I further maintain that our families/ancestors/subjects/citizens and Hawaiian Nationals continued Opposition against the U.S./Americans who did premeditate the criminal dethronement of Hawaii's Queen in 1893.
The following are added evidence of crimes against Queen Liliuokalani, our Royal families, our people/subjects/citizens and citizens of other nations due to the 1884 find that a treasonous person named Charles Reed Bishop and Friends, did make hundreds of people slaves and his acts were supported by the U.S. government based on Premeditation activities uncovered, all against a neutral, friendly, non-violent, non warring nation, etc.:
- NO PIRATES /EVIDENCE IN DEFENSE OF OUR
- QUEEN LILIUOKALANI, THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT/
- HAWAIIAN KINGDOM/Ko Hawaii Pae Aina
compiled by Amelia Gora, a Royal person (2011)
-
-
-
1810 Paiea/Kamehameha formed a Monarchy government and was recognized in the Law of Nations.
Paiea/Kamehameha hung a pirate. Other captured pirates were claimed by their governments and removed from the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Archives,
Honolulu, Oahu Pic
Archives,
Honolulu, Oahu Pic
Archives,
Reasons Why the Hawaiian Kingdom/Ko Hawaii Pae Aina Exists
or
Why the Entity State of Hawaii is Not a State/Is a Fake State/Why They are Truly Bankrupt, Corrupt, and the Criminal Mecca of the U.S. Compiled by Amelia Gora, etals., Royal persons (2009) rev. 2010
Chronology of Events
c. 750 A.D. Arrival of the Polynesians
c. 1758 Birth of Kamehameha I
c. 1775 Birth of Kaumualii, future King of Kauai
1778 Jan 18 Discovery of Oahu and Kauai by Captain James Cook. On return voyage from the Northwest Passage Captain Cook discovered Island of Maui, November 26, and Hawaii, December 1.
1779 Feb 14 Death of Captain Cook at Kealakekua, Hawaii.
1782 Jan Death of Kalaniopuu, King of Hawaii.
1792 Mar 5 Arrival of Captain Vancouver at Kealakekua, Hawaii.
1794 Feb 25 Cession of Hawaii to Great Britain.
1795 May Battle of Nuuanu and conquest of Oahu.
Kamehameha I, King 1795 - May 8, 1819. Born 1758; died 1819.
1796 Liholiho (Kamehameha II) born in Hilo, Hawaii, of Kepluolani, wife of Kamehameha I.
1810 Cession of Kauai by Kaumualii. Islands became one kingdom under Kamehameha I.
Monarchy government formed. Connection with Aetearoa and Samoan Islands made, formed, recognized as the Pacific Empire.
1813 Mar 17 Birth of Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III) in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.
1819 May 8 Kamehameha I died at Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Descendants exist today.
Liholiho (Kamehameha II) assumes sovereignty.
Kamehameha II, King, May 20, 1819 - July 14, 1824. Born 1796; died 1824. Heirs' descendants exist today.
1820 Mar 31 Arrival of first American missionaries in brig "Thaddeus."
1822 Secret Treaty of Verona- move towards One World Order - comprised of Nations that All Nations should watch out for:1) Austria2) France3) Prussia4) Russia5) England6) U.S.7) Vatican 1823 Sep 16 Death of Queen Keopuolani, mother of Liholiho (Kamehameha II) and Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III). (born c.1778). Heirs descendants exist today.
1824 May 26 Death of Kaumualii, ex-king of Kauai. (born c.1780) Death of Queen Kamamalu in London. (born c.1803). Descendants and heirs exist today.
1824 Jul 14 Death of Liholiho (Kamehameha II) in London.Descendants of his heirs exist today.
1825 Kamehameha III (Kauikeaouli), King, June 6, 1825 - December 15, 1854.
Born 1813; died 1854. Descendants of his heirs, and hanai/adopted children's descendants exist today.
1827 Feb 8 Death of Kalanimoku. (born c.1768). Descendants of his heirs exist today.
1830, Dec 11 Birth of Kamehameha V (Lot). Descendants of his heirs exist today.
1832 Jun 5 Death of Queen Kaahumanu. (observed birth date, March 17, 1768). Descendants of her heirs exist today.
1833 Mar Kamehameha III assumed absolute power of king. Descendants of his heirs and descendants of his hanai/adopted children exists today.
1834 Feb 9 Birth of Kamehameha IV (Alexander Liholiho). Descendants of his heirs exist today.
1835 Jan 31 Birth of King Lunalilo (William C. Lunalilo). Descendants of his heirs exist today.
1836 Jan 2 Birth of Queen Dowager Emma. Descendants of her heirs exist today.
1836 Nov 16 Birth of King Kalakaua (David Kalakaua). Descendants and his heirs descendants exist today, includes his children and adopted children.
1837, Feb 2 Marriage of Kamehameha III to Kalama, Daughter of Kapihe. Descendants of heirs, descendants of Kalama exists today. Descendants of his hanai/adopted children exists today.
1838 Sep 2 Birth of Lydia Liliu Loloku Walania Wewehi Kamakaeha (Queen Lili"uokalani) in Honolulu. Descendants/heirs exist today.
1839 Apr 4 Death of Premier Kinau. (born c.1805). Descendants of her heirs exist today.
KO HAWAII PAE AINA: the legitimate, Constitutional, Sovereign Identity and true name of the Archipelago of Hawaiiloa. The ONLY Authority and Power of that nation, genealogical, cosmos, lineal connection of all Maoli, kanaka a oiwi to that Royal Patented Domain, distinguished June 7, 1839 and founded by Constitution on Oct. 8, 1840, lawful party to 46 treaty, power to issue never extinguished Royal Patents and Certificates of Title; the forerunner of the world in oceanic trade, a Royal Patented Domain, the true identity thereof, possessing anunbroken chain of full sovereign power and authority, un acquired, un assumed, still in existence.
1842 Revised laws published. 1842 Dec 19 Recognition of independence by United States.
1843 Feb 25 Provisional cession of islands to Great Britain demanded by Lord George Paulet. Hawaiian flag taken down and British flags flown.
1843 Jul 31 Restoration of independence by Admiral Thomas.
1845 May 20 First legislature opened under new constitution.
1846 Feb 11 Land commission organized.
1848 Jan 27 Mar 7 Great Mahele or land division. Alodio/Allodio/Allodial titles to kanaka maoli given. Freehold less than Alodio/Allodio/Allodial given to foreigners/non-aboriginal people.
1851 Mar 10 Islands placed provisionally under the protection of the United States.
1852 Jun 14 Constitution of 1852. Legislature and courts as instituted today.
Kamehameha III passed the anti-slavery law.
Note: 13 years later or in 1865, the U.S. passed their anti-slavery law which is worded nearly the same as the Hawaiian Kingdom's law.
1853 Aug Petition to king for annexation to U.S. sponsored by mostly commercial interests.
1854 Jan New petition for king to annexation to U.S. but was never signed. William Lee, American conspirator left for Washington before Kamehameha III died.
1854 Dec 15 Death of Kamehameha III. Descendants of his heirs, including his hanai/adopted children exist today.
Kamehameha IV, (Alexander Liholiho), King, December 16, 1854 November 30, 1863.
Born 1834; died 1863. Descendants of his heirs exists today.
1856 Jun 19 Marriage of Kamehameha IV to Emma Rooke.Descendants of their heirs exist today.
1862 Aug 27 Death of Albert Edward, Prince of Hawaii; 4 years old. (born May 20, 1858). Descendants of his heirs exist today.
1862 Sep 16 Lili"uokalani and John O. Dominis were married at Haleakala and lived with his mother at Washington Place. Descendants of her heirs exist today.
1863 Nov 30
Death of Kamehameha IV.
Kamehameha V (Prince Lot), King, November 30, 1863 - December 11, 1872. Born 1830; died 1872. Descendants of his heirs exist today.
1864 Aug 20
1868 Nov 24
New constitution decreed.
Mataio Kekuanaoa, father of Kamehameha IV, Kamehameha V, etals., died. His descendants/heirs exist today.
1870 Sep 20 Death of Queen Kalama, widow of Kamehameha III. (born c.1820). Her descendants and heirs descendants exist today.
1872 Dec 11 Death of Kamehameha V. No heir named. Descendants of his heirs exist today.
1873 Jan 8 Prince W. C. Lunalilo elected King by special session of the Legislature.
Lunalilo, William Charles, King, January 8, 1873 February 3, 1874. His heirs descendants exist
today.
1874 Feb 3 Death of King Lunalilo in Honolulu. No heir named. Descendants of his heirs exist today.
1874 Feb 12 Election of Hon. David Kalakaua as King of Hawaii by a special session of the Legislature.
Kalakaua, David, King, February 12, 1874 January 20, 1891.
Born 1836; died 1891. His descendants and heirs descendants exist today.
1874 Feb 13 Kalakaua proclaimed King. 1874 Feb 14 Prince W. P. Leleiohoku proclaimed heir-apparent. His heirs descendants exist today.
1875 Oct 16 Birth of Princess Ka"iulani. Her heirs descendants exist today.
1876 Sep Reciprocity treaty with U.S. enacted.
1877 Mar 13
1877 Apr 10
Charles Kanaina, father of King Lunalilo, died. His heirs descendants exist today.
Death of Prince Leleiohoku. (born January 10, 1855). His heirs descendants exist today.
Princess Ka"iulani proclaimed heir-apparent.
1878 Liliuokalani composed "Aloha Oe" after a weekend trip to Maunawili.
1881 Jan 20 King Kalakaua sets out on a tour around the world.
Princess Lili"uokalani appointed regent.
1881 Oct 29 Return of King Kalakaua from world tour.
1882 Nov King Kalakaua moves into Iolani Palace. King Kalakaua had purchased the 1/9 interest of Charles Kanaina from Kaaua. Other heirs existed then and exist now. The land that the Palace sits is owned by the others interest holders. Their descendants/heirs exist.
1883 Feb 12 Coronation of King Kalakaua
1883 May 24 Death of Princess Ruth Keelikolani. (born June 17, 1826) Descendants of her heirs exist today.
1884 Oct 16 Death of Bernice Pauahi Bishop. (born December 19, 1831) Descendants of her heirs exist today.
1885 Apr 24 Death of Queen Emma, widow of Kamehameha IV. (born January 2, 1836) Descendants of her heirs exist today.
1887 Kalola, first cousin and heir of Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estates died. Her descendants/heirs exist today.
Reciprocity treaty extended.
1887 Feb 2 Death of Princess Likelike. (born January 12, 1851). Her descendants/heirs exist today.
1887 Jul 7 New constitution proclaimed (Bayonet Constitution). King Kalakaua was under duress, coercion, stress, usurpation due to a gun pointed at his head when he was forced to sign.
1889 Jul 30 Revolt to upset the constitution of 1887, led by Robert Wilcox.
1891 Jan 20 Death of King Kalakaua, in San Francisco.His descendants/ heirs exist today.
1891 Jan 29
Liliuokalani proclaimed Queen of the Hawaiian islands.
Liliuokalani, Lydia K., Queen, January 29, 1891 1893.
Born 1838; died 1917. Her descendants/heirs descendants exist today.
1891 Aug 27 Death of John Owen Dominis. (born March 3, 1832) on August 27, 1891.
1892
Conspirators planned to dethrone Queen Liliuokalani:
- Lorrin Thurston and Benjamin F. Tracy, U.S. Representative met with Thurston in Makua, Oahu on the 'preliminary contemplation of dethroning the Queen'.
- Dr. Mott-Smith, Lorrin Thurston, Thomas Akaka etals. planned to dethrone Queen Liliuokalani in Washington, D.C.
- May 24. Volney V. Ashford and Robert Wilcox with 18 others were "charged with the crime of treason against the Hawaiian Government" and arrested. "Their object was the overthrow of the existing form of government, by deposing Queen Liliuokalani and establishing a Hawaiian republic."
Note: It appears that this was a trial run for the January 1893 premeditated plan to dethrone the Queen seven (7) months later or January 1893. See article "Arrests for Treason in Hawaii" in THE NEW YORK TIMES, published June 1, 1892.
- Masons/Freemasons gathered, paraded by the hundreds and celebrated a new building/a Temple and called Honolulu their "home city". (This happened in December 1892 or a few weeks before dethroning our Queen.)
Note: Masons/Freemasons were set in place to break down Monarchy governments worldwide. Also see the 1822 Secret Treaty of Verona's goals.
1893 Jan 9 - U.S. /Congress gave a standing order for the U.S. citizens in the Hawaiian Islands to assume Hawaii -- which meant to dethrone the Queen. This was a planned/premeditated maneuver to assume land, monies, etc. from a neutral, friendly nation, and an act of war. See New York Times article, "Pearl Harbor Coaling Station, Imperative Necessity that the United States Take Possession" Published on January 9, 1893 - article found by Shane Lee, researcher.
Jan 14 - Queen Liliuokalani announced that she would present a new constitution. This is later withdrawn. Annexation club formed by the Queen's enemies. U.S. diplomat John Stevens threatened the landing of troops from American warships.
1893. Jan 15
Men from the cruiser BOSTON "poured ashore....to protect American lives and property," according to United States Minister John L. Stevens. The action came a day before the committee of safety took possession of the government office building and abrogated the monarchy, forcing Queen Liliuokalani from her throne."
"The "Committee of Safety" was formed and the conspiracy for the immediate dethronement of the Queen took definite shape and began active operations."
1893 Jan. 16
"Three companies of bluejackets, one of artillery, one of marines, 154 men and 10 officers; with 14,000 cartridges for rifles and the Gatling gun, 1,200 revolver cartridges, and 174 explosive shells for the revolving cannon." came off the Boston.
Queen Liliuokalani destroyed the Constitution, which gave her authority once more unrestricted by a Constitution which her brother had signed under duress, stress, coercion, usurpation which was dubbed "the Bayonnet Constitution".
1893 Jan 17
Queen Liliuokalani was illegally dethroned. "Sanford Dole and his committee declared itself the Provisional Government of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi on July 17, 1893, removing only the Queen, her cabinet, and her marshal from office." The entity which was neither de facto nor de jure called themselves the Provisional government which was planned/supported by the U.S. 1893 Feb 1
Jan 31. President Benjamin Harrison used his executive order to deny the passing of the bill into law to prosecute "crimes on the high seas". Congress House and Senate were denied the bill passing into law. Note: Hawaii is "on the high seas".
Provisional protectorate proclaimed. U.S. flag raised on government buildings. Treaty of annexation written and signed by President Benjamin Harris. The new President, Grover Cleveland, had the treaty withdrawn and sent James Blount, investigator, to inquire into the circumstances of the revolution.
Pirates laws passed by the entity Provisional government under Sanford B. Dole etals., which diminished the rights of kanaka maoli in their own lands. Kanaka Maoli became people with lesser status likened to slaves.
1893 Dec 18 Blount's report to Cleveland is submitted. Queen Liliuokalani did not return to the throne. Failed.
1894 Jul 4
Because a Provisional government has only a 2-year life the turn to a Republic discussion was made in the Habeas corpus case of Sheldon, editor of a Hawaiian newspaper who printed the near accurate version of the wrongful dethronement of Queen Liliuokalani.
Establishment of the entity Republic. Sanford B. Dole, first President.
The entity Provisional government operating under the directions of the U.S./Congress, proceeded in making a treaty with their own; yet, calling themselves a separate nation.
They were actually conspirators/pirates, treasonous persons claiming to have a lawful right to dethrone the Queen and subjects numbering 40,000 vs. their 3,000 which included paid off supporters who were given $50-$500 each. Therefore, the Pearl Harbor Treaty was based on multiple frauds. See Pearl Harbor Condemnation Case over Pearl Harbor which included a fraud deed by King Kalakaua deeding land to ancestors who died 8-9 years previously.
Freedom of speech was canceled.
Important note: The Constitution of the United States does not follow the flag in its territories, claimed protectorates. Aside from the legal issue that the President and Congress has no jurisdiction outside of the 3-12 mile zone, according to the Constitution "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" is denied to territories, and claimed protectorates. Therefore, the Constitution of the United States does not apply to Hawaii, etc.
1895 Jan 6 Counter-revolution to restore Liliuokalani to throne. Failed.
1895 Jan 6 Counter-revolution to restore Liliuokalani to throne. Failed.
1895 Jan 7 Queen Liliuokalani "was arrested for no specific charged offense, taken by force, and confined alone in the Iolani Palace....She was told that those she dearly loved, personal friends, were awaiting execution, and the only act which would save their lives was an act of abdication to be signed by her...To save those she loved she executed the document you publish. It was an act consummated under the plainest kind of duress, void even had it been legally executed."
Ref: Washington Evening Star article "The Republic of Hawaii" purchased off the internet from a private owner in Greece.
1895 Jan 24 Liliuokalani signs statement of abdication. She remained under duress, stress, coercion, and usurpation. She directed her subjects to maintain a neutral, friendly, non-violent status, even though many were beaten, killed, thrown on Kalaupapa, Molokai and declared lepers. The issues of genocide remain, the issues of piracy(ies) on the high seas remain, along with theft, conspiracies, treasonous activities, etc.
1895 Oct 2 The Queen was tried and convicted of treason. While sentenced to confinement in her room in Iolani Palace, she composed "The Queen's Prayer."
Princess Poomaikelani died. She had called her a daughter. Her descendants/heirs descendants exist today.
8/2010: Princess Poomaikelani's administrator was Queen Kapiolani.
1896 Fall Liliuokalani freed by the entity Republic and remained under duress, coercion, usurpation, and stress.
1898 Jul 8 American claimed annexation claimed disregarding the 40,000 subjects oppositions to Annexation.
The true letter of Opposition to Annexation was found in the Maryland National Archives by researcher Kiliwehi Kekumano.
Note: Since 1929, a fraud/genocide evidence letter of Opposition has been sitting in the Archives, Honolulu, Oahu left for people to believe to be true. A comparative study of both documents shows the lies, deceit, frauds maintained vs. the truth.
1898 Aug 12 U.S. flag raised in Honolulu. Hawaiian flag lowered. Liliuokalani remains secluded at Washington Place. Queen Liliuokalani remained under duress, usurpation, coercion, and usurpation.
"ANNEXATION OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM: a proven myth, double falsehood upon fabricated fundamental myth of an alleged and falsely claimed "overthrow" of a Constitutional Queen and entire Government structure; there is no proof or evidence of an "annexation" taking place, exhibited by a total lack of treaty, lack of identified parties, lack of inherent power and authority, false literary assertion, NO lawful Treaty exists, propagandized during a staged, fabricated "flag raising ceremony" in front of the Iolani palace in July of 1898, unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, ridiculous, an experiment in mass fraud, invalid and void for lack of lawful basis, the mistaken myth of the alleged" joint resolution treaty" of 1898 by a foreign senate within a foreign country without proof of treaty/ transfer/ lawful basis, is meaningless, void, unautorized, inapplicable for lack of requisite law, concealment myth of an illegal "joint resolution" in the foreign U.S. "congress" without law, without the real-party-in-interest vested with lawful authority; without the owner; without the nationals in whose possession all of the Royal Patented Domain was vested, without one shred of a transfer instrument of any kind whatsoever, without any connection or otherwise to the legitimate nation and nationals of Ko Hawaii Pae Aina; ludicrous assumption, inane presumption; without due process, discriminatory, illegal, excluding law, unacceptable offer, insult, literal disgorgement of myth to conceal reality, illegal attempt to artificially manufacture "ownership",a paper waste, without authority, illegal attempt at excess of jurisdiction, etc."- Mahealani Ventura Oliver
Update 08/2010: Queen Kapiolani gave a deed to Princes Kuhio and Kawananakoa. They were instructed to file it AFTER she died.
Princes Kuhio and Kawananakoa filed the deed right away.
Queen Kapiolani publicly opposed the filed deed. She wanted the deed to be annulled/ nulled and voided.
Prince Kawananakoa and Princess Kaiulani planned to marry after the deed of Queen Kapiolani was cleared up.
Princess Kaiulani was engaged to T.H. Davies son George previously. The NEW YORK TIMES covered the fact that the Princess was planning to marry Prince Kawananakoa.
Princess Kaiulani was on payroll with the PG's, the Provisional Government.
Death of Princess Ka"iulani. (born October 16, 1875). Descendants of her heirs exist.
1899. Queen Kapiolani died. Her heirs descendants exist today.
1900. Organic Act, 'An Act to Provide a Government for the Territory of Hawaii' was passed by the usurpers. Only Republic of Hawaii citizens who were declared to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii were covered. U.S. citizens (relocated) declared to be citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.
All persons/kanaka maoli who signed the Kue Petition opposing Annexation were excluded from the Organic Act.
Note: Alex Luka researcher.
Archibald Cleghorn husband of Princess Likelike died. He was a Mason/Freemason, an organization set in place to break down Monarchy governments worldwide.
Articles favoring Whites documented. Example: "Hawaii Wants the White Man" appeared in the Mid-Pacific Magazine, 1911, see the Main Library, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii.
Charles Reed Bishop, banker, lawyer, sugar plantation owner, investor, pirate, husband of Bernice Pauahi died. He had only a life interest.
Queen Liliuokalani "said to me she did not sign a Trust Deed but had made a will and Mr. Damon and Cecil Brown were the witnesses to it" stated Samuel Parker on oath.
Ref: Archives, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii records: First Circuit Court - Equity Case 2009 Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole, Petitioner vs. Liliuokalani, et al.
Update 08/2010: Prince Kuhio attempted to declare Queen Liliuokalani incompetent.
Queen Liliuokalani documented in her will that she did not sign a Trust Deed with Damon, Smith and Iaukea. She documented that her administrator Colburn would be able to make corrections.
1908 - June 2. Prince David Kawananakoa died.
1915 - June 7. Charles Reed Bishop, PIRATE OF THE PACIFIC, banker, plantation owner, Mason/Freemason died.
Charles Reed Bishop, C.F. Pfluger/J.C. Pfluger, and C. H. Lewers were Trustees of Excelsior Lodge No. 1(Masons and Freemasons) in Honolulu 1862 as documented in the Bureau of Conveyances Liber 15 page 188.
This document verifies the direct connection of current U.S. President Obama to the Masons and Freemasons from the Hawaiian Islands because the Pfluger's are listed in Charles Booth's Probate and part of the families which had a connection to the BANK OF HAWAII in the Hawaiian Islands. President Obama's grandmother Madelyn Dunham, first female Vice President of BANK OF HAWAII.
1920 -
REMINDING ALL OF THE EVILS OF BELLIGERENT OCCUPIERS IN OUR HAWAIIAN ISLANDS
photo by A. Gora (2010)
1959 - "STATEHOOD: a falsehood, illegal, unconstitutional, void for utter displacement and disregard for due process, a over propagandized affair without lawful basis, lacking elements required in laws; an artificial term, label, inapplicable, a null and void allegation for lack of an overthrow, lack of an annexation, lack of a territory, lack of anything resembling lawful due process and lawful treatment of human nationals with constitutional private sovereign rights, 16 % populace present at the time of qualified voters only; if and when used artfully to conceal, defraud and disenfranchise, illegal and inapplicable having novalue; an impossibility, ungratified, contradictory to law, discriminatory, without lawful transfer, witout evidence of proof, no record or lawful document exists, inapplicable, concealment of fraud; unratified by 2/3 of congress in addition, illegal attempt to subject citizens to federal taxation in 1967, etc." - Mahealani Ventura Oliver
"BISHOP ESTATE/ BERNICE PAUAHI PAKI BISHOP TRUST/ BISHOP HOLDINGS, INC. BERNICE PAUAHI BISHOP: a falsehood, a double falsification of a natural born sovereign, unlawful alteration of instruments, illegal, identity fraud, fraud, embezzlement, displacement, murder, marriage fraud, conspiracy to conceal evidence of fraud, conspiracy to steal, theft of" - Mahealani Ventura Oliver
Opposition to Statehood was documented by Kamehameha descendant Harold Cathcart, first cousin of my great grandmother Mele Keawe Kauweloa.
'Because Opposition was documented, Sovereignty shall be' - former Paralegal teacher, Randy Lee. Guest speaker at our graduation was current Pirate Mayor Peter Carlisle who was overheard in a bar making bigotted, animosity filled comments about brown people, our kanaka maoli/Hawaiians.
Note: Much criminal activity has occurred in the past, perpetuated today by known individuals/families..
Our true Hawaiian history shows what happened in the past, affecting the present day in our Hawaiian Islands and the World today.
The momentum of the One World Order/New World Order can be seen in the characters from PIRATES OF THE PACIFIC: Charles Reed Bishop and Friends, PIRATES OF THE PACIFIC II: Charles Reed Bishop and Friends (2010), etc.
Criminal maneuvers, frauds perpetuated by racketeering treasonous persons against friendly descendants, true descendants loyal to our Queen Liliuokalani from a neutral, non violent nation are extreme differences of the Wicked, Evil, vs. our good people, and innocent citizens who have done no wrong and represent the truth.
1963 - JFK /John F. Kennedy was assassinated - this is his last speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces "Lee Oswald story is FAKE, it's MADE UP PROPAGANDA, by the NEW WORLD ORDER who ordered the killing of JFK for mainly this speech" - barthoedemaker
2000 - Oppositions documented by Queen Kapiolani's and King Kalakaua's adopted child's descendant http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/countering-sen-akaka-bill?commentId=2011971%3AComment%3A269001 :
In truth, the
opposition was greatly voice in 2000.
He further claims there has been a clear record of discussion and debate
to refine and strengthen the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization
Act since its introduction in 2000. I don't recall the title being
that from the onset but renamed after its fiasco
in 2000 with many amendments preceding the renaming of this bill.
Instead of addressing our position against the bill, he decided on how
to circumvent it with manipulations using feel-good semantics along with
self-contradictory statements to diffuse the arguments and dupe the
people into something that was more of a myth
to conform to the U.S. agenda.
Akaka claims to date there have been a total of 12 Congressional
hearings, including 5 joint House and Senate Committee hearings Held in
Hawaii in 2000. He purposely fails to mention that because of his
illness at that time, the hearings on the neighbor islands
were canceled and a five-day hearing was limited to the Island of
O'ahu. This made it impossible for most neighbor island people to
attend and give testimony. Those that did attend, did so at great
expense (airfare, hotel, transportation, and meals).
An overwhelming majority of the native Hawaiians opposed the bill during
that 5-day hearings and refused to be considered as a tribal people.
This the senators insisted that was not the case; thus the renaming of
the bill and a play on semantics to obfuscate
the intention of exercising the WASP racist doctrines of Manifest
Destiny.
Akaka further states that this bill provides a process for the reorganization
of the Native Hawaiian governing entity (whatever that means) for the
purposes of a federally recognized government to government
relationship. Whatever happened to
the government to government relationship with the Hawaiian Kingdom
which still exists albeit under the U.S. belligerent occupation?
The bill authorizes an office in the Department of the Interior instead
of the Department of the State to serve as a liaison between native
Hawaiians and the United States and forms an interagency task force
composed of officials from federal agencies who currently
administer programs and services impacting native Hawaiians to establish
the parameters the Native Hawaiians can work within for
self-determination.
The opening paragraph of the bill tip-toes through the maze of arguments
by side-stepping the issues and facts mentioning the reconciliation of
the wrong committed by the United States against the Native Hawaiians.
At the same time it minimizes the U.S. criminal
involvement by stating that it was done by participation of agents of
the United States.
Let's look at who the agents were:
President Benjamin Harrison who approved the actions and bent on
annexing Hawai'i to the U.S. as previous U.S. presidents had been
attempting to consummate.
Collusion of the U.S. Secretary of State, James L. Blaine, with the
pro-annexationist U.S. minister John L. Stevens and accomplice Lorrin
Thurston (U.S. citizen born and residing in the Kingdom of Hawai'i who
swore allegiance to the Kingdom's government, being
commissioned by the King to serve in his government).
The landing of U.S. military troops to protect the treasonous
conspirators to create the U.S. puppet Provisional Government which
later they renamed itself the republic of Hawaii. Interesting enough is
that the treasonous Committee of Safety had silver coins
melted down to have a silver tea set made to present to U.S. Minister
Stevens for his part in the takeover and protecting them while they were
doing it and after setting up their ipso facto government.
U.S spy General Schofield who surveyed the islands for the ideal
military outposts and others who committed covert and overt actions
against the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The push for takeover and destabilizing the Kingdom's government
executed by U.S. American agents, other U.S. citizens of political,
economical, and military clout.
The immigration of U.S. citizens into the Hawaiian Kingdom to support
the takeover in a U.S. national movement.
This bill, then, creates a redefinition of native Hawaiians to fit an
after-the-fact scenario as Native Americans proscription to fit within
their Native American Policy. It also ignores the Hawaiian Subjects
that are not Native Hawaiian and invalidates their
existence. The imposition of blood quantum furthers the alienation of
the subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom; the bona fide citizens and
nationals of our Kingdom.
This bill makes you jump through the U.S. hoops to prove who you are;
while it gives proxy to an unlawful entity to usurp the sovereign
jurisdiction and recognized status of an international nation-state.
Compliance to this bill means to surrender one's citizenship
of the Hawaiian Kingdom and to validate the U.S. citizenship.
It also prohibits one from suing the U.S. military for accountability.
U.S. Congress will possess and exercise, under the plenary authority of
the Constitution to legislate on behalf of the indigenous people
including native Hawaiians; including but not limited
to Property, Treaty, Supremacy clauses, War powers, 14th Amendment,
which it relies on those powers in enacting this legislation.
This means Congress has the power to recognize the Native Hawaiian tribe
and to un-recognize the Hawaiian tribe at its whim. It's interesting
to note the repetition of providing notice to and consult with and
negotiate with this entity regarding the resources,
rights, and lands.
In the end, this bill promotes the U.S. WASP racist Manifest Destiny
Doctrines that professes they are ordained by God (Divine Providence) to
rule over non-whites as a superior race that can do anything they want
to do.
What Akaka has stated will not change with the proponents of the bill
who will continue to parrot his same rhetoric. The idea of this bill
being better than nothing and the U.S. won't give up Hawai'i is fatuous
and being a defeatist. They are being disingenuous
in defending it as U.S. Americans rather than Hawaiian nationals looking
for justice and freedom from the suppressor.
There should be a debate or symposium to address the legitimacy of the
proposed bill and the proper process of addressing the U.S. belligerent
occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Read the bill; I did. Let's have another public debate since there have been many amendments to kowtow to the wishes of U.S. government except for the Hawaii Nationals, subjects/citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom that exist today. What are they afraid of?
Tane
Replies
Created entity by Neil Abercrombie as Head Existing Today
Review by Amelia Gora (2010), a Royal person
The Kingdom of Hawaii is no longer underground, the entity State of Hawaii, and a Congress created entity for Hawaii has been hastily put together by a Senator (Neil Abercrombie) who was disappointed in the comments made by Daniel Inouye 10 years ago (2000) concocted revisions that would be acceptable to his planned takeover of assuming Hawaii's governorship under the entity recognition overseeing two (2) entities tied to the illegal occupiers the U.S., the belligerent occupiers trying to validate their criminal claims in our Hawaiian Islands.
The following are important issues affecting our aboriginal Hawaiians/kanaka maoli/Hawaiian nationals:
(1) Law Professor Williamson Chang legal brief (portions of);
(2) Senator Inouye, Abercrombie, et. als. quotes, etc. documented in a news article;
(3) Professor Boyle's documented speech,
(4) Keanu Sai's information,
(5) Author's (Amelia Gora's) commentary/ conclusion about the whole criminal process called the A KAKA Bill/bull
(1) Law Professor Williamson Chang legal brief (portions of):
The 1900 Organic Act provides at section two that:
“That the islands acquired by the United States of America under an Act of Congress entitled “Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States,” approved July seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight shall be known as the Territory of Hawaii.”
“As noted above, the United States Supreme Court found in Fullard-Leo (case) that the United States acquired all property of the Republic of Hawaii by the Joint Resolution. It wrote “Hawaii has been a territory of the United States since the Joint Resolution of Annexation of July 7, 1898.” 331 U.S. at 265. It cited Senate Doc. 16, 55th Congress, 3d Session, 1898, which listed Oahu as one of the Hawaiian islands acquired by the United States in 1898.
“The Supreme Court also cited Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903). There, the United States Supreme Court upheld a manslaughter conviction by a less than unaminous jury verdict under the laws of the Republic of Hawaii. But in so doing, the Supreme Court clearly recognized that Hawaii was annexed to the United States in 1898.
“In Mankichi, the issue was whether United States laws and constitutional provisions automatically and instantly became applicable to Hawaii by virtue of the 1898 Joint Resolution, 190 U.S. at 212, or whether those laws and constitutional provisions did not become applicable until Congress affirmatively extended the laws of the United States to Hawaii by the 1900 Organic Act, Id., at 215. The Supreme Court found the latter. Id. Republic of Hawaii laws continued to apply to the Territory of Hawaii during the transitional period between the 1898 annexation and the 1900 Organic Act.”
“However, the Supreme Court recognized that the “main objects of the (1898) resolution were, 1st, to accept the cession of the islands theretofore made by the Republic of Hawaii, and to annex the same ‘as a part of the territory of the United States and subject to the sovereign dominion thereof…’” 190 U.S. at 214.
“Judge King correctly held that all of Kahoolawe except for the lighthouse portion was sufficiently under Government control. Apparently recognizing that on their face these documents provide sufficient Government control, the defendants first argue that at least the 1898 and 1900 agreements were invalid because they were made by “illegal revolutionaries.” In light of Congress’ recognition of the government of the Republic of Hawaii as the established government, the acceptance of the validity of the transfer agreements by both the United States and Hawaiian Supreme Courts (see United States v. fullard-Leo), 331 U.S. 256, 270, 67 S. Ct. 1287, 91 L.Ed. 1474; Bishop v. Mahiko, 35 Hawaii 608 (1940), and the failure of defendants to make a record on this argument below, we reject this challenge as frivolous.”
“In United States v. Mowat, 582 F. 2d 1194, 1206-07 (9th Cir. 1978). “Territorial Supreme Court cases also rejected challenge to the jurisdiction of legitimate successors to the Kingdom of Hawaii. In Territory v. Kapiolani Estate, 18 Haw. 643 (1908), the Hawaii Supreme Court first addressed the legitimacy of government-owned land after the 1893 overthrow. The Hawaii Supreme Court said:
“The law(Sec. 272 R.L.) places with the commissioner of public lands the general supervision of all public land which was ceded to the United States by the Republic of Hawaii, which included (Sec. 99 Org. Act) the “portion of the public domain heretofore known as crown land.” Id., 18 Haw. At 644.”
“In Kapiolani Estate, the territorial land commissioner had brought an action in the name of the Territory to recover possession of government land that had been leased and upon which the rent was in arrears. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled:
“As above stated, it was unnecessary to aver the title of the territory in that portion of the public lands which at the date of the lease were known as crown lands since judicial notice is taken that by Art. 95 of the constitution of the Republic fof Hawaii the crown lands were declared to be the property of the Hawaiian government and that by the public land act of 1895 those lands as part of the public domain were placed under the management of the commissioner of public lands, a title which was recognized by the joint resolution of annexation, the lands having been ceded by the Republic of Hawaii to, and accepted by, the United States, and also recognized by the organic act (Sec. 83) in continuing in force the land laws of the Republic of Hawaii, and (Sec. 99) declaring that the crown lands on August 12, 1898, were, and prior thereto, had been, the property of the Hawaiian government. The validity of the declaration in the constitution of the Republic of Hawaii, under which the present title is derived, does not present a judicial question. Even assuming, but in no way admitting, that the constitutional declaration was confiscatory in nature, this court has no authority to declare it to be invalid. The subsequent derivation of the title by the United States, as above stated, is clear.”
“The position here taken in refusing to regard the defendant’s claim is otherwise than as fixed by constitutional law as presenting a judicial question is well illustrated in numerous decisions of the United States supreme court.”
Id., 18 Haw. At 645-46, citing Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 256; Williams v Suffolk Ins. Co., 13 Pet. 414, 420; Luther v Borden, 7 Haw. 1, 41, 56; Jones v. U.S., 137 U.S. 80, 82; McCray v U.S., 195 U.S. 27, 54; Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U.S. 24.”
“Later, in Territory v Puahi, 18 Haw. 649 (1908), the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the question of whether Section 95 of the constitution of the Republic of Hawaii violated the United States Constitution was not a judicial question. Section 95 had declared the former crown lands to be the land of the Hawaiian government. It is by now clear that:
“Upon the adoption of the Newlands Resolution (30 Stat. L. 750, Resolution No. 55, adopted July 7, 1898) and the transfer to the United States of the Hawaiian Islands the entire dominion and sovereignty, national and territory vested in the United States….Every nation acquiring territory by treaty or otherwise holds the acquired territory subject to the constitution and laws of its own government and not according to those of the government ceding it."
Bishop v. Mahiko, 35 Haw. 608, 649 (1940).
Reference: First Circuit Court Case Civil No. 98-0559-02 (Condemnation) State of Hawaii, by its Attorney General vs. Richard Sung Hong Wong, Oswald Kofoad Stender, Marion Mae Lokelani Lindsey, Gerard Aulama Jervis, and Henry Haalilio Peters, Trustees of Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and Hawaii Kai Development Corporation, a Nevada corporation.
FACTS FOUND: Researchers Rachel (husband Merle) Painter and their attorney Williamson B.C. Chang, University of Hawaii Law School Professor and legal researcher, claimed that “the boundaries of the State do not include that island (Oahu). Said island was excluded by the Act of Admission, Section Two.”
“Section Two of Public Law 86-3 applies plainly to deny this court of jurisdiction over the res. Section Two states:
“Section Two: The State of Hawaii shall consist of all the islands, together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters, included in the Territory of hawaii on the date of enactment of this Act, except the atoll known a Palmyra Island, together with its appurtenant reefs and territorial waters, but said State shall not be deemed to include the Midway Islands, Johnston Island, Sand Island (off shore from Johnston Island, or Kingman Reef, together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters.”
“Public Law 86-3 is the Act of Admission, the Act of Congress by which Hawaii was admitted as a State. Section Two of that Act defines the area of the State to be hose islands which were acquired by the Joint Resolution (30 Stat 750) an Act of Congress. Hawaii and the United States were separate and independent nations prior to July 7, 1898. This Court may take judicial notice of that fact. No act of Congress, no Act of the Congress of the United States, no act of any Congress in the world can, without more, result in the incorporation of the territory of another nation.”(see Reference (1))
Reference (1):
See Exchange of remarks, Senators Allen and Stewart, 55th Cong. 2d Session. 31 cong. Rec. 6369 (Senator Stewart taking the position that the resolution was mere “puffing,” in that the United States can “annex the world” if Congress so chose.) No nation has that power and not nation ever will have that power. Equally true, no nation can suffer the loss of its lands by “joint resolution.” It is not simply an illegal act – it is an impossible act. See Statement of Senator Foraker admitting Joint Resolution cannot annex Hawaii. 55th Cong. 2d Sess. 31 Cong. Rec. 6585.
“So said the Supreme Court in Kalb v Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433 (1940.(See Reference (2) The terms of Public Law 86-3 divests this Court of power. Section Two is plain on its face. The legislative history is more than clear: Congress deliberately sought to deny the Courts of the State of Hawaii in rem jurisdiction. (See reference 3) Public Law 86-3 is the sole basis by which this Court derives its very existence, let alone its powers.
Reference (2):
“In Kalb, appelants were ejected from their farm. Later, they brought an action in equity in the Circuit Court of Walworth County, Wisconsin, against the mortgagees, who had purchased at the sheriff’s sale, The appellants, farmers, sought restoration of possession, the cancellation of the sheriff’s deed and for removal of the mortgagees. Appellants had filed in the bankruptcy court for an extension of time to pay, under section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, (Frazier-Lemke). Nevertheless, the County Court granted the motion for confirmation of the sheriff’s sale and denied a stay. The mortgagees acquired the property by sale. The mortgagees ejected the appellants pursuant to a writ of execution.”
“The issue was whether the County Court had jurisdiction. The confirmation of sale and ejectment took place while the petition was pending in the bankruptcy court. On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated: “It is the contention of the plaintiff that this statute is self-executing,….”. Appellants had not applied for a stay in the County Court. The Supreme Court posed the issue as whether or not the Frazier-Lemke Act was self-executing, providing for a statutory, not a judicial stay. The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided that the Frazier-Lemke did not impose an automatic stay and thereby terminate the jurisdiction of the state court. Thus, the ejectment was not in violation of the law.”
“The Supreme Court of the United States reversed. The Supreme Court deemed this an issue of power, of jurisdiction. The county court had jurisdiction over foreclosures in general. Nevertheless, the by its terms the Frazier-Lemke Act automatically divested the County Court of jurisdiction once a petition was filed. The County Court was stayed whether or not the appellants filed for such a stay in that court. The effect of the federal law as automatic-not resting upon the affirmative act of the appellant. The appellant was not required to file to benefit from the stay.”
“The principle in Kalb applies to the instant case. This Court is divested of in rem power by act of Congress. As in Kalb, it was the intent of Congress to deny this Court any power incident to in rem jurisdiction, whether eminent domain, the power to confirm a sale, to issue a writ of execution, or to quiet title."
Reference (3):
“Leaders of both the Republic of Hawaii and the Untied States were well aware of this fact. See Correspondence of Sanford Dole, President of Hawaii to A. Hartwell, dated November 15, 1899 from the State Archives of Hawaii (“A reference to the joint reolution of annexation and the treaty shows clearly the untenable position of the President’s order in that it attempts to affect land transfers made between July 7, and August 12, 1898; for the treaty by Article 1st agrees that the hawaiian Islands be annexed to the United State under the name of the Territory of Hawaii;”) the joint resolution changes this in a most radical way in the first paragraph by annexing the Hawaiian islands “as a part of the territory of the United States.” The Treaty agreement having been departed from in this important particular by the joint resolution, it cannot be of course contended that the letter has an authority in relations to the Hawaiian Islands until it was accepted by us which acceptance took place on the 12th of August 1898.” The protracted debate over the Joint Resolution had brought this fact to public attention. No one claimed that Congress had power beyond the boundaries of the United States.”
Reference: First Circuit Court Case Civil No. 98-0559-02 (Condemnation) State of Hawaii, by its Attorney General vs. Richard Sung Hong Wong, Oswald Kofoad Stender, Marion Mae Lokelani Lindsey, Gerard Aulama Jervis, and Henry Haalilio Peters, Trustees of Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and Hawaii Kai Development Corporation, a Nevada corporation.
Note: Williamson B.C. Chang, University of Hawaii Professor, attorney, legal researcher is pono/good.
He was ridiculed by Federal Judge Ezra in the past, and lost his assets helping other aboriginal Hawaiians in the past.
Other researchers and I had at one time organized to do legal research, other research, and applied for grants. Unfortunately, the plans fell through and we went our separate ways.
Thanks to his intensive, extensive research, the outcome shows that
Professor Chang put the Court on notice when he documented “Hawaii and the United States were separate and independent nations prior to July 7, 1898. This Court may take judicial notice of that fact. No act of Congress, no Act of the Congress of the United States, no act of any Congress in the world can, without more, result in the incorporation of the territory of another nation.”
Additionally, in Reference (1): “No nation has that power (to annex) and no nation ever will have that power. Equally true, no nation can suffer the loss of its lands by “joint resolution.” “It is simply an illegal act – it is an impossible act.”Lastly, in Reference (2): The issue of terminating “the jurisdiction of the state court” is possible.
Comment: Terminating “the jurisdiction of the state court, etc.” could be stated in an alternate fashion, “jurisdiction not granted”, a message which was sent out to the Courts, the Governor, Mayor(s), and U.S. President’s Clinton and Bush also via Senators Daniel Akaka, and Daniel Inouye time and time again (Certified/Registered Mailings, letters, personal visits to their offices, and e-mails).
1959 Admissions Act. Statehood of Hawaii – 1959 and Executive Order by U.S. President Eisenhower.
The ‘Entity’/ Provisional Government turned Republic of Hawaii, turned Territory of the United States turned State of Hawaii (with Oppositions):
The State of Hawaii Attorney General claimed as follows:
“The 1959 Admission Act provides, at section two, that:
The State of Hawaii shall consist of all the islands, together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters, included in the Territory of Hawaii on the date of enactment of this Act, except the atoll known as Palmyra Island, together with its appurtenant reefs and territorial waters, but said State shall not be deemed to include the Midway Islands, Johnston Island, Sand Island (off shore from Johnston Island), or Kingman Reef, together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters.”
“The validity of the Joint Resolution, Organic Act, and Admission Act have been judicially attacked before. None of these attacks have ever succeeded.”
Reference: First Circuit Court Case Civil No. 98-0559-02 (Condemnation) State of Hawaii, by its Attorney General vs. Richard Sung Hong Wong, Oswald Kofoad Stender, Marion Mae Lokelani Lindsey, Gerard Aulama Jervis, and Henry Haalilio Peters, Trustees of Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and Hawaii Kai Development Corporation, a Nevada corporation.
(2) Senator Inouye, Abercrombie, et. als. quotes, etc. documented in a news article:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/1214localnews13.html
Posted on: Thursday, December 14, 2000
Native legislation dies in U.S. Senate
By Susan Roth, Advertiser Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — The Native Hawaiian recognition bill was dead in the Senate yesterday, a victim of Republican objections that could not be overcome as the 106th Congress draws to a close. The measure, which easily passed the House in September to the surprise of advocates and opponents alike, faced an uphill battle in the Senate because of the objections of a group of Republican lawmakers who ultimately succeeded in blocking it.
Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawai‘i, who led the effort to draft and pass the measure, vowed to reintroduce it next year, saying he was confident that it has a strong foundation to advance in the next Congress. "I’m very disappointed, but I’m looking forward to the 107th Congress," Akaka said. "We’ll have more time and options available, and we’ll be better able to respond to debate and overcome concerns in the new Congress. "Despite my disappointment, our progress was well worth the effort," the senator continued. "We started just last spring, and people weren’t sure how far we would go. This is a tremendous gain we’ve made here."
Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawai‘i, who used his influence in the Senate to move the bill to the brink of passage, also expressed disappointment and agreed to help reintroduce the bill early in the next Congress. "Thousands of native people across the United States share our disappointment," Inouye said in a statement. "American Indians and Alaska Natives have demonstrated their strong support for this legislation that memorializes the legal position of the United States that all of the indigenous, native people of the United States have a right to self-determination and self-governance, and that this right clearly includes the native people of Hawai‘i — Native Hawaiians."
The senior senator also noted that because "sovereignty is inherent in the people" and does not depend on recognition by the U.S. government, Native Hawaiians can go ahead and start reorganizing their government regardless of what happens with the legislation. "This process can proceed without the involvement of the federal government and, indeed, many have suggested that the process of reorganizing a government to represent the Native Hawaiian people should proceed without the involvement of the United States," Inouye said.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawai‘i, who almost single-handedly pushed the bill through the House, expressed disappointment but took pride int the progress made by the bill’s supporters. "We were able to educate Congress and the public on Native Hawaiian issues, secure the backing of a wide variety of interested parties, and refine the legislative language to address the most salient points at issue. I am particularly pleased that we succeeded in garnering bipartisan support for the bill," said Abercrombie, who also plans to reintroduce the measure in the House next year.
In addition to clarifying the U.S.-Native Hawaiian relationship and moving toward sovereignty, the bill was intended to protect programs and services for Native Hawaiians in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling in the Rice vs. Cayetano case. In February, the court decided that non-Hawaiians could vote for trustees for the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs. But the decision did not address the programs that officials believe are now threatened by legal challenges.
Because the bill was introduced late in the congressional session and in an election year with other political priorities, its chances were slim from the start. Opponents in Hawai‘i ignored it at first, certain that it would never pass, but they mobilized when it passed the House on Sept. 26, and they mounted a lobbying campaign against it in the Senate. At that point, the shortage of time meant that the bill could not reach the Senate floor for a regular debate and vote, so Hawai‘i’s lawmakers had only two real options, both of which required unanimous consent of 100 senators: The bill could pass unanimously on its own, or it could be attached to another piece of legislation.
Crucial week
A handful of conservative Republican senators raised objections and prevented unanimous passage, and their continued objections blocked the bill from being attached to one of the remaining spending bills expected to pass today and tomorrow.
Tuesday evening, the Hawai‘i senators’ last hope ended when congressional leaders sealed a deal on the last spending bill for labor, education, and health and human services appropriations. The Native Hawaiian bill was discussed, but it was not included in the spending package.
"That’s a result we sort of expected some weeks ago," said Gary Hoitsma, a spokesman for Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who opposed the bill on philosophical grounds, believing that it would amount to racial preference for Native Hawaiians. "There are a lot of things dying now. We feel that this bill is something that needs to be looked at a lot more closely before it becomes law." Hoitsma agreed that the Hawai‘i lawmakers will have a better shot at passage next year, but he did not expect that Inhofe and other opponents will change their minds. "Some of us will still have concerns, and we’ll be prepared to talk about them," he said. The Hawai‘i senators "will have to be counting votes."
Staff writer Yasmin Anwar contributed to this report.
Reference: off of KConklin's webpage http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/Senate1213To1215.html
(3) Professor Boyle's documented speech:
http://hawaii-nation.org/boyleall.html
RESTORATION OF THE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF HAWAI`I UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Professor Francis Anthony Boyle
Mable Smyth Hall, Honolulu, O'ahu, Hawai`i
December 28, 1993
[An edited and updated version of this testimony was published in St. Thomas Law Review, Volume 7, Summer 1995]
I'm very happy to be here this evening with you, and I'm very honored that the Sovereignty Commission would invite me to come and speak this evening. I also want to express my gratitude to Bumpy Kanahele and the members of the Ohana Council who have been serving as my sponsors here, for the week that I'm here.
Now as I understand it the Sovereignty Commission is looking into models, examples, of where the native people of Hawai'i can go in light of the state legislation that has been adopted and also now in light of the recent federal statute that has just been signed into law by President Clinton. And I've been asked to come here tonight to discuss one particular model, for the future, for Native Hawaiian people to consider. Understand I was not invited here to go through all the possibilities that you might have. I'm happy to comment on some of them if you have questions and give you my opinion about them. And understand its not for me to tell Native Hawaiian people what to do. You have to decide for yourselves. But, one thing I can do is to describe a particular vision of the future; how you might go about achieving it; what would be the consequences; what would be the basis of authority for doing it; particularly in light of public law 103-150 signed by President Clinton.
When I read the public law for the first time, the first thought that occurred to me is that now the United States government, after one hundred years, has finally and officially conceded, as a matter of United States law, that Native Hawaiian people have the right to restore the independent nation state that you had in 1893 when the United States government came and destroyed it. And also then that as a matter of international law the Native Hawaiian people have the right to go out now and certainly proclaim the restoration of that state. I'm not talking about the State of Hawai'i as part of the United States of America. Rather I am talking about an independent state under international law, and ultimately someday a member of the United Nations organization and other international organizations.
Now here there is a recent example that had been pursued by the Palestinian people who in 1988 decided of their own accord to proclaim their own state, and this was a decision taken by the Palestinian people as a whole. It was subject to a majority vote because there was not unanimous consent, but even those who opposed agreed to be bound by a majority vote.
read the entire article at:
http://theiolani.blogspot.com/2010/03/blog-post.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBYDxvusWao&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElINojuG2yk
Report from Amman roundtable on depleted uranium
More: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/411.html
International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons
Share with others
Take action
At home
At the bank
Petition
Donate
Toolkit
Join ICBUW's
Facebook
campaign
Follow @ICBUW
ICBUW's
Channel
Latest news
Report from Amman roundtable on depleted uranium
Growing awareness of the uranium weapons issue has seen increased interest from states and international organisations working on environmental protection, demining and humanitarian relief in working together for the protection of the people of Iraq. Of particular interest has been an assessment of whether the current post-conflict response to uranium weapon contamination is adequate and capable of reducing the risks to human and environmental health.
The purpose of the Amman event was to bring together a range of different actors with experience working in Iraq to help build up a picture of the current and historical response to DU, and to exchange expertise to help inform the development of a new work programme focusing on the country.
Iraq's former Environment Minister Mrs Nermin Othman
We were particularly grateful to Iraq’s former Environment Minister Mrs Nermin Othman for attending and sharing her considerable knowledge with the conference. Other attendees included Norwegian Peoples Aid, the UN Development Programme, ICRC, physicians from Basrah, Norwegian Church Aid and many others.
Following an opening from Mrs Nermin Othman on day one of the event, topics on the agenda included a general introduction to uranium weapons; a discussion of health assessments; a look at the history of DU clearance in Iraq and an assessment of the current standards for dealing with DU in the field.
It was clear from the meeting that working in Iraq presents considerable challenges, and we were grateful for the sobering assessments provided by many of the attendees. Nevertheless, the event allowed us to identify areas that could be addressed with a modest increase in our organisational capacity and through cooperation with other organisations.
While we are still assessing all the issues that were raised, one priority is to get access to existing databases of contaminated areas within Iraq and to begin working to ensure that the recording of contamination is done in a standardised way. An issue of concern was the low awareness of DU among the mine clearance community but this is something that could be addressed relatively easily.
All three sponsors of the event concluded that it had been a success and that it provided a solid foundation for future work in Iraq. ICBUW and IKV Pax Christi were delighted to be able to cooperate on the event with NGO Coordinating Committee-Iraq and look forward to future work together. NCC-Iraq published and distributed a report on DU weapons amongst their partners in Iraq which is available below.
http://www.ncciraq.org
http://www.ikvpaxchristi.nl/UK
Attachments
Environmental Contaminants from War Remnants in Iraq
Legal status
Although no sole treaty explicitly banning the use of DU is yet in force, it is clear that using DU runs counter to the basic rules and principles enshrined in written and customary International Humanitarian Law.
Arms control law
International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Customary International Humanitarian Law
Resolutions
Jurisdiction
Domestic developments
Main legal arguments
The Process - The CM example, or the “next logical step”
Arms control law
There exists no explicit rule or treaty comprising DU weapons in its scope of application. In particular the treaties on biological and chemical weapons as well as the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol cannot be seen as relevant here. The toxic effect of DU weaponry is of secondary character and therefore cannot be subsumed under the aforesaid provisions as those assume the respective harming effect as a primary one. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Convention’s (CCW) legal regime does not include DU weapons either. The weapon must be outlawed explicitly.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Yet, IHL fully applies to the use of DU weapons and its effects. Even if IHL treaty law, addressing the means and methods of warfare, does not explicitly ban or otherwise address the use of DU munitions, attention should be given to Article 36 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. This is binding on 168 States and requires them to ensure that any new weapon, means or method of warfare does not contravene existing rules of international law. General principles of the laws of war/IHL prohibit weapons and means or methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, have indiscriminate effects or cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.
Customary International Humanitarian Law
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) identified as one of the rules (no. 44):
“Methods and means of warfare must be employed with due regard to the protection and preservation of the natural environment. In the conduct of military operations, all feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental damage to the environment. Lack of scientific certainty as to the effects on the environment of certain military operations does not absolve a party to the conflict from taking such precautions”.
Resolutions
Although non-binding, resolutions adopted by intergovernmental bodies may hint to the convictions of States, and contribute to (customary) law developments. Thus, the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in two resolutions (1996/16 and 1997/36) conceived weapons containing depleted uranium as weapons “with indiscriminate effects“ being concerned about “repeated reports on the long-term consequences of the use of such weapons upon human life and health and upon the environment”. In an overall assessment, the European Parliament, in a resolution adopted in May 2008, states that “the use of depleted uranium in warfare runs counter to the basic rules and principles enshrined in written and customary international, humanitarian and environmental law”.
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has also started to address the issue of DU, guided by the purposes and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the rules of IHL. Thus far, two resolutions have been adopted: UNGA Resolution 62/30 (December 2007) and 63/54 (January 2009) (requesting that the Secretary-General produce reports on the issue.) UNGA Resolution 63/54 clearly acknowledges the importance of protecting the environment and reads, in part, that because “humankind is more aware of the need to take immediate measures to protect the environment, any event that could jeopardize such efforts requires urgent attention to implement the required measures.” The resolution also recognizes “the potential harmful effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium on human health and the environment.” These resolutions could eventually lead to a codification process with regard to legal norms protecting both human health and the environment from depleted uranium armaments, thus addressing the current major gap in treaty law regarding the use of such weapons.
Jurisdiction
a) ICTY Decision on Yugoslavia v. NATO (1999)
Yugoslavia brought the issue of environmental damage during the 1999 Kosovo conflict before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which examined its claims against NATO forces. Although the prosecutor ultimately found no basis for opening a criminal investigation into any aspects of the NATO air campaign, the ICTY did examine the question of responsibility for environmental damage and use of depleted uranium from an environmental perspective, thereby establishing a precedent that merits attention. The Special Committee observed that Article 55 of Additional Protocol I (Protection of the natural environment) “may reflect current customary law” and, therefore, may be applicable to non-Parties to the Protocol (such as France and the United States). Anyway, the assertion that such tribunals have the appropriate authority and competence to investigate this type of situation should be considered an important outcome in itself.
b) ICJ Decision on Yugoslavia v. NATO (1999)
On 29 April 1999, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia filed complaints before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against several NATO members contending i.a. that the States had: (ii) by taking part in the use of weapons containing depleted uranium, acted in breach of the obligation not to use prohibited weapons and not to cause far-reaching health and environmental damage. Even if the Court, due to a lack of jurisdiction, could not indicate the provisional measures requested, it however added that it remained seized of those cases and stressed that its findings, at that stage, “in no way prejudge(d) the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits” of the cases and left “unaffected the rights of the Government of Yugoslavia (and of the respondent States) to submit arguments regarding those questions.”
This articulation on the ratione materiae competence of the ICJ in this case suggests that the Court views cases related to environmental degradation in armed conflicts to be within its purview. As such, the decision indicates that the ICJ could be an appropriate forum for litigating such issues.
Domestic developments
Often overlooked, they are of decisive impact in developing and shaping international law. There is a wide range of up-dating possible: from various compensation cases (as in Italy) through military manuals and regulations, like US Army Regulation 700-48 “Management of Equipment contaminated with depleted Uranium”, to anti-DU legislation as in Belgium, and similar developments already underway in Costa Rica, the Republic of Ireland and New Zealand.
President of the Latin American Parliament’s Human Rights Commission and member of Costa Rica’s legislative assembly Alexander Mora Mora released a draft for a comprehensive ban on uranium weapons in Costa Rica in 2009.
New Zealand outlined the “Depleted Uranium Prohibition Act 2009”, while the Irish depleted uranium ban bill is up for consideration in 2010.
Main legal arguments
The main legal arguments against uranium weapons can therefore, in particular under existing IHL, be derived from:
a) The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks (i.a. of “those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required”, Act. 51 (4) c, Add. Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions)
b) The prohibition to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering
c) The principle of precaution
d) The principle of proportionality.
Furthermore, the question of the legality of DU weapons is being extended to a dimension of Human Rights and environmental protection and needs further elaboration in this respect. This is among other things illustrated by reports of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC); its subcommission for sustainable development is planning to include this topic in his agenda for the next conference in May 2010.
The Process - The CM example, or the “next logical step”
Based on risks associated with the use of DU weapons as well as on precautionary obligations, States should refrain from using these weapons. During a “moratorium phase” both more scientific studies and a treaty process should be launched leading to a ban on DU weapons. A Draft Convention text can be found at http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/13.html
The DU Draft and the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CM) reveal the same basic structure, which is:
- Definitions
- Prohibition of use, production, stockpiling
- Destruction and clearance
- Victim assistance
- International cooperation.
Arriving at a ban, or arms control, treaty would finally mean to clarify all legal and factual uncertainties and – as the next logical step after banning CMs – to get rid of a most inhumane form of weaponry.
**********************************************
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koBWtYVRf-0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hzv0TSSDgU
Leuren Moret Fukushima Nuclear Death Is Coming To The World 2/12
Leuren Moret is a Nuclear Power whistleblower who is telling all who will listen about the dangers of Nuclear Power. Like playing with fire ...
by SUPERKEITHYGEORGE1 | 2 months ago | 1,369 views
Japan Tsunami Fukushima Nuclear Disaster 2/2- Leuren Moret - PDX 9/ ...
Part Two Leuren Moret is a Nuclear Power whistleblower who is telling all who will listen about the dangers of Nuclear Power. Like playing with ...
by mranthonyjhilder | 3 months ago | 71,956 views
Depopualation Agenda - Weather Wars by Lauren Moret
Depopualation Agenda - Weather Wars by Lauren Moret Killer tornadoes, deadly fires, devastating earthquakes -- it should be obvious to even couch ...
by PlaneFake | 2 months ago | 7,110 views
Godzilla's Wrath
by JoPlado | 52 videos
untrue crazies
by cloudwalker2657 | 175 videos
Amelia,
I went to Tom Berg's meeting at Makaha Elementary today, and I kinda blew it towards the end which was most important and that was about the clean up off Maile Beach which was happening today. We talked about the homeless situation for most of the time. So by the time it got to the ordinance it was short and undone as far as q and a.
Pono and Evern was there, and Sparky too. This meeting was the eleventh and the others previouse to was not filmed and those were the most informative, but secretly done. What they agreed to was the filming and taping of the process, so that the children they educated in the elementary with crayola and cartoons, can understand in their adulthood why they have health problems.
ugh!!!
Ugh!!
ALOHA Kakou,e Hawaii,
Mahalo Nui to all who will placed their lives on the line when they gather and KUE today at Washington Place!
KUE Neil and his LuLu BELLS as he signs the RACIST Bill, Senate Bill 1520 into law!
As the HEWA Actions by Neil that should Unite the Hawaiian Nationals!
Unite us as a nation that no longer will allow the continuation of the Wrongs of the Invasion and Occuatpion of our nation on January 16, 1893 by the Military Forces of the United States.
For Hawaiian Nationals now is the time for the taking back of our nation!
The signing of the FAKE State Senate Bill is in complete violations of all the laws of manking!
Aunty Frenchy was a FREEDOM FIGHTER for her people!
Aunty Frenchy was not a Lulu Bell of the Democart Party like Luwella Kaohi Leonardieeee!
KUE, KUE and Imua Hawaiian Nationals, o Pomaikaiokalani, Hawaiian Nationals 1993
KUE all them native Hawaiian LuLu BELLS that were at Washington Place today as NEIL signed the native Hawaiian RACIST Bill...! SHAME ON YOU! All of you are Traitors to your own people and nation! o Pomai
To All 40+ Sovereignty Groups, including the Treasonous bunch calling themselves the Royal Order of Kamehameha, the Kaahumanu Society, the Hale O Na Alii, etc. who participated in supporting NEIL ABERCROMBIE's venture held on the premises of Queen Liliuokalani's Home, which belongs to the Royal Families..............
All of You Will Need to Educate/Re-educate yourselves.............Kamehameha's descendants, including the descendants of Kamehameha II's wives descendants/heirs, Kamehameha III's hanai children/heirs, Kamehameha IV, Kamehameha V's siblings descendants/heirs existed then and exist now..........
MAKA ALA ----Wake Up from Your Slumber...............or is it S L A V E R Y that you prefer?
Need to reprogram all people here and the World ---- because many are stuck and suck in the criminal lies, deviant behaviors of the PIRATES, including the mercenaries/missionaries who helped to STEAL lands, claiming Royal Families Lands - people who think they own the Royal Families Lands.....repeating Kamehameha III's information:
1848 - King Kamehameha III had separated his private lands from those of the government to safeguard them from Western takeover. In debate in the Privy Council, June 6, 1848, G.P. Judd had stated that it was necessary for the King to divide his private lands from the lands of the government because, "If no explanation of this kind is made, it will mix matters later on, and some of the foreigners will come later on and say they have an interest in the lands too."
Reference: California Law Review, Vol. 63:848, Neil M. Levy - Professor Levy traces the historical displacement of Native Hawaiians from their land and explores the problems of preserving the landholdings and cultural heritage of the Native Hawaiian Community. He suggests that the problems require legislative solutions similar to those afforded to Native Americans and Alaskan Natives.
or maybe you really do want to be MAINTAINED as SLAVES ---see the article above and below:
September 16, 1884: 80,000 American Citizens Held In Bondage - How Slaves are Obtained Throughout the World and Sold in the Sandwich Islands:
"Mr. Benedick and twenty-nine others were "consigned" to Bishop & Jones plantation, which is known as the "Missionary Plantation." "This is owned by the Rev. Mr. Bishop and the Rev. M. Jones, two Methodist ministers, well known in the Islands. These men went out there as poor missionaries a few years ago, but are now enormously wealthy. Rev. Mr. Bishop is the leading banker of Honolulu, and employes a dozen clerks in his banking house alone, while the Rev. M. Jones still preaches the Gospel all over the Islands.
"When Mr. Benedick and his twenty-nine associates arrived at the plantation, they were conducted to a large building where between 200 and 300 men, women, and small children were congregated, and informed that these would be their quarters. There was but one room in the building, which was entirel open, so that a person standing in any part of the building could take in the whole room at a glance, and all ---men, women, and cildren---slept together, without bedding or covering of any kind. If they preferred they would sleep out in the open "corral" or stockade around the house. The climate being very mild, this can be doen with unpuity; still many would have referred to have clothes to wear, but these were difficult to obtain, and enormously expensive, as the labors are allowed only twenty-five cents for each full day
s work, while dues for the most trivial offenses, and dock-ages under various pretenses, are so outrageously enormous and frequent that all the laborers are kept heavily in debt, and unable to pay up, even by working unremittingly for years."
Note: The people were kept naked. Contrary to most of the writings, this news article shows that the missionaries who leased lands from the Hawaiian Kingdom were breaking laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom during this period, because laws banning slavery was passed 13 years before the U.S. passed theirs shortly after the American Civil War ended in 1865. The Hawaiian Laws were passed in 1852.
The slave vessels were anchored off island, and the people were transported at sea to their plantation destinations....Wicked.
Reference: THE PACIFIC COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER, SEPTEMBER 16, 1884
and
SLAVERY IN HAWAII ?; Pettigrew Wants Labor Contracts Made Since ...
The question of practical slavery in Hawaii, which every one thought had been settled, again took up the major part of the debate on the bill today, ...February 28, 1900COOLIE LABOR IN HAWAII.
I suppose, as Mr. Blackwcll dares advocate the return to slavery for the American people, for Chinese coolie labor is but little in advance of that ...December 30, 1902As Sugar Fades, Hawaii Seeks a New Cash Crop
The sugar economy created the plantation system of Hawaii and imported Asian and other laborers just as cotton brought African slaves to the ...August 9, 1996 - By CAREY GOLDBERG - National DeskTO AID HAWAIIAN "SLAVES."; Socialists Join Russians Here and Send ...
... that have taken up the cause of the Russian peasants, who, it is alleged, are being held in a state of slavery by the sugar planters of Hawaii. ...June 12, 1910Mr. Robinson Argues Measure Would Make Slaves of Laborers.
... which he characterized as practical slavery, and which, he said, ... that you would crucify labor on the cross of landlordism and money in Hawaii. ...April 4, 1900CONTRACT LABOR IN HAWAII.; A State Department Official Says This ...
Theyare not exactly slaves, but they are in a of slavery. ... would afford the enterprising .american population of Hawaii all the opportunity for the ...August 14, 1897A Wedding in Canada; Gay Couples Follow a Trail North Blazed by Slaves
... because the two men could not legally be married in Hawaii, ... ''As in the time of slavery, we can learn from the experience in Canada ...November 23, 2003 - By CLIFFORD KRAUSS - Week in Review DeskPineapple, After Long Affair, Jilts Hawaii for Asian Suitors ...
Pineapple, After Long Affair, Jilts Hawaii for Asian Suitors ... Private Island, " as though the residents were mere plantation slaves. ...December 26, 1991 - By ROBERT REINHOLD, - National Deskyet
look at the dubious info:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/198245/slavery_in_hawaii_d...
1 2 3
Slavery in Hawaii: Did Hawaii Ever Have African Slaves?
Apr 11, 2007 "Contribute content like this. Start Here."
-
- Print
- Flag
- 14 Helpful?
Post a commentThe empty words of political rhetoric by helping with shelters but refusing to legislate more protective regulations of the real estate market is self evident pandering to the voters. Some states in the Union have regulations that are more protective in real estate than Hawai'i does.
There is no limit on the increase of rentals or property taxes. Some states have laws that limit increases to no more than 10% per year. Hawai'i has a super heated real estate market due to scarcity and the local government is currently reaping a landslide in taxes. The prevailing political incumbency counts hotel rooms as normal "rental vacancies", inflating a surreal vacancy rate, in effect - turning down additional federal housing entitlement dollars. The average hotel room a night in Honolulu is $185.
Modern Chattel Trade
According to the International Organization for Migration, IOM, "over a million instances of human trafficking occur annually and is the third largest source of profits for transnational criminal organizations, behind drugs and weaponry."
Although there is no data, Hawaii could be a site for modern-day servitude as a way station. In 2004 a Waipahu man was convicted of smuggling seven Tongan men, where the victims were underpaid or not at all and beaten repeatedly.
In 2006, it was reported in June that contracted Micronesian workers, mistreated, denied pay and passports by their boat captains is legal because less than 7 crewmembers on a small boat with men contracted in other countries is legal - even though fishing in U.S. waters.
Published by ptosis
View profile
8 Comments
Post a Comment(continued) This is not to miss the role played by racial prejudice, and the current inequity in Hawaii that victimizes Hawaiians worst of all. But without fighting the root of the oppression, the social relations of wage labor and surplus value extraction, there will be no liberation for any of us. Capitalism will always mobilize race as one more tool to divide and conquer us all. Falling back to positions of cultural difference instead of the unity of a working class fighting to end class altogether, suits the ruling class just fine, as it has nothing to do with battling the power they hold over us, who must sell our labor to even survive.
Is Hawaiian culture inherently morally superior to US culture? Was the Hawaiian class system benevolent while "racist manifest destiny" class systems are oppressive? Or do all class systems have to be upheld through force in the end? What if all class systems were identified as oppressive so that we might resist them along class lines, with the goal of eradicating class oppression? With such a view we could identify the process of the commodification of Hawaiian life ways by plantation owners and others as corrupt, and we could view the rigid class system of Hawaiian ali'i as corrupt too. There's no justification for the theft of Hawaii, but by retreating to a position defending one class system against another, we miss the chance for cross cultural resistance to the oppression of our current culture, the one we all live in, none of us by choice, the capitalist world system that oppresses people regardless of their nationality, gender, or ethnicity. This is not to miss the role
Thank you Kalani for your very informative post! I appreciate you taking such care and time and I am gratified for your input. Mahalo nui loa.
(cont) What you quoted as "1870 it was published locally, "Today, with the breaking down of class barriers, members of the slave class are indistinguishable from the ruling classes." (Kepelino, 142-147; Kamakau, Ke Au Okoa, November 3, 1870.)" is incorrect. In Martha Beckwith's book "Hawaiian Mythology", page 300 it talks about the origin of the slave class. What you quoted was her writing, not Kepelino's. Within that whole large paragraph which you only quoted part of the very first sentence, she later cites Kepelino's "Tradition of Hawaii" but referring to the fact that the term kauwa is also used to show respect to a superior or to show affection as of an older relative to a younger. That is the part that she cites Kepelino, of which on that page is also followed by Kamakau's article printed in Ke Au Okoka dated November 3, 1870.
(cont) Ulukau.org has an online database of the old newspapers of the Kingdom. If you look up what you quoted in your article of Kepelino quoting Kamakau's article in Ke Au Okoa dated Nov. 3, 1870, in Kamakau's article he talks of the different classes of people. He mentions Papa Kahuna (priestly class), Papa Kaula (prophets), Papa Kanaka (mankind), and Papa Kauwa (servant class). Under the Papa Kauwa it explained the different types including the one I mentioned - papa kuamoo, which is those slightly high ranking chiefly class that are able to interact with the highest ranking chiefs. The translation would be "A chief or retainer might call himself a kauwa in order to humble himself before his superior or his ruler although he was not really a kauwa; or a server of teh chief, related to him by birth, might be called a kauwa..." What you quoted as "1870 it was published locally, "Today, with the breaking down of class barriers, members of the slave class are indistinguishable fr
Seems like the article is trying the typical picture of Hawaiians as oppressors & that we should be viewed as imperialists, particularly with the incorrect data time line where emanicipation of slaves in 1852. Unlike the racist country that was founded on Manifest Destiny, the Hawaiian Kingdom, or the alii of ancient Hawaii never enslaved groups of people of another country or nation. "Kaua" formerly written as "kauwa" is incorrectly translated as "slave" whereas the real meaning of it is "servant". Many of my ancestors were kaua (servants) to the higher ranking alii, but that's because they were born into that class. In order to serve the highest ranking alii, you had to have some rank, but due to their devotion, they were affectionately known as the kauwa to the alii. In Layman's terms, the seargent & lieutenants were the only ones who could approach the head of state. So to make a comparison of "human trafficking" is grossly exaggerating. Ulukau.org has an online databa
awesome info.
awesome info.
This is what Americans thought of Hawaiians back then, etc. and our people remained a neutral, non-violent, friendly nation................think about it when they had "Kill Hawaiian Day", etc. :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDTZ7iX4vTQ
p.s. hand delivered, served the legal documents to the entity State of Hawaii Attorney Generals Office for Neil Abercrombie, et. als. today, July 8, 2011, 12:07, 25 pages...........aloha.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next