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

[DenturesLost]

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."

I am just as certain that if you line up 10 people with an IQ of at least 110 each that every one of those people would agree that your arguments lack any foundation whatsoever and that they are based on fallacies.

 

But while we're at it let's get it determined in court. And once the conservative Mich. Sup. Ct. makes its decision I'd bet dollars to donuts that your next argument will be that the court shouldn't have determined the meaning of a word.

 

What you should do is make good use of your time and track down that Van Dussen character (I think he was the one) who posted the COA's opinion in the case to which you are referring. That rascal needs to be prosecuted for violating confidentiality by posting that opinion! Maybe you can give him a spanking in the wood shed though because I'd hate to see him go to jail for pasting a COA's opinion even though he DID break the law.

[peanutbutter]

What you should do is make good use of your time and track down that Van Dussen character (I think he was the one) who posted the COA's opinion in the case to which you are referring. That rascal needs to be prosecuted for violating confidentiality by posting that opinion! Maybe you can give him a spanking in the wood shed though because I'd hate to see him go to jail for pasting a COA's opinion even though he DID break the law.

 

Eric is a civilian.

[DenturesLost]

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?

Only if they disclose in violation of the act. So tell me how the disclosure violated the act. And don't try to use the punishment section to create the violation. Tell precisely where they violated the act.

 

I already know what you will say. The same old argument, "it says "in violation of this act."

 

If I make up rules for a school and there is a section on running and it states no one is to run in the halls, no one is to run in the class, no one is to run in the cafeteria AND there is a punishment section which states "anyone who runs in violation of these rules is subject to a spanking" THAT DOESN'T MAKE RUNNING A VIOLATION!!!!! Can you comprehend that? Under those rules running can occur outside or in the gym and it ISN'T a VIOLATION!!!!

 

It's simple English! Yet you somehow want to twist it to make it into something else. YOU HAVE TO FIND A VIOLATION IN THE ACT. It's as simple as that. And no where in the act does it state that a patient is not allowed to disclose their own info. If you don't get that simple English then there is NO NEED to go any further on this argument because you simply are not grasping it.

[peanutbutter]

Here .. argue with the MDCH

 

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.

 

(5) Violation of these confidentiality rules may subject an individual to the penalties provided for under section 6(h)(4) of the act.

[DenturesLost]

Here .. argue with the MDCH

Read sub (2). That makes it abundantly clear that the information being referred to is information IN THE MDCH's possession!!!

 

"accessed or released to authorized employees of the department"

 

In other words they have a duty to protect that info that they possess.

 

If the info is also elsewhere in the world that doesn't even apply to the MDCH.

 

What you are suggesting is that the MDCH has a duty to keep info confidential that they don't even possess. You are completely taking the rule out of context and misapplying it. There aren't enough minutes in the day to make you understand. Beyond that, we aren't discussing the rules we are discussing the act. Does that make a difference? Yes. Why? Because just because the agency promulgates rules that doesn't mean the rules define the act. The act defines the scope of the rules. The act is a delegation of power to the MDCH and that power is limited so to use the rules to define the act is sheer folly. Many many times rules are found to be ultra vires (beyond the scope of the agencies power). However, even if we went down that road and used the rules to define the act, in this case the rules actually HURT your position. I don't know how you don't see that.

 

If I had a retarded cousin I would probably explain something to him 3 or 4 times. After that if he didn't get it I would assume it was beyond his comprehension and give up. I am at that point with you. I really honestly think this is beyond your comprehension. No offense, heart surgery is beyond mine. We should all know and accept our limitations.

[peanutbutter]

Read sub (2). That makes it abundantly clear that the information being referred to is information IN THE MDCH's possession!!!

 

"accessed or released to authorized employees of the department"

 

In other words they have a duty to protect that info that they possess.

 

If the info is also elsewhere in the world that doesn't even apply to the MDCH.

 

What you are suggesting is that the MDCH has a duty to keep info confidential that they don't even possess. You are completely taking the rule out of context and misapplying it. There aren't enough minutes in the day to make you understand. Beyond that, we aren't discussing the rules we are discussing the act. Does that make a difference? Yes. Why? Because just because the agency promulgates rules that doesn't mean the rules define the act. The act defines the scope of the rules. The act is a delegation of power to the MDCH and that power is limited so to use the rules to define the act is sheer folly. Many many times rules are found to be ultra vires (beyond the scope of the agencies power). However, even if we went down that road and used the rules to define the act, in this case the rules actually HURT your position. I don't know how you don't see that.

 

If I had a retarded cousin I would probably explain something to him 3 or 4 times. After that if he didn't get it I would assume it was beyond his comprehension and give up. I at that point with you. I really honestly think this is beyond your comprehension. No offense, heart surgery is beyond mine. We should all know and accept our limitations.

 

Oh common .. I'm simply quoting a source of authority.

 

I think I'm seeing a suggestion that the rules of the MDCH only apply to the MDCH and no one else.

 

The MDCH obviously saw the law as including every method in which disclosure might take place with the exception of those methods that are distinctly allowed.

 

Your view is that disclosure is allowed in every way with the exception of those things that are distinctly listed as forbidden.

 

You perceive my view as having no weight. So I quoted the existing authoritative statement.

[DenturesLost]

Oh common .. I'm simply quoting a source of authority.

 

I think I'm seeing a suggestion that the rules of the MDCH only apply to the MDCH and no one else.

 

The MDCH obviously saw the law as including every method in which disclosure might take place with the exception of those methods that are distinctly allowed.

 

Your view is that disclosure is allowed in every way with the exception of those things that are distinctly listed as forbidden.

 

You perceive my view as having no weight. So I quoted the existing authoritative statement.

That's not authority. The rules don't trump the law. The rules are useless in this regard. If any court ever had to interpret the law they wouldn't go to the rules for help with interpretation.

 

I never said the rules in general only apply to the MDCH. You really ought try to read in a more discriminating manner.

 

The fact that you think the rules have any authority as to interpreting the law tends to show your knowledge of the legal system. This is indicative of most of your arguments and I guess I'm at my wit's end with my retarded cousin, so to speak (just an anology try not to cry and take it personally). So I give up. You can run around and espouse craziness so we all look like a bunch of buffoons.

 

I have an idea. If you think I am all wrong why not draw a lawyer into the discussion. If I'm not mistaken komorn is a mod, right? Ask him to chime in as I'd really rather argue constructively with someone who at least vaguely understands the system.

[peanutbutter]

I never said the rules in general only apply to the MDCH. You really ought try to read in a more discriminating manner.

 

Good .. got you to answer that question.

 

thanks

[peanutbutter]

That's not authority. The rules don't trump the law. The rules are useless in this regard. If any court ever had to interpret the law they wouldn't go to the rules for help with interpretation.

 

Odd .. the judge in Kalkaska read those rules to determine a proper course of action.

[DenturesLost]

Good .. got you to answer that question.

 

thanks

I don't know what that means. I said the rules IN GENERAL don't only apply to the MDCH. There ARE rules that only apply to the MDCH. If you read them it's pretty clear.

[peanutbutter]

I have an idea. If you think I am all wrong why not draw a lawyer into the discussion. If I'm not mistaken komorn is a mod, right? Ask him to chime in as I'd really rather argue constructively with someone who at least vaguely understands the system.

 

chuckle .. there have been several already posting here on this thread.

 

I WANT them to express their views.

[DenturesLost]

chuckle .. there have been several already posting here on this thread.

 

I WANT them to express their views.

So ask komorn to come on here. He can post a disclaimer in his signature that his opinion isn't legal advice. Let's have a real debate with someone who understands the law.

[jtgeme]

I think the two of you illustrate where the law is at perfectly....looking for a third party to moderate or offer some opinion. That is essentially the role of the judge. There will be no winning this debate.

 

Where reasonable minds can differ; any reasonable conclusion is valid.

 

Just my humble opinion.

[bobandtorey]

Then there's social retardation. The fact that you seem content to argue the same minute point over and over because you think it allows you to make peanut butter look stupid makes me think you may suffer from one or more personality disorders. I am 100% certain that peanut butter has conceded your tiny point multiple times and yet you still persist.

 

The real topic here, which you are avoiding, is that there is wording in the law that penalizes, fairly harshly, the disclosure of the confidential patient registry information. At the very least, the wording in this section pertains to employees and officials of the MDCH, as well as employees and officials of state and local governments.

 

The spirit of this section has been violated numerous times. The question before us is whether or not the law was written with teeth enough to allow us to punish those that violated it, and if so, how do we do it and who goes first?

 

I'll go first we like being the first in lots of things when we got Raided we had to leave are home just because it was all over the news and we were not safe

i think peanut butter makes some good points all of us don't need are business all over the news theirt should be someting we can do about that

[peanutbutter]

I think the two of you illustrate where the law is at perfectly....looking for a third party to moderate or offer some opinion. That is essentially the role of the judge. There will be no winning this debate.

 

Where reasonable minds can differ; any reasonable conclusion is valid.

 

Just my humble opinion.

 

Thanks for that. There should be areas that all can agree on.

 

If those can be located, then we should be able to say "the law says this."

 

It seems to me that DL is simply trying to prove that O'Connell was right. Nobody should try to understand this law.

 

That we should know our limits and stop worrying about such things.

 

Then he states, as if for a fact, that various immunities are granted for nearly everyone on the list. Something that can not be stated until it has been tried in court.

 

DL states that judges are not expected to know the law. That is the reason that they are granted immunity. In this case, I disagree. For instance there is a judge in Michigan that is facing life in prison right now. For action from the bench.

 

A judge is indeed required to know the law just as well as any defendant in any other crime, if they are the accused defendant resulting from their own actions. Even from the bench.

 

I think that immunity, from criminal law intended for government officials, would be difficult for a judge or PA to claim.

 

If this immunity was based on Michigan law, then our new law would over rule the older law.

 

Existing case law may also not apply, depending on the grounds argued by the case that formed the case law. The case law would probably not involve a law that targets government officials.

 

Federal law and federal case law? Federal case law will probably be based on laws that don't target government officials either. Federal law? I don't believe there is federal law that protects judges violating law that targets government officials either.

 

They have the liability, weather they know the law or not.

 

I didn't bother to argue these points as I was looking for areas that we agree on first.

[jtgeme]

I didn't bother to argue these points as I was looking for areas that we agree on first.

 

Makes perfect sense; iron out what is not being contested, and you are left with only the parts that are questionable - its efficient, and practicing lawyers do this all the time when trying to negotiate settlements - unfortunately, as you demonstrated here - its easier said than done.

 

 

If those can be located, then we should be able to say "the law says this."

 

 

There are those points, unfortunately, this section is not one of them. I think its because its a novel (unique) provision

 

 

It seems to me that DL is simply trying to prove that O'Connell was right. Nobody should try to understand this law.

 

 

I'm not sure that's the message, but everybody is entitled to their own interpretation, and I'm not going to try and change yours because I can see how that could be the case. I think the message is that trying to interpret or understand this provision at this stage is futile because it will have no effect on anything or anybody. Which, fundamentally maybe true, but I don't think its right because its important to engage in these discussions.

 

I browse the posts, comments, and opinions on these forums and it offers some insight to what the community is saying, thinking, etc. Some of the posts offer some unique perspectives on the law, perhaps something I hadn't thought of and it helps me to develop some strategy going forward. Some posts are off the wall and would never hold water in court and are simply illogical on many levels - but that doesn't mean they are worthless.

 

Bottom line, there is no wrong answer until we get an official answer. Whether this shakes out to our advantage is another post all together. But I appreciate the dialogue and debate, it has value, and I think anybody who thinks otherwise is extremely shortsighted.

[peanutbutter]

Makes perfect sense; iron out what is not being contested, and you are left with only the parts that are questionable - its efficient, and practicing lawyers do this all the time when trying to negotiate settlements - unfortunately, as you demonstrated here - its easier said than done.

 

 

 

There are those points, unfortunately, this section is not one of them. I think its because its a novel (unique) provision

 

 

 

I'm not sure that's the message, but everybody is entitled to their own interpretation, and I'm not going to try and change yours because I can see how that could be the case. I think the message is that trying to interpret or understand this provision at this stage is futile because it will have no effect on anything or anybody. Which, fundamentally maybe true, but I don't think its right because its important to engage in these discussions.

 

I browse the posts, comments, and opinions on these forums and it offers some insight to what the community is saying, thinking, etc. Some of the posts offer some unique perspectives on the law, perhaps something I hadn't thought of and it helps me to develop some strategy going forward. Some posts are off the wall and would never hold water in court and are simply illogical on many levels - but that doesn't mean they are worthless.

 

Bottom line, there is no wrong answer until we get an official answer. Whether this shakes out to our advantage is another post all together. But I appreciate the dialogue and debate, it has value, and I think anybody who thinks otherwise is extremely shortsighted.

 

Thanks for the comments.

 

I believe there is strong resistance to this section of the law being enforced. Much of the resistance isn't intentional. I believe there is a real failure to comprehend caused by disbelief. Shock.

 

I think that the opinion released by O'Connell illustrates this taking place. The judge took thirty pages to discuss a law that is 4 pages long.

 

He spent a great deal of time exploring the many ways that the doctors of this state could be dragged through the coals. Entirely ignoring the confidential nature of the identification of the doctor.

 

In fact in the entire thirty some pages he doesn't even mention that a police officer could go to jail under this law. Doesn't warn anyone at all on that side of the fence that they could go to jail under this law.

 

I'm guessing that when he saw the section, his mind went blank. Then thought "I'll look at this later." Then continued the work without the consideration of this confidentiality section.

 

If you can't even say the name of the doctor, how could the case proceed? And that's the point. These people are not supposed to be in a case. They are supposed to be "hands off."

 

We have folks like the Michigan Municipal League that seem to think that only the MDCH can violate this section and then only if it is in response to a FOIA request.

 

Next step down from that would be that "OK .. I guess others could violate also, but that only applies to FOIA requests."

 

Then Gerold Fischer releases his sixty some page "White paper." In that paper he outlines local regulation by way of licensing patients and caregivers. He notes that this method will likely be challenged and will likely fail the legal challenge.

 

What would that mean to the people holding the illegal files?

 

Local governments are ignoring this section of law. Placing their employees at a possible risk of time in jail.

 

I'm guessing that the first case would go something like this:

A young lady is working at a city and works in the department that accepts the applications for caregivers to grow within the city. She tells her boyfriend about a caregiver. The boyfriend tells a couple of buddies who go rob the caregiver.

 

Then get caught.

 

I figure that the lowest levels of workers in local government are those with the least amount of "immunity" buffer.

 

One thing seems clear to me. If attention isn't brought to this section of law, it probably will not be enforced.

[DenturesLost]

Then there's social retardation. The fact that you seem content to argue the same minute point over and over because you think it allows you to make peanutbutter look stupid makes me think you may suffer from one or more personality disorders. I am 100% certain that peanutbutter has conceded your tiny point multiple times and yet you still persist.

 

The real topic here, which you are avoiding, is that there is wording in the law that penalizes, fairly harshly, the disclosure of the confidential patient registry information. At the very least, the wording in this section pertains to employees and officials of the MDCH, as well as employees and officials of state and local governments.

 

The spirit of this section has been violated numerous times. The question before us is whether or not the law was written with teeth enough to allow us to punish those that violated it, and if so, how do we do it and who goes first?

If you think I'm arguing to make someone look stupid then you aren't keeping up. If you think PB has conceded the point then you aren't keeping up.

If you think the point is too minute to argue then don't read the thread.

You're a good one to complain about personal attacks and then go and do it yourself. I get it, you don't like me or my perspective. So what?

 

I wasn't aware I was avoiding the topic. Apparently I was supposed to address things to your satisfaction to move on. That would require voluminous posts. You really think this is a one paragraph issue?

[Dubliner]

DenturesLost - If I had a retarded cousin I would probably explain something to him 3 or 4 times. After that if he didn't get it I would assume it was beyond his comprehension and give up

 

 

I know what yer talking about with the Retarded Cousin thing , Meet my Cousin Eddie ,,,

 

 

[DenturesLost]

If this immunity was based on Michigan law, then our new law would over rule the older law.

 

Judicial immunity has its foundation in the constitution. The MMA does not "overrule" or trump immunity. In fact the MMA does not "overrule" nearly as much as you think it does. But that's another discussion altogether.

 

You mentioned some judge going to prison for some crime supposedly committed from the bench. I would bet dollars to donuts that whatever it was it was collateral to a judicial act. Can a judge go to prison? Yes. A judge could murder someone "from the bench" and go to prison. However, no judge is going to prison for making a ruling on an issue in a case. You can argue as much as you want that it can happen but it won't. Hows about you post us a link to this mystery judge so we can sort out the true reason for his imprisonment.

[DenturesLost]

Odd .. the judge in Kalkaska read those rules to determine a proper course of action.

LMFAO

So since the Kalkaska judge did something you agree with then he is right and since O'Connell did something you don't agree with then he's wrong. Is that the best you've got?

[DenturesLost]

Your argument is the one that has deviated from the original post. You have highjacked this thread because of a minute grammatical issue that, in my opinion, is not even particularly relevant to the issue we are discussing, since the legislature did take the time to write the "including..." section to ensure that nobody would question whether or not it applied to them. Talk about clear and unambiguous! They all have to follow it, for sure.

 

If we could just get back on topic, I think the thread would be more useful. I will continue to read it in the hopes that we will eventually reach a discussion of how this section can be enforced, and against whom. Additionally, I'd like to figure out how to get the process going, and right now.

I've hijacked the thread? Seriously? Go back and reread.

And let's say for sake of argument I hijacked the thread...maybe the moderator ought to have warned me off huh? He has no problem doing that elsewhere AND HE is the one who started the thread. So, yeah, maybe he should have warned me off OR maybe HE shouldn't have debated the issue, as his continued debate contributed to the "hijacking" huh?

 

Really. Give me a break. Fact is you don't like my opinion so you are grasping at straws. Why not let the author of the thread WHOM IS ALSO A MOD, worry about whether the thread was hijacked. He, afterall, has the power to control things here AND he is more than capable of fighting his own battles so how about you step off.

[peanutbutter]

You mentioned some judge going to prison for some crime supposedly committed from the bench. I would bet dollars to donuts that whatever it was it was collateral to a judicial act. Can a judge go to prison? Yes. A judge could murder someone "from the bench" and go to prison. However, no judge is going to prison for making a ruling on an issue in a case. You can argue as much as you want that it can happen but it won't. Hows about you post us a link to this mystery judge so we can sort out the true reason for his imprisonment.

 

As far as I know there is no conviction yet.

 

As I understand it the judge and a PA have been arrested because they coached a witness how to lie on the stand.

 

Current Michigan case.

[peanutbutter]

OK call the judge a "gray area."

 

How about a county sheriff that hands the confidential information to the DEA?

[DenturesLost]

As far as I know there is no conviction yet.

 

As I understand it the judge and a PA have been arrested because they coached a witness how to lie on the stand.

 

Current Michigan case.

Uh, that's not a judicial act. So, yeah, no judicial immunity there.