FREE HAWAII

FREE HAWAII

Hi Mahalo and Princess Carmen. Thank you for entrusting me with this. I find your question more interesting than I imagined before, and though somehow complicated, you need not worry at all because I am here for you. I would also love to see you ascend to the throne as the Queen of the Hawaiian Kingdom if this quest has eventually succeeded, and the Kingdom ultimately restored.

I will respond to your questions numerically as you asked them, and my legal advice will come handy as I answer every question.

1. Why exactly was the motion to dismiss granted?

The reasons are crystal clear as per the ruling delivered on November 7, 2019, where the court found in favor of the defendant who brought a dismissal motion against your petition. The court on its discretion considered the defendant’s motion as having merit because you lacked standing, you didn’t include a claim in which the relief sought would be granted, and finally that you raised politically non-justiciable issues in your petition. Those are the reasons why that motion was allowed, and the only question to answer is that did the court find it right, or it was misled by the already existing precedents in the same matter and or by other external interference? All that we are going to deal with in your second question.

2. Why do I never have any standing?

As a plaintiff who takes the case to court to seek relief, there are a few tests he/she must pass to have the locus standi. Locus standi or standing in the legal context means a particular interest you have in the subject matter of the action. Where are you placed in the crisis, how proximate are you to the cause of action? The following are some of the tests for locus standi;

• Something to lose the doctrine

This doctrine espouses that you must be directly linked to the adverse effects of that particular action in question, and the harm will continue to reach you If the Court does not intervene or grant you the relief you are seeking.

• The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which he/she is petitioning the court but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to his/her situation and the people around and the damage may affect others who might not be able to ask court for relief, and he/she represent them.
• Automatic standing by an act of law

Now in your case, I am more than convinced that you indeed had a legal reputation in this matter and by allowing the dismissal motion against your petition was a travesty of justice and a stupid move by the court since you adduced exhibits that tended to prove your closeness with the case in hand. For some unknown reason, the court seemed to have overlooked that critical evidence. Another implied reason that the court paid no attention to was the fact that you went to court with clean hands and as a de jure representative of the Hawaiian aboriginal people to seek relief on their behalf for the continued wrongs that the US has been afflicting on the Hawaiians and its resources. This gave you an automatic standing in the suit, and the court ought to have heard you to the conclusion and otherwise disallow the dismissal motion.

3. How can I prove to stand?

Only by adducing more evidence to the court that shows you are indeed a true descendant of King Kamehameha and the apparent heir of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Courts tend to rely more on evidence and the surrounding facts that will actually aid them to reach a just verdict. I understand you have had a quest to prove your genealogy and there are more publications about the Kingdom of Hawaii which are way factual. This can all be adduced in court as attempts to prove this vital fact, and it really will increase your odds as far as this proof is concerned. Once this is done, the remaining aboriginal Hawaiians will have a representative who they will believe can pursue their rights on their behalf. However, the only important fact that we cannot ignore is how the courts will behave over this petition, given its gravity on the American political sphere. Expect a system that will come out strongly and forcefully to water down all your efforts since they know how they illegally acquired the Hawaiian territory, repressed its culture, and killed its native language ultimately. But you can do it, you have all legal rights, it can be only denied, and justice miscarried for they will see it as a journey to secession that you are starting up.

4. How can I prove injury to my property

This question deals with so many applicable laws of the United States and The Hawaiian state laws. Who owns the Hawaiian land now? Is it communal as it was then before the American invasion? Is it now held in trust?  These are some of the questions we have to delve into to answer your question.

Some laws were passed to regulate land ownership in Hawaii immediately America took control of the territory. These were among others; Hawaiian Homes Commission Act No. 14 of 1920 (HHCA), and this gave birth to the Hawaiian Homes Commission as a federal agency and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands as a state agency that regulated the use and ownership of land in Hawaii.

The US federal government owns all the Hawaiian land in trust and claims that by right, they can sue for any breach of trust. It, therefore, holds the “perfect” title of all the Hawaiian land as from March 18, 1959, when Hawaii became a state of the United States officially following a referendum. This impliedly means that the Hawaiian Kingdom issues can never be entertained contemporarily since, to them, it is extinct and defunct. The HHCA provided or Limitation of Actions with regards to any claim that can arise from lad use and ownership; section 13. Section 673-10 of Hawaii revised statute was amended to read as follows; “every claim arising under this chapter shall forever be barred unless the action is commenced within two years after the cause of action first accrued, provided that this statute of limitations shall be tolled until July 1, 1990”… and further Section 15. Section 674-19 states that “every claim cognizable under this part shall forever be barred unless the action is commenced by September 30, 1999”.

This means that any claim to right of ownership of land parcels within Hawaii was already precluded by the limitation of actions statute. Proving successfully that your property in land has suffered irreparable damage will be a tall order. In another similar suit being the case of Hawaii v Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Alito J made the matter of land even more complex and unresolvable by stating in his ruling that the court had no jurisdiction over Hawaiian law and only further litigations can answer the question of absolute title ownership in Hawaii. Yet, it is a known fact that the court tried to evade at all cost.

You will have to prove to the court that this land that has suffered injury over time is your own by any iota of right or semblance, and the only way to do it merely proving your genealogy that will place you as the apparent heir of the Hawaiian throne.