Constitutional Educator Speaks “Liberty” in California – Livestream

“FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED”

by Sharon Rondeau

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBablyG6_zA

(May 25, 2020) — At approximately 6:00 p.m. EDT/3:00 p.m. PDT, attorney, Army veteran and constitutional educator KrisAnne Hall’s YouTube channel began a livestream in which Hall boldly addressed a crowd in Sacramento, CA by invoking what “liberty” means to her and the application of the U.S. Constitution, California constitution, and California oath of office to the current “lockdown” imposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Based in Florida, Hall hosts a daily YouTube broadcast on constitutional issues, often joined by her husband, Army veteran and pastor JC Hall.  She instructs Americans on “liberty” through her “Liberty First University” and is author of six books.

“He can’t take those rights away,” Hall told the group, referring to Newsom and the operation of businesses and the economy in general, which Newsom largely shuttered due to the coronavirus.

“You have inalienable rights,” Hall continued, which include “acquiring and protecting property” and enjoying “privacy.”  She said that Newsom has “taken away” the inalienable right to operate one’s own property. “The governor by the constitution is prohibited from making laws,” she said, because it violates the “separation of powers” put in place by the nation’s founders.

Hall maintained that Newsom is not responsible for Californians’ “safety,” but rather, that each citizen is responsible for his own safety and well-being.

She read from the Declaration of Independence, then formed a parallel between “the consent of the governed” and Newsom’s current occupancy of the governor’s mansion.

At 6:25 p,m./3:25 p,m., Hall declared Newsom in violation of the California constitution on at least six counts, followed by, “He needs to go.”

She said that the governor’s attempt to control “40 million people” is a “radical” concept and compared his actions to those of “a king.”

“No more kings!” she shouted.

“You don’t have to comply,” she said.  “You’re not being disobedient; he is!”

She decried “docile subjects” who bow to government’s will for a “check” that might come during difficult times.

The livestream concluded at 6:34 p.m. EDT.

 

11 Responses to "Constitutional Educator Speaks “Liberty” in California – Livestream"

  1. Ed Sunderland   Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 12:27 PM

    Dennis Becker is a good little soldier. We have serious problems in Cali with the first and the second amendment as well as the 5th regarding this “unconstitutional’ police power the gov granted himself and look where that has led? The state is broke, people are leaving in droves, San Francisco is an open sewer (literally), prices and taxes are killing what business there is and the governors orders are going to execute even more unconstitutionally. Gasoline is extraordinary high as gas prices hurt the people that can afford it least.

    Courts are making unconstitutional decisions with acute regularity and that needs to stop. I suggest justices read the constitution for once. You can’t protect everyone from everything and powers granted the government are few. Forcing you to destroy your livelihood and source of income based on fear is not one of them.

    Further, hard information about causes, numbers etc. are all suspect since there is a money incentive for the left to exploit in this flu which Fauci said would be like any other in the beginning.

  2. Dennis Becker   Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 6:10 PM

    8625

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=8625.

    8627

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=8627.&lawCode=GOV

    You can also Google – California OES Yellow book to download a PDF.

  3. Sharon Rondeau   Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 5:43 PM

    Source?

  4. Dennis Becker   Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 4:45 PM

    I guess posting part of the California ESA makes you right – did you even read it?

    8625. Proclamation by Governor; grounds

    The Governor is hereby empowered to proclaim a state of emergency in an area affected or likely to be affected thereby when:

    (a) He finds that circumstances described in subdivision (b) of Section 8558 exist
    and

    8627. Complete authority of Governor; orders and regulations

    During a state of emergency the Governor shall, to the extent he deems necessary, have complete authority over all agencies of the state government and the right to exercise within the area designated all police power vested in the state by the Constitution and laws of the State of California in order to effectuate the purposes of this chapter. In exercise thereof, he shall promulgate, issue, and enforce such orders and regulations as he deems necessary, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8567.

    The governor decides if there is an epidemic not you or Krisanne.

    See the part about police powers

    I suggest you read the 30 something executive orders issued by Newsom

  5. Richard Michael 909-378-5401   Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 2:42 PM

    I guess posting case names makes you right. Did you read them?

    Both of your cited cases involve medfly “local emergency” declarations.

    Martin v. Municipal Court (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 693 is not a supreme court opinion. It’s a court of appeal decision. The issue raised by Martin was lack of authority for the declaration. He never raised the issue of failure to pay for what was demanded. Nevertheless, the court noted it:

    “The Governor may command or utilize private property or personnel deemed by him necessary in carrying out his responsibilities, paying for its reasonable value through the State Board of Control (§§ 8572, 8652).”

    Macias v. State of California (1995) 10 Cal.4th 844 is a supreme court opinion, Justice Stanley Mosk dissenting. It was a damages case for a boy who was blinded by getting sprayed with malathion. Despite the title of the case, the state was not a party to the appeal, so nothing was decided regarding the powers of the governor. It’s quite complex because the issue raised to the court was limited to whether malathion manufacturers had a duty to warn or intervene with respect to the state’s knowing and willful lies in the public information campaign about the dangers of malathion. As Mosk pointed out, the decision meant that there was no consequence for the state lying.

    The court noted:

    “It is probably no exaggeration to state that the program’s ultimate success depended upon the public’s complete trust and confidence in the medical information contained in the State’s official findings and public pronouncements.”

    In other words, we know we’re lying, but it’s for a good cause.

    Here’s what the court said about the rights of private parties:

    “Thus, the Emergency Services Act makes clear that in situations of “extreme peril” to the public welfare the State may exercise its sovereign authority to the fullest extent possible consistent with individual rights and liberties.”

    So, remember, People, the government in California can lie to your face and not be held liable. Think about that when it tells you have to be tested or vaccinated. Don’t waive your rights.

  6. Dennis Becker   Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 1:30 PM

    The California Supreme Court has recognized the governor’s authority under the Emergency Services Act.

    CHARLES HENRY MARTIN v.
    THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY (1983)

    MACIAS et al. v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al. (1995)

    In the Martin case the SCOCA recognized the governor’s authority under the ESA to punish violators of the executive orders.

  7. Richard Michael 909-378-5401   Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 12:07 PM

    @Dennis Becker. You’re right about the broad powers, but those powers only extend over the governor’s jurisdiction – “state agency” [8557(a)], “political subdivision” [8557(b)], and “public facility” [8557(f)]. The act grants no jurisdiction over private persons or private facilities or federal agencies or facilities.

    In fact, the Governor “may” “[p]lan for the use of any private facilities, services, and property and, when necessary, and when in fact used, provide for payment for that use under the terms and conditions as may be agreed upon.” [8570(i)] Did the governor reach agreements with every private person in the state to appropriate their property and services without compensation?

    The word “epidemic” is one of a list of ORDINARY words (not defined terms) defining a “state of emergency” [8558(b)] and “local emergency” [8558(c)]. At the time that the governor issued his “state of emergency,” did an epidemic within “the state” or within any “county, city and county, or city” exist? Without the existence of an epidemic, everything the governor did is without authority.

    Regardless if there ever was an epidemic, the “use of any private facilities, services, and property” for public purposes, without compensation is clearly illegal. Every non-essential private person in the state was required, under threat of force, to subject themselves to the governor’s edict.

    The act also provides that “[o]rders and regulations, or amendments or rescissions thereof, issued during a state of war emergency or state of emergency shall be in writing” [8667(b)]. There appears to be a wide difference between the written orders and the oral sound bites and propaganda from public employees and the media. Were private persons tricked into doing something that they were not obligated to do? Does that mean they consented?

    Without authority, the immunity from liability provided by [8655] is inoperable, so the governor and all other government officials are liable for damages that they caused.

    So, you see, the law authorizing the governor to act in a disaster does not violate the rights of any private person. Those rights are inalienable and can be redressed through 42 U.S.C. 1983. Let’s fill the federal district courts with lawsuits.

    Note that the State Emergency Plan was required by law [8570.4] on January 1, 2018 to be updated “before January 1, 2019.” It wasn’t. The plan is still the 2017 plan approved by former governor Jerry Brown. So, the plan itself, arguably, doesn’t comply with the law, on its face.

    All numeric references are to the California Government Code.

  8. marlene   Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 10:40 AM

    The emergency services act, in its sweeping suspensions of our civil rights, violates even the state’s own constitution. There is no ‘except for emergencies’ clause in the Bill of Rights. Separation of Powers cannot be abrogated by a single member of one branch of government.  The fear-mongering and panic has pushed liberty to the back burner.  The overreach has been treacherous and often tyrannical, violating fundamental individual rights in the name of safety. Pursuant to article III, Section 2 the governor is not “allowed” but is required to faithfully execute state laws. But there is nothing in the constitution that authorizes or permits him to make laws or to issue orders or proclamations that pretend to be law. In fact, all authority to make law is reserved to the legislative branch under Article II, Section 1. Therefore, any proclamation issued by the Governor must be executory in nature (executing existing law) and not legislative (pretending to make law). And since valid executive orders only apply to those who are under the authority of the executive, no executive order is binding on anyone outside the executive branch of government.

  9. James Carter   Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 10:21 AM

    How many Federal laws is it okay for the Executive branch of California to break?

  10. marlene   Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 10:17 AM

    Twitter is blank until it times out – won’t let me share.

  11. Dennis Becker   Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 8:42 AM

    Hall’s argument on the separation of the legislative from the executive branches in the California Constitution fails to recognize the Emergence Services Act. It gives the governor broad powers during times of emergencies.

    It is the law in California and her declaration not to comply is essentially a call to break the law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.