Translate

Sunday, December 9, 2018

Conspirator Judges Documented



Sharron Gonzalez Cushman
December 7 at 2:50 PM
#wearemaunakea #wearestillhere #nomeansno #aoletmt #goplanB #protectsacredplaces #protectmaunakea #seeyouonthemauna
The finding of no spiritual relation to the site simply ignored evidence to the contrary.


About this website
civilbeat.org
The Disturbing Nature Of The Court Ruling On Mauna Kea
The finding of no spiritual relation to the site simply ignored evidence…

Comments


Edwin B Kipu Why are we still using these
Illegal
Courts to determine there rules were not going to win in a Hewa system


11
Manage


Like
Reply1d


Henny Ahu-Lorenzo Edwin B Kipu ikr! Our systems corrupt!


11
Manage


Like
Reply1d





Vernal Stevens Who the hell are these people? Where the hell do they come from? Even if they are from Hawaii, hasn't it been found they have no jurisdiction being a SOH entity?

Manage


Like
Reply1d


Allandave Makue THEY ALL GETTING PAID OFF !!! THE GREED FOR 💰😡

Manage


Like
Reply2h


Amelia Gora All of them are Aliens! Part of the ongoing conspiracies against Our Queen now documented...see: https://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/.../hawaiian...
Manage

Like
ReplyRemove Preview1m

The Disturbing Nature Of The Court Ruling On Mauna Kea

33
The finding of no spiritual relation to the site simply ignored evidence to the contrary.
By /
Reading time: 5 minutes.

As the representative for the Temple of Lono in the Mauna Kea contested case, I find the court’s rulings related to the traditional Hawaiian faith to be very disturbing.
The Hawaii Supreme Court accepted the Board of Land and Natural Resources position that there were no traditional Hawaiian spiritual practices related to the land sought for the Thirty Meter Telescope. The evidence for the lack of such practices was the absence of any physical evidence, such as an altar, on that particular piece of land.
There was extensive evidence presented during the contested case regarding spiritual practices related to that specific land, particularly the unobstructed view plane critical to spiritual ceremonies precisely because the absence of obstructing structures makes the spiritual practice possible. The TMT would block that view plane and obstruct the spiritual practices.
The court’s finding no spiritual relation to the site simply ignored that evidence.
Hawaii State Supreme Court Associate Justice Sabrina McKenna questions attorney’s during oral arguments Civil Beat vs city. 1 june 2017. photograph by Cory Lum/Civil Beat
Hawaii State Supreme Court Associate Justice Sabrina McKenna questions attorneys during oral arguments in a case in June 2017.
Cory Lum/Civil Beat
There is an altar on that specific piece of land. The court, however, ruled that altar to be a political expression, not a spiritual expression, because the altar was built after the TMT controversy erupted.
The court also found that particular altar to be a contemporary spiritual practice, not a traditional spiritual practice protected by the constitution of Hawaii.
The court’s breath-taking leap into assuming the legal authority to declare which spiritual practices are legitimate and which are not flies in the face of a long judicial history of avoiding just such determinations by the government. Down that slippery slope is establishment of a state religion that suppresses any others.
That a particular action has a political dimension does not rule out that same action having a spiritual dimension. The civil rights movement has been filled with actions that had both dimensions.

Decision ‘Deeply Troubling’

The court’s characterization of the new altar as contemporary, not traditional, was simply a way to remove constitutional protection from Hawaiian spiritual practices and to put that faith in a straitjacket, where only practices conducted in the past are considered legitimate.
Would the Catholic decision to conduct the mass in English be a “contemporary” practice and, therefore, not a legitimate expression of faith because it is new?
These rulings ignore the extensive evidence of actual practices and constitute a direct attack by the court on the traditional Hawaiian faith.
As an attorney, I also find the Hawaii Supreme Court decision in the Mauna Kea case to be deeply troubling.
The majority opinion violated many of the rules that normally apply to judicial review. For example, appellate courts only review the record created in the lower courts; the appellate courts do not address issues not addressed by the lower courts.
At the beginning of the Mauna Kea contested case, the hearing officer specifically ruled that she would hear no evidence regarding the continued legal existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii and any land claims the kingdom might have conflicting with those claimed by the state of Hawaii.
Based on that ruling, the parties wishing to make the case that the kingdom does still legally exist with its government absent did not present their evidence.
That evidence included recent scholarship on the illegality of annexation and other evidence supporting the continued existence of the kingdom under international law.
Despite the specific ruling by the hearing officer preventing the parties from creating a record on the kingdom issue, the Supreme Court took it upon itself to include a section of their opinion rejecting any challenge to the legitimacy of the state of Hawaii government. To prohibit a party from making a record and then ruling against the party’s position is a classic violation of the due process rights of the party.
The Supreme Court is fully aware of due process requirements and rendered its opinion on the kingdom anyway. Whatever your view might be of the current status of the kingdom, the lack of fairness in the treatment of that issue by the agency and the court is obvious.
Despite the rule requiring an agency to provide a reasoned explanation for rejecting a finding of fact proposed by a party, the hearing officer rejected thousands of proposed findings without identifying them or providing a reasonable explanation for their rejection.
Instead, the hearing officer’s proposed ruling offered a list of more than 20 reasons that might (or might not) support the rejections without linking a particular reason to a particular rejection.
The law, justice and Hawaiian spiritual practitioners paid the price for a predetermined outcome.
The court denied a motion we made to have the matter sent back to the hearing officer with directions to provide a reasonable explanation for the rejection of proposed findings. That denial nullified the rule requiring such explanations, a terrible precedent for future cases. If the agency does not explain why a proposed finding is rejected, the party whose finding is rejected has no record upon which to base an appeal.
The court’s rulings intruding into the question of what constitutes a legitimate spiritual practice, addressing a matter not allowed to be litigated during the contested case, and refusing to require an agency explanation for rejecting proposed findings are all evidence of a decision that was not based in the law and failed to protect the rights of those who participated in the contested case.
The opinion sought the outcome of approval for TMT. The law, justice and Hawaiian spiritual practitioners paid the price for that predetermined outcome.

Community Voices aims to encourage broad discussion on many topics of community interest. It’s kind of a cross between Letters to the Editor and op-eds. This is your space to talk about important issues or interesting people who are making a difference in our world. Columns generally run about 800 words (yes, they can be shorter or longer) and we need a photo of the author and a bio. We welcome video commentary and other multimedia formats. Send to news@civilbeat.org. The opinions and information expressed in Community Voices are solely those of the authors and not Civil Beat.

About the Author

  • Lanny Sinkin
    Lanny Sinkin
    Lanny Sinkin is an attorney in federal practice. His cases include suing the U.S. Navy to prevent their testing sonar on Whales, challenging NASA's use of plutonium on deep space missions, pursuing a racketeering case against the covert operators in the Iran-contra scandal, and defending Lakota Tribe members at Standing Rock.
    Use the RSS feed to subscribe to Lanny Sinkin's posts today
Reference:  https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/12/the-disturbing-nature-of-the-court-ruling-on-mauna-kea/

Science

Hawaii's Supreme Court OKs Construction Of Giant Telescope Despite Native Objections



Ruben Kimmelman

Telescopes on the summit of Mauna Kea on Hawaii's Big Island. Some native Hawaiians consider Mauna Kea sacred and object to construction of a new giant telescope there.
Caleb Jones/AP
Hawaii's Supreme Court has sided with scientists in a battle to build one of the world's largest telescopes, rejecting efforts by native Hawaiians to block its construction atop what some consider a sacred volcano.
In 2015, a construction permit for the Thirty Meter Telescope, or TMT, to be built on Mauna Kea, was invalidated amid protests and court appeals, claiming the dormant volcano is sacred land that would be violated in the building process.
However, in a 4-1 ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii upheld the construction permit for the telescope, with its massive 30-meter (98-foot) primary mirror made up of hundreds of smaller segments.
According to court documents, "Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners believe that Mauna Kea, as a sacred manifestation of their ancestry, should be honored in its natural state and is desecrated by development of astronomy facilities near its summit," while the scientists argued "that telescope use is an allowed and appropriate use of the summit area, that various measures are being taken to reduce the impact of the TMT, and that Mauna Kea can also be honored through the advancement of scientific knowledge that TMT would provide."
Article continues after this message from our sponsor
The remoteness of Mauna Kea, located on the Big Island, shields it from urban light pollution and the extremely dry air near its 13,803-foot summit makes it ideal for astronomy. It is already home to 13 telescopes housed at a dozen separate facilities, including the twin 10-meter (33-foot) instruments at the Keck Observatory, currently among the largest optical telescopes in the world.
Effort To Build The World's Biggest Telescope Hits A Big Snag

The Two-Way

Effort To Build The World's Biggest Telescope Hits A Big Snag

Backing the TMT project is an international partnership, which includes Caltech and the University of California, the National Research Council of Canada and astronomy organizations from India, China and Japan. The chair of the partnership's board of governors, Henry Yang, issued a statement following the court's decision on Tuesday.
"We are excited to move forward in Hawaii and will continue to respect and follow state and county regulations, as we determine our next steps," he said. "We are deeply grateful to our many friends and supporters for their tremendous support over the years."
Joanna Pokipala and her son Kala Pokipala embrace while gathered with telescope protesters outside the Hawaii Supreme Court building in Honolulu in June.
Jennifer Sinco Kelleher/AP
KAHEA, an organization for the revitalization and protection of the state's unique natural and cultural resources, said it is disappointed by the court's ruling.
"Thousands of Hawaiian cultural practitioners have affirmed the sacredness of the entirety of Mauna Kea. Thousands more have supported the protection of Mauna Kea from the TMT project," the group said in a statement.
"The Court's opinion has done nothing to change this," the statement continued, calling on Hawaii's Gov. David Ige and other project supporters to "put the well being of the people of Hawai`i first and to relocate their project away from Mauna Kea."
"The high court reviewed thousands of pages of documents and testimony over many years, so it's difficult to imagine the monumental task the justices had in reaching this decision," Ige said. "We believe this decision is fair and right and will continue to keep Hawai'i at the forefront of astronomy."
University of Hawaii President David Lassner, who backs the project, said he was also pleased by the court's decision.
Tuesday's ruling is the latest in a years-long process to make the giant telescope a reality.
The Mauna Kea site was chosen by TMT scientists after "a rigorous five-year campaign spanning the entire globe that measured virtually every atmospheric feature that might affect the performance of the telescope," according to the group's website.
Planning for the telescope began in 2009 and a permit was first issued in 2011.
However, a groundbreaking ceremony was halted by protests in 2014, according to The Associated Press.
Protests intensified in 2015, with 31 people arrested in April of that year for blocking a road, according to Molly Solomon of Hawaii Public Radio. A lawsuit was then filed, which lead to the state's Supreme Court invalidating the construction permit.
After Tuesday's ruling, Kealoha Pisciotta, who the AP describes as one of the main leaders against the telescope, no longer thinks the legal process is viable.
"The court is the last bastion in democracy," she told the AP. "The only other option is to take to the streets. If we lose the integrity of the court, then you're losing normal law and order, and the only other option is people have to rise up."
With the permit being re-approved, State Department of Land and Natural Resources Chairwoman Suzanne Case told the AP the next steps involve submission and review of construction plans.
The AP also reports that protesters are not planning to back down. It quotes telescope opponent Kahookahi Kanuha as saying Hawaiians should get ready for non-violent resistance.






https://www.npr.org/2018/11/01/662603605/hawaiis-supreme-court-oks-construction-of-giant-telescope-despite-native-objecti?ft=nprml&f=1003


The members of the Supreme Court are:
Name Title Phone Number Term
Mark E. Recktenwald Chief Justice (808) 539-4700 09/14/10 – 09/13/20
Paula A. Nakayama Associate Justice (808) 539-4720 04/22/13 – 04/21/23
Sabrina S. McKenna Associate Justice (808) 539-4735 03/03/11 – 03/02/21
Richard W. Pollack Associate Justice (808) 539-4715 08/06/12 – 08/05/22
Michael D. Wilson Associate Justice (808) 539-4725 04/17/14 – 04/16/24

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)