What rights do you have? Are you free to live as you believe?


Active Member
Jun 2, 2006
Reaction score
If you have intentions to follow or live by "god" as you personally understand such, then you need to understand what your gov is saying in this case.
I am not the defendant, i am the plaintiff and this is an important fact of this case if you have a basic understanding of how the 3rd branch works.
what i ask you to grasp from the following brief is that:

1. We have an amendment in the bill of rights that the courts have arbitrarily decided we have no reach to engage. = the 9th =
the certain rights retained by the people.

2. In the case bellow the establishment clause goes out the window with the judges redefining of my religious practices, "beliefs" etc as "other than religious".

Please read and reach deep to understand the importance of govs positions as stated bellow and how it is and will continue to affect all our lives no matter what our religions are.
thank you.

No. 06-15709










Plaintiff/Appellant Ron Kiczenski

Case No: 06-15709 Title/Heading page before page 1. of
Case No: 06-15709 page 1.

I hesitate to overburden this court with repeating myself, but as long as the defendant’s keep misrepresenting the truth, I so to then am compelled to keep repeating the truth. I will do my best to limit my reply to the fundamentally imperative truths that have been once again misrepresented by the defendant’s and leave my opening brief to serve as the response to the rest.
The defendant’s brief states : “In April 2005, the district court dismissed Kiczenski's Ninth Amendment claim, holding that the claim was "unequivocally frivolous" because the Ninth Amendment "does not independently create a constitutional right for purposes of stating a claim.", and they go on later to claim: “There is no question that the CSA is a valid and neutral law of general applicability, see Raich, 125 S. Ct. at 2209-2215; and indeed, Kiczenski does not contend otherwise.”
One of the fundamental claims of this case has always been that the CSA was improperly prescribed and that Congress had no jurisdiction to create a law that seeks to prohibit and even destroy that which we all own individually as well as collectively because these elements of life are self evident in our necessities of existence and continued existence individually as well as collectively.
The Ninth Amendment argument is not about claiming a specific right under the Ninth Amendment, its about an area of reality where government has no jurisdiction, an area retained by the people, an area of self evident unalienable ties between humans

Case No: 06-15709 page 2.

and the rest of the natural world that can only begin with what are commonly called the commons and which fundamentally consist of the air, water, earth, sun, and plant life that work together often beyond our comprehension to bring us into being, things we simply die without. The commons are owned/retained by us all individually as well as collectively.
If there is any jurisdiction that must be held by the people it must be the commons.
Congress may or may not have a legitimate jurisdictional authority to create a law that bans a substance derived from a plant, but Congress certainly has not the natural nor the constitutional authority to create a law that seeks to prohibit and even render extinct a natural plant species owned by us all and as such the rights to such are clearly retained by the people in the Ninth Amendment.
Congress has passed laws like the Endangered Species Act which clearly reflect a clear acknowledgment of and attempt to protect and save the immediately endangered elements of the commons from total destruction.
On it’s face in so far as it goes to institute a policy of seeking to create an endangered species, the CSA is in direct conflict with the ESA and as such serves as a further example of the many symptom’s that arise when a law has been improperly prescribed.
Case No: 06-15709 page 3.

The defendants brief states: “The court found that Kiczenski's desire to grow hemp constituted "a way of life for him rather than a religion." Id. Kiczenski's views on hemp stemmed from the plant's practical and economic benefits, and were "secular, economic, social, and philosophical, but . . . not religious." Id. at 9-10. The court further held that, even if Kiczenski's beliefs did constitute a religion, the CSA's restrictions on growing hemp would not substantially burden such a religion: this conclusion was
"clear from the fact that it is growing anything, not specifically hemp, which spiritually fulfills plaintiff."”
I have never stated nor is it true that it is “growing anything, not specifically hemp, which spiritually fulfills plaintiff."”
The Court and the defendants may have misconstrued the foundational principle of my religion that all life is sacred, interconnected, interdependent and one and that the energy/presence/spirit of god is in everything that exists, with what spiritually “fulfills” me. This may have occured by way of me nodding my head yes when the magistrate referred to the importance of one plant over another in my garden/church. I may have misunderstood the magistrates inference at the time, but my head nod was in regards to the equality and importance of all life in the web that we to are a part of.
Case No: 06-15709 page 4.

The thing that the court refers to as God and that I prefer to call the Great Spirit has directed me in no uncertain terms to use hemp as my central food, clothing and feedstock source and to use the land to grow it myself for those purposes and that these acts of joining into the circle of life by planting and growing the seeds of life in the partnership to sustain continued life be my most sacred continual ritual and that the changing of the seasons be my most sacred “holidays” and that this is the only way to get back to the garden and live in the way the great spirit intended and commands that I do.
God has shown me that the only way out of poverty, hunger, cancer, war and the like is to get back to the garden and to hold fast to the knowledge that humans are not separate from nature, but that we are just another equal part of nature and that we can only survive to evolve to our possible blossoming future as the seed that would be born into the heavens from this biosphere incubator we call earth if we remain in our natural partnership with such and that the only way back to the garden, back to the partnership dictated by gods natural law is through this cannabis plant and the great spirit has directed me to bring this message to my human family and to this government that has declared war on this plant and thereby preventing any possibility of me or anyone else living as god has instructed me and all others to

Case No: 06-15709 page 5.

live if we want to not only live in the way of god, but to keep on living at all.
The defendant’s brief state’s: “In order to make out a cause of action under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a plaintiff must show that "his sincerely held beliefs are 'religious beliefs,' rather than a philosophy or way of life."”
Neither the defendant’s nor has the Court has ever questioned the sincerity of my “beliefs” equating to my religion in my own mind. All they have done is attempt to rename or re-categorize my religious knowledge/beliefs, practices and mandates as “other than religious” as is exemplified here in the courts words from the second or re-hearing of the defendants retry at their summary judgment motion:


Active Member
Jun 2, 2006
Reaction score
THE COURT: “And so -- now, if it had been shown to me that this

was more than your life's philosophy, and I know your life's

philosophy is your religion to you.”

I have never represented that my “philosophy” is my religion because it would be a lie if I did. I have though consistently throughout this case represented my religion for what it is and I have been abundantly clear on the fact that god invented my religion as such and that the “doctrine” is self evident and self explanatory in what some call “intelligent design” and some such as myself call the web of life, the ultimate and unavoidable natural laws of the great spirit.

The statement above by the court not only recognizes and acknowledges my religious sincerity without question, but it then goes to un-establish my religion with a simple stroke of

Case No: 06-15709 page 6.

semantics, thereby violating my protection under the establishment clause and any ability to ever reach for such equal protections under the first amendment forever based on pure and blatant discrimination against my religion.

Here is an example in the defendant’s own word’s of what the defendant’s would most assuredly have stated at some point in this case had sincerity ever been at issue, this is from an currently ongoing criminal case:



CR No. 06-538 JH




“The defendants' lack of sincerity is patent.”

“The defendants have developed a

pseudo-religious façade of religion in an attempt to justify the use,

transportation and distribution of marijuana”

“The motive for the defendants is obviously financial gain”

“the defendants have failed

to prove their sincerity as to

their beliefs, even assuming their philosophy a religion.”

Never the less my religion dictates the conduct of my life just as every persons religion does even if that mandated conduct only consists of showing up at a “church” on Sunday and nothing else like many in this country seem to practice, call it Christianity and are somehow almost

Case No: 06-15709 page 7.

assured to be recognized as having reach to equal do process under the establishment and free exercise clauses.

The defendant’s unnatural ability to outlaw any plant is a substantial burden enough on my religious principles, knowledge/beliefs and practices, but to outlaw the cannabis plant magnifies the burden to immeasurable proportions.

The court should take notice that if this discrimination against my religion holds up it then would affect most all native Indian religions in the same way because there is no viable difference at all between my religion and that of these native tribes.

The defendant’s brief also claim’s: “As Kiczenski himself elaborates, his dedication to hemp manufacture is born of a belief in its practical benefits and its role in assisting human survival--not of a distinct religious motivation”.

This couldn’t be more untrue and as I have tried to make clear to the lower court, my “beliefs”, practices and mission are born directly from my communication with the great spirit/god.

The defendant’s brief goes on to claim for the first time ever in this case that I am aware of that: “Kiczenski has not shown his views to contain any ideas about the ultimate purposes or meanings of life; to encompass any moral or ethical system; to contemplate any foundational writings or keepers of the faith; to provide for rituals, practices, or ceremonies; or to espouse any teachings that relate to any matters other than his garden.”

This is just a modern day way of calling me a “savage” or a “heathen” and is clearly a tool of what I call religious

Case No: 06-15709 page 8.

cleansing. It’s nothing short diversion protocol language designed to deny equal access to the most basic and important protected rights of our “democracy”, the freedom to live in accordance to ones knowledge or “belief” in how and why everything has come to be, the freedom to actually live as we believe, that’s why it comes before the freedom to speak.

To think that those who seem to have no concept what so ever of gods natural laws, the highest and most purposeful laws imaginable, could have read all that god has directed me to write in this case and then come off with such an outrageously untrue claim on its face is unthinkable to me and strikes me as certainly nothing short of Orwellian.

When the defendant’s make claims such as the above cited, one can only call into question the very credibility of anything the defendant’s claim.

The focus of the defendant’s argument in this case has clearly always been to prevent me from ever reaching a constitutional claim to my equal rights and protections of my religious freedom under the First Amendment, thereby precluding any discussion, finding of facts or due process in the direction of them having to meet the burden of showing a compelling interest.

When it became clear that there was no issue of sincerity in question the defendant’s should have conceded to the truth that my religion is my religion and encouraged the trial for due process and proper check and balance just as they do when it is politically convenient or is about folks

Case No: 06-15709 page 9.

that don’t live under the US constitution as is exampled in this excerpted quote from the defendant’s agent in an interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer

Secretary Condoleezza Rice

Washington , DC

March 26, 2006

SECRETARY RICE: “All of these countries are trying to come to terms with the laws of Islam and the laws of modern democracy, if you will, having to do with individual liberty and individual conscience. It's happening, and it's going to happen, across the Middle East . We -- we should be fortunate and be pleased that these debates are taking place and that they're taking place in a constitutional context.”

The Secretary is commenting on a case in Afghanistan , she also said this:

SECRETARY RICE: “Well, we've been very clear with the Afghan Government that it has to understand the vital importance of religious freedom to democracy. We have religious freedom as a cornerstone in the United States of our democracy and it is a cornerstone anyplace, religious conscience. In fact, the Afghans themselves in their own constitution have enshrined, through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a right to individual conscience and freedom, religious freedom.”

SECRETARY RICE: “Well, the constitution also says that people should have certain individual rights, including freedom of conscience on issues of this kind. There are undoubtedly, as Afghan democracy evolves, there are going to be cases, there are going to be debates. They are going to have to go through a period of coming to terms with one of the most difficult and emotional issues that any society deals with and that's the relationship between religion and politics. We've been through the debate. We go


Active Member
Jun 2, 2006
Reaction score
Case No: 06-15709 page 10.

through it still today. Other countries went through it in a much more violent way, democratic countries, earlier in their histories.”

SECRETARY RICE: “we're going to stand firm for the principle that religious freedom and freedom of religious conscience need to be upheld”

“But I want to go back to what the United States will continue to fend for, and that is that religious freedom is the bedrock of democracy.”

SECRETARY RICE: “We are going to continue to press what we believe needs to be a principle that is universal, that people have the right to religious conscience. But again, Wolf, these are evolutionary democracies. They're democracies in transition. Let me just remind everyone that, in my lifetime, we were still trying to get to the place where the vote was assured, even though it was enshrined in the Constitution, that the vote was really assured for American blacks in the South. And so we should be humbled about what it takes to evolve to a completely functioning democracy.”

Excerpts from ABC news coverage of the Presidents views on the same case and issue:


KABUL, Afghanistan, March 22, 2006

“Christian Convert Faces Execution”

“President Bush 'Deeply Troubled' by Afghan's Trial”

Case No: 06-15709 page 11.

“Earlier today, President Bush said he was upset Rahman is being tried for his conversion to Christianity. The U.S. State Department also said it is watching the case closely and considers it a barometer of how well democracy is developing in Afghanistan .

"We expect them to honor the universal principle of freedom," Bush said at a speech in Wheeling , W.Va. "I'm … deeply troubled when I hear the fact that a person who converted away from Islam may be held to account.

"I look forward to working with the government of that country to make sure that people are protected in their capacity to worship," he said.

The United States will the Afghan government that it is making a mistake by prosecuting the case, the president said.

"We have got influence in Afghanistan and we are going to use it to remind them that there are universal values," Bush said. "We will deal with this issue diplomatically and remind people that there is something as universal as being able to choose religions."”

Excerpted from the Daily State Department Press Briefing,

Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman

Washington , DC

March 24, 2006

QUESTION: “Adam, concerning this Mr. Rahman has been threatened by religious Islamic groups in Afghanistan . Would we consider, for instance, asylum and to get him away from -- out of the country –“

Case No: 06-15709 page 12.

MR. ERELI: “Yeah. I'm not going to get into a long speculation of possible scenarios. Our position has been made clear by everybody from the President on down. And this is a case of people's freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of __expression, being respected. These are principles that are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are principles that are enshrined in the Afghan constitution and they should be applied in this case.”

Excerpt from the US Department of State,

On-The-Record Briefing on U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership

Under Secretary for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns, Afghanistan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah

Loy Henderson Conference Room

Washington, DC

March 21, 2006

QUESTION: “Could you respond to that and is this acceptable or unacceptable for that man to be put to death for converting his religion?”

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: “Well, certainly from an American viewpoint, certainly not. We believe in universal freedoms and freedom of religion is one of them. But I should also note more particularly and concerning this case, that the Afghan constitution, as we understand it, also provides for freedom of religion. And so from an American viewpoint, while we understand the complexity of a case like this and we certainly will respect the sovereignty of the Afghan authorities and the Afghan system. From an American point of view, people should be free to choose their own religion and people

Case No: 06-15709 page 13.

should not receive any severe penalties, certainly not penalty of death or, in our case, we would even say penalty of imprisonment for having made a personal choice as to what religion that person wishes to follow. “

I have met all my burdens at the district court level to warrant the trigger of mandating that the defendant then meet their required burden of showing a compelling interest which clearly did not happen, because they entirely failed to do so.

Based upon all the reasons I have put forth here and all reasons I have put forth in the previous filings in this case, this court should find the district courts final ruling to wholly in error and either find that the summary judgment should have been ruled in my favor or send this matter back for its proper due process.

Respectfully signed and submitted on this

15th day of September, 2006 by __________________________,

Ron Kiczenski

to read more briefs filed in this case, please visit:

http://www.hemphasis.net/kiczenski.htm http://www.hemphasis.net/kiczenski.htm


what a waste of bandwidth, this could have been summerized in 3 paragraphs
friend; church, state and politics are never going to see "eye to eye".