Justice Department Submits Proposal to Reschedule Marijuana

Justice Department Submits Proposal to Reschedule Marijuana

Proposed Rule Seeks to Move Marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, Emphasizing its Currently Accepted Medical Use in Treatment in the United States

The Justice Department announced today that the Attorney General has initiated a formal rulemaking process to consider reclassifying marijuana from a schedule I to schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

After all… it’s an election year.

Cannabis Legal Defense

Commercial – Private – Criminal Charges

Komorn Law 248-357-2550

Marijuana has been classified as a schedule I drug since Congress enacted the CSA in 1970. On Oct. 6, 2022, President Biden requested a scientific review of marijuana’s federal scheduling from the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).

After receiving HHS’s recommendations last August, the Attorney General sought the legal advice of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) on questions relevant to this rulemaking. Taking into consideration HHS’ medical and scientific determinations, as well as OLC’s legal advice, the Attorney General exercised his authority under the law to initiate the rulemaking process to transfer marijuana to schedule III.

The Legal Significance of Marijuana Reclassification

The Legal Significance of Marijuana Reclassification

The Impact of Marijuana Reclassification on Legal LandscapeOn May 6, 2024, the DEA made a groundbreaking decision, accepting the US Department of Health and Human Services' recommendation to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III controlled substance....

The rescheduling of a controlled substance follows a formal rulemaking procedure that requires notice to the public, and an opportunity for comment and an administrative hearing.

Throughout this process, the Drug Enforcement Administration will gather and carefully consider input from the public to determine the appropriate schedule for marijuana. Until a final rule is published, marijuana will continue to be classified as a schedule I controlled substance.

The notice of proposed rulemaking submitted by the Department can be viewed here, and the OLC memorandum regarding questions related to the potential rescheduling of marijuana can be found here.

Learn more about the rulemaking process here

DUI Charges?
Sometimes it’s cheaper in the long run to fight them
Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550

Bloomfield Hills Doctor Convicted of $6M Medicare Fraud Scheme

Bloomfield Hills Doctor Convicted of $6M Medicare Fraud Scheme

JUSTICE.GOV

For Immediate Release

A federal jury convicted a Michigan doctor today for causing the submission of over $6.3 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare for medically unnecessary orthotic braces ordered through a telemarketing scheme.

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Sophie Toya, M.D., 55, of Bloomfield Hills, signed thousands of prescriptions for orthotic braces for over 2,500 Medicare patients during a six-month period. Toya was not the treating physician for any of these patients and, instead, was connected with some of the patients over the telephone through a telemarketing scheme and spoke to the patients briefly before signing orthotic brace prescriptions for them. For other patients, Toya signed prescriptions without having any contact with them.

In one instance, Toya prescribed a lower back brace, right and left shoulder braces, a right wrist brace, right and left knee braces, and right and left ankle braces for a single Medicare patient. Toya also prescribed multiple braces for undercover agents posing as five different Medicare patients after speaking to each agent for less than a minute over the telephone.

APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
Call Komorn Law
 (248) 357-2550

The evidence presented at trial showed that Toya could not possibly have diagnosed the patients or determined that the braces were medically necessary for them. Nonetheless, Toya signed medical records and prescriptions for braces that falsely represented that the braces were medically necessary and that she diagnosed the beneficiaries, had a plan of care for them, and recommended that they receive certain additional treatment.

Toya’s false prescriptions were used by brace supply companies to bill Medicare more than $6.3 million.

Toya was paid approximately $120,000 in exchange for signing the fraudulent prescriptions.

The jury convicted Toya of one count of health care fraud and five counts of false statements relating to health care matters. She is scheduled to be sentenced on Aug. 15 and faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for health care fraud and five years in prison on each of the false statements relating to health care matters counts.

A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Only 120k out of 6.3 million!! Looks like the scammer got scammed. But who really got scammed – You did…Once again. —> Punishment will probably be a good job in politics raising campaign funds.

In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.

The Legal Significance of Marijuana Reclassification

The Legal Significance of Marijuana Reclassification

The Impact of Marijuana Reclassification on Legal Landscape

On May 6, 2024, the DEA made a groundbreaking decision, accepting the US Department of Health and Human Services’ recommendation to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III controlled substance. This move marks a significant shift in federal drug policy, potentially altering the legal framework surrounding cannabis cultivation, distribution, and use.

Reclassification from Schedule I to Schedule III places marijuana alongside substances like acetaminophen with codeine, ketamine, and testosterone, removing it from the category that includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. While federal legalization isn’t on the table, this reclassification acknowledges marijuana’s accepted medical use and low potential for abuse.

However, this change doesn’t impact state marijuana laws in the 24 states, two territories, and Washington D.C. that have legalized adult recreational use or the 38 states permitting medical cannabis. But it does offer substantial tax breaks for businesses involved in marijuana production and sales. Under the current Internal Revenue Code, businesses selling Schedule I substances can’t deduct business expenses, but reclassification would allow for significant tax savings, potentially reaching hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.

Cannabis Legal Defense

Commercial – Private – Criminal Charges

Komorn Law 248-357-2550

Moreover, reclassification opens doors for cannabis companies to access major stock exchanges, attracting investment capital for further growth. Yet, it doesn’t address banking industry challenges. Federal illegality prohibits cannabis businesses from utilizing deposit accounts and other financial services, leaving many operating solely in cash due to banks’ reluctance to engage with them.

Despite reclassification, cannabis remains illegal under federal law, leading to financial service limitations and unresolved conflicts between state and federal laws. For instance, Michigan legalized recreational marijuana, but employers still hold the right to refuse employment or discharge individuals for violating workplace drug policies, unaffected by federal reclassification.

“I guess reclassification to a three is a good start.  It’s better than a one” said Attorney Michael Komorn

The shift to Schedule III also raises regulatory concerns, potentially subjecting medical marijuana to increased FDA oversight, affecting licensing and distribution protocols. However, it doesn’t resolve issues like lack of bankruptcy protection or federal trademark registrations for state cannabis companies.

Cannabis businesses remain ineligible for federal bankruptcy protection due to their violation of the Controlled Substances Act, a hurdle unaffected by rescheduling. Likewise, federal trademark registrations are unavailable due to cannabis’ federal illegality, leaving companies vulnerable to trademark infringement and legal disputes.

While reclassification signifies growing recognition of cannabis companies, its effects are pending. The proposal must undergo review by the Office of Management and Budget, followed by publication in the Federal Register and a 60-day public comment period, possibly leading to further review by an Administrative Law Judge.

The reclassification of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III represents a significant step towards legitimizing cannabis businesses and altering the legal landscape. However, its full impact remains uncertain, pending further regulatory and legal developments.

DUI Charges?
Sometimes it’s cheaper in the long run to fight them
Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550

A historic cannabis shift is one of the latest election year moves

A historic cannabis shift is one of the latest election year moves

AP Story

President Joe Biden may potentially ban TikTok, but he aims to offer young individuals, who largely influence this widely-used social media platform, a more lenient government regulation regarding marijuana.

Facing a decline in support from an important left-leaning voting group, Biden has implemented various strategies aimed at garnering appeal among younger voters, a crucial demographic for his upcoming re-election in November.

His recent decision to reclassify marijuana as a less harmful substance aligns with his ongoing efforts to bring about positive change. This move follows his commendable act of canceling student loans for an additional 206,000 borrowers, demonstrating his commitment to addressing pressing issues. Furthermore, his unwavering support for abortion rights remains a cornerstone of his re-election campaign.

Read more here at the AP News: Biden’s historic marijuana shift is his latest election year move for young voters

New rule mandates time and a half pay for lower paid employees

New rule mandates time and a half pay for lower paid employees

Qualified lower-paid workers who earn a salary but work more than 40 hours in a week will soon be entitled to guaranteed time-and-a-half pay, thanks to a new labor rule announced by the Biden-Harris administration.

This rule will raise the salary thresholds necessary to exempt a “salaried bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employee from federal overtime pay requirements.”

The salary threshold will increase in two stages. The first increase will take place on July 1, bringing the annual salary equivalent to $43,888. This is a significant jump from the current threshold of $35,568. Following this, on January 1, 2025, the threshold will rise again, reaching $58,656.

The Department of Labor has released this information in a blog with stock photos providing clarity on the matter.

People v Williams Michigan COA – Police CPL Check

People v Williams Michigan COA – Police CPL Check

People v Williams
Michigan Court of Appeals
No 365299 (04/18/24)

MCL 28.425f permits a police officer to ask a person observed to be carrying a concealed weapon to produce their concealed pistol license (CPL) at any time and for any reason.

Makes possession of a concealed weapon a presumptive crime

Further, MCL 750.227 makes possession of a concealed weapon a presumptive crime, which can be rebutted by the suspect producing their CPL. Thus, a police officer has reasonable suspicion to  approach a person and ask for proof of a CPL after observing a bulge in the person’s clothing indicative of a hidden firearm.

The trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed.

About it

Michigan Court of Appeals Case No. 365299, People v Williams, centers on a warrantless search and subsequent arrest. The details of the case are not explicitly mentioned in the available information, but the legal reasoning behind the decision is referenced.

The case cites MCL 750.227, which prohibits carrying a concealed pistol without a license. It also references previous cases (Henderson and Williams) that established the legality of a warrantless search under the “automobile exception” when there’s reasonable suspicion of a crime.

The relevant part of People v Williams seems to focus on justifying a traffic stop. The court apparently determined that an informant’s tip about a driver possessing a handgun amounted to reasonable suspicion, warranting the stop. This aligns with the established principle that police can conduct stops based on reasonable suspicion, even if it’s a lesser standard compared to the probable cause needed for arrests or searches.

While the case itself isn’t elaborated on, it highlights the legal basis for traffic stops based on reasonable suspicion, particularly when the suspicion involves potential gun possession.

Better have a real good attorney