Entity State of Hawaii Court without "original jurisdiction" Perpetuates Fraud, Corruption in the Hawaiian Islands
Reviewed by Amelia Gora (2020)
The entity State of Hawaii which is based on conspiracy(ies), piracy(ies), premeditation has claimed that there was an annexation. Wrong!
The following post shows their illegal and faulty claims:
"
1998 - In Williamson B. C. Chang's brief in Civ. No. 98-0559-02 (Condemnation) dated July 29, 1998 on page 2 with Affidavit:
" Hawaii and the United States were separate and independent nations prior to July 7 , 1898. This Court may take judicial notice of that fact. No act of Congress, no Act of the Congress of the United States, no act of any Congress in the world can, without more, result in the incorporation of the territory of another nation." 1
1 See Exchange of remarks, Senators Allen and Stewart, 55th Cong. 2 d Session. 31 Cong. Rec. 6369 (Senator Stewart taking the position that the resolution was mere "puffing," in that the United States can "annex the world" if Congress so chose.) No nation has that power and not nation ever will have that power. Equally true, no nation can suffer the loss of its lands by " joint resolution ." It is not simply an illegal act - it is an impossible act. See Statement of Senator Foraker admitting Joint Resolution cannot annex Hawaii. 55th Cong. 2d Sess. 31 Cong. Rec. 6585.
Page 5: "No one claimed that Congress had power beyond the boundaries of the United States".
The following is regarding "The legislative history is more than clear: Congress deliberately sought to deny the Courts of the State of hawaii in rem jurisdiction."3 " Public Law 86-3 is the sole basis by which this Court derives its very existence, let alone its powers.""3 Leaders of both the Republic of Hawaii and the United States were well aware of this fact. See Correspondence of Sanford Dole, President of Hawaii to A. Hartwell, dated November 15 , 1899 from the State Archives of Hawaii ("A reference to the joint resolution of annexation and the treaty shows clearly the untenable position of the President's order in that it attempts to affect land transfers made between July 7, and August 12 , 1898; for the treaty by Article 1st agrees that the Hawaiian Islands be annexed to the united States under the name of the Territory of Hawaii ;") the joint resolution changes this in a most radical way in the first paragraph by annexing the Hawaiian islands "as a part of thhe territory of the United States." The Treaty agreement having been departed from in this important particular by the joint resolution, it cannot be of course contended that the letter has an authority in relations to the Hawaiian Islalnds until it was accepted by us which acceptance took place on the 12th of August 1898." The protracted debate over the Joint Resolution had brought this fact to public attention. No one claimed that Congress had power beyond the boundaries of the United States."
Professor Williamson Chang under penalty of perjury stated the following:
He is licensed to practice in the State of Hawaii and before the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii and that he is now the attorney for Rachel B. Painter and appears on her behalf in the above entitled matter.
That he as filed a complaint in the United States District court for the District of Columbia that relates to this case.
Said action is titled, Painter v. The United States of America , LCIV98001737 and was filed on July 10, 1998.
That said action is related in that it seeks declaratory relief as to the scope and meaning of the Act of Admission, Section Two.
That Section Two of the Act of Admission excludes the Island of Palmyra from the State of Hawaii. That such was the intent of section two.
That the same section two also excludes the island of Oahu , on which the property here is located. That the legislative history of section two supports this plain reading of section two.
That said section two states that:
"The State of Hawaii hall consist of all the islands, together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters , included in the Territory of Hawaii, except the atoll known as Palmyra Island, together with its appurtenant waters and territorial reefs, but said State shall not be deemed to include the Midway Islands, San Island (offshore of Johnston Island) or Kingman Reef , together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters."
That the area within the Territory of Hawaii was set by section two of the Act of april 30, 1900, which states:
"That the islands acquired by the United States of America under an Act of Congress entitled "Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States,' approved July seventh eighteen hundred and ninety eight, shall be known as the Territory of Hawaii."
That he is aProfessor of Law at the University of Hawaii , William s. Richardson School of Law.
That among his duties as a Professor of Law he has been required to develop courses in Native Hawaiian Rights and Legal History.
That he received a grant from the National Science foundation to study the evolution of property rights in Hawaii.
14. That he shall attach, when certified by the Library of Congress , copies of various documents relating to this motion. That said certified documents should be available within two weeks.
That in the course of fulfilling the terms of the above grant, and in the course of his duties as a Professor of Law at the University of Hawaii, assigned to Native Hawaiian Rights and Legal History that the following documents have come to his attention:
The records of the debates on the Joint Resolution to Provide for Annexing the Hawaiian Islands, from the debates on that resolution of the United States Senate , particularly those pages of the Congressional Record, volume 31 pages 6331-6369, 6634-6634 and 6585-6572 chich contain statements of numerous senators that the Joing Resolution was not a treaty, and could not have any effect on Hawaii.
Records of the debates on the Act of april 30, 1900, which show that the Joint Resolution, as viewed by the Senate two years later did not incorporate Hawaii as territory of the United States. Those statements are on various pages of volume 33 of the Congressional Record , such as 2385-2391.
The supreme Court Record as found in the Library of Congress, the Law Library thereof,for the case Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903). The decision itself, together with the record of briefs of appellee and appellant in that matter show 1) that the Supreme Court ruled that the Joing Resolution did not incorporate the Hawaiian Islands as territory of the United States and that 2) the Appellee, then Territory of Hwaii took the position that the Joint Resolution did not make Hawaiii part of the United Sttes. (See brief of appellant Edmund Dole, Attorney General of the Territory of Hawaii.)
Other documents, such as volume 23 of the Opinions of the Attorney General of the United States, numerous opinions of the Attorney General state that the Joint Resolution did not incorporate Hawaii as part of the United States. In particular, Hawaii remained separate and independent for numerous purposes identified only with the rights of a sovereign and independent nation: to wit Hawaii was permitted to lay a tonnage tax on shipping between Hawaii and the United States, Hawaii was deemed separate and sovereign for the purposes of claims by British subjects arising from torts allegedly committed against them by the Provisional Government of Hawaii and Hawaii was not "the United States" for the purposes of the existing laws of the United States excluding Chinese.
House Report 305 pf the 55th Congress which shows that the ceremonies held on August 12 , 1898, in Honolulu, Hawaii had no legal effect. That is also the opinion of the United States Attorney General as stated in volume 23, relating to the "Public Lands" See pages 628 et seq.
Documents that show the intent behind section two of the Admission Act: That in the deliberations on the Statehood bill, S.49 in 1953-54, the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs committee rejected the language defining the boundaries for the future state of Hawaii, as then proposed in the draft of the State Constitution approved by the people of Hawaii November 7, 1950.
That the reasons for such rejection are partly stated in a "confidential memo" of Clark Clifford to Senator Earle Clements. That such memo notes that the definition of the State, as proposed by the people would differ from the definition of the State as set forth by the Senate in S. 49. That the Senate must reject the definition as proposed by the State Constitution. That the people of Hawaii must affirm the changes as demanded by the Senate. That, according to Clark, if the Constitution is not amended, either by reassembling the Constitutional Convention , or by a vote specially held prior to statehood, then Hawaii should not be admitted as a state.
That numerous proposed alternatives to the present boundaries of the State were considered by the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and that such alternatives would have included the Palmyra Islands as well as the Island of Oahu. That such alternatives were rejected in favor of the present language. That the present language is identical to Committee Print 6 of S.49. Committee Print 6 adopts the approach of Committee Print 5. Committee Print 5 differs substantially from all earlier versions as committee Print 5 states that the area of the State shall consist of that of the Territory, except the atoll known as Palmyra. That Print 4 and earlier prints, contained such language that would have included all islands within a certain designated parallelogram as defined by reference to longitude and attitude. That such approach was recommended by the Department of Justice , in a letter of J. Lee Rankin of January 11, 1954. Those approached would have affirmatively included islands within the new state. Thus, the adoption of the prsent language displays conscious intent to exclude all islands.
That said approach continued the existing policy of Congress whereby the Territory was defined by reference to the legal effect of the Joint Resolution.
That certain Senators on the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs committee were well aware that the Joint Resolution did not acquire for the United States either the island of Palmyra or the Island of Oahu. That such knowledge can be imputed from the transcripts of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs committee, as to a non-public hearing of March 17, 1953. Such knowledge can be imputed to Senator Clinton Anderson who was so informed that the Joint Resolution did not incorporate the Hawaiian Islands by memorandum in April of 1954.
That the plain meaning of section two is supported by the available legislative history.
That this motion is brought arising from counsel's duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility to zealously represent his clients. That said grounds for this motion are basic and elementary. The boundaries of the State are within the knowledge of those who practice beforee the Bar of the Courts of this State. That said counsel is not bringing this motion for the purposes of delay or harassment. Rather, the failure to raise this issue, in the course of representation would be possible grounds for incompetent representation.
Under Pentaly of Perjury, I, Williamson Chang states that such are true and correct, the documentary evidence referred to does exist and was found and examined by myself, in various archives and libraries, including the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress.
AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.
(Signed)
Williamson B. C. Chang
Subscribed and Sworn to Before Me:
This Wed . Day of 29 July, 1998.
(signed)
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF HAWAII
My Commission Expires: 9-5-99
L.S.
6. Professor Thomas H. Naylor - Duke University
June 2011:
http://theglobalrealm.com/2011/06/13/why-hawaii-is-not-a-illegitima...
Why Hawai'i is Not a Legitimate State: What the Birthers Missed
http://www.counterpunch.org/naylor06102011.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/naylor06102011.html
Reference: https://www.opednews.com/Diary/The-Hawaiian-Islands-ARE-N-by-Amelia-Gora-110627-133.html
Research ongoing.
https://www.ilind.net/…/intermediate-court-of-appeals-agai…/
Appeals Court again rules against claim that annexation was illegal
Posted on January 4, 2020 by Ian Lind
On the morning of December 11, 2019, three judges of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals convened in the Supreme Court Courtroom in downtown Honolulu to hear oral arguments in an appeal in the case of State of Hawaii vs. Windyceslau D. Lorenzo, also known as Kamehameha VI.
Yes, you read that right.
Since at least the early 1990s, Lorenzo has claimed to be “His Majesty Kamehameha VI, King of the Hawaiian Islands, seventh Great Grandson of Kamehameha I, duly recognized and confirmed by the Alii Nui Konohiki Council of Chiefs under the Constitution of 1840, in the Kingdom of Hawaii.”
Of course, despite the pretensions, he’s only one of many claimants competing to speak for a kingdom that in hard reality ceased to exist with the overthrow in 1893.
In 2013, Lorenzo filed warranty deeds in the Bureau of Conveyances transferring title to three parcels of Waimanalo land, a total of approximately 335 acres, to his wife. The source of Lorenzo’s ownership of the property was identified as an earlier 1998 deed:
Deed of Rose P. Lukela, “Grantor”, to Windyceslau Donato Lorenzo, dated August 26, 1998 and recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances as Document No. 98-126382, conveying all claims of the grantor in and to the lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Lukela was also known as Rose P. Lorenzo. The basis of Lukela’s claim of ownership in the Waimanalo properties was not identified.
The state later challenged the 1998 deed in court and succeeded in having declared frivolous. It was expunged from the state’s records.
The state then challenged Lorenzo’s 2013 deeds, which were based on the on the deed that had already been throw out. Following a June 2015 hearing before Judge Victoria Crandall, title was found to be properly vested in the State of Hawaii. The three deeds were found to be frivolous and ordered to be expunged from the state’s land title records. In addition, Lorenzo was fined $5,000, and was enjoined from filing any further related deeds without prior authorization from the court.
Lorenzo then filed an appeal to the Intermediate Court seeking to reverse Crandall’s ruling.
Lorenzo was represented in this appeal by Williamson Chang, a professor at the University of Hawaii’s William S Richardson School of Law, who has become a widely quoted advocate of the theory that Hawaii was never legally annexed by the United States, one result being that therefore post-Kingdom land titles granted under the authority of the territory and state are invalid.
Chang had touted his opening brief in the appeal for its presentation of evidence of “the failure of the United States to acquire Hawaii….”
The judges of the Intermediate Court initially said oral arguments would not be held in the case, but Chang strongly objected. In a legal motion filed on September 30, 2019, Chang pressed the court to reinstate oral arguments because there were, in his words, “numerous issues that had not been covered.” Chang said he was prepared to address the legislative intent of the 1959 Admissions Act by which Hawaii became a state, as well as details of the Congressional debate over annexation in 1898.
In response to Chang’s motion, the court reversed itself, and on November 14 issued a notice setting the oral arguments for 10 a.m. on December 11. The stage was set for Chang to expound his theories.
But when the case was called, neither Williamson Chang or his client, Windyceslau D. “Kamehameha VI” Lorenzo, responded. Neither was present for the hearing that had been scheduled specifically at Chang’s request.
Less than two weeks later, the three-judge panel issued a summary disposition order rejecting each of the arguments raised by Chang and dismissing Lorenzo’s appeal.
The court found that the idea “that the 1898 Joint Resolution did not actually convey the islands of Hawaii to the United States, has been considered and rejected by the Hawaii Supreme Court,” citing the recent decision In re Conservation Dist. Use Application HA-3568.
https://law.justia.com/…/supreme-…/2018/scot-17-0000777.html
In that case, the Hawaii Supreme Court explicitly rejected Williamson Chang’s position that annexation was faulty because it was not accomplished through a treaty of annexation.
Citing relevant cases, the court held: “The United States Supreme Court has thus indicated that the process by which Hawaii was incorporated into the United States was lawful and binding, and we are bound by this determination.”
And as to the ownership of the Waimanalo parcels that were the subject of Lorenzo’s deeds, the court noted the history of the properties prepared by E. Mahoe Collins, the state’s abstractor, which traced the title back to the Great Mahele. The court noted that the history had not been challenged.
“Collins did not find any transfers or conveyances made by the State or its predecessors to Lorenzo or Rose P. Lukela (aka Rose P. Lorenzo), from whom Lorenzo claims he received transfer of the Parcels,” the court wrote in its decision. “Other than Lorenzo’s argument that the 1898 Joint Resolution failed to transfer the lands of Hawaii to the United States, which has been rejected by the Hawaii Supreme Court…he does not assert any challenge to Collins’s affidavit.”
Williamson Chang was ordered to pay $100 for his failure to appear for the December 11, 2019 oral arguments without good cause."
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
It was good that both a Kamehameha descendant named Windy/ Wincelaus Lorenzo and Williamson Chang not appear in a court that does not have "original jurisdiction".
The entity State of Hawaii has emerged from a concocted developed Territory put together by U.S. President William McKinley's workers, the Army, Navy and Federal personnel.
Identity theft of claiming the Territory to be the "successor of the Kingdom of Hawaii" was claimed by the Attorney General of the usurper/conspirators/pirate entity which is documented in the case Pa Pelekane case, HAWAIIAN REPORTS, 1912, Supreme Court Law Library/Archives/Main Library, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii.
Note: U.S. President Grover Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani 3X- 1893, 1894, and 1897.
U.S. President William McKinley et. als. Failed to follow the "rule of laws" and the U.S. Constitution of 1787.
Reference:
IOLANI - The Royal Hawk: U.S. President Cleveland Rocks ...
Oct 03, 2019 · U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Twice (2x) to Queen Liliuokalani - see google for article researched by Amelia Gora (2018) The Project Gutenberg EBook of Presidential Problems, by Grover Cleveland This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions ...
The following are reasons documented in research why there was no Annexation....there were lies promoted, used to indoctrinate people, etc.:
IMPORTANT READ: https://iolani-theroyal.blogspot.com/2020/01/nation-to-nation-legal-noticepublic.html
Note: This important document shows some of Kamehameha's descendants who notarized the genealogies and added it as a Joinder to an Affidavit/Lien filed on 12/17/96 (281 pages) filed at the Bureau of Conveyances, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii.
The evidence was also added which shows that Abner Paki and his brother Kalaniulumoku were the sons of Kalanihelemaiiluna one of the sons of Kamehameha.
also included are evidence of Fraud, conspiracies, treason, premeditation, racketeering, etc.
Note: Fraud vitiates all claims and all contracts, the claims to the Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estates, the same people planned it ...William O. Smith, Charles Reed Bishop et.als. also premeditated and planned the usurpation of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893, and created a Fraud Trust in 1909 for Liliuokalani/ Queen Liliuokalani when her trust was created in 1872.
Now, the issue of Windyceslau/Windy Lorenzo and his deeds......…needs to be reviewed because he may have had a bit of interest in some of the lands......…
Windy Lorenzo as found in research was a cousin of Helelani Rabago, one of the members of our House of Nobles. She was a Kamehameha descendant through Kamehameha's Oldest son named Kaoleioku.
Note: Kamehameha's descendants/heirs when born are automatically part of the Hawaiian Kingdom. See Rex vs. Booth case, HAWAIIAN REPORTS, Supreme Court Law Library/Archives/Main Library, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, which means that the Hawaiian Kingdom never went away.
Reference:
Note: Kamehameha's descendants/heirs when born are automatically part of the Hawaiian Kingdom. See Rex vs. Booth case, HAWAIIAN REPORTS, Supreme Court Law Library/Archives/Main Library, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, which means that the Hawaiian Kingdom never went away.
Reference:
Why the Hawaiian Kingdom Never Went Away and The Court of Original Jurisdiction Remains in the Royal Legitimate Government - The Hawaiian Kingdom Researched and Narrated by Amelia Gora (2019) one of the Royal Families Representatives, House
iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2019/05/history-recorded-why-hawaiian-kingdom.html
Kamehameha's Pedigree Chart for Kaoleioku
son: Kaoleioku
his 4 children: Pauahi (female) Hanuna Keola Konia (female)
/ / / /
Ruth Keelikolani Kapule u.i. Pauahi/Bernice Pauahi
steo: Paalua et,als Kini (female) step: Kalola (female); Kaluaikau (female); Alapai; et.als
Poohina (female) hanai/adopted: Liliuokalani/Queen Liliuokalani
Hookahi (female)
Kapule children:
Meleana (female)
Kaapiipii (female)
Nahuina (female)
Kamai
Kaili (female)
Kaakau (female)
/ step: Nainoaalua
/
Helelani Rabago's ancestor and cousin: Winnie Lorenzo
Williamson Chang's research is supported by the following:
1. The Fact that the Kamehameha's exist and are the permanent parts of the 3 part government: Genealogies showing some of the Kamehameha's descendants.
2. The U.S. Supreme Court Legal Memorandum of 2000
Reference:
3. Joyclynn Acosta's find about the Doctrine of Political Question
Reference:
4. Premeditation Evidence:
References:
https://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2018/12/hawaiian-kingdom-legal-directive-no.html
https://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2018/12/hawaiian-kingdom-legal-directive-no.html
John Foster directed the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani. Foster named conspirator Presidents, Secretary of States, Generals, Missionaries/Mercenaries, etc.
Reference: https://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2018/12/pirate-eyes-on-hawaii-series-john-w.html
https://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2018/12/pirate-eyes-on-hawaii-series-more.html
Reverend Sereno Bishop under the pen name "Kamehameha" divulged the information that Princess Kaiulani was paid by the usurpers, Bernice Pauahi was half-white, and both Bernice Pauahi and her husband Charles Reed Bishop were parties to the conspirators who planned to usurp Queen Liliuokalani.
Reference: http://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2018/11/conspiracies-documented-involving.html
General Alfred S. Hartwell, a Harvard grad, came to Hawaii and was appointed Judge by Kamehameha V - Lot, and maneuvered laws, helped plan the dethronement of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893, became 3rd richest man in Hawaii
Reference: https://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2019/01/pirate-eyes-on-hawaii-series-psyops.html
General Alfred S. Hartwell, a Harvard grad, came to Hawaii and was appointed Judge by Kamehameha V - Lot, and maneuvered laws, helped plan the dethronement of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893, became 3rd richest man in Hawaii
Reference: https://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2019/01/pirate-eyes-on-hawaii-series-psyops.html
5. Williamson Chang
Reference:
blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/2015/09/APLPJ_16_2_Chang.pdf
Williamson Chang * I. INTRODUCTION: ... Annexation of Hawaii was taken down in the fall of 2014 and replaced with the following notice to the public. This need for a revision of the history of Hawaii by the Official Historian parallels the emerging scholarship as presented by this article.
1998 - In Williamson B. C. Chang's brief in Civ. No. 98-0559-02 (Condemnation) dated July 29, 1998 on page 2 with Affidavit:
" Hawaii and the United States were separate and independent nations prior to July 7 , 1898. This Court may take judicial notice of that fact. No act of Congress, no Act of the Congress of the United States, no act of any Congress in the world can, without more, result in the incorporation of the territory of another nation." 1
1 See Exchange of remarks, Senators Allen and Stewart, 55th Cong. 2 d Session. 31 Cong. Rec. 6369 (Senator Stewart taking the position that the resolution was mere "puffing," in that the United States can "annex the world" if Congress so chose.) No nation has that power and not nation ever will have that power. Equally true, no nation can suffer the loss of its lands by " joint resolution ." It is not simply an illegal act - it is an impossible act. See Statement of Senator Foraker admitting Joint Resolution cannot annex Hawaii. 55th Cong. 2d Sess. 31 Cong. Rec. 6585.
Page 5: "No one claimed that Congress had power beyond the boundaries of the United States".
The following is regarding "The legislative history is more than clear: Congress deliberately sought to deny the Courts of the State of hawaii in rem jurisdiction."3 " Public Law 86-3 is the sole basis by which this Court derives its very existence, let alone its powers.""3 Leaders of both the Republic of Hawaii and the United States were well aware of this fact. See Correspondence of Sanford Dole, President of Hawaii to A. Hartwell, dated November 15 , 1899 from the State Archives of Hawaii ("A reference to the joint resolution of annexation and the treaty shows clearly the untenable position of the President's order in that it attempts to affect land transfers made between July 7, and August 12 , 1898; for the treaty by Article 1st agrees that the Hawaiian Islands be annexed to the united States under the name of the Territory of Hawaii ;") the joint resolution changes this in a most radical way in the first paragraph by annexing the Hawaiian islands "as a part of thhe territory of the United States." The Treaty agreement having been departed from in this important particular by the joint resolution, it cannot be of course contended that the letter has an authority in relations to the Hawaiian Islalnds until it was accepted by us which acceptance took place on the 12th of August 1898." The protracted debate over the Joint Resolution had brought this fact to public attention. No one claimed that Congress had power beyond the boundaries of the United States."
Professor Williamson Chang under penalty of perjury stated the following:
He is licensed to practice in the State of Hawaii and before the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii and that he is now the attorney for Rachel B. Painter and appears on her behalf in the above entitled matter.
That he as filed a complaint in the United States District court for the District of Columbia that relates to this case.
Said action is titled, Painter v. The United States of America , LCIV98001737 and was filed on July 10, 1998.
That said action is related in that it seeks declaratory relief as to the scope and meaning of the Act of Admission, Section Two.
That Section Two of the Act of Admission excludes the Island of Palmyra from the State of Hawaii. That such was the intent of section two.
That the same section two also excludes the island of Oahu , on which the property here is located. That the legislative history of section two supports this plain reading of section two.
That said section two states that:
"The State of Hawaii hall consist of all the islands, together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters , included in the Territory of Hawaii, except the atoll known as Palmyra Island, together with its appurtenant waters and territorial reefs, but said State shall not be deemed to include the Midway Islands, San Island (offshore of Johnston Island) or Kingman Reef , together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters."
That the area within the Territory of Hawaii was set by section two of the Act of april 30, 1900, which states:
"That the islands acquired by the United States of America under an Act of Congress entitled "Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States,' approved July seventh eighteen hundred and ninety eight, shall be known as the Territory of Hawaii."
That he is aProfessor of Law at the University of Hawaii , William s. Richardson School of Law.
That among his duties as a Professor of Law he has been required to develop courses in Native Hawaiian Rights and Legal History.
That he received a grant from the National Science foundation to study the evolution of property rights in Hawaii.
14. That he shall attach, when certified by the Library of Congress , copies of various documents relating to this motion. That said certified documents should be available within two weeks.
That in the course of fulfilling the terms of the above grant, and in the course of his duties as a Professor of Law at the University of Hawaii, assigned to Native Hawaiian Rights and Legal History that the following documents have come to his attention:
The records of the debates on the Joint Resolution to Provide for Annexing the Hawaiian Islands, from the debates on that resolution of the United States Senate , particularly those pages of the Congressional Record, volume 31 pages 6331-6369, 6634-6634 and 6585-6572 chich contain statements of numerous senators that the Joing Resolution was not a treaty, and could not have any effect on Hawaii.
Records of the debates on the Act of april 30, 1900, which show that the Joint Resolution, as viewed by the Senate two years later did not incorporate Hawaii as territory of the United States. Those statements are on various pages of volume 33 of the Congressional Record , such as 2385-2391.
The supreme Court Record as found in the Library of Congress, the Law Library thereof,for the case Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903). The decision itself, together with the record of briefs of appellee and appellant in that matter show 1) that the Supreme Court ruled that the Joing Resolution did not incorporate the Hawaiian Islands as territory of the United States and that 2) the Appellee, then Territory of Hwaii took the position that the Joint Resolution did not make Hawaiii part of the United Sttes. (See brief of appellant Edmund Dole, Attorney General of the Territory of Hawaii.)
Other documents, such as volume 23 of the Opinions of the Attorney General of the United States, numerous opinions of the Attorney General state that the Joint Resolution did not incorporate Hawaii as part of the United States. In particular, Hawaii remained separate and independent for numerous purposes identified only with the rights of a sovereign and independent nation: to wit Hawaii was permitted to lay a tonnage tax on shipping between Hawaii and the United States, Hawaii was deemed separate and sovereign for the purposes of claims by British subjects arising from torts allegedly committed against them by the Provisional Government of Hawaii and Hawaii was not "the United States" for the purposes of the existing laws of the United States excluding Chinese.
House Report 305 pf the 55th Congress which shows that the ceremonies held on August 12 , 1898, in Honolulu, Hawaii had no legal effect. That is also the opinion of the United States Attorney General as stated in volume 23, relating to the "Public Lands" See pages 628 et seq.
Documents that show the intent behind section two of the Admission Act: That in the deliberations on the Statehood bill, S.49 in 1953-54, the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs committee rejected the language defining the boundaries for the future state of Hawaii, as then proposed in the draft of the State Constitution approved by the people of Hawaii November 7, 1950.
That the reasons for such rejection are partly stated in a "confidential memo" of Clark Clifford to Senator Earle Clements. That such memo notes that the definition of the State, as proposed by the people would differ from the definition of the State as set forth by the Senate in S. 49. That the Senate must reject the definition as proposed by the State Constitution. That the people of Hawaii must affirm the changes as demanded by the Senate. That, according to Clark, if the Constitution is not amended, either by reassembling the Constitutional Convention , or by a vote specially held prior to statehood, then Hawaii should not be admitted as a state.
That numerous proposed alternatives to the present boundaries of the State were considered by the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and that such alternatives would have included the Palmyra Islands as well as the Island of Oahu. That such alternatives were rejected in favor of the present language. That the present language is identical to Committee Print 6 of S.49. Committee Print 6 adopts the approach of Committee Print 5. Committee Print 5 differs substantially from all earlier versions as committee Print 5 states that the area of the State shall consist of that of the Territory, except the atoll known as Palmyra. That Print 4 and earlier prints, contained such language that would have included all islands within a certain designated parallelogram as defined by reference to longitude and attitude. That such approach was recommended by the Department of Justice , in a letter of J. Lee Rankin of January 11, 1954. Those approached would have affirmatively included islands within the new state. Thus, the adoption of the prsent language displays conscious intent to exclude all islands.
That said approach continued the existing policy of Congress whereby the Territory was defined by reference to the legal effect of the Joint Resolution.
That certain Senators on the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs committee were well aware that the Joint Resolution did not acquire for the United States either the island of Palmyra or the Island of Oahu. That such knowledge can be imputed from the transcripts of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs committee, as to a non-public hearing of March 17, 1953. Such knowledge can be imputed to Senator Clinton Anderson who was so informed that the Joint Resolution did not incorporate the Hawaiian Islands by memorandum in April of 1954.
That the plain meaning of section two is supported by the available legislative history.
That this motion is brought arising from counsel's duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility to zealously represent his clients. That said grounds for this motion are basic and elementary. The boundaries of the State are within the knowledge of those who practice beforee the Bar of the Courts of this State. That said counsel is not bringing this motion for the purposes of delay or harassment. Rather, the failure to raise this issue, in the course of representation would be possible grounds for incompetent representation.
Under Pentaly of Perjury, I, Williamson Chang states that such are true and correct, the documentary evidence referred to does exist and was found and examined by myself, in various archives and libraries, including the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress.
AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.
(Signed)
Williamson B. C. Chang
Subscribed and Sworn to Before Me:
This Wed . Day of 29 July, 1998.
(signed)
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF HAWAII
My Commission Expires: 9-5-99
L.S.
6. Professor Thomas H. Naylor - Duke University
June 2011:
http://theglobalrealm.com/2011/06/13/why-hawaii-is-not-a-illegitima...
Why Hawai'i is Not a Legitimate State: What the Birthers Missed
Posted on June 13, 2011 by The Global Realm
Why Hawai'i is Not a Legitimate State: What the Birthers Missed
In the brouhaha over whether President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or not, few seem to realize, that in the eyes of many historians and legal scholars, Hawaii is not a legitimate state of the United States of America. If the government of Hawaii had not been illegally overthrown in 1893 by the U.S. Marines through a classic act of Manifest Destiny and American-style gunboat diplomacy, Hawaii would still be an independent, sovereign nation today.
Notwithstanding a series of clever illegal moves by the U.S. government, Hawaii cannot be considered a legally bona fide state of the United States. In 1898 the United States unilaterally abrogated all of Hawaii's existing treaties and purported to annex it on the basis of a Congressional resolution. Two years later the U.S. illegally established the so-called Territory of Hawaii on the basis of the spurious Organic Act. After a period of prolonged belligerent occupation by the U.S., Hawaii was placed under United Nations Charter, Article 73, as a "non-self-governing territory" under the administrative authority of the United States. Then in 1959 the U.S. falsely informed the U.N. that Hawaii had become the 50th state of the United States after an illegal plebiscite. Among those allowed to vote in this invalid election were members of the U.S. military and their dependents stationed in Hawaii. In other words, Hawaii's occupiers were permitted to vote on its future.
In November 1993, President Bill Clinton signed Public Law 103-150 apologizing to the 140,000 Native Hawaiians, who call themselves Kanaka Maoli, for the January 17, 1893, invasion of Hawaii deposing Queen Liliuokalani which led to Hawaii's illegal annexation by the United States and eventually to statehood in 1959. This apology implicitly recognized the unrelinquished inherent sovereignty and right of self-determination of the Native Hawaiian people.
Whether it was his intention or not, President Bill Clinton clearly raised the expectations of the Kanaka Maoli that one day Hawaii might once again be viewed as an independent nation-state. The downtrodden Kanaka Maoli, who make up less than 12 percent of Hawaii's population, "die younger, earn less, go to jail more frequently, and are more likely to be homeless than any other ethnic group in the islands," according to the Honolulu Weekly.
If Barack Obama were born in Hawaii, and his birth certificate says that he was, then why has he shown so little interest in the plight of Native Hawaiians? Bill Clinton has done a lot more for the Kanaka Maoli than Barack Obama, even though Obama pretends to be a compassionate liberal.
At one level, it matters not whether President Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or Saudi Arabia. The real issue is how does he behave. Therein lies the rub. Not unlike his friend Donald Trump, Obama has a very strong predisposition towards violence and war, caters almost exclusively to the rich and powerful, and palls around with the right wing government of Israel.
Hawaii became an alleged state of the United States as a result of a foreign policy based on full spectrum dominance and imperial overstretch -- the same foreign policy employed by Obama over a century later in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, and Palestine.
President Obama's benign neglect of the Hawaiian victims of American nineteenth century imperialism says more about who he is than the name of the country on his birth certificate.
Thomas H. Naylor is Founder of the Second Vermont Republic and Professor Emeritus of Economics at Duke University. His books include: Downsizing the U.S.A., Affluenza, The Search for Meaning and The Abandoned Generation: Rethinking Higher Educationhttp://www.counterpunch.org/naylor06102011.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/naylor06102011.html
Reference: https://www.opednews.com/Diary/The-Hawaiian-Islands-ARE-N-by-Amelia-Gora-110627-133.html
7. Seizure of Hawaii article:
Reference:
IOLANI - The Royal Hawk: Pirate Eyes On Hawaii Series ...
The following Lies are documented in the 1898 Senate transcript exposed in the article: "Secret debate on U.S. seizure of Hawaii revealed" (1) U.S. debate on whether to take over Hawaii occurred five (5) years AFTER taking over Hawaii, a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation in a planned move since 1840.
8. Dr. Alfred deZayas of the United Nations letters
Reference:
Dr. Alfred DeZayas 1st Letter
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A7fae26dc-f4b5-4f59-82ca-4b1e30df7869"
9. U.S. President Trump's email supporting "rule of law" and the U.S. Constitution:
Note: U.S. President Donald Trump's email documents that he is for "rule of law" and the "U.S. Constitution". The value of both is that the 1849/1850 Treaty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States is a permanent treaty of friendship and amity. Under the U.S. Constitution, article VI- treaties are the supreme law of the land and the judges must also adhere to it.
9. U.S. President Trump's email supporting "rule of law" and the U.S. Constitution:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: The White House <noreply@whitehouse.gov>
Date: Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:42 AM
Subject: Response to Your Message
To: hawaiianhistory@gmail.com <hawaiianhistory@gmail.com>
From: The White House <noreply@whitehouse.gov>
Date: Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:42 AM
Subject: Response to Your Message
To: hawaiianhistory@gmail.com <hawaiianhistory@gmail.com>
| |||||||||
Note: U.S. President Donald Trump's email documents that he is for "rule of law" and the "U.S. Constitution". The value of both is that the 1849/1850 Treaty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States is a permanent treaty of friendship and amity. Under the U.S. Constitution, article VI- treaties are the supreme law of the land and the judges must also adhere to it.
Kamehameha III's First Laws found at the Mission Houses Archives, behind Kawaiahao Church : https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wZGIyMmNkNTMtZTczZ i0...
****************************** ***********
Premeditation to Assume Pearl Harbor Coaling Station/the Hawaiian Islands - a Standing Order by Congress Eight (8) days BEFORE DETHRONING QUEEN LILIUOKALANI in 1893:
Page 1: https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wZmFmMWE3YjEtNTAwM y0...
Page 2: https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2RlYzdiOWMtNWJkY S0...
****************************** ******
****************************** ***********
Premeditation to Assume Pearl Harbor Coaling Station/the Hawaiian Islands - a Standing Order by Congress Eight (8) days BEFORE DETHRONING QUEEN LILIUOKALANI in 1893:
Page 1: https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wZmFmMWE3YjEtNTAwM y0...
Page 2: https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2RlYzdiOWMtNWJkY S0...
****************************** ******
PEARL HARBOR ARTICLE:
President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2JkZjMxMzEtMDIyN i0...
****************************** *****
Genealogies 1867 (first part) https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wMzBiZGJhMjMtY2FmZ C0...
Genealogies 1867 (second part) https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wZDBjMDAyNjktMWQ1M i0...
Genealogies 1867 (third and last part) https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wOTRlZmNhMDEtNGFkM S0...
************************
Annexation Opposition by Queen Liliuokalani found by researcher Kiliwehi Kekumano: https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wOGJmZjg4MmQtNWRjM S0...
Annexation Opposition (page 2) https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wNWVlMTc0MjEtZWZiZ S0...
Annexation Opposition (page 3) https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wY2RjYzZmNjQtMjUxY i0...
Annexation Opposition (page 4) https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wNmY2Mzk3ZTctZDEyM y0...
***************************
The Hawaiian Disgrace http://query.nytimes.com/mem/ archive-free/pdf?res= F70A1FF7345D117...
Shameful Conspiracy https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2Y2YjAwOTItOTEwM C0...
******************************
Prince Kuhio Kalanianaole Treasonous Person introduced Statehood in 1920 https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wMzY0NzE3ZDUtZGE5M i0...
****************************** *****
Genealogies 1867 (first part) https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wMzBiZGJhMjMtY2FmZ C0...
Genealogies 1867 (second part) https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wZDBjMDAyNjktMWQ1M i0...
Genealogies 1867 (third and last part) https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wOTRlZmNhMDEtNGFkM S0...
************************
Annexation Opposition by Queen Liliuokalani found by researcher Kiliwehi Kekumano: https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wOGJmZjg4MmQtNWRjM S0...
Annexation Opposition (page 2) https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wNWVlMTc0MjEtZWZiZ S0...
Annexation Opposition (page 3) https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wY2RjYzZmNjQtMjUxY i0...
Annexation Opposition (page 4) https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wNmY2Mzk3ZTctZDEyM y0...
***************************
The Hawaiian Disgrace http://query.nytimes.com/mem/ archive-free/pdf?res= F70A1FF7345D117...
Shameful Conspiracy https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2Y2YjAwOTItOTEwM C0...
******************************
Prince Kuhio Kalanianaole Treasonous Person introduced Statehood in 1920 https://docs.google.com/leaf? id= 0B6Gs4av5Se1wMzY0NzE3ZDUtZGE5M i0...
11. My researches posted in the IOLANI - The Royal Hawk and the latest posting.
Kamehameha descendant Kalola (female) is documented as the next-of-kin to Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The Judges of the Provisional government turned Republic made themselves heirs. Note: Aliens cannot own Alodio titles, only fee simple or 30 years only and can never own Alodio land titles.
Kamehameha Schools/KSBE /Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trustees are non-owners and have been selling lands when really, legally they cannot.
They have been operating with a court that is Not the court of "original jurisdiction" since January 17, 1893. They have also been operating a conspirator's court since the Bayonnet Constitution in 1887, etc.
Piracy/Privateering/Premeditation/Fraud/Racketeering in the evidence too.
Kamehameha descendant Kalola (female) is documented as the next-of-kin to Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The Judges of the Provisional government turned Republic made themselves heirs. Note: Aliens cannot own Alodio titles, only fee simple or 30 years only and can never own Alodio land titles.
Kamehameha Schools/KSBE /Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trustees are non-owners and have been selling lands when really, legally they cannot.
They have been operating with a court that is Not the court of "original jurisdiction" since January 17, 1893. They have also been operating a conspirator's court since the Bayonnet Constitution in 1887, etc.
Piracy/Privateering/Premeditation/Fraud/Racketeering in the evidence too.
Reference:
Research ongoing.
aloha.
References:
https://iolani-theroyal.blogspot.com
References:
IMPORTANT! Found It!! U.S. President Cleveland's Orders to ...
U.S. President Cleveland's Orders to Willis: RESTORE THE QUEEN, January 5, 1894 and Premeditation Documented RESTORE THE QUEEN! Researched by Amelia Gora (2018) The morning call. (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, January 05, 1894, Image 1 Image provided by University of California, Riverside; Riverside, CA ...Corruption Exposed: Violations by Judges Over the U.S ...
Jan 29, 2017 · Corruption Exposed: Violations by Judges Over the U.S. Constitution Since 1900 ... U.S. President Cleveland rightfully followed the U.S. Constitution because he knew that under the U.S. Constitution he would be in violation if he assumed a foreign nation. ... The Truth About the U.S. Constitution Review by Amelia Gora (2017) In the 1849/1850 ...IOLANI - The Royal Hawk: History Recorded: Why the ...
Researched and Narrated by Amelia Gora (2019) one of the Royal Families Representatives, House of Nobles, Acting Liaison of Foreign Affairs, Judicial Tribunal Judge, Supreme Court Judge, Hawaiian Genealogical Society Representative, Konohiki, Land owner, Landlord, Publisher of the IOLANI - the Royal Hawk news on the web with 753 issues to dateDiary: The Royal Families In The Hawaiian ... - OpEdNews
The Hawaiian Islands ARE NOT Part of the United ... - OpEdNews
Researched by Amelia Gora (2017) - IOLANI - The Royal Hawk
Nov 24, 2017 · Researched by Amelia Gora (2017) The following is an important Overview of Why the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist and remains a legal Constitutional Monarchy in the Hawaiian archipelago today: 1893 - 'President's Policy of Restoring the Queen' - Several parts of this article …Hawaiian Kingdom: Annexation - a Sham Set Up....Legally ...
Mar 08, 2018 · researched by Amelia Gora (2017) The following article supports the article "U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani" : February 7, 1897. " Annexation temporarily suspended by President Cleveland, is now dead forever...." documented by Mr. Palmer.Amelia Gora-Kanaka Maoli Truth : The Truth About Our Queen ...
Oct 29, 2016 · Note: Minister Willis was "appointed Minister to Hawaii by President Grover Cleveland in 1893. Willis was sent to Hawaii on a secret mission to meet with deposed Queen Lili ʻ uokalani and obtain a promise of amnesty for those involved in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii if Cleveland restored her to the throne. Willis reported to the Secretary of State in Washington that she was intent …IOLANI - The Royal Hawk: * Pirate Eyes on Hawaii Series ...
Nov 04, 2018 · Feb 17, 2018 · Amelia Gora oh folks remember that our treaty permanent treaty of friendship and amity signed in 1849/1850 was with the U.S. President Zachary Taylor and the United States of America's Constitution was part of it...treaties supersedes State, Federal Laws and are t...Amelia Gora-Kanaka Maoli Truth : Queen Liliuokalani's ...
Queen Liliuokalani's Issues Remained With the U.S. President Alone - Executive Agreement Verified - Part 3 ... (21 hours ago) Amelia Gora to president, comments, 11:20 AM (21 hours ago) Addendum to Kingdom of Hawaii Record No. 2009-0150 – Let Peace be the Rule; Continued Oppositions to the U.S. etals. ... President Cleveland took office soon ...
https://iolani-theroyal.blogspot.com
Facebook
Tane Inciong commented.
Crooks
https://www.ilind.net/…/intermediate-court-of-appeals-agai…/
Appeals Court again rules against claim that annexation was illegal
Posted on January 4, 2020 by Ian Lind
On the morning of December 11, 2019, three judges of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals convened in the Supreme Court Courtroom in downtown Honolulu to hear oral arguments in an appeal in the case of State of Hawaii vs. Windyceslau D. Lorenzo, also known as Kamehameha VI.
Yes, you read that right.
Since at least the early 1990s, Lorenzo has claimed to be “His Majesty Kamehameha VI, King of the Hawaiian Islands, seventh Great Grandson of Kamehameha I, duly recognized and confirmed by the Alii Nui Konohiki Council of Chiefs under the Constitution of 1840, in the Kingdom of Hawaii.”
Of course, despite the pretensions, he’s only one of many claimants competing to speak for a kingdom that in hard reality ceased to exist with the overthrow in 1893.
In 2013, Lorenzo filed warranty deeds in the Bureau of Conveyances transferring title to three parcels of Waimanalo land, a total of approximately 335 acres, to his wife. The source of Lorenzo’s ownership of the property was identified as an earlier 1998 deed:
Deed of Rose P. Lukela, “Grantor”, to Windyceslau Donato Lorenzo, dated August 26, 1998 and recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances as Document No. 98-126382, conveying all claims of the grantor in and to the lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Lukela was also known as Rose P. Lorenzo. The basis of Lukela’s claim of ownership in the Waimanalo properties was not identified.
The state later challenged the 1998 deed in court and succeeded in having declared frivolous. It was expunged from the state’s records.
The state then challenged Lorenzo’s 2013 deeds, which were based on the on the deed that had already been throw out. Following a June 2015 hearing before Judge Victoria Crandall, title was found to be properly vested in the State of Hawaii. The three deeds were found to be frivolous and ordered to be expunged from the state’s land title records. In addition, Lorenzo was fined $5,000, and was enjoined from filing any further related deeds without prior authorization from the court.
Lorenzo then filed an appeal to the Intermediate Court seeking to reverse Crandall’s ruling.
Lorenzo was represented in this appeal by Williamson Chang, a professor at the University of Hawaii’s William S Richardson School of Law, who has become a widely quoted advocate of the theory that Hawaii was never legally annexed by the United States, one result being that therefore post-Kingdom land titles granted under the authority of the territory and state are invalid.
Chang had touted his opening brief in the appeal for its presentation of evidence of “the failure of the United States to acquire Hawaii….”
The judges of the Intermediate Court initially said oral arguments would not be held in the case, but Chang strongly objected. In a legal motion filed on September 30, 2019, Chang pressed the court to reinstate oral arguments because there were, in his words, “numerous issues that had not been covered.” Chang said he was prepared to address the legislative intent of the 1959 Admissions Act by which Hawaii became a state, as well as details of the Congressional debate over annexation in 1898.
In response to Chang’s motion, the court reversed itself, and on November 14 issued a notice setting the oral arguments for 10 a.m. on December 11. The stage was set for Chang to expound his theories.
But when the case was called, neither Williamson Chang or his client, Windyceslau D. “Kamehameha VI” Lorenzo, responded. Neither was present for the hearing that had been scheduled specifically at Chang’s request.
Less than two weeks later, the three-judge panel issued a summary disposition order rejecting each of the arguments raised by Chang and dismissing Lorenzo’s appeal.
The court found that the idea “that the 1898 Joint Resolution did not actually convey the islands of Hawaii to the United States, has been considered and rejected by the Hawaii Supreme Court,” citing the recent decision In re Conservation Dist. Use Application HA-3568.
https://law.justia.com/…/supreme-…/2018/scot-17-0000777.html
In that case, the Hawaii Supreme Court explicitly rejected Williamson Chang’s position that annexation was faulty because it was not accomplished through a treaty of annexation.
Citing relevant cases, the court held: “The United States Supreme Court has thus indicated that the process by which Hawaii was incorporated into the United States was lawful and binding, and we are bound by this determination.”
And as to the ownership of the Waimanalo parcels that were the subject of Lorenzo’s deeds, the court noted the history of the properties prepared by E. Mahoe Collins, the state’s abstractor, which traced the title back to the Great Mahele. The court noted that the history had not been challenged.
“Collins did not find any transfers or conveyances made by the State or its predecessors to Lorenzo or Rose P. Lukela (aka Rose P. Lorenzo), from whom Lorenzo claims he received transfer of the Parcels,” the court wrote in its decision. “Other than Lorenzo’s argument that the 1898 Joint Resolution failed to transfer the lands of Hawaii to the United States, which has been rejected by the Hawaii Supreme Court…he does not assert any challenge to Collins’s affidavit.”
Williamson Chang was ordered to pay $100 for his failure to appear for the December 11, 2019 oral arguments without good cause."
No comments:
Post a Comment