II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Jurisdiction, to review this case and controversy, is conferred on this Court pursuant to Title 14 M.R.S.A.5953-54 Declaratory Judgment and by Amendments IV and V of the Constitution of the United States, made applicable to the State of Maine by the Amendment XIV.

III. PARTIES

3. There still remains a substantial case between the State of Maine and the plaintiff having adverse legal interests, admitting of an immediate and definitive

1.

determination of the plaintiff’s legal rights and the construction and validity of state “police power” to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.

IV. Facts

4. Marijuana is an object of a search warrant and subject to seizure by the State of Maine and present an actual case and controversy having adverse legal interests.

5. The Congress of the United States says “individuals enjoy a fundamental right to own and enjoy property which is enshrined in the United States Constitution”. (see Title 22 U.S.C.-6081). Marijuana is property. Therefore, the right to acquire and possess this property, describe as marijuana, is a fundamental right.

6. Plaintiff was twice summoned to court for possessing marijuana in the 1990s.

7. In 2000, Plaintiff was summoned, prosecuted and convicted by the State of Maine for violating Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1), possession of a useable amount of marijuana in the form of a marijuana plant.

8. The Maine legislature has made it a criminal offence to grow a useable amount of marijuana. Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117(2)(D).

9. State of Maine can not justify criminal and civil laws with clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the plaintiff use of marijuana adversely affects the rights of others and is deleterious to plaintiff’s health, a greater threat than the his use of alcohol and tobacco.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

10. Making it a “crime” to grow a usable amount of marijuana is an intrusive regulation that is an unjustifiable, unreasonable and unnecessary and must be deemed

2.

a violation of Amendments IV and V of the Constitution of the United States.

A. VIOLATION OF AMENDMENT IV OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

11. Plaintiff re allege and incorporates by reference herein the facts of paragraphs 1 through 9 above.

12. Plaintiff claims Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) and Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117 (2)(D) are unjustified therefore unreasonable and contravenes the plaintiff’s right to be secure in his person, his home, his papers and in his effects from unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by Amendment IV of the Constitution of the United States.

13. Being threatened with a search warrant, full custodial arrest, imprisonment and/or fines for privately growing and possessing a useable amount of marijuana is unreasonable government intrusion, is not a valid exercise of the “police power” and is in contravention of Amendment IV to the Constitution of the United States.

B. VIOLATION OF AMENDMENT V
OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

14. Plaintiff re allege and incorporates by reference herein the facts of paragraphs 1 through 9 above.

15. Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) (1992) and Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117(2)(D) are unjustified, unreasonable and unnecessary therefore has deprived and continues to threaten to deprive the plaintiff of his liberty and property without “due process of law” secured by Amendment V to the Constitution of the United States.

 16. Plaintiff claims that these legislative enactments, Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) (1992) and Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117(2)(D), are merely rationally related and can not

3.

be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state interest therefore violates “due process of law” secured by the Amendment V.

13. Not being able to tax the plaintiff for growing marijuana for private use has nothing to do with public health and safety, therefore violates the “due process of law” clause of Amendment V.

Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter a judgment:

A. To declare Maine Statues Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) possession and Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117(2)(D) growing marijuana, are unjustified therefore unreasonable and contravened the plaintiff’s Amendment IV right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures and therefore unconstitutional.

B. To declare the Maine Statues, Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) (1992) and Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117(2)(D), are not narrowly drawn and are merely rationally related to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy and therefore violates “due process of law” of Amendment V and they are unconstitutional.

Dated: December 15, 2006

MICHAEL J. DEE, pro se,
P.O. Box 2021
786 Roosevelt Trail
Windham, Me. 04062
dee_3311@msn.com
207-893-0287

4.

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

PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Rule 12 ( C)

This was filed because the State of Maine did not respond within the tme requirement of 20 days.

SUPERIOR COURT
of the STATE OF MAINE
Cumberland County, Portland, Maine

MICHAEL J. DEE                             )
Plaintiff                                              ) 
                                                           )
          V.                                              )                                                Civil Docket No.
                                                           )                                              PORSC-CV-2006-00707
STATE OF MAINE                            )
Defendant                                        )

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Rule 12 ( C)

1.  I, Michael J. Dee on December 16,2006 sent to the Maine Attorney's General Office by certified mail with returned receipt, the original summons two copies of CV -036 and a copy the complaint. It was delivered 12/19/2006.

2. On January 5th plaintiff made contact with the Attorney General Office by E-mail and received an Email January 8th 2007, from William R. Fisher Assistant Attorney General acknowledging receiving the above papers and would "accept service in due
course".

3. On January 9th 2007 plaintiff paid for another summons from the Superior court. On January 10, plaintiff drove to Augusta and attempted to serve a copy of the summons and the complaint on William R. Fisher at the Attorney's General Offices on
the 6th floor of Burton M. Cross Building.. He was not there and I was told no one else was there to accept service.

1.

4. On January 10th plaintiff sent William Fisher by certified mail with returned receipt, a copy of the summons and a copy the complaint. The returned receipt and the original summons have been filed with this court on or about the 16th of January.

5. As of February 6th 2007, the State of Maine has failed to respond to the complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter a judgment:

A. To declare Maine Statues Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) possession and Title
17-A M.R.S.A § 11 17(2)(D) growing marijuana, are unjustified therefore unreasonable
and contravened the plaintiffs Amendment IV right to be secure from unreasonable
searches and seizures and therefore unconstitutional.

B. To declare the Maine Statues, Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) (1992) and Title
17-A M.R.S.A § 1 1 17(2)(D), are not narrowly drawn and are merely rationally related to
the accomplishment of a permissible state policy and therefore violates "due process of
law" of Amendment V and they are unconstitutional.

Or to declare the present construction Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) (1992) and Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1 1 17(2)(D), to be unconstitutional because they do not distinguish public and private interest. The word public in these two laws would make them constitutional.

Dated February 6, 2007

MICHAEL J. DEE pro se;
P.O. Box 2021 786 Roosevelt Trail Windham, Me. 04062