feds. A communication suggests an active dissemination of information. Denying a motion to seal a court file is not a communication of anything. Secondly, there is this little thing in the US const known as the supremacy clause. The supremeacy clause, in essence, trumps state law. So if there is a conflict between fed and state law then fed law always wins out. You cannot argue that a judge has a duty to follow state law regardless or in spite of fed law. If fed and state law conflict then well-established precedent, as well as the US const, requires that fed law win out. What does that mean? That means there really is no conflict between the 2 because the state law is just automatically void in that instance and for that individual purpose.

 

 

 

No, I am not suggesting the prosecutor can compile a list of anything. There is a huge difference between compiling a list and publishing it and a court keeping hearings and records open to the public.

I have touched on the supremacy clause many times around here, and as of Dec 1, 2008 the SCOTUS has allowed the ruling to stand that state medical marijuana laws are not preempted by the CSA. Further, that ruling and other more recent rulings suggest that there is no conflict (positive, obstacle, or implied) between state and federal laws concerning medical marijuana.

 

For the record the case I am referring to is 07-1569 GARDEN GROVE, CA V. SUPERIOR COURT OF CA, ET AL.

The matter at hand was summed up nicely, and fits the discussion of preemption perfectly:

 

The City sees itself “caught in the middle of a conflict

between state and federal law” – a position with which we can certainly sympathize – on

the issue of medical marijuana and does not want to be perceived as facilitating a breach

of federal law by returning Kha’s marijuana to him. Because marijuana possession is

generally prohibited under federal law, the City contends the trial court’s order is legally

flawed and constitutes an abuse of discretion. The City also maintains that to the extent

state law authorizes or mandates the return of Kha’s marijuana, it is preempted by federal

law.

For Immediate Release: December 1st, 2008 U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law

 

Next we move on to another of your constitutional arguments... for some reason my reading of the 10th Amendment says something about not being able to force states or their municipalities to enforce federal law, much less carry it out... Maybe I am mistaken?

 

Back to your premise, does a prosecutor have an obligation to forward information on a registered patient or caregiver to the feds? If so are they violating state law by communicating that information?

[DenturesLost]

It doesn't say "any person." It says "a person including" and then lists specific classes of people.

 

I've never agreed that the paragraph applies to "any person."

 

What I've been trying to find out is what excuse government officials might try to grab as justification for publishing the information.

 

I probed a little deeper under the assumption that it applies to "any person." That is it would also apply to the patient. Not that I agree with it, I just wanted to see where that would go.

Seriously, do you know how to read? I don't mean read words I mean do you understand sentence structure? I'm not being rude or putting you down I'm asking.

 

It doesn't say "any person including.." (well it doesn't say ANY at all it says "A" but that's not relevant to our discussion.) It says "A person, including..." Comma placement is as important here as the word including (which means inclusive and not limited). If I said, "I like any fruit, including apples, oranges, and tomatoes." Does that mean I just like apples oranges and tomatoes? Of course not. It means I like ANY fruit and that the fruits listed are either listed by way of example of fruits I like or to make it clear that I like those fruits and that they are not excluded from the list of fruits I like. In other words, I listed tomatoes to include it as a fruit I like since many people wouldn't consider it as a fruit (even though it is). This is basic grammar. If you still don't understand it then there is no more need to even have this discussion because it would be like trying to discuss it with my 5 year old grand child. It also makes it clear why you don't understand a lot of the other language. Again, not being mean-spirited just explaining things. I'm sure you are a good guy and I know you are well-meaning and you do good things. However, statutory interpretation isn't your strong suit. Stick to the oil.

[DenturesLost]

I have touched on the supremacy clause many times around here, and as of Dec 1, 2008 the SCOTUS has allowed the ruling to stand that state medical marijuana laws are not preempted by the CSA. Further, that ruling and other more recent rulings suggest that there is no conflict (positive, obstacle, or implied) between state and federal laws concerning medical marijuana.

 

For the record the case I am referring to is 07-1569 GARDEN GROVE, CA V. SUPERIOR COURT OF CA, ET AL.

The matter at hand was summed up nicely, and fits the discussion of preemption perfectly:

 

 

For Immediate Release: December 1st, 2008 U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law

 

Next we move on to another of your constitutional arguments... for some reason my reading of the 10th Amendment says something about not being able to force states or their municipalities to enforce federal law, much less carry it out... Maybe I am mistaken?

 

Back to your premise, does a prosecutor have an obligation to forward information on a registered patient or caregiver to the feds? If so are they violating state law by communicating that information?

Alexander Pope once said something to the affect that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." That applies here.

You appear, on the surface, to know a little something about the law, however, you disregard a HUGE fault in your reasoning. The case you cited is useless. Why? Because the US Sup Ct denied cert in that case. Denying cert is not a ruling it is basically a statement saying we don't want to hear it. One of the major reasons the SCt will deny cert is to allow for development of the law in the lower courts. Generally they will keep out of the fray except for major constitutional issues or when there are opposing rulings in the circuits. This case is a relatively fresh case. The SCt isn't going to step into something so political at this point. With all that said, what it boils down to is that the SCt said nothing and made no ruling. Therefore, law of the land, so to speak, was not made. It allowed a case to stand in the 9th (if I'm correct) circuit. That has no bearing whatsoever on us here in the 6th circuit. It is not binding at all. It has the same effect on us as a case out of a California state court would have. None. Nada.

 

Your next point as to state enforcement of federal law... A judge wouldn't be enforcing fed law rather they would be COMPLYING with fed law. Big difference.

 

Lastly, what do you mean MY premise? How is:

 

"Back to your premise, does a prosecutor have an obligation to forward information on a registered patient or caregiver to the feds? If so are they violating state law by communicating that information?"

 

MY premise? I never claimed that a prosecutor has a duty to forward any info. Where are you getting that? Federal law doesn't require it and that would be AFFIRMATIVE or ACTIVE enforcement of fed law. I have stated that a pros. and a state judge both have the duty to COMPLY with fed law NOT ENFORCE fed law.

[peanutbutter]

Seriously, do you know how to read? I don't mean read words I mean do you understand sentence structure? I'm not being rude or putting you down I'm asking.

 

Would you please hold back on the insults. I want to debate the issue, not your dental care.

 

It doesn't say "any person including.." (well it doesn't say ANY at all it says "A" but that's not relevant to our discussion.) It says "A person, including..."

 

Inventing law by adding or changing words is indeed relevant.

 

Comma placement is as important here as the word including (which means inclusive and not limited).

 

Where do you get that? "which means .." It's not in the law itself. "Including, but not limited to," is a commonly used legal phrase. That language would be clear in it's intent to include "any person." But it's not there. Until you put it there.

 

The writers of the law did not use "any" and did not use "but not limited to." The two items that you need to apply the law the way you wish to. If you add the words you wish, you can make this law say anything at all.

 

The good part is that courts are required to follow the written law and not whatever you believe the law should have said.

 

If I said, "I like any fruit, including apples, oranges, and tomatoes."

Does that mean I just like apples oranges and tomatoes? Of course not.

 

How about instead of "any" we use the word "a?"

 

"I like a fruit, including ... "

 

That would be a fruit from that list. So bananas would be excluded.

 

It means I like ANY fruit and that the fruits listed are either listed by way of example of fruits I like or to make it clear that I like those fruits and that they are not excluded from the list of fruits I like. In other words, I listed tomatoes to include it as a fruit I like since many people wouldn't consider it as a fruit (even though it is). This is basic grammar. If you still don't understand it then there is no more need to even have this discussion because it would be like trying to discuss it with my 5 year old grand child. It also makes it clear why you don't understand a lot of the other language. Again, not being mean-spirited just explaining things. I'm sure you are a good guy and I know you are well-meaning and you do good things. However, statutory interpretation isn't your strong suit. Stick to the oil.