Why Did Will Humble Really Resign From AZDHS?

THIS CASE IS BEFORE

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

COUNTY OF MARICOPA

 

Arlin TrouttPlaintiff and AppellantARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, WILL HUMBLE, et al 

Defendants and Respondents

 

)))))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.:   LC2014-000443-001 DTPLAINTIFF/APPELLANT OPENING BRIEF

 

 

The Honorable Judge

Crane McClennen

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

I, Arlin Troutt, (“the Plaintiff”) started using marijuana illegally in 1965 to treat a serious medical condition. The Plaintiff has continued to benefit from and appreciate the medical relief and spiritual guidance marijuana offers for 50 years.

In 1996 the citizens of Arizona initiated and approved the use of medical marijuana with a 65% margin. However, the state’s refusal to bend to the will of the electorate forced Arizona’s citizens to initiate and approve the “Voter Protection Act on 1998”. The Arizona Voter Protection Act was initiated and approved by Arizona voters as a direct result of the state’s refusal to protect patients that needed medical marijuana in 1996.

In November of 2010 voters initiated and approved the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (“AMMA”) This law “removed state-level criminal penalties for the medical use and cultivation of marijuana for the health and welfare of its citizens”.

However, the State of Arizona has a history of violently arresting people, confiscating children, seizing property and sending people to prison for cultivating and using medical marijuana. Arizona’s courts have zealously supported the police, prisons and these policies and practices for 19 years after the voters of Arizona first initiated and approved the use of medical marijuana in 1996.

This protracted violation of human rights and the pain, suffering and destruction caused by the Draconian enforcement of Arizona’s marijuana laws over the last two decades has proved to be costly, deadly, divisive, inhuman and immoral. The personal protection and career concerns of this old “hang ’em high” culture that exists within Arizona’s government creates profound conflicts of interest. Even Judge McClennen has been a Maricopa County judge since 1997. Sending people to prisons for the “medical use of marijuana” is nothing new to Arizona or this Honorable Court.

Now, Will Humble, as head of the Arizona Department of Health Services (“ADHS”) has unexpectedly resigned after collecting and dispersing 8.8 million dollars of unauthorized medical marijuana money that the Plaintiff has complained about in this matter. Mr. Humble’s surprise resignation from such a powerful position at such a controversial and litigious time should be considered newly discovered evidence in this case.

A statutory interpretation and preliminary ruling on the disputed translation of one provision in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (“AMMA”) would have pierced this protective shield and allowed the Plaintiff to address the damages and dangers complained of in the Plaintiff’s May 10, 2014 complaint and the Plaintiff’s June 2, 2014 Complaint and Appeal Notice Response.

This adamant refusal by the ADHS and the Arizona Administrative Hearing Office (“AHO”) to provide an accurate clarification of the disputed language in the AMMA puts the Plaintiff at a great disadvantage. These complaints were formally submitted to the ADHS and required a timely and meaningful response.

Had Mr. Humble used a misinterpretation of the AMMA to justify restricting the rights of military veterans and critically ill infants to use medical marijuana would a simple clarification of the law taken this long?

STATEMENT OF CASE

The central question presented by this complaint and appeal hinges on a plain and simple translation of English words and a legal interpretation of their common meaning. This disputed language is the language that the Plaintiff and all Arizona voters were officially provided by the state before the electorate voted to remove criminal statues for the “cultivation and medical use of marijuana” in 2010.

This dispute more precisely concerns a ridiculous misrepresentation to this Court by the ADHS that one provision (A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f)) in the AMMA is a restriction on the right of the Plaintiff and other legally “certified patients” to cultivate marijuana for medical use. The ADHS has stated to this Honorable Court that A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) requires the ADHS to restrict personal cultivation of marijuana for a certain class of critically ill patients after they have obtained a “written certification” from a physician for the medical use of marijuana. This simply is not true and the Arizona Administrative Hearing Office (“AHO”) should have clarified and ruled on this issue.

On April 2, 2014 the Plaintiff was sickened by contaminated marijuana from an ADHS dispensary in Apache Junction, Arizona. The Plaintiff initially submitted complaints to the ADHS on May 10, 2014 and June 2, 2014 and subsequently submitted 16 motions in an effort to expediently resolve this dangerous and time sensitive matter.

The May 10, 2014 Complaint the Plaintiff submitted to the ADHS was a detailed 33 page complaint. The Plaintiff’s May 10, 2014 Complaint and the June 2, 2014 Complaint and Response to the ADHS Denial and Notice of Right to Appeal (May 14, 2014) regards the dangers in selling artificially cultivated and contaminated marijuana products, threats and intimidation for reporting those products, excessive fees, over-regulation and misinterpretation of the language in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (“AMMA”). These complaints both regard the damages the ADHS created by promulgating rules based on a misrepresentation of electorate intent and misinterpretation of the plain and simple language that constructs the AMMA. The Plaintiff also complained of the failure by the ADHS to issue a renewal of the Plaintiff’s cultivation identification card in a legal, safe and timely manner.

The following is in the caption of the Plaintiff’s May 10, 2014 Complaint: REQUEST FOR A TIMELY RENEWAL OF ARLIN TROUTT’S ADHS RESTISTRY CARD WITH THE ORIGINAL DESIGNATED CULTIVATION PREFERENCE TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGES 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.

The following is from the caption of the Plaintiff’s June 2, 2014 Complaint and response to the actions of the ADHS: RESPONSE TO ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL AND COMPLAINT AGAINST DEPARTMENT FOR INTIMIDATION, COERSION, THREATS AND OTHER DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITH AN AGENCY ACTION REGARDING FEES AND APPLICATION RENEWAL MODIFICATION

The following is taken from the original Complaint filed by the Plaintiff in this matter on May 10, 2014: “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. (Page 1, lines 22-25 to Page 2, lines 1-6)

Since submitting this complaint against Will Humble and the ADHS on May 10, 2014 and the formal complaint and appeal notice on June 2, 2014 the Plaintiff has submitted 17 subsequent filings. These motions complain of the profound conflicts of interest in this case and the Plaintiff’s failed efforts to get a meaningful and timely translation of the disputed 37 words that construct A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f).

On June 16, 2014 the Plaintiff submitted a REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND REQUEST FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMTTED BY APPELLANT TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES IN THESE MATTERS BE ADMITTED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING RECORD

On June 23, 2014 the Plaintiff submitted: REQUEST FOR PREHEARING CLARIFICATION OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING DISPUTED LANGUAGE AND MEANING OF PROVISIONS WITHIN THE ARIZONA MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT

On June 26, 2014 the Plaintiff submitted: APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

On June 26, 2014 the Plaintiff submitted: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING DISPUTED LANGUAGE AND MEANING OF PROVISIONS WITHIN THE ARIZONA MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT

On June 30, 2016 the Plaintiff submitted: MOTION REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF DIRECTOR’S ORDER DENYING JUDGE CHANGE AND REQUEST FOR A COMPLETE RESPONSE TO MATTERS RAISED IN APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ADMIISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE

On July 4, 2014 the Plaintiff submitted: REQUEST FOR PREHEARING CLARIFICATION ON LANGUAGE, PURPOSE AND MEANING OF A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f)

On July 11, 2014 the Plaintiff submitted: REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

On July 16, 2014 the Plaintiff submitted: RESPONSE TO RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR PREHEARING CLARIFICATION ON LANGUAGE, PURPOSE AND MEANING OF A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(F)

On July 20, 2014 the Plaintiff submitted: RESONSE TO RESPONDENTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

On July 29, 2014 the Plaintiff submitted: COMPLAINT OF BIAS AND UNETHICAL PRACTICE AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICE DIRECTOR CLIFF VANELL AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING JUDGE TAMMY EIGENHEER

On August 8, 2014 the Plaintiff submitted: RESPONSE TO RESPONDENTS RESPONSE TO APPELLANT”S COMPLAINT OF BIAS AND UNETHICAL PRACTICE AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICE DIRECTOR CLIFF VANELL AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING JUDGE TAMMY EIGENHEER AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS

On August 15, 2014 the Plaintiff submitted: REQUEST FOR AUGUST 12, 2014 RULING

On June 24, 2014 the ADHS submitted: RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

On June 30, 2014 the ADHS submitted: THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICE’S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

On July 7, 2014 the ADHS submitted: THE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE

TO APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE

On July 11, 2014 the ADHS submitted: RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S

REQUEST FOR PREHEARING CLARIFICATION ON LANGUAGE,

PURPOSE AND MEANING OF A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(F)

On July 18, 2014 the ADHS submitted: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR

DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

On August 7, 2014 the ADHS submitted: RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT OF BIAS AND UNETHICAL PRACTICE AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICE DIRECTOR CLIFF VANELL AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING JUDGE TAMMY EIGENHEER

On August 19, 2014 the ADHS issued their Final Decision denying the Plaintiff right to cultivate marijuana for medical use.

On September 23, 2014 the Plaintiff filed the following in the Superior Court of Maricopa County: NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COMPLAINT

On November 14, 2014 the Plaintiff filed: RESPONSE TO MINUTE ENTRY AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION AND DE NOVO HEARING OF CASE NO.: 2014C-MMR-0312-DHS

On January 2, 2015 the Plaintiff filed: REQUEST FOR DECLARATION OF RIGHTS AND INJUNCTION AGAINST WILL HUMBLE AND THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES TO STOP DISSEMINATION OF INACCURATE AND DAMAGING INFORMATION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FOR MISREPRESENTATION OF MATERIAL FACTS IN THIS CASE

On February 13, 2015 the Plaintiff filed: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DECLARATION OF RIGHTS AND INJUNCTION AGAINST WILL HUMBLE AND THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES TO STOP DISSEMINATION OF INACCURATE AND DAMAGING INFORMATION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FOR MISREPRESENTATION OF MATERIAL FACTS IN THIS CASE

On December 8, 2014 the ADHS filed: APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO “RESONSE [SIC] TO MINUTE v. ENTRY AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION AND DE NOVO ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, HEARING OF CASE NO.: 2014C MMR-0312-DHS”

On January 23, 2015 this Honorable Court issued a Formal Order Denying the Plaintiff’s REQUEST FOR DECLARATION OF RIGHTS AND INJUNCTION AGAINST WILL HUMBLE AND THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES TO STOP DISSEMINATION OF INACCURATE AND DAMAGING INFORMATION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FOR MISREPRESENTATION OF MATERIAL FACTS IN THIS CASE

On February 18, 2015 the Court issued a final and Formal Order Denying the Plaintiff’s: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DECLARATION OF RIGHTS AND INJUNCTION AGAINST WILL HUMBLE AND THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES TO STOP DISSEMINATION OF INACCURATE AND DAMAGING INFORMATION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FOR MISREPRESENTATION OF MATERIAL FACTS IN THIS CASE

The ADHS alleged in THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICE’S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION: “This appeal involves a simple question: whether the Department erred by denying Appellant’s request for approval to cultivate marijuana. The scope of the hearing is limited to this single issue.” (June 30, 2014- Page 2, lines 1-3)

Clearly the Plaintiff has complained of much more than the ADHS just making an error. The ADHS goes on to make this blatant misrepresentation to the Court: The Department denied Appellant’s request to cultivate because it was required to do so by statute.” (June 30, 2014- Page 2, lines 8-9)

The AMMA does not require or give the ADHS authority to deny the renewal of the Plaintiff’s right to cultivate marijuana for medical use. According to A.R.S. § 36-2804.05 (A): Denial of registry identification card A.R.S. § 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.”

The use of “may” in A.R.S. § 36-2804.05 (A), indicates that denial to renew Appellant’s “registry identification card” is an ADHS option, not a statutory requirement. The ADHS “may” exercise this option “only if” the Applicant is not a “qualifying patient”, has not had an ADHS registry card revoked, has not provided false information or does not provide required information.The Plaintiff fully complied with A.R.S. § 36-2804.05 (A).

The ADHS was not required or even authorized to deny the Plaintiff’s renewal of his “registry identification card”. The ADHS has misrepresented this material fact to the Court. A.R.S. § 36-2804.05 (A) clearly supports the Plaintiff’s complaint of this ADHS misrepresentation of a material fact. The Plaintiff addressed this issue to AHO in the Plaintiff’s July 4, 2014 REQUEST FOR PREHEARING CLARIFICATION ON LANGUAGE, PURPOSE AND MEANING OF A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f).

On December 8, 2014 the ADHS submitted this to the Court: APPELLEE’S RESPONSE TO “RESONSE [SIC] TO MINUTE v. ENTRY AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION AND DE NOVO ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, HEARING OF CASE NO.: 2014C, MMR-0312-DHS”

This ADHS Response states to this Honorable Court: “The issue is whether AMMA “permits” Troutt to cultivate. It does not. A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)( f) is the only provision in AMMA that allows a qualifying patient to request authorization to cultivate: … (December 8, 2014- Page 6, lines 27-28 to Page 7, line 1)

The plain and simple understanding and meaning of A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) does not authorize or require the ADHS to require the Plaintiff to request approval to cultivate marijuana for medical use. The ADHS has misrepresented this material fact to this Honorable Court.

The ADHS also stated to this Court in their December 8, 2014 Response: “The Department interpreted A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) to mean exactly what it says: “If you live within twenty-five miles of a dispensary, you are not authorized to cultivate marijuana.” (December 8, 2014- Page 7, lines 21-25)

The ADHS claim that A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) means exactly what the ADHS is saying it says is a blatant misrepresentation of a material fact in this case. The Plaintiff is complaining about the ADHS using this misrepresentation of A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) to restrict the Plaintiff’s right to the medical use of marijuana and to mischaracterize the intent of the electorate.

This ADHS Response goes on to state: “The twenty-five mile rule (A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f)) was intended to be a restriction on the personal cultivation of marijuana under AMMA.” (December 8, 2014- Page 10, lines 14-18)

The ADHS claim to the Court that A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) is intended as a restriction on the personal cultivation of marijuana, however the plain and simple language and common understanding of the 37 words that construct A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)( f) does not support the ADHS interpretation as a restriction of any kind. The words simply do not exist to construct a restriction or support the ADHS interpretation of A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f). AHO should have ruled on this issue.

The ADHS also stated to this Court in their December 8, 2014 Response: “The Department correctly denied Troutt’s request for authorization to cultivate because it was required to do so. (Page 11, lines 14-15)

The ADHS clearly has the option to deny an identification card application or renewal on a very limited basis. However, A.R.S. § 36-2804.05 (A) makes it clear that the ADHS has a very limited authority to refuse to renew an identification card and that authority is an option not a legal requirement .

The Plaintiff is legally certified by a physician and the physician’s written certification is the only authorization required for the Plaintiff to cultivate marijuana for medical use. The ADHS has improperly extended their limited authority to restrict or authorize the cultivation of ADHS marijuana dispensaries.          The ADHS has deliberately confused this responsibility with their responsibility to regulate dispensaries with their separate responsibility to issue identification cards to physician certified patients that have already been authorized to cultivate marijuana for medical use by their physicians.

The Plaintiff’s cultivation and medical use of marijuana is an option and a legal right that is authorized in the AMMA by a written certification from a state licensed physician. The Plaintiff is simply not required by law to request approval to cultivate from the ADHS. The AHO should have ruled on this issue and in the Plaintiff’s favor.

The ADHS did not have legal authority to delay the renewal process, deny Appellant’s demand for a cultivation card or alter and issue an identification card to the Plaintiff that was not authorized and approved by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff requested and received a written certification to cultivate and use medical marijuana from an Arizona licensed physician in 2011, 2012, 2013 and on April 29, 2014.

The ADHS admits to the Court that: “If a qualifying patient is authorized to cultivate, the Department must notate this fact on his card by “clear indication of whether the cardholder has been authorized by this chapter to cultivate marijuana plants for the qualifying patient’s medical use.” A.R.S. § 36-2804.04(A)(7). (December 8, 2014- Page 7, lines 10-15)

The ADHS disagrees with the Plaintiff and states to this Court that this disputed plain and simple language in A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) “is exact” and “says” that this provision is a restriction on the Plaintiff’s AMMA immunity from prosecution and penalties.

The ADHS says the plain and simple language in A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) is a restriction on a physician’s written certification for the medical use of marijuana. The ADHS claims this even though the “medical use of marijuana” clearly includes “cultivation” in the AMMA definitions for specific clarity at A.R.S. § 36-2801 (9). The ADHS claim to this Court that A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) is a required restriction of any kind is simply incorrect and misleading.    The Plaintiff has complained from the start of this dispute that A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) does not allow or authorize the ADHS to restrict cultivation of marijuana for the medical use of a physician certified patient.

According to A.R.S. § 36-2801(9): the AMMA specifically includes cultivation in the definition of “medical use”. This AMMA immunity and right to cultivate marijuana is certified and authorized by the Plaintiff’s physician not the ADHS.

The Plaintiff’s complaints about the ADHS over-regulation, excessive fees and threats for reporting the sale of contaminated marijuana are all buried with this refusal to clarify a simple statutory interpretation of the 37 words that construct A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f). The ADHS continues to misrepresent this very important material fact that they misrepresented to the Arizona Administrative Hearing Office and this Honorable Court to prevail while the Plaintiff has complained to no avail

According to the “plain and simple” preamble of the Proposition 203 Ballot Guide that all Arizona voters were provided by the state before this 2010 election: a yes vote removed the criminal penalties for the cultivation of marijuana for medical use by physician certified patients. (EXHIBIT A)

Most Arizona voters did not read the fine print in the Proposition 203 Ballot Guide or the disputed 37 words that construct A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f). However, a majority of Arizona voters approved a law that removed criminal penalties for cultivation of marijuana for medical use. The electorate realizes that cultivation is the key to reducing the cost and crime that creates the greatest risk to medical marijuana patients and the safety, health and welfare of our citizens.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

          Proposition 203 was proposed by an “INITIATIVE PETITION RELATING TO THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA”.This initiative measureAmended TITLE 36, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING CHAPTER 28.1; AMENDING ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING TO THE “MEDICAL USE” OF MARIJUANA; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONAL REPEAL.

According to“The DESCRIPTIVE TITLE” of the Proposition 203 Ballot Guide: “THE USE OF MARIJUANA IS ALLOWED FOR PEOPLE WITH DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITIONS WHO OBTAIN A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION FROM A PHYSICIAN.” (Request-January 2, 2015, Page 10, lines 9-12)

Secondary to this immunity and protection for certified patients that engage in the “medical use of marijuana” the Descriptive Title also requires the State of Arizona to: ESTABLISH A REGULATORY SYSTEM GOVERNED BY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES FOR ESTABLISHING AND LICENSING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES”. (Request-January 2, 2015, Page 10, lines 13-17)

According to the Proposition 203 Ballot Guide “INITIATIVE PETITION RELATING TO THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA”: A “yes” vote shall have the effect of authorizing the use of marijuanafor people with debilitating medical conditions who obtain a written certification from a physician. A “yes” vote shall also have the effect of establishing a regulatory system governed by the Arizona Department of Health Services for “establishing and licensing medical marijuana dispensaries”.

According to the ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL: Proposition 203 would generally provide that any person who acts in conformity with the requirements of the proposition is not subject to any governmentally imposed sanction relating to the medical use of marijuana.” “In order to register with DHS, a qualifying patient must submit a signed written certification issued by the physician recommending the medical use of marijuana. The certification must be made in the course of a “physician-patient relationship”.

According to Section 2. Findings (A.), the intent and purpose for removing the criminal statues and civil penalties for the “natural cultivation” of marijuana for medical use is crystal clear: “The People of the State of Arizona found and declared that: Marijuana’s recorded use as a medicine goes back nearly 5,000 years, and modern medical research has confirmed beneficial uses for marijuana.”

According to Section 2 (D.): “Consequently, changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill patients who have a medical need to use marijuana.”

According to Section 2 (E.): Arizona removed state-level criminal penalties for the medical use and cultivation of marijuana for the health and welfare of its citizens.

According to the clearest language of the AMMA in Section 2. (G): Hence, the purpose of this act is to protect patients with debilitating medical conditions, as well as 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”.

The voters of Arizona removed state-level criminal penalties for the medical use and cultivation of marijuana. EXHIBIT A

In May of 2011 the Plaintiff applied for and received a medical marijuana cultivation identification card from the Arizona Department of Health Services directed by Will Humble (“ADHS”). The Plaintiff properly applied for and paid fees to renew this identification card in 2012, 2013 and on April 29, 2014.

The Plaintiff provided the proper information and paid the fees to renew his cultivation identification card on April 29, 2014. The ADHS received this information and accepted the Plaintiff’s fees on that same day. The Plaintiff’s valid cultivation identification card did not expire until May 12, 2014. The ADHS did not formally deny the Plaintiff’s right to cultivate marijuana and issue a notice of the right to appeal until May 14, 2014.

The ADHS did not have the legal authority to accept payment for this service in advance and then refuse to renew the Plaintiff’s cultivation identification card. The Plaintiff did not request a cultivation card from the ADHS; the Plaintiff demanded the same identification card renewal that he was entitled to by law.

CONCLUSION

This litigation did not start with an ADHS Administrative Decision to revoke or deny the Plaintiff’s right to renew his cultivation identification card. This dispute started with Will Humble’s mischaracterization of the intent of the electorate and promulgation of rules based on his misinterpretation of A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f).

The Plaintiff has struggled with the ADHS, the Arizona Administrative Hearing Office and this Honorable Court to merely get a clarification of the plain and simple language that constructs A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) before more people were damaged by the ADHS. These delays and denials for clarification of material facts in this case have provided the ADHS with a shield of protection the Plaintiff has not been able to penetrate.

How could the Plaintiff possibly have a fair hearing to appeal the disputed actions and damages created by such a powerful agency as the ADHS when the courts refuse to clarify the simple language of the law that is in dispute. The Plaintiff has done all in his power to address these profound but clear conflicts of interest and damaging actions.

The Plaintiff’s actual complaints have been buried in a refusal to clarify and acknowledge the meaning of a 37 word provision in the AMMA. The English translation and meaning of these words are in dispute because the are damaging the Plaintiff and the ADHS has predominately relied on A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) to justify their “actions”.

The Plaintiff cannot afford an attorney and expert witnesses. The Plaintiff has no formal legal training and is in a state of rapidly failing health due to the strain of this litigation.

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and the Arizona Voter Protection Act were clearly initiated, approved and intended to end the decades of catastrophic damage marijuana prohibition has brought to our state and nation.

The Plaintiff realized early on that the ADHS and AHO would have deep self protective concerns regarding this long running dispute and a serious conflict of interest over the medical use of marijuana for 2 decades.

The prohibition of marijuana is a great crime against humanity, our nation and the State of Arizona. However, this dispute is as simple as the language in A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) that the Arizona Administrative Hearing Office failed to resolve.

The real problems the Plaintiff has attempted to bring to the attention of the Court are the dangers of distributing artificially cultivated and contaminated marijuana products and the risks and consequences for creating unaffordable fees and over regulation that has tripled the price of state regulated marijuana.

As head of the ADHS, Will Humble has taken actions that are dangerous, damaging and unauthorized by law. The pain, suffering, death and litigious chaos the voters of Arizona attempted to curtail with the AMMA has been over-ridden, over regulated and protracted with a blatant mischaracterization of the intent of the electorate and a damaging misinterpretation of A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) by Will Humble as head of the ADHS.

The Plaintiff does not have the legal expertise to provide the Court with a professional Opening Brief. The Plaintiff did not even have the ability to persuade AHO to provide a preliminary clarification of the intent and meaning of A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f). The Plaintiff has not been able to pierce this veil of protection the ADHS enjoys from our courts.

RELIEF SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

The Plaintiff is requesting this Honorable Court to review the actual language of the information the State of Arizona provided to all voters before they voted to remove the criminal penalties for the cultivation of marijuana for medical use in November of 2010. EXHIBIT A http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/arizona-proposition-203-medical-marijuana.pdf

The Plaintiff is requesting this Honorable Court to include and review the Plaintiff’s May 10, 2014 complaint to the ADHS. (EXHIBIT B)

The Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to include and review (EXHIBIT C) the Plaintiff’s June 2, 2014 complaint and response to the ADHS May 14, 2014 ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CULTIVATE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL (May 14, 2014) .

The Plaintiff is requesting this Honorable Court to include and review all the complaints, motions, responses and evidence presented in this matter by the Plaintiff and the ADHS from May 10, 2014 to the present.

The Plaintiff is requesting this Honorable Court to rule that the AHO should have clarified the intent and meaning of A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) and ruled that this provision is not a restriction.

The Plaintiff is requesting this Honorable Court to rule that the ADHS is incorrect in their interpretation of A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) and that AHO erred in not clarifying and ruling on this issue in favor of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is requesting this Honorable Court to rule that the ADHS was in error by denying the renewal of the Plaintiff’s cultivation identification card in May of 2014.

The Plaintiff is requesting this Honorable Court to make a ruling that would provide an avenue of accountability for the improper actions of the ADHS and issue a ruling that would provide fair compensation for the ADHS actions and violations of the Plaintiff’s rights and the damages he has appropriately complained of to the ADHS, AHO and this Honorable Court.

In closing the Plaintiff is requesting this Honorable Court to consider the facts of this case and the disadvantage of the Plaintiff in this matter.

The Plaintiff is asking this Honorable Court to make a brave but simple ruling on a hugely complicated and controversial political issue that will require more than a blind eye and a dismissal on a technicality.

 

Respectfully Submitted on March 11, 2015

—————————————-

Arlin Troutt

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply