Can An Unregistered Patient Have A Caregiver That Is Protected By Section 8?

[GregS]

 

Edited July 27, 2013 by GregS

[mibrains]

Yes. We do have differences of opinion that do not square with each other. I think a very few of them are irreconcilable. But the facts have been pretty well been said, and it is irresponsible not to consider them closely.

 

true as you say it Greg.

 

I will defer to bobs advice to you now.

 

the difference isn't in the way the words are written into the act... the problems occur when you end up in court or in front of LEO being challenged on your schedule 1 narcotic distribution or consumption.

 

discretion can only go so far. 

discretion is the word when your section 4 compliant... there are much more stern adjectives that must be used when discussing section 8 arguments.

 

a person should avoid the behavior every time and absolutely unless your life depends on it.

 

that is where our concerns stem from.  not from the words in the act.. the caution comes from the way the words are twisted by mankind.  you must see it as it happens not as it should be.

 

you can discuss all you want..

 

your idea of a statement to protect an unregistered caregiver would not fly in most court rooms.  maybe it would work in some kind of circumstances. but defiantly the exception and not the norm.

[GregS]

Yes. We do have differences of opinion that do not square with each other. I think a very few of them are irreconcilable. But the facts have been pretty well been said, and it is irresponsible not to consider them closely.

 

true as you say it Greg.

 

the difference isn't in the way the words are written into the act... the problems occur when you end up in court or in front of LEO being challenged on your schedule 1 narcotic distribution or consumption.

Welcome to the same legal system that prosecutes sec. 4 cases too often, and which wind up being dismissed under sec 8. The courts are indeed adversarial and they are intended to be. That means we must be informed and aware.

discretion can only go so far. 

discretion is the word when your section 4 compliant... there are much more stern adjectives that must be used when discussing section 8 arguments.

Can't argue with that. It is a reasonable caveat. I would say that what you describe as adjectives can, rather than must, be used.

a person should avoid the behavior every time and absolutely unless your life depends on it.

We are in this for our lives.

that is where our concerns stem from.  not from the words in the act.. the caution comes from the way the words are twisted by mankind.  you must see it as it happens not as it should be.

All the more reason to be informed and aware enough to refute those twists.

your idea of a statement to protect an unregistered caregiver would not fly in most court rooms.  maybe it would work in some kind of circumstances. but defiantly the exception and not the norm.

If you can point to facts to support that statement, and not speculation or opinion, I might buy that.

 

I think we can find enough buy in to make a fund work. It would be available to any patient or caregiver, registered or not. Eating a cookie is not my idea of a crime, and I would love to try your marmel recipe.

Edited July 26, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

your idea of a statement to protect an unregistered caregiver would not fly in most court rooms.  maybe it would work in some kind of circumstances. but defiantly the exception and not the norm.

 

Very true, common sense and experience with the legal system clearly point out the truth in this statement.

 

Dr. Bob

[mibrains]

If you can point to facts to support that statement, and not speculation or opinion, I might buy that.

 

seems like all you would have to do is pay attention around here bud.

supporting documents, news articles, personal accounts, fearful stories, raids, animals shot, swat team style raids, houses blowing up, things being impounded.. all stories point to the pure and simple fact that the courts are in general not happy about cannabis use and distribution.

 

the news if filled with cases every day of people being refused.  not that my particular statement is specifically endorsable by acclimation of a court precedence.. but it does not have to be. it can stand alone as a self supported general fact of observation verifiable to those who might be interested in testing the voracity of my accounts.

I can say.. simply.. it is dangerous and the courts are not on the side of cannabis use.

simple enough.

 

for any person to willingly and knowledgeably enter into any transaction under the assumed non-measurable benefit that section 8 MIGHT offer ? ? is just..

 

what's the word?

 

IMHO

 

not advisable.  in any fashion

 

section 8 is a place you find yourself when you didn't understand or could not be compliant with the rules as written because of extenuating circumstances.. not someplace you start a transaction from with the intent of maybe being protected.

[mibrains]

I think we can find enough buy in to make a fund work. It would be available to any patient or caregiver, registered or not. Eating a cookie is not my idea of a crime, and I would love to try your marmel recipe.

 

thanks bud.

 

I stopped making them until the current interpretation of this legislation changes.

 

however once it is allowed.  i will make you the first batch.  it should not be a crime. . . however in todays atmosphere it may interpreted as one..

 

lets pool resources to get these issues addressed and not debate them... lets get them spelled out in an act, initiative, or amendment that works for patients.

Edited July 26, 2013 by mibrains

[GregS]

Section 8 is ALL about showing cause.

What is your authority for that statement please?

[Restorium2]

What is your authority for that statement please?

Here we go again. Who are you to ask what my authority is? I don't need any authority when I state a pure and simple common sense statement like that. Most everyone else doesn't even need to hear it. They already know it. In fact, it's the least of the hurdles for a section 8, and you better hope the judge wants to hear it. It's your only hope at that point. You would be on the ropes practically begging for lenience from the judge. You don't get to demand things.

[GregS]

thanks bud.

 

I stopped making them until the current interpretation of this legislation changes.

 

however once it is allowed.  i will make you the first batch.

And we will laugh.

 

 

lets pool resources to get these issues addressed and not debate them... lets get them spelled out in an act, initiative, or amendment that works for patients.

Having some walkin' around money will help to leverage our efforts. We are up against monied interests, to include the government.

Edited July 26, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

What is your authority for that statement please?

Section 8 is all about proving 3 prongs of the defense.  Have you actually read the act?  What more authority do you need other than actually reading and UNDERSTANDING the section?  Why is it you have to demand proof on every self obvious statement that is made in this forum? 

[GregS]

Section 8 is all about proving 3 prongs of the defense.  Have you actually read the act?  What more authority do you need other than actually reading and UNDERSTANDING the section?  Why is it you have to demand proof on every self obvious statement that is made in this forum? 

Heh heh. Yes Bob. I have read it and posted it. How many instances can you recall where I posted in full or in part?

 

Proof is at the core of reasoned dialogue, above all when someone says a point is obvious.

Edited July 26, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

Thank you

i would suggest that you go in a court room one time it's their you will find out how a Court room works and it's not what you think 

i will say i sure didn't have a clue until i did 

It's a wake-up call

I've been to court and other legal venues Bob.

Edited July 26, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Heh heh. Yes Bob. I have read it and posted it. How many instances can you recall where I posted in full or in part?

 

Proof is at the core of reasoned dialogue, above all when someone says a point is obvious.

Well by your own admission then 'all you have to do is meet the three prongs'.  How exactly do you think you meet the three prongs without showing proof in court?  You think it MIGHT just be opposed by the prosectutor and will require your proving your case?  Yes, no proof was required of the statement because it is blatantly obvious and the statements were made by people with experience actually working with the courts and section 8.  What are your credentials that make you an expert on anything to do with the act or section 8 in particular?

 

Why don't we explore this a little Greg.  How about you play prosecutor for once, and tell us how you would invalidate each of the three prongs and then show us how you would defend them for an unregistered patient with an unregistered caregiver?  I think your strategy to do each might give us all an insight into your reasoning.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Well by your own admission then 'all you have to do is meet the three prongs'.  How exactly do you think you meet the three prongs without showing proof in court?  You think it MIGHT just be opposed by the prosectutor and will require your proving your case?  Yes, no proof was required of the statement because it is blatantly obvious and the statements were made by people with experience actually working with the courts and section 8.  What are your credentials that make you an expert on anything to do with the act or section 8 in particular?

 

Why don't we explore this a little Greg.  How about you play prosecutor for once, and tell us how you would invalidate each of the three prongs and then show us how you would defend them for an unregistered patient with an unregistered caregiver?  I think your strategy to do each might give us all an insight into your reasoning.

 

Dr. Bob

I'm waiting on an authoritative confirmation, one way or the other, and recall that Cav has been asked about the show cause issue. Zap might be expected to answer objectively. Maybe Mr. Kormon would grace us with his towering intellect.

 

If I were a PA I'd tell the judge to go ahead and dismiss. You would not? Since you asked. Do I have your vote in the election? How would you do it if not that way?

 

This is all about providing proof. The documents I have laid out are intended to do that. My credentials are as a patient, caregiver, and I have been called a man of the world (google can help you out with that) by some respected people.

 

It is not an admission, but a central theme in my thoughts.

Edited July 26, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

I'm waiting on an authoritative confirmation, one way or the other. Cav has been asked about the show cause issue, and zap might be expected to answer objectively. Maybe Mr. Kormon would grace us with his towering intellect.

 

If I were a PA I'd tell the judge to go ahead and dismiss. Since you asked. Do I have your vote in the election?

 

This is all about providing proof. My credentials are as a patient, caregiver, and and I have been called a man of the world (google can help you out with that) by some respected people.

 

It is not an admission, but a central theme in my thoughts.

Ah, so I am not an authority.

 

Ok so your answer is that you would tell the judge to dismiss if you were a prosecutor.  OK that is enlightening.

And as for your defense, you are a man of the world and that is all you need.  Ok that is enlightening as well.

 

So in reality you can't see how the case would be argued by either side, and you don't really have a plan other than 'telling the judge to dismiss cause you are a man of the world.'  I guess obvious statements need proof from you, and you don't need to provide proof on things that are really murky.  Goes right along with you demanding transparency from clubs yet when you are asked what went on with your meeting you clam up. 

 

I don't really see the need to address the pont any more than that.  It is a joke and not worth any more time to me.

[Wild Bill]

Greg, at risk of seeming nosy, have you ever personally been charged with a crime and gone in front of a judge?

[bobandtorey]

There is a case coming up soon that may put some of this to Rest

Clinical Relief

[GregS]

Greg, at risk of seeming nosy, have you ever personally been charged with a crime and gone in front of a judge?

Yes.

[Dr. Bob]

Basic strategy for dealing with any issue, from backgammon to court, involves figuring out how you would advance your own position.  You also need to figure out how your opponent will advance their position.  Your strategy is based on promoting your goals and interferring with theirs. 

 

In this situation, we are dealing with a strategy that is completely devoid of any understanding of how a prosecutor would attack it.  Without that understanding, their is no way to formulate a defense.  Without a formulated defense, there is no way to plan either a 'document/contract' or even take basic precautions which might offer at least some minimal protection should there be an arrest and prosecution.  All that is left is to stumble around, with false reliance on some internet opinion.  That internet opinion wont help you in court, nor will it serve your time.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Ah, so I am not an authority.

 

Ok so your answer is that you would tell the judge to dismiss if you were a prosecutor.  OK that is enlightening.

And as for your defense, you are a man of the world and that is all you need.  Ok that is enlightening as well.

 

So in reality you can't see how the case would be argued by either side, and you don't really have a plan other than 'telling the judge to dismiss cause you are a man of the world.'  I guess obvious statements need proof from you, and you don't need to provide proof on things that are really murky.  Goes right along with you demanding transparency from clubs yet when you are asked what went on with your meeting you clam up. 

 

I don't really see the need to address the pont any more than that.  It is a joke and not worth any more time to me.

I see nothing but assumptions here Townsend. Where is there anything objective here?

Edited July 26, 2013 by GregS

[phaquetoo]

Yes- in this instance, the caregiver would be unregistered. By extension, a registered patient could have an unregistered caregiver that is protected by section 8. This is not to say that people can act as unregistered caregivers for any random patient without taking effort to document the (unregistered) caregiver/patient relationship.

Nate, Why do we want to even know that answer?  Why wouldnt your question be more of the lines of a registered pt, and regerstered c.g, but maybe not to that pt, or should money exchange hands?

 

I am totaly shocked by this medible s h i t and the oil and tinctures, butter, ect, Im so in disbeleif and thinking how can I get around this w/o getting arrested period, Im not even thinking about a sec 8 or the a,d, If I as a pt/c.g with a pt and a c.g cant make meds for people who do not want to smoke mm in any way shape of form! Alot of pt's are screwed, Im pretty sure the 65% that voted for the law didnt actualy think their wives, husband, dads and moms, kids and grand kids, were going to have to bong it on the porch?

 

There is just so much more to this, and it seems as of this moment we lost a battle but didnt lose the war yet!

Once again We have to adjust to this ever changing law!

 

Peace

Jim

[Dr. Bob]

I see nothing but assumptions here Townsend.

Of course you don't.

[GregS]

And since you asked, I will post for the third time that I know you to be aware of:

 

 Methods of Proving the Elements of the Defense at Evidentiary Hearing   

Proving the Physicians’ statement: On the Cheap.   It is essential that this defense be presentable without live testimony from the doctor. The court will likely make defendant prove the “physician” is licensed, and so a certified record should be obtained early to avoid an MRE 902 emergency. Technically the patient can prove that the physician statement was made without hearsay objection, as the fact that the statement was made is the operative fact in question. As the law does not allow a Judge to second guess the physician[s professional opinion in this regard, so the defendant need only prove the statement was made, not whether it was reasonable.   However, prosecutor will argue that defendant needs also to prove that the statement was a considered one, and that may not be so easy.     The prosecutor will argue that the statute provides the statement must be made “after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and patient's current medical condition”, and that must being the course of a bona fide physician patient relationship. The defendant can testify on personal knowledge that he was there and observed the “complete assessment” taking place, and can establish the bona fide relationship, but will the showing be of sufficient weight to pass the preponderance test? Who is a patient to judge what constitutes a full assessment by a doctor? The Patient can testify that the doctor said he completed the full assessment, but if the question of whether that full assessment really took place is in issue, then such testimony would be hearsay because is would be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted – that the full assessment was made.   Three solutions present themselves. MRE 803(6) Hearsay exception for regularly kept business records could get written medical reports into evidence to prove the complete assessment occurred, and even the bona fide relationship. This would merely require compliance with MCL 902(11), and the assumption that the doctor wrote it all down. [see MRE 902(11)] Certified records of regularly conducted activity.  The original or a duplicate of a record…of regularly conducted business activity that would be admissible under rule 803(6), if accompanied by a w r i t t e n d e c l a r a t i o n u n d e r o a t h b y i t s c u s t o d i a n o r o t h e r q u a li f i e d p e r s o n certifying that….the record is contemporaneous to the complete assessment, in the course of regular activity, and according to regular practice. Counsel should obtain this affidavit early, as prior notice of the declaration is a condition to self authentication. Of course, if seems obvious but that MRE 

803(4) would apply. “ Statements made for purposes of medical treatment o r m e d i c a l d i a g n o s i s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t r e a t m e n t. Statements made for purposes of medical treatment or medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably necessary to such diagnosis and treatment.”   However, counsel may be confronted with the argument that the rule admits patient statements made to aid in diagnosis, not those of the Doctor made to express the completeness of the doctor’s assessment. Counsel may simply wish to argue that the element should be interpreted to mean that the “statement made” language includes the statement that the doctor made a full assessment of the history and current condition. That is, that he has stated,  “that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician patient relationship, the patient is likely….” In this interpretation, the patient’s testimony would be admissible to establish the entire element, and sound something like this, “He stated he had made a full assessment of my medical history and current condition, and that he had formed a professional opinion…, which was that I was likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the use of marijuana to (treat or alleviate) my (serious medical condition or debilitating medical condition or symptoms thereof).”

 

ty Mr. Schmid.

 

Is there something unworkable there?

 

The contract and supporting documents would be submitted into evidence.

Edited July 27, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Perhaps you should read it for the first time then.  Do you note where it talks about 'proving' ALL OVER THE DOCUMENT?  Yet you still demand to be shown where section 8 is show cause?

 

There is a difference between cutting and pasting and acutally reading and UNDERSTANDING what is being said.

 

But you have made your point and I think everyone can clearly see what your understanding of this issue is.

 

Dr. Bob

[phaquetoo]

same ole s hi t dif day!

 

 

break and go to your own corners and stay there!