DEA Religious Exemption Process

Here is a link to a post I made here with an old account in 2011

Pan Shiva Agni AtumRa Mut

I smoke weed in reverence to Shiva. My philosophy of the world studies the history of the planet and the humans and uses aspects from all places to fit together all the best pieces from the puzzles of the world to make a more beautiful, precise while broad one. The gods I currently align most...
www.420magazine.com
 
Dallas County District Case against Ken Paxton and the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) regarding Religious Exemption and the Compassionate Use Program (CUP)

Case
#DC-19-02400

RYAN GALLAGHER vs. TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL (KEN PAXTON), et al
 
This is how to file a formal Complaint against a Federal Judge. It shows up in the Court Record at the end, the same as a Federal Court Case, but instead of

Plaintiff v. Defendant, no. 123456 (Circuit or District/State/Year)

It is

In re: Judicial Complaint, no. 123456 (Circuit/Year)
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20190223-181651_Twitter.jpg
    Screenshot_20190223-181651_Twitter.jpg
    313.8 KB · Views: 162
Please PM me with any Religious Marijuana cases you know of that are currently happening, or friends case you know of who are using a Religious Marijuana Defense in a Possession Case.

I am looking to File Amicus Briefs on ongoing cases. My Federal Cases are moving slowly but they are about to happen, and I filed a State case which will move faster, but because the Federal Cases have been open for so long, they will start moving along with the State case and not after it.

I have mailed in filings on these Cases, please send more for me to file on if you know of anyone with a Religious Marijuana Case.

Colorado v. Berke, 17-GS-5001882 (Denver County 2019)

Brown v. Jordan, 5:18cv05199 (WD Ark 2019)

Luther v. White, 5:17cv138 (WD KY 2019)

California v. HHS, 4:17cv05783 (ND Cal 2019)

Olsen v. Iowa Board of Pharm., 05771-cvcv056841 (Polk County Iowa District Court 2019)
 
The DEA has responded to the Small Business Administration. I was told today that the response is on the National Ombudsmans desk, and will be reviewed and released. I will post it here. Then I will move forward in the Small Business Administration complaint process.
 
It is actually not in the Law, they are not doing it based on Statutes (Congressional Law) or Case Law, but their own Administrative Procedure. And that is what i am challenging. My cases are mainly about Administrative Procedure of the DEA and FDA.
 
I followed their Guidelines and it has lead to Constitutional Violations of Entanglement with Religion and Self Incrimination. The Marijuana Tax Act was overturned in 1969 based on a Self Incrimination Claim made by Timothy Leary, which is why the Controlled Substances Act was created then made Law in 1971.

We are now, in 2019, back in the position of questioning the Legality of the Act itself.
 
SashaShiva said:
It is actually not in the Law, they are not doing it based on Statutes (Congressional Law) or Case Law, but their own Administrative Procedure. And that is what i am challenging. My cases are mainly about Administrative Procedure of the DEA and FDA.
Click to expand...
Man I live in Colorado if they stomp on your rights they way they're trying to hold a protest I'll gladly join.
 
SashaShiva said:
Im actually in Texas now, and they won't stomp on my rights, they are Defendants in a Federal Case, their response is a reflection of that, not a reflection of their Authority.
Click to expand...
Well best of luck, I'm tired of the fed who purchased their portion of the government regulating us small farmers... keeping the small man down and dipping into things they have no place in such as religion
 
The Judge has Acknowledged in my Dallas Federal DEA Case, that there is a Constitutional Issue in my Case, and in his Order states that the Motion for a Rule 5.1 Hearing is Denied "in so much as it asks for Expedited Judgement", which is Acknowledgement of the fact that the Constitutional Questions of Religion that I raised in the Original Complaint and 5.1 Challenge are Valid
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20190303-131359_Samsung Internet.jpg
    Screenshot_20190303-131359_Samsung Internet.jpg
    355.8 KB · Views: 162
SashaShiva said:
The Judge has Acknowledged in my Dallas Federal DEA Case, that there is a Constitutional Issue in my Case, and in his Order states that the Motion for a Rule 5.1 Hearing is Denied "in so much as it asks for Expedited Judgement", which is Acknowledgement of the fact that the Constitutional Questions of Religion that I raised in the Original Complaint and 5.1 Challenge are Valid
Click to expand...
nice work man, keep fighting the law you maybe the first to win
 
Growingasmile said:
nice work man, keep fighting the law you maybe the first to win
Click to expand...

A bunch of things are about to start happening on my cases. And I filed on 5 other people's cases. We're about to have some good Documentation and the DEA and everyone are going to try to make good arguments. And there are going to be some big Judgement and Opinions.
 
Back
Top Bottom