Hemphasis Site Directory | email Hemphasis
- Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. --First Amendment to the US Constitution
- Does a human own the natural right to plant a seed? Can government outlaw a plant? Or did it just assume the jurisdiction?
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution
-
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. --Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution
|
|
US Attorney John Gisla says... "Although Kiczenski’s beliefs relating to the growing of crops seem to derive from his belief in God, these practices are much more social and philosophical than they are religious, and thus do not come under the umbrella of the First Amendment." Yes. He really said that. |
If you can't play the video from this page, try clicking here.
On November 4, 2003, Ron Kiczenski filed a complaint with the United States District Court, Eastern District of California... Charting unmapped waters, Kiczenski asks for an injunction against the Justice Department to prevent it from prosecuting and punishing him for possessing hemp (or any other cannabis) seeds, or planting and cultivating said seeds. Further, Kiczenski asks the Court to declare the permit process administered by the Drug Enforcement Agency unconstitutional, and to declare an irreconcilable conflict of law between the Controlled Substances Act and the Endangered Species Act. |
Read the Complaint. |
On October 14, 2004, a hearing was held in front of The Honorable Gregory G. Hollows, United States Magistrate Judge... U.S. Attorney John Gisla attempts to suggest that the Justice Department and DEA would not necessarily prosecute Kiczenski's violations of law. Kiczenski asks, "Why, then, do you have the law?" Judge Hollows asks Gisla, "Does he have to wait to get hit on the head before he can ask for declaratory relief?" Judge Hollows to Kiczenski: "Hold onto those seeds." |
Read the Transcript of the hearing. |
On December 9, 2004, The Honorable Gregory G. Hollows, United States Magistrate Judge, granted Kiczenski's request for a trial on the issue of whether the Feds should be enjoined from prosecuting Kiczensky for planting hemp... |
Read the Order. |
On December 16, 2004, Asst. US Attorney John Gisla filed an Objection to Judge Hollows Order of December 9. |
Read the Objection. |
On December 22, 2004, Ron Kiczenski filed an Objection to the Court's Order of December 9, 2004. |
Read the Objection. |
On December 22, 2004, Ron Kiczenski filed a Response to the Government's Objection of December 16, 2004. |
Read the Response. |
On May 17, 2005, Asst. US Attorney John Gisla filed a Motion to Get In Some Stuff He Should Have Gotten In Before. |
Read the Motion. |
On June 29, 2005, Asst. US Attorney John Gisla filed a Motion and a Memorandum to Get In Even Some More Stuff He Should Have Gotten In Before. |
Read the Motion. Read the Memorandum. |
On July 5, 2005, Ron Kiczenski filed Responses to the Government's Attempts to Find Some Relevance and Truth in Its Case. |
Read the Filings. |
On July 12, 2005, Asst US Atty Gisla begs for summary judgment rather than have to defend the gummint's policy of determining who worships God correctly. |
Read the Brief |
On August 1, 2005, Ron Kiczenski filed a final plea for the court to recognize the basic rights of a human being. |
Read the Memorandum. |
On August 5, 2005, Asst. US Atty John Gisla replies to Kiczenski's Aug. 1 affidavit. Gisla askes for summary judgment in favor of his side. |
Read the Reply and Motion. |
On August 31, 2005, Judge Hollows indefinitely postponed pretrial and trial dates, while he considers the most recent motions. |
Read the Order. |
On October 28, 2005, Judge Hollows asked gummint attorneys to explain why Kiczenski's hemp is different from the Hemp Industries Assn.'s hemp, which is not covered by the Controlled Substances Act. |
Read the Order. |
On November 21, 2005, Ron Kiczenski and John Gisla (for the Gummint) filed briefs in response to Judge Hollows' order. The resulting simultaneous filings may surprise you. |
|
On February 24, 2006, Judge Hollows, following a time-honored pattern, defines "religion" to fit the government's case, then recommends summary judgment for government, effectively dismissing Kiczenski's suit. |
|
On March 6, 2006, Kiczenski objects to Judge Hollows' redefining Kiczenski's religion to fit government's case. |
Read Kiczenski's Objection. |
On March 16, 2006, US Atty John Gisla makes further silliness regarding what constitutes a "religion". |
Read Gisla's Silliness. |
On March 16, 2006, Kiczenski explained religion to court and gummint. |
Read Kiczenski's Response |
On March 30, 2006, Fed. Dist. Judge Morrison England upholds Mag. Judge Hollows' summary judgment in favor of the gummint. |
(Judge's order not posted) |
On April 11, 2006, Kiczenski filed a Notice of Appeal to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, saying the lower courts had not given him due process, and had erred in their establishment of their religion as his religion. |
|
| Judge England, showing bad faith, said he had no faith that Kiczenksi's faith was a really good faith. | Read England's Eat My Shorts message |
On June 13, 2006, Kiczenski filed an appeal brief to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, further outlining how the District Court had erred in establishing a religion for Kiczenski. |
Read Kiczenski's Brief |
On June 26, 2006, Kiczenski filed a motion asking the court to accept his appeal brief even though it ran over the limit by a few pages. (On July 5, the Appeals Court accepted his over-length brief.) |
Read Kiczenski's Motion |
What's next? Gummint attys will tell why they think Kiczenski received a fair hearing already, and how we can't just let anybody define their own religion without the court's assistance. Stay tuned. |
|