Dear Judge Singal,

I have been order by Judge D. Brock Hornby to request an order from the Maine Federal District Court to file any papers for Declaratory Judgment. (Civil No. 98-37-P-H dated May 26,1998).

Sir, for you to give such an order, you will have to acknowledge that there exist a justiciable controversy. You would have to acknowledge that Federal and State marijuana statutes do "affect" fundamental rights protected by 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 searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

You would have to acknowledge the fact that marijuana is a personal effect, a possession i.e. property, subjected to seizure, and an object of a search warrant. As Amendment IV implies, a court ordered search warrant does violate the right of the people to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The State of Maine has seized my property, a marijuana plant, prosecuted me, found me guilty and deprived me of monetary property, for violating 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) (1992). The Maine courts have claimed the possession of a useable amount of marijuana is not a constitutional right. This has demeaned the fundamental right affected by the marijuana law, protection against unreasonable government intrusion.

1

Today, it is a criminal offense to grow a useable amount of marijuana Title 17-A M.R.S.A.§1 17(2)(D). "The stigma is not trivial although the offense is but a minor misdemeanor, it remains a criminal offense, with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged, including notation of convictions on their records and on job application forms."

Sir, you would have to acknowledge the court must review the constitutionality of the marijuana laws by strict scrutiny not by rational scrutiny. That being arrested for political reasons violates due process of law and denies equal justice under the law.

To recognize, that under substantive due process of law, the federal government must prove marijuana is not safe to use under medical supervision to violate rights protected by Amendment IV. The government must prove marijuana is a drug that has deleterious properties that are "addicting, mind- destroying, productive of crime and insanity". The government must "demonstrably justify" that adult marijuana users are an imminent threat to themselves, to public safety and welfare to restrict free will, to prohibit freedom of choice, to make second class citizens of marijuana users. That prohibition, not the use of marijuana, has been a greater threat to public safety and welfare.

Acknowledging these facts, You are obligated to uphold the Constitution and grant my request for permission to file the attached Declaratory Judgment petition. Denial is simply arbitrary power.

Dated: April 19, 2004

Sincerely,

 Michael J. Dee
P.O. Box 2021
Windham, Maine 04062
207-893-0287

Proposed D.J.No. 04-33-P-S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF MAINE

MICHAEL J. DEE                               )
Plaintiff                                                ) 
       V.                                                   )
                                                              )                 Civil Docket No.
UNITED STATES of AMERICA        )
and STATE OF MAINE                      )
Defendants                                        )

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

Title 28 U.S.C.S.-2201, F.R.C.P. 57

1. Plaintiff makes a claim to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court which exist pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. 1331, federal question.

2. Plaintiff is a person residing in Cumberland County, State of Maine.

3. Plaintiff claims as a legal right, any person whose rights are "affected by a statute" may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the statutes and obtain a declaration of rights.

4. Plaintiff claims as a right to know what the compelling state interest is, to proscribe marijuana and affect rights guaranteed by Amendments IV, V, and XIV.

5. Plaintiff claims at the Capitol Building in February, 2000, the State of Maine seized personal "effects", a marijuana plant, soil and container. Plaintiff was prosecuted, found guilty and was deprived of monetary property, for violating 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) (1992).

6. Plaintiff claims the seizure of personal property by the use of police power violated protection guaranteed against unreasonable seizure by Amendment XTV.

7. The State of Maine, on January 31,2003, put into effect a criminal law affecting

1

Amendments IV privileges or immunities guaranteed by Amendment XTV. Title 17-A M.R.S.A.§117(2)(D) prohibits growing 1-5 marijuana plants with the threat of imprisonment.

8. A search warrant to look for marijuana infringes upon the right against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by Amendments IV, V and XTV.

9. The threat of being arrested for growing marijuana for private non commercial use infringes upon the rights guaranteed by Amendments IV, V and XTV.

10. The federal and state governments do not have a legitimate compelling state interest to prohibit the possession of marijuana and infringe upon the people's rights to life, liberty and property guaranteed by Amendments IV, V and XTV of the United States Constitution.

11. Marijuana is arbitrarily classified by the United States Congress as a controlled substance. Marijuana does not meet the three criteria of each of the five schedules to be classified as a controlled substance violating due process of law.

12. Marijuana does not have deleterious properties that are addicting, mind destroying, productive of crime and insanity, that cause marijuana users to be an imminent threat to themselves and to public safety and welfare.

13. Claiming the possession of marijuana is not a fundamental right demeans the "rights" protected by Amendment IV, V and XIV.

14. Plaintiff claims the police use of arbitrary power in the enforcement of the marijuana laws violates due process of law, demonstrates the proscription of marijuana is unreasonable.

DECLARATORY RELIEF

Wherefore, defendant request this court for the following relief:

15.Enter a judgment declaring the Congress of the United States arbitrarily classifies marijuana as a controlled substance violating due process of law and is unconstitutional. [Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Controlled Substance Act of 1970" encompassed in Title 21 U.S.C. sections 801- 904]

16. Enter a judgment declaring no adequate justification exists for government intrusion into a citizen's life to prohibit the acquiring and possession of marijuana by an adult for private non public use Therefore the right the liberty to acquire and possess of marijuana is protected from government intrusion by Amendments IV, V, and XTV of the United States Constitution.

17. Enter a judgment declaring Maine laws 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) (1992) (possession of a usable amount of marijuana) and Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1117(2)(D) (cultivation 1 to 5 marijuana plants) are overbroad and unconstitutional.

Dated: April 19,2004

  MICHAEL J. DEE,
pro se PO Box 2021,
Windham, Me. 04062
207-893-0287