The DOJ has not responded to my criminal complaints filed under Title 18 USC 242. I alleged judges have willfully deprived me of my fundamental rights under the color of law.

I am not a person and marijuana is not property because only persons and property are secured from unreasonable regulation.

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

• Thomas E. Perez                                                                August 31, 2010
  Assistant Attorney General
  U.S. Department of Justice
  Civil Rights Division
  950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
  Washington, D.C. 20530
  (202) 514-2151
  
  Mr.. Perez,
  
  Where is my “civil right” to “Equal justice Under law” when the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, allows judges to abuse their authority by making unlawful judicial decisions by reviewing the constitutionality of criminal laws by rational review?
  
  Where is “Equal justice Under law” when the DOJ allows judges and government attorneys to demean the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution to mean only the reasonable operation of the law not the reasonableness of the law?
  
  Under the color of law, judges have used “rational review” to determine the constitutionality of criminal laws thereby depriving me of my fundamental “civil rights” to liberty, to property, to privacy, to due process of law, to equal protection of law.
  
  “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.” http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/242fin.php
  
  DOJ’s DUE PROCESS
  
  The Criminal Section of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division did not respond in writing, to three Title 18 USC 242 complaints that were separately sent by certified mail by the end of 2009. On March 1, 2010, a follow up letter was sent by certified mail, addressed to Mark Kappelhoff, Chief of the Criminal section. No response. All three complaints and a cover letter were sent again by certified mail on June 14, 2009 to Chief Kappelhoff. No response.
  
  It was late morning on August 10, 2010, I called the following number (202) 514-3204 to
  insist upon a written response for each complaint. The operator directed my call to a man who
  did not identify himself at first or later when asked.
  
  This unidentified person said the DOJ would not provide a written response to each of
  these complaints. He said I should look into “judicial misconduct” but that avenue does not include judicial decisions as cited on U.S. District Court of Maine’s web site page. http://www.med.uscourts.gov/geninfo/misconduct.htm Judges and government attorneys are law
  enforcement officials and they are not above the law and not excluded from Title 18 USC 242
  
  1
  according to this DOJ’s web site page. http://www.justice.gov/crt/crim/242fin.php
  
  THE CRIME
  
  I alleged in these complaints that state and federal judges and state attorneys in three judicial jurisdiction in two state have abused their authority by willfully depriving me of my federal “civil rights“ under the color of law.
  
  In their official duty they have willfully denied me my right to due process of law by willfully denying me equal protection of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
  
  For declaratory relief I asked the courts in three judicial jurisdictions to declare the marijuana laws unconstitutional because they are unreasonable and unnecessary regulation of my fundamental “civil rights” to liberty, to privacy and to property secured by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments from unreasonable deprivation, unreasonable searches and seizures.
  
  These judicial decision are based on the willful misrepresentation of my lawsuits. This is easily proven by looking at my request for declaratory relief in each Declaratory Judgment lawsuit.
  
  I did not ask these courts to declare marijuana to be a fundamental right. But these state and federal judges and state attorneys claimed marijuana is not a fundamental civil right therefore judicial review of the marijuana laws, criminal laws, is rational review. My lawsuits were frivolous.
  
  Judicial review of the marijuana laws, criminal laws, by “rational review” was willful deprivation of my “civil right” to privacy, to liberty, to property, to due process and to equal protection of law.
  
  FACTS
  
  A search warrant is invasion of privacy, a civil right. Being arrested is deprivation of liberty, a civil right. Seizing marijuana is deprivation of property, a civil right. Deprivation of civil rights to liberty, to property and to privacy presents an Article III justiciable controversy. Criminal laws present a justiciable controversy. The marijuana laws have been and still are a justiciable controversy. Judicial review is strict scrutiny requiring a compelling state interest that shows the laws are reasonable and necessary, to justify the deprivation of my “civil rights”.
  
  CONCLUSION
  
  The marijuana laws have been determined to be constitutional by rational review, to be a
  political question, a political crime. Tens of million of individuals have been deprived of their
  
  2
  “civil rights” to privacy, to liberty and to property for political reasons, under the color of law, because the judiciary says marijuana is not a civil, fundamental right.
  
  These state and federal judges and state attorneys have denied me equal justice under the law. They were discriminatory and did not recognize me as person and marijuana as property because only persons and property are protected from unreasonable and unnecessary laws. These judges decisions were willful deprivation of my “civil rights” under the color of law and they are not immune from criminal prosecution.
  
  Under the color of law, I claim the law enforcement officials of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division have denied me to equal justice under the law. They have deprived me of my individual “civil rights” to due process of law and equal protection of title 18 USC 242.
  
  That Title 18 USC 242 is arbitrarily enforced and violates due process of law. Judges are not above the law.
  
  Growing marijuana is a crime. The only victim of a crime here is the willful deprivations of my “civil rights” under the color of law by law enforcement officials.
  
  RELIEF
  
  1. I want equal justice under the law. I want my law suits re-filed in each court at their expense. Due process of law secures my right to know why it is reasonable and necessary, the compelling state interest to proscribe marijuana, that allowed law enforcement officials to invade my privacy with a search warrant and/or seize my person and my property. AND/OR
  
  2. Prosecuting these judges and state attorneys for willful deprivation of my rights under the color of law. OR
  
  3. As a law enforcement official, please inform me in writing, the enforcement of the marijuana laws did not cause injury to my fundamental “civil rights” to privacy, to liberty and to property and judicial review to determine the constitutionality of these criminal laws is rational review. Please put it in writing that being arrested is not deprivation of liberty, seizing marijuana was not deprivation of property, a search warrant is not an invasion of privacy. Please tell me in writing the these law enforcement officials, did not deprive me of my civil right to due process of law and deny me equal protection of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
  
  Submitted, by
  
  Michael J. Dee
  PO BOX 2021
  786 Roosevelt Trail #5
  Windham, ME 04062
  (207) 893-0287

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

The rules and regulation allow the Attorney General to remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule.


21 USC Sec. 801 Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substances

Sec. 801 (2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.


21 USC Sec. 811 Authority and criteria for classification of substances
http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html

Title 21 sec.811 (a) Rules and regulation of Attorney General; hearing The Attorney General shall apply the provisions of this subchapter to the controlled substances listed in the schedules established by section 812 of this title and to any other drug or other substance added to such schedules under this subchapter. Except as provided in subsections 811 (d) and (e) of this section, the Attorney General may by rule

(1) (B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed; or (2) remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule.


812 (b) Placement on schedules; findings required Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance.

Title 21 sec.811 (d) International treaties, conventions, and protocols requiring control; procedures respecting changes in drug schedules of Convention on Psychotropic Substances
(1) If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of this section or section 812(b) of this title and without regard to the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this section.

Title 21 sec.811 (d) is saying International treaties justifies the violation of my constitutional rights and ignore the criteria established to classify controlled substances.



Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1961_en.pdf
Art. 36. Penal provisions
la. Subject to its constitutional limitations…..
2. Subject to the constitutional limitations of a Party….

Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971
http://www.incb.org/incb/convention_1971.html

Article 21 Action against the illicit Traffic
Having due regard to their constitutional, legal and administrative systems, the parties shall:
Article 22 Penal Provisions
1. a) Subject to Constitutional limitations of a party
2. A) Subject to Constitutional limitations of a party

=======================================
2010-06-14

Mark Kappelhoff
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Criminal Section, PHB
Washington, D.C. 20530
202-514-3204

RE: Title 18 U.S.C. 242

Mr. Kappelhoff,

I re-submit three criminal complaints against law enforcement officials in three judicial jurisdictions for violations of Title 18 USC 242 Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law. The three similar complaints were submitted over 6 months ago. At least I should receive a filing number and a response for each criminal complaint.

As a law enforcement official, please tell me in writing the enforcement of the marijuana laws do not cause injury to my fundamental rights to privacy, to liberty and/or to property and judicial review of these criminal laws is rational review. Please put it in writing that being arrested is not deprivation of liberty, seizing marijuana is not deprivation of property, a search warrant is not an invasion of privacy.

As a law enforcement official, please tell me in writing the these law enforcement official did not deprive me of my right to due process of law and deny me equal protection of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Then I can say, under the color of law you are depriving me of my right to equal protection of the l-aw, Title 18 USC 242 because judicial review of criminal laws by rational review is deprivation of rights under the color of law.

These law enforcement officials in these criminal complaints said I am asking the court to declare marijuana is a fundamental right. I have never made that request and it can not be found in any of my lawsuits. Dismissing my lawsuits by false claims is deprivation of my right to due process of law and denial of equal justice under law.

I want my day in each court as requested in these criminal complaints. I have a right to know why the marijuana laws are reasonable and necessary regulation of my individual rights to privacy, to liberty and to property, because of the operation and effect of criminal laws is the deprivation of privacy, liberty and property.

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

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

Sent 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
202-514-3204

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.USC 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.