Free Legal Aid in Religious Cases

[Mahatmajapa]

Jurisdiction

Texas

I have talked to hundreds of Law offices over the years, and Lawyers do not want to take Religious Marijuana Cases.

I have also told the ACLU about every case I have ever had by filing for assistance since I was 14 years old.

And for 3 years I tried to get help from the "Legal Aid of North West Texas" and they never even let me apply for a Lawyer. Last year I did some research and found that they are Congressinally Funded, by Law, under the Congressionally Mandated "Legal Services Corporation" (LSC). And there are legal guidelines about who qualifies for Legal Aid, including a Poverty Line standard.

LSC has an LSC OIG which is their Office of the Inspector General. I filed with them, and they responded saying I need to go through the legal Aid of North West Texas greivance system. Then I can go through the OIG.

I told Legal Aid of North West Texas about it and they finally let me apply. Then denied me. I requested greivance documents from them and they sent PDFs. I will be filing those soon.

My Question:

Why is it so hard to get Legal Aid in a Religious Case? Is there an easier way?

 

[Tax Counsel]

Why is it so hard to get Legal Aid in a Religious Case? Is there an easier way?

You'd have to ask the particular legal aid office about that. I suspect it's because either they believe the case lacks merit, or that the case would be difficult to win, take considerable resources, and that they believe their resources are better spent on other cases that they have.

 

[Mahatmajapa]

You'd have to ask the particular legal aid office about that. I suspect it's because either they believe the case lacks merit, or that the case would be difficult to win, take considerable resources, and that they believe their resources are better spent on other cases that they have.

I know the reason for LANWT, they claimed resources. But how can a Congressionally Funded Legal Service, which exists ONLY to give poor Plaintiff's representation (they don't even do criminal cases), and who legally has to follow a Poverty Line standard, make Executive Decisions like that?

Also, I have sent out things to various Private Entities that are similar to the ACLU but more Religuous based. And it seems all of them are Christian Conservatives, not interested in Religious Marijuana.

But I am wondering if there is some other option I am missing.

Also, has anyone ever seen an LSC funded entity take a Religious Case? Because I contacted all of them in Texas, Colorado and DC, and none of them do Religion, sone of them say "we are just looking for Eviction Cases, and Child Support and things like that" (that is the one in DC).

Is that not Discrimination based on Religion or Creed?

 

[KatDini]

Legal Aid handles civil cases that are not long-term and can be quickly settled (think landlord-tenant cases).

Anything other than that and you are on your own.

 

[flyingron]

While the US DOJ does provide some grant money to the LANWT, that doesn't make them "congressionally funded." Even if they were, they wouldn't have an obligation to just take on any case, just because the plaintiff is eligible based on the income levels.

You've not indicated what this lawsuit is, but I suspect it's outside of their practice areas. What "religious marijuana civil rights" action are you envisioning?

 

[Mahatmajapa]

While the US DOJ does provide some grant money to the LANWT, that doesn't make them "congressionally funded." Even if they were, they wouldn't have an obligation to just take on any case, just because the plaintiff is eligible based on the income levels.

You've not indicated what this lawsuit is, but I suspect it's outside of their practice areas. What "religious marijuana civil rights" action are you envisioning?

My case isn't Hypothetical, I have been in contact with DEA agents for over a year, awaiting their review of a Petition I mailed them using their RFRA CSA Exemption process.
Have you seen a Religious Marijuana case like this one?

I also talked to the FDA and Texas DPS. And filed cases against both.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I know the reason for LANWT, they claimed resources. But how can a Congressionally Funded Legal Service, which exists ONLY to give poor Plaintiff's representation (they don't even do criminal cases), and who legally has to follow a Poverty Line standard, make Executive Decisions like that?

Because the organization has limited funds and must make choices about how best to use its funds to achieve its mission. The government makes similar choices all the time about the use of resources. No law mandates that legal aid MUST take the case of every indigent person who applies.

I think you'll find that legal marijuana cases will be considered very low priority compared to the plight of others who are at risk of losing their housing or facing other more immediate problems in life than being able to smoke weed for their religion. Also, more than a few people will be suspicious that there is no real sincere religious belief at play here but rather simply a crusade to allow you to smoke a drug that is otherwise still illegal in many states. Finally, because the tide is beginning to pick up for legalization of the drug, your problem may in the not too distant future be solved by legislation. Indeed, right now you could move to Colorado or another state that has legalized weed and smoke it for religious purposes to your heart's content.

Is that not Discrimination based on Religion or Creed?

No. By refusing to take any cases on religion they are treating all religions equally and thus not discriminating against any particular religion.

 

[Mahatmajapa]

Because the organization has limited funds and must make choices about how best to use its funds to achieve its mission. The government makes similar choices all the time about the use of resources. No law mandates that legal aid MUST take the case of every indigent person who applies.

I think you'll find that legal marijuana cases will be considered very low priority compared to the plight of others who are at risk of losing their housing or facing other more immediate problems in life than being able to smoke weed for their religion. Also, more than a few people will be suspicious that there is no real sincere religious belief at play here but rather simply a crusade to allow you to smoke a drug that is otherwise still illegal in many states. Finally, because the tide is beginning to pick up for legalization of the drug, your problem may in the not too distant future be solved by legislation. Indeed, right now you could move to Colorado or another state that has legalized weed and smoke it for religious purposes to your heart's content.



No. By refusing to take any cases on religion they are treating all religions equally and thus not discriminating against any particular religion.

1. I have been nearly Evicted in Colorado for growing (not served because I left, roommate stayed).

2. I was Homeless during the years of 2016-2019 at different times, for a total of about 1 year, dealing with a False Felony put on my record by Collin County Texas, and the DEA taking forever to respond causibg nesr Eviction, etc.

3. My Brother died, because the DEA is running Monopolies, which has both been acknowledged by the Federal Courts and DOJ Anti-Trust Division.

4. In Colorado I have to pay Taxes (Amendment 64), and if I want to grow more than 6 Plants I have to get a State License (Religion can't be licensed) calling myself recreational (Religion is not Recreation). And at that point we aren't an Organized Religious Structure with Elders and Rites of Passage, etc, we become just a Dispensary. I am not trying to open a Dispensary.

5. I have lived as a Refugee in California, Colorado and Mexico. But I am Texan. I should not have to seek refuge in another State to practice my Religion.

 

[Mahatmajapa]

I also have a Religious Case open in the Human Rights Court, the "Inter-American Commission on Human Rights" (IACHR) via the "Organization of American States" (OAS). I have also filed with the UN, but indicated to them that I already filed with the IACHR.

My Petition number is
#P-2098-17

Does anyone know of a Governmental Human Rights Office/Option?

 

[Mahatmajapa]

The State may be responsible for violating human rights by:

Action (as a result of an act by the State or its agents),
◆
Acquiescence (as a result of the tacit consent of the State or its agents), or
◆
Omission (as a result of the State or its agents failing to take action when they should have done so).



Also, when trying to find the address to the FISA court in a series of DOJ phone calls (I did get the address), I was connected to a number that they didn't want to let me write down, but it went to voicemail and gave me the DOJ Command Center number.

202-514-5000

Does anyone know what the DOJ Command Center could do? Who could I ask them to connect me to?

 

[Mahatmajapa]

And just btw, I have been at this for a while.

Here is the 10th Circuit Case, where the Court has mistakenly interpreted my Aug 14th, 2018 call with DEA Agents about what our Temple would be doing, as a "Response" from the DEA to my Petition.

GALLAGHER v. DRUG ENFORCE | No. 18-1352. | 20190307093 | Leagle.com

They have not actually responded yet. I am appealing this to SCOTUS.

 

[Mahatmajapa]

This (the event at the center of the Case) happened in Feb 2016
GALLAGHER v. AUSTIN POLIC | No. 1:16-CV-527-RP. | 20170324b53 | Leagle.com

I filed in Travis County Court in Austin, and the City attorneys removed it to Federal Court, and had it dismissed on the grounds that the Police are part of the City, not a distinct entity, but by that time I was no longer in Austin. But that is where I first learned about the Federal Court. It was not even something I ever had thought about.

 

[Mahatmajapa]

Dr. Jeremy Kerr, PhD, was the Founder of the Louisiana based Church of Neuroscience. I was a Parishoner of his Church, which accepted any faith. Neurospirituality (which pre-exists the Church of Neuroscience) does not belong to any Specific Religion. He is dead now though.
Kerr v. New Orleans Police Department, No. 2:2013cv00525 - Document 10 (E.D. La. 2013)

His case is very similar to my Austin PD case, his was also dismissed because he sued New Orleans PD instead of the City.

 

[Mahatmajapa]

This case is from the 80s, Carl Olsen Petitioned the DEA and they didn't respond. He appealed dismissals all the way to SCOTUS. Then AFTER the Supreme Court, he filed for a Writ of Mandamus.
878 F2d 1458 Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration Olsen | OpenJurist

Carl Olsen is still alive, and has a case in Des Moinse Iowa, in the County District Court.

 

[Mahatmajapa]

And what I am talking about isn't purely based in 1st Amendment, USC Title 42 Chapters 21B & 21C claims.

What we are talking about is Administrative Law. In 2006, the DEA lost the case called Gonzales v. O Centro, Gonzales was the AG. O Centro was a Santo Diame Church using Ayahuasca/Hoasca which contains DMT which is listed as Schedule I. After losing this Case, the DEA was forced to create a DEA Controlled Substances Act Exemption Process, in line with the RFRA, USC Title 42 Chapter 21B.

Marc Perkle was the first one to go through the Process, and they told him he had a Philosophy, not a Religion. He had no Gods, or Spirit World, or Rituals, Holidays, Ceremonies (Weddings, etc), no Diet, no Fasting, no Clothing, no Jewelry, no Hairstyle, no Symbols.
Marc Perkel v. DOJ – CourtListener.com

 

[Mahatmajapa]

"religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection." Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981)

 

[Tax Counsel]

"religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection." Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981)

We aren't the ones you need to convince of your position. It is the courts and the relevant law enforcement agencies. I'm just pointing out to you that legal aid may have several different reasons why it won't take up your cause. Whatever the reason, you cannot force legal aid to represent you on this. You have to persuade them to do it, if you can. It may be that nothing you say or do will change their minds.

 

[Mahatmajapa]

We aren't the ones you need to convince of your position. It is the courts and the relevant law enforcement agencies. I'm just pointing out to you that legal aid may have several different reasons why it won't take up your cause. Whatever the reason, you cannot force legal aid to represent you on this. You have to persuade them to do it, if you can. It may be that nothing you say or do will change their minds.

How do you request that the Attorney General, or US Attorney's Office take a case? I know the DOJ can take cases themselves, but what is the right way to go about trying to get them on a Case? And it's State by State right? Does anyone have information on this?

 

[Mahatmajapa]

Here is some of the Docket for the main DEA case, from PacerMonitor.com

 

[Mahatmajapa]

And the FDA was served already in DC