Past, Present and Future

Aloha Amelia,

About thirty-plus years of work, but mostly trying to survive the battles are the roughest. In particular, women and children have suffered greatly at the hands of 'Home Rule', groups, and their private enforcements. At first, I though it was neat to be part of our culture practices within a group setting, but that's just because I lacked the understanding as to dynamics of land, labor and culture values and practices.

At this time, I don't know if Na Kanaka and their ancestors can hold on to their present lands and have their children continue in their place.

Just in my opinion, labor today needs intense, in depth, and the ability to do work to solve the simple problems we face today.

As for culture practices that's bitter sweet, in my opinion, not everyone can do the battles, lead, and set aside ones differences and still participate to meet goals and objectives.

My question of the day, as Na Kanaka women--do we continue suffering at the hands of our male counter parts? A bit different, but recently my aunties and the beautiful women in my past life they were my partners--I've been having daily conversations with them. That is a bit kinda different, not used to having too many conversations with people in the spirit world while working at the front. Or, maybe I wasn't really concious of these multi-voices--great company in time of need. Approaching Kamehameha Day, June 11, 2010 for me--I had a strong vortex, or irritation. From Nuuanu Pali prayers, to Iolani Palace to swimming with the whales--from mountain to sea it's a constant battle with American enforcement that have clear intent to do damage, stop ancestral prayers, and trained to kill on spot. Yesterday, we said our prayers at the Ahu on the grounds of Iolani Palace.

We honored Kahale Smith a warrior at the Ahu under typical duress of DLNR. Before his death, Kahale had intended to move from point A to point B, an agreement he made with his daughter minutes before his death. Enforcement had a different intent for they are trained to kill by popular demand. Henry Smith, my good friend, and Kahale's brother said to me that his brother died in the house because he fell and could not get up. I believer, his death was preventive had DHHL approached Kahale Smith with humanity. DHHL (12 Sheriffs and 4 DHHL) came at 8 am, with KAUAI FREIGHT COMPANY to remove contents in a surprise eviction.

We must be on the frontline for the sake of the children and endure all the problems un/necessary in hopes to do better next time.

I'm in the middle of reading this piece in posted in part, I will delet after your response: It's very interesting to read especially after the bashing I took from a vortex of people pre Kamehameha Day. Summer Solstice this week end at Ku Kane. in Wahiawa. I hope to see you, I will be there at 4 am. Much love.

KU`E AND KU`OKO`A (RESISTENCE AND INDEPENDENCE):
HISTORY, LAW, AND OTHER FAITHS†
Jonathan Kamakawiwo`ole Osorio, Ph.D.*
I. INTRODUCTION
II. A BRIEF AND CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL HISTORY
III. THE SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT IN HAWAI`I
IV. THE RIGHTS OF HAWAIIAN NATIONALS
V. SELECTING HISTORICAL EVENTS
VI. NATIONALS OR RACE?
VII. KU`E/KU`OKO`A: RESISTANCE AND INDEPENDENCE
VIII. SOME INITIAL CONCLUSIONS
IX. LAW, HISTORY, AND OTHER FAITHS
I. INTRODUCTION
On February 23, 2000, the United States Supreme Court issued a
decision that has had a significant effect on Native Hawaiians and their
seventeen-year-old movement to reclaim self-government. Chief Justice
Kennedy articulated the opinion of the Court finding that Hawai`i’s
denial of petitioner Harold Rice’s right to vote in the trustee elections for
the Office of Hawaiian Affairs violates the Fifteenth Amendment of the
US Constitution. However, Justice Breyer’s concurring opinion that
Hawaiian people have neither political nor cultural claims to distinct
treatment by American law promises to transform Hawaiian civil society
and provides powerful motivation for Hawaiians to seek independence
from the United States.
As result of this decision, a handful of Hawai`i residents are seeking to
dismember more than eighty years of Federal and State legislation that
has set aside land and created two major State agencies for the benefit of
legally defined Native Hawaiians. Several historic cases (Bartlett v.
Department of Hawaiian Homelands and Arakaki v. Office of Hawaiian
Affairs) filed in Federal courts argue that entitlements to Native
Hawaiians, set up under Federal and State legislation, are violations of
† Reprinted by permission from Law and Empire in the Pacific: Fiji and Hawai`i, edited
by Sally Engle Merry and Donald Brenneis. Copyright © 2003 by the School of
American Research, Santa Fe.
* The author is an Associate Professor and Director at Kamakakuokalani Center for
Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i at Manoa.
HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS: Vol. 1 (Summer 2004)
93
the equal rights protections of the US constitution. In response, the State
and Kanaka Maoli (people of Hawaiian ancestry) individuals and
agencies have been working to secure Federal legislation that recognizes
Hawaiians as Native Americans. Another sovereignty initiative, the
Council of Regency of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, managed to obtain a
hearing before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague,
Netherlands. This group solicits international recognition that the nationstate
status of the Kingdom has not been extinguished despite a century
of US occupation.
The history of sovereignty movements in Hawai`i provides a framework
for understanding the discursive trends that sustain and alter cultural
identity. Ultimately, the confrontation between cultural identity and
social-political frameworks such as law provides the clearest
understanding of how institutions, especially colonial institutions, are
translated and adopted.
To discuss how American law and international law address political
questions of ethnic and national identity, I will compare two distinct
legal avenues through which the aboriginal people of Hawai`i are
seeking self-government—Ka Lahui Hawai`i (KLH) and the Council of
Regency. I will describe how these two strategies are employing distinct
and mutually exclusive interpretations of nationhood. While Ka Lahui
has struggles to secure recognition as a Native nation within the larger
American nation, the Council of Regency has pursued the
reestablishment of the independent Hawaiian Kingdom. The differences
between these two initiatives, I contend, contribute to the confusion over
definitions of nationality, race, and self-determination, which cannot be
solved by juridical decision at either the national or international level.
Indeed, they can barely be addressed at the level of local politics because
of certain important and historic ideological differences that separate
Hawaiians.
II. A BRIEF AND CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL HISTORY
The liberal franchise extended by the 1900 Organic Act in Hawai`i
defined Hawaiian as American citizens, despite their widespread
opposition to the American takeover.1 Yet, from 1902 until the decade
before the Statehood Act, political control was maintained by the
Republican Party, which successfully recruited thousands of Native
Hawaiian voters, in part, through a carefully managed system of
patronage. Territorial and county government positions were routinely
dispensed to loyal Republicans. Labor unionism, associated with the
1 See generally Tom Coffman, Nation Within: The Story of America’s Annexation of the
Nation of Hawai`i (Honolulu: Epicenter Press, 1998); and Noenoe. Silva and Nalani
Minton, Ku`e: The Hui Aloha `Aina Anti-Annexation Petitions 1897-1898 (Honolulu:
manuscript published by authors, 1998).
HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS: Vol. 1 (Summer 2004)
94
Democratic Party, was stigmatized as antithetical to Hawaiian interests
because it would primarily benefit the largely Asian plantation
workforce.2
Under Republican control, a few powerful haole (Caucasian)
corporations and families were able to manipulate all the important
sectors of the economy, including finance, shipping, wholesale
distribution, and, most importantly, cheap access to the Crown and
Government Lands of the Kingdom, which made up nearly one-half the
total land area of the archipelago. The labor movement grew stronger,
and on the eve of Statehood the Republicans surrendered political
supremacy to the Democratic Party without, however, surrendering their
control over land and wealth.3
The first fifteen years of Statehood under Democratic Party control did
not favor the economic or political aspirations of Hawaiians in general.
Considered by many to be a failed minority in American society,
Hawaiians demonstrated classic symptoms of an underprivileged
minority: high levels of arrest and incarceration, alcoholism and
increasing drug abuse, low levels of education and upward social
mobility, and a virtual nonparticipation in what many saw as the
economic miracle of the State’s transformation from an agricultural to
tourist-dominated economy.4 In fact, many Hawaiians began to see their
economic position erode after the 1930s, as well as into the 1960s and
1970s, when large estates began to evict Hawaiians from their homes and
farms to make room for new and much more profitable urban
developments.5 At the same time, Japanese and Chinese Democrats
replaced the Native Hawaiian Republicans in the legislatures,
marginalizing Hawaiians politically.
In the mid-1970s, several issues converged: a Native-led opposition to
the US military bombing of Kaho`olawe Island since 1941, outrage at the
rising number of evictions from the land, and public discussion of the
failure of the Native Hawaiian Trusts, especially the Department of
Hawaiian Homelands. In 1977, two young Hawaiian activists were killed
trying to prevent the US Navy from bombing Kaho`olawe, believing that
the `aina (land) was sacred, conscious, and an elder sibling to the Kanaka
Maoli themselves.
2 This requires context. Many Hawaiians belonged to and led labor organizations,
especially among longshoremen and teamsters’ unions in the 1930s and 1940s. Few
Hawaiian Republican families did not have active union members by the late 1930s.
3 See generally Noel J. Kent, Hawai`i: Islands Under the Influence (New York: Monthly
Review Press, 1983).
4 Id., 180-185.
5 Haunani Trask, From a Native Daughter: Colonialism and Sovereignty in Hawai`i, Rev.
ed. (Honolulu: University of Hawai`i Press, 1999), 66.
HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS: Vol. 1 (Summer 2004)
95
In that same year, a Federal-State task force investigating the Department
of Hawaiian Homes found a history of gross mismanagement of the trust,
with only a few thousand leases awarded to qualified beneficiaries. More
than half of the lands were leased to people and companies who were not
Hawaiian. Thousands of acres were simply appropriated by the State and
Federal governments. Nearly 20,000 claimants languished on waiting
lists, some for as long as thirty years. The task force recommended a
half-billion-dollar expenditure to create sufficient infrastructure to
implement the aims of the program, calling on both the Federal and State
governments to share the expense. Neither would.
Disgust with American promises and priorities, combined with a cultural
renaissance in Hawaiian music, dance, art, literature, history, and
language, fueled the nationalist movement. In 1978, future governor John
Waihe`e led a group of Native delegates to the State Constitutional
Convention to draft and secure the inclusion of laws that would protect
Hawaiians and their culture. The new constitution mandated the teaching
of Hawaiian history, language, and culture in all public educational
institutions, included Hawaiian as the second official language of the
State, and created the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to receive and
distribute funds from the ceded lands for the benefit of Native
Hawaiians. In 1978, the Hawai`i Supreme Court ruled that Native
Hawaiians were entitled to 20 percent of the ceded lands’ revenues
because these represented one of five uses mandated by the Organic Act.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, with special voting provisions allowing
only Natives to participate, became a source of self-rule that was,
nevertheless, limited and tightly controlled by the legislature and
governor’s office, which appropriated money for its operation.
Under the first elected Native Hawaiian governor, John Waihe`e (1986-
1996), there was much publicity about native affairs but little substantial
improvement in Hawaiians’ economic standing. Politically, Hawaiians
began to filter back into the legislature, usually as Democrats, and
numerous grassroots organizations, including the original sovereignty
movements, began to agitate for recognition. These organizations, some
of them cultural and academic, such as the Hawaiian Language
Immersion programs and the Center for Hawaiian Studies, strengthened
Hawaiian resolve for sovereign control of Kanaka Maoli resources.
After reaching a high point of widespread discussion and
acknowledgement in 1993 with the well-publicized centennial
observation of the overthrow, the sovereignty movement has suffered a
backlash of legal challenges: Rice v. Cayetano, State government
intrigues under the current governor, and more internal disagreements
among Native Hawaiian groups over strategies and goals.
In 1996, the State Attorney General began an investigation of the largest
and richest Hawaiian private trust, the Bishop Estate, which employs a
multibillion-dollar land and investment portfolio for the support of the
HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS: Vol. 1 (Summer 2004)
96
Kamehameha schools and for scholarship and outreach programs
affecting tens of thousands of Native Hawaiian children, who are the
primary beneficiaries. This investigation ultimately ended in the
replacement of all the trustees appointed during the Waihe`e/Cayetano
years and the convening of grand juries against three trustees, two of
whom had been powerful Democratic Party legislators in the 1980s.6
Although the investigation was sparked when concerned Native
educators protested the trustees’ micromanagement of the school, the
very public examination of every single member shamed and alarmed the
Hawaiian community at large, which feared that the most powerful
Hawaiian institutions surviving from the Kingdom would be torn apart
and devoured by the State of Hawai`i.
For Hawaiian nationalists, the Cayetano administration has not been
kind. The governor has gone out of his way to threaten Hawaiian
entitlement programs. When his original appointee to head the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands became too effective, securing the
return of more than 16,000 acres appropriated by the State from
Hawaiian Homes inventory, Cayetano replaced him—the week after the
governor won a closely contested re-election. After his re-election,
Cayetano became even more vocal about his opposition to Hawaiian
entitlements, arguing that he himself is Hawaiian at heart but that, as
governor, he cannot protect the interests of one group over any other
group of citizens. He has even insisted that the revenues due the Office
of Hawaiian Affairs are an unfair obligation the State cannot afford to
pay.
As Hawaiians have amplified their calls for self-government, the State of
Hawai`i has ratcheted up the political stakes by threatening Native
Hawaiian resources through a discourse on American principles of equal
protection and access under the law. Certainly, the broken promises and
failed protections of the trust relationship between America and Native
Hawaiians have contributed to the rise of the sovereignty movement, as
has the relative political displacement of Native Hawaiians with the rise
of the Asian Democrats in the 1960s. However, as much as the
sovereignty movement has focused on redressing past grievances with
America, it has also insisted on defining what it means to be Hawaiian.
III. THE SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT IN HAWAI`I
Ka Lahui Hawai`i (KLH), the elder organization in the sovereignty
movement at sixteen years, is, in 2003, also the largest, with close to
20,000 citizens. KLH’s constitution is based on a nation-within-nation
model similar to that of several Native American governments that have
treaty relationships and Federal recognition with the United States. At
6 A circuit judge dismissed indictments for the fourth time in the case on grounds that
State lawyers had presented evidence in a way that prejudiced the indicting grand jury
(Advertiser, 26 November 2000).
HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS: Vol. 1 (Summer 2004)
97
the same time, KLH has sought international support through the
Unrepresented Peoples Organization (UNPO) and has worked together
with other Natives to craft a Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples within the United Nations.7
Assessment of KLH’s political success is difficult because KLH appears
to have more influence and credibility outside Hawai`i than within. KLH
representatives to world and indigenous councils enjoy recognition and
respect for carrying on a determined, non-violent sovereignty movement
for more than a decade, but, surprisingly, KLH has never been much of a
political force within the Hawaiian Islands. This is surprising not only
because KLH boasts a comparatively large membership but also because
its political aim—to create a sovereign Native government with the
United States—has legal precedence and addresses the fears of may
Hawai`i residents that Hawaiian sovereignty threatens their rights as
American citizens. From its inception, KLH has limited its land claims to
former Crown and Government Lands of the Kingdom. In the minds of
KLH citizens and sympathizers, the return of these lands would be a
significant first step in repairing the relationship between the United
States and the Hawaiian people, would provide a suitable land base for
the Native nation, and would steer clear of any threat to private land
holdings in Hawai`i.
Those ceded lands, however, represent more than 90 percent of the lands
in the State’s possession, and many politicians besides the current
governor have insisted that the State is financially dependent on the
revenues those lands generate. Critics of the State’s land use have long
asserted that the State of Hawai`i does not employ those lands
judiciously, allowing certain favored corporations and individuals to
lease highly productive properties at bargain rates.8 Be that as it may, few
people in the sovereignty movement imagine that the State of Hawai`i
will surrender its control of ceded lands without some kind of legal or
political challenge.9
Perhaps for that reason, not many public officials even acknowledge the
existence of KLH. Clearly, the organization possesses few of the
7 Trask, supra note 5, 75.
8 S.C.T. Faludi, Broken Promise: Hawaiians Wait in Vain for Their Lands, The Wall
Street Journal, 9 September 1991, A1.
9 I am a plaintiff in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Housing Finance and Development
Corporation et al. in the First Circuit Court. This suit, continued since 1996, seeks to
enjoin the State of Hawai`i from selling or exchanging 5f trust lands, also known as
Ceded Lands, until the sovereignty over those lands can be determined. In 1995, the State
sought a summary judgment from Federal Judge Healy and was denied. Plaintiffs’
“Closing Argument” (December 17, 2001) reprinted in the Hawaiian Journal of Law &
Politics 1 (Summer 2004): 490-541.
HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS: Vol. 1 (Summer 2004)
98
attributes (a disciplined cadre, overwhelming numbers, or even the
ability to influence a public election) that marks a political player.
If citizenship in KLH offers something other than an opportunity to be
politically active and empowered, it is a sense of identity based on
ancestry rather than on the nation-based citizenship created by the
Kingdom of Hawai`i during the reign of Kamehameha III. As such, KLH
follows a logical, historical pattern of Native Hawaiians’ identifying as
an ethnic group or race.10 The political treatment of Hawaiians as a race
is traceable in the development of American law and administration in
the Hawaiian Islands, beginning with the 1920 Hawaiian Homes Act and
ending with the Apology Law in 1993.
In fact, the proposed federal legislation known as the Native Hawaiian
Federal Recognition Legislation (S-344), before the US Congress in
2003, is also a part of this historic process designed, in part, to protect
previous Federal and State laws administering trust benefits on behalf of
Native Hawaiians. Those who supported this bill generally view
Hawaiians as an ethnic group whose identity is fostered by and through
ancestry. Those who opposed the bill made up a large spectrum of
political opinion, from people who oppose anything resembling
affirmative action in America to Hawaiian nationalists who insist that
nothing short of the reestablishment of the Kingdom will resolve the
ongoing dispute over Hawaiian self-determination.
IV. THE RIGHTS OF HAWAIIAN NATIONALS
On November 8, 1999, a Hawaiian national, Lance Larsen, initiated
arbitration proceedings against the Hawaiian government with the PCA
at The Hague. Hilo police arrested Larsen in 1998 and incarcerated him
for nearly a month after he objected to his arrest for driving an
automobile that was not registered and licensed under State law. Larsen
had been ticketed and fined on numerous occasions and had refused to
appear in court because he “does not recognize the laws of the United
States or its political subdivision, the State of Hawaii, as valid within the
Hawaiian Kingdom.”11
Larsen’s attorney, Ninia Parks, filed an original complaint for injunctive
relief in the United States District Court for the State of Hawai`i, alleging
that the Hawaiian government was allowing the unlawful imposition of
10 Using the term race for ethnicity may strike some as offensive. I do not use race to
imply a different species, but as an interchangeable term with ethnicity or ancestry.
11 See “Notice of Arbitration to Initiate Recourse to Arbitral Proceedings in Compliance
with the Permanent Court of Arbitration Optional Rules for Arbitrating Disputes Between
Two Parties of Which Only One Is a State,” available at
http://www.alohaquest.com/arbitration/log.htm.
HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS: Vol. 1 (Summer 2004)
99
American domestic law within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian
Kingdom over his person. Federal Judge Samuel King dismissed the case
on February 5, 1999, submitting all issues to binding arbitration
“between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Mr. Larsen at the Permanent Court
of Arbitration at The Hague in the Netherlands.”12
Eventually, Larsen’s action brought the Council of Regency of the
Kingdom of Hawai`i, represented by David Keanu Sai, into a plea before
the PCA asking the Court to define the duties and obligations that the
Kingdom, through its Council of Regency, has toward its subject, Lance
Larsen. Both parties in the arbitration, held in December 2000 at The
Hague, stipulated that Larsen’s rights had been violated by the actions of
the occupying power, the United States, and the appeal for arbitration
was to enable an international tribunal to direct the Kingdom’s
government concerning the scope of its obligations to its subject under
the laws of occupation.
The Council of Regency of the Kingdom of Hawai`i has been in
existence since 1996. Its creation and membership came about
subsequent to the formation of the Perfect Title Corporation in 1995, a
Native-owned land title abstracting company.13 Perfect Title alleged that
12 See “Memorial of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government,” available at:
http://www.alohaquest.com/arbitration/log.htm.
13 Perfect Title was formed on December 10, 1995, to investigate (and confirm or reject)
all claims to fee-simple titles consistent with Kingdom law for its clients and to register
valid titles with the Kingdom’s Bureau of Conveyances. All the partners in Perfect Title
agreed that the business would be operated in “strict compliance to the business laws of
the Hawaiian Kingdom as noted in the Compiled Laws of 1884 and the Session Laws of
1884 and 1886” (Government Memorial, supra note 12, 66).
Noting that a legitimate Bureau of Conveyances was in absentia because of more than a
century of American occupation, a second company, the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust
Company (HKTC), was formed on December 15, 1995, to act for and on behalf of the
Hawaiian Kingdom government until the absentee government was reestablished and
fully operational. Acting for the absentee government, the trustees of the HKTC have
gradually assumed the roles of agencies and ministries of the Kingdom’s government. In
its memorial to The Hague, the Council of Regency states, “The 1880 Co-partnership Act
requires members of co-partnerships to register their articles of agreement in the Bureau
of Conveyances and that a Registrar shall superintend said bureau. This statute places an
obligation on members of co-partnerships to register, and at the same time this statute
places a corresponding duty on the Department of the Minister of the Interior to assure
compliance with the statute. Logic and necessity dictated that in the absence of an
executor of this department that a registered co-partnership could assume the departments
duty” (Government Memorial, supra note 12, 69).
In this manner, the trustees of the HKTC, the only registered company representing the
interests of the Kingdom, appointed David Keanu Sai to the Council of Regency on
February 27, 1996, one day after he formally relinquished all his interest in HKTC and
Perfect Title. On March 1, 1996, Regent Sai formally proclaimed that the Office of the
Regent and its delegates would replace HKTC as the agency empowered to issue patents
in fee-simple or enter into lease negotiation between the government and qualified
individuals.

Replies

Kaohi June 24, 2010 at 5:13am

Good Morning Amelia,

We are being trashed by this idiot and I can only say what is the difference between this and the bombing of the Oklahoma Building. Trashing children because you are coming home from war and and you have PTS does not make sense.
Sufferahsmusic Media Prod June 20, 2010 at 9:45pm

please watch videos for a chance to win prizes and contest
clik on advertisers links to win
not responsible for contest rules or game play

email me at merchantmansmith@gmail.com
www.facebook.com/Amani Smith
www.facebook.com/Sufferahsmusic
www.twitter.com/Sufferahsmusic
www.hotlinemastering.com <~~ visit for the best mastering prices in the world
from arguably one of the worlds best mastering engineers SONIN
Kaohi June 20, 2010 at 9:25am

Amelia,

I was at the birthing stones in Wahiawa, so very sad, and I have no answers: I forget sometimes that people are wiccans (bully's), tourist authority, vampires, stupid, political, desrespectful. I don't know how to Ha, ha and Hamau sometimes when I'm around these behaviors of the third kine.

Tomorrow is summer solstice when the pagan world pray's in the twilight for humaity and will be thinking of you, hope you don't mind! Love you
Kaohi June 17, 2010 at 7:24am

Good mornign Amelia,

Still feeling the effects of the pre Kam Day, but will prevail this storm. We will be having Ahi Fever this weekend in Waianae and Friday is a movie in the park at the Homestead Park in Waianae valley. It should be a day of fun. I have been reading Tane's postings and trying to reeducate myself to the political set up of the 'Overthrow of Our Beloved Kingdom.

As I watched the floates, marchers I thought about what you would be thinking. My children's father was a grandmarshall and I got to ride in the front passenger side of the car. It was interesting because we went from town to Kapiolani Park. This time it was in reverse. Reverence to Kamehameha was much easier to perform and surrounding the area was local families too.

We had to feed the meters too, so I believe that was a problem for everyone. Although those family members in the parade was there on the Iolani grounds, I feel that more of our people should be there. Now that they have the route going in the right direction, I believe things can grow from here. Have a nice day
Kaohi June 15, 2010 at 8:59am

Amelia,

WGA backs 'Crude' filmmaker
Berlinger forced to turn over 600 hours to raw footage
By DAVE MCNARYWe Recommend...
Cameras role on 'Atlas'
Xbox shows off fancy new moves
Opening bid on film futures
Gabrielle Union joins 'Army' spinoff
Graham King courts Bob Berney
Sam Raimi circles 'Wizard of Oz' prequel

The Writers Guild of America East has joined in supporting "Crude: The Real Price of Oil" filmmaker Joe Berlinger, who's been required by a federal judge to turn over 600 hours of raw footage to Chevron Corp.
Judge Lewis Kaplan issued the order May 6, ruling that Berlinger could not use the First Amendment to shield himself from the effort by Chevron to subpoena the footage.

The WGA East notified its 4,000 members Thursday that it was joining with the Independent Documentary Assn. in support of Berlinger.

"To accede to such a demand is tantamount to a reporter being told to turn over all of his or her notes and to violate confidentiality agreements with sources," the guild said. "As with the members of the IDA, our WGAE members working in the documentary field 'hold ourselves to the highest of journalistic standards in the writing, producing and editing of our films.' Those standards include the protection of our outtakes, script drafts, research and sources."

The film centers on the Ecuadorians who sued Texaco (now owned by Chevron) over its operations at its oil field at Lago Agrio that contaminated their water.

Chevron has said Berlinger's footage could be helpful as it seeks to have the litigation dismissed and pursues arbitration. Berlinger and his attorneys are asking Kaplan to delay Chevron's subpoena pending their appeal.

The IDA's open letter, announced last week, was signed by 200 documentary filmmakers including Alex Gibney, Michael Moore, D.A. Pennebaker, Barbara Kopple, Davis Guggenheim, Louie Psihoyos and Morgan Spurlock.

The Directors Guild of America also issued a statement of support Tuesday for Berlinger.

"Documentary filmmakers work under the presumption that their research, sources and draft materials are protected under the First Amendment," DGA president Taylor Hackford said in a statement."Their work often explores sensitive subjects that might not ever reach the public eye if not for the tenacity of the filmmakers and the bravery of their sources. The chilling effect of this court decision will be felt throughout the documentary community, as future filmmakers will be constantly aware that their materials may be seized as evidence, and those who once might have been willing to share their point of view become wary that a documentarian cannot protect them, even if their participation is anonymous. Safeguarding the right of documentary filmmakers to protect their sources is ultimately about protecting the public's right to know and preserving the role of investigative filmmaking in exposing the issues, educating the viewers and informing the public."

Contact Dave McNary at dave.mcnary@variety.com.
Kaohi June 15, 2010 at 8:50am

I turned back to my Gmail and someone sent me this posting.

I wish this movie could be shown here in Hawaii too as a fund raiser. Opposing corporate entities oil companies from exploiting tribal lands are so important. Our opposing of the military in Hawaii and their Hawaiian Use of Depleted Uranium in their live fire training in Hawaii since native Hawaiian veterans give them their blessings to me is horrific at times, I'm left perplexed. Stopping the military from obtaining a permit is important.

Crude The Movie to me
show details 6:49 AM (1 hour ago)

Images are not displayed.
Display images below - Always display images from crude@crudethemovie.com

Special CRUDE Benefit Screening in NYC Next Tue, 6/22!

2 Weeks Left to Donate to First Amendment Fund! WE NEED YOUR HELP!

Dear Friends,

As many of your may have seen in the press, Chevron recently served a subpoena on the CRUDE filmmakers in order to obtain nearly 600 hours of raw footage accumulated during the making of this film. In May, a US District Court ruled for Chevron and ordered CRUDE's director, Joe Berlinger, to produce the footage. In an effort to protect the footage, his sources, and his process, Berlinger immediately appealed. On June 8th, Berlinger's legal team won a stay of the District Court's order. As a result, the District Court's May 20th order directing Berlinger to produce the footage will be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. A full hearing before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will take place in July.

As our legal bills continue to soar through the duration of this appeal, and our initial goal was only a small fraction of our total cost, we truly NEED YOUR HELP NOW. The LAST DAY to donate to the fund is WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30th.

To further support our fund, next Tuesday, June 22nd at 8 pm at the IFC Center, a very special CRUDE screening, co-sponsored by the IDA and WGA, will feature a panel discussion with Joe Berlinger, his lead attorney Maura Wogan of Frankfurt Kurnit, documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock, and WGA, East President Michael Winship among others. The panel will discuss our case and how it affects the roles and rights of documentarians and other independent journalists in today's global community. Please click here to purchase tickets. We hope you will join us for what will surely be a thought-provoking evening exploring the future of the foundation of documentary filmmaking.

For a compilation of recent articles on the case, please visit THE CRUDE BLOG.

***

BENEFIT SCREENING
Tuesday
June 22nd
8 pm
IFC Center
323 Sixth Avenue (@ W. 3rd Street)
NYC

***

CRUDE FIRST AMENDMENT FUND (ends June 30th, 2010)
Kaohi June 15, 2010 at 8:40am

I'm in the middle of reading this piece in posted in part, I will delet after your response: It's very interesting to read especially after the bashing I took from a vortex of people pre Kamehameha Day. Summer Solstice this week end at Ku Kane. in Wahiawa. I hope to see you, I will be there at 4 am. Much love.

KU`E AND KU`OKO`A (RESISTENCE AND INDEPENDENCE):
HISTORY, LAW, AND OTHER FAITHS†
Jonathan Kamakawiwo`ole Osorio, Ph.D.*
I. INTRODUCTION
II. A BRIEF AND CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL HISTORY
III. THE SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT IN HAWAI`I
IV. THE RIGHTS OF HAWAIIAN NATIONALS
V. SELECTING HISTORICAL EVENTS
VI. NATIONALS OR RACE?
VII. KU`E/KU`OKO`A: RESISTANCE AND INDEPENDENCE
VIII. SOME INITIAL CONCLUSIONS
IX. LAW, HISTORY, AND OTHER FAITHS
I. INTRODUCTION
On February 23, 2000, the United States Supreme Court issued a
decision that has had a significant effect on Native Hawaiians and their
seventeen-year-old movement to reclaim self-government. Chief Justice
Kennedy articulated the opinion of the Court finding that Hawai`i’s
denial of petitioner Harold Rice’s right to vote in the trustee elections for
the Office of Hawaiian Affairs violates the Fifteenth Amendment of the
US Constitution. However, Justice Breyer’s concurring opinion that
Hawaiian people have neither political nor cultural claims to distinct
treatment by American law promises to transform Hawaiian civil society
and provides powerful motivation for Hawaiians to seek independence
from the United States.
As result of this decision, a handful of Hawai`i residents are seeking to
dismember more than eighty years of Federal and State legislation that
has set aside land and created two major State agencies for the benefit of
legally defined Native Hawaiians. Several historic cases (Bartlett v.
Department of Hawaiian Homelands and Arakaki v. Office of Hawaiian
Affairs) filed in Federal courts argue that entitlements to Native
Hawaiians, set up under Federal and State legislation, are violations of
† Reprinted by permission from Law and Empire in the Pacific: Fiji and Hawai`i, edited
by Sally Engle Merry and Donald Brenneis. Copyright © 2003 by the School of
American Research, Santa Fe.
* The author is an Associate Professor and Director at Kamakakuokalani Center for
Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i at Manoa.
HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS: Vol. 1 (Summer 2004)
93
the equal rights protections of the US constitution. In response, the State
and Kanaka Maoli (people of Hawaiian ancestry) individuals and
agencies have been working to secure Federal legislation that recognizes
Hawaiians as Native Americans. Another sovereignty initiative, the
Council of Regency of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, managed to obtain a
hearing before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague,
Netherlands. This group solicits international recognition that the nationstate
status of the Kingdom has not been extinguished despite a century
of US occupation.
The history of sovereignty movements in Hawai`i provides a framework
for understanding the discursive trends that sustain and alter cultural
identity. Ultimately, the confrontation between cultural identity and
social-political frameworks such as law provides the clearest
understanding of how institutions, especially colonial institutions, are
translated and adopted.
To discuss how American law and international law address political
questions of ethnic and national identity, I will compare two distinct
legal avenues through which the aboriginal people of Hawai`i are
seeking self-government—Ka Lahui Hawai`i (KLH) and the Council of
Regency. I will describe how these two strategies are employing distinct
and mutually exclusive interpretations of nationhood. While Ka Lahui
has struggles to secure recognition as a Native nation within the larger
American nation, the Council of Regency has pursued the
reestablishment of the independent Hawaiian Kingdom. The differences
between these two initiatives, I contend, contribute to the confusion over
definitions of nationality, race, and self-determination, which cannot be
solved by juridical decision at either the national or international level.
Indeed, they can barely be addressed at the level of local politics because
of certain important and historic ideological differences that separate
Hawaiians.
II. A BRIEF AND CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL HISTORY
The liberal franchise extended by the 1900 Organic Act in Hawai`i
defined Hawaiian as American citizens, despite their widespread
opposition to the American takeover.1 Yet, from 1902 until the decade
before the Statehood Act, political control was maintained by the
Republican Party, which successfully recruited thousands of Native
Hawaiian voters, in part, through a carefully managed system of
patronage. Territorial and county government positions were routinely
dispensed to loyal Republicans. Labor unionism, associated with the
1 See generally Tom Coffman, Nation Within: The Story of America’s Annexation of the
Nation of Hawai`i (Honolulu: Epicenter Press, 1998); and Noenoe. Silva and Nalani
Minton, Ku`e: The Hui Aloha `Aina Anti-Annexation Petitions 1897-1898 (Honolulu:
manuscript published by authors, 1998).
HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS: Vol. 1 (Summer 2004)
94
Democratic Party, was stigmatized as antithetical to Hawaiian interests
because it would primarily benefit the largely Asian plantation
workforce.2
Under Republican control, a few powerful haole (Caucasian)
corporations and families were able to manipulate all the important
sectors of the economy, including finance, shipping, wholesale
distribution, and, most importantly, cheap access to the Crown and
Government Lands of the Kingdom, which made up nearly one-half the
total land area of the archipelago. The labor movement grew stronger,
and on the eve of Statehood the Republicans surrendered political
supremacy to the Democratic Party without, however, surrendering their
control over land and wealth.3
The first fifteen years of Statehood under Democratic Party control did
not favor the economic or political aspirations of Hawaiians in general.
Considered by many to be a failed minority in American society,
Hawaiians demonstrated classic symptoms of an underprivileged
minority: high levels of arrest and incarceration, alcoholism and
increasing drug abuse, low levels of education and upward social
mobility, and a virtual nonparticipation in what many saw as the
economic miracle of the State’s transformation from an agricultural to
tourist-dominated economy.4 In fact, many Hawaiians began to see their
economic position erode after the 1930s, as well as into the 1960s and
1970s, when large estates began to evict Hawaiians from their homes and
farms to make room for new and much more profitable urban
developments.5 At the same time, Japanese and Chinese Democrats
replaced the Native Hawaiian Republicans in the legislatures,
marginalizing Hawaiians politically.
In the mid-1970s, several issues converged: a Native-led opposition to
the US military bombing of Kaho`olawe Island since 1941, outrage at the
rising number of evictions from the land, and public discussion of the
failure of the Native Hawaiian Trusts, especially the Department of
Hawaiian Homelands. In 1977, two young Hawaiian activists were killed
trying to prevent the US Navy from bombing Kaho`olawe, believing that
the `aina (land) was sacred, conscious, and an elder sibling to the Kanaka
Maoli themselves.
2 This requires context. Many Hawaiians belonged to and led labor organizations,
especially among longshoremen and teamsters’ unions in the 1930s and 1940s. Few
Hawaiian Republican families did not have active union members by the late 1930s.
3 See generally Noel J. Kent, Hawai`i: Islands Under the Influence (New York: Monthly
Review Press, 1983).
4 Id., 180-185.
5 Haunani Trask, From a Native Daughter: Colonialism and Sovereignty in Hawai`i, Rev.
ed. (Honolulu: University of Hawai`i Press, 1999), 66.
HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS: Vol. 1 (Summer 2004)
95
In that same year, a Federal-State task force investigating the Department
of Hawaiian Homes found a history of gross mismanagement of the trust,
with only a few thousand leases awarded to qualified beneficiaries. More
than half of the lands were leased to people and companies who were not
Hawaiian. Thousands of acres were simply appropriated by the State and
Federal governments. Nearly 20,000 claimants languished on waiting
lists, some for as long as thirty years. The task force recommended a
half-billion-dollar expenditure to create sufficient infrastructure to
implement the aims of the program, calling on both the Federal and State
governments to share the expense. Neither would.
Disgust with American promises and priorities, combined with a cultural
renaissance in Hawaiian music, dance, art, literature, history, and
language, fueled the nationalist movement. In 1978, future governor John
Waihe`e led a group of Native delegates to the State Constitutional
Convention to draft and secure the inclusion of laws that would protect
Hawaiians and their culture. The new constitution mandated the teaching
of Hawaiian history, language, and culture in all public educational
institutions, included Hawaiian as the second official language of the
State, and created the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to receive and
distribute funds from the ceded lands for the benefit of Native
Hawaiians. In 1978, the Hawai`i Supreme Court ruled that Native
Hawaiians were entitled to 20 percent of the ceded lands’ revenues
because these represented one of five uses mandated by the Organic Act.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, with special voting provisions allowing
only Natives to participate, became a source of self-rule that was,
nevertheless, limited and tightly controlled by the legislature and
governor’s office, which appropriated money for its operation.
Under the first elected Native Hawaiian governor, John Waihe`e (1986-
1996), there was much publicity about native affairs but little substantial
improvement in Hawaiians’ economic standing. Politically, Hawaiians
began to filter back into the legislature, usually as Democrats, and
numerous grassroots organizations, including the original sovereignty
movements, began to agitate for recognition. These organizations, some
of them cultural and academic, such as the Hawaiian Language
Immersion programs and the Center for Hawaiian Studies, strengthened
Hawaiian resolve for sovereign control of Kanaka Maoli resources.
After reaching a high point of widespread discussion and
acknowledgement in 1993 with the well-publicized centennial
observation of the overthrow, the sovereignty movement has suffered a
backlash of legal challenges: Rice v. Cayetano, State government
intrigues under the current governor, and more internal disagreements
among Native Hawaiian groups over strategies and goals.
In 1996, the State Attorney General began an investigation of the largest
and richest Hawaiian private trust, the Bishop Estate, which employs a
multibillion-dollar land and investment portfolio for the support of the
HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS: Vol. 1 (Summer 2004)
96
Kamehameha schools and for scholarship and outreach programs
affecting tens of thousands of Native Hawaiian children, who are the
primary beneficiaries. This investigation ultimately ended in the
replacement of all the trustees appointed during the Waihe`e/Cayetano
years and the convening of grand juries against three trustees, two of
whom had been powerful Democratic Party legislators in the 1980s.6
Although the investigation was sparked when concerned Native
educators protested the trustees’ micromanagement of the school, the
very public examination of every single member shamed and alarmed the
Hawaiian community at large, which feared that the most powerful
Hawaiian institutions surviving from the Kingdom would be torn apart
and devoured by the State of Hawai`i.
For Hawaiian nationalists, the Cayetano administration has not been
kind. The governor has gone out of his way to threaten Hawaiian
entitlement programs. When his original appointee to head the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands became too effective, securing the
return of more than 16,000 acres appropriated by the State from
Hawaiian Homes inventory, Cayetano replaced him—the week after the
governor won a closely contested re-election. After his re-election,
Cayetano became even more vocal about his opposition to Hawaiian
entitlements, arguing that he himself is Hawaiian at heart but that, as
governor, he cannot protect the interests of one group over any other
group of citizens. He has even insisted that the revenues due the Office
of Hawaiian Affairs are an unfair obligation the State cannot afford to
pay.
As Hawaiians have amplified their calls for self-government, the State of
Hawai`i has ratcheted up the political stakes by threatening Native
Hawaiian resources through a discourse on American principles of equal
protection and access under the law. Certainly, the broken promises and
failed protections of the trust relationship between America and Native
Hawaiians have contributed to the rise of the sovereignty movement, as
has the relative political displacement of Native Hawaiians with the rise
of the Asian Democrats in the 1960s. However, as much as the
sovereignty movement has focused on redressing past grievances with
America, it has also insisted on defining what it means to be Hawaiian.
III. THE SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT IN HAWAI`I
Ka Lahui Hawai`i (KLH), the elder organization in the sovereignty
movement at sixteen years, is, in 2003, also the largest, with close to
20,000 citizens. KLH’s constitution is based on a nation-within-nation
model similar to that of several Native American governments that have
treaty relationships and Federal recognition with the United States. At
6 A circuit judge dismissed indictments for the fourth time in the case on grounds that
State lawyers had presented evidence in a way that prejudiced the indicting grand jury
(Advertiser, 26 November 2000).
HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS: Vol. 1 (Summer 2004)
97
the same time, KLH has sought international support through the
Unrepresented Peoples Organization (UNPO) and has worked together
with other Natives to craft a Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples within the United Nations.7
Assessment of KLH’s political success is difficult because KLH appears
to have more influence and credibility outside Hawai`i than within. KLH
representatives to world and indigenous councils enjoy recognition and
respect for carrying on a determined, non-violent sovereignty movement
for more than a decade, but, surprisingly, KLH has never been much of a
political force within the Hawaiian Islands. This is surprising not only
because KLH boasts a comparatively large membership but also because
its political aim—to create a sovereign Native government with the
United States—has legal precedence and addresses the fears of may
Hawai`i residents that Hawaiian sovereignty threatens their rights as
American citizens. From its inception, KLH has limited its land claims to
former Crown and Government Lands of the Kingdom. In the minds of
KLH citizens and sympathizers, the return of these lands would be a
significant first step in repairing the relationship between the United
States and the Hawaiian people, would provide a suitable land base for
the Native nation, and would steer clear of any threat to private land
holdings in Hawai`i.
Those ceded lands, however, represent more than 90 percent of the lands
in the State’s possession, and many politicians besides the current
governor have insisted that the State is financially dependent on the
revenues those lands generate. Critics of the State’s land use have long
asserted that the State of Hawai`i does not employ those lands
judiciously, allowing certain favored corporations and individuals to
lease highly productive properties at bargain rates.8 Be that as it may, few
people in the sovereignty movement imagine that the State of Hawai`i
will surrender its control of ceded lands without some kind of legal or
political challenge.9
Perhaps for that reason, not many public officials even acknowledge the
existence of KLH. Clearly, the organization possesses few of the
7 Trask, supra note 5, 75.
8 S.C.T. Faludi, Broken Promise: Hawaiians Wait in Vain for Their Lands, The Wall
Street Journal, 9 September 1991, A1.
9 I am a plaintiff in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Housing Finance and Development
Corporation et al. in the First Circuit Court. This suit, continued since 1996, seeks to
enjoin the State of Hawai`i from selling or exchanging 5f trust lands, also known as
Ceded Lands, until the sovereignty over those lands can be determined. In 1995, the State
sought a summary judgment from Federal Judge Healy and was denied. Plaintiffs’
“Closing Argument” (December 17, 2001) reprinted in the Hawaiian Journal of Law &
Politics 1 (Summer 2004): 490-541.
HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS: Vol. 1 (Summer 2004)
98
attributes (a disciplined cadre, overwhelming numbers, or even the
ability to influence a public election) that marks a political player.
If citizenship in KLH offers something other than an opportunity to be
politically active and empowered, it is a sense of identity based on
ancestry rather than on the nation-based citizenship created by the
Kingdom of Hawai`i during the reign of Kamehameha III. As such, KLH
follows a logical, historical pattern of Native Hawaiians’ identifying as
an ethnic group or race.10 The political treatment of Hawaiians as a race
is traceable in the development of American law and administration in
the Hawaiian Islands, beginning with the 1920 Hawaiian Homes Act and
ending with the Apology Law in 1993.
In fact, the proposed federal legislation known as the Native Hawaiian
Federal Recognition Legislation (S-344), before the US Congress in
2003, is also a part of this historic process designed, in part, to protect
previous Federal and State laws administering trust benefits on behalf of
Native Hawaiians. Those who supported this bill generally view
Hawaiians as an ethnic group whose identity is fostered by and through
ancestry. Those who opposed the bill made up a large spectrum of
political opinion, from people who oppose anything resembling
affirmative action in America to Hawaiian nationalists who insist that
nothing short of the reestablishment of the Kingdom will resolve the
ongoing dispute over Hawaiian self-determination.
IV. THE RIGHTS OF HAWAIIAN NATIONALS
On November 8, 1999, a Hawaiian national, Lance Larsen, initiated
arbitration proceedings against the Hawaiian government with the PCA
at The Hague. Hilo police arrested Larsen in 1998 and incarcerated him
for nearly a month after he objected to his arrest for driving an
automobile that was not registered and licensed under State law. Larsen
had been ticketed and fined on numerous occasions and had refused to
appear in court because he “does not recognize the laws of the United
States or its political subdivision, the State of Hawaii, as valid within the
Hawaiian Kingdom.”11
Larsen’s attorney, Ninia Parks, filed an original complaint for injunctive
relief in the United States District Court for the State of Hawai`i, alleging
that the Hawaiian government was allowing the unlawful imposition of
10 Using the term race for ethnicity may strike some as offensive. I do not use race to
imply a different species, but as an interchangeable term with ethnicity or ancestry.
11 See “Notice of Arbitration to Initiate Recourse to Arbitral Proceedings in Compliance
with the Permanent Court of Arbitration Optional Rules for Arbitrating Disputes Between
Two Parties of Which Only One Is a State,” available at
http://www.alohaquest.com/arbitration/log.htm.
HAWAIIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS: Vol. 1 (Summer 2004)
99
American domestic law within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian
Kingdom over his person. Federal Judge Samuel King dismissed the case
on February 5, 1999, submitting all issues to binding arbitration
“between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Mr. Larsen at the Permanent Court
of Arbitration at The Hague in the Netherlands.”12
Eventually, Larsen’s action brought the Council of Regency of the
Kingdom of Hawai`i, represented by David Keanu Sai, into a plea before
the PCA asking the Court to define the duties and obligations that the
Kingdom, through its Council of Regency, has toward its subject, Lance
Larsen. Both parties in the arbitration, held in December 2000 at The
Hague, stipulated that Larsen’s rights had been violated by the actions of
the occupying power, the United States, and the appeal for arbitration
was to enable an international tribunal to direct the Kingdom’s
government concerning the scope of its obligations to its subject under
the laws of occupation.
The Council of Regency of the Kingdom of Hawai`i has been in
existence since 1996. Its creation and membership came about
subsequent to the formation of the Perfect Title Corporation in 1995, a
Native-owned land title abstracting company.13 Perfect Title alleged that
12 See “Memorial of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government,” available at:
http://www.alohaquest.com/arbitration/log.htm.
13 Perfect Title was formed on December 10, 1995, to investigate (and confirm or reject)
all claims to fee-simple titles consistent with Kingdom law for its clients and to register
valid titles with the Kingdom’s Bureau of Conveyances. All the partners in Perfect Title
agreed that the business would be operated in “strict compliance to the business laws of
the Hawaiian Kingdom as noted in the Compiled Laws of 1884 and the Session Laws of
1884 and 1886” (Government Memorial, supra note 12, 66).
Noting that a legitimate Bureau of Conveyances was in absentia because of more than a
century of American occupation, a second company, the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust
Company (HKTC), was formed on December 15, 1995, to act for and on behalf of the
Hawaiian Kingdom government until the absentee government was reestablished and
fully operational. Acting for the absentee government, the trustees of the HKTC have
gradually assumed the roles of agencies and ministries of the Kingdom’s government. In
its memorial to The Hague, the Council of Regency states, “The 1880 Co-partnership Act
requires members of co-partnerships to register their articles of agreement in the Bureau
of Conveyances and that a Registrar shall superintend said bureau. This statute places an
obligation on members of co-partnerships to register, and at the same time this statute
places a corresponding duty on the Department of the Minister of the Interior to assure
compliance with the statute. Logic and necessity dictated that in the absence of an
executor of this department that a registered co-partnership could assume the departments
duty” (Government Memorial, supra note 12, 69).
In this manner, the trustees of the HKTC, the only registered company representing the
interests of the Kingdom, appointed David Keanu Sai to the Council of Regency on
February 27, 1996, one day after he formally relinquished all his interest in HKTC and
Perfect Title. On March 1, 1996, Regent Sai formally proclaimed that the Office of the
Regent and its delegates would replace HKTC as the agency empowered to issue patents
in fee-simple or enter into lease negotiation between the government and qualified
individuals.
Kaohi June 15, 2010 at 8:29am

Goodmorning Amelia.

Over the weekend at Sunset at the Beach, I noticed a corporate shift in trashing our cultural practices and identity an American clean-up of native peoples on the Waianae coast. It's interesting that it is approx. ten years latter when Blue Crush movie reigned in their Venus Pose. We have over thousands of years of Native Hawaiian women surfing and the Blue Crush movie stole that spirit. And the corprate movie makers turned it into a popcorn movie with clear intent to replace native Hawaiian women with white women. Not sure if this weekend was an intended retraction of the Blue Crush movie that did considerable amount of damage to our existing Hawaiian women sufer's ten years ago.

If this was intended to replace that displacement of our native Hawaiian women surfers ten years ago, mmm than local trashing of Waianae was a distraction from the huge dump sites by political permitting process. This weekend documentation, in my opinion, it was a diversion of that permitting process for truckers that are trucking into Waianae their economic gain of 'pilau' toxic contaminats.

But, I'm not sure! Corporation, surfing women, Waianae trash clean-up and super blame game of Waianae locals for trashing the roadside documentation needs 'talk story' and the issue of trashing Waianae and it's people should be put into a different light of esteem.

The wild card.

This reply was deleted.