LIBERTY, FREEDOM FROM PHYSICAL RESTRAINT                                           


East side of U.S. Supreme Court.


"Fouled Up Beyond Any Recognition"



In the Supreme Court of the United States

Constitutionality of Criminal Laws

Petitions for an Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus

Doc #'s  21-715

Conference December 3, 2021.

Decision December 6, 2021

Washington D.C.







Jody Tremayne Wafer petitions for writ of habeas corpus from ChiefJustice John Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States inquiring into the reasonableness, the validity of criminal laws that caused Petitioner’s confinement. “The writ of habeas corpus ... is the liberation of those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause.” Ex Parte Watkins, 28 U.S. 193, 202 (1830) ChiefJustice Marshall

1. Is being incarcerated a substantial denial of Petitioner’s constitutional right of liberty, without “sufficient cause,” without compelling reasons for the United States Congress to proscribe marijuana as a dangerous substance, (a drug crime), therefore without due process oflaw in violation ofAmendments IV and V ofthe Constitution of the United States and unconstitutional?

To decide:

1. To grant the writ,

2. Deny the writ. Being incarcerated is not a substantial denial of the constitutional right of Liberty.



       Is Justice still the guardian of liberty, is there liberty and justice for all or Or are they false statements?


      The petition for writ of habeas corpus is to seek freedom from physical restraint by incarceration caused by cannabis laws that authorized government police power.

       Such laws include abortion, assisted suicide, jim crow laws which recreational drugs, marijuana laws are included. Those arrested have standing, an Article III case and controversy as defined by Justice Barrett and Senator Graham.

Being arrested is a substantial denial of constitutional right, liberty. It is a concrete injury. Lawyer have not defended the constitutional right of liberty allowing political police power. We have to prove what is a crime is a fundamental right. This is repugnant to the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, the rule of law.

Lawyers continue to violate the law, Article VI of the U. S. Constitution, called the Supremacy clause. Without constitutional limitations, states legalizing marijuana are violating federal laws, and international laws that are the law of the land. The violation of the rule of law by a judiciary is treating criminal laws as a political question.









Systemic racism in law enforcement is allowed because of systemic political police justice. Nazi justice based on lies.


You can’t seek justice, the guardian of liberty, because lawyers have manipulated due process of law to make criminals laws a political question. What is a crime is not a fundamental right.


Criminal laws present an Article III case and controversy. The barrier to justice is blocked by lawyers. To lawyers, liberty means freedom to do this or that.


The law ignores the fact that liberty protects your freedom to do this or that. Liberty and property are constitutionally protected against unreasonable deprivation by government police power. Amendments IV, V, XIV. They are an Article III case and controversy.




Federal simple possession civil offence, expungement.

Title 22 U.S.C. Section 844a (




“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,   




RECENT SCOTUS 20-148 Medical Marijuana Lawsuits




Federal cases to Vacate Marijuana Convictions under habeas corpus



Brief Summary of this case.

U.S.A. v. Sawtelle17cr125

28 U.S.C. 2255 Motion to Vacate marijuana conviction.
Judges willfully lie about the grounds presented. Nazi Justice:

being incarcerated is not a denial of a constitutional right of liberty.





MAINE v. U.S.A. 2019




"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.



MUST READ to understand. Impeach Chief Justice Saufley Maine Supreme Judicial Court;  My opposition to her renomination by Gov. LaPage 2016. I believe her decision in 1998 ME 92  is why she became Chief Justice, Rational police power.


The Maine Courts have declared marijuana laws are rational use of police power, a political question violating the 4th Amendment.


The Maine courts have declared the judicial standard of review of the marijuana laws is rational basis standard because marijuana is not a fundamental right and therefore these criminal laws were a legislative issue, a political question because no fundamental rights have been impinged, deprived by state police power by their enforcement. Marijuana is not a fundamental right. The court (2012ME26)declared the possession of marijuana does not implicate any fundamental right.


Federal and state courts have consisitently ignored my claim the enforcement of the marijuana laws implicates the deprivation of privacy, liberty, and property secured against unreasonable government intrusion by the 4th [5th] and 14th Amendments..


In all my lawsuits I have never ask the courts to declare marijuana a fundamental right.I have never claimed penalties are arbitrary.


2014 DEE V MAINE 2014ME 106 (copy paste)

2012 MSJC MAINE V DEE  2012 ME 26




2006 Judge Crowley Order Doc. No. CV-06-707


2003 Judge Hornsby US District Court District of Maine, Doc. is Misc. No. 03-06-P-H



It is not about the federal classification of marijuana as a controlled substance. It is about criminalizing marijuana and the operation and effect of police power that seizes your person and marijuana and deprives your fundamental rights to liberty and property, without reason,without a compelling state interest, without due process of law. There was no victim of a crime. Police are not protecting public safety. The laws are arbitrarily enforced which demonstrates criminalizing marijuana is unreasonable, unconstitutional violating the 4th 5th, and 14th Amendments.


The role of the judiciary is to defend fundamental rights secured by the Constitution. They can’t defend life, liberty, and property unless a claim of a concrete injury has been presented for adjudication. Being arrested for violating the marijuana laws a person has had standing and the right to ask why criminalizing marijuana is reasonable and necessary.


You do not have to be a lawyer to learn and understand what our rights are and how they are protected by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments against unreasonable government intrusion and how those individual rights are betrayed by those of the judiciary who take an oath to protect them.


The judiciary demeans these Amendments. Lawyers will say the 4th means it is reasonable to seize your person because marijuana is illegal. Due process of the 5th and 14th means only the prosecution of the law. You have your day in court is due process.


These amendments also requires the police laws to be reasonable to protect the right of others, a compelling state interest.


DEFENDANTS should PLEAD not guilty, go to trial, make a motion to dismiss on the grounds that you have been deprived of your fundamental rights to liberty and property without reason,without a compelling state interest, without due process of law. The use of police power in the enforcement of the marijuana laws is unreasonable and  unconstitutional. And see what the judge will do. Some where a judge will recognize some one as a person. But defendants have to bring it to attention of the court.


The courts under the color of law in my lawsuits declared the marijuana laws are a political question. Voting to change the marijuana laws, to be secure against unreasonable police power, makes pot users non persons.

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 Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal