Skip to content

Judicial Watch • Brief Arizona Medical Marijunana

Brief Arizona Medical Marijunana

Brief Arizona Medical Marijunana

Page 1: Brief Arizona Medical Marijunana

Category:General

Number of Pages:27

Date Created:March 19, 2013

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:Marijunana, marijuana, maricopa, Medical, convention, peterson, health, arizona, ACLU, Congress, White, COUNTY, federal, Supreme Court, states, court, united


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

THE COURT APPEALS THE STATE ARIZONA 

DIVISION ONE 

WHITE MOUNTAIN HEAL CENTER, INC., and Arizona nonprofit corporation, 
Plaintiff-Appellee, 
COUNTY MARlCOP al., Defendants-Appellants. 
STATE ARIZONA rel. THOMAS HORNE, Attorney General his official capacity, 
Intervenor -Defendant -Appellant. 
Court Appeals No. CA-CV 12-0831 
Maricopa County Superior Court 
No. 2010-015452 
Trial Judge: Hon. Michael Gordon 
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE JUDICIAL INC. 
Todd Feltus (#019076) KERCSMAR FELTUS PLLC 6263 Scottsdale Road, Suite 320 Scottsdale, Arizona 85250 
(480) 421-1001 tfeltus@kflawaz.com 
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Judicial Watch, Inc. 

TABLE CONTENTS 

TABLE CITATIONS .......................................................................................... 

........................................................................... 

INTEREST AMICUS CURIAE 

INTRODUCTION
..................................................................................................... 

ARGUMENT............................................................................................................. 
The AMMA Preempted Federal Law 2......................................... 
The Controlled Substances Act Regulates Marijuana 2................ 
The Supremacy Clause Preempts Contrary State Laws ............. 
The CSA Preempts the AMMA 9................................................. 

II. 
The AMMA Conflicts with U.S. Treaty Obligations ......................... 

III. 
The AMMA Has Legal Effect and Cannot Stand ......................... 

.......................................................................................................

CONCLUSION 

APPENDIX
............................................................................................................. 

TABLE CITATIONS 

CASES PAGE 
Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics DEA, 
15F.3d1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ........................................................................ 

Altria Group, Inc. Good, 
555 U.S. (2008) ...................................................................................... 

Americans for Safe Access DEA, 
No. 11-1265, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1407 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 22, 2013) ....... 

Crosby Nat'! Foreign Trade Council, 
530 U.S. 363 (2000) ....................................................................................... 

Crow Wainwright, 
720 F.2d 1224 (11th Cir. 1983) .................................................................... 

Gibbons Ogden, U.S. Wheat.) (1824) ........................................................................... 

Gonzales Raich, 

545 U.S. (2005)

..................................................................... ...................... 

Hartford Tucker, 
621 A.2d 1339 (Conn1993) ....................................................................... 
Hillsborough Cnty. Automated Med. Laboratories, Inc., 
471 U.S. 707 (1985) ....................................................................................... 

Hines Davidowitz, 
312U.S. 52(1941) ......................................................................................... 

Medtronic, Inc. Lohr, 
518 U.S. 470 (1996) ....................................................................................... 

M'Culloch State Maryland, U.S. Wheat.) 316 (1819) ....................................................................... 

National Prohibition Cases, 
253 U.S. 350 (1920) ..................................................................................... 

People Sheppard, 
432 N.Y.S.2d 467 (1980) ............................................................................. 

United States Feld, 
514 Supp. 283 (E.D.N.Y. 1981) ................................................................ 

United States Lanza, 
260 U.S. 377 (1922) ..................................................................................... 

United States Noriega, 
746 Supp. 1506 (S.D. Fla. 1990) ............................................................... 

United States Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 
532U.S. 483 (2001) ....................................................................................... 

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES, AND REGULATIONS 
U.S. Const. art. cl.2 ........................................................................................ 

U.S. Const. amend. XVIII, cl. .............................................................................. 
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act 1970, 
Pub. No. 91-513, Stat. 1249 ................................................................... 
Controlled Substances Act, U.S.C.  801 seq 10, 11, 
.............................. 

Onmibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
Pub. No. 105-277 (1998), Div. 112 Stat. 2681. .............................. 12, 

Single Convention Narcotic Drugs, 
Mar. 30, 1961, U.S.T. 1407, 520 U.N.T.S. 204 ..................................... u.s.c.  802(16) 
.................................................................................................. 

21U.S.C. 812(b)(l)(A)-(C) ....................................................................................... 

111 u.s.c. 801(7) ...................................................................................... U.S.C.  812(c) 
..................................................................................................... u.s.c. 821-829 ........................................................................ ................... U.S.C.  841-863 ................................................................................................ 
21U.S.C.  841(a)(l) .................................................................................. U.S.C.  844(a) ................................................................................................. 
21U.S.C. 882(a) ..................................................................................................... u.s.c. 903 ................................................................................................... C.F.R. Pts. 1301-1306 .......................................................................................... Fed. Reg. 20,041 (2001) ...................................................................................... Fed. Reg. 11662 (2004) ... ................................................................................... 
OTHER AUTHORITIES 

H.R. Rep. No. 91-1444, 
reprinted 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4566 ........................................................... 

Restatement (third) Foreign Relations Law the United States 
111 cmt. (1986) ..................................................................................... 

Claudia Dreifus, "Growing Marijuana With Government Money," 
N.Y. Times (Dec. 23, 2008) ........................................................................... 

INTEREST AMICUS CURIAE 

Judicial Watch, Inc. ("Judicial Watch") non-partisan educational organization that seeks promote transparency, accountability and integrity government and fidelity the rule law. Judicial Watch regularly files amicus curiae briefs means advance its public interest mission and has appeared amicus curiae numerous courts across the nation. 
Amicus believes that Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act ("AMMA"), which purports authorize and regulate medical marijuana Arizona, direct conflict with federal law and therefore preempted federal law. the view Amicus, conflicting laws create not just uncertainty the law, but undermine the rule law. this case, the AMMA openly flouts federal law and turn fosters casual tolerance for law breaking. result, undermines the very system laws that protect our liberty. required under Rule 16(a), Arizona Rules Civil Appellate Procedure, Judicial Watch has obtained the written consent all parties. Those consents are contained the Appendix. 
INTRODUCTION 
The purported legalization medical marijuana Arizona stands sharp contrast federal law. Federal law unambiguous that marijuana controlled substance regulated under comprehensive statutory and regulatory 

scheme. such, the production, sale, and use marijuana, other than part 

federally authorized research program, violation federal law regardless any state law permitting such activities even limited manner. 
The trial court's decision this case notwithstanding, the unequivocal mandate set forth federal law regarding marijuana cannot overemphasized overlooked. state law can license and regulate that which proscribed federal law. Just state can license regulate bank robbery, Arizona cannot license regulate marijuana, even for some limited, purportedly desirable purpose. Federal law forecloses any such possibility. 
ARGUMENT The Controlled Substances Act Regulates Marijuana. 
The Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"), U.S.C.  801 seq., makes unlawful "manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess with intent 

manufacture, distribute, dispense" any controlled substance, "[e]xcept authorized [21 U.S.C.  801-904]." U.S.C.  84l(a)(l). The CSA similarly makes unlawful possess any controlled substance except authorized the CSA. U.S.C.  844(a). Persons who violate the CSA are subject criminal and civil penalties, and ongoing anticipated violations may enjoined. 
U.S.C.  841-863, 882(a). 
Since 1961, the United States has been party the Single Convention 

Narcotic Drugs ("Single Convention"), international agreement binding, inter alia, all signatories control persons and enterprises engaged the manufacture, trade, and distribution specified drugs. U.S.C.  801(7); Single Convention, Mar. 30, 1961, U.S.T. 1407, 520 U.N.T.S. 204. Marijuana (cannabis) one
the drugs specified under the Single Convention Narcotic Drugs.The Single Convention places the same restrictions cannabis cultivation that does on, for example, opium cultivation. the Single Convention not self-executing treaty, domestic legislation was necessary that the U.S. could satisfy its international legal obligations under the treaty. United States Feld, 514 Supp. 283, 288 (E.D.N.Y. 1981) ("The Single Convention not self-executing, but works through the constitutional and legal systems its signatory nations."). Enacted 1970, Section 841(a)(l) the CSA the method which Congress effectuated the American obligation under that treaty. See United States Noriega, 746 Supp. 1506, 1515 (S.D. Fla. 1990) ("The United States has 

Marijuana defined under the CSA include all parts the cannabis plant and anything made therefrom, except for the mature stalks, fiber produced from the stalks, sterilized seeds, and oil from the seeds. U.S.C.  802(16). Marijuana has been found contain least 483 separate chemicals, among which delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta9-THC) the pnmary psychoactive component. Fed. Reg. 20,041 (2001). 

affirmative duty enact and enforce legislation curb illicit drug trafficking 

under the Single Convention Narcotic Drugs.") (citation omitted). The restrictions that the CSA places the manufacture, distribution, and 

possession controlled substance depend upon the schedule which the drug has been placed. U.S.C.  821-829. Marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols have been classified "Schedule controlled substances. See Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act 1970, Pub. No. 91-513,  202, Stat. 1249 (Schedule (c)(lO) and (17)); U.S.C.  812(c) (Schedule I(c)(lO) and (17)). drug listed Schedule the most restrictive schedule, has "has high potential for abuse," "no currently accepted medical use treatment the United States," and lack accepted safety for use under medical supervision." U.S.C.  812(b)( )(A)-(C). addition marijuana, other Schedule drugs include lysergic acid diethylamide (commonly known LSD) and Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (commonly known MDMA ecstasy). recently January 2013, attempt reclassify marijuana less restrictive schedule was rejected the U.S. Court Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. See Americans for Safe Access Drug Enforcement Admin., 
No. 11-1265, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1407 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 22, 2013). The court upheld decision the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") that marijuana has "currently accepted medical use" based the lack "adequate and well-controlled studies 

proving efficacy." Id. The DEA's decision was itself based binding 

scientific and medical evaluation conducted the U.S. Department Health and Human Services. That agency had concluded that "research the medical use marijuana ha[ not progressed the point that marijuana [could] considered have 'currently accepted medical use' 'currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions."' Id. 33-34 (citing Fed. Reg. 40,560). 
Notably, the same time Arizona contemplating licensing and regulating marijuana usage, the Americans for Safe Access decision affirms the unambiguous 

federal policy that usage marijuana -medical otherwise -is permitted anywhere the United States. set forth the CSA and the DEA's decision, marijuana remains Schedule drug proscribed under federal law. See also Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics DEA, F.3d 1131, 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (tracing back unsuccessful efforts reschedule marijuana since 1972). 
Furthermore, under the CSA, unlawful manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess Schedule dn1g, except part strictly controlled research project that has been registered with the DEA and approved the Food 

and Drug Administration ("FDA").2 U.S.C. 841(a)(l), 823, 844(a); United States Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 489-490, 492 (2001). The only federally approved research facility for marijuana located the University Mississippi. See Notice Registration, Fed. Reg. 11662 (March 11, 2004) (renewing University Mississippi's registration bulk manufacturer marijuana); Claudia Dreifus, "Growing Marijuana With Government Money," 
N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 23, 2008). This research facility, which has been operation since 1968, studies the chemical structure marijuana and maintains fann that grows nearly one hundred varieties marijuana plants. Id. Marijuana grown the facility available only federally approved researchers with special permits. Id. Significantly, federally approved research facility located Maricopa County elsewhere Arizona. summary, nowhere within this comprehensive statutory and regulatory scheme there exception for state such Arizona set out its own course regard marijuana. Federal law makes provision for separate state contrast, drugs listed Schedules through may dispensed and prescribed for medical use. Manufacturers, physicians, pharmacists and others who may lawfully produce, prescribe, distribute drugs listed schedules through must, however, comply with stringent statutory and regulatory provisions that control the manufacture and distribution such drugs. U.S.C.  821-829; C.F.R. Pts. 1301-1306. 
created licensing and regulatory regime for marijuana, whether intended for medical use otherwise. The Supremacy Clause Preempts Contrary State Laws. caimot doubted that the CSA preempts and "supreme any contrary state law. U.S. Const. art. cl. the Supreme Court noted 
Gibbons Ogden: 
[that as] such acts the State Legislatures not transcend their powers, but interfere with, are contrary the laws Congress, made pursuance the constitution, every such case, the act Congress supreme; and the law the State, though enacted the exercise powers not controverted, must yield it. U.S. Wheat.) 211 (1824); Gonzales Raich, 545 U.S. (2005) ("The 
Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that there any conflict between 
federal and state law, federal law shall prevail."). 
"It familiar and well-established principle that the Supremacy Clause ... 

invalidates state laws that 'interfere with, are contrary to,' federal law." Hillsborough Cnty. Automated Med. Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 712 (1985). determining whether preemption exists, "[t]he purpose Congress the ultimate touchstone .." Medtronic, Inc. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996). 
Preemption can occur either expressly impliedly. "Congress may indicate preemptive intent through statute's express language through its structure and 

purpose." Altria Group, Inc. Good, 555 U.S. (2008). the absence express preemption, Congressional intent can inferred where "it impossible for private party comply with both state and federal requirements, ... where 
state law stands obstacle the accomplishment and execution the full purposes and objectives Congress."' Crosby Nat'! Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372-73 (2000) (quoting Hines Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, (1941)). the U.S. Supreme Court has instructed: 
[I]n considering the validity state laws the light treaties federal laws touching the same subject, [we have] made use the following expressions: conflicting; contrary to; occupying the field; repugnance; difference; irreconcilability; inconsistency, violation; curtailment; and interference. But none these expressions provides infallible constitutional test exclusive constitutional yardstick." 
Hines Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 67. Further, "in principle, United States treaty international agreement may also said occupy field and preempt 
subject, and supersede State law policy even though that law policy not 
necessarily conflict with the international agreement .... Restatement (Third) Foreign Relations Law the United States 115 cmt. (1987). 
The reasoning behind federal supremacy was succinctly explained Justice Marshall explained M'Culloch State Maryland, U.S. Wheat.) 316 (1819): principle can admissible, which would defeat the legitimate operations supreme government. the very essence supremacy, remove all obstacles its action within its own sphere, and modify every power vested subordinate governments, exempt its own operations from their own influence. 
Id. 427-28. Justice Marshall observed further that: are relieved, ought be, from clashing sovereignty; from interfering powers; from repugnancy between right one government pull down, what there acknowledged right another build up; from the incompatibility right one government destroy, what there right another preserve. 
The states have power ... retard, impede, burden, any manner control, the operations the constitutional laws enacted Congress carry into execution the powers vested the general government. 
Id. 430, 436. The CSA Preempts the AMMA. 
Within this general context comprehensive federal preemption, the CSA 
directly addresses the specific question preemption state laws relating 
controlled substances. Section 903 Title the United States Code provides 
that provision this subchapter [21U.S.C. 801-904] shall construed indicating intent the part the Congress occupy the field which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, the exclusion any State law the same subject matter which would 

otherwise within the authority the State, unless there positive conflict between that provision this subchapter and that State law that the two cannot consistently stand together. U.S.C.  903 (emphasis added). other words, where "positive conflict" exists between the CSA and state law such that "the two cannot consistently stand together," the CSA "shall construed" evidencing Congressional intent "occupy the field" which the CSA provision operates "to the exclusion any State law the same subject matter which would otherwise within the authority the State .... U.S.C.  903. 
There can more obvious example statutes conflict than where one statute specifically prohibits what the other statute affirmatively permits. Hence, the two laws "cannot consistently stand together." Section 903 makes clear that Congress did not intend the sole occupant the controlled substance field 

state laws the subject were concurrent with, and not inconsistent with, the federal scheme set forth the CSA. See, e.g., People Sheppard, 432 N.Y.S.2d 467, 468 (1980) ("Although the Drug Enforcement Administration federal agency, concurrent jurisdiction with the State intended under U.S.C.A., section 903."); Hartford Tucker, 621 A.2d 1339, 1341 (Conn. 1993) ("The anti preemption provision the Controlled Substances Act, evidences the fact that 

Congress specifically considered the issue concurrent state proceedings and 
decided allow them.").3 this case, the AMMA can give validity acts prohibited the CSA. "positive conflict" exists and the two statutory schemes cannot "consistently 
stand together." The plain purpose and function the CSA occupy the field 
and trump preempt the non-supporting state law. H.R. Rep. No. 91-1444, 
22, reprinted 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4566, 4566, 4567, 4588. While the CSA 
permits overlapping regulation the States, only the extent that state 
provision not more permissive. Congress itself has reiterated that any state 
legalization attempts conflicts with and are preempted the CSA: 
(3) pursuant section the Controlled Substances Act, illegal manufacture, distribute, dispense marijuana ... (5) marijuana ... [has] not been approved the Food and Drug Administration treat any disease case from the U.S. Supreme Court during the era alcohol prohibition illuminates the nature concurrent jurisdiction this context. United States Lanza, the Court considered the propriety prohibition-related liquor charges brought against defendants both the United States and the state Washington. 260 U.S. 377, 378-79 (1922). Lanza, there was question that the state Washington and the federal government had concurrent jurisdiction. Id. 381. particular, with respect prohibition, the Eighteenth Amendment specifically established concurrent jurisdiction. See U.S. Const. amend. XVIII, Yet, according the Lanza Court, the existence concurrent power "does not enable Congress the several states defeat thwart the prohibition, but only enforce appropriate means." 260 U.S. 380 (quoting the National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350, 387 (1920)). The Lanza Court further stated that "each may, without interference the other, enact laws secure prohibition, with the limitation that legislation can give 
validity acts prohibited the amendment." Id. 382. condition; (6) the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act already prohibits the sale any unapproved drug, including marijuana ... (11) Congress continues support the existing federal legal process for determining the safety and efficacy drugs and opposes efforts circumvent this process legalizing marijuana ... for medicinal use without valid scientific evidence and the approval the Food and Drug Administration. 
See Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, Pub. No. 105-277 (1998), Div. 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-760 through 2681-761 (section entitled "Not Legalizing Marijuana for Medicinal Use"). 
Here, the law clear. Marijuana Schedule drug and federal law makes serious criminal offense "manufacture, distribute, dispense" "possess with intent manufacture, distribute, dispense" it. U.S.C.  841(a)(l). Federal law authorizes single entity, the DEA, select one marijuana research facility and has done so, the University Mississippi. not Arizona, Maricopa County, Plaintiff-Appellee. The AMMA direct conflict with federal law and thus preempted. 
II. The AMMA Conflicts with U.S. addition preemption the CSA, Arizona's attempt license and regulate marijuana runs afoul United States' treaty obligations. For this independent reason, the AMMA must give way. 
Treaties are tmquestionably the "supreme law the land" and trump any contrary state statutes, including the AMMA. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl.2. Not only the federal government obligated under this international drug treaty regime, but 

the individual states are well. "As law the United States, international law 
also the law every State, basis for the exercise judicial authority State 
courts, and cognizable cases State courts, the same way other United 
States law." Restatement (third) Foreign Relations Law the United States 
111 cmt. (1986). 
Notably, the U.S. Congress has recognized that: 
(7) The courts the United States have repeatedly found that any State law that conflicts with federal law treaty preempted such law treaty. (8) The Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 seq.) strictly regulates the use and possession drugs. (9) The United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances [Dec. 20, 1988, Treaty Doc. No. 101-4 (1989)] ... similarly regulates the use and possession drugs. (10) Any attempt authorize under State law activity prohibited under such Treaty the Controlled Substances Act would conflict with that Treaty Act. 
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, Pub. 
No. 105-277 (1998), Div. 112 Stat. 2681, 2681, 2681-759. The AMMA 
conflict with the U.S. treaty obligations and federal law and preempted. 

The AMMA purports authorize activity -the licensing and regulation marijuana -that direct conflict with federal law. The statutory scheme set forth the AMMA cannot "consistently stand together" with the plain mandate 

set forth federal law and U.S. treaty obligations. The AMMA preempted federal law. simply null and void. Crow Wainwright, 720 F.2d 1224, 1225 (11th Cir. 1983) (preempted state statute "null and void"). this case, the trial court has ordered Maricopa County certify that proposed medical marijuana dispensary and cultivation facility complies with applicable zoning requirements. not express, certainly implicit the zoning code that order obtain permit, the proposed facility must lawful. Here, there question that the cultivation and dispensing marijuana -medical otherwise -is comprehensively regulated federal law and that Appellee's proposed facility directly contrary and violation federal law. The AMMA cannot and does not alter this. Maricopa County cannot issue zoning permit for facility for the cultivation and dispensing marijuana any more than could issue permit establish "meth lab" print shop for counterfeit currency. Our federal system does not permit such result. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Amicus reverse the ruling the trial court. Dated: March 19, 2013 respectfully requests that this Court 
Respectfully submitted, 
Isl Todd Feltus 
Todd Feltus (#019076) KERCSMAR FELTUS PLLC 6263 Scottsdale Road, Suite 320 Scottsdale, Arizona 85250 
(480) 421-1001 tfeltus@kflawaz.com 
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Judicial Watch, Inc. Counsel: 
Paul Orfanedes James Peterson JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 425 Third Street, S.W., Ste. 800 Washington, 20024 
(202) 646-5172 THE COURT APPEALS THE STATE ARIZONA 

DIVISION ONE 

WHITE MOUNTAIN HEAL CENTER, INC., and Arizona nonprofit corporation, 
Plaintiff-Appellee, 
COUNTY MARlCOP al., Defendants-Appellants. 
STATE ARIZONA rel. THOMAS HORNE, Attorney General his official capacity, 
Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant. 
Court Appeals No. CA-CV 12-0831 
Maricopa County Superior Court No. 2010-015452 
Trial Judge: Hon. Michael Gordon 
APPENDIX BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE JUDICIAL INC. 
Todd Feltus (#019076) KERCSMAR FELTUS PLLC 6263 Scottsdale Road, Suite 320 Scottsdale, Arizona 85250 
(480) 421-1001 tfeltus@kflawaz.com 
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Judicial Watch, Inc. 
Todd Feltus 
From: 	Jim Peterson [JPeterson@JUDICIALWATCH.ORG] 
Sent: 	Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:45 
To: 	Todd Feltus 
Subject: 	FW: White Mountain Health Care Center Inc. County Maricopa, al., 2012-053585 (Sup. Ct., Maricopa Co., Ariz.) 
From: Irish Doug Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 6:03 To: Paul Orfanedes Cc: Mark Spencer; White Bruce; Muthig Klaus Subject: RE: White Mountain Health Care Center Inc. County Maricopa, al., 2012-053585 (Sup. Ct., Maricopa Co., Ariz.) 
Good afternoon. 
This e-mail will serve consent the County and Mr. Montgomery your filing amicus brief support our appeal. You will likely need get additional consent from the other defendants. The State defendants are represented Charles Grube the Attorney General's office. copy this colleagues Bruce White and Peter Muthig, I'm asking one them forward you copies the pleadings and moving papers this case, including our unsuccessful effort obtain stay the Court Appeals Judge Gordon's ruling. 
Douglas Irish Special Assistant, lntergovernrnental Relations Civil Services Division Chief Maricopa County Attorney's Office 222 North Central Ave, Suite 1100 Phoenix, 85004 602-506-6173 

From: Paul Orfanedes Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:49 To: Irish Doug Cc: Mark Spencer Subject: White Mountain Health Care Center Inc. County Maricopa, al., 2012-053585 (Sup. Ct., Maricopa Co., Ariz.) 
Dear Mr. Irish: understand that Maricopa County has noticed appeal from Judge Michael Gordon's December 2012 ruling the above-captioned matter. Judicial Watch, Inc. interested filing amicus curiae brief support Maricopa County. The County Attorney suggested contact you. are hoping that can obtain the parties written consent file amicus curiae brief. also were hoping that your office could email pdf the complaint well the moving papers for the County's cross-motion for summary judgment. 
Thank you for your attention this matter. 
Paul Orfanedes 
Director Litigation Judicial Watch, Inc. 
(202) 646-5165 

Todd Feltus 

From:  Jim Peterson [JPeterson@JUDICIALWATCH.ORG]  
Sent:  Tuesday, March 19, 20131:45  
To:  Todd Feltus  
Subject:  FW: White Mountain Health Center County Maricopa, No. CA-CV-0831  

From: Grube, Charles Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 7:46 To: Jim Peterson Subject: RE: White Mountain Health Center County Maricopa, No. CA-CV-0831 
Jim, behalf the State Arizona rel. Thomas Horne, are happy consent the filing amicus curiae brief Judicial Watch. Please let know you need anything else. 
From: Jim Peterson Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 To: Grube, Charles; Subject: White Mountain Health Center County Maricopa, No. CA-CV-0831 
Counsel, client, Judicial Watch, Inc., wishes file brief amicus curiae support Maricopa County and the State the above-captioned case. accordance with Rule 16(a), request your written consent file such brief with the Court Appeals. The County has already consented this request. Counsel for Appellee has consented the condition that they have opportunity file brief response. Thank you for your attention this matter. 
Sincerely, 
James Pete rson Senior Attorney Judicial Watch, Inc. 
425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washingto 20024 202-646-5175 (direct) 

Todd Feltus  
From:  Jim Peterson [JPeterson@JUDICIALWATCH.ORG]  
Sent:  Monday, March 18, 2013 10:35  
To:  Todd Feltus  
Subject:  Fwd: White Mountain Health Center County Maricopa, No. CA-CV-0831  

Todd see below 
Sentfrom Verizon Wireless LTE DROJD 
--------Original Message -------Subject: RE: White Mountain Health Center County Maricopa, No. CA-CV-0831 From: Kelly Flood 
To: Jim Peterson Pochoda 
CC: "Emma Andersson Edwards