Dr. Alfred DeZayas 2nd Letter to ... - IOLANI - The Royal Hawk
amelia gora on Twitter: "letting everyone know the truth ;) https ...
Repost: More on the Alodio Lands and Know that the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estates & Liliuokalani Trustees are Not the Allodial Land Owners!
The following Hawaiian Kingdom Laws supersedes the Occupiers HRS/Hawaii Revised Statutes according to our Laws created by Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli in the 1840 Constitution, and the International laws from the United Nations.
Background
1810 - The Hawaiian Kingdom was recognized as the Hawaiian Kingdom/Kingdom of Hawaii/ Ko Hawaii Pae Aina - a Monarchy government - Kamehameha was King.
1840 - The Hawaiian Kingdom was recognized as a Constitutional Monarchy due to the Constitution of 1840 signed by Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli.
1848 - The Mahele - a sharing of lands was made by Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli who conveyed allodial/forever lands to kanaka maoli and Fee Simple lands to Aliens, which was less than allodial/ forever lands, lease, freehold with a time period of only 30 years.
Note: Allodial/forever lands could not be owned by Aliens.
In 1929, the "pretend" government, the usurpers changed the "Allodial" and "Fee Simple" titles into "Alllodial in Fee Simple" which was a documented Fraud. These were two separate titles.
In 2018, United Nations Dr. Alfred deZayas recognized that Hawaii is under an 'unusual' kind of occupation and documented that the Hawaiian Kingdom is still in existence, and the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom/Kingdom of Hawaii/Ko Hawaii Pae Aina must be used.
See:
AND
The Laws/ Hawaii Revised Statutes/HRS of the "Pretend" or Illegitimate Government follows:
The following laws were used by Donna Willard et. als. for their land claims using the Hawaii Revised Laws which is partially based on Hawaiian Kingdom /Kingdom of Hawaii Laws:
Following are the laws that we use to base our claims on. Do not be confused by the posting of Kingdom laws. Kindom laws are still in force and that is why they are referred to time and time again in the Hawaii Revised Statutes. They are the basis of these statutes. The discussion on that topic is one for another time and place.
Hui Pono Ike Kanawai a group of Kanaka Maoli that follow the prompting of their na’au have worked hard to research, compile and teach this information to other Kanaka Maoli. Their work has made ours easier and has served as a place to go to for comfort, guidance, support and always that much needed dose of ALOHA. Mahalo to Hui Pono Ike Kanawai for what you do and inspire.
Hawaii Revised Statutes
Chapter 172
Land Commission Awards; Surveys
§172-11 Land patents on land commission awards; to whom, for whose benefit. Every land patent issued upon an award of the board of commissioners to quiet land titles, shall be in the name of the person to whom the original award was made, even though the person is deceased, or the title to the real estate thereby granted has been alienated; and all land patents so issued shall inure to the benefit of the heirs and assigns of the holder of the original award. [L 1872, c 21, §1; RL 1925, §568; RL 1935, §1587; RL 1945, §4641; RL 1955, §100-11; HRS §172-11]
Case Notes
Land commission award held good against later royal patent. 1 H. 69; 1 H. 90. Award cannot be collaterally attacked. 1 H. 90. Certificate of award of land commission, with its accompanying survey, are admissible in evidence. 2 H. 202.
Patents based as awards do not confer or confirm title of later holders. It is merely a quitclaim interest of the government in lands. 3 H. 783; 11 H. 587, 589.
Court is inclined not to disturb award of land commission long adjudicated. 5 H. 354.
Mahele of 1848 considered and defined. 6 H. 195.
Award may be to deceased person; heirs must determine their own respective rights. 15 H. 648. Section does not authorize the issuance of grant to deceased person. 26 H. 382, 397.
Review of case law and effect of patent. 49 H. 429, 421 P.2d 570.
§172-12 Land patents issued after boundary and commutation settled. Upon presentation to the department of land and natural resources of a certificate of a commissioner of boundaries defining the boundaries of a portion of an ahupuaa, ili, or other denomination of land, the department shall cause an appraisement to be made of the unimproved value of that portion of land; and upon payment to the department of the government commutation in that portion of land, upon the appraisement as above provided, the department shall cause to be issued a land patent for that portion of land, which land patent shall define the boundaries of that portion of land. [L 1872, c 21, §3; RL 1925, §569; RL 1935, §1588; RL 1945, §4642; RL 1955, §100-12; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §21; am L 1961, c 132, §2; HRS §172-12]
Cross References
A patent cannot be issued on an award by name without the boundaries being defined, see §664-5.
Case Notes
Patent is merely quitclaim interest of government in lands. 3 H. 783; 11 H. 587, 589.
Value of land at time of award is the basis of its appraisement for commutation of government interest. 8 H. 125.
Patent is evidence that government right to commutation therein is extinguished. 6 H. 315.
Patent, valid on its face, may be attacked and declared void in action at law provided evidence shows it to be void for want of authority for its issue. 25 H. 651.
Royal patent issued on land commission award, validity of reservation of mineral rights. 49 H. 429, 421 P.2d 570. Royal patent on land commission award, significance if award defective. 49 H. 456, 479, 421 P.2d 550. Royal patent issued on land commission award, whether schoolhouse site included or excluded. 49 H. 537, 425 P.2d 83.
Cited: 35 H. 608, 658.
Allodial Title
§7-1 Building materials, water, etc.; landlords’ titles subject to tenants’ use. Where the landlords have obtained, or may hereafter obtain, allodial titles to their lands, the people on each of their lands shall not be deprived of the right to take firewood, house-timber, aho cord, thatch, or ki leaf, from the land on which they live, for their own private use, but they shall not have a right to take such articles to sell for profit. The people shall also have a right to drinking water, and running water, and the right of way. The springs of water, running water, and roads shall be free to all, on all lands granted in fee simple; provided that this shall not be applicable to wells and watercourses, which individuals have made for their own use. [CC 1859, §1477; RL 1925, §576; RL 1935, §1694; RL 1945, §12901; RL 1955, §14-1; HRS §7-1]
Law Journals and Reviews
Beach Access: A Public Right? 23 HBJ 65.
Native Hawaiian Cultural Practices Under Threat. I HBJ No. 13, at pg. 1.
Pele Defense Fund v. Paty: Exacerbating the Inherent Conflict Between Hawaiian Native Tenant Access and Gathering Rights and Western Property Rights. 16 UH L. Rev. 207.
Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawaii County Planning Commission: The Affirmative Duty to Consider the Effect of Development on Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights. 16 UH L. Rev. 303.
The Reassertion of Native Hawaiian Gathering Rights Within The Context of Hawai‘i’s Western System of Land Tenure. 17 UH L. Rev. 165.
Cultures in Conflict in Hawai‘i: The Law and Politics of Native Hawaiian Water Rights. 18 UH L. Rev. 71.
Customary Revolutions: The Law of Custom and the Conflict of Traditions in Hawai‘i. 20 UH L. Rev. 99.
The Backlash Against PASH: Legislative Attempts To Restrict Native Hawaiian Rights. 20 UH L. Rev. 321.
Loko i‘a: A Legal Guide to the Restoration of Native Hawaiian Fishponds Within the Western Paradigm. 24 UH L. Rev. 657.
Wiping Out the Ban on Surfboards at Point Panic. 27 UH L. Rev. 303.
Biopiracy in Paradise?: Fulfilling the Legal Duty to Regulate Bioprospecting in Hawai‘i. 28 UH L. Rev. 387.
Public Beach Access: A Right for All? Opening the Gate to Iroquois Point Beach. 30 UH L. Rev. 495.
Propagating Cultural Kīpuka: The Obstacles and Opportunities of Establishing a Community-Based Subsistence Fishing Area. 31 UH L. Rev. 193.
Case Notes
Appellants’ contention that native Hawaiian rights were exclusive and possessory was unsupported in the law. 76 F.3d 280.
Once title to land passes into private hands and becomes vested under U.S. law, then, upon statehood, that property is subject to state legislation and federal common law regarding water rights is not applicable. 441 F. Supp. 559.
Plaintiff’s claims of reserved rights of native tenants under Hawaii law did not extend to the right of perpetual and exclusive occupancy upon the land of another; plaintiff’s ancestors’ failure to claim kuleana title to subject land, which rendered them tenants at sufferance, foreclosed plaintiff’s attempt to claim possessory rights to the land under Hawaii law. 875 F. Supp. 680.
Rights afforded by this section did not inure to plaintiffs, nonresidents of the State; because ordinance instituting a $3 fee for nonresidents seeking entry to bay designated a marine life conservation district and nature preserve imposed a fee on nonresidents only, the ordinance did not contravene this section. 215 F. Supp. 2d 1098.
Rights of people before allodial titles granted. 2 H. 87; 49 H. 456, 468, 421 P.2d 550.
Right to water for domestic use under this statute. 24 H. 47, 67, overruled on another point 31 H. 376.
Applied in upholding ancient right of way. 50 H. 298, 440 P.2d 95.
Provision reserving to property owners the “right to drinking water and running water” deemed a codification of doctrine of riparian rights. 54 H. 174, 504 P.2d 1330.
Interpretation in 54 H. 174 continues to be appropriate and proper. 65 H. 531, 656 P.2d 57.
Riparian water rights created by section were not intended to be, and cannot be, severed from the land in any fashion. 65 H. 531, 656 P.2d 57.
Gathering rights of section interpreted to assure that lawful occupants of an ahupua‘a may, for the purposes of practicing native Hawaiian customs and traditions, enter underdeveloped lands within ahupua‘a to gather items enumerated in the statute. Gathering rights did not accrue to person who did not reside within ahupua‘a. 66 H. 1, 656 P.2d 745; 73 H. 578, 837 P.2d 1247.
If property is deemed “fully developed”, i.e., lands zoned and used for residential purposes with existing dwellings, improvements, and infrastructure, it is always “inconsistent” to permit the practice of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights on such property. 89 H. 177, 970 P.2d 485.
To establish the existence of a traditional or customary native Hawaiian practice, there must be an adequate foundation in the record connecting the claimed right to a firmly rooted traditional or customary native Hawaiian practice. 89 H. 177, 970 P.2d 485.
Where defendant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support claim of the exercise of a constitutionally protected native Hawaiian right and knowingly entered landowner’s property which was fenced in a manner to exclude others, trial court properly concluded that defendant was unlawfully on property in violation of §708-814(1). 89 H. 177, 970 P.2d 485.
Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment where there existed a genuine issue of material fact as to the ancient or historic use of the subject trail. 104 H. 43, 85 P.3d 150.
Right of way easement was limited to ingress and egress and did not include right to park. 1 H. App. 263, 618 P.2d 312.
No showing of right-of-way of necessity. 2 H. App. 663, 639 P.2d 420.
Standards for granting an easement by necessity. 3 H. App. 136, 642 P.2d 549.
Referred to: 6 H. 334, 336; 20 H. 658, 667.
§560:2-105.5 Escheat of kuleana lands. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, if the owner of an inheritable interest in kuleana land dies intestate, or dies partially intestate and that partial intestacy includes the decedent’s interest in the kuleana land, and if there is no taker under article II, such inheritable interest shall pass to the department of land and natural resources to be held in trust until the office of Hawaiian affairs develops a land management plan for the use and management of such kuleana properties, and such plan is approved by the department of land and natural resources. Upon approval, the department of land and natural resources shall transfer such kuleana properties to the office of Hawaiian affairs. For the purposes of this section, “kuleana lands” means those lands granted to native tenants pursuant to L. 1850, p. 202, entitled “An Act Confirming Certain Resolutions of the King and Privy Council Passed on the 21st Day of December, A.D. 1849, Granting to the Common People Allodial Titles for Their Own Lands and House Lots, and Certain Other Privileges”, as originally enacted and as amended. [L 1996, c 288, pt of §1]
§669-2 Defendants; unknown persons. (a) Any person may be made a defendant in the action who has or claims, or may claim, an interest in the property adverse to the plaintiff, or who is a necessary party to a complete determination or settlement of the issues involved therein.
(b) Unknown persons may be made parties as provided by the rules of court, if:
(1) It shall be shown by the complaint that there are or may be persons unknown, claiming by, through, or under any named person; or
(2) Other facts shall be shown by the complaint giving rise to an actual controversy between plaintiff and persons unidentified or whose names are unknown.
(c) In any action brought under section 669-1(b):
(1) There shall be joined as defendants, in addition to persons known to have an adverse interest, the adjoining owners and occupants so far as known.
(2) If all persons interested who are known or can be joined as provided by subsection (b) have been made parties, the summons in addition to being directed to such parties, may be directed to unknown persons generally and in such case, after service upon the persons summoned, known and unknown, the court shall have jurisdiction to proceed as though all persons interested were in being and personally served, but any adjudication shall, as regards a defendant served pursuant to section 669-3, affect only the property which is the subject of the action except as provided by section 634-23.
(d) In any action brought under section 669-1, the State may be joined as a defendant only when:
(1) It is an adjoining property owner and the same is alleged by the plaintiff; or
(2) The party asserting the claim can demonstrate, by a title search prepared at the party’s own expense by an abstractor, that the State has a clear and specific interest in the subject matter of the suit which is adverse to the plaintiff’s claim, and a copy of the title search is furnished to the State without cost, together with the complaint.
(e) In any action brought under section 669-1, the office of Hawaiian affairs shall be joined as a defendant, by service upon the office of Hawaiian affairs, when:
(1) The land claimed by the plaintiff is kuleana land; and
(2) The plaintiff has reason to believe that an owner of an inheritable interest in the kuleana land died intestate or died partially intestate and there is or was no taker under article II of the Hawaii uniform probate code.
For purposes of this subsection, “kuleana land” means that land granted to native tenants pursuant to L 1850, p. 202, entitled “An Act Confirming Certain Resolutions of the King and Privy Council, Passed on the 21st Day of December, A.D. 1849, Granting to the Common People Allodial Titles for Their Own Lands and House Lots, and Certain Other Privileges”, as originally enacted and as amended. [L 1890, c 18, §2; RL 1925, §2758; RL 1935, §4391; RL 1945, §10452; am L Sp 1949, c 46, §1(b); RL 1955, §242-2; HRS §669-2; am L 1972, c 90, §12(b); am L 1977, c 154, §1; gen ch 1985; am L 1987, c 283, §63; am L 1991, c 177, §2]
Case Notes
Prior to Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure.
Not essential to make parties all persons who claim interest. 10 H. 507. All necessary parties may be defendants and have jury trial. 28 H. 1. See also, 4 H. 131. Cross-complaint against codefendants is doubtful pleading where defendant sets up defendant’s own title and fails to ask affirmative relief against them. 25 H. 246, 250.
Cited: 32 H. 323, 324
Applicable Kingdom Laws
Please understand that the recital of these laws does not make this a sovereigh move/claim
Recital of these laws provide a legal basis to our claims based on current laws and parctice within the “State” of Hawaii
1872 LAWS OF HIS MAJESTY KAMEHAMEHA V Click on this link and read on page 18 the law that Regulated the issuing of Royal Patents.
1860 LAWS OF HIS MAJESTY KAMEHAMEHA IV Click on this link and read on page 21 An Act for the Protection of PLaces and Sepulture
1859 CIVIL CODE OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS Click on this link and read on page 356 Chapter XXXIV, Of Certain Specific Rights of the People
1853 LAWS OF HIS MAJESTY KAMEHAMEHA III Click on this link and read on page 42 An Act Providing Summary Proceedings of Recover Possession of Land in Certain Cases
1851 KANAWAI O KA MOI KAMEHAMEHA III Click on this link and read on Page 98 An Acto To amend Granting Common People Allodial Titles For Their Own lands and House Lots, and Certain Other Privileges
1850 PENAL CODE OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS Click on this link and go to page 202 and read An Act Confirming Certain Resolutions O fthe King and Privy Council,….
1847 KANAWAI O KA MOI KAMEHAMEHA III VOL IIClick on this link and go to page 70 and read Joint Resoltion on the Subject of Rights in Lands and the Leasing, Pruchasing and Dividing of the Same
1846 STATUTE LAWS OF KAMEHAMEHA III_VOL I Click on this link and read the Compilers Preface
HAWAIIAN_Almanac_and_Annual_for_1906 On page 81 there is an account of the very first and only law in Hawaii for a very long time
Reference: https://mlpcaught.wordpress.com/
*********
SUMMARY
Know that the Courts of the Occupier are Not the Court of "original jurisdiction", but a court set up based on the designs of pirates, pillagers, frauds, racketeers and are questionable based on research and by many other nations who have been informed and based on the United Nations recognition of a fraud annexation.
Although countless members of the occupiers claim that Annexation was made, the following evidence shows otherwise:
1) University of Hawaii at Manoa Professor Williamson Chang said that it was an impossible feat for a nation to annex another recognized nation;
see:
-
Williamson Chang * I. INTRODUCTION: ... Annexation of Hawaii was taken down in the fall of 2014 and replaced with the following notice to the public. This need for a revision of the history of Hawaii by the Official Historian parallels the emerging scholarship as presented by this article.
- Cited by: 2
- Page Count: 46
- File Size: 399KB
- Author: Williamson B.C. Chang
2) Senator Daniel Inouye (dec.) informed Joyclynn Costa that Hawaii is a separate nation and she found that the Doctrine of Political Question was in effect - the Hawaiian Kingdom /Kingdom of Hawaii is a separate nation from the U.S.
See:
Hawaiian Kingdom Facts: Doctrine of Political Question ...
I handed the clerk, to hand to the Judge, a letter from the late Senator Inouye. He was a United State Senator for the State of Hawaii. (two birds w/ one stone) He could not come to our trial due to a mandated Constitutional Separation of Powers. I looked it up and found within the Separation of Powers was "The Doctrine of Political Question".
- Estimated Reading Time: 6 mins
U.S. Senator Dan Inouye - 'Sovereignty is inherent in the ...
Sep 19, 2019 · Joyclynn Acosta through the answer of Senator Daniel Inouye (deceased) found that the Doctrine of Political Question was an issue because Hawaii/the Hawaiian Kingdom is a Nation along with the U.S. another nation. The people who opposed the burials
3) the United States Supreme Court Memorandum proves there was No Annexation.
See:
U.S. President William McKinley disregarded the fact that U.S. President Grover Cleveland gave Hawaii back to Queen Liliuokalani in 1893, 1894, and 1897 and claimed annexation, War with Spain before getting approval from Congress, and created two (2) nations:
1) created another nation called the American Empire which had Territories under it. He had Hawaii placed as the Territory of the United States "developed" by the Army, Navy, and other personnel create the Territory of Hawaii turned State of Hawaii with 1/50 sovereignty shared with the other 49 States making up the United States;
Reference Peacock vs. Republic of Hawaii, 1899, HAWAIIAN REPORTS, Supreme Court Law Library/Archives/Main Library, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii.
2) the United States continued on recognizing other nations that had Treaties.
Note: The United States could no longer treaty since 1871 when it was documented bankrupt.
Finally, know that Guaranty Title is on record that Hawaii is the only State that has no clear titles. Also got verification that Old Republic Title researcher agreed with David Pietsche of Guaranty Title.
Keep this information for your records, share with your ohana, and friends.
Research Incomplete.
From: Amy Gora <goraamy69@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 1:53 PM
Subject: William Lunalilos ahupuaa with 704 acres etc
To: <Santahkamiano@gmail.com>
| 5 attachments — Download all attachments View all images | |||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
Replies
facebook:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqHRh-F-HV8&list=RDGMEMc6JZQrQ_...
tweet:
Conversation