Reinstated Kingdom of Hawaii possible
here are some interesting developments from the pacific
----- Original Message -----
From: Kamaunu Kahaialii
To: undisclosed- recipients:
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:50 PM
Subject: Reinstated Hawaiian Kingdom on Trial
Henry Noa's Reinstated Kingdom of Hawaii possible solution
April 22, 2008
The Maui County courthouse was an unusual sight on Friday, April 4, 2008. A crowd had gathered to be present for the last day of testimony and closing arguments in the case of the "Kaho'olawe Three" - perhaps the most premeditated defense of Hawaiian National land rights that has ever been litigated.. Trespassing cases typically take less than 30 minutes of the courts' time.. This motion for dismissal by the defense had taken three days of testimony over the course of two years, required the flying in of international law experts and the combined efforts of six attorneys for the State Prosecutors' office.
Before the trial, the crowd moved down Main Street and into the courthouse compound, carrying placards of support for the defense and expressing frustration over the long effort to reclaim home rule over the Crown Lands of these islands.
Many of those assembled had been in continuous effort to prepare for this very day for over ten years. The combined goal was that their reinstatement process of the Lawful Hawaiian Government receive a fair and thorough international defense in a court of law, and begin what is expected to be a series of appellate court reconsiderations leading to a judicial acknowledgement of their sovereignty.
The courtroom scene itself was remarkable for several reasons. One was that the State of Hawaii Prosecutors Office had six attorneys in the courtroom, although only four of them were on record. Also unusual was the absolute silence of the packed court. The supporters made no audible expressions during the entire three-day court proceeding as the judge considered perhaps the most unusual defense that she likely will ever hear in her courtroom.
While you may have heard of many such sovereignty cases in the past, this one was perhaps the best prepared and best aligned with international law of any that have ever been presented.
Despite the presence of many State attorneys, no witnesses were called to counter the two that the defense brought and only minimally cross examined. This extraordinary number of prosecutors, with minimal activity, brought up questions about the validity of the Hawaii State Prosecutions' argument. That the judge allowed the international law expert, teacher, former judge and prosecuter John Gates to testify for the defense, seemed to unravel the Prosecution, as they had few questions for Mr. Gates and did not seem to counter any of his assertions. The Judge also allowed Henry Noa, three-time elected Prime Minister of the Reinstated Kingdom of Hawaii, to testify with records of their governmental process. The records were voluminous and outlined completely, to the casual observers' mind, the functions of a government providing for its citizens.
Perhaps you read in the Haleakala Times last year of the defense that Henry Noa, Nelson Armitage, Russell Kaho'okele and their top-flight lawyers had prepared to claim the island of Kaho'olawe as a legitimate possession of their reinstated Kingdom. Now they and their citizens wait for the verdict, expected in months, as to whether they will be the sovereign entity that they claim to be, or whether they will have to take their claims to higher courts.
Much is at stake for the state if the defendants prevail regarding their defense that they entered Kaho'olawe as officials of a sovereign Hawaiian government and not as individuals. Much is also at stake for the State of Hawaii. There are 2.8 million acres of original Crown Land that have been in perpetual suspension, waiting for the reinstatement of a sovereign entity being re-established in Hawaii. Recently, the Hawaii Supreme Court handed down a verdict that, indeed, the state could not dispense with Crown lands until the issue of a sovereign Hawaiian entity was resolved. Could this be that resolution?
Does the Akaka bill resolve this? Gates says that neither the state of Hawaii nor Congress can create a sovereign entity. He says that the Akaka Bill can only create a dependant nation status entity, like the American Indian nations, and that in fact they cannot remove Hawaiian national rights to re-form their sovereign status.
The actual title of Akaka Bill is: Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act. In many ways, it would accomplish what the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 did. Gates says that Act reorganized traditional Native peoples' governments that were based on their own customary laws, with boiler plate "constitutional governments. " He says the Akaka Bill is a not-so-clever way to further disenfranchise the inheritors of Hawaiian sovereign rights, which makes Hawaii's legal situation a little like that of the American indigenous peoples.. He also says that the history of treatment of Native Americans is so atrocious that no sane person would want to sign on to that status.
It should be clear that while there have been dozens of legal defenses that claim Hawaiian sovereignty as their premise, always absent was the pregnant question - where was the government that these persons were claiming to represent? A nation is a very specific term, as Gates so clearly laid out to the court during this trial. These national qualifications have been a thorny issue for every sovereignty defense in Hawaii, and ones that Henry Noa and his soon-to-be recreated legislature tackled in 1998. In fact, their reinstatement task has been monumental, taking over ten concerted years to meet the standards that Gates outlined.
Nations do not lose their right to be sovereign except under circumstances that do not apply to Hawaii, according to Gates. Congressional Law 103-150, the Apology Bill, passed into law in 1993, clearly outlines the rights of the peoples of these islands to reorganize themselves as a sovereign nation.. County and State laws must yield to Congressional law, and even Congressional laws must yield to treaties of the U.S. and the Law of Nations and the UN. Gates pointed out that since Hawaii and the U.S. were signatories to the Law of Nations, they have no legal authority to deny Mr. Noa and the Reinstated Kingdom of Hawaii their reinstatement rights and use of the Crown lands that include Kaho'olawe. They are simply preempted by the U.S. adherence to international law.
Gates concluded his testimony by stating that The Reinstated Kingdom of Hawaii should be recognized as a reinstated sovereign government and should resume the functions of government that were interrupted, so diabolically, in 1893.
Some history buffs will laugh at the thought that the United States will adhere to anything but what is in their strategic and economic interests. Gates gave ample examples of historical precedents for this, and suggested that the claims before the court in this case are exactly how the U.S. can deliver justice to the descendants of the Nation of Hawaii. Can we ever have peace with this issue without justice?
The trial will be aired on Akaku local access channel in the next few weeks..
Prime Minister Henry Noa has extended a welcome to all persons residing in the Hawaiian Islands to study the ethical and legal underpinnings of his government and consider citizenship. No aboriginal blood quantum is required to participate in this democracy, just as it was before annexation, and aloha is still the operating principle, as it always was.
Jace Hobbs is the "educational chairperson for the island of Maui's Reinstated Kingdom of Hawaii, or the Lawful Hawaiian Government." Hobbs is also Director of the Orphaned Burmese Children's Home.
Jace Hobbs
----- Original Message -----
From: Kamaunu Kahaialii
To: undisclosed- recipients:
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:50 PM
Subject: Reinstated Hawaiian Kingdom on Trial
Henry Noa's Reinstated Kingdom of Hawaii possible solution
April 22, 2008
The Maui County courthouse was an unusual sight on Friday, April 4, 2008. A crowd had gathered to be present for the last day of testimony and closing arguments in the case of the "Kaho'olawe Three" - perhaps the most premeditated defense of Hawaiian National land rights that has ever been litigated.. Trespassing cases typically take less than 30 minutes of the courts' time.. This motion for dismissal by the defense had taken three days of testimony over the course of two years, required the flying in of international law experts and the combined efforts of six attorneys for the State Prosecutors' office.
Before the trial, the crowd moved down Main Street and into the courthouse compound, carrying placards of support for the defense and expressing frustration over the long effort to reclaim home rule over the Crown Lands of these islands.
Many of those assembled had been in continuous effort to prepare for this very day for over ten years. The combined goal was that their reinstatement process of the Lawful Hawaiian Government receive a fair and thorough international defense in a court of law, and begin what is expected to be a series of appellate court reconsiderations leading to a judicial acknowledgement of their sovereignty.
The courtroom scene itself was remarkable for several reasons. One was that the State of Hawaii Prosecutors Office had six attorneys in the courtroom, although only four of them were on record. Also unusual was the absolute silence of the packed court. The supporters made no audible expressions during the entire three-day court proceeding as the judge considered perhaps the most unusual defense that she likely will ever hear in her courtroom.
While you may have heard of many such sovereignty cases in the past, this one was perhaps the best prepared and best aligned with international law of any that have ever been presented.
Despite the presence of many State attorneys, no witnesses were called to counter the two that the defense brought and only minimally cross examined. This extraordinary number of prosecutors, with minimal activity, brought up questions about the validity of the Hawaii State Prosecutions' argument. That the judge allowed the international law expert, teacher, former judge and prosecuter John Gates to testify for the defense, seemed to unravel the Prosecution, as they had few questions for Mr. Gates and did not seem to counter any of his assertions. The Judge also allowed Henry Noa, three-time elected Prime Minister of the Reinstated Kingdom of Hawaii, to testify with records of their governmental process. The records were voluminous and outlined completely, to the casual observers' mind, the functions of a government providing for its citizens.
Perhaps you read in the Haleakala Times last year of the defense that Henry Noa, Nelson Armitage, Russell Kaho'okele and their top-flight lawyers had prepared to claim the island of Kaho'olawe as a legitimate possession of their reinstated Kingdom. Now they and their citizens wait for the verdict, expected in months, as to whether they will be the sovereign entity that they claim to be, or whether they will have to take their claims to higher courts.
Much is at stake for the state if the defendants prevail regarding their defense that they entered Kaho'olawe as officials of a sovereign Hawaiian government and not as individuals. Much is also at stake for the State of Hawaii. There are 2.8 million acres of original Crown Land that have been in perpetual suspension, waiting for the reinstatement of a sovereign entity being re-established in Hawaii. Recently, the Hawaii Supreme Court handed down a verdict that, indeed, the state could not dispense with Crown lands until the issue of a sovereign Hawaiian entity was resolved. Could this be that resolution?
Does the Akaka bill resolve this? Gates says that neither the state of Hawaii nor Congress can create a sovereign entity. He says that the Akaka Bill can only create a dependant nation status entity, like the American Indian nations, and that in fact they cannot remove Hawaiian national rights to re-form their sovereign status.
The actual title of Akaka Bill is: Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act. In many ways, it would accomplish what the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 did. Gates says that Act reorganized traditional Native peoples' governments that were based on their own customary laws, with boiler plate "constitutional governments. " He says the Akaka Bill is a not-so-clever way to further disenfranchise the inheritors of Hawaiian sovereign rights, which makes Hawaii's legal situation a little like that of the American indigenous peoples.. He also says that the history of treatment of Native Americans is so atrocious that no sane person would want to sign on to that status.
It should be clear that while there have been dozens of legal defenses that claim Hawaiian sovereignty as their premise, always absent was the pregnant question - where was the government that these persons were claiming to represent? A nation is a very specific term, as Gates so clearly laid out to the court during this trial. These national qualifications have been a thorny issue for every sovereignty defense in Hawaii, and ones that Henry Noa and his soon-to-be recreated legislature tackled in 1998. In fact, their reinstatement task has been monumental, taking over ten concerted years to meet the standards that Gates outlined.
Nations do not lose their right to be sovereign except under circumstances that do not apply to Hawaii, according to Gates. Congressional Law 103-150, the Apology Bill, passed into law in 1993, clearly outlines the rights of the peoples of these islands to reorganize themselves as a sovereign nation.. County and State laws must yield to Congressional law, and even Congressional laws must yield to treaties of the U.S. and the Law of Nations and the UN. Gates pointed out that since Hawaii and the U.S. were signatories to the Law of Nations, they have no legal authority to deny Mr. Noa and the Reinstated Kingdom of Hawaii their reinstatement rights and use of the Crown lands that include Kaho'olawe. They are simply preempted by the U.S. adherence to international law.
Gates concluded his testimony by stating that The Reinstated Kingdom of Hawaii should be recognized as a reinstated sovereign government and should resume the functions of government that were interrupted, so diabolically, in 1893.
Some history buffs will laugh at the thought that the United States will adhere to anything but what is in their strategic and economic interests. Gates gave ample examples of historical precedents for this, and suggested that the claims before the court in this case are exactly how the U.S. can deliver justice to the descendants of the Nation of Hawaii. Can we ever have peace with this issue without justice?
The trial will be aired on Akaku local access channel in the next few weeks..
Prime Minister Henry Noa has extended a welcome to all persons residing in the Hawaiian Islands to study the ethical and legal underpinnings of his government and consider citizenship. No aboriginal blood quantum is required to participate in this democracy, just as it was before annexation, and aloha is still the operating principle, as it always was.
Jace Hobbs is the "educational chairperson for the island of Maui's Reinstated Kingdom of Hawaii, or the Lawful Hawaiian Government." Hobbs is also Director of the Orphaned Burmese Children's Home.
Jace Hobbs
posted by karenapuhi at 4:30 AM
0 comments
