Jump to content

Dea V Dch - Subpoena Hearing Rescheduled For Feb 1


Recommended Posts

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

 

I have considered this as well, the criteria for which the patients are being targeted is my biggest question/concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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?

 

If I commit a crime that doesn't make the law itself go away. Nor does it give someone else permission to commit another crime.

 

The records are illegal to disclose.

 

There is the exception for fraud built into the law. Such a case would not require the DEA to go to court for the records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

We cannot allow the door to be opened for ANY of those records regardless of the facts of whether or not there is an investigation of an alleged crime. It is a crime to disclose this information. The confidentiality of our law will be worthless if the MDCH is forced to hand records over to the DEA. What would be the point of joining the registry if the list will be just handed over to the DEA. Better to stay underground than risk being on the Feds list. The whole point of the registry being confidential is to protect our privacy and keep us safe from the DEA.

 

And if there is some crime, it is still alleged. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

But the point here is that the privacy of ALL of us is at risk if the door is opened to the DEA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOTICE RESCHEDULING MOTION HEARING regarding document number [1] that was previously set for 1/12/2011 at 9:00 AM; motion hearing is rescheduled for 2/1/2011 at 09:00 AM at 584 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman Jr.;(Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr., fhw)

 

NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING regarding document number [7] emergency motion to intervene third-party defendant: responses due by 1/25/2011; motion hearing is set for 2/1/2011 at 09:00 AM at 584 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman Jr.;(Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr., fhw)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this will get the community into this case.

 

I'd like to express my thanks to DenturesLost for the effort he put into discussing the issue with me. (Even though he's so frustrated with me that he won't even talk to me now :) )

 

I'd like to thank Joe and the rest of the crew for working to bring this confidentiality issue into the light of day.

 

Many thanks to the others out there that tossed in their thoughts.

 

Next .. there has been a lot of property illegally confiscated from legal patients and caregivers in Michigan. We want it all back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm .. for those that wanted more advanced warning about protests ..

 

NOTICE RESCHEDULING MOTION HEARING regarding document number [1] that was previously set for 1/12/2011 at 9:00 AM; motion hearing is rescheduled for 2/1/2011 at 09:00 AM at 584 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman Jr.;(Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr., fhw)

 

NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING regarding document number [7] emergency motion to intervene third-party defendant: responses due by 1/25/2011; motion hearing is set for 2/1/2011 at 09:00 AM at 584 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman Jr.;(Magistrate Judge Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr., fhw)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is great news, but lets all keep in perspective before we start celebrating...

 

The judge is going to take briefs on the motion to intervene and hear argument on it. That's fantastic and hats off to Mr. Williams for putting forth the effort on what appeared to be a whim. We can certainly expect a brief from the USDA on this issue too.

 

I'm curious if the Michigan AG will stay out of it now, or if they will brief as well. My guess is that they will not, but who knows.

 

Personally, I think its favorable that both hearings are set for the same day but that is pure speculation on my part.

 

But its good that they got the hearing adjourned and the judge will at least read/listen.

 

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is great news, but lets all keep in perspective before we start celebrating...

 

The judge is going to take briefs on the motion to intervene and hear argument on it. That's fantastic and hats off to Mr. Williams for putting forth the effort on what appeared to be a whim. We can certainly expect a brief from the USDA on this issue too.

 

Personally, I think its favorable that the both hearings are set for the same day (2/1/11) but that is pure speculation on my part.

 

Your thoughts on the "intervene as a matter of right?"

 

It looks like the establishment of standing to me .. but what do I know.

 

tia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your thoughts on the "intervene as a matter of right?"

 

It looks like the establishment of standing to me .. but what do I know.

 

tia

 

I am biased, so please be careful how you take this...

 

But yes, the motion to intervene would give standing based on the interest of the 42 John/Jane Doe's listed in the motion.

 

The only issue I see right off the bat (I have not read the entire motion or brief yet) is that a motion to intervene is generally a civil issue, and this is criminal. I have never heard of it being used in a criminal matter. But that does not mean it doesn't happen, and that doesn't mean it doesn't happen so often its common place - personally, I have neither seen it done, nor researched it. This is in federal court, my practice is devoted more to state court.

 

My feeling is that the they will be successful, but like I said I am biased so part of that feeling is emotional rather than rational. The rational side of me (without doing research) is very unsure.

 

If I have time I will read the motion and brief closely and browse the cited cases; perhaps that will change my attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am biased, so please be careful how you take this...

 

But yes, the motion to intervene would give standing based on the interest of the 42 John/Jane Doe's listed in the motion.

 

The only issue I see right off the bat (I have not read the entire motion or brief yet) is that a motion to intervene is generally a civil issue, and this is criminal. I have never heard of it being used in a criminal matter. But that does not mean it doesn't happen, and that doesn't mean it doesn't happen so often its common place - personally, I have neither seen it done, nor researched it. This is in federal court, my practice is devoted more to state court.

 

My feeling is that the they will be successful, but like I said I am biased so part of that feeling is emotional rather than rational. The rational side of me (without doing research) is very unsure.

 

If I have time I will read the motion and brief closely and browse the cited cases; perhaps that will change my attitude.

 

I love to see the assertion of inadequate representation by the AG.

 

Michael K. suggested people complain (to the state bar?) about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am biased, so please be careful how you take this...

 

But yes, the motion to intervene would give standing based on the interest of the 42 John/Jane Doe's listed in the motion.

 

The only issue I see right off the bat (I have not read the entire motion or brief yet) is that a motion to intervene is generally a civil issue, and this is criminal. I have never heard of it being used in a criminal matter. But that does not mean it doesn't happen, and that doesn't mean it doesn't happen so often its common place - personally, I have neither seen it done, nor researched it. This is in federal court, my practice is devoted more to state court.

 

My feeling is that the they will be successful, but like I said I am biased so part of that feeling is emotional rather than rational. The rational side of me (without doing research) is very unsure.

 

If I have time I will read the motion and brief closely and browse the cited cases; perhaps that will change my attitude.

 

Is this a criminal case at this point?

 

This is the DEA vs the MDCH right now. Correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this a criminal case at this point?

 

This is the DEA vs the MDCH right now. Correct?

 

Short answer yes because the DEA is conducting a criminal investigation into the 7 individuals, and the information is needed for it.

 

The investigation is "criminal" in nature, despite the motions drafted having a civil "smell" to them.

 

I mean if you wanted to break the matter down, the DEA as an entity is suing the DCH for production of records, which is, at its core, civil. Without more research, thats kinda where I am at with it. - I will look into tonight because now you have me curious...

 

I mean if the US Government (say the Dept of Transportation) was investigating Ford Motor for criminal negligence because of sudden acceleration and demanded that FoMoCo turn over docs, it would still be a criminal matter. I see the two as similar, though once again you bring up an interesting idea and put flatly, I don't know, but my gut is telling me it remains criminal because thats where it began.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short answer yes because the DEA is conducting a criminal investigation into the 7 individuals, and the information is needed for it.

 

The investigation is "criminal" in nature, despite the motions drafted having a civil "smell" to them.

 

I mean if you wanted to break the matter down, the DEA as an entity is suing the DCH for production of records, which is, at its core, civil. Without more research, thats kinda where I am at with it. - I will look into tonight because now you have me curious...

 

I mean if the US Government (say the Dept of Transportation) was investigating Ford Motor for criminal negligence because of sudden acceleration and demanded that FoMoCo turn over docs, it would still be a criminal matter. I see the two as similar, though once again you bring up an interesting idea and put flatly, I don't know, but my gut is telling me it remains criminal because thats where it began.

 

I figure that the DCH is a third party.

 

That the actions of the fed against the DCH are not in a criminal case where the DCH is the defendant.

 

The defendants are those seven people. And there have been no charges presented against those seven people, so there are no criminal defendants yet.

 

Investigation, yes. Case, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to thank the MACC for getting involved with this in such short notice. In less than 24 hours they jumped into action and got the courts to not only postpone the court date, but more importantly let the judge take a serious look at the case.

 

I know not many people like MACC, but we need all the help we can get. We ALL need to work together as a community, instead of working as individual groups.

 

And of course, thanks to you Eric. For without you, this ball may have never got rolling. You are a larger help than many even realize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

got a link?

found it LOL thanks google to find it right here on this site...

My link

http://michiganmedic...ew-back-online/

 

Thanks Eric for keeping us informed on the activity surrounding this important case. I just finished watching your interview with Karen O'Keefe. I think it should be required for new patients and caregivers. Thanks again, bb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I keep harping this, but I believe that Shutte has committed or will commit an act that violates the cannons of being a lawyer, or the rules of Professional conduct.(SEE MRPC). He is in a conflict of interest, and thus must disclose and or remove himself from representation. The pleadings clearly indicate that he is representing the interest of the employees of the MDCH. HIs pleadings comply with the request for records if and and only if the employees are granted immunity from prosecution. The first questions is how does the Federal Immunity protect those employees against state prosecution. Federal Immunity should not apply. Then the question is who would prosecute these employees under state law for violating the MMMA privacy section. Well it would be the attorney general. How can he proceed in such a case objectively if he is also representing the same emplyees who are violating the law. He cant, its a conflict of interest. And it violates the mrpc. See the complaint form on the michigan grievance committee website to complain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. VanDussen has posted this on another board:

 

U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Supremacy Clause arguments in 2009 CA medical marihuana appeal.

 

This is the order that two CA counties were appealing, which the US SCt refused to take up in 2009: http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/d ... Ruling.pdf

 

Here's some articles about the SCt's refusal to address the case:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-05-19/b ... -drug-laws

http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/sto ... 8C2yg.cspx

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009 ... marijuana/

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_ ... _marijuana

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... juana-law/

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/19 ... arijuana19

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.necn.com/...b8da29a13b578d4

 

Just got this in the mail

 

 

Feds want Mich. to give up medical marijuana files

Jan 12, 2011 4:00am GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) — A court hearing to determine whether Michigan authorities must turn over medical-marijuana records to federal investigators probably won't last long.

 

The state attorney general's office says it's willing to comply with a subpoena from federal investigators. It simply wants a court order.

 

In Grand Rapids, U.S. Magistrate Judge Hugh Brenneman Jr. is scheduled to hold a hearing Wednesday on the federal government's request for information on seven people with medical marijuana or marijuana caregiver cards.

 

The Drug Enforcement Administration won't talk about the Lansing-area probe but says it's not cracking down on medical marijuana users. The agency says it pursues large-scale drug traffickers.

 

More than 45,000 people in Michigan are registered to use marijuana to ease the symptoms of cancer and other health problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...