Aloha e nā kupa o Hawai'i nei,
The most valuable advice my father gave me was "you must learn the haole game and then beat them at their own game." In this context I would like to respond to the discussion initiated by Professor J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, Ph.D.
In the discussion posted by Ku Ching, Professor Kauanui states:
"The crimes against the Hawaiian nation in 1893 and the ramifications of which continue to this day deserve careful scrutiny by an international court, not the court of the conqueror."
As Professor Kauanui suggests the crimes against the Hawaiian nation deserves careful scrutiny which to me means that "God is in the details." At the outset, I acknowledge and admire her published works on behalf of Kanaka Maoli, and I welcome her as a fellow patriot and scholar.
If, however, she means the U.S. district (federal) court as the "court of the conqueror," then I respectfully question her conclusions for the following reasons.
First, I am a citizen of the Hawaiian Kingdom based on the principle of jus sanguinis, i.e., that I am a descendant of citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to the illegal overthrow and subsequent military and political occupation of the Kingdom since January 16, 1893. I am referring to my maternal grandparents and their parents whose race was Native Hawaiian (by U.S. definition) and my paternal grandparents and their parents whose race was Portuguese but who were all citizens of the Kingdom.
The principle of jus sanguinis according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service states that:
"Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis, which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his/her parents." (USCIS, Filing N-600K -Children's Citizenship).
Since my great-grandparents and grandparents' were Hawaiian citizens, my parents were also Hawaiian citizens, and by the same principle, so am I. The only difference is that I know I am a Hawaiian citizen whereas my forebears were mislead and coerced into a false sense of identity and nationality.
Therefore, under this principle, I must be considered an alien under U. S. law, i.e., not a U. S. citizen but rather a citizen of a foreign (to the U.S.) nation.
Second, as far as I know, as an alien I can bring a cause of action in the U.S. district (federal) court against the U.S. government for violations of civil and human rights under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), also known as the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which provides "for federal jurisdiction and a cause of action for any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States,” as well as for acts of torture committed abroad against either U.S. citizens or citizens of other nations. (28 U.S.C. §1350). This also includes violations of the Geneva Conventions, especially the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as well as the Laws of Occupation.
Therefore, the U.S. federal court does indeed have original jurisdiction over the violations against my forbearers and against me.
Third, some may argue, however, that if the Hawaiian Kingdom does in fact exist, then the U.S. Federal District Court of Hawai‘i does not have jurisdiction since it sits in a jurisdiction outside of the United States. Again, this argument is not valid given the Court has original jurisdiction over the claims brought by an alien pursuant to Article III §2 of the U. S. Constitution which states in part that:
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; ... --to controversies to which the United States shall be a party[.]"
Furthermore, venue, i.e., the location where a case is heard, is properly vested in territorial jurisdiction, i.e., the power of the district court to render a judgment pursuant to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (e)(2) as the location of the court is in one of the its primary places of business, i.e., within the Hawaiian Kingdom, where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred," and where agents of the U.S. government can be served with a summons regarding the initiation of a lawsuit through personal service pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).
So, when one looks at the details, I come to the conclusion that the crimes against the Hawaiian nation, but specifically against me, can and must be brought before the conqueror, or whatever one wishes to call the perpetrator of these crimes. It is then that the light of the truth will shine directly on those responsible for perpetuating violations of my rights as a citizen of my country.
When these avenues of seeking justice within the rules of the conqueror have been exhausted, we may then seek justice in the world court (the International Court of Justice) as well as the court of public opinion where God is in the details and truth may finally prevail.
He aha kou ‘oukou mana‘o? I invite anyone to respond in a respectful manner. Pau.
You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!
good to hear from you again
missed you on this forum
this kine topic is all about you
glad to hear that you are educating
people in general with facts and findings
instead of unsound and non credible information.
when people start quoting on their belief system
and its not credible and their source of information is not accurate,
thats when great injustice
starts being formulated without a sound foundation
to support the statements.
keoki both know you and i personally
for we are proud heirs of this Kingdom of Maui Nui.
i look forward to seeing you at other public meetings
concern issues like these, our sacrd 'aina and her people
the kanaka maoli's.
many Blessings to you and yours
mahalo Ke Akua
malama kou kino (take care of your body)...................................................~da princess~
aloha keoki,
this is me, da princess, from theVillage of Moku'Ula, Lahaina
how is moku'ula??? i haven't heard anything since the last public meeting with you.....
it was wonderful to see the rest of the other Ali'i's come and speak out with me
concerning our sacred 'aina of our Kupuna Kahiko (ancestors)
good to hear you on this forum
i had to look twice at your picture and Akua give me the vision that i was you
please give my aloha to akoni akana and his followers
that Justice be granted on our sacred 'aina of our Royal Ancestors
my many blessings to you and all of you that represents Moku'Ula and yes Akua will show us the details~~~da princess~
My wife and i will be in Maui, this coming monday. Is it possible for the three of us to meet? I would really want to talk to you more about the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), also known as the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which provides "for federal jurisdiction and a cause of action for any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States,” as well as for acts of torture committed abroad against either U.S. citizens or citizens of other nations. (28 U.S.C. §1350). Please give me a call at 808.489.7065 as soon as you possibly can. Mahalo Nui!
Mahalo for taking the time to look up the definitions of the words "conqueror," and "piracy." I commend you for your literary research skills.
Let me point out some details you have uncovered. As you noted a basic definition of "conqueror" is the following:
To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms.
This term definitely describes the actions of the U.S. armed forces from January 16, 1893 until the present.
As you also noted, the various definitions of "piracy" boils down to the following:
The act of robbery on the high seas.
I understand your desire to be precise in your use of the English language, but it does appear (by your own research) that the robbery was enacted on our ‘āina not on the high seas. So technically and legally, we are dealing with a subjugator - a conqueror who defeats and enslaves, and may I add occupies our nation by force.
Without intending to sound facetious or disrespectful, it has occurred to me that your preference for using the term "piracy" may be that the term "piracy" has a certain dramatic ring to it, bringing up images of Black Beard and Cap'n Jack Sparrow, as in "Har dee har matey, make 'em walk the gangplank"!
Also, please note that I wrote: "the conqueror, or whatever one wishes to call the perpetrator of these crimes." I choose to use the word conqueror, you choose to use pirate/piracy. Personally, AINOKEA, but I did want to commend you on your scholarship.
Finally, to be consistent in being precise in the English language, by "Royal persons" I suspect you are referring to ali‘i as individuals, while "Monarchy" and "Constitutional Monarchy" refers to a form of government and not specifically to an individual, as in a "Monarch."
This is a perfect example of the mana‘o that "God is in the details."
If I understand correctly...and please clarify if I do not, you are speakig of two seperate issues 1) My national Identity and 2) Venue. Both that are not part of the continental or US Jurisdiction.
The scene of the crimes are here in the Hawaiian islands. The victims are foreign to US Laws, therefore are presently under belligerent occupation and subsequently said occupier is mandated by international law (Laws of Land Warfare) that the occupied nations law are supreme and governance and administrative duties until de-occupation is complete will be by Military Tribunal.
It might be a potential alternative for US Citizens of Native Hawaiian ancestry to entry a US Federal Court to resolve the identity Issue within those legal premises as AMERICAN CITIZENS....but to imply the US courts have any sort of jurisdiction is regards to my national identity and/or venue is unfounded.
At the end of the day...to have a fair and unbias account...it must be conducted by a third-party entity.
Mahalo my brother for responding to my mana‘o, and I am honored to respond to yours. Forgive me for not being clear, and allow me to me clarify and respond to your concerns.
You wrote: If I understand correctly...and please clarify if I do not, you are speaking of two separate [sic] issues 1) My national Identity and 2) Venue. Both that are not part of the continental or US Jurisdiction.
I am speaking of three issues which are not separate but rather interconnected: national identity (or nationality), jurisdiction, and venue. Let me explain.
First, my identity is not native Hawaiian or Native Hawaiian. I am Kanaka Maoli. This is what my kupuna kahiko no doubt called themselves when they had to distinguish themselves from na haole. Before that identity was probably focused more on ‘ohana issues, like "O wai kou inoa (who is your name, meaning who is your ‘ohana)? Pehea pili ‘ohana makou? (How we related?)."
Further, I am kupa of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I am not a U.S. citizen although the U.S. government insists I am a U.S. citizen. I comply with Kingdom laws as should the occupiers.
You wrote: The scene of the crimes are here in the Hawaiian islands. The victims are foreign to US Laws, therefore are presently under belligerent occupation and subsequently said occupier is mandated by international law (Laws of Land Warfare) that the occupied nations law are supreme and governance and administrative duties until de-occupation is complete will be by Military Tribunal.
Second, your concern about venue. I absolutely agree with this mana‘o. Keanu Sai, Ph.D., even suggests that the military tribunal should be conducted by RIMPAC, which would no doubt have to be directed to convene by direct order of the Commander in Chief, the U.S. President. I don't think that would ever happen unless forced to by a superseding authority (see below).
My mana‘o is that as he kupa o Ko Hawai‘i Pae ‘Āina (a citizen of the Hawaiian Kingdom) I can bring a lawsuit against the U.S. government under their law, namely the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. §1350), for violations of international laws and treaties. I have plenty grounds for bringing such a cause, e.g., violations of the Laws of Occupation and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. So do you. I would be happy to share specific details with you.
You wrote: It might be a potential alternative for US Citizens of Native Hawaiian ancestry to entry a US Federal Court to resolve the identity Issue within those legal premises as AMERICAN CITIZENS....but to imply the US courts have any sort of jurisdiction is regards to my national identity and/or venue is unfounded.
An alien (not a citizen of U.S.A, for example a citizen of Hawai‘i) who brings action into the federal district court must show that the court has the authority to hear the complaint brought before them i.e., that they have jurisdiction.
The court must first have original jurisdiction over claims by virtue the Alien Tort Statute itself, which provides for federal jurisdiction and a cause of action “for any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States,” as well as for acts of torture committed abroad against either U.S. citizens or citizens of other nations. Check out the case law on this.
In addition, the court must have subject matter jurisdiction, which means that the case at hand must concern a conflict pursuant to Article III §2 of the U. S. Constitution which states in part that:
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; ... --to controversies to which the United States shall be a party."
Finally, the court must have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims brought by a plaintiff by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §1331 involving “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
Acts of genocide qualify as the basis for a cause of action and the court has the authority to consider the complaint.
But where, you ask, is the federal district court located? Honolulu, San Francisco, Washington, D.C.? In other words, where is the venue?
Third, if venue is the locality where a crime is committed or a cause of action occurs, then the requirement of venue is satisfied under territorial jurisdiction, i.e., the power of the court to render a judgment concerning events that occurred pursuant to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (e)(2), as the location of the court is one of the defendants’ primary places of business, where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,”
In this case, venue is clearly the area belligerently occupied by the U.S.A., and specifically at Honolulu where the United States District Court For The District Of Hawaii is located.
In a court trial by judge only, the U.S. has the home court advantage. In a trial by jury it would be safe to say the plaintiff has the home court advantage. Any attempt for a change of venue is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
It will interesting to read their finding on these issues of standing, jurisdiction and venue. If you ask nice I will share what I think some potential outcomes of this phase of litigation might look like.
Regardless of the outcome, the case would no doubt be appealed to the two higher courts, i.e., the U.S. Appeals Court of the Ninth Circuit and then to the SCOTUS. And then after that we go to a higher authority.
But most important notice that along the way we all get more smart yeah?
You wrote: At the end of the day...to have a fair and unbias account...it must be conducted by a third-party entity.
I also agree with your mana‘o on this. The question is how to get a third party involved that can enforce compliance by the U.S. The problem with the RIMPAC option, for example, is that they are obligated to loyally uphold the U.S. Constitution. Unless and until the U.S. enters into a treaty of restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom as it existed before January 17, 1893, RIMPAC or any other U.S. agency cannot be forced to de-occupy Hawai‘i. Among other stipulations, the U.S. would have to agree to withdraw its government agencies including its military installations except as allowed by such a treaty. RIMPAC and every other U.S. agency will not budge until they are shamed into it. Unless, for example, we use the crab claw maneuver that was used by Kamehameha.
If you check out the crab claw or pincer maneuver, you will see that it is an attack in which two or more forces attack from multiple sides at once; especially one which thereby traps the enemy. The idea is to squeeze the U.S. government from two sides. The U.S. government can be exposed from inside their court system, and they can be exposed from outside their court system, i.e., the international court of justice as well as the court of public opinion. Both of these bodies represent a higher court.
The international court of justice has jurisdiction over conflicts brought before it between nations but not between an individual and a nation. Regardless of the outcome of an ATS action in the U.S. courts we will all learn the inescapable truth. By all I mean the international community, the American community as well as our own Kanaka Maoli. So, this is how it is all interconnected.
Replies
good to hear from you again
missed you on this forum
this kine topic is all about you
glad to hear that you are educating
people in general with facts and findings
instead of unsound and non credible information.
when people start quoting on their belief system
and its not credible and their source of information is not accurate,
thats when great injustice
starts being formulated without a sound foundation
to support the statements.
keoki both know you and i personally
for we are proud heirs of this Kingdom of Maui Nui.
i look forward to seeing you at other public meetings
concern issues like these, our sacrd 'aina and her people
the kanaka maoli's.
many Blessings to you and yours
mahalo Ke Akua
malama kou kino (take care of your body)...................................................~da princess~
this is me, da princess, from theVillage of Moku'Ula, Lahaina
how is moku'ula??? i haven't heard anything since the last public meeting with you.....
it was wonderful to see the rest of the other Ali'i's come and speak out with me
concerning our sacred 'aina of our Kupuna Kahiko (ancestors)
good to hear you on this forum
i had to look twice at your picture and Akua give me the vision that i was you
please give my aloha to akoni akana and his followers
that Justice be granted on our sacred 'aina of our Royal Ancestors
my many blessings to you and all of you that represents Moku'Ula and yes Akua will show us the details~~~da princess~
My wife and i will be in Maui, this coming monday. Is it possible for the three of us to meet? I would really want to talk to you more about the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), also known as the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which provides "for federal jurisdiction and a cause of action for any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States,” as well as for acts of torture committed abroad against either U.S. citizens or citizens of other nations. (28 U.S.C. §1350). Please give me a call at 808.489.7065 as soon as you possibly can. Mahalo Nui!
Bruddah Kaleo
Mahalo for taking the time to look up the definitions of the words "conqueror," and "piracy." I commend you for your literary research skills.
Let me point out some details you have uncovered. As you noted a basic definition of "conqueror" is the following:
To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms.
This term definitely describes the actions of the U.S. armed forces from January 16, 1893 until the present.
As you also noted, the various definitions of "piracy" boils down to the following:
The act of robbery on the high seas.
I understand your desire to be precise in your use of the English language, but it does appear (by your own research) that the robbery was enacted on our ‘āina not on the high seas. So technically and legally, we are dealing with a subjugator - a conqueror who defeats and enslaves, and may I add occupies our nation by force.
Without intending to sound facetious or disrespectful, it has occurred to me that your preference for using the term "piracy" may be that the term "piracy" has a certain dramatic ring to it, bringing up images of Black Beard and Cap'n Jack Sparrow, as in "Har dee har matey, make 'em walk the gangplank"!
Also, please note that I wrote: "the conqueror, or whatever one wishes to call the perpetrator of these crimes." I choose to use the word conqueror, you choose to use pirate/piracy. Personally, AINOKEA, but I did want to commend you on your scholarship.
Finally, to be consistent in being precise in the English language, by "Royal persons" I suspect you are referring to ali‘i as individuals, while "Monarchy" and "Constitutional Monarchy" refers to a form of government and not specifically to an individual, as in a "Monarch."
This is a perfect example of the mana‘o that "God is in the details."
If I understand correctly...and please clarify if I do not, you are speakig of two seperate issues 1) My national Identity and 2) Venue. Both that are not part of the continental or US Jurisdiction.
The scene of the crimes are here in the Hawaiian islands. The victims are foreign to US Laws, therefore are presently under belligerent occupation and subsequently said occupier is mandated by international law (Laws of Land Warfare) that the occupied nations law are supreme and governance and administrative duties until de-occupation is complete will be by Military Tribunal.
It might be a potential alternative for US Citizens of Native Hawaiian ancestry to entry a US Federal Court to resolve the identity Issue within those legal premises as AMERICAN CITIZENS....but to imply the US courts have any sort of jurisdiction is regards to my national identity and/or venue is unfounded.
At the end of the day...to have a fair and unbias account...it must be conducted by a third-party entity.
Foster
You wrote: If I understand correctly...and please clarify if I do not, you are speaking of two separate [sic] issues 1) My national Identity and 2) Venue. Both that are not part of the continental or US Jurisdiction.
I am speaking of three issues which are not separate but rather interconnected: national identity (or nationality), jurisdiction, and venue. Let me explain.
First, my identity is not native Hawaiian or Native Hawaiian. I am Kanaka Maoli. This is what my kupuna kahiko no doubt called themselves when they had to distinguish themselves from na haole. Before that identity was probably focused more on ‘ohana issues, like "O wai kou inoa (who is your name, meaning who is your ‘ohana)? Pehea pili ‘ohana makou? (How we related?)."
Further, I am kupa of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I am not a U.S. citizen although the U.S. government insists I am a U.S. citizen. I comply with Kingdom laws as should the occupiers.
You wrote: The scene of the crimes are here in the Hawaiian islands. The victims are foreign to US Laws, therefore are presently under belligerent occupation and subsequently said occupier is mandated by international law (Laws of Land Warfare) that the occupied nations law are supreme and governance and administrative duties until de-occupation is complete will be by Military Tribunal.
Second, your concern about venue. I absolutely agree with this mana‘o. Keanu Sai, Ph.D., even suggests that the military tribunal should be conducted by RIMPAC, which would no doubt have to be directed to convene by direct order of the Commander in Chief, the U.S. President. I don't think that would ever happen unless forced to by a superseding authority (see below).
My mana‘o is that as he kupa o Ko Hawai‘i Pae ‘Āina (a citizen of the Hawaiian Kingdom) I can bring a lawsuit against the U.S. government under their law, namely the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. §1350), for violations of international laws and treaties. I have plenty grounds for bringing such a cause, e.g., violations of the Laws of Occupation and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. So do you. I would be happy to share specific details with you.
You wrote: It might be a potential alternative for US Citizens of Native Hawaiian ancestry to entry a US Federal Court to resolve the identity Issue within those legal premises as AMERICAN CITIZENS....but to imply the US courts have any sort of jurisdiction is regards to my national identity and/or venue is unfounded.
An alien (not a citizen of U.S.A, for example a citizen of Hawai‘i) who brings action into the federal district court must show that the court has the authority to hear the complaint brought before them i.e., that they have jurisdiction.
The court must first have original jurisdiction over claims by virtue the Alien Tort Statute itself, which provides for federal jurisdiction and a cause of action “for any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States,” as well as for acts of torture committed abroad against either U.S. citizens or citizens of other nations. Check out the case law on this.
In addition, the court must have subject matter jurisdiction, which means that the case at hand must concern a conflict pursuant to Article III §2 of the U. S. Constitution which states in part that:
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; ... --to controversies to which the United States shall be a party."
Finally, the court must have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims brought by a plaintiff by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §1331 involving “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
Acts of genocide qualify as the basis for a cause of action and the court has the authority to consider the complaint.
But where, you ask, is the federal district court located? Honolulu, San Francisco, Washington, D.C.? In other words, where is the venue?
Third, if venue is the locality where a crime is committed or a cause of action occurs, then the requirement of venue is satisfied under territorial jurisdiction, i.e., the power of the court to render a judgment concerning events that occurred pursuant to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (e)(2), as the location of the court is one of the defendants’ primary places of business, where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,”
In this case, venue is clearly the area belligerently occupied by the U.S.A., and specifically at Honolulu where the United States District Court For The District Of Hawaii is located.
In a court trial by judge only, the U.S. has the home court advantage. In a trial by jury it would be safe to say the plaintiff has the home court advantage. Any attempt for a change of venue is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
It will interesting to read their finding on these issues of standing, jurisdiction and venue. If you ask nice I will share what I think some potential outcomes of this phase of litigation might look like.
Regardless of the outcome, the case would no doubt be appealed to the two higher courts, i.e., the U.S. Appeals Court of the Ninth Circuit and then to the SCOTUS. And then after that we go to a higher authority.
But most important notice that along the way we all get more smart yeah?
You wrote: At the end of the day...to have a fair and unbias account...it must be conducted by a third-party entity.
I also agree with your mana‘o on this. The question is how to get a third party involved that can enforce compliance by the U.S. The problem with the RIMPAC option, for example, is that they are obligated to loyally uphold the U.S. Constitution. Unless and until the U.S. enters into a treaty of restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom as it existed before January 17, 1893, RIMPAC or any other U.S. agency cannot be forced to de-occupy Hawai‘i. Among other stipulations, the U.S. would have to agree to withdraw its government agencies including its military installations except as allowed by such a treaty. RIMPAC and every other U.S. agency will not budge until they are shamed into it. Unless, for example, we use the crab claw maneuver that was used by Kamehameha.
If you check out the crab claw or pincer maneuver, you will see that it is an attack in which two or more forces attack from multiple sides at once; especially one which thereby traps the enemy. The idea is to squeeze the U.S. government from two sides. The U.S. government can be exposed from inside their court system, and they can be exposed from outside their court system, i.e., the international court of justice as well as the court of public opinion. Both of these bodies represent a higher court.
The international court of justice has jurisdiction over conflicts brought before it between nations but not between an individual and a nation. Regardless of the outcome of an ATS action in the U.S. courts we will all learn the inescapable truth. By all I mean the international community, the American community as well as our own Kanaka Maoli. So, this is how it is all interconnected.
I told you, God is in the details. TMI?