East Side of U.S. Supreme Court Building.
JUSTICE THE GUARDIAN OF LIBERTY
STUDY what the legal system does not want you to know.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MARIJUANA HABEAS CORPUS PETITION
In Re: EDWIN W. RUBIS
Click: Case Documents go to Docket Search, enter
Federal Judges in 12 U.S. District Courts have declared being incarcerated is not a substantial denial of any constitutional rights. Six went to the Supreme Court of the United States that have the relevant documents from the U. S. District Court.
SCOTUS’ Clerks deny petitions by applying Rule 14 (g)(h) as a writ of certiorari denying original jurisdiction of SCOTUS. SCOTUS rules are inconsistent with federal law. SCOTUS is above the law.
Habeas relief is about liberty, freedom from government custody,
On the docket of the Supreme Court of the United States is a petition for writ of habeas corpus for a federal prisoner convicted of federal marijuana laws in 1999.
He is in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States. He has been deprived of his liberty without due process of law. Denied strict scrutiny of the federal marijuana laws that have taken away his constitutional right of liberty for over 24 years and not schedule for release until 8/6/2032. Then Five years supervised release.
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.
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.
“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.
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 !!
Un Reasonable Seize Marijuana-------------- Our Rights Their Betrayal