With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". removal to a slave state. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Aves, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.) 193 (1836) (Shaw, C.J.); Lemmon v. People, 20 N.Y. 562 (1860); see also Dallin H. Oaks, Habeas Corpus in the States— 1776-1865, 32 U. Chi. L.Rev. 243, 279 & n. 194 (1965) (citing additional cases). The exercise of this authority was sufficiently well known that in 1855 a ship captain docking in Cincinnati moved his human cargo across the river to the commonwealth of Kentucky to avoid an Ohio judge’s issuance of the writ. An Attempt to Detain Sixteen Slaves on a Writ of Habeas Corpus, N.Y. Times, Mar. 23, 1855, at 5. As Chief Justice Shaw explained in Aves, unless some law authorized a slave’s removal from the state, transfer was illegal and could be enjoined by a habeas court. 35 Mass. (18 Pick.) at 217 (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Hoppess, 1 Ohio Dec.

A: holding that a habeas court could intervene to stop the transfer of slaves where there was no law which would warrant  their fore ible detention or forcible removal
B: holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal
C: holding there was no reasonable suspicion which would justify an investigatory stop despite report of a domestic disturbance
D: holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of a petition challenging a removal order or to stay a removal order where the petitioner was not specifically challenging his physical detention
A.