Detroit News - Ferndale Detective: "medical Marijuana Card A Fake"

[MI Compassion]

It seems to me like there was no "victim" in this case.

 

I am no legal expert but would this not apply?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFNdUeCAZa0

[bobandtorey]

will that work for us we are being railroaded

[peanutbutter]

will that work for us we are being railroaded

 

NO .. You're not supposed to print your own card .. not even if the police can

 

Anyway .. you would have had to printed it before you got raided.

 

To print your own card, you have to be a police officer trying to sell bad weed.

[MI Compassion]

NO .. You're not supposed to print your own card .. not even if the police can

 

Anyway .. you would have had to printed it before you got raided.

 

To print your own card, you have to be a police officer trying to sell bad weed.

 

Did you watch the youtube video I posted?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFNdUeCAZa0

 

It was sent to me by a good friend of mine... I would think this would be something that we could use to our advantage to combat overzealous LEO's who think it's a good idea to persecute non-violent innocent people who are operating within the limits of a law that some LEO don't agree with. These non-violent offenses that have no victims and which hurt no one should not be prosecutable, and sick people with qualifying medical conditions and those that work hard to help them deserve to not live in fear - this is the will of the people and why it was voted for in our state.

[peanutbutter]

Did you watch the youtube video I posted?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFNdUeCAZa0

 

It was sent to me by a good friend of mine... I would think this would be something that we could use to our advantage to combat overzealous LEO's who think it's a good idea to persecute non-violent innocent people who are operating within the limits of a law that some LEO don't agree with. These non-violent offenses that have no victims and which hurt no one should not be prosecutable, and sick people with qualifying medical conditions and those that work hard to help them deserve to not live in fear - this is the will of the people and why it was voted for in our state.

 

I think these concepts are already being used in our courts.

 

There are several times I remember a defense lawyer objecting to the PA attempting to testify instead of trying to introduce evidence or asking a witness a question.

 

We've been seeing attempts to breach the confidentiality of the patient/doctor relationship based on what they believe. Our law says that a section 4 defense (the immunity section) presumption may be rebutted by evidence.

 

Evidence of abuse of the protections of the ID card is required to continue the case against the defendant.

 

Without the doctor present, there is no evidence that an improper use of medical marijuana has taken place. There is no evidence of a lack of a bonafide relationship existed.

 

There is only the statements of the PA. Those statements are not evidence.

 

IF IF IF the defendant has supplied the doctor for examination, THEN the PA is able to produce that evidence by having the doctor tell on you in court.

 

The problem is that without the evidence to start with, then there is no evidence to proceed.

 

If you have the card the case is not subject to prosecution. Unless there is evidence before the case starts.

 

Without evidence to start with, the case is not allowed to be in court. It has been made illegal for the PA to start the case.

[DenturesLost]

Without evidence to start with, the case is not allowed to be in court. It has been made illegal for the PA to start the case.

You don't understand how the system works.

A case doesn't begin because the PA decides it should. A case begins with a witness, usually a cop, going into court to seek a complaint and warrant. The cop testifies and if the judge finds probable cause that a crime was committed and probable cause that it was committed by the defendant then the court will issue the complaint and warrant.

[DETROITSINCITY]

Let me get this strait. The cops broke the law to arrest people who wernt breaking the law?

yea that is the whole point

[The Digital Nomad]

You don't understand how the system works.

A case doesn't begin because the PA decides it should. A case begins with a witness, usually a cop, going into court to seek a complaint and warrant. The cop testifies and if the judge finds probable cause that a crime was committed and probable cause that it was committed by the defendant then the court will issue the complaint and warrant.

 

DenturesLost is right - almost quoted for truth from a law enforcement text book...

The case begins with a complaint reported to an officer or a special department (building code, vice, narc)

The officer investigates and collects evidence to present the complaint. The prosecutor's office is allowed to point out what areas of the law is being violated and what evidence is needed to pursue the complaint in a court of law. Once evidence and a case has been built by the officers and the prosecutor's office, they proceed with submitting warrants to a judge - search and arrest warrants. The judge, authorizes the warrants based on what the prosecutors office and officers tell him. If the officers or prosecutor's office omits details - like that you are registered with the MDCH MMMP, it can invalidate the warrant.

If the prosecutor's office investigates you, and there is not enough evidence, the case goes cold.

After the warrant is issued for arrest - another judge will arraign you, he only ensures you understand the charges, looks over the general evidence against you to deem a crime has been committed, and sets bail.

You then proceed to another judge who will oversee the case. This is supposed to be the 'checks and balances' of the criminal system - one judge or one office cannot bring charges upon a citizen without another office or judge overseeing it. If the system gets to be too "good old boy" kind of system (aka Oakland County!) then one person (aka Patterson) could dictate policy for everyone! This is why we need to VOTE!

 

darn wordy motherforker today...

 

-DN

[peanutbutter]

DenturesLost is right - almost quoted for truth from a law enforcement text book...

The case begins with a complaint reported to an officer or a special department (building code, vice, narc)

The officer investigates and collects evidence to present the complaint. The prosecutor's office is allowed to point out what areas of the law is being violated and what evidence is needed to pursue the complaint in a court of law. Once evidence and a case has been built by the officers and the prosecutor's office, they proceed with submitting warrants to a judge - search and arrest warrants. The judge, authorizes the warrants based on what the prosecutors office and officers tell him. If the officers or prosecutor's office omits details - like that you are registered with the MDCH MMMP, it can invalidate the warrant.

If the prosecutor's office investigates you, and there is not enough evidence, the case goes cold.

After the warrant is issued for arrest - another judge will arraign you, he only ensures you understand the charges, looks over the general evidence against you to deem a crime has been committed, and sets bail.

You then proceed to another judge who will oversee the case. This is supposed to be the 'checks and balances' of the criminal system - one judge or one office cannot bring charges upon a citizen without another office or judge overseeing it. If the system gets to be too "good old boy" kind of system (aka Oakland County!) then one person (aka Patterson) could dictate policy for everyone! This is why we need to VOTE!

 

darn wordy motherforker today...

 

-DN

 

Regular procedure was modified on 12/4/2008.

 

If the PA discovers that there is a ID card involved they are required to stop the case, in some cases.

 

Not saying that applies in this case.

 

There are currently several simple position cases where this should be being applied.

 

Some PA's do indeed drop such cases now. I figure that most of them do so these days.

[The Digital Nomad]

it is completely possible the officer created the fake cards under the direction of the prosecutor's office. This is where the officer's 'qualified immunity' comes from - 'he was following orders'.

 

Do we blame the officers or the prosecutor's office? We blame the prosecutor's office for encouraging the officer's behavior - the leaders are the ones that have to be replaced!

 

-DN

[peanutbutter]

One section of the law identifies the information being protected before it is put into the data file:

 

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

 

A second identifies the information that is inside the file as protected:

 

(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.

 

This section included the information that is in the file. Not just the file itself.

 

Any information that had the MDCH file as it's source would be protected. That should include the ID card itself.

[peanutbutter]

it is completely possible the officer created the fake cards under the direction of the prosecutor's office. This is where the officer's 'qualified immunity' comes from - 'he was following orders'.

 

Do we blame the officers or the prosecutor's office? We blame the prosecutor's office for encouraging the officer's behavior - the leaders are the ones that have to be replaced!

 

-DN

 

There is a supremacy clause in our new law. Would that supremacy clause undermine 'qualified immunity?"

 

edit .. BTW I agree that those in charge should be the first arrested.

[herbnurse]

This is going to be a very interesting and exciting case to follow. Any sort of entrapment case is going to be a stretch. The police can lie and break laws to enforce laws as long as its resonable. There is a lot of misconceptions out there like that the police have to tell you they are the police which is totally false. Like everyone else, i am very interested in how the fake card looks. If it isnt a convincing fake they are going to be in trouble.

[bobandtorey]

This is going to be a very interesting and exciting case to follow. Any sort of entrapment case is going to be a stretch. The police can lie and break laws to enforce laws as long as its resonable. There is a lot of misconceptions out there like that the police have to tell you they are the police which is totally false. Like everyone else, i am very interested in how the fake card looks. If it isnt a convincing fake they are going to be in trouble.

 

they are going to be in trouble? who the PA

the cards looks real

[freakydawg420]

Police do things that would be illegal if carried out for different reasons. That's how undercover ops work. Limit that capability and you limit police effectiveness in regard to preventing organized crime, terrorism, etc.

To make it simple: Generally, to be criminally liable you have to have the intent to break the law.

Consider this: You pick up a pack of gum in the store while you are looking for something else. You cannot find that something else. You forgot you had the gum in your hand due to absentmindedness. You walk out. Did you commit retail fraud? No because you have to have the intent, or mens rea, to commit the crime. You have to have the intent to deprive the store of the gum and put it to your own use. If you forgot about the gum you didn't intend to steal, thus no crime.

 

their intent was to arrest, confine, and inprison innocent patients that were abiding by the law they did not like. That is criminal intent. The cards were forged in order to falsley acuse innocent patients of a crime they would not have committed if the cards had not been made.

 

Otherwise, why did they not arrest them for the countless other transactions they made? They are being charged with selling to the officers that had to forge the cards to get them to sell it to them right???? If their claim that ALL marijuana sales is illegal, then they personally did not need to make a purchase, all they had to do was witness it. Obviously they went through the process of making the cards for a reason? Because they knew they had no case unless they could get them to sell to a non patient. The only way to trick them into that was produce a fake card with intent to get them to break a law unwittingly. "."

[freakydawg420]

Let me get this strait. The cops broke the law to arrest people who wernt breaking the law?

 

exactly.

 

In doing so, I belieeve they actually broke BIGGER laws than the ones they were making the arrests for.

They forged documents, stole property, falsley arrested people, commited hippa violations, false inorisonment... the list goes on. Add them all up and the charges would be more than those of the so called criminals they arrested. Sickening!

[freakydawg420]

So if I understand your example correctly, under mens rea the undercover officer (UO) decided that he needed to be able to purchase marijuana from a dispensary. After failed attempts with bogus paperwork, he knew that he would need a State issued card. The officer had the mind set, but not the way?

 

Using a computer program, the UO created a card with the appearance of the State card. We now have actus reus because the purpose of the created card was to purchase the marijuana he would have been otherwise unable to purchase?

 

Or do I have the terms reversed?

 

[freakydawg420]

Intent to defraud. There is no intent to defraud when creating the ID.

 

 

The very purpose of the card he is making is to defraud. Are YOU serious?

Verb 1. defraud - deprive of by deceit

•victimize: deprive of by deceit; "He swindled me out of my inheritance"; "She defrauded the customers who trusted her"; "the cashier gypped me when he gave me too little change"

 

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

•In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. ...

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defraud

 

•To obtain money or property by fraud; to swindle

 

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/defraud

[bobandtorey]

The very purpose of the card he is making is to defraud. Are YOU serious?

Verb 1. defraud - deprive of by deceit

•victimize: deprive of by deceit; "He swindled me out of my inheritance"; "She defrauded the customers who trusted her"; "the cashier gypped me when he gave me too little change"

 

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

•In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. ...

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defraud

 

•To obtain money or property by fraud; to swindle

 

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/defraud

i think you coved it very well and i think their are more of them around here some ware's with MMJ cards and DL'S

[bobandtorey]

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2010/11/05/news/doc4cd4bcfd0b741636898022.txt?viewmode=default

[Hempcheff]

http://www.dailytrib...iewmode=default

 

+rep to the judge

[dutch&Dutchess]

I find it most curious that the piggies can go to the state for a "valid" fake driver's license but did not bother to go to the MDCH for a "valid" fake id. It is like they knew they were uttering and publishing and hoped that no one would notice. I am not sure they anticipated the push back legally. The little corrupt piggie testilying all day friday was sweating by the end. I think it was dawning on him that he was being used like a 2 dollar hooker at a frat house on a Saturday night. He had his script memorized but good though. They will lose.

[DenturesLost]

The very purpose of the card he is making is to defraud. Are YOU serious?

Verb 1. defraud - deprive of by deceit

•victimize: deprive of by deceit; "He swindled me out of my inheritance"; "She defrauded the customers who trusted her"; "the cashier gypped me when he gave me too little change"

 

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

•In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. ...

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defraud

 

•To obtain money or property by fraud; to swindle

 

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/defraud

Yes, I think you wouldn't get far arguing there was fraud based on webster's dictionary. Haha.

Last I checked we're in Michigan here. You can't convict someone of a crime based on a dictionary definition of the crime.

[Ms Chocolate]

Intent to defraud. There is no intent to defraud when creating the ID.

If the reason the card was created was to be able to purchase marijuana from a dispensary. With this being true, was not the intent to defraud those at the dispensary?

[mizerman]

There are no grey areas in my eyes... I am legal to have meds...he is legal to have meds... we are all legal to have meds.... whats grey about that? So what if ppl give free meds away for a donation.

Amen brother!