Lately in the "news" the editors are claiming "Less Hawaiian blood OK for OHA's help, court rules."
The article can be seen here: http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20100727_Less_Hawaiian_blood_OK_for_OHAs_help_court_rules.html?success
Except that is NOT what was in the complaint that was filed by the four plaintiffs and it was NOT what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
The editors FAILED to post a direct link to the source. They do so PURPOSEFULLY to try to pit HAWAIIAN AGAINST HAWAIIAN.
Read it and see it with your own eyes:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/26/08-16704.pdf
The plaintiffs' contention is with A WRITTEN AGREEMENT by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, Pub. L. No. 67-34, 42 Stat. 108 (1921) (“HHCA”), created in the Hawaii Admission Act, Pub. L. No. 86-3, 73 Stat. 4 (1959) (“Admission Act”). They contend that the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (“OHA”), a Hawaii state agency that administers a portion of the public trust’s proceeds, breached their trust.
UNFORTUNATELY the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs stating:
"[14] We hold that, although § 5(f) permits Hawaii to impose further rules and restrictions on management of the
§ 5(f) trust, it does not require the state and its agents to abide by those rules and restrictions as a matter of federal law. Those alleged violations are actionable under state law, if at all. We therefore affirm the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the OHA trustees. The trustees have established as a matter of law that each of the challenged expenditures constitutes a “use” “for one or more of the [§ 5(f)] purposes” and that is sufficient to defeat plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim under federal law for breach of the § 5(f) trust."
They do NOT say ANYTHING ABOUT "LESS HAWAIIAN BLOOD."
The editors purposefully misinterpreted this opinion and trying to persuade people to hate on Hawaiians and to try to DIVIDE Hawaiians. Whatever you do... do NOT fall into their set up of MEDIA MANIPULATION.
I also happen to know the HONORABLE Patrick Kahawaiolaa of Keaukaha who is one of the plaintiffs and as usual you try to portray him as though he is a monster. The editors continue to lie about him. Aue! He believes in the KAKOU Concept. His own grandkids are of mixed ethnicities. Some of them are seen as "less than half Hawaiian" but the Hawaiian community sees them as HAWAIIAN. As usual the editors try to make it seem as though he does not want to INCLUDE those with "less Hawaiian blood." He has worked tirelessly for the Keaukaha Neighborhood Board even going up against the FAA who continue to HARASS Hawaiians in Keaukaha. Ever since I have known him... he has worked TIRELESSLY FOR ALL HAWAIIANS irrelevant of BLOOD QUANTUM!
This is the HONORABLE Patrick Kahawaiolaa of Keaukaha... IN Keaukaha. He's worked TIRELESSLY FOR ALL HAWAIIANS!!!
Some of what the plaintiffs asserted include:
Plaintiffs challenge four projects on which the OHA trustees have spent parts of
its 20-percent share of the § 5(f) trust’s proceeds.
1. The Akaka Bill. OHA used § 5(f) trust money to lobby
for and support the proposed Native Hawaiian Government
Reorganization Act of 2007, commonly referred to as the
“Akaka Bill” after Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, one of its
chief proponents. The Akaka Bill would create a process
through which the United States could recognize a governing
entity for Hawaii’s indigenous people. See Native Hawaiian
Government Reorganization Act of 2007, S. 310, 110th Cong.
(2007). The governing entity would have the power to establish
its own criteria for citizenship. Id. § 7(c)(2)(B)(iii)(I)(aa).
Initially, however, it would be governed by an “interim governing
council,” id. § 7(c)(2)(A), to be elected by “adult members
of the Native Hawaiian community who elect to
participate in the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing
entity and are certified to be Native Hawaiian,” id.
§ 7(c)(1)(A). For the purposes of the Akaka Bill, the term
“Native Hawaiian” includes (essentially) any direct descendant
of the indigenous people of Hawaii. Id. § 3(10). This definition
is broader than the class of “native Hawaiians” (like
plaintiffs) comprised only of individuals with “not less than
one-half part” indigenous Hawaiian lineage. See HHCA
§ 201(a).
The Akaka Bill would expressly empower both the United
States government and the State of Hawaii to negotiate and
enter agreements with the Native Hawaiian governing entity
regarding “the transfer of lands, natural resources, and other
assets, and the protection of existing rights related to such
lands or resources” and “the exercise of governmental authority
over any transferred lands, natural resources, and other
assets, including land use.” Akaka Bill § 8(b)(1)(A)-(B).
DAY v. APOLIONA 10693
2. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation (“NHLC”).
NHLC identifies itself as “a non-profit corporation that specializes
in Hawaiian land and Hawaiian rights issues.” OHA
used § 5(f) trust money to fund a contract with NHLC, under
which NHLC agrees to render a range of legal services
including “[a]ssertion and defense of quiet title actions,” protection
of water rights, “[p]reservation of Native Hawaiian
Land Trust entitlements” and preservation of traditional practices
and culturally significant places. The contract does not
restrict NHLC to providing legal services to “native Hawaiians.”
Its recitals explain that OHA “has established a program
whereby all Hawaiians can receive” certain legal
services and that “the program is intended to better the conditions
of all Hawaiians.” In addition, the contract defines “Hawaiian”
to include not only “native Hawaiians” under the
HHCA (like plaintiffs) but also any descendant of the aboriginal
peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian islands in 1778, without
regard to proportional ancestry.
3. Na Pua No’eau Education Program (“Na Pua”). Na
Pua identifies itself as “a Hawaiian Culture-based Education
Resource Center within the University of Hawaii . . . that provides
educational enrichment program activities to Hawaiian
children and their families.” OHA used § 5(f) trust money to
fund a contract with Na Pua. Na Pua does not appear to
restrict the services it provides under the contract to “native
Hawaiians” either generally or under the OHA contract.
4. Alu Like, Inc. Alu Like is a nonprofit service organization
that strives to help Hawaiians achieve social and economic
self-sufficiency by providing early childhood
education, services to the elderly, employment preparation
and training, library and genealogy services, specialized services
for at-risk youth and information and referral services.
OHA used § 5(f) trust money to fund a contract with Alu
Like. Alu Like does not appear to restrict its services to “native
Hawaiians” either generally or under the OHA contract.
Seen here
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/26/08-16704.pdf
Obviously some editors want to try to divide Hawaiians and try to divide people
and try to persuade them to hate on Hawaiians but feel free to read
their opinion DIRECTLY at this link
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/26/08-16704.pdf
which of course the editors do not and did not provide.
Note that this is based on CONTRACTS that were already agreed upon in writing.
As usual the editors are trying to pit Hawaiian AGAINST Hawaiian. I ask that my ohana and hoaaloha do not fall for it.
First read the opinion yourself. Unfortunately in Hawai'i they have tried to "dumb down" reading comprehension skills because to keep us from reading they control our thinking.
UNITE AND CONQUER.
Eo!
P.S. I realize that there are spies both overt and covert who spy on us at Maoliworld as part of their Job Security Package with a variety of organizations... but the truth will always BE the truth. In my family my mother taught me to be truthful irrelevant if it was popular or not. One of my cousins on my paternal Maui side is Boyd Mossman too... but it's not on ME. It's on them. HULO!
