Forum

What's on my Mind: Dear All---the University of Hawaii Hamilton Library has an exhibit online on the Annexation of Hawaii, they have left out the most important evidence of the failure of the United States to acquire Hawaii--the Congressional Record of the Senate Debate in 1898 . The recent brief filed in State v. Lorenz, in the Intermediate Court of Appeals.

Mahalo- Williamson Chang

Opening Brief Brief in State v. Windyceslau Lorenzo

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

STATE OF HAWAI'I. v. WINDYCESLAU LORENZO a.k.a known as KAMEHAMEHA VI

APPEAL FROM ORDER OF EXPUNGEMENT, FINE OF 5,0000.00 AND RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON DEFENDANT

I. Introduction and Statement of the Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2-3 II. Points of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3-7
II. Statement of Jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7-8 III. Standard of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

In 1996, the Hawaii State Legislature enacted Chapter 507D to prohibit the filing of instruments or "non-consensual liens" in the Bureau of Conveyances. Such filings were deemed detrimental to the public interest as interfering with the right to transfer title or obtain financing statements. Such prohibited filings were those that lacked any basis in law or fact. Sanctions under Chapter 507D are not applicable to filings of the United States, the State of Hawaii or any County.

. . . .

II. POINTS OF ERROR

First, the Court below clearly erred in failing to take mandatory judicial notice as commanded by Hawaii Rules of Evidence Section 202(b) as to Federal laws and the State Constitution as to the boundaries of the State of Hawaii. Under these provisions, namely, Section Two of the Organic Act and the Admission Act, the Joint Resolution Providing for Annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, Section 7b of the Act of Admission and Section One of Article XV of the Hawaii State Constitution. Had the Court followed the mandate of Rule 202(b) of the Hawai'i Rules of Evidence it would have determined that its jurisdiction in rem was limited to those real property interests acquired by the United States of America in 1898 by a Joint Resolution, 30 Stat 750. Moreover, the affidavit of the State's expert witness Earnest

Mahoe clearly misled the Court.1 Finally, the Court below had in rem jurisdiction only if the land in question was within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii or the jurisdiction of the court.2

Second, the Court below further erred in failing to require the State of Hawaii, as the petitioner herein, to prove a valid and clean chain of title demonstrating an ownership or other real property interest in tparcels herein. The State of Hawaii as claiming title and ownership had the burden of proving said ownership. The Court erred in excusing the State of Hawaii from this important burden bearing on its standing.

Third, the Court erred in that it is clear from the territorial descriptions of the State of Hawaii, and it is equally clear from the inability of the State of Hawaii to trace a clean chain of title from the Joint Resolution of 1898, that the State of Hawaii itself lacks clear title or interest in the lands herein . The State of Hawaii is equitably estopped from asserting the Defendant's instruments are "wild deeds," are "frivolous" and "lacking a basis in law or fact." Chapter 507D denies Due Process as it is void for vagueness. Given the history of Hawaii, and the actions of the Territorial and State Governments, there is no logical basis for discerning which conveyances or instruments are "frivolous" or are lacking a basis in "fact or law."

For over a century, the Territory of Hawaii and later the State of Hawaii have blatantly and knowingly asserted false claims as to title and ownership in the public lands of Hawaii.
Fourth, and in the alternative to the above, the Court erred in determining that Appellant had no valid interest in the subject matter property. Appellant presented his genealogy with substantial supporting documentation which was not substantively contested by petitioner and petitioner alleged it was “irrelevant” in its Memorandum in Support of its Petition. [ROA pg 13] (It should be noted that the Probate Court denied Appellant’s Petition For Determination of Heirs in 2008 [Hoohiki 1LP08-1-000351 minutes file 8/13/2008] because it stated it lacked Jurisdiction to make the determination and due to procedural reason(s) relating to Hawaii Probate Rule 73.) Nonetheless, the lineage of a direct lineal heir to Kamehamhea I cannot be “irrelevant” if the Kingdom of Hawai’i continues to exist; which this Court discussed in State of Hawai‘i v.
Lorenzo in 1994 and Nishitani v. Baker in 1996. Further, in Crim No. 14-1-0819 State v. Kaiula Kalawae English and State v. Robin Wainuhea Dudoit 14-1-0820 the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit took Judicial Notice of all the evidence of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence presented in expert testimony by Dr. Keanu Sai, without objection by the Prosecution, in an

Evidentiary Hearing on Thursday March 5th, 2015. (Transcript filed in SCPW-15-0000236 March 27th, 2015.) If Appellant is a direct lineal heir to Kamehameha I then he is a qualified heir to the Crown and ownership interest exists. If the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist then the Crown Lands continue to exist. As such, Appellant as a qualified heir to the Crown and as a lineal heir to Kamehameha I has a substantial interest in the Crown lands and has a superior title to the State for all the reasons set forth herein. “Plaintiff need not have perfect title, but must prove a substantial interest in the property and title superior to that of defendants.” Shayeafar v.
Kaleleiki Civ. No. 14-00322 HG-KSC. (citing Maui Land & Pineapple Co., Inc. v. Infie sto, 879

P.2d 507, 513 (Haw. 1994)).

Again, the Court erred by determining that Appellant had no valid interest because if the Court is either not competent, lacks the jurisdiction, or is otherwise unwilling to determine the continued existence of the Kingdom of Hawai’i based upon the plethora of historical factual evidence, Constitutional Law, and International Law evidencing the same, then, the status quo must be maintained and expungement in the instant case (and related cases) is unlawful as a matter of law.

Fifth, the Court erred in ruling that Appellant’s deeds were “frivolous” as Appellant has presented a legal and factual basis for his claims. In support, there is now inconsistency in the rulings within the Circuit Court of the First Circuit in related case S.P. 16-1-0816 RAN wherein the Court ruled on August 17th, 2016 that it had jurisdiction as it refers and pertains to the Kingdom of Hawai’i and that the deeds were not frivolous.

II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In light of the above, the Court below clearly lacked subject matter in rem jurisdiction. The judgment of the Court must be reversed. Despite the implication that such a jurisdictional

defect as to in rem cases afflicts exists all Courts of the State of Hawaii, including this Honorable Court, this Court clearly has the corrective power to reverse the Court below. This Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate jurisdiction.

Moreover, this Honorable Intermediate Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear appeals in a civil action as it has the power under H.R.S. § 641-2. to " . . . to review, reverse, affirm, amend, or modify such judgment, order, or decree, in whole or in part, as to any or all of the parties." The most critical question on appeal is whether the Court below had appropriate subject matter jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction to assert and determine jurisdiction. . Durfee v.
Duke, 375 U.S. 106 (1983) and Lingle v. Hawaii Government Employees Ass'n, 107 Haw. 175 (2008),

This Honorable Intermediate Court of Appeals is obligated to dismiss and reverse the judgment below of the court below lacked territorial subject matter jurisdiction.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW:

Under the Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Lingle v. Hawaii Government Employees Association, 107 Haw. 178, 111 P.3d 587 (2005) the existence of jurisdiction is a question of law that the Supreme Court of Hawaii reviews de novo under the right/wrong standard.

As to the fourth and fifth point of error; this Honorable Court reviews both de novo and under the abuse of discretion standard.

IV. STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES

There are three other related cases to the instant appeal. All three cases are in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit of the State of Hawaii. The most recent case, case S.P. 16-1-0816 RAN, the Court refused to Stay the proceedings pending the outcome of this appeal, and ruled on August 17th, 2016. A written Final Order and Judgment is still outstanding. The ruling was also

inconsistent with the First Circuit Court Final Order giving rise to the instant appeal. The two other related cases granted petitions for the expungement of similar deeds. The first was by Judge Nacino of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit who issued a minute order granting the petition while simultaneously denying petitioner’s motion to find that the deeds were frivolous and denying sanctions. A second Petition for expungement brought before Judge Nacino S.P. 15- 1-0160 resulted in an Order of both expungement and sanctions pursuant to a finding that the deeds were frivolous.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. INTRODUCTION

The territorial boundaries of the State of Hawaii, as defined in Section Two of the Admission Act and Section One of the Hawaii State Constitution limit the territorial boundaries of the State of Hawaii only to those lands acquired by the Joint Resolution of 1898. It is impossible, illogical, and as a matter of fact, simply false, that the Joint Resolution of 1898 acquired the Hawaiian Islands as territory of the United States.3 Indeed, the incapacity of the Joint Resolution to act as a Treaty and acquire the Hawaiian Islands was well known, and extensively argued by Senators opposing the Joint Resolution during the Senate Debate on the Joint Resolution in the summer of 1898. [See compilation of statements of Senators in Opposition in Appendix B].

For more than a century, the people of Hawaii, both Native Hawaiians, Nationals of the Kingdom of Hawaii and others have been intentionally deceived by the United States, the

Territory of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii into accepting the claim that the Joint Resolution of 1898 acquired the Hawaiian Islands as territory of the United States. No joint resolution, as a mere act or bill of the Congress or legislature of one nation can unilaterally perform the function of a treaty and acquire from another sovereign and independent nation, such as the Nation of Hawaii, in 1898, either the sovereignty of that nation or its public lands 4

B. THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF 18985

The evidence of a century of absolute and manifest deceit can be found in the laws of the United States Congress itself. Under Section 7b of the Admission Act of 1959, the very act of Congress that supposedly admitted Hawaii as a State in the Union, the United States deceptively denied to the State of Hawaii and its people any lands or waters within that State. In short, under Section 7b of the Act of Admission of 1959 the United States compelled the people of Hawaii to accept boundaries drafted by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs so as to relinquish any claims as to the territory and waters of Hawaii.6 The Joint Resolution had no

power to acquire any islands or waters of the Nation of Hawaii in 1898. This fact was admitted implicitly by the United States in a 1988 opinion from a Deputy Attorney General of the United States.7 Moreover, the official historian of the United States Department of State has retracted, in the last two years, the official history of how the United States acquired Hawaii. 8

By questions one and two of the plebiscite of June 27, 1959, the people of Hawaii voted for the admission of Hawaii as a State in the Union, while, at the same time, voting to exclude any dominion within the future state. Both questions one and two were required to be passed by a majority of the electorate otherwise Hawaii would not be admitted as a State in the Union. The acceptance of an "empty state" was thus a condition subsequent attached to the admission of Hawaii as a State.

C. THE COURT BELOW HAD A DUTY TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE BOUNDARY DESCRIPTIONS THAT CLEARY DEMONSTRATED A LACK OF IN REM JURISDICTION

The Court below had a mandatory obligation under Rule 202(b) of the Hawaii Rules of Evidence to apply all laws of Congress and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii.9 The lack of

territorial in rem subject matter jurisdiction can be raised by any party, including the Court, at any time in the proceedings, even after judgment. A judgment lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void not voidable.10 See Lingle v. Hawaii Government Employees Ass'n, 107 Haw. 175 (2008)

The Appellant Lorenzo clearly prevails under a de novo application of the right/wrong standard as the Joint Resolution, as a mere bill or act of Congress has no power to acquire territory of another foreign and sovereign nation. Under a de novo review of the title of the State of Hawaii to the three parcels herein in question Defendant Lorenzo also prevails as the failure of the Joint Resolution to acquire the dominion and sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands similarly denies it the ability to acquire, unilaterally, the dominion of public lands, held by a foreign, independent and sovereign government, the Republic of Hawaii.

The Joint Resolution of 1898 did not acquire Hawaii as Territory of the United States. Therefore, the Court below lacked in rem subject matter jurisdiction over the parcels herein in question. Moreover, as the joint resolution is the basis by which the State claims to derive its ownership in the land herein, the impotence of the Resolution to acquire any public lands of the Republic of Hawaii undermines the State's standing herein as having ownership or an interest in the parcels involved in this case.

In the Joint Resolution of 1898 the United States unilaterally asserts that the Republic of Hawaii conveyed all of its public lands by the terms of the Constitution of the Republic of

Hawaii. 11 The Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii contains no such provision. [See Appendix C "Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii."]

Thereupon, the United States, in a document not consented to or signed by the Republic of Hawaii, "offered" to itself the public lands of Hawaii, and consequently "accepted," their own offer.12 Thus, the public lands of the Republic of Hawaii were simply "taken" by a unilateral act of the Congress Act of the United States, a joint resolution,--which has no more effect on the dominion of a foreign, independent and sovereign nation, than a bill or an act.13

D. AS A MATTER OF HISTORICAL FACT THE JOINT RESOLUTION DID NOT CONVEY THE PUBLIC LANDS OF THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII TO THE UNITED STATES NOR DID IT VEST SOVEREIGNTY OVER HAWAII IN THE UNITED STATES

In fact, the Republic of Hawaii ignored the United States' claim that the Joint Resolution conveyed the public lands of the Republic of Hawaii to the United States on the effective date of

the Joint Resolution, July 7, 1898. President Dole who assumed the Presidency of the Provisional Government on August 12, 1898 gave, granted or sold enormous tracts of public lands to third parties, not the United States, after the effective date of the Joint Resolution. Clearly, this is proof that as a matter of "fact" the Joint Resolution did not convey the public lands to the United States. Dole's practice was so persistent that the United States Attorney General wrote two opinions declaring such transfers of land void. Nevertheless, Dole continued to make grants and conveyances of the public lands. [See Appendix F and Appendix G]

President McKinley was forced to issue an Executive Order declaring all such grants void and requiring Dole and the Republic of Hawaii to refund the monies received from grantees or purchasers. Long after the effective date of the Joint Resolution, Dole still refused and continued to make grants. Finally, Dole commissioned General A.S. Hartwell as a special emissary to the United States. Territories of the United States do not have foreign relations powers so as to appoint ambassadors--particularly as to the United States.

General Hartwell was not well received in Washington. Nevertheless his letter of October 31, 1899 is extremely noteworthy. Hartwell stated that the position of Hawaii was that the Joint Resolution had no application in Hawaii and that the only means by which the United States could acquire Hawaii and its public lands was to ratify the Treaty of 1897. The United States Senate, pursuant to Article Two of the constitution never ratified the Constitution and never even took a vote on the Treaty.[See Appendix M]

Proponents of the Annexation Treaty administration could never muster the two-thirds super majority necessary to ratify the treaty. Under article VII the Treaty could only be ratified in the manner required by the United States Constitution--by a two thirds vote of Senators present.

The treaty if passed would have acted to convey both sovereignty over all of the dominion of the Hawaiian Islands [as claimed by the Republic of Hawaii in its Constitution] and the public lands. Thus, if the treaty had been ratified, plaintiffs could make a claim that the parcels herein were real property of the State.

As the letters of Hartwell, particularly the letter of October 31, 1899 to President McKinley demonstrate, [See Appendix M] the Republic never consented to the terms of the Joint Resolution. As to many matters, the Republic snubbed the Joint Resolution after the effective date of the Joint Resolution and continued to act as a sovereign nation: The Republic of Hawaii continued to register ships under the Hawaiian flag. [See Appendix H] The Republic of Hawaii actively continued its dealings and affairs with foreign nations. It sought to negotiate on its own with Great Britain to settle claims arising from the 1893 overthrow.

The Republic of Hawaii maintained its consulates in many countries. It negotiated treaties of immigration with other nations.
The Republic of Hawaii also contested the claim of the United States that Chinese who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii and left Hawaii prior to the effective date of the Joint Resolution only to return after that date, July 7, 1898, should not be excluded from Hawaii under the Chinese Exclusion Laws of the United States.

The United States claimed Hawaii was, after July 7, 1898, the effective date of the Joint Resolution the territory of the United States and that therefore the Chinese Exclusion laws of the United States barred all Chinese from coming to the United States, even if that included Hawaii. The Republic of Hawaii took the position that Hawaii was not acquired by the United States by the Joint Resolution of Annexation. Hawaii was not thus part of the United States immediately as of July 7, 1898 and that Chinese who were citizens of Hawaii could freely return to Hawaii subsequent to July 7th 1898. The Attorney

General agreed and the Republic prevailed--Hawaii was not made territory of the United States for the purposes of the Chinese Exclusion Act as of July 7, 1898. [See Appendix I]
It is thus clear that as a matter of actual historical fact that the Joint Resolution of 1898 did not, in fact, immediately lead to United States sovereignty and jurisdiction over Hawaii.14 Instead, Hawaii ignored the joint resolution and proceeded to act as a sovereign state, maintaining its name, The Republic of Hawaii had a President, a Foreign Minister, Embassies and Consuls in many foreign nations, the power to register ships under its own Flag and the persistence of the laws of the Republic, not that of the United States or its Constitution.15

Some theorists espouse the "transition period" theory that the Joint Resolution did not actually acquire the Hawaiian Islands but merely placed the Hawaiian Islands and the Republic under the jurisdiction of the United States. This first step was to be followed by the actual acquisition of the Hawaiian Island by the Organic Act, This argument was clearly incoherent as a "bootstrap" claim. If the United States had no power to acquire Hawaii by an act of Congress,

which it did not, it had no power to preliminary jurisdiction over Hawaii by which acquisition could follow.

The falsehood of this theory was made clear when the Supreme Court of the Republic of Hawaii, not a court of the United States, held that involuntary servitude as practiced by the sugar industry did not violate the thirteenth amendment. The Court held that the thirteenth amendment simply did not apply in the Republic---a clear contradiction with the "transition" theory claim that the joint resolution merely extended United States jurisdiction over Hawaii. [See Appendix L]

The explicit terms of the thirteenth amendment deem that said amendment is applicable both to "the United States" and to all areas "subject to its jurisdiction."16

Two courts systems, one the existing judiciary of the Republic of Hawaii, and the other, federal courts created and appointed by McKinley fought each other as to which law applied in Hawaii--the existing laws of the Republic of Hawaii, or the laws of the United 
States.

Soon, federal United States judges were freeing prisoners of the Republic of Hawaii pursuant to habeas corpus under the United States Bill of Rights. A defendant might be convicted under the laws of the Republic of Hawaii only to be later released on the grounds that the laws of the United States, not that of the Republic were applicable at the time of the crime. See Republic of Hawaii
v. Edwards, 12 Haw. 55 (May 31, 1899) followed by the habeas action in Ex Parte Edwards, 13 Haw. 32 (October 9, 1900).

The Republic of Hawaii immediately would re-arrest such criminals under the laws of the Republic only to have them released again under habeas corpus by federal judges.

There was absolute chaos in law, business, social and political affairs. In a report to the United States Congress, the commission created by the Joint Resolution of 1898 reported that a crisis paralyzed Hawaii.17 The Republic of Hawaii absolutely repudiated the effect of the Joint Resolution. This is made clear in archival evidence, opinions of the United States Attorney General and in subsequent investigations of the United States Senate.

There was only one solution. By implicit use of military and political force the United States simply wiped out the Republic of Hawaii by the enactment of the Organic Act--creating a new entity named the "Territory of Hawaii", which was not really considered to be "politically" within the United States.

This was made clear by section two of the Organic Act which stated that the only lands and waters within this new "Territory of Hawaii" were those lands and waters acquired by the Joint Resolution of 1898. It is clear that no Joint Resolution could acquire the dominion of a foreign, sovereign and independent nation such as Hawaii. If the United States

could so acquire Hawaii, then the Hawaiian legislature under the principle of the equality of states could itself acquire the United States. If the United States acquired Hawaii by a mere bill, or joint resolution, then any nation, by an act of its parliament, Congress, or King, could acquire any other nation. Such an incoherent claim would completely undermine the very concept of a "nation" and of "sovereignty."

The impossibility of a resolution acquiring Hawaii was the basis of massive objections in the United States Senate. Only two Senators stood to attempt to explain how a resolution could acquire Hawaii. [ See Appendix A at pages 85 to 90].

Both explanations were ridiculous, one Senator retracted his position [See exchange between Senator Allen and Senator Foraker at pages 5 and 6 of Appendix B] and the other Senator Stewart of Nevada was pushed to conclude that by his logic, the Congress of the United States alone "could annex anything. " [ See Appendix A at Page 86]. In Hawaii, the Republic of Hawaii opposed the Joint Resolution.

Contrary to common belief, the Republic did not implicitly "consent" to annexation. Hawaii did not consent to annexation it was coerced into accepting terms that the Republic had never agreed to. [See letter from A.S. Hartwell to President McKinley, October 31, 1899 in Appendix M].

The Joint Resolution was an unconstitutional end run around the treaty and foreign affairs powers delegated solely to the President and the Senate. It was prophesized that carving this giant exception to the United State constitution would forever change, if not destroy the United States Constitution. [See Statement of Senator Bacon in Appendix A at page 89].

The Joint Resolution passed by a majority in the House and Senate simply because the United States was at war with Spain. Hawaii was a strategic base for the invasion of the Philippines. Moreover, the United States has never claimed it acquired Hawaii by conquest [it couldn't meet the requirements under international law] by treaty, or by acquisitive prescription. Rather the United

States stuck to the claim that it acquired Hawaii by Joint Resolution. The territorial boundaries of Hawaii, set in 1900 such that there were no lands or waters within the Territory were carefully reconstructed to constitute the boundaries of the State of Hawaii in the same manner. 18

E. THE ORIGINS OF BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs took charge of re-writing the
boundaries of Hawaii such that it was unreadable, confusing, and completely deceptive. No one, not even judges obliged to do so, ever read or even attempted to interpret the boundaries of Hawaii. Boundaries are the most important laws of any state or nation. Yet, the deception was continued at statehood.

The Senate committee convened task forces, held non--public hearings and created six drafts of the new boundary amendment that simply restated that Hawaii was empty--that it consisted of islands that could never be acquired by a joint resolution.

The proof that the deception was intentional lies in the fact that the Senate committee received a memorandum from the Congressional Research Service that pointed out that the claim of that Hawaii was acquired by Joint Resolution was considered insupportable by some constitutional scholars. See footnote 18.

The need to deceive was undoubtedly motivated by Cold War fears of Soviet challenges to United States claims in the Pacific.19
The real proof that the United States deliberately engaged in deception rests in the Admission Act. Under Section 7b of that act.

Section 7b required the people of Hawaii, not only to approve statehood, but as a package deal to also approve the new, complex federal boundary language to amend the Hawaii State Constitution. This sudden move was prompted by a letter from Presidential troubleshooter Clark Clifford. Clifford, in a letter to Senator Earle Clements noted that if the proposed constitution for the new State of Hawaii, as drafted by the Territorial Constitutional Commission were not amended, the boundary language contained in the State Constitution would not be the same as that drafted by the Senate. This would be catastrophic.

There would be two different descriptions of the dominion of the State of Hawaii.20

Congress insisted that the federal boundary description be accepted by the people---as a condition subsequent of statehood. In short, if the boundaries of the State were not amended to conform to the federal definition, both by the Act of Admission and by the new State Constitution, Hawaii would not be admitted as a State.

Of course, the proposed means of amending the State Constitution was not in conformity with the terms for amendment as stated in the already approved State Constitution. The State Constitution could not be amended as required by that document as several delegates had died since its promulgation.

Yet, it was absolutely necessary that the boundary description in the State Constitution be amended. The boundary provision in the State Constitution was embarrassing. It was absolutely too simplistic and lacking in precision. It simply stated that the new state boundaries were to be the same as that of the former Territory---meaning that the dominion of the new state would consist of islands and waters acquired by the 1898 Joint Resolution.

That language, used in the 1900 Organic Act, was a huge mistake. If used again in the description of the dominion of the State of Hawaii in 1959 it would immediately stand out in its lack of precision. Clearly, it would call world attention to the completely untenable claim that the United States asserted its sovereignty over Hawaii by reason of the enactment of a joint resolution in Congress in 1898, after the failure to ratify a treaty of annexation. In 1959 it would be evident to the world that the past 61

years of United States rule in Hawaii was an unlawful occupation hidden from the world.

Thus, the original definition in the State Constitution could never be used in the admission of Hawaii as a State. The job fell to the Senate Committee Interior and Insular Affairs to draft a territorial description that maintained the status quo but hid the illegality of United States occupation in Hawaii behind a wall of obtuse and confusing language that would constitute the new boundaries of Hawaii.

This was a daunting task. The delegation from Hawaii pushing the original language of the proposed state constitution was simply squashed and silenced. The Hawaii delegation was forced to retract Hawaii's claims to the channel waters between the main islands as made since the time of the Kingdom as well as its clear title the island of Palmyra.

The Senate Committee deemed these claims would simply be lightning rods drawing attention to the underlying failure of the United States to legally acquire Hawaii by treaty. The Hawaii delegation, led in 1953 and 1954 by C. Nils Tavares, the former Territorial Attorney General, simply caved in on maintaining the integrity of the original dominion of Hawaii, as set forth by the laws of the Kingdom, the Provisional Government, the Republic of Hawaii and even by the laws of the Territory of Hawaii.

The Hawaii delegation gave in and relinquished Hawaii's claim to the channel waters [the archipelagic theory] between the main islands and Hawaii's longstanding claim of dominion over the island of Palmyra, annexed by the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1864.

From February of 1953 until late January of 1954 the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, largely under the leadership of Senator Anderson from New Mexico, invested huge resources and enormous energy in re-drafting a boundary description to be forced upon the people of Hawaii that would so complex, so tangled, so difficult to read, that the world would never realize that Hawaii, its Territory and now its State, actually had no dominion--that it

consisted of islands acquired by an act of Congress when acts of Congress had no power to acquire the territory of another sovereign and independent nation.

The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs thus held numerous hearings, including non--public hearings, convened wide-ranging task forces and brought forth six committee drafts while searching for the proper approach. The committee tried every approach--from that of using the boundary description of the Philippines, taken from the 1898 Paris Peace Treaty, to the final approach--by which Hawaii was defined, not by the islands within the Territory of Hawaii, but by naming the islands that would not be within Hawaii.

It is clear that the Senate Committee was made aware that the United States lacked jurisdiction and sovereignty over Hawaii in that the joint resolution of 1898, in all likelihood, had absolutely no power to acquire the dominion of the foreign nation of Hawaii. Senator Anderson commissioned and received a report from the Congressional Research Service which included critical language from a noted constitutional scholar that a joint resolution could acquire Hawaii for the United States.21

Thus, the false front by which the United States claimed to annex Hawaii in 1898, was bolstered and fortified by a boundary description in the Act of Admission, so obtuse and tangled that no federal or state Court in Hawaii save one has ever actually examined that provision in an attempt to discern the true boundaries of Hawaii.

With great skill, the final version of the new boundary for the State of Hawaii, Committee Print No. 6, produced in January of 1954, was so indecipherable and dense that many Senators admitted that they had no clue as to the dominion of the future state of Hawaii.
Congress had several reasons for insisting that its boundary description displace the boundary description originally included in the proposed constitution as drafted by the people of Hawaii.

First and foremost, Congress was well aware that the Hawaiian Islands were never acquired by the United States. Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, a member of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee had commissioned a report from the Congressional Research Service on the original acquisition of Hawaii. William Tansil, of the Congressional Research Service wrote back, providing a report that pointed out that some scholars, the notable constitutional scholar Westel Willoughby in particular, had strong reservations that Hawaii was ever acquired as it was acquired by a mere joint resolution of Congress.

The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, in charge of drafting the Hawaii Statehood Bill in 1953, was working at a time when the United States and the Soviet Union were in a desperate struggle for world credibility.

This was the time of the "Cold War." The United States was then waging an enormous propaganda campaign against the Soviet Union. The United States portrayed itself as the champion of democracy around the world.

The United States also vehemently condemned the Soviet Union for its aggressive and interventionist policies in Eastern Europe. United States rhetoric painted the Soviet Union as having no respect for self- determination and the national sovereignty of other nations. The United States used the Soviet control over the "Eastern Bloc," and its acts in Poland, Hungary and Eastern Germany as proof of Soviet animosity towards self-determination and human rights.

The Soviet Union had ammunition as well against the United States. The Soviet bloc criticized the United States for maintaining "colonies" as to Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, Guam and other insular territories such as American Samoa.

Thus, it was a high priority for the United States to upgrade its world image as the champion of democracy by elevating territories such as Alaska and Hawaii to the status of States in the Union. The United Nations maintained a list of "non-self governing" or "colonial" territories around the world.

It was a black mark for a major nation to be in possession of many colonies, or "non-self-governing territories." Undoubtedly, the powerful move to grant Alaska and Hawaii statehood during the Cold War was largely motivated by the desire of the United States to improve its image before the world.22 The people of Hawaii wer

deceived about section two--they were required to pass that section by a majority, amending the constitution, or Statehood would be denied. The people, however, were never given the text of that description, nor were they every told of its real effect.23

The deception has been so complete that in 1978, the constitutional convention, unaware of the real meaning of the boundary definition in the State Constitution, the amendment foisted upon Hawaii by the United States actually amended the description of the State boundaries as to include the channel waters between the main islands.

This was the boundaries claimed by the Kingdom and the constitutional delegates saw no reason for the United States to deny Hawaii those waters.

By amending the State Constitution's definition of Hawaii, a definition tied to section 7b of the Admission Act, the people of Hawaii violated a condition subsequent to statehood that is expressed clearly in the Admission Act. In this sense, Hawaii should no longer be even a state-- even if it is empty.

By the covenant set with Congress in 1959, the people of Hawaii agreed that the definition forged in 1959 by the United States Congress would never be changed. Otherwise statehood would be taken from Hawaii. It seems improbable that the United States would ever force a State to leave the Union--but the mere existence of section 7b shows that such a possibility was exactly what Congress contemplated.

Thus, the question must be asked: Which is the is the "wild deed?" that filed by the defendant or that by which the petitioners claim title to the land they claimed was harmed by the actions of the defendant?

Which claim is more "frivolous" and lacking in a basis in law? The deed or lack thereof of the State to the parcels its claimed here, or the Appellant’s claim based in his conveyance.

It is the burden of those claiming ownership24, the State of Hawaii, to show a proper and unbroken chain of title to these so-called "ceded lands." Any possibility of a chain of title wa

broken in 1898--how did the United States receive the public lands of Hawaii? There was no treaty. The Joint Resolution was incapable of acquiring the public lands.

The actions of the Dole government after the effective date of the Joint Resolution clearly demonstrate that as a matter of "fact" the United States did not acquire any public lands by cession from the Republic of Hawaii.

V. CONCLUSION

Which of the two parties then, in the above entitled case, is the creator of “wild deeds”?

For all the reasons stated above this Honorable Appellate Court must reverse the judgment below.

DATED: HONOLULU, HAWAII SEPTEMBER 9, 2016

Respectfully yours,

/s/ Williamson B.C. Chang, Esq. Williamson B.C. Chang, Esq. /s/ Burton D., Gould, Esq. Burton Gould, Esq.

Attorneys’ for Appellant/Respondent Windyceslau D. Lorenzo, a.k.a. Kamehameha VI.

FOOTNOTES

1 Mr. Mahoe's Affidavit is clearly erroneous.

Proof of the very break in the chain of clean title can be found in the affidavit of the State's expert, Ernest M. Collins, who, in his sworn testimony, traces the chain of title to the parcels herein in the following manner. First, Mr. Mahoe states that the lands were retained by Kamehameha III in the Mahele. Second, Mr. Mahoe states that said lands were devised to Kamehameha IV and subsequently descend to Kamehameha V, subject to dower rights in Queen Emma. Third, Mr. Mahoe notes that by a deed, dated January 1, 1865, Queen Emma quitclaimed her interest in these lands to the Hawaiian Government.

Then, by the Act of January 3, 1865, said lands were rendered inalienable and placed under the control of the office of the Commissioner of Crown lands. Thereafter, these lands were known as "Crown Lands. " Mr. Mahoe then states that said that these lands were seized by the Provisional Government of Hawai'i [assumingly by reason of the overthrow which succeeded only because of the intervention of the United States.]

Mr. Mahoe does not render an opinion as to how the lands become lands of the Republic of Hawaii. The Republic of Hawai’i’s validity and legitimacy is specious at best. However, as it is deemed to be the successor to the Provisional Government; the question of how the lands became lands of the Republic of Hawaii, itself, raises serious questions of international law, which while not the subject of this case on appeal, should nevertheless not be ignored..

Mr. Mahoe completely fails thereafter to explain how these lands become lands of the United States. He states that the lands are "ceded to the United States of America under the Organic Act of April 30, 1900 and subsequently transferred to the State of Hawaii. . ." Mr. Mahoe gives no explanation of what he means by "ceded." If "cede" means "give" then he presents no evidence or instrument showing that these lands were given to the United States.

He makes no claim that these lands were "ceded" to the United States by the Joint Resolution, by a deed from the Republic of Hawaii, by the Treaty of Annexation of 1897, or by the Joint Resolution of 1899, 30 Stat 750.

His expertise is completely undermined by his failure to professionally describe the means of conveyance in 1898.Indeed, Mr. Mahoe, despite his expertise, diverges from the "party line" and the longstanding claim of the United States, that it acquired the public lands of the Republic of Hawai'i by the Joint Resolution which became effective July 7, 1898.

The United States itself does not claim it acquired the public lands by the Organic Act. Mr. Mahoe does not provide any citation or direct our attention to any provision of the Organic Act which states that the lands were "ceded" by the Organic Act.

Finally, Mr. Mahoe's reliance on the Organic is undermined by Section Two of the Organic Act itself which states that the Territory of Hawaii, created by the Organic Act, consists of, that is, already consists of the islands acquired by the Joint Resolution of two years earlier.

Mr. Mahoe would be hard put to explain how the United States which claims it acquired these

lands by way of the Joint Resolution in 1898 again received these lands in the Organic Act. Is his position that the United States having these lands, ceded these lands to itself in 1900?

It is self- evident that there is an enormous gap in the chain of title to these lands. That gap is 1898 and the United States, and subsequently the State of Hawaii, cannot explain how these lands moved from the Republic of Hawai'i to the United States.

There is no truth to this claim, and thus Mr. Mahoe violated the oath he gave when swearing to the truth of his affidavit.

2 Durfee v. Duke, 84 S.Ct. 242 (1964);

3 See Appendix "A: at pages 70 at pages 94 -102 .Chang, Darkness over Hawaii: Annexation Myth Greatest Obstacle to Progress," 16 Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal 70 (2016) http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/…/09/APLPJ_16_2_Chang.pdf [Last checked April 8, 2016 750pm]

4 See also Appendix B "Senators Who Opposed Annexation: The Great Debate of 1898" at pages 78-83.

No Footnote 5

6 The Admission Act. An Act to Provide for the Admission of the State of Hawai'i into the Union. (Act of March 18, 1959, Pub L 86-3 73 Stat4)
Section 7.
(a) The proclamation of the Governor of Hawai'i required by section 6 shall provide for the holding of a primary election and a general election and at such elections the officers required to be elected as provided in section 6 shall be chosen by the people.

Such elections shall be held, and the qualifications of voters thereat shall be, as prescribed by the constitution of the proposed State of Hawai'i for the election of members of the proposed State legislature.

The returns thereof shall be made and certified in such manner as the constitution of the proposed State of Hawai'i may prescribe. The Governor of Hawai'i shall certify the results of said elections, as so ascertained, to the President of the United States.

(b) At an election designated by proclamation of the Governor of Hawaii, which may be either the primary or the general election held pursuant to subsection (a)of this section, or a territorial general election, or a special election, there shall be submitted to the electors qualified to vote in said election, for adoption or rejection, the following propositions:

"(1) Shall Hawai'i immediately be admitted into the Union as a State?

"(2) The boundaries of the State of Hawai'i shall be as prescribed in the
Act of Congress approved 
(Date of approval of this act)
and all claims of this State to any areas of land or sea outside the boundaries so prescribed are hereby irrevocably relinquished to the United States.

"(3) All provisions of the Act of Congress approved 
(Date of approval of this act) reserving rights or powers to the United States, as well as those prescribing the terms or
conditions of the grants of lands or other property therein made to the State of Hawai'i are consented to fully by said State and its people."

In the event the foregoing propositions are adopted at said election by a majority of the legal votes cast on said submission, the proposed constitution of the proposed State of Hawaii, ratified by the people at the election held on November 7, 1950, shall be deemed amended as follows:

Section 1 of article XIII of said proposed constitution shall be deemed amended so as to contain the language of section2 of this Act in lieu of any other language; article XI shall be deemed to include the provisions of section 4 of this Act; and section 8 of article XIV shall be deemed amended so as to contain the language of the third proposition above stated in lieu of any other language, and section 10of article XVI shall be deemed amended by inserting the words "at which officers for all state elective offices provided for by this constitution and two Senators and one Representative in Congress shall be nominated and elected" in lieu of the words "at which officers for all state elective offices provided for by this constitution shall be nominated and elected; but the officers so to be elected shall in any event include two Senators and two Representatives to the Congress, and unless and until otherwise required by law, said Representatives shall be elected at large".

In the event the foregoing propositions are not adopted at said election by a majority of the legal votes cast on said submission, the provisions of this Act shall cease to be effective.

The Governor of Hawai'i is hereby authorized and directed to take such action as may be necessary or appropriate to insure the submission of said propositions to the people.

The return of the votes cast on said propositions shall be made by the election officers directly to the Secretary of Hawaii, who shall certify the results of the submission to the Governor. The Governor shall certify the results of said submission, as so ascertained, to the President of the United States.

(c) If the President shall find that the propositions set forth in the preceding subsection have been duly adopted by the people of Hawaii, the President, upon certification of the returns of the election of the officers required to be elected as provided in section 6 of this Act, shall thereupon issue his proclamation announcing the results of said election as so ascertained.

Upon the issuance of said proclamation by the President, the State of Hawai'i shall be deemed admitted into the Union as provided in section 1 of this Act.

Until the said State is so admitted into the Union, the persons holding legislative, executive, and judicial office in, under, or by authority of the government of said Territory, and the Delegate in Congress thereof, shall continue to discharge the duties of their respective offices.

Upon the issuance of said proclamation by the President of the United States and the admission of the State of Hawai'i into the Union, the officers elected at said election, and qualified under the provisions of the constitution and laws of said State, shall proceed to exercise all the functions pertaining to their

offices in, under, or by authority of the government of said State, and officers not required to be elected at said initial election shall be selected or continued in office as provided by the constitution and laws of said State.

The Governor of said State shall certify the election of the Senators and Representatives in the manner required by law, and the said Senators and Representatives shall be entitled to be admitted to seats in Congress and to all the rights and privileges of Senators and Representatives of other States in the Congress of the United States.

7 See Appendix A at pages 83 to 85: "In a The 1988 Legal Opinion of the Department of Justice: Constitutionality." Douglas Kmiec, a Deputy Attorney General, in providing advice to the Legal Advisor of the United States Department of State, acknowledged that the admission of Texas as a State by Joint Resolution is not a sufficient precedent for the acquisition of the Territory of Hawaii.

Mr. Kmiec goes on to admit that he cannot discern any constitutional basis by which the United States acquired the Hawaiian Islands. [Change and add] Mr. Kmiec cites to the writings of the Constitutional scholar Westel Willoughby who wrote in 1929:

"The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press.

The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act. . . . Only by means of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force -- confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted."

See Westel Woodbury Willoughby, The Constitutional Law of the United States § 239, at 27 (2d ed. 1929)

8 Prior to April of 2014, the Official Historian of the United States Department of State who maintains an official website of the history of the United States, specifically as to the history of the foreign affairs of the United States, had a segment [the whole history of the United States is divided into such segments] on the history of the "Annexation of Hawaii."

In that onsite history, the Official Historian admitted that the United States annexed Hawai'i by the Joint Resolution of 1898. In the last two years the Official Historian has twice changed the language of that website. . . . .

The description of the history of Hawai'i prior to the removal of said language read as follows:

“Annexation of Hawaii, 1898: America's annexation of Hawai'i in 1898 extended U.S. territory into the Pacific and highlighted resulted from economic integration and the rise of the United States as a Pacific power.

For most of the 1800s, leaders in Washington were concerned that Hawai'i might become part of a European nation's empire. During the 1830s, Britain and France forced Hawai'i to accept treaties giving them economic privileges. In 1842, Secretary of State Daniel Webster sent a letter to Hawaiian agents in Washington affirming U.S. interests in Hawai'i and opposing annexation by any other nation.

He also proposed to Great Britain and France that no nation should seek special privileges or engage in further colonization of the islands. In 1849, the United States and Hawai'i concluded a treaty of friendship that served as the basis of official relations between the parties.”

See The Annexation of Hawaii, 1898 athttp://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/hawaii. The language showing the changes and the text that was removed can be above that is now removed was [delete[ acquired recently using a “wayback” program available on the internet that allows examination of websites that have been removed

https://archive.org/help/wayback_api.php [Last Visited February 124 2016 6:50 AM]

9 Rule 202. Judicial notice of law, Hawai'i Rules of Evidence, Hawai'i Revised Statutes Chapter 626

(a) ) Scope of rule. This rule governs only judicial notice of law.

(b) Mandatory judicial notice of law. The court shall take judicial notice of (1) the common law,

(2) the constitutions and statutes of the United States and of every state, territory, and other jurisdiction of the United States, (3) all rules adopted by the United States Supreme Court or by the Hawai'i Supreme Court, and (4) all duly enacted ordinances of cities or counties of this State.

. . . .

10 [See Brief]

11 [See Brief]

13 If the Treaty of Annexation of 1897 had been ratified by both the United States and the Republic of Hawai'i title to the public lands of the Republic of Hawai'i would have passed to the United States. [See Appendix E "Proposed Treaty of Annexation of 1897"] That Treaty failed and was never ratified by the United States.

14 The Republic of Hawaii, unlike any previous American "territory" had a foreign minister and ambassadors to many nations. The registration of ships, the refusal of the Republic to comply with United States taxes, its immigration of Chinese contrary to United States policy,[See Appendix I] its dealings with Great Britain and most of all its refusal to accept any United States claim to the public lands were all the subject of angry opinions of the United States Attorney General.

15 The refusal to accept "annexation" as unilaterally proclaimed by the United States ended only because of the chaos created by two legal and political systems vying for control over the lands, economy, and courts of Hawaii. . . .

The chaos and confusion created an interregnum or state of affairs where the confusion over which law applied, Hawaiian or American, brought civil affairs, the economy and the application of the laws to a standstill.

16 The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

17 "Meanwhile it has become apparent that there is much doubt about the power granted to the local government of Hawai'i by the provisions of the joint resolution and that in many respects there is something like an interregnum in Hawaii. . .

In many respects the business affairs of the Territory are brought to a standstill. Many Americans have bought government land since annexation on which they have built residences and planted crops, but their land titles are now in dispute and cannot be settled until the passage of this bill. [referring to an Organic Act of Congress establishing a Government for Hawaii] . See House Report no. 305 of the House of Representatives of the 56th Cong. 1st Session, "Government for the Territory of Hawaii." February 12, 1900.

18 The United States admitted that it had no dominion over Hawai'i probably because it could never meet the burden of proof, if called upon, to prove a clean chain of sovereignty.

Thus, if a Russian Submarine came within the territorial waters of Hawai'i and was ordered out of those waters by United States warships, the United States could never defend its claim to the territorial waters of Hawaii.

. . . .

During the cold war the United States was extremely careful to hide the fact that it did not actually acquire Hawaii. Thus, upon the proposed admission of Hawai'i as a State in the Union, a move that would undermine Soviet criticism of United States colonialism in the Pacific, the United States Congress took enormous pains to draft the boundaries of the State of Hawai'i in the most obtuse language possible.

19 For a brief description of the enormous efforts Congress undertook to disguise the United States' lack of sovereignty see Appendix A at pages 90 to 106]

20 [ See Brief] 
. . . .

It is suggested that the set of admissions approving the constitution might contain a description of the boundaries of the new state differing from the boundaries established in the original constitution, thereby posing the legal problems hereinbefore state.
. . . .
This would, of course, entail considerable delay both in respect to the adoption of a new constitution and its subsequent approval by the Congress. Respectfully submitted, [signed] Clark M. Clifford"

21 See the Memorandum written by William Tansil to Senator Clinton P. Anderson of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, titled, " The Inapplicability of the Commonwealth Concept to Alaska and Hawaii" (Statement prepared at the request of Hon. Clinton P. Anderson." April 1, 1954. copy on file with the author, acquired from the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress.

See page 5:

" This question has never been passed upon directly by the Supreme Court, as it consistently has recognized that the methods and means of acquiring territory constitute matters which are within the province exclusively of the political branches of government.

Westel W. Willoughby, in his classic Constitutional Law of the United States ( New York, 1929, 2d ed., vol. 1 p. 429, maintains that
'. . . . annexation by legislative act was constitutionally justified upon the same ground that the extension of American sovereignty by statute over the Guano Islands was justified; namely, as an

22 See letter from Thruston Morton, Assistant Secretary for the Secretary of State of March 6, 1953, to Senator Hugh Butler, Chairman of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, clearly states this rationale for granting Hawai'i statehood:

"The Department considers that the admission of this Territory [Hawaii] into the Union would be in conformity with the traditional policies of the United States towards the peoples of organized Territories under its administration who have not yet become fully self-governing.

Furthermore, it [the Department of State] believed that favorable action on this proposed

legislation by the Congress would enable this Territory to achieve the full measure of self- government contemplated in the United Nations Charter to which the United States has subscribed.

It is significant to note that in the international sphere, the United States can point with satisfaction to the fact that in the constitutional development of Territories administered by it, due consideration is given to the freely expressed will of the people of those Territories."

. . . .

23 Fred Henion, Director of the Tax Foundation of Honolulu wrote an article for the Honolulu Advertiser, titled "Vote ' Yes,' 'Yes, "Yes' for Statehood," wrote:

"We are confident of the outcome on the first question: 'Shall Hawai'i be admitted immediately into the Union as a state?' An overwhelming majority of the answers will be 'Yes'.

The danger lies in the possibility that the voter, having answered the first question in the affirmatives, may leave the other two propositions unanswered.

A majority vote approving all three is required. One "No," on any of the questions is equivalent to a vote against statehood. A blank on any of the three also is a "No" vote. . . . .

The voter should have no objections to the boundaries. They are practically the same as for the Territory. All eight major islands are included. The major exclusion is the privately owned island of Palmyra.

24 The party claiming dominion or sovereignty has the burden of proof. See Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge ((Malaysia/Singapore) General list No. 130, International Court of Justice Slip Opinion page 13 12 May 2008:

The End