Remanded Custody

Turtle island Stripping doctrine 

                      ARREST WARRANT 

                     REMANDED CUSTODY

                        HABEAS CORPUS

Too whom it may concern;,,,

Name;________________________

Address;______________________

Street;________________________

Email;_________________________

Remanded/Custody of;

Name;________________________

Address;______________________

Street;________________________

Email;_________________________

EXAMPLE 

 Original standings of jurisdiction in accordance with our Cheyenne Great Law Of Peace "

Holder of Due Course" 

"Matrilineal" LEADER____________of the International Buffalo Council,"Matrilineal"

Chief/Clan Mother of 

the "Matriarch"________________"Cheyenne Dogman Warrior Society", "holder of Due course", 

Habeas Corpus of jurisdiction of authority

title 25 Ss 1200.10-1200.26 , title 18 Ss 241,242, 1091,Article 22 of the Vienna convention 1955 Host Nation objection to Reservation, Executor de son tort, Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982)Based on their power as of Nation and Treaty sovereignty too exclude others also with the inclusion of United States v. Cooley with respects of tribal law enforcements the full inherent authority to detain or arrest Native Peoples and non-native people an with competence of a Terry stop and full on self-governance and Inherent Sovereignty to arrest Native peoples, Nonintercourse act of 1985 aka Aboriginal title to the Constitution, Little BigHorn Cheyenne Lakota Treaty C.R.S.T. Vekosohvo Komaestse

Holder of Due course clause, Absolute Native title, Treaty equals Fee simple True title, Treaty is of Nation of Land and International people, also in comprehension of common law international tort

In common law legal systems, The common law is crucial to understanding almost all important areas of law), 

Example, In England and Wales, and in most states of the United States, The basic law of contracts, Torts, and property do not exist in statute, But only in common law, Though there may be isolated modifications enacted by statute,

Example, The Supreme Court of the United States in 1877, Held that a Michigan statute that established rules for solemnization of marriages did not abolish pre-existing, common-law marriage, Because the Statute did not affirmatively require statutory solemnization and was silent as to preexisting common law,

In almost all areas of the law, Even those where there is a statutory framework, Such as contracts for the sale of goods, Or the criminal law, legislature-enacted statutes generally give only Terse statements of general principle, The fine boundaries and definitions exist only in the interstitial common law, To find out what the precise law is that applies to a particular set of facts, One has to locate preexisting decisions on the topic, and reason from those decisions by analogy to consider,

 Example, The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, an, thereforth, But interpretation, that is, determining the fine boundaries, and resolving the tension between the Entity and Free People clauses, of each of the important terms was delegated by Article III of the Constitution to the judicial branch, So that the current legal boundaries of the Constitutional text can only be determined by consulting interstitial common law,

In common law jurisdictions, legislatures operate under the assumption that statutes will be interpreted against the backdrop too the pre-existing common law, 

Example; In most U.S. states, the criminal statutes are primarily codification of pre-existing common law, Codification, the process of enacting a statute that collects and restates pre-existing law in a single document, When that pre existing law, Is common law, The common law remains relevant to the interpretation of these statutes, modern statutes often leave a number of terms and fine distinctions unstated,

Example, A statute might be very brief, leaving the precise definition of terms unstated, Under the assumption that these fine distinctions will be inherited from pre-existing common law. Many modern American law schools teach the common law of crime as it stood in England in 1789, Because centuries-old English common law is a necessary foundation to interpreting modern criminal statutes,

With the transition from English law, which had common law crimes, to the new legal system under the U.S. Constitution, which prohibited ex post facto laws at both the federal and state level, the question was raised whether there could be common law crimes in the United States. It was settled in the case of United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812), which decided that federal courts had no jurisdiction to define new common law crimes,