District of Maine
These following law enforcement official have willully deprived
the constitutional right of liberty in a 28 U.S.C § 2255 motion to vacate under Chapter 153 Writ of habeas corpus. This motion is used for post conviction relief not
These law enforcement official
violated Rules Governing Section 2255 proceedings for the United States District Court,
Halsey B. Frank United States Attorney District of Maine
Joel B. Casey, Assistant United States Attorney District of Maine
John C. Nivison, U.S. Magistrate Judge District of Maine
Jon D. Levy Chief U.S. District Judge District of Maine
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
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
The following are key points of the court documents on record.
Document No. 142
MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE,
SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE BY A PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY
“Mr. Sawtelle 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.”
Dated May 29, 2019 /s/ Terrence M. Sawtelle
Document No. 144
UNITED STATES RESPONSE page 5-7
1. Fifth Amendment
Substantive Due Process Challenge
“He argues that access to marijuana should be a fundamental right and that any
marijuana should be subject to strict scrutiny review.”
Dated at Bangor this
29th day of July 2019. Respectfully submitted,
HALSEY B. FRANK United States Attorney
/s/ Joel B. Casey Assistant United States Attorney
Document No. 147
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION
B. Analysis of Claim
Go to page 6-7
(“It has long been established that use of marijuana is not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution”)
further recommend that the Court deny a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
/s/ John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 17th day of December, 2019.
Document No. 149
ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 147) is hereby ACCEPTED, and the Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 Petition (ECF No. 142) is DISMISSED. It is
further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability should issue in the event the Petitioner files a notice of appeal because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right
within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2). SO ORDERED.
Dated this 6th day
of February, 2020.
/s/ JON D. LEVY CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE