LIBERTY, FREEDOM FROM PHYSICAL RESTRAINT                                           





East Side of U.S. Supreme Court Building.






          Clerk of SCOTUS treats petition for writ of habeas corpus as a writ of certiorari  It was denied by Clerk Harris under Rule 20. 2 by applying Certiorari Rules 14. 1.(g)(h) appeals. These rules are not applicable to the filing for writ of habeas corpus to SCOTUS having appellate jurisdiction by Article III section 2 authorized by statutue. 28 U.S.C 2241. To confirm this, 28 USC 2242 ask why petitioner has not sought post habeas relief from the district court of conviction. 










Federal Judges in 12 U.S. District Courts have declared being incarcerated is not a substantial denial of any constitutional rights and denied  certificate of apppealability.. Six went to the Supreme Court of the United States that have the relevant documents from the U. S. District Court.




SCOTUS rules are inconsistent with federal law. SCOTUS is above the law.


Habeas relief is about liberty, freedom from government custody,




Rule 20. 4.(b) The court should order a response.  But rules are inconsistent w/ 28 U.S.C. 2241, 2243. The law says a Justice there of decides to order a response not the court. 


This habeas corpus case to SCOTUS, a justice thereof, has original jurisdiction to grant, deny or order  a response.


Petitioner is timed barred. The petitioner has no place to go. Therefore the court should order a response.  Rule 20. 4(b).


The Office of the Clerk treats petitions for writs of habeas corpus, freedom from physical restraint, as writs of Certiorari. SCOTUS Rules 20.2; 14 (g)(h). Appeals. These rules are not applicable to petitions for writs of habeas corpus to SCOTUS having original jurisdiction. SCOTUS does not take appeals from the district courts anyways.




The following cases went to the U. S. district courts prior to filing in SCOTUS. The appendix of each has court orders and judgments. Incarceration is not a denial of any constitutional right of liberty.

Docket Search:









The denial of these petitions was not related to Rule 20. 4.(b).

They have been to the district courts. By Rule 20. 4. (b) SCOTUS is to order a response.

The court rules for habeas corpus are inconsistent within themselves and inconsistent with federal laws.



Other U.S. District Court  Habeas Corpus Cases







“One's right to life, liberty, and property , . . may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 1943.“Such rights . . . do not vanish simply because the power of the [government] is arrayed against them. Nor are they enjoyed in subjection to mere legislative findings.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 548; (1934).


The only cases that require a stricter standard of review are those that involve an infringement of a right explicitly enunciated in the Constitution.  United States v. Kiffer, 477 F.2d 349at 352 (2d Cir. 1973)  citing E. g., Roe v. Wade410 U.S. 113, (1973); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 486, (1965); Aptheker v. Secretary of State378 U.S. 500, 505-514,  (1964). See United States v. Carolene Products Co., supra, 304 U.S. at 152-153 n. 4,   



"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. "Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address In  Washington, D.C. Wednesday, March 4, 1801


Legislative authority to abridge [plaintiff’s liberty and] property rights … can be justified only by exceptional circumstances and, even then, by reasonable regulation only, and that legislative conclusions based on findings of fact are subject to judicial review.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 543; 54 S.Ct. 505, (1934).


Maine Constitution "The legislature…, shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulation… not repugnant to this constitution nor to that of the United States." Maine Constitution Article IV,

Part lll section 1 last sentence.


Citizens of the United States  believe the DRUG WAR is a political question. What is a crime is not a fundamental right. Proscribing marijuana as a federal controlled dangerous substance is rational, POLITICAL  police power regulation.


 It is a lie told by the legal system that criminal laws are a political question because the operation and effect of police power is deprivation of liberty and property. Being arrested is seizure of person and deprivation of liberty. Being pulled over for speeding is seizure of person and deprivation of liberty and is reasonable to protect the rights of others.


By planned ignorance, the legal system has manipulated the judiciary  to declare marijuana is not a fundamental right. You do not have a liberty interest to smoke marijuana, thus ignoring the operation and effect of police power deprivation of liberty. Liberty has lost its true meaning, freedom from unreasonable physical restraint by police power. We are subjected to rational, political police power. The police have controlled public opinion where the majority rules. Drug users are treated as non-persons and denied equal proctection of due process of law by the legal system.


In a court of law every defendant in the prosecution of the drug war have had and still have  standing presenting a justiciable controversy, to question the reasonableness, the constitutionality of the law that used police power to deprive them of their liberty and property their right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure shall not be violated.


No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. SCOTUS  has declared due process requires the deprivation of fundamental rights be justified by a compelling government interest to use police power. The burden is on the government to justify the claimed injury to fundamental rights.


The press has never held accountable the lawyers of the judiciary for declaring criminal laws are a political question.


It is a lie for the legal system to declare marijuana laws use of police power are a political question and not a fundamental rights issue. It is a lie to declare the drug war complies with the rule of law when there is no victim of a crime.




UN April 21, 2016




At the United Nations opening session  of the General Assembly in NYC September 24, 2013, Preaident Obama was there and a lot of police.

The lie. Police do not deprive liberty and property.

War on Drugs
America's third civil war over property rights.
Slavery, Alcohol, Drugs

The war on drugs is rule without law.

War on Drugs Rule Without law
Police power is either reasonable of unreasonable.
Police power is to protect the rights of others from you. Not you from yourself !!  




Mexican Embassy

Un Reasonable Seize Marijuana-------------- Our Rights Their Betrayal
Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal