Religious Use Law Review

Number 4

In this issue, we will review the first test you will face in the court as you advance your religious use defense.

In Review 1 we looked at the Religious Freedom Restoration Act itself (RFRA).  We saw that Congress said that anytime our religious exercise is substantially burdened by government regulation or law, the government must prove that the act of the church is somehow causing a threat to public health and safety of such dimension that a Compelling Interest on the part of government has been created.  Then the government must prove the fact that the Government has used the Least Restrictive Means of Regulation.  We saw that the way the court must look at those two issues is the same way that the courts looked at those issues in the Sherbert and Yoder cases.  Then we looked in detail at the Sherbert case to see just what that meant.

In Review 2 we looked at the current, relevant published decisions of the federal and state courts that have looked at religious use over the years and under RFRA.

In Review 3 we looked at the Yoder case and examined in detail how the federal courts looked at the issues in that case.

We are concerned about Sherbert and Yoder because they are the blueprints Congress cited in the statute that shows how our own court should look at the issues in our case.

We are concerned with the published precedents because they show how the blueprint has been followed in other cases, how the blueprint has been ignored or sabotaged, and what the issues were before RFRA was enacted by Congress.  This all tells us how the government will approach our particular case, how the government will lie and obfuscate, and how we counteract those lies and obfuscations.

The government will lie about us - count on it.  The courts will cover those government lies and obfuscations - count on it.  The Meyers cases cited below are a good example of this.  It is up to us to clearly set out the facts and the law so that a higher court might have room and grounds to rule in our favor.

Always set up our motions and supporting documentation, evidence and testimony with a higher court in mind.  Do not assume that the federal district, state circuit, or municipal court we are first tried in will do us justice; they probably won't.

When we get to the court, the first challenge the government will make is that our religious exercise is a fraud, it is a fake, in short, that we are not "sincere".

So, how do we prove that we are sincere!

First of all, make sure that the government cannot prove that what we did is different from what we said we intended to do, or what we have established is our usual or current practice.

Consistency is the first test of sincerity.  If we are consistent then that goes a long way to prove sincerity, and on the other hand, if what we say is not what we do, then the government has an open door to challenge us.

Count on it that the first challenge the government will make is that we are not consistent - regardless of whatever facts are in the record, they will say that first.

Count on it that the government will probably infiltrate informants into your organization and that their first job while working undercover, will be to get you to perform some acts that they can later use as demonstrations of your lack of sincerity.

Secondly, study the following cases for the steps and principles that the courts have set out as the way that they should look at our issues of sincerity.  I am emphatically stating that your religious exercise is for you and you alone to determine.  Your relationship with the Author of Creation cannot be questioned or tested by any person or institution other than your own.

Having said that, know that the agents of the government and the courts are jealous of this, they have a long track record of trying to subvert, overturn, persecute and stamp out your personal religious exercise in favor of state sponsored church organizations that serve the interests of the state.

In spite of that, some facts are self evident, one of them being that no man authored Creation.

Even courts and government officials are part of Creation and subject to the Author of Creation.

If you are involved in genuine exercise of religion, given to you thru the intercession of the Holy Spirit of the Author of Creation, you are protected and supported by that Author.

Your challenge to government attempts to stamp out your personal religious exercise will be a means of demonstrating of the integrity of the Author of Creation, and the integrity of your relationship to that Author.

Finally this is the purpose of religious exercise - to demonstrate the relationship with the Author of Creation.  Whatever does that, brings a light into this world that cannot be extinguished, even and most especially when the messenger - you - is subjected to whatever the current variety of persecution happens to be.

So, let us now look at the Meyers cases.  These cases have been adjudicated under RFRA and they attempt to set out a decision about how the court should evaluate claims of sincerity of religious exercise.  In Religious Use Law Review No 5 we will look at some U.S. Supreme Court decisions that directly contradict what is done in Meyers.  The value of Meyers is that when we get to the courtroom, the judge and government will attempt to force the decision-making in the mold of Meyers.  Since we will know in advance what they will try to do, we can be ready to advance our position in the face of their lies and obfuscations.

United States v. Meyers, 906 F.Supp. 1494 (D.Wyo. 1995)

David Meyers was charged with two violations of federal law for selling and possessing marijuana.  Meyers replied that he was a Reverend of the Church of Marijuana and that the government must prove the facts of compelling interest and least restrictive means of regulation to convict him.

The District Court held a pre trial hearing and gave David Meyers the opportunity to prove that he was sincere in his religious exercise relating to the marijuana charges.

We are looking at the decision of the District Court here, so it is published in the Federal Supplement.  This decision was appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and we will look at that next.

What is not reported in this decision is that David Meyers was held in jail from arrest until trial - no bail, no opportunity to gather evidence and witness's to prove his sincerity or any other issue at the trial.  You don't know this by reading the first decision, because the District Court Judge didn't include that fact in his report.  We only know that by reading the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision.  David appealed the no-bail action and they tell us why they would not overturn his conviction because of it.

Consider what effect that would have on you.  You are arrested, taken away from your personal possessions, your books, your writings, your fellow church members and regular church services, and locked up until you are taken into a courtroom and told to defend yourself.

So David is hauled into the courtroom, no access to his belongings, no access to a law library - because he is represented by counsel at trial which means that they don't have to let you see the law books to study up on what is going to happen to you - your attorney does that for you.  And then the District Court Judge tells him to defend himself.

No story of the gulag in Russia or the death camps of the Nazi's tells of a better frame-up then this.  One of his alleged co-conspirators has made the deal to testify against David, so the snitch is out on the street.  Since the snitch made the deal to testify, there is not much reason to prevent him from being free to defend himself, is there.

So there is David on the stand and the District Court Judge orders him to explain his religion.

This is what the Court rules:

on page 1496 - "Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society."

"Not surprisingly, the contours of 'undue infringement' on religious freedom have changed with the ebb of circumstance and flow of history."

on page 1497 - "Some state courts, apparently taking their cue from Yoder, have held that drug laws forbidding use of hallucinogens impermissibly infringes on the Native American Church's use of peyote during religious ceremonies."

"(4) the practice which was proscribed by law did not cause others any direct harm;"

"In Smith, the Court rejected the Yoder balancing test and held, unequivocally, that neutral laws of general applicability are not subject to free exercise challenges."

On page 1499-1500 - "The Court's first foray miscarried badly when it held that 'the term religion has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will."

"the First Amendment does not allow states to enact laws which discriminate between theistic and non theistic religions."

"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. . ."

"It seems, therefore, that the functional definition of 'religion' adumbrated in Seeger and Welsh is, at least for First Amendment purposes, dead."

"First, courts may not consider whether the party's purportedly religious beliefs are true or false."

"Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs."

"religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection."

On page 1501 - "When otherwise proscribed substances are permitted to be used for purposes of worship, worship must be defined."

"The danger here lies in the fact that the definition would encompass all manner of outlooks, philosophies, beliefs, and lifestyles. Adherents to these outlooks, philosophies, beliefs, and lifestyles would then be able to claim First Amendment or RFRA protection for their 'religious' acts whether legal or not."

"The danger here lies in the fact that a court with particular leanings might manipulate the definition to include beliefs with which it agrees, while a court with different leanings later might manipulate the definition to exclude beliefs with which it disagrees. In other words, the trees of religious freedom would bend with the political breeze."

"In an attempt to avoid these dangers, this Court has canvassed the cases on religion and catalogued the many factors that the courts have used to determine whether a set of beliefs is 'religious' for First Amendment purposes. . . The Court will use this structure to include, not exclude."

On page 1502 - "Court will consider the following factors to determine whether Meyers' beliefs are 'religious' for RFRA purposes. . . Ultimate Ideas. . . Metaphysical Beliefs. . . Moral or Ethical System. . . Comprehensiveness of Beliefs. . . Accouterments of Religion being. . . Founder, Prophet or Teacher. . . Important Writings. . . Gathering Places. . . Keepers of Knowledge. . . Ceremonies and Rituals. . . Structure or Organization. . . Holidays. . . Diet or Fasting. . . Appearance and Clothing. . . Propagation."

On page 1504 - "All of this probable inclusion leads to an obvious question; is anything excluded?"

"Examples of such beliefs (that are not religion) are nihilism, anarchism, pacifism, utopianism, socialism, libertarianism, Marxism, vegatism, and humanism."

"III. The Nature Of Meyers' Beliefs"

On page 1505 - "During his discursive testimony about his ostensible religion, Meyers never mentioned any beliefs that delt with 'ultimate concerns' such as life, purpose, and death."

"The Court was unable to discern anything ultimate, profound, or imponderable about Meyers' beliefs."

"There was nothing metaphysical about Meyers' beliefs."

"The Court recognizes that certain religions use mind altering substances. . . as a means to a spiritual end. The end usually is movement toward, or the perception of, a different reality or dimension. Here there is no such end."

"Meyers never equated marijuana smoking with a spiritual dimension, mystical plane, or transcendent reality."

"A single precept that encourages church members to help addicts or alcoholics kick their habits does not answer questions such as: How should I live my life? How should I treat others? What is forbidden? What is allowed?"

"Nothing about Meyers' "religion" restrains members from doing that which they should not do, or binds them to do that which they should do."

On page 1506 - "Though marijuana is at the center, Meyers did not explain what consequences ensue. Meyers did not intimate that things stay together because this center holds."

"Meyers did not assert that the plant has spoken to him, that it counsels him, that it guides him, or that it teaches him. In his 'religion' the plant is essentially passive."

"In other religions, such as Native American Religions. . . mind altering plants are sacred. The plants are not, however, the focus of these religions. Rather they are a means to an end, the end being to attain a state of religious, spiritual, or revelatory awareness. When believers achieve this state, they are privy to all manner of visions and revelations concerning the past, present, and future. After experiencing these states - which are intense and transitory - they rely on their visions and revelations to guide their actions."

"As the court in Malnak saliently commented, 'a religion is not generally confined to one question or one moral teaching; it has a broader scope. . . Here, Meyers' purported religion is confined to one plant. Though the plant apparently has cured Meyers manic depression, and keeps him calm, this therapeutic effect is not religious."

"Although Meyers founded the church in 1973, he does not claim that he alone possessed the kind of spiritual wisdom, ethereal knowledge, or divine insight that often leads to the founding of a religion."

" Meyers calls himself a 'Reverend' of the church, but does not assert that he alone is fit for that role, and does not contend that he is divine, enlightened or gifted."

"Meyers testified that the churches' 'bible' is Hemp which was written by Jack Herer."

"In the introduction to Hemp, Herer - who is 'Director and Founder' of 'Help End Marijuana Prohibition. (HEMP)' - discusses Hemp's secular purpose: 'The purpose of this book is to revive the authoritative historical, social and economic perspectives needed to ensure comprehensive legal reforms, abolish cannabis hemp/marijuana prohibition laws, and save the Earth's life systems.' Although the last purpose - 'saving the earth's life systems' - apparently has religious potential, Herer later makes it clear that 'saving the earth's life systems' is an environmental issue."

On page 1507 - "Although the Church of Marijuana apparently has a building of some sort at which members gather to smoke marijuana, Meyers did not assert that the building was in any way holy, sacred, or significant."

Meyers asserts that he is a 'Reverend' of the Church of Marijuana. How he attained this revered position remains a mystery. . ."

"Meyers did not mention any church holidays, special days, or holy days."

"Meyers did not testify about any special diet or days of fasting that church members are required or asked to observe."

"Meyers did not mention any beliefs concerning a church member's appearance or clothing."

"Meyers testified that the Church of Marijuana does not engage in any type of mission work. . . "

On page 1508 - "The Court also considers the fact that Meyers' beliefs are more aptly characterized as medical, therapeutic, and social."

"a coincidence of religious and secular (beliefs) in no way extinguishes the weight appropriately accorded the religious. . ."

"While Meyers may sincerely believe that his beliefs are religious, this court cannot rely on his sincerity to conclude that his beliefs rise to the level of a 'religion' and therefore trigger RFRA's protections."

"None of this, however, changes the fact that his beliefs do not constitute a 'religion' as that term is uneasily defined by law."

"The Court must, however, step onto a slope of a different sort to assess Meyers' belated assertion that he and the other members of the Church of Marijuana are Christians. At first blush this complicates things considerably. Had Meyers asserted that the Church of Marijuana was a Christian sect, and that his beliefs were related to Christianity, this Court probably would have been compelled to conclude that his beliefs were religious. Under those hypothetical circumstances, Meyers would have been able to fit his beliefs into a tradition that is indisputably religious. If Meyers had linked his beliefs to Christianity, the Court could not have inquired into the orthodoxy or propriety of his beliefs, no matter how foreign they might be to the Christian tradition. Had Meyers sincerely made this connection, he would have been able to purchase 'religious' status for his beliefs by coat tailing on Christianity. Unfortunately for Meyers, he made no such connection."

Note - If Meyers made a "belated assertion that he and other members of the Church of Marijuana are Christians.", how does that jive with the judge saying, "Unfortunately for Meyers, he made no such connection."

The judge says, "Had Meyers asserted that the Church of Marijuana was a Christian sect and that his beliefs were related to Christianity. . ." Does Meyers have to actually say "I am a Christian sect!" to get there, or is there another way to establish this? How come saying, "I am a Christian!" is not enough?

Note - We look for internal inconsistencies in this report in order to find the lies.  When the judge says one thing at one place and another at another place, we can see the lies more clearly.

So, on page 1496 the court says, "Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society."  This sounds real good.  Can we assume that in order for society to need protection, that someone must be hurt or threatened with hurt?  If the court is going to look for facts that Meyers possession and sale of marijuana has hurt someone, that society needs to be protected, then Meyers will be found not guilty.  As we already know from the DEA's own Administrative Law Judge decision on marijuana that it is totally non-toxic and never hurt anyone.  How can society need to be protected from it?

So, if the judge wants to continue pot prohibition, he cannot allow that question to be asked.  If the question is asked, the judge can't stop Meyers - not where what Meyers is doing is not hurting society.  And so what the court does is, the court concocts a way to avoid asking that question.

The Meyers judge goes to great lengths to examine the prior court decisions about religious exercise.  The judge looks for what factual elements prior judges used to define religion.

Now this is a good time to mention that the ruling of a court decision is less then every word in a court decision.  Only the ruling in the decision has the power to bind another judge's decision making.  Words that are not the direct ruling are called "dicta".  Dicta explain the ruling and flesh it out.  However, dicta are not the ruling and cannot be used for precedent.

Watch as this Meyers judge uses dicta from other court rulings to justify what he is going to do to Meyers.

So, on page 1497 this judge mentions that "Some state courts, apparently taking their cue from Yoder, have held that drug laws forbidding use of hallucinogens impermissibly infringes on the Native American Church's use of peyote during religious ceremonies. . . (4) the practice which was proscribed by law did not cause others any direct harm;"

This looks good, the judge has cited the fact that "some state courts" have taken their cue from Yoder."  We have invoked RFRA, that law requires Yoder, and so it looks like this judge is going to follow these state decisions.  But, going back to Religious Use Law Review No. 2, since Meyers is a federal case, and this is a federal judge, why hasn't this judge mentioned all the federal court decisions that rely on Yoder to hold that drug laws impermissibly infringe on religious use of peyote?

Now you are going to learn another legal trick.  If the judge mentions all the federal court decisions that hold Yoder as controlling to allow religious use of peyote, he would be bound by those decisions.  Since he doesn't mention them, we cannot see that they bind him as far as his report here is concerned.  Since he didn't mention them, they don't exist for the reader who doesn't already know that they exist.  So, here we see the federal judge as magician, magically disappearing inconvenient court decisions before our very eyes.

On page 1501 the judge says, "The danger here lies in the fact that the definition would encompass all manner of outlooks, philosophies, beliefs, and lifestyles. Adherents to these outlooks, philosophies, beliefs, and lifestyles would then be able to claim First Amendment or RFRA protection for their 'religious' acts whether legal or not."

Notice that the judge equates "danger" with the fact that a court would have to look at exempting "all manner of outlooks, philosophies, beliefs and lifestyles. . ." from prohibitions if they are given RFRA protections.  Does the judge say why that would be a danger?  No, he just states it like fact.  Could this be an example of "prejudice", or prejudgment, on the part of the judge?

Notice that the judge writes that they would "be able to claim First Amendment or RFRA protection for their 'religious acts' whether legal or not.".

Why would someone claim protection for "religious acts" that are legal?

We need protection when the act is said to be against the law, but why would we need protection, and from whom would we need to be protected, if the "religious acts" are legal?  Answer those questions and we begin to see exactly who this judge is and what his intentions are.

Notice also on page 1501 that the judge says, "The danger here lies in the fact that a court with particular leanings might manipulate the definition to include beliefs with which it agrees, while a court with different leanings later might manipulate the definition to exclude beliefs with which it disagrees. In other words, the trees of religious freedom would bend with the political breeze."

This judge has "bracketed the issues" with these two statements on page 1501.  This technique of "bracketing the issues" can lead the reader to assume that the judge is being fair, is considering all the aspects of the case.  But is he really?

When you have examined enough of these court publications, you will see that this Meyers judge has taken dicta, verbiage in a decision that describes and fleshes out the decision but which is not itself the decision, and has used that dicta as if it was a ruling which would bind him.

Finally on page 1501 this judge says, "In an attempt to avoid these dangers, this Court has canvassed the cases on religion and catalogued the many factors that the courts have used to determine whether a set of beliefs is 'religious' for First Amendment purposes. . . The Court will use this structure to include, not exclude."

Notice that this judge says that he will use this structure he has created to "include, not exclude."  OK, lets see if that is what he really does.

From page 1501 thru 1505 the judge mentions and explains his interpretation of a number of factors that other courts have mentioned - as dicta - when they reported on the nature of the religious exercise those judges were examining.  Then, after having said that he will use this structure to "include not exclude", he then says, " on page 1505 - "During his discursive testimony about his ostensible religion, Meyers never mentioned any beliefs that delt with 'ultimate concerns' such as life, purpose, and death."

Now we know that this judge is a liar.  He is using what he claims is Meyers testimony, and claiming that Meyers has failed to report facts that the judge is looking for as a part of the structure of analysis for "what a religion is".  The judge will rule that since Meyers failed to mention any of this, his "religion" is not a religion.  That is using the structure to exclude not to include.

Notice that the judge never reports any of Meyers actual testimony, he only reports what he says Meyers said.  We have no way of knowing what Meyers actually said - without a transcript of the hearing.  So we are relying on the judge to impartially report the testimony.  Can we trust the judge to report the testimony accurately now that we know that he is lying about how he will use his "structure" to analyze Meyers claims of religious exercise?

From page 1505 on, the judge reports what he says Meyers says about his religion.

On page 1507 the judge says, "Although Meyers founded the church in 1973, he does not claim that he alone possessed the kind of spiritual wisdom, ethereal knowledge, or divine insight that often leads to the founding of a religion.

Notice the judge reports that Meyers founded the church in 1973 - but the judge doesn't report how that founding occurred or what proof that Meyers gave of that.  Also, the judge then equates the "founding of a church" with the "founding of a religion" and says that Meyers doesn't claim to be so special that his claim would match up with others (not mentioning what others) who have founded a religion.

Now lets examine that in detail.  Meyers is reported as having claimed to have founded a church and the judge compares that to having founded a religion.  Obviously many people have founded a church, and obviously very few have founded a religion.

The judge compares the common orange of founding a church with the rare experience of discovering a new fruit in founding a religion.

This ain't even an apples and oranges comparison folks.  This judge is comparing a common and ordinary fruit to discovering a brand new fruit that has never been seen before.  When we see a judge making such a disproportionate comparison, we have to begin to suspect that the judge is making arguments for a position that he wants to advocate for instead of simply reporting what has happened.

In addition, since the Judge has admitted that Meyers "founded a church", that fact alone is sufficient to establish that Meyers is engaged in religious exercise.  Once Meyers says he has founded a church, what additional claim can be made to support that Meyers has acted to establish and exercise a religion?

Remember that the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. . .".

This judge is given power to be a judge by that same Constitution.  This judge is limited by that same Constitution in his power.  Where Congress cannot make a law, the judge cannot make a rule, period.  The fact of being in religious exercise is proven by the fact of "founding a church".  To go any further on that issue is to "make a law regarding an establishment of religion."

However, this judge cannot leave the issue there because if he does so, then the jury will hear the case - and as you will see, this judge does not want the jury to hear this case.

Whether or not Meyers is sincere in his religious exercise, is a separate fact and proof from the fact of being in a religious exercise.  The jury would look at the evidence to see if Meyers was sincere.  But this judge does not want the jury to hear this so he compares oranges to newly discovered fruit and otherwise discredits Meyers with false reports.  The judge has clearly violated his limits on government power to define or make a law regarding an establishment of religion.

Meyers says that he is engaged in religion, this judge says that Meyers religion is not good enough for the judge.

On page 1506 the judge says that "Meyers calls himself a 'Reverend' of the church, but does not assert that he alone is fit for that role, and does not contend that he is divine, enlightened or gifted."

OK, here is another disproportionate comparison.

Since when is it a fact that a minister in a church is the only person who "is fit for that role" and is the only person so "divine, enlightened or gifted."

Now we all know about the pedophile priest scandals in the Roman Catholic and other churches today.

Is this judge saying that the pedophile priest, is not exercising religion when he says a mass or provides comfort for the sick?

Wow, that would mean that Jimmy Swaggert is not engaged in religion because he took offerings to buy a prostitute, that Oral Roberts is not engaged in religion when preaching because he threatened that God would kill him if the folks didn't give him 5 million dollars to build his son a fancy new home.

Wow, this judge has really cleared up a lot of false claims of religious exercise in this ruling.

On page 1507 the judge says, "Meyers asserts that he is a 'Reverend' of the Church of Marijuana.  How he attained this revered position remains a mystery. . ."

Did Meyers know that he was supposed to tell the judge where and when and by whom he was ordained a minister, did Meyers even have access to such records when he was taken from his jail cell to the courtroom after being arrested and held without bail for months?

Did the judge bother to ask Meyers about his ordination, or did Meyers attorney bother to ask him that question?

But, for the moment recall that the federal Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof,".

When a judge makes a ruling interpreting facts in evidence and saying that the facts do not meet the definition of religion, the judge has made a decision regarding "an establishment of religion".

The ruling of a judge has the same effect and force as enacting a law in the first place.

This judge is putting himself in a position to "make a law regarding an establishment of religion" by ruling that although Meyers "founded a church", the founding of a church is not enough to prove that he is engaged in religious exercise.  That is making a law regarding an establishment of religion, it is forbidden for this judge to do that.  Once we see that clearly, then the other frauds of this decision becomes very clear.

However, if that still isn't clear, then look at what the judge says on page 1504 - "All of this probable inclusion leads to an obvious question; is anything excluded?"

"Examples of such beliefs (that are excluded) are nihilism, anarchism, pacifism, utopianism, socialism, libertarianism, Marxism, vegatism, and humanism."

So, this judge has not only ruled that religion is what he says it is, but also that religion is not what he says it is not.  This is all, "making a law regarding an establishment of religion."

Keep in mind folks, that when someone claims religion, they have to prove to the jury that they are sincere, that they actually do what they claim to do.  So why is this judge so intent on preventing the jury from hearing that evidence?  If Meyers is such a fraud, won't the jury be able to see that?  What makes this judge so much more special about evaluating what is or is not a religion than a jury would be?

Why is this judge so intent on deciding on what religion is or is not?

The fact is that Jesus himself, as he is reported in the Gospels, would be found not religious by the ruling of this judge.

As a final example of this judges duplicity, on page 1506 the judge reports, "Meyers testified that the churches' 'bible' is Hemp which was written by Jack Herer."

"In the introduction to Hemp, Herer - who is 'Director and Founder' of 'Help End Marijuana Prohibition. (HEMP)' - discusses Hemp's secular purpose: 'The purpose of this book is to revive the authoritative historical, social and economic perspectives needed to ensure comprehensive legal reforms, abolish cannabis hemp/marijuana prohibition laws, and save the Earth's life systems.' Although the last purpose - 'saving the earth's life systems' - apparently has religious potential, Herer later makes it clear that 'saving the earth's life systems' is an environmental issue."

So, David Meyers has declared that the Hemp book authored by Jack Herer is his Bible.  The judge looks at what David has declared as his Bible and says that the book is not a Bible.

Does the judge have a degree in Theology or is he otherwise capable of determining what a Bible is?

If the judge is going to determine what a Bible is for the man, isn't that a judicial law regarding an establishment of religion and prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

Finally the judge quotes the author of Hemp where he says, "saving the earth's life systems is an environmental issue.", and rules that an "environmental issue" is not an exercise of religion.

So, in Genesis 1:26-27 God speaks to God's creation Earth.  God asks Earth for permission for God join with Earth to make mankind.  God speaks directly to Earth.  God recognizes Earth as a living entity.  God asks Earth to be a partner with God.

Jack Herer writes a book about how mankind is poisoning Earth and how marijuana can save the life of the Earth.

This judge decides that saving the Earth is not an exercise of religion.

If God can speak to earth and regard Earth as a living entity worthy of having a relationship with, who the hell is this judge to say that this saving of Earth is not an exercise of religion.

To put some perspective on this, the Roman Catholic Church declared the entire original Gospels authored by the original Apostles of Jesus to be heresy.  The original Gospel written by Peter himself, was declared heresy and burned.  We know this because of the records in the Vatican and because some of the remnant of those Gospels was discovered in a cave in Egypt at Nag Hamadi.

So we have the physical remains of the Gospels and we have the records of the Catholic Church showing how, why and where those original Gospels were thrown out.

Now we have a federal judge doing what the Catholic Church did, determining for others what the sacred words and lessons should be, determining what a Bible is for the rest of us.

So, there we have it.  This ruling is an abomination, a contradiction of law and Constitution, a violation of the principles upon which this government was founded.  This judge has set himself up to determine what a religion is.

United States v Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475 (10th Cir. 1996)

David Meyers was understandably upset at the way his trial went.  He appealed that result to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  That court sustained all the positions of the District Court mentioned above and some that the District Court neglected to mention.

On page 1479 the Court reports that "On August 24 1994, Carl Jones purchased four pounds of marijuana. . . On May 19, 1995 Meyers was indicted. . . On August 11, 1995, Meyers pled not guilty and trial was set for October 2, 1995.

On page 1480 at note #1 the Court reports that, "The district court denied Meyers' motion (for the RFRA defense) before trial at the hearing on October 2, 1995.  However the district court's written order was filed on November 14, 1995."

Recall now that David Meyers was held without bail prior to trial.  The court fails to explain why that was done.  One can assume that the court lacked cause to do that, or why else is the record barren of any explanation for it.

If Meyers had been arrested before or after the date of indictment on May 19, 1995, why was that record not mentioned in the decision.  If Meyers had absconded after an initial arrest, that would justify the denial of bail - so if that happened, why didn't the judge report it.

Later we will examine the issue of bail, but for now look at the dates of the denial of RFRA defense.  The court decided to deny the RFRA motion on October 2, 1995, but took till November 14, 1995, to explain why.

If the judge was not corrupt, why did it take over a month for him to explain why he denied the RFRA defense saying that Meyers claim of religion was not religious exercise.

The judge goes to great lengths to document other trial reports about the definition of religious exercise.  When did the judge do that research, before the hearing on October 2, 1995 or after?

If the judge did the research after October 2 when he made the decision to deny the RFRA motion, what basis for denial was there when he denied it.

If the judge did the research before the trial, why did he delay for six weeks till he wrote down the ruling?

On page 1482 the Court says, "There is no dispute that Meyers' beliefs are sincerely held and that they are substantially burdened by (the drug laws).  The issue is whether his sincerely held beliefs are 'religious beliefs' rather than a philosophy or way of life. . .  The court then used its list of factors to examine Meyers beliefs to determine if his beliefs fit the factors sufficiently to be included in the realm of 'religious beliefs'."

As illustrated above, the federal court is now making a law that in order to be a religion, we must do it the way they say it is done - or else it is not a religion.

All this finagling is going on so that the government can avoid explaining how and why marijuana causes a threat to public health and safety.

Every one of these judges knows about the 1988 DEA Administrative Law Judges decision on Marijuana Rescheduling.  They all know for a fact that marijuana is totally non-toxic, that marijuana has never hurt a single human being in over 5000 years of recorded history.

They all know that pharmaceutical drugs like Nutrasweet and aspirin kill people every day.  Yet, in order to avoid putting the government to the tests of Compelling Interest and Least Restrictive Means of Regulation of marijuana, these judges willingly make laws by judicial ruling as to what is or is not religion.  Is this diabolical or what?

On page 1484 the Court says, "After carefully examining Meyers beliefs derived from his testimony, the district court concluded that his beliefs were secular and thus, did not constitute 'religion' for RFRA purposes. . . We agree with the district court. Under the district court's thorough analysis of the indicia of religion, which we adopt, we hold that Meyers beliefs more accurately espouse a philosophy and/or way of life, rather than a 'religion'."

Here is the proof of the unconstitutional act of making a law regarding an establishment of religion, "the indicia of religion."

On page 1487 the Court says, "On May 19, 1995, and on June 2, 1995, the government filed a Motion for a Detention Hearing and invoked the rebuttable presumption . . . that no conditions of bail will assure defendant's appearance and the safety of the community.

"On July 10, 1995, Meyers was arrested in Colorado apparently on the warrant issued in Wyoming on May 19, 1995. . .

"Meyers was arraigned in the District Court for the District of Wyoming on August 11, 1995. The minutes of the arraignment reflect that a motion for bond was to be filed and heard at a later date; however no date was set. On August 14, 1995, Meyers filed a Motion for Pretrial Release and on September 12, 1995 Meyers filed a Second Motion for Pretrial Release.

"Trial commenced on October 2, 1995, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts on October 5, 1995.

"The district court erred in failing to timely address Meyers' pretrial release motions. However, because Meyers was convicted on both counts, the error was harmless and the issue is now moot."

OK, are we starting to get the picture here?  Meyers had a right to a hearing on a bond motion.  The district court judge wants us to believe that he sincerely and forthrightly guarded Meyers rights to the religious defense by scrupulous study and comparison.  For two months this same judge then failed to hold a simple hearing on two motions for pre trial bond.

By not holding the hearing, the judge could avoid putting down his reasons for not granting bond.  If they were such good reasons, why not put them into the record?

By not holding the hearing the judge prevented Meyers from preparing for trial - especially that hearing on the RFRA defense.

By not allowing Meyers to prepare for the hearing on the RFRA defense, the judge disabled Meyers chances to make a record of his religious exercise.  The judge eliminated any chance that he might have difficulty finding some excuse for denying the RFRA defense.

We know that the judge had to do a lot of research to justify denying Meyers RFRA defense - he says so himself.  And the dates indicate that the research was done after the hearing and not before.

Finally on page 1489 Judge Brorby states in his dissent, "Because I do not believe it is the proper role of the court to establish a factor-driven test to be used to define what a religion is, I respectfully dissent from my colleagues. The ability to define religion is the power to deny freedom of religion."

Hear, Hear, and Well Said!

These rulings should be studied in depth - both to learn of the corruption that will occur in the judicial evaluation of our own religious claims and to prepare us to mount the kind of defense that will withstand this corruption.

Even if the only words spoken by David Meyers on the record are the words reported by the judge, they alone are sufficient to establish the integrity of David's' religious exercise - if we can put them into context and support them with evidence and argument.

Obviously this judge was prejudiced in favor of established state sponsored religious organizations.  He uses a lot of fancy explanation to justify that, but in sum the decision reeks of prejudice in favor of established religious organizations and prejudice against anything that would challenge those organizations.

Your judge will be similarly prejudiced.  If you have studied sufficiently, and prepared adequately, you can take the same basic stance offered by David Meyers and prove that your acts are religious exercise - within the definition of religion established in this decision.

You say that it is not fair that you will have some judge ruling about your religion.  I agree,

You say that it is illegal for the judge to do that.  I agree.

You say that anyone with "Hippy" values would agree that David Meyers expressions of religious intent and direction are true and complete.  I agree.

You say that this case is an obvious case of prejudice and discrimination against our "Hippy" culture and morals.  I agree.

So now, if you are finished complaining about the injustice of it all, get busy, study this decision point-by-point and word-by-word.

Accept that this particular judge is abysmally ignorant of what a true relationship with the Creator really is and what it looks like.

Look within your own religious relationship with the Creator and find the elements that will choke this judge's corruption and stop it from succeeding in persecuting our churches.