Appeal A Forcible Detainer Judgment: Fill & Download for Free

A story of unmatched courage and legendary strength of character –A story of Justice H. R. Khanna.Acting upon accusations of tampering with elections results, Indira Gandhi’s victory was annulled by the Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court. This was met by the government with a declaration of emergency in the nation.During this dark hour a lot of people (mostly political opponents of Gandhi) were detained without any proper cause and without any trial.A case came before the supreme court of India pleading protection from similar injustices. This was the Additional District Magistrate of Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus caseof 1975.A bench was soon formed which comprised of the 5 senior most judges of the SC at that time.The Right to Life guaranteed by the Indian constitution under Article 21, was discussed:Justice Khanna at one point asked the Attorney General Niren De: "Life is also mentioned in Article 21 and would Government argument extend to it also?”He answered, "Even if life was taken away illegally, courts are helpless"The honourable bench bowed before the government’s unfettered powers and ruled against the habeas corpus which essentially meant giving government limitless power to detain people during the emergency.Justices A. N. Ray, P. N. Bhagwati, Y. V. Chandrachud, and M.H. Beg, stated in the majority decision:“In view of the Presidential Order [declaring emergency] no person has any locus to move any writ petition under Art. 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention.”Justice Beg even went on to observe: "We understand that the care and concern bestowed by the state authorities upon the welfare of detenues who are well housed, well fed and well treated, is almost maternal."Only one man stood against this wave of compliance: J. Hans Raj KhannaIn his dissenting opinion J Khanna wrote – “The Constitution and the laws of India do not permit life and liberty to be at the mercy of the absolute power of the Executive . . . . What is at stake is the rule of law. The question is whether the law speaking through the authority of the court shall be absolutely silenced and rendered mute... detention without trial is an anathema to all those who love personal liberty.”In the end, he quoted Justice Charles Evans Hughes:“A dissent is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting Judge believes the court to have been betrayed.”Before submitting his final opinion J. Khanna wrote to his sister, “I have prepared my judgment, which is going to cost me the Chief Justice-ship of India”At that time the executive had the power to appoint the Chief Justice. The unwritten but established principle was that the senior most judge of the Supreme Court would be appointed the Chief Justice, once the present one retires.As Justice Khanna rightly predicted, his junior Justice M H Beg, who along with the others had favoured limitless power to the government, was appointed the Chief Justice of India in 1977.This is the only time in history of India that a senior most judge has been superseded in such fashion by his junior.J Khanna resigned on the very day.The New York Times, wrote at the time:“If India ever finds its way back to the freedom and democracy that were proud hallmarks of its first eighteen years as an independent nation, someone will surely erect a monument to Justice H R Khanna of the Supreme Court. It was Justice Khanna who spoke out fearlessly and eloquently for freedom this week in dissenting from the Court's decision upholding the right of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Government to imprison political opponents at will and without court hearings... The submission of an independent judiciary to absolutist government is virtually the last step in the destruction of a democratic society; and the Indian Supreme Court's decision appears close to utter surrender.”This judgement has been consistently lauded by lawyer, scholars and intellectual alike and has been compared to the dissent of Lord Atkin in Liversidge v Anderson.Nani Palkhivala's book, which come out soon after the emergency was revoked, carried a full-fledged chapter on him titled, "Salute to Justice Khanna". At one point in the chapter he says of Justice Khanna, "his statue must be installed in every street and corner of the country for the yeoman service rendered by him for the cause of justice".In December 1978, his full-size portrait was unveiled in his former court, courtroom number 2 of the Supreme Court. To this day, nobody else has had the singular honour of having their portrait put up in the Supreme Court during their lifetime In fact, when the Supreme Court Bar Association asked for contributions from its members to collect Rs 10,000 for the portrait, within half-an-hour Rs 30,000 was on the table and the members of the bar had to be forcibly stopped.At a time when everybody else was swept by the storms of oppression; Justice H R Khanna chose not to be blown away in it but to stand up for what was right; for what he believed in. If this is not true grit, what is?This story is well known in the legal circles of the country, but I still think, not enough people know about this Hero of Democracy.Source for last three paras - Hans Raj Khanna,Saluting Justice H. R. Khanna

I’ll not answer this for Hawaii, although I’d guess the procedure is probably the same.What’s filed in Tennessee is called an FED, Forcible Entry and Detainer Warrant. You go to court and the judge rules in the landlord’s favor, and the defendant has 10 days (14 if we count weekends) to leave the premises on their own accord. Alternatively they can appeal the case to circuit court, although this almost never happens.Now assume that the tenant stays beyond the 10 days. You take your Judgment in the FED action to the court clerk and they will issue a Writ of Possession. Armed with this Writ you coordinate with your local law enforcement and have an officer meet you at the premises, you also bring a locksmith and a team of men with strong backs. Law enforcement will help you open the premises, and will handle any issues with the former tenants. The men with strong backs remove the tenant’s property and drop it at the property line, usually the sidewalk, and the locksmith changes the locks. Presto, the landlord is in possession.Landlords who follow this procedure through to the end, find the rent gets paid on time, every time for several months. There is nothing like putting everything someone owns on the sidewalk to make believers in the power of the proper application of the law.Again, I’m not answering this for people in Hawaii.

Radovan Karadzic has been sentenced to life imprisonment, the Appellate Panel of the Mechanism for International Criminal Courts has ruled. The former Bosnian Serb leader is guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing of Muslims and Croats in BiH, terrorism of Sarajevo for many years, and hostage of UN members. Karadzic participated in four joint criminal offenses under which these crimes were committed, the Appeals Chamber found.Karadzic, 73, was sentenced to 40 years in prison in the first-instance proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for the gravest crimes committed in Europe since World War II. The first-instance verdict of 24 March 2016 found him guilty of war crimes on the basis of the indictment charging him with two counts of genocide, five counts of crimes against humanity and four counts of violating the laws and customs of war committed by Bosnian Serb forces during the 1992-1995 war in BiH.The Appeals Chamber upholds the findings of the first instance verdict on Karadzic's responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims and Croats in BiH, for the genocide in Srebrenica, for terrorizing Sarajevo for many years and for taking UN members hostage, as well as Karadzic's participation in four joint criminal ventures under which are these crimes committed.The Trial Chamber concluded three years ago that Karadzic committed crimes by participating in four joint criminal ventures aimed at permanently removing Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from the territory in BiH to which Bosnian Serbs claimed. They did so by committing crimes in municipalities across BiH and spreading terror among Sarajevo civilians by firing snipers and shelling. The United Nations Peacekeeping Campaign (UNPROFOR) was also qualified as a joint criminal enterprise to deter NATO from aerial attacks on Bosnian Serb military targets.The joint venture also relates to a plan to remove Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica in July 1995. In the first instance, Karadzic was found guilty of genocide in the Srebrenica area in 1995 and of persecution, extermination, murder, deportation, inhumane acts or forcible transfer of a population, terrorizing civilians, unlawful attacks on civilians and hostage-taking.Ratko MladićThe Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) found Gen. Ratko Mladic guilty of genocide in Srebrenica, crimes against humanity and war crimes in BiH on Wednesday, and sentenced him to life in prison by saying he was a former Bosnian Serb commander guilty of crimes "among the most heinous known to mankind.""The crimes committed belong to the most heinous known to humanity and include genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity," presiding judge Alphons Orie said, sentencing Mladic to life imprisonment. "The acts of the accused were so crucial for the commission of the crime that without them the crimes would not be as they are," the ICTY judge said. Mladić was found guilty of ten of the 11 counts. He was released from responsibility for the first count charging him with genocide in six municipalities in eastern BiH because the council found that the crimes committed in those municipalities did not constitute genocide.He was found guilty of genocide in Srebrenica, persecution, extermination, murder, deportation and inhumane acts as crimes against humanity, as well as murder, terror, unlawful attacks on civilians and hostage by UN members as war crimes.The crimes took place in the territory of BiH from 1992 to 1995.The Council confirmed earlier ICTY judgments that genocide had been committed in Srebrenica in July 1995 with the killing of thousands of Muslim men and that members of the Bosnian Serb army intended to exterminate them.The Trial Chamber found that killings representing crimes against humanity and war crimes had occurred in a number of municipalities in BiH. Before, during and after the attack by Serb forces on non-Serb villages, many were killed, Orie said.- The circumstances were brutal. Those trying to defend their homes were faced with reckless force. There were mass executions and some victims were subject to beatings. Many perpetrators who have captured Bosnian Muslims have shown little or no respect for human life or dignity - Orie said.The President of the Trial Chamber, reading the reasoning of the verdict, cited the cases of killings and abuse in Sanski Most, Manjača camp.Some of the crimes were extermination, Orie said, citing the example of Bosnian Serb forces shooting detainees with automatic weapons at the Keraterm detention camp on July 25, 1992, some chemical gas was thrown at them and eventually killed - between 190 and 220 detainees.The Council found that deportations and inhumane acts of forcible transfer of non-Serbs took place in a number of places, including Banja Luka, Pale, Prijedor.The Panel also found that many victims were unlawfully detained and subjected to torture, regularly beaten and detained in inhumane conditions. The detainees were forced into abusive sexual relations and many women were raped in the Foča area, for example, Orie said. Among the raped were girls only 12 years old. Some cases of confinement and torture ended in death.The panel found that in six Bosnian municipalities (Foca, Kljuc, Kotor Varos, Prijedor, Sanski Most and Vlasenica) in the east, the prosecution claims that the victims of genocide, Muslims and Croats were victims of murder and abuse. The Council concluded by majority that the perpetrators in Sanski Most, Vlasenica and Foča and Prijedor and Kotor Varoš intended to exterminate Muslims, but at the same time concluded that these Muslims represented a small part of the target group. Therefore, the panel concluded that there was no intention of exterminating the entire community and therefore no genocide.In addition to the Srebrenica genocide, Mladić was also charged with genocide in these six municipalities.With regard to the crime in the Sarajevo area, the court found that the inhabitants of the capital of BiH had been systematically, protractedly and indiscriminately attacked, and that the city had been the victim of years of terror by Bosnian Serb forces from surrounding positions.The Council also found that in May and June 1995 the Bosnian Serb forces had illegally taken UN members hostage.The Panel found that the crimes were committed as part of four joint criminal offenses, as stated in the indictment.The purpose of the first joint criminal enterprise was, from 1992 to 1995, to expel Muslim and Croat population from the territory of BiH by committing a crime (persecution, murder, deportation and other crimes), the second from 1992 to 1995, terrorizing Sarajevo, the third genocide in Srebrenica. in July 1995, and on the fourth in May and June 1995, the taking of UN members hostage.Mladic's role in each joint criminal enterprise and the commission of the crime was crucial, the Trial Chamber said, considering his intent to participate in the goals of the criminal enterprise, including the Srebrenica genocide, had been proven.He personally directed the attacks, selected targets, spread propaganda against non-Serbs, denied crimes including genocide in Srebrenica.Mladic was arrested in Serbia in 2011 almost 16 years after the original indictment. The trial began in 2012 and lasted for almost four years. More than 370 witnesses have been brought to court.He is charged with 11 counts, the first two of which are genocide, five of crimes against humanity and four of war crimes.Justifying genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, is disgusting and illegal.It is interesting to note that always the same people refuse to accept the decisions of the court, the international public, and find excuses for the worst crimes known to mankind, such as the rape of 12 year old girls, the mass rape camp, or the torture and murder of civilians and prisoners of war.