Saturday, October 8, 2016

Special Post - Re: Kingdom of Hawaii/Hawaiian Kingdom Legal Notice 2016-1008: Reviewing the Article Documenting President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani

Image result for hawaiian flag - red stripe first 
 

 

  
U.S. President Barrack Obama
Secretary of State  
Judges, et. als. in the Hawaiian Islands
Many Interested others


Greetings, 

            Special Post - Re:  Kingdom of Hawaii/Hawaiian Kingdom Legal Notice No.  2016 - 1008:  REVIEWING THE ARTICLE DOCUMENTING PRESIDENT CLEVELAND GAVE HAWAII BACK TO QUEEN LILIUOKALANI or Why the U.S. Has No Jurisdiction/ Moves on Illegal Sham Set ups in the Kingdom of Hawaii and Actively Pirates, Pillages, Perpetuates Fraud, Genocide, etc. Since 1893 till Today and Has No Jurisdiction, No Land Ownership, etc.

                                                                by Amelia Gora, a Royal person (2016)


Let us review the  the Article:
1897. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani.

- Article posted 1904 in the New York Times.


P1050255.JPG
DRIVE.GOOGLE.COM
Timeline:

1897 - Opposition to Annexation was documented by Queen Liliuokalani and approximately 40,000 subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii. 

Note:  Only 21,000+ signatures in Opposition to Annexation was found in Washington.
Queen Liliuokalani documented that she was not able to send out letters because treasonous persons blocked her mailings.  This also means that Queen Liliuokalani was not able to receive letters from abroad, including letters from U.S. President Cleveland, etc.

1897 - U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani.

1897.  U.S. President Cleveland left office.  U.S. President McKinley succeeded him.

1898. “Sen. A.O. Bacon of Georgia [1898]…: “Under the law of the equal sovereignty of states, one independent and sovereign nation such as the United States cannot take another nation, such as Hawaii, by means of its own legislative act.”

 “The inability of President William McKinley to garner the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify the Treaty of Annexation of 1897 led the administration to seek annexation by a mere act of Congress — a joint resolution. The administration could pass a joint resolution but not a treaty. This is precisely why McKinley attempted to annex by joint resolution." - Williamson Chang 

Reference:  

https://kauilapele.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/prof-williamson-chang-u-hawaii-honolulu-civil-beat-3-7-15-on-annexation-of-hawaii-scalia-fails-constitutionality-test/

https://www.amazon.com/Hawahan-Annexation-Georgia-Classic-Reprint/dp/1331398592

1899.  Under U.S. President McKinley, the United States of America became two (2) Nations:  The United States and the American Empire.

Reference:  PEACOCK vs. REPUBLIC OF HAWAII, (1899), HAWAIIAN REPORTS, Supreme Court Law Library/Archives/Main Library, Honolulu, Hawaii

1900 - The Territory (of Hawaii) was developed by the Army, Navy, and Federal Officials.

Reference:  THE HONOLULU STAR BULLETIN, Preview Article to the 40th Year Celebration of the Territory of Hawaii, December 1939 and January 1940, Honolulu, Hawaii.

1901-1908.  Cleveland retired to his home in Princeton, New Jersey, and served as a trustee of Princeton University until his death. 

1904. In debates, Representative Hitchcock - said the Army and Navy was spending $2 of every $5 Tax dollar.

Note:  It was U.S. President McKinley who was the Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and Federal officials.  It was under the Administration of McKinley who perpetuated crimes against Queen Liliuokalani and her 40,000 subjects.

           All of the U.S. Presidents through Obama perpetuated Piracy(ies), Pillaging, Genocide, Racketeering, Deceit, Frauds, etc. against a neutral, friendly nation who did no wrong.
1903 -1905.  Hitchcock was a representative for Nebraska's 2nd congressional district.

Representative Arthur Bates - said that Cleveland is on record of giving Hawaii Back to
Queen Liliuokalani and was proposing that Aguinaldo be given back the Phillipines

1903 -1905  representative for Pennsylvania's 25th congressional district.    

Cleveland refused overtures from his party to run again for the presidency.  
The news article appeared in the 1904 newspaper, THE NEW YORK TIMES

Reference:  http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9406E5D6153AE733A25752C2A9649C946597D6CF


1907.  Cleveland's health began to fail rapidly at the end of 1907

1908. Cleveland died of a heart attack at the age of 71 on June 24, 1908. 

According to two of Cleveland’s biographers, his last words were, “I have tried so hard to do right.”

Reference:  http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/grover-cleveland

1912 - The Bernice Pauahi Trustees/Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estates Trustees/KSBE Trustees deeded lands of Pearl Harbor, etc. to the United States Military.

Note:  The Trustees were Aliens/foreigners and not related to the Royal Families and did not/do not have the Superior alodio titles to alodio lands.  They had only Fee Simple titles which amounted to 30 year leases.

The Bernice Pauahi Trustees/Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estates Trustees/KSBE Trustees did participate in the treasonous activities and were listed on the Judicial Tribunal List of 804 Pirates, Pillagers, Treasonous persons, including those who perpetuate the crimes of the original persons.  Article XIV of the 1849/1850 Treaty of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States of America was invoked since August 2014.

Reference:  http://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2016/10/vol-vi-no-618-legal-notice-judicial.html

The Territory (of Hawaii) was the "successor of the Kingdom of Hawaii" documented the Attorney General of the Territory.

Note:  Identity Theft recorded.  The Territory was a Sham Setup by U.S. President McKinley the overseer of the Army, Navy, and Federal officials who helped to develop the Territory in 1900.

Reference:  IN RE:  PA PELEKANE Case, HAWAIIAN REPORTS (1912), Supereme Court Law Library/Archives/Main Library, Honolulu, Hawaii.

1915 -  Queen Liliuokalani was made Queen for a Day celebrating Flag Day/ Pan Pacific Day or Balboa Day.

1917 -  Queen Liliuokalani died unaware that former President Grover Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Her.

1940 -  Taxes were wrongfully collected from Kanaka Maoli and all in the Hawaiian Islands to the tune of $40 Million Dollars.  The Hawaiian Islands paid the most taxes of all States in the United States.

1959 -  U.S. President Eisenhower signed an Executive Order making Hawaii the Sham set up a State of the illegal Union, the United States and the American Empire since 1899.

Opposition to Statehood was made by a Kamehameha descendant named Harold Abel Cathcart.  Cathcart was the cousin of Mele Keawe Kauweloa, my great grandmother.

2015 - March 7.  "A joint resolution of Congress doesn’t empower the United States to acquire another country. Only a treaty can do that." -  Williamson Chang
"the joint resolution could not acquire Hawaii. Moreover, it was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia’s comments are evidence of the pervasive and widespread falsehoods as to annexation that have spread to the highest political and judicial offices in the United States. The myth of annexation is a deliberate deception that has oppressed the people of Hawaii for 122 years.
Historic quotes above are from Volume 31 of the Congressional Record pages 6142 to 6712, the verbatim record of the Senate debate in 1898."
Reference:  https://kauilapele.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/prof-williamson-chang-u-hawaii-honolulu-civil-beat-3-7-15-on-annexation-of-hawaii-scalia-fails-constitutionality-test/

2016-  Illegal U.S. President Obama created Sham set ups moving to claim part of the Hawaiian archipelago and naming it other than the Hawaiian archipelago.

Obama moves to create an American Indian tribe out of Kingdom of Hawaii subjects who have signed illegal contracts with Sham Set Ups made up of the Identity Theft entity Territory turned State of Hawaii which created OHA/ Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Kanaiolowalu, etc.  

All the Sham Set Ups were documented as part of the 804 persons/entities listed in the Judicial Tribunal invoking Article XIV of the 1849/1850 Treaty of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States of America which upholds the U.S. Constitution because the Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land and because the heirs and successors (not the Sham set up Territory which claimed to be the successor) of Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli exists.

Royal persons/Royal Family(ies) are not subject to the laws.

The Sham Set Ups have No Authority and are operating as an illegal entity, etc. and accordingly, "Every Sovereign nation has the inherent right to deny to aliens the privilege of entering its territory and even to expel them therefrom."

Many of those on the Judicial Tribunal list, including the original Trustees of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estates/Bishop Estates/KSBE/Kamehameha Schools have deceased and they have been dispossessed.  Their descendants or successors claiming ancestors, etc. on the Judicial Tribunal list cannot inherit lands that their ancestors, etc. were dispossessed from, includes the Joseph Booth Family(ies) down to Barrack Hussein Obama, et. als.

The Minister of Interior, etc. of the United States has no authority, no jurisdiction in the Hawaiian Islands/Hawaiian archipelago because Hawaii was given back to Queen Liliuokalani as discovered in research.  The Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land.  Treaties supersedes State (even the Sham State) and Federal Laws. 

Additionally, all illegal contracts affecting Kanaka Maoli, Royal Family(ies) in Support of Queen Liliuokalani, are null and void.  As Acting Liaison of Foreign Affairs, I have the authority to null and void illegal contracts.  The illegal contracts includes all Hawaiian Home Lands contracts which illegally conveys titles to the Sham Set ups, the Territory, turned State of Hawaii based on lies, deceit, identity theft of the Royal Family(ies) interests.  The State of Hawaii, etc. (City and Counties, etc.) have no right to exist because they are Not the successor of our Royal Family(ies) who are part of the 2/3 of a 3 part government as documented in the REX vs. BOOTH case, HAWAIIAN REPORTS, Hawaii Supreme Court/ Archives/Main Library, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Reference:  http://kamehamehaiii.blogspot.com/2016/03/identity-theft-by-entity-state-of.html

Rents are due for the Iolani Palace, Pearl Harbor, Crown Lands, Government Lands, etc.  Toll Charges are due when the Rail System operates.

All the above has been researched, documented on this day the 8th of October 2016.

aloha.

Amelia Gora, a Royal person, Royal Family member, House of Nobles, Acting Liaison of Foreign Affairs, Judicial Tribunal Member/Judge, Landlord/Land Lord Lien Holder, Konohiki, Hawaiian Genealogical Society Representative, descendant/heir of Kalaniopuu, Kamehameha, Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli, Kaumualii, John Young/Olohana, Isaac Davis, Nuuanu, Mataio Kekuanaoa, et. als.

References:
theiolani.blogspot.com
http://myweb.ecomplanet.com/GORA8037

Representative Hitchcock - said the Army and Navy spending $2 of every $5 Tax dollar
1903 -1905.  representative for Nebraska's 2nd congressional district.
1907-1911.  representative for Nebraska's 2ndcongressional district    
1911 - 1923 a Democrat, was a senator from Nebraska  

 Representative Arthur Bates - said that Cleveland is on record of giving Hawaii Back to
Queen Liliuokalani and was proposing that Aguinaldo be given back the Phillippines

1903 -1905  representative for Pennsylvania's 25th congressional district.    
1903 - 1911 representative for Pennsylvania's 26th congressional district.
1905 - 1907 representative for Pennsylvania's 25thcongressional district   
1907 - 1913 Bates, a Republican, was the representative for Pennsylvania's 25th congressional district .



References:

Grover Cleveland (1837-1908), who served as the 22nd and 24th U.S. president, was known as a political reformer. He is the only president to date who served two nonconsecutive terms, and also the only Democratic president to win election during the period of Republican domination of the White House that stretched from Abraham Lincoln’s (1809-65) election in 1860 to the end of William Howard Taft’s (1857-1930) term in 1913. Cleveland worked as a lawyer and then served as mayor of Buffalo, New York, and governor of New York state before assuming the presidency in 1885. His record in the Oval Office was mixed. Not regarded as an original thinker, Cleveland considered himself a watchdog over Congress rather than an initiator. In his second term, he angered many of his original supporters and seemed overwhelmed by the Panic of 1893 and the depression that followed. He declined to run for a third term.

THIS TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY IDENTIFIES AND CORRECTLY DIAGNOSES DISEASES MORE ACCURATELY THAN PHYSICIANS
Promoted by Intel 

Stephen Grover Cleveland was born in Caldwell, New Jersey, on March 18, 1837. He was the fifth of nine children of Richard Falley Cleveland (1804-53), a Presbyterian minister, and Anne Neal Cleveland (1806-82). In 1841, the family moved to upstate New York, where Cleveland’s father served several congregations before his death in 1853.


Cleveland left school following his father’s death and started working in order to help support his family. Unable to afford a college education, he worked as a teacher in a school for the blind in New York City and then as a clerk in a law firm in Buffalo, New York. After clerking for several years, Cleveland passed the state bar examination in 1859. He started his own law firm in 1862. Cleveland did not fight in the American Civil War (1861-65); when the Conscription Act was passed in 1863, he paid a Polish immigrant to serve in his place.
Cleveland’s first political office was sheriff of Erie County, New York, a position he assumed in 1871. During his two-year term, he carried out the death sentence (by hanging) of three convicted murderers. In 1873, he returned to his law practice. He was persuaded to run for mayor of Buffalo in 1881 as a reformer of a corrupt city government. He won the election and took office in 1882. His reputation as an opponent of machine politics grew so rapidly that he was asked to run as the Democratic candidate for governor of New York.
Cleveland became governor in January 1883. He was so opposed to unnecessary government spending that he vetoed eight bills sent up by the legislature in his first two months in office. But while Cleveland was popular with the voters, he made enemies within his own party, particularly the powerful Tammany Hall political machine in New York City. However, he won the respect of New York state assemblyman and future U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) and other reform-minded Republicans. Cleveland was soon regarded as presidential material.
Cleveland won the Democratic presidential nomination in 1884 in spite of the opposition of Tammany Hall. The 1884 presidential campaign was ugly: Cleveland’s Republican opponent, U.S. Senator James G. Blaine (1830-93) ofMaine, was implicated in several financial scandals, while Cleveland was involved in a paternity case in which admitted that he had paid child support in 1874 to a woman who claimed he was the father of her child. In spite of the scandal, Cleveland won the election with the support of the Mugwumps, Republicans who considered Blaine corrupt.
Once in office, Cleveland continued the policy of his predecessor, Chester Arthur (1830-86), in basing political appointments on merit rather than party affiliation. He tried to reduce government spending, using the veto more often than any other president up to that point. Cleveland was a noninterventionist in foreign policy and fought to have protective tariffs lowered.
In 1886, Cleveland married Frances Folsom (1864-1947), a student at Wells College in New York who was 27 years his junior. Although Cleveland was not the first president to marry while in office, he is the only one who had the ceremony in the White House. At age 21, Frances became the youngest first lady in U.S. history. The Clevelands would go on to have five children.
The tariff issue came back to haunt Cleveland in the presidential election of 1888. Former U.S. Senator Benjamin Harrison (1833-1901) of Indiana won the election, in large part because of heavy turnout by voters in the industrial states of the Northeast who saw their jobs threatened by lower tariffs. Cleveland even lost his home state of New York in that election. He returned to New York City and took a position in a law firm for the next four years.
Unlike the campaign of 1884, the presidential campaign of 1892 was quiet and restrained. President Harrison, whose wife, Caroline Harrison (1832-92), was dying of tuberculosis, did not campaign personally, and Cleveland followed suit. Cleveland won the election, in part because voters had changed their minds about high tariffs and also because Tammany Hall decided to throw its support behind him.
Cleveland’s second term, however, opened with the worst financial crisis in the country’s history. The Panic of 1893 began with a railroad bankruptcy in February 1893, followed rapidly by bank failures, a nationwide credit crisis, a stock market crash and the failures of three more railroads. Unemployment rose to 19 percent, and a series of strikes crippled the coal and transportation industries in 1894. The American economy did not recover until 1896-97, when the Klondike gold rush in the Yukon touched off a decade of rapid growth.
Cleveland was inconsistent in his social views. On the one hand, he opposed discrimination against Chinese immigrants in the West. On the other hand, he did not support equality for African Americans or voting rights for women, and he thought Native Americans should assimilate into mainstream society as quickly as possible rather than preserve their own cultures. He also became unpopular with organized labor when he used federal troops to crush the Pullman railroad strike in 1894.
Cleveland was an honest and hard-working president but he is criticized for being unimaginative and having no overarching vision for American society. Opposed to using legislation to bring about social change, he is best known for strengthening the executive branch of the federal government in relation to Congress.
By the fall of 1896, Cleveland had become unpopular with some factions in his own party. Other Democrats, however, wanted him to run for a third term, as there was no term limit for presidents at that time. Cleveland declined, and former U.S. Representative William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925) of Nebraska won the nomination. Bryan, who later became famous as an opponent of British naturalist Charles Darwin’s (1809-82) theory of evolution, lost the 1896 election to Governor William McKinley (1843-1901) of Ohio.
After leaving the White House in 1897, Cleveland retired to his home in Princeton, New Jersey, and served as a trustee of Princeton University from 1901 until his death. He refused overtures from his party to run again for the presidency in 1904. His health began to fail rapidly at the end of 1907 and he died of a heart attack at the age of 71 on June 24, 1908. According to two of Cleveland’s biographers, his last words were, “I have tried so hard to do right.”



 Reference:  http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/grover-cleveland



Sen. Gilbert Hitchcock

Former Senator from Nebraska, Democrat
Hitchcock, a Democrat, was a senator from Nebraska from 1911 to 1923.
He was previously the representative for Nebraska's 2ndcongressional district (1907-1911); and the representative for Nebraska's 2nd congressional district (1903-1905).
Photo

Voting Record


See how presidential campaigns affect voting records.
From May 1911 to Mar 1923, Hitchcock missed 1,226 of 2,915 roll call votes, which is 42.1%. This is worse than the median of 28.8% among the lifetime records of senators serving in Mar 1923. The chart below reports missed votes over time.
25th PercentileMedian75th Percentile90th PercentileMissed Votes (%)Missed Votes (%)1911 May-AugDec 1912-Mar 1913Dec 1913-Feb 1914Dec 1914-Mar 19151916 Jun-Aug1917 Jul-Sep1918 Jun-Aug1919 May-Jul1920 Mar-May1921 Jul-Sep1922 Jun-Aug1921 Mar-Mar0100200

Primary Sources


The information on this page is originally sourced from a variety of materials, including:


Rep. Arthur Bates

Former Representative from Pennsylvania’s 25th District, Republican
Bates, a Republican, was the representative for Pennsylvania's 25th congressional district from 1907 to 1913.
He was previously the representative for Pennsylvania's 25thcongressional district (1905-1907); the representative for Pennsylvania's 25th congressional district (1903-1905); and the representative for Pennsylvania's 26th congressional district (1901-1903).

Voting Record

See how presidential campaigns affect voting records.
From Dec 1901 to Mar 1913, Bates missed 423 of 1,179 roll call votes, which is 35.9%. This is worse than the median of 28.1% among the lifetime records of representatives serving in Mar 1913. The chart below reports missed votes over time.
25th PercentileMedian75th Percentile90th PercentileMissed Votes (%)Missed Votes (%)Dec 1901-Feb 19021902 Jun-Jul1903 Nov-NovDec 1904-Mar 19051906 Mar-MayDec 1906-Mar 1907Dec 1908-Mar 1909Dec 1909-Feb 19101910 Jun-Jun1911 Apr-Aug1912 Apr-JulDec 1912-Mar 1913050100

Primary Sources

The information on this page is originally sourced from a variety of materials, including:


Library of Congress
BACON, Augustus Octavius, (cousin of William S. Howard), a Senator from Georgia; born in Bryan County, Ga., October 20, 1839; attended the common schools in Liberty and Troup Counties; graduated from the literary department of the University of Georgia at Athens in 1859 and from its law department in 1860; admitted to the bar in 1860 and commenced practice in Atlanta, Ga.; entered the Confederate Army at the beginning of the Civil War and served during the campaigns of 1861 and 1862 as adjutant of the Ninth Georgia Regiment in the Army of Northern Virginia; subsequently commissioned captain in the Provisional Army of the Confederacy and assigned to general staff duty; at the close of the war resumed the practice of law in Macon, Ga.; member of the State house of representatives 1871-1886, serving as speaker pro tempore for two terms and as speaker eight years; president of the Democratic State convention in 1880; elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate in 1894; reelected by state legislature in 1900, 1906, and became the first U.S. Senator elected by popular vote following ratification of the 17th Amendment, on July 15, 1913, and served from March 4, 1895, until his death; served as President pro tempore during the Sixty-second Congress; chairman, Committee on Engrossed Bills (Sixtieth and Sixty-first Congresses), Committee on Private Land Claims (Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses), Committee on Foreign Relations (Sixty-third Congress); died in Washington, D.C., February 14, 1914; funeral services were held in the Senate Chamber; interment in Rose Hill Cemetery, Macon, Ga.

Reference:  http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=b000014
**************************************
Retired Law Professor from the University of Hawaii:



Williamson Chang
November 3, 2015
On my mind: Some have asked how to implement my proposal to testify to the DOI on the false history of Hawaii. Here is my response
All Kanaka Maoli, All people of Hawaii, of all races, creed and colors, and All the people of the World have a duty to submit testimony to the Department of Interior in order to bring to the world’s attention, and to stop, a proposed rule that keeps alive the egregious violation of human rights by which Kanaka Maoli and the people of Hawaii have been denied the truth about the United States’ jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands.
You need not “be” for anything to support this position. You must simply be one who supports the principle of all religions, all faiths, and all political theories, that the “truth will prevail”
Yesterday’s story starts here:
State Department Historian Retracts US statement that Hawaii was annexed:
“Notice to readers: This article has been removed pending review to ensure it meets our standards for accuracy and clarity. The revised article will be posted as soon as it is ready. In the meantime, we apologize for any inconvenience, and we thank you for your patience.
[From the Department of State website last visited by Williamson Chang November 2, 2015 8:20 Hawaiian Standard Time]”
Despite the retraction of the claim by the Office of the Historian that the United States annexed Hawaii, the Rule Proposed by the Department of the Interior as to Federal Recognition, a rule endorsed by OHA, makes the following completely unsupported statement that 1) Hawaii was annexed by a joint resolution in 1898 and 2) the United States acquired the 1.8 million acres of Crown and Government lands by means of that annexation:
“The United States nevertheless annexed Hawaii “without the consent of or compensation to the indigenous people of Hawaii or their sovereign government who were thereby denied the mechanism for expression of their inherent sovereignty through self-government and self-determination.” 42 U.S.C. 11701(11). The Republic of Hawaii ceded its land to the United States, and Congress passed a joint resolution annexing the islands in 1898. See Rice, 528 U.S. at 505. The Hawaiian Organic Act, enacted in 1900, established the Territory of Hawaii, placed ceded lands under United States control, and directed the use of proceeds from those lands to benefit the inhabitants of Hawaii. Act of Apr. 30, 1900, 31 Stat. 141.” From the DOI proposed Rule;
Here is what you can do to tell the Department of Interior,.
Williamson Chang:
What should you do to communicate this to the United States Department of Interior? If you have not already submitted written testimony to the Department of Interior on their proposed rule please send the DOI an email, do the following:
1. You may submit comments by either of the methods listed below. Please use Regulation Identifier Number 1090-AB05 in your message.
2. You may go to the Federal eRulemaking portal:http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions on the Web site for submitting and viewing comments. The rule has been assigned Docket ID DOI-2015-0005.
3. You may send an Email to the following address: part50@doi.gov. Include the number 1090-AB05 in the subject line.
4. You may send a hard copy U.S. mail, courier, or hand delivery: Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, Room 7228, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
5. Note that DOI will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that DOI will post any personal information you provide.
6. If you have already sent in testimony, send this testimony as a supplement to be added to your existing testimony. I do not know if they will actually add this to your submittal---but you certainly can try. Otherwise, talk to a friend, neighbor, or member of your Ohana and ask them if you can use their name to send in this message. They need not be “Native Hawaiian” as the DOI defines that term.
Your testimony could be the following:
[Your Name:]
"I oppose the proposed Federal Rule. It is undesirable and harmful to the Kanaka Maoli people of Hawaii, and all the people of Hawaii in many ways. The rule is based on a history concocted by the United States that is false, misleading, and has been deliberately used by the United States since 1898 to mentally enslave all people of Hawaii, and of the world, into the belief that Hawaii was acquired by the United States, is territory of the United States and is under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Rather, the United States has “occupied” Hawaii wrongfully since 1898. This is a crime, a violation of the human rights of the people of Hawaii, and egregiously and intentionally intended to undermine the rights of self-determination of the people of Hawaii. Your history of the relationship between the United States and Hawaii, as of today, is based on the following history as contained in the justification for your rule:
“The United States nevertheless annexed Hawaii “without the consent of or compensation to the indigenous people of Hawaii or their sovereign government who were thereby denied the mechanism for expression of their inherent sovereignty through self-government and self-determination.” 42 U.S.C. 11701(11). The Republic of Hawaii ceded its land to the United States, and Congress passed a joint resolution annexing the islands in 1898. See Rice, 528 U.S. at 505. The Hawaiian Organic Act, enacted in 1900, established the Territory of Hawaii, placed ceded lands under United States control, and directed the use of proceeds from those lands to benefit the inhabitants of Hawaii. Act of Apr. 30, 1900, 31 Stat. 141.” [From the DOI proposed Rule]
A joint resolution of the United States Congress has no power to acquire the sovereignty or the crown and government lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii. This was made clear in the hearings of the United States Senate during the debate on the Joint Resolution. As Senator Allen of Nebraska said on July 4, 1898, in opposition to the joint resolution:
A Joint Resolution if passed becomes a statute law. It has no other or greater force. It is the same as if it would be if it were entitled “an act” instead of “A Joint Resolution.” That is its legal classification. It is therefore impossible for the Government of the United States to reach across its boundary into the dominion of another government and annex that government or persons or property therein.
See remarks of Senator Allen, 31 Cong Rec. at 6635, July 6, 1898, 55th Cong 2d Sess
Many Senators spoke vehemently in objection to the Joint Resolution. Not a single senator could put forth a credible theory as to how a joint resolution could acquire the Hawaiian Islands.
Professor Williamson Chang, of the University of Hawaii School of Law has written about the incapacity of the Joint Resolution in a recently published article, Williamson Chang, “Darkness over Hawaii: The Annexation Myth is the Greatest Obstacle to Progress,” 16 Asia-Pacific Journal of Law and Policy 70 (2015).
He notes that the United States itself, in the Organic Act of 1900, the Act of Admission of Hawaii as a State in 1959 and the Hawaii State Constitution, in its description of its boundaries at Article XV, Section 1 admits the failure to acquire Hawaii by describing the only islands and waters within both the Territory and the States as those “acquired by the joint resolution.
If the joint resolution has no power to acquire the dominion of foreign, independent nation of equal sovereignty by a joint resolution, there are no islands or waters in the State of Hawaii. Most important, this is the law of the United States, as passed by Congress and ratified by the people of Hawaii.
It is simply unbelievable that the Department of Interior claims to be helping the Kanaka Maoli while compelling them to accept the very instruments that, as false propaganda has been used to strip them of their sovereign nation.
The proposed rule is an unconscionable violation of international law, and simple human dignity by forcing the acceptance of one of the most enormous
and long running violations of international law for the paltry possibility that Native Hawaiian entitlements just might survive scrutiny by the United States Supreme Court.
The history of false and broken promises, oppression, deception, theft of lands, racism and violations of basic human and constitutional rights continues with this proposed rule.
[signed by you]"
Mahalo for the truth
Williamson Chang

Reference:  https://www.facebook.com/williamson.chang.3/posts/1618797355041723

50th State Fraud - A Visit With Williamson Chang - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIOh5KMqXfA

May 31, 2015 - Uploaded by Voices Of Truth - One-On-One With Hawai`iʻs Future
50th State Fraud - A Visit With Williamson Chang ... He found that not only was there never a treaty of ...

On my mind: Some have asked how to... - Williamson Chang | Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/williamson.chang.3/.../1618797355041723

To see more from Williamson Chang on Facebook, log in or create an account. ... “The United States nevertheless annexed Hawaii “without the consent of or ...

My Response to Bronson Kaahui's claim... - Williamson Chang ...

https://www.facebook.com/williamson.chang.3/.../1647137015541090

... for the Annexation of Hawaii--Williamson Chang The Admission of Texas as. ... The Admission of Texas as a State of the Union is not a legal precedent for the ...

Press Conference of Professor Williamson Chang at the University of ...

hawaiiankingdom.org/.../press-conference-of-professor-williamson-chan...

Sep 23, 2014 - 16 thoughts on “Press Conference of Professor Williamson Chang at ... In each case there would remain, after annexation, no nation to be in ...

[PDF]Darkness over Hawaii: The Annexation Myth IS the Greatest Obstacle to

https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/.../Chang%20Darkness%20over%...

by WBC Chang - ‎2015 - ‎Related articles
Feb 11, 2015 - No LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SUPPORTING THE CAPACITY OF THE JOINT .... NATION (2014); Williamson B.C. Chang, Federal Jurisdiction, ...

[PDF]Darkness over Hawaii: The Annexation Myth Is the Greatest Obstacle ...

blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/2015/09/APLPJ_16_2_Chang.pdf

by W Chang - ‎Related articles
Williamson B.C. Chang, Federal Jurisdiction, 16 GOLDEN GATE U. L.. REV. .... not a Treaty and has no capacity to acquire the dominion or territory of a foreign ...

50th State Fraud – A Visit With [UH Professor] Williamson Chang

https://kauilapele.wordpress.com/.../voices-of-truth-50th-state-fraud-a-vis...

Aug 18, 2015 - They said it was impossible. Failure of attempts to get a treaty ofannexation but Ku'e all were opposed. Sen. Pettigrew in Hilo, no one wanted ...

Prof. Williamson Chang (U. Hawaii), Honolulu Civil Beat 3-7-15… “On ...

https://kauilapele.wordpress.com/.../prof-williamson-chang-u-hawaii-hon...

Mar 12, 2015 - “On Annexation of Hawaii, Scalia Fails Constitutionality Test” ... Prof.Williamson Chang. hawaiian_kingdom_shield_26 Ali`i Mana`o Nui Lanny Sinkin ... It has no power to acquire the territory of a foreign, sovereign state.

“Darkness Over Hawaii” paper by Williamson Chang « Hawaiian ...

www.hawaiiankingdom.info/?p=2176

Oct 22, 2015 - Darkness over Hawaii: The Annexation Myth Is the Greatest Obstacle to Progress. by Williamson Chang. Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, ...

***********************
Excerpt from Hawahan Annexation: Speech Hon. A. O. Bacon, of Georgia, in the Senate of the United States, Monday, June 20, 1898

The Senate having under consideration the joint resolution (H. Res. 259) to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States -

Mr. Bacon said:

Mr. President: I presume it will be recognized by all that there can be no more important question than this before the country to-day. It is not simply the question of the annexation of a very small piece of territory, but, considered with reference to the merits of the case, it is one which involves the utter revolution of the practice and traditions of our Government with reference to its benefits to the people and the obligations which it lays upon them.

It is not my purpose at this time to discuss the general merits of this proposition. I am inclined to address the Senate at this time because the particular branch of the discussion to which I shall direct my attention is one which goes to the root of the matter and which ought, if my contention is correct, to control the action of the Senate.

Before proceeding with it, I think, however, I may be excused for remarking that certainly this is a strange presentation to the country, that in a matter of such gravity, that in a matter of such wide-reaching importance, the advocates of the measure have nothing to say. Ordinarily in measures of importance which come from the Foreign Relations Committee we have a report. In this instance the committee have not even honored us with a report. Ordinarily not only do we have a report, but we have from the chairman of that committee or some member representing the committee an elaborate presentation of the reasons why the legislation is recommended by that committee. But here we have neither report nor presentation. We have simply presented to the Senate a bill which has been passed by the House, and without report and without discussion those who hold to the affirmative ask the Senate to act. It is as if, confident of a majority, they should say, "We propose to do thus and so, right or wrong, and give no reason for it; and what are you going to do about it? That is the attitude which the committee occupy in coming before the Senate.

Mr. President, as I stated, it is not my purpose to discuss the general merits of the proposition to annex the islands of Hawaii, certainly not at this time; but I propose to present to the Senate a proposition and to ask that they may give me their attention while I discuss it, which, if it be true, as I have previously said, ought to control the action of the Senate and make them say that they will not pass the bill which the House has sent to us.

About the Publisher

Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com

This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.

Reference:  https://www.amazon.com/Hawahan-Annexation-Georgia-Classic-Reprint/dp/1331398592

Prof. Williamson Chang (U. Hawaii), Honolulu Civil Beat 3-7-15… “On Annexation of Hawaii, Scalia Fails Constitutionality Test”

Posted on 2015/03/12by 
Prof. Williamson Chang
Prof. Williamson Chang
hawaiian_kingdom_shield_26Ali`i Mana`o Nui Lanny Sinkinposted this on his Facebook page,here. Some may find this article very interesting reading and informative about why many say The Kingdom of Hawai’i is still here. It was never annexed. And the more precise status of this place, The Kingdom of Hawai’i, is that of “occupied nation”.
“Justice Antonin Scalia… made two critical points on the annexation of Hawaii: First, he stated that a joint resolution of the United States could acquire the territory of Hawaii — a foreign, sovereign and independent nation state. Second, he stated that the Constitution permitted the use of a joint resolution instead of a treaty.
“He was wrong on both points.
“The inability of President William McKinley to garner the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify the Treaty of Annexation of 1897 led the administration to seek annexation by a mere act of Congress — a joint resolution. The administration could pass a joint resolution but not a treaty. This is precisely why McKinley attempted to annex by joint resolution.
“Sen. A.O. Bacon of Georgia [1898]…: “Under the law of the equal sovereignty of states, one independent and sovereign nation such as the United States cannot take another nation, such as Hawaii, by means of its own legislative act.””
————————————————————-
A joint resolution of Congress doesn’t empower the United States to acquire another country. Only a treaty can do that.
March 7, 2015·By Williamson Chang
In Civil Beat recently, Justice Antonin Scalia, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,made two critical points on the annexation of Hawaii: First, he stated that a joint resolution of the United States could acquire the territory of Hawaii — a foreign, sovereign and independent nation state. Second, he stated that the Constitution permitted the use of a joint resolution instead of a treaty.
He was wrong on both points.

First, a joint resolution is merely a law, an act of Congress. It has no power to acquire the territory of a foreign, sovereign state. If such a thing were possible, Hawaii itself could have, by an act of its Legislature, acquired the United States. Second, the only mode by which the United States could acquire Hawaii, an independent and sovereign nation like the United States, would be by treaty.
Second, the acquisition of Hawaii by a joint resolution of Congress would undermine the Constitution. The use of a joint resolution in place of a treaty would be an “end run” around an enumerated power — the power over foreign affairs that is delegated solely to the president and the Senate. The House has no power as to foreign affairs and does not vote on or ratify treaties.
Moreover, the use of joint resolution to accomplish a treaty with a foreign sovereign undermines the super-majority required of the Senate as to the ratification of treaties. The Senate must ratify such measures by a two-thirds majority of those Senators present.
This is made clear in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Clause 2: “[The President] shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur …”
The inability of President William McKinley to garner the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify the Treaty of Annexation of 1897 led the administration to seek annexation by a mere act of Congress — a joint resolution. The administration could pass a joint resolution but not a treaty. This is precisely why McKinley attempted to annex by joint resolution.
McKinley
President William McKinley, whose administration sought the annexation of Hawaii.
President William McKinley, whose administration sought the annexation of Hawaii.
Many are ignorant of or deceived about the joint resolution and the acquisition of Hawaii. Many do not know the specifics of the U.S. Constitution or the history of Hawaii. Yet, we expect more from Justice Scalia, for he has great power over the future of Native Hawaiians. His exchange with Jacob Bryan Aki, as published in Civil Beat, showed a surprising lack of constitutional knowledge. Aki, a Hawaiian student at George Washington University, asked Justice Scalia the following question during a class visit to the Supreme Court on Feb. 11:
“Does the Constitution provide Congress the power to annex a foreign nation through a joint resolution rather than a treaty?”
Scalia answered by first turning the question back at Aki.  “Why would a treaty be needed,” he asked. “There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from annexing a foreign state through the means of a joint resolution. If the joint resolution is passed through both the U.S. House and Senate, then signed by the president, it went through a ‘process.’ ”

Allen et al. vs. Scalia

Let us pretend that Scalia was on the floor of the U.S. Senate in the summer of 1898. Sen. William V. Allen of Nebraska and others would have reminded him that a joint resolution is only an act of Congress. It has no power to reach out and acquire foreign territory or a foreign country.
“A joint resolution if passed becomes a statute law. It has no other or greater force. It is the same as if it were entitled ‘an act.’ That is its legal classification,” said Allen. “It is therefore impossible for the government of the United States to reach across its boundaries into the dominion of another government and annex that government or the persons or property therein.
“But the United States may do so under the treaty making power, which I shall hereafter consider.”
In addition, Allen said, “Mr. President, how can a joint resolution such as this be operative? What is the legislative jurisdiction of Congress? Does it extend over Hawaii? May we in this anticipatory manner reach out beyond the sea and assert our authority under a resolution of Congress within the confines of that independent nation? Where is our right, our grant of power, to do this? Where do we find it?
“The joint resolution itself, it is admitted, amounts to nothing so far as carrying any effective force is concerned. It does not bring that country within our boundaries. It does not consummate itself.”
Moreover, Sen. Thomas Turley of Tennessee stated:
“It is admitted that if the Joint Resolution is adopted, the Republic of Hawaii can determine whether or not it will accept the provisions contained in the joint resolution. In other words, the adoption of the resolution does not consummate the transaction.
“The Republic of Hawaii does not become a part or the territory of the United States by the adoption of the joint resolution …”
Sen. John Coit Spooner of Wisconsin added his view: “Of course, our power would not be extraterritorial.”
United States Library of Congress
Senator A.O. Bacon
Sen. A.O. Bacon, who questioned the constitutionality of the United States’ proposed annexation of Hawaii.
Sen. A.O. Bacon, who questioned the constitutionality of the United States’ proposed annexation of Hawaii.
Sen. A.O. Bacon of Georgia made the same point: “Under the law of the equal sovereignty of states, one independent and sovereign nation such as the United States cannot take another nation, such as Hawaii, by means or [of] its own legislative act.”
Bacon noted that if the United States could take Hawaii by joint resolution, it could so take Jamaica. If that were true, any nation could acquire any other. Hawaii could annex the United States. “If the President of the United States can do it in the case of Hawaii, he can with equal propriety and legality do it in the case of Jamaica …”
Sen. Stephen White of California noted annexation by joint resolution was unprecedented: in American history: “… there is no instance where by a joint resolution it has been attempted not only to annex a foreign land far remote from our shores, but also to annihilate a nation, to withdraw it from the sovereign societies of the world as a government.”
On the issue of the constitutionality of the use of a joint resolution, Bacon made it clear: Hawaii could only be acquired by a Treaty. “If Hawaii is to be annexed, it ought certainly to be annexed by a constitutional method; and if by a constitutional method, it cannot be annexed, no Senator ought to desire its annexation.”
Finally, Bacon — one of the most senior members of the Senate — predicted that the annexation of Hawaii by joint resolution would do great damage to the Constitution and the Union.
“If we pass the joint resolution, we enter upon a revolution which shall convert this country from a peaceful country into a warlike country. If we pass the resolution, we transform this country from one engaged in its own concerns into one which shall immediately proceed to intermeddle with the concerns of all the world.
“If we pass the joint resolution, we inaugurate a revolution which shall convert this country from one designed for the advancement and the prosperity and the happiness of our citizens into one which shall seek its gratification in dominion and domination and foreign acquisition.”
Native Hawaiians have forgotten that many Americans stood with them in 1898. After all, the Treaty of 1897, the only legal means for taking Hawaii, failed not because the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii failed to ratify the Treaty. It was the United States Senate that did not ratify the Treaty.
In conclusion, the joint resolution could not acquire Hawaii. Moreover, it was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia’s comments are evidence of the pervasive and widespread falsehoods as to annexation that have spread to the highest political and judicial offices in the United States. The myth of annexation is a deliberate deception that has oppressed the people of Hawaii for 122 years.
Historic quotes above are from Volume 31 of the Congressional Record pages 6142 to 6712, the verbatim record of the Senate debate in 1898.
Contributor
Williamson Chang
Williamson Chang is a professor of Law and member of the faculty senate at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Professor Chang has been teaching at the University of Hawaii School of Law for 37 years. He specializes in water rights, Native Hawaiian rights, the legal history of Hawaii and conflict of laws.
Posted by

1 comment:

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)