20 years of friendship
Yesterday I was having a conversation with Juan Finch Jr and he said something that stuck with me.
“It’s hard to break someone that’s already broken.”
Juan and I have officially been friends for twenty years now.
We met in the military two decades ago.
That’s more than half my life.
As we talked, we found ourselves laughing about some of the things that have happened over the years and especially throughout this litigation.
At some point I joked that threatening to kill me and my family probably wasn’t the most effective strategy in the world. My best friend from childhood used to put bullets in a frying pan on the stove and play fire in the hole. I’ve been stabbed by a girl I dated. Life has already provided tougher stress tests than most people can imagine.
Humor aside, the conversation made me think about something…
Less than a month remains until trial.
If any media organizations are interested in Extended Media Coverage (EMC) in Cook County, do not hesitate to reach out. If enough outlets are interested, we would be happy to discuss pool coverage options.
What makes this case interesting is not the underlying business dispute.
If it were a routine dispute, the case likely would not have survived years of litigation, motions to dismiss, and summary judgment proceedings.
What makes it interesting is how far it was allowed to go.
This trial is expected to include testimony and evidence concerning witness intimidation, bribery attempts, payments made to witnesses, recorded death threats, law enforcement involvement, regulatory oversight, and conduct occurring within one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country.
The obvious question becomes:
If these things occurred, where were the institutions that were supposed to stop them?
The evidence expected to be discussed includes recordings, witness testimony, court filings, government responses, and regulatory records accumulated over multiple years.
One witness intimidation incident involved a witness and their child and included individuals connected to law enforcement. One recorded death threat involved an elected official. Court filings released by opposing counsel also described payments to a witness and referenced what was characterized as “color of law” money laundering.
That last issue became particularly interesting after subsequent regulatory inquiries into IDFPR showed no approvals, exemptions, or authorizations for the transactions being described.
Which raises another question.
Illinois has already demonstrated through the Ivy Hall situation involving David Berger that regulators are willing to take action when certain conduct crosses regulatory lines.
So what happens when similar questions are raised involving a company controlling more than a dozen dispensary licenses and a cultivation operation?
Do standards apply equally?
Or differently depending on who is involved?
That is why I wrote The Benchmark Problem.
For me, this is no longer just a lawsuit.
It is a live case study for my PhD research on institutional behavior, regulatory accountability, and how power structures respond when the allegations point back at the structures themselves.
Starting July 13, the public gets to watch it all unfold in real time.
F’nAround will document every development as it becomes publicly available.