Hemphasis.net ~ Ron Kiczenski says the right to worship is his

I Ron Kiczenski, the Plaintiff, do hereby ask the court to consider this document as an objection in declaration form and as I am subject to the penalties of federal law for perjury, I swear my statement contained herein to be true and factual to the best of my knowledge and belief , and do wholly object to the Magistrate Judge's "ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS" dated February 24, 2006, and I state for the record the following in support of my objections .

FACTS OF THE CASE

For the purpose of further attempting to make clear to the Defendants, and now the Courts mistaken descriptions of my held religious beliefs, I will attempt once again to briefly explain, in part, my religious beliefs and practices to the point of relevance to this action.

I Ron Kiczenski, plaintiff, have deep and long held religious/spiritual beliefs and practices that grew and evolved from my childhood experiences including my time as a Catholic alter boy and my reading back then of the bible truth from Genesis 1:29, "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat"

My held beliefs demand I strive to adhere to certain principles or truths and practices or ways of life, just as most all other 'religions' of today and the past do. My beliefs and 'doctrine' is necessarily my own and unique unto me alone, and can only be found in my mind, my words, and my way of life,{and possibly in my DNA?} and is the very manifestation of gods communication with me. It is the very individuality standard of my belief system that keeps me connected and related to everyone and every 'religion', and everything, to the web of life, to all that exists now, to all that came before now, and to all forever into the future.

In my belief, the laws of 'nature', be they self-evident, or scientifically proven, or both, are gods laws, the laws of the one that must have 'created' them.

My belief in a 'supreme being' is basically that god is the collective energy and even consciousness of all that came before, all that is now, and all that ever will be, and that god exists in everything and everyone, and that god is the web of life, and that without me and every other part of nature here on earth and beyond, including the sun, the moon and everything beyond, god would be incomplete. I believe god is ever-present and everlasting.

The mandate and structure of god's laws necessarily set forth the doctrine and or the practices of my beliefs. God has shown me that all on earth and in the heavens beyond are connected in existence and continued existence, this that god communicates to me, science has even proven my knowledge and belief with conclusive evidence that goes to link the smallest things that exist, to the largest, and to all points of matter in-between. Science has now proved my belief that life is a chain, a web that is all interconnected and interdependent, and as such, is in effect all one.

God has shown me my necessary place in the web of life, and to live in that place, is to me the necessary exercise of my religious practice. Central to the practice or exercise of my religion is my garden and the free god given access to god in all plant forms, and it is incumbent upon me to find and use the plants that go best to meet the needs of sustainability of the lives of myself and my family.

In my knowledge and belief, my garden serves as nothing less then my church, yet it is also so much more. When I'm in my garden, I'm in church, so for the purpose of solving the language barriers that seem to exist between me and this court, the court should view my garden as my church and my work in the garden as maintaining the existence of my church and the existence of myself and family and as prayer, and as central in the exercise of my religious practices.

God has shown me that only the hemp plant can serve as the cornerstone in the foundation of my church/garden in its usefulness to meet my family's basic necessities and fulfill its god intended purpose so that I may then fulfill mine in kind. God has shown me that no other food can substitute for this hemp seed that god provides and has willed me to cultivate and use to feed myself and my family.

God has shown me that if I do as gods will commands me, and grow hemp as the mainstay of my church/garden, I will not only have food, but I will have clothes, shelter, fuel, etc..., and that I would have the companion crop god provides that goes to serve my church/garden in the same way that farmers think pesticides and the like serve purpose on their farms, hemp is a natural filter that is meant to help me grow all the other plants of the garden without using the corporate poisons that I am bound by god, knowledge, and belief, not to use.

Hemp is the cornerstone of my church which is my garden and my garden is the most important element within the central practice of my religion, and is the natural gift for sustaining my existence that god has willed unto me by way of my birth and existence.

To say I could grow most other plants I need, but not hemp, would be something like saying to a person trying to build a car that they could have and use all the parts they need for the car accept the motor. More on point it is like telling me to build my church with no foundation or roof allowed, only walls.

My intended religious use of my land in the ways I have described, in no way would go to effect the 'illegal drug' manufacturing or flow of 'illegal drugs' that the Defendants seek to curtail under the authority of Controlled Substances Act, yet the Defendants have insisted that the practice of my religion would violate the CSA and thereby be illegal in the United States of America.

I come to this court seeking injunctive relief from the Defendants eminent and I believe unconstitutional attack.

BACKGROUND

In late October of 2003, I came to this court and filled my complaint for injunctive relief, as well as three requests for temporary restraining orders. The complaint was accepted, but not officially filed by the Court until the fourth of November, 2003. The T.R.O. requests were denied and terminated.

Within the T.R.O. filings are attached exhibits and other information that is relevant to this action that I believe should have been attached to the original complaint. In my hindsight of the error, I did time and again ask the Court to include all that I had filed in the T.R.O.'s to be included as part of the original complaint, yet to this day I have had no response, and still am not sure what documents are included when the Court states that this action is proceeding on the complaint filed November 24, 2003?

I ask again that the Court incorporate all the documents I have filled for the record in this action as if set forth herein, and that the Court consider all such documents and information when in consideration of this document and my stated objections herein.

Early in this action the Defendant's attorney's both made it crystal clear in phone communications to me that they hardly had time to even read my complaint, let alone consider it in any serious sense of their job's duties. Further, I believe as a result of this disregard for me and my complaint, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based only on the issue of whether or not I had the proper standing to be there at all, and avoided addressing the causes of action.

The Court found that I did have proper standing and denied the Defendants motion , and did set the matter for trial.

All of the sudden the Defendants attorney John Gisla wanted me to know that they thought it was in my best interest to stipulate to them refilling a modified motion for summary judgment, based this time on addressing the causes of action. He was concerned that it was not timely and that the judge would be more inclined to grant such if we were in agreement, I did not agree because I want and deserve a trial, and the trial was set.

Mr. Gisla filed anyway asking for just the hearing to decide whether or not they would be afforded this re-do of their initially failed attempt to kill this case. The Magistrate Judge apparently didn't need a hearing and just granted Defendants the opportunity to re-file their now modified summary judgment motion,{if the trial had been allowed to go forward as scheduled on November 2, 2005, it would have been long over by now, thereby freeing up the Defendants attorney's for the important work which doesn't include this action according to them}.

The Defendants new motion claimed and concluded that, "Plaintiffs first amendment claim, which is assumed to be based on the religious freedoms restoration act (RFRA), is without merit because, 1) Plaintiff's claim is based on political, philosophical, economic, secular and social beliefs, and not based on religious beliefs as required by RFRA:"

In almost every document I have filed in this action, I have cited and called on the Court and the Defendants to notice and consider that the Supreme Court of the United States has long held that the logic used by the Defendants in the above claim is in error and is wholly inconsistent with the opinions held in the United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) and 398 U.S. 333 Welsh v. United States and the first amendments establishment clause. The fallowing are excerpts from the welsh case opinion; BLACK, J., Opinion of the Court, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (398 U.S. 333, Welsh v. United States).

"The controlling facts in this case are strikingly similar to those in Seeger. Both Seeger and Welsh were brought up in religious homes and attended church in their childhood, but in neither case was this church one which taught its members not to engage in war at any time for [p336] any reason. Neither Seeger nor Welsh continued his childhood religious ties into his young manhood, and neither belonged to any religious group or adhered to the teachings of any organized religion during the period of his involvement with the Selective Service System. At the time of registration for the draft, neither had yet come to accept pacifist principles. Their views on war developed only in subsequent years, but, when their ideas did fully mature, both made application to their local draft boards for conscientious objector exemptions from military service under § 6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act."

"The Government also seeks to distinguish Seeger on the ground that Welsh's views, unlike Seeger's, were "essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral code." As previously noted, the Government made the same argument about Seeger, and not without reason, for Seeger's views had a substantial political dimension. Supra at 338-339. In this case, Welsh's conscientious objection to war was undeniably based in part on his perception of world politics."

"In resolving the question whether Seeger and the other registrants in that case qualified for the exemption, the Court stated that "[the] task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious." 380 U.S. at 185. (Emphasis added.) The reference to the registrant's "own scheme of things" was intended to indicate that the central consideration in determining whether the registrant's beliefs are religious is whether these beliefs play the role of a religion and function as a religion in the registrant's life. The Court's principal statement of its test for determining whether a conscientious objector's beliefs are religious within the meaning of § 6(j) was as follows:

The test might be stated in these words: a sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption comes within the statutory definition.

380 U.S. at 176. The Court made it clear that these sincere and meaningful beliefs that prompt the registrant's objection to all wars need not be confined in either source or content to traditional or parochial concepts of religion. It held that § 6(j) "does not distinguish between externally and internally derived beliefs," id. at 186, and also held that "intensely personal" convictions which some might find "incomprehensible" or "incorrect" come within the meaning of "religious belief" in the Act. Id. at 184-185. What is necessary under Seeger for a registrant's conscientious [p340] objection to all war to be "religious" within the meaning of § 6(j) is that this opposition to war stem from the registrant's moral, ethical, or religious beliefs about what is right and wrong and that these beliefs be held with the strength of traditional religious convictions. Most of the great religions of today and of the past have embodied the idea of a Supreme Being or a Supreme Reality -- a God -- who communicates to man in some way a consciousness of what is right and should be done, of what is wrong and therefore should be shunned. If an individual deeply and sincerely holds beliefs that are purely ethical or moral in source and content, but that nevertheless impose upon him a duty of conscience to refrain from participating in any war at any time, those beliefs certainly occupy in the life of that individual "a place parallel to that filled by . . . God" in traditionally religious persons. Because his beliefs function as a religion in his life, such an individual is as much entitled to a "religious" conscientious objector exemption under § 6(j) as is someone who derives his conscientious opposition to war from traditional religious convictions."

The Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Findings and Recommendations on February 24, 2006, agreeing with the Defendants characterizations of this case and recommending the order be adopted that the Defendants summary judgment be granted.

OBJECTIONS

1) I object to, and ask the Court not to adopt the Magistrate Judges characterization that quote, "and above all for use in his pain management". This is the second time the Magistrate Judge has incorrectly stated my intent in these same arbitrary terms. I have not at any time knowingly or intentionally represented to this Court that my use of cannabis for pain management was central, or the most important, or was above all in terms of my reasons for needing to grow cannabis hemp. I have gone to great effort and expense to clearly bring to the Courts attention that the cannabis hemp in question in this case is not genetically capable of producing the chemical properties controlled by the CSA in sufficient quantities for use as medicine or illegal drugs.

I had thought that I had also previously made clear to this Court that the most necessary purpose for hemp in my familie's lives in the terms of how it is used, and within the context of my religious belief, is food. In fact, I have on the record, clearly communicated to this Court that the eminent threat of enforcement of the CSA has added to the substantial burden that it already is currently imposing on my ability to live and practice my religion as god summons and demands that I do, by forcing me to purchase{which constitutes contributing to and dependency on the system of money and profit when I could have been dependent on god, which is in direct conflict with the truths of my religious knowledge and belief} from Canada and import our main source of nutrition, hemp seed.

The fact that I am forced to import hemp seed food to attempt to satisfy in an extremely limited and restricted part, my religious practices, is one of many circumstances that the Court should conclude ties this action to the RLUIPA.

The RLUIPA states in SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF LAND USE AS RELIGIOUS EXERCISE. (2) SCOPE OF APPLICATION- This subsection applies in any case in which"&emdash; (B) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or"

2) I object to, and ask the Court not to adopt the Magistrates Findings and Recommendations in regards to the applicability of RLUIPA and to the timeliness of my 'supplement affidavit' dated August 1, 2005, filled within 4 days of the July 28, 2005 hearing, and that the Court has had (minus the four days) for the five and a half months it took to come to this recommendation. Also, when considering the premeditated, calculated, and purposeful untimeliness and circumstances of the refilling of the Defendants motion for summary judgment, it effects me as a double standard. Confusing me more is the fact that in the hearing for the Defendants first summary judgment motion, the Magistrate allowed my filled supplement which was 10 days post hearing.

The RLUIPA states in SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS; (5) LAND USE REGULATION- The term `land use regulation' means a zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such a law, that limits or restricts a

claimant's use or development of land...

The RLUIPA also has this in SEC. 5. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.; (g) BROAD CONSTRUCTION- This Act shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this Act and the Constitution.

Upon the first read of this part of the above definition ",or the application of such a law, that limits or restricts a claimant's use or development of land"... , one might well assume that the correct grammatical reading of it would automatically link it to "The term land use regulation' means a zoning or landmarking law," in a restrictive interpretation that exclusively means a zoning or landmarking law. Yet when coupled with the section 5 rules of construction, one must stop and rethink the possible intent and meaning of ",or the application of such a law, that limits or restricts a claimant's use or development of land".

If Congressional intent was to help strengthen the RFRA and the establishment clause of the first amendment in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise,

to the maximum extent when a person is trying to exercise that freedom on their own land, why would they mean to restrict that protection only to guard

against laws that are called zoning or landmarking laws and not other laws that work, or have the same effect in application as zoning or landmarking laws, like the application of such a law, that limits or restricts a claimant's use or development of land?

If Congress meant to restrict the meaning of the term "land use regulation" to exclusively be referring to laws called zoning or landmarking laws, why would this part

even be necessary; ", or the application of such a law"

If Congress meant to restrict the meaning of the term "land use regulation" to exclusively be referring to laws called zoning or landmarking laws, why wouldn't it be

sufficient to just leave it at this?; The term `land use regulation' means a zoning or landmarking law that limits or restricts a claimant's use or development of land..."

I seems to me that the Magistrate Judge is using an overly narrow definition when considering the applicability of the RLUIPA when he bases it on the fact that the CSA is not a land use regulation or a zoning or landmarking law in its name or title only, and that this kind of interpretation might be exactly what Congress meant to guard against when they paused and added ",or the application of such a law,".

If a law effects me in its application, just as a zoning or landmarking law would in that it would or does limit or restrict my use or development of land, I believe this would be a law that Congress meant exactly to refer to when they added ",or the application of such a law,".

The Magistrate Judge also seems to conclude that because I am not confined to an institution, the RLUIPA would not apply, this must be in error because the RLUIPA states, SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF LAND USE AS RELIGIOUS EXERCISE. (a) SUBSTANTIAL BURDENS- (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,"...

I cannot find the part that states I must be confined to an institution to be protected under (1)GENERAL RULE of RLUIPA, and in my reading of the act, there is no question that I am a person that meets the burdens and is in need of the protections of the RLUIPA.

3) I object to, and ask the Court to reject the Magistrate Judges conclusion that, "plaintiff's proposed activity is properly regulated by the DEA and the plants he seeks to grow are defined as marijuana."

Never to my knowledge has the DEA done, or at least, to my knowledge, made public the studies and taxonomic testing that could provide the only correct and definitive answer to the question of the different varieties of cannabis by the chemical marker of the THC substance controlled, or attempting to be controlled by the CSA and by its mechanisms interpreted by the DEA as banning cultivation of all cannabis on my land and the development of my land for such purposes.

I have previously established on the record of this action that the Canadian department of agricultures taxonomic expert on this subject, DR. Ernie Small has definitively identified the feral variety of cannabis hemp {which is the same sub specie variety at issue in this case} is a sub specie variety called "Spontanea Vavilov", and is

officially identified and classified in the "1997. In Flora of North America, north of Mexico, vol. 3.", and which does not produce viable amounts of THC, and so is useless to the illegal drug trade, or for medicine in that respect.

I have also established on the record of this action that I did try to get the Interior department to do conclusive taxonomic testing by way of the endangered species act or to at least recognize Dr. Smalls expert and published taxonomic work on the subject and use it if not our own experts taxonomy testing, but Chuck Davis the departments assigned handler of the petition, discarded the samples into the trash and refused to do the appropriate taxonomic tests while he at the same time refused to accept the published work of Dr. Small as legitimate because Dr. Small works for Canada.

There is no reasonable way that I can see for the Magistrate Judge to conclude that the hemp I intend to grow at issue in this case should be held to a different standard then the Canadian hemp legally imported under the protection of the decision in the "HempII" case based on the mistaken foundation information that all varieties of cannabis are the same and are all the DEA's appropriate target because they all meet the drug content definition.

4) I object to, and ask the Court to reject the Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations that, "plaintiff's first amendment claim fails because the Federal government has proscribed the possession of cannabis. The Controlled Substances Act has been found constitutional and trumps California law which permits limited use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Gonzales v. Raich,"

As I understand it, Gonzales v. Raich tested the CSA's constitutionality and or the "proscribed use of cannabis" against the commerce clause and did not test it in regards to the first amendment establishment of religion or religious freedoms clauses as they apply to this case, nor has the Defendant in this action demonstrated a compelling interest that would go to trump the establishment and exercise of my religious beliefs. RLUIPA states in SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF LAND USE AS RELIGIOUS EXERCISE, "(a) SUBSTANTIAL BURDENS- (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." RFRA states in SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES. "(a) Findings: The Congress finds that-- (1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution; (2) laws 'neutral' toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise; (3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;"

Also, SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED, states, "(a) In General: Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b). (b) Exception: Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-- (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

If the Defendant could truly establish a compelling interest, they should still need to show that they are employing the least restrictive measure when imposing this substantial burden to my religious practices. What could be more restrictive than a law {the CSA} that stops me from using my land in the exercise of my religion by putting me in jail for the rest of my life, and further intends to eradicate all cannabis varieties from the face of the planet, and that in doing so is in direct conflict with the natural laws of god and the web of all life.

5) I object to, and ask this court to reject the Magistrate Judges description

that I have, "Throughout the complaint, plaintiff's briefing, and his argument at hearing, plaintiff's description of his growing hemp/cannabis indicates that it is a way of life for him rather than a religion".

I have never made such a statement to this Court that should in any way be interpreted or construed to mean "indicates that it is a way of life for him rather than a religion", and I would not make such a statement because just the reverse is true, it is my religious belief and knowledge from god and the natural laws of god that dictate my lifestyle and as such is not unusual or unique to my religion, just as in these basic and widely known examples(what would be unusual would be to find a religion that doesn't demand a certain way of life as part of, or that is central to its doctrine), "A close observation of Africa and its societies will reveal that religion is at the root of African culture and is the determining principle of African life. It is no exaggeration, therefore, to say that in traditional Africa, religion is life and life, religion. Africans are engaged in religion in whatever they do -- whether it be farming, fishing or hunting; or simply eating, drinking or traveling. Religion gives meaning and significance to their lives, both in this world and the next. It is hence not an abstraction but a part of reality and everyday life." (Kofi Asare Opoku, "West African Traditional Religion, Basic Beliefs of Animism") "In anthropology, animism can be considered to be the original human religion, being defined simply as belief in the existence of spiritual beings. It dates back to the earliest humans and continues to exist today, making it the oldest form of religious belief on Earth. It is characteristic of aboriginal and native cultures, yet it can be practiced by anyone who believes in spirituality but does not proscribe to any specific organized religion. The basis for animism is acknowledgment that there is a spiritual realm which humans share the universe with. The concepts that humans possess souls and that souls have life apart from human bodies before and after death are central to animism, along with the ideas that animals, plants, and celestial bodies have spirits. Animistic gods often are immortalized by mythology explaining the creation of fire, wind, water, man, animals, and other natural earthly things. Although specific beliefs of animism vary widely, similarities between the characteristics of gods and goddesses and rituals practiced by animistic societies exist. The presence of holy men or women, visions, trancing, dancing, sacred items, and sacred spaces for worship, and the connection felt to the spirits of ancestors are characteristic of animistic societies.

References

Shelley, Fred M. and Audrey E. Clarke, eds. Human and Cultural Geography. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1994.

Lehmann, Arthur C. and James E. Myers, eds. Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion: An Anthropological Study of the Supernatural. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1993.

Written by Sara Wenner, 2001" "Basic Beliefs of Buddhism" "The basic beliefs of Buddhism can be demonstrated in the following concepts and doctrines: The Four Noble Truths The Fi rst Noble Truthis the existence of suffering. Birth is painful and death is painful; disease and old age are painful. Not having what we desire is painful and having what we do not desire is also painful. The Second Noble Truth is the cause of suffering. It is the craving desire for the pleasures of the senses, which seeks satisfaction now here, now there; the craving for happiness and prosperity in this life and in future lives. The Third Noble Truth is the ending of suffering. To be free of suffering one must give up, get rid of, extinguish this very craving, so that no passion and no desire remain. The Fourth Noble Truth leads to the ending of all pain by way of the Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path The first step on that path is Right Views: You must accept the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. The second is Right Resolve: You must renounce the pleasures of the senses; you must harbor no ill will toward anyone and harm no living creature. The third is Right Speech: Do not lie; do not slander or abuse anyone. Do not indulge in idle talk. The fourth is Right Behavior: Do not destroy any living creature; take only what is given to you; do not commit any unlawful sexual act. The fifth is Right Occupation: You must earn your livelihood in a way that will harm no one. The sixth is Right Effort: You must resolve and strive heroically to prevent any evil qualities from arising in you and to abandon any evil qualities that you may possess. Strive to acquire good qualities and encourage those you do possess to grow, increase, and be perfected. The seventh is Right Contemplation: Be observant, strenuous, alert, contemplative, and free of desire and of sorrow. The eighth is Right Meditation: When you have abandoned all sensuous pleasures, all evil qualities, both joy and sorrow, you must then enter the four degrees of meditation, which are produced by concentration. Buddhist Precepts There are five precepts taught by Buddhism that all Buddhists should follow: 1. Kill no living thing. 2. Do not steal. 3. Do not commit adultery. 4. Tell no lies. 5. Do not drink intoxicants or take drugs."...

"References McDowell, Josh and Don Stewart, Handbook of Today's Religions. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983. Twelfth printing, June 1992. Shelley, Fred M. and Audrey E. Clarke, eds. Human and Cultural Geography. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1994. Images 'Wheel of Samsara' courtesy of World Religions in Images Written by Sara Wenner, 2001" "Basic Beliefs of Hinduism" "Hinduism is based on the concept that human and animal spirits reincarnate, or come back to earth to live many times in different forms. The belief that souls move up and down an infinite hierarchy depending on the behaviors they practiced in their life is visible in many of the Hindu societal policies. The caste system survives and charity towards others is unheard of because each individual deserves to be in the social class they were born in. A person is born into the highest class because they behaved well in a past life, and a person is born into poverty and shame because of misbehaviors in a past life. Today, a Hindu can be polytheistic (more than one god), monotheistic (one god), pantheistic (god and the universe are one), agnostic (unsure if god exists), or atheistic (no god) and still claim to be Hindu. This open theology makes it difficult to discuss basic beliefs since there are many ideas about what Hinduism means. However, these universal ideas must be mentioned. Central to Hinduism are the concepts of reincarnation, the caste system, merging with brahman (or the ultimate reality), finding morality, and reaching Nirvana (the peaceful escape from the cycle of reincarnation). Religious documents include Sruti, (what is heard) and Smriti, (what is remembered). The Sruti include deeply religious things communicated to a seer and recorded. The Vedas, the religious writings, include mantras (hymns of praise), brahmanas (sacrificial rituals) and upanishads (108 sacred teachings). The Smriti include the law (books of laws), puranas (myths, stories, legends) and epics (sets of holy myths including Ramayana and Mahabharata). The Hindu paths to salvation include the way of works (rituals), the way of knowledge (realization of reality and self-reflection), and the way of devotion (devotion to the god that you choose to follow). If the practitioner follows the paths of these ways, salvation can be achieved. References McDowell, Josh and Don Stewart, Handbook of Today's Religions. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983. Twelfth printing, June 1992. Shelley, Fred M. and Audrey E. Clarke, eds. Human and Cultural Geography. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1994. Images 'Krishna' courtesy of About Rajasthan- http://www.rajasthanweb.com/about/religion/index.htm 'Ganesh' and 'Shiva' courtesy of World Religions in Images 'Gsarawt' courtesy of Presja http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/ekprem/hinduism.htm Written by Sara Wenner, 2001" "Three Branches of Judaism" "These are the three branches of Judaism which form the framework for the type of lifestyle and beliefs of Jewish individuals: Orthodox- Traditionalists who observe most of the traditional dietary and ceremonial laws of Judaism Conservative- Do not hold to the importance of a Jewish political state, but put more emphasis on the historic and religious aspects of Judaism, doctrinally somewhere between Orthodox and Reform Reform- The liberal wing of Judaism, culture and race oriented with little consensus on doctrinal or religious belief References McDowell, Josh and Don Stewart, Handbook of Today's Religions. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983. Twelfth printing, June 1992. Shelley, Fred M. and Audrey E. Clarke, eds. Human and Cultural Geography. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1994. Images COLOR="#330099" FACE="Times New Roman" SIZE="4">'Moses' and 'Menorah' courtesy of World Religions in Images < Written by Sara Wenner, 2001"

6) I Also object to, and ask the Court to reject the Magistrate Judges characterizations of my involvement and interaction with indigenous peoples and farmers as strictly "economic" because it is a completely mistaken perception of what those activities meant to me personally and how they went to fulfill my mandates from god in

helping folks to remember what they seem to have forgotten which is gods natural laws, which have now been scientifically proven to be the common laws of the entire planet, the universe, and beyond. If I can help folks know they can find independence, self sufficiency, health, and fulfillment through dependence directly on god and gods natural laws by returning to their garden, their 'Eden', then I am engaging in my mission from god, and when I do so and it helps even one person, it helps us all as one, just as god intends.

7) I object to, and ask the Court to reject the Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations that,

"All of these statements and affirmations indicate that plaintiff's beliefs are secular, economic, social, and philosophical, but that they are not religious. As the court in Meyers found, an individual's belief in a "Church of Marijuana" does not make it a religion. Id. At 1498. plaintiff has not shown that his beliefs are religious in nature".

First, my belief has nothing whatsoever to do with a so called "Church of Marijuana" nor have I ever claimed that my beliefs were or are of such title or concept, in fact the whole idea of even naming my religion would be a separatist act and would run contrary to my beliefs. I think the Meyers case might be in error if weighed properly on appeal, but either way I still don't see it's relevance here, and further I don't understand how the Magistrate Judges logic can survive when held against the standards of logic established and applied in the Seeger and Welsh Supreme Court decisions.

Second, if this in error logic of the Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations prevails when he states,

"All of these statements and affirmations indicate that plaintiff's beliefs are secular, economic, social, and philosophical, but that they are not religious."

I can only conclude as any reasonable minded person would, that the Magistrate Judge is concluding that my religious beliefs are not real and do not exist and are something other than what I know and describe them to be, and that thereby I have no access to, or protections afforded to me by the establishment and free exercise of religion clauses contained in the first amendment and that I will never have these unalienable rights if I continue to believe in the ways that I do.

Again, I can only conclude as any reasonable minded person would, that the Defendants posture and statements in this action go to constitute direct government involvement in the business of attempting to get away with the establishment of religion {mine and others}, and now the Magistrate Judge in this action seems to be purposely trying to misrepresent my own descriptions of myself and my individual religious beliefs in an effort to join the Defendants in their clearly unconstitutional efforts. Both efforts of arbitrarily deciding that my religion is not that, are in direct violation of this quoted section from the first amendment of the bill of rights, and is obviously in the opinions of the framers the number one needed protections,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

When the government tries to be in the business of denying my beliefs have any viable link to the first amendment as it applies to the cause of action in this case I am not so surprised because I have come to know and believe that government is in the business of aiding corporations in procuring public dependency on them instead of, or taking the place of god in all our lives, i.e. patents on genetically modified organisms, (as in owning the blueprints of god in life forms), but after hearing the Magistrate Judges statements at the two hearings so far in this action, and now after reading the Magistrate Judges clearly discriminatory, exclusionary, seemingly bigoted attitude towards my long and deeply established religious beliefs and practices, and incorrect conclusions, I could not understand why, so I tried to find an explanation that made sense to me. I ended up finally reading the Magistrate Judges oath and I found that at the end of the oath are the words "so help me god" and I believe this might go to explain the Magistrate Judges lack of understanding or lack of tolerance and or acceptance of individuals that have different kinds of beliefs in god then he does. The Magistrate Judge has sworn an oath to the god of his beliefs and is now possibly judging my beliefs against that kind of bias and I object, and in view of those facts and likely prejudices, I must object to any Judge who has sworn an oath of "so help me god" having the task of somehow judging whether my beliefs in god and religion and my necessary practices of such are real and are what I say and know they are, or not.

If I was claiming to be a believer in, and to be practicing, some publicly known and established organized religion like the Catholic sect of christianity, and I was being judged on the sincerity of my beliefs by way of comparing the way I was living my life against the written law of the religious doctrine suppose to be guiding my lifestyle, I can see how the Magistrate Judges oath might not interfere with his ability to be objective and impartial in his process of analysis and final conclusions in that circumstance, but that is like apples to oranges when compared against his possible unbiased ability to judge the totally different nature of the circumstances in an action like this one.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The first cause of action in my complaint states, "The first amendment to the constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Defendant's actions to deny possessing, planting, and cultivating seeds into plants comes directly in conflict with plaintiff's ability to worship and/or commune with god and does violate the first amendment as applied to plaintiff" .

As the Court knows that I cannot afford an attorney and that I clearly am not competent in the knowledge of the technical rules of this Court and only in my dreams could I put one of these or any of the other documents in this action together in the perfect way the Court rules call for as I still cant make much heads or tails worth of understanding to most of what I read in the rules, which puts me at a seemingly insurmountable disadvantage when it comes to preparing Court documents such as this one and all the others I have prepared and filed in this action, though I have been doing the best I can to learn along the way, I am also hampered by my lack of computer and typing skills, I pray the Court find the ability to reach beyond my ignorance and accept all the materials and documents I have filed in this action and consider them at least on their merit when considering the decision on these objections to the Magistrate Judges Orders and Findings and Recommendations.

I object in total to the Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations, and I again ask and pray that this Court reject the Magistrate Judges Order and Findings and Recommendations, and grant permanent injunctive relief from the Defendant's eminent attack on me as it would apply to this action, or if the Court still needs a trial to grant such, I ask that a trial be scheduled at the Courts soonest opportunity in order to judge the facts in proper dispute according to the RFRA and the RLUIPA which are,

1) does the government truly have a compelling interest to substantially burden my religious freedoms when weighed against their compelling interest to assure my religious freedoms as the question applies to this unique case?

2) If the answer to number 1 is found to be yes, then does government engage in the least restrictive measures in attempting to achieve the prevailing compelling interest and in the imposition of the burden?

There must be some kind of protection for my religious freedoms in terms of my intended actives in question in this case which are clearly non illegal drug related and would have no effect on the governments ability to curb the flow of illegal drugs.

If someone who is honest and comes forward in good faith like I am and have done with this Court, and is intent on committing no crime yet is committed by blood and spirit and belief and knowledge to the mandate of my religious practices that go to no harm to anyone and go to directly achieve the contrary, has no protection from the irreparable harm that awaits in the penalties I would face as the victim of the Defendant's attack, how can this Court just go on about its day and schedule as if all is well in the halls of check and balance and justice?

Something must be done to protect me or this is a clear and present sign that our country and constitution have now truly been irreparably lost to some enemy, foreign or domestic, because in that respect, this case is like a biologist checking for signs of amphibious life as the marker of an ecosystems health and ability to sustain itself.

I pray the Court grant whatever else relief or order it sees necessary in finding the proper and just resolution of this case.

Respectfully Submitted this day, the 6th of March, 2006

DATED: March 6, 2006 Ron Kiczenski