A Citizen-Led National Grand Jury for the Maui Fire (shortened version)

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

On 8 August 2023, a fire destroyed at least a thousand residences in the town of Lahaina on the island of Maui in Hawaii and caused at least 97 deaths. Many people, including me, believe this was done by a high-tech weapon, probably a DEW -- a Directed Energy Weapon. The official story is that it was a natural fire, assisted by very high winds that day.

I wish to bring interested adults into a group that can be called a citizen-led national Grand Jury for the Maui Fire. The suspect in the case will be the United States Government. When grand jurors decide that there is sufficient cause to try someone for a crime, they write an indictment, which gets sent to a court for a trial.

Difference Number One: No Secrecy -- You Can Yell

Let me show how our grand jury will deviate from the norm. A standard grand jury must protect any not-yet-accused individual from loss of reputation. Hence, grand jury proceedings are secret. But we can yell that we suspect the US government of a crime. In fact, it's our patriotic duty as Americans to investigate what looks like wrongdoing by any government official.

I'll refer to that difference from the normal hush-hush GJ proceedings, as "Difference #1." We are entering virgin territory here. No grand jury has ever been empaneled -- as far as I know -- to indict the US government for killing its own people.

Note: Governments are generally not subject to lawsuits, as they can claim "state sovereignty," but the GJ that I am proposing here is about a criminal prosecution, not a "civil action."

Immunity versus Impunity

Although you won't hear a government say "Thanks to state sovereignty, you can't prosecute us," that is in fact what they seem to believe. In England, the King has a traditional right to immunity: "The king can do no wrong" -- he is legally above the law. In the US, no person is above the law.

Still, treating high-up persons with kid gloves is such a natural human trait that it feels like a rule. Typically, we the people don't let our minds go to the idea of arresting a high official. "Eeks, that would be so impertinent, and so frightening."

We should distinguish between immunity and impunity. The word "impunity" comes from the Latin impunitas, meaning lack of punishment. So it's our fault if we don't punish biggies. We let them walk free when they should be in jail or in the grave. Impunity is all around us today; it has almost swallowed up customary morality. I recommend we break this habit!

Difference 2: Weapon Must Have Been Directed Energy

The word DEW may mean various kinds of energy weapon. It can shoot with lethal force by using energy that turns into heat as it approaches its target. No bullet is involved. Two amazing characteristics of these weapons are their accuracy -- they can hit you in the small left toenail if that's the plan -- and their speed: they travel at the speed of light, so you have no chance to outmaneuver them.

I propose as Difference #2 that we dispense with extensive crime-scene analysis for determining what caused Maui's fire-- it must have been Directed Energy.

This energy stuff was discovered by Nikola Tesla (1856-1943). It gave rise by 1960 to laser weapons and, after that, to EMPs -- electromagnetic pulse weapons. The US Navy boasted in 2016 that the USS Ponce has a laser weapon that can decimate small boats in the water. The rumor is that the US and China are both well stocked with DEWs, though I haven't verified that.

As soon as the fire in Maui settled down, on August 9, 2023, local people took photos of the damage. Eric West, whose website is called Hawaii Real Estate, has a good collection of telltale pictures. One thing, which is a feast for the eyes (though tragic), is the way the supposed fire ran through town, often leaving trees and grass unscathed yet made houses virtually disappear, and wrecked the cars.

Their wheels melted into little pools of metal, and hardly any of the cars' window-glass survived. The hulk of the car usually stayed in recognizable shape, but its innards are no more. Local people can't bear to say it, but the humans sitting in those cars probably "disappeared." There is nary a bone, or skin, or blood stain to be found in the burnt-out vehicles.

The other telltale sign that DEWs were used is that items of the color blue -- be it a shirt, an umbrella, or a blue car -- did not get damaged. Laser energy apparently can't dig into blue stuff. Even entire houses got spared if their roof was blue.

It Will Be a Lonely and Unusual Task

Luckily, we, as independent citizens, can conduct an investigation into DEWs at Lahaina without having to obey every rule that exists for standard grand-jury work. It is good that there are standard rules, but they are not the be all and the end all. This case is sufficiently unique to justify the making of new rules suitable to its magnitude.

The very thought of this task is overwhelming. Consider not only that the subject matter is that of a government having done something extremely bad, but our government will not be there, in the familiar way, to help us carry out this task! They won't back up our good will with "legality." We will be in the inherently uncomfortable position of going against government. Thus, I think we should work conservatively.

Difference 3: Narrowing the Investigation to One Suspect

I recommend that we set a minimalist goal -- merely to identify the perpetrator of the Lahaina fire as being the US government. Thank God it's not like trying to identify a shooter or a stabber, as there could be thousands of guns and knives in Maui. We know it was done by a hi-tech weapon, probably a DEW, and the owner of that weapon is most likely the US government.

This can be called "economy of mission." Running around to see if the Loch Ness monster did it will be considered a no-no. I therefore introduce Difference #3: While a grand jury may search widely for alternate or additional suspects, I suggest we concentrate only on one suspect. (If a "better choice" comes up, of course we can turn our attention to it.)

Difference 4: Ignoring the Motive

Similarly, let's not bog down as to the criminal's motive. When a man is to be tried for a crime -- the step after indictment -- a prosecutor will look for means (the weapon), intent (the guy meant to do it; it wasn't just an accident), and motive.

I propose as Difference #4 that our grand jury ignore the motive for the Maui fire. Some say it was done for a land grab. Some think it was retaliation for the native Hawaiians getting notions of self-determination. Some could even say that a Satanic group has bloodlust. But it would hamper the main task if we had to analyze all that.

Pinning down the culprit as the US government will shake everyone up -- further discussion could subsequently take place. The real point of opening up the Maui story is to suggest that our beloved nation does not have to continue down this absurd path of letting officials commit crimes.

Nemo Judex

Allow me to introduce a law maxim that helps justify the citizen-led aspect of this proposed grand jury. Namely, in Latin: "Nemo judex in sua causa" -- "No man can be the judge in his own case." So, there's no reason to wait for the US government to undertake a prosecution of itself! Someone else has to do it.

Also, in some states, coroners have a mandate for independence: they can inquire into the cause of a death without blaming anyone. But in Lahaina, the police chief is the coroner. And he, John Pelletier, has been accused of blocking traffic to prevent people from escaping the fire. "Nemo judex" must therefore cancel his coronial authority.

Note: This grand jury is definitely not tasked with bringing justice, in general, to Lahaina's people. Restitution can be sought in various ways by other groups. We will try only to indict the perpetrator.

Difference 5: A Rebuttable Presumption

Here is another law maxim: "Contra spoliatorem, omnia praesumuntur" -- "Against the spoliator of evidence, everything can be presumed." That maxim is higher than any particular law. It suggests that we can jump to the idea, logically, that a person who is making up stories -- or recruiting false witnesses, or burying evidence -- must be the guilty party. Why else would he do it?

This maxim is not a final judgment. It is a presumption, and the accused is welcome to rebut it in court. I call this Difference #5 -- deviating from the standard grand jury which doesn't deal in maxims. But I bet members of a GJ do employ such logic unconsciously. It's human nature -- if your own child evades you, you probably sense that she is having a guilty moment.

Repeat after me: "Contra spoliatorem [any spoiler of evidence] OMNIA praesumuntur."

Recapping the Five Differences

As stated, our proposed GJ will deviate from standard GJ Procedure in five non-crucial ways: #1. We needn't be silent about the identity of the suspect since it's our government. #2. We won't do much crime-scene analysis to pinpoint the weapon, as it must have been Directed Energy. #3. Economy of mission: we won't look around for other possible suspects. (But we can tackle other suspects if such arise.) #4. We won't try to determine a motive for the fire; that's outside our bailiwick. #5. A rebuttable presumption of guilt will be applied.

Honest, there's no need to worry about our deviations from procedure. Those rules aren't sacred, and they were intended to protect an accused citizen, a weak individual -- not an immensely powerful force.

Three Legal Supports to Justify Our Method

Here are three legal supports for the proposed way of handling this Maui Fire Grand Jury:

First, grand juries were historically composed of ordinary citizens. When the Puritans arrived on the Mayflower in 1620, they brought with them their culture, which included the law of England. That involved the common law -- that is, the judge-made law built up over centuries from cases -- and legislation enacted by British Parliament. Since there were no cops (pre-1820), folks had to enforce the law.

The American colonists empaneled men for a two-year hitch as Grand Jurors. These men could look around for crime, and for physical trouble such as a bridge in need of repair. I’m sure those colonial grand jurors felt duty-bound to help society. Only in the 20th century did GJ's start to be "supervised" by court personnel.

Second, a clear statement about our right to set up a grand jury was made by Justice Antonin Scalia, in a dissent to a 1992 case, US v Williams:

"... citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present 'True Bills' of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a 'buffer' the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law….”

Third, and this is huge, in 2023 the US Supreme Court turned down a chance to rule on a matter related to the attacks in 2001 on New York's World Trade Center. The "Committee of Lawyers for 9-11 Inquiry" had brought their case to a district court and then to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It presented the results of a study done at University of Fairbanks, Alaska, which concluded that the official report by NIST -- National Institute of Standards and Technology -- was wrong as to the collapse of the twin towers.

These plaintiffs were not allowed to hand their information to the foreman of the then-serving Grand Jury in New York! Eventually they appealed to the US Supreme Court, with their leader, Mick Harrison, posing concise questions:

“Did the … Second Circuit act contrary to the Constitution when it held that 9/11 victim family members needed to assert additional harm beyond a violation of a constitutional right to have Article II standing to seek judicial remedies?"

And: “Did the … Second Circuit undermine the constitutional independence of the Grand Jury when it refused to enforce the mandatory duty imposed explicitly by Congress and implicitly by the Constitution [5th Amendment] on United States Attorneys to relay citizen reports of federal crimes to a grand jury, and left to the complete discretion of the Department of Justice what a grand jury is allowed to see and consider?"

The US Supreme Court did not take the case! (I mean the applicants did not get the required four out of nine justices to say "Yes we will hear it.") As it cannot now be appealed any higher, the Alaska study won’t get its day in court. The plain right of folks to communicate with the Grand Jury's foreperson has been blocked. This is outrageous and we'll have to work our way around it.

Two Neglected Clauses in the US Constitution

Believe me, Dear Reader, I understand that you could fear having ten FBI agents show up at your door for participating in this grand jury. All I can give you -- besides the motto "If you don't act now, it will be impossible later" -- is further assurance that you are within the spirit of the law known as our beautiful Constitution.

Few people know the bit of Article IV section 4 that is dubbed "The Guarantee Clause." Here it is: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion...." See? You are allowed to help the Hawaiians who were "invaded" by DEW throwers.

And the Bill of Rights' Tenth Amendment ends with permission for you to be creative: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Wow. You can't beat that!

Kindly tell me if you might be willing to join a Maui Fire Grand Jury, commencing January 24, 2024. My email is: MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com Please put "Maui Fire" in the subject line. I live at 175 Loudon Rd, Apt 6, Concord, NH.

Two books to prepare with are: Mary Efrosini Gregory's "Microwave War" (2012) and Louis Del Monte's "War at the Speed of Light" (2023). We can learn about the Hawaiian philosophy of forgiveness, too. This whole undertaking may be full of life-saving surprises!

In the meantime, God help our pitiful nation.