A ROCKY HORROR: Reading the newspaper this morning made us check whether we’d stumbled into a time warp reminding us that the more things change the more they remain insane.
As a kid we were struck by various things upon arrival in the islands, not the least of which was the fact that Native Hawaiian (as kanaka maoli were called in those days) were being born and dying on “the list” waiting for their promised homesteads and that some of their most sacred sites- specifically the island of Kaho`olawe and Makua Valley on O`ahu- were being routinely bombed by the US military.
And though the reclaiming, if not the reclamation, of Kaho`olawe was won as one of the first actions of what’s commonly called the Hawaiian Renaissance, people are still dying on the list and, although the bombing has been suspended for a few years due to lawsuits and activism, the military had been successful in keeping the door open.
So today’s news that the military promises it will end the madness in Makua- and move it to the Big Island, poor dears- and that the Intermediate court of Appeals has reinstated a lawsuit by the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation (which also filed suit in the Makua case), to enforce a constitutional provision from 1978 requiring the legislature to provide funding to clear “the list”, is kind of creepy.
But another battle from those days- one that seemingly will never be completely won- has reared it’s ugly head- once again plans are in the works to dam up Wailua River and build a hydro electric plant.
A press release we received today from Kaua`i Island Utilities Co-op (which apparently does not appear at their web site)- notable for the fact that it fails to mention the location of the project- says that KIUC
this week signed a memorandum of agreement with Free Flow Power Corporation, which will allow the two firms to jointly explore the development of hydroelectric energy projects on Kauai.
And as if designed to double us over with laughter it announces that:
KIUC's involvement will ensure that any such development will engage the community in broad discussions about appropriate technologies, locations and the wide range of environmental, cultural, economic and other concerns.
“This is the first step in a lengthy public process to explore the viability of several hydroelectric projects. Our members have long recognized the hydroelectric potential on Kauai, and we feel now we have the financial resources and the proven developer to move forward,” said David Bissell, acting CEO at KIUC. “We hope to create a climate that insures an opportunity for our members to participate in an open and transparent process of evaluating hydroelectric opportunities.”
Apparently the first step in transparency is failing to mention where the projects will be located and how to present testimony if you might happen to still oppose damming Wailua River like you did the other at least three times they tried to do it.
But it wasn’t like KIUC was just putting out a press release in the name of openness and good community relations.
We don’t know for sure but their hand might have been forced by a widely circulated email earlier this week from Judy Dalton of the Kaua`i Sierra Club who saw the legal notice in the newspaper, did a little snooping and sent out the alarm saying that:
Wailua Falls, one of Kauai's most visited natural treasures, will be in for some changes if this permit for a dam is approved.
There are more environmentally-sound options to harness hydro power. Please read and send comments to keep the river intact and the falls free-flowing.
She describes the project, taken from the legal notice, writing
A public notice was posted in the Garden Island (11/16/2010) with a request for a "preliminary permit" to study the feasibility of a Wailua River Hydroelectric Project. The project is to make electricity and includes: "a 503-foot-long, 23-foot-high earth-filled, roller-compacted-concrete dam creating a 35-acre reservoir with storage capacity of approximately 430 acre-feet" It also includes a 20 foot high intake structure, fish screens, a closure gate, a penstock, a powerhouse of 60 X 40 feet, channel to return water to the river, (below the falls) a switchyard with transformer, and almost 2 mile long transmission line to the Lydgate substation. No mention is made of roads and other changes that would be necessary. "The estimated annual generation of the Wailua project would be 20.7 gigawatt-hours."
So what’s wrong with that? Judy writes that:
Such a project will remove and reduce the water flow over the falls, create a large reservoir, cut up the land to make roads and other structures. Dams change the chemical, physical, and biological processes of river ecosystems. They alter free-flowing systems by reducing river levels, blocking the flow of nutrients, changing water temperature and oxygen levels, and impeding or preventing fish migration. Dams and reservoir are being decommissioned all over the mainland because of problems occurring which initially were unforeseen.
But don’t we need renewable power and so don’t we need to dam the river to get power from it?
The answer, according to Dalton is a resounding “no” saying
Harnessing power from the Wailua River could be done by a "run of the stream" project far upstream with NO diversions, NO interference with the fall themselves and NO man-made reservoir. Click here to read about Run-of-the-River or Stream hydro power.
So what can you do? Dalton says
It is important that there be many letters expressing reasons for disapproval of a dam on Wailua River. The company requesting to build it is also looking into other possible water projects on the island which are "run of the stream or ditch" projects, which would be preferable to a dam on Wailua River.
Please write comments on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission website NO LATER THAN JANUARY 16 (11:30 am Hawai`i time, 4:30 pm EST) Go to http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp to make comments on-line Click on "ecomment", which takes you to a screen to enter your name, email address and a code provided. They then email you a link to write comments. Enter Docket P-13874. It will then show a box with a plus sign which you click and you can proceed to write comments. Keep to less than 6,000 characters; include your contact information and submit. If you need help with the website, contact Toll-free: 1-866-208-3676 (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST)
OR send a letter with 7 copies can be sent to arrive by January 16 to:
Kimberly Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First St NE
Washington, DC 20426
Here is the link for finding the Wailua River Dam application online and searching for docket number P-13874. Already a dozen people have written testimony opposing the project.
It’s understandable that some quick buck artists from the mainland would see Wailua and think that damming it up would be a good idea.
But the fact that KIUC is trying to pull a fast one and put out bogus press releases that fail to mention the location and plans for a project that has been rejected by the community many times for over 40 years is, though par for the course for KIUC, a despicable con job and a slap in the face of we so-called “members”.
----
We’re taking a long weekend- see ya next week.
Showing posts with label Kanaka Maoli Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kanaka Maoli Rights. Show all posts
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Thursday, July 8, 2010
INSIDE OUTSIDE, USA
INSIDE OUTSIDE, USA: Back in the 70’s it was just a funny line from a movie. But as the years go by it’s become an epic inside joke that seems to pertain more and more one of our pet peeves- the “he said she said” nature of what passes for journalism in the 21st century corporate newsroom.
As the Blues Brothers are setting up to play the chicken-wire redneck bar someone proclaims that “we like BOTH kinds of music- country AND western.”
So when reporters go to BOTH sides- Democratic and Republican- it yields no less a bizarrely narrow Hobson’s Choice.
So it comes as no surprise that today’s article on the “compromise” Akaka Bill in the Honolulu Starvetizer neglects to ask any sovereignty much less independence advocates what they think about the fact that the new bill compromises away a measure that would give them the same rights that the rest of the country’s indigenous people have been so benevolently granted by their overlords.
It more or less like offering a turd sandwich and then removing the bread and mayo.
The effort to steal the kanaka maoli land base “one last time fair and square” is bad enough without having to depend on a newspaper- one with a legacy of that very theft- that ignores the rights of those being crushed once again by an occupying armed force hell bent on a final act of genocide and asks only the perpetrators what they think of it.
Now that we’re a one newspaper town we apparently have both kinds of journalism- crappy and none.
As the Blues Brothers are setting up to play the chicken-wire redneck bar someone proclaims that “we like BOTH kinds of music- country AND western.”
So when reporters go to BOTH sides- Democratic and Republican- it yields no less a bizarrely narrow Hobson’s Choice.
So it comes as no surprise that today’s article on the “compromise” Akaka Bill in the Honolulu Starvetizer neglects to ask any sovereignty much less independence advocates what they think about the fact that the new bill compromises away a measure that would give them the same rights that the rest of the country’s indigenous people have been so benevolently granted by their overlords.
It more or less like offering a turd sandwich and then removing the bread and mayo.
The effort to steal the kanaka maoli land base “one last time fair and square” is bad enough without having to depend on a newspaper- one with a legacy of that very theft- that ignores the rights of those being crushed once again by an occupying armed force hell bent on a final act of genocide and asks only the perpetrators what they think of it.
Now that we’re a one newspaper town we apparently have both kinds of journalism- crappy and none.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
STILL PEEIN’ ON THE TIRES
STILL PEEIN’ ON THE TIRES: The latest version of the flim-flam shell-game theft of kanaka maoli lands known as the Akaka bill that was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday has us thinking of our favorite “inside” joke of late.
It was just a throwaway bit on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” about the way the congressional Repugnacan’t are screwin’ with the Dummocraps and Oh-bummer by saying they want to work with them, and then unanimously refusing to vote for anything, even the stuff they said they supported the day before.
He compared it to a movie clip of a car-full of the “cool” kids who invite a dweeb to “get in” and open the door only to drive off just as the kid reaches for the handle. They stop 50 feet away and say “get in- we promise- we’ll let you in this time” so the kid runs to the car only to have them drive off another 50 feet away and the process repeats itself over and over with the gullible kid running to the new location in the insane hope they will let him in the next time.
“But guess what” Stewart says, leaning into the camera. “THEY’RE NEVER GOING TO LET YOU IN THE CAR”.
Over and over we see it- people banding together with faith that the U.S. government is that mythical one they were told of as children, only to find it populated by power-hungry corporate servants dedicated to strengthening the walls that keep them in and us out.
Whether it’s the local county council telling the good governance duo of Tim and Lani they too want reform before slamming the door on any reform of our Minataur system of governance, the advocates for civil rights for same gender couples who are jerked around by state legislators who claim to support them and then sabotage bills behind closed doors or the kanaka maoli who yearn for the independent nation with a land base that was stolen from them 117 years ago only to be offered a bill of goods that steals their land “one last time fair and square”, you ain’t getting in the car- not now, not tomorrow, not the next day... not ever.
In many places those who’ve had the car leave without them once too often take matters into their own hands and sabotage the brakes or maybe toss a lit bottle of gasoline at the fleeing vehicle.
Around here all we can say to the “in crowd” is that, to use another catch phrase, “the natives are getting restless”.
It was just a throwaway bit on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” about the way the congressional Repugnacan’t are screwin’ with the Dummocraps and Oh-bummer by saying they want to work with them, and then unanimously refusing to vote for anything, even the stuff they said they supported the day before.
He compared it to a movie clip of a car-full of the “cool” kids who invite a dweeb to “get in” and open the door only to drive off just as the kid reaches for the handle. They stop 50 feet away and say “get in- we promise- we’ll let you in this time” so the kid runs to the car only to have them drive off another 50 feet away and the process repeats itself over and over with the gullible kid running to the new location in the insane hope they will let him in the next time.
“But guess what” Stewart says, leaning into the camera. “THEY’RE NEVER GOING TO LET YOU IN THE CAR”.
Over and over we see it- people banding together with faith that the U.S. government is that mythical one they were told of as children, only to find it populated by power-hungry corporate servants dedicated to strengthening the walls that keep them in and us out.
Whether it’s the local county council telling the good governance duo of Tim and Lani they too want reform before slamming the door on any reform of our Minataur system of governance, the advocates for civil rights for same gender couples who are jerked around by state legislators who claim to support them and then sabotage bills behind closed doors or the kanaka maoli who yearn for the independent nation with a land base that was stolen from them 117 years ago only to be offered a bill of goods that steals their land “one last time fair and square”, you ain’t getting in the car- not now, not tomorrow, not the next day... not ever.
In many places those who’ve had the car leave without them once too often take matters into their own hands and sabotage the brakes or maybe toss a lit bottle of gasoline at the fleeing vehicle.
Around here all we can say to the “in crowd” is that, to use another catch phrase, “the natives are getting restless”.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
NOT SO FAST THERE ROVER
NOT SO FAST THERE ROVER: Tempest in a teapot, much ado about nothing, not with a bang but a whimper.
Pick you trite cliché but it’s gratifying to see the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) tell everyone from the respondents to the pundits- and especially to the Hawai`i Supreme Court (SCOHI) - to go home shut the hell up in today’s decision on the “ceded lands” case.
Because despite what the mainstream media and the state is saying the decision did not establish any new federally-sanctioned state “ownership” in any way shape or form, it simply vacated it and remanded it back to the SCOHI.
What they actually said - not what the Honolulu Advertiser or state attorney general wishes they said- was:
(W)e have no authority to decide questions of Hawaiian law or to provide redress for past wrongs except as provided for by federal law. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Hawaii is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Seems like another typical case of American blind justice and the judges were going to look at the 27 8x10 color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows on the back that purportedly showed state ownership the lands stolen from kanaka maoli lands
The SCOTUS just sent the whole matter back to the SCOHI to re-write their opinion without mentioning the 1993 “Apology Law”.
The decision wasn’t based on their stilted and selectively amnesic recitation of the Amerikan view of the thrift-based “ownership” of the “crown lands”. It was solely based on the use of federal law by the SCOHI.
Most people expected this would happen after the oral arguments. Even most of us who asked what part of the apology’s “confession” made the illegal theft legal didn’t expect true justice from a court that has always endorsed the genocidal underpinnings of Amerika.
Still it was nice to see a rap on the knuckles for both Governor Linda Lingle’s corrupt shyster mouthpiece Attorney General Mark Bennett and the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) who thought they were going to get some kind of definitive ruling answering the question of who ‘owns’ the land.
Even we momentarily expected the worst, especially after, as the SCOTUS said,
even respondent OHA has now abandoned its argument, made below, that "Congress . . . enacted the Apology Resolution and thus . . . change[d]" the Admission Act.
But as any SCOTUS watcher knows the prime directive of the Roberts Court is, to paraphrase him, to not make any decision it doesn’t have to make and push it all down the road as long as possible.
What may be the best part of the decision is that it exposes OHA for what it is- nothing more than a cog in the genocidal state and federal machine.
When push came to shove, during the hearing, OHA showed it’s true stripes, basically begging the justices to spare their life, saying they agreed with Bennett et. al, on state ownership of the land... because without state ownership, as a creature of the state they would have and be nothing at all.
Dropping all 30 years of pretense in claiming that they represented the kanaka maoli in any way shape or form, their duplicitous “please have pity on your humble servant oh wise, wonderful and benevolent court” plea was a disgusting show of bureaucratic self- preservation even if it meant the betrayal of their charges.
There’s little doubt that the SCOTHI will go back and purge their opinion of the apology law references and replace them with state law. The process for doing that is contained in the OHA brief in opposition filed in the case.
But then what? Is kicking the can further down the road a strategy that will do anything but allow the thieves to consolidate power behind the now official concept of Amerikan Justice that says that land can owned after being stolen... fair and square?
Certainly this is nothing new in US jurisprudence. Ask any descendent of mainland natives who thought they had rights to their land rights, many with better paperwork than na kanaka have.
Some may think that for now it is a bullet dodged none the less for those who have any hope of maintaining a land base for the reestablishment sovereignty over these islands.
All we can say is don’t count on it being anything beyond, to cite another cliché, the calm before the storm.
For those who haven’t seen it, here’s the SCOTUS decision
When a state supreme court incorrectly bases a decision on federal law, the court’s decision improperly prevents the citizens of the State from addressing the issue in question through the processes provided by the State’s constitution. Here, the State Supreme Court incorrectly held that Congress, by adopting the Apology Resolution, took away from the citizens of Hawaii the authority to resolve an issue that is of great importance to the people of the State. Respondents defend that decision by arguing that they have both state-law property rights in the land in question and “broader moral and political claims for compensation for the wrongs of the past.” Brief for Respondents 18. But we have no authority to decide questions of Hawaiian law or to provide redress for past wrongs except as provided for by federal law. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Hawaii is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered
Pick you trite cliché but it’s gratifying to see the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) tell everyone from the respondents to the pundits- and especially to the Hawai`i Supreme Court (SCOHI) - to go home shut the hell up in today’s decision on the “ceded lands” case.
Because despite what the mainstream media and the state is saying the decision did not establish any new federally-sanctioned state “ownership” in any way shape or form, it simply vacated it and remanded it back to the SCOHI.
What they actually said - not what the Honolulu Advertiser or state attorney general wishes they said- was:
(W)e have no authority to decide questions of Hawaiian law or to provide redress for past wrongs except as provided for by federal law. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Hawaii is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Seems like another typical case of American blind justice and the judges were going to look at the 27 8x10 color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows on the back that purportedly showed state ownership the lands stolen from kanaka maoli lands
The SCOTUS just sent the whole matter back to the SCOHI to re-write their opinion without mentioning the 1993 “Apology Law”.
The decision wasn’t based on their stilted and selectively amnesic recitation of the Amerikan view of the thrift-based “ownership” of the “crown lands”. It was solely based on the use of federal law by the SCOHI.
Most people expected this would happen after the oral arguments. Even most of us who asked what part of the apology’s “confession” made the illegal theft legal didn’t expect true justice from a court that has always endorsed the genocidal underpinnings of Amerika.
Still it was nice to see a rap on the knuckles for both Governor Linda Lingle’s corrupt shyster mouthpiece Attorney General Mark Bennett and the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) who thought they were going to get some kind of definitive ruling answering the question of who ‘owns’ the land.
Even we momentarily expected the worst, especially after, as the SCOTUS said,
even respondent OHA has now abandoned its argument, made below, that "Congress . . . enacted the Apology Resolution and thus . . . change[d]" the Admission Act.
But as any SCOTUS watcher knows the prime directive of the Roberts Court is, to paraphrase him, to not make any decision it doesn’t have to make and push it all down the road as long as possible.
What may be the best part of the decision is that it exposes OHA for what it is- nothing more than a cog in the genocidal state and federal machine.
When push came to shove, during the hearing, OHA showed it’s true stripes, basically begging the justices to spare their life, saying they agreed with Bennett et. al, on state ownership of the land... because without state ownership, as a creature of the state they would have and be nothing at all.
Dropping all 30 years of pretense in claiming that they represented the kanaka maoli in any way shape or form, their duplicitous “please have pity on your humble servant oh wise, wonderful and benevolent court” plea was a disgusting show of bureaucratic self- preservation even if it meant the betrayal of their charges.
There’s little doubt that the SCOTHI will go back and purge their opinion of the apology law references and replace them with state law. The process for doing that is contained in the OHA brief in opposition filed in the case.
But then what? Is kicking the can further down the road a strategy that will do anything but allow the thieves to consolidate power behind the now official concept of Amerikan Justice that says that land can owned after being stolen... fair and square?
Certainly this is nothing new in US jurisprudence. Ask any descendent of mainland natives who thought they had rights to their land rights, many with better paperwork than na kanaka have.
Some may think that for now it is a bullet dodged none the less for those who have any hope of maintaining a land base for the reestablishment sovereignty over these islands.
All we can say is don’t count on it being anything beyond, to cite another cliché, the calm before the storm.
For those who haven’t seen it, here’s the SCOTUS decision
When a state supreme court incorrectly bases a decision on federal law, the court’s decision improperly prevents the citizens of the State from addressing the issue in question through the processes provided by the State’s constitution. Here, the State Supreme Court incorrectly held that Congress, by adopting the Apology Resolution, took away from the citizens of Hawaii the authority to resolve an issue that is of great importance to the people of the State. Respondents defend that decision by arguing that they have both state-law property rights in the land in question and “broader moral and political claims for compensation for the wrongs of the past.” Brief for Respondents 18. But we have no authority to decide questions of Hawaiian law or to provide redress for past wrongs except as provided for by federal law. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Hawaii is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered
Thursday, March 26, 2009
BARE CUPBOARD
BARE CUPBOARD: Two emails arrived today regarding the desecration of the burials at Naue Point at Ha`ena on Kaua`i, one from Chair of the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, Rep. Mele Carroll, regarding the status and current content of three bills dealing with the state burial councils and one from 22 “Kānaka Maoli Scholars Against Desecration” from across Hawai`i and the U.S.
And though the need is great for reform of the “advisory” burial council system - even the judge who ruled in the case said the laws are insufficient for protection of the `iwi kupuna- as evidenced by the “legal” desecration okayed by the state at Naue, the bills do pretty much nothing but add more “consulting” groups for the councils and set up a “working group” to study what can be done meaning there will most likely be no action this legislative session.
Today, we’re off to the dentist so without further comment we’ll let readers read for themselves the note from Carroll’s office on the three bills and the letter from the scholars describing and decrying the history and current status of the burial issues.
----------
House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs passes resolutions, Senate bills
SB 1083, SD1
(SSCR473)
Status
Senate Bill 1083 SD1 includes additional native Hawaiian organizations for the Department of Land and Natural Resources to consult with to determine whether a burial site should be preserved in place or relocated and to develop a list of candidates for the burial councils. Senate Bill 1083 SD1 passed with amendments, which adds to the list of organizations the Kamakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai‘i, DLNR’s Historic Preservation Division, and Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai‘i Nei.
HCR 226
Status
HR 194
Status
House Concurrent Resolution 226 and House Resolution 194 request the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to convene a working group to review the system and procedures for the review of Native Hawaiian burial sites. House Concurrent Resolution 226 passed with amendments. The recommendation was to add language to the resolutions to include that the working group would work with the State DLNR Historical Preservation Division in addressing and seeking solutions to the many serious concerns that the division is faced with, for example, the lack of qualified staffing, the overwhelming unresolved cases pertaining to our kupuna iwi, and other critical issues.
----------
Kānaka Maoli Scholars Against Desecration
Second Statement on Naue, March 24, 2009
As Kānaka Maoli scholars we write to follow-up on our statement from September 13, 2008 publicly condemning the state-sponsored desecration of a Native Hawaiian burial site at Wainiha, Kaua`i resulting from the construction of a new home at Naue Point by California real estate> developer Joseph Brescia. Both the state abuse of power and the desecration continue unabated and must come to a halt.
In the late 1980s, in response to a massive burial site disturbance at Honokahua, Maui, Kanaka Maoli came together to challenge the laws that allowed this type of sacrilege. As a result of this history, five Island Burial Councils were created and are administratively attached to the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) of the Department of Land and Natural Resources to address concerns relating to Native Hawaiian burial sites. By Hawai`i state statute, the composition of each island Burial Council must consist of a majority of Kānaka Maoli. The preservation criteria established by state law favor the "preservation in place" of burial sites that contain a "concentration of skeletal remains," or are "pre-contact" or "historic period" burial sites associated with important individuals and events.
At Naue, there are 30 known burial remains within less than half of an acre, with a high likelihood that more remains are present. Naue is a significant historical site that is frequently acknowledged in hula, oli, mele, and other Hawaiian knowledge sources.
Accordingly, the Kaua`i- Ni`ihau Island Burial Council appropriately voted to preserve in place the burial site on the property claimed by Brescia.
In complete contradiction to both their own state law, and the April 3, 2008 determination adopted by the island Burial Council to preserve the burials in place, the SHPD improperly approved a "Burial Treatment Plan" for Brescia without the required consultation with the island Burial Council. The Burial Treatment Plan was submitted by Mike Dega, the archaeologist hired by Joseph Brescia as a consultant in support of his building a private home atop of the burial site.
The SHPD’s own rules empower the island Burial Council to determine the disposition of previously known burials. The island Burial Council’s decision on this issue is supposed to be binding. Yet, SHPD deputy administrator Nancy McMahon sanctioned the use of vertical buffers and concrete caps on the burials to make way for installing the footings of Brescia’s house. Her authorization for such an intrusive "preservation" measure is a fundamental repudiation of the power allocated to all of the island Burial Councils.
By ignoring the decision of the island Burial Council, her actions undermine both the very concept of historic preservation and the reason for the founding of the island Burial Councils. Tragically, before a court could intervene, and based on McMahon’s unauthorized agreements, Brescia’s team managed to install massive house foundations on a portion of the cemetery.
The Kaua`i Planning Commission’s approval of Brescia’s house plans included a specific condition issued in a letter dated December 12, 2007 that "No building permit shall be issued until requirements of the State Historic Preservation Division and the Burial Council have been met." The requirements of the island Burial Council have not been met; the Council recommended that there be no building upon the cemetery. SHPD covered up the island Burial Council’s decision by trying to pretend that vertical buffers and concrete jackets constitute "preservation" ; they do not.
During the consultation required by the preliminary October 2008 court ruling, on November 6, 2008, the island Burial Council recommended that the SHPD reject the revised Burial Treatment Proposal submitted by Dega. Therefore, Brescia still has not met the requirements of the island Burial Council and thus, the building permit should be revoked. Because the Kaua`i Planning Commission’s December 2007 approval was specifically conditioned on Brescia’s meeting the island Burial Council’s requirements, there is no real approval of Brescia’s house plans. The island Burial Council made clear the proposal to build on the burial site was culturally unacceptable to its members, which is why the Council rejected the revised Burial Treatment Plan. The Kaua`i Planning Commission should be held accountable to rescind the conditional approval it gave, since its requirements were not met.
In the midst of this ongoing desecration, last month, on February 4, 2009, the SHPD wrote a letter to Dega acknowledging his sixth proposed Burial Treatment Plan. This is the same Burial Treatment Plan that McMahon circulated to Native Hawaiian Organizations for consultation as part of a court order by Judge Watanabe on October 2, 2008. The outcome of this consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations was their sweeping rejection of the proposal. Without any regard for this rejection, the SHPD letter to Dega states, "at this time we cannot accept the Burial Treatment Plan without some revisions which are to be addressed below" and then outlines seven concerns for him to deal with such as detailing a landscape plan for burials outside of the house footprint. In other words, the letter basically instructs Dega to revise the Burial Treatment Plan in order for SHPD to approve it. This is unacceptable; if McMahon’s decision is reaffirmed despite the outcome of the consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations that clearly rejected the proposal, it would set a dangerous precedent and strip the island Burial Councils of any meaningful authority.
To date, 5th Circuit Judge Kathleen Watanabe has denied requests for a temporary restraining order and has even refused to grant a temporary injunction to stop further construction until the full civil suit is adjudicated by the state court. The civil suit — Joseph Brescia v. Ka`iulani Huff, et al. — currently in progress is a travesty. Brescia is suing at least 17 individuals—almost all of whom are Kānaka Maoli —implicated in protecting the burial site from his construction work. Beside trespass, Brescia has accused them of five other counts: private nuisance and harassment, tortious interference with contract, civil conspiracy described as "terroristic threatening" , intentional interference, ejectment, and slander of title. We stand in solidarity with the defendants. Brescia has no one else to blame but himself; he knowingly took the chance of building his house over a grave site when the essence of the island Burial Council’s action was to preserve all burials remains in place.
We must remind the state agencies that their own law, Hawai`i revised statute 711-1107 on Desecration, specifically states that no one may commit the offense of desecrating "a place of worship or burial," and the statute defines "desecrate" as "defacing, damaging, polluting, or otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the defendant knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the defendant's action."We call on all people of conscience to join in our condemnation of the desecration of the ancestral remains by:
• holding the Kaua`i Planning Commission accountable for upholding their own condition by finding Brescia in violation of it by starting to build;
• demanding that the SHPD honor the Kaua`i-Ni`ihau Island Burial Council’s original decision to preserve the burial site without any construction;
• insisting that the SHPD respect the outcome of the court-ordered consultation process and reject the Burial Treatment Plan;
• supporting an end to the illegal construction supported by the state; and
• protesting Brescia’s lawsuit targeted at those who have served to prevent the further degradation of the bones of our kūpuna.
Signed,
Hokulani Aikau, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Political Science, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
Carlos Andrade, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Kamakakūokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
Maile Arvin, M.A. candidate, Department of Ethnic Studies, University ofCalifornia San Diego
J. Leilani Basham, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Hawaiian Studies,University of Hawai`i at West O`ahu
Kamanamaikalani Beamer, Ph.D., Mellon-Hawai` i Postdoctoral Fellow, Kohala Center, Hawai`i
Kealani Robinson Cook, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of History, University of Michigan
Lani Cupchoy, Ph.D. Candidate, History, University of California, Irvine
Lisa Kahaleole Hall, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Women’s Studies, Wells College
Sydney Lehua Iaukea, Ph.D., Mellon-Hawai` i Postdoctoral Fellow, Kohala Center, Hawai`i
Lilikalā Kame`eleihiwa, Ph.D., Professor, Kamakakūokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Anthropology and American Studies, Wesleyan University
Kanani K. M. Lee, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Geology & Geophysics, Yale University
Jon Kamakawiwo`ole Osorio, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Kamakakūokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
Lessa Kanani`opua Pelayo, M.L.I.S. Candidate, B.A., University of California, Los Angeles
Kekailoa Perry, J.D. Assistant Professor, Kamakakūokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
Keanu Sai, Ph.D., Lecturer Kapiolani Community College
Noenoe K. Silva, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
Stephanie Nohelani Teves, Ph.D. Candidate, Program in American Culture, University of Michigan
Ty Kāwika Tengan, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Anthropology and Ethnic Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
Haunani-Kay Trask, Ph.D., Professor, Kamakakūokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i, Mānoa
Liza Keanuenueokalani Williams, Ph.D. student, New York University
Erin Kahunawaika` ala Wright, Ph.D. Director of Native Hawaiian Student Services, Hawai'inuiākea School of Hawaiian Knowledge
-------
Contact: J. Kehaulani KauanuiPh: 860-638-1264Email: jkauanui@wesleyan. edu
--------TAKE ACTION
Write individual emails or letters the Kaua`i Planning Commission, State Historic Preservation Division Officials, Governor Linda Lingle, Joseph Brescia, and the Mayor of Kaua`i.
Please cc: all letters and emails to: J. Kehaulani Kauanui,Center for the Americas, Wesleyan University, 255 High Street, Middletown, CT 06459.Email It's important to cc: me so I can track letters and so the recipients know you are keeping one KM scholar in the loop so there's a record of the correspondence.
See addresses below:
Ian Costa
Director of Planning
County of Kaua`i
4444 Rice Street, Suite 473
Lihue, HI 96766
icosta@kauai. gov
Laura Thielan, Chairperson
State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources
State Historic Preservation Division
601 Kamokila Blvd., Room 555
Kapolei, HI 96707
dlnr@hawaii. gov
Pua Aiu, AdministratorState Historic Preservation Division601 Kamokila Blvd., Room 555Kapolei, HI 96707pua.aiu@hawaii. gov
Nancy McMahon, Deputy Administrator
State Historic Preservation Division
601 Kamokila Blvd., Room 555
Kapolei, HI 96707
Nancy.A.McMahon@ hawaii.gov
Governor Linda Lingle
State of Hawai`i
Executive Chambers
State Capitol
Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813
governor.lingle@ hawaii.gov
Joseph Brescia, President
Architectural Glass & Aluminum
1151 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 101
Alameda, CA 94501
jbrescia@aga- ca.com
Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr.
Mayor, County of Kauai
4444 Rice St., Suite 235
Lihue, HI 96766
mayor@kauai. gov
And though the need is great for reform of the “advisory” burial council system - even the judge who ruled in the case said the laws are insufficient for protection of the `iwi kupuna- as evidenced by the “legal” desecration okayed by the state at Naue, the bills do pretty much nothing but add more “consulting” groups for the councils and set up a “working group” to study what can be done meaning there will most likely be no action this legislative session.
Today, we’re off to the dentist so without further comment we’ll let readers read for themselves the note from Carroll’s office on the three bills and the letter from the scholars describing and decrying the history and current status of the burial issues.
----------
House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs passes resolutions, Senate bills
SB 1083, SD1
(SSCR473)
Status
Senate Bill 1083 SD1 includes additional native Hawaiian organizations for the Department of Land and Natural Resources to consult with to determine whether a burial site should be preserved in place or relocated and to develop a list of candidates for the burial councils. Senate Bill 1083 SD1 passed with amendments, which adds to the list of organizations the Kamakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai‘i, DLNR’s Historic Preservation Division, and Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai‘i Nei.
HCR 226
Status
HR 194
Status
House Concurrent Resolution 226 and House Resolution 194 request the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to convene a working group to review the system and procedures for the review of Native Hawaiian burial sites. House Concurrent Resolution 226 passed with amendments. The recommendation was to add language to the resolutions to include that the working group would work with the State DLNR Historical Preservation Division in addressing and seeking solutions to the many serious concerns that the division is faced with, for example, the lack of qualified staffing, the overwhelming unresolved cases pertaining to our kupuna iwi, and other critical issues.
----------
Kānaka Maoli Scholars Against Desecration
Second Statement on Naue, March 24, 2009
As Kānaka Maoli scholars we write to follow-up on our statement from September 13, 2008 publicly condemning the state-sponsored desecration of a Native Hawaiian burial site at Wainiha, Kaua`i resulting from the construction of a new home at Naue Point by California real estate> developer Joseph Brescia. Both the state abuse of power and the desecration continue unabated and must come to a halt.
In the late 1980s, in response to a massive burial site disturbance at Honokahua, Maui, Kanaka Maoli came together to challenge the laws that allowed this type of sacrilege. As a result of this history, five Island Burial Councils were created and are administratively attached to the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) of the Department of Land and Natural Resources to address concerns relating to Native Hawaiian burial sites. By Hawai`i state statute, the composition of each island Burial Council must consist of a majority of Kānaka Maoli. The preservation criteria established by state law favor the "preservation in place" of burial sites that contain a "concentration of skeletal remains," or are "pre-contact" or "historic period" burial sites associated with important individuals and events.
At Naue, there are 30 known burial remains within less than half of an acre, with a high likelihood that more remains are present. Naue is a significant historical site that is frequently acknowledged in hula, oli, mele, and other Hawaiian knowledge sources.
Accordingly, the Kaua`i- Ni`ihau Island Burial Council appropriately voted to preserve in place the burial site on the property claimed by Brescia.
In complete contradiction to both their own state law, and the April 3, 2008 determination adopted by the island Burial Council to preserve the burials in place, the SHPD improperly approved a "Burial Treatment Plan" for Brescia without the required consultation with the island Burial Council. The Burial Treatment Plan was submitted by Mike Dega, the archaeologist hired by Joseph Brescia as a consultant in support of his building a private home atop of the burial site.
The SHPD’s own rules empower the island Burial Council to determine the disposition of previously known burials. The island Burial Council’s decision on this issue is supposed to be binding. Yet, SHPD deputy administrator Nancy McMahon sanctioned the use of vertical buffers and concrete caps on the burials to make way for installing the footings of Brescia’s house. Her authorization for such an intrusive "preservation" measure is a fundamental repudiation of the power allocated to all of the island Burial Councils.
By ignoring the decision of the island Burial Council, her actions undermine both the very concept of historic preservation and the reason for the founding of the island Burial Councils. Tragically, before a court could intervene, and based on McMahon’s unauthorized agreements, Brescia’s team managed to install massive house foundations on a portion of the cemetery.
The Kaua`i Planning Commission’s approval of Brescia’s house plans included a specific condition issued in a letter dated December 12, 2007 that "No building permit shall be issued until requirements of the State Historic Preservation Division and the Burial Council have been met." The requirements of the island Burial Council have not been met; the Council recommended that there be no building upon the cemetery. SHPD covered up the island Burial Council’s decision by trying to pretend that vertical buffers and concrete jackets constitute "preservation" ; they do not.
During the consultation required by the preliminary October 2008 court ruling, on November 6, 2008, the island Burial Council recommended that the SHPD reject the revised Burial Treatment Proposal submitted by Dega. Therefore, Brescia still has not met the requirements of the island Burial Council and thus, the building permit should be revoked. Because the Kaua`i Planning Commission’s December 2007 approval was specifically conditioned on Brescia’s meeting the island Burial Council’s requirements, there is no real approval of Brescia’s house plans. The island Burial Council made clear the proposal to build on the burial site was culturally unacceptable to its members, which is why the Council rejected the revised Burial Treatment Plan. The Kaua`i Planning Commission should be held accountable to rescind the conditional approval it gave, since its requirements were not met.
In the midst of this ongoing desecration, last month, on February 4, 2009, the SHPD wrote a letter to Dega acknowledging his sixth proposed Burial Treatment Plan. This is the same Burial Treatment Plan that McMahon circulated to Native Hawaiian Organizations for consultation as part of a court order by Judge Watanabe on October 2, 2008. The outcome of this consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations was their sweeping rejection of the proposal. Without any regard for this rejection, the SHPD letter to Dega states, "at this time we cannot accept the Burial Treatment Plan without some revisions which are to be addressed below" and then outlines seven concerns for him to deal with such as detailing a landscape plan for burials outside of the house footprint. In other words, the letter basically instructs Dega to revise the Burial Treatment Plan in order for SHPD to approve it. This is unacceptable; if McMahon’s decision is reaffirmed despite the outcome of the consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations that clearly rejected the proposal, it would set a dangerous precedent and strip the island Burial Councils of any meaningful authority.
To date, 5th Circuit Judge Kathleen Watanabe has denied requests for a temporary restraining order and has even refused to grant a temporary injunction to stop further construction until the full civil suit is adjudicated by the state court. The civil suit — Joseph Brescia v. Ka`iulani Huff, et al. — currently in progress is a travesty. Brescia is suing at least 17 individuals—almost all of whom are Kānaka Maoli —implicated in protecting the burial site from his construction work. Beside trespass, Brescia has accused them of five other counts: private nuisance and harassment, tortious interference with contract, civil conspiracy described as "terroristic threatening" , intentional interference, ejectment, and slander of title. We stand in solidarity with the defendants. Brescia has no one else to blame but himself; he knowingly took the chance of building his house over a grave site when the essence of the island Burial Council’s action was to preserve all burials remains in place.
We must remind the state agencies that their own law, Hawai`i revised statute 711-1107 on Desecration, specifically states that no one may commit the offense of desecrating "a place of worship or burial," and the statute defines "desecrate" as "defacing, damaging, polluting, or otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the defendant knows will outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the defendant's action."We call on all people of conscience to join in our condemnation of the desecration of the ancestral remains by:
• holding the Kaua`i Planning Commission accountable for upholding their own condition by finding Brescia in violation of it by starting to build;
• demanding that the SHPD honor the Kaua`i-Ni`ihau Island Burial Council’s original decision to preserve the burial site without any construction;
• insisting that the SHPD respect the outcome of the court-ordered consultation process and reject the Burial Treatment Plan;
• supporting an end to the illegal construction supported by the state; and
• protesting Brescia’s lawsuit targeted at those who have served to prevent the further degradation of the bones of our kūpuna.
Signed,
Hokulani Aikau, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Political Science, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
Carlos Andrade, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Kamakakūokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
Maile Arvin, M.A. candidate, Department of Ethnic Studies, University ofCalifornia San Diego
J. Leilani Basham, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Hawaiian Studies,University of Hawai`i at West O`ahu
Kamanamaikalani Beamer, Ph.D., Mellon-Hawai` i Postdoctoral Fellow, Kohala Center, Hawai`i
Kealani Robinson Cook, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of History, University of Michigan
Lani Cupchoy, Ph.D. Candidate, History, University of California, Irvine
Lisa Kahaleole Hall, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Women’s Studies, Wells College
Sydney Lehua Iaukea, Ph.D., Mellon-Hawai` i Postdoctoral Fellow, Kohala Center, Hawai`i
Lilikalā Kame`eleihiwa, Ph.D., Professor, Kamakakūokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Anthropology and American Studies, Wesleyan University
Kanani K. M. Lee, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Geology & Geophysics, Yale University
Jon Kamakawiwo`ole Osorio, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Kamakakūokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
Lessa Kanani`opua Pelayo, M.L.I.S. Candidate, B.A., University of California, Los Angeles
Kekailoa Perry, J.D. Assistant Professor, Kamakakūokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
Keanu Sai, Ph.D., Lecturer Kapiolani Community College
Noenoe K. Silva, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
Stephanie Nohelani Teves, Ph.D. Candidate, Program in American Culture, University of Michigan
Ty Kāwika Tengan, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Anthropology and Ethnic Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
Haunani-Kay Trask, Ph.D., Professor, Kamakakūokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i, Mānoa
Liza Keanuenueokalani Williams, Ph.D. student, New York University
Erin Kahunawaika` ala Wright, Ph.D. Director of Native Hawaiian Student Services, Hawai'inuiākea School of Hawaiian Knowledge
-------
Contact: J. Kehaulani KauanuiPh: 860-638-1264Email: jkauanui@wesleyan. edu
--------TAKE ACTION
Write individual emails or letters the Kaua`i Planning Commission, State Historic Preservation Division Officials, Governor Linda Lingle, Joseph Brescia, and the Mayor of Kaua`i.
Please cc: all letters and emails to: J. Kehaulani Kauanui,Center for the Americas, Wesleyan University, 255 High Street, Middletown, CT 06459.Email
See addresses below:
Ian Costa
Director of Planning
County of Kaua`i
4444 Rice Street, Suite 473
Lihue, HI 96766
icosta@kauai. gov
Laura Thielan, Chairperson
State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources
State Historic Preservation Division
601 Kamokila Blvd., Room 555
Kapolei, HI 96707
dlnr@hawaii. gov
Pua Aiu, AdministratorState Historic Preservation Division601 Kamokila Blvd., Room 555Kapolei, HI 96707pua.aiu@hawaii. gov
Nancy McMahon, Deputy Administrator
State Historic Preservation Division
601 Kamokila Blvd., Room 555
Kapolei, HI 96707
Nancy.A.McMahon@ hawaii.gov
Governor Linda Lingle
State of Hawai`i
Executive Chambers
State Capitol
Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813
governor.lingle@ hawaii.gov
Joseph Brescia, President
Architectural Glass & Aluminum
1151 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 101
Alameda, CA 94501
jbrescia@aga- ca.com
Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr.
Mayor, County of Kauai
4444 Rice St., Suite 235
Lihue, HI 96766
mayor@kauai. gov
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
GETTIN’ TERRITORIAL
GETTIN’ TERRITORIAL: We had an email exchange this week with a self-proclaimed “don’t tread on me” style anti-government type who is seemingly new to the islands. But unlike many right wingers his hatred of the federal government didn’t get clouded when it comes to the rightful ownership of the lands of the kanaka maoli.
Though he was pretty well read on the subject he asked us for some more source material and we were glad to help... ya know, strange bedfellows and all that.
And it make us all the more repulsed by the type that makes some kind of statement and then in arguing their point, runs away from it in one of those smarmy “I ain’t sayin’, I’m just sayin’...” responses to “but you just said...”.
And speaking of weasels we went over to lawyer-blogger Charley Foster’s Planet Kaua`i, today to see what kind of anti-kanaka rights opinion he was running away from now.
And Charley rarely disappoints
In a post today Charley first reminds us that
It is well settled as far as Hawaii courts are concerned that the state has jurisdiction to enforce its criminal and traffic laws within the boundaries of the state, regardless of whether the defendant in question is Native Hawaiian and claims immunity from such jurisdiction.
Of course if, if past is prologue when questioned he would probably point to his having said “as far as Hawaii courts are concerned” so he can run away from it being a position with which he so apparently agrees.
Then he reprinted part of an essay from Kai Landow in Indian Country Today, depicting a trial in a Hilo courtroom where “Rocky” Awai was “pleading sovereign” to a dozen traffic tickets and he somehow beat the rap when the ticketing officers unfathomably- at least for the judge- couldn’t remember anything about giving the tickets.
But the essay in whole is a must read because Landow goes on to juxtapose that judicial procedure with the one he next attended- the “ceded lands” case before the US Supreme Court.
To refresh people’s memory, even though many thought that the issue before the court was who actually owned the stolen crown lands taken in the illegal overthrow, that not only wasn’t an issue that the justices thought needed settling by them but those supposedly representing the kanaka’s claim – the Office of Hawaiian Affairs- seemed to agree with the state in saying that the state had “perfect title”.
Unlike a lot of those who have either looked at the transcript or listened to the tape of the hearing and answered the questions “what just happened there?”, Landow provides the most insightful of interpretations we’ve seem.
Here’s an excerpt:
I was one of the few people who got a seat to hear oral arguments in the Supreme Court. The question before the court was whether or not the Apology clouded the title the State held on the “Ceded lands.” The argument between OHA and the State of Hawaii were essentially the same. So what were they arguing before the court? And that is exactly what the Justices asked. Justice Souter interjected “This whole case seems murky to me. Am I missing something?” I looked over at Haunani Apoliona, chair of the OHA Trustees. Her face was pensive. I could see their greatest fears were materializing. The parties did not want the court to address the issue of title and for one hour most of the court’s discussion centered on just that, title, ownership of the land.
Well hasn’t the ownership of the land in Hawaii long been settled?
It was surreal to hear the State’s Attorneys General Mark Bennett argue, “Yes we illegally overthrew the Hawaiian Government,” and then to go on to argue the State had “Perfect Title.” Am I missing something, too?
I left the court to a cold sunny Washington DC February day. Liko Martin [A well known Sovereignty activist, musician, composer- “Waimanalu blues”] was outside the court after the case was accepted. He was wearing a cowboy hat, a clean pressed suit and freshly shaven. I was taken aback; he looked very different from our last meeting on the beach at KaWa, in Ka’u Hawaii. Liko had been bearded and mud covered, spending much of his time working in the lo’i [Taro patch]. We had been living rough with Abel Simeona Lui, a real champion of the sovereignty movement. A Kanaka Ma’oli who moved back to the land and despite repeated arrest for trespass managed to solidify his land claim.
“Liko cleans up good!” My friend Hanalei points out with the same surprise as mine as Liko maneuvers around the Supreme Court plaza with a film crew in tow.
Hey brah, Howzit? We wen file an intervention with the court, kay?” Liko said to me. I asked him on what basis did he file?
“That we are the true owners and that we need to enter into direct and immediate negotiations, kay!” I could see the OHA people seemed devastated and I saw Haunani Apoliona scowl at Liko’s show of force from across the plaza.
“OHA just hurt itself by arguing the Hawaiian’s had no legal claim to the land and only a moral one in State Law” I told him
“The State is dead brah, its dead” Liko answered.
I thought to myself what just happened. It had felt like we were in the court case and the justices were arguing our position. It struck me that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs changed their position to bolster the State of Hawaii’s claim to “Perfect Title”. I realized that if the State doesn’t have title; then OHA has nothing. So who represent the Hawaiian’s interests? I have no false hope that the court will rule in our favor. But it was nice to hear some of our own questions posed to people who have refused to respond to us.
The Apology bill is a sorry thing.
Have you read it? Liko Martin calls it a confession, I call it a stipulation of facts and our Attorney General for the Hawaiian Kingdom Tom Anthony calls it “Crap”. He is right of course, it is crap. If it had been anything else but crap the Hawaiians would now be living on their own land in their own jurisdiction.
From the Apology bill 103-150: “Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum.”
It is because of statements like this that Hawaiians wave this bill as proof. It also may be why our friend Rocky got all those tickets dismissed. Judge De Frietus may also believe if he let the attorney Gary Zamber bring this Apology bill into the case he might slip up and create a federal question. And what is that federal Question?
Rocky said it to the court “You don’t have any jurisdiction over me. I am not an American citizen.”
So why is a traffic case in a small Hawaiian town connected to a Supreme Court case between the State and a State agency? My Uncle Moses He’anu would say “Do your homework!”
I’ll tell you anyway. It is because the United States of America has never been able to substantiate any lawful claim in Hawaii, period.
The Americans admit they stole the land and barred us from seeking relief in the courts and yet argue their title is “Perfect.” Everyone knows this is unjust yet they expect us to accept it. Would you?
I spoke to a pro bono legal agency this morning who told me our case is seen as frivolous. I spoke to an Indian lawyer who told me to be practical and that you can’t win on the law. Do we go to the courts as a legal fiction? I look at the law and we win. That is if we are before an impartial jurist and we note the US courts have an interest in the outcome.
Malama Pono
That’s us, do things right, Malama Pono. We can’t find any statute of limitations to file against the US occupation. We can’t build on facts that are “Murky” to file a brief that hopes the Americans will finally do the right thing. We should not have to go to court for America to do the right thing.
Something stinks!
That “something” that stinks is- as we pointed out to those whose like Foster whose lawyerly dialectic on the case concludes that somehow the “rule of law” enabled confessed theft to stand- “American Justice” is an oxymoron.
We who seek justice for the kanaka can laugh at the absurdity of those who have their noses buried in a law book in an attempt to obscure reality, as they lead us though the looking glass into a Carrollian Wonderland.
But in justice in Amerikan courts is the real joke, especially if your skin is of a darker shade.
To those who seek justice for Hawaiians through the judiciary, I’m sure we speak for many when we say “that’s mighty white of ya”.
Though he was pretty well read on the subject he asked us for some more source material and we were glad to help... ya know, strange bedfellows and all that.
And it make us all the more repulsed by the type that makes some kind of statement and then in arguing their point, runs away from it in one of those smarmy “I ain’t sayin’, I’m just sayin’...” responses to “but you just said...”.
And speaking of weasels we went over to lawyer-blogger Charley Foster’s Planet Kaua`i, today to see what kind of anti-kanaka rights opinion he was running away from now.
And Charley rarely disappoints
In a post today Charley first reminds us that
It is well settled as far as Hawaii courts are concerned that the state has jurisdiction to enforce its criminal and traffic laws within the boundaries of the state, regardless of whether the defendant in question is Native Hawaiian and claims immunity from such jurisdiction.
Of course if, if past is prologue when questioned he would probably point to his having said “as far as Hawaii courts are concerned” so he can run away from it being a position with which he so apparently agrees.
Then he reprinted part of an essay from Kai Landow in Indian Country Today, depicting a trial in a Hilo courtroom where “Rocky” Awai was “pleading sovereign” to a dozen traffic tickets and he somehow beat the rap when the ticketing officers unfathomably- at least for the judge- couldn’t remember anything about giving the tickets.
But the essay in whole is a must read because Landow goes on to juxtapose that judicial procedure with the one he next attended- the “ceded lands” case before the US Supreme Court.
To refresh people’s memory, even though many thought that the issue before the court was who actually owned the stolen crown lands taken in the illegal overthrow, that not only wasn’t an issue that the justices thought needed settling by them but those supposedly representing the kanaka’s claim – the Office of Hawaiian Affairs- seemed to agree with the state in saying that the state had “perfect title”.
Unlike a lot of those who have either looked at the transcript or listened to the tape of the hearing and answered the questions “what just happened there?”, Landow provides the most insightful of interpretations we’ve seem.
Here’s an excerpt:
I was one of the few people who got a seat to hear oral arguments in the Supreme Court. The question before the court was whether or not the Apology clouded the title the State held on the “Ceded lands.” The argument between OHA and the State of Hawaii were essentially the same. So what were they arguing before the court? And that is exactly what the Justices asked. Justice Souter interjected “This whole case seems murky to me. Am I missing something?” I looked over at Haunani Apoliona, chair of the OHA Trustees. Her face was pensive. I could see their greatest fears were materializing. The parties did not want the court to address the issue of title and for one hour most of the court’s discussion centered on just that, title, ownership of the land.
Well hasn’t the ownership of the land in Hawaii long been settled?
It was surreal to hear the State’s Attorneys General Mark Bennett argue, “Yes we illegally overthrew the Hawaiian Government,” and then to go on to argue the State had “Perfect Title.” Am I missing something, too?
I left the court to a cold sunny Washington DC February day. Liko Martin [A well known Sovereignty activist, musician, composer- “Waimanalu blues”] was outside the court after the case was accepted. He was wearing a cowboy hat, a clean pressed suit and freshly shaven. I was taken aback; he looked very different from our last meeting on the beach at KaWa, in Ka’u Hawaii. Liko had been bearded and mud covered, spending much of his time working in the lo’i [Taro patch]. We had been living rough with Abel Simeona Lui, a real champion of the sovereignty movement. A Kanaka Ma’oli who moved back to the land and despite repeated arrest for trespass managed to solidify his land claim.
“Liko cleans up good!” My friend Hanalei points out with the same surprise as mine as Liko maneuvers around the Supreme Court plaza with a film crew in tow.
Hey brah, Howzit? We wen file an intervention with the court, kay?” Liko said to me. I asked him on what basis did he file?
“That we are the true owners and that we need to enter into direct and immediate negotiations, kay!” I could see the OHA people seemed devastated and I saw Haunani Apoliona scowl at Liko’s show of force from across the plaza.
“OHA just hurt itself by arguing the Hawaiian’s had no legal claim to the land and only a moral one in State Law” I told him
“The State is dead brah, its dead” Liko answered.
I thought to myself what just happened. It had felt like we were in the court case and the justices were arguing our position. It struck me that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs changed their position to bolster the State of Hawaii’s claim to “Perfect Title”. I realized that if the State doesn’t have title; then OHA has nothing. So who represent the Hawaiian’s interests? I have no false hope that the court will rule in our favor. But it was nice to hear some of our own questions posed to people who have refused to respond to us.
The Apology bill is a sorry thing.
Have you read it? Liko Martin calls it a confession, I call it a stipulation of facts and our Attorney General for the Hawaiian Kingdom Tom Anthony calls it “Crap”. He is right of course, it is crap. If it had been anything else but crap the Hawaiians would now be living on their own land in their own jurisdiction.
From the Apology bill 103-150: “Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum.”
It is because of statements like this that Hawaiians wave this bill as proof. It also may be why our friend Rocky got all those tickets dismissed. Judge De Frietus may also believe if he let the attorney Gary Zamber bring this Apology bill into the case he might slip up and create a federal question. And what is that federal Question?
Rocky said it to the court “You don’t have any jurisdiction over me. I am not an American citizen.”
So why is a traffic case in a small Hawaiian town connected to a Supreme Court case between the State and a State agency? My Uncle Moses He’anu would say “Do your homework!”
I’ll tell you anyway. It is because the United States of America has never been able to substantiate any lawful claim in Hawaii, period.
The Americans admit they stole the land and barred us from seeking relief in the courts and yet argue their title is “Perfect.” Everyone knows this is unjust yet they expect us to accept it. Would you?
I spoke to a pro bono legal agency this morning who told me our case is seen as frivolous. I spoke to an Indian lawyer who told me to be practical and that you can’t win on the law. Do we go to the courts as a legal fiction? I look at the law and we win. That is if we are before an impartial jurist and we note the US courts have an interest in the outcome.
Malama Pono
That’s us, do things right, Malama Pono. We can’t find any statute of limitations to file against the US occupation. We can’t build on facts that are “Murky” to file a brief that hopes the Americans will finally do the right thing. We should not have to go to court for America to do the right thing.
Something stinks!
That “something” that stinks is- as we pointed out to those whose like Foster whose lawyerly dialectic on the case concludes that somehow the “rule of law” enabled confessed theft to stand- “American Justice” is an oxymoron.
We who seek justice for the kanaka can laugh at the absurdity of those who have their noses buried in a law book in an attempt to obscure reality, as they lead us though the looking glass into a Carrollian Wonderland.
But in justice in Amerikan courts is the real joke, especially if your skin is of a darker shade.
To those who seek justice for Hawaiians through the judiciary, I’m sure we speak for many when we say “that’s mighty white of ya”.
Monday, February 23, 2009
IT’S ALL IN THE BREEDING
IT’S ALL IN THE BREEDING: Thomas Paine saw his times and felt they tried his soul. But this week’s two black letter days try our patience more than anything else.
There’s a certain brand of brainlessness that pervades America today and apparently has ever since old Tom’s words challenged the privilege of the rich, the white and especially, the hypocritically pious.
The current privilege has deep roots in the sordid historically-destined, manifest-degeneracy only a “christain nation” can muster.
On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the stolen (ceded) lands case and nod in self-important agreement that portends yet another ruling that says theft is ok as long as you steal it from brown people and “heathens”.
But before that, tomorrow the church-addled will go before a Hawai`i State Senate Judicial Committee to wring their bloody hands and try to kill a “civil unions” bill (HB 444) that is already a watered down, slap-in-the-face of full civil rights for same gender couples.
Now you would think that it might be hard to find people who find the prospect of the former to be horrifying yet join the virulently devout in spreading their diseased precepts.
And you would be wrong.
This morning we received an email from one of the most rabid defenders of Kanaka Maoli rights with a subject line saying “Today: Urge the Hawaii Senate NOT to Pass Civil Unions”.
Our jaw dropped further upon reading the appeal that said
Aloha All,
If the thought of homosexual men being allowed to adopt babies and children sends a shiver up your spine; use this sample form.
The ridiculous juxtaposition of the salutation and the message aside we had to agree that it is spine-chilling to think that this kind of moronic and frenzied fear-mongering from people who hold a book of fairy tales in reverence is actually being circulated
But despite the fact that we could “feel the hate” jump off the page the letter goes on to say
This is not a declaration against homosexuality, it is about placing priorities.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
All hope of rationality disappears after that as the solicitously salacious epistle goes on to say.
You must what (sic) is more important: To approve a civil union for the sake of individuals to profess their affection for each other. (Which, in asking for, is selfish and reckless disregard for the consequences) or, To open the door to endangerment of children who are incapable of protecting themselves against clever, dangerous legislation. STOPPING THIS UNNECESSARY AND STUPID BILL IS FOR THE INNOCENT CHILDREN OF THE WORLD.
“Selfish and reckless disregard for the consequences”- seems we’ve heard Lingle, Bennett and Conklin use those words to describe the demands of Hawaiian kanaka.
Wait- it gets worse. Here’s a “sample letter” you’re urged send to legislators:
This bill would extend full relationship protections and benefits afforded to a lawful union of a man and a woman. Further, it provides gay and lesbian couples with equal provisions under the law such as ADOPTION OF BABIES AND CHILDREN
Ah- all pretense is gone, eh Gertrude?
But look out- here’s comes the kind of blithering blabber and sanctimoniously scurrilous screed only the truly “religulous” can muster
It is just and appropriate to extend more protections to BABIES AND CHILDREN THAN TO SATISFY AN UNNECESSARY AND UNUSUAL SELFISH DEMAND that will do more harm to the majority of the general public, specifically innocent, unknowing children.
Yeah you know church-going, opposite-gender couples have done such a great job of child rearing to date and not teaching their kids how to be good six-day-a-week, drunken, ice-addled adulterous spouse abusers, that we have no overflowing jails or rehab facilities and child protective service workers sit and file their nails and read the paper all day because they have such light case loads.
Also, private employers will be required to offer health benefits to same-sex couples.
This bill is a SUBVERSION of the Equal Rights Protections. You must ENSURE THAT BABIES AND CHILDREN HAVE RIGHTS PERIOD! Passing this will DENY the protections for babies and children and their equal rights.
Yeah- they deserve the right to be raised by two abusive, impotent, closeted members of different genders who hate each other enough to devote their lives to making each other miserable.
But- you knew it was coming- the author finally couldn’t control it any more.
Would you be comfortable knowing a young boy of someone you knew (or didn’t know) was adopted by two male pedophiles????? BECAUSE YOU VOTED YES? Possibly for the baby pedophile market that can bring thousands and thousands of dollars for a child. Please be aware of an Organized League of Pedophiles that are wealthy and powerful reaching all the way to the top in this government.
Oh- you mean the catholic church?
It all begs the question- “what do you say to the truly delusional?”.
The problem is that this tactic of whipping up an emotional and contagious frenzy is a real winner in this country.
It creates a stench of bigotry and a hallucinatory fantasy world that the already faith -addled are uniquely suited for, as we in these islands found out 10 years ago and Californians finally got a whiff of last November.
And really it’s going to be more of the same on Wednesday when the true believers in the divinely approved genocide of manifest destiny will once again argue that, silly rabbit, rights are for white christians.
It’s the same world view, perverted by indoctrination and faith, that can ignore both acknowledged theft and the depraved nature of their own “lifestyle” while criticizing others for larceny and degeneracy
It’s the same eyes that can deny species evolution and embrace a 6000 year geologic history of the earth - the same minds that think babies are born to virgins, the same ears that that listen to and buy stories of people who live 900 years or live for days inside a fish, the same mental deficiency that believe they will live after they die, and the same “guts” that hate and kill for the veneration of their vision and version of an invisible guy who lives in the clouds- that can dehumanize others for their own avaricious gluttony..
It’s especially hard when you find out that people who you once presumed weren’t total imbeciles stand naked without their social justice garb..
Though Paine’s “Age of Reason” was published over 200 years ago apparently it could take another 200 for us to see as he did how truly debauched and corrupting the combination of nationalism and religion he spoke of can be.
It sure ain’t gonna happen this week even if the pathetic substitute for full civil rights in HB 444 should be enacted. But if you feel like trying you can email testimony to JGOtestimony@Capitol.Hawaii.gov with “Testimony to JGO for Feb 24 9 a.m. hearing on H.B. 444, HD1 Relating to Civil Unions” in the subject line.
There’s a certain brand of brainlessness that pervades America today and apparently has ever since old Tom’s words challenged the privilege of the rich, the white and especially, the hypocritically pious.
The current privilege has deep roots in the sordid historically-destined, manifest-degeneracy only a “christain nation” can muster.
On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the stolen (ceded) lands case and nod in self-important agreement that portends yet another ruling that says theft is ok as long as you steal it from brown people and “heathens”.
But before that, tomorrow the church-addled will go before a Hawai`i State Senate Judicial Committee to wring their bloody hands and try to kill a “civil unions” bill (HB 444) that is already a watered down, slap-in-the-face of full civil rights for same gender couples.
Now you would think that it might be hard to find people who find the prospect of the former to be horrifying yet join the virulently devout in spreading their diseased precepts.
And you would be wrong.
This morning we received an email from one of the most rabid defenders of Kanaka Maoli rights with a subject line saying “Today: Urge the Hawaii Senate NOT to Pass Civil Unions”.
Our jaw dropped further upon reading the appeal that said
Aloha All,
If the thought of homosexual men being allowed to adopt babies and children sends a shiver up your spine; use this sample form.
The ridiculous juxtaposition of the salutation and the message aside we had to agree that it is spine-chilling to think that this kind of moronic and frenzied fear-mongering from people who hold a book of fairy tales in reverence is actually being circulated
But despite the fact that we could “feel the hate” jump off the page the letter goes on to say
This is not a declaration against homosexuality, it is about placing priorities.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
All hope of rationality disappears after that as the solicitously salacious epistle goes on to say.
You must what (sic) is more important: To approve a civil union for the sake of individuals to profess their affection for each other. (Which, in asking for, is selfish and reckless disregard for the consequences) or, To open the door to endangerment of children who are incapable of protecting themselves against clever, dangerous legislation. STOPPING THIS UNNECESSARY AND STUPID BILL IS FOR THE INNOCENT CHILDREN OF THE WORLD.
“Selfish and reckless disregard for the consequences”- seems we’ve heard Lingle, Bennett and Conklin use those words to describe the demands of Hawaiian kanaka.
Wait- it gets worse. Here’s a “sample letter” you’re urged send to legislators:
This bill would extend full relationship protections and benefits afforded to a lawful union of a man and a woman. Further, it provides gay and lesbian couples with equal provisions under the law such as ADOPTION OF BABIES AND CHILDREN
Ah- all pretense is gone, eh Gertrude?
But look out- here’s comes the kind of blithering blabber and sanctimoniously scurrilous screed only the truly “religulous” can muster
It is just and appropriate to extend more protections to BABIES AND CHILDREN THAN TO SATISFY AN UNNECESSARY AND UNUSUAL SELFISH DEMAND that will do more harm to the majority of the general public, specifically innocent, unknowing children.
Yeah you know church-going, opposite-gender couples have done such a great job of child rearing to date and not teaching their kids how to be good six-day-a-week, drunken, ice-addled adulterous spouse abusers, that we have no overflowing jails or rehab facilities and child protective service workers sit and file their nails and read the paper all day because they have such light case loads.
Also, private employers will be required to offer health benefits to same-sex couples.
This bill is a SUBVERSION of the Equal Rights Protections. You must ENSURE THAT BABIES AND CHILDREN HAVE RIGHTS PERIOD! Passing this will DENY the protections for babies and children and their equal rights.
Yeah- they deserve the right to be raised by two abusive, impotent, closeted members of different genders who hate each other enough to devote their lives to making each other miserable.
But- you knew it was coming- the author finally couldn’t control it any more.
Would you be comfortable knowing a young boy of someone you knew (or didn’t know) was adopted by two male pedophiles????? BECAUSE YOU VOTED YES? Possibly for the baby pedophile market that can bring thousands and thousands of dollars for a child. Please be aware of an Organized League of Pedophiles that are wealthy and powerful reaching all the way to the top in this government.
Oh- you mean the catholic church?
It all begs the question- “what do you say to the truly delusional?”.
The problem is that this tactic of whipping up an emotional and contagious frenzy is a real winner in this country.
It creates a stench of bigotry and a hallucinatory fantasy world that the already faith -addled are uniquely suited for, as we in these islands found out 10 years ago and Californians finally got a whiff of last November.
And really it’s going to be more of the same on Wednesday when the true believers in the divinely approved genocide of manifest destiny will once again argue that, silly rabbit, rights are for white christians.
It’s the same world view, perverted by indoctrination and faith, that can ignore both acknowledged theft and the depraved nature of their own “lifestyle” while criticizing others for larceny and degeneracy
It’s the same eyes that can deny species evolution and embrace a 6000 year geologic history of the earth - the same minds that think babies are born to virgins, the same ears that that listen to and buy stories of people who live 900 years or live for days inside a fish, the same mental deficiency that believe they will live after they die, and the same “guts” that hate and kill for the veneration of their vision and version of an invisible guy who lives in the clouds- that can dehumanize others for their own avaricious gluttony..
It’s especially hard when you find out that people who you once presumed weren’t total imbeciles stand naked without their social justice garb..
Though Paine’s “Age of Reason” was published over 200 years ago apparently it could take another 200 for us to see as he did how truly debauched and corrupting the combination of nationalism and religion he spoke of can be.
It sure ain’t gonna happen this week even if the pathetic substitute for full civil rights in HB 444 should be enacted. But if you feel like trying you can email testimony to JGOtestimony@Capitol.Hawaii.gov with “Testimony to JGO for Feb 24 9 a.m. hearing on H.B. 444, HD1 Relating to Civil Unions” in the subject line.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
SMOKE AND MIRRORS
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) takes up* 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.
In the brief in opposition the respondents to the state’s appeal, the attorneys point out that the SCOTUS has no business in the matter to begin with and show how, although the SCOHI did cite the apology bill it did so for the facts contained and more importantly because it verified three other 1993 acts of the Hawai`i State legislature.
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.
* clarifies earleir post saying "hears" the case.
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) takes up* 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.
In the brief in opposition the respondents to the state’s appeal, the attorneys point out that the SCOTUS has no business in the matter to begin with and show how, although the SCOHI did cite the apology bill it did so for the facts contained and more importantly because it verified three other 1993 acts of the Hawai`i State legislature.
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.
* clarifies earleir post saying "hears" the case.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
SERVING TWO MASTERS
SERVING TWO MASTERS: The blogs and press are all trying to make heads or tails of what many claim is a scam of native Hawaiians trying to reclaim lands stolen from them and then resold despite purportedly “irrevocable” Royal Patents granted in the mid-19th century.
Mahealani Ventura-Oliver of the Hawaiiloa Foundation has been giving seminars and presenting compelling evidence that people who can trace their genealogy to those to whom the patents were granted may be able to reclaim the lands and those that still own them do not have to pay taxes, mortgage payments and other debts.
You can read up on a lot of it in everything from two articles lacking exposition in Honolulu paper to Ian Lind’s three link-filled but inconclusive blog entries to the racist treatment in the right wing Hawaii Free Press.
But what none report is whether, upon examination, the chain of events from those days to this comprise a valid legal case.
We haven’t the time or inclination to determine if there is a valid claim but the real question is one that is at the rhetorical core whre the winding road of the erosion of Hawaiian rights and theft of Hawaiian lands is concerned:
Even if they are perfectly valid claims, do we really expect justice in an American court?
We all know of the successful attempt to show that annexation of Hawai`i never legally took place. That and other dubious transactions by the US government should, by all rights, result in the return of lands and rights to a sovereign native kanaka maoli body politic
And we all know the results of almost 25 years of these and other efforts backed by seemingly proper precedence - the American so called “justice” system refuses to acknowledge the cases much less rule favorably on them..
Maybe in the 80’s if you were kanaka maoli it might have been a good gamble to put your life and possessions at risk in an attempt seek justice from American courts. But even then it seemed like a long shot to those who saw the way the government treated the valid claims of the native communities on the mainland.
The genocide of native Americans is well documented and continues today. Though treaties were signed and land rights designated, the supra-judicial theft of both lands and rights- many times validating actions taken at the same point of a gun that stole the Hawaiian kingdom- has prevailed in the realms of American jurisprudence.
Just this week a program on PBS’ “Independent Lens” series detailed the plight of the residents of the Swinomish Reservation in northwest Washington State. Despite the fact that they own a portion of land called March Point the fact that an oil refinery sits there – a plant that has polluted and killed-off their traditional fishing grounds and so their subsistance lifestyles- has made reclaiming the land impossible.
It’s an all too familiar and common story- though they have a apparently legitimate claim to the land, no court will apparently ever rule in their favor
What is obvious is that even if Ventura-Oliver’s claims are valid it takes a bit of schizophrenia on the part of kanaka to think that the very American system that is denying them the actualization of their inherent sovereignty is a good place to seek redress of their grievances.
Those who own property, have mortgages, credit card debt and owe taxes have by their actions already bought into the American government’s occupation of the islands. They have helped give legitimacy to the illegal occupation by allowing the greed and individualism of westerners to take hold over their own lives.
In doing so they make apparent that on some level they believe in the corrupt American system so it would make sense that they would naively go to American courts to enforce the law.
But at the same time they’ve got to know that they are asking for the recognition of their sovereign rights flies in the face of the corporate control of the American government and it’s courts.
Whether this woman and her aides are actually stealing from gullible people is something that requires we examine her motives just as with the “Perfect Title” case in the ‘90’s and early ‘00’s. And that’s something we’ll leave for others closer to the situation to determine
But participation in both requires a duality in thought on the part of the alleged victims- the belief that the very entity they believe stole what is rightfully theirs is the right entity to petition to voluntarily restore those rights.
Next time it might be wise to ask the Swinomish people how that’s going for them.
Mahealani Ventura-Oliver of the Hawaiiloa Foundation has been giving seminars and presenting compelling evidence that people who can trace their genealogy to those to whom the patents were granted may be able to reclaim the lands and those that still own them do not have to pay taxes, mortgage payments and other debts.
You can read up on a lot of it in everything from two articles lacking exposition in Honolulu paper to Ian Lind’s three link-filled but inconclusive blog entries to the racist treatment in the right wing Hawaii Free Press.
But what none report is whether, upon examination, the chain of events from those days to this comprise a valid legal case.
We haven’t the time or inclination to determine if there is a valid claim but the real question is one that is at the rhetorical core whre the winding road of the erosion of Hawaiian rights and theft of Hawaiian lands is concerned:
Even if they are perfectly valid claims, do we really expect justice in an American court?
We all know of the successful attempt to show that annexation of Hawai`i never legally took place. That and other dubious transactions by the US government should, by all rights, result in the return of lands and rights to a sovereign native kanaka maoli body politic
And we all know the results of almost 25 years of these and other efforts backed by seemingly proper precedence - the American so called “justice” system refuses to acknowledge the cases much less rule favorably on them..
Maybe in the 80’s if you were kanaka maoli it might have been a good gamble to put your life and possessions at risk in an attempt seek justice from American courts. But even then it seemed like a long shot to those who saw the way the government treated the valid claims of the native communities on the mainland.
The genocide of native Americans is well documented and continues today. Though treaties were signed and land rights designated, the supra-judicial theft of both lands and rights- many times validating actions taken at the same point of a gun that stole the Hawaiian kingdom- has prevailed in the realms of American jurisprudence.
Just this week a program on PBS’ “Independent Lens” series detailed the plight of the residents of the Swinomish Reservation in northwest Washington State. Despite the fact that they own a portion of land called March Point the fact that an oil refinery sits there – a plant that has polluted and killed-off their traditional fishing grounds and so their subsistance lifestyles- has made reclaiming the land impossible.
It’s an all too familiar and common story- though they have a apparently legitimate claim to the land, no court will apparently ever rule in their favor
What is obvious is that even if Ventura-Oliver’s claims are valid it takes a bit of schizophrenia on the part of kanaka to think that the very American system that is denying them the actualization of their inherent sovereignty is a good place to seek redress of their grievances.
Those who own property, have mortgages, credit card debt and owe taxes have by their actions already bought into the American government’s occupation of the islands. They have helped give legitimacy to the illegal occupation by allowing the greed and individualism of westerners to take hold over their own lives.
In doing so they make apparent that on some level they believe in the corrupt American system so it would make sense that they would naively go to American courts to enforce the law.
But at the same time they’ve got to know that they are asking for the recognition of their sovereign rights flies in the face of the corporate control of the American government and it’s courts.
Whether this woman and her aides are actually stealing from gullible people is something that requires we examine her motives just as with the “Perfect Title” case in the ‘90’s and early ‘00’s. And that’s something we’ll leave for others closer to the situation to determine
But participation in both requires a duality in thought on the part of the alleged victims- the belief that the very entity they believe stole what is rightfully theirs is the right entity to petition to voluntarily restore those rights.
Next time it might be wise to ask the Swinomish people how that’s going for them.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE:
BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE: Well the scumbags on the fifth floor of the Capitol are at it again, this time with the inexplicable almost unfathomable attempted evictions of the `Ohana Kahana from Kahana valley.
But the heart wrenching genocide being performed by the Lingle-Thielen team was actually initiated and compounded by the bankruptcy of legal integrity at the hands of the last member of the triumvirate- the most corrupt attorney in Hawai`i, Attorney General Mark Bennett.
The same weasel who has perpetrated fraud after fraud on the community in the form of bizarre legal maneuvers and abusive and twisted interpretations of law has outdone himself this time by essentially changing the law through a new “interpretation”- and he did it quietly at the end of the last legislature when it was to late to introduce a bill to countermand his edict.
According to an article in a Honolulu paper yesterday’s about the massive gathering of kanaka and their supporters to try to prevent the evictions:
Several of the families to be evicted were promised leases, but a new interpretation of the law in March said the state could not issue any new leases.
Bennett’s move came after all new bills for the session legally had to have been introduced and apparently no one even knew about his “ruling” in time to make sure this one-man-legislature couldn’t pervert the process.
But although Bennett is the architect of this latest chapter in the genocide of the native people and their culture he could not get away with it without the complicity of the Hawai`i legal community.
It comes on the heels of two recent statements from Hawai`i Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Moon, one on racism and one on the dearth of- and new requirement for- pro bono work on the part of Hawai`i attorneys.
According to journalist-blogger Dave Shapiro Moon told the Hawai`i State Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Division.
“The diversity of America’s people has played a major role in making this country both strong and dominant,” Moon said. “Unfortunately, this same diversity has been the source of discrimination and bigotry — an ugly part of this country’s legacy that still exists today. And, even with our demographics, Hawai`i has not been immune from racially or ethnically charged events occurring here.”
But was Moon talking about the systematic genocide of the native people, committed by state administrations during his reign?
Are you kidding? According to Shapiro:
He cited racial incidents involving athletics at Radford High and Hilo high, racial comments that have tainted local jury trials, a Caucasian couple beaten in Waikele after the assailant referred to them as “f-ing haoles,” City Councilman Rod Tam’s reference to undocumented workers as “wetbacks” and the resignation of Rex Johnson as CEO of the Hawai`i Tourism Authority over racial slurs.
Then unfathomably Moon said:
“I have mentioned these cases and incidents to emphasize the continuing existence of, and the need to eliminate, negative stereotypes of certain minorities — which, in Hawai`i, ironically includes whites,”
Ironically includes whites?
The real irony here of course is Moon’s blindness to fact that these conditions were in part established by his courts’ refusals to hear all the legally legitimate claims brought by kanaka maoli over the years- claims brought in order to get back the rights and land they are legally entitled to from the whites who stole it.
Time after time fully documented claims are rebuffed by Moon’s Court of last resort at the behest of the occupying American nation in favor of the same rich land thieves who overthrew the Hawaiian nation more than a hundred years ago.
Yet he sees the outrage on the part of people- expressed in the form of hatred of a group perceived to be the bandits- as the racism that needs to be curtailed, rather than the type his court has perpetrated.
And of course his decrying of the lack of pro bono work earlier this year was directed at the indigent who need civil representation in personal cases. He had nothing to say about lawyers working for the public interest in cases where attorneys like Bennett abuse their power to subvert public policy.
As we’ve discussed before race bias and racism are arguably separate realities. Moon’s bemoanment is of race bias, the personal irrational hatred of all people of a certain race.
But the institutional support for white privilege that Moon epitomizes in his words and deeds are the real intractable racism and the fact that Moon can’t see it would be the funniest joke in the world if it weren’t the most serious and saddest of circumstances..
But the heart wrenching genocide being performed by the Lingle-Thielen team was actually initiated and compounded by the bankruptcy of legal integrity at the hands of the last member of the triumvirate- the most corrupt attorney in Hawai`i, Attorney General Mark Bennett.
The same weasel who has perpetrated fraud after fraud on the community in the form of bizarre legal maneuvers and abusive and twisted interpretations of law has outdone himself this time by essentially changing the law through a new “interpretation”- and he did it quietly at the end of the last legislature when it was to late to introduce a bill to countermand his edict.
According to an article in a Honolulu paper yesterday’s about the massive gathering of kanaka and their supporters to try to prevent the evictions:
Several of the families to be evicted were promised leases, but a new interpretation of the law in March said the state could not issue any new leases.
Bennett’s move came after all new bills for the session legally had to have been introduced and apparently no one even knew about his “ruling” in time to make sure this one-man-legislature couldn’t pervert the process.
But although Bennett is the architect of this latest chapter in the genocide of the native people and their culture he could not get away with it without the complicity of the Hawai`i legal community.
It comes on the heels of two recent statements from Hawai`i Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Moon, one on racism and one on the dearth of- and new requirement for- pro bono work on the part of Hawai`i attorneys.
According to journalist-blogger Dave Shapiro Moon told the Hawai`i State Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Division.
“The diversity of America’s people has played a major role in making this country both strong and dominant,” Moon said. “Unfortunately, this same diversity has been the source of discrimination and bigotry — an ugly part of this country’s legacy that still exists today. And, even with our demographics, Hawai`i has not been immune from racially or ethnically charged events occurring here.”
But was Moon talking about the systematic genocide of the native people, committed by state administrations during his reign?
Are you kidding? According to Shapiro:
He cited racial incidents involving athletics at Radford High and Hilo high, racial comments that have tainted local jury trials, a Caucasian couple beaten in Waikele after the assailant referred to them as “f-ing haoles,” City Councilman Rod Tam’s reference to undocumented workers as “wetbacks” and the resignation of Rex Johnson as CEO of the Hawai`i Tourism Authority over racial slurs.
Then unfathomably Moon said:
“I have mentioned these cases and incidents to emphasize the continuing existence of, and the need to eliminate, negative stereotypes of certain minorities — which, in Hawai`i, ironically includes whites,”
Ironically includes whites?
The real irony here of course is Moon’s blindness to fact that these conditions were in part established by his courts’ refusals to hear all the legally legitimate claims brought by kanaka maoli over the years- claims brought in order to get back the rights and land they are legally entitled to from the whites who stole it.
Time after time fully documented claims are rebuffed by Moon’s Court of last resort at the behest of the occupying American nation in favor of the same rich land thieves who overthrew the Hawaiian nation more than a hundred years ago.
Yet he sees the outrage on the part of people- expressed in the form of hatred of a group perceived to be the bandits- as the racism that needs to be curtailed, rather than the type his court has perpetrated.
And of course his decrying of the lack of pro bono work earlier this year was directed at the indigent who need civil representation in personal cases. He had nothing to say about lawyers working for the public interest in cases where attorneys like Bennett abuse their power to subvert public policy.
As we’ve discussed before race bias and racism are arguably separate realities. Moon’s bemoanment is of race bias, the personal irrational hatred of all people of a certain race.
But the institutional support for white privilege that Moon epitomizes in his words and deeds are the real intractable racism and the fact that Moon can’t see it would be the funniest joke in the world if it weren’t the most serious and saddest of circumstances..
Thursday, June 5, 2008
THE SLEEPING DOG ALSO LIES
THE SLEEPING DOG ALSO LIES: It’s apparently all quiet on the northern front.
And despite the mysterious disappearance of the fence around the Ha`ena graveyard and wished-for luxury house site, the contractor is no longer kow-towing to the evil Walton Hong and trying to do the dirty work of mainland nut case Joe Brescia.
And entertainer Lady Ipo seems to have been properly shamed to tears and out of trying to bless the desecration of her own kanaka maoli culture... without the intervention of her famous daughter UH-Hilo Professor and Hoku Award winning performer Kainani Kahaunaele or son-in-law "Eddie" Ayau of Hui Malama, who infuriated the Bishop Museum and western judges by returning burial artifacts to their rightful place of internment on the Big Island a year or so ago.
But the most impressive thing here may have been the way new chief Darryl Perry and his all new machine-gun-gripping, riot-gear regaled, taser-toting, men-in black seem to have given the aloha-kine KPD we all knew and loved the opportunity to do what we have come to expect from them when dealing with non-violent citizens standing up for their rights- they drove by, made sure no one was threatening anyone or getting crazy gave ‘um all a big shaka and went back to doing their real jobs.
Could it be that the Chief has learned something in the last week or so? Could it be that seeking to de-fuse rather than ramp up the separation between protectors and the protected was, is and will always be the best way for Kauai’s Finest to act?
We sure hope so. Because people haven’t forgotten how Perry came to this job and the utter corruption and dirty deeds that led to his hiring.
We’ll be hearing a lot more about that “old” story that has until now been told in dribs and drabs when a new book by former The Garden Island and Honolulu Star Bulletin reporter Anthony Sommer's hits the shelves later this month telling the tale we’ve all wanted to hear in documented detail.
For today, well let a recent letter from Council watchdog Glenn Mickens to Councilman Ron Kochi tease you a little with some dredging up of some gone-by-but-not-forgotten reminders of the skullduggery and railroading of the last two chiefs, a past Police Commission chair who tried stand up to them and the fight by another commissioner who did fight them off.... all perpetuated by a crop of dirty dealers still in power today who engineered the foul feat.
Look for more on Sommer's new book in this space in the coming weeks and months and- we hope- some enticing excerpts preceding Tony’s return to Kaua`i with tome-in-hand later this summer.
Now, heeeere’s Glenn.
Aloha Ron:
Having heard your story about Joy asking that cop on Oahu for directions to the ball park (I think that is what you said) I had to put in my two cents.
You said that the cop told Joy how much they missed Perry and what a great person and cop he was.
For your informational purposes ( I am not sure how much you followed the Chief Lum story) I have to bring something up. I followed this whole Lum story from the get go as did a lot of other people on Kauai and, Ron, when the whole truth comes out you are going to see one of the biggest conspiracy stories that has even been exposed on Kauai.
Obviously I think the world of KC---he is an honest, dedicated person and was doing his job as our police chief. When the 3 finalist came down to being our Chief (Lum and Perry were the main ones) the police commission, made up of 5 people, voted 4 to 1 to make KC the Chief. I know that Perry wanted that job and certain other "questionable" people wanted him to have it too but keep remembering that the Commission has the sole authority under our Charter to appoint and to fire the Chief. Only Leon voted against Lum but remember that he has some racial problem with KC and his negative vote was understandable.
I won't go into the whole conspiracy theory because you may be familiar with most of it. BUT remember that Carol Furtado, who even grew up with Perry VOTED FOR LUM and she knew more about Perry than anyone else!!!
So , the powers that be went after Lum in the biggest way they could. They got Mike Ching to resign (he was and is a well respected member of the north shore community and was on the commission for 6 years), the Mayor first said that Gonsalves should go after Leon came up with the racial slur and then he flip flopped and said he should stay; they went after Carol and put her through the ringer but she defended herself and proved any charges against her to be false; then they went after Ron Vennaman who, if you ever read his bio sheet knows more about policing than probably anyone on Kauai or, even in Hawaii and he was passed over for acting chief by some weird in house methods.
And, Ron, the BIGGEST allegation that they went after KC about was his "forgery" of a 3 page document. This "forgery" was a fax error and KC's law firm fully took responsibility for the error. But, even worse, to make the case for this conspiracy to get KC fired or to retire Kaipo put on this "dog and pony show" on June 15th, 2006 "showing" over and over by a power point how this 3 page document had been forged. All members of the council except JoAnn who was absent chimed in with the forgery theory.
Now the kicker, Ron. On June 13 KC sent an E Mail to Peter Nakamura showing him how the Fax error was made ( I believe that he CC'd Gary Hue and other relevant parties). Peter sent him back an E Mail confirming that he got the message.
SO, that means that by the 14th of June Kaipo and the entire council KNEW about the fax error and YET he and the members went before the camera and made KC look like a forger!!!! I believe it was about 6 months later that the AG refused to enter any further investigations and regretfully the Garden Island didn't make a big story out of it which it was!!
Then the AG going into KC's house and confiscating all his computer material looking for evidence of the "forgery" which somewhere down the road will put a huge settlement in KC's hands. There was so much hanky panky going on with this conspiracy and it didn't take a genius to connect the dots.
Back to my point, Ron. KC was doing the job the commissioners appointed him to do. Crime was down, drug busts were up and he reorganized some questionable members of the vice squad to other positions and had Vennaman as his top aid. Once money was being drained from the drug dealers pockets something had to give and, for me, KC was the key person that had to go.
I don't know that much about Perry but I do know that he wanted that job but the best, most qualified person got it and now Perry is back so, for me, question marks have to remain.
Tony Sommer has written a book about this conspiracy and I am waiting to get a copy of it.
For what they are worth, these are my opinions, Ron.
Take two and hit to right!!
Glenn
And despite the mysterious disappearance of the fence around the Ha`ena graveyard and wished-for luxury house site, the contractor is no longer kow-towing to the evil Walton Hong and trying to do the dirty work of mainland nut case Joe Brescia.
And entertainer Lady Ipo seems to have been properly shamed to tears and out of trying to bless the desecration of her own kanaka maoli culture... without the intervention of her famous daughter UH-Hilo Professor and Hoku Award winning performer Kainani Kahaunaele or son-in-law "Eddie" Ayau of Hui Malama, who infuriated the Bishop Museum and western judges by returning burial artifacts to their rightful place of internment on the Big Island a year or so ago.
But the most impressive thing here may have been the way new chief Darryl Perry and his all new machine-gun-gripping, riot-gear regaled, taser-toting, men-in black seem to have given the aloha-kine KPD we all knew and loved the opportunity to do what we have come to expect from them when dealing with non-violent citizens standing up for their rights- they drove by, made sure no one was threatening anyone or getting crazy gave ‘um all a big shaka and went back to doing their real jobs.
Could it be that the Chief has learned something in the last week or so? Could it be that seeking to de-fuse rather than ramp up the separation between protectors and the protected was, is and will always be the best way for Kauai’s Finest to act?
We sure hope so. Because people haven’t forgotten how Perry came to this job and the utter corruption and dirty deeds that led to his hiring.
We’ll be hearing a lot more about that “old” story that has until now been told in dribs and drabs when a new book by former The Garden Island and Honolulu Star Bulletin reporter Anthony Sommer's hits the shelves later this month telling the tale we’ve all wanted to hear in documented detail.
For today, well let a recent letter from Council watchdog Glenn Mickens to Councilman Ron Kochi tease you a little with some dredging up of some gone-by-but-not-forgotten reminders of the skullduggery and railroading of the last two chiefs, a past Police Commission chair who tried stand up to them and the fight by another commissioner who did fight them off.... all perpetuated by a crop of dirty dealers still in power today who engineered the foul feat.
Look for more on Sommer's new book in this space in the coming weeks and months and- we hope- some enticing excerpts preceding Tony’s return to Kaua`i with tome-in-hand later this summer.
Now, heeeere’s Glenn.
Aloha Ron:
Having heard your story about Joy asking that cop on Oahu for directions to the ball park (I think that is what you said) I had to put in my two cents.
You said that the cop told Joy how much they missed Perry and what a great person and cop he was.
For your informational purposes ( I am not sure how much you followed the Chief Lum story) I have to bring something up. I followed this whole Lum story from the get go as did a lot of other people on Kauai and, Ron, when the whole truth comes out you are going to see one of the biggest conspiracy stories that has even been exposed on Kauai.
Obviously I think the world of KC---he is an honest, dedicated person and was doing his job as our police chief. When the 3 finalist came down to being our Chief (Lum and Perry were the main ones) the police commission, made up of 5 people, voted 4 to 1 to make KC the Chief. I know that Perry wanted that job and certain other "questionable" people wanted him to have it too but keep remembering that the Commission has the sole authority under our Charter to appoint and to fire the Chief. Only Leon voted against Lum but remember that he has some racial problem with KC and his negative vote was understandable.
I won't go into the whole conspiracy theory because you may be familiar with most of it. BUT remember that Carol Furtado, who even grew up with Perry VOTED FOR LUM and she knew more about Perry than anyone else!!!
So , the powers that be went after Lum in the biggest way they could. They got Mike Ching to resign (he was and is a well respected member of the north shore community and was on the commission for 6 years), the Mayor first said that Gonsalves should go after Leon came up with the racial slur and then he flip flopped and said he should stay; they went after Carol and put her through the ringer but she defended herself and proved any charges against her to be false; then they went after Ron Vennaman who, if you ever read his bio sheet knows more about policing than probably anyone on Kauai or, even in Hawaii and he was passed over for acting chief by some weird in house methods.
And, Ron, the BIGGEST allegation that they went after KC about was his "forgery" of a 3 page document. This "forgery" was a fax error and KC's law firm fully took responsibility for the error. But, even worse, to make the case for this conspiracy to get KC fired or to retire Kaipo put on this "dog and pony show" on June 15th, 2006 "showing" over and over by a power point how this 3 page document had been forged. All members of the council except JoAnn who was absent chimed in with the forgery theory.
Now the kicker, Ron. On June 13 KC sent an E Mail to Peter Nakamura showing him how the Fax error was made ( I believe that he CC'd Gary Hue and other relevant parties). Peter sent him back an E Mail confirming that he got the message.
SO, that means that by the 14th of June Kaipo and the entire council KNEW about the fax error and YET he and the members went before the camera and made KC look like a forger!!!! I believe it was about 6 months later that the AG refused to enter any further investigations and regretfully the Garden Island didn't make a big story out of it which it was!!
Then the AG going into KC's house and confiscating all his computer material looking for evidence of the "forgery" which somewhere down the road will put a huge settlement in KC's hands. There was so much hanky panky going on with this conspiracy and it didn't take a genius to connect the dots.
Back to my point, Ron. KC was doing the job the commissioners appointed him to do. Crime was down, drug busts were up and he reorganized some questionable members of the vice squad to other positions and had Vennaman as his top aid. Once money was being drained from the drug dealers pockets something had to give and, for me, KC was the key person that had to go.
I don't know that much about Perry but I do know that he wanted that job but the best, most qualified person got it and now Perry is back so, for me, question marks have to remain.
Tony Sommer has written a book about this conspiracy and I am waiting to get a copy of it.
For what they are worth, these are my opinions, Ron.
Take two and hit to right!!
Glenn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
