Source: https://www.ursm.us/past-court-challenges/
Timestamp: 2020-04-10 13:35:26
Document Index: 707557074

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2383', '§ 2381', '§ 2381', '§ 1117', '§ 2381', '§ 1117', '§ 2381', '§ 1117', '§ 2381', '§ 1117', '§ 2381', '§ 1117', '§ 2381', '§ 1117', '§ 1915', '§ 2383', '§ 2383', '§ 1']

DRUG WAR - Past Court Challenges
The federal and state courts have refused to acknowledge injury to fundamental rights to liberty, to property, and to privacy by the enforcement of the marijuana laws. There is no U.S Supreme court decision where the government provided a compelling state interest to show criminalizing marijuana is reasonable and necessary to protect public health and safety from the marijuana user.
No decision from SCOTUS that says the right of privacy in the Alaskan Constituion is superior than the Fourth Amentment protection of privacy from unreasonable government intrusion.
I have never claimed mariijuana is a fundamental right, but that is why I am dismissed as frivolous.
Arbitrary power. http://www.s234950599.onlinehome.us/4.html
1. Dee's Lawsuits Frivolous.
A. U.S. District Court, District of Maine
B. Maine Courts
C. Wyoming State Courts
2.Judge Crowley Order Doc. No. CV-06-707 http://Mainelaw.maine.edu/library/SuperiorCourt/decisions/CUMcv-06-707.pdf
3. Dee's Initial pleading Doc. No. CV-06-707
My initial pleading has my request for declaratory relief. You will find a discrepancy in what I ask for relief and what judge Crowley says I am asking for declaratory relief. None of my filings for Declaratory Judgment and Declaratory Relief have I ask the court to declare marijuana a fundament right. The facts show the courts say the marijuana laws are rational and I claimed the laws are unreasonable. The courts have said, based on the claim that marijuana is a not a fundamental right, It is up to the legislature to change the marijuana laws.
4. 2003 Judge Hornsby US District Court District of Maine, Doc. is Misc. No. 03-06-P-H
http://www.leagle.com/decision/2003291241FSupp2d50_1282 http://www.med.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Hornby/2003/DBH_01292003_2-03mc06_DEE_V_UNITED_STATES.pdf
Claiming marijuana not a fundamental right.
5. 1995 Judge Hornsby US District Court District of Maine, Civil No. 95-29-P-H
Order of Judge Hornsby in stating marijuana is a legislative issue. Declaring I have to be arrested and prosecuted to question the constituionality of the marijuana laws.
6. MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decision Decision No. Mem 01-59 http://www.cleaves.org/pdf/01-59.pdf citig U.S. v Fry 787 F.2d 903 (4th Cir. 1986)
1. Dee's Lawsuits Frivolous
A.United States District Court, District of Maine
2009 April 28,
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/maine/medce/2:2009cv00163/37704/2/0.pdf?1270566934
http://www.med.uscourts.gov/opinions/kravchuk/2009/mjk_04282009_2-09cv163_dee_v_usa_affirmed_05282009.pdf
Dee v. United States Doc. No. 09-cv-163-DBH
“I recommend the court deny Dee's letter request sent to Chief Judge Woodcock and dismiss this petition as frivolous.” /s/ Margaret J. Kravchuk U.S. Magistrate Judge April 28, 2009
ORDER adopting Report and Recommended Decision re [2] Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (HORNBY, D.)
2004 April 27, US District Court, Portland, Maine
MICHAEL J. DEE RE: MISC. NO. 04-33-P-S
"Please be advised of the following endorsement made April 26, 2004, by Chief Judge Singal upon your request for leave to file a Petition for Delcaratory Judgment and Declaratory Relief under the caption of DEE v. USA & STATE OF MAINE: Request to file D.J. denied. The request & proposed D.J. is frivolous. Said endorsement was this date entered upon the docket."
2003 JANUARY 29,.
UNITED STATES DISRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
US District Court Misc. No. 03-06-P-H; 241 F.Supp.2d 50)D Me 2003
http://www.leagle.com/decision/2003291241FSupp2d50_1282
http://www.med.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Hornby/2003/DBH_01292003_2-03mc06_DEE_V_UNITED_STATES.pdf
“It has long been established that use of marijuana is not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. See, e.g., United States v. Maas. 551 F. Supp. 645, 646-47 (D.N.J. 1982); Wolkind v Selph, 495 F. Supp. 507, 510 (E.D. Va. 1980); NORML v. Bell. 488 F. Supp. 123, 132-33 (D.D.C. 1980) (three judge court). If I were to grant Dee permission to file his lawsuit challenging the state law. I would simply have to dismiss it as frivolous.”
B. Maine State Courts
2012 ME 26 Maine v Dee Revised Kennebec 11-299
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions_orders/supreme/lawcourt/2012/12me26de.pdf
2012 ME 07 Maine v Dee Kennebec 11-299
http://www.cleaves.org/12-7.pdf
2007 ME 208
June 25, 2007 Cumberland County Superior Court
http://Mainelaw.maine.edu/library/SuperiorCourt/decisions/CUMcv-06-707.pdf
“Simply put, usage of marijuana has not been recognizes as a fundamental constitutional right. Dee’s challenge, therefore, is subjected only to rational review.” "Here, the State has satisfied its burden to show a pattern of frivolous and vexation suits. Over the span of twelve years, Dee has repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to litigate this issue in state and federal courts, described in detail above."
Date June 25, 2007 Robert E. Crowley Justice, Superior Court
2002 Arbitrary enforcement 2002 ME 01
http://www.cleaves.org/pdf/02-1.pdf
2001 ME -59 Maine v Dee possession
http://www.cleaves.org/pdf/01-59.pdf
2000 AP- 00-045 Dee v Maine Appeal to Superior Court
http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/maine/superior-court/KENap-00-045.pdf
2000 ME 132 Dee v Maine
Based on class Action- Arbitrary enforcement
http://www.cleaves.org/pdf/00-132.pdf
1999 ME 59 Dee v Maine
CUMSC-CV-763
C.Wyoming State Courts
Wyoming June 2007
MICHAEL J. DEE, Plaintiff,
Doc. 169 No. 897
The Court notes that the claims asserted here were adjudicated in January, 2007, docket 169-223 between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated in the motion, the Court sua sponte ORDERS that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
DATED this 25 day of June, 2007.
EDWARD L. GRANT District Judge
2008 WY 17 Dee v Wyoming
"Dee alleged the laws violated his fundamental right to possess, use and grow marijuana and contravened the tenets of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution."
“The argument that Plaintiff Dee's Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to the criminalizing of possessing, growing, or using marijuana is patently frivolous. There is no correlation between Plaintiff Dee's argument and the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff Dee's contention is merely that possession and use of marijuana is a fundamental constitutional right. ” P Merits on Constitutional Claims. 5
307/777-7977
2.Judge Crowley Order Doc. No. CV-06-707
SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND
Michael Dee )
State of Maine ) DOCKET NO: CV-06-707
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS and MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS CROSS-MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, MOTION TO INJUNCTION and MOTION TO STRIKE
This matter comes before this Court on Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings per M. R. Civ. P.12 (c), Defendants cross motion for judgment on the pleadings, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment per M.R. Civ P. 56(c), Defendants motion to strike Plaintiff’s statement of materials facts, and Defendant’s motion to enjoin further lawsuits by plaintiff per M.R. Civ. P. 11(a).
Go to http://Mainelaw.maine.edu/library/SuperiorCourt/decisions/CUMcv-06-707.pdf
1.Motion and Cross-Motion on the Pleadings.
The only facts relevant to the Court’s decision are that Dee has been found guilty of violating Maine’s civil possession statute in the past, and has waged a campaign against the marijuana laws, both in and out of court, for over a decade. Other than these facts, which accepts as true, Dee’s complaint contains much legal argument regarding the supposed unconstitutionality of the marijuana laws, which he claims violates his fundamental rights and right to due process. All his arguments, as noted above, have been rejected by Maine’s state and federal courts, along with a vast majority of courts in other jurisdiction. See Kuromiya v. U.S., 37 F. Supp. 2d 717, 727 (D. Pa. 1999) (stating that “there is no fundamental right to use marijuana in any context”; U.S. v. Fogarty, 692F.2d 542, 547 (8th Cir. 1982). (stating that “there is no fundamental constitutional right to import, sell, or possess marijuana” and applying rational basis review). Simply put, usage of marijuana has not been recognizes as a fundamental constitutional right. Dee’s challenge, therefore, is subjected only to rational review.
Enacting laws to prohibit the use, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana is well within province the legislature. See State v. Brown, 571 A.2d 816, 820 (Me. 1990) (It has long been settled law that the State possesses the “ police power” to pass general regulatory laws promoting the pubic health, welfare, safety and morality”). Thus Dee’s only recourse in his quest to change the marijuana laws is to present his cause before the legislature. This court cannot change the marijuana laws, and explicitly finds that there currently is no basis for invalidating them because the legislature had a rational basis for enacting them, and they do not encroach upon any fundamental right. Given this, Dee is not entitled to a declaratory judgment in his favor, as there is no legal basis upon which he could recover. His motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied and the State’s cross motion for judgment on the pleading is granted.
2. Motion for Summary Judgment & Motion to Strike Statement of Material Facts.
3. Motion for an Injunction to Prevent Further Litigation.
Here, the State has satisfied its burden to show a pattern of frivolous and vexation suits. Over the 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 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.
The entry is: Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleading is DENIED
Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment are DENIED
Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.
Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant. Defendant’s motion for injunctive relief is GRANTED.
Plaintiff hereby is ENJOINED from filing further lawsuits in Maine courts to challenge the marijuana laws without prior approval of the court.
/s/ Robert E. Crowley
3. Dee's Initial pleading
[The correct statute in this complaint is 22 M.R.S.A. § 2383(1) not 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) .
Cumberland County, Portland, Maine
MICHAEL J. DEE )
V. ) Civil Docket no.
) PORSC- CV-2006-00707
1. I, Michael J. Dee, an adult resident of Cumberland County, State of Maine, challenges the reasonableness of the Maine marijuana laws that have and continues to threaten to deprive plaintiff of his liberty and his property without due process of law. Plaintiff has standing to assert that the marijuana law which he was convicted of and the continued threat of criminal prosecution cannot be constitutional.
2. Jurisdiction, to review this case and controversy, is conferred on this Court pursuant to Title 14 M.R.S.A.5953-54 Declaratory Judgment and by Amendments IV and V of the Constitution of the United States, made applicable to the State of Maine by the Amendment XIV.
3. There still remains a substantial case between the State of Maine and the plaintiff having adverse legal interests, admitting of an immediate and definitive determination of the plaintiff’s legal rights and the construction and validity of state “police power” to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.
4.Marijuana is an object of a search warrant and subject to seizure by the State of Maine and present an actual case and controversy having adverse legal interests.
5. The Congress of the United States says “individuals enjoy a fundamental right to own and enjoy property which is enshrined in the United States Constitution”. See Title 22 U.S.C.-6081. Marijuana is property. Therefore, the right to acquire and possess this property, describe as marijuana, is a fundamental right.
6. Plaintiff was twice summoned to court for possessing marijuana in the 1990s.
7. In 2000, Plaintiff was summoned, prosecuted and convicted by the State of Maine for violating Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1),
possession of a useable amount of marijuana in the form of a marijuana plant.
8. The Maine legislature has made it a criminal offence to grow a useable amount of marijuana. Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117(2)(D).
9. State of Maine can not justify criminal and civil laws with clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the plaintiff use of marijuana adversely affects the rights of other and is deleterious to plaintiff’s health, a greater threat than the his use of alcohol and tobacco.
10. Making it a “crime” to grow a usable amount of marijuana is an intrusive regulation that is an unjustifiable, unreasonable and unnecessary and must be deemed a violation of Amendments IV and V of the Constitution of the United States.
A. VIOLATION OF AMENDMENT IV OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
11. Plaintiff re allege and incorporates by reference herein the facts of paragraphs 1 through 9 above.
12. Plaintiff claims Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) and Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117 (2)(D) are unjustified therefore unreasonable and
contravenes the plaintiff’s right to be secure in his person, his home, his papers and in his effects from unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by Amendment IV of the Constitution of the United States.
13. Being threatened with a search warrant, full custodial arrest, imprisonment and/or fines for privately growing and possessing a useable amount of marijuana is unreasonable government intrusion, is not a valid exercise of the “police power” and is in contravention of Amendment IV to the Constitution of the United States.
B. VIOLATION OF AMENDMENT V OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
14. Plaintiff re allege and incorporates by reference herein the facts of paragraphs 1 through 9 above.
15. Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) (1992) and Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117(2)(D) are unjustified, unreasonable and unnecessary therefore has deprived and continues to threaten to deprive the plaintiff of his liberty and property without “due process of law” secured by Amendment V to the Constitution of the United States.
16. Plaintiff claims that these legislative enactments, Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) (1992) and Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117(2)(D), are merely rationally related and can not be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state interest therefore violates “due process of law” secured by the Amendment V.
17. Not being able to tax the plaintiff for growing marijuana for private use has nothing to do with public health and safety, therefore violates the “due process of law” clause of Amendment V.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter a judgment:
A. To declare Maine Statues Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) possession and Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117(2)(D) growing marijuana, are unjustified therefore unreasonable and contravened the plaintiff’s Amendment IV right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures and therefore unconstitutional.
B. To declare the Maine Statues, Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) (1992) and Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117(2)(D), are not narrowly drawn and are merely rationally related to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy and therefore violates “due process of law” of Amendment V and they are unconstitutional.
/s/ Michael J. Dee
MICHAEL J. DEE, pro se,
4. 2003 Judge Hornsby US District Court District of Maine, Doc. is
Misc. No. 03-06-P-H
Misc. No. 03-06-P-H Maine Federal District Court
Federal Court ORDER Misc. No. 03-06-P-H
MICHAEL J. DEE, )
v. ) Misc. No. 03-06-P-H
AND STATE OF MAINE, )
On May 26, 1998. in light of his previous frivolous filings. I ENJOINED Michael J. Dee from filing any lawsuits in this Court without prior approval. Dee v. United States. No. 98-CV-37-P-H (D. Me. 1998) (order enjoining plaintiff]. foot note1 He now seeks permission to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal and Maine laws concerning growing and possessing personal use quantities of marijuana. It was just such challenges that led to the original injunction.
In one of his earlier cases, Dee had enclosed a marijuana leaf and claimed his fear of prosecution as the basis for standing to bring a declarator}'judgment action. Dee v. Reno, No. 95-CV-29-P-H (D. Me. 1995). I granted judgment to the defendants on the basis that declaratory relief would be inappropriate where there was no threat of law enforcement activities. Id. (order granting motion for
Footnote 1 The final provocation was a lawsuit against President Clinton in which Dee purported to challenge (continued on next page) (continued on next page)
summary judgment). The late Judge Brody and I dismissed subsequent similar suits on res judicata grounds. See Dee v. United States. No. 98-CV-6-P-H (D. Me. 1998); Dee v. Reno, 97-CV-229-P-H (D. Me. 1997): Dee v. Ketterer. No. 96-CV-274-B (D. Me. 1997).
Dee still has presented no credible threat of federal prosecution. Therefore, his proposed lawsuit against federal authorities would be dismissed on res judicata grounds, the very basis on which his last marijuana lawsuit was dismissed. Dee v. Reno, No. 98-CV-6-P-H (D. Me. 1998). I therefore DENY him permission to file his suit against federal authorities challenging the federal law.
Dee has been actually convicted now in state court, however, with the conviction affirmed by Maine's highest court, the Law Court. Dee v. State, No. CTV. A. AP-00-045, 2001 WL 1715844 (Me. Super. Jan. 24, 2001), affd. No. Mem. 01-59 (Me. June 26, 2001) (mem.), cert. denied 122 S.Ct. 1916 (2002) (mem.). What provoked that conviction was Dee's presence in the State House with a marijuana plant. When the Capitol Security Officer asked him to leave the building. "Mr. Dee refused to leave unless Officer Peaslee summonsed him for possession of marijuana." Dee, 2001 WL 1715844, at *1. The officer accommodated Dee. and as a result Dee was convicted despite his constitutional arguments in the Maine district court, superior court and Law Court. Thus, Dee now has standing—Le., he has a credible threat of prosecution, albeit forced foot note 2—to
(footnotes con't) the constitutionality of the Cuba Trade Embargo. Dee v. Clinton, No. 98-CV-37-P-H (D. Me. 1998). foot note 2 Dee also filed a lawsuit challenging the Portland Police Department for refusing to prosecute him. He had been waving a marijuana plant at traffic while standing at Morrill's Corner, a busy intersection in Portland. The police told Dee to stay out of the street or they would arrest him, but (continued on next page)
challenge the constitutionality of the Maine laws concerning growing and possessing personal use quantities of marijuana. I conclude, however, that Dee's constitutional challenge is frivolous.
As the First Circuit has said, Even- federal court that has considered the matter, so far as we are aware, has accepted the congressional determination that marijuana in fact poses a real threat to individual health and social welfare, and has upheld the criminal sanctions for possession and distribution of marijuana even where such sanctions infringe on the free exercise of religion. United States v. Rush. 738 F.2d 497, 512 (1st Cir. 1984) (emphasis added). There is no reason to treat a similar state determination any differently, and Maine's highest court has so held: "Maine statutes, \vhich inter alia make unlawful the possession of any usable amount of that scheduled drug . . . represent the legislature's determination that marijuana poses a threat to individual health and social welfare." Rupert v. City of Portland. 665 A.2d 63, 66 (Me. 1992) (emphasis added). The claims Dee wishes to assert against Maine's statute as it applies to personal use of marijuana are based, not on freedom of religion, but on his "fundamental rights to life, liberty and property" under the Fourth. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and allegedly arbitrary enforcement of the state's marijuana law. (Dee provides no detail on the latter, just his ipse dixit, certainly insufficient given his repeated attempts to be prosecuted.) It has long been established that use of marijuana is not a fundamental right protected by the
(footnotes con't) did not arrest or summons him or seize the marijuana plant. Dee claimed in his state lawsuit that the police "violated due process of law by arbitrarily refusing to seize the plaintiffs marijuana and failing to issue him a summons to appear in court for violating" the Maine statute concerning (continued on next page)
Constitution. See, e.g., United States v. Maas. 551 F. Supp. 645, 646-47 (D.N.J. 1982); Wolkind v Selph, 495 F. Supp. 507, 510 (E.D. Va. 1980); NORML v. Bell. 488 F. Supp. 123, 132-33 (D.D.C. 1980) (three judge court). If I were to grant Dee permission to file his lawsuit challenging the state law. I would simply have to dismiss it as frivolous if he then requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). If instead he paid the entire filing fee. I would have to dismiss it upon a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). I therefore DENY Dee permission to file his petition challenging Maine law.
(footnotes con't) marijuana. Dee v. State. No. CIV. A. CV-00-648, 2001 WL 1708834. at *1 (Me. Super. Apr. 12. 2001). The state court dismissed the lawsuit.
MICHAEL DEE, )
v. ) Civil No. 95-29-P-H
JANET RENO, Attorney General )
of the United States, et al., )
The plaintiff Michael Dee has sued the Attorneys General of the United States and the State of Maine seeking a declaratory judgment that federal and state marijuana laws are unconstitutional. The defendants have moved for judgment on the pleadings and the plaintiff has moved for summary judgment. I conclude that Dee is not entitled to the relief he seeks and direct that judgment be entered for the defendants.
The defendants argue that Dee lacks standing to bring his lawsuit because he is not facing threatened or actual injury that is real and immediate. In response, Dee has filed with the court a portion of a marijuana plant, presumably one that he has grown. The assertions in the pleadings, together with the marijuana, probably furnish a basis for at least the issuance of a search warrant. Moreover, by virtue of the criminal cases that are prosecuted in this court and, most recently, a celebrated case in this court involving helicopter overflights searching for marijuana plants growing in rural Maine, Bowie v. Scopino. No. 93-317-P-H (D. Me. 1995), I am aware that federal and state authorities take marijuana growing and production seriously.
For these reasons, it would be disingenuous to deny that Dee is looking at actual or threatened injury in the form of criminal investigation/prosecution. On the other hand, it is also the case that law enforcement resources are limited and that priorities determine where enforcement activities should be directed. Thus, criminal prosecution against Dee may or may not be imminent, and the precise nature of any charges (possession, growing, trafficking, quantity, etc.) are all impossible to determine. In short, although Dee may legitimately fear some kind of criminal law enforcement activity directed against him, it is impossible to determine whether or when either federal or state authorities might press charges and what the nature of the resulting prosecution might be. It is, therefore, impossible to assess the constitutional issues.
Declaratory judgment is a discretionary remedy, see Wilton v. Seven Falls Co _ _ U.S._ _, 115 S. Ct. 2137, 132 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1995). It is particularly inappropriate here. Generally speaking, federal and state marijuana laws have been upheld against constitutional attack and have been described as raising matters of legislative policy for elected representatives ..to determine. .See e.g... United States v. Maas. 551 F. Supp. 645 (D.N.J 1982): 'National Org. for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Bell. 488 F. Supp. 123 (D.D.C. 1980)
In light of that case law and given the fact that this is a declaratory judgment action with nonspecific law enforcement activity to assess I conclude that declaratory relief is inappropriate. I GRANT judgment on the pleadings to the defendants and DENY summary judgment to the plaintiff.
Dated at Portland, Maine this 11th day of September, 1995
United States v. Maas. 551 F. Supp. 645
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12556371258872364189&q=United+States+v.+Maas.+551+F.+Supp.+645&hl=en&as_sdt=10000006&as_vis=1
6. MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decision Decision No. Mem 01-59
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decision
Decision No. Mem 01-59
Docket No. Ken-01-78
Submitted on Briefs June 25, 2001
Michael J. Dee appeals from the judgment entered in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Atwood, J.) affirming the judgment of the District Court (Augusta, Worth, J.), which found him guilty of the possession of a usable amount of marijuana, in violation of 22 M.R.S.A. § 2383(1) (Supp. 2000). Contrary to Dee's contentions, 22 M.R.S.A. § 2383 does not contravene the fundamental rights protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, nor does the statute violate their counterparts in the Maine Constitution—Article I, §§ 1, 5, and 6-A. See Dee v. Attorney General, Mem. 99-59 (Me. 1999); United States v. Fry, 787 F.2d 903, 905 (4th Cir. 1986), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 861, 107 S. Ct. 209, 93 L.Ed.2d 139 (1986); Rupert v. City of Portland, 605 A.2d 63, 66 (Me. 1992). The entry is:
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/787/787.F2d.903.85-5162.htmlhttps://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-fry-2
STATES v. FRY
1. Constitutional Law <®=82(6) There was no fundamental right under Ninth Amendment [U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 9] allowing defendant, who claimed that Ninth Amendment guaranteed him freedom to "recreate" through altering his consciousness, to produce or distribute marijuana commercially.
Cite as 787 F.2d 903 (4th Cir. 1986)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert H. FRY, Appellant.
No. 85-5162.
Argued Nov. 8, 1985. Decided March 31, 1986.