HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmailed Comment from JO8N1
Brandon DeCriscio
From:JO8N <JO8N@proton.me>
Sent:Monday, May 26, 2025 8:05 AM
To:Lisa Landau; Nathan Steele; Joe Kalmick; Ben Wong; Patty Senecal; Patrick Gallegos;
Michael Henderson; nghirelli@rwglaw.com; Gloria Harper; Brandon DeCriscio; Karen
Pickering; Ask City Hall; budget; info@sealbeachchamber.org; Joe Bailey; Alexa Smittle;
Barbara Arenado; Iris Lee; Tim Kelsey; Shaun Temple; Deb Machen; Anthony Nguyen;
Nicholas Nicholas; Mike Ezroj; Julia Clasby; ctuchalski@bestversionmedia.com;
info@bestversionmedia.com; editor2@sunnews.org; cpenaorg@gmail.com; Brian Gray;
Nick Bolin; hr@sealbeachca.gov; Megan Coats; Jessica Salvador; Chris Hendrix;
sealbeachcityrotary@gmail.com; Jill Ingram
Subject:Public Comment - Final Warning, Fear GOD - Seal Beach City Council Meeting 5/27/25
Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
This Is Your Final Warning. Fear GOD. Legal Action Will Be Considered If The Public Record Is Not
Corrected Through These Acknowledgments During The Seal Beach City Council Meeting On 5/27/25:
1. I Request Public Acknowledgment Of Ongoing Seal Beach Police Intimidation To Chill My 1st
Amendment Right To Free Speech At Public Assemblies Because Of Viewpoint Discrimination
Before/During My Public Comments For Years And Guarantee Of An Immediate End To These
Behaviors Or Similar: (A) Directing An Officer To Use A Police Dog To Specifically Target My
Person/Belongings/Scent Without A Warrant Or Reasonable Suspicion Of A Crime Additionally
Violating My 4th Amendment Right (B) Directing An Officer To Move Behind The Sight Line Of The
Camera To Sit In The Public Audience Exactly When I Go Up To Give My Public Comment (C)
Physically Moving Directly Next To My Person In The Public Audience Section Before Public
Comments At Two Separate December Meetings In Order To Give Me Extra Intimidation During
The Pressure Of Greater Audience Attendance Than Usual And Holiday Performances (D)
Suggesting/Telling Me Not To Write My Name Down In Order To Be Called Upon To Give My Public
Comment
2. I Request Public Acknowledgment Of A Previous Lie By Omission From Seal Beach Police Stating
That Psilocybin Mushrooms Are Completely Illegal In California And A Correction Of The Record
Stating The Whole Truth That The California Cities Of Oakland, Santa Cruz, Arcata, Berkeley, And
San Francisco Have Successfully Mandated Personal Use And Possession Of Certain
Psychedelics As The Lowest Law Enforcement Priority.
3. I Request Public Acknowledgment Of The City Attorney's Failure To Recognize At Best And
Complicit Encouragement At Worst Of The Ongoing Seal Beach Police Intimidation Specifically
Directed At Me, A ~27 Year Resident.
4. I Hereby Request A Public Acknowledgment From The City Attorney Regarding Prior Acts Of
Omission And Potential Violations Of My First Amendment Rights. Specifically, These Violations
Occurred Immediately After I Publicly Announced The Religious Nature Of My Practice And The
Founding Of My Church.
Following This Declaration, The City Attorney Issued A Blanket Legal Statement Asserting That
Psilocybin Mushrooms—Referred To By Their Non-Religious, Secular Name—Are “Illegal In
California.” This Statement Was Delivered Without Addressing The Constitutional Protections
2
Afforded To Religious Practice, And Was Made In Direct Response To My Religious Expression
Invoking The Name Of JESUS CHRIST. This Action Effectively Undermined The Legitimacy Of My
Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs And Sacramental Use Of JESUS CHRIST's Flesh And Blood. It
Promoted A Preference For Traditional Or Mainstream Christian Interpretations Over
Nontraditional Or Indigenous Spiritual Practices. It Also Violated The Establishment Clause And
Free Exercise Clause Of The First Amendment To The United States Constitution, Which Together
Prohibit Government Hostility Toward Minority Religious Practices, Government Endorsement Of
One Religious Interpretation Over Another, Interference With Religious Expression In A Public
Forum, And The Chilling Of Protected Religious Speech. Furthermore, The City Attorney Omitted
Critical Legal Context, Implying That My Religious Practice Was Categorically Illegal Under State
Law—When In Fact, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) And The Gonzales V. O Centro
Espírita Beneficente União Do Vegetal (UDV) Supreme Court Decision Provide A Clear And
Recognized Pathway For Religious Exemption To Controlled Substance Laws. The UDV Case
Affirmed That A Sincere Religious Use Of A Federally Controlled Substance May Not Be Prohi bited
Without The Government Meeting The Highest Level Of Legal Justification—Known As Strict
Scrutiny. The Burden Is On The Government To Show A Compelling Interest And That It Has
Chosen The Least Restrictive Means To Advance That Interest. By Failing To Disclose This Legal
Framework, The City Attorney Not Only Misled The Public, But Also Attempted To Dismiss My
Constitutionally Protected Religious Rights Through Misrepresentation And Selective Omission.
This Public Statement, Issued By A Government Official In A Civic Forum, Not Only Dismissed The
Spiritual Framework I Had Explicitly Articulated, But Also Attempted To Reframe My Protected
Religious Exercise As A Criminal Matter—Thus Chilling My Religious Speech, Discrediting The
Legitimacy Of My Sacrament, And Reinforcing State Entanglement With Religious Interpretation,
Contrary To The Principle Of Government Neutrality In Religious Matters. This Act Of
Governmental Overreach Echoes The Historical Violation Of Indigenous Religious Freedom On
This Land—An Ongoing Legacy Of Cultural Suppression And Spiritual Violation.
Lastly, I Assert That I Am Under No Obligation To Prove My Religious Exemption Through Man-
Made Legal Mechanisms Unless And Until I Deem The Matter Ripe. My Exercise Of Faith Exists
Prior To And Beyond Civil Authorization, As Protected By The Constitution And Recognized By
Precedent. This Is Anchored In The Foundational Principle That Religious Liberty Is An Inalienable
Right, Not A Privilege Bestowed Or Regulated At The Discretion Of The State.
5. I Request Public Acknowledgment Of Two Separate Brown Act Violations. During (4), The City
Attorney Gave A Public Response To My Public Comment Without Agendizing The Item To Give Me
A Chance To Respond With The Omitted Information. During (2), The City Mayor Gave A Public
Response To My Public Comment In Which Police Were Asked About Psilocybin Mushrooms. This
Item Was Not Agendized And I Was Not Given The Chance To Respond With The Omitted
Information. Because The Item Was Illegaly Agendized Twice Without A Public Hearing, I Request
A Legal Placement On A Future Agenda With A Chance For The Public To Speak.
If The Public Record Is Corrected By Acknowledgment Of All 5 Issues, Behaviors Are Promised To
Change, And Placement On A Future Agenda Occurs During The Seal Beach City Council Meeting
On 5/27/25, I Will Drop All Consideration Of Legal Action With Handshakes Of Forgiveness.
42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil Action For Deprivation Of Rights
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983
3
https://steeringlaw.com/police-misconduct-attorney-seal-beach/
https://www.moseleycollins.com/police-misconduct-lawyer-in-seal-beach-ca.html
https://pba.memberclicks.net/search-member-directory#/
https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/
https://www.terrapinlegal.com/
https://www.thefire.org/
https://www.aclu.org/
Satan Drives Out Satan All Around Me
The I AM Holds Me Together
Sin Tempts You With Momentary Peace
Division Never Lasts Forever
Love Verbatim Word For Word
Literally, In The Flesh And Blood
Remember Ear Cut By Sword
Here Forever, Good Is Evil's Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If theft is still a problem in the Target shopping center, it might be time to look into employees giving
tips/insider theft. Can Amazon's security be consulted to see vulnerabilities in Target shopping center as
I believe Amazon uses Palantir?
If the water and sewer rates are passed, we need to see recognition of exactly where the funds are going
to certain parts of the city - I foresee a situation in the future when other, more recently built parts of the
city need new pipes and I want a record of the fact that the more recently built parts of the city helped
fund older parts of the city before.
If that many pills shown in the drug take back are over prescribed by big pharmaceutical companies,
how is that not considered racketeering conspiracy with big insurance companies?
Make an AI Police Lawyer like siri that can be a real time intermediary for police officers and citizens to
talk with together in 99% of the time non-violent interaction.
In regards to drug enforcement, the best defense is a good offense - right now alcohol is your offense
when it should be cannabis - alcohol is a gateway to cocaine/meth/opioids and cannabis is a gateway to
psychedelics.
Why This Russian Drone Developer Isn’t Impressed by U.S. Tech ([Probably Some Propaganda In There]
Fiber Optic Cable Drone Seems Most Applicable For Civilian Police - Better Connection, No Enemy
Jamming/Detection, More Battery Because Video Feed Does Not Take As Much Energy; Or Large Mother
Drone To Improve Connection/Distance Of Wireless; Starlink Naval Drones; Lasers To Destroy Drones)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmfNUM2CbbM
Police warn of small cameras camouflaged in yards across the country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEQircxHdHQ
4
Experimental drones developed in Chicago area to neutralize mass shooters, disable weapons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eiz2GzAEVbg
Is This An Organized Crime Syndicate? James Freeman (Local Public Government Is Better Than The
Alternative Or Else It Would Create A Vacuum With Less Accountability/Standards/Morality/Etc., But It Is
Not The Best - Religion Is)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NaPJKi_MW0
How Police Control the Media (Overly Liberal Video Among Some Overly Republican Videos, But
Copaganda Has Obvious Truth In Seal Beach With Terrible Local Journalistic Integrity Regarding My
Experience So Far, Unless There Has Been Publicly Published Writin g About Cannabis/Psychedelics That
I Have Not Seen)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NB0IW8ihS0
Tim Tebow - Fighting For Our Children | SRS #199 Shawn Ryan Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeVFs0dVcCc
Notorious Green Beret’s WARNING to Soldiers Coming Home Johnny Glenn Julian Dorey (IMO Adrenaline
Addiction Through Constant Survival Competition At War Creates Hyper-vigilance Devoid Of Rest With
GOD That Does Not Integrate Into The Marathon Of Life)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0NnjKXZRFc
The Real Threat: Why the U.S. Could Declare War on Chinese Gangs (w/ Former DEA, Ray Donovan)
Ironclad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKNiaMqfwA
Why Other Countries LAUGH at American Homes (Build New Headquarters By The Beach Out Of
Concrete/Local Earth Geopolymer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTghEBfZ_D8
Wasp 3D-prints eco-homes from local raw earth for $1K
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MLJs1KRa0Y
In 2018, the team printed their first home in 10 days using local earth (30% clay, 40% silt, 30% sand), 40%
chopped rice straw, 25% rice husk, and 10% lime. “Gaia” cost 900 euros (1,000 dollars) in materials for
30 meters of wall. The round-shaped structure relied on a wooden roof and beams for support.
Why 3D Printing Buildings Leads to Problems (Modular Prefab Concrete For Non-Unique Building Parts +
3D Printed Concrete For Unique Building Parts Seems Like Sweet Spot)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhAwPFIUF_4
Comment:
“I’ve worked closely with a leading concrete 3D printing company for several years now, so I hope my
insight into the actual construction process provides some perspective.
First, one clarification: There is no gravel aggregate in 3D printing concrete. It is only sand.
You're right that the vertical integration is very strong in this industry, but there is already internal
pressure to break that up. I expect in 10 years or so, you'll see more open-access tools available to
architects and construction companies alike. I can't be too specific and honor my non-disclosure
5
agreements, but there is recognition that the ability for architects to play with shape is very limited for
now, which also limits the primary advantage of concrete 3D printing over other methods: complex
shapes cost the same as simple ones. The primary reasons IMO for the vertical integration is 1) that there
has been a high learning curve for the industry and 2) the business case relies on minimizing labor costs
and the strategies for dealing with that are still being prototyped. Normally trivial things like laying
foundations, running plumbing, tying roof timbers into the frame, and lintels as you mentioned, are
difficult for concrete 3D printed construction. It's only in the last year or so that acceptable, repeatable
solutions have been identified for most of these and are finding their way into standard design practices.
But even then, there are still maybe 5 or 10 years more of on-the-ground construction needed to
establish best practice. It's not too different from the way building materials and building science
radically changed in the 1980's, leading to a decade of extremely poorly built houses prone to water
damage and short lifespans. It wasn't until maybe 20 years after that best practices for high-quality
construction had been standardized.
I would push back on the lack of repairability, though. This has always been an issue with concrete
construction, and it's likely to become increasingly common for plaster or stucco finishes to be applied
to internal walls, allowing for intrusive renovations to be reintegrated. Structural stability is not likely to
be an issue since all walls have reinforcement every half meter anyway and often exceed building
strength standards by an order of magnitude. Further, virtually all concrete 3D printing for now is slab-on-
grade construction, which already has the same repairability issues you mention but is already widely
adopted and has best practices for dealing with things like electrical and plumbing repair. I would also
point out that the timber frame construction that we love so much is largely an anomaly unique to the
U.S. where wood is abundant and cheap. Concrete 3D printed homes have the (so far unrealized)
potential of being many decades or centuries more durable than frame buildings, which will change the
design requirements that often contribute to design choices that later need renovations and repairs.
I would also push back on the criticism of how windows and doors are seated in the concrete homes. I
don't doubt that many early concrete 3D printed homes were sealed with silicone only, but 1) the gap
between windows and walls is already standard in frame construction and addressed with shims, spray
foam, and trim and 2) the 3D printing companies have already started to adopt the same building
techniques used by frame construction.
Echoing much of what you said, IMO concrete 3D printing has a high potential for unique design that
won't be unlocked until architects are given freer access to the tools and pre-fab construction is a
necessary companion to this industry, but there is still a lot of building science that is being worked out.
There are already some serious advantges, such as all walls having a native R40 insulation rating, but
these will be tempered by the inherent limitations. I don't expect to see a rapid adoption of 3D printed
construction for another 5 or 10 years and for the U.S. market share to cap around 20% and primarily
remain in the residential and light commercial construction spaces. I also think that the current bare-
wall aesthetic will fall out of favor out in that timeframe since it will prove difficult to clean. I also expect
that environmental costs will remain high as long as cement production relies on fossil fuels and
concrete aggregate relies on mined sand. I also expect that a future use case for heavy construction is
using 3D printing to create forms for much thicker concrete constructions, particularly for foundations,
buttresses, and pillars, such as you see in airport construction.”
I Investigated Utah’s DEADLY Soda Addiction…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlNJc_OLbYw
6
https://playactivate.com/
Increased sedentary behavior is associated with neurodegeneration and worse cognition in older adults
over a 7-year period despite high levels of physical activity
https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/alz.70157
Parkinson's patients who take 'magic mushrooms' see key benefits, study finds
https://www.foxnews.com/health/parkinsons-patients-who-take-magic-mushrooms-see-key-benefits-
study-finds
Trump surgeon general pick praised unproven psychedelic therapy, said mushrooms helped her find love
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/15/health/casey-means-psychedelic-therapy
Military Land Is 4,336 Acres Or 60.7% Of Seal Beach...
JO8N
On Monday, March 31st, 2025 at 6:34 PM, JO8N <JO8N@proton.me> wrote:
On Sunday, March 23rd, 2025 at 4:53 PM, JO8N <JO8N@proton.me> wrote:
Dear Lisa, Nathan, Joe, Ben, Patty, Patrick, Mike H., Nick G., And Gloria,
I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding what I believe to be ongoing
violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.) during
public meetings conducted by Seal Beach’s City Council. The fundamental purpose
of the Brown Act is to ensure that the public has the ability to meaningfully participate
in local government proceedings, which includes the right to make public comments
and receive fair treatment under open meeting laws.
Specifically, I wish to address the following concerns:
1. Inability to Respond to False or Misleading Statements:
* It has been observed that after I make public comments, members of the council
and/or city staff respond to my remarks. However, I am not afforded the opportunity
to address their responses within the same meeting, effectively silencing my ability to
correct or clarify statements that may be false, misleading, or deceptive by omission.
This directly undermines the principle of open and meaningful discourse as
envisioned by the Brown Act.
* The California Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of open and fair
discussions in McKee v. Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension
Crime Task Force (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 354, where the court emphasized that
restricting public input while allowing government officials to comment without
challenge is inconsistent with the transparency goals of the Brown Act.
2. Prohibition on Addressing Staff:
* The restrictions placed upon me and other members of the public from directing
comments toward city staff—especially when they are the ones providing statements
that require public scrutiny—appear to be an unreasonable and arbitrary limitation on
public participation. Furthermore, this may give the staff a feeling of false sense of
security protecting their statements from legal scrutiny. The Brown Act does not
prohibit the public from addressing staff members during public comment, and such
restrictions seem inconsistent with its purpose of transparency and accountability.
7
* In Chaffee v. San Francisco Library Commission (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 109,
the court affirmed that public participation is a fundamental aspect of government
meetings and should not be unduly restricted, emphasizing the need for fairness in
addressing public concerns.
3. Discussion of Public Comments Without Proper Agenda Notice:
* Members of the council have engaged in discussions regarding my public
comments without first properly agendizing the topics I address. This practice
violates the Brown Act’s requirement that discussions and deliberations on non-
agendized items not take place, as it deprives the public of advance notice and the
ability to participate fully in the discussion.
* I am grateful that the city council is listening and willing to speak even
momentarily in response to public concerns. However, even an extremely time-
limited agendized discussion would add fairness and transparency to misleading
statements by staff. By failing to agendize discussions about my comments, the
council is creating an imbalance in the exchange of information, which the Brown Act
seeks to prevent.
* Additionally, in my public comments, I am using meta-communication to
agendize the process by which we agendize. The term “agendize” itself is a
completely made-up word that devalues public discourse and reflects a bureaucratic
approach that obstructs meaningful public participation rather than facilitating it. This
concern aligns with the ruling in White v. City of Norwalk (1990) 900 F.2d 1421,
where the court emphasized that public meetings should foster meaningful
participation and that arbitrary restrictions on discourse can infringe upon First
Amendment rights.
* The word "agendize" does not appear anywhere in the Brown Act (Government
Code § 54950 et seq.). The law refers to "placing an item on the agenda" or "agenda
requirements," but "agendize" is not an official legal term. It is a bureaucratic jargon
word that has become commonly used in government settings but lacks formal
recognition in the Brown Act itself.
4. Process for Placing an Item on the Agenda:
* The process for placing an item on a city council agenda varies by jurisdiction,
but under the Brown Act, it does not require a unanimous decision by the council.
Instead, different cities have different policies:
* Individual Council Members: Some cities allow one or two council members to
request an item be placed on a future agenda. The exact number required depends
on the city’s local rules or policies. For example, in Los Angeles, a single council
member can introduce a motion to be considered in a future meeting. Similarly, in
San Diego, two council members are required to place an item on the docket.
* Majority Vote: In some cities, adding an item to a future agenda requires a
majority vote of the council at a meeting. This process ensures that council members
collectively decide whether an issue warrants further discussion. The City of
Berkeley, for instance, follows this model, requiring a majority vote to place an item
on the agenda.
* Courts have upheld the importance of agenda-setting transparency. In Preven v.
City of Los Angeles (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 925, the court ruled that public
participation in government decision-making is a core right under the Brown Act,
reinforcing that the public and individual council members must be given fair
opportunities to introduce topics for discussion.
These practices create an unfair and unbalanced environment where public voices
are effectively suppressed, while city officials retain unrestricted latitude to control
discourse without public challenge. Such actions may constitute a violation of both
the letter and spirit of the Brown Act.
I respectfully request that the city review its meeting procedures and take immediate
corrective actions, including:
8
* Allowing public speakers the opportunity to address responses made to their
comments within the same meeting.
* Eliminating any restrictions that prevent members of the public from addressing
staff when their statements are at issue.
* Ensuring that discussions related to public comments follow proper agenda
procedures to comply with the Brown Act’s transparency requirements.
* Switching to Individual Council Member placing of items on the agenda to
emphasize the sanctity of every individual living in Seal Beach
Failure to address these issues may necessitate further action, including but not
limited to submitting a formal complaint to the appropriate oversight agencies and
seeking legal remedies to ensure compliance with state law.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and request a written response
outlining the steps the city will take to address these concerns. Please respond within
30 days of receipt of this letter.
P.S. Still Waiting On That Seal Beach City Legal Document Stating The Boundaries
Marking The Well. Your Opinion About Me And My Right To Stand In A Public Area
Moving My Body Completely To Myself Is Worthless Without The Written Proof Of
The Well Boundary. I Submit The Evidence That You Are Able To Be That Close To
Gloria’s City Clerk Area, And In Fact, Encouraged To Be In Order To Pick Up, Fill
Out, And Submit Necessary Documents, Including Supplemental Material For Public
Comments. My Standing In The Exact Symmetrically Opposite Area Was
Supplemental Material For My Public Comment About The Decriminalization Of
Psilocybin Mushrooms And The Agenda Item Of Daylighting. Lastly, The Wells I
Have Seen Are Round In Shape And Symmetrical Without Parts Hanging Off The
Side (To Conveniently Fit Your Narrative)
42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity,
injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or
declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of
Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be
a statute of the District of Columbia.
ןמא ןמא
⭼⭽⭾⭿⮀⮁⮂
ၒၓ ⯴⯵⯶
⍾
י ו 8 נ ן
Ἰωάνν8ς
Jo8annes
JO8N
On Tuesday, March 18th, 2025 at 6:11 AM, JO8N <JO8N@proton.me> wrote:
Dear Lisa, Nathan, Joe, Ben, Patty, Patrick, Mike H., Nick G., And
Gloria,
9
I am writing to formally request an investigation into a matter of
significant public concern regarding potential interference with my
ability to communicate with city officials. Specifically, I have reason to
believe that my emails to members of the Seal Beach City Council
and city staff may have been intentionally blocked or filtered by
someone within city administration in the Fall/Winter of 2024.
As a resident of Seal Beach, I understand that I have a right to
communicate with my elected representatives and city staff regarding
matters of public interest. Any directive or policy that restricts this
communication raises serious legal concerns under the Ralph M.
Brown Act (Government Code §§ 54950–54963), the California
Public Records Act (CPRA) (Government Code §§ 6250–6270), and
the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The Brown Act ensures transparency and public participation in local
government. Blocking my emails to city officials may constitute an
unlawful restriction on my ability to engage in civic matters and
access public information. Likewise, the CPRA mandates that
governmental communications be open for public scrutiny. If city staff
have deliberately restricted my access to communicate with officials,
it could be an unlawful attempt to circumvent public records laws and
governmental accountability.
Furthermore, the First Amendment guarantees my right to petition the
government for redress of grievances. Any action taken by city staff
to suppress my communication, particularly if done based on
viewpoint discrimination, could amount to a constitutional violation.
Relevant case law, such as Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratcliff v.
Garnier, suggests that when public officials act in their official
capacity, they must not engage in viewpoint-based censorship,
including blocking communications from constituents.
To ensure transparency and accountability, I respectfully request an
internal review and disclosure of the following:
1. Any internal directives, policies, or communications instructing city
staff or IT personnel to block, filter, or otherwise restrict emails from
my email address jo8n@proton.me or any other specific senders.
2. A list of email addresses, domains, or individuals that have been
blocked from contacting city officials and staff in the last year.
3. Any internal discussions or justifications for implementing such
restrictions, including whether such actions were directed by city
officials or staff members.
4. The criteria and procedures used by the city’s IT department to
filter or block external communications.
If such a policy or directive exists, I request an explanation of its
basis, legal justification, and the process by which it was
implemented. If no such directive exists, I ask that immediate steps
be taken to ensure my emails are properly received by their intended
recipients.
I would appreciate a written response within 30 days confirming the
receipt of this request and outlining the next steps in addressing this
matter. If necessary, I am willing to file a formal Public Records Act
request to obtain relevant documentation.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue. I look forward to
your prompt response and a resolution that upholds public trust and
the right to open communication with our local government.
10
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?la
wCode=GOV§ionNum=54950
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201
720180SB31
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?la
wCode=CONS§ionNum=SEC.%202.&article=I
ןמא ןמא
⭼⭽⭾⭿⮀⮁⮂
ၒၓ ⯴⯵⯶
⍾
JO8N
On Monday, March 10th, 2025 at 6:44 AM, JO8N
<JO8N@proton.me> wrote:
Dear Lisa, Nathan, Joe, Ben, Patty, Patrick, Mike
H., And Nick G.,
Police intimidation that chills free speech is well
recognized under First Amendment
jurisprudence. In Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169
(1972), the Supreme Court held that government
action that deters individuals from participating
in public discourse—whether through direct
harassment or other forms of coercion—can
violate First Amendment rights. In Feiner v. New
York, 414 U.S. 632 (1974), the Court
underscored that police conduct which disrupts
or deters political expression, even if ostensibly
aimed at maintaining order, must not infringe on
the constitutional right to free speech.
Moreover, Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491
U.S. 781 (1989) illustrates that any regulation or
enforcement action must be content neutral and
carefully tailored to avoid suppressing speech
based solely on its message. These cases
establish that if police officers single out
individuals for the content of their speech or for
the topics they plan to address—such as
advocating for "psilocybin mushroom"
decriminalization, Religious Freedom, Jesus
Christ or discussing other politically charged
issues—the resulting intimidation can constitute
11
an impermissible infringement on First
Amendment protections.
Additionally, lower court decisions have
consistently found that law enforcement actions
that create a chilling effect on political
participation are subject to strict scrutiny. When
officers position themselves near a speaker, not
to maintain public safety but to deter
expression, it may be seen as targeted
harassment.
In December 2023's Seal Beach City Council
Meeting, Mike H. of police staff entered the
public section of the council chambers. He
decided to sit near me when the choir sang. In
December 2024's Seal Beach City Council
Meeting, Mike H. entered the public section once
again. He decided to stand directly next to me
during the National Anthem and when the choir
sang. As I was in two completely different places
in the room each year, this establishes a
patterned targeting that could potentially be
viewed as apparent police intimidation that
chills my free speech before my public
comment.
In addition, Nick N. and Yosa of police staff have
entered the public section of the council
chambers directly behind the podium in view of
the camera numerous times. This happened
exactly during my public comment, to the point
where I took time away from my allotted time to
acknowledge the repeated pattern. I can only
assume that this was a directive given by Mike H.
of police staff due to his body language and the
potential intimidation's regularity.
“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who
is taking you to court. Do it while you are still
together on the way, or your adversary may hand
you over to the judge, and the judge may hand
you over to the officer, and you may be thrown
into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out
until you have paid the last penny." (Matthew
5:25-26)
ןמא ןמא
12
⭼⭽⭾⭿⮀⮁⮂
ၒၓ ⯴⯵⯶
⍾
JO8N
On Sunday, March 9th, 2025 at 2:22 AM, JO8N
<JO8N@proton.me> wrote:
Dear Lisa, Nathan, Joe, Ben, Patty,
Patrick, Mike H., And Nick G.,
I am formally requesting a correction
of the public record pursuant to the
Brown Act (California Government
Code § 54960.1) due to misleading
and incomplete statements made by
city staff during the February 10, 2025
Seal Beach City Council meeting.
Additionally, I am raising concerns
regarding a potential violation of my
First Amendment religious rights in
connection with a previous statement
made by the city attorney when I
publicly announced my Church’s use
of "psilocybin mushrooms" as one of
its sacraments.
Summary of Brown Act Violation
During public comment, I addressed
the council regarding the
decriminalization of "psilocybin
mushrooms". After I had finished
speaking, Lisa asked Mike H. from
police staff a clarifying question about
the legal status of "psilocybin
mushrooms". He responded by stating
that "psilocybin mushrooms" are illegal
under California law but failed to
mention that multiple California cities,
including Oakland, San Francisco,
Santa Cruz, and Arcata, have
decriminalized "psilocybin
mushrooms" for years.
This omission misled the public and
the council by falsely implying that
local governments lack the ability to
deprioritize "psilocybin mushrooms"
enforcement, which is demonstrably
untrue. This is not the first time city
officials have engaged in misleading
statements regarding "psilocybin
mushroom" law. One year ago, after I
announced the formation of my
church, which uses "psilocybin
mushrooms", "N,N-
13
Dimethyltryptamine", and "N,N-
DMT/MAOI" as sacraments, the city
attorney similarly responded that
"psilocybin mushrooms" are illegal
under California law—without
acknowledging religious protections
under federal law.
Furthermore, both the city attorney
and police staff failed to disclose
critical personal information that I
presented regarding my own case: I
was hospitalized after consuming a
psychedelic but not charged with any
crime (which I am eternally grateful
for) and also found in possession of
"psilocybin mushrooms" and "N,N-
DMT" within Seal Beach. The
repeated omissions by both the city
attorney and police staff created a
false narrative that "psilocybin
mushroom" decriminalization has not
been successfully implemented in
some California cities and ignored key
evidence—including my own
experience—showing that local
authorities have already adopted
compassionate de facto
decriminalization practices for the well
being of residents.
Potential First Amendment
Violation Under RFRA & Gonzales
v. UDV (2006)
My concern goes beyond
transparency violations under the
Brown Act. The city attorney’s
response a year ago, when I
announced the formation of my
church, raises serious questions about
whether my First Amendment religious
rights were dismissed or undermined
in violation of the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (RFRA) and the
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita
Beneficente União do Vegetal (UDV)
Supreme Court case.
Legal Precedent: Religious Use of
Controlled Substances
In Gonzales v. UDV (2006), the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that a religious
organization could legally use a
federally controlled substance
("ayahuasca") under RFRA
protections, as the government failed
to demonstrate a compelling interest
in prohibiting its religious use.
14
Under RFRA (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1),
the government cannot substantially
burden religious exercise unless it can
prove a compelling government
interest and that the restriction is the
least restrictive means of achieving
that interest.
The DEA and federal courts have
recognized that some religious groups
may legally use controlled substances
like "peyote" and "ayahuasca" under
these protections.
By failing to acknowledge these
protections when I announced my
church, the city attorney omitted
critical legal context, implying that my
religious practice was categorically
illegal under state law—when in fact,
federal law provides a pathway for
religious exemptions. This potential
suppression of my religious
expression in a public forum could be
seen as a violation of my First
Amendment rights.
Requested Corrective Actions
To remedy this issue, I formally
request the following:
Public Correction of the Record – The
city must acknowledge the omission
and issue a formal correction clarifying
that:
Multiple California cities have already
decriminalized "psilocybin
mushrooms" despite state prohibition.
Religious protections exist under
RFRA, and the UDV case established
that religious use of controlled
substances may be legally protected
under federal law.
Agenda Item for Further Discussion –
Given the misleading statements
made by city officials, I request that
the council place "psilocybin
mushroom" decriminalization on a
future agenda to ensure the
discussion is based on accurate and
complete information.
Accountability for Repeated
Omissions – The city should
implement training or procedural
safeguards to prevent city officials
from selectively omitting key legal and
factual information, especially when
addressing the contents of public
comments.
15
Legal Review of First Amendment
Implications – The city should review
its public statements and policies
regarding religious use of controlled
substances to ensure compliance with
RFRA and Supreme Court precedent.
Legal Basis for Brown Act
Complaint
Under California Government Code §
54960.1, the city has 30 days to
correct this violation or face potential
legal action to nullify any decisions
made under misleading or incomplete
information. Failure to acknowledge
and correct this omission could be
interpreted as a continued effort to
obscure public access to truthful and
balanced information, violating the
core principles of the Brown Act.
I request a written response
acknowledging receipt of this letter
and outlining the corrective actions the
city intends to take. I appreciate your
attention to this serious matter and
look forward to your response.
ןמא ןמא
⭼⭽⭾⭿⮀⮁⮂
ၒၓ ⯴⯵⯶
⍾
JO8N