Latest news with #LawJudge
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
State Farm Cites Newly Announced CDI Market Conduct Exam to Oppose Consumer Participation in Rate Hearing, Says Consumer Watchdog
LOS ANGELES, June 13, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- At a hearing today before the California Department of Insurance, State Farm opposed Pacific Palisades homeowner Merritt David Farren's petition to participate in the ongoing rate review proceedings, citing the Department's newly announced market conduct examination of the company's claims handling practices following the January wildfires in Los Angeles. State Farm argued that allegations concerning its failure to properly pay wildfire claims were not relevant to its request for yet another rate hike—despite having already secured a 20% increase in 2024 and a 17% emergency interim increase earlier this year, which is now proposed to be folded into a larger 30% permanent increase. "State Farm wants to shut the public out because it argues a market conduct exam would take too long," said Ben Powell, a consumer protection attorney at Consumer Watchdog. "But just weeks ago, State Farm pushed the Department to approve an emergency rate hike with unprecedented speed—even though it hadn't submitted all the required information. When it comes to raising rates, State Farm demands urgency. But when it comes to protecting consumers, it wants regulators to slam on the brakes." Consumer Watchdog emphasized that Proposition 103 guarantees any member of the public the right to intervene in insurance proceedings—a safeguard designed to hold insurers accountable. "If the Department is willing to act quickly for insurers, it must act just as quickly to protect policyholders," Powell added. "No one should be excluded from this process—especially not consumers left without fair claim payments after the fires." Today's hearing concluded with the Administrative Law Judge taking the matter under submission. A decision on Mr. Farren's intervention petition is expected soon. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Consumer Watchdog
Associated Press
15-04-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
The DEA Is Defying Supreme Court Axon in MMJ's Cannabis Case - Is DEA a rogue agency?
Duane Boise CEO of MMJ stated 'Let's be clear: this isn't just administrative overreach. This is defiance of the Supreme Court by a law enforcement agency. The DEA, tasked with upholding the law, is now actively undermining it'. WASHINGTON, DC / ACCESS Newswire / April 15, 2025 / The Supreme Court has spoken. In its landmark Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC decision, the Court affirmed that Americans have the right to challenge unconstitutional agency structures in federal court before enduring prolonged and potentially unlawful administrative proceedings. This ruling was meant to be a shield - protecting individuals and companies from bureaucratic abuse. But the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has decided it doesn't care. In its ongoing battle with MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, the DEA has done more than ignore Axon - it's practically dared the judiciary and the public to hold it accountable. Despite conceding that its own administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitutionally insulated from removal , the DEA continues to force MMJ through a regulatory meat grinder. Duane Boise CEO of MMJ stated 'Let's be clear: this isn't just administrative overreach. This is defiance of the Supreme Court by a law enforcement agency. The DEA, tasked with upholding the law, is now actively undermining it'. In Axon, the Court declared that when an agency's structure is alleged to be unconstitutional, federal courts can and should intervene immediately - no need to wait years while the flawed process grinds forward. Yet in MMJ's case, the DEA has done precisely the opposite: dismissing MMJ's federal constitutional challenge by arguing that no 'irreparable harm' was done. This argument is a slap in the face not only to MMJ but to the judiciary itself. Axon wasn't about requiring proof of harm - it was about protecting rights from being violated in the first place. The DEA's continued reliance on the Administrative Law Judge hearing process admits that the judges are improperly shielded from removal renders its entire process suspect. And it gets worse. MMJ Biopharma Cultivation's application to grow and research cannabis to manufacture cannabis-derived medicines for debilitating diseases like Huntington's and Multiple Sclerosis has been sitting idle since 2018. This is despite Congress mandating in the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (MCREA) that DEA respond within 60 days. The DEA didn't just miss a deadline - it ignored federal law. Add to that the stunning revelation that DEA's lead counsel, Aarathi Haig, is ineligible to practice law in New Jersey - a breach of 28 U.S.C. § 530B - and what emerges is a pattern of disregard for legality, ethics, and public duty. This situation has even prompted scrutiny from legal ethics experts and calls for audits and congressional hearings. The agency's failure to follow Axon is not a bureaucratic oversight. It is a boldfaced assertion that the rules don't apply when the DEA doesn't want them to. This is not just about MMJ - it is about the legitimacy of every administrative action the DEA takes under structurally unconstitutional authority. If the courts allow this to stand, the Supreme Court's ruling in Axon becomes meaningless. And if Congress stays silent, it signals that executive agencies can defy judicial authority without consequence. America is watching. Patients are watching. The courts are watching. And the DEA must be held to account. For MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, this is a fight for justice. For the rest of us, it's a fight for the Constitution. The question now is: Will the law enforcement agency charged with enforcing justice finally submit to it? The DEA's alleged obstruction, involving officials like Thomas Prevoznik, Matthew Strait and Aarathi Haig raises serious concerns about whether the agency is acting as a rogue entity, prioritizing its own agenda over the rule of law and the needs of patients. MMJ is represented by attorney Megan Sheehan. CONTACT: Madison Hisey [email protected] 203-231-8583 SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings press release
