HABEAS CORPUS MAILINGS 4/12/2021

Eight applications for writ of habeas  corpus were placed into snail mail by 04/12/2021  to seven U.S. District Courts in six Circuit Courts of Appeals. The documents are the same but except the first page to Maine District Court. I have been  86ed from filing without permission for over 20 years. Names are  deleted. XXXXXX.To avoid collateral INJURY.

 

The question is:  Am I "someone"?     The problem is I didn't do it right. So I sent the documents via email to their lawyers. Requested they file a motion to dismiss. There is also post conviction relief. 28 USC 2255 motion to vacate.

 

28 U.S.C. 2242. "Application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed . . .  by someone acting in his behalf."

 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

for the Western District of New York
Case 1:20-cr-00092-JLS-JJM
______________________________________________________

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST JOHN
3:20-cr-00020-RAM-RM

                              ___________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF EASTERN MICHIGAN
 2:20-mj-30162-Duty-1

_____________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE DISTRICT OF EASTERN CALIFORNIA
1:20-cr-57-NONE-GKO

______________________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case No. 21-40018-TC
__________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
 Case No. 20-MJ- 1097

1:21-cv-353 filed 4/15/2021

______________________________

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

Enjoined from Filing 

2:98-cv-37-DBH Filed 04/14/2021

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

               V                                                                         2:18-CR-63-GZS

XXXXXXX  XXXXXXX

PERMISSION TO FILE THIS DOCUMENT.
 APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN BEHALF OF XXXXXXX  XXXXXXX
28 U.S. Code § 2241, § 2242, § 2243

               I am asking this court to reconsider its position that the marijuana laws are a political question because marijuana is not a constitutional right. This has happened because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Marijuana laws are an Article III case and controversy. The seizure of person and deprivation of liberty is the case. The deprivation of liberty by government police power is the controversy. This is greater need of judicial resolution than the defining who “someone” is to file in behalf of a defendant. Being arrested,out on bond, incarcerated and supervised release are substantial denial of the constitutional right of liberty, freedom from physical restraint.
               I am requesting the court to grant permission and accept this filing for Writ of Habeas Corpus in behalf of the defendant,XXXXXXX  XXXXXXX. Order the government to respond within 15 days with compelling reasons for the Congress to proscribe marijuana/cannabis to justify the deprivation of defendant’s liberty, freedom from physical restraint. There are none, only systemic political justice.

Respectfully requested.

Dated:  04/12/2021

 

Michael J. Dee
29 Hillcrest St.
Augusta, Maine 04330
207-894-0319
mjdeeour4th@ outlook.com

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

2:18-CR-63-GZS

 

 

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN BEHALF OF XXXXXXX    XXXXXXX

28 U.S. Code § 2241, § 2242, § 2243

“SOMEONE” IN BEHALF OF LIBERTY

This application for a writ of habeas corpus is signed by “someone acting in” defendant’s “behalf” not on his behalf as a lawyer.  28 U.S. Code § 2242. There is no definition who “someone” can be. Reason: ineffective assistance of counsel.

Count 1: Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) Conspiracy to manufacture, distribute and possess within intent to distribute100 or more plants and 100 or more kilograms of marijuana.  

 

Defendant is in custody of United States of America, U.S. Attorney, for violating federal marijuana (cannabis) laws. Defendant is in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States under or by color of the authority of the United States. Defendant is committed for trial before this court and faces number years of incarceration plus a few years of supervised release. Being in custody is deprivation of liberty.

Every person has a fundamental right to liberty . . .” Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 465. (1991). “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 349, 352 (2d Cir. 1973). “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and
                                                                      1.
officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. 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). Criminal laws are an Article III case and controversy subject to adjudication by this court under strict scrutiny standard of review. This is not about claiming marijuana is fundamental right. It is not about rational judicial review. It is habeas relief from rational, political police power and deprivation of liberty without compelling reasons, without due process of law, under the color of law.

Ground for Writ of Habeas Corpus: Defendant is in federal custody in violation of Amendments IV and V of the Constitution of the United States. He has been deprived of liberty, without compelling reasons for Congress to proscribe marijuana, therefore without due process of law. Standing.

Amendment IV. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure shall not be violated:  . . .” This part of Amendment IV refers to reasonableness of the law that authorized police power to seize Defendant’s person and deprive her of liberty (as well as property).  “The validity of regulatory measures may be challenged on the ground that they transgress the Constitution, and thereupon it becomes the duty of the court, in the light of the facts in the case, to determine whether the regulation is reasonable and valid or essentially unreasonable, arbitrary and void.” Norfolk & W.R. Co. v Public Service Commission of West Virginia 265 U.S. 70, 74 (1924)

Amendment V. “No persons shall . . .  be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of Law.” This application for habeas relief is about “due process” of creating the law, the
                                                                      2.
substance of the law, the compelling reasons for United States’ Congress to proscribe cannabis and depriving the Defendant’s constitutional right of liberty, the greatest of all rights, freedom from physical restraint. This is not about a liberty interest to do this or that.

One of the constitutional guarantees of due process of law requires that strict scrutiny review applies to the denial of a fundamental right. The law must be justified by compelling government reasons protecting public welfare, supported by facts, for the United States Congress to proscribe marijuana as a dangerous controlled substance. The issue is not about medicinal use. Safety of use determines medicinal use. Safety of use is demonstrated by states legalizing marijuana by the political process. This makes the defendant a nonperson subjected to seizure by rational, political police power.

“Schedule I drugs are subject to the most severe controls; they are deemed the most dangerous substances, possessing no redeeming value as a medicine.” Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v DEA, 930 F2d 936, at 937. (D.C. Cir. 1991). “[W]e recognized that the constitutionality of a statute, valid on its face, may be assailed by proof of facts tending to show that the statute as applied to a particular article is without support in reason because the article, although within the prohibited class, is so different from others of the class as to be without the reason for the prohibition. “United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153-154 (1938).

RULE OF LAW

The States legalizing marijuana are in violation of Article VI of the United States Constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI.

 

 

3.

United Nations’ Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 Art. 36. “Penal provisions a) Subject to its constitutional limitations. .. . www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1961_en.pdf

Codified by Title 21 U.S.C. 811( d) (1) “If control is required by United States obligation . . .” www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/811.htm

The court declaring constitutional limitation on U.S. Congress to proscribe cannabis by Amendments IV and V does not violate International treaties and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

APPLICANT’S RELIEF REQUESTED
IN BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX

               Grant habeas corpus relief. To declare the fundamental right, the constitutional right of liberty is still freedom from physical restraint. That the United States Congress proscribing marijuana as a controlled substance was arbitrary and unreasonable regulation of property. The operation and effect of enforcing marijuana laws has deprived Defendant’s liberty without compelling reasons for the U.S. Congress to proscribe marijuana/cannabis, therefore without due process of law, violating Amendments IV and V of the United States Constitution. To declare marijuana is constitutionally protected property. Dismiss the Indictment. Grant any other relief to which the defendant may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted IN BEHALF of Defendant  XXXXXXX   XXXXXXX

Dated: 04/12/2021

 

Michael J. Dee
29 Hillcrest St.
Augusta, ME 04330
207-894-0319
mjdeeour4th@outlook.com

 

Print Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal