James Alan Daum
Re: arrest and prosecute Politicians, now Revolution
Thu Jun 29, 2006 13:51

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: arrest and prosecute Politicians, now Revolution
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:49:38 -0500
From: James Alan Daum JamesAlanDaum@earthlink.net

**Much confusion arises from equating "arrest" with "custodial arrest". An "arrest" in the strict, original sense is just notice to a person that he has been charged with a criminal offense and is required to appear in a court of competent jurisdiction for arraignment. The arrester makes it custodial if he deems the accused to be a significant flight risk. Public official are in most cases not significant flight risks, so arrests of them normally don't need to be custodial. However, if one is going to make an arrest of an official it might be best to qualify it by saying "You are hereby under non-custodial arrest", followed by the filing of a criminal complaint by the arrester.**

I'm SURE we've disputed before but your observations bring up some interesting considerations. WHO or WHAT says that someone can arrest a CitizenŠ and WHY? The constitutional charter at 9 Henry III in 1225 anno domini common to Britain and America suggests strongly that freedom is to be respected.

Caption XVII. NO sheriff, constable, escheator, coroner, nor any other our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our crown.

Caption XXIV. THE writ that is called praecipe in capite shall be from henceforth granted to no person of any freehold, whereby any freeman may lose his court.

Caption XXVI. NOTHING from henceforth shall be given for a writ of inquisition, nor taken of him that prayeth inquisition of life, or of member, but it shall be granted freely, and not denied.

Caption XXVIII. NO bailiff from henceforth shall put any man to his open law, nor to an oath, upon his own bare saying, without faithful witnesses brought in for the same.

Caption XXIX. NO freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.

I'm aware of certain provisions wherein a deputy is sent out to seize a person and to bring him into custody (usually for a weekend) so that he might be taken before a magistrate who may then inform him that he is summoned to answer and can be arrested for contempt if he fails to appear in court in the future to answer to justice. (This does not exactly explain the often case where a belligerant claimant is accused of contumacious behavior by magistrate and dragged OUT OF THE COURTROOM for exercising his freedom to speak in support of his constitutional jurisdiction.)

OTHERWISE there seems to be little to support a policy of kidnap and ransom where the accused has not committed a known felony with any certainty and does not obviously appear to endanger the public while free and at liberty.

I believe that you will find much or most of our accepted provisions for body arrest originate with the Fugitive Slave Act.

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

James Alan Daum
Civilian Jurist


Main Page - Tuesday, 07/04/06

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)