Special Police in Maui and the Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law

(L) Blocking traffic to Lahaina area (C) Men building the wall (R) The Special Police’s Nissan vehicles. Photos by Geoff Cygnus on rumble.com

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

There are many wonderful provisions in federal law, state law, and common law that can help citizens overcome the unlawfulness of the powerful. In many ways, the United States Constitution stands for “Citizen versus Powerful.” Given that it was written in 1787 (no cars, no typewriters, no telephone, no cameras), it is pretty remarkable. I will fetch up some of the protections we can use, in connection with Maui.

I have just seen a new video made by a citizen who lives on the Hawaiian island of Maui, parts of which were destroyed by fire in August 2023. He has clearly filmed a huge fence that is being built to keep prying eyes out of the area.

Prying eyes? The videographer implies that the fence is meant to prevent us from seeing something that the Powerful do not want us to see. Almost certainly that is true. For me, it smacks of GK — my initials for Guilty Knowledge. He who hides evidence must have a motive to do the hiding and, logically, that motive is probably guilt.

Of course, the state legislature could pass a law saying “No one must approach the beach along between such-and-such street before July 2024, as it is dangerous” — or some such excuse. Then we could ask those legislators to explain what the danger was. Most likely there is no danger.

According to the videographer, he was not even allowed to stop his car at the side of the road to take pictures. And the area, he says, is well guarded by police, by National Guard, and by a new species which he calls Special Police.  He showed us their brand-new Nissan cars. And Robert-the-botanist of California told us that whenever he sees a cleanup team after a bushfire, the workers are driving brand-new trucks and speak a European language.

How Can Law Protect, in This Case?

Believe me, I, like other citizens these days, am aware that the legal and political picture has changed drastically by the fact that there is a New Boy in town. The New Boy has such wealth, such control of media, such bribery of the legislature, and now — if DEW was used at Lahaina — such weaponry, that law cannot control that person. So what good is law?

Should we voluntarily surrender our constitutions, and our laws? Should we say “Ho hum, it’s back to the jungle”? I don’t think so. We are failing to even try to impose the law on the New Boy. To his delight the people are taking refuge in panic, denial, and fantasy. How about we try the law?

A few laws come straight to mind regarding the plight of the videographer Geoff Cygnus: Freedom of Information Act, SCOTUS’ ruling in Nollan v California Coastal Commission (1987), Congress’s provision, codified at 18 USC 242, against those who act under “color of law” to deprive any citizen of constitutional rights, and SCOTUS’ ruling in Blaisdell (1931) declaring that emergencies do not change the constitution,

Seriously, isn’t that great?

FOIA (pronounced ‘foy-ah’)

Under the federal Freedom of Information Act, you can demand to know if the federal government has provided those Special Police to Maui, or been involved in their hire. And if so, where they come from and what contract they have signed. That Act guarantees you a reply. After 60 days, if you have got not reply, you can file an appeal, free of charge, in the US District Court whereupon the judge must hand the goods to you or give a proper reason why the government is withholding it. (You may have seen Tom Fitton’s group “Judicial Watch,” doing this regularly.)

There is also “foy-ah” in each state. Hawaii has an open records act in the form of The Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified). It’s Chapter 92F, sec 1 lists exceptions but these don’t frustrate the search for explanation of the Special Police:

92F-13  Government records; exceptions to general rule.This part shall not require disclosure of:

(1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(2) Government records pertaining to the prosecution or defense of any judicial or quasi-judicial action to which the State or any county is or may be a party, to the extent that such records would not be discoverable;

(3) Government records that, by their nature, must be confidential in order for the government to avoid the frustration of a legitimate government function;

(4) Government records which, pursuant to state or federal law including an order of any state or federal court, are protected from disclosure; and

(5) Inchoate and draft working papers of legislative committees….

Public Right To Access the Seaside

You may know some people who own a property along the coast.  Can they keep you off the beach? No. They may try to bluff you, but you have a right to go there. (Does it interfere with the property owner’s sunbathing in the nude?  Well, too bad. That’s life.) You also have a right to look at the ocean from a distance with no blockage. The US Supreme Court ruling in this came from a California case in which the landowner, Nollan, petitioned the local commission for a right to increase his one-story house to two stories. The state won, thanks to its right in the 1879 California Constitution, Article X, sec 4, which says:

“No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose….”

Color of Law and Constitutional Rights

Did I go to law school? Well, yes I did, but even if I hadn’t, I know how to type “Google” into my computer and then ask a question. I did so, and was brought straight to the key item, a federal law (dated from the 1960s era of civil rights) codified at 18 USC 242.  When you see the “18,” you know it is in Chapter 18 that contains criminal law, so a punishment will be included in the statute.  Thus:

“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, …or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;

“and if bodily injury results … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results … or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse… shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years, …or may be sentenced to death.”

Furthermore, the website of the Department of Justice explains acts done “under color of law”:

“[It] include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.

“Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.”

The Blaisdell Ruling on “Emergency”

In the 1931 case of Home Building and Loan Association v Blaisdell, the US Supreme Court ruled:

“Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power…. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power … were not altered by emergency’.”

That case was about a Minnesota state law during the Depression that allowed people under threat of mortgage foreclosure to get softer terms. The Contract clause (Article I, sec 10 of the US Constitution) says contracts are sacred. Justice Hughes writing the opinion also said (at page 289 US 453):

“Public sentiment and action effect such changes, and the courts recognize them; but a court or legislature which should allow a change in public sentiment to influence it in giving to a written constitution a construction not warranted by the intention of its founders, would be justly chargeable with reckless disregard of official oath and public duty, and if its course could become a precedent, these instruments would be of little avail. . . . What a court is to do, therefore, is to declare the law as written….”

I am thinking here of the state of Hawaii establishing a closure of the seacoast road, based on the emergency of the fire — although that fire is not still burning. Maybe SCOTUS would say that the state constitution’s law about access to the beach must prevail. Or maybe it would say that some adjustment is permissible; I don’t know. But the very existence of the Blaisdell precedent is something our videographer could look at.

Back to the Question of the Powerful

So, you see, I hold that there are wonderful laws applicable to every situation. At some time in the past, the state of Hawaii would not have dared to build that wall and prevent people generally from watching what is going on. FOIA would come to the fore, the firmness of the rule about access to the coast would be bandied about, civil rights groups would yell about arresting officials for “acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority,” and — though not many peeps know the Blaisdell ruling — some might see that the word emergency is a psychological way of making people accept any restrictions.

What, then, is preventing such ideas now? Nothing is preventing them.  Granted, culture has stepped in, since at least 2001, to make people forget the phrase “We have rule of law, not rule of men.”  We’ve conceded the ground to “the rule of men.” Talk about stupid! Talk about timid! Talk about unpatriotic!

It has been my experience that the most inhibiting factor in taking legal action is public faith in government. Mostly you can’t get it through people’s heads that all three branches of government are corrupt. I wish the Hawaiians would start from the premise that what happened at Lahaina was most likely a horrible attack from the air, and that there are sufficient numbers of people in government deluded enough to think it can be covered up,

I recommend we strip them of their delusions. Betcha there’s a pharmaceutical drug for that!  But short of lacing their drink with it, we can take community-based action. In my 2022 book, Keep the Republic, Kill the Takeover (free download), I show many legal workarounds, including citizen’s arrest.

The main point here is to remind ourselves that we are Americans. Other countries are looking for us to do something. (I don’t mean that they are unable to act without Big Momma. Some of them do it better than Big Momma.  I KNOW SOME AUSSIES….) But for our own sake, as a means of solidarity, we have much to lean on in our history.

The Constitution is stainless steel as far as I’m concerned. We don’t have to weaponize it.  It’s been a weapon all along. It is more powerful than any of the pathetic Bozos who are trying to wreck us and wreck the world — let some strong patriots arise all over the place and scare the pants off those poor dopes.  “You’ll see — we’ll fix ’em” type thing.

Come on, help our brethren in the 50th state. Let’s breach that wholly illegal wall. My God, the sheer affrontery of it!

I ask you: If not now, when? After we’ve all been DEW’ed?

Here is the video about the wall:

and a short video about burnt-out cars:
https://twitter.com/CygnusGeoff/status/1698061584566800674?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet