Un Reasonable Seize Marijuana-------------- Our Rights Their Betrayal

 additionlal pages at http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/index.html contact our4th@ursm.us

FACEBOOK https://www.facebook.com/pages/Our4th/421002894748761?skip_nax_wizard=true&ref_type

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 this principle and 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.

Writ of certorari to SCOTUS docketed as 14-667.

OUR RIGHTS THEIR BETRAYAL
TRAITORS OF LIBERTY, TO JUSTICE

WAR ON DRUGS - Civil War Over Property
RATIONAL "POLITICAL" POLICE POWER
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW
USERS NONPERSONS, SECOND CLASS CITIZENS

MARIJUANA laws are not a political question, a legislative issue. The laws present a justiciable controversy, actual injury to rights and judicial relief against injury. The law courts have the authority to grant constitutional protection for us to acquire and possess this property secured against unreasonable government intrusion. This is because the government does not have a compelling state interest to use police power to deprive liberty and property for violating the law. Where is the victim of crime?  Ravin v Alaska (1975) http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/index.html

It is up to a political process on how that will be done by regulating private cultivation and use and a regulated commercial market. The following arguments can be applied to both the courts and your legislature. Law enforcement officials and elected officials all take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. But the oath of office appears to b frivolous.

HERE YOU WILL FIND WHAT LAWYERS WILL NOT TELL YOU.

The judiciary, lawyers and judges, have denied defendants equal protection of law, the 4th and 14th Amendments by declaring marijuana is not a fundamental right therefore the laws use of police power have a rational  basis and are a political question and you are a nonperson. Only persons  are secured against unreasonable searches and seizures.

What NORML and the ACLU have failed to do is to tell judges and defendants that the right to liberty and property are fundamental rights. That being arrested or summons to court is seizure of person and deprivation of liberty and seizing marijuana is deprivation of property. You have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the marijuana laws  you have been charge with in a motion to dismiss. THAT you have been derived  of your liberty and property without a compelling state interest, without due process  of law. Your Fourth Amendment right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures has been violated. The use  of police power was not protecting the rights  of others, public safety busting you for possession.

NORML Lawsuits http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/3.html 
Federal Controlled substance Act / United Nations Conventions
http://www.ursm.us/2.html

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

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

IF you have  been convicted and want to  try and overturn your conviction you can file a declaratory judgment lawsuit. You have standing. You have been deprived  your liberty and property without a compelling state interest, without due process of law by the use of police power.   This is not about the operation of police power. This about the validity, construction, the constitutionality of the marijuana laws that authorizes the use of police power.

Maine Declaratory Judgment Act  (All states have this law)
Title 14 M.R.S.A. §5953. Scope http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/14/title14sec5953.html\ 
Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, …

Title 14 M.R.S.A. §5954. Construction and validity of statutes
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/14/title14sec5954.html 
"Any person … whose rights, … are affected by a statute,...may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the … statute… obtain a declaration of rights.. " ( The key word is "may".)

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law" 14th Amendment. Due process of law requires laws that deprive fundamental rights be justified by  a compelling state interest.

Life, liberty and property are fundamental rights. State police power deprives life, liberty, and property. State action impinges on the exercise of these fundamental constitutional rights by the enforcement of the marijuana laws.  Strict scrutiny test of constitutionality is mandated, usual presumption of statutory validity is abandoned, and State must carry burden of showing compelling state interest for the classification scheme and must demonstrate that it has selected least restrictive means for achieving its objectives.  

One's right to life, liberty, and property, may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 1943.

“Such rights … do not vanish simply because the power of the state is arrayed against them. Nor are they enjoyed in subjection to mere legislative findings.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 548; 54 S.Ct. 505 (1934).

“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/

"All ... will bear in mind this sacred principle, that 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

Marijuana is a political question because lawyers (ACLU AND NORML) and judges of the judiciary refuse to recognize the deprivation of fundamental rights to liberty and property by the use of police power in the enforcement of these laws. By declaring these laws a political question is denying equal protection of the Fourth Amendment and due process of law. 
Marijuana users are nonpersons. We are subjected rational searches and seizures.

The Maine judiciary has willfully deprived individual rights under the color of law by claiming no fundamental rights have been violated by the use of state police power in the enforcement of the marijuana laws. Being arrested or summoned to court is not deprivation of liberty. Seizing marijuana is not deprivation of property.

http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2012/12me26de.pdf 
http://www.ursm.us/12.html
http://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2014/14me106de.pdf

In Gonzalles v Raich, 2005 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZO.html  Raich's lawyer never claimed she was deprived of her property, without a compelling state interest, without due process of law when the federal DEA seized and destroyed her marijuana plants. SCOTUS knew that her basic fundamental rights secured by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments have suffered actual injury and had the discretion to raise them but chose not to.

Judicial review of the marijuana laws was by rational basis and not the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment, today called strict scrutiny standard. For the marijuana laws to be reasonablepolice power is justified by a compelling state interest,  to protect the rights of others, public safety. LIKE O.U.I.

Many courts have declared the marijuana laws are rational use of police power in cases where  persons did not state  a claim in which relief could be granted. Such as claiming marijuana is a fundamental right when the claim should be the deprivation of  property was unreasonable use of police power, without due process of law.

The judiciary denies equal protection of the Fourth Amendment. State police power is either reasonable or unreasonable. Police power deprives persons of their fundamental rights to liberty, property and privacy for violating the marijuana laws. You don't have to be a lawyer to  know that. The complaint is not about the  operation of police power. It is about the reasonableness of the law that authorizes the use of police power.

By using rational basis review, the courts have declared marijuana  users are not  persons and do not have equal protection of the law. Only persons have a fundamental rights to liberty, to property, the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Follow the trail of citation and you will find in 1998 how Chief Justice Saufley change police power from reasonable to rational.

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

 [¶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 73 20documents/08me82ha.pdfhttp://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/opinions/2008% 

Haskell cited 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);

Danish Health Club v. Town of Kittery, 562 A.2d 663, 665 (Me. 1989)
(Contact Maine law library to have it emailed  http://mainelaw.maine.edu/library/contactus.htm

GLASSMAN, Justice.
“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.

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

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 based on other characteristics or in the exercise of non fundamental rights are generally presumed to be constitutional, unless there is no rational basis for the different treatment.” b. Interstate Commerce

c. Due process ( see Maine Constitution Article I, section 6-A) “In general substantive due process requires the state have a legitimate and very compelling need for enacting any law that effects people’s exercise of certain fundamental rights…“

Not in Handbook: Explicit Legislative powers

Maine Constitution: Art. IV part 3 § 1 last sentence“ 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.

Constitution of the United States Article I Section 8 paragraph 18: “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, ….”
What is reasonable and necessary? Defining a compelling state interest is protecting public safety and public welfare that requires the use state police power to derive persons their fundamental rights including the right to liberty and property.


UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

 

The United Nations and the United States  to proscribe marijuana, contravenes Articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 17, of the 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.

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

Tens of millions have not been treated by the American judiciary “as persons before the law.” These defendants have been willfully denied equal protection of the law, Amendments IV, V, and XIV by state and “national tribunals for acts violating our fundamental rights to liberty and property secured by the Constitution of the United States. Marijuana users have never received “full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of our rights and obligations.

In the exercise of our rights and freedoms, we are “subject only to such limitations as are determined by due process of law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others.” http://www.un.org/rights/

Marijuana laws is a justiciable controversy involving the deprivation of individual rights for Article III courts to resolve. Every person arrested for violating any marijuana law has standing to question the validity, the construction, the reasonableness, the constitutionality of the marijuana laws they are charged with.

Every person has the right to know what the compellingstate interest is that threatened and has caused actual deprivation of rights. This right is called due process of law.


"In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana."GONZALES V. RAICH (03-1454) 545 U.S. 1 (2005) 352 F.3d 1222, Thomas, J., dissenting. (This case did not claim deprivation of property without due process of law. http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html 

Since 1975, Alaskans have had constitutional protection from unreasonable government intrusion to privately grow marijuana for personal use because the state lacked a compelling state interest. Ravin v Alaska (This case claimed injury to the right of privacy) http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/index.html

In the exercise of our rights and freedoms, we are “subject only to such limitations as are determined by due process of law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others.” http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ Article 29 (2)

My recent courts efforts to be recognize as a person.

I have kept going because the judiciary has been disingenuous. Willful deprivation of equal protection of the law.

Maine Supreme Judicial Court Decisions 2014 ME106      2012ME26 declaring marijuana laws are a legislative issue because possession of marijuana is not a fundamental right. The use of police power has a rational basis because no fundamental rights are violated or deprived. Being arrested is not deprivation of liberty. Seizing marijuana is not deprivation of property.

Amendments IV and XIV limits police power. It is either reasonable or unreasonable. not rational. The Maine Judiciary countinues to  be above the law and willfully deprive me of my rights under the color of law which is a federal crime Title 18 U.S.C. 242.

The judiciary countinues to lie about the facts and law then to acknowledge marijuana laws are not a legislative issue but a justiciable controversy for the court to determine if the marijuana laws are unreasonable or reasonable use of state police power to deprive individual rights secured by Amendments IV and XIV

Police power deprives liberty.
Liberty is security from unreasonable government intrusion. 

Persons have the right to know what the compelling state interest is that demonstrates the marijuana laws are reasonable and necessary to use police power to deprive persons of their fundamental rights to privacy, to liberty, and to property secured against unreasonable searches and seizure.

Marijuana users do not have equal rights to liberty, to property, to due process of law, to be free from unreasonable government intrusion. They are not equal under law, Amendments IV and XIV. The judiciary willfully discriminates in the application of the law. The judiciary has declared marijuana is a political question to be resolved by a political process because no fundamental rights are implicated. This means the judiciary has turned its back to the law, to the fact that being arrested is deprivation of liberty and seizing marijuana is deprivation of property. The judiciary has declared marijuana users are non persons, second class citizens and do not have fundamental rights to liberty and property.

Government actors violate their oath to the constitution to keep marijuana illegal. Persons are being deprived of their rights under the color of law.

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

The following pages are made up of mostly of citation from the Supreme Court of the United States. You should use this information to get the politicians to uphold their oath to the Constitution of the United States and change STATE AND FEDERAL  marijuana laws and end the discrimination of rights and law.

ARTICLE III Courts
AMENDMENTS IV,V, AND XIV
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
POLICE POWER

REASONABLE / NECESSARY
COMPELLING STATE INTEREST
Federal Controlled Substance Act

I HAVE CLAIMED MARIJUANA IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FROM UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION

JUDICIARY RESPONSE

It is a fact marijuana laws present a case or controversy because of injury to fundamental rights by the use of police power. Judicial review of criminal laws requires strict scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny requires the law courts to demand from the government the compelling state interest that justifies the threat and deprivation of our liberty and property by state police power for violating the marijuana laws. Where is the threat to public safety. Where is the victim of a crime.

But the judiciary has declared to change the marijuana laws is by a political process. The court, Maine Supreme Judicial Court, 2012 ME 2012  has declared no fundamental rights are affected by the use of police power in the enforcement of the marijuana laws. Judicial review was rational basis. The MSJC ignored being arrested or summoned to court is seizure of person and deprivation of liberty. This means that marijuana users are not considered persons by the judiciary and do not have the fundamental right to liberty and to property who do not have equal protection of the law, Amendments IV, XIV of the constitution of the United States.

MISSION of the [Maine] judiciary: To administer justice by providing a safe, accessible, efficient and impartial system of dispute resolution that serves the public interest, protects individual rights, and instills respect for the law. http://www.courts.state.me.us/ 

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

For NORML and the ACLU to allow the courts to declare the marijuana laws are a legislative issue is allowing the majority to deny the rights of a minority for political reasons.

MSJC STATE OF MAINE V MICHAEL J. DEE 2012 ME 2012 http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2012/12me26de.pdf

Members of the Judiciary: LIARS OF FACT AND LAW?

FACT Being arrested or summoned to court for violating the marijuana laws is seizure of person and deprivation of liberty. Liberty is a fundamental right.

LAW “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law (see Amendments V and XIV). Liberty is a fundamental right. Due process of law requires the deprivation of a fundamental right to be justified by a compelling state interest to show the use of state police power is reasonable. What are reasonable laws, protecting the rights of other.

FACT The Maine Supreme Judicial Court claims no fundamental rights are affected by the use of police power in the enforcement of marijuana laws. This court claims judicial review of the marijuana laws  and the use of police power has a rational basis and is a political question.

LAW “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.” Amendment IV defines police power

FACT: This court has declared marijuana users are non persons and marijuana is not considered property. Only persons and property are protected from unreasonable state police power and equal protection of the law. Voting to be free from police power confirms pot users are non persons and Amendment XIV is frivolous.

Fact: Dee demonstated at the State house the marijuana laws were arbitrarily enforced.

The Lie: This court claimed the marijuana penalties were not arbitrary.

COMPLAINT FILED FOR JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

     

    

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

Busted for cannabis, pot, marijuana. Plead not guilty. At trial make  a motion to dismiss on the grounds the law you are charged with lacks a compelling state interest and is an unreasonable use of police power that deprived you of your liberty and property without due process of law scured by Amendment XIV . You want the court to give you equal protection of Amendment IV. Your right to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, from unreasonable laws .

If you think marijuana is a political question than you accept the fact marijuana users are not considered persons and marijuana is not property. Every defendant had standing to question the constitutionality of the marijuana laws they had been charged with. But the defendant has to raise injury to fundamental rights  to liberty and property caused by the use of police power in enforcement of the marijuana laws. Injury to fundamental rights requires strict scrutiny judicial review that requires a compelling state interest. Where is the threat to the rights of others. Even today persons convicted of violating the marijuana laws have the legal right to Declaratory Judgment to declare the law you were convicted of  unconstitutional and over turn your conviction.

Do not let lawyers and others tell you the court will not hear your claims. Particularly marijuana lobby groups. One of these days a judge will recognize us as a person and the deprivation of our liberty and property by the use of police power.

What happened to the rest of the United States?
What happened to the principle role of the judiciary defending individual rights?
 
What happened to Amendments IV, V, and XIV?

I would have to say it was planned ignorance by deception to deprive federal rights to wage the war on drugs.

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

 PETITION TO REMOVE MARIJUANA AS A FEDERAL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
Mailed April 16, 2013. Of course no response.
http://www.change.org/petitions/the-united-states-attorney-general-eric-holder-petition-to-remove-marijuana-as-a-federal-controlled-substance

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

2012 ME 26 The Maine Supreme Judicial Court declared the marijuana laws are rational use of police power. http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2012/12me26de.pdf

COMPLAINT FILED FOR JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
(about a 1/4 of the page down)

Against Justices of Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Liars of Fact and law
Liberty is not a fundamental right. I am not a person.

Federal Complaint
Title 18 USC 242
no response
====================

The topic, subject matter, of this web site on marijuana you will not find anywhere on the web including NORML, ACLU or in any state or federal court case except Ravin v Alaska (1975). http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/index.html

Criminalizing marijuana is an unreasonable and unnecessary use of police power that deprives persons of their fundamental right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. Unless there is a threat to the right of others, a compelling state interest, the use of police power to enforce the marijuana laws deprives persons of their fundamental right to life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

Google " An Ugly Truth in the War on Drugs" or
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/opinion/11iht-edcardoso11.html?_r=0

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

Affirmative defense from federal interference: The Fouth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Marijuana
Property Discrimination

Are you for or against the Fourth Amendment?
Security from unreasonable police power.

The federal government does not have the authority to apply federal law on intrastate commerce of marijuana because the deprivation federal rights to liberty and property by the use of police power is unreasonable and unnecessary contravening the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Marijuana and marijuana users do not at all times pose a threat to public safety.

Marijuana is property. The right to acquire property is a fundamental right. The right to liberty is a fundamental right. Liberty and property are secured from unreasonable use of police power. Privacy is protected from unreasonable government intrusion.

It is unreasonable to use police power to prohibit the private cultivation use of marijuana or the rgulated sale of marijuana because there is no threat to public safety. Law enforcement official consider private use of marijuana as a very low priority and enforce the law arbitrarily demonstrating the law is unreasonable.

The Congress of the United States does not have the authority to proscribe the use of marijuana because the user is not a threat to the rights of others. The use of police power is not protecting public safety?

THE LAW

Maine Constitution
http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/

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.

Constitution of the United States

Fourth Amendment “The right of the people to be secured in their person, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizes shall not be violated,.” 4th Amendment (Applied to the States by the 14th Amendment).

Fourteenth Amendment “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

Article I Section 8 paragraph 18: “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, ….”

U.S. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ACT

Criminalizing marijuana, the Congress of the United States capitulated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to uphold the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961).

The Department of Justice, the Attorney General of the United States can not show marijuana is dangerous to be classified as a control substance. Marijuana is arbitrarily classified as a controlled substance and violates due process of law. Marijuana is safer to use then alcohol.

The Attorney General of the United States, by law, has the authority to remove any drug that does not meet the three criteria to be a Controlled Substance unless the classification is required by international treaties or convention. http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/811.htm

It is not at the federal level where the marijuana laws must change it is at the United Nations, If the criminalization of marijuana is to be determined to be unconstitutional by the judiciary, removing marijuana as a controlled substance does not contravene the U.N. conventions. (End of Page)

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


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.

 The operation and effect of police power in the enforcement of the marijuana laws have impinged upon fundamental rights. A search warrant is an invasion of privacy. Being arrested is seizure of person and deprivation of liberty. Seizing marijuana, a personal effect, is deprivation of property.

These fundamental right are secured by the Fourth, Fifth (federal laws) or Fourteenth (state laws) Amendments. “The right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures shall not violated” and “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law."

The Fourth Amendment has two parts. The first part refers to the reasonableness of the law. The second part refers to the reasonable operation of the law. The due process law requires laws that deprive liberty and property to be reasonable and necessary.

The question for the court to decide is whether the marijuana laws are reasonable or unreasonable to deprive a person's fundamental rights to liberty and to property by the use of police power.

Except for Ravin v Alaska (1975), the courts have reviewed the constitutionality of the marijuana laws by rational basis test. Using rational basis the courts have declared marijuana is not property and marijuana users are not persons. The use of police power does not have to be justified.

Lawyers and judges refuse to recognize the operation and effect of police power, to enforce the marijuana laws, is to deprive you of your fundamental, constitutional rights to privacy, to liberty and to property secured by the Fourth, Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.

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," and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be search, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Amendment V “No person shall be deprives of life liberty, or property without due process of law.”

Amendment XIV "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; "

The judicial branch of government has not acknowledged that being arrested as seizure of person and deprivation of liberty. Liberty is a fundamental right.

The judicial branch of government has not acknowledged the seizure of marijuana is deprivation of property. The right to acquire property is a fundamental right.  

The judicial branch of government has not acknowledged a search warrant is an invasion of privacy, an implicit fundamental right.

The judicial branch of government has not acknowledged the first part of the Fourth Amendment refers to reasonableness of the law not the operation of the law.

Supporting the war on drugs the judicial branch of government has failed to defend individual fundamental rights to liberty, to property and privacy from unreasonable government intrusion.

WAR ON DRUGS
RULE WITHOUT LAW
Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law

Lawyers and judges are not  defending fundamental rights. The officers of the courts turn their backs to the fact that the enforcement of the marijuana laws impinge upon fundamental rights to liberty, to property to privacy, the right to be secure from unreasonable use of state police power, unreasonable searches and seizures.

Activist justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ( Wyoming Supreme Court, US District Court of Maine) have continued to demean fundamental rights to liberty and to property secured by the 4th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. My civil lawsuits and affirmative defense for 4th Amendment protection to possess marijuana have been label as frivolous.

The MJSC DECISION  2012 ME 26 has declared again the marijuana laws are rational use of police power, a political question and the marijuana laws that authorize the use of police power do not have to be justified. Marijuana users rights to liberty and property, the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures are no longer considered  fundamental rights by lawyers and judges in the war on drugs.

Lawyers have failed to defend fundamental rights to liberty, to property and privacy of 22 million persons from unreasonable government intrusion including the lawyers at NORML and the ACLU.

Defendants have had the right to demand judges to protect their rights to privacy, to liberty and to property from unreasonable police power.  Why else are you in court if not being deprived of your liberty, property and/or privacy for violating the marijuana laws.

Affirmative defense. The federal and state marijuana laws are unreasonable police regulation of fundamental rights to liberty and to property contravening the 4th and 5th or 14th Amendments and are unconstitutional.

Because of the use of police power, the federal (C.S.A. 1970) and state marijuana laws are an Artcle III justiciable controversy for the law courts if presented correctly and not a legislative issue. see Ravin v Alaska 1975. http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/index.html

Why is marijuana a political question? Why does the judiciary review the constitutionality of the marijuana laws by Rational Basis? Because previous lawsuits claimed marijuana is a fundamental right and it is not a fundamental right. Marijuana is contitutionally protected by fundamental rights to liberty, to property and the protected right of privacy by the 4th, 5th or 14th Amendments.

Lawsuits by NORML did not claim the use of police power was unreasonable deprivation of privacy, liberty and property contravening the 4th, 5th, or 14th Amendments. These lawsuits did not claim marijuana was arbitrarily classified as a federal controlled substance contravening due process of law. http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/3.html

The use of police power to enforce the marijuana laws have unreasonably deprived millions of persons of their fundamental rights to liberty, to property, and to privacy. All of us had standing to question the use of police power that brought us to court to determine the constitutionality of the marijuana laws.

Laws that authorize police power always steps on fundamental rights and its use has always been determined to be reasonable or unreasonable not rational. Where is the victim of a crime? What is the compelling state interest? The use of rational basis to determine the constitutionality of the marijuana laws was and is deprivation of rights under the color of law.

The justices Maine Supreme Judicial Court (MSJC), have failed in its mission by  being partial, failing to protect individual rights and instilling disrespect for the law and this court. http://www.courts.state.me.us/ 

And who gains from this willful deprivation of fundamental rights by the MSJC, (the Wyoming Supreme Court and the U.S. District Court, District of Maine)? The drug cartels, organized crime and the medical marijuana industry.

Judicial review by activist judges of police regulation by rational review demeans the 4th 5th and 14th Amendments. It is willful deprivation of rights under the color of law, a federal crime Title 18 USC 242.

The members of the federal and state Judiciaries, lawyers and judges, are domestic enemies of the Constitution saying the marijuana laws are a political question. To protect our fundamental rights to liberty, to property and to privacy from police power, we must use the a political process, referendum or the legislature. The judiciary has denied it basic function, to protect individual rights from unreasonable government intrusion.

WAS

In the Suprme Court Of The United States
Writ of Certiorari


SCOTUS 2012 Petition 11-1354 
 http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/8.html

MSJC Decision 2012 ME 26   http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/5.html

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/10.htm

Ravin v Alaska http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/index.html


Michael J. Dee
Appellant- Defendant
v
State of Maine
Appellee-Plaintiff

Docket No. 11-1354
Denied: June 18, 2012


Petition for Rehearing filed June 29, 2012
http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/8.html

Amended Question Presented for Review

Whether the proscription of marijuana by the State of Maine, Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2383(1)(A)(2011), is unreasonable use of police power that has seized and deprived Dee of his liberty and property contravening the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and is unconstitutional

Denied: August 13, 2012

This question is unique for SCOTUS. No lawyer has made the claim in a lower court ad brought up to SCOTUS. Lawyers want defend individual rights because they believe the courts are to political and a waste of time.

The petition for rehearing was denied and came earlier than I expected. It did not go to conference according to the distribution schedule.  I am wondering if it ever made it past the clerks office. Maybe I pushed it forward by my letter writing and demonstration and even this web site.

Activist judges have demeaned  the Bill of Rights to to sanction the war on drugs. 

SCOTUS let stand a judgment of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (above link) that the marijuana laws are rational use of police power.There is no such thing as rational use of police power in the constitution. The use of police power is either reasonable or unreasonable (4th Amendment), necessary or unnecessary. Article I Section 8 paragraph 18

SCOTUS is allowing the use state police power for rational basis, political reasons to deprive persons of their Article III protected fundamental rights to privacy, liberty, and property. The use of police power always involves fundamentals rights. The reasonable use of police power is to protect public safety. Where is the threat to public safety possessing marijuana?

SCOTUS sanctions the deprivation of rights by rational use of police power for political reasons in contravention of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

The justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ( and the US District Court, District of Maine and Wyoming Supreme Court) have willfully denied the enforcement of the marijuana laws deprived me of my fundamental rights to liberty and to property denying me due process of law.

The justices of the MSJC declared the use of police power is rational when the constitution requires the use of police power to be reasonable. The justices of the MSJC have willfully deprived me of my rights under ther colour of law violating Title 18 U.S.C. 241, 242.

Deprivation of Rights

Title 18 U.S.C. 242

FBI Criminal Complaint 1
Title 18 USC 242
Filed against the justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Mailed April 5, 2012 .
No acknowledgement receiving criminal complaint.
http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/7.html

FBI Criminal Complaint 2
Title 18 USC 242
Filed against the the justices of the Wyoming Supreme Court
Mailed April 9,2012
No acknowledgement receiving criminal complaint.
http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/6.html

 

I have been previously told by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Criminal Division that
Title 18 USC 242 is enforced if I was beaten by law enforcement officials.

 

Red Mass DC

Mexican Embassy