Bitcoin Forum

http://www.jmu.edu/cisr///journal/16.1/Focus/images/161F_GentP_IMG_1.jpg

For more info here is the "What does Temple Coin Have to do with the DEA??" thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2799696.0

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.

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.

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
ogis@nara.gov
877 684 6448 / 202 741 5770

Signed by someone named

David J Sherman



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2808179.0

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.

Here is how the IACHR works
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpN2R3hp-E0

We have also contacted these people within the USDA and will make them aware of any results in our Religious Cases with the DEA

Answers@ars.usda.gov,
ottmarketing@ars.usda.gov,
agref@nal.usda.gov
AskLPS@ams.usda.gov,
joan.avila@ams.usda.gov,
ruihong.guo@ams.usda.gov,
Sonia.Jimenez@ams.usda.gov,
arthur.neal@ams.usda.gov,
David.Tuckwiller@ams.usda.gov,
melissa.tharp@ams.usda.gov
FSIS.Outreach@usda.gov
FMSC.help@usda.gov
asknies.products@aphis.usda.gov
AskNCIE.Products@aphis.usda.gov,
VS-Live.Animals_Import.Permits@aphis.usda.gov,
ASAP@aphis.usda.gov,
OV@aphis.usda.gov
Joan.Avila@ams.usda.gov

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.

jim.burack@state.co.us,
cindy.perkins@state.co.us,
dominique.mendiola@state.co.us,
kyle.lambert@state.co.us,
matthew.heap@state.co.us,
corrie.martinez@state.co.us,
henry.hasler@state.co.us,
richard.hollar@state.co.us,
william.lukela@state.co.us,
penny.paxton@state.co.us

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
ODLP@usdoj.gov

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

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

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

Sgt Dan Hill #3573
Austin PD – Narcotics Conspiracy Unit
Had an Investigation open on us in 2015, until I proved our Religion is Sincere

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.

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.

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

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

Important US Case Law from the Supreme Court

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/418/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/520/case.html

And because our Religion has been caught up in what the Government has in the past called a "Drug War", and has written laws to allow the Military to get involved in, I would like the Geneva Convention to be reviewed in light of the US Government's activities. I believe that they would say that our side is "Radical" because they constantly reject us, so they assume we are becoming Radical. And if you are not Christian, Law Enforcement now assumes you are an Atheist or an Enemy Combatant.

http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.33_GC-IV-EN.pdf

I would like to point to the fact that during much of the "Drug War", the US Government claimed that Hispanics and Africans were Culturally tied to Marijuana, and were Polluting the White Community. Now they make no Cultural Claim, and simply treat it as if it is an Alien Invader, and has not been here for Centuries, and part of the Fabric of the Americas for Centuries. It was a major part of the American and Mexican Revolutions, and continues to be a Major part of the American Continents to this day.

Treaty of Paris (1763)
http://www.oas.org/sap/peacefund/belizeandguatemala/historicdocs/treaty%20of%20paris%201763.pdf

Reading Tax Law can help explain how these things are supposed to work (International Situations in US Law)

26 CFR 1.911-2 - Qualified individuals
§ 1.911-2 Qualified individuals.

(a)In general. An individual is a qualified individual if:

(1) The individual's tax home is in a foreign country or countries throughout -

(i) The period of bona fide residence described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, or

(ii) The 330 full days of presence described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, and

(2) The individual is either -

(i) A citizen of the United States who establishes to the satisfaction of the Commissioner or his delegate that the individual has been a bona fide resident of a foreign country or countries for an uninterrupted period which includes an entire taxable year, or

(ii) A citizen or resident of the United States who has been physically present in a foreign country or countries for at least 330 full days during any period of twelve consecutive months.

(b)Tax home. For purposes of paragraph (a)(i) of this section, the term “tax home” has the same meaning which it has for purposes of section 162(a)(2) (relating to travel expenses away from home). Thus, under section 911, an individual's tax home is considered to be located at his regular or principal (if more than one regular) place of business or, if the individual has no regular or principal place of business because of the nature of the business, then at his regular place of abode in a real and substantial sense. An individual shall not, however, be considered to have a tax home in a foreign country for any period for which the individual's abode is in the United States. Temporary presence of the individual in the United States does not necessarily mean that the individual's abode is in the United States during that time. Maintenance of a dwelling in the United States by an individual, whether or not that dwelling is used by the individual's spouse and dependents, does not necessarily mean that the individual's abode is in theUnited States.

(c)Determination of bona fide residence. For purposes of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, whether an individual is a bona fide resident of a foreign country shall be determined by applying, to the extent practical, the principles of section 871 and the regulations thereunder, relating to the determination of the residence of aliens. Bona fide residence in a foreign country or countries for an uninterrupted period may be established, even if temporary visits are made during the period to the United States or elsewhere on vacation or business. An individual with earned income from sources within a foreign country is not a bona fide resident of that country if:

(1) The individual claims to be a nonresident of that foreign country in a statement submitted to the authorities of that country, and

(2) The earned income of the individual is not subject, by reason of nonresidency in the foreign country, to theincome tax of that country.
If an individual has submitted a statement of nonresidence to the authorities of a foreign country the accuracy of which has not been resolved as of any date when a determination of the individual's bona fide residence is being made, then the individual will not be considered a bona fide resident of the foreign country as of that date.

(d)Determination of physical presence. For purposes of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the following rulesapply.

(1)Twelve-month test. A period of twelve consecutive months may begin with any day but must end on the day before the corresponding day in the twelfth succeeding month. The twelve-month period may begin before or after arrival in a foreign country and may end before or after departure.

(2)330-day test. The 330 full days need not be consecutive but may be interrupted by periods during which the individual is not present in a foreign country. In computing the minimum 330 full days of presence in a foreign country or countries, all separate periods of such presence during the period of twelve consecutive months are aggregated. A full day is a continuous period of twenty-four hours beginning with midnight and ending with the following midnight. An individual who has been present in a foreign country and then travels over areas not within any foreign country for less than twenty-four hours shall not be deemed outside a foreign country during the period of travel. If an individual who is in transit between two points outside the United States is physically present in theUnited States for less than twenty-four hours, such individual shall not be treated as present in the United Statesduring such transit but shall be treated as travelling over areas not within any foreign country. For purposes of this paragraph (d)(2), the term “transit between two points outside the United States” has the same meaning that it has when used in section 7701(b)(6)(C).

(3)Illustrations of the physical presence requirement. The physical presence requirement of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section is illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1.
B, a U.S. citizen, arrives in Venezuela from New York at 12 noon on April 24, 1982. B remains in Venezuela until 2 p.m. on March 21, 1983, at which time B departs for the United States. Among other possible twelve month periods, B is present in a foreign country an aggregate of 330 full days during each of the following twelve month periods: March 21, 1982 through March 20, 1983; and April 25, 1982 through April 24, 1983.
Example 2.
C, a U.S. citizen, travels extensively from the time C leaves the United States on March 5, 1982, until the time C departs the United Kingdom on January 1, 1984, to return to the United States permanently. The schedule of C's travel and the number of full days at each location are listed below:
Country   Time and date of arrival   Time and date of departure   Full days in foreign country
United States      10 p.m. (by air) Mar. 5, 1982   
United Kingdom   9 a.m. Mar. 6, 1982   10 p.m. (by ship) June 25, 1982   110
United States   11 a.m. June 30, 1982   1 p.m. (by ship) July 19, 1982   0
France   3 p.m. July 24, 1982   11 a.m. (by air) Aug. 22, 1983   393
United States   4 p.m. Aug. 22, 1983   9 a.m. (by air) Sept. 4, 1983   0
United Kingdom   9 a.m. Sept. 5, 1983   9 a.m. (by air) Jan. 1, 1984   117
United States   1 p.m. Jan. 1, 1984      
Among other possible twelve-month periods, C is present in a foreign country or countries an aggregate of 330 full days during the following twelve-month periods: March 2, 1982 through March 1, 1983; and January 21, 1983 through January 20, 1984. The computation of days with respect to each twelve month period may be illustrated as follows:

First twelve-month period (March 2, 1982 through March 1, 1983):
   Full days in foreign country
Mar. 2, 1982 through Mar. 6, 1982   0
Mar. 7, 1982 through June 24, 1982   110
June 25, 1982 through July 24, 1982   0
July 25, 1982 through Mar. 1, 1983   220
Total full days   330
Second twelve-month period (January 21, 1983 through January 20, 1984):
   Full days in foreign country
Jan. 21, 1983 through Aug. 21, 1983   213
Aug. 22, 1983 through Sept. 5, 1983   0
Sept. 6, 1983 through Dec. 31, 1983   117
Jan. 1, 1984 through Jan. 20, 1984   0
Total full days   330

(e)Special rules. For purposes only of establishing that an individual is a qualified individual under paragraph (a) of this section, residence or presence in a foreign country while there employed by the U.S. government or any agencyor instrumentality of the U.S. government counts towards satisfaction of the requirements of § 1.911-2(a). (But see section 911(b)(1)(B)(ii) and § 1.911-3(c)(3) for the rule excluding amounts paid by the U.S. government to anemployee from the definition of foreign earned income.) Time spent in a foreign country prior to January 1, 1982, counts toward satisfaction of the bona fide residence and physical presence requirements, even though no exclusion or deduction may be allowed under section 911 for income attributable to services performed during that time. Forpurposes or paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, the term “resident of the United States” includes an individual for whom a valid election is in effect under section 6013 (g) or (h) for the taxable year or years during which the physical presence requirement is satisfied.

(f)Waiver of period of stay in foreign country due to war or civil unrest. Notwithstanding the requirements ofparagraph (a) of this section, an individual whose tax home is in, a foreign country, and who is a bona fide resident of, or present in a foreign country for any period, who leaves the foreign country after August 31, 1978, before meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, may as provided in this paragraph, qualify to make anelection under section 911(a) and § 1.911-7(a). If the Secretary determines, after consultation with the Secretary ofState or his delegate, that war, civil unrest, or similar adverse conditions existed in a foreign country, then the Secretary shall publish the name of the foreign country and the dates between which such conditions were deemed to exist. In order to qualify to make an election under this paragraph, the individual must establish to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the individual left a foreign country, the name of which has been published by the Secretary, during the period when adverse conditions existed and that the individual could reasonably have expected to meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section but for the adverse conditions. The individual shall attach to his return for the taxable year a statement that the individual expected to meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section but for the conditions in the foreign country which precluded the normal conduct of business by the individual. Such individual shall be treated as a qualified individual, but only for the actual period of residence or presence. Thus, in determining the number of the individual's qualifying days, only days within the period of actual residence or presence shall be counted.

(g)United States. The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of the United States. It includes the states, the District of Columbia, the possessions and territories of theUnited States, the territorial waters of the United States, the air space over the United States, and the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the United States and over which theUnited States has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law, with respect to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources.

(h)Foreign country. The term “foreign country” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States. It includes the territorial waters of the foreign country (determined in accordance with the laws of the United States), the air space over the foreign country, and the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the foreign country and over which the foreign country has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law, with respect to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources.
(Sec. 911 ( 95 Stat. 194; 26 U.S.C. 911) and sec. 7805 (68A Stat. 917; 26 U.S.C. 7805) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954)
[T.D. 8006, 50 FR 2965, Jan. 23, 1985]

Matter of Merriam, 36 N.E. 505 (NY 1894)
New York Court of Appeals

Filed: March 6th, 1894

Precedential Status: Precedential

Citations: 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479

Docket Number: Unknown

Author: Willard Bartlett

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 482 This is an appeal from an order of the general term of the Supreme Court in the second department, affirming two several orders of the Surrogate's Court of *Page 483 Suffolk county. Two questions are raised by this appeal: First, whether or not a bequest of money to the United States is liable to pay the inheritance tax imposed by the laws of this state;second, can such a tax be levied on stock of a foreign corporation, which was the property of the decedent at the time of his death, the proceeds of which pass to the United States. The courts below have answered both of these questions in the affirmative. The testator died January 30th, 1889, and the tax was assessed February 16th, 1893, on the personal estate bequeathed to the United States. At that time chapter 399, Laws of 1892, entitled "An act in relation to taxable transfers of property," was in force and had repealed all previous acts, subject to a saving clause contained in section twenty-four of said act, providing, in substance, that the repeal should not affect or impair any act done, or right accruing, accrued or acquired, or liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred prior to the passage of said act. Section twenty-five of said act also provides that "the provisions of this act, so far as they are substantially the same as those of laws existing April 30th, 1892, shall be construed as a continuation of such laws, modified or amended according to the language employed in this act, and not as new enactments." So that when this tax was assessed it was under the said law of 1892 construed as amending the previous statutes.

Section one of said act reads in part as follows: "A tax shall be and is hereby imposed upon the transfer of any property, real or personal, of the value of five hundred dollars or over, * * * to persons or corporations not exempt by law from taxation on real or personal property," etc.

In the view we take of this case the legacy to the United States is subject to this tax whether we consider the assessment as made under the language of the law of 1892, or of the various statutes it amends and repeals. Whether the transfer is "to persons or corporations," in the language of the law of 1892, or "to any person or persons, or to a body politic or corporate," in the words of the earlier statutes, we are of opinion the language includes the government of the *Page 484 United States. For the purpose of receiving legacies and for many other purposes, the United States is to be regarded as a body politic and corporate. In the United States v. Maurice et al. (2 Brockenbrough's Reports, 96), Chief Justice MARSHALL says at page 109: "The United States is a government, and, consequently, a body politic and corporate, capable of attaining the objects for which it was created by the means which are necessary for their attainment. This great corporation was ordained and established by the American people, and endowed by them with great powers for important purposes."

The United States being capable of taking this legacy, it remains to consider whether there is any reason why this tax should not be collected. This court has recently decided that this tax is not imposed on property, but on the right of succession under a will, or devolution in case of intestacy. (Inthe Matter of the Estate of James T. Swift, 137 N.Y. 77.)

This tax, in effect, limits the power of testamentary disposition, and legatees and devisees take their bequests and devises subject to this tax imposed upon the succession of property. This view eliminates from the case the point urged by the appellant that to collect this tax would be in violation of the well-established rule that the state cannot tax the property of the United States. Assuming this legacy vested in the United States at the moment of testator's death, yet in contemplation of law the tax was fixed on the succession at the same instant of time. This is not a tax imposed by the state on the property of the United States. The property that vests in the United States under this will is the net amount of its legacy after the succession tax is paid. The appellant urges that the United States, if regarded as a corporation, is, under the act in relation to the taxable transfers of property, a corporation exempt from taxation.

This court has held that the provisions exempting the religious, charitable and other corporations named in the Inheritance Tax Acts apply only to domestic corporations. (Matter of Estate of Prime, 136 N.Y. 347.) It is suggested that the United States is to be regarded as a domestic corporation, *Page 485 so far as the State of New York is concerned. We think this contention has no support in reason or authority. A domestic corporation is the creature of this state created by its legislature, or located here and created by or under the laws of the United States. (Code of Civil Pro., § 3343, sub. 18.) The United States is a government and body politic and corporate, ordained and established by the American people acting through the sovereignty of all the states.

There remains one other question in this case as presented by the briefs of appellant — whether the stocks of foreign corporations held by the executor are to be regarded as part of the estate, subject to the tax now under consideration. The tax being imposed on the right of succession, and not on the property, as before remarked, this question must be answered in the affirmative. To compute the succession tax on the total personal estate is not imposing a tax on the stocks of foreign corporations constituting a part of that estate.

The orders appealed from are affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Orders affirmed.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

And just because most people are Christian, I want to point out some Spiritual Practices that are used in Divination, which is common in most other Religions, just to kind of get people thinking outside of the box of Sheep, and the Blood of the Savior, and the Kingdom when trying to protect "Religious Practice".

Most people say "I don't do Astrology and Fortune telling" but you are mistaken. There is an art of Divination known as "Physiognomy" also known as "Thinking you can judge a persons character by their appearance, from your perspective"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiognomy

A lot of people like to think of Necromancy as "Black Magic" but this is the view of the church, in reality, "Necromancy" is just "Ancestor Worship" aka "Veneration of the Dead".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneration_of_the_dead

Tarot cards became what we now call playing Cards, and Playing cards became what we know as gambling. Something that branched off from this is "Cartomancy" which is Divination not based on Tarot, but actually based on the card deck itself. Just like how playing cards can be used for Tarot, Tarot cards can be used for Cartomancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartomancy

A much more random form of Divination is Gyromancy, which involves putting letters on stones or wood in a circle. Then walking around and paying attention to what letters you trip over, do this until you get dizzy and it is even more random. And you are supposed to continue until a message can be deciphered, or death/madness stop you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromancy

A more simple but still random form of Divination is Geomancy, which can use soil, rocks, sand or dice. It just involves looking at the patterns and counting things, then matching them up with different set meanings. Similar to the I-Ching and the different methods that go with it. This is actually a method that can be used with the I-Ching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomancy

And speaking of the I-Ching, there is Bibliomancy, which is Divination using books. Bibliomancy probably started when people hid messages in texts like the Gnostics, and when people found messages from the past in the writings, later, other people would look for messages from the future in the texts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliomancy

And, these forms of Divination were also warped into Gambling in a way that is still used today. You have probably heard of chicken bones, or stones, or dice, or drawing straws or "casting lots". All of these are forms of Cleromancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleromancy

If you have a cat, people have for a long time used Cats to predict the weather, it is known as Ailuromancy. I don't personally have a cat so I have not watched one enough to see if this works the same as people with Rheumatoid Arthritis, who can predict storms, or if it is more random like dice. But people have been doing it for a long time. And if anyone tests it I would like to know what happens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailuromancy

Ceromancy is using Wax in Water in a Bowl, or by watching dripping wax on the side of a candle. It's almost Christmas, so candles should be burning soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceromancy

Cromniomancy is divination by Onion, where you carve your question on an onion, or put it on an altar and ask it a question. Then watch the sprouting behavior. And people could have used anything, but across Europe, Africa and Asia they all used Onions, so maybe there is something to it. We have telephones now, but before telephones, this was a common way to try to find out what a traveling relative was up to. There are also some methods where you chop the Onion up and stuff instead of growing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromniomancy

Most people have probably heard of people who used Sheep and Bird livers in order to read the future. This was related to Astrology, because the liver was divided into different planetary alignments when they were read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruspex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver_of_Piacenza

Animal Divination, there is "Imbolc" which is the ancient version and precursor to Groundhogs day. When we look at the ground hog to find out how much winter is left, we are doing an ancient Divination tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbolc#Weather_divination

Pyromancy is probably the oldest form of Divination, and the main form is known as Causinomancy, where you just burn something, it doesn't matter what.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyromancy

Pyromancy has various forms, because fire can burn anything. And different things burn different ways. One is Botanomancy, where you burn Herbs or Plants in order to Divine the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botanomancy

Daphnomancy is a specific form of Botanomancy where you specifically burn Laurel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphnomancy

Various Pyromancy techniques include burning a bone and reading the cracks, but that is not something that is really normal to do, BUT if you ever save the Wishbone from a Turkey or other animal, this is a form of Sternomancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternomancy

An example of Pyromancy with bones that isn't too complicated is Cephalonomancy, where you would heat the skull of an animal while reciting a list, usually a list of suspects, and if the jaw of the skull moved or cracked when you spoke a name that person was considered guilty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalonomancy

Back when people knew the names of plants instead of Roads, and Animals instead of Cars. The time before GPS, and even before the Gas Station map, there was the practice of Rhabdomancy which you can still use if you are in the woods or on a random walk. The way it works is, if you have some kind of walking stick, or Pencil/Pen, or something, you just drop the stick and whatever direction it points you go. If you are in the woods and have nothing else, use a small bundle of sticks and go where most of them are pointing. This also branches into "Dowsing" where people use sticks to find water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhabdomancy

Belomancy is a much more specific form of Rhabdomancy where a quiver of arrows is marked with symbols like a tarot deck. Sometimes they would mark the arrows with Phrases like "God commands me" and "God Forbids me" and a Blank arrow, then they would go with whatever hit closest to the middle. This practice was even used by Biblical characters. Belomancy was also used like Rhabdomancy, were you drop an arrow and go wherever it points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belomancy

Scyphomancy is where you use a glass or goblet and tap the side and watch for messages or images in the ripples, or tap it with metal (a glass cup or metal goblet) and listen for voices in the ringing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scyphomancy

Most people have probably heard of reading Tea Leaves and Coffee Grounds, the most common way is to have a person drink the tea with the leaves in it and let them settle at the bottom. There are various common symbols that are supposed to mean different things. Some people also use cups with Zodiacs and stuff in them so that the tea leaves can land on different symbols and stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasseography

Scrying involves looking into a reflective surface with the intention of looking into another world and not at a reflection. This includes Crystal balls, Mirrors, Shiny Stones/Gem or even Water Surfaces. Some people think that this method works in the mind via Sensory Deprivation, similar to a Deprivation Tank. If using a pool or pond, it may be necessary to throw pebbles onto the surface. A candle may help also, as it adds to the reflections and shadows of anything. Viewing the surface through smoke may also work to your benefit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrying

When you use a Mirror to Scry, this is specifically known as Catoptromancy. There is a method that involves dipping the bottom of a large mirror just onto the surface of the water and offering incense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catoptromancy

A more modern and specific method of Catoptromancy is known as Psychomanteum, where you sit in a comfortable chair and look into a mirror that is only showing you the reflection of a dark space. It is meant to help you communicate with the dead. so this would be mixing Catoptromancy & Necromancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychomanteum

Then there is the interpretation of dreams, which is similar to Scrying and Necomancy, but it is more about inventing the future than learning about it. In ancient Egypt they had a book that is now translated into English and is called "Behind closed Eyes: Dreams and Nightmares in Ancient Egypt" which is all about dream interpretation. Then there is the Ancient Greek book called the Oneirocritica which was the Greek dream interpretation book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneiromancy

And random, but a dream that comes true later is called a "Veridical Dream"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veridical_dream

Abacomancy is Divination by Sand, Dust and Ashes. This can be used as a form of Necromancy by using the ashes of the deceased. You look for symbols in the Sand or Ashes, and if using the ashes of a person, you would look for symbols that were important to them and in general you would look for symbols that are reoccurring in other situations like Dreams or Scrying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacomancy

Divination using flour is Alueromancy, a common form of this is Fortune Cookies, where Philosophical things are baked into food. Another method was to mix water and flour in a bowl, dumping it out, and interpreting the residue like Tea Leaves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleuromancy

Salt can also be use for Divination in various ways. It can be thrown into the air and interpreted as it falls or once it makes patterns on the ground. You can also create a water/salt solution and interpret the residue at the bottom once the water evaporates. When you spill salt and throw the spilled salt over your shoulder, this is a practice of Alomancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alomancy

Libanomancy is specifically the interpretation of incense. Both the ashes and the smoke. You are supposed to ask a question, then watch the smoke and the way the ashes fall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libanomancy

General Divination using smoke from any source is known as Capnomancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capnomancy

Aeromancy is listening to the wind, or reading the clouds. Other weather patterns may be interpreted also, but mainly those things. Christians take this a step too far and "blame God" for droughts and other occurrences of weather.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeromancy

Cyclomancy is the use of Tops or Wheels or other spinning devices to make predictions. Similar to a Roulette Table, or the Hebrew Dreidel and even Spin the Bottle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclomancy

The idea that a "Black Cat is bad luck", and anything else that has to do with chance like that, is a form of Apantomancy. There is a branch of Apantomancy that specifically focuses on the chance meeting of animals, but you can also try to find things based on other random things found. When someone "finds a penny face up and it is good luck" that is Apantomancy. In Ancient Rome they would find random things and work themselves into a trance to find random meanings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apantomancy

Cledonism is Divination by words, or the idea that words can be a sign of bad things to come. "Jinxing" an event by talking about it could be considered a form of Cledonism. Rumors also operate on this idea. Also words someone randomly speaks after a chance event could be considered important.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cledonism

Fal-Gush is like Cledonism, but the reverse. If you have a question you need answered, you would hide somewhere near a sidewalk or sit on a bench that is not super visible like a Bus stop, and listen to what people say in their random conversations as they pass by in order to find answers to your questions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C4%81l-g%C5%ABsh

Carromancy is burning a candle and watching the flame, or melting a bowl of wax and dumping it into water and looking for signs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carromancy

Literomancy is the art of fortune telling using written words. A few forms of this have been covered already, like the I-Ching, but there are many forms of Lieromancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literomancy

Isopsephy is the the practice of turning letters into numbers, and then assigning numerical values to words by adding up the letters, or hiding messages in this way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopsephy

Gematria is a similar Jewish practice, to do it, you would do Isopsephy, then any words that have the same numerical value would be considered to be "similar" or "related". Also, if the number appears more than once, it may indicate a date, age. year, etc. For example, the word "Alive" in Hebrew has a value of 18, making 18 a lucky number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gematria

The modern version of Isopsephy and Gematria is known as Arithmancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmancy

A little more complicated is a system invented by the people who invented Algebra is known as Zairja. They invented a Mechanical way to generate ideas. They assumed that if you asked a question properly, found the numerical value of the question, then "Solving for X" as you would in Algebra, in order to reform the question into new ideas or even answers. They would do this with hundreds of lines of words and create entirely new ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zairja

Zairja could be considered a branch of or related to Sacred Geometry, which itself is the idea of impossible shapes and monumental/symbolic design. Shapes are said to have secret meanings, possibly related to things like Arithmacy and Zairja.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_geometry

Everyone has heard of Palm reading. I would like to see a test of like 1000 people going to 10 palm readers or something like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmistry

Rumpology is like Palmistry, except you read the marks on a persons ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpology

Moleosophy is like the Philosophy of moles, "What does that mark mean on my face?" basically and especially moles. There are some folklore examples of Moleosophy such as "They are angel kisses" etc. but not much credit is given to it as a whole. Moleosophy is really more of a way for someone to open up the conversation for someone with scars to talk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moleosophy

Metoposcopy is the study of a persons character based on the line on their forehead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metoposcopy

Ichnomancy is the study of a persons character based on their footprint. Ex: Deep footprints may show anger or weight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichnomancy

Oculomancy is Scrying using the reflections in a persons eyes, a common example is "Eyes are the Window to the soul".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oculomancy


Dactlomancy is a lot like Ouija. You tie a ring to a string and hang it over a circular alphabet, the direction the ring swings is the letter you write down, until you have a coherent sentence. In the Middle ages they would set up elaborate tables and set a ring on a string then burn the string and see where the ring feel on the symbols on the table.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactylomancy

Margaritomancy is the practice of reading pearls inside oysters or casting pearls on a table or the ground and reading the pattern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaritomancy

Using a lamp for Divination is known as Lampadomancy, you do it by watching the flame, or holding a piece of paper over the flame and reading the residue. The more oddly shaped your lamp is, the more likely spirits are to be attracted to it apparently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lampadomancy

Machromancy is Divination with a Knife, sometimes it is done like Scrying where you stare into the polished surface of a blade, but it can also be done more elaborately by creating the Alphabet in a circle and spinning the blade and writing down the letters. Apparently the answers usually come in an ancient language such as Hebrew or Greek, even if you put an English alphabet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macharomancy

Molybdomancy can be done by people who make their own silver/copper/gold bars/ozs. The way it is done is by pouring molten metal into cold water with no molding or anything, and interpreting the shape of the object made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdomancy

Wine reading is known as Oinomancy, it is practiced in various places, but not much in America. You can do it by spilling wine on something and reading the pattern, soak paper in wine and read the patterns, and the Color and the Taste and the Sediment of the wine are studied. Now adays the people that do this are just called wine critics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oinomancy

The East India Trade Company
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195690484.001.0001/acprof-9780195690484-chapter-2

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21725/1/Trading_knowledge-the_East_India_Companys_elephants_in_India_and_Britain.pdf

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/ghcc/eac/intranet/yalemay2013/erikson.pdf

http://www.beautifulholidays.com.au/travel-guide/caribbean/maps/west-indies-s.gif

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/kn557ae776.jpg

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0b/36/c6/40/bhagavan-shiva-statue.jpg

And just to show that this has been a problem in America, with Law Enforcement and Religion, with American Law Enforcement Generally seeing them as Christian Warriors against Evil, and anyone else is Devil Worshipers, like the Bible says. This is not about Drugs, this is about Religion.

https://www.glendaleaz.com/clerk/Contracts/10121.pdf
http://www.rvbeypublications.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/moorishguidepost2013b.pdf
https://sites.google.com/site/moorishamericanfrontpage/home/noble-drew-ali-prophecies-and-hadiths
http://moorishamericannationalrepublic.com/course-materials/2016-NIDC/NIDCManual2016.pdf
http://www.moorishsociety.org/our-doctrine/holy-koran-of-the-moorish-science-temple-of-america-circle-7-koran/divine-constitution-bylaws-plus-additional-laws/1928-convention-minutes/

You can find Hundreds if not Thousands of examples of Court cases in the United States where people have asked to be recognized by names that contain "El" or "Bey" and make arguments that they are Moorish, not American, under the Treaties of Peace and Friendship starting in 1787 and being made permanent in 1863. Yet American Courts refuse to accept their arguments, and Judges simply Cite each other's cases to Justify themselves. And the Moors do not know about the IACHR, but their founder, Noble Drew Ali, attended the 6th Pan-American Conference in 1928.

THE INDIAN HEMP DRUGS COMMISSION REPORT

Before Indian Independence during the time of Gandhi, India was a British Colony, and the British Empire did the largest most comprehensive study of Marijuana use and the Impact of Marijuana use on Society, and concluded that it was harmless, and decided to legalize it and tax it. This study included everyone from Marijuana prescribing Doctors and Marijuana using Patients and Gurus, to Hash smugglers and Crazy people. It is so large and comprehensive that it is actually comprised of many Volumes, like an Encyclopedia or Lawbook set.

http://digital.nls.uk/indiapapers/browse/pageturner.cfm?id=74908458

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

And while the term "West Indies" is pretty well known, and Jamaica is well known, I would like to point to Trinidad and Tobago, where many Hindus are practicing the exact same Religion as me, all over the Island. And many Trinidadians have migrated to the United States. But the fact that they move to the United States now is not important, because this same Culture exists all over the Americas and has since the Discovery of the "New World".
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/History_of_ganja_use_in_Trinidad-115562564.html

Also, because Marcus Garvey is important to the Culture of the Caribbean, and is tied to the Religious Percecution by United States Agencies, I would like to Submit the book written by his Wife, which is a collection of his Opinions and Philosophies
http://www.black-matters.com/books/Marcus-Garvey-Phil-and-Opinions.pdf

And to read about the FBI plan to stop "the Rise of a Black Messiah"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/apr/04/preventingtheriseofamessi

Also, if the Commission believes that this is an Internal Issue, and should be resolved Internally, then the Commission needs to make a Statement to the effect that the DEA can't use Internationally Treaties.

This is the case Gonzales V O Centro, in which the DEA as a last resort used the UN Psychotropics Convention as an argument, against Brazilians and Americans using a Brazilian plant together Religiously in America, and the DEA lost the case.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/418/

So it already has been resolved internally, but they refuse to announce, or accept, that they lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony_List_v._Driehaus

"We do not want the government deciding what is political truth — for fear that the government might persecute those who criticize it. Instead, in a democracy, the voters should decide."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2014)

"The global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard, or to treat a local assault with a chemical irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapon."

Thomas Jefferson

“Commonwealth is ‘a society of men constituted for preserving their civil <rights> interests.’ interests are ‘life, health, indolency of body, liberty, property.’ the magistrate’s jurisdn. extends only to civil rights and from these considns.: the magistrate has no power but wt. ye. people gave hm. the people hv. nt. givn. hm. <powr.> the care of souls bec. y cd. nt., y. cd. nt. because no man hs. right to abandon ye. care of his salvation to another. no man has power to let another prescribe his faith. faith is not faith witht. believing. no man can conform his faith to the dictates of another. the life & essence of religion consists in the internal persuasion or belief of the mind.”

“[a church] is ‘a voluntary society of men, joining [themselves] together of their own accord, in order to the [publick] worshipping of god in such a manner as they judge [accept]able to him & effectual to the salvation of their souls. [it is] voluntary because no man is by nature bound to any church. the hopes of salvation is the cause of his entering into it. if he find any thing wrong in it, he [sh]ould be as free to go out as he was to come in.

[w]hat is the power of that church &c.? as it is a society <of voluntary> it must have some laws for it’s regulation. time & place of meeting, admitting & excluding members &c. must be regulated.

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 <of> over them.

suppose for instance two churches one of Arminians another of <Lutherans> Calvinists in Constantinople. has either any right over the other? will it be said the orthodox one has? every church is to itself orthodox, to others erroneous or heretical. I cannot give up my guidance to the magistrate; because he knows no more of the way to heaven than I do.

[co]mpulsion in religion is distinguished peculiarly from compulsion in every other thing. I may grow rich by art I am compelled to follow, I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take agt. my own judgmt., but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve & abhor.

[he] sais ‘neither Pagan nor Mahamedan nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.’ shall we suffer a Pagan to deal with us and not suffer him to pray to his god?

as the antients tolerated visionaries & enthusiasts of all kinds so they permitted a free scope to philosophy as a balance. as the Pythagoreans & latter Platonicks joined with the superstition of the times the Epicureans & Academicks were allowed all the use of wit & raillery against it. thus matters were balanced; reason had [full] play & science flourished. these contrarieties produced harmony. superstition & enthusiasm thus let alone never raged to bloodshed persecution &c.”

Thomas Jefferson

"These Resolutions were undoubtedly drafted prior to 19 Nov., for on that date the House adopted the following:

Resolved,… that all and every act or statute, either of the parliament of England or of Great Britain, by whatever title known or distinguished, which renders criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, forbearing to repair to church, or the exercising any mode of worship whatsoever, or which prescribes punishments for the same, ought to be declared henceforth of no validity or force within this Commonwealth.

Resolved,That so much of an act of Assembly made in the 4th year of the reign of queen Anne, intituled An act for the effectual suppression of vice, and restraint and punishment of blasphemous, wicked, and dissolute persons, as inflicts certain additional penalties on any person or persons convicted a second time of any of the offences described in the first clause of the said act, ought to be repealed.

Resolved, That so much of the petitions of the several dissenters from the Church established by law within this Commonwealth, as desires an exemption from all taxes and contributions whatever towards supporting the said church and the ministers thereof, or towards the support of their respective religious societies in any other way than themselves shall voluntarily agree, is reasonable.

Resolved, That the several acts of Assembly, making provision for the support of the clergy, ought to be repealed, securing to the present incumbents all arrears of salary, and to the vestries a power of levying for performance of their contracts.

Resolved, That a reservation ought to be made to the use of the said church, in all time coming, of the tracts of glebe lands already purchased, the churches and chapels already built for the use of the several parishes, and of all plate belonging to or appropriated to the use of the said church, and all arrears of money or tobacco arising from former assessments; and that there should be reserved to such parishes as have received private donations, for the support of the said church and its ministers, the perpetual benefit of such donations”

It is a Federal Crime to Obstruct Religion

18 U.S. Code § 247 - Damage to religious property; obstruction of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs


(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances referred to in subsection (b) of this section—

(1) intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property, because of the religious character of that property, or attempts to do so; or

(2) intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs, or attempts to do so;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).

(b) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.

(c) Whoever intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).

(d) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) of this section shall be—

(1) if death results from acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death;

(2) if bodily injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this section, and the violation is by means of fire or an explosive, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more that 40 years, or both;

(3) if bodily injury to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this section, results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and

(4) in any other case, a fine in accordance with this title and imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

(e) No prosecution of any offense described in this section shall be undertaken by the United States except upon the certification in writing of the Attorney General or his designee that in his judgment a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

(f) As used in this section, the term “religious real property” means any church, synagogue, mosque, religious cemetery, or other religious real property, including fixtures or religious objects contained within a place of religious worship.

(g) No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital offense under this section unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed.

42 U.S. Code Chapter 21B: Religious Freedom Restoration

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb - Congressional findings and declaration of purposes

(a) Findings

The Congress finds that—

(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;

(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;

(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;

(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and

(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.

(b) Purposes

The purposes of this chapter are—

(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and

(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

 

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 - Free exercise of religion protected

(a) In general

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception

Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) Judicial relief

A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

 

 

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–2 - Definitions

As used in this chapter—

(1) the term “government” includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States, or of a covered entity;

(2) the term “covered entity” means the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and possession of the United States;

(3) the term “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion; and

(4) the term “exercise of religion” means religious exercise, as defined in section 2000cc–5 of this title.

 

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–3: Applicability

(a) In general

This chapter applies to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after November 16, 1993.

(b) Rule of construction

Federal statutory law adopted after November 16, 1993, is subject to this chapter unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this chapter.

(c) Religious belief unaffected

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief.

And everyone should know, it is Federal Case Law that Practicing your Religion in the face of the Criminal Law and under Civil Law, proves your Dedication and Sincerity.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20090811447

And btw, here is the reason I ask for a Statement by the IACHR. I have spent years studying US Case Law for Religious Substance use, and the point it has gotten to is summed up in 1 case, Gonzales V O Centro from 2006.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/546/418/

In Gonzales V O Centro, what happened was that a group called The Center of the Union of the Spirit and Beneficial Plants (Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal) was arrested with 300 Gallons of Ayahuasca.

First they said, "We have a 1st Amendment Right"

The DEA responded "Public Welfare, we have a Responsibility to uphold neutral Laws"

O Centro responded with DEA Form 225, showing that there is a process for this.

The DEA Responded with the UN Psychotropics Convention.

The Court said Ayahuasca is not covered by the Convention.

So that is where it ended, and that is where we are. So from here, a clear Statement needs to be made by an International Body as to what the rights of Citizens of Signatories are regarding the Conflict between the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the UN Psychotropics Convention.

The argument in US Courts has gotten into these Treaties, it is not longer in US Law and the DEA has no argument in US Law.

 DEAs rules, that they aren't following.

D. Processing Timeframes
It is important to act expeditiously on applications for Schedule I research. The timeframes for DEA’s and FDA’s processing of Schedule I research applications are specified in the regulations. DEA forwards complete Schedule I research protocols to the FDA within seven days of receipt; FDA notifies DEA of its determination regarding the merits of the protocol within 30 days; and DEA issues a certificate within 10 days of receiving the FDA’s notice. 21 C.F.R. 1301.32(c). It should be noted that although many clinical researchers may be subject to a standardized protocol, thereby streamlining the process, some researchers must also meet institutional and State requirements prior to approval. DEA works closely with researchers to assist with the expeditious completion of their protocol submission and registration application. 

Also, this should be considered, since we are growing "Low THC" Marijuana, for THCv content, not for THC content. And I am breeding strains for their THCv Content. Meaning that we are growing "Hemp" and we are making "Industrial Hemp", with High THCv and Low or No THC.

(2) Industrial hemp
The term “industrial hemp” means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis

And if anyone is wondering what the DEA has the Legal Rights to do in this situation (they are not free to do as they wish here), read this
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/403/602/case.html

And if the DEA tries to respond and say that "To follow the Guidelines we put out after Gonzales V O Centro would cause too much entanglement between the DEA and your Religion" as a means to deny me. Then I will use that as Evidence in Federal Court to get the Controlled Substances Act overturned, the same way the Marihuana Tax Act was overturned because it violated the 5th Amendment to not incriminate yourself. A Law can't block something from happening by being written in a way that causes it to violate the Constitution. In that situation the Law just has to be overturned.

Petitions can be submitted to solve the Entanglement Problem, as per #6 in the DEA RFRA Guidelines (The DEA just has to follow their own Guidelines)

6. Applicability of DEA Regulations.
A Petitioner whose petition for Religious Exemption from the Controlled Substances Act is granted remains bound by all applicable laws and Controlled Substances Act regulations governing registration, labeling and packaging, quotas, recordkeeping and reporting, security and storage, and periodic inspections, among other things. See 21 C.F.R. Sections 1300-1316. A Petitioner who seeks exemption from applicable CSA regulations (as opposed to the CSA itself) may petition under C.F.R. Section 1307.03. Such petition must separately address each regulation from which the petitioner seeks exemption and provide a statement of the reasons for each exemption sought.

Also, this may be hard for some people to understand, but the 1st amendment was incorporated into the States, and is basically a "person" for legal purposes. So the 1st amendment is a separate plaintiff or defendant from yourself in your case
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/1/

New Branches do not lose Status; and Decisions made in Hierarchical Religious Structures are Binding in Civil Court
(via Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church 393 U.S. 440 (1969))

“The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. . . . All who unite themselves to such a body [the general church] do so with an implied consent to [its] government, and are bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent, and would lead to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if anyone aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them [sic] reversed. It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for."


Meaning of the Phrase: Sincere Religious Belief; and All Religions deserve exemptions
(via Wisconsin v. Yoder U.S. 205 (1972))

"Within that phrase would come all sincere religious beliefs which are based upon a power or being, or upon a faith to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent. The test might be stated in these words: a sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption comes within the statutory definition. This construction avoids imputing to Congress an intent to classify different religious beliefs, exempting some and excluding others, and is in accord with the well established congressional policy of equal treatment for those whose opposition to service is grounded in their religious tenets."

I thought I would mention this so everyone can understand the world a little better.

The first Molecule to ever be Isolated from a plant, and put into the "Scientific Literature" was Coniine. And the first Molecule ever Synthesized was Urea in the early 1800s. Then in 1898 Cocaine was synthesized, and the study of Cocaine launched Science forward the same way the discovery of DNA did, then Bayer invented Heroine. And everyone knows about Coca Cola being part of this, and Cocaine being the mechanism that created American Advertising, up until the 1970s there were Commercials for Cocaine Paraphernalia on TV; and they made a law about it in the 70s. Then in the 40s-50s LSD changed Science again, just like the discovery of DNA. And now we have Maps of the Serotonin Receptors from David E Nichols, and classifications of Chemicals, and now even the US Government, who is usually years behind in legislating technology, has detailed lists of Molecules, and knows about "Isomers" and all kind of stuff that they had no clue about for the longest time (which they mainly learned by watching Sasha Shulgin). That is how we got where we are with Organic Chemistry. Before that, all of these were Religious Rituals.

The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
Article 13- Right to the Benefits of Culture
Every person has the right to take part in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to participate in the benefits that result from intellectual progress, especially scientific discoveries. He likewise has the right to the protection of his moral and material interests as regards his inventions or any literary, scientific or artistic works of which he is the author.

so what's this all about? why is it in the ANN section?too much words that i don't want to read anymore.  :P

So, our Coin has an International Human Rights Case against 2 States and the DEA, and we are going to have a Religious Marijuana Exemption very soon.

TL;DR Version: Temple Coin is part of the First Federally Recognized Religious Marijuana Program

I just called the NSA Inspector General because I called him when I appealed last year and he said that he couldn't do anything until after the Appeal. And this time, he said "I am just going to leave it with them" because they told me to take it to a Federal Judge.

So I think the issue here is that they just don't know the law, and don't want to do anything until a Judge tells them to, because no one has ever done this before.

I can't believe I am the first person to ever Call the NSA FOIA Liaison office, and not accept the answer that "We exist to tell you that we aren't sure about anything"; but apparently I am the first one to not accept that answer, and my Federal Case against the NSA will be precedent setting.

My dispute is that the NSA FOIA office claims that if they were to give me my Records (after violating my 4th Amendment, under the guise that they are collecting the records for me, and I can access them; which is what they said when Edward Snowden told us about the PRISM program), then they would also have to give suspected Terrorists their Records.

And my dispute is "Yes", if the suspected terrorist has not had rights taken away by Due Process and Conviction, then they have to give them their records too. That is correct, they are correct about that. And that is not an argument against giving me my Records.

This is from the NSA Website, and is simply being completely ignored by the NSA

https://www.nsa.gov/resources/everyone/foia/
The Privacy Act (PA) protects an individual's privacy by putting controls on federal agencies in the collection, use, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information. In addition, it entitles individuals to access federal agency records or to request an amendment to records that are maintained in a file retrievable by an individual's name or personal identifier, except to the extent that information is exempt from release. Individual, in the context of the Privacy Act, is defined as a U.S. citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The Privacy Act also requires that agency records be accurate, relevant, timely, and complete, and amendments are limited to these criteria. However, amendments are normally restricted to correcting factual errors and not matters of official judgments, such as performance ratings, or subjective judgments that reflect an individual's observation, evaluation, or opinion.

Anyone who thinks that the FBI Secret Society thing doesn't make any sense, many FBI Agents are Mormon; and Mormons have Initiations, and Levels, just like a Secret Society. Where each Level holds new Responsibilities (that is the lesson of Masonry aka Temple Building, you are the Temple).

And these same people who say that there could never be corruption in the FBI, are the same people who said the President and his whole Family would be in jail by now.

People hear the word "Corruption" and they don't really understand what it means. And you hear "Mexico is corrupt" and that the Politicians are tied to or are the Cartels in some Cities and States, and Bribe Federal Officers (Federales) to let things through. But even that does not explain "Corruption". Corruption is deep, and there is usually a History behind it.

I am going to explain some Corruption that most Americans have never heard of, and explain it in some detail so that you can understand Corruption better. And you have to really read the whole thing to understand this. If you are an Exxon or GE Executive living in Nigeria from another Country, or even if you are a person who is Wealthy because of Colonization, you are at risk in Nigeria and have to live on a Compound with Bodyguards riding around with you. And it is partially money, but it's not just money, money is just the part that everyone can understand on it's face.

In Nigeria there are something called Confraternaties. Confraternaties started as 1 single group called the Pyrates, and they opposed the Colonization of Nigeria, and the Elitist Wealthy Students attending the Universities in Nigeria. At first it was just 1 group, and it started on a Campus, but over 20 years it spread through the Campuses, and they had stringent Membership rules that included Intellectual Standards, but then a few Members who were kicked out formed a new group stating that the Pyrates were Elitist (the late 1960s). They called their organization the Seadogs. And over the next decade groups formed all over the Country in all of the 300 Universities. Then there was a Civil War in the 80s, and the groups changed.

The Military won the Civil War and took control of the Country, and they saw the Confraternaties as allies against the Student Unions and Teachers Unions, and they began arming the Confraternaties. And at this time the Confraternaties began having Gunfights with each other, and with Student groups, and targeting the people running the Schools. The Campus Family/Campus Mafia was formed, which was a kind of Anti-Confraternaty organization, and they styled themselves after the Italia Mafia. There was a National Crackdown on Witchcraft and Voodoo, and the Confraternaties were pushed out of the Campuses at this time and began to establish themselves as much larger organizations.

2 Confraternaties then created a "Street and Creek" wing, which began to take over Territory as their own, and then all Female Confraternaties also began to form. And the Confraternaties began doing Voodoo ceremonies before all violent activities. And at this time the groups became much more tribe or ethnicity based, but not all of them, and they are all different in various ways.

In 1999 the Military Commander died, and the Government went back to being a Democratic Republic. The groups still have conflicts with Campus groups, and kidnap Oil Executives, and have extensive Political and Military connections, and recruit at the college Campuses. And just 1 Confraternity claims to have 12 members of 1 of the Nigerian State Houses as not just supporters, but Members.

So while Oil Executives, and GE Executives, and Wealthy people in Nigeria who made their money from Colonization are living on Compounds, anyone around them could be susceptible to a bribe, or could secretly be a Member of one of these groups.

That is Corruption. But they are there for a reason, and are "Righteous" in their Corruption.

The Shaivite Temple Marijuana Breeding Program
http://shaivitetemple.org/Forum/topic/the-shaivite-temple-marijuana-breeding-program/

I just got off the phone with the OGIS - Office of Government Information Services, and they said "There are exemptions" for the NSA, and I know that, but the NSA is not claiming an exemption, they claimed that they can not give out records to me, because then they would have to give them out to everybody. So they are not claiming an exemption, and the Federal Judge will make them release it. I am going to call the OGIS again next week and see where they are, because they said they just got it, so they don't know what's going on yet. So I will call them next week and see what is going on, and I will file in Federal Court right after I file the DEA Petition Case.

This is the closest they get to asking for exemption, and I asked for "Any and all records, from any and every Agency". So the OGIS claims that some things can be released, but there are exemptions, and the NSA claims:

Moreover, even admitting that the Agency either does or does not possess records on an individual could enable that person to assess whether he or she was under surveillance or had successfully evaded it. Were the Agency to do so in the case of any one person requesting intelligence records--even an individual who poses no risk to U.S. National Security--- the Agency would have to do so for all persons making such requests. This would include, for example, international Terrorists and/or persons working as agents for foreign powers. As stated in the Agency's response to your request, acknowledging the existence of or non-existence of any such information on any individual is, and must remain, a classified matter.

I just sent this to the NSA

This is really just to get you guys ready for our Federal Court Case, but if you treat it as an Appeal, I would appreciate it.

Privacy Act

The Privacy Act (PA) protects an individual's privacy by putting controls on federal agencies in the collection, use, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information. In addition, it entitles individuals to access federal agency records or to request an amendment to records that are maintained in a file retrievable by an individual's name or personal identifier, except to the extent that information is exempt from release. Individual, in the context of the Privacy Act, is defined as a U.S. citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The Privacy Act also requires that agency records be accurate, relevant, timely, and complete, and amendments are limited to these criteria. However, amendments are normally restricted to correcting factual errors and not matters of official judgments, such as performance ratings, or subjective judgments that reflect an individual's observation, evaluation, or opinion.


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.

Yesterday I called the Colorado DEA Office, and they said they are going to try to find out more about my Exemption Request for me. I just called the DEA 1-800 Registration Number, and they are going to have someone call me back within 48 hrs. And just after that I called the 202 number, like the Washington DC Office, and they put me through to the voicemail of a Chemical Analyst, and I assume that she is going to try to figure out what I am talking about (because none of them seem to know what I am talking about).

So, now there are 3 people supposedly trying to figure out what is going on with my Exemption Request. So I should get a response soon. If not, I will just take them to Federal Court.

And we will do the same as the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church and Force them to respond, but now we have the Federal Registration for Marijuana, opened up in 2016, so the DEA will be forced to allow the Religious Use, because their only argument before was "The Law is being applied equally to everyone" and now Companies can Register, so they need to apply that Law Equally too.

Btw, if anyone is wondering "Didn't you file a Human Rights Court thing?", yes, but the Human Rights Court might not respond until I get a Final Decision from the Court and everything. So I have to take these Agencies to Federal Court, and get denied. THEN the International Court kicks in. I just contacted them early to see if they would tell the DEA to do their jobs and review everything fairly under the guidelines, and also so the Intentional Court could start keeping tabs on what is going on, so they can have a little understanding of it and not have it just thrown at them all at once after we go to Federal Court. They can even watch the Federal Courts now.