Writ of Habeas Corpus...?
138069
In English common law habeas corpus is the name of several writs which may be issued by a judge ordering a prisoner to be brought before the court. More commonly, the name refers to a specific writ known in full as habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, a prerogative writ ordering that a prisoner be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not he is being imprisoned lawfully.\n\nThe words habeas corpus ad subjiciendum are Latin for "(That) you may have/hold the body to be subjected to (examination)", and are taken from the opening words of the writ in medieval times. Other habeas corpus writs also existed, for example habeas corpus ad testificandum ("[That] you may have/hold the body to bear witness"), for the production of a prisoner to give evidence in court.\n\nThis procedure, part of English common law, was considered important enough to be specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution, which says, "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." (Article One, section nine).\n\nIn the USA, the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a civil (as opposed to a criminal) proceeding in which the court inquires as to the legitimacy of a prisoner's custody. Typically, habeas corpus proceedings investigate whether a criminal trial was conducted fairly and constitutionally after the criminal appellate process has been exhausted. Habeas corpus is also used as a legal avenue to challenge other types of custody such as pretrial detention or detention by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement pursuant to a deportation proceeding.
241150
Try:\nhttp://www.house.gov/writerep/\nFollow the instructions.
891866
Depends on what you have discussed in class, really.  ratified in 1789, so you could use that date, but if you have covered Martial Law being instituted by Lincoln in 1861... that makes it dicey.\nLincoln did NOT suspend the constitution during this time, but Martial Law DID suspend Habeas Corpus, and some view that as not allowing the Constitution to be fully utilized, so you could discount 1861-1866 if you are so inclined.
18315
First, stop the CAPSLOCK.  Second, as usual with legal-related questions on Yahoo! Answers, far too little information exists to answer the question adequately. Vernon's Annotated MISSOURI Statutes?  Vernon's TEXAS Civil Statutes?  Let's assume it's Texas.  Article 1A is an invalid reference; articles usually refer to portions of constitutions or to legislative documents, nto statutes.  Come back with a question that's more detailed, more specific, and with careful grammar so that I can answer it adequately.
926174
That was not really a problem with the writing of it. It was ONE of the problems faced regarding how the states would be represented in Congress. The other problem regarding representation was the Great Compromise. That compromise created a bicameral legislature.
976415
I am of the opinion that the presiding judge is well within his right to record a fiding exparte and it is not in violation of the principle of natural justice, so long as the respondent was given due notice of the proceedings according him an opportunity to be heard. The principle of natural justice does not mean that no order can be passed without hearing the parties concerned. It only requires that the parties before the forum should be given an opportunity to being heard. If the respondent had any difficulty in appearing before the judicial forum, like paucity of funds or threat to life, that is an entirely different matter. There were several options before him to meet such situations. Paucity of funds cannot be a valid ground for non-appearance. It is upto him to fend for himself to protect his own interests. I am sure there are provisions in the law prevailing in the USA, as it is in many other countries, for free legal aid for the indigent citizens. He could have availed of free legal aid. As regards the intimidation, which purportedlty detained him from appearance, it was open to him to lodge a criminal complaint against the petitioner and a copy of the complaint, if produced before the judge, would have weighed in his favour, for further adjournemetnt of his case. \n\nNow, that the matter has come to an end, before the learned judge, he has got two options. One is that he file a petition for review before the very same judge who passed the order and the second one is preferring an appeal before the appeallate authoruity. You may do this through a legal aid forum, if any available.
932619
Under the Special Marriage Act,1954 under which you seems to be applying for marriage & its registration It neccesary for both the parties i.e. bride & bridegroom along with 3 witness to be present before the marriage registrar for attendence at the time of application on the basis of which the registrar issue notice to both the parties & orders such notice also be afixed  on the notice board for any objections. Without this procedure and  one months notice the marriage cannot be soleminized under this Act. Now for your problem you have to get your wouldbe bride out from lock & key either with the help of local police or move the High Court or the Supreme Court for writ petition of Habeas Corpus (under this the court will order her parents to produce her in the court, this is a very serious writ petition and is given preference over any other petitions by the said courts).
812511
lived from 1885-1941.\n\nNovember 9: Story 1  After listening to brief arguments yesterday afternoon Justice Childs in Special Term dismissed the habeas corpus proceedings instituted by Anthony C. Woeckener against Frank C. Bostock to get possession of his wife, Chiquita, the doll lady. William J. Creamer represented Bostock and Eugene M. Bartlett appeared for Chiquita's boy husband.\n\nAs soon as the writ was dismissed, and before Mr. Bostock could leave the court house, papers were served on him in a suit for $20,000 damages brought by Woeckener for Bostock's action in separating him from his wife. At the same time an order of arrest for Mr. Bostock, as an incident to this civil action, was prepared for the purpose of insuring his presence at the trial. This order of arrest was served by Deputy Sheriff Bates and later Mr. Bostock furnished bail in the sum of $1000 and was released. \n\nAll I could find about him lol.
705324
Only for non-US citizens.\n\nThe MCA directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent, and the plain text of the constitution, which mandates that 5th and 6th Amendment protections apply to anyone held in custody by the US govt, and anyone prosecuted by the US govt.\n\nIt also directly violates Article I Section 9, by suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus. As the Supreme Court ruled over a hundred years ago, the phrase "except during rebellion or invasion when the public safety may require it" means that as long as the federal courts are open for business, they can hear Habeas petitions for anyone detained or held prisoner by the federal government.  \n\nThe law is facially unconstitutional. The only question is, can someone come up with a creative jurisdictional standing argument and find a way to get a federal court to hear the constitutional challenge?
294299
why'd you have a court appearance? sounds like false arrest under habeus corpus.
1170701
You need to go to a library where they have the stuff annotated.  Just knowing the cases is not enough you have to know what the court said they mean and this is in the annotated statutes for your state of federal government.  If you have a large county library may have a law book section, if not find out where you can access annotated law statutes at a library.  The books on this are very expensive and so are the internet subscriptions.
993321
Maybe you are thinking of habeas corpus.  If so, here's a definition of it:\nHabeas corpus (ad subjiciendum) is Latin for "you may have the body" (subject to examination). It is a writ which requires a person detained by the authorities be brought before a court of law so that the legality of the detention may be examined.
156267
You can author your own legal loop-holes. We all live our lives with "good faith" intentions.\n No one wants to spend time in a courtroom.
608623
Habeas Corpus means "bring me the body". That is signed by a judge when he wants to have a person brought to court.\nIn common language that means habius grabbus and bringus to me pronto like.
1088526
Writ of Fieri Facias\n\n"The name of a writ of execution. It is so called because, when writs were in Latin, the words directed to the sheriff were, quod fieri facias de bonis et catallis, etc.; that you cause to be made of the goods and chattels, etc.\n\n"The foundation of this writ is a judgment for debt or damages, and the party who has recovered such a judgment is generally entitled to it, unless he is delayed by the stay of execution which the law allows in certain cases after the rendition of the judgment, or by proceedings in error."\n\nBasically, you have been found to be liable for damages (sued for instance), this writ of execution empowers someone (like a sheriff) to come collect the damages. It also usually prohibits the property from being sold or refinanced.\n\nUsually written as "fi. fa." rather than FIFA, which can lead to confusion when searching for it on the web.
123214
i don't think there is one.   Just read it.  If this is for school, I would focus on the amendments.
139789
With all due respect to Histroyfanatic, that answer is wrong on a number of points.\n\n1.  It's possible it's valid and but it's not possible to tell from this question.\n\n2.  The defendant NEVER has to prove they understand their rights, the prosecution does.\n\n3.  If Histroyfanatic is suggesting that someone must have their rights read to them, read them and sign a waiver, that's also incorrect (the sentence was a little hard to decipher, so I'm not sure).\n\nSome discussion:\n\nIf the defendant read their rights and understood what they read, then the waiver (if there was one; the question does not say) is valid.  All the Miranda case required of law enforcement was that a defendant be told what their rights are...no format was prescribed with which to do so.\n\nIf the defendant was never asked about understanding the rights, then I think there's an argument that can be made that he/she did not understand them.  Whether you read them, hear them, or "see" them in braille, if you understood what you were told and have indicated that in some fashion, the waiver is valid.\n\nThere are a few arguments that can be had with what I've written here because I did not want to write out a Constitution and Miranda 101 class.  If you want more of an answer than this, you need to provide some additional details, like;\n\nDoes your state have a requirement that the suspect sign the Miranda waiver?  (there's no such requirement under federal law)\n\nDid the suspect understand the waiver?\n\nWas it a legally sufficient Miranda warning? (it's gotta say certain things, though even the exact wording is not required by the case itself).\n\nMore details = better answer.