Cops Used Fake Patient Ids To Buy Medical Pot;

[DenturesLost]

I'm thinking that vantage point gets modified when the name is mentioned within a limited context. The law itself says the names are confidential. I believe that would need to be within the context of medical marijuana.

So now the law prohibits uttering a pt's name and the term med mj in the same sentence? Come on. The law states info submitted as part of the app.

 

If I go to my neighbor and divulge my name and the fact that I'm a MM pt that is not by any means confidential. That isn't info submitted as part of the app anymore than my name itself is...

 

You are misapplying the act in such a way that it has an absurd outcome. But yet you don't think the law needs improvement? Or maybe you think it should be up to the conservative supreme court to interpret it?

[DenturesLost]

Something else .. don't know if I should edit the first post or have a second one .. anyway .. something else:

 

"The act says info submitted."

 

This doctors appointment was the start of the application process. The information about a medical marijuana patient, including the names of the patient, caregiver and doctor are specifically listed as items that are confidential. As defined in the law.

 

This ledger was introduced in a marijuana case. Clearly a medical marijuana case. Many were listed specifically as in the process of gaining their Medical Marijuana ID card. There for that very purpose.

 

I hold that the information is protected on it's way into, while inside and after being released by the MDCH in the form of an ID card.

 

The application and all supporting information.

 

"Submitted" being the key word here. Past tense. You are making wild interpretations.

Not in preparation of submission. Not thinking about submission. What if these dr appts did not yield a recommendation? That info is protected under the act? Come on. Read the act and its plain language.

[jtgeme]

I don't think the law needs to change, but certainly needs to be clarified. and that happens in very limited ways; one of which is to ask the AG for an opinion on it, another is case law to define the provisions.

 

I know what some of you are thinking based on that last statement..."its clear, its in the law, it means XYZ." But where reasonable minds can differ...both conclusions are theoretically correct. For example (and I don't want this to turn this thread into a debate) "Enclosed, locked, facility". Its a closet or room...does this room have to be inside? can be outside? A greenhouse is a room? "access only by a RPC or RQP" Only the RPC or RQP that is growing plants in that room, or any RPC or RQP? An argument can be made on both sides. Things like this need to be defined more clearly for everybody's benefit.

 

Everybody loves to talk to about "rights", but honestly, key provisions of the Constitution are meaningless without the supporting case law that took years to mold and form. Where would our rights be without the case law? There would be none. We need case law, and it all begins with one person (or group) being brought forth to define it for the rest us. Its an unfortunate system, but its the best we got.

 

And once defined, I think the LEO will abide by the decisions. Think of the joy we will have when we get to tell Cooper how wrong she was? And remember, some of these cases could take more than 2 years, and others will come up...Isn't Cooper up for re-election in 2012? A change in the head of the prosecutor's office changes policy.

 

The defense team did a great job at the exam on Wednesday and Friday. They worked really hard to represent the clients, the prosecutor looked a little dumbfounded at times which is always good for the defense. Good things will come out of this, it maybe hard to see it now, but it will. Its a hard and unfortunate path for those in the defendant's chair, but with community support and the solid defense, I am confident that this (like Mr. Redden's case) will make it better for all MM patients.

 

As far as the use of fake ID's. I have a problem with LEO making the MM Card. They are one of 2 departments that are available to validate legitimate cards versus fake cards and people like Clinical Relief cannot validate the cards at all - unfair to say the least. With regard to the drivers license, I have no problem with the undercover getting fake driver's licenses from the SOS with their UC identities on them. UC's are involved in a lot of different operations that would require them to have their undercover identity having some paperwork. I'm okay with that.

 

I do believe that there needs to be a method for those licensed with the MDOCH to verify a patient card before dispensing medication. This wouldn't require a change in the law, but it would require the MDOCH to put up a website or something where registered caregivers could log in, punch in a patient ID number and know whether the card is legitimate, valid, etc.

[peanutbutter]

"Submitted" being the key word here. Past tense. You are making wild interpretations.

Not in preparation of submission. Not thinking about submission. What if these dr appts did not yield a recommendation? That info is protected under the act? Come on. Read the act and its plain language.

 

The patient retains a copy of the submitted documents. Would you claim these copies are not protected?

 

I'm guessing not ..

 

As for those that didn't get a recommendation, that would be a very small minority of those attempting to get certified.

 

Those ledger notes are the very first step in the application process. It is the sole reason the names are there.

[bobandtorey]

the ones that are still open for business have to be wondering right now it the person has a card weather it is fake or not

[peanutbutter]

The judge saw the "doctor" notation and saw a stop sign.

 

Works for me.

[peanutbutter]

So now the law prohibits uttering a pt's name and the term med mj in the same sentence? Come on. The law states info submitted as part of the app.

 

If I go to my neighbor and divulge my name and the fact that I'm a MM pt that is not by any means confidential. That isn't info submitted as part of the app anymore than my name itself is...

 

Wishing it ain't so don't make it go away ..

 

Individual names and other identifying information on the list is confidential

[peanutbutter]

I would agree that a list of names is not something confidential.

 

A list of names of medical marijuana patients is confidential.

[peanutbutter]

A list of medical marijuana patients that have not been charged with anything.

 

They have not waived their rights.

 

The only thing their names on the list shows is their attempt to follow state law.

[peanutbutter]

As far as the use of fake ID's. I have a problem with LEO making the MM Card. They are one of 2 departments that are available to validate legitimate cards versus fake cards and people like Clinical Relief cannot validate the cards at all - unfair to say the least. With regard to the drivers license, I have no problem with the undercover getting fake driver's licenses from the SOS with their UC identities on them. UC's are involved in a lot of different operations that would require them to have their undercover identity having some paperwork. I'm okay with that.

 

I'm concerned about the idea of using the fake DL as a supporting document to the forged mmj card.

 

The fake ID cards were not enough by themselves.

[DenturesLost]

Wishing it ain't so don't make it go away ..

And wishing submitted means "about to be submitted" does make that info submitted.

 

Submitted, in the act, is clear. It is past tense. It couldn't clearer. Somehow you are trying to make your own definition of the word. Submit means basically to hand over. So the past tense is info that WAS handed over. Not info that was about to be handed over.

 

Furthermore, the confidentiality covers the info that was handed over to the MDCH. That means the actual set of info they have in their grimy little paws. They cannot disseminate it except in outlined exceptions. It doesn't mean the info in its pieces floating about out there.

 

In other words, my name is submitted to the MDCH. That doesn't make my name confidential information. You are suggesting that my name is now confidential because it was submitted. No one can disclose my name now? If I'm at the local county clerk's office to pay property taxes they can't call my name out to come up to the counter because then my name has been disclosed? Basically what you are saying is that if something is confidential then everything in its discrete parts is also confidential. The word "the", if contained in the app. is now a confidential word? Your interpretation of this part of the act is so far out there that no one would buy it.

 

The info the people submitted to the dispensary was just that---info submitted TO THE DISPENSARY. Just because it was some of the same info submitted to the MDCH doesn't make it confidential. This is what you are failing to grasp. First you have argued that any info that was also submitted as part of the app is now, by law, confidential. That, of course, would include one's name. Now, if I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that it may not be confidential unless it is used int he same sentence as medical marijuana. Understand, if you will, that you are fabricating all of this. No where does it state this in the law. You are bastardizing the law in hopes that you can twist it to say what you want it to say. The meaning is in plain English. I don't know what method you are utilizing to interpret the statute but it is entirely unconventional and opposed to interpreting the plain English meaning. It also flies in the face of conventional rules for statutory interpretation. It doesn't make sense. You are attributing meanings that you want to find rather than attributing meanings that actually exist in plain English.

[bobandtorey]

I'm concerned about the idea of using the fake DL as a supporting document to the forged mmj card.

 

The fake ID cards were not enough by themselves.

 

 

Me too it worries me and their are more Leo's around for sure and the Ferndale place is not open and was not for 3 days now dunno why but i think it's because of th DL

i would not want to be one that sells mmj to any body right now and thats what the PA wants

[DenturesLost]

I would agree that a list of names is not something confidential.

 

A list of names of medical marijuana patients is confidential.

If it's a list submitted to, and held, by the MDCH.

[Rashore]

I think I'm confused... What exactly is this ledger?

Is this a general client listing... or is it a clinical appointment book?

If it's just straight name/number, that's more of a general client book, and less medically sensitive. If it is an appointment book, that's quite a bit more medically sensitive.

And everyone keeps saying submitted... Was the ledger offered up, or was it relinquished under warrant, or what?

Why was it submitted, to match the fake ID information against the business records?

 

sorry if I'm not following too well...

[bobandtorey]

also their was one guy missing inn court do you remember what the PA said about that

[jtgeme]

Rashore:

I believe the ledger was list of patients that had checked in on certain days for certain reasons, or maybe it was an appointment book concerning future appointments. I am not sure, but I THINK its more of a daily log of events.

 

PB:

A list of names is not confidential, a list of patients (any patient) should be.

 

I thought the prosecutor was off her rocker when she said it wasn't confidential. While I agree with her statement that anybody, in any public vantage point could see anybody walking in, the ledger appears to go WAY further than that and any argument to the contrary was weak at best. I give her credit for making the argument, that's her job - regardless of how well or poorly I believe she does it.

[jtgeme]

also their was one guy missing inn court do you remember what the PA said about that

 

can you be more specific - which guy? A defendant? a witness?

 

I recall some argument about an out of court statement made by a defendant in another case, but thats about all I recall.

[bobandtorey]

can you be more specific - which guy? A defendant? a witness?

 

I recall some argument about an out of court statement made by a defendant in another case, but thats about all I recall.

 

a defendant i think

[jtgeme]

a defendant i think

 

There is another defendant I don't know his name, though it was mentioned during the PE. But his case is being tried separately from the 9 from Clinical Relief.

[bobandtorey]

There is another defendant I don't know his name, though it was mentioned during the PE. But his case is being tried separately from the 9 from Clinical Relief.

 

am just wondering if their are more Leo's with DL and cards i think theirs more of them

[thatoneartist]

This question is about the triggering event for the raid. That triggering event was when the undercover cop sold one ounce of marijuana to the dispensary. To Tony Agro.

 

Tony Agro is allowed to acquire marijuana. He is licensed to do so by the MDCH.

 

 

how do you know all this?????????????????????????????

[bobandtorey]

how do you know all this?????????????????????????????

 

he was at court that day and i heard the Leo say that also

[The Digital Nomad]

I have met a actual Sgt for a un-named, local Sheriff dept. who is a caregiver for a family member.

He can carry a gun, badge, drive a patrol car in full capacity as a deputy because he does not 'use' marijuana.

 

This means you could perform a 'transfer' to a LEO holding a legal MDCH card, as a caregiver - and that officer can decide to use his offical capacity to charge you with a crime. No fake card.

 

D.O.T. regulations - that prohibit medical use of marijuana for armed security, truck drivers, airline pilots - and police - prohibit the person from WORKING if he has marijuana in his system - therefore - logic dictates that you will not see a front-line working LEO as a cardholder patient using marijuana.

 

The WHOLE POINT of all this - what LEO is trying to make and what good clubs advocate - KNOW YOUR PATIENT.

Build a real relationship with your patient - don't start and end your relationship at the cash register.

If you do not know your patient's background - you really should not be transfering to that person.

 

We could contact MDCH to verify card numbers all day - but really - simply it comes down to knowing your patients and avoiding the greedy, quick sales.

 

 

-DN

[Guest Happy Guy]

I have met a actual Sgt for a un-named, local Sheriff dept. who is a caregiver for a family member.He can carry a gun, badge, drive a patrol car in full capacity as a deputy because he does not 'use' marijuana.This means you could perform a 'transfer' to a LEO holding a legal MDCH card, as a caregiver - and that officer can decide to use his offical capacity to charge you with a crime. No fake card.D.O.T. regulations - that prohibit medical use of marijuana for armed security, truck drivers, airline pilots - and police - prohibit the person from WORKING if he has marijuana in his system - therefore - logic dictates that you will not see a front-line working LEO as a cardholder patient using marijuana.The WHOLE POINT of all this - what LEO is trying to make and what good clubs advocate - KNOW YOUR PATIENT.Build a real relationship with your patient - don't start and end your relationship at the cash register.If you do not know your patient's background - you really should not be transfering to that person.We could contact MDCH to verify card numbers all day - but really - simply it comes down to knowing your patients and avoiding the greedy, quick sales.-DN

Maybe you could actually register to the patient? Is that unheard of now? I think you just might need to be registered to be totally protected these days. You guys act like patient to patient transfers have already been deemed legal by the courts. Back up a step and wait for the ruling or pay the price. It's definitely going to be considered illegal by law enforcement until the courts decide on it. Get registered, follow the rules and you can transfer to Schuette himself.

[The Digital Nomad]

Maybe you could actually register to the patient? Is that unheard of now? I think you just might need to be registered to be totally protected these days. You guys act like patient to patient transfers have already been deemed legal by the courts. Back up a step and wait for the ruling or pay the price. It's definitely going to be considered illegal by law enforcement until the courts decide on it. Get registered, follow the rules and you can transfer to Schuette himself.

 

Ignorance is not bliss.

 

"Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act

 

And what is the definition of Medical use as STATED in the MMMAct??

 

"(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition."

 

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Initiated-Law-1-of-2008

 

You didn't think we created a law without thinking about it? Give some credit to those that created the MMMP.

 

A registered, qualified patient can assist a registered, qualifying patient with a 'acquistition, delivery, or transfer'. A caregiver may only assist the five qualifying, registered patients he is connected with through the MDCH database.

 

Don't take my word for it, go ask Matt Abel - he frequently shows up at the MOCC meetings and events.

He also stated this in an issue of Michigan Medical Marijuana Magazine in response to this same question.

 

-DN