Hemphasis.net Sitemap > Ron Kiczenski: right to worship > Kiczenski affidavit of human rights > US Atty replies

Hemphasis Site Directory | email Hemphasis

This webpage contains Ron Kiczenski's 1 Aug 2005 offering of basic human rights.

More on Kiczenski v Ashcroft

Ron Kiczenski vs
  the US Attorney General, the Drug Enforcement Agency Director, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Interior, and any other Executive Branch administrators of Federal Law regarding cannabis.
Filed 1 August 2005

CIV S-03-2305-MCE-GGH-PS


I, Ron Kiczenski, Plaintiff, do hereby offer this supplement/AFFIDAVIT in support of my motion for summary judgment heard on JULY 28, 2005 , and ask that the Court receive and consider this supplement in deciding the ruling in this case, and do hereby give my word, and oath, that what I state below is true and correct to the very best of my knowledge.
After the hearing on last Thursday July 28, 2005, it became finally more clear that it's more than just the 1st amendment that is at work in our country meant to protect us and our natural right to live in, by, with, and for god, or worship, or practice religion.
In a desperate effort to try and satisfy the needs of my burden before this Court, I have found a case,Cutter v. Wilkinson, Supreme Court, May 31, 2005, and the, "RLUIPA", that I believe does directly apply, and that I now ask be amended into my initial complaint or at least be considered in my over all argument for why this court should and I believe is required by law to grant the relief requested in this matter.
I also respectfully ask the courts understanding and forgiveness if my high state of emotion in this matter has been at all interpreted as disrespectful or has in any other way offended this court, for me this case is nothing short of life or death. In fighting for my children's and my life's I hope the court can understand and not misinterpret my passion.
The Act defines "religious exercise" to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief"
T he 'Religious Land use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000', states that;
(1) GENERAL RULE- No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution--
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(2) SCOPE OF APPLICATION- This subsection applies in any case in which--
(A) the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability;
In the arguments presented and ruled on in the matters of standing, ripeness, case and controversy it has been established that I am under threat of federal prosecution which would in effect deny my access to use my land in such a way that I am required to by my knowledge and "belief" in god and the "religion" I practice therein.
Further, even if it was a state prosecution, it has been established that even that would be federally subsidized and clearly affecting my ability to fulfill the basic necessities of the way I must live according to my "religious" "belief" and knowledge of god that lays out such.
Also, in order to even attempt to meet the demands of our knowledge/ "belief" in our "religion", We, {my family, myself and two beautiful boys, 11 and 14}, must import our food and other things made from hemp, but the food is essential for us and central to our "religious" practice.
I will not call one life form superior to another, or give one life form more credence in its value of existence than another, as that goes directly contrary to my knowledge/"belief" in god and the basic principals of the "religious" practice I and my children must adhere to.
I can state though that we cannot even start our day in the way our "religion" dictates unless we have hemp seed in one fashion or another to eat, period.
I and my family are bound by our "religious" "belief"/knowledge to seek out the healthiest {yet least impact or damaging to other life}, food sources.
It is not my fault if everyone ignores the plain and factual truths of history and science that proves that hemp and no other plant can provide the sustenance necessary to accomplish this in a humans diet, I cannot by requirement of my "religious" belief"/knowledge of god.
As well, no other plant can provide, right along with the food, the other basic necessities of life, { in the way I have just described in the paragraph before the previous one}, i.e.; fuel, clothing, building materials, paper, even medicine which is also a requirement of our "religious" "belief" and knowledge to be acquire directly from the earth/god when at all possible, cannabis makes this possible for helping to treat many health problems of human kind.
Because of this requirement by our knowledge in god, and due to the unreasonably restrictive no access diversion policy of the DEA under the auspices of the CSA, we must import our food from outside this country, right now we get it from Canada, {when we can afford the unreasonably high expense}, thus clearly and directly affecting "commerce with foreign nations", i.e. ;
"(2) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes."


To further comply with the above; please refer to my statements pertaining to my activities with the Oglala Sioux Tribe at Pine Ridge "reservation" and how DEA under the auspices of the CSA foiled all and every project.
How can my activities on Pine Ridge be considered separate or different from any other of the many missionary's efforts by other "religions" on the res., as it applies to this case or to "RLUIPA"?
I must add that there is or should be no question that I would be still directly involved with the Pine Ridge efforts to this day and beyond, if I was not being discriminated against by way of the CSA, and there should be no question that those projects were intended to and would still be effecting local, states, and international commerce.
Within the scope of application it also states i.e. ;
"(C) the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved."
I think it goes without saying,{unless I'm way off base}, that the CSA does and intends to do just what the above paragraph describes, in so far as it applies to me, my land, and this case.
"(1) GENERAL RULE- No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution--
(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
How is it even possible to not view the current policy as the most and furthest extreme in restrictiveness? There's simply no access at all, and on top of that, they have a written policy to eradicate the specie wherever it's found.
Even as I write these words the federally funded "C.AM.P." ,"CAMPAIN AGAINST MARIJUANA PLANTING" teams are swarming all over the state of California, and in particular the tri county area I live in, doing recon and acting to destroy all the cannabis they possibly can.
With the described atmosphere raging all around me how can the defendant honestly claim even a remote argument of least restrictive means?
Aside from my exhaustive and fruitless efforts over the years to obtain one of these rare if at all existent permits, with the current dispositions of the defendants DEA and the DOJ, can anyone honestly come forth and state there is reasonable good faith intention on the defendant's part to issue grow permits?
In support of the notion that the defendant intends total eradication and extinction of the cannabis plant link in the chain of our existence I do attach and offer as marked "exhibit A-sup" my most current efforts in fallowing up with the interior department and the endangered species act.
Within that exhibit please take notice of the excerpts from the document called;
And to the bottom of page 163, under the heading, "DRUG CONTROL PROGRAM",
And the section heading immediately fallowing that called,
To the best of the my knowledge these pathogens could be already being delivered on to U.S. soil by the defendants in an effort to once and for all eradicate the species of cannabis.
The Interior Dept. seems to have no interest in a realistic, scientific or reasonable approach in responding to my petition, I have exhausted that process and they will not act even though the ESA requires them to. There is no relief there for me or cannabis.
I ask the court to consider what these pathogens will do when they are through gobbling all the cannabis? Will they just go away? Or maybe be it will still be hungry and adapt to target another plant species, maybe one the defendant or the court puts value or importance to?
* "(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and" *
How has the defendant or congress ever made a justifiable argument or finding to justify the types of extreme and final solution methods they currently employ?
There is no past or present debate in congress that has ever weighed the uses and value to our country's national security {and to the individual}, this plant has to offer{and has victoriously and irreplaceably offered in the past}, as opposed to the perceived and never even honestly portrayed threat .
The government has no real and honest foundation to base a compelling interest argument at all, at least not until the scenario I just described finally takes place.
On its face, how can a reasonable mind possibly conclude that a plant that could go so far to save our farmers, repair our land quality, repair our environment{water and air}, repair our infrastructure, repair our economy, move us away from carcinogenic by products of petroleum products of all types, stop deforestation, and give us perfect nutrition, could be more of a threat than some fungal pathogen created in a laboratory as a weapon to target the same plants and to be released into farmland all across the U. S. A. ?
I think I understand well a compelling interest notion, I have children, I'm here on the compelling interest to protect and maintain their ability to live, and live well and healthy and aware of their origins and relatives and interdependencies of the living reality, the chain of life= religion= god}, but I consider the rationale of defendants' compelling interest arguments to not only be politically/special interest orientated, but also to be clinically insane{if truly analyzed by an impartial expert}, scientifically unfounded, and most definitely suicidal, and at the very least, clearly not in the interest of the people of the U. S. A. or the world at large.
(a) GENERAL RULE- No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution, as defined in section 2 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997), even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person--
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(b) SCOPE OF APPLICATION- This section applies in any case in which--
(1) the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance; or
(2) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes."
In a strange yet real way, this section also seems somehow to apply. By a Superior Court order of the state of California, and concerning the terms of the custody order pertaining to where my children and I live, we are bound by that order to this address and are not permitted to move without permission of the court.
In effect the U. S. A. , the state of California, Lake county, and my current address are a government induced institution that I'm locked into by Court order, just as if I were deemed to stay in any other place in America by a law being enforced through a Judge's Court order.
"(b) BURDEN OF PERSUASION- If a plaintiff produces prima facie evidence to support a claim alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause or a violation of section 2, the government shall bear the burden of persuasion on any element of the claim, except that the plaintiff shall bear the burden of persuasion on whether the law (including a regulation) or government practice that is challenged by the claim substantially burdens the plaintiff's exercise of religion."
I believe I have satisfied my burden under this Act as I understand it, in turn I also believe the defendant has not even begun to make a viable argument for their position or in satisfying their burden under the Act.
As my "religion" and knowledge of "god" come directly from the obvious and even scientifically proven facts of nature/the chain of life/god, and is unto me alone as my own church and my own religion and as I myself am part of god it is naturally built in to my belief and mandate to be entirely independent and unto myself in these maters, to do otherwise would be in direct conflict with the core belief of oneness through individual consciousness and awareness of common origin{intelligent design}.
So in other words separation by and through the very things that bind us all with each other and everything else {where we come from, what keeps us alive, and where we go after death}, in the way of an organized religion or any man made doctrine {CSA} outside my own soul and its connection to all {not just this that or the other, selectively}, I cannot be a part of, period.
The CSA clearly seeks to separate permanently me from my origins/god and my ability to depend on such to live in the mandate of my "religious belief".
In my knowledge of god a law like the CSA, in so far as it applies to this case, might as easily and more appropriately be called maybe, 'the divide and conquer god at both ends law'{perfect for corporate interests} and in my knowledge of god and the book of life and those rules=nature, this kind of law can only end in deficiency, sickness and death{cancer on big and small scales}, and being completely outside and in direct violation of my religious mandate in so far as it applies to this case.
In my view these ways of killing are simply suicidal, maybe some have the right to suicide lifestyle going against god/nature, but I should have the right to stay with god and teach my children the same, and not choose suicide even if all the rest are and as a consequence I to am killed, I should still have my own right to choose life/god.
Is it my fault that those who have control have not learned from the failed and tragic simple examples of this kind of 'divide and conquer god at both ends law' from bounties on the life's of wolfs and buffalo/bison to bounties on human slaves and indigenous human beings, this kill the link thinking has proven over and over to be wrong and self-destructive, and yet it continues.
These kind of laws presume wickedness at the nature of humans and everything else. Once we resort to this type of thinking, we have already defeated ourselves; there is no way out of that strait line to a dead end.
For the defendant to claim to have even the slightest knowledge of my religious practice they would need a basic knowledge of nature its ecosystems and interdependencies, and how that applies to human existence in a necessary and in common way.
Defendant would also need to have a basic knowledge of the requirements of human nutrition and in particular for vegans such as I and my children are in accordance with the practice of our religious mandate.
The basic knowledge of nature and diet are easily proven by modern science, and defendant should be more than whiling to stipulate to such as fact, or I'm surely willing to bring the most qualified experts in the country on the subject to either testify or submit declarations to such facts, but a trip to the local library and a quick look at a couple of national geographic magazines even, and one starts to get an understanding of these natural and in common facts of life.
How can anyone try to differentiate and separate the practicing of some religious ritual unnecessary to ones in common survival, from the practicing of the needs of in common survival where otherwise the unnecessary ritual would be? , and how could the first described ritual be more valid than the second, even so much so that one would have protection and the other not?
If anything it seems the more normal and acceptable to society religious practice would be mine, the abstract and more to be concerned with by some compelling interest of defendants would be these that are completely dreamed up or handed down in ancient books. From all these we have seen only suffrage and unnecessary separation and war and each day it gets worse. All these' self-destructive ways one need never fear coming from my religious belief and practice based in the necessarily unavoidable structure and dependent circle relationships of nature and all things, yet I have no protection?
All things in god/nature work in concert to live, and I am bound by my very birth responsibility to fulfill to the best of my individual ability, my obbligato role in life's/gods infinite and diverse yet simple song, this is the mandate of my religious practice.
I can say without hesitation that if I thought I was condemned to a hell on earth that was finally hopeless of a remedy to such fundamentally flawed thinking and I was to be forced to live against my belief and religious practice and knowledge of god for the remainder of this life {to live in destruction of god}, I would sooner be dead, life would make no sense and would be to confusing and painful to even continue to face, as if a matrix type false reality yet inescapable prison, truly hell and what is the only possible hell in my belief.
What will it take to show this court that in my very nature I am religion, I am ritual, I am a church, and I am god as an individual and collectively?
Do I need to parade a substantial amount of witnesses that have each known me for 15 or more years to swear and testify to their knowledge of my religious belief, would that be worth more than my own sworn word? If that be the requirement it is easily fulfilled if given the chance.
I don't know what else I could possibly do or say to prove how real and necessary the mandates of my religious belief and practices are to mine and my offspring's current and future lives?
Maybe it would be worth a "nickel" to the Court if I traded my life strait across so that my children could live free in god/life, and in the chain, not separate from it and cancerous as a consequence, would that go to prove my sincerity and save my children from this tragically inherited legacy of empty self-destructive madness that never had to be? If that's what it takes, that's why I'm here, to offer whatever is necessary, what greater purpose could one even have to live at all?
It's my religious belief and necessary mandate to live in harmony with and dependent on "Eden",not wall-mart, exxon, dupont, and monsanto who now is racing to patent and own "Eden" exclusively and sell a sick and deficient version of it back to us, then some other like elli lily is happy to sell us more tainted wisdom to give an illusion of a bandaid to put on the sickness caused by the separation to begin with.
Here's a thought of mine that might meet the aspects of a definition of my political, economical and philosophical views;
The capitalist idea in its purity and unchecked is simply a mimic of cancer in growth demands and it's eventual self destructive inevitable end.
Regardless of whether I think the thought stated in the last paragraph is a true fact or not,
My religious practice that mandates being dependent on myself in harmony with nature/god precludes my choice to even take part in such a lifestyle in every way possible.
Finally how is it even possible that growing plants is not a natural born human right outside and independently self-evident and unburdened by association with religion or any other right listed in the bill of rights to the constitution? Where do I get the right to grow a carrot and how is the right different in its foundation from growing any other plant?
Probably just about every plant in this world could be misconstrued in one way or another to be a threat if one was out to prove so, but so is gasoline a real carcinogenic threat, why is it aloud to be produced and sold at nearly every street corner right next to the liquor stores?
How can a corporation somehow have the natural and legal right to unnaturally manipulate life,patent and own it, thereby cutting off my natural born right to access the original specie {or the one they've manipulated}, which now poses a threat to the corporately owned gene pool, yet I have no natural right to grow a plant?
Every Frankenstein like activity from cloning to stem cell harvesting is somehow assumed and allowed, yet I have no natural right to grow a plant? Anyone can see, anyone, and my children already do see that's a world gone mad.
I ask this Court to issue its ruling in language that I and my children can understand if possible, as they to anxiously await to know if they are protected in their belief and religious practice, and because I could never be able to explain if the ruling is that we are not protected, wouldn't have the first idea how, it would be like trying to tell them they don't exist.
Respectfully Submitted, August 1, 2005
DATED: August 1 , 2005
/s/Ron Kiczenski
Attached for the convenience of the court is a copy of the cutter Supreme Court ruling and the 9th Circuit Court ruling that preceded it.
Also attached and marked as "exhibit A-sup" is all the existing paper work I have on the endangered species act petition effort I have recently exhausted.

Next document in case: US Atty replies             

Back to Kiczenski case outline

Hemphasis Home | Hemphasis Site Directory | email Hemphasis