Tree Comm Systems v. MJ Freeway

The Case: Tree Comm Systems v. MJ Freeway

The dispute centered on a subcontracting agreement within Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana industry.

• The Partnership: Tree Comm Systems, a minority-owned IT firm, partnered with MJ Freeway to bid on a state contract. Tree Comm’s diverse status provided a critical 20% scoring advantage, helping MJ Freeway win the bid.
• The Contractual Shield: To protect small diverse businesses, the state required a specific subcontract (Appendix N) that prevented prime contractors from firing subcontractors without state mediation.
• The Breach: After a corporate merger, MJ Freeway’s new management attempted to fire Tree Comm to absorb their 35.09% profit share. They claimed an older, “at-will” form contract was the governing document rather than the state-mandated model.

Trial Strategy: Metaphors and “Smoke”

Green faced the challenge of making a dense contract case engaging for a federal jury. He utilized two primary rhetorical anchors throughout the trial:

• The “Trash Contract”: Green branded the defense’s version of the agreement—the at-will form—the “trash contract”. By repeating this phrase dozens of times, he signaled to the jury that the document was legally irrelevant and had been superseded by the state-mandated version.
• The “Smoke” Machine: Green warned the jury during his opening that the defense would try to obscure the facts with “smoke”. During his closing, he reminded them, “I told you you’re going to get smoked. You got it”.
• Focusing on Disrespect: Green highlighted that the defendants’ CEO provided inconsistent and untruthful testimony. He told the jury, “You’re volunteering sitting there day in, day out… and this guy can’t tell you the truth,” framing the defense as disrespectful to the jurors’ time and service.

The “Trial by Clock” Hurdle

A significant obstacle in the federal trial was the judge’s imposition of a strict 12-hour time limit per side.

• The Chess Clock: The judge subtracted time for every objection made or argued.
• Running Out of Time: Green actually ran out of time while cross-examining the defense’s penultimate witness. He argued vigorously at sidebar that this was a denial of due process, as it takes much longer to “unravel a lie” than it does to tell one.
• Impact: Despite being cut off, the groundwork Green had laid through focused exhibits and the “trash contract” narrative proved sufficient for the jury.

The Verdict

The jury deliberated for a remarkably short period before returning with a question

• The Request: The jury asked to see the specific calculations for the $4.2 million figure Green had marked as a “demonstration exhibit”.
• The Award: After the judge reminded them to rely on the testimony, the jury returned shortly thereafter with a verdict for the full $4.2 million.