Mahatmajapa
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
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.
This is the past 2 Years, dealing with the DEA.
DEA Religious Exemption Process
I have 3 Federal Religious Marijuana Lawsuits, and I want Rastafarians and Moors and others to use my Cases to move their Cases forward.
Monopoly/Anti-Trust, this is against DEA, FDA and Ole Miss, for operating a Monopoly with Ole Miss as the Sole provider of Marijuana (for Research and Federal Marijuana Patients) from the 1970s until 2016, when Marijuana Manufacturing Registration opened up
Gallagher v. DEA et al (3:18-cv-00263), Mississippi Northern District Court
Federal Manufacterer Registration for Marijuana
Federal Register :: Applications To Become Registered Under the Controlled Substances Act To Manufacture Marijuana To Supply Researchers in the United States
DOJ calling DEA a Cocaine Monopoly 2004
>Memorandum Of The Antitrust Division Of The United States Department Of Justice As Amicus Curiae In Support Of The Application Of Johnson Matthey, Inc.
Controlled Substances Act, this is against the DEA and various Agents and is questioning the Constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act. I filed a Petition Oct 2017 with the DEA following their Guidelines, and as of March 2019 have yet to receive a response.
Gallagher v. Dhillon et al (3:18-cv-02801), Texas Northern District Court
Non-Clinical Unregulated Substances, this is against the FDA and involves CDER and the Investigational New Drug (IND) program within the FDA
GALLAGHER v. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION et al (1:18-cv-02154), District Of Columbia District Court
The attached images are of my Complaint with the Small Business Administration (SBA) Fairness Board regarding the discriminitory nature of the Religious Guidelines versus typical registration for Schedule I and Schedule II Manufacturers using DEA Form 225, and the DEA's response. That is separate from the Cases, and I will appeal to the Fairness Board.View attachment 1966 View attachment 1967 View attachment 1968 View attachment 1969 View attachment 1970
DEA RFRA Guidelines
This Case, Washington v. Sessions, was in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and was about a little girl with Epilepsy named Lexi who was from Texas and had to move to Colorado, and a few Veterans and others joined in. It is a Medical Case, but the Judge dismissed the case and told them that they had not gone through the DEA Administrative Proceedures. I have.
Docket for Washington v. Sessions, 1:17-cv-05625 - CourtListener.com
In order for a Substance, such as 4-OH-MiPT, Miprocin, the Lord God Soma (related to the 3rd Case), to fall under the Analogue Drug Bill, it would need to be proven in a Court of Law that it was being used in place of a Schedule I or II Substances, or is readily Convertable to or Made From one.
I would also like to point out just for the purpose of having it on this Law forum, that the Analogue Act does not cover Analogues of Schedule III Substances, such as Xanax, Testosterone or Ketamine. Examples would be Etizolam and Deschloroketamine, both completely Unregulated.
This case has a lot of good Definitions:
FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions.
"The DEA's definition of "THC" contravenes the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in the CSA and cannot be upheld. DEA-205F and DEA-206F are thus scheduling actions that would place non-psychoactive hemp in Schedule I for the first time. In promulgating the Final Rules, the DEA did not follow the procedures in §§ 811(a) and 812(b) of the CSA required for scheduling. The amendments to 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(27) that make THC applicable to all parts of the Cannabis plant are therefore void. We grant Appellants' petition and permanently enjoin enforcement of the Final Rules with respect to non-psychoactive hemp or products containing it."
Analogue Definitions:
United States v. Forbes, 806 F. Supp. 232 (D. Colo. 1992)
"Defendants' reading is also bolstered by a deeply rooted rule of statutory construction. A statute must be construed to avoid unintended or absurd results. American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63, 71, 102 S. Ct. 1534, 1538, 71 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1982); Ewing v. Rodgers, 826 F.2d 967, 970 (10th Cir.1987). If I adopt the government's construction and read clause (ii) independently, alcohol or caffeine would be controlled substance analogues because, in concentrated form, they can have depressant or stimulant effects substantially similar to a controlled substance. Likewise, if I read clause (iii) independently, powdered sugar would be an analogue if a defendant represented that it was cocaine, effectively converting this law into a counterfeit drug statute. In both cases, a defendant could be prosecuted for selling a controlled substance analogue even though the alleged analogue did not have chemical structure substantially similar to a schedule I or II controlled substance. Therefore, to prevent this unintended result, clause (i) must apply to any substance that the government contends is a controlled substance analogue. Further, defendants' construction is supported by legislative history. In July, 1985, the Senate began consideration of the "Designer Drug Enforcement Act of 1985" (S.1417, later redesignated the "Controlled Substance Analog Enforcement Act of 1985", S.1437). The bill's stated purpose was "to prohibit persons who specifically set out to manufacture or to distribute drugs which are substantially similar to the most dangerous controlled substances from engaging in this activity." S.Rep. No. 196, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 5 (1985). The Senate Judiciary Committee reported that law enforcement authorities find themselves one step behind underground chemists who slightly alter the molecular structure of controlled substances to create new drugs. Id. at 1-2. The Senate proposed a two-part definition of the term analogue: either the substance has a substantially similar chemical structure or it was "specifically designed" to produce an effect substantially similar to schedule I or II drugs. "
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals responded. But they are using a misrepresented set of facts.
In my last post, I included screenshots of the Small Business Administration Fairness Board DEA response.
Have you seen a Religious Marijuana case like this one?
If you read the 10th Circuit response, they are clearly under the impression that the August 14th phone call solved my problem. But if you read the SBA DEA response, you can clearly see that my Petition has been under review since Oct 2017.
I have already reopened the Case in the Northern District of Tx (Sept 2018) and informed them of the 10th Circuit opinion (issued March 7th 2019).
QUESTION:
I am doing both appealing to SCOTUS and moving forward in Texas. But what is the best way to move forward? Is it normal for a District to over rule an Appeals Court if the set of facts they have is in Clear Error? Or is SCOTUS the normal route? Will they go through all case records? Or will SCOTUS begin with the mistaken assumptions about Aug 14th?View attachment 1982 View attachment 1983 View attachment 1984
This is the past 2 Years, dealing with the DEA.
DEA Religious Exemption Process
I have 3 Federal Religious Marijuana Lawsuits, and I want Rastafarians and Moors and others to use my Cases to move their Cases forward.
Monopoly/Anti-Trust, this is against DEA, FDA and Ole Miss, for operating a Monopoly with Ole Miss as the Sole provider of Marijuana (for Research and Federal Marijuana Patients) from the 1970s until 2016, when Marijuana Manufacturing Registration opened up
Gallagher v. DEA et al (3:18-cv-00263), Mississippi Northern District Court
Federal Manufacterer Registration for Marijuana
Federal Register :: Applications To Become Registered Under the Controlled Substances Act To Manufacture Marijuana To Supply Researchers in the United States
DOJ calling DEA a Cocaine Monopoly 2004
>Memorandum Of The Antitrust Division Of The United States Department Of Justice As Amicus Curiae In Support Of The Application Of Johnson Matthey, Inc.
Controlled Substances Act, this is against the DEA and various Agents and is questioning the Constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act. I filed a Petition Oct 2017 with the DEA following their Guidelines, and as of March 2019 have yet to receive a response.
Gallagher v. Dhillon et al (3:18-cv-02801), Texas Northern District Court
Non-Clinical Unregulated Substances, this is against the FDA and involves CDER and the Investigational New Drug (IND) program within the FDA
GALLAGHER v. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION et al (1:18-cv-02154), District Of Columbia District Court
The attached images are of my Complaint with the Small Business Administration (SBA) Fairness Board regarding the discriminitory nature of the Religious Guidelines versus typical registration for Schedule I and Schedule II Manufacturers using DEA Form 225, and the DEA's response. That is separate from the Cases, and I will appeal to the Fairness Board.View attachment 1966 View attachment 1967 View attachment 1968 View attachment 1969 View attachment 1970
DEA RFRA Guidelines
This Case, Washington v. Sessions, was in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and was about a little girl with Epilepsy named Lexi who was from Texas and had to move to Colorado, and a few Veterans and others joined in. It is a Medical Case, but the Judge dismissed the case and told them that they had not gone through the DEA Administrative Proceedures. I have.
Docket for Washington v. Sessions, 1:17-cv-05625 - CourtListener.com
Have you seen a Case like this? Would any Lawyers here say this has been tried, and failed.
In order for a Substance, such as 4-OH-MiPT, Miprocin, the Lord God Soma (related to the 3rd Case), to fall under the Analogue Drug Bill, it would need to be proven in a Court of Law that it was being used in place of a Schedule I or II Substances, or is readily Convertable to or Made From one.
I would also like to point out just for the purpose of having it on this Law forum, that the Analogue Act does not cover Analogues of Schedule III Substances, such as Xanax, Testosterone or Ketamine. Examples would be Etizolam and Deschloroketamine, both completely Unregulated.
This case has a lot of good Definitions:
FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions.
"The DEA's definition of "THC" contravenes the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in the CSA and cannot be upheld. DEA-205F and DEA-206F are thus scheduling actions that would place non-psychoactive hemp in Schedule I for the first time. In promulgating the Final Rules, the DEA did not follow the procedures in §§ 811(a) and 812(b) of the CSA required for scheduling. The amendments to 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(27) that make THC applicable to all parts of the Cannabis plant are therefore void. We grant Appellants' petition and permanently enjoin enforcement of the Final Rules with respect to non-psychoactive hemp or products containing it."
Analogue Definitions:
United States v. Forbes, 806 F. Supp. 232 (D. Colo. 1992)
"Defendants' reading is also bolstered by a deeply rooted rule of statutory construction. A statute must be construed to avoid unintended or absurd results. American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63, 71, 102 S. Ct. 1534, 1538, 71 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1982); Ewing v. Rodgers, 826 F.2d 967, 970 (10th Cir.1987). If I adopt the government's construction and read clause (ii) independently, alcohol or caffeine would be controlled substance analogues because, in concentrated form, they can have depressant or stimulant effects substantially similar to a controlled substance. Likewise, if I read clause (iii) independently, powdered sugar would be an analogue if a defendant represented that it was cocaine, effectively converting this law into a counterfeit drug statute. In both cases, a defendant could be prosecuted for selling a controlled substance analogue even though the alleged analogue did not have chemical structure substantially similar to a schedule I or II controlled substance. Therefore, to prevent this unintended result, clause (i) must apply to any substance that the government contends is a controlled substance analogue. Further, defendants' construction is supported by legislative history. In July, 1985, the Senate began consideration of the "Designer Drug Enforcement Act of 1985" (S.1417, later redesignated the "Controlled Substance Analog Enforcement Act of 1985", S.1437). The bill's stated purpose was "to prohibit persons who specifically set out to manufacture or to distribute drugs which are substantially similar to the most dangerous controlled substances from engaging in this activity." S.Rep. No. 196, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 5 (1985). The Senate Judiciary Committee reported that law enforcement authorities find themselves one step behind underground chemists who slightly alter the molecular structure of controlled substances to create new drugs. Id. at 1-2. The Senate proposed a two-part definition of the term analogue: either the substance has a substantially similar chemical structure or it was "specifically designed" to produce an effect substantially similar to schedule I or II drugs. "
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals responded. But they are using a misrepresented set of facts.
In my last post, I included screenshots of the Small Business Administration Fairness Board DEA response.
Have you seen a Religious Marijuana case like this one?
If you read the 10th Circuit response, they are clearly under the impression that the August 14th phone call solved my problem. But if you read the SBA DEA response, you can clearly see that my Petition has been under review since Oct 2017.
I have already reopened the Case in the Northern District of Tx (Sept 2018) and informed them of the 10th Circuit opinion (issued March 7th 2019).
QUESTION:
I am doing both appealing to SCOTUS and moving forward in Texas. But what is the best way to move forward? Is it normal for a District to over rule an Appeals Court if the set of facts they have is in Clear Error? Or is SCOTUS the normal route? Will they go through all case records? Or will SCOTUS begin with the mistaken assumptions about Aug 14th?View attachment 1982 View attachment 1983 View attachment 1984
