While the federal government turns its back on recreational marijuana, Michigan is prepared to blow the lid off medical marijuana production and dispensation. Government's relationship to the plant continues to evolve.

This blogger recalls when medical and recreational marijuana laws began to sweep the country nearly ten years ago. Back then, a key USDOJ memorandum indicated that President Obama's Attorney General directed the corps of United States Attorneys not to devote resources to marijuana prosecutions in states that legalized the controlled substance for either medical or recreational use.

The Trump Administration, especially through Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has signaled an end to the hands-off approach of its predecessor relative to recreational use of marijuana. This poses a huge roadblock to continued industry growth.

In Detroit, only two of over two hundred applications to operate medical marijuana "centers" were recently approved. The City has taken rigorous actions to shut down the unlicensed -and heretofore thriving- dispensaries. One of our clients reported that a cease and desist letter was tacked onto the door of his shop last month.

Meanwhile, just across the Detroit River, Canada is considering nation-wide legalization in all 9 of its provinces. This is the equivalent of removing marijuana from Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substance Act.

As an industry, marijuana is poised to explode as state laws across the nation are relaxed and as decriminalization takes place. In most medical and recreational use states, industrial warehouse space is suddenly in high demand as skilled growers seek adequate space to produce marijuana.

Some prospective licensees are willing to spend over a million dollars to re-purpose a warehouse for high-output marijuana production. Investors are tripping over each other to prepare for the rare state licensing opportunities that will unfold in December.

Just 8-months before taking applications for 500 and 1000-plant grow licenses and dispensaries, the State of Michigan is poised to earn millions in tax revenues from this relatively new industry. The state's Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs [LARA] is gearing up for the new license applicants this December, creating the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation.

The problem for legitimate industry growth continues to be inclusion of marijuana on Schedule 1. As long as marijuana is illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, the banks and insurance companies, so vital to industry growth, will remain on the sidelines and marijuana will continue to be a predominantly cash-based industry.

This problem will not stop the artisans that have been growing high-quality marijuana over the past decade. Like craft beers, they will continue to produce a product for which demand seems high and insatiable.

If you need to explore your options regarding the acquisition of one of the several state licenses soon to be available from the State of Michigan, give our law firm a call to schedule a free consultation.

Post #588
www.clarkstonlegal.com

TLM participant Chris Schuhmaker

Last week, SiriusXM announced a new documentary about life behind bars in California's San Quentin penitentiary. The Last Mile Radio focuses on the "tech accelerator" program at the prison that teaches inmates computer coding, entrepreneurship and other business skills.

With the U.S. claiming 25% of the world's prison population, the question the program seeks to answer for inmates is: what will you do when you get back to the world?

The mission of the Last Mile is to change the lives of the incarcerated through technology. Entry-level coding jobs can pay as high as $20 per hour.

Started back in 2010, program graduates who have been paroled have an incredible zero percent recidivism. Some of the graduates of the program have gone on to success in the Silicon Valley.

Many of the program participants are serving long sentences; 25 years to life in some cases. Others were first incarcerated as teenagers with no real educational foundation.

All of the participants seek a chance at redemption. Many inmates seek that redemption through spending their time in prison at a job.

Prison labor is required in America. Since 1979, inmates have worked for low wages -less than a dollar per hour- for the benefit of private companies. Many of the official seals we observe in government buildings, both federal and state, are manufactured via prison labor.

Of course, prison labor is political. While President Obama issued regulations to phase-out federal contracting with private companies for prison labor, the new Attorney General cancelled that directive, indicating that prisons were "open for business".

For their part, the inmates seem to value their jobs. For them, their low wage is less significant than the value they place on being productive.

The Last Mile Radio spotlights a program that goes right to the cutting edge. Computer coding jobs are hot; they pay well.

We here at the Law Blogger applaud these types of innovative programs that seek to turn a negative into a positive.

Post #582

www.clarkstonlegal.com

George Zimmerman awaits his fate yesterday.

As criminal defense lawyers, we here at the Law Blogger can certainly understand the exhilaration of a big defense win.  As parents, we also understand the slap in the face that this is to the parents and family of Trayvon Martin.

The all-female Seminole County jury elected to work into the weekend, deliberating on Friday night and into Saturday, before finding the accused neighborhood watchman not guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter.

You know the case; the self-appointed night watchman has a confrontation with Trayvon Martin, a teenager whose father lived in the community Zimmerman was patrolling.  The case featured Florida's so-called "stand-your-ground" self-defense statute and acquired a civil rights dimension due to the alleged racial profiling component of Zimmerman's actions.

Even President Obama publicly commented on the proceedings, remarking that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.  Here in the 313, the Coalition Against Police Brutality has planned a public protest of the verdict.  Demonstrations erupted, briefly, in streets of Los Angeles, CA, when news of the verdict broke.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

President Obama signing the Act.

The Violence Against Women Act, originally passed in 1994, was enacted to protect the abuse victims (both men and women) of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The original Act passed in 1994 created a National Domestic Violence Hotline, funded shelters that helped abuse victims, funded prosecution efforts, and increased the penalties for abusers.

Reauthorized in 2000 and again in 2005, the Act recently lapsed in 2011. Reauthorization has been stalled in the Legislature due to partisan politics and disagreement over language that would expand protections to immigrants, Native Americans, and the LGBT community.

The House of Representatives finally passed the bill in early 2013 and in March President Obama signed the Act into law, reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act which again provides protections for victims of abuse. 

Here are some of the additions and expansions associated with the new reauthorization:

• Native American tribes now have the power to prosecute sexual abuse crimes against non-Native Americans. Previously, non-Native Americans who committed acts of abuse against Native Americans were, for all intents and purposes, immune from prosecution because tribal police could not arrest non-Native Americans and neighboring police could not make arrests on Tribal Reservations.  Now Native Americans who are assaulted on reservations can take their claims to the tribal police for prosecution. This is especially important as statistics have shown that Native American women are more than twice as likely to be sexually assaulted than non-Native women.
• Federal funding may now be used for domestic assault, sexual assault and stalking related services geared at protecting gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender citizens. The new Act includes a non-discrimination provision that prohibits the denial of services based upon race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or disability. The services and protections for domestic violence victims can now be extended to those people in same-sex relationships.
• Undocumented immigrants can now seek temporary visas for the purpose of prosecuting their abusers.  In the past, there have been issues with undocumented immigrants not reporting instances of abuse due to the fear of being deported.  This expansion of the Act now provides a means for undocumented immigrants to pursue justice against their abusers rather than simply taking the abuse.
• Additional updates to the Act include sections which address our ever-advancing technology, including provisions to protect against spyware and video surveillance.

     The Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act reinstates much needed protections for the victims of abuse, both men and women. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, around 1.3 million women are assaulted by a partner every year. The law authorizes $659 million dollars over the next five years to fund the programs, shelters, and hotlines necessary in combatting domestic violence, sexual abuse, and stalking.  If you are the victim of abuse, you can call the National Domestic Abuse Hotline 24 hours a day at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233).   

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

If you have a child under 25 that is technologically oriented, wired, so to speak, I bet they have a Reddit account.  You know, Reddit; the social media Q&A site that we here at the Law Blogger find to be somewhat exasperating and, well, just hyper.

If you're wrong, or wrong-headed, on Reddit, you'll be slashed to the quick and run off the site.  My high school underclassman son swears by Reddit.  He trusts the site, and uses it to answer questions on a wide range of pre-selected "interests".  I must admit, although a late adopter myself [I rarely make it into my Reddit profile...], it caught my eye when an unemployed law school graduate asked President Obama a question when the President participated in an AMA ["Ask Me Anything"] session.

Here is the question:

I am recent law school graduate. Despite graduating from a top school, I find myself unemployed with a large student loan debt burden. While I'm sure my immediate prospects will improve in time, it's difficult to be optimistic about the future knowing that my ability to live a productive life -- to have a fulfilling career, to buy a house, to someday raise a family -- is hampered by my debt and the bleak economic outlook for young people. I know that I'm not alone in feeling this way. Many of us are demoralized. Your 2008 campaign was successful in large part due to the efforts of younger demographics. We worked for you, we campaigned for you, and we turned out in record numbers to vote for you. What can I say to encourage those in similar situations as I am to show up again in November? What hope can you offer us for your second term?

 Here is President Obama's answer:

I am Barack Obama, President of the United States -- AMA by PresidentObamain IAmA

[–]PresidentObama[S] 2002 points 9 days ago
I understand how tough it is out there for recent grads. You're right - your long term prospects are great, but that doesn't help in the short term. Obviously some of the steps we have taken already help young people at the start of their careers. Because of the health care bill, you can stay on your parent's plan until you're twenty six. Because of our student loan bill, we are lowering the debt burdens that young people have to carry. But the key for your future, and all our futures, is an economy that is growing and creating solid middle class jobs - and that's why the choice in this election is so important. The other party has two ideas for growth - more taxs cuts for the wealthy (paid for by raising tax burdens on the middle class and gutting investments like education) and getting rid of regulations we've put in place to control the excesses on wall street and help consumers. These ideas have been tried, they didnt work, and will make the economy worse. I want to keep promoting advanced manufacturing that will bring jobs back to America, promote all-American energy sources (including wind and solar), keep investing in education and make college more affordable, rebuild our infrastructure, invest in science, and reduce our deficit in a balanced way with prudent spending cuts and higher taxes on folks making more than $250,000/year. I don't promise that this will solve all our immediate economic challenges, but my plans will lay the foundation for long term growth for your generation, and for generations to follow. So don't be discouraged - we didn't get into this fix overnight, and we won't get out overnight, but we are making progress and with your help will make more.

The "we're all in this together" plank of the Democratic Party is evident in this exchange with the Commander in Chief.  But what's up with the wind and solar power references?  These industries are on par with our legions of unemployed attorneys.  Overcapitalized for their current output; little to none.

Well, we here at the Law Blogger do subscribe to the positive outlook.  And we do take note that a sitting U.S. President spent a moment on a very forward social media platform connecting, briefly, with a random stream of computer users.

www.waterfordlegal.com
info@waterfordlegal.com

This week, President Obama [POTUS] grabbed big headlines by endorsing same-sex marriage as a personally held belief.  He admitted to changing his views on the subject [again] after discussing this issue with his wife and daughters, and perhaps, after Vice President Biden threw down the gauntlet, esssentially forcing the issue by asking, publicly, "what's wrong with it?"

Another Biden gaffe; or a script from the West Wing?  Hard to tell when the Chief keeps changing his position on the issue...

Meanwhile, as this post is being written, the GOP nominee for November's presidential election, Mitt Romney, is preparing to give 39th commencement address at Liberty University; the Lynchburg, VA, conservative Christian college founded by the Reverend Jerry Falwell in 1971.

You have to wonder if Romney will take the opportunity to either: criticize President Obama's newly-held endorsement of the freedom to marry between two consenting adults; or to espouse his own view that a marriage must be between a man and a woman; as stated in the Bible and codified in the DOMA [the federal Defense of Marriage Act, ironically signed into law by President Clinton back in 1996].

Neither man has a choice at this point; the political battle lines are drawn.  Obama cannot alienate a solid chunk of his core supporters by holding any other view than an unequivocal support of same-sex marriage.  Similarly, if Romney, in addressing the marriage issue today, does not roundly criticize same sex marriage, he is done among moderate and conservative Republicans.

Executive branch politics aside, however, there is a group of interesting cases percolating through the federal court system on their way to the SCOTUS.  These cases involve challenges to the DOMA or to state laws that define marriage to the exclusion of same-sex couples.

We here at the Law Blogger have been following this issue over the past few years; here are some of our earlier posts tracking the subject:

• Illinois Becomes 6th State to Recognize Same-Sex Unions    January 2011
• Same-Sex Marriage Cases Go Constitutional    April 2010

There are three cases in the same-sex marriage pack that seem to be headed toward SCOTUS for their ultimate resolutions; two of those cases present direct constitutional challenges to specific provisions of the federal DOMA; the other case [Perry] challenges the constitutionality of a state law ban on gay marriage.

Here are the Justia links for these leading cases:

Pedersen, et al -v- Office of Personnel Management  [pending in Connecticut, but involving couples from that state as well as Vermont and New Hampshire]; 

Gill, et al  -v-  Office of Personnel Management  [post-post-note: 1st Circuit declares DOMA, section 3, unconstitutional, case will surely go to SCOTUS]; and, of course,

Perry  -v-  Schwarzenegger  [9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently -Feb 2012- affirmed lower court's ruling  overturning California's ballot proposal ban on same-sex marriage].

Executive branch politics on this state-law issue will, of course, continue to play out in the media.  The same-sex marriage issue could be the 21st Century version of the "abortion" bell weather with regard to a presidential candidate's personally-held beliefs.   

Legalities of same sex marriage, however, will continue to be determined on a state-by-state basis, with the larger constitutional issues being determined by the SCOTUS, not by what a sitting President thinks.  

On the other hand, Perry or one of the DOMA cases will most likely reach the SCOTUS at some point during the next presidential term.  Therefore, the next President's opportunity to appoint a justice to the closely divided High Court will have a significant impact on the ultimate resolution of the issue.

Constitutional law experts compare this issue to the one decided by the High Court in the 1967 case of Loving -v- Virginia, striking Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage as unconstitutional.

All we can do is to stay tuned on this...

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Even as Connecticut became the 17th state to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes last week, the DEA continues to bring the heat on some of the more visible pot crusaders across the country.  The latest to be busted is Richard Lee of Oaksterdam University fame in Oakland, California.

Despite assurances from the U.S. Department of Justice early in the Obama administration that enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act would not be a law-enforcement priority, in April the DEA capped a mounting campaign to arrest dispensary owners across California, Colorado, and Montana.  Many dispensary owners claim to have received letters from the DEA threatening criminal prosecution if the businesses do not cease and desist.

What has changed since the Ogden memo of October 2009, when Obama's DOJ signaled it would leave marijuana enforcement to the states?

One explanation is that when it came to dispensing marijuana, medicinally or otherwise, some folks started to make money; big money.  This led to the DOJ's so-called Cole memo last spring, which sought to "clarify" the previous memorandum, and which provided a mandate to U.S. Attorneys to vigorously prosecute marijuana distributors and to "follow-the-money".

Strong voices in the pot lobby are crying foul, suggesting that operators within the DOJ [particularly in California and Colorado] are acting on their own, ignoring the official White House script on this issue.  For their part, some of the medical marijuana states are seeking an end to this chaos; bi-partisan legislators from five of those states signed an open letter to President Obama requesting that the DEA not interfere with their respective medical marijuana laws.

Well folks, because this is a presidential election year, don't look for the Chief to weigh in decisively on this one anytime soon.  For a glimpse into the mind of the voting public, you can peruse the 100+ comments to an article in the Economist on this subject.  Some excellent points on both sides of the issue are made in the forum.

No wonder Mr. Lee is calling it quits out in California at Oaksterdam; he obviously doesn't want to do a dime in the federal penitentiary as all this gets sorted out.  We here at the Law Blogger will, of course, keep you posted; we've been tracking this issue since 2008.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

This week, President Obama announced a legislative initiative designed to strengthen the penalties for convicted computer hackers. The initiative proposes a mandatory 3-year prison term upon conviction of a number of computer crimes; the sentence would be served consecutively to any other convicted counts.

The computer fraud and abuse act is already on the books.  Obama's proposal is aimed at introducing stiffer mandatory penalties - something like Michigan's mandatory two year consecutive sentence for a weapons-related conviction. 

The initiative also introduces a broad definition of a "critical computer infrastructure", seeking to regulate the reporting of breaches of such infrastructure(s).  A critical computer infrastructure includes the delivery of critical government services, telecommunications, finance and banking, emergency services, and oil, gas, water and electricity production. 

That covers just about everything but Face Book.

Another interesting facet of the President's cyber-legislative proposal is adding computer hacking to the list of crimes covered by RICO (Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), the act used successfully over the decades to convict mobsters and mob bosses.

We do live in an age where secure transactions are critical to our daily life.  In such a culture, cyber-crooks and hackers may be paying a higher price for their misdeeds if President Obama's proposal gets any legislative legs.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

For the first time in our nation's history, three women will be sitting together on the bench of the United States Supreme Court.  By the time you read this post, President Obama will have conducted his 7:15 am press conference on Monday, May 10, to officially announce that his Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, will be nominated to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

The nomination requires approval of the Senate, expected later this summer.

Ms. Kagan is used to being first when it comes to the law.  She was the first female dean of the Harvard Law School, where she graduated magna cum laude back in 1986.  During her tenure, however, Kagan sued to prohibit the U.S. Army from recruiting students from the law school to fill the Judge Advocate General Corps.

She also served as an Associate White House Counsel under President Clinton.  She was the first woman to serve in the post of Solicitor General of the United States; the federal government's litigator. In that capacity, she managed the government's SCOTUS docket.

Her judicial experience, however, is limited to a clerkship at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, followed by a clerkship with Justice Thurgood Marshall.  Most of her legal career has been spent in private practice and academia.

Kagan was a tenured law professor at the University of Chicago in the mid-1990s and undoubtedly wound-up among President Obama's professional contacts from that era.

Since she has never been a judge, Dean Kagan does not have a long list of decisions for the Senate's Judiciary Committee to pour over.  All the more reason Senate Democrats will be pushing to approve her nomination prior to the summer recess. 

In an era where women now make up a majority of all college graduates and law students, it only seems natural that they should occupy a third of the seats on our nation's high court.  Never much of a "good old boys" club, the Court has always been a vital mix of contemporary politics and long-term principles.

This Blog wonders how Kagan will be voting on the issue of same-sex marriage, likely to come up during her first year on the bench.  Until now, she has, by virtue of her brief tenure as Solicitor General, defended the constitutionality of California's referendum outlawing gay marriage in the Perry v Schwarzenneger case.

She really had no choice but to join that momentous fight on the side of upholding the California ban on gay marriage.  California's Attorney General, Jerry Brown, declined to defend the law, saying it was unconstitutional.  Governor Schwarzenneger likewise declined to wade directly into the legal fray, saying he approved of the litigation as it raised important constitutional legal issues that called for judicial resolution at the national level.

Update:  The official blog of the State Bar of Michigan has posted links to all the numerous blogs covering this nomination.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Last September, this blog noted that the 9 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court returned from their summer recess early to hear a rare re-argument in Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission; a case involving the limits of corporate spending on political campaigns.

In a 5-4 decision issued on January 21st, the high court ruled that corporations, unions and think tanks can spend as much money as they desire on political advertisements.  The majority in the case have interpreted the First Amendment's "free speech" clause broadly, perhaps dampening the Congressional trend over the past several decades in restricting corporate political donations.

Two days after the Court issued its opinion, President Obama, in his first State-of-the-Union address, blasted the High Court, claiming its Citizens decision would, "open the floodgates...[for corporations] to interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates." The apparent fear is that such [now] unlimited corporate donations will drown out the voice of the common man in most elections.

The case involved federal regulation of the political documentary titled, "Hillary, The Movie", which took a critical look at the character and career of Ms Clinton back in her pre-presidential candidate days. The documentary was produced by a conservative advocacy group; Citizens United. The issue in the case arose when the group was denied permission from the FEC to distribute the short film via "on-demand" cable services.

The chief issue in the case concerned application of the McCain-Feingold law which bans the use of corporate money in elections. Some argue this restriction puts a stake in the heart of free speech; others assert that the ban is necessary to avoid a flood of corporate election funding which would corrupt and pollute our democratic process. The FEC banned the Clinton documentary on the basis it was produced, in part, with corporate profits. Direct corporate-funding of political campaigns has been banned for more than 100-years in America (Tillman Act 1907).

The Court's decision may not be as momentous as the President and other critics fear. First, direct contributions from a corporation to a political campaign are still restricted; complicated administrative regulations turn away some of the corporate ad men. Second, the decision opens the door for Congress to ban foreign firms from making contributions. The Supreme Court's decision also practically invites Congress to toughen rules on full-disclosure for corporate donations.

No doubt, Congress will take the bait, and no doubt, some corporations will eschew such disclosures and refrain from large disclosure-triggering contributions.

The Citizens United case has a Michigan connection in that it overturned a 1990 decision of the High Court, Austin vs Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending in election campaigns.  Last month's Citizens decision will no doubt play a major role in the upcoming mid-term elections this summer and fall.

Here's an example, from California, of what such advertisments may look like.  I can hardly wait to see a billion dollars worth of political advertisements on my flatscreen, can you?

Update:  In reviewing my blog roll, I recently came across an excellent summary by blogger David Lat of a scholarly conference conducted at the Yale Law School that seemed to conclude that the effect of Citizens United will not be as profound as some, like President Obama, think...