Virgin Islands

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 DISTRICT OF VIRGIN ISLANDS
Division of St. Croix

U.S.A. v. Gibbs Bully
1:17-cr-00012-1 

Document 147 
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

Document 164

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.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

Document 168
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
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.  

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.

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.