Why legalize cannabis when 280E is the gift that keeps on giving to the Federal government?
Whitney Economics, a cannabis research firm, recently conducted a comprehensive analysis of the impact of federal taxes on the cannabis industry. The findings revealed that in 2022, cannabis operators incurred an astonishing $1.8 billion in additional taxes compared to conventional businesses. Looking ahead, it is projected that this excess burden will rise even further to reach $2.1 billion in 2023.
The Reason Behind The Higher Tax Burden for Cannabis Operators
Despite the growing number of states that have legalized medicinal or adult-use cannabis operations, cannabis’ classification as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) remains unchanged.
Under this classification, cannabis businesses that operate per state law are deemed criminal enterprises engaged in the trafficking of a controlled substance under federal law. This label treats law-abiding business owners and operators as drug dealers peddling substances as harmful as cocaine and heroin. As such, these businesses are subjected to Section 280E.
DISCLAIMER This website and/or post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas, private stuff, work related information, non work related information and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything and everything – 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. You’re on the internet.
BAY CITY, MI — In the darkness of the early morning, a stolen pickup truck fled down I75, running from a burgled Bay County cannabis store.
The vehicle pursued by a Michigan State Police car veered across lanes as its speed topped 120 mph, causing cannabis to rise from its bed and fly onto the highway.
The pursuing troopers’ car finally and repeatedly rammed the truck before its five occupants leapt out and ran into a field. Their escape attempt was futile as they were nabbed and subsequently charged with a combined 27 counts.
If you’re facing 27 counts more or less give us a call. Make sure you get the best defense lawyer you can hire.
“We observed a yellow plastic lid fly from the bed of the truck, with more marijuana dispersing in the air, filling our vehicle with the distinct smell of fresh marijuana.” said a trooper
As troopers wrote in their report, “It should be noted that a plethora of similar B&E’s have occurred over the past few months; dispensaries were broken into by several males in a pickup truck that was stolen, vast quantities of marijuana were stolen, and then the suspects would flee.”
DISCLAIMER This website and/or post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas, private stuff, work related information, non work related information and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything and everything – 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. You’re on the internet.
The court granted our motion to Suppress and Dismiss all evidence
“ The manner by which the evidence was seized violated the accused 4th Amendment Rights, and therefore that evidence is suppressed and all charges shall be dismissed. “
Just leaving Gaylord, where they are still felony prosecuting folks for cannabis. We just completed the second day of an evidentiary hearing and Komorn Law PLLC is happy to report the the Court granted our motion to Suppress and Dismiss all evidence; which included all of the alleged felony Marihuana evidence and the alleged Psilocybin evidence.
The Judge, was well prepared, well researched and delivered a lengthy and detailed analysis of the issues which included but was not limited to the following:
Warrantless Searches are Presumptively invalid, unless the state establishes an exception.
In this case the execution of the eviction order was a recognized exceptions. However that exception is limited to Safety Sweep, which had been exhausted. The next factual sequence involved a search of a drawer, where a firearm was allegedly found.
The Court determined this was an unreasonable search and seizure of the firearm, but this did us no good because my client was not charged with any gun charges.
The court went on to find somewhere in the time line of the execution of the order of eviction, my client allegedly consented to the search, ( usually not good). What was remarkable to me was that the Court found that while there was consent to search, that consent does not allow the seizure of property that is not illegal or probable cause of a crime ( in this case “ marihuana”).
The Court went on to read from MRTMA section 2/4/5/15, correctly concluding that the 10 ounces within the dwelling was not illegal ( civil infraction) and not a crime, and even consent to search does not provide consent to seize items that were not illegal.
The Court then went on to find that the State did not carry its burden of rebutting the presumption of the warrantless search and seizure of the alleged psilocybin. I kept waiting for the judge to find an exception or some reason to justify the search and seizure but it never happened. I even held my breath for the “Good Faith” exception ruling that sometimes happens and that to was not a finding the court made.
Anyhow, it is always rewarding as a lawyer when you go to lengths to establish the illegality or unconstitutionality of a search ( or some government action) and the court agrees. Prosecutor threatening appeal. For now we are calling it a Huge Win.
DISCLAIMER In a legal environment that continues to evolve, it is essential to stay informed and seek guidance from knowledgeable professionals. Before acting on any information you find on the internet, this website, any linked website, any referring website or any verbal or written information consult a licensed attorney. Contact Komorn Law today to discuss your case and learn how we can assist you in navigating the complexities of Michigan’s laws. Consult an Attorney – Remember you’re on the internet.
#1 Do not take it to Russia – Don’t want to have to trade you for an arms dealer!
#2 Do not take it abroad… anywhere!
Medical Marijuana is Legal in Many States
Did you know that 38 states, plus Washington, D.C., and three territories, allow people to possess marijuana for medical reasons? That means if you have a medical condition that can be treated with marijuana, you might be able to get it legally in many parts of the country.
Some States are Voting on Marijuana Legislation
In addition to the states that already allow medical marijuana, 13 more states are voting on whether to legalize it this year. That means even more people might be able to use marijuana legally in the future.
Marijuana is Still Illegal Under Federal Law
Even though many states allow marijuana for medical purposes, it’s still illegal under federal law. That means if you’re caught with marijuana, you could face serious consequences, like going to jail or having to pay a big fine.
Traveling with Marijuana Can Be Confusing
If you’re traveling from a state where marijuana is legal to one where it’s not, it can be hard to know what the rules are. For example, you might be able to use marijuana legally in your home state, but if you try to bring it across the border into another state, you could get in trouble.
What You Need to Know About Flying with Marijuana
If you’re flying within the United States, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) allows you to bring products that contain up to 0.3 ounces of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the chemical in marijuana that makes you feel high. However, if you’re caught with any illegal substance during security screening, the TSA will refer the matter to law enforcement.
What You Shouldn’t Do
It’s important to remember that even though some states allow marijuana for medical purposes, it’s still illegal under federal law. That means you shouldn’t try to bring marijuana across the border into the United States from another country, and you shouldn’t try to bring it into a state where it’s illegal. If you’re caught, you could face serious consequences.
Airports Have Different Policies
When it comes to traveling with marijuana, different airports have different policies. Some airports, like Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, have cannabis amnesty boxes where travelers can dispose of their weed before going through security. Other airports, like Los Angeles International Airport, allow individuals to comply with state marijuana laws without fear of arrest by airport police officers.
Local Governing Bodies Have Discretion
If the TSA refers you to local police for possessing marijuana, it’s up to the local governing bodies to decide whether or not to pursue action based on their laws.
Medical Marijuana is Treated the Same
If you have a medical marijuana card, the same TSA and CBP rules apply to traveling with marijuana. Marijuana and certain cannabis-infused products, including some Cannabidiol (CBD) oil, are still illegal under federal law. However, products with less than 0.3% THC on a dry weight basis or that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are exempt.
Remember, it’s important to research the laws and policies of the airports and states you’ll be traveling through before bringing any marijuana or cannabis-infused products with you.
Hey TSA – What Can I Bring?
850 pound marijuana brownie
What can I bring? – Planning ahead and packing properly can facilitate the screening process and ease your travel experience at the airport. Know what you can pack in your carry-on and checked baggage before arriving at the airport by reviewing the lists below. Even if an item is generally permitted, it may be subject to additional screening or not allowed through the checkpoint if it triggers an alarm during the screening process, appears to have been tampered with, or poses other security concerns.
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/items/medical-marijuanaCarry On Bags: No. Checked Bags: No Possession of marijuana is illegal under federal law. TSA officers are required to report any suspected violations of law, including possession of marijuana.
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/items/medical-marijuanaMarijuana and certain cannabis infused products, including some Cannabidiol…Medical Marijuana Carry On Bags: Yes (Special Instructions) Checked …
https://www.tsa.gov/blog/2018/06/27/tsa-week-review-june-11th-17th…baggage. A knife and a small bag of marijuana were discovered concealed under the…packed in checked luggage. As far as marijuana, TSA doesn’t have …
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/all-list…medical treatment Yes No Medical MarijuanaMarijuana and certain cannabis infused…security officers do not search for marijuana or other illegal …
If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime, DUI or Drugged Driving. Call Komorn Law and turn your defense into an offense. Call Now 248-357-2550
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, private stuff 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. You’re on the internet.
Establishes universal background checks for all firearm purchases, safe storage requirements
LANSING, Mich– Today, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed commonsense gun violence prevention bills that will establish universal background checks for all firearm purchases and safe storage requirements. In January, Governor Whitmer proposed this legislation during her State of the State address and has worked with the Michigan Legislature, community groups, law enforcement, students and parents following February’s shooting at Michigan State University and the shooting at Oxford High School in November 2021 to get these commonsense measures that will reduce gun violence signed into law.
“Today, we are turning our pain into purpose and honoring those we have lost with commonsense gun violence prevention legislation supported by a majority of Michiganders,” said Governor Whitmer. “Universal background checks and safe storage are long-overdue steps we are proud to take today that will save lives by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and domestic abusers and children in the home. I want to thank my partners in the legislature for getting this done, the advocates who fought so hard to make this happen, and every Michigander impacted by gun violence who shared their stories. We will keep working together to prevent mass shootings, reduce gun violence, and save lives.”
“Every gun death is preventable, yet so many Michiganders, including me, have lost people they love to the senseless tragedy of gun violence,” said Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist II. “Today, we are taking action on commonsense reforms supported by a majority of Michiganders. Universal background checks and safe storage laws will save lives and help keep families and kids safe at home, in the streets, at school, and at work. These bills build on our ongoing investments in public safety and Operation Safe Neighborhoods to create safer communities where everyone can thrive. Governor Whitmer and I are committed to building on this progress and working with anyone to prevent gun violence.”
Governor Whitmer signed Senate Bills 79, 80, 81, and 82 and House Bills 4138 and 4142.
“The prevalence of gun violence is exhausting and frustrating, and for a very long time it felt like there was no hope for progress. But the thousands of Michigan voices calling for change never gave up, and today – in our first hundred days of the new majority – that call for change results in new laws that will make our state safer,” Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) said. “We hope that these first steps become a blueprint for other states that have yet to find their path forward on gun violence prevention. Today’s bill signing is proof that when you bring first responders, students, parents, teachers, safety experts, and community leaders together to find common ground, you can save lives and build the better, safer future that Michiganders deserve.”
“Protecting children is our top priority,” said Speaker Joe Tate (D-Detroit). “As elected officials, it is our responsibility to do what we can to help keep our communities safe from gun violence. Requiring guns be safely stored in homes where a minor is present and implementing background checks for the purchase of all firearms are simple reforms that just make sense. Owning a firearm is both a right and a responsibility and we must be sure we are doing all we can to help keep kids safe and to stop the illegal sale of guns.”
Senate Bill 79, sponsored by state Senator Bayer (D- West Bloomfield), will protect children by requiring an individual to keep a firearm being stored or left unattended on a premises unloaded and locked with a locking device or stored in a locked box or container if it is reasonably known that a minor is or is likely to be present on the premises and establish a range of penalties for a violation. The bill will also require the Department of Health and Human Services to inform the public of the penalties, publish lethal means counseling literature, and provide that literature to federally licensed firearms dealers and revise the wording of a notice that a federally licensed firearms dealer must post on the premises where firearms are sold.
“Finally, there is a tiny stitch to begin healing my heart, broken from the Oxford school shootings, the MSU school shootings, and every injury or death from accidental shootings of or by children. Finally, we are doing our job, passing legislation, taking our first steps to manage this out-of-control gun violence situation in Michigan,” said state Senator Rosemary Bayer (D-West Bloomfield). “I’m grateful for the work of my colleagues on this issue for years, for my team and the policy team who have worked so hard to get it done, and to the Governor and her team for making it possible for these to become law. Let’s celebrate, and then get back to work on the next step!”
Senate Bill 80, sponsored by state Senator McDonald Rivet(D-Bay City) is the senator’s first public act. The legislation updates the state’s criminal code for safe storage of firearms for child access protection.
“I have devoted the bulk of my career to helping children and families thrive. We can’t thrive without feeling and being safe,” said state Senator McDonald Rivet (D-Bay City). “That’s why overwhelming majorities in Michigan, including gun owners, support the action we’re taking. This is about protecting our children and preventing tragedies from upending our communities. I’m proud to stand against special interests and stand up for kids and families.”
“Over half of all gun owners don’t store and lock their guns, which means millions of young children live in homes with unlocked and loaded firearms,” said state Representative Felicia Brabec (D-Pittsfield Township), chair of the Michigan Firearm Safety and Violence Prevention Caucus. “That’s why we’ve introduced bills that crate safe storage requirements for firearm owners with children in the home. By keeping guns properly stored, we can prevent even the potential misuse of those weapons by children. We have a chance and a responsibility to change the culture around keeping guns responsibly and securely stored. I have high hopes that these bills will not only encourage responsible gun ownership but that they will save Michiganders’ lives.”
Senate Bills 81 and 82, sponsored by state Senators Irwin and Hertel, lower the costs of firearm safety devices to ensure owners can safely store their guns, keeping them away from children and out of the hands of criminals.
“Firearm fatalities are currently the leading cause of death for young people in our nation,” said state Senator Kevin Hertel (D-St. Clair Shores). “As a father, I am proud of the steps our state is taking today to change that and build a safer future for all.”
House Bills 4138 and 4142, sponsored by state Representatives Churches and Carter, protect Michigan communities by closing loopholes in the law and expanding universal background checks to all firearms.
“It is our collective responsibility to keep students safe,” said state Representative Jaime Churches (D-Grosse Ile). “This legislation provides a foundation to help build a safer Michigan – so no student, no worshiper, no law enforcement officer – has to fear for their safety. As state representative for Downriver, I will advocate for reasonable, common-sense policies to protect our communities from gun violence.”
“Michigan has not been spared from our nation’s plague of gun violence,” said state Representative Brenda Carter (D-Pontiac). “For years now, the legislature in Michigan has been paralyzed to act. No more. I am proud to have the governor sign my bill as a part of the universal background check package and to be able to share in this great moment for our state.”
Quotes from Community Leaders
“This is a great day for Michiganders. The gun safety bills signed into law today will undoubtedly save lives and make the state of Michigan a safer place to live. No one should have to go about their lives and fear gun violence,” said former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. “Today’s bill signing was a major step forward to stopping gun violence in Michigan. We thank Governor Whitmer, Speaker Tate, Leader Brinks, and all legislators who supported these important bills and the advocates who made this bill a reality.”
“This legislation is a commonsense approach to keeping children and communities safe,” said Marquette County Sherriff Gregory Zyburt. ” These bills will ensure those that do not qualify to purchase guns, don’t. I’m thankful to work alongside legislators to prevent gun violence and keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who intend to harm others.”
This one was an epic battle, that started right before the shut down in March of 2020 and involved the following:
Preliminary Exam 1.
After filing several motions to be heard at the preliminary exam, the police failed to appear and the charges were dismissed.
The charges were then re-issued.
At the arraignment on the re-issued charges and in response to my arguments for personal bond, the court said, “ Counsel that may be true that your client has not had an alcohol related driving offense for over 12 years but what about all the times he drove drunk and wasn’t arrested? Bond is set at 5,000 cash.
Motion to Recuse
Based upon the aforementioned statements by the Court, I was forced to move to Disqualify the Court for bias.
The Court disagreed.
Appeal to Circuit Court ( Regarding the Arraignment and Setting of Bond).
We appealed the District Court Judges Ruling at the arraignment , setting of Bond and its denial of my motion to disqualify the Court for bias.
The Circuit Court ( acting as the Appellate Court) reversed the District Court’s denial of my Motion to Disqualify, reset the bond as a personal bond and remanded to the District Court for a Preliminary Exam to be heard by a different Judge.
Preliminary Exam 2
We refilled our motions in the District Court and appeared for the exam.
The facts involved a vehicle reported to be stalled out, in a church parking lot, and the police were called for a welfare check (although what unfolded seemed to have little to do with the welfare of my client).
Described as standing outside of the vehicle at the time the police arrived for the welfare check, the vehicle was inoperable, not working, stalled out, the engine was not on or working and no keys were found at the scene.
Allegedly, wine bottles were found in the back of the inoperable vehicle, allegedly my client failed the standard and non standardized field sobriety test. He was subsequently arrested, and taken to the stations for Breath Testing.
Allegedly my client refused or technically refused to submit a breath sample, and the arresting officer acting as the affiant, sought out and obtained a search warrant for the blood of my client. The Blood results allegedly were above the legal limit of .08 g/ml and above the High BAC threshold of 0.17 per milliliters of Blood.
During the testimony of the arresting officer, (and not mentioned in any of the police reports) for the first time it was revealed that allegedly my client was observed about an hour prior to the “welfare check” in the driver seat behind the wheel of the vehicle (he was later observed standing near at the time of the welfare check).
This revelation by the officer also included the following: I observed your client behind the wheel of the vehicle we later saw him standing next to, at that time, the vehicle was being pushed by a younger gentleman.
Your client didn’t say anything to me, but the young man pushing the vehicle did say , the car broke down, and I am pushing it out of the road.”
Other highlights from the exam included testimony surrounding the affidavit and search warrant for the blood.
After some hemming and hawing, the court found probable cause existed to bind my client over for Trial.
The Circuit Court.
We filed additional motions in the circuit court. As it goes sometimes, despite perfecting service through the on-line filing system, providing courtesy copies to the Court, we appeared three times, and each time a different prosecutor appeared for the State.
Each time the new assistant prosecutor appeared, they knew nothing about the motions, didn’t receive them, are not connected to the on line filing system, and didn’t even know that the hearing and motions were scheduled.
The Wheels of Justice Grind Slow
Today we finally got an opportunity to argue our motions, or at least one of them. The Court it turned out was in the middle of a jury trial but was able to get us in during the lunch break for some limited arguing.
All involved ( The Judge, the assistant Prosecutor) commented that the facts made this an interesting case. Generally, the essential elements or issues that are needed to prove a Drunk driving case/ Operating While Intoxicated case, are that the person was intoxicated at the time they were operating the motor vehicle.(1)
if a person pulls over after driving, and then consumes alcohol while in their vehicle without any intention of further driving, even while stationary in a parking lot, would be ill advised and very likely to result in an arrest for Operating While Intoxicated, despite not actually driving, because the driver would be in “actual physical control of the vehicle.”
Likewise, pulling over because a driver feels intoxicated with the intention of not driving but instead sleeping it off, would also likely result in an arrest, should police contact occur.
Other States allow for a driver who thinks they may be impaired to pull over, rest and even sleep, without being charged with “operating” while intoxicated.
In Michigan the word “operating” has been interpreted broadly is defined as driving or having actual physical control of the “vehicle.”
The cases and jurisprudence in Michigan that have interpreted these rules are generally not favorable for the accused/ driver.
The reason why this case was interesting, were mostly focused on the legal definitions of “Motor Vehicle” and Vehicle” ( See below). (2)
The Court Decision
Today the Court heard arguments on these issues. The Court ultimately agreed with me, that in fact the testimony at the preliminary exam of the arresting officer who had “observed my client behind the wheel of the vehicle we later saw him standing next to, at that time, the vehicle was being pushed by a younger gentleman.
(Your client didn’t say anything to me, but the young man pushing the vehicle did say , the car broke down, and I am pushing it out of the road)” had described a situation that did not include evidence of “a motor vehicle” or a “vehicle” as those terms are defined within Michigan Law.
The Court found the District Court Judge had erred in making the decision to bind over my client for trial, and that probable cause did not exist or was not at the preliminary exam, to wit: The State had failed to prove that probable cause existed that my client was “operating a moving vehicle/ vehicle” while intoxicated, and dismissed all of the charges.
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (EXCERPT) Act 175 of 1927
(g) “Vehicle” means that term as defined in section 79 of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.79. (below)
MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE (EXCERPT) Act 300 of 1949
Sec. 79.
“Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices exclusively moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks and except, only for the purpose of titling and registration under this act, a mobile home as defined in section 2 of the mobile home commission act, Act No. 96 of the Public Acts of 1987, being section 125.2302 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.(4)
“Motor vehicle” means every vehicle that is self-propelled, but for purposes of chapter 4, motor vehicle does not include industrial equipment such as a forklift, a front-end loader, or other construction equipment that is not subject to registration under this act.
Motor vehicle does not include a power-driven mobility device when that power-driven mobility device is being used by an individual with a mobility disability.
Motor vehicle does not include an electric patrol vehicle being operated in compliance with the electric patrol vehicle act, 1997 PA 55, MCL 257.1571 to 257.1577.
Motor vehicle does not include an electric personal assistive mobility device. Motor vehicle does not include an electric carriage.
Motor vehicle does not include a commercial quadricycle. Motor vehicle does not include an electric bicycle. Motor vehicle does not include an electric skateboard.
FOOTNOTES
Footnote –(1)
Mi Crim Jury Instructions 15.1, 15.1a, 15.2, 15.3
Footnote –(2)
777.1 Definitions.
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (EXCERPT) Act 175 of 1927
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter:
(a) “Aircraft” means that term as defined in section 2 of the aeronautics code of the state of Michigan, 1945 PA 327, MCL 259.2.
(b) “Departure” means that term as defined in section 31 of chapter IX.
(c) “Homicide” means any crime in which the death of a human being is an element of that crime.
(d) “Intermediate sanction” means that term as defined in section 31 of chapter IX.
(e) “ORV” means that term as defined in section 81101 of the natural resources and environmental
protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.81101.
(f) “Snowmobile” means that term as defined in section 82101 of the natural resources and environmental
protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.82101.
(g) “Vehicle” means that term as defined in section 79 of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL
257.79.
(h) “Vessel” means that term as defined in section 80104 of the natural resources and environmental
“Motor vehicle” means every vehicle that is self-propelled, but for purposes of chapter 4, motor vehicle does not include industrial equipment such as a forklift, a front-end loader, or other construction equipment that is not subject to registration under this act. Motor vehicle does not include a power-driven mobility device when that power-driven mobility device is being used by an individual with a mobility disability. Motor vehicle does not include an electric patrol vehicle being operated in compliance with the electric patrol vehicle act, 1997 PA 55, MCL 257.1571 to 257.1577. Motor vehicle does not include an electric personal assistive mobility device. Motor vehicle does not include an electric carriage. Motor vehicle does not include a commercial quadricycle. Motor vehicle does not include an electric bicycle. Motor vehicle does not include an electric skateboard.
Sec. 79. “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices exclusively moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks and except, only for the purpose of titling and registration under this act, a mobile home as defined in section 2 of the mobile home commission act, Act No. 96 of the Public Acts of 1987, being section 125.2302 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime, DUI or Drugged Driving. Call Komorn Law and turn your defense into an offense. Call Now 248-357-2550
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, private stuff 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. You’re on the internet.
