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.
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 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.”
Lansing — Gov. Rick Snyder signed emergency rules Monday allowing medical marijuana dispensaries to stay open after Dec. 15 without affecting their chances of getting a state license in certain circumstances.
Under one of dozens of new medical marijuana administrative rules Snyder approved, marijuana pot shops that were approved by their local municipal government prior to Dec. 15 can stay open until the state issues or denies them a license. That’s the same date dispensaries, growers and other pot enterprises can submit applications to the state to operate legally.
A 2013 Supreme Court decision ruled that dispensaries are illegal under state law. But many in Ann Arbor, Detroit and Lansing have not been targeted by State Police, while regional narcotics teams led by the state agency have cracked down in other areas of Michigan.
A 2016 overhaul to the state’s 2008 voter-approved Medical Marihuana Act allowed the department to craft the new rules as Michigan tries to transition to a fully legal medical marijuana business nearly 10 years later.
According to the order, not issuing the emergency rules would “have a detrimental effect on the necessity for access to a safe source of marihuana for medical use and the immediate need for growers, processors, secure transporters, provision centers, and safety compliance facilities to operate under clear requirements.”
The emergency rules are aimed at keeping existing medical marijuana shops open temporarily, so long as they’ve also received local government approval. They come after a member of a state board charged with issuing licenses originally threatened this summer to close them down.
The new emergency rules also established what many in the industry consider to be hefty start-up capital requirements. Growers must prove they have $150,000 to $500,000 in capital depending on the size of their farm. Dispensaries and processors must prove they have $300,000 in capital, while transporters and safety compliance businesses must have $200,000.
Applicants also must pay a $6,000 application fee and have an additional $100,000 in insurance. The rules also create product rules establishing limits for THC, the main psychoactive element in marijuana.
Michael Gerstein, The Detroit News Published 3:27 p.m. ET Dec. 4, 2017 | Updated 3:46 p.m. ET Dec. 4, 2017
What does the Medical Marihuana Licensing Board (“the board”) do?
The Medical Marihuana Licensing Board is comprised of 5 members, appointed by the Governor (with input from the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House), to administer the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act. This includes reviewing applications, issuing licenses, revoking/suspending licenses, renewing licenses, and investigating individuals who are applying for licensure or complaints received about someone who holds a license.
What are the different licenses I can apply for?
You may apply for the following licenses:
Grower
Processor
Transporter
Provisioning Center
Safety Compliance Facility
What costs are associated with a license?
Payment to secure transporters for transferring marihuana, as needed;
Annual, nonrefundable fee (of up to $5,000) to be set by, and paid to, your local municipality.
These fees are used to offset administrative and enforcement costs associated with the operation of a marihuana facility in the municipality;
An application fee per category and class of license;
Investigation and processing fees not covered by the application fee;
An annual regulatory assessment fee;
A renewal fee;
Late fees if renewal fee is not paid on time;
Provisioning centers will pay 3% on gross retail receipts
Does my municipality have any involvement with my license?
Yes, a municipality (city, township or village) has the following involvement:
Must pass an ordinance which authorizes the type of facility you wish to open;
May limit the number of each type of facility within the municipality’s boundaries;
Any other ordinances relating to marihuana facilities;
May adopt zoning regulations relating to facilities within its jurisdiction;
The municipality must receive notice from you that you have applied for any one of the five licenses;
May establish an annual fee to be paid by you; the fee can be as much as $5,000.00;
Must approve your request to have your license transferred, sold or purchased.
Does my criminal history prevent me from obtaining a license?
It depends on whether the following are true:
The applicant is ineligible if he or she has been convicted of or released from incarceration for a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or the United States (federal law) within the past 10 years or has been convicted of a controlled substance-related felony within the past 10 years.
The applicant is ineligible if he or she has been convicted of a misdemeanor involving a controlled substance, theft, dishonesty, or fraud in any state within the past 5 years.
The applicant is ineligible if he or she has been found responsible for violating a local ordinance in any state involving a controlled substance, dishonesty, theft, or fraud that substantially corresponds to a misdemeanor in that state within the past 5 years.
The Board may take into consideration the following:
Whether the applicant has been indicted for, charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, pled guilty or nolo contendere to, forfeited bail concerning, or had expunged any relevant criminal offense under the laws of any jurisdiction, either felony or misdemeanor, not including traffic violations, regardless of whether the offense has been expunged, pardoned, or reversed on appeal or otherwise.
What prohibits a person from obtaining a license?
An applicant cannot obtain a license if any of the following is true:
The applicant is ineligible if he or she has knowingly submitted an application for a license under this act that contains false information.
The applicant cannot be a member of the Medical Marihuana Licensing Board.
The applicant is ineligible if he or she fails to demonstrate the ability to maintain
adequate premises liability and casualty insurance for its proposed marihuana facility (an insurance policy that covers at a minimum of $100,000).
The applicant cannot hold an elective office of a governmental unit of this state, another state, or the federal government; is a member of or employed by a regulatory body of a governmental unit in this state, another state, or the federal government; or is employed by a governmental unit of this state. This subdivision does not apply to an elected officer of or employee of a federally recognized Indian tribe or to an elected precinct delegate.
The applicant, if an individual, is ineligible if he or she has been a resident of this state for less than a continuous 2-year period immediately preceding the date of filing the application. This requirement does not apply after June 30, 2018.
The applicant is ineligible if the Board determines he or she failed comply with section 205(1).
The applicant fails to meet other criteria established by rule.
The applicant is ineligible if he or she has been convicted of or released from
incarceration for a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or the United States (federal law) within the past 10 years or has been convicted of a controlled substance-related felony within the past 10 years.
The applicant is ineligible if he or she has been convicted of a misdemeanor involving a controlled substance, theft, dishonesty, or fraud in any state within the past 5 years.
The applicant is ineligible if he or she has been found responsible for violating a local ordinance in any state involving a controlled substance, dishonesty, theft, or fraud that substantially corresponds to a misdemeanor in that state within the past 5 years.
What other things may potentially prevent an applicant from getting approved for a license?
The Board may take into consideration the following:
The integrity, moral character, and reputation; personal and business probity; financial ability and experience; and responsibility or means to operate or maintain a marihuana facility of the applicant and of any other person that either:
Controls, directly or indirectly, the applicant.
Is controlled, directly or indirectly, by the applicant or by a person who controls, directly or indirectly, the applicant.
The financial ability of the applicant to purchase and maintain adequate liability and casualty insurance.
The sources and total amount of the applicant’s capitalization to operate and maintain the proposed marihuana facility.
Whether the applicant has filed, or had filed against it, a proceeding for bankruptcy within the past 7 years.
Whether the applicant has been served with a complaint or other notice filed with any public body regarding payment of any tax required under federal, state, or local law that has been delinquent for 1 or more years.
Whether the applicant has a history of noncompliance with any regulatory requirements in this state or any other jurisdiction.
Whether at the time of application the applicant is a defendant in litigation involving its business practices.
Whether the applicant meets other standards in rules applicable to the license category.
Whether the applicant has been indicted for, charged with, arrested for, or convicted of, pled guilty or nolo contendere to, forfeited bail concerning, or had expunged any relevant criminal offense under the laws of any jurisdiction, either felony or misdemeanor, not including traffic violations, regardless of whether the offense has been expunged, pardoned, or reversed on appeal or otherwise.
Where can I find more information on each type of license?
Details on each license category can be found in Part 5 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act, 2016 PA 281.
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.
Qualifying patient or primary caregiver; arrest, prosecution, or penalty prohibited; conditions; privilege from arrests; presumption; compensation; physician subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty prohibited; marihuana paraphernalia; person in presence or vicinity of medical use of marihuana; registry identification card issued outside of department; sale of marihuana as felony; penalty; marihuana-infused product.
Registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver; arrest, prosecution, or penalty, or denial of right or privilege prohibited; conditions.
AN ACT to license and regulate medical marihuana growers, processors, provisioning centers, secure transporters, and safety compliance facilities; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities; to create a medical marihuana licensing board; to provide for interaction with the statewide monitoring system for commercial marihuana transactions; to create an advisory panel; to provide immunity from prosecution for marihuana-related offenses for persons engaging in marihuana-related activities in compliance with this act; to prescribe civil fines and sanctions and provide remedies; to provide for forfeiture of contraband; to provide for taxes, fees, and assessments; and to require the promulgation of rules.
History: 2016, Act 281, Eff. Dec. 20, 2016 Compiler’s Notes: Enacting section 2 of Act 281 of 2016 provides:”Enacting section 2. The legislature finds that the necessity for access to safe sources of marihuana for medical use and the immediate need for growers, processors, secure transporters, provisioning centers, and safety compliance facilities to operate under clear requirements establish the need to promulgate emergency rules to preserve the public health, safety, or welfare.”
PART 8. MARIHUANA ADVISORY PANEL (333.27801…333.27801)
MARIHUANA TRACKING ACT
Act 282 of 2016
AN ACT to establish a statewide monitoring system to track marihuana and marihuana products in commercial trade; to monitor compliance with laws authorizing commercial traffic in medical marihuana; to identify threats to health from particular batches of marihuana or medical marihuana; to require persons engaged in commercial marihuana trade to submit certain information for entry into the system; to provide the powers and duties of certain state departments and agencies; to provide for remedies; and to provide for the promulgation of rules.
Statewide monitoring system; use as integrated marihuana tracking, inventory, and verification system; requirements; rules; bids; violation; termination of contract.
Detroit — It’s been a year since Detroit put laws in place to regulate medical marijuana shops and as of today, only two have been approved to operate.
The strict set of zoning and licensing requirements adopted in 2015 by the City Council went into effect last March. That’s when all shops — existing and new — seeking to operate lawfully were required to apply online, submit plans, meet rules and obtain licensing, or face closure.
The city has received more than 260 applications for Medical Marijuana Caregiver Centers since that time. But new figures released by the city this week reveal only two prospective centers cleared the required hurdles.
Green Cross on West Eight Mile opened in mid-February as Detroit’s first licensed center. Its operators were the first to apply under the new law and completed the “vigorous” process Feb. 3, said manager Simon Berro.
“We went to the city. We listened to what they said. We followed their rules,” said Berro of the center, operated by the Detroit Caregivers Center Association. “We took all precautions, and it was a vigorous process, but nonetheless, it worked out at the end.”
The Green Genie on McNichols on the city’s west side also has its license. The building and its signage indicate the facility is open, but no staff was there Thursday afternoon.
Meanwhile, 136 shops have been closed down, padlocked and sealed with bright orange stickers by the city’s Building Safety Engineering & Environmental Department. And 115 others remain in various stages of the application process, according to the building department, which has enforcement authority under the code.
“There’s a lot of growing pains that exist,” said Jamaine Dickens, a spokesman for Top Dollar Holdings, which operates a caregiver center, 420 Dank on Gratiot. “It’s been a learning experience for all involved from the city and most certainly from the industry.”
The center, Dickens said, had been in operation prior to the ordinances and has done everything “by the letter of the law.” Top Dollar Holdings is one of only a few operators so far granted a variance by the city’s zoning board after it was deemed too close to a church and liquor store. Its center is now working to obtain its business license, Dickens said.
The rules, aimed at bringing order to what had been an unregulated practice, have cleared the way for Detroit to shut down so-called pot shops failing to seek compliance under the ordinance or dispensing medical marijuana in zones prohibited under federal, state and city statutes.
The federal Drug Free School Zone Act prevents marijuana from being delivered, sold or manufactured within 1,000 feet of a school. State law also factors libraries into the rule. The city’s zoning regulations cover educational institutions and goes beyond that, prohibiting shops from operating near child care centers, arcades and outdoor recreation facilities.
There were 283 dispensaries throughout the city when Detroit began accepting applications under the new laws on March 1, 2016.
Detroit Corporation Counsel Melvin Butch Hollowell said each was sent a letter, warning they were “operating at their own risk” until fully licensed. The shops were also provided a 30-day window to submit applications before enforcement officially began.
Hollowell and the zoning code note shops in operation prior to the laws without licenses are able to continue serving patients so long as they have put in “good faith” applications. The operators who haven’t top a priority list for closure, Hollowell said.
Some medical marijuana advocates contend the city’s zoning laws are unfairly restrictive and applications are being processed too slowly, and they fear patients will suffer.
Robin Schneider, executive director of the National Patient Rights Association, said she’s disappointed with the lack of progress a year in.
“(Detroit) has the most exclusionary zoning practices of anything I’ve ever seen in the state,” said Schneider, who is concerned some applicants have been improperly turned down because they are located near long-closed former schools or child care buildings. “I think the fact that patients still do not have access to licensed facilities is a disservice to patients.”
The zoning legislation will permit about 50 shops overall. Still, Hollowell doesn’t think it will lead to hardships.
“There will be an appropriate number of locations that will be made available for people to sell the medicine,” he said. “We just want to make sure that as they are opened, they are opening in an orderly fashion and meeting needs of patients required for treatment.”
Hollowell added the small number of shops to complete the approvals so far shows “diligence” in the stringent requests for zoning, site and security planning, tax and health code clearances and licensing.
“It’s a new field,” he said. “It’s being processed well.”
Under the code, centers must operate in heavily commercial or industrial areas and are barred from locating in neighborhoods.
That’s welcomed by by Cortez York, who lives off Eight Mile on the city’s east side where centers along the main roadway have been plentiful. The 24-year-old said the marijuana centers “bring a lot of activity.”
Some of it has subsided since the city’s new laws have gone into place, he said.
“Some of them are taking the signs away. I see less cars pulling up all day and pulling out,” he added. “The neighborhood looks more peaceful.”
Hollowell said a mix of about 150 newer and older shops operating in Detroit are still facing closure because they haven’t made bids to legally operate. The city’s Law Department on Thursday said it estimates another 70-80 shops with applications pending are also operating.
About 80 others have been shuttered by neighborhood police officer and building inspector enforcement teams, and 55 closed after Detroit’s legal department filed nuisance abatement lawsuits in Wayne County Circuit Court.
Under city ordinance, centers must submit specific documentation and undergo a site plan review, public hearing over land use and secure a certificate of occupancy, business licensing and inspections, among other things. The requirements also cover site and security plans, insurance, lighting and parking specifications. Licenses must be renewed annually.
Centers can appeal to the city’s Board of Zoning Appeals for variances if they are turned down for being too close to schools, churches, liquor stores or other controlled uses. Challenges beyond that can be argued in circuit court.
Nathan Oakes, managing partner of Greener Crossing, a caregiver center on the city’s east side, said he supports the strict laws, saying they help rid the city of facilities that aren’t running honest business.
Oakes, a U.S. Marine Corps. veteran, said he got into the business to ensure safe access for veterans. He opened the center in October 2015 on a heavily industrial section of Hoover, off Eight Mile.
Oakes’ center is among those the city has allowed to continue serving patients while completing the application process. He’s endured the various steps and is obtaining his certificate of occupancy and inspections. He hopes to get his business license by spring.
“I find (the city) to be strict. I think that’s a good thing,” he said. “There’s a lot of fly-by-night organizations trying to just grab money in this business. Then, there’s the legitimate operations serving the patients. I think the ordinance helps distinguish between those two.”
But Andre Godwin, who represents the Sons of Hemp, a group of herbalists, caregivers and dispensary owners, said the laws have left many in limbo and are “making it bad for everyone.”
Godwin, who formerly filed a legal challenge to the new law, said the city is being “too intrusive” and the group is considering a petition drive to get a measure before voters in hopes of repealing it.
The Detroit News Published 10:50 p.m. ET March 16, 2017
Posted by Michael Komorn , 12 April 2017 · 792 views
Our client, a medical marijuana patient registered with the State of Michigan, was out for a boat ride and some fishing on his friend’s boat. What started out as a glorious day with intentions of sun and fishing on the Detroit river later turned into federal charges of possession of marijuana (21 USC 844, 21 USC 844a) when a Border Patrol agent pulled up to them and wanted to search their vessel.
Related: Michigan law regarding marijuana manufacture, delivery, and possession The federal border patrol agent required that the two passengers, my client and his friend, open all the containers in the immediate area, to which they complied.
After the agent found no contraband, he demanded that the occupants of the boat hand over the marijuana because, according to the agent, it smelled like marijuana on the boat.
Additionally, the agent said that if someone did not give him the marihuana, he was going to call the K9 unit. What does the driver of a car or boat say in response to a law enforcement officer demanding that the occupants of the vehicle hand over the marijuana, or else?
For a vehicle, we know that the traffic stop can’t or shouldn’t take last for any longer that it takes to execute the traffic stop, identify and inform the driver of the violation, and issue a ticket, if appropriate.
A traffic stop is not an opportunity to gather evidence of probable cause of the vehicle to search. That basic threat, calling the dogs, would be unconstitutional. That is to say, the delay in calling the dogs to get probable cause would be a delay beyond the scope of the lawful police interaction. The delay to call the dogs is a delay for the purpose of getting probable cause to search the vehicle. Most times this decision on how to respond should be determined on a case-by-case factual basis. In other words, depending upon what is within the vehicle, the driver may or may not comply with the request of the officer.
The rule of thumb, however, is to never consent to a search, ever. Equally important is the rule that you should never talk to the police or answer questions. Specifically, in these traffic encounters, or even vessel encounters, the investigated driver is not under arrest.
The encounter is an interaction called an investigation, and anything that is said during this encounter will be used against you. Ultimately, our client handed over the marijuana cigarettes and his patient card.
As my client was reminded by the Border Patrol Agent, there is no medical marihuana on federal jurisdiction. Or said another way, it was the intent of this agent to make a federal case out of it.
After being retained by our client, and after a few pretrial conferences and conferences with the Assistant United States Attorney, we learned that it was also the intent of the United States Government to make a federal case of it. Federal jurisdiction, as mentioned above, is a very different venue to litigate a marihuana case, even if it’s just for a joint or two.
The liabilities for punishment are much greater, and in certain situations get worse, the more the accused litigates the case. That is to say, any benefits of resolving the case with a plea bargain are minimized should you force the government to litigate the case. It is under these circumstances that we needed to make our decisions on how to proceed.
As we got closer to the day of trial, the Government offered a number of different plea offers and options to resolve the case. Unfortunately, none of them contemplated the medical use of marihuana while being supervised on probation.
Similar to many of the State Courts throughout Michigan, the likelihood of any probation supervision of any kind would preclude the medical use of marihuana.
Not directly pertinent to this case either factually or due to our federal court venue, the only Michigan case law that addresses the issue is a recent case in the Court of Appeals, People v Magyari, the defendant argued that, pursuant to the MMMA, the court could not prohibit his medical marijuana use during probation because he possessed a patient card, but the court’s opinion characterized the defendant’s use of marijuana as non-medical, and did not apply their reasons for upholding the lower court decision the appeal to all cardholders.
A probation condition disallowing his medical use of marijuana was not acceptable to my client, and besides, who would want to plead guilty to something that the state government has authorized you to possess, let alone be on probation for the same behavior? So as often is the case, the choices that presented themselves compelled us to reject the offers to plead guilty and instead litigate the case.
Our response to the offer to plead guilty was to file a “Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Justice Spending Funds to Prevent Implementation of Michigan Marijuana Laws.” I think it is more than ironic that as we put together the motion challenging the federal government’s authority and jurisdiction to prosecute the matter, the issue of States’ Rights was in the forefront in a national debate. As outlined in the motion, the legal authority prohibiting the jurisdiction of the government in our matter was vitiated by the Cole memorandum – both of them.
Additionally, the Rhorabacher-Farr amendment was more than clear in its intent to preclude federal agents employed by the DOJ, including the DEA, from investigating or prosecuting medical marihuana patients that are in compliance with state law. If there was ever a case with the perfect facts to prevail upon it would be this case, and the mere two marijuana cigarettes.
In contrast, the circumstances of the case cited, US v McIntosh, dealt with dispensaries and commercial marihuana sales. Our case was as authentic patient activity as one could find. After filing the motion to dismiss, and appearing for the motion hearing, we learned that the Government had decided to dismiss the case. The AUSA indicated to me that he had “no desire to go to the mat with me on this case” and he was “not going to make bad case law with this case.” Or said another way, he knew that he was going to lose, and instead of dealing with that result which would be precedent and impact the entire Sixth Circuit Trial Court, he thought it best to dismiss the case, and let us go on our way.
The moral of this story is that when they make a federal case out of it, you should do the same.
