420 Magazine Background

DEA Administrative Law

SashaShiva

Active Member
This case started with the information in the linked thread but it is now 3 Federal Cases

So I am creating a thread in the Legal Section also, in order to start some legal Discussion

I have been Hindu since I was 14, a Minister since I was 17 with the Universal Life Church, arrested from the ages of 14-18 for practicing my Religion. 13 Years of Cases, from since I was in Highschool.

I have 3 Federal Religious Marijuana Lawsuits, and I want Rastafarians and Moors and others to use my Cases to move their Cases forward.


Monopoly/Anti-Trust (DEA, FDA and Ole Miss)


Controlled Substances Act (DEA)


FDA


The attached Documents are from a Complaint via the Small Business Administration by me, and the response from the DEA, where they talk about the RFRA Exemption Guidelines Document
 

Attachments

SashaShiva

Active Member
TEXAS RELIGIOUS MARIJUANA: Federal Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction RULE 5.1/Declaratory Relief

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)- 28 USC 1915 STATE CLAIM

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) - 28 USC 1915 STATE CLAIM

Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886 (5th Cir 1976) – Judge's QUESTIONNAIRE

Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) – Federal DEFENDANTS

Spears v. Mccotter, Et al, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985) – Factual ALLEGATIONS

US v Baucum, 94-3040 (DC Cir 1996) – Activation of RULE 5.1

Leary v. US, 395 US 6 (1969) – Activation of RULE 5.1

National Mob. Com. to End the War in Viet Nam v. Foran, 411 F.2d 934 (7th Cir. 1969) – Federal JURISICTION

US v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944) – Government putting RELIGION ON TRIAL

Washington v. Sessions, 1:17cv05625 (SDNY 2018) – Religious REFUGEE

Mustafaa v. Dutton, 958 F.2d 372 (6th Cir. 1992) – Religious MATERIALS

PERKEL v. U.S. DoJ, No. 08-74457 (9th Cir 2010)- Religious PETITION

Comptroller v. Ethical Society of Austin, 03-02-00066-CV (TX 3d 2003) – The SUPREME BEING TEST

Hemp Industries V. DEA, No. 17-70162 (9th Cir. 2018)- Marijuana DEFINTIONS

Noramco DE Inc v. DEA, No. 02-1211 (DC Cir. 2004) – DEA Form 225 See, DOJ Anti-Trust MEMO***:*** r/https://www.justice.gov/atr/memorandum-antitrust-division-united-states-department-justice-amicus-curiae-support-application

United States v. Forbes, 806 F. Supp. 232 (D. Colo. 1992) – Analogue DEFINTIONS

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) - Incorporation DOCTRINE

US v. ARTICLE OR DEVICE, 333 F Supp 357 (D.D.C. 1971) – Religion & FDA REGULATION

Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) – Rights & STATE AND FEDERAL AGENTS

U.S. Code: Title 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS81 FR 53846 – FEDERAL MARIJUANA REGISTRY


Rule 5.1

Constitution- Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder ... shall be passed"

US v. Brown, 381 US 437 (1965)- Overturned Law that made it a Crime to be Communist

US v. Lovett, 328 US 303 (1946)- Attainder Test

Dent v. West Virginia, 129 US 114 (1889)- A State Law Stating you had to Graduate from a Licensed Medical School was nearly overturned (Religion can't be Licensed)

28 USC S1331- Federal Question Jurisdiction 28 USC S1337- Commerce and Anti-Trust Regulations; Amount in Controversy, Costs 28 USC S1341- Taxes by States (Fed Courts don't interfere without speedy State remedy) 28 USC S1343- Federal Court Jurisdiction over Conspiracy to interfere with rights under S1985 28 USC S1346- United States as Defendant 28 USC S1351- Court Action Against Diplomats (Foreign and Domestic) 28 USC S1355- Jurisdiction for Fine, Penalty or Forfeiture under an Act of Congress 28 USC S1357- Injury from Act of Congress 28 USC S1365- Actions in Court by Senate (Federal Court Jurisdiction) 28 USC S1367- Supplemental Jurisdiction for Actions brought by Similar Plaintiffs

28 USC Chapter 158- Orders of Federal Agencies; Review 28 USC Chapter 161- United States as Party Generally 28 USC Chapter 163- Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures 28 USC Chapter 165- US Court of Federal Claims Procedure 28 USC Chapter 169- Court of International Trade Procedure 28 USC Chapter 171- Tort Claims Procedure 28 USC Chapter 179- Judicial Review of Certain Actions by Presidential Offices 28 USC Chapter 181- Foreign Judgments

Related Cases

Kerr v. New Orleans PD,2:2013cv00525(ED La 2013)

In Re: Judicial Complaint, 18-10-90033/90034 (10th Cir 2018)

Relevant Law

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against." -James Madison, when Introducing the Bill of Rights

The 9th Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

TITLE 37. PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

PART 1. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

CHAPTER 12. COMPASSIONATE-USE/LOW-THC CANNABIS PROGRAMSUBCHAPTER A.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 12.1.Definitions § 12.2. Requirements and Standards § 12.3. Criminal History Disqualifiers § 12.4. Records § 12.5. Address on File § 12.6. Notice § 12.7. Testing, Production, and Packaging § 12.8. Inventory Control System § 12.9. Sanitation; Waste DisposalSUBCHAPTER B. APPLICATION AND RENEWAL § 12.11. Application for License § 12.12. Application for Registration § 12.13. Renewal § 12.14. Application Fees and Method of Payment § 12.15. Denial of Application for License § 12.16. Denial of Application for RegistrationSUBCHAPTER C. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT § 12.21. Inspections § 12.22. Suspension § 12.23. Revocation § 12.24. Default Judgments § 12.25. Hearing CostsSUBCHAPTER D. SECURITY § 12.31. Security of Facilities § 12.32. Security of Vehicles § 12.33. Response to Security Breach § 12.34. Reporting of Discrepancy, Loss or TheftSUBCHAPTER E. COMPASSIONATE-USE REGISTRY § 12.41. Access to Compassionate-Use Registry § 12.42. Verification of Patient Prescription § 12.43. Prescriber Registration § 12.44. Prescriptions

TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE

TITLE 6. FOOD, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

SUBTITLE C. SUBSTANCE ABUSE REGULATION AND CRIMES

CHAPTER 481. TEXAS CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 481.001. SHORT TITLE. This chapter may be cited as the Texas Controlled Substances Act. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989.Sec. 481.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (16) "Drug" means a substance, other than a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device, that is: (A) recognized as a drug in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, official National Formulary, or a supplement to either pharmacopoeia or the formulary; (B) intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animals; (C) intended to affect the structure or function of the body of man or animals but is not food; or (D) intended for use as a component of a substance described by Paragraph (A), (B), or (C). (17) "Drug paraphernalia" means equipment, a product, or material that is used or intended for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, or concealing a controlled substance in violation of this chapter or in injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance in violation of this chapter. The term includes: (A) a kit used or intended for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, or harvesting a species of plant that is a controlled substance or from which a controlled substance may be derived; (B) a material, compound, mixture, preparation, or kit used or intended for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, or preparing a controlled substance; (C) an isomerization device used or intended for use in increasing the potency of a species of plant that is a controlled substance; (D) testing equipment used or intended for use in identifying or in analyzing the strength, effectiveness, or purity of a controlled substance; (E) a scale or balance used or intended for use in weighing or measuring a controlled substance; (F) a dilutant or adulterant, such as quinine hydrochloride, mannitol, inositol, nicotinamide, dextrose, lactose, or absorbent, blotter-type material, that is used or intended to be used to increase the amount or weight of or to transfer a controlled substance regardless of whether the dilutant or adulterant diminishes the efficacy of the controlled substance; (G) a separation gin or sifter used or intended for use in removing twigs and seeds from or in otherwise cleaning or refining marihuana; (H) a blender, bowl, container, spoon, or mixing device used or intended for use in compounding a controlled substance; (I) a capsule, balloon, envelope, or other container used or intended for use in packaging small quantities of a controlled substance; (J) a container or other object used or intended for use in storing or concealing a controlled substance; (K) a hypodermic syringe, needle, or other object used or intended for use in parenterally injecting a controlled substance into the human body; and (L) an object used or intended for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marihuana, cocaine, hashish, or hashish oil into the human body, including: (i) a metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipe with or without a screen, permanent screen, hashish head, or punctured metal bowl; (ii) a water pipe; (iii) a carburetion tube or device; (iv) a smoking or carburetion mask; (v) a chamber pipe; (vi) a carburetor pipe; (vii) an electric pipe; (viii) an air-driven pipe; (ix) a chillum; (x) a bong; or (xi) an ice pipe or chiller. (18) "Federal Controlled Substances Act" means the Federal Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq.) or its successor statute. (19) "Federal Drug Enforcement Administration" means the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States Department of Justice or its successor agency.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
Constitution- Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:
"No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed"

US v. Brown, 381 US 437 (1965)- Overturned Law that made it a Crime to be Communist
US v. Lovett, 328 US 303 (1946)- Attainder Test
Dent v. West Virginia, 129 US 114 (1889)- A State Law Stating you had to Graduate from a Licensed Medical School was nearly overturned (Religion can't be Licensed)
Hawker v. New York 170 US 189 (1898)- Law Barring Felons from Practicing Medicine Overturned
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
This is Irvin Rosenfeld, the pinnacle of Medical Marijuana Exemption. He is a Federal Marijuana Patient, one of like 10 alive. The FDA sends him cookie tins full of Joints. Anything he can do, Religion can do. And no one has tested it, because everyone around him fights for Medical use, and everyone doing Religious exemption focuses on Rastafarianism or a self made, less restrictive, form of Rastafarianism (and Rastifarianism is not very restrictive).
 

Attachments

SashaShiva

Active Member
This is the Case everything really comes down to, when the DEA comes to Court with their Elaborate Argument, you just bring up this Case, and if your Religion does not violate this case (this is the "if no one can do it, Religion can't do it" case), then the DEA is just spitting in the wind.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
A lot of people seem to think they know how Religious Marijuana Works in Court and are willing to spout off about it, but they do not know what they are talking about, so I want to explain how it works for everyone.

First, most Religious Marijuana Case's failures can be summed up by this 1 DEA Response to the Church of Reality:

Here is what they told them
1. They aren't a Religion, because they have no Gods, no Spirit World, no Diet, no Clothing or Jewelry, no Mandatory behavior, no Banishment for violation of behaviors, no Fasting, etc, etc; the case that contains the rules for what "is or is not a Religion" is here: Africa v. Commonwealth, 662 F.2d 1025 (3d Cir. 1981)..
2. They asked for a Medical Exemption, even though they said it was Religious use, they said they were like self-medicating, and if you want some kind of Medical Exemption from a Scheduled Substance, you need a PhD/MD.
3. They said "all plants", so the DEA said "why don't you use all the others then instead".
4. They said it was for Meditation, which means that it is not Central to the Religion, and they are not burdening them by denying it. That has been the rule back since Timothy Leary said he used it for Meditation, and they said that it has to be central to the Religion like the Native Peyote Religion, where without it, there is not a Religion.

That sums up what they said in the Church of Reality response, and also sums up why most Religious Marijuana Cases fail, for example, The International Church of Cannabis has been ruled a "Club" and not a Religion, because no one in the "Religion" actually has to smoke Marijuana, it's not mandatory. The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church is the best Case to look at. They are a Rastafarian Church that almost got an exemption in the 80s, but the DEA argued that someone could forge a Membership card and the Marijuana could get into illegal Channels and the Court used that reasoning to accept the "If no one can do it, Religion can't do it" argument. But in 2016 the Federal Marijuana Registry Opened up, and the Company Catalent and 25 other Companies this year, are now importing Marijuana for Research, and GreenWhich Pharma is creating a THCv Medicine.

In 2006, Ayahuasca became legal for not only Religious use, but for Importation for Religious use, through Customs. So DMT, a Schedule I Substance, is allowed to be shipped in through Customs for Religious Use. Then the DEA was forced by the Supreme Court to create an Exemption process, so there is an exemption process now. And I am going through the process. Have you heard of Lexi, the little girl who has Seizures and is from Texas? She went to a Federal Court with a Medical Argument, and she almost made it in the case "Washington v. Sessions, et al", except that she "didn't follow the DEAs guidelines" so the Court would not determine the Constitutionality of her argument until she went through their process. I have gone through their Religious Process, and am almost finished with that process, so I have the standing that Lexi lacked in challenging the Controlled Substances Act, the entire Law, plus I have standing for Religious use in Court.

Our Temple believes that Marijuana is the Flesh of the Lord God Shiva, the Hindu Marijuana God. And THCv is a form of Lord Shiva, and is used for fasting. The Federal Court has ruled that the DEA only has the right to ban "Marijuana" as it is defined in the Law, and do not have rights to regulate anything beyond that, see Hemp Industries Association v. DEA, Nos. 03-71366, 03-71693 (2004) where they determined THC naturally found in Marijuana seeds is not THC under the law because it is not "Marijuana" or "Synthetic THC". So the least restrictive means, would be to not ban us from using these Legal, Unregulated, Substances. We also have Gods, we do Divination and Prophecy, we have a Spirit World, and Jewelry, and Hair styles, and everything that are involved in Observing the Religion, so it is a Religion. So, now that we have a Religion, and non-Scheduled Substances involved (I have given the DEA the option to let us grow plants in legal States, or to let us Synthesize the Cannabinoid), this is a Case just like the Scientology E-Meter Case. And Scientology E-Meters are unregulated by the Government as far as their Religious Use, see United States v. ARTICLE OR DEVICE, ETC., 333 F. Supp. 357 (D.D.C. 1971).

So that is how Religion works in the Courts, and there will be Case Law for it soon so you can just copy me.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
Everyone hears "Cartel" and thinks Gold Guns", or "Narcoterrorism", or "Super Labs", or "International Heroine and Cocaine Trafficking", or "Human Trafficking". But none of these thi gs Define a Cartel.

Cartels send people across the Desert to clog up CBP and ICE resources, and send people with everything hidden in Cars through legal Checkpoints with a Car full of Spring Breakers, or Snow Birds. And they can do this because there is no legal way for these people to come in our country looking for work (in the numbers they are coming, the law has a cap) or to get the Drugs in. So the "Cartel" takes up that market. The Cartel controls who goes where when, and they charge everyone for it.

They control the price of Marijuana, even States that legalized let Dispensaries match the high prices of the Cartels. If a State really wanted to get rid of a Cartel, they would make a Law lowering the price of Marijuana Dramatically. Then it wouldn't even be worth the effort to bring it in anyway, because a Gram of Heroine or Fentanyl goes for a much higher price than a gram of Marijuana, so they would lose the Marijuana market.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
Principles of Construction and Chevron Deference

"'[A]s a general matter, courts should be loath to announce equitable exceptions to legislative requirements or prohibitions that are unqualified by the statutory text[.'] Although trust law may offer a 'starting point' for analysis in some situations, it must give way if it is inconsistent with 'the language of the statute, its structure, or its purposes.'" Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 447 (1999) (quoting Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat. Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365, 376 (1990), and Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 497 (1996)).

"[T]he meaning of statutory language, plain or not, depends on context." Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 7 (1999) (quoting Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 118 (1994), and King v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 502 U.S. 215, 221 (1991)).

"We look first to evidence of the original understanding of the Constitution." Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 741 (1999)

"[E]arly congressional practice * * * provides 'contemporaneous and weighty evidence of the Constitution's meaning.'" Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 743-744 (1999) (quoting Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 905 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

"When interpreting a statute, we look first to the language." Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 818 (1999).

"As in any case of statutory construction, our analysis begins with the language of the statute. * * * And where the statutory language provides a clear answer, it ends there as well." Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 438 (1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

"The Secretary's reading of [the statute] frankly seems to us the more natural - but it is in any event well within the bounds of reasonable interpretation, and hence entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984)." Your Home Visiting Nurse Services, Inc. v. Shalala, 525 U.S. 449, 453 (1999).

"But Congress is well aware that the ambiguities it chooses to produce in a statute will be resolved by the implementing agency, see Chevron [U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,] 842-843 [1984]. We can only enforce the clear limits that the 1996 Act contains * * *." AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 397 (1999).

"Under Chevron, if a court determines that 'Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue,' then 'that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.'" United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380, 392 (1999) (quoting Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-843 (1984)).

"If, however, the agency's statutory interpretation 'fills a gap or defines a term in a way that is reasonable in light of the legislature's revealed design, we give [that] judgment "controlling weight."'" United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380, 392 (1999) (quoting NationsBank of N.C., N.A. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S. 251, 257 (1995)).

"A statute may be ambiguous, for purposes of Chevron analysis, without being inartful or deficient." United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380, 392 (1999).

"For purposes of the Chevron analysis, * * *[a statute is ambiguous if] the agency must use its discretion to determine how best to implement the policy in those cases not covered by the statute's specific terms." United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380, 393 (1999).

"[Chevron] [d]eference can be given to the regulations without impairing the authority of the court to make factual determinations, and to apply those determinations to the law, de novo." United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380, 391 (1999).

"Because the Court of Appeals confronted questions implicating 'an agency's construction of the statute which it administers,' the court should have applied the principles of deference described in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984). Thus, the court should have asked whether 'the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue' before it; if so, 'the question for the court [was] whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.' Id. at 843." INS v. AguirreAguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424 (1999).

"[W]e have recognized that judicial deference to the Executive Branch is especially appropriate in the immigration context where officials 'exercise especially sensitive political functions that implicate questions of foreign relations.' INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 110 (1998). A decision by the Attorney General to deem certain violent offenses committed in another country as political in nature, and to allow the perpetrators to remain in the United States, may affect our relations with that country or its neighbors. The judiciary is not well positioned to shoulder primary responsibility for assessing the likelihood and importance of such diplomatic repercussions." INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425 (1999).

The Board of Immigration Appeals "should be accorded Chevron deference as it gives ambiguous statutory terms concrete meaning through a process of case-by-case adjudication * * *." INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U. S. 415, 425 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).

"[W]e have no occasion to review the call for deference here [to a construction of the agency's statutory jurisdiction first advanced in the government's Supreme Court brief], the interpretation urged in [that] brief being clearly the better reading of the statute under ordinary principles of construction." California Dental Assn. v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756, 766 (1999).

"In resolving this issue, the [Federal Labor Relations] Authority was interpreting the statute Congress directed it to implement and administer. 5 U.S.C. § 7105. The Authority's conclusion is certainly consistent with the [statute] and, to the extent the statute and congressional intent are unclear, we may rely on the Authority's reasonable judgment." National Aeronautics and Space Admin. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 527 U.S. 229, 234 (1999).



"In interpreting statutory mineral reservations like the one at issue here, we have emphasized that Congress 'was dealing with a practical subject in a practical way' and that it intended the terms of the reservation to be understood in 'their ordinary and popular sense.'" Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Tribe, 526 U.S. 865, 873 (1999) (quoting Burke v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 234 U.S. 669, 679 (1914)).

"It is a well-established rule of construction that '"[w]here Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under . . . the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms."'" Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 21 (1999) (quoting Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322 (1992), and Community for Creative NonViolence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 739 (1989)).

"'[W]here Congress borrows terms of art in which are accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the judicial mind unless otherwise instructed.'" Kolstad v. American Dental Assn., 527 U.S. 526, 539 (1999) (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952)).

"If a given statute is unclear about treating * * * a fact as [an] element [of the offense] or [a] penalty aggravator [in sentencing], it makes sense to look at what other statutes have done, on the fair assumption that Congress is unlikely to intend any radical departures from past practice without making a point of saying so." Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 234 (1999).

"Statutory language must be read in context and a phrase 'gathers meaning from the words around it.'" Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 389 (1999) (quoting Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307 (1961)).

A statutory phrase "should ordinarily retain the same meaning wherever used in the same statute * * *." National Aeronautics and Space Admin. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 527 U.S. 229, 235 (1999) (agreeing to principle but rejecting argument based on this maxim).

"Now and then silence is not pregnant." El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473, 487 (1999) (explaining that Congress probably failed to provide for tribal-court removal in Price-Anderson Act actions because Congress never expected the situation to arise).
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
"Before there were intelligent beings, they were possible; they had therefore possible relations, and consequently possible laws. Before laws were made, there were relations of possible justice. To say that there is nothing just or unjust, but what is commanded or forbidden by positive laws, is the same as saying that, before the describing of a circle, all the radii were not equal."
-Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, in "The Spirit of the Laws"

The Spirit of the Laws

Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia

Latin Religio meaning:
"reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety"

Latin Opinari meaning:
"to have an opinion or "to think."

Election Latin Root
late 13c., from Anglo-French eleccioun, Old French elecion "choice, election, selection" (12c.), from Latin electionem (nominative electio), noun of action from past participle stem of eligere

Select Latin Root
Latin sēlēctus (past participle of sēligere to gather apart), equivalent to sē- se- + leg(ere) to gather, choose + -tus past participle suffix

Pro se legal representation (/ˌproʊ ˈsiː/ or /ˌproʊ ˈseɪ/) comes from Latin, literally meaning "on behalf of themselves", which basically means advocating on one's own behalf before a court, rather than being represented by a lawyer.

The Latin “prosequi” meant “to follow after, accompany, chase, pursue, attack, assail, or abuse.” It is composed of the prefix “pro” meaning “forward” and “sequi,” meaning “follow,” in the same sense as “sequel.” In its most literal sense, prosequi means, “follow forward.” In Latin, prosequi was usually used in two ways: literally to mean “follow a path” or figuratively to mean “follow a course of action.” The past participle of prosequi is “prosecutus.” Prosequi became a Latin agent noun “prosecutor” in medieval times. Prosecutus became “prosecute” in the early 15th century, usually meaning “to go into detail.” The first recorded use of the word to mean “bring to a court of law” is in the 1570s. At this time, the person who brought a case in a court of law was a “promoter.” Prosecutor, in turn, acquired its modern meaning in the 1620s.

"Forced worship stinks in God's nostrils"
-Roger Williams, President of the Colony of Rhode Island

To Alexander Hamilton from William C. Bentley, 4 October 1799
From William C. Bentley
"Richmond [Virginia] October 4, 1799. “A few days before my arival at this place, some of the Troops of the Regimt. of Artillerists & Engineers, of Capt. Eddins’s1 Company, stationed at this place, were guilty of a most violent and flagrant breach of Civil Authority; the Circumstances were these; One of their new recruits was discovered to be a fugitive from justice, he had been committed to a County Court jail for Horse-stealing, which he broke and fled from. The Shff of that County discouvering him among the Soldiers in Town, had him apprehended under a Warrant from a Magistrate of this City, and which in possession of the Sheriff, he was rescued by Six or Seven of Eddins’s Soldiers, and Suffered to make his escape.2 This has afforded another opportunity for the Jacobines Printers to sport with the Standing Army, as they call it; The paper of this place, called the Examiner3 of which, that Scotch Fugitive Callender,4 has the direction, has detailed the circumstances to the public, rather highly coloured, and has called on all his Yoke Mates, (using his own Words) to notice it in their papers.…” "

The Volstead Act (1920)
Officially titled the National Prohibition Act
"Nothing in this title shall be held to apply to the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, possession, or distribution of wine for sacramental purposes, or like religious rites"

ULTRA VIRES;
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969); United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995); United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. _ (2012)

Hemp Industries Association v. DEA, Nos. 03-71366, 03-71693 (2004)
"We have previously held that the definition of “THC” in Schedule I refers only to synthetic THC, and that any THC occurring naturally within Cannabis is banned only if it falls within the Schedule I definition of “marijuana.”...We reiterate that ruling here: in accordance with Schedule I, the DEA's relevant rules and regulations may be enforced only insofar as they ban the presence of marijuana or synthetic THC."

Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942)
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 223-24 (1967)
Miranda Juarez v. DOJ/DEA, 07-5064 (DC Cir 2008)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987)
Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600 (7th Cir. 1979)
Hampton v. Hanrahan, 522 F. Supp. 140 (N.D. Ill. 1981)
United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953)
Craker v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. 09-1220 (1st Cir. 2013)
Nevada v. Hicks,533 U.S. 353 (2001)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)
Linder v. United States 268 U.S. 5 (1925)
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
Gonzales v. O Centro, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)
Washington v. Sessions, et al 1:17-cv-05625
Gallagher v. DEA et al 3:2017cv00734
In re: RYAN GALLAGHER 18-10407
Gallagher v. Rosenberg et al 1:16-cv-01117
Olsen V DEA 878 F.2d 1458, 279 D.C. 1, 58 USLW 2023
United States v. Forbes, 806 F. Supp. 232 (D. Colo. 1992)
Normaco v. DEA, 375 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah,508 U.S. 520 (1993)
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920)
Randall v. Wyrick, 441 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Mo. 1977)
MM Steel, LP v. Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. et al, No. 4:2012cv01227 - Document 504 (S.D. Tex. 2014)
Tunica Web Advertising v. TUNICA CASINO OPERATORS, 496 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2007)
Spectators’ Comm. Network, Inc. v. Colonial Country Club, et al., 253 F.3d 215 (5 th Cir. 2001)
NW Wholesale Stationers v. Pac. Stationery 472 U.S. 284 (1985)
Norman Bridge Drug Company, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Michael Banner, John R. Bartels, Jr., Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, et al., Defendants-appellants, 529 F.2d 822 (5th Cir. 1976)
Mellouli v. Lynch 575 U.S. _ (2015)
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
Ponce v. Roman Catholic Church, 210 U.S. 296 (1908)
COLE DRUG COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS vs. CITY OF BOSTON 326 Mass. 199 (1950)
United States v. Johnson,221 U.S. 488 (1911)
United States v. Morgan,222 U.S. 274 (1911)
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)
United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, 241 U.S. 265 (1916)
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States,476 U.S. 227 (1986)
Dalehite v. United States,346 U.S. 15 (1953)
indell v. Abbott Laboratories L.A. No. 31063. Supreme Court of California. March 20, 1980
Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470 (1904)
United States v. Mottolo, 695 F. Supp. 615 (D.N.H. 1988)
Jelen and Son, Inc. v. Bandimere 801 P.2d 1182 (1990)
People v. Noland 739 P.2d 906 (1987)
United States v. Ishmael, 843 F. Supp. 205 (E.D. Tex. 1994)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___ (2013)
People v. Phillips (1813)
New York v. Phillips (N.Y.Ct.Gen.Sess.1813)
People v. Smith (N.Y. 1817)
New York v. Smith, 2 City Hall Recorder 77 (1817)
Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 51 (1980)
Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 727, 20 L. Ed. 666 (1871)
New Jersey v. Szemple, 622A.2d248,249 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1993)
Howard v. Covenant Apostolic Church, Inc., 124 Ohio App.3d 24, 28-29 (1st Dist.1997)
Totten v. UnitedStates, 92 U.S.105,107 (1875)
In re: Ver-plank,329 F.Supp 433,435 (C.D.Cal1971)
United States v. Keeney, 111 F.Supp 233,234 (D.D.C.1953)
Louisiana v. Mayer, 589 So.2d 1145,1148 (La.Ct.App.1991)
Bonds v. Arkansas, 837 S.W.2d 881, 884 (Ark.1992)
Easley v. Texas, 837 S.W.2d 854, 856 (Tex.Ct.App.1992)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)
Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 U.S. 111 (1784)
Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696 (1976)
Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969)
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005)
Africa v. Commonwealth, 662 F.2d 1025 (3d Cir. 1981)
MAYFIELD v. TDCJ No. 06-50490 (2008)
United States of America v. Jeff Fort, Appellant, 409 F.2d 441 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
United States of America v. Jeff Fort, Appellant, 443 F.2d 670 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
United States v. Fort, 921 F. Supp. 523 (N.D. Ill. 1996)
NATIONAL MOBILIZATION COM. TO END WAR IN VIET NAM v. Foran, 297 F. Supp. 1 (N.D. Ill. 1968)
Hoffman v. United States, 256 A.2d 567 (1969)
Abbie Hoffman, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee, 445 F.2d 226 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
Americans United v. PRISON FELLOWSHIP, 555 F. Supp. 2d 988 (S.D. Iowa 2008)
Davis v. Austin, 492 F. Supp. 273 (N.D. Ga. 1980)
State v. Olson 449 N.W.2d 251 (1989)
Stovall v. Bennett, 471 F. Supp. 1286 (M.D. Ala. 1979)
Lipp v. Procunier, 395 F. Supp. 871 (N.D. Cal. 1975)
The Antelope, 24 U.S. 413 (1826)
United States v. The Amistad, 40 U.S. 518 (1841)
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States,143 U.S. 457 (1892)
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972)
Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen,244 U.S. 205 (1917)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Largent v. Texas 318 U.S. 418 (1943)
Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853)
The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871)
Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898)
Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924)
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)
Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)
Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)
American Library Association v. Pataki. 969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995)
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997)
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006)
Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)
Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)
Elfbrandt v. Russell 97 Ariz. 140 (1964)
Russo v. Byrne, 409 U.S. 1219 (1972)
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co.,118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Griswild v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947)
Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935)
People v. Newton (1970)
Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973)
Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992)
United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000).
Uttecht v. Brown 551 U.S. 1 (2007)
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961)
Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965)
Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (1966)
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968)
Gonzales v. Beto, 405 U.S. 1052 (1972)
Skilling v. U.S., 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d510 (1965)
Montgomery v. Bevans, 17 F.Cas. 628 (9th C.C.D. Cal.)
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 447 (1999)
Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 7 (1999)
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 741 (1999)
Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 818 (1999)
Your Home Visiting Nurse Services, Inc. v. Shalala, 525 U.S. 449, 453 (1999)
AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 397 (1999)
United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380, 392 (1999)
INS v. Aguirre 526 U.S. 415, 424 (1999)
California Dental Assn. v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756, 766 (1999)
Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Tribe, 526 U.S. 865, 873 (1999)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 21 (1999)
Kolstad v. American Dental Assn., 527 U.S. 526, 539 (1999)
Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 234 (1999)
National Aeronautics and Space Admin. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 527 U.S. 229, 235 (1999)
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473, 487 (1999)
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981)
United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944)
New Hampshire v. Maine,532 U.S. 742 (2001)
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)
Busey v. District of Columbia, 319 U.S. 579 (1943)
Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953)
Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
United States v. Alkhabaz, 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997)
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931)
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958)
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963)
United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966)
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)
Erno Nussenzweig v. Philip-Lorca diCorcia (2007)
Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234 (1964)
Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 487 F.2d 1345 (Ct. Cl. 1973)
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)
Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965)
Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011)
Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938)
Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971)
Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943)
Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment 444 U.S. 620 (1980)
Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957)
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Taylor v. Mississippi, 319 U.S. 583 (1943)
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971)
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)
Ketchum v. Cruz, 775 F. Supp. 1399 (D. Colo. 1991)
Yadon v. Southward, 64 P. 3d 909 (2002)
Villa v. Colorado DOC, No. 16-1308 (10th Cir. 2016)
Draper v. Washington, 372 US 487 (1963)
Hardin v. Straub, 490 US536 (1989)
Sause v. Bauer, 585 US _ (2018)
Collins v. Kansas, 174 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Kan, 2001)
Coppedge v. US, 369 US 438 (1962)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
US v. Dewitt, 76 US 41 (1869)
Civil Rights Cases, 109 US 3 (1883)
Employer Liablity Cases, 207 US 463 (1908)
El Paso v. Gutierrez, 215 US 87 (1909)
Muskrat v. US, 219 US 346 (1911)
Turner v. US, 396 US 398 (1970)
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 US 251 (1918)
Carter v. Carter Coal, 298 US 238 (1936)
US v. Darby, 312 US 100 (1941)
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)
Child Labor Tax Case, 259 US 20 (1922)
US v. Constantine, 296 US 287 (1935)
US v. Butler, 297 US 1 (1936)
Rickert Rice v. Fontenot, 297 US 110 (1936)
Rubin v. Coors, 514 US 476 (1995)
Boos v. Barry, 485 US 312 (1988)
US v. Cardiff, 344 US 174 (1952)
Tot v. US, 319 US 463 (1943)
Capitol Police v. Jeanette Brigade, 409 US 972 (1972)
Toth v. Quarels, 350 US 11 (1955)
Blount v. Rizzi, 400 US 410 (1971)
US v. Robel, 389 US 258 (1967)
Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 US 500 (1964)
Albertson v. SACB, 382 US 70 (1965)
Haynes v. US, 390 US 85 (1968)
Schacht v. US, 398 US 58 (1970)
US v. Romano, 382 US 136 (1965)
Regan v. Time, 468 US 641 (1984)
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 US 112 (1970)
Feltner v. Columbia, 523 US 340 (1998)
Johnson v. US, 576 US _(2015)
US v. Eichman, 496 US 310 (1990)
Hosanna Tabor v. Equal Employment, 565 US _ (2012)
US v. United Foods, 533 US 405 (2001)
US v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995)
Printz v. US, 521 US 898 (1997)
US v. Morrison, 529 US 598 (2000)
Agency for Int'l Dev v. All for Open Soc'y Int'l, 570 US _ (2013)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948).
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.
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).
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)
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).
2, 3, 4
 

Attachments

SashaShiva

Active Member
USC Title 42 Chapter 20A- Civil Rights Commission
USC Title 42 Chapter 21A- Privacy Protection
USC Title 42 Chapter 21B- Religious Freedom Restoration Act
USC Title 42 Chapter 21C- Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
USC Title 42 Chapter 21E- Privacy and Civil Rights Protection & Oversight
USC Title 42 Chapter 21, Subchapter IX- Miscellaneous Provisions
USC Title 42 Chapter 46- Justice System Improvement
USC Title 42 Chapter 42- Narcotic Addiction Rehab
USC Title 42 Chapter 60- Alcoholism Prevention
USC Title 42 Chapter 106- Community Services Block Grant Program
USC Title 42 Chapter 113- State Justice Institute
USC Title 42 Chapter 117- Encouraging Good Faith Professional Review Activities
USC Title 42 Chapter 123- Drug Abuse Education & Prevention
USC Title 42 Chapter 139- Volunteer Protection

Title 18 USC 242- Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Title 18 USC 241- Conspiracy Against Rights
Title 18 USC 245- Federally Protected Activities
Title 18 USC 246- Deprivation of Relief Benefits
Title 42 USC 1985- Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
Title 18 USC 372- Conspiracy to Impede or Injure Officer
Title 18 USC 402- Contempts Constituting Crimes
Title 18 USC 552- Officers Aiding in Importation of Treasonous Articles
Title 42 USC 1986- Action for Neglecting to Prevent
Title 42 USC 1987- Prosecution of Violation of Certain Laws
Title 42 USC 1989- US Magistrates; Appointment of Persons to Execute Warrants
Title 42 USC 1990- Marshal to Obey Precepts; Refusing to receive or Execute Process
Title 42 USC 1991- Fees; Persons appointed to Execute Process
Title 42 USC 1994- Peonage Abolished
Title 42 USC 1995- Criminal Contempt Proceedings; Penalties; Trial by Jury
Title 42 USC 1996- Protection and Preservation of Traditional Religions of Native Americans
Title 42 USC 1996a- Traditional Indian use of Peyote
Title 18 USC 3525- Victim Compensation Fund
Title 34 USC Chapter 201- Victim Rights, Compensation and Assistance

USC Title 18 Chapter 33- Emblems, Insignia & Names
USC Title 18 Chapter 37- Espionage & Censorship
USC Title 18 Chapter 39- Explosives & Other Dangerous Articles
USC Title 18 Chapter 40- Importation, Manufacture, Distribution and Storage of Explosives
USC Title 18 Chapter 44- Firearms
USC Title 18 Chapter 45- Foreign Relations
USC Title 18 Chapter 46- Forfeiture
USC Title 18 Chapter 65- Malicious Mischief
USC Title 18 Chapter 73- Obstruction of Justice
USC Title 18 Chapter 90- Protection of Trade Secrets
USC Title 18 Chapter 93- Public Officers and Employees
USC Title 18 Chapter 95- Racketeering
USC Title 18 Chapter 96- RICO
USC Title 18 Chapter 97- Land, Air, Water, Rail Transport
USC Title 18 Chapter 101- Records and Reports
USC Title 18 Chapter 109- Searches and Seizures
USC Title 18 Chapter 120- ECPA
USC Title 18 Chapter 121- Stored Wire and Electronic Communications
USC Title 18 Chapter 123- Prohibition on release of certain State Motor Vehicle Records
USC Title 18 Chapter 203- Arrest and Commitment
USC Title 18 Chapter 206- Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices
USC Title 18 Chapter 211- Jurisdiction and Venue
USC Title 18 Chapter 213- Limitations
USC Title 18 Chapter 233- Contempts

USC Title 1- General Provisions
USC Title 2- The Congress
USC Title 5, Appendix 5a- Federal Advisory Committee Act
USC Title 9- Arbitration
USC Title 21- Food & Drugs
USC Title 22- Foreign Relations and Intercourse
USC Title 24- Hospitals and Asylums
USC Title 27- Intoxicating Liquors
USC Title 28- Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
USC Title 34- Crime Control and Law Enforcement
USC Title 43- Public Lands
USC Title 47- Telecommunications
USC Title 49- Transportation
 
Top Bottom