Homeless in Arizona

RAMMP - Registered Arizona Medical Marijuana Patients

To The Honorable,

April 15, 2015 at 2:32pm

To The Honorable Jennifer Campbell,

And to all parties to the cause of action referenced as CR#2012-00998, citedwithin this document as “Zonka Case”, we the Registered Arizona MedicalMarijuana Patients (herein “RAMMP”) have prepared this official statement insupport of the defendant, and all medical marijuana patients within the Stateof Arizona, who have been charged with crimes in relation to activity inconnection with the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (herein “AMMA”) since therepeal of A.R.S. 36-2812 and the issuance of “Registered Medical MarijuanaPatient Identification Card(s)” by the Arizona Department of Health Services(herein “AZDHS”) thus, beginning the enforcement of A.R.S. 36-2811.

The following is not only our interpretation of the AMMA as it pertains to thisparticular case, it is the interpretation, or rather the status quo, of theArizona patient registry.

We have also included full findings and facts of law from not only Arizona, butsimilarly situated sovereign states Michigan, California, Colorado, Washingtonand the District of Columbia.

The State of Arizona is seeing an increase in Rule 16.6(b) Motion To Dismissfilings in relation to charges stemming from conduct related to the AMMA; andas this court is sure to understand, Rule 16.6(b) of the Arizona Rules ofCriminal Procedure provides that “[t]he court, on motion of the defendant,shall order that a prosecution be dismissed upon finding that the indictment,information, or complaint is insufficient as a matter of law.”

Both Arizona courts and the United States Supreme Courtrecognize that an indictment is insufficient as a matter of law “[i]f adefendant can admit to all the allegations charged in the indictment and stillnot have committed a crime.” Mejak v. Granville, 212 Ariz. 555, 556,¶ 4, 136 P.3d 874, 875 (2006) (citing U.S.v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75, 76-79 (1962)). Our concern is that registeredpatients are not knowledgeable of the protections and immunities afforded tothem under the AMMA, nor are the public defenders and paid counsel thatrepresent them as the AMMA is very new and case law is sparse at best.

Some case law does however exist.

Recently the Arizona Supreme Court published the Reed/Kaliher decision whichaffirmed a majority of this brief. This brief, in part, was authored in 2012following the formation of the Arizona Patient Registry System and creating theneed for a registered patient advocacy group such as RAMMP.

RAMMP, is often asked by the medical marijuana community to speak on it'sbehalf regarding matters of lawful activity under the AMMA, and to thecontrary, unlawful activity under the AMMA.

The very heart of the interpretation and intent of the AMMA discussed in thisbrief is also the underlying cause for criminal sanctions and penalties beingapplied to Arizona's registered medical marijuana patients.

Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law that are reviewed denovo. People v Nimeth. The primary goal of judicial interpretation of statutesis to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. People vWilliams. However, because the AMMA was a result of voter initiative, our goalis to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the electorate, rather thanthe legislature, as reflected in the language of the law itself. People vKolanek/King.

Referencing People v Barbee, the Court has also said that it must give thewords of the AMMA their ordinary and plain meaning as would have beenunderstood by the electorate. This was recently affirmed in Reed/Kaliherreferenced throughout this brief.

One issue before the court is whether the definition of “medical use” containedin the AMMA encompasses patient to patient sales/transfers and we shall addressthat first as it is the underlying factor in many of the charges presentedbefore this court.

Therefore we will examine the intent of the electorate who passed theinitiative in support of the medical use of marijuana, rather than that of thelegislature which has been publicly and historically opposed to marijuana usein Arizona, for any reason.

We will examine the information that was made available to the public from thedesignated regulator of the AMMA, the AZDHS, through it’s mailed publicationsand public website, and how "Chevron Deference" should be applied bythe court in regards to that information, as any "interpretation"AZDHS offers the public has the "full force of law". see 467 U.S. 837(1984).

In November 2010, voters passed the Arizona MedicalMarijuana Act (AMMA). The citizen initiative (Proposition 203) required theArizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) to create a medical marijuanaprogram within 120 days from the certification date of official electionresults. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Program went into effect on April 14,2011. However, the first AMMA dispensarylicense was not issued until November 15, 2012.

The controversy surrounding patient to patient transfers ofmarijuana is as old as the AMMA itself, starting with Tom Horne along withThomas Salow from AZDHS filing a request for declaratory judgement. Thatrequest contained their interpretation of one particular section of the AMMA,section 36-2811(B)(3).

That statute, in relevant part, provides immunity to aregistered qualifying patient or registered designated caregiver “[f]oroffering or providing marijuana to a registered qualifying patient or aregistered designated caregiver for the registered qualifying patient’s medicaluse or to a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary if nothing ofvalue is transferred in return and the person giving the marijuana does not knowinglycause the recipient to possess more than the allowable amount ofmarijuana.” A.R.S. §36 2811(B)(3) inrelevant part. That statute will be examined thoroughly throughout thisdocument as will its relation to the underlying criminal charges in numerouscases across the State.

There is no other provision in the AMMA that reinforces theState’s interpretation. There is,however, another provision that is supportive of the more our interpretationthat is consistent with the Rule of Lenity. That provision clearly supports Petitioner’s interpretation. A.R.S. §36-2815(C) provides as follows:

Any cardholder who sellsmarijuana to a person who is not allowed to possess marijuana for medicalpurposes under this chapter shall have his registry identification cardrevoked, and shall be subject to other penalties for the unauthorized sale ofmarijuana and other applicable offenses.(emphasis added)

The above statute is significant because it only requiresthe revocation of a registry identification card where a patient sellsmarijuana to a non-cardholder. In other words, patient-to-patient saleswould not cause the patient transferring the marijuana to have his cardrevoked. If patient-to-patient saleswere meant to be equally prohibited, one would expect that A.R.S. §36-2815(C)would also require the card to be revoked for engaging in that conduct. The canon of construction expressio uniusest exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes allothers", Martens v. Industrial Com'nof Arizona, 121 P.3d 186, 188, 211 Ariz. 319 (AZ, 2005)) applies withparticular force in this context and further strengthens the argument thatpatient-to-patient transfers for value are permitted by the AMMA, and therestriction on receiving value only applies to patient-to-dispensarytransfers.

Further, “R9-17-101 Definitions”, in the AZDHS Rules Packagestates with clarity that both sections of “definitions” are applicable “unlessotherwise stated”. See below.

R9-17-101. Definitions

In addition to the definitions in A.R.S. § 36-2801, the following definitionsapply in this Chapter unless otherwise stated:

1. “Acquire” means to obtain through any type of transaction and from anysource.

This interpretation ofthe word “acquire” which is simply another participle of the word “acquire” waswidely distributed and is currently being displayed by AZDHS, and therefore, isbinding under Chevron deference. In 1984, in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural ResourcesDefense Council, Inc., the Supreme Court announced a simple rule: courts mustdefer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous administrativestatutes. The Court has been chipping away at this blanket rule of deferenceever since. Most significantly, inUnited States v. Mead Corp., the Court stated that Chevron’s application shouldbe limited to agency interpretations issued with the “force of law”, force thatin this instance AZDHS has unquestionably been entitled with.

“The Arizona RevisedStatutes (A.R.S.) represents the statutory laws of the state of Arizona. TheA.R.S. and the Arizona Medical Marijuana Rules each contain requirementsapplicable to the Arizona Medical Marijuana Program. Accordingly, to fullyunderstand all the requirements applicable to the Arizona Medical MarijuanaProgram, the A.R.S. and the Arizona Medical Marijuana Rules should be read inconjunction with each other.” – AZDHS on azdhs.com/medicalmarijuana/rules.

Simply put, it is our belief that any patient reading therequired sections as listed in the above statement from AZDHS, as well ashaving been instructed by AZDHS to “read them in conjunction” would havedetermined the sections were to be used in conjunction as well. When read andused in conjunction, without interpretation, the plain text of the law whenalongside the stated intent of the act clearly allow patient to patienttransfers with or without remuneration.

If patients have immunities and protections in accordancewith;

36-2811. Presumption of medical use of marijuana;protections; civil penalty

(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)

A. There is a presumption that a qualifying patient ordesignated caregiver is engaged in the medicaluse of marijuana pursuant to this chapter. (emphasis added)

1. The presumption exists if the qualifying patient ordesignated caregiver:

(a) Is in possession of a registry identification card.

(b) Is in possession of an amount of marijuana that does notexceed the allowable amount of marijuana.

B. A registered qualifying patient or registered designatedcaregiver is not subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner, ordenial of any right or privilege, including any civil penalty or disciplinaryaction by a court or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau:

1. For the registered qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana pursuant tothis chapter, if the registered qualifying patient does not possess more thanthe allowable amount of marijuana.(emphasis added)

…And “medical use”has been defined within the text to read as follows:

9. "Medical use"means the acquisition, possession,cultivation, manufacture, use, administration, delivery, transfer or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia relatingto the administration of marijuana to treat or alleviate a registeredqualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated withthe patient's debilitating medical condition.

Therefore, we contend that the electorate would haveassociated the ability to “transfer”medical marijuana, from one person authorized to possess under this chapter toanother person authorized to possess under this chapter, within the allowable amountas defined in ARS 36-2801(1)(i), and their ability to “acquire” an allowableamount of medical marijuana as defined in R9-17-101(1), as part of their lawful“medical use”, which, as stated, can be “through any type of transaction andfrom any source”. The word transaction is not defined in the body of the AMMAso the court would look the intent of the electorate once again and apply theplain meaning as they would have understood it.

A “transaction” according to the Merriam-Webster onlinedictionary is as follows:

TRANSACTION- a business deal : an occurrence in which goods,services, or money are passed from one person, account, etc., to another

: the act or process of doing business with another person,company, etc.

: the act or process of transacting business

Again, we assert the electorate understood this as to allowfor patient-to-patient transfers of marijuana and the restriction on such saleswas clearly delineated in the code and the penalty was clearly described in thecode as well.

“Any cardholder who sells marijuana to a person notauthorized to possess under this chapter shall have his card revoked and shallbe subject to applicable penalties for the unauthorized sale of marijuana.” Theword “Any” is used in common fashion, in it’s plain meaning, and we highlydoubt the state prosecutor’s office would not concede the same in it’s effortsto prosecute “any cardholder”, whether it be a patient, caregiver or dispensaryagent that violated this section. Per the text of the law all three of theaforementioned class of “cardholder” would be subject to penalty for the “unauthorizedsale of marijuana”. When the stated intent of the law is reviewed alongsidethis reading of the text itself, to the electorate, the intent and this interpretationof the text are harmonious.

Let’s start with the remaining pertinent statutes.

36-2804.02. Registration of qualifying patients anddesignated caregivers

3. An application, including:

(a) Name, mailing address, residence address and date ofbirth of the qualifying patient except that if the applicant is homeless noaddress is required.

(b) Name, address and telephone number of the qualifyingpatient's physician.

(c) Name, address and date of birth of the qualifyingpatient's designated caregiver, if any.

(d) A statementsigned by the qualifying patient pledging not to divert marijuana to anyone whois not allowed to possess marijuana pursuant to this chapter.

(e) A signedstatement from the designated caregiver, if any, agreeing to be the patient'sdesignated caregiver and pledging not to divert marijuana to anyone who is notallowed to possess marijuana pursuant to this chapter.

(f) A designationas to who will be allowed to cultivate marijuana plants for the qualifyingpatient's medical use if a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary isnot operating within twenty-five miles of the qualifying patient's home.

Section (d)clearly contemplates that patients are allowed to transfer marijuana to otherpatients, and lists the restriction that the recipient must be “allowed topossess marijuana pursuant to this chapter”. Section (e) says that only caregivers must register as such. It puts an onus on both parties—the caregiverand the patient. However, distinct fromthat section, section (f) says that a patient has to notify ADHS who willcultivate for them. It does not requirethe cultivator to do anything. Inherently, in the fact that the drafters separated the requirements ofa cultivator versus a caregiver clearly allows for a cultivator who is not thecaregiver.

The courtfirst considers the statutory language, “the best and most reliable index of astatute’s meaning.” Jansen v. Christensen, 167 Ariz. 470, 471, 808 P.2d 1222,1223 (1991). Courts give effect to eachword or phrase and apply the “usual and commonly understood meaning.” Bilke v.State, 206 Ariz. 462, 464-65, 80 P.3d 268, 271-72 (2003). Each word or phrase is given meaning Id., SeeWilliams v. Thude, 188 Ariz. 257, 259, 934 P.2d 1349, 1351 (1997) (wheninterpreting a statute, a court presumes the legislature intended each word andclause to have meaning). It is RAMMP’s beliefthat had the drafters wanted to limit cultivation for a patient to dispensaryor caregiver it would have done so. Had they wanted to limit transfers betweenpatients they would have done so.

Next we lookat statute 36-2808 titled Notificationsto department; civil penalty.

In applicable part it states:

A registeredqualifying patient shall notify the department within ten days of any change inthe registered qualifying patient's name, address, designated caregiver or preference regarding who maycultivate marijuana for the registered qualifying patient or if the registeredqualifying patient ceases to have his debilitating medical condition. (emphasisadded) 36-2808(A).

Again thestatute differentiates between designated caregiver and preference who maycultivate marijuana for the registered qualifying patient. This shows clear intent that AMMA allowssomeone other than the caregiver to be a cultivator and does not require thecultivator to register. A violation ofthis section would be no more than a $150.00 fine. 36-2808(F). Only the patient can be fined for failing to notify who their cultivatoris, yet case after case is progressing through the Arizona Judicial system inwhich the defendant has been charged with “constructive possession” of morethan the allowable amount of useable marijuana.

The AZDHS hasoffered an interpretation to the registered medical marijuana patients ofArizona via the official AZDHS website and it’s written publications toregistered patients via the United States Postal Service in delivering the “AZDHSMonthly Medical Marijuana Newsletter”.

CU02: Doesa qualifying patient or designated caregiver authorized to grow have to followthe same requirements as a dispensary to cultivate marijuana?

No. the onlyrequirements that qualifying patient or designated caregivers who areauthorized to cultivate marijuana must follow are the number of plants grown inan “enclosed, locked facility.”

And againin;

CU04: Cana qualifying patient or designated caregiver authorized to grow medicalmarijuana use the same enclosed, locked facility used by another qualifyingpatient or designated caregiver also authorized to grow medical marijuana?Would these facilities be subject to inspection?

Sites usedby qualifying patients or designated caregivers to grow marijuana are notsubject to inspection by the Department. However, state law limits the numberof plants that may be grown and includes the requirement that cultivation bedone in "an enclosed, locked facility”. Clearly, theelectorate reading such materials distributed to them by AZDHS would then interpretthe AMMA to include shared cultivation locations. This is common practice in amajority of states that allow for personal cultivation of medical marijuanaincluding our neighboring states California and Colorado at the time and nowNevada as well. “Collective cultivation” offers patients the same benefits thatstandard community garden projects do which is the ability share in the laboras well as costs of the cultivation, as well as share in the harvest of theshared cultivation with each member getting a predetermined portion. We now lookto the intent of the AMMA, as clearly stated in section “G” of the voterinitiative, which reads "G. State law should make a distinction betweenthe medical and nonmedical uses of marijuana. Hence, the purpose of this act isto protect patients with debilitating medical conditions, as well as theirphysicians and providers, from arrest and prosecution, criminal and otherpenalties and property forfeiture if such patients engage in the medical use ofmarijuana." Theelectorate's intent in defining "medical use" as it did was to aidrather than hinder the acquisition and transfer of medical marijuana toregistered patients. Next, inregards to the immunities and protections patients are given by the AMMA, firstwe need to look at whether a marijuana related crime has been committed andwhat might constitute evidence of that crime. It is probable cause andreasonable suspicion that govern the interaction between law enforcement andcitizens. It is probable cause and reasonable suspicion that is at the heart ofthe conflict between the AMMA and other ARS code that inflicts criminalpenalties for marijuana related activity. A patient card shows that the holder is entitled by the state to medically usemarijuana. When verified by accompanying photo ID it identifies the holder asexempt from ARS criminal code regarding marijuana use and identifies anultimate user of a controlled substance under lawful doctor's recommendationand entitled to use it medically as defined by the AMMA. Possession of the carddemonstrates the patient's state-granted entitlement to broad immunity from"arrest, prosecution, and penalty" for the patient's "medicaluse" of marijuana.

The card does not demonstrate an immunity from acts that are illegal under theAMMA. Under the AMMA it is illegal for any "cardholder" sec. 36-2801to 1) "sell(s) marijuana to a person not authorized to possess" formedical purposes under the AMMA per sec. 36-2815(d) or 2) make fraudulentrepresentations to law enforcement official of any fact or circumstancerelating to the medical use of marijuana to avoid arrest or prosecution. The AMMAdoes not otherwise define prohibited conduct and it does not authorizepunishment for noncompliance. Rather, it grants immunity from arrest,prosecution, or penalty to those that meet the delineated requirements. The AMMAdoes provide a list of activities that are not protected by a patient'simmunities such as undertaking any task under the influence of marijuana whendoing so would be negligent possessing marijuana on a school bus, or schoolgrounds or in a correctional facility; smoking marijuana in a public place oron public transportation or using marijuana without a serious or debilitatingmedical condition. A patient "may be subject to arrest, prosecution orother applicable penalty" under statutes or ordinances that make suchconduct illegal to the extent that those statutes or ordinances do not conflictwith the AMMA. However, to be convicted under an act or part of an act that isinconsistent with the AMMA, the state must provide proof that the patientfailed to comply with the requirements of the AMMA. The patient is exempt from the criminal provisions of theARS code regarding marijuana "acquisition, use, possession, transportation,manufacture", etc. The legality of the patient's actions is determined bythe AMMA and whatever laws do not conflict with it. The card determines what happens when a patient or caregiver has a policeencounter. However it is reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminalactivity that determines whether a police encounter will occur at all. Terry vOhio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Marijuana and the cannabis plant it comes from are nolonger contraband per se under Arizona law, and their suspected possession, useand cultivation do not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activitywithout more. Once an officer has identified a citizen as a"registered cardholder", that person is immune from arrest and isfree from search and seizure unless the encounter or investigation has resultedin probable cause to believe that the patient has )1 sold marijuana to a personnot authorized to possess for medical purposes under the AMMA or 2) madefraudulent statements or representations to a law enforcement official of anyfact or circumstance relating to the medical use of marijuana to avoid arrestor prosecution or 3) engaged in activities specifically prohibited by the AMMA(as listed above) or 4) in plain view has more marijuana that is permitted perthat individual cardholder's authorized "allowable amount". This makes perfect sense in that it coincides with the waypolice interact with citizens in enforcing alcoholic beverage laws. Uponobserving someone purchase or consume an alcoholic beverage, a policeman asksfor appropriate identification, an ID determining the person's adulthood andhence, privilege to consume the substance. The person cannot however, sell to someone under age or lie about his/her oranother's age to avoid arrest. Nor can he/she engage in other activitiesotherwise made illegal regarding the use of alcoholic, DUI, publicintoxication, etc. Even accepting that a registered patient or caregiver is not entirely exemptfrom existing ARS code regarding marijuana and loses immunity from arrest,prosecution, and penalty under its provisions if engaging in conduct notprotected by the AMMA, the patient cannot be convicted without proof that heviolated the terms of his immunity. The patient therefore cannot be searched orhave property seized without probable cause to believe that they have violatedthose terms. To hold otherwise is to stand the AMMA on its head. In order forthe AMMA to have the practical effect of "protecting patients, physiciansand providers from arrest, prosecution and property forfeiture" thestandard of probable cause must reflect the protections, rights, immunities andentitlements granted therein. Whether it is termed an immunity, a privilege or a right,once the entitlement is granted, its continued possession may become essentialto the patient's continued health or the caregiver's continued pursuit of alivelihood. Taking away these immunities thus involves state action thatadjudicates important interests of the patient or caregiver. Such entitlementsare not to be taken away without procedural due process required by the FourthAmendment. Sniadach v. family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L. ed.2d. 349(1969) This is but an application of the general proposition that the relevantconstitutional restraints limit state power to terminate an entitlement whetherthe entitlement is denominated a 'right' or a 'privilege' Sherbert v Verner,374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 l.Ed.2d 965 (1963). Having chosen to extend the right to medically use marijuana- and be immune from arrest for lawfully doing so - to these qualifiedcitizens, Arizona may not "withdraw that right on grounds of misconduct,absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether the misconduct hasoccurred." Goss v Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) at 574. In Arizona, the mere allegations of a police officer are not sufficient toautomatically strip a citizen of an entitlement. And yet, that is preciselywhat law enforcement does when it summarily arrests patients and caregivers andcharges them with felonious conduct under ARS criminal code regardingmarijuana, complaining of non-compliance with the AMMA. "Due processdemands a preliminary screening by a decision maker more detached than acomplaining witness". it demands a magistrate that is fully apprised ofthe fact that the suspect is a licensed patient or caregiver and specificallydescribe the conduct that would justify stripping his immunity before he isarrested." see sec 36-2815 E in which this is clearly outlined, "Revocation is a final decision of the department subject to judicialreview pursuant to title 12, chapter 7, article 6. Jurisdiction and venue arevested in the superior court. " Like A PoliceOfficer, A Registered Patient Or caregiver Is Exempt From The Criminal Code ForHis Lawful Possession And Use Of Marijuana Like a registered medical marijuana patient or caregiver, a law enforcementofficer is authorized to sometimes possess marijuana. It must be in the courseof his official duties. He can even distribute marijuana to another in thecourse of an investigation. He is exempt from the criminal code and immune fromprosecution under it for such lawful conduct. Likewise under Federal Law. Statev Kama, 178 Or. App 561 (2002). Of course an officer is not immune from arrest and prosecution under thecontrolled substances act for all of his marijuana related conduct. Only thatwhich is authorized and lawful. See e.g. US v Flannigan, 31 M.J. 240 (US Ct.Military App. 1990) A badge is not a get out of jail free card. A policeman's badge symbolizes the officer’s immunity. A patient's orcaregiver's registry card symbolizes his. To search a police officer and arresthim for a violation of the controlled substances act would require probablecause to believe that his conduct was unlawful and unauthorized so as to beoutside the scope of his immunity...In his case, official duties. To search andarrest a valid registry card-carrying patient must require the same stateburden. Otherwise, neither the card nor the badge mean anything. Defendants are being prosecuted under the Arizona criminalcode, 36-3405. It is that statute that must be construed here. And it must beconstrued in light of the AMMA. The AMMA contains a broad preemption clause to ensure that qualifyingindividuals acting in accordance with the AMMA may not be subject to arrest,prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege fortheir use of marijuana for medical purposes. We must give the fullest possible effect to the legislative purpose underlyingharmonious statutes without overreaching, unreasonableness, or absurdity. TheArizona criminal code and the AMMA are not harmonious. However, if multiplestatutes can be construed in a way that avoids conflict, that constructionshould control. Such are the rules of harmony. Where the AMMA and the criminalcode play discordant notes, the criminal code is silenced. Muted. In Arizona, the mere allegations of a police officer are notsufficient to automatically strip a citizen of an entitlement. And yet, that isprecisely what law enforcement does when it summarily arrests patients and caregiversand charges them with felonious conduct under ARS criminal code regardingmarijuana, complaining of non-compliance with the AMMA. "Due processdemands a preliminary screening by a decision maker more detached than acomplaining witness". it demands a magistrate that is fully apprised ofthe fact that the suspect is a licensed patient or caregiver and specificallydescribe the conduct that would justify stripping his immunity before he isarrested." see sec 36-2815 E in which this is clearly outlined, "Revocation is a final decision of the department subject to judicialreview pursuant to title 12, chapter 7, article 6. Jurisdiction and venue arevested in the superior court. " No such revocation occurred in the case before this court. The “Zonka Case” and numerous other cases are making theirway through Arizona’s judicial system right now, including but not limited tothe Pima County “Matlock” case in which Judge Fields dismissed similar chargesagainst a defendant citing the Rule of Lenity, as well as the recentReed/Kaliher decision published on April 7th. The defendants in this case, and in many others, are beingprosecuted in what RAMMP believes to be clear violations of the protections andimmunities afforded to them for acting in compliance with the written text ofboth the ARS code as well as the Rules Package from AZDHS, in violation oftheir right to due process, also codified within the text of the AMMA itself. We ask this court to consider this document and the cases cited herein as our officialunderstanding and position regarding the plain language of the AMMA and toresearch all information supplied within this document prior to any furtherprogression of “prosecution” or “penalty in any manner” against any Registered ArizonaMedical Marijuana Patient. We thank you for your consideration in this matter and anyrelative matters of the same regards, R.A.M.M.P. Member,