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

[LongHairBri]

Free Bob and Torey Free Bob and Torey Free Bob and Torey

Free Bob and Torey Free Bob and Torey Free Bob and Torey

[Kingpinn]

Bob

 

When is your next court date ??

[drtarzanmd]

Bob

 

When is your next court date ??

 

 

Thanks for asking the State is charging us both with 21 plants

even when i had 11 and Torey had 10

 

Torey will be in court on the 24 of Aug. at 8am in the city of Madison heights 48071

 

i hope people will come and support her their we have lost every

thing we had because of this people that are in court no how we feel

it has been a long road for all of us i can't wait till i hear it again case dismissed for the 3rd time

the best as i can see this going is two ways the judge inn Madison heights may say

that he was order by the c.o.a to push it up to Oakland county or

he could just dismiss it and say she has been through enough and let her go

come one come all and see History being maid

[bobandtorey]

 

 

[peanutbutter]

Now on my calender.

[bobandtorey]

Judge O’Connell has done a great disservice for our state.

 

There was a single question before the Court of Appeals, in the Redden Clark case. Anyone reading the judge’s ramble would have a difficult time determining exactly what that question was.

 

Instead of addressing that single question, he went on to explore as much of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act as he could imagine. The judge claims this was in response to a request from all of the attorneys presenting in the case. Defense attorneys have denied this. News reporters have been denied access to the pleadings presented by the attorneys in the case. These pleadings are important to the case as the judge claims to be making a response to them. Many of our community would like to closely examine those pleadings to determine exactly what questions were being asked of that court. Exactly what the judge was responding to? Access has been denied.

 

One of the primary comments that he made implied that no one should try to understand the law. Not until the Michigan Supreme Court has had rulings on it. This comment seems to imply that law enforcement and patients are expected to act as if our new law doesn’t exist at all. Many in law enforcement want to do just that.

 

Many in law enforcement have come to look at his ramblings as a “ruling” from the courts. The Detroit News calls these ramblings a “ruling.”

 

The ramblings of this judge are not a “ruling.” They are perceptions of one person. Not the ruling of the court. The ramblings are not supposed to carry the weight of law.

 

Entirely overlooked, by Judge O’Connell, is the transition that takes place when a patient applies to the state for an ID card. The judge noted that there is an escalation of protections provided to the patient when the patient makes application. What he failed to recognize is the escalation of protections afforded to the caregiver AND DOCTOR when that application is submitted.

 

Here is a quote of that section of law:

Section 6 (h) (1) Applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients, including information regarding their primary caregivers and physicians, are confidential.

 

Here that confidential information is highlighted again and expanded:

Section 6 (h) (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

 

Judge O’Connell ignores the confidential nature of the information and attempts to establish a method that will require every doctor in the state to being drug into the court system. This method threatens to bury our court systems. This would flood our courts with needless hearings.

 

The judge questions the quantities that a patient may be using. The medical use of marijuana needs to be self-regulating at this time. Doctors are not allowed to prescribe this medicine. Federal regulations would strip a doctor of their ability to prescribe any other drug if they were to prescribe marijuana. Federal law forbids them to regulate the quantities a patient uses. Most of us have had a prescription written for us that reads “take as needed.”

 

Therefore the question of quantities that a patient may be using is moot. The judge believes that the doctor should regulate these quantities. I might agree with the judge, IF federal law enforcement were to step out of the way. For the time being, federal law forbids what the judge suggests.

 

Next the judge suggests that the quality of the relationship between the doctor and patient is subject to review by the courts. Again the judge is trying to flood the courts with useless hearings. This is a direct threat issued toward the medical community of our state. This is clearly not the intent of our new law. This issue is difficult for a court to explore when the identity of the doctor is confidential information. Medical practice is not the normal arena of the courts. Judges and lawyers are not normally issued medical licenses. There is little medical education involved in becoming a judge. No questions about medicine on a state bar exam. The persons involved in the court systems are not qualified to make medical judgments.

 

There is a regulatory agency that does specialize in medical issues. The Michigan Department of Community Health. That department, in Lansing, has been given the job of regulating the doctors involved in the licensing process of issuing medical marijuana ID cards. They are the very people that are the most qualified to make these determinations.

 

Judge O’Connell seems to suggest that the authority of the department in Lansing should be undermined. He seems to suggest that proper medical determination should be in the hands of unqualified judges and law enforcement instead of the pre existing, physician licensing, department in Lansing, the MDCH.

 

The only way for such a world to exist is if you ignore confidentiality issues within the law.

 

The question of the nature of the relationship between the doctor and patient is resolved by the agency, designated by law, to examine that relationship for every single ID card issued by the state. Every single patient, with no exception, has had that relationship examined before a card is issued. This is the same agency that issues licenses to doctors to practice medicine within Michigan. They are obviously more qualified to determine questions of medicine than judges or lawyers with no medical training at all. This department issues a license based on it’s own determination. In order to do so they have to examine and approve the very relationship that the judge questions.

 

This is where Judge O’Connell has “missed the mark.”

 

The relationship between the doctor and patient has already been determined at the time the regulatory agency issues the ID card. At that point our law hides, from courts and law enforcement, the identity of the doctor. This protects the doctors of our state from being abused by the legal system.

 

It is the transition from being an unregistered patient to being fully registered that provides this protection for our doctors. It is no longer necessary to examine that relationship. It has already been verified. The MDCH does so for every single medical marijuana patient without exception.

 

When our law was first passed, there was a threat issued to the doctors of our state. “If you sign a letter for a patient to use marijuana, your license will be revoked.”

 

This was intended to send a chill through the medical community. To slow down the numbers of people legally consuming marijuana. The legal community could not stop medical marijuana in Michigan. Since the system could not stop medical marijuana, they attempted to slow it down. If the doctors of the state could be threatened, it would stop the proliferation of medical marijuana ID cards being issued.

 

This judge is attempting to undermine that very law. He doesn’t like the law so he seeks to make it null and void.

 

The two primary issues in the judges ramblings are already answered by law. The ID card is evidence that a bone fide relationship exists between the patient and doctor. This relationship has been reviewed and confirmed by the MDCH. Once the proper department has verified that relationship, it is no longer an issue for the courts. It is simply a fact. The ID card is the evidence that the relationship does indeed exist. This is no longer a question for unqualified lawyers and judges.

 

If the courts accept the ID card, as intended by law, there is no need to have the doctor in court at all. In fact, the identity of the doctor is no longer needed. This gives room for the confidentiality section of the law to be in force.

 

“What force?” you might ask.

 

There is force in the confidentiality section of our new law. Which is something else that the judge ignored. When the confidentiality section of our new law is violated, someone is supposed to go be arrested.

 

Section 6 (h) (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.

 

Names and identifying information of patients, caregivers and doctors are defined as confidential once application has been made to the licensing department in Lansing.

 

The judge may have broken this law in the very rant that he published.

 

He named the doctor. Violating the confidentiality of state licensing information.

 

I say “may have” only because the judge has not been arrested and tried for this crime.

 

Unlike the judge, I assume innocence until proven guilty.

[Murph]

Judge O'Connell is a nut job --- these "holy drug warriors" have been brainwashed and need to be voted out of any judicial position -- or any position over anyone. Many like him out there. They have no empathy for others suffering and are selfish. The worse of mankind as this is not loving your brother (so you make him suffer more).

 

M

[peanutbutter]

One week left to fondly remember how much of a mockery this judge made of the legal process and the law.

[bobandtorey]

Thanks for the trip down memory lane and as you know the same Doctor that did are Rec. also did: Larry's and he was at Larry's court day last week because the courts won't let Larry use Sec 4 as the Supreme Court said he could so now he is using Sec8

PM me if you want to talk about this ill give you my phone #

 

Peace From The Front

Bob&Torey

 

Free Bob and Torey

And Larry and all the rest of the people that are being railroaded

PS

People here need to know even if you are Legal all the way you won't be able to use your card or say the words medical marijuana in court

you may get out of it inn the lower Courts if you have enough $$$$$ and most of the sick don't

[Herb Cannabis]

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?

 

You are the third poster that I have read today who believes the election is November 2nd. NOV 6, 2012 is the correct election date.

 

Maybe I should pay more attention to the dates, sorry!

Edited October 30, 2012 by Herb Cannabis