All Posts (6512)
Sort by
Get Your Own UnKau Inoa T-ShirtHere's How - UnKauInoa.OrgDo It Today!
HONORING A WAR OF PROFIT ,COLONIALISM and GREED JUST LIKE IRAQ THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE "FALSE FLAG"911 BROUGHT ON BY THE ELITE ,FOR MORE WEALTH AND CONTROL THIS PLANET'S RESOURCESWITH OVER 860 U.S MILLITARY BASES AROUND OUR GLOBE DOESN'T ANYBODY ELSE SEE "WHAT DA FRICK IS UP" !!!..NWO!Pearl Harbor sites included in Pacific monument honoring WWII..Five sites now part of new Valor in Pacific National Monument
By Dennis Camire Advertiser Washington Bureau
.. ..WASHINGTON — Five sites at Pearl Harbor — including the USS Arizona Memorial and mooring quays on Battleship Row — are part of the new Valor in the Pacific National Monument
President Bush yesterday proclaimed the national monument, which is comprised of World War II locations in Hawai'i, Alaska and California.
The five Hawai'i sites are all connected with the surprise Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, that brought the United States into the war.
Bush also signed a presidential proclamation in honor of National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day 2008, the 67th commemoration of the attack.
The Pearl Harbor sites are:
..The Arizona Memorial and visitor center.
..Mooring quays F6, F7 and F8 on what was then called Battleship Row...The USS Utah Memorial and the USS Oklahoma Memorial...Six chief petty officer bungalows on Ford Island that the Navy has let run down in recent years.However, the sunken battleships Arizona and Utah will not be part of the monument and will remain under Navy control.
"The national monument will include nine sites — five in Hawai'i, three in Alaska and one in California at the Tule Lake Segregation Center, which was where Japanese Americans were detained during World War II," Bush said shortly before signing the proclamation.
The monument designation gives greater protection and recognition to the sites, all owned by the federal government.
Another seven Hawai'i sites and 12 elsewhere in the Pacific will receive official recognition.
"The recognized sites are sites of importance in telling the story of the World War II in the Pacific but are not officially part of the monument," said Chris Paolino, a spokesman for the Interior Department.
The seven Hawai'i sites receiving official recognition are all on O'ahu or offshore:
..Barbers Point (Kalaeloa), which had a Marine Corps air station that was also attacked on Dec. 7, 1941...The Battleship Missouri Memorial in Pearl Harbor...The I-401 Japanese submarine captured after the war and sunk during target practice off Kalaeloa...A Japanese midget submarine sunk off Pearl Harbor just before the Dec. 7 air attacks...The Pacific Aviation Museum on Pearl Harbor's Ford Island...The National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific at Punchbowl...The USS Bowfin submarine museum in Pearl Harbor.honor for troops
Democratic Sens. Daniel K. Inouye and Daniel Akaka of Hawai'i said it was important to honor the courage, dedication and sacrifice of the troops who served in the Pacific.
"It is also important that we commemorate the actions of ordinary men and women who rallied to support their country during this time of war, including the citizens of Hawai'i who responded fearlessly to the attack on Pearl Harbor," the senators said in a joint statement.
The proclamation notes that in addition to the monument's five Hawai'i sites, Pearl Harbor is home to the battleships USS Arizona and USS Missouri — "milestones of the Pacific campaign that mark the beginning and end of the war."
Frank Hays, Pacific area director for the National Park Service, said monument status means the Arizona Memorial will have an enlarged mission.
"The proclamation did include telling a little bit broader story of World War II in the Pacific working with the various partner sites," Hays said.
Those sites include the independent, nonprofit museums that operate around Pearl Harbor.
Hays said the proclamation speaks of protected sites and recognized sites and "we'll have to figure out how we work together with those recognized sites." The proclamation calls for a management plan to be developed over three years.
The National Park Service negotiated with the Navy over sites that would be protected and recognized in Pearl Harbor in what is an active military base.
Bush said the new monument would remind generations of Americans of the sacrifices made to protect the country.
"One of the great stories during World War II was that people fought bitterly to defend our country and way of life and then worked to help our enemies develop democracies according to their own cultures and their own history," Bush said.
Today, Japan is one of the U.S.'s strongest allies in defending and spreading liberty, Bush said.
....Reach Dennis Camire at dcamire@gns. gannett. com.
...... ............• • •
...... >NON-HAWAI'I SITESThe new national monument includes three World War II sites in Alaska and the Tule Lake Segregation Center in California.
Two sites in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and 10 other places in the Pacific region sites were officially recognized by the federal government yesterday, but were not included in the monument.
The three Alaskan sites in the monument are all in the Aleutian Islands:
• The crash site of an American Consolidated B-24D Liberator bomber on Atka Island.
• Kiska Island, occupied by Japan beginning in June 1942 and the northern limit of its expansion in the Pacific. The area includes Japanese coastal and anti-aircraft defenses, camps, roads, an airfield, a submarine base and other facilities.
• Attu Island, site of the only land battle fought in North America during the war.
The 12 sites outside the main Hawaiian Islands that received official recognition are:
• Blunt's Point Battery in American Samoa.
• Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands.
• Iwo Jima in the Japanese Volcano Islands.
• Landing beaches, Aslito-Isley Field and Marpi Point in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
• World War II facility on Midway Island, which is part of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
• Port Chicago Naval Magazine in Concord, Calif.
• Rosie the Riveter-World War II Home Front National Historical Park in Richmond, Calif.
• Tinian Landing Beaches, Ushi Point and North Fields on Tinian Island in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
• USS Yorktown, sunk off Midway Island.
• Wake Island, a U.S. territory.
• War in the Pacific National Park in Guam.
• Wendover Airfield in Wendover, Utah.
............ ............More News headlines
....Housing elevators out again Post a comment..Mayor to announce more city projects Post a comment..Household items would help family settle in Post a comment..State taking new tack in ceded-lands battle Read comments (3)..Pearl Harbor sites included in Pacific monument honoring WWII >
 December 6, 2008 State taking new tack in ceded-lands battle The Lingle administration will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court that Native Hawaiians do not have an ownership claim to land that belonged to the Hawaiian government prior to its overthrow in 1893. News of the legal brief filed by state Attorney General Mark Bennett on Thursday in the state's case against the Office of Hawaiian Affairs did not sit well with Native Hawaiians gathered at Central Union Church yesterday for a swearing-in and investiture of OHA trustees. "It's a pretty immoral position for the governor to take," said Bill Meheula, an attorney representing OHA in the case. At issue are 1.2 million acres of ceded lands once owned by the Hawaiian monarchy which were taken by the provisional Hawaiian government following the overthrow of the monarchy. Those lands were then handed over to the U.S. government when Hawai'i became a U.S. territory, and finally the state of Hawai'i in 1959. In 1993, the U.S. Congress approved an apology to Native Hawaiians for the federal government's role in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. The apology, signed into law by President Clinton, called for Congress to support reconciliation between the nation and Native Hawaiians. "Now the governor is telling all Hawaiians, 'You don't have a claim to the ceded lands even though the overthrow was illegal,' " Meheula said. In an e-mailed statement last night, Gov. Linda Lingle's office said, among other things, that:
The state previously had argued that it has the authority to manage the ceded lands, but did not argue for ownership rights, as Bennett's new brief does, Meheula said. "They are seeking a ruling from the United States Supreme Court that Native Hawaiians have no claim to the ceded lands," he said. The Hawai'i Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling on Jan. 31, stopped the state from selling or exchanging ceded lands until Hawaiian claims to those lands are resolved. Bennett hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse that ruling, arguing that Hawaiians have no claim to the land, Meheula said. mounting tension There has been growing friction between the Native Hawaiian community and the Lingle administration over the ceded lands ownership issue. Last week, several hundred Native Hawaiians protested at the state Capitol against the administration's decision to appeal the state Supreme Court ruling. That ruling stemmed from a 1994 lawsuit brought by OHA and four Native Hawaiians against the state seeking to stop the sale of homes that were about to be developed by the state on 1,500 acres of ceded lands on Maui and the Big Island. Native Hawaiians believe that they have a claim to at least a share of the lands. OHA and the other plaintiffs argued that the 1993 Apology Resolution and subsequent action by the state Legislature effectively bar the state from selling or transferring ceded lands to an outside entity until "unrelinquished claims" regarding compensation for the use of those lands are resolved. The Hawai'i Supreme Court decided in OHA's favor and issued an injunction barring the state from selling ceded lands until Hawaiian claims are extinguished. Bennett's filing, however, suggests no such claims exist. The brief cites the Newlands Resolution, an 1898 Congressional act that led to Hawai'i's annexation and the establishment of Hawai'i as a territory. The Hawai'i Supreme Court "enjoined any sales of the ceded lands on the theory that title might actually belong not to the state, but to 'the Native Hawaiian people,' " the brief said. "But that legal theory runs headlong into the Newlands Resolution, which vests absolute and unreviewable title in the United States; the Organic Act of 1900, which confirms the extinguishment of any Native Hawaiian or other claims to the ceded lands; and the Admission Act of 1959, which transfers to the State the same absolute title previously held by the United States." Further, the brief said: "This body of federal law forecloses any competing claims to the ceded lands, such as those respondents present here." Said Meheula: "They're saying that under the Newlands Resolution, regardless of the fact that the overthrow was illegal, and regardless of the statements in the (1993) Apology Resolution (that) the overthrow was illegal and Native Hawaiians have an unrelinquished claim to the ceded lands, that it doesn't matter. (They're saying that) the state of Hawai'i and the United States have perfect title." OHA's take In a statement issued yesterday, OHA said: "Both the state of Hawai'i and the Congress have recognized that the overthrow of the independent Kingdom of Hawai'i was illegal and the taking of the lands of the Hawaiian people was without their consent and without compensation." It added: "OHA is very disappointed in the state administration for bringing this appeal and for the arguments made in the brief. OHA believes that selling of the ceded lands during the reconciliation process would constitute bad faith by the state of Hawaii." Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, a professor at the Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa, said it is "ridiculous and outrageous" for the state to claim OHA has no right to ceded lands. Kame'eleihiwa called for Lingle's impeachment. "This is against all the agreements that we've had with Gov. Lingle about ceded lands and this is a way to undercut our rights to ceded lands," Kame'eleihiwa said. administration's take In its e-mailed response, Lingle's office goes on to say that the state does not argue in its brief that monies and lands conferred upon Native Hawaiians by the Congress and the state Legislature have been sufficient, but rather that the amount and nature of such monies and lands is up to the Congress and the state Legislature to determine, and not the courts. Under the law, the state's public trust lands belong to the state, held in trust to benefit all Hawai'i's people — Native Hawaiian and non-Native Hawaiian alike, the statement said. It is hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court will make clear that Congress did not take from Hawai'i in 1993 any of the rights it granted Hawai'i in 1959, the statement said. |
Fwd: DoD eyeing Chamorro land for military expansion
KUAM.com
http://www.kuam.com/bm/news/dod-eyeing-chamorro-land-trust-property.shtmlDoD eyeing Chamorro Land Trust property
While most of the island is not a party to the specifics regarding the U.S. Department of Defense's plans to buildup the military on Guam, it's apparent now that the governor too has been left in the dark. In an interview with KUAM News Felix Camacho revealed a major decision being crafted without the input of Guam's highest elected leader.
While most of the island is not a party to the specifics regarding the U.S. Department of Defense's plans to buildup the military on Guam, it's apparent now that the governor too has been left in the dark. In an interview with KUAM News Felix Camacho revealed a major decision being crafted without the input of Guam's highest elected leader.
What's even more disturbing is that this decision involves land.
Governor Camacho is making it clear that he and the people of Guam need a seat at the table when the feds plan the immense military buildup that will bring an estimated 40,000 new people to the island. "As decisions are made, we are simply advised of it not consultedm" he shared. One of these decisions that has sparked the governor to speak out is related to a very touchy subject on Guam.
He continued, "The question was asked will there be sufficient lands for this endeavor. They said, 'Absolutely, we have enough land in our inventory and within our footprint on Guam to make this a success'. I believe decisions are now being made that they need to acquire more land and this would have to be to accommodate the firing range."
The DoD and the Joint Guam Program Office officials have all said repeatedly that they would not need additional lands for the buildup the governor now says they are eyeing some Government of Guam property that is supposed to be used by the island's indigenous people.
"They would like to consolidate their property up north and have one contiguous operation we certainly have lands in between that that are Chamorro Land Trust lands," said Camacho.
The governor further says that he wants to protect the assets of the people, adding that giving additional land to the feds is something that shouldn't be done without first consulting the people. But it's not only the land issue that the governor has a problem with he's concerned about the lack of funding needed to beef up the island's infrastructure. "Guam does not have the resources nor do we have the capacity either financially or personally to build our infrastructure to the level that we must," he told KUAM News.
This need for a rapid buildup of infrastructure is due to the rapid buildup of the military one in which our population will also rapidly increase by over 20%. The governor says although the feds have instructed GovGuam to get with different federal agencies like the EPA, the Federal Highway Administration, the Department of Transportation and others. Only one of them have offered a helping hand.
"We have gone to Office of Management and Budget; we have made our case we've requested for monies in 2010. I've not seen anything come out of it. In fact, the only agency that came to bat for us is the Department of the Interior, which requested roughly $168 million, but every other agency failed to do so."
The governor says he understands that this buildup may be the way that DoD operates, but he also says that if they want to maintain goodwill, Guam needs a voice. "We as an unincorporated territory with no voice and no vote in Congress would be first on the chopping block when it comes to budget," Camacho said. "So where is the support for Guam where is this commitment other than verbal?"
Camacho still believes that this move can be beneficial to Guam it's just a matter of getting the finances necessary to ensure that the island's people are not overburdened. "There's a change in administration. I'm hoping there will be a change in leadership. I think that JGPO, however well intentioned they, are doesn't have enough fire power to get this thing going," the governor concluded. "I don't believe they have enough resources committed to it because it is a major initiative it is a major undertaking and between the DoD and all the other agencies.
"They are going to have to get their act together."
--
si Debbie Quinata
I Nasion Chamoru
P.O. Box 6132
Merizo, Guam 96916
(671) 828-2957
USA = ROGUE TERRORIST PROGRAM BUILT ON GREED,SLAVERY,RAPING OF OTHER NAIONS& COUNTRIES RESOURCES and GENOCIDE!PEARL HARBOR ,911 BOTH SELF MADE WARS (FALSE FLAG) FOR PROFIT & GREED!HAWAII IS ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED & NEVER WAS PART OF USA !LEARN SHEEPLE LEARN ! ....December 5, 20085 Hawaii military sites part of new ‘Valor in Pacific’ national monumentBy DENNIS CAMIREAdvertiser Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — Five Hawai..i sites, including the USS Arizona Memorial, are part of a new World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument that President Bush created Friday in advance of Sunday’s 67th observance of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Bush also signed the presidential proclamation in honor of the National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day 2008.“The national monument will include nine sites — five in Hawai..i, three in Alaska and one in California at the Tule Lake Segregation Center, which was where Japanese Americans were detained during World War II,” said Bush shortly before signing the proclamation that created the monument.The designation sets aside the Pacific war sites for greater protection and recognition.The other Hawai..i sites include the Battleship Row moorings from Dec. 7, 1941, the USS Oklahoma Memorial, the USS Utah Memorial and six chief petty officer bungalows on Ford Island at Pearl Harbor.The Alaskan sites include the battlefield on Attu Island, a B-24 crash site on Atka Island and the Japanese occupation site on Kiska Island.Another 19 sites, scattered from a midget Japanese submarine off Oahu to the War in the Pacific National Historic Park in Guam to Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands, will receive official recognition.Bush said the monument would remind generations of Americans of the sacrifices that were made to protect the country and also remind the younger generations about the effect of freedom.“One of the great stories during World War II was that people fought bitterly to defend our country and way of life and then worked to help our enemies develop democracies according to their own cultures and their own history,” Bush said.Today, Japan is one of the United States’ strongest allies in defending and spreading liberty, Bush said.
PACIFIC ISLANDERSP.1 OF 3: HAWAIIAN AND HOMELESS- HAWAIIANS FORCED OUT!P.2 OF 3: HAWAIIAN AND HOMELESS- HAWAIIANS FORCED OUT!P.3 OF 3: HAWAIIAN AND HOMELESS- HAWAIIANS FORCED OUTThen There Were NoneHawaiian Independence--FREE HAWAII!Hawaiian Pride
You have been sent an online news article from summer as a courtesy of honoluluadvertiser.com.
Article Title:
USS Arizona, Hawaii sites, may become national monuments
To view the contents on www.honoluluadvertiser.com, go to:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200812050100/NEWS01/812050374
Message:
honoring the desecration at Ke'awalau o Pu'uloa . . . and the military continues to destroy and dismiss our sacred sites at Lihu'e, Makua, Mokapu .
December 5, 2008 USS Arizona, Hawaii sites, may become national monuments The president is expected in coming days to make a proclamation, possibly in the form of national monument additions, setting aside the USS Arizona Memorial and other Pacific war sites for greater protection and recognition, officials said. The Arizona Memorial's mission could broaden to tell more of the Pacific war story. The memorial was dedicated in 1962, and the battlefield site run by the National Park Service since 1980 is world renowned, but it's never been proclaimed by the president or legislated by Congress to be an official national park unit. That would change if the memorial becomes a national monument. President Bush in May proposed giving Pearl Harbor monument status alongside such landmarks as the Statue of Liberty, the Grand Canyon and Custer Battlefield. The park service previously said it was interested in certain sites receiving monument status on Ford Island, which has been called ground zero for the Dec. 7, 1941, attack. Sunday will mark the 67th anniversary of the attack. The president directed Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to assess the "advisability of providing additional recognition or protection" to historic sites at Pearl Harbor and elsewhere in the Pacific that played important roles in World War II. Frank Hays, a National Park Service official, previously said national parks usually have "enabling legislation" from Congress or a proclamation by the president that lays out the mission for that particular park. The Arizona Memorial never received it, but that mission would be spelled out if the Arizona Memorial is declared a national monument. It also could receive a name change. The USS Arizona is the final resting place for many of the battleship's 1,177 crewmen who lost their lives in the Japanese attack. In 2006, Bush gave the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands monument status, creating the world's largest protected marine area. The 1,200-mile string of islands subsequently was designated as the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. In August, Bush said he was interested in protecting additional Pacific Ocean areas.   |
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
SMOKE AND MIRRORS: The old illusionist trick, when the scantily clad woman goes into a box and the magician sticks swords through it, conjures up an image similar to what Kanaka Maoli Hawaiians must feel like.
Whether it’s dimwitted xenophobic Ken Conklin’s racist screeds or our D.C. fab four and their Akaka bill seeking to steal the land base “one last time fair and square” the daggers keep coming, fast and furious.
But though the bikini-attired assistant is long gone from the box when the swords are plunged through predetermined slots, kanaka are not so lucky.
And tomorrow a sword slung by the state of Hawai`i could deal the final fatal wound to any thought of decolonialization. Because that is when the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) hears State of Hawai`i et. al.vs Office of Hawaiian affairs et. al.
For those haven’t heard even though the Hawai`i Supreme Court (SCOHI) put the kibosh on the state’s ability to sell the land that the U.S,. stole in 1893 and gave to the state in 1959 (thinking no one would notice they stole it 66 years before) to keep “in trust” for native Hawaiians the state has appealed and the racist and reactionary Amerikan high court has agreed to hear the case at the behest of Governor Linda Lingle’s henchman, the corrupt Attorney General Mark Bennett of Superferry and various other ignoble infamies.
The basis of the appeal to the feds is that the SCOHI supposedly based their decision to forestall the sale until the issues of the U.S. and State acknowledged theft are dealt with by the State, was the 1993 U.S. “Apology Bill” that the U.S. Congress passed. It acknowledges the series of events through which the governor seemed to believe the land belonged to the state to do with what they pleased by stretching restrictions on its use beyond all recognition
But the appeal- and the press accounts of it- have all centered around whether the apology bill had any force of law which is 180 degrees off from what is at the center of the case.
Those three laws and another passed in 1997 make up the acknowledged chronology of legal events leading up to the land grab by the state.
The question the brief attempts to answer is
Whether the Hawaii Supreme Court acted within its authority in relying upon Hawaii’s laws and Constitution, as well as principles of trust law and the 1993 federal Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, to impose an injunction on the sale or transfer of the lands conveyed in trust to the State of Hawaii until the ongoing reconciliation process between the state and federal governments and native Hawaiians is completed?
The answer shows that plainly the basis for the SCOHI action lays in the facts contained in the apology bill- facts based on the Hawaii state statures- not in the nature of the apology bill and whether it is “binding” or “advisory”.
We’re not hopeful for the outcome here- U.S. courts, especially the SCOTUS have routinely ignored the law when it comes to indigenous peoples’ rights on the mainland and here in the islands.
When the land base for any sovereign indigenous group is gone so is much of the impetus for any sovereignty movement.
This judicial end-around could well be that death blow. For all the SCOTUS’ ballyhooing of “states rights” that only goes when the states’ decisions are “wing-nut” right.
Over the past few months the wise-guys and the American judges in their pockets have been out in force trying to ignore the actual legal chain of events that cloud title to all the lands they stole.
Although you hear the term “ceded lands” used by these agents of theft the real term used for over 100 years in the kanaka community is “stolen lands”.
So here, reprinted below, is the answer- in a nutshell (albeit a rather long one) to the question of the legal paper trail for a large chunk of the kanaka claims of sovereignty over these lands that were never rightfully “ceded” by anyone- except perhaps from Americans to Americans.
A careful reading lays out how, through a convoluted paper trail designed to obscure if not hide the theft, we come to this day, when a national seal of approval by the American courts to finalize the theft by dubbing it legal, is upon us.
Although we urge anyone interested to read the entire brief, here’s the gist of it with some citations and other extraneous material deleted.
----------
The unanimous decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court in this case mentioned seven different sources of law: four Acts of the Hawaii legislature, two Acts of the United States Congress, and the carefully-crafted body of state trust law as applied to Hawaii’s Public Lands Trust. Petitioners’ claim before this Court is limited to the assertion that the decision below misread one of the two federal acts, the 1993 Apology Resolution, a Resolution that was enacted after three of the four Hawaii laws at issue in the case and that duplicated those very laws.
The 1993 Hawaii statutes that form the essence of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in this., case were a long-overdue reaction to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii exactly one hundred years earlier, in 1893. In 1.898, when Hawaii was annexed, the Republic of Hawaii "ceded all former Crown, government, and public lands to the United States."
However, the United States treated these lands as separate from other public lands,
requiring their revenues "to be ’used solely for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for educational and other public purposes.’ (quoting from the Annexation Resolution). In 1899, the U.S. Attorney General opined that the Annexation Resolution had placed these lands (about 1.8 million acres) in a "special trust" for the benefit of Hawaii’s people. Hawaii-Public Lands,
Subsequently, in the 1959 Hawaii Admission Act, (the "Admission Act"),
Congress stated five purposes for which the lands in the trust could used. One of these was "for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians" Id., Section 5(f). Congress also affirmed that it would be up to the State of Hawaii to determine how to manage these lands: "Such lands, proceeds and income shall be managed and disposed of for one or more of the foregoing purposes in such manner as the constitution and laws of said State may provide, and their use for any other object shall constitute a breach of trust. (emphasis added.) In 1978, the people of Hawaii clarified the State’s trust obligation to native Hawaiians during a Constitutional Convention, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) was created to manage proceeds derived from the lands held in trust and designated for the benefit of native Hawaiians.
In the spring of 1993, the year marking the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, the Hawaii State Legislature passed three related statutes:
The first was Act 340 (1993), "An Act Relating to the Island of Kaho’olawe." It established the Kaho’olawe Island Reserve Commission, and stated that the island of Kaho’olawe (which had been used by the Navy for training purposes, and was in the process of being returned from the federal government to the State) "shall be held in trust as part of the public land trust; provided that the State shall transfer management and control of the island and its waters to the sovereign native Hawaiian entity upon its recognition by the United States and the State of Hawaii."
The second was Act 354 (1993), "An Act Relating to Hawaiian Sovereignty." It set forth the facts of the 1893 overthrow and 1898 annexation, and stated that the Hawaii State Legislature "has also acknowledged that the actions by the United States were illegal and immoral, and pledges its continued support to the native Hawaiian community by taking steps to promote the restoration of the rights and dignity of native Hawaiians."
The third was Act 359 (1993), "An Act Relating to Hawaiian Sovereignty." Its Findings section again provided the facts related to the 1893 overthrow and the 1898 annexation, emphapasizing that the activities taken by U.S. diplomatic and military representatives to support the overthrow of the Kingdom occurred "without the consent of the native Hawaiian people or the lawful Government of Hawaii in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law," and characterizing these acts as "illegal." The Act went on to observe that the 1898 annexation of Hawaii was "without the consent of or compensation to the indigenous people of Hawaii or their sovereign government," and that as a result of the annexation, "the indigenous people of Hawaii were denied the mechanism for expression of their inherent sovereignty through self-government and selfdetermination, their lands, and their ocean resources." The Act declared its main purpose to be to "facilitate the efforts of native Hawaiians to be governed by an indigenous sovereign nation of their own choosing,", and outlined a process designed to
promote that goal.
Only after the State of Hawaii enacted these three statutes into law did the United States Congress, in November 1993, pass "a Joint Resolution recounting the events [relating to the overthrow] in some detail and offering an apology to the native Hawaiian people." Rice, 528 U.S. at 505 (citing Apology Resolution). The Apology Resolution’s findings directly mirrored those of the three statutes that Hawaii had just recently passed.
Following the above spate of state and federal legislation, four years later the Hawaii Legislature enacted Act 329 (1997), "An Act Relating to the Public Land Trust," which was designed to clarify the proper management of the lands in the Trust. The Act stated that "the events of history relating to Hawaii and Native Hawaiians, including those set forth in [the federal Apology Resolution] continue to contribute today to a deep sense of injustice among many Native Hawaiians and others." Id. It explained that "the people of Hawaii, through amendments to their state constitution, the acts of the legislature;, and other means, have moved substantially toward [a] reconciliation." In addition, the Act identified its "overriding purpose" as "to continue this momentum, through further executive and legislative action in conjunction with the people of Hawaii, toward a comprehensive, just, and lasting resolution." Id. Importantly, the Act also stated that Congress’ Apology Resolution provided a correct recounting of "the events of history relating to Hawaii and Native Hawaiians."
The fact findings set forth in these four Hawaii statutes--the three from 1993, preceding the Apology Resolution, and the fourth postdating it in 1997- were repeatedly and directly relied upon by the Hawaii Supreme Court in the opinion upon which certiorari is sought.
Although at one point the Hawaii Supreme Court characterized Respondents as relying "largely" upon the Apology Resolution, Respondents referred repeatedly to these state grounds below, and, of course, the Hawaii Supreme Court explicitly relied on these sources of State law at every turn. The Opening Brief filed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in the Hawaii court referred, for instance, to Act 340 (1993) (codified as Hawaii Revised Statutes, sec. 6K-9) at pages 35-36 and 38; to Act 359 (1993) at pages 2, 4, 11, 15, 26, 34, 35, and 38; and to Act 329 (1997) at pages 2-3, 11, 15, 22, 26, 35, and 38-39 (and both Acts 359 (1993) and 329 (1997) were attached to the Opening Brief as appendices). The first sentence in the Individual Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief to the Hawaii Supreme Court stated: "The central issue in this case is whether, in light of the admissions in Act 354 (1993), Act 359 (1993) and the Apology Resolution (collectively referred to as the "1993 Legislation"), the State would breach fiduciary duties if it sold ceded lands before the Hawaiians’ claim to ownership of the ceded lands is resolved." Thereafter, "1993 Legislation" was cited 30 times in Individual Plaintiffs’
Opening and Reply Briefs. Both Act 354 (1993) and Act 359 (1993) were included in the appendices of the Opening Brief filed by the Individual Plaintiffs. In combination with Hawaii judicial precedent and Hawaii trust law, the Hawaii statutes provided an explicit, independent state-law basis for the court to enjoin the State of Hawaii from selling the lands held by the State in the Public Land Trust until the claims of native Hawaiians are addressed and the ongoing reconciliation process is completed.
Basic common law principles of Hawaii trust law provided the Hawaii court with the authority to protect the trust corpus, and the factual findings of the Hawaii statutes (like those of the federal Apology Resolution, which mirrored them) reaffirmed the need to ensure that the corpus remains when a settlement is reached as to these claims.
Accordingly, both the text and reasoning of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s opinion provide independent and adequate--indeed, crucial and central—state grounds supporting the Hawaii court’s holding and its remedy.
Posted by Andy Parx at 4:26 PM
Press conference puts Lingle on defense
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Dec 03, 2008
As 48 governors and governors-elect met with President-elect Barack Obama, Gov. Linda Lingle again found herself defending her decision to stay home.![[Preview]](http://media.starbulletin.com/images/video_front.gif)
Lingle Defends Decision To Skip Obama Meeting![[Preview]](http://media.starbulletin.com/images/20081203_Obama-No-Show.jpg)
Governor Lingle turned down the President -elects invitation saying she has other more pressing state matters.
[ Watch ]
The Republican governor has been criticized by prominent Democrats, including U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, for not making more of an effort to join the other governors at yesterday's meeting of the National Governors Association in Philadelphia. According to the Chicago Tribune, the only other governor not seen at the meeting was New Mexico's Bill Richardson, Obama's nominee as secretary of commerce.
Lingle said she spoke Sunday with Valerie Jarrett, head of Obama's transition team, about potentially meeting with the president-elect at a later time, likely in February, when she attends another scheduled meeting of governors in Washington.
Jarrett and other members of the transition team are expected to visit Hawaii later this month and Lingle said they plan to meet at that time.
"My actions were not meant to be, in any way, disrespectful of the president-elect or anyone else," Lingle said. "It's simply to carry on what I felt were my obligations here at home knowing that I had many other opportunities coming up.
"The president-elect was very understanding and so was his team, and they respected my decision to be here."
Lingle said she was on a conference call with Republican governors Sunday night, and she did not feel she missed anything substantive at the meeting.
"I'm certainly up to speed on what the expectations were," Lingle said. "I would've likely just listened and brought greetings from the people here."
In Philadelphia, Obama promised swift action on an economic plan "to solve this crisis and to ease the burden on our states."
Obama has set a goal of saving or creating 2.5 million jobs to boost the economy, which experts say has been in recession for the past year.
Incoming White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told reporters that in a private portion of the meeting, Obama and Republican and Democratic governors agreed that the measure must focus heavily on money for infrastructure as well as bureaucratic reforms to make it easier to complete programs without having to cut through piles of red tape.
Lingle said Hawaii will be ready.
"Every state in America has projects ready to go," she said. "It's a matter now of waiting to see what the plan will be, what they'll put forward, how long it will take to roll out."
Without being specific, Lingle said airport, highway, harbor and University of Hawaii projects would be among those ready to proceed.
The National Governors Association includes members from the 50 states and five U.S. commonwealths and territories.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
