- Thread starter
- #101
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
ANTINOMY BRIEF
A Church is not much different in Nature from a State, see Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 (1868). Religion is a form of COMITY INTER GENTES from AFFLATUS. The Separation of Church and State in the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE exists because of the fact that Religion used to be the State, as it is now in Vatican City and the Holy See, Churches may even be a party to CONCORDAT see Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church 210 U.S. 296 (1908); Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 U.S. 111 (1784); Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696 (1976); Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969), and allows American’s to practice not only one Religion, but any Religion, free from persecution. Not only is there an ANTINOMY between the RELIGIOUS FEEDOM RESTORATION ACT / RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUATIONALIZED PERSONS ACT and the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT, there is a CONFLICTUS LEGEM between the Plaintiff’s Church and the Federal State arising from the ANTINOMY, which can be resolved by the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE. RELIGIOUS ACCESSION also needs to be considered in the progress of History, Technology and Knowledge. “The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief”, see 42 U.S. Code § 2000cc–5 (7) (a). “the general characteristics of Schedule I substances cannot carry the day”, see Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal 546 U.S. 418 (2006); Church of Holy Light of the Queen V. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-35058 (9th Cir. 2014). “Congress must first enact a law criminalizing an activity, attach a penalty, and give the Federal courts Jurisdiction”, see Hudson v. United States 522 U.S. 93 (1997). “Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the Free Exercise of Religion”, see FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, I AMENDMENT. "If a Government confronts an individual with a choice that pressures the individual to forgo a Religious practice, whether by imposing a penalty or withholding a benefit, then the Government has burdened the individuals free Religious Exercise.", see Sherbert v. Verner 374 U.S. 398 (1963). “Even neutral laws can be used unconstitutionally”, see Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886); 42 U.S. Code § 2000bb (a) (2). “failing to accommodate petitioners’ exercise of their “nonmainstream” religions in a variety of ways”, see Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005). “conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs”, see Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 573 U.S. _ (2014).
The Defendants would likely use Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1878) in their Defense, but if we are going to go that route, Reynolds would be overturned if it were brought to the court today. Reynolds was decided based on USC Ch126, 12 S 501, Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which was, and is well understood to have been, targeting Mormons, and was A POSTERIORI an illegal Act of Congress and is VOID AB INITIO, see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). A FORTIORI Using Reynolds as precedent to allow Congress to prohibit Free Exercise is ULTRA VIRES; Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969); United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995); United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. _ (2012). This case is not an argument that the US Government does not have jurisdiction of the Church or its members and is not a statement of ABJURE, it is an argument that Congress has overstepped its role in the Constitution, that Church law is to be considered in these courts, and that arguments from Reynolds should no longer be considered persuasive to US Courts, see Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila 280 U.S. 1 (1929).
Due to the ANTINOMY of the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT and The FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT and the RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT, the ABOLITIO LEGIS of the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT is necessary, it must be ABROGATED as a matter of DE FACTO Right and PENUMBRA.
The Latin phrase SUB ROSA means "under the rose", and is used in English to denote secrecy or confidentiality, similar to the Chatham House Rule. The literal rose and its essence or attar has also played a role in religious and spiritual rites which often would have been held in secret.
Persecution under the modern ULTRA VIRES actions of the US Congress has forced many religions and religious practitioners to operate SUB ROSA or in CLANDESTINE settings AB INVITO, in violation of the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE which is AD GRAVE DAMNUM to these Religions, see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah 508 U.S. 520 (1993). During this time of ULTRA VIRES, CAUSA SINE QUA NON religious practitioners have been CASTIGATED, COERCED and brought to CARCER with no method of ASYLUM established. CESSANTE CAUSA.
During the initial development of the Christian Church under the Roman Empire followers often had to practice in secret. Official policy under Trajan was to provide Christians with the choice between recanting and execution. In 1636, expelled from Massachusetts in the winter, former Puritan leader Roger Williams issued an impassioned plea for freedom of conscience. He wrote, "God requireth not an uniformity of Religion to be inacted and enforced in any civill state; which inforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civill Warre, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisie and destruction of millions of souls." Williams later founded Rhode Island on the principle of religious freedom. He welcomed people of religious belief, even some regarded as dangerously misguided, for nothing could change his view that "forced worship stinks in God's nostrils.".A clandestine church (Dutch: schuilkerk), defined by historian Benjamin J. Kaplan as a "semi-clandestine church", is a house of worship used by religious minorities whose communal worship is tolerated by those of the majority faith on condition that it is discreet and not conducted in public spaces. Schuilkerken are commonly built inside houses or other buildings, and do not show a public façade to the street. “Here, however, defendants challenge plaintiffs’ sincerity, citing plaintiffs' decision to conduct ceremonies in secret until the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the UDV plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ secrecy does not show a lack of sincerity. Instead, it shows that plaintiffs remained committed to practicing their religion despite the threat of criminal prosecution and loss of professional status.”, see Church of Holy Light of the Queen V. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-35058 (9th Cir. 2014) "Moreover, the latter ordinances' various prohibitions, definitions, and exemptions demonstrate that they were "gerrymandered" with care to proscribe religious killings of animals by Santeria church members but to exclude almost all other animal killings. They also suppress much more religious conduct than is necessary to achieve their stated ends. The legitimate governmental interests in protecting the public health and preventing cruelty to animals could be addressed by restrictions stopping far short of a flat prohibition of all Santeria sacrificial practice...The resulting syncretion, or fusion, is Santeria, "the way of the saints." The Cuban Yoruba express their devotion to spirits, called oris has, through the iconography of Catholic saints, Catholic symbols are often present at Santeria rites, and Santeria devotees attend the Catholic sacraments. 723 F. Supp. 1467, 1469-1470 (SD Fla. 1989); 13 Encyclopedia of Religion 66 (M. Eliade ed. 1987); 1 Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience 183 (C. Lippy & P. Williams eds. 1988)...The sacrifice of animals as part of religious rituals has ancient roots. See generally 12 id., at 554-556. Animal sacrifice is mentioned throughout the Old Testament, see 14 Encyclopaedia Judaica 600, 600-605 (1971), and it played an important role in the practice of Judaism before destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem, see id., at 605-612. In modern Islam, there is an annual sacrifice commemorating Abraham's sacrifice of a ram in the stead of his son. See C. Glasse, Concise Encyclopedia of Islam 178 (1989); 7 Encyclopedia of Religion, supra, at 456...Santeria adherents faced widespread persecution in Cuba, so the religion and its rituals were practiced in secret. The open practice of Santeria and its rites remains infrequent. See 723 F. SUPP.,;lt 1470; 13 Encyclopedia of Religion, supra, at 67; M. Gonzalez-Wippler, Santeria: The Religion 3-4 (1989)...Pichardo indicated that the Church's goal was to bring the practice of the Santeria faith, including its ritual of animal sacrifice, into the open...The court also concluded that an exception to the sacrifice prohibition for religious conduct would "'unduly interfere with fulfillment of the governmental interest'" because any more narrow restrictions-e. g., regulation of disposal of animal carcasses-would be unenforceable as a result of the secret nature of the Santeria religion. Id., at 1486-1487, and nn. 57-59...Although the practice of animal sacrifice may seem abhorrent to some, "religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection." Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981). Given the historical association between animal sacrifice and religious worship, see supra, at 524-525, petitioners' assertion that animal sacrifice is an integral part of their religion "cannot be deemed bizarre or incredible." Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security, 489 U. S. 829, 834, n. 2 (1989).", see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from
these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in
blood for centuries."
- James Madison, 4th president of the United States
OUTLINE OF THE CASE
All I have to do to get the case accepted by the court is prove Prima Facie (Not beyond a reasonable doubt) that my claim is plausible.
So, the first Cause of Action. According to the Supreme Court, Schedule I substances are not enough to bar a substance from Religious Use. The wording they used is that calling a substance Schedule I as an argument against Religious use "can not carry the day".
My Religious rights are regularly violated by the DEA. I have been arrested, charged with both a Misdemeanor and a Felony and jailed (and won the case in the end, everything is dismissed), I have been arrested, had items seized and had a Narcotics Investigation opened (and won the case in the end, everything is dismissed). The fact that the DEA does not openly recognize the O Centro case, and make a Public Statement for lower Enforcement bodies, is dereliction of duty.
Laws must be Neutral and can not Overtly or Covertly ban Religions. The DEA allows large corporations to Manufacture, Import and Posses Schedule I and II Substances using DEA form 225, protocol can be found in 21 CFR 1301.18, the Constitution allows the regulation of Commerce, but not the Regulation of Religion. The Controlled Substances Act is not a Neutral Law.
Second cause of Action, Gerrymandering causing Death. My brother died in 2013 at the age of 11, the final cause of death was Edema (brain swelling). There is solid research (the Doctors even agreed, which is laid out in an Affidavit) that Cannabinoids can reverse Edema. But doctors are either Unable or Unwilling to retrieve Cannabinoids for this purpose due to the current operations of the DEA. The University of Mississippi was a protected Monopoly until August 2016 for Marijuana, at which time the DEA admitted it was allowing this Monopoly and opened up registration to more companies (the DEA admission of this is included in the lawsuit). Mallinckdrot has been allowed to Synthesize Tetrahydrocannabinoids (THC derivatives) but, due to this Gerrymandering, Hospitals do not have access. My brother's Death certificate and Autopsy are included in the lawsuit, as well as the research papers proving he could have been saved. The files showing that they have allowed companies to Manufacture, Import and Posses these Substances is also included, along with case law for what legally defines a Monopoly.
Third Cause of Action, laws are not Amendments. The 18th Amendment started prohibition, and the Volstead Act was passed by Congress which put it into action. During Prohibition (and in the Volstead Act) Religious use of Alcohol was not Prohibited. If an Amendment did not have the power to violate Religion due to the 1st Amendment, then a mere law can not violate Religion. There is another point made in the third cause of action, but it would take up way more space to explain it here.
Fourth Cause of Action, Rights retained by the People. I am challenging the Controlled Substances Act under Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as an Unconstitutional law, the Controlled Substances Act must be overturned. Any judge involved in protecting it is in violation of their oath.
Fifth Cause of Action, violation of International Agreements. The United States is a party to various Treaties stating that 1. Religion can not be violated, 2. Religion can not be targeted, and; 3. Religions must be able to manufacture and use Religious items/materials.
The Church of Neuroscience is a Church that was started by Dr. Jeremy Kerr in New Orleans, Louisiana. The cornerstone of the Church is molecular sacraments, mixtures of spirit and matter outside of yourself, which interact with the senses to connect parishioners to their God. The Church accepts people of all faiths. Sacraments of this Church are not included in the Psychotropics Treaty of 1971, and so can not be reached by it. And will help in overturning the Controlled Substances Act. This treaty is what the DEA falls back on. If you read any recent cases, which have torn apart their CSA argument with the RFRA, and their public interest argument by pointing out corporate exemption. The only thing they have left is this treaty, they are no longer arguing that they have a right under law to ban things, but an obligation under treaty. And the treaty does not reach the Sacraments of the Church of Neuroscience. So it does not apply.
Then after that is the claim and what I am requesting the court to do about this, and 72 pages of evidence, but to get in to all of it would take forever. Once the case has hit the Federal Docket records on Supreme Justia I will post a link to the case and a PDF to the actual document.
No one has ever filed a case like this before, and if you read Gonzales V O Centro (the first link in this post), the DEA can not defend against it.
A Church is not much different in Nature from a State, see Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 (1868). Religion is a form of COMITY INTER GENTES from AFFLATUS. The Separation of Church and State in the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE exists because of the fact that Religion used to be the State, as it is now in Vatican City and the Holy See, Churches may even be a party to CONCORDAT see Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church 210 U.S. 296 (1908); Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 U.S. 111 (1784); Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696 (1976); Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969), and allows American’s to practice not only one Religion, but any Religion, free from persecution. Not only is there an ANTINOMY between the RELIGIOUS FEEDOM RESTORATION ACT / RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUATIONALIZED PERSONS ACT and the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT, there is a CONFLICTUS LEGEM between the Plaintiff’s Church and the Federal State arising from the ANTINOMY, which can be resolved by the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE. RELIGIOUS ACCESSION also needs to be considered in the progress of History, Technology and Knowledge. “The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief”, see 42 U.S. Code § 2000cc–5 (7) (a). “the general characteristics of Schedule I substances cannot carry the day”, see Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal 546 U.S. 418 (2006); Church of Holy Light of the Queen V. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-35058 (9th Cir. 2014). “Congress must first enact a law criminalizing an activity, attach a penalty, and give the Federal courts Jurisdiction”, see Hudson v. United States 522 U.S. 93 (1997). “Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the Free Exercise of Religion”, see FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, I AMENDMENT. "If a Government confronts an individual with a choice that pressures the individual to forgo a Religious practice, whether by imposing a penalty or withholding a benefit, then the Government has burdened the individuals free Religious Exercise.", see Sherbert v. Verner 374 U.S. 398 (1963). “Even neutral laws can be used unconstitutionally”, see Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886); 42 U.S. Code § 2000bb (a) (2). “failing to accommodate petitioners’ exercise of their “nonmainstream” religions in a variety of ways”, see Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005). “conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs”, see Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 573 U.S. _ (2014).
The Defendants would likely use Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1878) in their Defense, but if we are going to go that route, Reynolds would be overturned if it were brought to the court today. Reynolds was decided based on USC Ch126, 12 S 501, Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which was, and is well understood to have been, targeting Mormons, and was A POSTERIORI an illegal Act of Congress and is VOID AB INITIO, see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). A FORTIORI Using Reynolds as precedent to allow Congress to prohibit Free Exercise is ULTRA VIRES; Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969); United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995); United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. _ (2012). This case is not an argument that the US Government does not have jurisdiction of the Church or its members and is not a statement of ABJURE, it is an argument that Congress has overstepped its role in the Constitution, that Church law is to be considered in these courts, and that arguments from Reynolds should no longer be considered persuasive to US Courts, see Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila 280 U.S. 1 (1929).
Due to the ANTINOMY of the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT and The FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT and the RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT, the ABOLITIO LEGIS of the CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT is necessary, it must be ABROGATED as a matter of DE FACTO Right and PENUMBRA.
The Latin phrase SUB ROSA means "under the rose", and is used in English to denote secrecy or confidentiality, similar to the Chatham House Rule. The literal rose and its essence or attar has also played a role in religious and spiritual rites which often would have been held in secret.
Persecution under the modern ULTRA VIRES actions of the US Congress has forced many religions and religious practitioners to operate SUB ROSA or in CLANDESTINE settings AB INVITO, in violation of the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE which is AD GRAVE DAMNUM to these Religions, see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah 508 U.S. 520 (1993). During this time of ULTRA VIRES, CAUSA SINE QUA NON religious practitioners have been CASTIGATED, COERCED and brought to CARCER with no method of ASYLUM established. CESSANTE CAUSA.
During the initial development of the Christian Church under the Roman Empire followers often had to practice in secret. Official policy under Trajan was to provide Christians with the choice between recanting and execution. In 1636, expelled from Massachusetts in the winter, former Puritan leader Roger Williams issued an impassioned plea for freedom of conscience. He wrote, "God requireth not an uniformity of Religion to be inacted and enforced in any civill state; which inforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civill Warre, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisie and destruction of millions of souls." Williams later founded Rhode Island on the principle of religious freedom. He welcomed people of religious belief, even some regarded as dangerously misguided, for nothing could change his view that "forced worship stinks in God's nostrils.".A clandestine church (Dutch: schuilkerk), defined by historian Benjamin J. Kaplan as a "semi-clandestine church", is a house of worship used by religious minorities whose communal worship is tolerated by those of the majority faith on condition that it is discreet and not conducted in public spaces. Schuilkerken are commonly built inside houses or other buildings, and do not show a public façade to the street. “Here, however, defendants challenge plaintiffs’ sincerity, citing plaintiffs' decision to conduct ceremonies in secret until the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the UDV plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ secrecy does not show a lack of sincerity. Instead, it shows that plaintiffs remained committed to practicing their religion despite the threat of criminal prosecution and loss of professional status.”, see Church of Holy Light of the Queen V. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-35058 (9th Cir. 2014) "Moreover, the latter ordinances' various prohibitions, definitions, and exemptions demonstrate that they were "gerrymandered" with care to proscribe religious killings of animals by Santeria church members but to exclude almost all other animal killings. They also suppress much more religious conduct than is necessary to achieve their stated ends. The legitimate governmental interests in protecting the public health and preventing cruelty to animals could be addressed by restrictions stopping far short of a flat prohibition of all Santeria sacrificial practice...The resulting syncretion, or fusion, is Santeria, "the way of the saints." The Cuban Yoruba express their devotion to spirits, called oris has, through the iconography of Catholic saints, Catholic symbols are often present at Santeria rites, and Santeria devotees attend the Catholic sacraments. 723 F. Supp. 1467, 1469-1470 (SD Fla. 1989); 13 Encyclopedia of Religion 66 (M. Eliade ed. 1987); 1 Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience 183 (C. Lippy & P. Williams eds. 1988)...The sacrifice of animals as part of religious rituals has ancient roots. See generally 12 id., at 554-556. Animal sacrifice is mentioned throughout the Old Testament, see 14 Encyclopaedia Judaica 600, 600-605 (1971), and it played an important role in the practice of Judaism before destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem, see id., at 605-612. In modern Islam, there is an annual sacrifice commemorating Abraham's sacrifice of a ram in the stead of his son. See C. Glasse, Concise Encyclopedia of Islam 178 (1989); 7 Encyclopedia of Religion, supra, at 456...Santeria adherents faced widespread persecution in Cuba, so the religion and its rituals were practiced in secret. The open practice of Santeria and its rites remains infrequent. See 723 F. SUPP.,;lt 1470; 13 Encyclopedia of Religion, supra, at 67; M. Gonzalez-Wippler, Santeria: The Religion 3-4 (1989)...Pichardo indicated that the Church's goal was to bring the practice of the Santeria faith, including its ritual of animal sacrifice, into the open...The court also concluded that an exception to the sacrifice prohibition for religious conduct would "'unduly interfere with fulfillment of the governmental interest'" because any more narrow restrictions-e. g., regulation of disposal of animal carcasses-would be unenforceable as a result of the secret nature of the Santeria religion. Id., at 1486-1487, and nn. 57-59...Although the practice of animal sacrifice may seem abhorrent to some, "religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection." Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981). Given the historical association between animal sacrifice and religious worship, see supra, at 524-525, petitioners' assertion that animal sacrifice is an integral part of their religion "cannot be deemed bizarre or incredible." Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security, 489 U. S. 829, 834, n. 2 (1989).", see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from
these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in
blood for centuries."
- James Madison, 4th president of the United States
OUTLINE OF THE CASE
All I have to do to get the case accepted by the court is prove Prima Facie (Not beyond a reasonable doubt) that my claim is plausible.
So, the first Cause of Action. According to the Supreme Court, Schedule I substances are not enough to bar a substance from Religious Use. The wording they used is that calling a substance Schedule I as an argument against Religious use "can not carry the day".
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal
supreme.justia.com
My Religious rights are regularly violated by the DEA. I have been arrested, charged with both a Misdemeanor and a Felony and jailed (and won the case in the end, everything is dismissed), I have been arrested, had items seized and had a Narcotics Investigation opened (and won the case in the end, everything is dismissed). The fact that the DEA does not openly recognize the O Centro case, and make a Public Statement for lower Enforcement bodies, is dereliction of duty.
Laws must be Neutral and can not Overtly or Covertly ban Religions. The DEA allows large corporations to Manufacture, Import and Posses Schedule I and II Substances using DEA form 225, protocol can be found in 21 CFR 1301.18, the Constitution allows the regulation of Commerce, but not the Regulation of Religion. The Controlled Substances Act is not a Neutral Law.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah: The Free Exercise Clause protects animal sacrifice that is performed as a religious ritual unless the government can show a compelling countervailing interest. This is because the law is directly aimed at the behavior constituting the ritual rather...
supreme.justia.com
Second cause of Action, Gerrymandering causing Death. My brother died in 2013 at the age of 11, the final cause of death was Edema (brain swelling). There is solid research (the Doctors even agreed, which is laid out in an Affidavit) that Cannabinoids can reverse Edema. But doctors are either Unable or Unwilling to retrieve Cannabinoids for this purpose due to the current operations of the DEA. The University of Mississippi was a protected Monopoly until August 2016 for Marijuana, at which time the DEA admitted it was allowing this Monopoly and opened up registration to more companies (the DEA admission of this is included in the lawsuit). Mallinckdrot has been allowed to Synthesize Tetrahydrocannabinoids (THC derivatives) but, due to this Gerrymandering, Hospitals do not have access. My brother's Death certificate and Autopsy are included in the lawsuit, as well as the research papers proving he could have been saved. The files showing that they have allowed companies to Manufacture, Import and Posses these Substances is also included, along with case law for what legally defines a Monopoly.
Applications To Become Registered Under the Controlled Substances Act To Manufacture Marijuana To Supply Researchers in the United States
To facilitate research involving marijuana and its chemical constituents, DEA is adopting a new policy that is designed to increase the number of entities registered under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to grow (manufacture) marijuana to supply legitimate researchers in the United States....
www.federalregister.gov
Third Cause of Action, laws are not Amendments. The 18th Amendment started prohibition, and the Volstead Act was passed by Congress which put it into action. During Prohibition (and in the Volstead Act) Religious use of Alcohol was not Prohibited. If an Amendment did not have the power to violate Religion due to the 1st Amendment, then a mere law can not violate Religion. There is another point made in the third cause of action, but it would take up way more space to explain it here.
Fourth Cause of Action, Rights retained by the People. I am challenging the Controlled Substances Act under Rule 5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as an Unconstitutional law, the Controlled Substances Act must be overturned. Any judge involved in protecting it is in violation of their oath.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Marbury v. Madison: Congress does not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution, such as by expanding the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
supreme.justia.com
Fifth Cause of Action, violation of International Agreements. The United States is a party to various Treaties stating that 1. Religion can not be violated, 2. Religion can not be targeted, and; 3. Religions must be able to manufacture and use Religious items/materials.
The Church of Neuroscience is a Church that was started by Dr. Jeremy Kerr in New Orleans, Louisiana. The cornerstone of the Church is molecular sacraments, mixtures of spirit and matter outside of yourself, which interact with the senses to connect parishioners to their God. The Church accepts people of all faiths. Sacraments of this Church are not included in the Psychotropics Treaty of 1971, and so can not be reached by it. And will help in overturning the Controlled Substances Act. This treaty is what the DEA falls back on. If you read any recent cases, which have torn apart their CSA argument with the RFRA, and their public interest argument by pointing out corporate exemption. The only thing they have left is this treaty, they are no longer arguing that they have a right under law to ban things, but an obligation under treaty. And the treaty does not reach the Sacraments of the Church of Neuroscience. So it does not apply.
Then after that is the claim and what I am requesting the court to do about this, and 72 pages of evidence, but to get in to all of it would take forever. Once the case has hit the Federal Docket records on Supreme Justia I will post a link to the case and a PDF to the actual document.
No one has ever filed a case like this before, and if you read Gonzales V O Centro (the first link in this post), the DEA can not defend against it.
