Exploring Legal Terms and Reviewing Royal Families Duress, Genocide Issues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQm1WyKkhmE

EXPLORING LEGAL TERMS IN AN INDOCTRINATED SOCIETY (Hawaiian Islands).......... Starting with Duress, Royal person, Prerogative, Sovereign Immunity, etc.

                                                                                          compiled by Amelia Gora (2011)

The legal terminologies have gone through changes over time, a deliberate evolution due to the "have not's" (people who have no claims to be part of our 3,000+ years old society) wanting what the "haves have" (people who have claims to ancestors from our 3,000+ years old society).

What is an indoctrinated society?  A society/group of people who are indoctrinated:

See indoctrinate defined for English-language learners -

*******************************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLeNzA1OIcM&feature=related

Let's look at Legal Terms that applied to a Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy or the Hawaiian Government since 1810 thru 1893.  The pirated 1/3 of the House of Representatives part of the Hawaiian Government from 1893 to present:

Restraint or danger, actually inflicted or impending, which is sufficient in severity or apprehension to deprive a person of free choice, destroy his volition, or obtain consent only in form.

Under the law, a person is not guilty of a crime if he participated only because he believed, and had good reason to believe, that he would be seriously harmed if he did not participate and had no other way of escaping serious harm. The burden is on the government to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To find someone guilty, therefore, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that when he participated in the offense, he did not have a reasonable belief that such participation was the only way he could save himself from serious harm.

An actual or a threatened violence or restraint of a man's person, contrary to law, to compel him to enter into a contract, or to discharge one.

Some divide duress into two sorts:

First. Duress of imprisonment, where a man actually loses his liberty. If a man be illegally deprived of his liberty until he sign and seal a bond, or the like, he may allege this duress, and avoid the bond. But, if a man be legally imprisoned, and either to procure his discharge, or on any other fair account, seal a bond or a deed, this is not by duress of imprisonment, and he is not at liberty to avoid it.

Second. Duress per minas, which is either for fear of loss of life, or else for fear of mayhem, or loss of limb,; and this must be upon a sufficient reason. In this case, a man way avoid his own act. Lord Coke enumerates four instances in which a man may avoid his own act by reason of menaces: 1. For fear of loss of life; 2. Of member; 3. Of mayhem; 4. Of imprisonment.

It is not every degree of violence or any hind of threats, that will invalidate a contract; they must be such as would naturally operate on a person of ordinary firmness, and inspire a just fear of great injury to person, reputation or fortune. The age, sex, state of health; temper and disposition of the party, and 0ther circumstances calculated to give greater or less effect to the violence or threats, must be taken into consideration.

A contract by violence or threats, is void, although the party in whose favor the contract is made, and not exercise the violence or make the threats, and although he were ignorant of them.

Violence or threats are cause of nullity, not only where they are exercised on the contracting party, but when the wife, the hushand, the descendants or ascendants of the party are the object of them.

If the violence used be only a legal constraint, or the threats only of doing that which the party using them had a right to do, they shall not invalidate the contract A just and legal imprisonment, or threats of any measure authorized by law, and the circumstances of the case, are of this description.

But the mere forms of law to cover coercive proceedings for an unjust and illegal cause, if used or threatened in order to procure the assent to a contract, will invalidate it; an arrest without cause of action, or a demand of bail in an unreasonable sum, or threat of such proceeding, by this rule invalidate a contract made under their pressure.

All the above articles relate to cases where there may be some other motive besides the violence or threats for making the contract. When, however, there is no other cause for making the contract, any threats, even of slight injury, will invalidate it.

--b--

Note:  Our Monarchs were under duress, stress, usurpation, and coercion.

Let us focus on both King David Kalakaua who was forced to sign the 1887 Constitution and his sister Queen Liliuokalani who after signing the 1893 Constitution was dethroned.  She did tear up the Constitution and a purported one was put together by conspirators/treasonous persons and recorded by U.S. Congress thereafter. 

Both were under duress.  The usurpers were guilty of causing duress upon the Monarchs from a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation.  Furthermore, the usurpers did premeditate their actions which were supported, encouraged, made by a bankrupt, bully nation U.S., supported by England, and the Morgan bankers their investors.

Let us move to present day duress of which there were and are many, many examples.

Let us look at the descendants/heirs of the Sovereigns and descendants/heirs of the House of Nobles, the second branch of government.  Only the Sovereign and the House of Nobles are the Permanent parts of government, which is hereditary.  The third and last part was the House of Representatives voted in by the people/voters, and this branch was temporary, unlike the permanent hereditary positions.

After passing thru a metal screening device to enter the Circuit Court building, the hereditary descendants/heirs of Sovereigns and House of Nobles entered into the Court hearing whereas the State of Hawaii representing the elected /voted in positions of the House of Representatives Judge placed in position without the affirmation by the permanent hereditary group moved to make a decision on expunging a lien of the Crown lands which was made before the Supreme Court case whose Judge in place declared the State of Hawaii could sell the lands.

Members of the Sovereigns and House of Nobles descendants/heirs moved to speak and the Judge reluctantly listened.

One member tried to speak up and cited Title 18 and Title 42 in defense of everyone's claims and  a Sheriff undid his leather belt exposing his gun.

Members of the Sovereigns and House of Nobles descendants/heirs were under immediate duress.

Pass through a metal screening device had already showed that they were unarmed, yet, the armed Sheriff exposed his gun as a further threat upon all Members of the Sovereigns and House of Nobles descendants/heirs.

Although this is a cause for  police report, etc.  This is also cause for terminating the case against Royal persons who have Sovereign Immunity, etc. because these members represent 2/3 of the Hawaiian Government of hereditary rights and are not subject to the laws to begin with!

Royal person -  "not subject to the laws" as documented in Victoria Kamamalu's Probate pages 14-15.  Mataio Kekuanaoa, our ancestor, referred to the Status of another  Kamehameha descendant named Lot Kamehameha/Kamehameha V.

The privilege, preeminence, or advantage which one person has over another; thus a person vested with an office, is entitled to all the rights, privileges, prerogatives, etc. which belong to it.

English law. The royal prerogative is an arbitrary power vested in the executive to do good and not evil.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

A doctrine precluding the institution of a suit against the sovereign [government] without its consent. Though commonly believed to be rooted in English law, it is actually rooted in the inherent nature of power and the ability of those who hold power to shield themselves.

In England it was predicated on the concept that "the sovereign can do no wrong", a concept developed and enforced by guess who? However, since the American revolution explictedly rejected this interesting idea, the American rulers had to come up with another rationale to protect their power. One they came up with is that the "sovereign is exempt from suit [on the] practical ground that there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." 205 U.S. 349, 353.

"[S]tatutes waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States must be'construed strictly in favor of the sovereign." McMahon v. United States, 342 U.S. 25, 27 (1951).

11 U.S.C. S 106, "Waiver of Sovereign Immunity," provides:

(a) A governmental unit is deemed to have waived sovereign immunity with respect to any claim against such governmental unit that is property of the estate and that arose out of the same transaction or occurrence out of which such governmental unit's claim arose.

The interest served by federal sovereign immunity (the United States' freedom from paying damages without Congressional consent)

Federal sovereign immunity is readily distinguishable from the states' immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and foreign governments' immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The latter two doctrines allow one sovereign entity the right to avoid, altogether, being subjected to litigation in another sovereign's courts. Pullman Constr., 23 F.3d at 1169. Similar sovereignty concerns are not implicated by the maintenance of suit against the United States in federal court. Federal sovereign immunity has had such broad exceptions carved out of it that, as Pullman Construction concluded, "Congress, on behalf of the United States, has surrendered any comparable right not to be a litigant in its own courts." Id. In the present day, federal sovereign immunity serves merely to channel litigation into the appropriate avenue for redress, ensuring that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." Pullman Constr. at 1168 (quoting Art. I, section 9, cl. 7).

Federal sovereign immunity is a defense to liability rather than a right to be free from trial.

The Supreme Court has ruled that in a case involving the government's sovereign immunity the statute in question must be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign and may not be enlarged beyond the waiver its language expressly requires. See United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-35 (1992).

 

Summary

 

In the case of the State of Hawaii Judge with assistant Sheriff's help, the fact of the matter is that the State of Hawaii Judge and Sheriff are illegal parties to the claims of the Permanent bodies, descendants of the Hawaiian Governments Sovereigns, and House of Nobles.

 

The State of Hawaii is a sham, a organized, racketeering, premeditation based group of conspirators, treasonous persons operating on Fraud, deceit, immorality, non-integrity, Piracy(ies) in the Hawaiian Islands perpetuating lies, deceit, criminal malfeasance, racketeering  indoctrinating all people in the Hawaiian Islands, in the U.S., and the World Today.

 

They are but a group of genocide activists, armed, hostile criminals parading like buffoons likened to the Emperor With No Clothes, and causing terror amongst the true land owners, the true descendants of the Sovereigns, House of Nobles existing today.

 

Is there hope for the brainwashed, indoctrinated citizens here and the World today?  Perhaps.

(Image by Unknown Owner)   Details   DMCA

(Image by Unknown Owner)   Details   DMCA

 

Note:  In time, people will know the truth..............because our people were and remain under duress, stress, usurpation, and coercion by genocide activists..........

 

aloha.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIcqUokPiTw&feature=related

Additional References: