5th Court of Appeals

05-20-00098-CV
Gallagher
v.
Collin County
Brief
The Laws of the State of Texas do not allow the State to Sanction and or Declare someone a Vexatious
Litigant because of their Religious Beliefs, or because of their Pursuit to have Religious Rights
Recognized in the Courts. But that is what has happened here.
There is a place where Human Understanding and Reality separate. Not that Reality needs to be
supplememted from that point, it is still real, Humans just don't understand it.
And now adays people are so connected and surrounded by new things, and inventions, and google, etc,
it is hard to accept that Reality is itself beyond our comprehension in many ways.
Just for examples of Human Understanding falling short. First, if you were writing a Book about
America as a Historian, you could write about Americans in the 1900s and 2000s believe in Ghosts.
Not because they read about them, but because they have experiences.
That brings us to the Human Brain, Ghosts must be Psychological, right? Well we don't understand
Brains either, because we can only Xray for Molecules that are Radio-active Isotopes which are not
representative of their Parent/Source Molecule, ex: Iodo-Melatonin is not Melatonin in the Body or
Brain, it is a new substance. And Brain scans measure responses of the Brain and Activity, not the
Driving force. We still don't understand the mind beyond the Frontal Lobe and Synapses, Memory is
only just beginning to be understood.
The Big Bang Theory, it is constantly in opposition to Jahovah with Adam and Eve, but even Big Bang
apologists have to admit that we are likely not the only Universe, and that it is not impossible that our
Universe was not just a Big Bang but the end of another Universe, populated, collapsing on itself to
produce a centerpoint from which we all are moving away from.
If I say there is a force connecting you and I, to the Earth, to the Sun, the Moon and all the Planets, it
sounds New Age. But if I say "Gravity" it's like, "Yeah, that thing that connects everything together".

"ib. §. 27. that 'los obrages los aniquilan por la inhumanidad con que se les trata.' that in other
situations also he meets death with more deliberation, and endures tortures with a firmness unknown
almost to religious enthusiasm with us"
- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia
A few things need to be explained about Modern Medicine; particularly how Brazilian Tribes started it.
Western Medicine, until recently, consisted of Opiates, Surgery, and Fitness. Salves, plants pastes, were
the primary cures, Alcohol was prescribed by Doctors and used in regular and Dental Surgery, etc.
And fast forward through the Coca-Cola Freud era, and then in the 50s Hoffman discovered LSD.
Watson ans JP Morgan "discovered" Mushrooms. And in Brazil, the Ayahuasca Brew was being
Observed and Studied. It was thought that DMT was 100% inactive because (what they didn't know at
the time) enzymes in your stomach destroy it and it never goes to the Brain. So the Western Scientists
in the 50s thought it was inactive. In the Rainforest of Brazil, Tribes were using the plants Chacruna
and "the Spirit Vine". Because Chacruna oy contains DMT, they thought it was inactive, and the Spirit
Vine must be the active ingredient. They studied it, and it contained Harmaline which is now
understood to be an "MAOI Inhibitor", meaning it actually blocks enzymes in your stomach.
So after a while, the Scientists realized that the DMT was active, and that the Spirit Vine was activating
it. The Tribes said the plants taught them how to do this.
Then, MAOIs are brought to US Pharma, as anti-depressants. They are now starting to be replaced, but
were the first big "anti-depressant" trend.
Now, this is where Sasha comes in, that was not the end of the story. Seretonin receptors are new
discoveries, those 5-HTa1, 5-HTb1, etc receptors, they are new. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s they would
invent a Molecule, test it to discover what it looked like (hanging bromide atom reacts red, etc, kind of
like Police field test kits but with a wider range of reactions)
And the activity was judged based on how was though to break down in the Hydrochloric acid in your
stomach, then processed in the liver. And they would try to invent new molecules by looking at the old
ones, how they broke down, and using that as a base. This was with absolutely no understanding of the
Seretonin Receptors in the Brain. All the could do was use Radio-active Isotopes and Xray them. This
study is known as "Structure Activity Relationship". Sasha was the premiere Doctor on this subject.
And the person who discovered Seretonin receptors, David E Nichols, worked with Sasha and they
wrote papers about Molecules together regularly.
That is the Foundation of Modern Pharmaceutical Medicine. The only other big contribution to the
same effect, is DNA by Crick and Craig Venter.

“the magistrate’s jurisdn. extends only to civil rights and from these considns.: the magistrate has no
power but wt. ye. people gave hm. the people hv. nt. givn. hm. <powr.> the care of souls bec. y cd. nt.,
y. cd. nt. because no man hs. right to abandon ye. care of his salvation to another. no man has power
to let another prescribe his faith. faith is not faith witht. believing. no man can conform his faith to the
dictates of another...
I cannot give up my guidance to the magistrate; because he knows no more of the way to heaven than I
do & is less concerned to direct me right than I am to go right. if the jews had followed their kings,
amongst so many, what number would have led them to idolatry? consider the vicissitudes among the
emperors, Arians, Athans. or among our princes, H.8. E.6. Mary. Elizabeth. [co]mpulsion in religion is
distinguished peculiarly from compulsion in every other thing. I may grow rich by art I am compelled
to follow, I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take agt. my own judgmt., but I cannot
be saved by a worship I disbelieve & abhor.”
-Thomas Jefferson, VI. Notes on Locke and Shaftesbury, Locke’s works 2d. Vol.

Argument

The Collin County District Courts are attempting to hold me in Contempt and Declare me a Vexatious
Litigant because of my Religion. In both the Original Sanctions and the Vexatious Litigant Motion my
Religion is clearly recognized, attacked, and ignored by the Court when I assert it as a defense to the
actions of the County. The Contempt Motion also requested that I be put in Jail for 6 months and
charged $500 per day that the cases against the county remained open, but then switched at the hearing
to a motion requesting that I pay the Defense attorney $26,000.00.

The case I filed in Federal ourt that the Defense claims is in violation of the Sanctions (Sanctions put in
place by Cynthia Wheless who recused herself from the Cases) was taken by magistrate Judge
Christine Nowak in the Eastern District of Texas. Ray Wheless, the Husband of Cynthia Wheless
retired in September 2019 and within 1 week Cynthia Wheless’s Husband was replaced by Thomas
Nowak on the bench, this is Christine Nowak’s Husband. This is why Cynthia Wheless recused herself,
and the new Judge is refusing to accept that this is clear error and moved forward in clear error.

I should have never been sanctioned for not appearing the worst thing that an happen to someone that
does not showing up to their hearing is that the get a ruling that is not in their favor, you can not
sanctions someone who has not appeared. The first hearing I was able to appear at in this case that has
been open sine 2017 was January 23rd 2020 that was my first appearance.

The Defense attorney has proven no case at any point in time in any of these proceedings, let alone
enough to meet the standard of proving that the case would be lost in a Vexatious Litigant Declaration.

The Attorney for the County lied about what the Original suit was about, he claimed it was about
smoking Marijuana in Jail, when it was a Religious Marijuana regarding an Arrest that occurred on my
property outside of Jail and then the fact that my Religious Text was banned in the Jail while Christians
were still allowed to bring bibles and the fact that a Pastor at the Jail told me that I had to be Christian
to go to the Church Services because he was mad that I knew more about the Bible than the Christian
Inmates. Due to the lie of the Attorney, the Original Sanctions against me state that I can not file suit
against the County for Smoking Marijuana in Jail, which I have not ever done, so I have no Violated
the Sanctions.

The Original Sanctions are based on a Falsehood and are therefor Unlclear and Ambiguous, and I have
not Violated them.

The Attorney for Collin County also claims that he has spent $26,000.00 on this case which is
extravagant, considering that I did not even know my Judge’s name until September 2019, just a few
months ago.
 And this court is filled with people fro the Collin county republican party who my dad is a member of
and does the printing for various campaigns of it is even possible that the Judges hearing my cases used
my Dad’s company to make their campaign signs and websites.

Case Law

Strayhorn v. Ethical Society of Austin 110 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. App. 2003)
Because this dispute presents us with a constitutional issue, we review the trial court's decision de
novo. See, e.g., Perry v. Del Rio, 67 S.W.3d 85, 91 (Tex. 2001). Thus, we owe no deference to the trial
court's decision and may proceed to resolve the issues presented as a matter of law. Quick v. City of
Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109, 116 (Tex.1998).

In the Interest of K.A.R. 14-03-00970-CV (Tx Crt Apps Houston)

Although the trial court was acting within its discretion in proceeding to trial in the absence of
Kenneth and Clarke and in granting Lisa all of the relief sought in her counter-petition, the mere
failure of Kenneth and Clarke to appear for trial should not expose them to sanctions.   A defendant
who fails to appear for trial may be subject to a judgment following trial in his absence, but the worst-
case scenario for such a defendant should be an adverse judgment for all relief sought in the plaintiff's
pleadings.   See Sharpe v. Kilcoyne, 962 S.W.2d 697, 698-702 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.)
(affirming sanctions against defendant that were limited to a post-answer default judgment as to
liability and damages after defendant moved from Texas to Canada, refused to accept correspondence
from court and counsel regarding the lawsuit, and failed to appear at two deposition settings, a
sanctions hearing, and a trial setting).

Gilbertv.Tx. Mut. Insu. Co. 03-05-00787-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 19, 2008)
Gilbert Maxwell appeals that order, complaining in four issues that the trial court abused its discretion
in assessing sanctions pursuant to its "inherent power over attorneys appearing before it" and because
the new order is not supported by the evidence. We affirm.

Ex Parte Price 741 S.W.2d 366 (1987)

violation of a vague and uncertain court order cannot be punished by contempt.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
That hostility surfaced at the Commission’s formal, public hearings, as shown by the record. On May
30, 2014, the seven-member Commission convened publicly to consider Phillips’ case. At several
points during its meeting, commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be
carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are
less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community. One commissioner suggested that Phillips
can believe “what he wants to believe,” but cannot act on his religious beliefs “if he decides to do
business in the state.” Tr. 23. A few moments later, the commissioner restated the same position: “[I]f a
businessman wants to do business in the state and he’s got an issue with the—the law’s impacting his
personal belief system, he needs to look at being able to compromise.” Id., at 30. Standing alone, these
statements are susceptible of different interpretations. On the one hand, they might mean simply that a
business cannot refuse to provide services based on sexual orientation, regardless of the proprietor’s
personal views. On the other hand, they might be seen as inappropriate and dismissive comments
showing lack of due consideration for Phillips’ free exercise rights and the dilemma he faced. In view
of the comments that followed, the latter seems the more likely.
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
Nor, if the contention had been made below, would the record appear to sustain it; there is no proof
whatever to warrant such fears of malingering or deceit as those which the respondents now advance.
Even if consideration of such evidence is not foreclosed by the prohibition against judicial inquiry into
the truth or falsity of religious beliefs, United States v. Ballard, 322 U. S. 78 -- a question as to which
we intimate no view, since it is not before us -- it is highly doubtful whether such evidence would be
sufficient to warrant a substantial infringement of religious liberties. For even if the possibility of
spurious claims did threaten to dilute the fund and disrupt the scheduling of work, it would plainly be
incumbent upon the appellees to demonstrate that no alternative forms of regulation would combat
such abuses without infringing First Amendment rights. [Footnote 7] Cf. 364 U. S. Tucker, 364 U.S.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
Other statements by members of the city council were in a similar vein. For example, Councilman
Martinez, after noting his belief that Santeria was outlawed in Cuba, questioned: "[I]f we could not
practice this [religion] in our homeland [Cuba], why bring it to this country?" Councilman Cardoso
said that Santeria devotees at the Church "are in violation of everything this country stands for."
Councilman Mejides indicated that he was "totally against the sacrificing of animals" and
distinguished kosher slaughter because it had a "real purpose." The "Bible says we are allowed to
sacrifice an animal for consumption," he continued, "but for any other purposes, I don't believe that
the Bible allows that." The president of the city council, Councilman Echevarria, asked: "What can we
do to prevent the Church from opening?"

United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944)

But, on whichever basis that court rested its action, we do not agree that the truth or verity of
respondents' religious doctrines or beliefs should have been submitted to the jury. Whatever this
particular indictment might require, the First Amendment precludes such a course, as the United States
seems to concede. "The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the
establishment of no sect." Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 80 U. S. 728. The First Amendment has a dual
aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any
form of worship," but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion." Cantwell v.
Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 303.
"Thus, the Amendment embraces two concepts -- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is
absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be."
Id., pp. 310 U. S. 303-304. Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religious belief, is basic in a
society of free men. Board of Education by Barnette, 319 U. S. 624. It embraces the right to maintain
theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox
faiths. Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They
may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as
real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others.

United States v. ARTICLE OR DEVICE, ETC., 333 F. Supp. 357 (D.D.C. 1971)
In 1962, when the Government seized the E-meters involved in the present controversy, it took them
from the premises of the Church, confiscating some E-meters which were actually then being used
primarily by ministers of the Church to audit adherents or to train auditors for subsequent church
activity. Thus the Government put itself in the delicate position of moving against not only secular uses
of the E-meter but other uses purporting to be religious, and the Court accordingly confronts the
necessity of reconciling the requirements of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act prohibiting misbranding
and the requirements of the First Amendment protecting religious institutions and religious beliefs from
governmental interference under the First Amendment.

S/_Ryan_Gallagher___

Rev. Ryan “Sasha” Gallagher

Mahatmajapa@gmail.com
1723 Candleglow
Castle Rock, Co 80109