Todd Schleiger supports the peoples Grand Jury and has written a position paper concerning it.
Please click link below:
Dear Mr. Konetchy, (11-14-2017)
We would like to begin by thanking you for contacting the Gretchen Whitmer campaign. We apologize for not getting back to you sooner; the campaign has been busy on our end. We have been receiving hundreds of emails a week and are currently working on getting back to all of them. Currently, we are working on better ways to respond quicker to Michiganders like yourself.
With that in said, we still greatly appreciate you taking the time to email us and voicing your concern! Unfortunately, we must admit, some of your ideas conflict with the separation of powers and checks and balances and balances of both the United States and Michigan Constitution. There currently are safeguards in place to remove those that do not serve their state in a just manner. For example, there is voting, recalling, censure, and dismissal.
However, we do understand where you are coming from regarding political figures not being held accountable when they should. Because of this, Sen. Whitmer stands for greater accountability and transparency in the government. If elected, she intends to expand freedom of information laws to include the official email, correspondence, and the calendar of the Governor. Additionally, Sen. Whitmer will work toward employing stricter lobbying rules because lobbyists should not be allowed to write legislation and influence members to vote one way or the other. If you would like to continue to read more on Sen. Whitmer’s plans to hold government more accountable, please visit her page at:https://gretchenwhitmer.com/issues/holding-government-accountable/
Thank you again Mr. Konetchy for getting ahold of our campaign! We commend your initiative and hope you will continue to reach out to us with the issues that matter to you most.
Best regards,
Gretchen Whitmer for Governor
517-763-2955
www.gretchenwhitmer.com
EDITORS COMMENTS FORWARDED TO CANDIDATE WHITMER:
Thank you for your response. Based on your response I’ll classify you as not supporting the initiative. I disagree with your reasoning as noted below:
There is NOTHING in either the Michigan or Federal Constitutions prohibiting the:
1) Establishment of the crime “Betraying Your Oath of Office.” (There is the requirement that the oath be taken, but no repercussions if the oath is betrayed.)
2) Establishing a grand jury of the people, free of state control, to evaluate charges against public servants of this (if the initiative passes) constitutionally defined crime. (The grand jury is mentioned only once in the US Constitution within the 5th amendment as a right of the people, and the Grand Jury is mentioned nowhere in the Michigan Constitution. As noted in both the 9th and 10th Amendments, powers not delegated to the US government falls to the states of the people. Since there is no mention of the Grand Jury in the Michigan constitution, this is a power of the people — which the initiative constitutionalizes)
3) A trial before a jury of the people is protected within both the Michigan and US Constitutions. This right must be applied to any party charged with this crime.
Granted, as of right now the state will not recognize the crime of betraying your oath of office, nor will it recognize the right of the people to convene a Grand Jury. Yet— both Constitution(s) allow for amendments to add or change provisions within. This initiative codifies an addition within the Michigan Constitution of the three issues noted above.
REMEMBER—
Within the US Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Within the Michigan Constitution: “We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom,and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.”
If the “We the People” think those in government no longer follow the provisions in the Constitutions, are no longer securing thee Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, then its incumbent upon us to ensure that they do. This initiative, if passed, provides a means to do so.
Since this issue defines a candidate’s core value as to whether they feel we’re a government of the people, of if we are a people subjected to the discretions of government, I am posting all responses on the website. I’m trying to be 100% fair to you and so not want in any way to twist your meaning or intent. Please review the posting at http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=868. Clicking on Gretchen’s name will display her website, the contact link will display the contact history, and the response will note your response and my answer.
Thank you again. If you want to provide any additional input I’ll gladly insert it in the page.
11-13-17: Received Phone call from Evan who expressed support of the concept and will forward a response shortly.
11-07-17: Initial Contact — Question regarding the people holding public servants accountable to the Constitution.
Jim,
I’d like your opinion on an issue very important to me.
I personally feel that the greatest problem facing the State and the nation today is that our elected officials, and public servants, no longer have allegiance to, and fight to preserve the liberty of, the people they are supposed to serve, They ignore any aspect of the constitution(s) they feel are inconvenient and instead impose law based their personal discretion — or what is desired by their deep pocketed donors.
Would you support an initiative which provides the people with a viable means to hold their elected representatives accountable to both their state and federal constitutionally mandated oaths to support the constitution(s)? This means that all elected officials must fight for and defend the peoples constitutionally protected rights within the Bill of Rights, as well as fighting to restrain both federal and state activity to within the clear bounds of constitutional authority.
Would you support an initiative which:
1) Makes it a crime in Michigan if elected officials and other public servants betray their oath of office?
(We’ve defined the crime of perjury if individuals betray their oath to tell the truth in court, but no like crime exists if public servants betray their oath to support the constitution(s). Perjury is serious and is properly defined as a crime, but It can easily be argued that it is infinitely more damaging when public servants betray their oath to support the Constitution(s) — but there is currently no similar accountability.) The crime would be defined such as follows:
The offence of Betraying Your Oath of Office is defined as each instance when a Public Servant betrays their oath to support the U.S. and Michigan constitutions as required by Article 6 Paragraph 3 of the U.S. constitution and Article 11 Section 1 of the Michigan constitution. Those charged with this offence will be held personally liable and have no immunity from prosecution.
An indicted Public Servant found guilty in court by a jury under this Article shall be: 1) removed from office, 2) disqualified from holding public office in Michigan, 3) subject to reimbursement of the Complainant’s court costs and reasonable attorney fees not to exceed the cost of defense, and 4) subject to MCL 38.2703 regarding forfeiture of retirement rights. If appealed, the Public Servant must not resume duties until the decision becomes final. Public Servants may be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, for additional crimes according to law.
2) The creation Grand Jury of the people – outside the control of the state – to hear and evaluate charges against public servants charged with Betraying Their Oath of Office. The grand jury would be composed of a random, unbiased, cross-section of the constituents served by the charged public servant.
3) A trial of the public servant, indicted of Betraying their Oath of Office, in circuit court before a jury of the people to hear to hear arguments and decide a verdict.
You may review a draft copy of an petition, drafted by the joint effort of many liberty minded individuals throughout the State, at: http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38. (I have attached a copy for your convenience)
I ask if you could you please read the initiative and let me know if you either support it or reject it?
If you support it would you publically endorse it and help fight for its passage?
If you reject it, would you please explain why?
Thank you for your time and attention and I await your response.
11-07-17: Initial email — Question regarding the people holding public servants accountable to the Constitution.
Tom,
I’d like your opinion on an issue very important to me.
I personally feel that the greatest problem facing the State and the nation today is that our elected officials, and public servants, no longer have allegiance to, and fight to preserve the liberty of, the people they are supposed to serve, They ignore any aspect of the constitution(s) they feel are inconvenient and instead impose law based their personal discretion — or what is desired by their deep pocketed donors.
Would you support an initiative which provides the people with a viable means to hold their elected representatives accountable to both their state and federal constitutionally mandated oaths to support the constitution(s)? This means that all elected officials must fight for and defend the peoples constitutionally protected rights within the Bill of Rights, as well as fighting to restrain both federal and state activity to within the clear bounds of constitutional authority.
Would you support an initiative which:
1) Makes it a crime in Michigan if elected officials and other public servants betray their oath of office?
(We’ve defined the crime of perjury if individuals betray their oath to tell the truth in court, but no like crime exists if public servants betray their oath to support the constitution(s). Perjury is serious and is properly defined as a crime, but It can easily be argued that it is infinitely more damaging when public servants betray their oath to support the Constitution(s) — but there is currently no similar accountability.) The crime would be defined such as follows:
The offence of Betraying Your Oath of Office is defined as each instance when a Public Servant betrays their oath to support the U.S. and Michigan constitutions as required by Article 6 Paragraph 3 of the U.S. constitution and Article 11 Section 1 of the Michigan constitution. Those charged with this offence will be held personally liable and have no immunity from prosecution.
An indicted Public Servant found guilty in court by a jury under this Article shall be: 1) removed from office, 2) disqualified from holding public office in Michigan, 3) subject to reimbursement of the Complainant’s court costs and reasonable attorney fees not to exceed the cost of defense, and 4) subject to MCL 38.2703 regarding forfeiture of retirement rights. If appealed, the Public Servant must not resume duties until the decision becomes final. Public Servants may be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, for additional crimes according to law.
2) The creation Grand Jury of the people – outside the control of the state – to hear and evaluate charges against public servants charged with Betraying Their Oath of Office. The grand jury would be composed of a random, unbiased, cross-section of the constituents served by the charged public servant.
3) A trial of the public servant, indicted of Betraying their Oath of Office, in circuit court before a jury of the people to hear to hear arguments and decide a verdict.
You may review a draft copy of an petition, drafted by the joint effort of many liberty minded individuals throughout the State, at: http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38. (I have attached a copy for your convenience)
I ask if you could you please read the initiative and let me know if you either support it or reject it?
If you support it would you publically endorse it and help fight for its passage?
If you reject it, would you please explain why?
Thank you for your time and attention and I await your response.
11-13-17: Initial Email — Question regarding the people holding public servants accountable to the Constitution.
Daire,
I’d like your opinion on an issue very important to me.
I personally feel that the greatest problem facing the State and the nation today is that our elected officials, and public servants, no longer have allegiance to, and fight to preserve the liberty of, the people they are supposed to serve, They ignore any aspect of the constitution(s) they feel are inconvenient and instead impose law based their personal discretion — or what is desired by their deep pocketed donors.
Would you support an initiative which provides the people with a viable means to hold their elected representatives accountable to both their state and federal constitutionally mandated oaths to support the constitution(s)? This means that all elected officials must fight for and defend the peoples constitutionally protected rights within the Bill of Rights, as well as fighting to restrain both federal and state activity to within the clear bounds of constitutional authority.
Would you support an initiative which:
1) Makes it a crime in Michigan if elected officials and other public servants betray their oath of office?
(We’ve defined the crime of perjury if individuals betray their oath to tell the truth in court, but no like crime exists if public servants betray their oath to support the constitution(s). Perjury is serious and is properly defined as a crime, but It can easily be argued that it is infinitely more damaging when public servants betray their oath to support the Constitution(s) — but there is currently no similar accountability.) The crime would be defined such as follows:
The offence of Betraying Your Oath of Office is defined as each instance when a Public Servant betrays their oath to support the U.S. and Michigan constitutions as required by Article 6 Paragraph 3 of the U.S. constitution and Article 11 Section 1 of the Michigan constitution. Those charged with this offence will be held personally liable and have no immunity from prosecution.
An indicted Public Servant found guilty in court by a jury under this Article shall be: 1) removed from office, 2) disqualified from holding public office in Michigan, 3) subject to reimbursement of the Complainant’s court costs and reasonable attorney fees not to exceed the cost of defense, and 4) subject to MCL 38.2703 regarding forfeiture of retirement rights. If appealed, the Public Servant must not resume duties until the decision becomes final. Public Servants may be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, for additional crimes according to law.
2) The creation Grand Jury of the people – outside the control of the state – to hear and evaluate charges against public servants charged with Betraying Their Oath of Office. The grand jury would be composed of a random, unbiased, cross-section of the constituents served by the charged public servant.
3) A trial of the public servant, indicted of Betraying their Oath of Office, in circuit court before a jury of the people to hear to hear arguments and decide a verdict.
You may review a draft copy of an petition, drafted by the joint effort of many liberty minded individuals throughout the State, at: http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38.
I ask if you could you please read the initiative and let me know if you either support it or reject it?
If you support it would you publically endorse it and help fight for its passage?
If you reject it, would you please explain why?
Thank you for your time and attention and I await your response.
10-30-17: Initial contact https://www.billcobbs.com/contact/
10-30-17: received automated response:
Subject: Thank you for reaching out
From: Bill Cobbs for Governor
11-13-17: 2nd Request through https://www.billcobbs.com/contact/
Candidate Cobbs,
About two weeks ago (11-03-2017) I sent your campaign an email requesting your opinion on an issue regarding holding government accountable to the people. The full initiative may be read here: http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38
As of yet I have not received a response.
Would you please respond and let me know if you support an initiative which:
1) Makes it a crime in Michigan if elected officials and other public servants betray their oath of office?
2) The creation Grand Jury of the people – outside the control of the state – to hear and evaluate charges against public servants charged with Betraying Their Oath of Office. The grand jury would be composed of a random, unbiased, cross-section of the constituents served by the charged public servant.
3) A trial of the public servant, indicted of Betraying their Oath of Office, in circuit court before a jury of the people to hear to hear arguments and decide a verdict.
You may have questions such as:
— Who has the ultimate responsibility to convene a grand jury?
— Who determines the violation of the Constitution?
— 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?
All these questions are addressed in the initiative http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38. If you have other questions please call or e-mail me and I will be pleased to discuss.
If you support it would you publically endorse it and fight for its passage? If you reject it, would you please explain why?
For me, your answer to this question defines your underling belief system and character. I will post the response (or non response) on my website and share with other concerned individuals.
Thank you for your time and attention and I await your response.
11-03-17: received automated response:
Subject: Thank you for reaching out
From: Bill Cobbs for Governor
11-03-17: Initial email
11-13-17: 2nd Request: Please respond to initiative to hold government accountable
Candidate Schuette,
About two weeks ago (11-03-2017) I sent your campaign an email requesting your opinion on an issue regarding holding government accountable to the people. The full initiative may be read here: http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38
As of yet I have not received a response.
Would you please respond and let me know if you support an initiative which:
1) Makes it a crime in Michigan if elected officials and other public servants betray their oath of office?
2) The creation Grand Jury of the people – outside the control of the state – to hear and evaluate charges against public servants charged with Betraying Their Oath of Office. The grand jury would be composed of a random, unbiased, cross-section of the constituents served by the charged public servant.
3) A trial of the public servant, indicted of Betraying their Oath of Office, in circuit court before a jury of the people to hear to hear arguments and decide a verdict.
You may have questions such as:
— Who has the ultimate responsibility to convene a grand jury?
— Who determines the violation of the Constitution?
— 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?
All these questions are addressed in the initiative http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38. If you have other questions please call or e-mail me and I will be pleased to discuss.
If you support it would you publically endorse it and fight for its passage? If you reject it, would you please explain why?
For me, your answer to this question defines your underling belief system and character. I will post the response (or non response) on my website and share with other concerned individuals.
Thank you for your time and attention and I await your response.
10-30-17: initial email
11-13-17: 2nd Request: Please respond to initiative to hold government accountable
Candidate Whitmer
About two weeks ago (10-30-2017) I sent your campaign an email requesting your opinion on an issue regarding holding government accountable to the people. The full initiative may be read here: http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38
As of yet I have not received a response.
Would you please respond and let me know if you support an initiative which:
1) Makes it a crime in Michigan if elected officials and other public servants betray their oath of office?
2) The creation Grand Jury of the people – outside the control of the state – to hear and evaluate charges against public servants charged with Betraying Their Oath of Office. The grand jury would be composed of a random, unbiased, cross-section of the constituents served by the charged public servant.
3) A trial of the public servant, indicted of Betraying their Oath of Office, in circuit court before a jury of the people to hear to hear arguments and decide a verdict.
You may have questions such as:
— Who has the ultimate responsibility to convene a grand jury?
— Who determines the violation of the Constitution?
— 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?
All these questions are addressed in the initiative http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38. If you have other questions please call or e-mail me and I will be pleased to discuss.
If you support it would you publically endorse it and fight for its passage? If you reject it, would you please explain why?
For me, your answer to this question defines your underling belief system and character. I will post the response (or non response) on my website and share with other concerned individuals.
Thank you for your time and attention and I await your response.
10-30-17: Initial Email
11-13-17: 2nd Request: Please respond to initiative to hold government accountable
Candidate Thanedar,
About two weeks ago (10-30-2017) I sent your campaign an email requesting your opinion on an issue regarding holding government accountable to the people. The full initiative may be read here: http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38
As of yet I have not received a response.
Would you please respond and let me know if you support an initiative which:
1) Makes it a crime in Michigan if elected officials and other public servants betray their oath of office?
2) The creation Grand Jury of the people – outside the control of the state – to hear and evaluate charges against public servants charged with Betraying Their Oath of Office. The grand jury would be composed of a random, unbiased, cross-section of the constituents served by the charged public servant.
3) A trial of the public servant, indicted of Betraying their Oath of Office, in circuit court before a jury of the people to hear to hear arguments and decide a verdict.
You may have questions such as:
— Who has the ultimate responsibility to convene a grand jury?
— Who determines the violation of the Constitution?
— 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?
All these questions are addressed in the initiative http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38. If you have other questions please call or e-mail me and I will be pleased to discuss.
If you support it would you publically endorse it and fight for its passage? If you reject it, would you please explain why?
For me, your answer to this question defines your underling belief system and character. I will post the response (or non response) on my website and share with other concerned individuals.
Thank you for your time and attention and I await your response.
10-30-17: Initial Email
11-13-17: 2nd Request: Please respond to initiative to hold government accountable
Candidate Space,
About two weeks ago (10-30-2017) I sent your campaign an email requesting your opinion on an issue regarding holding government accountable to the people. The full initiative may be read here: http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38
As of yet I have not received a response.
Would you please respond and let me know if you support an initiative which:
1) Makes it a crime in Michigan if elected officials and other public servants betray their oath of office?
2) The creation Grand Jury of the people – outside the control of the state – to hear and evaluate charges against public servants charged with Betraying Their Oath of Office. The grand jury would be composed of a random, unbiased, cross-section of the constituents served by the charged public servant.
3) A trial of the public servant, indicted of Betraying their Oath of Office, in circuit court before a jury of the people to hear to hear arguments and decide a verdict.
You may have questions such as:
— Who has the ultimate responsibility to convene a grand jury?
— Who determines the violation of the Constitution?
— 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?
All these questions are addressed in the initiative http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38. If you have other questions please call or e-mail me and I will be pleased to discuss.
If you support it would you publically endorse it and fight for its passage? If you reject it, would you please explain why?
For me, your answer to this question defines your underling belief system and character. I will post the response (or non response) on my website and share with other concerned individuals.
Thank you for your time and attention and I await your response.
11-13-17: Received a phone call from Evan Space. We briefly discussed the concepts of the initiative and he stated that his response would be coming shortly.
10-30-17: Initial Email
11-13-17: 2nd Request: Please respond to initiative to hold government accountable
Candidate Kurland,
About two weeks ago (10-30-2017) I sent your campaign an email requesting your opinion on an issue regarding holding government accountable to the people. The full initiative may be read here: http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38
As of yet I have not received a response.
Would you please respond and let me know if you support an initiative which:
1) Makes it a crime in Michigan if elected officials and other public servants betray their oath of office?
2) The creation Grand Jury of the people – outside the control of the state – to hear and evaluate charges against public servants charged with Betraying Their Oath of Office. The grand jury would be composed of a random, unbiased, cross-section of the constituents served by the charged public servant.
3) A trial of the public servant, indicted of Betraying their Oath of Office, in circuit court before a jury of the people to hear to hear arguments and decide a verdict.
You may have questions such as:
— Who has the ultimate responsibility to convene a grand jury?
— Who determines the violation of the Constitution?
— 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?
All these questions are addressed in the initiative http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38. If you have other questions please call or e-mail me and I will be pleased to discuss.
If you support it would you publically endorse it and fight for its passage? If you reject it, would you please explain why?
For me, your answer to this question defines your underling belief system and character. I will post the response (or non response) on my website and share with other concerned individuals.
Thank you for your time and attention and I await your response.
10-30-17: Initial Email
11-13-17: 2nd Request: Please respond to initiative to hold government accountable
Candidate Abdul El-Sayed (D),
About two weeks ago (10-30-2017) I sent your campaign an email requesting your opinion on an issue regarding holding government accountable to the people. The full initiative may be read here: http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38
As of yet I have not received a response.
Would you please respond and let me know if you support an initiative which:
1) Makes it a crime in Michigan if elected officials and other public servants betray their oath of office?
2) The creation Grand Jury of the people – outside the control of the state – to hear and evaluate charges against public servants charged with Betraying Their Oath of Office. The grand jury would be composed of a random, unbiased, cross-section of the constituents served by the charged public servant.
3) A trial of the public servant, indicted of Betraying their Oath of Office, in circuit court before a jury of the people to hear to hear arguments and decide a verdict.
You may have questions such as:
— Who has the ultimate responsibility to convene a grand jury?
— Who determines the violation of the Constitution?
— 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?
All these questions are addressed in the initiative http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38. If you have other questions please call or e-mail me and I will be pleased to discuss.
If you support it would you publically endorse it and fight for its passage? If you reject it, would you please explain why?
For me, your answer to this question defines your underling belief system and character. I will post the response (or non response) on my website and share with other concerned individuals.
Thank you for your time and attention and I await your response.
11-09-2017:
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.
That is why I believe strongly in the right of the people to vote for and recall their public officials. As to the government employees, if they are breaking the law as in the example you mentioned (Rapponos vs. United States?) they should be fired and if knowingly broke the law they should be charged.
11-11-2017: Non-Support
Here is my thoughts on your proposal.
First, thank you for your email and commitment to elected officials upholding their oath. As we observe in national politics, if President Trump Tweets something liberals disagree with, a number of people want to charge him with crimes and/or impeach him. I am afraid this would be turned into the criminalization of political disagreements, which could involve the establishment using this mechanism to punish a Tea Party elected official, a group of liberals taking out a conservative, pro-abortion forces trying to remove pro-life members, or any combination. I believe the ultimate answer is for citizens to carefully monitor elected officials’ votes and performance in office of adhering to the Constitution and hold them accountable on Election Day. Each citizen is endowed with certain inalienable rights and I believe our Founders properly structured our system to defend these rights, however that requires a diligent citizenry to elected principled individuals who will follow the Constitution.
11-11-17:I did answer Tonya as noted below:
Tonya,
I appreciate your response and I’ve classified you as not being able to support the initiative.
I feel bad about this because I do not believe you have read the initiative and instead based your decision on pre-conceived biases. Otherwise you would have seen that your concerns are specifically addressed.
The initiative doesn’t target elected officials, but public servants charged with enforcing policy. Every one of these individuals swears to support the constitution, and neither ingotrance, nor following unjust policy is an excuse.
Consider Deven Guilford who was shot to death by a police officer. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/06/22/mistake-over-high-beams-ends-with-michigan-cop-killing-teen/?utm_term=.8a0fdae418d4) The entire episode is on the officers body camera. I’ve talked to Deven’s parents who are devistated by the situation and have no place to turn. They have lost hope in the entire system. The prosecuting attorney refused to bring charges against the officer so the case was droped. Was the officer justified? we don’t know, but the tape certainly suggest otherwise. Yet the people have no recourse. The police officer is charged with protecting the life and liberty of the people. Police must be held to a higher standard because they have guns and authority to enforce policy over the people.
In this case the officer could have done at least a couple of things different:
1) acknowledge and apologize for having his high beams out of alignment.
2) waited for backup.
To answer your concern: The grand jury cannot be co-opted by any special interest group. The initiative spells out how it is to be selected from essentially the same resident pool used to select juries for county trials. The initiative specifies how the county is to select the grand jury to be convened, how the process is reviewed and verified existing members of the grand jury. The process is totally random and may not be changed by the discretion of anyone. The resulting jury will reflect a true cross section of the population. (This link provides a detailed explanation of the grand jury selection process. http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=625)
The grand jury will be set up by county, so in the Guilford incident the county grand jury would hear the charges and defence and decide whether to indict for trial or not. If the charged public servant has authority over multiple counties – such as a state wide DEQ official, then the grand jury convened to hear the charges will consist of individuals chosen from every county over which he had authority. The process is described within this link: (http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=699)
There are other safeguards against abuse. such as the individual bring charges must have been specifically damaged by the actions of the accused. Also, the loser must pay the other parties court fees. Also consider, if an elected official has been charged for whatsoever reason, the majority of the people in the affected district would have voted for him. they would already have the majority support of the cross section of the population.
I had a chance to participate in a jury trial a few months ago. I was impressed how the people within the jury deliberated the evidence and tried to arrive at a just decision.
The Grand Jury and trial by a jury of the people are specific tools granted to the people within the bill of rights — not gto government. The only mention of a grand Jury is in the 5th amendment of the US Constitution, and there is no reference at all in the Michigan Constitution. The Jury of the people is critical, since the people established and ordained the constitution(s). They must have the ability to judge if it iis being implemented appropriately by their government.
As mentioned, from your response I have identified you as non-supportive, but as also mentioned, I do not think you actually read the initiative. If I’m wrong and you truly cannot support it, so be it. But if you want to reconsider your support, please let me know. I want to be totally fair to all candidates involves.
Thank You again for your response and for trying to do what you feel is best.Tonya,
I appreciate yoour response and I’ve classified you as not being able to support the initiative.
I feel bad about this because I do not believe you have read the initiative and instead based your decision on pre-conceived biases. Otherwise you would have seen that your concerns are specifically addressed.
The initiative doesn’t target elected officials, but public servants charged with enforcing policy. Every one of these individuals swears to support the constitution, and neither ingotrance, nor following unjust policy is an excuse.
Consider Deven Guilford who was shot to death by a police officer. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/06/22/mistake-over-high-beams-ends-with-michigan-cop-killing-teen/?utm_term=.8a0fdae418d4) The entire episode is on the officers body camera. I’ve talked to Deven’s parents who are devistated by the situation and have no place to turn. They have lost hope in the entire system. The prosecuting attorney refused to bring charges against the officer so the case was droped. Was the officer justified? we don’t know, but the tape certainly suggest otherwise. Yet the people have no recourse. The police officer is charged with protecting the life and liberty of the people. Police must be held to a higher standard because they have guns and authority to enforce policy over the people.
In this case the officer could have done at least a couple of things different:
1) acknowledge and apologize for having his high beams out of alignment.
2) waited for backup.
To answer your concern: The grand jury cannot be co-opted by any special interest group. The initiative spells out how it is to be selected from essentially the same resident pool used to select juries for county trials. The initiative specifies how the county is to select the grand jury to be convened, how the process is reviewed and verified existing members of the grand jury. The process is totally random and may not be changed by the discretion of anyone. The resulting jury will reflect a true cross section of the population. (This link provides a detailed explanation of the grand jury selection process. http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=625)
The grand jury will be set up by county, so in the Guilford incident the county grand jury would hear the charges and defence and decide whether to indict for trial or not. If the charged public servant has authority over multiple counties – such as a state wide DEQ official, then the grand jury convened to hear the charges will consist of individuals chosen from every county over which he had authority. The process is described within this link: (http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=699)
There are other safeguards against abuse. such as the individual bring charges must have been specifically damaged by the actions of the accused. Also, the loser must pay the other parties court fees. Also consider, if an elected official has been charged for whatsoever reason, the majority of the people in the affected district would have voted for him. they would already have the majority support of the cross section of the population.
I had a chance to participate in a jury trial a few months ago. I was impressed how the people within the jury deliberated the evidence and tried to arrive at a just decision.
The Grand Jury and trial by a jury of the people are specific tools granted to the people within the bill of rights — not gto government. The only mention of a grand Jury is in the 5th amendment of the US Constitution, and there is no reference at all in the Michigan Constitution. The Jury of the people is critical, since the people established and ordained the constitution(s). They must have the ability to judge if it iis being implemented appropriately by their government.
As mentioned, from your response I have identified you as non-supportive, but as also mentioned, I do not think you actually read the initiative. If I’m wrong and you truly cannot support it, so be it. But if you want to reconsider your support, please let me know. I want to be totally fair to all candidates involves.
Thank You again for your response and for trying to do what you feel is best.
Patrick Colbeck’s Response: Currently Evaluating
11-11-2017:
I haven’t forgot about it…just busy on the campaign trail. Trust me. At first glance, it looks like something I can support. I would just like to have some time to give it serious thought. On the road quite a bit. Life slows down somewhat next week.
10-30-2017: initial email
11-11-2017: 2nd Request
Candidate Schleiger,
About two weeks ago (10-30-2017) I sent your campaign an email requesting your opinion on an issue regarding holding government accountable to the people. The full initiative may be read here: http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38
As of yet I have not received a response.
Would you please respond and let me know if you support an initiative which:
1) Makes it a crime in Michigan if elected officials and other public servants betray their oath of office?
2) The creation Grand Jury of the people – outside the control of the state – to hear and evaluate charges against public servants charged with Betraying Their Oath of Office. The grand jury would be composed of a random, unbiased, cross-section of the constituents served by the charged public servant.
3) A trial of the public servant, indicted of Betraying their Oath of Office, in circuit court before a jury of the people to hear to hear arguments and decide a verdict.
You may have questions such as:
— Who has the ultimate responsibility to convene a grand jury?
— Who determines the violation of the Constitution?
— 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?
All these questions are addressed in the initiative http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38. If you have other questions please call or e-mail me and I will be pleased to discuss.
If you support it would you publically endorse it and fight for its passage? If you reject it, would you please explain why?
For me, your answer to this question defines your underling belief system and character. I will post the response (or non response) on my website and share with other concerned individuals.
Thank you for your time and attention and I await your response.
10-30-2017: Initial email
11-11-2017: Second request.
Candidate Schuitmaker,
About two weeks ago (10-30-2017) I sent your campaign an email requesting your opinion on an issue regarding holding government accountable to the people. The full initiative may be read here: http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38
As of yet I have not received a response.
Would you please respond and let me know if you support an initiative which:
1) Makes it a crime in Michigan if elected officials and other public servants betray their oath of office?
2) The creation Grand Jury of the people – outside the control of the state – to hear and evaluate charges against public servants charged with Betraying Their Oath of Office. The grand jury would be composed of a random, unbiased, cross-section of the constituents served by the charged public servant.
3) A trial of the public servant, indicted of Betraying their Oath of Office, in circuit court before a jury of the people to hear to hear arguments and decide a verdict.
You may have questions such as:
— Who has the ultimate responsibility to convene a grand jury?
— Who determines the violation of the Constitution?
— 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?
All these questions are addressed in the initiative http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38. If you have other questions please call or e-mail me and I will be pleased to discuss.
If you support it would you publically endorse it and fight for its passage? If you reject it, would you please explain why?
For me, your answer to this question defines your underling belief system and character. I will post the response (or non response) on my website and share with other concerned individuals.
Thank you for your time and attention and I await your response.
11-11-2017: Schuitmaker Response:
Here is my thoughts on your proposal.
First, thank you for your email and commitment to elected officials upholding their oath. As we observe in national politics, if President Trump Tweets something liberals disagree with, a number of people want to charge him with crimes and/or impeach him. I am afraid this would be turned into the criminalization of political disagreements, which could involve the establishment using this mechanism to punish a Tea Party elected official, a group of liberals taking out a conservative, pro-abortion forces trying to remove pro-life members, or any combination. I believe the ultimate answer is for citizens to carefully monitor elected officials’ votes and performance in office of adhering to the Constitution and hold them accountable on Election Day. Each citizen is endowed with certain inalienable rights and I believe our Founders properly structured our system to defend these rights, however that requires a diligent citizenry to elected principled individuals who will follow the Constitution.
10-30-2017: Initial email
11-11-2017: 2nd Request
Candidate Leonard,
About two weeks ago (10-30-2017) I sent your campaign an email requesting your opinion on an issue regarding holding government accountable to the people. The full initiative may be read here: http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38
As of yet I have not received a response.
Would you please respond and let me know if you support an initiative which:
1) Makes it a crime in Michigan if elected officials and other public servants betray their oath of office?
2) The creation Grand Jury of the people – outside the control of the state – to hear and evaluate charges against public servants charged with Betraying Their Oath of Office. The grand jury would be composed of a random, unbiased, cross-section of the constituents served by the charged public servant.
3) A trial of the public servant, indicted of Betraying their Oath of Office, in circuit court before a jury of the people to hear to hear arguments and decide a verdict.
You may have questions such as:
— Who has the ultimate responsibility to convene a grand jury?
— Who determines the violation of the Constitution?
— 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?
All these questions are addressed in the initiative http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38. If you have other questions please call or e-mail me and I will be pleased to discuss.
If you support it would you publically endorse it and fight for its passage? If you reject it, would you please explain why?
For me, your answer to this question defines your underling belief system and character. I will post the response (or non response) on my website and share with other concerned individuals.
Thank you for your time and attention and I await your response.
11-02-2017: Senator Colbeck returned my call. I explained I wanted to receive his feedback regarding a proposal of how to make government accountable to the people. I presented generalities only and received a contact e-mail to which I could send the initial email. He offered support for the general concept.
11-02-2017: Sent initial email.
11-11-2017: Sent second email.
Senator Colbeck,
We spoke briefly last week about an initiative to giving the people the ability to hold government accountable. The full initiative may be read here: http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38
Would you respond and let me know if you support an initiative which:
1) Makes it a crime in Michigan if elected officials and other public servants betray their oath of office?
2) The creation Grand Jury of the people – outside the control of the state – to hear and evaluate charges against public servants charged with Betraying Their Oath of Office. The grand jury would be composed of a random, unbiased, cross-section of the constituents served by the charged public servant.
3) A trial of the public servant, indicted of Betraying their Oath of Office, in circuit court before a jury of the people to hear to hear arguments and decide a verdict.
You may have questions such as:
— Who has the ultimate responsibility to convene a grand jury?
— Who determines the violation of the Constitution?
— 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?
All these questions are addressed in the initiative http://www.defendtheoath.com/?page_id=38. If you have other questions please call or e-mail me and I will be pleased to discuss.
If you support it would you publically endorse it and fight for its passage? If you reject it, would you please explain why?
For me, your answer to this question defines your underling belief system and character. I will post the response (or non response) on my website and share with other concerned individuals.
Thank you for your time and attention and I await your response.
11-11-2017: Colbeck Responds:
I haven’t forgot about it…just busy on the campaign trail. Trust me. At first glance, it looks like something I can support. I would just like to have some time to give it serious thought. On the road quite a bit. Life slows down somewhat next week.
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.
Testing 123