Lawsuit Against the County of Denver, Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division, and Supervisory Investigators

Complaint

 

The Shaivite Temple of Colorado;

Ryan Gallagher

XXXXXXXXXX

Aurora, CO 80013

V

The County of Denver;

Department of Revenue;

Marijuana Enforcement Division;

Karl Kramer- Supervisory Investigator;

Christopher Poirier- Supervisory Investigator

1707 Cole Blvd Suite #300

Lakewood, CO 80401

 

 

 

Ryan Gallagher, Pro Se, hereby files this Complaint and makes these allegations based on information and belief which are likely to have full evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery—against Defendants, Marijuana Enforcement Agency (“MEA” or “Defendant”) and it’s parent Department of Revenue (“DOR” or “Defendant 2”) the County of Denver (“Denver” or “Defendant 3”), as well as the two Supervisory Investigators Christopher Poirier and Karl Kramer (hereby referred to as “The Accused”). I ask that the court consider the fact that I am not a lawyer, but am alleging violations of various rights, which after discovery will be blatantly clear. Cruz v. Beto 405 U.S. 319 (1972)

Introduction/Claim

  1. Article XVIII, Amendment 64, Section 2 of the Colorado State Constitution, states in the explanation of Definitions “Unless the Context otherwise Requires” in explanation of all definitions, yet the Marijuana Enforcement Agency claims that they only exist to review Applications for Recreational and Medical Marijuana, not “Unless the Context otherwise Requires”, see USC Title 42 Chapters 21B and 21C. Amendment 64 can be found in Exhibit S.
  1. Article XVIII, Amendment 64, Section 1 of the Colorado State Constitution, states in the explanation of the law itself, that “Marijuana shall be taxed like Alcohol”. The Colorado State Alcohol Code, Article 47, Title 12 CRS, Part I General Provisions, 12-14-106, Exemptions, Section 1, states “The provisions of this Article shall not apply to the sale or Distribution of Sacramental wines sold and used for Religious Purposes”, see Walz v. Tax Comm’n of City of New York 397 U.S. 664 (1970). Colorado Alcohol Code can be found in Exhibit S.
  1. For Guidance in this case, I ask the Court to review the DEA RFRA Exemption Process, as well as Gonzales V O Centro. Contained in Exhibits S.
  1. Marijuana Licenses are provided every day for Marijuana Industry Workers, and Marijuana Medical Dispensaries, and even Marijuana Recreational Dispensaries; but The Accused refused to even review a Religious Petition for a Religious Exemption, because they “don’t have a process for that” and “are not the DEA” (when told the DEA has a process), and ordered other Employees of the MEA to deny to take the Petition. Sherbert v. Verner 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
  1. The MEA in email correspondence agreed to a Religious Exemption meeting, under the Amendment 64 Explanation of “Unless the Context otherwise Requires”, and set up an appointment and requested that I come in to get a Religious Exemption. Then when I got there, The Accused refused to read my Religion Petition, and The Accused said that there was no such thing as a Religious Exemption. Exhibit A.
  1. The Accused, under Color of Law of the MEA, did threaten to physically remove the Plaintiff from the building (which probably also entails a threat of arrest), simply for stating that he would not leave until the agreed upon Religious Exemption meeting was had, or at the very least someone in charge accepted the Petition. Video or Witnesses are Discoverable.

Events

In mid October 2017 for 2 or 3 days, the Plaintiff did correspond with the MEA via Email, and received a phone call for Clarification on what it was I was requesting. I made it very clear that I was looking to set up an Appointment for a Religious Marijuana Exemption, and I was told “Thank you for filling out the format”, and I explained that the meeting I wanted was under Amendment 64, Definitions, “Other Contexts” for Licensing, and they told me to come on Nov 6th at 9:00am. I continued to email them and let them know that this was not going to be a regular Application meeting and received no real response after the confirmation of the meeting. I was told to email their Inquiry line, and 4 days later when I called to ask why the Inquiry line was not answering, they said I would “have to wait”. And the Inquiry line for the MEA never contacted me. I appeared at the DOR, MEA in Denver on November 6th, with my Religious Petition for the MEA, as well as a Petition I have submitted to the DEA, as well as the Guidelines the DEA has put out for such Petitions; and I expected to be able to talk about it. But The Accused continuously told me that they do not do religious exemptions, and that that doesn’t exist, and that they did not want me to explain or show them any of the Petition or information attached.  I filled out the Paperwork that they wanted, but I did not get it Notarized because I have a right to Practice my Religion, Free of Charge, see Follett v. Town of McCormick 321 U.S. 573 (1944). And they claimed it was “Incomplete” and told me to take it and leave, and I told them that I would not take it because they were rejecting it. Then  I asked who was in charge who I could talk to about Religious Exemptions, and said that I would not leave until I talked to that person and gave them the Petition; and asked for the name of the person to serve, the person who runs the department. At that time The Accused told me they were in charge, and gave me their Cards. And it said that they were the Supervisory Investigators, so it seemed like they had planned this, as there were 2 of them and they were in charge of the Investigators that were there, who I never met any of.

At this time I said I would leave, because if they were in charge then there was nothing left but to serve them. They said “If that is the route you want to take” and I explained that it was not the route I wanted to take, and that I had asked for the meeting hoping for the best, and expecting the worst, and expecting to have to take this to a judge; but hoping to be pleasantly surprised by their understanding. Instead I was treated like I never asked for a Religious Meeting with them. On my way out I then handed the Petition to a person behind the counter, and The Accused ordered the Employee not to take the Petition. I have exhausted all Remedies.

  • Whereby the Plaintiff Prays the Court,

Order that the Defendants create a Religious Exemption Process so this does not happen again. Grant the Petition of the Shaivite Temple of Colorado (Exhibit S), and award Punitive Damages so as to deter the Defendants from engaging in this kind of Discriminatory activity again.

Exhibit A

 

Exhibit S

(The Petition)

 

Exhibits S Consists of the Petitions available to read on this site, and the DEA Guidelines

 

Colorado Religious Marijuana Rights

https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/rfra_exempt012209.pdf

 

DEA Religious Marijuana Petition

Hindu Spiritual Beliefs and Holidays