DRUG WAR “Bureaucratic Police Regime.”

Contact our4th@ursm 

Collateral Damage  in Mexico And Latin America caused by the American judiciary claiming no rights are deprived by the prosecution of the Drug War because drugs are not a fundamental right. 

 

The Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-staggering-death-toll-of-mexicos-drug-war/ 
http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/murders-dont-stop-war-drugs-responsible-outrageous-death-toll-mexico

IMPEACH CHIEF JUSTICE SAUFLEY BY DENYING CONFIRMATION

Rational Police power contravenes the Fourth Amendment and Maine Constitution Art. IV, part 3 § 1 last sentence.

 

 

Amendment IV: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ...

 

Amendment XIV ection 1 "Because all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

 

Maine Constitution

Article I Section 1. Natural rights. All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Art. IV “The legislature…, shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulation… not repugnant to this constitution nor to that of the United States. Maine Constitution Art. IV, part 3 § 1 last sentence.


MAINE LEGISLATURES’ HANDBOOK ( Nov. 2014)
http://legislature.maine.gov/legis/opla/127thlegHandbook.pdf

D. LIMITS ON LEGISLATIVE POWERS page 49
1.Constitutiona Limitations
a. Equal Protection "The United States Constitution, Amendment XIV Section 1,( Equal Protection Clause) forbids any state to deny any person the equal protection of the laws.” ( see Maine Constitution Article I, section 6-A )
 http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/ 

 

 “Laws that treat persons differently based on … the exercise fundamental constitutional rights are presumed to violate the equal protection clause and will be found to be unconstitutional unless the state has a legitimate and very compelling need for enacting any law that effects people’s exercise of certain fundamental right." Laws that treat persons differently ... in the exercise of non fundamental rights are generally presumed to be constitutional, unless there is no rational basis for the different treatment.” 

 

c. Due process. The United States Constitution, Amendment XIV also prohibits the State from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law (see also the Maine Constitution, Article I, Section 6-A). ... In general, substantive due process requires the State to have a legitimate and very compelling need for enacting any law that affects people’s exercise of certain fundamental rights, such as the right to freely associate, the right to vote, the right to interstate travel and the right to privacy

State of Maine Judicial Branch

 

Mission To administer justice by providing a safe, accessable, efficient and impartial system of dispute reesolution that serves public interest, protects individual rights and intstills respect for the law.

 http://courts.maine.gov/index.shtml

 

 

MAINE CODE JUDICIAL OF CONDUCT

http://www.jrd.maine.gov/code_conduct.html
CANON 1

A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary; shall avoid impropriety; and should avoid the appearance of impropriety.

RULE 1.1
Compliance with the Law

A judge shall comply with the law and the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULE 1.2
Promotion of Confidence in the Judiciary

A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary; shall avoid impropriety; and should avoid the appearance of impropriety.

CANON 2

A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.

RULE 2.1
Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial Office The duties of judicial office, as prescribed by law, shall take precedence over all of a judge's personal and extrajudicial activities.

RULE 2.2
Impartiality and Fairness; Upholding the Law A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all judicial and administrative duties promptly, fairly, and competently. An error of law in a judicial decision, whether recognized on appeal or not, shall not constitute a violation of this Code unless the judge's action demonstrates willful or repeated disregard of explicit requirements of the law.

UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

 

==============================================================================================

 

Follow the trail of citation and you will find in 1998 where Chief Justice Saufley change police power from reasonable to rational. Judicial review of police power from strict scrutiny to rational basis.  

 

I claimed I was deprived of my liberty and property without a compelling state interest, without due process of law in the eforcement of the marijuana laws and the enforcement of the marijuana laws was proven to be arbitrary.

Dee v State of Maine 2014 Me 106

(Copy & Paste) http://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2014/14me106de.pdf

 

 [¶1]Specifically, he contends that the statutes violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. amends. IV, XIV, § 1. The court found that several Maine courts have already considered and rejected Dee’s arguments, and determined that the suit was frivolous. We agree and affirm the judgment.

 

 

State v. Dee, 2012 ME 26, ¶ 2 n.1, 39 A.3d 42 

 http://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2012/12me26de.pdf

 

 [¶2] Dee argues that Maine’s prohibition of the possession of marijuana unconstitutionally infringes on his right to due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is not the first time that Dee has litigated the constitutionality of marijuana prohibitions before the

p. 2

courts of Maine and elsewhere. Dee concedes that he does not have a fundamental right to possess marijuana, but he insists that the prohibition violates “his fundamental right to liberty and to property.” Notwithstanding this linguistic leap, we are not persuaded that Dee’s possession of marijuana implicates any of his fundamental rights.

 

[¶3] Where fundamental rights are not implicated, we review the validity of a statute exercising the State’s police power for a rational basis, which requires that “(1) the police powers be exercised to provide for the public welfare; (2) the legislative means employed be appropriate to achieve the ends sought; and (3) the manner of exercising the power not be unduly arbitrary or capricious.” State v. Haskell, 2008 ME 82, ¶¶ 5-6, 955 A.2d 737 (quotation marks omitted). There need only be some theoretical explanation for the statute, and the Legislature is not required to provide the facts that justify its enactment.

 

[¶4] Finally, the manner of exercising the police power, imposing a maximum civil fine of $1000 for possession of up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana, cannot be described as arbitrary or capricious. See 22 M.R.S. § 2383(1)(A); Haskell, 2008 ME 82, ¶ 6, 955 A.2d 737.

 

State v. Haskell, 2008 ME 82, ¶¶ 5-6, 955 A.2d 737 

 http://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/opinions/2008%20documents/08me82ha.pdf

Alexander J.

[¶5] When the State exercises its police power to regulate for the general welfare and a fundamental right is not at issue, statutes are subjected to rational basis review. See State v. Nat’l Advertising Co., 409 A.2d 1277, 1288 (Me. 1979).

[¶6] Under a rational basis review, due process requires that (1) the police powers be exercised to provide for the public welfare; (2) the legislative means employed be appropriate to achieve the ends sought; and (3) “the manner of exercising the power not be unduly arbitrary or capricious.” Nugent v. Town of Camden, 1998 ME 92, ¶ 18, 710 A.2d 245, 249.

 

 Nugent v. Town of Camden, 1998 ME 92, ¶ 18, 710 A.2d 245, 249. http://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/opinions/documents/98me92An.htm

SAUFLEY, J.
 [¶18]    "A substantive due process analysis focuses on the rationality of the enactment, that is, on whether the regulation at issue is in the interest of the public welfare and whether the methods used bear a rational relationship to its intended goals.Daley v. Commissioner, Dept. of Marine Resources, 1997 ME 183, ¶ 7 n.7, 698 A.2d 1053, 1056; see also Rush, 324 A.2d 752-54 (state action does not violate substantive due process where it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest).  Concepts of due process require (1) that the object of the Town's exercise of its police powers be to  provide for the public welfare, (2) that the legislative means employed must be appropriate to achieve the ends sought, and (3) that the manner of exercising the power must not be unduly arbitrary or capricious.  See Danish Health Club v. Town of Kittery, 562 A.2d 663, 665 (Me. 1989);

 

Daley v. Commissioner, Dept. of Marine Resources, 1997 ME 183, ¶ 7 n.7, 698 A.2d 1053, 1056; 

C/P  http://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/1997/1997-me-183-0.html

Daley did not claim injury to a fundamental right 

Foot note 7 "a substantive due process analysis focuses on the rationality of the enactment, that is, on whether the regulation at issue is in the interest of the public welfare and whether the methods used bear a rational relationship to its intended goals. 508 U.S. at 637, 113 S. Ct. at 2287; National Hearing Aid Ctrs., Inc. v. Smith, 376 A.2d 456, 460 (Me.1977).

 

State v Rush, 324 A.2d 752-54 
(C & P) 
http://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/1974/324-a-2d-748-0.html

 

Although variously expressed, it is established that the requirements of due process exact that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious and that the state's police power can be properly exercised only when there is a reasonable relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 37957 S.Ct. 57881 L.Ed. 703(1937); Nebbia v. People, 291 U.S. 50254 S.Ct. 50578 L.Ed. 940 (1934).

The requirements of due process in the exercise of the police power may be *753753 analytically separated into three component elements:

1. The object of the exercise must be to provide for the public welfare.

2. The legislative means employed must be appropriate to the achievement of the ends sought.

3. The manner of exercising the power must not be unduly arbitrary or capricious.

 

Danish Health Club v. Town of Kittery, 562 A.2d 663, 665 (Me. 1989)
(C&P) http://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/1989/562-a-2d-663-0.html

Justice GLASSMAN wrote

“Under the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions, a town ordinance must ‘bear a reasonable relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare’ and *665 ‘must not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or discriminatory.’ ”  (citations deleted) We have separated the requirements of due process in the exercise of police power into three component elements:
1. The object of the exercise must be to provide for the public welfare.
2. The legislative means employed must be appropriate to the achievement of the ends sought.
3. The manner of exercising the power must not be unduly arbitrary or capricious.

=================================

 

 

 

 

WELCOME


"Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address In the Washington, D.C. Wednesday, March 4, 1801.

 

“Legislative authority to abridge [plaintiff’s liberty and] property rights … can be justified only by exceptional circumstances and, even then, by reasonable regulation only, and that legislative conclusions based on findings of fact are subject to judicial review.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 543; 54 S.Ct. 505, (1934).

 

"The legislature…, shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulation… not repugnant to this constitution nor to that of the United States." Maine Constitution Article IV, Part lll section 1 last sentence. http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/

 

The Maine Courts have declared marijuana laws are rational use of police power, a political question violating the 4th Amendment.

 

The Maine courts have declared marijuana laws are a legislative issue, a political question because no fundamental rights have been impinged, deprived by state police power by their enforcement. Marijuana is not a fundamental right. The court (2012)declared the possession of marijuana does not implicate any fundamental right.

 

Federal and state courts have consisitently ignored the claim the enforcement of the marijuana laws implicates the deprivation of privacy, liberty, and property secured against unreasonable government intrusion by the 4th Amendment.

 

In all my lawsuits I have never ask the courts to declare marijuana a fundamental right.

 

2012 MSJC MAINE V DEE http://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/opinions/2012_documents/12me26de.pdf

 

2014 DEE V MAINE http://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2014/14me106de.pdf

 

2009 http://www.med.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Kravchuk/2009/MJK_04282009_2-09cv163_Dee_v_USA_AFFIRMED_05282009.pdf

 

2006 Judge Crowley Order Doc. No. CV-06-707 http://Mainelaw.maine.edu/library/SuperiorCourt/decisions/CUMcv-06-707.pdf

 

2003 Judge Hornsby US District Court District of Maine, Doc. is Misc. No. 03-06-P-H
http://www.leagle.com/decision/2003291241FSupp2d50_1282
http://www.med.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Hornby/2003/DBH_01292003_2-03mc06_DEE_V_UNITED_STATES.pdf

 

It is not about the federal classification of marijuana as a controlled substance. It is about criminalizing marijuana and the operation and effect of police power that seizes your person and marijuana and deprives your fundamental rights to liberty and property without a compelling state interest, without due process of law. There was no victim of a crime. Police are not protecting public safety. The laws are arbitrarily enforced which demonstrates criminalizing marijuana is unreasonable, unconstitutional violating the 4th 5th, and 14th Amendments.

 

The role of the judiciary is to defend fundamental rights secured by the Constitution. They can’t defend life, liberty, and property unless a claim of injury has been presented for adjudication. Being arrested for violating the marijuana laws a person has had standing and the right to ask why criminalizing marijuana is reasonable and necessary.

 

You do not have to be a lawyer to learn and understand what our rights are and how they are protected by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments against unreasonable government intrusion and how those individual rights are betrayed by those of the judiciary who take an oath to protect them. http://www.courts.maine.gov/index.shtml

 

The judiciary demeans these Amendments. Lawyers will say the 4th means it is reasonable to seize your person because marijuana is illegal. Due process of the 5th and 14th means only the prosecution of the law. You have your day in court is due process.

 

These amendments also requires the police laws to be reasonable to protect the right of others, a compelling state interest.

 

DEFENDANTS should PLEAD not guilty, go to trial, make a motion to dismiss on the grounds that you have been deprived of your fundamental rights to liberty and property without a compelling state interest, without due process of law. The use of police power in the enforcement of the marijuana laws is unreasonable and  unconstitutional. And see what the judge will do. Some where a judge will recognize some one as a person. But defendants have to bring it to attention of the court.

The courts under the color of law in my lawsuits declared marijuana laws are a political question. Voting to change the marijuana laws, to be secure against unreasonable police power, makes pot users non persons.

 

 

<< New text box >>

At the United Nations opening session  of the General Assembly in NYC September 24, 2013, Preaident Obama was there and a lot of police.

White House 2012

War on Drugs
America's third civil war over property rights.
Slavery, Alcohol, Drugs

OUR RIGHTS THEIR BETRAYAL
The war on drugs is rule without law.

War on Drugs Rule Without law
Police power is either reasonable of unreasonable.
Police power is to protect the rights of others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Red Mass DC

Mexican Embassy

Un Reasonable Seize Marijuana-------------- Our Rights Their Betrayal
Print Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal