FRANK ANTHONY O’COLLINS ESTATE
Curia Regis
FRANK ANTHONY O’COLLINS
Ref: Case No. XXX-XXXX
Petitioner
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
Vs.
NAME OF RESPONDENTS
UCADIA DayTime:
xxxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxx
[1 May 2012]
Respondents
Frank O’Collins, pro se.
SYLLABUS
The Petitioner respectfully petitions the Curia Regis being the Court of the Sovereign to
issue writ of Habeas Corpus against the Respondents requiring them (1) first key argument
reflected in Prayer for Relief; and (2) second key request reflected in Prayer for Relief; and (3)
third key request associated with Prayer for Relief.
(This paragraph should be replaced with a brief summary in less than 150 words the
core nature of this petition, the main parties and context. It is supposed to be the shortest
possible summary to the more detailed arguments listed later in the petition).
PARTIES RELATED TO PETITION
(Insert here the parties related to the Petition).
2
CONTENTS
JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................................ 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................................. 5
ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 5
CITATIONS AND REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 6
PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................................. 4
APPENDIX I External Documentary Evidence
3
JURISDICTION
1. The Petitioner is a person belonging to the Estate of the same name, therefore
subject to the jurisdiction of the highest court of the Estate.
2. Whilst the term “estate” is a legal construct first formed under the statutes of the
Realm of England, the term also applies to those rights, privileges and obligations first formed
by the Divine Creator of All expressed in trust and granted to the combined body, mind and
soul of each member of the Homo Sapien species upon being born. As all legitimate authority
and office is ultimately derived from the Divine, should one holding office choose to repudiate
this Sacred Writ, such an act therefore represents a declaration of incompetence and
excommunication from any such authority or office.
3. While by tradition of law, another Estate may claim the right to administer
“abandoned property” and the affairs of such an Estate lacking an effective constitution, or
duly appointed government, when clear and unmistakable proof is provided that such a
condition has been remedied, no other Estate nor lesser corporation derived from it may
claim rights of administration or jurisdiction.
4. The Curia Regis, also known as the Court of the Sovereign is the name of the highest
court of the Estate and thus by ancient custom and tradition of law is bestowed the right to
hear such matters on behalf of the General Executor of the Estate being Sovereign of the
Realm.
4. The Respondent is a person who through their actions has claimed a right to engage
in business with the Estate and the management of property belonging to the Estate.
Furthermore, the Respondent occupies a position which by statute demands that the occupier
4
of such position be subject to fiduciary obligations under oath for their conduct and execution
of duties. Therefore, sufficient grounds exist that the Respondent by their own actions has at
the very least agreed to contract with the Estate and be subject to its laws and guidelines when
engaged in business or property of the Estate and even to be bound to their own oath of office
to conduct themselves as fiduciary.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. (Replace this text with a step by step summary of the key facts supporting the
petition in chronological order. All facts must be independently verifiable, first hand, not
hearsay, very short and clear and make plain the order of events leading to the reason for
writing the petition)
6. An example fact would go here
7. Another example fact would go here
ARGUMENTS
8. (Replace this text with a detailed sequence of legal arguments that go to the heart of
justifying why the petition should be granted. Arguments must be based on maxims,
principles of law, or the Divine Canons known as Astrum Iuris Divini Canonum. Language
must be free from hearsay, subjective comment, emotional language and generalizations. Nor
should the language or arguments contain unsubstantiated presumptions.
9. A point of argument would go here
0. Another point of argument would go here
11. Another point of argument would go
5
CITATIONS AND REFERENCES
(Replace this text with the various citations and references you wish to include that
support the arguments).
12. A citation would go here
13. Another citation or reference would go here
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner requests that the Court:
1. Grant the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and
2. Issue the Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Respondents to respond to the Petition
by 12th May 2012; and
3. Issue the Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Attorney General as Agent responsible
for enforcing the Respondents respond to the Petition by the above mentioned
day; and
4. Bond the Attorney General as Agent responsible for enforcing the Respondents
to respond.
Ucadia DayTime: XXXXXX-XXXXXX-XXXXXX
[1 May 2012]
(signature)
Petitioner
6
7