To: The honorable LANCE P. JENSEN, JUDGE SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY 1275 North Berkeley Avenue, P.O.

Box 5000, Fullerton, CA 92632-0500 From: , Citizen

The State of California , CA RE: Elucidation of State Statutes as they pertain to Case Number 11HF0567, People vs. Doull Charged with violating California Health and Safety Codes 11359 and 11360 (Please send a written response.)

Your Honor, This case has come to my attention via social media. I am concerned not just for the case but the underlying message that it may send from your Court; the highest court in our State. The underlying message: the Orange County District Attorney office is allowed to prosecute California citizens, preferentially or with prejudice, in direct opposition to California Voter Approved Law in California Superior Courts. Please let me explain how I developed these concerns: First, I understand that the defendant possessed less than 8 ounces of medical Marijuana at the time of his arrest as stated in the arresting officer' report. That seems to be in accordance with the California State Law 11362.77.
11362.77. (a) A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient.

Second, I understand the defendant held Marijuana in the Care, Custody and Control for the dispersement to his fellow Collective members as the Director of the legally formed California Non-Profit Corporation named Grand Daddy Phoenix, Inc. Additionally, I understand there is no evidence, visual or audible, of ANY dispersement of marijuana; rather blank and patient-filled-in Membership forms for the legally formed California Non-Profit Corporation 'Grand Daddy Phoenix, Inc.' as stated in the arresting officers report. Seemingly, also in accordance with the California State Law 11365.775.
11365.775 Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570.

Third, It is my understanding that defendant possessed a Valid Medical Marijuana Identification Card issued to him at his expense through the State of California Voluntary Medical Marijuana Identification Program at the time of his arrest as stated in the arresting officer' report. This however does not seem in accordance with California State Laws 11362.78 / 11362.71.
11362.78. A state or local law enforcement agency or officer shall not refuse to accept an identification card issued by the department unless the state or local law enforcement agency or officer has reasonable cause to believe that the information contained in the card is false or fraudulent, or the card is being used fraudulently. 11362.71. (2)(e) No person or designated primary caregiver in possession of a valid identification card shall be subject to arrest for possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana in an amount established pursuant to this article, unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the information contained in the card is false or falsified, the card has been obtained by means of fraud, or the person is otherwise in violation of the provisions of this article.

Fourth, I do believe these laws are current:

11362.5. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. (b) (1) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows: (B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical

purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction. 11362.765(c) A primary caregiver who receives compensation for actual expenses, including reasonable compensation incurred for services provided to an eligible qualified patient or person with an identification card to enable that person to use marijuana under this article, or for payment for outof-pocket expenses incurred in providing those services, or both, shall not, on the sole basis of that fact, be subject to prosecution or punishment under Section 11359 or 11360. 11365.775 Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570.

As a citizen reliant upon the laws of my State to be the 'final word' when deciding the legal behavior of any citizen, including myself, I feel a voter-approved law is by far the highest voice our Courts should heed. Understandably, I am also a person who fully believes and holds trust in the integrity of our Court system to uphold the Laws of California as they are written, especially those laws that are enacted due to citizen popular vote. That is why I have the following questions: 1) Why is the Court allowing the Orange County District Attorney to prosecute an individual in direct opposition to 3 parts of voter-approved California State laws that clearly state that person shall not be subject to arrest or prosecution? 2) Will the allowance to operate in direct opposition of voter-approved California State law by the Orange County District Attorney Prosecutors in this case deem future permission to prosecute any individual for any crime regardless of a) the written law, b) the protections written into law expected by the citizens that approved and adhere to those laws? 3) As the courts are funded by tax revenue, I am very concerned that the Court would allow the case listed above to persist for 2.5 years over the coarse of 25 Court hearings...at tax-payer expense; As these laws were in effect 15 years before the defendant was detained and arrested I am wondering when will the Court see fit to reprimand the Orange County District Attorney Prosecutors for malicious or prejudicial prosecution...in the interest of the Court' expense and time, Justice and most importantly State Law? I am truly concerned about the underlying message that would come if this person is prosecuted. It would send a clear 2fold message. First, that voting, popular decision and the entire democratic process is a farce and not worthwhile to take part in as the approved laws are not heeded where it matters to the voting citizen...in a Court of Law. Second, telling the citizens of California that the Superior Court in the State of California is no longer ruled by the laws of the State; rather the preferential interests and possibly illegal actions of the Prosecuting District Attorneys and the Judges running its Courtrooms. Even a vague notion of these ideas is unacceptable. The precedence set by your Honor allowing these proceedings to continue against the written law will tarnish the public view of our Court system and further show citizens they cannot trust in the law as it is written. This case is scheduled to start prosecution on July 2, 2013. Please take note of my concerns as you allow or disallow this person to be prosecuted. Thank you very much, Signed Date

The laws quoted above are from the State of California online at - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/sen/sb_04010450/sb_420_bill_20031012_chaptered.html