COUNTING THE WRONGS........... or Problematic issues affecting the Kingdom of Hawaii/Hawaiian Kingdom Today
Views: 1
Replies to This Discussion
- Permalink Reply by
- 1959 - Oppositions to Statehood
CATHCART, ABEL KAMA!, prin. Kaluaaha puli. school, Molo- kai; born Honolulu, April 5, 1886; son of Robert W. and Keolamauloa (Pakalaka) Cathcart; married Eliz- abeth K. Ana, at Honolulu, Aug. 10, 1912; four children: Kalani Flor- ence, Abel Kamai, Madeline Helene, Victor Ana (deceased), and by for- mer marriage, John, Samuel, Enoch, Robert (deceased), Joseph, Hattie, Keola, Josephine. Educated public schools, St. Louis College, Terr. Normal School. Teacher Makena, Maui, 1903-04; prin. Waialua, Molo- kai, 1905-12; prin. Kapapala, Kau, Hawaii, 1912-13; prin. Nahiku, Maui, 1913-15; teacher, Kaneohe, Oahu, 1915-18; prin. Kaluaaha, Mo- lokai, 1918 to date. Member Civic Federation, Molokai; Terr. Teach- ers' Assn., Maui Principals' Club.
Reference: https://archive.org/stream/menofhawaiibiogr00sidd/menofhawaiibiogr0...
IMPORTANT:
Full text of "Men of Hawaii; a biographical reference library, comp...
BELL, HARRY R., merchant, Honokaa, Hawaii; born in Wheel- ing. ...... 10, 1912; four children: Kalani Flor- ence, Abel Kamai, Madeline Helene, Victor ... Paul, Minn.; son of Alexander H. and Rebecca (Marshall) Cath- cart; married Mary ...... D. C, 1905-06, successfully opposing administration's measure for joint- statehood ...*******************************
Note: Because Opposition to Statehood was made....Sovereignty Shall be stated Randall
Lee, Paralegal instructor who became Judge. Cathcart was one of Kamehameha's descendants/heirs. He was a cousin of my great grandmother Mele Keawe/Mele Kauweloa who helped withe genealogy research.
Additionally, the Kingdom of Hawaii/Hawaiian Kingdom continued on even after 1893 because U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii back Twice: In 1894 and 1897. Premeditation to assume Hawaii has been found. Fraud vitiates all claims and all contracts. Conspiracy (ies) have been recorded after evidence was found over time.
OTHER OPPOSITIONS TO STATEHOOD RECORDED:
Friday, August 18, 2017Hawaii Statehood: Tiny 1959 opposition was anti-Japanese, not anti-... By Andrew Walden @ 5:46 AM :: 26858 Views :: Hawaii Historyby Andrew Walden (Originally published August 21, 2009)Citing 50-year-old “gossip” as its source, The Honolulu Advertiser August 9 tries to convince readers that, “the main opposition to statehood was posed by Native Hawaiians still stinging from the illegal overthrow of their monarchy and the subsequent annexation of Hawai'i by the United States, and by the territory's white elite, who feared that statehood might compromise their standing.”In reality the miniscule 6% opposition to Statehood in 1959 was motivated by a fear of elections. Opponents preferred to continue with a Territorial government consisting of officials appointed by Washington rather than a State government elected by voters who were heavily Japanese-American and heavily tied to plantation labor. Opponents of Statehood were landed aristocracy fearful of being ruled by their employees.There is no continuity between the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 20th century opposition to Statehood, and the modern Gramscian construct known as the “Sovereignty Movement.” Hawaiians embraced the United States in 1902 when Prince Jonah Kuhio, heir to Liliuokalani, abandoned Robert Wilcox’ Home Rule Party, joined the Republican Party and was elected Territorial delegate. In 1903 the Hawaiian-Republican territorial legislature passed its first pro-Statehood resolution. In 1919, Rep Kuhio presented the first Hawaii Statehood bill to Congress.The modern “Sovereignty Movement” is the product of the late 1960s-early 1970s campus Marxist upsurge. Its origins at Kalama Valley are directly tied to the activities of Vietnam-era radicals at UH Manoa. (This will be the subject of a future article.)Even the Advertiser is forced to admit that, “there is no evidence of any organized attempt by Native Hawaiians to turn the tide of public opinion regarding statehood.” In spite of this, the Advertiser’s August 9 article is misleadingly titled, “Hawaii’s move into Statehood traumatic for many Hawaiians.” The entire so-called trauma is a post-1970 development.Advertiser writer Michael Tsai cites the 1949 testimony of Alice Kamokila Campbell before the US Senate as a rare example “of the only public testimonies against statehood by someone of Native Hawaiian ancestry.”Tsai falsely presents Campbell’s testimony as a counterpoint to the attitudes of the pro-Statehood 1940s and 1950s Hawaiians described as “raised in ignorance” by UH Hawaiian Studies Prof. Lilikala Kame`eleihiwa. Tsai even adulterates an out-of-context quote from Campbell to make it appear as if Campbell’s opposition to Statehood had something to do with the loss of “Hawaiian land.”As a Territory the Hawaii Territorial Governor and Territorial judges were appointed from Washington. If Hawaii achieved Statehood, the Governor would be elected locally and judges would be appointed by locally elected Governor and legislature. Worse yet, depending on how the state constitution was written, judges could even have been elected.Campbell was in no way speaking as a representative of Hawaiians “traumatized” by the overthrow of their Kingdom 50-plus years earlier. On the contrary, her testimony discusses how Hawaiians came to terms with becoming American. (Another excellent look at evolving Hawaiian attitudes, from the Kingdom, to the Republic, Territory, and State, comes in Bob Krauss’ 1994 book: “Johnny Wilson, First Hawaiian Democrat.”)She was speaking as a large Campbell estate landowner who was afraid of living under the rule of an electedState government controlled by plantation workers. She expressed her fears in numerous public statements over a period of at least 10 years. Her line was anti-Communist. She questioned the loyalty of the Japanese and Chinese in Hawaii. Campbell’s 1949 testimony even questioned the loyalty of AJA WW2 soldiers serving in the 442nd Infantry.Tsai adds the words “Hawaiian land” to produce this doctored, out-of-context 1949 Campbell quote:In context, here is what Campbell actually said:Quoted in the Advertiser, UH Hawaiian Studies Chair Lilikala Kame`eleihiwa (who legally changed her name from Lilikala L. Dorton) alternately insults 1950s-era Hawaiians and on the other hand invents non-existent resistance. She tells the Advertiser that 1959 Hawaiians did not know “we had any rights” and were “raised in ignorance.” On the other hand, like so many other sovereignty activists, she claims her mother, “as a Hawaiian she was scared to say no, and most of her friends were, too. So she, like them, didn't vote. It was her small way of protesting.”In contrast to Kame`eleihiwa’s unverifiable claims, the contemporary account of the angry reaction Campbell's anti-Japanese sentiments received from her pro-Statehood Democratic colleagues shows vigorous pro-Statehood advocacy by ancestors of several of today’s prominent Hawaiian leaders.After Campbell publicly made anti-Japanese and anti-Chinese remarks at an October 30, 1944 Democratic campaign rally, the Honolulu Advertiser November 2, 1944 reports that Hawaii Democratic Chair William H Heen and Democrat Senator David K Trask physically prevented Campbell from speaking at a Democratic campaign rally at Kamamalu park November 1.Campbell refused pressure to resign as Democratic National Committeewoman. Campbell told the Star-Bulletin November 2, 1944, “they to put that other woman (Victoria Holt) in there.”These names should be familiar as the grandfather of current OHA Vice-Chair Walter M. Heen, the grandfather of Mililani and Haunani Trask and a relative of Victoria Holt Takamine.But that’s not all. Hawaiians rejected Campbell’s rhetoric. The Honolulu Record, December 29, 1949describes results of the Kalawahine-Kewalo Hawaiian Homestead election as “a slap at Alice Kamokila Campbell, recent appointee of Governor Stainback to the Hawaiian Homes Commission.” Anti-Campbell election winners included some with familiar family names such as Albert K Stender, Mrs. Elizabeth H Stender, and Mrs. Helen Kanahele.This is what happens when a paper trail exists. Like UFO sightings, or claims that President Obama was born in Kenya, sovereignty activists’ stories about their parents’ opposition to Statehood are always unverifiable—yet the Advertiser, August 9, elects to highlight several such stories.Sovereignty activists are fond of pointing to the 1897-98 anti-Annexation petitions signed by thousands of Hawaiians. But on February 24, 1954 a 250 lb. petition containing 120,000 Hawaii signatures in favor of Statehood was sent to Congress. This reporter wonders whose grandparents and parents signed that petition. Given the fact that the district including Molokai voted 97% for Statehood in 1959, and the vote was 94% for Statehood overall, many of the unverifiable claims by activists are simply not credible.Tsai argues that only “35 percent of all eligible voters” backed Statehood in the 1959 referendum. The 1959 referendum turnout of 140,000 was then the highest turnout ever in a Hawaii election. To imply that this throws into doubt the broad support for Statehood in 1959 falsely presumes that many eligible voters who did not cast a ballot was against Statehood. In fact there were large spontaneous celebrations of Statehood throughout the islands and by Hawaiians on the mainland as well.In contrast to Tsai’s description, there is zero evidence that the 6% opposition in the 1959 referendum was based on “trauma” left over from the 1893 overthrow. Campbell's public opposition had to do with being a landed aristocrat fearful of facing a government elected by her employees and tenants.Even Kekuni Blaisdell and Chris Conybeare’s anti-Statehood propaganda site www.StatehoodHawaii.orgpoints out, “the district that registered the most ‘no’ votes came from the more affluent and Caucasian dominated Diamond Head/Kahala district.” (In Oahu’s 17th Dist, the vote was 8.3% against Statehood.) This result is completely in line with the fears expressed in Campbell’s 1949 anti-Japanese pro-Territory testimony. As for Campbell herself, on November 25, 1956 she wrote a letter to the editor of the Advertiser arguing that no more Congressional investigations of "communism" were needed in Hawaii. After the March 18, 1959 signing by President Eisenhower of the Hawaii Admission Act, she told reporters, “I have always been opposed to statehood, but now it is here and many of my friends like it, I shall try to like it too."Tsai points out that, “The only precinct to reject the invitation was Ni'ihau, the restricted island whose population is almost entirely Native Hawaiian.”Given the results from Molokai’s heavily Hawaiian district, where only 75 people voted against Statehood, it cannot be claimed that the Niihau vote was a reflection of Hawaiian anti-American or pro-Monarchy sentiment. More likely it was a reflection of the same anti-Japanese attitudes expressed by Campbell.Niihau had been the site of a December, 1941 incident where a downed Japanese fighter pilot from the Pearl Harbor attack force was spontaneously aided by a Japanese-American employee of the Robinson family (owners of Niihau) in holding the entire island’s population at gunpoint for two weeks. Niihauan Beni Kanahele, eventually freed the island by killing the pilot after being shot three times. He was immortalized in the song: “They couldn’t take Niihau no how.” Such an incident may have caused Niihauans to share some of Campbell’s fears 18 years later. Their vote may also have reflected the attitude of the island's owners.Campbell explained her views in 1949:Under the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Hawaii Republic, Asian laborers were brought to Hawaii under terms of indentured servitude—semi-slavery—to serve the profit needs of the Hawaiian and Haole landowners. Conditions on Hawaii’s sugar plantations were often compared unfavorably to the treatment of black slaves in the antebellum US South. It was only with the adoption of American law under the 1900 Organic Act that semi-slavery was abolished in Hawaii.Sovereignty activist Kekuni Blaisdell describes the Act which abolished semi-slavery thusly: “for us Kanaka, the subsequent 1900 U.S.-imposed Organic Act, spelled official U.S. domination, subjugation and exploitation.”In 2008 the UH Manoa Ethnic Studies published a book of Trask-sister scribblings titled, “Asian Settler Colonialism: From local governance to the habits of everyday life in Hawai`i.” This writer is unable to find any other example of other cultural nationalist movements anywhere characterizing slaves, semi-slaves, or their descendants as “colonial settlers”.But perhaps the lesson is that the modern sovereignty activists are just as reactionary, and erratic as Alice Campbell. They both represent thin elite groups seeking to rule over and exploit the general public: Campbell, by virtue of her land ownership, in alliance with the US with Hawaii as a Territory -- The “sovereignty movement”, by virtue of their purportedly greater “consciousness”, in alliance with the US with Hawaiians as a Tribe.The more things change, the more they stay the same.---30---Newsreel footage of 1959 Statehood CelebrationsResults of 1959 Statehood ReferendumHonolulu Record V2 #23-24-25 has excerpts from Campbell's testimony: http://www.hawaii.edu/uhwo/clear/HonoluluRecord1/volume2.htmlBook Kodomo Tame Ni has excerpts of Campbell testimony (pp 397-401): http://books.google.com/books?id=EYewUv20s7AC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=falseRELATED:- Prince Kuhio: The bridge from Kingdom to State
- Our American Triumph: Civil Rights and Hawaii Statehood
- The Frank Marshall Davis Network in Hawaii
- Akaka Bill Reading List
- Barack Obama Reading list
- Antonio Gramsci Reading List
STATEMENTS OF Sen Alice Kamokila Campbell*****Star-Bulletin 11-2-1944“Here Is Statement Sen. Campbell Tried To Give At Democratic Rally”Mr. Chairman, guests of the Democratic Party, aloha:I am a holdover senator and national Democratic committeewoman for Hawaii. Yesterday (Tuesday) afternoon I was notified that I have been muzzled and forbidden to speak tonight on behalf of my party, so I will speak as a voter, a taxpayer, a Democrat who believes in the kind of democracy our men are fighting for on all battlefronts, and as a 100 per cent American.When I say I have worked and tried to gain for Hawaii 100 per cent Americanism, I speak from my heart.What I am to say tonight is still 100 per cent Americanism and I do not need anybody to apologize for any statements I have made or will make.In telling the truth unflatteringly, on October 30 at Lanakila park the Americans in Japanese and Chinese groups resented some of my statements and, as the expression goes, “are up in arms.” Why?I ask all real Americans, is this territory an integral part of Japan, China or America? It is high time we find out.A man or woman voting as an American does not need to be forced or bought; he votes or should vote for the candidate, in his estimation, who is best qualified for the position regardless of race color or creed.We are in war today as Americans fighting desperately for freedom and democracy and for that reason I owe my allegiance to America and everyone privileged to be born in this great country and not to one man political control or any particular group control.We have been fighting this bitter war for nearly three years to preserve what—the four freedoms as our own great president Franklin Delano Roosevelt has reminded us, one of which is freedom of speech.I have been threatened that if I run for reelection two years hence they will kill me politically. What care I? I have gotten all the fun and headaches that go with local politics, and anyone who wants to succeed me is welcome to the job.Men, women and even children you owe it to God, your country and to yourselves to be fearless Americans, all American. Hawaii needs loyalty today and far into the future—give her the kind of loyalty that only a real American knows. I thank you. Goodnight.*****Statement of Mrs. Alice Kamokila Campbell Congressional Testimony, January 17, 1946Mrs. Campbell. Now I don’t know, Senator, just what you wanted to see me for. I am here to answer any questions.Senator Cordon. Mrs Campbell, I want your views on the advisability of the enactment by Congress of the pending bill granting statehood to the Territory of Hawaii. I have understood that you are opposed to passage of legislation at this time. I am interested in the reasons which bring you to that contention. - Edit 15 minutes left to edit your comment.
- Permalink Reply by
- Mrs. Campbell. First I will give it to you from the standpoint of a Hawaiian, the land being the land of my people. I naturally am jealous of it being in the hands of any alien influence. It took us quite a while to get used to being Americans—from a Hawaiian to an American—but I am very proud today of being an American. I don’t want ever to feel that I am ashamed of being an American. But I think that in the past 10 years I have lost a sense of balance here in Hawaii as to the future safety of my land. This un-American influence has come into our country, and even in the report of the Governor you will see where he says one-third of the population are Japanese. If we are a State they would have the power to vote and they would use every exertion to see that every vote was counted, if we become a State. As it is now, I feel the confidence and I feel the sincerity of Congress, and know they are not going to forsake us.Now there are two things that I have been thinking of. What could make the average American in his own land afraid to speak? It is a very unnatural thing.First there is the purchasing power of the Chinese and the Japanese combination in this country. The outsider coming in says “Oh no; the Chinese hate the Japs and the Japs hate the Chinese.” Don’t you believe it, Senator Cordon. The Chinese and Japanese are so tied up together in this community that if we ever went to war they would have a stranglehold on us. We cannot afford to talk. We cannot afford to talk to Russia, is what I claim today, because of that situation. Those for statehood come forward; those who are not for statehood won’t make their statements showing where they stand.Who supplies our fish? The Japanese. Who do they sell to? The Chinese storeman. Who supplies our chicken and eggs? The Japanese. Who do they sell to? The Chinese—Chun Hoon, C. Q. Yee Hop. Who supplies our pork? This is a pork-eating country. The Japanese. Who do they sell to? C. Q. Yee Hop who is a wholesale man, and that combination goes on and on and on. I say Russia could afford to say—and I should take a chance as one born here in Hawaii—to have Russia say, “All right, you Chinese and Japanese, you come and fight for us. We will give you the Territory of Hawaii.” Should I take these chances of giving my land up and permitting Russia for one minute to do it? We don’t know where Russia stands. Russia does not want this Territory. Russia is out to get Europe. Congress knows that. I know it. I am not hiding it. If it was any other nationality I would have to say the same thing; that we must be careful. I don’t want to have a Japanese judge tell me how to act in my own country, no more than you Americans over on the other side would want an Indian to overrule you, or a Negro, which are among your American people.Senator Cordon. We have judges of both.Mrs Campbell. I know, but it is not racial prejudice with me. There is still a very bitter feeling; there is still a very great racial feeling there on the mainland, because when I went on a trip the Negroes were all put in one car; the Negroes were set aside, and yet they are Americans.The Japanese are not my people. The Chinese are not my people. The Caucasians, yes, and by adoption it makes me an American, and I am proud to be an American, and as an American I don’t want to see an unhealthy condition here in these islands. It is an unhealthy condition. We are not safe when in an American country one-third of the population are Japanese. The Governor himself says that in his report, at which I was surprised—one third, in an American country. I cannot see it. I am too much an American, Senator, to see anything but Americans here.(following section not included in Kodomo No Tame Ni, but included in Honolulu record V2, No 24.) http://www.hawaii.edu/uhwo/clear/HonoluluRecord1/volume2.htmlWhy has all this Communism come into our country?Senator Cordon. Has it?Mrs. Campbell. It has come in, and it is coming from the Japanese, because they cannot get enough land to live on. This is what started communism in Russia. We know that. It is the peasant having his own little holdings to live on and to take care of and who knew that that was his. Russia would not have had communism otherwise, nor been in the state of affairs it is there. Communism has come in, and I am afraid of what the situation will be in a couple of years when the Caucasians—those who have come here to help out during wartime—when they start going home, and they are going home fast, Senator, and they want to go home fast; they want to get out of this place.(This section included in Kodomo No Tame Ni, but not in Honolulu Record)Senator Cordon. Mrs Campbell, let me ask you for your judgment as to the extent to which the native-born American, and that is what he is, in the islands, of Japanese extraction, has foresworn the Government and the ways of his ancestors, and adopted those of his native country--America.Mrs. Campbell. Yes.Senator Cordon. What is your judgment as to whether he has done that or hasn’t?Mrs. Campbell. I would say a lot of them, maybe a great majority, have taken on American ways. Why shouldn’t they?Senator Cordon. Well, they should.Mrs. Campbell. They are American people.Senator Cordon. But I seek to determine whether they have. I don’t mean as a cloak.Mrs. Campbell. No, no.Senator Cordon. Mrs. Campbell, I mean as an existing fact, in respect to their lives and beliefs.(This section included in both sources.)Mrs. Campbell. Is say a great many—in fairness to the Japanese, I say they have taken on the form of Americanism, and as to those, I am proud of them; but I say “but”—because this is a great “but”—why do they keep insisting and emphasizing to an American that they are of Japanese ancestry? Why don’t they drop it? Isn’t it enough to say that “I am an American”, and have us all understand that they are American “period.” But when they try to keep saying “of Japanese ancestry”; “of Japanese ancestry,” why do they do it? Why do they want to bring up the Japanese ancestry?Senator Cordon. Perhaps because my dad, who was born in England, ‘til the date of his death loved roast beef.Mrs. Campbell. Why, any more than I should keep saying “I am an American of Hawaiian ancestry.” Who cares? Another American only wants to know “Are you an American?” I am an American “period.” My Hawaiian ancestry does not mean a thing. It is: What am I today? An American. I may be wrong, Senator, but I don’t like having them ram down my throat all the time “I am an American of Japanese ancestry, “ trying to make me feel that they went away with the Four Hundred and Forty-second or the One Hundredth Battalion—they went away to fight for a foreign country because they were Japanese? No. Why don’t they say “We went away to fight for our country”? It is always, “Americans of Japanese ancestry.” Why? Because they want the praise of the Japanese—fighting for your country and my country. I can’t see it. I am too much of an American. I am an American “period.” That is all I know. And that is why I may be a little bit bitter down here, when they try to ram down my throat “Japanese.”No one but those who were here in Hawaii, and lived in Hawaii, as I do, will ever forget December 7. Who was it that brought on that attack of December 7? The people who were here, right here in this country, whom I thought were loyal to my country. I thought they were Americans. They gave out the information to their own people in Japan. Blood is thicker than water. That is my contention. I cannot help it. I am basing a lot of these things on that. I am interested in the safety of Hawaii; in the safety of the people. It includes the Japanese too, but it is Hawaii first, last, and always in my heart, and I will fight and fight for that. Who wants Hawaii to be a State? They cater to the Japanese. Why? Because the Japanese vote is what everyone wants.(Honolulu Record concludes here, Kodomo No Tame Ni continues, possibly with ellipsis.)* * *Mrs. Campbell. …That is the sad part about Hawaii today. There are many things that are not right. I was born here. It was through my interest as a representative family, and a member of a representative family of Hawaii, to watch the trend of the people that were permitted to come into this country, and I have watched it without prejudice. I have Japanese servants. I have a servant who has been with me—a Japanese, an alien—for 42 years, and that woman is still with me. I don’t hate her because she is an alien, because she is Japanese. No, I don’t even suspect her, but it is not of the generation we have to watch.Senator Cordon. You mean the new?Mrs. Campbell. The new generation. They say they are the third and fourth generations. They are the first and second, if the truth were known, because the first generation to me is one that the alien parents; that is the first generation. You never hear of the issei; you hear of the nisei, which makes a generation in between; the nisei is the second generation. That is all you hear about, the nisei, the nisei, but no, it is the issei that I am after. They are misrepresenting them….(Balance of testimony not yet retrieved. This will be updated when the balance of testimony becomes available.)
- Edit 15 minutes left to edit your comment.
- Permalink Reply by
- 1993 - Apology PL 103-150 - Admission of Crimes.Note: Apology was Not Accepted by the Royal Families.
Reference:[PDF]107 STAT. 1510 PUBLIC LAW 103-150—NOV. 23, 1993 Public Law ...
23, 1993. Public Law 103-150. 103d Congress. Joint Resolution. Nov 23 1993 "^^ acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the Jtinuary 17, 1893 overthrow of the.[PDF]LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS
PUBLIC LAW. 103-121 . ... Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1994 ... 103-150 .... To acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17,.1996 - Affidavit/Lien filed on 12/17/96 (281 pages) at the Bureau of Conveyances by Amelia Gora. I was told that if anything in the document were true, it was a lien on all of the Islands/Hawaiian Islands.The lien covers who are the Crown Land owners, genealogies of the Royal Families, Premeditation to assume the Hawaiian Kingdom with reports of plans made in Makua Valley, evidence of the fear of Japan and the role of the Americans in Hawaii who planned and paid for a cable to help the United States which would inform them that the Japanese were passing by the Islands. The United States feared that it would take more than 10 years to get the Japanese out of San Francisco Bay, etc. Strategic maps were also posted showing the Hawaiian Islands sphere, the Samoan Islands sphere, and Aetearoa/New Zealand sphere. Frauds, criminal deviance also documented. Some of our Royal Families evidence also documented.Reference: IOLANI - The Royal Hawk news on the web, articles, books, pamphlets by Amelia Gora.The Valor Of Ignorance By Homer Lea - Thebookishblog
Homer Lea pdf The Valor of Ignorance, then you've come to the loyal site. We have The ... WorldCatHome About WorldCat Help Feedback. Search. Search for ...The valor of ignorance, with specially prepared maps : Lea, Homer ...
Oct 2, 2007 - The valor of ignorance, with specially prepared maps ... This is in some sense a prophetic volume, as Lea correctly sees the inevitability of a ...The Valor of Ignorance: Homer Lea: 9781142699284: Amazon.com ...
The Valor of Ignorance [Homer Lea] on Amazon.com. *FREE* ... by Homer Lea (Author). 3.2 out of 5 ... In this neighborhood, danger lies close to home. A thriller .. - Edit 15 minutes left to edit your comment.
- Permalink Reply by
- ***************************Then in 2009 - The Supreme Court moved:2009 -
Global Legal Monitor
http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/header_glm.jpg"/>
United States: Supreme Court Rules that U.S. Apology for Overthrowing Hawaiian Monarchy Does Not Affect Hawaii Public Lands
(Apr. 10, 2009) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 31, 2009, that a 1993 Congressional resolution apologizing for the role of the United States in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 does not affect the right of the State of Hawaii to sell public lands.U.S. officials participated in the 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. In 1898, the U.S. annexed Hawaii and obtained ownership of all public and crown lands. In 1959, when Hawaii became a state, the U.S. granted the state government all lands it had obtained in 1898, to be held by the state as a public trust. Hawaii state law authorizes the state to sell the public lands, provided the proceeds are held in trust for Hawaiian citizens. A 1993 joint resolution by the U.S. Congress apologized for the role of the U.S. in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy. The resolution provided that nothing in the resolution was “intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.” (Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Public Law No. 103-150, 107 Stat. 1510 (1993), available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=103_cong_bills
&docid=f:sj19enr.txt.pdf.)Hawaii's Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC) received approval to remove a tract of former crown land from the public trust and redevelop it, upon compensating the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), which manages funds from the use or sale of ceded lands for the benefit of native Hawaiians. Relying on the apology resolution, OHA demanded that, in addition to monetary compensation, the payment include a disclaimer preserving native Hawaiian claims to the lands. When HFDC declined, citing the difficulty in obtaining title insurance when land title is clouded, OHA sued to enjoin the sale of the parcel until final determination of native Hawaiians' claims. The state trial court entered a judgment against OHA. The Supreme Court of Hawaii vacated that judgment, ruling that the 1993 apology resolution dictated that it enjoin all sales of lands ceded to the U.S. in 1898 until resolution of the claims of native Hawaiians to those lands. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.The Court first ruled that it had jurisdiction in this matter, because the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision rested on federal law, the 1993 apology resolution. The Court then held that the apology resolution did not strip Hawaii of its sovereign authority to sell the lands the U.S. granted the state upon its admission to the Union. The Court said that neither of the two substantive provisions of the apology resolution – one that apologized for the role of the U.S. in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy, and another that disclaimed that the resolution served to settle any claims against the U.S. – affected Hawaii's right to sell the land granted it by the U.S. when Hawaii was admitted as a state. The Court also ruled that the numerous “whereas” clauses at the beginning of the resolution did not have operative effect on Hawaii's rights to sell public lands. (Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, No. 07-1372 (Mar. 31, 2009), available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1372.pdf..)Amelia Gora <hawaiianhistory@gmail.com>
9:39 AM (0 minutes ago)
to Poka, pilipo, `Ehu, Al, alFrensel, Alika, Bill, Brennan, Carmelita, Clara, dayna_cds, Derek, DoraDee, Eddy, Evern, Gaellen, George, Gerald, gordon, Hawe, Ikaika, imai, Jamie, jaskat, JohnHi Pilipo,Found your 1975 Act:1975 - Hawaiian Native Claims Settlement Act Part I - Edit 15 minutes left to edit your comment.
- Permalink Reply by
- SUMMARYEfforts have been made over time to extinguish a legal, lawful Treaty between two nations have been attacked by Congress who has no authority to intervene in a legal contractual agreement between two nations - The Kingdom of Hawaii with Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli, his heirs and successors (the entity State of Hawaii which evolved from an identity theft situation illegally set in place by U.S. President McKinley who did Not have the rights to enact a Proclamation against a Nation which was given back by U.S. President Cleveland twice - 1) in 1894, and 2) in 1897.The Treaty follows the U.S. Constitution and Not a Secret Constitution agreed to by the bankers in 1877 (see youtube.com Karen Hudes whistleblower of the World Bank) and the criminal setup of the formation of two nations to extinguish the lawful nation called the Kingdom of Hawaii and place it under the American Empire. The two part nation formed from the United States of America also has the United States in place and can no longer legally treaty with any nation because of its bankruptcy.Our Treaty follows the U.S. Constitution of the time and is and remains a legal treaty, a permanent treaty of friendship and amity with the rights to adjudicate pirates, pillagers, etc. as shown in Article XIV of the 1849/1850 Treaty.Premeditation, fraud, conspiracies, piracy, racketeering, corruption, etc. is documented.Ongoing attacks against our neutral, friendly, non-violent nation is Not O.K. Rule of law exists.Our Royal Families, subjects with alodio ownership to lands which our people have lived on for more than 1,650+ years are recorded for all to see.Moves to identity thieve our history, genealogies, laws are being recorded for all to see and to apply Article XIV according to our contractual agreement made by our Sovereign and the United States of America President Zachary Taylor.aloha.
- Edit 15 minutes left to edit your comment.
- Permalink Reply by
- The 18491850 Treaty is a legal contractual agreement..between two nations.... the Kingdom of Hawaii/Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States of America of the time period, not the changed nation in place today called the U.S. and the American Empire (reference: PEACOCK vs. the Republic of Hawaii (1899).... Congress is NOT part of the Treaty, yet they are the ones who moved on Premeditation, Piracy(ies) over time affecting what's happening today,..........Rule of Law exists legally not Pirates Laws! fyi
No comments:
Post a Comment