Federal Cannabis (Kaneh-Bos) Religious Permit and CorrespondenceAlan Gordon
Correspondence between activists Anne Armstrong and Alan Gordon and the National Park Service, leading to religious use permit for cannabis (Kaneh-Bos).
Human Trafficking Court Case Against FacebookSean Gugerty
This document is a response opposing Facebook's motion to stay trial court proceedings during its mandamus petition regarding the applicability of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It argues that (1) the 2018 FOSTA amendments clarified that Section 230 does not apply to sex trafficking claims like Jane Doe's, (2) basic preemption principles show that Section 230 does not preempt consistent state laws, and (3) a stay would prejudice Jane Doe given Facebook's resistance to discovery efforts thus far in the case.
Allegations against various public bodies for complicity in covering up misconduct in public office including Humberside Police, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), Judicial office holders, North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC), Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)
Three sentences:
Aniruddha Sherbow has been charged in the District of Columbia with transmitting threats in interstate commerce for leaving a threatening voicemail for Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and sending an email threatening to decapitate her. He was arrested in California based on these charges and is appearing for an initial appearance in federal court there. The documents provide details of the threatening communications and establish probable cause for the arrest.
1) Steven Donziger is facing trial on September 9th for criminal contempt charges related to his representation of Indigenous peoples in a lawsuit against Chevron.
2) Donziger believes the trial is being rushed through during the pandemic without proper precautions or ability for him to defend himself due to the recent disqualification of his lead lawyers.
3) He is asking for support through donations, contacting members of Congress, or witnessing the trial to bring accountability, as he feels the process is unfair and aims to convict him before an upcoming related case.
081215 - LETTER FROM DORIAN E TURNER (Attorney For Claiborne County Public Sc...VogelDenise
The document is a letter from an attorney representing the Claiborne County School District in Mississippi. It acknowledges a request for public records from Ms. Newsome and provides information on state laws governing public records access as well as the district's policy. It notes fees may be charged for searching for and copying records. If the specific documents are not identified, the district will search and charge an hourly fee with a $30 minimum deposit required. The attorney requests Ms. Newsome specify the documents sought and states the district will provide the cost to proceed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Brinegar for transporting liquor into Oklahoma. The officers had probable cause to search Brinegar's vehicle based on their prior knowledge of him from a previous arrest, observing his heavily loaded vehicle near the state line, and his admission that he had liquor after being stopped. The search was valid under the Fourth Amendment as probable cause existed for the search under Carroll v. United States, which allowed vehicle searches without a warrant if probable cause exists.
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rightsRich Bergeron
I prepared a very crisp and professional motion to dismiss just to watch Judge James D. O'Neill shoot it down with junk logic and misrepresentation of the law. He continues to show his blind loyalty to the bumbling prosecutors on my case. I had more than one lawyer tell me this was an excellent motion and hit on all the right points. This is where an appeal would expose how biased the judge really is.
Federal Cannabis (Kaneh-Bos) Religious Permit and CorrespondenceAlan Gordon
Correspondence between activists Anne Armstrong and Alan Gordon and the National Park Service, leading to religious use permit for cannabis (Kaneh-Bos).
Human Trafficking Court Case Against FacebookSean Gugerty
This document is a response opposing Facebook's motion to stay trial court proceedings during its mandamus petition regarding the applicability of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It argues that (1) the 2018 FOSTA amendments clarified that Section 230 does not apply to sex trafficking claims like Jane Doe's, (2) basic preemption principles show that Section 230 does not preempt consistent state laws, and (3) a stay would prejudice Jane Doe given Facebook's resistance to discovery efforts thus far in the case.
Allegations against various public bodies for complicity in covering up misconduct in public office including Humberside Police, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), Judicial office holders, North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC), Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)
Three sentences:
Aniruddha Sherbow has been charged in the District of Columbia with transmitting threats in interstate commerce for leaving a threatening voicemail for Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and sending an email threatening to decapitate her. He was arrested in California based on these charges and is appearing for an initial appearance in federal court there. The documents provide details of the threatening communications and establish probable cause for the arrest.
1) Steven Donziger is facing trial on September 9th for criminal contempt charges related to his representation of Indigenous peoples in a lawsuit against Chevron.
2) Donziger believes the trial is being rushed through during the pandemic without proper precautions or ability for him to defend himself due to the recent disqualification of his lead lawyers.
3) He is asking for support through donations, contacting members of Congress, or witnessing the trial to bring accountability, as he feels the process is unfair and aims to convict him before an upcoming related case.
081215 - LETTER FROM DORIAN E TURNER (Attorney For Claiborne County Public Sc...VogelDenise
The document is a letter from an attorney representing the Claiborne County School District in Mississippi. It acknowledges a request for public records from Ms. Newsome and provides information on state laws governing public records access as well as the district's policy. It notes fees may be charged for searching for and copying records. If the specific documents are not identified, the district will search and charge an hourly fee with a $30 minimum deposit required. The attorney requests Ms. Newsome specify the documents sought and states the district will provide the cost to proceed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Brinegar for transporting liquor into Oklahoma. The officers had probable cause to search Brinegar's vehicle based on their prior knowledge of him from a previous arrest, observing his heavily loaded vehicle near the state line, and his admission that he had liquor after being stopped. The search was valid under the Fourth Amendment as probable cause existed for the search under Carroll v. United States, which allowed vehicle searches without a warrant if probable cause exists.
Defendant's Motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rightsRich Bergeron
I prepared a very crisp and professional motion to dismiss just to watch Judge James D. O'Neill shoot it down with junk logic and misrepresentation of the law. He continues to show his blind loyalty to the bumbling prosecutors on my case. I had more than one lawyer tell me this was an excellent motion and hit on all the right points. This is where an appeal would expose how biased the judge really is.
This document discusses 10 cases where courts have excluded prior bad acts or convictions from being entered as evidence. The cases establish that arrests without convictions cannot be used to impeach credibility, specific acts of misconduct not resulting in convictions are impermissible for impeachment, and extraneous evidence of misconduct only serves to prejudice juries. Prior convictions must have passed the appeal period and involve crimes of dishonesty or false statement to be admissible for impeachment purposes.
Petition In intervention to the Supreme Court of the Philippines on Marriage ...Crescencio Agbayani
This document is a petition-in-intervention filed with the Supreme Court of the Philippines challenging provisions of the Family Code that define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The petition is filed by an LGBT Christian church and three individuals, including a gay couple who were denied a marriage license. The petition argues that the relevant Family Code provisions violate constitutional rights to equal protection and the right to found a family according to one's religious convictions. It seeks to have those Family Code provisions declared unconstitutional.
This document summarizes issues related to domestic restraining orders. It discusses how restraining orders are obtained through a two-step process and are often issued on an emergency basis without the respondent being present. It estimates that around 60% of the millions of restraining orders issued annually are unnecessary or false. The document also discusses how restraining orders can negatively impact families and violate due process, as well as problems with gender bias in their issuance and victims sometimes being wrongly accused of abuse.
Immigration lawsuits and the apa the basics of a district court actionUmesh Heendeniya
The document provides an overview of bringing an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) lawsuit in federal district court to challenge unlawful immigration agency actions outside of removal proceedings. It discusses that:
1) The APA allows individuals to sue the US government for non-monetary relief over unlawful agency actions. Suits are brought in federal district court.
2) Successful APA lawsuits have challenged various immigration agency decisions such as visa denials and delays in application processing.
3) The statute of limitations is six years under the general statute for suits against the US government. Jurisdiction is based on the federal question statute and the APA waives sovereign immunity.
Seeking A Legal Name Change For A Legal Name Changelegalwebsite
A legal name change requires opening a court case in the family division of circuit court. The petitioner must be a Macomb County resident for at least one year prior to filing. The filing fee is $150. For a name change, individuals must complete the Petition to Change Name and Publication of Notice of Hearing forms and submit them to the Macomb County Clerk's Office along with the fee. Fingerprinting is required for those over 22 years old. The whole process takes approximately 2 months. Additional forms may be needed depending on the petitioner's age and circumstances. If approved by the judge, a certified copy of the name change order can then be obtained for $12.
Department of homeland security foia 2016 hqfo-00609 acknowledgmentBryan Johnson
From our initial FOIA request,
"The purpose of is FOIA is to provide the public with knowledge of why DHS' enforcement operations overwhelmingly targeted family units and unaccompanied minors who were ordered removed in the Charlotte and Atlanta Immigration Courts."
Grievance Filing Against Belknap County (NH) Attorney Andrew Livernois and De...Rich Bergeron
This is a detailed complaint I filed recently regarding an attempt by the local prosecutor's office to eviscerate my First Amendment rights and deny me my rights to due process throughout the case.
New Legal Memo on Search Conditions for Parole ProbationBert M
1) Consent to search regulations can be included as a condition of mandatory supervision. This is authorized by state parole policy manuals, state codes, or case law. Only one method is required to justify the search condition.
2) Case law has established that warrantless searches of parolees do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as regulations authorizing such searches meet reasonable standards. States can impose special conditions on those released on mandatory supervision through parole department policies, state codes, or case law.
3) For a search condition involving warrantless home searches under mandatory supervision to be reasonable, it should be used discretionally depending on the nature of the original crime, such as being more justified for a sex offender versus a negligent
- The letter is from an attorney representing clients involved in a legal case against Jehovah's Witnesses.
- The attorney asks Lawrence Lee and Jerome Pierce to stop contacting his clients without permission and warns he will seek a court order to prevent unauthorized contact.
- The attorney accuses Jehovah's Witnesses of fraud and illegal activities based on evidence from the legal case and warns further action may be taken.
Motion For Sanctions Against Andrew Livernois, Keith Cormier,Tara Heater and ...Rich Bergeron
My motion for sanctions against a pair of attorneys from Belknap County and another two from Grafton County. Four attorneys handling my case all lied and misrepresented the law. This motion demonstrates what is fundamentally wrong about your local justice system in New Hampshire.
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered SanctionsRich Bergeron
This is my quick reply to the ridiculously deficient objection to my sanctions motion filed by Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater. The judge ended up not giving Heater an extension and set the hearing for March 5, 2021.
The document is a Motion in Limine and Motion to Suppress Evidence filed by the defendant Jane M. Doe in a criminal case in Chatham County, Georgia. The motion seeks to suppress all evidence from the defendant's arrest for DUI and other offenses, arguing that the arresting officer lacked probable cause. Specifically, the motion argues that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant, did not have probable cause to arrest without a warrant, conducted an illegal search and seizure, and failed to properly obtain consent for field sobriety tests or a breathalyzer test. If granted, the motion would suppress all evidence from the stop, arrest, tests, and statements made by the defendant.
CitySt.Paul heinous Civil,Criminal,Constitutional Rights to Shut off Sharon Water, www.sharonanderson.org
then Steal Sharons Cars,Trailers,Propertys, but Theft,Trespass,Treason, must be abated,Damages Award
Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...Rich Bergeron
The ACLU of New Hampshire opposes the State's motion for a court order prohibiting pre-trial publicity in the case of State v. Richard E. Bergeron, III. The ACLU argues that: 1) the Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to pro se criminal defendants like Bergeron and cannot be the basis for a gag order; 2) even if the rules did apply, the proposed gag order exceeds the scope of the relevant rule by restricting speech that occurs far before trial and by ignoring exceptions; and 3) the proposed gag order would be an unconstitutional prior restraint on Bergeron's freedom of expression under the US and NH Constitutions.
The document is a letter from the president of the FACDL-Miami chapter informing members about obtaining a security bypass ID card for the courthouse. It provides an application form for new and renewal applicants, which requires basic information and a $20 fee. Completed applications should be mailed to the FACDL-Miami secretary. Applications will be submitted to the AOC on the 15th of each month and IDs can then be picked up with an acknowledgement form affirming the user will follow program rules. The letter encourages members to renew their membership and forward the information to other interested parties.
Michael Smyth sued his former employer Pillsbury for wrongful termination. Smyth claims he was fired for sending private email messages over Pillsbury's email system in reliance on their assurances that email would remain confidential. Pillsbury argues that, as an at-will employee, Smyth could be fired without cause. The court must determine if Smyth's termination violates public policy regarding an employee's right to privacy. While Pennsylvania law generally allows at-will termination, exceptions exist for terminations that threaten clear public policy mandates. Smyth claims his termination violated public policy protecting privacy in email communications.
Young v Dubow Ambrose DHS Saafir Methodist Kinship 10Roxanne Grinage
1. The document appeals a Post-Adjudication Hearing and Order from August 3, 2009 that prolonged abuse of the appellant's children by their father.
2. The order is alleged to be the result of misadministration by the Department of Human Services and Family Court, which enabled the abuse despite extensive documented evidence.
3. The appellant claims the order violates her constitutional rights and denies her due process to defend herself and her children against false accusations. She seeks scrutiny of DHS's role in prolonging the abuse.
Richard Walchuk pleaded guilty to conspiracy, wire fraud, and securities fraud charges related to offenses committed between October 2008 and June 2008. He was sentenced to time served and ordered to pay a $300 special assessment. No fine or restitution was imposed. The judgment document provides details of the charges and sentencing as well as standard conditions for any term of supervised release, though none was imposed in this case.
Motion for new trial -clu 12-19_14_no_51_14screaminc
This document provides a summary of case law updates from the week ending December 19, 2014 from the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia. It discusses cases related to motions for new trial, juvenile probation revocation, search and seizure/implied consent, forfeiture by wrongdoing, and jurisdiction/supersedeas. The document provides brief summaries of the facts, issues, and holdings of each case.
A Look into the Laws on Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage in Ghana, USA and...Kwabena Amponsah Asare
The document provides an overview of laws regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage in Ghana, the US, and South Africa. It summarizes key court cases in the US that established rights for same-sex couples, including Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that had allowed states to criminalize homosexual acts. It also discusses South Africa becoming the first African country to legalize same-sex marriage through the Fourie case and Civil Union Act. The document explores these issues in the context of Ghanaian law as well.
This document discusses 10 cases where courts have excluded prior bad acts or convictions from being entered as evidence. The cases establish that arrests without convictions cannot be used to impeach credibility, specific acts of misconduct not resulting in convictions are impermissible for impeachment, and extraneous evidence of misconduct only serves to prejudice juries. Prior convictions must have passed the appeal period and involve crimes of dishonesty or false statement to be admissible for impeachment purposes.
Petition In intervention to the Supreme Court of the Philippines on Marriage ...Crescencio Agbayani
This document is a petition-in-intervention filed with the Supreme Court of the Philippines challenging provisions of the Family Code that define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The petition is filed by an LGBT Christian church and three individuals, including a gay couple who were denied a marriage license. The petition argues that the relevant Family Code provisions violate constitutional rights to equal protection and the right to found a family according to one's religious convictions. It seeks to have those Family Code provisions declared unconstitutional.
This document summarizes issues related to domestic restraining orders. It discusses how restraining orders are obtained through a two-step process and are often issued on an emergency basis without the respondent being present. It estimates that around 60% of the millions of restraining orders issued annually are unnecessary or false. The document also discusses how restraining orders can negatively impact families and violate due process, as well as problems with gender bias in their issuance and victims sometimes being wrongly accused of abuse.
Immigration lawsuits and the apa the basics of a district court actionUmesh Heendeniya
The document provides an overview of bringing an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) lawsuit in federal district court to challenge unlawful immigration agency actions outside of removal proceedings. It discusses that:
1) The APA allows individuals to sue the US government for non-monetary relief over unlawful agency actions. Suits are brought in federal district court.
2) Successful APA lawsuits have challenged various immigration agency decisions such as visa denials and delays in application processing.
3) The statute of limitations is six years under the general statute for suits against the US government. Jurisdiction is based on the federal question statute and the APA waives sovereign immunity.
Seeking A Legal Name Change For A Legal Name Changelegalwebsite
A legal name change requires opening a court case in the family division of circuit court. The petitioner must be a Macomb County resident for at least one year prior to filing. The filing fee is $150. For a name change, individuals must complete the Petition to Change Name and Publication of Notice of Hearing forms and submit them to the Macomb County Clerk's Office along with the fee. Fingerprinting is required for those over 22 years old. The whole process takes approximately 2 months. Additional forms may be needed depending on the petitioner's age and circumstances. If approved by the judge, a certified copy of the name change order can then be obtained for $12.
Department of homeland security foia 2016 hqfo-00609 acknowledgmentBryan Johnson
From our initial FOIA request,
"The purpose of is FOIA is to provide the public with knowledge of why DHS' enforcement operations overwhelmingly targeted family units and unaccompanied minors who were ordered removed in the Charlotte and Atlanta Immigration Courts."
Grievance Filing Against Belknap County (NH) Attorney Andrew Livernois and De...Rich Bergeron
This is a detailed complaint I filed recently regarding an attempt by the local prosecutor's office to eviscerate my First Amendment rights and deny me my rights to due process throughout the case.
New Legal Memo on Search Conditions for Parole ProbationBert M
1) Consent to search regulations can be included as a condition of mandatory supervision. This is authorized by state parole policy manuals, state codes, or case law. Only one method is required to justify the search condition.
2) Case law has established that warrantless searches of parolees do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as regulations authorizing such searches meet reasonable standards. States can impose special conditions on those released on mandatory supervision through parole department policies, state codes, or case law.
3) For a search condition involving warrantless home searches under mandatory supervision to be reasonable, it should be used discretionally depending on the nature of the original crime, such as being more justified for a sex offender versus a negligent
- The letter is from an attorney representing clients involved in a legal case against Jehovah's Witnesses.
- The attorney asks Lawrence Lee and Jerome Pierce to stop contacting his clients without permission and warns he will seek a court order to prevent unauthorized contact.
- The attorney accuses Jehovah's Witnesses of fraud and illegal activities based on evidence from the legal case and warns further action may be taken.
Motion For Sanctions Against Andrew Livernois, Keith Cormier,Tara Heater and ...Rich Bergeron
My motion for sanctions against a pair of attorneys from Belknap County and another two from Grafton County. Four attorneys handling my case all lied and misrepresented the law. This motion demonstrates what is fundamentally wrong about your local justice system in New Hampshire.
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered SanctionsRich Bergeron
This is my quick reply to the ridiculously deficient objection to my sanctions motion filed by Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater. The judge ended up not giving Heater an extension and set the hearing for March 5, 2021.
The document is a Motion in Limine and Motion to Suppress Evidence filed by the defendant Jane M. Doe in a criminal case in Chatham County, Georgia. The motion seeks to suppress all evidence from the defendant's arrest for DUI and other offenses, arguing that the arresting officer lacked probable cause. Specifically, the motion argues that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant, did not have probable cause to arrest without a warrant, conducted an illegal search and seizure, and failed to properly obtain consent for field sobriety tests or a breathalyzer test. If granted, the motion would suppress all evidence from the stop, arrest, tests, and statements made by the defendant.
CitySt.Paul heinous Civil,Criminal,Constitutional Rights to Shut off Sharon Water, www.sharonanderson.org
then Steal Sharons Cars,Trailers,Propertys, but Theft,Trespass,Treason, must be abated,Damages Award
Andrew Livernois and Keith Cormier of the Belknap County Attorney's Office Ta...Rich Bergeron
The ACLU of New Hampshire opposes the State's motion for a court order prohibiting pre-trial publicity in the case of State v. Richard E. Bergeron, III. The ACLU argues that: 1) the Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to pro se criminal defendants like Bergeron and cannot be the basis for a gag order; 2) even if the rules did apply, the proposed gag order exceeds the scope of the relevant rule by restricting speech that occurs far before trial and by ignoring exceptions; and 3) the proposed gag order would be an unconstitutional prior restraint on Bergeron's freedom of expression under the US and NH Constitutions.
The document is a letter from the president of the FACDL-Miami chapter informing members about obtaining a security bypass ID card for the courthouse. It provides an application form for new and renewal applicants, which requires basic information and a $20 fee. Completed applications should be mailed to the FACDL-Miami secretary. Applications will be submitted to the AOC on the 15th of each month and IDs can then be picked up with an acknowledgement form affirming the user will follow program rules. The letter encourages members to renew their membership and forward the information to other interested parties.
Michael Smyth sued his former employer Pillsbury for wrongful termination. Smyth claims he was fired for sending private email messages over Pillsbury's email system in reliance on their assurances that email would remain confidential. Pillsbury argues that, as an at-will employee, Smyth could be fired without cause. The court must determine if Smyth's termination violates public policy regarding an employee's right to privacy. While Pennsylvania law generally allows at-will termination, exceptions exist for terminations that threaten clear public policy mandates. Smyth claims his termination violated public policy protecting privacy in email communications.
Young v Dubow Ambrose DHS Saafir Methodist Kinship 10Roxanne Grinage
1. The document appeals a Post-Adjudication Hearing and Order from August 3, 2009 that prolonged abuse of the appellant's children by their father.
2. The order is alleged to be the result of misadministration by the Department of Human Services and Family Court, which enabled the abuse despite extensive documented evidence.
3. The appellant claims the order violates her constitutional rights and denies her due process to defend herself and her children against false accusations. She seeks scrutiny of DHS's role in prolonging the abuse.
Richard Walchuk pleaded guilty to conspiracy, wire fraud, and securities fraud charges related to offenses committed between October 2008 and June 2008. He was sentenced to time served and ordered to pay a $300 special assessment. No fine or restitution was imposed. The judgment document provides details of the charges and sentencing as well as standard conditions for any term of supervised release, though none was imposed in this case.
Motion for new trial -clu 12-19_14_no_51_14screaminc
This document provides a summary of case law updates from the week ending December 19, 2014 from the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia. It discusses cases related to motions for new trial, juvenile probation revocation, search and seizure/implied consent, forfeiture by wrongdoing, and jurisdiction/supersedeas. The document provides brief summaries of the facts, issues, and holdings of each case.
A Look into the Laws on Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage in Ghana, USA and...Kwabena Amponsah Asare
The document provides an overview of laws regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage in Ghana, the US, and South Africa. It summarizes key court cases in the US that established rights for same-sex couples, including Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that had allowed states to criminalize homosexual acts. It also discusses South Africa becoming the first African country to legalize same-sex marriage through the Fourie case and Civil Union Act. The document explores these issues in the context of Ghanaian law as well.
Whats Best 4 Spencer - 16 NEW US Supreme Court Questions Submitted April 5 - ...Kimberly Spence
This document provides background information on two pending US Supreme Court cases (Nos. 15-6566 and 15-6567) brought by Kimberly Spence regarding the best interests of her son Spencer. It lists 16 revised questions presented to the Supreme Court regarding issues like states' rights, access to constitutional rights, public servant accountability, and the best interests of children. The document seeks updates on the cases, which are now with the Attorney General after the Supreme Court dismissed the initial 3 questions presented. It provides the contact information for Kimberly Spence and links to follow the case developments.
This case concerns the constitutionality of Florida's ban on adoption by homosexual persons. Under Florida law at the time, homosexual persons were allowed to serve as foster parents but were barred from being considered for adoption. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling that there was no rational basis for this distinction and that the statute banning adoption by homosexual persons was therefore unconstitutional. The court found no evidence to support distinguishing between homosexual persons serving as foster parents or guardians versus adoptive parents, where the adoption would be in the best interests of the children. The Department of Children and Families appealed the ruling to the Florida Supreme Court.
Grand Jury: Information, definitions, and explanations of what grand juriesAaron Davis
This web site was created by Susan Brenner, co-author of Federal Grand Jury Practice, a book about how federal grand juries operate and the role they play in federal law enforcement.
100 words each question Questions 1.The Constitutional i.docxherminaprocter
100 words each question
Questions 1.
The Constitutional issue I will discuss will be the birthright citizenship dispute. The courts dispute whether natural-born refers to territorial, blood, or some combination. The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, and it reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.” According to President Trump “So-called Birthright Citizenship, which costs our Country billions of dollars and is very unfair to our citizens, will be ended one way or the other. It is not covered by the 14th Amendment because of the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Many legal scholars agree,” I believe in controlling citizenship by allowing the parents to become citizens but to revoke citizenship already granted to children of illegal immigrants is out of the question. As a Supreme Court Justice that part would be denied, you will not be able to remove any citizens from my country.
Question 2.
Good evening Class/Dr. B.,
With Abortion laws being at the center of many debates these days I was not surprised to find a recent case out of North Dakota where a Federal Judge temporarily blocked a law that requires physicians to giver their patients inaccurate information about the effects of abortion. The law stated that patients must be told that the effects of abortion drugs can be reversed and that the procedure will terminate the life of a "whole, separate, unique, living human being" as part of informed consent.
U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Holland wrote that this law was "unsound, misplaced, and would not survive a constitutional challenge under any level of scrutiny." The law clearly is more in favor of those who are against pro-choice. Requiring that Physicians give misleading information to patients that contradicts medical science and their practices is a violation of the physicians First Amendment Rights to speak freely to their patients. Personal opinions aside, I agree with the decision that the Judge made in this case. The Supreme Court would potentially be looking at an even bigger issue if they place these type of requirements on Physicians, especially if the information being provided is misleading. If I was Supreme Court Justice and this case made it to my Court I would have to first ask what ground did the state even have for this to have been passed as a law in the first place. I understand that patients should be given lots of information before these types of serious procedures, but when a law leans more in favor of certain political groups and violates rights of certain people we must scrutinize it's origin and motive. Thanks for any comments/feedback! -Tierra
Question 3.
A pending case that still has to be resolved is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., et al. V. City of New York, New York, et al. In this pending case, N.
Rodriguez 1
Diego Rodriguez
Winston Padgett
Government 2305, Sect. 049
Monday, April 14, 2014
Same Sex Marriage: Constitutional and Cultural Considerations Outline
Same sex marriage - is a highly controversial topic in the United States. It impacts our culture and, in many regards to religious beliefs
I. Why and how the U.S. Supreme Court has issued two important rulings that opened up room in constitutional jurisprudence for consideration of gay rights.
A. Yet the vast majority of other states have adopted statutes or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Do they right to revolt against government tyranny and fight for their rights
B. What states approve of same sex marriage? Which states deny same sex marriage? How has this happen?
II. In this Article, I argue that an individual who marries in her state of domicile and then migrates to a mini-defense of marriage act state has a significant liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause in the ongoing existence of her marriage.
A. Section 1 ARTICLE IV “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
B. Courts generally agreed right applies to individuals
C. Government permitted to limit some rights of marriage by same sex.
D. Questions today center around: What bans our enforced presently on same sex marriage? Should it be mandatory for gays that want marriage neutral principle grounded in core Due Process Clause values: protection of reasonable expectations and of marital and family privacy, respect for established legal and social practices, and rejection of the idea that a state can sever a legal family relationship merely by operation of law?
III. Court cases outcome for gay marriages
A. The article cites a survey on the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the U.S. which found that 50% of the American people are in favor of the amendment banning same-sex marriages while 47% strongly opposed.
B. This survey was conducted by Gallup Poll Ltd. conducted on May 8-11, 2006. Findings also revealed that 66% of the Republicans favor the constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution while 55% of the Democrats opposed the amendment.
C. United States v. Windsor, a narrow majority ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which comprehensively defined "marriage" and "spouse" in federal law to exclude same-sex partners, was unconstitutional.
D. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court let stand a trial-court ruling invalidating California's Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage. Will Fourteenth Amendment still not incorporated to protect gay marriage
IV. There have been and there will continue to be disagreements about the merits of same-sex marriage. But disagree ...
BURWELL v HOBBY LOBBY STORES INC FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE ACABrandon Shields
This document provides background information on the Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. It discusses the history of relevant legislation and case law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It summarizes the Hobby Lobby case, in which for-profit corporations challenged the ACA contraceptive mandate on religious grounds under RFRA. The document analyzes the Court's decision and implications, including whether corporations can claim protections under RFRA and how the decision contradicts previous precedent.
Idealism refers to behavior or thought that is based on a conceptiLizbethQuinonez813
Idealism refers to behavior or thought that is based on a conception of things as they should be or as one would like them to be. Realism is sometimes described as "warts and all," existing in fact rather than something imagined. What are some contemporary examples that utilize idealism? Are the purposes the same as those of the Classical Greeks? Why do you think Romans developed realistic portraiture? What are some contemporary examples that utilize realism? Which do you prefer, realism or idealism?
NEED THIS DISCUSSION 4 DIFFERENT WAYS. It is for four different students. No page count necessary just answer the questions completely and provide citations for each
There are many criteria that prosecutors might use to decide whether to proceed with a case or drop it. Do you believe prosecutors should have absolute discretion? Why or why not?
NEED THIS DISCUSSION 3 DIFFERENT WAYS FOR 3 DIFFERENT STUDENTS 2 REFERENCES ARE REQUIRED APA
Due to the excessive criminal court caseloads, plea bargaining is often used. Discuss the pros and cons of plea bargaining and explain the roles of the prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, and victim in the plea negotiation.
NEED THIS DISCUSSION 3 DIFFERENT WAYS FOR 3 DIFFERENT 2 REFERENCES ARE REQUIRED APA
1/3/22, 1:18 PM Texas abortion law: U.S. Supreme Court says legal challenge can proceed | The Texas Tribune
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/11/05/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court/ 1/8
TEXAS ABORTION RESTRICTIONS
U.S. Supreme Court lets enforcement of
Texas abortion law continue but allows
legal challenges to proceed
The court allowed the suit to continue on an 8-1 decision. Abortion providers will
resume seeking to block the law as it progresses through lower court proceedings.
BY REESE OXNER DEC. 10, 2021 UPDATED: 1 PM CENTRAL
COPY LINK
M E N U
Omicron Variant Election Audit Abortion Access Find Your Political Districts Coronavirus Tracker
https://www.texastribune.org/series/texas-abortion-restrictions/
https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/reese-oxner/
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.texastribune.org/2021/11/05/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court/%3Futm_campaign%3Dtrib-social-buttons%26utm_source%3Dfacebook%26utm_medium%3Dsocial
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.texastribune.org/2021/11/05/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court/%3Futm_campaign%3Dtrib-social-buttons%26utm_source%3Dtwitter%26utm_medium%3Dsocial&text=U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20lets%20enforcement%20of%20Texas%20abortion%20law%20continue%20but%20allows%20legal%20challenges%20to%20proceed&via=TexasTribune
mailto:?subject=U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20lets%20enforcement%20of%20Texas%20abortion%20law%20continue%20but%20allows%20legal%20challenges%20to%20proceed&body=https://www.texastribune.org/2021/11/05/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court/%3Futm_campaign%3Dtrib-social-buttons%26utm_source%3Demail%26utm_medium%3Dsocial
https://www.texastribune.org/
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/28/omi ...
Jane Doe and Judy Roe, a same-sex couple in Michigan, each have children they adopted individually and now want to jointly adopt their children. They have questions about whether Michigan's adoption statute allowing only married or single individuals to adopt violates equal protection, and if the courts could interpret the statute to allow their joint adoption. The memo analyzes these issues, concluding that while an equal protection challenge would likely fail under rational basis review, the courts could interpret the statute liberally to allow the joint adoption, following other states' precedent. The circuit court would have jurisdiction over the case.
Jane Doe and Judy Roe, a same-sex couple in Michigan, each adopted children individually and now want to jointly adopt the children so they can be a legal family. However, Michigan law restricts adoption to married or single individuals, excluding unmarried couples like Jane and Judy. They have asked lawyers to determine if they can challenge this law. The lawyers analyze whether the law violates equal protection rights and which court could hear the case. They find the law will likely be upheld under a rational basis test since the state only needs a rational reason for the classification. Precedent from other states offers some guidance on these issues.
Petitioner Deborah Weaver is filing a verified petition to modify custody, parent-time, and child support regarding her three minor children with Respondent Siosifa Heimuli. She alleges that Respondent has continually refused to pay child support and comply with court orders. Additionally, the children have been exposed to domestic violence in Respondent's home. Petitioner proposes adopting her concurrently filed parenting plan and modifying child support. She requests that Respondent and his wife submit to psychological evaluations and that a guardian ad litem be appointed to represent the children's best interests. Petitioner asserts these changes are necessary to protect the children from further abuse and are in their best interests.
Provided by Darren Chaker, this is an excellent publication concerning obtaining police records. Booking photographs to police report for all 50 states.
This document summarizes and provides arguments in support of Illinois House Bill 0110, known as the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act. The bill would legalize same-sex marriage in Illinois while protecting religious organizations' right not to perform or recognize such marriages. The document argues that denying same-sex couples equal marriage rights violates principles of equal protection and cannot withstand strict scrutiny review. It also argues that allowing same-sex marriage does not harm traditional marriage or children, and respects the separation of church and state mandated by the US and Illinois constitutions.
This document is a motion filed by the plaintiff Jeffrey Howell seeking a preliminary injunction to prohibit enforcement of an Indiana statute criminalizing certain online communications. The plaintiff argues he is likely to succeed on the merits because the statute is nearly identical to communications decency acts previously struck down as unconstitutional for suppressing protected speech between adults. The plaintiff further argues the statute cannot survive strict scrutiny because it effectively bans constitutionally protected speech without including defenses for reasonable efforts to restrict minor access.
Similar to U.S. Federal Permit Issued for Religious Cannabis / Kaneh-Bos (17)
Safeguarding Against Financial Crime: AML Compliance Regulations DemystifiedPROF. PAUL ALLIEU KAMARA
To ensure the integrity of financial systems and combat illicit financial activities, understanding AML (Anti-Money Laundering) compliance regulations is crucial for financial institutions and businesses. AML compliance regulations are designed to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities by imposing specific requirements on financial institutions, including customer due diligence, monitoring, and reporting of suspicious activities (GitHub Docs).
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Frameworkdevaki57
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
MEANING
Corporate Governance refers to the way in which companies are governed and to what purpose. It identifies who has power and accountability, and who makes decisions. It is, in essence, a toolkit that enables management and the board to deal more effectively with the challenges of running a company.
U.S. Federal Permit Issued for Religious Cannabis / Kaneh-Bos
1. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
AlanGordon401-304-6020 judges1412@gmail.com
New EnglandCannabistAnti-DiscriminationTaskforce(NECAT)
Anne Armstrong 402-304-6543 annearmstrongri@gmail.com
The HealingChurch
First-Ever US Religious Cannabis Permit
Issued by National Park Service
1st
May 2015, Providence, Rhode Island -- Across the US, Canada and England today, religious activists
known as “Cannabists” are celebrating an apparent legal victory, upon early reports that a US federal
religious cannabis use permit has been issued by the National Park Service.
Anne Armstrong of The Healing Church says her Bible instructs her to use the ancient Hebrew plant
“Kaneh-Bos” as sacred matter,and on March 25th
2015, she applied for a religious cannabis use gathering
permit at the birthplace of US religious freedom, Roger Williams National Memorial, managed by the
National Park Service.
After a series of emailed procedural questions from Roger Williams Memorial site manager Jennifer
Smith, a permit was issued April 30th
2015 for the gathering, although its terms and conditions seemed to
prohibit any otherwise impermissible use of “controlled substances.” End of story? Hardly.
When Armstrong and her co-applicant Alan Gordon (a legal researcher with the New England Cannabist
Anti-Discrimination Taskforce,or NECAT) sought clarification, they received a cautiously-worded letter
indicating that the normal ban on cannabis was exempted in the circumstances,as protected free
expression and religious freedom not even requiring a permit unless it hindered others’ access to Park
facilities or caused a public spectacle.
“To be accurate,the permit is just so we can have a sizable gathering, as it has been made clear that mere
cannabis use does not require a permit if religious in nature,” says Armstrong, adding “even if we share
from a vessel containing the Kaneh-Bos-based Anointing Oil recipe from Exodus 30:23.”
Gordon, a UK law graduate and unconditionally Pardoned Georgia (USA) felon cannabis grower who has
used religious cannabis since 1993, says that due to vicious oppression of Cannabists in the past “I was
initially much more cautious than Anne about such an overt federaldeclaration of our Cannabist faith.”
Gordon says this made him overeager to answer the Park Service’s demand for assurances about safe
dosage, limits for bystanders, and driving safety. “Anne told me we didn’t even need to answer to those
concerns,though, since the Park Service allows Catholic churches to serve wine to 16 and 17 year-old
drivers in Grand Canyon National Park, with no government supervision, and not even any internal
Church protocols other than the honour system before God,” says Gordon. “She was right.”
Armstrong and Gordon are currently researching under what, if any, conditions, any other State or Federal
Government agency could ever again interfere with their Constitutionally-protected religious practices.
Both Armstrong and Gordon have a long history of faith-based activism, both having previously been
arrested for religious activity.
2. Anne Armstrong and Alan Gordon Cannabissing it up, at Roger Williams this past Palm Sunday
Alan Gordon plants cannabis in front of dozens of police officers, May 01 1997.
May 2nd
1997, The Daily Red and Black, Athens, Georgia.
3.
4.
5. On Mar 24, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Smith, Jennifer <jennifer_smith@nps.gov> wrote:
Anne: As we discussed, please complete the application and drop off at my office along with the $50
application fee. I will, then, set up a meeting to discuss your application and event details with the
Superintendent.
Please let me know if you have any questions as you are filling out the application. A pleasure to speak with
you. Jen
http://www.nps.gov/rowi/planyourvisit/upload/Revised-NPS-Form-10-930_10-2010_ROWI.pdf
Jennifer Smith
Site Manager
Roger Williams National Memorial
282 North Main Street
Providence, RI 02903
O: 401.521.7266
C: 401.595.8394
www.nps.gov/rowi
On Thursday, March 26, 2015, Anne Armstrong <annearmstrongri@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you very much. We'll be by early next week to drop off the permit. I think we might be able to restrict our
use of open flame to two candles held by careful grown-ups.
Bless you.
Anne Armstrong
From: "Smith, Jennifer" <jennifer_smith@nps.gov>
Date: March 27, 2015 at 7:15:17 AM EDT
To: Anne Armstrong <annearmstrongri@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Link to Special Use Permit
Thank you, Anne. Will be on the lookout for it. Jen
From: "Smith, Jennifer" <jennifer_smith@nps.gov>
Date: April 13, 2015 at 2:30:14 PM EDT
To: Anne Armstrong <annearmstrongri@gmail.com>
Subject: Roger WilliamsNM Special Use Permit isready
Ms. Armstrong: I just left you a voicemail requesting that we meet either this afternoon or Friday afternoon to go
over the permit for your event on May 23, 2015. I apologize for the late notice in requesting to meet with you
today. I just put the finishing touches on the permit a few hours ago. Unfortunately, I am out of the office
Tuesday-Thursday this week at a training course so this afternoon and Friday afternoon are my only
opportunities to meet with you this week. Please let me know what your availability is. Thank you, Jen
6. Jennifer Smith
Site Manager
Roger Williams National Memorial
282 North Main Street
Providence, RI 02903
O: 401.521.7266
C: 401.595.8394
www.nps.gov/rowi
from: Alan
Gordon <judges1412@gmail.com>
to: jennifer_smith@nps.gov,
Anne Armstrong
<annearmstrongri@gmail.com>
date: Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:57 AM
subject: cannabis permit application
RE: Contested Cannabis Religious Use Permit
14th April 2015
Dear Jennifer Smith (cc Anne Armstrong):
1. Pursuant to yesterday’s telephone indication from you about Anne Armstrong’s
pending application to use religious cannabis in National Park Service jurisdiction, our
understanding is that you, as the wielder of discretion, are not initially leaning towards
approval of that part of the permit application, though it is the very essence and purpose
of the application.
2. I am Anne Armstrong’s authorized agent in this matter. As I understood it, a
solicitor or attorney for the relevant federal district has advised you that you do not have
discretion to issue permits for the use of substances banned by the Controlled
Substances Act, which seemingly bans the substance in question -- but for exceptions
7. provided by law, which we mean to draw to your attention in time to prevent litigation
which we feel sure of winning, but would prefer not to file.
3. For the reference of any instructing/advising attorneys, the Secretary of the Interior,
or other parties to whose advice you are contractually beholden, below please find our
representations for Park Service consideration in the exercise of discretion, so that all
relevant facts and law can be considered.
4. If the law said “all National Park visitors must have their shoes tied”, enforcing it
strictly would be inappropriate if any of the following were true:
A. If another law allowed for untied shoes in particular circumstances; or
B. If the Constitution protected all levels of shoelace preparedness, tied or
untied; or
C. If the US Supreme Court has found the untied laces ban to be
unconstitutional for previous Park visitors
5. The exercise of discretion requires all relevant facts and laws to be considered, not
just the ones which a US attorney wishes to be considered. In this case, there seems to
be a clash between the statutory cannabis ban, on one hand, and on the other hand, the
following federally-applicable binding law:
A. The federal Religious Freedoms Restoration Act (abbreviated RFRA, 42
U.S. CodeChapter 21B) sets forth a series of test hurdles for the Government
to clear for proper handling of generally-applicable laws (such as the
cannabis ban) when they collide with the fundamental constitutional right to
religious practice:
8. B. The unanimous 8-0 US Supreme Court decision in a previous religious
substance use case, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do
Vegetal, 546 U.S.418 (2006). (abbreviated UDV). UDV was a test case for
how RFRA applies to a powerful hallucinogen (dimethltryptamine or DMT,
an LSD-like drug) in the same federal schedule as cannabis.
C. The First Amendment to the US Constitution itself, which guarantees
the right to religious practice.
6. As it turns out, prior to the passage of RFRA and the UDV case, even the older,
stricter law would even have allowed the cannabis use we seek, because of a “due
process” and “fair hearing” violation in the permit application process (see Paragraph
10 below at “DUE PROCESS”).
7. RFRA was passed by a nearly unanimous Congress (both houses) as a response to
an unpopular Supreme Court decision in a religious hallucinogen case
called Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith,
494 U.S. 872 (Smith). In Smith, the religious drug use was not permitted in that case,
but in the Supreme Court ruling, Justice Thomas’ opinion for the majority, at the top of
page 3, said that if a generally-applicable law blocked a religious practice and also
featured due process or fair trial violations, that was unconstitutional unto itself even if
the law’s interference with religious practice was not strictly intentional or
unconstitutional unto itself (shy of the due process problem).
8. Since Smith, RFRA and UDV, religious protections for otherwise banned behavior
have increased dramatically. With those laws, now, if Government means to ban a
sincere[1]religious practice, even incidentally, with a generally applicable law, they
must first successfully pass through every one of several hurdles:
A. “Compelling Interest” test -- Government must prove, via evidence, a
“compelling interest” in a ban without an exception. Under the UDV case,
reference to the ban itself does not suffice for compelling interest -- it must be
shown via evidence (to a greater than 50% likelihood), which may be rebutted
with contradictory evidence.
In other words, saying “because it is illegal” is not a compelling interest,
whereas why it is illegal could be a compelling interest -- if it is proved, by
Government. The burden of proof is Government’s, the standard is “more likely
9. than not”, and Government’s evidence may be rebutted with contradictory
evidence.
B. “Essential” test -- Government must show that the ban (without
exceptions) is “essential” to the compelling interest alleged. This must be
proved via evidence, with proof’s burden on Government, to a greater-than-50%
standard, just like compelling interest.
C. “Least Restrictive Means” test -- Government must prove, via evidence,
that a total ban, without exceptions, is the least restrictive means of essentially
achieving their compelling interest, with the same level of proof as compelling
interest.
9. In the first and only religious drug test of RFRA in the US Supreme Court, the court
was unanimous in favor of the religious activity, in UDV, despite the powerfully
hallucinogenic subject matter (DMT) -- which the courts accepted as sincere religious
practice.
10. With any due respect to Government’s position, it seems highly unlikely that
Government can prove the cannabis ban is essential to any compelling interest, given
that statistically, the cannabis ban has backfired and worsened any problems caused by
cannabis. In the case of applicant Anne Armstrong, she sincerely believes that cannabis
is in the Bible, referred to as “Kaneh-Bos” (a Hebrew sacramental healing plant quite
cannabis-like in its Biblical depictions). Ms. Armstrong’s faith, identical to mine, is
complex, multi-layered, self-consistent, and well thought-out. This is evidence of our
belief, more of which is available directly from her, in person, if required, though any
attempt by Government to rebut our sincerity will likely fall flat, given our demonstrable
utter religious devotion in day-to-day life and established public history[2] as religious
cannabis users.
11. Further, with regard to “compelling interest,” Government seems unlikely to be able
to prove cannabis is even harmful, since the highly publicized recent de-bunking of
studies claiming it caused brain changes, psychosis, addiction to other substances, and
cancer -- when in fact, cannabis is an excellent treatment for those conditions in many
cases. Every longitudinal study of cannabis use consistently finds no long term harm
attributable to cannabis; anti-cannabis studies and propaganda are largely funded and
deliberately mis-interpreted in public education by conflicting corporate interests such
as the pharmaceutical pill industry, alcohol industry, and prison industry. If
Government establishes a compelling interest somehow, they will not be able to prove
10. that a ban (with no religious exemption) is essential to that interest, just as they were
unable to in the UDV case in which a truly mind-bending substance (barely known to
science) was at stake.
12. Finally, Government will not be able to show that refusing a religious exemption is
the “least restrictive” method of achieving any compelling interest. Jamaica, India, Italy
and even the US allow religious cannabis or other banned substances without
problems. Several US religions use substances with far greater danger potential than
cannabis (whether DMT in the UDV case, or alcohol served to minors as Communion
wine).
FAIR HEARING/ DUE PROCESS BREACHES
13. The United States Constitution’s 5th,6th and 14th amendments guarantee fair hearing
and due process, rights which extend to all uses of discretion.
14. Due to racially/ethnically/culturally/religiously pejorative language in the cannabis
ban statute (see below), and also due to self-contradictions in that statute, fair trial and
due process guarantees for Government discretion in our religious land use application
are insufficient. In other words, any result but an approval will result in us rightly
claiming that the discretion-wielder was at too high a risk of having been “inherently
prejudiced” due to the wrong (offensive) and self-contradictory language of the law
itself.
15. According to relevant US Supreme Court case law (Holbrook v Flynn 475 U.S. 560
(1986) (Holbrook), discretion-wielders, once exposed to prejudicial language in
proceedings, may not even gauge their own prejudice level, but are thereafter too tainted
with risk of prejudice to wield discretion appropriately.
16. The exercise of discretion in the ongoing cannabis application is made more
complex by prejudicial language that the relevant discretion wielder (and fact-finding
tribunal) has been repeatedly exposed to. Under Holbrook, this language is fatal to our
right to a fair hearing and due process. Unfortunately, the law purportedly banning
cannabis at the federal level was enacted with demonstrably racist, nationalist, ethnicist,
and religiously discriminatory intent, and in so doing, used a word “Marihuana” [sic] or
“Marijuana” [sic]
(HEREINAFTER “THE DEPLORABLE WORD”)
which was deliberately (or even accidentally, but intolerably so) culturally/racially/
ethnically/religiously inflammatory, in that it was a slang Mexican word -- not used in
11. the law of Mexico, or any other country but the US -- and spelled wrong, introduced
into American parlance with overtly deliberately racist, ethnicist, nationalist, culturalist
and religiousicist intentions from the outset of cannabis prohibition.
17. Additionally, the tribunal-of-fact and wielder-of-discretion has also been placed at
too high a risk of bias by factually-incorrect language in the law, language which is so
contrary to real-world fact that the legislature’s intent is actually subject to question
(Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (1991) ), 464-5, citing United States v.
Rodgers, 466 U. S. 475, 466 U. S. 484 (1984).
18. For example, the law purportedly banning cannabis improperly classifies it as an
“hallucinogen” at 21CFR1308.11 (d)(23), when it is not an hallucinogen. Additionally, the
law specifies that cannabis allegedly has no medical value (as a member of Schedule I
at 21CFR1308.11, but cannabis clearly does have medical value, and this has been the
subject of high profile federal litigation elsewhere.
CONCLUSION
19. In order to make the correct decision with the available discretion, all relevant laws
must be weighed, not just a single offensive law in a proverbial vacuum, since laws do
not operate that way.
20. There are established guidelines for how to balance conflicting religious rights and
substance laws, and they must be followed.
21. Correct use of discretion requires due process for applicants. That includes an
adequate opportunity to see and rebut any evidence the Government sets forth to back
up its absurd claim that cannabis is harmful enough to ban its religious use, or that their
attempts to stop cannabis have helped in any way. Applicants additionally have a right
to a fair, impartial process, one free of pejorative or inflammatory language or actions
conducted without essential or legitimate interest. Given the racial etc. problems with
the cannabis statute, and it factually-deficient language, the law itself prevents fair
hearing about it, and so any rejection will be litigated on those grounds.
12. 22. This case seems, in common language, a bit “slam dunk”-ish for us, and represents
a capricious waste of federal resources should it be fought. The precedent that district
authorities may seek to avoid will likely include a larger geography and more publicity
if the permit is denied than if it is quietly granted.
23. The burden of proof is Government’s, not the applicant’s, and any discretion-
wielder thinking otherwise is likely suffering the effects of the prejudicial language of
the relevant statute, which leads listeners to see cannabis use as “wrong” regardless of
legal rights, constitutional rights, or fact.
24. Please for your convenience find links to relevant statutes and case laws, below.
25. Please let us know if you have any need for clarification, on any matter, or if the
Government sets out any cannabis facts we may wish to rebut (they have a reputation
for setting out false “facts” about cannabis, you know).
Regards,
Alan Gordon, authorized agent for Anne Armstrong, primary applicant
cc Anne Armstrong
[1] In the case of Anne Armstrong and myself, and our “Cannabist” faith, the religious use of cannabis is deeply held,
demonstrably sincere,and exquisitely supported by the standardBible. It is not the discretion-wielder’s dutyto determine
whether or not the Bible actually refers to cannabis with the Hebrew word “Kaneh-Bos” (in context, describing a quite
cannabis-like holy plant). It is instead the discretion-wielder’s duty to assess, based on available evidence, whether the
applicant is sincere in her/his belief that the Bible refers to cannabis.
[2] For example:
13. 630 AM WPRO Protesters Disrupt Cannabis Press Conference
NJ.Com Dozens Smoke Pot Outside N.J. Statehouse During 'Spring Smoke Out' Rally
For Marijuana Legalization
To Alan Gordon, Jennifer Smith
Alan performed this excellent legal research and analysis at my request. He speaks for me as a fellow believer
and co-applicant.
Thank you.
Jah Bless,
Anne Armstrong
Anne
Armstrong <annearmstrongri@gmail.com
>
to: JenniferSmith
<jennifer_smith@nps.gov>,
AlanGordon
<judges1412@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Apr16, 2015 at 12:57
PM
We agree to an extension of time of three days for your response to our application for a special use permit for
our Pentecost service in Roger Williams National Memorial Park.
Thank You
Anne Armstrong
...I have a vision for our State where common sense, compassion, and cooperation can re-create Rhode Island
into a place where everyone can live in abundance.
from: Smith,
Jennifer <jennifer_smith@nps.gov>
14. to: Anne Armstrong
<annearmstrongri@gmail.com>
cc: AlanGordon judges1412@gmail.com
Anne:Iapologize thatI didnotask for clarificationwhetherthe three dayextensionisthree
businessdaysorthree calendardays.Please letme know,andIwill letmyteamknow.Thank
youfor your flexibility.Jen
JenniferSmith
Site Manager
RogerWilliamsNational Memorial
282 NorthMain Street
Providence,RI02903
O: 401.521.7266
C: 401.595.8394
www.nps.gov/rowi
from: Anne
Armstrong <annearmstrongri@gmail.com>
to: "Smith, Jennifer"
<jennifer_smith@nps.gov>
cc: Alan Gordon <judges1412@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:25 PM
subject: Re: Permit application
Three business days.
15. from: Smith,
Jennifer <jennifer_smith@nps.gov>
to: Anne Armstrong
<annearmstrongri@gmail.com>,
Alan Gordon
<judges1412@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:24 PM
subject: Questions re: Special Use Permit
application
Anne and Alan: Thank you for taking my call this afternoon. In order for us to finalize the review of your
application and capture information for the administrative record related to this application, I have a few
additional questions. Please respond in writing as soon as you are able to that we may continue our review.
1. Will you be distributing cannabis to the attendees of the ceremony or will attendees be bringing their own?
2. How much cannabis do you expect each attendee to consume? And what method will be used for
consumption of the cannabis?
3. Are only church members invited to participate in the ceremony?
4. If you expect only church members to participate, how will you assure us of that?
5. What materials can you provide to us to help us understand how it is that a cannabis prohibition would
infringe upon your exercise of religion?
Thank you, both. Jen
Jennifer Smith
Site Manager
Roger Williams National Memorial
282 North Main Street
Providence, RI 02903
O: 401.521.7266
C: 401.595.8394
www.nps.gov/rowi
rom: Alan
Gordon <judges1412@gmail.com>
to: jennifer_smith@nps.gov,
Anne Armstrong
<annearmstrongri@gmail.com>
date: Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:51 AM
16. subject: Permit ap questions answered
ATTACHED .PDFAS FOLLOWS:
Jennifer Smith
Site Manager,
Roger Williams National Monument
National Park Service
United States Department of the Interior
16th April 2015
Dear Jennifer Smith:
Thank you for your careful attention to our requested permit, and for the dedication and
professionalism with which we have been treated.
The questions you asked are highly pertinent ones, and so we shall give detailed
answers to them, one at a time, below (your questions highlighted in boldface), after
some introductory remarks.
As a general overarching principle behind the National Park Service’s use of discretion,
we recognize that common sense guidelines for health, safety, order and respect for the
public’s rights are relevant to any special use permit.
In the case of banned or semi-banned sacramental religious substances, for example:
1. The Catholic Church operating within Grand Canyon National Park serves
alcohol wine to children, but does so within the context of a long-established,
long-accepted practice, even on federal land, by what appears to be self-policing
(see EXHIBIT 1) and an implied federal recognition of the validity of self-policing.
2. The faithful in the UDV Supreme Court case previously cited, for whom an
hallucinogenic, generally-banned tea (ayahuasca) was a sacrament, had a series
of protocols in place for health, safety and good faith which were specifically
tailored to the substance in question, based on experiential knowledge and
17. common sense. The protocols included techniques for preventing the spread of
the sacrament to those outside the church, especially for secular use.
We recognize that while our request is analogous to the 2 previous cases, each of those
sacred materials are different from cannabis, and the cultural background context of this
specific permit application differs greatly as well.
The most important three distinctions we raise to those analogous cases are:
1. Our sacred matter is safer than alcohol, because it does not cause crime/
violence, and cannot cause lethal overdose.
2. Our Bible tells the story of a people persecuted for using “Kaneh-Bos”, and so we
are wary of non-users’ long history of attempts to suppress our faith. For that
reason, for the purposes of this permit application, and recognizing that we mean
to practice in public, we will take pains (described below) to see that no
participating attendees:
A. Are harmed by cannabis or use it unsafely.
B. Take away cannabis that was not theirs prior to the religious service.
C. Are outside of, or insincere about, their adherence to our faith, or who we
do not know for certain are trained to use cannabis only safely.
D. Litter, make nuisances, or in any other way degrade the property or
mission of the relevant site, neighboring property, or the rights of the
public (such as reasonable use and enjoyment) and of the dedicated
National Park Service employees who steward that site for the public’s
benefit.
Therefore, in order to achieve the appropriate balance of our rights and the rights and
duties of others, we offer below, in our answers to your questions, a practical set of
solutions specifically tailored for the unique substance, religion, participants, time and
place.
1. Will you be distributing cannabis to the attendees of the ceremony or will
attendees be bringing their own?
We will share cannabis-based sacred matter with fellow Cannabists as described in
Paragraph “2.” Below.
18. The answer to questions number 3 & 4 below (regarding church members and limitation
of who participates) also speak to this.
2. How much cannabis do you expect each attendee to consume? And what
method will be used for consumption of the cannabis?
METHODS OF USE:
We will be using:
A. A small quantity (1-2 drops, just enough to trace a symbol on the forehead) per
person of the Holy Anointing Oil recipe from the Book of Exodus 30:23,
containing primarily olive oil, along with “Kaneh-Bos” (cannabis), “Kinnamon”,
“Flowing Myrrh” (moringa oil, since modern myrrh does not flow) and Cardamom
(“Kata”, often translated as “Cassia”, but which cannot be cassia, since cassia is
just a toxic variety of cinnamon). The mental effects of the topical cannabis, at
such doses, is far less than that from a sip of wine, for a seasoned user of the
relevant substance; and
B. A sip of “bhang kefir”, a fermented milk-and-honey drink that contains small
amounts of cannabis and which has
1) no appreciable amounts of alcohol (akin to sour cream fermentations),
2) been spiritually imbued with health-enhancing properties via prayer.
This drink, in the relevant amount, would have no appreciable effect on any
regular cannabis user greater than that from the anointing rite described in our
answer to question “1.” above. We will bring, and take home, permanent ceramic
dishes, so as not to generate needless waste or accidental wind-drive litter on
the Memorial grounds or nearby State property, as a matter of spiritual duty.
C. In order to reproduce the “aroma soothing to the Lord”1, we will share a
communal “chalice” or “chillum” pipe of a type which can be used without direct
1 E.g. Leviticus 2:2 where burninganointingoil madea smoke to soothe the angry, jeaous Hebrew God’s wrath, or
all of the Old Testament’s sacrificeinstructions,in which the fatty tissues of the tribe’s healthiestgrazinganimals
made the same “God-soothing” aroma on the altar-fireas did theKaneh-Bos oil. Also see 2 Corinthians 2:14-17,
e.g. where it is written:
But thanks be to God, who . . . uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of Him everywhere. For we are
to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the
one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life. And who is equal to such a
task? Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before
God with sincerity, as those sent from God.
19. mouth contact (for sanitary purposes) and which does not risk the accidental
leaving of any “butts”, “roaches”, residue, litter, or take-away material for
bystanders. As members of a faith which our Bible says was persecuted, even in
the Biblical era/narrative itself, we exercise a discretion of our own, for our own
safety, even here in Rhode Island, the most cannabis-heavy of the US States in
terms of per capita use rates.
AMOUNT PER PERSON:
Attendees, seasoned cannabis users all, will consume far less cannabis than might
bring about negative consequences worthy of being a “compelling interest”.
That amount varies from person to person, because cannabis’ effects are largely
determined by the relative goodness or badness of faith of the person consuming it.
This is backed by our scripture and by modern science. Our faith is heavily centered
around cannabis science, and from that, we know that the human endocannabinoid
receptor – which modulate cannabis’ effects in the nervous system -- is hard-wired to
the so-called “placebo effect”2 (governing depth of belief and its health effects).
This means that when a person uses cannabis, her/his depth of belief is heightened.
Therefore, if prayer and good faith have positive health benefits (and the lack of them
fails to bring good health) as is commonly known fact attested to by science3 and the
Bible4,5 then cannabis amplifies the health effects, good or bad, of faith.
Because scripture agrees with science about this point, we believe that the safe and
healthy amount of Kaneh-Bos (cannabis) for any person to use is truly a matter of that
person’s good faith, because no one would in good faith even risk using too much
cannabis, nor would have any desire to use more than an appropriate amount.
For example, in the Book of Numbers, 11:16-29, seventy elders of the Hebrew tribe are
anointed with Kaneh-Bos oil via special permit, but 2 more men anoint themselves
without any such license. Nonetheless, the 2 men who have no license are in good
faith, and so they obtain the best health benefits from the Kaneh-Bos anointing --
despite their statutory non-compliance with the Kaneh-Bos restriction -- and are given
only praise when a legal complaint is filed against them to Moses.
2 Benedetti F, Amanzio M, Rosato R, Blanchard C.Nonopioid placebo analgesia ismediated by CB1 cannabinoid
receptors. Nat Med. 2011 Oct 2;17(10):1228-30.doi: 10.1038/nm.2435
3 Benson, Hebert MD. The Relaxation Response. Harper CollinsNew York 1975, reissue2000.
4 Luke 17:19, when Jesus tells a grateful ex-leper that his faith has made him whole.
5 James 5:14-15, where James writes
“Is any among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil
in the name of the Lord and the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well. The Lord will raise
them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.
20. The answer to questions number 3 & 4 below (regarding church members and limitation
of who participates) also speak to this.
3. Are only church members invited to participate in the ceremony?
Attendance is open to seekers, however, we will share our personal sacred matter
(“Kaneh-Bos”/cannabis) only with a small closely-held circle of co-Believers, as defined
with more precision in EXHIBIT 2.
4. If you expect only church members to participate, how will you assure us of
that?
This question’s simple answer is: by not sharing sacred matter (“Kaneh-Bos”/cannabis)
with any persons who are not closely held co-faithful Cannabists. All attending
Cannabists will be familiar with this protocol.
5. What materials can you provide to us to help us understand how it is that a
cannabis prohibition would infringe upon your exercise of religion?
The primary material is this, our statement of sincerely held religious belief that we must
exercise our faith, in the described manner, at the applied-for time.
To be more specific, it is our belief that the ancient Hebrew prophets saw forward in
time to this era, and saw this dispute, in the State of Rhode Island, in federal Park
jurisdiction, calling public awareness to the overarching theme of Roger Williams
National Monument: it is the birthplace of, arguably, global (and not just US) religious
freedom.
We believe that this time and place were fore-ordained for this act, and that we are
called to the task as a matter of duty, on the day foretold, Pentecost, Shavuot,
Havdalah, 5/23/2015.
Our religious practice is a sincere and genuine (if rare) one, involving a detailed, rich
belief system regarding Kaneh-Bos in scripture and its central relevance to the Bible’s
narrative.
To deny a permit would substantially interfere with our religious duty to act, and only if
necessary negotiate-or-litigate, because:
A. We were given to believe that the Park Service’s initial leaning, based upon legal
advice, was that permits could not be issued for substances banned by the
21. Controlled Substances Act, which indicates that the use of cannabis (a sacred
material to us, which we are certain is the same as the Bible’s “Kaneh-Bos”) was
the reason for concern. Therefore, a denied permit to gather for the very
purpose we seek to fulfill represents a denial of permission to use our most
central sacred substance, a substantial burden to our religious practice.
B. Use of a public park always requires (for the public’s shared sake) orderly
arrangements, so that everyone’s rights are always balanced. Use of the park at
this scale, and which borders on being controversial, no matter how lawful,
properly requires a permit and planning with site staff, as a matter of public order
and plain decency (e.g. if 2 religious groups want to use the same spot/time,
there must be a way to share), and so lack of a permit could make the gathering
a prima facie offense against orderly use of public land, exposing the attendees
to criminal or civil burdens or sanctions -- a significant burden to religious
practice.
C. Most importantly, given the prevailing attitude among discretion-wielders that
cannabis is unlawful regardless of specific exceptions to the law, a permit denied
on those grounds would leave us presumptively subject to criminal and/or civil
burdens such as investigation, property confiscation, arrest (including violent
force), charge, bail guarantee, court appearances, legal expenses, and actual
formal penalties beyond that. In truth, the fear those procedures engender is
probably a religious burden unto itself, but, given that we have announced our
certain intention to carry out our ritual (as the prophets predicted), we would be
highly vulnerable to near-certain persecution without the applied-for permit. It
cannot be acceptable to tell a person who is in good faith seeking religious rights
against an administrative ban, that they may or may not be criminally burdened
for it, and therefore may not ask after the right until they suffer abuse of it.
Thank you for the opportunity to further explain our further explain and practices.
Please do not hesitate to ask for clarification or details, or, should any party raise a
relevant concern we have not covered, we welcome our opportunity to meet or
rebut the concern once raised, and look forward to your reply in any event. We
realize this is not the easiest permit request to field, and are deeply grateful for your
challenging work at the National Park Service.
Grateful regards,
Anne Armstrong and Alan Gordon, co-applicants
99 HudsonPondRd. WestGreenwich,RI02817
401-304-6020/304-6543 Anne Armstrong email Alan Gordon email
This joint correspondence will be sent via email from both signatories, as indication of
its mutuality.
22. 2 ATTACHMENTS:
1. Exhibit 1
2. Exhibit 2
EXHIBIT 1
From http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-
eucharist/guidelines-for-the-reception-of-communion.cfm accessed 16th April 2015
GUIDELINES FOR THE RECEPTION OF COMMUNION
On November 14,1996,the National Conference of Catholic Bishops approved the following guidelines on the
reception of Communion. These guidelines replace the guidelines approved by the Administrative Committee ofthe
NCCB in November 1986.The guidelines,which are to be included in missalettes and other participation aids
published in the United States, seek to remind all those who may attend Catholic liturgies of the present discipline of
the Church with regard to the sharing of Eucharistic Communion.
FOR CATHOLICS
As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharistwhen we receive Holy Communion. We are
encouraged to receive Communion devoutlyand frequently. In order to be properlydisposed to receive Communion,
participants should notbe conscious ofgrave sin and normallyshould have fasted for one hour. A person who is
conscious ofgrave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except
for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In this case,the person is to be mindful ofthe
obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention ofconfessing as soon as possible (canon 916).
A frequent reception of the Sacramentof Penance is encouraged for all.
FOR OUR FELLOW CHRISTIANS
We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration ofthe Eucharist as our brothers and sisters.We pray that our
common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to
dispel the sad divisions which separate us.We pray that these will lessen and finallydisappear, in keeping with
Christ's prayer for us "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21).
Because Catholics believe that the celebration ofthe Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness offaith,life, and
worship,members ofthose churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarilynot admitted to Holy
Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances byother Christians requires permission according to
the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions ofcanon law (canon 844 §4). Members ofthe Orthodox
Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respectthe
discipline oftheir own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does notobjectto
the reception of Communion byChristians ofthese Churches (canon 844 §3).
24. E. Recognition that in novice users, cannabis can cause anxiety, but that it is easily
remediable via a number of over the counter items, such as the smell of fresh
cracked black pepper6.
6 Russo E. Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid entourage effects. Br J
Pharmacol.2011 Aug; 163(7):1344–1364.
25. rom: Smith,
Jennifer <jennifer_smith@nps.gov>
to: Anne Armstrong
<annearmstrongri@gmail.com>,
Alan Gordon
<judges1412@gmail.com>
date: Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 7:04 AM
subject: Re: Questions re: Special Use
Permit application
Anne and Alan: Thank you for your quick response to our questions. I will forward on to the
members of our internal review team. I neglected to include one question and I apologize for
asking for more clarification.
How will you prevent those who have ingested cannabis from driving impaired after the
ceremony?
Thank you, in advance, for you reply. Jen
from: Alan
Gordon <judges1412@gmail.com>
to: "Smith, Jennifer"
<jennifer_smith@nps.gov>
cc: Anne Armstrong
<annearmstrongri@gmail.com>
date: Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:07 AM
subject: Re: Questions re: Special Use
Permit application
Dear Jennifer Smith --
Thank you for the follow up question, as it is one we are used to considering. We're going to have to factor
several points in formulating our answer.
First and foremost, few of us were planning to drive, so we had not devised any extraordinary or special
measures beyond the day-to-day driving safety which all driving-licensed Cannabists manage. Evidence of this
is the fact that none of us have ever been even charged with cannabis-impaired driving despite years and
26. years of use.
Second, and equally important, the dosage amounts and methods to be used are not ones capable of causing
impairment in the experienced users in attendance after the duration between the ceremony and its end (when
people could drive). This is often true of Catholic Communion wine, as well, but that institution is never asked
to prove it, or to have prevention protocols in place. Unlike the Catholic Church, we do not give sacred matter
to strangers, or persons unknown to us, or even persons whom we do not positively know can manage safe
transportation.
The Catholic Church in Grand Canyon National Park (an area where safety and alertness are important)
has no policy regarding sobriety of those who take communion wine, nor any practical way of stopping non-
Catholics from taking wine, other than the honor system in front of God.
EXHIBIT 1 shows the Catholic policy for wine safeguards, and it includes quite little substance beyond warning
of God's judgment (nothing of children, alcoholism, or impairment). While shuttle buses run the Canyon's South
Rim, allowing religious wine-drinking persons to Commune without driving at all, downtown Providence has an
even greater range of transportation services available which Believers may use.
Due to the site's wider range of transportation options (compared to the Grand Canyon South Rim Church site),
and due to our refusal to share Communion with those not known to us as long-term safe users, we therefore
legitimately claim to exercise even more caution than that asked of the Catholic Church's use of wine on
children (some of whom are old enough to drive and may be licensed or permitted to do so without sobriety
checks).
Catholic wine communion is known of and trusted by society, and so that Church is not asked to provide as
many safeguards or proofs of safety despite their drug's horrible reputation for addiction, diseases, impairment
and violence. In our case, our faith is unusual to people, and so society may expect a higher standard from us
despite the relative safety of our sacred matter. Nonetheless, religious freedom should not be tailored to meet
other people's desires, only the latter persons' rights if the two collide. For this reason, we do not feel it is
appropriate to accept any more burden upon our religious practice than is asked of the Grand Canyon Catholic
Church.
If Government claims that driving from religious worship is so dangerous that it must be stopped, then
1. it is their burden to show it under RFRA (and we must have a chance to rebut), and
2. the "least restrictive means" test from the RFRA law shows that Government, if they wish more safety than
the discretion asked of alcohol users, has the burden, option and responsibility to prevent impaired driving (and
not prevent worship per se over it) unless they are prepared to prove that a total ban is the only safe way.
Finally, if you or other parties wish to suggest any novel, low-to-no burden solutions to the driving issue, we are
always willing to listen and work with those approaching us in good faith, so that we may strengthen our Faith's
position in the world.
We hope these answers are satisfactory, and we remain eager to address any Park Service concerns for the
good of all parties.
27. rom: Smith,
Jennifer <jennifer_smith@nps.gov>
to: Anne Armstrong
<annearmstrongri@gmail.com>,
Alan Gordon
<judges1412@gmail.com>
date: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:53 PM
subject: Roger Williams NM Special Use
Permit
Anne and Alan: I am writing to let you know that I have just put the permit in the mail to you to the address from
your application. Please review all of the materials I have sent and if you agree with the terms and conditions of
the permit, please sign and mail back to me. I will get the necessary signatures on my end and will send the
executed permit to you. If you have any questions leading up to your event, please do not hesitate to contact
me. Have a great day. Jen
Jennifer Smith
Site Manager
Roger Williams National Memorial
282 North Main Street
Providence, RI 02903
O: 401.521.7266 ext. 201
C: 401.595.8394
www.nps.gov/rowi
from: Anne
Armstrong <annearmstrongri@gmail.com>
to: "Smith, Jennifer"
<jennifer_smith@nps.gov>
cc: Alan Gordon <judges1412@gmail.com>
date: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:13 PM
subject: Re: Roger Williams NM Special Use Permit
Hi, Jennifer,
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. May we please have an electronic copy of the permit and terms
and conditions today before COB?
We have previously granted an extension, and are most eager to review what is written therein. Time is of the
essence for us, because 5/23/15 is a once - ever convergence for humanity in the global awakening.
Thank you very much for everything you do.
Jah Bless,
Anne Armstrong
28. from: Smith,
Jennifer <jennifer_smith@nps.gov>
to: Anne Armstrong
<annearmstrongri@gmail.com>
cc: Alan Gordon
<judges1412@gmail.com>
date: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:32 PM
subject: Re: Roger Williams NM Special Use
Permit
Sure, Anne. Please see attached. Thank you, Jen
Jennifer Smith
Site Manager
Roger Williams National Memorial
282 North Main Street
Providence, RI 02903
O: 401.521.7266 ext. 201
C: 401.595.8394
www.nps.gov/rowi
ATTACHMENTS ASFOLLOWS:
34. from: Anne
Armstrong <annearmstrongri@gmail.com>
to: "Smith, Jennifer"
<jennifer_smith@nps.gov>
cc: Alan Gordon <judges1412@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 9:30 AM
subject: Re: Roger Williams NM Special Use Permit
Thank you for your response.
We require a permit for our worship service which includes communion and sharing of our KNH BOS based
sacramental matter.
Can you please change the wording on the permit to say 'Communion Service Based on Exodus 30:23' instead
of prayer service?
Also, can you please amend the cover letter to make it explicitly clear that no law enacted by Congress or any
other agency of the State abridges our right to worship according to our interpretation of scripture?
It would help if you could also make clear that your Park Police will protect our First Amendment rights against
encroachment by any other agencies. As it stands, the text of your cover letter is chilling and causes me
anxiety by raising the spectre of arrest if we should share sacramental matter in communion in this site devoted
to religious freedom.
Jah Bless,
Anne Armstrong
from: Smith,
Jennifer <jennifer_smith@nps.gov>
to: Anne Armstrong
<annearmstrongri@gmail.com>
cc: Alan Gordon
<judges1412@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:59 PM
subject: Re: Roger Williams NM Special Use
Permit
Anne and Alan: Thank you for your email in response to my sending the electronic version of the Special Use
Permit for your event on May 23. We have provided a draft permit to gather and conduct a religious service, for
the time and the numbers you requested. None of the requests noted in your email dated April 23 would seem
to require any changes to the language of the permit. In order for the permit to be fully executed, I will need you
to return the signed permit to me. I will, then, get the signatures needed on my end and will return a final copy
to you for your records. Thank you very much. Jen
35. Jennifer Smith
Site Manager
Roger Williams National Memorial
282 North Main Street
Providence, RI 02903
O: 401.521.7266 ext. 201
C: 401.595.8394
www.nps.gov/rowi