NOTHING BEYOND BELIEF: WHY INCORPORATING BELIEF STATEMENTS INTO YOUR CHURCH’S CORPORATE RECORD MIGHT BE YOUR NEXT BIG REVELATION

By: George G. Lake, Esq.

Principal and Founding Member, EntheoEsq, LLC

Law Office of George G. Lake, PLLC

Over the last five years, my legal practice has almost exclusively been dedicated to assisting clients in forming entheogenic churches, litigating (pro bono) on behalf of various minority entheogen-based practitioners in state and federal courts across the country, authoring numerous publications on the topic of entheogenic church law and a book on psychedelic research, and providing expert testimony as a general psychedelics expert in a jury trial in Texas, which testimony led to the nullification of the client’s pending charge for both possession and manufacture of dimethyltryptamine.  If events go as I believe they will, it is possible that my co-counsel and I might secure dismissal of the first ever federal indictment for criminal charges related to ayahuasca.  

Within the context of entheogenic church law, my sub-interests have always been predominantly focused on the area of defining religion under the law (a very niche specialty) pretty much since I first read U.S. v. Meyers back in 2020. [1] From there, I continued to work on entheogenic church projects until the present day.  While many things have been lost and forgotten (some rediscovered even) along my path, one gem I have maintained since day one, is my Statement of Beliefs form.

As I continued to work on projects, speak with clients, research, and edit my Statement of Beliefs form, I was steadily mapping the progression of the modern entheogenic church movement within its comprehensive yet concise wording and formatting (according to a researcher at Harvard Divinity School).  I am proud of the work I have done in these regards, and I grow more and more every day, because as I continue (as all good trial lawyers do) probe around me for opinions on the legal definition of religion- I see more and more confusion regarding the issue.  While the bar and the bench are a bit better than the citizenry, they remain one of my primary motivations for getting out here and doing my job as an educator.

Still along this path, I have managed to author three books-all self-published on Amazon.  The first book concerns the state of psilocybin research at that time (2020), and my other two books are about entheogenic church law, with the last being a 325-page treatise on defining religion under the law.  The two books I have authored specifically about entheogenic church law, and my work more generally within the entheogenic church space, received great acclaim and approximately a third of my colleague, religious scholar Dr. Brad Stoddard’s groundbreaking textbook entitled, “The Production of Entheogenic Communities in the United States,” published in Cambridge Press last year. [2]  

Included at the end of this article is a copy of my CV for reference to any of my credentials.  Please do not take the above listing of accolades as a concerted effort to brag or boast about my activities within the entheogenic church space.  Far from it.  Please let this listing give you inner contentment knowing that the person authoring it has done a bit of homework on the subject upon which the article is based.  And here, to you, I posit that indeed I have done some homework and written some reports on defining religion under the law.

While many people are confused about how courts define religion in this country, almost all of them agree on one thing: the use of scheduled psychedelics, if not licensed under the Controlled Substances Act, must be done within the context of a sincere religious practice if it is to be worthy of protection under the free exercise laws.  Additionally, most are also aware that entheogen-based practitioners must not operate to create a “compelling governmental” interest in enforcing the criminal provisions of the controlled substances act against them.  This is accomplished through challenging the government’s experts on the issues of health and safety and diversion, in this context anyways.  

While the scientific and medical record continue to bolster the health and safety of many commonly used Sacraments, very little, if any, meaningful conversation has been had about the merits of religious claims involving the sacramental consumption of entheogens.  To say it’s a rarely traversed road in the law would be an understatement in my opinion.  However, once the Government realizes there is nowhere to go on the “compelling interest” end of the equation, where is their next line of attack- the sincerity and religion question.  And because the UDV and Santo Daime cases did not address the issues (the government never contested the religious status of either church’s practices), I realized that a comprehensive and fundamental understanding of that issue would be essential to ensure our community’s continued success on the litigation front. [3]

Overall, as stated previously, my Statement of Beliefs form was crafted using the parameters laid out in Meyers. [4] Before I discuss those parameters, however, let’s briefly discuss why I chose Meyers, a Wyoming district court opinion, as the basis of my form.  First, as one can note just from looking at the factors, the Meyers’ test is truly comprehensive and is representative of the in-depth scholarly work done by Judge Brimmer in formulating the test. [5] Second, while the district court opinion in Meyers has not received much reference in sister courts across the country (approximately 17 citations), the later Tenth Circuit opinion sure has received a lot of reference since it was decided (approximately 193 citations). [6] Third, the cases underlying the court’s test in Meyers are heavily cited materials in the federal court record. [7]  

In fact, the Supreme Court has managed over the years to remain extremely vague and unhelpful in these regards. [8] The lower federal courts have had to pick up the slack and tackle the issue head on. Most members of the state and federal bench may go on a career without seeing an entheogen-based religious claim or defense, although that might be about to change, depending on a multitude of factors.  

Finally, research and my practice has shown the Meyers’ test is great in helping provide some context for defining religion under the law. Which is great.  Without that context, people are stuck to the idea that secondary religious phenomena are a preferred indicator of religion status over the scientifically verified religious experiences effectuated, at a high rate, by the consumption of entheogens. [9]  In fact, many believe there exists some type of magic list which contains all the protected religions and practices.  The legal source and location of this list being a complete mystery to even the initiated.   Let’s raise our standards and get our story straight on how courts define religion.

The court in United States v. Meyers, 906 F. Supp. 1494 (D. Wyo. 1995), developed a five-part test to determine whether a belief system qualifies as a religion under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. The test considers:

1. Ultimate Ideas – Religious beliefs often address fundamental questions about life, purpose, and death.

2. Metaphysical Beliefs – Religious beliefs frequently address a reality that transcends the physical and immediately apparent world.

3. Moral or Ethical System – Religious beliefs often prescribe a particular manner of acting, or way of life, that is "moral" or "ethical."

4. Comprehensiveness of Beliefs – Religious beliefs typically form an overarching system that provides answers to significant human concerns.

5. Accoutrements of Religion – The presence of certain external signs, such as: 

   • A founder, prophet, or teacher;

   • Important writings;

   • Gathering places;

   • Keepers of knowledge (clergy, teachers, etc.);

   • Ceremonies and rituals;

   • Organizational structure;

   • Religious holidays;

   • Dietary restrictions or fasting;

   • Religious appearance or clothing;

   • Methods of propagation.

In my form, I include example language which (in the context of entheogens) covers each of the above factors.  Now, as the Court in Meyers clearly states, none of these factors alone are dispositive, in and of themselves, on the issue of religion.  However, because all the factors indicate some positive identification of religion, it doesn’t hurt to make sure all those elements met by your church’s practices are noted and placed into the Statement of Beliefs and approved by the Board each time.  Currently, I offer a free one-hour consultation with myself if someone purchases my forms package, but will soon be filming a video discussing my form and each element of the Meyers factors in detail.

Please be aware, claiming entitlement to a right is one thing, but proving your entitlement to a right is another.  Obviously, to prove the religious nature of its beliefs (and resulting practices) a church will need to put a witness or two on the stand to testify.  However, as it relates to proving the religion question, it is best that those issues be decided by church’s board annually and placed into the Church’s corporate record.  Placing beliefs into a corporate record does not provide some magical free exercise bullet, aimed at dismantling the government’s war on entheogenic churches (not aware of one), but it does provide an easily admissible way to present otherwise very dense, difficult, and potentially inadmissible evidence.  

While there are no guarantees the judge in any given case will know more about religion under the law any more than a juror, my form was drafted with such a situation in mind.  Therefore, I drafted it in a way which, experience has shown me, would make sense to a trial court.  In fact, in perhaps one of the most influential defining “religion” cases of last century, Africa v. Commonwealth, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted skepticism about religions with no written materials. [10] Moreover, common sense dictates a trial court would much rather examine documents which are clear, direct, succinct, and to the point as opposed to sifting through hundreds of pages (potentially) of testimony for any given witness on the issue. It makes perfect sense to me and could be the difference between one getting judicial recognition in the trial court versus having to take the case up on appeal.  

Considering the foregoing, what better way to assist a court in making a ruling (hopefully in your favor) by providing a well written and comprehensive set of belief statements adopted by the Church’s board and placed into the corporate record- thereby making them easily admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. [11]   In most instances, if some witness can testify about the creation and existence of the document (hopefully the Church’s secretary) in sufficiently to authenticate them under the Federal Rules of Evidence. [12] Again, admissibility in any given case will be subject to the facts of that case but having a regularly conducted business practice like maintaining an annual board meeting where the Statement of Beliefs is discussed, edits made, and readopted by the board.  Bonus points if a church can maintain a responsible and reliable person as custodian of the church’s corporate records.  

In conclusion, defining religion under the law is a very dense and hard question-even for judges and attorneys.  Due to the lack of knowledgeable people on the issue defining religion under the law, entheogenic churches should maintain a clear, concise, and well-written Statement of Beliefs.  I offer a form on my firm’s website www.entheoesq.com and it represents the culmination of many entheogenic church projects and my academic work in these regards.  Should anyone like to contact me, please go through our website and request a consult.  

Much Love!!!!

George “Greg” Lake, Esq. 

Endnotes 

[1]See United States v. Meyers, 906 F. Supp. 1494 (D. Wyo. 1995).

[2]Brad Stoddard, The Production of Entheogenic Communities in the United States, Cambridge Univ. Press (2024), https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009429412.

[3]Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006); Church of Holy Light of Queen v. Mukasey, 615 F. Supp.2d 1210, 1218-19 (D. Or. 2009).

[4]See. n.1, supra.

[5] id.

[6]See n.1, supra; U.S. v. Meyers, 200 F.3d 715 (10th Cir. 2000).

[7]See n. 1, supra; Africa v. Commonwealth of Pa., 662 F.2d 1025 (3d Cir. 1981) (cited approximately 317 times); Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197 (3d Cir. 1979) (cited approximately 102 times).

[8]United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965); Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970).

[9]See George G. Lake Esq., Psychedelics in Mental Health Series: Psilocybin (Independently published 2020).

[10]Africa v. Commonwealth of Pa., 662 F.2d 1025, 1036 (3d Cir. 1981) (“Finally, although Africa referred to a series of guidelines that supposedly were written by John Africa and that allegedly set forth MOVE's principal tenets, no such documents were made available to the district court; thus, the record contains nothing that arguably might pass for a MOVE scripture book or catechism”).

[11]See Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6).

[12]See Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11) or (12).

CURRICULUM VITAE OF GEORGE G. LAKE, ESQ.

Educational Experience & Licensures

• Graduated from Marshall High School (Marshall, Texas) in spring 2004;

• Graduated from the University Texas at Tyler with a bachelor’s degree in political science, spring 2008;

• Archer Fellowship participant during fall semester of 2006 (Washington D.C.);

• Internship (full-time) One America Political Action Committee (fall 2006) (Washington D.C.);

• Graduated Oklahoma City University School of Law with Juris Doctorate in summer of 2011 (Oklahoma City, OK);

• Licensed to practice law in the State of Texas, June 2012; currently in good standing;

• Licensed to practice law in Louisiana (currently suspended for lack of CLE requirements) in 2021;

• Licensed to practice law in the Eastern District of Texas in 2022; currently in good standing.

Experience as an Entheogenic Church Consultant (2020-present)

• Consulted on and saw to completion the formation of over one hundred (100) entheogen-based religious organizations under state law and 501(c)(3) of the IRC;

• Published the following books:

• Psychedelics in Mental Health Series: Psilocybin (available on Amazon) (2020);

• The Law of Entheogenic Churches in the United States (2021) (available on Amazon) (peer reviewed in Cambridge Press);

• The Law of Entheogenic Churches in the United States (Vol. II): The Definition of Religion under the First Amendment (2022) (peer reviewed in Cambridge Press); 

• Published DEA Master Memorandum (attached) at the behest of First Circuit U.S. Attorney’s Office and Regional DEA Diversion Czar;

• Speaker and panel participant in over 10 nationwide and global psychedelic science and spirituality conferences, including online and in-person presentations;

• Assisting Harvard Divinity School in conducting field research into the novel entheogenic religious movement within the United States;

• Regularly consult relevant experts on all matters related to entheogenic church law.  These experts include medical, scientific, anthropological, religion, historical, archeological, psychedelic chemistry, and legal experts;

• Make concerted efforts daily to maintain a solid working knowledge in all subjects relevant to entheogenic church law;

• Taught CLE courses on entheogenic church law to attorneys in Oregon, California, and Washington State;

• Regularly speak to various interest groups within the burgeoning Psychedelic Renaissance concerning a range of topics inherent in entheogenic church law.

Litigation Experience

• Assisted former client, Kamentsa Inga Church: Soul of the Hummingbird, in conjunction with Houston litigation firm, in asserting claims against federal government under RFRA statute for Sacrament (Ayahuasca) seizures by Customs and Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security.  In this capacity, I exchanged correspondence with the involved Government agencies requesting return of the Sacrament.  When Sacrament was not returned, I connected client with litigation firm in Houston, educated those attorneys about the relevant legal, religious, and scientific issues involved, drafted complaint which was filed in the Southern District of Texas (Kamentsa Inga, et al. v. Merrick Garland, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04173 (S.D. Tex. 2023) (case pending).  Currently, my client is in negotiations with the U.S. Government in hopes they can reach an agreed declaratory judgment for import licensure for Church);

• Co-counsel (Pro Bono) in companion criminal cases filed in Yancey County, North Carolina against two Caucasian female Ayahuasca-based religious practitioners for allegedly receiving a shipment of their Sacrament.  This case was investigated and prompted by the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Patrol who commandeered the state police to arrest and charge my clients.  In conjunction with co-counsel Morgan Davis, I am working to assert free exercise defenses for both women under both the U.S. and North Carolina constitutions.  This state criminal litigation will likely lead to civil rights claims filed against both the federal and state actors involved.  State of North Carolina v. Siena Butler, File No. 21CRS050511-12 (General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Yancey County, NC) and State of North Carolina v. Anne E. Kopicko, 21 CRS 050509-10 (General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Yancey County, NC);

• Co-counsel (pro bono) in criminal case out of the Northen District of Alabama involving African-American Ayahuasca practitioner (female), arrested for allegedly possessing a parcel of Ayahuasca which had been seized and tracked by the federal government who openly admits their awareness of Ms. Codi’s ayahuasca-based religious practices.  This case will likely end up in civil rights litigation against both state and federal actors involved in client’s investigation and arrest. United States of America v. Harmel Deanne Codi, Case No. 2:24-cr-161-RDP-GMB.

• Co-counsel (pro bono) in civil case in Circuit Court for Wayne County, Michigan.  The case involves a nuisance case wherein an injunction against my client, an African-American Sacred (Psilocybin) Mushroom church in Detroit, was obtained and forced the Church to close.  After injunction was entered, I played lead counsel in federal removal action by Church in the Eastern District of Michigan (See City of Detroit v. Soul Tribes International Ministries et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-12828 (E.D. Mich. 2023).  The case was subsequently remanded back to state court and is awaiting final disposition on the pending injunction.  This case will likely end up in civil rights litigation against the City of Detroit and many of its officers and agents involved in shutting down the Church.  City of Detroit v. Soul Tribes International Ministries et al., Case No. 23-012532 (Circuit Ct. Wayne County 2023).

• Served as an expert witness in criminal case in Texas District Court of Collin County, Texas.  The case involved a client who was arrested and charged with allegedly manufacturing and delivering approximately 25 grams of dimethyltryptamine (DMT) after police and DEA raided his apartment on unrelated matters and found three jars extracting DMT from mimosa hostilis rootbark.  I was retained and accepted by the trial court as a general expert in psychedelics and testified regarding the nature of DMT, the common extraction methods for obtaining DMT from plant sources like mimosa hostilis, and provided testimony which put the amount of dried DMT in the jars seized and tested by the DEA into dispute.  During the trial, the client testified on his own behalf and admitted to extracting the DMT for personal/spiritual use.  After the full trial on the merits, jury acquitted client and found him not guilty of the charge related to DMT.  Subsequent jury survey found my testimony very compelling in reaching verdict of not guilty.  See State of Texas v. Ian Daniels Davis, Cause Nos. 366-86048-2023; 366-86048-2023 (Colling County, Texas).  

• Assist other entheogen-based churches and practitioners across the country on an as-needed and mostly pro bono basis.