From Keanu Sai…
UPDATE: MARCH 10, 2011 — On March 9, 2011, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issues Order granting the U.S. Attorney’s motion to dismiss. In her opinion, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, states, “Plaintiff argues that he is not challenging the legality of the State of Hawaii and his conviction but is merely asserting a claim for a violation of the Liliuokalani Assignment under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. However, in order to find that Defendants have violated the Liliuokalani Assignment as alleged by Plaintiff—or even to conclude that Plaintiff is an alien capable of bringing claims under the Alien Tort Statute rather than a U.S. citizen—the Court would have to determine that the annexation of Hawaii by the United States was unlawful and void. As described above, that is a political question that this Court cannot decide. The fact that the answer might be gleaned through a straightforward analysis of federal and international law does not matter; “[t]he political question doctrine deprives federal courts of jurisdiction, based on prudential concerns, over cases which would normally fall within their purview.” Lin, 561 F.3d at 506; see id. (“We do not disagree with Appellants’ assertion that we could resolve this case through treaty analysis and statutory construction; we merely decline to do so as this case presents a political question which strips us of jurisdiction to undertake that otherwise familiar task.“) (internal citations omitted). Therefore, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
What is profound is that the Court admits the existence of the executive agreements, which is the basis of Plaintiff’s claim for relief, and the case can be resolved through treaty analysis and statutory construction, but because of the political question doctrine they are unable to grant relief to the Plaintiff for tort injuries. An appeal will be made to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that will address why the political question doctrine should not prevent the Court from granting relief in an Alien Tort Statute case. The Court also distinguished between a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss on subject matter jurisdictional grounds, which assumes facts alleged in the complaint to be true; and a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for Plaintiff’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, where the basis of the lawsuit, which is the executive agreement, does not exist. The Court stated this is not a 12(b)(6) motion.
Judge’s Order can be downloaded at http://hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml under “Court Docket Filings.”
Not a good idea for the U.S. and State of Hawaii to mess with Akua! Just saying!!
This is a very interesting ruling. It appears plaintiff’s remedy is obtainable but the court is going to make him climb the appeals ladder all the way to the Supreme Court.
Aloha,
I think the political question doctrine works like an optional wild card that the U.S. Judicial system may implement in order to circumvent the separation of powers doctrine!
Kanaka’s have been stumped by this non-justiciable issue for years and even though the courts could make a ruling, especially when there are overwhelming evidence in support
of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s position, they chose not to.
I think the Judge in this subject case could’ve made a ruling, but doesn’t want to. The question is WHY?
Could it possibly be because the U.S. Congress over stepped its range of authority in 1894 when it interfered with the President’s foreign affair matters pertaining to the executive agreements with Queen Liliu’okalani?
The U.S. Legislative branch of government interfering with the Executive branch of government! Why would the U.S. Judicial branch of government want to get involved and carry the burden for the problem caused by the law makers and the President? They broke it, they should fix it!
Facts:
1. The Executive Agreements were handled through the office of the U.S. President in his
foreign Executive capacity with the Hawaiian nation.
2. Congress by two Joint Resolutions prevented President Grover Cleveland from restoring
the Hawaiian Kingdom, in which they had no authority beyond their borders!
3. The U.S. had caused other nations to recognize its authority over the independent
nation of Hawaii without first formally extinguishing the Hawaiian Kingdom’s authority
over the Kingdom’s domain, in which the U.S. can show no treaty of cession or treaty by
prescription, in essence the U.S. has no authority at all in Hawaii!
4. The Hawaiian Kingdom’s internal sovereignty was interrupted since January 17, 1893.
This however can be fixed, just like the election of King Lunalilo.
5. The Hawaiian kingdom’s external sovereignty is still in tact and recognized unto this
day!
6. Hawaii, by joint proclamation on November 28, 1843 gained its independence and is a co-
equal sovereign to the U.S.
Not too sure on this, but the U.S. Political Question Doctrine could have an external affect on foreign affairs, however I’m thinking, it’s use, in this case, is a matter of U.S. internal affairs with no direct affect over Hawaii as an independent nation state!
It’s possible the U.S. Judicial system does not want any involvement in Hawaiian matters in which they were never a part of in the first place, but a decision from its courts could have a tremendous negative impact on the U.S. economy! Just a thought! I would defer the matter or play the political question doctrine myself if I was in the U.S. position, leave us in limbo until we figure things out for ourselves!
Take a look at this link too: http://www.answers.com/topic/political-question
Kawa Mahope, (not sure if that’s how its spelled) future!
Retrace the steps from our past and we will be able to move forward!
In Essence, educate those who knew us on the things done to us and rekindle our relations!
We have only one Hawaiian Kingdom! Aloha one another until huli!
God bless and Aloha!