Jump to content

Gray Area Explained We All Need To Read This

_abbenormal

By _abbenormal
in Legal Professionals

Recommended Posts

_abbenormal Advanced Member

_abbenormal

Posted
Posted

hello all

 

this is why they think there is a gray area in this law these officials have read this law and dont like it because they are doing what they want and getting away with it this law changes this... they dont like the idea of them having to go to jail for there mis use of this law... we need for more of use out here to get these points out here when they do break this law its going to be hard but we need to start pushing for them to uphold this law and when they do it wrong they need to do the time or pay the fine... just like us if we are doing it wrong and judges need to be told this in court so there will be a public info put out on there indiscretions... this is a law and a right given to us by the people of this state... they have spoken so follow there rules now...

 

 

please read this a couple of of time so you know why they say gray area... http://www.peanutbuttersoil.com/news--info.html

 

 

there wanting to kill this just so they dont have to go to jail... this kind of makes since to me and the public who reads this... why is it so hard for them to follow it... there are other laws that are worse out here and they use them any chance they can against us... michigan voters have spoken right or wrong now just follow the rules the voters have made... we need to force them when they do wrong and hold them accountable... its time to push them into jail just like there doing to us... there breaking this law and want it change to protect them from it... time to start pushing back and hold it to them to uphold it... i wished i had lots of money just to move it to this stage... i dont sucks...

 

anyway please people read this a few time so you can understand or at least see how it is a gray area for them cops putting other cops and cops putting judges who wont follow this law in jail for violating our law as they are and have been doing... this has them working scared as to what they now will have to do... just follow our law and use some since with it do your job and serve and protect us within our law... also if you know another cop breaking our law do what our law has been written for do your job... get the bad cops off the street and help the public be safe from them...

 

 

abbe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanutbutter Advanced Member

peanutbutter

Posted
Posted

hello all

 

this is why they think there is a gray area in this law these officials have read this law and dont like it because they are doing what they want and getting away with it this law changes this... they dont like the idea of them having to go to jail for there mis use of this law... we need for more of use out here to get these points out here when they do break this law its going to be hard but we need to start pushing for them to uphold this law and when they do it wrong they need to do the time or pay the fine... just like us if we are doing it wrong and judges need to be told this in court so there will be a public info put out on there indiscretions... this is a law and a right given to us by the people of this state... they have spoken so follow there rules now...

 

 

please read this a couple of of time so you know why they say gray area... http://www.peanutbuttersoil.com/news--info.html

 

 

there wanting to kill this just so they dont have to go to jail... this kind of makes since to me and the public who reads this... why is it so hard for them to follow it... there are other laws that are worse out here and they use them any chance they can against us... michigan voters have spoken right or wrong now just follow the rules the voters have made... we need to force them when they do wrong and hold them accountable... its time to push them into jail just like there doing to us... there breaking this law and want it change to protect them from it... time to start pushing back and hold it to them to uphold it... i wished i had lots of money just to move it to this stage... i dont sucks...

 

anyway please people read this a few time so you can understand or at least see how it is a gray area for them cops putting other cops and cops putting judges who wont follow this law in jail for violating our law as they are and have been doing... this has them working scared as to what they now will have to do... just follow our law and use some since with it do your job and serve and protect us within our law... also if you know another cop breaking our law do what our law has been written for do your job... get the bad cops off the street and help the public be safe from them...

 

 

abbe

By the way ..

 

I'm glad you like it! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaman Advanced Member

jaman

Posted
Posted

We need the people, the voters, to realize that there are government officials that are attempting to ignore their direct orders.

 

Direct orders written into law.

Hi i'am new here have been reading board for a while.I have my papers sent to state 8-15 00 waiting on card.I have fought cancer twice in the last 10 yrs.I read about people being run over by leo and not having the money to fight back, leo has always known that even if they lose you will pay thousands to prove your innocent. it would seem to make sense if a fund could be started under a non profit group to hire a top notch lawyer to take one of these cases to the wall.I would be willing to give the first $100 to get it started and more after others started to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanutbutter Advanced Member

peanutbutter

Posted
Posted

Hi i'am new here have been reading board for a while.I have my papers sent to state 8-15 00 waiting on card.I have fought cancer twice in the last 10 yrs.I read about people being run over by leo and not having the money to fight back, leo has always known that even if they lose you will pay thousands to prove your innocent. it would seem to make sense if a fund could be started under a non profit group to hire a top notch lawyer to take one of these cases to the wall.I would be willing to give the first $100 to get it started and more after others started to help.

 

I would suggest giving it to Bob and Torey.

 

Their case is likely to go to the Supreme Court. And they could use the help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaman Advanced Member

jaman

Posted
Posted

I would suggest giving it to Bob and Torey.

 

Their case is likely to go to the Supreme Court. And they could use the help.

Hi butter i talked to you sunday about yard signs in lansing area waited for call but knew you put a lot of miles on that day and didn't hear back. Do bob and tory have a paypal setup or how are they getting $$. Ive smoked for 40 yrs, and know a lawyer in det. who worked on john sinclair back in the day. makes his pratice now sueing leo and gov on false charges and other bad acts. If this these things are going to be stoped i think it will take help from people willing to donate some $ and those of us that can should, but maybe not piecemeal. if bob and tory will contact me i have a franklin for the cause. stay strong

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bisharoo Advanced Member

Bisharoo

Posted
Posted

Hi butter i talked to you sunday about yard signs in lansing area waited for call but knew you put a lot of miles on that day and didn't hear back. Do bob and tory have a paypal setup or how are they getting $. Ive smoked for 40 yrs, and know a lawyer in det. who worked on john sinclair back in the day. makes his pratice now sueing leo and gov on false charges and other bad acts. If this these things are going to be stoped i think it will take help from people willing to donate some $ and those of us that can should, but maybe not piecemeal. if bob and tory will contact me i have a franklin for the cause. stay strong

 

You are very kind sir...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lawyercaregiver Advanced Member

lawyercaregiver

Posted
Posted
Section 6 (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.

 

(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.

 

Most of this essay is very nice analysis.

 

As we have previously discussed, the above quoted confidentiality statute applies to the MDCH revealing confidential information used to support the application. I do not think you can reasonably argue that a judge who quotes from documents used in public court briefs filed with the court by the parties is violating this provision. The documents become not confidential at the point they are published by the parties. If there are examples of confidential information provided to MDCH being misused then you have a really explosive allegation. Of course just my interpretation- who knows what the darn courts will do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanutbutter Advanced Member

peanutbutter

Posted
Posted

Most of this essay is very nice analysis.

 

As we have previously discussed, the above quoted confidentiality statute applies to the MDCH revealing confidential information used to support the application. I do not think you can reasonably argue that a judge who quotes from documents used in public court briefs filed with the court by the parties is violating this provision. The documents become not confidential at the point they are published by the parties. If there are examples of confidential information provided to MDCH being misused then you have a really explosive allegation. Of course just my interpretation- who knows what the darn courts will do?

 

Current situation:

 

The PA requests that the defendant produce the doctor.

 

Judge agrees and so orders.

 

Oh yes .. the state police may be willing to investigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DenturesLost Advanced Member

DenturesLost

Posted
Posted

I can appreciate the time, effort, and heart put into this blog post but where do I begin? This has the potential to turn into another one of these huge discussions.

 

I'll just address one point. The blog claims that "rights," as created under the MMA are "civil rights." I don't know if you are using that term very loosely or if you actually believe they are civil rights. The fact is they aren't civil rights. Civil rights are inalienable. They are rights possessed just by virtue of being a citizen. The "rights" created by the MMA, or more accurately described, privileges, are not inalienable. The privileges are surrendered at the moment you no longer are a qualifying patient. They are also surrendered if you violate the act, even if you are a qualifying patient.

 

The difference is important because you have greater protections under the law for civil rights. Privileges are not as thoroughly protected. Think of it this way, you don't have a right to a drivers' license. You have to meet certain qualifications to obtain a drivers' license. You DON'T have to meet certain requirements to have a right against self-incrimination.

 

That's it in a nutshell. I think a lot of the other issues are already laid out in other threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanutbutter Advanced Member

peanutbutter

Posted
Posted

I can appreciate the time, effort, and heart put into this blog post but where do I begin? This has the potential to turn into another one of these huge discussions.

 

I'll just address one point. The blog claims that "rights," as created under the MMA are "civil rights." I don't know if you are using that term very loosely or if you actually believe they are civil rights. The fact is they aren't civil rights. Civil rights are inalienable. They are rights possessed just by virtue of being a citizen. The "rights" created by the MMA, or more accurately described, privileges, are not inalienable. The privileges are surrendered at the moment you no longer are a qualifying patient. They are also surrendered if you violate the act, even if you are a qualifying patient.

 

The difference is important because you have greater protections under the law for civil rights. Privileges are not as thoroughly protected. Think of it this way, you don't have a right to a drivers' license. You have to meet certain qualifications to obtain a drivers' license. You DON'T have to meet certain requirements to have a right against self-incrimination.

 

That's it in a nutshell. I think a lot of the other issues are already laid out in other threads.

 

In the law you can have your ID card revoked, under limited conditions.

 

That said, you would still be able to present the affirmative defense without the ID card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DenturesLost Advanced Member

DenturesLost

Posted
Posted

In the law you can have your ID card revoked, under limited conditions.

 

That said, you would still be able to present the affirmative defense without the ID card.

Exactly. And one of those "limited conditions" is no longer being a qualifying patient. In other words no longer suffering from the ailment that intially qualified you. At that point you no longer have protections under the act.

 

You are confusing "registered qualifying patient" with "qualifying patient." The reason I used the term qualifying patient is because I was covering for those who are not registered but who still have protections under the act. However, a qualifying patient does have fewer protections under the act. But that isn't my point. My point is that the privileges extended under the act are NOT civil rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanutbutter Advanced Member

peanutbutter

Posted
Posted

Exactly. And one of those "limited conditions" is no longer being a qualifying patient. In other words no longer suffering from the ailment that intially qualified you. At that point you no longer have protections under the act.

 

You are confusing "registered qualifying patient" with "qualifying patient." The reason I used the term qualifying patient is because I was covering for those who are not registered but who still have protections under the act. However, a qualifying patient does have fewer protections under the act. But that isn't my point. My point is that the privileges extended under the act are NOT civil rights.

 

You have more education on the topic than I do.

 

One COA ruled that these are rights.

 

One COA judge said they are not rights. Not a ruling. Just one judge there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...