Maine U. S. District Court

 

UNITED DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

U.S.A. v. Sawtelle 1:17-cr-00125-JDL-2

 

Document No. 142

Sawtelle’s Motion U.S.C. Title 28, Chapter 153 Habeas corpus § 2255
Motion to Vacate, Habeas Relief

Ground One: Page. 3

“Mr. Sawtelle is being illegally deprived of a substantial constitutional right, his liberty. Congress criminalized marijuana without compelling government reasons therefore without due process of law contravening the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and is unconstitutional.”

Relief: Page. 6

“To declare liberty is freedom from physical restraint and the U.S. Congress criminalizing marijuana was arbitrary and unreasonable regulation of property, depriving Sawtelle 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.”


Dated May 29, 2019 /s/ Terrence M. Sawtelle


1 of 4

 

Document No.. 144

United States Response

 

Pages 5 “He argues that access to marijuana should be a fundamental right and that regulations on marijuana should be subject to strict scrutiny review.” 

Dated at Bangor this 29th day of July 2019. 

 

       HALSEY B. FRANK        United States Attorney
       /s/
 Joel B. Casey        Assistant United States Attorney

 

Document No. 147 

Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION

 

Page 6 “It has long been established that use of marijuana is not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution”

 

Page 7. I further recommend that the Court deny a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Dated this 17th day of December, 2019.

 /s/ John C. Nivison, U.S. Magistrate Judge 

 

 

 Document No. 149 

Order Accepting the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge

 

It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 147) is hereby ACCEPTED, and the Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 Petition (ECF No. 142) is DISMISSED.  It is further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability should issue in the event the Petitioner files a notice of appeal because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2). SO ORDERED.           

Dated this 6th day of February, 2020.     

       /s/ Jon D. Levy Chief Judge U.S. District Judge
 

II

The evidence is clearly written in these court documents. Any claim by Sawtelle that marijuana is a fundamental constitutional right is lie. The court violated its own rules. These law enforcement officials failed to respond to Sawtelle’s allegation of Ground One for habeas relief in his 28 U.S.C. 2255 Motion to Vacate. Being incarcerated is a substantial showing of a denial

                                                                                                         2 of 4

of a constitutional right, his liberty. These law enforcement officials violated their solemn oath to the Constitution by implying that these criminal (marijuana) laws are not an Article III case or controversy.

The signers of these documents are declaring that these marijuana laws are a political question, rational, political police power, because marijuana is not a fundamental right. The signers of these government court documents deny Sawtelle is a person protected by 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.”

III

RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2255 PROCEEDINGS FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules-governing-section-2254-and-section-2255-proceedings.pdf

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.
  

 

Print Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal