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

Lone Wolf Militia lonewolfmilitia at gmail.com
Wed Dec 8 09:24:43 HST 2010


Gary,

I understand! But as far as triggering a revolution? What I learned is to
get the masses interested it has to be somewhat cool, sexy, like border ops
with benefits. And even that fizzels out with our 15 second attention span
public. and the beat goes on...

I am not educated enough to argue on a academic level with charts and
references.

I am just a grunt in this. I do not even like it when I have been pressed
into the job of trainer and leader of the unit.

What I do now is just argue with communists and scroundrels and people on
the fence over ideas that lay where the rubber meets the road and when
approiate I take action from direct to turning over enemies, for example a
Communist pro Chinese "USA must die" clown, in a key USA defense missile
position. I turned him over to the FBI. Even got a Thanx..which is rare from
the FBI.

I do not turn over even the murderer patriots among us. Rather I talk to
them and if that doesn't move them, I do things like pull their membership
ID card (Talking border here), take their group supplied rations, etc.,
their firearm if ours and send then down the line. Force them out of a
relationship with the group so we all do not go down if they are caught.

Side Note: I ditched this one guy that wanted to ambush, murder, keep drugs
and money... so who picked him up but a USBP supervisor. Gave him a 6X
military truck....he had quality firearms..quarters..chow..followers....just
an example of the strange relationships in the struggles we are in. He was
used for things the rank and file agents could not do but wished they
could..weird lol!

But I do contact law enforcement, use courts to eliminate your and my
natural enemies from criminal outlaws to common criminals and political and
soldiers in the fight against us "we the people do not tread on us".

I sent two young men to jail just a month ago and they were pressured into
copping a plead after they threaded me, a witness.

Anyway, I trudge through your material and radio lectures and agree so far
on substance.

Sincerely,

Jim Chase




On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Gary Hunt <hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com>wrote:

>  Lone Wolf,
>
> While I agree that batting words back and forth serves no useful purpose,
> it is also important to understand what effect the 14th Amendment had on us.
>
>
> Those who have successfully used the State Citizen argument in court have
> been few and far between. They have al=so spent many thousands of hours of
> their lives in learning what to do and how to do it. It is so complex that
> those unprepared will find themselves going to jail or prison if they enter
> a court not fully prepared to deal with what will be thrown at them.
>
> For the purpose of understanding where we should be, and I would hope that
> we would return to, I wrote Two Classes of Citizen<http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=126>
> .
>
> It does not suggest that anyone try to assert that right, only to
> understand that it did have an effect on all of us.
>
>
>
> *Gary Hunt**
> **Outpost of Freedom <http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/>***
>
> * *
>
> *The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of
> thinking.*
>
> John Kenneth Galbraith <http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/11267.html>
>
>
>
> *From:* opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com [mailto:
> opf-bounces at oneamericanpatriot.com] *On Behalf Of *Lone Wolf Militia
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:23 AM
> *To:* Outpost Of Freedom
> *Subject:* Re: [OPF List] Habeas Corpus -- what does it mean?
>
>
>
> Bill M
>
>
>
> Why all these word games? We are all Citizens of our state and collectively
> of the United States. Regardless of the words used  and how you feel about
> it, all people that are state or US citizens are the same under the present
> way this nation operates.
>
>
>
> This black, white, injun, citizen word game reminds me of the Freeman
> freaks that twist words and Ideas and then like fools ID themselves to the
> powers that be by saying they are individually checking out of citizenship
> and becoming "freeman on the land." They gain nothing real and in fact they
> are putting themselves on a watchlist with no benefit derived by their act.
>
>
>
> They are then just that much more watched by police agencies and tax agents
> and fleeced by their con-man leadership that sell that foolishness.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Gary Hunt <hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com>
> wrote:
>
> Not if it is a voluntary act.
>
>
>
> *Gary Hunt**
> **Outpost of Freedom <http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/>*
>
> * *
>
> *The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of
> thinking.*
>
> John Kenneth Galbraith <http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/11267.html>
>
>
>
> *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 <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 *All* Rights<http://constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm>.
>
>
> 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 <hunt at outpost-of-freedom.com>
>
> *To:* 'Outpost Of Freedom' <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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPF mailing list
> OPF at oneamericanpatriot.com
> http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/mailman/listinfo/opf
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> And the beat goes on....
>
> Later breeze,
>
> Jim Chase
>
> www.youtube.com/lonewolfmilitia
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPF mailing list
> OPF at oneamericanpatriot.com
> http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/mailman/listinfo/opf
>
>


-- 
And the beat goes on....
Later breeze,
Jim Chase
www.youtube.com/lonewolfmilitia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.oneamericanpatriot.com/pipermail/opf/attachments/20101208/5f7bb459/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the OPF mailing list