Forum

Reuniting a Nation Disrupted by Treasonous Persons in the Hawaiian Islands

Posted by Amelia Gora on September 2, 2015 at 1:03am in Politics

The following discussion of Facebook was posted by Isaac Harp, et. als.  This is Isaac Harp's video fyi:

A Visit With Isaac Harp - YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXXoD5b1VYo
Dec 28, 2007 - Uploaded by Voices Of Truth - One-On-One With Hawai`iʻs Future
http://VoicesOfTruthTV.com - Native Hawaiian rights, aboriginal rights and Kingdom rights. What's the ...

Facebook Discussion:

Isaac Harp
August 31 at 11:55pm · Waimea, HI

Aloha people, Lets please try to focus on a few simple questions to help us find out what we can agree on as we work our way towards unity. To begin we'll start with one question per-day. After we get some practice in we may be able double the questions or even triple. Here goes:

Question #1) 
Should Hawaiian Kingdom law guide the process to restore our government?

You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!

Tags: Hawaii, Hawaiian, Judicial, Kingdom, Liliuokalani, Military, Pillagers, Pirates, Queen, Tribunal, Truth, Uninvited, from
Email me when people reply –
Follow

Replies

  • Amelia Gora September 3, 2015 at 1:05am

      

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnRaTfq0LTs  

    All Hawaii Stands Together Liko Martin with lyrics  

    note:  Haleakala, Mauna Kea etc. included in the lyrics

  • Amelia Gora September 3, 2015 at 12:58am

    • Isaac Harp Aloha Aunty Puanani Rogers, Mahalo for sharing, and for your comments and question. After the representatives are elected the people can tell them what they want them to do, including looking at what our Queen was working on if that's what the people want. We have a ways to go to get there and we are taking it slow so everybody is clear on where we're going. A hui hou, Paka
      3 hrs · Like · 1
    • Isaac Harp Aloha Amelia, Do you know if there is a law that specifies that when Constitutional amendments are adopted that the original (pre amendment) Constitution must be abrogated? I'm not finding any hard evidence that the 1852 Constitution is still in effect. What I have found is that the 1864 Constitution was in effect up until the 1887 "Bayonet" Constitution was forced on Kalakaua. Mahalo, Paka
      3 hrs · Like · 1
    • Isaac Harp Aloha Chuck Flaherty, Disappointing to hear that the civic clubs will be participating in the entrapment process. I guess it's to be expected with Anelle Amaral leading the pack. Aloha, Paka
      3 hrs · Unlike · 2
    • Lei Niheu @ ChuckI concur with Paka. Calling as it is -----Entrapment. The process is American. Hawaiians, who are American Nationals, cannot see the fraudulent and deceptive practice of continuing the theft of our legacy, have by all means forfeited their claim and right to be counted as a Hawaiian National; therefore, should be considered a enemi of the Kingdom. Civic clubs should due their civic responsibility to ensure the health and wellbeing of Maoli Hawaii and the longevity of our Maoli culture is closely match to that which is our ancestors..... So if someone casts a pebble, it has nothing to do with sin....not all all. However, It is a SIN, when a crime/theft has been committed, due diligence, and due judicial process retreats under layers of political deception, muck & mire, that it resembles a Gloriously Jewelled Papal cloak, universally they all forget the crime, the theft of our nation, ultimately forfeit their civic responsibility .....to seek due diligence, due judicial process. It was late last year or early months of 2015 the civic clubs reject a similar OHA-Federal Entity Favoring Nation Building Project with large financial backing & political clout....at this very same event civic club members voted for the removal Arnell Amoral as president. Because her political pearl was to make us federal Indian tribal Status. R u aware that many federal Indian tribes are DIS-membering their members in part to competing resources and finances among themselves. Federal government is scaling back their financial support, hence, leaders are reviewing their members and make up all kinds rules, kicking members out of the tribes and consolidating their resources to those who meet rules and criteria. Like Kana'iolowalu, Na'i Aupuni is a TRAP. If U take that Bait....u knowingly commiting us to same fateful Trap..... Being an Hawaiian, but American National, is not the same as a Hawaiian who is a Hawaiian National u need to know where u really stand. A Sovereign Independence Nation of Hawaii is a realistic and a hard fought goal, and our true destiny because our tupuna lived this way.
      55 mins · Like · 1
    • Lei Niheu @ Chucku said: The Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs will be participating with OHA, CHNA and DHHL (D.O.I.) in Na'i Aupuni voting process.....I say " SHAMEFUL" . R U aware those positions of leadership in those agencies take an oath of office whose allegiance is to America. Historically civic clubs supported the wellbeing of our lahui, these kupuna had witness the grave wrong done to our Nation and directly experienced the pain and loss and fought hard against this injustice, knowingly, this was also a fight for the right to humanly exist when u consider the odds in those times. Over time, our Lahui Maoli dwindled, small in numbers, eventually, a civic functions waned in participation. This sophisticated political process is stealthy, and untrustworthy.......this process has no integrity. Political and Economic gains are strong incentives that u, through your CC affiliations, are willingly engineering cultural genocide in the name of American Nationals Of Hawaiian Ancestry.
      7 mins · Like
  • Amelia Gora September 3, 2015 at 12:58am
    • Tim Reis Mahalo Amelia Gora. That is mountain of information, one could get lost in.
      Definitely things to research.

      Something you did mention sparks an interest.

      I often wondered about the circumstances and discussions surrounding the passage of Chapter LXXXVIII (88?) of the Hawaiian Penal Code "To regulate the sale of deadly poisons."

      There are many unanswered questions in our history.
      19 hrs · Like · 2
    • Janell Auld Wow!!!
      17 hrs · Like
    • Puanani Rogers Aloha kakou, Mahalo Paka and everyone that have been contributing to this conversation. Aloha Tim Reis and mahalo for your input. All this is helpful in our work to organize ahupua`a councils on Kauai. I need help as we begin to bring together the rule...See More
      16 hrs · Like · 3
    • Kaylene Kauwila Sheldon Amelia Gora yup oiai'o, the Kanahele Ohana who hold a deed title got evicted from I assume from John Morgan a dependent of Judd!
      14 hrs · Like
    • Kaylene Kauwila Sheldon Sorry a descendent
      14 hrs · Like 
  • Amelia Gora September 2, 2015 at 2:44am

    • Isaac Harp Aloha Amelia, First I want to say Mahalo for your years of research and sharing of information. To tell you the truth, a lot of what you share stretches the boundaries of my intelligence but I have learned much from what you have shared. Could you please clarify this for me? Is it your opinion that because the newspaper article reports that no champion for the 1864 Constitution stepped forward to speak in support of the 1864 Constitution, that this in itself invalidated the 1864 Constitution somehow? If so, I remain ignorant as to how this could be. If the 1864 Constitution was lawfully promulgated by Kamehameha V with amendments by the legislative assembly, should it not be required that after being elected that King Lunalilo should have formerly abrogated the 1864 Constitution to provide for reverting back to the 1852 Constitution? I see in the newspaper article that it was Resolved that four representatives were instructed to vote for Lunalilo and no one else, but I do not see anything in the newspaper article that replaces the 1864 Constitution with that of 1852. Although the article does refer to the manifesto of the Prince to the people in which he engages to restore the Constitution of Kamehameha III, I see no evidence in the article that this was actually carried out. Is there another source where we could find evidence that the 1864 Constitution was later abrogated or replaced by the 1852 Constitution? Mr. C.E.Williams stated that there was an important omission in the resolution, that it did not state which Constitution would be adopted. While Mr. P.C, Jones stated that there is but one. This further leads me to believe that the newspaper article is insufficient evidence that the 1864 Constitution is not now the lawful Constitution of the Kingdom. Mahalo for any clarity you can provide Amelia. Aloha, Paka
      39 mins · Like
    • Amelia Gora hi, currently am reviewing the actors, er...the treasonous persons who infiltrated our Hawaiian government.....finding that William Lee was problematic at the start..........I think that the 1852 Constitution basically locks in because the foundation laws were created by Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli and his is the basis of the Statute laws, etc. Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli locked in the alodio/lodio/alodial land system and secured it forever to our people........William Lee had some conflicts with the laws and the reality is that he had no say.........he was not the Sovereign, heir or successor.........William Lee an other Americans such as Charles Reed Bishop were on assignment, early spies who arrived in the islands........... now let's look at his death....a week before he died he said someone poisoned him..............the Judd's were selling an 'abundant supply of arsenic in Hawaii' and advertised on the mainland as well.............Kamehameha III died in 1854 then succeeded by his hanai son Alexander Liholiho who was his step brother as well.....Alexander continues on and his wife Emma fools around with a haole and Alexander shot him.....and the haole died months later.........Alexander died shortly after his son died...... Lot had signed an open ended agreement with the sugar planters as Minister of Interior and CW Ashford, an attorney perpetuated Lot's agreement and it was even perpetuated by the U.S. President appointed governor named Poindexter.........it was over the use of the Crown Lands, etc.,.......Lot was surrounded by treasonous persons and personally I think he was a savante, an extra chromosome man who was supported by haole opportunists to slowly assume lands, rights, interests giving them power through the legalese, etc. Kalakaua wrote up a law where no idiots could be rulers ..............and yet he should talk! lol http://maoliworld.ning.com/.../our-hawaiian-monarchy... Kalakaua tried to sell Hawaii to Japan, then the U.S. ....Kalakaua was a heavy drinker, a Mason of the highest degree.........so there are several factors in what was going on............he was under duress, as well as treasonous ............so, the 1852
      12 mins · Like · Remove Preview
    • Amelia Gora Constitution is still in place because it was not abrogated and the 1868 Constitution should be scrutinized because it was claimed to be an updated version of the 1852 Constitution....another thing, lawless activities progressed through the failure of the Judges who were in position after Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli passed......... Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli was the Supreme Court Judge and he selected Kaauwai, John Kapena, John Ii, and another as his Judges.....currently reviewing the Judges ----and looked for their cases....noticed that the HAWAIIAN REPORTS begins with the credits to Lee........research incomplete...........oh btw during King Kalakaua's period the Judges took control and said that they made the rules and their rules were the law! treasonous SOB's and what happened to records of prosecutions for such individuals? btw the Judd's ended up being administrators of John Ii Estate and they are the ones on Land Court Application 1000 assuming John Ii's families lands, etc.............corruption to the core..........auwe..... so, the haole i think did not want to truth to be let out that the Hawaiians were actually more progressive than they....especially due to being the first to pass the anti-slavery law in 1852 and the U.S. passed theirs in 1865.......aloha.... have to get a shuteye cause have a slight headache for lack of sleep........till later.........aloha,
  • Amelia Gora September 2, 2015 at 1:27am

    • Amelia Gora Hi Paka....the 1852 Constitution is still in effect... it appears that the 1864 Constitution was in place including the Manifesto of 1872 which King Lunalilo added included the 1852 Constitution because it was the intention of King Lunalilo to recognize it foremost. No supporters of the 1864 Constitution stepped forward in the meeting in the article, "equal rights and equal justice to all men" was the goal of King Lunalilo and utilizing Kamehameha III's Constitution of 1852 as shown in the article. So the "Manifesto of 1872" and the documented intention of King Lunalilo who was a Kamehameha being a younger step brother of Kamehameha III would be foremost. btw the land testimony of Charles Kanaina revealed that Kekauluohi/Auhea was Lunalilo's mother and his father was David Kamehameha who was the hanai of Kaahumanu. David was the son of Kinau, daughter of Kamehameha. Because the 1852 Constitution was not abrogated, it continues on. The Kalakaua Bayonnet Constitution was made under stress, duress, usurpation, and coercion and signed with a gun to his head...... and likewise with Queen Liliuokalani who did move to strip the haole of their control over the Alii.....and she did destroy the Constitution which made changes, thus, returning the Constitutional Monarchy government of her period to a Monarchy government which lawfully utilizes King Lunalilo's "Manifesto of 1872" with his intentions of utilizing the 1852 Constitution. Also a reminder that the permanent friendship and amity Treaty of 1850 of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States of America stands as the "supreme law of the land" as documented in the U.S. Constitution ..... This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any ...Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_ClauseWikipedia
      50 mins · Like · Remove Preview
    • Amelia Gora note that the only parties to the Treaty of 1850 is Kamehameha III his heirs and successors with the U.S. A. President.... King Lunalilo was a Kamehameha. His mother Kekauluohi/Auhea was married to Both Kamehameha and Kamehameha II - Liholiho the full brother of Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli. His mother stated that Lunalilo was the highest at the time and rightfully so because it was she who linked all the Kamehameha's families together and it was her son who was also a Kamehameha through genealogies, a hanai of Kamehameha's wife Kaahumanu who was also the only documented hanai. The Robert Wilcox family, a treasonous branch claimed after 1900 that their ancestor was a hanai of Kaahumanu but it is not recorded. Their ancestor Rives jumped ship after Kamehameha II - Liholiho died and was suspected of stealing the King's monies........Rives ended up in Mexico and died there abandoning the Royal Families return with the King's - Kamehameha II's body from England. See the list of the heirs and successors who are parties to the 1850 Treaty at http://theiolani.blogspot.com/.../vol-v-no-555-legal...
      29 mins · Like · Remove Preview
  • Amelia Gora September 2, 2015 at 1:20am
    • Sheldon Ah Yee Ok got it.
      13 hrs · Like
    • Elaine Kauai Aloha, Tim Reis, I was merely doing what is referred to as a little due diligence on your statements regarding the 1864 v 1887 constitutions. Staying on point, of the ability to amend the constitution and Article 80 which you stated is ONLY in the 1864, I am satisfied that I found an amendment Article in the 1887 as well. Thatʻs all, I like to confirm things. If you feel "these conversations are distractions" I wonʻt bog this thread down anymore with questions. E kala mai, I thought thatʻs what it was for and did not know everything had already been decided.
      13 hrs · Like
    • Tim Reis Elaine Kauai, I genuinely was trying to help.I don't debate these issues to prove I am right and you are wrong. I debate them to learn. To test my perspective and my understanding of the issues.

      In my previous comment, I mentioned the first step in this learning process is to acknowledge "I don't know what I am talking about and my perspective is defintely flawed". This applies to me, too.

      Rigor is a good thing. We should be questioning everything but we should also be applying logic.

      A nation can only have one governing document/Constitution/social contract. So it is either the 1864 or 1887.

      In Hawaiian history, we see a genealogy of governing documents beginning with the Declaration of rights in 1839.

      Followed by the 1840 Constitution, where Kauikeaouli willingly relinquished his absolute authority to create a Constitutional Monarchy.

      Followed by the 1852 Constitution. In this Constitution, there was wording that allowed the King to change the Constitution, if he did not approve of it, Article 94. Article 45 allowed the king and kuhina nui to alter laws without legislative approval. Lot Kapuaiwa removed this " loophole", solidifying the Separation of Power Doctrine, creating Article 80 of the 1864 Constitution.

      All of the changes to the previous Constitutions were lawful.

      You come to the 1887 Constitution and there is a problem. It did not meet all the safeguards our Mo'i put in place. Article 47 of the 1887 "Bayonet constitution" completely removed the mo'i. Compromising the Separation of Powers Doctrine that they just created.

      If you claiming to be Hawaiian (nationality) and talking about occupation, some things have already been decided. 

      But that is a different topic.

      Ko'u mana'o
      6 hrs · Like
    • Amelia Gora > Amelia Gora September 2, 2015 at 1:22am

      • Elaine Kauai The fact is, the 1887 Constitution was in effect at the time of the illegal overthrow, thereby superseding the 1864 Constitution. I am not saying it is right or wrong just trying not to get into a lot of distractions but sticking to and stating facts.
        6 hrs · Edited · Like
      • Isaac Harp I appreciate this lively discussion on Hawaiian Kingdom Constitutions. The bottom line as some would say, is that we must abide by the most recent legitimate Constitution. The last duly ratified Constitution by the legitimate legislative assembly of the Hawaiian Kingdom is that of 1864. Aloha Elaine Kauai, like Tim Reis, I am not promoting any particular group but the link that he shared contains valuable information assembled by people who are widely recognized as well qualified to provide information and analysis. If you review the information shared about Hawaiian Kingdom Constitutions, you will see that the so-called 1887 Constitution did not obtain the consent nor ratification of the Legislative Assembly who had remained adjourned since October 16, 1886. Mahalo, Paka
        6 hrs · Like · 3
      • Elaine Kauai Ok, more things to look into and study.
        5 hrs · Like · 1
      • Amelia Gora > Amelia Gora September 2, 2015 at 1:23am
        • Chuck Flaherty I believe the question should be amended before answering by adding, "and, if so, laws in effect at what date?". This question was discussed at last year's Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs plenary session within the context of which Kingdom of Hawaii constitution should be used as a basis from which to create a new constitution. This included the possibility of using the constitution that Queen Liliuokalani attempted to ratify, the fear of which caused American businessmen to instigate the overthrow in 1893.
          5 hrs · Like · 1
        • Isaac Harp Aloha Chuck Flaherty, I believe that its a given that we need to follow the last legitimate laws, which have already been determined by recognized experts like keanu Sai and Williamson Chang to be the 1884 Compiled laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the last lawfully ratified Constitution of 1864. We cannot use any laws or Constitutions not lawfully ratified by the legislative assembly, and we cannot use prior laws or Constitutions. There really is no debate on what laws and Constitution we must abide by, unless you see some loophole that demonstrates otherwise. Do you? Mahalo, Paka
          4 hrs · Like · 1
        • Joyclynn Costa The Kanawai yes
          4 hrs · Like
This reply was deleted.