Attorney Hayden Burgess Alias Poka Laenui Hawaiian Sovereignty Independence Activist Supports the Akaka Bill As a Way of Getting Federal Money While Continuing To Seek Independence

(1) Poka Laenui Commentary in the Maui News of March 15, 2005, repeated in the OHA newspaper for April 2005, supporting the Akaka bill as a way for ethnic Hawaiians to continue getting federal money even while continuing to seek total independence under “international law.” Plus earlier comments by Senator Akaka himself hinting that Hawai’i might someday become independent.

(2) Webpage written by Poka Laenui in August, 2003 describing the pros and cons of the Akaka bill. The reasoning in this webpage clearly leads to the conclusions stated in his March 15, 2005 commentary in the Maui News. This webpage remained on Poka Laenui’s website as copied on March 20, 2005.

(3) Webpage containing article by Poka Laenui claiming that the statehood of Hawai’i is not valid, published in the Honolulu Weekly newspaper on the occasion of the Statehood Day holiday in August 1997. This webpage remained on Poka Laenui’s website as copied on March 20, 2005.

(4) Poka Laenui openly and publicly says he has not paid federal or state income tax since 1979. He claims he is justified in not paying taxes because Hawai’i remains an independent nation under “international law.” He claims Hawai’i is under continuing belligerent military occupation by the United States, and Hawaiian nationals are under no obligation to finance that occupation.

(5) Following the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, on September 11, 2001, there was a great outpouring of American patriotism. Millions of people made a point of flying the American flag at home, on cars and trucks, and at work. Poka Laenui, as executive director of a mental health clinic in Wai’anae, refused to allow employees to fly the American flag at the clinic. When challenged by media and the public to explain his reasons, he deflected criticism by citing a clinic policy that political or religious symbols should not be displayed prominently at the clinic for fear of creating emotional disturbance to the clients; but he also caused an uproar by making public comments indicating his view that many people in Wai’anae do not recognize or support the United States.

(6) In 2001 the Senate of the Legislature of the State of Hawai’i unanimously passed a resolution challenging the legality under “international law” of the statehood vote of 1959, and asking the United Nations to deal with this situation. The principal author of this resolution was Poka Laenui. Full text of the resolution is provided.

NOTE: The Hawaiian sovereignty movement is characterized by two main viewpoints which are usually thought to be in conflict with each other: (a) Hawai’i should be restored as an independent nation recognized under international law, as in fact it was from 1826 to 1898 (but now should also have internal laws giving racial supremacy to ethnic Hawaiians under a theory of “indigenous rights”); (b) Ethnic Hawaiians should be given federal recognition as comparable to an Indian tribe and allowed to create their own race-based government (The Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill, also known as the Akaka bill). However, there is a strong and growing convergence of these two viewpoints. Both share a common core of beliefs: racial separatism, ethnic nationalism, anti-Americanism, and racial supremacy. The convergence of sovereignty viewpoints is clearly illustrated by the work of Poka Laenui. The theory is that the Akaka bill will protect the flow of federal dollars to racially exclusionary programs benefitting ethnic Hawaiians, as a form of reparations for the overthrow of the monarchy; even while ethnic Hawaiians continue to work for total independence through political action at the international level including the United Nations, the international court, and possible diplomatic relations with foreign nations. For further information about this convergence of Hawaiian sovereignty viewpoints, see:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/sepnatcommoncore.html

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=6890
The Maui News, Tuesday, March 15, 2005

I agree in full with Scott Crawford’s historical recitation of the multiplicity of races who made up the Hawaiian nation (Letters, March 9). I also agree in full with his conclusion that the Hawaiian nation should be able to arise again in the form of a nation state, i.e., independence from the United States of America.

Placed in contrast to those historical facts and preferred course of our Hawaiian nation, he makes the Akaka Bill an "either/or" proposition to independence. This is not so.

The Akaka Bill is a small, inadequate step to fully address the illegality of the overthrow and the wresting of self-determination from our Hawaiian nation. But it can be an important step to move us along that way, addressing the current social, educational, cultural and economic needs of our Native Hawaiian population, whether or not they elect to enlist in the cause of Hawaiian independence.

The passage of the Akaka Bill will in no way retard or thwart the struggle for sovereignty. Like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that was never meant to be the substitute for our independence, it could and has served to bring us one step closer to independence.

The times now call for a new framework in which to plan our future. Rather than the continued "either/or" approach, let us consider the the Akaka Bill as an "and" approach. We can accept the Akaka Bill and continue to strive toward our Hawaiian independence, historical justice and a brighter future.

** From Ka Wai Ola O OHA of April 2005 [monthly newspaper of the State of Hawai'i Office of Hawaiian Affairs] page 16, "Federal Recognition Forum"
http://www.oha.org/pdf/kwo05/0504/16.pdf

I support Hawaiian independence, but that doesn’t mean I must oppose the Akaka Bill. Yet I find too often those two positions being placed in opposition to one another. It’s part of that “or” syndrome: either Akaka or independence.

The Akaka Bill is not a substitute to the independent nation. It is a small, inadequate step to fully address the illegality of the overthrow and the wresting of self-determination from our Hawaiian nation. But it can be an important step to move us along that way. It can be an important step in addressing the current social, educational, cultural and economic needs of our native Hawaiian population, whether or not they select to enlist in the cause of Hawaiian independence.

The passage of the Akaka Bill will in no way retard or thwart the struggle for our sovereign nation. Like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that was never meant to be the substitute for our independence, it could, and has, served to bring us one step closer to independence. Instead of the Akaka Bill standing as an “or ” proposition to Hawaiian sovereignty, I see it as an “and” solution. Instead of dividing the causes among Hawaiian proponents between federal Native Hawaiian recognition vs. Hawaiian independence, such causes can be joined together. One is not exclusive of the other. We need not be divided on this issue.

The times now call for a new framework in which we plan our future. I can accept the Akaka Bill and continue to strive toward our Hawaiian independence. Hawaiians, whether defined by race or by national allegiance, can continue to march hand in hand toward our historical justice and our brighter future.

** Note: Senator Akaka himself has reached out to Hawaiian sovereignty independence activists and has hinted more than once, over a period of several years, that the Akaka bill could be a stepping-stone to eventual independence. The most recent hint was his speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate when formally introducing the Akaka bill on January 25, 2005. His speech contained the following pregnant passage: “As long as Hawaii is a part of the United States, however, I believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Hawaii's indigenous peoples.” This language was very carefully chosen, and repeats the same language from an earlier speech he gave in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on July 15, 2002. The 2002 speech is even more clear that the Akaka bill does not prevent future independence, and Senator Akaka is trying to enlist the support of the independence activists. In the 2002 speech he says: “Opposition to the legislation comes from two quarters: those who advocate independence for Hawaii, and those who ... characterize such legislation as race-based. ... As long as Hawaii is a part of the United States, the United States must fulfill its responsibility to Hawaii's indigenous peoples. ... Misinformation is being spread in Hawaii regarding this bill as precluding sovereignty for Native Hawaiians. This cannot be further from the truth. This legislation deals with the United States' legal and political relationship with Hawaii's indigenous peoples within the context of federal law. As I stated before, as long as we are Americans and as long as Hawaii is a part of the United States, I firmly believe the United States must fulfill its responsibility towards its indigenous peoples.” Documentation for both speeches can be found at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/Akaka012505SpeechRed.html

The Akaka/OHA Process -

What it is; what it is not; and what it needs.

By Poka Laenui

86-226 Farrington Hwy.

Wai`anae, HI 96792

plaenui@pixi.com

http://www.opihi.com/sovereignty

Prepared for

Hawaiian Federal Recognition Forum

Where do you Stand?

Thursday, August 7, 2003

Jefferson Hall, East-West Center, UH Manoa

What it is

What it is not

Limited to Native Hawaiian as Native Americans, thus the name “Native Hawaiian Recognition Act” - Akaka/Stevens Bill. It Addresses only Indigenous Peoples’ Rights.

Fails to address Hawaiian Nationals and their rights (Historic and Immigrant rights) or the “inherent sovereignty” right of the native Hawaiian people as a descendant-right from the illegal overthrow,

Based within a colonial framework

Falls short of addressing Human Rights found within an international framework

Suggests protection of specific native Hawaiian benefit programs - Hawaiian Homes program, 5(f) lands entitlements, OHA, and 12 specific categories of services including health care, education, employment & training, economic development, . . . It would also impact upon challenges against private entities such as Kamehameha Schools and other Ali`i trusts as well as non-profit organizations focusing upon or limited to Native Hawaiian people.

Fails to address the opportunity to form or reemerge as an independent Hawaiian nation/state

Creates the opportunity to form a semi-autonomous government, currently with undefined powers, to relate directly to the Federal government without the intervention of the State of Hawaii

-Creates

i) in Hawaii, an interim governing council followed by

ii) a Native Hawaiian Governing Entity, and

iii) in the Federal bureaucracy, the U.S. “office” for Native Hawaiian Relations and.

iv) an interagency coordinating group;

- the “office” is to carry out the call under the Apology Resolution for reconciliation, with or without a Native Hawaiian governing entity;

- the “office” to implement the government consultation provision of ILO Convention 169 regarding activities of the government which would have potential to significantly affect native Hawaiian resources, rights, or lands;

- the interagency coordinating group pulls together Federal agencies for a cohesive program of activities relating to Hawaiian matters

Fails to incorporate an adequate ratification process by the Native Hawaiian people. In essence, this Federal Recognition process creates it’s own roll of those supportive of recognition and gives itself its own claim for legitimacy. It is no different from many other organizations, “nations”, governments, and ohana declaring themselves to represent the native Hawaiian people, the Hawaiian nation, the national government, etc. through a self-declaration process. Although much better financed, this process is on the same level of legitimacy as the many other self-proclaimed sovereignty governments, nations, reinstated state, or whatever other name they chose to cloth themselves.

It falls short, in comparison with the plebiscite question placed by the Native Hawaiian Elections Commission asking the people if they supported the process of electing delegates to a Native Hawaiian Convention for the purpose of developing and proposing a form of Hawaiian governance.

Uses a very liberal native Hawaiian definition of those eligible to participate in this process, eliminating the U.S. citizenship requirement or the U.S. territorial residence requirement, employing a definition very similar to the Native Hawaiian Convention’s election. It calls for the development of a “roll” and after settlement by “publication” of the roll, it seals the eligible participants in all referenda and elections dealing with the “reorganization” of the governing entity.

No clear assurance that the entities created under this act will not participate in a sovereignty extinguishment process.

Uses good language for Native Hawaiian governance within the U.S. system which does not now exist.

No clear assurance that the Feds will not twist or misconstrue this process as consent to extinguishment of sovereignty.

“Claims - Nothing in the act serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States.”

Does not create an independence option.

What it needs -

1) Opportunity of the native Hawaiians to support independence;

2) Opportunity of non-native Hawaiian nationals to participate in the process of independence;

3) Security of an international umbrella if independence is also an option selected;

4) Assurance of equal financial resources for development/implementation of the independence model.

5) Ratification of a Federal Recognition process open to all native Hawaiians wanting to participate.

Conclusion:

There are numerous merits to be found in the Federal Recognition process. It is a historic document which would protect many of the native Hawaiian programs and may be used to support further programs. It is not only a strong philosophical statement of the rights of the native Hawaiian people, but it also creates a specific process for putting that statement into action, both on the side of the people and the Federal government. If it succeeds, it would eliminate, to a great extent, the threats of the anti-native Hawaiian attacks.

But the Federal Recognition process continues to leave a lot to be desired. It remains perceived as an integration process. A reading of the Akaka bill may not support such a conclusion, but there seems to be enough wiggle room within the document so as to create a reasonable fear, especially when linked to U.S. conduct against its already “protected” Native Americans. That fear factor is a major obstacle.

To alleviate such fears, and to truly address the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people who have suffered as a result of the U.S. complicity in the overthrow of the Hawaiian nation/state, there should be:

1) an opportunity of the native Hawaiians to support independence;

2) an opportunity of non-native Hawaiian nationals to participate in the process of independence;

3) security of an international umbrella if independence is also an option selected;

4) assurance of equal financial resources for development/implementation of the independence model;

5) a ratification procedure in which the broad native Hawaiian community may join in the approval/disapproval of the Federal Recognition process.

The creation of a parallel process should take an inclusive approach such that the native Hawaiians may support either the Federal Recognition process or the option for promoting Independence, or both.

The selection of both processes is not a contradictory choice. It is a statement that the voter does indeed support the positive statement contained in the Akaka/Stevens bill process. It also says, however, that the voter wants to be clear that he is not willing to forego his international rights and the rights of his fellow non-native Hawaiian nationals to forge an independent Hawaiian nation/state.

The Native Hawaiian Convention (Aha Hawaii `Oiwi - AHO) has already gone through those essential steps the Federal Recognition process proposes. It has gone through ratification by native Hawaiians to a convention process; delegate selection to propose a governmental form; and a convention proposing two governmental formats - independence (incorporating non-native people as well) & integration similar to the last stages of the Federal Recognition process. Adapting the AHO independence product to the Federal Recognition process would broaden the scope of Hawai`i’s self-determination and answer the concerns over the independence questions. It would broaden the opportunity for greater participation & support of Hawaiian self-determination.

Poka Laenui

Authored by P_k_ Laenui and published in the Honolulu Weekly, Honolulu, Hawai`i to coincide with the observation of Statehood Day in Hawai`i. Permission for publication by the American Friends Service Committed hereby granted.

Hawaiian sovereignty activist Hayden Burgess, alias Poka Laenui, takes the position that all persons of Hawaiian native ancestry are subjects of a de jure independent nation; and all descendants of immigrants naturalized into the Kingdom before 1893, or descendants of people born in Hawai'i before 1893, are also subjects of that independent nation. Furthermore, he advocates the view that newcomers to Hawai'i can become citizens of this independent nation if they live in Hawai'i long enough, take an oath of loyalty, give up citizenship in other nations (like the U.S.), and register themselves in some way (as by placing their names on his secret regisrty).

For many years Hayden Burgess has been advocating his theories on radio, the internet, and television, including his view that citizens of the Nation of Hawai'i should not owe taxes to the federal or state governments. For his general views about Hawaiian history, citizenship, and sovereignty, see http://www.opihi.com/sovereignty/ And for his particular arguments regarding income tax and lack of U.S. jurisdiction in Hawai'i, scroll down to the section on "taxation" which includes documents submitted by him in court in his role as attorney for a defendant in a tax case.

Hayden Burgess's constant vicious attacks on the U.S., and the "illegal" State of Hawai'i, are particularly pernicious in view of his position as executive director of a mental health clinic in Wai'anae where he probably receives large federal and state grants and service contracts which pay his salary, and where he sits on the board of directors of a newly established Hawaiian culture immersion charter school under State of Hawai'i taxpayer funding. But, of course, he probably rationalizes taking taxpayer money from federal and state governments as a small part of the enormous reparations owed by those governments for the overthrow and for more than a century of hostile military occupation of his homeland.

Hayden Burgess, alias Poka Laenui, has made public statements for many years regarding his own non-compliance with federal and state income tax laws. For example, he made such statements repeatedly in his regular Saturday night radio program on April 17, 2004, during the hour from 7 PM to 8 PM, on Honolulu radio station KWAI AM 1080. He introduced the topic by mentioning that the income tax deadline of April 15 had just passed, so it's timely to discuss this topic. He referred to the United States as an illegal occupier of Hawai'i. His theory is that the United States lacks jurisdiction in Hawai'i because the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i in 1893, with U.S. assistance, was illegal; and because the Annexation of Hawai'i to the United States in 1898 was illegal, and because the Statehood vote of 1959 was illegal. Therefore Hawaiians of native ancestry, and descendants of non-natives who were natural-born or naturalized subjects of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, do not owe allegiance to the United States and are under no obligation to finance the continuing illegal belligerant occupation of their homeland by the United States. He also says that the State of Hawai'i is not a legitimate government, being a puppet regime of the illegal occupier U.S. government. He does not exactly advise other people not to pay taxes, saying that that is something each individual must decide for himself in consultation with family members. But in response to a caller who asked him specifically whether he follows his own theory, he clearly stated that he has not paid federal or state income tax since 1979, and he also said that he has stated that repeatedly and publicly for many years. During the program he also spoke admiringly about the Honolulu bus drivers who were recently indicted for non-payment of income tax based on the same theory (see below).

On January 8, 2005 Hawaiian sovereignty independence activist Hayden Burgess, alias Poka Laenui, published a letter to editor saying that Hawai’i is an independent nation occupied by the foreign power United States; and therefore the people of Hawai’i do not owe taxes to the federal or state governments to pay for the financing of their own colonization.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Jan/08/op/op10pletters.html
Honolulu Advertiser, Saturday, January 8, 2005
Letters to the Editor

Judge Michael Wilson misstates the interrelationship between Hawaiian sovereignty and one's taxpaying obligation ("Tax protester gets a year in jail," Dec. 30).

Ken Kobayashi reports "Wilson said taxes financed (John) Souza's public school education, his pay in Army and the Fire Department and partly the pension he gets. Souza doesn't have to like paying taxes, but should show 'the courage to pay your taxes, even though you don't like it,' Wilson said."

The deeper question is, "Who gave the state or U.S. government the right in the first place to impose itself as the sovereign entity over Hawai'i?" We Hawaiian nationals have no qualms about paying taxes to our rightful Hawaiian government. But through the invasion of Hawai'i and the participation in the theft of our territory and government, the United States, contrary to international law (as well as its own and Hawaiian domestic laws), imposed itself in our lands, making Hawai'i its colony.

Now, through taxation, it requires that we finance our own colonization, paying for its military, which has compelled our service for its wars and for its public education, which has participated in the brainwashing to make Hawaiians into Americans.

Judge Wilson and his judicial system complete the cycle of colonization by trying to legitimize the theft and punish those who are willing to stand firm in their conviction to righteousness.

Following the terrorist attack on America of September 11, 2001, there was a great upsurge of patriotism throughout America, including Hawai'i. Many people began flying the U.S. flag on their homes, cars, and businesses as a way of showing their patriotism.

Controversy erupted when a Hawaiian nationalist independence activist refused to allow employees to fly the U.S. flag at a mental health clinic he runs in Wai'anae, an area where most residents are ethnic Hawaiians. Angry employees called the media. Hayden Burgess, alias Poka Laenui, who is the director, made a statement that many residents of the area do not feel any allegiance to the United States. That comment provoked a further outpouring of angry comments from people throughout Hawai'i, including patriotic ethnic Hawaiians living in Wai'anae. Interestingly, the clinic is heavily dependent upon money received from the federal government, which Poka Laenui says is engaged in a 109-year illegal military occupation of his homeland of Hawai'i, and money received from the State of Hawai'i which he says is an illegal puppet regime. Here is part of a newspaper article from the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper of September 26, 2001 describing the controversy:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Sep/26/ln/ln12a.html

WAI'ANAE — Hayden Burgess, the executive director of the Wai'anae Coast Community Mental Health Center, says his decision not to allow American flags to be flown at the center in response to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington is based on a long-standing policy against displaying any political or religious symbols, not his personal beliefs. But Burgess, also known as Poka Laenui, is a veteran Hawaiian activist and has angered many in the rural community with his public comments that many people in Wai'anae feel no allegiance to the United States. Sen. Colleen Hanabusa, D-21st (Barbers Point, Makaha), said such comments are ridiculous. "It makes everybody look so bad out here," Hanabusa said. "That is not the way we feel. If he is speaking for himself, that is fine, but don't try and speak for everybody on the coast." The clinic, a nonprofit facility serving the mental health needs of children and adults in the community, was flooded with angry phone calls yesterday. Leeward resident Celeste Lacuesta, who is Hawaiian and has a son in the Navy, and several others spoke during the center's board of directors meeting last night. Residents said they are proud of their country and felt that Burgess' remarks hurt the community. Burgess said his comments were taken out of context and he did not intend to speak for all of Wai'anae. Richard Bettini, executive director of the Wai'anae Coast Comprehensive Health Center, a separate organization not affiliated with the mental health center, said they have no policy against displaying American flags and many were put up at the facility the day after the attack with the full approval of the employees. "From what I have seen, and we are the largest employer on the Wai'anae coast, there is a tremendous level of patriotism amongst our employees and the majority are from the Wai'anae Coast," Bettini said. "There are a lot of people really upset."

An internet discussion board was established by the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper, and received hundreds of posts in 16 discussion threads. The discussion board on this topic has now been taken down, but formerly had the URL:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/board/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=82

HCR59

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES	H.C.R. NO.	59
TWENTY-FIRST LEGISLATURE, 2002
STATE OF HAWAII

As that resolution worked its way through various committees, those committees produced reports that accompanied the resolution to the next committee or to the floor of the Senate. Below are excerpts from some of those committee reports, and the URL where the full report can be seen at the Legislature's website.

Your Committee finds that on November 23, 1993, the United States Congress adopted and the President of the United States signed Public Law 103-150, thereby confessing to a list of events violating the rights of self-determination to the Hawaiian Kingdom and apologizing to the Native Hawaiian People for the complicity of the United States in such events which resulted in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Also in 1993, the Legislature enacted Act 354, Session Laws of Hawaii 1993, acknowledging the actions of the United States were illegal and immoral, and pledging its continued support to the native Hawaiian community by appropriating funds for the development of programs and curriculum to educate the general public about Hawaiian sovereignty through a purchase of service contract with Hui Na'auao.

Partly through this educational process, it has become more and more apparent that the events that brought Hawaii into union with the United States were of questionable legality and morality. It has also been made clear that the standards of international law and the obligations of the United States under the Charter of the United Nations had not been fully complied with at the time the 1959 vote on Hawaii's statehood was taken.

In 1959, when the Statehood Vote was put to the people of Hawaii, the choices given to the people did not include choices for independence from or free association with the United States of America. The only option provided was to accept or reject integration into the United States, in the form of a State of the Union, or as a territory of the United States.

When the United States Congress acted upon Hawaii's election to become part of the United States, a serious question was raised as to whether or not that act was consistent with the fulfillment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 66 of the United Nations.

Your Committee believes that these fundamental questions should be answered if the process of self-determination for the Native Hawaiian people is to move forward in a cogent manner.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Hawaiian Affairs that is attached to this report, your Committee concurs with the intent and purpose of S.R. No. 98 and recommends that it be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

Two further committee reports were later produced, which were essentially the same:

The status report for SR98 indicates that it was SR98 that actually got certified copies transmitted to the U.S. government and to the United Nations in 2001. Both the resolution and the report were adopted by the entire Senate, and forwarded to the House, where time ran out. Here is the status report of SR98 from 2001, including the votes cast by two of the committees (Hawaiian Affairs, and Judiciary):

3/28/01 S Resolution scheduled to be heard by HAW on 04-05-01 at 2:30 p.m. in conference room 016.

4/5/01 S The committee(s) on HAW recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, UNAMENDED.

4/5/01 S The votes in HAW were as follows: 3 Aye(s): Senator(s) Chun, Kokubun, Chun Oakland; Aye(s) with reservations: None; 0 No(es): None; and 2 Excused: Senator(s) Hanabusa, Hemmings.

4/6/01 S Notice of public decision making by JDC on 04-09-01 at 9:15 a.m. in conference room 229.

4/6/01 S Reported from HAW (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 1574), with recommendation of referral to JDC. Report adopted and referred to JDC.

4/9/01 S The committee(s) on JDC recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, UNAMENDED.

4/9/01 S The votes in JDC were as follows: 5 Aye(s): Senator(s) Kanno, Fukunaga, Kokubun, Nakata, Slom; Aye(s) with reservations: None; 0 No(es): None; and 4 Excused: Senator(s) Matsuura, Chun, Hanabusa, Ihara.

4/12/01 S Reported from JDC (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 1624) with recommendation of adoption.

The standing committee report on the resolution from the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, that accompanied the resolution to the Senate President and to the full Judiciary committee

Your Committee believes that these fundamental questions should be answered if the process of self-determination for the Native Hawaiian people is to move forward in a cogent manner.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Hawaiian Affairs that is attached to this report, your Committee concurs with the intent and purpose of S.C.R. No. 138 and recommends that it be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

Following the vote by the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, the resolution was heard by the Committee on Judiciary, which reported it out accompanied by the following report:

In 1959, when the Statehood Vote was put to the people of Hawaii to make a choice, the choices did not include independence from or free association with the United States of America. The only option provided was to accept or reject integration into the United States, in the form of a State of the Union, or as a territory of the United States.

Another issue is whether or not the United States Congress acted to fulfill the human rights and fundamental freedoms pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 66 of the United Nations.

Your Committee agrees with the Committee on Hawaiian Affairs that these fundamental questions should be answered if the process of self-determination for the Native Hawaiian people is to move forward in a cogent manner.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Judiciary that is attached to this report, your Committee concurs with the intent and purpose of S.C.R. No. 138 and recommends its adoption.

3/28/01 S Resolution scheduled to be heard by HAW on 04-05-01 at 2:30 p.m. in conference room 016.

4/5/01 S The committee(s) on HAW recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, UNAMENDED.

4/5/01 S The votes in HAW were as follows: 3 Aye(s): Senator(s) Chun, Kokubun, Chun Oakland; Aye(s) with reservations: None; 0 No(es): None; and 2 Excused: Senator(s) Hanabusa, Hemmings.

4/6/01 S Notice of public decision making by JDC on 04-09-01 at 9:15 a.m. in conference room 229.

4/6/01 S Reported from HAW (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 1573), with recommendation of referral to JDC. Report adopted and referred to JDC.

4/9/01 S The committee(s) on JDC recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, UNAMENDED.

4/12/01 S Reported from JDC (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 1623) with recommendation of adoption.

	OFFERED BY:	_____________________________

Attorney Hayden Burgess Alias Poka Laenui Hawaiian Sovereignty Independence Activist Supports the Akaka Bill As a Way of Getting Federal MoneyWhile Continuing To Seek Independence

Attorney Hayden Burgess
Alias Poka Laenui
Hawaiian Sovereignty Independence Activist
Supports the Akaka Bill
As a Way of Getting Federal Money
While Continuing To Seek Independence