Oh did I say writ of Habeas corpus? NO!! I said Habeas corpus and was using the Latin and that means " [We command that] you have the body"
Why oh why do you think you are the professional?
A professional is someone who "A worker required to possess a large body of knowledge derived from extensive academic study (usually tertiary), with the training almost always formalized".
That is not you, Bill! You were and are not a professional! You were a pointy headed, pencil pushing bureaucrat who thought he was very important and did a job anyone could do with TRAINING, not education!
Another legal word for you: Hearsay;
Your faith and religion is all hearsay!! "Everything you call proof and all your knowledge is based on "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge" Everything about EVERY religion is based on the same. It is all based on unverified information that is learned from someone else. All any of you (Religious nuts)have is "Faith" and never knowledge!
Unless you had lunch with your God and then I apologize, because then you are just suffering from a hallucination!
Then you are just
LEAVE THIS WORK TO THE PROFESSIONALS!
Habeas Corpus, correctly translated, is, "let you have the body", and refers to giving the prisoner up to his lawyer or other custodian filing the writ.
It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with corpses. What you're thinking of is "corpus delecti", an entirely different thing.
Now you can go to trial without a corpus delecti, but this, again, has nothing to do with habeas corpus
And before you come up again, trying to teach me my own profession, think twice.
It's just possible that I was properly trained by a good school.
Apropos religion, you have no idea how right you are! I HAVE had personal experience with spirits, and believe me, they were no hallucination! It scared me to death. There is no "hearsay" about it. There were other witnesses present, so I know it wasn't anything I "deramed up" myself.
As I've repeatedly said on this forum, the people criticizing the Church through me--and I'm no exemplary member--are doing so from a position of pitiful ignorance of how the Church works.
To be honest, anyone would be excused confusing Habeas Corpus with other things. Since the Bush administration did away with it, it's become a sort of a mythical creature. Everyone knows it existed at some point but no one knows what it looks like. :-)
*Sits back and waits for the flamewar*
I had to go look it up myself. The proper spelling is "corpus delicti", and it means "the body of the crime", i.e. the substance or fundamental facts of an offense. (Dictionary of Foreign Terms, 2d Ed. )
Please note that here, too, the reference is not to a corpse, although a corpse would be the "corpus delicti" of a murder case.
I think we agree (?). I think the ceation of the Department of Homeland Security was one big-time mistake. Border control had been in the bailiwick of the Department of the Interior since it was founded, and should have stayed there. The last thing American taxpayers needed was a whole new level of bureaucracy, especially at cabinet level, which immediately started flexing its muscles and making things difficult for everyone, just as OSHA did when it was founded.
From my viewpoint, DHS has gone completely paranoid.
I may be wrong (again!) but I was talking about a little girl who disappeared and the lawmerchant saying there had to be a body for a murder charge.
According to my dictionary, "Latin, habeas corpus literally means вЂњyou shall have the body" I was referring to the Latin, not the writ and the idea that a body does not have to be produced for a murder charge.
Corpus delicti has nothing to do with the body of a little girl who has been missing for many months!
I am never the expert when it comes to Latin!!
Cheer up! Nobody's an expert in everything. All I claim is competence in a profession I was well trained for. In "my day", the military services didn't have anywhere near the number of lawyers they have now, especially the Navy, which couldn't possibly have a lawyer on each ship. Therefore the Naval Justice School trained legal enlisted people in the functions which the lawyers now perform. We had to handle the whole schmear, from the initial report, through the investigations, all the pre-trial paperwork, the trial itself, and then all the post-trial paperwork. We were trained in each individual article of the military justice code, one by one, with all of the elements of proof required, and the necessary (and sometimes tricky) wording necessary to make a conviction possible.
(Example: Take a larceny case. Someone may take something from someone else without committing a crime. The trick here is that the indictment must read "did unlawfully take...." If you don't specify that the taking was unlawful, you'll lose.) Same thing with murder. The indictment must specifiy "did unlawfully kill...", or words to that effect. I can't guarantee that this somewhat archaic language is still required, but I should think it is.
Even better: A sailor from one ship swipes something from another ship and brings it back with him. You can't charge him with larceny. Why not? Because for larceny you have to specifiy that the item was taken from its rightful owner. Since it was government property and only transferred from one ship to another, it hadn't been removed from its owner. The best you could charge was wrongful appropriation, which only requires that it be taken from someone having a greater right to possession.
It's true that I finished my career out as a court reporter, where I didn't have all the extraneous work to do, but I was still well enough grounded that I could (and did) point erroneous indictments out to the judges prior to trial, which didn't endear me to the young lawyers at all, but kept egg off of the judge's face.
50% more Chinese Tourists in Bulgaria
Potentially Defective Aluminum was used by All Car Manufacturers in Japan