Everyone seems alarmed and spooked. Why? It was very predictable and would not go as far as many wanted. Once again the question was very narrow. This ruse is to promote the Akaka Bill and get compliance from the kanaka maoli who are on the fence or against it. Remember this is a scare tactic and a form of terrorism.It's strange that not many took to heart of what I said. The surprise was OHA's stab in the back to the kanaka maoli that made the USSC decision a piece of cake, and with the help of AG Bennet who wasted the Hawai'i's taxpayers' money aiding and abetting with the governor, Dingle Lingle.Bennet's folly was using the Newland's Resolution to validate the transfer of seized/stolen lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom and at the same time discredited the Apology Resolution. This is where the USSC did not want to go. OHA made it easier by acknowledging the State's legal (?) right to the lands and admitting the native Hawaiians had no legal rights to it because of the Newlands Resolution but that the Apology Bill admits U.S. complicity and involvement to overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom; so a settlement is in order to make things right and remain a U.S. state.The question Bennet filed was do the states of the United States have clear title to do as it chooses with the lands ceded within its boundaries as a public trust which was handed to the state by the U.S. government.When he entered court, he brought up the Newlands resolution as the basis for the lands being ceded to the U.S. legally and Hawai'i subsequently admitted as a state of the Union. The lands held in trust was transferred to the newly created State as a public trust for specified uses, a unique grant from the U.S. only for Hawai'i and not for other states (See the Admission's Act).He was admonished for using that as an argument because the Supreme Court did not want to go there. What saved his pathetic ass was the fact that OHA did not contest the validity of the Newlands Resolution but sided with the Hawaii State Supreme Court in adjudicating a settlement because of the Apology Bill and promoting the Akaka Bill.Bennet's argument was that the Apology Bill was symbolic which didn't affect the Newlands Resolution. What surprised the USSC which made them elated was that the Defendants (OHA) agreed with the State; but because of the Apology Bill, reconcilliation (thru the Akaka Bill) would settle the matter.It was then known that the state was working on resolving this issue with the "ceded lands" and would resolve the matter within the U.S. confines through a settlement (Akaka Bill) and no matter the verdict, the HSSC and the SOH would settle the matter brought forth to the USSC. So discounting the Apology Bill, the U.S. states has the right to sell the lands given to them by the Federal government.Now comes the real action. Since Bennet brought up the validity of the Newlands Resolution which no one contested, this issue is still alive whether anyone knows it or not. If Hawai'i nationals want to roll over and die; then let this go. If you want to fight for your country; then the answer is to bring this issue up in appeals to invalidate the Newlands Resolution of 1898. Add to this, is the Turpie Resolution of 1894 and the Ku'e Petitions of 1897.This is strengthened by the lack of a Treaty of Annexation and Oct 4, 1988 Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel within the U.S. Department of Justice, which questioned the constitutional power which Congress used that gave them the authority to annex Hawai'i.Representative Ball in 1898, asserted that the effort to annex Hawai'i by joint resolution after the defeat of the treaty as a deliberate attempt to do unlawfully that which cannot be lawfully done.Congress has the power under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution to admit NEW STATES into the nation; but not land and people to be retained as a possession or in a territorial condition.--- Andrew C. McLaughlin, A Constitutional History of the United States 504 (1936).In the North American Review, 1893, Volume 157 issue 445, Rep. William Springer (D) Maine responds to U.S. Minister Stevens entered journal regarding the Hawaiian issue and denounced their actions against the Queen's government of the Kingdom of Hawaii.Another congressman, D.H.Chamberlain of New York wrote a scathing article in the New York Times, 12 Feb. 1894, titled as Hawaii Stolen Property - The President's only recourse was to restore it. judging the policy of the Administration based on law, fact, and right; President Harrison's hasty action, following unwarranted interference by the Minister at Hawaii- caused the difficulty; careful analysis of events justifies the call for the Queen's restoration.The Blount Report is reported accurately from Hawai'i, fairly, and constitutionally accepted as being commissioned by the President Cleveland. From that and the Queen's protest, Cleveland urged Congress to restore the Queen and Hawai'i's government to her people and to give amnesty to the U.S. American conspirators and traitors.While the Morgan Report was specifically rendered, only out of Washington, D.C., to exonerate the U.S. and its conspirators. Morgan was the Grand Dragon of the KKK and firmly believed in racial segregation who was an expansionist arguing for annexation of Hawai'i in hopes to send all the blacks to Hawai'i and out of the continental U.S.June 17, 1897, the Queen presented an Official Protest to the Treaty of Annexation in Washington, D.C. This was the second Official Protest; the first was on 17 January 1893, the date of the U.S. invasion and the following belligerent occupation of Hawai'i which still continues today.Miriam Michelson, reporter for The San Francisco Call, did an investigative report in Hawai'i and wrote it out on the way back to her city which was published Thursday Morning, September 30, 1897. She confirmed "...For Hawaii has not asked for annexation. There are 100,000 people on the islands. Of these not 3 percent have declared for annexation. To the natives the loss of nationality is hateful, aberrant."Professor Francis A. Boyle (International Law expert) stated, "The Kingdom of Hawai'i has been under the military occupation of the United States government since 1893, to which the laws of belligerent occupation apply (see US Army Field Manual 27-10 [1956]) And belligerent occupation does not transfer or displace sovereignty, which still resides in the Kingdom and its people."Steven T. Newcomb is Director of the Indigenous Law Institute and a Research fellow at the Fourth World Center for Study of Indigenous Law and Politics. His article printed in the Honolulu Advertiser, Sunday, March 12, 2000 - B3, headlines:Justice memo shows U.S. never legally annexed Hawaii - "...The Justice Department memo enables us to arrive at a number of conclusions. No annexation of the Hawaiian Islands ever legally occurred in 1898. The 'Territory of Hawaii' was not established in 1900, despite congressional legislation purporting to the contrary. The statehood vote was an attempt to hide an illegal act that began in 1893 with U.S. complicity.And indigenous Hawaiians, nearly all of whom opposed U.S. annexation, and most of whom did not become citizens of the so-caolled Republic of Hawaii, have never been rightfully subject to the U.S. Constitution. This means kanaka maoli still have an inherent right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they may freely determine their own political status, including the option of independence, and freely determine their economic, social, and cultural development."These are just a few of the documents available and should be circulated often and widely. So, instead of buying into their scare tactics and terrorist actions to have native Hawaiians comply and shepherd themselves into the Akaka Bill fiasco and the Kau Inoa manipulative roster to further their unlawful actions to attempt to usurp the legitimate Kingdom of Hawai'i which still exists. Knowing some of this, are you still willing to trade in your lei hulu for eagle feathers and pow wow or keep your lei hulu and "kaukau"?Tane...............I forgot to mention that there is a journal revealing the meeting or communication between Thurston and U.S. Secy James Blaine in which Blaine asked Thurston to destabilize the Hawaiian kingom and takeover the kingdom without setting international precedent. He added that the U.S. would be open to annexation of the islands to the U.S.A. A very dear friend and associate of Blaine was Minister Stevens who got kicked out of Paraguay and Uruguay for inciting the people to topple their government and annex their country to the U.S.A. He was sent to Sweden to cool off until they needed him in Hawai'i To support the takeover and place the U.S. traitors as the Provisional government which later changed its name to the Republic of Hawai'i under the protection of the U.S. Military. Harrison was frothing at the mouth, pissed that the so-called treaty of annexation wasn't passed in congress and he wanted it done before he left office. Cleveland succeeded him and learned of the Queen's protest and withdrew the treaty; then sent Blount to Hawai'i to investigate the event.The journals revealed what they thought of Hawai'i and the conspirators and the Queen and the Hawaiian "niggers". Those involved, supported their actions with lies and misinformation; while others condemned their criminal actions and the use of the U.S. military.We've got all these "bullets" and why wasn't any of this brought into court? OHA , the State of Hawai'i, and the U.S. federal government and corporations and military have been complicit in keeping the truth covered up and don't want this going before the USSC. Think about it. They have committed criminal acts; violated the treaties and the laws of occupation; disregarded the laws of neutrality and dismissed our neutrality status. U.S. citizens and foreigners that have entered and resided in Hawai'i in 1893 till now are violating the laws of occupation.Now you understand why the USSC do not want to address this situation; this would eventually force the U.S. and it's loyal citizens and military to de-occupy the Kingdom of Hawai'i. The consequences and rammification because of the fraud is devastating for the U.S. to bear and gets worse for them as the belligerent occupation continues. It's the record-holding of the longest belligerent occupation that rivals Tibet and Palestine.This is the tip of the iceberg that splays the British and French for their criminal activities throughout the world, the parents of the U.S.A., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, etc. Enough is enough; wouldn't you say?Tane
To reiterate, some people minimize the involvement of the U.S. especially when we know the complicit engagement with U.S. Secretary James Blaine and Lorrin Thurston with the approval of President B. Harrison and instrumental actions of U.S. Minister John L. Stevens in their covert and overt actions. This complicity with the executive branch and some in the legislative branch make this a deeper involvement by the U.S. to manipulate the changeover which violates the law of nations, the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, the Hawaiian Kingdom's treaty and neutrality.
The Ku'e Petitions which they try to suppress were the voices of the people of Hawai'i (98% of its bona fide citizens)which protested against annexation to the U.S. which is why the treaty of annexation failed to make the 2/3rds majority and thus rejected by the U.S. Congress. They now claim that resolutions are symbolic and without the force of law beyond its territory. So what of the Turpie Resolution and the Newland's Resolution? These can never be validated under the U.S. interpretation of their laws. Still to date, there has been not the essential treaty of annexation. A nation within a nation is simply belligerent occupation of a sovereign nation-state.
The idea of statehood of the U.S. is a ficticious, fake and living the lie. Active Hawai'i nationals rebuke this Akaka Bill of a foreign country that insists on occupation of our country. Backers of the Bill want to continue the myth and Hawaii nationals that may agree are defeatists, probably suffering from the Stockholme Syndrome in which they feel it's the best chance for a realistic resolution. What of the non-kanaka maoli ever-loyal to the Hawaiian Kingdom? Should they be considered as well? After all, the Kingdom of Hawai'i is a national and not a tribal country that the U.S. needs to covet in order to incorporate it to its make-up. A constitutional monarchy is a democratic system as that of Great Britain and better since we elected two of our monarchs to head our government. We better set U.S. Americans straight on the facts.
What does Richard Salvador say about Free Association for Palau? How is it working today, as oppose to before, how about the future when we're in LaLa land?
Kaohi
PS. I read Tani's post, copied the supreme court report, haven't read it yet or compared it to...have you? Is the ball back in our court, or someone's court?
I like the idea of a Peace Center at Mokapu Peninsula, Uncle Sam Lono's Kahea to Ku and Hina would be pono. Kaohi (Luwella)
Ah, mahalo Tane! This is the silver lining. Yes, I understand this better now, and it's very strategic. In a conversation with Ku, he brought up the interesting question that why is the 1993 resolution "symbolic" but the Newlands resolution is somehow not? They're both "resolutions..."
Comments
The Ku'e Petitions which they try to suppress were the voices of the people of Hawai'i (98% of its bona fide citizens)which protested against annexation to the U.S. which is why the treaty of annexation failed to make the 2/3rds majority and thus rejected by the U.S. Congress. They now claim that resolutions are symbolic and without the force of law beyond its territory. So what of the Turpie Resolution and the Newland's Resolution? These can never be validated under the U.S. interpretation of their laws. Still to date, there has been not the essential treaty of annexation. A nation within a nation is simply belligerent occupation of a sovereign nation-state.
The idea of statehood of the U.S. is a ficticious, fake and living the lie. Active Hawai'i nationals rebuke this Akaka Bill of a foreign country that insists on occupation of our country. Backers of the Bill want to continue the myth and Hawaii nationals that may agree are defeatists, probably suffering from the Stockholme Syndrome in which they feel it's the best chance for a realistic resolution. What of the non-kanaka maoli ever-loyal to the Hawaiian Kingdom? Should they be considered as well? After all, the Kingdom of Hawai'i is a national and not a tribal country that the U.S. needs to covet in order to incorporate it to its make-up. A constitutional monarchy is a democratic system as that of Great Britain and better since we elected two of our monarchs to head our government. We better set U.S. Americans straight on the facts.
Kaohi
PS. I read Tani's post, copied the supreme court report, haven't read it yet or compared it to...have you? Is the ball back in our court, or someone's court?
I like the idea of a Peace Center at Mokapu Peninsula, Uncle Sam Lono's Kahea to Ku and Hina would be pono. Kaohi (Luwella)
My initial response was to uē out of kaumaha-ness and disappointment.
You do keep things in perspective though so props to you for that even though some of us like uē.