You are on page 1of 5

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, ALABAMA

CITY OF OPELIKA, ALABAMA )


a municipal corporation, )
) CRIMINAL DIVISION
)
PLAINTIFF ) CASE NO. CC 2013- 000838.01
)
VS. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
Michael Albert Focia ) CORPUS BY A PEOPLE IN ALABAMA
) CONSTRUCTIVE CUSTODY
)
DEFENDANT )
Michael Albert Focia )
)
PETITIONER )
)
)
VS. )
)
CITY OF OPELIKA, ALABAMA )
STATE OF ALABAMA )
BENJAMIN CARSWELL )
JOSHUA COMBS )
)
FRANK CRNKO )
SHANE HEALEY )
)
RESPONDENTS

Jury Instructions

1. Comes now, Michael Albert Focia, a People of the United States, and submits his
instructions for the jury.

A. A Copy of statute 13A-1-4


B. A Copy of statute 13A-2-3
C. A Copy of Statute 13A-2-4
D. A Copy of the preamble of the United States Constitution & Bill of
rights, Specifically the 1st,2d, 4th, 5th, 8th amendment
E. A Copy of the Alabama Constitution sections 5, 6, 15,26
F. A copy of my questionnaire that I used to question Office Carswell
G. A. Copy of 5 USC 552a (e)(3)
H. A. Copy of the definitions of probable cause, reasonable suspicion, due
process and infringe as defined in Blacks Law dictionary
I. A Copy of Miller vs.
J. Am Jur 256

LAW OF THIS CASE

The accompanying Attachment “B” is incorporated by reference as though fully


stated herein.

PETITIONER MAY PROSECUTE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS


TO INQUIRE INTO THE CAUSE OF THE RESTRAINT

2. Application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by
the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf. [28
USC Sec. 2242]

3. Every person unlawfully committed, detained, confined or restrained of his liberty,


under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into
the cause of such imprisonment or restraint. [Alabama Statute 15-21-1]

4. Availablility of Writ of habeas corpus [Alabama Statute 15-21-1] is


Available to allow presentation of questions of law that cannont otherwise be
reviewed, or that are so important as to render ordinary procedure inadequate and
justify extraordinary remedy.
5. Writ available to defendant admiited to bail. Writ of habeas corpus was available
to defendant admitted to bail for purpose of challenging probable cause to hold
him for trial, because defendant was in constructive custody by reason of bail and
was subject to restraint within meaning of Alabama Statute 15-9-38.
6. Constructive Custody. The availability of the writ of habeas corpus does not
depend on the actual detention of petitioner in prison. It is also available where
petitioner is constructively in custody and subject to restraint (In re Petersen
(1958) 51 Cal2d 177, 181, 33).1 P2d 24
7. This habeas corpus is prosecuted because the taking of the People into custody
was without due process. The respondent's court acted as a nisi prius court, except
that the jurisdiction was fraudulently acquired without Michael Albert Focia’s
volunteering or knowingly agreeing to the proceeding.

8. The nisi prius court is in fact a nisprius court falsa because respondent has taken
unlawful dominion of Michael Albert Focia so as to deprive him of his court.
Michael Albert Focia should be immediately released so that he may return to the
jurisdiction of his own court.

9. Michael Albert Focia is subject to unlawful constructive custody and restraint.


Michael Albert Focia was forced to participate in a corporate Ponzi scheme and
while questioning the Key Material Fact Witness, Benjamin Carswell committed
perjury and Michael Albert Fociamotion to dismiss was denied is thus petitioning
for a writ of habeas corpus.

BECAUSE NO JURISDICTIONAL BASIS FOR


CUSTODY HAS BEEN PROFERRED OR STATED
A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD ISSUE.
10. Broad Meaning of Jurisdiction on Habeas Corpus. For purposes of the writ of
habeas corpus, as for purposes of prohibition or certiorari, the term "jurisdiction"
is not limited to its fundamental meaning, and in such proceedings judicial acts
may be restrained or annulled if they are determined to be in excess of the court's
powers as defined by constitutional provision, statute, or rules developed by courts
(In re Zerbe (1964) 60 Cal2d 666, 667-668, 36 CalRptr 286, 388 P2d 192).

11. The liberty of the People is restrained by the CUSTODIANS:

A. Michael Albert Focia is in constructive custody by color of the authority of the


United States of America and/or the CUSTODIANS, and is committed for trial
before some court thereof; [28 USC 2241(c)(1)]
B. Michael Albert Focia is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of
the United States; [28 USC 2241(c)(3)]

12. Although the true cause of custody of Michael Albert Focia is unknown, Michael
Albert Focia on information believes that the claim or authority is under color of
law in violation of the Constitutions for the STATE OF ALABABMA and the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The true basis for jurisdiction by the
CUSTODIANS has never been proffered or stated. Michael Focia, as one of the
People, has never knowingly or voluntarily agreed to such jurisdiction. Michael
Focia has disputed and disputes any factual allegation.

Following language: “Understands that will be held to the standards of an


attorney”, wherever it appears on the order and on any other orders by the court.
As grounds for this motion, counter plaintiff shows to this court exhibit A,
incorporated by reference as though fully stated herein.

Wherefore, counter plaintiff moves the court to revise the order by the court
striking the aforementioned language whenever and wherever it appears in the
order.
____________________________________ __________________________________________
Date AttornatusPrivatus

Certificate of Service
I certify that I served a copy of the foregoing motion on the District and/or City Attorney
by delivering a copy of same to him this date.

________________________________________ __________________________________________
Date AttornatusPrivatus

You might also like