Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

hab used in NJ to get out of jail on traffic tickets +

Expand Messages
  • Pro Se
    [upon your approval this is a newer hab.] background of this hab is as follows - I was attacked & assaulted by a STATE Constable in PA [he was charged &
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 8, 2007
       
      [upon your approval this is a newer hab.]
       
      background of this hab is as follows -
       
      I was attacked & assaulted by a STATE Constable in PA [he was charged & arrested]
       
      I sued him in federal court - and before the state statute of limitations passed I filed a lawsuit @ state level...at which time the man attacked me again...this time
      "HE CLAIMED" I assaulted him...
       
      I filed charges & they were IGNORED - he filed charges & I was never served...
       
      months went by & I DID NOT KNOW A WARRANT FOR MY ARREST was issued.
       
      While traveling in NJ - I was a victim of another "pretexual" traffic stop - buy which they  ran my info  in their GESTAPO style data base...
      they CLAIMED there was a warrant for my arrest!
       
      I cooperated & was booked & processed & jailed...while being processed I asked to see this SO CALLED WARRANT.
       
      The cops showed it to me & I said
      WELL.... this is OVER 6 months old STALE & DEFECTIVE
      It has no affidavit of probable cause & no verified COMPLAINT
       
      Cop said  " why are you telling me this?"
       
      Because I'm going to HOLD YOU PERSONALY LIABLE!
       
      He turned white as a GHOST.
       
      This HAB was served UPON THE JAIL & THE COPS & SENT THE ATTNY GENERAL
      but NOT FILED w/ the court
      [why..... my friend & associate DID NOT HAVE MY SIGNATURE ON IT!
      so be sure to sign your hab's & have a few ready w/ your family & friends]
       
      I was then KICKED OUT OF JAIL -- they were so scared - & they did not want this HAB in the NJ Courts if so - hundreds of people could have been let free!
       
      The people I was in there with were BAFFLED!
       
      I asked the guard if it was a joke & he said NO...P.A. does not want you.
       
      So if you amend this HAB for your state & sign it - BUT DON"T DATE It..keep a few on your car & with your family.
       
      This is NOT LEGAL ADVICE
       
       
       
       
      _______________ Court in/for the
      State of _______________
       
      _______________________________ : Criminal/Case No. _____________
      Petitioner/Aggrieved Party,
      In Propria Persona,
      vs. : Writ of Habeas Corpus
      _________________________________,
      Police Commissioner/Chief, for the
      _________________ Police Department,
      Respondent, : Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.
      (42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9121 et seq.)
      and ,
      __________________________________, :
      Warden, for the ______________ Prison,
      Respondent.
      ____________________________________
       
       
       
      PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
      ____________________________
      TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT:
      Petitioner, ________________________, in his proper person, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, and represents:
      1. Respondent ______________________is the Police Commissioner/Chief of the ______________________ Police Department in the county of ___________, State of ________________________________.
      2. Respondent _______________________ is the Warden of the____________ County Correctional Facility/Prison.
      3. Petitioner was arrested on ___________, 200_____, A.D., and charged with being a fugitive from the Commonwealth / State of Pennsylvania.
      4. Petitioner believes and further avers that there is no valid and bona fide Governor’s Warrant to extradite Petitioner in the custody and the immediate possession of the arresting officers and/or the custody and possession of the Respondent Warden and his unlawful imprisonment and illegal restraint is in direct violation and conflict of the Constitutions, both State and Federal, for the Commonwealth/State of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, and the National Constitution.
      5. Petitioner’s restraint is unlawful / unconstitutional and extradition would violate the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9121, et seq., because the Commonwealth / State of Pennsylvania has failed to prove each of the following:
      (a) Petitioner was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime;
      (b) Petitioner is charged with a crime in the demanding state;
      (c) Petitioner is a fugitive from the demanding state;
      (d) Legally adequate requisition papers have been issued from the demanding state;
      (e) Petitioner is the person sought by the demanding state.
      WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the writ of habeas corpus issue and that the extradition proceedings be dismissed with prejudice. That the Honorable Court award any other relief to the Petitioner it deems just and proper under the circumstances.
      __________________, 200____ Respectfully submitted,
      ______________________________
      Petitioner, In Propria Persona.
      ________________Correctional Facility
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      _________________________ Court in/for the
      State of __________________
       
      _______________________________ : Criminal/Case No. _____________
      Petitioner/Aggrieved Party,
      In Propria Persona,
      vs. : Writ of Habeas Corpus
      _________________________________,
      Police Commissioner/Chief, for the
      _______________ Police Department,
      Respondent, : Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.
      (42 Pa.C.S.A. §9121 et seq.)
      and ,
      __________________________________, :
      Warden, for the _____________ Prison,
      Respondent.
      ____________________________________
       
       
       
      Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
      Memorandum of Law with Points and Authorities.
      ________________________
       
      Introduction.
      The Pro Se Litigant is submitting this writ of habeas corpus as of right, of his own Right, in his proper person. As he has a constitutional right to speak in his own words, on paper. Farretta vs. California, 422 U.S. 806, (1975).
       
      The pro se litigant is not held to the same stringent standards as licensed attorneys, as long as the court can reasonably read the pleadings and use common sense in the relief being sought, despite failure to cite proper legal authority, poor syntax and sentence construction, confusion of legal theories, and unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. Haines vs. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Boag vs. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982).
       
      Pro se petitioners--In determining whether such relief should be granted on their pleadings regarding their claims, the Court held that: "we are governed by the substance of things, not by mere form". Louisville & N.R. Co. vs. Schmidt, 177 U.S. 230 (1899).
       
      This Court has a duty to entertain the Petitioner’s pro se pleadings looking at the substance and not the labels, mere form, put on them (pleadings). Furthermore, the courts are not bound by the labels put on the pleading, nor the caption of the pleading or prayer, but by the substance, Benson vs. Sales Corp., 238 Cal.2d Supp. 937, 48 Cal. Rptr. 123.
       
      Pro se filings are held to a less stringent procedural standards than others, see, Nunnally vs. MacClausland, 996 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1993).
       
      There is obligation to construe pleadings liberally and to afford plaintiff (Defendant) benefit of any doubt in civil rights cases, where plaintiff is pro se, also, pro se pleadings are to held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys, see, Balisteri vs. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990).
      Court errs if court dismisses the pleadings of a non-attorney litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings, see, Platsky vs. C.I.A., 953 F.2d 26 (2nd. Cir. 1991).
      All litigants have a constitutionally—secured right to have their claims adjudicated according to the rule of precedent, see, Anastasoff vs. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (2000).
       
      Undisputed Facts.
      Petitioner was captured by the ________________ Police Department for alleged traffic/commerce and or /___________________ violations at or about ________________________ 200____, A.D.
      The arresting police officer(s) ran a check on the Petitioner and found out by computer information or other means that there was an "alleged warrant" for the Petitioner’s arrest in another state, the Commonwealth / State of Pennsylvania.
      The arresting police officer(s) took the Petitioner in custody, immediately, and told his _____friend that he is going to be held on the charge of a ‘fugitive of justice’ or something to that effect.
      The arresting police officer(s) did not have a valid and bona fide warrant and or capias in their possession at the time of the arrest, nor do they have a valid or bona fide Governor’s Warrant for Extradition in their custody or possession.
      The Petitioner has languished in the _____________ Correctional Facility/Prison, since his arrest on ______________, 200____, A.D., without a formal arraignment and/or an evidentiary hearing, to date.
      The Petitioner is indigent and without adequate and competent legal counsel.
       
       
      Issue.
      Is the Petitioner being restrained and held against his will legally and lawfully under the color of state/any law and color of authority, as an alleged fugitive from justice from the State/Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on a valid and bona fide Governor’s Warrant pursuant to the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9121 et seq. and the United States Constitution, at Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2, via the Fourteenth Amendment?
      SUGGESTED ANSWER:
      In the Negative.
       
      Rule.
      The appropriate Rule of Law in this case as it pertains to Petitioner is the United States Constitution, specifically, Article 4, Sec. 2, Clause 2, via the Fourteenth Amendment which Article 4, Sec. 2, Clause 2 provides:
      "A person who is charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime,
      who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand
      of the Executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to
      be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime." U.S.C.A. Const.
      Article 4, Sec. 2, Clause 2.
      Fourteenth Amendment at Section 1, in pertinent part, provides:
      " …..No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
      or immunities of the citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive
      any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to
      any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." U.S.C.A. Const.
      Amend. 14.
      Pursuant to this provision, Pennsylvania has adopted the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9121 et seq. Under the provisions of this Act, extradition must be ordered if the person is (1) charged with a crime in the demanding state; (2) is a fugitive from the demanding state; (3) was present in the demanding state at the time the crime was committed; and (4) the requisition papers are in order. Commonwealth vs. Jacobs, 319 Pa. Super. 531, 466 A.2d 671 (1983). The defendant may contest extradition by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9131. At a hearing on the petition, the Commonwealth must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the person being extradited is the person demanded. Commonwealth vs. Rowe, 264 Pa. Super. 67, 398 A.2d 1060 (1979). Proof by affidavit is permitted. Commonwealth ex rel. Pizzo vs. Aytch, 273 Pa. Super. 55, 416 A.2d 1086 (1979).
       
       
      Application.
      The demand for extradition must allege that the accused was in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime and that he thereafter fled the jurisdiction. In addition, there must be a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint (supported by affidavit) that "substantially charges" a crime, or a copy of a warrant and affidavit showing that the defendant was convicted of a crime in that state and has escaped or violated the terms of probation or parole.
      Upon the arrest and commitment of a defendant (or the lodging of a detainer) on fugitive charges, the Commonwealth has thirty (30) days in which to produce required papers in court, including the Governor’s Warrant of arrest (approval of extradition), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9136. The Commonwealth may apply for one (1) sixty (60)-day extension, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9138. A defendant who is incarcerated beyond the thirty (30) or ninety (90)-day period has the right to be discharged if the state has failed to act. E.g., Com. ex rel. Knowles vs Lester, 456 Pa. 423, 321 A.2d 637 (1979); Commonwealth vs Hude, 483 Pa. 489, 397 A.2d 772 (1979)(Act applies and time begins to run when detainer is lodged with respect to an open charge from another state). However, a discharge of the defendant for failure to comply with these provisions does not bar re-arrest. Com. ex rel. Holcombe vs. Strode, 266 Pa. Super. 39, 402 A.2d 1067 (1979).
      If the papers are in order and the Commonwealth proves the necessary elements, the Governor may not refuse to extradite. Puerto Rico vs. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219, 107 S.Ct. 2802, 97 L.Ed.2d 187 (1987). Once the warrant issues, the only issue before the court on an application for habeas corpus is whether the demanding state has complied with the four (4) criteria specified above. The Commonwealth need not show probable cause for the underlying charge, Michigan vs. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 99 S. Ct. 530, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); Commonwealth vs. Brown, 281 Pa. Super. 31, 421 A.2d 1131 (1980), and guilt or innocence is not at issue, Com. ex rel. Reis vs. Aytch, 225 Pa. Super. 315, 310 A.2d 681 (1973).
      PLEASE NOTE:
      An appeal of the denial of habeas corpus relief on extradition will be rendered moot unless the defendant obtains an immediate stay of the extradition from the trial or appellate court. See, §15.21, supra.
       
       
      Conclusion.
      Based upon the foregoing reasons, the Writ of Habeas Corpus should issue forthwith and the Petitioner released, immediately.
      Date:____________________ Respectfully submitted,
      ______________________________
      Petitioner, In Propria Persona.
      _______________ Correctional Facility
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      ________________________ in/for the
      State of _____________
       
      _______________________________ : Criminal/Case No. _____________
      Petitioner/Aggrieved Party,
      In Propria Persona,
      vs. : Writ of Habeas Corpus—
      Another Form
      _________________________________,
      Police Commissioner/Chief, for the
      ______________ Police Department,
      Respondent, : Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.
      (42 Pa.C.S.A. §9121 et seq.)
      and ,
      __________________________________, :
      Warden, for the ______________ Prison,
      Respondent.
      ____________________________________
       
      PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
      ____________________________
      TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT:
      Petitioner, ________________________, in his proper person, moves for a writ of habeas corpus, and represents:
      1. Respondent ______________________is the Police Commissioner/Chief of the ____________________________________ Police Department in the county of ______________, State of __________________________.
      2. Respondent _______________________ is the Warden of the __________ County Correctional Facility/Prison.
      3. Petitioner was arrested at or about ______________________., on a fugitive by the State/Commonwealth of _________________________.
      4. The Commonwealth / state has failed to produce the requisite extradition papers in court within the thirty (30)-day period provided for by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9236.
      5. The failure of the Commonwealth / state to proceed in a timely fashion is violative of the Act and entitles Petitioner to a dismissal of the fugitive warrant.
       
       
       
      WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the Court dismiss the fugitive warrant, grant the writ of habeas corpus, and discharge the Petitioner, forthwith, in the interest of justice, right and equity. Also, that the Honorable Court grant any other relief to the Petitioner it deems just and proper under the circumstances.
      ______________, 200___ Respectfully submitted,
      ______________________________
      Petitioner, In Propria Persona.
      ______________ Correctional Facility
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
      Certificate of Service.
      Undersigned Agent-in-Fact does hereby certify that he did in fact cause to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing instruments Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with Attached Brief in Support on the persons named below in the manner indicated:
      Via Hand Delivery
      :
      Court Administrator ______________
      Presiding Judge _________________
      Prosecuting/District Attorneys Office ____________________
      Warden of the _____________ County Prison _____________
      Police Commissioner/Chief of the _____________Police Department
      ____________________, 2006
      "Without Prejudice"
      ____________________________
      _____________________, Sui Juris,
      Process Server/Agent-in-Fact.
       
       
       
       


      The fish are biting.
      Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.