Search the Community

Michigan Attorney General candidate Dana Nessel's acceptance speech on Sunday April 15, 2018 at the primary in Cobo Hall in Detroit

The Michigan Medical Marijuana Association endorses Dana Nessel for Michigan Attorney General. View our Endorsement here. Civil asset forfeiture is a heavily abused police tool created in order to seize assets of drug kingpins. Unfortunately, the majority of civil asset forfeiture is property or cash seized under $1,000. Police aren't tackling drug kingpins and taking $1,000 at a time, they are taking $1,000 or less from regular people. A majority of the time, these people are never charged or convicted of any crime. Civil Asset Forfeiture needs to stop. Dem candidates for AG on civil asset forfeiture By LESTER GRAHAM • MAR 16, 2018 Stateside Dana Nessel (l) and Pat Miles (r) are vying for the Democratic party's nomination to be candidate for Michigan Attorney General. LESTER GRAHAM / MICHIGAN RADIO The Democrats running for state Attorney General represent two wings of the party. Dana Nessel is a self-described progressive. Pat Miles is more centrist, but he’s shifted some of his positions on issues as he’s talked to Democrats across the state. We asked each of the candidates about asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize property when police think it was bought with illegally gotten money such as drug money. But, even if those people are not convicted or even charged with a crime, they have to fight in court to get their assets back. “There were more than 500 people last year that lost assets to the state without even being charged with anything. They weren’t even alleged to have done something wrong,” said Jarrett Skorup with Mackinac Center for Public Policy. (Hear the complete Stateside interview with Skorup here.) Groups as politically disparate as the Mackinac Center and the American Civil Liberties Union-Michigan have argued for legislation to restrict civil asset forfeiture. “I’m also one of the few attorneys running for this office that has actually handled dozens of civil asset forfeiture cases,” Dana Nessel said. There were more than 500 people last year that lost assets to the state without even being charged with anything. They weren't even alleged to have done something wrong. -Jarrett Skorup, Mackinac Center for Public Policy. She’s running for the Democratic nomination for Michigan Attorney General. She is best known as being instrumental in the case that legalized gay marriage nationally. She’s also been a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney. She has strong feelings about civil asset forfeiture. “I truly, honestly believe this to be a violation of due process," says Nessel. "What I see all the time is this: people who have never been convicted of a crime, people who have never even been charged with a crime and, you know, the police get a search warrant, they bust down somebody’s door and they take everything. They take all of their cash. They take all of their automobiles. If they have any money in a bank account, they freeze and seize that. (People) have to hire an attorney to basically prove those assets did not come about, did not come into their possession as a result of criminal distribution of narcotics." She says if elected Attorney General, her office will not use civil asset forfeiture. But, if someone is found guilty in court… “I don’t mind criminal asset forfeiture. When you have proven someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I think it’s absolutely fair game to go after property that was the result of the narcotics distribution or manufacturing,” Nessel explained. Her opponent, Pat Miles, most recently worked as U.S. Attorney in Michigan’s Western District. Prior to that, he was a partner in a Grand Rapids law firm. He specialized in business and cable/telecommunications laws. He agrees there are issues with civil asset forfeiture. “I believe that really, there’s been abuses of asset forfeiture by the law enforcement agencies and that there have, there are instances, where we should be waiting until there’s been more evidence brought and more of a conviction of when assets should be forfeited,” he stated. But, then he added he thinks it’s an important tool for law enforcement. Pat Miles: "There are instances where asset forfeiture is very appropriate, where people are using the proceeds from criminal conduct in terms of, and they should be, that’s what asset forfeiture is about. And so there are instances where it’s appropriate to use asset forfeiture." Lester Graham: "Before or after conviction?" PM: “Before conviction. There are instances where it’s appropriate.” LG: "Can you give me an idea where that would be the case, where due process wouldn’t matter?" PM: “Well, due process should always matter, and, so, but there is the instance where assets are forfeited from proceeds of large scale drug trafficking, from proceeds of embezzlement and other types of cases like that.” We went on to talk about other issues and at the end of the interview, like I often do, I asked if he had anything to add. PM: “Well, we can go back to the asset forfeiture question if you want. I might have a better soundbite for you.” LG: (laughs) "Okay. That’s fine with me. What do you want us to know about asset forfeiture?" PM: “Well, I would say that on asset forfeiture, that we should make sure that there’s due process before people’s assets are taken and that in all cases that law enforcement is not allowed to unilaterally seize assets rather than freeze assets.” LG: "That’s a little different from what you were saying before." PM: “It is.” LG: "This is your position?" PM: “That’s my position.” Just this month Miles shifted his position on legalization of recreational marijuana, an issue his opponent, Nessel has championed from the start of her campaign. It will be up to the members of the Michigan Democratic Party Endorsement Convention to make sense of those shifts. They will meet on April 15th to endorse candidates. TAGS: ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELECTION 2018

The Michigan Medical Marijuana Association endorses Dana Nessel for Michigan Attorney General. View our Endorsement here. Civil asset forfeiture is a heavily abused police tool created in order to seize assets of drug kingpins. Unfortunately, the majority of civil asset forfeiture is property or cash seized under $1,000. Police aren't tackling drug kingpins and taking $1,000 at a time, they are taking $1,000 or less from regular people. A majority of the time, these people are never charged or convicted of any crime. Civil Asset Forfeiture needs to stop. Dem candidates for AG on civil asset forfeiture By LESTER GRAHAM • MAR 16, 2018 Stateside Dana Nessel (l) and Pat Miles (r) are vying for the Democratic party's nomination to be candidate for Michigan Attorney General. LESTER GRAHAM / MICHIGAN RADIO The Democrats running for state Attorney General represent two wings of the party. Dana Nessel is a self-described progressive. Pat Miles is more centrist, but he’s shifted some of his positions on issues as he’s talked to Democrats across the state. We asked each of the candidates about asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize property when police think it was bought with illegally gotten money such as drug money. But, even if those people are not convicted or even charged with a crime, they have to fight in court to get their assets back. “There were more than 500 people last year that lost assets to the state without even being charged with anything. They weren’t even alleged to have done something wrong,” said Jarrett Skorup with Mackinac Center for Public Policy. (Hear the complete Stateside interview with Skorup here.) Groups as politically disparate as the Mackinac Center and the American Civil Liberties Union-Michigan have argued for legislation to restrict civil asset forfeiture. “I’m also one of the few attorneys running for this office that has actually handled dozens of civil asset forfeiture cases,” Dana Nessel said. There were more than 500 people last year that lost assets to the state without even being charged with anything. They weren't even alleged to have done something wrong. -Jarrett Skorup, Mackinac Center for Public Policy. She’s running for the Democratic nomination for Michigan Attorney General. She is best known as being instrumental in the case that legalized gay marriage nationally. She’s also been a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney. She has strong feelings about civil asset forfeiture. “I truly, honestly believe this to be a violation of due process," says Nessel. "What I see all the time is this: people who have never been convicted of a crime, people who have never even been charged with a crime and, you know, the police get a search warrant, they bust down somebody’s door and they take everything. They take all of their cash. They take all of their automobiles. If they have any money in a bank account, they freeze and seize that. (People) have to hire an attorney to basically prove those assets did not come about, did not come into their possession as a result of criminal distribution of narcotics." She says if elected Attorney General, her office will not use civil asset forfeiture. But, if someone is found guilty in court… “I don’t mind criminal asset forfeiture. When you have proven someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I think it’s absolutely fair game to go after property that was the result of the narcotics distribution or manufacturing,” Nessel explained. Her opponent, Pat Miles, most recently worked as U.S. Attorney in Michigan’s Western District. Prior to that, he was a partner in a Grand Rapids law firm. He specialized in business and cable/telecommunications laws. He agrees there are issues with civil asset forfeiture. “I believe that really, there’s been abuses of asset forfeiture by the law enforcement agencies and that there have, there are instances, where we should be waiting until there’s been more evidence brought and more of a conviction of when assets should be forfeited,” he stated. But, then he added he thinks it’s an important tool for law enforcement. Pat Miles: "There are instances where asset forfeiture is very appropriate, where people are using the proceeds from criminal conduct in terms of, and they should be, that’s what asset forfeiture is about. And so there are instances where it’s appropriate to use asset forfeiture." Lester Graham: "Before or after conviction?" PM: “Before conviction. There are instances where it’s appropriate.” LG: "Can you give me an idea where that would be the case, where due process wouldn’t matter?" PM: “Well, due process should always matter, and, so, but there is the instance where assets are forfeited from proceeds of large scale drug trafficking, from proceeds of embezzlement and other types of cases like that.” We went on to talk about other issues and at the end of the interview, like I often do, I asked if he had anything to add. PM: “Well, we can go back to the asset forfeiture question if you want. I might have a better soundbite for you.” LG: (laughs) "Okay. That’s fine with me. What do you want us to know about asset forfeiture?" PM: “Well, I would say that on asset forfeiture, that we should make sure that there’s due process before people’s assets are taken and that in all cases that law enforcement is not allowed to unilaterally seize assets rather than freeze assets.” LG: "That’s a little different from what you were saying before." PM: “It is.” LG: "This is your position?" PM: “That’s my position.” Just this month Miles shifted his position on legalization of recreational marijuana, an issue his opponent, Nessel has championed from the start of her campaign. It will be up to the members of the Michigan Democratic Party Endorsement Convention to make sense of those shifts. They will meet on April 15th to endorse candidates. TAGS: ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELECTION 2018

Attorney General Jeff Sessions January 4th memo regarding marijuana enforcement is historic... and it should promptly be consigned to the dustbin of history. Mr. Session’s very name is a history lesson. Like his father and grandfather, he was named after Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy and P.G.T. Beauregard, the first prominent general of the Confederate Army. These were the men who lead the people of Alabama in their desire and purpose to join the “slave-holding states” to secede from the U.S. and form a government where “in no case shall citizenship extend to any person who is not a free white person.” See Alabama Ordinance of Secession. Mr. Sessions memo overturning Obama era guidelines for federal marijuana prosecutions is entirely consistent his historic roots. Here’s why. When the South failed in its quest to preserve the “peculiar institution” of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation followed. “Separate but equal” became the rallying cry to keep whiteness supreme. With Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this became impossible. American society convulsed. In 1968, Richard Nixon took the White House by appealing to the “silent (white) majority” and exploiting Southern fears of the recently empowered African-Americans. The South has been Republican ever since. Here’s how Nixon did it. He declared a War on Drugs. John Ehrlichman a Nixon staffer revealed the real roots of the criminal prohibition of marijuana and other substances: “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” By 1980 with the ascension of Ronald Reagan (and Nancy Reagan’s vacuous “Just Say No”), the drug war was hitting its stride. George H.W. Bush amended the Posse Comitatus Act to allow the military to be used as a domestic police force in the drug war, effectively para-militarizing police forces across the nation. In 1994, Bill Clinton passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. In the 22 years since the bill was passed, the federal prison population more than doubled. War is a bi-partisan vice, and scare-mongering reliably delivers votes. It is to this era that Mr. Sessions seeks to return us with his memo. That is because the war on drugs has been extraordinarily successful in its primary purpose: to vilify Blacks and the Anti-war left, arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and put them in jail. By 2000, incarceration numbers began to become available in parts of the South demonstrating that the drug war increasingly was a war on African Americans, particularly Black males of prime breeding age. One in three black men in the United States between the ages of 20 and 29 years old was under correctional supervision or control. Among the nearly 1.9 million offenders incarcerated on June 30, 1999, more than 560,000 were black males between the ages of 20 and 39. At those levels of incarceration, newborn Black males in this country had a greater than 1 in 4 chance of going to prison during their lifetimes, while Latin-American males have a 1 in 6 chance, and white males have a 1 in 23 chance of serving time. The United States was incarcerating African-American men at a rate that was approximately four times the rate of incarceration of Black men in South Africa. The rate of imprisonment for black women was more than eight times the rate of imprisonment of white women; the rate of imprisonment of Hispanic women was nearly four times the rate of imprisonment of white women. We can trace those disparities directly to discriminatory and selective enforcement of the drug laws. Most illicit drug users were white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were illicit drug users. Yet, blacks constituted 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations and almost 60% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics accounted for 22.5%. Drug laws had become the new Jim Crow. Texas was particularly bad. By 2000, there were more Texans under criminal justice control, 706,600 -- than the entire populations of Vermont, Wyoming or Alaska. Texas’s incarceration rate of 1,035 per 100,000 population tops every state but Louisiana. If Texas were a separate nation, it would have the world’s highest incarceration rate, well above the United States at 682 per 100,000 or Russia's 685. The state's prison population had tripled since 1990, rising more than 60 percent in the past five years -- from 92,669 to 149,684. Black Texans were incarcerated at a rate seven times that of whites -- and at a rate 63 percent higher than the national rate for blacks. Blacks supplied 44 percent of the inmates in Texas although they constituted only 12 percent of the state's population. More than half of all Blacks were in jail in Texas for nonviolent offenses. They ended up picking cotton, herding cattle or, contracted out as labor to assemble computers. Then came 9/11. Criminal justice reform took a backseat to terror wars until those wars too lost all legitimacy. It was not until the election of Barack Obama and the appointment of Eric Holder that the real roots of this massive, fraudulent, unjust war on drugs began to be addressed. Over the course of that presidency, states were allowed to advance their experiments with medicinal and later adult use marijuana. Civil asset forfeiture at the federal level was reigned in and the use of private, for-profit prisons was curtailed. A key part of this reform was a statement of guiding principles for federal prosecutors regarding marijuana. These guidelines allowed states to proceed with some predictability in their local marijuana programs. Mr. Sessions has undone all of this. Why is this important? Because the numbers have only grown worse. An African-American in Michigan is three times more likely to be arrested for violating marijuana laws compared to a white person, although surveys and research indicate little difference between usage rates between the two groups. In all, African-Americans comprise about 14 percent of Michigan's population, but 35 percent of marijuana arrests. Overall, African-Americans in Michigan are incarcerated at roughly five times the rate of whites. The numbers in the white flight counties of the Eastern District of Michigan are even more unconscionable. In St. Clair County, African-Americans make up 2.5% of the total population yet account for 43% of arrests for drug law violations. In Oakland County, African-Americans make up 14.4% of the population yet account for 48% of arrests for drug law violations. In Lapeer County African-Americans make up 1.2% of the population yet account for 10.4% of arrests for drug law violations. In Genesee County African-Americans make up 20% of the population yet account for 76% of drug arrests. This according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Medical marijuana patients and programs are squarely in the cross-fire of a war with deeply racial roots. We say that the only citizen more vulnerable to police misconduct than a young black male in Texas is a medical marijuana patient in Michigan. Mr. Sessions knows all of this. It is in his blood. In his name. This is not accidental. Mr. Sessions and his ilk want to return us to an age when names like Jefferson Davis and P.G.T. Beauregard are names to be proud of and ditzy slogans like “just say no” and “good people don’t smoke marijuana” substitute for real science. Mr. Sessions war is arbitrary, capricious, and racist. His dismissive memo merely enshrines the worst of policies and promotes selective and discriminatory enforcement of the law. Can a community that has been abused for years by a corrupt, federal, militarized police force that is selectively enforcing the law on the basis of race organize to end its oppression? Yes. See e.g. the American Revolution. In 1776, the British Redcoats had become a federal military police force with wide ranging powers to enforce the contraband laws Then, as now, most contraband consisted of drugs, primarily tea and tobacco. Then, as now, the police were allowed to issue “writs of assistance” (roving search warrants devoid of probable cause) allowing them to seize and keep the property of those persons believed to be illicitly trafficking. Then, as now, such power and temptation corrupted the police authorities, resulted in selective enforcement of the law and produced wide scale violations of God-granted liberties. Then, the community organized to resist. The Boston Tea Party, the American Revolution and the Bill of Rights ensued. Among the rights enshrined is the right to organize and to oppose abuses by a federal, corrupt, militarized police force. 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “I thought those guys (the KKK) were alright until I learned they smoke pot.” -- Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III

Denver -- Colorado has made an unusual plea to federal authorities: Let our colleges grow pot. In a letter sent last month, the state attorney general's office asks federal health and education officials for permission for Colorado's colleges and universities to "obtain marijuana from non-federal government sources" for research purposes. Read More...

The Michigan Attorney General’s office filed a formal complaint with the Licensing and Regulation Division (LARA), alleging that a physician failed to require patients to produce medical records and “failed to maintain those records,” prior to and after recommending patients for medical marijuana. The first question raised is, will the Attorney General’s investigation extend to all doctors, or is this only an issue because it involves medical marijuana? Through the four-year history of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), the physician certification process has been a hot topic, with opponents of the Act routinely criticizing this aspect of the law. To some, these doctors are helping patients find relief through medical marijuana in light of professional risk, complaints and potential criminal investigations. Opponents, however, maintain that obtaining one’s medical marijuana card is too easy, citing that as of one year ago, more than 90 percent of the state’s 64,000 patients were using medical marijuana to treat severe pain, muscle spasms or nausea. A year later, the state has more than 130,000 registered medical marijuana patients. One fact often overlooked is that LARA has an entire page on its website devoted to pain management, and nearly 30 percent of Michigan’s residents have sought treatment for an acute pain condition in the past year. The current legislative process and proposed bills being discussed in Michigan’s House and Senate are opening a potentially dangerous debate, not trusting physicians to make the right decision and injecting politics into our right to privacy in healthcare. No other prescription or diagnosis is as scrutinized as a medical marijuana recommendation, despite doctors being tasked with control, regulation and administering thousands of other substances throughout their careers. If Michigan policymakers truly want to protect the medical marijuana community and ensure safe access to medicine, they need to focus on amending the Public Health Code, not the MMMA or attacking those recommending the medicine. Doing so would first allow and recognize the use of medical marijuana and protect recommending physicians, preventing physicians from shying away from medical marijuana for fear of prosecution. The issue of medical marijuana is a public health issue, not a public safety issue. In order for the MMMA to truly work as intended, and to give the voters of Michigan what they approved, the state needs to trust and rely on board-certified physicians, not politicians, to make proper decisions about the use and recommendation of medical marijuana. Share this: http://komornlaw.com/komornlawblog/attorney-general-files-charges-against-doctor-who-recommended-marijuana/

US Attorney General Eric Holder “Cautiously Optimistic” About Marijuana Legalization During a visit to the federal courthouse is Charleston, US Attorney General Eric Holder explained that he is :cautiously optimistic” about recreational marijuana legalization in Washington and Colorado. When asked where he saw the future of marijuana, however, Holder wasn’t so positive. “I think there might have been a burst of feeling that what happened in Washington and Colorado was going to be soon replicated across the country,” he stated. “I’m not sure that is necessarily the case. I think a lot of states are going to be looking to see what happens in Washington, what happens in Colorado before those decisions are made in substantial parts of the country.” Holder also explained that he is pleased with the compliance with the Department of Justice’s eight marijuana-related enforcement priorities. “I think what people have to understand is that when we have those eight priorities that we have set out, it essentially means that the federal government is not going to be involved in the prosecution of small-time, possessory drug cases, but we never were,” Holder said. “So I’m not sure that I see a huge change yet, we’ve tried to adapt to the situation in Colorado with regard to how money is kept and transacted and all that stuff, and try to open up the banking system.” Despite feeling optimistic, Holder did say that the progress in Colorado and Washington is being closely monitored by the Department of Justice. He said, “If we conclude that they are not being done in an appropriate way, we reserve our right to file lawsuits.”

Washington, D.C. -- The Obama administration would be willing to work with Congress if lawmakers want to take marijuana off the list of what the federal government considers the most dangerous drugs, Attorney General Eric Holder said Friday. "We'd be more than glad to work with Congress if there is a desire to look at and reexamine how the drug is scheduled, as I said there is a great degree of expertise that exists in Congress," Holder said during a House Appropriations Committee hearing. "It is something that ultimately Congress would have to change, and I think that our administration would be glad to work with Congress if such a proposal were made." Read More...

Bill Schuette's re-election campaign reports $1.2M cash on hand LANSING, Michigan — Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette's (SHOO'-tee's) re-election campaign says its 2013 state campaign finance report will show more than $1.2 million in cash on hand. The Bill Schuette for Attorney General Campaign on Friday announced the planned filing, which is expected at the end of the month. The announcement comes after the Republican's campaign recently rolled out a leadership team covering each of Michigan's counties ahead of next year's election. (Story distributed by The Associated Press) Trix

High Court Hears Medical-Marijuana Case Florida -- Tallahassee’s political establishment has repeatedly blocked legislative votes on medical marijuana and will ask the Florida Supreme Court Thursday to follow suit and keep the issue away from state voters in 2014. Led by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, opponents have raised a host of objections to the proposed state constitutional amendment, which they say could lead to de facto “unfettered” marijuana legalization under the guise of compassionate medicine. “The proposal hides the fact that the Amendment would make Florida one of the most lenient medical-marijuana states,” says Bondi’s initial court brief. Read More...

Mizeur To Propose Legalization of Marijuana Maryland -- Maryland Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Heather R. Mizeur on Tuesday will propose legalizing marijuana and using the tax revenue it generates to fund pre-kindergarten education, according to an advance copy of her plan. Mizeur, a Montgomery County delegate who faces Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown and Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler in next year’s Democratic primary, proposes that Maryland regulate marijuana much like it does alcohol. She estimates that taxing the drug could yield up to $157.5 million in new revenue for the state each year. Read More...

My thoughts on the recent charges against a medical marijuana-recommending doctor in Michigan, featured on the The Huffington Post Detroit's page. http://www.huffingto..._b_1914157.html Recently, the Michigan Attorney General's office filed a formal complaint with the Licensing and Regulation Division (LARA), alleging that a physician failed to require patients to produce medical records and "failed to maintain those records," prior to and after recommending patients for medical marijuana. The first question raised is, will the Attorney General's investigation extend to all doctors, or is this only an issue because it involves medical marijuana? Through the four-year history of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), the physician certification process has been a hot topic, with opponents of the Act routinely criticizing this aspect of the law. To some, these doctors are helping patients find relief through medical marijuana in light of professional risk, complaints and potential criminal investigations. Opponents, however, maintain that obtaining one's medical marijuana card is too easy, citing that as of one year ago, more than 90 percent of the state's 64,000 patients were using medical marijuana to treat severe pain, muscle spasms or nausea. A year later, the state has more than 130,000 registered medical marijuana patients. One fact often overlooked is that LARA has an entire page on its website devoted to pain management, and nearly 30 percent of Michigan's residents have sought treatment for an acute pain condition in the past year. The current legislative process and proposed bills being discussed in Michigan's House and Senate are opening a potentially dangerous debate, not trusting physicians to make the right decision and injecting politics into our right to privacy in healthcare. No other prescription or diagnosis is as scrutinized as a medical marijuana recommendation, despite doctors being tasked with control, regulation and administering thousands of other substances throughout their careers. If Michigan policymakers truly want to protect the medical marijuana community and ensure safe access to medicine, they need to focus on amending the Public Health Code, not the MMMA or attacking those recommending the medicine. Doing so would first allow and recognize the use of medical marijuana and protect recommending physicians, preventing physicians from shying away from medical marijuana for fear of prosecution. The issue of medical marijuana is a public health issue, not a public safety issue. In order for the MMMA to truly work as intended, and to give the voters of Michigan what they approved, the state needs to trust and rely on board-certified physicians, not politicians, to make proper decisions about the use and recommendation of medical marijuana. Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/09/grand_rapids_attorney_on_marij.html GRAND RAPIDS, MI – A proposed city charter amendment will go on November’s ballot despite objection from state authorities. A Decriminalize GR group last month submitted enough signatures to put up for a public vote a plan to make marijuana possession and use a civil infraction punishable with a maximum fine of $100. Grand Rapids submitted the charter amendment for review by Attorney General Bill Schuette and Gov. Snyder. Based on an opinion from Schuette’s office that some components of the Grand Rapids proposal conflict with state law, the governor’s office objects to the charter revision. “We haven’t had a great deal of time to evaluate the attorney general’s substantive objections,” City Attorney Catherine Mish said. “It could, in theory, point out the possibility that the voters could pass a charter amendment that is ineffective in that it contradicts state law. “All I know is I can accurately count to 100 and the attorney general cannot.” Among the attorney general’s objections to the Grand Rapids proposal was that the ballot language exceeded a 100-word maximum. Mish said the attorney general’s office was including the “shall this proposal be approved” part of the language in the count, but Christopher M. Thomas, the state’s director of elections, wrote to Kent County Clerk Mary Hollinrake that those words should not be counted. RELATED: What will motivate your vote on marijuana decriminalization?