Religious Marijuana will Soon be Federally Legal

IACHR (Human Rights Court) Petition Number
#P-2098-17

Dallas DEA Case
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txndce/3:2017cv00734/285847

Denver DEA Case
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/colorado/codce/1:2018cv00387/177813

Denver NSA Case
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/colorado/codce/1:2018cv00388/177814

So, just for an update for anyone wondering about the DEA Case.

For the Dallas one, which has been open since March 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge responded saying "You can't sue the DEA directly, you have to sue an agent" and usually a Federal District Judge will listen to the Magistrate, but this Judge seems to be taking his time because after the Magistrate gave his recommendation, I added Demetra Ashley to the Lawsuit, then I cited at least 3 Cases where the DEA is the listed Defendant. And the Magistrate took from March 2017, to February 2018 to make a 3 page Statement with 3 case Citations that boiled down to "You can't sue the DEA, you have to sue an agent"; and it is pretty clear if you read his recommendation and then read the initial filing I made (about 10 pages of writing and 70 pages of evidence) you can see that the Magistrate did not even read the lawsuit, but instead was rushed to answer in February 2018 (almost a year after initial Filing) because I started filing in February 2018 asking them to show Cause. And I have seen a Magistrate Judge take 2 Weeks, and write up a 15 page argument to say "You don't have standing" in about 15 different ways. And after that (2016) I filed an Administrative Claim with the DEA, then I later (Oct 2017) spoke to the DoJ ODLP Pharmaceutical Company Registration Hotline Email and recieved from them the DEA RFRA Controlled Substances Act Exemption Guidelines; and sent in a Petition as per their Guidelines, which they have failed to respond to.

So I have Standing Now, and the new Magistrate did not argue that I do not have standing, he said "You can't sue the DEA Directly" so again, I cited 3 Cases where the DEA is the main Defendant, and then added Demetra Ashley (A DEA Agent) to the Case as well.

So now, I assume that because I made the argument that the Magistrate had not read my Case, then added to the Case to make the Magistrate's Points Mute; I believe that the Federal District Judge is actually taking the time to read the Case now and that is why he is taking so long, he should have responded 3 weeks ago, and if he were going to follow the Magistrate's Advice, he probably would have dismissed this case 3 weeks ago. But he is not taking his advice, it is just sitting there, so I assume he is reading (the whole thing might be 600+ pages from Initial Filing, Additional Attachments and Feb 2018 Filings).

But, I am not going to give this Judge the Benefit of the Doubt yet because I have not seen him file a single thing on this case, so I sent in a Request for a Writ of Mandamus from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which does 2 things. Firstly, it sets up this Case for Appeal and establishes that I am not doing this using Colorado State Law, but Federal Law. The 5th Circuit is Texas and Louisiana, and is the most Conservative Circuit Bench in America, which is what I want for this case, to prove that this is not a Liberal State Marijuana Issue, it is a Religious and Federal Issue. And this prepares the Case for Appeal as well, as this will be the Court that takes the Appeal, and they can see already that there are problems going on with the Lower Court.

Usually, in a Writ of Mandamus you would ask for a Judge to stay the order of a lower Judge until x happens, or vacate a decision with x as evidence that it was unconstitutional or otherwise inappropriate for the Judge to make. But that is not even what I am saying, I am just asking them to do their Jobs and move forward with this case and send out Summons, so its almost impossible for the 5th Circuit court to deny the request.

So, in the next week or 2, the Federal Judge in Dallas will finish reading, or the 5th Circuit will get involved.

H2
H3
H4
3 columns
2 columns
1 column
2 Comments