|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
QUESTION: CAN A WOMAN OR FEMALE INDIVIDUAL BE ARRESTED FOR A CIVIL INFRACTION TYPE COMPLAINT.
ANSWER:
LAWFULLY NO!!!! A WOMAN OR FEMALE PERSON MAY NOT BE
ARRESTED FOR A CIVIL COMPLAINT! A STONE FACT! PLEASE SEE BELOW!
M.C.L.A. 600.1821
MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED
CHAPTER 600. REVISED JUDICATURE
ACT OF 1961
CHAPTER 18. PROCESS AND ARRESTS
Current through P.A. 1995, Nos. 1to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 24, 26,
28 to 58, and 61 to 100
600.1821. Arrest; exemptions
Sec. 1821. (1) No officer of the senate or house of representatives is liable to arrest on civil process while in actual attendance upon the duties of his office.
******NOTE>
(2) No female shall
be imprisoned on any process in any civil action.
(3) No minor under 16
years of age shall be imprisoned on any process in any civil action.
(4) All parties,
attorneys, and subpoenaed witnesses are exempt from arrest on civil process
while going to, attending, and returning from the places they are required to
attend.
(5) No person while he
is within this state pursuant to any subpoena issued to compel his appearance
in any criminal proceeding pending in this state shall be arrested or detained
upon any criminal charge for any offense committed prior to his entry into this
state pursuant to the subpoena.
(6) No person passing
through this state while going to another state in obedience to a summons to
attend and testify in a criminal proceeding in that state or while returning
from that state shall be arrested, by either civil or criminal arrest, for any
matter which arose before his entry into this state in obedience to that
summons.
(7) No officer of any
of the several courts of record, including jurors, shall be arrested on any
civil process while going to, attending, or returning from any actual sitting
of the court of which he is an officer.
In other cases these officers are liable to arrest and may be held to
bail in the same manner as other persons.
(8) Every civil arrest
made contrary to the above provisions (1) through (7) is void and a contempt of
court. The court or officer before whom
any witness is subpoenaed to attend and every justice of the supreme court and
every circuit judge has authority to discharge any person arrested contrary to
those provisions (1) through (7).
(9) Every person
making or procuring a civil arrest contrary to the above provisions (1) through
(7) is guilty of contempt of court and is liable to the person arrested in
double the amount of damages which a jury finds that he has sustained and also
is liable in an action at the suit of any injured person for the loss,
hindrance, and damage the injured person has sustained in consequence of the
arrest. The officer or person causing
the arrest shall not be guilty of contempt nor liable for damages if the person
exempt from arrest has failed to mention that he is exempt or, after mentioning
that he is exempt, refused the officer's request to sign an affidavit swearing
that at the time of his arrest he was either:
(a) an officer of the
senate or house of representatives in actual attendance upon the duties of his
office, or
NOTE>
(b) a female, or
NOTE>
(c) a minor under
16 years of age, or
(d) a party, attorney,
or subpoenaed witness going to, attending, or returning from a place he was
required to attend, or
(e) a person who was
passing through this state while going to or returning from another state to
which he had been summoned to attend and testify in a criminal prosecution, or
(f) an officer of a
court of record going to, attending, or returning from an actual sitting of the
court.
NOTE> Any civil arrest
made contrary to the above provisions (1) through (7) is void.
HISTORICAL NOTES
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
1981 Main Volume
Source:
P.A.1961, No. 236,
Sec. 1821, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963.
C.L.1948, Sec.
600.1821.
Prior Laws:
R.S.1846, c. 2, Sec.
1; c. 96, Sec. 26; c. 102, Secs. 62 to 66; c. 106, Sec. 45.
C.L.1857, Secs. 17,
4072, 4299 to 4303, 4483.
P.A.1858, No. 4.
C.L.1871, Secs. 20,
5685, 5919 to 5923, 6119.
P.A.1873, No. 131.
How. Secs. 37, 7253,
7492 to 7496, 7704.
C.L.1897, Secs. 34,
1117, 10157 to 10161.
P.A.1915, No. 314, c.
XIII, Secs. 40, 42 to 45.
C.L.1915, Secs. 12443,
12445 to 12448.
C.L.1929, Secs. 14103,
14105 to 14108.
P.A.1931, No. 106.
C.L.1948, Secs.
613.40, 613.42 to 613.45.
REFERENCES
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
1981 Main Volume
Article 1, Sec. 21,
provides:
"No person shall
be imprisoned for debt arising out of or founded on contract, express or
implied, except in cases of fraud or breach of trust."
Article 4, Sec. 11, provides:
"Senators and
representatives shall be privileged from civil arrest and civil process during
sessions of the legislature and for five days next before the commencement and
after the termination thereof. They shall
not be questioned in any other place for any speech in either house."
LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES
1981 Main Volume
Duress through civil
litigations. John P. Dawson, 45
Mich.L.Rev. 571 (1947).
Intent element in
contempt of injunctions, decrees and court orders. 48 Mich.L.Rev. 860 (1950).
LIBRARY REFERENCES
1996 Interim Update
Study report on
legislative privilege. Michigan Law
Revision Commission (1983), 18th Annual Report, p. 14.
1981 Main Volume
Arrest k8, 9.
C.J.S. Arrest Secs. 79
to 87.
M.L.P. Arrest Secs. 24,
29, 32.
M.L.P. Attorneys and
Counselors Sec. 41.
M.L.P. Damages Sec.
93.
M.L.P. Process Sec.
27.
ANNOTATIONS
NOTES OF DECISIONS
In general 1
Attorneys 4
Awaiting trial 12
Bastardy proceedings 10
Corporate officers 8
Females 2
Investigations 11
Judges 5
Jurors 6
Parties, in general 3
Voluntary appearance 9
Witnesses 7
1. In general
Privilege from arrest
while going to or from court exists in the case of all proceedings of a
judicial nature, whether in court or not, and protects a person going to or
from a place of confinement under a former arrest. People ex rel. Watson v. Judge of Superior Court of Detroit
(1879) 40 Mich. 729.
A party's privilege
from arrest is not void, but voidable, and is a privilege of the party, not of
the court. People ex rel. Watson v.
Judge of Superior Court of Detroit (1879) 40 Mich. 729.
2. Females
Decree in proceeding
in which defendant was restrained from operating a house of prostitution might
be served on her while under arrest.
People v. Yarowsky (1926) 210 N.W. 246, 236 Mich. 169.
Imprisonment of a
woman for violation of a city health ordinance enacted under C.L.1897, Sec.
3131, was not a violation of Sec. 10342, forbidding imprisonment of a female on
process in civil action, the act complained of being an orfense against Secs.
4412, 4459, as to violation of health regulations, as well as the ordinance,
and the prosecution being disposed of according to criminal procedure. Stewart v. Hart (1917) 162 N.W. 1028, 196
Mich. 137.
A proceeding for
contempt to compel a woman to comply with a portion of a divorce decree
requiring her to pay a certain portion of a trust fund to her husband, was
criminal, and not civil, within C.L.1897, Sec. 10342, providing that no female
shall be imprisoned on any process in any civil action, etc. Carnahan v. Carnahan (1906) 107 N.W. 73, 143
Mich. 390, 114 Am.St.Rep. 660, 8 Am.Ann.Cas. 53.
C.L.1871, Sec. 6119,
prohibiting the imprisonment of females in a civil action, was not repealed by
the prohibitory liquor law, Sec. 2143, giving the right to commence a suit for
the penalty and providing for taking bail, without making any exception of
female defendants; the former section
being intended to declare the settled policy of the state, and later statutes
being required to be construed in reference to such policy. People ex rel. Strickland v. Bartow (1873)
27 Mich. 68.
3. Parties, in general
Nonresident released
on bail was exempt from service of process until indictment was disposed
of. Adamy v. Parkhurst, 1932, 61 F.2d
517.
A nonresident who came
into Michigan at request of his Michigan counsel to confer in connection with
pending case brought by nonresident in the state was immune from service of
process while in the state for such purpose.
Grundy v. Refior (1945) 20 N.W.2d 261, 312 Mich. 428.
C.L.1915, Sec. 12446,
which exempted nonresidents from civil process during attendance at judicial
proceeding and for reasonable time going and coming, whether attendance was
voluntary or compulsory should be liberally interpreted in favor of
exemption. Lingemann v. Dehnke (1929)
226 N.W. 259, 247 Mich. 597.
Nonresident appearing
before justice of peace, in response to police tag charging reckless driving,
was in attendance on "judicial proceeding"; hence exempt from civil process.
Lingemann v. Dehnke (1929) 226 N.W. 259, 247 Mich. 597.
One coming into the
state on criminal warrant to answer a criminal charge cannot be served with
civil process or be arrested thereon while necessarily in attendance upon court
and until he has been given a reasonable opportunity to depart from the
state. Riegler v. Weimer (1923) 192
N.W. 690, 222 Mich. 421.
The privilege of
exemption from service while in the jurisdiction to attend another court does
not depend upon statute, so that such exemption is not affected by P.A.1905,
No. 76, permitting an action to recover a debt, etc., to be commenced by filing
a declaration, with a rule requiring defendant to plead attached, and serving a
copy of the declaration and notice upon defendant, and providing that such mode
of commencing an action may be adopted against any person "whether
privileged from arrest or not."
Coatsworth v. Hally (1913) 143 N.W. 881, 177 Mich. 565.
Service of summons on
a defendant while on his way home from a place where he had been arrested in
criminal proceedings, made at the office of his counsel, whom he had stopped to
consult, and whom he had not found until the second day of his stop the summons
having issued in a suit brought for the same torts for which the arrest was
made, and in a county other than that of defendant's residence, should be set
aside as a breach of privilege.
Jacobson v. Hosmer (1889) 42 N.W. 1110, 76 Mich. 234.
Service of summons,
issued by a justice of the peace on a non-resident of the county, while there
in attendance upon the trial of an action as a party and witness, is
unauthorized, and should be set aside on motion. Shaver v. Letherby (1889) 41 N.W. 677, 73 Mich. 500.
Service of process
upon a party or witness, while necessarily in attendance upon a trial outside
of the jurisdiction of his residence, will be set aside. Mitchell v. Wixon (1884) 19 N.W. 176, 53
Mich. 541.
When one is arrested
on a criminal warrant in one county and taken into another county, where he
gives bail, he cannot there be arrested on a civil warrant for the same matter
at the suit of the prosecutor. Baldwin
v. Branch Circuit Judge (1882) 12 N.W. 686, 48 Mich. 525.
Service on defendants
who are brought within the jurisdiction of the court, under pretense of a
subpoena, to testify in a case not at issue, is an abuse of process for which
the suit will be dismissed, on timely motion.
Stilson v. Greeley, 1871, 2 Mich.N.P. 222.
4. Attorneys
Evidence showed that
judgment debtor arrested under writ of capias as satisfaciendum was not, when
arrested, returning from trial of case as attorney and therefore immune from
arrest. Lindow v. Mudge (1934) 253 N.W.
196, 266 Mich. 11.
C.L.1897, Sec. 1117,
providing that all officers of courts of record should be liable to arrest, and
could be held to bail in the same manner as other persons, except during the
actual sitting of any court of which they are officers, did not permit counsel,
who had been arrested, and had given bail for liberty of jail limits, not during,
but before, the actual sitting of a court, to violate the condition of his bond
by going beyond the limits of the county, when thereafter professional
engagements called for his presence in the Supreme Court. Hughes v. Hally (1904) 100 N.W. 591, 137
Mich. 433.
An attorney at law is
privileged from the service of process while attending on the Supreme Court,
and while going to the court and returning therefrom to the county of his
residence. Hoffman v. Bay Circuit Judge
(1897) 71 N.W. 480, 113 Mich. 109, 67 Am.St.Rep. 458.
The attorney for an
attachment creditor, both of whom are nonresidents of the county in which the
action is pending, is not privileged from service of citation in interlocutory
proceedings to dissolve the writ, while in the county for the purpose of trying
the principal suit. Cleland v. Clark
(1896) 69 N.W. 652, 111 Mich. 336.
5. Judges
A judge, privileged
from arrest while performing his judicial duties or traveling to and from his
court, may be served with summons in a civil action when at home and not about
setting out on his circuit. Lyell v.
Goodwin, 1851, 15 F.Cas. 1131, 4 McLean 44, No. 8617.
6. Jurors
Where a juror in the
circuit court was arrested on a civil warrant issued out of justice court,
based on a sufficient affidavit, though the warrant was valid, the arrest was a
breach of privilege, and voidable for want of jurisdiction. Brower v. Tatro (1897) 73 N.W. 421, 115
Mich. 368.
A juror's privilege
from arrest is a personal one, going, not to the validity of the process, but
to that of the service, and it may therefore be waived. Brower v. Tatro (1897) 73 N.W. 421, 115
Mich. 368.
7. Witnesses
That one while within
the state for the sole purpose of appearing as a witness executed a certificate
of copartnership under P.A.1913, No. 164, did not warrant a finding that he was
not within the jurisdiction solely as a witness, defeating his immunity from
service of process. Connelly v. Lamb
(1924) 198 N.W. 585, 227 Mich. 139.
A witness from another
State is not subject to arrest or service of process in a civil suit while in
attendance as a witness, and while going to and returning from the court in
which he gives testimony. Michaels v.
Schott (1883) How.N.P. 71.
8. Corporate officers
Officer of a corporation
while in county as a party in a criminal hearing was privileged from service of
process as an individual and immunity extended to him as an officer and
representative of the corporation.
Flewelling v. Prima Oil Co. (1939) 289 N.W. 160, 291 Mich. 281.
9. Voluntary appearance
A non-resident who
voluntarily came into the state upon hearing that there was a warrant for his
arrest and gave bail and was attending court before justice of peace in
criminal proceeding in which he was a defendant when served with civil process
was not then subject to such service or at all during his stay for purpose of
the criminal proceeding until after fair opportunity to return to state of
residence. Gist v. Romey (1948) 32
N.W.2d 481, 321 Mich. 357.
Nonresident who, being
voluntarily within state, was arrested and released on bail, was not exempt
from service of process in civil suit commenced shortly after acquittal. Stuart v. Wayne Circuit Judge (1930) 233
N.W. 402, 252 Mich. 522.
One voluntarily in a
county, not of his residence, is not exempt from service of civil process while
confined in jail in such county for commission of a crime therein. Steindler Paper Co. v. Charlevoix Circuit
Judge (1926) 207 N.W. 896, 234 Mich. 288.
Where relator sold a
boat, which was seized in a libel before the delivery of the bill of sale and
the giving of bond to protect the purchaser from liens, pursuant to the sale,
and in response to a request of the purchaser, the relator went into the
district where the libel was commenced, whereupon he was arrested at the suit
of a third party, and the court in which the libel was pending was not shown to
have been in session, the relator was not privileged from arrest, as being in
attendance on the court, since he voluntarily went into such district to
arrange for the completion of his contract of sale. Monroe v. St. Clair Circuit Judge (1900) 84 N.W. 305, 125 Mich.
283.
10. Bastardy proceedings
Bastardy proceedings
are not regarded as strictly criminal, but they are so far of a criminal nature
that a person who is within the state only for the purpose of putting in
special bail in an action in which he was arrested on a capias is not
privileged from arrest on a charge of bastardy. Riegler v. Weimer (1923) 192 N.W. 690, 222 Mich. 421; Cady v. St. Clair Circuit Judge (1905) 102
N.W. 1025, 139 Mich. 618.
11. Investigations
An investigation into
an automobile accident by the accident investigation bureau of municipal police
department to determine whether a ticket would issue against person residing in
another county who was involved in accident, the investigation being neither a
trial nor a hearing before a judicial officer, was not a "suit or
proceeding" within C.L.1929, Sec. 14106, exempting any party in attendance
on a "suit, or proceeding," in a county in which he does not reside,
from service of civil process issued out of any other suit commenced in that
county. Meyers v. Barlock (1937) 275
N.W. 656, 281 Mich. 629.
12. Awaiting trial
There is no general exemption from the service of process without arrest, merely because a party is attending court awaiting the trial of a case. Case v. Rorabacher (1867) 15 Mich. 537.
Now why do you suppose that in olden days you could not arrest a Woman
for a civil complaint? Because she was
under the protection of her father or husband’s house from ancient biblical LAW !! You did not mess with a woman
period, because back in those days the
offended Father or Husband had a RIGHT TO TRIAL BY COMBAT OR A DUELING RIGHT as
the offended party, and everybody did
the honorable thing and defended the honor of his baby girl or Wife TO THE
DEATH!!! In other words a Civil
Complaint was not worth the trouble of
getting somebody killed over,
and that was that! Sounds like a
good Law to Me, what say you?? Unfortunately today this Law has fallen through
the cracks due to lack of knowledge. How about you go make it once again the
LAW OF THE LAND!!! DRAW THEM A
PICTURE!! Let us get these parasites
off the backs of our good women and daughters, ESPECIALLY AS THEY TRAVEL THE
HIGHWAYS AND BYWAYS GETTING THE KIDS TO SCHOOL AND TO DO ALL THE HOME SHOPPING
OR REPLENISHING CHOORS!! These gals got plenty of serious things to occupy
their time with without letting these parasites false arrest them on the way to
deliver the kids to school or a soccer game or other school function!! HOW
ABOUT IT FATHERS AND HUSBANDS AND BOY FRIENDS TOO!!
John Q.
Citizen at large.
P.S. Just a NOTE TO THE READERS. Now if you can appreciate it, seriously thousands and thousands of
hours pouring over libraries and Law books, and documents, and treaties, and some phenomenal serious physical work has gone into bringing
this kind of information to you, to help aid you in your many encounters with
the forces of the bad guys, traitors, and Criminals in Government, who have bargained and sold the People into
slavery, and if you personally would
like to see more of this kind of
serious programming in the future,
please understand, that at great
cost to us, we have brought this to
you, honestly just to help you,
and we would seriously ask that you support this educational program
with you support donations, so we may
continue this very serious work in the future. We are not going to stand up
here like channel 56 and hyp all manner of sales promotionalism to brow beat
you into sending donations. We will simply rely on your interest and or
kindness and make our decisions accordingly. You are either interested or maybe
we need to do other things with our resources that are going to be more
effective and positive in getting this valuable information out to you, the fighting Citizenry, who want to make a serious positive change
for our GREAT COUNTRY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT BY THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION UNDER THE RED, WHITE, AND BLUE FLAG WITH NO GOLD
FRINGE!! YOU think on it and make your voice heard. We will go with your honest
Choice!! THANK YOU and looking forward to many, many more pages for you!! NOW
STUDY HARD AND LET THE BAD GUYS HEAR YOUR CRY FOR FREEDOM AND JUSTICE THE
AMERICAN WAY, NOT THE NAZI GESTAPO
WAYS!! FREEDOM NOW, RIGHT NOW!!