Blog

"Under the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom the Crown Lands were not part of the Government lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Crown Lands were made inalienable under the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

That is why in the Organic Act of 1900 of the Territory of Hawaii that Act makes the Crown Lands alienable, which we know is a fraud.

Prince Kuhio offered the Crown Lands to be the Land Base of the Hawaiian Homestead Act. At 1900 the Crown Lands were 970,000 acres of lands. Not only 200,000!

The Crown Lands under the Laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom belonged to the Native indigenous Hawaiian people, not members of the General Public of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Long live the Hawaiian Kingdom, o Pomai."

                                      -Hawaiian Kingdom National Patriot Richard Pomaika'ioklani Kinney (R.I.P.), October 4, 2009.

ALIENABLE = The character of property that makes it capable of sale or transfer.

INALIENABLE = That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. Incapable of being conveyed, incapable of being sold, incapable of being transferred. That cannot be transferred to another or others.

'However by 1864 so much of the Crown lands had been sold or tied up in long term leases that the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled that Crown lands belonged not to the person of the king but to the Crown, that is, the office of the king. The court ruled the Crown lands inalienable - not to be broken up or sold - the legislature agreed and the next year passed a law which said, "Crown lands shall remain inalienable and shall descend to heirs and successors of the Hawaiian throne forever.'

-The loss of the land, page 119, section 3, "A history of Hawai'i," by Linda K. Menton & Eileen Tamura.

Aloha kakou.

                       It is with deepest sadness you may have learned of the death in Australia last Tuesday night of Professor Jon Van Dyke while attending a conference. The William S. Richardson Law School have dedicated a tribute memorial web-page to his honor which you can access by clicking here:

http://www.law.hawaii.edu/news/2011/11/29

There is also a photographic tribute here:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lawschoolphotos/InMemoriamJonVanDyke02

You can add your own photos & comments here:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/jvd

Professor Van Dyke is survived by his wife attorney Sherry Broder, daughter Michelle, and sons Eric & Jesse. The "Honolulu Star-Advertiser" article on 68 year-old Professor Van Dyke who was a recognized authority on native Hawaiian land rights and Constitutional law is accessible here:

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/uh_constitutional_law_professor_Jon_Van_Dyke_dies.html

Coincidentally I happened to have just finished reading one of Professor Van Dyke's works and was in the process of writing a review for posting here on Maoliworld next week when the tragic news of his death appeared in the media, so it is to his beloved memory this incomplete essay is dedicated.

                    -- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------  --

As holiday season approaches the question of the seemingly obligatory stocking-stuffer content arises for spouse/partner/'ohana, what better way to brighten the occassion than a present of the 2008 book "Who owns the Crown Lands of Hawai'i?" by Professor Jon M. Van Dyke?

It is truly worthy of a read although published three years ago it remains an indispensable repository of relevant information. Thanks to Professor Carlos Andrade of UH Center for Hawaiian Studies lavish colorful maps of the Crown and Government lands are easily identifiable. Here online there is a nice 1897 Hawaiian Government Survey map of Moloka'i which you can enlarge by clicking on the relevant icon:

http://www.geographicus.com/P/AntiqueMap/MolokaiHawaii-lo-1897

So it was identical when compared in terms of boundary lines between both maps. In the introduction on page 10, Professor Van Dyke outlines the purpose of the book a literary snapshot of every historical facet of the Crown Lands:

"The book describes and analyzes the history and legal status of the Crown Lands in detail. The purpose of reexamining each of the historical events that transformed the Crown Lands is to help the current residents of Hawai'i understand that these lands are unique and should not be carelessly lumped together with other lands."

The late William S. Richardson provides a forward to the book and acknowledges the key role of the late Richard Dwayne Nakila Steele, and input of Rhoda Kealoha Spencer, Kapua'a Sproat, and other law students whose extensive research and assistance provided the backbone of the content, likewise Professor Van Dyke accedes glowingly from the outset toward them a good testament by any author. In his introduction Van Dyke directs to the reader's attention to the confiscation of the Crown Lands by the Provisional Government and merged them with the Government Lands and established homestead programs through which some acreage was transferred into private ownership. He adds:

'In 1898, when Hawai'i was annexed to the United States, the Republic "ceded" the remaining Crown and Government Lands to the United States, and they became a Public Land Trust managed by the United States but maintained separately from the government's other public lands because they were held in trust for the people of Hawai'i. In 1959, the United States transferred about 1.4 million acres of these lands in trust to the new state of Hawai'i but retained the remaining 373,720 acres.'

How did this illegality come to be? What role did the U.S. Department of In-Justice play? The reader's attention is immediately piqued at the outset to page-turning absorption throughout, the fine scholarship consistently entertains to the final conclusions it is hard to exaggerate the excellence of this riveting book.

Tracing initially land tenure from the eve of Western contact before the Mahele to the Mahele proper the book becomes engrossing with the input of King Kamehameha III in protecting the rights of the maka'ainana independent of their Ali'i and Government agents who if they violated the Constitution would be removed from their posts via the 1839 Declaration of Rights and Kingdom Constitution of 1840.

Attention is drawn toward New York born and Harvard educated Judge William Little Lee.  Lee who was to become the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Kingdom arrived in the islands at age 26 on October 12, 1846 he married Catherine Newton (1819-1894) on March 11 of 1849. According to author Jon J. Chinen, Lee gave the maka'ainaana "harmful advice" helped his friends obtain land awards, made no effort to assist the hoa'aina in distress, and when Lee learned that these poor hoa'aina were unable to pay the expenses to perfect their claims, Lee purchased their claims. Lee a denizen also authored the 1850 Act for Government of Masters and Servants regulating contract labor keeping immigrant workers in slave-like conditions pending their contracts expiring. In "They Cried" by Chinen he wrote of Lee:

"There was definitely a conflict of interest on the part of [William L.] Lee, who had secretly purchased some [Kuleana] claims, without informing the other members of the Land Commission..... As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and President of the Land Commission, he knew or should have known that it was improper for him to purchase claims of the hoa'aina. he was supposed to be neutral at all times, and not to have personal interests in the cases."

In 1846 the year Lee arrived in the Kingdom, the Legislature had created the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles to address all land claims.

If you click here you access Jane L. Silverman's noteworthy essay "Imposition of a Western judicial system in the Hawaiian monarchy." It sketches the transition during that epoch. You will need to click on "view/open" as you scroll down:

http://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10524/197

It took over a decade for Professor Van Dyke to compile this spell binding book and it quickly becomes apparent that if you borrow it from your local library the information content is vast, monumental, and appealing, you need a copy for your own future reference. The often hostile activities of foreigners locally caused King Kamehameha III to act to prevent his lands being considered public domain in the event of a takeover by a foreign power by conquest. It is impossible not to empathize with the maka'ainana out of 1,523,000 acres given to the Government by King Kamehameha III (Kauikeaouli) for the people only 28,658 acres (less than 1% of the archipelago land area) was Awarded to the maka'ainana, yet 41,000 acres was distributed to 33 missionary families, the factors in fewer Kuleana Awards being granted than initially anticipated were due to:

-Failure to educate the maka'ainana on how to claim property.

-Unfamiliarity of the maka'ainana with the concept of private property.

-The difficulty in filing & proving claims, coupled with the obligating of having a survey for which a fee was applicable.

-Interference of certain Ali'i to discourage claims on behalf of the maka'ainana.

In Chapter 5 the Government Lands are discussed assured and eloquent in detail, thereafter the transfer of lands to Alexander Liholiho (who ascended as King Kamehameha IV in 1854), to his death in 1863, and the subsequent 1864 decision by the Hawai'i Supreme Court "In the Matter of of the Estate of His majesty King Kamehameha IV," 2 Hawaii 715 (1864). Van Dyke identifies that this case was not out of any antipathy between Lot (Kamehameha V) & Queen Emma as they had been childhood friends since attending Royal School together rather each believed their stance was the pono choice. Should the Crown Lands go to family heirs of the deceased Mo'i or to the new reigning Mo'i? Lot argued that the Lands were attached to the Crown whereas Emma argued the Crown Lands were the private property of her late husband and she was entitled to half of these Lands as his legal heir in addition to another third of the remaining lands as her dower right.

The Court's June 7th ruling agreed in some respects to both Royal claimants but came down in favor of the Crown Lands could be inherited only by successors to the Throne thus rejecting Queen Emma's claim. The Kingdom Legislature offered her $6,000 yearly payments if she waived her dower rights to the Crown Lands which she accepted, later on July 5, 1882 a $2,000 increase was Awarded to her by "An Act to Increase the Permanent Settlement on her Majesty Queen Dowager Emma."

In Chapter 9 Van Dyke is both lucid and absorbing in profiling the 1865 Act which made the Crown Lands inalienable. It was passed by the Kingdom Legislature on January 3rd being: "An Act to Relieve the Royal Domain from Encumbrences and to Render the Same Inalienable." This Statute created a 3 person Board of Commissioners of Crown Lands appointed by the Monarch and affiliated to the Interior Department. With the death of King Kamehameha V (Lot) on December 11, 1872 Lunalilo ascended on January 12, 1873 policies were directed by his Cabinet due to his ill health and it was during his tenure the Pearl Harbor Reciprocity Treaty arose, following popular opposition among the populace it was withdrawn before ratification.

In Chapter 11 the transition from the Kamehameha line to the Kalakaua-Keawe-a-Helu line is described by Van Dyke's feel for the subject with a populist touch as is His Excellency Kalakaua's balamcing act of favoring a Reciprocity Treaty while simultaneously maintaining Hawaiian Kingdom Independence. It was an era of International trade and relations. Eight years into his Kingship Kalakaua embraced the economics of the industrialist Claus Spreckles and engaged Walter M. Gibson as Prime Minister in opposition to the planter-missionary elite's which ultimately led to the Bayonet Constitution and eventual 1893 overthrow. In Chapter 12 Van Dyke charts with a blend of analysis and infectious enthusiasm the infamous Princess Ruth Ke'elikolani claim to half the Crown Lands & Spreckles, when Lot died on December 11, 1872 he had rejected Princess Ruth to be his successor and he died without naming one. According to Van Dyke, Princess Ruth's legal claim was not totally without foundation, but it was quite weak.

In the following Chapter 13 Van Dyke writes with pacy, colorful, and at all times entertaining mastery of the historical background and context of the inalienable Crown Lands from 1865-1893 and how for 28 years after the Spreckles/Princess Ke'elikolani case the Crown Lands were relatively stable. One exception was the addition of "unassigned lands" to the Crown Lands inventory, this occurred on November 14, 1890 with: "An Act to Declare Certain Lands to be Part of the Crown Lands and Royal Domain." Justification was sought by Surveyor-General William D. Alexander who opposed same on the grounds that the Act of January 3, 1865 the Crown Lands were to be passed on to the successors of the Crown and were limited and designated by name in the Act of June 7, 1848, Alexander knew of no legal authority to add additional lands to the Crown Lands inventory. The logic being what you can add to you can eventually subtract from.

In Chapter 14, Van Dyke configures the 1887 Reciprocity Treaty and the Bayonet Constitution, Hawaiian Kingdom patriot Joseph Nawahi was strongly opposed to this Treaty and correctly forewarned reciprocity would be: "the first step of annexation later on, and the Kingdom, its flag, its independence, and its people will become naught." On occasion in Dr. Keanu Sai's web-site and in Van Dyke's book we come across the terms promulgate and abrogate in relation to Kingdom Constitutions. To promulgate means to place a law or decree into effect by announcing it officially, to abrogate means to cancel a law or agreement formally.

Van Dyke deviates in Chapter 15 to address the body politic of the Kingdom in the years prior to the unlawful 1893 overthrow, in 1876 the population of Hawai'i was approximately 55,000. Hawaiians & part-Hawaiians made up 89.2% of the populace back then. Comprised of 46,500 Hawaiians, 3,000 hapa or part-Hawaiian, 3,500 were Caucasians inclusive of the Portuguese laborers, and 2,500 Chinese. This was the high water mark in the following years Hawaiians became a minority in the land of their birthright. Between 1852 and 1930 some 400,000 agricultural laborers were brought to the islands. The coercion in procuring the 1887 Constitution is readily apparent the voting requirement in having a minimum of $3,000 in taxable property or annual income of $600 dissuaded the highest paid Hawaiian laborer who earned $248 per annum (McGregor, note 66, p.363,"Cultural & Political History").

The unlawful 1893 overthrow is discussed in Chapter 16, throughout the book Professor Van Dyke outlines native resistance to events as they transpired in the annexationists favor. In 1892 petitions came island-wide desiring a new Constitution, HRH Lili'uokalani was in receipt of some 6,500 signatures the entire native or hapa-native populace..... how interesting there was no lobby claiming forgery as was the case with the Ku'e petitions.

The promulgation of a new updated Constitution in keeping with the times was by now traditional so 1893 was no exception. This is noted in the Queen's diary on pages 21 and 238. Lorrin Thurston had been previously told over in Washington DC by the U.S. Secretary of the Navy that U.S. President Harrison had authorized the Naval Secretary "to say to you that, if conditions in hawaii compel you to act as you have indicated [to overthrow the Hawaiian Monarchy], and you come to Washington with an annexation proposition, you will find an exceedingly sympathetic administration here." (Quoted from pages 230-232 of Thurston's "Memories of the Hawaiian Revolution").

On the landing of 160 armed U.S. military personnel U.S. secretary of State Walter Gresham wrote: "The troops were landed, not to protect life and property, but to aid in overthrowing the existing government. This very presence implied coercive measures against it." U.S. Minister Stevens who asked for the U.S. troops to be landed had been sent to Honolulu by the pro-annexationists U.S. President Harrison & Secretary of State Blaine and knew exactly what this posting would entail.

HOW THE CROWN LANDS WERE STOLEN...... FAIR AND SQUARE!

"the envoys sent by Queen Lili'uokalani to Washington after the overthrow - the attorney Paul Newman and Prince David Kawananakoa - sought to promote support for the Queen by arguing that the revolutionists had stolen the Crown Lands."

-Professor Van Dyke on page 90 referring to Professor Kuykendall's Kalakaua Dynastism page 618.

In 1894 the Crown Lands were comprised of some 971,463 acres with a then monetary valuation of $2,314,250.

Both Sanford Dole and Lorrin Thurston independently drafted the 1894 Constitution and combined the perceived best parts, Article 95 0f the so called "Constitution" of the "Republic of Hawaii" addressed the Crown Lands as follows:

"That portion of the public domain heretofore known as the Crown Land is hereby declared to have been heretofore, and now to be, the property of the Hawaiian Government, and to be now free and clear from any trust of or concerning the same, and from all claim of any nature whatsoever, upon the rents, issues and profits thereof. it shall be subject to alienation and other uses as may be provided by law. All valid leases thereof now in existence are hereby confirmed."

The Crown and Government Lands unlawfully confiscated were illegally amalgamated and termed: "The Public Lands of the Provisional Government and Republic." The insurrectionists then decreed that the Crown Lands could be sold by the August 14, 1895 Land Act despite the fact these Crown Lands were inalienable per the Act of January 3, 1865. This objective had been aimed at for a considerable time.

"One of the crying evils of Hawaii is its land ownership, two immense estates are said to own over one-third of the Kingdom. With one, the lands are inalienable; with the other nothing is sold if it can be avoided, or if an increase can be derived from rents. If these estates could be cut up and sold in reasonable farms to small holders, it would probably add 50 per cent. to the recipients for taxes on lands in the Kingdom, and permit of a development in other respects which would materially increase the public revenue and the annual production of the country. It is a proper question to ask why the government should be deprived of revenue merely because a few land owners desire to hold vast tracts and keep them waste; also why the burden of taxation should be increased on the poor thereby. For the benefit of the country it might be well if a system of taxation could be devised as to bear heavily on the ownership of land in excess of some given area, making due allowance for certain uses, but looking toward facing the sale of large tracts of fertile lands kept waste, or undeveloped."

The Hawaiian Annual 1892, pages 69-70, Taxation in Hawaii.

(http://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10524/662/Thrums-1892.pdf?sequence=2).

Professor Van Dyke scores a triumph in detailing seven pages comprehensively listing the districts, land tracts, acreage, lease numbers and expiration dates, annual rental, and approximate value, coupled with ancillary remarks, an astounding piece of detective work.

For many voting now assumed an oath to support the so-called "Republic of Hawaii," and not either directly or indirectly assist in the restoration of the Monarchy. The House of Nobles was renamed "The Senate."

In Chapter 19, Van Dyke addresses the so-called "Annexation" by the U.S. Government, during the Newlands Resolution controversy U.S. Sen. Augustus O. Bacon of Georgia attempted to introduce an amendment in order to have a plebiscite held but this was rejected as it was apparent from the anti-annexation petitions that a plebiscite would vote against annexation. He additionally made the point that the U.S. Constitution permitted acquisition of territory through consensual Treaty not by joint-resolution.

Following the passing of the Newlands Resolution of 1898 the 1900 Organic Act was enacted on April 30 of that year. This Act confirmed the cession of Kingdom Crown & Government Lands to the U.S. Government and authorized the Territory of Hawaii to administer them. Under Section 99 of the Act these lands could be sold i.e. "It shall be subject to alienation and other uses as provided by law," & HRH Lili'uokalani had no legal claim to the Crown Lands under U.S. Law.

By Chapter 20, Van Dyke describes the Crown Lands during the Territorial era 1898-1959, the U.S. military acquired extensive land tracts from executive orders issued by U.S. President McKinley. By 1928 one "corporation" had acquired through quiet title, legal proceedings, and on occasion adverse possession 98% of Lanai. The Lili'uokalani v. United States court case of 1910 is outlined in the following chapter. Referring to the Crown lands presiding, Judge Booth took the view that: "When the office [of the Monarch] ceased to exist, they became as other lands of the Sovereignty and passed to the defendants [the United States] as part and parcel of the public domain." Much later in the 1993 Apology Resolution the dichotomy of the Court of Claims reasoning that the Queen's rights to the Crown Lands ceased when her office ceased to exist, if the overthrow of the Kingdom was illegal, then it follows suit that the subsequent transfer of Hawai'i's "public domain" to the U.S. Government must also be of questionable legality. In Chapter 22, the July 9th HHCA of 1921 is expatiated this Act set aside some 203,500 acres of Crown & Government Lands to provide 99-year home leases for Native Hawaiians.

One of the Act's authors Territorial Senator John H. Wise said at the Second Session of  the 66th Congress: "The Hawaiian people are a farming people and fishermen, out-of-door people, and when they are frozen out of their lands and driven into the cities they had to live in the cheapest places, tenements. That is one of the reasons the Hawaiian people are dying. Now, the only way to save them, I contend, is to take them back to the lands and give them the mode of living that their ancestors were accustomed to and in that way rehabilitate them."

In its Memorial to Congress, Aha Hui Pu'uhonua stressed: "Kamehameha III had recognized that the common people had one-third interest in the lands of Hawai'i at the time of the Mahele.... the common people only received 0.8 percent of the land on an individual fee simple basis and the remaining portion of the lands were held in trust by the monarchy." HRH Prince Kuhio expounded on the some 984,000 acres at that time which were not conveyed at the time to the maka'ainana but reverted to the Crown to be held in trust for their benefit.

In Chapter 23, Van Dyke examines the decades between statehood right up to the present. In 1950 John Hoopale asked Congress; "to restore the independence of our beloved land," Van Dyke could have elaborated more on Hoopale rather than stating "When statehood finally came in 1959, it was supported by most Native Hawaiians, because it enabled them to have at least some say over decisions governing their islands." it is one of few instances where Van Dyke fails to provide a source reference for his assertion nor does he account for the majority of eligible voters who never even participated in the plebiscite.

In Chapters 24 Van Dyke elaborates at length on the 2000 Rice v. Cayetano ruling, there are three photographs of U.S. Justices and a group photograph of SCOTUS Justices those who mishandled the Rice case wasted in what could have been used for the maka'ainana elsewhere in the book, if the reader were interested in U.S. law there is bountiful information on same over in America. What you get from U.S. domestic law is American domestic law not necessarily justice it is geared toward protecting large U.S. property owners and major U.S. corporate business interests, what Van Dyke does show throughout the book is how native Hawaiians have been treated as a poor relation.

In Chapters 25 & 26 he addresses the four main trusts established by the Ali'i Nui in order to link the relationship between the Mo'i and the Crown Lands. The Kamehameha Schools from the Will of HRH Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop to the conflict in selecting Trustees right up to today's contoversy on admissions policy are all covered. The Lunalilo Trust, Queen Emma Trust, and Lili'uokalani Trust are all enhanced via their origin, function, and current status. In the case of the Lunalilo Trust the estate break-up according to Van Dyke is attributable to three court rulings in 1874, 1879, and 1881. Had the estate Land holdings not been sold off there were sufficient revenues to preserve the Lunalilo Home's in perpetuity. Sanford Dole, Edwin O. Hall, & John Mott-Smith were the first Trustees.

In Chapter 27, Van Dyke provides the backdrop of the British Crown Lands as a case study and the historical origin with the Hawaiian Monarchy and how today the British Crown Lands remain the hereditary possession of the Sovereign in the right of the Crown. As an opinion the general reader would find this chapter to be of no significant relevance deserving an entire chapter the specialist however would likely deem it otherwise, Van Dyke could have devoted an entire chapter to the maka'ainana and how the land changes affected them directly over the generations. He could have dwelled briefly on the British Crown Lands or indeed the Canadian Crown Lands which the average Hawaiian or American reader could relate to more firmly.

In Chapter 28, Van Dyke sketches the claims of Ali'i descendants to the Crown Lands commencing with Senate Resolution 393 the Hawaii State Legislature passing a resolution in 1977. The respective claims of the descendants of Elizabeth Keka'ani'au Pratt who was the last living survivor of the 16 children selected for the Royal School, the 1989 formation of the Kamehameha Crown Lands Corporation, Noa & Owana Salazar, Professor Rubellite Kawena Kinney Johnson are all outlined with the observation that the heirs of His Excellency King David Kalakaua's heirs have not expressed a desire to claims on these lands.

The complexity of the claims matter is focused by the input of Dennis Kanahele, Professor Kame'eleihiwa, and Dr. Kekuni Blaisdell and the reader will come optimistically away with divergent practical but inspiring memories of the capability of Hawaiian Nationals in resolving an internal matter in a pono manner.

In Chapter 29, Van Dyke admirably summarizes the book contents, the Monarchs of the 19th century did not make decisions on the basis of Western legal principles but rather kuleana toward the 'aina for the benefit of Hawaiians and an appreciation of this is central to comprehension.

There are numerous footnotes conveniently on almost ever page which save going to the appendix at the end of the book, the appendix proper contains the Principles Adopted by the Land Commission 1846-1847, the Act Relating to the Crown and Fort Lands of June 7 of 1848, the Kuleana Act of August 6 of 1850, In the Matter of the Estate of His Majesty Kamehameha IV, the Act Rendering the Crown Lands Inalienable of January 3 of 1865, the U.S. Joint Resolution of Annexation of July 7 of 1898, excerpts of the 1900 Organic Act of April 30, the Lili'uokalani v U.S. case, the November 23 Apology Resolution of 1993.

While there is a Hawaiian language glossary of wording used in the book's content from kauoha to pi'o it would have been a plus if the book contained a glossary of legalistic land related labels here are rough definitions of some:

Fiduciary responsibility: A fiduciary is someone who owes a duty of loyalty to safeguard the interests of another person or entity. (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f026.htm).

Codicil: An addition or supplement to a Will it must be executed with the same solemnities, a codicil can add to, subtract from, or modify the terms of the original Will.

Unalienable = "Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred." -Black's Law dictionary, 2nd edition 1910

Allodial (Black's Law dictionary definition) = 'Free; not holden of any lord or superior, owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal.'

Allodium = 'Land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any lord or superior, land not subject to feudal duties or burdens. An estate held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof.'

From straight talk (please see: http://www.straighttalknews.org/Allodial_Title.html): 'Allodial title is inalienable, in that it cannot be taken by any operation of law for any reason whatsoever.

Allodial lands are the absolute property of their owner and not subject to any service or acknowledgment to a superior. An Allodial title is the opposite of a feudal tenure such as fee simple.'

Fee simple = A form of freehold ownership.

"Clear" (Black's law dictionary definition) = 'Free from encumbrances and claims.'

Encumbrances = Anything that affects or limits the title of a property. In law an encumbrance is a lien or claim on property.

Lien = The owner of the property, who grants the lien is called the 'lienor' while the person who has the benefit of the lien is referred to as the 'lienee.' A common law lien is one arising under the common law rather than by statue, equity, or agreement between the parties.

Quitclaim = A formal renunciation of any claim against a person or a right to land, a document in which a person has an alleged interest in real property transfers this interest to another. Quitclaim deeds transfer or quit any interest in real property, the grantor may not be in title at all, so the grantee cannot assume that the grantor has any real property interest to convey. A quitclaim deed is a written instrument whereby the person signing it transfers all right, claim or interest in title to the real estate to another. It does not covenant or warrant that the grantor's interest is valid and it does not contain any of the covenants or warranties typically found in a warranty deed.

Not once does Van Dyke use the term 'Hawaiian National' which is irksome, he does however strike a chord in his belief that the future of the Crown Lands is a matter for Native Hawaiians to decide, he does not distinguish which group or individuals actually or lawfully own the Crown lands, it is debatable what Professor Van Dyke means by the "emerging" Hawaiian Nation but from his OHA involvement he is likely referring to the Nation within a Nation concept of the Akaka Bill rather than a justified Free Independent Hawai'i. All in all it is an excellent read which takes concentration and imposing martial law on your keiki (if you have such) to give you time to absorb the book content devoid of interruption.

Related and helpful web-pages:

Information on the credentials of Professor Van Dyke are obtainable here:

http://www.law.hawaii.edu/personnel/van-dyke/jon

For an Australian review slant on the book check out Michael Griffin's review:

http://www.spanielbooks.com/crown_lands_of_hawaii.pdf

The word "leitmotiv" as used by Michael means; an often repeated image in a literary work.

Dr. Kenneth Conklin who gave testimony on HB397 HD2 on March 6 last refers to Professor Van Dyke as a frequent shill for OHA. In Ken's favor he does read very interpretively given his philosophical academic background. From his half truth half fiddle-faddle website(s) it is obvious he has read the slightly related "Kahana, how the Land was Lost," and numerous other Hawaiiana, it is highly apparent however that he has not read Van Dyke's book but instead alludes to attorney Sullivan's review of same:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/Testimony/HB397_HD2_TESTIMONY_HWN-WLH-JDL_03-21-11.pdf

Ken claims the 1865 Act transferred ownership of the Crown Lands to the Government and later using this he asserts it was at that time the Government & Crown Lands became jointly known as the public lands. On his website he devotes a section to the Lili'uokalani V. United States case of 1910. He should thus be familiar that the Queen's attorney Sidney M. Ballou who fought the Queen's case on one aspect on the basis of the 1848 & 1865 Acts in that up to 1893 the Crown Lands were not considered to be the property of the Government and were not part of the public domain. The Crown Lands were a right of the Native Hawaiian people as beneficiaries of a Trust created by their Monarch. The 1865 Act attached the Crown Lands to the Monarchy to promote the dignity of the Crown and to allow future Monarchs to fulfill their obligations to the people.

This interaction here on Maoliworld is educational:

http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/the-crown-lands-of-the?id=2011971%3ATopic%3A222260&page=1  

Professor Van Dyke's viewpoint is that due to the complexity of the claims: "Because it is impossible to link the Crown lands to any specific individual or group of individuals today, it seems more appropriate to view these lands as the heritage and entitlement of Native Hawaiians as a whole."

Definitions of legal terms in land records:

http://www.directlinesoftware.com/legal.htm

This christian website contains gems of legal translations from Latin to English including de facto/de jure as applied to Government:

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/boh/boh4.shtml

Article concerning the so-called "ceded lands":

http://www.thehawaiiindependent.com/story/unbound-arm

Traditionally only Native Hawaiians could serve as Mo'i and thus have an affinity of entitlement with the Crown Lands.

Thomas M. Spaulding gives the breakdown of the Crown Lands as follows upon their unlawful confiscation and merger into the public domain:

Total area: 971,463 acres. (Moku 'O Keawe 642,852 acres, Kaua'i 154,636 acres, Maui 69,121 acres, O'ahu 66,593 acres, Moloka'i 20,892 acres, and Lana'i 17,369 acres).

The Kingdom Legislature decision of 1865 that the words heirs and successors mean the heirs and successors to the royal office and that "the history of said lands shows that they were vested in the king for the purpose of maintaining the royal state and dignity." On pages 13-14 it can be noted regarding the King Kamehameha V Act of January 3, 1865: "The important thing is that henceforth these lands were inalienable, so that no king might sell them and take them for himself, to the exclusion of his successors." Please note the file will download and open in pdf. format on your computer if you click on "view/open" under "item file(s) on this UH web-page:

-http://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10524/653

-OHA: http://www.oha.org/kwo/2008/01/story14.php

-Attorney Paul M. Sullivan's critique as with the book proper deserves careful scrutiny and needs to be read 2-3 times to comprehend the content gist:

http://www.inversecondemnation.com/files/sullivan_bookreview.pdf

It is a carefully crafted opinion akin to the writing style of Van Dyke well presented and numerous reference footnotes. Instantaneously a number of features stand out:

"Some of the Crown Lands with which the book is concerned are owned by the United States Government and the rest are owned by the State of Hawaii."

---> Attorney Paul M. Sullivan cites the Newlands Resolution as the Title the U.S. derives from the cession of the Crown Lands & other Government Lands from the former Hawaiian Kingdom by the successor Republic of Hawaii at the time of annexation. As an attorney Sullivan should know but chooses to overlook there must be a Treaty to achieve cession of State Territory, the Newlands Resolution did not annex Hawai'i according to international law. To cede means to yield typically by Treaty. The U.S. Government failed to achieve a Treaty of Annexation the Hawaiian Kingdom has not been extinguished and remains in Continuity.

In footnote (7) attorney Sullivan states: 'Strictly speaking, there are no longer any "Crown Lands." The term is used for convenient reference, but the former Crown Lands of the monarchy were merged with the other public lands of the ingdom and ceded to the United States when Hawaii was annexed to the United States in 1898 , ad they have the same legal status as other ceded lands.'

---> Strictly speaking, the only format in which a cession can be accomplished is by Treaty between the ceding and acquiring State. it is apparent Hawai'i is under belligerent occupation whereby international laws provide that the occupying State the U.S. Government in this instance is obliged to administer the laws of the occupied State the Hawaiian Kingdom in this instance.

"No argument is presented that chains of title, or adverse possession, or any other traditional legal grounds for judicial resolution of issues of title to real property prove, or even suggest, that most or all persons of Hawaiian ancestry have current claims to these lands."

--->On pages 380-381 Van Dyke encapsulates the Trust established at Annexation: "Because of its understanding that lands had been taken and transferred without consent or compensation. Congress made it clear in both the 1898 Newlands Resolution and the 1900 organic Act that these lands must be held in trust for the inhabitants of Hawai'i, referring to native hawaiians. That generous phrasing remained largely meaningless during the territorial period, when the socioeconomic position of native hawaiians declined and their culture and language were suppressed. In 1921, the Hawaiian Home lands project was established for persons with at least 50 per cent Hawaiian blood, but the lands provided for this program were marginal, with little agricultural potential, and the program has never been adequately funded to build the infrastructure needed to allow all Hawaiians seeking homesteads to have meaningful access to them. Nonetheless, the hearings and reports that preceded the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act made it clear that the United States recognized it had a trust relationship with the native Hawaiian People and the Native Hawaiians had a continuing legitimate claim to the Crown Lands.

-"The remedy would almost certainly be unachievable as a matter of constitutional law."

---> How well the U.S. Government were capable of providing a remedy to its constitutional law when a Treaty of Annexation was unable to be ratified by the 2/3rd majority of Senators present? it was done unlawfully by joint resolution, thus when it suits the U.S. Government and its interests a remedy can be found.

-"It is not obvious why the property of the United States and State of Hawaii should be offered up today to change the outcome of this land reform program of a foreign government."

---> Calling the Hawaiian Kingdom a 'foreign' government in its own territorial jurisdiction is arrogant at least, perhaps attorney Sullivan should familiarize himself with the 3,975 Hawaiian or part-Hawaiian houseless living on the streets who comprise 28% of those unfortunates recorded in the 2011 Homeless Service Utilization Report (see: http://uhfamily.hawaii.edu/publications/brochures/HomelessServiceUtilization2011.pdf), and address such a flippantly smug assertion toward them.

-The revolutionary changes were not forced on the Monarchs by either foreign invaders or the native populace. Instead, it was the Monarchs and their trusted advisors, both foreign and native, who led the transition."

--->That is not what Van Dyke contended on pages 4 & 30 when he noted that King Kauikeauoli was forced under protest to cede his Kingdom to Lord George Paulet in February 1843 or French Rear Admiral Legoarant de Tromelin in August 1849 occupying and largely destroying Honolulu Fort, seizing the Royal yacht, ransacking Gov. Kekuanao's hale, and causing more than $100,000 valuation back then worth of damage.

(Footnote: Just having completed the book I did not have time to reply to each of attorney Sullivan's points, his is a legal opinion well worthy of a legal opinion response from someone so qualified). Hopefully you get a flavor of the book's contents.

In conclusion sincere sympathy at this time to the 'ohana and many friends and associates of the late Professor Jon M. Van Dyke in particular to his wife Sherry, daughter Michelle and sons Eric & Jesse, may they stand proud to have had such a Father who defended and represented the cause of righteousness.

Your life was one of kindly deeds, a helping hand for others needs. Sincere and true in heart and mind, beautiful memories left behind.

-Kuli'a i Ka Nu'u.