-
- Filed 1 August
2005
-
-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
-
|
- RON KICZENSKI,
- Plaintiff,
-
- v.
-
-
- JOHN ASHCROFT, et al.,
- Defendants
|
CIV S-03-2305-MCE-GGH-PS
SUPPLEMENT/AFFIDAVIT OFFERED IN
SUPPORT OF PLANTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND
THE ACOMPANYING MEMORANDOM ON POINTS AND AUTHORITIES,
HEARD ON JULY 28, 2005 |
-
-
INTRODUCTION AND
EXPLAINATION FOR
SUPPLEMENT/AFFIDAVIT
-
- 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.
-
- HOW THIS CASE GOES TO
"RLUIPA"
-
- 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;
-
- 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.
- (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.
-
- " (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."
-
- 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;
-
- "THE THREAT OF PLANT PATHOGENS AS
WEAPONS AGAINST U.S. CROPS",
-
- And to the bottom of page 163,
under the heading, "DRUG CONTROL
PROGRAM",
- And the section heading
immediately fallowing that
called,
- "WHY TARGET CROPS WITH PLANT
PATHOGENS?".
-
- 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.
-
- "SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS
EXERCISE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS.
- (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.
-
-
- DEFENDANTS CENTRAL ARGUMENT FAILS
ON ITS FACE
-
- 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.
|
-
|
|