Seattle settles case involving – the rights of nature

Seattle settles case involving – the rights of nature

The Rights of Nature

Seattle settled a lawsuit brought by the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe on behalf of salmon harmed by dams on the Skagit River. This is one of the first “rights of nature” cases in the US, and the tribe argued that the lack of fish passage measures violated the salmon’s rights. Seattle agreed to include fish passage facilities in its application to renew its license to operate the dams.

Lake Erie Bill of Rights adopted by Toledo, Ohio, in 2019 was intended to protect the lake from pollution. The law gave Lake Erie legal standing and gave Toledo, Ohio, and its residents the right to sue on the lake’s behalf.

Here are some relevant articles:

  • Press Release: City of Seattle Settles “Rights of Nature” Case Filed by the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe – Agrees to Create Fish Passage Through Skagit River Dams Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights
  • Seattle settles case involving ‘rights of nature,‘ a theory gaining steam in other countries ABA Journal
Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Drones – What Drones?

Drones – What Drones?

Jersey cops launched into the night sky with catapults to throw dreamcatchers at the unknown drones to entangle their props and bring em down! Just kidding - I think.Darrr.. What drones? Those drones pose no threat there are no drones. That's just a balloon,...

read more

Other Articles

When Can Your Silence Be Used Against You in a Legal Situation? 

When Can Your Silence Be Used Against You in a Legal Situation? 

US Supreme Court - Salinas v. TexasWhen Can Silence Be Used Against You?  In the realm of criminal law, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants individuals critical protections, including the right to remain silent and the right against...

Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment

Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment

Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment Landscape Forever!Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm if he has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term...

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the...

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...

NY judge fines unlicensed cannabis shops $15 million

NY judge fines unlicensed cannabis shops $15 million

It’s their corner now

“This punishment should serve as a clear warning for all unlicensed cannabis stores in the state: we will enforce the law and shut down your operations,” state Attorney General Letitia James said

The owner of seven unlicensed cannabis shops in New York, known for hosting an Easter egg hunt as part of their promotions, has been fined over $15 million by state officials for repeatedly disregarding orders to cease operations without proper approval.

A state Supreme Court justice in Lyons, New York, levied a fine against David Tulley on Wednesday. Acting Justice Richard Healy ordered Tulley to pay 90% of his gross sales from February 2022 to May 2023, along with $10,000 for each day he operated without licenses.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Other Articles

When Can Your Silence Be Used Against You in a Legal Situation? 

When Can Your Silence Be Used Against You in a Legal Situation? 

US Supreme Court - Salinas v. TexasWhen Can Silence Be Used Against You?  In the realm of criminal law, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants individuals critical protections, including the right to remain silent and the right against...

Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment

Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment

Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment Landscape Forever!Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm if he has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term...

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the...

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...

When Cannabis Businesses Are No Longer Subject to IRS 280E

When Cannabis Businesses Are No Longer Subject to IRS 280E

IRS 280E and Cannabis Businesses

What is IRS Section 280E?

Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code restricts businesses from deducting typical business expenses from their gross income related to the distribution of Schedule I or II substances per the Controlled Substances Act.

But you still have to pay taxes on it.

Komorn Law PLLC: Your Partner in Strategic Growth

At Komorn Law PLLC, we understand the importance of aligning business strategies with the latest regulatory and tax developments. Our expertise in cannabis law enables us to provide tailored advice that anticipates shifts in the regulatory landscape and leverages them for our clients’ benefit. We encourage cannabis businesses to consult with our team to navigate these changes effectively, ensuring they are positioned to capitalize on new opportunities in a more favorable legal environment.

Strategic Tax Planning for Cannabis Businesses in the New Regulatory Era

As legal professionals at Komorn Law PLLC deeply engaged with the evolving landscape of cannabis law, we are at the forefront of advising and representing businesses navigating these changes.

The recent recommendation by Attorney General Merrick Garland to reclassify cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance marks a pivotal shift, promising significant legal and financial implications for the industry.

Decoding the Reclassification Benefits

Cannabis, currently grouped with substances like heroin under Schedule I, has faced disproportionately stringent regulations. This reclassification to Schedule III, which includes less stringently controlled substances such as ketamine and testosterone, rectifies a longstanding regulatory misalignment. It acknowledges cannabis’s lower risk compared to many Schedule II drugs that have contributed to widespread public health issues.

For cannabis businesses, the most immediate benefit of this shift is the potential alleviation from the severe limitations imposed by Internal Revenue Code Section 280E. Currently, businesses involved with Schedule I substances are denied the ability to deduct typical business expenses, drastically increasing their tax burden. The reclassification promises to normalize tax treatments, significantly reducing effective tax rates and enhancing overall business profitability.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Navigating Beyond IRC 280E

While overcoming IRC 280E is a significant victory, it is just one piece of the tax puzzle for cannabis businesses. Many such businesses operate as C corporations, subjecting them to a flat 21% federal income tax rate on profits, with an additional tax on dividends paid to shareholders. This double taxation framework can lead to an effective tax rate nearing 44.8% at the federal level alone, not including potential state and local taxes.

Given the inherent tax challenges in the C corporation structure, especially regarding asset sales, Komorn Law PLLC advises a strategic reassessment of business structures. The sale of assets by a C corporation incurs federal, state, and local taxes on gains, followed by further taxation of the distributed dividends, compounding the financial burden.

Drones – What Drones?

Drones – What Drones?

Jersey cops launched into the night sky with catapults to throw dreamcatchers at the unknown drones to entangle their props and bring em down! Just kidding - I think.Darrr.. What drones? Those drones pose no threat there are no drones. That's just a balloon,...

read more

Advising on Strategic Business Realignments

With the regulatory changes on the horizon, it’s critical for cannabis businesses to reevaluate their entity structure. Transitioning from a C corporation to an S corporation or a partnership offers several advantages, primarily the elimination of double taxation on distributions. This can be significantly more tax-efficient, particularly when considering the sale or transfer of business assets.

For businesses anticipating an increase in value following the reclassification, it is crucial to implement these structural changes before this appreciation occurs. Such proactive adjustments can optimize tax efficiencies and enhance the business’s long-term financial health.

Contact Komorn Law for More Insight

At Komorn Law we specialize in cannabis law, providing strategic advice that anticipates regulatory shifts and leverages them for our clients’ advantage.

Consult with our team to navigate changes effectively and position yourself to capitalize on new opportunities in a more favorable legal environment.

Other Articles

When Can Your Silence Be Used Against You in a Legal Situation? 

When Can Your Silence Be Used Against You in a Legal Situation? 

US Supreme Court - Salinas v. TexasWhen Can Silence Be Used Against You?  In the realm of criminal law, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants individuals critical protections, including the right to remain silent and the right against...

Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment

Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment

Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment Landscape Forever!Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm if he has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term...

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the...

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...

THC Associated with Increase of Survival Time in Palliative Cancer

THC Associated with Increase of Survival Time in Palliative Cancer

Summary from the official government website (Link Below)

The Use of Tetrahydrocannabinol Is Associated with an Increase in Survival Time in Palliative Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

The study, conducted by researchers in Germany, analyzed data from the palliative treatment documentation of over 9,000 patients from five ambulatory palliative care teams. The researchers divided the patients into three groups: those who did not receive THC, those who received a low dose of THC (less than or equal to 4.7mg per day), and those who received a higher dose of THC (greater than or equal to 4.7mg per day). They then compared survival rates between the groups.

The analysis revealed that THC use was associated with a statistically significant increase in survival time, but only for patients who received a daily dose exceeding the median amount of 4.7mg. In this group, patients lived an average of 15 days longer compared to those who did not receive THC.

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

Key takeaway: This study suggests that THC may offer a survival benefit for ambulatory palliative care patients, but only at higher doses. More research is needed to confirm these findings and to explore the underlying mechanisms.

Additional considerations:

  • The study was observational and cannot definitively prove that THC caused the observed increase in survival time. Other factors may have played a role.
  • The optimal dosage of THC for palliative care patients is still being investigated.
  • THC use can have side effects, and it is important to weigh the potential risks and benefits when considering it as a treatment option.

Further readings:

Source: NIH

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

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.

Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Oral arguments in Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank will beginThe justices are set to review securities law as they hear arguments in a significant case linked to the 2015 data breach involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. The tech giant’s effort to fend off federal...

Search and Seizure – Consent or Plain view

Search and Seizure – Consent or Plain view

The Fourth Amendment was established to protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet there are exceptions.In Michigan, understanding the concepts of search and seizure, particularly regarding consent and plain view, is crucial for both law...

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