Download - Lance Forsberg Plea

7/30/2019 Lance Forsberg Plea

1/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LANCE JAMES FORSBERG,

Defendant.__________________________/

No: 1:12cr207

BeforeTHE HONORABLE HUGH BRENNEMAN,

U.S. Magistrate JudgeGrand Rapids, Michigan

December 7, 2012Plea Proceedings

APPEARANCES:

MR. PATRICK MILES, U.S. ATTORNEYBy: MS. B. RENE SHEKMER

330 Ionia NWP. O. Box 208Grand Rapids, MI 49501616-456-2404

On behalf of the Plaintiff;

MR. THOMAS J. GEZONSmietanka Buckleitner Steffes & Gezon4250 Chicago Drive, SWSuite BGrandville, MI 49418

616-667-2217

On behalf of the Defendant.

TRANSCRIBED BY:

MS. KATHY J. ANDERSON, RPR, FCRR

Case 1:12-cr-00207-JTN Doc #130 Filed 12/12/12 Page 1 of 55 Page ID#369


2/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

December 7, 2012

PROCEEDINGS, 10:51 a.m.

THE COURT: The next matter this morning is United

States versus Lance James Forsberg, file number 1:12cr207.

And I understand we're here for the entry of a plea in this

matter.

You are Lance James Forsberg?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Forsberg, this is the United State

District Court for the Western District of Michigan which

means that it is a federal court. You are here on a

multi-count indictment, and I understand we are concerned wit

three counts of this indictment: Counts 1, 7 and 10. Is tha

correct?

MR. GEZON: That is correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Fine. Ms. Shekmer, has th

defendant previously been arraigned in this matter and if so

when was that?

MS. SHEKMER: Your Honor, he was arraigned on

August 20th, 2012, before Your Honor.

THE COURT: Fine. Mr. Forsberg, do you have a cop

of that indictment in front of you?


THE COURT: Have you read Counts 1, 7 and 10?




3/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: You understand each of those counts?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Gezon, do you want

those charges read for the record at this time?

MR. GEZON: No, Your Honor. We have read them, we

have had them for a long time now. We waive the reading of

them.

THE COURT: All right. Fine. Thank you. And the

plea will be to all three counts, is that right?

MR. GEZON: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. Count 1 charging the

defendant with conspiring to manufacture 100 or more marijuan

plants. And Count 10 which makes the same charge -- well,

pardon me, that's not correct.

Count 1 charges the defendant with conspiring to

manufacture 100 or more marijuana plants, and Count 10 which

charges the actual manufacture of marijuana, which usually

means growing the marijuana. Each carry a maximum penalty of

not less than five years in prison and not more than 40 years

in prison. There would also be the possibility of a fine of

up to five million dollars on each charge. There would also

be a period of supervised release after any prison term of at

least four years, but that could extend your entire life. An

there would also be a mandatory special assessment of a

hundred dollars on each charge.



4/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Count 7 which alleges the manufacture of a hundred

or more marijuana plants within one thousand feet of a school

carries a maximum penalty of not less than five years in

prison, and not more than 80 years in prison. So someplace

between five and 80 years, and a fine of not more than ten

million dollars. There would be a period of supervised

release after any prison term of at least eight years, and

again that could last defendant's entire life. That also

carries a special assessment of a hundred dollars as well.

Mr. Forsberg, do you understand the maximum

penalties for each of these three counts?


THE COURT: What I told you were the maximum

possible penalties. The actual sentence of the Court may wel

be influenced by what we call the sentencing guidelines. And

the guidelines are designed to help a judge know what an

appropriate sentence would be in a particular case based on

the facts of that case. And so the guidelines take into

consideration a number of factors; in a drug case, for

example, the type of drugs, the amount of drugs, the role of

the defendant in any particular drug activity, does the

defendant have a criminal background, if so, what is it.

There is just a wide variety of factors. And based on all of

that the guidelines come up with a recommended sentencing

range for the judge to consider.



5/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Now, the range can never exceed the maximum

sentence but someplace within the maximum possible sentence

will be this recommended range. The judge can sentence you

within that recommended range but she is not required to. Sh

can go above it or she can go below it. But before she makes

up her mind she has to pay very careful attention to the

recommendation and consider is very carefully and closely, an

there is a procedure she follows to do that. So the

guidelines are very important. Even though they are not

binding on the district judge.

I don't know what the guidelines would recommend i

your case. That has to be calculated by the probation

department when they do the presentence report. However, you

attorney has dealt with these guidelines for many years. He

is an expert on these guidelines, and can probably give you a

pretty good idea of what the guidelines would recommend, even

though he cannot guarantee you that his calculation would be

the final calculation. But, again, based on his experience

I'm sure he can give you a pretty accurate estimate.

Did you have a chance to talk to Mr. Gezon about

these guidelines?


THE COURT: Was he able to give you some idea of

what the impact on you might be of that recommendation?




6/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE COURT: All right. So if I refer to the

sentencing guidelines you understand what I'm talking about?


THE COURT: Fine. Now, this case is assigned to

the Honorable Janet T. Neff. Judge Neff is a United States

District Judge which means she was appointed by a President o

the United States and she has a lifetime position. You have

the right to have this hearing today for the purpose of

entering your plea conducted by Judge Neff. And if she were

to conduct it, she would ask you questions to make sure that

you knew what you were doing, that you were doing it

voluntarily, and that there was a foundation or a basis for

what you were doing.

And then assuming everything went as anticipated,

she would accept your plea and refer the matter to the

probation office to prepare a presentence report.

That normally takes three months or so. When that

report was done, you would return to court and Judge Neff

would impose the sentence of the Court.

Now, our local court rules provide that with your

consent, I can handle the hearing today for the purpose of yo

entering your plea. I am a United States Magistrate Judge

which means I'm not a district judge but I am a federal judge

I'm appointed by the district judges to assist them. So if I

take Judge Neff's place I'm going to ask you the same kinds o



7/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

questions that she would ask. Again, questions to make sure

that you know what you're doing, that you are doing it

voluntarily, and that there is a basis for what you are doing

And then I'll recommend to Judge Neff that she accept your

plea and at the same time I will refer the matter to the

probation office for a presentence report. Doesn't take any

longer one way than the other. When the report is done, you

return to court but this time before Judge Neff. And at that

time she would finalize the acceptance of your plea if she ha

not done so already, and she would impose the sentence of the

Court and conclude the entire matter at that time.

So either way, it's going to be up to Judge Neff t

determine the sentence of the Court. That's entirely her

responsibility.

But for the purpose of you entering your plea this

morning, I can handle that hearing but again only with your

consent.

Do you understand everything I have told you?


THE COURT: Have you talked about this with

Mr. Gezon?


THE COURT: I have received a consent form. It

appears to be signed by you agreeing to have me handle the

matter this morning. Is that your signature?



8/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, correct.

THE COURT: Did you understand everything on this

form before you signed it?


THE COURT: Anybody threaten you in any way or use

any force or duress or undue pressure to make you give up you

right to have Judge Neff handle this hearing?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Voluntary decision on your part?


THE COURT: Fine. Both attorneys have signed this

Mr. Gezon, do you concur with me handling this matter?

MR. GEZON: I do, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Fine. Thank you. Ms. Shekmer, do you

concur?

MS. SHEKMER: I do.

THE COURT: Has Judge Neff's office indicated a

willingness that I handle this matter?

MS. SHEKMER: Your Honor, due to the date of the

trial being in late January, it's Judge Neff's standing

procedure that we go before the magistrate at this time.

THE COURT: All right. Fine. I believe that

Mr. Forsberg's consent to proceed before me is voluntarily an

knowingly given. I so find. The consent form may be filed.

We will proceed with the plea at this time.



9/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

As I indicated, there are a number of questions I

have to ask. If there is something you don't understand, or

you want to stop and talk to Mr. Gezon, that's not a problem.

Just let me know. It's important that you understand what's

happening throughout the entire procedure. So if you need to

interrupt the proceedings, just let me know. Okay?


THE COURT: All right. The clerk is going to give

you an oath that you'll answer all questions truthfully.

LANCE JAMES FORSBERG, DEFENDANT, WAS DULY SWORN

THE COURT: Do you understand that having been

sworn your answers to my questions will be subject to the

penalties of perjury or of making a false statement if you do

not answer truthfully?


THE COURT: How old are you, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: I'm 32 years old, sir.

THE COURT: How far did you go in school?

THE DEFENDANT: College graduate.

THE COURT: What school?

THE DEFENDANT: Hope College.

THE COURT: And, counsel, is your client currently

on parole or probation?

MR. GEZON: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. Sir, have you taken in the



10/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

past 24 hours any kind of medication, any drugs, pills,

controlled substances, narcotics, or had any alcohol, anythin

like that in the past 24 hours?

THE DEFENDANT: Daily take Celexa, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What's that for?

THE DEFENDANT: It is an antidepressant,

antianxiety.

THE COURT: That's a prescription drug?


THE COURT: And you're on a schedule?


THE COURT: When do you normally take that?

THE DEFENDANT: In the mornings.

THE COURT: Did you take it this morning?


THE COURT: All right. Is there anything about

that medication that makes you drowsy, or distracted, or

unable to focus on what's happening around you?


THE COURT: In fact, I assume it works for your

benefit?


THE COURT: All right. Are you under the care of

physician or other medical care provider at this time or a

psychiatrist or a psychologist for any reason other than what



11/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

we have talked about?


THE COURT: This is, this is a drug-related

offense. Have you been hospitalized or treated recently for

any narcotics addiction?


THE COURT: Are you experiencing any medical

problems today that you are not being treated for?


THE COURT: Do you feel that you can both hear and

understand what's happening?


THE COURT: All right. Fine. Either attorney hav

any doubt as to the defendant's competence to enter a plea at

this time? Mr. Gezon?

MR. GEZON: I do not, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ms. Shekmer.

MS. SHEKMER: No. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Forsberg, if you want to pull that

microphone a little closer to you so you don't have to lean

into it each time. Whatever is comfortable for you.

Now, I certainly don't have any doubt as to the

defendant's competence, as I just indicated. And that allows

us to move into the next stage of these proceedings. And thi

is where I have an opportunity to talk to you about your



12/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

rights to a trial in this case. You have a number of rights:

One very important right is your right to have an attorney,

and you have the right to have an attorney represent you at

all times regardless of whether or not you can afford that

attorney. Now, you have retained Mr. Gezon, but had you been

unable to retain him, the court would have appointed an

attorney for you at no cost if that's what you wanted.

Mr. Gezon will represent you throughout this entir

matter; whether you go to trial, or whether you plead guilty

today, you never lose your right to an attorney. Do you

understand that?


THE COURT: And if you did lose Mr. Gezon, the

court would always appoint an attorney to replace him if that

was necessary. Do you understand that?


THE COURT: All right. Now, you have a number of

other rights to a trial, and I'm going to talk to you about

some of those. But these rights that I'm going to talk to yo

about are rights that you will lose if you plead guilty. Whe

you were here before, a plea of not guilty was entered on you

behalf. And you have every right to continue or maintain tha

plea right up through a trial. You have absolutely no

obligation to plead guilty as far as this court is concerned.

Do you understand that?



13/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1


THE COURT: And if you wanted to go to trial you

would have the right to a public and speedy trial, as well as

a trial by jury with the assistance of Mr. Gezon, of course.

And at that trial you have the right to confront and

cross-examine any witnesses called by the government to prove

its case against you. You have the right to call witnesses t

testify in your behalf. You have the right to bring those

people in by court order if they don't want to show up

voluntarily. Your attorney can present other evidence on you

behalf. And you have the right to testify or not testify at

trial as you choose since you always have the right to remain

silent.

Furthermore, throughout the entire trial, you are

presumed to be innocent and the burden is on the government t

prove that you're guilty. And the government has to prove

your guilt beyond any reasonable doubt before you can be

convicted.

Do you understand that you have all of those right

to a trial?


THE COURT: Do you understand you will lose those

rights if you plead guilty?


THE COURT: All right. Now, understanding that,



14/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

and the charge, three charges against you, and the maximum

penalties for each of those charges which I believe you told

me you understand all of those things?


THE COURT: How do you plead to each of these thre

counts, Counts 1, 7 and 10, do you plead guilty or not guilty

THE DEFENDANT: Guilty, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you plead guilty to each one of

those?


THE COURT: As I told you a moment ago, when you

plead guilty you lose your right to a trial and of course the

reason for that is that the purpose of a trial is to determin

if you did what you're accused of. And if you come into cour

as you're doing at the moment and you say, I'm guilty, I did

it, then you have answered the question we would need a trial

for so we don't need a trial. So by pleading guilty you waiv

or lose or give up your right to a trial and there will not b

any trial. Once again, do you understand that?


THE COURT: And of course if you lose or give up

your right to a trial, it stands to reason that you lose all

the rights that go with a trial. So by pleading guilty,

you're losing your right to confront and cross-examine

witnesses called to testify against you, you're losing your



15/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

right to call witnesses to testify in your behalf, and you're

losing your right to bring them in by court order should they

not want to come voluntarily. You're also losing your right

to be presumed innocent and to force the government to prove

your guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. So once again, do yo

understand that by pleading guilty, you give up or lose all o

those rights?


THE COURT: I also told you that you had the right

to remain silent. When you plead guilty that changes. In a

few minutes I'm going to ask you what you did that makes you

guilty of these charges. Clearly you have to answer those

questions and to that extent you're giving up your right to

remain silent. Do you understand that?


THE COURT: All right. I'm told there is a plea

agreement in this case. And I believe I have the original

document. Do you have a copy of this plea agreement in front

of you?


THE COURT: Turning to the last page, it appears

that Ms. Shekmer signed this document today as the prosecutor

and you and your attorney signed it yesterday.


THE COURT: All right. Let's look at the back pag



16/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

and I'll show you the back page of the original. Is that you

signature?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, it is.

THE COURT: All right. And you signed this

yesterday?


THE COURT: Before you signed it, did you read it

over?


THE COURT: Did you discuss it with Mr. Gezon

before you signed it?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, I did.

THE COURT: Most importantly, did you understand i

before you signed it?


THE COURT: Fine. I'm going to ask the prosecutor

to summarize the highlights of this agreement, not necessaril

everything. I would like you to pay very close attention to

what she says because in a few minutes I will ask you if you

agree with what she says. Okay?


THE COURT: Fine. Ms. Shekmer.

MS. SHEKMER: Count 1 or, excuse me, paragraph 1 o

the plea agreement states that the defendant agrees to enter

pleas of guilty to Counts 1, 7 and 10 which the Court has



17/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

already gone over so I don't need to repeat that.

Paragraph 2 sets forth the elements of the offense

that are involved with each of the three different offenses.

Paragraph 3 sets forth the penalty sections

regarding all of the three offenses which this Court has

already gone over.

Paragraph 4 is a stipulation that reads, "The

defendant stipulates and agrees that he manufactured at least

125 plants at 2935 Jolly, Okemos, Michigan between June 2010

and November 30th, 2010, and that 2935 Jolly, Okemos, Michiga

is located less than one thousand feet from the Okemos High

School, a public secondary school. The defendant stipulates

and agrees that he manufactured at least 122 marijuana plants

at 608 North Magnolia, Lansing, Michigan between August of

2010 and December 1st of 2010."

In paragraph 5, the defendant is agreeing to

cooperate with the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S.

Attorney's office, and any other law enforcement agency as

directed. And it sets forth the details of that cooperation.

Paragraph 6 is agreements by the United States

Attorney's office. The government has agreed to dismiss at

the time of sentencing and with permission of the Court

Counts 2 through 6, 8 through 9, and 11 of the indictment as

to the defendant. In subsection B the government has agreed

not to bring additional charges against the defendant for any



18/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

of the information that he provided relative to this instant

offense.

Section C the defendant provided a proffer to the

government and the government is agreeing not to enhance his

sentence based on things that the government did not

previously know, however, it is expressly understood that suc

information may be used by the government at sentencing if th

defendant takes the position at sentencing that contradicts

information provided by the defendant pursuant to this

agreement or any proffer agreement.

Under subsection D the government is agreeing not

to oppose the defendant's request for a two-level reduction

for acceptance of responsibility, and indicates additionally

that if his offense, adjusted offense level is 16 or greater

that his plea was in fact timely and he would then be entitle

to the additional third point for acceptance of

responsibility, all of which is conditioned on the fact that

he doesn't do anything between now and sentencing that would

deny him acceptance of responsibility.

Paragraph 7 sets forth the possibility of sentence

reduction motions. It speaks to both the 5K1.1 possibility,

3553(e), release of mandatory minimum and/or Rule 35(b)

motions under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. And

this basically is not a guarantee or promise to the defendant

but that the defendant will assist the government and the



19/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

government will review his case for that. However, once --

if any such motion is filed, then the Court has complete

discretion to grant or deny the motion.

Paragraph 8 talks about the sentencing guidelines

as does paragraph 9 saying there is no final agreement about

the sentencing guidelines.

And paragraph 10 talks about his, defendant's

waiver of constitutional rights which this Court has already

gone over.

I think the only thing that is additional to what

the Court has already gone over is that by pleading guilty th

defendant also gives up any and all rights to pursue any

affirmative defenses, Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment

claims or other pretrial motions that have been filed or coul

be filed. I don't believe there are any outstanding motions

at this time.

Paragraph 11 basically puts the defendant on notic

that the Court is not a party to this agreement. That this i

an agreement between the government and himself. And the

Court can neither accept nor reject the agreement but that no

one can make a binding prediction or promise regarding the

sentence the defendant will receive.

Paragraph 12, again, states that this agreement is

limited to the parties. In this case we are talking about

other federal, state or local prosecuting, administrative or



20/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

regulatory authorities.

Paragraph 13 talks about consequences of breach

should the defendant breach any portion of this plea

agreement, and gives the government one year to reinstitute

prosecution even if otherwise time barred within one year fro

the date of defendant's breach.

And paragraph 14 simply says this is the complete

agreement and understanding between the parties and there are

no other agreements, and if there are any other agreements or

changes to be made they would be made in writing signed by al

parties or placed on the record in open court.

THE COURT: Fine. Thank you, Ms. Shekmer. Before

you sit down, have any other promises been made to the

defendant to get him to plead guilty or to get him to sign

this agreement other than what's written down in this

document?

MS. SHEKMER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Gezon, do you concur

with all of Ms. Shekmer's statements about the plea agreement

MR. GEZON: I do, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you aware of any other promises

made to your client by anybody? Are you aware of any other

promises to get him to plead guilty or to sign this agreement

other than what's in the document itself?

MR. GEZON: No, Your Honor. We had, as you allude



21/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

to, several discussions about what the sentence guidelines

might be in this case and what the judge might sentence the

defendant to. But those were all conditioned upon the

representations in this plea agreement that that's up to the

judge.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Forsberg, did you hear

what both attorneys said about this plea agreement?


THE COURT: Do you agree with what they both said?


THE COURT: Some representations have been made in

this agreement that appear to benefit you. But did anybody

else at any time promises you anything to get you to plead

guilty today that's not in this plea agreement?


THE COURT: This would be the time to say so if yo

thought there were such promises. Do you understand that?


THE COURT: But there are no such promises, is tha

correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Correct.

THE COURT: I would like to talk to you about a

couple of these paragraphs myself. And I would like to direc

your attention to paragraph number 2 which sets forth the

elements of the offense. Do you have that in front of you?



22/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2


THE COURT: The elements of the offense are the

parts of the offense the government has to prove before you

can be convicted. And the prosecution, the government has to

prove each part or each element beyond any reasonable doubt

before you can be convicted. Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, I do.

THE COURT: All right. Well, in Count 1 you are

charged with a conspiracy, and the essence of a conspiracy is

that you entered into an agreement with other people to

violate federal law. And it's the agreement to violate the

law that is really the essence of that charge. Do you

understand that?


THE COURT: And they would have to prove here that

there was an agreement between two or more people, the

agreement was to manufacture marijuana, which generally means

grow marijuana, that you knowingly and voluntarily entered

this agreement or joined with it. You knew what you were

doing. You did it on purpose, in other words, and that this

conspiracy as a whole involved a quantity of at least a

hundred marijuana plants.

Now, in addition, they would have to show that thi

conspiracy took place during 2010, from sometime around May t

December 1st, and they would have to show this conspiracy too



23/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

place somewhere in the Western District of Michigan, which

means the western half of the State of Michigan. And they

would have to prove those things because that's what's been

charged in the indictment.

Do you understand they would have to prove

everything I just mentioned beyond any reasonable doubt befor

you could be convicted of Count 1?


THE COURT: In Count 7, they would have to prove

that you actually manufactured or grew marijuana. Again, tha

you did so knowing what you were doing, and intentionally or

on purpose. It wasn't a situation where you thought you were

growing roses and it turns out it was marijuana. You had to

know what you were doing, and it was something you wanted to

do. And they would have to prove that the quantity of

marijuana was at least a hundred marijuana plants. And they

would have to prove that all of this happened within one

thousand feet of a public secondary school, which usually

means a high school. And they would have to prove, again,

that this took place in the Western District of Michigan,

because that's what gives this court jurisdiction. And they

would have to prove that it happened on the dates charged.

And according to turning to Count 7, they are alleging that

this took place from sometime around June of 2010 to about th

end of November 2010. And they are saying that this took



24/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

place in Ingham County, which is in this district, the Wester

District of Michigan.

The school involved was Okemos High School, which

is a public high school.

Do you understand the elements that they would hav

to prove beyond any reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction o

Count 7?


THE COURT: And on Count 10, they would have to

prove that, again, that you grew marijuana; that, again, that

you knew what you were doing and that you did it on purpose o

intentionally; and that the offense involved at least a

hundred marijuana plants, that you grew at least a hundred

plants; and in this instance they would have to show that thi

took place between August of 2010 and the beginning of

December 2010, and again, in Ingham County. And I believe

those are the facts they would have to prove there.

Do you understand everything they would have, all

the elements they would have to prove to obtain a conviction

on Count 10?


THE COURT: Mr. Gezon, do you concur that that's a

proper recitation of all the elements the government would

have to prove in regard to each of these three counts?

MR. GEZON: I do, Your Honor. And those are the



25/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

elements we went over together previously.

THE COURT: Fine. Let's move to paragraph 4, look

at that for a moment.

Paragraph 4 is a stipulation, and it says here tha

you are stipulating and agreeing that you did certain things,

and then it spells those things out here. When parties

stipulate to something, that means they are agreeing that

these facts are true, and that nobody has to prove them

further during the course of the proceedings such as at

sentencing. You're agreeing that these facts can be taken as

established and you won't contest them. Is that your

understanding of what you're agreeing to here?


THE COURT: And you told me you had read the whole

agreement, and so I assume you read paragraph 4 as well.


THE COURT: And are all, pardon me, are all of the

facts stated in paragraph 4 correct as far as you know?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, they are.

THE COURT: And you're agreeing to all of those

facts?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, I am.

THE COURT: All right. Let's move to paragraph

number 11. This is on page 9. Do you see paragraph number

11?



26/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2


THE COURT: This is entitled the Court is not a

party to this agreement. When we use the word Court, we mean

the judge. We are talking about Judge Neff here. Today I

suppose we are talking about me as well, but we are really

talking about Judge Neff. And so what this sentence really

reads is that Judge Neff is not a party to this agreement.

What we have here is an agreement that you have entered into

with the prosecutor on behalf of the government. And that's

perfectly appropriate to enter into this agreement. Some

people call it a plea agreement, a plea bargain, a deal,

whatever you want to call it, it's an agreement you've entere

into with the government. Perfectly appropriate.

And you both reduced it to writing. Which is what

the plea agreement is. That's perfectly appropriate. And

you're both explaining it to Judge Neff through me. And

that's perfectly appropriate. But merely because you have

entered into an agreement with the government and you're

telling the judge about it, doesn't mean the judge is bound b

it, and she is not. She didn't sign this agreement. If you

did look on the back page you wouldn't find her signature

there. You find your signature. I didn't sign it. You're

merely telling us about the agreement that the two of you hav

reached. But that doesn't mean the judge is bound by it. An

she is not bound by it. Do you understand that?



27/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2


THE COURT: Now, of course the significance of tha

is that if she is not a party to this agreement, she is not

bound by it, that she doesn't have to follow anybody's

recommendation that might arise out of this. Certainly if

somebody recommends to her a certain course of action that

would benefit you, she will consider it. But she doesn't hav

to follow it because she is not a party to this agreement.

Do you understand that?


THE COURT: And if somebody has predicted to you

what Judge Neff will do in this case as far as a sentence is

concerned, I can tell you she has not heard the prediction an

she would not be bound by it if she had heard it. Do you

understand that?


THE COURT: So at the end of the day, when

everything is considered, everybody has made their arguments,

recommendations and so forth, it's going to be up to Judge

Neff to decide the sentence of the Court and it's entirely

within her discretion. Do you understand that?


THE COURT: And you're agreeing to that?


THE COURT: All right. Fine. Let's talk for a



28/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

moment about your voluntariness in making this plea. Did

anybody use any force, make any threats to you, use any dures

or undue pressure as far as you're concerned to plead guilty

today or to sign this agreement yesterday?


THE COURT: You did both of these things

voluntarily?


THE COURT: Any doubt about that in your mind?


THE COURT: You have had enough time to think abou

this?


THE COURT: You talked about it with Mr. Gezon at

length, I would imagine?


THE COURT: All right. Well, let's talk about wha

actually happened. Let's go through each of these counts. W

will start with Count 1. I need to have you tell me in your

own words if you would, please, what you did that makes you

guilty of Count 1. And if it helps to follow along on any of

these documents, please feel free to do that. But tell me

what happened.

THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, myself and those liste

in the indictment agreed to manufacture and grow medical



29/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

cannabis.

THE COURT: When did you agree to do this?

THE DEFENDANT: Sometime in the summer of 2010.

THE COURT: And did you in fact grow this

marijuana?


THE COURT: Now, you said the other people named

here. We have Dennis James Forsberg, we have Ryan Newton

Ellis Basore, did I pronounce it?

THE DEFENDANT: Basore, I believe.

THE COURT: Okay. Douglas Frakes or Frakes. We

have you named here. We have Dennis Corey and a Kyle Corey,

and a Patrick Karslake. Were all of these people involved in

this agreement to grow marijuana?


THE COURT: And when did the growing actually

start?

THE DEFENDANT: Sometime in June, Your Honor, or

July.

THE COURT: All right. And it continued for a

period of time, I take it?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, it did.

THE COURT: How long?

THE DEFENDANT: About five months, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And why did it end?



30/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

THE DEFENDANT: Through a federal raid, Your Honor

THE COURT: Where was this marijuana grown?

THE DEFENDANT: In proximity of a secondary school

Okemos High School in Okemos, Michigan. Allen Township,

Ingham County, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. So you were within Ingham

County?


THE COURT: Because Okemos is just east of East

Lansing and that's well within Ingham County?


THE COURT: All right. Did you know there was a

school there?


THE COURT: You live in Okemos?


THE COURT: Did you go to the high school?

THE DEFENDANT: I went to Williamston High School,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Play Okemos in sports?


THE COURT: So no doubt you knew where Okemos High

School was?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, I do.

THE COURT: All right. Is marijuana grown indoors



31/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

or outdoors?

THE DEFENDANT: Indoors, Your Honor.

THE COURT: How many plants were grown during this

period of time?

THE DEFENDANT: Approximately 122 at the time of

the raid, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That's, had you grown some other ones

earlier and sold them off or something?


THE COURT: At the time that the federal

authorities came in, there were at least 125 marijuana plants

at that location, is that right?


THE COURT: And what was the address for that

location?

THE DEFENDANT: 2935 Jolly Road, Okemos, Michigan.

THE COURT: All right. Are you satisfied that tha

address is actually less than a thousand feet from the Okemos

High School?


THE COURT: How many football fields is that, thre

football fields away?


THE COURT: You could see the school from the, fro

that address?



32/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3


THE COURT: Who lived there at the time this was

happening?

THE DEFENDANT: It's a light commercial facility,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So it's not a house?


THE COURT: Pole barn?

THE DEFENDANT: Of sorts, yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. And do you have to have special

grow equipment to grow this many plants?


THE COURT: What did that consist of?

THE DEFENDANT: High pressure sodium lights, air

conditioning units, fans, in essence nutrients, and that's th

gambit.

THE COURT: All right. What was your role in

growing this marijuana?

THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I was a contractor

on-site getting rooms within an environmental variable that i

containable.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, what does that mean?

THE DEFENDANT: For a plant to come to fruition it

must stay within certain temperature ranges. This pole barn

was a tin can in the middle of a field with winter



33/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

approaching. So insulation and light blocking, protection

from the outside needed to become a part of the operation.

THE COURT: You had to kind of insulate it and

prepare the physical surroundings to grow these plants?


THE COURT: All right. I don't think we

necessarily have to talk about all these people, but there is

another Forsberg here. Dennis Forsberg. What's his relation

to you?

THE DEFENDANT: That's my father, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. What was his role in this?

THE DEFENDANT: He owned the buildings, or was the

managed lease tenant operator through a family company lookin

to rent the facilities, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Now, did he know that you

were growing marijuana here?


THE COURT: And he provided you the legal access t

the building by either because he owned it, his family compan

owned it, or he was responsible for leasing it?


THE COURT: Brian Newton Ellis Basore, what was hi

role in this?

THE DEFENDANT: More or less to keep the paperwork

for legal, statewide legal, and to find caregivers to rent th



34/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

space, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What was Douglas George Frakes' role i

this?

THE DEFENDANT: He was kind of a private investor,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: He helped finance it, I take it?

THE DEFENDANT: More or less, yes. I had very

limited contact with Mr. Frakes.

THE COURT: Now, who actually grew the marijuana

itself, any of these people that are listed here?

THE DEFENDANT: I would have to say myself, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. There are two Coreys here; did

they have anything to do with growing it?


THE COURT: They help you out or you help them out

or was it --

THE DEFENDANT: I helped them. Your Honor,

Mr. Corey, Sr. and his son Kyle were on-site. However, Kyle

had very limited understanding of farming or agriculture,

growing anything. Mr. Corey as well, Sr. And so they relied

upon me and my knowledge.

THE COURT: I take it you had grown marijuana at

other locations then?

THE DEFENDANT: My home, Your Honor.



35/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

THE COURT: Okay. And what was the role of Patric

Karslake?

THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I never really came

into contact with him but once. He had his own, quote,

unquote, hobby farm going. Never to visit 2935.

THE COURT: So he wasn't growing any marijuana at

your physical location?


THE COURT: And once the marijuana was grown, how

is it distributed going forward?

THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, myself and Mr. Basore

would take plants home to trim and prepare to be sent to the

caregivers.

THE COURT: So you would take them off this site

and take them someplace else?


THE COURT: How far away did you live, if you took

these to your home?

THE DEFENDANT: I lived about ten minutes away,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Also in Ingham County?


THE COURT: All right. And you and the other

people in this conspiracy were paid to do this?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor. It was with the



36/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

hope of a better tomorrow through the fruition of growing the

cannabis. We were hoping to make money enough to supplement

bills and incomes.

THE COURT: If you didn't sell it, how did you mak

money?

THE DEFENDANT: Well, we lost a great deal of

money, Your Honor. But the investments were initially made

that bank rolled the first several months. And we never got

to a point where much money was actually turned over.

THE COURT: You said somebody here invested money

or they put money into it. I assume, take a step back, that

some money was necessary to buy the grow equipment, to buy th

insulation for this tin can that you talked about in the

middle of a field and so forth. There is probably electricit

or some sort of power coming to the building.


THE COURT: All of that took money.


THE COURT: And that money came from your

investors.

THE DEFENDANT: I would assume, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Well, were you paid at all

to do this?


THE COURT: You just had a lot of time on your



37/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

hands?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. I also

supplemented my income through 608 North Magnolia.

THE COURT: All right. That was another place we

are going to talk about in a few minutes, I take it?


THE COURT: And you were growing marijuana there?


THE COURT: How did you supplement your income by

growing marijuana there?

THE DEFENDANT: I have my caregiver status there,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: And you were paid for that marijuana?


THE COURT: By the people who had medical marijuan

cards, I take it?


THE COURT: At some point if this operation on

Jolly Road that we have been talking about had further

established, was the intent to sell this marijuana to people

with medical marijuana cards?


THE COURT: And they would pay for that?


THE COURT: All right. Well that was the intent



38/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

even though you might not have gotten a lot of money or any

money at the time the federal authorities came in?


THE COURT: All right. I think I have a picture o

it.

Did you know you were in violation of federal law

in doing this?

THE DEFENDANT: After the fact I became aware, You

Honor.

THE COURT: Did you think you were in compliance

with state law in doing this?


THE COURT: You had grown marijuana for sometime

before this?

THE DEFENDANT: About a year, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You knew there was a federal law out

there, I take it?


THE COURT: And did you have some reason to believ

it didn't apply to you?

THE DEFENDANT: I thought Colorado and California

had set precedence, Your Honor, and it was my limited

understanding and putting on blinders that led me to believe

what I want, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You understand now that under federal



39/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

law you couldn't do any of these things.


THE COURT: Before we move on to the other two

charges, I want to ask counsel if you believe the statements

made by the defendant are sufficient to support a plea of

guilty to Count 1.

MR. GEZON: I do, Your Honor. With the

stipulations that are in the plea agreement.

THE COURT: What are you referring to?

MR. GEZON: The amounts and the locations of the

plants. What is that, paragraph --

THE COURT: 4.

MR. GEZON: Yes.

THE COURT: I think your client said there were at

least 125 marijuana plants at this address, which was 2935

Jolly Road in Okemos.

MR. GEZON: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. And, Mr. Gezon, I'm sure

you've investigated this matter. Any doubt in your mind at

all that this address is within one thousand feet of Okemos

High School?

MR. GEZON: None, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Shekmer, do you believ

the statements made by the defendant are sufficient to suppor

a plea of guilty to Count 1?



40/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

MS. SHEKMER: Your Honor, I do, but if you would

indulge me I think I might help the Court and speed this alon

by explaining just a little bit about what was going on here.

All of the defendants in the indictment were

involved in the manufacture of marijuana. However, there was

actually four separate locations involved. There was 2935

Jolly, which the defendant today has spoken about, there was

also a building next to it which was 2933 Jolly, and marijuan

was grown in both of those locations. Those locations were

owned by one of Mr. Forsberg's father's family's companies,

and subleased to or leased to a company called RYDEN. RYDEN

consisted of Dennis Forsberg, Ryan Basore, Douglas Frakes, an

Lance Forsberg. RYDEN was formed for the purpose of growing

marijuana. RYDEN is the company when the defendant talks

about people making an investment, it was to RYDEN that the

people made the investment, and then the buildings were built

out to grow marijuana in them by the insulation and other

things Mr. Forsberg has stated.

Then Mr. Corey, this is Dennis Corey, and Mr. Kyle

Corey signed separate yet again subleases leasing these two

buildings as the people who were allegedly growing the

marijuana in the buildings. When in fact Lance Forsberg and

RYDEN was growing the marijuana in the buildings and Kyle

Corey was assisting Mr. Forsberg in the growing of marijuana,

and Dennis Corey was really assisting more with the cleanup



41/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

around the area because he was hoping to learn how to do this

and do it in the future.

Those are one location. There are two locations

but in one sort of light industrial complex owned by the

Forsberg family, and that's across the street from the Okemos

High School. There is another location which is the Jolly Oa

location.

THE COURT: I'm going to stop you for just a

moment. Mr. Forsberg, did you hear everything the prosecutor

just said?


THE COURT: Do you agree with what she just said?


THE COURT: All of that's correct?


THE COURT: All right. Fine. Please go on.

MS. SHEKMER: And then there was another location

which is the Jolly Oak location, which I believe this

defendant had some contact with but not as much, and this was

yet another corporation; this was a building that was owned b

the Forsberg family. It was leased to Pat Karslake. Patrick

Karslake then subleased it to Dennis Forsberg, and other

people, and they grew marijuana in there. And the portion of

the marijuana that was associated with Ryan Basore and others

was under another limited liability company called DENRY. Bu



42/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

it operated the same way as RYDEN.

Then there was a fourth location.

THE COURT: That pertained to Count 7 or 10?

MS. SHEKMER: No, no, but it's part of the

conspiracy. And then the fourth location is the defendant's

residence which was on Magnolia in Lansing. All the other

locations were in Okemos. And at his own location and

residence, he was growing 122 marijuana plants, and those

plants were serving as the mother plants to make the clones,

to make the individual plants that would end up at other

locations in this conspiracy.

And with regard to the harvesting of marijuana,

there was at least one harvest and possibly two at the variou

locations, and that, although some was sold to the patients,

excess was sold to a dispensary owned by Ryan Basore. And

that's where the cash came back into the company to help pay

expenses. As the Court asked about the lights, the

electricity, what not, that's where some of that money came

from.

THE COURT: Mr. Forsberg, did you hear everything

else the prosecutor just said?


THE COURT: Is all of that correct as well?


THE COURT: You agree with all of that?



43/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4


THE COURT: All right. Fine. Let's look at Count

7. Now, Count 7 doesn't charge a conspiracy but it charges

the actual manufacture of marijuana within a thousand feet of

a school. Ms. Shekmer, are we talking about 2939 Jolly Road

on this one?

MS. SHEKMER: 2935, Your Honor, Jolly.

THE COURT: 2935 Jolly, I'm sorry. And that's 293

Jolly is the same address we were talking about in Count 1.

MS. SHEKMER: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. So this is the same growin

operation but here you're charging the actual manufacture of

the marijuana rather than a conspiracy.

MS. SHEKMER: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Forsberg, is that your

understanding as well?


THE COURT: And in regard to Count 7, I don't thin

we have to go over all those facts again because I think the

factual basis you gave me for Count 1 would supply the facts

for Count 7.

If I went through all those facts again and

restated those again, you would agree that all of those

pertain to Count 7 as well?




44/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

THE COURT: And you were actually the person in

charge of growing a lot of this marijuana based on your

experience, is that right?

THE DEFENDANT: The most knowledgeable, the most

well read, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. And in addition to the growing

the plants themselves, you provided the physical facilities o

you got the physical facilities up and running to grow these

plants?


THE COURT: All right. Ms. Shekmer, do you believ

the statements adopted by the defendant as stated previously

are sufficient to support a plea of guilty to Count 7?

MS. SHEKMER: I do, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Gezon, do you agree?

MR. GEZON: I do also, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let's move to Count 10.

This is another allegation of the growing of marijuana. Wher

is it alleged, Ms. Shekmer, that this took place?

MS. SHEKMER: Your Honor, this is at the

defendant's at that time residence which was on Magnolia; I

believe it was South Magnolia is Lansing.

THE COURT: Mr. Forsberg, I think you may have

already alluded to this or the prosecutor has, but tell me

what happened as far as Count 10 is concerned and where it



45/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

happened.

THE DEFENDANT: 608 North Magnolia, Your Honor. M

personal residence.

THE COURT: North Magnolia?


THE COURT: All right. What city is that in?

THE DEFENDANT: Lansing, Michigan.

THE COURT: All right. That of course is in Ingha

County.


THE COURT: All right. And is that where you live

in 2010?


THE COURT: That was your home.


THE COURT: All right. And you grew marijuana

there as well?


THE COURT: Tell me what happened there.

THE DEFENDANT: I became a caregiver, Your Honor.

Started trying to learn to grow cannabis there. Had a couple

failed ventures and continued to practice, continued to read,

and practice being a caregiver under what I assumed was my

legal right.

THE COURT: Under Michigan law?



46/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

THE DEFENDANT: Under Michigan law.

THE COURT: Not under federal law?


THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

THE DEFENDANT: As my house continued to be

infiltrated with mold, and humidity, and excessive power

bills, I looked to transfer over to the other commercial

facility.

THE COURT: If you were learning at Magnolia, and

that took place no earlier than what took place on Jolly Road

I assume that what took place on Magnolia actually started

before August of 2010?


THE COURT: All right. Although the charge only

pertains to the time of August 2010 up to December 2010, is

that right?


THE COURT: All right. And you simply found that

as a physical facility was not adequate because of the mold

and the cost and so forth to grow the amount of marijuana tha

you were growing?


THE COURT: That's why you moved to Jolly Road?

THE DEFENDANT: That was my intentions, Your Honor

THE COURT: All right. Now, did you continue to



47/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

operate the place at Magnolia where you lived while the Jolly

Road grow operation was going on?


THE COURT: And did you grow at least a hundred

marijuana plants at the Magnolia address during the August to

December time period?


THE COURT: And of course you knew these were

marijuana plants?


THE COURT: In fact that's why you were growing

them.


THE COURT: All right. And how do you know there

was a hundred plants there or more?

THE DEFENDANT: It was brought to my attention by

the federal agents, Your Honor, that I had exceeded my federa

statute of a hundred plants.

THE COURT: Federal statute or state statute?

THE DEFENDANT: I was in excess of a hundred

plants.

THE COURT: There is no federal statute that lets

you grow a hundred plants, is there?


THE COURT: All right. How many plants do you



48/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

acknowledge that were actually at that address? I think you

stipulated to that in paragraph 4.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. There was 122

healthy plants.

THE COURT: Separate growing plants?


THE COURT: All right. Now, you said you had

removed some plants from the Jolly Street address and taken

them home, is that right?

THE DEFENDANT: The other way around, sir.

THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. Tell me --

THE DEFENDANT: For one to continue a genetic

strain, a clone must be made of that plant. Every cannabis

plant has different qualities and so certain cannabis plants

are preferred because of their vigorous nature. And so I

would try to find a hardy, vigorous bumper crop plant, so to

speak, and then I would supply clones to the caregivers for a

supplemental amount of income.

THE COURT: When you say you would supply it to

them, you would give them the plant?

THE DEFENDANT: I would cut the clones and make

them root so that they become a plant.

THE COURT: All right. Would you give those new

plants to other people?




49/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

THE COURT: And did some of those new plants go to

the Jolly Road address that you have told us about?


THE COURT: I see. All right. Ms. Shekmer, do yo

believe the statements made by the defendant are sufficient t

support a plea of guilty to Count 10?

MS. SHEKMER: I do, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Gezon, do you agree?

MR. GEZON: I do also, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. And I take it,

Mr. Forsberg, that the other people named in Count 10 assiste

you at your address at Magnolia?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor, they did not.

THE COURT: What was their involvement with growin

marijuana at Magnolia?

THE DEFENDANT: Really no involvement, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Did any of these people live at

Magnolia with you?


THE COURT: All right. So whatever was grown at

Magnolia, which was 122 plants at the time of the federal

authorities coming in, that was all your own operation?


THE COURT: All right. Have you had sufficient

time and opportunity to talk about this case with Mr. Gezon?



50/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5


THE COURT: Are you satisfied with the way he has

advised you?

THE DEFENDANT: Completely, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you satisfied with his

representation of you here in court?


THE COURT: Do you have any questions about

anything we have talked about?


THE COURT: You still wish to plead guilty?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, I do.

THE COURT: Is there anything else the attorneys

want to place on the record at this time that would affect th

sentencing guidelines or the preparation of the presentence

report? Ms. Shekmer.

MS. SHEKMER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Gezon.

MR. GEZON: Yes, Your Honor. As you've been able

to ascertain from asking questions and understanding what

happened here, this group of people were growing marijuana fo

what they thought was medical or was for medical marijuana

purposes hoping to be within the scope of the state law. I

think eventually the proofs will show and the presentence

report that they were not necessarily in complete compliance



51/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

with the state law. And that they were hoping that they were

although they knew it was against federal law, they were

hoping from what they saw in newspapers and from other report

that the federal prosecutors would not charge them if they

stayed at the level they were. They were wrong in that. And

eventually that's why they are here. But this is not about

any illegal diversion to the illegal marijuana trade outside

of the medical marijuana trade. That's the only thing I

wanted to add. It's not necessary for the elements of this

case, Your Honor, but I just wanted to clarify that from the

questions that were asked and from what the prosecutor said.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Anything

further?

MS. SHEKMER: No. Thank you.

THE COURT: That was my sense from the responses.

It doesn't, however, change what the federal law provides or

requires. The federal law is still there. It's been in

existence for a long period of time and certainly long before

the state decided that it was going to allow medical

marijuana, or at least not prosecute medical marijuana. I

don't know if they technically ever allow it but they may hav

decided under certain instances they wouldn't prosecute it.

Regardless, that never changed federal law.

Both the federal government and the State of

Michigan have a law against bank robbery, and the State of



52/55


53/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

final adjudication on these matters by the district judge at

or before the time of sentencing.

I find both the plea agreement and the pleas to

have been voluntarily and knowingly entered into. However, I

do not accept or reject the plea agreement but specifically

reserve acceptance of that agreement for the district judge a

or before the time of sentencing.

The parties know my report and recommendation. Yo

have 14 days from today to file any objections to that, even

though you have not yet received a written copy, although I

suspect one will be on your desk before you get back to your

respective offices.

The matter is referred to the probation office for

preparation of a presentence report. Mr. Gezon, I know you'r

aware of your obligation to put your client in immediate

contact with that office. The transcript of these proceeding

is available through the clerk's office to counsel upon

request.

Unless there is an objection bond will be

continued. Is there anything further we need to do this

morning on this case, Ms. Shekmer?

MS. SHEKMER: No.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Gezon, anything

further?

MR. GEZON: No. Thank you very much.



54/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

THE COURT: Fine. Thank you. And we will stand i

recess until our next matter.

(Proceedings concluded, 11:52 a.m.)



55/55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

5

C E R T I F I C A T E

I certify that the foregoing is a transcript from the

Liberty Court Recording System digital recording of the

proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of my

ability.

/s/ Kathy J. Anderson

Kathy J. Anderson, CSR-2573

U.S. District Court Reporter

402 Federal Building

Grand Rapids, MI 49503
