HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3/HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso/drugs/peyote.politics.religion

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 11KB | 232 lines

Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Peyote, Politics & Religion
From: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 95 16:52:00 MST

Alert

RE: Peyote, politics, freedom of religion, and a request for your
help.

Here is some hot news about a legal case in Texas involving the
Religious use of peyote. The out come of this case will set a
precedent regarding First Amendment Constitutional rights. The
out come will have ramifications that affect us all, regardless
of your beliefs.

Are you interested? You should be for this case is like none
other. Read on.

This case involves me, Bill Stites, who was arrested on June 15,
1991 in Big Bend National Park in the State of Texas for the
possession of Peyote (A sacred cactus). I have been a court
documented member of The Peyote Way Church of God (a legally
recognized church)for nine years prior to this arrest. The divine
cactus, Peyote, is essential to, and a central part of my
religion. (For a history of the Peyote Way Church of God and
peyote religion, you may wish to read `The Peyote Book; A Study
of Native Medicine' by Guy Mount. ISBN 0-9604462-3-0).

As a result of this arrest, I, with no previous record, was
convicted of a first degree felony and received a ten year
probated sentence in the Texas Department of corrections for my
religious beliefs.

Prior to my arrest, the Peyote Way Church of God sought an
exemption for the religious use of peyote by the church and its
members in the Federal and Texas Statutes. These statutes forbid
the use of peyote by anyone other than a member of the Native
American Church and who is at least 25 percent Native American
Indian blood. This case lasted almost ten years in court and went
through three Attorney Generals.(See Peyote Way Church of God vs.
Attorney General(s) Smith (742 F2D 193 (5th Cir. 1984)), Attorney
General Meese (698 F.Supp. 342 (N.D.Texas 1988)), and Attorney
General Thornburgh (922 F2D 1210 (1991)). In this case, the
Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the Peyote Way Church of
God by eliminating the time honored `Compelling Interest
Argument'.

Understand - the Compelling Interest Argument is very important.
`Compelling Interest' means just what is a State's interest in
achieving a certain objective (i.e. infringing upon religious
rights). Without a compelling interest argument, the government
can infringe upon your religious rights, whatever they may be,
without demonstrating a reason to do so. Are you listening,
minority religion folks, and those of you who are burned out on
the War on Drugs? Congress and the President of the United States
was upset enough about this that they over turned the Supreme
Court by enacting Senate Bill S.578, titled `The Religious
Freedom Restoration Act of 1993' into law as 42 USC 2000bb. This
law is retro-active in its provisions.

Because Congress did re-instate the compelling interest argument,
the State of Texas must now demonstrate this in my case. So, this
case is now awaiting the Criminal Court of Appeals. Also, this
act of congress effectively returns the Peyote Way Church of God
to its previous statues before the Supreme Court ruled against
it. Regardless of the out come, the case will set a
constitutional precedent.

Some very interesting insight can be shed on this by quoting from
a legal brief that is found later in this file.
----------------------------------------------------------------
What Can You Do To HELP? Well, I do have two expensive attorneys
who want lots of money and I have lots of other legal expenses.
So, to be to the point, I need money for these legal fees. How do
you know that I am for real? Well you can write me and I'll send
you lots of information that you can verify independently. If you
do feel motivated to help, you can become an e-mail partner in
this case and I will send you updates as they happen. I do expect
this case to go to court within a month or two. So ACT NOW! Send
a DONATION! If there is enough interest, we will start a sub-
board.

Write: Bill Stites, [e-mail]
       P.O. Box 1758
       Silver City, NM 88062
----------------------------------------------------------------

    What about the Native American Church? Fortunately their
rights to use Peyote is protected so long as they are at least
25% Native American Indian blood and are a part of a `Federally
Recognized Tribe'. If your a Native American Indian and you tribe
was not `Federally Recognized', in the eye's of the government
your not an Indian (?). A reference to the religious use of
peyote in Mexico appears in Spanish historical sources as early
as 1560. Peyotism spread from Mexico to the United States and
Canada; American anthropologists describe it as well-established
in this country, during the later part of the 19th century."
People v.Woody, 394 P.2d at p. 817. Therefore, according to the
government, members of the Indian tribes with the longest
tradition of religious use of peyote are not exempt because they
are not "federally recognized" while members of tribes that
adopted the peyote way much later are exempt. If my case wins on
appeal, then all native americans religious rights are protected,
even if you are not federally recognized.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quotes from some related legal briefs:

     The history of the (peyote) exemption is set out in Native
American Church of New York v. United States, 468 F.Supp.
1247(1979).

     The peyote exemption had nothing to do with the "unique
legal status" of Indians and everything to do with the
"unalienable right' to free exercise of religion.

     The peyote exemption was first discussed by Congress in
1965, after the executive branch had asked Congress to amend the
drug laws. Congressman Harris explained :

          "Some concern has been expressed...concerning the
possible impact..on religious practices protected by the First
Amendment to the Constitution. "Two court decisions have been
rendered in this area in recent years..Arizona v. Attakai...and
People against Woody...in the Supreme Court of California. Both
these cases held that prosecution for the use of peyote
in connection with religious ceremonies was a violation of the
First Amendment to the Constitution.

     "In view of all this, I requested the views of the Food and
Drug Administration and have been assured that the bill...cannot
forbid bona fide religious use of peyote." Native American Church
of New York v. United States, 468 F. Supp,at 1250.

People v. Woody, 394 P2dB13 (Sup.Ct. Calif. 1964), one of the
cases mentioned by Congressman Harris involved Indian members of
the Native American Church. However, the "federally recognized"
status of the Indians played absolutely no part in the decision.
The court held:

          "[T]he right to free religious expression embodies a
precious heritage of our history. In a mass society, which
presses at every point toward conformity, the protection of a
self expression, however unique, of the individual and the group
becomes ever more important The varying currents of the sub-
cultures that flow into the mainstream of our national life give
it depth and beauty. We preserve a greater value than an ancient
tradition when we protect the rights of the indians who honestly
practiced an old religion in using peyote one night at a meeting
in a desert hogan near Needles, California." Id at 821, 822.

     The DEA did not invoke the "unique legal status" of the
Indians, when the Ethiopian Coptic Zion Church sought an
exemption for religious use of marijuana. Instead, the DEA
justified its different treatment of peyote by pointing out that
there was "practically no illegal traffic in peyote...[and] that
[the] total amount of peyote seized and analyzed by federal
authorities between 1980 and 1987 was 19.4 pounds; in contrast,
total amount of marijuana seized during that period was over 15
million pounds." Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 US at 916, dissent
by Blackmun.

     The government had not yet remembered its long standing
special relationship when Native American Church of New York was
decided. That case held that the peyote exemption was not limited
to indian members of the NAC. 486 F.Supp. at 1251.

     Finally, in Texas, the government found itself in a bind.
The DEA could not abandon its indian only policy, without
double-crossing the State of Texas, which had relied on such
interpretation, in drafting its statutory exemption. The facts of
the case clearly established that Peyote Way was similarly
situated with the Native American Church. Necessity is the mother
of invention.

     Voila! The government suddenly remembers that "the relation
of the indians is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions",
and that Congress can regulate 'federally recognized tribes", and
members thereof, on the reservation, or "wherever that tribe or
member may be." That's why the DEA gave the NAC, "special
treatment".3 Peyote Way v. Smith 556 F.Supp. 638. The government
pressed its advantage in United States v. Warner, 595 F.Supp. 595
and in United States v Rush 738 F2d 497 (1st Cir. 1984).

     The Fifth Circuit however, was not impressed. That court in
an opinion by Judge Alvin Rubin, remanded the case for compelling
governmental interest/least restrictive means analysis. Peyote
Way Church of God v. Smith, 742 F2d 193 (5th Cir. 1984).

     The Fifth Circuit agreed with Peyote Way that the interests
of the State of Texas in prohibiting possession of peyote to 200
members of the Peyote Way church seemed less than compelling, in
view of the exemption granted to 250,000 members of the NAC. Id,
at 201. On remand, the district court would not touch that issue
with a ten foot pole. Instead, the court reiterated the special
relationship, unique legal status argument, which had under
whelmed judge Rubin and the Fifth Circuit the first time around.
Peyote Way Church of God v. Meese, 698 F.Supp. 1342(N.D. Tex.
1988)

     This time, however, the district court had legal authority
to cite. The court stated that it was "further directed by the
findings made in United States v. Warner" and quoted copiously
from that case, Peyote Way v. Meese, 698 F.Supp at 1347, 1348.
The court also cited United States v. Rush, 738 F2d 497 (1st Cir.
1984).

     Incredibly, the district court failed to mention that both
of these decisions had been spawned by its own previous decision
in Peyote Way v. Smith, the same case it was considering after
remand by the Fifth Circuit. Judge Taylor, Northern District of
Texas, Dallas, had written the first district court opinion. This
time, Judge Maloney heard the case, and he probably did not know
that his opinion included the above judicial "boot-strapping".

     By the time the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case a second
time, the Supreme Court had decided Employment Div. v. Smith,
which made review of the district court's findings re: compelling
governmental interest/least restrictive means, unnecessary.
United States v. Thornburg, 922 F2d 1210, 1213 (5th Cir. 1991)

     Fortunately, Congress restored the religious freedom of
indian and non-indian alike. The traditional free exercise test
has been resurrected. It will now be applied in my case. Stay
Posted.