https://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 -

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

https://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

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

Additional References: