- Thread starter
- #141
DEA Religious Exemption Process
- Thread starter
- #142
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
Tomorrow is May 8th, the FDA has to respond tomorrow.
HydroponicFireman
Well-Known Member
I foresee an extension...
- Thread starter
- #144
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #145
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #146
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
And btw, State/County Court moves much faster than Federal.
- Thread starter
- #147
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #148
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #149
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
In the Dallas County Case, they have like 20 days to respond. And I am responding to DC District and the Eastern District of Texas today.
HydroponicFireman
Well-Known Member
I bet they'll take a step back and have an honest reflection about the law in question, its origins, effectiveness, purpose and ideology in juxtaposition on how those variables affect the liberty enjoyed by a free society or indeed the very fabric of what this nation holds dear - religious freedom.
LOL just kidding.
They will do what they have always done - brush it under the rug and ignore it. The government and courts don't give a fuck about religious freedom unless its the unofficially sanctioned state religion (a laughably-bastardized version of evangelical Christianity).
US History is full of examples of American citizens being burned, executed, hung, imprisoned, murdered, lynched and tortured for their religious beliefs as if the 1st Amendment to the Constitution never even existed. We might as well just strike it from the record since its never been enforced anyway. What difference would it even make in practice? Its only real purpose is to make Americans feel superior to other nations because "we can practice our own religion without being persecuted" and that makes us more free than them. But can we really practice religious beliefs (which don't hurt others, yadda, yadda, yadda) without persecution and imprisonment from the government?
I hope the best for this and I really want it to work. It's honestly a little offensive recreational cannabis was legal before religious use when there are several (very) large religions that incorporate cannabis use. Its just too bad the USA is at best insincere about religious freedom and at worst blatantly and flagrantly undermining its main responsibility (protecting our rights).
It seems everyone has forgotten the Constitution is nothing more than a legal document which transfers the power of self-determination from The People to The Government. Too bad they seem incapable of accomplishing their only actual purpose.
LOL just kidding.
They will do what they have always done - brush it under the rug and ignore it. The government and courts don't give a fuck about religious freedom unless its the unofficially sanctioned state religion (a laughably-bastardized version of evangelical Christianity).
US History is full of examples of American citizens being burned, executed, hung, imprisoned, murdered, lynched and tortured for their religious beliefs as if the 1st Amendment to the Constitution never even existed. We might as well just strike it from the record since its never been enforced anyway. What difference would it even make in practice? Its only real purpose is to make Americans feel superior to other nations because "we can practice our own religion without being persecuted" and that makes us more free than them. But can we really practice religious beliefs (which don't hurt others, yadda, yadda, yadda) without persecution and imprisonment from the government?
I hope the best for this and I really want it to work. It's honestly a little offensive recreational cannabis was legal before religious use when there are several (very) large religions that incorporate cannabis use. Its just too bad the USA is at best insincere about religious freedom and at worst blatantly and flagrantly undermining its main responsibility (protecting our rights).
It seems everyone has forgotten the Constitution is nothing more than a legal document which transfers the power of self-determination from The People to The Government. Too bad they seem incapable of accomplishing their only actual purpose.
- Thread starter
- #151
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #152
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
Ok, here is the Update on what all is happening now.
The DEA responded to the SBA Fairness Board SBREFA complaint, they acknowledged everything, but said that the Petition is still under review.
So I took all the correspondences from the 2 back and forths through the SBA Fairness Boars, and sent them to the 10th Circuit to prove that the 10th Circuit made its ruling in error under Rule 59/60.
In DC with the FDA case, I demanded a Jury Trial
The Dallas County District Court scheduled a Non-Jury Trial in Feb 2020 about Religious use on the Texas State level, the other cases are Federal
I have about 25 days left to respond to the Denver County District Court about the Marijuana Enforcement Agency.
I am going to file in the City of Boulder soon against Tom Carr, the City Attorney, because I made some requests via town request things online, and he has taken it into his own hands. And he reported me on gmail in violation of my first Amendment, and doesn't want to let Religion come to Boulder.
And all the Texas Federal Cases are just waiting on Judges who claim to be reading and taking their time.
I now have Federal Executive Complaints against 10-15 Judges.
The DEA responded to the SBA Fairness Board SBREFA complaint, they acknowledged everything, but said that the Petition is still under review.
So I took all the correspondences from the 2 back and forths through the SBA Fairness Boars, and sent them to the 10th Circuit to prove that the 10th Circuit made its ruling in error under Rule 59/60.
In DC with the FDA case, I demanded a Jury Trial
The Dallas County District Court scheduled a Non-Jury Trial in Feb 2020 about Religious use on the Texas State level, the other cases are Federal
I have about 25 days left to respond to the Denver County District Court about the Marijuana Enforcement Agency.
I am going to file in the City of Boulder soon against Tom Carr, the City Attorney, because I made some requests via town request things online, and he has taken it into his own hands. And he reported me on gmail in violation of my first Amendment, and doesn't want to let Religion come to Boulder.
And all the Texas Federal Cases are just waiting on Judges who claim to be reading and taking their time.
I now have Federal Executive Complaints against 10-15 Judges.
- Thread starter
- #153
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #154
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
Romani (Religio-Ethnic Vedic European Hindus who invented Tarrot and Fairytails, aka "Gypsys") Human Rights Cases
Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria
Velikova v. Bulgaria
Anguelova v. Bulgaria
Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria
Sashov v. Bulgaria
Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic
Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece
Petropoulou-Tsakiris v. Greece
Kalamiotis v. Greece
Karagiannopoulos v. Greece
Stefanou v. Greece
Katsaris v. Greece
Ciorcan and others v Romania
Burlya and Others v. Ukraine
M.F. v. Hungary
Lingurar v. Romania
Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria
Velikova v. Bulgaria
Anguelova v. Bulgaria
Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria
Sashov v. Bulgaria
Eremiášová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic
Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece
Petropoulou-Tsakiris v. Greece
Kalamiotis v. Greece
Karagiannopoulos v. Greece
Stefanou v. Greece
Katsaris v. Greece
Ciorcan and others v Romania
Burlya and Others v. Ukraine
M.F. v. Hungary
Lingurar v. Romania
- Thread starter
- #155
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
I have a hearing in Dallas, State not Fed, at 600 Commerce St, Dallas, TX, 7th Floor, July 22nd
In the Spanish Inquisition (rather than the Witch Trials as a point of Reference), the Rules were, to be a Heretic you must:
(1) Publicly declare his beliefs (based upon what the church considered inaccurate interpretations of the Bible); and,
(2) Refuse to denounce them, even after being corrected by the authority; and,
(3) He also tried to teach his beliefs to other people; and,
(4) He had to be doing these things by his own free will, not under the influence of the Devil
In the Spanish Inquisition (rather than the Witch Trials as a point of Reference), the Rules were, to be a Heretic you must:
(1) Publicly declare his beliefs (based upon what the church considered inaccurate interpretations of the Bible); and,
(2) Refuse to denounce them, even after being corrected by the authority; and,
(3) He also tried to teach his beliefs to other people; and,
(4) He had to be doing these things by his own free will, not under the influence of the Devil
- Thread starter
- #156
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
July 22nd, Under Tx Constitution Article 5, Sec 32, I will Challenge the TXCSA with TX Bill of Rights Sec 6 Freedom of Worship.
5 Sec 32 says after AG is made aware, Court can not decide for 45 days.
So, we are Requesting an Injunction.
5 Sec 32 says after AG is made aware, Court can not decide for 45 days.
So, we are Requesting an Injunction.
- Thread starter
- #157
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
We are now a Federal 501(c)(3) and I have various Lawsuits against Federal Agencies that I will update everyone about here.
To sue the Government do a Google search for "Standard Form 95" fill that out and send it to the Agency that wronged you.
To not sue but force an Agency to respond in 30 Days, use the SBA Ombudsman.
I was originally Ordained as in had my name Documented by the Universal Life Church
Ponorovskaya v. Stecklow, 987 N.Y.S.2d 543 (Sup. Ct. 2014)
But I have now founded the Shaivite Temple, a Skismed Entity, a Neurospiritualist Hindu Shaivite Sect.
To sue the Government do a Google search for "Standard Form 95" fill that out and send it to the Agency that wronged you.
To not sue but force an Agency to respond in 30 Days, use the SBA Ombudsman.
I was originally Ordained as in had my name Documented by the Universal Life Church
Ponorovskaya v. Stecklow, 987 N.Y.S.2d 543 (Sup. Ct. 2014)
But I have now founded the Shaivite Temple, a Skismed Entity, a Neurospiritualist Hindu Shaivite Sect.
- Thread starter
- #158
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
GALLAGHER v. AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT
No. 1:16-CV-527-RP.
RYAN GALLAGHER, Plaintiff, v. AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.
United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division.
March 22, 2017.
Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Ryan Gallagher, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
Austin Police Department, Defendant, represented by Brandon W. Carr , City of Austin, Shelly Singh , City of Austin Law Department & Meghan L. Riley , City of Austin Law Department.
ORDER
ROBERT PITMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Austin Police Department's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Dkt. 15). Having considered the pleadings, the factual record, and the relevant case law, the Court issues the following order.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ryan Gallagher filed an action against the Austin Police Department in state court on February 24, 2016. Defendant Austin Police Department ("APD" removed the action to this Court on April 29, 2016.
Plaintiff's Complaint spans nearly 150 pages, but the relevant factual allegations are stated briefly. Plaintiff appears to be an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church and runs a religiously oriented business of selling seeds, herbs, fruits, and vegetables. Plaintiff states that he "is a Hindu and practices Neurospirituality," which appears to involve the use of nootropics. Plaintiff's examples of these substances include syneperine, tryptophan, and holy basil seeds, which, according to Plaintiff, "are grown for Lord Krishna, and are definitely not illegal."
In the week before he filed his lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that police seized around 100,000 items, including basil, mango, peaches, pickling cucumbers, along with his nootropics. Plaintiff states that the items were seized "on the ground that it did not show up as Cocaine, Methamphetamine or Heroine," and that the narcotics sergeant told the other officers to take everything because they could not identify it, though almost everything was labeled.
Plaintiff has alleged that this seizure has damaged his business because he cannot sell his seed inventory or make a nootropic blend. At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff also alleged he would miss the growing season so he would be unable to restock his inventory or grow herbs for food or religious use. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct of the APD officers violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Defendant APD filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings on January 26, 2017. Plaintiff has so far filed no response.
LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) "is subject to the same standards as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d 201, 209-10 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the court must accept "all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to "state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The court must initially identify pleadings that are no more than legal conclusions not entitled to the assumption of truth, then assume the veracity of well-pleaded factual allegations and determine whether those allegations plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. If not, "the complaint has alleged—but it has not `show[n]'—`that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
DISCUSSION
APD argues that the Court should grant judgment on the pleadings for three reasons: (1) APD is not a separate legal entity capable of being sued; (2) Plaintiff has failed to adhere to statutory prerequisites to suit; and (3) Plaintiff's claims are not supported by his alleged facts. Because the Court finds the first reason to be dispositive, it does not reach the others.
APD is a subdivision of the City of Austin and "cannot pursue a suit on its own unless it is `a separate and distinct corporate entity.'" Darby v. Pasadena Police Dep't, 939 F.2d 311, 313 (5th Cir. 1991). "nless the true political entity has taken explicit steps to grant the servient agency with jural authority, the agency cannot engage in any litigation except in concert with the government itself." Id. at 313-14. APD lacks status as a separate entity and thus is not capable of being sued. Rivera v. Mike, No. A-11-CA-275-LY, 2011 WL 6025875, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2011). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against APD must be dismissed. It appearing that there are no other defendants in this action, this dismissal is dispositive of Plaintiff's case.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS APD's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and thus DISMISSESPlaintiff's claims. (Dkt. 15).
No. 1:16-CV-527-RP.
RYAN GALLAGHER, Plaintiff, v. AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.
United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division.
March 22, 2017.
Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Ryan Gallagher, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
Austin Police Department, Defendant, represented by Brandon W. Carr , City of Austin, Shelly Singh , City of Austin Law Department & Meghan L. Riley , City of Austin Law Department.
ORDER
ROBERT PITMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Austin Police Department's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Dkt. 15). Having considered the pleadings, the factual record, and the relevant case law, the Court issues the following order.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ryan Gallagher filed an action against the Austin Police Department in state court on February 24, 2016. Defendant Austin Police Department ("APD" removed the action to this Court on April 29, 2016.
Plaintiff's Complaint spans nearly 150 pages, but the relevant factual allegations are stated briefly. Plaintiff appears to be an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church and runs a religiously oriented business of selling seeds, herbs, fruits, and vegetables. Plaintiff states that he "is a Hindu and practices Neurospirituality," which appears to involve the use of nootropics. Plaintiff's examples of these substances include syneperine, tryptophan, and holy basil seeds, which, according to Plaintiff, "are grown for Lord Krishna, and are definitely not illegal."
In the week before he filed his lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that police seized around 100,000 items, including basil, mango, peaches, pickling cucumbers, along with his nootropics. Plaintiff states that the items were seized "on the ground that it did not show up as Cocaine, Methamphetamine or Heroine," and that the narcotics sergeant told the other officers to take everything because they could not identify it, though almost everything was labeled.
Plaintiff has alleged that this seizure has damaged his business because he cannot sell his seed inventory or make a nootropic blend. At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff also alleged he would miss the growing season so he would be unable to restock his inventory or grow herbs for food or religious use. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct of the APD officers violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Defendant APD filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings on January 26, 2017. Plaintiff has so far filed no response.
LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) "is subject to the same standards as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d 201, 209-10 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the court must accept "all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to "state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The court must initially identify pleadings that are no more than legal conclusions not entitled to the assumption of truth, then assume the veracity of well-pleaded factual allegations and determine whether those allegations plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. If not, "the complaint has alleged—but it has not `show[n]'—`that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
DISCUSSION
APD argues that the Court should grant judgment on the pleadings for three reasons: (1) APD is not a separate legal entity capable of being sued; (2) Plaintiff has failed to adhere to statutory prerequisites to suit; and (3) Plaintiff's claims are not supported by his alleged facts. Because the Court finds the first reason to be dispositive, it does not reach the others.
APD is a subdivision of the City of Austin and "cannot pursue a suit on its own unless it is `a separate and distinct corporate entity.'" Darby v. Pasadena Police Dep't, 939 F.2d 311, 313 (5th Cir. 1991). "nless the true political entity has taken explicit steps to grant the servient agency with jural authority, the agency cannot engage in any litigation except in concert with the government itself." Id. at 313-14. APD lacks status as a separate entity and thus is not capable of being sued. Rivera v. Mike, No. A-11-CA-275-LY, 2011 WL 6025875, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2011). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against APD must be dismissed. It appearing that there are no other defendants in this action, this dismissal is dispositive of Plaintiff's case.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS APD's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and thus DISMISSESPlaintiff's claims. (Dkt. 15).
- Thread starter
- #159
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JEREMY DON KERR CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 13-525
NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT, SECTION: “F”
ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is the New Orleans Police Department's motion
to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the
reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.
Background
This lawsuit arises out of an allegedly illegal search and
seizure conducted during a routine traffic stop.
The plaintiff, who is proceeding in this case pro se,
generally alleges that on March 20, 2012, during a routine traffic
stop, New Orleans Police Officers illegally searched his vehicle
and seized his "legal business inventory of items valued at not
less than $3,000." The plaintiff alleges he runs a legal business,
validly registered with the Louisiana Secretary of State, called
K&B Organics. The plaintiff further alleges that one officer
transferred the seized items to the other officers and then
ultimately to a DEA Special Agent, who retained the items for
narcotics testing. The plaintiff also alleges that the officers
never issued a receipt for the seized items. On March 20, 2013, the plaintiff filed a complaint raising those allegations and naming the New Orleans Police Department as
the only defendant. On October 22, 2013, the NOPD moved to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6). On November 5, 2013, the plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss, as well as an amended
complaint naming NOPD Officer Ramiro Hernandez and Superintendent
Ronal Serpas as defendants.
I.
In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court
“accepts ‘all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff.’” See Martin K. Eby Constr. Co.
v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999)). “To
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead
‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205
(5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
569 (2007)). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all
the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in
fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation marks, citations, and
footnote omitted).
Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that “capacity to sue or be sued is determined... by the law of the state where the court is located.” The Louisiana Civil Code defines a juridical person as “an entity to which the law
attributes personality, such as a corporation or partnership.” La.
Civ. Code art. 24. This Court has repeatedly held that the New
Orleans Police Department is not a juridical entity capable of
being sued. See, e.g., Winn v. New Orleans City, 919 F. Supp. 743,
750 (E.D. La. 2013).
Because the New Orleans Police Department does not have the
capacity to be sued, the plaintiff's claims against that defendant
must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. Accordingly, the New Orleans Police Department's
motion is GRANTED. The plaintiff's claims against that defendant
are dismissed. The plaintiff's claims against Officer Ramiro
Hernandez and Superintendent Ronal Serpas remain.
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 13, 2013
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JEREMY DON KERR CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 13-525
NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT, SECTION: “F”
ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is the New Orleans Police Department's motion
to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the
reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.
Background
This lawsuit arises out of an allegedly illegal search and
seizure conducted during a routine traffic stop.
The plaintiff, who is proceeding in this case pro se,
generally alleges that on March 20, 2012, during a routine traffic
stop, New Orleans Police Officers illegally searched his vehicle
and seized his "legal business inventory of items valued at not
less than $3,000." The plaintiff alleges he runs a legal business,
validly registered with the Louisiana Secretary of State, called
K&B Organics. The plaintiff further alleges that one officer
transferred the seized items to the other officers and then
ultimately to a DEA Special Agent, who retained the items for
narcotics testing. The plaintiff also alleges that the officers
never issued a receipt for the seized items. On March 20, 2013, the plaintiff filed a complaint raising those allegations and naming the New Orleans Police Department as
the only defendant. On October 22, 2013, the NOPD moved to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6). On November 5, 2013, the plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss, as well as an amended
complaint naming NOPD Officer Ramiro Hernandez and Superintendent
Ronal Serpas as defendants.
I.
In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court
“accepts ‘all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff.’” See Martin K. Eby Constr. Co.
v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999)). “To
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead
‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205
(5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
569 (2007)). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all
the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in
fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation marks, citations, and
footnote omitted).
Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that “capacity to sue or be sued is determined... by the law of the state where the court is located.” The Louisiana Civil Code defines a juridical person as “an entity to which the law
attributes personality, such as a corporation or partnership.” La.
Civ. Code art. 24. This Court has repeatedly held that the New
Orleans Police Department is not a juridical entity capable of
being sued. See, e.g., Winn v. New Orleans City, 919 F. Supp. 743,
750 (E.D. La. 2013).
Because the New Orleans Police Department does not have the
capacity to be sued, the plaintiff's claims against that defendant
must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. Accordingly, the New Orleans Police Department's
motion is GRANTED. The plaintiff's claims against that defendant
are dismissed. The plaintiff's claims against Officer Ramiro
Hernandez and Superintendent Ronal Serpas remain.
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 13, 2013
- Thread starter
- #160
SashaShiva
Well-Known 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.
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.
