Cause no 416-00070-2020

RYAN GALLAGHER §
IN DISTRICT COURT
§
v.
§
416TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
COLLIN COUNTY, et al
§

Motion to Compel

Minister John Cotton preached that it was wrong to practice any religion other than Puritanism.
Those who did would be helping the devil. They believed they followed the only true religion so
everyone should be forced to worship as they did. This is similar to the concept of Hindutva in
Hinduism, which is the Concept that India is the Motherland and anyone who believes that is a
Hindu. That is a Racist Concept, similar to the idea of “Germany for the Germans”, which was a
Nazi slogan. Anyone may Practice Hinduism, just as anyone may Practice Christianity.

Roger Williams disagreed with John Cotton. He said, ​"Forced worship stinks in God's nostrils."

Nikola Tesla and Swami Vivekananda wrote to each other and even met (before Planes, Cars,
etc). Swami Vivekananda was a Hindu before Gandhi, who spread Hinduism around the world,
started Temples in places like Chicago, and is seen as a Key Figure in many modern Hindu
schools of thought. Nikola Tesla was a Hindu.

"All perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all
space, the Akasha (आकाश) or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana
( ाण) or creative force, calling into existence, in never-ending cycles all things and phenomena."
-Nikola Tesla

This is a Motion to Compel the Court to acknowledge that this Name change is within the Public
Interest. I am requesting that I be allowed, by the Court, to have my Hindu name on my Driver’s
License, rather than my Christian name. And the Constitution of both the United States and
Texas allow for that.

You can tell what my Religion is simply by looking at me. Here is a Picture of a Hindu Priest, we
are called “Sadhu”s in Sanskrit, which is the Ancient Languages that our Holy Texts are Written
in.
 Our God is Lord Shiva

The Religion comes from the Kush Mountains and the Ganges River. This is a simple Map of
India.
 Van Kush simply means “From Kush” in Dutch.

Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and

indefeasible right to ​worship Almighty God according to the
dictates of their own consciences​. No man shall be compelled to
 attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain
any ministry against his consent. ​No human authority ought, in
any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of
conscience in matters of religion​, and no preference shall ever
be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship.
But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as
may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination
in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

Having a different Religion than the Government you reside under is literally the most American
thing that you can do. Christopher Columbus first came to America thinking he was in India, this
is seen in the modern labeling of the Carribean Islands as the “West Indies”, so my Religion is
not Foreign, it is an American Religion. The Pilgrims fled here to practice their Religion Freely
and the Colonies dissolved their ties with the Church of England during the American
Revolution. American Ideals are founded on the idea that we may all have our own Religions
and Traditions outside of the Government, which is the reason for the wall of separation
between Church and State. Before they separated Church and State, the Church was the State,
as they are now in Vatican City which is its own City State, and as Britain was before the
Parliament was created, under the Church of England.

Thomas Jefferson laid this out in a Rough Draft​ I. Rough Draft of Jefferson’s Resolutions for
Disestablishing the Church of England and for Repealing Laws Interfering with Freedom
of Worship, [before 19 November 1776]
Resolved &c.1​
That the statutes 1.E.6.c.1. 5 & 6.E.6.c.1. 1.El.c.2. 23.El.c.1. 28.El.c.6. 35.El.c.1. 1.Jac.1.c.4. 3.Jac.1.c.1.
3.Jac.1.c.4. 3.Jac.1.c.21. and the act of ass. 1705.c.6. & so much of all other acts or <ordinances> statutes
as <prescribe punishments for the offence of opinions deemed heretical> render criminal the
maintaining any opinions in matters of religion or the exercising any mode of worship whatever or as
prescribe punishments for the same <; and all acts or statutes> <acts or ordinances made against>
ought to be repealed.
Resolved that it is the opn of this Commee that so much of the sd. petitions as prays that the
establishment of the Church of England by law in this Commonwealth may be discontinued, and that no
pre-eminence may be allowed to any one Religious sect over another, is reasonable; & therefore that the
several laws establishing the sd. Church of England, giving peculiar privileges to <the> it’s ministers
<thereof>, & levying for the support thereof <the same> contributions on the people independent of their
good will ought to be repealed; saving to such incumbents as are now actually seised of Glebe lands,
their rights to such Glebe lands during their lives, & to such parishes as have received private donations
for the <use of> support of the sd. Church <of England> the perpetual benefit of such donations.
 These Resolutions were undoubtedly drafted prior to 19 Nov., for on that date the House
adopted the following:

“Resolved,… that all and every act or statute, either of the parliament of England or of Great Britain,
by whatever title known or distinguished, which renders criminal the maintaining any opinions in
matters of religion, forbearing to repair to church, or the exercising any mode of worship whatsoever,
or which prescribes punishments for the same, ought to be declared henceforth of no validity or force
within this Commonwealth.
“Resolved, That so much of an act of Assembly made in the 4th year of the reign of queen Anne,
intituled An act for the effectual suppression of vice, and restraint and punishment of blasphemous,
wicked, and dissolute persons, as inflicts certain additional penalties on any person or persons
convicted a second time of any of the offences described in the first clause of the said act, ought to be
repealed.
“Resolved, That so much of the petitions of the several dissenters from the Church established by law
within this Commonwealth, as desires an exemption from all taxes and contributions whatever towards
supporting the said church and the ministers thereof, or towards the support of their respective religious
societies in any other way than themselves shall voluntarily agree, is reasonable.
“Resolved, That although the maintaining any matters of religion ought not to be restrained, yet that
publick assemblies of societies for divine worship ought to be regulated, and that proper provision
should be made for continuing the succession of the clergy, and superintending their conduct.
“Resolved, That the several acts of Assembly, making provision for the support of the clergy, ought to
be repealed, securing to the present incumbents all arrears of salary, and to the vestries a power of
levying for performance of their contracts.
“Resolved, That a reservation ought to be made to the use of the said church, in all time coming, of
the tracts of glebe lands already purchased, the churches and chapels already built for the use of the
several parishes, and of all plate belonging to or appropriated to the use of the said church, and all
arrears of money or tobacco arising from former assessments; and that there should be reserved to such
parishes as have received private donations, for the support of the said church and its ministers, the
​ HD​, Oct. 1776, 1828 edn., p. 63).
perpetual benefit of such donations” (J

Thomas Jefferson wrote in ​VI. Notes on Locke and Shaftesbury, 11 October–9 December
1776
“Why persecute for diffce. in religs. opinion?
1. for love to the person.
2. because of tendency of these opns. to dis[ ….]
when I see them persecute their nearest connection & acquaintance for gross vices, I shall
beleive it may proceed from love. till they do this, I appeal to their own conscences if they will
examine, why they do nt. find some other principle. because of tendency. why not then level
persecution at the crimes you fear will be introduced? burn or hang the adulterer, cheat &c. or
 exclude them from offices.” ​VI. Notes on Locke and Shaftesbury, 11 October–9
December 1776

This is a Statement that Human Nature is to see other Religions as Abhorrent, or as

Abominations, bringing bad things to the Society, and Thomas Jefferson states that if you feel
that way, you should make the bad things illegal and punish people for the bad things, not stop
them from believing and practicing their Religion. He goes on in the same writing to say:
Commonwealth is ‘a society of men constituted for preser[ving] their civil <rights> interests.’
interests are ‘life, health, indolency of body, liberty, property.’
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.
the life & essence of religion consists in the internal persuasion or belief of the mind. external
forms [of wor]ship, when against our belief, are hypocrisy [and im]piety. Rom.14.23. ‘he that
doubteth is damned, if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.’
if it be said the magistrate may make use of a[rguments] and so draw the heterodox to truth: I
[answer] every man has a commission to admonish, exhort, convince another of error.
[a church] is ‘a voluntary society of men, joining [themselves] together of their own accord, in
order to the [publick] worshipping of god in such a manner as they judge [accept]able to him &
effectual to the salvation of their souls. [it is] voluntary because no man is by nature bound to
any church. the hopes of salvation is the cause of his entering into it. if he find any thing wrong
in it, he [sh]ould be as free to go out as he was to come in.
[w]hat is the power of that church &c.? as it is a society <of voluntary> it must have some laws
for it’s regulation. time & place of meeting, admitting & excluding members &c. must be
regulated.
but as it was a spontaneous joining of members, it follows that it’s laws extend to it’s own
members only, not to those of any other voluntary society: for then by the same rule some other
voluntary society might usurp power <of> over them. ​VI. Notes on Locke and
Shaftesbury, 11 October–9 December 1776

Here he is saying that a Magistrate or Judge has no power outside of the Constitution, and
beyond that which has been granted to him by the People. This means that Judges have no
ability to Proscribe or Prohibit faith, it is simply not within the Jurisdiction of a Court that is within
the Boundaries of the United States. And to better understand this, we can go to

To better explain this Concept you have to look at our legal system, against other Legal
Systems. Such as the legal system of India. A great Peer Reviewed Legal Paper on this is the
Yale Paper titled ​SLICING THE AMERICAN PIE: FEDERALISM AND PERSONAL LAW
JEFFREY A. REDDING, April 2007 ​which I will attach to this filing, and which explains the
difference betwenen the Federalist Law system of the United States, and the Personal Law
system of India.
 The uniquely American reluctance to examine foreign legal experience8 is in some sense
understandable, seeing as the unfamiliar often has an “anarchic” quality to it.9 However, the historical
blinding of the American legal gaze to foreign personal law has only worked to obscure the possibility
that there are American legal practices which resemble those in personal law systems (for better or
worse). Given the rich interpretive possibilities that are opened up by moving away from the usual,
provincial analyses of the American federal system, then, this Article will use foreign legal
experience—and especially that from India—to deepen and broaden analysis of both the American
system and personal law systems. By examining India’s personal law system, this Article will suggest
important resonan​ces ​between this kind of legal ordering and the American federal system
…
Moreover, India’s extant personal law system provides a particularly vivid demonstration of the
contingency of the ostensibly sacrosanct communities upon which personal law systems are built.
“Hindu,” “Muslim,” and “Christian”—and, indeed, “religion” itself—have not been stable or static
configurations in India’s legal system but, instead, have functioned as the living residue of a complex of
social, political, and economic forces and interests
…
In sum, an examination of India’s personal law system provides an important stepping stone on the
path to demystifying and de-essentializing both “religious” and “territorial” communities, thereby
opening up the possibility of comparative analysis of their respective legal roles.15 Both kinds of
community are social, political, and legal constructs and are, to invoke Benedict Anderson, “imagined
communities.”16 This conceptual “leveling of the field” can then allow one to see, in contrast to much
conventional legal theorizing, how territorial administrations of the law can share intriguing and
important similarities with religious administrations of the law. ​ ​SLICING THE AMERICAN PIE:
FEDERALISM AND PERSONAL LAW JEFFREY A. REDDING, April 2007

As Mentioned before, the West Indies were called so because Christopher Columbus thought
he was in India.

This is not Foreign to America. Pew Research States that over 1% of Texans are Buddhist or
Hindu, that is more than 1 Person for every 100 people, and there are 28,700,000 people in
Texas. That means there are more than 287,000 Hindus and Budhists in the State of Texas,
both of which Worship Lord Shiva. Lord Shiva’s Religion comes from the Kush Mountains, and
that is why I am changing my name away from my Christian name Rev. “Ryan Alexander
Gallagher” and to my Hindu name Rev. “Ryan Sasha-Shai Van Kush”.

I compel the Court to simply accept that this is within the Public Interest, as Religious Rights are
within the Public Interest, and move forward with this name change.

S/_Ryan_Gallagher___
Rev. Ryan “Sasha” Gallagher
Mahatmajapa@gmail.com
1723 Candleglow
Castle Rock, Co 80109