I.C.W. Habeas Corpus

PLAINTIFF; Native People of the land DEFENDANT; HABEAS CORPUS OF AUTHORITY OF JURISDICTION ATTACHMENT; All parties are here by notice of writ of Appeals, From the native people of the land ( inherit free people ), Do by writ of notice of the Right(s) of the said people, Order to all none native people of the land too SEIZE, an or, dismiss All Actions, an or, motions thereof an thereforth against said people, When SAID PEOPLE set forth too be known too any entity not that of the said people, Nor will any Policy Enforcer disrupt their way of life NO matter the reach of Policy Enforcer(s) believes as of a Person of a Citizen(s), An not that of one of the Native People of the Land ( inherit free people ), Nor shall any of the said Entity(s), State a false Authority of Jurisdiction thereof, an or, thereforth on too any of the said People, By Order of the Constitution setfourth By the Native Peoples of land since 1789 That said Incorporated Entity(s) do bind their self' s too oath, When too pledge their oath as a whole Incorporated Entity(s), an or, Said Entity(s) Policy Enforcer(s), An So Order of the Fedral Supreme Court of the United States of America, an or, Supreme Law of said Incorporated Entity(s), when too pledge their oath as a whole, PENALTY; OF such a crime against the SAID PEOPLE, TOO be a Capital Felony crime AN BE ARRESTED on the spot of seen, By any, AN OR , PEOPLE(s), Person(s), an or, Entity(s), an or, Entity(s) Policy Enforcer(s), An or, Citizen(s); NOTE; So Remanded let SAID Writ be heard an known HEREOF, AN, thereforth too all Entity(s), Entity(s) Policy Enforcer(s), Citizen(s), Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger, 528 F.2d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 1975 TA \l "Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger, 528 F.2d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 1975" \s "Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger, 528 F.2d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 1975" \c 1 ) In NDY, the court recognized that it is well established that custodial restraints on a minor child are a sufficient deprivation of liberty to be challenged by way of habeas corpus. The majority of American states accept the English view that a child's absence from the parent's legal custody is equivalent to illegal restraint on the child and that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for such restraint. The writ has the capacity to reach all manner of illegal detention. Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286,291 (1969) TA \l "Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286,291 (1969)" \s "Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286,291 (1969)" \c 1 . The overwhelming weight of applicable precedent clearly indicates that federal habeas corpus jurisdiction exists to challenge state child custody judgments. The question is whether federal-state comity considerations render inappropriate the exercise of federal habeas jurisdiction (Lehman). Petitioner claims that it is not inappropriate. In the instant application, Petitioner has standing. Petitioner acts on behalf of her children. Petitioner’s parental rights were erroneously terminated in an arbitrary manner, using no standard of proof, and that lacked a fact finding hearing, res ipsa loquitur. The issue in cases such as Lehman is not who shall have custody of the child or even whether the petitioner-parent's rights should have been terminated, but rather the constitutional sufficiency of the state court proceedings. (See Pukas v. Pukas, 129 W. Va. 765, , 42 S.E.2d 11, 13 (1947) TA \l "Pukas v. Pukas, 129 W. Va. 765, , 42 S.E.2d 11, 13 (1947)" \s "Pukas v. Pukas, 129 W. Va. 765, , 42 S.E.2d 11, 13 (1947)" \c 1 , State v. Cheeseman, 5 N.J.L. 522, 525 (1819)) TA \l "State v. Cheeseman, 5 N.J.L. 522, 525 (1819))" \s "State v. Cheeseman, 5 N.J.L. 522, 525 (1819))" \c 1 ; Note, supra note 44, at 272