USPS TRACKING No. 7018 0360 0002 0227 4961 mailed 11/24/2020
Leon C. Simon Boulevard
Special Agent New Orleans, LA 70126
RE; Criminal Complaint
Special Agent Vorndean,
I am reporting a systemic crime within the judiciary, a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 242. Willful deprivation of liberty without due process of law, under the color of law by Article III Courts. Robert E. Robinson is a one victim of that crime.
I am requesting that you enforce Title 18 U.S.C. 242 on United States District Judge Terry A. Doughty. The evidence is in the court documents cited below. Judge Doughty has willfully ignored the fact and the law, Amendments IV and V the Constitution of the United States. His ruling was under the color of law.
Judge Doughty has willfully ignored the fact that being incarcerated in a federal prison is seizure of person, deprivation of liberty. This is a substantial showing of a denial of Robinson’s constitutional right of liberty, freedom from physical restraint, habeas corpus. This is
This is not judicial misconduct. This is a systemic crime, political police power, that indicts all law enforcement official treating criminal laws as a political question violating their solemn oath to the Constitution.
The rule of law is the operations and effect of criminal laws is deprivation of liberty creating an Article III case and controversy.
Under the color of law Judge Doughty has treated Robinson as a non-person, not protected by law, Amendments IV & V of the Constitution of the United States.
“The right of the people 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.”
Law enforcement officers and other
officials like judges and prosecutors have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our
1 of 4
Preventing abuse of this authority,
however, is equally necessary to the health of our
nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law.
Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law Title 18 USC 242 http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php
The FBI is the “lead federal agency for investigating color of law violations, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority.
In the United States District Court
Western District of Louisiana Monroe Division
U.S.A. v. Robinson
Page 3. Ground One: Mr. Robinson is in custody in violation of Amendments IV and V of the Constitution of the United States. He is being deprived of his liberty, without compelling government reasons for congress to proscribe marijuana as a controlled dangerous substance, therefore without due process of law.
Page 6. Relief: To declare liberty is freedom from physical restraint and the U.S. Congress proscribing marijuana as a controlled dangerous substance was arbitrary and unreasonable regulation of property, depriving Mr. Robinson's liberty without compelling reasons, without due process of law contravening Amendments IV and V of the U.S. Constitution thus vacating both his convictions Counts 4, 5.
May 4th, 2020 /s/ Robert Robinson
Page 4. The Fourth Amendment provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . .” U.S. CONST., AMEND. IV
Page 5. “The Fourth Amendment . . . ‘always
has been thought to define’ the appropriate process ‘for seizures of person[s] . . . in criminal cases . . . Robinson does not
allege that officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, and he was arrested pursuant to a properly issued warrant. Nor does he allege that his pre-trial process was
2 of 4
constitutionally deficient in any other
way. Rather, Robinson challenges the law under
which he was convicted and his incarceration subject to that law. Under these circumstances, the Fourth Amendment provides no basis for his claim.
Page 6. Claims such as those raised by Robinson have been raised by other prisoners throughout the United States and have been uniformly rejected. . . . no prosecution in the state courts, but faces prosecution in the federal courts, creating a violation of the Due Process Clause
Page 7. Further, the Government need not offer “compelling” reasons for prosecution of Robinson’s marijuana offenses because there is no fundamental right to possess, use, or distribute marijuana.
Page 8. The Court agrees with the courts which have rejected claims such as those raised by Robinson.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 13th day of May, 2020.
/s/Terry A. Doughty United States District Judge
Certificate of Appealability
A final order having been filed in the above-captioned habeas case, the Court, considering the record in this case and the requirements of 28 U.S.C. ' 2253, hereby finds that:
The certificate of appealability is DENIED because the applicant has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 13th day of May, 2020.
Governing Section 2255 Proceedings
For the United States District Court
Rule 5. The Answer and The Reply.
(a) When Required. The respondent is not required to answer the motion unless a judge so orders.
(b) Contents. The answer must address the allegations in the motion.
The court violated its own rules. Judge Doughty failed to respond to Robertson’s allegation of Ground One for habeas relief in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate. Being incarcerated is deprivation of liberty, a concrete injury of a constitutional right.
Judge Doughty believes both clauses of Amendment IV refer to
probable cause and “provides no basis for his claim.” The first
clause of the Fourth Amendment refers to the reasonableness of the law that authorizes the use of police power to search and seize persons, houses, papers and effects. To claim this section is
about probable cause makes the second clause redundant.
3 of 3
Robertson’s Ground One is not an “allegation” of selective prosecution violating due process as claimed in the court’s response. This is not a claim that marijuana is a fundamental right. Fact is: marijuana is property. The right to acquire property is a constitutional right.
Due process requires the deprivation of fundamental rights to be justified by compelling government interest, reasons for the law. Substantive Due Process of law includes the substance, the compelling reasons for the law.
Ground One is about Robertson’s right of liberty, freedom from physical restraint by seeking habeas relief. This is about his constitutional right of due process of law being willfully denied. He has a constitutional right to know the compelling reasons for Congress to proscribe marijuana that has deprived him of his constitutional right of liberty, freedom from physical restraint.
I am filing this 18 U.S.C. 242 criminal complaint against Terry A. Doughty United States District Judge because Robert E. Robertson is a victim of his crime. The deprivation of Robertson’s constitutional rights of due process and liberty (freedom from physical restraint, without compelling reasons for Congress to proscribe marijuana, therefore without due process of law) was under the color of law violating Title 18 U.S.C. 242.
Judge Doughty violated his solemn oath to the Constitution by declaring that these criminal (marijuana) laws are a political question, rational police power.
As the federal marijuana laws stand, under the color of law, there is no equal justice under the law. Justice is not the guardian of liberty. Liberty and justice for all is a lie. The original meaning of liberty is not a constitutional right, freedom from physical restraint.
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
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
4 of 4