Dea V Dch - Subpoena Hearing Rescheduled For Feb 1

[lawyercaregiver]

This was my first thought as I considered the situation. I am not a person who stands up for politicians but what choices does Schuette have? If he said no to a demand of Fed. order he would be in deep water wouldn't he? But if he said as he did, "Only by a court order" then he is putting it on the table for someone to do something about it. Maybe I am all wet with this thought. Maybe he could have done more???

 

You are not only all wet but your thinking is very, very, very dangerous to this republic. The States created the federal government. The States and the people gave the federal government LIMITED powers in order to form and maintain an orderly society. The federal government is a government of LIMITED jurisdiction. The second you start thinking that the federal government is all powerful then there is tyranny.

 

Yes, yes, the Supremacy Clause states that federal trumps State law where they conflict. But the 10th Amendment says all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are RESERVED FOR THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE.

 

Please identify WHERE the power to get information that a State has determined is confidential has been delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

 

It has NOT been delegated and there is precedent in other States saying the feds do NOT have this power. The "Conservative" Shuette is playing a very, very dangerous game with our constitutional freedoms here and I am absolutely outraged he would let his personal feelings about marijuana interfere with such an important Constitutional principle. This guy may be a lot of things but he is NOT a Conservative.

 

What was a principled Conservative supposed to do in this situation? Fight like hell to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and our system of federalism. For a State official- and the top law enforcement officer of the State no less to behave this way is unconscionable.

 

Let me be sure I understand this now:

 

States can overturn a universal mandate by the federal government to purchase health insurance because it is not a delegated power, not within the commerce or taxing power, and protected by the 10th Amendment.

 

But States don't have the right to protect private information of it's citizens from the federal government? Is he really serious in making these two arguments in the same federal court system?

[Medcare]

You are not only all wet but your thinking is very, very, very dangerous to this republic. The States created the federal government. The States and the people gave the federal government LIMITED powers in order to form and maintain an orderly society. The federal government is a government of LIMITED jurisdiction. The second you start thinking that the federal government is all powerful then there is tyranny.

 

Yes, yes, the Supremacy Clause states that federal trumps State law where they conflict. But the 10th Amendment says all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are RESERVED FOR THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE.

 

Please identify WHERE the power to get information that a State has determined is confidential has been delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

 

It has NOT been delegated and there is precedent in other States saying the feds do NOT have this power. The "Conservative" Shuette is playing a very, very dangerous game with our constitutional freedoms here and I am absolutely outraged he would let his personal feelings about marijuana interfere with such an important Constitutional principle. This guy may be a lot of things but he is NOT a Conservative.

 

What was a principled Conservative supposed to do in this situation? Fight like hell to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and our system of federalism. For a State official- and the top law enforcement officer of the State no less to behave this way is unconscionable.

 

Let me be sure I understand this now:

 

States can overturn a universal mandate by the federal government to purchase health insurance because it is not a delegated power, not within the commerce or taxing power, and protected by the 10th Amendment.

 

But States don't have the right to protect private information of it's citizens from the federal government? Is he really serious in making these two arguments in the same federal court system?

 

Well thanks for pointing this out to me for I am very ignorant in laws and the constitution, but I have seen the "Image of the beast" overstep its boundaries many times, or so it seemed to me.

[bobandtorey]

The Colorado Supreme Court Monday said it will not hear a medical marijuana case filed with the Court last week.

 

Plaintiffs said they will file the case with a lower court soon.

 

 

 

The petition had been filed on Jan. 5, 2011 by Andrew B. Reid, senior

counsel for Springer and Steinberg, P.C., a Denver law firm, on behalf of Kathleen Chippi, a Nederland caregiver and dispensary owner, and the Patient and Caregivers Rights Litigation project, an association of patients, caregivers and physicians that claim they have been harmed by the passage last year of HB 10-1284 and

[bobandtorey]

http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=559878

[Eric L. VanDussen]

Schuette vowed to stick up for state sovereignty and the 10th amendment

 

Start watching at 2:12 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDM42M9_EwE

 

Schuette says we should fight with Arizona against the feds and that he's joining the fight against the new federal medical insurance requirements for citizens and the states.

 

So the question is: Why isn't he standing up for the confidentiality provisions in Michigan's Medical Marijuana Act, which was supported by 63% of the voters?

 

See: "Attorney General Bill Schuette should push for medical marijuana patients' privacy in federal investigation, attorney says" - http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/01/bill_schuette_new_state_attorn.html

 

This following piece was posted on the AG's website on the same day Schuette filed his thoughtless reply to the DEA's petition to enforce their subpoena for confidential medical marijuana records that are maintained by Michigan's Department of Community Health:

 

- - - January 5, 2011 - http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-34739_34811-248945--,00.html

"LANSING - Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette today announced the renewal of Michigan's constitutional challenge to the federal healthcare law commonly known as "Obamacare." Schuette will file paperwork in the U.S. District Court in Florida adding his name as a representative of the People of Michigan in the case. Schuette's lawsuit questions the authority of the federal government under the Commerce Clause to force citizens to purchase health insurance and challenges the vast expansion of the Medicaid program in violation of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.

 

"For the first time in history the federal government is forcing us to buy a product under the threat of a penalty, in violation of the U.S. Constitution," said Schuette. "I will fight Obamacare tooth-and-nail to protect our citizens from this constitutional overreach."

 

Michigan is joined by twenty states and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in the healthcare lawsuit filed in the United States Northern District Court of Florida. On December 16, 2010, District Court Judge Roger Vinson heard oral arguments for the case. A written ruling is expected in the coming weeks.

 

NFIB Michigan State Director Charles Owens praised Schuette's decision to continue the legal challenge. "We are thankful that Attorney General Bill Schuette has the courage to stand up to this federal overreach and we are proud to join him and the other state Attorneys General in continuing this lawsuit," said Owens. "We are disappointed that the current administration finds the U. S. Constitution to be an inconvenience. Small business owners everywhere are rightfully concerned that the unconstitutional mandates, countless paperwork requirements, rules and taxes in the new healthcare law will seriously impair their ability to create jobs at a time when our country so desperately needs them."

 

On October 14, 2010, Judge Vinson denied the Obama Administration's efforts to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the states' two primary claims to proceed: one count challenging the Constitutionality of the individual mandate, and a second count challenging the commandeering of state resources to expand the Medicaid program in violation of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

 

Michigan's challenge to the healthcare law is separate from the lawsuit filed by Virginia, which has already earned a favorable ruling from the court. Like Michigan's case, the Virginia case questions the federal government's authority to force Americans to purchase a product as the price of citizenship.

 

On December 13, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson issued a ruling in favor of Virginia's challenge to federal health care legislation. Judge Hudson struck down the individual mandate, noting in his opinion that the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power" (p. 38). Judge Hudson also rejected the Obama administration's arguments regarding congressional authority under the Commerce Clause."

[+Silverblue]

schutte is a liar and a hypocrite.

Sb

[thanks2]

A letter campaign to Schuette's office that focuses on the hypocrisy? MMMA site use to do a lot of letter campaigns.

[bobandtorey]

schutte is a liar and a hypocrite.

Sb

 

 

you can say that again

Schutte is a liar and a hypocrite

i think they (DEA) wll get what the want but the MACC had to do something to try and at least make the judge think about what he is doing

[Eric L. VanDussen]

DEA subpoena for 7 medical-marijuana patients should be enforced, federal prosecutors say

 

GRAND RAPIDS PRESS – January 25, 2010 - http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/01/dea_subpoena_for_7_medical-mar.html

 

An advocacy agency for medical marijuana has no legal standing in the federal government's controversial request for state-held records of selected medical-marijuana users, the federal government said today.

 

In a court filing, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Bruha said the Michigan Association of Compassion Clubs, or MACC, and 42 “John or Jane Does” have no right to intervene in the case.

 

Bruha previously requested that a judge order the Michigan Department of Community Health to comply with a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration subpoena requesting records of seven applicants.

 

It is part of a drug investigation in the Lansing area, not just an attempt to gain access to patients' information, Bruha told The Press recently.

 

The state had resisted turning over the information because it is supposed to be confidential. Attorney General Bill Schuette said that the state would turn over the information if ordered to do so by a judge. He also wanted state workers to be immune from civil or criminal penalties for releasing the information.

 

Proponents of medical-marijuana criticized Schuette's stance, and said he should have fought the release of records as a violation of patient-physician confidentiality guaranteed by the marijuana law. Schuette has opposed legalizing marijuana for medical use.

 

As a judge was to act on the request for the subpoena, Traverse City attorney Jesse Williams, representing the Michigan Association of Compassion Clubs, filed an emergency motion to intervene. He said that his 42 unnamed clients are “subject of DEA's subpoenas.”

 

Also today, Daniel Grow, attorney for Cannabis Patients United, filed a brief supporting MACC and asking to be heard in the dispute. He said that the law was written to protect patients, and that “the subpoena in question threatens to violate rights protected by the United States Constitution and the laws of the State of Michigan, and will further impact foundational issues relating to our federal form of government.”

 

Bruha, the federal prosecutor, said the MACC has not shown its members are targeted by the DEA subpoena.

 

“Unless the John or Jane Does can show that the subpoena requests any of their information, and impacts their rights, they do not have … standing to challenge the subpoena. They must show they will be directly and actually injured by the subpoena. They cannot vicariously assert the rights of others,” Bruha said.

 

“There is no continuing case or controversy between the original parties because the MDCH is not contesting the subpoena. It merely wants a court order to protect it from any liability for complying with the subpoena. The proposed intervenors are the only parties who actually want to litigate or contest the subpoena.”

A hearing is Feb. 1.

[+EdwardGlen]

America? No more.

 

 

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

- Thomas Jefferson

[Eric L. VanDussen]

[bobandtorey]

sooooo they the D.E.A will get the names? they will the way i read it and some of the people's names are menbers of the MACC?

thanks for the post Eric you do great work for us here

[CedarSpringsCG]

Wouldn't it seem just too easy to redact all information that is held confidential by the MMMA? I mean redact names of patients, caregivers, physicians, addresses, etc? Do to the feds what they are so good at doing to us. Give them a piece of paper that is no more or less a application you can get from the MDCH website with a bunch of black lines through it.

 

It seems to me they want this information so that they can go after anyone linked to him through the registry, and also go after whoever gave him a card. it is a whole crap storm that makes me think it would be better to be completely underground. And that's what the MMMA was supposed to prevent, it is supposed to make medical use legal so you don't have to be underground.

 

Everything here outrages me. I think we should just be able to launch our own lawsuit against Shuete or just the state, to say that the federal gov't has no rights to grant immunity on state laws where nothing is in conflict. That way, sure, Schuete, hand over the documents, but it will cost you $1000 and six months in jail for doing it, and the Fed's can't stop the state from doing it.

 

I go to him because he would be the one ordering the DCH to do it. Kinda like in military, it isn't always the guy who pulled the trigger that is a criminal, it is the guy who told him to pull the trigger.

 

If Schuete had to consider that if he orders handing over the documents, he would spend jail time, be fined, disbarred, and lose his office, I think he would fight a little harder to protect our laws. And all it takes is the MI courts to say that the Fed's cannot grant immunity where they have no standing. I see the feds having no standing in our MI laws where there is no conflict. Pull the same thing on them with the standing that they are doing to us.

 

I totally agree with the conflict of interest as well. That seems reasonable to me that you can't ask for protection for an entity or person, who you would have to be the one to prosecute. Can't we get him thrown out on that? Impeached or something?

 

I truly wish that we had a political system where our elected officials would listen to the will of the people, and act accordingly. But that isn't the way it works. Makes me want to move to canada, and I really don't like canada...

[peanutbutter]

No response from our AG, Bill Schuette?

[thanks2]

No response from our AG, Bill Schuette?

I think he was Quoted as saying, "woooooooooooooooooooooohooooooooooooooooo"

 

Sorry, this opinion has me down. Another chip off the foundation of liberty. And a black I for states rights. darn commerce clause.

[Iceman081]

No response from our AG, Bill Schuette?

 

He's too busy opening up old supreme court cases

[+Silverblue]

schutte came into this with bad intent. He used his money and fear tactics to gain favor. It's as old as history. If we at least had a decent governor we might have a way to fight him. From what I read here, it looks like there was a denial of The People (again). It didn't surprise me. They will bend over backwards to discredit us. It's sad we have to keep fighting for rights we already fought for and won. Their egos will not allow them to listen to us- in their minds, they're right and we're wrong. Whether they agree or not, they're supposed to respect Our Law. Any law of The People, that has protections for The People, that's built into it, is a good law. It's them vs us. Our founding fathers came here because they were being abused. Soon many who came into power became abusers, too. It's seems like it's always been them against us. What a sad world. We've asked for open dialogue many times, we're doing our best. If history was true, it'd show how un-cooperative our officials are. They want the money, position, and power, but not the responsibility that comes with it.

 

Sb

[Eric L. VanDussen]

Obviously, Jesse Williams knew from the beginning that the standing issue was going to be a hurdle. He plans to reply to the U.S. Attorney's response with a memorandum of law by Friday.

 

What I found most interesting in the U.S. Attorney's response was that on pg 19 they say, "... as narrowed ... No dosage or medical information is being sought here."

 

Then, on pg's 19-20, they go on to say, "For purposes of this investigation, however, the DEA does not need nor care about the target’s medical information. Although the description of the information sought by the subpoena is broad enough to include medical information, the DEA will voluntarily narrow the subpoena to exclude any medical certifications. Neither the application form for a patient or caregiver registration card, nor the cards themselves, contain any medical information other than the name of the certifying physician. ... There is no physician-patient privilege as to that information."

 

They U.S. Attorney is clearly conceding that the subpoena at issue was overly broad by acknowledging that the DEA will "voluntarily narrow the subpoena." (I think that's a big win, even if nothing else is accomplished!)

 

However, they don't explain why they need the certifying doctor(s)' name(s), or why they need to know the names of the patients who have assigned the seven targets as their caregivers.

 

At the most, they should only be entitled to redacted ID cards that only show the patient and caregiver identification numbers and the issued dates.

 

Lastly, I think everyone should be calling AG Schuette's office and asking why his office didn't compel the DEA to "narrow the subpoena" and why the MACC, CPU and ASA are being forced to do his job for him.

[jtgeme]

 

They U.S. Attorney is clearly conceding that the subpoena at issue was overly broad by acknowledging that the DEA will "voluntarily narrow the subpoena." (I think that's a big win, even if nothing else is accomplished!)

 

 

I agree. And it was the over-broad nature of the subpoena that had me alarmed - Above and beyond the fact that the AG waved as the DEA passed by.

 

I see quite a few posts that seem to feel pretty defeated, and we haven't lost this one, and Mr. Williams is filing an answer. Its not over until the Court issues its decision. This is the just the USDA position, of course its going to say that Mr. Williams has lost.

 

Its important to keep an open mind, but understand that standing is a very tricky issue, especially here.

[Iceman081]

I see quite a few posts that seem to feel pretty defeated, and we haven't lost this one, and Mr. Williams is filing an answer. Its not over until the Court issues its decision. This is the just the USDA position, of course its going to say that Mr. Williams has lost.

 

Not sure we all feel defeated, more like we feel not represented by our AG who swore by oath to uphold are laws. Hell I'll be down in front of the federal building Tuesday protesting I surely will not feel defeated by letting people know we are having are civil rights DENIED!!!!

[MORE COWBELL]

He also wanted state workers to be immune from civil or criminal penalties for releasing the information.

 

really?

 

he's the president of the USA of MI and can sign a executive order to protect his cronies just as eric holder and bush did saying"WE CANNOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO WHAT HAPPENS IN THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY" i say they are all crooks with p-u-s-s-y envy

[MORE COWBELL]

If history was true, it'd show how un-cooperative our officials are. They want the money, position, and power, but not the responsibility that comes with it.

 

Sb

 

so sad but true

[MORE COWBELL]

Wouldn't it seem just too easy to redact all information that is held confidential by the MMMA? I mean redact names of patients, caregivers, physicians, addresses, etc? Do to the feds what they are so good at doing to us. Give them a piece of paper that is no more or less a application you can get from the MDCH website with a bunch of black lines through it.

 

It seems to me they want this information so that they can go after anyone linked to him through the registry, and also go after whoever gave him a card. it is a whole crap storm that makes me think it would be better to be completely underground. And that's what the MMMA was supposed to prevent, it is supposed to make medical use legal so you don't have to be underground.

 

Everything here outrages me. I think we should just be able to launch our own lawsuit against Shuete or just the state, to say that the federal gov't has no rights to grant immunity on state laws where nothing is in conflict. That way, sure, Schuete, hand over the documents, but it will cost you $1000 and six months in jail for doing it, and the Fed's can't stop the state from doing it.

 

I go to him because he would be the one ordering the DCH to do it. Kinda like in military, it isn't always the guy who pulled the trigger that is a criminal, it is the guy who told him to pull the trigger.

 

If Schuete had to consider that if he orders handing over the documents, he would spend jail time, be fined, disbarred, and lose his office, I think he would fight a little harder to protect our laws. And all it takes is the MI courts to say that the Fed's cannot grant immunity where they have no standing. I see the feds having no standing in our MI laws where there is no conflict. Pull the same thing on them with the standing that they are doing to us.

 

I totally agree with the conflict of interest as well. That seems reasonable to me that you can't ask for protection for an entity or person, who you would have to be the one to prosecute. Can't we get him thrown out on that? Impeached or something?

 

I truly wish that we had a political system where our elected officials would listen to the will of the people, and act accordingly. But that isn't the way it works. Makes me want to move to canada, and I really don't like canada...

 

well said and canada is too cold for us too but if pole shifts happen we will be on the equator-canada will be in the tropics-oohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i could like that-but they are not much more friendly up there either big gowers have targets on their backs-when the powers get all of them or chase them off they will go after the small fry-i see it happening here too

[MORE COWBELL]

i am too exhausted to really attack this brief i see so many flaws especially the assumption that "PRIVILEGE" creates fraud"in the medical industry and there is no need for it in this case because the information gathered in the subpoena has nothing to do with privacy-and that privacy just causes problems for everyone especially the GOVT-GIVE THEM REDACTED DOCUMENTS-OUR RIGHTS ARE BEING DESTROYED BY THE POWERS THAT BE!

[Eric L. VanDussen]