(c) Copyright 2016
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
=============
INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES DURING JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 2016.
January 2, 2016: Leaked Na'i Aupuni emails display outrageous infighting and personal attacks as 'Godless' faction Pushes to ban prayers at upcoming convention despite cultural custom of opening meetings with prayers and chants.
Jan 3: Kaua'i newspaper commentary says full independence impossible, but change needed.
Jan 5: New webpage: Some important testimony against the U.S. Department of Interior proposed regulation for federal recognition of a phony Hawaiian tribe
http://tinyurl.com/zvrtxfd
Jan 6:
(1) Judicial Watch Opposes Obama Administration Executive Action to Create Race-Based 'Tribe' in Hawaii -- Grassroots Group Warns Hawaii Plan Is Racially Discriminatory, Unconstitutional and Would Set a 'Dangerous Precedent' [press release]
(2) Hawaii Business Magazine: Native Hawaiian leaders talk about how the local economy, taxes and business rules might change under self-determination. Non-Hawaiians should pay attention, too, because many of these proposals would affect them directly or indirectly.
(3) Na'i Aupuni Announces 'Aha Participants
Jan 7:
(1) 4 delegates added, 2 dropped as Hawaiian convention nears
(2) Legal Filing Refutes Na'i Aupuni Defense Against Contempt Charge -- Grassroot Institute Calls Na'i Aupuni Process an Embarrassment to the Hawaiian People
Jan 9: "Perhaps it would be worthwhile progress if the Native Hawaiians would recognize that they are seeking from today's Hawaiian residents redress for actions claimed to have been done by their ancestors and abandon their aspirations for political control which won't occur and direct their aspirations to other areas which might address their grievances." [Letter in response to January 3 commentary noted above]
Jan 10: The American Thinker magazine describes Obama administration support for race-based election to create a Hawaiian tribe, including a review of Hawaii Act 195 that authorized a racial registry.
Jan 16: "Free Hawaii" blog describes how the February Na'i Aupuni convention leadership and meeting agenda stack the deck against Hawaii independence.
Jan 18: Newspaper scientific survey shows public opinion opposes Na'i Aupuni convention and favors building the TMT Mauna Kea telescope.
Jan 19:
(1) U.S. Supreme Court official order denies the Judicial Watch motion for civil contempt against Na'i Aupuni
(2) Hawaii Island news report of Supreme Court ruling false headline says "U.S. Supreme Court Allows 'Aha to Proceed"
(3) Grassroot Institute press release says case will proceed in Ninth Circuit after Supreme Court denies contempt motion
(4) Free Hawaii blog [independence] aligns itself with Grassroot Institute in reporting Supreme Court decision
Jan 20: Honolulu Star-Advertiser, one day late, accurately reports "High court refuses to sanction convention leaders"
Jan 28: If the state legalizes any form of gambling, federal law would allow Native American tribes to then buy property in Hawaii and build a casino. "That means we could not tax it. We cannot take any monies from it. We cannot control the zoning on it. We cannot control the future use of that particular land. And they can have their casinos 100 percent tax-free," said state Sen. J. Kalani English, the Senate Majority Leader.
Jan 29: Protest Na'i Aupuni members and supporters will be at the opening day of the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha to hold signs against Na'i Aupuni, a process that continues to spend millions of Hawaiian trust dollars in an effort to extinguish our rights to our national lands.
Jan 30: Big Island newspaper describes agenda for Na'i Aupuni gathering
Jan 31:
(1) Honolulu Star-Advertiser reporter Timothy Hurley excellent article "Controversy hangs over convention for Hawaiian governance"
(2) KITV news report: "Threats arise ahead of televised Native Hawaiian 'aha"
(3) Tom Yamachika, President, Tax Foundation Hawaii, describes very clearly what the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act says about three categories of gambling on tribal lands of federally recognized tribes, and what would be the consequences if the Hawaiian tribe hets federal recognition and if the legislature passes a lottery bill.
(4) "Golf Club Aha: John Waihee Returns to the Scene of the Crime" describes history of corruption among Waihe'e, Inouye, Clinton, and Obama in creating the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club where the Na'i Aupuni meeting will take place, and in creating the 1993 apology resolution, and the Department of Interior process to create a Hawaiian tribe.
Feb 1:
(1) Grassroot Institute: Hawaiian Aha Convention Does Not Represent the Public
(2) TV news: Activist [Walter Ritte] turned away from Na'i Aupuni convention
(3) Pirate Video from Aha: Bumpy Kanahele Shouted Down, Walter Ritte Thrown Out
(4) 'Aha facilitator discusses security and safety concerns
Feb 2:
(1) Honolulu Star-Advertiser news report: "Disagreement prevails at Na'i Aupuni opening day"
(2) Honolulu Star-Advertiser regular commentator: "Na'i Aupuni's convention sends confusing message"
Feb 3: A few independence activists protest Na'i Aupuni and federal recognition; publish declaration of independence [but it's poorly written, superficial, and laughable]
Feb 6: TV news short puffpiece says Na'i Aupuni participants are "inspired by the progress being made" and "committed to moving forward."
Feb 11: OHA trustee Peter Apo essay: "Nai Aupuni -- A Nation Rising. The political gathering, or Aha, is taking pivotal steps on the path to self-governance."
Feb 15-16:
(1) Bumpy Kanahele withdraws from the Na'i Aupuni meetings at the halfway point, saying the process is rigged to guarantee support for federal recognition instead of independence.
(2) Honolulu Star-Advertiser lengthy news report: "Some at aha cite progress; others see only subterfuge" citing Kanahele's news conference and statements by internally elected leaders of the Na'i Aupuni gathering and a few participants.
(3) Aha Aloha 'Aina, a group of independence activist organizations and individuals on Hawaii Island, Maui, and O'ahu, announce a series of meetings on those islands during the remainder of February to pursue 4 goals.
Feb 20: Nai Aupuni self-governance convention continues; Aha delegates having 'robust conversation'
Feb 21:
(1) Despite hitches, aha finishing government document drafts. During its third week, the body formed five committees -- preamble, rights, executive authorities, legislative authorities and judicial authorities -- that identified issues needing to be addressed in a Native Hawaiian governing document.
(2) Smithsonian exhibit in Washington D.C. spotlights Hawaiian sovereignty movement
Feb 22:
(1) Six individuals challenging a process to potentially establish a Native Hawaiian government told the Ninth Circuit on Friday that their suit hadn't been rendered moot by the cancellation of a disputed election, arguing that another anticipated vote would unconstitutionally rely on the same race-based voter roll.
(2) Hawaiian community leaders are protesting the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha today, and have issued a signed declaration rejecting the process and calling on other Hawaiians to do the same.
Feb 23:
(1) Video: Hawaiian activists arrested outside Nai Aupuni Aha
(2) Associated Press: Honolulu police have arrested eight people for trespassing at a golf club where Native Hawaiians are gathered to discuss self-governance.
(3) Hawaiian independence activist who is Professor of Law at University of Hawaii and member of the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha convention created a draft resolution for a Declaration that Hawaii is in a State of Unlawful Permanent Occupation by the United States of America and the Illegitimacy of United States and State title to lands as affecting the Bonding Capacity of both Governments [60 points, each one paragraph long, all copied below]
Feb 24:
(1) Hawaii Island's first 'Aha Aloha 'Aina [independence alternative to Na'i Aupuni convention] was held yesterday at UH-Hilo. Over 100 attended. Inline video, 1 hr 8 mins.
(2) Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, chair of the Center for Hawaiian Studies at UH Manoa, writes article: Native Hawaiian Citizens In A Native Hawaiian Government -- As the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha continues, the question arises: Who should be defined as a citizen of a new Hawaiian government?" Her answer is: Only those who have a drop of the Hawaiian blood should be allowed to belong.
(3) Online rebuttal by Ken Conklin, exposing Hawaiian religious fascism as the basis for Lilikala's concept of who can belong.
Feb 25:
(1) Letter to editor from Caucasian independence activist Kioni Dudley saying many non-Hawaiians support independence.
(2) Honolulu Civil Beat news report by Chad Blair: "The Other Aha: Hawaiian Independence Backers Make Their Case" reporting protest meeting at Windward Community College in Kane'ohe attended by 350 independence activists.
Feb 26: Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports on the February 25 protest in Kane'ohe "Foes of Na'i Aupuni demand 'pono' nation-building process"
FEB 26: BREAKING NEWS: NATIVE HAWAIIAN CONVENTION ADOPTS CONSTITUTION. NEWS REPORT PROVIDES LINK TO FULL TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION.
** Ken Conklin's note: A straightforward pdf copy of the "constitution of the Native Hawaiian nation" adopted by the Na'i Aupuni convention on February 26 is permanently available at
http://tinyurl.com/zegptkr
Feb 27:
(1) Honolulu Star Advertiser: "Native Hawaiian convention approves new constitution amid concerns of legitimacy" [provides link to full text of constitution]
(2) Kona newspaper "Native Hawaiian constitutional convention attendees on Friday adopted a governing document that will go out to a vote for ratification."
(3) Law professor and convention delegate Williamson Chang authored a "Maunawili Declaration" which is the report of the Na'i Aupuni convention's independence committee; supposed to be included with the constitution as a single document when election is held for ratification.
(4) U.S. News and World Report: "A constitutional convention of Native Hawaiians has adopted a governing document that will go out to a vote for ratification, the organization behind the gathering announced"
(5) ABC News [Associated Press] "Native Hawaiian Group Adopts Constitution at Convention"
(6) Law professor and convention delegate Williamson Chang authored a detailed memo to convention delegates providing 34 reasons "Why I must reject the "Proposed Constitution Final
Version 2016"
(7) Hawaii Free Press: "Constitution: OHA Cronies Want to Run Their Own Prison System, Police, and Judiciary"
Feb 29 (leap day), 2016:
(1) Turtle Talk (blog of national news about legal issues affecting Indian tribes) publishes list of briefs filed in 9th Circuit court of Appeals in the case Akina v. State of Hawaii, with links to full text of each brief. The question is whether an election of delegates to the Na'i Aupuni tribal convention can be paid for by an agency of the state government in view of the fact that candidacy is racially restricted to ethnic Hawaiians only. The court has ruled that the lawsuit is not moot despite the fact that, following Supreme Court temporary restraining order, Na'i Aupuni chose not to complete the election and instead held a 4-week convention with all candidates for delegate being seated. The issue remains alive because now that the convention has produced a tribal constitution, there must be an election to ratify it.
(2) Grassroot Institute Says Na'i Aupuni Constitution Shows Importance of Lawsuit
(3) Zuri Aki, law school student who was a delegate at the Na'i Aupuni convention, publishes in Honolulu Civil Beat a memoir about what happened: "The Promise Of Our Unity -- The Native Hawaiian Constitution isn't perfect. But it is a testament to our ability to achieve great things."
(4) Ken Conklin's online comment to Aki's essay
END OF INDEX OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES DURING JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 2016
================
** FULL TEXT OF NEWS REPORTS AND COMMENTARIES DURING JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 2016
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16626/Leaked-Nai-Aupuni-Emails-lsquoGodlessrsquo-Faction-Pushing-to-Ban-Pule-at-Aha.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, Saturday, January 02, 2016
Leaked Nai Aupuni Emails: 'Godless' Faction Pushing to Ban Pule [prayers] at Aha [convention]
By Andrew Walden
After flouting the order of the US Supreme Court and naming 'everybody' as winners of the canceled Aha elections, Nai Aupuni's Aha Delegate List Serve is buzzing with activity.
Leaked email chains posted online show several days of debate over how to open the Aha.
Bizarrely, some delegates have proposed eliminating the traditional opening pule. Their proposal drew quite a reaction. Outraged pro-pule Delegates demanded that the emails be made public.
Posting the emails, Hawaiian activist Melissa Moniz explains:
Unbelievable the putting to vote whether they PRAY, CHANT, or do any PROTOCOLS.
For once OFFICE OF HAWAIIANS come from hiding and end this FARCE. What a MOCKERY or wait are you having your spies, instigators do this to make sure this AHA keeps RELIGION and STATE separate? OR is it a plot to weed out those you don't want at the AHA?
You TRUSTEES are looking REALLY BAD and things just keep getting worse and worse.
PAU this BULLSHIT.
Transsexual activist Hinaleimoana Wong-Kalu is strongly in favor of keeping prayer in the Aha. In a lengthy December 28 email rebuttal to an anti-pule proposal, Wong-Kalu makes several points:
... I REALLY COULD CARELESS WHAT POLITICAL AVENUE YOU SUPPORT, HOWEVER, TO TURN YOUR BACK ON SOME ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF HOOMANA AND LEO PULE AT A VERY TERTIARY LEVEL IS NOTHING SHORT OF BEING THE AIKU/AIA. (Translation: Godless kapu-breaker.)
YOU ... SHOULD STAY HOME ...
MANY OF US ARE INTELLECTUALS AS WELL AS CULTURAL PRACTITIONERS AS WELL AS POLITICAL ADVOCATES AND STATESMEN IN AND OF OUR OWN ACCORD. DO NOT ... REPEAT ... DO NOT INSULT US BY HAVING A GOVERNMENT EFFORT BY AND FOR OUR PEOPLE BE CONVOLUTED WITH A WESTERN PHILOSOPHY OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. This law is NOT reflective of anything that has to do with our own native governance of our affairs and our issues along with our people. Christian OR traditional perspectives ... both have consistently respected one another when we have been at many a discussion forum. ... you cannot even see beyond the veil of your own colonized "intellect" to criticize and try to exclude ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF UNDERSTANDING OF OUR PEOPLE ...
"Tokumana", claimed by Wong-Kalu to be delegate Timothy Aki, argues:
Nice. So what you are saying is that we should have a religious state. Like I said, define cultural practitioner; define cultural practices. It is obvious that religion is a driving force behind some of your political philpsophies. Great so let's have some human sacrifices. Let us discriminate against the LGBT community because of religious beliefs or let's discriminate against minorities because the mob rules ...
Yup, I am really assimilated into Western Culture because I wish to separate church and state but a few wish to inergrate church and state and make the future Nation a religious state for one particular religion.
So let's keep arguing for a religious state and religious "protocals" and we will get nowhere.
Let us also adopt a caste system where we have our Alii, Kahuna, and slaves, I am sure a lot of people will enjoy a cultural caste system, but it is a shame that all Kanaka Maoli now belong to only two castes; the Alii and the Kahuna and no one wants to be the commoner or slave ...
After hearing from Wong-Kalu and Tokumana, James Anthony chirps:
"You two are awesome. This is how I know that the 'Aha will be real and will be worthwhile."
Zuri Aki chimes in with:
It's one thing if we all agreed, but one person who doesn't like the idea is one more than enough to refrain from proceeding on this issue. It's religion and any imposition of it is a violation of an internationally recognized fundamental human right.
Ku Ching responds:
Zuri, You give that "one person" excessive power. How come? His/Her actual voting power is close to 0.5% - yet you are willing to give that person "total veto" power (of more than 51%). I must object.
Arguing against religion, Bronson Kaahui asks:
Can Rastafarians smoke weed at the convention? I mean seriously, how silly can we get? Are we creating a religious theocracy here? I can't believe we're even talking about transforming the convention process due to the superstitious beliefs of a small minority of Hawaiians who have recently rediscovered an ancient and dead religion (that was gladly cast aside by Hawaiians over a century ago). What's next? Should we start having all the claimants to the throne assemble, and divide up the Aha by nobles and commoners? This is crazy!
No Hinaleimoana, you cannot create a religious theocracy in Hawaii. I don't know how else to say it.
This draws a response from Kamahana Kealoha Kahunaaina Iona:
Is this a dictatorship? I think not. Kaahui is not the dictator of this would be Aha. This email interaction is highly unprofessional and disgusting. I think we should make these public.
Carrying the debate over to Dec 29, Zuri Aki writes:
I ko'u mana'o, in my opinion, Mr. (Ben) Shafer's suggestion is an ideal solution. Those who feel strongly about pule/prayer, could organize prior to the start of the convention (daily, if need be) -that way, those who do not share those religious beliefs (or are not religious at all) will not be subjected to something they did not sign up for ...
If as delegates/representatives/Kanaka Maoli, you cannot do this, then we have already failed ...
Christopher Lum Lee explains:
For God's sake, people. I've had enough of this. We have less than 20 days (after you count presentation) to come up with some idea for self-governance. There are people out there who want this to fail. And this back-and-forth arguing is just proving that we will fail. If we can't even get this figured out, why shouldn't people believe that we couldn't even agree on a lunch menu?
Enough already!
Kamahana Kealoha Kahunaaina Iona writes:
No Aloha, greetings of disdain and disgust to you all,
Do not contact me, and I am disconnecting ALL email communications. Handing them over to a public forum and no longer available for email contact.
MANY OF YOU ARE RUDE, UNPROFESSIONAL AND FAR LACKING FROM ANY REPREEENTATION OF ANY LAHUI AND I AM ASHAMED TO BE COUNTED AMONG YOU
MANY OF YOU ARE REALLY JUST ASSHOLES.
Many of you people whom are dictating this conversation before we even agree upon ground rules, conduct and what we are actually doing arwna disgrace.
Do not contact me until further notice unless it is for DEMOCRATIC and CIVIL discussion for the FORWARDING of NATION BUILDING and not for personal agendas skewed by fanciful ideas of a messiah-dictator self concept.
This has already started our to be a great exercise amounting to nothing but the same bullshit the last 123 years has proven many of you skilled at.
I WILL PRAY IF I WANT TO PRAY -- TRY AND STOP ME.
Do not contact me ...
'Dave' comments:
We are babbling about religion.
Nowhere in our communications is anyone talking about constitution writing, or or differences in governing our people.
Wasted energy on frivolous subjects gets us nowhere but divided.
On December 31, 2015, Annelle Amaral writes:
I think Mr. Timothy Aki that we are a bit tired of your rant ... I appreciate that Hina has "outed" you ... and now, whenever we see Tokumana Toku, we will know that we are speaking to Timothy Aki ... whoever that is ... ah well ... I guess it's important to you ... mahalo Hina ... disclosure is important ... truth is important ... and now we move forward understanding the foolishness ... Happy New Year Hina ...
January 1, 2016, Christopher Lum Lee writes:
All of you, knock it off! If you all are going to waste this perfectly good prep time arguing about non-sense, then you're just giving credence to the already bad rap the Hawaiian community has.
Kamahana Kealoha Kahunaaina Iona writes next:
I agree with Mrs. Amaral, Mrs. Kalu, Mr. Kuoha, and everyone else who does not explicitly seek to deprive us of our right to pray, especially when no one is stopping the distractors from not praying - fact.
And you least of all Lum Lee.
I already told you how much you dont matter to me. And now youre trying to dictate the conversation topics.
Good to know.
I will also make aware all to the many threats I have documented from those who want to intimidate me from participating through verbiage and postures of direct threat of violence. (I am now an expert to the fine line given my year in review, investigation and exoneration of the same regarding the unfortunate incident that Lum Lee pretends to know everything about- yet does not.)
I have documented these threats from strangers and if you are experiencing the same thing please do document this and lets get in touch on a more professional venue to see how we can hold the event dictators responsible for assuring our safety as needed.
Our safety as individuals and as participants should be a non-issue but apparently, besides paying us less than minimum wage or third world country wages, those who have dictated the actual aha (ie scheduling, their pay vs. our reasonable, labor law exclusive, insufficient stipend) have either no foresight to see this through, are sabotaging this like the concon before by sucking up the funding and pretending there is no more despite the 500 million dollars in assets OHA fraudulently appropriates and withholds, or the Aha dictators are trying to get away with the bulk of the funding per their 20 million spent and 6 digit figure incomes.
And on top of all of that it seems the Aha dictatorship thus far has no seeming means of keeping participants safe from stalkers and psychos ...
I do not believe pertinent topics should be discussed on this ever so unprofessional and disrespectful venue, so-called listserve ...
Until then this is a battle field and I plan to be among the last standing.
Email to the death. We are collectively the laughing stock and entertainment to the disagreeable. But then again if you're here to get popular you shouldve done your research first ...
those wanting to pray are not stopping the godless from recusing them selves- that is your right. And likewise I will pray, try and stop me. It is my right. If the godless minority would rather impose their godlessness on the spiritual and varietable majority then we all see who the real oppressors are. Pray and let pray. And I support the right of the godless to not pray. But if any of you think you can stop another from praying you might need a reminder: we are at a would-be aha. The occupier still upholds our rights to pray and others rights to be godless ...
LINK: Read the entire exchange.
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=truth%20and%20transparency%20moniz#
-------------------------
http://thegardenisland.com/news/opinion/guest/full-independence-impossible-but-change-needed/article_e956490a-b7f1-5717-b9da-60d3c03f2830.html
The Garden Island [Kaua'i], Sunday, January 3, 2016
Full independence impossible, but change needed
by Allan Parachini - Kauai Perspective
Native Hawaiians and their supporters have been frustrated with the pace of progress toward self-governance, expressed that frustration in increasingly adamant ways for more than a year.
Just when an election run by Na'i Aupuni, the nonprofit ostensibly independent of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, was in the final stages of balloting to determine who would participate in a quasi-constitutional convention, a fresh obstacle was thrown in the way. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy enjoined counting of the ballots (the full court subsequently concurred) in response to litigation filed by challengers who said the election was unlawful race-based voting.
Na'i Aupuni complied with the injunction, but then announced that every candidate who had been running for the 40 seats originally envisioned in the convention would serve, anyway -- 196 people representing an unbridgeable disparity of views. It means that, instead of the election acting as a filter of sorts, the gathering now envisioned will doubtless become an exercise in frustration as the process bogs down in the politics of Hawaiian sovereignty.
Many Kanaka Maoli see Kennedy's ruling as another example of sabotage to a process that could lead to self-determination perpetrated by a political system that has repressed Native Hawaiians for 115 years. But, although the injunction was one brief paragraph that did not elaborate on Kennedy's reasoning, it seems clear that he saw the issue presented as much more fundamental than that.
Kennedy's ruling, in effect, posed this question: Can a public agency (in this case OHA), which would not be permitted to have an election with racial eligibility, outsource the election to an ostensibly private nonprofit formed for the express purpose of conducting the election and argue that the nonprofit is "independent" of OHA? If that is the question, the answer is clearly no. Na'i Aupuni was too obviously a surrogate for OHA.
But the controversy over the election has, again, glossed over an issue that proponents of sovereignty or restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom conveniently ignore. There is an enormous amount of rhetoric out there about the legal theories that may underlie the contention that the kingdom did not cease to exist after the U.S. takeover in 1893; the recitation of the international recognition of the Hawaiian nation, and even the entirely unrealistic expectation that the International Court of Justice in The Hague will order the U.S. to restore Hawaii's independence.
All of it ignores a more fundamental political reality: the U.S. government simply is not going to release Hawaii from the union and wish it well as a re-formed independent country. This cannot happen for a few pragmatic political reasons:
* Although the Hawaiian sovereignty movement is hopelessly splintered, a consensus of sorts exists that a reinstated Hawaiian Kingdom would be ruled by Native Hawaiians, with citizenship and even the right to vote or own property denied to non-Hawaiians. Releasing Hawaii from its obligations as a state would require such an extreme level of political acceptance of this principle as to be almost unimaginable.
* A lot has happened in Hawaii since 1893, not least of which is the undeniable fact that people of ancestry other than Native Hawaiian now constitute an overwhelming majority of the population of Hawaii. U.S. Census data reports about 80,000 full Native Hawaiians in the state. Even if Native Hawaiians who live elsewhere are counted in the equation, the fact remains that they can claim to be only a small fraction of Hawaii's population of 1.2 million. It is difficult to imagine that the U.S. Congress, the United Nations or the International Court of Justice would countenance independence without the concurrence of a majority of the present day residents of Hawaii. It is difficult to imagine that population would go along with independence as many Native Hawaiian groups envision it.
The situation in Hawaii cries out for creative answers to issues of poverty, disenfranchisement and discrimination that afflict Native Hawaiians, but restoration of full independence is a political impossibility.
But something must finally be done to address the hardships and perceived injustices Native Hawaiians face. Although the U.S. Department of Interior has proposed what would be, essentially, a system of recognition for Hawaiians analogous to governance among Native American tribes, many Native Hawaiian people find this to be no solution at all and designed to ensure what they perceive as the continued illegal occupation of Hawaii.
Yet there must be ground for compromise here somewhere. That compromise might entail creation of an entirely new political vocabulary that addresses the needs of indigenous people and respects their history. It would require a concept of governance that does not yet exist in the American system and tradition.
Such a governance model would have to find a way to ensure that there is far more local control of Hawaii's destiny than is now the case. It would have to find ways to avoid further antagonism and marginalization of Native Hawaiians. It would have to find ways to, legally, provide for Native Hawaiian electoral self-determination within a framework in which Hawaii remains part of the U.S.
To say that inventing this new concept will be a herculean task is to understate, but finding this conceptual middle ground is the only way Hawaii will be able to get past the bitterness that now pervades the sovereignty and independence movements. As unlikely it may be that the unwieldy process that Na'i Aupuni established for the impending constitutional convention will be successful, riding on this process may well be responsibility to invent a variant on the American system that can unify Hawaii in ways that are now impossible.
---
Allan Parachini writes a monthly column for The Garden Island. He is a former journalist and PR executive who lives and makes furniture in Kilauea.
--------------------
January 5: New webpage:
Some important testimony against the U.S. Department of Interior proposed regulation for federal recognition of a phony Hawaiian tribe
https://www.angelfire.com/big11a/DOITstmnyOpposeNHReg.html
------------------
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-opposes-obama-administration-executive-action-to-create-race-based-tribe-in-hawaii/
and also
http://www.einnews.com/pr_news/305030029/judicial-watch-opposes-obama-administration-executive-action-to-create-race-based-tribe-in-hawaii
Judicial Watch press release, January 6, 2016
Judicial Watch Opposes Obama Administration Executive Action to Create Race-Based 'Tribe' in Hawaii
Grassroots Group Warns Hawaii Plan Is Racially Discriminatory, Unconstitutional and Would Set a 'Dangerous Precedent'
(Washington, DC) -- Judicial Watch today announced its opposition to an effort by the Obama administration to recognize a new race-based "tribe" of Native Hawaiians. The government watchdog details how the Obama Interior Department's proposed regulation
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOI-2015-0005
would be contrary to laws against racial discrimination and would be an unconstitutional end-run around Congress, which has repeatedly rejected legislation granting tribal status to Native Hawaiians.
Last month, Judicial Watch persuaded
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-statement-on-supreme-court-order-halting-hawaii-from-conducting-race-based-election-pending-appeal/
the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an injunction to stop the counting of ballots in a race-based election that sought to seat delegates to a planned constitutional convention, which would then prepare the "governance documents" for a separate Native Hawaiian entity that the Obama administration could grant "government-to-government" recognition. Judicial Watch attorneys argued that its clients would be denied the right to vote either because of their race or their political views, in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Supreme Court issued the injunction despite the Obama administration's legal support
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/dept-of-interior-amicus-hawaii-race-based-election-00322/
for the Hawaiian election, which would have been limited to those with at least "one drop of blood" of Native Hawaiian ancestry.
Judicial Watch, citing last month's extraordinary Supreme Court intervention, warned that "the process described in the Department's regulations is racially discriminatory and would violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights of Hawaiian citizens." The proposed regulation would provide for governing documents created and ratified by the Native Hawaiian community, and expressly forbids the inclusion of votes cast by "persons who were not Native Hawaiians." Indeed, the ancestry requirement set forth in the proposed regulations is virtually identical to ancestry requirements that have twice been enjoined by the Supreme Court in the context of elections -- most recently, just a few weeks ago. Judicial Watch urged the Obama Interior Department to stand down:
We urge you and the administration not to insert yourselves into a political movement that would deprive citizens of the right to vote -- and ultimately divide them -- on the basis of race. The Department's recognition of the results of such an election would not only condone, but institutionalize, racial discrimination. It would not only be unlawful, it would be unconscionable for the Department of the Interior to use this election -- or any process that similarly denies citizens the right to vote because of their lack of a particular bloodline -- to advance an administrative agenda.
The Obama administration's plan also subverts the will of Congress, as federal recognition of tribes is granted only through "a process set forth in congressional statute, not by unilateral executive action ... Without proper statutory authorization by Congress, a regulatory scheme promulgated by an executive agency to grant tribal status to Native Hawaiians would violate fundamental separation-of-powers principles."
In fact, Congress repeatedly rejected attempts by Hawaii's former Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/daniel_akaka/300001
to pass legislation (the Akaka Bill)
http://naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=8447
to grant tribal status to Native Hawaiians:
Despite [the proposed regulations'] many references to a "special political and trust relationship" between the United States and Native Hawaiians, the fact remains that the federal government has never recognized Native Hawaiians as a sovereign entity like other Indian tribes. If it had, there would have been no need for the Akaka Bill. The Department's claim that Congress has "already" recognized Native Hawaiians as a tribe defies both fact and reason. If that is the case, one must wonder: what exactly was the point of the Akaka Bill? And why did members of Congress spend political energy for more than a decade trying to pass it? If Congress has "already exercised [its] plenary power to recognize Native Hawaiians," as the Department contends, then why did Congress decline to pass the Akaka Bill, not once, but repeatedly? The Department's proposal is based on a fiction and ignores the obvious: Native Hawaiians have not been granted federal tribal status because Congress does not support the effort to do so. The Department's proposed rule is a transparent attempt to implement the failed Akaka Bill through executive action. Without statutory authorization, it would be unlawful to promulgate this regulation.
Judicial Watch warns that the Obama administration's plan to recognize a tribe in Hawaii "would condone the division of Hawaiian citizens based on their race, and set a 'dangerous precedent' for further race-based divisions by other groups in other states."
"The Obama administration's latest attempted bureaucratic action to create a new tribe of Native Hawaiians is racist, unconstitutionally steals power from Congress, and could tear the country apart," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Of course, one of the insuperable obstacles to 'recognizing' a Native Hawaiian entity is that Hawaii had a truly multicultural and modern society before it ever became a United States territory or state. The Obama administration's latest executive action would illegally help a radical secessionist movement in Hawaii that is engaged a dangerous game of racial division."
-----------------
http://www.hawaiibusiness.com/change-agents/
Hawaii Business Magazine, January 6, 2016
CHANGE AGENTS
Native Hawaiian leaders talk about how the local economy, taxes and business rules might change under self-determination. Non-Hawaiians should pay attention, too, because many of these proposals would affect them directly or indirectly.
by Ilima Loomis
It's not clear how Native Hawaiian self-governance will affect Hawaii's economy, but there is no shortage of ideas. Different Hawaiian leaders talk about changing taxes, control of land, lease rents, business incentives, ownership restrictions, import rules and much more.
More than 120 years after the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, many Native Hawaiians were looking forward to an eight-week aha, or constitutional convention, planned for this spring. With the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in December to block vote counting in an election to pick delegates until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals can rule on a legal challenge, the future of that process is now uncertain.
But if and when the process moves forward, many groups have offered their proposals for the political form a Native Hawaiian government should take and two overarching models have emerged. Those advocating a "nation within a nation" suggest that Hawaiians form an entity similar to those of Native American tribes, which would operate independently on lands within Hawaii, while remaining bound by the U.S. Constitution.
Others call for complete independence, claiming that the Hawaiian Islands should be restored as a sovereign nation.
Robert Piper, executive director and CEO of Honolulu Community Action Program, who previously served as deputy director of the state Department of Budget and Finance, says he understands those in the community who call for total independence, but feels a "nation within a nation" would better protect millions of dollars in entitlements and improve the lives of Native Hawaiians.
"I cannot blame them, because, after a century of betrayal, it's not surprising that people don't trust the systems being put in place," he says. "But, to me, the reality is there are pressing, very real, important problems that beset the Hawaiian community, and for a lot of us there's a great sense of urgency."
Pohai Ryan, executive director of the Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association and a former state senator, notes the effort toward self-governance goes back more than four decades. One reason she stepped away from the movement in the past was frustration that economic development wasn't a bigger part of the discussion. Now she wants to ensure the business community doesn't get short shrift again.
"I don't think it's being addressed enough," Ryan says. "There are not enough Native Hawaiian business leaders involved in the dialogue, to me, to have an intelligent exchange of ideas, and I'm not sure why."
Piper agrees Hawaiians need to be pragmatic about where the money will come from to keep a new government afloat. "It may not be expressly stated, but, in my opinion, any discussion about these ideas of self-determination and national sovereignty or federal recognition are a little academic if you don't address the economics of it all," he says.
Not all Hawaiians agree nationhood would improve their bottom line. "I do think there will be a negative economic impact on Hawaii if a separate Native Hawaiian nation comes into being here," says Kelii Akina, president and CEO of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and one of the plaintiffs who challenged the election. That impact could include a cooling off of outside investment in Hawaii, he says, noting that the protests blocking construction of the Thirty-Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea may make investors more cautious about launching large projects in the future.
Kamanaopono Crabbe, CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, says economics are at the heart of a movement aimed to better the lives of the Hawaiian people. "Native Hawaiians have had opportunities like others, but I think a big piece of that is whether or not the current federal and state systems have really allowed for upward mobility, when the decisions made regarding natural resources, such as the ceded lands and the revenues from those lands, are made not by our people, but by the state and the federal government."
Ceded Lands at Stake
Most agreed that one of the top economic issues raised by self-governance is land. Currently, the state manages 1.8 million acres of ceded lands, property that belonged to the Hawaiian Kingdom at the time of its overthrow. "Native Hawaiians get 20 percent of the revenues on those, but our goal is for Native Hawaiians to own and control and manage those lands so that we can create an economic environment for the benefit of Native Hawaiians," says Leilani Williams-Solomon, immediate past president of the Native Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce.
An independent government would be able to negotiate the return of ceded lands, Crabbe says. "An important, maybe No. 1 issue for the economy is that those lands are up for settlement, and we have a right to manage those resources," he says.
Fees collected from Honolulu and Hilo airports, both on ceded lands, are some of the revenues that could be available to a Hawaiian government, he notes.
A handoff could also mean a renegotiation of current leases. Moses Haia, executive director of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp., notes that other prominent ceded lands include the summit of Mauna Kea and the Pohakuloa Training Area used by the U.S. military. "A lot of those leases are for less than market value, so if those lands were to go back under the jurisdiction of the government created through this aha, there would have to be a lot of issues worked out with current leaseholders," Haia says.
What leases would be high on the list for review? Any that raise significant revenue, Haia says, "because they (the governing entity) need to know where they're going to stand when it comes to the revenue that they generate to run their government."
"I think that would include the airport and any other lands that are ceded that also provide the state with revenue," he says.
Hawaii's sacred mountaintops could also be on the list. "Mauna Kea – that is a significant issue for Hawaiians because of the cultural value and sacredness of the area, so I think it is also going to be a piece of the puzzle when these ceded lands are looked at and dealt with," Haia says.
Control of infrastructure like airports and harbors could mean more than just revenue for a new government, notes Crabbe. "We could develop, for example, our own free-trade zone and, through that free-trade zone, we could import commodities or products to Hawaii, bypassing the Jones Act," which restricts foreign-flagged ships from sailing between American ports. That requirement is often blamed for high-shipping costs between the U.S. mainland and Hawaii because American-built and -owned ships with American crews must be used.
A Hawaiian government with jurisdiction over one or more ports could facilitate the import of lower-cost food, building materials, vehicles and other commodities, Crabbe says. "Bypassing the Jones Act would benefit not just Native Hawaiians, but the rest of Hawaii."
Finally, as several people note, a transition of landholdings to a Hawaiian government could open new opportunities for development. That could mean more projects similar to Kakaako as a means of generating revenue for the government. Or it could mean more flexibility for small, Hawaiian-owned businesses to pursue commercial ventures on native lands – perhaps with fewer restrictions than currently required under state and county permitting rules.
"As a business owner, I'd like to see opportunities on Hawaiian lands," says Mercer "Chubby" Vicens, a board member and founder of the Maui Native Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce. "We have Hawaiian lands, but we don't have many opportunities. Even those who get into DHHL lands find they can't do anything with it."
As an example, he points to a large tract of Department of Hawaiian Home Lands property on Maui in Puunene. DHHL owns 180 acres, and asked the Maui County Council to support plans for commercial development, including a hospital that would include both Western medicine and traditional Hawaiian practitioners. The council "voted not to support that effort," he says. "They wanted that area to stay in cane. But it's not their land. It belongs to us."
The formation of a Hawaiian government does not mean private land will be taken, Haia says. "The introduction of private property rights happened when we were still a kingdom in the 1840s," he notes.
That would hold true even in a scenario of complete independence, says sovereignty advocate Poka Laenui, the Waianae attorney formerly known as Hayden Burgess. "Those systems of private land ownership stretch all the way back to the mahele," he says. "The jurisdiction of the United States doesn't really affect an agreement between a buyer and a seller."
However, things might change for U.S.-owned businesses. Under Laenui's vision of independence, a sovereign Hawaiian nation could limit ownership of land by foreign corporations, such as requiring corporate-owned lands be transferred to Hawaii citizens or Hawaii-based businesses within 10 or 20 years of independence. He says that would help reverse the "diaspora of land titles" to the mainland. "We need to start pulling all of that back to Hawaii," he says.
Water could also be affected by Hawaiian nationhood. Haia says the Hawaiian kingdom entered into agreements to allow water diversion, as long as the rights of downstream water users were protected. "That never happened," he says. A new government might restore stream flows, he says.
While a Hawaiian government would only have direct control over streams on lands under its jurisdiction, Haia says, that leverage to renegotiate long-held agreements could be a game changer for Native Hawaiian water rights statewide. "It boggles my mind to think about how many chips are going to be on the table," he says. "It could be that negotiations get to a point where the state or federal government want something, and if they want it, how much are they willing to give for it."
Protecting Entitlements
Many say a "nation within a nation" model would be a critical step toward protecting state, federal and private programs that benefit Native Hawaiians. Millions of dollars are on the table, notes Piper. "The dollars and cents of it all are huge," he says. Yet it's no secret that many Hawaiian entitlements have faced legal challenges as being race-based. "There are a lot of Native Hawaiian programs out there that, quite frankly, are left at risk in the current climate," he says.
Establishing a governing entity and entering a "government-to-government" relationship with the United States similar to that of Native American tribes could give Hawaiians some of the same protections afforded to other indigenous groups, Piper says. "It wouldn't necessarily mean that these legal challenges disappear, but it could definitely mean these legal challenges could be better defended with a political status for Native Hawaiians rather than a racial status."
Williams-Solomon agrees. "It's not based on race, it's based on your rights as indigenous people," she says.
But Laenui says entitlement programs aren't a reason to accept a political status that's less than complete sovereignty. He says Hawaiian citizens – which could include people of all races living in Hawaii at the time of independence, not only those of Hawaiian ethnicity – should not lose their entitlements, but that a transitional authority should help ensure benefits are transferred to the new government.
"All you're saying is whatever we've invested in the Social Security system (for example) should be transferred to the Hawaiian nation, still going to the beneficiaries who are now Hawaiian citizens," he says.
In another factor to consider, a Hawaiian government, even under the "nation within a nation" model, would likely have authority to establish its own system of taxation, and potentially offer Hawaiians some protection from taxes imposed by other jurisdictions.
Crabbe says he'd like to see such a government support Hawaiian-owned businesses, or businesses that promote Hawaiian culture, welfare and values through tax and regulatory incentives. (One example of a business supporting Hawaiian values might be a restaurant that serves healthy local foods or hires Hawaiian musicians.) "I think the state has not necessarily been that supportive," Crabbe says. "I think a Native Hawaiian government would want to promote and advocate for small businesses."
Vicens says another scenario could exempt business transactions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Hawaiian government from state general excise tax, at least initially. "Maybe we can recoup that, as a nation within a nation," Vicens says. "That's a lot of money."
Akina isn't convinced Hawaiian businesses would benefit from tax incentives or exemptions from permit requirements under an independent government. "This is so hypothetical," he says. "Why would someone think a Native Hawaiian government started by an agency like OHA and the Native Hawaiian Roll would be less bureaucratic than the government at large? In fact, there's just as much possibility they'd be even more bureaucratic and controlling over their assets."
As an example, Akina points to how construction of the H-3 freeway was impeded by objections after the discovery of Hawaiian bones in the area. "We are anticipating the same thing with respect to the building of the fixed-rail system," he says. "We have clear evidence of the willingness of Native Hawaiian government administrators to use Hawaiian religion or Hawaiian cultural claims as a trump card in opposition to the will of the public.
"The potential for this would only increase if it was being exercised by an actual government," Akina says.
Crabbe also hopes to benefit Native Hawaiian-owned businesses by establishing a national bank. OHA now has a Native Hawaiian Revolving Loan Fund, which offers micro loans for home repairs, small businesses and other uses, as well as loans up to $1 million for larger businesses. Currently, the program largely attracts borrowers who can't qualify for loans at traditional banks. "We usually are the last stop," he says. The program has lower restrictions and gives loans to people with poorer credit ratings or less collateral than a traditional bank does.
Establishing a Native Hawaiian bank would allow loans tailored for small businesses or other specific groups, Crabbe notes. OHA would also like to offer loans to larger businesses.
The program is currently overseen by the Administration for Native Americans, a federal agency which supplied $15 million to match $10 million from OHA to start the loan fund. OHA has petitioned ANA to give it oversight of the fund if OHA can show sustainability and accountability measures are in place and working. If that happened, Crabbe says, "In a way, it would become like a local bank."
Piper is cautious, but says the idea of establishing a Hawaiian national bank is plausible.
"If it does happen, you're talking about a bank with sizeable assets, and an ability to make more local, more Hawaiian-centric decisions with those assets behind it. So I don't necessarily say that's too far-fetched and I would say that anything is possible. But, at the end of the day, the markets will determine what works economically and what doesn't," Piper says.
Navigating the Future
How will Hawaiian nationhood change the way non-Hawaiians do business? Vicens says self-governance may initially result in regulatory or tax advantages that benefit Hawaiian businesses, but that ultimately he believes Hawaiian-owned businesses should continue to compete on a level playing field. "I think they (non-Hawaiian businesses) need to not be threatened by us," Vicens says. "I think we will be competitors in given fields, but that's no different than it is today."
Ryan says she doesn't believe self-governance will harm non-Hawaiians, and that the ultimate goal should be to make life better for everyone. "My view is that it should not affect them at all," she says.
Under one vision of total independence, the landscape could indeed change for businesses that operate in Hawaii but are based in the U.S. or elsewhere globally. Laenui says there should be no discrimination against foreign entities, but they would be operating in Hawaii and required to follow Hawaii's laws.
Laenui says he would support a policy like that implemented in Vanuatu, which gave foreign-owned businesses a transition period after independence. Within seven years, every business had to be at least 50 percent locally owned, with 50 percent local employees. "Vanuatu said, 'You integrate, or we take it away,' and I believe there's a lot of sense in that," he says.
But, he reiterates, citizenship would not be limited to just those of Native Hawaiian heritage. "We have to divorce ourselves from the concept that to be a Hawaiian citizen you have to be (racially Hawaiian)," he says. "We're talking about a nationality concept, not a race concept."
While the vision of an independent Hawaii may sound unlikely, Piper notes that, traditionally, Hawaiian navigators were understood to have the ability to see a course forward that others couldn't. He points to other major political shifts of the past century that might have seemed unthinkable before they occurred – including the independence of India, and that Germany and Japan eventually became peaceful allies of the United States after World War II. "These are all things that perhaps make the dreamers in the Native Hawaiian community not so far–fetched," he says. "I hope that we're all able to stay open to the dreamers."
Crabbe's dream is for a government that's inclusive. "What is very paramount to me is that the transition includes well-crafted plans that not only benefit Native Hawaiians, but the broader Hawaii, and there's some greater working relationship and collaboration between the Native Hawaiian business community and the state of Hawaii," he says.
Vicens also wants to see the movement focus on the future. "As a business owner, I would like to see us concentrate on what we're going to do going forward, as opposed to looking back at all the ills that took place," he says.
Ryan agrees, and says Hawaiians should look at their place in the 21st century, not focus on restoring the culture and society that existed when the Hawaiian kingdom was overthrown. "King Kalakaua was the biggest techie of his day," she says. "I'm convinced if he were alive today, Yahoo would be headquartered in Honolulu."
For Williams-Solomon, the vision is more fundamental. "My main concern is my children and my moopuna, who I want to be able to stay in Hawaii, the land of their birth, and be able to provide for their families," she says. "It's tough when half of our people have to leave Hawaii for economic reasons. We're trying to change that."
-----------------------
http://bigislandnow.com/2016/01/06/nai-aupuni-announces-aha-participants/
Big Island Now, January 6, 2016
Na'i Aupuni Announces 'Aha Participants
By Big Island Now Staff
Na'i Aupuni has announced its official list of 154 participating individuals who will gather at a February 'aha to discuss self-governance.
In late December, the list was released with a total of 152 participants. However, Na'i Aupuni officials say four additional participants have since been added as result of "delays and failures with electronic carrier systems."
Two previously confirmed individuals have also since removed themselves from attendance.
The individuals headed to the 'aha in February are a portion of the original 196 candidates who were in the running for 40 spots.
In mid-December, Na'i Aupuni terminated the election following controversy over the validity and federal litigation against it.
Na'i Aupuni officials say the election was terminated because the federal litigation would have stalled the counting of votes for years.
As part of its decision, Na'i Aupuni decided to invite all then-registered candidates to participate in the February gathering to discuss a path to self-governance.
In November, the election hit a snag when Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a temporary stay on Nov. 27, stopping ballots from being counted until a later ruling from the court. Five days later, the entire Supreme Court granted an injunction by the plaintiffs to halt the election process until the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could issue a ruling.
On Dec. 22, new litigation was filed against Na'i Aupuni organizers, saying that the injunction issued by the United States Supreme Court on Dec. 2 was not being followed.
"Every former candidate had an opportunity to participate in this gathering. We are excited that such a large group of committed persons – who represent a broad cross section of the Native Hawaiian community in Hawai'i and elsewhere – will come together to discuss self-governance," said Kuhio Asam, Na'i Aupuni president.
According to Asam, the 'aha participants are Hawaiians who have shown a deep commitment to engage in serious, civil discussions on self-governance.
"We are pleased and encouraged that so many individuals have made a decision to participate," Asam said. "They deserve everyone's support."
During the first week of the month-long 'aha, participants will engage with experts on various topics, including constitution building, federal Indian law, international law regarding de-occupation, decolonization and the rights of indigenous people, U.S. constitutional issues that relate to Native Hawaiian self-governance, ceded lands, and Kingdom Law.
Facilitators will foster discussion and assist participants in organizing. Peter Adler and Linda Colburn of The Mediation Center of the Pacific will act as facilitators.
Following the facilitation, decisions made and results of the participants' discussions at the 'aha will be their responsibility without interference by Na 'i Aupuni or any government entity, according to Na'i Aupuni officials.
Big Island participants include: Edwina Moanikeala Akaka, Alvin Akina Jr., Chad Awai, Fredrico Cachola Jr., Clarence Ching, Keoni Choy, Kalikookalani Chun, Desiree Cruz, Kaipo Dye, Norine Fitzgerald, Lunakanawai Hauanio, Pua Ishibashi, Amy Kalili, Katie Kamelamela, Clifford Kapono, Manuel Kiaha, Lei Kihoi, Joshua Lanakila Mangauil, Shane Palacat-Nelson, Kahiolani Papalimu, Diana Suganuma, Michalann Rae Trainer, Kanoe Wilson, and Karyle Yamane.
--------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/hawaii-news/4-delegates-added-2-dropped-as-hawaiian-convention-nears/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, January 7, 2016
4 delegates added, 2 dropped as Hawaiian convention nears
By Timothy Hurley
Following another round of lineup changes, Na'i Aupuni announced Wednesday that 154 people will attend the February convention to discuss Native Hawaiian self-governance.
Four delegates were added to the list after Na'i Aupuni learned that delays and failures with computer systems caused candidates to miss the deadline to sign up for the convention, or aha.
One of the additions was Office of Hawaiian Affairs Trustee Rowena Akana, who was on vacation and said she did not receive emails informing her of the deadline.
Akana said Wednesday that she agreed to sign a notarized letter saying that she did not receive the emails.
Other additions were Rosalie Lenchanko, Kalaniakea Wilson and Karen Awana, all of Oahu.
Two others -- Stanley Ornellas of Maui and Lydia Burt of Kentucky -- who previously confirmed their intent to attend notified Na'i Aupuni that they are now unable to attend.
The aha participants were derived from a list of 196 former candidates vying for 40 seats at the constitutional convention.
Na'i Aupuni terminated the election Dec. 15 to evade a U.S. Supreme Court injunction and the likelihood that litigation would have delayed the process for years. Na'i Aupuni, instead, offered all of the candidates a chance to join in the discussion for a path to self-governance.
"Every former candidate had an opportunity to participate in this gathering. We are excited that such a large group of committed persons -- who represent a broad cross section of the Native Hawaiian community in Hawaii and elsewhere -- will come together to discuss self-governance," Kuhio Asam, Na'i Aupuni president, said in a statement.
Na'i Aupuni originally announced that 151 delegates would attend the convention, which starts Feb. 1.
-----------------------
http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=43eacae64f&e=4a7cf86850
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, January 7, 2016, Press release
Legal Filing Refutes Na'i Aupuni Defense Against Contempt Charge
Grassroot Institute Calls Na'i Aupuni Process an Embarrassment to the Hawaiian People
HONOLULU, HAWAII -- January 7, 2015 -- Today, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii cited the Reply in Support of the Motion for Civil Contempt in the case of Akina v. Hawaii as evidence that Na'i Aupuni and the state have acted irresponsibly in pursuit of an unconstitutional nation-building process. The memo, filed today in the Supreme Court of the United States, refutes the Defendant's claims that this was an attempt to stop a civil gathering. Rather, by seating all the delegates of the convention, Na'i Aupuni was attempting an end run around the Constitution and the courts.
The motion was filed by Judicial Watch which has been assisted by the Grassroot Institute in mounting this challenge to the state-sponsored election. The reply memo takes issue with the claim that this is an attempt to stop a private gathering, pointing out that was never the issue in the case before the court: "From the outset, the issue has been the state-run, race-based process that Respondents used to select convention delegates in violation of the Constitution. Respondents' ingenious plan to seat all delegates instead of some of them does not alter this basic set of facts."
Moreover, ignoring the ballots to create an "everybody wins" election is simply a hypertechnical reading of the Supreme Court's injunction that cannot be used to nullify the point of the court order, which was to put all action on hold while the lower court heard the case:
"[B]allots become irrelevant when expanding the number of spots to equal the number of candidates makes everyone a winner. Nor could Respondents justify their actions even if this were not an election. A racially-exclusive, state-run nomination process violates the Fourteenth Amendment for the same reasons the election violates the Fifteenth Amendment."
The issue is even more critical, given that the Plaintiffs are also filing an opening brief in the Ninth Circuit Court, having chosen to pursue the Constitutional issues despite the attempt from Nai Aupuni and the state to avoid them. As Grassroot President Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., pointed out, the legal trickery being employed has only annoyed the Native Hawaiian community, which never supported the Na'i Aupuni election in the first place.
"Na'i Aupuni, as a thinly veiled organ of the state, has acted shamefully and embarrassed the Hawaiian community," stated Dr. Akina. "First, by seating delegates without an election, they prove that they have no regard for the thousands of names collected on the Native Hawaiian Roll. Secondly, by creating a non- representative convention, they are giving false hopes and abusing the goodwill of the convention participants."
Dr. Akina continued: "As with the entire state-sponsored, race based nation process, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Na'i Aupuni are wasting to millions of dollars of public money on a political scheme that instead should be serving the needs of Hawaiians for housing, jobs, education, and health services. It is time to stop this illegitimate process and move forward with real and practical solutions for advancing the Hawaiian people and all citizens of the state."
To read the Reply brief, go to:
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Reply-in-Support-of-Motion-for-Civil-Contempt-1-6-2015.pdf
For more background documents, see:
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/2015/10/akina-v-hawaii-the-documents/
** Ken Conklin's note: The three documents concerned with the motion for contempt can be downloaded as follows:
1. JudicialWatch/Grassroot Institute motion for contempt:
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Motion-for-Civil-Contempt-12-22-2015.pdf
and supplemental appendix
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Supplemental-Appendix-12-22-2015.pdf
2. Na'i Aupuni response -- opposition to motion for contempt
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Respondents-Nai-Aupuni-and-the-Akamai-Foundations-Opposition-to-Applicants-Motion-for-Civil-Contempt-1-4-2016.pdf
3. JudicialWatch/Grassroot Institute reply to Na'i Aupuni response
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Reply-in-Support-of-Motion-for-Civil-Contempt-1-6-2015.pdf
-----------------------
http://thegardenisland.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-for-jan/article_8b94d47c-b696-11e5-910a-9f62dd2c0162.html
The Garden Island [Kaua'i], Letters for Jan. 9, 2016
Sovereignty issue solution remains uncertain
In his recent column Allan Parachini waded bravely into the morass of Native Hawaiian sovereignty issues and concluded, correctly in my opinion, that independence and restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom are impossible at this time, but then argued dubiously that "something must be done to address the hardships and perceived injustices that Native Hawaiians face."
It is certainly true that in the 19th century the Native Hawaiians suffered grievous setbacks with the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and their depopulation. But it is unclear what Mr. Parachini believes are the hardships and injustices that the Native Hawaiians are now facing or what their advocates are now contending that, short of independence, should be done about them.
This indecision is complicated by the fact that Native Hawaiian protagonists have not been forthcoming about what, other than independence, they are seeking. Mr. Parachini's suggestion for a non-existing governance model seems elusively imprecise.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile progress if the Native Hawaiians would recognize that they are seeking from today's Hawaiian residents redress for actions claimed to have been done by their ancestors and abandon their aspirations for political control which won't occur and direct their aspirations to other areas which might address their grievances. It is a very real problem that many people are sympathetic to the discontent of our indigenous population but are unable to identify a thoughtful solution that will provide reasonable satisfaction.
Walter Lewis
Lihue
----------------------
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/obama_administration_promoting_racebased_hawaiian_election.html
The American Thinker, January 10, 2016
Obama Administration Promoting Race-based Hawaiian Election
By Michael Bargo Jr.
While Democrats always say that every vote must count and that there must be no interference with voter access, recent developments in the state of Hawaii prove President Obama is working to take advantage of limited access, race-based voting in that State.
This all began in Hawaii in 2011 when Act 195 was passed. It called for an election to take place in Hawaii but specified that only indigenous Native Hawaiians could vote. The purpose of the election was to enable Native Hawaiians to exercise their right to self-determination and discuss Tribal Nation self-governance. The election would choose 40 delegates to an aha, or constitutional convention.
To administer this restricted election a Native Hawaiian Roll Commission was established, funded by Hawaiian taxpayer dollars. This Roll Commission created a list of Native Hawaiians who would be eligible to vote. Additionally, the Commission restricted the registration roll to only those who agreed to these Declarations: "1) I affirm the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people, and my intent to participate in the process of self-governance. 2) I have a significant cultural, social or civic connection to the Native Hawaiian community, and 3) I am a Native Hawaiian: a lineal descendant of the people who lived and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian islands prior to 1778, or a person who is eligible for the programs of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, or a direct lineal descendant of that person."
So even if people could prove Native Hawaiian lineage, they could not vote unless they agreed to these three Declarations. In short, the results of the election were guaranteed before ballots were cast.
Yet some Hawaiians were placed on the vote registration list without their permission. And this list is kept on a private computer (server?) maintained by a private company in the state of New York.
Furthermore, Act 195 would enable this race-based minority to establish a form of government that might require all other Hawaiian residents to follow its laws. Voting was held from November 1 through November 30, 2015. However, Judicial Watch, representing disenfranchised indigenous plaintiffs in Hawaii, filed a Federal Lawsuit to stop the election. When the local court and 9th Circuit declined, Judicial Watch obtained an injunction from SCOTUS. Judicial Watch argued that mandating a minority of people to determine election results violates the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the Voting Rights Act.
The Dept. of Interior (DOI) filed an amicus brief in the Appeal, arguing that over 500 Tribal Nations have already been allowed self-rule. But Michael Lilly, who once served as Attorney General of Hawaii, notes that Native Hawaiians were never a Tribe, and that neither the DOI nor the White House has the authority to designate Native Hawaiians as a Tribal Nation. Only Congress has that authority. However, seizing Congressional authority has become a trademark of the Obama Administration.
What is more dangerous is that this process, if allowed to proceed, would enable a race-based minority to establish a "government-to-government" relationship between Native Hawaiians and the U.S. Government. The Department of Interior actually argued that "the native Hawaiian community itself should determine whether and how to organize a government." But since Native Hawaiians do not live on a federally designated reservation, the boundaries of the area governed are not clear. Michael Lilly has stated that this is not just an unconstitutional overreach of tribal self-governance but could provide an argument for part of Hawaii seceding from the Union. The language that implements Act 195 is very murky, perhaps intentionally so, with regard to whether any part of Hawaii would be governed by a new Native Hawaiian tribal constitution.
The Obama Administration used the DOI to file an amicus brief in the case. Apparently, he and his party, the Democrats now want to create a nexus between a geographical area and an ethnic group with the unique right to vote on that area's, and perhaps the state's, constitution.
But in a startling and historic act of defiance, on December 15, 2015 the organization conducting the election defied the Supreme Court Injunction and announced that not just the top 40, but all 196 persons who ran as candidates would be seated as delegates at the February 2, 2016 constitutional convention. Judicial Watch and other parties filed a Motion at SCOTUS to find the parties in contempt of the Supreme Court's Temporary Injunction.
If Hawaiians can usurp governing authority in the state of Hawaii, this could be a precedent for other race-based groups to do the same. For example, New Mexico is now half Hispanic. They could argue that they should be able to vote for their own government since the land was formerly occupied by their ancestors.
This strategy to empower a minority of Hawaiians to write a new constitution employs old tactics of the Democratic Party. These tactics include a focus on voter qualifications, minority rights, and identity politics. Democrats have already stretched voter qualifications by enabling foreign nationals to use matricula consular cards and drivers' licenses to vote.
This startling development has Obama's fingerprints all over it. He was raised in Hawaii, likes to use Federal agencies to write policy -- in this case it's the DOI -- and his Party has worked for one hundred years to establish race-based, segregated neighborhoods in the nation's largest cities.
It is highly unlikely that SCOTUS will go along with this. But since they created a new civil right for same sex marriage they may see indigenous people's control of state constitutions as a new civil right. A right that is now being fine-tuned through an application of identity politics.
----------------
http://freehawaii.blogspot.com/2016/01/is-independence-achievable-at-nai.html
Free Hawaii blog, January 16, 2016
IS INDEPENDENCE ACHIEVABLE AT THE NA'I AUPUNI CONVENTION?
Consider These Facts --
The Native Hawaiian Roll Commission (NHRC) Kana'iolowalu, whose sole purpose was to create a Roll, submitted 741 form mostly unsigned testimonies to the Department of Interior in support of creating a draft rule or process for Federal Recognition in 2014.
Robin Danner, NHRC Roll Commissioner, admitted publically "People don't like to hear it, but the only result the Na'i Aupuni process can get, is federal recognition."
Hundreds of testimonies were submitted by Imua Hawaii in support of the DOI Proposed Rule in 2015.
Many were submitted and accepted late.
Imua Hawai'i is comprised of Na'i Aupuni candidates that include the Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, mother of NHRC commissioner Naalehu Anthony, Jade Danner the sister of NHRC Robin Danner, Catelin Aiwohi (OHA Washington, DC employee, Dr. Noa Emmit Aluli, Annelle Amaral, President of the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, and a member of the Hewa Hui, Rep. Kaniela Ing, and many others connected either to OHA or the Democratic Party machine.
The mediators of the 'Aha Na'i Aupuni is a former OHA Administrator with history supporting HA Hawaii, Linda Colburn, and Peter S. Alder that designed a consultation process on behalf of TMT.
The "predetermined" week of education for candidates has two Hawaiian educators who have supported the Akaka Bill and federal recognition, Davianna McGregor and Melody McKenzie.
The other educators are Rebecca Tsosie, who has served as Executive Director of the top ranked INDIAN Legal Program, Zachary Elkins, an expert on the federal process and federalization, and Catherine Iorns Magallanes, who is the only person versed in Self-determination and the UN.
There will be security there to keep the peace.
Who will be there to protect supporters of a Free Hawai'i?
--------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/hawaii-news/build-telescope-scrap-convention-most-say/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Monday January 18, 2016 (Martin Luther King Day holiday)
Build telescope, scrap convention, most say
By Timothy Hurley
A substantial majority of Hawaii residents supports the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope, while a plurality opposes a convention that aims to form a Native Hawaiian government.
But it's a different story for Native Hawaiians, most of whom oppose the telescope while a narrow majority supports the Na'i Aupuni convention, or aha.
Those are some of the findings of the Hawaii Poll, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser's latest scientific survey, conducted Dec. 28 through Jan. 9.
Some 67 percent of the 619 registered voters queried by Ward Research Inc. of Honolulu said they support moving ahead with construction of the next-generation telescope, while only 27 percent oppose it and 6 percent offered no opinion.
The results show even stronger support for the $1.4 million project than the poll commission by TMT representatives in October, when 62 percent of Hawaii adults said they backed construction.
In both cases, Ward Research was hired to conduct the survey.
Rebecca Ward, president of Ward Research, which has conducted the Hawaii Poll since 1997, said that when the Star-Advertiser asked that a TMT question be included this time, she suggested using the identical question for comparison of the data. The newspaper agreed.
Although more than two-thirds of the state's registered voters offered support for the telescope in the new poll, most of the Native Hawaiians who were asked did not. Some 59 percent of Hawaiians said they oppose the TMT's construction, while 39 percent offered support. Just 2 percent declined to give an opinion.
That's an increase in Native Hawaiian opposition over the October poll, when 49 percent opposed the TMT and 44 percent were favorable.
The October poll was conducted during a long break in construction, caused in part by protesters blocking repeated attempts by the TMT's builders to access the mountaintop work site. TMT officials said they wanted to gauge public support for the project.
Since that time, the Hawaii Supreme Court invalidated the project's conservation district use permit, a major setback that could stall construction for years.
TMT officials are now trying to figure out what to do next, said Henry Yang, chairman of the TMT board of directors.
"We are grateful for the community's continued strong support, which is growing ever stronger. It demonstrates the great value that astronomy brings to the islands and the rest of the world. As we are assessing our next steps forward, we thank the people of Hawaii and all of our supporters," Yang said in a statement.
Regarding the Native Hawaiian convention, 49 percent of those surveyed were opposed, while 40 percent backed the effort. Ten percent had no opinion.
When Native Hawaiians were asked, the answers were split, but supporters exceeded foes 48 percent to 45 percent.
Na'i Aupuni President Kuhio Asam said he and many other Native Hawaiians remain committed to the project.
"We respect all in our community, but Na'i Aupuni believes that a discussion on self-governance by Hawaiians is important for Native Hawaiians and the state as a whole. The attendees of the aha represent a wide spectrum of views from the Native Hawaiian community and we look forward to that dialogue," Asam said in a statement.
The four-week convention is scheduled to start Feb. 1 with at least 154 delegates.
But the effort is still being targeted by litigation, and the U.S. Supreme Court, which on Friday considered a request for Na'i Aupuni to be held in civil contempt, could still block the convention.
Lawsuit plaintiff Kelii Akina, president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, said, "Clearly, there is no consensus for the Na'i Aupuni convention, even among Native Hawaiians. The citizens of Hawaii do not want a government-funded, racially exclusive process that divides rather than unites. Instead, most people in Hawaii want to preserve the Hawaiian value of aloha."
Hawaii Poll -- TMT & Hawaiian election
https://www.scribd.com/doc/295765333/Hawaii-Poll-TMT-Hawaiian-election
--------------------
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011916zor_l5gm.pdf
U.S. Supreme Court
(ORDER LIST: 577 U.S.)
TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2016
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
15A551 AKINA, KELI'I, ET AL. V. HAWAII, ET AL.
The motion of applicants Keli'i Akina, et al. for civil contempt is denied.
---------------
http://bigislandnow.com/2016/01/19/u-s-supreme-court-allows-aha-to-proceed/
Big Island Now, January 19, 2016
U.S. Supreme Court Allows 'Aha to Proceed
The United States Supreme Court denied a motion on Tuesday which argued that Na'i Aupuni organizers were violating a previous injunction that stopped an election that was designed to send delegates to a Native Hawaiian constitutional convention, or 'aha, to take on matters of Native Hawaiian self-governance.
Members of the U.S. Supreme Court issued the injunction on Dec. 2. It continued a temporary stay issued a week earlier by Justice Anthony Kennedy, putting a halt to the voting process, including vote counting, until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could issue a ruling on the lawsuit that challenged the election.
In response, Na'i Aupuni officials scrapped the election process and decided to extend an invite to all of the delegates to February's 'aha. Not long after that announcement, the same group of Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians that initially challenged the election filed the motion to the Supreme Court, arguing that extending seats to every delegate ignored the high court's injunction.
"We are pleased with the court's decision and grateful that we may continue on our path to the 'aha," Kuhio Asam, president of Na'i Aupuni, said in a statement. "We support and look forward to the participants, who are from varied backgrounds and with a wide range of beliefs, coming together to discuss and find common ground on manners in which to advance self-governance."
Over 150 delegates have pledged to be a part of the four-week 'aha. Peter Adler and Linda Colburn of The Mediation Center of the Pacific will serve as facilitators
"The Supreme Court has only denied a temporary remedy related to our case. We remain confident that when the full case is argued before the Ninth Circuit Court or Supreme Court, it will prevail on its merits," said Dr. Kelii Akina, Ph.D, Grassroot Institute President and one of the plaintiffs in the case. "In the end, we expect the U.S. Constitution to be upheld for the benefit of Native Hawaiians and all people of Hawai'i.
"Regardless of what happens in the courts, this case has successfully exposed the agenda of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Na'i Aupuni, and the state when it comes to their nation-building scheme. They do not truly represent the people they purport to speak for. The public resources they are expending would be better utilized providing Hawaiians access to housing, job training, education, and health care."
** Ken Conklin's online comment: The headline is misleading. The Supreme Court said nothing about whether the 'Aha can proceed (that was never in doubt). The Supreme Court merely declined to hold Na'i Aupuni in contempt of court for its decision to certify all the candidates in the election as delegates to the 'Aha. The Court's injunction had ordered Na'i Aupuni not to count the votes and not to certify winners. Judicial Watch said the decision to invite all the candidates to the 'Aha was, in effect, certifying them all as winners, in violation of the injunction. The Court decided it was not a violation.
--------------
http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=71b7157277&e=4a7cf86850
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, January 19, 2016, Press release
Plaintiffs Remain Confident in Case Against Na'i Aupuni Election
Grassroot Institute says case will proceed in Ninth Circuit after Supreme Court denies contempt motion
HONOLULU, HAWAII -- January 19, 2015 -- Today, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii issued comments on the case against the Na'i Aupuni election. While the Court rejected the argument that the Na'i Aupuni was using the Native Hawaiian Roll in a way that violated their injunction, the suit against the race-based and unconstitutional election is still going forward. The Court denied a motion for civil contempt filed when Na'i Aupuni chose to seat all the delegates in their disputed election, thereby ignoring an injunction order from the court not to proceed with the election or certify winners.
The attempt to bypass the election was seen by many as a high-handed attempt to dodge the Constitutional challenge. However, those involved in the case stressed that they have no intention of giving up. The case is currently before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
"The Supreme Court has only denied a temporary remedy related to our case," said Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "We remain confident that when the full case is argued before the Ninth Circuit Court or Supreme Court, it will prevail on its merits. In the end, we expect the US Constitution to be upheld for the benefit of Native Hawaiians and all people of Hawaii."
"Regardless of what happens in the courts, this case has successfully exposed the agenda of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Na'i Aupuni and the state when it comes to their nation-building scheme," Dr. Akina continued. "They do not truly represent the people they purport to speak for. The public resources they are expending would be better utilized providing Hawaiians access to housing, job training, education, and health care."
For background documents, see:
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/2015/10/akina-v-hawaii-the-documents/
----------------------
http://freehawaii.blogspot.com/#sthash.ioMG6fDw.dpuf
Free Hawaii blog, January 19, 2016
Today, the Grassroot Institute of Hawai'i issued comments on the case against the Na'i Aupuni election.
While the Court rejected the argument that the Na'i Aupuni was using the Native Hawaiian Roll in a way that violated their injunction, the suit against the race-based and unconstitutional election is still going forward.
The Court denied a motion for civil contempt filed when Na'i Aupuni chose to seat all the delegates in their disputed election, thereby ignoring an injunction order from the court not to proceed with the election or certify winners.
The attempt to bypass the election was seen by many as a high-handed attempt to dodge the Constitutional challenge. However, those involved in the case stressed that they have no intention of giving up. The case is currently before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
"The Supreme Court has only denied a temporary remedy related to our case," said Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "We remain confident that when the full case is argued before the Ninth Circuit Court or Supreme Court, it will prevail on its merits. In the end, we expect the US Constitution to be upheld for the benefit of Native Hawaiians and all people of Hawai'i."
"Regardless of what happens in the courts, this case has successfully exposed the agenda of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Na'i Aupuni and the state when it comes to their nation-building scheme," Dr. Akina continued. "They do not truly represent the people they purport to speak for. The public resources they are expending would be better utilized providing Hawaiians access to housing, job training, education, and health care."
--------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/hawaii-news/high-court-refuses-to-sanction-convention-leaders/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, January 20, 2016
High court refuses to sanction convention leaders
By Susan Essoyan
The Native Hawaiian self-governance convention planned for next month cleared a legal hurdle Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an attempt to hold convention organizers in contempt of court.
However, the underlying lawsuit filed by Grassroot Institute President Keli'i Akina and five other plaintiffs in August remains pending. They sued to block the election of delegates to the convention, saying it violates their constitutional rights because only Native Hawaiians could register and vote.
Na'i Aupuni, the nonprofit staging the convention, considers it a private matter among Native Hawaiians that does not involve the state.
The latest skirmish in the case came after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction Dec. 2 blocking the counting of votes and certification of winners in that election while the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers the merits of the lawsuit.
In response, Na'i Aupuni decided to cancel the election and instead offered all delegate candidates a chance to attend the aha, or gathering, and discuss a path to Hawaiian self-governance. Organizers said that waiting for the court case to play out would take too long.
The plaintiffs objected to Na'i Aupuni's move, calling it an effort to dodge the constitutional court challenge and disobey the court's order. They asked the Supreme Court to sanction Na'i Aupuni, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission by holding them in civil contempt of court.
On Tuesday the high court, without comment, declined to do so.
"We're happy. We expected it to go in our favor," said Clyde Namuo, executive director of the Roll Commission, which compiled the list of eligible Hawaiian voters for the election. "We still feel we are going to prevail in the 9th Circuit."
Na'i Aupuni attorney William Meheula said last month that because the election was canceled and the votes will never be counted, the lawsuit seeking to stop the election should be moot, and his clients intend to seek its dismissal.
The 9th Circuit Court is still reviewing the original ruling by U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright that would have allowed voting to proceed. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 9th Circuit and also filed an emergency motion to block the votes from being counted.
Akina is looking forward to having the case heard.
"The Supreme Court has only denied a temporary remedy related to our case," Akina said in a statement Tuesday. "We remain confident that when the full case is argued before the 9th Circuit Court or Supreme Court, it will prevail on its merits."
At last count, 154 delegate candidates were planning to attend the four-week convention next month. They will consider various options for Native Hawaiians to achieve self-governance, in hopes of reaching a consensus. Peter Adler and Linda Colburn of The Mediation Center of the Pacific have been retained as facilitators.
------------------
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/31087035/some-lawmakers-say-lottery-has-a-chance-this-year
Hawaii News Now (3 TV stations), January 28, 2016
Some lawmakers say lottery has a chance this year
by Mileka Lincoln
It comes up nearly every legislative session, but could this be the year that Hawaii lawmakers legalize gambling with a lottery?
Both House and Senate lawmakers have introduced bills that would establish a state-run lottery, including keno.
Officials say attempts at some form of gaming have been around since 1887 -- none of which have been successful, but some lawmakers believe the political climate and public perspective has shifted enough that the odds are in their favor.
"You have the Legislature convening to see how we can address education, pay raises for teachers and union workers and how to deal with homelessness and healthcare -- all these issues collide together," said state Rep. John Mizuno (D - Kalihi Valley, Kamehameha Heights). "It's a perfect storm. If any time, now's the chance to pass."
Legislators have raised concerns about whether the money would actually go where its intended -- in this case, education, health care and social services.
"It's not a silver bullet and it is another way to raise income -- but we could also raise income by raising the GET, which the Hawaii State Teachers Association has requested. Everything has it's pluses and minuses in the end," said state Rep. Karl Rhoads (D - Kalihi, Palama, Iwilei, Chinatown), who chairs the House Judiciary committee.
But both HSTA and the Department of Education have expressed no desire for a lottery.
The governor, himself, says he's been opposed.
"I do believe that it's not a real consistent way to raise revenues for core services, and I am concerned about what gambling would mean -- legalized gambling -- to our community in terms of the costs involved," said Gov. David Ige.
Lawmakers say there's another worry. If the state legalizes any form of gambling, federal law would allow Native American tribes to then buy property in Hawaii and build a casino.
"That means we could not tax it. We cannot take any monies from it. We cannot control the zoning on it. We cannot control the future use of that particular land. And they can have their casinos 100 percent tax-free," said state Sen. J. Kalani English (D - Hana, East and Upcountry Maui, Moloka'i, Lana'i, Kaho'olawe), the Senate Majority Leader.
Both the House and Senate measures have been referred to multiple committees, which means if they have any chance of surviving this legislative session -- they'll need to be scheduled for hearings in the next three weeks. So far, no hearings have been scheduled.
------------------
http://freehawaii.blogspot.com/2016/01/protest-nai-aupuni-on-monday-protest-na.html
Free Hawaii blog, Friday, January 29, 2016
"Protest Na'i Aupuni" is the name of a group of Hawaiians who have come together to educate, organize, and protest Na'i Aupuni - the State of Hawai'i's initiative to establish a puppet governing entity. The purpose of Na'i Aupuni is to create a process that will lead to a universal settlement of the Hawaiian people's entitlement to our national lands, the 1.8 million acres mistakenly referred to as "ceded lands."
Despite a US Supreme Court ruling on December 2, 2015 that stopped the fraudulent Na'i Aupuni election process, this state sponsored organization is moving forward with the "'aha" or conference set to take place throughout February at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club in Kailua.
There are over 150 self-appointed paid "delegates" participating in this event, including Kana'iolowalu Native Hawaiian Roll Commissioners (NHRC) and State elected officials including a trustee from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), all of whom have supported federal recognition for many years. They also endorse the Department of Interior (DOI) draft rules for "reestablishing a formal government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community," which is federal recognition.
Hawaiian kupuna and supporter of Protest Na'i Aupuni, Sweets Matthews, said, "This entire process has been corrupt on so many levels. These 154 fake delegates do not represent the 527,000 Hawaiian people."
Protest Na'i Aupuni members and supporters will be at the opening day of the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha to hold signs against Na'i Aupuni, a process that continues to spend millions of Hawaiian trust dollars in an effort to extinguish our rights to our national lands.
Matthews states, "There is no question that the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha has a pre-determined outcome that will lead to federal recognition. This is not true self-determination as defined by the United Nations. Under international law self determination is a legal and human right, something the Hawaiian people have been consistently denied by the United States. We, as a people, are supposed to determine who our leaders are and what form of government we want."
Kaukaohu Wahilani, a Wai'anae resident and Mauna Kea protector will be one of the many holding signs in protest to the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha on Monday. As a Kingdom of Hawai'i subject and Kanaka 'Oiwi, he states "We don't need federal recognition, we were already recognized in 1843 by England and France and the so called United States. No treaty, no annexation, no title!!!" - See more at:
http://freehawaii.blogspot.com/#sthash.MX1UDv6c.dpuf
------------------------
http://bigislandnow.com/2016/01/30/nai-aupuni-aha-begins-monday/
Big Island Now, January 30, 2016
Na'i Aupuni 'Aha Begins Monday
By Big Island Now Staff
Over 150 delegates will convene on Oahu's Royal Hawaiian Golf Course Monday for the start of a four-week Native Hawaiian Constitutional Convention, or 'aha, which is expected to start a discussion that could possibly lead to Native Hawaiian self-governance.
The total number of delegates participating in the 'aha is a majority number of the over 200 that had initially sought to participate via Na'i Aupuni's Native Hawaiian election, which was halted by the United States Supreme Court. Organizers instead decided to open up the 'aha to all of the candidates who wanted to participate.
There will be a presentation held each day of the week, starting on Monday with "Constitution Building: Process and Contents" by Zachary Elkins from 1:15 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. Tuesday's presentation, "Federal Indian Law: Federal Recognition" by Rebecca Tsosie, will be done from 9:15 a.m. – 10:30 p.m. The topic turns to "International Law: De-occupation, De-colonization, Indigenous Rights" on Wednesday from 12:30 p.m. – 1:45 p.m., hosted by Catherine J. Iorns Magallanes.
Wrapping up the first week of presentations is a piece about "Kingdom Law," presented by Davianna McGregor from 12:30 pm – 1:45 p.m. on Friday. Before that, Melody Kapilialoha McKenzie will have a topic on the "US Constitutional Issues & Ceded Lands" on Thursday from 9:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
The presentations will not be made available to the public, but will be broadcast by Olelo Community Media, where it will be streamed online.
"We support and look forward to the participants, who are from varied backgrounds and with a wide range of beliefs, coming together to discuss and find common ground on manners in which to advance self-governance," said Kuhio Asam, president of Na'i Aupuni, in a statement. "This is really a historic event and the scholar presentations will provide a strong overview of the many issues for discussion.
"In order to foster a good dialogue, at this time, the 'aha discussions are not open to the public or the media. However, these televised presentations will provide a good understanding of the complexity of the issues. Ultimately, the participants will determine their own parameters of sharing the content of the discussions with the public and the media."
Facilitating the discussions will be Peter Adler, Linda Colburn, and Ku'umeaaloha Gomes of The Mediation Center of the Pacific.
------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/hawaii-news/controversy-hangs-over-convention-for-hawaiian-governance/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, January 31, 2016
Controversy hangs over convention for Hawaiian governance
By Timothy Hurley
The historic Na'i Aupuni constitutional convention convenes Monday with 151 Native Hawaiians charged with setting up the building blocks of a nation.
But some folks are wondering if the time-shortened and crowded convention will be able to produce a governing document or any other meaningful pathway to self-governance.
"I'm not optimistic about what can get done," said Rowena Akana, the longtime Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustee who will join the four-week convention, or aha, at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club in Kailua.
With the first week dedicated to educational presentations on constitutional issues, indigenous rights, kingdom law and more, there's a lot to accomplish in the last three weeks.
And with more than 150 voices potentially wanting to be heard, keeping order may be a challenge. Consider that if every convention participant were given three minutes to speak each eight-hour day, it would leave only enough time for an 18-minute break.
Akana said that judging by some of the discussion in an online forum of convention participants, she's worried a few dissenters will end up hijacking the conversation and threaten to throw the meeting off its tracks.
"It's not about culture right now. It's about government documents," she said. "It's about moving forward. We all know about our history. What this is about is seeing what we can do going forward."
The landmark convention, envisioned by a 2011 act of the state Legislature, was originally planned to take place over eight weeks with 40 delegates elected by nearly 90,000 Native Hawaiians registered by the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.
But when litigation threatened to block the proceeding for months or even years, Na'i Aupuni organizers canceled the election and offered all 196 candidates an opportunity to join the aha. The move allowed the group to duck allegations that the balloting violated constitutional restrictions on public elections.
The same argument used to fight an ongoing lawsuit against Na'i Aupuni -- that the effort is a private affair not subject to laws governing state-sanctioned activities -- will also allow the convention to proceed with little public scrutiny and media coverage.
The public and the news media will be prohibited from the meeting hall, other than for televising the educational presentations by Olelo community access television in the first week.
Na'i Aupuni spokesman Lloyd Yonenaka said the closed meeting was a decision by the Na'i Aupuni board and the convention's hired moderators, veteran mediator Peter Adler and Linda Colburn, a former OHA administrator, in a move to free the participants from the pressure of being under the public spotlight -- although the convention could decide to open on its own later.
For now, the convention will convene behind closed doors from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Mondays through Fridays throughout February.
Participants from Oahu will receive a total of $1,000 in per diem payments, while neighbor island participants will receive $4,000, and those coming from outside the state will get $5,000.
When the convention participants show up Monday morning, they likely will be greeted by sign-carrying protesters.
Protest Na'i Aupuni, a group of Native Hawaiians formed to oppose the convention, is urging people to picket the meeting. The group accuses the event of being a state-sponsored scheme to establish a puppet government, undercut the independence movement and seize undisputed control of all ceded, or Hawaiian crown, lands.
Sweets Matthews, a longtime Hawaiian activist and supporter of Protest Na'i Aupuni, said the outcome of the aha has been prearranged to set the stage for formal recognition by the U.S. government.
"This is not true self-determination as defined by the United Nations," Matthews said in a press release. "Under international law, self-determination is a legal and human right, something the Hawaiian people have been consistently denied by the United States. We, as a people, are supposed to determine who our leaders are and what form of government we want."
The convention apparently will first answer the question of whether to pursue the establishment of a Native Hawaiian governing entity and, if so, what type of government to establish.
Many of the attendees are expected to fall under the banner of a couple of different factions -- those who want federal recognition and those who favor independence.
Akana, the OHA trustee, said that with more than 150 participants, it might take "miraculous effort" to maintain order.
"I don't want an end result where people are saying, 'The Hawaiians, they can't get it together.' But that's what it might look like. This is going to be interesting," she said.
But Jade Danner, a Hawaiian homesteader and convention participant from Waimanalo, maintains a majority of attendees are interested in getting down to work and are committed to creating a governing document.
"I'm excited and encouraged, ready for a positive experience," she said.
Maui participant Bronson Kaahui said he expects a heated showdown between "separatists" and those who are seeking federal recognition in the convention's second week, with the last two weeks featuring the writing of a governing document to be put to the registered voters.
"I imagine they will attempt to create a constitution with a legislature, but I support a direct democracy," Kaahui said.
So does Oahu attendee Zuri Aki, a University of Hawaii law student from Mililani, although he's not exactly confident of a successful outcome in any case.
"With a vast array of differing views, I imagine it is very likely that the convention will be mired in some degree of discord," he said.
But he said he's still hoping the group will rally to reach some common ground and lay the foundation for future conventions. He said he would rather avoid hastily producing an ineffective document that does not satisfy most Native Hawaiians.
Aki said he would like to see pro-independence and pro-federal-recognition factions compromise and establish a temporary or transitional authority that will decide between independence, federal recognition or even something else at a time when more Native Hawaiians are participating.
"Right now, the vast majority of Native Hawaiians are not involved in this process," he said. "I am of the opinion that no major political decision, like independence or federal recognition, should be made without a much greater participation from the Native Hawaiian community."
Convention participant Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, director of the UH-Manoa Kamakakuokalani Center for Hawaiian Studies, said that in 1987 Ka Lahui Hawaii wrote its first constitution in three days, so this group should be able to put together a fine governing document in one month.
Kame'eleihiwa is both pro-independence and pro-federal recognition. She acknowledges the realities of life in the U.S. while holding out for the ideal of independence -- a goal, she says, that won't be foreclosed by federal recognition but, rather, helped by it.
"If I had a dollar for every time I told a non-Hawaiian that we still want the country back, and had them look at me as if I were crazy, I would be a rich woman today!" she wrote on a candidate questionnaire.
But independence won't be achieved without an agreement with the American government, she said.
Kame'eleihiwa said that as a historian, she has seen the political boundaries on maps change. It was once said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire," and now it does, she said. Those countries in the empire were told they could never become independent, she said, but when the people of India wanted their country back, there was no stopping them.
"People's desires and political opinions make for political change, and laws and constitutions are rewritten. That is how the world really works," the UH professor said.
What's most exciting about federal recognition, she added, is that when military bases decommission, under U.S. law, federally recognized tribes or native nations get first claims on that base.
"If we Native Hawaiians had had federal recognition status when Barbers Point was decommissioned, we would have been able to control that whole area," Kame'eleihiwa said.
Now that the U.S. government is cutting the military budget and there is discussion of closing military bases in Hawaii, Native Hawaiians must have federal recognition to regain those lands, she said, adding that military bases comprise 25 percent of Oahu and have housing, schools and medical clinics "perfect for the Hawaiian nation."
----------------
http://www.kitv.com/story/31102379/threats-arise-ahead-of-televised-native-hawaiian-aha
KITV 4, January 31, 2016
Threats arise ahead of televised Native Hawaiian 'aha
By Moanike'ala Nabarro
A contested Native Hawaiian election canceled in December isn't stopping 151 former delegates from proceeding to the original plan of attending a conference starting Monday.
The goal of Na'i Aupuni's four-week long 'aha is to discuss self-governance for Hawaiians.
Monday's meeting will be televised on Olelo Community Media and through a live stream here.
http://www.olelo.org/
KITV has confirmed recent emails exchanged between participants has already resulted in heated debates, even threats.
Some attending the conference are concerned about their safety. Others say they're trying to be optimistic about getting the chance to help Hawaiians.
"We need to do everything we can in our power to help educate everyone and move everything forward because 123 years of unresolved illegalities is too long," said former delegate Kalaniakea Wilson.
Back in December Na'i Aupuni called off the election after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the counting of the ballots.
The 'aha begins Monday at 9 a.m. in Kailua. The first week of the meeting will include scholar presentations.
----------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16791/Gambling-on-a-Hawaiian-Tribe.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, January 31, 2016
Gambling on a Hawaiian Tribe
by Tom Yamachika, President, Tax Foundation Hawaii
Lately the news media has been buzzing about the Powerball jackpot reaching stratospheric levels. We don't participate in it locally, but some lawmakers are considering allowing a state lottery, which could allow us to participate in Powerball. In this column we'll explore whether there might be unintended consequences if, as some are advocating, a Native Hawaiian community is recognized with a status similar to that of an Indian tribe.
In late 1988, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Reagan signed, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Interestingly, its main sponsor in the U.S. Senate, and one of its chief authors, was Senator Daniel Inouye. Because this federal law has the effect of overriding state laws that regulate or prevent gambling, the act deserves a closer look.
For the IGRA to work, there needs to be two things: an Indian tribe, and Indian lands. "Indian lands" usually means a reservation, but it could be any lands held in trust over which an Indian tribe exercises governmental power. Right now, we don't seem to have a tribe, but that could change. And if Native Hawaiians were to achieve recognition as an Indian tribe, they might have or acquire lands such as those we now call ceded lands or Hawaiian homestead lands. Also, it may be possible for other federally recognized tribes to buy land here and add it to their tribal lands.
If we have an Indian tribe and Indian lands, the IGRA stratifies gaming into three classes.
Class I is (1) traditional Indian gaming, which may be part of tribal ceremonies and celebrations, and (2) social gaming for minimal prizes. The Indian tribe can regulate this type of gaming however it likes. In our context, if a Hawaiian tribe conducted an 'ulumaika tournament or a canoe race and allowed people to bet on the players, then that would be allowed irrespective of what the State might think.
Class II is bingo-type gaming, including, if played in the same location as the bingo, pull tabs, punch board, tip jars, instant bingo, and other games similar to bingo. It also includes non-banked card games, that is, games that are played exclusively against other players rather than against "the house" or a player acting as a "bank." A tribe can allow Class II gaming on Indian lands as long as the State allows any kind of gaming. At the moment, Class II can't be permitted in Hawaii (and Utah) because we prohibit all gaming, but that would change if Hawaii allowed a state lottery.
Class III is casino gaming, video slots, and everything else not included in Classes I or II. A tribe can allow Class III gaming on Indian lands only if the State allows the same kind of gaming. A tribal ordinance permitting the gaming also needs to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. Finally, either the state and the tribe need to negotiate a compact, or deal, or the Department of the Interior needs to approve regulatory procedures over the gaming. States are not allowed to levy taxes or fees on tribal gambling, unless specifically allowed in the compacts. Fees to cover some of the costs of basic regulation or law enforcement protection are common among states. In Connecticut, for example, the state receives 20 percent of gambling proceeds. Minnesota's compacts require its 11 tribal governments to pay a modest amount each year to defray the costs of regulation.
In any event, allowing a lottery in Hawaii could open the door to other things. We need to be forewarned and prepared.
----------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16817/Golf-Club-Aha-John-Waihee-Returns-to-the-Scene-of-the-Crime.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, Sunday January 31, 2016
Golf Club Aha: John Waihee Returns to the Scene of the Crime
by Andrew Walden
Starting tomorrow at 9AM, the Nai Aupuni Aha will be 'gathering to discuss a path to self-governance'. Few of the so-called delegates may realize it, but the choice of site for the Aha -- the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club in Maunawili Valley -- is a the punch line of a decades-long joke played on them by ex-Governor John Waihee.
Years ago, Waihee took a political risk as an early-money backer of Bill Clinton's successful 1992 bid for the White House -- the 1993 Apology Resolution was his reward. And the 1990s Waihee-Clinton money-story began with Waihee's crooked political operators driving Hawaiian farmers out of Maunawili Valley in order to build what is now known as the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club.
Paralleling Waihee's support for Clinton, President Barack Obama's Hawaii supporters also sought to leverage the limited contribution pool of their small state by latching on early. Calling Obama "Hawaii's third senator",
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Dec/17/ln/ln20p.html
they began raising early money for a presidential bid as soon as Obama won his Illinois Senate seat in 2004. But of course they wanted something in return. At the top of their agenda in discussions with Obama in December 2004
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Dec/17/ln/ln20p.html
was the multi-billion-dollar land and money grab which would have been made possible by passage of the Akaka Bill.
Twelve years later, the Akaka Bill is dead, but Obama's Department of the Interior has offered his early-money supporters one last chance for the Tribe.
As told in the 1997 PBS Frontline special "The Fixers,"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fixers/etc/script.html
the story of Clinton's Hawaii early-money support from Waihee begins in the late 1980s and early 1990s with poor Hawaiian farmers' leasehold homes
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fixers/interviews/wong.html
being bulldozed and cattle being slaughtered as Honolulu police stand by with fraudulent eviction notices. The evictions made way for a Maunawili Valley Oahu golf course funded by Japanese investors
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~irohter/TamperingWithPowerArticle.htm
overflowing with yen at the top of Japan's bubble economy.
Yes. The push for the Akaka Tribe was launched by stealing land from Hawaiians. And now the Aha 'delegates' are being taken along as John Waihee returns to the scene of his crime. If you see Waihee at the Golf Club Aha, snickering to himself in a corner, now you know why.
The Maunawili Valley deal was the beginning of a long run for Waihee "fixers" Gene and Nora Lum. They bought support for the project in the Hawaii state legislature with $50,000 in contributions. Governor Waihee's 1985 signature on the Lums' bill declaring golf courses to be a legitimate use of agricultural land raised the value of the Maunawili property by about $43 million overnight.
Within a few years the Lums were recruited by Ron Brown -- later named Clinton's commerce secretary -- to spearhead efforts to raise Clinton donations from Asian sources. Their bet on Clinton's candidacy was raising thousands from Waihee associates in 1990 and 1991 -- even as the Maunawili evictions were ongoing.
PBS' "The Fixers" ends with President Clinton in 1996, ten days after winning his second presidential term, stopping in Honolulu on his way to Asia and insisting on playing a full 18 holes of golf with Waihee in the pouring rain at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club in Maunawili Valley, where it all started.
The Lums ended up in prison in 1997, but backing Clinton had already paid off handsomely for Waihee and his cronies.
http://www.kitv.com/politics/15338517/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news
Clinton in 1993
http://starbulletin.com/2008/02/17/editorial/borreca.html
signed the so-called "Apology Resolution,"
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=D287DC94-AEA1-47E8-BA85-07982FEC82C7
which fixes a single government-dictated interpretation of history and formally admits a U.S. role in the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It also apologized for the overthrow, thus making the U.S. liable to native Hawaiians -- or more accurately, to those who claim to represent Hawaiians.
The Apology Resolution, pitched to Congress by Senator Daniel Inouye as "a simple resolution of apology,"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007117
over the years was the cornerstone of the case for the Akaka Bill, despite Sen. Akaka's floor statement
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/congrec-senate.html
during the 1993 debate: "Are Native Hawaiians Native Americans? This resolution has nothing to do with that." In fact the record of the very short 1993 Senate debate
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/congrec-senate.html
contains a point-by-point litany of denials from Akaka and Inouye of almost everything which has since come to pass.
A federally recognized Hawaii Tribe could shield trustees of KSBE, OHA, and DHHL from the law. Some, such as OHA CEO Kamanaopono Crabbe, envision it controlling much of Hawaii's economy while hiding behind its tribal jurisdiction.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16769/categoryId/42/Crabbe-Plan-is-to-Take-Control-of-Hawaiirsquos-Entire-Economy-and-Hide-Behind-Tribal-Jurisdiction.aspx
Obama will be out of office on January 20, 2017.
He who laughs last, laughs best.
Related: Crabbe: Plan is to Take Control of Hawaii's Entire Economy and Hide Behind Tribal Jurisdiction
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16769/categoryId/42/Crabbe-Plan-is-to-Take-Control-of-Hawaiirsquos-Entire-Economy-and-Hide-Behind-Tribal-Jurisdiction.aspx
----------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16822/Oprah-Aha-Does-Not-Represent-Hawaiian-Public.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, February 1, 2016
Oprah Aha Does Not Represent Hawaiian Public
By Grassroot Institute
Hawaiian Aha Convention Does Not Represent the Public
Grassroot Institute President Keli'i Akina comments on opening of convention that will attempt to create a Native Hawaiian tribe
News Release from Grassroot Institute, February 1, 2016
HONOLULU, HAWAII -- February 1, 2016 -- Despite a Supreme Court injunction that halted the race-based election sponsored by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, government contractor Na'i Aupuni unilaterally transformed the election into an "everybody wins" scenario, seating everyone who had been on the ballot. The resulting convention -- the stated intent of which is to formulate a government for Native Hawaiians -- begins today amid continued controversy over the actions of Na'i Apuni and OHA and whether any tribal entity developed from the meeting will be able to pass legal muster.
The lawsuit against the election is still ongoing and currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, Native Hawaiian activists continue to protest the political aims of Na'i Apuni and OHA, questioning OHA's management of funds intended for the betterment of Native Hawaiians.
"The Aha convention clearly does not represent the voices of Hawaii's citizens in general nor of Native Hawaiians in particular," stated Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and a plaintiff in the case against the election. "Whatever document or governing organization the delegates come up with will have no more force of law or moral authority than a wish list put together by any group of 150 or so individuals. The participants in this convention have been misled by organizers if they believe that they are able to start a viable race based government. Their efforts are also at risk as the status of the Na!I Aupuni process is still an open case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals"
Dr. Akina continued, "The more than 6.5 million dollars of public funds that have been wasted on the Native Hawaiian roll and Aha convention have robbed Hawaiians of money that should have been spent on housing, education, jobs, and health services."
A list of documents and filing associated with the case of Akina v. Hawaii can be viewed at:
http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/2015/10/akina-v-hawaii-the-documents/
------------------------
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/31113560/activist-turned-away-from-nai-aupuni-convention
Hawaii News Now (3 TV stations), February 1, 2016
Activist turned away from Na'i Aupuni convention
By Lisa Kubota
MAUNAWILI, HAWAII (HawaiiNewsNow) -
Critics voiced their displeasure as the Native Hawaiian convention on self-governance kicked off in Maunawili on Monday.
Molokai activist Walter Ritte signed up to run in the Na'i Aupuni election, but later dropped out. He was turned away at the entrance to the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club even though he said he just wanted to observe the proceedings. Organizers told Ritte to return on Tuesday after the participants had a chance to discuss whether to allow non-participants into the convention.
"It was such a bad situation. How can you build a Hawaiian nation by dividing us like this right from the get-go and keeping the Hawaiians out so they cannot see what's going on?" said Ritte.
Organizers canceled the Na'i Aupuni election late last year due to a legal challenge. The convention is restricted to the 151 candidates who confirmed their participation weeks ago. One of the first steps will be settling on a process that will be used to move forward with the discussion.
"We can't have everyone in there just yelling and screaming at each other so determining and coming up with the process that we're going to use to keep order so that we can have lively debate. That's why we're here to hear all the different opinions," said participant Brendon Lee.
Police kept an eye on several protestors who stood along the road leading to the golf club.
"This is a total farce. This is totally a campaign to push federal recognition. It has a pre-determined outcome. It's funded by OHA (Office of Hawaiian Affairs). OHA is playing a divisive role in the Hawaiian community right now," said protestor Healani Sonoda-Pale.
Participants attending the four-week convention are still hopeful that they can come together to form a plan for the future of Native Hawaiians.
"For me it's a great opportunity to just be at the table, to be a part of the discussion to kind of represent the voices of the younger generation who aren't present and just to learn as much as I can," said participant Jacob Bryan Aki.
----------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16823/Pirate-Video-from-Aha-Bumpy-Kanahele-Shouted-Down-Walter-Ritte-Thrown-Out.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, Monday February 1, 2016
Pirate Video from Aha: Bumpy Kanahele Shouted Down, Walter Ritte Thrown Out
compiled by Andrew Walden
Ritte Prepares to Enter Aha -- "I feel like one criminal." Video Link:
https://www.facebook.com/rittew/videos/10206730967527630/
Walter Ritte Being Thrown out of Aha (You can hear chanting begin at about 4:00 mark.) Ritte -- "Group that is controlling all this is 'The Ohia Group.'"
Video Link: https://www.facebook.com/rittew/videos/10206731628464153/
Photo Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/506195199481787/permalink/712949662139672/
Chanting Protesters Disrupt Aha
Video Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/506195199481787/permalink/713046695463302/
Bumpy Kanahele Shouted Down at Aha
Kanahele shouted down at 2:35 mark after being asked: "Is the national sovereignty the Kingdom that includes non-Hawaiians? Because I want Hawaiians." Video Link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/506195199481787/permalink/713037958797509/
--------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16824/Aha-Participants-Asked-to-Leave-Weapons-at-Home.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, Monday February 1, 2016
Aha Participants Asked to Leave Weapons at Home
by Andrew Walden
Some information from Kuumealoha Gomes who is a facilitator of the 'Aha
Provided to www.HawaiiFreePress.com by a confidential source.
Kuumealoha Gomes:
Aloha mai kakou, and mahalo Ilima for asking me to clarify: first I did not include Andre because I thought that Ilima would share the info.
I am responding to you because of my long term relationship with you all, and my respect for the work that you do, that often I am not able to do, and my support for younger people taking the lead. That being said I appreciate the confidentiality and the opportunity to speak to you candidly.
Ok so in regards to the comment: "... your role as a government nai aupuni facilitator is to get a handle on the protesters. Neither Linda nor Peter have the inside relations that you have to people in the movement ..."
Believe me I thought about that and knew that some or all of you would think that and that I knew was the risk I was taking. But I trusted my na'au, and knew I had to do this to give you information, that otherwise you would not have. No, I don't want kudos for this, that is the last thing I want or need; it is just that my observation after years of protesting is that information is powerful and safety of all is primary. I have seen this work in so many different places and will continue to support until the day I die that this strategy of outreach to protestors cannot be ignored. TRANSPARENCY and SAFETY is what it is all about.
No, I was not asked to reach out to you all because of my knowledge of who you are all are. None of these people know me well enough to know that. In actuality the organizing team: Na'i Aupuni, ComPac Communications (who is handling all the background stuff including setting up security and outreach to the media) , Akamai Communication (who is facilitating the participant email list), and the facilitation team, initially were going to ignore the protestors and do what they needed to do to "protect the presenters".
You have to know that security was going to be very limited, but after threats between some of the participants, and as a result of participants themselves asking for safety, it prompted the organizer's consideration to increase security. If it is meant to keep protesters out, I have no knowledge of that discussion. Media is only allowed to be at that site on the first day in the opening plenary, and must leave by 9:30 a.m. For me, if it was serious enough to increase security to protect participants, then it is our kuleana to also give protesters information.
I suggested and fought for outreach to protesters, and It was Linda and Peter who supported me. I explained to everyone that from where I stand as someone who has participated in numerous actions since 1976, I personally know that safety, transparency, and respect for diversity of perspectives and each other no matter who we are, is a basic and fundamental value for who we are as Hawaiians. I convinced the coordinators that if we are talking about safety, then it is the safety of everyone, including the protestors, that is our kuleana. I also stressed that transparency for security, private property boundaries, schedule of start and end times is important to share so you all have this info and can make your decisions about how and when you protest.
Because of my work at UH I was not able to meet with HPD to discuss security, and the inclusion of HPD only came about in the last week and a half. This move was made because of demands from many of the participants, and the fact that some were dropping out because of fear for their safety. You have to know that because of shootings into groups by terrorists/ and others on the American continent, these incidents have impacted how people feel in gatherings of this sort, and when internal threats are made by an obviously unstable person, who also threatens to bring a weapon, today folks take those things seriously. Bill Meheula, the attorney for NA, is the person who encouraged this extra precaution be taken.
Initially, I was not going to be involved in the outreach to you all, but when I saw who they thought were protesters, I decided to ask to do it, so you all got the info and then if you chose could give it to others.
So, here is what I know: Kailua station HPD is involved and Sgt? or Major? Kiyabu is the police officer assigned to coordinate. I understand that Lloyd had asked him to also meet with you all so you could ask him questions.
As participants come through they must stop at Royal Hawaiian Golf Course (RHGC) Security station, as does everyone who on any ordinary day must do. For the 'aha purposes each car coming in will be recorded and only the participant listed on the roster will be admitted, if they are being dropped off, the driver will have to leave immediately after drop off. This is an agreement with the RHGC security, for management purposes. Kupuna needing kako'o already submitted the name of that person, who will also be allowed and will have a Kako'o name tag. Entrance into the venue will only be allowed after the participant receives his/her lanyard and name tag that is about 4x5 with name printed large and a large size pic of the participant. Due to the threat of weapons being brought in, each person will be warned (including all facilitators and others) and bags will be checked before they are admitted into the venue. The persons doing the warning is HPD plainclothes personnel. RHGC will have its own security personnel on property. HPD is limited to 2 - 3 personnel.
I'm not sure who is handling security at the entrance to the property (RHGC or HPD) I do know that protesters are being asked to stay at a particular location near the beginning of the property and before the RHGC security station. Trespass signs are being posted by RHGC, and folks can be sighted for Trespassing. Lloyd is supposed to clarify this for the protesters.
A police officer is regularly parked at the beginning as you turn on to Auloa; if you go there on an ordinary day you will see a police car parked on the side; RHGC hires police to be there regularly.
Hikers are being restricted access into the property due to maintenance of the trail; I don't know if this is due to the aha or not; we were just recently told this a few days ago by RHGC.
Okay, this is it. I hope this helps. If you want more details I suggest that you meet with Lloyd tomorrow at 10 a.m.
No, there are no helicopters, although I asked ….
-------------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/hawaii-news/disagreement-prevails-at-nai-aupuni-opening-day/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, February 2, 2016
Disagreement prevails at Na'i Aupuni opening day
By Timothy Hurley
The Na'i Aupuni constitutional convention began Monday with 127 Native Hawaiians gathering at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club in Maunawili.
The first day of the four-week assembly to consider proposals for Native Hawaiian governance featured protesters at the golf club entrance, a few interruptions, a bit of drama and a presentation by constitutional expert Zachary Elkins, a University of Texas associate professor.
Although the proceeding took place behind closed doors, Elkins' talk was televised by Olelo Community Media, and a few of the participants offered a glimpse of the action in posts and videos on social media:
>> Former Na'i Aupuni candidate Walter Ritte tried to talk his way into the hall, saying he wanted to be an observer, but he was ultimately ushered out.
>> Later, a man and a woman burst into the hall, chanting in Hawaiian. The woman chastised the group, saying, among other things, "What the hell is wrong with our people?"
>> Earlier, veteran Hawaiian activist Dennis "Bumpy" Kanahele offered a motion on the floor to reclaim "our national identity." There were shouts of support before University of Hawaii professor Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa asked if that "national identity" includes only Native Hawaiians, because that's what she wants. Pandemonium erupted until Na'i Aupuni staff members stepped in to quiet things down.
"We are clearly a divided group here (we knew this)," Mililani participant Zuri Aki posted on his public Facebook account. "Day 1, we've got a lot of work to do to achieve near-consensus on something."
Meanwhile a handful of protesters stood at the entrance to the country club, hanging two effigies to signify the death of Hawaiian rights, including the right to control millions of acres of Hawaiian lands and the right to self-determination without U.S. involvement.
Protesters claimed the Na'i Aupuni convention is rigged to ensure federal recognition by the U.S. government. In doing so, they say, a puppet government will be installed to undercut the independence movement and seize the ceded, or Hawaiian crown, lands.
"The Aha convention clearly does not represent the voices of Hawaii's citizens in general nor of Native Hawaiians in particular," Kelii Akina, president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, said in a statement.
Monday's convention attendance represents about 85 percent of the 151 or so former candidates who agreed to join the historic gathering. A planned election of delegates was canceled in December to avoid potential violations of law covering public activities.
Elkins, the Texas professor, told the group that the average length of time for writing a constitution is about a year and a half, from beginning to ratification.
But he didn't offer any discouraging words about whether this convention could put together a governing document by the end of the month.
"Let's face it, you can write a constitution in one night. And you can certainly do it in 20 days," he said.
Elkins said it's customary for constitutions to be written with input from the public. In Iceland, he said, the proceedings were streamed live and reviewed each day on a Facebook website, where citizens could comment.
By contrast, in 1787 a group of colonial delegates drafted the U.S. Constitution behind closed doors in Philadelphia to avoid outside pressures, he said.
Today's morning session will feature Arizona State University law professor Rebecca Tsosie, who will speak on federal Indian law and federal recognition.
Scheduled in the afternoon are discussions on rules, committee leadership criteria and governance issues and models.
-----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorial/nai-aupunis-convention-sends-confusing-message/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, February 2, 2016
Na'i Aupuni's convention sends confusing message
by Richard Borreca, regular commentator
In four hot months in Philadelphia, delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 put together the world's most successful political document, the U.S. Constitution.
As we learned in history class, the Constitution was developed to "render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union."
Now meeting at Royal Hawaiian Golf Club in Kailua is another group attempting to devise a new Hawaiian nation, and the effort is proving as controversial as the one setting up the U.S.
In 1787, Thomas Jefferson, watching from his post in Paris, called the convention "an association of demigods." The meeting in Kailua can be charitably termed a "demi-convention" because while it has been convened with the help of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs under the umbrella of the just set-up Na'i Aupuni, it really can't do more than show sentiment by Native Hawaiians for or against the establishment of a government entity to deal with the federal government.
The convention was supposed to feature delegates elected by those in Hawaii and elsewhere claiming Native Hawaiian ancestry, but when that appeared to be legally impossible, Na'i Aupuni called an audible and said there's no need for an election; all 196 delegates can dance. Also, it said, because this is a private gathering, not a state-run operation, it does not need to be open to the public.
Honolulu Star-Advertiser reporter Timothy Hurley reported Sunday: "Spokesman Lloyd Yonenaka said the closed meeting was a decision by the Na'i Aupuni board and the convention's hired moderators -- veteran mediator Peter Adler and Linda Colburn, a former OHA administrator -- in a move to free the participants from the pressure of being under the public spotlight, although the convention could decide to open on its own later."
When the delegates met 229 years ago, one of the first things they did was shut the doors. Each delegate was obliged to take an oath of secrecy.
"It was thought expedient, in order to secure unbiased discussion within doors and to prevent misconceptions and misconstructions without, to establish some rules of caution, which will for no short time restrain even a confidential communication of our proceeding," wrote James Madison.
Jefferson said, "I am sorry they began their deliberations by so abominable a precedent as that of tying of the tongues of their members."
Now in the 21st century, there is Facebook, and tied tongues will be loosened.
By Monday afternoon, the Hawaiian convention might as well just open its doors, because the delegates are putting it all up on the Internet anyway.
One fellow who said he was a delegate posted: "Uncle Bumpy Kanahele stood up and made a motion to rally around our 'national identity.' There were many shouts in support. Lilikala spoke out, asking if that 'national identity' includes only Kanaka Maoli because that's what she wants.
Subsequently thereafter, the room semi-erupted in shouts of conflicting views. The Na'i Aupuni staff stepped in, took the mic, and quieted things down."
Molokai activist Walter Ritte, who was a candidate and then withdrew his candidacy, tried to attend Monday's first meeting as an observer and was escorted out.
The confusion is likely to broaden and deepen the mistrust and misinformation. If the convention is to be an exercise in education, there is nothing wrong with educating the public.
----------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16839/Sovereignty-Activistsrsquo-Declaration-Protesting-Narsquoi-Aupuni-Federal-Recognition.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, February 3, 2016
Sovereignty Activists' Declaration Protesting Na'i Aupuni, Federal Recognition
From Free Hawaii February 3, 2016
http://freehawaii.blogspot.com/2016/02/free-hawaii-tv-free-hawaii-broadcasting.html
Did You Know Hawai'i's About To Have Its Own Declaration Of Independence?
Who Is Putting It Together?
And Who Will Be Signing Their Name In Support?
You!
Watch This To See Where You Can See It & How You Can Lend Your Support Today.
Then Share This Video With All Your Family & Friends.
Declaration Reaffirming Independence and Protesting Na'i Aupuni and United States Federal Recognition
From Aha Aloha Aina
http://ahaalohaaina.com/the-declaration/
Whereas Kanaka Maoli are the first peoples of Ko Hawai'i Pae 'Aina (the Hawaiian Archipelago) since time immemorial;
Whereas the Kingdom of Hawai'i was recognized as a nation in 1843 by the then Family of Nations;
Whereas, the multi-ethnic Kingdom of Hawai'i – the majority of which were Kanaka Maoli – was overthrown in 1893 by a small clique of American businessmen with the assistance of the United States (US) military;
Whereas the living descendants of the citizens of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, like their ancestors, continue to assert unrelinquished sovereignty over Ko Hawai'i Pae 'Aina;
Whereas, in 2014 the Department of Interior (DOI) ignored all verbal testimony for restitution, reconciliation, self-determination, and Independence as the DOI continues to pursue the path of Federal Recognition for Hawai'i;
Therefore be it resolved that we the undersigned:
Reaffirm our right to Independence and self-determination;
Repudiate Na'i Aupuni's false claim to be the representative voice of the Kanaka Maoli people;
Reject the present and future US attempts through the DOI to Federally Recognize the Kanaka Maoli people on a par with a Native American Tribe under the document entitled "Procedures for Reestablishing a Formal Government-to-Government Relationship with the Native Hawaiian Community;"
Assert our commitment to Uphold and Honor the ongoing endeavors to rebuild our Lahui via, among other ways:
1) the reclamation of our gathering rights,
2) the spread of 'olelo Hawaii and the re-envisioning of our educational systems,
3) the revitalization of our traditional resource stewardship that assured food sustainability through responsible stream, estuary/reef management as well as kalo farming and fishpond upkeep;
4) resistance of the perils of climate change via the pursuit of a truly independent economic system free from the strangle-hold of transnational corporations;
5) the re-invigoration of traditional means of healing such as 'ai pono, ho'oponopono, lomilomi, and the protection of wahi pana like Mauna Kea, Waipi'o, and Haleakala;
6) the expansion of scholarly research to uncover the full range of traditional knowledge that our kupuna gifted us;
Finally, we shall Unify all efforts to create an Independent Hawai'i, and so restore Ko Hawai'i Pae 'Aina to the descendants of the Hawaiian Kingdom for a better future for generations to come ...
A Mau A Mau
SIGN the declaration.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/declaration-reaffirming-independence
Declaration pdf download.
https://ahaalohaainadotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ahaalohaaina-declaration-final.pdf
---------------------
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/31159220/native-hawaiian-delegates-move-forward-reflect-on-first-week-of-convention
Hawaii News Now [3 TV stations], February 6, 2016
Native Hawaiian delegates move forward, reflect on first week of convention
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
The Native Hawaiian convention, or aha, commenced in Maunawili last week and some involved in the process say they are inspired by the progress being made.
"What I am most amazed about is that we have the talent in the room to assume that kuleana and actually produce documents to produce proposals for consideration by our greater community," said Anthony Makana Paris, Oahu delegate to the aha and Na Makalehua member.
Na Makalehua is a diverse group of individuals who live in Hawaii and beyond participating in the Native Hawaiian convention.
Over 100 Native Hawaiian delegates met daily and focused on laying the foundation for the weeks ahead. Matters discussed included international law of indigenous communities, constitution drafting and Hawaii's public land trust.
After week one of the convention, Na Makalehua sees the collective in the room as a group committed to moving forward.
"Sometimes there's a very heavy feeling in the room because we haven't had enough discussion with one another," said Lilikala Kameeleihiwa, Native Hawaiian historian, activist and Oahu delegate. "What's amazing is when we sit at the same table with opposite points of view, with many different points of view, as we talk to one another, we find out we're cousins, we find out that we have so much in common that we love our land and our people and we find ways to actually listen to one another."
The aha will continue throughout the month of February and delegates say their discussions on the shape and path a Native Hawaiian governing entity should take will continue to build.
"One amazing thing is that there's a sense of urgency," Paris said. "This time is the time that we need to do this work, it's not in a month, it's not in a year, it is now."
----------------------
Honolulu Civil Beat, February 11, 2016
http://www.civilbeat.com/2016/02/peter-apo-nai-apuni-a-nation-rising/
Nai Aupuni -- A Nation Rising
The political gathering, or Aha, is taking pivotal steps on the path to self-governance.
by Peter Apo
About the Author
A former legislator, Peter Apo is a trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the president of the Peter Apo Company LLC, a cultural tourism consulting company to the visitor industry. He has also been the arts and culture director for Honolulu, the city's director of Waikiki Development and served as special assistant on Hawaiian affairs to Gov. Ben Cayetano. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of OHA or other organizations he is involved in.
as excerpted by Andrew Walden, editor, Hawaii Free Press, February 11, 2016
[Excerpts are used here to overcome the paywall at Civil Beat which now allows only paying subscribers to read the articles]
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesDailyNews/tabid/65/ID/16907/February-11-2016-News-Read.aspx
Huge Progress? After Kicking Most Hawaiians Out, Nai Aupuni Aha Decides to … Adopt Roberts Rules of Order
CB: The two and a half years of public meetings and political dialogue leading up to Nai Aupuni was fraught with disagreement and face-offs, especially among Hawaiians. There were fears that the gathering of candidates would be like a gathering of storm clouds, given the deep political divide between several of the factions represented by the candidates turned delegates. The fear was that attempts at anarchy would be the outcome of the day and chaos would triumph.
But after a shaky start, order was quickly established within the first few days when the vast majority of the delegates elected to adopt Robert's Rules of Order to govern procedures. That decision ensured fairness in the deliberations, set standards of civility and respect for and toward each other, and brought a sense of dignity to the body. As of this writing, the Aha has taken a second pivotal step, again supported by a convincing majority, by electing a leadership structure in preparation for launching a series of plenary sessions. Remarkable.
In a few short days, Aha delegates have been able to merge a sense of urgency with a disciplined and structured dialogue that sets the body on a fast track to formalizing into a legitimate convention of Hawaiian leaders. They are racing the clock set for a 20-day session with much to accomplish….
Shortly after this column is published the 20 day session will have expired – but I hope not adjourned. While it is not clear what will follow, I expect there will still be plenty of work for the Aha to address. If declaring a recess subject to the call of the chair is not a parliamentary option to adjournment, then perhaps there is some other provision to keep the body intact in anticipation of a subsequent resumption of plenary activity….
Translation: Under projected: The Aha is exceeding those very very low expectations.
-----
** Ken Conklin's Online comment to Peter Apo, posted at Civil Beat:
Peter Apo's latest screed in support of building a new racist government has an incorrect title. He refers to the Na'i Aupuni monthlong meeting now in progress as "a nation rising." A more accurate title would be "a parasite taking control and emerging."
Readers might recall various examples where parasites use the body of a host as a source of food. This is not the gentle symbiosis of a cleaner wrasse and a reef fish, where the wrasse feeds itself by eating the parasites plaguing the reef fish, and thereby both the wrasse and the reef fish benefit. Perhaps the mildest example of a harmful parasite is the tapeworm which enters the human body through food or ingested dirt and then grows in the intestine to lengths of several feet, eating the food being digested in the intestine and thus sapping the person of strength and causing disease. A more monstrous example is the parasitic wasp. The adult female wasp uses its ovipositor to puncture the skin of a caterpillar and deposit numerous fertilized eggs inside the caterpillar, where the baby wasps eat the caterpillar's insides until the full-grown wasps emerge and fly away as the caterpillar dies.
The example of the tapeworm illustrates how OHA has been feeding itself off the body politic of Hawaii and how most Indian tribes feed themselves off the money and infrastructure given to them by federal and state governments. The example of the parasitic wasp illustrates how some Hawaiian independence activists saw the Akaka bill, and now see the Na'i Aupuni and Department of Interior federal recognition process, as vehicles for secession -- use them to obtain political power and huge amounts of land and money, which can then be used in political elections and in U.S. courts to extract further concessions. The Hawaiian tribe's money and power can also be used internationally to work with anti-U.S. governments in the United Nations to fuel demands for total independence.
Members of federally recognized Indian tribes remain full-fledged citizens of their state and county, including the right to vote and hold office. But no other state has 20% of its citizens being ethnically Indian, let alone having 20% eligible to join one particular tribe. In Hawaii this 20% voting bloc would effectively function as a "fifth column" or parasitic wasp, undermining the authority of the state and county governments while grabbing their resources. That wasp-like parasitic process has been underway in Hawaii for many years. A significant number of state legislators, county council members, and department heads are ethnic Hawaiian racial partisans who routinely use their committee positions, floor votes, or administrative authority to grab government resources for use by "Hawaiians-only" programs. Over the years OHA has succeeded in getting the legislature to pass laws mandating that for numerous boards and commissions, one or more board members must be appointed by OHA (to ensure that OHA will always know when something useful to OHA is happening and to ensure that OHA's views of racial partisanship will always be able to influence board decisions).
The situation in Hawaii might be compared to the situation in India during the 1940s and 1950s when India was a unified nation under a single government, but negotiations were getting started to carve out two huge portions of India which then became East and West Pakistan (and later East Pakistan split from West Pakistan to become its own separate nation of Bangladesh). During that period it would have been unthinkable for citizens of India who were planning to become citizens of Pakistan to be allowed to continue holding high positions in the government of India and serving on the negotiating team for India to decide how much of India's assets should be given to Pakistan.
In terms of that analogy, the way the emergence of a Hawaiian tribe would work in Hawaii is that even after Pakistan had broken away and had its own government, all citizens and government officials in Pakistan would also continue to be citizens of India and would continue voting for and serving as government officials of India right up until today. Such a bizarre situation would never happen in India/Pakistan. But that's exactly the sort of thing that will happen in Hawaii after a Hawaiian tribe has been created and even after the tribe has federal recognition. People of Hawaii: are you yet able to feel the burn as the wasp larva continues chewing up more and more of your insides? Will you just lie there passively until the mature wasp finally pokes its way out and flies away leaving behind the dried-up husk of your once-vibrant self?
------------------
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/?p=2313
Hawaiian Kingdom blog (Scott Crawford, friend of Bumpy Kanahele
Bumpy withdraws from Na'i Aupuni 'Aha
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 15, 2016
Contact: Brandon Makaawaawa -- (808) 221-6906
Waimanalo, Hawai'i -- After eight days of participation, Dennis Bumpy Kanahele announced today, that he is pulling out of the Na'i Aupuni process, explaining:
"That process from its Act 195 inception is a trap -- a very sticky trap, to undermine the national sovereignty of the Hawaiian people. This 'Aha is not pono."
After two years of working tirelessly to help lay the groundwork for a Hawaiian constitutional convention, Kanahele found that the Na'i Aupuni administration was totally unorganized and had no standard educational packet to assist participants in, at least, finding a starting point to work from.
"I will not put all the work that the Nation of Hawaii has done, especially the 55 acre land base Pu'uhonua O Waimanalo and the constitution written by our kupuna in 1995, at risk of usurpation in this process."
"There are a lot of good people in this 'Aha, but, I fear they are being overwhelmingly misled by those in support of federal recognition. The sad thing is that, if they continue the clandestine manipulation of the process in order to suppress our national sovereignty, they will be committing a crime -- a crime of genocide," said Kanahele.
Although Kanahele is terminating his work at the 'Aha, he will continue to spread his important message of Hawaiian National Sovereignty to the broader Hawaiian community. The Nation of Hawaii, is preparing an educational program to raise the awareness of National Sovereignty.
Just as his beloved Queen abdicated her throne under protest, so too does Kanahele relinquish his seat as an 'Aha participant.
Press conference at 2 PM at Pu'uhonua O Waimanalo, 41-1300 Waikupanaha St
Waimanalo HI 96795
###
-------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/hawaii-news/some-at-aha-cite-progress-others-see-only-subterfuge/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, February 16, 2016
Some at aha cite progress; others see only subterfuge
By Timothy Hurley
The monthlong Na'i Aupuni constitutional convention moved into its final two weeks Monday with a consensus to draft formal documents establishing a Native Hawaiian government.
But the landmark convention, or aha, continued to be dogged by controversy as veteran Hawaiian activist Dennis "Bumpy" Kanahele quit as a participant.
Kanahele held a news conference at his Nation of Hawai'i property in Waimanalo on Monday afternoon, declaring the aha "not pono" (unrighteous) and saying the body is being misled by those who support federal recognition -- or the nation-within- a-nation model of government.
"It's being manipulated in ways that the mechanism itself is being manipulating," he said of the convention. "It was set in place to distort and disarray."
A number of other participants told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser the convention was making good progress and were hopeful some kind of a governing document will emerge for ratification.
However, much work remains for the more than 100 participants following two weeks of organizing, learning, brainstorming and viewing presentations on constitution writing, Hawaiian history, kingdom law, tribal law and more.
"As I see it, we need to get a constitution completed," Oahu attorney Keoni Agard implored the assembly Friday afternoon.
The aha spent most of the day Monday forming committees on constitution-writing topics: preamble, rights, executive authorities, legislative authorities, judicial authorities and drafting.
Last week, during the convention's second of four weeks at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club in Maunawili, the body adopted a purpose statement that calls for drafting governing documents to create a Native Hawaiian government.
The statement calls for taking the aha's results to the Native Hawaiian people for ratification while "affirming our national identity," "preserving our rights" and "advancing the hopes of our people around land, language, culture, justice and economic and political identity."
The convention also elected a leadership team to take over from the moderators originally hired by the Na'i Aupuni board.
The chairman is Brendon Kalei'aina Lee, president of the Kamehameha Schools Alumni Association's Oahu Region and the policy and planning chairman for the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs. The vice chairman is Anthony Makana Paris, a research analyst from Papakolea.
Meanwhile, critics continue to condemn the gathering as a state-engineered ruse designed to prop up a puppet government, undercut the independence movement and seize title of the state's 1.8 million acres of ceded lands. Foes on social media have portrayed the participants as traitors, co-conspirators and dupes.
On Saturday a group describing itself as a coalition of 21 community organizations and sovereignty groups tried to steal some of the aha's thunder by announcing its own "Aha Aloha Aina" meetings on Oahu, Hawaii island and possibly Maui.
The goal of the two-hour meetings Feb. 23-26 is to "reaffirm our independence," to resist and oppose Na'i Aupuni's claims to be the representative voice of the Hawaiian people and to reject the U.S. Department of Interior's attempt to federally recognize Native Hawaiians as an American Indian tribe, organizers said.
"They keep saying it's self-determination but it's not. It's state-funded," said Healani Sonoda-Pale, a leader in a group known as Protest Na'i Aupuni. "They're nonelected, self-appointed delegates making decisions on behalf of Hawaiians. It's scary."
Veteran Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte, who previously renounced his Na'i Aupuni candidacy, unsuccessfully tried to attend the closed gathering at least three times during the first week. He said he has now decided to preserve his energy to fight whatever emerges from the aha.
"We know what it is. We've got to be ready for it," he said, adding that "everything's going to plan -- we're going to be Indians."
Kanahele, who on Monday held up three uncashed per diem checks that he described as bribes, said he suspected the process would be manipulated but was hoping to work against those forces from inside the aha.
During his time in the hall, he urged the body to proclaim the restoration of Hawaiian national sovereignty, Kanahele said, but he ran into resistance even after making a presentation in front of the aha and hosting the participants at a party at the 55-acre Pu'uhonua o Waimanalo village.
Kanahele said the organizers failed to put forth the best information for the aha's mission, and it became clear that continuing to participate would legitimize the process and put the Nation of Hawai'i property in jeopardy. The property's lease calls for the eventual transfer to a Hawaiian sovereign nation.
The convention, envisioned by a 2011 act of the state Legislature and underwritten through the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, was originally planned to take place over eight weeks with 40 delegates elected by nearly 90,000 Native Hawaiians registered by the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.
But when litigation threatened to block the proceeding, the Na'i Aupuni organizers canceled the election and offered all 196 candidates a seat at the aha. The move allowed the group to dodge allegations that the balloting violated constitutional restrictions on public elections.
According to a news release issued by the aha, the convention moves into its third week "with structure, purpose, leadership and an increased knowledge base."
Hilo participant Katie Kamelamela, who ran as an independence delegate, said she was wary and skeptical going in but has been impressed by the energy and passion of a diverse body.
Concerns about a controlling influence by the Na'i Aupuni board or OHA have been allayed in her mind. The agenda clearly is being determined by the participants, she said.
Both sides are working together, listening to dissenting points of view and identifying creative solutions, she said, while pro-federal recognition participants who were vilified by friends and contemporaries before the aha have turned out to be committed, passionate people with similar goals.
"There's a lot of knowledge in that room. It's super-inspiring," said Amy Kalili, an Oahu participant who is executive director of the nonprofit Makauila as a host with OiwiTV.
Kalili said she doesn't think the aha's outcome is predetermined or that federal recognition rules out the possibility of eventual independence.
Mililani participant Zuri Aki said he's more optimistic now than he was prior to the convention.
The first week was practically in disarray, despite having a set agenda, Aki said, but once the aha adopted the Robert's Rules of Order meeting rules, it allowed the process to cut through often lengthy and sometimes circular arguments and discussion.
"There was a learning curve involved, but at this time most of the group has the hang of it," he said.
During Week Two the convention began gavel-to-gavel television coverage and live streaming. The body also established a communication committee to issue a daily digital bulletin. It also created a website -- aha2016.com -- where daily reports are archived along with a gallery of images.
Week Two featured a series of short presentations from some of the convention's own participants, including Hawaiian sovereignty activist Poka Laenui, law professor Williamson Chang, Hawaiian homesteader Jade Danner, Hawaiian-studies professor Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa and Kanahele.
Caucuses and focus groups explored nation-building issues, from citizenship to individual and collective rights, while governing documents from around the world were also examined.
Aki said the purpose statement was key to keeping the convention focused. He said it was drafted by a committee with differing viewpoints, yet it was able to embody a broad scope of interests, from federal recognition to independence.
Aki said initially he was doubtful federal recognition supporters and independence advocates could find common ground on critical issues, "but this group is doing just that. It's incredibly encouraging," he said. "I believe we'll get this work done and have something worthwhile to present to the people."
The convention's plenary sessions are being broadcast on Olelo television as well as live-streamed at olelo.org.
For more information on the Aha Aloha Aina meetings, go to ahaalohaaina.com.
---------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/16935/Reject-the-Tribe-Hawaii-Maui-Oahu-Public-Meetings.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, February 16, 2016
Reject the Tribe: Hawaii, Maui, Oahu Public Meetings
By News Release @ 11:46 PM, Monday, February 15, 2016
AHA ALOHA 'AINA 2016 MOKU O KEAWE
Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians) will be holding public meetings in February to discuss their political status as a people and as an occupied nation.
A coalition of 21 Native Hawaiian community organizations and sovereignty groups are holding a series of public meetings in the month of February that include three on Hawai'i island. This 'Aha Aloha 'Āina series is to identify the very broad movement in the Hawaiian movement for Independence and educate the community on the various initiatives. The Na'i Aupuni 'Aha is taking place throughout the month of February in Kailua on the island of Oahu and is attempting to claim that they represent the Kanaka Maoli community when it excludes 80% of our people.
Hawai'i Island
Hilo: Tuesday, February 23, 2016, 6 pm – 8 pm UH Hilo, UCB100
Waimea: Wednesday, February 24, 2016, 6 pm – 8 pm Kanu O Ka 'Āina, Hale Puke
Kona: Friday, February 26, 2016, 6 pm – 8 pm, West Hawai'i Civic Center - Community Hale
There will also be 'Aha Aloha 'Āina 2016 forums on Maui and O'ahu.
The goals of the 'Aha Aloha 'Āina 2016 are:
1) Reaffirm our Independence
2) Resist and oppose Na'i Aupuni's claims to be the representative voice of our people
3) Reject the current DOI endeavor to Federally Recognize nā Kanaka Maoli as a Native Hawaiian Tribe
4) Unite our people and reveal the many different ways that our people have been building and rebuilding our Nation over the past several hundred years up to the present
Kapu Lambert, a Hawaiian Kupuna and one of the organizers of Protest Na'i Aupuni and 'Aha Aloha Āina 2016 says, "Our planned gatherings are a presentation of true self-determination, not State-sponsored predetermination, we are holding these meetings to determine how to unite and further the education of our people on the nation building efforts that have been ongoing since before and after the US overthrow and takeover of the Hawaiian Kingdom."
The 'Aha Aloha 'Aina came out of the Halawai Aloha 'Aina informational community meetings that were held from October-November, 2015 statewide (see www.protestnaiaupuni.com for more information). These informational meetings, organized by Native Hawaiian community leaders, educated the public and facilitated and recorded discussions on the "State of Hawai'i" sponsored Na'i Aupuni and the US DOI proposed rule changes to federalize Hawaiians. In response to the comments collected from the public, the 'Aha Aloha 'Aina is being organized to provide an alternative to the State funded and controlled Na'i Aupuni 'Aha, and to provide a venue for unity and nation building dialogue unhampered by any State or Federal agendas.
Dr. Kalama Niheu, a Protest Na'i Aupuni member and the lead organizer of the 'Aha Aloha 'Aina, stated, "Our goal is to safeguard future Kanaka Maoli rights and claims to National or Hawaiian Kingdom lands for future generations."
Dr. Ku Kahakalau, one of the Hawai'i island 'Aha Aloha 'Aina organizers, states "'For me as an educator, the 'Aha Aloha 'Aina means bringing together the many successful efforts initiated by people, organizations and communities throughout Hawai'i to create our own culturally-driven, family-oriented, community based, sustainability-focused system of education."
All of the 'Aha Aloha 'Aina community meetings planned for the islands of O'ahu and Hawai'i are free and open to the public. For more information on 'Aha Aloha 'Aina and the position of the coalition go to www.AhaAlohaAina.com and check out the declaration.
'Aha Aloha 'Aina 2016 Sponsors and Press Conference Attendees
'Ahupua'a o Polipoli a Ahikuli
Aloha 'Aina o nā Ko'olauloa
Aloha 'Aina Party
'Aina Lahui
Destination Restoration
Hawaiian Studies Department, Windward Community College, the University of Hawai'i
John Munn Kahikina Kelekona Foundation
Kai 'Ula Pono'i Texas Hawaiian Civic Club
Ka Lei Maile Ali'i Hawaiian Civic Club
Kingdom of Hawai'i (Free Hawai'i)
Ku-a Kanaka, LLC
Ku'e Petition Organizers Moku O Keawe
The Koani Foundation
Moana Nui
Na Kupuna a me Na Kako'o o Halawa
Native Hawaiian Organization Charity
Nā Wahine Aloha 'Aina University of Hawai'i at Hilo Student Group
'Ohana Arts and Hula Studio LLC
'Ohana Koa-Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific
Order of Kamehameha
Protest Na'i Aupuni
-----
http://ahaalohaaina.com
'AHA ALOHA 'AINA
Twenty-five Kanaka Maoli community organizations and sovereignty groups are sponsoring a series of public meetings called 'Aha Aloha 'Aina on the islands of O'ahu, Hawai'i and Maui in the month of February, 2016. This series of meetings is to identify the very broad movement in the Hawaiian movement for Independence and educate the community on the various initiatives. The 'Aha Aloha 'Aina is a response to the resounding community feedback from the Halawai Aloha 'Aina informational meetings that Hawaiian leaders held from October-November, 2015 statewide (see www.protestnaiaupuni.com for more information).
The SIMPLE GOALS of the 'Aha Aloha 'Aina are to:
1) Reaffirm our Independence
2) Resist and oppose Na'i Aupuni's claims to be the representative voice of our people
3) Reject the current DOI endeavor to Federally Recognize na Kanaka Maoli as a Native Hawaiian Tribe
4) Unite our people and reveal the many different ways that our people have been building and rebuilding our Nation over the past several hundred years up to the present
Below is a the list of 'Aha Aloha 'Āina meeting dates, places, and times:
O'ahu Island
Thursday, February 25, 2016 6 pm-8 pm
Hale Ao – Hawaiian Studies,
Windward Community College
*Hawaiian dinner served.
Hawai'i Island
Hilo: Tuesday, February 23, 2016, 6pm – 8 pm
UH Hilo, UCB100
Waimea: Wednesday, February 24, 2016, 6pm– 8 pm
Kanu O Ka 'Āina, Hale Puke
Kona: Friday, February 26, 2016, 6pm–8 pm
West Hawai'i Civic Center – Community Hale
Maui
Sunday, February 21, 2016, 4 pm – 6 pm
Kahului Community Center
Maui Island 'Aha Aloha 'Āina Flyer pdf download
https://ahaalohaainadotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/aha-aa-maui1.pdf
O'ahu Island 'Aha Aloha 'Āina Flyer pdf download
http://O%BBahu%20%BBAha%20Aloha%20%BB
Hawai'i Island 'Aha Aloha 'Āina Flyer pdf download
https://ahaalohaainadotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/aha-aa-hawaii-11.pdf
For more information and to become a sponsor email:
ahaalohaaina@gmail.com.
--------------------
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-news/nai-aupuni-self-governance-convention-continues
West Hawaii Today, February 20, 2016
Nai Aupuni self-governance convention continues
and
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/aha-delegates-having-robust-conversation
Hawaii Tribune-Herald, February 20, 2016
Aha delegates having 'robust conversation'
By IVY ASHE Hawaii Tribune-Herald
HILO -- More than 150 Native Hawaiians from around the state have spent the first part of February on Oahu discussing a path to self-governance.
Hawaii Island representatives in attendance at the convention, or aha, said they could not speak for the body as a whole, but that the process had thus far been inspiring for them.
"It's not my kuleana to talk about what's been going on, but it is my kuleana to say it's been great," said Lei Kihoi of Kailua-Kona, one of 24 delegates from the Big Island. "My whole perspective was, 'How are you going to get 150 people together and build something from the ground up?' and you know what -- it's possible."
The aha was organized by nonprofit organization Nai Aupuni and concludes Friday. It is being held at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Course in Kailua, Oahu.
A purpose statement for the four-week convention was adopted last Thursday, listing the advancement of "self-governance of kanaka maoli" as its primary goal.
According to the statement, this goal is to be accomplished by drafting a governing document "for ratification by our Native Hawaiian people that establishes a Native Hawaiian government," affirming national identity and preserving rights, and "advancing the hopes of our people around land, language, culture, justice, and economic and political identity."
Early aha sessions were facilitated by the Mediation Center of the Pacific.
"At the end of the first week, a leadership developed from the body itself," said delegate Amy Kalili of Hilo.
Attendees sat in on community presentations and explored current and past documents, including those from the international community as well as those from the Hawaiian Kingdom. In more recent sessions, according to the aha's daily bulletins, committees were set up to begin structuring and writing.
"We're getting into what people would argue is the meat of trying to pull together a governing document," Kalili said.
"For me, personally, one of the highlights has just been how there is such a diverse representative of opinion and strategy, and hopes and aspirations for moving forward with the models of governance," she said. "Honestly, I think the different manao and the different strategies is making for a more robust conversation."
Kihoi, who is Hawaii County's Native Hawaiian Roll Commissioner and an attorney, also lauded the backgrounds of the participants.
"We have fishermen, we have cultural practitioners, we have professors, PhD students, other lawyers," she said. "What's beautiful about it is it's all different people, and this is what the Hawaii community is. Not just the Hawaiian community, but Hawaii."
"Even the younger generation is getting involved," Kalili said. "There is so much knowledge in the room."
A drafting committee was set to begin writing portions of the governing document today. The document, once completed, is expected to be presented to voters on a Native Hawaiian roll for ratification.
Nai Aupuni was created in December 2014 to organize the aha, which was initially intended to include just 40 delegates who would be elected by Native Hawaiians.
Last year the election process was challenged by a group arguing that because Hawaii residents without Native Hawaiian ancestry could not participate in the election, they were being denied constitutional rights.
In October, a U.S. district court ruled that the election was a private one and could proceed. The case is currently before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In December, the Supreme Court granted an injunction to the plaintiff group, comprised of both Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, and blocked election votes from being counted.
Nai Aupuni then opened up the aha to all 200 candidates, and 152 accepted the invitation.
---------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/hawaii-news/despite-hitches-aha-finishing-government-document-drafts/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, February 21, 2016
Despite hitches, aha finishing government document drafts
By Timothy Hurley
The Native Hawaiian constitutional convention on Monday enters its final week with the aim of completing one or more governing documents that will go out for a ratification vote.
More than 110 participants are "making history" at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club in Maunawili, the convention, or aha, announced in a news release Friday.
"I'm surprised," said Adrian Kamalii, an Oahu participant originally from Maui. "We're a lot farther along than I thought we were going to be in the beginning. But we are coming along. It's exciting."
A drafting committee has already begun writing the first sections of the governing document and was expected to work through the weekend so that it could present initial drafts on Monday.
"Everyone there is grinding really hard and getting great work done," Zuri Aki, a drafting committee member from Mililani, wrote on his public Facebook account Thursday. "In my opinion, we are on track to completing this governing document."
While demonstrators opposing the convention have been gone for a couple of weeks, the aha continues to take plenty of darts on social media and has endured a few disgruntled dropouts, the most notable being veteran Hawaiian activist Dennis "Bumpy" Kanahele on Monday.
But for the most part, factions supporting federal recognition and independence have worked well together, in part by working through broad concepts and concentrating on a final product that could function either way.
The final week could still draw some friction, though. Kamalii said it's uncertain whether the aha will produce one document, two documents or even a third in an effort to satisfy different viewpoints.
"The last week will certainly make us work the hardest," he said.
But not everything was plumerias and poi last week, either. There was an attempt on the convention floor to kick out one member accused of treating elders disrespectfully.
Bronson Kaahui, who admitted to calling someone "delusional" and a "simpleton," said the move to oust him was less about his behavior and more about his offending advocates of independence.
Kaahui, who recently moved from Maui to Vietnam, has been an aggressive critic of the aha's "separatists," saying flatly that the current political realities make forming an independent nation impossible.
During its third week, the body formed five committees -- preamble, rights, executive authorities, legislative authorities and judicial authorities -- that identified issues needing to be addressed in a Native Hawaiian governing document.
All but one committee on Thursday gave the product of their deliberations to the drafting committee, which spent Friday writing the initial parts of the governing document.
According to committee reports presented on the convention floor:
>>> The Preamble Committee decided on language that does not preclude independence or federal recognition and "neither blocks future possibilities nor relinquishes any claims."
>>> The Rights Committee examined 228 different individual rights and narrowed the list to 77, recommending, among other things, that citizenship be reserved for Native Hawaiians while allowing the government the latitude to redefine citizenship in the future.
>>> The Executive Committee discussed the possibility of establishing Island Councils.
Kamalii said in Hawaiian culture, home rule and kupuna (elder) wisdom were part of most, if not all, the committee discussions.
"We're finding a way to find common ground," he said.
Mandated by a 2011 act of the state Legislature and funded through the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the aha was originally planned to take place over eight weeks with 40 delegates elected by nearly 90,000 Native Hawaiians registered by the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.
But when litigation threatened to stall the event, the Nai Aupuni board canceled the election and offered all 196 candidates a seat at the aha. The move allowed the group to sidestep a U.S. Supreme Court injunction alleging that the balloting violated constitutional restrictions on public elections.
Aha participants range in age from their 20s to their 90s and come from as far away as Sweden.
Participant Hollace Anne Teuber, a University of Wisconsin-Stout communications professor who was born on Oahu, said she suspects there's a lot of misunderstanding about what's going on in Maunawili.
"No one is here for any other purpose than to increase the knowledge base of collective wisdom and expertise to create a document that can be distributed to the general public for their approval or denial," she said in an email. "Speaking only for myself, I would not have left my home, family and professional career for over a month unless I knew this opportunity is an imperative and may even be the final chance to enforce our self-determination and self-governance."
------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/features/smithsonian-exhibit-spotlights-hawaiian-sovereignty-movement/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, February 21, 2016
Smithsonian exhibit spotlights Hawaiian sovereignty movement
By Jason Genegabus
Last month's opening of "E Mau ke Ea: The Sovereign Hawaiian Nation" at the National Museum of the American Indian was the culmination of more than five years of research and development by a geographer at the Smithsonian Institution with Hawaii ties.
Doug Herman lived in Hawaii from 1984 to 1992 and attended the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where he eventually earned his doctorate in geography in 1995. Five years later he started working on a project called Pacific Worlds (pacificworlds.com).
"It's a nonprofit, community-focused sort of indigenous knowledge and education project," Herman explained. "It's all online and it's all free. I come back a lot to work with the community in Haena on Kauai, along with folks in Nuuanu and in Kawaihae on the Big Island."
In 2011 he began developing a museum exhibition based on concepts from Pacific Worlds. "Aloha Aina" was envisioned as a four-part exhibit that showcased the rise of the Hawaiian kingdom, the transition from a monarchy to constitutional government, the overthrow of the monarchy and the renaissance of Hawaiian language and culture over the past 40 years. Lack of adequate funding, however, forced Herman to downsize the exhibit.
Herman, 55, was in Honolulu earlier this month preparing to take part in a voyage aboard the Hikianalia, sister canoe to the Hokulea. He sat down with the Honolulu Star-Advertiser to talk about the yearlong Smithsonian exhibit, its role in Hawaiian sovereignty discourse and what's next for this East Coast-based supporter of Hawaiian culture.
Question: How did "E Mau ke Ea" get its start?
Answer: "Nation to Nation: Treaties Between the United States and American Indian Nations" is a major exhibition at the American Indian Museum that opened in 2014. So I said, "How about for one year we do a Hawaiian sovereignty exhibition?"
The Smithsonian said yes, so this is about 20 to 25 percent of what I worked on for Pacific Worlds and "Aloha Aina." What this exhibition does is tell the story of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement.
Q: What type of cultural artifacts are on display?
A: We got a lei niho palaoa (whale-tooth necklace) from our National History Museum and a bronze coat of arms on loan from Bishop Museum. Bumpy Kanahele gave me a flag when I interviewed him, so I put that in. Plus, we have a complete facsimile of the original "Kue" (anti-annexation) petition from 1897.
Q: What does the exhibition achieve for the Hawaiian sovereignty movement?
A: I have a lot of friends in the sovereignty movement. I was out here one time and we were doing some demonstration, and I said, "Boy, I wish I were out here more to help with this."
One friend, she turned and said to me, "Yes, but there's a reason why you're in Washington." And I always held onto that, never really knowing what that reason was. Now that this exhibition is open, I think I've followed through on that. This is the first time Hawaii's story has been told publicly in Washington, D.C. We get 1.7 million visitors a year. All kinds of people visit the Smithsonian.
Q: What kind of reaction do you hope to get from visitors?
A: I want people to really get sort of viscerally that Hawaii was a sovereign kingdom. This was a sovereign nation recognized as such on the world stage. That's a huge eye-opener for most people outside Hawaii. Eye-opener No. 2 is that Hawaii was a sovereign nation overthrown with the assistance of U.S. troops, and there was a whole tussle in Washington, D.C., over what was going to happen after that.
Q: What's next for you?
A: I'm working on a book based on all the interviews that I did with people like Bumpy Kanahele, Sen. (Daniel) Akaka, Gov. (John) Waihee, Kekuni Blaisdell, Mililani Trask and Walter Ritte. What was fascinating was the ways in which their stories interconnected and overlapped, but from many different points of view.
I'm here now because I'm going back to my Pacific Worlds work. I wanted to come back and do more conservation-focused, more climate change-focused research. I've been particularly watchful about what's supposed to happen in the Pacific when it comes to climate change. I'm documenting traditional indigenous place-based knowledge. These places are going to change radically in the next 50 years, so let's document it now so we have it in perpetuity. That's the big issue facing us: how to live sustainably on this planet.
My work is not done. It's just beginning.
On the Net: nmai.si.edu
--------------------
http://www.law360.com/articles/761714/native-hawaiian-vote-challenge-lives-on-9th-circ-told
law360.com
Native Hawaiian Vote Challenge Lives On, 9th Circ. Told
By Andrew Westney
Law360, New York (February 22, 2016, 6:33 PM ET) -- Six individuals challenging a process to potentially establish a Native Hawaiian government told the Ninth Circuit on Friday that their suit hadn't been rendered moot by the cancellation of a disputed election, arguing that another anticipated vote would unconstitutionally rely on the same race-based voter roll.
The federal government urged the appeals court on Jan. 12 to dismiss the suit challenging the constitutionality of an election to select delegates to discuss Native Hawaiian self-governance, arguing the appeal had been rendered moot by the fact that the...
To view the full article, register now.
--------------
http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/hawaiian-leaders-condemn-nai-aupuni-aha
The Hawaiian Independent, February 22, 2016
Hawaiian leaders condemn Na'i Aupuni 'Aha
Hawaiian community leaders are protesting the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha today, and have issued a signed declaration rejecting the process and calling on other Hawaiians to do the same.
On the first day of the final week of the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha, a protest is planned for 8 a.m. at the Luana Hills Gold Club to serve the unelected participants a declaration, signed by Native Hawaiian community leaders from across the islands, rejecting and condemning the 'aha.
The declaration notifies self-appointed participants that that they do not have community backing or authority to unilaterally draft governing documents that could have major consequences on the future of the Hawaiian people and nation, and demands that the 'aha participants cease and desist from producing any governing documents.
"Nai Aupuni is an illegitimate, state initiated entity that compromises our nation's humanity and pursuit of justice" says educator and sovereignty leader, Kaleikoa Ka'eo, who will also be at the protest.
The 'aha comes on the heels of a five year state-driven push to force the creation of a Native Hawaiian governing entity. The state push has been met with heavy protest, in particular over the requirement to sign onto a tribal roll as a condition for participation.
"In the history of the Hawaiian movement, Na'i Aupuni is the most threatening infringement on Hawaiian self-determination that we've experienced thus far" says Jonathan K. Osorio, professor of Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa and one of the signators.
The declaration also calls for 'aha participants to stand with Native Hawaiians in calling for a process that is open to all Native Hawaiians who wish to participate, and that prioritizes community education and consultation in determining the design, objectives and outcomes. Below is the text of the declaration:
"We, the undersigned, firmly reject the illegitimate Na'i Aupuni Aha objective to create a Native Hawaiian government. We stand in opposition to any governing documents and governing body that is produced through this aha, which has been administered through State of Hawai'i involvement from the beginning. We continue to stand for the unification of our people through a transparent process free from any state or federal interference, control, or prescribed destiny.
"The 'Aha 2016 stems from a top down approach in which all of the terms: the use of Hawaiian trust monies; participation; timeline; representation; the convention, and outcomes have been determined by a small number of people, including former Governor Abercrombie; the State legislature; the Governor-appointed Kana'iolowalu commissioners; the OHA Board of Trustees; the OHA-selected Na'i Aupuni Board; and approximately 150 self-appointed aha participants. Each of these parties is complicit in driving an agenda that has divided our people more than ever.
"In addition to this deeply flawed process, the 150 individuals who have not been elected or vetted have nevertheless decided to produce governing documents that will attempt to create a governing body on behalf of the Hawaiian nation in a private meeting. This approach violates the most basic principles of self-determination, upholds the status quo, and must be rejected.
"The undersigned demand that the Aha 2016 cease and desist from continuing to produce any governing documents. We stand in opposition to any attempt by individuals or organizations selected and sponsored by the State of Hawai'i to speak for the Hawaiian nation or to determine our future.
"We support an open and transparent process that is based on education, consultation, consent and unity. We call upon the Aha participants to join us in demanding nothing less than an initiative envisioned and designed by the lāhui, open to all kānaka who wish to participate, free from conditions that we had no part in creating. Such a process should include an appropriate time frame for such an important task; it should be open; and it should be free of any State of Hawai'i interference, control or prescribed destiny."
Jonathan K. Osorio
Terri Keko'olani
Hanohano Naehu
Noe Goodyear-Ka'opua
Lynnette Cruz
Kaleikoa Ka'eo
Kahele Dukelow
Ho'oleia Kaeo
'Ilima Long
Joe Kanuha
Andre Perez
Keli'i Skippy Ioane
Walter Ritte
Earl DeLeon
Willy Kauai
Camille Kalama
Kaho'okahi Kanuha
Loretta Ritte
Kalaniua Ritte
Kalamaoka'aina Niheu
----------------
http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/video-hawaiian-activists-arrested-outside-nai-aupuni-aha
The Hawaiian Independent, February 23, 2016
Video: Hawaiian activists arrested outside Nai Aupuni Aha
A video posted to Facebook by user Kaukaohu Wahilani shows several Hawaiian activists, including Kaleikoa Ka'eo and Kaho'okahi Kanuha allowing themselves to be arrested by Honolulu police officers in protest of the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha on Monday, Feb. 22. The small group of activists gathered outside the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club grounds where the 'aha is taking place and attempted to gain access to the proceedings. They were denied access but refused to leave, and at least five were arrested for trespassing.
In the 4 minute clip, Ka'eo and others explain to the officers that they cannot leave because they genuinely believe the results of the 'aha will hurt the Hawaiian people. Both the activists and the police remain calm and respectful throughout the clip.
** Inline 4-minute video has no independent URL
Yesterday morning, before the arrests, Ka'eo, Kanuha and 18 other Hawaiian activists released a signed statement
http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/hawaiian-leaders-condemn-nai-aupuni-aha
condemning the process, which they believe, "... violates the most basic principles of self-determination, upholds the status quo, and must be rejected."
----------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/breaking-news/police-make-8-trespassing-arrests-at-aha/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, February 23, 2016, breaking news at 12:45 PM
Also many others, such as
http://www.hastingstribune.com/trespassing-arrests-at-hawaiian-self-governance-meeting/article_6b9284b6-f0af-5648-9e29-8c8ed051f42c.html
Hastings Tribune [Hastings, Nebraska], Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Police make 8 trespassing arrests at aha
Associated Press
Honolulu police have arrested eight people for trespassing at a golf club where Native Hawaiians are gathered to discuss self-governance.
Police spokeswoman Michelle Yu says six men and two women were arrested at noon Monday.
This is the final week of the four-week convention at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club in Kailua. Participants aim to draft a governing document, which could eventually go before the Native Hawaiian community for ratification.
Some Native Hawaiians have been protesting the effort for various reasons, including opposing federal recognition.
Kahookahi Kanuha says he and others were arrested after they entered the golf club gates.
Organizers originally planned to have 40 elected convention delegates. They later invited all candidates to participate after facing a legal challenge to the election.
--------------------
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/?p=2333#more-2333
** Scott Crawford Blog
Draft Declaration of Permanent Occupation
Prof. Williamson Chang posted the following on his Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/williamson.chang.3/posts/1649539938634131
Independence caucus at the Aha
The Caucus appointed me to draft two resolutions. The first declaration is still in draft and not for the public. I have decided that the second declaration should be sent to all outside the Aha in light of the protests at the Gate yesterday. Invite comment and corrections.
5 Declaration No 5 Feb 23 1113 am Part II of the Maunawili Declarations "The Long Declaration as to Permanent Occupation
Declaration No. 5
Declaration that Hawaii is in a State of Unlawful Permanent Occupation by the United States of America and the Illegitimacy of United States and State title to lands as affecting the Bonding Capacity of both Governments
We the undersigned declare that:
1) The Kingdom of Hawaii has been subjected to an unlawful occupation by the United States of America since 1898-1900; said occupation is unprecedented in history in that it was initiated with the intent of permanent occupation; it is unprecedented by the fact that the United States, in two provisions of Congress, and in the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, confesses that is has no dominion over any of the waters and islands of the Hawaii; it is unprecedented in that the United States has successfully waged a century long propaganda campaign by which the people of Hawaii, the United States and the World believe that Hawaii is territory of the United States, and that;
2) The 2016 Aha held for four weeks in Maunawili was intended by the United States and the State of Hawaii to establish a Federally Recognized Tribe of the Native Hawaiian people, by changing certain rules and regulations of the Department of Interior and by an Aha or constitutional convention that would create the governing body of said Native Hawaiian "tribe" to be recognized by the Department of Interior, and that;
3) Such a scheme is unlawful as a matter of international law; for Hawaii remains a foreign country to the United States, either under International law or under United States law, notably the Supreme Court decisions in Neely v. Henkel;
4) And the United States has no power to establish or recognize a "federal tribe" in a foreign country, and the attempt to achieve that aim is a violation of the Hague and Geneva Conventions as an unlawful "regime change" under the laws occupation; and that
5) Given the participation of the Department of Interior, the State of Hawaii, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in the creation of this Aha, as well as the broken commitments, manipulation of the will of the Native Hawaiian people as expressed in the public hearings and written testimony before the Department of Interior; the cancellation of the election of delegates resulting from the interference of the United States Supreme Court, which amounts to a violation of the laws of occupation and self-determination, that therefore
6) This declarant refuses to condone, consent, or allow his participation in this Aha to lend credibility to any action of this Aha to further the establishment of a federally recognized tribe of Native Hawaiians,
7) That under this United States occupation the sovereignty of the underlying nation, the Kingdom of Hawaii, never acquired by the United States or extinguished, but atrophied by the successful campaign of deception waged by the United States to lead Native Hawaiians to believe that the Kingdom was extinguished, as a sovereign state continues to exist;
8) And that the government or said Kingdom of Hawaii is the Constitutional Monarchy under the Constitution of 1887 as affirmed by Queen Liliuokalani, that the so-called overthrow in 1893 and the supposed abdication of the Queen, are for various reasons null and void; that a Native Hawaiian Constitutional Convention was appropriately and properly convened in 1996 which proposed amendments to the 1887 Constitution which have yet to be approved by referendum of the Native Hawaiian people, such that the only appropriate act of this Aha is to deem itself a continuation of that Constitutional Convention, where its only action should be to put the 1999 amendments before the Native Hawaiian people, in an appropriate manner, for referendum.
9) Wherefore, this declarant holds that under the present state of a permanent occupation of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States, by which the underlying sovereign, the Kingdom of Hawaii, as of 1893, under Queen Liliuokalani, has been denigrated and dismembered by the United States occupation, this Aha cannot create the governing body for a federally recognized tribe, cannot create a new nation by adoption of a new constitution, and cannot amend the 1887 such amendments have already been approved in duly assembled Constitutional Convention (1991) and await the outcome of a referendum by the Native Hawaiian people;
10) And that declarant holds that his participation in this Aha was for the purpose of adhering to the rules and principles of international and Kingdom law, and that his or her kuleana at this Aha was to enforce such rules, even if no action is taken, in order to preserve the legacy of his or her ancestors.
11) And that any such attempt amounts to a violation of international law, as to the rules of occupation, and as to the rights of self-determination, which must be freely exercised and not the product of a state of unlawful occupation or oppression;
12) That under this permanent occupation of the United States, which the United States itself acknowledges by its laws that it has never acquired the Hawaiian Islands, yet rules as if it had acquired Hawaii
13) The Kingdom of Hawaii, a sovereign and independent state has been under a permanent state of occupation since 1893 in violation of international law, as applied in 1893, and today, and that
14) Under the Hague and Geneva Conventions the occupying power, the United States of America, can never acquire the territory or sovereignty of the occupied nation, the Kingdom of Hawaii; and that
15) The United States has admitted this wrong, in that President Grover Cleveland, after intensive investigation of the United States intervention in Hawaii;
16) In a public address of December 18, 1893, stated that the United States support of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii was an "act of war," and a violation of the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii,
17) Wherein he promised the restoration of the government of Queen Liliuokalani, who had, on January 17, 1893, in the face of the un-consented landing of United States troops in Honolulu in support of an attempted coup d'état;
18) Did not surrender to the United States but yielded her executive and police powers as the head of the Kingdom to the President of the United States;
19) Wherein, the United States did not restore the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii under Queen Liliuokalani, as promised, but with the election of a new President, William McKinley in 1896, drafted a Treaty of Annexation on June 16, 1897 with a successor illegitimate regime, called the Republic of Hawaii, for the United States acquisition of Hawaii as a territory of the United States. And
20) Wherein said treaty was laid before the Senate in 1897, and was never ratified by the two third majority of Senators present, as required by Article II of the United States Constitution, and
21) Wherein, having failed to acquire Hawaii as a territory by treaty, the United States Congress, by a majority vote of the House and Senate in 1898, enacted a "Joint Resolution Providing for the annexing of the Hawaiian Islands," 30 Stat 750, by whose terms, written solely by the United States without the consent of the Republic of Hawaii,
22) Said Republic of Hawaii was claimed to have ceded to the United States, both the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands, and all "public lands," known as the "crown and government lands," by Article 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii, despite the clear fact that;
23) Article 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii did not provide for the cession of either the sovereignty or public lands, but merely empowered the President of the Republic to negotiate a treaty with the United States for "commercial or political union;" wherein
24) The United States in said Joint Resolution of 1898, consented to the cession of sovereignty and lands, an interpretation irregularly and wrongfully derived from the Article 32, in order to claim that the Joint Resolution, merely a bill or act of Congress with no power to acquire the territory of another sovereign and independent nation under the international law principle of the equality of the sovereignty of states, wherein,
25) Said Joint Resolution of 1898 was passed by a majority of both the House and Senate, signed into law by the President of the United States on July 7, 1898, upon which ceremonies purporting to transfer Hawaii to the United States where held on August, 12, 1898, consisting of oral agreement between the President of the Republic of Hawaii and the American Minister to Hawaii that Hawaii was thereby acquired as territory of the United States, but,
26) Said ceremony, was deemed to have no significance in an opinion of the United States Attorney General, and whereby the Joint Resolution was never ratified, consented to by the Republic of Hawaii, and whereas after August 12, 1898, the Republic of Hawaii defied the terms and intent of the Joint Resolution as it continued to act as a sovereign nation, and not territorial appurtenance of the United States, in that;
27) The name "Republic of Hawaii," continued to be used by the Government of Hawaii, said Government of Hawaii maintained relations with foreign sovereign governments, even concluding treaties with foreign nations, that the Republic of Hawaii continued to register ships under the Republic of Hawaii flag, a privilege reserved to sovereign independent nations,
28) That said Republic of Hawaii individually negotiated a damage settlement with the United Kingdom to the exclusion of the participation of the United States, and that said Republic of Hawaii continued to apply its own law, maintain its own Supreme Court and lower courts, and defy the application of the laws and constitution of the United States, including rejecting the application of the thirteenth amendment of the United States abolishing involuntary servitude in the United States and in any place under the jurisdiction of the United States as to the continuing practice of involuntary servitude in Hawaii after the effective date of the Joint Resolution, and by which;
29) Despite the terms of the Joint Resolution which purported to immediately convey title to all public lands in Hawaii to the United States on the effective date of said resolution, July 7, 1898, the President of the Republic of Hawaii refused to recognize the Joint Resolution and continued to make grants and gifts of public lands as President of Hawaii, by which;
30) Said actions were vehemently protested by the United States as contrary to the Joint Resolution, and by which the United States Attorney General issued two formal opinions forbidding the President of the Republic of Hawaii from making such grants of public lands, and by which the President of the United States issued an Executive Order declaring such grants void;
31) Which did not alter the practice of the President of the Republic of Hawaii but led to the appointment of a special emissary from the Republic of Hawaii to the United States President who proceeded to Washington, and in letters of said special ambassador to the President of the United States of October 1899, declared that the Republic of Hawaii had never ratified, consented to or acquiesced in the terms of the Joint Resolution, that such resolution was a unilateral action of the United States Congress, not a treaty ratified by and therefore binding on the Republic of Hawaii, wherein;
32) The forced application of United States law and the terms of the Joint Resolution on the Republic of Hawaii led to an interregnum and the absolute paralysis of legal, economic, and governmental matters such that by 1899 chaos reigned in Hawaii such that judges applying the law of the United States under the Joint Resolution released persons convicted and incarcerated under the laws of the Republic of Hawaii whereupon such persons where immediately re-indicted, convicted and jailed under the laws of the Republic of Hawaii, that this being;
33) An intolerable state of affairs, known as an "interregnum," or a state in which there is no clear law or no law at all, the United States, under terms it wrote into the Joint Resolution, enacted in Congress an "organic act," to create a government for the "Territory of Hawaii," which was passed on April 30, 1900, taking effect June 14, 1900, which act, by its terms effectuated the purposes of the Joint Resolution, that;
34) The Hawaiian Islands became territory of the United States, the United States assumed sovereignty over Hawaii, and that the Joint Resolution also serve as a conveyance in fee of the crown and government lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii to the United States, and purported to extinguish the Kingdom of Hawaii both as a sovereign state and a legitimate government; however,
35) In said "Organic Act," of 1900, there being no ratification or consent of the Joint Resolution by any government of Hawaii, and there being no cession or conveyance of the crown and government lands, or other public lands, by any government of Hawaii to the United States, the United States did not possess a unbroken chain of title to said public and other lands, and having no document affirming a sale or cession and its acceptance of such lands, the United States also lacked;
36) Any objective description, in metes and bounds, by natural monuments, by lines of longitude or latitude or by reference to political boundaries, as would be included as essential in any treaty of cession, that therefore the United States;
37) In article two of the "Organic Act," of 1900, stated that the Territory of Hawaii consisted of those islands acquired by the Joint Resolution of 1898, knowing that during the United States Senate debate on the Joint Resolution that there were more than 46 statements in opposition to the Resolution by Senators solely on the grounds that no Joint Resolution, as a mere bill and unilateral act arising from the sovereignty of the United States, and not a treaty between nations, had no power to acquire either the sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands or the fee interest in the public lands of Hawaii' and that;
38) No single senator during the 1898 Senate debates on the Joint Resolution presented a coherent explanation as to how said Joint Resolution, without the ratification and consent of the government of Hawaii, and despite its rejection of the Joint Resolution, that therefore this declarant concludes;
39) That by the legislative history of the Joint Resolution did not acquire either the sovereignty or public, including crown and government lands of the Nation of Hawaii from the government of the Republic of Hawaii, having no such legislative intent, that the joint resolution, as its name provides merely "provided for" the future annexation of Hawaii, and that
40) Said acquisition of Hawaii as territory of the United States never did occur, that the Organic Act while purporting to acquire Hawaii and establish a government, undermine such objective in its own section two by excluding from said Territory all islands and waters of Hawaii, since no islands and waters can be acquired by the Joint Resolution, wherein, by section two of the Organic Act the dominion of the Territory are islands and waters acquired by said Joint Resolution; that therefore,
41) This second occupation of Hawaii by the United States began on the effective date of the Joint Resolution, July 7, 1898, but was successfully resisted by the sitting government of Hawaii such that the effective occupation of Hawaii began upon the effective date of the Organic Act, April 30, 1900, enacted to end the interregnum and chaos in Hawaii;
42) And that said state of occupation has become permanent, continuing to this day; that the United States Pacific Command in Hawaii refuses to acknowledge the state of occupation and abide by the Hague and Geneva Conventions, that this state of "permanent occupation" achieved by massive propaganda, mis-education, denationalization, deception and enforced by explicit use of police and military powers with the complete cooperation of the courts of the United States and the State of Hawaii, who refuse to recognize and follow the Rule of Law, or follow the plain and clear limitations on their territorial subject matter jurisdiction as set forth in Sections two of the Organic and Admission Act; and that said
43) Permanent occupation was reaffirmed by the admission of the Territory of Hawaii as a State in the Union of States; wherein
44) A deceptive plebiscite was held on June 27, 2959, where three questions were posed to the people of Hawaii, the first was whether said people desired admission as a state, the second, however, required the people of Hawaii to confirm boundaries drafted by Congress which defined the dominion of the new state as set forth in the Organic Act -- as those islands acquired by the Joint Resolution, such that the people while overwhelmingly for statehood on question one, voted overwhelmingly that the state of Hawaii shall have no islands or waters, and thus neither the United States or the State of Hawaii had sovereignty over Hawaii and all its lands, or title to the public lands, the former crown and government lands, and that;
45) By the terms of the Admission Act in its section 7, unless the people of Hawaii approved question two by a majority, which meant there was no lands or waters in the new State of Hawaii and that said State, like the United States in 1900, was implicitly declared, by said act of admission had no unbroken chain of title to its so-called "ceded lands," the former public lands consisting of the crown and government lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii, such that
46) The people of Hawaii, never being informed of the actual language or actual effect of an affirmative vote on question two of the plebiscite, overwhelmingly approved questions one on statehood and question two on the future State of Hawaii having no territory or dominion, that it is therefore agreed to by this declarant that;
47) That the United States did not acquire the Hawaiian Islands by the Joint Resolution of 1898, that the United States has been in permanent occupation of the Kingdom of Hawaii, the nation, since 1898 where occupation was resisted, and since 1900, where occupation was regulated under the deception of the creation of a Territory;
48) That said occupation, on the same terms and limitations, was reaffirmed upon the admission of the Territory as a State of the Union, but said state has no islands or waters or dominion as proposed by the federal definition drafted for approval by the people of Hawaii, who approved said proposed definition on June 27 1959, resulting in the change of the proposed state constitution to conform with the federal definition, dominion such that it is clear from the Constitution of the State of Hawaii and two United States statutes, that the United States has admitted that it;
49) The United States is in permanent occupation of the Kingdom of Hawaii and admits its lack of sovereignty and unbroken title to land by in its own laws and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, in violation of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, international law, and the laws of the United States; and that
50) Enormous and extensive violations of the law of occupation, whether this be deemed belligerent occupation or occupation under the United States Supreme Court decision in Neely v. Henkel, have and continue to take place wherein,
51) The United States has systematically destroyed the underlying sovereignty and legal system of the Kingdom of Hawaii, claimed sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands, used the Hawaiian Islands solely to advance its own military and expansionist objectives, populated the Hawaiian Islands with United States citizens and other immigrants such as to destroy the political power of nationals and denizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii and their descendants, and wherein,
52) The federal and state courts of the United States and Hawaii have ignored the Rule of Law, and have consistently assumed, without pause, territorial subject matter jurisdiction over all matters adjudicated in Hawaii;
53) Where by the State Constitution and Federal Law no such subject matter jurisdiction exists and where none has never been proved, in violation of United States laws, international law, and the canons and disciplinary rules that define the responsibilities of the bench and bar; and that;
54) Since 1898, the United States, the Territory of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii, have continuously violated the Hague and Geneva Conventions and the laws of the United States by the uncompensated appropriation of public and private lands, the abuse of said lands including using such lands for military purposes;
55) The storage of nuclear weapons in Hawaii, the failure to fulfill promises to restore lands to their original productive state, the degradation of cultural and natural resources such as the unremitting destruction of natural aquifers with known carcinogens; and that;
56) A full accounting of the unlawful acts, and wrongful conduct under the permanent occupation of the United States is too extensive to be noted here, and that such harms and wrongs, were too often justified, explained away, or tolerated by the people of Hawaii, and the world, by the incredibly successful propaganda campaign of the United States portraying Hawaii as a territory of the United States, "acquired" by the Joint Resolution of 1898, however,
57) The best evidence for conviction in a criminal proceeding is a confession and recently scholars and others have uncovered such evidence, in the overwhelming and vehement protest in the Senate debate in 1898 on the Joint Resolution;
58) That said Resolution had no power to acquire Hawaii, and in Sections two of the Organic Act of 1900 and the Admission Act of 1959, and Article XV of the Hawaii Constitution, which define the territory or dominion supposedly acquired by the Joint Resolution, as "those islands and waters acquired by the Joint Resolution," meaning that the Territory and now State of Hawaii has no dominion since the Joint Resolution had no power to acquire territory of Hawaii, a foreign sovereign state; whereby said declarant states
59) That the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist as Nation and Government, albeit in atrophied state, that said government is derived from the Constitution of 1887 as subject to future amendment, that under permanent occupation the United States has no sovereignty over the land of Hawaii and does not possess title to the crown and government lands, as all private and public lands in Hawaii cannot demonstrate an unbroken or clean chain of title in light of the break in the chain of title by the Joint Resolution, unless said lands were never conveyed after 1898, and that
60) The United States has no legitimate title over any lands in Hawaii, and that such defect shall eventually, upon becoming known throughout the world have a negative impact on the economy of Hawaii as it compels the lowering of bond ratings as to those bonds issued based on land holdings of the State of Hawaii or the United States.
Drafted by Williamson Chang February 23, 2016
__________ , 'Aha Participant
-------------------------------------
http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2016/02/24/video-aha-aloha-aina-held-in-hilo-counters-nai-aupuni/
Big Island Video News, February 24, 2016
VIDEO: Aha Aloha Aina Held In Hilo, Counters Na'i Aupuni
Video by Dave Corrigan, recorded on Feb. 23, 2016.
HILO, Hawaii (BigIslandVideoNews) -- Hawaii Island's first 'Aha Aloha 'Aina was held Tuesday at the University of Hawaii-Hilo.
The UH lecture hall was packed with interested participants eager to unite and rebuild a Nation, just two days after several Hawaiians were arrested at the entrance gate to the Na'i Aupuni 'aha on Oahu.
Only official participants are allowed into the Na'i Aupuni 'aha. They are those who were previously candidates for delegate to the 'aha before the U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to the race based election. The restricted gathering -- supported by Office of Hawaiian Affairs grant funds -- is currently drafting governing documents. Participants appear divided between those who want complete Independence from the United States and others who want Federal Recognition, or a government-to-government relationship with the U.S. similar to that of an Indian tribe.
Meanwhile, opponents of Na'i Aupuni watching the process unfold from the outside say the entire gathering is not representative of the lahui. They are countering with an 'aha of their own.
A coalition of 33 Kanaka Maoli community organizations and sovereignty groups are sponsoring 'Aha Aloha 'Aina -- a series of public meetings that aim to reaffirm Hawaiian Independence, reject federal recognition, and oppose the current Na'i Aupuni 'aha being held on Oahu.
On Tuesday night in Hilo, Aloha 'Aina 'aha facilitators went through the agenda quickly, compared to the Na'i Aupuni convention where participants spent days debating non-participant access, Robert's Rules of Order, video recording, and purpose statements.
Well over a hundred people participated in the 'Aha Aloha Aina at UH Hilo Tuesday night.
** Embedded video 1 hour 8 minutes.
----------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2016/02/native-hawaiian-citizens-in-a-native-hawaiian-government/
Honolulu Civil Beat, February 24, 2016
Native Hawaiian Citizens In A Native Hawaiian Government
As the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha continues, the question arises: Who should be defined as a citizen of a new Hawaiian government?
By Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa
Native Hawaiians, descendants from the union of Papa, Earth Mother and Wakea, Sky Father, have lived in these Hawaiian islands from time immemorial and have had a history of chiefly government for the past 100 generations.
At present the Na'i Aupuni 'Aha is drafting a new constitution for a Native Hawaiian government, whose purpose is to seek land in Hawaii for Native Hawaiians to live upon, and to allow the 48 percent of Native Hawaiians who have been forced to flee Hawaii's high cost of living, to return to live upon the land of our Hawaiian ancestors.
An issue of debate is who should be defined as a citizen of the new Hawaiian government. Some might ask if we were not writing a constitution for Native Hawaiians, why would we bother, right? We could just remain as Hawaiian Americans under the present U.S. Constitution.
However, some in the 'aha argue for an independent Hawaiian government, separate from the United States, and they say that such a government would require that:
non-Natives be included in the definition of citizen, as there is precedent in the Kingdom of Hawaii where non-Natives were allowed to swear allegiance to the King and become Hawaiian citizens, and were "welcomed to do so";
that we love the non-Natives we have married,
and that an independent nation that includes only natives as citizens is not possible (although the Kingdom of Tongan requires Tongan ancestry for citizenship).
Therefore, some argue that writing a constitution only for Native Hawaiians in a Native Hawaiian government would preclude any option of independence in the future.
Now since it takes a majority of all residents in the State of Hawaii to agree to an independent nation and furthermore requires secession of an American state from the union, the independence option for a separate Hawaiian government is not likely to happen anytime soon. It's unlikely that a majority of non-Hawaiians today would support independence from America. Moreover, it's unclear if a majority of Native Hawaiians would support independence today, either; perhaps in another 50 to 100 years.
Even if independence were to happen tomorrow, how would this scenario benefit Native Hawaiians? We would still be a minority on our own islands, not able to afford to buy land and forced to flee Hawaii to make a living.
Is there another option that could provide land for Native Hawaiians, so that we could live in the lands of our ancestors, grow our food, speak our language and practice our customs? Yes, there is: It's called the United Nations' Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Specifically, Articles 3, 4 and 25-27 as addressed below state:
Article 3: Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 4: Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
Article 25: Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.
Article 26:
Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.
States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.
Article 27: States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples' laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process. (UNDRIP 2007).
Federal Recognition Of Indigenous Peoples
The good news is that American government has agreed to the UNDRIP, and moreover, provides the status of federal recognition for indigenous peoples living within the territorial boundaries of the United States. One has to write a constitution that declares itself indigenous, or Native Hawaiian in our case, in order to apply for such federal status. It is the only way to get more land set aside for Native Hawaiians. Please note that capital "N" in Native Hawaiians includes all 500,000 Hawaiians of Hawaiian ancestry where as lower case "n" refers to those approximately 50,000 Hawaiians of 50 blood quantum who must prove quantum and can only apply for the 200,000 acres currently set aside (for which there is a wait list of 29,000 names).
Working within the current laws of the United States, and under the advisement of the United Nations, is really the only option. From 1987 to 2004, Ka Lahui Hawaii wrote a constitution, seated a government in exile and held 31 legislative sessions, all without any state funding, but failed to secure a single acre of land. It could not get federal recognition from the American government and it faded away.
It is clear that if Native Hawaiians want access to out ancestral lands then we have to work with the American government on its terms.
But what about the idea that the Kingdom of Hawaii welcomed non-natives as citizens? Well, that assertion is not completely, historically accurate. In 1845, thousands of Native Hawaiian citizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii opposed allowing foreigners to become Hawaiian citizens by swearing an oath of allegiance, as proposed by prominent foreigners like Dr. Gerrit P. Judd and Richard Armstrong, who sat with the King in the Privy Council. Native Hawaiians signed petitions stating the following opposing arguments:
Concerning the independence of your kingdom.
That you dismiss the foreign officers whom you have appointed to the Hawaiian officers [in the Privy Council].We do not wish foreigners to take the oath of allegiance and become Hawaiian subjects.
We do not wish you to sell any more land pertaining to your kingdom to foreigners. (Kame'eleihiwa 1992: 334)
When the Privy Council replied that they could not run a foreign-style government without foreigners to help them, Native Hawaiian citizens replied:
"The following are our thoughts:
Good foreigners will become no better by taking the oath of allegiance under our Chiefs. Good people are not opposed to us; they do not evade the laws of the Chiefs; they do not wish this kingdom to be sold to others. What good can result from them taking the oath? We do not see any good reason why they should take the oath of allegiance.
Taking the oath of allegiance to this government will be the cause of greatly increasing wicked men in this land.
It is not to benefit this people, but for their own personal interests that foreigners suddenly take the oath of allegiance to this government.
What is to be the result of so many foreigners taking the oath of allegiance? This is it, in our opinion; this kingdom will pass into their hands, and that, too, very soon. Foreigners will come on shore with cash, ready to purchase lands ... Our King and Sovereign Kamehameha, have compassion upon us, and deliver your people from this approaching perilous condition, if many foreigners shall be introduced into this kingdom at this time, this will be our end, we shall become the servants of foreigners.
Were Native Hawaiians anti-foreigner? Were they racists? Since they reproduced and intermarried with foreigners as soon as they were available, I don't think so. But I do think they were reacting to 25 years of anti-Hawaiian racism by non-Natives against Native Hawaiians.
In 1820, when the American Calvinist Rev. Hiram Bingham arrived and first met Hawaiians he said, "These naked and chattering savages, can they be human?" And his compatriot, Rev. Charles Stewart said, "Are they not the missing link between brute and man?"
And those sentiments were from the foreigners who were friendly to Hawaiians! Did foreigners become more "friendly" after they became citizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii?
In 1848, as soon as foreigners were allowed to swear allegiance and become citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom, they began to buy up hundreds of acres of land for an average 90 cents per acre, evicting Native Hawaiian tenants from their property. Dr. Judd began to propose to the king that Hawaii should be annexed to the United States of America! Native Hawaiians were extremely opposed to that notion.
So Much For The Oath Of Allegiance
It only got worse over time as sugar barons like Spreckels demanded more land and water for their plantations, at the expense of Native Hawaiians, and a reciprocity treaty with America. Then in 1887, the foreigners of the "Honolulu" Rifles forced King Kalakaua to sign the Bayonet Constitution, upon pain of death, allowing non-citizen foreigners the right to vote, and giving Pearl Harbor to the American military. Were these foreigners friendly to Native Hawaiians?
In 1893, when Queen Lili'uokalani tried to undo the Bayonet Constitution and forbid non-citizen foreigners the right to vote, foreigners who were born in Hawaii, like Lorrin Thurston and Sanford Dole, called for the American military to be landed to support a coup d'etat in favor of the white foreigners (including Portuguese) who were only 12 percent of the citizens. So much for their oath of allegiance to the Hawaiian Kingdom!
Other foreign led anti-Hawaiian events included:
1893: Proclamation of the Provisional Government, ending the Hawaiian Kingdom and calling for annexation to America;
1896: Banning of the Hawaiian language in the public schools and the beating of Native Hawaiian children for speaking Hawaiian;
1900: Territory of Hawaii declared and Hawai'i annexed by joint resolution of the U.S. House and Senate, with Hawaiians ceding crown and government to the federal government.
1910: Passed the Alawai Reclamation Canal Act that effectively took away all lands from the Native Hawaiians of Waikiki by forcing them to buy the fill from the Alawai or forfeit their lands;
1920: Prince Jonah Kūhiō forced to agree to restricting Hawaiian Homelands to 50 percent Hawaiian blood quantum, dividing our people ever since;
1935: Massey case with Joseph Kahahawai murdered. Foreigners convicted of the murder had their sentence commuted to one hour of drinking champagne by the Hawaii-born territorial governor of foreign descent, Lawrence Judd;
1941: Martial law declared in the Territory of Hawaii, and Hawaiian lands taken for military bases all over Hawaii;
1959: Statehood vote taken without Native Hawaiians afforded the right of independence.
Since 1959, there have been hundreds of bills and actions attacking Native Hawaiians and Native Hawaiian land rights, including the attack and arrests of Native Hawaiian protectors on our sacred mountain Mauna Kea. Now in 2016, non-Hawaiians are proposing in the Hawaii State Legislature HR 1635 and HB 2173, designed to take more Hawaiian land from the Native Hawaiians.
Please note that foreign citizens were a problem even when they were only 12 percent of the citizens in 1893. Now that Native Hawaiians are in a minority in the State of Hawaii's population, and 48 percent of Native Hawaiians have been forced to leave Hawaii to survive, how could we ever expect that the non-natives would favor Native Hawaiian land rights in an independent "Hawaiian" government?
This is why Native Hawaiians, like all indigenous peoples of the world, have a right to write a constitution and form a government where the citizens are only Native Hawaiians; it is the right of our survival as a people. This Native Hawaiian government can seek to take care of the needs of Native Hawaiians, such as access to land, housing, education and health.
Therefore I am glad that the United States affords indigenous peoples the right of federal recognition. It may not be a perfect solution, but it is preferable to the present with no solution at all.
Under the plan of federal recognition, Native Hawaiians can negotiate with the American government, both federal and state, to accumulate ancestral Hawaiian lands for grandchildren, and for our continental cousins, who are 48 percent of our population, to move home to live in Hawaii. And, we can continue to live in harmony here at home with the non-Hawaiians whom we have married.
I am very excited about writing a new constitution for a Native Hawaiian nation and I ask all the people of the state of Hawaii support our good work.
-----------------
** Ken Conklin's online comment (Online it was broken into two pieces due to a length limit on comments).
The beautiful creation legend in Kumulipo is badly twisted by people like Lilikala to create a theological justification for Hawaiian religious fascism -- a theory that anyone with a drop of the magic blood is a child of the gods and a brother to these islands in a way nobody else can be who lacks a drop of the magic blood. According to this theory ethnic Hawaiians have a god-given right to racial supremacy in Hawaii; they are the hosts and everyone else is merely a second-class guest who must obey whatever the Hawaiians demand. Later I'll describe this fascist theory a little more. The first couple sentences of Lilikala's essay, talking about Hawaiians as descendants of Wakea and Papa, serve as warning that she is invoking religious fascism to defend her political advocacy for a racially exclusionary "lahui" to be the first-class citizenry of of her "nation."
But first let me quote Lilikala herself as she tells her vision for the master-servant relationship she believes ethnic Hawaiians have a god-given right to exercise. In her 1992 book "Native Land and Foreign Desires" she uses the term "foreigner" to refer to anyone who lacks Hawaiian native ancestry; thus, even a Caucasian or Asian person whose family has been born and raised in Hawaii for eight generations spanning perhaps 200 years would be called a "foreigner."
Here's what Lilikala says, starting at page 325: "Foreigners must learn to behave as guests in our 'aina and give respect to the Native people. If foreigners cannot find it in their hearts to do this, they should leave Hawaii. If foreigners truly love Hawaiians they must support Hawaiian sovereignty. They must be humble and learn to serve Hawaiians. If foreigners love us and want to support our political movements they must never take leadership roles. Leadership must be left to [ethnic] Hawaiians ... Foreigners who love us can donate their land and money into a trust fund for Hawaiian economic self-sufficiency ... and the Native initiative for sovereignty."
This concept is clearly fascist, asserting that one ethnic group is entitled to supremacy over all others solely on account of race. And like the most dangerous forms of fascism seen in the 20th Century, this theory is founded on a twisted version of an otherwise beautiful religion. Lilikala's theory is believed in by all Hawaiian sovereignty activists, whether they seek to reestablish Hawaii as an independent nation or whether they seek to get federal recognition for a phony Hawaiian tribe. This theory is taught in the Hawaiian Studies courses at all levels in Hawaii from Kindergarten through university. According to this theory ethnic Hawaiians are members of a family with a genealogical relationship to the land and to the gods; therefore they have a god-given right to political power to make the decisions about how the land can be used and who can live here. Religious fascism spawns an astonishing level of zealotry, which we see every day in online comments, political demonstrations, and especially in protests invoking the concept that bones are "sacred" (don't move them during a construction project) or land is "sacred" (like Mauna Kea).
Here's the Hawaiian version of religious fascism:
The gods gave birth to these Hawaiian islands as living beings. Then the gods gave birth to a badly deformed stillborn baby whom they buried, from which grew the first taro plant. Then they gave birth to a beautiful baby boy, the first-born human, who is the primordial ancestor from whom all ethnic Hawaiians are descended. Every person with at least one drop of Hawaiian blood is a descendant of that primordial ancestor, who in turn was a child of the gods and brother to these living islands. Nobody lacking a drop of the native blood is a member of that sacred family. That's why ethnic Hawaiians have a god-given right to exercise racial supremacy over everyone else.
Here's one small illustration of how Hawaiian religious fascism applies to everyday life in Hawaii. Taro (kalo), the elder brother of mankind, must be planted everywhere it will grow and poi-pounding is a sacred ritual. Eating poi is a sacred communion with the gods, like consecrated bread and wine for Catholics. Rice, preferred by Asians, which can be grown anywhere taro can be grown, is not halal (kosher) -- rice should not be the basis of food in Hawaii just as Asians themselves should not be the holders of political power in Hawaii. If the University of Hawaii dares to do genetic engineering of taro to create disease-resistant versions, and files for a patent to protect its intellectual property rights, there will be huge protests forcing UH to back away. Because changing the genetics of kalo is a form of genocide to ethnic Hawaiians who are genetically linked to kalo through the creation legend.
A more significant application of Hawaiian fascism is found in a book published by UH Press in 2008: "Asian Settler Colonialism." The book is deeply insulting to Hawaii's people of Asian ancestry. The first insult comes by telling them that they are guilty of collaborating with Caucasians to oppress ethnic Hawaiians. The next insult comes by telling them that even if their families have lived in Hawaii for several generations, they are merely "settlers" in someone else's homeland and they have a duty to abandon their hard-won equal rights in order to accept a position of subservience to ethnic Hawaiians. Perhaps the deepest insult of all is the book's attempt to undermine the patriotism of Asian Americans by telling them they have a moral duty to help Hawaiian sovereignty activists liberate Hawaii from American colonialism and rip the 50th star off the flag. If anyone thinks this paragraph is an exaggeration, or a case of fear-mongering, then please read my entire book review, including the book's five-page celebratory explanation of the metaphors in a political cartoon showing Hawaii's first Filipino Governor, Ben Cayetano, lynching a Native Hawaiian in order to give pleasure to a Caucasian. I wrote a very detailed book review at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/AsianSettlerColonialism.html
There are some antidotes to the poison of Hawaiian religious fascism. One is to reaffirm that Hawaii is a multiracial, multicultural society where we embrace our diversity and we insist that, as our Constitution says, there must be no establishing any religion as the basis for laws or government policies. Another antidote is to understand that the beautiful Kimulipo creation legend is the story of Adam -- the primordial ancestor from whom all humans are descended, not ethnic Hawaiians alone. We are all children of the gods and brothers to the land. I have it on good authority from a professor emerita of Hawaiian language and literature, who translated Kumulipo, that indeed it is not limited to ethnic Hawaiians. We are all 'ohana. Let's not become like Cain and Abel, or Isaac and Ishmael. Let us embrace the kokokahi sentence -- the first sentence of the first Constitution of Hawaii proclaimed by Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III: "Ua hana mai ke Akua i na lahuikanaka a pau i ke koko hookahi, e noho like lakou ma ka honua nei me ke kuikahi, a me ka pomaikai." In English, it can be translated into modern usage as follows: "God hath made of one blood all races of people to dwell upon this Earth in unity and blessedness."
-------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorial/hawaii-politics-hurt-by-lack-of-ethics/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, February 25, 2016, Letter to Editor
Many here support independent Hawaii
Those attending the 'aha must think big.
Many of us non-Hawaiians know the truth about American responsibility for Queen Liliuokalani's overthrow, the illegality of annexation, and the hoax of the statehood vote.
We support a path to eventual restoration of an independent nation-state of Hawaii.
Today, the United Nations is composed primarily of formerly colonized countries like Hawaii. They know the struggle for independence. Many are anxious to help.
By the final years of the monarchy, Hawaii achieved almost 100 percent literacy. Our palace had telephones before the White House. Hawaii was the first nation with widespread electricity and a trolley system run by it. King Kalakaua was the first monarch to circumnavigate the world, establishing bonds. He was the first foreign leader to ever address Congress. Hawaiians were leaders of the world in innovation and futuristic planning.
Let us all, Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, work together to restore that nation and continue that tradition.
Kioni Dudley
Makakilo
----------------
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/hawaii-nation/conversations/messages/1526
Hawaii Nation messages, number 1526
Copied by Hawaii Nation from
http://www.civilbeat.com/2016/02/the-other-aha-hawaiian-independence-backers-make-their-case/
Honolulu Civil Beat, February 25, 2016
The Other Aha: Hawaiian Independence Backers Make Their Case
by Chad Blair
Aha Aloha Aina 2016 rejects the Nai Aupuni process for self-governance and insists on pushing for "real" independence.
Walter Ritte beamed as he flashed a shaka to the kupuna in the front row of Hale A'o Hawaiian Studies at Windward Community College in Kaneohe.
Noting the full parking lot outside and the overflow crowd at the aha, or convention, Ritte said, "Wow … The call has been answered."
"The call" is for a path toward self-governance, one that returns to Hawaiians their independent nation, which was taken from them more than 100 years ago. It comes from a new group called Aha Aloha Aina 2016,
http://ahaalohaaina.com/
The Thursday night event attracted 350 people, according to one of the speakers, to what was billed as "a historic gathering of Hawaiian sovereignty leaders."
Chad Blair reports in Honolulu Civil Beat:
In addition to Ritte, speakers included Andre Perez and Healani Sonoda-Pale. The primary message was a call for unity.
As Ritte explained, many Hawaiians are confused about another aha taking place this month, the one held by Nai Aupuni. Its website says it exists "solely to help establish a path for Hawaiian self-determination. It will do this through inclusion of as many Hawaiians as possible and in a transparent way."
But that's not the way Aha Aloha Aina sees things.
Ritte recalled that when he graduated from Kamehameha Schools in 1963, the word "overthrow" -- as in the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by business interests with the support of the United States -- was never spoken.
He called his schooling a form of "brainwashing" and "colonization" that kept Hawaiians from understanding their true history. And he suggested that Nai Aupuni was continuing that pattern.
Ritte, a longtime activist from Molokai, initially applied to run for a delegate position at the Nai Aupuni aha, but later opted out. He questioned the agenda and independence of Nai Aupuni, which is supported by grant money from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs through the nonprofit Akamai Foundation.
Thursday's gathering was the other aha -- or the "real aha," as convener Kalama Niheu put it, to build lahui -- a nation.
Another speaker, Healani Sonoda-Pale, was more blunt: Nai Aupuni is "a state-sponsored process to create a puppet Hawaiian government" that will lead to a global settlement on Hawaiian lands. The settlement, she said, would result in the selling off of the lands for development, never to be returned to Hawaiians.
Formed in December 2014, Nai Aupuni says it is separate and independent from OHA and the state of Hawaii.
Critics have noted OHA is a quasi-state agency that receives ceded land revenue from the state, and that the creation of a registry of qualified Hawaiians was aided by the Hawaii Legislature's Act 195 establishing a Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, or Kanaiolowalu.
Nai Aupuni has also been subject to lawsuits by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, which sought to halt Nai Aupuni's election of aha delegates last November, saying it was unconstitutional.
After several court rulings, Nai Aupuni decided to abandon the electoral process and invite all of the more than 200 candidates to participate in the aha. About 150 accepted.
The purpose of Aha Aloha Aina is to not only oppose Nai Aupuni but to also reject U.S. Department of the Interior efforts to federally recognize Hawaiians in a manner similar to other indigenous groups.
In place of that, it wants to reaffirm Native Hawaiian independence, unite Hawaiians and demonstrate that they have been active in nation-building for several hundred years — even after the overthrow.
Aha Aloha Aina hasn't gone into specifics about how, after all the changes in the islands since the overthrow, it believes that independence for Native Hawaiians could be restored.
But it announced in early February that it would hold its own meetings this month on Native Hawaiian independence.
The meetings, which have already been held on Maui and in Hilo and Waimea on Hawaii Island, continue in Kona on Friday and Kau on Sunday. They are intended "to identify the very broad movement in the Hawaiian movement for Independence and educate the community on the various initiatives."
Aha Aloha Aina dismisses the authenticity of Nai Aupuni 's aha, which it said in a statement is "attempting to claim that they represent the Kanaka Maoli community when it excludes 80 percent of our people."
The hui counts 33 sponsors, including a new political party called the Aloha Aina Party and a group called the Lawful Hawaiian Government.
The new group has already begun to attract attention, as when seven Hawaiians were arrested Monday trying to attend the closed-door meetings of Nai Aupuni. Both organizations have televised some of their proceedings on Olelo Community Media, and both have their own websites and logos.
Aha Aloha Aina says it has also produced two declarations: one reaffirming independence for Hawaiians, and another rejecting the Nai Aupuni aha.
Meanwhile, Nai Aupuni has stepped up its own public-relations campaign, sending out more than a dozen press releases this month detailing its activities. The releases are handled by two aha participants, Adrian Kamalii and Amy Kalili.
The press releases accentuate the positive.
On Wednesday, for example, a release said that 116 Native Hawaiians had met in Maunawili, near Kailua, for "day 17 of this historic convening." The work included "continued markup" of potential governing documents.
Nai Aupuni downplayed the Aha Aloha Aina protest, saying in a press release the next day, "Despite a delayed start due to a large number of participants being unable to enter the venue on time – given demonstrations outside the gate to the property – the Aha continued work on drafting the governing document(s). After the wehena (opening), a short discussion took place to have a statement from the demonstrators read on the floor."
The Nai Aupuni missives do not indicate any tension among delegates at the aha, suggesting instead that it's been nothing but progress.
Here's an example from Monday: "The majority of participants met in plenary, shifting focus to post-Aha activities, identifying priorities, strategies, and partners for outreach and communication back to the larger Native Hawaiian community about the work accomplished and the next steps that need to be taken."
But participants at the Aha Aloha Aina like Andre Perez are not likely to be persuaded. Over the past 15 years he fought the Akaka Bill in Congress that would have given Hawaiians federal recognition ("fed wreck," as he called it).
Perez told the Thursday aha that Nai Aupuni was formed without the consent of Hawaiians. While there are many good people participating in Nai Aupuni, he said, the process leading to it has been "manipulated, controlled, politicized without our involvement."
--------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/hawaii-news/foes-of-nai-aupuni-demand-pono-nation-building-process/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, February 26, 2016
Foes of Na'i Aupuni demand 'pono' nation-building process
By Timothy Hurley
On the eve of the last day of the Native Hawaiian constitutional convention, foes held their own aha on Oahu on Thursday night to speak out against the Maunawili gathering.
A couple hundred or so supporters of Hawaiian independence attended the "Aha Aloha Aina" at Windward Community College in Kaneohe, organized by a coalition of 25 community organizations and sovereignty groups.
"Independence cannot be stopped," said veteran Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte, who last year renounced his candidacy for the Na'i Aupuni convention. "We cannot accept small little steps staying under America. We have our nation. We have all the facts why we have our nation. We just have to act like it."
Ritte and other speakers blasted the Maunawili aha as a predetermined tool of the state designed to impose on the Hawaiian people a status similar to that of an Indian tribe. In the process, they said, the state intends to seize the 1.8 million acres of ceded lands that rightly belong to Native Hawaiians.
They emphasized that the convention was conceived by the Legislature's Act 195 in 2011, signed into law by former Gov. Neil Abercrombie and engineered by the Abercrombie-appointed Kanaiolowalu (Native Hawaiian Roll Commission) and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which created an "independent" Na'i Aupuni board to organize the event.
"This was manipulated, controlled and politicized from the very beginning without our involvement whatsoever," veteran Hawaiian activist Andre Perez said.
Speakers called for a "pono" nation-building process designed by Native Hawaiians and independent of the forces who created Na'i Aupuni. Such a process, they said, would have a more realistic time frame than the one imposed on the monthlong Maunawili convention.
Thursday's meeting was part of a series of meetings held this week on three different islands. At least two more meetings are scheduled: in Kona on Friday and Kau on Sunday.
The week started with eight protesters being arrested for trespassing Monday after blocking the front gate of the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club, site of the Maunawili aha.
Among the arrested were Kahookahi Kanuha, Perez and Kaeo; all three also were arrested on Mauna Kea in June during protests blocking workers from reaching the Thirty Meter Telescope construction site.
---------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/breaking-news/native-hawaiian-constitutional-convention-adopts-governing-document/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, February 26, 2016, BREAKING NEWS at 4:05 PM
Native Hawaiian convention adopts constitution
By Timothy Hurley
The Native Hawaiian constitutional convention this afternoon adopted a governing document that will go out to a vote for ratification.
The constitution, approved by an 88 to 30 vote with one abstention, apparently allows room for federal recognition by the U.S. government while holding out for the possibility of independence.
"We reaffirm the National Sovereignty of the Nation," the preamble says. "We reserve all rights for Sovereignty and self-determination, including the pursuit of independence."
Under the constitution, citizens of the nation are any descendents of the indigenous people who lived in Hawaii prior to 1778. It also says citizenship in the Native Hawaiian nation shall not affect one's citizenship in the United States.
The government would be composed of an executive branch -- led by a president and vice president and advised by an island council, plus a legislature with 43 members representing the islands and Native Hawaiians, as well as a judicial authority.
Opponents of the four-week-long convention, or aha, claim the event was predetermined to allow for federal recognition, or the nation within a nation model of government.
Native Hawaiian Nation Constitution
https://www.scribd.com/doc/300744479/Native-Hawaiian-Nation-Constitution
** Ken Conklin's note: A straightforward pdf copy of the "constitution of the Native Hawaiian nation" adopted by the Na'i Aupuni convention on February 26 is permanently available at
http://tinyurl.com/zegptkr
----------------------
http://www.staradvertiser.com/hawaii-news/native-hawaiian-convention-approves-new-constitution-amid-concerns-of-legitimacy/
Honolulu Star-Advertiser, February 27, 2016
Native Hawaiian convention approves new constitution amid concerns of legitimacy
By Timothy Hurley
The Native Hawaiian convention adopted a landmark constitution Friday that allows room for federal recognition by the U.S. government while holding out for the possibility of independence.
But a number of questions remain about the future of the proposed government, including when a ratification election will be held and who's going to pay for it.
What's more, establishing a government before President Barack Obama leaves office early next year could be next to impossible, leaving the question of federal recognition up to a new president who might not accept the idea.
The document, approved with an 88-30 vote plus one abstention, ends a four-week convention, or aha, that was envisioned by an act of the 2011 state Legislature and funded by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
The body, numbering more than 100 and meeting at the Royal Hawaiian Golf Club in Maunawili, also adopted a Declaration of Sovereignty that recounts the history of Native people since contact with Western civilization.
"This is a historic day," said Zuri Aki, a University of Hawaii law student from Mililani who skipped two midterm exams to join in the final debate and vote Thursday and Friday.
"I'm quite elated," said former state lawmaker Annelle Amaral, who also voted with the majority. "I didn't expect we would get a constitution adopted with such a short window of time. It's amazing. People settled down to work and wanted a solution."
The preamble to the "Constitution of the Native Hawaiian Nation" expresses the desire to preserve and sustain Native culture and traditions and "to promote the well-being of our people and the 'Aina that sustains us" through a "Pono," or righteous, government "of, by and for Native Hawaiian people."
In a compromise to supporters of independence, the preamble contains hope for the possibility of achieving independence.
"We reaffirm the National Sovereignty of the Nation. We reserve all rights for Sovereignty and Self-determination, including the pursuit of independence," it says.
Under the constitution, citizens of the nation are any descendents of indigenous people who lived in Hawaii prior to 1778, or Western contact. It also says citizenship in the Native Hawaiian Nation shall not affect one's U.S. citizenship.
The government would be composed of an executive branch -- led by a president and vice president and advised by an island council -- a legislature with 43 members representing the islands and Native Hawaiians living elsewhere, as well as a judicial authority with justices, judges and courts.
Opponents of the aha charged that the event was predetermined to allow for federal recognition and, they said, turn Native Hawaiians into an Indian tribe so that the state could lay claim to 1.8 million acres of ceded lands, or crown lands.
But the newly adopted constitution says the government shall pursue the return of the national lands along with just compensation for lands lost.
Keli'i Akina, president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, attempted to block the process in court, charging it with violating the U.S. Constitution by using public funds to establish a racially discriminatory process.
"The attempt to establish a single race-based nation violates the Aloha Spirit and goes against the will of the majority of Hawaiians," Akina said in an email. "Instead of wasting millions of public dollars on a divisive political movement, state government and Hawaiian leaders should use these financial resources to advance Hawaiians through education, housing, commerce, and health care."
For members of the convention, the next step is taking the document to the people and then finding a way to hold an election for ratification.
"The real work now begins," OHA trustee Rowena Akana said.
Akana said she hopes to see hundreds of community meetings explaining the document.
But exactly when a ratification election will be held and who will pay for it remain up in the air. Members of the convention might have to campaign for private funding, some participants said.
Who is eligible to vote is also unclear. Some participants said only those who signed up for the Native Hawaiian Commission Roll are eligible, while others said the wording of the document allows for extending opportunity to those who didn't sign up.
"It's not perfect by any means," Akana said of the document. "It was the best we could do under the circumstances."
Deliberation on the final version of the constitution began Thursday afternoon and continued for most of Friday. During the two days there were emotional pleas as well as applause for impassioned speeches recounting the wrongs and injustices of the past and the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.
Veteran independence advocate Poka Laenui and attorney Keoni Agard urged the convention to vote against the document, saying the unelected body lacks legitimate standing. "We can't continue to fool ourselves. The legitimacy is not there," Laenui said.
Laenui said the final version of the constitution holds some major shortcomings, including that historically the Hawaiian nation was not based on blood, but nationality.
"There are so many flaws in this document," agreed former OHA trustee Moanikeala Akaka of Hilo.
James Kimo Stowell of Oahu said it was shameful that participants would consider it an acceptable document.
"I'm sorry, it's just not good enough. It's poorly constructed and poorly designed in its creation. You should be ashamed of yourself," Stowell told the group.
But Molokai physician Noa Emmett Aluli called the document "good work" and certainly as good as any such document belonging to other Pacific island nations, which he has been studying. "I'm very proud of it," he said.
Bruce Lambert, a Hawaiian living in Sweden, said "the alternate is status quo. That is not acceptable to me, and it is not acceptable for everyone in this room."
At one point a motion to have the convention "accept" the document rather than adopt it failed.
Lanakila Mangauil, one of the high-profile leaders of the Mauna Kea "protectors," admitted to going into the process believing it wasn't pono and saying he was there to oppose anything less than unequivocal independence. But he ended up voting for it Friday, saying he was satisfied with the independence language in the preamble.
Other provisions of the constitution include protections for Hawaiian Homes beneficiaries, Native Hawaiian religion or beliefs and beneficiaries of private trusts.
"Any benefits accorded to the citizenry, by virtue of their status as citizens of the United States, shall not be diminished or impaired by the provisions of this Constitution or the laws of the Nation," the document says.
Other provisions:
>> Legislative representatives shall be elected to four-year terms, with no one serving for more than 12 years.
>> The president must be at least 30 years old and have resided in the Hawaiian Islands for not less than 10 years immediately preceding election.
MORE FROM THE DOCUMENT
Excerpts from the Constitution of the Native Hawaiian Nation:
From Chapter 1, Article 1
1. The territory of the Native Hawaiian Nation is all lands, water, property, airspace, surface and subsurface rights, and other natural resources, belonging to, controlled by, and designated for conveyance to and for the Hawaiian Nation.
2. The Native Hawaiian people have never relinquished their claims to their national lands. To the maximum extent possible, the Government shall pursue the repatriation and return of the national lands, together with all rights, resources, and appurtenances associated with or appertaining to those lands, or other just compensation for lands lost.
From Chapter 1, Article 2
1. A citizen of the Native Hawaiian Nation is any descendant of the aboriginal and indigenous people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian Islands and is enrolled in the nation.
2. Citizenship in the Native Hawaiian Nation shall not affect one's citizenship in the United States.
From Chapter 2, Article 4
The Nation has the right to self-determination, including but not limited to, the right to determine the political status of the Nation and freely pursue economic, social, cultural, and other endeavors.
From Chapter 2, Article 7
1. The Native Hawaiian people reserve all rights and responsibilities customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, medicinal, and religious purposes.
From Chapter 2, Article 8
The Government shall not:
1. Pass any law that abridges a citizen's right to make end of life decisions, be treated with dignity, and a humane death.
From Chapter 8, Article 51
The present Constitution is subject to a ratification vote.
1. A ratification election shall be held for the purpose of ratifying this Constitution.
2. The Constitution shall become effective upon approval by a majority vote of individuals who are eligible to be citizens, have attained the age of eighteen (18), and cast a ballot in the ratification election.
Native Hawaiian Nation Constitution
https://www.scribd.com/doc/300744479/Native-Hawaiian-Nation-Constitution
** Ken Conklin's note: A straightforward pdf copy of the "constitution of the Native Hawaiian nation" adopted by the Na'i Aupuni convention on February 26 is permanently available at
http://tinyurl.com/zegptkr
-----------------
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-news/native-hawaiian-constitution-adopted
West Hawaii Today [Kona], February 27, 2016
KAILUA-KONA -- Native Hawaiian constitutional convention attendees on Friday adopted a governing document that will go out to a vote for ratification.
The constitution was approved with 88 "yes" votes, 30 "no" votes and one abstention during the convention, or aha, which was organized by nonprofit organization Nai Aupuni and concluded Friday with 118 of the 151 participants voting. The constitution, drafted over several weeks of committee meetings and floor debate, addresses a variety of issues from a core government structure to native rights.
Nai Aupuni was created in late 2014 to organize the aha, which was initially intended to include just 40 delegates who would be elected by Native Hawaiians. The election process was challenged in 2015 by a group arguing that because Hawaii residents without Native Hawaiian ancestry could not participate in the election, they were being denied constitutional rights.
In October, a U.S. district court ruled that the election was a private one and could proceed. The case is currently before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In December, the Supreme Court granted an injunction to the plaintiff group, comprised of both Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, and blocked election votes from being counted.
----------------
** Ken Conklin's note: After the Na'i Aupuni gathering voted in favor of adopting the constitution, there was a 15 minute recess followed by a final session. During that final session it was decided to approve the report of the International Committee. There was some discussion whether that report should be included with the constitution as a single document when there's a ratification election. My recollection is that the gathering voted to have it included with the constitution as a single document. However, publicity by "the establishment" is reporting only the constitution and not the committee report below.
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/?p=2349
Scott Crawford blog, February 27, 2016
Maunawili Declaration
From Prof. Williamson Chang's Facebook page
The Maunawili Declaration No. 1
Williamson Chang and the International Committee
The Maunawili I Declaration: The United States has permanently Occupied the dominion of the Kingdom of Hawaii in violation of International and United States Law
We, the undersigned declare the following:
"The Kingdom of Hawaii," is the name of the sovereign independent State which has been under the unlawful and continued occupation of the United States since 1900. Under such occupation, the United States exercises complete police power and control of the Hawaiian Islands.
The false belief that Hawaii was acquired by the United States has been kept alive by massive propaganda and deception whereby the United States acts "as if" it acquired Hawaii by a Joint Resolution. The occupation is unprecedented in that it has lasted for 116 years with no indication of termination.
Occupation under International Human Law must be temporary. The United States has never indicated that it will end the occupation of Hawaii.
Said occupation began on April 30, 1900, when the United States Congress passed "An Act to Provide a Government for the Territory of Hawaii" 31 Stat 141, which brought to an end the chaos created by the clash between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States as to whether Hawaii had actually been annexed.
Earlier, on July 7, 1898, the United States enacted a congressional Joint Resolution purportedly providing for the acquisition of the Hawaiian Islands and the taking of the public resources including the Crown and Government lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
The Republic of Hawaii resisted the imposition of the laws and constitution of the United States such [set forth in Maunawili 2] that the complete takeover by the United States was not effective until the Republic of Hawaii was driven into submission by the "Organic Act," the short name of the Government Act named above 31 stat 141 effectively terminated all sovereign powers of the Republic.
The Republic of Hawaii since 1898, refused to acquiesce in the occupation. This can be seen in 1899 by a letter of the special ambassador from Hawaii, A.S. Hartwell, to President Mckinley stating that the Joint Resolution had no binding effect on Hawaii:
"... that instrument [the joint resolution] failed to accomplish or become evidence of a session of Hawaii to the United States. ... Until such exchange or something equivalent to it [ratification of the treaty of 1897 by the United States] there could be no cession accomplished by mutual agreement."
The earlier Treaty of Annexation of 1897 failed, due to the massive Kue petitions of Native Hawaiians in opposition to the treaty. The treaty failed as the annexationists could not garner the necessary 2/3rds vote of the Senators present, as required by Article II of the United States Constitution,
Thereafter, the Mckinley administration sought to by-pass the 2/3rd requirement in favor of a joint resolution which required only a majority vote.
There was loud and vehement opposition in the United States Senate to the treaty asserting that no sovereign nation such as Hawaii could not be acquired by a joint resolution.
A simple act of Congress cannot replace a treaty. As Senator Allen stated, among many others, a Joint Resolution is merely a statute or act with no ability to reach out into the dominion of another government and annex that government and its territory:
"A joint resolution if passed becomes a statute law. It has no other or greater force. It is the same as it would be if it were en¬titled "An act" instead of "A joint resolution." That is its legal classification. It is therefore impossible for the Government of the United States, by statute or joint resolution, to reach across its boundary into the dominion of another government and annex that government or affect persons or property therein. But the United States may do so under the treaty-making power, which I shall hereafter consider,"
In conclusion, Hawaii is under permanent occupation by the United States in violation of the laws of occupation as set forth in the Hague and Geneva Conventions and their subsequent protocols, as well as the United States Supreme Court decision in Neely v. Henkel, 180 U.S, 109 (1901) and;
That Federal Recognition of Natives Hawaiians as an Indian tribe within Hawaii is unlawful as for Hawaii remains a foreign country to the United States, under both International and United States law, Neely v. Henkel 180 U.S. 109 (1901) and that the attempt to achieve that aim is a violation of the Hague and Geneva Conventions as an unlawful "regime change" under the laws occupation; and that;
That under this United States occupation the sovereignty of the underlying nation, as a sovereign state continues to exist as a Constitutional Monarchy under the Constitution of 1887 as affirmed by Queen Liliuokalani,
Therefore, the constitutions offered by this Committee are in essence, further amendments to the 1887 Constitution or the Constitution as prepared in 1999-2000; and that therefore are such Constitutions as submitted are, in essence, proposed amendments to the 1887 Constitution as the last legitimate Constitution affirmed by the monarch maintaining the continuity of sovereignty based on all Kingdom Constitutions since 1840, and furthers the continuity of sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands.
Williamson Chang for the International Committee
** Ken Conklin's note: A straightforward pdf copy of the "constitution of the Native Hawaiian nation" adopted by the Na'i Aupuni convention on February 26 is permanently available at
http://tinyurl.com/zegptkr
------------------
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2016-02-27/native-hawaiian-group-adopts-constitution-at-convention
U.S. News and World Report, February 27, 2016
A constitutional convention of Native Hawaiians has adopted a governing document that will go out to a vote for ratification, the organization behind the gathering announced
Associated Press
HONOLULU (AP) — A constitutional convention of Native Hawaiians has adopted a governing document that will go out to a vote for ratification, the organization behind the gathering announced.
The proposed constitution, approved Friday by an 88 to 30 vote with one abstention, allows room for recognition by the U.S. government while holding out for the possibility of independence, said Na'I Aupuni, an organization that says on its website it's dedicated to "establish a path for Hawaiian self-determination."
The U.S. Interior Department is giving Native Hawaiians an option to have a government-to-government relationship with the United States. The plan would extend to Native Hawaiians recognition similar to what many Native American tribes have had for generations. However, the department stresses that the Native Hawaiian government won't automatically be eligible for federal American Indian programs, services and benefits unless Congress allows it.
Under the proposed constitution, citizens of the Hawaiian nation would be any descendants of the indigenous people who lived in Hawaii before 1778, when the first Europeans made contact with the islands. It also says citizenship in the Native Hawaiian nation shall not affect U.S. citizenship. The government would be led by a president and vice president and advised by an island council, plus a legislature with 43 members representing the islands and Native Hawaiians, as well as a judicial authority.
The delegates to the convention were brought in by Na'i Aupuni. The proposed constitution will be presented to a vote by Hawaiians, Na'i Aupuni has said.
The Interior Department will negotiate the issue of recognizing Native Hawaiians as a nation with representatives of the community.
Opponents of the push for recognition by the U.S. government say it's a move to make Native Hawaiians like American Indians. They also say the effort does nothing to correct the wrongs of the overthrow of the Native Hawaiian government by a group of American businessmen in 1893.
"The attempt to establish a single race-based nation violates the Aloha Spirit and goes against the will of the majority of Hawaiians," said Kelii Akina, president of public policy think-tank Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
Money being used in this political process should be redirected to advance Native Hawaiians through education, housing, commerce, and health care, Akina said.
Until the 1893 overthrow, the United States recognized the Hawaiian nation's independence, extended full diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian government and entered into several treaties with the Hawaiian monarch.
The United States annexed Hawaii five years after the overthrow. Hawaii became a state in 1959.
-----------------
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/native-hawaiian-group-adopts-constitution-convention-37238506
ABC News, February 27, 2016
Native Hawaiian Group Adopts Constitution at Convention
By ASSOCIATED PRESS HONOLULU
A constitutional convention of Native Hawaiians has adopted a governing document that will go out to a vote for ratification, the organization behind the gathering announced.
The proposed constitution, approved Friday by an 88 to 30 vote with one abstention, allows room for recognition by the U.S. government while holding out for the possibility of independence, said Na'I Aupuni, an organization that says on its website it's dedicated to "establish a path for Hawaiian self determination."
The U.S. Interior Department is giving Native Hawaiians an option to have a government-to-government relationship with the United States. The plan would extend to Native Hawaiians recognition similar to what many Native American tribes have had for generations. However, the department stresses that the Native Hawaiian government won't automatically be eligible for federal American Indian programs, services and benefits unless Congress allows it.
Under the proposed constitution, citizens of the Hawaiian nation would be any descendants of the indigenous people who lived in Hawaii before 1778. It also says citizenship in the Native Hawaiian nation shall not affect U.S. citizenship. The government would be led by a president and vice president and advised by an island council, plus a legislature with 43 members representing the islands and Native Hawaiians, as well as a judicial authority.
The delegates to the convention were brought in by Na'i Aupuni. The proposed constitution will be presented to a vote by Hawaiians, Na'i Aupuni has said.
The Interior Department will negotiate the issue of recognizing Native Hawaiians as a nation with representatives of the community.
Opponents of the push for recognition by the U.S. government say it's a move to make Native Hawaiian like American Indians. They also say the effort does nothing to correct the wrongs of the overthrow of the Native Hawaiian government by a group of American businessmen in 1893.
Until the overthrow, the United States recognized the Hawaiian nation's independence, extended full diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian government and entered into several treaties with the Hawaiian monarch.
The United States annexed Hawaii five years after the overthrow. Hawaii became a state in 1959.
-------------------
https://www.facebook.com/groups/605307049601602/
Melissa Leina'ala Haa Moniz to KAI 'ULA
Shared by Pupuhihiwai Kim Kaui:, February 27, 2016
Williamson Chang, "Why I must reject the "Proposed Constitution Final
Version 2016"
[Distributed Friday February 26, 2016]
*The Process:*
1. I have been a law professor at the University Of Hawaii School Of Law
for the past 40 years. I have served longer than any existing member of the faculty. I have taught numerous courses, including Constitutional Law as a visiting Professor at the University of San Francisco. I have read hundreds of Supreme Court decisions, of both the Hawaii Supreme Court and the United States Supreme. I have experience in drafting legislation—I was the reporter responsible for the first drafts of the water code and was
co-chair of the Commission to Revise the Corporation Laws of Hawaii.
2. From such experience, and general common sense, I must vote "no" on the "up or down" vote on the Constitution before this 'Aha. In sum, this constitution is an example of the old joke" A camel is a horse *designed by committee**."*
3. The short time span, and the methods employed to reach the final draft, just do not rise to the level that would make this Constitution viable, useable, and respected constitution for the Native Hawaiian people. I wouldn't send it to other nations if asking for support and recognition.
4. It may serve the needs of those who seek simply a governing document that would be approved by the Department of Interior for the purpose of recognized some, but even then there are flaws Federally Recognized Tribe don't have the power to make treaties
5. It is clear that the whole process was undertaken under the shadow of an "offer" by the Department of Interior to create such a federally recognized tribe if, in their judgment appropriate governing documents were passed by this 'Aha.
6. This fact confused the purposes of the 'Aha. Was our purpose to draft a governing document that would, regardless of DOI approval would serve as a constitution for a future Nation of Hawaii? Or, was it to meet the DOI requirements for to produce a tribal constitution?
7. The gravest procedural error was that this question was not addressed as the first matter of substance of the'Aha. This issue actually did not become a visible conflict until Thursday February 25, 2016 when the 'Aha divided into along the lines of those who, with no section by section review would pass a unexamined and flawed document that had never been subject to full scrutiny as opposed to those, believing the Constitution was not driven by the DOI, were appalled that the Constitution might be past
in the last minutes of the second to the last session of the 'Aha; by which
1) there was little or no ability to discuss specific sections of the 'Aha or it general coherency,
2) where such contributions were limited to five minutes,
3) the Constitution had not been "accepted" by the 'Aha, as had the
committee reports,
4) the committee reports had not been adopted, depriving future decisions makers relying on the Constitution any legislative history to guide their future decisions
5) The rules requiring that a final version was to be submitted the day before any vote was substantially revised. The 1:30 pm draft differed from the morning draft. A Duplicative section was eliminated which contained new and redundant language. The Chair dismissed this as technical. It is not technical to those who litigate against the government.
6) the main retort against of those seeking more scrutiny was that anyone who had doubts or complaints had the earlier opportunity to attend all relevant committees
7) where the reality was that it was physically impossible to be everywhere at once, and if one did attend every committee meeting such traveling participants were surely to miss critical decision making moments in committee such as the final acceptance of the language to be submitted to the drafting committee
8) This meant that this Constitution was a constitution produced by
committee, like an animal produced by committee, by which no one could see the complete package until Thursday afternoon, upon which we were to immediately vote it up or down
9) This specifically denied the input of participants who could not attend all committee meeting at once -- meaningful input while the real decisions were made by those who stayed within their committee for days, ignoring other committees for the purpose of fighting in committee for the provisions, considered in isolation to the constitution at large, thus requiring their blind faith in the work of other committees in an immediate up or down vote.
7) In essence, this "speed dating" where travelling participants, doing as they were told, could, at best, gain only a glimpse of the intent and final language that would be included in the Constitution. Verbatim records were not kept in committee. There was no consistent tabulation as to who attended and the amount of time and as to what issues were debated at such times. The work of the committees were deliberately not televised. Why not,
the committee were the place where the constitution was really
settled -- given the unprecedented up and down vote, with limited discussion, as the basis for approval.
8) It has finally emerged that there exists a strong partisan segment that seeks to produce a document acceptable to DOI in order to establish a federally recognized tribe. The failure to openly admit this from the beginning of the 'Aha lead to
9) A completely skewed convention where a material fact was never disclosed to the participants. The bias was first clear during informational week--by which other points of view were never to receive the same amount of time for presentation or the prestige that the first week presenters claimed as "experts."
10) Bill Meheula completely ignored by plea that I be allowed to speak in the first week as the United States, through the Smithsonian Institute and invited me to give a one hour talk at the National Museum of the American Indian on "The Failure of the United States to acquire the Hawaiian Islands," at the museum on the Saturday, in Washington before the commencement of the 'Aha on Monday February 1, 2016. The URL website to
that presentation is:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list
PLS6nSmuURFJDaxcVyAi8gwZLEmGe70hzh,
11) If the United States thought I was worth a trip to Washington to be heard on a stepping stone to "Independence" I cannot see why such a presentation was not good enough to be part of the first week informational session in the 'Aha.
12) There was no desire to discuss specific sections in terms of language and future consequences. Colin Kipper's "ran through" of the sections on the morning of Thursday February 25, 2016 Indeed, it was a "run through," skipping key sections, ignoring the desire for debate and given this was the first examination of the complete Constitution, which would be altered by 1:30 of that same day.
13) Nobody would buy a used car if the terms were constantly changing. Yet the morning session on the final constitution, cut off by the Chair. In the afternoon the 1:30 p.m. version was expected to be read, understood, with all questions answered in 45 minutes. Objections to this "corrupt" process, a process originally designed for eight weeks was followed by t decision to limit discussion of specific sections to 5 minutes, as if language, sections, overall coherence, redundancy and significant omission, were
treated as if the people would be happy with this process. The 'Aha came together because a Constitution, proposed by our last Queen was the basis a world changing attempt at coup e'tat. Hawaiians have not participated in constitution making since 1893, the last moments of the Kingdom. 122 years later and one expects the delegates to read the constitution in 45 minutes
without the time for meaning questions? Why not limit comments to two minutes like the hearings iof the DOI whose newly proposed rule are the dark, never discussed, shadow over this 'Aha.
14) Apparently, DOI may willing to accept a "ham sandwich" as the
Constitution was written in such haste that it includes terms completely unacceptable to DOI such as the ability of the President to conduct foreign relations with other sovereign states—no tribe has such power---tribes are domestic dependent nations under foreign affairs power of the real sovereign—the United States.
15) I am perplexed by the lack of honesty by which that coalition did not make a presentation as to their goals, and the pros and cons of federal recogntion -- what would have been so dangerous about such openness and transparency? That pathway has never been discussed—leading, of course, to the worst of all assumptions, that the 'Aha was rigged, and set up for one purpose only. 'Aha had become agents of DOI, a defective instrumentality to create a governing body that was never disclosed.
16) What fear as to discussion on Federal Recogntion. At least the 'Aha could discuss how DLNR rules were are constrictive as to be completely at odds with the "pursuit of independence" as the DOI conditions prove no meaningful programs to better the quality of life of Hawaiians. Tell us how the DOI intends to strengthen the economy, provide low-cost health services, remove our people from foreign prison. DOI is so rigid it does not acquisition or control of lands; and the most demeaning of all, its rule nullify any legal actions for past wrongs. What fear in transparency
and discussion? All participants are entitled to know the complete facts as to the history of and background of this 'Aha
17) As participants, we have an obligation to all Native Hawaiians, not just to rubber stamp a plan hidden completely from the 'Aha. If Federal Recognition is so beneficial why wasn't there a single presentation of its benefits?
*Substantive: Where the Constitution needs Revision and Greater Discussion*
18) From the perspective of a law professor this is a weak product. It does not focus on the structure of the governing body. It is filled with aspirational goals [like a New Year's resolution to "lose weight"]
that emphasizing "trying" but not "success". The Constitution is often redundant. It shows little attention to the history of Hawaii to date. It is full of words whose meanings are ambiguous.
19) First, under this Constitution the government has only those powers that are enumerated. This is a deadly confusion with the federalism nature of the United States Constitution. The powers of the United States Congress are enumerated because the United States is a federation of sovereign states. The States retain all basic powers except those that they specially delegate to the Federal Congress and which are "necessary and proper" to
implement those powers. The retention of all powers not delegated is specified in the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- thus powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government do exist in the States -- like the power to define tort and property law.
20) The Constitution does not propose federalism and therefore the
government of the Kingdom of Hawaii is a dead duck unless it names every common law right. At present the Constitution is constrained only to those powers thought up in committee and none others.
21) The purpose clause: Too, long, too confusing, and too unclear. Purpose clauses play a critical role in determining how a court should interpret specific provisions of the constitution where there is ambiguity. What guidance, such as "to form a more perfect union" does the purpose clause provide? And why the endless reference throughout the constitution of "self-determination" such is clearly stated in International law? What thinking is behind the reference to "national self-determination"-when self-determination is always viewed as inherent in the individual?
22) What is the reaffirmation of the National Sovereignty of the Nation, namely what nation? Is there a Hawaiian nation that precedes this Constitution.
23) And the statement as to the "National Sovereignty of the Nation" -- this is clearly is ambiguous as there seems to be a lack of understanding between a sovereign state, and the lesser entity of a nation.
24) Tribes are dependent domestic nation accorded certain very limited sovereignty -- does the constitution mean that kind of limited sovereignty or does it mean the greater sovereignty of absolute state sovereignty?
25) Finally, there is no need to reserve all rights to sovereignty and
self-determination. Why reserve self-determination when it is the bedrock of much of international law. What kind of sovereignty is we speaking to? Are we referring to the Absolute sovereignty of a State [which makes no sense to reserve at this time] or the sovereignty of a federally recognized tribe [which we are not].
26) Why speak of "aspirations" -- we all have aspirations, to lose weight, or whatever, so our highest aspirations mean nothing about what we shall achieve. The same is true of "promise" -- where is this promise? From whom does it come? Are we subservient to such a delivery of such a promise?
27) And what of the "pursuit" of independence -- why would we be limited to its pursuit? Like a tour de France rider who is always in the pack -- that is 'pursuit." We shall attain "independence"
2. *Territory and Land:*
28) The boundaries of a nation are those recognized by other sovereign states and are derived historically by a chain of territorial sovereignty from previous Hawaii sovereignty. Did the committee look at the first claim, that of Kamehameha III:
"The jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Islands shall extend and be exclusive for the distance of one marine league seaward surrounding each of the islands of Hawaii, Maui, Kahoolawe, Lanai, Molokai, Oahu, Kauai and Niihau; commencing at low water mark on each of the respective coasts of said islands. The marine jurisdiction the Hawaiian islands shall also be exclusive in all the channels passing between the respective islands, an
dividing them, which jurisdiction shall extend from island to island."
Citing Second Act of Kamehameha III, April 27 1846, Part I Chapter VI, Article Il; See Memorandum of the Hawaii Statehood Commission [testimony of C. Nils Tavares] Relating to Proposed Amendments to S.49 March 10 1953.
The Republic of Hawaii followed suit, claiming what the Kingdom claimed, including the channel waters. The United States excluded the channel waters, and Palmyra at statehood, but the 1978 Constitution Convention, in violation of a condition of Statehood, section 7b of the Admission Act, added it back.
29) Upon my first visit to the Judicial Committee, the committee claimed the Universe and all countries of Earth: Do you think the states of the world would recognize that. The whole problem is the break in the chain of title by the Joint Resolution and the Organic Act. The territorial clause does nothing but proclaim all territory that belongs to the Hawaiian Nation -- again as if there were already a nation -- but not a nation continuing from the Kingdom of Hawaii, but a new nation free to do as it pleases.
*National and Official Languages and others issues*
30) Olelo and English are both official language, but which one prevails when they differ: See dissenting opinion of Justice Levinson in McBryde v. Robinson, 55 Hawaii 260 (1974)?
Rights of the Individual: Since the only rights are enumerated rights what about 1) the right to an indictment, 2) the right of cross examination; the abolishment of slavery, involuntary servitude, sexual trafficking, the right to collect taxes by the government, the right to a republican form of government?
31) What about any benefits accorded the citizenry by virtue of their
American citizenship -- this implies that the rights of American citizens, from immigration to bankruptcy, postal service, abortion, same sex marriages, the whole bill of rights, all commercial rights, banking rights and rights to issue securities also apply. By this section the American Constitution has been incorporated into the Hawaiian constitution
*Others: *
32) This could go on and on -- like how many Justices are on the Supreme Court? Are you going to leave that question to the legislature which can change the composition of the Court every year? The same to leaving to the legislature the right to determine the amendment of the constitution? Really? It could change every year?
33) These are some of my objections -- and explains why I am submitting this to you in hard copy. There is no way that this would fit within the five-minute rule [why not two minutes like the DOI hearings in 2014?) So I leave this with you in place of my testimony.
34) This is why, despite the hard work over four weeks, I will vote "No" on the approval of this constitution. The question whether it is a document of this 'Aha is confused by the failure to "accept" the Constitution and mostly because of the failure to adopt the Committee Reports. Without consent to such adoption -- where did this Constitution come from?
Respectfully Submitted
Williamson Chang
** Ken Conklin's note: A straightforward pdf copy of the "constitution of the Native Hawaiian nation" adopted by the Na'i Aupuni convention on February 26 is permanently available at
http://tinyurl.com/zegptkr
------------------
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/17008/Constitution-OHA-Cronies-Want-to-Run-Their-Own-Prison-System-Police-and-Judiciary.aspx
Hawaii Free Press, February 27, 2016
Constitution: OHA Cronies Want to Run Their Own Prison System, Police, and Judiciary
by Andrew Walden
After kicking out the vast majority of Native Hawaiians, OHA cronies calling themselves an 'Aha have today managed to write a so-called Constitution.
According to a 2:48pm tweet from OIWI TV, the only media outlet allowed to cover the 'Aha, the vote of the 119 assembled cronies was "88-30-1 to approve a new Hawaiian constitution." According to a January 6, 2016 news release from Nai Aupuni, 154 people were supposedly participating in the Aha which means that 35 of them could not be bothered to attend today's final session.
The constitution does not "restore" anything. Instead they have invented a constitution designed to set the stage for 'negotiations' to form a fake Indian tribe in a place where no tribe -- Indian or otherwise -- has existed in the 500 years since the Tahitians invaded what we now call Hawaii and established themselves as a feudal Ali'i ruling over the indigenous maka'ainana or commoners.
The tribal 'Constitution' envisions a judiciary, police and tribal prison system which instantly possesses legal jurisdiction over any poor souls foolish enough to sign up.
More profitably, the tribe would instantly possess jurisdiction over all land use decisions, thus obliterating Hawaii's stringent environmental and planning controls for any developer willing to incorporate himself and his property into the tribal domain.
In a statement released to media, Grassroot Institute President Keli'i Akina points out: "The attempt to establish a single race-based nation violates the Aloha Spirit and goes against the will of the majority of Hawaiians.
"This effort also violates the United States Constitution in that it has used public funds to establish a racially discriminatory process.
"Instead of wasting millions of public dollars on a divisive political movement, state government and Hawaiian leaders should use these financial resources to advance Hawaiians through education, housing, commerce, and health care."
-----------------------
Turtle Talk (blog of national news about legal issues affecting Indian tribes) publishes list of briefs filed in 9th Circuit court of Appeals in the case Akina v. State of Hawaii, with links to full text of each brief. The question is whether an election of delegates to the Na'i Aupuni tribal convention can be paid for by an agency of the state government in view of the fact that candidacy is racially restricted to ethnic Hawaiians only. The court has ruled that the lawsuit is not moot despite the fact that, following Supreme Court temporary restraining order, Na'i Aupuni chose not to complete the election and instead held a 4-week convention with all candidates for delegate being seated. The issue remains alive because now that the convention has produced a tribal constitution, there must be an election to ratify it.
https://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/ninth-circuit-briefs-in-akini-v-state-of-hawaii/
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Akini [sic-Akina] v. State of Hawai'i
Posted on February 29, 2016 by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Here:
Opening Brief
https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/opening-brief.pdf
Office of Hawaiian Affairs Brief
https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/office-of-hawaiian-affairs-brief.pdf
Na'i Aupuni and the Akamai Foundation Brief
https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/nai-aupuni-and-the-akamai-foundation-brief.pdf
Hawai'i Brief
https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/hawaii-brief.pdf
US Amicus Brief
https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/us-amicus-brief.pdf
Reply Brief
https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/reply-brief.pdf
---------------------
http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f9a371d0547f107d938233d66&id=eee7e42778&e=4a7cf86850
Grassroot institute of Hawaii, Press release, February 29, 2016
Grassroot Institute Says 'Aha Constitution Shows Importance of Lawsuit
Watchdog group says Native Hawaiian governing documents prove that concerns about a race-based nation are well-founded
HONOLULU, HAWAII -- February 29, 2016 -- Today, the Grassroot Institute expressed concerns about the provisions of the newly-crafted Native Hawaiian Constitution, offered by the 'Aha as the potential governing document for a new Hawaiian tribe. Pointing to the provision that bases membership in the tribe on race and blood quantum, Grassroot President Keli'i Akina explained that the draft Constitution demonstrates the importance of the ongoing lawsuit against the use of the Native Hawaiian Roll in a race-based election.
"It is disappointing to see that -- despite its claim to continue the legacy of the Native Hawaiian Kingdom -- this Constitution does not follow the inclusive spirit of the Kingdom, which was not racially-based," said Keli'i Akina, President of the Grassroot Institute, who is also a plaintiff in the suit. "The lawsuit against the Na'i Aupuni election is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and this Constitution shows that the issues in that suit are still very much alive. The race-based Hawaiian tribe it envisions will require another race-based election, and our challenge to the Constitutionality of that election is still strong."
Dr. Akina continued, "We have grave concerns about the legal claims in this document and plan to release a full analysis soon. In the meantime, however, the stubborn insistence on perpetuating an unconstitutional ratification or election that wastes millions of dollars is a betrayal of Hawaiian values and priorities. Instead of pursuing a political scheme that the Hawaiian people have clearly rejected, organizers should be looking at ways to help Hawaiians with the issues they care about most, such as housing, education, job training, and health care."
--------------------
http://www.civilbeat.com/2016/02/zuri-aki-the-promise-of-our-unity/
Honolulu Civil Beat, February 29, 2016
The Promise Of Our Unity
The Native Hawaiian Constitution isn't perfect. But it is a testament to our ability to achieve great things.
By Zuri Aki
It's been days since the Aha came to an end and a Hawaiian Constitution -- not the first, but arguably the first at this high level of prestige (in recent times) -- was adopted in the wake of an epic battle of consciousness.
Things are quiet right now, as I write this column in the solace of a hallway that I call a bedroom, in a dilapidated 1950s house which rests between upper Mililani Town and Wahiawa -- a place called Waipio valley.
I moved here, when I was in high school, to aid in the comfort and care of my ailing grandmother. Her kane, my grandfather, David Nalani Ka'apana, had passed away long before I was born and the only grandfather I ever knew, Raymond "Buddy" 'Aki, lived on the island of Kauai -- much too far for a child of Oahu to visit.
It's important for Kanaka Maoli to share pieces of their genealogy with others, because it is through our family that we find ourselves bound to one another. It sets the bar for our kuleana -- responsibility -- during our lifetime and the care we owe one another.
My kupuna, elders, were amazing; and it was here, in Waipio with my grandmother, that I was preparing for a war that I had never asked to be a part of. A war that every Kanaka Maoli, of Native Hawaiian, was born into and one that every Kanaka Maoli fights in, one way or another.
On The Shoulders Of Our Ancestors
My grandmother was frail, but she was the toughest person I knew. She was so light I could carry her in my arms. But the great weight -- the kuleana -- she carried for her ohana, her family, made her immovable. My grandmother taught me honor, courage, and compassion. And when she returned to be among her kupuna, she taught me unstoppable perseverance, justice, and the desire and determination always to fight for the good guys.
I walk by her room every day, knowing that I won't see her; but I know that she is with me.
"On behalf of my ancestors, who are with me today, I vote ... to this Constitution." This was the sentiment carried by the vast majority of Aha participants, both for and against adopting the Constitution.
There may have been more than 100 participants in the room, but standing behind and upon the shoulders of each and every one of us, were the lehulehu a manomano -- the countless -- Kanaka Maoli and non-Kanaka Maoli who are responsible for our existence.
Tearing Down That Wall
Things are certainly quiet now, much more quiet than what I have grown accustomed to; but only days ago, more than 100 participants, myself included, were engaged in a life-changing struggle that tore at the very depths of our naau, our emotional and spiritual core, and that challenged the very essence of our being. Loyalty was tested. Causes were questioned. And the future remained uncertain.
This was a battle Kanaka Maoli had been fighting since time immemorial, more so within the last 123 years than perhaps ever before. And we prevailed. We overcame a great wall that had divided us for far too long. We tore that wall down from both sides, but it was no easy task and it came with many sacrifices.
More than four years ago, I fiercely protested Kanaiolowalu (Native Hawaiian Roll). Kanaiolowalu was enrolling Kanaka Maoli for the purpose of nation-building. Many Kanaka Maoli, like myself, saw Kanaiolowalu as a process to force federal recognition.
I had an idea of what federal recognition meant. I was a Hawaiian Studies undergrad at the time; and I had rallied other like-minded Kanaka Maoli students against a process that "would make us an Indian Tribe."
I was (and still am) a proud Kanaka Maoli and to me, independence was the only way Kanaka Maoli could ever improve our condition and get the justice we so deserved. This was the narrative that we had subscribed to and it was a narrative that was being pushed by certain scholars with PhDs -- and for me that degree was enough validation.
I was eventually accepted into law school (shout out to William S. Richardson School of Law). I was receiving formal training in the very subject matter that Ph.D.s were discussing in their analyses of the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the Hawaiian Islands and the Hawaiian people, Kanaka Maoli.
Truth And The Struggle Against Oppression
I learned international law, war crimes and genocide, and the international protection of human rights because one scholar kept talking about the Hawaiian Islands being under "belligerent occupation." I learned federal Indian law because other scholars kept saying that they (the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Kanaiolowalu) were trying to make us an "Indian Tribe."
I learned that those scholars were wrong. For whatever reason they were saying it, they were wrong.
I learned the necessary criteria for identifying a belligerent occupation and realized that the Hawaiians Islands do not meet those standards set under international law. I learned that both the Ninth Circuit and Department of the Interior don't consider Kanaka Maoli an Indian Tribe, and that the negative use of "Indian Tribe" as a comparison for something we should be nothing like is an injustice to our cousins, who also have struggled against systematic oppression -- no different than us.
I had signed on to Kanaiolowalu in order to run as a candidate to the delegation for the then up-coming Nai Aupuni Aha, or convention. I wanted to be a strong pro-independence voice and I wanted to ensure that independence would not be precluded by the push for federal recognition.
Then, the lawsuit happened and the U.S. Supreme Court put a halt to the electoral process.
Determined, Nai Aupuni opened the Aha to every candidate -- more than 200 in total. Originally, the plan called for the convening of 40 delegates over the course of 40 days. With limited funding, the Aha was reduced to 20 days. By its commencement, there were roughly 150 participants, who would have to convene from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. each day. These were brutal conditions -- no doubt the reason why many thought that we would fail.
The Aha
I entered the Aha, firm in my cause to advocate my particular interest: independence. I knew that a constitution was to be drafted and the committees would be formed. I knew that I had to go from committee to committee and share my views to ensure that my interests were met.
I never would have guessed that by the week three of the Aha, I would be pushing my own interests aside in order to fight for the interests of everyone else.
I eventually found myself in the role of what many came to call "chief drafter" of the Drafting Committee -- the group responsible for putting together the Constitution.
It was through the Drafting Committee that the totality of every participant's existence was pushed. The totality of every participant's feelings, desires, aspirations -- their very lives -- came together in a cosmic collision that ultimately cooled and hardened into a 15-page document that we call the Native Hawaiian Constitution.
It is not perfect. It does not capture everything we want. It is, though, a testament to our ability as a people to prevail even under the most inhospitable of conditions, so long as we stand together.
And together we can achieve great things.
I was fortunate enough to see the power of our people in this endeavor.
I saw both defeat and triumph, sadness and joy, anger and love.
Healing The Wound
I saw many staunch federal recognition advocates, their faces buried in their hands, weeping uncontrollably at the prospect that their chances of protecting their families in the best way they knew how, through federal recognition, was lost because of the pro-independence language in the preamble. And I saw many staunch independence advocates holding them in their arms and weeping together with them, promising that everything will be all right.
I saw, through tears in their eyes, federal recognition advocates lay aside their interests to vote in favor of that pro-independence language. For them, healing the wound -- that great division between the Lahui Hawaii (Hawaiian Nation) -- was more important than federal recognition. And it was a great sacrifice that I shall never forget.
I saw us put aside our political differences, as well as our individual wants, in order to understand one another and realize that beneath it all, "our highest aspirations are set upon the promise of our unity."
To all my fellow participants, who I now regard as my family. I shall never forget you. Aloha.
-------------------
** Ken Conklin's online comment
Zuri Aki's essay tugs at the heartstrings. I watched the entire final day of the meeting (Friday February 26) on TV, and it was indeed moving to see each participant step forward to the microphone, often in tears of commingled sadness and pride, giving the names of family members, and invoking their genealogies of ancestors and future descendants whose weight they carried in their hearts as they finally gave their "'ae" or "'a'ole" to the document. And I saw that the participants in favor, and those opposed, spoke no nasty words, and apparently bore no rancor, toward people who had reached the opposite conclusion. Very touching.
But I'm struck by Zuri Aki's language and tone as he emerges from the meeting and faces the future. "... it was here, in Waipio with my grandmother, that I was preparing for a war that I had never asked to be a part of. A war that every Kanaka Maoli, of [sic - or] Native Hawaiian, was born into and one that every Kanaka Maoli fights in, one way or another." He sees himself as a warrior struggling against "systematic oppression." That attitude does not bode well for his own na'au, nor for the future of our multiracial society in Hawaii.
However sweet and beautiful was the resolution of differences during the four weeks of the Na'i Aupuni gathering, the result was an attitude of "us vs. them" warfare going forward -- those who have a drop of the magic blood vs. those who do not. As the preamble of the document says "[W]e join together to affirm a government of, by, and for Native Hawaiian people" and "affirm our ancestral rights and Kuleana to all lands, waters, and resources of our islands and surrounding seas." Wow! We're creating a government of the race, by the race, and for the race; and our government is going to take over the entirety of the Hawaiian islands. That is, indeed, a declaration of race war. If that's what he wants, that's what he will get.
The unity praised by Zuri Aki has nothing to do with the unity of all Hawaii's people (which is one of my own own primary goals along with equality under the law for all persons regardless of race). Zuri Aki's unity was a joining together of those whose main concern is how to protect a plethora of racial entitlement programs (the tribalists, whom I call racial separatists), alongside those who seek the ideal of the Hawaiian islands as an independent nation with racial supremacy for ethnic Hawaiians (whom I call the secessionists). We can have both, they all now agree. And screw everyone else who lacks the magic blood -- those foreign settlers (some with 8 generations in Hawaii) can stay here but only under our rulership. We'll start right now by getting federal recognition of our Hawaiian tribe in order to get legal protection for our racial entitlement programs, and then we'll build upon our growing wealth and growing political power to demand secession and reparations.
I believe most of Hawaii's people are opposed to racial entitlements, separatism, and secession. Indeed I believe most ethnic Hawaiians are also opposed to those things, as shown by the fact that only about 20,000 out of 580,000 ethnic Hawaiians actually signed the specific Kana'iolowalu racial registry leading to the Na'i Aupuni gathering, and only about 20% of ethnic Hawaiians ever signed onto any sort of racial registry during the entire 13 year period of Kau Inoa and Kana'iolowalu with expenditure of perhaps $20 Million for lobbying, advertising, and free T-shirts in Hawaii and throughout America. Mr. Aki is welcome to play the role of Kekuaokalani at Kuamo'o. He will lose the war, but die with the satisfaction of the warrior defending the old religion. The only question is how many other warriors, including Manono, will he take with him to the graveyard.
================
================
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
You may now
RETURN TO VIEW THE ENTIRE HISTORY FOR 2015 AND 2016
or
SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION BILL
or
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright 2016 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved
