Confidentiality .. It's In The Law. So What Does It Do For Us?

[peanutbutter]

So far ..

 

The discussion that had been taking place here had split out into several threads.

 

I'd like the discussion to be located in one place so that in the future there would be some hope of locating the discussion.

 

I'll try to bring it home now.

 

There have been several opinions expressed that seem to be well informed.

 

Claims of some sort of immunity have been expressed about nearly every person, or office, listed in section 6 (h) (4) of the law.

 

If I say "judge" DL quickly pops up and claims that a judge is protected by immunity. DL can not say that for a fact because it has never been tried in Michigan courts.

 

If I say "PA" the same series of statements takes place. Again this has never been tested in Michigan courts.

 

If I say "police officer" something gets muttered about "the regular function of his job." Again never tested in Michigan courts.

 

If I say the "clerk at the desk in City Hall" I get the same kind of thing. Again .. never tested in court.

 

If I try to say that the patient is protected by this section of law, I'm knocked back by "you can't say that the law does that because it hasn't been tested in courts."

 

If testing in courts is the determinant factor, then no one is protected at all.

 

People come here to get a view of what the community feels the law provides. Few are asking what the courts have already done.

 

Included with those patients and caregivers looking for answers there are also those of the "other side" that come here looking for answers.

 

If we give the "other side" the impression that they are immune from this crime, they will act that way. This encourages "them" to commit crimes against "us" that they may be convicted of later.

 

Again I'll ask.

 

Who can commit this crime?

 

-- 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 --

[jtgeme]

 

Again I'll ask.

 

Who can commit this crime?

 

-- 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

 

Looking only at this portion of the statute...

 

An employee or official of the department. "The department" is defined as the MDOCH.

Or another state agency or local unit of government. To me, this means any state agency (Sec. of State, State Police, DNR, etc.)

 

Would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

But as an attorney, I would be giving you misguided, misleading, and mistaken advice if I only told you that. Its important to take it all as a whole, and not just the MMA. Because your going after a state agency, immunity does play a role - a big role. So while the law is drafted clearly on this point, if a state agent was charged under this provision (and the charge would have to come from a prosecutor/attorney general), they would claim immunity protection. Would it work? I have no idea. Are all state agents immune from liability from "breaking the law"? Absolutely not - Remember Mayor Kilpatrick?

 

I agree, the statute is clear, but without a test case, as of now, its just words on a page. And its impossible for us (the public at large, not just the MMMA Community) to get a test case.

 

Keep in mind the legislature can pass a law that says "No speaking in a public park, at all, ever." On its face, the law is clear - no speaking. But who will enforce it? How will it be enforced? And when challenged is it valid? Granted, I chose an extreme example but the point is this, a law maybe clear on its face, but until tested it it is questionable as to how it will play out.

 

In my opinion, hanging your (not you personally PB) hat on a provision such as this is, strategically, not right, especially when so many other portions of the law are undefined. If our friends at Clinical Relief are acquitted - after all appeals and everything else, the next prosecutor to take this type of action could be subject to this provision. But, hypothetically, lets say that dispensaries are found to be illegal in the state - while this provision still stands, its power is significantly weaker. Does that make sense?

[DenturesLost]

Prosecutorial and judicial immunities have most definitely been tested in court. To suggest that no one tried to sue or prosecute with the mma as a basis for a cause of action is to be disingenuous as to the legal issue involoved. Arguing the issue is really not worth it anymore. Without the background knowledge necessary to understand the interplay between the constitutions, statutes, court rules, etc., it is awfully difficult for someone to understand concepts when they are trying to wrestle with one discrete part and disregard EVERYTHING else.

 

For lack of a better analogy I would compare it to a killing. If I shoot and kill Joe Blow with intent to kill you would take the position that it is murder. I argue that he broke into my house, had a gun, and said he was going to kill me. I claim, and can prove, a case of self defense. Yet you harp on it and say no way, look at the elements of the murder statute--you met all elements so its murder--the law clearly states that killing with intent is murder.

[DT61]

Who can commit this crime?

 

Quote

 

-- 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 --

 

It is answered in the statement and is not i need of further definition, IMHO.

" an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government" is the answer.

 

There have beeen no tests regarding this in court due to the law being relatively new and only provisions of the law so far being touched on.

There also, so far remains little legal action from our side of the fence on township and city moratoriums.

We have been vocal, but that is different than establishing legal precedence as some of the posters here can attest too far too much.

Many of these things take deep pockets and also a physical toll on already sick patients, who want nothing more than peace and safety.

 

[DenturesLost]

Looking only at this portion of the statute...

 

An employee or official of the department. "The department" is defined as the MDOCH.

Or another state agency or local unit of government. To me, this means any state agency (Sec. of State, State Police, DNR, etc.)

 

Would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

But as an attorney, I would be giving you misguided, misleading, and mistaken advice if I only told you that. Its important to take it all as a whole, and not just the MMA. Because your going after a state agency, immunity does play a role - a big role. So while the law is drafted clearly on this point, if a state agent was charged under this provision (and the charge would have to come from a prosecutor/attorney general), they would claim immunity protection. Would it work? I have no idea. Are all state agents immune from liability from "breaking the law"? Absolutely not - Remember Mayor Kilpatrick?

 

I agree, the statute is clear, but without a test case, as of now, its just words on a page. And its impossible for us (the public at large, not just the MMMA Community) to get a test case.

 

Keep in mind the legislature can pass a law that says "No speaking in a public park, at all, ever." On its face, the law is clear - no speaking. But who will enforce it? How will it be enforced? And when challenged is it valid? Granted, I chose an extreme example but the point is this, a law maybe clear on its face, but until tested it it is questionable as to how it will play out.

 

In my opinion, hanging your (not you personally PB) hat on a provision such as this is, strategically, not right, especially when so many other portions of the law are undefined. If our friends at Clinical Relief are acquitted - after all appeals and everything else, the next prosecutor to take this type of action could be subject to this provision. But, hypothetically, lets say that dispensaries are found to be illegal in the state - while this provision still stands, its power is significantly weaker. Does that make sense?

 

 

Good response but one thing missing when asking the question as to who could be criminally liable is not just WHO did it but HOW. Immunity applies in many situations under different rules. To argue that a judge can commit the crime is fine and correct under limited circumstances. If the judge is not at work and divulges confidential info then he probably committed the crime. At work and while doing the work as a judge he has judicial immunity. No one is saying a judge can't commit a crime. If he drew a gun from the bench and shot someone then it is a crime because it wasn't an act performed and necessary for doing his job. making a ruling on what can and cannot be allowed as evidence and whether that evidence can be concealed from the public is absolutely part of the judge's job. Every single ruling that is appealed has at least one person on one side thinking that the judge made the wrong decision or did something contrary to the law. Such is the nature of being a judge and THUS immunity.

 

There is a distinction to be made as to WHAT the person was doing. Was it discretionary or ministerial? How does that factor in to possible liability? What type of governmental employee are you accusing? What was that employee's job? To make a blanket statement that certain people are subject to the provision is to simply NOT understand the law. To understand the law you should either read up or take a class because I guarantee that this thread cannot educate anyone as to the requirements under the law as to who is liable, when they are liable, how they are liable.

 

With all that said and with those protections/immunities aside, the bottom line is that a judge is not breaching confidentiality by repeating something that is part of public record/from the court below. You can say what you want and you can wish that they were, but it ain't happening. To argue that something is still confidential "because the law says it is" even though it has been made part of a public record is to just flat out not understand the law and its interplay.

[peanutbutter]

Good response but one thing missing when asking the question as to who could be criminally liable is not just WHO did it but HOW. Immunity applies in many situations under different rules. To argue that a judge can commit the crime is fine and correct under limited circumstances. If the judge is not at work and divulges confidential info then he probably committed the crime. At work and while doing the work as a judge he has judicial immunity. No one is saying a judge can't commit a crime. If he drew a gun from the bench and shot someone then it is a crime because it wasn't an act performed and necessary for doing his job. making a ruling on what can and cannot be allowed as evidence and whether that evidence can be concealed from the public is absolutely part of the judge's job. Every single ruling that is appealed has at least one person on one side thinking that the judge made the wrong decision or did something contrary to the law. Such is the nature of being a judge and THUS immunity.

 

So then there could be a question of weather or not divulging the information was material to the case. Correct?

 

There is a distinction to be made as to WHAT the person was doing. Was it discretionary or ministerial? How does that factor in to possible liability? What type of governmental employee are you accusing? What was that employee's job? To make a blanket statement that certain people are subject to the provision is to simply NOT understand the law. To understand the law you should either read up or take a class because I guarantee that this thread cannot educate anyone as to the requirements under the law as to who is liable, when they are liable, how they are liable.

 

Are you trying to argue that we shouldn't understand the law? I think it is our responsibility to understand the law. To the point of going to jail if we don't.

 

The risk from trying to apply our new law applies to both sides. "Us" and "them." Would you promote keeping a police officer blind of the crime they are thinking about committing?

 

With all that said and with those protections/immunities aside, the bottom line is that a judge is not breaching confidentiality by repeating something that is part of public record/from the court below. You can say what you want and you can wish that they were, but it ain't happening. To argue that something is still confidential "because the law says it is" even though it has been made part of a public record is to just flat out not understand the law and its interplay.

 

The law defines these items of information as "confidential." There is nothing in the law that says when that ends.

 

So show me where that has been determined by law or court ruling.

 

It hasn't been. So your view is simply your view.

[peanutbutter]

Looking only at this portion of the statute...

 

An employee or official of the department. "The department" is defined as the MDOCH.

Or another state agency or local unit of government. To me, this means any state agency (Sec. of State, State Police, DNR, etc.)

 

Would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

But as an attorney, I would be giving you misguided, misleading, and mistaken advice if I only told you that. Its important to take it all as a whole, and not just the MMA. Because your going after a state agency, immunity does play a role - a big role. So while the law is drafted clearly on this point, if a state agent was charged under this provision (and the charge would have to come from a prosecutor/attorney general), they would claim immunity protection. Would it work? I have no idea. Are all state agents immune from liability from "breaking the law"? Absolutely not - Remember Mayor Kilpatrick?

 

Overlooked officials and employees of "local units of government."

 

I'm thinking that it may be in our communities best interest that an Amicus brief gets filed in every mmj case. By the ACLU or perhaps even someone like the MMMA. So that the section of law is pointed out to all parties involved.

 

Then we have the workers that are accepting permit applications for cities and other local units of government.

 

Permits in which confidential information is required to be submitted to the employee of the local unit of government.

[DenturesLost]

So then there could be a question of weather or not divulging the information was material to the case. Correct?

 

 

 

Are you trying to argue that we shouldn't understand the law? I think it is our responsibility to understand the law. To the point of going to jail if we don't.

 

The risk from trying to apply our new law applies to both sides. "Us" and "them." Would you promote keeping a police officer blind of the crime they are thinking about committing?

 

 

 

The law defines these items of information as "confidential." There is nothing in the law that says when that ends.

 

So show me where that has been determined by law or court ruling.

 

It hasn't been. So your view is simply your view.

Shouldn't understand the law? Should--but sometimes some people simply refuse to because they so desperately want things to be how they wish they were rather than how they are-- that or they don't have the requisite education to understand. That's life I suppose. Some people require their hand held while being walked through things and they still get lost.

 

As for confidential info and the law, you are thoroughly confused. You don't understand what confidential means nor do you understand the concept of waiver. That being the case there is no reason to discuss this any further.

 

As a realist I've tried to explain things legally. When that didn't work I tried to dumb it down. That hasn't worked either. Maybe I'm just a lousy teacher. That could be it you know. Regardless my efforts are being misplaced so I'm throwing in the towel.

 

I'll be honest, I think you medicate too much before posting. I've seen you argue that the Saginaw sheriff conspired to commit murder and that he probably positioned snipers to kill people during last summer's protest. I've seen you announce that "we won the war" and marijuana has now been moved to schedule II. I've seen you claim that X% (67?) of Republicans voted yes on MM based on a poll taken 6 months prior to the election. And the list goes on. Those are the types of things that demonstrate state of mind and make the general public think we are just a bunch of pothead wackos. No offense but stick to the oil as logical reasoning isn't your strong suit.

[DenturesLost]

If you really think so little of peanutbutter, why spend so much time trying to convince him of your perspective? I really wish you could convey your points without being so insulting. You lose credibility when you treat people that way.

 

Why not answer my question above? It is a tough one, eh?

I'm not insulting anyone, I'm pointing out facts.

 

Frankly I am insulted that someone would post, as true, something that could land others in hot water. You apparently don't feel the same way. Adamantly conveying a position in a manner that leads people to believe that what you say is fact, when you are a moderator, is negligent at best. PB himself complains that the sheriff misled people into believing they are safe. Then PB turns around and does the same thing. To tell people they are protected under certain circumstances when you really are clueless as to whether they are is astounding to me. To argue that people trusted the sheriff in his assurance that the clinic was legal, even though the sheriff is notoriously against MM, and then to go on your own rant basically telling people they are legal or in what circumstances they are legal, when you have no clue, is reckless on the part of a moderator.

 

Maybe all of that is okay with you. It isn't okay with me.

[DenturesLost]

why spend so much time trying to convince

And that, my friend, is why...

[DenturesLost]

Sometimes. But sometimes you are just stating your opinion, based on past experience, sure, but opinion nonetheless. We will have to wait for case law to decide. Personally I think the law will come down closer to how peanutbutter sees it, but it will be a hard battle that we don't quite know how to fight yet. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight it.

 

People must know what they are getting into, sure, but just because this law has new things in it and they are going to make mistakes in the beginning doesn't mean we should voluntarily contract what we know the law means when we educate people.

Define opinion. Just because we don't have caselaw to interpret every little word does not mean that interpreting a word based on accepted practices is opinion. That's kind of my point. If there is any good chance that something could be interpreted differently then believe me, I would accept that. I don't want egg on my face.

 

I respect your position as I do everyone's. If anything was seen as an insult then I would suggest people develop thicker skin. I didn't cry insult when people used my screenname to insult me. I could also point out many times when PB has said things that aren't exactly contributive to the discussion but, rather, are by design constructed to insult me. But I'm not a namby pamby and frankly I don't care.

 

With all of that said I apologize if I hurt someone's feelings.

[peanutbutter]

I'm not insulting anyone, I'm pointing out facts.

 

Frankly I am insulted that someone would post, as true, something that could land others in hot water. You apparently don't feel the same way. Adamantly conveying a position in a manner that leads people to believe that what you say is fact, when you are a moderator, is negligent at best. PB himself complains that the sheriff misled people into believing they are safe. Then PB turns around and does the same thing. To tell people they are protected under certain circumstances when you really are clueless as to whether they are is astounding to me. To argue that people trusted the sheriff in his assurance that the clinic was legal, even though the sheriff is notoriously against MM, and then to go on your own rant basically telling people they are legal or in what circumstances they are legal, when you have no clue, is reckless on the part of a moderator.

 

Maybe all of that is okay with you. It isn't okay with me.

 

But it's OK for you to tell judges, PA's and police officers that they can ignore this section of law aimed directly at them?

 

I don't know for a fact because there has been zero test cases, but you can tell us these folks can ignore the law.

 

I'm not OK with that. I'm not OK with the system thinking they have a blank check to ignore the law.

[Wayne'sWorld]

I'm a lawyer, your a lawyer, he's a lawyer, she's a lawyer, wouldn't you like to be a lawyer too? Anybody can a lawyer, not hard being a lawyer. Anybody can be a lawyer, just hang a shingle and be a lawyer. Everybody can readily pass the bar and it's not even a requirement, is it? Now file those Amicus briefs and get 'er done!

[peanutbutter]

I respect your position as I do everyone's. If anything was seen as an insult then I would suggest people develop thicker skin. I didn't cry insult when people used my screenname to insult me. I could also point out many times when PB has said things that aren't exactly contributive to the discussion but, rather, are by design constructed to insult me. But I'm not a namby pamby and frankly I don't care.

 

It's the volume that we have to dig through to find anything useful to understand how our world is supposed to work.

 

You conceal your weakness by with clouds of "you don't know squat" stuff.

 

The general impression is that you are trying to do damage control. Trying to make sure that nobody starts to wonder why nobody has been arrested for this crime.

 

Some folks that seem to be "in the know" say this law will never be enforced. Those within the system do what they can to protect themselves. The typical pattern is for a PA or judge to say there is some sort of immunity for their own actions.

 

IN the Ferndale case, the UC sold an ounce of marijuana to the people and then arrested the same people for selling marijuana.

 

Somehow our system has arrived at the point where it is legal for the UC to sell marijuana but it's not OK for anyone else to do so.

 

Sickening .. revolting.

 

And you are quick to support the "right" of the police to do so.

 

It is wrong. And it's an insult to the voters of this state. An abuse of power to attempt to undermine the power of the voters.

[DenturesLost]

But it's OK for you to tell judges, PA's and police officers that they can ignore this section of law aimed directly at them?

 

I don't know for a fact because there has been zero test cases, but you can tell us these folks can ignore the law.

 

I'm not OK with that. I'm not OK with the system thinking they have a blank check to ignore the law.

We don't need a test case to interpret a law based on common and accepted statutory interpretation rules. Do we need a test case to decide how to interpret the word "the" before we accept its meaning? NO.

 

Are there individual issues in the law that do need to go to the supremes to be worked out? Yes. However, there aren't nearly as many as you would have people believe. The fact that you say that the section of the law is aimed directly at so and so doesn't make it fact. There are bullet-proof arguments to the contrary. Are there situations where the criminal section applies? Yes. However, it isn't as broad as you are trying to make people believe. Much of your argument is contrary to common sense, commonly accepted grammar, and commonly accepted rules for statutory interpretation. That isn't an insult, it's a fact. You are all of the board with everything. You equivocate like no one's business. You apply different meanings to different words as it fits your needs. I counted no few than 3 different definitions you were trying to apply to the word confidential. It changes every time you want to make it fit into your argument. You simply cannot do that while interpreting a law in a proper manner. That isn't how it works.

 

An example is your argument as to the meaning of "including" in the confidentiality section. You interpret it with a meaning that apparently comes from PB's Big Book of the Revised English Language. Because no where can it be found to mean what you say it does. Not in any dictionary, not under any legal precedent, not in any grammar book, and not in any common usage. Yet you insist that you are correct and the rest of the English speaking world is apparently wrong.

[peanutbutter]

We don't need a test case to interpret a law based on common and accepted statutory interpretation rules. Do we need a test case to decide how to interpret the word "the" before we accept its meaning? NO.

 

Good to see. Yes the courts must rule on many of the issues that are headlines today. Even the ones that are very clear. The main reason is that there are those in power that wish the entire law to go away. Every single word that they can nibble away, they will. The attack to do so is taking place on several fronts at the same time.

 

These jail terms they wish to go away ASAP. "They" first wish that everyone ignore the section of law. Everyone gets convniced that it will never be applied. Never .. under no circumstances at all. That is helped when a COA judge looks at every jot and tittle of the law while ignoring the one section that just might possibly land the judge himself in jail and then tells everyone to avoid reading the law. Perhaps the judge also feels that voters should avoid making law. As in "don't worry about something you can't understand."

 

Are there individual issues in the law that do need to go to the supremes to be worked out? Yes. However, there aren't nearly as many as you would have people believe. The fact that you say that the section of the law is aimed directly at so and so doesn't make it fact. There are bullet-proof arguments to the contrary. Are there situations where the criminal section applies? Yes. However, it isn't as broad as you are trying to make people believe. Much of your argument is contrary to common sense, commonly accepted grammar, and commonly accepted rules for statutory interpretation. That isn't an insult, it's a fact. You are all of the board with everything. You equivocate like no one's business. You apply different meanings to different words as it fits your needs. I counted no few than 3 different definitions you were trying to apply to the word confidential. It changes every time you want to make it fit into your argument. You simply cannot do that while interpreting a law in a proper manner. That isn't how it works.

 

There are two ways that word is being used.

 

The first is what are the things that are considered to be within the "confidential" box.

The second is what does being "confidential" mean to those items that are within that box.

 

"Waiver" is one thing that might .. might .. might modify the impact of the "box" has on the items within it. Those items are still in the box, because the mmj law places them there. How much of an impact the box has on the items within it might vary, depending on other factors.

 

I can sign a waiver for the records about me that the MDCH holds. That isn't enough for them to release copies of my application. Their rules say they will not release information from their file without waivers from everyone named in the application, supporting documents and information.

 

An example is your argument as to the meaning of "including" in the confidentiality section. You interpret it with a meaning that apparently comes from PB's Big Book of the Revised English Language. Because no where can it be found to mean what you say it does. Not in any dictionary, not under any legal precedent, not in any grammar book, and not in any common usage. Yet you insist that you are correct and the rest of the English speaking world is apparently wrong.

 

Again, I insist that are two possible ways to look at that sentence. One is where everyone is included, but most importantly those within that list.

 

The other way is that it includes only those within the list.

 

The major point is that those on the list are spotlighted. They are the clear target of the section.

[DenturesLost]

It's the volume that we have to dig through to find anything useful to understand how our world is supposed to work.

 

You conceal your weakness by with clouds of "you don't know squat" stuff.

 

The general impression is that you are trying to do damage control. Trying to make sure that nobody starts to wonder why nobody has been arrested for this crime.

 

Some folks that seem to be "in the know" say this law will never be enforced. Those within the system do what they can to protect themselves. The typical pattern is for a PA or judge to say there is some sort of immunity for their own actions.

 

IN the Ferndale case, the UC sold an ounce of marijuana to the people and then arrested the same people for selling marijuana.

 

Somehow our system has arrived at the point where it is legal for the UC to sell marijuana but it's not OK for anyone else to do so.

 

Sickening .. revolting.

 

And you are quick to support the "right" of the police to do so.

 

It is wrong. And it's an insult to the voters of this state. An abuse of power to attempt to undermine the power of the voters.

The power of the voters? Really? Somehow you think the VOTERS anticipated your interpretation of the act? Give me a break. I can say the same thing about my interpretation of the act.

 

Your suggestion that undercover cops using a sale as a sting is bad blatantly reveals your position. Basically you want a state of anarchy. Do I want cops to be able to do that? What if the cops is selling a handgun, with the serial number scratched off, to a street thug in a sting? It's illegal to sell a gun with no serial number. Maybe the cops should never do that to catch the thugs huh?

 

It's illegal to sell oxycontin without a script. Would you protest cops selling it in large quantities to dealers who then pass it on to our kids and ruin their lives?

 

Make some sense at least. Tell us you're an anrachist or tells us that you want to be able to pick and choose which laws are enforced.

[DenturesLost]

Again, I insist that are two possible ways to look at that sentence. One is where everyone is included, but most importantly those within that list.

 

The other way is that it includes only those within the list.

 

Funny how you insist THAT now. Scroll up in this very thread and watch the evolution of your opinion. You INSISTED that the word "including" meant ONLY what was listed. Now you insist there are 2 ways to interpret it???

 

Alas, that is exactly my point. You insist something that has no basis in fact. Nothing at all supports that interpretation other than your insistence. Grammatical rules don't support it--statutory interpretation doesn't support it--contract interpretation doesn't support it. There is NO support for that position other than you "hold" that that is the meaning. Throw logical reasoning and accepted practices out the window in favor of PB's insistence!?!?!?!???

[peanutbutter]

Funny how you insist THAT now. Scroll up in this very thread and watch the evolution of your opinion. You INSISTED that the word "including" meant ONLY what was listed. Now you insist there are 2 ways to interpret it???

 

Alas, that is exactly my point. You insist something that has no basis in fact. Nothing at all supports that interpretation other than your insistence. Grammatical rules don't support it--statutory interpretation doesn't support it--contract interpretation doesn't support it. There is NO support for that position other than you "hold" that that is the meaning. Throw logical reasoning and accepted practices out the window in favor of PB's insistence!?!?!?!???

 

Is there a problem with acknowledging there is more that one view on the subject?

[peanutbutter]

The supertanker of official perception is already turning.

 

Much of the system in Oakland county is in CYA mode. Not that they wish to protect patients or caregivers.

 

They wish to make sure their own backside is covered.

 

This involves actually reading the confidentiality section of the law. Something that Judge O'Connell wants everyone to avoid.

[DenturesLost]

Is there a problem with acknowledging there is more that one view on the subject?

What is the other view? In what treatise, dictionary, English professor, encyclopedia, caselaw, statute, or ANYTHING is there anything that supports YOUR interpretation that "including" means "including, AND EXCLUSIVE, of the following..."? The "other" view is the view in your head. Plain and simple. There is nothing to support that view, while there are VOLUMES to support the correct view. You want the law to read how YOU WANT it to read and reasoning with you has failed.

[peanutbutter]

You want the law to read how YOU WANT it to read and reasoning with you has failed.

 

And you seem to claim that you already know things that still need to be determined in court.

 

I suppose that might be the case if you were a judge that has pre-determined any case that might come before you.

[DenturesLost]

And you seem to claim that you already know things that still need to be determined in court.

Grammatical use of the term including does need to be determined in court.

 

Argung that a COA judge breaches confidentiality by repeating things in public record is absurd and has no basis in logic or law no matter how you want to try and make it fit. That doesn't need to be determined in court either.

[peanutbutter]

Grammatical use of the term including does need to be determined in court.

 

Argung that a COA judge breaches confidentiality by repeating things in public record is absurd and has no basis in logic or law no matter how you want to try and make it fit. That doesn't need to be determined in court either.

 

I am fairly confident that if you ask any judge "are you a criminal" nearly every one of them would say "of course I'm not a criminal."

[peanutbutter]

Grammatical use of the term including does need to be determined in court.

 

I would disagree with you there.

 

We have plenty of situations where a local law attempts to require a patient and or caregiver to disclose confidential information to that local unit of government.

 

So does that step require the patient and or caregiver to violate criminal law?