Separation-of-powers

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. “The Maine State Supreme Court has issued an edict in Saunders v. Tisher that conflicts with and usurps Maine Revised Statute Title 34-B § 3861 and has thus “legislated from the bench” and has overruled both The Maine Legislative Body and the Will of the People. Is such an edict Constitutional and Lawful or does it violate the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution?” The Petitioner argues that it violates the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution and should thus be overturned by The United States Supreme Court. 2. “The Petitioner has offered the court a well-wrought and thoughtful argument, pursuant to Estades-Negroni v. CPC Hosp. San Juan Capestrano, explaining how the respondents in this case are properly considered “State Actors”. The District Court has continually ignored that argument and has found that the respondents are not state actors. Is it Fair, Just, Proper, or Constitutional for the district court to completely ignore the Petitioner’s meritorious argument and tell him respondents are not State Actors?” The Petitioner argues that it is not, and that it violates his Fifth Amendment Rights to both Procedural and Substantive Due Process, and in this case, has resulted in an unjust dismissal of the Plaintiffs case. 3. “The Petitioner cannot help but feel that he has been continually disenfranchised by the district court, and has included a copious amount of objective evidence that supports his conclusion. Does this continual disenfranchisement of the Petitioner, as irrefutably and thoroughly evidenced, violate the Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment Constitutional Rights, or any other Constitutional Rights?” The Petitioner argues that it does. The Federal District Court of Maine has been abusing, among other procedural mechanisms, 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) in order to procedurally dismiss the indigent and Pro Se Plaintiffs meritorious complaints against Government Employee defendants sua sponte (usually by misquoting the Plaintiff and then invoking Denton v. Hernandez) prior to service so that those guilty parties are never required to provide answer in response to the Plaintiff's verifiably accurate and well-evidenced complaints. These abuses have been continually upheld by The First Circuit. 4. “Does The Federal Courts’ and Governments’ continual and outright refusal to address Torture of the Petitioner by U.S. Government Personnel, and their associated failure to assist the Petitioner in any way whatsoever, infringe upon the Petitioner's Human Rights, Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights, or Rights conferred to the Petitioner under United States and/or International Law?” The United States Government and Federal Court System has failed to conduct any investigation, or aid the Petitioner in any way, regarding his true, accurate, and verifiable claims that he has been Tortured by U.S. Government Personnel. This nonaction by the Government is in conflict with The Petitioner’s basic Human Rights, his Constitutional and Civil Rights, and both Federal and International Laws. The Petitioner furthermore notes that the Federal Courts have Jurisdiction over Torture (18 U.S.C. 118C) as it is a Federal Crime as well as an International Crime.