Practice Areas

The State of Cannabis: NJ’s Upcoming Ballot Referendum on Adult-Use

October 28th, 2020 6:00pm-8:00pm

Via Zoom

Join us on October 28th for a timely and important discussion where our distinguished group of panelists will address cannabis at the federal level, and then hone in on what’s happening in NJ with the current medical operators, the prospect for adult-use if the referendum passes, and the viability of applying for and securing a license to operate.

Our moderator is Joshua S. Bauchner, head of the Cannabis Practice Group at the law firm Ansell Grimm & Aaron PC, who will be joined by panelists Art Hance, President, Hance Construction, Todd Johnson, Executive Vice President and Head of New Jersey Operations for Justice Grown and President of Community Greenhouse, and Jeff Monat, Senior Partner at Merida Capital.

To register for the event, click here.

Pro Football Players, Military Veterans, and Mothers Join Fight to Legalize Marijuana Nationwide

Ansell Grimm & Aaron files amicus brief to ask U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the ‘arbitrary and irrational classification of cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug,’ preventing injured athletes and wounded veterans from accessing medical treatment for debilitating, life-threatening conditions

 

OCEAN, N.J. (September 2020) – In a landmark appeal that could change U.S. drug policy forever, Ansell Grimm & Aaron has filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court demanding that the federal statute that criminalizes marijuana, the Controlled Substances Act, be declared unconstitutional.

Filed in the case ​Washington v. Barr, the brief represents the interests of injured pro football players, wounded military veterans, and mothers whose lives, quite literally, depend upon the outcome of the case.

“Patients today face an untenable choice,” said leading cannabis attorney Joshua S. Bauchner. “They can either risk federal prosecution for using medical cannabis in accordance with state and local laws at the advice of their doctors, or risk serious, even fatal, health consequences. This is an unacceptable trade off that no one should be forced to make any longer.”

Bauchner, the Honorable Anthony J. Mellaci, Jr. (ret.), and Rahool Patel, Ansell, Grimm & Aaron attorneys, represent five organizations with a vested interest in the outcome of the issue.

  • Athletes for CARE, a nonprofit organization founded by former professional athletes who are united in using their influence to advocate for research, education, and compassion in addressing vital health issues for the next generation of athletes, including the availability of medical cannabis.
  • After The Impact Fund, a nonprofit organization that helps military veterans and retired professional athletes receive customized treatment for unseen traumatic injuries from the field, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, addiction, and thoughts of suicide.
  • Canna Research Foundation, a nonprofit organization focused on comprehensive and evidence-based epidemiological research of medical cannabis with the ultimate goal of providing better pain relief and improved quality of life for patients in need.
  • NFL Sisters in Service, Inc., a non-profit organization comprised of the spouses, daughters, and mothers of current and former NFL players who advocate on behalf of those players and their families. In particular, the Sisters have assisted dozens of players and their loved ones with disability-related issues arising from their time in the NFL, including but not limited to chronic traumatic encephalopathy and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
  • ISIAH International, LLC, a holding company founded and wholly owned by former Detroit Pistons NBA Hall of Famer Isiah Thomas that has interests in various companies, including two in the medical cannabis and hemp industries.

Each of these organizations has a strong interest in advocating for the legalization and decriminalization of cannabis for medical use. Many of their members have depended on medical cannabis to treat debilitating conditions and manage pain when other prescription medications or treatments have failed or resulted in unbearable side effects. They are far from alone. More than 3 million people in the United States require medical cannabis on a regular basis to manage chronic conditions, reduce debilitating pain, and, in some instances, to survive from one day to the next.

Former NHL star and four-time Stanley Cup winner Darren McCarty is one of them. The longtime Detroit Red Wings player credits cannabis with saving his life.

Injured after 17 years of professional hockey, McCarty was unable to use legal, medical cannabis to treat his debilitating pain. He relied on prescription drugs and alcohol, which, while having the benefit of being legal, wreaked their own havoc on his body. By November 2015, his doctor told him he was on the verge of multiple organ failure and at high risk of death if he did not significantly change his lifestyle. After stints in rehab, therapy, and substance abuse programs, McCarty was able to stop drinking after he found cannabis.

“Without cannabis, I would be dead, period,” said McCarty. “I suffered for so many years, and I know there are millions of people like me who are suffering in silence right now. We can end that suffering by educating ourselves and changing our laws to treat cannabis as what it rightfully is: essential medication that saves lives.”

Although 38 U.S. states and territories have legalized the use of cannabis for medical reasons, the federal government persists in classifying cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug with “no accepted medical use.” This means that people whose lives depend upon treatment with cannabis cannot legally enter onto federal land and cannot travel by air or other federally regulated modes of transportation. Worse, they live in constant fear that their lifesaving medication may be taken from them and that they will be arrested.

The continued failure of the DEA to take appropriate action to reschedule cannabis, and of Congress to mandate that the DEA do so by statute, has for decades deprived countless Americans of access to life-changing, and often life-saving, medical cannabis in violation of their constitutional rights.

“The decision to use cannabis for medical reasons is no less important than the decision to use common prescription drugs,” said Ansell, Grimm & Aaron’s Mellaci, a retired Superior Court Judge. “It is no less personal than the deeply intimate decision to refuse medical treatment for ethical or other reasons. My own son, Daniel, age 30, suffers from ALS and requires medical cannabis to have any quality of life. The federal government’s placement of cannabis in Schedule I would relegate him, and other patients, to a lifetime of suffering. It’s time to end that suffering.”

To read the full amicus brief, click here.

About Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC: Founded in 1929, Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC (62q.f7d.myftpupload.com) has a long history of delivering the advice, experience, and sophistication to clients who come to us to resolve legal matters. A general practice law firm, Ansell Grimm & Aaron’s practice areas are powered by experienced attorneys who understand that the best outcome is the one that serves the needs of each client.

 

The Stay Stays in Medical Marijuana RFA Case

Since December of last year the New Jersey Department of Health (DOH) has been barred from moving forward in the request for application process for medical marijuana facilities after being sued for unfairly excluding some applicants due to allegedly corrupt PDF files submitted as part of their applications.

The applicants contend the alleged corruption of the documents was caused by the DOH’s own submission portal and should not cause the disqualification of their applications.

The DOH sought to lift the stay but the Appellate Division recently denied the request, according to a recent story in NJCannabis Insider by Justin Zaremba.

“Hopefully, the DOH will now focus on settling the appeal by scoring all applications on merit so as to best serve the state’s growing medical marijuana patient population rather than engaging in wasteful and dilatory motion practice,” Joshua Bauchner, a partner in Ansell Grimm & Aaron P.C. who represents several of the entities suing the DOH told NJCannabis Insider.

Zaremba’s full story is reprinted here with permission.

Court Rejects DOH Request to Dissolve Stay

Decision on Stay of 2019 RFA for Medical Marijuana Facilities Could Come Within Weeks

The next step in the long delayed 2019 RFA process for medical marijuana facilities in New Jersey could come as early as the middle of this month.

In June the state Department of Health filed a motion to dissolve a stay preventing 2019 applications from moving forward, a move, not surprisingly, opposed by those who requested the stay.

As Ansell Grimm & Aaron partner Joshua Bauchner, (who represents several clients who requested the stay in an attempt to remedy what they contend is their unfair exclusion from having their requests considered) told Justin Zaremba of NJCannabis Insider, “If the court stays the course (pun intended) then we are still awaiting oral argument which they may expedite, but is otherwise set for the fall.”

Zaremba’s full story, is reprinted here with permission.

Court to Decide on Stay for 2019 RFA Case as Early as Mid-July

 

New Jersey’s DOH Continues Court Fight for Problem It Could Solve Administratively

Justin Zaremba of NJ Cannabis Insider has covered the latest developments in the ongoing dispute between the New Jersey Department of Health and litigants claiming to be unfairly excluded from the state’s Medical Marijuana facility licensing program due to a corrupt PDFs.

NJDOH sought to dissolve the stay preventing the 2019 RFA process from moving forward while those appealing what they view as an unfair process caused by a failure on the DOH’s part continue to fight to have their applications receive a fair review.

Zaremba’s full story is available here:

Get ready to hurry up and wait for the next turn of the screw on the 2019 RFA case.

 

Bauchner Speaks With NJBiz About State’s failure on Medical Marijuana Facility Licensing

Ansell Grimm & Aaron PC partner Josh Bauchner recently spoke to NJBiz about the ongoing battle with New Jersey to address what multiple applicants for medical marijuana facility licenses say is a technical failure on the state’s part that lead to the unjust denial of their applications.

Bauchner, who represents a number of the denied applicants told NJBiz, “The DOH is arbitrarily eliminating candidates on [the file] corruption issue. Those may very well be the best candidates, so why should they be deleted? The most fair and equitable way to resolve the whole problem [is] to allow the appellants to file any documents that were corrupt with certification that they weren’t changed and to score everyone’s application on merit.”

For the full story, visit the NJBIZ website here:

Cannabis Conundrum

 

Easy Route Available for Resolving Medical Marijuana Facility Delays

Ansell Grimm & Aaron PC partner Josh Bauchner recently wrote a guest column for Cannabis Insider addressing issues surrounding the appeal of New Jersey’s 2019 Request for Applications to open medical marijuana facilities. The column, in full, appears below:

In the last issue of Cannabis Insider, a guest columnist purported to offer “several” solutions to the pending appeals of the 2019 RFA process, which actually yielded only two proposals, neither of which are viable.

The first, a settlement, was squarely rejected by the state Department of Health. The second, waiving oral argument, at best expedites resolution by a few weeks, and wholly ignores the appellants’ Constitutional right to due process.

That said, there is a real solution:  The DOH simply could agree to consider all applications on the merits and award licenses to the most qualified candidates. Any allegedly corrupted files would be submitted in hardcopy with a certification that they are the same as in August of 2019. Scoring could begin anew, and we’d be off to the races.

The guest columnist also noted that other applicants are suffering hardship from the delay and, of course, the New Jersey cannabis patient population is suffering the most. To expedite resolution, other applicants could join in requesting that the DOH conduct a merit-based review, perhaps convincing the powers that be that a licensing decision is better than a litigation (confident applicants should have no objection to competition!).

The issues in the appeals are real and cannot be overlooked. The primary issue is whether the DOH acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably in disqualifying numerous applicants for a technological issue that rested wholly within the DOH itself — as confirmed by multiple IT experts. In response, the Health Department only offers the contrivance, “No applicants reported any technical issues with the electronic submission to the Department.”

The problem with this assertion is applicants could not have reported problems of which they were entirely unaware. As we all know, the DOH did not tell applicants about the problems, and, consequently, the applicants had no idea there was an issue until the Department belatedly notified them three months later.

Tellingly, the extent of the DOH’s investigation was limited to a single chat session with software maker Adobe. The Adobe representative requested additional information and documents from the DOH for his analysis, but after much delay, the DOH inexplicably replied “[w]e can close the case [because] I don’t think there is anything that we can do further.”

That single chat session represents the entirety of the DOH’s self-proclaimed “investigation” and serves as the sole basis for its self-serving conclusion “that the problem did not rest with the Department.”  The DOH likewise has tellingly failed to:

  1. Produce the IT report upon which it relied in an unsigned and undated internal memorandum regarding the corrupted file issue.
  2. Define exactly what it did to “continuously monitor the online submission system to ensure that it continued to function properly,” or identify who performed this task.
  3. Produce any of the allegedly corrupt files, which are solely in its possession.
  4. Explain why it failed to reach out to the affected applicants in an effort to determine the actual cause of the corrupted files.

Appellants simply request to be included in the general applicant pool for consideration on the merits of their applications, which were, in fact, timely and complete.

This fair request could have been granted over seven months ago — when the DOH discovered its pervasive technological error — but it refused to take a reasonable approach by affording affected applicants a hearing, or to even communicate with them, in order to get to the root of the problem and fix it through resubmission of corrupt files.

Nevertheless, that quick and easy solution remains viable today and is the only real option to address the “hardship” suffered by everyone: appellants, other applicants, and New Jersey patients alike.

Business Delayed is Business Denied for Potential Cannabis Licensees

According to a recent report in the NJCannabis Insider (subscription required) applicants from the 2019 Request for Applications for medical cannabis licensing denied due to corruption of their online applications continue to await their day in court.

Josh Bauchner, an attorney with Ansell Grimm & Aaron PC representing several clients who were disqualified from the RFA, told NJCannabis Insider the state made it clear it had no intention of settling the case despite concerns from the presiding judge that further delays may cause serious harm to medical cannabis patients.

Bauchner’s pursuing redress for his clients due to data corruption of the PDF version of their applications based on the belief that the corruption was due to problems with the Department of Health’s online submission portal or the PDF files obtained from the DOH.

He noted that his clients have been placed at a significant disadvantage in the marketplace, as the existing and subsequently successful licenses have been able to move forward developing their business while those denied will still require significant time to become operational.

“This could all be fixed with a pen stroke,” Bauchner told NJCannabis Insider. “Someone in leadership in Trenton, all they have to do is say, ‘Permit people to resubmit their applications and restart scoring.’ You could probably award these licenses in 30 days.”

 

Client Alert: What to Expect from the CARES Act – The Paycheck Protection Program

While we are facing a global crisis in connection with the Coronavirus, or COVID-19 pandemic, life as we know it has been significantly disrupted. Small businesses are struggling to stay afloat, especially those that have been made to work remotely, close their doors entirely, or substantially limit their business operations by order of state and local governments.

There may be help on the horizon, however. Congress has passed the $2 trillion dollar Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in an attempt to minimize the inevitable impact that COVID-19 has and will have on small businesses.

While the Act is very in-depth, there is one section that may be particularly useful to small business owners. The Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) has set aside $349 billion for loans that will allow small businesses, which were in operation on February 15, 2020, to retain their employees by covering the cost of payroll amongst other permitted costs.

What costs are permitted under the PPP?
Subject to certain exclusions, costs permitted under the PPP include employee payroll; commissions and cash tips; vacation, parental, family, medical or sick leave; health care premiums; interest on mortgage or other debt obligations; rent under lease agreements; and utilities.

When should I apply?
Loans are only available at this time until June 30, 2020, so prompt application is advisable.

Who do I apply to for a PPP loan?
Loans will be made by lenders who currently provide SBA 7(a) loans, as well as new lenders (both public and private) that the SBA is working quickly to qualify. Forgiveness will also be applied for through the lender.

Who is eligible for a PPP loan?
In order to qualify for a PPP loan, the business (including standard businesses, non-profits, veterans organizations and tribal businesses) has to have fewer than 500 employees, or, according to the SBA, the “applicable size standard in number of employees for the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry as provided by SBA, if higher.” Also, any business that employs 500 or less people per location and has an NAICS code beginning with 72 is eligible. Independent contractors and certain self-employed individuals may qualify for PPP loans, as well.

What are the terms of a PPP loan?
Under the PPP, the maximum loan amount is 250% of the average monthly payroll costs, not to exceed $10,000,000. The goal is to provide businesses with eight weeks’ worth of permissible expenses. For those amounts not otherwise forgiven, the loan term can be up to ten years with an interest rate no higher than 4%. Principal, interest and loan fees will all be deferred for a minimum of six months and a maximum of twelve months. No collateral or personal guaranties may be required in connection with a PPP loan.

What makes a PPP Loan eligible for forgiveness?
PPP Loans are eligible for forgiveness if all employees are retained (or rehired by June 30, 2020). Loan forgiveness will be reduced by the amount that payroll decreases for employees with salaries less than $100,000 per year, if that decrease exceeds 25%. The lender must render and notify the business applicant of a decision within 60 days of the forgiveness application submission.

For more information on the Paycheck Protection Program and to determine your company’s eligibility, please contact us at Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC at [email protected].

_____________

The information provided in this alert was up-to-date at the time of publication, is provided for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, and the transmission and receipt of this information does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship.