Rafael Riviere Special Agent
Federal Office Building, Suite 526
150 Carlos Chardon Avenue
Hato Rey, PR 00918
RE: Criminal Complaint
Special Agent Riviere,
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. Gibbs Bully is a victim of a crime.
I am requesting that you enforce Title 18 U.S.C. § 242 on George W. Cannon, Jr. Magistrate Judge; Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney; and Daniel H. Huston Assistant U.S. Attorney. The evidence is in the court documents cited below. They have willfully ignored the fact and the law, Amendments IV and V the Constitution of the United States.
Judge Cannon et al. have 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 Bully’s constitutional right of liberty, freedom from physical restraint, habeas corpus.
Bully does not have standing, an Article III controversy, for a Certificate of Appealability. There is no substantial showing of the denial” of [his] constitutional right” of liberty “within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2)” by Bully being incarcerated.
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 law is the operations and effect of criminal laws is deprivation of liberty creating an Article III controversy.
Under the color of law Judge Cannon et al. have treated Bully 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.”
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 our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of
1 of 4
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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF VIRGIN ISLANDS
Division of St. Croix
U.S.A. v. Gibbs Bully
Bully’s Title 28 U.S.C. Chapter 153 Habeas corpus
§ 2255 Motion to Vacate, Habeas Relief
Page 3. GROUND ONE; Mr. Bully 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.
Page 6. RELIEF: To declare liberty is freedom from physical restraint and the U.S. Congress criminalizing marijuana was arbitrary and unreasonable regulation of property, depriving Bully 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 Gibbs Bully
May 10, 2019
/s/ Michael J. Dee
UNITED STATES’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE SENTENCE
Page 2. In his motion, the defendant alleges, “The operation and effect of federal prosecution in the enforcement of these marijuana criminal laws was the seizure of Bully’s person and deprivation of his constitutional right of liberty by the bounds of prison.” Motion to Vacate, pg. 3. In essence, the defendant is challenging the public policy behind the criminalization of marijuana, asserting that it is a “victimless crime.”
Page 4. The designation of marijuana as a
Schedule I controlled substance was made by Congress, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, and remains controlling federal law . . . Moreover, this Court has also rejected a
selective prosecution claim based upon the distinction between the residents of the Virgin Islands
2 of 4
and the residents of states that have
legalized the cultivation and sale of marijuana.
Dated: June 21, 2019
Gretchen C. F. Shappert
United States Attorney,
/s/ Daniel H. Huston Assistant U.S. Attorney
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
B. Alternatively, The Motion Can be Dismissed on the Merits.
Page 10. Those seeking to challenge the DEA’s determination with respect to classification must pursue relief in a United States Court of Appeals. 21 U.S.C. § 877
Page10. In classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug, “the manufacture, distribution, or possession … became a criminal offense,
Page 11. In summary, the designation of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance was made by Congress, has been upheld by the Supreme Court, and remains controlling federal law.
Dated: July 22, 2019
/s/ George W. Cannon, Jr.
George W. Cannon, Jr. Magistrate 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.
The court violated its own rules. These law enforcement officials failed to respond to Bully’s allegation of Ground One for habeas relief in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate.
Bully’s Ground One is not an “allegation” of selective prosecution violating due process as claimed by the government’s response. This is not an attempt for the court to reclassify, reschedule marijuana cited by Judge Cannon. This is not a claim that marijuana is a fundamental right. Marijuana laws have been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States because it is not a fundamental right. Those cases were wrongly presented by ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudicial to the outcome of those decision. Fact is marijuana is property. The right of property is a constitutional right.
3 of 4
Criminal laws are not a public policy issue, a political question. Criminal laws are a constitutional Article III controversy arising from the operation and effect of laws that authorize government police power, the seizure of person and deprivation of liberty.
Ground One is about Bully’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 to proscribe marijuana that has 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.
Under the color of law, Judge Cannon et al. have willfully ignored the fact that being incarcerated in a federal prison is a substantial showing of a denial of Bully’s constitutional right to liberty.
I am filing this 18 U.S.C. 242 criminal complaint against Magistrate Judge George W. Cannon, Jr.; United States Attorney Gretchen C. F. Shappert; and Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel H. Huston, because Gibbs Bully is a victim of their crime. The deprivation of his constitutional right of liberty, freedom from physical restraint, under the color of law a clear violation Title 18 U.S.C. 242.
These law enforcement officials violated their solemn oath to the Constitution by declaring that these criminal (marijuana) laws are a matter of “public policy.” The marijuana laws are not an Article III controversy with actual, concrete injury to Bully’s fundamental, constitutional right of liberty by incarceration, denying due process of law.
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
/s/ 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