Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
LOL.
A lot of people said I didn't know anything about the law when I won my Religious Marijuana case also. So have fun thinking that.
DEA Lawsuit (Minus the Trolls)
- Thread starter Finshaggy
- Start date
A lot of people said I didn't know anything about the law when I won my Religious Marijuana case also. So have fun thinking that.
They were right too.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Lol. Again, have fun thinking that.
Illinois Enema Bandit
Well-Known Member
wait a minute,isn't all cola soda pop made from the extract of a Kola nut ,not the coca plant ?
last I knew the cola flavor was developed from the Kola nutts found in the tropics ,a reduction made from the Kola nutts is then turned into "cola syrup " and used to make all cola flavored soda pops .
How is coca cola involved when the coke we drink has never contained cocaine & is derived from Kola nutts instead of coca ?
I'm more confused than the last time around .
last I knew the cola flavor was developed from the Kola nutts found in the tropics ,a reduction made from the Kola nutts is then turned into "cola syrup " and used to make all cola flavored soda pops .
How is coca cola involved when the coke we drink has never contained cocaine & is derived from Kola nutts instead of coca ?
I'm more confused than the last time around .
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Coca-Cola is made with both Coca and Kola. They took the Cocaine out at the beginning of the 1900s, but they still use Coca leaf extract that has the Cocaine taken out.
Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/01/business/how-coca-cola-obtains-its-coca.html
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
And there is precedent for my case.
Read these:
https://www.justice.gov/atr/memorandum-antitrust-division-united-states-department-justice-amicus-curiae-support-application
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2016/fr0812_3.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
And this case:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/375/1148/559765/
Read these:
https://www.justice.gov/atr/memorandum-antitrust-division-united-states-department-justice-amicus-curiae-support-application
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2016/fr0812_3.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
And this case:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/375/1148/559765/
... divided by a common language...
Fin, what you think you read is not what it means.
PS Yeah I know you think I'm wrong but let me ask you whose couch you sleeping on now?
Fin, what you think you read is not what it means.
PS Yeah I know you think I'm wrong but let me ask you whose couch you sleeping on now?
pabloesqobar
Well-Known Member
1. Please post where I claimed they achieved some great victory over you. I'll wait. You were ordered by Judge Pitman to file it. It's really not that big of a deal, but having them file it gives them an advantage.
2. You didn't sue the City, dummy. You should have, but you chose not to. That will hurt you in the near future.
That case was never decided on the merits, was never a religious mj case, and you have an underlying conviction as a result. They simply chose not to pursue another conviction for the probation violations. Remember? The Army turned you down because of your conviction? After me and everyone else told you they would? Remember?
And yes, you have perjured yourself twice with the Court. In both of your cases when filing for indigent status. According to you, you have a good paying job at Oracle. But you told the Court in your 1st case you are not employed, and make 0 income. In your most recent case you claim you only get $300 a month from Bitcoin. Get your story straight, liar.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
I like how you respond within 5 minutes after I post at least 20 pages of material, and pretend as if I am the one who doesn't understand what was posted.
It really makes it seem like you know what you are talking about and aren't just wasted (like you said you were) and trolling (which it is obvious you are).
Illinois Enema Bandit
Well-Known Member
thanks,I'll read the link now,there's so much conflicting info about coca cola I never know wtf to believe ,I've seen old bottles claiming to contain cocaine yet the official coca cola history says no coca plant material at all,I'll read the link,thanks .
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
1. Ok. We already had this whole discussion, here was what you said and what I said:
2. You are just like them. They tried to claim that they had immunity from Lawsuits (which is hilarious), which is what I assume you think also.
Go ahead and read this.
TEXAS CODE
TITLE 5. GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY
CHAPTER 110. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Sec. 110.001. DEFINITIONS.
(2) "Government agency" means:
(A) this state or a municipality or other political subdivision of this state; and
(B) any agency of this state or a municipality or other political subdivision of this state, including a department, bureau, board, commission, office, agency, council, or public institution of higher education.
(b) In determining whether an interest is a compelling governmental interest under Section 110.003, a court shall give weight to the interpretation of compelling interest in federal case law relating to the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Sec. 110.002. APPLICATION. (a) This chapter applies to any ordinance, rule, order, decision, practice, or other exercise of governmental authority.
(b) This chapter applies to an act of a government agency, in the exercise of governmental authority, granting or refusing to grant a government benefit to an individual.
(c) This chapter applies to each law of this state unless the law is expressly made exempt from the application of this chapter by reference to this chapter.
Sec. 110.008. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WAIVED. (a) Subject to Section 110.006, sovereign immunity to suit and from liability is waived and abolished to the extent of liability created by Section 110.005, and a claimant may sue a government agency for damages allowed by that section.
(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), this chapter does not waive or abolish sovereign immunity to suit and from liability under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
They say no Cocaine because they never actually added Cocaine. They did use Coca leaf, which means there were "trace amounts" of Cocaine, so they officially say that there was never Cocaine, because it was just trace amounts.
But even today they use Coca extract.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
He's filed a lot more motions with the court than you have.
Why do you hate him?
Are you sure about that? Yeah I admit it you are right LOL. I'm a terrier's bitch right now, brb have to take him out front and then cook him some beef.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Thanks.
And to add to that, I didn't just file, I won 4 cases this year, and a Religious Marijuana case last year doing it. So they weren't just frivolous or random, they were meaningful motions.
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
My service dog just had surgery. He is the one who made it possible for me to go out alone for the first time in 22 years. I owe him my life. I'm paying him back it's the least I can do. Now how about you explain your logic without a quote and paste?
Finshaggy
Well-Known Member
Do you want an explanation of the DEA Lawsuit of the Police Department Lawsuit? Because we have kind of gotten in to both now. Everything Coca/Monopoly related is the DEA case (supported by the DOJ, a case from 2004 and a decision the DEA made this August), and everything relating to Texas Law and what Pablo is talking about is the Police Lawsuit.
Wow, actual words. I had begun to think you were an aggregation bot and not actually human.
