SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
I have an open Case in Dallas, so I am going to explain everything in this thread and I will post the updates here.
This thread explains the Pharmaceutical process
DEA Form 225
This thread explains the Religious Law
DEA Religious Exemption Process
This one explains the Temple
The Shaivite Temple of Colorado
The DEA did not make it easy to figure out this process. It took me almost 8 years total, and 2 years after finding most of the Case Law, but I am going to share my process with others as something like a "How To", so that from now on this is not so hard for everyone. But here is the complete detour the DEA put up to get to this. Look at how many people are walking into court rooms saying "Free Exercise" and no one tells them about this. Lawyers don't even know about this.
Ok, so around 2012 I learned about Gonzales V O Centro, but I only knew that it allowed the Santo Diame Church to use Ayahuasca. Then in 2015 I went back to Texas with my case, and I started doing more research before I went to court. And I had been doing research about the 18th and 21st Amendments, which are the Alcohol Prohibition Amendment and the Amendment that repealed it. And I started studying the Volstead Act, which enforced Prohibition, and found that it had Religious Exemptions. So I was wondering "How did an Amendment not overpower Religious Exercise, but a Law does?". And randomly I thought about Coca-Cola, and decided I wanted to know if Coca-Cola had been banned under the definition of "Intoxicating Liquors" in the Volstead Act. And I could not find anything about that, but I found that Stepan Company has been importing Cocaine from Peru since the 80s, extracting the Cocaine to sell for Medical use, and selling the Coca extract to Coca-Cola.
Then I found Normaco V DEA, where a court told the DEA that they had a Cocaine Monopoly.
Then I remembered the Federal Marijuana Patients, and started researching that. And I found that the University of Mississippi has been growing Marijuana for years, and by this time it was August 2016 and I found that the DEA had literally just opened up Registration for Marijuana Growing Companies in order to not have a Monopoly.
Then I filed that Federal Court Case in March, and the Federal Court is just sitting on it, because even they don't know what to do.
So then I decided to email the Marijuana Enforcement Agency this month, and set up an Appointment to get a Religious Exemption. Then I thought about it, and emailed the DEA explaining my whole situation, and I assume that they had to go ask a ton of people, but they sent me this Document explaining how to ask for an exemption. And it's not like Lawyers and the ACLU are out there advertising this Document. And I know that not everyone at the DEA is used to being asked about this stuff because I called today to ask who to send it to since Joe Rinnizzisi is gone, and they had no idea what I was talking about sending in, and then had to put me on hold to go ask people.
The Federal Court in Dallas Responded Feb 8th 2018, to a case filed in March 2017
Here is the Federal Court in Dallas' Response, they responded 1 day after I started filing again, which was about 1 year after the Case was actually filed, so it was improperly delayed and the Magistrate quickly responded after having forgotten about the case for a year
This is the Initial Complaint that they took a year to respond to, and if you have PACER you can look at more Documents in the case
Here is the main Document that were filed that reinitiated the Case in 2018 if you or anyone that sees this later wants to read them
I will go ahead and open the Case about the DEA Petition I sent in, and their Failure to respond, and the Request for Review of their actions in light of the DEA RFRA Guidelines and Olsen v. DEA; then I will go to the 5th Circuit if the Dallas case is Denied and Request a Writ of Manadmus in the Dallas Federal Court, but I assume the Denver Federal Court will respond to this in like 2 Weeks. So it will be a lot easier to go ahead and start this part here, then I can cite my own Case against the DEA to move Forward in Dallas with the Case about the DEA Causing my Brother to die.
And btw, when we get to Human Rights Court, these are the Standards, so I am really just trying to get Final Decisions, so I can get here:
The State may be responsible for violating human rights by:
Action (as a result of an act by the State or its agents),
◆
Acquiescence (as a result of the tacit consent of the State or its agents), or
◆
Omission (as a result of the State or its agents failing to take action when they should have done so).
Here is our Case number with the International Commission on Human Rights
P-2098-17
Organization of American States
17th Street and Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, D.C., 20006-4499
United States of America
Main Telephone: 1 (202) 370 5000
So now there is a Human Rights case for the Temple. Here is the process now, now they see if it is Admissible, Admissible means: Is one of the Parties a State/Nation? Is that Party a Signatory to the OAS? (Yes we are btw). On its face, is there a claim that said State has violated some Human Right Guaranteed Under International Treaty?
So it is Admissible.
From there, they go into the Merits phase. What part of this case is something they can handle, and what parts they can't really touch, and might need to be passed back to the State/Nation to be decided in Court. But at this time, any Claim that has Merit under the International Treaties, and has Evidence that "On it's Face" actually happened, can at that time be settled between the State/Nation (their Representative) and myself, or we can go to the actual Human Rights Court (this is all done by the Commission up until this point). Then the State/Nation has to stay in Contact with us, so that we can make sure that things like this don't happen anymore.
And currently I am only asking the IACHR to make a Statement about the UN Psychotropics Convention, and cause the DEA to follow their own Rules in whatever way they can. So I am not even asking for much, and no one should fight against this.
This thread explains the Pharmaceutical process
DEA Form 225
This thread explains the Religious Law
DEA Religious Exemption Process
This one explains the Temple
The Shaivite Temple of Colorado
The DEA did not make it easy to figure out this process. It took me almost 8 years total, and 2 years after finding most of the Case Law, but I am going to share my process with others as something like a "How To", so that from now on this is not so hard for everyone. But here is the complete detour the DEA put up to get to this. Look at how many people are walking into court rooms saying "Free Exercise" and no one tells them about this. Lawyers don't even know about this.
Ok, so around 2012 I learned about Gonzales V O Centro, but I only knew that it allowed the Santo Diame Church to use Ayahuasca. Then in 2015 I went back to Texas with my case, and I started doing more research before I went to court. And I had been doing research about the 18th and 21st Amendments, which are the Alcohol Prohibition Amendment and the Amendment that repealed it. And I started studying the Volstead Act, which enforced Prohibition, and found that it had Religious Exemptions. So I was wondering "How did an Amendment not overpower Religious Exercise, but a Law does?". And randomly I thought about Coca-Cola, and decided I wanted to know if Coca-Cola had been banned under the definition of "Intoxicating Liquors" in the Volstead Act. And I could not find anything about that, but I found that Stepan Company has been importing Cocaine from Peru since the 80s, extracting the Cocaine to sell for Medical use, and selling the Coca extract to Coca-Cola.
Then I found Normaco V DEA, where a court told the DEA that they had a Cocaine Monopoly.
Then I remembered the Federal Marijuana Patients, and started researching that. And I found that the University of Mississippi has been growing Marijuana for years, and by this time it was August 2016 and I found that the DEA had literally just opened up Registration for Marijuana Growing Companies in order to not have a Monopoly.
Then I filed that Federal Court Case in March, and the Federal Court is just sitting on it, because even they don't know what to do.
So then I decided to email the Marijuana Enforcement Agency this month, and set up an Appointment to get a Religious Exemption. Then I thought about it, and emailed the DEA explaining my whole situation, and I assume that they had to go ask a ton of people, but they sent me this Document explaining how to ask for an exemption. And it's not like Lawyers and the ACLU are out there advertising this Document. And I know that not everyone at the DEA is used to being asked about this stuff because I called today to ask who to send it to since Joe Rinnizzisi is gone, and they had no idea what I was talking about sending in, and then had to put me on hold to go ask people.
The Federal Court in Dallas Responded Feb 8th 2018, to a case filed in March 2017
Here is the Federal Court in Dallas' Response, they responded 1 day after I started filing again, which was about 1 year after the Case was actually filed, so it was improperly delayed and the Magistrate quickly responded after having forgotten about the case for a year
This is the Initial Complaint that they took a year to respond to, and if you have PACER you can look at more Documents in the case
Here is the main Document that were filed that reinitiated the Case in 2018 if you or anyone that sees this later wants to read them
I will go ahead and open the Case about the DEA Petition I sent in, and their Failure to respond, and the Request for Review of their actions in light of the DEA RFRA Guidelines and Olsen v. DEA; then I will go to the 5th Circuit if the Dallas case is Denied and Request a Writ of Manadmus in the Dallas Federal Court, but I assume the Denver Federal Court will respond to this in like 2 Weeks. So it will be a lot easier to go ahead and start this part here, then I can cite my own Case against the DEA to move Forward in Dallas with the Case about the DEA Causing my Brother to die.
And btw, when we get to Human Rights Court, these are the Standards, so I am really just trying to get Final Decisions, so I can get here:
The State may be responsible for violating human rights by:
Action (as a result of an act by the State or its agents),
◆
Acquiescence (as a result of the tacit consent of the State or its agents), or
◆
Omission (as a result of the State or its agents failing to take action when they should have done so).
Here is our Case number with the International Commission on Human Rights
P-2098-17
Organization of American States
17th Street and Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, D.C., 20006-4499
United States of America
Main Telephone: 1 (202) 370 5000
So now there is a Human Rights case for the Temple. Here is the process now, now they see if it is Admissible, Admissible means: Is one of the Parties a State/Nation? Is that Party a Signatory to the OAS? (Yes we are btw). On its face, is there a claim that said State has violated some Human Right Guaranteed Under International Treaty?
So it is Admissible.
From there, they go into the Merits phase. What part of this case is something they can handle, and what parts they can't really touch, and might need to be passed back to the State/Nation to be decided in Court. But at this time, any Claim that has Merit under the International Treaties, and has Evidence that "On it's Face" actually happened, can at that time be settled between the State/Nation (their Representative) and myself, or we can go to the actual Human Rights Court (this is all done by the Commission up until this point). Then the State/Nation has to stay in Contact with us, so that we can make sure that things like this don't happen anymore.
And currently I am only asking the IACHR to make a Statement about the UN Psychotropics Convention, and cause the DEA to follow their own Rules in whatever way they can. So I am not even asking for much, and no one should fight against this.
