Phoenix New Times:  “Arizona needs to start up the 2010 Medical Marijuana Act as voters intended, but without several of the rules designed to restrict dispensary applicants, a judge has ordered.  Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Richard Gama ruled on the Compassion First, LLC, lawsuit yesterday . . . .Gama nixed the rules that require dispensary applicants to:

* Have been an Arizona resident for three years
* Have filed personal income taxes in Arizona for the previous three years
* Have never before filed for personal or corporate bankruptcy
* Not be delinquent on child support, taxes, parking tickets, student loans or other unpaid debts to the government.

Those rules are ‘onerous and substantively alter the requirements of the Act,’ Gama wrote in his minute entry. ‘DHS cannot bootstrap substantive regulations of who may apply’…”

The following statements are taken from Judge Gamma’s Minute Entry dated January 17, 2012:

“DHS cannot bootstrap substantive regulations of who may apply onto its mandate that it consider such applications in a manner as to protect against diversion and theft. . . . The Court finds that DHS exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating these challenged regulations, and therefore they are invalid. . . .

IT IS ORDERED declaring the following regulations to be ultra vires and invalid:

R9-17-322(A)(2) (requiring applicant to have been an Arizona resident for three years);

R9-17-302(A)(4) (setting criteria that applicant have never filed personal or corporate bankruptcy);

R9-17-302(A)(1) (setting criteria that applicant has submitted Arizona personal income tax returns for previous three years);

R9-17-302(A)(2) (setting criteria that applicant is current on courtordered child support; is not delinquent in paying taxes, interest or penalties to the government; does not have an unpaid judgment to the government; and is not in default on a government issued student loan).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Defendants to implement the lawful provisions of the AMMA and, if necessary, to promulgate regulations that conform thereto.”

Results of Governor Brewer vs. the People of Arizona & Proposition 203 Lawsuits

People 2 – Brewer 0

Maybe the Gov needs to get a better lawyer.

Phoenix Business Journal:  “Dispensary lawsuit presents hurdle for Arizona medical marijuana law.  Arizona’s medical marijuana industry received a reprieve when Gov. Jan Brewer announced on Friday she would not continue to challenge the voter-approved medical marijuana law, but another lawsuit has put a kink in the process.  A lawsuit filed in July by Compassion First LLC, a dispensary company, against the state and government officials in Arizona Superior Court is the next hurdle. Gerald Gaines, founder of Compassion First said he will not drop the lawsuit.”

The lawsuit is   Compassion First, LLC vs. Arizona filed in Arizona Superior Court.

For more on Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s decision to drop her lawsuit against the U.S. read “Arizona’s Brewer to Abandon Marijuana Lawsuit, Allow Dispensaries to Open,” “Gov. Brewer won’t refile lawsuit against US over implementation of Ariz. medical marijuana law,” “Brewer lifts hold on medical pot dispensaries process,” “AZ plans to begin issuing licenses for pot dispensaries.”

The following is the text of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s January 13, 2012, press release announcing she instructed the Arizona Department of Health Services to move forward with implementing Arizona’s medical marijuana dispensaries:

“The State of Arizona will not re-file in federal court a lawsuit that sought clarification that State employees would not be subject to federal criminal prosecution simply for implementing the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA). Instead, I have directed the Arizona Department of Health Services to begin accepting and processing dispensary applications, and issuing licenses for those facilities once a pending legal challenge to the Department‟s medical marijuana rules is resolved.

“I also have sent a letter to Ann Birmingham Scheel, Acting U.S. Attorney for Arizona, notifying her of the State‟s action at this time and – once again – seeking assurance and clarification as to the federal government’s position regarding State employee participation in the licensing or regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries.

“It is well-known that I did not support passage of Proposition 203, and I remain concerned about potential abuses of the law. But the State’s legal challenge was based on my legitimate concern that state employees may find themselves at risk of federal prosecution for their role in administering dispensary licenses under this law. Last week, to my great disappointment, the U.S. District Court of Arizona dismissed the State‟s lawsuit on procedural grounds and refused to provide clarity on the likely conflict between Proposition 203 and federal drug law.

“Remember how we got to this point. The State of Arizona was fully implementing the provisions of Proposition 203 last spring. That’s when Arizona was among a host of states that received letters from the U.S. Department of Justice threatening potential legal ramifications for any individual participating in a medical marijuana program, even in states where it had been legally approved. Specifically, the Arizona letter – dated May 2, 2011 – warned that growing, distributing and possessing marijuana in any capacity, other than as part of a federally authorized research program, is a violation of federal law regardless of state laws that purport to permit such activities.”

“Would state employees at the Department of Health Services, charged with administering and licensing marijuana dispensaries face federal prosecution? This was the basis for calling a ‘time out’ in order for the State to seek a straightforward answer from the court. With our request for clarification rebuffed on procedural grounds by the federal court, I believe the best course of action now is to complete the implementation of Proposition 203 in accordance with the law.

“Know this: I won‟t hesitate to halt State involvement in the AMMA if I receive indication that State employees face prosecution due to their duties in administering this law.”

For Prospective Arizona Medical Marijuana Dispensary Owners

Stay tuned.  I will be watching the ADHS for the new dispensary application process and deadlines.  If you have not yet formed your nonprofit entity to seek a license to operate an Arizona medical marijuana dispensary, I want to form it for you.  Call me at 602-906-4953, ext. 1 if you have questions.

The following is the text of Alan Sobol’s January 10, 202 press release:

Allan Sobol the  aggressive marketer of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Industry, filed a motion in Maricopa County Superior Court today asking  Judge Dean Fink, to impose a preliminary and permanent injunction against Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer and Will Humble,  Director of the Arizona Health Department . If granted by the Court the Injunction would enjoin the Governor and Humble from expending any public funds to impede, delay or in any way whatsoever, prevent the full implementation of the  of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.(AMMA).   Sobol says, “It is an outrageous abuse of the public’s trust, and violation of her constitutional obligations  for the Governor to abuse public funds  to overturn the  will of the voters.  This malfeasance must be stopped!  Public policy and legal precedent, mandates that the Governors actions be brought into check with the will of the voters. This motion seeks to enjoin the Governor from using public funds to impede,  or delay the AMMA.

Filed in May, Brewer’s  federal complaint was one of three cases she filed to limit  the AMMA.   Brewer argued  that state officials fear federal prosecution for implementing the law, despite Arizona’s former top federal prosecutor saying publicly the federal government has “no intention of targeting or going after people who are implementing or who are in compliance with state law.” The U.S. Justice  Department federal even filed a motion to dismiss the case.    Brewer also filed two additional cases in State Superior Court attempting to limit access to patients.

  The Arizona Voter Protection Act, enshrined in our state constitution, w as specifically meant  to  preclude  the  Gov ernor  and  her administration from stopping a voter initiativ e, passed by a majority of the voters in Arizona, from going int o effect.  While the executive branch seeks to disgu ise its efforts as a  civil  complaint,  if  the  cou rt  granted  the requested  relief,  the  effect   will  be  the  same:  Qualified patients would have been denied their rig ht to obtain  voted approved medical marijuana.

In last weeks ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton said there is no genuine threat of imminent federal prosecution of state officials who carry out the law. While the Judge did grant the Governor thirty  days in which to  amend her compliant,  Judge Bolton, nevertheless stated in her Order  that she is “unconvinced”  that the State could correct the defects in the case. The Judge did focus on the “ripeness issue”, a point driven home by ACLU attorney  Ezekiel Edwards.

According to a spokesperson for the  Governor,  Brewer is intending to refile her case to Stop the Medical Marijuana  Act.

The Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals, llc (AADP) represented by attorney Thomas Dean, was the first defendant to challenge the Governors complaint.  AADP is Arizona’s largest marijuana trade organization representing the interest of over 10,000 members.  AADP believes the Governor’s complaint  was disingenuous and frivolous and a concerted scheme with other government officials  who conspired to thwart the will of the Arizona voters and  intentionally delay, impede, and  otherwise prevent the AMMA from being implemented.  Allan Sobol, President of AADP,  has repeatedly stated,  “This is not about marijuana use,  this is about government abuse.  Whether you are pro or con marijuana you need to be alarmed with the Governors  underhanded  attempts to over ride the will of the Voters”.

As Governor,  Brewer is vested with the supreme executive power of Arizona and is responsible for the faithful execution of all laws, including the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. The mask has now come off the Governors face,  Sobol says, any guise that the Governors legal efforts were truly intended to protect state employees few out the door when the Federal Court dismissed her case.   The administration seeks to destroy any  hope  of a viable Medical Marijuana program, which reveals its underlying contempt for the will of the people and the rule of law.

Arizona voters in 2010 passed Proposition 203, which allows seriously ill patients in Arizona to use marijuana as medicine with a doctor’s recommendation. The law allows marijuana to be distributed by tightly regulated clinics to patients with state-issued registry cards and exempts from state prosecution not only seriously ill Arizonans but also their caregivers and a limited number of certified, non-profit medical marijuana dispensaries that will serve qualifying patients.

 The state has issued approximately 19,000 medical marijuana cards to qualified patients collecting almost 3 million dollars in fees, but has fraudulently failed to provide a way, consistent with the AMMA, for  patients to obtain their voter approved medication .

The entire text of Sobol’s Motion can be found at:  Seed2success.com/enjoingovernor.html

Attorney Tom Dean can be reached at: 602-635-4990

For additional information or questions please contact:

Allan Sobol, President
602 504-6050
[email protected]

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting to get a different result.  Well apparently here we go again.

Phoenix New Times:  “Brahm Resnik of Channel 12 News (KPNX-TV) just tweeted that Governor Jan Brewer ‘indicates she will refile lawsuit to block medical marijuana law.’ . . . If Brewer does plan to refile the suit, perhaps she’ll finally take the position that she’s avoided taking since May — that she believes the medical-pot law is illegal and should be struck down. Of course, taking such a stance would only sink her finger deeper into the eye of voters . . . . Brewer and Horne, die-hard opponents of medical marijuana that they are, may have other tricks up their sleeve.  They probably figure there’s more than one way to skin the voters.”

You would think that the Gov and her mouth piece would be embarrassed about their recent humiliation in federal court and stop trying to invent a lawsuit they can use as the basis for not enforcing and implementing Arizona’s medical marijuana laws that were approved by the Arizona voters when they passed Proposition 203 in November of 2010.  Tom Horne is the top attorney for the State of Arizona.  He has a large highly paid staff of attorneys who work for him and they have years of legal experience.  Together Mr. Horne and his crackerjack staff researched the law and used all of their considerable legal brain power to draft the complaint and sue the U.S. because – this is where it gets murky – something the federal government has never done (i.e., prosecute state employees who implement medical marijuana laws in states that approved the use of medical marijuana) might happen maybe if perhaps possibly who knows when some time in the future.  They didn’t even take a side for or against the lawsuit they filed.

Governor Brewer and Attorney General Horne took their best shot and the federal judge thumbed her nose at them and threw the lawsuit out at the first opportunity in response to a motion to dismiss filed by the ACLU.  For non-lawyers a motion to dismiss is where a defendant in a lawsuit says to the judge even if EVERYTHING THE PLAINTIFF SAYS IS TRUE THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE A CASE!!!  Judge Bolton threw out the lawsuit because she said the State did not have a basis to file the lawsuit.  Why didn’t the Attorney General and his attorneys know they were filing a lawsuit that should never have been filed?  Perhaps some heads should roll in the AG’s office because if your job is to sue on behalf of Arizona and you are not smart enough to recognize a bogus lawsuit when you see one something is terribly wrong.

Consider the significance of losing the motion to dismiss.  Judge Bolton in effect gave Attorney General Horne an F in filing lawsuits.  Rather than being embarrassed by their incompetence and apologizing for wasting the State’s time and money and that of the defendants, the co-conspirators in not enforcing Arizona medical marijuana laws (Governor Brewer and Attorney General Horne) apparently will regroup and dream up another reason to not enforce Arizona law.  Maybe their goal now is to show the people of Arizona they are not incompetent.

Read “Brewer will continue marijuana fight in court.”

KPHO.com:  “A medical marijuana dispensary may be coming to a neighborhood near you.  After a federal judge’s ruling yesterday, card carriers said they are one step closer to getting what they want.  ‘By the thousands, hundreds of thousands, we see people come in here every day,’ said We Grow Owner, Sunny Singh, ‘We are not a dispensary. We don’t have any marijuana here.’ . . . ‘Any person or business, who is dealing in medical marijuana, is trafficking in marijuana and that’s a class two felony,’ [Maricopa County Attorney Bill] Montgomery said.”

The County Attorney conveniently forgot to mention that he was talking about federal law, not Arizona law which is his job to enforce.  He should have said “Any person or business, who is dealing in medical marijuana and compliance with Arizona’s medical marijuana laws is NOT trafficking in marijuana and DOES NOT COMMIT A CRIME UNDER ARIZONA LAW.

Phoenix New Times: “Governor Jan Brewer and her legal counsel will study today’s dismissal of her lawsuit against the medical marijuana law while keeping a ban on dispensaries, a spokesman says. . . . It was a thinly disguised attack on a state law that they didn’t like. It also exposed Brewer as a hypocrite on the issue of states’ rights. Her attack on medical marijuana took place even as she and Horne spent taxpayer dollars defending two state anti-illegal-immigrant laws that the federal government claims are unconstitutional. . . . Brewer’s position, then, assumes a truly silly idea: That Will Humble, director of the state DHS and his underlings will be prosecuted by the feds for following state law.  This is a straw-man argument, though, apparently intended as a tactic in Brewer’s fight against the pot law.”

Arizona Republic:  “A federal judge dismissed Arizona’s medical-marijuana lawsuit Wednesday, saying the state couldn’t show workers were at risk of prosecution for following the voter-approved state law.  U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling removes the obstacle that Gov. Jan Brewer and state health officials said prevented the state from issuing permits for medical-pot dispensaries.  Brewer spokesman Matthew Benson said the governor would consult with Attorney General Tom Horne before deciding whether to appeal.”

Phoenix New Times:  “Governor Brewer’s Lawsuit Against Medical Marijuana Law Dismissed by Federal Judge. . . . In her new ruling, Bolton notes that ‘no credible evidence’ exists that state workers are at imminent risk of prosecution by administering the pot program. . . . We’ll contact the Gov’s office to find out if their mission to thwart the will of voters has a Plan B.”

Mmj Lawsuit Dismissed

Tucson Weekly:  “Well, it seems Gov.  Jan and her crew may have toppled their medical-marijuana man, and they might be out of the game.  A federal judge seemingly ripped the state a new one on Dec.  12 in the first oral arguments in the governor’s lawsuit that stalled Arizona’s MMJ program.”

Yuma Sun:  “Gov. Jan Brewer decided Wednesday to ask a federal judge to overturn a key portion of the state’s voter-approved medical marijuana law.  The move comes two days after Bolton told attorneys for the state she would throw out Brewer’s original lawsuit which simply asked the judge to decide if state employees can be prosecuted under the federal Controlled Substances Act for processing permits. Bolton said the state has to pick a side: Either federal law trumps last year’s initiative, or the state can implement its law despite federal statutes. . . . Brewer has chosen the former position, even though that’s contrary to what voters mandated.”

Governor Brewer has taken the exact opposite position with respect to Arizona’s Proposition 1070, the anti-illegal immigration law that will be considered by the United States Supreme Court.  In the SB 1070 case Governor Brewer is asking the Supreme Court to rule that Arizona can implement its law despite federal statutes.  Isn’t it the job of the Governor to enforce the laws of Arizona rather than making a personal choice as to which laws she will enforce?

Arizona Republic:  “U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton tore apart the state’s medical-marijuana lawsuit Monday, saying Arizona has to pick a side in the conflict over state and federal law.  Bolton stopped short of dismissing the case, saying she would issue a ruling later. But she told Assistant Attorney General Lori Davis she would throw it out unless the state decides whether or not to support its own law.  ‘That’s how lawsuits work,’ Bolton said. ‘The plaintiff takes a position’.”

Phoenix New Times:  “Governor Jan Brewer’s lawsuit against Arizona’s medical marijuana law took a beating today in federal court, where a judge told the state’s lawyers to pick a side on the issue. . . . Brewer and Horne, however, don’t have the chutzpah to actually argue against the voter-approved law — something that could be politically dangerous. . . . Their lawsuit relies on the creation of 20 fictitious defendants — 10 who believe the new state law violates federal law, and 10 who don’t believe it — to bolster their position that a dispute exists.  But Bolton said today that she planned to dismiss all of the fictitious defendants, adding that the tactic cannot ‘persist’ in federal court.  Arizona would need to choose which side it’s on before the suit can proceed, Bolton told Lori Davis, an assistant attorney general.”

East Vally Tribune:  “A federal judge chided Attorney General Tom Horne Monday, saying he was asking her to do his job: advising state agencies on the law. . . . ‘You don’t come to court and say, ‘Well, this our best advice, you give it a shot,” she told Assistant Attorney General Lori Davis.  Davis protested that the state finds itself in ‘an impossible position,’ being told by voters to license dispensaries but fearing that the workers who process the applications can be charged with helping facilitate the distribution of marijuana. She said Bolton should tell the state – and the governor – whether it’s OK to proceed.  ‘That’s what the AG is for, Bolton responded. ‘It’s not the courts that give (legal) advice’.”

East Valley Tribune:  “Attorneys for would-be marijuana dispensaries asked a state judge Wednesday to order Gov. Jan Brewer to follow the law approved by voters and begin issuing licenses as the statute directs.  ‘I don’t care whether she likes it or doesn’t like it,’ Ty Taber told Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Richard Gama. ‘Her sole job and responsibility is to implement that act.’  Assistant Attorney General Lori Davis did not dispute that last year’s voter-approved law requires the state Department of Health Services to license about 125 dispensaries where certified medical marijuana users can obtain the drug. And she conceded that Brewer has, in fact, directed the Department of Health Services not to issue any of those licenses.”

Sedona Red Rock News:  “While medical marijuana possession and use was legalized by voters in November 2010, one local woman said she was fired earlier this year simply for being a cardholder.  Now she is suing Verde Valley Community Hospice, a company located in Old Town Cottonwood, for wrongful termination and defamation.”

East Valley Tribune:  “The lawyer for one of the state’s medical marijuana clubs accused the governor and state attorney general on Friday of conspiring to undermine the voter-approved initiative making the drug legal for some ill people.  ‘We believe that there’s a clear and blatant pattern that has transpired over the last few months,’ said Thomas Dean. He said that directly includes both Gov. Jan Brewer and Attorney General Tom Horne.  ‘There’s plenty of evidence that was done in a way that was conspiratorial, fraudulent,’ Dean told Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Dean Fink.”

The following is a list of the six lawsuits now pending in Arizona courts that involve Arizona’s medical marijuana laws enacted as a result of Proposition 203.

1.  Arizona vs. United States – U.S. Federal District Court

Plaintiffs:  STATE OF ARIZONA; JANICE K. BREWER, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity; WILL HUMBLE, Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, in his Official Capacity; ROBERT C. HALLIDAY, Director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety, in his Official Capacity

Plaintiffs’ Attorneys:  THOMAS C. HORNE, Attorney General, Firm Bar No. 14000; Kevin D. Ray, No. 007485; Lori S. Davis, No. 027875; Aubrey Joy Corcoran, No. 025423; Assistant Attorneys General; 1275 West Washington Street; Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926; Telephone: (602) 542-8309; Facsimile: (602) 542-8308; Email: [email protected]

Defendants: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States of America, in his Official Capacity; DENNIS K. BURKE, United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, in his Official Capacity; ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF DISPENSARY PROFESSIONALS, INC., an Arizona corporation; JOSHUA LEVINE; PAULA PENNYPACKER; DR. NICHOLAS FLORES; JANE CHRISTENSEN; PAULA POLLOCK; SERENITY ARIZONA, INC., an Arizona nonprofit corporation; HOLISTIC HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., an Arizona nonprofit corporation; JEFF SILVA; ARIZONA MEDICAL MARIJUANA ASSOCIATION

2.  Arizona vs. The 2811 Club, LLC – Arizona Superior Court

Plaintiffs:  STATE OF ARIZONA and WILL HUMBLE, Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, in his Official Capacity

Plaintiffs’ Attorneys:  THOMAS C. HORNE, Attorney General, Firm Bar No. 14000, Michael Tryon (#003109); Evan Hiller (#028214); Assistant Attorneys General Office of Senior Litigation Counsel; Kevin D. Ray (#007485); Lori S. Davis (#027875); Aubrey Joy Corcoran (#025423); Assistant Attorneys General; Education and Health Section; 1275 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926; Telephone: (602) 542-8328; Facsimile: (602) 364-0700; Email: [email protected]

Defendants:  THE 2811 CLUB, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; THE ARIZONA COMPASSION ASSOCIATION, INC., a pending Arizona non-profit corporation; MICHAEL R. MILLER, Director of the Arizona Compassion Association, Inc.; YOKI, INC. d/b/a YOKI A MA CLUB, an Arizona non-profit corporation; ARIZONA COMPASSION CLUB, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company

3.  Sobol vs. Arizona – Arizona Superior Court

Plaintiff:  Alan Sobol

Plaintiff’s attorney:  none

Defendants:  State of Arizona; Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona; Will Humble, Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services in his official capacity.

4.  Elements Therapeutic Dispensary vs. Humble – Arizona Superior Court

Plaintiffs:  ELEMENTS THERAPEUTIC DISPENSARY, an Arizona Non-Profit Corporation; ARIZONA DISPENSARY SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company; ARIZONA ALTERNATIVE RELIEF CENTERS, INC., an Arizona Non-Profit Corporation dba MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES; PROTECT ARIZONA PATIENTS, INC., an Arizona Non-Profit Corporation; CULTIVATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, an Arizona Limited Liability Company; HEATHER TORGERSON, a married woman; STEPHEN JOHNSON, a single man; ROBERT LILES, a married man; GREGORY DELUCA; a single man, HEIGHTENED HEALING, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company; ALAN J. CITRIN, M.D., P.C.

Plaintiffs’ Attorney:  David W. Dow; Law Office of David Dow; 3104 E. Camelback Rd., #281; Phoenix, AZ 85016-0001; (602) 550-2951; AZ State Bar#: 007377; ddowhiw I @gmail.com

Defendants:  WILL HUMBLE, Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, in his Official Capacity; THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona

5.  Serenity Arizona, Inc. vs. Arizona Department of Health Services – Arizona Superior Court

Plaintiffs:  SERENITY ARIZONA, INC., an Arizona nonprofit corporation; and MEDZONA GROUP, INC., an Arizona nonprofit corporation; JANE CHRISTENSEN, a married woman.

Plaintiffs’ Attorney:  Ken Frakes, #021776; Ryan Hurley, #02460; ROSE LAW GROUP PC, 6613 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 200, Scottsdale, Arizona 85250, (480) 5o5-3931; (480) 951-6993; Fax: [email protected]; [email protected].

Defendants:  THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, an agency of the State of Arizona; WILL HUMBLE, Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, in his Official Capacity

6.  Compassion First, LLC vs. Arizona – Arizona Superior Court

Plaintiffs:  COMPASSION FIRST, L.L.C., dba Compassion First, an Arizona limited liability company; SCOTT TIDEMANN, a single man; KIMBERLY REARDON, a single woman, MARK BROOKMAN, a married man; KEITH LOWELL RABIN, a single man and DANIEL MEDINA, a single man.

Plaintiffs’ attorney:  AIKEN SCHENK, HAWKINS & RICCIARDI P.C., 4742 North 24 Street, Suite 100, Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4859; Telephone: (602) 248-8203; Facsimile: (602) 248-8840; E-Mail: [email protected]; E-Mail: [email protected]; E-Mail: [email protected]; E-Mail: jc@ashrlaw .com; J. Tyrrel Taber; Alfred W. Ricciardi; James M. Cool; THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY J. HERNANDEZ 7047 East Greenway Parkway, Suite 140, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254; Telephone: (480) 624-2765; Facsimile: (480) 607-2215; jjhernandez@az-law .net.

Defendants:  STATE OF ARIZONA a governmental entity; JANET K. BREWER, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official capacity; ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES (ADHS), an Arizona administrative agency; and WILLIAM HUMBLE, Director of ADHS, in his official capacity.

Arizona Republic:  “As if medical marijuana wasn’t being litigated enough in Arizona, yet another lawsuit takes aim at the rules governing dispensaries.  The special action, among six suits involving the state’s fledgling program, claims the rules give unfair advantage to local businesses in violation of federal law and the state and federal constitutions.”

The new lawsuit was filed by Compassion First, LLC, dba Compassion First AZ.  Gerald Gaines is the manager of the company.

We’ve predicted that somebody would sue because DHS’s dispenary rules violate the U.S. constitution.

Arizona Republic:  “White-collar crime has been eradicated in Arizona.  There are zero violations of civil rights. Not a single consumer in the entire state is being ripped off. There is no public corruption. No environmental laws are being broken. . . . Otherwise, Attorney General Tom Horne (and Gov. Jan Brewer) couldn’t spend so much time and energy trying to delay, disrupt and demolish Arizona’s medical-marijuana law.”

AZ Journal:  “Attorney General Tom Horne is taking aim at cannabis clubs with his civil filing this week asking the courts to shut down four clubs and one individual claiming to be operating under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA).  In July, the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) asked Horne to review the legality of cannabis clubs, which provide venues for medical marijuana patients to share private supplies of marijuana.”

Phoenix New Times:  “Give me the short version, a federal judge told Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne today in a ruling on the state’s lawsuit against medical marijuana.  Yesterday, Horne had asked U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton if he could exceed the 17-page limit for his arguments on why the lawsuit shouldn’t be dismissed. He even included the proposed response in a separate, 23-page filing. (See below) . . . . Skimming through Horne’s proposed response, though, we noticed a couple of things that should actually be added.  For instance, in giving the run-down on how Arizona officials ended up suing their own state instead of defending a voter-approve state law, there’s no mention of the January meeting between Horne and the law’s most vocal opponent, Carolyn Short of Keep AZ Drug Free.  We also think Horne’s proposed motion should have mentioned that Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke reminded the public, through a reporter, that his May 2 letter to the state about the new law didn’t threaten state workers with prosecution.”

Here is Arizona’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Pot Response by Horne

Marijuana Policy Project:  “A funny thing happened on Monday. The Department of Justice filed a brief regarding state medical marijuana laws in Arizona . . . and it was a good thing, and was met with appreciation from the medical marijuana movement! Seriously. . . . Apparently, the DoJ also thinks Brewer’s claims are ridiculous, and it said as much in its withering Motion to Dismiss brief, in which it took apart each of the state of Arizona’s arguments, urging the court to dismiss the case. . . . Throughout its brief, the DoJ basically said that the state of Arizona has no case and that plaintiffs Gov. Brewer and AG Horne have invented a controversy where none exists. Further, the brief notes that a state is not allowed to bring a case asking two sides to fight it out, without taking a position on the law in question”

Here are some interesting statements made in the Department of Justice’s Motion to Dismiss:

“Plaintiffs identify no controversy between the parties on that issue. That is most clear from the fact that Plaintiffs’ complaint never identifies which side of the supposed dispute Plaintiffs are on. Indeed, even their prayer for relief does not identify whether they believe the AMMA is preempted by federal law. Instead, Plaintiffs attempt to manufacture disputes among theother parties. They name as defendants various individuals and organizations whom Plaintiffs contend support the implementation and enforcement of the AMMA”

“Plaintiffs even create twenty fictitious defendants – ten who contend that the AMMA “does violate federal law” and ten who contend that it does not – and then rely on the purported disagreement ‘among Defendants’.”

“there is no actual controversy herebecause Plaintiffs can point to no threat of enforcement against the State’s employees.”

“Plaintiffs lack standing to raise their claim. As discussed above, Plaintiffs rely on manufactured disputes between various defendants, even referring to one defendant’s ‘standing and legal position’ relative to other defendants.”

“Plaintiffs identify no prior instances in which the federal government hassought to prosecute state employees for the conduct vaguely described in Plaintiffs’complaint. Without evidence of such prior prosecutions, Plaintiffs cannot credibly showa genuine threat of imminent prosecution in this case,”

Feds Motion to Dismiss Pot Case