2010-03-01 Certified mail 2010-03-01 7009 3410 0000 7635 6371
TO
Mark Kappelhoff
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Criminal Section, PHB
Washington, D.C. 20530
RE: Title 18 U.S.C. 242
Dear Mr. Kappelhoff,
Judicial review of criminal laws by “rational review” is deprivation of rights under the color of law.
I have mailed, to above address four criminal complaints against judges in three judicial jurisdiction.
These judges are law enforcement officials who have willfully deprived me my fundamental rights under the color of law. Title 18 U.S.C. 242.
The first complaint, involved the 14th Amendment, was documented as DJ 144-34-0. In April 2009, Andrew J. Henning responded and denied me equal protection of Title 18 U.S.C. 242 because the DOJ only enforces this criminal statute involving “allegation of excessive physical force or sexual abuse by law enforcement officers.”
I filed three more Declaratory Judgments cases listed below. Each were also dismissed as frivolous and resulted in my filing of criminal complaints against the judges who have willfully deprived me of my 4th and 5th Amendment rights under color of law.
1. In April, 2009 U.S District Court, District of Maine. Civil No. 9-163-P-H
DOJ complaint sent Certified Mail 09/17/2009; Delivered September 22, 2009 Receipt No.7009 0080 0002 2061 9620
2. In May, 2007 In the Wyoming District Court First Judicial District.
Civil Doc. No. 169-897; Wyoming Supreme Court 2008-WY-17
DOJ complaint sent Certified Mail 10/09/2009; Delivered October 13, 2009; Receipt No.7009 0080 0002 2065 3099
3. In December, 2006 Cumberland County Superior Court of Maine.
Doc. No. Por.-SC- CV 2006-00-707; Maine Supreme Judicial Court Decision No. Mem. 07-208
DOJ complaint sent Certified Mail 11/03/2009; Delivered November 09, 2009, Receipt No.7009 0080 0002 2063 5101.
1
All four declaratory judgment lawsuits were dismissed as frivolous because the mindset of the officers of the American judiciary is this: I claim and want the law courts to declare marijuana to be a fundamental right. This is not true.
The fact is, for declaratory relief, I asked these courts to declare the marijuana laws are unjustified, unreasonable and unnecessary regulation of my fundamental rights to privacy, to liberty and to property secured from unreasonable laws by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution, therefore unconstitutional and my criminal convictions are overturned.
These judges and government lawyers have willfully deprived me of my rights under the color of law by willfully ignoring the existence of my fundamental rights to liberty, to property, and to privacy. They have deprived me of my fundamental right to due process of law to question the validity and construction of these civil and criminal laws that proscribe marijuana.
These judges and government lawyers have willfully deprived me of my fundamental right to due process of law by denying me equal protection of the 4th and 5th Amendments.
“The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizure shall not be violated.” 4th Amendment
“ No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law.” 5th Amendment.
The 4th and 5th Amendments means more than just the operation of the law. I do not question the search and seizure of marijuana and the resulting prosecution. I questioned the justification, the reasonableness of the laws that authorizes the search and seizure of my person and property. What is the compelling state interest, the threat to the rights of others?
Government lawyers and judges, citing unrelated case law, declared marijuana is not a fundamental right, judicial review is the rational basis test, and these civil and criminal laws that proscribe marijuana are rational.
These law enforcement official are implying I am not a person and marijuana is not property because only persons and property are secured from unreasonable deprivation, unreasonable seizure, unreasonable and unnecessary laws.
The state and federal government can not show the law courts that the proscription of marijuana is “necessary” and “reasonable” as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States. (see attached case law).
The DOJ can not defend Congress’ determination that marijuana meets all three criteria to be a controlled substance. Marijuana is safe to use without medical supervision. The
2
proscription of the private cultivation and use of marijuana is not based upon any reasonable
ground but is essentially arbitrary and violates due process of law. The private cultivation and the private use of this property, marijuana, does not threaten the rights of others.
These law enforcement officials have put themselves above the law for political reasons $$$$??? I am denied standing because the judiciary, under the color of law, willfully denies that being arrested is deprivation of liberty, denies seizure of marijuana is deprivation of property and denies a search warrant is an invasion of privacy.
These law enforcement officials believe they are above the law. Who benefits? The drug cartels, organized crime.
DEMAND FOR JUSTICE
I did not ask the DOJ for personal relief. I do now. I want my day in court.
As stated above I sent to the DOJ three more criminal complaints under Title 18 U.S.C. 242, deprivation of rights under the color of law. I have not received a response.
The deprivation my rights continues and can not be corrected unless DOJ informs the parties of their willful errors of law and to allow me to pursue Declaratory Judgment.
1. Inform the U.S District Court, District of Maine and the US Attorney of Maine that Civil Docket No. 9-163-P-H presented a justiciable controversy and I should be given permission to file this lawsuit. For Judge Hornsby to declare Doc. Civil No. 9-163-P-H as frivolous is willful deprivation of my rights under the color of law.
2. Inform the Maine Courts and Maine Attorney General that the case in Cumberland County Superior Court Doc. No. Por.-SC- CV 2006-00-707 presented a justiciable controversy and should be reopened. For Judge Crowley to declare Doc. No. Por.-SC- CV 2006-00-707 frivolous is willful deprivation of my rights under the color of law.
3. Inform the Wyoming Courts and Wyoming Attorney General that the case in Laramie County District Court Doc. 169-897 presented a justiciable controversy and should be reopened. For Judge Grant declare Doc. 169-897 as frivolous is willful deprivation of my rights under the color of law.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael J. Dee
PO Box 2021
Windham, Maine
207-893-0287
3
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, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
Congress Declaration
“The Congress [of the United States] makes the following findings: (1) Individuals enjoy a fundamental right to own and enjoy property which is enshrined in the United States Constitution.” Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarty (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 Title 22 U.S.C.-6081
SCOTUS Case Law
Reasonable and Necessary
“The Fourth Amendment, and the personal rights which it secures, have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Silverman v United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511(1961).
“The Fourth. and Fifth Amendments…doctrines…apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees …[on] his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property …”Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643, 646, 647
“It is the governmental power of self-protection and permits reasonable regulation of rights and property in particulars essential to the preservation of the community from injury.” Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. v. Highway Comm'n, 294 U.S. 613, 622 (1935).
“The states possess…. the power-to prescribe such regulations as may be reasonable, necessary, and appropriate for the protection of the public health and comfort;” California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary Works, 199 U.S. 306, 318-19 (1905).
“[E]ven though enacted pursuant to a valid state interest, bears a heavy burden of justification, …..and will be upheld only if it is necessary …. to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy.” McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 196, (1964). Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 497, (1965); Ravin v. State of Alaska, 537 P. 2d 494, 497 (1975).
“Criminal statutes” [must] “ ‘be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny,’” ….“and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11 (1967)
“Where certain ‘fundamental rights’ are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a ‘compelling state interest,’ ….. and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake.” Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113, 155(1973).
“To justify the state in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear-First, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference; and, second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.….. in other words, its determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police powers is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts.” Lawton v Steele 152 U.S. 133.137 (1894).
Judicial Power
“Article III of the Constitution limits the ‘judicial power’ of the United States to the resolution of ‘cases’ and ‘controversies.’ The constitutional power of federal courts, …[is].. the necessity ‘to adjudge the legal rights of litigants in actual controversies.’” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982); Liverpool S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration 113 U.S. 33, 39. (1885)
[The] “case and controversy limitation” …[is an ]…“American institution of judicial review” …… “for the preservation of individual rights.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court 331 U.S. 549 , 572 (1947). “'The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, ……” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 170 (1803).
“A federal court's jurisdiction therefore can be invoked only when the plaintiff himself has suffered "some threatened or actual injury . . ." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)
“Legislative authority to abridge 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 (1934).
“The validity of regulatory measures may be challenged on the ground that they transgress the Constitution, and thereupon it becomes the duty of the court, in the light of the facts in the case, to determine whether the regulation is reasonable and valid or essentially unreasonable, arbitrary and void.” Norfolk & W.R. Co. v. Public Service Comm’s of W. Virginia, 265 U.S. 70, 74 (1922)
''It is only where rights, ….are being, or about to be, affected prejudicially by the application or enforcement of a statute that its validity may be called in question by a suitor and determined by an exertion of the judicial power.” State of Texas v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 258 U.S. 158 162 1922)
===============================================================
Complaint against Federal law enforcement officials for deprivation of rights under the color of law. October 09, 2009
Mailed September 17, 2009
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section, PHB
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
Title 18 U.S.C. 242
I, Michael J. Dee file this criminal complaint against U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby and Magistrate Judge Margaret J. Kravchuk, of the United States District Court, District of Maine.
I allege they have willfully violated Title 18 U.S.C. 242,
Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law.
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of law to willfully deprive me of my rights secured by the Constitution.
Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.php
“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, ….to the deprivation of any rights, …..secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,…..shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;”
“For the purpose of Section 242, ….. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include ……law enforcement officials, as well as judges, ……… It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.”
CAUSE OF ACTION
On May 28, 2009 Judge D Brock Hornby adopted the Report and Recommended Decision of Magistrate Judge Margaret J. Kravchuk, signed April 28, 2009. Judge Kravchuk declared, as others before her and without explanation, my “Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Declaratory Relief” is “frivolous.” This means my petition is lacking in intellectual substance and not worth serious consideration, to be silly and trivial.
Judge D Brock Hornby’s Judgment of Dismissal of my “Petition for Declaratory Judgment” was entered June 19, 2009. Dee v United States Civil No. 9-163-P-H. (All three above documents are attached.)
1
DEPRIVATION OF MY RIGHTS
By claiming my petition for declaratory judgment to be frivolous. these judges deny that these criminal laws threatened and cause actual injury to my individual rights and does not present an Article III case or controversy.
[The] case and controversy limitation, …[is an ]…American institution of judicial review……for the preservation of individual rights. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court 331 U.S. 549 , 572 (1947).
''The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, …...'' Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 170 (1803).
It is a lie to say criminal laws do not affect my individual rights. Being arrested is deprivation of liberty. Seizing marijuana is deprivation of property.
These judges are declaring the operation and effect of the marijuana laws, the enforcement of these criminal laws, do not deprive me of my rights to personal security, personal liberty and personal property secured by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 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 V “No person shall ……..be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
By declaring my petition “frivolous” Magistrate Judge Kravchuk and Judge Hornby have WILLFULLY deprived me my fundamental right to “equal protection of the law,” the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
What these judges are declaring frivolous is my fundamental right to be secure from unreasonable governmental intrusion.
“The Fourth Amendment, and the personal rights which it secures, have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Silverman v United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511(1961).
Under the color of law Magistrate Judge Kravchuk recommended that Judge Hornby to allow the Congress of the United States to deprive me of my fundamental rights to liberty and to property without reasonable, compelling justification, without due process of law.
2
The “guaranty of due process … demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 525 (1934).
Under the color of their law Magistrate Judge Kravchuk and District Judge Hornby have willfully deprived me of my fundamental right to “due process of law” by declaring my petition frivolous.
CONCLUSION
Where is the justice when these judges of an Article III court declare my individual fundamental rights to liberty and property, secured by the Constitution, are NOT affected by the enforcement of criminal laws that proscribe marijuana?
Magistrate Judge Kravchuk and Judge Hornby have dismissed me as frivolous as if I am stupid, a non person and that marijuana is not property. There is nothing frivolous about being threatened to be deprived of my liberty, the seizure of my person, by being arrested for violating these criminal laws that proscribe marijuana. And if marijuana is not property, what is it?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. There is a conspiracy, by lawyers and judges across this country, to keep marijuana illegal by the deprivation of rights under the color of law.
Why then, is judicial review of these criminal laws by rational review?
Why then, am I being told to take this issue to the legislature?
Why then, most people do not know why marijuana is illegal?
Why then, am I raising these constitutional issues?
Magistrate Judge Kravchuk and Judge Hornby are declaring my Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Declaratory Relief is frivolous because these criminal laws are NOT an Article III controversy and that is a lie.
I am a person and demand equal justice under law, the Constitution of the United States.
Dated: September 17, 2009
Michael J. Dee