Want to change the subject a little bit. I did read your postings however.
Keau's was a big time sweep, but different from others. A lot of political noise from politicians that have no humanity or culture reasoning.
Which brings me back to John Waihee--he mentioned 'culture' and the emphasis was in his tone of voice. Which brings to mind culture values and tort this was surprising to me--as you know me by now I come from experience. On the line of defense, I believe 'tort' is on the line much more than de-occupation. My apologies for seeming to waiver.
Do you remember the children on the steps of the Iolani Palace, and thank you for feeding them too. They lived at Keau's some of the 70 children went to the bushes and others went to shelters. I just came from Keau's and everything seemed okay. The right police officer was there and he talked with everyone and gained trust which is a good thing at this point. He also had a word with his boss whose soon will be retiring. In other words everything went well but only temporary. It solved the political problem but not the injuries to our people.
and too my last point. Our Limu beds are becoming some ones privately owned gathering place. Have been working on that too. Another injury to the list. Our limu beds are not speculative realestates.
This is an important issue because it deals with the military and Sai's case will flow straight into the de-occupation of the Obama Defense and possibly beyond his time. So we need to be on board before his publication with our own defense. The Native Hawaiian UXO Veterans, LLC are hooked up budget and comaraderie with National Security and FEMA. So the lines are graying as we speak and soone we will loose our understanding as to who we are. I have Ioane permission to reprint his testimony.
Testimony of John Noah P. Ho’omanawanui Member, Keli’ihoomanawanui ‘Ohana before a joint hearing of the
Committee: Senate Committees on Hawaiian Affairs and
Water, Land and Housing Date: Saturday, February 12, 2011 Time: 10 am. Site: Hawaii State Capitol, Room 225 Re: In consideration of Senate Bill 609
RELATING TO THE KAHO’OLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION Chairs Galuteria and DelaCruz, Vice Chairs Ryan and Solomon, members of the aforementioned committees,
Aloha and Mahalo for the opportunity to submit a written testimony before you today in opposition to SB609, which seeks to decrease the membership of the Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission (KIRC) from seven to five members and possibly to eliminate the Protect Kaho’olawe ‘Ohana’s (PKO) direct representation on the Commission. If this is the intention of SB609, I am disheartened to the lack of posterity it will enact. From 1989-2003, my ‘ohana and I have labored side by side with PKO on Kaho’olawe. We have seen many lives enriched and reconnected with our ‘āina- the legacy from which we derived. It is pono to move forward and keep the relationship between PKO and KIRC intact. Hereafter, I will cite three perspectives on how it lacks posterity:
• From a sociopolitical perspective, true grassroots representation that typically resonate strongly with ourkupuna are non-existent in our State’s Legislature. The Protect Kaho’olawe ‘Ohana is one of the most grassroots Kanaka Maoli organization thriving today and one that many other grassroots organizations and Native Hawaiian organizations have modeled themselves after. Would you consider KIRC or the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) grassroots? Yes, people associated with these organizations have a history with PKO but ultimately their political loyalty resides with a State or federal entity and its’ policies not an island. PKO is not a weed but a root of what Hawai’i represents to those who know true grassroots and its presence must be kept within KIRC. Noho a kupa!
• From a psycho-social perspective, who could speak on behalf of Kaho’olawe the best? A politician, a federal or state representative, an appointed KIRC member or a member of PKO? The ability to speak freely and passionately or Kaho’olawe rests solely with PKO. Please think about what you are doing, if you remove PKO from thecommission you are silencing the voices of our kupuna like Uncle Harry Kūnihi Mitchell and Aunty Emma De Fries,along with George Helm and Kimo Mitchell. Kupuna: A he leo e kāhea mai!
• From a familial perspective, the Protect Kaho’olawe ‘Ohana within KIRC is considered to be the Papa or Motherfigure of the commission. As we all know, PKO bore attention to island’s infant cries and nurtured a familialrejuvenation from Kaho’olawe’s tethered shores and beyond. If you remove a mother from her ‘ohana is to detachthe direct nurturing perspective on the Commission. Lohe mai a malama i ko ‘ōlelo mākuahine!
Kai - thanks for posting that....It seems as though, from a merely procedural point of view, that the court is way past due on hearing the motions, especially Dr. Sai's original motions, and the two intervenors. I believe, but must research, that the Court has its own deadlines to hear these - the Court and opposing party will certainly hold the Hawaiian parties to deadlines, a tactic which the parties need to be mindful of at all times. With Mr. Keka's filings, however, it may be extended, but I'm quite sure each motion stands by itself in Court. My concern is that unless there is pressure placed on the Court to rule, this will become a matter of the legal abyss.
I love Mr. Keka's response. For those not familiar with the legal process, the intervenors need permission from the Court to file a complaint, so despite the defendants receiving a copy of the response, they are under no obligation to answer because the Intervenors have not been granted permission to file the actual complaint. Once the actual complaint is filed and served on the defendants, then the time begin for each defendant to file an answer or to move to dismiss the complaint.
The corporate/gov't defendants have a blue print for what to do to drag these matters out...they will not answer, they will move to strike - cause an amended complaint to be filed - and move to strike. They will do whatever they can to prolong a decision on the real issues. I would like to research whether or not Mr. Keka's injury rise to the level of "ex parte" or "emergency" proceedings because of the upcoming trial and immenent loss of his aina. Perhaps he could have filed an emergency motion to prevent the loss of land in district court under the Alien Tort Claim...a lot of research, that I currently don't have time to do.
In summary, I think Dr. Sai and the intervenors need to really make sure this matter gets pushed along in court.
About the green card - interesting thought. However, many Hawaiian subjects need dual citizenship - I know many who have become dependent on social security and Medicare (as a matter of life and death). What would be the difference between "immigrant" and "dual citizen" and does the Kingdom have a registry for dual citizenship?
On last thought in this think tank....Re: intervention - could one intervene who has experienced severe medical issues for not being able to access Queen Emma's trust? Or the other trusts? Certainly that is injurious, but I don't know how that would look - I'm not aware of the exact chain of events regarding these trusts, but it would seem like the ATC would be an appropriate venue for that issue as well. If so, I volunteer to have one kanaka intervene.
Mahalo for the inside court process. Do you remember Kamuela Price, Maui Loa's dad? He filed a suit and received a settlement. I remember this as being tort. This case also caused a $14,000 tab for lawyers fees. I am mentioning this because I believe (believe!) it is related. Do keep in touch.
In these cases all parties have applied Pro Se and no lawyers are on our payroll [we do have lawyers who help us in consultation]. I can not speak for Dr. Sai, though he is raising monies on his site for his legal expenses. For us we try the underlying concepts of Hawaiian sovereignty and a monetary settlement is not the goal.
Maria is akamai and her analysis of the filing on point as usual. We will learn a lot either way the court rules and the ground work we lay will have an effect when and if we need to appeal [or refile].
Keanu opened the door for all of us, not matter what his strategy is we can articulate our injuries and find out if you can impose a constitution on a sovereign foreign people.
I already know the answer to that and so do all Kanaka in Ko Hawaii Pae Aina
Injuries was a Chicano Movement tactic during the Cesar Chevez years. And it worked for them. Kamuela Price did the same knowing the movement. I sat in on the State and Federal task force and watched the makings of funds, grants to the injured parties, but as we all well know there was nothing going to the injuries.
I am hoping that Sai get beyond the culture which is a chicano style of movement and focus on the international Hague case. We must distinguish between us and them. In my mind I mean military and Na Kanaka and their ancestral lands. All else can come later.
The last time I had a one on one talk with Keanu Sai, it was over this:
"Several national and international courts have considered the Martens Clause when making their judgements. In none of these cases however have the laws of humanity or the dictates of the public conscience been recognised as new and independent right. The clause served rather as general statement for humanitarian principles as well as guideline to the understanding and interpretation of existing rules of international law."
And..
"The Martens Clause was introduced into the preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention II – Laws and Customs of War on Land.[1]
The clause took its name from a declaration read by Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens,[2] the Russian delegate at the Hague Peace Conferences 1899 and was based upon his words:"
You make an important point about the status of people affected by war [Martens clause]. War has a legal status in many ways and it does include conquest. This is why I believe our queen refused to allow the claim to or the process of war [which was clearly a losing proposition] to exist between Hawaii and America.
I think we should honor her by not claiming a position of rules that relate to a "State of War" but to a people held by a belligerent nation. Was not the Queen's protest a kind of Habeas Corpus, which was than answered by the Blount report? That rule of law. the one known in the Amistad case I think describe us better.
A free people seized by a nation of empire. I think the question for me is why dont we have the same rights as Anglo-Europeans? Why did treaties of friendship work for France and Germany, we see America come in and return the sovereign control.
I think you articulate a big problem here and that is why we told Dr. Sai to consider the Alien Tort Claim process. He said it wouldn't work to Alfred Spinney. The question is what laws apply to Hawaiians, in short what are our rights? If we apply the US constitution as citizens we have no claims form our nation that can not be vetoed by the pirate interest.
The rules of war also give America rights in our country and over our persons. No one can tell you a definitive set of laws or rules that apply to us.
A sovereign nation, a sovereign people occupied belligerently by a military power with whom we have a treaty of friendship. Decrees by the bad actor that have no force of law themselves in any sense. A nation that admits its wrong doing and still claims rights based on those very same action.
Even small kine kids no this is wrong and so what is America still doing in Hawaii?
A hui hou Kai
Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.
– Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV), 18 October, 1907
Replies
http://kingdomofhawaii.wordpress.com/about/
This site has all the updated filings, We will keep the site posted with all the filing as the come on the Pacer.org
Aloha Kai
Want to change the subject a little bit. I did read your postings however.
Keau's was a big time sweep, but different from others. A lot of political noise from politicians that have no humanity or culture reasoning.
Which brings me back to John Waihee--he mentioned 'culture' and the emphasis was in his tone of voice. Which brings to mind culture values and tort this was surprising to me--as you know me by now I come from experience. On the line of defense, I believe 'tort' is on the line much more than de-occupation. My apologies for seeming to waiver.
Do you remember the children on the steps of the Iolani Palace, and thank you for feeding them too. They lived at Keau's some of the 70 children went to the bushes and others went to shelters. I just came from Keau's and everything seemed okay. The right police officer was there and he talked with everyone and gained trust which is a good thing at this point. He also had a word with his boss whose soon will be retiring. In other words everything went well but only temporary. It solved the political problem but not the injuries to our people.
and too my last point. Our Limu beds are becoming some ones privately owned gathering place. Have been working on that too. Another injury to the list. Our limu beds are not speculative realestates.
aloha Ka'ehu,
This is an important issue because it deals with the military and Sai's case will flow straight into the de-occupation of the Obama Defense and possibly beyond his time. So we need to be on board before his publication with our own defense. The Native Hawaiian UXO Veterans, LLC are hooked up budget and comaraderie with National Security and FEMA. So the lines are graying as we speak and soone we will loose our understanding as to who we are. I have Ioane permission to reprint his testimony.
Testimony of John Noah P. Ho’omanawanui
Member, Keli’ihoomanawanui ‘Ohana
before a joint hearing of the
Committee: Senate Committees on Hawaiian Affairs and
Water, Land and Housing
Date: Saturday, February 12, 2011
Time: 10 am.
Site: Hawaii State Capitol, Room 225
Re: In consideration of Senate Bill 609
RELATING TO THE KAHO’OLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION
Chairs Galuteria and DelaCruz, Vice Chairs Ryan and Solomon, members of the aforementioned committees,
Aloha and Mahalo for the opportunity to submit a written testimony before you today in opposition to SB609, which seeks to decrease the membership of the Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission (KIRC) from seven to five members and possibly to eliminate the Protect Kaho’olawe ‘Ohana’s (PKO) direct representation on the Commission. If this is the intention of SB609, I am disheartened to the lack of posterity it will enact. From 1989-2003, my ‘ohana and I have labored side by side with PKO on Kaho’olawe. We have seen many lives enriched and reconnected with our ‘āina- the legacy from which we derived. It is pono to move forward and keep the relationship between PKO and KIRC intact. Hereafter, I will cite three perspectives on how it lacks posterity:
• From a sociopolitical perspective, true grassroots representation that typically resonate strongly with ourkupuna are non-existent in our State’s Legislature. The Protect Kaho’olawe ‘Ohana is one of the most grassroots Kanaka Maoli organization thriving today and one that many other grassroots organizations and Native Hawaiian organizations have modeled themselves after. Would you consider KIRC or the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) grassroots? Yes, people associated with these organizations have a history with PKO but ultimately their political loyalty resides with a State or federal entity and its’ policies not an island. PKO is not a weed but a root of what Hawai’i represents to those who know true grassroots and its presence must be kept within KIRC. Noho a kupa!
• From a psycho-social perspective, who could speak on behalf of Kaho’olawe the best? A politician, a federal or state representative, an appointed KIRC member or a member of PKO? The ability to speak freely and passionately or Kaho’olawe rests solely with PKO. Please think about what you are doing, if you remove PKO from thecommission you are silencing the voices of our kupuna like Uncle Harry Kūnihi Mitchell and Aunty Emma De Fries,along with George Helm and Kimo Mitchell. Kupuna: A he leo e kāhea mai!
• From a familial perspective, the Protect Kaho’olawe ‘Ohana within KIRC is considered to be the Papa or Motherfigure of the commission. As we all know, PKO bore attention to island’s infant cries and nurtured a familialrejuvenation from Kaho’olawe’s tethered shores and beyond. If you remove a mother from her ‘ohana is to detachthe direct nurturing perspective on the Commission. Lohe mai a malama i ko ‘ōlelo mākuahine!
Me ka ‘Ōiwi o Papa,
Mr. John Noah P. Ho’omanawanui
Kai - thanks for posting that....It seems as though, from a merely procedural point of view, that the court is way past due on hearing the motions, especially Dr. Sai's original motions, and the two intervenors. I believe, but must research, that the Court has its own deadlines to hear these - the Court and opposing party will certainly hold the Hawaiian parties to deadlines, a tactic which the parties need to be mindful of at all times. With Mr. Keka's filings, however, it may be extended, but I'm quite sure each motion stands by itself in Court. My concern is that unless there is pressure placed on the Court to rule, this will become a matter of the legal abyss.
I love Mr. Keka's response. For those not familiar with the legal process, the intervenors need permission from the Court to file a complaint, so despite the defendants receiving a copy of the response, they are under no obligation to answer because the Intervenors have not been granted permission to file the actual complaint. Once the actual complaint is filed and served on the defendants, then the time begin for each defendant to file an answer or to move to dismiss the complaint.
The corporate/gov't defendants have a blue print for what to do to drag these matters out...they will not answer, they will move to strike - cause an amended complaint to be filed - and move to strike. They will do whatever they can to prolong a decision on the real issues. I would like to research whether or not Mr. Keka's injury rise to the level of "ex parte" or "emergency" proceedings because of the upcoming trial and immenent loss of his aina. Perhaps he could have filed an emergency motion to prevent the loss of land in district court under the Alien Tort Claim...a lot of research, that I currently don't have time to do.
In summary, I think Dr. Sai and the intervenors need to really make sure this matter gets pushed along in court.
About the green card - interesting thought. However, many Hawaiian subjects need dual citizenship - I know many who have become dependent on social security and Medicare (as a matter of life and death). What would be the difference between "immigrant" and "dual citizen" and does the Kingdom have a registry for dual citizenship?
On last thought in this think tank....Re: intervention - could one intervene who has experienced severe medical issues for not being able to access Queen Emma's trust? Or the other trusts? Certainly that is injurious, but I don't know how that would look - I'm not aware of the exact chain of events regarding these trusts, but it would seem like the ATC would be an appropriate venue for that issue as well. If so, I volunteer to have one kanaka intervene.
Taylor,
Mahalo for the inside court process. Do you remember Kamuela Price, Maui Loa's dad? He filed a suit and received a settlement. I remember this as being tort. This case also caused a $14,000 tab for lawyers fees. I am mentioning this because I believe (believe!) it is related. Do keep in touch.
Aloha Kaohi,
In these cases all parties have applied Pro Se and no lawyers are on our payroll [we do have lawyers who help us in consultation]. I can not speak for Dr. Sai, though he is raising monies on his site for his legal expenses. For us we try the underlying concepts of Hawaiian sovereignty and a monetary settlement is not the goal.
Maria is akamai and her analysis of the filing on point as usual. We will learn a lot either way the court rules and the ground work we lay will have an effect when and if we need to appeal [or refile].
Keanu opened the door for all of us, not matter what his strategy is we can articulate our injuries and find out if you can impose a constitution on a sovereign foreign people.
I already know the answer to that and so do all Kanaka in Ko Hawaii Pae Aina
Kai
Injuries was a Chicano Movement tactic during the Cesar Chevez years. And it worked for them. Kamuela Price did the same knowing the movement. I sat in on the State and Federal task force and watched the makings of funds, grants to the injured parties, but as we all well know there was nothing going to the injuries.
I am hoping that Sai get beyond the culture which is a chicano style of movement and focus on the international Hague case. We must distinguish between us and them. In my mind I mean military and Na Kanaka and their ancestral lands. All else can come later.
Thanks for the interest and input.
The last time I had a one on one talk with Keanu Sai, it was over this:
"Several national and international courts have considered the Martens Clause when making their judgements. In none of these cases however have the laws of humanity or the dictates of the public conscience been recognised as new and independent right. The clause served rather as general statement for humanitarian principles as well as guideline to the understanding and interpretation of existing rules of international law."
And..
"The Martens Clause was introduced into the preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention II – Laws and Customs of War on Land.[1]
The clause took its name from a declaration read by Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens,[2] the Russian delegate at the Hague Peace Conferences 1899 and was based upon his words:"
Aloha Kaohi
You make an important point about the status of people affected by war [Martens clause]. War has a legal status in many ways and it does include conquest. This is why I believe our queen refused to allow the claim to or the process of war [which was clearly a losing proposition] to exist between Hawaii and America.
I think we should honor her by not claiming a position of rules that relate to a "State of War" but to a people held by a belligerent nation. Was not the Queen's protest a kind of Habeas Corpus, which was than answered by the Blount report? That rule of law. the one known in the Amistad case I think describe us better.
A free people seized by a nation of empire. I think the question for me is why dont we have the same rights as Anglo-Europeans? Why did treaties of friendship work for France and Germany, we see America come in and return the sovereign control.
I think you articulate a big problem here and that is why we told Dr. Sai to consider the Alien Tort Claim process. He said it wouldn't work to Alfred Spinney. The question is what laws apply to Hawaiians, in short what are our rights? If we apply the US constitution as citizens we have no claims form our nation that can not be vetoed by the pirate interest.
The rules of war also give America rights in our country and over our persons. No one can tell you a definitive set of laws or rules that apply to us.
A sovereign nation, a sovereign people occupied belligerently by a military power with whom we have a treaty of friendship. Decrees by the bad actor that have no force of law themselves in any sense. A nation that admits its wrong doing and still claims rights based on those very same action.
Even small kine kids no this is wrong and so what is America still doing in Hawaii?
A hui hou Kai
Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.
– Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV), 18 October, 1907
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next