Writ of Habeas corpus is for the court to decide the legality of the detention or imprisonment where reasons for your arrest and detention must be shown. Reasons for the law not because it is illegal.
Federal statutes (28 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2256) outline the procedural aspects of federal habeas proceedings. There are two prerequisites for habeas review: the petitioner must be in custody when the petition is filed, and a prisoner who is held in state government custody must have exhausted all state remedies, including state appellate review. Any federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who is within its jurisdiction. The habeas petition must be in writing and signed and verified either by the petitioner seeking relief or by someone acting on his or her behalf. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus
COURT DENIES LIBERTY IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW
District of Maine
U.S.A. v. Sawtelle 17cr125
These law enforcement official violated Rules Governing Section 2255 proceedings for the United States District Court, Rule 5(b).
Halsey B. Frank
John C. Nivison, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Jon D. Levy Chief U.S. District Judge
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.
Register, PACER case search, Maine District Court, District of Maine Doc Filing System
Query: upper left, Enter case number 17cr125, Check Sawtelle; Lower left click run query, History/Documents Run query, Doc #s 142-149