Client testimonies about their experience with the legal system

Client testimonies about their experience with the legal system

Komorn Law clients speak about their experience with the legal system

 

Several of Komorn Law client’s as well as other individuals have chosen to speak about their encounter with law enforcement, the legal system and how it has affected their lives, families and future. Their encounters with law enforcement vary as well as the end results.

Here are some of their stories captured on video.

Note: In the upper left corner of the video there is a menu which gives you access to a playlist of numerous videos


 

Don’t Forget

  • The Police may legally lie, bluff, mislead and intimidate you.
  • Most “avoidable arrests” occur from trickery and intimidation and failing to understand your rights and when to assert them.
  • Refusing to answer questions is not an admission of guilt
  • Asserting your right to remain silent is not an admission of guilt
  • Demanding to have your lawyer present during any questioning is not an admission of guilt
  • Refusing a search is not an admission of guilt.

Be aware of Police Questions:

  •  “Have you had anything to drink tonight?”
  •  Best response: is no
  • Where are you coming from? It is best to have this answer pre-prepared so as to not raise suspicion.Or answer the Officers questions by stating “Respectfully officer, I don’t have to answer that.”
  • “Not answering is suspicious, why are you not answering my question, clearly you are doing something wrong?” Best Answer: “Officer, respectfully I am aware of my rights, and constitutional protections, and I know I have no legal obligation to answer your questions.
  • “Not answering is resisting me in this investigation”
    Best Answer: “I’m not resisting, respectfully, I don’t have to answer anything.”
  • “If you have nothing to hide, you don’t mind if I look around.”
    Best response: “I’m sorry Officer, but I don’t consent to searches.”
  • “If you refuse a search, I’ll have to call a K-9 unit.”
    Best response: “Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?”
  • Officers cannot detain you past the purpose of the traffic stop and detaining you beyond this purpose is constitutionally illegal. Specifically officers cannot detain you beyond the traffic stop for the purpose of calling for a k-9 unit or drug sniffing dog.

If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime you should have an attorney representing your interests.  Contact Komorn Law Immediately to protect your rights  800-656-3557.

Related Links


About Komorn Law

Komorn Law has represented numerous clients through the legal chaos of starting up a business in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Industry as well as consulting and legal representation for Medical Maruhuana Patients and Caregivers.

If you or someone you know has been arrested as a result of Medical Marijuana, DUI, Drugs, Forfeiture, Criminal Enterprise or any other criminal charges please contact our office and ensure you’re defended by an experienced lawyer.

Attorney Michael Komorn is recognized as an expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.

Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation  800-656-3557.

Follow Komorn Law

This page is for informational purposes only. Laws, regulations and the world changes routinely therefore we insist you consult an attorney for the most current legal information.
MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT – Section 4 Defense

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT – Section 4 Defense

Marijuana Criminal Defense

Client with medical marijuana card was charged with marijuana possession. Client was assigned a court appointed lawyer and encouraged to plead guilty and accept 3 months of probation. Client hired Michael Komorn for representation and withdrew the plea.

The charge was dismissed.

 

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT (Initiated Law 1 of 2008)
Title AN INITIATION of Legislation to allow under state law the medical use of marihuana; to provide protections for the medical use of marihuana; to provide for a system of registry identification cards for qualifying patients and primary caregivers; to impose a fee for registry application and renewal; to make an appropriation; to provide for the promulgation of rules; to provide for the administration of this act; to provide for enforcement of this act; to provide for affirmative defenses; and to provide for penalties for violations of this act.

 

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

Chapter 333
Section 333.26424
History History: 2008, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 4, 2008 ;– Am. 2012, Act 512, Eff. Apr. 1, 2013 ;– Am. 2016, Act 283, Eff. Dec. 20, 2016

 

Description
Section 4. will present the protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana
Details
Sec. 4.

(a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed a combined total of 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana and usable marihuana equivalents, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount. The privilege from arrest under this subsection applies only if the qualifying patient presents both his or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued identification card that bears a photographic image of the qualifying patient.

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card is not subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act. The privilege from arrest under this subsection applies only if the primary caregiver presents both his or her registry identification card and a valid driver license or government-issued identification card that bears a photographic image of the primary caregiver. This subsection applies only if the primary caregiver possesses marihuana in forms and amounts that do not exceed any of the following:

(1) For each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process, a combined total of 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana and usable marihuana equivalents.

(2) For each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility.

(3) Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.

(c) For purposes of determining usable marihuana equivalency, the following shall be considered equivalent to 1 ounce of usable marihuana:

(1) 16 ounces of marihuana-infused product if in a solid form.

(2) 7 grams of marihuana-infused product if in a gaseous form.

(3) 36 fluid ounces of marihuana-infused product if in a liquid form.

(d) A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this act, unless the person’s behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.

(e) There is 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 complies with both of the following:

(1) Is in possession of a registry identification card.

(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.

(f) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation does not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

(g) A physician shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by the Michigan board of medicine, the Michigan board of osteopathic medicine and surgery, or any other business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for providing written certifications, in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship and after the physician has completed a full assessment of the qualifying patient’s medical history, or for otherwise stating that, in the physician’s professional opinion, a patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the serious or debilitating medical condition, provided that nothing shall prevent a professional licensing board from sanctioning a physician for failing to properly evaluate a patient’s medical condition or otherwise violating the standard of care for evaluating medical conditions.

(h) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for providing a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver with marihuana paraphernalia for purposes of a qualifying patient’s medical use of marihuana.

(i) Any marihuana, marihuana paraphernalia, or licit property that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marihuana, as allowed under this act, or acts incidental to such use, shall not be seized or forfeited.

(j) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

(k) A registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state, district, territory, commonwealth, or insular possession of the United States that allows the medical use of marihuana by a visiting qualifying patient, or to allow a person to assist with a visiting qualifying patient’s medical use of marihuana, shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.

(l) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed the medical use of marihuana under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

(m) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner or denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for manufacturing a marihuana-infused product if the person is any of the following:

(1) A registered qualifying patient, manufacturing for his or her own personal use.

(2) A registered primary caregiver, manufacturing for the use of a patient to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process.

(n) A qualifying patient shall not transfer a marihuana-infused product or marihuana to any individual.

(o) A primary caregiver shall not transfer a marihuana-infused product to any individual who is not a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process

 

Links

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-333-26424

 


About Komorn Law

Komorn Law has represented numerous clients through the legal chaos of starting up a business in the Michigan Medical Marihuana Industry.

If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana, DUI, Drugs, Forfeiture, Criminal Enterprise, etc. Please contact our office and ensure you’re defended by an experienced lawyer in the evolving laws.

Lead attorney Michael Komorn is recognized as an expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.

Contact us for a free no-obligation case evaluation
800-656-3557.

Follow Komorn Law

Michigan Methamphetamine Defense

Michigan Methamphetamine Defense

 

Bill Schuette, the current Michigan Attorney General, is waging war against Meth users, dealers and labs. Innocent people get swept up with meth crimes when police run field tests on any powdery substances, frequently returning false positive results.

Komorn Law can defend Michigan and Federal charges of methamphetamine possession , methamphetamine use and methamphetamine manufacture.

Michigan law has the following jail penalties for Methamphetamine:

  • Meth Manufacturing:  20 year Felony, $25,000 fine or both.
  • Purchasing more than 3.6 grams of Ephedrine or Pseudoephedrine  in one day or more than 9 grams in a 30 day period is a misdemeanor with a penalty up to 93 days in jail, a $500 fine, or both.
  • Possession of more than 12 grams of Ephedrine or Pseudoephedrine is a felony punishable by 2 years imprisonment, $2,000, or both.
  • Possessing Meth is a felony, with a max penalty of 10 years, a $15,000 fine, or both.
  • Persuading someone to purchase ephedrine or Pseudoephedrine while knowing that it will be used to manufacture methamphetamine : one year in prison and a $1,000 fine, or both.
  • Use of Methamphetamine: 1 year in prison, a $2,000 fine, or both.
  • Delivery of Meth: 20 years in prison, a $25,000 fine, or both.
  • Possessing laboratory or providing labratory equipment to a person is a Felony max 10 years in prison, $100,000 or both.
  • Operating a methamphetamine laboratory within 500ft of another occupied building or in the presence of a child is a felony punishable by 20 years in prison, a $100,000 fine, or both.

Gov Snyder signed more laws against methamphetamine in 2016.

Any person attempting to persuade someone to purchase ingredients for methamphetamine will be issued a $1,000 fine and could spend up to one year in prison.

There also will be a five-year “stop sale alert” on individuals convicted of soliciting the sale of ingredients.

Increasing penalties for those who manufacture meth near libraries or schools also will be enforced under the new legislation

 

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/05/04/meth-michigan-schuette/101301876/

Posters paid for by the Consumer Healthcare Productions Association, a trade group representing medicine manufacturers, will be distributed to pharmacists and retailers reminding the public that “police take NAMES… and make ARRESTS” for buying medications to make meth.

“If you are a runner, if you’re one of the helpers for these meth cooks, you do the crime, you’ll spend some time,” Schuette said. “The whole point is we want to alert folks that the meth epidemic is real.”

Michigan implemented a precursor database in 2011 that tracks pseudoephedrine purchases and prohibits over-the-counter sales if an individual has exceeded allowable limits in a 24-hour or month-long period.

That database helped block sales of more than 8,700 boxes of cold and allergy medicine in 2016, said sponsoring Sen. John Proos, R-St. Joseph. The system discourages illegal behavior but balances consumer access to legal medication, he said.

But the real-time tracking database is having little effect on the availability of pseudoephedrine to meth lab operators, according to a 2016 report by the Michigan State Police. Rather, evidence suggests smurfing has significantly increased since the database legislation was passed.

“Smurfers frequently use fraudulent or stolen identities to make these purchases,” according to the report. “This makes real-time electronic tracking ineffective in stopping the statewide illegal manufacture of methamphetamine.”

Schuette and Proos said it is incumbent upon retailers and pharmacists who use the database to properly check driver’s licenses or state identification cards.

“It’s a two-way responsibility,” Schuette said. “Everybody bears responsibility on this, whether it’s a fake ID for buying pseudoephedrine or a fake ID for buying alcohol. There is responsibility on the retailers and the pharmacists, no doubt about it.”

 

The Real-Time Tracking Database had little effect on meth labs?

Yet more wasted resources and tax payer dollars from Governor Rick Snyder and the Michigan Legislature.

 

Wayne county methamphetamine charges?

Oakland county methamphetamine charges?

Macomb county methamphetamine charges?

Washtenaw county methamphetamine charges?

Monroe county methamphetamine charges?

Livingston county methamphetamine charges?

Call Komorn Law PLLC to defend these misdemeanors and felonies.

Foster Care Agencies Allegedly Discriminated Against Poor, Medical Marijuana Patients

Two families — including one mom who alleges Child Protective Services took her suckling baby from her breast — are suing the state, alleging discrimination because they are medical marijuana users and poor.

In the lawsuit, attorney Michael KOMORN alleges the faith-based foster care and adoption agencies used by the State of Michigan were “grossly negligent” in opposing and delaying reunification of his clients’ children on the grounds of “poverty and illness” and in violation of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.

The suit also alleges Michigan laws allowing faith-based agencies “to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs are unconstitutional.”

“The mental image of CPS entering a hospital room accompanied by armed men and taking a newborn from a nursing mother’s breast and from the grandmother, shattering three generations of lives because CPS and Holy Cross (Children Services) found this family to be unfit because they were poor, diseased, medical marijuana card holders is excruciating,” Komorn said in the lawsuit filed Dec. 15 in the Court of Claims. “They treated this family the way the poor and leprous were treated until Jesus taught otherwise.”

Plaintiffs in the case are two families — Jennifer BARTLETT, her three children and parents, and Spring Lake residents Max LORINCZ and his wife, Erica CHITTENDON, and their son.

In addition to Clinton-based Holy Cross, defendants are the State of Michigan, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Director Nick LYON, Executive Director Herman McCALL of Children Services Agency, Holy Cross worker Andrea HAGEN, Bethany Christian Services and its social worker, Kerry JIPPING, and CPS social worker Cody MAYHEM.

Kassie KRETZSCHMAR, a spokeswoman with Holy Cross, was not able to comment on Thursday because the agency had not seen the lawsuit.

A spokeswoman with Bethany Christian Services was working to get a comment from officials late Thursday.

The suit alleges gross negligence and wanton misconduct, and violation of the Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act.

According to the lawsuit, Bartlett’s children were removed from the family after a houseguest was killed in January 2016 when his gun accidentally discharged while her children were present.

Bartlett took her children to her parents’ home for safety while police investigated the case as a murder prior to blaming her boyfriend, who had spent time in jail.

Mayhew went to the children’s grandparents’ home and told Bartlett that the children were going to be removed because Bartlett “was not showing proper emotions and was making poor life choices,” the lawsuit alleges. Mayhew then drug-tested Bartlett, who tested negative, and she questioned the grandparents,’ who she said “were medical marijuana cardholders.”

Bartlett’s children were removed after a hearing in January 2016 and placed with Holy Cross.

Hagen, who was the Bartlett family’s caseworker, told the court the children shouldn’t be placed with her parents’ because her father had a 27-year-old conviction for use of half of a marijuana joint.

Drug officers later interviewed Bartlett to try to tie her and her boyfriend to drug trafficking in Detroit, which she denied. She was later charged with maintaining a drug house. She was eventually released on bond, but rearrested and charged with possession of drugs found in her dead guest’s pockets as well as conducting a criminal enterprise.

The lawsuit alleges that Hagen maintained Bartlett’s parents would not be good placement for her children because they “had a bad attitude” and were “uncooperative.” She also publicly revealed medical information about the grandmother in violation of federal privacy rules, the suit alleges.

Bartlett, who was pregnant, was released from jail in November 2016. A few hours after giving birth, a CPS worker saw her breastfeeding the baby and returned later with a court order and the police.

CPS “took (the) baby . . . from her mother’s breast and took her away, placing her with Holy Cross,” Komorn alleged.

After more than a year in foster care, Bartlett’s children were returned to her and the case closed in June 2017.

Komorn noted in the lawsuit that Hagen was “recently disciplined” by the Department of Health and Human Services for “misrepresenting health issues” of Bartlett’s parents “to justify placing the children with Holy Cross,” according to the lawsuit.

The allegations are similar in Lorencz’s case.

According to the lawsuit, Lorencz’s doctor recommended medical marijuana to alleviate chronic pain and he opted to use an oil extract from the plant. He was charged in September 2014 with misdemeanor possession of marijuana, which was bumped up to a felony possession after Lorencz refused to plead guilty to the misdemeanor.

The felony charge was later dismissed, but not until after the state “took away” Lorencz’s 5-year-old son, who was placed with Bethany Christian Services.

The lawsuit alleges Lorencz and Chittendon were not told that they could opt-out of a faith-based agency. When they learned they could, they sought a court order dismissing Bethany.

The lawsuit further alleges that Jipping testified at a hearing that “marijuana, even legally used for medical conditions, makes a parent unfit.” The caseworker acknowledged, however, that there was no evidence to prove drug abuse or that Lorencz was not in clear mind around his son when using medical cannabis.

Komorn further alleges that once Bethany Christian Services no longer had the pending criminal charges to use against his client, they “made other ridiculous claims” to keep his client’s son in foster care, including that he “plays lots of video games, his family is poor and his mother is ill.”

“Court hearings revealed that the behavior shown by Bethany Christian Services, including asking the child himself to choose between his parents and other living options, was contradictory to state procedures regarding foster care,” Komorn wrote in court documents. “The caseworker explicitly testified that she had not read or followed the (CPS’) policy. Instead . . . she follows Bethany Christian Services’ policy.”

According to Bethany Christian’s employee policy, “Under no circumstances will marijuana be considered a ‘legal drug.’ . . . Use of marijuana is not permitted under this policy even if the marijuana is used for medical purposes and is permitted under state law.

The state’s Medical Marijuana Act notes that a “person shall not be denied custody or visitation” or a minor under the act unless the “person’s behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.”

 

People v Max Lorincz

 

Crime labs ‘bend science’ to strip medical marijuana rights, lawsuit says

Federal class action lawsuit filed against MSP crime labs over marijuana reporting policy

Judge dismisses felony charges against Michigan man in medical pot case

Medical marijuana patients reunited with son after lengthy court battles, unfounded drug charges

Felony synthetic THC charge tossed in Michigan man’s battle with crime lab

Judge dismissed felony charge against medical marijuana patient Max Lorincz

Southfield attorneys accuse MSP Crime Lab of negligence and incompetence

Forensic scientists blast State Police crime lab THC policy as man fights to get son back

Crime Lab and Forensic Scandals

Study Finds That State Crime Labs Are Paid Per Conviction

Private Crime Labs Could Prevent Errors, Analyst Bias

Medical Marijuana Lawyers Want Crime Lab Removed From Michigan State Police

Medical marijuana lawyers want state crime lab moved out of Michigan State Police

Defense attorneys seek fed inquiry of MSP crime labs

Federal complaints allege marijuana misreporting by State Police crime lab

MSP defends marijuana crime lab reporting after FOX 17 investigation

Attorney: Crime labs ‘falsified’ marijuana reports

Michigan Prosecutors Pressured Lab on Medical Marijuana Results

Attorney Alleges Authorities `Bend The Science’ To Elevate Marijuana Cases

Drug felonies without credible proof? — Allegations of politicking in state police crime labs

Attorney: Crime labs ‘falsified’ marijuana reports

Hearing in alleged false crime lab marijuana reporting dropped this week

Emails spell out alleged scandal in state crime lab testing, falsely reporting marijuana

“A non-stop political game:” Former MSP Forensic Science director on false marijuana reporting …

Michigan’s medical marijuana law circumvented by crime labs’ THC reports, attorney charges

Medical-Marijuana Patient Alleges Prosecutors Swayed Crime Lab Drug Tests

Allegations: MSP falsely reporting marijuana, targeting card-carrying patients

Father fighting to use medical marijuana concentrates

 

MMMA-Profile-Michael-Komorn

 

Here are some links to articles posted by Attorney Michael Komorn

 

US Government Collecting and Using Citizen Communications

NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM Technical Report Series No. 446 (1996)

Oral cannabis extracts as a promising treatment for the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder

CBD-enriched medical cannabis for intractable pediatric epilepsy: The current Israeli experience

Why Marijuana Assets May Not Be Administered in Bankruptcy

Official Administrative Rules for Facilities Licensing Act

AG Candidate Patrick Miles Cannot Run From His Record

Michigan Medical Marijuana dispensary owner sentenced in federal court

 

 

If you or someone you know is facing charges as a result of Medical Marijuana recommended to you as a medical marijuana patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, contact Komorn Law and ensure your rights are protected.  Michael Komorn is recognized as a leading expert on the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group which advocates for the rights of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers.

 

 

MMMA- Michael Komorn Blog Page – Click Here

 

Komorn Law Website – Click Here

Komorn Law – Victory in Genesee County

Komorn Law – Victory in Genesee County

Komorn Law PLLC is proud to report a ruling today from the Genesee County Circuit Court.

 

Komorn Law victory in Genesee County Circuit Court

This case involved my client’s property and all kinds of salacious allegations of really bad behavior by this property, and I mean bad stuff, like stuff you could never imagine property could actually do.

 

To add to the drama of all this unimaginable behavior by my clients property, the accuser was an ” entity” called FANG. The story for the last 3 years, told by the State ( the ATTORNEY’S for FANG) was that that the bad behaving property needed to be held by FANG, because it was bad behaving ( if this makes no sense, it is not supposed to).

 

Additionally FANG was of the opinion that because of these allegations  they should be able to keep all of my client’s bad behaving property (there has been no conviction).

 

Today in the civil forfeiture against my client and his “allegedly evil” property the Court granted our motion for summary disposition ( no genuine issue of fact existed to which reasonable minds could differ) ultimately dismissing the forfeiture case and ordering the return of all that bad behaving property.

 

https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Komorn-Law-Victory-in-Genesee-County-170823.pdf

 

File this one in the category:

#PolicingForProfit

#StopTheRaids

#ForfeitureAbuse

#TrialLawyer @KomornLawMI

#DeweyRocks