Bailey v. State, 12 P.3d 173 (Wyo. 2000)                                                                 12

Cheyenne Airport Bd. v. Rogers, 707 P.2d 717 (Wyo. 1985)                                    11

Dee v. United States, 241 F. Supp.2d 50 (D.Me. 2003)                                      10, 11

Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315 (Wyo. 1999)                                                               12

Feltner v. Casey Family Program, 902 P.2d 206 (Wyo. 1995)                                5, 8

Garnett v. Brock, 2 P.3d 558 (Wyo. 2000)                                                              5, 8

Greenwalt v. Ram Restaurant Corp. of Wyoming,          

              2003 WY 77, 71 P.3d 717 (Wyo. 2003)                                                       11

In re Big Horn River System, 2004 WY 21, 85 P.3d 981 (Wyo. 2004)                        6

In Re Sullivan's Estate, 506 P.2d 813 (Wyo. 1973)                                                     5

Kuromiya v. United States, 37 F. Supp.2d 717 (E.D. Pa. 1999)                                10

Matter of Estate of Newell, 765 P.2d 1353 (Wyo. 1988)                                             7

National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Bell, 488 F. Supp.

                                123  (D.D.C. 1980)                                                                     10

0'Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo. 2005)                                         12

Pearson v. McCaffrey, 139 F. Supp.2d 113 (D.D.C. 2001)                                         10

Putnam v. State, 995 P.2d 632 (Wyo. 2000)                                                               12

ii

Cases                                                                                                                Page No.

Rawlinson v. Wallerich, 2006 WY 52, 132 P.3d 204 (Wyo. 2006)                                 7

Rialto Theatre, Inc. v. Commonwealth Theatres, Inc., 714 P.2d 328 (Wyo. 1986)         6

State v. Hansons 468 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)                                                10

State v. Williams, 93 Wash. App. 340, 968 P.2d 26 (1998)                                            10

Texas West Oil and Gas Corp. v. First Interstate Bank, 743 P.2d 857 (Wyo. 1987)       5

United States v. Foqarty, 692 F.2d 542 (8th Cir. 1982)                                                 10

United States v. Maas, 551 F. Supp. 645 (D.N.J. 1982)                                                10

United States v. Rush, 738 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1984)                                                      12

Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476 (Wyo. 1999)                                                                 12

Wolkind v. Selph, 495 F. Supp. 507 (E.D. Va. 1980)                                                      10

Statutes

WYO.STAT.ANN.§ 35-7-1001 through 35-7-106                                                         3,14

WYO.STAT.ANN. § 35-7-014                                                                                            3

WYO.STAT.ANN.§ 35-7-1031                                                                                        2,3

WYO. STAT. ANN. § 35-7-1039                                                                                    2,3

WYO. STAT. ANN. § 35-7-1040                                                                                    2,3

Rules W. R.Civ.P.12                                                                                                      5,8 

iii

Other Authorities Page No.

U.S. CONST. Amend. IV                                                                                                   9

U.S. CONST. Amend. V                                                                                                    9 
   




STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. IS APPELLANT'S LAWSUIT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA? II. IS THERE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO POSSESS AND USE MARIJUANA?

1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I. Nature of the Case, Course of Proceedings, and Disposition in the Court Below.

Appellant, Michael J. Dee, initially filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in January of 2007. (Case No. 0102-169223). Appellant Dee asked this Court to declare that WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 35-7-1031(c), 35-7-1039, and 35-7-1040 are unconstitutional, as violating his due process rights and fundamental rights, pertaining to the possession and use of marijuana. (Brief of Appellant, p. 1) . Dee did not prevail in that lawsuit; summary judgment was granted in favor of the State of Wyoming. Appellant concedes he did not present a justiciable controversy. (Brief of Appellant, p. 2). No appeal of the summary judgment ruling was taken. Instead, Dee filed another lawsuit, virtually identical to the first. Again the suit was dismissed, in favor of the State. (Case No. 169-897).

Appellant Dee had previously filed similar lawsuits in other jurisdictions, contending that using marijuana is a guaranteed constitutional right. His claim has been rejected by other courts, and by the district court here in an order entered May 14, 2007, Case No. 0102-169223, as well as in the case at bar.

Appellant Dee has now filed a virtually identical complaint, again alleging entitlement to declaratory relief, based upon his

2

continuing assertions that possession and use of marijuana is a fundamental constitutional right.

II. Relevant Facts.

According to Appellant, about twenty-five years ago, the Laramie County Sheriff's Office executed a lawful search warrant upon Appellant Dee's residence on March 26, 1982, based upon his possession and cultivation of marijuana, in violation of WYO. STAT. ANN. § 35-7-1031(c) and § WYO. STAT. ANN. 35-7-1040. Appellant Dee was arrested, prosecuted and the case was fully adjudicated in 1982. Dee was convicted as charged. Appellant challenged neither Wyoming's laws, nor his conviction, at that time.

The Wyoming controlled substances act, codified under WYO. STAT. ANN. § 35-7-1001 et. seq. , was enacted to regulate the possession and use of controlled substances in the State of Wyoming. Important to this matter, WYO. STAT. ANN. § 35-7-1031 (c) makes it "unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance . . .." Marijuana is listed as a Schedule I controlled substance. WYO. STAT. ANN. § 35-7-1014 (d) (xxiii) . WYO. STAT. ANN. § 35-7-1039 makes it unlawful for a person to use marijuana, and WYO. STAT. ANN. § 35-7-1040 makes it illegal to grow marijuana.

3

Appellant Dee now seeks, for the second time, to challenge the statutes under which he was convicted and seeks a declaration that marijuana is personal property that he has a constitutional right to possess and use. The district court decided the issue against Dee in case number 0102-169223. Appellant did not appeal that ruling. In the case at bar, district court number 169-897, Appellant again suffered a decision adverse to his legal position, on the very same issue.

4

ARGUMENT I

APPELLANT'S LAWSUIT IS BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA.

I, Standard of Review

A complaint reflecting an affirmative defense such as res judicata can be dismissed under a motion pursuant to W. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6). In Re Sullivan's Estate, 506 P.2d 813, 817 (Wyo. 1973); Texas West Oil and Gas Corp. v. First Interstate Bank, 743 P.2d 857, 858 (Wyo. 1987) . On appeal, this Court accepts as true all of the facts alleged in the complaint, and examines those facts in the light most favorable to the Appellant. Feltner v. Casey Family Program, 902 P.2d 206, 207 (Wyo. 1995); Garnett v. Brock, 2 P.3d 558, 562 (Wyo. 2000).

Discussion

Appellant Dee first filed a complaint for declaratory relief in January of 2007, in Case No. 0102-169223. Appellee State of Wyoming filed an answer to the complaint and moved for summary judgment. Appellant Dee filed for summary judgment as well. The complaint alleged that Appellant Dee had a fundamental right to possess and use marijuana. Dee asserted a violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. After hearing held on May 2, 2007, the district court granted the

 5

Appellee State of Wyoming's motion for summary judgment and denied the motion for summary judgment filed by Appellant Dee. The district court found the challenged statutes constitutional, and found no justiciable controversy. No appeal was taken by Dee.

Next, the identical claims raised in Case No. 0102-169223 were again raised in the case at bar. Appellant Dee attempted to make the latest complaint appear differently by asserting that he seeks the relief of having his decades old conviction overturned. (Brief of Appellant, p. 3) Nonetheless, the claims previously raised and decided against Appellant Dee are now raised again in the present case.

The application of the doctrine of res judicata is a question of law. In re Big Horn River System, 2004 WY 21, 5 19, 85 P.3d 981, 987 (Wyo. 2004). The doctrine of res judicata incorporates a universal precept of common-law jurisprudence to the effect that a question distinctly put in issue and directly decided by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties. Rialto Theatre, Inc. v. Commonwealth Theatres, Inc., 714 P.2d 328, 336 (Wyo. 1986).

"The criteria used to determine res judicata's applicability to a situation are: (1) the parties were identical; (2) the subject matter was identical; (3) the issues were the same and related to the subject matter; and (4) the capacities of the persons were

6

identical in reference to both the subject matter and the issues between them." Matter of Estate of Newell, 765 P.2d 1353, 1355 (Wyo. 1988).

In the case at bar, all four factors exist. The parties, Michael Dee and the State of Wyoming, are identical in both lawsuits filed by Dee. The subject matter of both lawsuits relates to a declaratory action seeking to find a constitutional right in possession of marijuana. The issues raised are identical in both complaints, i.e. whether marijuana possession is a fundamental right. Finally, the capacity of Michael Dee as plaintiff and the State of Wyoming as defendant are identical in reference to the marijuana laws of Wyoming, and Dee's desire to possess and use marijuana with impunity. A review of the complaint in Case No. 0102-169223 and Case No. 169-897 reveals that the claims previously decided against Appellant Dee have now been raised again. The district court, in this case, granted the State's motion to dismiss, based upon res judicata.

The State of Wyoming was entitled to dismissal of the complaint in the case at bar based upon the doctrine of res judicata. Appellant has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Rawlinson v. Wallerich, 2006 WY 52, f 8, 132 P.3d 204, 207 (Wyo. 2006). The judgment below should be affirmed.

7

ARGUMENT II

APPELLANT DEE'S COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED, BECAUSE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO POSSESS OR USE MARIJUANA EXISTS.

Standard of Review

This Court, in considering a dismissal under Rule 12 (b) (6) , accepts as true all of the facts alleged in the complaint and examines those facts in the light most favorable to'the Appellant. Feltner v. Casey Family Program, 902 P.2d 206, 207 (Wyo. 1995). This Court will affirm a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), when it is certain from the face of the complaint that Appellant cannot assert any facts which would entitle him to relief. Garnett v. Brock, 2 P.3d 558, 562 (Wyo. 2000) .

Discussion

In the event this Court chooses to go beyond the affirmative defense of res judicata, the State of Wyoming will again address the merits of Appellant Dee's claims.

Appellant Dee once again contended that criminalizing possession, growing, and use of marijuana violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. He did not, however, raise this issue in.the underlying criminal proceedings of 25 years ago.

8

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...." U.S. CONST. Amend. IV. The argument that Appellant Dee's Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to the criminalizing of possessing, growing, or using marijuana is without merit. There is no correlation between Appellant Dee's argument and the Fourth Amendment. Appellant Dee's contention is merely that possession and use of marijuana is a fundamental constitutional right.

Appellant Dee also contends that the criminalizing of marijuana deprived him of his Fifth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that M[rt]o person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...." U.S. CONST. Amend. V. Appellant Dee's only deprivation of property would have been for his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, when his illegally possessed marijuana was seized and forfeited. However Appellant Dee was affo'rded due process, in the criminal justice proceedings of his case. During the criminal proceedings, he could have raised any such issues, but did not. Thus, this argument as well is without merit.

9 At the core of Appellant Dee's claims, is that he has a fundamental constitutional right to possess marijuana. His contention has been addressed many times and denied many times, and this Court is not the only court before which Appellant Dee has made this claim. The United States District Court, for the State of Maine, in a prior case filed by Appellant Dee stated, "It has long been established that use of marijuana is not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution." Dee v. United States, 241 F. Supp.2d 50, 51 (D.Me. 2003). See also, Pearson v. McCaffrey, 139 F. Supp.2d 113, 123 (D.D.C. 2001); State v. Williams, 968 P.2d 26, 29, 93 Wash. App. 340, 345 (1998), review denied, 984 P.2d 1034, 138 Wash. 2d 1002 (1999); State v. Hanson, 468 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Kuromiva v. United States, 37 F. Supp.2d 717, 725 (E.D. Pa. 1999); United States v. Fogartv, 692 F.2d 542, 547 (8th Cir. 1982); United States v. Maas, 551 F. Supp. 645, 646-47 (D.N.J. 1982); Wolkind v. Selph, 495 F. Supp. 507, 510 (E.D. Va. 1980); National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Bell, 488 F. Supp. 123, 132-33 (D.D.C. 1980) (three judge court).

Appellant Dee has personally been put on notice in the past that there is no fundamental right to possess marijuana, and his attempt to again pursue this claim lacks merit. Dee v. United States, 241 F.Supp.2d at 51. The court in his prior case enjoined Appellant Dee from filing any further lawsuits in that court due to

10

his previous frivolous filings of a claimed constitutional right to use marijuana. Id. at 50.

This Court has previously stated:

[T]he Wyoming Constitution expressly recognizes the legislative department's police power. In Article 2, § 1, of the Wyoming Constitution, the people have granted the legislative department its powers of government. In Article 10, § 2, of the Wyoming Constitution, the people have specifically granted the legislative department the police power of the state which "is supreme over all corporations as well as individuals."

Greenwalt v. Ram Restaurant Corp. of Wyoming, 2003 WY 77, SI 18, 71 P.3d 717, 725 (Wyo. 2003). The State of Wyoming through its police power has the ability to "regulate private activities and property usage without compensation as a means of promoting and protecting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare." Cheyenne Airport Bd. v. Rogers. 707 P.2d 717, 726 (Wyo. 1985).

Contrary to Appellant Dee's contention, regulating the use of controlled substances protects the "public health, safety, morals, and* general welfare," and is well within the legislature's authority. Marijuana is reasonably classified as a controlled substance. In Dee v. United States, the court stated, "Every federal court that has considered the matter, so far as we are aware, has accepted the congressional determination that marijuana in fact poses a real threat to individual health and social

11

welfare, and has upheld the criminal sanctions for possession and distribution of marijuana even where such sanctions infringe on the free exercise of religion." 241 F. Supp.2d at 51. quoting United States v. Rush, 738 F.2d 497, 512 (1st Cir. 1984). Clearly, there is no merit to Appellant's claims.

Finally, this Court, in Vasauez v. State, 990 P.2d 476, 486 (Wyo. 1999), held that analysis under the state constitution is required only when a party has raised a state constitutional claim and provided proper argument and briefing, using a precise and analytically sound approach. This Court has further said that, where a defendant has adequately presented a state constitutional claim, "state constitutional analysis takes primacy - that is, the claim is analyzed first under our state constitution." 0'Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, 1 22, 117 P.3d 401, 408 (Wyo. 2005); See also Vasguez. 990 P.2d at 484-486.

However, this Court has also held that, where a party fails to adopt a "precise and analytically sound approach" in presenting a state constitutional claim, the Court will decline to consider the issue. 0' Bovle, (paragraph 27), (citing Doles v. State. 994 P.2d 315, 320 (Wyo. 1999); Putnam v. State, 995 P.2d 632, 640 (Wyo. 2000); Bailey v. State, 12 P.3d 173, 177 (Wyo. 2000)). Appellant Dee has failed to assert any state constitutional claim; therefore, this Court should not consider such an issue.

12

Appellant Dee has failed to establish any basis whatsoever for the claims he asserted.

13

CONCLUSION

In the case at bar, Appellant Dee again alleges he has a fundamental right to possess, use, and grow marijuana, and that WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 35-7-1001, et. seq. are unconstitutional. Courts have previously ruled that there is no constitutional right to possess, use, or grow marijuana, including twice by the district court, previously and in the case at bar. Appellant Dee's claims are without merit and barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

WHEREFORE, Appellee State of Wyoming respectfully requests that this Court affirm the decision of the district court.

DATED this 25th day of October, 2007.

Bruce A. Salzburg

Wyoming Attorney General



Terry L. Armitage

Deputy Attorney

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

REPLY OF APPELLANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

S-07-0185

MICHAEL J. DEE .
Appellant(Plaintiff)

V

THE STATE OF WYOMING
Appellee
(Defendant) .

On Appeal from the District Court for the First Judicial District
State of Wyoming, County of Laramie

REPLY OF APPELLANT

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                                                                    Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………….......................................................................................................ii.
NEW ISSUES………………...………….....................................................................................................1
APPELLEE’S FALSE STATEMENTS.........................................................................................................2
APPELLANT REBUTAL ..….........................................................................................................................2
CONCLUSION…………………...................................................................................................................4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE…………..............................................……………......................................5
i
I. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Amendment IV……………………………….............................................................................................3,4
Amendment V………………….....................................................................................................................4
WYO.STAT.ANN, § 35-7-1040.…...….........................................................................................................4
WYO.STAT.ANN, §35-7-1031/C……………….........…...................................................................…......4

ii New Issues and Arguments Raised by the Brief of the Appellee

The State of Wyoming falsely claims to this Court, that Appellant Dee had ask the district court twice and is asking this Court to declare the possession and use of marijuana is a guaranteed constitutional right.

1

APPELLEE’S FALSE STATEMENTS

The following quotes of the Appellee are all false and do not represents Appellant’s legal position as written in his request for relief in his complaint, in the Statement of Issues and the conclusion of his brief to this Court.

Appellee claims “Appellant Dee had previously filed similar lawsuits in other jurisdictions, contending that using marijuana is a guaranteed constitutional right.” (Brief of Appellee p.2).

Appellee claims “Appellant Dee has filed a virtually identical complaint, again alleging entitlement to declaratory relief, based upon his continuing assertions that possession and use of marijuana is a fundamental constitutional right.” (Brief of Appellee p.3).

Appellee claims “Appellant Dee now seeks, for the second time, to challenge the statutes under which he was convicted of and seeks a declaration that marijuana is personal property that he has constitutional right to possess and use.” (Brief of Appellee p.4)

Appellee claims “The district court decided the issue against Dee in case number 0102-169223 (Brief of Appellee p.4).

Appellee claims the “complaint alleged that Appellant Dee had a fundamental right to possess and use marijuana.”

2

(Brief of Appellee p.5)

The Appellee claims the “subject matter of both lawsuits relates to a declaratory action seeking to find a constitutional right in possession of marijuana. The issues are identical in both complaints, i.e. whether marijuana possession is a fundamental right.” (Brief of Appellee p.7).

The Appellee claims “There is no correlation between Appellant Dee’s argument and the Fourth Amendment. Appellant Dee’s contention is merely that possession and use of marijuana is a fundamental constitutional right.” (Brief of Appellee p.9)

The Appellee claims at “the core of appellant Dee’s claims is that he has a fundamental constitutional right to possess marijuana.” (Brief of Appellee p.10). B.S.

 In their conclusion the State of Wyoming writes “ In the case at bar, Appellant Dee again alleges he has a fundamental right to possess, use and grow marijuana….” (Brief of Appellee p.14).

APPELLANT’S REPLY

Appellant Dee’s complaint does not ask this Court for declaratory relief by declaring that he has a guaranteed fundamental constitutional right to possess and use marijuana. No where. No where will this court will find such a request. See Appellant’s Statement of Issues.

3

The deliberate false statements of the Appellee are a deliberate misrepresentation of the Appellant position. The State of Wyoming wants this Court, under the color of law, to deprive the Appellant his right to due process of law by denying equal protection of Amendments IV and V of the Constitution of the United States.

The State of Wyoming wants this Court to deny the Appellant equal justice under the law.

The question distinctly put in issue was not directly decided by the District Court. Is it unreasonable for the State of Wyoming criminalize the private growing possession and use of marijuana?

CONCLUSION

For the State of Wyoming to deny that the enforcement of criminal laws, WYO.STAT.ANN, § 35-7-1040 and WYO.STAT.ANN, §35-7-1031/C, did not affect the Appellant’s IV and V Amendments rights is a denial of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States.

Grant relief requested by Appellant in complaint.

Dated: November 7, 2007

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

4

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

==========================================
APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

S-07-0185

MICHAEL J. DEE Appellant (Plaintiff)

V

THE STATE OF WYOMING Appellee (Defendant)

On Appeal from the District Court for the First Judicial District State of Wyoming, County of Laramie

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

The appellate court erred by ignoring its solemn responsibility to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States.

MICHAEL J. DEE, pro se
P.O. Box 2021 Windham, ME. 04062 207-893-0287


APPELLANT’ BREIF

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

Justice Golden wrote "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." The word that Justice Golden leaves out is ^property.

This assertion can not be found any where in Dee's complaint. This assertion leads to the conclusion that Dee has not presented a justiciable controversy because marijuana is not a fundamental right. This assertion leads to the judicial review of criminal laws by rational review. This assertion leads to the conclusion that it was rational to search Dee's house and seize his person, papers and effects.

The appellate court is not recognizing in Dee's complaint that Dee claims the marijuana laws, W.S.35-7-1040 and W.S.35-7-1031/C, are unjustified, therefore unreasonable and contravened the tenets of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

The "framers of our Constitution and this [U.S. Supreme] court ... have declared ... due observance of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution by these two amendments. That such rights are declared to be indispensable to the full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty, and private property that

1

they are to be regarded as of the very essence of constitutional liberty." Gouled v U.S., 255 U.S. 298, 303, 304. (1921). The appellate court is not recognizing in Dee's complaint that he claims the enforcement of these criminal laws caused actual injury and affected his indefeasible fundamental right to be secure in his person, his home, his papers and in his effects from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The appellate court is denying that the enforcement of these criminal laws, W.S.35-7-1040 and W.S.35-7-1031/C, affected his fundamental right to be secure from unreasonable government intrusion.

The part of the Fourth Amendment here involved reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

The part of the Fifth Amendment here involved reads: "No person shall ....deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;."

The appellate court denies that Dee has suffered actual injury by the State of Wyoming's intrusion into his privacy when he was served a search warrant for growing marijuana, seized his person, his papers, and his effects by the Laramie County Sheriff Department on Saturday morning of March 27, 1982. See Docket Record at 8, 14.

2

Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions may declare rights. WY. TITLE 1-37-102. "Any person 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." WY. TITLE 1-37-103.

"It is only where [Dee's] rights ... are ... affected prejudicially by the ... enforcement of a statute that its validity may be called in question by [Dee] and determined by an exertion of the judicial power." State of Texas v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 258 U.S. 158, 162 (1922).

"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).

"[T]he Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against ... physically intrusive governmental conduct." Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989).

"The heart of the Fourth Amendment ... is a severe requirement of specific justification for any government intrusion upon protected personal security." Terry y. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 11 (1968). Emphasis added.The appellate court is denying that the enforcement of these criminal laws, W.S.35-7-1040 and W.S.35-7-1031/C, deprived Dee of

3

his protected rights to privacy, to liberty and property.

The appellate court is agreeing with the State of Wyoming that Dee's Fourth and Fifth Amendment protected rights were not affected by the enforcement of these criminal laws, W.S.35-7-1040 and W.S.35-7-1031/C. That Dee's argument is described by the state as "patently frivolous" and does not present a justiciable controversy. This is because marijuana is not a fundamental right.

The appellate court is depriving Dee the right to due process of law by depriving Dee the Fourth Amendment's specific protection for houses, papers, and effects, the very essence of constitutional liberty.

The appellate court is not recognizing that criminal laws are a justiciable controversy. The appellate court is reviewing criminal laws by rational review and not the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment.

The appellate court is denying a search warrant and Dee's full custodial arrest was physically intrusive governmental conduct on Dee's fundamental right to liberty. The appellate court is denying the existence of Dee's fundamental rights to liberty and in property as basic civil rights. The question is: why? Why is the court depriving Dee equal protection of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments? The appellate court ruling is presenting what appears to be

4

a politically, deliberate, misrepresentation of the facts of Appellant's complaint. This decision is not a rule of law but rule of politics. Politics in the courts is tyranny. There is no "equal justice under the law" in this court.

By the way, marijuana is property. "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. The appellate court does recognize marijuana as property.

CONCLUSION

The enforcement of the marijuana laws caused actual injury to Dee' s liberty and property rights secured from unreasonable deprivation by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Judicial review of these criminal laws is the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment .

Specific relief is demanded. The criminalization of marijuana is unjustified therefore unreasonable therefore the laws are unconstitutional and Dee's criminal conviction are also unconstitutional and overturned. Dated: February 23, 2008

Michael J. Dee
P.O. Box 2021
786 Roosevelt Trail
Windham, Me. 04062
207-893-0287

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



ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REHEARING




IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

October Term, A.D. 2007

S-07-0185 (2008 WY 17)

MICHAEL J. DEE, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Defendant).

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

This matter came before the Court upon appellant's "Application for Rehearing," filed herein February 26, 2008. Having examined the files and record of the Court and having carefully considered the issues raised in the Application for Rehearing, the Court finds that the Application for Rehearing should be denied. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that appellant's Application for Rehearing, filed herein February 26, 2008, be, and the same hereby is, denied. BARTON R. VOKST Chief Justice