Why Project CBD Loses Motion to Dismiss $100 Million Lawsuit

MJNA Project CBD Lawsuit - Martin Lee

MJNA Defeats Project CBD’s Motions – Moves Forward $100 Million False Claims Lawsuit

Months ago, Cashinbis broke a story that Project CBD’s industry damning ‘special report’ had been confirmed false by the original testing facility in addition to third party contributions. The news release systematically broke down the inaccuracies and false propagandas that littered Project CBD’s ‘report’ and led to the biggest lawsuit in the history of the cannabis industry. Now, justice seems to be on the horizon for Medical Marijuana, Inc. as a California Superior Court has struck down Project CBD’s Anti-SLAPP motion and motion to reconsider in the ongoing court case between the two companies. It was last October when Medical Marijuana, Inc. (MJNA) announced that it had filed a $100M lawsuit against the multiple companies that had published false allegations against MJNA, its portfolio companies and their CBD hemp oil brands.

Interestingly enough, other companies in the suit, including the testing lab who had initially released the false testing report, have settled with MJNA, retracting all reports as incomplete and false. Perhaps even more interesting, Project CBD was recently caught, on camera, attempting to market and sell their own line of competing CBD products at a recent cannabis conference. It’s true what they say, ‘Slander happens in a second. Integrity happens over time’.

Court Says ‘No’ to Project CBD

The California Superior Court has now ruled twice in favor of MJNA’s lawsuit, striking down Project CBD’s Anti-SLAPP motion in addition to a motion to reconsider.  In filing the Anti-SLAPP motion, Project CBD had attempted to have Medical Marijuana, Inc.’s $100 million lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that it violated Project CBD’s right to free speech.

Public court documents show that Project CBD had argued, in their defense, that Medical Marijuana, Inc. was the equivalent of a public figure and the company was using the $100 million lawsuit to censor public discourse. Basically – You’re a public figure, so we can say whatever we want with no consequence because of free speech. Well, the court gave that a big stinky ‘Not So Fast’. Is there free speech in America? Sure. However, that speech is also free to come with consequences.

In his recent ruling, the California Superior Court judge disagreed with Project CBD’s argument and denied the Anti-SLAPP motion. In the ruling, the judge also found that Medical Marijuana, Inc. has grounds to proceed with their lawsuit against Project CBD on the grounds of Libel and False Light. So not only has Project CBD’s last ditch efforts to avoid responsibility come up short, but the judge has gone as far as to say MJNA’s case has all the merit it needs to pursue vindication.

“Unfortunately, integrity can take a great deal of time to prove. However, Medical Marijuana, Inc. is determined to see this fight through to the end and vindicate ourselves to the world.” – Dr. Stuart Titus – CEO of Medical Marijuana Inc.

Ulterior Motive?

lawsuit, project cbd, false reportProject CBD’s report halted the progress of not only Medical Marijuana Inc., but the entire CBD and Hemp movements. However, one of the more interesting pieces to the puzzle didn’t reveal itself until just recently. An anonymous source has provided us photographic evidence that Project CBD has released their own CBD product line, which are coincidentally in direct competition with RSHO, the product they sought to attack, and they are pushing this product at various cannabis conventions.

Is it possible that a company would slander their competitor right before releasing their own, directly competing product? Maybe. Especially if the ‘Our product is much safer’ angle is taken to market, riding the coattails of false scientific reports you have worked to propagate. Without being able to talk to Project CBD representatives, who would not be interviewed for this story, we are left to speculate that this unequivocally false ‘special report’ was simply a propaganda tool to be used as a pawn in the ‘long con’ of Project CBD and Martin Lee’s own product launch.

Project CBD Releases False Report

Last year, Project CBD released a ‘special report’, which since has been debunked, retracted and proven false. The allegations, though empty and backed by unqualified professionals and graphs, instilled doubt into the rise of CBD, a compound in cannabis that has been used to treat various conditions, including children with epilepsy.

Their report resulted in parents doubting the incredible healing effects they had already seen take place in their children. Hemp was put under vicious scrutiny and the progressive movement that sought to educate the larger community about the medicinal effects of cannabis nearly came to a hault.

Science Declared Results False

Stewart Environmental CEO David Stewart announced, months later, that the claims, produced by his company and published in the Project CBD report about RSHO containing heavy metals were unequivocally false. The company settled with MJNA and David Stewart issued a sworn, legal retraction and a video statement to that same effect.

“The Trial Court has now twice ruled that the case can proceed against Project CBD, Martin Lee and Aaron Cantu on the causes of action for Libel and False Light. While it’s unfortunate that it came to this, Medical Marijuana, Inc. intends to use all available resources to aggressively prosecute this case and proceed to trial.” – Dr. Stuart Titus – CEO of Medical Marijuana, Inc. 

The Silver Lining

Anyone who knows anything about the cannabis industry can definitively say the industry has dealt with more than its fair share of inaccurate and unjustified defamation. The saddest part of this instance is that it comes from another company within the cannabis community. However, MJNA has kept their head above water and continued down the proper path to legal vindication. Medical Marijuana Inc. could have, and perhaps would have if the industry wasn’t becoming more and more legitimized, sunk to the same level as Project CBD and hurled back false claims backed by phony research. Thankfully, for the entirety of the cannabis, CBD and hemp communities, they did not pursue this path. Instead they are acting as any other mainstream American business would, professionally and within the bounds of the American legal system. This truly shows how far the industry has come, as years ago these legal options would not have been available to this industry. We will bring you further updated coverage of this case as further legal proceedings develop.

What do you think the repercussions of this false report should be? How do you think false reporting has impacted the cannabis community as a whole? Join the conversation and comment below?

  • Isolating one single cannabinoid profile, among the 111 deltas, is misleading at the outset. Claims of “CBD” being legal in all 50 states” is deceptive, at best. ALL derivatives from cannabis (marijuana or hemp) are not “legal” according to the DEA and the Federal government. ‘CBD only’ legislation is smoke and mirrors.

    • Ryan Stephens

      I bet you a million dollars I can sell cannabis oil to any police officer And not get arrested The United States federal government grows marijuana at the University of Mississippi research lab

      • ​​

        Do it! Post a video, we dare you…

    • Belle

      So you’re telling me the hemp oil they sell at whole foods is illegl?

      • No, not at all. The oil pressed from the seed carries virtually zero cannabinoids. CBD, THC, CBN, CNN (etc ) compounds are found in the resins of the flowering tops of the female plants.

        • Adam Cannavin

          problem is if you researched the case against the DEA by the HIA, a supreme court judge explicitly stated that the cannabinoids and THC contained within industrial hemp is classified as a food grade product. Cannabinoids and THC derived from “Marijuana” is a drug, regulated by the DEA. Industrial hemp is defined as Cannabis Sativa L. with a thc limit of under .03 %. They grow the plants closer together to prevent budding and they are grown primarily for seeds and fiber. The legality comes in from the specific strain, alkaloid content, and region grown.

          • Trichometrist

            Yes, Dr Bronner did the legal work.

  • Patricia Silverman

    you lie to we the people, we the people should get everything you have and you go to jail for life no parole

  • Aware

    As a shareholder of MJNA, I asked my attorney if I could also sue the CBD Project. He said yes so I’m meeting with him on Monday to begin that process. In fact any shareholder from any state can do the same thing. After decades of false propaganda it’s time for our industry to band together and protect itself. Bravo to MJNA for taking this historical step and Bravo to anyone else who steps up to the plate and files their own dirative shareholders lawsuit against the CBD Project – let’s send a signal that we can and will protect ourselves against this kind of abuse.

    • Just wondering

      Please read my post and best of luck with your lawsuit go get them tiger!

  • Stephen Bradley

    What of Jason Cranford? Did they settle with him as well or is he part of the ongoing lawsuit?

  • Josh

    Wow, this article is about a motion to dismiss being denied. Let me explain to you why this is amateur hour, Tim:

    A motion to dismiss a lawsuit is a procedural step of a legal process that occurs practically EVERY time a lawsuit is filed. When any trial happens, the judge has decided that some potential exist for the plaintiff to prevail and that’s why the motion to dismiss is denied. Not that the judge thinks that the plaintiff will. Not at all. Simply that the Plaintiff might have a chance.

    Trial begins and all things are square. Judge has no favor.

    And yet you write this story as if the judge has decided. You do not understand what is going on. Or you do understand and you’re being blatantly biased for some other reason. Let the judge and/or jury decide and then report what the decision makers actually said when it matters. Sir, you are the problem with this industry.

  • Josh Miller

    I hate being a troll but I hate uninformed trolls even more. So here’s what I posted in the comments to his article (at least til he deletes it):

    Wow, this article is about a motion to dismiss being denied. Let me explain to you why this is amateur hour, Tim:

    A motion to dismiss a lawsuit is a procedural step of a legal process that occurs practically EVERY time a lawsuit is filed. When any trial happens, the judge has decided that some potential exists for the plaintiff to prevail and that’s why the motion to dismiss is denied. Not that the judge thinks that the plaintiff will prevail. Not at all. Simply that the Plaintiff might have a chance.

    Trial begins and all things are square. Judge has no favor. Learn that day one of law school more or less.

    And yet you write this story as if the judge has decided the case. You do not understand what is going on. Or you do understand and you’re being blatantly biased for some other reason. Let the judge and/or jury decide and then report what the decision makers actually said when it matters. Sir, you are the problem with this industry.

  • Manny Calavera

    Only the truly naive would take this as anything more than a poorly constructed propaganda piece, you could atleast TRY and make it believable. Company reports on chemical makeup of products and is hit with a $100 million dollar SLAPP suit, Defendants settle to avoid exorbitant legal costs, pretty clean cut really.

Trafficroots Analysis Pixel