Posted by Pono Kealoha on February 26, 2008 at 6:00pm
Why The OHA Settlement is a Bad DealMililani Trask ..OHA land deal draws angry crowdBy Jason Armstrong, Tribune-Herald 26 February 2008Protesters at ceded land hearing say state is trying to cheat them out of their futureA proposed $200 million state settlement to resolve revenue claims from ceded lands was harshly criticized by Native Hawaiians who attended a public hearing on the pending deal Monday night in Hilo.Aole, or never, is what several of the approximately 75 audience members said about the proposed cash-and-land agreement the Gov. Linda Lingle administration has negotiated with the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs.Most of their objections centered around the value of the 209 acres of Oahu and Hawaii Island property, including 80 acres on Hilo's Banyan Drive, and the waiver of future lawsuits.Angry shouting started soon after the crafters of the potential deal explained their proposal to end a 30-year battle over money earned from the public and private use of 1.8 million acres. The former sovereign lands were ceded to the U.S. government following the 1898 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.Former OHA Trustee Mililani Trask demanded proof that the land offered to OHA is actually worth the reported $187 million."The Legislature's deciding on this this week. Give us this data," Trask said of the deal that would include a one-time payment of slightly more than $13 million.She and others said they won't agree not to sue to obtain future payments. Under the proposed deal, those legal claims would be barred if the state Legislature pays OHA at least $15.1 million in yearly revenues from the use of the former Kingdom of Hawaii lands."That's the agreement we negotiated," Attorney General Mark Bennett said.That didn't please Trask, who called the pending deal a "travesty.""We are not about to accept this waiver," she said.Trask's outbursts prompted others to express their anger toward Bennett and OHA trustees, some of whom spent nearly five years negotiating a settlement to end the dispute. A few objectors held signs opposing the settlement, which is now in the hands of the Legislature."This is disgusting. My kids over here, you're ripping them off for their future," Edwin Miranda said.He suggested Native Hawaiians will never receive the money they're legally due."There's no honor in the way you guys deal anymore," Miranda added.The comments, which regressed into an audience debate over the use of profanity and decorum, even got the attention of a uniformed police officer who attended the standing-room-only hearing at the Queen Liliuokalani Children's Center."You're going to have peaceful Hawaiians ready to bust heads," added one sign-holding man, who declined to give his name to the Tribune-Herald.Bennett said the state hired a private consultant to value the property in Hilo, along with 18.5 acres of commercial, waterfront land in Kakaako and 110 acres of industrial land in Kalaeloa, both located on Oahu.The consultant determined the tax-assessed value represented the fair market value of the properties, he said.OHA accepted the tax values, which typically are 30 percent less than what properties could be sold for, OHA Trustee Robert Lindsey Jr. said."We did not get an appraisal," he told the audience.That comment drew angry responses."We want 100 percent of this money. You guys using us Hawaiians," one man shouted back.Former OHA Trustee Moanaikeala Akaka, who helped negotiate the first ceded lands settlement in 1990 that called for OHA to receive 20 percent of the money the lands generate, called the new deal a "theft.""What is the maximum?" she asked of future payments that would be at least $15.1 million annually under a Senate version of the proposed settlement. "You guys don't tell us that, so there's a lot of concern that we're being cheated."Before leaving to catch a return flight to Honolulu, Bennett responded that 20 percent of the revenue from the lands proposed for OHA ownership comes out to about $12 million yearly. Boosting that to at least $15.1 million would represent a 25 percent increase in cash payments, he said.Puna Councilwoman Emily Naeole, who joined state lawmakers in attending, shouted in Bennett's face, telling him that Hawaiians cannot agree not to sue in the future."We Hawaiians are loving people, but we got to act like this because of what we got to go through," said Naeole, a Native Hawaiian homesteader.The Naniloa Volcanoes Resort, one of the properties slated to change from state ownership to OHA, is now leased by Ken Fujiyama, who said it represents 82 percent of the Hilo property proposed for exchange.Fujiyama suggested the combined six Banyan Drive properties, excluding the privately owned hotels built on them, are worth about $10 million."From a land-value standpoint, it's hard for me to comprehend (the state-assigned value of) $34 million," he said.If the deal goes through, OHA will take over administering the Banyan Drive leases, said Jonathan Scheuer, OHA land management director.Bennett said anyone with questions can e-mail him at mark.j.bennett@hawaii.gov for answers.Copies of the proposed settlement are available at http://www.oha.org/pastdue/.Jason Armstrong can be reached at jarmstrong@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
Attached is the latest amendments to HB 266 - the House version of the OHA "Sovereign Lands" settlement.
Leave it to government to turn fairly clear, straightforward legislation (HB 266 Draft 1) into confused, vague, ambiguous mumble jumble that is self-serving and self-protecting for everyone except the rightful peoples and lands that should be served and protected.
sorry ... just tired reading all this stuff and now needing answers/explanations to even more (instead of less) questions as this "State's deal of our lifetime" runs its course through the legislature.
But have to ... all our kuleana ... so will read it again tomorrow and hopefully will better understand the obvious as well as hidden impacts of this new version so that we (I) can do our (my) part to protect and preserve that which belongs to the rightful owner.
Ceded Lands Mess
By Léo Azambuja, Molokai Dispatch, 27 February 2008
Proposed OHA-State settlement controversial
A controversial bill to restitute Hawaiians is making headway in the Legislature. The bill seeks a settlement in the form of a $200 million payment to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) by the State of Hawaii. However, what seems to be a victory for native Hawaiians has left many questioning the integrity of the bill.
OHA trustees and officers attended a meeting at Kulana ..Oiwi last week Monday, and explained the rather complex bill. Jonathan Scheuer, Director of Land Assets Management at OHA, did a thorough presentation of the proposed settlement to the Molokai community.
After three decades of litigation with the state government over ceded-land revenues, OHA settled for $13 million in cash and $187 million in real state. The real estate part of the settlement is where problems begin.
Many on the audience were upset because OHA did not consult with native Hawaiians before agreeing on which lands to acquire as part of the settlement.
“The lack of outreach to the Hawaiian community is what I feel right now,” said Vicky Takamine, ..Ilio..ula o Kalani coalition president.
Homesteader Walter Ritte questioned who decided which lands to choose. He called the agreement between OHA and the State a “secret deal.”
“We were left out of this process,” Ritte said. “The community has no input in this process.”
OHA board counsel and former Hawaii Supreme Court Justice, Robert Klein, using rhetoric language, said otherwise. “I disagree … that we didn’t come out to the community, but that’s what we are doing right now,” Klein said. Minutes later he contradicted himself, saying that the settlement is “not one of those things that you can easily take out to the public.”
Klein compared the settlement with an automobile accident settlement. In this case, he said “you wouldn’t take it to the public.” However, the settlement does need public input, since bill has already passed four Senate committees, and is likely to be put to a floor vote soon.
Continuing, Klein accused those against the settlement of being against having community resources. “If that is what you want to be, that’s fine, you do have the right to be against it,” he said, noting that the money will end up being used for purposes other than helping Hawaiian communities.
Ritte once more tried to explain his position. “We are against something we cannot participate in, and that has been OHA’s problem,” Ritte said.
Mili Hanapi backed up Ritte. “It’s not that we don’t support economics and a better life for Hawaiian people,” she said. “That would be irresponsible for us to think such a thing.”
Hanapi’s position reflected the position of many in the audience who spoke. “I can’t say I support this bill,” she said. “We should have been a part of the process.”
State Deputy Attorney General Charlene Aina said comments from the public were well taken, but she said that “at least for the State of Hawaii, the negotiations could not have gone forward with all of the taxpayers participating in the process.”
“For the purposes of reaching a settlement that we did come to, it did require, as a practical measure, closed discussion,” Aina said.
Takamine said she understood the negotiation process between OHA trustees and the government has to be confidential. However, she also said that listening to the “Hawaiian community to find out what their concerns are would not have been a breach in that confidentiality in the negotiation process.”
The controversial agreement is not yet guaranteed to become effective.
“It’s not a done-deal,” Takamine said. “If the legislature doesn’t approve it, then it’s done, it’s over, there’s no negotiation.”
Kaho'onei Panoke, executive director of ..Ilio..ula o Kalani coalition, said that the lack of native Hawaiian representation in the Legislature may be costly to those who want the settlement approved. “We have only two native Hawaiian senators, and seven or eight in the House,” he said. “No matter who settles what, we’re never going to win as long as we have those numbers in the Legislature.”
Panoke said ..Ilio..ula o Kalani coalition has been trying to convince 25,000 native Hawaiians to vote. “No vote, no grumble,” he said.
The Public Land Trust was created by the Hawaii Admissions Act in 1959, and includes 1.2 million acres of ceded lands, formerly know as crown and kingdom lands. The State controls the Public Land Trust. Native Hawaiian claims to ownership of ceded lands have never been resolved, and OHA does not believe it has standing to resolve ownership claims.
OHA has sued the State four times over revenues from ceded lands. Each time the court said that it’s up to the Legislature to define OHA’s entitlements, and that all OHA can do is negotiate and lobby – it can not successfully sue.
The properties included in the settlement are: 18.5 acres at Kaka..ako Makai, by Oahu’s Kewalo Basin, 110 acres at Kalaeloa Makai, at West Oahu, and an 80-acre resort/hotel-zoned property at Big Island’s Hilo Kahua.
For more information please visit www.oha.org/pastdue. To follow the progress of the settlement in the Legislature, go to www.capitol.hawaii.org and click on Bill Status and Documents, then type SB 2733. There is still time to contact representatives and express opinions.
Complicity and Deception of the "Lingle-OHA Settlement," the "Akaka Bill," and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs
On January 19, Governor Lingle announced: "Gov. Linda Lingle and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Board of Trustees announced a historic settlement that "permanently resolves" the ceded land revenue dispute that has been ongoing for more than 25 years." (Emphasis added.)
While Gov. Lingle may think that this historic dispute has been resolved by the principal players – it really hasn't. The so-called State of Hawaii and OHA are not the exclusive players.
United States Public Law 103-150, the so-called Apology Bill, gives historic insight into why this so-called "settlement" cannot be the resolution the parties think it is – and states, among other things, the following quoted clauses:
"Whereas, on July 7, 1898, as a consequence of the Spanish-American War,
President McKinley signed the Newlands Joint Resolution that provided for
the annexation of Hawaii;"
First, a "resolution" is a unilateral domestic instrument of the sponsoring nation and has the force of law, if at all, ONLY within the boundaries of that nation. The Hawaiian Kingdom was a "foreign" nation – outside the
geographical boundaries of the United States – and Hawai'i could not and did not become annexed to the United States. The idea is as absurd as today's Congress attempting to pass a resolution to annex Switzerland –
or any other independent nation – to the United States.
"Whereas, through the Newlands Resolution, the self-declared Republic of Hawaii ceded sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States;"
Second, while the Republic of Hawaii attempted to cede sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, it ceded to the United States only that to which it had title –which was nothing. For those who would argue that there was something that was ceded - How did the Republic get title – good or otherwise – to whatever it attempted to cede to the U.S.?
"Whereas, the Republic of Hawaii also ceded 1,800,000 acres of crown, government and public lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii, without the consent of or compensation to the Native Hawaiian people of Hawaii or their sovereign government;"
Third, there was no compensation paid to the Hawaiian Kingdom or its subjects, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to have good title to those lands.
"Whereas, the Congress, through the Newlands Resolution, ratified the cession, annexed Hawaii as part of the United States, and vested title to the lands in Hawaii in the United States;"
Fourth, "annexation" normally takes place by "treaty" and a plebiscite by the subject peoples. There was no treaty and there was no plebiscite. Therefore, there was no "annexation." Additionally, the United States could only vest in itself title to the lands that was legally ceded to it – and the Republic had no good title for the United States to vest. Therefore, the attempted annexation and cession of Hawaiian Kingdom lands by and to the United States failed.
"Whereas, the Newlands Resolution also specified that treaties existing between Hawaii and foreign nations were to immediately cease and be replaced by United States treaties with such nations;"
Fifth, since "annexation" did not take place, and the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom had not been terminated: How could the United States unilaterally terminate treaties that it was NOT a party to. It could not
AND it did not. Any attempt to do so was legally ineffective.
"Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;"
Sixth, the subject lands continue to be lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom – and the Kingdom continues to exist.
If the Kingdom didn't exist – Then why is the United States trying to re-organize it through S.310 – the so-called "Akaka Bill?" If the United States recognizes the Hawaiian Kingdom enough to want to re-organize
it - Then the United States "recognizes" the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Why is further "recognition" necessary by the so-called "Akaka Bill?"
In the attempted Lingle-OHA Ceded Land Settlement Plan, the State of Hawaii is attempting to settle a dispute with its agency The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) over past rents due from these non-owned so-called "ceded" lands - by the transfer of some of those same non-owned "ceded" lands.
As is obvious from the discussion above - title to the so-called "ceded" lands continues to be held by the Hawaiian Kingdom (at least any Kingdom claim to those lands as the rightful owner supersedes any mythical claim that the United States and/or the State of Hawaii may contrive) and any attempt to convert those lands by the United States/State of Hawaii - as a bailor (one who holds property for the rightful owner) into OHA lands cannot take legal effect. In other words, the State of Hawaii, whether or not it is trustee to those lands) cannot convert Hawaiian Kingdom lands to itself - through its agency OHA.
As argument 6 above states, these lands continue to be Kingdom lands, but OHA – as some may argue – is a "Hawaiian" recipient of "Hawaiian" lands.
This is another myth.
OHA is an agency of the State of Hawaii but the lands belong to the Hawaiian Kingdom. As the bailor/trustee of those lands, the State of Hawaii, in attempting to convert those lands, is committing another illegality (by international law) , which attempt is subject to the superior rights of the Hawaiian Kingdom (the rightful owner) and its subjects.
It is no wonder that the State of Hawaii and OHA are ardent supporters of S.310 - the so-called "Akaka Bill" – The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 – that attempts to convert the "Native Hawaiian
Government" (identified in the first paragraphs of Indian Affairs Committee Report 108-85 as the "Hawaiian Kingdom") into a United States "Native Hawaiian Governing Entity." This act would, among other things, correct all the follies of the Newlands Resolution and "disguise" the real holder of title of the so-called "ceded" lands (the Hawaiian Kingdom), making it appear that the attempted cession of those lands by the Republic of Hawaii to the United States was valid.
Inquiring minds will also notice that the process provided by S.310 allows "American Hawaiians" to carry out this "theft" by the alleged "re-organization" of "their" government - not by the United States, the instigator.
There are two dangerous inaccurate presumptions involved in this process.
First, it allows the United States to appear as an innocent third party – that "benevolently" helps to provide a process by which Hawaiians (by racial description) can complicitly correct its (the United States) attempted misrepresentations, deceptions and frauds beginning with the Overthrow and extending to the present. (Remember that United States Public Law 103-150 is the United States' "Apology" for illegally assisting the "Overthrow" of the Hawaiian Kingdom.)
Secondly, the United States is providing a process by which racial Hawaiians who have disavowed the Hawaiian Kingdom can convert that Kingdom into a United States Governing Entity.
If these disavowing Hawaiians are no longer subjects or "descendants of subjects" of the Hawaiian Kingdom - How can they legally or ethically make any amendments to that Kingdom's laws and internal matters that would
essentially terminate its existence, and would result in legitimizing the stealth of its lands?
This process would be akin to having former British subjects of the United States attempt to convert the Great Britain to some other entity of their liking. They can't.
It is additionally interesting that the term "Hawaiian" during the era of the Hawaiian Kingdom was a "political" definition - as the subjects of the Kingdom weren't restricted to those of the so-called "Hawaiian" race only.
Unfortunately, the so-called "Akaka Bill" defines "Hawaiian" "racially." It follows that the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity (that the Bill provides for) is "racial" and "racist."
Additionally, the so-called "Akaka Bill" ignores the non-Hawaiian (by race) former subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom and their descendants.
In essence, the so-called "Akaka Bill" attempts to take from the "political" Hawaiians of the Hawaiian Kingdom and to give the spoils to "racist" Hawaiians of the United States, and to the United States itself.
That the so-called "Akaka Bill" is a United States smokescreen to correct the mistakes of its past is obvious. That the Bill also attempts to legalize the cession of Hawaiian Kingdom lands through the bogus
Republic of Hawaii to the United States is also obvious.
Therefore, the so-called Lingle-OHA Settlement is just another shibai, and definitely not a permanent resolution.
Mililani asked me to provide a brief summary of an OHA presentation last night on Moku O Keawe concerning House Bill 266 ("Sovereign Lands" resolution).
Mililani suggests everyone get input into the leg., especially to the House, against the waiver and res judicata language the State AG and OHA is trying to add into HB 266. Last night in Hilo all of the input was negative (against inclusion of the waiver/res judicata language).
The State AG attended the presentation and said that his intention in drafting the waiver language was to ensure that hawaiians were not able to raise any claims against the State. oha agreed to accept any language prepared by the AG in return for the 200 million. oha supported the language prohibiting judicial review because it also prohibits hawaiians from suing them (oha).
The House will come to a session this Wednesday. oha is trying to bypass a conference committee and get the waiver language into House draft 2. Mililani has requested a copy of this latest draft ... any leads on this updated draft.
Judge Klein attended the Hilo session as oha's attorney and urged everyone to support the settlement. His push is that we should settle for less now and with a good investment strategy, oha will be multi-billionaires in no time.
Also one important point, oha and their staff are saying the Hilo property will be worth 800 million after it is turned over to them. Last night the Japanese man who has the Naniloa lease attended. He told the group that he has a 65 year lease on 80% of the property (of which 60% is a golf course) and that he cannot see how oha projects valuation at 200 million now and 800 million in the future when the banks presently values the property at about 34 million.
Finally, it came out last night that oha did not get any valuation reports and that no appraisals were made. In reality there is no basis for any figures, 200 million, 15.1 million ...
OHA seems willing to compromise its integrity, morality and lack of historical memory, by complicitly joining the Republic of Hawaii in continuing dealings involving the illegal conversion of stolen Hawaiian Kingdom National lands (the so-called "ceded" lands) in settlement of a
dispute with the State over moneys owed.
While, on its face, the settlement appears to return "Hawaiian" lands to "Hawaiians," the political reality (by international law) is that it doesn't.
It all reduces to the illegal "taking" (acquired without consent or compensation) of the lands of National Hawaiians (descendants and heirs of subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the holder of absolute title) by the
Republic of Hawaii (with no title) in the illegal overthrow of 1893 which were allegedly "ceded" to the United States by the so-called Annexation that never took place (resolutions cannot annex foreign lands) and using them to pay the financial debts of the State of Hawai'i to American-Hawaiians.
OHA's willingness to accept the "stolen" lands in settlement is about as far from being PONO (righteous) as possible.
"The Naniloa Volcanoes Resort, one of the properties slated to change from state ownership to OHA, is now leased by Ken Fujiyama, who said it represents 82 percent of the Hilo property proposed for exchange..."
Let's be clear; OHA IS THE STATE! It's an agency of the State. Bennet claims the state can sell the ceded lands as trustee; the Hawaii Supreme Court says the corpus of the estate must be kept intact until the Hawaiian Kingdom lands and the people's rights are resolved.
Kakaako lands are contaminated and it would be OHA's obligation to clean it. To me, that's a bad deal using more money that could benefit the people.
OHA will continue to use the money to promote the Akaka Bill and the Kau Inoa Bill for that purpose. This is unconscionable and repugnant; especially when OHA plans to create a Hawaiian Tribal American government which usurps the authority, autonomy, and jurisdiction of the already existing Hawaiian Kingdom.
Then ther is the issue of the Hawaii Nationals of which there are descendants of 15% of which are not maoli but were ever-loyal to the Queen and Kingdom whereby most signed the Ku'e Petitions which is a form of a referendum/plebiscite. People forget this is a national issue and not a tribal issue to fit the US American box. Hewa!
Because the ipso facto state of Hawaii squandered (embezzled) the HK lands' revenue, it would bankrupt the state to pay the 20%. Remember 80% goes to the rest of the community who benefit from HK lands. The adage is the more one makes; the more one spends. They spent beyond their means because the money was there; without regard that it was already earmarked to pay their legal obligation to the Hawaii Nationals.
The ipso facto state created this obligation under its alleged jurisdiction which it inherited from the Federal Government which passed the trustee responsibility to them under the conditions of being a US state.
It took the alleged-state 20 years to begin paying a portion of the revenues. Request for an inventory and audit of the HK lands was never met. What was 1.8 million acres, today has decimated to 1.4 million acres. What happened? Now the community is faced with color of title rather than clear title as we have been saying. The state is liable as is the US federal government.
The conditions should be set that OHA does receive the assigned portion of ALL revenues from the so-called ceded lands and stipulated that it cannot expend anymore monies on the Akaka Bioll nor the Kau Inoa since they turned it into a controversial political issue and ignored the sovereignty/national movement groups. OHA is a FOREIGN ENTITY and in conflict of interest of the Hawaii Nationals. Their proposed US Puppet governing entity cannot represent us; like the US puppet provisional government purported to represent us in 1893.
We have standing; they don't! Yes, give OHA the share of the proceeds, but spend it on the Hawaiian homeless and those who need the assistence. Under the laws of occupation the US is obligated to follow the guidelines of it and not create a tribal US governing entity for the native Hawaiians and spurn the rest of the Hawaii Nationals. We are NOT a tribe of the USA nor US Americans! The US must follow the international laws. Restitution and reparations are due to the Hawaii Nationals. Why accept the crumbs when you own the whole pie?
Comments
Aloha mai kakou,
Attached is the latest amendments to HB 266 - the House version of the OHA "Sovereign Lands" settlement.
Leave it to government to turn fairly clear, straightforward legislation (HB 266 Draft 1) into confused, vague, ambiguous mumble jumble that is self-serving and self-protecting for everyone except the rightful peoples and lands that should be served and protected.
sorry ... just tired reading all this stuff and now needing answers/explanations to even more (instead of less) questions as this "State's deal of our lifetime" runs its course through the legislature.
But have to ... all our kuleana ... so will read it again tomorrow and hopefully will better understand the obvious as well as hidden impacts of this new version so that we (I) can do our (my) part to protect and preserve that which belongs to the rightful owner.
A hui hou,
Keeaumoku
Ceded Lands Mess
By Léo Azambuja, Molokai Dispatch, 27 February 2008
Proposed OHA-State settlement controversial
A controversial bill to restitute Hawaiians is making headway in the Legislature. The bill seeks a settlement in the form of a $200 million payment to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) by the State of Hawaii. However, what seems to be a victory for native Hawaiians has left many questioning the integrity of the bill.
OHA trustees and officers attended a meeting at Kulana ..Oiwi last week Monday, and explained the rather complex bill. Jonathan Scheuer, Director of Land Assets Management at OHA, did a thorough presentation of the proposed settlement to the Molokai community.
After three decades of litigation with the state government over ceded-land revenues, OHA settled for $13 million in cash and $187 million in real state. The real estate part of the settlement is where problems begin.
Many on the audience were upset because OHA did not consult with native Hawaiians before agreeing on which lands to acquire as part of the settlement.
“The lack of outreach to the Hawaiian community is what I feel right now,” said Vicky Takamine, ..Ilio..ula o Kalani coalition president.
Homesteader Walter Ritte questioned who decided which lands to choose. He called the agreement between OHA and the State a “secret deal.”
“We were left out of this process,” Ritte said. “The community has no input in this process.”
OHA board counsel and former Hawaii Supreme Court Justice, Robert Klein, using rhetoric language, said otherwise. “I disagree … that we didn’t come out to the community, but that’s what we are doing right now,” Klein said. Minutes later he contradicted himself, saying that the settlement is “not one of those things that you can easily take out to the public.”
Klein compared the settlement with an automobile accident settlement. In this case, he said “you wouldn’t take it to the public.” However, the settlement does need public input, since bill has already passed four Senate committees, and is likely to be put to a floor vote soon.
Continuing, Klein accused those against the settlement of being against having community resources. “If that is what you want to be, that’s fine, you do have the right to be against it,” he said, noting that the money will end up being used for purposes other than helping Hawaiian communities.
Ritte once more tried to explain his position. “We are against something we cannot participate in, and that has been OHA’s problem,” Ritte said.
Mili Hanapi backed up Ritte. “It’s not that we don’t support economics and a better life for Hawaiian people,” she said. “That would be irresponsible for us to think such a thing.”
Hanapi’s position reflected the position of many in the audience who spoke. “I can’t say I support this bill,” she said. “We should have been a part of the process.”
State Deputy Attorney General Charlene Aina said comments from the public were well taken, but she said that “at least for the State of Hawaii, the negotiations could not have gone forward with all of the taxpayers participating in the process.”
“For the purposes of reaching a settlement that we did come to, it did require, as a practical measure, closed discussion,” Aina said.
Takamine said she understood the negotiation process between OHA trustees and the government has to be confidential. However, she also said that listening to the “Hawaiian community to find out what their concerns are would not have been a breach in that confidentiality in the negotiation process.”
The controversial agreement is not yet guaranteed to become effective.
“It’s not a done-deal,” Takamine said. “If the legislature doesn’t approve it, then it’s done, it’s over, there’s no negotiation.”
Kaho'onei Panoke, executive director of ..Ilio..ula o Kalani coalition, said that the lack of native Hawaiian representation in the Legislature may be costly to those who want the settlement approved. “We have only two native Hawaiian senators, and seven or eight in the House,” he said. “No matter who settles what, we’re never going to win as long as we have those numbers in the Legislature.”
Panoke said ..Ilio..ula o Kalani coalition has been trying to convince 25,000 native Hawaiians to vote. “No vote, no grumble,” he said.
The Public Land Trust was created by the Hawaii Admissions Act in 1959, and includes 1.2 million acres of ceded lands, formerly know as crown and kingdom lands. The State controls the Public Land Trust. Native Hawaiian claims to ownership of ceded lands have never been resolved, and OHA does not believe it has standing to resolve ownership claims.
OHA has sued the State four times over revenues from ceded lands. Each time the court said that it’s up to the Legislature to define OHA’s entitlements, and that all OHA can do is negotiate and lobby – it can not successfully sue.
The properties included in the settlement are: 18.5 acres at Kaka..ako Makai, by Oahu’s Kewalo Basin, 110 acres at Kalaeloa Makai, at West Oahu, and an 80-acre resort/hotel-zoned property at Big Island’s Hilo Kahua.
For more information please visit www.oha.org/pastdue. To follow the progress of the settlement in the Legislature, go to www.capitol.hawaii.org and click on Bill Status and Documents, then type SB 2733. There is still time to contact representatives and express opinions.
On January 19, Governor Lingle announced: "Gov. Linda Lingle and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Board of Trustees announced a historic settlement that "permanently resolves" the ceded land revenue dispute that has been ongoing for more than 25 years." (Emphasis added.)
While Gov. Lingle may think that this historic dispute has been resolved by the principal players – it really hasn't. The so-called State of Hawaii and OHA are not the exclusive players.
United States Public Law 103-150, the so-called Apology Bill, gives historic insight into why this so-called "settlement" cannot be the resolution the parties think it is – and states, among other things, the following quoted clauses:
"Whereas, on July 7, 1898, as a consequence of the Spanish-American War,
President McKinley signed the Newlands Joint Resolution that provided for
the annexation of Hawaii;"
First, a "resolution" is a unilateral domestic instrument of the sponsoring nation and has the force of law, if at all, ONLY within the boundaries of that nation. The Hawaiian Kingdom was a "foreign" nation – outside the
geographical boundaries of the United States – and Hawai'i could not and did not become annexed to the United States. The idea is as absurd as today's Congress attempting to pass a resolution to annex Switzerland –
or any other independent nation – to the United States.
"Whereas, through the Newlands Resolution, the self-declared Republic of Hawaii ceded sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States;"
Second, while the Republic of Hawaii attempted to cede sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, it ceded to the United States only that to which it had title –which was nothing. For those who would argue that there was something that was ceded - How did the Republic get title – good or otherwise – to whatever it attempted to cede to the U.S.?
"Whereas, the Republic of Hawaii also ceded 1,800,000 acres of crown, government and public lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii, without the consent of or compensation to the Native Hawaiian people of Hawaii or their sovereign government;"
Third, there was no compensation paid to the Hawaiian Kingdom or its subjects, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to have good title to those lands.
"Whereas, the Congress, through the Newlands Resolution, ratified the cession, annexed Hawaii as part of the United States, and vested title to the lands in Hawaii in the United States;"
Fourth, "annexation" normally takes place by "treaty" and a plebiscite by the subject peoples. There was no treaty and there was no plebiscite. Therefore, there was no "annexation." Additionally, the United States could only vest in itself title to the lands that was legally ceded to it – and the Republic had no good title for the United States to vest. Therefore, the attempted annexation and cession of Hawaiian Kingdom lands by and to the United States failed.
"Whereas, the Newlands Resolution also specified that treaties existing between Hawaii and foreign nations were to immediately cease and be replaced by United States treaties with such nations;"
Fifth, since "annexation" did not take place, and the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom had not been terminated: How could the United States unilaterally terminate treaties that it was NOT a party to. It could not
AND it did not. Any attempt to do so was legally ineffective.
"Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;"
Sixth, the subject lands continue to be lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom – and the Kingdom continues to exist.
If the Kingdom didn't exist – Then why is the United States trying to re-organize it through S.310 – the so-called "Akaka Bill?" If the United States recognizes the Hawaiian Kingdom enough to want to re-organize
it - Then the United States "recognizes" the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Why is further "recognition" necessary by the so-called "Akaka Bill?"
In the attempted Lingle-OHA Ceded Land Settlement Plan, the State of Hawaii is attempting to settle a dispute with its agency The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) over past rents due from these non-owned so-called "ceded" lands - by the transfer of some of those same non-owned "ceded" lands.
As is obvious from the discussion above - title to the so-called "ceded" lands continues to be held by the Hawaiian Kingdom (at least any Kingdom claim to those lands as the rightful owner supersedes any mythical claim that the United States and/or the State of Hawaii may contrive) and any attempt to convert those lands by the United States/State of Hawaii - as a bailor (one who holds property for the rightful owner) into OHA lands cannot take legal effect. In other words, the State of Hawaii, whether or not it is trustee to those lands) cannot convert Hawaiian Kingdom lands to itself - through its agency OHA.
As argument 6 above states, these lands continue to be Kingdom lands, but OHA – as some may argue – is a "Hawaiian" recipient of "Hawaiian" lands.
This is another myth.
OHA is an agency of the State of Hawaii but the lands belong to the Hawaiian Kingdom. As the bailor/trustee of those lands, the State of Hawaii, in attempting to convert those lands, is committing another illegality (by international law) , which attempt is subject to the superior rights of the Hawaiian Kingdom (the rightful owner) and its subjects.
It is no wonder that the State of Hawaii and OHA are ardent supporters of S.310 - the so-called "Akaka Bill" – The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 – that attempts to convert the "Native Hawaiian
Government" (identified in the first paragraphs of Indian Affairs Committee Report 108-85 as the "Hawaiian Kingdom") into a United States "Native Hawaiian Governing Entity." This act would, among other things, correct all the follies of the Newlands Resolution and "disguise" the real holder of title of the so-called "ceded" lands (the Hawaiian Kingdom), making it appear that the attempted cession of those lands by the Republic of Hawaii to the United States was valid.
Inquiring minds will also notice that the process provided by S.310 allows "American Hawaiians" to carry out this "theft" by the alleged "re-organization" of "their" government - not by the United States, the instigator.
There are two dangerous inaccurate presumptions involved in this process.
First, it allows the United States to appear as an innocent third party – that "benevolently" helps to provide a process by which Hawaiians (by racial description) can complicitly correct its (the United States) attempted misrepresentations, deceptions and frauds beginning with the Overthrow and extending to the present. (Remember that United States Public Law 103-150 is the United States' "Apology" for illegally assisting the "Overthrow" of the Hawaiian Kingdom.)
Secondly, the United States is providing a process by which racial Hawaiians who have disavowed the Hawaiian Kingdom can convert that Kingdom into a United States Governing Entity.
If these disavowing Hawaiians are no longer subjects or "descendants of subjects" of the Hawaiian Kingdom - How can they legally or ethically make any amendments to that Kingdom's laws and internal matters that would
essentially terminate its existence, and would result in legitimizing the stealth of its lands?
This process would be akin to having former British subjects of the United States attempt to convert the Great Britain to some other entity of their liking. They can't.
It is additionally interesting that the term "Hawaiian" during the era of the Hawaiian Kingdom was a "political" definition - as the subjects of the Kingdom weren't restricted to those of the so-called "Hawaiian" race only.
Unfortunately, the so-called "Akaka Bill" defines "Hawaiian" "racially." It follows that the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity (that the Bill provides for) is "racial" and "racist."
Additionally, the so-called "Akaka Bill" ignores the non-Hawaiian (by race) former subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom and their descendants.
In essence, the so-called "Akaka Bill" attempts to take from the "political" Hawaiians of the Hawaiian Kingdom and to give the spoils to "racist" Hawaiians of the United States, and to the United States itself.
That the so-called "Akaka Bill" is a United States smokescreen to correct the mistakes of its past is obvious. That the Bill also attempts to legalize the cession of Hawaiian Kingdom lands through the bogus
Republic of Hawaii to the United States is also obvious.
Therefore, the so-called Lingle-OHA Settlement is just another shibai, and definitely not a permanent resolution.
Ku Ching
Mililani asked me to provide a brief summary of an OHA presentation last night on Moku O Keawe concerning House Bill 266 ("Sovereign Lands" resolution).
Mililani suggests everyone get input into the leg., especially to the House, against the waiver and res judicata language the State AG and OHA is trying to add into HB 266. Last night in Hilo all of the input was negative (against inclusion of the waiver/res judicata language).
The State AG attended the presentation and said that his intention in drafting the waiver language was to ensure that hawaiians were not able to raise any claims against the State. oha agreed to accept any language prepared by the AG in return for the 200 million. oha supported the language prohibiting judicial review because it also prohibits hawaiians from suing them (oha).
The House will come to a session this Wednesday. oha is trying to bypass a conference committee and get the waiver language into House draft 2. Mililani has requested a copy of this latest draft ... any leads on this updated draft.
Judge Klein attended the Hilo session as oha's attorney and urged everyone to support the settlement. His push is that we should settle for less now and with a good investment strategy, oha will be multi-billionaires in no time.
Also one important point, oha and their staff are saying the Hilo property will be worth 800 million after it is turned over to them. Last night the Japanese man who has the Naniloa lease attended. He told the group that he has a 65 year lease on 80% of the property (of which 60% is a golf course) and that he cannot see how oha projects valuation at 200 million now and 800 million in the future when the banks presently values the property at about 34 million.
Finally, it came out last night that oha did not get any valuation reports and that no appraisals were made. In reality there is no basis for any figures, 200 million, 15.1 million ...
A hui hou,
Keeaumoku
OHA seems willing to compromise its integrity, morality and lack of historical memory, by complicitly joining the Republic of Hawaii in continuing dealings involving the illegal conversion of stolen Hawaiian Kingdom National lands (the so-called "ceded" lands) in settlement of a
dispute with the State over moneys owed.
While, on its face, the settlement appears to return "Hawaiian" lands to "Hawaiians," the political reality (by international law) is that it doesn't.
It all reduces to the illegal "taking" (acquired without consent or compensation) of the lands of National Hawaiians (descendants and heirs of subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the holder of absolute title) by the
Republic of Hawaii (with no title) in the illegal overthrow of 1893 which were allegedly "ceded" to the United States by the so-called Annexation that never took place (resolutions cannot annex foreign lands) and using them to pay the financial debts of the State of Hawai'i to American-Hawaiians.
OHA's willingness to accept the "stolen" lands in settlement is about as far from being PONO (righteous) as possible.
This is a HEWA (an abomination)!
Clarence Ku Ching
OHA Trustee ('86 - '90)
Let's be clear; OHA IS THE STATE! It's an agency of the State. Bennet claims the state can sell the ceded lands as trustee; the Hawaii Supreme Court says the corpus of the estate must be kept intact until the Hawaiian Kingdom lands and the people's rights are resolved.
Kakaako lands are contaminated and it would be OHA's obligation to clean it. To me, that's a bad deal using more money that could benefit the people.
OHA will continue to use the money to promote the Akaka Bill and the Kau Inoa Bill for that purpose. This is unconscionable and repugnant; especially when OHA plans to create a Hawaiian Tribal American government which usurps the authority, autonomy, and jurisdiction of the already existing Hawaiian Kingdom.
Then ther is the issue of the Hawaii Nationals of which there are descendants of 15% of which are not maoli but were ever-loyal to the Queen and Kingdom whereby most signed the Ku'e Petitions which is a form of a referendum/plebiscite. People forget this is a national issue and not a tribal issue to fit the US American box. Hewa!
Because the ipso facto state of Hawaii squandered (embezzled) the HK lands' revenue, it would bankrupt the state to pay the 20%. Remember 80% goes to the rest of the community who benefit from HK lands. The adage is the more one makes; the more one spends. They spent beyond their means because the money was there; without regard that it was already earmarked to pay their legal obligation to the Hawaii Nationals.
The ipso facto state created this obligation under its alleged jurisdiction which it inherited from the Federal Government which passed the trustee responsibility to them under the conditions of being a US state.
It took the alleged-state 20 years to begin paying a portion of the revenues. Request for an inventory and audit of the HK lands was never met. What was 1.8 million acres, today has decimated to 1.4 million acres. What happened? Now the community is faced with color of title rather than clear title as we have been saying. The state is liable as is the US federal government.
The conditions should be set that OHA does receive the assigned portion of ALL revenues from the so-called ceded lands and stipulated that it cannot expend anymore monies on the Akaka Bioll nor the Kau Inoa since they turned it into a controversial political issue and ignored the sovereignty/national movement groups. OHA is a FOREIGN ENTITY and in conflict of interest of the Hawaii Nationals. Their proposed US Puppet governing entity cannot represent us; like the US puppet provisional government purported to represent us in 1893.
We have standing; they don't! Yes, give OHA the share of the proceeds, but spend it on the Hawaiian homeless and those who need the assistence. Under the laws of occupation the US is obligated to follow the guidelines of it and not create a tribal US governing entity for the native Hawaiians and spurn the rest of the Hawaii Nationals. We are NOT a tribe of the USA nor US Americans! The US must follow the international laws. Restitution and reparations are due to the Hawaii Nationals. Why accept the crumbs when you own the whole pie?