Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/03/2010 in all areas

  1. 9 points
    This post caught my eye. I was recently in a dispensary to acquire some full spectrum cbd oil to make edibles. I showed them my ID and card, walked inside for my first time. Within 3 minutes of conversation with tender he referred to the caregiver patient system as some sort of back street drug dealing black market! I was floored! This was the first time I had been talked to about it . I felt so betrayed by an industry that is supposed to be based on helping the sick. I can not support in anyway a shop or individual who resorts to stigmatization to profit. But ssdd. I will now be looking for cbd through a good caregiver source. Not some street hustler or any business involved in this degradation of character of Michigan's caregivers. Thank you.
  2. 8 points
    Komorn Law PLLC is happy to report that the broken criminal justice system shined a light on us today. The battle in Isabella, the State v Team Fisher concluded today with a 14-page opinion that was a joy to read. The Court held that the accused had not only presented proof of the requisite elements of the section 8 defenses, but that no question of fact existed, and therefore all charges are dismissed. To call my client and his family courageous would be an understatement. My client, a registered patient and a caregiver for his wife, also a registered patient, was raided after an alleged anonymous tip and a trash pull. These minimal facts resulted in a search warrant for both his house and shop. According to the Drug Task Force, the raid of these locations resulted in the confiscation of 29 pounds of marihuana and 1 pound of wax. The complaint charged the following crimes: I. Intent to deliver Marijuana MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(ii). A felony punishable by 7 years and imposition of license sanctions. II. Intent to deliver Marijuana plants. MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(ii). A felony punishable by 7 years and imposition of license sanctions. III. Manufacture Marijuana MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii). A felony punishable by 4 years and imposition of license sanctions. IV. Possession of a Firearm in the Commission of A Felony contrary to MCL 750.227b A Felony punishable by 2 years, mandatory prison sentence to run consecutively with and preceding any term of imprisonment imposed for the felony or attempted felony. To Wit Count 3 (as the underlying Felony) V. Maintaining a drug house. MCL 333.7405. 2 year and imposition of license sanctions. VI. Maintaining a drug house. MCL 333.7405. 2 year and imposition of license sanctions. Additionally, the drug task force seized every piece or property in the vicinity they could get their hand on, pursuant to the forfeiture law. (no, the amendments have not done a single thing to slow down the DTF’s appetite for forfeiture and the glory of its proceeds). Also, an important part of this story is that my client owned a few guns, and they were in his house at the time of the raid. As is often not reported, but all too often used, the combination of owning a gun and being outside of section 4 escalates what would normally be allegations of illegal marihuana activity to felony firearm charges. If convicted of the felony firearm charges, the crime requires a mandatory 2-year sentence to prison, to run consecutive to any other sentence. That while felony firearm requires possession of the firearm while committing an underlying felony, akin to a person selling drugs on the street with a pistol on their waistband, all too often prosecutors have extended this allegation to include patients and caregivers who are lawful gun owners. And while the law on its face suggests the possession of the weapon and the illegal marihuana behavior be contemporaneous, the law actually permits persons to be charged with felony firearm even when they are not physically possessing the firearm or even at the location where the firearm and the marihuana is located. My client’s garden was contained within the detached garage which was locked and enclosed and not accessible to anyone, and the firearms were contained within the residence, where less than the amount of marihuana allowed pursuant to section 4 was kept. As many attorneys will say, the conversation with your client is much different when the state is charging felony firearm. So with allegation of 29 pounds of marihuana, a pound of wax and felony firearm charges, me and my client and his family put our gloves on and fought back. The preliminary exam, which originally included my client's wife (represented by David Rudoi) and a codefendant (represented by Jessie Williams) took place over three full days, resulting in each of the accused being bound over on all charges. Shortly after getting to Circuit Court, the codefendent was offered and agreed to plead guilty to an innocuous misdemeanor. My client's wife was offered a misdemeanor, but refused to admit that she did anything wrong. As previously mentioned, David Rudoi successfully argued to the Circuit Court judge that there was not enough evidence presented at the preliminary exam to substantiate the charges, or that the state had failed to present even probable cause of a crime, and all charges against my client’s wife were dismissed. At this point in the proceeding, with my client the only remaining defendant in the case, we began to litigate the case. We filed literally 16 motions and litigated each of them, which included hours and hours of evidentiary hearings, and testimony from all of the witnesses involved. It is important to note that the Judge presiding over the case allowed us to litigate the case (didn't fight obstruct or interfere with taking testimony) and was more than prepared for each of the hearings. It was obvious to us that he was conscientious of the issues and did take great efforts to analyze the facts and law for each of the motions we filed. Even though I disagreed with every one of his rulings except one, it was a pleasure to have a Court show more interest in the issues in the case, and my client's due process rights, than the age of the case. For each of the motions filed he issued a written opinion. The list of motions and the court’s rulings are listed below. 1. Motion for a Walker Hearing - Denied 2. Motion to Dismiss based upon an illegal arrest (Ferretti Motion) - Denied 3. Motion to Quash the Information and Bindover of the Felony Firearm Charges Based Upon Constitutional Grounds - Denied 4. Motion to Quash the Affidavit and Search Warrant on Constitutional Grounds - Denied 5. Motion to Reconsider Search Warrant Motion - Denied 6. Motion to Quash Bindover and Dismiss - Denied 7. Emergency Motion to Adjourn - Denied 8. Motion to Quash Search Warrant - Denied 9. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Daubert or in the Alternative Set for and (Evidentiary) Daubert Hearing and Memorandum of Law in Support of Dismissal or Evidentiary Hearing Pursuant to Daubert; (challenge to the advisability of the lab reporting based upon the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division's Crime Lab Scandal #Crimefactory) -Denied 10. Motion in Limine to Exclude Forensic Evidence or Alternatively for a Daubert Hearing - Denied 11. Supplemental Memo in Support of Daubert - Denied 12. Motion to Preclude Evidence Based Upon Judicial Estoppel - Denied 13. Motion to Preclude Evidence Based Upon Relevancy - Denied 14. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to MMMA Section 4(g), or Preclude Evidence of Paraphernalia and Request for Evidentiary Hearing - Denied 15. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Section 4 of the MMMA and the Amendments (That Were Signed into Law September 22, 2016 are Curative and Retroactive) - Denied 16. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Section 8 of the MMMA. Granted and all charges (including the felony firearm) dismissed Another interesting issue in the case, and I mention this mostly for instructive purposes, was that the State alleged that my client made an inculpatory statement or confession. According to the police (despite no audio or video recording, or written statement acknowledge by my client of what he actually said) my client purportedly uttered some sentences, which included the following words: "Dispensary, Overages, Sell". Of course my client never spoke these words as the investigators alleged. But he did talk to the police (as often times persons who don't believe they have committed a crime would do) however as it goes when people talk to the police, whatever you say WILL be used against you. (DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE-EVER). As reflected within the 14 page opinion (what a great read) dismissing all charges based upon the MMMA affirmative defense pursuant to section 8, the court took some time addressing the impact of the so called "statement". While the courts final ruling was based upon our arguments minimizing the value of the statement for purposes of the affirmative defense, it was more than obvious to us that this opinion could have gone either way based upon the Court’s interpretation of the law and the impact of the alleged "statement." Let me say it again, DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE. It is important to note, and this is not legal advice, but at times throughout the case, the State made the following plea offers: Prior to litigating the motions in Circuit Court the State offered my client a resolution that if he Plead to Counts 1) 7 year felony and 5) 2 year high court misdemeanor, they would dismiss the remaining charges, with no sentence agreement. Then after we conducted the Daubert hearing and prior to getting that unfortunate ruling (the motion to reconsider was not necessary) they offered that if my client plead to counts 5 and 6 (2) 2 year high court misdemeanors they would dismiss all the other counts with no sentence agreement. Then of course after we lost the Daubert motion the State withdrew the previous offer, and offered that if my client plead to a 4-year felony and a 2-year high court misdemeanor they would dismiss the rest of the counts with no sentence agreement. Looking back on this case there was a a lot of the blood sweat and tears shed from the backs and brow of Chad, Josh, Steve, Jeff, Dewey, Pam, Deb, David Rudoi, Jesse Williams, Fred Stig-Neilson, Eric VanDussen. Including the all-nighter I pulled Sunday putting together the motion to reconsider regarding the Court’s rulings on Daubert motions (the lab issues), and the preparation for the trial that was to commence Monday - this was a battle that will never be forgotten. Additionally rewarding is the fact that my client’s case and the abusive forfeiture they and many from our community have had to endure, was highlighted in (what is clearly the greatest show ever created) "Weediquette" episode 6 of season 2. Stay tuned, the next series of motions we intend to file will be to compel the return of all of the property that was seized pursuant to the forfeiture (as well as seek other remedies for my client and his wife). I want to congratulate my client and his family for having the will and strength to stand up for what they believed and take on the State on a lopsided playing field in the broken system often called the American judicial system. #TeamFisher #StopTheRaids #KomornLawMI The story continues after the prosecutor appealed our dismissal. http://www.themorningsun.com/general-news/20180326/shepherd-drug-case-reinstated-to-consider-officer-testimony
  3. 7 points
    Wild Bill


    I've been noticing that the topics here are a little more encouraging than they were a couple of years ago. I'm seeing more "caregiver looking for patient", "patient looking for caregiver" etc. than we used to have. I'm also noticing fewer posts about "legal and arrested", "assets forfeited" and "child taken from home". Things are looking up!
  4. 6 points

    RSO-CBD-CBN oils

    Might as well give some anecdotal evidence; A person very close to me got addicted to opioids. Taking all kinds of those pills. His life was spiraling down and down, out of control. For years and years this went on as we watched in horror. Nothing seemed to work to get him back on track. Then one day he wanted to try some cannabis oil. I gave him a capsule and something changed. He wanted oil and not the opioids. He wanted oil every day. Small amounts. For about a year. Then one day he just quit the oil and decided he just wanted a little cannabis to smoke to take the edge off. God gave him back to us now. I can't express how priceless this is.
  5. 6 points
    Good news after hearing from the pain doctor friend of the court is no longer contesting my patient's card and after a visit to her doctor on Monday she can resume her legal use of cannabis thank you to all of you for your knowledge on this case it is greatly appreciated.
  6. 6 points

    Why I'm addicted to the site ...

    I'm not sure what has drawn me into this site ... I found this community in March of this year when I was looking for a place to retire and find medical help for my PTSD ... there is a bit of in-fighting here, not always on topic and more personal than seems necessary ... but that is, I think, what draws me and others to this site ... Passion. Everything from how you grow to how you deal with patients is openly discussed with obvious concern and passion for the present and the future ... it may be that so many CG's are here and their dedication and passion mirrors my dedication during 20 years of military service ... I can instantly respect the passion of dedicated people, honest people, those that truly are striving to make things better ... I pray that the anonymity that the internet provides doesn't mask the faith of those that contribute and post here ... I see passion in almost every post ... this is a great community and for all the dings and dents that will always happening in public discussion, this place always rises above that clatter and really informs and educates through sharing of personal experiences ... together we are always stronger
  7. 6 points

    Is this a trap?

    You can't educate through a wall of hate. Nasty folks need someone to hate on. Lower the bar for all the crap they are pulling in life. What Michigan has going for it that you can actually grow your own. All the rest is just stage dressing and BS. Do some work for yourself and enjoy the best cannabis you have ever had and fill yourself with pride!
  8. 6 points


    The verdict has been made as I sit at the councils table. She struggles to open the sealed envelope and starts the verbiage used to describe it. NOT GUILTY, Dan pats me on the back as I look to his side. I was poised and never overly excited,just content in the moment. The peace that was given beforehand, was enough to handle whatever the verdict would have been, but this is what I wanted. Now it's uplifted and removed, nice to say that I won't have to deal with it anymore. From Dan's expertise knowledge capability, this is only the third section 8 case to ever make it to trail, let alone win. Thanks for all the support, I plan on writing a book that will have the whole story; until then, always look up and be guided from the spirit within!
  9. 6 points
    Man won't face jail for technical violation of medical marijuana law Unfortunately all too often we are seeing these types of cases reported in the media regarding the MMMA. I take issue with these conclusions. The law allows each patient 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana and to cultivate up to 12 marijuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any registered caregiver can have up to that amount for each patient registered to them (with a maximum of six), including the grower, if each person has an MMMA card. In his wife’s plot were an additional 40 plants, but the agents said Delucenay was the one actually cultivating the crop, not his wife. "You can’t do two grow operations in excess of what the law allows," Kimble said. I patently disagree with this interpretation and firmly believe that the interpretation being used from the People v Bylsma Michigan Supreme Court is wrong. Section 4(d) of the MMMA clearly states that: (d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver: (1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and (2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act. The facts presented in this case seem to be unequivocal that the accused and his wife possessed a cards, and were in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. There were no assertions in this article to suggest the existence of evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act. The State claimed it was a technical violation, so why is it a “good” or “fair” deal to plead to anything other than a technical violation? Why is the only offer available to the accused to plead to a violation of the controlled substance act, when the accused is allowed to possess and engage in the medical use of marihuana? Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) "is highly complicated, especially for caregivers," Branch County Circuit Court Judge Bill O’Grady told Kevin Delucenay while the latter faced sentencing. While I disagree with this statement, and suggest complicated is a code word for good for the caregiver and bad for the Police, Prosecutor, and the costs associated with a plea to a controlled substance violation. The question that remains is if it is so complicated, why is the accused guilty of anything, other than being confused like everyone else? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but confusion of the law is something very different. Too many patients and caregivers who have relied upon the MMMA to protect them have been ensnared in the criminal justice system because of judicial and prosecutorial confusion. I would suggest that before someone is guilty of any crime, the Judge, Prosecutor and the Police must not be confused about the law. Read more: http://www.thedailyreporter.com/article/20141029/News/141028892#ixzz3HZFkElDL
  10. 6 points
    Recently in Chicago, a young man was charged and tried for felony possession with intent to deliver marijuana. During a suppression hearing, it became evident that the five officers had conducted an illegal search of the defendant's vehicle. All five officers systematically lied on the witness stand, claiming the defendant consented to the search. A video proved otherwise. The judge, a former prosecutor, admonished the officers and threw out the evidence against the defendant. The prosecutor dropped all charges against the defendant. Let's face it -- as humans, we are imperfect. Some of us lie and cheat to make our personal or professional lives easier. Like anyone else, some police officers may also lie and cheat for similar reasons. The difference between a police officer and the rest of us is that we must answer to them while the police have authoritative power to act with impunity, under the color of the law. When we discover that a police officer has lied, it raises serious questions and concerns. For every falsehood uncovered, how often does one go unnoticed? How often do a police officer's lies end up becoming damning evidence against a defendant? When the police lie, the integrity of our entire system of government comes into question. I read about the case out of Chicago, and wondered what the reaction of an average person might be. Shock? Anger? Eye-rolling annoyance? In my work as a criminal defense attorney, I leave nearly every courtroom experience feeling that the police have lied or at least exaggerated the facts. My experience is not unique. This happens every single day in every single courtroom throughout the country. To make a case against a defendant, some police officers feel the need to stretch the truth to fit within the confines of the charging crime. The war on drugs, families and our constitution is compromised when police officers lie. Lawyers challenge the integrity or truth of police officer testimony, as it relates to searches of persons and homes, before the judge and not the jury. The issue of illegal searches is a legal issue and not a factual issue. This means that at no time on behalf of my client can I argue in a jury trial that the police violated my client's constitutional right to be free from illegal searches, and therefore you should find him or her not guilty. That argument is going to be in front of a judge, if at all. Despite the solemn judicial duty to be the final arbiters of constitutional protections, it could be political suicide to appear to be soft on crime or make rulings that the police officers lied or violated the defendant's constitutional rights. Almost every case that arises from an executed search warrant will ultimately be challenged in court, yet very few result in the finding of any violation or the exclusion or suppression of illegally or unconstitutionally obtained evidence. This brings us to the case in Chicago. Five officers testified on the witness stand and lied under oath, concocting a story to avoid a finding that they had in fact violated the defendant's constitutional rights. But for a sole dash cam video these officers were unaware of, this would have been an average day in the criminal justice system. The defendant's story would have been the typical story told in the war on drugs: The bad guy doper wants the judge to believe the police are lying. The doper must be the obvious liar because he was the one caught with drugs. He's found guilty of his felony charges. Had it not been for the dash cam the officers meant to disable, the lies fabricated by all five police officers would have been accepted as the truth, and the defendant would likely be a felon, and another victim of the war on drugs, added to the growing and senseless list of American citizens. Some readers may think: the defendant had the marijuana, so even if the officers lied about how they got it, he is still guilty of a crime. Those readers are missing a very important point. We entrust our police officers with great power and a shield of governmental immunity. While they have the power to search, seize, detain, arrest and use deadly force if necessary, they must do so under the strictest of guidelines. With that in mind, consider the following: can a police officer pull you over and arrest you simply based on a hunch? No, not unless the officer observed a traffic violation or has reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed. What if an officer decided they didn't care about the law, pulled you over anyhow, handcuffed you, and then discovered you had a small bag of marijuana hidden in your right shoe? If the officer lied and said they effected the search and arrest within the confines of the law, you may very well end up with a criminal charge and conviction. When the police abuse their authority by lying, it can lead to innocent people being charged with crimes they did not commit, or simply people being illegally searched and seized, resulting in charges they would not otherwise have. For years the war on drugs has been waged based upon the truth, veracity and integrity of the law enforcement community. If a police officer doesn't have probable cause to search, they must obtain a search warrant. In order to get a search warrant, an affidavit must be presented to a neutral and detached magistrate. The magistrate is supposed to examine and read the affidavit, and determine if probable cause exists that a crime is occurring at that moment in time. If such a finding is made, the magistrate will sign the search warrant authorizing the government to execute a search warrant. This finding of probable cause and the authorization to execute the search warrant is the tool used by the government to vitiate and circumvent the protections set forth in the Constitution of both the State of Michigan and the United States. When officers lie, as in the Chicago case, the problems with the system of justice and the war on drugs is exponentially highlighted. How many times had the officers done this before? In order to have such a coordinated, if dishonest, performance, presumably this had not been the first time. How many other defendants, who also claimed the violation of their constitutional rights, challenged the officers' version of events before a judge but without a video, and were denied the relief they requested? Without the video, how can one person prove that five seasoned and experienced officers of the law were lying? What judge would ever hear the testimony of five police officers repeating the same story five times over again, yet make a finding that the defendant with drugs in his car was more honest or credible than the officers? Without hard evidence to the contrary, like the miraculous dash cam in the Chicago case, it simply does not happen, ever. What about the officers who do in fact get caught lying? One would think that for the integrity of the system, each jurisdiction would maintain a list of officers who behaved as such so that these constitutional atrocities cannot ever happen again. Yet no such list exists. In the rare situations when an officer is found to have violated a defendant's constitutional rights, similar findings often seem to appear on the same day. It's not uncommon to learn later in the day of a similar ruling, with the same officer with an affidavit for a search warrant before the same magistrate who issued the previous search warrant erroneously. Notably missing is any note of the previous transgressions, leaving a fundamental lack of accountability. The officers in the Chicago case were sent to desk duty. As far as we can tell, there has been no review of the officers' past cases. After some time passes, business will likely continue as usual. Like many other people, some police officers lie on the job. The difference is that their lies have a resounding ripple effect with devastating consequences. When an individual's reputation, years of their life or life itself hang in the balance and their entire case comes down to their word against that of a lying police officer, the odds are most assuredly not in their favor. Unfortunately, without hard evidence like a video to document your story, an officer's testimony will be very difficult to overcome. Something like a dash cam video, like the lifesaving evidence from the Chicago case, can be the difference between prison and having your charges dropped. Unfortunately, this evidence can only be collected and provided by the very people who have violated your rights -- the police. We entrust our police officers with our personal safety, protection and upholding the law. They are burdened with great responsibilities under the law to follow protocol, policies and procedures because they have tremendous power. There cannot be any blurred lines between their duties and authority as law enforcement officers, heavily limited and regulated by state law and various policies and procedures, and their powers of enforcement.
  • Create New...