Jump to content

Dea V Dch - Subpoena Hearing Rescheduled For Feb 1

Eric L. VanDussen

By Eric L. VanDussen
in Legal Professionals

Recommended Posts

solabeirtan Advanced Member

solabeirtan

Posted
Posted

The idea is to protect the Patients. It is covered in the Law. Also in Hippa Laws. The DEA / Feds are attempting to compromise our Protections, by giving them(MDCH) a "Free Pass" to commit this infraction. The Real crime or damage done is to the Patient / Citizens of MI. The MDCH is still liable to US the Patients for protecting our confidentiality. And our AG is telling them to give US up. Thats why we want to sign the Complaint Thing Michael has proposed . As AG of the State of Michigan Shuette has failed US all already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Kingpinn Advanced Member

Kingpinn

Posted
Posted

Have had my doctor patient info spewed out to the public twice. In my matter it was broardcast over TV 6 News with a detailed map of where i live and grow marijuana.And the matter in kalkaska. My name was outted several times.So what should my recorse be . Who's to be held acountable for that happening twice two different times and places . Day 68

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanutbutter Advanced Member

peanutbutter

Posted
Posted

Have had my doctor patient info spewed out to the public twice. In my matter it was broardcast over TV 6 News with a detailed map of where i live and grow marijuana.And the matter in kalkaska. My names was outted several times.So what should my recorse be

 

Public disclosure of this information has placed your very life at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kingpinn Advanced Member

Kingpinn

Posted
Posted

I would think it be time to get the answers on this matter. I just need a head( Or Two ) to put on my silver platter

 

 

They cant even say it was just an isolated situation for god sake it happened twice to the same person in two different matters. Hundreds of miles apart

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lawyercaregiver Advanced Member

lawyercaregiver

Posted
Posted

What about a motion to intervene on behalf of the 7 unnamed individuals? (Or is that just for Civil?) The way I am looking at this is that if I were one of the 7, I would be in court arguing that I have an interest in the outcome, and its my doctor-patient confidentiality that is being denied.

 

Or perhaps an amicus brief on behalf of either the MDOCH or the 7 unnamed individuals?

 

I guess my question is does the MDCH want to turn the records over or is it that because the AG backed away the department has no no other options left?

 

 

Oh there are probably criminal rules for intervention but yeah, this is normally only done in civil cases. Who is intervening? How do they possibly have standing- unless the lawyer for "the 7 named individuals" decides to make an appearance. Problem is only the feds know who they are! They will PROBABLY (but not definitely) get to argue the validity of the subpoena case after they are arrested etc.

 

And for the answer to your second question- hell yes the AG messed us. This is really an incredible position for a so called Conservative to take. Let me see if I have this right: States rights:

--Good when the issue is opposing health care reform but

--Bad when the issue is protecting medical patient confidentiality.

 

Got it! Thanks so much for clarifying your position on these issues you flower donkey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brandy Zink Advanced Member

Brandy Zink

Posted
Posted

http://safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=6231

 

 

 

For Immediate Release: January 10th, 2011

 

Medical Marijuana Patient Advocates Stage Rallies in MI & NV Against Federal Interference

Patients, providers, lawyers, public officials speak out against aggressive, unnecessary & harmful raids

 

Las Vegas, NV; Grand Rapids & Lansing, MI -- Angry but peaceful protests will be held this Wednesday in response to what patient advocates are calling an unnecessary escalation of federal interference in medical marijuana states. Protests are scheduled to occur at various times Wednesday in Las Vegas, Nevada, as well as Grand Rapids and Lansing, Michigan, in response to Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) raids that have occurred over the past 6 months in the two states. Most recently, fifteen patients and providers were arrested last week in Las Vegas as a follow-up to aggressive raids conducted last year. The Justice Department is also pursuing medical records for 7 registered Michigan patients, despite strong privacy provisions in that state's medical marijuana law.

 

What: Coordinated rallies in Las Vegas, Grand Rapids & Lansing to protest recent federal interference

When: Las Vegas at 12 Noon; Grand Rapids at 9am; Lansing at 1pm

Where: Las Vegas - Federal Building, 333 Las Vegas Blvd.

Grand Rapids - Federal Courthouse, 110 Michigan St. NW

Lansing - East steps of State Capitol, Michigan Ave. & Capitol St.

 

"It's time to end federal enforcement of local and state medical marijuana laws," said Caren Woodson, Government Affairs Director with Americans for Safe Access, the country's leading medical marijuana group. "Not only are the recent raids inconsistent with the spirit of the Obama Justice Department memo, but they are harmful and counterproductive to the full implementation of local and state medical marijuana laws." Despite an October 2009 Justice Department memorandum de-prioritizing federal enforcement in medical marijuana states, aggressive raids, arrests and prosecutions have continued unabated.

 

On January 6th, several dispensaries, cultivators, and referral services in Las Vegas were raided by the DEA, resulting in 12 arrests and the seizure of medical marijuana, money and other property. According to the DEA, the most recent arrests were connected to dispensary raids conducted in September of last year. Under the cynical moniker of "Operation Chronic Problem," the federal government is charging people with conspiracy to distribute marijuana, distribution of marijuana, conspiracy to commit money laundering, distribution of marijuana near schools or colleges, possession of a firearm in relation to drug trafficking and failing to disclose or concealing information concerning Social Security benefits.

 

Last year's raids in Las Vegas occurred only two months after heavily armed federal agents, with the help of the national guard, raided multiple cultivators near Lansing, Michigan, with no evidence of state law violations. No charges were levied in the Michigan raids, but the federal government is now pursuing several private patient records from the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) as part of their investigation. Using privacy provisions in the state's medical marijuana law, the MDCH has so far refused to turn over any patient records, but a hearing is scheduled for 9am Wednesday (coincident with the protests) in Grand Rapids federal court before District Court Judge Gordon Quist. Similar federal subpoenas were rejected in 2007 by a district court in Oregon after the records of 17 patients were sought by the feds from the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program.

 

"There is absolutely no need for federal agents to be enforcing local and state medical marijuana laws," continued Woodson. "Enforcing such laws is not the purview of the federal government and allegations of local or state law violations should be prosecuted in state courts." As a result of the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, defendants tried in federal court have no means to a medical necessity or state law defense. Historically, besides the direct harm inflicted on patients and providers, federal raids have had little effect overall. For example, despite more than 200 raids in California during the G.W. Bush Administration, the number of local distribution centers steadily increased during the same period.

 

Further information:

DEA petition to subpoena private patient records in MI: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/MI_DEA_Subpoena_Petition.pdf

 

# # #

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rafaeltoral Advanced Member

rafaeltoral

Posted
Posted

I would think it be time to get the answers on this matter. I just need a head( Or Two ) to put on my silver platter

 

 

They cant even say it was just an isolated situation for god sake it happened twice to the same person in two different matters. Hundreds of miles apart

 

Kingpin, the only way you can really defend yourself is in court. If your rights are violated you need to sue.

Go on the offensive. We need funds. We need lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanutbutter Advanced Member

peanutbutter

Posted
Posted

You really thought that every brief in support of a motion that is filed by the AG's office is an AG's opinion? Really?

 

I'm sorry .. I was foolish enough to think they say what they mean. Even more that a document introduced into court was honest.

 

So it's not really what the AG thinks about this issue unless it says the word "opinion" on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanutbutter Advanced Member

peanutbutter

Posted
Posted

You really thought that every brief in support of a motion that is filed by the AG's office is an AG's opinion? Really?

 

This motion seems to be a continuation of the policy of Cox. In the case of Provost v Kalkasks, the AG office allowed the MDCH to disclose information if the MDCH employees were given immunity from the confidentiality section of our law.

 

This seems to be a continuation of that policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DenturesLost Advanced Member

DenturesLost

Posted
Posted

I'm sorry .. I was foolish enough to think they say what they mean. Even more that a document introduced into court was honest.

 

So it's not really what the AG thinks about this issue unless it says the word "opinion" on it.

An Ag opinion has the effect of law unless overturned by a court. To adopt your position would be to presume that every brief in support of every argument that is filed by the AG initially has the effect of law. To argue that a "document" filed with the court is "dishonest" is to completely misunderstand the legal system. When a brief is filed it is filed because something is in doubt and there is no sure-footed position. That doesn't make the argument "dishonest" it means that one side is asserting a position in our adversarial system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanutbutter Advanced Member

peanutbutter

Posted
Posted

An Ag opinion has the effect of law unless overturned by a court. To adopt your position would be to presume that every brief in support of every argument that is filed by the AG initially has the effect of law. To argue that a "document" filed with the court is "dishonest" is to completely misunderstand the legal system. When a brief is filed it is filed because something is in doubt and there is no sure-footed position. That doesn't make the argument "dishonest" it means that one side is asserting a position in our adversarial system.

 

Then it is an opinion unless that view is modified by the courts.

 

That, to me, seems to be an opinion of the AG. Unless the office of the AG is filing an argument in a brief they don't really believe.

 

Based on your first response, I'm now thinking that "opinion" might mean something different in legalize than it does in English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DenturesLost Advanced Member

DenturesLost

Posted
Posted

Then it is an opinion unless that view is modified by the courts.

 

That, to me, seems to be an opinion of the AG. Unless the office of the AG is filing an argument in a brief they don't really believe.

 

Based on your first response, I'm now thinking that "opinion" might mean something different in legalize than it does in English.

Yes, well you ought research it before you expound ay?

I've tried to school you in the past with no success so I'll let you do the work here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hempcheff Advanced Member

Hempcheff

Posted
Posted

Let me pre-empt this with I have no knowledge of the people involved, and im making no accusations by any means :thumbsu:

 

But....Noone here has brought up the validity of privacy protection afforded the requested information.

 

 

Heres a bone for you :devil: devils advocate....

 

 

What do we know about the seven patients and/or caregivers that they are asking about?

 

If the seven people in question were found to be in violation of the law, and as a result are not afforded its protections, and the application information may be evidence or maybe denials were issued, and the accused had paperwork (cashed check) but no cards, are those peoples information covered? Even If the seven were not legal patients and or caregivers in the first place? I think maybe in that case the MDCH would not be liable in any way because of fraud used to obtain the cards?

 

 

Again, No offense to those involved, This just looks like the only way the Feds could legally obtain records

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...