Church Sues Feds

[font=&quot]Here in Northern California the struggle for cannabis freedom continues. The newly formed [/font][font=&quot]Multi-Denominational Ministry of Cannabis and Rastafari (a legal corporation of the State of California), filed suite for a temporary restraining order against the local and federal governments in case they were thinking of raiding the church property where they are growing a few plants for medical patients.

Not only is this legal under California law, a recent unanimous Supreme Court decision affirms the rights of churches in this country to be free from harassment or restrictions placed by the government (the UDV Church). This goes back to one of the founding principles of this country - complete separation of Church and State.

Reverend Tom Brown of the Multi-Denominational Ministry of Cannabis and Rastafari wrote me today with the following update - which I wanted to share with you as quickly as possible. [/font][font=&quot][/font] [font=&quot]To all our relations;[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]Greetings in the name of the most high, Jah Rastafari, ever faithful, ever sure, Jah Rastafari.[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]One Love Brethren.[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]Brethren,[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]Here is the judge’s order on our application for Temporary Restraining Order. To bring you up to speed and review:[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]1. April 17, 2006, the new church named "Multi-Denominational Ministry of Cannabis and Rastafari" filed Incorporation papers as a newly birthed religious non-profit corporation of the State of California.[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]2. July 12, 2006, the members of the new church filed for an immediate, emergency hearing on a Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction against state and federal law enforcement officers to prevent their invasion of the church and confiscation of church property.[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]3. On July 12, 2006, the court replies with an order to the government to respond immediately as to whether or not they are going to attack the church for planting, harvesting, processing and selling 32,000 marijuana plants from the church property.[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]4. The Lake County Sheriff responds that he has no plans to attack the church and that our growing, processing and selling of marijuana is not illegal under state law as far as he knows. He has our affidavit stating that we planted marijuana plants so he knows what he is talking about.[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]5. On July 25, 2006 the Court denied the TRO saying that there is no credible evidence that the church will be attacked as the County Sheriff has said under oath that he has no plans to attack, and although the feds say they will not promise to attack, the judge thinks that they will not.[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]So, anybody betting that the cops will attack the church this year?[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]One Love [/font]

[font=&quot]Reverend Tom Brown[/font][font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot]___________________________________________________[/font][font=&quot][/font]
​

[font=&quot]IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT[/font][font=&quot][/font]
​

[font=&quot]FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA[/font][font=&quot][/font]
​

[font=&quot] [/font]

[font=&quot]MULTI DENOMINATIONAL MINISTRY OF[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]CANNABIS AND RASTAFARI, INC, et al,[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot] Plaintiffs,[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot] v[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]ALBERTO GONZALES, et al,[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot] Defendants. No C–06-4264 VRW[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]ORDER[/font][font=&quot][/font]
​

[font=&quot] On July 12, 2006, plaintiffs sued seeking, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent defendants from interfering with the exercise of plaintiffs’ religion, which centers around the use of marijuana. That same day, plaintiffs filed ex parte motions “for immediate in camera hearing” and “for preliminary and permanent injunction.” Doc #1.[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot] Plaintiffs still have not clearly articulated the imminent threat they face that could justify a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. See Doc ##1-12, 19.[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot] Rather, plaintiffs simply assume the government will act against them based on the government’s past conduct and its refusal to assure them that it will refrain from such action in the future. Doc #17 at 15. [/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot] Additionally, Lake County Sheriff Rodney K Mitchell has affirmed under oath that he has “no information that any of the plaintiffs are presently engaging in any practice which violates state or local law” and that he has “no present plan to take any action to investigate the activities of any of the plaintiffs and [has] not been asked to participate in any investigation conducted by any other law enforcement agency.” Doc #18, Ex A. [/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot] Based on this record, the court cannot conclude that plaintiffs’ face an imminent harm that could justify injunctive relief.[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot] Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order (Doc #1) for lack of showing of irreparable injury/balance of hardships. The parties should be ready to discuss status and trial setting at the initial case management conference scheduled for October 10, 2006, at 9:00 AM.[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]IT IS SO ORDERED.[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]VAUGHN R WALKER[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot]United States District Chief Judge[/font][font=&quot][/font]

[font=&quot] [/font]