Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Trolls went crazy in the DEA Lawsuit thread, so here is all the information minus the trolls.
The Federal Court accepted my case against the DEA, so I can now tell everyone the details. This will just be a quick overview of the case (in detail) so that everyone knows exactly what all the points being made are and against who. Once the papers have actually been served on the Defendants I will post the papers in full so everyone can read it for themselves, and file it with their name on it in their State if they want.
So, first, it is a Class Action lawsuit, here is the Class
All United States Persons who practice Hinduism (or similarly barred Religion) or who are or wish to become Sadhus (Hindu Priests), or who have been barred from doing so for fear of the Controlled Substances Act, as well as any Hindu (or similar Religious Practitioner) who has been jailed or imprisoned as a result of this Act. As well as anyone who has lost the life of a family member due to this Act; and
All United States Persons who have been financially affected by the Monopoly enforced and operated by Defendants. As well as anyone who was jailed or imprisoned in the course of the enforcement of this Monopoly, family members of those killed in the process of that enforcement and anyone who has been in fear for their life or safety as a result of the enforcement of the Monopoly and overbroad enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in general.
The most important Case Law is this, 375 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004), and the DOJ response to that case telling the DEA they won (got a company a license to make illicit drugs, with very little oversight and qualifications), but they need to open up the doors to more companies because they are operating illegal Monopolies, Du-opolies and Tri-opolies (which they are still doing over 10 years later). The most important part of that case is that it shows that manufacturing and distributing drugs can be within the Public Interest, even within current DEA regulations, but the DEA chooses not to open its doors and instead perpetuates Monopolies.
Second, here are the Defendants:
Chuck Rosenberg, DEA Administrator
Loretta Lynch, US Attorney General
Stepan Company
Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals
Third, here are the Causes of Action:
For 3-4 decades Stepan has been allowed to have a Monopoly on the importation of Coca Leaves, they then extract the Cocaine and sell it to Mallinckdrodt who has had a Monopoly on Pharmaceutical Cocaine. Then Stepan creates a Coca extract that has no Cocaine and sells it Commercially to Coca-Cola, so this is in effect a Commercial Monopoly protected by the DEA. And there are rules the DEA made themselves that allow people to import and manufacture these drugs, but they don't let anyone follow those rules except the Monopoly. Which means we are in the same situation as we were with the Marihuana Tax Act where it was legal to possess Marijuana if it was taxed, but they would arrest you if you declared you had Marijuana.
Second part of the argument, Companies like Mallinckdrodt are allowed to make any Cannabinoid they want legally, according to exemptions provided in DEA rules for Medical and Scientific use (not Constitutionally Protected) but they fail to provide exemptions in their rules for Religious Organization (Constitutionally Protected). This is called Gerrymandering. The US Code also provides for Industrial Hemp exemptions, the DOJ has released the Cole memorandum allowing States to make their own Marijuana laws, etc, but again there are no Religious exemptions.
Third part of the Argument, the DEA claims that it must keep people from having drugs for any purpose according to the Psychotropic Treaty, but as already presented they provide plenty of other exemptions and there are already Religions that have beat their Psychotropic Treaty argument. Then on top of that there are about 5 Treaties, Conventions, etc, that provide for Religious Protection. So their 1 Treaty is pretty moot in regards to Religious substances.
Fourth part of the Argument is that Prohibition (a Constitutional Amendment) provided Religious exemption for Churches using intoxicating Liquors. Why does the Controlled Substances Act (a mere Law, not an Amendment) not provide similar exemption? Then on top of that it is proven that Intoxicating Liquor does not specifically mean Alcohol, but Congress chose to only regulate Alcohol (the Volstead Act uses the term Intoxicating Malt and Vinous Liquors, implying both that there are non-Intoxicating Malt and Vinous Liquors, as well as that Alcohol is not the only form of Liquor) so the 21st Amendment can be interpreted to legalize all Intoxicating Liquors (such as the Religious Marijuana Milk mixture known as Bhang)
The basic goal is to completely Overturn the controlled Substances Act, for its widespread Unconstitutional use and use to establish Monopolies. But no matter what the outcome on the overturning, we are fairly pointing out that the DEA is not treating Religious Organizations the same as Medical Organizations, and are in fact Gerrymandering which is resulting in Religious Violations, which will have to stop.
The Federal Court accepted my case against the DEA, so I can now tell everyone the details. This will just be a quick overview of the case (in detail) so that everyone knows exactly what all the points being made are and against who. Once the papers have actually been served on the Defendants I will post the papers in full so everyone can read it for themselves, and file it with their name on it in their State if they want.
So, first, it is a Class Action lawsuit, here is the Class
All United States Persons who practice Hinduism (or similarly barred Religion) or who are or wish to become Sadhus (Hindu Priests), or who have been barred from doing so for fear of the Controlled Substances Act, as well as any Hindu (or similar Religious Practitioner) who has been jailed or imprisoned as a result of this Act. As well as anyone who has lost the life of a family member due to this Act; and
All United States Persons who have been financially affected by the Monopoly enforced and operated by Defendants. As well as anyone who was jailed or imprisoned in the course of the enforcement of this Monopoly, family members of those killed in the process of that enforcement and anyone who has been in fear for their life or safety as a result of the enforcement of the Monopoly and overbroad enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in general.
The most important Case Law is this, 375 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004), and the DOJ response to that case telling the DEA they won (got a company a license to make illicit drugs, with very little oversight and qualifications), but they need to open up the doors to more companies because they are operating illegal Monopolies, Du-opolies and Tri-opolies (which they are still doing over 10 years later). The most important part of that case is that it shows that manufacturing and distributing drugs can be within the Public Interest, even within current DEA regulations, but the DEA chooses not to open its doors and instead perpetuates Monopolies.
Second, here are the Defendants:
Chuck Rosenberg, DEA Administrator
Loretta Lynch, US Attorney General
Stepan Company
Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals
Third, here are the Causes of Action:
- Violation of the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA extensions to Religious Rights
see, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) - Violation of the Rights of Persons and Corporate Persons under the 14th Amendment
see, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), 397 U.S. 664 (1970), Terrett v. Taylor (1815) via 210 U.S. 296 (1908 ) - Violation of International Agreements Regarding Religious Tolerance
- Overbroad use of the Controlled Substances Act and Gerrymandering
see, 397 U.S. 664 (1970), 456 U.S. 228 (1982), 508 U.S. 520 (1993), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), 579 U. S. ____ (2016) - Using Controlled Substances Act to Create Monopolies
see, 156 U.S. 1 (1895), 196 U.S. 375 (1905) - Violation of the 9th Amendment
see, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), 373 U.S. 262 (1963) - Violation of the 18th and 21st Amendment
see, Medical Definition of Liquor and Liquor as defined in the now void Volstead Act - DEA and Attorney General Claim there are no known Medical Benefits for Cannabis
For 3-4 decades Stepan has been allowed to have a Monopoly on the importation of Coca Leaves, they then extract the Cocaine and sell it to Mallinckdrodt who has had a Monopoly on Pharmaceutical Cocaine. Then Stepan creates a Coca extract that has no Cocaine and sells it Commercially to Coca-Cola, so this is in effect a Commercial Monopoly protected by the DEA. And there are rules the DEA made themselves that allow people to import and manufacture these drugs, but they don't let anyone follow those rules except the Monopoly. Which means we are in the same situation as we were with the Marihuana Tax Act where it was legal to possess Marijuana if it was taxed, but they would arrest you if you declared you had Marijuana.
Second part of the argument, Companies like Mallinckdrodt are allowed to make any Cannabinoid they want legally, according to exemptions provided in DEA rules for Medical and Scientific use (not Constitutionally Protected) but they fail to provide exemptions in their rules for Religious Organization (Constitutionally Protected). This is called Gerrymandering. The US Code also provides for Industrial Hemp exemptions, the DOJ has released the Cole memorandum allowing States to make their own Marijuana laws, etc, but again there are no Religious exemptions.
Third part of the Argument, the DEA claims that it must keep people from having drugs for any purpose according to the Psychotropic Treaty, but as already presented they provide plenty of other exemptions and there are already Religions that have beat their Psychotropic Treaty argument. Then on top of that there are about 5 Treaties, Conventions, etc, that provide for Religious Protection. So their 1 Treaty is pretty moot in regards to Religious substances.
Fourth part of the Argument is that Prohibition (a Constitutional Amendment) provided Religious exemption for Churches using intoxicating Liquors. Why does the Controlled Substances Act (a mere Law, not an Amendment) not provide similar exemption? Then on top of that it is proven that Intoxicating Liquor does not specifically mean Alcohol, but Congress chose to only regulate Alcohol (the Volstead Act uses the term Intoxicating Malt and Vinous Liquors, implying both that there are non-Intoxicating Malt and Vinous Liquors, as well as that Alcohol is not the only form of Liquor) so the 21st Amendment can be interpreted to legalize all Intoxicating Liquors (such as the Religious Marijuana Milk mixture known as Bhang)
The basic goal is to completely Overturn the controlled Substances Act, for its widespread Unconstitutional use and use to establish Monopolies. But no matter what the outcome on the overturning, we are fairly pointing out that the DEA is not treating Religious Organizations the same as Medical Organizations, and are in fact Gerrymandering which is resulting in Religious Violations, which will have to stop.
Last edited:
