MOUNT CLEMENS — Mount Clemens is one step closer to adopting a medical marijuana caregiver facility ordinance.
At the April 5 Mount Clemens City Commission meeting, one item up for discussion was introducing and reading the ordinance, which was approved in a 4-2 vote. Its April 19 meeting, after press time, was set for when the ordinance adoption could happen.
Commissioners Ron Campbell and Laura Fournier voted no. Commissioner Denise Mentzer was absent from the meeting.
In November, the commission adopted a resolution establishing a moratorium on issuance of any permits, certificates or approvals relating to patient caregiver cultivation of marijuana.
“The city has experienced a number of cooperatives in vacant industrial or commercial buildings where multiple caregivers have gone into one building, fenced it off and are growing plants as if they had a growers license under the Medical Marijuana Ordinance,” Mount Clemens City Attorney Michael Murrary said.
Murray added that the ordinance provides for caregivers to be restricted to single-family residences. The ordinance would permit two caregivers per home, with each residence being the principal dwelling for each caregiver.
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS.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 U.S. house just passed the The SAFE Banking Act (H.R.1996 — 117th Congress 2021-2022). The act would establish a safe space for financial institutions to engage in cannabis commerce.
The SAFE Banking Act is a first step in ensuring that state regulated markets can operate openly in the banking system. Still according to federal law these state markets are running a criminal enterprise as marijuana is still (as of 4/20/21) on the controlled substance list as a CS1. But the IRS still want it’s money anyway and reminded marijuana businesses through the IRS 280E that they are illegal and still have to pay taxes.
Summary: H.R.1996 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2021 or the SAFE Banking Act of 2021
This bill generally prohibits a federal banking regulator from penalizing a depository institution for providing banking services to a legitimate cannabis-related business. Prohibited penalties include terminating or limiting the deposit insurance or share insurance of a depository institution solely because the institution provides financial services to a legitimate cannabis-related business and prohibiting or otherwise discouraging a depository institution from offering financial services to such a business.
Additionally, proceeds from a transaction involving activities of a legitimate cannabis-related business are not considered proceeds from unlawful activity. Proceeds from unlawful activity are subject to anti-money laundering laws.
Furthermore, a depository institution is not, under federal law, liable or subject to asset forfeiture for providing a loan or other financial services to a legitimate cannabis-related business.
The bill also provides that a federal banking agency may not request or order a depository institution to terminate a customer account unless (1) the agency has a valid reason for doing so, and (2) that reason is not based solely on reputation risk. Valid reasons for terminating an account include threats to national security and involvement in terrorist financing, including state sponsorship of terrorism.
Starting A Cannabis Business?
Start it right from the beginning – by choosing the right legal team
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.
Komorn Law is proud to report a significant and relevant case victory directly related to our recent Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion win in the People v. Thue case where as a registered medical marijuana patient cannot be penalized for consuming medical marihuana while on probation.
The Client Issue
Our client was charged with violating his probation for allegedly testing positive for “Marihuana” on 2 occasions. The allegations were based upon a urine test which both indicated the metabolite of Delta-9 THC, Carboxy -11/ COOH-11.
Our client was certified as a medical marihuana patient after the date of the first alleged violation but before the second alleged violation. We had filed several motions, including but not limited to, a “Motion to allow for the Medical Use of Marihauana While on Probation”.
A probation violation hearing began on January 14, 2021, whereby testimony was taken, from the probation officer, and our expert.
Our position and the evidence we presented established that the urine samples indicating the metabolite Carboxy-11 COOH-11, were from a lawful source. The matter was adjourned, mid hearing.
Return to Court
On February 22, 2021 – when we appeared before the court again in person, we were happy to hear the court had read and reviewed the People v,.Thue case, commented on our involvement, and was prepared to rule on the allegations regarding the 2 positive urine tests.
Because of the People v,Thue case our previous position regarding “lawful THC” became moot.
In summary the court found that because of the current valid medical marihuana patient status of my client, he could not be revoked from probation, for either violation. That is to say, that the allegation of his use prior to becoming a registered medical marihuana patient (and the allegation after he became a certified patient) were dismissed.
“Counsel, that is my interpretation of the case” the Court said. To which I replied, I agree that is the correct interpretation.
The Court dismissed both of the violation, and amended the sentencing order to allow for the medical use of cannabis while on bond.
Huge shout out to our client for his courage in wanting to assert his rights and challenge the allegations, the legal defense team at Komorn Law PLLC, and Dr. Land for his expertise in science and assistance in presenting our case.
For the last 13 years of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (“MMMA”), patients on probation have asked that simple question. Relying on the simple plain language in the act that protects a medical marijuana patient from denial of any right or privilege (probation), as well as protection from penalty in ANY MANNER, as long as they followed the medical marijuana laws and rules.
Until now, it was up to each individual courtroom to decide the patients fate. The judges, prosecutors, probation officers and drug testing labs decided which medicines a probationer could use. In some cities and townships medical marijuana was allowed, but in others, patients had to fight. Some were successful, most were banned from using their doctor recommended medicine, and would likely face serious penalties and jail time if they broke those probation rules. Thousands of patients were sent back to jail because of testing “dirty.”
As president of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association, Michael Komorn has fought for every patient on this issue in courtrooms across the state, by trying to secure their rights under the law to not be penalized for the legal use of medical marijuana. Komorn has fought for patients on bond to be able to use medical marijuana as a bond condition. With over 300,000 registered medical marijuana patients in Michigan, thousands of patients had their bond revoked due to choosing their medicine, as recommended by a doctor.
The justice system has crushed medical marijuana caregivers and patients for more than a decade on many issues. Usually with the excuse that “marijuana is illegal” or “a trial court has considerable discretion to set conditions of probation.”
Four years ago, this was the excuse in People v Magyari that the Michigan Court of Appeals used to deny a registered medical marijuana patient from administering medical marijuana for his condition. The Court stated in its opinion:
“Defendant has failed to offer any persuasive argument for the proposition that the MMMA prohibits a trial court from ever imposing a probationary condition barring the use of medical marijuana. The challenged probationary condition is reasonably related to the goal of defendant’s rehabilitation, including preventing future criminality, as well as protecting the public. Affirmed.”
Until February 2021, when People v Thue was published, that was the law of the land.
Today, attorneys Michael Komorn and Alyssa McCormick, of Komorn Law, provided the “persuasive argument” for medical marijuana on probation. That persuasive argument boiled down to the plain language of the law that so many courts have ignored and disparaged for the last 13 years. The plain language of the law in section 4, for the right to use medical marijuana, has not changed, so why did it take this long to have a correct ruling? No one knows.
The Court ruled:
“The Michigan Probation Act permits a court to impose multiple conditions of probation on a defendant under MCL 771.3. However, provisions of the probation act that are inconsistent with the MMMA do not apply to the medical use of marijuana.”
The Court went on to state:
“We also conclude that the revocation of probation upon the MMMA-compliant use of marijuana constitutes a “penalty” under MCL 333.26424(a) of the MMMA.”
Most times, courts will not rule on both of these issues. Due to the “first out” rule, the appeals courts usually decline to rule on further issues such as penalties.
One of the more incredible rulings in this opinion was on the issue of mootness. Because of the details of the case, Komorns client’s probation ended before the appeal could be heard. The court in its wisdom understood that this issue was of such public importance and issued an opinion even though the client no longer had standing.
The only other medical marijuana case Komorn can remember that issued a ruling where the defendant did not have standing was when the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an opinion against a patient for taking his plants out of his enclosed locked facility for spraying with pesticide. He lacked standing because he died before the court could issue its opinion. The court issued its opinion anyway, post-mortem. Issues of standing and mootness are the FIRST requirements of having a court review an issue.
Having a court rule favorably while overlooking standing and mootness is quite extraordinary. One can only chalk it up to experience and strategy, or as some call it, “lawyer magic.”
Some judges have called the MMMA the worst law they’ve ever seen.
Courts have ruled against patients in all kinds of cases because they personally feel that marijuana is bad.
The Michigan Court of Appeals in Magyari even claimed that marijuana was addictive! “Further, the trial court found that defendant would simply be replacing one addictive drug—alcohol, for another—marijuana.”
The courts have been wildly inconsistent with opinions, rulings, reversals and remands on the medical marijuana law.
Some predictions are that this ruling will also apply to patients on bond or parolees. While this might be true, we have seen most recently that the Michigan Supreme Court has upended even the simplest of understandings of the plain language of the MMMA, specifically in the case of Deruiter v Byron Township. In Deruiter, the Court unanimously said that a township could craft an ordinance that added requirements to the MMMA. This flies in the face of earlier rulings from the MSC where the justices said in oral arguments that you cannot add surplusage or make any words nugatory within the act.
Said another way, because of the ruling in Deruiter, what would stop a locality from drafting an ordinance with additional requirements to administer medical marijuana while on probation?
“As in Qualls and Miller, the local ordinance goes further in its regulation but not in a way that is counter to the MMMA’s conditional allowance on the medical use of marijuana. We therefore hold that the MMMA does not nullify a municipality’s inherent authority to regulate land use under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA), MCL 125.3101 et seq.,13 so long as the municipality does not prohibit or penalize all medical marijuana cultivation, like the city of Wyoming’s zoning ordinance did in Ter Beek II, and so long as the municipality does not impose regulations that are “unreasonable and inconsistent with regulations established by state law.” Qualls, 434 Mich at 363.”
It is also suggested that because the MMMA and the 2018 Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana (MRTMA) use similar language that this ruling could be used to have the same protective effects of all adults 21 and over to use marijuana while on probation.
Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient … is not subject to … penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege… for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act
1. Notwithstanding any other law or provision of this act … the following acts by a person 21 years of age or older are … not grounds for … penalty in any manner … and are not grounds to deny any other right or privilege …
Both laws have sections stating that all other laws do not apply to them. The intent of both laws is the same– to give people the right to have medical marijuana and legal marijuana. Under no other circumstances can an individual be denied access to marijuana, as long as they follow the MMMA and or MRTMA.
HANDS OFF OUR MARIJUANA ALREADY. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.
Strangely, there is an unattributed quote, possibly from one of the judges in the case which addresses this in the opinion:
“We note, however, that the MMMA is inapplicable to the recreational use of marijuana, and thus, a trial court may still impose probation conditions related to the recreational use of marijuana and revoke probation for such recreational use, as well as for marijuana use in violation of the MMMA.”
While the opinion did not directly address the MRTMA (notwithstanding the weird uncited and dicta quotation at the bottom of page 6-7 of the slip opinion), it seems that the statutory language in MCL 333.27955(1) and MCL 333.27954(5) would compel a similar outcome with respect to adult-use marijuana.
The Thue opinion relies on the preemption language in MCL 333.26427(e) and finds that revocation of probation is a “penalty” in violation of Section 4 of the MMMA.
Similarly, Section 5(1) of the MRTMA provides, “Notwithstanding any other law or provision of this act, and except as otherwise provided in section 4 of this act, the following acts by a person 21 years of age or older are not unlawful, are not an offense, are not grounds for seizing or forfeiting property, are not grounds for arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, are not grounds for search or inspection, and are not grounds to deny any other right or privilege . . .”
While Section 4(5) of the MRTMA provides, “All other laws inconsistent with this act do not apply to conduct that is permitted by this act.”
It would seem that the takeaway of Thue opinion is that revocation of probation is a “penalty” and the MRTMA prohibits the imposition of a penalty for conduct that is permitted by the MRTMA, it would stand to logically follow that the MRTMA similarly protects those who are age 21+ from having their probation revoked for engaging in conduct that is protected by the MRTMA.
An issue to be fought in court in the future.
Don’t face the system alone– Hire The Best If you want your right to use marijuana while on bond or probation Call Komorn Law PLLC248-357-2550
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.
AP) — Judges can’t prevent people from using medical marijuana while on probation for a crime, the Michigan Court of Appeals said.
Anyone holding a state-issued medical marijuana card is immune to possible penalties, the appeals court said, 3-0.
The court, however, cautioned that the decision does not apply to the recreational use of marijuana, which was approved by voters in 2018.
Michael Thue was barred from using medical marijuana while on probation for a year in a road rage incident in the Traverse City area. A District Court judge said the marijuana ban was the policy of Circuit Court judges in Grand Traverse County.
Circuit Judge Thomas Power declined to hear an appeal.
The appeals court said Power made the wrong call, based on a line of decisions from the Michigan Supreme Court and the language of the medical marijuana law.
The law “preempts or supersedes ordinances and statutes that conflict” with it, said judges Mark Cavanagh, Deborah Servitto and Thomas Cameron.
The Attorney
Medical marijuana patients have had their doctor recommended use of cannabis while on probation in limbo for a long time.
As many battles for marijuana patients, caregivers and business clients represented by the Komorn Law Firm loom in the background – a decision has been made to set the tone for future cases involving those on probation.
“This opinion says the law is the law,” said Komorm, who represented the appellant in the case, “and we’re going to make the ruling that the Medical Marijuana Act and the card associated with the patient protect them from … penalty of any kind.”
It’s taken 13 years, but Michigan courts are finally fully recognizing the rights instilled by the 2008 voter-passed Medical Marijuana Act, said Farmington Hills-based defense attorney.
In Komorn’s opinion, although the ruling doesn’t address the issue, the precedent should also apply to parolees or defendants on bond with release conditions that prohibit legal medical marijuana use.
The unanimous ruling issued in writing Thursday by Court of Appeals judges Mark J. Kavanaugh, Deborah A. Servitto and Thomas C. Cameron determined Medical marijuana law “supersedes” contradicting laws empowering judges to limit a wide array legal activity, such as alcohol consumption.
And that’s because of “specific language” in the ballot initiative voters passed prohibits any penalty for compliant use of medical marijuana, Komorn said. Despite that, Komorn said judges frequently, especially in Grand Traverse County where the case arose, impose marijuana probation restrictions on registered patients.
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.
