This blog is about Hawaii's status as an independent country under prolonged illegal occupation by the United States, and the history, culture, law & politics of the islands.
This Memorial Day FSRN re-visits “In Memorium” a documentary on the history of Hawai’i that is little-known by most people in the United States.
Located 25-hundred miles west of the California coast, Hawai’i became known as the 50th state in 1959. Hawai’i is also home to the largest US military command center and to massive tourism and real estate development industries. But native Hawaiians are largely excluded from the material benefits enjoyed by the industries that have taken over huge swathes of the island chain.
It’s a situation that didn’t happen overnight…but it’s a history that isn’t often taught in American classrooms.
Join us today as FSRN’s Anne Keala Kelly brings us “In Memorium” and walks us through the history of Hawai’i and what the act of remembering means for many Hawaiians.
UPDATE: MAY 27, 2011 — On May 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Civil Notice of Appeal from the Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint entered on April 6, 2011. Since United States government officials are parties in the lawsuit, there is a 60 day window to file an appeal from the date of the Order. Appeals from the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., will take place at the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The sole issue on appeal is the U.S. District Court’s application of the political question doctrine, which it says prevents it from adjudicating Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
The fundamental issue on appeal will center on whether or not a U.S. President can withdraw recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty after a previous U.S. President afforded explicit recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty on July 6, 1844, thereby creating, as the U.S. District determined, a political question until Hawaiian state sovereignty is re-recognized by a subsquent U.S. President. The Plaintiff maintains that international law prevents a recognizing state from de-recognizing another state’s sovereignty, because recognition of state sovereignty is a political act with legal consquences. International law, however, does not prevent a recognizing state from de-recognizing another state’s government, which is often referred to as diplomatic recognition. Example: The United States recognized Cuba’s state sovereignty in 1925, but derecognized the Castro government in 1961. The withdrawal of the recognition of Castro’s government was not a withdrawal of the United States’ recognition of Cuban state sovereignty. Cuba continued to exist as a sovereign state, despite the derecognition of the Castro government.
Fivemembers of a native Hawaiian sovereignty group on Maui are being accused of luring unsuspecting clients with bold talk and official looking documents.
A twenty-five count indictment unsealed in U.S. District Court Thursday alleges the group committed various fraud and tax offenses through a debt assistance program that relied on falsified documents.
[…]
The defendants operated under the trade names Hawaiiloa Foundation, Ko Hawaii Pae Aina and The Registry.
The last remaining court challenge to Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policy giving preference to native Hawaiians came to an end yesterday when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of four unidentified students who contended the practice violates federal civil rights laws.
This article in today’s Travel section of the San Francisco Chronicle
If, like me, you believe no place is heaven on earth, you won’t be surprised to learn that San Francisco-based Global Exchange is promoting a new Reality Tour — a program usually associated with Third World destinations such as Afghanistan, Guatemala or Vietnam — to Hawaii, one that promises to uncover all sorts of trouble in paradise.
Loss of indigenous sovereignty? Check. Militarization? Check. Cultural and environmental degradation? Well, you get the picture. But do you really need to join a tour group to discover those pressing concerns — which Global Exchange says are “rarely mentioned by the media, the travel industry or the local government” — or to have meaningful encounters with island residents working to reverse or mitigate them?
Since the first Reality Tour doesn’t debut until Dec. 16-23, 2011, it may be a little premature as well as uncharitable to answer those questions with “uncheck.” But I can note tour highlights as described in the Global Exchange press release, with my suggestions for do-it-yourselfers (and think-for-yourselfers) in the interim. Like the Reality Tour, I’ll keep the focus on Oahu, but be aware all of the islands provide windows into past and current conflicts — for those willing to see them.
It continues with several recommendations for politically interested travelers, including this tidbit:
And anywhere you see a Hawaiian flag flying upside down, or a yellow, green and red “Kanaka Maoli” flag, you’ll find a supporter of Hawaiian sovereignty. While you won’t find widespread agreement on what that means, exactly, if you ask respectfully and listen carefully, you’ll at least learn about the passion the subject inspires on all sides.
Actually, anywhere you see a Hawaiian flag without a U.S. flag, you’ll find a supporter of sovereignty. Out here in East Maui, there are many Hawaiian flags flying right-side up but by themselves.
As for President Obama, Nixon v. Fitzgerald would give immunity to the President from lawsuits, but President Obama can’t claim to be a bona fide President since the U.S. Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen. Since President Obama was born in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and not born in the United States, he is a President de facto (in fact). Nixon v. Fitzgerald only applies to Presidents de jure (by law). I am not claiming Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen, because he is by his mother (jus sanguinis). He is, however, not a natural born citizen (jus soli), which is a constitutional requirement to be President. During occupations of a country, international law prevents individuals from acquiring the citizenship of the occupied state through birth on the soil (jus soli) and can only acquire citizenship from their parents (jus sanguinis).
Now that the “birthers” biggest argument—that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii—has been even further discredited than it was already, I wonder if they will latch on to the idea that Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen because Hawaii was not truly part of the United States at the time. It’s a serious argument made for completely different reasons, but they may find it convenient for their purposes as well. That would put them in the seemingly uncomfortable position of agreeing with the argument that the U.S. presence in Hawaii is indeed an occupation…
UPDATE: APRIL 18, 2011 — On April 6, 2011, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issues Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. In her Order, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, states, “Plaintiff argues that the Court misapplied the political question doctrine and erred in holding that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint. In this regard, Plaintiff’s motion is an attempt to reargue the merits of his case. Plaintiff has not identified any intervening change in controlling law or new evidence that compels the Court to reconsider its prior ruling.” It is the position of the Plaintiff that the Court erred and committed a grave error because unlike Taiwan in Lin v. United States, which the Court used to justify the application of the political question doctrine, the Hawaiian Kingdom had been recognized as a sovereign State since December 19, 1842 by U.S. President John Tyler. Plaintiff will appeal this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. According to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has 60 days from date of the Order to file an appeal since Defendants are U.S. government officers.
A U.S. District Court “accepts as true all the factual allegations contained in the complaint when reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).” Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164 (1993). In other words, the court has accepted, and the Defendants have not denied, the factual allegations in the amended complaint that the rights of the Plaintiff have been violated as a direct result of the Defendants’ violation of the Lili’uokalani assignment, but the Court cannot move on the matter because, in its eyes, the political question doctrine prevents it. This is very different from a case being dismissed under Rule 12(b)6, which is failure state a claim upon which relief can be granted, i.e. the Lili’uokalani assignment fails to exist or is not an executive agreement, thereby Plaintiff cannot sue.
In order to continue moving forward in the legislature, House Reso 107 “… TO INVESTIGATE THE STATUS OF TWO EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO IN 1893 BETWEEN UNITED STATES PRESIDENT GROVER CLEVELAND AND QUEEN LILI’UOKALANI OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM” needs to be either heard or waived off from the House Judiciary Committee and Legislative Management Committee. Please take a moment today to contact Rep. Keith-Agaran and Rep. Yamashita , the chairs of these respective committees, and encourage them to waive off HR107.
The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act is scheduled to go tomorrow [Wednesday] before the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee, whose chairman, Sen. Daniel Akaka, aims to have a vote on the measure.
If favorably reported out of the committee, the bill would be added to the Senate calendar for consideration by the full chamber.
