The Legitimate Government in Hawaii Series: University of Hawaii at Manoa Law School Professor Williamson B.C. Chang documents that incorporation of territory of another nation is not possible, etc.

The Legitimate Government in Hawaii Series:  University of Hawaii at Manoa Law School Professor Williamson B.C. Chang documents that  incorporation of territory of another nation is not possible, etc.

                                                                    Reviewed by Amelia Gora (2023)

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 the 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.

*****************