HABEAS CORPUS                          THE GREAT WRIT OF LIBERTY                         


28 U.S. Code CHAPTER 153— HABEAS CORPUS

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-VI/chapter-153

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

 

United States District Court
District of Maine

 

U.S.A. v. Sawtelle 17cr125

 

            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 pretrial. 

         These law enforcement official violated Rules Governing Section 2255 proceedings for the United States District Court, Rule 5(b).

 

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 "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.


 

 

  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

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2255

GROUND ONE

“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

regulations on 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”)

CONCLUSION

I 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

It 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

 

 

PACER.gov

https://www.pacer.gov/reg_pacer.html

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Print Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal