Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
I'll go find it for you.
Religion
- Thread starter Finshaggy
- Start date
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
"It is agreed that there is a line; it is not clear as to where to draw the line, or which organizations fall within the line and which organizations fall outside the line."
The point that was decided in the Tax case that is NOT tax related, is that they can't really say what is or isn't a religion. If the prosecution at any time tries to say, "He's just trying to get high." Or if the judges rule that.
Motion. DONE, US Supreme Court here I come. (If that happens)
The case IS applicable.
The point that was decided in the Tax case that is NOT tax related, is that they can't really say what is or isn't a religion. If the prosecution at any time tries to say, "He's just trying to get high." Or if the judges rule that.
Motion. DONE, US Supreme Court here I come. (If that happens)
The case IS applicable.
RainbowBrite86
Well-Known Member
OK. Let me approach this differently. Let's say you're absolutely right, and this Ballard case says they can't question you about whether or not you really believe these things to be true. You're still bringing a theological argument to a fact fight. It's a fact that marijuana is an illegal substance and that they found it in your possession. It is disputable whether their entry was lawful or not, and they will probably win that because probable cause is a gray area. It's only a claim that you practice this religion, and, if I were this prosecutor's paralegal I would already have printed a stack of evidence that your religious beliefs have fluctuated greatly since the age of 14, and that the only continuous loyalty you've held isn't to religion, but to marijuana itself. And in my opinion there's nothing wrong with that. If you want my advice, this is a misdemeanor case, if you ask for a jury trial and continue it long enough they will either drop it or plea deal you out with something. It's probably the best you're going to do with this case. They'd drop it before they'd spend the money appealing it over and over again anyway.
RainbowBrite86
Well-Known Member
Nothing was decided in that case that didn't have to do with taxes. They went to court for tax purposes, they talked about their tax rights, they won the right to tax exemption status. It was all about taxes. They were already established as a church.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Probable cause is a gray area that doesn't matter though.
Way to go and forget this WHOLE conversation during that post.
They had (false) probable cause, TO STEAL MY SACRAMENT, that my Bible says to take, which is a Bible many many people can vouch for me claiming.
And way to act like an expert there at the end AFTER forgetting everything.
I'm not pleaing, that's an option. Even if everything fails, which it can't and won't, it's already a mistrial the way they got me on probation.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Ok, what makes you think I'm trying to establish a church in this trial.
And the only other thing I have to say about that, is go read the quote I got again. And tell me that has to do with taxes
[SUP]2[/SUP][SUB]2[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP][SUB]2[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP][SUB]2[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP]Peace[SUB]2[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP][SUB]2[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP][SUB]2[/SUB][SUP]2[/SUP][SUB]2[/SUB]
RainbowBrite86
Well-Known Member
Ay ay ay. I'm not saying you are trying to establish a church. I am saying their religious rights weren't being taken in this case. They were allowed to remain an established church even after their tax examption status was revoked. So this case is exclusively about taxes, not religion.Ok, what makes you think I'm trying to establish a church in this trial.
And the only other thing I have to say about that, is go read the quote I got again. And tell me that has to do with taxes
RainbowBrite86
Well-Known Member
Probable cause does matter since you're claiming they broke in unlawfully. If they had probable cause then they had the right to enter the house. They didn't "steal" your sacrament. They confiscated an illegal substance. They can't see an illegal substance and just leave it because you say it's your sacrament. That's not the way the law works. You know what Shaggy....Godspeed hun. I hope this casse turns out the way you want it to. I really do. Good luck.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
But you are missing a big point in the case. There was a question weather or not the court COULD decide they were a church, and a ruling WAS made on that, in THIS case.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
You can't "Confinscate an illegal substance" that is not an illegal substance.
By my thinking, and by what I feel I can prove Religious smoking is ALREADY legal in Texas, or America. One of the two. I can and WILL prove this in court, and the police DID break the law. Whether or not they "Had probable cause". Because religion is protected by the law, more-so in Texas.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And they didn't "See an illegal substance" until AFTER breaking in the house, and arresting me.
So you're wrong there too.
They "Claim to have seen" a post on a website, ABOUT a "Smoking party".
And this was during school hours, so everyone was in schoo (And I was graduated). NO ONE was chilling at our house, but me and ONE friend. And I was ASLEEP, so no "Probable cause" for a party outside, or audible or in existance either.
So you're wrong there too.
They "Claim to have seen" a post on a website, ABOUT a "Smoking party".
And this was during school hours, so everyone was in schoo (And I was graduated). NO ONE was chilling at our house, but me and ONE friend. And I was ASLEEP, so no "Probable cause" for a party outside, or audible or in existance either.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
So you don't find the responses here to your liking so you spam your post in other threads like this thread -- https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/174646-could-we-make-weed-religion-2.html ??
Keep ignoring the good legal advice given by the NORML legal counsel. It will just confirm what everyone already thinks about you here.
[video=youtube;fhx46dKBO60]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fhx46dKBO60[/video]
My answers to you there should be applicable to you here. Your idiocy is displayed when you can't do even basic research to figure out that Oregon v. Smith (1990) holds precedent, yes, even in Texas.
Keep ignoring the good legal advice given by the NORML legal counsel. It will just confirm what everyone already thinks about you here.
[video=youtube;fhx46dKBO60]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fhx46dKBO60[/video]
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Ok, and you seem to forget how to read.
About 2 posts up I already answered EVERYTHING you stated here.
If it is a US Supreme court case, I already stated that I did not realize that. But now will go to the US Supreme court after the Texas courts (Please read back if you are confused). Thank you
ford442
Well-Known Member
ya.. i think that it happened in Jamaica recently.. but, here in the states native americans have wished for it like people in hell wish for ice cream, but have they got it? no.. not after 100 years of marijuana prohibition..
it i had a misdemeanor pot ticket i would bend over and take it rather that drag them all into superior court on their day off.. then they would give me the rack for sure..!
if this case gets heard in the supreme court then i will eat a donkey's fresh leavings..
it i had a misdemeanor pot ticket i would bend over and take it rather that drag them all into superior court on their day off.. then they would give me the rack for sure..!
if this case gets heard in the supreme court then i will eat a donkey's fresh leavings..
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Lolya.. i think that it happened in Jamaica recently.. but, here in the states native americans have wished for it like people in hell wish for ice cream, but have they got it? no.. not after 100 years of marijuana prohibition..
it i had a misdemeanor pot ticket i would bend over and take it rather that drag them all into superior court on their day off.. then they would give me the rack for sure..!
if this case gets heard in the supreme court then i will eat a donkey's fresh leavings..
No it won't.
People change laws in the supreme court all the time. And this case is one where the government entity had NO warrant, BROKE INTO my house ON A MISSION, STOLE my sacrament, and ARRESTED me.
All they have to agree with is "What the police did in unconstitutional" (and it 100% is, read the cases listed
) and we win 
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
No.no bump!
marijuana and hemp will be legalized based in scientific fact!
Legalization is law related