littlebigman
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
lbm
peace...
No. 06-15709
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
____________________
RON KICZENSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
____________________
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS REPLY TO DEFENDANT-APPELEES BRIEF
________________________
Plaintiff/Appellant Ron Kiczenski
Case No: 06-15709 Title/Heading page before page 1. of
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS REPLY TO DEFENDANT-APPELEES BRIEF
Case No: 06-15709 page 1.
I hesitate to overburden this court with repeating myself, but as long as the defendants 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 defendants and leave my opening brief to serve as the response to the rest.
The defendants 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 its 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 symptoms 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 defendants brief states: 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 defendants 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:
http://www.hemphasis.net/kiczenski.htm
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.
lbm
peace...
No. 06-15709
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
____________________
RON KICZENSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
____________________
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS REPLY TO DEFENDANT-APPELEES BRIEF
________________________
Plaintiff/Appellant Ron Kiczenski
Case No: 06-15709 Title/Heading page before page 1. of
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS REPLY TO DEFENDANT-APPELEES BRIEF
Case No: 06-15709 page 1.
I hesitate to overburden this court with repeating myself, but as long as the defendants 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 defendants and leave my opening brief to serve as the response to the rest.
The defendants 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 its 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 symptoms 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 defendants brief states: 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 defendants 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:
http://www.hemphasis.net/kiczenski.htm