Print this page
  Habeas Corpus is a Latin phrase meaning “(by what claim) do you have (keep) the body?” and one of the Prerogative Writs and primary elements of remedy against the misuse, corruption or failure of officials or agents to follow the body of laws of the Commonwealth including those enacted in the 16th Century by King Henry VIII of England that first formed the legal constructs of modern commerce such as trusts, estates, property, rights of use, licenses, deeds, bills, notices, accounts and warrants.  
     
  Writ of Habeas Corpus  
  The writ of Habeas Corpus presented here is based upon a valid Writ of Right issued by the General Executor or duly appointed Administrator of the Estate consistent with the historic purpose and attributes associated with the Writ of Habeas Corpus defined by Common Law Statutes of Roman and Western Law.  
  Upon a General Executor or their duly appointed Administrator receiving a written Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus compliant with the historic form and criteria pertaining to the granting of such a writ by the highest court of the Estate, a detailed Summary must then be provided by the Curia Regis (Court of the Sovereign) of the Estate outlining why such a Petition was granted or denied.  
  Under reforms to Roman and Western Law introduced under King Henry VIII, the practice of arbitrary detention of individuals by various nobles, officials and bodies was outlawed. As is the case still around the world today, the practice of effectively “kidnapping” people to then ransom some payment from them or their lord for their safety was a significant threat to law and order. Part of the remedy was the introduction of the Writ of Habeas Corpus as we know it today.
  
  The principle of law by which most people think the operation of Habeas Corpus is founded is the maxim that “no one ought be subject to arbitrary detention without charge or trial”. This is partly true. The introduction of Habeas Corpus was in part to eliminate arbitrary detentions equivalent to “organized kidnapping”. But Habeas Corpus actually functions in practice upon a question of property law – That is “you do not have a legitimate claim (anymore) against the property”.
  
  Similar to the Magna Charta which introduced rights to nobles, but left the general people in the same state, Habeas Corpus provided enforceable rights to nobles against other nobles or officials that seized people under their jurisdiction as a “property dispute”. Hence, the very definition of Habeas Corpus as “(by what claim) do you have (keep) the body?”
  
  Under Roman and Western Law, one noble could hold the servants of another as penalty, payment or bond for some injury. However, if such claim was unsubstantiated, or if the servant was not subject to the jurisdiction of the custodian, then a Habeas Corpus would be granted by the Sovereign an a party sent to the keep of the custodian to demand the prisoner be immediately produced.
  
  The other ancient protection afforded by Habeas Corpus was protection of the body itself. While the alleged crime may have placed the servant in the hands of another to serve some sentence, it was expected at the end of their sentence they would be returned to their original master. In contrast, the abuse, ill treatment, torture or even execution of a prisoner amounted to “property damage”, which the other noble could then pursue for damages, even if it was the court of the king.
  
     
  The Writ of Habeas Corpus today  
  Today, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is arguably the most misquoted, misunderstood and misused of the ancient Prerogative Writs.
  
  In the first instance, any policy decisions of a corporation to disallow the recognition of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is completely irrelevant and a side show- as corporations are absolutely and fundamentally not allowed to issue Writs in any case.
  
  In the second instance, virtually all Habeas Corpus petitions are based on erroneous questions of human rights and detention as opposed to property rights and the obligations of the keeper of the property to take good care of it for the duration of the sentence.
  
  For example, corporations are absolutely forbidden to destroy the property of another estate – period. Such action constitutes a fundamental breach of all Western and Roman Law- that if permitted to continue once exposed for what it is then represents a historic admission of the collapse of the rule of law and the advent of criminal anarchy.
  
  Indeed, when a corporation holds the property of another estate in its custody and fails to properly maintain it, protect it, or even threatening to destroy it, such actions immediately by the very core of all Western Law for the past six hundred years renders the claim for custody null and void, against the claim of damages by the original estate owner.
  
     
  Difference of Writ of Habeas Corpus to other Writs  
  The historic criteria for granting or denying a Writ of Habeas Corpus is partly based on the specific purpose of the Writ compared to alternate Writs, some of which are outlined in these pages.
  
  Therefore, a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus may contain legitimate grounds for the granting of a Writ- however, not for the specific purpose by which a Writ of Habeas Corpus is designed to be used.
  
  While a Writ of Habeas Corpus historically has been granted for reviewing matters jurisdiction (property ownership) and abuse of powers (unlawful detention, abuse etc), it has not been granted nor used as a means of correcting fundamental administrative errors of law or questions of fairness and application of justice. This is the preserve and purpose of the Writ of Coram Nobis, also known as a Writ of Error Coram Nobis as well as the Writ of Certiorari.
  
  Similarly, the Writ of Habeas Corpus has historically ignored any questions of valid jurisdictional authority as a matter to be raised earlier in any proceedings through the Writ of Quo Warranto.
  
     
  Key Historic Laws of Habeas Corpus  
  Historic References in UK Statutes 1216 - 1760  
  Statute of Habeas Corpus (1679)  
     
     
     
     
DISCLAIMER: The information produced above is for education purposes only and does not purport to be an official ruling, decision or action. Nor should the information in anyway be construed as legal advice. The use of the information is at the discretion of the reader and no liability shall be accepted in the event of its use. Always seek the advice of educated, reputable and honorable scholars of law first, before any action involving the law.
Copyright © Globe-Union-Court.Org 2012. All Rights Reserved