Michael J. Dee
Windham, Maine
Latest Maine Supreme Judicial court challenge as a defendant. Ken.-11-299 was submitted to the court on Briefs without oral arguments December 22, 2011.
Cases on Briefs decided Week of Jan. 23, 2012.
Red Mass DC
===================================
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Thomas Jefferson
Does the DEA control the Courts?
Judicial review to determine the constitutionality of criminal laws by rational review is deprivation of rights under the color of law.
I have not sought legalization of marijuana by legislative means. I have sought constitutional protection from the judicial branch of government to acquire and possess this property, beginning in the 1980s.
Questioning the validity, the construction, the constitutionality of the marijuana laws is a very simple process. There are two ways, a civil action called Declaratory Judgment and the other being a defendant. The enforcement by police power of state of the marijuana laws has deprived of me of my fundmantal right to privacy, liberty and property as well as millions of others,without due process of law. There is a lack of justification for criminalizing marijuana. The laws are unreaonable government intrusion.
In my lawsuits, the claim I made, in three judicial juisdictions, was that the marijuana laws are unreasonable, unnecessary regulations of individual fundamental rights to liberty, to property, and to privacy secured by the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments.
Judicial review would require the government to provide a compelling state interest related to public safety to show the laws are reasonable and necessary. For 40 years lawyers have not raise this justiciable controversy, except in Ravin v. Alaska where the laws were declared to be unreasonable government intrusion.
Marijuana remains illegal because the judiciary reviews the constitutionality of these laws by what the legal system calls rational review. Rational review is used when the enforcement of laws do not cause injury to fundamental rights.
The judiciary claims marijuana is not fundamental right therefore a political question, a political crime. These law enforcement officials have willfully misrepresented by demand for Relief in my lawsuits. These law enforcement officials have willfully deprived me of my rights to due process of law by denying equal protection of the 4th and 5th Amendments for political reasons, under the color of law. Deprivation of rights under the color of law is a federal crime. Title 18 USC 242. I have filed criminal complaints with the DOJ and appealing there decision as deprivation of rights under the color of law.
Why is marijuana illegal? Marijuana is illegal because the United Nations and the Congress of the United States classified marijuana schedule I drug.
Schedule I drugs have a lack of safety of use under medical supervision therefore have no medicinal use. We all know that marijuana is safer to abuse than alcohol. Marijuana does not meet the criteria to be a controlled substance and such classification is arbitrary and violate due process of law. Arbitrary enforcement of the laws also violates due process of law.
Marijuana remains illegal because the judiciary contravenes Art.III of the Constitution of the United States. The judiciary does not defend individual rights. The judiciary says marijuana laws do not present a case or controvercy. The judiciary is saying marijuana is not a fundamental right. The Judiciary demeans the Fourth and Fifth Amendment to mean only on the operation of the law not justification of the law.
Lawyers have not claimed injury to defendent's individual rights from the enforcement of the criminal laws that are unreasonble and unnecessary. But I have, in my many Declaratory Judgment lawsuits in federal and state courts. I have been 86ed from the courts. I have get permission from the court to file any more marijuana lawsuits.
The purpose of the judicial branch of government is to protect individual rights from unjustified, unreasonable, unnecessary laws or regulations that affect all fundamental individual rights including rights to privacy, to liberty and to property. These are fundamental rights secured by the 4th , 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
SCOTUS has declared when fundamental rights are affected, the government has to justify the laws with a compelling state interest related to public health and safety. to demonstrate the laws are reasonable and necessary.
The private use of marijuana does pose a threat to public safety or public health. There is no threat injury to the rights of others. There is no victim of a crime. It is unreasonable and unnecessary to proscribe marijuana.
It is unreasonable and unnecessary to invade my privacy with a seach warrant; to seize my person and deprive me of my liberty; seize my marijuana and deprive me of my property because there is no victim of a crime.
The federal and state courts in which I presented the above arguements, the judges have declared the marijuana laws are rational because marijuana is not a fundamental right.
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v11/n482/a01.html?1049