LIBERTY, FREEDOM FROM PHYSICAL RESTRAINT
East side of U.S. Supreme Court.
JUSTICE THE GUARDIAN OF LIBERTY
"Fouled Up Beyond Any Recognition"
(FUBAR)
Active Marijuana Habeas Corpus Case
SCOTUS 22-6144
Past Habeas Corpus Cases U.S. District Courts to SCOTUS
SCOTUS RULES 20. 4. (a)(b) IS INCONSISTANT WITH FEDERAL
“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
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)
http://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2014/14me106de.pdf
2012 MSJC MAINE V DEE 2012 ME 26
http://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/opinions/2012_documents/12me26de.pdf
2006 Judge Crowley Order Doc. No. CV-06-707 http://Mainelaw.maine.edu/library/SuperiorCourt/decisions/CUMcv-06-707.pdf
2003 Judge Hornsby US District Court District of Maine, Doc. is Misc. No.
03-06-P-H
http://www.leagle.com/decision/2003291241FSupp2d50_1282
http://www.med.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Hornby/2003/DBH_01292003_2-03mc06_DEE_V_UNITED_STATES.pdf
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
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. http://www.courts.maine.gov/index.shtml
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
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 