[OPF List] Habeas Corpus -- what does it mean?

Gary Hunt hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com
Tue Dec 7 16:35:53 HST 2010


Not if it is a voluntary act.

 

Gary Hunt
 <http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/> Outpost of Freedom

 

The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of
thinking.

 <http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/11267.html> John Kenneth Galbraith

 

From: opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com
[mailto:opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com] On Behalf Of Bill M.
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 6:18 PM
To: Outpost Of Freedom
Subject: Re: [OPF List] Habeas Corpus -- what does it mean?

 

The 14th was to extend the right of territorial due process rights and
fed citizenship to negroes, who although no longer owned by whites, were
not citizens and endowed with any rights.

 

It is actually unconstitutional to impose fed citizenship upon a white
state born person.

 

"The fourteenth amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United
States." United States v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (1873)

"This court declared in the Slaughter-House cases that the Fourteenth
Amendment as well as the Thirteenth and Fifteenth were adopted to
protect the negroes in their freedom." Madden v. Kentucky 309 US 83
(1940).

"The rights of Citizens of the State, as such, are not under
consideration in the Fourteenth Amendment. They stand as they did before
the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are fully guaranteed by
other provisions." United States v. Anthony: 24 Fed. Cas. 829, 830 (Case
No. 14,459) [1873]. This means white citizens and the other provisions
are the individual state constitutions.

"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal
Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of
the United States in order to be a citizen of his state. United States
v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 (1875); 

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Jon Roland <mailto:jon.roland at constitution.org>  

To: opf at oneamericanpatriot.com 

Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 8:10 AM

Subject: Re: [OPF List] Habeas Corpus -- what does it mean?

 

It is contained in the Ninth Amendment. See Presumption of Nonauthority
and Unenumerated Rights <http://constitution.org/9ll/schol/pnur.htm> .

The 14th Amendment was intended to extend the jurisdiction of federal
courts to cases between a citizen and his state on any of the rights
guaranteed in the Constitution, including those unenumerated rights of
the Ninth. See Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect
<http://constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm> All Rights. 

The rights protected were not just for white citizens. Rights were
recognized as belonging to persons, not just to citizens. Dred Scott got
it wrong.

On 12/06/2010 09:46 AM, Bill M. wrote: 

Can anyone show where the right of Habeas was brougth forward by the
14th?  It is not mentioned in it so we would need to see a SC case
saying that it does.

 

I remember the Bush AG saying that just because it shall not be
suspended does not mean the people have a right to it.

 

It it was not brougth forward under the 14th for US Citizens (fed
citizens) then it is as if the wording does not exist because that
right, like so many others was for the white citiznes of the original
territories and individual states.

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Gary Hunt <mailto:hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com>  

To: 'Outpost Of Freedom' <mailto:opf at oneamericanpatriot.com>  

Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 12:25 PM

Subject: [OPF List] Habeas Corpus -- what does it mean?

 

Habeas Corpus -- what does it mean?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 4, 2010

Constitution, Article I, Section 9, clause 2:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
require it.

Unlike most protections afforded in the Constitution as rights, this one
is clearly set out as a "privilege". This is because it can be suspended
under certain conditions, though it has to be so stated to the public,
when it is suspended.

* * *

The following is written as an explanation in response to a number of
queries about my use of habeas corpus in an article entitled "What if
I'm Arrested? <http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=209> ". 

The article dealt with the circumstance surrounding a traffic ticket,
though did not sufficiently support the reasoning behind the habeas
corpus.  This is to expound upon that "great writ".

This does not mean that "habeas corpus" will only work on a traffic
ticket. I have not had the opportunity to test it on a larger scale.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Habeas corpus is a phrase that many of us learned in grade school.  Not
that we really knew what it meant, but we were told how important it was
and why it was even included as protected by the Constitution.  At best,
we were told that it was "the body of the case", which, by definition,
has some truth.

Today, the press only mentions habeas corpus when they are talking about
death row decisions.  This is a nice diversion, because, since we didn't
really know what it meant, we are now prone to accept that if we ever
find ourselves on death row, we can recall that fine "great writ of
liberty" and, perhaps, prolong our demise.

So, let's start by looking at what the legal definition(s) of habeas
corpus is (are):

>From Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:

Habeas corpus acts.  The English statutes of 31 Car. II, c. 2, is the
original and prominent habeas corpus act.  It was amended and
supplemented by St. 56 Geo. III, c. 100.  Similar statutes have been
enacted in all of the United States.  This act is regarded as the great
constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.  See Art. I, § 9, U.S.
Const.; 28 U.S.C.A. §2241 et seq.

Habeas corpus ad deliberandum et recipiendum.  A writ which is issued to
remove, for trial, a person confined in one county to the county or
place where the offense of which he is accused was committed.  Thus, it
has been granted to remove a person in custody for contempt to take his
trial for perjury in another county.

Habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum.  A writ issuing in civil
cases to remove the cause, as also the body of the defendant, from an
inferior court to a superior court having jurisdiction, there are to be
a disposed of.  It is also called "habeas corpus cum causa".

Habeas corpus ad prosequendum.  A writ which is usually employed in
civil cases to remove a person out of the custody of one court into that
of another, in order that he may be sued and answer the action in the
latter.

Habeas corpus ad satisfaciendum.  An English practice, a writ which
issues when a prisoner has had a judgment against them in an action, and
the plaintiff is desirous to bring him up to some superior court, to
charge him with process of execution.

Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.  A writ directed to the person detaining
another, and commanding them to produce the body of the prisoner, or
person detained.  This is the most common form of habeas corpus writ,
the purpose of which is to test the legality of the detention or
imprisonment; not whether he is guilty or innocent.  This writ is
guaranteed by U.S. Const. Art I, §9, and by state constitutions.  See
also 28 U.S.C.A. §2241 et seq.

This is the well known remedy in England and the United States for
deliverance from illegal confinement, called by Sir William Blackstone
the most celebrated writ and the English law, and the great and
efficacious writ, in all manner of illegal confinement.  3 Bl.Comm. 129.
The "great writ of liberty", issuing at common law out of the courts of
Chancery, King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer.

Habeas corpus ad testificandum.  The writ, meaning you have the body to
testify, used to bring up a prisoner detained in a jail or prison to
give evidence before the court.  Hottle v. District Court in and for
Clinton County, 233 Iowa 904, 11 N.W.2d 30, 34; 3Bl.Comm. 130.

Now, I realize that this is getting rather confusing.  However, if you
read them all, as well as the first, which sets out that history of the
series of acts that constitute habeas corpus, you might have noted that
one stands out from the rest.  If not, then, go back and reread Habeas
corpus ad subjiciendum.  In so doing, you will note that Blackstone
defined it as "the great writ of liberty".  Darn, same language they
used in school.

You will also note that, "the purpose of which is to test the legality
of the detention".  So, it appears that, perhaps, this, as in the game
"Monopoly", just might be a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.  Not quite!

Detention evokes an image of being constrained by chains, force, threat
of force, or other means that keep you from doing what you wish to do.
So, I'll use an example of what I wrote about in What if I'm Arrested?
<http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=209> .  I was arrested.  I
posted bail and was free, so long as I appeared in court at the time and
place directed.  Though I was free to move about, while on bail, I was
still, technically, detained.  I was under detention!  Likewise, if you
have signed a traffic ticket, you have agreed to appear.  If you ask the
officer issuing the citation, "If I do not sign this, will you take me
to jail?", he will affirm that he will take you to jail.  So, even
though you may not have posted bail, you have, by your signature, bound
yourself to self-imposed detention until such time as you appear.

New, if we understand just what "held to answer" (5th Amendment) means,
that is that we are, technically detained, though perhaps not
physically, when we are charged with a crime, we understand that the
charge, requiring that you produce yourself at the required place and
time, makes the detention a part of the charge, and the charge a part of
the detention.  Neither can exist without the other.

Now, with that in mind, let's look at the matter of detention.  When I
did my "oral demand for habeas corpus" (What if I'm Arrested?
<http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=209> ), by challenging the
court to produce the injured party, and demanding that that party be
produced along with an affidavit or contract, I was challenging the
detention associated with the charge.  The judge, apparently, agreed and
decided to "nolle prosequi" (not prosecute) the case.  Thereby freeing
me from both detention and charges.

Unlike the approach most often taken by those challenging jurisdiction
(which this really was -jurisdiction over my body), who seek to get into
common law courts, my approach was predicated on getting out of common
law court by assuming that I was already in a common law court.  This
created no argument with the judge, only the decision to grant me that
common law right, or not.

This article can be found on line at Habeas Corpus -- what does it mean?
<http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=389> 

 





-- 
 
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322              Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001                   jon.roland at constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------
  _____  


_______________________________________________
OPF mailing list
OPF at oneamericanpatriot.com
http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/mailman/listinfo/opf

  _____  


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3299 - Release Date: 12/05/10
19:34:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20101207/a8dabd63/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the OPF mailing list