Pi'ilani Kakalia

Thank you for sharing Hank....

Madness Must Not Go Unwatched
(Shakespeare Hamlet)

Professor Williamson Chang
University of Hawaii School of Law
The William S. Richardson School of Law

a. Two Cases from the Past Where the State failed to Prove Either Oahu or Hawaii was within the State of Hawaii—and won by pure brute force!

I’m sure many of you know my argument that the State cannot prove that the Islands of Hawaii are within the definition of the State—as set by the laws of Congress and the Hawaii State Constitution. Many of you have asked if there has ever been a situation in which I have been successful in forcing the State to admit that it has no jurisdiction. The answer is yes.

In a 1996 foreclosure case, Central Pacific Bank, after four long months of struggling with the issue, admitted it could not prove that a house in Hawaii Kai, on the island of Oahu was within the State of Hawaii. In 2015, as to Mauna Kea, the prosecution hid behind a judge who simply ruled out of order any question as to whether the defendant was within the jurisdiction of DLNR, an essential element of the crime of “obstructing.” This year, after being confirmed as an expert witness to testify that the State cannot prove that Mauna Kea is actually within the State, the Administrative Law Judge did the same—use the pure power of authority as a judge to prevent me from demanding that DLNR prove its jurisdiction---an issue the most basic in all of law.

After all, according to President Trump, the borders of the United States are the most important wall that protects us from huge threats from abroad. Yet, Hawaii has no borders. No walls can be built. The State pretends there are borders and conspires with the President. No state official, no matter how such conduct violates the ethics of legal practice and being a judge, is willing to even allow the question, the most important in all law to be ask---where is Hawaii?

b. Barring Expert Witnesses from Testimony

The oral testimony of Professor Williamson B.C. Chang, of the University of Hawaii School of Law was prevented minutes before he was scheduled to testify on two grounds: that the Court had, by minute order, declared that there will be no discussion of the “Kingdom of Hawaii,” and whether the “State of Hawaii continues to exist.” Professor Chang, who filed written testimony before his aborted live appearance on January 23, 2017, did not make any reference in his earlier written testimony, submitted to the Administrative Law Judge, or ALJ as to the Kingdom of Hawaii, nor did he claim or discuss the existence of the State of Hawaii. He had been brought to Hilo at the expense of Hanalei Fergerstrom, a party in the proceeding, not to testify on those matters, but solely on issues that are so fundamental and basic to the case that they are, by law, a matter before the ALJ whether she desires it or not.
Professor Chang was prepared to testify to two issues: First, he did not assert that the State of Hawaii does not exist—for obviously it “exists”—he is a state employee at the University. He is paid by the State of Hawaii. His pension is held by the State of Hawaii. There is no question the State of Hawaii exists—the sole question is “where is the State of Hawaii?” An entity may exist, such as the Microsoft Corporation—without having borders—indeed Microsoft is everywhere. Professor Chang’s point was that the laws of the United States and the State of Hawaii decree that the Department of Land and Natural Resources only has jurisdiction within the territorial boundaries of the State of Hawaii. It being agreed that the State of Hawaii exists, for arguments sake, the more immediate question is whether or not Mauna Kea is within the official territorial boundaries of the State of Hawaii.

c. State Law limits DLNR to the State of Hawaii

The Department of Land and Natural Resources only has territorial jurisdiction as to the “State of Hawaii,” and this is made clear in the state laws that create the DLNR. It is obvious from state law that the jurisdiction of the DLNR is limited to those territories within the State for there are many references that describe DLNR has having power only over state lands, see HRS 171-2 Definition of Public Lands—“public lands” means al the land therein in the State classed as government or crown lands, as well as that section of Hawaii law dealing with the creation of the DLNR Section 171-3: “The Department shall administer “public lands” [which must be within the state] water resources [which must be within the state] as well as state parks, and by Section 171-7 the BLNR must maintain an inventory of Public Lands [lands of the State of Hawaii] and recover monies due the State as to damages done, and the general purpose of the State Water Code, as administered by DLNR is protect the waters and welfare of the people of Hawaii as to the … economy of the State.

d. The key question: Not whether there the State exists: but “where is it?”
Thus, the jurisdiction of DLNR is limited to the territorial boundaries of the State by the laws that create the DLNR. The only question Professor Chang was to address was whether Mauna Kea was within the State, not whether or not the State exists. One can ask, for example, whether Bill Gates lives within the territorial jurisdiction of Microsoft, while conceding that Microsoft—bigger than then the economies of many countries combined, obviously does “exist.” Questions of “where” and “exist” are different.

The legal question is: “where is the state” and whether the summit of Mauna Kea is in that state. The duty of proving that Mauna Kea is within the State belongs to TMT and the State of Hawaii. By the laws of the United States and the Hawaii State Constitution Mauna Kea is within the State of Hawaii only if Mauna Kea is on an island acquired by the “Joint Resolution of 1898.” That Joint Resolution defines the territory of the State by both federal law and the Hawaii State Constitution.

Both laws state that only those islands and waters acquired by the Joint Resolution are within the State. Thus, the question becomes whether the island of Hawaii, upon which Mauna Kea rests was acquired by a joint resolution of 1898, providing for the annexing of Hawaii.

The arguments that Mauna Kea is not within the state and thus not within the jurisdiction of DLNR and thus not subject to leasing to TMT is clear from laws of the United States and the State of Hawaii---the Act admitting Hawaii as a State in 1959 and the Hawaii State Constitution. Both descriptions of “where it the State” state that the State consists of island acquired by the joint resolution.

The State and TMT has the burden of proving that the Island of Hawaii was acquired by the joint resolution of Congress.

My testimony, which is published and many already know, is that no joint resolution, a unilateral act of Congress can acquire the islands of Hawaii, which in 1898, and was a sovereign nation. For no nation, can by an act of its own law solely acquire the territory and real property of another sovereign state. If this were so, then the Kingdom of Hawaii could have, by its legislature, and nothing more acquires the United States itself.

This would mean any nation could acquire any other nation—absent war. This would ensure that the system of laws was destroyed, the concept of Nation and sovereignty meaningless, and there would be no “rule of law.

e. A Joint Resolution cannot Acquire Territory of another Sovereign Nation
The reasons that the joint resolution did not acquire the island of Hawaii are multiple: it is impossible and insane—as noted above, it is unconstitutional under the laws of the United States, and it has never occurred and can’t occur in history. If true, this would be a revolutionary change, the Justice Department itself, in the Kmiec opinion, admits it was not possible, the vast majority of Senators considering the joint resolution scoffed at the claim the joint resolution could acquire Hawaii, only two senators argued any basis for its success and both were laughed out of the Senate. Finally, the annexation of Texas is not precedent. Texas came in as a State. Hawaii was annexed as a Territory.

f. Central Pacific Bank v. Lowell Chung, Civil No. 96-4480-10 the Honorable Kevin Chang, (1996)

This issue has been raised before and the state or the moving party has failed to prove that property on the Hawaiian Islands is within the State of Hawaii. In 1996, in the case of Central Pacific Bank v. Lowell Tuck Sung Leong Chung, Civil no. 96-4480-10, a foreclosure case against my client Mr. Chung, brought by Central Pacific Bank was filed in the first circuit court in Honolulu before the Honorable Judge Kevin Chang. It was a typical foreclosure case. This time, however, Mr. Chung, the owner of the Hawaii Kai home under foreclosure and myself, his attorney, agreed to make the point about the lack of territorial boundaries.

After the foreclosure complaint had been filed against Mr. Chung, we filed an answering motion stating “prove it,” namely prove that the home in Hawaii Kai on Oahu was within the State of Hawaii—a State defined as “those islands acquired by the Joint Resolution.” Counsel for Central Pacific Bank, Bruce Yoshida, complained that never before had a Bank, in a foreclosure been asked to prove that the home foreclosed was within a Hawaii.

Yet, it was clear that the Bank had the burden of making that proof. The bank said nothing for four months. They could not prove that Hawaii Kai was within the State of Hawaii—they could not prove that the island of Oahu was an Island acquired by a piece of paper—the Joint Resolution of Congress of 1898.

Thus, four months later Mr. Yoshida threw up his hands and stated to Judge Chang, “Your honor, if what Professor Chang states is true—than nothing done in this court has ever been valid.” You might be wondering what happened to that case. Well, my client and I knew we were breaking completely new ground and that the State had no answer. We knew that the result of the case would have devastating repercussions on the property system.

Thus, we had agreed among ourselves that if we won our motion, we would withdraw the motion. We sought to show our good faith for we expected that the State of Hawaii, seeing the power of our argument would begin quiet negotiations on the future of Hawaii thereafter. However, no one ever called and no one ever mentioned the case again.

g. State of Hawaii v Ioane, Jr., 3DCW-15-0001066 (2016)

Many years later Skippy Ioane, Jr., was my client as an “obstructor-protector” at TMT. This was a criminal case. Again, I made the motion that the County prosecuting attorney must prove that Mr. Ioane was within the State of Hawaii to convict him. The prosecution was thus required to prove that he was on the island of Hawaii, while no Mauna Kea, and the Island of Mauna Kea was within the State of Hawaii—namely an island “acquired by the joint resolution.” The State called expert witnesses to prove that Hawaii Island was within the State of Hawaii. This is how my cross-examination proceeded:
Professor Chang: You said you thought it was Hilo [when you made the arrest] and then you found out when you came down that it was not Hilo?

Captain Richard Sherlock: Yeah, we learned we were mistaken.
Professor Chang: Okay. Uh, how did you know you were mistaken?
Captain Sherlock: [My major told me it was actually in the Hamakua District]

Professor Chang: Uh-huh. Um, are you—do you receive training during your course as a police officer on what district are that comprise Hawaii?

Captain Sherlock: Yes

Professor Chang: And what kinda training is that like? Do you go through law books or maps or...?”

Captain Sherlock: Hoo, that’s a long time ago, but I think for my training I know where, I mean as a Hilo captain, --my area is as –responsibility as a captain. I’m sure at some point in the past I as given the map of the island where Hamakua went to, but to be the truth, --to be truthful, I probably nevah pay attention cause I nevah thought I’d be up on the mountain arresting people.
. . . . . .
Professor Chang: Okay, um, the next question I have is you said he was in the state of Hawaii, and what is the basis for your conclusion that he’s in the State of Hawaii.

Captain Sherlock: Um, per my training this is the State of Hawaii.

[Whereupon Professor Chang asked again how Captain Sherlock knew he was in Hawaii as he did not refer to the Admission Act definition or the Hawaii State Constitution. The Prosecutor, Miss Bailey objected—and oddly the Judge sustained the objection relieving Captain Sherlock from proving how he knew Mauna Kea was within the State of Hawaii.]

Professor Chang: . . . We would like to pursue this by asking whether or not the officers in charge of enforcement of the laws are aware that there is a statute in the Admissions Act, uh which is the act admitting Hawaii as a state and in the Hawaii State Constitution that actually defines the boundaries of the State of Hawaii.

[Again, the prosecution objected and prevented the Captain from answering this question and the Judge sustained the objection---an issue that could be raised on appeal—if there was an appeal.

The Court: That’s correct. Mr. Chang, I’m going to sustain the objection.

Professor Chang: The question is whether the police officer’s know their jurisdiction. Do they know it? How do they know it?

The Court: All right.

Professor Chang: The [our] defense is the defendant was not within the boundaries as defined in the Hawaii State Constitution.

The Court: And I believe that was part of your argument.

Professor Chang: It was, um, and we asked you to take judicial notice of the Hawaii State Constitution. [Note—Hawaii law, the Rules of Evidence 202(b) require the judge to take “judicial notice” or introduce the Hawaii State Constitution as evidence. The judge has no discretion. The judge is acting directly in contravention of Hawaii Rules of Evidence 202(b)]

The Court; All right I am going to sustain the objection.

The third witness the Prosecution called was their star witness, Mr. Brandon Cain, who worked as a property appraiser. He had been in that position for over two yours, and worked in the Real Property Division. When Professor Chang asked Mr. Cain his training and credentials, the Court ruled that such was irrelevant. Mr. Cain admitted he received training to identify parcels. Finally came the critical question:

Professor Chang: Is it your contention that Hamakua District as you
drew it on the map is within the State of Hawaii?

Mr. Cain: Yes.

Professor Chang: And how do you know that?

Mr. Cain: Um, it seems reasonable that it’s in the State of Hawaii.

Professor Chang: Why?

Mr. Cain: Because, uh, this island --- is part of the state, and my job is to assess on the state.

Professor Chang: Your honor, may I approach the witness with the Hawaii State Constitution section 1, article 15 which are the state boundaries.

Miss Bailey: The State would object.

The Court: And I am going to disallow it. This island is part of the State of Hawaii—that’s his testimony.

Professor Chang: Well, I’d like him to point out how in the definition the word “Hawaii Island” appears.

The Court: I’m not going to allow it.

h. Conclusion

The question for all of us is what do to when the system, real people, real prosecutors, real judges, and even friends, beat us down, not with sticks, but knowing they do wrong, knowing that they violate our rights, knowing that they deny history, deny the truth, and profit off these actions.

This may not be Selma, or the Edmund Pettis Bridge, or even Black Lives Matter or the violation of the constitutional rights of Muslims, yet it is violence—violence practice and perpetuated by a profession that has taken an oath to support the constitution and do justice. At the law school there is belief in the “Richardson lawyer” who pursues, not wealth—but social and economic justice with courtesy and professionalism.

Today, we live in a nation torn apart by contradictions. We also live in a State living on the edge of contradictions. We thus must look outside the law for inspiration—for as we live within the unbearable strains that knowledge makes we ask what Hamlet did ask—should we do anything—or is all futile? And so they watch us, stop us, and deem us crazy:

As Shakespeare said: “Madness in great ones must not unwatched goes.’ So on and on we go with only our conscience as guide:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,

And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;

with this regard their currents turn awry,
and lose the name of action.–

[And most of us will adopt the only strategy possible—the persona that allows to live, day after day, in a society upside down, crazy, and lacking a moral compass.] End

GENOCIDE ISSUES: Williamson Chang, et. als. - Injuries On Paper AND Physical Intentions to Injure, Maim, Destroy, etc.

Rod Stewart - Have You Ever Seen The Rain (Official Video) "the calm before the storm" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oX2FSv4Rys&list=RDHphwfq1wLJs&...

GENOCIDE ISSUES: Williamson Chang, et. als. - Injuries On Paper AND Physical Intentions to Injure, Maim, Destroy, etc.

posted by Amelia Gora, a Royal Person (2016

Many of our Kamehameha's descendants/heirs and kanaka maoli/whistleblowers have been targets over the years by criminal deviants, frauds, genocide activists, pirates.

The most recent victim is Williamson Chang who was in a head on collision with a DLNR/ Department of Land and Natural Resources truck.

Williamson Chang spent time in the hospital for serious head injuries.

Kanaka Maoli Williamson Chang has defended many kanaka maoli in court cases, recently the TMK - Telescope Mauna Kea and posting that the entity Sham State eliminated posts of Annexation, etc.:

Williamson Chang

May 7 ·

State Department Deletes “Joint Resolution” from Official History of the Annexation of
Hawaii and of the “Spanish American War:” Admits that we are Right that Hawaii could not be acquired by Joint Resolution

Williamson Chang
Professor of Law
University of Hawaii at Manoa

May 6, 2016

On April 17, 2014 at a forum held at the University of Hawaii School of Law I presented evidence for the first time in 20 years that the by the laws of the United States itself the United States had never acquired the Hawaiian Islands. Many of you are familiar with this argument. It was repeated over and over again in the Department of Interior hearings held in the summer of 2014.

I have stated this again and again, to the DLNR and in State and Federal Courts. On September 8, 2001, I was sanctioned [fined] by Judge Susan Mollway in Federal District Court for 76,000 dollars for using the lack of subject matter jurisdiction of the United States as a defense for my Native Hawaiian clients.

The United States has always claimed that it acquired Hawaii by a Joint Resolution. That is impossible. If the United States had the sovereignty to acquire Hawaii, the Kingdom of Hawai, as a co-equal and independent sovereign could have acquired the United States by an act of its own Legislative Assembly.

By deception and coercion, the United States has bluffed us and fooled the world into believing that it had actual sovereignty and jurisdiction over Hawaii. The United States took 1.8 million acres of Crown and Government lands, without any compensation, by the very same Joint Resolution in 1898.

The United States has never claimed it acquired Hawaii by any other manner---that is by conquest, or by acquisitive prescription which is the same concept as adverse possession as applied by nation states.

Prior to the disclosure of the truth on April 17, 2014 the Office of the Historian of the United States Department of State, the body that writes the official history of the United States, admitted that the United States had taken Hawaii “by pretext” and by a “joint resolution. The description of the history of Hawaii prior to removal read as follows:

" Annexation of Hawaii: 1898: America's annexation of Hawaii in 1898 extended U.S. territory into the Pacific and highlighted resulted from economic integration and the rise of the United States as a Pacific power. For most of the 1800s, leaders in Washington were concerned that Hawaii might become part of a European nation's empire. During the 1830s, Britain and France forced Hawaii to accept treaties giving them economic privileges.

In 1842, Secretary of State Daniel Webster sent a letter to Hawaiian agents in Washington affirming U.S. interests in Hawaii and opposing annexation by any other nation. He also proposed to Great Britain and France that no nation should seek special privileges or engage in further colonization of the islands. In 1849, the United States and Hawaii concluded a treaty of friendship that served as the basis of official relations between the parties.”

In the fall of 2014, the above description was removed and replaced with the following excuse:

“Notice to readers: This article has been removed pending review to ensure it meets our standards for accuracy and clarity. The revised article will be posted as soon as it is ready. In the meantime, we apologize for any inconvenience, and we thank you for your patience.”

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/hawaii. [Last Visited February 22, 2015 1:25 PM HST]

On April 28, 2016, the above “excuse” was removed and now the site describing the annexation of Hawaii is completely barren:

"Milestones: 1866–1898
Annexation of Hawaii, 1898"

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/hawaii [Last checked May 6, 2016 900 pm]

However, during the past two years, the Office of Historian neglected to check its site on the Spanish American War. In that section the United States admitted taking Hawaii by “pretext” and by a joint resolution:

"The McKinley Administration also used the war as a pretext to annex the independent state of Hawaii. In 1893, a group of Hawaii-based planters and businessmen led a coup against Queen Liliuokalani and established a new government. They promptly sought annexation by the United States, but President Grover Cleveland rejected their requests. In 1898, however, President McKinley and the American public were more favorably disposed toward acquiring the islands. Supporters of annexation argued that Hawaii was vital to the U.S. economy, that it would serve as a strategic base that could help protect U.S. interests in Asia, and that other nations were intent on taking over the islands if the United States did not. At McKinley’s request, a joint resolution of Congress made Hawaii a U.S. territory on August 12, 1898." [Emphasis added]

https://web.archive.org/…/mi…/1866-1898/spanish-american-war

By April of 2016, the Spanish American War cite had been “cleansed.” The word “pretext” and the reference to the taking of Hawaii by a Joint Resolution were removed. This is how that site reads today. Someone at the State Department had been sleeping on the job. During the past two years I have cited to the language in the Spanish American War as evidence the United States was still making the absurd claim that Hawaii had been taken by a joint resolution. Finally, someone at the State Department read my writing and today the description of the Spanish American has been changed to delete the words “pretext” and “joint resolution. If you check that website today you will find that they removed the admission that annexation was a “pretext” and the claim that Hawaii was taken by ”Joint Resolution.”

"Milestones: 1866–1898
The Spanish-American War, 1898
The Spanish-American War of 1898 ended Spain’s colonial empire in the Western Hemisphere and secured the position of the United States as a Pacific power. U.S. victory in the war produced a peace treaty that compelled the Spanish to relinquish claims on Cuba, and to cede sovereignty over Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines to the United States. The United States also annexed the independent state of Hawaii during the conflict. Thus, the war enabled the United States to establish its predominance in the Caribbean region and to pursue its strategic and economic interests in Asia."

What happened? First, the United States now realizes we are right—it is stupid to claim that Hawaii was acquired by a joint resolution. Thus, they are on a campaign to delete “joint resolution” wherever they can. Two, it means that the Department of Justice and the State Department are watching and listening to what we say and write.

Of course they have the technology: the National Security Agency reads every email and listens to every phone call made in the United States. Surprise! We are being watched! However, even better, the United States by deleting “joint resolution” in its official history is admitting that we are right-a joint resolution could never have acquired Hawaii.

Watching out for you
Mahalo
Professor Wiliamson Chang

Milestones: 1866–1898 - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov

Nai Aupuni Decision To Sidestep Legal Challenge Raises New Legal Issues

Cory Lum/Civil Beat

Community Voice

Nai Aupuni Decision To Sidestep Legal Challenge Raises New Legal Is...

December 17, 2015 ·By Williamson Chang

A law professor and Nai Aupuni delegate candidate explores the legality and impact of the decision to abandon the election and seat all 196 candidates.

On Annexation of Hawaii, Scalia Fails Constitutionality Test

Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

Community Voice

On Annexation of Hawaii, Scalia Fails Constitutionality Test

March 7, 2015 ·By Williamson Chang

A joint resolution of Congress doesn’t empower the United States to acquire another country. Only a treaty can do that.

Kerry’s Visit a Chance to Answer Questions on Native Hawaiian Recognition

PF Bentley/Civil Beat

Community Voice

Kerry’s Visit a Chance to Answer Questions on Native Hawaiian Recog...

August 13, 2014 ·By Williamson Chang

Will the Secretary of State address the single most important question raised in Hawaii since 1898.

see films on Williamson Chang:

http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/legal-notice-introducing-th...

Summary

We wish Williamson Chang the best and hope he heals.

At the end of his article on annexation notice that he said "Watching Out for You"....but folks, who's Watching Out for Him?

The entity Sham State stands to lose in many ways, including the eventual removal of them from being a identity thieves operating from a foreign nation which contributed in dethroning our Queen Liliuokalani in 1893.

The minimal moves (ex. changing the dates on Queen Liliuokalani's statue outside the Iolani Palace/ the Palace to show that she was Queen until 1917, etc.) to eliminate their malicious intent of occupying a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation is now exposed for all to see.

Racketeering, false flag operations are now seen in what happened over the years.

The criminal claim of a black man President who was born in a foreign country will continue disregarding the truth, the proof by many.

Williamson Chang, by showing that it is impossible to Annex a nation foreign to the United States appears to be the main reason he became a target to criminal deviants.

There are many other Kamehameha's, kanaka maoli who have been victims of criminal deviants over time and ALL kanaka maoli need to be vigilant.

We remain a neutral, friendly, non violent nation, the de jure government in place.

The 192 nations who recently met in Hawaii at Obama's begging has been given false claims by a foreign born President whose citizens needs to charge as treason for his reckless moves against all nations including the Kingdom of Hawaii.

Hawaii's Royal Families exists. Those exposing Truth are being injured, maimed, killed.

Please report all incidents because we are Not the ones who did wrong. Prosecution as pirates, pillagers, genocide activists, etc. are part of the permanent Treaty of Friendship, Commerce Article XIV applications to be used against those who move as defenders of occupiers who are Not from a legal government in the Hawaiian Islands.

aloha.