Hemphasis.net Sitemap > Ron Kiczenski: right to worship > Kiczenski files Appeal Brief > Kiczenski files Motion

Hemphasis Site Directory | email Hemphasis

Kiczenski says no court can define his religion or prevent him from practicing it.

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.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Ron Kiczenski
Appellant/Petitioner
 
vs.
 
John Ashcroft et. al.
Defendant's/Appellees/Respondent
CASE No. 06-15709
D.C. No. CV-03-02305-MCE
APPELLANT'S / PETITIONER'S INFORMAL BRIEF
Facts of the case
 
All forms in the web of life are sacred according to my religious knowledge and practice, this is the core fact of this case that goes to my knowledge/"belief" in my religion and my specific religious practices.
 
I have in my protection an endangered life form that exists in the web of life that we as humans are part of and are interdependent to/with/of.
 
The life partner I protect at specific issue in this action comes now in the form of fertile seed of the cannabis/hemp specie.
 
I would have been fulfilling my agrarian responsibility in sowing these seeds for life over the last decade, but for the eminent and looming threat posed by the defendants/appellees.
 
I share the following fact not because it makes a difference to me or my responsibilities to the web of life we are all a part of what "varieties" or "sub varieties" "species" a life form is or isn't, but because it exemplifies the absolute nonsensical natural conflict result that comes from the jurisdictional overreach that the CSA pretends to conquer.
 
Though the sub varieties seed I would have been and soon will be planting is genetically incapable of producing any viable amounts of the chemical "THC" which is at issue in terms of the defendants presumed responsibilities under the auspices of the CSA, the defendants make no legal distinction for a sub varieties life form of cannabis thereby viewing all cannabis "illegal" whether THC producing or not.
 
Because I am protecting and intend to plant up to 100,000 seeds, under the guides of the CSA the defendant considers me defined as a "drug kingpin" punishable by up to life in prison or even the death penalty.
 
I am bound by my "religious" mandate and knowledge of the great spirit/creator/god/the life energy etc… to act and live in ways that are apparently in direct conflict with the intended enforcement of the CSA.
 
Because the CSA in effect seeks to overpower and deny the natural laws of the creator it has not now nor did it ever have any realistic hope of ever being fully enforceable and as such the CSA can only be selectively enforced on people like me who have no choice but to stand and decry it or on people who are easily prey to its counterfeit reality in its effort to feed and maintain whatever the real and as yet undisclosed purposes for this laws creation are.
 
 
The fundamental questions at issue in this case up until the District Court went even further to bring new issues in denying my First Amendment protections to freely establish my own religious knowledge were and still are the follows:
 
Does every individual human own the natural born right by the creator to possess and plant seeds?
 
Can government find a compelling interest enough to effectively take jurisdiction over this fundamental natural born human right and outlaw it and in doing so, doing incalculable irreparable damage to the web of life?
 
Can government outlaw a plant?
 
 
 
The compelling interest question that is the governments burden to answer in this case is not whether or not there is a compelling interest to outlaw or control a certain specie of plant life to the effect of prohibition or a policy of ultimate extinction, but rather can government show a prevailing and reasonable compelling interest to "outlaw" any plant forms in our creators web of life of "intelligent design" which as a FACT we have no choice but to admit is far beyond our full comprehension in its interlocking interdependent relationships and the ultimate purpose collectively of such?
 
The facts of this case can only begin in one place, with the facts of life, the birds and the bees, the most basic and self-evident laws of nature. Without acknowledgement of these laws above all laws, one could never fully understand this case.
 
The one verifiable, undisputable, unalienable fact of our very existence is that we would not exist without the web of life that produced us and continues to keep us alive as the human specie and as individuals.
 
I think it has become imperative to the known facts of this case to review in a more official language these commonly known facts of life/science/biology 101, the law's of nature that can only be attributed to the great spirit/"god"/creator or whatever other insufficiently descriptive label one might put on this energy of life that is simply beyond description in the English language that is necessary in attempting to communicate with this court.
 
The biosphere is the part of a planet's outer shell &emdash; including air, land, surface rocks and water &emdash; within which life occurs, and which biotic processes in turn alter or transform. From the broadest geophysiological point of view, the biosphere is the global ecological system integrating all living beings and their relationships, including their interaction with the elements of the lithosphere (rocks), hydrosphere (water), and atmosphere (air). Our planet Earth's biosphere is generally thought to have evolved, beginning through a process of biogenesis or biopoesis, at least some 3.5 billion years ago.
 
The term "biosphere" was coined by geologist Eduard Suess in 1875. While this concept has a geological origin, it is an indication of the impact of both Darwin and Maury on the earth sciences. The biosphere's ecological context comes from the 1920s (see Vladimir I. Vernadsky), preceding the 1935 introduction of the term "ecosystem" by Sir Arthur Tansley (see ecology history). Vernadsky defined ecology as the science of the biosphere. It is an interdisciplinary concept for integrating astronomy, geophysics, meteorology, biogeography, evolution, geology, geochemistry, hydrology and, generally speaking, all life and earth sciences. Some might prefer the word ecosphere, coined in the 1960s, as all encompassing of both biological and physical components of the planet.
 
*Gaia's biosphere: The concept that the biosphere is itself a living organism, either actually or metaphorically, is known* as Gaia theory.

 

What is Biodiversity?
 
"A definition of biodiversity that is altogether simple, comprehensive, and fully operational ... is unlikely to be found." (Noss, 1990) Listed below are several different definitions used by resource managers and ecologists. Together, they should allow you to develop an understanding of the broad concept of biodiversity."
 
U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, "Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity," 1987:
"Biological diversity is the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. Diversity can be defined as the number of different items and their relative frequency. For biological diversity, these items are organized at many levels, ranging from complete ecosystems to the chemical structures that are the molecular basis of heredity. Thus, the term encompasses different ecosystems, species, genes, and their relative abundance."
 
"Biological diversity, simply stated, is the diversity of life...As defined in the proposed US Congressional Biodiversity Act, HR1268 (1990), "biological diversity means the full range of variety and variability within and among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur, and encompasses ecosystem or community diversity, species diversity, and genetic diversity."
 
Keystone Center, "Final Consensus Report of the Keystone Policy Dialogue on Biological Diversity on Federal Lands," 1991:
"In the simplest of terms, biological diversity is the variety of life and its processes; and it includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur."
 
" Because biological diversity is so complex, and much of it is hidden from our view, unknown, or both, it is necessary to establish means of addressing its distinct and measurable parts. Most basic of these is genetic variation. Genetic variation within and between populations of species affects their physical characteristics, viability, productivity, resilience to stress, and adaptability to change. "
 
"A second, more easily recognized aspect of biological diversity is distinct species. Some species, such as American elk, rainbow trout, and ponderosa pine are plentiful. Others such as the red cockaded woodpecker, Siler's pincushion cactus, or grizzly bear, have populations that are much reduced or may even face extinction. Conserving biological diversity includes perpetuating native species in numbers and distributions that provide a high likelihood of continued existence."
 
"Associations of species are a third element of biological diversity. These associations are often called biological communities, usually recognized as distinct stands, patches, or sites, such as old-growth forests, riparian areas, or wetlands. Communities form the biotic parts of ecosystems. The variety of species in an ecosystem is a function of its structural and functional characteristics and the diversity of its ecological processes, and the physical environment."
 
"Finally, at large geographic scales -- from watersheds to the entire biosphere -- biological diversity includes variety in the kinds of ecosystems, their patterns, and linkages across regional landscapes. It is from these large, regional landscapes, such as the Southern Appalachian Highlands, Sierra Nevada, and Northern Continental Divide, that people must derive sustainable yields of resources while perpetuating multiple intact examples of biologically diverse ecosystems."
 
"This hierarchy of the parts and processes of biological diversity is admittedly artificial, and it has a distinct human context. However, it provides a focus for a concept that is infinitely varied and dynamic and that must be addressed in light of the full spectrum of human needs and aspirations."
 

"Edward Grumbine, "Ghost Bears: Exploring the Biodiversity Crisis," 1993:

 

"There is much more to biodiversity than the numbers of species and kinds of ecosystems. Ecologist Jerry Franklin portrays ecosystems as having three primary attributes: composition, structure, and function."

 
"Ecosystem components are the inhabiting species in all their variety and richness. Many different species, gene-pool abundance, and unique populations are what most people think of when they hear the term "biodiversity". But there is much more to consider."
 
"Ecosystem structure refers to the physical patterns of life forms from the individual physiognomy of a thick-barked Douglas-fir to the vertical layers of vegetation from delicate herbs to tree canopies within a single forest stand. An ecosystem dominated by old, tall trees has a different structure than one comprised of short, quaking aspen. And there is more structure in a multilayered forest (herbs, shrubs, young trees, canopy trees) than in a single sagebrush grassland, prairie, or salt marsh..."
 
"Ecosystem functions are hard to see in action. "You can't hug a biogeochemical cycle," says one ecologist. But without the part of the carbon cycle where small invertebrates, fungi, and microorganisms work to break down wood fiber, the downed logs in an ancient forest would never decay. Natural disturbances also play a role. Wildfires release nutrients to the soil, weed out weak trees, and reset the successional clock. The energy of falling water creates spawning beds for salmon even while it carves a mountain's bones. Plants breathe oxygen into the atmosphere. Ecological processes create landscapes and diverse environmental conditions out of life itself.
 
"Ecosystem components, structures, and functions are all interdependent. To understand biodiversity, one has to think like a mountain and consider not only the biotic elements of plants, animals, and other living beings, but also the patterns and processes that shape volcanoes and forests."
 
"Reed Noss, "Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchial Approach," Conservation Biology 4(4):355-364. 1990:
"Biodiversity is not simply the number of genes, species, ecosystems, or any other group of things in a defined area...A definition of biodiversity that is altogether simple, comprehensive, and fully operational (i.e. responsive to real- life management and regulatory questions) is unlikely to be found. More useful than a definition, perhaps, would be a characterization of biodiversity that identifies the major components at several levels of organization."
 
"...(C)omposition, structure, and function...determine, and in fact constitute, the biodiversity of an area. Composition has to do with the identity and variety of elements in a collection, and includes species lists and measures of species diversity and genetic diversity. Structure is the physical organization or pattern of a system, from habitat complexity as measured within communities to the pattern of patches and other elements at a landscape scale. Function involves ecological and evolutionary processes, including gene flow, disturbances, and nutrient cycling."
 
"In general terms an ecological system can be thought of as an assemblage of organisms (plant, animal and other living organisms&emdash;also referred to as a biotic community or biocoenosis) living together with their environment (or biotope), functioning as a loose unit. That is, a dynamic and complex whole, interacting as an "ecological unit." The size and scale of an ecosystem can vary widely. It may be a whole forest, a community of bacteria and algae in a drop of water, or even the geobiosphere itself."
 
Five members of the David Suzuki Foundation team wrote the following Declaration of Interdependence in 1992 for the United Nations' Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
 
In 2001, Finnish composer Pehr Henrik Nordgren wrote his Symphony no. 6 "Interdependence" based on the declaration, which also served as lyrics to the piece. It was performed for the first time in Sendai, Japan in December, 2001.
"This We Know"
"We are the earth, through the plants and animals that nourish us.
We are the rains and the oceans that flow through our veins.
We are the breath of the forests of the land, and the plants of the sea.
We are human animals, related to all other life as descendants of the firstborn cell.
We share with these kin a common history, written in our genes.
We share a common present, filled with uncertainty.
And we share a common future, as yet untold.
We humans are but one of thirty million species weaving the thin layer of life enveloping the world.
The stability of communities of living things depends upon this diversity.
Linked in that web, we are interconnected -- using, cleansing, sharing and replenishing the fundamental elements of life.
Our home, planet Earth, is finite; all life shares its resources and the energy from the sun, and therefore has limits to growth.
For the first time, we have touched those limits.
When we compromise the air, the water, the soil and the variety of life, we steal from the endless future to serve the fleeting present."
 
 
I went as far as I know how in describing all of the above basic foundational facts of this case in my own words in the original complaint of November 4, 2003 to the Eastern District Court and in the every other document I filed where it seemed appropriate to include such in thus far on the record in this case including in the "terminated" requests for Temporary Restraining Order's, "TRO's" and their 50 attached exhibits. I also conveyed these fundamental facts as best I could in the second hearing for summary judgment.
 
Neither the defendants nor the District Court has ever held these facts in dispute and as I understand the due process these facts would have been at issue in trial if they had been in question whatsoever.
 
The defendants claim to have congressionally authorized authority under the auspices of the Controlled Substances Act to outlaw and or prohibit in general naturally occurring forms of life that are part of the commons that make up the web of life that we are literally made of and continue to depend on for our very existence in a fragile incomprehensible equation that some now call "intelligent design" and which adds up to the interdependent, interlocked, self evident and unalienable relationship/natural laws human kind are bound to above all laws by the nature of our very existence, and as I stated previously, these law's can only be attributed to the great spirit/"god"/creator or whatever other insufficiently descriptive label one might put on this energy of life that is simply beyond description in the English language that is necessary in attempting to communicate with this court.
 
Furthermore by the same claimed authority within the CSA as stated above, the defendants also seek to deny my personal responsibility to engage the natural born terms of my existence in the fragile incomprehensible equation that some now call "intelligent design" and which adds up to the interdependent, interlocked, self evident and unalienable relationship/natural laws human kind is bound to above all law by the nature of our very existence, and as I stated previously, these law's can only be attributed to the great spirit/"god"/creator or whatever other insufficiently descriptive label one might put on this energy of life that is simply beyond description in the English language that is necessary in attempting to communicate with this court as also stated above.
 
These defendants have long been exercising this purported authority throughout the U.S.A. and the world in direct conflict with the very terms of our in common existence with respect to the above stated foundational facts of this case.
 
Even with no other facts considered, the Ninth Amendment in itself as it states,
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." , should have naturally been sufficient in restricting and precluding government from ever engaging this far over reaching claimed authority to threaten the very terms of our in common existence with laws such as the CSA as it applies to this case.
 
The Ninth Amendment is listed specifically in "The Bill of Rights" which implies that it is within the peoples reach in adjudicating cases and controversy, and if it has any meaning whatsoever it must include if not begin with the protection of these commons of our natural world to which we are all individually and collectively bound in interdependency with for our very existence.
 
By the same logic the Ninth Amendment should at the very least be used as the district Magistrate Judge explained in his order of December 9, 2004.
 
The Magistrate explained that case law has established the Ninth Amendment can only be used as a tool for understanding or interpreting the rest of the constitution and not to be reached for specifically in seeking specific rights. Thereby in any reasonable mind it should be concluded that there is nothing in the constitution that would go to give government the jurisdictional authority to outlaw the planting of seeds by humans whatsoever.
 
The Ninth Amendment can only be interpreted to be keeping government restricted from attacking our individual and naturally unalienable retained rights at the roots of each human's very existence without exception, the act of planting any seed is a natural born right "retained by the people".
 
The inconvenient truths of the damage to the biospheric equation of the web of Earth life that has already been sustained in every aspect of human and other life from the far reaching effects of the CSA are irreversible and immeasurable at our current technological abilities, yet they are clearly evident as I have stated in my own words in the original complaint of November 4, 2003 to the Eastern District Court and in the every other document I have filed where it seemed appropriate to include such in thus far on the record in this case including in the "terminated" requests for Temporary Restraining Order's, "TRO's" and their 50 attached exhibits. I also conveyed these fundamental facts as best I could in the second hearing for summary judgment.
 
Neither the defendants nor the District Court has ever held these facts that go to the CSA consequences to the web of life in dispute, in fact even the President of the United States himself has now admitted that "we are addicted to oil" and as I understand the due process, these facts would have been at issue in trial if they had been in question whatsoever.
 
 
What I asked the District Court to do
 
I filed in the District Court asking for a TRO as well as for permanent injunctive relief from the eminent and looming attack from enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act on me by the defendant's as they and their agents have threatened and just as they have attacked me in the past or worse.
 
I asked the District Court to find the CSA unconstitutional as it applies to this case.
 
I asked the District Court to recognize that the only constitutional authority that prevails in this case is the constitutionally outlined restrictions on government from ever crossing the jurisdictional line's at issue in this case.
 
 
The claims I raised at the District Court
 
The foremost and fundamental claim I have raised at the District Court is that the CSA at the roots of its concept of implementation is not constitutional as it applies to this case, and in the language of the court, has been improperly prescribed by congress in overreaching its own constitutionally prescribed congressional responsibilities and restrictions thereof.
 
As I stated above, the Ninth Amendment in itself as it states,
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." , should have naturally been sufficient in restricting and precluding government from ever engaging this far over reaching claimed authority to threaten the very terms of our in common existence with laws such as the CSA as it applies to this case.
 
The Ninth Amendment is listed specifically in "The Bill of Rights" which implies that it is within the peoples reach in adjudicating cases and controversy, and if it has any meaning whatsoever it must include if not begin with the protection of these commons of our natural world to which we are all individually and collectively bound in interdependency with for our very existence.
 
By the same logic the Ninth Amendment should at the very least be used as the district Magistrate Judge explained in his order of December 9, 2004.
 
The Magistrate explained that case law has established the Ninth Amendment can only be used as a tool for understanding or interpreting the rest of the constitution and not to be reached for specifically in seeking specific rights. Thereby in any reasonable mind it should be concluded that there is nothing in the constitution that would go to give government the jurisdictional authority to outlaw the planting of seeds by humans whatsoever.
 
The Ninth Amendment can only be interpreted to be keeping government restricted from attacking our individual and naturally unalienable retained rights at the roots of each human's very existence without exception, the act of planting any seed is a natural born right "retained by the people".
 
The inconvenient truths of the damage to the biospheric equation of the web of Earth life that has already been sustained in every aspect of human and other life from the far reaching effects of the CSA are irreversible and immeasurable at our current technological abilities, yet they are clearly evident as I have stated in my own words in the original complaint of November 4, 2003 to the Eastern District Court and in the every other document I have filed where it seemed appropriate to include such in thus far on the record in this case including in the "terminated" requests for Temporary Restraining Order's, "TRO's" and their 50 attached exhibits. I also conveyed these fundamental facts as best I could in the second hearing for summary judgment.
 
I have also raised to the District Court that the CSA as it applies to this case is in direct conflict with the very core principals/fundamentals of my knowledge of and direct instructions from the great spirit/creator/god on how I am mandated by such to live my life and as such is in fundamental violation of my First Amendment religious freedoms rights/protections.
 
I also brought to the District Court that the CSA strikes nothing less than an abomination at the heart of not only my personal religion, but strikes the same death nail blow at the heart of all known religions, not the least of which are all sects of Christianity as the following bible quotes clearly display:
 
Ezekiel 34/29: "And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land."
 
"Revelation 22:14: "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life,
and may enter in through the gates into the city."
 
Genesis 1:29 "The New American Standard Translation.": "Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you."
 
Genesis 1:29,"The Authorized Version": "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."
 
Timothy 4:1-4. "The New American Standard Translation." :
4:1 "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
4:2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
4:3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
4:4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude;"
 
Genesis 1:11: "God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."
 
Genesis 1:12: "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
 
Genesis 2:7 8: "the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden and there he put the man whom he had formed."
 
Genesis 2:15, : "The Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."
 
Genesis 2:16: "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;"
 
Genesis 1:30: "To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;"
 
Genesis 1:31: "God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, a sixth day."
 
 
How can one claim to be a true Christian yet supports and even help to implement the CSA which is a clear and present abomination to the very core writings of the bible and the unmistakably clear doctrine they lay out?
 
I suggest that by the bible terms that I just quoted, it may be that a true Christian would necessarily have to answer that those who claim to be Christian yet support the CSA in its effort to in fact reject and destroy the garden are sadly what this quote speaks to:
 
Timothy 4:1-4.
"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth."
 
Imagine what a conflict this must present to a DEA agent that claims to be a Christian yet has sworn an oath with the words "so help me god" to uphold the CSA in effect seeking to reject, abominate and utterly destroy gods garden, gods "intelligent design" and thereby destroying all of us.
 
 
 
SELF-SUFFICIENT MONASTARIES:
 
The first Christian monastery was founded by St. Anthony in El Faiyum, northern Egypt, in 305AD. He made a small enclosed garden with a water supply to provide the basic necessities. Monastic cultivation became so firmly established that when St. Benedict founded the Benedictine order at Monte Cassino in Italy in 540AD, gardening was second only to prayer in the monastic regime. Expanding on St. Jerome's instructions a century earlier to "hoe your ground, set out cabbages…," he specified in the Regula Monachorum &endash; the foundation of monastic rule to this day &endash; that vegetables, fruit, grapes, herbs, dye plants, and aromatics for incense should be grown. A plan drawn up in the ninth century at St. Gall, a Swiss Benedictine monastery, shows a rectangular garden with 16 beds of "herbs both beautiful and health-giving," such as sage (Salvia spp.) and rosemary, and a larger garden with 18 beds of vegetables and herbs. Monasteries were largely self-sufficient in produce, placing special emphasis on herbs to heal the sick.
 
Outside of the clear and present original garden/biosphere we call earth that is meant for us all to share according to need and is clearly not meant for us to abominate and destroy as the CSA tricks folks into doing, some of the earliest herb gardens are thought to have been planted about 4000 years ago in Egypt. Herb growing was often associated with temples, which required herbs and sacred flowers for daily worship and ritual.
 
The present-day concept of an herb garden (an open area with divisions for different kinds of herbs) has developed largely from ancient Egyptian, Christian, and Islamic religious traditions.
 
As for my personal religion, it necessarily includes everyone and every naturally occurring life that exists and necessarily cannot discriminate because even without the minutest invisible to the human eye bit of it, it could not exist.
 
I have explained to the District Court in every way I know how that my religious knowledge and practices are rooted in commonality with every religion and or spiritual belief I know of even from the dawn of humankind and are in no way odd or out of the ordinary in regards to the natural gifts we inherit and are a part of as a matter of birth and in the different ways and responsibilities folks are guided by their particular doctrines to share and use those god given commonalities.
 
My "religion" necessarily cannot and will not be named because such a label goes to promote separation and would be in direct conflict with the fundamental basics of the "doctrine" I am bound by.
 
I can offer the following to aid the court in better understanding my own "religion" as the following description of "beliefs" does in part reflect my knowledge and practices.
 
"Animism (from animus, or anima, mind or soul), originally means the doctrine of spiritual beings. It is often extended to include the belief that personalized, supernatural beings (or souls) endowed with reason, intelligence and volition inhabit ordinary objects as well as animate beings, and govern their existence (pantheism or animatism). More simply, the belief is that "everything is alive", "everything is conscious" or "everything has a soul". It has been further extended to mean a belief that the world is a community of living persons, only some of whom are human. It also refers to the culture or philosophy which these types of Animists live by, that is, to attempt to relate respectfully with the persons (human, rock, plant, animal, bird, ancestral, etc.) who are also members of the wider community of life. Today Animists live in significant numbers in countries such as Zambia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, the Republic of Guinea Bissau, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Canada, Russia, Sweden, Thailand, and the United States."
 
Dr. E. B. Tylor, makes the foundation of all religion animistic. Animism is commonly described as the most primitive form of religion.
 
The "scriptures" of my religion can be found anywhere the truth of love, peace, harmony, oneness, equality, natural law, the web of life and the life that make's it and the true reality of let live and you to shall live are written about because these are the truths of the great spirit/life energy.
 
The following might also aid the Court in understanding not only some of the fundamental realities of my religion, but it also goes to aid the Court in understanding the fundamentals of the mission of my religious life that I am bound to by my very existence and that the great spirit of life/creator has very specifically and unavoidably put in my care.
 
I have been commanded to return and tend to the garden that is us all and is "god".
 
I have also been specifically instructed by the great spirit of life/creator/god to engage this civil action that can get us back to who we all are if we just let it.
 
"We are stardust
Billion year old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devils bargain
And weve got to get ourselves
Back to the garden"
Joni Mitchell, Woodstock.
 
If we understand that all the ecosystems within ecosystems and on and on that make up the biospheric mother ecosystem that everything on earth is a collective part of, then it is easy to see how the following definition of the term "Native species" in the broader sense applies to all life on earth:
(g) "Native species" means, with respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem." - Executive Order 13112.
 
To my religion and to the collective web of life of this garden planet earth, the CSA can only be viewed in the same light that government categorizes a thing they call "Invasive species" as defined in the same document, Executive Order 13112:
(f) "Invasive species" means an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health."
 
The Pandora's box of natural law jurisdiction that government has charged into like a bind bull in a china shop by way of the CSA has far reaching consequences beyond the clear and present attack on the web of "intelligent design" and the lost central renewable resource of the one plant that has historically been most responsible for sustaining human evolution for thousands of years and the one plant that could have helped to keep us from the current United States and world wide afflictions of petroleum dependency, cancer, hunger and malnutrition, deforestation, mass specie's extinctions and even global warming.
 
The consequences to us all that are stemming from the root of the CSA's breach of unreachable natural law jurisdiction that constitutes obvious crimes against humanity Even lays the foundation for the further unnatural manipulation and destruction of the shared commons in the creators' web of "intelligent design" through the clearly counterfeit reality of the "private ownership" of life forms through the patenting of genetically modified organisms.
 
The ability to outlaw plants and planting seeds goes hand in hand with the ability/jurisdiction to own the blueprints of life as is clearly shown in this news clip:
 
8) Iraqi farmers threatened by Bremer's mandates (9 - 15, 2005, the Boston Phoenix)
 
"Historians believe it was in the "fertile crescent" of Mesopotamia, where Iraq now lies, that humans first learned to farm. "It is here, in around 8500 or 8000 BC, that mankind first domesticated wheat, here that agriculture was born," wrote Jeremy Smith in the Ecologist. This entire time, "Iraqi farmers have been naturally selecting wheat varieties that work best with their climate ... and cross-pollinated them with others with different strengths.
 
"The US, however, has decided that, despite 10,000 years of practice, Iraqis don't know what wheat works best in their own conditions."
 
Smith was referring to Order 81, one of 100 directives penned by L. Paul Bremer III, the US administrator in Iraq, and left as a legacy by the American government when it transferred operations to interim Iraqi authorities. The regulation sets criteria for the patenting of seeds that can be met only by multinational companies like Monsanto or Syngenta, and it grants the patent holder exclusive rights over every aspect of all plant products yielded by those seeds. Because of naturally occurring cross-pollination, the new scheme effectively launches a process whereby Iraqi farmers will soon have to purchase their seeds rather than using seeds saved from their own crops or bought at the local market.
 
Native varieties will be replaced by foreign &emdash; and genetically engineered &emdash; seeds, and Iraqi agriculture will become more vulnerable to disease as biological diversity is lost.
 
Texas A&M University, which brags that its agriculture program is a "world leader" in the use of biotechnology, has already embarked on a $107 million project to "re-educate" Iraqi farmers to grow industrial-size harvests, for export, using American seeds.
 
And anyone who's ever paid attention to how this has worked elsewhere in the global South knows what comes next: farmers will lose their land, and the country will lose its ability to feed itself, engendering poverty and dependency."
 
The next step in the slippery slope will be that corporations will patent every life form they can while seeking to outlaw all relative naturally occurring varieties by way of the rational that their privately owned species varieties are protected by law and that government would then be obligated to protect "their product" from genetic damage from the cross pollination threat of the naturally occurring species varieties. I have no doubt that the road we are collectively on will lead corporations right to being in the drivers seat of human DNA eventually.
 
I have presented the District Court with ample statements and supporting exhibits of the eminent collective self destruction that is automatically triggered by rejecting and destroying the garden and that it is even happening as this case adjudicates.
 
I have also presented the District Court with ample statements and supporting exhibits of the long and exhaustive history of attempts I have made to remedy this impossible burden on the way that I must live according to "god" and how the CSA and its continued and growing threat effects me and my family as nothing less then murder by degrees and religious persecution and has done and continues to do irreparable harm.
 
 
What issues I am raising on appeal?
 
I am here appealing every decision, order, ruling or judgment that happened in this case leading to and including the final judgment at the District Court save two which are the proper and correct ruling's that I do have standing and that I do meet the case and controversy standards etc, required by the Ninth Circuit for proceeding in a civil suit for permanent injunctive relief, and the in hearing ruling (transcripts 07-28-05) that this case does properly have RFRA applicability.
 
THE COURT: "All right. Well, here's why, Mr. Kiczenski, and we'll have RIFRA part of the case, then, but
here's why it's important."
 
First and foremost the final judgment is clearly wrong and was built on a foundation of error's in logic and law beginning with the denial of my request for a TRO and ending with the Magistrates Judges Order on Findings and Recommendations that the final judgment adopts as exemplified in this from the 07-28-05 hearing where the following statement is suppose to somehow take the place of due process I guess so we can all just call it a day:
 
THE COURT: "Yeah. And sometimes you win with them, and sometimes you lose. There's a lot of things I disagree with that the government does. There's a lot of decisions, court decisions I don't agree with. But you know, that's -- they don't agree with me, and so we just get along. They're the final authority, and I agree with them ultimately. I have to follow what they say."
 
The courts ultimate duty is to uphold the constitution in the interest of representing the people, not just to say that government is: "the final authority, and I agree with them ultimately. I have to follow what they say.",
 
The District Court was in fundamental error in disregarding the substantive constitutional claim's of my request for summary judgment and thereby ruled in error to misconstrue it as merely an opposition to defendants motion. My fundamental constitutional claim is that the CSA was not properly prescribed and that the jurisdiction over the commons it seeks to capture is beyond state or federal reach and goes to natural law and as such is retained by the people as it applies to this case, yet by this quote from the 07-28-2005 hearing it is clear that the District Court does not even ask itself the question:
 
THE COURT: "And so, if you proceed under the First Amendment, number one, even if I find that you have a legitimate faith with a tenant, you're going to lose under the First Amendment because Congress has validly proscribed the use of hemp/marijuana as a controlled substance."
 
I am appealing The District Courts error in interpretation and denial of the RLUIPA applicability to this cased based solely on an unrealistic definition of the term "land use regulation".
 
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.
 
The CSA effects me in its application, just as a zoning or landmarking law would as such in that it would or does limit or restrict my use or development of my land for my religious practices including the building of my "church"/garden. I believe this law in its effect as it applies to this case is a law that Congress meant exactly to refer to when they added ",or the application of such a law,".
 
The CSA and its tentacles of mimicking language state laws it fuels by way of funding go to fill any void that would otherwise be filled by zoning or landmarking law's state or federal. In other words because these CSA laws exist, there is no zoning or landmarking laws in regards to this plant because there is clearly no need because it would be moot or redundant.
 
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.
SUBSTANTIAL BURDENS-
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.
 
I am appealing the District Courts error in interpretation of the courts responsibilities according to RFRA and the way it is to be applied.
 
The RFRA calls for a test of sincerity and the District Court never held the sincerity of my "belief" in my religion at issue whatsoever as this quote from the 07-28-2005 hearing goes to show:
 
THE COURT: "And so -- now, if it had been shown to me that this was more than your life's philosophy, and I know your life's philosophy is your religion to you."
 
The RFRA does not give any authority to rename my religion as "other then religious" and thereby effectively un-establishing my religion just enough to put me out of reach of both the RFRA and the constitution in terms of the First Amendment.
 
I am appealing the rulings on the RLUIPA and the RFRA applicability also in that I have met all my burdens according to both laws which thereby puts the burden back on the defendants to prove a compelling interest which they have completely failed to do as the record clearly indicates. This should have also clearly resulted in summary judgment in my favor.
 
The following quote from the 07-28-2005 hearing goes to show the lack of the courts proper application or RFRA or RLUIPA specifically in regards to the check and balance that both laws provide by way of the required burdens on both sides:
 
THE COURT:"There could be somebody of your same mindset that would say, look, I want 10 dogs and 3 cats at my house, and even though the zoning laws proscribe that, it's part of my communion with god, and I want 10 cats -- I'm sorry, 10 dogs and 3 cats. And so you can see where this would go, that everyone could ultimately say, you know, I'll do what I want, and it's because everything I do in every way, shape, or form everyday is part of my religion, I can do anything I want to do, regardless of whether it's lawful or not, and that's the problem I have with your case."
 
I am appealing the District Courts rejection of the supplement I filed on August 1, 2005, four days post the hearing of July 28, 2005 which was not even ruled on until February 24, 2006. The District Court dismissed the supplement as "untimely".
 
I am appealing that the TRO request should have been granted because I did and still do meet all the standards for warranting such. Also I have asked the district court numerous times to amend my original complaint to include the TRO attached exhibits so as to be on the record of this case to which the District Court refused to even respond. The documents in question are essential to the information needed to understand the full scope of necessity for this action.
 
I am appealing to this Court that the Magistrate Judge was wholly in error in his abandonment of the applicability of the Ninth Amendment to this case.
 
The Ninth Amendment should be the most pivotal factor that should have been used for summary judgment in my favor and should have never been discounted as a claim or as a tool for understanding and coming to the proper judgment in this case.
 
Further more I believe the Magistrate Judge to be in error in his explanation for how the Ninth Amendment is to be used or not used by the courts in claims and adjudication of such. The following quote restated from above goes clearly to show that not only did the District Court not use the Ninth Amendment as the Magistrate himself is to be used, but that the whole constitution takes a back seat to the whims of government in the view of the court:
 
"THE COURT: Yeah. And sometimes you win with them, and sometimes you lose. There's a lot of things I disagree with that the government does. There's a lot of decisions, court decisions I don't agree with. But you know, that's -- they don't agree with me, and so we just get along. They're the final authority, and I agree with them ultimately. I have to follow what they say."
 
If the Ninth Amendment was meant as just a tool for judges to use in there interpretation or understanding of the rest of the constitution, then it is only reasonable to conclude that it would not be listed specifically as an Amendment on the list of the bill of rights.
 
The bill of rights was clearly written as much for the reach of the people as it was for a judge's responsibility of interpretation.
 
If the Ninth amendment was meant only as a tool to be reached for exclusively by judges whenever the whim might strike them, it would clearly be a separate constitutional amendment that is not on the list of the peoples bill of rights and I'm quite certain it would have by every stretch of a reasonable imagination been clearly disclaimed as such.
 
I am also appealing the District Courts attempt to violate my First Amendment right to establish my own religion. In this effort the Court has conveniently renamed my religion as "other than religious", thereby extinguishing my ability to reach for equal protection under the First Amendment and leaving me in a legal black hole of no possible hope ever to access my equal protection unless I change my religion to what the Court wants it to be as stated in this quote from the 07-28-2005 hearing:
 
THE COURT: "It's difficult for me to sit up here and say, oh, what you say is not a religion, it's a life's philosophy. I ultimately have to make that determination, because it's a very difficult question for the courts to say that I can look at you and say, ah, your religion, I don't believe in it, so it's not going to be part of this case."
 
The District Courts final judgment reflects exactly the reasoning of the quote above and effects me, my family and anyone else who might live a religion such as mine as nothing short of a kind of religious cleansing and precludes us from ever having any equal access to our rightful and unalienable First Amendment protections.
 
In the hearing for the defendants second or retry motion for summary judgment it was made clear to me by the Magistrate Judge that I only had a case somehow if I would say that cannabis is sacred above all life in my "religion" and that my "religious" activities are built around it as this quote from the 07-28-2005 hearings describes:
 
THE COURT: "But from your paper, growing brussel sprouts is every bit as important as hemp, or broccoli is every bit as important as hemp, and you're again nodding in affirmation, and so therefore I can't find that marijuana is absolutely a tenant, or essential if you will, or a very important part, if I could bring it down a little bit, to the practice of your philosophy/religion."
 
To ever make such a discriminatory statement or act in such a separatist way would be directly contrary to the very core doctrine of my "religion" and mandate of my "religious" or creator intended ways of life.
 
Though it is true that out side of the great infinite church of all that exists, my garden serves as my immediate "church" in my "religious" practices, and that cannabis is the most egregiously noticeable missing part of the equation in terms of sustaining human life, and that because of that, cannabis can be viewed as the cornerstone to my garden/church, this does not mean that I can all of the sudden abandon the fact that in my own knowledge that all life is equally sacred and is born of equally relevant purpose and responsibility to the "creator" and or the rest of creation.
 
The Magistrate then continued on to use my true held religious knowledge and mandates as if they were some sort of tool at his disposal to help shield the government from the burden of answering to the central compelling interest question in this case as he proceeded using this basis for discriminating against me specifically in his hearing dialog as well as in his final order on the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
 
 
Did I present all these issues to the District Court?
 
I did raise all the stated issues at the District Court in writing and in oral arguments.
 
 
 
What law supports these issues on appeal?
 
First and foremost above all the laws that go to support this case are the natural laws of the great spirit/creator/"god".
 
The laws of nature are the laws that lay out the bottom line terms of our existence and continued existence.
 
The creators laws trump all others by fact of the in common and unchangeable by humans facts of the realities of life and our earth and how it gave birth to us and how it continues to sustain our existence through the interdependent web of all life and elements that naturally exist, without exception even if beyond our immediate understanding.
 
Secondly is of course the Ninth Amendment which clearly exists to make sure the laws of nature that for us as humans can be equated to being the unalienable human rights all humans are naturally born into are retained by the people far and away beyond ant state or federal government reach.
 
Thirdly the First Amendment establishment and exercise thereof clause's clearly should support every aspect of all my claims.
 
The cases of Seeger and Welsh are essential case law foundation going to support this case's First Amendment claim.
 
The Fourteenth Amendment should support my right to equal protection under all the laws that go to support my claims.
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted by Ron Kiczenski
June 13, 2006.
 

Next document in case: Kiczenski files Motion                                Back to Kiczenski case outline

Hemphasis Home | Hemphasis Site Directory | email Hemphasis