The Power of We The People

Picture 3506

*What if every elected official, government agency, and even the unelected nameless faceless bureaucrats working for the Statutory and Regulatory Industrial Complex feared YOU?

*What if every single move they made would be under the watchful eye of We The People, with real tangible and immediate consequences?

*Instead of burning up their phone lines, email inboxes and fax machines with empty threats of “if you vote for that, we might not vote for you in 2 years!”, what if they would actually tremble when you called because they knew their power, positions and personal assets would be on the line?

*Instead of the empty threats of just losing the next election for breaking their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, what if their indiscretions meant actual prison time?

*What if you have the power to subpoena records and require elected officials to testify under oath before a panel of We The People?

*What if this isn’t some new-fangled idea, but rather existing power available to We The People since the inception of America?

The fact is, We The People, already have this power!

The common law grand jury system, in fact, had already been around for over 650 years by the time of our founding as it was first discussed in the Magna Carta in 1215 . It is the very tool the founders gave us to hold our government accountable on a daily basis.

We The People retained the power to create and control the grand jury system by never delegating that power to the government.

In the 1992 case, U.S vs. Williams, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.”

They also said, “Because the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists.”

In addition, they said, “…we have insisted that the grand jury remain free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the legitimate rights of any witness called before it.”

The 5th Amendment of the Constitution states that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless by presentment or indictment of a grand jury.”   –

The purpose of the Constitution was to create the government and give it certain enumerated powers.  The 10th Amendment essentially says that if the authority is not listed in the Constitution, the power is reserved to the states or to the people.

With that said, the federal government has no power to create or control a grand jury as the Constitution has not granted them that power.

**Common Law vs. Statutory puppet grand juries

Today’s “statutory puppet grand juries” didn’t come from the Constitution.  They were created by statute (not law), as a look-a-like, meant to deceive the people.  Jurists are hand-picked puppets by the government, given very specific rules and restrictions, and misled toward pre-determined outcomes.

“Every generation must make a choice as to what type of country we’ll be. Only an informed and courageous electorate will choose liberty and self-government.  We must make the right choices today, and work tirelessly to prepare the next generation.”

All credits (with minor alterations) to: http://www.jasonwhoyt.com

3 comments

  1. State of Hawai‘i Judge Rules Hawaiian Kingdom Still Exists
    Posted on March 27, 2015
    PRESS RELEASE
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    March 27, 2015
    Maui Circuit Court Judge takes Judicial Notice that the Hawaiian Kingdom still Exists and State of Hawai‘i Courts lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction
    HONOLULU, HAWAI‘I—Today, Dexter K. Kaiama, attorney for Kaiula Kalawe English and Robin Wainuhea Dudoit, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Hawai’i Supreme Court in Honolulu seeking an order to compel Judge Joseph E. Cardoza to dismiss thecriminal cases against his clients because Judge Cardoza took judicial notice that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, which admits that the State of Hawai‘i did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the arrests and criminal proceedings. Judge Cardoza refused to dismiss the criminal complaints despite taking judicial notice that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
    English and Dudoit were two of four Molokai fishermen alleged to have boarded another fishing boat from the island of O‘ahu off the coast of Molokai and threatening those on board. The Associated Press reported, “Some Molokai residents are hailing four arrested fishermen as heroes for protecting their island’s resources from outsiders.” Hanohano Na‘ehu said after the arraignment where all four fishermen pleaded not guilty, “This happening is a great way to highlight that people have been coming from different islands to Molokai to rape, pillage and raid our resources for the longest time.” He also stated, “For us on Molokai, these four individuals are heroes. All they were doing was protecting the resources for our families, for our communities, for our island.”
    Kaiama filed a motion to dismiss the criminal cases against his clients on February 6, 2015, and an evidentiary hearing was held in the Second Circuit Court in Wailuku, Island of Maui before Judge Cardoza on March 5. Kaiama’s motion to dismiss relied on the research and expertise of David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., a Hawai‘i political scientist, whose research is focused on the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent state. Included in Kaiama’s motion to dismiss was an extensive legal brief authored by Dr. Sai.
    Kaiama’s motion to dismiss centered on two precedent cases from the Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzoin 1994 and Nishitani v. Baker in 1996. These cases stated that if defendants are challenging the jurisdiction of the court by claiming the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist today as an independent state, they have a burden to provide “a factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state.” If defendants are successful in providing conclusive evidence, the trial court must dismiss the case.
    The Lorenzo case came on the heels of the United States Congress passing a law in 1993 apologizing for the illegal overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States on January 17, 1893. In light of the admitted illegality by the United States, the ICA stated in the Lorenzo case, that the “illegal overthrow leaves open the question whether the present governance system should be recognized.”
    Since 1994, this has been an open legal question and the Hawai‘i courts have repeatedly denied motions to dismiss because the defendants have failed to provide conclusive evidence of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a state under international law. These decisions have been routinely confirmed on appeal.
    At the March 5 hearing on the island of Maui, Dr. Sai was acknowledged as an expert witness for the defense by Judge Cardoza without objection from the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Lloyd Phelps.
    Click here to download the transcript of the Evidentiary hearing.
    After being qualified as an expert witness, Kaiama asked, “Dr. Sai, based on all of your research, based on your background and your education and this specialty, you understand that on behalf of my clients I am bringing a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?” Dr. Sai responded, “Yes.”
    Kaiama then asked, “Based on all of your research and your expertise in this area, Dr. Sai, have you reached any conclusions about this, and can you tell us what your conclusions are?” In response, Dr. Sai stated, “the Court would not have subject matter jurisdiction as a result of international law.”
    Kaiama then followed up with, “And if you can explain or perhaps expand on that explanation and tell us why the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction in this case?” For the next thirty-five minutes Dr. Sai provided a historical and legal narrative that began when Great Britain and France jointly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent state on November 28, 1843, to the current situation of the Hawaiian Kingdom being occupied by the United States today since the Spanish-American War in 1898. Dr. Sai presented facts, law and other evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom as a state was never extinguished by the United States, and, therefore, by a principle known in international law as the presumption of continuity, the Kingdom still exists.
    At no time did Deputy Prosecutor Phelps object to Dr. Sai’s expert testimony and when Judge Cardoza asked if the prosecution had any questions for Dr. Sai after Kaiama concluded his questions, Phelps stated, “Your Honor, the State has no questions of Dr. Sai. Thank you for his testimony. One Army officer to another, I appreciate your testimony.” Dr. Sai did state that he was a retired captain from the Army. Prosecutor Phelps served as a former Army Staff Judge Advocate officer.
    After Dr. Sai’s testimony, Kaiama requested Judge Cardoza to take judicial notice of all the evidence of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence, which included Dr. Sai’s written brief titled, “The Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” When Judge Cardoza asked, “What’s the prosecution’s position?” The prosecution responded, “No objection, your Honor.” Judge Cardoza then stated, “there being no objection, the Court will take judicial notice as requested.”
    “Once judicial notice was taken of the evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state, it is considered indisputable and true,” according to Kaiama. “Judicial notice is a very significant ruling on evidence and when the court took judicial notice, it said that it is conclusive that the Hawaiian Kingdom exists,” said Kaiama. “And according to the precedent cases of State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo andNishitani v. Baker, the trial court was compelled to dismiss the criminal cases against my clients.”
    “This is the first time that a judge has taken judicial notice—meaning he has accepted under the Rules of Evidence, without protest, the whole set of findings that lead to the conclusion that the Hawaiian Kingdom exists,” saidWilliamson Chang, a senior law professor at the University of Hawai‘i Richardson School of Law. “This is groundbreaking.”
    “The point is that judicial notice is a finding that acknowledges ‘the sun rises in the East,’—a judge cannot therefore, in his decision deny this fact he took notice of and say, ‘I find that the sun rises in the West,’” explained Professor Chang. “The Court’s acceptance of the offered facts under the doctrine of judicial notice and the Court’s decision to not grant the motions to dismiss are clearly at odds. As such, attorney Dexter Kaiama was required to file a petition for mandamus to compel the judge to correct his ruling.”
    In the petition for mandamus, Kaiama called the decision by Judge Cardoza a violation of common law and Hawai‘i’s plain error doctrine. In the petition plain error is defined as seriously affecting “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, to serve the ends of justice, and to prevent the denial of fundamental rights.” The petition is seeking an order from the Hawai‘i Supreme Court directing Judge Cardoza to immediately dismiss the criminal complaints against his clients.
    “The trial court cannot disregard twenty-one years of Hawai‘i case law,” said Kaiama. “In 1994, the Intermediate Court of Appeals provided keys to the door as to whether the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, and in 2015, with keys in hand, we unlocked and pushed wide open that door by conclusively proving the Hawaiian Kingdom does exist.”

  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcjg3WVMncY Consent of the Governed… The Freeman Movement
    Did you consent to being enslaved?

    Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table At which he’s fed.
    Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule.
    Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts Anyway!
    Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat.
    Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt.
    Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he tries to think.
    Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries, then tax his tears.
    Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass.
    Tax all he has Then let him know, That you won’t be done till he has no dough.

    When he screams and hollers Then tax him more,
    Tax him till he’s good and sore.
    Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he’s laid.
    Put these words Upon his tomb, ‘Taxes drove me to my doom.. . ‘
    When he’s gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax.

    Accounts Receivable Tax
    Building Permit Tax
    CDL license Tax
    Cigarette Tax
    Corporate Income Tax
    Dog License Tax
    Excise Taxes
    Federal Income Tax
    Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
    Fishing License Tax
    Food License Tax
    Fuel Permit Tax
    Gasoline Tax (currently 44. 75 cents per gallon)
    Gross Receipts Tax
    Hunting License Tax
    Inheritance Tax
    Inventory Tax
    IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
    Liquor Tax
    Luxury Taxes
    Marriage License Tax
    Medicare Tax
    Personal Property Tax
    Property Tax
    Real Estate Tax
    Service Charge Tax
    Social Security Tax
    Road Usage Tax
    Sales Tax
    Recreational Vehicle Tax
    School Tax
    State Income Tax
    State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
    Telephone Federal Excise Tax
    Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
    Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
    Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
    Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
    Telephone State and Local Tax
    Telephone Usage Charge Tax
    Utility Taxes
    Vehicle License Registration Tax
    Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft Registration Tax
    Well Permit Tax
    Workers Compensation Tax

    Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most > prosperous in the world.
    We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

    What happened?

Leave a Reply