DRUG WAR                                                             Bureaucratic Economic Police Regime.

Contact our4th@ursm 



United Nations Assembly special secssion on Drug War



Nothing about removing marijuana, coca, and opium from U.N. conventions on Narcotic drugs conflicting with human rights.




Go to CSA page It appears U.N. Conventions on Narcotic Drugs trumps U.S. Constitution but there are Articles related to constitutional limitation.






State vs. Bernard Noble

13 1/3 years for 2.8 grams of pot.





Claim 1

I claim that my person has been seized and I have been deprived of my inalienable fundamental right of liberty without reason, without a compelling state interest, without due process of law contravening the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

  1. I was arrested for possessing marijuana. The possession of marijuana didn’t pose a threat to public safety. State police power arresting me and depriving me of my liberty was not protecting the rights of others, public safety. There was no victim of a crime.
  2. N/A
  3. This claim was not raised in the trial court because :

I didn’t know that being arrested, seizure of my person and deprivation of my fundamental right of liberty, that I had had standing to question the validity, the construction, the  reasonableness, the constitutionality of the State of Louisiana’s marijuana possession law in a pretrial Motion to Dismiss.

I didn’t know that liberty is freedom from physical restraint, bounds of prison.

I didn’t  know substantive due process of law requires the deprivation of my fundamental right of liberty by the use of state police power  must be justified by a compelling state interest.

I didn’t know that judicial standard of review of the marijuana possession law that authorized the use of state police power is strict scrutiny standard of review.

 I didn’t know the burden was on the State of Louisiana to provide reasons, a compelling state interest, a substantial threat to public safety, that demonstrably justifies the law that criminalized the possession of marijuana and the use of state police power.

I didn’t know I had a right to equal protection of law, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.




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. 

Staggering Death Toll of Mexico’s Drug War 



Opposition to Chief Justice Saufley of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reappointment.



UN April 21, 2016


"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


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

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