HOME    ABOUT THE JAILHOUSE LAWYER
Natural Cures Website They Don't Want You To Know About
Freedom    History of Corporate Rule    Netwars    Ron Paul Speaks Out
Population Control Agenda     Gibson Guitars Raid Story    Rights of the Accused
Bookshelf    Liberty    Building Permits    Waco    Caselaw Collection   
Habeas Corpus     Legal Research    Justice    Legal Quotes    More Quotes    Reality Zone
Rights    Jurisdiction    Parens Patriae    Free    "Person"    State Citizenship    Blog
Jailhouse Lawyer - defined    Tribute to Gerry Spence    Andrew Meyer Story
Links     Site Awards    Notice To Public Servants     Marbury v. Madison
Pro Se Litigation    Jurisdictionary - HOW TO WIN ... Without a Lawyer!
The Battle For Liberty    The Abraham Cherrix Story    Liberty Award
Are We Doomed to be a Police State?    Best Free Autosurf Programs
Spiritual Anthology    The Drug Story     Jordan Page
Your Rights: Use 'Em or Lose 'Em



Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus

 

HABEAS CORPUS, remedies A writ of habeas corpus is an order in writing, signed by the judge who grants the same, and sealed with the seal of the court of he is a judge, issued in the name of the sovereign power where it is granted, by such a court or a judge thereof, having lawful authority to issue the same, directed to any one having a person in his custody or under his restraint, commanding him to produce, such person at a certain time and place, and to state the reasons why he is held in custody, or under restraint.

2. This writ was it common law considered as a remedy to remove the illegal restraint on a freeman. But anterior to the 31 Charles II. its benefit was, in a great degree, eluded by time-serving judges, who awarded it only in term time, and who assumed a discretionary power of awarding or refusing it. 3 Bulstr. 23. Three or four years before that statute was passed there had been two very great cases much agitated in Westminster Hall, upon writs of habeas corpus for private custody, viz: the cases of Lord Lei-ah: 2 Lev; 128; and Sir Robert Viner, Lord Mayor.of London. 3 Keble, 434, 447, 470, 504; 2 Lev. 128; Freem. 389. But the court has wisely drew the line of distinction between civil constitutional liberty, as opposed to the power of the crown, and liberty as opposed to the violence and power of private persons. Wilmot's Opinions, 85, 86.

3. To secure the full benefit of it to the subject the statute 81 Car. II. c. 2, commonly calfed the habeas corpus act, was passed. This gave to the. writ the vigor, life, and efficacy requisite for the due protection of the liberty of the subject. In England this. is considered as a high prerogative writ, issuing out of the court of king's bench, in term time or vacation, and running into every part of the king's dominions. It is also grantable as a matter of right, ex debito justitae, upon the application of any person.

4. The interdict De homine libero exhibendo of the Roman law, was a remedy very similar to the writ of habeas corpus. When a freeman was restrained by another, contrary to good faith, the praetor ordered that such person should be brought before him that he might be liberated. Dig. 43, 29, 1.

5. The habeas corpus act has been substantially incorporated into the jurisprudance of every state in the Union, and the right to the writ has been secured by most of the constitutions of the states, and of the United States. The statute of 31 Car. II. c. 2, provides that the person imprisoned, if he be not a prisoner convict, or in execution of legal process, or committed for treason or felony, plainly expressed in the warrant, or has not neglected wilfully, by the space of two whole terms after his imprisonment, to pray a habeas corpus for his enlargement, may apply by any one in his behalf, in vacation time, to a judicial officer for the writ of habeas corpus, and the officer, upon view of the copy of the warrant of commitment, or upon proof of denial of it after due demand, must allow the writ to be directed to the person in whose custody the party is detained, and made returnable immediately before him. And, in term time, any of the said prisoners may obtain his writ of habeas corpus, by applying to the proper court.

6. By the habeas corpus law of Pennsylvania, (the Act of February 18, 1785,) the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus is given in "all cases where any person, not being committed or detained for any criminal, or supposed criminal matter," Who "shall be confined or restrained of his or her liberty, under any color or pretence whatsoever." A similar provision is contained in the habeas corpus act of New York. Act of April 21, 1818, sect. 41, ch. 277.

7. The Constitution of the United State art. 1, s. 9, n. 2, provides, that " 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 and the same principle is contained in many of the state constitutions. In order still more to secure the citizen the benefit of this great writ, a heavy penalty is inflicted upon the judges who are bound to grant it, in case of refusal.

8. It is proper to consider, 1. When it is to be granted. 2. How it is to be served. 3. What return is to be made to it. 4. The bearing. 5. The effect of the judgment upon it.

9. - 1. The writ is to be granted whenever a person is in actual confinement, committed or detained as aforesaid, either for a criminal charge, or, as in Pennsylvania and New York, in all cases where he is confined or restrained of his liberty, under any color or pretence whatsoever. But persons discharged on bail will not be considered as restrained of their liberty so as to be entitled to, a writ of habeas corpus, directed to their bail. 3 Yeates, R. 263; 1 Serg & Rawle, 356.

10. - 2. The writ may be served by any free person, by leaving it with the person to whom it is directed, or left at the gaol or prison with any of the under officers, under keepers, or deputy of the said officers or keepers. In Louisiana, it is provided, that if the person to whom it is addressed shall refuse to receive the writ, he who is charged to serve it, shall inform him of its contents; if he to whom the writ is addressed conceal himself, or refuse admittance to the person charged to serve it on him, the latlat shall affix the order on the exterior of the place where the person resides, or in which the petitioner is so confined. Lo. Code of Pract. art. 803. The service is proved by the oath of the party making it.

11. - 3. The person to whom the writ is addressed or directed, is required to make a return to it, within the time prescribed; he either complies, or he does not. If, he complies, he must positively answer, 1. Whether he has or has not in his power or custody the person to be set at liberty, or whether that person is confined by him; if he return that he has not and has not had him in his power or custody, and the return is true, it is evident that a mistake was made in issuing the writ; if the return is false, he is liable to a penalty, and other punishment, for making such a, false return. If he return that he has such person in his custody, then he must show by his return, further, by what authority, and for what cause, he arrested or detained him. If he does not comply, he is to be considered in contempt of the court under whose seal the writ has been issued, and liable to a severe penalty, to be recovered by the party aggrieved.

12. - 4. When the prisoner is brought, before the judge, his judicial discretion commences, and he acts under no other responsibility than that which belongs to the exercise of ordinary judicial power. The judge or court before whom the prisoner is brought on a habeas corpus, examines the return and Papers, if any, referred to in it, and if no legal cause be shown for the imprisonment or restraint; or if it appear, although legally committed, he has not been prosecuted or tried within the periods required by law, or that, for any other cause, the imprisonment cannot be legally continued, the prisoner is discharged from custody. In the case of wives, children, and wards, all the court does, is to see that they ire under no illegal restraint. 1 Strange, 445; 2. Strange, 982; Wilmot's Opinions, 120.

13. For those offences which are bailable, when the prisoner offers sufficient bail, he is to be bailed.

14. He is to be remanded in the following cases: 1. When it appears he, is detained upon legal process, out of some court having jurisdiction of criminal matters, 2. When he is detained by warrant, under the hand and seal of a magistrate, for some offence for which, by law, the prisoner is not bailable. 3. When he is a convict in execution, or detained in execution by legal civil process. 4. When he is detained fora contempt, specially and plainly charged in the commitment, by some existing court, having authority to commit for contempt. 5. When he refuses or neglects to give the requisite bail in a case bailable of right. The judge is not confined to the return, but he is to examine into the causes of the imprisonment, and then he is to discharge, bail, or remand, as justice shall require. 2 Kent, Com. 26; Lo. Code of Prac. art. 819.

15. - 5. It is provided by the habeas corpus act, that a person set at liberty by the writ, shall not again be imprisoned for the same offence, by any person whomsoever, other than by the legal order and process of such court wherein he shall be bound by recognizance to appear, or other court having jurisdiction of the cause. 4 Johns. R. 318; 1 Binn. 374; 5 John. R. 282.

16. The habeas corpus can be suspended only by authority of the legislature. The constitution of the United States provides, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of invasion and rebellion, the public safety may require it. Whether this writ ought to be suspended depends on political considerations, of which the legislature, is to decide. 4 Cranch, 101. The proclamation of a military chief, declaring martial law, cannot, therefore, suspend the operation of the law. 1 Harr. Cond. Rep. Lo. 157, 159 3 Mart. Lo. R. 531.

17. There are various kinds of this writ; the principal of which are explained below.

18. Habeas corpus ad deliberandum et recipiendum, is a writ which lies to remove a prisoner to take his trial in the county where the offence was committed. Bac. Ab. Habeas Corpus, A.

19. Habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum, is a writ which issues out of a court of competent jurisdiction, when a person is sued in an inferior court, commanding the inferior judges to produce the body of the defendant, together with the day and cause of his caption and detainer, (whence this writ is frequently denominated habeas corpus cum causa) to do and receive whatever the court or the judge issuing the writ shall consider in that behalf. This writ may also be issued by the bail of a prisoner, who has been taken upon a criminal accusation, in order to surrender him in his own discharge; upon. the return of this writ, the court will cause an exoneretur to be entered on the bail piece, and remand the prisoner to his former custody. Tidd's Pr. 405; 1 Chit. Cr. Law, 182.

20. Habeas corpus ad prosequendum, is a writ which issues for the purpose of removing a prisoner in order to prosecute. 3 Bl. Com. 130.

21. Habeas corpus ad respondendum, is a writ which issues at the instance of a creditor, or one who has a cause of action against a person who is confined by the process of some inferior court, in order to remove the prisoner and charge him with this new action in the court above. 2 Mod. 198; 3 Bl. Com. 107.

22. Habeas corpus ad satisfaciendum, is a writ issued at the instance of a plaintiff for the purpose of bringing up a prisoner, against whom a judgment has been rendered, in a superior court to charge him with the process of execution. 2 Lill. Pr. Reg. 4; 3 Bl. Com. 129, 130.

23. Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, by way of eminence called the writ of habeas corpus, (q. v.) is a writ directed to the person detaining another, and commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner, with the day and cause of his caption and detention, ad faciendum, subjiciendum, et recipiendum, to do, submit to, and receive, whatsoever the judge or court awarding such writ shall consider in that behalf. 3 Bl. Com. 131; 3 Story, Const. 1333.

24. Habeas corpus ad testificandum, a writ issued for the purpose of bringing a prisoner, in order that he may testify, before the court. 3 Bl. Com. 130.

25. Habeas corpus cum causa, is a writ which may be issued by the bail of a prisoner, who has been taken upon a criminal accusation, in order to render him in their own discharge. Tidd's Pr. 405. Upon the return of this writ the court will cause an exoneretur to be entered on the bail piece, and remand the defendant to his former custody. Id. ibid.; 1 Chit. Cr. Law 132. Vide, generally, Bac. Ab. h. t.; Vin. Ab. h. t.; Com. Dig. h. t.; Nels. Ab. h. t.; the various American Digests, h. t.; Lo. Code of Prac. art. 791 to 827; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t.; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

- Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856)

 

Habeas Corpus

The concept of habeas corpus dates from 1304 in England. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order. It commands a prison official holding a detainee to bring the prisoner to the court. The concept is the most important protection of individual freedom against arbitrary government action. Implicit in it is the power of a court to determine the validity of a prisoner’s detention. Once the prisoner has been brought to the court, it can be determined whether that person has been imprisoned lawfully. If courts lack that power, people can be held indefinitely, without trial.

In the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. Nelson, the court recognized that “[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action … [and must be] administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to ensure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected.”

 

 

THE JAILHOUSE LAWYER'S
PRO SE SELF-HELP & LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

 

 

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING
AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
UNDER 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 (PERSONS IN FEDERAL CUSTODY)

 

 

FORM TO BE USED BY FEDERAL PRISONER
IN FILING A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

 

 

Cases Relative to Habeas Corpus

 

STONE V POWELL 428 U.S. 465 (1976)
Were federal courts obligated to consider claims of illegal searches and seizures after such claims had been decided by state courts? (Contains a history of the Writ of Habeas Corpus)

House v. Bell (04-8990) Supreme Court Oral Argument Previews - Oral argument date: January 11, 2006
What constitutes a �truly persuasive showing of actual innocence� pursuant to Herrera v. Collins sufficient to warrant freestanding habeas relief?

HAMDI V. RUMSFELD, [No. 03-6696. Argued April 28, 2004--Decided June 28, 2004]

"Petitioner, a presumed American citizen, has been imprisoned without charge or hearing in the Norfolk and Charleston Naval Brigs for more than two years, on the allegation that he is an enemy combatant who bore arms against his country for the Taliban. His father claims to the contrary, that he is an inexperienced aid worker caught in the wrong place at the wrong time....This case brings into conflict the competing demands of national security and our citizens� constitutional right to personal liberty....The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive."

[Justice Scalia's in his scathing dissent presents a historical perspective of the Writ and also discusses what causes might authorize its suspension. - TJL]

EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
The Supreme Court decided that the suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional because civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution of the United States (according to the Court) only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed. In essence, the court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during wartime.
The court also ruled that so long as local civilian courts are open, citizens may not be tried by military tribunals. It further observed that during the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, citizens may only be held without charges: not tried, and certainly not executed by military tribunals. After all, the writ of habeas corpus is not the right itself, but merely the ability to issue orders demanding the right's enforcement.

BALDWIN V. REESE, [No. 02-964. Argued December 8, 2003--Decided March 2, 2004]

"Held: A state prisoner ordinarily does not "fairly present" a federal claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition, a brief, or similar papers to find material that will alert it to the presence of such a claim." Pp. 3-6.

[I found the following part of the above decision to be quite revealing - TJL;"...since they do not necessarily read lower court opinions in every case. And it would impose a serious burden upon those judges with discretionary review powers, whose heavy workloads would be significantly increased if they had to read through lower court opinions or briefs in every instance."]

An Examination of Ex Parte Merryman
Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861), is a well-known U.S. federal court case which arose out of the American Civil War. Against President Abraham Lincoln�s wishes, Chief Justice Roger Taney, sitting as a judge of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, ruled that the writ of habeas corpus may not be suspended by the President without Congressional authorization, even in wartime or other extreme emergency.

Writ of Habeas Corpus, AEDPA, Statute of Limitations, Statutory Tolling, Timeliness
Whether a federal court should presume that a prisoner's filing of a state petition for writ of habeas corpus was timely because the state court gave no indication that the filing was untimely, or whether the federal court should engage in an independent determination of whether the filing was timely under state law.

____________________

 

Reversible Error Cases

 

OVERCOMING THE ABSURD: LEGAL STRUGGLE AS PRIMITIVE REBELLION
When conditions of existence become unsatisfactory, people may either acquiesce or resist. One reform strategy that has come into vogue since the social activism of the 1960s has been the use of law. Are those who use law in attempts to change the conditions of social existence rebels, revolutionaries, or merely ineffective idealists? Drawing upon themes in existential literature as a heuristic guide, we address this question by looking at one category of active litigants, prison jailhouse lawyers (JHLs).



Purveyors of fine herbal products




Natural Cures Book - Natural Cures 'They' Don't Want You To Know About by Kevin Trudeau
(NEW UPDATED 2ND EDITION!)
" Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About "
~ by Kevin Trudeau ~

CLICK HERE TO ORDER THIS INCREDIBLE BOOK !
(The Natural Cures Book As Seen on TV)
BOOKS ARE IN STOCK & READY TO SHIP !




ENTER
"THE REALITY ZONE"

 

 

Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus

 

Bush, Congress Suspend Habeas Corpus

 

 

Search:
Keywords:
In Association with Amazon.com



StumbleUpon
My StumbleUpon Page