Latest court decision declaring marijuana a legislative issue AND police power has a rational basis. The Fourth Amendment says police power is either reasonable or unreasonable.
2015 October US District Court of Maine
http://www.med.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Hornby/2015/DBH_10142015_2-15mc326_DEE_V_MAINE.pdf
MSJC Decision 2014ME106.
Writ of certorari to the SCOTUS docketed as 14-667.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-667.htm
Denied 20 January, 2015
Why was it denied? I believe the question presented was not enough.
I should not of added "Summary reversal and remand is justice delayed." (see below) I was hoping they would do that. But I wanted the court to review the merits of the state marijuana laws as being unreasonable. But I didn't have this as a second question.
So I failed again. I complained about the type of judicial review by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. I did not include a question about the unreasonableness of the marijuana laws.
The fact remains the Maine courts refuse to recognize the use of state police power deprives fundamental rights tp liberty and property because marijuana is not a fundamental right. Judicial review is rational basis. Marijuana is a political question and the use of police power is political and not protecting the rights of others.
The Judiciary is treating marijuana users as second class citizens. The Maine judiciary are traitors of liberty the 4th and 14th Amendments allowing the war on drugs to continue
No. 14-667
========================================
In The Supreme Court of the United States
MICHAEL J. DEE Petitioner
v.
STATE OF MAINE Respondent
-------------------
On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
To The Maine Supreme Judicial Court
-------------------
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
------------------
Michael J. Dee, pro se
29 Hillcrest ST.
Augusta, Maine 04330
(207) 894-0319
our4th@ursm.us
========================================
i
Question Presented for Review
Whether Mr. Dee’s Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the law and due process of law were denied by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court by reviewing the constitutionality of the Maine marijuana laws use of state police power by rational basis standard of review.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………...........................................................................… ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...........................................................................................................iv
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ..….............................................................................. 1
OPINIONS BELOW .................................................................................................................... 1
JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED….......................................................................... 2
MAINE STATUTES INVOLVED................................................................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE………….……….........................................................................… 3
A. Federal Question Jurisdiction……....................................................................................... 3
B. The Superior Court Proceedings………................................................................................3
C. Appellate Court Proceedings …….........................................................................................6
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
........................................................7
A. Mr. Dee’s Fourth Amendment And The
Fourteenth Amendments’ Rights To Equal Protection
Of Law And Due Process Of Law Were Denied By the Maine Supreme
Judicial Court ............................................ 7
CONCLUSION…...........................................................................................................................9
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS- Continued
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A Maine Supreme Judicial Court Decision 2014 ME 106, 99 A.3d 285…...........App. 1
http://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2014/14me106de.pdf
APPENDIX B Cumberland County Superior Court Order Docket No. CV -13-289……........App. 5
(see below)
APPENDIX C Order on Reconsideration Denied Decision 2014 ME 106, 99 A.3d 285..…...App. 7
APPENDIX D. Maine Marijuana Statute...............................................................................… App. 8
APPENDIX E Petition for DeclaratoryJudgment ...................................................................App. 12
(see below)
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. v. Highway Comm'n 294 U.S. 613, 622 (1935)...............……. 7
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=294&invol=613
Plessy v. Ferguson163 U.S. 537, 550 (1896)……............................................................................7
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=163&invol=537
State v. Dee,39 A.3d 42.…………………………............................................................................... 4
http://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/opinions/2012_documents/12me26de.pdf
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Fourth Amendment……………..................................................................................................... passim
Fourteenth Amendment………………...........................................................................................passim
FEDERAL STATUTE
28 U.S.C. Section 1257(a)……………………...................................................................................1
MAINE STATUTES
Title17 -A M.R.S.A. § 1117 (1)(B)(3)..………....................................................................................3
Title17-A M.R.S.A. § 1117 (1)(B)(4)..……........................................................................................2,3
Title17-A M.R.S. § 1106(1-A).…………….........................................................................................2
Title 22 M.R.S. § 2383(1)(A).……….................................................................................................2,3
1
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner respectfully petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the State of Maine Supreme Judicial Court. (App. 1) http://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2014/14me106de.pdf
OPINIONS BELOW
The opinion of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court is reported as Michael J. Dee v. State of Maine, 2014 ME 106 , 93 A.3d 285; 2014WL3953764. Affirming the unpublished
opinion of the State of Maine Cumberland County Superior Court Docket CV-13-289( App.5 )
JURISDICTION
The judgment of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Dee v, State of Maine 2014 ME 106, 93 A.3d 285 was entered August 14, 2014. (App.1) Denial for Reconsideration was September 30, 2014. (App. 7
)
The statutory provision authorizing Supreme Court review of state cases is 28 U.S.C. Section 1257(a).
2
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Constitution of the United States
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be search, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment XIV(1) Because all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
MAINE STATUTES INVOLVED
(Appendix D, App. 8)
Title 22 M.R.S. § 2383(1)(A) (2011) Possession of marijuana (civil) (< 2.5 oz.)
Title17-A M.R.S.A. § 1117 (1)(B)(3) Cultivation of marijuana. (6-99 plants)
3
Title17-A M.R.S.A. § 1117 (1)(B)(3) and (4) Cultivation of marijuana ( 1-5 plants)
Title 17-A M.R.S. § 1106(1-A) (2013) (unlawfully furnishing scheduled drugs) ( > 2.5 oz.)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Federal Question Jurisdiction
The federal claim is the unreasonable deprivation and threatened deprivation of Dee’s federal rights to liberty and property by the
enforcement of the marijuana laws. These rights are secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and were properly raised but denied in the lower courts. This Court has jurisdiction to review this
lower court judgment on a writ of certiorari.
B. The State of Maine Superior Court Proceedings
In summary, Dee’s petition for declaratory judgment, sought a judgment that provisions in several Maine marijuana statutes— 22 M.R.S.A. §2383(1) (2013) (possession of marijuana), 17-A M.R.S. §
1117(1) (2013) (cultivating marijuana), and 17-A M.R.S.A § 1106(1-A) (2013) (unlawfully furnishing scheduled drugs)—are unconstitutional, (App. 12) Dee’s contends that these statutes violate the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution because they are unreasonable. See U.S. Const, amends. IV, XIV, § 1. Dee argues that the use of police power to enforce the
marijuana laws deprived him and threatened to deprive him of his fundamental rights to property and
4
liberty, without a compelling state interest, therefore without due process of law. He claims his right to be secure against
unreasonable searches and seizures, state police power, has been violated.
Dee did not claim marijuana is a fundamental right in his filings. Why would he? Marijuana is property. (App. 12)
The State of Maine responded with a Motion to Dismiss for Dee’s failure to ask permission of the court before filing.
In spite of this procedural deficiency, Justice Wheeler considered the merits of Dee’s petition for declaratory judgment. The Superior court response was this statement. “Mr. Dee's current suit
argues the same points previously rejected by this Court, the Law Court, and other courts in Maine and other states. Mr. Dee's suit is therefore frivolous and is accordingly dismissed.”
(App. 5 )
C. Appellate Court Proceedings
Dee appealed the Superior court decision to the
Maine Supreme Judicial Court. The law court acknowledged the federal issues in its decision.(App.1)
[¶1] Specifically, [Dee] contends that the [marijuana] statutes violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. amends. IV, XIV,§ 1. The court found
that several Maine courts have already considered and rejected Dee’s arguments, and determined that the suit was frivolous. We agree and affirm the judgment. See State v. Dee, 39 A.3d
42.
5
[¶2] In multiple instances, Maine courts have considered and rejected Dee’s arguments that marijuana laws violated his fundamental rights to property and liberty, his right to due process, his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and his purported fundamental right to possess marijuana.
[¶3] Notwithstanding Maine courts’ repeated determinations that Dee’s claims have no legal merit and that the Legislature, not the judiciary, is the proper forum to address this issue.
In the decision State of Maine v. Dee, 39 A.3d 42
[¶2] Dee concedes that he does not have a fundamental right to possess marijuana, but he insists that the prohibition violates "his fundamental right to liberty and to property." Not withstanding this linguistic leap, we are not persuaded that Dee's possession of marijuana implicates any of his fundamental rights.
[¶3] Where fundamental rights are not implicated, we review the validity of a statute exercising the State's police power for a rational basis.” “Legislature is not required to provide the facts that justify its enactment. The State of Maine’s proscription “of marijuana does not violate his right to due process.
6
D. Summary
The lower courts have declared the marijuana laws are a political question, a legislative issue because marijuana is not a fundamental right. Dee has never claimed marijuana to be a fundamental right but the lower court’s decisions have been based on this false claim.
The lower courts have denied the enforcement of the marijuana laws deprived Dee of his explicit federal rights of liberty and property by state police power.
The lower courts are declaring Dee is not a person protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the
United States.
Only persons have the security in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure. Only persons have their liberty and property protected by due process
of law. Only persons have equal protection of the law, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
What is the lower courts declaring frivolous?
Dee’s claim, the use of state power is either reasonable or unreasonable, is frivolous.
7
Sending Dee to the legislature to change the marijuana laws and to be secure against state police power is confirming that Dee is a non person.
REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Mr. Dee’s Fourth Amendment And The Fourteenth Amendments’ Rights To Equal Protection Of Law And Due Process Of Law Were Denied By the Maine Supreme Judicial Court
By reviewing the marijuana laws use of state police power by rational basis, the decision below is in conflict with the Fourth Amendment and of this Court’s past opinions on this subject. Police power is either reasonable or unreasonable, not rational or irrational.
In 1896, Mr. Justice Brown wrote: Every exercise of the “police power must be reasonable, and extend only to such laws as are enacted in good faith for the promotion of the public good, and not for the annoyance or oppression of a particular class.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 550 (1896)
Mr. Justice McReynolds stated that: “The police power of a state… is subordinate to constitutional limitations.” It is the governmental power of self-protection and permits reasonable regulation of rights and property in particulars essential to the preservation of the community from injury.” Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. v. Highway Comm'n, 294 U.S. 613, 622 (1935).
8
The analysis under the Fourth Amendment is that reasonableness depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security.
The lower courts, do not have the authority to discriminate and deny equal protection of law which has been provided for the protection of liberty and private property against unreasonable government intrusion.
The Fourth Amendment does not say the people are secure from irrational searches and seizure. Rational police power is what? A police state?
The lower courts are declaring police power of a state is not subordinate to constitutional limitations.
The decision of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court used rational basis standard of review to determine the validity of the marijuana laws is repugnant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and cannot be reconciled.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court declared the marijuana laws use of state police power is a legislative issue is deprivation of Dee’s inalienable rights to liberty and property without a compelling state interest, without due process of law.
9
The lower court has denied Dee equal protection and due process of law of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to question the constitutionality of the Maine marijuana laws.
CONCLUSION
Summary reversal and Remand is justice delayed.
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: November 25, 2014.
Michael J. Dee
29 Hillcrest St.
Augusta, Maine 04330
(207)894-0319
our4th@ursm.us
APPENDIX A
http://www.courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2014/14me106de.pdf
APPENDIX B
STATE OF MAINE
SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss
CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-13-289
MICHAEL J. DEE, Plaintiff
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
STATE OF MAINE, Defendant
Before the Court is the State's motion to dismiss for plaintiffs violation of a court order enjoining him from filing suit without court approval.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging various aspects of Maine's marijuana laws as unconstitutional. Mr. Dee has a long history of challenging marijuana laws in
Maine courts and elsewhere. See State v. Dee, 2012 ME 26,12n.l, 39 A.3d 42. In 2007, the Superior Court (Crowley, J.) enjoined Mr. Dee "from filing further lawsuits in Maine courts to challenge the
marijuana laws without prior approval of the court." Dee v. State, 2007 WL 4698274 (Me. Super. June 25, 2007). The Court explained its ruling:
Over a span of twelve years, Dee has repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to litigate this issue in state and federal courts, described in detail above. At every turn, courts have informed him
that his claims have no legal merit and that the legislature, not the judiciary, is App. 6
the proper forum for addressing this issue. Thus, the Court enjoins him from filing further lawsuits in Maine courts to challenge the constitutionality of the State's civil and criminal marijuana
laws without prior approval from the court. Id. Mr. Dee also moves the Court to grant him permission to file his petition.
DISCUSSION
"It is well-settled that a court may enjoin a party from filing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits." Spickler v. Key Bank of S. Maine, 618 A.2d 204, 207 (Me. 1992). Mr. Dee's current suit argues the
same points previously rejected by this Court, the Law Court, and other courts in Maine and other states. Mr. Dee's suit is therefore frivolous and is accordingly dismissed.
The entry is: Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Date: 10/24/13
/s/ Joyce A. Wheeler Justice,
Superior Court
APPENDIX E
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND COUINTY
MICHAEL J. DEE,
PLAINTIFF
VS.
STATE OF MAINE DEFENDANT
DOCKET No.
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court pursuant to Title 14 M.R.S.A. 5953- 54; M.R.Cv.P. 54; and Amendment XIV section 1of the Constitution of the United States.
2. I, Michael J. Dee, am a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, am a citizen of the United States and of Cumberland County, State of Maine.
3. I, Michael J. Dee, am a person whose constitutional, fundamental rights to liberty and property have been deprived by a statute; who’s rights are continuously being threatened by criminal statutes, seeks an impartial judicial review by strict scrutiny of these statutes based on facts presented and equal protection of the law. To have this court to determine the construction and the validity of these statutes and obtain a declaration of rights.
4. Plaintiff claims when contesting the constitutionality of criminal statutes, it is not necessary that he first expose himself to actual arrest and prosecution to be entitled to challenge the statutes that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights to liberty and property.
pg. 1
5. Plaintiff claims, without a compelling state interest, the operation and effect of Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2383(1) has deprived him of his liberty and property without due process of law contravening Amendment XIV of the U. S. Constitution and is unconstitutional.
6. Plaintiff claims without a compelling state interest, Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2383(1) use of police power deprived
him of his right to be secure in his person, and effects from unreasonable seizures contravening Amendment IV, made applicable to the State of Maine by the due process clause of Amendment XIV and is
unconstitutional.
7. Plaintiff claims Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2383(1) has been, publicly, arbitrarily enforced on him by law enforcement officials, contravening the due process clause of Amendment XIV and is unconstitutional.
II
Title17-A M.R.S.A. § 1117 (1)(B)(3) Cultivation Class D Crime
8. Plaintiff claims without a compelling state interest he has been threatened to be deprived of
his liberty and property without due process of law by the enforcement of Title17-A M.R.S.A. § 1117 (1)(B)(3) contravening Amendment XIV and is unconstitutional.
9. Plaintiff claims without a compelling state interest, Title17-A M.R.S.A. § 1117 (1)(B)(3) threatens to deprive him of his right to be secure in his person, house,
papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures contravening Amendment IV made applicable to the State of Maine by the due process clause of Amendment XIV and is
unconstitutional.
10. Plaintiff claims the use of police power to enforce Title17-A M.R.S.A. § 1117 (1)(B)(3) would not be protecting the rights of others, public safety and contravenes the due process clause of Amendment XIV and is unconstitutional.
pg. 2.
III
Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1117 (1)(B)(4) Cultivation Class E Crime
11. Plaintiff claims, without a compelling state interest, he has been threatened by the use of state police power to be deprived of his liberty and property without due process of law by the enforcement of Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1117 (1)(B)(4) contravening Amendment XIV and is unconstitutional,
12. Plaintiff claims without a compelling state interest, Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1117 (1)(B)(4) threatens to deprived him of his right to be secure in his person, house, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures contravening Amendment IV made applicable to the State of Maine by the due process clause of Amendment XIV and is unconstitutional.
13. Plaintiff claims the use of police power to enforce Title17-A M.R.S.A. § 1117 (1)(B)(4) would not be protecting the rights of others, public safety and contravenes the due process clause of amendment XIV.
IV
Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1106. D Furnishing Marijuana
14. Plaintiff claims, without a compelling state interest, he has been threatened to be deprived of his life, liberty and property without due process of law by the enforcement of Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1106. D., unlawfully furnishing scheduled z drugs, contravening Amendment XIV and is unconstitutional.
15. Plaintiff claims, without a compelling state interest, Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1106. D threatens to deprive him of his right to be secure in his person, house, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures contravening Amendment IV, made applicable to the State of
pg. 3
Maine by the due process clause of Amendment XIV and is unconstitutional.
16. Plaintiff claims the use of police power to enforce Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1106. D would not be protecting the rights of others, public safety and contravenes the due process clause of amendment XIV.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
17. To declare the Plaintiff, by Amendment XIV, has the right to be secure in his person, house, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.
18. To declare the Plaintiff’s rights to liberty and property are secured from unreasonable deprivation by Amendment XIV.
I
19. The plaintiff request the court to declare Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2383(1) is unreasonable use of state police power that has deprived the plaintiff of his liberty and property without a compelling state interest, without due process of law contravening Amendment XIV of the Constitution of the United States and is unconstitutional.
II
20. The plaintiff request the court to declare the construction of Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1117 (1)(B)(3) is over broad and unreasonable use of state police power threatening to deprive the plaintiff his liberty and property without a compelling state interest, without due process of law contravening Amendment XIV of the Constitution of the United States and is unconstitutional.
III
21. The plaintiff request the court to declare the construction of Title 17-A M.R.S.A.
pg. 4
§ 1117 (1)(B)(4) is over broad and unreasonable use of state police power threatening to deprive the plaintiff his liberty and property without a compelling state interest, without due process of law contravening Amendment XIV of the Constitution of the United States and is unconstitutional.
IV 22. The plaintiff request the court to declare the construction of Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1106. D is over broad and unreasonable use of state police power threatening to deprive the plaintiff his liberty and property without a compelling state interest, without due process of law, contravening Amendment XIV of the Constitution of the United States and is unconstitutional.
Dated: August 1st , 2013
Un Reasonable Seize Marijuana-------------- Our Rights Their Betrayal
Print 