For Immediate Release
Date: December 21, 2018
Exploding Drug Religion Profits by Lies and Public Corruption: The Ayahuasca Legal Myth in a Kingpin’s Perjury
Hilo, HI–The chief analytical chemist in America’s leading ayahuasca brewing business told the same lie ‘religious’ drug-kingpin and lawyer, Paul J. Sulla, Jr, told to U.S. District Court Judge J. Michael Seabright–“Ayahuasca is legal.”
In a sealed record turned over to state and federal law enforcers by victim/witness investigative journalist Sherri Kane to advance Sulla’s imprisonment on forgery, grand theft, and racketeering charges, the anonymous chemist and Kane debated the widespread myth Sulla spread about the “God molecule’s” use as “legal.”
Sulla’s ayahuasca supply business is booming from exploding demand for this “new designer LSD” called “DMT” (i.e., dimethyltryptamine). The explosion and Sulla’s supply is worldwide, fueled mainly by the lie of legality spread by Sulla and fellow exploiters of the alleged “cult.”
Sulla has been at the forefront of stretching and misrepresenting truths about the known dangerous drug’s “legality.” In 2015, Sulla perjured himself before Judge Seabright, replying to alleged “unlawful church activities.” Sulla defended by claiming that “the U.S. Supreme Court has already evaluated and found [ayahuasca legal and] to be protected under the U.S. Constitution in Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Ore. 2009). This “truth” omitted and misrepresented the real ruling in that lower court.
Sulla added that the “huasca” grant was “guided by the unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)(holding that the federal government could not ban the Daime tea when used for religious purposes).” Again, this “truth” omitted and misrepresented the real ruling.
Contrary to Sulla’s perjury evidencing fraud by omissions, misrepresentations, and cunning diversions, Sulla’s DMT unlicensed manufacturing in Hawaii, as in every state, is illegal.
The “tea” must be imported under federal license exclusively, the courts noted. Quoting 546 U.S. 418 (2006) Gonzales v. O. Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal et al., No. 04-1084, the Supreme Court of United States noted: “The injunction [affirmed] requires the church to import the tea pursuant to federal permits, to restrict control over the tea to persons of church authority, and to warn particularly susceptible UDV members of the dangers of hoasca. See Preliminary Injunction ¶¶ 2, 5-12, 32-33, App. F to App. to Pet. for Cert. 249a, 250a-252a, 258a-259a.”
Misrepresentations and omissions in false advertising used to get consumers to buy anything is called “fraud” and “deceptive trade.” It is supposed to be discouraged by the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC. And when the false advertising promotes the manufacture, sale, and shipment of illegal drugs across America and overseas too, it is supposed to be halted by the Drug Enforcement Agency, the DEA. And when illegal production, advertising, and trafficking of any Class I narcotic hallucinogen relies on public corruption, bribed court officers, and willfully-blind judges or prosecutors, people believe the FBI is always available for public protection.
Sorry to disappoint you.
A drug-church member and Ph.D. in DMT extraction analysis was recorded by investigative journalist Sherri Kane on 11-20-17, stating: “It seems like [Sulla] has some standing as a lawyer. It wouldn’t be surprising if he had some sort of CIA, or Mason ties, or something. He seems like he’s pulling some kind of strings somehow. . . . I just wonder if he does have some of these supposed CIA or Masonic ties like how difficult it might be in court for you [and Dr. Horowitz]. . . .”
The anonymous doctor added, “I don’t know how he got the Daime church legal to do what it’s doing. . . . It’s like a huge organization at this point. They do make medicine for all the churches throughout the country. And even getting that into people’s bodies, under whatever context that might be, I see as beneficial in many situations. . . . I think it’s much easier to ship out of here than it is to receive from somewhere in South America also.”