Jon Osorio's Response to the "Ceded" Lands Settlement: An Open Letter to the Lahui May 23rd, 2009

Hoʻopunipuni: The Myth of Statehood” organized by Arnie Saiki, in Los Angeles. Julian Aguon, Kekuni Blaisdell, Kuhio Vogeler and I all spoke about the many different and connected deceptions that have maintained the fiction that Hawaiʻi belongs to the United States. We discovered that the audience, largely consisting of Hawaiians living in Southern California, was desperate to understand the nature and direction of the sovereignty movement in Hawaiʻi. They wanted to be connected to and contributors to the movement but did not understand why there was fighting between Kanaka Maoli in Hawaiʻi, why there was such opposition to Kau Inoa and the Akaka Bill, what the US Supreme Court decision on the Ceded Lands implied, and mostly when we in Hawaiʻi would finally give them a unified and clear path to follow. I told the audience that we fight among ourselves in part because of the pernicious and ingrained deceptions that America has provided that have succeeded not only in disguising its imperial nature in the world but also convincing Kanaka Maoli that the US has some legitimacy in its claims to our land and our loyalty. To their complaints that we seemed to be fighting among ourselves, I replied that we have not just one American lie to contend with, but one lie after another, collectively confusing issues and making it difficult to achieve consensus, much less unanimity, yet we grapple with this constantly, striving to base our movement on fact and truth and some sense of honor. I do believe that we will continue to disagree over many things, but I see no reason why we should not eventually get to the point where we can at least agree on how we see the US/Hawaiʻi relationship and understand the factual history of that relationship. Before we assume that some Hawaiian people will always be Americans by choice, let us at least be sure that they know the history that even America concedes. Simply: The US assisted and participated in a conspiracy that helped fewer than a hundred armed malcontents take control of a nation that ruled over more than 38,000 subjects ardently loyal to the Queen. The US violated its own constitution in accepting the cession of the regime it sponsored and impounded nearly 2 million acres of kingdom property pretending that it was a legal annexation. The US imposed a colonial government on an independent nation state and allowed the colonial administration to lease and sell the very best lands of the Kingdom to a small number of already wealthy plantation owners during the first half of the twentieth century. In 1921 the US passed a homestead act in Congress setting aside slightly more than 1/10th of the land it took to benefit the poor and struggling Hawaiians, after first defining who would qualify according to a random assignment of blood quantum, and allowing the same territorial government to fund and parcel the lands as they saw fit. By 1941, Hawaiʻi was considered an American colony by the international community which seemed to forget that the Kingdom had been a recognized, independent nation state until the United States formed the territorial government, and was placed on the list of “Non self-governing territories” by the newly formed United Nations in 1947. In 1959, the US declared Hawaiʻi the 50th state after removing Hawaii’s name from the roster of Non self-governing territories and reporting to the UN that Hawaiʻi had been incorporated into the American union by a plebiscite in which more than 90 percent of the vote had chosen statehood. In truth less than thirty percent of Hawai`iʻs residents had actually voted and the only choices voters were given were statehood or continued status as an American territory. At this point, if there were Hawaiians left who remembered that we had been an independent country, they were not talking. Under UN auspices, greater scrutiny should have been applied to the process by which America claimed statehood for Hawaiʻi. Without international voices and with few published objections to our incorporation the US proceeded to transfer control of nearly one and a half million acres of Kingdom lands and Liliuʻs crown lands to the state government requiring only that the new state government assume the trust responsibility once borne by the US government for the native people. In 1977 a federal-state task force investigating the Hawaiian Homes Act discovered that only a small fraction of qualifying Hawaiians had received homestead lands while a majority of the lands were leased out to non-qualified residents in order to raise funds to administer the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Moreover, other ceded lands had been leased or sold without any benefit allocated to Native Hawaiians, an apparent violation of the requirement stipulated in the transfer of those lands to the state government in 1959. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created in 1978 in order to create an agency that could receive state monies and act on behalf of Native beneficiaries. In 1978 the Hawaii Supreme Court and the Legislature both confirmed that Hawaiians were entitled to a 20 percent pro rate share of ceded land revenues because of the terms of the Statehood Act. In 1989 a story in the Wall Street Journal detailing the continued failure of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands had the Hawaiʻi State governments and the US government pointing the finger of blame at each other, although the Task Force in 1977 had already proposed a remedy: spend a billion dollars, half immediately and half over ten years and build the infrastructure necessary to put qualifying Hawaiians on the land. Neither would and both accused the other of bearing the responsibility. In 1998, the governor of Hawaiʻi acknowledged that a 20 percent share of ceded lands revenues to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs would amount to ten million dollars. He offered five million as the maximum that the revenue strapped government could afford and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs accepted. Partly in response to a mounting frustration with the failure of the US to live up to its commitments, and partly in recognition of the dire poverty in which many Hawaiians found themselves, thousands of Hawaiians began to explore sovereignty as an alternative to continued poverty and marginalization. But a growing number of political and community activists and scholars began to analyze the nature of Americaʻs possession of Hawaiʻi and has since identified several different avenues of liberation. One political avenue is to emphasize the Kanaka Maoli’s status as an indigenous people, which places us under the protection of the UN’s Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; A second acknowledges Hawaiʻi as an American colony, not lawfully decolonized, under the UN’s Article 73. A third focuses on the national status of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its rights under international laws to re-secure its independent status and the end of American military occupation. Perhaps in response to these national and indigenous affirmations, US Senator Daniel Akaka proposed an alternative in 1994 that would recognize Hawaiian natives as a native people under the jurisdiction of the Congress and is finally poised to pass this legislation known as the Akaka Bill this year. The protections and assurances of this bill became more and more detrimental to Native Hawaiians over the past fifteen years in order to placate a hostile congress and administration. The shape taken by federal recognition has occurred with almost no consultation with Hawaiian organizations. Regardless of the provisions of the Akaka Bill, federal recognition is merely the latest deception of the US government that it has some legitimate claim to Hawaii’s sovereignty and its lands. The naked truth is that our ancestors created a national government in the 1840s, structured by democratic laws and principles; created property similarly structured by modern laws and principles; secured treaties of recognition, cooperation and friendship; never raised a hostile hand against the United States or any of its citizens; honored the principles of international laws and covenants and strongly and uniformly opposed the takeover by the US in 1897. Hawaiians today may claim that they have been Americanized, but not without fully understanding how this has come about, not through one deception only, but through a series of deceptions that continue to this day. In my opinion, it is possible that Hawaiians could choose continued incorporation with America or a federally recognized status as preferred political futures. But it would be a betrayal of our ancestors to base that choice on lies. It is also quite clear that we are legally entitled to that choice. Perhaps when all Hawaiians can agree on the history of how we have been claimed by America, we will have fewer fights over who we are and how we should proceed. It is important that Hawaiian organizations and agencies like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs do not perpetuate deceptions by pressing for quick and immediate solutions to difficult political issues. As an agency whose mission is to seek the betterment of the Native people, the Kanaka Maoli, it should be leading the attempt to research, uncover, chronicle and discuss the history of our relationship with the United States. It should not be hurrying a process that Hawaiian people have not fully discussed. Unfortunately, its official position with regard to federal recognition is that time will only erode the political, economic and social conditions of Native Hawaiians in Hawaiʻi and that the Akaka Bill, regardless of its provisions, offers the only foreseeable relief. Hawaiian sovereignty activists see the restoration of a Hawaiian nation as a long-term process of education, advocacy and requiring a commitment on the part of Hawaii’s people, not just Natives, to a just resolution of the American fraud. It is not likely that OHA can exert much leadership in this kind of dynamic, and it appears that its strategy, more and more, is simply to try and isolate the sovereignty movement as either hopeless or irrelevant. The extent to which this strategy wastes the talents and energies of a growing number of Kanaka Maoli is the true measure of its failure of leadership. Finally, America’s insistence that it has legally taken our sovereignty has consequences for the fate of the Crown and Government lands. Whenever the US or state governments can assert an unchallenged claim to these lands, we as a nation are a step closer to losing them. Thus far, both governments have been able to assume ownership merely by possessing and controlling these lands and by virtue of US declarations in the Newlands Resolution, the 1900 Organic Act and the 1959 Statehood Act. The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court’s 2008 injunction against the sale of Ceded Lands because of our “un-relinquished claims” was a significant protection of our lands and claims which would afford us the time and the political support that our movement has only rarely received. When the US Supreme Court’s opinion remanded the case back to Hawaiʻi, I concluded that we needed to fight this case again, arguing even more strenuously than ever that the Crown and Government lands are the property of the Hawaiian Nation and that the US permanent control over it is unlawful. OHA and the other plaintiffs chose to dismiss the suit in exchange for state legislation which, in my opinion, simply emphasizes the State’s possession of these lands and maintains the fiction that our national claim is limited or unobtainable. It is my belief that we should attempt to secure this injunction once more in the Hawaiʻi courts and require the United States to call forth or create the law that dispossesses us. That, at least, would clarify our relationship with America and bring forth the patriots who will lead us home. Written in the Republic of Ireland May 11-15, 2009 Jonathan Kay Kamakakawiwoʻole Osorio]]>

23 comments for “Jon Osorio's Response to the "Ceded" Lands Settlement: An Open Letter to the Lahui May 23rd, 2009

  1. KenConklin
    May 27, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    The Republic of Hawaii did not “steal” the lands from the Kingdom of Hawaii. There was a revolution which overthrew the Kingdom government.
    It is ludicrous to claim that the U.S. invaded and established a puppet regime. There were only 162 U.S. peacekeepers who came ashore, similar to what was recently done in Liberia (but with far greater numbers and firepower) in anticipation of possible violence. Most of the U.S. peacekeepers left Hawaiian soil within a short while, and on April 1 the few remaining ones were sent away by “U.S. Minister Plenipotentiary With Paramount Powers” Blount.
    The Provisional Government and Republic held power all by themselves for 5 years, with zero U.S. assistance and no U.S. troops, and in the face of open hostility against them from U.S. President Grover Cleveland (friend of Liliuokalani). There’s no way that was a U.S. puppet regime.
    The temporary revolutionary Provisional Government spent more than a year convening a Constitutional Convention (at least five of the delegates were ethnic Hawaiians), writing and ratifying a Constitution, and establishing a permanent Republic of Hawaii (the Speaker of the House was ethnic Hawaiian, John Kaulukou). That Constitution and the names of the delegates who wrote it can be seen at
    The new successor government, the Republic, naturally governed all the lands which had formerly been governed by the predecessor government of the Kingdom. That’s what happens when there’s a revolution — the successor government takes over all the assets belonging to the previous government.
    The Republic was internationally recognized. In Fall, 1894, kings, queens, emperors, and presidents of 20 nations on four continents personally signed letters granting full diplomatic recognition de jure to the Republic as the rightful government of Hawaii. The originals of those letters are in the Hawaii archives, and photographs of them can be seen at
    Since the Republic was internationally recognized as the rightful government, it had the right under international law to offer the public lands of Hawaii as part of a negotiated agreement for annexation to the United States four years later. The Republic in 1897 offered a treaty of annexation, which the U.S. accepted in 1898, in which the U.S. was not allowed to simply take over the public lands of Hawaii and add them to the U.S. land inventory. Instead, the Republic drove a hard bargain with the U.S., requiring the U.S. to hold the ceded lands as a public trust for the benefit of all Hawaii’s people. The U.S. also, as part of the annexation, agreed to pay off the national debt of Hawaii, which was mostly the debt from the Kingdom, and whose value was greater than the value of the ceded lands. Thus, in effect, the U.S. bought the ceded lands but generously held them only as a trust for Hawaii’s people, and later returned them to Hawaii’s people. In 1959, when Hawaii became a State, those lands were returned to the new State of Hawaii in fee simple absolute except for national parks and military bases. Thus the public lands of Hawaii from the Kingdom are now the public lands of the State of Hawaii, and those public lands are controlled today by the government of Hawaii on behalf of all Hawaii’s people without racial distinction, just as they were at the end of the Kingdom period. Ethnic Hawaiians did not collectively own the public lands during the Kingdom (which was multiracial) and certainly do not own the lands now.
    For a deeper analysis of the current political situation in Hawaii and how the Akaka bill fits into that bigger picture, see my book “Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State” at

  2. arnie
    May 27, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    Jon Osorio wrote “In truth less than thirty percent of Hawai`iʻs residents had actually voted and the only choices voters were given were statehood or continued status as an American territory.”
    I want to apologize, because “30%” is the number I mistakenly stated publicly on the Ho’opunipuni panel he is referring to. The number I’m using is conservatively, 35%.
    While crunching the numbers of those who were actually eligible to vote, I realized that by averaging the population, I had mistakenly factored that 1/4 of the population and not 1/3 of the population was under voting age.
    Thirty percent was the number I came up with examining statistical averages, before actually adding up the numbers via the census report.
    On the other hand, Jon is correct if we determine that many of those who did vote– namely the large numbers of American military servicemen and their families– were not counted as “residents” in the census, thereby further throwing off the numbers.
    The data of servicemen who voted in the plebiscite would liberally push the numbers closer to the 30% that Jon states. I suspect, that by their inclusion in the population figure, then 30% would be closer to the truth, but until those numbers are in front of me, I’ve been using the conservative 35%.

  3. Jere Krischel
    May 27, 2009 at 4:57 pm

    Only residents were allowed to vote, regardless of whether or not they were military or not. Any servicemen who wanted to vote in the Territorial election had to declare residency, and provide proof of residency.
    I have a question though -> have you run those numbers for any other elections? From my understanding, the 1959 election was the highest turnout ever in island history.

  4. kaholo
    May 28, 2009 at 11:56 am

    How is it that Kenconklin makes these fictional statements. The fact is ” The United States Government Acknowledges the Illegal Overthrow of The Kingdom of Hawaii.” What part of “Illegal” does Kenconklin don’t understand? Read PUBLIC LAW 103-150,The Apology Bill, Signed by the President of The United States, Whereas the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over “their” national lands to the United States, either through their Monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum; Whereas the Eighteenth General Synod of the United Church of Christ in recognition of the denomination’s historical complicity in the “illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893” directed the “Office of the President of the United Church of Christ” to offer a public apology to the native Hawaiian people . “True Knowledge Is Power People”. Be-careful of the false prophets. Who is Kenconklin ?

  5. Jere Krischel
    May 28, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    PL103-150 was knocked down as having no legal impact whatsoever by the SCOTUS on March 31, 2009:
    As per the basic principles of statutory construction, whereas clauses have no legal impact. If you are depending upon the lies in the whereas clauses of PL103-150 to make your argument, you have already lost.

  6. kaholo
    May 28, 2009 at 9:48 pm

    It has no legal impact is what there saying. It should be expected when you believe that the thief will decide if he should be found guilty of this Illegal act or not. It does not surprise Hawaiians like myself that they would say that. After all you are relying on the thief to make a decision on something they did illegal. If someone gets caught in the act of stealing something, than writes a letter of apology to the public admitting to the crime that they committed, do you ask the thief if they think the “law that they broke” has any legal impact on them. Of course there going to say no. The fact is U.S.A admitted to the Illegal Overthrow. After all we don’t expect the thief to do the right thing or to be honest. Like the saying go’s, the longer it takes for you to get caught, the more severe the punishment.

  7. Jere Krischel
    May 28, 2009 at 10:38 pm

    Kaholo, unless you can identify a governing authority, body of law, and judiciary for deciding questions of legality, throwing around the word “illegal” is just superfluous.
    In the case of PL103-150, it is clear that this law was enacted under the jurisdiction of the United States, under its constitution and under its authority. The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate arbiter of US law. The SCOTUS found PL103-150 to have no legal merit. The case is closed.
    The fact of the matter is that PL103-150 was filled with lies, and it cannot be considered an admission of anything. If you wrote a letter of apology to me, in public, for killing the pope, it would not make you liable for his murder. In the same way, PL103-150, which was wholly inaccurate in nearly every whereas clause, cannot make the United States liable for something that never happened. It’s very clear that 162 US sailors landed during the overthrow, but they remained scrupulously neutral the entire time. It was an internal Hawaiian affair, not a US conspiracy.
    The sad part of all of this, is that you cannot ever acknowledge any higher authority than your own judgement of what is legal and what is not. Even if the ICJ came down and said, “Sorry Kaholo, but you’re wrong, PL103-150 isn’t a legal admission, and has no weight of law,” you’d still argue that the US was still guilty of something “illegal.” Law does not work that way. Until you’re willing to identify a judiciary body with jurisdiction over a given legal dispute (in this case, let’s say the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893), talking about “legal” and “illegal” is just rhetoric.
    Who would you accept judgment from, and why would you say they have proper jurisdiction?

  8. arnie
    May 28, 2009 at 11:45 pm

    I would not argue that the recent SCOTUS decision has NO legal impact, and my reading of the testimony as well as the slip opinion does not dispute the illegality of the overthrow. My understanding is that the SCOTUS sent the case back to the HSC to decide upon without the use of PL103-150, which is different from saying that the Apology Resolution has “no legal impact.”
    The acknowledgment of the overthrow, and the apology is legal and binding. The reality is that the Federal SCOTUS saw this case as a State issue, and protecting State’s rights from federal resolutions is a principle upheld by the majority of this Supreme Court.
    Using state law however, might prove just as similar an outcome as the original decision by Justice Moon. Without relying upon PL103-150 in the HSC “ceded lands” case, the HSC can still refer to Act 340, 354, 359.
    Personally, I don’t think this case will come up again in the HSC anytime soon, and my guess is that further claims on the “ceded” lands will be settled out of court between OHA and the State.
    From PL103-150
    The Congress –
    (1) on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893, acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people;
    (2) recognizes and commends efforts of reconciliation initiated by the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians;
    (3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;
    (4) expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and
    (5) urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.
    As used in this Joint Resolution, the term “Native Hawaiians” means any individual who is a descendent of the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii.
    Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States.
    Approved November 23, 1993

  9. Jere Krischel
    May 29, 2009 at 1:03 am

    The SCOTUS was very clear that they didn’t even have to delve into the so-called “illegality” of the Hawaiian Revolution, because simply by the definition of statutory construction, whereas clauses have no legally binding effect.
    All Apologies. Justice Alito, writing for an unanimous court, characterized the issue as whether the Apology Resolution deprived Hawai’i of its power to alienate state lands “that the United States held in absolute fee and granted to the State of Hawaii effective upon its admission into the Union.” The SCOTUS ruled that the Apology Resolution had no effect on the State’s powers. Congress, according to the SCOTUS, used verbs that were “conciliatory or precatory.” In the Resolution, Congress acknowledged, apologized, expressed commitment, recognized, and commended things. “Such terms,” according to the SCOTUS, “are not the kind that Congress uses to create substantive rights.”
    The State owns Ceded Lands in “Absolute fee.” The SCOTUS noted that the Admission Act required the State to hold ceded lands in trust for the public–including the betterment of Native Hawaiians–but held them in fee. The Apology Resolution did not change that. The SCOTUS gave three reasons why the Apology Resolution had no bearing on the Admission Act. First, the HSC relied too much on the “whereas” clauses in the Resolution–clauses that have no operative effect. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___, ___ n. 3 (2008). Even if the clauses did have a legal effect, it would essentially repeal that portion of the Admission Act that gave the title in fee. Implicit repeals are “not favored and will not be presumed unless clear and manifest.” Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 664, 662 (2007). Finally, the SCOTUS reasoned that if the Apology Resolution did indeed affect the title to the ceded lands, it would have been a retroactive cloud on the title. “Congress cannot, after statehood, reserve or convey submerged lands that have already been bestowed upon a State.” Idaho v. United States, 533 U.S. 262, 280 n. 9 (2001). According to the SCOTUS, the same concept applies to “all of the State’s public lands–not just its submerged ones[.]”
    Reading it narrowly, the SCOTUS reviewed a simple federal question: whether the Apology Resolution had any legal effect on the Admission Act. The answer was, without a doubt, no. It relied primarily on statutory construction. But in answering the question, the SCOTUS determined that, under the Admission Act, the State received the ceded lands in “absolute fee” in 1959.

  10. Jere Krischel
    May 29, 2009 at 1:05 am

    “The acknowledgment of the overthrow, and the apology is legal and binding.”
    No, it’s not. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is legal and binding in US law, PL103-150 is a US law, and the SCOTUS clearly stated that whereas clauses do not have any legal effect, create no liability, nor substantive rights. Although you may have believed that to be true before 3/21/2009, the SCOTUS removed all doubt from that question, and proved you wrong.

  11. Jere Krischel
    May 29, 2009 at 1:12 am

    “Without relying upon PL103-150 in the HSC “ceded lands” case, the HSC can still refer to Act 340, 354, 359.”
    340 doesn’t seem applicable, 354 cannot create any sort of cloud on the perfect title held by the State (besides being filled with lies about history), and regardless of whether or not the legislature believes something is “illegal or immoral,” that is not within their power – we have a judiciary for a reason, and you cannot legislate history. 359 fails to provide much support either, since it asserts a judicial judgement but bypasses the judicial process. The determination of whether or not the Hawaiian Revolution was “illegal” (and what law in particular was broken, under what jurisdiction), is not a legislative question, but a judicial one.
    The only way the HSC can possibly uphold their decision is to completely pander to the race-based activists, and throw the entire constitution under the bus. At that point, equal protection claims at the federal level would be sure to follow. If they had any intellectual integrity our courage, they would acknowledge that you cannot have race-based privileges in a society which by the 14th and 15th amendments, demand racial equality.

  12. admin
    May 29, 2009 at 1:39 am

    Following a peculiar quandary initiated by Orban_Nees on fifdififdi, if in the near future, Hawaii were to become independent and you had an opportunity to sit in the cabinet among a new Hawaiian nationalist legislature, what party would you belong to? The Hawaii Nationalist Republican Party? a Restore Statehood Party?
    It’s an interesting question now that openDemocracy is having discussions over the breakup of Great Britain.

  13. Jere Krischel
    May 29, 2009 at 3:12 am

    Definitely a Restore Statehood Party. I’d probably be jailed as a political prisoner for advocating equal rights regardless of racial background, and be considered a “terrorist” for advocating the overthrow of the existing government.
    I have absolutely no faith in the notion that exchanging our current corrupt democrat-run government for a race-based ultra-left-wing ethnonationalist government would do anything but harm to the people of Hawaii. Most likely, Kim Jong Ill would send a delegation with a suitcase bomb, and take over the islands in the name of North Korea. Then I imagine 30 or 40 years of suffering under despotic rule before the other 49 states decided to come to our rescue.

  14. Jere Krischel
    May 29, 2009 at 3:21 am

    Make that the “Reinstated State of Hawaii” party – we’d use US dollar bills as currency (gee, just like the Kingdom of Hawaii), refuse to pay so-called Kingdom taxes, put together phony petitions, sell “State of Hawaii Bonds”, run an “Even-More Perfect Title Company” and take over the UH Manoa Hawaiian Studies department.

  15. kaholo
    May 29, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    Jere, Hawaiians were always known to have plenty of Aloha, if you dont have Aloha for the People who come from these island, “your not going to last in Hawaii” once the state of hawaii looses there management position over “our lands”.
    Around 1850 “All Lands in Hawaii had been “Patented” under the Constitutional Monarch Government of The Hawaiian Kingdom, similarly to what the British Government did with there Lands. It’s called Royal Patents & Land Commission Awards. All these Land “Records” can be found at the State of Hawaii Department of Accounting and General Services Archives Division, It’s the only legal grounds that the State of Hawaii is operating on, “Royal Patents”. The Question is, Who owns those Royal Patents that there calling Crown Lands ?
    When an American fulfills the requirement to obtain a “Land Patent”, the patent is assigned by and under the hand and seal of the President of the United States, under Act of Congress. Prior to the US Congress making any “Acts”, jurisdiction must first be Acquired.
    On Jan. 20, 1893, The self-proclaimed “Provisional Government” failed to legally transfer, acquire or to record any of it’s color of claims; failing to transfer anything to the self-proclaimed “Republic of Hawaii” and the void of record has since been passed on-as a void of record. Because there has never been a transfer of jurisdiction from those entities, The US Congress cannot claim jurisdiction or authority over the Royal Patent and therefore, cannot pass and Act upon it. (hence the Akaka bill; to garner jurisdiction over land, trust and criminals)
    When a Kanaka Maoli Hawaii fulfilled the requirements to have obtained a Royal Patent or Land Commission Award, it was signed both the Sovereign and Prime Minister and then issued by the Minister of Interior, stamped and sealed under the Constitutional Monarch Government of the Kingdom of Hawaii to the Patentee/Awardee and his/her Heirs forever. Title was Quieted and it remains intact, a judicial decision to remove the former Quiet Title Decision, had never been made.
    In Hawaii, there has never been a transfer of jurisdiction, or Authority to the US in order for the country to obtain our Royal Patent. Royal Patents to US patents require Treaty of war; neither ever took place here- THE ROYAL PATENT is INTACT in HAWAII and stealing it, means depriving humans of their constitutional, statues and human rights, protected by law.
    The land patent is the only form of perfect title to land available in the United States. Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 PET (US), 498.10.L.Ed.264
    In America, unless they have the Land Patent on the land they do not own it. Most people today obtain “Real Estate” by contract, and then on fulfillment of the contract they transfer control of land by “Warranty Deed”.
    The “Warranty Deed” is merely a “color of title”. Color of title means:”That which is a semblance or appearance of title, but not title in fact or in law.
    The Warranty Deed cannot stand against the Land Patent, in Hawaii a *Royal Patent. ” A grant of land ( Land Patent) is a public law standing on the statute books of the State, or Nation and is notice to every subsequent purchaser under any conflicting sale made afterward. ” Wineman v. Gastrell, 54 FED 819, 2 IS Ap. 581. Fraudulent sales, transfers and receipts are VOID.
    In addition, any ruling that involves violation of due process of law under the Fifth, Sixth, or Seventh Amendment is also a void judgement. Void judgement can be attacked or vacated at any time and there is no statute of limitation.

  16. Jere Krischel
    May 29, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    “Jere, Hawaiians were always known to have plenty of Aloha, if you dont have Aloha for the People who come from these island, “your not going to last in Hawaii” once the state of hawaii looses there management position over “our lands”.”
    He Hawaii au; he mau Hawaii kakou a pau. I am Hawaiian. We are all Hawaiians. If you cannot accept that the people of Hawaii are not determined by one-drop bloodline ancestry, you cannot possibly understand the wisdom of your kupuna who declared in 1840 with the first constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii that all people are “of one blood.”
    The State of Hawaii is the legitimate government of all the people of Hawaii, and is comprised of the people of Hawaii, of all races, creeds and colors. If you ever do create your race-based nation, be sure to realize that it cannot, will not, must not last -> such an ideal is an insult to the spirit of aloha, and the people of these islands who have lived here for generations.

  17. Jere Krischel
    May 29, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    “The Question is, Who owns those Royal Patents that there calling Crown Lands ?”
    Simple -> the Republic of Hawaii converted those Crown lands to general public lands in 1894. This was upheld in the US Court of Claims in 1910 in a ruling against Liliuokalani, who was actually claiming them personally. On the basis of Kingdom Law, the US Court of Claims determined that the Crown lands were held for the office of the Monarch, not the Monarch themselves, and so they were properly added to the pool of public lands upon the declaration of the Republic.
    Perfect title was transferred during the 1898 Newlands Resolution, to hold those lands in trust by the Federal US government. Perfect title was returned in 1959 upon Statehood.

  18. Jere Krischel
    May 29, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    “On Jan. 20, 1893, The self-proclaimed “Provisional Government” failed to legally transfer, acquire or to record any of it’s color of claims; failing to transfer anything to the self-proclaimed “Republic of Hawaii” and the void of record has since been passed on-as a void of record.”
    The universally recognized Provisional Government of the Kingdom of Hawaii was acknowledged as de facto by every nation that ever held diplomatic relations with the Kingdom -> nothing was transfered, merely the Queen, her cabinet and marshall were deposed. All offices of the Kingdom continued under the Provisional Government without change. After the illegal attempts at interference by Grover Cleveland and his lackey Blount, in 1894 the Republic of Hawaii was declared, and accepted as de jure by every nation that ever held diplomatic relations with the Kingdom. (
    If you want to call the Republic of Hawaii, which was universally internationally recognized as the legitimate government of the Hawaiian islands as “self-proclaimed,” you must also call the Kingdom of Hawaii “self-proclaimed” -> both of them enjoyed the same recognition and international status.

  19. Jere Krischel
    May 29, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    “When a Kanaka Maoli Hawaii fulfilled the requirements to have obtained a Royal Patent or Land Commission Award, it was signed both the Sovereign and Prime Minister and then issued by the Minister of Interior, stamped and sealed under the Constitutional Monarch Government of the Kingdom of Hawaii to the Patentee/Awardee and his/her Heirs forever. ”
    Wrong. They gained the land fee simple, and had every right to sell it (and thereby deprive their Heirs). Getting land fee simple does not mean you have a claim to it “forever.” If you’d like to blame your great-great-great-grandparents for selling off their lands, feel free.
    Furthermore, the Kuleana Act allowed anyone, including resident aliens, to own land fee simple. This was a legal act done by the legitimate Kingdom of Hawaii.

  20. Jere Krischel
    May 29, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    “THE ROYAL PATENT is INTACT in HAWAII and stealing it, means depriving humans of their constitutional, statues and human rights, protected by law.”
    The Kingdom was replaced in 1894 by the internationally recognized Republic of Hawaii -> the Royal Patent has no legal meaning anymore. One cannot assert that a 100+ year old constitution and laws of a fallen government can possibly be enforceable, or even moral today. Dividing people by race means depriving humans of their current constitutional rights, their current statutory rights, and their current human rights -> many protections which never existed before Statehood.
    Nothing was stolen in 1893, and nothing was stolen in 1894, and nothing was stolen in 1898, and nothing was stolen in 1900, and nothing was stolen in 1959. The public lands of the multi-racial public of Hawaii have been properly returned by the US federal government in 1959, to the multi-racial public of Hawaii. Trying to make claims based on fractional ancestry is racism, pure and simple.

  21. Jere Krischel
    May 29, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    “The “Warranty Deed” is merely a “color of title”. Color of title means:”That which is a semblance or appearance of title, but not title in fact or in law”
    I encourage you to file suit in court to prove that. Your assertion that it is merely “color of title” is nothing but your opinion, and has no legal weight. You are more than welcome to open a case in district, state, and federal court -> but my bet is that you don’t have the courage of your convictions. You know that your claims have no legal merit, so instead of getting them adjudicated, you simply try to hold onto the ambiguity of having no decision.
    Prove me wrong, file suit on that basis in any court, and see how far you get. And when you’re told your theories are incorrect, and your legal opinions are invalid, have the decency to admit your error and learn from it.

  22. Jere Krischel
    May 29, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    “In addition, any ruling that involves violation of due process of law under the Fifth, Sixth, or Seventh Amendment is also a void judgement. Void judgement can be attacked or vacated at any time and there is no statute of limitation.”
    Then attack it in court. Otherwise, you’re just pretending that anything you say is the truth, and automatically has legal weight because you’re such a nice guy.
    Don’t forget the 14th and 15th amendments, though -> there have been some very brave people fighting against race-based privileges in Hawaii throughout the years, and they’ve been pretty successful at helping the people of Hawaii regain the equality they deserve.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *