Constitution of the United States

Bill of Rights

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.

Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Criminal laws “affect” individual rights and present a justiciable controversy. Any person whose rights are affected by a statute may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the statute, and obtain a declaration of rights. Maine Title 14 § 5954. This is a legal right.

Dee claims his rights to liberty and property, secured from unreasonable seizure, have been affected by enforcement of the marijuana laws. See Dee’s Complaint at App.12

Dee has a civil right to know why it is “reasonable” to criminalize the private growing and possession of marijuana. This civil right is called “due process of law”. Dee claims the following Justices violated their solemn responsibility, to guard, enforce, and protect every individual right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States. These justices claim that the enforcement of the marijuana laws have not “affected” and will not “affect” Dee’s civil fundamental rights to privacy, property and liberty secured by the 4th and 5th Amendments of the United States Constitution.

A. Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Chief Justice Leigh Ingalls Saufley, Cumberland County Courthouse 142 Federal St., P.O. Box 368, Portland, Maine 04112-0368 (207) 822-4286 or Maine Judicial Center 65 Stone St., Augusta, ME 04330-5222 (207) 287-6950

Justice Robert W. Clifford, Androscoggin County Courthouse 2 Turner St., P.O. Box 3488, Auburn, Maine 04212-3488 (207) 783-5425

Justice Donald G. Alexander, Cumberland County Courthouse 142 Federal Street, P.O. Box 368, Portland, ME 04112-0368 (207) 822-4175 2

Justice Jon D. Levy, Cumberland County Courthouse 142 Federal St., P.O. Box 368, Portland, Maine 04112-0368 (207) 822-4227

Justice Andrew M. Mead, Penobscot County Courthouse 97 Hammond Street, Bangor, ME 04401-4913 (207) 561-2310

Justice Ellen A. Gorman, Cumberland County Courthouse 142 Federal Street, P.O. Box 368, Portland, ME 04112-0368 (207) 822-4135

B. Cumberland County Superior Court

Justice Robert E. Crowley Cumberland County Courthouse 142 Federal Street, P.O. Box 287, Portland, Maine 04112-0287 (207) 822-4174

Dee’s most recent declaratory judgment action under Maine Title 14 § 5954, was dismissed by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ( App.1 Decision No. Mem. 07-208) for reasons stated in the superior court decision.  Justice Crowley. App.2

These justices are claiming marijuana is not a fundamental right, there is no justiciable controversy and judicial review of the marijuana laws is rational review because the marijuana laws “ do not encroach upon any fundamental right” protected by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

It is a lie for these justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to claim the enforcement of the marijuana laws did not and will not “affect” Dee’s individual rights to liberty and to property. Individual rights which are secured from unreasonable searches and seizure, unreasonable deprivation by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

The fact is, Dee’s declaratory judgment complaint does not claim or ask the court for declaratory relief by declaring marijuana to be a fundamental right. In his latest compliant in State of Maine courts, the plaintiff ask the court for the following declaratory relief.

“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.”

Dee raises this fact again in his Motion for Reconsideration.

Growing marijuana is a criminal offence, Title 17-A § 1117. If found marijuana is subject to seizure and an object of a search warrant. The offender is arrested and deprived of his liberty as well as his property.

These justices are claiming that it is rational for the government to search and seize Dee’s property and his person for growing marijuana.

These justices are claiming that it is rational to invade his privacy with a search warrant to search and seize marijuana. The right of Dee to be secure in his persons, house, papers, and effects, against  unreasonable searches and seizures has been violated when these justices rule that it is rational to search and seize his person and his property for violating the marijuana laws.

Conclusion

To be perfectly clear, Dee did not claim and did not ask these judges to declare marijuana is a fundamental right.

Dee claims to have constitutional protection to acquire and possess this property by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. It is unreasonable to criminalize the private growing and possession of marijuana.

It is unreasonable because this private activity does not affect the rights of others.

The Plaintiff claims, under the color of law, these Justices have WILLFULLY deprived him of his “civil right” to equal protection of the law, his Fourth Amendment individual “civil right” to be secure from unreasonable government intrusion, thereby depriving him his “civil rights” to liberty and property without due process of law.

These justices are reviewing the constitutionality of the marijuana laws, that have deprived Dee of his liberty and property, by rational review and not the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment, there by depriving Dee his civil right to due process of law.

Dated March 24, 2008

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