December 21, 2015 – A Colorado cannabis business has lost a court battle that could have set an important tax precedent for the marijuana industry.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Colorado rejected a request to overturn a ruling forcing a now-defunct dispensary to give the IRS information about its marijuana-related sales when seeking business deductions.
The court said it could not intervene in the dispute between the dispensary – Total Health Concepts – and the IRS, adding that it rarely gets involved in legal proceedings that are ongoing, according to Law 360.
Further, the three judges on the court argued that Total Health could redress any damage caused by the IRS’ demands in an appeal of the final judgment.
The case goes back to May 2013, when the IRS asked the court to force Total Health to provide the information after the company’s owners invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
Total Health argued that its deductions should be allowed – like those of any other business – because the IRS doesn’t have the authority to determine if companies are involved with illegal substances.
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — At least three attorneys filed federal complaints Tuesday against the Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division for allegations of serious negligence or misconduct, and to contest grant money the crime labs received this year.
However, officials with both the MSP and the Michigan Attorney General’s Office told FOX 17 their agencies are not conducting investigations into these allegations.
Each complaint filed Tuesday was issued to the National Institute of Justice, Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences’ Director. Attorney Mike Nichols and attorneys Michael Komorn and Neil Rockind together wrote to inform the NIJ of the accusations that the MSP crime labs have been misreporting marijuana test results and elevating misdemeanors to a felony for the possession or manufacture of synthetic marijuana.
In late October, FOX 17 broke these allegations when Komorn uncovered internal MSP e-mails where some crime lab analysts and directors themselves protested a new THC reporting protocol change. Namely, MSP-FSD Controlled Substance Unit Supervisor Bradley Choate wrote in part, “For the laboratory to contribute to this possible miscarriage of justice would be a huge black eye for the division and the department.”
Komorn accuses the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of working inappropriately with and influencing policy of the MSP crime labs to misreport marijuana extracts, such as oils and edibles, as synthetic THC, a felony. The change seen on lab reports stems from a recent MSP-FSD policy change in the way THC is reported. Analysts are now required to write phrases such as “origin unknown” on crime lab reports when THC is tested when they believe they cannot determine the substance’s origin. Extracts have not been reported in this way for decades before, as one analyst testified back in April.
MSP is a 2015 recipient of the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grants Program.
However, records show that MSP-FSD has named its independent external investigating entity as MSP-Internal Affairs. In the filed federal complaints, Nichols, Komorn and Rockind state their concerns that MSP-Internal Affairs is not independent or external from MSP, and also asked for a thorough investigation to be done into these allegations.
“It’s an avenue to bring to light some very real and important concerns,” said Nichols.
“The Michigan State Police Internal Affairs unit is the entity that is set up through the grant that they applied for to investigate complaints,” he said. “Well, that’s the fox guarding the hen house obviously, but it’s the mechanism that’s in place, so I’ve asked for them to utilize it.”
The complaints filed Tuesday to NIJ follow Komorn Law’s complaints regarding MSP crime lab marijuana testing allegations filed Dec. 11 with the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the FBI and the Civil Rights Division for the Eastern District of Michigan, which has referred it to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Michigan in Grand Rapids.
Despite the allegations and filed complaints, MSP Public Affairs Manager Shanon Banner told FOX 17 on Tuesday that the MSP-IA is not investigating. In e-mails Banner said:
“I have confirmed that for at least the last three years, our Coverdell grant application, which was approved by the National Institute of Justice, has included the MSP Professional Standards Section (aka Internal Affairs) as the “government entity” responsible for investigating any allegations of serious negligence or misconduct. The Professional Standards Section maintains responsibility for investigating all allegations of misconduct involving MSP employees. These investigators are housed within the Office of the Director and are not members of the Forensic Science Division.
An internal policy change does not constitute misconduct or negligence. Therefore, no investigation is underway.”
When FOX 17 pressed Banner further she wrote:
“As stated in the earlier response, our designation of the MSP Professional Standards Section as the entity to conduct investigations has been approved by the NIJ for at least three grant cycles. Our review of the guidance provided by the NIJ for this grant did not uncover any federal guidelines as to what constitutes an “independent external entity.” Since the Professional Standards Section is independent, and external to the Forensic Science Division, it appears sufficient. However, your question may best be posed to the NIJ.
As to your second follow-up, the MSP does not consider your reports on a debate among colleagues prior to an internal policy decision to rise to the level of an allegation of misconduct.”
FOX 17 has reached out to the NIJ, and has yet to hear back.
Despite Banner stating the MSP does not consider these concerns allegations of misconduct, a recent chain of MSP emails show the agency appears to be keeping a close eye on FOX 17 reports. In a recent 159-page email chain between MSP personnel and supervisors that Nichols obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, in an email dated Nov. 12 Banner emailed MSP supervisors and agency leaders a link to FOX 17’s Nov. 10 report and stated:
“FYI – Here is Dana Chicklas’ most recent story from Tuesday night on medical marijuana.”
Nichols, like Komorn, Rockind, and many others, continue to push for reform in MSP crime lab procedures, beginning with a timely investigation into these allegations.
“There has been some very gray discussion about doing something to fix what happened in Ottawa County, but that’s not good enough,” said Nichols. “We need to make a change, it’s got to happen.”
“When the forensic analyst comes to court, regardless of who calls them, take off the Michigan State Police pin, put it on the stand, take off the Michigan State Police hat, and tell it like it is, and work with the accused the same way, with the same vigor, to seek justice that you would with the prosecutor.”
FOX 17 has reached out to Governor Rick Snyder’s office for comment regarding MSP crime lab allegations and filed complaints. As of Tuesday evening we have no response.
As for Ottawa County defendant Max Lorincz, his criminal case is pending.
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
The Detroit City Council on Thursday approved an ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries in the city.
The vote was 6-1, with council member Scott Benson voting no. Members George Cushingberry and Raquel Castaneda-Lopez were not present.
The ordinance will not only limit the growth of dispensaries in Michigan’s largest city — estimated at about 150 — but roll back existing ones. The measure creates 1,000-foot buffer zones for dispensaries, which generally wouldn’t be allowed closer than that distance to drug-free zones, other dispensaries, city parks, schools and churches.
The ordinance leaves 651 parcels in the city where dispensaries could legally be located, said Butch Hollowell, corporation counsel for the city.
The ordinance will become effective March 1. Police Chief James Craig said: “We will respond to any complaints of illegal activity,” but “we’re not going to arbitrarily go after” dispensaries.
“When we find that they’re operating outside the law, we will and we have investigated that,” he said.
James Shammas, owner of Unified Collective, a dispensary on Eight Mile between John R. and Woodward, called the zoning ordinance “too constricting.”
“I don’t think there’s going to be enough dispensaries to facilitate the thousands of patients who are coming to the city every day,” he said. “Do I think it needed to be regulated? Yes. But I think they rushed it, and I don’t know what the rush is.”
Earlier, Councilwoman Janee Ayers said the city has “way too many” dispensaries.
“We don’t see this happening in the suburbs. I don’t want to drive down 8 Mile and see 31 green crosses,” Ayers said, referring to the commonly used symbol for dispensaries.
The vote came after a spirited public hearing in which a number of Detroiters argued the city has too many medical marijuana shops compared to other cities in southeast Michigan.
“Detroit should do as the suburbs do — have a moratorium,” resident Tracy Perry said. “They said no, and we said nothing, and (dispensaries) flooded into Detroit.”
The City Council, said councilman Gabe Leland, has to perform a “balancing act” between clamping down on an industry critics say has grown out of control, and allowing medical marijuana patients safe access to their medicine.
Councilman James Tate said he first learned that dispensaries were operating in the city about a year and a half ago.
“I’d hate to be in a position where I couldn’t access medicine I need,” Tate said. “But enough is enough.”
Several speakers defended the need for medical marijuana shops and took issue with the implication that dispensaries are comparable to strip clubs. Some expressed concern as to where they could safely obtain medication if dispensaries were severely rolled back.
Jim Powers, whose son, Ryan, 7, is a medical marijuana patient, warned that if access to dispensaries goes away, “I will go into the neighborhoods” to access the medical marijuana, which was approved by Michigan voters in 2008.
In 2008, an overwhelming majority of Michigan voters approved legislation to legalize marijuana for medical use in the state.
With nearly 50,000 Michigan residents arrested and incarcerated each year for controlled substance violations, the state’s prison industrial complex was expected to a financial hit after the legalization of medical marijuana.
As enacted by 63 percent of Michigan voters, the Medical Marijuana Act directed police to stop wasting the state’s limited financial resources on arresting and locking up sick people for smoking pot.
But Michigan cops had a better idea. In October, police quietly changed a policy on how marijuana is tested at the state crime labs. The new policy allows medical marijuana users to be falsely charged with felony possession of a controlled substance.
While medical marijuana that is obtained from a marijuana plant can be legally obtained and used by patients who have a doctor’s prescription in Michigan, it is illegal for anyone to possess or use synthetic marijuana in the state.
As reported by Michigan Radio, the new state crime lab policy allows legal marijuana users to be charged with a crime they did not commit. The new policy,
“instructs crime labs to treat extracts that contain THC as being synthetic. That’s if it is not absolutely clear they came from a cannabis plant. That opens people to felony charges as opposed to misdemeanors.”
The new policy clearly puts the burden of proof on the accused, rather than on the state. It also directs the crime lab to operate under an unconstitutional assumption of guilt.
Internal documents obtained through a freedom of information request show that some crime lab technicians vehemently opposed the changes. Among those who protested the changes from inside the agency was Lansing Crime Lab Controlled Substances Unit Supervisor Bradley Choate.
“This could lead to the wrong charge of possession of synthetic THC and the ultimate wrongful conviction of an individual. For the laboratory to contribute to this possible miscarriage of justice would be a huge black eye for the Division and the Department.”
According to Komorn Law Office Attorney, Jeff Frazier, who is currently representing a man wrongfully charged with possession of synthetic marijuana under the new policy,
“The Michigan state crime lab systematically is reporting false results, the prosecutors then can go charge people with felonies they didn’t commit. In fact, that’s what they’re doing.”
Frazier went on to say that the new policy “contaminates and taints the very reliability and credibility of the police lab.”
Charmie Gholson, founder of Michigan Moms United, a medical marijuana advocacy group, told Michigan Radio,
“Michigan taxpayers are paying for these trumped up charges. They’re paying for the investigations. They’re paying for the prosecutions of Michigan families with no criminal intent who believed that the state was going to protect them.”
The new policy clearly violates the United States Constitution which protects the rights of the accused, and places the burden of proof on the state.
Should we surprised by that? The multi-billion dollar for profit prison industry peddles its influence through every level of government. It’s an industry that thrives off the incarceration of other human beings. According to the tenants of the corporate Bible, otherwise known as the Friedman Doctrine, the only ethical responsibility any corporation has is to ensure that its shareholders do not lose money.
Police and public officials no longer work for the people. Our tax dollars may pay their salaries, but their job is not to serve and protect us. Their job is to keep the private prisons full of young, able-bodied workers. Whether the people they arrest and incarcerate are guilty or innocent is of no consequence to them whatsoever.
Civil asset forfeiture is a controversial but legal practice that allows police to seize cash and property from people without charging them with a crime. If police simply suspect that you acquired something as a result of illegal activity, they can take it from you. If you want to get it back, the onus is on you to prove you got it legally.
As you might imagine, a lot of folks are up in arms about this. But reform has been slow. New Mexico and Montana are the only two states that have placed significant limits on the process. A similar effort in California recently died in the state legislature.
One possible reason? Most Americans aren’t even aware that civil asset forfeiture is happening.
According to a recent Huffington Post/YouGov poll, nearly three-quarters of Americans haven’t even heard of the term “civil asset forfeiture.” So pollsters got around this by asking a specific question: “To the best of your knowledge, when can law enforcement permanently seize money or other property from a person?”
Only 30 percent of Americans correctly answered that property could be seized on the basis of suspicion alone. A much larger plurality — 40 percent — think that police need a conviction in order to permanently seize goods. But that is not true.
When asked when police should be able to seize property from citizens, an overwhelming majority — 71 percent — say this should happen only after a conviction.
The amazing thing about this finding is how much agreement there is across political and demographic groups. Seventy-two percent of Democrats say a conviction should be necessary, as do 77 percent of Republicans. Sixty-eight percent of blacks and 73 percent of whites agree.
Part of the reason why so few people are worked up about civil asset forfeiture, even though many oppose it on principle, may have something to do with the term itself. “Civil asset forfeiture” is a bland, starchy phrase. You can feel your eyes start to glaze over as you read it. It is a perfect piece of bureaucratic language — it obscures its true meaning behind a thicket of legalese.
