To Check Supreme
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
On this page you will find two section
A. ARTICLE III
B. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Adjudication of the Rights
Restriction of Judicial Power
Article III Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority... --to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party http://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/article.html#sthash.KQjqNILW.dpuf
The jurisdiction of federal courts is defined and limited by Article III of the Constitution. ….the judicial power of federal courts is constitutionally restricted to "cases" and "controversies." Flast v. Cohen 392 U.S. 83, 94 (1968)
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
["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). >143 U.S. 339, 345 (1982)
No federal court, whether this Court or a district court, has "jurisdiction to pronounce any statute, either of a State or of the United States, void, ………..except as it is called upon to adjudge the legal rights of litigants in actual controversies." Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 110 (1969) > United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 21 (1960) > 113 U.S. 33,39 (1885).
The controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests…... It must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, …….Where there is such a concrete case admitting of an immediate and definitive determination of the legal rights of the parties in an adversary proceeding upon the facts alleged, the judicial function may be appropriately exercised. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 240-41 (1937) until there is some invasion ……of private rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, the action of the states in this respect is beyond question in the courts of the nation. L’Hote v. City of New Orleans,177 U.S. 587, 596 (1900)
Injury to Rights
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943 ).
The “framers of our Constitution and this [US Supreme] court … have declared … the due observance of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution by [the Fourth and Fifth] Amendments. That such rights are declared to be indispensable to the full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty, and private property that 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 Courts “have no power per se to review and annul acts on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act.” Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488 (1923). Emphasis added.
“It is only where [Appellant’s] rights … are … affected prejudicially by the … enforcement of a statute that its validity may be called in question by [the Appellant] and determined by an exertion of the judicial power.” State of Texas v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 258 U.S. 158, 162 (1922).
Justiciability: dual limitation
adversary context capable of resolution
“The courts have no power to consider in isolation and annul an act of Congress on the ground that it is unconstitutional; but may consider that question 'only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act.' Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464, 479 (1938).
The term 'direct injury' is there used in its legal sense, as meaning a wrong which directly results in the violation of a legal right. 'An injury, legally speaking, consists of a wrong done to a person, or, in other words, a violation of his right. Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464, 479 (1938). > 262 U.S. 447, 488.
As an aspect of justiciability, the standing question is whether the plaintiff has "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy" as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf...Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-99 (1975).
The controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests…..It must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. ….. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241 (1937)
Want of right and want of remedy are justly said to be reciprocal. Where therefore there has been a violation of a right, the person injured is entitled to an action.' . The converse is equally true, that where, although there is damage, there is no violation of a right no action can be maintained. Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464, 479 (1938).
Embodied in the words 'cases' and 'controversies' are two complementary but somewhat different limitations. In part those words limit the
business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as
capable of resolution through the judicial process. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1968).
Accordingly, “the Judiciary may not sit as a super legislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines.....” New Orleans v. Duke, 427 U.S. 297, 303, (1976)
To Check Supreme
This civil action is used before you suffer actual injury to fundamental rights.
(But still can be used by those have already been convicted to question the constitutionality, the reasonableness of law, you were convicted of. This civil action can be used to overturn your convictions, if any body cares.
When contesting the constitutionality of a criminal statute, "it is not necessary that [the plaintiff] first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge [the] statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights." Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) > [415 U.S. 452, 459]
“The device of the declaratory judgment is an honored one. Its use in the federal [and state] system is restricted to "cases" or "controversies" within the meaning of Article III. The question must be "appropriate for judicial determination," not hypothetical, abstract, academic or moot. . It must touch "the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests." Id., 240-241. It must be ‘real and substantial’ and admit of ‘specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character.’" Id., 241” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 510 (1961) > Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240 -41 (1937).
Declaratory Judgment (DJ) is a civil court action to seek judicial relief before you are prosecuted for violating the marijuana laws. The threat of prosecution is always a reality.
If you been busted before, you have standing to question the constitutionality of the laws you were convicted of and have your conviction overturned because the law is unreasonable. Every State has a declaratory judgment statute.
The response to my DJ lawsuit in federal court in 1995 was the state of Maine and US Attorney's office said I was in no fear of prosecution and dismissed. The lack of enforcement demonstrated by the government the marijuana laws are arbitrarily enforced and unreasonable.
I used Wyoming declaratory judgment to question the constitutionality of the marijuana laws I was convicted of in 1982 in 2007. I failed to ask for adequate relief even when asked the first time. I refiled but the Wyoming Attorney Generals office continued to say to the Wyoming and US Supreme Court I was claiming marijuana is a fundamental right. I had an declaratory judgment lawsuit in Maine courts at the same time. The Maine ruling implied I was asking the court to declare a marijuana a fundamental right.
Federal Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934,
U.S.C. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Creation of a remedy (a) in a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction ... any court of the United States, upon filing of an appropriate pleadings, may have declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.
Maine Declaratory Judgment Act
Title 14 M.R.S.A. §5953. Scope http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/14/title14sec5953.html\
Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect. Such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.
Title 14 M.R.S.A. §5954. Construction and validity of statutes http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/14/title14sec5954.html
"Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder. "
Wyoming Declaratory Judgment Act
W.S. 1-37-103. Right of interested party to have determination made. Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by the Wyoming constitution or by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument determined and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations.
It goes without saying that those who seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts[any court] must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Art. III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy. … Plaintiffs must demonstrate a "personal stake in the outcome" in order to "assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues" necessary for the proper resolution of constitutional questions. …Abstract injury is not enough. The plaintiff must show that he "has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury" as the result of the challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury must be both "real and immediate," not "conjectural" or "hypothetical." City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 101-102 (1983).
A plaintiff who challenges a statute must demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the
statute's operation or enforcement. Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) > O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974).
But "[o]ne does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventive relief. If the injury is certainly impending that is enough. Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) >[262 U.S. 553, 593]
Making it a “crime” ….. is “intrusive regulation” …..“the usual judicial deference to the legislature is inappropriate.” Moore v. East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1971)
The physician appellants, therefore, assert a sufficiently direct threat of personal detriment. They should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 62 (1976) >Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973).
[P]etitioner has alleged threats of prosecution that cannot be characterized as "imaginary or speculative," In these circumstances, it is not necessary that petitioner first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights. Moreover, petitioner's challenge is to those specific provisions of state law which have provided the basis for threats of criminal prosecution against him. Steffel v. Thompson 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974)
When the plaintiff has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest,
but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he "should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief."
Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) >Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973).
The physician is the one against whom these criminal statutes directly operate in the event he procures an abortion that does not meet the statutory exceptions and conditions. The physician-appellants, therefore, assert a sufficiently direct threat of personal detriment. They should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973).
[431 U.S. 494, 506] …..the Constitution is not powerless to prevent East Cleveland from prosecuting as a criminal and jailing a 63-year-old grandmother for refusing to expel from her home her now 10-year-old grandson who has lived with her and been brought up by her since his mother's death when he was less than a year old. Moore v. East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494, 506(1971)
…., it makes a crime of a grandmother's choice to live with her grandson in circumstances like those presented here. When a city undertakes such intrusive regulation of the family the usual judicial deference to the legislature is inappropriate. Moore v. East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1971)
Un Reasonable Seize Marijuana-------------- Our Rights Their Betrayal