The judiciary declaring criminal laws are a political question because what is declared a crime is not  a fundamental right is deprivation of right of/to libertry, freedom from physical restraint, without a compelling state interest, without due process of law  under the color of law.

 

 

The following Title 18 U.S.C. 242 complaint was sent to the FBI. by U.S. Postal Service Certified Mail Receipt 7018 0360 0002 0227 4909 on 11/13/2020.  "Your item was delivered to an individual at the address at 12:24 pm on November 18, 2020 in CHELSEA, MA 02150."

 

Color of Law Violations
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights

Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law Title 18 USC 242  
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php

 

Joseph R. Bonavolonta                                                                                   11/11/2020
F.B.I. Special Agent
201 Maple Street

Chelsea, MA 02150
(857) 386-2000

Special Agent Bonavlonta,

 

I am reporting a crime, a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 242. Willful deprivation of liberty without due process of law, under the color of law, in behalf of Terrace Sawtelle.

How do you go about enforcing Title 18 U.S.C. 242 on Maine’s U.S. Attorneys and the Judges of the Maine U.S. District Court who have willfully denied that being incarcerated is seizure of person and deprivation of Sawtelle’s constitutional right of liberty, freedom from physical restraint?

The following citations to court documents show Maine federal law enforcement officials declaring “there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right of liberty within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2)” by Sawtelle being incarcerated.

This is not judicial misconduct. This is a systemic crime that indicts persons of the Department of Justice and Article III Courts in a conspiracy to deprive liberty, freedom from physical restraint, under the color of law, because marijuana is not a constitutional right.

I

UNITED DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

U.S.A. v. Sawtelle 1:17-cr-00125-JDL-2

 

Document No. 142

Sawtelle’s Motion U.S.C. Title 28, Chapter 153 Habeas corpus § 2255
Motion to Vacate, Habeas Relief

Ground One: Page. 3

“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.”

Relief: Page. 6

“To declare liberty is freedom from physical restraint and the U.S. Congress criminalizing marijuana was arbitrary and unreasonable regulation of property, depriving Sawtelle 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.”


Dated May 29, 2019 /s/ Terrence M. Sawtelle
1of 4

Document No.. 144

United States Response

 

Pages 5 “He argues that access to marijuana should be a fundamental right and that regulations on marijuana should be subject to strict scrutiny review.” 

Dated at Bangor this 29th day of July 2019. 

 

       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

 

Page 6 “It has long been established that use of marijuana is not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution”

 

Page 7. 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).

Dated this 17th day of December, 2019.

 /s/ John C. Nivison, U.S. Magistrate Judge 

 

 

 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 Judge U.S. District Judge
 

II

The evidence is clearly written in these court documents. Any claim by Sawtelle that marijuana is a fundamental constitutional right is lie. The court violated its own rules. These law enforcement officials failed to respond to Sawtelle’s allegation of Ground One for habeas relief in his 28 U.S.C. 2255 Motion to Vacate. Being incarcerated is a substantial showing of a denial

                                                                                                         2 of 4

of a constitutional right, his liberty. These law enforcement officials violated their solemn oath to the Constitution by implying that these criminal (marijuana) laws are not an Article III case or controversy.

The signers of these documents are declaring that these marijuana laws are a political question, rational, political police power, because marijuana is not a fundamental right. The signers of these government court documents deny Sawtelle is a person protected by Amendments IV & V of the Constitution of the United States.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure shall not be violated” . . . “No person shall be deprived of life liberty and property without due process of law.”

III

RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2255 PROCEEDINGS FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
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.
 

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW Title 18 USC 242
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php

 

The FBI is the “lead federal agency for investigating color of law violations, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority.”

Title 18 U.S.C. 242: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights . . . secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; . . .

 

Summary: Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by
the Constitution or laws of the United States. . . . Persons acting under the color of law within the meaning of this statute includes police officers, prison guards and other law enforcement officials as well as judges . . .

 

COLOR OF LAW VIOLATIONS
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights

“Law enforcement officers and other officials like judges and prosecutors have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government

                                                                              3 of 4

agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. . .”

Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.

IV

Sawtelle’s Ground One of his 2255 Motion to vacate has nothing to do with claiming marijuana is a fundamental right. This about his right of liberty, freedom from physical restraint by seeking habeas relief. This was about his constitutional right of due process of law being denied. Knowing the compelling reasons to proscribe marijuana that deprived him of his liberty, freedom from physical restraint. There are none. No victim. Political crime.

Under the color of law, the signers of these legal papers have willfully declared that being incarcerated in a federal prison is not a substantial showing of a concrete denial of his constitutional right, liberty. This is because marijuana is not a fundamental right.

 

The signers violated their solemn oath to Amendment IV that places constitutional limitation to government police power to be reasonable and necessary to protect the rights of others and not political. Declared political because what is a crime is not a constitutional right.

 

I am filing this 18 U.S.C. 242 complaint against these law enforcement officials because  Sawtelle is a victim of a crime. Deprivation of his constitutional right of liberty for political reasons, under the color of law.

As the federal marijuana laws stand, under the color of law, there is no equal justice under the law. Justice is not the guardian of liberty. Liberty and justice for all is a lie. The original meaning of liberty is not the constitutional right, freedom from unreasonable laws, government police power. Charges should be filed on the above cited law enforcement officials.

Respectfully submitted,

 

/s/Michael J. Dee
29 Hillcrest St.
Augusta Maine 04330
(207) 894-0319

mjdeeour4th@outlook.com

P.S. You can access the court documents at PACER. https://pacer.uscourts.gov/

4 of 4

< New text box >>

Un Reasonable Seize Marijuana-------------- Our Rights Their Betrayal
Print Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal