Linked is the Articles of Incorporation of the Non-Denominational Church with which I became a Minister in 2009, and I was a Hindu Shaivite since the age of 14 before being ordained.
http://www.ulccaselaw.com/caselawHTML/ULC%20Incorp.html
Topic: [ANN] Temple Coin has an International Human Rights Case Against TX, CO & DEA - page 3. (Read 486 times)
January 27, 2018, 07:31:34 PM
January 27, 2018, 07:29:42 PM
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/news/rfra_rasta.htm
https://www.au.org/church-state/june-2016-church-state/people-events/federal-appeals-court-allows-seizure-of-marijuana
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/04/06/14-15143.pdf
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/17a0075n-06.pdf
http://norml.org/pdf_files/brief_bank/Spiritual_Religious.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOU7kVRwFxw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAjri3sRrSM
https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-13-16%20Weiss%20Testimony.pdf
https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/Young1988.pdf
https://www.dea.gov/docs/marijuana_position_2011.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/house-amendment/332
https://www.justice.gov/atr/memorandum-antitrust-division-united-states-department-justice-amicus-curiae-support-application
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/imprt/reg/2016/fr0119_2.htm
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/imprt/app/2017/fr0918_4.htm
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/12/2016-17955/applications-to-become-registered-under-the-controlled-substances-act-to-manufacture-marijuana-to
https://www.au.org/church-state/june-2016-church-state/people-events/federal-appeals-court-allows-seizure-of-marijuana
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/04/06/14-15143.pdf
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/17a0075n-06.pdf
http://norml.org/pdf_files/brief_bank/Spiritual_Religious.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOU7kVRwFxw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAjri3sRrSM
https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-13-16%20Weiss%20Testimony.pdf
https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/Young1988.pdf
https://www.dea.gov/docs/marijuana_position_2011.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/house-amendment/332
https://www.justice.gov/atr/memorandum-antitrust-division-united-states-department-justice-amicus-curiae-support-application
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/imprt/reg/2016/fr0119_2.htm
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/imprt/app/2017/fr0918_4.htm
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/12/2016-17955/applications-to-become-registered-under-the-controlled-substances-act-to-manufacture-marijuana-to
January 27, 2018, 07:28:37 PM
Dr. Sasha Shulgin Questioning the American Legal System in this Regard
The earliest reports of human activity, at 1 mg/Kg, are mentioned under DMT. The clinical trials from which the 80 mg comment above was entered, were conducted on a population of physically sound alcoholics. It was not only a study to define the nature of action of DPT, but to challenge the idea that the metabolism of the dialkyltryptamine on the 6-hydroxyl position might give rise to active metabolites. This challenge was in the form of assaying 6-fluoro-N,N-diethyltrypamine in the same subjects, to see if it might be an active placebo. This is discussed under that specific compound, DET. Incidentally, the actual amount of DPT used was originally published as being 1.0 mg/Kg body weight, and I am guessing that the subject might have been of average weight, about 175 lbs. In these studies, dosages were taken up to as high as 1.3 mg/Kg, which resulted only in a prolongation, not an intensification, of effect. In all trials, the onset of effects occurred between 10 and 15 minutes following injection.
Studies using lower dosages of DPT (15-30 mg intramuscularly) have been explored as adjuncts to psychotherapy with alcoholic patients. The enhancement of recall of memories and experiences, the greater emotional expressivenes and self-exploration, coupled with a consistently short duration, made the drug very attractive. Higher doses, up in the 100 milligram range, have been explored in psychotherapy, in the quest for peak experiences. Yet another study, in exploring the interaction of therapy counseling and DPT-induced peak experiences with patients who are dying, the i.m. dosage range was between 75 and 125 milligrams.
There is a rather remarkable religious group known as the Temple of the True Inner Light, in New York City, which has embraced as its Eucharist DPT which they refer to as a powerful Angel of the Host. Their communion is confirmed by either the smoking or the drinking of the sacrament, and they have been totally unbothered by any agency of the Federal Government, as far as I know. It is not as if they were unknown. Quite on the contrary, I had on one occasion received a request for information on the drug from a reporter who was writing a story on DPT and its use in the church. I asked him just how he had gotten my name, and he told me that he was given it by someone within the DEA. Someone, sometime, should write an essay on contemporary religions, as to why DPT has flown, why peyote forever struggles, and LSD and marijuana have bombed out, when tied to religion. Is there something about a faith being an "approved" religion? Who gives his approval? Who decides the applicability of the first amendment which explicitly states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I wish the True Inner Light congregation Godspeed, if you will excuse the expression. My impressions of them from our correspondence have left me totally convinced of their integrity and dedication. It is an intriguing fact that this tryptamine was commercially available for a while from at least one small independent supplier of chemical novelties, but I believe that this is now no longer a valid source.
An intriguing (and perhaps theoretical) homologue of DPT is the 1-propyl counterpart, 1,N,N-tripropyltryptamine, referred to as PDPT. It is claimed that simply reacting tryptamine with an excess of propyl bromide put an alkyl group on the indolic 1-position (as stated also for the ethyl counterpart, sometimes referred to as EDET). In my own experiments with this reaction, I have yet to see any suggestion of 1-alkylation.
The earliest reports of human activity, at 1 mg/Kg, are mentioned under DMT. The clinical trials from which the 80 mg comment above was entered, were conducted on a population of physically sound alcoholics. It was not only a study to define the nature of action of DPT, but to challenge the idea that the metabolism of the dialkyltryptamine on the 6-hydroxyl position might give rise to active metabolites. This challenge was in the form of assaying 6-fluoro-N,N-diethyltrypamine in the same subjects, to see if it might be an active placebo. This is discussed under that specific compound, DET. Incidentally, the actual amount of DPT used was originally published as being 1.0 mg/Kg body weight, and I am guessing that the subject might have been of average weight, about 175 lbs. In these studies, dosages were taken up to as high as 1.3 mg/Kg, which resulted only in a prolongation, not an intensification, of effect. In all trials, the onset of effects occurred between 10 and 15 minutes following injection.
Studies using lower dosages of DPT (15-30 mg intramuscularly) have been explored as adjuncts to psychotherapy with alcoholic patients. The enhancement of recall of memories and experiences, the greater emotional expressivenes and self-exploration, coupled with a consistently short duration, made the drug very attractive. Higher doses, up in the 100 milligram range, have been explored in psychotherapy, in the quest for peak experiences. Yet another study, in exploring the interaction of therapy counseling and DPT-induced peak experiences with patients who are dying, the i.m. dosage range was between 75 and 125 milligrams.
There is a rather remarkable religious group known as the Temple of the True Inner Light, in New York City, which has embraced as its Eucharist DPT which they refer to as a powerful Angel of the Host. Their communion is confirmed by either the smoking or the drinking of the sacrament, and they have been totally unbothered by any agency of the Federal Government, as far as I know. It is not as if they were unknown. Quite on the contrary, I had on one occasion received a request for information on the drug from a reporter who was writing a story on DPT and its use in the church. I asked him just how he had gotten my name, and he told me that he was given it by someone within the DEA. Someone, sometime, should write an essay on contemporary religions, as to why DPT has flown, why peyote forever struggles, and LSD and marijuana have bombed out, when tied to religion. Is there something about a faith being an "approved" religion? Who gives his approval? Who decides the applicability of the first amendment which explicitly states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I wish the True Inner Light congregation Godspeed, if you will excuse the expression. My impressions of them from our correspondence have left me totally convinced of their integrity and dedication. It is an intriguing fact that this tryptamine was commercially available for a while from at least one small independent supplier of chemical novelties, but I believe that this is now no longer a valid source.
An intriguing (and perhaps theoretical) homologue of DPT is the 1-propyl counterpart, 1,N,N-tripropyltryptamine, referred to as PDPT. It is claimed that simply reacting tryptamine with an excess of propyl bromide put an alkyl group on the indolic 1-position (as stated also for the ethyl counterpart, sometimes referred to as EDET). In my own experiments with this reaction, I have yet to see any suggestion of 1-alkylation.
January 27, 2018, 07:27:29 PM
Detailed Chronology of Events in the History of the Peyote Way Church of God
1948
Rev. Immanuel Pardeahtan Trujillo meets Father Peyote with long time friend and teacher, Rev. William Russell, Apache Roadman for the Native American Church. Rev. Russell and Rev. Eugene Yoakum, teach Trujillo about the Spirit Walk and instill in him the non-racist nature of the Holy Sacrament Peyote.
August 26, 1961
Rev. Trujillo, having served In the offices of the Native American Church as Fireman, Cedar man, Drummer, and assisted the Earth Mother, sits his first meeting as Roadman for a 14 communicant teepee ceremony.
December 21, 1966
Case #56960, Denver. Rev. Trujillo is charged with illegal possession of Peyote.
May 24, 1967
Dr. Omer Stewart testifies for five hours. In his testimony, Dr. Stewart stated that Peyote induces a mood of contemplation. He concluded his testimony by singing one verse in a hymn used in services of the Native American Church, shaking a ceremonial rattle rhythmically as he sang. The song, he said, has only syllables, no words. Such hymns, he conceded, sound peculiar to people raised on Jesus Wants Me for a Moonbeam. (Denver Post)
June 28,1967
Rev. Trujillo is acquitted. Judge William Conley rules that the U.S. and Colorado constitutions prohibit the state from prosecuting a person who uses Peyote for religious purposes. Judge Conley held that "Pardeahtan used Peyote in honest and good faith in the practice of Peyotism, a bona fide religion." Judge Conley, in the decision, said Peyotism is defined by Webster's Dictionary as an intertribal American Indian religion adopting Christian elements to traditional tribal beliefs and practices distinguished by the sacramental use of peyote. The Judge held that without the use of peyote, Peyotism could not be practiced, stating that "Peyotism is the sole means by which the defendant is able to experience his religion."
1971
Church of Holy Light is established on 160 acres of sacred land in the Aravaipa Wilderness located in Graham County. The Open-Hand Rehabilitation Program of this Church uses the discipline inherent in the cottage Industry of Mana Black-Rim Earthenware to cure alcohol and drug addicts.
October, 1977
Rabbi Matthew S. Kent and Rev. Anne L. Zapf are introduced to the Holy Sacrament Peyote at the Church of Holy Light.
December 19, 1977
Rabbi Kent, Rev. Zapf, and Rev. Trujillo register a Declaration of Intent in the Graham County Recorders office stating that they were stewarding, ingesting, distributing and growing the Holy Sacrament Peyote as an essential and inseparable part of the religious beliefs of the Peyote Way Church of God. They also give a live peyote plant to Graham County Arizona Superior Court Judge Ruskin Lines, who advise them to "Document, document, document!" and kept the plant for the sheriff and police departments to examine (the plant was returned within a month).
September 1, 1978
The First Annual Meeting of the Board of Stewards of the Peyote Way Church of God. Bylaws and Points of Order are adopted and memberships are registered at the Graham County Recorder's Office.
May 11, 1979
The Peyote Way Church of God becomes an Arizona State Corporation (Non-Profit #0502791-1). The Bylaws of the Church and Sacramental procedure are published in the local paper.
July 11, 1979
First Letter sent to President Jimmy Carter and Justice Powell. "We are not trying to defy the American Government in any way. We are simply asking for a clear interpretation of our Constitutional rights as American citizens. We of the Peyote Way Church of God cannot concede that the sacrament Peyote is just for Indians in the United States. No one race can own a sacrament of God for we are all children of one Holy Mother and Father."
January 23,1980
The Articles of Incorporation are published in the Eastern Arizona Courier.
January 29, 1980
Second letter sent to President Jimmy Carter, which states: "The use of Peyote as a sacrament has been restricted for many years to the Native American Church of North America..."
May 18, 1980
Peyote Way Church of God New Mexico Mission, and its Constitutional Law Enforcement Team, is announced in the Eastern Arizona Courier. The Rescue Mission is defined as well as qualifications of Rescue Mission Servants.
June 30, 1980
Declaration of Holy Pilgrimage are filed in Travis County, Texas.
July 2, 1980
First Church Pilgrimage to South Texas to introduce the Texas State government to the Peyote Way Church of God and procure the Holy Sacrament Peyote from a D.E.A. registered Peyote Dealer.
Rev. Trujillo meets with Lt. Governor, Assistant Attorney General, and the F.B.I.
July 5-7, 1980
Church officers, Rev. Immanuel Trujillo, Rabbi Matthew Kent and Rev. Anne Zapf meet Government Authorized Peyote Distributor, Marcos Muniz, who shows them how to find and harvest Peyote. Church officers are given a Federal Government receipt for the purchase of 25 buttons from Muniz, who also offers to sell land to the Church.
October 19, 1980
"Declaration of Intent" of Church officers to procure Peyote in Mexico is registered at Graham County Courthouse and sent to the Arizona Attorney General, Senator Barry Goldwater, Congressman Morris Udall, and Governor Bruce Babbit.
November 10, 1980
Church President, Rev. Immanuel Trujillo, sends three Church officers, Rabbi Matthew Kent, Deaconess Norah Booth, and Rev. Anne Zapf, to Texas to introduce themselves and the Peyote Way Church of God to the Governor and Attorney General, to procure the Holy Sacrament Peyote and to buy land.
November 13, 1980
Rev. Anne Zapf, Deaconess Norah Booth, and Rabbi Matthew Kent are pulled over by a law enforcement officer in Richardson, Texas. After asking for Rabbi Kent's license and registration, the officer asked if the Peyote Way Church of God was a member of the Council of Churches. The officer had noticed a large sign on the side of the pickup truck, which read "Peyote Way Church of God, Texas Pilgrimage, 1980," which was also painted with stylized Peyote buttons and firebirds. Kent replied no. The officer then asked if Church officers had any Peyote in their possession. Church officers produced their Medicine bags and revealed 12 buttons, the recommended quantity (four buttons each) for Church Clergy when traveling in the Temporal World, "...in the event of imminent martyrdom." (Bylaws, Annotation One, Sacramental Procedure: Reformed Ritual.) Church officers were immediately placed under arrest and the pickup, full of Mana pottery, was searched and impounded.
November 14, 1980
After 24 hours in jail and pleading not guilty to unlawful possession of a dangerous drug and impeding traffic, Church officers Zapf, Booth and Kent were released on $1,000. bond.
November 17, 1980
Church officers give Assistant Attorney General Douglas Becker a copy of Church Bylaws and The Sacred Record. Becker offers the Church no relief from Texas' racist Peyote laws. To Becker's glib, "My hands are tied." Rabbi Kent responded, "Well, ours are cuffed."
November 26, 1980
Church officers Zapf, Booth and Kent harvest Peyote with Government Authorized Distributor, Marcos Muniz, in South Texas and are given a Federal Government receipt for the purchase of 25 buttons.
November 27, 1980
Rev. Mother Marilyn Lewis, pastor, gives birth at the Mother Church to Yirmeyah Sidqenu, her second son.
December, 1980
Rescue Mission birthing at Mother Church, in Klondyke, Arizona.
January, 1981
New Mexico Mission is closed. Tucson-Texas Mission is opened by Rabbi Kent, Deaconess Booth, and Rev. Zapf, and closed when Rev. Zapf discovers she is pregnant. President Trujillo encourages Kent and Zapf to return to the Mother Church for the duration of her pregnancy.
February, 1981
Rabbi Kent and Rev. Zapf are granted a Stewardship of 5 acres of Church land for homesteading. Kent and Brother Richard Carpenter begin construction on Priory One, a church building to serve as office and living quarters for Rev. Zapf and her family. Funds used for the construction of Priory I were donated by Joyce P. Zapf and Thomas F. Kent, M.D.
February 5, 1981
Sister Carmella Cooper gives birth to Ben Morning Sun at the Mother Church.
April 7, 1981
The Church receives Federal Tax-Exempt status (Tax-Exempt E.I.N.942722621).
April 21, 1981
Texas American Civil Liberties Union (A.C.L.U.) notifies Rabbi Matthew Kent that they do not defend criminal cases. In their letter they stated that many churches/religious orders have challenged the Peyote laws in court on religious discrimination grounds, but the only case that was successful was the case for the Native American Church. In other cases the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the factual claims that they were indeed legitimate churches/religions.
July 14, 1981
Rev. Anne Zapf gives birth in Priory One, at the Mother Church to Kristin Joy Zapf-Kent, with Rabbi Kent and two church members attending.
December 17, 1981
After hearing the testimony of the arresting police officers, and Attorney Michael Millikan's defense, a Dallas County Superior Judge dismisses the case against Church officers, Zapf, Booth and Kent, calling the arrest an obvious case of subterfuge. One arresting officer testified to having discussed stopping the truck with the Peyote signs. The other officer said that they did not. The Holy Sacrament Peyote confiscated during the arrest is not returned.
January 3, 1982
Letter sent to Texas Governor William Clements, Jr., describing arrest of Church officers and requesting that he take personal action to change his state's unconstitutional Peyote Laws.
January 16, 1982
Letter sent to President Ronald Reagan describing the current situation of the Church as a bona fide Peyotist religion, which cannot procure Peyote from its Native Habitat in South Texas because of discriminatory state and federal laws.
March 4, 1982
Church receives letter from Director of Compliance and Regulatory Affairs, Gene R. Haislip, of the U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration. In his response to the Church's request to be included in the exemption granted to the Native American Church of North America, Haislip quotes from the MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE CHIEF COUNSEL, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION:
"(1) REQUIRE THAT THE PETITIONER BE A MEMBER OF A BONA FIDE PEYOTE-USING RELIGION IN WHICH THE ACTUAL USE OF PEYOTE IS CENTRAL TO ESTABLISHED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, PRACTICES, DOGMAS, OR RITUALS; AND (2) APPLY A REBUTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT THE EXEMPTION IS NOT AVAILABLE, UNDER THE FOREGOING STANDARD, UNLESS THE PETITIONER CAN ALLEGE AND ESTABLISH A SIGNIFICANT HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS USE OF PEYOTE.† SUCH A PRESUMPTION IS JUSTIFIABLE AS AN OBJECTIVE MEANS OF DETERMINING THAT THE PETITIONER'S BELIEFS ARE BONA FIDE AND RELIGIOUS... until such time as you are able to demonstrate that you qualify for this exemption, you and the members of your group are without legal authority to possess and use peyote."
March 30, 1982
The Peyote Way Church of God receives a letter from Raymond White, of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer, and Feld, Attorneys at Law, In Dallas Texas, in response to a second request to the Dallas Chapter of the A.C.LU. for assistance, this time in setting up a suit against the Texas State and Federal Government.
May 20, 1982
(Case #CA-3-82-0778-71) Suit filed in the Federal Court of the Northern District of Texas, stating that the 1st, 5th, and 14th Constitutional Amendment rights of Church members are being restricted by Federal and Texas statutes. The Attorney General is represented by Douglas Becker.
December 2, 1982
Rev. Immanuel Trujillo, Rabbi Matthew Kent and expert witness Dr. John Northup, of Southwestern University, testify in Dallas at a Preliminary Hearing before Federal District Court Judge William M. Taylor. The Church seeks a temporary injunction against laws prohibiting the Church from procuring its Holy Sacrament peyote. Federal and Texas Attorneys General seek summary judgment against the Church.
August 5, 1983
Judge William Taylor denies Temporary Injunction and grants Summary Judgment upholding the constitutionality of both Federal and State statutes. Church appeals to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
January, 1984
Rev. Anne Zapf is called by revelation to serve as Church President by Rev. Trujillo, Apostle, for a nine year term of office.
March 4, 1984
Deacon Thomas Tookey and Rev Immanuel Trujillo depart Mother Church to establish an Information Mission of the Peyote Way Church of God in New York State.
June 4, 1984
Rev. Trujillo receives aid and shelter from local law enforcement agents John and Maria Pavlak and sets up the Information Mission in Saugerties, New York.
September 10, 1984
Rev. Anne Zapf gives birth to Joseph Immanuel Zapf-Kent at the church and is attended by Rabbi Kent and daughter Joy, sole residents at the Church at this time.
September 24, 1984
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alvin B. Rubin held that: "(1)Church had standing, and (2) in face of Church's declaration that it considered Peyote divine, an embodiment of the deity, and use of Peyote as a sacrament record did not show a compelling state interest in denying members right to use Peyote in religious ceremonies or that denial was narrowly drawn to attain an important governmental purpose; therefore, remand was appropriate for further proceedings to determine whether statutes making possession or distribution of Peyote a criminal act denied to members of the Church the right freely to exercise their religion under the First Amendment. Remanded."
June, 1985
Judge William Taylor dies and the case is delayed while awaiting Senate approval of Reagan appointed Federal District Court Judge.
November, 1985
Rev. Immanuel Trujillo returns to the Mother Church.
May 21, 1986
While driving through Globe, AZ, Rev. Trujillo is stopped by a Department of Public Safety officer for driving 55 mph in a 45 mph zone. As he is writing the ticket for speeding, the officer notices "Peyote Way Church of God" listed as Rev. Trujillo's address. During the ensuing conversation, Rev. Trujillo showed the officer a dried Peyote button that he carried in a medicine bag. A piece of the button fell to the ground and Rev. Trujillo put the piece in his mouth. He testified in court that he swallowed the Peyote as an act of prayer. The Gila County Attorney contended that eating Peyote along a highway was not a religious act. Rev. Trujillo was released later that day on his own recognizance, though he was accused of ingesting a dangerous drug.
February 14, 1987
(Case # CR-8953) Rev. Trujillo is found "not guilty" by a jury of nine after hearing the testimonies of the arresting officer for the State and Retired Graham County Sheriff Harold Stevens, Former Graham County District Attorney Irval Mortenson, Church President Rev. Anne Zapf and expert witness Andrew Weil M.D. for the Church. The jury deliberates for three hours before returning the "not guilty" verdict. The Peyote is returned. This was court appointed Public Defender Anna Ortiz's first case!
March, 1987
Brother Francis Murphy completes the ninety day Deaconship Training program and is confirmed as Clergy of the Second Degree.
June 16, 1987
The Church's suit against the Federal and Texas Governments (Case #CA 3-82-0778-T) is brought to trial in Federal District court in Dallas. The case was heard without a jury before Reagan appointee Judge Robert Maloney. (See March 1982)
Retired New York State police officer John Pavlak, Rabbi Matthew S. Kent, and Rev. Immanuel P. Trujillo testified in person.
The testimonies of former District Attorney Irval Mortensen, and retired Sheriff H.O. Stevens, both of Graham County, Arizona, were entered by deposition in support of the Church.
The witness list for the Government included Rev. Trujillo's estranged son Serge Veran Wallis, daughter-in-law Beatrice Solyom, Brendan Cunnane, and then Native American Church of North America (NAC) President Emerson Jackson.
The attorneys for the Federal and Texas Government declared that Rev. Trujillo was a "moral reprobate" and that the Church was "a sham and just plain baloney."
The Church attorneys argued that the Church was a bona fide Peyotist religion and that the exemption granted only to Native American members of Federally recognized tribes who had at least twenty five percent Native American ancestry was unconstitutional.
Officer Pavlak testified that Rev. Trujillo had lived with him and his family during most of 1984 and 85. He said that Immanuel was of high moral character and that he had often entrusted him with his eleven year old daughter.
Rabbi Kent was the principle witness for the Church. He testified for two days about the Church's beliefs, practices and controls over distribution of the Holy Sacrament.
The Government's request to view the Sacramental disbursement record was allowed only after all names of recipients except Zapf, Kent, and Trujillo were blotted out.
Rabbi Kent, after having testified that the Sacramental Disbursement Record was true and accurate, was presented by the Texas attorney with a page from the original record for the month of October 1980. This document had been removed from the Church files by Veran Wallis his stay at the Church in 1983.
The Government made much of the number of times Rev. Zapf had received the Holy Sacrament nine months before the birth of her first child.
The Church attorneys made much of the fact that Rabbi Kent had reproduced the missing page with great accuracy using other Church records.
Rev. Trujillo began his testimony during the final hours of the third day. Since Judge Maloney had only allotted four days for this trial he adjourned the court to be reconvened for three days in September, 1987.
September 29, 1987
Rev. Trujillo returns to the witness stand. His testimony recounts his long and honorable association with the NAC (1948-1966) and his reasons for wanting to help non-Indian Peyotists form their own church. He explained to the court how, as a Roadman, he and others were granted a charter for an All-Race Group within the NACNA during the mid 1960's and how this charter was revoked during the LSD craze of the late sixties.
The Government then presented Rev. Trujillo's son, Veran Wallis, whose testimony included many vindictive, false accusations about Zapf, Kent, Trujillo and other Church members. This witness was dismissed by the court and his testimony stricken from the record. Any testimony by his wife and Mr. Cunnane was disallowed by the Court after Wallis admitted to the Church Attorney that he and his wife and Mr. Cunnane had all, at the prompting of the Texas attorney, read most of the transcript of the previous testimony by Trujillo and Kent, a violation of court rules of procedure.
A much more subdued testimony from a 1985 deposition made by Mr. Wallis and his wife was entered into the court record. Attorneys from both sides selected portions of these depositions favorable to their point of view and a re-enactment of their testimony was then read into the record.
Emerson Jackson, who has repeatedly claimed "that all NAC members are of 25% Native American ancestry" conveniently left Dallas before Church Attorneys could call him to the witness stand.
October 15, 1987
The Board of Stewards grants permission to First Degree Clergy member, William Gajewski to pursue the Deaconship Training Program.
October 23, 1987
After both sides file final briefs, the case is closed. During 1987, the year of the trials, there were more than 200 visitors, 62 Spirit Walks, and 778 units of Holy Sacrament disbursed.
November 5, 1987
First Degree Clergy candidates, Peter McGuire and Susan Churchill are married by Rev. Anne Zapf.
May, 1988
To the surprise of several tax accountants, the Internal Revenue Service in Dallas denies Mana, Inc.™, the cottage industry support organization of the Peyote Way Church of God, tax exemption as a 50 1-c(3) organization. Mana, Inc.™ is held liable for funds it donated to the Church since 1984, and is assessed $13,000 in back taxes.
June, 1988
Mana, Inc.™ hires Ronald Jacobson, a prominent local tax accountant who helps reorganize Mana, Inc.™ as a for-profit business, and intercedes for the Church with the IRS, which waived certain late fees and agreed to a $200 monthly installment of payments plus interest. Church clergy, who had formerly donated all their labor for food and board, were allotted salaries for services rendered in the production of Mana, Inc.™ Black Rim Earthenware, and Mana,Inc.™ began paying rent to the Church for the use of two rooms in the Congregation House.
October 28, 1988
Judge Robert Maloney rules that Government regulations concerning Peyote are political, not racial. Although Judge Maloney found Zapf, Kent and Trujillo to be "sincere in their beliefs and in their desire to practice a form of Peyotism," he ruled that the Texas and Federal statutes "prohibiting the possession and distribution of Peyote are essential to accomplish the Governmental purpose of regulating the use of substances found to be harmful to the public at large." He found that the exemption for the religious use of Peyote by the Native American Church of North America was Constitutional as the NACNA is sui generis... that it is the only one of its own kind" and that the exemption was clearly meant to be a "grandfather clause and not a full-scale exemption of religious peyote use." He also found that Peyote Way's "right to privacy" argument pertaining to who an individual of 25% Native American ancestry must marry so that their children may practice their Peyote religion, "must fail" since "there is no constitutional right to use a controlled substance." The Church appeals.
March 30, 1989
Letter sent to Mrs. George Bush, which states: "We believe that the religious use of the herb, Peyote is not drug abuse... We know that our church is and always has been a part of the solution when it comes to substance abuse and control. Self-discipline is an integral part of the message of our church and of the Sacrament. We have never condoned the indiscriminate use of Peyote."
May, 1989
The final monthly installment is made on the Church land purchase. The Church is recognized by Graham County Assessor, Samuel Player, as a tax exempt organization, after eighteen years of paying land tax under protest.
June 20, 1989
Appeal (88-7039) is filed in Fifth Circuit Federal Court by Church Attorneys.
July 4, 1989
Deacon William Gajewski and Cooke Marquez are married by Rabbi Matthew S. Kent in the Congregation House.
July 31, 1989
Church President, Rev. Anne Zapf, assisted by Rabbi Kent, gives birth to Tristan Karl Raymer Zapf-Kent in Priory One.
September 10, 1989
At the Annual Meeting of the Board of Stewards, it is unanimously decided to extend the term of Presidency from five years to nine years.
December 21, 1989
Rev. Trujillo, Apostle, leaves on sabbatical to Bronx, New York.
April 18, 1990
The Federal Supreme Court rules 6-3 that the State is justified both in prohibiting religious use of Peyote and in denying unemployment benefits to NAC members Galen Black and Alfred Smith. This ruling gives the government broad power to enforce criminal laws of general applicability that conflict with religious practice because it abandons the "compelling interest" standard. This ruling was later used by the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court in their judgment against the Church.
July 27, 1990
President Zapf and Rabbi Kent are invited to meet Reuben Snake, an officer of the Native American Church of North America, and attorneys Steve Moore, of the Native American Rights Fund, and James Botsford, of the Indian Legal Defense Fund, to discuss the Church's appeal. The meeting takes place in Church Attorney Irval Mortensen's office, and later at the Mother Church in Klondyke. The young non-Indian attorneys insisted that they were working on legislation (the Native American Religious Freedom Act) and that the Church's suit, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision against Smith and Black, was a threat to Native American Peyotism and should be withdrawn. Snake, privately, informed Zapf and Kent, that there were many young "bucks" on the reservation, not under his control, who did not like Alfred Smith or Peyote Way. He offered that in return for dropping the appeal, he would put us in touch with a man in Taos who would see that the Church's sacramental needs were supplied. After conferring with Attorneys, the Board of Stewards decided to proceed with the appeal, confident that a negative ruling would not affect the NAC or change the Church's status in Arizona.
August 8, 1990
Oral arguments are presented by Church Attorney Mary O'Connor before the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court.
February 6, 1991
United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Judge Maloney's ruling that the exemption granted to the NAC is political and not racial. Chief Judge Clark filed the dissenting opinion that the entire exemption was an abridgement of the establishment clause. "I would hold that the exemptions violate the constitutional bar against making laws 'respecting an establishment of religion.' In my view, the fact that the impetus for the exemption arose from the federal government's paternalistic interest in American Indians and the 'me too' view of Texas cannot convert this purely religious exemption into a political one. This exemption is nothing more or less than a law respecting an establishment of religion, barred by the plain words of the first phrase of the First Amendment."
March 1, 1991
Rev. Trujillo receives an invitation to attend the Annual Meeting of the Native American Church in Rocky Boy, Montana, June 13-16.
May 1, 1991
Deaconess Norah Booth is called by President Zapf, to serve as her emissary to the Annual Meeting of the Native American Church of North America.
May 25, 1991
Rough cut lumber is trucked in from Luna, New Mexico for construction of the Peyote House.
June 13, 1991
Deaconess Booth presents her award winning documentary film about the Peyote Way Church of God at the meeting.† New NAC President Douglas Long follows the racist example set by former President Emerson Jackson and the Federal Government against the religious use of Peyote by non-Indians.
July 1, 1991
Patron member Michael Wagner, a carpenter who helped frame the Peyote House, dies after rolling his truck on the Aravaipa-Klondyke road, and is buried in the Church cemetery by Church clergy, friends and loved ones.
July 3, 1991
Peyote plants are confiscated by Graham County Sheriffs deputies from non-member Peyotist Karen Redwine. Following the advice of Church clergy, she had registered her sworn Declaration of Belief, in the Recorder's Office, in February of 1991. The Declaration stated that her reasons for possessing the Peyote plants were solely religious.
September 5, 1991
After several letters to the D.A.'s office and weekly visits to the Graham County Sheriff s Department by President Zapf, a letter is received from the Graham County Attorney's office stating that after reviewing the Declaration of Belief and the Arizona Statute, A.R.S. 13-3402, the District Attorney had decided to instruct the Sheriff's Department to release the live Peyote plants to Rev. Zapf and Karen Redwine.
September 6, 1991
U.S. District Judge Juan Burciaga rules in favor of Lawrence Boyll, a non-Indian member of the NAC, accused of mailing eight pounds of Peyote from Mexico. "In its war to free our society of the devastating effects of drugs, the government slights its duty to observe the fundamental freedom of individuals to practice the religion of their choice regardless of race." —Judge Juan Burciaga
September 24,1991
The Board of 20 Trustees of the Smithsonian Museum accept the donation of ceremonial pottery pieces made by clergy of the Peyote Way Church of God, to their permanent collection.
October, 1991
Nineteen live Peyote plants are returned to Karen Redwine, who entrusts them to the Church in gratitude for Rev. Zapf's efforts to get them released. The plants were planted in the Peyote House.
March 4, 1992
Five hundred Peyote plants are transplanted from Priory One into the Peyote House.
March 9, 1992
Arizona Department of Transportation accepts Peyote Way into Adopt-A-Highway program and puts two signs on U.S. Highway 70 at mile marker 327-326.
March, 1992
The Church learns of SB 1100, a bill introduced in the Arizona Senate, proposed by Senator Henderson, a Navajo, which is intended to change the present Constitutional Arizona Statute to permit Peyote only to Native American members of the Native American Church. Deaconess Norah Booth contacts Arizona State Senator Alan Stephens to protest this unconstitutional bill. Other Arizona Church members and Peyote Way Church clergy also call and write to protest SB 1100. Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee finds SB 1100 to be unconstitutional.
The Church receives a letter from Thomas Murphy requesting information to be used in an article discussing Peyote Way Church practice of the Word of Wisdom.
March 1993
The Church discovers that Church buildings have been assessed and taxed $747. Taxes were paid under protest and a "Petition for Review of Real Property Valuation" was submitted along with support letters written by local friends of the Church to Graham County Assessor Jacque Attaway.
September 4, 1993
Rabbi Matthew S. Kent is named President of the Peyote Way Church of God by revelation to outgoing President, Rev. Anne Zapf.
March 31, 1994
The Graham County Assessor decides to reinstate Peyote Way's tax exempt status.
May 20, 1994
Thomas Murphy presents an oral version of his paper, "The Word of Wisdom and Peyote; The diversity of Interpretations," to the Mormon History Association in Park City, Utah.
August 29-September 24, 1994
The Ritual Labor Products of the Peyote Way Church of God, paintings and ceramics, are exhibited at CU Art Galleries, by the University of Colorado at Boulder.
September 22, 1994
Rev. Trujillo lectures and answers questions for three hours to an informal gathering at the CU Art Galleries. Over three thousand people attended the Exhibition. The Church received a $1700 donation from the University of Colorado. Rev. Trujillo returns to the Mother Church.
November 1, 1994
Brother John Wooldridge is initiated First Degree Clergy.
February 16-19, 1995
Rabbi Matthew S. Kent, Rev. Immanuel Trujillo and Joy Zapf-Kent attend and speak at a conference on Psychoactive Sacraments sponsored by the Chicago Theological Seminary and the Council on Spiritual Practices, in Menlo Park, California. (see March '95 Sacred Record) Brother Andrew Dunham stays at the Church several days with Rev. Anne Zapf and sons Joseph and Tristan, during the two weeks Kent, Trujillo and Zapf-Kent were away.
April 2, 1995
Brother Andrew Dunham is initiated First Degree Clergy, and receives a blessing from Rabbi Matthew S. Kent.
June 6-11, 1995
Five Peyote inspired paintings produced by Rabbi Kent and Rev. Trujillo are selected for display and sale at the International Transpersonal Association Conference entitled "Spirit in Action," in Santa Clara, California.
June 6, 1995
Letter and package of documents is sent to Gene Haislip, Director of the D.E.A.'s Office of Compliance, requesting exemption from Federal and Texas Peyote Statutes.
1995-2007
The church has served from 80-100 communicants annually with no government intervention.
July 2005
Construction of the Peyote Way Greenhouse and introduction of the Greenhouse Project to educate the public and Native Americans to the need to grow their Holy Sacrament in greenhouses in order to perpetuate the Peyote Way.
1948
Rev. Immanuel Pardeahtan Trujillo meets Father Peyote with long time friend and teacher, Rev. William Russell, Apache Roadman for the Native American Church. Rev. Russell and Rev. Eugene Yoakum, teach Trujillo about the Spirit Walk and instill in him the non-racist nature of the Holy Sacrament Peyote.
August 26, 1961
Rev. Trujillo, having served In the offices of the Native American Church as Fireman, Cedar man, Drummer, and assisted the Earth Mother, sits his first meeting as Roadman for a 14 communicant teepee ceremony.
December 21, 1966
Case #56960, Denver. Rev. Trujillo is charged with illegal possession of Peyote.
May 24, 1967
Dr. Omer Stewart testifies for five hours. In his testimony, Dr. Stewart stated that Peyote induces a mood of contemplation. He concluded his testimony by singing one verse in a hymn used in services of the Native American Church, shaking a ceremonial rattle rhythmically as he sang. The song, he said, has only syllables, no words. Such hymns, he conceded, sound peculiar to people raised on Jesus Wants Me for a Moonbeam. (Denver Post)
June 28,1967
Rev. Trujillo is acquitted. Judge William Conley rules that the U.S. and Colorado constitutions prohibit the state from prosecuting a person who uses Peyote for religious purposes. Judge Conley held that "Pardeahtan used Peyote in honest and good faith in the practice of Peyotism, a bona fide religion." Judge Conley, in the decision, said Peyotism is defined by Webster's Dictionary as an intertribal American Indian religion adopting Christian elements to traditional tribal beliefs and practices distinguished by the sacramental use of peyote. The Judge held that without the use of peyote, Peyotism could not be practiced, stating that "Peyotism is the sole means by which the defendant is able to experience his religion."
1971
Church of Holy Light is established on 160 acres of sacred land in the Aravaipa Wilderness located in Graham County. The Open-Hand Rehabilitation Program of this Church uses the discipline inherent in the cottage Industry of Mana Black-Rim Earthenware to cure alcohol and drug addicts.
October, 1977
Rabbi Matthew S. Kent and Rev. Anne L. Zapf are introduced to the Holy Sacrament Peyote at the Church of Holy Light.
December 19, 1977
Rabbi Kent, Rev. Zapf, and Rev. Trujillo register a Declaration of Intent in the Graham County Recorders office stating that they were stewarding, ingesting, distributing and growing the Holy Sacrament Peyote as an essential and inseparable part of the religious beliefs of the Peyote Way Church of God. They also give a live peyote plant to Graham County Arizona Superior Court Judge Ruskin Lines, who advise them to "Document, document, document!" and kept the plant for the sheriff and police departments to examine (the plant was returned within a month).
September 1, 1978
The First Annual Meeting of the Board of Stewards of the Peyote Way Church of God. Bylaws and Points of Order are adopted and memberships are registered at the Graham County Recorder's Office.
May 11, 1979
The Peyote Way Church of God becomes an Arizona State Corporation (Non-Profit #0502791-1). The Bylaws of the Church and Sacramental procedure are published in the local paper.
July 11, 1979
First Letter sent to President Jimmy Carter and Justice Powell. "We are not trying to defy the American Government in any way. We are simply asking for a clear interpretation of our Constitutional rights as American citizens. We of the Peyote Way Church of God cannot concede that the sacrament Peyote is just for Indians in the United States. No one race can own a sacrament of God for we are all children of one Holy Mother and Father."
January 23,1980
The Articles of Incorporation are published in the Eastern Arizona Courier.
January 29, 1980
Second letter sent to President Jimmy Carter, which states: "The use of Peyote as a sacrament has been restricted for many years to the Native American Church of North America..."
May 18, 1980
Peyote Way Church of God New Mexico Mission, and its Constitutional Law Enforcement Team, is announced in the Eastern Arizona Courier. The Rescue Mission is defined as well as qualifications of Rescue Mission Servants.
June 30, 1980
Declaration of Holy Pilgrimage are filed in Travis County, Texas.
July 2, 1980
First Church Pilgrimage to South Texas to introduce the Texas State government to the Peyote Way Church of God and procure the Holy Sacrament Peyote from a D.E.A. registered Peyote Dealer.
Rev. Trujillo meets with Lt. Governor, Assistant Attorney General, and the F.B.I.
July 5-7, 1980
Church officers, Rev. Immanuel Trujillo, Rabbi Matthew Kent and Rev. Anne Zapf meet Government Authorized Peyote Distributor, Marcos Muniz, who shows them how to find and harvest Peyote. Church officers are given a Federal Government receipt for the purchase of 25 buttons from Muniz, who also offers to sell land to the Church.
October 19, 1980
"Declaration of Intent" of Church officers to procure Peyote in Mexico is registered at Graham County Courthouse and sent to the Arizona Attorney General, Senator Barry Goldwater, Congressman Morris Udall, and Governor Bruce Babbit.
November 10, 1980
Church President, Rev. Immanuel Trujillo, sends three Church officers, Rabbi Matthew Kent, Deaconess Norah Booth, and Rev. Anne Zapf, to Texas to introduce themselves and the Peyote Way Church of God to the Governor and Attorney General, to procure the Holy Sacrament Peyote and to buy land.
November 13, 1980
Rev. Anne Zapf, Deaconess Norah Booth, and Rabbi Matthew Kent are pulled over by a law enforcement officer in Richardson, Texas. After asking for Rabbi Kent's license and registration, the officer asked if the Peyote Way Church of God was a member of the Council of Churches. The officer had noticed a large sign on the side of the pickup truck, which read "Peyote Way Church of God, Texas Pilgrimage, 1980," which was also painted with stylized Peyote buttons and firebirds. Kent replied no. The officer then asked if Church officers had any Peyote in their possession. Church officers produced their Medicine bags and revealed 12 buttons, the recommended quantity (four buttons each) for Church Clergy when traveling in the Temporal World, "...in the event of imminent martyrdom." (Bylaws, Annotation One, Sacramental Procedure: Reformed Ritual.) Church officers were immediately placed under arrest and the pickup, full of Mana pottery, was searched and impounded.
November 14, 1980
After 24 hours in jail and pleading not guilty to unlawful possession of a dangerous drug and impeding traffic, Church officers Zapf, Booth and Kent were released on $1,000. bond.
November 17, 1980
Church officers give Assistant Attorney General Douglas Becker a copy of Church Bylaws and The Sacred Record. Becker offers the Church no relief from Texas' racist Peyote laws. To Becker's glib, "My hands are tied." Rabbi Kent responded, "Well, ours are cuffed."
November 26, 1980
Church officers Zapf, Booth and Kent harvest Peyote with Government Authorized Distributor, Marcos Muniz, in South Texas and are given a Federal Government receipt for the purchase of 25 buttons.
November 27, 1980
Rev. Mother Marilyn Lewis, pastor, gives birth at the Mother Church to Yirmeyah Sidqenu, her second son.
December, 1980
Rescue Mission birthing at Mother Church, in Klondyke, Arizona.
January, 1981
New Mexico Mission is closed. Tucson-Texas Mission is opened by Rabbi Kent, Deaconess Booth, and Rev. Zapf, and closed when Rev. Zapf discovers she is pregnant. President Trujillo encourages Kent and Zapf to return to the Mother Church for the duration of her pregnancy.
February, 1981
Rabbi Kent and Rev. Zapf are granted a Stewardship of 5 acres of Church land for homesteading. Kent and Brother Richard Carpenter begin construction on Priory One, a church building to serve as office and living quarters for Rev. Zapf and her family. Funds used for the construction of Priory I were donated by Joyce P. Zapf and Thomas F. Kent, M.D.
February 5, 1981
Sister Carmella Cooper gives birth to Ben Morning Sun at the Mother Church.
April 7, 1981
The Church receives Federal Tax-Exempt status (Tax-Exempt E.I.N.942722621).
April 21, 1981
Texas American Civil Liberties Union (A.C.L.U.) notifies Rabbi Matthew Kent that they do not defend criminal cases. In their letter they stated that many churches/religious orders have challenged the Peyote laws in court on religious discrimination grounds, but the only case that was successful was the case for the Native American Church. In other cases the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the factual claims that they were indeed legitimate churches/religions.
July 14, 1981
Rev. Anne Zapf gives birth in Priory One, at the Mother Church to Kristin Joy Zapf-Kent, with Rabbi Kent and two church members attending.
December 17, 1981
After hearing the testimony of the arresting police officers, and Attorney Michael Millikan's defense, a Dallas County Superior Judge dismisses the case against Church officers, Zapf, Booth and Kent, calling the arrest an obvious case of subterfuge. One arresting officer testified to having discussed stopping the truck with the Peyote signs. The other officer said that they did not. The Holy Sacrament Peyote confiscated during the arrest is not returned.
January 3, 1982
Letter sent to Texas Governor William Clements, Jr., describing arrest of Church officers and requesting that he take personal action to change his state's unconstitutional Peyote Laws.
January 16, 1982
Letter sent to President Ronald Reagan describing the current situation of the Church as a bona fide Peyotist religion, which cannot procure Peyote from its Native Habitat in South Texas because of discriminatory state and federal laws.
March 4, 1982
Church receives letter from Director of Compliance and Regulatory Affairs, Gene R. Haislip, of the U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration. In his response to the Church's request to be included in the exemption granted to the Native American Church of North America, Haislip quotes from the MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE CHIEF COUNSEL, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION:
"(1) REQUIRE THAT THE PETITIONER BE A MEMBER OF A BONA FIDE PEYOTE-USING RELIGION IN WHICH THE ACTUAL USE OF PEYOTE IS CENTRAL TO ESTABLISHED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, PRACTICES, DOGMAS, OR RITUALS; AND (2) APPLY A REBUTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT THE EXEMPTION IS NOT AVAILABLE, UNDER THE FOREGOING STANDARD, UNLESS THE PETITIONER CAN ALLEGE AND ESTABLISH A SIGNIFICANT HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS USE OF PEYOTE.† SUCH A PRESUMPTION IS JUSTIFIABLE AS AN OBJECTIVE MEANS OF DETERMINING THAT THE PETITIONER'S BELIEFS ARE BONA FIDE AND RELIGIOUS... until such time as you are able to demonstrate that you qualify for this exemption, you and the members of your group are without legal authority to possess and use peyote."
March 30, 1982
The Peyote Way Church of God receives a letter from Raymond White, of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer, and Feld, Attorneys at Law, In Dallas Texas, in response to a second request to the Dallas Chapter of the A.C.LU. for assistance, this time in setting up a suit against the Texas State and Federal Government.
May 20, 1982
(Case #CA-3-82-0778-71) Suit filed in the Federal Court of the Northern District of Texas, stating that the 1st, 5th, and 14th Constitutional Amendment rights of Church members are being restricted by Federal and Texas statutes. The Attorney General is represented by Douglas Becker.
December 2, 1982
Rev. Immanuel Trujillo, Rabbi Matthew Kent and expert witness Dr. John Northup, of Southwestern University, testify in Dallas at a Preliminary Hearing before Federal District Court Judge William M. Taylor. The Church seeks a temporary injunction against laws prohibiting the Church from procuring its Holy Sacrament peyote. Federal and Texas Attorneys General seek summary judgment against the Church.
August 5, 1983
Judge William Taylor denies Temporary Injunction and grants Summary Judgment upholding the constitutionality of both Federal and State statutes. Church appeals to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
January, 1984
Rev. Anne Zapf is called by revelation to serve as Church President by Rev. Trujillo, Apostle, for a nine year term of office.
March 4, 1984
Deacon Thomas Tookey and Rev Immanuel Trujillo depart Mother Church to establish an Information Mission of the Peyote Way Church of God in New York State.
June 4, 1984
Rev. Trujillo receives aid and shelter from local law enforcement agents John and Maria Pavlak and sets up the Information Mission in Saugerties, New York.
September 10, 1984
Rev. Anne Zapf gives birth to Joseph Immanuel Zapf-Kent at the church and is attended by Rabbi Kent and daughter Joy, sole residents at the Church at this time.
September 24, 1984
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alvin B. Rubin held that: "(1)Church had standing, and (2) in face of Church's declaration that it considered Peyote divine, an embodiment of the deity, and use of Peyote as a sacrament record did not show a compelling state interest in denying members right to use Peyote in religious ceremonies or that denial was narrowly drawn to attain an important governmental purpose; therefore, remand was appropriate for further proceedings to determine whether statutes making possession or distribution of Peyote a criminal act denied to members of the Church the right freely to exercise their religion under the First Amendment. Remanded."
June, 1985
Judge William Taylor dies and the case is delayed while awaiting Senate approval of Reagan appointed Federal District Court Judge.
November, 1985
Rev. Immanuel Trujillo returns to the Mother Church.
May 21, 1986
While driving through Globe, AZ, Rev. Trujillo is stopped by a Department of Public Safety officer for driving 55 mph in a 45 mph zone. As he is writing the ticket for speeding, the officer notices "Peyote Way Church of God" listed as Rev. Trujillo's address. During the ensuing conversation, Rev. Trujillo showed the officer a dried Peyote button that he carried in a medicine bag. A piece of the button fell to the ground and Rev. Trujillo put the piece in his mouth. He testified in court that he swallowed the Peyote as an act of prayer. The Gila County Attorney contended that eating Peyote along a highway was not a religious act. Rev. Trujillo was released later that day on his own recognizance, though he was accused of ingesting a dangerous drug.
February 14, 1987
(Case # CR-8953) Rev. Trujillo is found "not guilty" by a jury of nine after hearing the testimonies of the arresting officer for the State and Retired Graham County Sheriff Harold Stevens, Former Graham County District Attorney Irval Mortenson, Church President Rev. Anne Zapf and expert witness Andrew Weil M.D. for the Church. The jury deliberates for three hours before returning the "not guilty" verdict. The Peyote is returned. This was court appointed Public Defender Anna Ortiz's first case!
March, 1987
Brother Francis Murphy completes the ninety day Deaconship Training program and is confirmed as Clergy of the Second Degree.
June 16, 1987
The Church's suit against the Federal and Texas Governments (Case #CA 3-82-0778-T) is brought to trial in Federal District court in Dallas. The case was heard without a jury before Reagan appointee Judge Robert Maloney. (See March 1982)
Retired New York State police officer John Pavlak, Rabbi Matthew S. Kent, and Rev. Immanuel P. Trujillo testified in person.
The testimonies of former District Attorney Irval Mortensen, and retired Sheriff H.O. Stevens, both of Graham County, Arizona, were entered by deposition in support of the Church.
The witness list for the Government included Rev. Trujillo's estranged son Serge Veran Wallis, daughter-in-law Beatrice Solyom, Brendan Cunnane, and then Native American Church of North America (NAC) President Emerson Jackson.
The attorneys for the Federal and Texas Government declared that Rev. Trujillo was a "moral reprobate" and that the Church was "a sham and just plain baloney."
The Church attorneys argued that the Church was a bona fide Peyotist religion and that the exemption granted only to Native American members of Federally recognized tribes who had at least twenty five percent Native American ancestry was unconstitutional.
Officer Pavlak testified that Rev. Trujillo had lived with him and his family during most of 1984 and 85. He said that Immanuel was of high moral character and that he had often entrusted him with his eleven year old daughter.
Rabbi Kent was the principle witness for the Church. He testified for two days about the Church's beliefs, practices and controls over distribution of the Holy Sacrament.
The Government's request to view the Sacramental disbursement record was allowed only after all names of recipients except Zapf, Kent, and Trujillo were blotted out.
Rabbi Kent, after having testified that the Sacramental Disbursement Record was true and accurate, was presented by the Texas attorney with a page from the original record for the month of October 1980. This document had been removed from the Church files by Veran Wallis his stay at the Church in 1983.
The Government made much of the number of times Rev. Zapf had received the Holy Sacrament nine months before the birth of her first child.
The Church attorneys made much of the fact that Rabbi Kent had reproduced the missing page with great accuracy using other Church records.
Rev. Trujillo began his testimony during the final hours of the third day. Since Judge Maloney had only allotted four days for this trial he adjourned the court to be reconvened for three days in September, 1987.
September 29, 1987
Rev. Trujillo returns to the witness stand. His testimony recounts his long and honorable association with the NAC (1948-1966) and his reasons for wanting to help non-Indian Peyotists form their own church. He explained to the court how, as a Roadman, he and others were granted a charter for an All-Race Group within the NACNA during the mid 1960's and how this charter was revoked during the LSD craze of the late sixties.
The Government then presented Rev. Trujillo's son, Veran Wallis, whose testimony included many vindictive, false accusations about Zapf, Kent, Trujillo and other Church members. This witness was dismissed by the court and his testimony stricken from the record. Any testimony by his wife and Mr. Cunnane was disallowed by the Court after Wallis admitted to the Church Attorney that he and his wife and Mr. Cunnane had all, at the prompting of the Texas attorney, read most of the transcript of the previous testimony by Trujillo and Kent, a violation of court rules of procedure.
A much more subdued testimony from a 1985 deposition made by Mr. Wallis and his wife was entered into the court record. Attorneys from both sides selected portions of these depositions favorable to their point of view and a re-enactment of their testimony was then read into the record.
Emerson Jackson, who has repeatedly claimed "that all NAC members are of 25% Native American ancestry" conveniently left Dallas before Church Attorneys could call him to the witness stand.
October 15, 1987
The Board of Stewards grants permission to First Degree Clergy member, William Gajewski to pursue the Deaconship Training Program.
October 23, 1987
After both sides file final briefs, the case is closed. During 1987, the year of the trials, there were more than 200 visitors, 62 Spirit Walks, and 778 units of Holy Sacrament disbursed.
November 5, 1987
First Degree Clergy candidates, Peter McGuire and Susan Churchill are married by Rev. Anne Zapf.
May, 1988
To the surprise of several tax accountants, the Internal Revenue Service in Dallas denies Mana, Inc.™, the cottage industry support organization of the Peyote Way Church of God, tax exemption as a 50 1-c(3) organization. Mana, Inc.™ is held liable for funds it donated to the Church since 1984, and is assessed $13,000 in back taxes.
June, 1988
Mana, Inc.™ hires Ronald Jacobson, a prominent local tax accountant who helps reorganize Mana, Inc.™ as a for-profit business, and intercedes for the Church with the IRS, which waived certain late fees and agreed to a $200 monthly installment of payments plus interest. Church clergy, who had formerly donated all their labor for food and board, were allotted salaries for services rendered in the production of Mana, Inc.™ Black Rim Earthenware, and Mana,Inc.™ began paying rent to the Church for the use of two rooms in the Congregation House.
October 28, 1988
Judge Robert Maloney rules that Government regulations concerning Peyote are political, not racial. Although Judge Maloney found Zapf, Kent and Trujillo to be "sincere in their beliefs and in their desire to practice a form of Peyotism," he ruled that the Texas and Federal statutes "prohibiting the possession and distribution of Peyote are essential to accomplish the Governmental purpose of regulating the use of substances found to be harmful to the public at large." He found that the exemption for the religious use of Peyote by the Native American Church of North America was Constitutional as the NACNA is sui generis... that it is the only one of its own kind" and that the exemption was clearly meant to be a "grandfather clause and not a full-scale exemption of religious peyote use." He also found that Peyote Way's "right to privacy" argument pertaining to who an individual of 25% Native American ancestry must marry so that their children may practice their Peyote religion, "must fail" since "there is no constitutional right to use a controlled substance." The Church appeals.
March 30, 1989
Letter sent to Mrs. George Bush, which states: "We believe that the religious use of the herb, Peyote is not drug abuse... We know that our church is and always has been a part of the solution when it comes to substance abuse and control. Self-discipline is an integral part of the message of our church and of the Sacrament. We have never condoned the indiscriminate use of Peyote."
May, 1989
The final monthly installment is made on the Church land purchase. The Church is recognized by Graham County Assessor, Samuel Player, as a tax exempt organization, after eighteen years of paying land tax under protest.
June 20, 1989
Appeal (88-7039) is filed in Fifth Circuit Federal Court by Church Attorneys.
July 4, 1989
Deacon William Gajewski and Cooke Marquez are married by Rabbi Matthew S. Kent in the Congregation House.
July 31, 1989
Church President, Rev. Anne Zapf, assisted by Rabbi Kent, gives birth to Tristan Karl Raymer Zapf-Kent in Priory One.
September 10, 1989
At the Annual Meeting of the Board of Stewards, it is unanimously decided to extend the term of Presidency from five years to nine years.
December 21, 1989
Rev. Trujillo, Apostle, leaves on sabbatical to Bronx, New York.
April 18, 1990
The Federal Supreme Court rules 6-3 that the State is justified both in prohibiting religious use of Peyote and in denying unemployment benefits to NAC members Galen Black and Alfred Smith. This ruling gives the government broad power to enforce criminal laws of general applicability that conflict with religious practice because it abandons the "compelling interest" standard. This ruling was later used by the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court in their judgment against the Church.
July 27, 1990
President Zapf and Rabbi Kent are invited to meet Reuben Snake, an officer of the Native American Church of North America, and attorneys Steve Moore, of the Native American Rights Fund, and James Botsford, of the Indian Legal Defense Fund, to discuss the Church's appeal. The meeting takes place in Church Attorney Irval Mortensen's office, and later at the Mother Church in Klondyke. The young non-Indian attorneys insisted that they were working on legislation (the Native American Religious Freedom Act) and that the Church's suit, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision against Smith and Black, was a threat to Native American Peyotism and should be withdrawn. Snake, privately, informed Zapf and Kent, that there were many young "bucks" on the reservation, not under his control, who did not like Alfred Smith or Peyote Way. He offered that in return for dropping the appeal, he would put us in touch with a man in Taos who would see that the Church's sacramental needs were supplied. After conferring with Attorneys, the Board of Stewards decided to proceed with the appeal, confident that a negative ruling would not affect the NAC or change the Church's status in Arizona.
August 8, 1990
Oral arguments are presented by Church Attorney Mary O'Connor before the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court.
February 6, 1991
United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds Judge Maloney's ruling that the exemption granted to the NAC is political and not racial. Chief Judge Clark filed the dissenting opinion that the entire exemption was an abridgement of the establishment clause. "I would hold that the exemptions violate the constitutional bar against making laws 'respecting an establishment of religion.' In my view, the fact that the impetus for the exemption arose from the federal government's paternalistic interest in American Indians and the 'me too' view of Texas cannot convert this purely religious exemption into a political one. This exemption is nothing more or less than a law respecting an establishment of religion, barred by the plain words of the first phrase of the First Amendment."
March 1, 1991
Rev. Trujillo receives an invitation to attend the Annual Meeting of the Native American Church in Rocky Boy, Montana, June 13-16.
May 1, 1991
Deaconess Norah Booth is called by President Zapf, to serve as her emissary to the Annual Meeting of the Native American Church of North America.
May 25, 1991
Rough cut lumber is trucked in from Luna, New Mexico for construction of the Peyote House.
June 13, 1991
Deaconess Booth presents her award winning documentary film about the Peyote Way Church of God at the meeting.† New NAC President Douglas Long follows the racist example set by former President Emerson Jackson and the Federal Government against the religious use of Peyote by non-Indians.
July 1, 1991
Patron member Michael Wagner, a carpenter who helped frame the Peyote House, dies after rolling his truck on the Aravaipa-Klondyke road, and is buried in the Church cemetery by Church clergy, friends and loved ones.
July 3, 1991
Peyote plants are confiscated by Graham County Sheriffs deputies from non-member Peyotist Karen Redwine. Following the advice of Church clergy, she had registered her sworn Declaration of Belief, in the Recorder's Office, in February of 1991. The Declaration stated that her reasons for possessing the Peyote plants were solely religious.
September 5, 1991
After several letters to the D.A.'s office and weekly visits to the Graham County Sheriff s Department by President Zapf, a letter is received from the Graham County Attorney's office stating that after reviewing the Declaration of Belief and the Arizona Statute, A.R.S. 13-3402, the District Attorney had decided to instruct the Sheriff's Department to release the live Peyote plants to Rev. Zapf and Karen Redwine.
September 6, 1991
U.S. District Judge Juan Burciaga rules in favor of Lawrence Boyll, a non-Indian member of the NAC, accused of mailing eight pounds of Peyote from Mexico. "In its war to free our society of the devastating effects of drugs, the government slights its duty to observe the fundamental freedom of individuals to practice the religion of their choice regardless of race." —Judge Juan Burciaga
September 24,1991
The Board of 20 Trustees of the Smithsonian Museum accept the donation of ceremonial pottery pieces made by clergy of the Peyote Way Church of God, to their permanent collection.
October, 1991
Nineteen live Peyote plants are returned to Karen Redwine, who entrusts them to the Church in gratitude for Rev. Zapf's efforts to get them released. The plants were planted in the Peyote House.
March 4, 1992
Five hundred Peyote plants are transplanted from Priory One into the Peyote House.
March 9, 1992
Arizona Department of Transportation accepts Peyote Way into Adopt-A-Highway program and puts two signs on U.S. Highway 70 at mile marker 327-326.
March, 1992
The Church learns of SB 1100, a bill introduced in the Arizona Senate, proposed by Senator Henderson, a Navajo, which is intended to change the present Constitutional Arizona Statute to permit Peyote only to Native American members of the Native American Church. Deaconess Norah Booth contacts Arizona State Senator Alan Stephens to protest this unconstitutional bill. Other Arizona Church members and Peyote Way Church clergy also call and write to protest SB 1100. Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee finds SB 1100 to be unconstitutional.
The Church receives a letter from Thomas Murphy requesting information to be used in an article discussing Peyote Way Church practice of the Word of Wisdom.
March 1993
The Church discovers that Church buildings have been assessed and taxed $747. Taxes were paid under protest and a "Petition for Review of Real Property Valuation" was submitted along with support letters written by local friends of the Church to Graham County Assessor Jacque Attaway.
September 4, 1993
Rabbi Matthew S. Kent is named President of the Peyote Way Church of God by revelation to outgoing President, Rev. Anne Zapf.
March 31, 1994
The Graham County Assessor decides to reinstate Peyote Way's tax exempt status.
May 20, 1994
Thomas Murphy presents an oral version of his paper, "The Word of Wisdom and Peyote; The diversity of Interpretations," to the Mormon History Association in Park City, Utah.
August 29-September 24, 1994
The Ritual Labor Products of the Peyote Way Church of God, paintings and ceramics, are exhibited at CU Art Galleries, by the University of Colorado at Boulder.
September 22, 1994
Rev. Trujillo lectures and answers questions for three hours to an informal gathering at the CU Art Galleries. Over three thousand people attended the Exhibition. The Church received a $1700 donation from the University of Colorado. Rev. Trujillo returns to the Mother Church.
November 1, 1994
Brother John Wooldridge is initiated First Degree Clergy.
February 16-19, 1995
Rabbi Matthew S. Kent, Rev. Immanuel Trujillo and Joy Zapf-Kent attend and speak at a conference on Psychoactive Sacraments sponsored by the Chicago Theological Seminary and the Council on Spiritual Practices, in Menlo Park, California. (see March '95 Sacred Record) Brother Andrew Dunham stays at the Church several days with Rev. Anne Zapf and sons Joseph and Tristan, during the two weeks Kent, Trujillo and Zapf-Kent were away.
April 2, 1995
Brother Andrew Dunham is initiated First Degree Clergy, and receives a blessing from Rabbi Matthew S. Kent.
June 6-11, 1995
Five Peyote inspired paintings produced by Rabbi Kent and Rev. Trujillo are selected for display and sale at the International Transpersonal Association Conference entitled "Spirit in Action," in Santa Clara, California.
June 6, 1995
Letter and package of documents is sent to Gene Haislip, Director of the D.E.A.'s Office of Compliance, requesting exemption from Federal and Texas Peyote Statutes.
1995-2007
The church has served from 80-100 communicants annually with no government intervention.
July 2005
Construction of the Peyote Way Greenhouse and introduction of the Greenhouse Project to educate the public and Native Americans to the need to grow their Holy Sacrament in greenhouses in order to perpetuate the Peyote Way.
January 27, 2018, 07:25:59 PM
Sgt Dan Hill #3573
Austin PD – Narcotics Conspiracy Unit
Had an Investigation open on us in 2015, until I proved our Religion is Sincere
Austin PD – Narcotics Conspiracy Unit
Had an Investigation open on us in 2015, until I proved our Religion is Sincere
January 27, 2018, 07:25:10 PM
Members of our Church are and have been Oppressed by the US Government, and are currently under threat of the US Government, and are being denied equal access to the Courts by the US Government and various States.
Here is another Church (The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church) that already went through this same process but did not know the IACHR existed.
http://files.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/ezcc/federal1/07cv23_009-2.pdf
https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/Leonhart_deny_Olsen.pdf
http://www.carl-olsen.com/wp-content/themes/carlolsen/pdfs/04cr00317_346.pdf
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c0a9add7b049347b5257
Attached files send to the IACHR include the death Certificate of my brother, who was unable to access our Sacrament in a Hospital, even in a State where Marijuana is Medically legal. As well as the Petitions submitted to the DEA and MEA.
The case Numbers for the cases we have open against Colorado Departments, and the DEA and Attorney General of the United States (the Federal Case has been improperly delayed) are
3:17-cv-734-LBN in Dallas Federal District Court
17CV674 in Denver County District Court
Here is another Church (The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church) that already went through this same process but did not know the IACHR existed.
http://files.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/ezcc/federal1/07cv23_009-2.pdf
https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/Leonhart_deny_Olsen.pdf
http://www.carl-olsen.com/wp-content/themes/carlolsen/pdfs/04cr00317_346.pdf
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c0a9add7b049347b5257
Attached files send to the IACHR include the death Certificate of my brother, who was unable to access our Sacrament in a Hospital, even in a State where Marijuana is Medically legal. As well as the Petitions submitted to the DEA and MEA.
The case Numbers for the cases we have open against Colorado Departments, and the DEA and Attorney General of the United States (the Federal Case has been improperly delayed) are
3:17-cv-734-LBN in Dallas Federal District Court
17CV674 in Denver County District Court
January 24, 2018, 03:40:41 PM
The Federalist Papers
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-10.php
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-51.php
Free Exercise Clause (US Constitution, 1st Amendment)
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
The text of the Ninth Amendment is very short and states the following:
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Thomas Jefferson
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0222-0002
Resolved, That the statutes 1.E.6.c.1. 5 & 6.E.6.c.1. 1.El.c.2. 23.El.c.1. 28.El.c.6. 35.El.c.1. 1.Jac.1.c.4. 3.Jac.1.c.1. 3.Jac.1.c.4. 3.Jac.1.c.21. and the act of ass. 1705.c.6. & so much of all other acts or ordinances/statutes as prescribe punishments for the offence of opinions deemed heretical> render criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion or the exercising any mode of worship whatever or as prescribe punishments for the same ; and all acts or statutes, acts or ordinances made against ought to be repealed.
Resolved that it is the opn of this Commee that so much of the sd. petitions as prays that the establishment of the Church of England by law in this Commonwealth may be discontinued, and that no pre-eminence may be allowed to any one Religious sect over another, is reasonable; & therefore that the several laws establishing the sd. Church of England, giving peculiar privileges to the it’s ministers thereof, & levying for the support thereof the same contributions on the people independent of their good will ought to be repealed; saving to such incumbents as are now actually seised of Glebe lands, their rights to such Glebe lands during their lives, & to such parishes as have received private donations for the use of support of the sd. Church of England the perpetual benefit of such donations.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZTIoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=but+as+it+was+a+spontaneous+joining+of+members,+it+follows+that+it's+laws+extend+to+it's+own+members+only&source=bl&ots=vblfoRb5PZ&sig=R1cXioJHhOSkIyxaFNKWlQtyv1Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjglMzkxIHLAhWHwYMKHfdpD5YQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=but%20as%20it%20was%20a%20spontaneous%20joining%20of%20members%2C%20it%20follows%20that%20it's%20laws%20extend%20to%20it's%20own%20members%20only&f=false
but as it was a spontaneous joining of members, it follows that it’s laws extend to it’s own members only, not to those of any other voluntary society: for then by the same rule some other voluntary society might usurp power over them.
Christ has said ‘wheresoever 2 or 3 are gatherd. togeth. in his name he will be in the midst of them.’ this is his definition of a society. he does not make it essential that a bishop or presbyter govern them. without them it suffices for the salvation of souls.
Rule 5.1. (Overturning Laws with the Constitution)
(a) Notice by a Party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly:
(1) file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper that raises it, if:
(A) a federal statute is questioned and the parties do not include the United States, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; or
(B) a state statute is questioned and the parties do not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; and
(2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned—or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned—either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.
(b) Certification by the Court. The court must, under 28 U.S.C. §2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned.
(c) Intervention; Final Decision on the Merits. Unless the court sets a later time, the attorney general may intervene within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time to intervene expires, the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.
(d) No Forfeiture. A party’s failure to file and serve the notice, or the court’s failure to certify, does not forfeit a constitutional claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted.
Civil Rights Act of 1866
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866
Civil Rights Act of 1871
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Enforcement_Act_of_1871
Civil Rights Act of 1957
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957
Civil Rights Act of 1964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21
Civil Rights Act of 1965
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-enforced-voting-section
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
Wall of Separation between Church and State
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/510/case.html
Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church
History of the Church/Temples being the State, and how it is now equal to a State
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/210/296/case.html
Treaty of Paris 1763
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1763)
Watson V Jones
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/80/679/case.html
Courts can not rule on the truth or falsity of a religious teaching;
Where a previous authority structure existed before the dispute, courts should defer to the decisions of that structure, and;
In the absence of such an internal authority structure, courts should defer to the wishes of a majority of the congregation.
Serbian Orthodox Diocese V Milivojevich
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/696/
“Per the Establishment Clause, decisions imposed by hierarchical religious organizations are binding in civil courts”
Gonzales V O Centro
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/04-1084/index.pdf
“Under RFRAs more focused inquiry, the Governments mere invocation of the general characteristics of Schedule I substances cannot carry the day. Although Schedule I substances such as DMT are exceptionally dangerous, see, e.g., Touby v. United States, 500 U. S. 160, 162, there is no indication that Congress, in classifying DMT, considered the harms posed by the particular use at issue. ”
Burwell V Hobby Lobby
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
“In RLUIPA, in an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the reference to the First Amendment and defined the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief”.”
Cutter V Wilkinson
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-9877.pdf
“officials (respondents here), in violation of RLUIPA, have failed to accommodate their religious exercise “in a variety of different ways, including retaliating and discriminating against them for exercising their nontraditional faiths, denying them access to religious literature, denying them the same opportunities for group worship that are granted to adherents of mainstream religions, forbidding them to adhere to the dress and appearance mandates of their religions, withholding religious ceremonial items…”
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye V Hialeah
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/520/case.html
“The city does not argue that Santeria is not a “religion” within the meaning of the First Amendment. Nor could it. 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).”
Stormans V Weisman
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-862_2c8f.pdf
“In addition, the ordinances restricted religious practice to a far greater extent than required to serve the municipality’s asserted interests. Id., at 538–539. Here, Ralph’s has made a strong showing that the challenged regulations are gerrymandered in a similar way. While requiring pharmacies to dispense all prescription medications for which there is demand, the regulations contain broad secular exceptions but none relating to religious or moral objections;”
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
(Choosing your Religion)
“The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 ; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 –486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.”
Church of the Holy Trinity V United States
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/case.html
&
United States V Kirby
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/482/case.html
“All laws should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will always therefore be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter. The common sense of man approves the judgment mentioned by Puffendorf, that the Bolognian law which enacted ‘that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity’ did not extend to the surgeon who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street in a fit. The same common sense accepts the ruling, cited by Plowden, that the statute of 1st Edw. II which enacts that a prisoner who breaks prison shall be guilty of felony, does not extend to a prisoner who breaks out when the prison is on fire, ‘for he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt.’ And we think that a like common sense will sanction the ruling we make, that the act of Congress which punishes the obstruction or retarding of the passage of the mail, or of its carrier, does not apply to a case of temporary detention of the mail caused by the arrest of the carrier upon an indictment for murder.”
People V Philips
https://blog.lrrc.com/churchstate/case/people-v-phillips-n-y-ct-of-genl-sessions-1813-reprinted-in-1-western-l-j-109-1843-and-1-cath-law-199-1955/
Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664 (upholding property tax exemption for religious organizations); Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987) (upholding Civil Rights Act exemption allowing religious institutions to restrict hiring to members of religion); Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (upholding a provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 that prohibits governments from imposing a “substantial burden on the religious exercise” of an institutionalized person unless the burden furthers a “compelling governmental interest” and is the “least restrictive means of achieving that interest”); Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 724 (2005) (quoting Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 338 (1987)); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (law aimed at restricting ritual of a single religious group);
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 63
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 317 (1952)
Larson V Valente
Although the solicitation cases have generally been decided under the free exercise or free speech clauses,205 in one instance the Court, intertwining establishment and free exercise principles, voided a provision in a state charitable solicitations law that required only those religious organizations that received less than half their total contributions from members or affiliated organizations to comply with the registration and reporting sections of the law.206 Applying strict scrutiny equal protection principles, the Court held that by distinguishing between older, well-established churches that had strong membership financial support and newer bodies lacking a contributing constituency or that may favor public solicitation over general reliance on financial support from the members, the statute granted denominational preference forbidden by the Establishment Clause.
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 63
A big theme of Religion in the Supreme Court is that once the Government starts regulating Religion, it breaks down the wall between Church and State, which then brings Religion in to school. Both of which are Unconstitutional.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948).
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b1udhr.htm
Article 18
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976.
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b3ccpr.htm
Article 18
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, G.A. res. 36/55, 36 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 171, U.N. Doc. A/36/684 (1981).
http://www.unesco.org/most/migration/full_dec_elim1.htm
Article 1, Article 2, Article 4, Article 6 (definitely pay attention to sections C & H), Article 7
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (1986)
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/FreedomReligionIndex.aspx
Mandate
Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22, Article 18 (Forty-eighth session, 1993). Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 35 (1994).
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/gencomm/hrcom22.htm
2, 3, 4
Hymn of the Rig Veda
https://books.google.com/books?id=lqKwteD19U8C&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=rig+veda+long-hair+drug&source=bl&ots=MKyMx6Gofj&sig=oxfr2HCbnVxNqUp-TucDazbJJkI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXno_AmLLPAhUOzGMKHUS7AdgQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=rig%20veda%20long-hair%20drug&f=false
NCBI Article about this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22742944
“…Cannabis Indica has been used for literally thousands of years in the worship of the god Shiva. Cannabis is used in an orally administered form called bhang which can be either the wet resinous leaves formed into pills of a drink made of milk, cannabis, and various spices consumed by worshipers of Shiva on festival days or by smoking the flowering buds of cannabis-a practice generally reserved for holy men who dedicate their lives to ascetic practice and the worship of Shiva. This practice is codified in the Vedas as well as in legends about the origin of cannabis and its relationship to Shiva.”
This is the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report (1893-94) it was done by the British in India because they thought there might be a link between insanity and Cannabis, as well as moral degradation and Cannabis. But it was found to be completely safe, and they started taxing it.
http://digital.nls.uk/indiapapers/browse/pageturner.cfm?id=74908458
DEA Judge Francis Young, findings of fact
http://www.ccguide.org/young88.php
“the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience.”
Pew Research
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-hindu/
“There are about 1 billion Hindus around the world, representing 15% of the global population. Major traditions within Hinduism include Vaishnavism, which is devoted to worship of the god Vishnu, and Shaivism, organized around worship of the god Shiva.”
The Encyclopedia of Religion
Vol. 1
http://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133762/Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.01_of_14(AARON-_ATTENTION).pdf
Vol. 2
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133768/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.02_of_14%28ATTRIBUTES_OF_GOD-_BUTLER%2C_JOSEPH%29.pdf
Vol. 3
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133769/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.03_of_14%28CABASILAS%2C_NICHOLAS-_CYRUS_II%29.pdf
Vol. 4
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133770/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.04_of_14%28DACIAN_RIDERS-_ESTHER%29.pdf
Vol. 5
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133771/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.05_of_14%28ETERNITY-_GOD%29.pdf
Vol. 6
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133758/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.06_of_14%28GODDESS_WORSHIP-_ICONOCLASM%29.pdf
Vol. 7
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133759/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.07_of_14%28ICONOGRAPHY-_JUSTIN_MARTYR%29.pdf
Vol. 8
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133760/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.08_of_14%28KA%26%23039_BAH-_MARX%2C_KARL%29.pdf
Vol. 9
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133761/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.09_of_14%28MARY-_NDEMBU_RELIGION%29.pdf
Vol. 10
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133763/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.10_of_14%28NECROMANCY-_PINDAR%29.pdf
Vol. 11
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133764/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.11_of_14%28PIUS_IX-_RIVERS%29.pdf
Vol. 12
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133765/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.12_of_14%28RNYING_MA_PA_SCHOOL-_SOUL%29.pdf
Vol. 13
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133766/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.13_of_14%28SOUTH_AMERICAN_INDIAN_RELIGIONS-_TRANSCENDENCE_AND–NENCE%29.pdf
Vol. 14
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133767/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.14_of_14%28TRANSCENDENTAL_MEDITATION-_ZWINGLI%2C_HULDRYCH%29.pdf
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-10.php
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-51.php
Free Exercise Clause (US Constitution, 1st Amendment)
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
The text of the Ninth Amendment is very short and states the following:
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Thomas Jefferson
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-01-02-0222-0002
Resolved, That the statutes 1.E.6.c.1. 5 & 6.E.6.c.1. 1.El.c.2. 23.El.c.1. 28.El.c.6. 35.El.c.1. 1.Jac.1.c.4. 3.Jac.1.c.1. 3.Jac.1.c.4. 3.Jac.1.c.21. and the act of ass. 1705.c.6. & so much of all other acts or ordinances/statutes as prescribe punishments for the offence of opinions deemed heretical> render criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion or the exercising any mode of worship whatever or as prescribe punishments for the same ; and all acts or statutes, acts or ordinances made against ought to be repealed.
Resolved that it is the opn of this Commee that so much of the sd. petitions as prays that the establishment of the Church of England by law in this Commonwealth may be discontinued, and that no pre-eminence may be allowed to any one Religious sect over another, is reasonable; & therefore that the several laws establishing the sd. Church of England, giving peculiar privileges to the it’s ministers thereof, & levying for the support thereof the same contributions on the people independent of their good will ought to be repealed; saving to such incumbents as are now actually seised of Glebe lands, their rights to such Glebe lands during their lives, & to such parishes as have received private donations for the use of support of the sd. Church of England the perpetual benefit of such donations.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZTIoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=but+as+it+was+a+spontaneous+joining+of+members,+it+follows+that+it's+laws+extend+to+it's+own+members+only&source=bl&ots=vblfoRb5PZ&sig=R1cXioJHhOSkIyxaFNKWlQtyv1Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjglMzkxIHLAhWHwYMKHfdpD5YQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=but%20as%20it%20was%20a%20spontaneous%20joining%20of%20members%2C%20it%20follows%20that%20it's%20laws%20extend%20to%20it's%20own%20members%20only&f=false
but as it was a spontaneous joining of members, it follows that it’s laws extend to it’s own members only, not to those of any other voluntary society: for then by the same rule some other voluntary society might usurp power over them.
Christ has said ‘wheresoever 2 or 3 are gatherd. togeth. in his name he will be in the midst of them.’ this is his definition of a society. he does not make it essential that a bishop or presbyter govern them. without them it suffices for the salvation of souls.
Rule 5.1. (Overturning Laws with the Constitution)
(a) Notice by a Party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly:
(1) file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper that raises it, if:
(A) a federal statute is questioned and the parties do not include the United States, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; or
(B) a state statute is questioned and the parties do not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity; and
(2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned—or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned—either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose.
(b) Certification by the Court. The court must, under 28 U.S.C. §2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned.
(c) Intervention; Final Decision on the Merits. Unless the court sets a later time, the attorney general may intervene within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time to intervene expires, the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.
(d) No Forfeiture. A party’s failure to file and serve the notice, or the court’s failure to certify, does not forfeit a constitutional claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted.
Civil Rights Act of 1866
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866
Civil Rights Act of 1871
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Enforcement_Act_of_1871
Civil Rights Act of 1957
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957
Civil Rights Act of 1964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21
Civil Rights Act of 1965
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
https://www.justice.gov/crt/statutes-enforced-voting-section
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
Wall of Separation between Church and State
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/510/case.html
Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church
History of the Church/Temples being the State, and how it is now equal to a State
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/210/296/case.html
Treaty of Paris 1763
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1763)
Watson V Jones
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/80/679/case.html
Courts can not rule on the truth or falsity of a religious teaching;
Where a previous authority structure existed before the dispute, courts should defer to the decisions of that structure, and;
In the absence of such an internal authority structure, courts should defer to the wishes of a majority of the congregation.
Serbian Orthodox Diocese V Milivojevich
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/696/
“Per the Establishment Clause, decisions imposed by hierarchical religious organizations are binding in civil courts”
Gonzales V O Centro
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/04-1084/index.pdf
“Under RFRAs more focused inquiry, the Governments mere invocation of the general characteristics of Schedule I substances cannot carry the day. Although Schedule I substances such as DMT are exceptionally dangerous, see, e.g., Touby v. United States, 500 U. S. 160, 162, there is no indication that Congress, in classifying DMT, considered the harms posed by the particular use at issue. ”
Burwell V Hobby Lobby
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
“In RLUIPA, in an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the reference to the First Amendment and defined the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief”.”
Cutter V Wilkinson
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-9877.pdf
“officials (respondents here), in violation of RLUIPA, have failed to accommodate their religious exercise “in a variety of different ways, including retaliating and discriminating against them for exercising their nontraditional faiths, denying them access to religious literature, denying them the same opportunities for group worship that are granted to adherents of mainstream religions, forbidding them to adhere to the dress and appearance mandates of their religions, withholding religious ceremonial items…”
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye V Hialeah
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/520/case.html
“The city does not argue that Santeria is not a “religion” within the meaning of the First Amendment. Nor could it. 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).”
Stormans V Weisman
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-862_2c8f.pdf
“In addition, the ordinances restricted religious practice to a far greater extent than required to serve the municipality’s asserted interests. Id., at 538–539. Here, Ralph’s has made a strong showing that the challenged regulations are gerrymandered in a similar way. While requiring pharmacies to dispense all prescription medications for which there is demand, the regulations contain broad secular exceptions but none relating to religious or moral objections;”
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
(Choosing your Religion)
“The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 ; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 –486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.”
Church of the Holy Trinity V United States
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/case.html
&
United States V Kirby
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/482/case.html
“All laws should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will always therefore be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter. The common sense of man approves the judgment mentioned by Puffendorf, that the Bolognian law which enacted ‘that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity’ did not extend to the surgeon who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street in a fit. The same common sense accepts the ruling, cited by Plowden, that the statute of 1st Edw. II which enacts that a prisoner who breaks prison shall be guilty of felony, does not extend to a prisoner who breaks out when the prison is on fire, ‘for he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt.’ And we think that a like common sense will sanction the ruling we make, that the act of Congress which punishes the obstruction or retarding of the passage of the mail, or of its carrier, does not apply to a case of temporary detention of the mail caused by the arrest of the carrier upon an indictment for murder.”
People V Philips
https://blog.lrrc.com/churchstate/case/people-v-phillips-n-y-ct-of-genl-sessions-1813-reprinted-in-1-western-l-j-109-1843-and-1-cath-law-199-1955/
Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664 (upholding property tax exemption for religious organizations); Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987) (upholding Civil Rights Act exemption allowing religious institutions to restrict hiring to members of religion); Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (upholding a provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 that prohibits governments from imposing a “substantial burden on the religious exercise” of an institutionalized person unless the burden furthers a “compelling governmental interest” and is the “least restrictive means of achieving that interest”); Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 724 (2005) (quoting Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 338 (1987)); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (law aimed at restricting ritual of a single religious group);
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 63
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)
Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 317 (1952)
Larson V Valente
Although the solicitation cases have generally been decided under the free exercise or free speech clauses,205 in one instance the Court, intertwining establishment and free exercise principles, voided a provision in a state charitable solicitations law that required only those religious organizations that received less than half their total contributions from members or affiliated organizations to comply with the registration and reporting sections of the law.206 Applying strict scrutiny equal protection principles, the Court held that by distinguishing between older, well-established churches that had strong membership financial support and newer bodies lacking a contributing constituency or that may favor public solicitation over general reliance on financial support from the members, the statute granted denominational preference forbidden by the Establishment Clause.
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 63
A big theme of Religion in the Supreme Court is that once the Government starts regulating Religion, it breaks down the wall between Church and State, which then brings Religion in to school. Both of which are Unconstitutional.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948).
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b1udhr.htm
Article 18
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976.
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b3ccpr.htm
Article 18
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, G.A. res. 36/55, 36 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 171, U.N. Doc. A/36/684 (1981).
http://www.unesco.org/most/migration/full_dec_elim1.htm
Article 1, Article 2, Article 4, Article 6 (definitely pay attention to sections C & H), Article 7
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (1986)
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/FreedomReligionIndex.aspx
Mandate
Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22, Article 18 (Forty-eighth session, 1993). Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 35 (1994).
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/gencomm/hrcom22.htm
2, 3, 4
Hymn of the Rig Veda
https://books.google.com/books?id=lqKwteD19U8C&pg=PA137&lpg=PA137&dq=rig+veda+long-hair+drug&source=bl&ots=MKyMx6Gofj&sig=oxfr2HCbnVxNqUp-TucDazbJJkI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXno_AmLLPAhUOzGMKHUS7AdgQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=rig%20veda%20long-hair%20drug&f=false
NCBI Article about this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22742944
“…Cannabis Indica has been used for literally thousands of years in the worship of the god Shiva. Cannabis is used in an orally administered form called bhang which can be either the wet resinous leaves formed into pills of a drink made of milk, cannabis, and various spices consumed by worshipers of Shiva on festival days or by smoking the flowering buds of cannabis-a practice generally reserved for holy men who dedicate their lives to ascetic practice and the worship of Shiva. This practice is codified in the Vedas as well as in legends about the origin of cannabis and its relationship to Shiva.”
This is the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report (1893-94) it was done by the British in India because they thought there might be a link between insanity and Cannabis, as well as moral degradation and Cannabis. But it was found to be completely safe, and they started taxing it.
http://digital.nls.uk/indiapapers/browse/pageturner.cfm?id=74908458
DEA Judge Francis Young, findings of fact
http://www.ccguide.org/young88.php
“the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience.”
Pew Research
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-hindu/
“There are about 1 billion Hindus around the world, representing 15% of the global population. Major traditions within Hinduism include Vaishnavism, which is devoted to worship of the god Vishnu, and Shaivism, organized around worship of the god Shiva.”
The Encyclopedia of Religion
Vol. 1
http://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133762/Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.01_of_14(AARON-_ATTENTION).pdf
Vol. 2
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133768/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.02_of_14%28ATTRIBUTES_OF_GOD-_BUTLER%2C_JOSEPH%29.pdf
Vol. 3
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133769/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.03_of_14%28CABASILAS%2C_NICHOLAS-_CYRUS_II%29.pdf
Vol. 4
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133770/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.04_of_14%28DACIAN_RIDERS-_ESTHER%29.pdf
Vol. 5
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133771/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.05_of_14%28ETERNITY-_GOD%29.pdf
Vol. 6
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133758/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.06_of_14%28GODDESS_WORSHIP-_ICONOCLASM%29.pdf
Vol. 7
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133759/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.07_of_14%28ICONOGRAPHY-_JUSTIN_MARTYR%29.pdf
Vol. 8
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133760/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.08_of_14%28KA%26%23039_BAH-_MARX%2C_KARL%29.pdf
Vol. 9
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133761/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.09_of_14%28MARY-_NDEMBU_RELIGION%29.pdf
Vol. 10
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133763/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.10_of_14%28NECROMANCY-_PINDAR%29.pdf
Vol. 11
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133764/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.11_of_14%28PIUS_IX-_RIVERS%29.pdf
Vol. 12
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133765/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.12_of_14%28RNYING_MA_PA_SCHOOL-_SOUL%29.pdf
Vol. 13
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133766/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.13_of_14%28SOUTH_AMERICAN_INDIAN_RELIGIONS-_TRANSCENDENCE_AND–NENCE%29.pdf
Vol. 14
http://e-reading.club/bookreader.php/133767/Jones_-_Encyclopedia_of_religion.vol.14_of_14%28TRANSCENDENTAL_MEDITATION-_ZWINGLI%2C_HULDRYCH%29.pdf
January 24, 2018, 03:34:52 PM
In August 2016, the DEA opened up Registration for Federal Marijuana Growers, Importers, and Researchers.
Federal Register
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/12/2016-17955/applications-to-become-registered-under-the-controlled-substances-act-to-manufacture-marijuana-to
Catalent has already been approved to Import Tons of Marijuana
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/imprt/app/2017/fr0918_4.htm
Orrin Hatch and Jeff Sessions had a discussion about it the other day, there are 26 new companies that are waiting to be approved (we submitted our Religious Exemption in there too, so now it’s 27)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOU7kVRwFxw
Here is what the Senate has to say about Marijuana
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-13-16%20Weiss%20Testimony.pdf
Kratom not Scheduled after massive Twitter Response
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/10/13/2016-24659/withdrawal-of-notice-of-intent-to-temporarily-place-mitragynine-and-7-hydroxymitragynine-into
Lipomed can pretty much import anything
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/imprt/reg/2016/fr0119_2.htm
DOJ Anti-Trust Division says that the DEA has to accept new Manufactures and Importers so as not to be creating Monopolies.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/memorandum-antitrust-division-united-states-department-justice-amicus-curiae-support-application
Here is the contact email to ask questions for the Registration department at the DEA
[email protected]
United States v. E. C. Knight Co. 156 U.S. 1 (1895)
Counsel contend that this definition, as explained by the derivation of the word, may be applied to all cases in which “one person sells alone the whole of any kind of marketable thing, so that only he can continue to sell it, fixing the price at his own pleasure,” whether by virtue of legislative grant or agreement; that the monopolization referred to in the act of Congress is not confined to the common law sense of the term as implying an exclusive control, by authority, of one branch of industry without legal right of any other person to interfere therewith by competition or otherwise, but that it includes engrossing as well, and covers controlling the market by contracts securing the advantage of selling alone or exclusively all or some considerable portion of a particular kind or merchandise or commodity to the detriment of the public, and that such contracts amount to that restraint of trade or commerce declared to be illegal. But the monopoly and restraint denounced by the act are the monopoly and restraint of interstate and international trade or commerce, while the conclusion to be assumed on this record is that the result of the transaction complained of was the creation of a monopoly in the manufacture of a necessary of life.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/faqs_policy_statement_regarding_marijuana_issues_in_indian_country_28jan15.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/house-amendment/332
You may have heard some crazy quotes about how safe Marijuana is, such as “Aspirin is more dangerous than Marijuana” or “Potatoes are more dangerous than Marijuana” or “It would take 100 tons of Marijuana, smoked in 15 minutes to Overdose” and other crazy quotes. Those actually came from a DEA Judge, Judge Francis, and he backed up everything he said.
https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/Young1988.pdf
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf
The way this works is that the DEA has absolutely no Obligation to refuse Religious use of Substances which are not on the UN Psychotropics Convention.
The DEA used to say “Everyone is banned, so Religion is banned”. But then in Gonzales V O Centro, they pointed to DEA Form 225, and showed that not everyone is banned. And the Supreme Court said that if they are doing it, then Religion can do it. And the DEA said “But we have the UN Psychotropics Convention” and the Court said “This substance is not covered by that Treaty”. And the DEA had to stand down and create this process.
If anyone is confused about how I am going to get a DEA Exemption, this explains how it actually works. The Controlled Substances Act is what we are talking about, and first off, is it called the “Banned Substances Act” or the “Controlled Substances Act” and are they “Banned” or are they “Scheduled”?
Mallinkdrot is literally allowed to sell Medical Cocaine online, here is the link.
http://www2.mallinckrodt.com/Active_Pharmaceutical_Ingredients/Controlled_Substances/
So what Mallinckrodt has is an exemption. A Medical Exemption. Yet no where in the Constitution is there a “Medical Clause”, but there is a “Free Exercise Clause”; which forced the DEA to create the process in this link:
http://www2.mallinckrodt.com/Templates/Pages/productdetail.aspx?id=1597
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf
Federal Register
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/12/2016-17955/applications-to-become-registered-under-the-controlled-substances-act-to-manufacture-marijuana-to
Catalent has already been approved to Import Tons of Marijuana
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/imprt/app/2017/fr0918_4.htm
Orrin Hatch and Jeff Sessions had a discussion about it the other day, there are 26 new companies that are waiting to be approved (we submitted our Religious Exemption in there too, so now it’s 27)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOU7kVRwFxw
Here is what the Senate has to say about Marijuana
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-13-16%20Weiss%20Testimony.pdf
Kratom not Scheduled after massive Twitter Response
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/10/13/2016-24659/withdrawal-of-notice-of-intent-to-temporarily-place-mitragynine-and-7-hydroxymitragynine-into
Lipomed can pretty much import anything
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/imprt/reg/2016/fr0119_2.htm
DOJ Anti-Trust Division says that the DEA has to accept new Manufactures and Importers so as not to be creating Monopolies.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/memorandum-antitrust-division-united-states-department-justice-amicus-curiae-support-application
Here is the contact email to ask questions for the Registration department at the DEA
[email protected]
United States v. E. C. Knight Co. 156 U.S. 1 (1895)
Counsel contend that this definition, as explained by the derivation of the word, may be applied to all cases in which “one person sells alone the whole of any kind of marketable thing, so that only he can continue to sell it, fixing the price at his own pleasure,” whether by virtue of legislative grant or agreement; that the monopolization referred to in the act of Congress is not confined to the common law sense of the term as implying an exclusive control, by authority, of one branch of industry without legal right of any other person to interfere therewith by competition or otherwise, but that it includes engrossing as well, and covers controlling the market by contracts securing the advantage of selling alone or exclusively all or some considerable portion of a particular kind or merchandise or commodity to the detriment of the public, and that such contracts amount to that restraint of trade or commerce declared to be illegal. But the monopoly and restraint denounced by the act are the monopoly and restraint of interstate and international trade or commerce, while the conclusion to be assumed on this record is that the result of the transaction complained of was the creation of a monopoly in the manufacture of a necessary of life.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/faqs_policy_statement_regarding_marijuana_issues_in_indian_country_28jan15.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/house-amendment/332
You may have heard some crazy quotes about how safe Marijuana is, such as “Aspirin is more dangerous than Marijuana” or “Potatoes are more dangerous than Marijuana” or “It would take 100 tons of Marijuana, smoked in 15 minutes to Overdose” and other crazy quotes. Those actually came from a DEA Judge, Judge Francis, and he backed up everything he said.
https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/Young1988.pdf
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf
The way this works is that the DEA has absolutely no Obligation to refuse Religious use of Substances which are not on the UN Psychotropics Convention.
The DEA used to say “Everyone is banned, so Religion is banned”. But then in Gonzales V O Centro, they pointed to DEA Form 225, and showed that not everyone is banned. And the Supreme Court said that if they are doing it, then Religion can do it. And the DEA said “But we have the UN Psychotropics Convention” and the Court said “This substance is not covered by that Treaty”. And the DEA had to stand down and create this process.
If anyone is confused about how I am going to get a DEA Exemption, this explains how it actually works. The Controlled Substances Act is what we are talking about, and first off, is it called the “Banned Substances Act” or the “Controlled Substances Act” and are they “Banned” or are they “Scheduled”?
Mallinkdrot is literally allowed to sell Medical Cocaine online, here is the link.
http://www2.mallinckrodt.com/Active_Pharmaceutical_Ingredients/Controlled_Substances/
So what Mallinckrodt has is an exemption. A Medical Exemption. Yet no where in the Constitution is there a “Medical Clause”, but there is a “Free Exercise Clause”; which forced the DEA to create the process in this link:
http://www2.mallinckrodt.com/Templates/Pages/productdetail.aspx?id=1597
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf
January 24, 2018, 02:59:34 PM
Here are email contacts for people within the Colorado Department of Revenue, who openly told me that they are in Violation of Federal Law (in person when I went up there for a Scheduled meeting), and when I told them that our Temple is not in Violation of Federal Law, they were confused and just said "We do Recreational and Medical, not Religious", which is why they are part of the Human Rights Case.
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
January 24, 2018, 02:57:46 PM
We have also contacted these people within the USDA and will make them aware of any results in our Religious Cases with the DEA
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
[email protected]
January 24, 2018, 02:35:25 PM
Here is how the IACHR works
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpN2R3hp-E0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpN2R3hp-E0
January 24, 2018, 02:26:19 PM
I also received a response from the NSA today asking me to take them to Federal Court, and we already have a Petition in with the DEA that we need to take them to Federal Court for as well.
Earlier today:
I just got off the phone with the NSA, and they said that they sent my Appeal letter to me already, which is simply not True. So they are seeing if they can send it out again.
For anyone who is not in the loop. October 2016 I asked the NSA for all records on me that Edward Snowden told us they have (From the PRISM Program), they said "We can neither Confirm nor Deny the existence of records, or else we would have to tell Terrorists things too". So then they said I could appeal, and today the Lady on the phone tried to tell me "We don't own those records" and I said "I called the NSA FOIA Liaison office, if you can't hand out records, what is your job??? Just to tell people that you don't own Records?" then I let her know that I already filed an Administrative Claim over 1 year ago now, so I have standing to sue and am simply being nice to them and have given them 2 years to correct this.
So she asked where to send the Appeal.
Then just a minute ago
I got a call from the NSA from a blocked number, and I didn't answer so they called from a non-Blocked number, and it said Maryland, so I answered.
They asked what email to send the Appeal Response to, and I just got a response that ended with this:
You are hereby advised of your right pursuant to 5 U.S.C. S 552(a)(4)(B) to seek judicial review of our determination in the United States District Court in the District which you reside.
Then they said I can contact the:
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Rd - OGIS
College Park, MD 20740
[email protected]
877 684 6448 / 202 741 5770
Signed by someone named
David J Sherman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/releasethememo-2808179
Everyone thinks #ReleaseTheMemo is Partisan, but it is not. It is part of a Larger, Historical, Problem within the FBI and CIA. We have all heard "Conspiracy Theories" about "Them", but sometimes there really are people in rooms filled with Cigar Smoke (metaphorically).
Call your Congress person and tell them you want to know what your tax Dollars are paying for the FBI to do
202-224-3121
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)
The "Intelligence Community" uses more Cryptography and Dark Web Applications than anyone in the World, that is why they didn't care what Hillary was doing, they do the same thing all the time.
They used to put like a News Paper or something at your house, with a Clock on the third page with the Hands pointing to the time you were supposed to go sit on the Bench.
Now they use the same Apps they try to tell you not to use because they are for ISIS.
These are articles about the NSA's Program called PRISM, where they use Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc servers to collect information about you:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/12/heres-everything-we-know-about-prism-to-date/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/08/fbi-changes-privacy-rules-accessing-nsa-prism-data
http://www.vocativ.com/295204/nsa-prism/
http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/nsa-prism.htm
If you want to submit a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act request in order to get record from the NSA about you) here is how to do that. The Privacy Act Request is the Normal one to use (the 3rd one here) but you can file both. The top is a sample letter so that you have a template.
http://www.nfoic.org/sample-foia-request-letters
http://m.nsa.gov/resources/everyone/foia/submit-foia-request/
http://m.nsa.gov/resources/everyone/foia/submit-privacy-act-request/
This is how to file a Consumer Complaint about any Company that has given away your information, this must be filed before a lawsuit.
https://www.usa.gov/consumer-complaints
EPCA (Privacy Act)
https://epic.org/privacy/ecpa/
https://epic.org/privacy/laws/privacy_act.html
"Individuals who violate ECPA face up to five years in prison and fines up to $250,000. Victims are also entitled to bring civil suits and recover actual damages, in addition to punitive damages and attorney's fees, for violations."
FISA (Foreign Surveillance law where the FISA courts come from)
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter36&edition=prelim
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text
Applications of the Privacy Act
https://www.rosen.com/divorce/divorcearticles/electronic-communications-privacy-act/
http://www.jurist.org/hotline/2014/01/khaliah-barnes-privacy-act.php
42 U.S. Code § 1983 (Lawsuit for Violation of Rights)
18 U.S. Code § 242 (Criminal Charges for Government Officers using their status to infringe on personal Rights)
28 USC § 1442 (Bringing a Lawsuit against Government Officers)
Title II Rule 3 & 5 (Procedure for Suing Government Agencies)
Flast V Cohen (You can sue the Government for misuse of tax funds)
Katz V United States (Reasonable expectation of Privacy)
United States V United States District Court (Wiretapping)
Riley V California (Cell Phone Records)
United States V Guest (Protection from Government Conspiracies)
Watkins V United States (Congress' Power is not Unlimited)
Buckley V Fitzsimmons (No Immunity for Illegal investigations)
Hanrahan V Hampton (Example of an Extensive Government Conspiracy hashed out in Court for 20 years)
Include facts and damages in your claim. Your administrative claim must include the exact amount of money damages you are claiming, as well as enough facts about your case to allow the federal agency to investigate the merits of your claim. Using a SF 95 form will help ensure that you've included all of the necessary information.
The agency has six months to respond. Once your claim is submitted, the federal agency has six months to rule on it. In some cases, the federal agency may "admit" your claim (that is, agree that your claim is valid) and agree to pay you some or all of the money damages you demanded, and you may not need to go to court.
You then have six months to file a lawsuit. If the federal agency rejects your claim or refuses to pay all the money damages you demanded, you have six months from the date on which the decision is mailed to you to file a lawsuit. Again, file your lawsuit as soon as possible after receiving this decision to avoid any chance of having your lawsuit dismissed as untimely.
You don't have to sue until the agency rules on your claim. If the federal agency fails to rule on your administrative claim within six months, you have the choice of either awaiting the agency's decision or going ahead with your lawsuit. As long as the federal agency is still considering your claim, there is no time limit for you to file a law suit in federal court; the six-month time limit only begins to run once the agency has ruled on your claim.
Once you have gone through the procedures listed above -- a process known as "exhausting your administrative remedies" -- you are eligible to file a lawsuit in court to pursue money damages from the government.
Examples of Government Corruption
https://www.aclu.org/news/fbi-audit-exposes-widespread-abuse-patriot-act-powers
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/james-whitey-bulgers-capture-could-cause-trouble-inside-the-fbi/2011/06/24/AGis2cjH_story.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks
“The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to users of social media as "sock puppets" – could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.
The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries".”
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec5_14273491
ECPA Case law
Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated, et al. v. Secret Service, et al., 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994)
Microsoft Corp. v. United States, No. 14-2985 (2d Cir. 2017)
4th Amendment Case Law
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Soldal v. Cook County 506 U.S. 56 (1992)
United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012)
Florida v. Jardines 569 U.S. ___ (2013)
There is no immunity for investigative activities Buckley v. Fitzsimmons 509 U.S. 259 (1993)
Government Agencies may not reveal private information during investigations Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957)
They are known to spy on the citizens on the United States
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/12/heres-everything-we-know-about-prism-to-date/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/08/fbi-changes-privacy-rules-accessing-nsa-prism-data
http://www.vocativ.com/295204/nsa-prism/
http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/nsa-prism.htm
both have the capability to turn cell phones and other devices into spying devices Riley v. California 573 U.S. ___ (2014); United States v. United States Dist. Ct. 407 U.S. 297 (1972)
https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/
both have the capability to spy through walls using FLIR technology Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
http://www.flir.com/home/
Warrants can be retrieved and acted on illegally (Overbroad warrants, Malicious Warrants, etc), and those acting on them are liable for doing so Messerschmidt, et al. v. Millender, et al. 565 U.S. ___ (2012)
Defendant and Defendant 2 are both known to abuse their capabilities and retrieve illegal warrants to do so
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/02/23/court-invalidates-cell-phone-warrant-as-overbroad/
http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/exigentinvestigation
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/323/case.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kurtz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_Patriot_Act
https://www.aclu.org/news/fbi-audit-exposes-widespread-abuse-patriot-act-powers
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/james-whitey-bulgers-capture-could-cause-trouble-inside-the-fbi/2011/06/24/AGis2cjH_story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/30/politics/what-happens-if-the-patriot-act-provisions-expire/
http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0072564938/student_view0/chapter4/chapter_outline.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_of_process
Government Agents must be held to a higher standard than other citizens due to the fact that they are acting under Color of Law Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
Color of Law
The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties. Under the civil rights act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983), color of law is synonymous with State Action, which is conduct by an officer that bears a sufficiently close nexus to a state so that the action is treated as though it is by the state.
Types of Police misconduct include false confession, false arrest, false evidence, false imprisonment, intimidation, police brutality, police corruption, racial profiling, surveillance abuse, witness tampering, and off-duty misconduct.
Others include:
1. Noble Cause corruption, where an officer believes that a good outcome justifies his bad behavior.
2. Selective Enforcement, allowing friends, family and other officers to break the law.
3. Abuse of Power, using the badge to get in to places you would otherwise not be invited or allowed, discounts, etc.
4. Police Perjury, blatant lying under oath and/or to other authorities to cover wrongdoing.
5. Violation by Officers of police procedural policy.
Laws intended to protect against abuse of authority include the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures; the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which includes due process and equal protection clauses; the Civil Rights Act of 1871; and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Noble Cause corruption:
Corruption caused by the adherence to a teleological ethical system (ex: By their fruits you shall know them; pulling over anyone with larger rims on their car), suggesting that the person "will utilize unethical, and sometimes illegal, means to obtain a desired result," a result which appears to benefit the greater good.
Flast V Cohen
https://epic.org/privacy/ecpa/
Individuals who violate ECPA face up to five years in prison and fines up to $250,000. Victims are also entitled to bring civil suits and recover actual damages, in addition to punitive damages and attorney's fees, for violations.
Earlier today:
I just got off the phone with the NSA, and they said that they sent my Appeal letter to me already, which is simply not True. So they are seeing if they can send it out again.
For anyone who is not in the loop. October 2016 I asked the NSA for all records on me that Edward Snowden told us they have (From the PRISM Program), they said "We can neither Confirm nor Deny the existence of records, or else we would have to tell Terrorists things too". So then they said I could appeal, and today the Lady on the phone tried to tell me "We don't own those records" and I said "I called the NSA FOIA Liaison office, if you can't hand out records, what is your job??? Just to tell people that you don't own Records?" then I let her know that I already filed an Administrative Claim over 1 year ago now, so I have standing to sue and am simply being nice to them and have given them 2 years to correct this.
So she asked where to send the Appeal.
Then just a minute ago
I got a call from the NSA from a blocked number, and I didn't answer so they called from a non-Blocked number, and it said Maryland, so I answered.
They asked what email to send the Appeal Response to, and I just got a response that ended with this:
You are hereby advised of your right pursuant to 5 U.S.C. S 552(a)(4)(B) to seek judicial review of our determination in the United States District Court in the District which you reside.
Then they said I can contact the:
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Rd - OGIS
College Park, MD 20740
[email protected]
877 684 6448 / 202 741 5770
Signed by someone named
David J Sherman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/releasethememo-2808179
Everyone thinks #ReleaseTheMemo is Partisan, but it is not. It is part of a Larger, Historical, Problem within the FBI and CIA. We have all heard "Conspiracy Theories" about "Them", but sometimes there really are people in rooms filled with Cigar Smoke (metaphorically).
Call your Congress person and tell them you want to know what your tax Dollars are paying for the FBI to do
202-224-3121
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)
The "Intelligence Community" uses more Cryptography and Dark Web Applications than anyone in the World, that is why they didn't care what Hillary was doing, they do the same thing all the time.
They used to put like a News Paper or something at your house, with a Clock on the third page with the Hands pointing to the time you were supposed to go sit on the Bench.
Now they use the same Apps they try to tell you not to use because they are for ISIS.
These are articles about the NSA's Program called PRISM, where they use Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc servers to collect information about you:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/12/heres-everything-we-know-about-prism-to-date/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/08/fbi-changes-privacy-rules-accessing-nsa-prism-data
http://www.vocativ.com/295204/nsa-prism/
http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/nsa-prism.htm
If you want to submit a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act request in order to get record from the NSA about you) here is how to do that. The Privacy Act Request is the Normal one to use (the 3rd one here) but you can file both. The top is a sample letter so that you have a template.
http://www.nfoic.org/sample-foia-request-letters
http://m.nsa.gov/resources/everyone/foia/submit-foia-request/
http://m.nsa.gov/resources/everyone/foia/submit-privacy-act-request/
This is how to file a Consumer Complaint about any Company that has given away your information, this must be filed before a lawsuit.
https://www.usa.gov/consumer-complaints
EPCA (Privacy Act)
https://epic.org/privacy/ecpa/
https://epic.org/privacy/laws/privacy_act.html
"Individuals who violate ECPA face up to five years in prison and fines up to $250,000. Victims are also entitled to bring civil suits and recover actual damages, in addition to punitive damages and attorney's fees, for violations."
FISA (Foreign Surveillance law where the FISA courts come from)
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter36&edition=prelim
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text
Applications of the Privacy Act
https://www.rosen.com/divorce/divorcearticles/electronic-communications-privacy-act/
http://www.jurist.org/hotline/2014/01/khaliah-barnes-privacy-act.php
42 U.S. Code § 1983 (Lawsuit for Violation of Rights)
18 U.S. Code § 242 (Criminal Charges for Government Officers using their status to infringe on personal Rights)
28 USC § 1442 (Bringing a Lawsuit against Government Officers)
Title II Rule 3 & 5 (Procedure for Suing Government Agencies)
Flast V Cohen (You can sue the Government for misuse of tax funds)
Katz V United States (Reasonable expectation of Privacy)
United States V United States District Court (Wiretapping)
Riley V California (Cell Phone Records)
United States V Guest (Protection from Government Conspiracies)
Watkins V United States (Congress' Power is not Unlimited)
Buckley V Fitzsimmons (No Immunity for Illegal investigations)
Hanrahan V Hampton (Example of an Extensive Government Conspiracy hashed out in Court for 20 years)
Include facts and damages in your claim. Your administrative claim must include the exact amount of money damages you are claiming, as well as enough facts about your case to allow the federal agency to investigate the merits of your claim. Using a SF 95 form will help ensure that you've included all of the necessary information.
The agency has six months to respond. Once your claim is submitted, the federal agency has six months to rule on it. In some cases, the federal agency may "admit" your claim (that is, agree that your claim is valid) and agree to pay you some or all of the money damages you demanded, and you may not need to go to court.
You then have six months to file a lawsuit. If the federal agency rejects your claim or refuses to pay all the money damages you demanded, you have six months from the date on which the decision is mailed to you to file a lawsuit. Again, file your lawsuit as soon as possible after receiving this decision to avoid any chance of having your lawsuit dismissed as untimely.
You don't have to sue until the agency rules on your claim. If the federal agency fails to rule on your administrative claim within six months, you have the choice of either awaiting the agency's decision or going ahead with your lawsuit. As long as the federal agency is still considering your claim, there is no time limit for you to file a law suit in federal court; the six-month time limit only begins to run once the agency has ruled on your claim.
Once you have gone through the procedures listed above -- a process known as "exhausting your administrative remedies" -- you are eligible to file a lawsuit in court to pursue money damages from the government.
Examples of Government Corruption
https://www.aclu.org/news/fbi-audit-exposes-widespread-abuse-patriot-act-powers
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/james-whitey-bulgers-capture-could-cause-trouble-inside-the-fbi/2011/06/24/AGis2cjH_story.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks
“The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to users of social media as "sock puppets" – could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.
The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries".”
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec5_14273491
ECPA Case law
Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated, et al. v. Secret Service, et al., 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994)
Microsoft Corp. v. United States, No. 14-2985 (2d Cir. 2017)
4th Amendment Case Law
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Soldal v. Cook County 506 U.S. 56 (1992)
United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012)
Florida v. Jardines 569 U.S. ___ (2013)
There is no immunity for investigative activities Buckley v. Fitzsimmons 509 U.S. 259 (1993)
Government Agencies may not reveal private information during investigations Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957)
They are known to spy on the citizens on the United States
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/12/heres-everything-we-know-about-prism-to-date/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/08/fbi-changes-privacy-rules-accessing-nsa-prism-data
http://www.vocativ.com/295204/nsa-prism/
http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/nsa-prism.htm
both have the capability to turn cell phones and other devices into spying devices Riley v. California 573 U.S. ___ (2014); United States v. United States Dist. Ct. 407 U.S. 297 (1972)
https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/
both have the capability to spy through walls using FLIR technology Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
http://www.flir.com/home/
Warrants can be retrieved and acted on illegally (Overbroad warrants, Malicious Warrants, etc), and those acting on them are liable for doing so Messerschmidt, et al. v. Millender, et al. 565 U.S. ___ (2012)
Defendant and Defendant 2 are both known to abuse their capabilities and retrieve illegal warrants to do so
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/02/23/court-invalidates-cell-phone-warrant-as-overbroad/
http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/exigentinvestigation
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/323/case.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kurtz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_Patriot_Act
https://www.aclu.org/news/fbi-audit-exposes-widespread-abuse-patriot-act-powers
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/james-whitey-bulgers-capture-could-cause-trouble-inside-the-fbi/2011/06/24/AGis2cjH_story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/30/politics/what-happens-if-the-patriot-act-provisions-expire/
http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0072564938/student_view0/chapter4/chapter_outline.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_of_process
Government Agents must be held to a higher standard than other citizens due to the fact that they are acting under Color of Law Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
Color of Law
The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties. Under the civil rights act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983), color of law is synonymous with State Action, which is conduct by an officer that bears a sufficiently close nexus to a state so that the action is treated as though it is by the state.
Types of Police misconduct include false confession, false arrest, false evidence, false imprisonment, intimidation, police brutality, police corruption, racial profiling, surveillance abuse, witness tampering, and off-duty misconduct.
Others include:
1. Noble Cause corruption, where an officer believes that a good outcome justifies his bad behavior.
2. Selective Enforcement, allowing friends, family and other officers to break the law.
3. Abuse of Power, using the badge to get in to places you would otherwise not be invited or allowed, discounts, etc.
4. Police Perjury, blatant lying under oath and/or to other authorities to cover wrongdoing.
5. Violation by Officers of police procedural policy.
Laws intended to protect against abuse of authority include the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures; the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which includes due process and equal protection clauses; the Civil Rights Act of 1871; and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Noble Cause corruption:
Corruption caused by the adherence to a teleological ethical system (ex: By their fruits you shall know them; pulling over anyone with larger rims on their car), suggesting that the person "will utilize unethical, and sometimes illegal, means to obtain a desired result," a result which appears to benefit the greater good.
Flast V Cohen
https://epic.org/privacy/ecpa/
Individuals who violate ECPA face up to five years in prison and fines up to $250,000. Victims are also entitled to bring civil suits and recover actual damages, in addition to punitive damages and attorney's fees, for violations.
January 24, 2018, 01:54:09 PM
1. If a Party or the World Health Organization has information relating to a substance not yet under international control which in its opinion may require the addition of that substance to any of the Schedules of this Convention, it shall notify the Secretary-General and furnish him with the information in support of that notification. The foregoing procedure shall also apply when a Party or the World Health Organization has information justifying the transfer of a substance from one Schedule to another among those Schedules, or the deletion of a substance from the Schedules.
2. The Secretary-General shall transmit such notification, and any information which he considers relevant, to the Parties, to the Commission and, when the notification is made by a Party, to the World Health Organization.
3. If the information transmitted with such a notification indicates that the substance is suitable for inclusion in Schedule I or Schedule II pursuant to paragraph 4, the Parties shall examine, in the light of all information available to them, the possibility of the provisional application to the substance of all measures of control applicable to substances in Schedule I or Schedule II, as appropriate.
4. If the World Health Organization finds:
a) That the substance has the capacity to produce
i) 1) A state of dependence, and
2) Central nervous system stimulation or depression, resulting in hallucinations or disturbances in motor function or thinking or behaviour or perception or mood, or
ii) Similar abuse and similar ill effects as a substance in Schedule I, II, III or IV, and
b) That there is sufficient evidence that the substance is being or is likely to be abused so as to constitute a public health and social problem warranting the placing of the substance under international control, the World Health Organization shall communicate to the Commission an assessment of the substance, including the extent or likelihood of abuse, the degree of seriousness of the public health and social problem and the degree of usefulness of the substance in medical therapy, together with recommendations on control measures, if any, that would be appropriate in the light of its assessment.
5. The Commission, taking into account the communication from the World Health Organization, whose assessments shall be determinative as to medical and scientific matters, and bearing in mind the economic, social, legal, administrative and other factors it may consider relevant, may add the substance to Schedule I, II, III or IV. The Commission may seek further information from the World Health Organization or from other appropriate sources.
6. If a notification under paragraph 1 relates to a substance already listed in one of the Schedules, the World Health Organization shall communicate to the Commission its new findings, any new assessment of the substance it may make in accordance with paragraph 4 and any new recommendations on control measures it may find appropriate in the light of that assessment. The Commission, taking into account the communication from the World Health Organization as under paragraph 5 and bearing in mind the factors referred to in that paragraph, may decide to transfer the substance from one Schedule to another or to delete it from the Schedules.
7. Any decision of the Commission taken pursuant to this article shall be communicated by the Secretary-General to all States Members of the United Nations, to non-member States Parties to this Convention, to the World Health Organization and to the Board. Such decision shall become fully effective with respect to each Party 180 days after the date of such communication, except for any Party which, within that period, in respect of a decision adding a substance to a Schedule, has transmitted to the Secretary-General a written notice that, in view of exceptional circumstances, it is not in a position to give effect with respect to that substance to all of the provisions of the Convention applicable to substances in that Schedule. Such notice shall state the reasons for this exceptional action. Notwithstanding its notice, each Party shall apply, as a minimum, the control measures listed below:
a) A Party having given such notice with respect to a previously uncontrolled substance added to Schedule I shall take into account, as far as possible, the special control measures enumerated in article 7 and, with respect to that substance, shall:
i) Require licences for manufacture, trade and distribution as provided in article 8 for substances in Schedule II;
ii) Require medical prescriptions for supply or dispensing as provided in article 9 for substances in Schedule II;
iii) Comply with the obligations relating to export and import provided in article 12, except in respect to another Party having given such notice for the substance in question;
iv) Comply with the obligations provided in article 13 for substances in Schedule II in regard to prohibition of and restrictions on export and import;
v) Furnish statistical reports to the Board in accordance with paragraph 4 a) of article 16; and
vi) Adopt measures in accordance with article 22 for the repression of acts contrary to laws or regulations adopted pursuant to the foregoing obligations.
b) A Party having given such notice with regard to a previously uncontrolled substance added to Schedule II shall, with respect to that substance:
i) Require licences for manufacture, trade and distribution in accordance with article 8;
ii) Require medical prescriptions for supply or dispensing in accordance with article 9;
iii) Comply with the obligations relating to export and import provided in Article 12, except in respect to another Party having given such notice for the substance in question;
iv) Comply with the obligations of article 13 in regard to prohibition of and restrictions on export and import;
v) Furnish statistical reports to the Board in accordance with paragraphs 4 a), c) and d) of article 16; and
vi) Adopt measures in accordance with article 22 for the repression of acts contrary to laws or regulations adopted pursuant to the foregoing obligations.
c) A Party having given such notice with regard to a previously uncontrolled substance added to Schedule III shall, with respect to that substance:
i) Require licences for manufacture, trade and distribution in accordance with article 8;
ii) Require medical prescriptions for supply or dispensing in accordance with article 9;
iii) Comply with the obligations relating to export provided in article 12, except in respect to another Party having given such notice for the substance in question;
iv) Comply with the obligations of article 13 in regard to prohibition of and restrictions on export and import; and
v) Adopt measures in accordance with article 22 for the repression of acts contrary to laws or regulations adopted pursuant to the foregoing obligations.
d) A Party having given such notice with regard to a previously uncontrolled substance added to Schedule IV shall, with respect to that substance:
i) Require licences for manufacture, trade and distribution in accordance with article 8;
ii) Comply with the obligations of article 13 in regard to prohibition of and restrictions on export and import; and
iii) Adopt measures in accordance with article 22 for the repression of acts contrary to laws or regulations adopted pursuant to the foregoing obligations.
e) A Party having given such notice with regard to a substance transferred to a Schedule providing stricter controls and obligations shall apply as a minimum all of the provisions of this Convention applicable to the Schedule from which it was transferred.
8. a) The decisions of the Commission taken under this article shall be subject to review by the Council upon the request of any Party filed within 180 days from receipt of notification of the decision. The request for review shall be sent to the Secretary-General together with all relevant information upon which the request for review is based.
b) The Secretary-General shall transmit copies of the request for review and the relevant information to the Commission, to the World Health Organization and to all the Parties, inviting them to submit comments within ninety days. All comments received shall be submitted to the Council for consideration.
c) The Council may confirm, alter or reverse the decision of the Commission. Notification of the Council's decision shall be transmitted to all States Members of the United Nations, to non-member States Parties to this Convention, to the Commission, to the World Health Organization and to the Board.
d) During pendency of the review, the original decision of the Commission shall, subject to paragraph 7, remain in effect.
9. The Parties shall use their best endeavours to apply to substances which do not fall under this Convention, but which may be used in the illicit manufacture of psychotropic substances, such measures of supervision as may be practicable.
2. The Secretary-General shall transmit such notification, and any information which he considers relevant, to the Parties, to the Commission and, when the notification is made by a Party, to the World Health Organization.
3. If the information transmitted with such a notification indicates that the substance is suitable for inclusion in Schedule I or Schedule II pursuant to paragraph 4, the Parties shall examine, in the light of all information available to them, the possibility of the provisional application to the substance of all measures of control applicable to substances in Schedule I or Schedule II, as appropriate.
4. If the World Health Organization finds:
a) That the substance has the capacity to produce
i) 1) A state of dependence, and
2) Central nervous system stimulation or depression, resulting in hallucinations or disturbances in motor function or thinking or behaviour or perception or mood, or
ii) Similar abuse and similar ill effects as a substance in Schedule I, II, III or IV, and
b) That there is sufficient evidence that the substance is being or is likely to be abused so as to constitute a public health and social problem warranting the placing of the substance under international control, the World Health Organization shall communicate to the Commission an assessment of the substance, including the extent or likelihood of abuse, the degree of seriousness of the public health and social problem and the degree of usefulness of the substance in medical therapy, together with recommendations on control measures, if any, that would be appropriate in the light of its assessment.
5. The Commission, taking into account the communication from the World Health Organization, whose assessments shall be determinative as to medical and scientific matters, and bearing in mind the economic, social, legal, administrative and other factors it may consider relevant, may add the substance to Schedule I, II, III or IV. The Commission may seek further information from the World Health Organization or from other appropriate sources.
6. If a notification under paragraph 1 relates to a substance already listed in one of the Schedules, the World Health Organization shall communicate to the Commission its new findings, any new assessment of the substance it may make in accordance with paragraph 4 and any new recommendations on control measures it may find appropriate in the light of that assessment. The Commission, taking into account the communication from the World Health Organization as under paragraph 5 and bearing in mind the factors referred to in that paragraph, may decide to transfer the substance from one Schedule to another or to delete it from the Schedules.
7. Any decision of the Commission taken pursuant to this article shall be communicated by the Secretary-General to all States Members of the United Nations, to non-member States Parties to this Convention, to the World Health Organization and to the Board. Such decision shall become fully effective with respect to each Party 180 days after the date of such communication, except for any Party which, within that period, in respect of a decision adding a substance to a Schedule, has transmitted to the Secretary-General a written notice that, in view of exceptional circumstances, it is not in a position to give effect with respect to that substance to all of the provisions of the Convention applicable to substances in that Schedule. Such notice shall state the reasons for this exceptional action. Notwithstanding its notice, each Party shall apply, as a minimum, the control measures listed below:
a) A Party having given such notice with respect to a previously uncontrolled substance added to Schedule I shall take into account, as far as possible, the special control measures enumerated in article 7 and, with respect to that substance, shall:
i) Require licences for manufacture, trade and distribution as provided in article 8 for substances in Schedule II;
ii) Require medical prescriptions for supply or dispensing as provided in article 9 for substances in Schedule II;
iii) Comply with the obligations relating to export and import provided in article 12, except in respect to another Party having given such notice for the substance in question;
iv) Comply with the obligations provided in article 13 for substances in Schedule II in regard to prohibition of and restrictions on export and import;
v) Furnish statistical reports to the Board in accordance with paragraph 4 a) of article 16; and
vi) Adopt measures in accordance with article 22 for the repression of acts contrary to laws or regulations adopted pursuant to the foregoing obligations.
b) A Party having given such notice with regard to a previously uncontrolled substance added to Schedule II shall, with respect to that substance:
i) Require licences for manufacture, trade and distribution in accordance with article 8;
ii) Require medical prescriptions for supply or dispensing in accordance with article 9;
iii) Comply with the obligations relating to export and import provided in Article 12, except in respect to another Party having given such notice for the substance in question;
iv) Comply with the obligations of article 13 in regard to prohibition of and restrictions on export and import;
v) Furnish statistical reports to the Board in accordance with paragraphs 4 a), c) and d) of article 16; and
vi) Adopt measures in accordance with article 22 for the repression of acts contrary to laws or regulations adopted pursuant to the foregoing obligations.
c) A Party having given such notice with regard to a previously uncontrolled substance added to Schedule III shall, with respect to that substance:
i) Require licences for manufacture, trade and distribution in accordance with article 8;
ii) Require medical prescriptions for supply or dispensing in accordance with article 9;
iii) Comply with the obligations relating to export provided in article 12, except in respect to another Party having given such notice for the substance in question;
iv) Comply with the obligations of article 13 in regard to prohibition of and restrictions on export and import; and
v) Adopt measures in accordance with article 22 for the repression of acts contrary to laws or regulations adopted pursuant to the foregoing obligations.
d) A Party having given such notice with regard to a previously uncontrolled substance added to Schedule IV shall, with respect to that substance:
i) Require licences for manufacture, trade and distribution in accordance with article 8;
ii) Comply with the obligations of article 13 in regard to prohibition of and restrictions on export and import; and
iii) Adopt measures in accordance with article 22 for the repression of acts contrary to laws or regulations adopted pursuant to the foregoing obligations.
e) A Party having given such notice with regard to a substance transferred to a Schedule providing stricter controls and obligations shall apply as a minimum all of the provisions of this Convention applicable to the Schedule from which it was transferred.
8. a) The decisions of the Commission taken under this article shall be subject to review by the Council upon the request of any Party filed within 180 days from receipt of notification of the decision. The request for review shall be sent to the Secretary-General together with all relevant information upon which the request for review is based.
b) The Secretary-General shall transmit copies of the request for review and the relevant information to the Commission, to the World Health Organization and to all the Parties, inviting them to submit comments within ninety days. All comments received shall be submitted to the Council for consideration.
c) The Council may confirm, alter or reverse the decision of the Commission. Notification of the Council's decision shall be transmitted to all States Members of the United Nations, to non-member States Parties to this Convention, to the Commission, to the World Health Organization and to the Board.
d) During pendency of the review, the original decision of the Commission shall, subject to paragraph 7, remain in effect.
9. The Parties shall use their best endeavours to apply to substances which do not fall under this Convention, but which may be used in the illicit manufacture of psychotropic substances, such measures of supervision as may be practicable.
January 24, 2018, 01:51:50 PM
For more info here is the "What does Temple Coin Have to do with the DEA??" thread
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-does-temple-coin-have-to-do-with-the-dea-2799696
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
I will post in this thread a bunch of stuff that is in our Petition that went to them.
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.
International Human Rights Case Law
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-60505"]}
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_04_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_151_ing.pdf
http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/cases/54-01.html
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_103_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_150_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_125_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_114_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_110_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_16_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_111_ing.pdf
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-116716"]}
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_124_ing.pdf
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-60505"]}
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_04_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_151_ing.pdf
http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/cases/54-01.html
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_103_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_150_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_125_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_114_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_110_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_16_ing.pdf
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_111_ing.pdf
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-116716"]}
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_124_ing.pdf
Jump to: