February 12, 2010

The Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court

The Arizona Supreme Court
1501 West Washington Street
Suite 402
Phoenix Arizona 85007

Re: CV-09-0387-PR

Dear Clerk (Sarah):

Subsequent to our conversation this morning, enclosed please find in its’ original
envelope my Motion for Permission to Reply and my Reply to the State’s Re-
sponse to my Petition for Review, which I submitted to the Tucson Satellite
Office of the Arizona Supreme Court on Monday afternoon February 08, 2010.

I am re-submitting these documents directly to you, for reasons set forth below:

1. On Monday February 08, 2010 I spoke with the Clerk of the Tucson
Satellite Office of the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the submission of
the above referenced documents.

2. The Clerk instructed me that, prior to submission of the original and seven
copies of each document, I was to go to my local post office to weigh the
package and obtain the proper postage, as budgetary constraints now
required litigants filing their documents with the Tucson Satellite Office to
pay postage for their delivery to the Supreme Court in Phoenix.

3. When I complied with the Clerk’s instructions the Postal Clerk informed
me of postal security provisions which require all packages weighing more
than 13 ounces to be sealed in the presence of a retail service associate at a
Post Office.

4. Since my package was (apparently) in excess of 13 ounces, I was informed

it had to be posted according to the provisions set forth in paragraph 3.

1
5. I purchased the correct postage, obtained a Priority Envelope, and took my
documents to the Arizona Supreme Court Tucson Satellite Office.

6. The Clerk examined and counted my documents, date stamped them,

collected the postage, provided me with the mailing address of the Arizona
Supreme Court in Phoenix, and instructed me to print my own return
address upon the envelope.

7. When I told the Clerk of the postal security provisions she informed me
she was well aware of them and would comply with the provisions as set
forth in paragraphs 3 and 4.

8. Significantly; we briefly discussed the Arizona State budget crisis and the
(apparent) provisions which now require litigants to provide postage for
documents which are first filed in Arizona Supreme Court Satellite Offices
and then sent to the Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix.

9. On late Wednesday afternoon, February 10, 2010, I was informed by my

local post office that the package I submitted to the Tucson Satellite Office
on Monday had been returned for failure to comply with the postal
security regulations as set forth in paragraphs 3, 4 and 7.

10. On Thursday morning February 11, 2010 I called the Tucson Satellite
Office and asked to be directed to the same Clerk who (ostensibly) had
processed my delivery of documents on Monday February 08, 2010.

11. The Clerk informed me she personally had taken my documents to the
post office for inspection and mailing, as provided by procedures set forth
in paragraphs 3, 4 and 7.

12. Subsequently; on Thursday afternoon February 11, 2010 I went to the

Tucson Satellite Office of the Arizona Supreme Court to resolve the issue
of delivery.

13. I engaged the Clerk in brief discussion and was informed that, contrary to
the representations first made by telephone in paragraph 11, she had not
delivered the documents to the Post Office as per postal security
provisions set forth in paragraphs 3, 4, and 7.

14. After more discussion the Clerk informed me that (1) she had complied
with her responsibilities regarding transmittal of the documents to
Phoenix, and (2) regarding the issue of postage and the failure of the Clerk
to properly deliver my documents to the Arizona Supreme Court, I was to
address my concerns to the Post Office for resolution.

15. After more inquiry the Clerk of the Appellate Court, Jeff Handler, joined
the discussion.

2
 16. I informed Mr. Handler that, due to the delay occasioned by the Clerk’s
failure to comply with the postal security provisions as set forth in
paragraphs 3, 4, and 7, I was concerned that the Supreme Court might
subsequently rule on the issue now before the Court without the benefit of
the information contained in my Motion for Permission to Reply to the
State’s Response and in the Reply Brief itself, thus prejudicing my
opportunity for a just resolution of the important issues presented in my
Petition for Review.

17. Mr. Handler then informed me that (1) my opportunity for just resolution
was not prejudiced since the Rules of Appellate Procedure did not provide
a Reply mechanism to a Response to a Petition for Review, and (2) in any
event, should the Court subsequently rule without the benefit of the
information I set forth in my Motion for Permission and the Reply Brief
itself, I could address any concern regarding their ruling directly to the
Court via a Motion for Reconsideration.

18. In sum and substance I then told Mr. Handler that I did not believe his
suggestion was a reasonable solution to a problem occasioned by the
Clerk’s failure to comply with the postal security provisions as set forth in
paragraphs 3, 4, and 7.

19. Moreover; I informed Mr. Handler that should the Tucson Satellite Office
fail to transmit the documents I had properly filed with them on Monday
February 08, 2010, I would seek a legal determination regarding my rights
and the Clerk’s duty to transmit to the Supreme Court documents which
had been properly filed with the Tucson Satellite Office.

20. Mr. Handler responded angrily. In sum and substance he warned me:
“Don’t you ever enter this office again!”

21. When I asked Mr. Handler if he was now prohibiting my access to the
Court he (apparently) activated some sort of device and began calling out
“Security, Security!”

Please be advised that, in response to Mr. Handler’s threatening behavior, I will

be seeking legal and administrative remedies as provided by law.

Yours Truly,

Roy Warden
1015 W. Prince Road
#131-182
Tucson AZ. 85705
(520) 300-4596