10-30-17: Sent initial e-mail requesting Opinion:
11-06-17: Jim Responded: “I believe every elected official, from Township Trustee to the President of the United States, needs to take their Oath Of Office seriously. I do believe that elected officials should be held accountable by the voters if they break their Oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Michigan. I believe the Michigan Constitution has an appropriate remedy and that is the right to recall. I personally have faith in the voters to not only select their leaders, but to also recall them.”
11-07-2017: Response to Jim:
Candidate HInes,
Thank you very much for your response.
I appreciate your answer, but feel you missed a couple of key issues in the inquiry. Itf you could answer a yes or no to these issues, and if you answer no, please provide your reason.
1) Should betraying your oath to support the constitutions be considered a crime — exactly like betraying your oath to tell the truth in court is defined as the crime of perjury, or aiding and abetting the enemy is considered the crime of treason.
2) should the people be able to convene a grand jury , determine if the charges are reasonable, and if so, convene a public hearing before a jury of the people to determine if the charge of betraying your oath is valid or not? Remember the only mention of the grand jury is as a right of the people within the 5th amendment — it is not mention anywhere in the state constitution.
You mention the ability of the people to recall public officials — yet the government has the “authority” to remove representatives elected by the people by a vote — not by recall — as was done recently with Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat. Article 6 section 25 allows the governor to suggest that the legislature vote to remove an elected judge for “reasonable cause” outside of impeachment. The legislature again can impeach individuals who they decide have breached the public trust. Yet the people have no similar recourse. The people must rely on the State policing itself — which has failed every time.
Also, the great majority of public servants are not elected officials, but state bureaucrats and employees hired by the state to enforce its policies.
Consider the farmer who either builds a pond, or fills in a swamp, on their private property without state approval. Assume the state then descends on the farmers property, insists the private property be returned to its original state, excessively fines the farmer, and imposes injunctions depriving them of their livelihood. The fifth amendment to the Constitution clearly protects private property with indictment and trial by a grand jury and jury of the people, and the michigan constitution clearly states that the state has control only over state lane. Authority has never been granted the state to manage private land. So should the bureaucrats who imposes the fine and destroys the farmers livelihood — outside of any constitutional authority be held to their oath to support the constitutions rather than enforcing unconstitutional laws?
Again, consider civil forfeitures where police officers confiscate cash from individuals without a trial or charges. Again this goes directly against our 5th amendment rights, but is done anyways. There is built iin incentive to do so because the confiscated funds fund the state agencies. Should the police officer enforce unconstitutional laws, or honor their oath to support the constitutions and defend the liberty of the people.
These are simply two examples, but there are literally hundreds of more examples which go unaddressed because the state won’t police itself.
You are running as an outsider who proclaims that you want to make our voices heard.
This issue is critical. please respond specifically to the questions — I’ll repeat:
1) Should betraying your oath to support the constitutions be considered a crime — exactly like betraying your oath to tell the truth in court is defined as the crime of perjury, or aiding and abetting the enemy is considered the crime of treason.
2) should the people be able to convene a grand jury , determine if the charges are reasonable, and if so, convene a public hearing before a jury of the people to determine if the charge of betraying your oath is valid or not?
The issue is critical to letting me know if you are truly an individual actually believing we are a government of the people and government exists to serve the people — or — if we are a people of government and must submit to all policies imposed upon us by government.
Thank you in advance for your answer.
11-09-17: Jim Responded:I do believe it is a crime if an elected official breaks their oath of office. I also believe that public employees should be held accountable if they are doing something that is against the law and both should forfeit their right to work for the people. Taking an oath is very serious to me. However I am very concerned about who has the ultimate responsibility to convene a grand jury. Who determines the violation of the Constitution? Is it an elected judge, an appointed judge or a panel of judges? Who serves on the grand jury and selects the members of the grand jury? How do you assure the public that the judges and the members of the grand jury are in fact non-partisan and impartial? Is there a prosecutor who presents a case to the grand jury and who selects that individual.
11-10-2017: Response to Jim:
Jim,
Thank you very much for your response.
As a simple point of introduction, I became frustrated with politicians never acknowledging the constitution or our founding principles and decided to try to invoke change. In 2012 I entered politics by running for US Senate to replace Debbie Stabenow. I had a chance to meet literally tens of thousands of people throughout the state, got to know the character of all the other candidates, and met many state and federal reps and senators. I did not succeed. In 2014 I ran to replace Dave Camp as our US Representative. I again talked to thousands of people, got to know the character of the candidates, and again lost.
Running in these two races presented me with a “Wizard of Oz” moment in that I saw behind the curtain of politics and came to understand that its almost impossible for an everyday man to run for any office of significance. First, its hard to take time off work unless your independently wealthy and the party will only support candidates who toe the line. Large donors donate only to candidates to whom they can can secure influence. I’ve come to sadly realize that the great majority of elected officials have no allegiance to the people they serve, but to the special interests which finance their campaigns.
I know from first hand experience that most politicians tell people exactly what they want to hear, but very few have any moral compass.
Since I was an unknown I also wrote and published a book, “Empowering People through Restrained Government”, introducing myself and detailing all the positions I hold dear so that individuals would know exactly where I stood.
I’ve come to realize that if we are to survive as free people we must provide the people a viable means to hold public servants accountable to the constitution(s) they swear to support. This is the end of my introduction.
The reason I continue to press this issue is that I’m trying to determine the true character of candidates running for all offices in Michigan. My overriding concern is whether or not the candidates understand that their primary responsibility is to secure the liberty of the people they serve. I need to understand if the candidate truly understands that we are a government of the people, and that all public servants must be subordinate to the people rather than the prevailing thought of the people being subservient to the state.
I infer from your email that you never read the initiative. If you had you would have seen that ever concern mentioned is addressed. The text of the initiative can be read at http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38. The answers to your concerns are below:
I do believe it is a crime if an elected official breaks their oath of office. I also believe that public employees should be held accountable if they are doing something that is against the law and both should forfeit their right to work for the people. Taking an oath is very serious to me.
Section 2 of the initiative is entitled “BETRAYING YOUR OATH OF OFFICE:” and defines the crime and consequence. Right now its not a crime to betray this oath, and the state will never introduce as a crime the requirement that they honor their oath to support the constitution. Yet,the people overwhelmingly support the concept — as confirmed by your comment.
However I am very concerned about who has the ultimate responsibility to convene a grand jury.
Section 3(a) defines the organization of the Grand Jury. The Grand Juries are setup by county and any person within the county can initiate the process of convening the grand jury. As noted within the initiative, the person requesting the grand jury simply initiates the random selection process detailed within the initiative. They have no authority whatsoever to choose who will populate the grand jury, and in all likelihood will not serve on the grand jury themselves.,
Who determines the violation of the Constitution? Is it an elected judge, an appointed judge or a panel of judges?
The people themselves.established and ordained both the US and Michigan constitution(s). The people themselves, through the constitutionally protected grand jury will determine if the charges are probable, and if so will forward the case to circuit court for a public trial before the jury of the people. At both the grand jury hearing as well as the public trial, both parties involved will be able to cite constitutional provisions supporting their actions or charges, and the opposing counsel will do their best to refute their argument. The grand jury, as well as the trial jury will be able to evaluate the charges and actions and come to a decision. A verdict requires 10 0f 12 agreement from 10 of 12 jurors, so there must be overwhelming consensus to reach a verdict.
Our founders knew that the people were the only entity capable of deciding guilt or innocence. That’s why they placed such high value on a public trile with a jury of the people.
Incidentally, I had the opportunity to be on a jury in a criminal case and was impressed how a random group of people strove to understand the evidence and come to the just decision.
Who serves on the grand jury and selects the members of the grand jury?
Article 3 (B) is entitled “RANDOM SELECTION OF THE PEOPLE’S GRAND JURORS: ” and explains the selection process in detail. The process for random selection must be defined within the initiative to disallow the organizers the ability to bias the selection process. The initiative explains the detailed process the county must use to choose a random cross section of the population as Grand Jurors. This page (http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=625) provides a detailed review, explanation, and example of the process.
How do you assure the public that the judges and the members of the grand jury are in fact non-partisan and impartial?
Se above. Article 3 (b) mandates the process of selecting a completely random cross section of the population as grand jurors. Additionally, if a public servant has authority to impose authority over multiple counties, then any charges brought against them will be evaluated by a grand jury populated by jurors selected by all counties. So, for example, charges were brought against you as governor, the charges would be evaluated by a grand jury populated like our electoral college. Each county would supply at least one juror and the higher populated counties such as Wayne, Oakland, etc, would provide slightly more. A state wide grand jury would contain as many as 94 jurors of which an indictment requires a majority.
Article 3 (e) addresses the concept of multiple county Jurisdiction and this link provides a detail explanation, review, and example.(http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=699)
Is there a prosecutor who presents a case to the grand jury and who selects that individual.
Section 4 addresses the trial by jury and specifies that there is no prosecutor. Each party hires and pays for their own counsel.
Again, all your questions were answered in the initiative which is why I assume you did not take the time to read it.
Since I consider this a critical character determinator, I will post all responses received on my website, and will encourage every interested organization throughout the state to review and evaluate.
Thank you again for your time and service to a cause you believe in.
The natural tendency is for the state to protect itself. If those charged with adhering to the terms of this initiative refuse to abide, what are the people to do?