Dea V Mdch - Mmma's "confidentiality Provision Is A Nullity" Says Federal Judge

[Dr. Bob]

Just got this in the mail...

 

This is very interesting for two reasons-

 

1. This is a state agency attempting to seize information from another state agency within the state. There are no federal issues here.

2. This search was conducted PRIOR to the ruling of the federal court.

 

Also I noted that several registry cards were requested and 35 pages of documents were seized. Each application consists of an application, a physician certification, a copy of the patient drivers license- total of 4 pieces of paper. Each application MAY also contain a caregiver attestation, copy of a caregiver's drivers license. Bringing the total to 6 pieces of paper. A copy of the old card (with renewals) and a medicaid card/ssi/ssd card brings it to a max of 8 sheets of paper.

 

The problem I have with this is that it was conducted under state law between state agencies. The ruling makes it clear that state workers have no need of immunity when the feds ask. I bet they do need it in this case and didn't get it. Also, your caregiver information is not part of your case and discloses their identity in a way that would not normally be seen by an officer if he asked you for your card.

 

You may be able to get that evidence suppressed and file charges on the release. You need to discuss it with a lawyer.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

All right .. It seems likely that no one will conduct an arrest of officials if they surrender the records to that local PA.

 

What is required to conduct a citizens arrest?

 

How do you get it to stick?

 

The simplest way is to go to a magistrate with the law in hand and file a criminal complaint against the officer and the named individual at the MDCH. Swear out a warrant for their arrest to the magistrate. Get the order. Consider adding the kicker of criminal conspiracy.

 

There is no federal supremacy issue here, this is state to state. They had your registration number from your card, all the state is allowed to do is confirm the card is valid. You presented the card, that is what you are required to do. Your application and physician certification especially contain medical information and are NOT required to be released, unless your medical condition has relevance on a crime.

 

Turn the tables on them, make them show WHY your medical records were evidence of a crime, don't make them tell you to prove they were not. There is an old adage in medicine- how is the test you order going to change your diagnosis or treatment if positive, or if negative. If the answer is there is no change in diagnosis or treatment either way, don't do the test. How are your application papers going to change the investigation or prosecution?

 

Dr.Bob

[Dr. Bob]

his family doctor is fine with him using the MMJ,. it was because of the DEA and the president wanting tighter control to why he had to sign that contract,the feds shouldnt be in my husbands health care,its between my husband and his doctor,they have had a realationship for yrs.I dont think the DEA should be telling doctors how to adminsiter medicine they didnt go to making whoopee med school,after all Dr. Bob Im pretty sure they wouldnt let you into their business.Treating Doctors as Drug Dealers: The DEA's War on Prescription Painkillers, Cato Policy Analysis No. 545.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/health/20painkiller.html

 

Just read the article and I support training for physicians in addiction medicine as a CME course (much like the one I took to prescribe suboxone). Recently a physician was in trouble for allegedly over prescribing narcotics. I recall speaking to the same physician about the subject and was told that since vicodin lasted 4 hours, patients needed 6 doses a day for adequate 'coverage'. I suggested long acting narcotics with a few short acting narcs for breakthrough pain, and the concept was completely foreign to the doc. Short acting narcotics put the patient on a roller coaster of peaks and troughs and lead to addiction.

 

The risks associated with chronic narcotic therapy (addiction/liver damage/social issues) do require some expert management and a requirement for some training would not be a bad idea. I would be the first to sign up. I got into MMJ as a direct extension of my efforts to reduce the use and abuse of narcotics in N. Michigan. Oxy and Vicodin were being handed out like candy. Marijuana, in my opinion, is a far safer alternative.

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS, there is NOTHING in current policy, the proposed policy, or the article that suggests a doctor 'has' to kick you out of the practice or stop prescribing narcotics because you got a legal medical marijuana card.

[Iceman081]

Hate to be the messenger of bad news, but we all knew that the Federal Government can over rule state law if it is in conflict with Federal law if they wanted to. My underlying message has and is that we need to view this as an extension of trust by the voters of Michigan that we will use this law as intended. The Feds are tolerating patient use of MMJ as described by state law but technically don't have to. They are not tolerating dispensaries or large scale commercial grows as much.

 

Again, pick our battles, make the most of each ruling, and build our numbers until first the state government and then the feds accept the new 'norm' that MMJ is a medical substance with good medical benefits and should not be a schedule 1. Until that time our lawyers can argue the 10th amendment issue that the states should regulate it so long as there is no interstate transportation. Having 41 pounds of California MMJ intercepted in Battle Creek is NOT helping that argument.

 

Dr. Bob

 

At one time in our goverment the States could over rule the Federal goverment, if you go back and look at the original consitution it was set up so the federal goverment never could overule the states. Our forefathers came from a represive goverment and set up our goverment so this couldn't happen, unfortunely somewhere we lost this right too!!!! So I guess the only thing we have left is to get Barny Franks bill passed in congress so medical marijuana patients will be free from federal marijuana laws and it will be moved to a Schedule 3 drug than can be used and tested like it should be!!!!

 

Call and write your US congress person we need this bill to pass!!!

[jimbojinx]

At one time in our goverment the States could over rule the Federal goverment, if you go back and look at the original consitution it was set up so the federal goverment never could overule the states. Our forefathers came from a represive goverment and set up our goverment so this couldn't happen, unfortunely somewhere we lost this right too!!!! So I guess the only thing we have left is to get Barny Franks bill passed in congress so medical marijuana patients will be free from federal marijuana laws and it will be moved to a Schedule 3 drug than can be used and tested like it should be!!!!

 

Call and write your US congress person we need this bill to pass!!!

 

Can you give us more info re this "Barney Frank " bill ?

 

dr. Jinx

[lawyercaregiver]

Just got this in the mail...

 

 

So now the game is afoot Neil. Can you enlighten us how you became a target so the rest of us can avoid doing it? This would be a benefit to the community I think.

 

Thanks!

[thanks2]

Just got this in the mail...

WOW. A search warrant for patient records. That does not seem right at all.

[+420Atheist]

WOW. A search warrant for patient records. That does not seem right at all.

 

I don't think it is legal as the Judge is compelling the state agency to break the law. I wonder if the Judge could be sued? The only information those records could provide is to argue the bonified doctor patient relationship.

[lawyercaregiver]

I don't think it is legal as the Judge is compelling the state agency to break the law. I wonder if the Judge could be sued? The only information those records could provide is to argue the bonified doctor patient relationship.

 

I think you nailed it on the second point about the target of the feds being the doctors. I sure would have my ducks in a row if this were my patient!

 

On you first point- I don't think this is legal- might I suggest you come up with a few big ones to take this up? I suggest filing a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in State court although that is probably moot at this point (since the search has already happened) so you will have to pursue the federal appeals. At this point the judge has ruled it IS legal and y'all are SOL until a higher court overturns.

 

Why can't the MMMA form a legal group to fund and fight these battles....

 

 

 

BTW: NO, you can't sue the judge. They have absolute immunity. The remedy is impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives which goes to show just how strong these judges are. Read Men In Black by Mark Levin for more.

[petoskeystoned]

Somewhere on here I laid it all out. Let me see if I can find it and update.

[Hempcheff]

arent those records protected by hippa unless your a federal agency seeking the records?

 

 

Just got this in the mail...

[Hempcheff]

Can you give us more info re this "Barney Frank " bill ?

 

dr. Jinx

 

There are 3 bills going through the federal process right now to do several things, 1. making state mmj programs exempt from federal prosecution, 2. Providing protections to banks that mmj program participants use to avoid prosecution, and 3. a bill that would recognize mmj business and allow them to follow tax codes on a federal level.

 

 

 

HR 1983, the State's Medical Marijuana Protection Act of 2011, introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), would explicitly exempt people complying with state medical marijuana laws from federal arrest and prosecution. It also directs the federal government to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. It is cosponsored by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA).

 

"The time has come for the federal government to stop preempting states' medical marijuana laws," Frank said. "For the federal government to come in and supersede state law is a real mistake for those in pain for whom nothing else seems to work. This bill would block the federal prosecution of those patients who reside in those states that allow medical marijuana."

 

HR 1984, the Small Business Banking Improvement Act of 2011, introduced by Rep. Polis, would protect banks that accept deposits from medical marijuana from federal fines or seizures and allow them to avoid the onerous "suspicious activity" reports they now have to file when accepting deposits from medical marijuana businesses. That has led financial institutions including Wells Fargo, CitiCorp, and Bank of America to refuse to do business with medical marijuana entities. The bill is cosponsored by Reps. Frank and Pete Stark (D-CA), as well as Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

 

"When a small business, such as a medical marijuana dispensary, can't access basic banking services they either have to become cash-only -- and become targets of crime -- or they'll end up out-of-business," said Polis. "In states that have legalized medical marijuana, and for businesses that have been state-approved, it is simply wrong for the federal government to intrude and threaten banks that are involved in legal transactions."

 

HR 1985, the Small Business Tax Equity Act of 2011, introduced by Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), would allow medical marijuana dispensaries to deduct business expenses from their federal taxes like any other business. It is designed to prevent unnecessary audits of medical marijuana businesses by the IRS and put an end to the dozens of industry audits already underway. The bill is cosponsored by Reps. Rohrabacher and Paul, as well as Frank and Polis.

 

"Our tax code undercuts legal medical marijuana dispensaries by preventing them from taking all the deductions allowed for other small businesses," Stark said. "While unfair to these small business owners, the tax code also punishes the patients who rely on them for safe and reliable access to medical marijuana prescribed by a doctor. The Small Business Tax Equity Act would correct these shortcomings."

[1337Gr33n]

Thanks, Hemp. i needed some positive news this AM.

[Dr. Bob]

arent those records protected by hippa unless your a federal agency seeking the records?

 

The basic information on your card is not protect, it is there to be shown to the police (either state or federal). Medical records can be seized with a court order (as is the case). BUT if it can be shown that patient information other than those registration numbers specifically requested was released, you may have a case.

 

In other words, if I were a patient and the police asked for all information related to Robert Townsend, registry #.......

 

Legal response

 

Robert Townsend, registry #....... received registration on 5-12-11, his registration is valid and he is the caregiver for 3 additional valid patients.

 

Robert Townsend, registry #....... received registration on 5-12-11, his registration is valid and he is the caregiver for valid patient Jeff Jones (if Jones's registry number was ALSO listed in the original request) and 2 other valid patients.

 

Illegal response

 

Robert Townsend, registry #....... received registration on 5-12-11, his registration is valid and he is the caregiver for Jeff Jones, Cindy Jones and Robert Jordan who have these registry numbers and addresses.

 

Dr. Bob

[Jumpinflea]

This is a case that perhaps in ones wildest imagination you could not imagine it happening or the outcome.

 

Happy Guy is correct. If you read the original documents, the feds had an individual or group of individuals that they were investigating. The paperwork does not say who or why, but it seems that the best guess is a dispensary owner/staff. The fed paperwork suggests that the people under investigation are Michigan MMJ cardholders, but they refused to show their cards to the feds. The feds then submitted the names of the individuals to the MDCH to ask if they are registered patients.

 

There was also a change midstream in what the Feds asked for and a partial victory for us. Initially they asked for all the MDCH records on the individuals, i.e. med records. After CPU and ASA submitted amicus briefs the Feds changed their request to only asking the MDCH to verify that the people are valid patients, much like LEO would do if you were stopped and presented your card. LEO would contact MDCH to verify the card is legit.

 

On the surface, the Feds are presenting themselves as the compassionate good guys. i.e. "hey we had some people we were investigating, but we did not want to waste our time if they are patients since we want to leave patients alone, but these guys will not show us their cards". The problem for us is they now have their nose under the MDCH tent and they have provided the various "anti" prosecutors and legislators with a fed court decision they can wave.

 

The Feds narrowed the scope of the subpoenas twice- once after the Michigan Association of Compassion Centers filed an emergency injunction, and the second time at the hearing itself. CPU and ASA filed briefs in support of the MACC action.

[peanutbutter]

When invited to do so, why didn't they address the court? Even though the court rejected the briefs, it offered the attorneys the opportunity to address the court. Just wondering? Thanks, Bb

 

They did.

 

I was there watching.