ARIZONA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, WILL HUMBLE, et al
|Case No.: 2014C-MMR-0312-DHS
COMPLAINT OF BIAS AND UNETHICAL PRACTICE AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICE DIRECTOR CLIFF VANELL AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING JUDGE TAMMY EIGENHEER
(Assigned to Hon. Tammy Eigenheer)
1. On July 23, 2014 AT 8:00 AM Arlin Troutt (“Appellant”) appeared in Arizona Administrative Hearing Office (“AHO”) before Judge Tammy Eigenheer to appeal a decision by the Arizona Department of Health Services (“ADHS”) on matters that had already been addressed in Arizona’s Superior Courts.
2. At the beginning of this hearing Judge Eigenheer announced that she had been out of state for a training conference for a week prior to this hearing. Judge Eigenheer stated that she did not fully review and did not respond to Appellant’s motions filed after her Order denying Appellant’s multiple motions requesting clarification of facts, law and language of a single issue before the scheduled hearing date on July 23, 2014.
3. Judge Eigenheer mailed her July 10, 2014 Denial Order to Appellant knowing it would not be received and responded to until after her pre-planned trip out of state.
4. Director of the AHO, Cliff Vanell denied Appellant’s valid 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 filed on June 16, 2014.
5. On July 10, 2014 Cliff Vanell signed an Order denying Appellant’s well-founded request for reconsideration of this denial of Appellant’s right to an impartial and unbiased administrative hearing and judge.
6. The Appellant anticipated an Administrative Hearing Ambush by Cliff Vanell. Judge Eigenheer’s disqualifying factors and Cliff Vanell’s much more profound conflicts of political and personal interests in this matter make the temptation for self preservation decisions and denials to great.
7. That same day on July 10, 2014 Judge Eigenheer denied Appellant’s JUNE 26, 2014 REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING DISPUTED LANGUAGE AND MEANING OF PROVISIONS WITHIN THE ARIZONA MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT.
8. Judge Eigenheer also denied Appellant’s JULY 4, 2014 REQUEST FOR PREHEARING CLARIFICATION ON LANGUAGE, PURPOSE AND MEANING OF A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f)
9. Judge Eigenheer refusing to admit higher court rulings against the ADHS on the same or similar matters to avoid addressing the Appellant’s relevant and timely court rulings and clarification requests prior that July 23, 2014 hearing date was an overt act of bias, intimidation and retaliation by AOH and ADHS.
10. Scheduling Judge Eigenheer to hear this case knowing she had a full weed out of state training conference at such a critical time and controversial health risk issue and abuse of law by ADHS is unjustifiable.
11. Judge Richard Field’s latest July 2, 2014 ruling states the language in the AMMA is not understandable enough for a reasonable person to know what is prohibited in a medical marijuana cultivation and sales case.
12. Judge Fields’ ruling is just one more example of how ADHS policies continues to boil over into our higher courts for lack of the simplest administrative clarification and remedy.
13. Nine visitors complained about the bias in Judge Eigenheer’s court on July 23, 20014. Judge Eigenheer acted bored and played with her fingernails while ADHS attorney Gregory Falls gave hand signals to witness Tina Wesoloskie as Appellant attempted to question the witness.
14. Tina Wesoloskie evaded the single issue of this appeal until Judge Eigenheer finally provided the answer for by stating that Tina Wesoloskie did not know if A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) was a designated preference of the qualifying patient or a required request for ADHS approval to cultivate.
15. All of this administrative posturing over this single issue regarding the intent and meaning of these 199 words in this 25-mile provision is criminal.
16. If A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) is a request to cultivate determined by residence then this unsupported and unauthorized interpretation is a violation of law and the intent of the electorate.
17. If A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) does not limit options of a certain class of qualified patient to “acquire” marijuana from any source for a registered qualifying patient’s “medical use” then A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) does not violate the law.
IN this case the ADHS has violated Appellant’s rights and illegally caused a great deal of unnecessary trouble at a very bad time in the Appellant’s life.
18. This simple question of administrative legal authority the AHO is so desperate to avoid could have and should have been resolved at the first level of administrative remedy.
19. The Appellant correctly proved to the ADHS and AHO early on that these 199 words did not give authority the ADHS to refuse to renew the status of the Appellant’s cultivation card or limit the form of marijuana that is beneficial for the Appellant’s medical use.
20. Any reasonable person could have understood this language did not provide the authorization to violate the Appellant’s right to equal protection under the law or constrain the Appellant’s cultivation, acquisition and medical use rights provided in the AMMA and this 25-mile provision.
20. This is simply a matter of reading the 199 words and making the undisputable ruling that A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) does not give the ADHS authority to deny cultivation status to the Appellant nor does A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) give the ADHS authority to restrict the form or source of marijuana the Appellant requires for medical use.
21. The Appellant cited all the good legal reasons that provided and encouraged these pre-hearing clarifications the AHO avoided.
22. Every relevant issue this Administrative Court had the authority to remedy in this Appeal was addressed and supported with fact in the prehearing motions to this court by the Appellant.
23. The Appellant is requesting this Court to address every issue the Appellant has raised in this appeal and respond to the Appellant’s complaint of AHO and ADHS bias, intimidation and retaliation against the Appellant in the matter of Docket No.: 2014-MMR-T181-DHS and Case No.:2014C-MMR-0312-DHS
24. The Appellant is calling foul and is requesting expedient action in this time-sensitive matter. These proceeding motions filed by the Appellant have been ignored and await an immediate and full response from the court:
JUNE 26, 2014 REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING DISPUTED LANGUAGE AND MEANING OF PROVISIONS WITHIN THE ARIZONA MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT
JULY 4, 2014 REQUEST FOR PREHEARING CLARIFICATION ON LANGUAGE, PURPOSE AND MEANING OF A.R.S. § 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f)
JULY 11, 2014 REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RESONSE TO RESPONDENTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
JULY 16, 2014 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
JULY 20, 2015RESONSE TO RESPONDENTS RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
I, Arlin Troutt, reside in Arizona and I swear that the information I have undersigned today 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 July 29,2014
COPY of the forgoing sent via fax, email and/or U.S. Mail on July 29, 2014 to:
Clerk of the Department
Arizona Department of Health Services
1740 West Adams, Room 203
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Matthew A. Hesketh
Sherman & Howard L.L.C.
201 East Washington Street, Suite 800
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2327