420 Magazine Background

DEA Religious Exemption Process

SashaShiva

Active Member
You may have heard of Lexi, Lexi was a 12 year old Girl around the same time my 12 year old Brother died, she may have been a little younger, but around the same time my Brother died because the Hospital in Colorado was afraid to use Marijuana, even though they said that 2-AG (a Cannabinoid in a Research Paper I was showing them) would save him, and they said that they could only use the Molecule in the Research Paper, and that I would have to find it. I was 21 years old when they told me that, and I said "You are the Doctors" and now my Brother is dead.

But this is Lexi, an Epileptic Girl from Texas, just like me and my Family she is from Texas, and she became a Refugee in Colorado having had to move their for her Medicine. She then teamed up with Veterans and other Medical Patients, and sued Jeff Sessions last year.

Their Case was dismissed because they "Did not go through the DEA Process first" as the Federal Judge said. But if you pay attention to what I have put forward in these court cases, I have gone through the DEA process. And personally, I would say that Lexi and the Vets actually have a weaker Case than me BECAUSE theirs is Medical and mine is Religious. There is no Right to Medicine in the Constitution, at all. The Constitution does not give you a Right to all Medicines, and the Health and Welfare argument is ironically and hilariously, what the Government uses to keep it AWAY from people.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
Also,

I am going to be teaching people how to do a ton of stuff in Court. I have learned a lot about the Courts and Federal Courts over the past few years. I always had my County Case open from 2010, where I had been Illegally Arrested for Practicing my Religion, and with no Warrant on my own Property.

But then in 2015, in Austin, I had a ton of things Confiscated (as explained in Gallagher v. Austin PD) and then the Police Department removed the Case to Federal Court, which then taught me about the Federal Court.

And I started filing in Federal Court, and talking to Federal Agencies Directly. I had always emailed the Media, and Congress People, but they can ignore emails.

Here is an example of the kinds of things I will be teaching everyone. This is a Case that I filed in 2017, in Dallas, the first Case I filed in Federal Court against the DEA.

That Case was filed in 2017, and the Judges had it under Review for a Year, at which point I think they thought I had forgotten about it and they could just let it sit open, but instead I filed a "Motion to show cause" and asked the Court to show Cause. It had been an Entire year, and about 2 days after I filed the Motion for the Court to show Cause, they responded with the Shortest most Pathetic little Magistrate Response saying "You can't sue the Agency, you have to sue the people" and that was after I filed an Administrative Claim and the DEA didn't respond.

So then I started the DEA Religious Petition Process.

And I sued the DEA Again, but this time, Agents I had been talking to through emails for over a Year.

Then I used the SBA Ombudsman to force them to respond.

And then the DEA gave me a response to my Administrative Claim and said I could sue them for $5.6m

So now, I reopened the Case from 2017, and did this by filing an "Amended Complaint" which you always have a Right to. If you have a Case dismissed, you can come back 30 Years later and file an Amended Complaint, so even if you can't win a Case, and don't have all the Facts, get it on Record so you don't miss filing deadlines, because you can always come back later.

Filing Amended Complaints is something I learned by reading an old Black Panther Case
Wahad v. FBI, 994 F. Supp. 237 (S.D.N.Y. 1998
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
This is a Case from the 60s involving Abbie Hoffman, a leader of the Youth International Party (YIP) which was one of the Political Parties being formed in the 60s like the Black Panther Party for Self Defense, and various other Political Parties. This Case explains how to Invoke the JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. When a Court Claims that you need to better Explain Jurisdiction, simply read through this Case and quote it.


297 F. Supp. 1 1968

NATIONAL MOBILIZATION COMMITTEE TO END the WAR IN VIET NAM, individually and on behalf of all other organizations similarly situated; David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, Thomas Hayden, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
Thomas A. FORAN, individually and in his official capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois; and Ramsey Clark, individually and in his capacity as Attorney General of the United States, their agents, employees, successors, and all those acting in concert or cooperation with them, Defendants.

No. 68 C 1820.

United States District Court N. D. Illinois, E. D.

November 1, 1968.

*2 Stanley A. Bass, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Thomas A. Foran, Chicago, Ill., for the United States.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MAROVITZ, District Judge.

Motion of Plaintiffs to Convene a Three-Judge Court Motion of Defendants to Dismiss.

This is an allegedly a class action brought by plaintiff Committee, its leaders David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, and Thomas Hayden, and Jerry Rubin, and Abbie Hoffman, leaders of the Youth International Party, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs request the convening of a three-judge court pursuant *3 to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2282 and 2284 in order to declare unconstitutional 18 U.S.C. §§ 231, 232, 2101, and 2102. The first two of these recently enacted statutes deal with the use of weapons during civil disorders, while the latter two sections concern the instigation of and participation in a riot. Plaintiffs also seek a permanent injunction to restrain the Justice Department from presenting evidence to a Federal Grand Jury and a similar temporary injunction pending a final hearing on this prayer. Besides opposing plaintiffs' motion, defendants, the Attorney General of the United States and the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, have moved to dismiss this suit.

Plaintiffs seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under a variety of statutes including 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201, 2202, 2282, and 2284. Defendants object that the last four sections do not create independent grounds for jurisdiction and that the first of these five sections is not applicable because plaintiffs' claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 is without basis. We find that jurisdiction lies in that plaintiffs' claims arise under and are based on constructions of federal statutes and the Constitution. While the jurisdictional amount purportedly applies to federal question cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, another section, 28 U.S.C. § 1337, grants jurisdiction in cases arising under congressional acts regulating commerce without regard to the amount in controversy. See also, Landry v. Daley, 280 F. Supp. 929, 935 (N.D.Ill.1967).

The language of 28 U.S.C. § 2284(5), which precludes dismissal by a single judge, applies only after a three-judge court has jurisdiction. Eastern States Petroleum Corp. v. Rogers, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 63, 280 F.2d 611, 615 (1960); Landsberger v. Freeman, 217 F. Supp. 138 (D.C.1963). Therefore, a single-judge court must make the initial determination as to whether plaintiffs' complaint raises a substantial constitutional question, whether there is, at least, a formally alleged basis for equitable relief, and whether the case is otherwise appropriate for hearing by a three-judge court. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 82 S. Ct. 1294, 8 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1962); Landry v. Daley, 280 F. Supp. 929, 935 (N.D.Ill.1967).

A constitutional question will be considered an insubstantial one if it is "obviously without merit or because its unsoundness is so clearly demonstrated by previous decisions of the Supreme Court as to foreclose the subject." Landry v. Daley, 280 F. Supp. at 935. Plaintiffs contend that the statutes in question are designed to regulate or inhibit the rights of free speech, assembly and travel by means of criminal sanctions which are vague and overbroad. The Civil Disorders provision, 18 U.S.C. §§ 231 & 232, attempts to regulate the teaching and demonstration of the use and manufacture of firearms and other devices and techniques capable of causing injury with the intent that the same will be used in the furtherance of a civil disorder (18 U.S.C. § 231(a) (1)), defined as a public disturbance involving three or more persons and characterized by violence to persons or property (18 U.S.C. § 232(1)); the manufacture or transportation of the aforementioned devices by a person knowing or intending that they be used in a civil disorder (18 U.S. C. § 231(a) (2)); and attempts to obstruct law enforcement officers and firemen who are engaged in lawful performance of their official duties during a civil disorder (18 U.S.C. § 231(a) (3)).

The constitutional questions presented regarding 18 U.S.C. §§ 231 & 232 are wholly insubstantial. A state statute similar to 18 U.S.C. § 231(a) (3) and which prohibited the obstruction of the legitimate performance of a peace officer was upheld in Landry v. Daley, 280 F. Supp. at 959 and People v. Raby, 40 Ill. 2d 392, 240 N.E.2d 595 (196 . See also Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 85 S. Ct. 476, 13 L. Ed. 2d 487 (1965). Plaintiffs have not suggested any way in which the provisions dealing with the manufacture and transportation of dangerous *4 devices are overbroad or vague and we can think of none. Similarly, 18 U.S.C. § 231(a) (1) is not improperly vague because it incorporates the requirement that a specific intent must be shown at the time the accused was teaching about the use or manufacture of the dangerous device or technique. Thus, "innocent and inadvertent conduct" "is not covered." See Landry v. Daley, 280 F. Supp. at 959.

Plaintiffs' concern is really centered on the riots statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2101 and 2102. These provisions attempt to regulate the use of interstate facilities with the intent to incite or organize a riot. Plaintiffs contend that certain phrases such as "to incite a riot" and "to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot" are vague and therefore unconstitutional limitations on free speech. 18 U.S.C. § 2101(a), (b).

However, plaintiffs' argument is clearly insubstantial because the First Amendment does not protect rioting and the incitement to riot. The protections afforded by the First Amendment do not reach a person who urges or instigates others to riot any more than it covers the now famous theatregoer who falsely shouts "Fire!" and causes a panic. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 (1919). See also United States v. Woodard, 7 Cir., 376 F.2d 136, 142 (1967).

So it is that a "man may be punished for encouraging the commission of a crime, Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273 [35 S. Ct. 383, 59 L. Ed. 573], or for uttering `fighting words,' Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 [62 S. Ct. 766, 86 L. Ed. 1031]." Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 563, 85 S. Ct. 476, 480, 13 L. Ed. 2d 487 (1965).

Regulations on various forms of conduct intertwined with speech have been upheld to protect a valid interest of the government. See, e. g., United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S. Ct. 1673, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672 (196 (destruction of Selective Service registration card); Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 88 S. Ct. 1335, 20 L. Ed. 2d 182 (196 (picketing which interfered with access to county courthouse); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 87 S. Ct. 242, 17 L. Ed. 2d 149 (1966) (demonstration on non-public section of jail grounds). We do not see how traveling across state lines with the intent to incite, promote, or participate in a riot is any less a governmental concern than is the control of travel on the streets. "The constitutional guarantee of liberty implies the existence of an organized society maintaining public order, without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of anarchy." Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, at 554, 85 S. Ct. 453, at 464, 13 L. Ed. 2d 471.

Thus, it is clear that First Amendment rights "may be abused by using speech or press or assembly in order to incite to violence and crime. The people through their legislatures may protect themselves against that abuse. But the legislative intervention can find constitutional justification only by dealing with the abuse. The rights themselves must not be curtailed." De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364-365, 57 S. Ct. 255, 260, 81 L. Ed. 278 (1937). Sections 2101 and 2102 of Title 18 deal only with the abuse of First Amendment rights. When speaking of the instigation or urging of others to riot, the statute specifically precludes from its scope the mere advocacy of ideas or expressions of belief. 18 U.S.C. § 2102(b). It is concerned solely with the use of interstate facilities by persons who intend to encourage or participate in acts of violence which pose a clear and present danger to persons and property.

We agree with plaintiffs that "rioting" and "incitement" encompass a wide variety of activity which is often closely related to the immediate circumstances. However, the constitutionality of a statute does not depend on a possible misapplication of the statute's sanctions to protected activity. United States v. Woodard, 7 Cir., 376 F.2d 136, 143 (1967); Landry v. Daley, 280 F. Supp. at 960. All statutes are susceptible to some abuse. All that is required *5 is that, given a normal interpretation, the language is not too broad. United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 8, 67 S. Ct. 1538, 91 L. Ed. 1877 (1947); United States v. Woodard, 376 F.2d at 140.

A similarly phrased New York disorderly conduct statute aimed at persons who, with the intent to provoke breach of peace, disturb or interfere with others has been held not to be unconstitutionally broad. United States v. Jones, 2 Cir., 365 F.2d 675 (1966). We do not believe the statutes in question to be too vague either.

Consequently, because it has often been held that the First Amendment does not sanction incitement to riot and because the statutes in question do not appear to be any broader than numerous "breach of peace" laws upheld in state and federal courts, the constitutional questions raised by plaintiffs are not substantial enough to warrant hearing by a three-judge court. Calling such a panel is an extraordinary procedure and not to be undertaken lightly. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oklahoma Packing Co., 292 U.S. 386, 391, 54 S. Ct. 732, 78 L. Ed. 1318 (1934); Landsberger v. Freeman, 217 F. Supp. 138, 139 (D.C. 1963).

Having discussed the substantiality of the constitutional question raised, we would normally look at the claimed basis for equitable relief. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 82 S. Ct. 1294, 8 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1961). Defendants have raised the points that these plaintiffs are in no immediate need of the protection of the Court, that they have an adequate remedy at law should there be an arrest, and that courts of equity ought not interfere with or enjoin criminal prosecutions. We do not feel that it is necessary to discuss and rule on these points, however, in that the key requirement for convening a three-judge court is missing.

Plaintiffs' motion to convene a three-judge court is denied. Defendants' motion to dismiss this complaint is granted.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member

SashaShiva

Active Member
Letter “Iuvenescit Ecclesia” to the Bishops of the Catholic Church
Regarding the Relationship Between Hierarchical and Charismatic Gifts
in the Life and the Mission of the Church

“Charism” is the transcription of the Greek word chárisma, which, found frequently in the Pauline letters, also appears in the first letter of Peter. This term has a general sense of “generous gift” and, in the New Testament, is used only in reference to the divine gifts. In some passages, the context offers a more precise meaning (cf. Rm 12:6; 1 Cor 12:4-31; 1 Pt 4:10), whose fundamental trait is the differentiated distribution of gifts.[12] In modern languages this is also the prevailing sense of words derived from this Greek term. Unlike the fundamental graces such as sanctifying grace, or the gifts of faith, of hope, and of charity, that are indispensable for every Christian, an individual charism need not be a gift given to all (cf. 1 Cor 12:30). The charisms are particular gifts that the Spirit distributes “as He wishes” (1 Cor 12:11). In order to give an account of the necessary presence of the diverse charisms in the Church, the two most explicit texts (Rm 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-30) make use of a comparison with the human body: “For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually parts of one another. Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us exercise them” (Rm 12:4-6). Between the members of the body, this diversity does not constitute an anomaly to avoid, on the contrary, it is both necessary and productive. It makes possible the fulfilment of diverse life-giving functions. “If they were all one part, where would the body be? But as it is there are many parts but one body” (1 Cor 12:19-20). A close relationship between the particular charisms (charísmata) and the grace of God is affirmed by Paul in Rm 12:6 and by Peter in 1 Pt 4:10.[13] The charisms are recognized as a manifestation of the “multiform grace of God” (1 Pt 4:10). They are not, therefore, simply human capacities. Their divine origin is expressed in different ways: according to some texts they come from God (cf. Rm 12:3; 1 Cor 12:28; 2 Tm 1:6; 1 Pt 4:10); according to Eph 4:7, they come from Christ; according to 1 Cor 12:4-11, from the Spirit. As this last passage is the most insistent (it mentions the Spirit seven times), the charisms are usually presented as “manifestations of the Spirit” (1 Cor 12:7). It is clear, nonetheless, that this attribution is not exclusive and does not contradict the preceding two. The gifts of God always imply the entire Trinitarian horizon, as theology has affirmed from its beginning, both in the West and in the East.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.


Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 (1889)
"SEC. 9. The following persons, and no others, shall hereafter be permitted to practice medicine in this State, viz.:"

"First. All persons who are graduates of a reputable medical college in the school of medicine to which the person desiring to practice belongs. Every such person shall, if he has not already done so and obtained the certificate hereinafter mentioned, present his diploma to the State Board of Health, or to the two members thereof in his congressional district, and if the same is found to be genuine, and was issued by such medical college, as is hereinafter mentioned, and the person presenting the same be the graduate named therein, the said Board, or said two members thereof, (as the case may be) shall issue and deliver to him a certificate to that effect, and such diploma and certificate shall entitle the person named in such diploma to practice medicine in all its departments in this State."

"Second. All persons who have practiced medicine in this State continuously for the period of ten years prior to the 8th day of March, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one. Every such person shall make and file with the two members of the State Board of Health in the congressional district in which he resides, or if he resides out of the State in the district nearest his residence, an affidavit of the number of years he has continuously practiced in this State; and, if the number of years therein stated be ten or more, the said Board, or said two members thereof, shall, unless they ascertain such affidavit to be false, give him a certificate to that fact, and authorizing him to practice medicine in all its departments in this State."

"Third. A person who is not such graduate, and who has not so practiced in this State for a period of ten years, desiring to practice medicine in this State, shall, if he has not already done so, present himself for examination before the State Board of Health, or before the said two members thereof in the congressional district in which he resides, or, if he resides out of the State, to the said two members of the State Board of Health in the congressional district nearest his place of residence, who, together with a member of the local board of health, who is a physician (if there be such member of the local board) of the county in which the examination is held, shall examine him as herein provided, and if, upon full examination, they find him qualified to practice medicine in all its departments, they, or a majority of them, shall grant him a certificate to that effect, and thereafter he shall have the right to practice medicine in this State to the same extent as if he had the diploma and certificate hereinbefore mentioned. The members of the State Board of Health in each congressional district shall, by publication in some newspaper printed in the county in which their meeting is to be held, or, if no such paper is printed therein, in some newspaper of general circulation in such district, give at least twenty-one days' notice of the time and place at which they will meet for the examination of applicants for permission to practice medicine, which notice shall be published at least once in each week for three successive weeks before the day of such meeting; but this section shall not apply to a physician or surgeon who is called from another State to treat a particular case, or to perform a particular surgical operation in this State and who does not otherwise practice in this State."

"SEC. 15. If any person shall practice, or attempt to practice, medicine, surgery, or obstetrics in this State without having complied with the provisions of § 9 of this chapter, except as therein provided, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined for every such offense not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned in the county jail not less than one month nor more than twelve months, or be punished by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. And if any person shall file, or attempt to file, as his own, the diploma or certificate of another, or shall file, or attempt to file, a false or forged affidavit of his identity, or shall willfully swear falsely to any question which may be propounded to him on his examination, as herein provided for, or to any affidavit herein required to be made or filed by him, he shall, upon conviction thereof, be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than three years, or imprisoned in the county jail not less than six nor more than twelve months, and fined not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars, at the discretion of the court."

Under this statute, the plaintiff in error was indicted in the State Circuit Court of Preston County, West Virginia, for unlawfully engaging in the practice of medicine in that State in June, 1882, without a diploma, certificate, or license therefor, as there required, not being a physician or surgeon called from another State to treat a particular case or to perform a particular surgical operation. To this indictment the defendant pleaded not guilty, and, a jury having been called, the State by its prosecuting attorney, and the defendant by his attorney, agreed upon the following statement of facts, namely:

"That the defendant was engaged in the practice of medicine in the town of Newburg, Preston county, West Virginia, at the time charged in the indictment, and had been so engaged since the year 1876 continuously to the present time, and has during all said time enjoyed a lucrative practice, publicly professing to be a physician, prescribing for the sick, and appending to his name the letters, 'M.D.;' that he was not then and there a physician and surgeon called from another State to treat a particular case or to perform a particular surgical operation, nor was he then and there a commissioned officer of the United States army and navy and hospital service; that he has no certificate, as required by § 9, chapter 93, acts of the Legislature of West Virginia, passed March 15, 1882, but has a diploma from the 'American Medical Eclectic College of Cincinnati, Ohio;' that he presented said diploma to the members of the Board of Health who reside in his congressional district, and asked for the certificate as required by law, but they, after retaining said diploma for some time, returned it to defendant with their refusal to grant him a certificate asked, because, as they claimed, said college did not come under the word 'reputable,' as defined by said Board of Health; that, if the defendant had been or should be prevented from practicing medicine, it would be a great injury to him, as it would deprive him of his only means of supporting himself and family; that, at the time of the passage of the act of 1882, he had not been practicing medicine ten years, but had only been practicing six, as aforesaid, from the year 1876."

These were all the facts in the case. Upon them, the jury found the defendant guilty, and thereupon he moved an arrest of judgment on the ground that the act of the legislature was unconstitutional and void so far as it interfered with his vested right in relation to the practice of medicine, which motion was overruled, and to the ruling an exception was taken. The court thereupon sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of $50 and the costs of the proceedings. The case being taken on writ of error to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State, the judgment was affirmed, and to review this judgment the case is brought here.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

Whether the indictment upon which the plaintiff in error was tried and found guilty is open to objection for want of sufficient certainty in its averments is a question which does not appear to have been raised either on the trial or before the Supreme Court of the State. The Presiding Justice of the latter Court, in its opinion, states that the counsel for the defendant expressly waived all objections to defects in form or substance of the indictment, and based his claim for a review of the judgment on the ground that the statute of West Virginia is unconstitutional and void. The unconstitutionality asserted consists in its alleged conflict with the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which declares that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; the denial to the defendant of the right to practice his profession without the certificate required constituting the deprivation of his vested right and estate in his profession, which he had previously acquired.

It is undoubtedly the right of every citizen of the United States to follow any lawful calling, business, or profession he may choose, subject only to such restrictions as are imposed upon all persons of like age, sex, and condition. This right may in many respects be considered as a distinguishing feature of our republican institutions. Here, all vocations are open to everyone on like conditions. All may be pursued as sources of livelihood, some requiring years of study and great learning for their successful prosecution. The interest, or, as it is sometimes termed, the "estate," acquired in them -- that is, the right to continue their prosecution -- is often of great value to the possessors, and cannot be arbitrarily taken from them, any more than their real or personal property can be thus taken. But there is no arbitrary deprivation of such right where its exercise is not permitted because of a failure to comply with conditions imposed by the State for the protection of society. The power of the State to provide for the general welfare of its people authorizes it to prescribe all such regulations as in its judgment will secure or tend to secure them against the consequences of ignorance and incapacity, as well as of deception and fraud. As one means to this end, it has been the practice of different States, from time immemorial, to exact in many pursuits a certain degree of skill and learning upon which the community may confidently rely; their possession being generally ascertained upon an examination of parties by competent persons, or inferred from a certificate to them in the form of a diploma or license from an institution established for instruction on the subjects, scientific and otherwise, with which such pursuits have to deal. The nature and extent of the qualifications required must depend primarily upon the judgment of the State as to their necessity. If they are appropriate to the calling or profession, and attainable by reasonable study or application, no objection to their validity can be raised because of their stringency or difficulty. It is only when they have no relation to such calling or profession, or are unattainable by such reasonable study and application, that they can operate to deprive one of his right to pursue a lawful vocation.

Few professions require more careful preparation by one who seeks to enter it than that of medicine. It has to deal with all those subtle and mysterious influences upon which health and life depend, and requires not only a knowledge of the properties of vegetable and mineral substances, but of the human body, in all its complicated parts, and their relation to each other, as well as their influence upon the mind. The physician must be able to detect readily the presence of disease, and prescribe appropriate remedies for its removal. Everyone may have occasion to consult him, but comparatively few can judge of the qualifications of learning and skill which he possesses. Reliance must be placed upon the assurance given by his license, issued by an authority competent to judge in that respect, that he possesses the requisite qualifications. Due consideration, therefore, for the protection of society may well induce the State to exclude from practice those who have not such a license, or who are found upon examination not to be fully qualified. The same reasons which control in imposing conditions, upon compliance with which the physician is allowed to practice in the first instance, may call for further conditions as new modes of treating disease are discovered, or a more thorough acquaintance is obtained of the remedial properties of vegetable and mineral substances, or a more accurate knowledge is acquired of the human system and of the agencies by which it is affected. It would not be deemed a matter for serious discussion that a knowledge of the new acquisitions of the profession, as it from time to time advances in its attainments for the relief of the sick and suffering, should be required for continuance in its practice, but for the earnestness with which the plaintiff in error insists that, by being compelled to obtain the certificate required, and prevented from continuing in his practice without it, he is deprived of his right and estate in his profession without due process of law. We perceive nothing in the statute which indicates an intention of the legislature to deprive one of any of his rights. No one has a right to practice medicine without having the necessary qualifications of learning and skill, and the statute only requires that whoever assumes, by offering to the community his services as a physician, that he possesses such learning and skill shall present evidence of it by a certificate or license from a body designated by the State as competent to judge of his qualifications.

As we have said on more than one occasion, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to give to the terms "due process of law" a definition which will embrace every permissible exertion of power affecting private rights, and exclude such as are forbidden. They come to us from the law of England, from which country our jurisprudence is to a great extent derived, and their requirement was there designed to secure the subject against the arbitrary action of the Crown, and place him under the protection of the law. They were deemed to be equivalent to "the law of the land." In this country, the requirement is intended to have a similar effect against legislative power -- that is, to secure the citizen against any arbitrary deprivation of his rights, whether relating to his life, his liberty, or his property. Legislation must necessarily vary with the different objects upon which it is designed to operate. It is sufficient, for the purposes of this case, to say that legislation is not open to the charge of depriving one of his rights without due process of law if it be general in its operation upon the subjects to which it relates and is enforceable in the usual modes established in the administration of government with respect to kindred matters -- that is, by process or proceedings adapted to the nature of the case. The great purpose of the requirement is to exclude everything that is arbitrary and capricious in legislation affecting the rights of the citizen. As said by this court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, speaking by Mr. Justice Matthews:

"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power."

118 U. S. 118 U.S. 356, 118 U. S. 369. See also Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 95 U. S. 733; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 96 U. S. 104, 107; Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516; Railroad Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512, 115 U. S. 519.

There is nothing of an arbitrary character in the provisions of the statute in question. It applies to all physicians, except those who may be called for a special case from another State. It imposes no conditions which cannot be readily met; and it is made enforceable in the mode usual in kindred matters -- that is, by regular proceedings adapted to the case. It authorizes an examination of the applicant by the Board of Health as to his qualifications when he has no evidence of them in the diploma of a reputable medical college in the school of medicine to which he belongs, or has not practiced in the State a designated period before March, 1881. If, in the proceedings under the statute, there should be any unfair or unjust action on the part of the Board in refusing him a certificate, we doubt not that a remedy would be found in the courts of the State. But no such imputation can be made, for the plaintiff in error did not submit himself to the examination of the Board after it had decided that the diploma he presented was insufficient.

The cases of Cummings v. State of Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, and of Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, upon which much reliance is placed, do not, in our judgment, support the contention of the plaintiff in error. In the first of these cases, it appeared that the Constitution of Missouri, adopted in 1865, prescribed an oath to be taken by persons holding certain offices and trusts, and following certain pursuits within its limits. They were required to deny that they had done certain things, or had manifested by act or word certain desires or sympathies. The oath which they were to take embraced 30 distinct affirmations respecting their past conduct, extending even to their words, desires, and sympathies. Every person unable to take this oath was declared incapable of holding in the State

"any office of honor, trust, or profit under its authority, or of being an officer, councilman, director, or trustee, or other manager of any corporation, public or private,"

then existing or thereafter established by its authority, or

"of acting as a professor or teacher in any educational institution, or in any common or other school, or of holding any real estate or other property in trust for the use of any church, religious society, or congregation."

And every person holding, at the time the constitution took effect, any of the offices, trusts, or positions mentioned was required, within 60 days thereafter, to take the oath, and, if he failed to comply with this requirement, it was declared that his office, trust, or position should, ipso facto, become vacant. No person, after the expiration of the 60 days, was allowed, without taking the oath, "to practice as an attorney or counselor at law," nor after that period could

"any person be competent as a bishop, priest, deacon, minister, elder, or other clergyman of any religious persuasion, sect, or denomination to teach or preach, or solemnize marriages."
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
This is the DEA RFRA Religious process which I am going through, and contacted them about in October 2017, so I have now been doing this part for over a year now.
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf

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.







 

SashaShiva

Active Member


You can't Predict things without Divination.

Dreaming for the sake of Wishing is pointless, and a Dream is not a Wish.

You can learn in your Dreams.

You can meet Gods in your Dreams, and they can show you their Dreams.

Dreaming is something we all do together, not alone.

My Federal Cases, I am the Plaintiff in all of them and they are the Defendants, this is a 13 year story of Corrupt Government on a Witch Hunt

When I am done, it will be acceptable in the United States to say you are a Hindu Shaivite or Rastafarian, and Federal Courts will acknowledge Polytheism.

When I am done, there will be a 3rd Path in America apart from Abraham or Atheist, carved out in the Courts for the Neural Age. A Neurospiritualist Religion.

One of the first things we will do is recruit people in the Organic Chemistry field, which is ripe with Alchemical and Spiritual Chemists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SashaShiva

Active Member
The FDA Responded to my Comment form, so I am now Applying for all the CDER IND stuff, but all of this is unnecessary, and eventually I will file Standard Form 95's about all of this, and then get Paid for them making me do all this, and no one will have to do all of this when I am finished, everyone can just practice their Religion Freely when I am done.




 

SashaShiva

Active Member
Here is Form 1571, this is the Investigational New Drug Application, which is what the FDA HHS says they want us to fill out to get Religious Exemption
https://www.fda.gov/media/123543/download

But, so here is what is going to happen now. So the FDA may become something of a Rubber Stamp, approving people for IND applications citing Religious use. Because it really is the FDA's Role, but everyone has gone to the DEA for years and years, so the DEA has become the point of contact in the Courts, though if you read the actual Law, the FDA is the Point of Contact. So we are going through the FDA, and they may become a Rubber Stamp. And the DEA will begin Revoking Privlidges based on their claims that some people don't have Religions, but "Philosophies", and they will begin using their arguments from the past on existing Organzations, instead of being Arbiters of Exemption as they were before, now they will weed out the Frauds, and sometimes get it wrong and get slapped on the wrist themselves.

Also, not that this is Decriminalization, it is not at all. But if we look at it in the Decriminalization Model, to not Punish the Consumer, and to License Manufacturing, but to punish anyone who refuses to Comply.

So, in another Drug Model, it would be, for example (and this is not a drug of the type in the example), what have been called "Shooting Galleries", these are for people who do Heroine, and are facilities in various Countries, and States in the US, where people can go to use Heroine. What happens here, is a Nurse or a Doctor can be there while someone uses a Drug, if there Overdose there is Naloxone, if they get sick they aren't on the Street, if they need to take a Shit it's not on the Street, if they have AIDS they aren't giving it to everyone else in the Area because they have Clean Needles, etc. And there are Doctors, people there while they are nodding off, giving them Brochures, and information, and War Stories about horrible things they have seen or experienced.

And if your City can take the Power away from every Trap House, and Drug Den, and every place that sells Heroine, and everyone in your City knows "I can go shoot Heroine at the Heroine Clinic", then that is where all the Heroine Addicts will be, and when you drive by or walk in, you will want to get away as fast as you can, it is not going to make everyone want to do Heroine all the sudden. Heroine is ugly, people nodding off, and throwing up, and letting it dry on their shirts. It will actually scare people away, people could actually bring their kids to serve food at the Heroine Clinic and show them the worst of Heroine.

And you arrest anyone who makes Heroine or Sells Heroine outside of there.



So in that Model, the DEA's job would be to either ensure Compliance, or focus on those who are working outside of the System.


And, Sasha Shulgin spoke about something all the time.

First, when you find out what the LD50 (lethal dose) is for a Mouse, all you have done is figure out how to kill a mouse. That is what you have accomplished, because Mice are not Human, and do not resemble Humans Biologically.

Second, most of the Research he was building on, the things he was learning, came from Prison Studies. What they used to do to Research all of these things, what they used to called Narcotics and Pscyhomimetics, then Psychedelics when they discovered that there was no Drug that could be taken to give someone an Authentic Experience of Insanity it just is not possible, was on Prison Volunteers who wanted to shave time off their sentence.

That is where most of the Research came from, and now Research is Illegal mostly. When you request an Investigational New Drug License, what you are doing is saying you want to Research a Drug for Human Use. You are OFFICIALLY RESEARCHING A DRUG when you do an IND Application. This is for Posterity.

We are Recording everything for the Future, the DEA has created various Maps for us, and we now have to do the Exploration for the people of the Future. And we have to Record it. And Create Research Institutions.

And my Institution comes from the Baba, Guru, Father, Saint Sasha Shulgin who Taught us Communion and Taught us Alchemy, and we do this in the name of Lord Shiva and the Lord God Soma.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
I know there are people that like to follow along with what I am doing, and there is so much going on right now that it may be hard to put it all together, so I am going to create a little "We are Here" map for everyone like at an Amusement Park or Airport.

So let's Start with Texas, in the Dallas County District Court, the State Case; when we went to Court on July 22nd, the Texas AG slipped in a "Motion to Reject Motion for Injunction" and at the end they slipped in a little piece, the main part of the whole thing that made any sense at all, that said I still needed to File an Affidavit of Harm or Hardship. So, I filed it on the Case within 24 hrs, but the Judge was excited to Dismiss the case and Dismissed it within 24 hrs, so I appealed to the TX 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas (different than the Federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals) and it is there now.

Then, right before I had gone to Dallas for the Case, I had stayed at a Hotel in Colorado for a Month because I had gone to Colorado for a Federal NSA Case, and the Federal Court is just Stalling and Stalling with the NSA Case, and refuses to just have a hearing, so I ended up staying in a Hotel for 1 month waiting on them, and then leaving to go to Texas. But while staying there I learned that there is a Tax Refund in Colorado when you stay at a Hotel for a Month, it is considered "Residence" and you don't pay the Hotel Tax, so since you did pay it the first Month, you get it back. And if we had stayed longer than a Month, the Taxes would not have been charged from then on.

So having just learned that I went to Texas for the July 22nd Hearing, and found a Ton of Forms in Texas for Religious Exemption, then I found things for Use Tax, and Excise Tax, and and I learned what "Tax Exempt" Means.

I have been a Minister since 2009, and I had no idea what Tax Exempt meant.

I thought Tax Exempt meant that if someone donated me or my Temple Money, I didn't have to report it to the IRS, and that was about the extent of it. But Tax Exempt means 100% Tax Exempt, Sales Tax and everything.

So I got a Federal Employer ID Number (FEIN) by filing a IRS Form SS4

Then, I filed a Religious Exemption in Texas.

We got the SS4 Response and we received a FEIN, the Texas Comptroller told us that "because we are a Religious Organization, but not Primarily just and only a place of Worship, we don't fit the Texas Tax Definition of Religious Organization". So I just went and Filed the Texas Tax Form 204 and 205 which is for Charitable and Federally Exempt Organizations (and Freemason Lodges, etc).

Then I filed a 1023 with the IRS to try to get a Determination letter, and they told me they could not process it unless I pay them $600.00 so I told them I am a Religious Organization, that they are trying to stop our Operations, and that we are de facto being PERSECUTED. Then I filed an IRS Form 4056-A and requested an Affirmation Letter, then filed an SBA Ombudsman Complaint about the IRS.

Then, since the DEA said I can sue them for $5.6 Million, I filed an Amended Complaint on my Federal DEA Case from the Northern District of Texas, with the DEA permission to sue them. You always have a right to file an Amended complaint, so always try to get claims filed within the Deadline, even if you are being stonewalled and can't prove certain things, because you can always file an Amended complaint later when you go through all the FOIA's and everything.

Then I appealed the FBI FOI/PA Response where they told me that they gave me everything they have on me already, so I had to make a DOJ OIP FOIA account, and submit an Appeal online. And they agreed with the FBI, but gave me a right to sue them in Federal Court under the FOIA Law, which is like part of the Open Meetings Act. So I Amended my FBI Complaint in the Northern District of Texas, with their Letter giving me the right to sue them.

Then I also filed with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and faxed them and explained some problems I am having with these agencies, and they should be doing an investigation, as I contacted them previously and they took 6 months to respond, and I told them that their response was severely lacking in any facts I had sent to them, and that there are new issues now.

Then I filed against the FBI, DEA and Texas Comptroller in 3 separate Cases in the Texas State Courts, and a Name Change in the Family Court.

I might have forgotten some things, but that is a bunch of information to catch everyone up. And this is meant for people on my Facebook who have been following along, so the people on Gaia are still missing some things.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
I will be filing an Amendment on this Case within 2019 or early 2020
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/25925886/GALLAGHER_v_CONGRESS_et_al

And either during or after that, I will begin filing AO91s. Sworn Statement to Criminal Federal Courts, about Criminal Acts.

I have a Human Right, as does everyone, to Investigation and Truth, go ahead and Google "IACHR Right to Truth" or "IACHR Right to investigation".

I am RICOing the Government, for Witch Hunting. Not Conducted by an Atheist or Secular Government, but conducted by Self-Righteous Witch Hunting Police (think the cop in Devil's Rejects, but he is the Texas Attorney General, and then there are also more of them on every level, the former Colorado Governor, etc) and Atheists.

The Christians and the Atheists within our Government teamed up against me. I am thinking it is Mormons because I think Comey is a Mormon, but I am not positive. I know in Texas it is just the First Baptist and other ones that literally OWN THE SKYLINE IN DALLAS. The Churches own those buildings in Dallas.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
I'm going to go through each and everyone one of my Federal Cases and explain each one, so everyone can see how this is about to slap down on the Government like a Mousetrap as I bring each case back.

I have NOT EVER FILED A CASE THAT WAS POINTLESS OR OUT OF ANGER.

Every single Case I filed was because something was done by my Government, that a Court needs to Remedy. That is why I file Court Cases, and I am going to explain each and every Federal Court I have filed right now, but this is actually unnecessary because by the end of 2019 almost all of my Cases will be Amended and will have responses from Agencies granting me the right to sue them, or other means to prove Standing.

My Cases are not Meritless, they were lacking Standing. Because I had not "Exhausted all Remedies", and I did that, then the Court just started fighting me like they were the Defendants after I showed them a Legal Theory regarding the US Marshals.

Anyways, here is my Cases explained:

Gallagher v. Austin PD, 1:2016cv00527 (WD TX 2017)
I filed this Case in the County Court, against the City and the Police. The County Judge changed it and removed the City and just put the Police on there, and then the City removed the Case to Federal Court. This is the first time Federal Court even entered my Consciousness. I never planned on ever ever ever filing in Federal Court before this happened. I thought my Case would be decided in Collin County Court until this happened.

I was no longer in Austin whenever the Ruling was made that I would have to sue the City and not the Police (which I did do originally, but then the Court changed it in the County, and it caused the Federal Court to ask me to rebring the Case, but maybe it was just an accident and not an attempt to ruin my Case). I have now rebrought the Case in the Travis County Court with new Facts added.

Gallagher v. Rosenburg, 1:2016cv01117 (WD TX 2016)
Rosenburg was the DEA Admin at the time, and he replaced Leonhart. And somehow it seemed as if Leonhart had actually left because she was tired of dealing with Dr. Jeremy Kerr, and was not willing to deal with Me, And so passed the position on to Rosenburg. But anyways, this Case was decided to not have Standing. I had never spoken to a DEA Agent, or gone through DEA remedies, or anything. I had never spoken to a Federal Agency at this Point. This is what made me decide to Start talking to Federal Agencies, a Federal Judge told me that I needed to.

After this, I made an Administrative Claim and sent it to about 150 people in congress and Government, because I did not have any DEA contact emails at the time.

This case was filed after the Austin PD Case, but decided first because the in the Austin one the Judge actually wanted the Police to Settle with me. But they wanted to Fight.

Gallagher v. Drug Enforcement, 3:2017cv00734 (ND TX 2018
(I have now filed an Amended Complaint on this Case and it is Reopened)
This was the 3rd Case I ever Filed, and was actually filed in March of 2017. My Administrative Claim that I emailed out was almost 6 months old, it was going to be 180 Days in late May. So I filed in mid May. This case was strange, so the Judge seemed to be confused, he sat on the case for a year. This may have actually caused problems with the Colorado cases, because this case was so strange that it could have set other things in motion.

But for 1 whole year nothing happened, and I was waiting and waiting on the Case. Then I file a "Motion to show Cause" asking why nothing has happened in the Case. And 1 week later all the sudden there is a Respond to the Case. It was almost as if they had never ever thought about the Case for the whole year, and then wrote that Response in 7 Days. The 2 previous Cases, from the Western District in the Austin Court, were very very detailed, even Edifying. The Northern District Response, that took an entire year to write while the Rosenburg Case had only taken 14 Days to get a Response, and the Austin PD Case had gotten responses the whole year before asking for a refiling; the Dallas Court was just like making excuses, if you compare the documents from the 2 Courts, they are completely different. And the Judge even made mistakes in his number Count, and there are just glaring errors in his legal theory, and he dismissed my Case.

Then I did make a mistake, because instead of Appealing the Case, I requested Mandamus, but I am Pro Se, and learning how to do this, as I am a Minister and not a Lawyer, and never ever intended to do this until the Government forced me to under Duress and Coercion.

So I requested Mandamus.

Gallagher v. DEA, 18-10407 (5th Cir 2018
When I filed this Mandamus, I seriously believed that the Court would hear me out, and that they would do the right thing, and they would have the Court in Dallas Reopen the Case. I really thought that they would have them reopen it, and give them some kind of guidance, but instead they just agreed with the lower court

Then I appealed and the appeal was late.
But as stated in the first part.
I have now filed an Amended Complaint on this Case and it is Reopened

Those are the first 2. I will continue the others now in the next post.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
Now, while awaiting the Texas Federal Cases to move Forward, and the Appeal, I had real Trust in the System, and believe that they would do the right thing in Texas.

Gallagher v. DEA, 1:2018cv00387 (Colo D 2018
This Case was filed when I contacted the DEA Pharmacy Contact email ODLP@usdoj.gov and asked them "How can I have the same Exemption as the Native American Church, or the Temple of True Inner Light, or the Santo Diame Church" and I received a response with a Petition, the DEA RFRA Petition.

On the Petition it said to send it to Joe Ranizici and I had heard recently on the News that he was actually suing the DEA, so I contacted the Hotline and asked them "Who do I send it to now" and they got me a name, they said "Demetra Ashley" but they spelled it for me on the phone as "Demempra" or something. I have a video of me actually putting the Petition in the Mail box.

I did not receive a Response and sued the DEA. The Colorado Court then said I needed to use their forms and had not followed Rule 8, but I did not own a Printer. And did not even receive the response from the Court and had only read it on PacerMonitor, and was confused. I also filed a case against the NSA at that time which was mysteriously dismissed for Forms Rules too, and I didn't know about it yet.

Gallagher v. NSA, 1:2018cv00388 (Colo D 2018
This was the NSA case that was mysteriously dismissed

Gallagher v. NSA, 1:2018cv01525 (Colo D 2018
I then began to Efile, and having the Ability to Efile (which required passing a test and everything for the Colorado Federal Court, it was ridiculous and I'm pretty sure no one does it, and the Colorado Federal Court is a very small entity anyways) I was able to show them that the NSA had given me the right to sue them. So the Judge let that case through, and just started dismissing every other Case I filed.

This Case is currently still Open, and I have a Right to Subpoena Documents from the NSA, and the Federal Court is just stalling and stalling.

Gallagher v. DEA, 1:2018cv01674 (Colo D 2018
In this Case, I requested that the Judge activate the US Marshals, because we had an Event Planned in front of the DEA in Colorado, because they asked me to come meet with them about my Petition, and the Meeting was supposed to be August 2018. So we called the City and Arapahoe PD, and they gave us the OK and everything and said we could have a Smoking event in front of the DEA office. Then the Media called the DEA and they cancelled the event, I think the Judge may have also called the FBI, and made some kind of false claim that he felt threatened by me, because I edified him on a Legal Theory Regarding the US Marshals, and he wanted to use it for himself, not for the People of Colorado. So instead of helping me, he used me as an Excuse to Activate the Marshals for himself, and Slandered me along the way.

Then he dismissed my Case, narrowed it so that most of my Claims were not even put through as being part of a Case, and later Sanctioned me when the 10th Circuit Court did not Correct him.

Gallagher v. Colorado Department of Revenue, 1:2018cv01699 & 1:2018cv02503 (Colo D 2018
While living in Colorado, convinced that the Federal Court would do the Right thing, I was also convinced that because Marijuana is RECREATIONALLY LEGAL in Colorado that for some reason Colorado would be very accepting of my Religion. So I contacted the Marijuana Enforcement Agency (MEA) and asked for a Religious Meeting, they were very difficult, and did not want to set it up, and argued with me, but finally set it up. Then, when I went to meet with them, they would not talk about Religion and told me to leave or they would call Security and would not accept my Petition, and someone did accept it behind the counter on the way out, and they made him throw it away.

I was then Threatened with Eviction by my Landlord for practicing my Religion (growing Marijuana) and he wanted $3000 extra every month, and put an Eviction Notice, so I left. I then sued the MEA for not licensing us, because it could have been prevented had they simply acknowledged that the Colorado Constitution, Amendment 64, which legalized Recreational Marijuana, says in the Definition of "Definitions", "Unless the Context Otherwise Requires"
 
Last edited:

SashaShiva

Active Member
I am a Religious Refugee from Texas in the State of Colorado, I will write about the other Cases later. But having all of these FACTS Filed, and instances of ACTUAL WRONGDOING AGAINST ME BY THE GOVERNMENT. I can now FOIA them and do other fact-finding, and then refile with an Amended Complaint.

So I can reopen each and every one of these Cases, and I will as soon as I have all of the evidence I need of who is oppressing my Religion, and getting paid Taxpayer Dollars, and spending Taxpayer Dollars to do it. I will get Reciepts of all Money spent Investigating me, stopping people from working with me, stopping me from getting Cases though, and basically just Violating my Rights. I will get a whole rundown of how much this is costing. Then I will sue Congress.

This is a complete Misuse of American Tax Dollars, they should not be spending your Tax Money or my Tax Money on this Bullshit. And I am a Religious Organization, so they actually need to give me my Taxes back.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
And it should be obvious at this point to the Human Rights Court, look at the number of Agencies, the number of States, the number of Federal Officials involved. Look at how many people know who I am, and seem to have an opinion of me, within my own Government.

I want to explain something for the Human Rights Court, and anyone else who cares to learn about how to gauge a Social Phenomenon.

First, this is a small town in Texas. Named after a crossing created at a River, by a single Family. Then it became a Town, and eventually they paved a Road, they the Town Website has the name of the guy who paved the Road. These people are "Home Town" Famous.

I was Home Town Famous for my Religious beliefs before the Age of 18, then, now that YouTube and Facebook and Twitter exist, and I was central to the growth of Bitcoin (I was there when we used to do email campaigns asking companies to accept Bitcoins before anyone was, and I created the Bitcoin Towns idea, which has now been picked up by Akon); my "Fame" grew very quickly. By the time I was 21 people at Bud Light, Annhauser-Busch, were watching me because they are concerned about the Marijuana Industry taking their Profits.

So not only am I already Home Town, and Nationally Famous, I have Rivals in Industry and not just Bud Light, the Crypto people themselves, and various Marijuana people. Bubble Man, inventor of Bubble Bags, made Hash Church to compete with knowledge I was sharing and attention I was getting.

People all over America contact me all the time for legal help, and to discuss the Government or legal issues. And people contact me from other Countries. I am known Internationally.

But, that might just sound like a Boast. So what is the real Measure of your Societal Status? I would say, that you are only as important as the people stabbing you in the back. And I there are some Titans stabbing me in the back. I am pretty sure the Kremlin involves themselves, if not even just to watch the US Government chase me around and laugh at them.
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
I want everyone to start using this, it is where to report Fraud, Waste, Abuse and Misconduct about Government. Have you heard "the CIA loses $8 Billion a year" these are the people that do those reports. FraudNet/Reporting Fraud

They handle Federal, State and Local issues. So you can explain anything and everything to them all connected together, from FOIA Requests, to DMV Issues, to Scandals with Judges or Cops or Agents, anything, they will put your information in the correct hands. And I want them to be busy people, I want everyone to use their Complaint system for all Government issues.

Title VI

Section VIII- Proving Discrimination-Retaliation

"Retaliation is a deliberate action used to send a clear message that complaining is unwelcome and risky. It is employed to instill fear in others who might consider making a complaint in the future. Those with cause for complaining are frequently among the most vulnerable in an institution. Once they complain, they are labeled “troublemakers.” Retaliation, and the fear of retaliation, becomes a potent weapon used to maintain the power structure within the institution."
 

SashaShiva

Active Member
Everyone who wants to be prepared when everything starts to happen, fill this form out. Form 4361 will give you Tax Exemption and Declare you Self-Employed for Tax Purposes, and then Exempt from those Taxes.


We will begin Ordaining Ministers and keeping Records of the Ordination. We will do both Ordained and Licensed, and the License will require a series of Initiations, while the Ordination will give you Recognition as a full practicing Member of the Church. Both will be able to start Temples and other Religious Organizations under us in their Area.

If you do not wish to become a Minister, you would just Apply as "Part of a Religious Order" on Form 4361. Anyone who wants to announce their Affiliation with the Shaivite Temple to the IRS can do that.

The FEIN is 37-1949939
 
Top Bottom