Utah State Settlement Agreement

United States of America, Plaintiff, James Mooney and Linda Mooney, Defendants,
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,

Case No. 2:05 CR 410 TS, 02/22/2006

Settlement-Agreement-2-22-2006 PDF

When James and Linda Mooney signed the settlement agreement, fourteenth day of February 2006, the stipulation for them to possess, distribute or facilitate the distribution of peyote to others and/or seek to acquire peyote from any authorized or unauthorized source had already been met.

See 3 (b) a federal court has held in final judgment that federal drug laws do not preclude the possession, use, or distribution of peyote in the context of Native American Church ceremonies without regard to Native American ancestry or membership in a federally recognized tribe, or

United States v. Robert Boyll, Unanimous Ruling – May 10, 1990

“Nowhere is it even suggested that the exemption applies only to Indian members of the Native American Church.  Had the intention been to exclude non-Indian members, as the United States argues, the language of the exemption would have so clearly provided.  Indeed, the federal peyote exemption makes no reference whatsoever to a racial exclusion”

 

“The District Court, Burciaga, Chief Judge, held that: (1) permitting Indians’ non-drug use of peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies of Native American Church, but prohibiting such use by non-Indians, would violate free exercise and equal protection clauses; (2) compelling interest test applied to free exercise challenge to prosecution of non-Indian member, and (3) prosecution would violate free exercise clause.  Motions granted..

See 3 (c) Federal law is otherwise amended or enacted to allow said usage or possession.

Federal Religious Peyote Exemption 21 C.F.R. 1307.31, this law has been codified as a statute in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

 

“Section 1307.31 Native American Church.  The listing of peyote as a controlled substance in Schedule I does not apply to the nondrug use of peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church, and members of the Native American Church so using peyote are exempt from registration.  Any person who manufactures peyote for or distributes peyote to the Native American Church, however, is required to obtain registration annually and to comply with all other requirements of law.”

(c) Federal law is otherwise amended or enacted to allow said usage or possession.

United States v. Robert Boyll, Unanimous Ruling – May 10, 1990

“Nowhere is it even suggested that the exemption applies only to Indian members of the Native American Church.  Had the intention been to exclude non-Indian members, as the United States argues, the language of the exemption would have so clearly provided.  Indeed, the federal peyote exemption makes no reference whatsoever to a racial exclusion”

 

“The District Court, Burciaga, Chief Judge, held that: (1) permitting Indians’ non-drug use of peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies of Native American Church, but prohibiting such use by non-Indians, would violate free exercise and equal protection clauses; (2) compelling interest test applied to free exercise challenge to prosecution of no-Indian member, and (3) prosecution would violate free exercise clause.  Motions granted..