United States District Court
District of Maine

U.S.A. v. Sawtelle 17cr125

            These following law enforcement official have willully deprived the constitutional right of liberty in a 28 U.S.C § 2255 motion to vacate under Chapter 153 Writ of habeas corpus. This motion is used for post conviction relief not pretrial. 

         These law enforcement official violated Rules Governing Section 2255 proceedings for the United States District Court, Rule 5(b).

Halsey B. Frank United States Attorney District of Maine
Joel B. Casey, Assistant United States Attorney District of Maine
John C. Nivison, U.S. Magistrate Judge District of Maine
Jon D. Levy Chief U.S. District Judge District of Maine

Does the appellate process allow United States Attorney of Maine and United States District Court judges to willfully lie about the merits, the grounds,  in an  28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate therefore willfully deprive the constitutional right of liberty by incarceration under the color of law?

Law enforcement officials declared "there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2).Being incarcerated is not a denial of a substantial constitutional right of liberty.

Defendant Terrance Sawtelle had filed  for habeas relief under Title 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate on the grounds that he is being deprive of his constitutional right of liberty by incarceration without compelling reasons to proscribe marijuana, therefore without due process of law, violating Amendments IV and V of the United States Constitution.

These law enforcement official willfully misrepresents the merits of ground one. There is no claim that marijuana is a fundamental right. Judges feel they can violate their solemn oath to the constitution because defendant can appeal.

  The following are key points of the court documents on record.

Document No. 142

MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE,
SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE BY A PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2255

GROUND ONE

“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.”

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

Document No. 144

                                    UNITED STATES RESPONSE page 5-7

1. Fifth Amendment Substantive Due Process Challenge

“He argues that access to marijuana should be a fundamental right and that any

regulations on marijuana should be subject to strict scrutiny review.”

Dated at Bangor this 29th day of July 2019.  Respectfully submitted, 

       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

B. Analysis of Claim Go to page 6-7

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

CONCLUSION

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).

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

Dated this 17th day of December, 2019.

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 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Jurisdiction: Habeas Corpus  
https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/jurisdiction-habeas-corpus

The term habeas corpus refers most commonly to the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, which directs the custodian of a prisoner to bring that prisoner before a court and explain the reasons for his or her confinement. A writ of habeas corpus is a challenge to the legality of a prisoner's detention and does not directly or necessarily entail an inquiry into the prisoner's guilt or innocence. After examining the reasons for confinement, the court that issued the writ may release the prisoner or remand the prisoner into custody. The "great writ of liberty," as it is often called, is a judicial remedy aimed at preventing the arbitrary use of executive power to imprison individuals without just cause.

The “Great” Writ
https://fee.org/articles/the-great-writ/

The writ of habeas corpus . . . is known as “the Great Writ.” It generally is a procedural remedy commanding a custodian, such as a sheriff, to bring a detained party, such as a prisoner, before the court to show cause for the detainment and to prove whether the detainment is lawful or justified. If the detainment is not lawful or justified, the detained party may be released.