Hawaiian Kingdom Independence Blog

Sarah Vowell interview on Unfamiliar Fishes…

From Dr. Sai…

UPDATE: APRIL 2, 2011 — On April 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Reply to Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. In Plaintiff’s Reply it states “Defendants allege Plaintiff is rearguing facts and theories that the court has already ruled and that ‘Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider reads more like his previous filings that it does a fresh look at the issues in this case.’ This is not so. As stated by Defendants in its Opposition, Plaintiff can succeed on his motion to reconsider if he can demonstrate some ‘intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or manifest injustice.’ Plaintiff’s motion was filed to ‘correct a clear error’ of the Court’s application of Lin v. United States, 561 F.3d 502; 385 U.S. App. D.C. 191 (2009), and the political question doctrine because unlike Taiwan, the U.S. Executive did recognize the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 1842, which has not been denied by Defendants throughout these proceedings.” Plaintiff also filed Notice of Maui County Council Resolution Urging Support of the Intent of House of Concurrent Resolution no. 107, Establishing a Joint Legislative Investigating Committee to Investigate the Status of executive agreements known as the Lili’uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Restoration.

Well my mention of Sarah Vowell’s appearance on The Daily Show to promote her new book “Unfamiliar Fishes” about Hawaii apparently rated a mention in the New York Times Inside the List column…

Sarah Vowell hits No. 5 on the hardcover nonfiction list with “Unfamiliar Fishes,” her wry account of the annexation and Americanization of Hawaii.

[…]

Vowell has gotten some friendly notice in the Hawaiian media, including a plug on the Hawaiian Kingdom Independence Blog, which argues that Hawaii is a sovereign nation under illegal occupation by the United States.

From Dr. Sai…

UPDATE: MARCH 29, 2011 — On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia filed Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. The Court will determine whether to rescind and/or revise the Order or deny Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. Either way it will be appealed by either party to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, known informally as the D.C. Circuit. The U.S. Attorney in its Opposition made no mention of the misapplication by the Court of a 2009 federal lawsuit out of the D.C. Circuit, Lin v. United States, justifying the Court’s assertion of the political question doctrine as expounded in Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. As stated in Plaintiff’s Motion, in Lin v. United States, the D.C. Circuit, stated, “Once the Executive determines Taiwan’s sovereign, we can decide Appellants’ resulting status and concomitant rights expeditiously. (‘[T]he judiciary ordinarily follows the executive as to which nation has sovereignty over disputed territory, once sovereignty over an area is politically determined and declared, courts may examine the resulting status and decide independently whether a statute applies to that area.’)” The difference between Taiwan and the Hawaiian Kingdom is that recognition of Hawaiian sovereignty was afforded by the U.S. President [Executive] on July 6, 1844. Therefore, Plaintiff argues Lin v. United States cannot be used to invoke the political question doctrine in this case and therefore the Court “can decide [Plaintiff’s] resulting status and concomitant rights expeditiously.”

The fundamental question for the Court to determine is whether or not sovereignty of a country [state] can be withdrawn arbitrarily by the U.S. President [Executive] after it was previously afforded by his predecessor in office, namely President John Tyler. In the Motion to Reconsider, Plaintiff argues “Once recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State was granted by the Executive, see Amend. Compl. para. 11, Professor Oppenheim asserts that it ‘is incapable of withdrawal’ by the recognizing State. See Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, vol. I (3d. 1920), at 137. Professor Schwarzenberger also asserts, that ‘recognition estops the State which has recognized the title from contesting its validity at any future time.’ See Georg Schwarzenberger, Title to Territory: Response to a Challenge, Am. J. Int’l L., 51, no. 2 (1957): 308-324, at 316. Professor Craven opines, that Hawaiian sovereignty ‘may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States.’ See Matthew Craven, Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 1 Hawn. J.L. & Politics 508-544, 512 (Summer 2004).” Website for the lawsuit is at http://hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml.