ADHS COMPLAINT: As the Medical Marijuana Crow Flies

Arlin Troutt

RE: (Registry Renewal Application)

 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

ADHS Registered Cardholder Seeking Administrative Clarification and an Emergency Ruling from the ADHS to Avoid More Damage to Arlin Troutt and His Family from Conflicts of Interest in the ADHS AMMA Rulemaking Process.

 

 

)))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ADHS Registered Identification Cardholder Patient No.:REQUEST FOR A TIMELY RENEWAL OF ARLIN TROUTT’S ADHS RESTISTRY CARD WITH THE ORIGINAL DESIGNATED CULTIVATION PREFERENCE TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMANGES FROM INTIMIDATION AND RETALIATION AND FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF LAW BY THE STATE OF ARIZONA AND THE DEPARTEMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES AND THEIR AGENTS AND OR EMPLOYEES RELATING TO PLAINTIFF”S USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

 

INTRODUCTION

1. In 2010 Arizona voted to decriminalized medical marijuana based on 5,000 years of safe and effective “naturally cultivated” cannabis history. The electorate also voted to stop the 44 years of corruption and devastating damage that Federal and State marijuana laws have brought to our lives, our state and the border we share with our Mexican neighbors.

2. The State of Arizona (State), the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS), and ADHS director Mr. Will Humble have a long andwell-documented history of opposing medical marijuana use and obstruction of the electorate’s intent to legalize marijuana since 1996. There is dangerous and damaging confusion that has required declaratory judgments, injunctions and rulings by the court regarding the same or similar complaints of abuse by the State and ADHS concerning the actual language and protections in the ARIZONA MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT (AMMA). The legality and or constitutionality of this language, obstruction of the ADHS rulemaking process, interpretations and promulgation of these interpretations by the State, ADHS and their agents and employees has all come into question. The intimidation and retaliation on the Plaintiff and his family by the ADHS and other State agents and or employees over medical marijuana must be resolved and ended and the intent of the electorate and the intent and actions of the State and ADHS must be scrutinized and accounted for.

3. Plaintiff has already suffered a significant breach of medical confidentiality and an unauthorized and terrifying raid on Plaintiff’s residence and family. This medical marijuana raid and subsequent litigation took place while Plaintiff was recovering from complications of a recent and difficult heart surgery. Plaintiff did not sign his family’s rights to life, liberty and privacy over to the State or ADHS when Plaintiff registered for the AMMA program: A.R.S. Article 2, section 8. Right to privacy No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law

4. In July of 2012 Pinal County Attorney’s office and members of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office violated the protections of the AMMA and other rights of the Plaintiff and his family. Pinal County Attorneys refused to acknowledge the Plaintiff and his family’s “Arizona Victim’s Rights” because legal medical marijuana was involved. EXHIBITS http://www.azleg.state.az.us/const/2/2_1.htm

5. The ADHS’s failure to implement the AMMA program in a timely and meaningful manner and failure to instruct and re-educate Arizona law enforcement agents and employees about AMMA protections damaged the Plaintiff and his family. EXHIBIT

6. The Plaintiff was forced to get an “order of protection” issued against a Pinal County Deputy named Mark Osinski. Pinal County Attorney, Joe Albo, had to eventually get the Pima County Attorney’s Office to defend him for his unethical defense of this Pinal County Deputy. Please compare Exhibit A to Exhibit B and note on Pima County Attorney, Thomas Weaver’s caption page that he also got busted playing the “Pinal County bifurcation game” and lying to the new judge. CV 20120369 and CV 20120386). EXHIBIT A, EXHBIT B

7. This is much more than just an embarrassing moment for the State of Arizona, Pinal County and the ADHS. Plaintiff and his family now (more than ever) fear more invasions of privacy, intimidation, retaliation, threats and damage from these agents and employees of the State and or ADHS. EXHIBIT

8. Plaintiff is particularly concerned with this conflict of interest and retaliation against Plaintiff and his family members from State and or ADHS as a result of Judge Katherine Cooper’s rulings against the State and related communications between Plaintiff and ADHS director Will Humble.

9. Plaintiff requests the ADHS to issue an emergency ruling and or warnings to prevent the State, ADHS and or any other of their agents and or employees from any further harassment, intimidation, threats, taking of unauthorized and or “undressed” photos of critically ill Plaintiff or his family and or any further violations of Plaintiff’s right to use and cultivate marijuana for the Plaintiff’s personal medical use. EXHIBIT

10. Plaintiff provides this information to the ADHS to establish that Plaintiff has more than an average knowledge and interest in this matter and a well-founded fear and a documented need for an emergency ruling to avoid more damage from the State, ADHS or its agents and or employees.

Background

11. The ADHS has repeatedly promulgated statements similar to the following statement: ADHS AMMA Program Newsletter (July 2013, pg. 3.): “The law says that patients who live within 25 miles of an operating dispensary cannot grow their own medical marijuana. This was part of what voters passed, and ADHS cannot change it.” EXHIBIT

12. Nothing in the language of the AMMA “says” “patients cannot grow marijuana or that the 25-mile preference is a cultivation prohibition. The following is the actual language of the “25-mile cultivation preference” from the Ballot 203 Proposition Guide (BPG) and AMMA: 36-2804.02. Registration of qualifying patients: A. “A QUALIFYING PATIENT “MAY” APPLY TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD BY SUBMITTING: (2) THE APPLICATION FEE, (f.) A DESIGNATION AS TO WHO “WILL” BE ALLOWED TO CULTIVATE MARIJUANA PLANTS FOR THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S “MEDICAL USE” IF A REGISTERED NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY IS NOT OPERATING WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE MILES OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S HOME.”

13. This designation preference as to who “will” cultivate for the qualified registered patient “may” only come from the “qualified registering patient class”. According to the AMMA, the Plaintiff “will” be allowed to cultivate marijuana for his medical use if the ADHS cannot insure or provide a dispensary that will stay in business in a certain location and provide an uninterrupted supply of “useable marijuana” for the registered patient.

14. 36-2808. Notifications to department; civil penalty A. A REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT SHALL NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT… REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT’S PREFERENCE REGARDING WHO MAY CULTIVATE MARIJUANA FOR THE REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT… The definition of preference is: “a greater liking for one alternative over another or others.” “May prefer” is the opposite of: “The law says that patients cannot grow their own medical marijuana.”

15. ADHS’s Application for Initiative or Referendum Petition Serial Number(AIRPSN) was filed May 15, 2009 with the Secretary of State. The following language is from AIRPSN and not the BPG or the AMMA: “The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act Protects terminally or seriously ill patients from state prosecution for using limited amounts of marijuana on their doctors recommendation. Qualifying patients who register with the Arizona Department of Health Services (will) obtain marijuana from non-profit medical marijuana dispensaries regulated by the ADHS. Private cultivation will be allowed by ADHS only when no dispensary is available.”

16. ADHS cannot require anyone to obtain marijuana. ADHS can’t require dispensaries to stay in business or provide “useable marijuana” for everyone. Only the Plaintiff knows how to process the forms of uninterrupted marijuana that is required, beneficial and offers relief to the Plaintiff. The ADHS can’t legally deliver an “uninterrupted” and or even a beneficial “usable” amount of marijuana as mandated in the AMMA to the Plaintiff who “will” be allowed to privately cultivate marijuana for his medical use. EXIBIT

17. Under “Definitions” at A.R.S. § 36-2801(9), the language states: Medical use’ means the acquisition, possession, cultivation…”. However, ADHS has restricted “Medical use” of marijuana to a class of registered patient that must be able to afford an email address to communicate with the ADHS, and can afford yearly double doctor visits, pay state licensing fees and can afford to take twenty-four 50-mile trips to a dispensary to pay $1,750 a month for unregulated ragweed. EXHIBIT

18. The following was promulgated by ADHS and created a great deal of uncertainty, insecurity and concern about the implementation, stability, equity and legality of the ADHS AMMA program: Glendale Dispensary Opening Postponed November 19th, 2012 by Will Humble:“Once the new dispensary begins its operations, we will no longer be “approving requests to cultivate” among new (and renewing) cardholders in most of the metro area… because self-grow (12 plants) is only allowed when the patient lives more than 25 miles from the nearest operating dispensary according to the law.  The vast majority of the Valley is within 25 miles of this new (but not yet operating) dispensary.” http://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/?p=3266

19. The AMMA did not authorize frivolous litigation, administrative delays or uncertainty for critically ill patients based on whether an ADHS registered dispensary may be doing business within a 25-mile circle from your home someday.

20. The ADHS has put an overdue burden on dispensaries just to open their doors, with no controls or oversight on product quality or cost. That burden translates to unequal protections and a transfer of unjustifiable liabilities to the ADHS registered patients and uncertainty and insecurity to the Plaintiff. Any marijuana dispensary or pharmacy that does not have State regulatory quality and or cost controls cannot be allowed to operate nor could it be considered operational by the State. EXHIBIT

21. Limiting a critically ill patient’s options to standing at the front door of a pot shop, next to a head shop in a highly visible crime area of Apache Junction, Arizona systematically violates Plaintiff’s confidentiality and creates foreseeable and predictable risks, undue burden and undue prejudice for Plaintiff and his family. http://hoodrate.com/85219/

Dispensary Visit

22. On April 2, 2014 Plaintiff visited “ Natures Wonder” at 68 S. Ironwood Drive, Apache Junction, Arizona 85120 (489-982 1529). The round trip from Plaintiff’s rural home to this new ADHS registered dispensary is “26 miles” and the Plaintiff had to borrow a car, money for gas and $20 bucks for the ADHS “dope”. This dispensary sets in the heart of a small town that the Plaintiff and his family have lived in for 43 years. Plaintiff was recognized from the street as he entered “Nature’s Wonder” for the very first time and Plaintiff was questioned about this visit later. EXHIBIT

23. Plaintiff continually battles nausea and immediately became ill from the dispensary’s required heavy use of artificial air fragrance. Plaintiff became sick before the completion of the dispensary’s “required new patient questionnaire”. Plaintiff was escorted through a jail like security entrance to examine a laughably limited stock of marijuana. A dispensary attendant asked what symptoms Plaintiff suffered. Plaintiff explained that he had Hepatitis C and had problems with mold, mildew and weak potency of artificially cultivated cannabis.

24. The attendant advised Plaintiff that no Arizona dispensaries carry naturally cultivated cannabis because it does not grow well in Arizona’s climate. Nature’s Wonder’s dispensary assistant recommended “Cinderella 99” at $20.00 a gram. Plaintiff rolled the “Cinderella 99” into the “Standard U.S. 1 gram dose of Marijuana” and ignited what is commonly known as a “joint”. Plaintiff could smell and taste the moldy “dank” indicators of indoor cultivation mixed with the artificial air fragrance that was inside the dispensary.

25. “Dank” is a familiar term used by younger, unknowledgeable, marijuana users for this spoiled condition of artificially cultivated cannabis. Plaintiff could taste and feel the hot acrid sensation of the chlorophyll left from avoiding the slow curing process that naturally cultivated medicinal grade cannabis and “fine tobacco” require to avoid headaches and to develop a natural moisture balance for combustion and a rich and pleasing fragrance and flavor. Plaintiff has spent over 30 years developing a strain of what is now called “LOW CBD Medical Marijuana”. This is the kind of marijuana that saves little kids from having seizures and brain surgeries and allows old men like me to die with dignity.

26. The medical marijuana Plaintiff purchased from Nature’s Wonder was so harsh Plaintiff was unable to finish this $20.00 cigarette. Plaintiff felt the slight headache that comes from the chlorophyll left in quickly cured cannabis. Plaintiff felt no relief from smoking half of this joint and found no benefit in this ADHS commercially cultivated marijuana. The AMMA decriminalization of marijuana was based on 5,000 years of naturally cultivated “beneficial medical uses” for marijuana. This does not mean all marijuana or any marijuana is medicinal. There is no language that supports the exclusive dispensing of artificially grown cannabis or even allowing artificial cultivation of medical marijuana use. The marijuana is intended to be beneficial to the critically ill patient not the State the ADHS nor their agents and employees.

27. BPG and AMMA Section 2. Findings. The People of the State of Arizona find and declare the following: A. Marijuana’s recorded use as a medicine goes back nearly 5,000 years, and modern medical research has confirmed beneficial uses for marijuana

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/arizona-proposition-203-medical-marijuana.pdf

28. On April 29, 2014 Plaintiff met with Dr. Elaine Burns and received Plaintiff’s 4th ADHS required doctor recommendation. Plaintiff paid the ADHS application/licensing fee, Dr. Burns’ “electronic filing fee” and Plaintiff requested his registry card renewal with Plaintiff’s same cultivation preference.

29. On May 8, 2014 @ 12:54 PM Flora from the ADHS contacted Plaintiff by telephone and advised Plaintiff that ADHS had decided to deny the renewal of Plaintiff’s registry card with Plaintiff’s cultivation preference. Flora advised the Plaintiff that he would have to wait for an electronic notice from the ADHS before Plaintiff could request reconsideration of this decision and there would be a denial notification receipt issued by email.

30. Denial of registry identification card 36-2804.05. A. “THE DEPARTMENT “MAY” DENY AN APPLICATION OR RENEWAL OF A QUALIFYING PATIENT’S REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD ONLY IF THE APPLICANT: 1. DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 36-2801, PARAGRAPH 13.,2. DOES NOT PROVIDE THE INFORMATION REQUIRED., 3. PREVIOUSLY HAD A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD REVOKED FOR VIOLATING THIS CHAPTER., 4. PROVIDES FALSE INFORMATION.”

31. Here in SECTION 36-2804.05. A., use of the word “may” indicates that denial to renew Plaintiff’s “registry identification card” is an ADHS option “only if” the Plaintiff/Applicant is not a “qualifying patient”, has not had an ADHS registry card revoked, provided false information or does not provide required information.

32. The definition of “renew” is to make a promise, vow, agreement or contract “again” in the same or similar nature. Refusal to restore or renew the cultivation acknowledgement on Plaintiff’s ADHS registration card after issuing 3 prior cards is over-restrictive and damaging.

33. There is nothing in the AMMA that authorizes the ADHS to refuse to issue or renew Plaintiff’s registry card. There are no grounds for the ADHS to revoke, restrict, constrain or refuse to renew the same terms of Plaintiff’s 3 prior ADHS registrations. That’s what the law “says”. The law “does not say” The ADHS can refuse to renew a registered qualified patient’s registry because a dispensary is operating within a 25-mile radius of the patients home or even might be operating in a meaningful way some day.

34. 36-2801, Definitions 1., (c): MARIJUANA THAT IS INCIDENTAL TO MEDICAL USE, BUT IS NOT USABLE MARIJUANA AS DEFINED IN THIS CHAPTER, SHALL NOT BE COUNTED TOWARD A QUALIFYING PATIENT’S OR DESIGNATED CAREGIVER’S ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA. Here, this term, “INCIDENTAL TO MEDICAL USE” provides an exclusive privilege only for the Plaintiff and or the “qualifying patient’s optional caregiver. All cultivation is controlled by nature not the ADHS. An uninterrupted, safe and useable amount of any cultivated product is uncertain and requires knowledge of natural cultivation skills. Pharaohs of ancient Egypt stored 7 years of marijuana. However, today’s cannabis knowledge has been mostly obtained illegally.

35. 36-2812. Affirmative defense A. specifically speaks to the Plaintiff’s legal right to assert a medical purpose for using marijuana in a criminal prosecution: “TO ENSURE THE UNINTERRUPTED AVAILABILITY OF MARIJUANA FOR THE PURPOSE OF TREATING OR ALLEVIATING THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION… and if: QUALIFYING PATIENT ENGAGES IN THE ACQUISITION, POSSESSION, CULTIVATION, MANUFACTURE, USE OR TRANSPORTATION OF MARIJUANA, PARAPHERNALIA OR BOTH, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF MARIJUANA SOLELY TO TREAT OR ALLEVIATE THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION OR SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION.

36. Plaintiff is requesting protection from the ADHS on these grounds. Plaintiff believes the “Affirmative defense” provision in the BPG and or AMMA protects Plaintiff in a medical marijuana criminal prosecution after the damage. However, Plaintiff does not want to suffer more retaliation, and intimidation from Arizona law enforcement because of this Conflict of Interest that the State of Arizona and the ADHS has with medical marijuana and the Troutt family.

37. Plaintiff does not want to confuse his or his family’s other Constitutional Rights with the ADHS’s responsibility to provide protection through their rulemaking mandate in a timely and meaningful manner.

38. BPG Sections D, E and G make it clear the electorate wanted to take criminal prosecutions out of the “medical use and cultivation of marijuana” and not just synthetic party pot for rich people. ADHS has already created over a $7,000,000 surplus off the backs of the Plaintiff and other critically ill medical marijuana patients with these special transaction privileges and licensing fees for ADHS registered cardholders.

39. Had the ADHS implemented the AMMA program in a meaningful and timely manner qualified patients would not be returning to the criminal use of medical marijuana and addictive and dangerous prescription drugs in our state. The ADHS is well aware of the “drop out rate”, the “death rate” and this conflict of interest between Arizona’s Behavioral Health Medicine Industry and the competing benefits of medical marijuana.

40. The 25-mile preference as written in the BPG was consistent with U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, promulgated memorandum on medical marijuana guidelines October 19, 2009. The Obama Administration made it clear the U.S. Government was not wasting dwindling resources on medical marijuana patients. Attorney General Holder makes it clear he is against marijuana transactions that exceed money-laundering guidelines and excessive quantities. EXHIBIT

41. The ADHS should have realized early on that collecting $150.00 from critically ill patients and allowing ADHS registered and unregulated dispensaries to operate massive artificial cultivation sites in urban industrial parks with no quality or cost restrictions would certainly put the State and ADHS at odds with the United States Government. EXHIBIT

42. ADHS created inequality, uncertainty, insecurity, risks and damage with a residential retailer’s grid called “Community Health Analysis Areas”(CHAA). Mr. Humble proudly credits these CHAA divisions for eliminating 92% of registered qualified patient’s right to privately cultivate medical marijuana for their own medications. EXHIBIT

43. The following statements come directly from Mr. Humble 10 months before ADHS filed for a “Rulemaking Deadline Exemption” and 22 months before the AMMA mandate to formulate rules “within 120-day” expired and 4 years before Plaintiff was forced to file this complaint:

44. Medical Marijuana’s on the Ballot June 7th, 2010 by Will Humble “Basically, if the Act were to pass and be certified, it would create a system so that qualifying patients could apply to dispense, use and assist with the use of medical marijuana if they have a doctor’s recommendation.” “It would require us to implement the program within 120 days after the effective date, so we’d be on a short leash to finish the rules and execute the law in time. The Act provides for exempt rulemaking (meaning the rules don’t need to go to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council), which speeds things up considerably. http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/I-04-2010.pdf.

45. Cannabis Cultivation- Post Prop. 203 October 15th, 2010 by admin:“Where would the inventory come from if Proposition 203 (the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act) passes?  As near as I can tell…  it could come from at least 3 places: enclosed cultivation facilities associated with dispensaries; enclosed cultivation facilities operated by caregivers on behalf of cardholders, if the people they care for live 25 miles from the nearest dispensary; or in enclosed locations at cardholders houses if they live more than 25 miles from the nearest dispensary. I think the intent is for all the inventory to come from these 3 places and not the “street”, but the Initiative doesn’t explicitly say that it can’t come from outside sources (e.g. the“street”). http://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov/?p=797

46. The following is not from the AMMA. This language is from the ADHS: “Agency Receipt Notice of Exempt Rulemaking” filed April 13, 2011 @ 3:34 PM: R9-17-202 F. “Accept as provided in subsection (g), to apply for a registry identification card, the patient “shall submit” to the department the following.” (g.) “Whether the qualifying patient is “requesting authorization” for cultivating marijuana plants for the qualifying patients use because the qualifying “patient believes” that the qualifying patient resides at least 25 miles from the nearest dispensary”

47. Here in R9-17-202 F., subsection (g.) The ADHS is using this rulemaking deadline exemption to change Plaintiff’s medical marijuana cultivation option from “may apply to the department” that is in the language of the AMMA to “shall submit to the department” that is found only in ADHS’s “Agency Receipt Notice of Exempt Rulemaking” filed April 13, 2011. Here the ADHS actually changed the initial intent of the electorate and actual language of the BPG and AMMA to a more restrictive interpretation of language and rules that the electorate did not review or intend. However, even in this change of language: “because the qualifying patient believes that the qualifying patient resides at least 25 miles from the nearest dispensary” does not say: “The law says that patients who live within 25 miles of an operating dispensary cannot grow their own medical marijuana. The ADHS then promulgated rules as being required by the BPG and or AMMA. Here the ADHS is using a rulemaking deadline exemption to grant “itself” authority to “Accept as provided” rules that constrain medical options of the Plaintiff and other critically ill patients with unauthorized changes in the language of the law that have resulted in over-regulation and violation of the Voter’s Protection Act and damage to the Plaintiff and his family.

48. The ADHS language in R9-17-203 (C-4) and R9-17-204 (A-h.) is identical in regards to the 25-mile provision with the exception of R9-17-202 (H). Again, ADHS is using this deadline exemption to grant “the State” the authority to “Accept as provided” a burdening constraint on the Plaintiff that ADHS must know is not written in or required by the AMMA. ADHS declares at R9-17-202 (H): ”For the purpose of this Article, “25 miles” in all directions includes the area contained within a circle that extends 25 miles in all directions.”

http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Register/20110413_Medical_Marijuana_Rules.pdf

49. The AMMA language: “WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE MILES OF THE QUALIFYING PATIENT’S HOME” is a 50-mile trip on a public highway. The ADHS’s “25 miles” in all directions includes the area contained within a circle that extends 25 miles in all directions”, is still a round trip on a public highway. Twenty-five miles as the crow flies in Arizona could easily be a 200-mile, unpaved, round trip through the mountains.

50. ADHS use of this rulemaking deadline exemption to not just interpret but to change the law to the “most” restrictive limits on the Plaintiff’s medical options and rights from: “may apply” to “shall submit” and “fly like a crow in a 25-mile circle” are obviously aimed at over-regulation, undue restriction and prejudice in defiance of the intent of the electorate, recent courts rulings and the purpose of the AMMA. EXHIBIT

51. Section 2,E clearly indicates the electorates’ interest in joining 13 other states in removing criminal penalties for critically ill patients’ “medical use” and “cultivation” of marijuana. Arizona voters know that cannabis cultivation is the key to controlling the illegal cash, corruption, violence and crime in Arizona and across our border.

52. Plaintiff fears more invasions of privacy, intimidation, retaliation, persecution and prosecution of Plaintiff and his family from the State, and or its agents and employees as a result of Plaintiff’s registration with the ADHS. Plaintiff does not have the funds or live in the world of $400 an hour lawyers or $600 an ounce bags of marijuana. The Plaintiff does not own a vehicle or have an income. Plaintiff lives modestly in a remote area and lives mostly on the kindness of family and friends. The Plaintiff has little more than his garden and health and wants or requires little else.

53. 36-2803. Rulemaking (Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies) 4. Governing nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries, for the purpose of protecting against diversion and theft without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries or compromising the confidentiality of cardholders, including: (a) The manner in which the department shall consider applications for and renewals of registration certificates.

54. ADHS interpretation of 2804.02. A, 3,(f) offers similar privileges to ADHS registered cardholding vendors that also pay “licensing fees” to the ADHS for the privilege of dispensing medical marijuana legally across the state. The ADHS does not limit a dispensary to selling or cultivating certain marijuana or marijuana in just one area of Arizona.

COURT RULINGS

55. The State and ADHS is involved in several AMMA related lawsuits filed in Federal Court and the Courts of Arizona with warnings, rulings, orders and public communications and comments. Plaintiff incorporates these public communications, comments, complaints, filings, rulings and orders into Plaintiff’s complaint to show a pattern of disregard for the rights, health and welfare of the Plaintiff, the intent of the electorate, laws of our state and rulings of our courts. ADHS maintains an online list of the costly AMMA litigation filed against the State and ADHS: http://www.azdhs.gov/medicalmarijuana/dispensaries/lawsuits.htm

56. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV (2011-0112900 -1/17/2012 Filed 01/18/2012, HONORABLE J. RICHARD GAMA, . MINUTE ENTRY: The Court intended its January 2012 ruling to be case dispositive and that Defendants would comply therewith.” “…The Court’s ruling and the revised regulations serve not only as a roadmap to applicants but as notice to the public that the AMMA will be implemented.” “The voters intended to protect patients with those debilitating medical conditions (and their physicians and providers )“from arrest and prosecution, criminal and other penalties and property forfeiture if such patients engage in the medical use of marijuana.” Id. at § 2(G). The voters contemplated this be done within 120 days of the effective date of the Act; it would be a Pyrrhic victory for the voters were the Court to conclude otherwise.” A.R.S. § 36-2818(A). http://courtminutes.maricopa.gov/

57. HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY (CV 2013-011447) UNDER ADVISEMENT RULING: Filed 11/14/2013: “Qualifying patients are free to decide whether they wish to apply for and obtain a registry identification card. The AMMA protects people from criminal prosecution if they choose to use medical marijuana. It does not compel people to use medical marijuana or even to obtain a qualifying registry card.” Equal Protection Argument: “Differential treatment is an equal protection issue, not a question of the applicability of the Amendment to the AMMA. The 25-mile provision does appear to create two groups of AMMA participants based on residence.”

http://courtminutes.maricopa.gov/

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Civil/112013/m6038157.pdf

58. HONORABLE KATHERINE COOPER SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY (CV 2013014852) MINUTE ENTRY filed 03/21/14: In applying the plain language of the statute to the rules of statutory interpretation, the Court concludes that nothing in the statute limits the form in which patients may use medical marijuana. “The plain and ordinary meaning of the AMMA’s text is reflected in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions of these words: “Usable” is defined as “a convenient or practicable use.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usable.” Conclusion: “The Court is solely concerned with the interpretation of the AMMA as written. The language of the AMMA and its ballot materials make clear that proponents and votes intended the AMMA to provide access to medicine for debilitating medical conditions without fear of criminal prosecution. The AMMA does not limit the form in which that medicine can be administered.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED …this Declaratory Judgment Order means that Plaintiffs may treat Zander with medical marijuana in extract form and are entitled to the same protections under the AMMA that other medical marijuana patients enjoy. “Statutory construction requires that the Court construe the law as it is written… “ Protective Purpose: “It is undisputed that medical marijuana is intended to be used by patients to treat chronic, debilitating, and/or painful conditions. A.R.S. § 36-2801(3). It makes no sense to interpret the AMMA as allowing people with these conditions to use medical marijuana but only if they take it in one particular form. Such an interpretation reduces, if not eliminates, medical marijuana as a treatment option for those who cannot take it in plant form, or who could receive a greater benefit from an alternative form.” “Constraining patients’ medical marijuana options contradicts the stated purpose of the AMMA — to “protect patients with debilitating medical conditions . . . from arrest and prosecution, criminal and other penalties and property forfeiture if such patients engage in the medical use of marijuana.” Prop. 203 § 2(G).

Proponents’ and Voters’ Intent: “Ballot materials demonstrate that proponents and voters did not intend patients to be prosecuted for using medical marijuana in the form that is the most beneficial to them. For example: The Descriptive Title voters read before casting their vote on the AMMA stated that the law “allows the use of marijuana for people with debilitating medical conditions who obtain a written certification from a physician and [it] establishes a regulatory system governed by the Arizona Department of Health Services for establishing and licensing medical marijuana dispensaries.”

.http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Civil/032014/m6226527.pdf

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/10.28.13_welton_-_complaint.pdf

  1. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2013-005901 07/29/2013 HON. RANDALL H. WARNER: “Not later than one hundred twenty days after the effective date of this chapter, the department shall adopt rules: Establishing the form and content of registration and renewal applications submitted under this chapter.

“Governing…without imposing an undue burden on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries or compromising the confidentiality of cardholders, including:(a) The manner in which the department shall consider applications for and renewals of dispensary registration certificates.”

The Rules are designed to protect against diversion and theft, but they also effect other provisions of the

Act and are designed to further the Act’s goal of making medical marijuana available to those who need it across Arizona.

There have been legal challenges, political challenges, and a reluctance or unwillingness on the

part of many public officials and property owners to facilitate or participate in the distribution of

medical marijuana. Nothing in the Act or the Rules guarantees that every dispensary with a DRC will be able to open. Nothing guarantees there will be a dispensary in every CHAA. http://courtminutes.maricopa.gov/

http://www.azcriminallawsexcrimes.com/One%20year%20limit%20ruling.pdf

Harm to Plaintiffs

59. Under the aforementioned circumstances, Plaintiff ‘s options are limited to destructively impossible choices. Plaintiff can either treat his critical medical condition with the only affordable, accessible and effective form of marijuana available and or risk further intimidation, retaliation, breaches of medical confidentiality, invasions of privacy and or criminal prosecution based on incorrect interpretations of Arizona law and or a failure by ADHS to implement the ADHS AMMA program in a timely and meaningful manner or: Plaintiff can comply with these erroneous and damaging interpretations of Arizona law and be deprived of the only medicine that has proven to be effective and beneficial for Plaintiff.

60. Plaintiff will suffer greatly from his illness and live in fear of more invasions of privacy and terrorization of Plaintiff’s family; more unauthorized photos of Plaintiff in an undressed and critical condition of duress, further intimidation, retaliation and threats of arrest, seizure of medicine and prosecution by State agents and or employees.

61. This possibility is so even though Plaintiff has renewed his physician’s recommendation required by the AMMA and applied and paid all fees for Plaintiff’s renewal of his ADHS registry card on April 29, 2014 and before his prior card expires.

62. On May 8, 2014 @ 12:54 PM, Plaintiff received a call from Flora of the ADHS advising me that my same designated cultivation preference had been denied after 4 years of registering and paying fees. Flora said my official denial would come by email.

Conclusion

63. The Department of Health Services (ADHS) issued Plaintiff’s first AMMA ADHS registry card in May of 2011. ADHS has issued Plaintiff 3 yearly ADHS registry cards with a “designated cultivation preference”. Plaintiff has maintained a legal medical marijuana status with cultivation rights in the State of Arizona to the present time.

64. Plaintiff wants to continue to enjoy his right to cultivate medical marijuana in privacy; religious and medical confidentiality and freedom without uncertainty, insecurity and or fear of criminal prosecution, intimidation, retaliation or other damages based on incorrect interpretations and or flawed applications of Arizona law.

65. The ADHS failed to adopt policies that would protect and provide for the naturally cultivated cannabis with the 5,000 years of safe and effective medical history that Plaintiff relies on and the voters relied on to approve the AMMA.

66. The ADHS over-regulated, out-priced and intimidated the largest class of medical marijuana patients into using cheaper Mexican marijuana illegally and avoiding the ADHS altogether.

67. Plaintiff’s interpretation of the “25-mile provision” held logic because it indicated that commercial cultivation of cannabis would be encouraged in our economically struggling rural farm communities and discouraged in our densely populated urban areas or Mexico.

68. The ADHS improperly assumed authority to set limitations on medical confidentiality, treatment and or doctor’s recommendations for “life-saving treatment regimens”. EXHIBIT

69. Genetically altered and cloned strains of dispensary cultivated cannabis have only been recently developed under highly illegal and extreme artificial conditions for extreme secrecy, extreme narcotic like potency and extreme profit. This is not the medical marijuana that Herodotus described 2,500 years ago in the Scythian burial purification ceremony nor is it the good ole marijuana that got smoked in college 40 years ago. EXHIBIT

70. ADHS dispensaries are not monitored for quality control and it is unlikely that anyone could claim to have an uninterrupted supply of any naturally cultivated agricultural product. Self-cultivation is the safest and best chance for Plaintiff to avoid an “interrupted” supply of marijuana that is organically grown, affordable, accessible, effective and beneficial to the Plaintiff and or other qualified patients. This would decrease the crime rate.

71. Artificially cultivated and unregulated marijuana that is commercially produced in urban industrial parks will not benefit the Plaintiff or satisfy his medical needs and the Plaintiff is the only one that could possibly know.

72. ADHS’s incorrect interpretation of the AMMA and recalcitrant disregard for court rulings creates uncertainty and insecurity for Plaintiff and his family, who fear that if the Plaintiff continues to cultivate the medical marijuana that is most beneficial to him, he “will” be intimidated, harassed and may be forced to destroy his uninterrupted medical marijuana supply to protect himself and his family from being criminally prosecuted, physically injured and or raided out of retaliation.

73. This is so even though Plaintiff has been issued 3 yearly ADHS registry cards with the Plaintiff’s “unchanged” cultivation designation preference approved.

74. The ADHS does not have the authority to limit what particular medical marijuana Plaintiff needs for “hepatitis C, and increasing the chances of the Plaintiff continuing on life-saving treatment regimens.”.

75. ADHS cannot insure that an ADHS registered dispensary “may, will or shall” be operating continually within 25 miles of the Plaintiff’s residence nor can the ADHS compel a dispensary to provide an uninterrupted supply of the specific and beneficial medical marijuana that the Plaintiff requires for his critical illness. ADHS rules limit Plaintiff’s options for “acquiring” the beneficial and necessary, naturally cultivated marijuana Plaintiff needs.

76. The ADHS AMMA program systematically violates an ADHS registered patient’s confidentiality with rules that are obstructing the intent of the electorate and or purpose of the AMMA.

77. Plaintiff’s current cultivation registry card expires in 2014 and Plaintiff renewal card should have been approved and issued before this complaint was necessitated. The ADHS does not have the authority to refuse to renew Plaintiff’s registry card or interpret or decide what kind of marijuana is personally beneficial to any critically ill patient or the Plaintiff.

78. The 25-mile provision as written in the AMMA creates unequal classes of qualified patients and is therefore unconstitutional. There is nothing to insure an ADHS dispensary can provide the uninterrupted supply of medical marijuana that is beneficial for the qualifying patient or Plaintiff.

79. There is nothing in the AMMA that authorized the ADHS to deny, revoke or refuse to renew the original terms of the Plaintiff’s registry card.

80. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2013-005901 07/29/2013 HON. RANDALL H. WARNER: There have been legal challenges, political challenges, and a reluctance or unwillingness on the part of many public officials and property owners to facilitate or participate in the distribution of medical marijuana. Nothing in the Act or the Rules guarantees that every dispensary with a DRC will be able to open. Nothing guarantees there will be a dispensary in every CHAA. http://www.azcriminallawsexcrimes.com/One%20year%20limit%20ruling.pdf

81. The ADHS interpretation of the AMMA creates a damaging disparity and unequal classes of medical marijuana patients based on economic and residential status that violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States of America and or the State of Arizona.

82. 84. 2804.02. A, 3,(f) offers unequal privileges to ADHS registered cardholding patients and vendors that all pay “licensing fees” to the ADHS for the privilege of dispensing medical marijuana legally across the state. The ADHS does not limit a dispensary to selling or cultivating certain marijuana or any marijuana in just one area of Arizona.

83. The 25-mile provision offers options to a special class of registered qualifying patient to participate in cultivating, and dispensing marijuana to meet the ADHS AMMA requirement to provide marijuana to other registered qualified patients.

84. Patients that pay $20.00 a gram for artificially cultivated marijuana simply do not know any better and or have no other options. ADHS dispensaries can easily exploit this class of registered qualifying patient. This is especially so in the dispensaries located in the outskirts of the urban areas because ADHS dispensaries are allowed to interchange and divert their more expensive products to the urban areas and unload their most inferior products in the rural areas for a desperate top dollar.

85. There are no ADHS regulations regarding cost, quality control or this type of diversion and unequal protection for qualified patients. ADHS’s absence of quality controls puts ADHS registered patients at risk from having dangerous drugs like “SPICE” mixed or laced onto marijuana and especially into marijuana edibles to increase the potency with a synthetic chemical high that inexperienced patients might not recognize as dangerous. EXHIBIT

86. This class of inexperienced and vulnerable medical marijuana patient is still a very small percentage of people that use marijuana in Arizona. ADHS rulemaking process intimidated and dissuaded the largest class of medical marijuana patients with over regulation, highly publicized retaliation on qualified patients, licensed doctors, and dispensaries. EXHIBIT

87. A great number of ADHS registered cardholders have dropped out of the ADHS program since it began and enrollment is far under what it should be compared to other states with similar laws. Over-regulation has resulted in unaffordable fees and unaffordable inferior marijuana, artificially cultivated and sold in inconvenient and dangerous areas. This violates patient’s medical confidentiality, the intent of the electorate, the powerful purpose of the AMMA and the Voter Protection Act. EXHIBIT

88. The State and ADHS has consistently demonstrated an opposition to the AMMA and has attempted to undermine the effect of the law multiple times. “Interpretations are personal constructions of meaning based on logic associated with symbols of language.”

Requested Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request immediate and emergency relief from the ADHS as follows:

1. Plaintiff is requesting the ADHS to take immediate emergency action and renew Plaintiff’s registry card with the right to cultivate and possess medical marijuana for the specific needs of the Plaintiff and for the protection of the Plaintiff and his family from any further obstructive, intimidating, retaliatory and damaging practices of the State, the ADHS and or by its agents and employees.

2. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the ADHS issue an emergency approval for the Plaintiffs renewal of his registry card with the same terms as the last 3 years to prevent any further damage to the Plaintiff and his family.

3. If the ADHS can find any defendable legal application for this controversial 25-mile preference it should be the least restrictive “round-trip on a public highway” and “not as a crow flies”, interpretation. Plaintiff will consider this a sign of good faith that the ADHS has finally signaled and end to the attack though it is long after the bugle was blown.

4. Plaintiff wants an emergency action from the ADHS to prevent further adverse acts against Plaintiff and or his family members based on any and all unsupported interpretation or incorrect allegation that the AMMA’s decriminalization of marijuana does not protect the Plaintiff and his family.

5. Plaintiff expects the ADHS to take the appropriate steps to educate, retrain and restrain State employees, agents, and their successors from further and similar damage. Plaintiff wants to prevent more adverse action and violations of A.R.S. § 13-3408 involving “cannabis” as defined in A.R.S. § 13-3401(4) based on Plaintiff’s “medical use” of marijuana or any other qualified patients meaningful medical use of marijuana. “Adverse action” includes but is not limited to arresting, prosecuting, and seizing property from Plaintiff, invading the Plaintiff’s privacy, violating Plaintiff’s confidentiality, the taking of unauthorized and undressed photos of Plaintiff, trespassing, harassing, intimidating, threatening of Plaintiff and his family members or limiting Plaintiff’s options for his doctors treatments or limiting options to the medical marijuana that is most beneficial to Plaintiff.

6. Plaintiff wants the ADHS to acknowledge that the registered qualifying patient is the most likely and only person that can actually tell if medical marijuana benefits and relieves the patient’s symptoms of a critical disease and this knowledge should be held in strict confidentiality with the patient and the patient’s doctor.

CLOSING STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff was diagnosed with a serious form of chronic urticaria in about 1962 and was treated with debilitating and ineffective medications such as “barbiturates” and “promethazine”. This condition created a chronic irritation of the skin that was mentally and physically excruciating and advanced to long-term chronic infection of the skin.

2. Plaintiff started using medical marijuana illegally in about 1965 to treat this condition. Cannabis relieved these symptoms so miraculously that Plaintiff began to study the religious and medical history of cannabis. Soon Plaintiff combined and adopted this ancient medical and religious knowledge into a personal practice of religious medication and meditation.

3. The very act of gardening cannabis with other healing herbs and foods naturally represents 5,000 years of human nature, medicine and religion. Plaintiff requires untreated water and natural sunshine to create the garden fresh cannabis leaves for juicing, seeds, roots, male and female flowers and other naturally cultivated herbs and foods for health and the pursuit of my happiness. Plaintiff has been cultivating cannabis and making his own personal medications for almost 50 years.

4. Plaintiff accepted a request to run for Vice President of the United States in 1996 from the “Grass Roots Party” with Dennis Peron running for the presidency. We only won a place in the Electoral College Archives; however, Mr. Peron was largely responsible for the language and passing of Proposition 215 into California law in 1996. This law is still in effect and has opened the door to the marijuana prohibition reform that is sweeping the nation now.

5. In 1996 Plaintiff was qualified as an expert on the grading, quality and “mold” of marijuana and confirmed in U.S. District Court by a seated jury in Minnesota.

6. Plaintiff was raised on his families existing Tennessee tobacco farm and is an expert in the natural cultivation, curing and processing of fine tobacco and cannabis.

7. Plaintiff contracted and was diagnosed with hepatitis C in 1997 while serving an 8-year marijuana sentence in the custody of the U.S. Justice Department/Bureau of Prisons. Plaintiff has suffered significant harm, from the threat of death, extreme physical torture for information, and prosecution and incarceration for Plaintiff’s medical needs, religious belief and reverence for cannabis. Cannabis still offers the Plaintiff the same peaceful joy, physical relief and religious guidance that it did when Plaintiff was a young man.

8. Plaintiff does not have funds to hire an attorney, has a limited education and no formal legal training. Plaintiff respectfully requests any consideration, compensation and relief the authorized State Administrative Review Officers can afford the Plaintiff regarding inadvertent deficiencies, errors or offense as a result of Plaintiff’s disabilities and these disadvantages.

I, Arlin Troutt, reside in Arizona and I swear that the preceding is true to the best of my knowledge and if I am called on to testify regarding these matters I will do so.

Respectfully submitted on May 9th, 2014,

Arlin Troutt

ADHS ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS

 

Plaintiff will immediately provide a list of stipulations for the ADHS to review and approve for the sake of expediency and conservation of public resources. Most of Plaintiff’s exhibits are from mainstream news organizations, ADHS promulgations, court filings and exhibits and other public information the ADHS should already be familiar with and possess. For the economy of this ADHS review and expediency of the Plaintiff’s need for immediate protection, Plaintiff is attaching Exhibits A, B, C and D. Exhibit D is a list of links to support related complaint information. Exhibits highlighted in red will immediately follow.

There is a wealth of information on the way to support Plaintiff’s request for overall relief and to assist the ADHS with the difficulties they are having implementing the AMMA.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/arizona-proposition-203-medical-marijuana.pdf

Exhibit A:

Injunction Pinal County

Injunction Pinal County

Injunction Pinal County

Injunction Pinal County

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit B:

 09 14 12 scan 1st page

EXHIBIT C:

Dispensary reciept

Dispensary receipt

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D:

Exempt Rulemaking Process

The Arizona Department of Health Services is exempt from the rulemaking requirements in A.R.S § Title 41, Chapter 6 only if authorized by a specific statute or bill. When the Department conducts an exempt rulemaking:

See Ariz. Const., Art. IV, Part 1, Section 1, Subsections 6(A) and (B).

Pursuant to the Voter Protection Act, legislative amendments are limited to ones that further the purpose of the voter initiative and are approved by 3/4 of the members of each legislative branch. Id. Subsection 6(C). Thus, by state law and Constitution,

The arguments in the publicity pamphlet also leave no doubt about the intended purpose of the initiative and the impact of its passage on the AHCCCS program. AHCCCS is required to provide health care coverage to the Proposition 204 population. By proposing this rule, AHCCCS is violating

Proposition 204 and the Voter Protection Act. The persons the citizens of Arizona mandated eligible for the State Medicaid program include childless adults, the very persons upon whom AHCCCS seeks to impose an enrollment freeze and/or reduced eligibility. Proposition 204 and the Arizona Constitution require

AHCCCS to cover these persons. AHCCCS cannot ignore the Arizona State law and Constitution. Therefore based on Proposition 204 and the Voter Protection Act, AHCCCS must withdraw its proposed rule.

The federal government took no position on whether closing enrollment is appropriate and regardless, whatever the federal government’s interpretation of the MOE requirements in federal law, that interpretation is not relevant to the mandatory requirements in Proposition 204 and the Voter Protection Act.

http://www.azdhs.gov/ops/oacr/rules/rulemakings/process.htm

http://www.azahcccs.gov/reporting/Downloads/UnpublishedRules/NOERR9-22-1443.pdf

http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/chronicdisease/index.htm

EXHIBIT

ADHS rules on harassment: http://www.azdhs.gov/search/index.htm?cx=001225935467932717699%3Avl4yt5w5dzq&ie=UTF-8&q=harassment&sa.x=0&sa.y=0

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply