Complaint against Wyoming law enforcement officials for deprivation of rights under the color of law. October 09, 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 the following Wyoming government officials:
Judge Edward L. Grant, First Judicial District , Laramie County, Wyoming
Terry L. Armitage Deputy Attorney General of Wyoming et al
Justice Michael Golden of the Wyoming Supreme Court et al
I allege these officials have willfully violated Title 18 U.S.C. 242.
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 ………..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.”
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.
CAUSE OF ACTION
Under Wyoming’s Declaratory Statute W.S. Title 1-37-103, and the Constitution of the United States, (A1and A6 ¶ 2) I filed two civil actions to question the validity and construction of criminal laws, marijuana laws, that I was convicted of in 1982, W.S.31-7-1040 and W.S.35-7-1031/C.
1
CHAPTER 37 - DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS
WS 1-37-103. Right of interested party to have determination made.
Any person interested ……..whose rights……are affected ……by a statute …. may have any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument determined and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations.
Time has not changed the fact that I have a criminal record. I claimed these criminal laws are unreasonable, unnecessary unjustified and contravene the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. (A2,¶ 9, A3 ¶12). And (A7 ¶ 9, ¶12).
The enforcement of these criminal laws affected the security of my person, my house, papers and effects secured by the 4th and 5th Amendments. The enforcement of these criminal laws meets the criteria of WS 1-37-103.
On May 7th 2007, Judge Grant dismissed my first “Complaint For Declaratory Relief” Docket No, 169-223 because I have failed to present a justiciable controversy. (A5 ) Hindsight, I believed I presented a controversy but failed to ask for proper relief that was specific to me.
On May 15th 2007, I re-filed my petition for declaratory judgment, Docket No, 169-897, (A6-8) I presented again the same justiciable controversy, my criminal convictions and ask for specific justiciable relief that relates to me personally. I ask the court to declare my criminal convictions are overturned because the laws I was convicted of are unreasonable and unconstitutional not because marijuana is a fundamental right. (A8).
The State of Wyoming responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss on June 12, 2007. (A9-18). On June 25, 2007, Judge Grant dismissed my second petition for declaratory judgment Docket No, 169-897, “for reasons stated in this motion” by the State of Wyoming.
In effect the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is judge Grants Order to Dismiss. (A19)
The following statements are from Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss.
“The complaint filed by the Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (A9)
“Plaintiff Dee has now filed an identical complaint, again alleging entitlement to declaratory relief, based upon his frivolous continuing assertions that possession and use of marijuana is a fundamental constitutional right.”(A11)
“The argument that Plaintiff Dee's Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to the criminalizing of possessing, growing, or using marijuana is patently frivolous. There is no correlation between Plaintiff Dee's argument and the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff Dee's contention is merely that possession and use of
2
marijuana is a fundamental constitutional right.” (A14)
“In the case at bar, Plaintiff Dee again alleges he has a fundamental right to possess,
use, and grow marijuana, and that WYO. STAT. ANN. § 3 5-7-1001, et. seq. is
unconstitutional. This Court and other courts have previously ruled that there is no constitutional right to possess, use, or grow marijuana, and Plaintiff Dee has personally been put on notice of this in the past. Plaintiff Dee's claims are frivolous and should be dealt with as such.” (A18)
The State of Wyoming willfully lies in it’s interpretation of my complaint and Judge Grants first decision. Because no where in these two complaints do I ask the Judge Grant to declare “that possession and use of marijuana is a fundamental constitutional right.” I had ask the court to declare the marijuana laws are unreasonable and unnecessary. (A8)
Appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court, Dee v WY. 2008 WY 17, Justice Golden said:
“Dee alleged the laws violated his fundamental right to possess, use and grow marijuana and contravened the tenets of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution.”(A20)
This is false statements because I alleged the marijuana laws are unreasonable and unnecessary and “contravened the tenets of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution.”
DEPRIVATION OF MY RIGHTS
These officials are making false statements to justify dismissing my complaint and deny me my right to due process of law. These officials are lying that I am asking the court to declare marijuana is a constitutional right.
These officials denied me my fundamental right to due process of law to question the validity and construction of criminal laws because they say marijuana is not a constitutional right.
These officials claimed my petition for declaratory judgment to be ‘patently frivolous.” (A14). These officials have denied that these criminal laws caused actual injury to my individual rights.
[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).
3
Wyoming “courts also have the solemn responsibility, equally with the federal courts, to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the
Constitution of the United States.” Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 248 (1967).
It is a lie to say the enforcement of these criminal laws did not affect my individual rights. Being arrested was deprivation of my liberty. Seizing marijuana was deprivation of my property. A search warrant was an armed invasion of my privacy.
These official are declaring the operation and effect of the marijuana laws, the enforcement of these criminal laws, did 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” these officials 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 officials 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 these officials allowed the Wyoming legislature to deprive me of my fundamental rights to liberty and to property without reasonable, compelling justification, without due process of law.
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 these officials have willfully deprived me of my fundamental right to “due process of law” by lying about my claim and declaring my petition frivolous.
4
CONCLUSION
These officials, Judge Edward L. Grant, Terry L. Armitage Deputy Attorney General of
Wyoming, and Justice Michael Golden of the Wyoming Supreme Court have willfully deprived me of my fundamental right to due process of law to question the validity or construction of criminal laws. They have willfully lied about my claim that the marijuana laws are unreasonable by saying I am claiming marijuana is a fundamental right. They have declared my petition is frivolous because these criminal laws do NOT present a justiciable controversy and that is a lie.
They have willfully ignored or denied the fact that the enforcement of criminal laws had affected, caused actual injury to my individual fundamental constitutional rights to liberty, to privacy and to property secured by the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
Where is the justice when government officials, who take an oath to the constitution, 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?
These government officials 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 deprived of my liberty, the seizure of my person, by being arrested for violating these criminal laws that proscribe marijuana.
Under the color of law these government official have deprived me of my fundamental right to due process of law and equal protection of the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
Dated: October 9, 2009
Michael J. Dee
PO Box 2021
786 Roosevelt Trail
Windham, Maine 04062
207-893-0287
ATTACHED DOCUMENTS
Dee v Wyoming Civil Docket No.169-223
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF ………………………………......................... A-1
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT………………………………........................A-5
Dee v Wyoming Civil Docket No. 169-897
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF………………………………................................ A -6
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS…….………. A-9
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT Dee v Wyoming Civil Docket No. 169-897 ....A-19
WYOMING SUPREME COURT S-07-185 Decision……………………………….............A-20