LIBERTY, FREEDOM FROM PHYSICAL RESTRAINT
This is still work in progress. I waiting for a reply to file one more writ of habeas corpus to SCOTUS.
OATH TAKERS ARE OATH BREAKERS, LAW BREAKERS
Ask why marijuana is still schedule I drug?.
Today the word freedom has replaced liberty. Ukraine wants liberty, freedom from Russia.
LIBERTY PROTECTS YOUR FREEDOM FROM
UNREASONABLE
GOVERNMENT INTRUSION
The Declaration of Independence does not say the “inalienable right to life,” freedom, “and pursuit of happiness.”
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
On the East side of SCOTUS building, it does NOT say:
JUSTICE THE GUARDIAN OF FREEDOM
It is not the FREEDOM BELL. It is the “LIBERTY BELL”
It is not the STATUE OF FREEDOM; It is the “STATUE OF LIBERTY”
The pledge of allegiance does not say “WITH” FREEDOM “AND JUSTICE FOR ALL” It ends, “WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL”.
Due process clause does not say No person “shall be deprived of life, ”freedom” and property without due process of law.
Habeas Corpus the great writ of Liberty
SCOTUS 25-5661
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Marijuana Prisoner in the federal district court that has jurisdiction over where the prisoner is incarcerated. It was denied as a writ of certiorari
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-5661.html
See petititon for rehearing.
Historical case law, A Writ for Habeas corpus WAS to determine the validity of law that caused the prisoners detention thus having standing.
Federal laws for writ of Habeas corpus. SCOTUS rules for Habeas corpus.
SCOTUS, a justice thereof, has appellate Jurisdiction by section 2 of Article III to review an application for writ of habeas corpus.
The following case(s)is about 28 USC 2255 Motion to Vacate sentence from the District court that found him guilty. The district court denied Certificate of Appealbility. No rights violated.This court was the wrong court for habeas corpus
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-6541.html
This page list 15 2255 motions to vacate. Seven cases went to to SCOTUS and have access to to U.S. District court documents. Others can be reach by signing up for "PACER" https://pacer.uscourts.gov/
Writs for habeas corpus must comply with Court Rule 20. 4. (b) which is inconsistent with federal law 28 U.S.C. 2241, 2242 and 2243. According to the Clerk Harris these laws have no standing in rulemaking of the court. But
28 U.S. Code § 453 - Oaths of justices and judges
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Forgive any gramatical errors and spellings.
Tens of Millions of us had standing, an Article III case and controversy, to question the validity of the marijuana laws that caused our arrest, our detention, the seizure of person, deprivation of liberty because marijuana is not a liberty interest to be fundamental. Judicial review is then rational basis, a political question, rational police power contravening Amendment IV. We have and had become political prisoners, non persons. Denied equal protection of liberty freedom from physical restraint. Denied liberty and property without compelling reasons without due process of law.
A SCOTUS dissenting justice in 1876 declared there are many meaning to liberty, a liberty interest to do this or that. Due process today is to determine what is a crime to be a liberty interest. This when the operation of police power is seizure of person and deprivation of liberty creating standing.
Being pulled over for speeding is seizure of peron and deprivation of liberty until you sign this ticket. Regulating speed is resonable to protect public safety.
East Side of U.S. Supreme Court Building.
"JUSTICE THE GUARDIAN OF LIBERTY":
FUBAR
“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. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 486, (1965); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 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,
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.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
UN April 21, 2016
SCOTUS
SCOTUS
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
OUR RIGHTS THEIR BETRAYAL
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 !!
WHITE HOUSE
Mexican Embassy
Un Reasonable Seize Marijuana-------------- Our Rights Their Betrayal
Print 