Since this could help all the growers in Az

I hope this doesn't mean the fight is over

Click to expand...

"But Cooper left the door open for the men to raise a separate challenge that the 25-mile rule amounts to a violation of their rights under constitutional provisions guaranteeing everyone equal protection of the law. She said, though, they have yet to make a case for that claim."

It may seem there is another way

What happened today?
Good question… First, the judge (Cooper) granted the defendants motion to dismiss.

On what basis?
1. Plaintiffs’ action is not barred by unused administrative remedies;
2. Plaintiffs have standing and ;
3. ARS 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) does NOT violate Article 27, Section 2 of the Az Constitution.

Further, there were 2 procedural issues that the defendants asserted which NEITHER bars this action. “Granted, there are no doubt others who share Plaintiffs’ situation… Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is more than a ‘general harm’ to a ‘large class of citizens” and is Sufficient to confer standing (note). Though the Courts jurisdiction and a good standing cannot sustain the Complaint. As the court said we must “allege a viable constitutional claim.” In additionm the court ruled that dispensaries are NOT health care system.

“The AMMA protects people from criminal prosecution if they choose to use medical marijuana.” The AMMA does NOT “compel people to use medical marijuana or even to obtain a qualifying registry card.”

Concluded, that the AMMA does not violate the Health Care Amendment.

What does this mean?
First, we have standing… As noted above. The Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file an amended Complaint (And this is our next move adding the Equal Protection violation).

Undisputed Fact: (Key to understanding the next move folks)
“The 25-mile provision does appear to create two groups of AMMA participants based on residence. While this rule may be well-founded, the Court will not rule in a vacuum as to its validity. The claim must first be pled so that the Court can fully consider it as well as any challenge Defendants may bring.”


We will be making an amendment to our complaint and moving forward. We will be doing some serious overhauling with things since this dismissal was a complete surprise today. When details are available, I will post them.

Thank you for the support. Until next time, Vale!

Equal protection arguments are usually much more complicated and much harder to win.
Honestly but unfortunately I don't see winning that way although I am not an attorney.
The way I see it and I may be reading it wrong is that the administrative remedies
were not followed to completion and the states attorneys argued much better.
Can this dismissal be refiled perhaps after pursuing all administrative hearings?
Can the constitutional issue be appealed even though it was a dismissal and the ruling also cited
lack of pursuing all administrative hearings as a procedural issue.
The loss sucks but honestly I am not surprised the states attorneys argued better many of there
arguments were not well addressed by Walz and in particular the Rosa Parks argument was
week, poorly done, and did not go over well. If this is
pursued farther
a better trial attorney should be brought in or at the very least consulted preferably one with a successful record of arguing constitutional and/or equal protection law. Sorry for the loss HB



This sucks for Arizona!

I am not surprised by the outcome, no matter how good of a lawyer you have.
There are some point that went by me...
Like the state saying mj us NOT medicine after WE told them it is. That makes no sense to me.
...and We could take their stand and charge them $150 for "voluntarily" not using it...that would make them much more money...

They are determined to make mmj in AZ fail.

I think our best bet is to get a judge to allow you to grow strains not found at dispensaries.
What worries me about going at it about 2 classes of patients is that a judge may agree and not allow growing anywhere.

KAL EL said:

I think our best bet is to get a judge to allow you to grow strains not found at dispensaries.
What worries me about going at it about 2 classes of patients is that a judge may agree and not allow growing anywhere.

Click to expand...

That was going to be our arguement under the health amendment but we likely will stick to that under the equal protection...

The judge can not just decide she doesn't want cultivating.. Maybe in a direct democracy but not in a constitutional republic - we have to present the right case to get the right results. To those that have been following this once day one look to the ALJ decision and the arguement at that hearing(they had no jurisdiction to hear it but it was presented) and you will see our complete game plan..

I am doing what I can folks... I am only one patient. If I can get this much done we all should be able to get rid of the 25 mile prohibition.. What does it take? Getting off your Azz and doing soemthing about it. Write your representatives, tell friends, so on... This is our state and to all the folks that sit back and complain about this or that - that is the reason for the non sense - no one wants to work at making change. Instead many just sit and talk and talk and talk. Actions speak louder than words.


"[T]he AMMA is not a compulsory program. It does not force any person, employer, or health care provider to join. Participation is voluntary. Qualifying patients are free to decide whether they wish to apply for and obtain a registry [ID] 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 [ID] card." - Under Advisement Ruling

FYI - if you are refering only to what the news articles are saying you clearly have NO clue as to what is going on. The media is 100% against our lawsuit. So read the bias crap all you want. A wise man would simple read through all the transcripts.


Read ALJ Decision P.3, Paragraph 12 & P.4, Paragraph 13

ALJ Decision (Admin. Law Judge Decision pages 1-6)
P.1 http://forum.hydrobreed.com/NO25MileRuleAZ/ALJ Decision p.1.jpg
P.2 http://forum.hydrobreed.com/NO25MileRuleAZ/ALJ Decision p2.jpg
P.3 http://forum.hydrobreed.com/NO25MileRuleAZ/ALJ Decision p3.jpg
P.4 http://forum.hydrobreed.com/NO25MileRuleAZ/ALJ Decision p4.jpg
P.5 http://forum.hydrobreed.com/NO25MileRuleAZ/ALJ%20Decision%...20p5.jpg
P.6 http://forum.hydrobreed.com/NO25MileRuleAZ/ALJ%20Decision%20p6.jpg
AZDHS Decision
http://forum.hydrobreed.com/NO25MileRuleAZ/AzDHS Decision p1.jpg
http://forum.hydrobreed.com/NO25MileRuleAZ/AzDHS%20%20Decision%20p2.jpg

What worries me about going at it about 2 classes of patients is that a judge may agree and not allow growing anywhere.

Click to expand...

That is not much of an issue, and extremely unlikely
There are many legal precedents which must be adhered to in regards to nullifying laws.

What worries me though is using an attorney with out the best of
track records, and putting him up in front of the states attorneys who
absolutely outclassed, and out performed him in there arguments.
While we all want the 25 mile rules changed using an attorney
without the necessary capabilities and losing sets a dangerous precedent
which can make future lawsuits much more difficult.
HB I urge you to take the trial transcripts to at least a couple of highly regarded attorneys for review of the case as well as Mr. Walzs performance

That was going to be our argument under the health amendment but we likely will stick to that under the equal protection...

Click to expand...

Walz also lost his argument in regards to procedural grounds
(administrative remedies) on several levels. How will that be addressed?

Who do you suggest as an attorney?

My friend...

Do you know about the Mirada Right Warning?

The lawyer (Mr. Moore Sr.) that represented Mirada has a great track record. His son Mr. Moore JR. is helping us on this case.

We have 2 lawyers - not just Walz.

I would check with the criminal attorneys I have used in the past and have been in AZ for years they are trial lawyers not the typical plea bargain attorneys.
I have won both jury and bench trials with one of them. They are on the patients side and
while I wouldn't use them as its not there specialty I respect them and I would consult with both Sonja Duckstein, and Josheph Chornenky for a recommendation as they Know most of the Az attorneys. I would always avoid
using a attorney who is primarily a "marijuana criminal attorney" as they are mostly considered a joke
in the criminal attorney world.
I would also consult with attorney Jeffrey Kaufman as he is very involved in the mmj world
and has given me good advice before. He may or may not have some dispencerary interests but I would surely seek his opinion on who to use.
Thirdly I would preferably seek an attorney with a high avvo rating who has experience in constitutional law or equal protection arguments but is not primarily a civil rights lawyer. I would also talk with a high profile attorney-maybe Michael Manning etc but high profile is high money..
I have found hiring an attorney takes some research and testing the waters after talking to
several we make a choice but should always remember attorneys are also excellent sales people.
Martindale Hubbel can be utilized somewhat as well but attorneys pay for a membership
and this should be considered.

HB DC said:

My friend...

Do you know about the Mirada Right Warning?

The lawyer (Mr. Moore Sr.) that represented Mirada has a great track record. His son Mr. Moore JR. is helping us on this case.

We have 2 lawyers - not just Walz.

Click to expand...

Whatever the case Walz was the person who argued it and reading the transcripts he certainly did
not do very well. Now I dont personally know Walz but I have talked to him before and was far from impressed. I have also heard other lawyers laugh when his name was mentioned. Trials require a certain type of smooth convincing and quick thinking lawyer!

Coolman is right about having proper representation however that's going to require funds that we don't have. I give HB DC a lot of credit for the fight and actually doing something rather than sitting on his ass and doing nothing but bitch about it. If people think the 25 mile rule will change with legalization they are mistaken.

please clarify if i am mistaken but this is how i understand what happened: so this was dismissed on two accounts basically. first administrative remedies were not exhausted meaning this case was not presented and then appealed to the proper authorities in the proper order. i am guessing there should have been a number of appeals on the dhs hearing level on this matter before bringing this in front of a judge. if this is the case this is a vast procedural shortcoming which does not have anything to do with the argument
The second reason for dismissal is that the defendant/s failed to prove that the law in question was actively harming or damaging them based on their standing as patients. i am pretty sure a case for injuctive relief must prove a few things first you must prove standing in the case and then you must prove irreparable harm or damages and then i think you must show how there is not legal alternative (not sure on last one). so we were able to prove standing which is not very hard but there was not evidence of any damages or harm.

so if my understanding of the case is correct (and please clariffy if i am incorrect or am missing something) there was a procedural issue which should have been foreseen by counsel for the defense and then there was no acceptance of the argument which counted. if this is the case i would have to agree with the cool man and maybe it would be beneficial to get some other legal opinions. for a case like this MARC VICTOR is a name which comes quickly to mind. he is very well known, has a good winning record, is an outspoken libertarian, and has a positive record winning cases. aside from these challenges it is vulgar and offensive that dispensary parties were in opposition to this case. these people prove time and time again that they dont give a shit about patients or marijuana as medicine. until we as patients realize this and start acting upon it, they will continue.

thecoolman said:

Whatever the case Walz was the person who argued it and reading the transcripts he certainly did
not do very well. Now I dont personally know Walz but I have talked to him before and was far from impressed. I have also heard other lawyers laugh when his name was mentioned. Trials require a certain type of smooth convincing and quick thinking lawyer!

Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer and I can not say whether he was this or that... Quiet frankly this is a waste of time. I think spending more time reviewing this soon to be caselaw may serve more purpose.

irieie said:

please clarify if i am mistaken but this is how i understand what happened: so this was dismissed on two accounts basically. first administrative remedies were not exhausted meaning this case was not presented and then appealed to the proper authorities in the proper order. i am guessing there should have been a number of appeals on the dhs hearing level on this matter before bringing this in front of a judge. if this is the case this is a vast procedural shortcoming which does not have anything to do with the argument
The second reason for dismissal is that the defendant/s failed to prove that the law in question was actively harming or damaging them based on their standing as patients. i am pretty sure a case for injuctive relief must prove a few things first you must prove standing in the case and then you must prove irreparable harm or damages and then i think you must show how there is not legal alternative (not sure on last one). so we were able to prove standing which is not very hard but there was not evidence of any damages or harm.

so if my understanding of the case is correct (and please clariffy if i am incorrect or am missing something) there was a procedural issue which should have been foreseen by counsel for the defense and then there was no acceptance of the argument which counted. if this is the case i would have to agree with the cool man and maybe it would be beneficial to get some other legal opinions. for a case like this MARC VICTOR is a name which comes quickly to mind. he is very well known, has a good winning record, is an outspoken libertarian, and has a positive record winning cases. aside from these challenges it is vulgar and offensive that dispensary parties were in opposition to this case. these people prove time and time again that they dont give a shit about patients or marijuana as medicine. until we as patients realize this and start acting upon it, they will continue.

Click to expand...

You are in the know mostly... The part that you are not correct about is the admin remedies - this complaint is not a judical review of the denial of a registry card. The complaint is a request for declartory judgement and relief. We have filed under a constitutional matter not a administrative matter. The court has venue to hear such arguument which the Administrative Court lacks.

The "Under Advisement Ruling" for this matter concluded 3 things -
1. Plaintiffs' (the patients) action is not barred by unused administrative remedies;
2. Plaintiffs (the patients) have standing;
3. ARS 36-2804.02(A)(3)(f) (the 25 mile prohibition) does not violate Article 27, Section 2 of the Arizona State Constitution

The defendents motion to dimiss (delay) was granted BUT the plaintiffs have leave to amend the complaint. What does this mean?
Well if you refer back to the Oct 18th hearing the Judge stopped the States lawyer and asked (along these lines), "Doesn't the 25-mile rule create two classes of people?" The State responded, "Yes, it does." The equal protection clause was brought up but we did not include it in the Orginal Complaint. So what happens now? We have to amend the orginal complaint to add the equal protection violation. The reason we did not add it in the beginning was because of the tests used to make a law in violation to the latter. Now that we have the judge, at her own will, asking if the 25 mile prohibition creates 2 classes of citizens we may be making a better case now then if we had orginally aurgued that.. If someone has truly been following this - refer back to the Administrative law judge decision... The whole Game Plan is righ there at P.4 Paragraph 12 & P.5 Paragraph 13...

I will have the "Under Advisement Ruling" posted ASAP... Just been super busy! Spell check it because I am not going to....

My question to patients...
What can you do to help get your grow rights back?
My suggestion - Write your representatives, county attorneys, state attorney, governor, who ever and let them know that a Superior Court judge has "Under Advisement Ruling" ruled that the 25 mile rule violates the State Constitution's equal protection and immunity clause.... I am but one man and if I can stir the courts so can you.
We the People!



Free the weed! If we don't who will?

pardon me if this sounds ignorant but why not file a completely separate equal protection suit. once issues are heard in court and commented on the record by judges, it sets precedent for later cases. perhaps a larger perspective on these matters should be considered. it would be a shame to ruin an argument because it is not made in the best light or at the right time and place. additionally it seems that the crux of your equal protection argument hinges on an exploratory inquiry from the judge which was not even explored in the arguments. it may be more thorough to exhaust every avenue of the current argument and appeal on the original complaint rather than trying to scramble and throw everything at the wall hoping something sticks. just an idea. either way i appreciate your efforts and work on this. I know Marc Victor has been supportive of patients right s in the past, and he ran against bill montgomery as a libertarian. he may be a valuable opinion worth exploring.

irieie said:

pardon me if this sounds ignorant but why not file a completely separate equal protection suit. once issues are heard in court and commented on the record by judges, it sets precedent for later cases. perhaps a larger perspective on these matters should be considered. it would be a shame to ruin an argument because it is not made in the best light or at the right time and place. additionally it seems that the crux of your equal protection argument hinges on an exploratory inquiry from the judge which was not even explored in the arguments. it may be more thorough to exhaust every avenue of the current argument and appeal on the original complaint rather than trying to scramble and throw everything at the wall hoping something sticks. just an idea. either way i appreciate your efforts and work on this. I know Marc Victor has been supportive of patients right s in the past, and he ran against bill montgomery as a libertarian. he may be a valuable opinion worth exploring.

Click to expand...

You are right...
Another lawsuit will do the trick.

I am unable to make a seperate complaint but you or any other patient can... Even a patient that pro se has a very good chance right now in court because our case will be considered and the State does NOT argue againist the fact that the 25-mile prohibition does create two classes of people. That is an undisputed fact in the case - hint.

Thanks HB DC for all your good works and keeping us informed. Although I'm not entirely sure what y'all are talking about but sounds positive!
Where do I send some money for all your hard work, I'm not a card holder YET. Will be soon and want to be a care giver also. I like what you are fighting for even if I live out in the country! Fighting for OUR RIGHTS! THANKS AGAIN!

HB DC said:

You are right...
Another lawsuit will do the trick.

I am unable to make a seperate complaint but you or any other patient can... Even a patient that pro se has a very good chance right now in court because our case will be considered and the State does NOT argue againist the fact that the 25-mile prohibition does create two classes of people. That is an undisputed fact in the case - hint.

Click to expand...

True but the problem is that two classes of people are often legal under
the law if there is a reason for it, and in this case its because the voters approved it.. When equal protection arguments are won it is usually
because a person or people within one of the two groups are not treated equally like the others within the same group.

This is also what Mr. Falls of the defense team
argued in HBs case. *page 22 of the transcript

Definitely fucked up though!

thecoolman said:

True but the problem is that two classes of people are often legal under
the law if there is a reason for it, and in this case its because the voters approved it.. When equal protection arguments are won it is usually
because a person or people within one of the two groups are not treated equally like the others within the same group.

This is also what Mr. Falls of the defense team
argued in HBs case. *page 22 of the transcript

Definitely fucked up though!

Click to expand...

The test...

Can the 25-mile prohibition be applied in any way that does not violate the Equal Protection & Immunity clause? NO. In no shape or form.



Donate - https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/9YHH9

I'm pretty sure that a person can't fly last time I checked. So what about getting the judge to clarify the 25 mile rule to include reality and not some made up policy that is designed to exclude people from growing their own medicine. Google maps is readily available online for AZDHS to use in deciding if someones address is 25 miles away from a dispensary. I think you guys went at this from the wrong angle and you should be targeting Will Humbles policy. The law can be changed by voters. And the courts can change how Will Humble applies his policy.