Religion

I'm almost positive I can get Marijuana legalized in Texas with my court case. This research was done in one night, and will be added to gradually, to make it more airtight.

Can you please take a look at this (or send it to an attorney who will) and tell me what you think.
The police came into my house without a warrant.
Marijuana is my sacrament (as can be proven in a court of law, shown below)
They broke into my house, stole my sacrament, and pulled guns on me, arrested me and a friend, threatened to "slam" me. And let my friends case go off free already. We got misdemeanor possession charges.
All without stating who they were, without having a warrant, and without probable cause.

Here are some cases that are specifically related to my case
And that would be helpful after demanding a trial in Common Law court.

United States v. Ballard (1944)
Justice William O. Douglas stated:"They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs."
Meaning, I shouldn't have to prove a damn thing. But I will anyways.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
The rulings made here were violated. The police had no warrant, and therefore no secular purpose. And have entangled themselves in my religion since I was a child at 14 years old.
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

McDaniel v. Paty (197
They are taking away my fundamental rights.
Life: They wish to take my time
Liberty: They wish to infringe on my religious freedoms, and put me in a cage for loving a flower
The Pursuit of Happiness: Any effort I make with my religion is squashed by authority. And in effect, squashing me.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
They ruled that the religious sacrifice of animals, is no different than hunting. And it is unconstitutional to consider the two different.
If that is true. Why is tobacco, alcohol, nutmeg, tea, coffee, energy drinks and even corn, and wheat (it has food and industrial uses) allowed to be grown and used legally while marijuana is not. This is unconstitutional.
And I will prove in court that it is unconstitutional to consider using Marijuana "worse", "different", or "more dangerous" than using alcohol, tobacco, or nutmeg, by saying:
"I've been high since before I wrote this case, while I researched and wrote it, and I've been high the whole time I've been in this courtroom."

Their only defense left will be the money going to Mexico. And there are plenty of ways to prove that has nothing to do with the trial.

ESA v. Rylander (2001)
We do not even have to define a supreme being, I do connect Shiva when smoking. But that doesn't have to be specified, or important.

YFZ Ranch VS The State of Texas (200
This ruling IN TEXAS, says that they were not allowed to come into my house, for any reason, no matter WHAT they thought was going on.
They were UNWARRANTED, and it was an illegal search and seizure.

And this, from 2005:
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code CHAPTER 110. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
I refuse to participate in the drug war my state is involved in, but they force me to. And I refuse to have not only my religion but my life substantially burdened by law enforcement, probation, and everyone else.

Plus there are around 15-100< people (That I spoke to from the age of 14 to 18 which was the time of my arrest): Probation officers, Correctional Officers, Psychologists, Therapists in and out of jail, Peers, and Elders that can, on the stand, say that it was part of my religion. I even yelled it as I was brought into detention centers, and spoke to people about it for months as I was imprisoned. They made talking about religion against the rules in my pod because of me. They'll remember.

There are tons of posts of mine on the internet regarding my religious reverence for Marijuana.

There should be a record of my asking for a Rig Veda (My religious Texts) in the County Jail. And possibly record of something about it in the Juvenile detention center. Definitely could get some good words from my required therapist there.

But with all of this on my side, do you think I could legalize Marijuana in my county? Or maybe the state, if I go the the supreme court of Texas? This is a violation of rights that happens daily, and the statute NEEDS to be reviewed, and added to. At least in Texas, one of the biggest admitted habitual marijuana smoking states in America.

Also I would like to add.

I am, and WAS an ordained minister before the time of my arrest.

And when arrested we had a philosophical book explaining how religious sacraments are taken. "Food of the gods"

The police saw this book, and talked to us about it.
They could have read some passages, and spoke calmly about what religious sacraments were taking place, but instead they slandered my faith to my face.
I am a medical patient of Marijuana in another state.
In one state I am allowed to use it to heal, in Texas (My home state, the best state, the best COUNTRY) it is used by the government to impair my religion.

Texas means "Friends/Allies", not "Corrupted Justice"...What happened to "Blind" Justice?

Shaggy, these cases are not precedents for yours and these are not acceptable legal arguments.

First of all, how did you become an ordained minister? Because I know a lot of sites will ordain you as a minister for free and all you have to do is fill out a little form. BUT, if that is how you became ordained, understand that legally you are an ordained minister of THEIR church. See, to become an ordained minister, legally, you have to be associated with an established church and they have to consider you an official ordained minister. If you want to form your own church, you have to establish yourself as a church...meaning there's paperwork involved to the state and to the IRS. You can't just say you're a church. So your minister status would only be applicable to that churches religious convictions. You see what i'm saying? The church that ordained you would have to testify that marijuana is part of their spiritual practices, and thus, part of yours. My guess is you got ordained online and they are not going to go out on a limb for you...? OK so your first two cases are not going to work based on that. The next one, Mcdaniel vs. Paty, saying "they wish to" is conjecture. A good lawyer wouldn't even let you finish the sentence. Onto the next one...Shaggy please do not go to court and say "why shouldn't it be" and then try to prove it should be by saying you've been high this whole time. Just please don't do that.

RainbowBrite86 said:

Shaggy, these cases are not precedents for yours and these are not acceptable legal arguments.

First of all, how did you become an ordained minister? Because I know a lot of sites will ordain you as a minister for free and all you have to do is fill out a little form. BUT, if that is how you became ordained, understand that legally you are an ordained minister of THEIR church. See, to become an ordained minister, legally, you have to be associated with an established church and they have to consider you an official ordained minister. If you want to form your own church, you have to establish yourself as a church...meaning there's paperwork involved to the state and to the IRS. You can't just say you're a church. So your minister status would only be applicable to that churches religious convictions. You see what i'm saying? The church that ordained you would have to testify that marijuana is part of their spiritual practices, and thus, part of yours. My guess is you got ordained online and they are not going to go out on a limb for you...? OK so your first two cases are not going to work based on that. The next one, Mcdaniel vs. Paty, saying "they wish to" is conjecture. A good lawyer wouldn't even let you finish the sentence. Onto the next one...Shaggy please do not go to court and say "why shouldn't it be" and then try to prove it should be by saying you've been high this whole time. Just please don't do that.

Click to expand...

These ARE precedents for mine.

Explain how they AREN'T?

I am an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church, which accepts any faith.

I didn't say I had my own church, the religion is Hindu. And case ONE explains that I can't be questioned about my faith. And another case ther esays I don't have to identify a god. So even though I CAN do both of these things, but I don't have to so you are WRONG.

You're saying a lot of stuff what you think about what I've done, for someone that hasn't asked any questions yet. Which is ignorant.

Finshaggy said:

These ARE precedents for mine.

Explain how they AREN'T?

I am an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church, which accepts any faith.

I didn't say I had my own church, the religion is Hindu.

You're saying a lot of stuff for someone that hasn't asked any questions yet. Which is ignorant.

Click to expand...

Alright bud, calm down, I am sincerely trying to help you. OK what i'm saying is, if you are going to go to court for a misdemeanor marijuana charge, and your defense is you are an ordained minister at the Universal Life Church and you were using cannabis exclusively for the practice of your religion, then the Universal Life Church is going to have to affirm that cannabis use is part of their religious practice.

RainbowBrite86 said:

Alright bud, calm down, I am sincerely trying to help you. OK what i'm saying is, if you are going to go to court for a misdemeanor marijuana charge, and your defense is you are an ordained minister at the Universal Life Church and you were using cannabis exclusively for the practice of your religion, then the Universal Life Church is going to have to affirm that cannabis use is part of their religious practice.

Click to expand...

They approve any book. The guy that made the universal life church made it in the 1960s (which is acceptable according to the US Supreme court. 1970something is the cut off for religions) made it because he couldn't read, and religious text meant nothing to him.

But the main faith that it's related to is hindu.

And the Rig Veda approves my Marijuana use. And there are records of me asking for that exact book in jail.

And if you continue to read (maybe you did) you will see that that is NOT my only defense. They broke in ILLEGALLY (Covered in the case against the Ranch) and I have up to and maybe over 100 people I can subpena that can confirm Marijuana was a sacrament to me between the ages of 14 and now. Therapists, Psychologists, Juvy guards, Friends, Family, Family of friends, EVERYONE I'VE KNOWN WELL (enough to talk with them like that) since the age of 14.

you such a joke dude. . . . . .delusional thoughts from candy drop island

they will put you in a mental hospital . .. . lots of zanax no MJ

your internent ministry is worth about as much as a physics degree from evergreen

Samwell Seed Well said:

you such a joke dude. . . . . .delusional thoughts from candy drop island

Click to expand...

Says the Redneck tweaker lookin dude. Or guy who likes the picture of the redneck tweaker lookin dude.

Either way, whatever. I'm a joke?
Your THE generic punchline of the south.

sage francis a red neck tweeker lmfao . . . .. .

your a joke your case is a joke .. . i just hope the BS you spawn doesnt start some negative blow back

i live in the PNW

but keep judging . . . .. .your epidermis is showing

Finshaggy said:

They approve any book.

And the Rig Veda approves my Marijuana use.

And if you continue to read (maybe you did) you will see that that is NOT my only defense. They broke in ILLEGALLY (Covered in the case against the Ranch) and I have up to and maybe over 100 people I can subpena that can confirm Marijuana was a sacrament to me between the ages of 14 and now. Therapists, Psychologists, Juvy guards, Friends, Family, Family of friends, EVERYONE IN KNOW.

Click to expand...

OK so they broke in, without a warrant or probable cause is what you said, right? Did they say they had cause and you're refuting that or did they not specify why they came in?

For the religion part, the 100 people you can subpeona would be useless unless they were experts on the Rig Veda. Them taking the stand and saying "he's been saying this is a sacrament to him since he was 14" isn't sufficient if they can't explain how it's a sacrament. And a good lawyer is going to insist that anyone speaking on the Rig Veda be what the court considers an expert on it, meaning they're going to have to have some educational background to support that. I'm only giving you my honest opinion, shaggy. If I thought these would work i'd be the first one to say go get em tiger, I really would. It's great that the Universal Life Church accepts all faiths, but it's going to hold very little weight in court because the screening process is literally nonexistent. Also, the Universal Life Church would have to be willing to go to bat for you in court, and my guess would be they'd get the news, renounce you as a minister, and wash their hands of the whole situation.

Samwell Seed Well said:

sage francis a red neck tweeker lmfao . . . .. .

your a joke your case is a joke .. . i just hope the BS you spawn doesnt start some negative blow back

i live in the PNW

but keep judging . . . .. .your epidermis is showing

Click to expand...

I'm glad you have such detailed arguments to respond to.

When in Rome:
No YOU'RE a joke.

RainbowBrite86 said:

OK so they broke in, without a warrant or probable cause is what you said, right? Did they say they had cause and you're refuting that or did they not specify why they came in?

For the religion part, the 100 people you can subpeona would be useless unless they were experts on the Rig Veda. Them taking the stand and saying "he's been saying this is a sacrament to him since he was 14" isn't sufficient if they can't explain how it's a sacrament. And a good lawyer is going to insist that anyone speaking on the Rig Veda be what the court considers an expert on it, meaning they're going to have to have some educational background to support that. I'm only giving you my honest opinion, shaggy. If I thought these would work i'd be the first one to say go get em tiger, I really would. It's great that the Universal Life Church accepts all faiths, but it's going to hold very little weight in court because the screening process is literally nonexistent. Also, the Universal Life Church would have to be willing to go to bat for you in court, and my guess would be they'd get the news, renounce you as a minister, and wash their hands of the whole situation.

Click to expand...

They just CAME in, and said they saw a post on Facebook that said we were having a party. That was a complete lie, they never showed the post, or a screen shot, or print out of it: NOTHING. It DID NOT EXIST, and they had no warrant anyways. It was just a lie for incase they found something.

You are wrong. My witness' do not have to know how it is a sacrament, the supreme court has said OVER AND OVER that our faith can not be brought into detailed question in court. They CAN'T do that, if they do I file a motion and win the case. DONE.

You are mistaking "The need for an expert" with "My witness' " And many of them DO have educational backgrounds, as I said before many are therapists, psychologists, etc.

And it doesn't matter if the universal life church doesn't hold up in court. You don't have to be a minister to take a sacrament. The fact that I'm a minister is just another "What the fuck are you doing coppers?"

THEY are the criminals here, that is at least true and can/needs to be proven.
And I am almost positive I can legalize (actually it's already legal religiously, I just have to prove it) Marijuana along the way, because of the way they went about getting it, and the way I have always used it.

Another thing a lawyer is going to bring up is does the Rig Veda "approve" marijuana use, or does it "require" marijuana use to be able to perform a specific religious action? If it only "approves" it, they're going to throw it out. My religion approves stoning prostitutes. But I can't do that, because it's illegal. I'll give a better example. Some sectors of the Mormon church "approve" bigamy. They do not "require" bigamy to practice their religion. The law takes priority over religion, so they are not allowed multiple spouses even though their religion approves it and it's not hurting anyone else.

you are living a fallacy. . . . .. . keep it up .. .

no point in arguing with a fool . .. . .

if your so sure your gonna win then go back to texas .. . .

oh but thats right .. . "its not time yet"

how about this

your facade is showing. . . .. . have fun being a joke. like your plants you care for so much

and any grower can look at how you grow and tell you dont care about the plant . .. . and with the amount of abuse you do to your plants any claims of respect for the plant of the gods by you is a joke, try explaining that in court after you go on about how much your plant in sacred to you, as you produce crap bud from a unhappy plant

and trust me your plants dont appreciate your love of them

Finshaggy said:

They just CAME in, and said they saw a post on Facebook that said we were having a party. That was a complete lie, they never showed the post, or a screen shot, or print out of it: NOTHING. It DID NOT EXIST, and they had no warrant anyways. It was just a lie for incase they found something.

You are wrong. My witness' do not have to know how it is a sacrament, the supreme court has said OVER AND OVER that our faith can not be brought into detailed question in court. They CAN'T do that, if they do I file a motion and win the case. DONE.

You are mistaking "The need for an expert" with "My witness' " And many of them DO have educational backgrounds, as I said before many are therapists, psychologists, etc.

And it doesn't matter if the universal life church doesn't hold up in court. You don't have to be a minister to take a sacrament. The fact that I'm a minister is just another "What the fuck are you doing coppers?"

THEY are the criminals here, that is at least true and can/needs to be proven.
And I am almost positive I can legalize (actually it's already legal religiously, I just have to prove it) Marijuana along the way, because of the way they went about getting it, and the way I have always used it.

Click to expand...

Your religion can be scrutinized in court if it is your defense. I'm not saying the legalization of marijuana through the avenue of religion is impossible or that it will never happen. I'm saying in this case, I do not believe it's going to work. That is just my honest opinion.

Finshaggy said:

They just CAME in, and said they saw a post on Facebook that said we were having a party. That was a complete lie, they never showed the post, or a screen shot, or print out of it: NOTHING. It DID NOT EXIST, and they had no warrant anyways. It was just a lie for incase they found something.

You are wrong. My witness' do not have to know how it is a sacrament, the supreme court has said OVER AND OVER that our faith can not be brought into detailed question in court. They CAN'T do that, if they do I file a motion and win the case. DONE.

You are mistaking "The need for an expert" with "My witness' " And many of them DO have educational backgrounds, as I said before many are therapists, psychologists, etc.

And it doesn't matter if the universal life church doesn't hold up in court. You don't have to be a minister to take a sacrament. The fact that I'm a minister is just another "What the fuck are you doing coppers?"

THEY are the criminals here, that is at least true and can/needs to be proven.
And I am almost positive I can legalize (actually it's already legal religiously, I just have to prove it) Marijuana along the way, because of the way they went about getting it, and the way I have always used it.

Click to expand...

OK so they've claimed probable cause and you're refuting their probable cause. Shaky. I'm not mistaking the need for an expert witness. You do not "need" an expert witness. And i'm not saying none of your witnesses would have any educational background. I'm saying that unless they DO have some kind of educational background regarding the religious practices contained in the Rig Veda, they will only be character witnesses. And character witnesses aren't very productive in carrying your case. If the Universal Life Church doesn't hold up in court, your minister status doesn't either, which means you'd have to be an active member of an established church that requires, not just approves of, but requires the use of marijuana for it's religious practices.

RainbowBrite86 said:

Another thing a lawyer is going to bring up is does the Rig Veda "approve" marijuana use, or does it "require" marijuana use to be able to perform a specific religious action? If it only "approves" it, they're going to throw it out. My religion approves stoning prostitutes. But I can't do that, because it's illegal. I'll give a better example. Some sectors of the Mormon church "approve" bigamy. They do not "require" bigamy to practice their religion. The law takes priority over religion, so they are not allowed multiple spouses even though their religion approves it and it's not hurting anyone else.

Click to expand...

It REQUIRES Marijuana use.

There are religious ceremonies, holidays, and everything MARIJUANA IS TO BE USED. Not attacked.

Finshaggy said:

It REQUIRES Marijuana use.

There are religious ceremonies, holidays, and everything MARIJUANA IS TO BE USED. Not attacked.

Click to expand...

It requires it. OK give me a minute to google.

RainbowBrite86 said:

Your religion can be scrutinized in court if it is your defense. I'm not saying the legalization of marijuana through the avenue of religion is impossible or that it will never happen. I'm saying in this case, I do not believe it's going to work. That is just my honest opinion.

Click to expand...

No they can't, Please educate yourself on the court cases I named, and you will know what I am talking about.

Case 1. You can tell everyone you're Jesus, and use that to make money. And they can't ask you if you really think you're Jesus. It's ILLEGAL to ask a question like that about someones religion.

And I'm not saying I WON'T explain EVERYTHING to them. Because I will.
I'm just saying they aren't supposed to ask. And I can prove it to them.

Alright so your proposed defense is that you use marijuana as required by the spiritual Rigveda text that is related to the Hindu religion? Is that right?

RainbowBrite86 said:

OK so they've claimed probable cause and you're refuting their probable cause. Shaky. I'm not mistaking the need for an expert witness. You do not "need" an expert witness. And i'm not saying none of your witnesses would have any educational background. I'm saying that unless they DO have some kind of educational background regarding the religious practices contained in the Rig Veda, they will only be character witnesses. And character witnesses aren't very productive in carrying your case. If the Universal Life Church doesn't hold up in court, your minister status doesn't either, which means you'd have to be an active member of an established church that requires, not just approves of, but requires the use of marijuana for it's religious practices.

Click to expand...

No. You misunderstand the witness' use.

They are asked questions like (from me or my lawyer):
"What was he saying as they brought him in?"
"What were the required sessions with him like in detention, what did he talk about?"
"How did he talk about the substance?"
etc

Things to let the jury in my County case know I'm REALLY about this.
And things to let the supreme court know: This was REALLY religious, and they REALLY went in there and attacked me for it and have a history of doing so.