1220 Echelon Parkway
Jackson, MS 39213
RE: Criminal Complaint
Special Agent Sutphin,
I am reporting a systemic crime, a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 242. Willful deprivation of liberty without due process of law, under the color of law. Steven Davison is one victim.
I am requesting that you enforce Title 18 U.S.C. 242 on Daniel P. Jordan III, Chief United States District Judge. The evidence is in the court documents cited below. He has ignored the fact and the law, the Constitution of the United States and ruled under the color of law.
Judge Jordan 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 Davison’s constitutional right of liberty, freedom from physical restraint, habeas corpus.
The court declared, Davison does not have standing, an Article III case or controversy for a Certificate of Appealability. There “
This is not judicial misconduct. This is a systemic crime that indicts all law enforcement official treating criminal laws as a political question violating their solemn oath to the Constitution. The operations and effect of criminal laws create an Article III case or controversy.
“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.”
Color 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
1 of 4
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
In the United States District Court
Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division
United States of America v. Steven
Document No. 195
Page 3. Ground One: Mr. Davison is in custody in violation of Amendments IV and V of the Constitution of the United States; He is being deprived of his liberty by incarceration without compelling government reasons for congress to proscribe marijuana therefore without due process of law.
Page 6. Relief: To declare liberty still means freedom from physical restraint and the U.S. Congress proscribing marijuana was arbitrary and unreasonable deprivation of property, depriving Mr. Davison of his liberty without compelling reasons, without due process of law contravening the 4th and 5th Amends. of the U. S. Constitution thus vacating his conviction and sentence.
[In] behalf of Steven Davison,
/s/ Michael J. Dee
Page 3. Due-process
challenges to marijuana prosecutions “have been brought in various jurisdictions throughout the United States and have been uniformly rejected.” United States v. Zachariah, No. 16-CR-694-XR, 2018 WL
3017362, at *1 (W.D. Tex. June 15, 2018) (collecting cases). Had Davison’s counsel raised such a challenge here, the Court would have rejected it as frivolous.
2 of 4
Page 1Foot note 1
Rule 2(b)(5) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts requires a § 2255 motion to “be signed under penalty of perjury by the movant or by a person authorized to sign it for the movant.”
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 3rd day of March, 2020.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III Chief United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A Certificate of Appealability should not issue. The applicant has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 3rd day of March, 2020.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III, Chief United States District Judge
Page 1. Shortly thereafter, a second, virtually identical, § 2255 motion was filed, only this one was signed by Davison himself. Mot. .
Page 2. Regardless, the second motion would have failed on the merits for the same reasons as the first. See Mar. 3, 2020 Order .
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 18th day of March, 2020.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
Chief United States District Judge
Rules 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.
(arbitrary) prosecution of federal marijuana laws in
states that legalized it. Ground One is about
his right of liberty, freedom from physical restraint by seeking habeas relief. This was about his constitutional right of due process of law being willfully denied. He has a constitutional right to know the compelling reasons to proscribe marijuana that deprived him of his liberty, freedom from physical restraint. There are none. Marijuana is not a noxious weed, deleterious, dangerous property. There are no victims of a political crime.
The Judge Jordan violated his solemn oath to Amendment IV that places constitutional limitation to government police power to be reasonable to protect the rights of others and not political or rational.
I am filing this 18 U.S.C. 242 criminal complaint against Daniel P. Jordan III, Chief United States District Judge, a law enforcement official, because Davison is a victim of Judge Jordan’s crime. Deprivation of Davison’s liberty under the color of law by willful demeaning of due process of law in Ground One of Davison’s 2255 motion to vacate conviction.
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 the 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 “
Michael J. Dee
29 Hillcrest St.
Augusta Maine 04330
P.S. You can access the court documents at PACER. https://pacer.uscourts.gov/
4 of 4