DEA Lawsuit (Minus the Trolls)
- Thread starter Finshaggy
- Start date
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Everything I have posted is my words. So I really don't see what point you are trying to make. Do you want me to explain it to you or not?
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
Explain why you are lying.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Again, point out a lie.
And again, the lawsuit you are claiming is a lie comes from an investigation they started, and then they dropped. I am just responding because they wasted my time and violated my Religion. And in the Police report they even say that I said it was my Religion, so it's not like I just made this up after they dropped the case.
Bublonichronic
Well-Known Member
That's what a Habitual liar
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
Ok. According to what you've posted here on this website, just a scant couple of weeks ago:
Sheryl and Meghan are not amused.
If that is true, you lied on both of your motions for indigent status.
Sheryl and Meghan are not amused.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Lol. So you are completely changing the topic now?
First off, I do work there. I even send all my emails to the court from my work email address.
Second, I moved to Austin and haven't done much work for them since I moved. I pay my rent with Bitcoin, which is stated on the form.
It seems like you don't even want to accept anything I have to say, you just want to find a way for me to lose the case. Which you seem to be having trouble doing.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I just fed my terrier Torchy's Tacos.
Now, both you AND your terrier are jealous asf!
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
No. I said you lied in your motions for indigent status. Twice. Nowhere in those motions do you state you work for Oracle, in any capacity, or for any wage. You said you are not employed and make zero. Accept for the bitcoin, which you disclosed in your 2nd case, but not the 1st. You lied.
The separate issue is your claim you won a religious mj case, which is a lie. You were convicted, and it's still on your record.
qwizoking
Well-Known Member
I'm not even gonna try and wrap my head around what fins tryna say
Or whatever
Buuuuuut
The day you win a religious mj case and it comes on Austin local news...
I'll give you credit
Or just appear on kvue/kxan in general. You don't even have to win- for half credit
Otherwise your a wee bit the moron..BUT!
Better than
@BobCajun
Or whatever
Buuuuuut
The day you win a religious mj case and it comes on Austin local news...
I'll give you credit
Or just appear on kvue/kxan in general. You don't even have to win- for half credit
Otherwise your a wee bit the moron..BUT!
Better than
@BobCajun
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
Well, that must be some kind of mistake. Just show them a ruling from a Judge that you won that case based on your religion. Hell, post the ruling here so we can see it.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
This isn't a Religious Marijuana Case. The Religious Marijuana Case was in Collin County and I won that in August of 2015, this is a Religious Nootropics/Plants/Seeds case.
I'll let you know if it ends up on the News.
The DEA case will be in the Newspapers in Austin, and Washington DC. By law they have to report it for 7 days over a period of 2 weeks, and it is likely that that will end up in the News. So I will show you that when it happens, and it involves the Controlled Substances Act in general, and one of the main points is Marijuana.
And it's not hard to understand, here is a quick explanation of the Marijuana part.
In all Religious Marijuana Cases the DEA claims that they have to provide for the General Welfare, so can't let anyone manufacture or possess Marijuana. But according to a decisions made by the DEA this August (2 Months Ago) they recognized that they were allowing the University f Mississippi to have a Research Monopoly on Marijuana (the Federal Marijuana Patients you have probably heard about), and just in August they decided to end that and put out a Statement about how to become a Federal Research grower. Then in 2004 the DEA was part of a lawsuit with a Company called Normaco, and the DOJ made a statement in that case saying that the DEA was perpetuating Monopolies. So what my case is, is that they can't say that they have a Public Interest to keep ALL Marijuana out of people's hands, then say that those companies can produce Marijuana and have drug Monopolies (they agree, as of August, and the DOJ agreed in 2004). So this is Gerrymandering, which they can't do. And if they are going to allow for Industrial, Medical, Research exemptions, they need to provide Religious exemptions (as per Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye V Hialeah).
Links for everything mentioned can be found in the DOJ post at the beginning of this thread, as can a longer explanation.
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
ok fin, i have a question for you.. you say that they dropped the charges since the "drugs" they found on you were in fact not "drugs" at least nothing on the dea's list, yes?
and you say that it's your religious right to smoke cannabis, being that you say you're a hindu and a practicing sadhu, yes again, correct?
lastly, you go on to say that they violated your religious freedom of smoking cannabis, but yet according to the release papers from the labs on your evidence, you were in no possession of cannabis, so therefore i fail to see how they were violating your religious freedom to smoke a substance that you were not in possession of, or am i missing something here?
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
I'm actually suing the Army next. The DEA is first, but the Army is next.
And once the DEA case is over there will be plenty of precedent for Religious Marijuana, so all I will have to do is show them this
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)
And this:
In the Court's ruling it was only decided that the Constitution failed to protect the freedom to wear religious apparel in uniform - it did not outright bar it. This distinction gave Congress the power to enact legislation that would reverse the policy. Allowing "neat and conservative" religious apparel accommodations had been in consideration since 1985, following the case's ruling in the Court of Appeals.[2] Proposals to do so failed during the case's trial period, but finally succeeded in 1988 through a provision to the annual National Defense Authorization Act. It provides for a general rule that "a member of the armed forces may wear an item of religious apparel while wearing the uniform of the member's armed force." The bill containing the provision was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.
Which shows that they can't regulate a Religion before someone is in uniform, or when the are in the Army and out of uniform.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And I did post it here. It wasn't dropped after a Ruling, the Prosecutor read my argument and just withdrew from the case.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Ok, I'm going to number it, and let's do this by numbers if you have more questions, so it is easy to follow.
1. Yes, they dropped the charges because what I had were not drugs. The closest things to "drugs" that I had was Etizolam, also called "Ease" in a Church I am a member of. Etizolam is molecularly related to Xanax (Alprazolam) and Alprazolam is Schedule III, not Schedule I or II, meaning that anything Molecularly related to it is completely not regulated. Moreso when it is for Religious use. I also had Religious powders, plants and seeds, an example of which is Holy Basil, which is sacred to Hindus such as myself. The Church I am a member of accepts all Religions, including Hindus like myself. So this case is about both my Religion and my Church. They even did a drug test on site, and nothing showed up as drugs, and they claimed "Since it's not showing up as anything, we have to take all of it" which is the opposite of why you take things you think are drugs.
2. Yes. Look up "Bhang" or "Sadhu Chillum" and you will see plenty of examples of this.
3. No, in this Case I am not claiming that they violated my Religious right to smoke Cannabis, though that Religious Right is part of this case (not the only Religious Right that is part of this case though) as they confiscated a Chillum from me (hence the "Paraphernalia" listed on the release form). I am a member of the Church of Neuroscience, where Ease/Etizolam is considered a Sacrament, and the FDA has even helped our Church with this and said that we should never use the word "Drug" and always use the word "Sacrament" then sent us a copy of the FDA definition of "Drug".
3(a). What you are missing is that I had not only a Church of Neuroscience Sacrament, but Hindu powders, plants and seeds. All of which were taken for about 6 months, causing me to not be able to use them for the Holiday known as Holi. So my time was wasted, my Religious items were taken, and they caused me to not be able to fulfill a Holiday. Similar to taking all your Pumpkins before Halloween because they thought they were hiding drugs, and somehow Halloween was part of your Religion.
And I will post a quote from an international treaty for you that says I am supposed to be able to not only practice my Religion, but have or produce items related to it.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
I told you it was not in the papers. But you can read the case results right in this thread, I just posted them as a response to Pablo. And the reason it wasn't in any papers is because the prosecutor withdrew from the case, the judge didn't even get to make a ruling. The prosecutor was just like "I'm going to lose, I'm out".
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
thanks for the explanation, appreciated..