HCR107 in the Hawaii legislature of 2011 -- A resolution establishing a joint legislative investigating committee to investigate the status of two executive agreements entered into in 1893 between United States President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, called the Liliuokalani assignment and the agreement of restoration.

By Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. March 22, 2011

House Concurrent Resolution 107 (HCR107) in the Hawaii legislature of 2011 would establish "a joint legislative investigating committee to investigate the status of two executive agreements entered into in 1893 between United States President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, called the Liliuokalani assignment and the agreement of restoration."

The investigating committee would be extraordinarily powerful. The resolution says it would be empowered to "Issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of the witnesses and subpoenas duces tecum requiring the production of books, documents, records, papers, or other evidence in any matter pending before the joint investigating committee; ... Administer oaths and affirmations to witnesses at hearings of the joint investigating committee; Report or certify instances of contempt as provided in section 21—14, Hawaii Revised Statutes ..."

Below is the testimony of Ken Conklin, followed by full text of the resolution, a link to 75 pages of testimony submitted to the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, and the "status" of the bill showing that all committee members who were present voted in favor of it on March 23, 2011. As time goes by additional material will be added including committee reports, the testimony submitted to other committees, the YEAS and NAYS by other committees, news reports and commentaries.

=============

Ken Conklin's testimony for committee hearing on March 23, 2011

HCR107 is very bad. It deserves not only defeat, but also ridicule.

My testimony is lengthy. In case your computer truncates it to some predetermined maximum, you can find this testimony on my website at this address:
http://tinyurl.com/4t5pecj
where I will also publish full text of the resolution, and the list of who votes yea or nay, and the committee report. I want you to be publicly embarrassed if you vote in favor of it.

First, a procedural issue. If it passes, HCR107 will clearly cost money to implement, because clerks and other personnel will have to be paid to attend the numerous hearings called for in the resolution and to compile and print testimony and reports. But HCR107 fails to include the $ symbol and fails to include a referral to the Finance Committee. Since Mele Carroll is the sole introducer and sponsor of this resolution, blame for the failure to refer it to the Finance committee falls on her. And since there is no "BR" to indicate it was (merely) at the request of a constituent, all blame for the ridiculousness of its content falls on her. Other committee members can save their reputations by voting against it.

It's hard to oppose a resolution calling for an investigation and gathering of information. What's the harm? A few of the harms will be explained below.

But in general, consider the motive for "establishing a joint legislative investigating committee to investigate the status of two executive agreements entered into in 1893 between United States President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani ..." to restore her to the throne in return for her sparing the lives and property of the people who overthrew her. The purpose of such an investigation is not merely to do academic research on an obscure historical question from 118 years ago. The purposes are to claim that the U.S. had an obligation to restore Liliuokalani to the throne; and to claim that the obligation of the President of the United States continues to this day to restore the Kingdom of Hawaii to its former status as an independent nation.

Aside from academic curiosity about history, and aside from the legal issues (which are now moot): it's a political question. Is that what the members of this legislature really would like to accomplish? Suppose there really was such an executive agreement (false), and suppose that dredging it up at this late date could actually force the U.S. Supreme Court or the World Court to issue a writ of mandamus for the U.S. to disgorge Hawaii (extremely unlikely). Would you really like to do that, even without consulting (all!) the people of Hawaii? Do you really want to encourage the radicals who want to do that? Are you going to spend tax dollars to provide such a forum? Kekuni Blaisdell already convened Ka Ho'okolokolonui Kanaka Maoli: The Peoples' International Tribunal, in 1993, with a huge report published by the highly esteemed (*cough, sputter) tribunal judge Ward Churchill. What did that accomplish? At least it was not funded with tax dollars. Did you read that report? Can you find a copy of it? No? That should tell you what will happen to the results of the hearings demanded by HCR107. Circular file.

Throughout my nineteen years in Hawaii I have seen the legislature repeatedly pass bills and resolutions encouraging some sort of race-based Hawaiian political entity, or sovereign independence. Year after year: Let's pay for an election of delegates to a Native Hawaiian convention, and years of their travel expenses for meetings, so they can choose the tribal concept or write a constitution for an independent nation; let's pass a resolution in 2002 asking the United Nations to investigate the legitimacy of Hawaii's admission to statehood in 1959; let's support the Akaka bill in Congress; let's proclaim April 30 of every year a permanent holiday called "Hawaiian Restoration Day"; let's create a state-recognized tribe with a state-only version of the Akaka bill; let's transfer $200 Million in land or money to OHA; etc. etc. ad nauseum. Why? All you've accomplished is to stir up racial animosity, feelings of entitlement, etc. You raise hopes for some people who want land and money from the rest of us, and then those hopes come crashing down. Over and over again. Remember the Aloha Airlines plane that had a huge hole ripped out of its side in mid-flight, due to metal fatigue caused by too many takeoffs and landings? That's what you're doing to all Hawaii's people, and to ethnic Hawaiians in particular. STOP IT.

Three of the many harms that would result by passing HCR107 are described in more detail later. Here they are briefly identified.

1. A resolution such as HCR107 brings ridicule and disrespect upon those who support it, and upon the legislature as a whole -- as shown by recalling what happened in connection with another Hawaiian sovereignty resolution passed in 2007. Many current members of the legislature, including members of this committee, participated in that debacle. I'm going to remind you what happened in hopes you won't do it again.

2. Such a resolution as HCR107 provides a platform whereby certain perpetrators of historical malpractice bring fame and fortune to themselves while spreading false information far and wide, using the legislature as an accomplice. I will remind you about two scams perpetrated during the last 15 years by the same person who is now revving up his new scam and wants you to pass this resolution to help him.

3. HCR107 has many false statements. Some falsehoods are complex, so testimony against them must wait for the hearings called for if the resolution passes. But a few falsehoods in this resolution are simple enough to be exposed in this brief testimony.

1. AN EXAMPLE OF A RESOLUTION PASSED IN 2007 WHICH HAS BROUGHT RIDICULE TO BOTH THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS LEGISLATURE; BROUGHT FAME AND FORTUNE TO A HOAXER; AND SENT FALSEHOODS ABOUT HAWAII HISTORY FAR AND WIDE.

This Hawaiian Affairs committee has previously misled the legislature to pass resolutions on Hawaiian sovereignty topics despite testimony clearly proving that the legislation contained egregious falsehoods and that the pushers of the legislation were indeed aware of those falsehoods at the time. Later the legislation was held up for public ridicule both in Hawaii and outside Hawaii, bringing scorn upon this committee and the entire legislature. Con artists use such resolutions to enrich themselves; hold fundraisers and travel widely while soliciting and receiving donations partly based on gullible people being presented with the resolution as proof that the matter is taken seriously by our government.

Perhaps the most flagrant example of malfeasance and historical malpractice by this committee and the legislature happened in 2007 when a permanent annual Hawaiian Restoration Day holiday was established for April 30. Here's what happened. Reverend Kaleo Patterson knowingly used a fake Grover Cleveland proclamation from 1894, cited it as fact, and used it as the basis for a media blitz in 2006 in Hawaii and on the mainland calling for a national day of prayer for restoration of Native Hawaiians and repentance for the overthrow of the monarchy. He repeated his local and mainland propaganda campaign in 2007 and pushed a resolution HCR82 through the Hawaii legislature citing the joke proclamation as real and "proclaiming April 30 of every year as Hawaiian Restoration Day."

Perhaps as a result of that resolution, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on Wednesday April 23 2008, page 2, published a story describing the Cleveland proclamation as a fact. The newspaper refused to publish a correction despite nine of its editors and officers immediately being given proof of falsehood. Because the newspaper published a falsehood and refused to correct it the newspaper was given The Goebbels Award For Outstanding Use of Media for Propaganda Disguised As Fact:
http://tinyurl.com/44ls4j

In 2010 Patterson repeated a trip to Caldwell N.J. in furtherance of his hoax, where the town council honored him and gave him a check for $2920 to defray his expenses.

For a detailed analysis of the fake Grover Cleveland proclamation; proof that it was a joke and not true; how it came to be accepted as true by Hawaiian sovereignty activists who should have known it was false; how the lie was widely disseminated; how it became the core of a terrible legislative resolution which passed overwhelmingly; proof that Kaleo Patterson was aware of the lie upon which his resolution was based; text of the 2007 legislative resolution and committee report and list of the representatives who disgraced themselved by voting "aye"; text and citation of the New Jersey newspaper article reporting Patterson's 2010 trip and $2920 grant; see
http://tinyurl.com/k38tm

On April Fools Day 2008 a 4-page flyer was published, poking fun at the Hawaii Legislature for passing the resolution in 2007 which assumed that an April Fools joke from 1894 was actually true. The joke was actually an editorial poking sarcastic fun at Grover Cleveland. It was published in a New York newspaper the day after the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs published its 808-page "Morgan Report" of the facts about the Hawaiian revolution of 1893. All 808 pages of the Morgan Report, and numerous summaries and essays about it (including a well documented essay describing how the Morgan Report caused President Cleveland to change his mind about the Hawaiian Revolution) can be found at
http://morganreport.org

The newspaper sarcastic editorial joke in 1894 portrayed President Cleveland as issuing a proclamation calling for a national day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer in repentance for the U.S. role in overthrowing Liliuokalani. On the same page was another sarcastic editorial joke portraying President Cleveland issuing a proclamation for the Senate to be abolished and its power to be given to him, because of the Senate's bad judgment in publishing the Morgan Report.

But in 2007 the joke was on this Hawaiian Affairs committee and this state legislature for being fooled by Kaleo Patterson into thinking the "Cleveland Proclamation" was real. The 4-page flyer includes photos of the two sarcastic editorials against Grover Cleveland, taken from the newspaper's archives. See
http://tinyurl.com/2tj5jl

Will this committee now set in motion another ridiculous resolution, once again making the legislature a laughing-stock? It's now 4 years after 2007. Hurry up; the fraudsters are waiting for you to bless their adventures!

2. KEANU SAI, THE MAN CURRENTLY PUSHING THE CONCEPT OF AN "EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT" BETWEEN PRESIDENT CLEVELAND AND EX-QUEEN LILIUOKALANI, HAS TWICE PREVIOUSLY LAUNCHED HIGH-PROFILE SCAMS BRINGING HIM FAME AND FORTUNE.

Will this committee, and this legislature, now pass a resolution providing a platform for Keanu Sai's third major scam?

Here are the two previous ones.

The "Perfect Title" scam.

In the mid to late 1990s Keanu Sai launched a series of lectures on cable television, and workshops throughout the islands where he distributed literature. He claimed the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893 was "illegal", and therefore all transfers of land title since then were also illegal since the officials of the Bureau of Conveyances who place their seal of approval on land transfers were agents of illegal successor governments. Mr. Sai also laid a paper trail at the Bureau of Conveyances which he claimed followed procedures established under Kingdom law which made himself Regent Pro-Tem of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the absence of the monarch, the cabinet officers, and the Kingdom legislature. As Regent Pro-Tem he claimed the authority to condone, or certify, land title transfers of the past and present, and thereby to "perfect" (to repair or make perfect) the titles held or desired by his clients. During the course of several years he and his company collected several hundred thousand dollars in fees from several hundred clients for doing "title searches" and filing new warranty deeds at the Bureau of Conveyances. He not only enriched himself, but he caused huge problems for hundreds of his clients who relied on his documents, and hundreds (perhaps thousands) of innocent people whose genuine property deeds were "clouded" because of the bogus new deeds he filed and who were therefore unable to get mortgages or sell their houses.

In one particular situation, Keanu Sai was finally put on trial for a felony charge of attempted grand theft (of a house). Mr. Sai demanded and received a jury trial. The multiracial jury on December 1, 1999 unanimously found Mr. Sai guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempted theft of title to a house (value approximately $300,000) for his role as an accessory to a man and woman who had broken into and reoccupied a house they had formerly owned but had lost through foreclosure. Not even one member of the jury had any reasonable belief that Mr. Sai's fanciful theories could possibly be correct because, as Mr. Sai had argued during the trial, if his theories are correct then there would not have been any theft because the rightful owners of a house cannot steal it. The ordinary people of the multiracial jury gave their unanimous verdict beyond a reasonable doubt based on commonsense. If the verdict had been appealed, then judges and legal scholars would also be able to sustain the verdict by concluding that Sai's theories are false. At first Mr. Sai said he would appeal the verdict as a way of proving his theories. If he truly believes his theories, that's what he should have done. But in view of his slap-on-the-wrist penalty, Mr. Sai apparently decided not to appeal for fear his theories would be discredited and perhaps for fear he would go to prison if the sentence was also appealed by the government.

The maximum sentence for Keanu Sai's crime was 10 years in prison and a fine of $25,000. But Judge Sandra Simms sentenced Keanu Sai to 5 years probation and a $200 fine. There was no restitution ordered for the innocent victims of Mr. Sai's scam, and not even "community service." Judge Simms was known as a bleeding-heart liberal who gave light sentences even to hooligans who beat up tourists while robbing them, and perhaps for that reason the Judicial Selection Commission denied her reappointment to the bench when her first term ended.

At sentencing on March 7, 2000 I, Ken Conklin, was present in court. Perhaps a hundred Hawaiian sovereignty activists also packed the courtroom, including Bumpy Kanahele and Kekuni Blaisdell, while more people stood in the hallway unable to fit inside. When Judge Simms entered the courtroom and the bailiff loudly proclaimed the customary "All rise!" the sovereignty activists defiantly remained seated to show their contempt for a court they consider invalid. Judge Simms, playing to the crowd, said from the bench she admired Mr. Sai for his commitment to his cause, but that even the noblest protesters and seekers of social justice must be subject to the laws as they now exist. She then gave her absurdly light sentence, and apparently in response to a presentencing motion she also granted him permission to travel out of Hawaii and out of the United States for his anticipated hearing at the "World Court." So much for the rigors of probation! After the sentencing, the crowd spilled out into the hallway in a jovial and congratulatory mood.

Fortunately the Honolulu newspapers -- especially the Star-Bulletin -- published a lengthy trail of news reports about Perfect Title and the trials and sentences of the criminals who were involved. A lengthy, detailed webpage compiles many of the news reports and commentaries. See
http://tinyurl.com/nq5vs3

If the legislature passes HCR107 you will be aiding and abetting Mr. Sai in his pursuit of fame and wealth for his new history scam in which he already has a book or two in progress and has already been giving lectures on various islands, reminiscent of his publicity campaign in the Perfect Title scam.

The "World Court" Scam

Two friends agree that the Hawaiian Kingdom was illegally overthrown, and the annexation of Hawaii to the U.S. was done illegally. They agree that the laws of the Kingdom of Hawaii still are the rightful laws of Hawaii today. One of these friends, Lance Larsen, repeatedly gets arrested for driving a car in Hawaii while failing to have a license plate and drivers' license issued by the State of Hawaii. Larsen refuses to pay the fines, and continues to defy State law. He gets thrown in jail for 30 days. He claims the State of Hawaii is not the rightful government and has no jurisdiction over him. Meanwhile, his friend Keanu Sai claims to be the Regent Pro-Tem of the Kingdom of Hawaii, having followed the laws of the Kingdom to establish himself in that office. The two of them cook up a scheme whereby Lance will sue Keanu, as acting head of state, for failing to protect Lance, a subject of the Kingdom, against the illegal actions of an illegal State of Hawaii. And just to make it complete, Lance also sues the United States and all the other nations that had treaty relationships with the Kingdom, claiming that they also had a duty under their treaties to protect Lance against harrassment from an illegal government. But the first action taken once the lawsuit has been filed is for Lance and Keanu to dismiss the lawsuit by agreeing to have the matter arbitrated. Lance and Keanu take their dismissal documents and their agreement to submit to arbitration, to a retired federal court judge who still handles occasional matters, and who is himself ethnic Hawaiian and a supporter of Hawaiian sovereignty. Instead of laughing and dismissing the case outright as frivolous, the judge signs the order of dismissal, happy that the case is no longer on his court docket because the parties have agreed to arbitration. Lance and Keanu announce that a U.S. judge has recognized the continued existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii by signing a document in which the Kingdom's representative and a Kingdom subject have agreed to dismiss their case from court and submit it to arbitration.

Since the case has the appearance of involving international law, Lance and Keanu are able to persuade the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague (Netherlands) to provide a venue where hand-picked arbitrators can hear the case. Lance and Keanu each hire one arbitrator (fee $10,000 each), and those two arbitrators agree upon a third arbitrator, thus comprising a three-man arbitral panel to hear the case at the Hague under the rules of international law governing commercial relationships (not the rules governing international political disputes). The arbitral panel does hear the case, and issues a ruling that Lance and Keanu have no real dispute between them because they agree on everything. The panel says that if there is any real dispute capable of being arbitrated under international law it would be between Lance/Keanu vs. the United States over the issue of the alleged illegal occupation of Hawaii by the U.S. But the arbitral panel rules that it is unable to consider such an issue because the U.S. is not a party to these proceedings (in other words, people are saying bad things about the U.S. and the U.S. was not present to defend itself since Lance and Keanu had dismissed the U.S. right from the start!). Case dismissed. In less polite terms: Where's the beef? Get outta here! In the language of international law, the notice of dismissal is called an "Award." Thus, Lance and Keanu now have an "Award" from "the International Court at the Hague."

Gullible people see an opera and mistake it for real life. This staged performance had the backdrop of a building used for the genuine International Court at the Hague, where disputes between nations are resolved and where international war crimes trials are held. Naturally, Keanu and Lance refer to their arbitral panel as "The International Court at the Hague," which creates a false impression of grandeur.

As befits an opera or other public entertainment, a vast amount of publicity and "hoopla" surrounded this entire process for a period of about two years, right up until the result was announced.

Large fundraisers were held, including a six-hour extravaganza of speeches and music on the grounds of 'Iolani Palace, televised in Hawaii as a live paid commercial, and simultaneously webcast over the internet. Numerous speeches and panel discussions were held over a period of many months. Allegedly hundreds of supporters traveled to the Hague for the hearings dressed in Hawaiian-style clothing and bestowing beautiful, fragrant leis upon "court" personnel and spectators -- the Hawaii Tourism Authority would have been proud! A good time was had by one and all. The whole purpose of the arbitration was to allow the participants and their fanatic supporters to proclaim their propaganda far and wide

For more information about Mr. Sai's "World Court" scam see:
http://tinyurl.com/4q95avn

If the legislature passes HCR107 you will be aiding and abetting Mr. Sai in his pursuit of fame and wealth for his new history scam in which he already has a book or two in progress and has already been giving lectures on various islands, reminiscent of his publicity campaign in the Perfect Title and World Court scams.

3. A FEW FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS IN HCR107 (There are too many to include most of them here, and some are quite complex).

The resolution has many false statements; some are complex and testimony against them must wait for the hearings called for if the resolution passes. But a few falsehoods in this resolution are simple enough to be exposed in this brief testimony.

The text of the proposed resolution is copied below this testimony in htm format; however, that format does not show the line numbers on each page. To see the line numbers it's necessary to view the resolution in pdf format; but the pdf version must be separately downloaded and cannot be displayed below. Click here to download the pdf version if you want to see the line number referred to in the testimony:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/Bills/HCR107_.pdf

Whereas #2 and #3, page 1, lines 8-20: Although the apology resolution of 1993 says that Minister Stevens conspired with the revolutionaries, the facts are otherwise. The U.S. peacekeepers turned out not to be needed: they remained in barracks, never pointed their guns at anyone, did not patrol the streets, did not take over any buildings, and did not give food or assistance to anyone. See the sworn testimony in the Morgan Report.

Whereas #5, page 1 line 26 to page 2 line 2: When the revolution had succeeded without any assistance from U.S. peacekeepers, Minister Stevens then granted de facto recognition to the Provisional Government. This is normal procedure in revolutions throughout the world. For example, during the recent insurgency in Libya, France first granted diplomatic recognition to the rebels (rather prematurely) and then France led air strikes against Gaddafi's forces. In the Hawaiian revolution the Provisional Government had already taken control of the government buildings before the U.S. recognized them, unlike the situation in Libya. And the U.S. never fired a shot in the Hawaiian revolution, unlike France's massive use of military force in Libya, which the United Nations approved.

Whereas #7 and #8, page 2 lines 37 to page 3 line 2: Liliuokalani was indeed vested with executive power during the time when she was Queen, which ended on January 17, 1893. Thereafter she did not have any executive authority, any more than the deposed Batista had executive authority after Castro's Cuban revolution or the deposed Russian Tsar had authority after the Russian revolution. By January 19 every nation having a local consul in Honolulu, including the U.S., gave de facto recognition to the Provisional Government in letters they delivered to President Sanford B. Dole. As noted in Whereas #2, Minister Stevens was minister plenipotentiary, meaning that he spoke with the authority of the U.S. President. From that time forward, the U.S. officially recognized President Dole as having the executive authority of the nation of Hawaii, and not ex-queen Liliuokalani. Therefore, it was impossible for there to be any executive agreement between Grover Cleveland and Liliuokalani, since Cleveland did not take office until March.

Whereas #9 and #10 and #11, page 3 line 4 to page 4 line 10: Grover Cleveland's henchman James Blount came to Hawaii without Senate confirmation, under secret orders from Grover Cleveland to destabilize the Provisional Government and restore Liliuokalani. At Cleveland's request he wrote a propaganda document based on secret interviews with royalists. The Morgan Report includes testimony under oath from several witnesses who reported that Blount had lied in Blount's report about what the witnesses had said to Blount in Honolulu. Blount's successor Albert Willis continued efforts to destabilize the Provisional Government, and conducted secret negotiations with Liliuokalani offering a deal to put her back on the throne if she would promise to pardon the revolutionaries and not punish them or seize their property. On two occasions she refused the deal, saying she would execute (behead) them. By the time she accepted the deal late in December it was too late, because Grover Cleveland was referring the matter to Congress to launch the hearings that produced the Morgan Report. In any case, the deal offered by Willis, which Liliuokalani finally (but too late) accepted, was a deal Willis had no right or authority to offer. The U.S. was interfering in Hawaii's internal affairs, negotiating in secret with a deposed monarch even while the U.S. had already recognized President Dole as having the executive authority. Regardless whether Liliuokalani accepted the deal, the U.S. had no power to implement it without approval from President Dole. Just before Christmas Willis wrote a letter to Dole demanding that Dole step down and restore Liliuokalani. Dole wrote a blistering reply refusing. Neither the letter from Willis nor the reply from Dole mentioned any deal with Liliuokalani. See: "Letter of December 19, 1893 from United States Minister Willis to Hawaii President Dole, Demanding That Liliuokalani Be Restored to the Throne," at
http://tinyurl.com/6zlct
See "Letter of December 23, 1893 from Hawaii President Sanford B. Dole to U.S. Minister Willis, Refusing United States Demand to Restore Ex-Queen Liliuokalani to the Throne" at
http://tinyurl.com/8y6jo

To sum it up: There was no executive agreement between President Cleveland and ex-queen Liliuokalani for at least three reasons: Liliuokalani no longer had any executive authority after January 17; the U.S. gave official recognition de facto to President Dole as the one who had executive authority for Hawaii; the U.S. had no right or power to dictate terms of a "settlement" between Liliuokalani and Dole which Dole did not know about and whose demands upon him to resign he flatly refused to comply with when he was informed of them.

Whereas #17, page 5 lines 2-7: The alleged quotation of the U.S. Constitution "supremacy clause" leaves out very important elements. This quotation is actually a falsehood, typical of Hawaiian sovereignty falsehoods propagated as deliberate attempts to deceive.

Here’s Article VI, Section 2 in its entirety. This entire section is one single sentence, and must be taken as a whole.

“This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and all the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

The entire sentence makes clear that its purpose is to establish the principle that federal law is superior to any state law that might contradict it. If a federal law and a state law are in conflict, the federal law wins.

Now let’s take the entire first part of Article VI, Section 2, not leaving anything out, to see that there are three things that are the supreme law of the land, not only treaties. “This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ...”

Note that the first thing mentioned is the Constitution, because it is more important than the other two (indeed, it’s the Constitution which grants power to the other two!). Then the next thing mentioned is the laws passed by Congress, because that is more important than the third item. Then, finally, the third item is treaties. Treaties are the least important among the three items which, taken all together, are the supreme law of the land, taking precedence over any state Constitution or law.

Whereas #18, page 5 lines 9-14 quotes the U.S. Supreme Court out of context to assert "that executive agreements arising out of the President’s sole authority over foreign relations does not require ratification by the Senate or the approval of Congress, and has the force and effect of a treaty"

Well, that's just wonderful. Because if that is true, then Hawaii President Dole's offer of a treaty of annexation to President Harrison in January 1893, and President Harrison's acceptance of that offer, constitute an executive agreement with the force of a treaty, which remains standing until this day, certainly binding on Harrison's successor President Cleveland and thus nullifying Cleveland's subsequent withdrawal of that treaty and the alleged executive agreement between Cleveland and Liliuokalani.

Keanu Sai filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. currently known as David Keanu Sai v. Hillary Clinton, et al.. At one time President Obama was named as a defendant but then removed. More recently a motion was filed to re-add President Obama as a defendant along with the Honolulu consuls of 35 nations. Naming, deleting, and adding defendants was a tactic also used by Mr. Sai in his "World Court" case. On March 9, 2011, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued summary judgment dismissing this convoluted lawsuit. Of course Mr. Sai is appealing. He provides a webpage tracking his lawsuit, and offering explanations for his behavior, at
http://hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml
HCR107 is Mr. Sai's attempt to get more publicity for his adventure, with the help of Rep. Mele Carroll.

I'm sick of writing this testimony and will stop FOR NOW. Aren't you sick of reading this detailed, boring testimony? Just think how sick you'll be if you are sitting on the panel that must convene under the terms of HCR107. What a waste of time and resources! Could we please just cut the nonsense? Vote NO on this ridiculous HCR107 and pass a resolution of censure against Mele Carroll for even introducing it. Was she merely naive and didn't comprehend the logical consequences? I don't think so; she's quite intelligent. The only alternative explanation for her behavior is that she places her loyalty to a racial group higher than her (dis)loyalty to the State of Hawaii and the United States of America. I am sickened by that attitude, which is all to common these days in Hawaii and is further encouraged when serious consideration is given to disreputable resolutions such as HCR107. Evidence of that attitude is found in the slogan appearing immediately below the name of the Hawaiian Affairs committee on every hearing notice it is sending out: "He lā hou, e ho‘oulu lāhui: A new day, building a nation" We don't need a new nation. We need to support the one we already have.

============

Full text of the resolution HCR107 on March 23, 2011, the date of the first committee hearing, copied from the legislature's webpage for this bill at
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/Bills/HCR107_.HTM

===========

A 32 megabyte pdf file containing 75 pages of testimony submitted to the Hawaiian Affairs Committee for its meeting of March 23, 2011 can be downloaded by clicking here:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/Testimony/HCR107_TESTIMONY_HAW-CUA_03-23-11_.pdf

Here’s a video on youtube that was posted by a person who was present at the hearing. It's 50 minutes long, and apparently includes all the oral testimony from people who were present (they summarized or spoke extemporaneously rather than reading their written testimony).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwsJ6BqcZOI

===========

==============

==============

REP. MELE CARROLL SENDS OUT A NEWS RELEASE FALSELY ASSERTING THAT HCR107 WAS PASSED BY THE HAWAII HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

In 2009-2010 Mele Carroll was Chair of the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs. However, after the election of November 2010 there was a revolt among some far-left Democrat representatives who wanted to push out Calvin Say from his powerful position as Speaker. When Speaker Say eventually won the struggle, he then used his power to punish the most radical representatives by removing them from their previous positions as committee chairs and even from some of the committees which they most strongly wanted to serve on.

For 2011, Mele Carroll not only lost her position as committee chair, she was not even appointed to be a member of the Hawaiian Affairs committee. Nevertheless she continued to view herself as the leader of the "Native Hawaiian" caucus. She retained a publicity coordinator and maintained a webpage where she published news reports about every piece of race-based legislation that was referred to the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, just as though she were still chairing that committee! She is extraordinarily zealous as a racial partisan, and seems to regard patriotism to her race and to an independent Nation of Hawaii as being far more important than her patriotism (if any) to the United States or the State of Hawaii. She was the author of HCR107. Her webpage is at

http://melecarroll.wordpress.com/

On Thursday March 31, 2011 Rep. Mele Carroll published a news release, including her photo, which was widely circulated on the internet but was either never posted on her webpage or has since been deleted from her webpage and from other blogs where it had been posted. The title of the news release was:

"House Concurrent Resolution 107 establishing a Legislative Committee to investigate "Executive Agreements" between the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 passes Hawai'i House Floor."

The first sentence of the news release says:

"HONOLULU -- On Thursday, March 31, 2011 the state House of Representatives passed House Concurrent Resolution 107 on the session floor today."

Both the title of the news release, and the first sentence, are false. HCR107 never passed the House of Representatives.

Anyone who got to the end of the news release could figure out there was something wrong. The closing paragraph of the news release began with this sentence:

"House Concurrent Resolution 107 now goes to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration."

But if the resolution had actually already passed the House, then why would it be going next to the House Judiciary Committee? That simply doesn't make sense.

Here's the truth of what happened. HCR107 was introduced in the House by Rep Mele Carroll, and was referred to three committees including HAW, JUD, and LMG. Therefore it would need to be given a hearing by each of those three committees, and would need to pass all three committees. The Status Report copied on this webpage shows that the resolution had a hearing in HAW on March 23 and was passed by that committee without any opposition. A committee report was written recommending passage and recommending referral to JUD. The conclusion of the committee report was: " ... your Committee concurs with the intent and purpose of H.C.R. No. 107 and recommends that it be referred to the Committee on Judiciary."

That report was officially accepted by the full House on March 30, with no opposition. What the full House did on March 30 was NOT to actually pass the resolution, but merely to acknowledge receipt of the committee report and to send the resolution along to the judiciary committee for further consideration. Then if JUD held a hearing and passed the resolution, it would need to go to LMG committee for hearing and passage. Only after that could it go to the floor of the House for final passage, and be sent to the Senate.

As a concurrent resolution, it needs to pass both the full House and the full Senate before it is actually enacted. Bills and resolutions both have "crossover dates" when they must be passed and sent to the other chamber, or else they die. The crossover date for resolutions is always quite a bit later than for bills. In 2011 the crossover date for resolutions is April 15.

On Thursday Morning April 7 the Hawaiian secessionists figured out that there's not enough time left for JUD and LMG to hold hearings and write reports, and then for the full House to pass the resolution in time for the April 15 crossover. Therefore the secessionists published a call for the secessionists to contact the committee chairs for JUD and LMG to ask them to waive jurisdiction.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hawaii-nation/message/1195
Hawaii Nation message board, Message # 1195

In order to continue moving forward in the legislature, House [Concurrent] Reso 107 "TO INVESTIGATE THE STATUS OF TWO EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO IN 1893 BETWEEN UNITED STATES PRESIDENT GROVER CLEVELAND AND QUEEN LILI'UOKALANI OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM" needs to be either heard or waived off from the House Judiciary Committee and Legislative Management Committee. Please take a moment today to contact Rep. Keith-Agaran and Rep. Yamashita, the chairs of these respective committees, and encourage them to waive off HR107.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HCR&\ billnumber=107

Gilbert S.C. Keith-Agaran
Judiciary Committee Chair
phone: 808-586-6210
fax: 808-586-6211
repkeithagaran@capitol.hawaii.gov
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/members/house/memberpage.aspx?member=keithagaran

Kyle T. Yamashita
Legislative Management Committee Chair
phone: 808-586-6330
fax: 808-586-6331
repyamashita@capitol.hawaii.gov
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/members/house/memberpage.aspx?member=yamashita

==============

http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/547893/Council-OKs-status-probe-of-two-1893-agreements.html
The Maui News, April 2, 2011

Council OKs status probe of two 1893 agreements
Cleveland violated deals by not restoring a government, executing law — resolution

By CLAUDINE SAN NICOLAS - Staff Writer, The Maui News

WAILUKU - Maui County Council members gave unanimous support Friday for a move in the state Legislature to convene a panel to probe two executive agreements related to the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.

Council Member Elle Cochran, who initiated county support of state House Concurrent Resolution 107, said the council action does not commit it to a position on the matter but does support the intent to gather more information.

The resolution was introduced in the state Legislature by state Rep. Mele Carroll, who represents residents of East Maui, Molokai and Lanai. It would establish "a joint legislative committee to investigate the status of executive agreements known as the Lili'uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Restoration."

According to the resolution, one document provided for Queen Lili'uokalani, under protest, to temporarily yield her authority to the government of the United States to avoid bloodshed. A second document, or agreement, provided that Lili'uokalani would provide amnesty to those who overthrew her government.

The resolution says that "President Cleveland and his successors in office have violated these agreements by not administering Hawaiian Kingdom law and not restoring the Hawaiian Kingdom government."

State House members approved the resolution Thursday.

In a news release, Carroll said she believed that it was her duty to bring the executive agreements to the attention of state lawmakers and that the joint investigative committee be given subpoena powers necessary to obtain all information from experts before issuing a final report to the Legislature.

Carroll added: "I am grateful that members of the House recognized that this is not a partisan issue, but a legal issue. If the investigative committee is able to conclude that these executive agreements have been annulled or superseded and no longer have no legal effect, then we have done our job as legislators."

At Friday's County Council meeting, the proposed resolution drew testimony from eight people, all of whom supported it.

"We are not going against the government. We are not trying to make waves," Uilani Kapu said. "We are here for the truth."

She said kupuna for years have struggled to bring the issue forward but without success.

Foster Ampong also asked council members to approve Cochran's resolution and said it would send a message that "you're willing to stand up for the people."

Cochran was visibly touched by the testimony.

"The outpouring of hearts and support is very moving for me," she said. "This is just something I feel passionate about."

Council Member Mike White said he was comfortable with supporting the local resolution, but he also expressed a preference that the joint investigative committee have members with a background in history and judicial matters.

Carroll's resolution calls for the investigative panel to have 10 members, five from the House and five from the Senate, all of whom have leadership positions on committees and/or in the political parties at the Legislature.

[** Truncated at point where article reports on other matters before the council.]

* Claudine San Nicolas can be reached at claudine@mauinews.com.

==============

http://www.staradvertiser.com/columnists/kauakukalahale/20110402_He_Kx0101nx0101wai_Poina_ia.html Honolulu Star-Advertiser, April 2, 2011
Kauakukalahale [Hawaiian language weekly column]

He Kānāwai Poina 'ia

By Keao NeSmith

Synopsis: The House takes on House Concurrent Resolution 107.

Ma ka lā 23 o Malaki nei, hālāwai ihola ke kōmike pili i nā hana Hawai'i o ka Hale (YouTube: HCR107. Executive Agreement) no ke kūkākūkā 'ana e pili ana i ka 'ōlelo ho'oholo a ka Hale, helu 107, 'o ia kekahi hana e ho'okumu ai i kekahi kōmike nāna e ho'okolokolo i ke kūlana o 'elua 'aelike pelekikena i holo i ka 1893 ma waena o ka Pelekikena Grover Cleveland lāua 'o ka Mō'ī Wahine Lili'uokalani i ho'oili 'ia ai ka mana mō'ī i ka pelekikena o 'Amelika no ka manawa ā ho'iho'i hou 'ia ke aupuni o ke Aupuni Mō'ī Hawai'i. Ma ia kōā o ka manawa, 'o nā kānāwai o ke Aupuni Mō'ī Hawai'i nā kānāwai mana o ka Pae'āina nei, me ka ho'okō 'ia aku nō e nā 'ākena o 'Amelika ā hiki i ka ho'onoho hou 'ia 'ana o ke aupuni o ke Aupuni Mō'ī. Ua puka nō ho'i ka 'ōlelo ho'oholo me ke kāko'o laulā a e ho'opane'e 'ia i ka 'aha holo'oko'a o ka Hale no ke kūkā pū 'ana.

Ma ka 'ōlelo ho'oholo, 'o kekahi mana e hā'awi 'ia i ua kōmike nei i makemake 'ia, 'o ia ka mana e kēnā i ka po'e kūpono e hō'ike waha no ua mau 'aelike lā.

'O ke kumu no kēia hana a ka Hale, no ka mea ho'i, mai ka 1849 ā hiki i ka 1875, ua ho'opa'a 'ia 'elima ku'ikahi ma waena o 'Amelika Hui 'ia a me ke Aupuni Mō'ī Hawai'i. Hui pū nō me nā 'aelike pelekikena 'elua o ka 1893 i 'ōlelo 'ia ma luna a'e nei e ho'ohiki ana i ka ho'iho'i hou 'ia mai o ke aupuni o ke Aupuni Mō'ī, lilo kēia mau hana aupuni 'o ia ke kānāwai ki'eki'e loa o ka 'āina 'o 'Amelika Hui 'ia, e like me ka 'ōlelo o ka Paukū VI o ke Kumukānāwai o ua 'āina lā. Ma ia mana'o nō, 'o ke kuleana o nā luna aupuni o ia mea i kapa 'ia 'o ka 'State of Hawai'i', 'o ia ka ho'okō aku i nā kānāwai o kona haku, 'o 'Amelika Hui 'ia a ho'okō i nā 'aelike pelekikena 'elua o ka 1893 a kōkua i ka mālama 'ia 'ana o ke koho pāloka e koho 'ia ai nā luna aupuni hou o ke Aupuni Mō'ī.

Ma ka 1898, ua ho'oholo a'ela ka 'Aha'ōlelo o 'Amelika i ka 'ōlelo ho'oholo hui i kapa 'ia 'o ka Newlands Resolution e ho'ohui ana i ka Pae'āina 'o Hawai'i me ua 'āina lā. 'O ka pilikia na'e, e like me ka 'ōlelo a ka mea kākau, 'o Sarah Vowell, ma ke ki'i pahu ho'olele ki'i 'o ka Daily Show ma ka lā 21 o Malaki nei, ua like nō ka mana o kekahi 'ōlelo ho'oholo hui me ka ho'oholo 'ana o ke aupuni o ka moku'āina 'o New Jersey i kekahi lā, 'o ia ka lā John Bon Jovi. Ua pili nō i ia moku'āina wale nō, a 'o ia wale iho nō. Pēia pū nō ho'i ka mana o ka 'ōlelo ho'oholo hui 'o Newlands, ua pili nō i ka 'āina, 'o Amelika Hui 'ia, a 'a'ohe kau mai i luna o kekahi 'āina 'ē e like me ke Aupuni Mō'ī Hawai'i nei, no ka mea, he 'āina kū'oko'a nō ia me kona mau kānāwai pono'ī iho i pili i ua 'āina nei, a 'o ia wale nō.

Ma ka ho'okō 'ole 'ana o nā luna aupuni o ka 'State of Hawai'i' i nā kānāwai o 'Amelika, hewa lākou i ke kipi i ko lākou aupuni. 'O ka ho'okō 'ia 'ana o nā kānāwai o 'Amelika ka mea e hō'ike ai i ke aloha o nā kupa o nā moku'āina 49 o ua ‘āina lā i ko lākou aloha i ko lākou 'āina.

E ho'ouna 'ia mai nā leka iā māua, 'o ia ho'i 'o Laiana Wong a me Kekeha Solis ma ka pahu leka uila ma lalo nei:
» kwong@hawaii.edu
» rsolis@hawaii.edu
a i ‘ole ia, ma ke kelepona:
» 956-2627 (Laiana)
» 956-2624 (Kekeha)
This column is coordinated by the Hawaiian Language Department at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, supported by the Initiative for Achieving Native Hawaiian Academic Excellence.

-------------

** Online comments

Ken Conklin

Liliuokalani was indeed vested with executive power during the time when she was Queen, which ended on January 17, 1893. Thereafter she did not have any executive authority, any more than the deposed Batista had executive authority after Castro's Cuban revolution or the deposed Russian Tsar had authority after the Russian revolution. By January 19 every nation having a local consul in Honolulu, including the U.S., gave de facto recognition to the Provisional Government in letters they delivered to President Sanford B. Dole. Minister Stevens was minister plenipotentiary, meaning that he spoke with the authority of the U.S. President. From that time forward, the U.S. (along with every other nation) officially recognized President Dole as having the executive authority of the nation of Hawaii, and not ex-queen Liliuokalani. Therefore, it was impossible for there to be any executive agreement between Grover Cleveland and Liliuokalani, since Cleveland did not take office until March, when Sanford Dole already had the executive authority of Hawaii.

Of course Grover Cleveland could offer a deal to the ex-queen whereby she would agree not to take revenge on the revolutionaries, and in return the U.S. would then try to persuade the Provisional Government to stand down and restore Liliuokalani to the throne. But the U.S. President had no authority or power to actually put Liliuokalani back on the throne. All the U.S. could do was to tell Hawaii President Dole to step down. U.S. Minister Willis did send a letter to Dole telling him to step down (and thereby the U.S. fulfilled its end of the bargain with Liliuokalani), but Dole sent back a reply strenuously refusing to comply. Cleveland then referred the matter to Congress, which led to 2 months of testimony under oath before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, yielding the 808-page Morgan Report and a formal resolution by the Senate ordering Cleveland to stop interfering in Hawaii.

To sum up: (1) After the revolution of January 17 1893 Liliuokalani no longer had executive authority for Hawaii, and before March Grover Cleveland was not yet President and had no executive authority for the U.S. So it was impossible for there to be any "executive agreement" between Liliuokalani and Cleveland. (2) Cleveland could and did conspire with the ex-queen to put her back on the throne. Cleveland's representative offered Liluokalani a deal, which she refused twice but then finally accepted. But the deal was not to actually put her back on the throne (the U.S. had no power to do that) -- the deal was that if she would agree not to take revenge then the U.S. would try to persuade Hawaii's Provisional Government to step down. That deal was not an "executive agreement" since Liliuokalani was not a head of state, but in any case the U.S. fulfilled its end of the bargain with the individual person Liliuokalani by telling Dole to step down, which he refused to do.

-----------

homeland

Conklin's words (Aug. 7, 2010): "I do not hate the Hawaiian Kingdom or Hawaiians. There's nothing in my comment that would give any rational person the idea that I do."

Sir, you are a LIAR! You have no credibility whatsoever!

-----------

Ken Conklin in reply to homeland

homeland's comment is totally irrelevant. I stand by my statement of Aug 7, 2010. And I challenge homeland to copy/paste exactly what it was that I said in my comment above here that homeland thinks shows any hatred toward the Hawaiian Kingdom or ethnic Hawaiians. There's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in what I said that would confirm homeland's ridiculous personal attack. Nothing.

How about if I say: homeland hates haoles. There's nothing in what homeland said today that would justify my saying such a thing. But what the heck, I should just go ahead and say it, right? That's the sort of thing homeland likes to do.

So put up or shut up homeland. Quote what I said in my #1 comment at the top of this page that would in any way confirm what you said. You have zero credibility.

---------------------

The legislative history of this resolution is shown on the legislature's "status" page at
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HCR&billnumber=107
It shows that the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs passed the resolution with no opposing votes, and that the committee report was accepted by the House without objection. The resolution was then sent to the Committee on Judiciary, where it died because no hearing was ever scheduled (even though there was still a month remaining before the end of session on May 5). One of the ways a committee chair can kill a bill or resolution is to never schedule a hearing on it, which is often done so that committee members can avoid the embarrassment or voting for it or against it.

==============

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4684/Sovereignty-Mortgage-Scammer-Keanu-Sai-at-it-again-with-help-from-Legislators-Maui-Council-University.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, Sunday, July 17, 2011

Sovereignty Mortgage Scammer Keanu Sai at it again with help from Legislators, Maui Council, University

By Andrew Walden

Recidivist: A convicted criminal who reoffends.
Accessory: A person who, though not present during the commission of a felony, is guilty of having aided and abetted another who committed the felony.

Outfitted with a newly minted UH Manoa PhD and a job ‘teaching’ at Windward Community College, David “Keanu” Sai is back in the mortgage business--and he has lots of help from Rep Mele Carroll (D-Hana, Lanai, Molokai) and other Legislators, the Maui County Council, the University of Hawaii, public access TV, and several well-known sovereignty activists.

Sai was convicted March 7, 2000 on a single count of Class B felony theft stemming from his involvement in the so-called “Perfect Title” scam in which over 400 Hawaiian households were conned into forking out $1500 each to Sai and his company in exchange for worthless title search documents purporting to show that any title issued after the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was invalid.

As KITV’s Daryl Huff explained February 3rd:

A legal argument based on the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, used unsuccessfully to fight foreclosures in the 1990s, is now being used once again, even though the man who promoted the theory 15 years ago was convicted of a felony. David Keanu Sai is back in the public eye 11 years after being put on probation after telling people that they could walk away from mortgages because of the way the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown.

Hundreds of people fighting foreclosure have invested in that claim again -- partly because Sai now has a University of Hawaii doctoral degree to back his argument.

Kale Gumapac, founder of Laulima LLC and Hawaiian Alliance LLC, advertises on Craigslist that he has a way to stop the foreclosure process.

“It doesn't put the banks in trouble and it doesn't put the borrower in trouble,” Gumapac said. “And it's worked. That's what I am trying to tell the Legislature.”

Gumapac said he has about 300 paying customers he is helping attack the title of their properties. “They can only foreclose if the title is clear,” he said.

Do the math. Sai and Gumapac have 300 “customers”. Perfect Title had 400 victims. The Maui-based Ventura-Oliver sovereignty mortgage scammers now on trial had about 300 alleged victims. That is 1000 native Hawaiian households who have allegedly fallen victim to these three alleged scams. According to the US Census for 2010, there are 289,970 native Hawaiians in Hawaii. The average native Hawaiian household size is four persons, yielding a result of 72,492 households. The rate of home ownership for Hawaii is about 60% x 72,492 = 43,495 home-owning native Hawaiian households. Thus the 1,000 alleged victims of alleged sovereignty mortgage scammers, allegedly amounting to 2.3% of all native Hawaiian home-owning households.

At Sai’s 2000 sentencing, the courtroom of Judge was filled with about 100 sovereignty activists including Kekuni Blaisdell and sovereignty criminals such as pardoned convicted felon Bumpy Kanahele. Sai got off easy with five years probation, a small fine and no restitution to his victims. Judge Sandra Simms even allowed Sai to travel to The Hague for his ridiculous and unsuccessful attempt to parlay a Hilo traffic ticket into World Court recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Just over a decade later, Sai is traversing the state with a Power Point presentation. In his mis-named show, “Legal History of the Hawaiian Kingdom” Sai argues that all land title conveyances since the overthrow of the 1893 Hawaiian Kingdom are illegal. This time Sai is using the so-called “Lilioukalani Assignment”--an exchange of letters between the overthrown Queen Liliuokalani and then-US President Grover Cleveland—as the latest basis for his claim that all post 1893 land titles are illegal. The key falsehoods he uses to justify this claim are summed up on slides 78 and 79:

Law Prevents Conveyances since 1893

•“It shall not be lawful to record any conveyance…unless the same shall have been previously impressed with the Royal stamp.” §1254, Hawaiian Civil Code

•“To entitle any conveyance…to be recorded, it shall be acknowledged by the party or parties executing the same, before the Registrar of Conveyances, or his agent, or some judge of a court of record, or notary public of this Kingdom, or before some minister, commissioner or consul of the Hawaiian Islands, or some notary public or judge of a court of record in any foreign country.” §1255, Hawaiian Civil Code

•If a conveyance, whether by deed or mortgage, “was not properly acknowledged it was not entitled to be recorded, and though spread upon the record it must be treated as a nullity.” Lenehan v. Akana, 6 Haw. 538, 541 (1884)

•All State of Hawai`i laws and County ordinances are in direct violation of the Lili`uokalani Assignment and therefore the U.S. Constitution

Sai links to his Power Point presentation and propounds elements of the scam—including a nuisance lawsuit known as Sai v. Obama, et al.--on his official UH website:
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/.

How important is UH to Sai’s latest scheme? KITV reports:

Sai told KITV his claim is basically the same as it was in the 1990s, when he was convicted of attempted theft after he tried to help a foreclosed couple reclaim their home.

But since then, Sai.said he earned a doctoral degree from the University of Hawaii Political Science Department based on the same thesis -- and now is a qualified expert on Hawaiian land title.

Gumapac said Sai’s academic credentials are proof his findings are legally correct.

“He was able to show and prove, and that's how he got his doctorate degree,” Gumapac said.

State Legislators and the Maui County Council are also working to help back up these claims. House Concurrent Resolution 107 of 2011 is designed to give Legislative imprimatur to Sai’s scam by legitimizing his latest version of the “illegal overthrow” litany—namely the “Liliuokalani Assignment” –an exchange of letters between the overthrown Queen Liliuokalani and then-US President Grover Cleveland-- which Sai falsely claims is legally equivalent to a treaty between the USA and the Hawaiian Kingdom.

HCR107 was introduced March 14, 2011 by Rep Mele Carroll (D-Maui) for the purpose of: “Establishing a joint legislative investigating committee to investigate the status of two executive agreements entered into in 1893 between United States President Grover Cleveland and Queen Lili'uokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, called the Lili'uokalani Assignment and the Agreement Of Restoration.”

Sai’s resolution passed the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs March 23 with no dissenting votes. In her report from the Committee, Chair Faye Hanohano explained:

“The Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, Aha Kanaka Moku O Keawe, Ke Aupuni o Hawaii, Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly, Papa Ola Lokahi, Po‘o Hewahewanui ‘Ohana Council, and many concerned individuals supported this measure.”

Testimony also came from HPU assistant professor of anthropology Lynette Cruz, a well-known sovereignty activist who testified: “Dr. Sai's research revealed two executive agreements. His federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C., Sai v. Clinton, et aI., has contributed to public awareness of this important issue.” In another submission of written testimony, Cruz wrote: “After negotiating with Queen Liliuokalani to provide clemency to American insurgents, President Cleveland entered into agreements with the Queen. President Cleveland and the Queen found a way to resolve the problem of the U.S. invasion. As I understand it, these agreements constituted treaties because they were entered into by two heads of state. But somehow they were left out of the historic rendering and only now, via various lawsuits, have they surfaced.”

On April 1, (fittingly) the Maui County Council unanimously approved a resolution introduced by Councilmember Elle Cochran supporting passage of HCR 107.
(Link: www.co.maui.hi.us/Archive.aspx?ADID=15003 pg 51)

In testimony before the Legislature, support for Sai’s resolution also came from:

Hardy Spoehr, Executive Director, Papa Ola Lokahi, the Native Hawaiian Health Board,
Sydney L. Iaukea, Ph.D., Department of Education, Hawaiian Studies Program Manager and Specialist
Tom Coffman, Author and Filmmaker, Nation Within
Ty Tengan, Associate professor of ethnic studies and anthropology at UHM
Michael Kahikina, Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly
Kale Gumapac, Kanaka Council who echoes Sai’s key point: “the occupier is barred from administering the occupier's national laws within the boundaries of an independent and sovereign State.”
Momilani Glushenko, co-owner of Gumapac’s Laulima Title Search and Claims, LLC

Gumapac fronted for the Sierra Club’s unsuccessful efforts to cut off DHHL “big box” commercial development in 2007. In 2009 he was the point man for DC-based Food and Water Watch’s campaign against against fish farms. Now he is a key player in efforts to promote Geothermal development on the 25,856 acre Wao Kele O Puna tract owned by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The announcement for an April 9 panel discussion on geothermal reads:

The Geothermal Informational Session panel will be moderated by IDG CEO Patricia Brandt. Panelists include Mililani Trask, Esq. (International Human Rights Advocate), Ku’uleiohuokalani Kealoha Cooper (Kealoha Estate), Cy Bridges (Hawaiian Cultural Advisor), Bob Lindsey (OHA Trustee), and Kale Gumapac (CEO, Laulima Title Search & Guarantee).

The Hawaiian Geothermal Community Informational Sessions are sponsored by Kealoha Estate, Indigenous Consultants LLC, Innovations Development Group, Inc., Bob Lindsay, OHA Trustee—Hawaii Island, Kanaka Council Moku O Keawe, Laulima Title Search and Claims.

The Facebook page for Laulima Title Search explains the relationship between Rep. Carroll, Gumapac and Sai:

Our story begins five years ago when President and CEO Kale Gumapac, a lifelong insurance agent, decided to try his hand in the mortgage industry. After consulting with a colleague, he began to learn about MERS (mortgage electronic registry system) and securitization. Foreclosure was not as prevalent as it is now, but with his new mana’o, he could foresee the devastating effects that these things would have on the housing industry and homeowners. Fueled with a passion to help homeowners in his own state, he brought education and what we know as the forensic mortgage audit to Hawaii through his company Hawaiian Alliance LLC.

For over three years the method of the forensic audit worked. It allowed Hawaiian Alliance clients to stay in their homes and the audit provided them with the leverage they needed to begin to work out settlement agreements with their lenders with the assistance of a referred attorney.

During this time, with the help of Representative Mele Carroll, Kale also began to tirelessly engage the legislature with one goal in mind: provide Hawaii’s homeowners in foreclosure with more options and protection. Today, Kale continues to engage the legislature – to encourage those in elected positions to pass legislation that will help Hawaii’s homeowners.

In the Fall of 2010, after attending a seminar by Dr. Keanu Sai, everything changed. Kale learned that although MERS and securitization are still valid arguments, there is a stronger argument that questions the validity of Hawaiian land titles. How is this possible? Simply put – two executive agreements that are still in existence between the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States. With this new found knowledge, the decision was made to transition Hawaiian Alliance LLC from a forensic audit based company to Laulima Title Search and Claims LLC, a company that researches land title in Hawaii If the title is found to not be valid, a claim packet is assembled and filed with the title insurance company. It was also decided to retain Dr. Sai, the foremost expert in Hawaiian land titles, as an expert consultant exclusive to Laulima.

Under Hawaii law, Insurance Fraud is considered a Class B Felony if the fraudulent claim is in excess of $20,000.

Under Federal Law, USC TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 47, § 1033, insurance fraud is punishable by “a fine as established under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both….”

The Laulima Facebook page also lists several foreclosure cases Gumapac and Sai are intervening in. Regarding the 2010-2011 foreclosure case of Hilo resident Tracy Tamanaha, a Hawaii Independence Alliance press release helpfully announces: “Who is involved: ‘Kale Gumapac, President, Laulima Title Search and Claim; Keanu Sai, Ph.D. consultant and expert witness; Keoni Agard and Dexter Kaiama, attorneys for Tamanaha.’”

Gumapac is promoting Sai’s claims with a show on 'Olelo called Kanaka Express and a show on Akaku Ch. 53.

Gumapac and Sai have also given numerous lectures, many cosponsored by supposedly reputable organizations:

Sai expounded on the theories behind his latest scam at a March 7, 2011 lecture sponsored by the Keahou-Kahalu’u Education Group of Kamehameha Schools, Kamehameha Investment Group, and the Kohala Center.
Laulima’s Facebook page displays photos from May 21 meetings in Puna and Panaewa
June 2 meetings were held on Maui at the Waikapu Community Center & Lahaina Civic Center
Lahaina News announces a June 27 lecture at the Kaanapali Beach Hotel (Co-sponsored by group which helped victims of Ventura-Oliver)
West Hawaii Today calendar section announces a July 8 lecture at Kahikolu Church
Laulima’s Facebook page advertises a July 12 meeting at the Hannibal Tavares Community Center in Pukalani and adds: “We are also accepting private client appointments for tomorrow :)”

The June 2 meeting report carries this little note:
Two awesome, awesome information sessions on Maui yesterday. A big mahalo to Aunty Patty Nishiyama our Maui Island Coordinator & to Foster & Michele for their hospitality. Thank you everyone for making yesterday a success! Planning the next one for Maui already - stay tuned for details!

Patty Nishiyama was in the news November, 2010 purporting to help victims of the alleged Ventura-Oliver scam. Her associate in that effort, Franciscan Brother Christopher Fishkin of Wailuku, authored a July, 2011 letter to the editor of the Hawai`i Free Press in which he wrote:

This article inaccurately states that Pres. McKinley signed a "Treaty of Annexation". Please present a copy of such "Annexation Treaty", To my knowledge, it doesn't exist.… Please review the soon to be published by UH Press, dissertation of Phd Dr. Keanu Sai, professor at UH and MCC, which is online, in support of this, my above statement.

Now Nishiyama is Laulima’s “Maui Island Coordinator.” Are they recycling victims? Fishkin did not respond to a request for comment.

==============

Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

You may now

GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE