Quantcast

Thursday, July 31, 2014         

KALIMA V. STATE


 Print   Email   Comment | View 77 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Homestead suit going to mediation

Plaintiff representatives are pleased that talks will resume, but remain skeptical about seeing a resolution

By Rob Perez

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 04:40 p.m. HST, Feb 12, 2014


For only the second time in 14 years, the state is scheduled to begin nonbinding mediation to try to resolve a class-action lawsuit over its failure to issue timely homestead awards to Native Hawaiians.

Representatives of the plaintiffs — 2,721 mostly elderly Department of Hawaiian Home Lands' beneficiaries — applauded the development but expressed skepticism given the drawn-out, contentious history of the case.

The only other time the state participated in settlement talks was in 2007, but that ended when the state pulled out without proposing a counteroffer to what the plaintiffs presented.

Leona Kalima, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit known as Kalima v. State, told the Star-Advertiser she was thrilled by the planned resumption of talks.

"But you just keep behind your psyche (the question of whether) the state is just throwing us a bone," she added.

A major difference this time around, though, is that a judge already has ruled the state liable for breach of trust on the central issue of failing to issue homesteads on a timely basis. That ruling came in 2009.

The current phase of the case addresses the question of how much in damages the defendants — the state and DHHL — must pay for the breaches. Some plaintiffs say the total easily could top $100 million.

The state maintains that "a significant portion" of the plaintiffs may not be entitled to damages under the rules the court has approved thus far — a position the plaintiffs dispute.

Barring an out-of-court settlement and because of anticipated appeals, a final resolution likely is years away, and roughly 300 plaintiffs already have died since the lawsuit was filed in 1999. The average age of the remaining plaintiffs is about 65, but many are in their 70s and 80s and worry they may die before receiving compensation.

The lawsuit was filed after the plaintiffs sought relief through a state panel established in the early 1990s to evaluate beneficiaries' breach-of-trust claims dating from 1959 to 1988. But the state disbanded the administrative body in 1999 without the plaintiffs getting any relief, leading to the lawsuit.

Representatives of the two sides said they agreed last week to begin mediation in January. They plan to hire mediator Keith Hunter to oversee the process.

The only potential obstacle is the question of who will pay the mediation expenses. Like almost everything else in this case, the two sides have filed opposing positions.

The first time around, the state and plaintiffs split the cost.

In court documents filed Aug. 20, Charleen Aina, the deputy attorney general who has handled the case for the past 14 years, said the two sides should continue to split the costs.

But the plaintiffs say the defendant must pay for mediation because the state already has lost the case on the liability issue and the finding that the beneficiaries suffered damages.

Carl Varady, one of two attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said Hawaii law requires the losing party to pay for court-ordered mediation.

The court has yet to order mediation. But if the state doesn't voluntarily agree to shoulder the costs, the plaintiffs will pursue a pending motion seeking court-ordered mediation, according to Varady.

The parties met in court last week to discuss the motion, and Judge Virginia Crandall told both sides she would hold off on a ruling to give them a last chance to agree to mediation.

Like Kalima, Varady said he is pleased that mediation talks are scheduled to resume, though he also expressed reservations.

Varady and the plaintiffs' co-counsel, Tom Grande, previously have told the Star-Advertiser that the plaintiffs have suggested resuming mediation multiple times since the collapse of the initial effort but that the state wasn't interested.

"I would say this is a positive development," Varady said of the scheduled talks. "But I also would say that given the history of the case and how contentious it's been, I'm not optimistic it will be resolved quickly or easily."

The case has dragged on for 14 years for many reasons, including frequent legal disputes at virtually every step of the court process.

The plaintiffs have accused the state of delay tactics, while the attorney general's office has maintained it has been acting in the best interests of the state.

When the Star-Advertiser asked Attorney General David Louie in July about the possibility of settlement talks resuming, he said the two sides were far apart in 2007 and that that was still the case now.

And in her Aug. 20 court filing, Aina said engaging in mediation would be premature until more information was available to determine which plaintiffs were not entitled to damages.

Aina said some of that information would be available by year's end.

As it turned out, Hunter, who mediated the 2007 talks, wasn't available until January anyway, so the two sides agreed to begin the mediation that month, according to both sides.

In her court filing, Aina said the state presented no counteroffer in the previous talks because that would have been unproductive given what the state considered the plaintiffs' unrealistic demands.

But the plaintiffs said they presented three reasonable alternatives for calculating damages, and that the state acted in bad faith by failing to counter their proposal.

Anne Lopez, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office, told the Star-Advertiser on Friday that the two sides were continuing to discuss how the costs for mediation should be divided.

If the talks are held in January as planned, the question of determining damages should have more clarity by then.

In late September, a trial is scheduled to determine rental values to be used to calculate out-of-pocket expenses the eligible plaintiffs can claim for damages, based on their wait for a homestead.

The court already has ruled that a six-year wait was reasonable, and damages could be pursued only for waits beyond that.

Even if the two sides are able to reach a settlement, it would have to be approved by the court.

And the Legislature would have to authorize any appropriation to cover a state payout. A sizable one likely would get considerable scrutiny from legislators.

"I would hate to go through the process and end up with more money and time spent without producing something that the Legislature is going to agree to," Varady said.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 77 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(77)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Kanakuia wrote:
This is lame, State just dragging its heels hoping everyone will die before any settlement is reached. Shame on you State of Hawaii. I bet if you ripped DHHL apart you would find a policy, memo, e-mail instructing state workers to stall until there are no plaintiffs left.
on September 2,2013 | 04:18AM
palani wrote:
True.

...roughly 300 plaintiffs already have died since the lawsuit was filed in 1999.

In almost any litigation, the state is heavily favored with its unlimited resources of time and money, and the law itself is often weighted in the same direction. For example, contract law between private parties is governed by a 6 year statute of limitations, unless the defendant is the state, in which case action must commence within 2 years.


on September 2,2013 | 04:52AM
1local wrote:
The Marquesans are the indigineous people. The Hawaiians are the first group to take what was someone elses - no different than what Kamehameha or the USA did. Taxpayers have been funding a racist organization OHA. Only ancestors of the Marquesans should recieve any monies from the Hawaiians...
on September 2,2013 | 06:41AM
Mythman wrote:
This is Allie's new ID since getting fired by SA
on September 2,2013 | 08:35AM
allie wrote:
huh?
on September 2,2013 | 08:37AM
Mythman wrote:
Ok, so 1local is not Allie and she didn't get fired.....
on September 2,2013 | 11:49AM
allie wrote:
true..even Haunani Trask admits this basic fact
on September 2,2013 | 08:38AM
BIG wrote:
go stuff it 1local
on September 2,2013 | 12:54PM
holokanaka wrote:
did the Marquesans and the Hawaiians recognize each other as sovereign nations and did they have treaties between them? and if so did one or the other violate any treaties between them? the Hawaiian Kingdom and the u.s.a. recognized each other as sovereign nations and had treaties between them but the u.s.a. broke these treaties. so who took what from someone else? 1lolo, you need to educate yourself...
on September 2,2013 | 01:47PM
what wrote:
You need to educated yourself. The Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown by Honolulu businessmen. It was not an act in any way endorsed or encouraged by the USA government.
on September 2,2013 | 01:57PM
Mypualani wrote:
You need to educate yourself "what" who was facing their guns towards the palace? yeah the usa so just rest. as for the marquesan baloney stuff it Lolo and all lies, we never named ourselves "Hawaiians" we are made up of people from Polynesia, who happened to be here when the greedy h's came here, first it was so called discovery, than whaling and the missionaries, the only reason the usa came in is because of the strategic position that Hawaii was in during the Spanish American war and than with Asia. And please keep your b.s. about how you made life so much better for the Hawaiian. because as I look around it's just not so.
on September 2,2013 | 11:35PM
what wrote:
The American guns facing towards the palace were manipulated and controlled by the Honolulu businessmen under the guise of "keeping the peace". You need to educate yourself on the difference between acting to "keep the peace" and overthrow. Quit trying to make excuses. The USA was present at the overthrow, but did not instigate the overthrow.
on September 3,2013 | 01:13AM
allie wrote:
no hon..you are spouting the usual propaganda which has no basis. Queen Lil was overthrown in a domestic coup.
on September 2,2013 | 02:50PM
holokanaka wrote:
so allie and what are you saying that there was no treaties between two sovereign nations Hawaiian Kingdom and the u.s.a. and the u.s. did not violate those treaties? so I guess the u.s. justice department, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, UN Security Council,UN General Assembly, the ICC (International Criminal Court) are wrong that these Islands are still a Sovereign Nation under the Hawaiian Kingdom?
on September 2,2013 | 08:42PM
what wrote:
The treaties were between the USA and Kingdom of Hawaii. The Kingdom of Hawaii ceased to exist when it was overthrown by Honolulu businessmen. Therefore, the treaties became irrelevant when the new government came to power in Hawaii. Got it?
on September 2,2013 | 09:28PM
allie wrote:
agree..thiotis nto rocket science. Just do the right thing and let us get on with it
on September 2,2013 | 08:37AM
Skyler wrote:
Thiotis hte stbe oyu cna od, lallei? :-P
on September 2,2013 | 05:36PM
Kalli wrote:
Plaintiffs are just in it for the money. If they weren't they would settle for $1 and the state agree to straighten out the process of awarding HHL. The state paid out $30 Million a year for 20 years isn't that enough?
on September 2,2013 | 04:52AM
LanaUlulani wrote:
Actually NO. It is not about the money to many of these Hawaiians. Contrary to Hawaiians being treated as though they are less than human, Shelter is a BASIC in life along with food and water. These Hawaiians are being deprived of it per a legally binding agreement. They have a right to seek a remedy just as other humans do.

on September 2,2013 | 06:07AM
DiverDave wrote:
"Contrary to Hawaiians being treated as though they are less than human, Shelter is a BASIC in life along with food and water", says LaniUlulani. They obviously already have these things. What you mean is to have these things for free?
on September 2,2013 | 08:56AM
LanaUlulani wrote:

It is NOT free. It is based on a LEGALLY binding document signed by American government in 1920:

http://dhhl.hawaii.gov/hhc/laws-and-rules/

In addition Hawaiians who end up with DHHL are then coerced to get obtain a note with a mortgagee which costs them $350,000 and paying power bill and water bills thus further enslaving them.

IT IS NOT FREE.

It is their land !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


on September 2,2013 | 09:00AM
DiverDave wrote:
I own land, and I have to pay for all these things. Buy the way, that land is never owned, it would be a lease.
on September 2,2013 | 09:13AM
DiverDave wrote:
The misunderstanding with the current implementation of the homesteading program designed by John Wise and Prince Kuhio(Hawaii's Territorial Rep. to U.S. Congress) is that its premise at the time was (1) to "save a dying race", (2) to accomplish this by taking away homesteading by everyone and allowing only Polynesian-Hawaiians to homestead, (3) putting them back on the land to farm. While the act has been amended since then, the original act of 1920 Sec. 207 clearly said: "The commission is authorized to lease to native Hawaiians the right to use and occupancy of a tract of Hawaiian homelands within the following acreage limits: (1) Not less than twenty nor more than eighty acres of agricultural lands; or (2) Not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred acres of first-class pastoral lands; or (3) Not less than two hundred and fifty nor more than one thousand acres of second-class pastoral lands". Does that sound like a "buy a Polynesian a condo in Kona" program? Now almost a hundred years later the Polynesian-Hawaiian race has not "died", and the "Rehabilitation Act" as it was commonly called at the time, has gone so far a field from its original intent that it has reached a point that it cannot be realistically be implemented.
on September 2,2013 | 09:48AM
wiliki wrote:
At one time, most of the residents of our country were small farmers. No longer... it is not a viable means of surviving in our society. And "homestead" of this sort are leases to the land rather than ownership and the lease is conditional on having 1/2 Hawaiian blood. Under these conditions, we need to think of leases as providing cheap low cost Haousing to Hawaiians. And so they must follow all the state and county laws on building and permitting.
on September 2,2013 | 11:00AM
DiverDave wrote:
Everyone needs low cost housing wiliki. Low cost housing should not be raced based but available to all who have real needs, not just a particular race.
on September 2,2013 | 11:38AM
allie wrote:
Hawaiian are not a dying race..they are thriving
on September 2,2013 | 02:51PM
wiliki wrote:
DiverDave... low cost housing is not race based. The exception is leases for HHL houses. That's inherent in the nature of the program.
on September 2,2013 | 05:00PM
Mythman wrote:
It is owned, by the state. That's the big difference. On the mainland, Indian land is owned by the US. From 1921 to 1959 the homelands were also owned by the US. In 1921, the jealous majority population took over the titles and that is the foundation of the mistreatment and the mess. Indians on the mainland do own land but it is also protected against alienation and taxes as if owned by the US, which is why they own it. The state sold some of it and that's where the 600 million the legislature paid the DHHL over what was it 30 years came from.
on September 2,2013 | 11:51AM
Mypualani wrote:
Thank you.
on September 2,2013 | 11:37PM
Mythman wrote:
Your comment is ignorant and offensive, Kalli - get educated.....
on September 2,2013 | 06:35AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Kalli, "The State agrees to straighten out the process of awarding HHL " Duh, duh, anybody home? What is this lawsuit about? The plaintiffs were waiting from 1959 to 1988. The State had, let's see, ahh, 1959 to present? That's 54 years! The lawsuit is forcing the State to act.
on September 2,2013 | 12:28PM
LanaUlulani wrote:
In other words now Hawaiians will be in mediation for a lifetime thus still not resolving the problem.

Unfortunately the Democrat Regime in Hawai'i has been in power controlling the House and Senate since 1962 thus have made the laws that have systematically caused the genocide of the Hawaiian people while playing games with our lives!
Sadly this is just another of their RAT MAZES. My aloha goes out to all Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian alike with whom they play games with their lives as though their lives mean nothing. Auwe. Shameful.


on September 2,2013 | 06:05AM
DiverDave wrote:
LanaUliani says, "the Democrat Regime in Hawai'i has been in power controlling the House and Senate since 1962 thus have made the laws that have systematically caused the genocide of the Hawaiian people". Well I agree that the Dems are responsible for the awful financial mess, the word "genocide" is not quite accurate according to census data. While pure Polynesian-Hawaiian's population only increased by 1/10th of 1 percent between 2000 and 2012, the 50% or better Polynesian-Hawaiian's population has increased by 23% in the same time period. Far from genocide.
on September 2,2013 | 09:19AM
hanalei395 wrote:
DiverDave, a U.S. Indian, wants to become and be known as a "Hawaiian", by calling the real Hawaiians ..."Polynesian Hawaiians". An unnecessary and stupid redundancy by Dave. (Who is ashamed to be called an Indian).
on September 2,2013 | 09:57AM
DiverDave wrote:
hanalei395 is just trying to stir up racial animosity where there is none. This is the problem anytime one tries to have an intelligent discussion with folks that have race on the brain. When speaking of the Polynesian race one must clarify where a particular Polynesian subgroup is located. Polynesians exist all over the South Pacific. Polynesian-Hawaiians are similar in language and genetic makeup than those say in Tahiti, but certainly not the same.
on September 2,2013 | 10:11AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Which means, Diverdave is an Indian-Indian.
on September 2,2013 | 10:23AM
DiverDave wrote:
Wow! What an awful mindset you have Hanalei395. I am part Chickasaw- Indian. But that has nothing to do with this discussion of the Rehabilitation Act of 1920,
on September 2,2013 | 10:52AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Right, an Indian-Indian. (Going by your own way of describing Hawaiians).
on September 2,2013 | 11:16AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Two weird Indians ........DiverDave calling Hawaiians ..."Polynesian Hawaiians ... and ...allie, calling Hawaiians ... "Marquesans"
on September 2,2013 | 10:11AM
DiverDave wrote:
Everything on these Islands came from somewhere else hanalei395, even the Polynesians.
on September 2,2013 | 12:09PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Like allie, DiverDave is TRYING to say ... "Polynesians did not discover the Hawaiian Islands".
on September 2,2013 | 01:02PM
DiverDave wrote:
The northwestern movement of the pacific tectonic plate over a volcanic hot spot in the earth's mantle has resulted in the formation of the eight major Hawaiian Islands over a period of 5 million years. hanalei395 believes that no one ever came ashore on these islands in 5 million years. LOL
on September 2,2013 | 01:19PM
hanalei395 wrote:
With that desperate CRAZY and STUPID response, DumbDave DOES NOT want to think that the Polynesians were the greatest seafarers, the greatest voyagers, the world has ever known. While the Polynesians were sailing ALL OVER the Pacific, Europeans STILL thought that the Earth was flat. And that if they sailed over the horizon, if they sailed out of sight of land ....they would fall off the "edge of the Earth".
on September 2,2013 | 01:58PM
holokanaka wrote:
hanalei393, I think DESPERATION causes the joker to make CRAZY and STUPID response.
on September 2,2013 | 08:47PM
allie wrote:
Hawaiians are not tribal or Native American. Sorry..we don't intend to share a dime with them
on September 2,2013 | 02:52PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Calling Hawaiians "tribul", "Native Americans", "Indians" ....would be the ULTIMATE INSULT to Hawaiians.
on September 2,2013 | 03:33PM
hanalei395 wrote:
"Tribul?", "Native Americans?", "Indians?" ........YUCK.
on September 2,2013 | 03:42PM
Mythman wrote:
There is a major hurdle for the state, which it really cannot overcome, it seems. When the state appeared to terminate federal responsibility in the 1959 HHA it took on more than it could handle. The 1959 HHCA, which everyone is assuming is the ruling statute, is not actually the ruling statute and so any result of a state court trial is going to be eventually found to have been a procedural and substantive mistake. Homesteaders: do not settle; do not agree to settle; watch your backs. The sums you are actually owed are more along the lines of the 80 billion dollars in assets the state has earned from your former lands via its other land trusts, you know, KS(BE); Queen Emma, etc, etc, etc. When was the state not scamming the native Hawaiian, since 1959 should be your state of mind.
on September 2,2013 | 06:34AM
allie wrote:
state is just incompetent. It would be easy to do this in the right way
on September 2,2013 | 08:39AM
DiverDave wrote:
"When the state appeared to terminate federal responsibility in the 1959 HHA it took on more than it could handle". Correct Mythman in that there is also a common misconception that the homestead lands should be available to all Polynesian-Hawaiians. Testimony at the time before Congress made it very clear that there was not enough land to accommodate all Polynesian-Hawaiians and money would not be readily available to support the program until generated by other leases to the general public of the rich "cane lands" that were due to come available from leases that the Kalakaua dynasty had made. Monies are simply not available today either. Currently, of the over $500 million in loans to existing program homesteaders approximately $100 million are in arrears. The simple math of this dinosaur of programs says that if all plaintiffs were accommodated the math would be 2721 times $350,000 (average loan) to equal a whopping $95,235,000,000(95 Billion dollars)! Where is that money going to come from?
on September 2,2013 | 10:40AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
I like when the article states one thing, and the antis goes off on their tangents! It's all about "HEY YOOHOO! IT ME! LISTEN TO ME! I NEED ATTENTION". funny.
on September 2,2013 | 12:18PM
allie wrote:
We Mandans would love to take part in this effort..I need some land out here!
on September 2,2013 | 02:53PM
hanalei395 wrote:
This Indian foreigner is gong back where she comes from.
on September 2,2013 | 06:14PM
Mypualani wrote:
no it's not! all lies is like a bad case of herpes.
on September 2,2013 | 11:42PM
DiverDave wrote:
So you've had them?
on September 7,2013 | 06:33PM
Agility wrote:
Hawaiian Only doesn't meet Federal Fair Housing Standards Racism in Hawaii is not Justified It is a Distraction so Kam Schools can maintain it's political and economic exploitation of Hawaiians and Hawaii Kam Schools fails in its primary trust responsibilities of Education except for the Racist Agenda to continue the Hate How exactly has Hating America been Beneficial for you personally?
on September 2,2013 | 10:19AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Was Kam School mentioned? Huh. And the antis cite,Racist Agenda?
on September 2,2013 | 12:19PM
DiverDave wrote:
Correct Agility, racism is allowed in Hawaii as long as you have the votes.
on September 2,2013 | 01:46PM
wiliki wrote:
Mediation hopefully will be faster. Lawyers don't know the meaning of deadlines.
on September 2,2013 | 10:45AM
Kaleo744 wrote:
It really would be a miracle if a settlement is reached in this suit against the state... I know Leona is a very Akamai person and she will continue to pursue thiis even till her last days, I hope she and the rest of our Kupuna will see this become a reality,but knowing how the STATE operates in these kinds of matters, dont hold your breath. I as a beneficiary of the 1920 TRUST had never ever had any confidence in the Homestead Program, I have been called at least 10 times for a possible lease in which I could have exercised that right, but I had decided long ago that I didint need any Hawaiian program to get "an edge" and worked towards my goal of "self sufficiency" thru hard work determination and educating myself to the best that I can be. Im proud Im part of a people with a culture that respects our traditional ways of our ancestors, but we also have to live in the present and as a Hawaiian its imperative to have the culture survive in these times is to find the balance of both.
on September 2,2013 | 10:51AM
DiverDave wrote:
Nicely put Kaleo744, I have similar thoughts of my heritage, and have seen first hand how government programs have only hurt not helped the majority of American-Indians.
on September 2,2013 | 11:45AM
Mythman wrote:
You are mixing up "government programs" with federal Indian policy. Two different things. Ignorance leads to bad decisions. Get educated on the facts then make decisions.
on September 2,2013 | 11:57AM
DiverDave wrote:
Mythman, you can call them "government programs", "federal Indian policy", rehabilitation programs, race based programs or whatever, in the end it's the tax payers paying for it. It's the year 2013, the moral, as well as the financial cookie jar for such things is empty. I find it quite interesting how the Kings and Queen in Hawaii during the second half of the 1800s brought tens of thousands of peoples here to build Hawaii into what it is today, and yet now the descendants of those same people are made to pay for Polynesian-Hawaiian only programs. Time to end this madness.
on September 2,2013 | 12:28PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Too bad kaleo. You as a qualified Hawaiian should know that the entity called the State loves it when a Hawaiian gives up that right. Yeah we all need to live in the present, support ourselves,family ,etc.etc.but you give up your right to the State. The State thanks Hawaiians like you. Mahalooooo.
on September 2,2013 | 12:34PM
allie wrote:
Mandans may qualify for land out here! Make mine oceanside!
on September 2,2013 | 02:54PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Since Indians don't, can't swim, just make yours in the ocean.
on September 2,2013 | 04:56PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
I have allies make man lei for graduation.
on September 2,2013 | 08:23PM
kennysmith wrote:
TO THE PEOPLE IN SITY HALL GET OFF YOUR BUTTS AND GIVE THE REAL HAWAIAN BACK THERE LAND NOW, as i may not like our gov they have and should not take it from them. i am for the real hawaian people to get back there land, it is just like the indian in the usathey took there land away from there to.
on September 2,2013 | 12:59PM
Mythman wrote:
Maybe Allie's tribe would like to invest in some nice Hawaiian land - give us a call.....
on September 2,2013 | 03:52PM
DiverDave wrote:
Wow! How raced based can you get?
on September 2,2013 | 09:25PM
DiverDave wrote:
The above comment was directed at hanalei395's comment that "Indians don't, can't swim". I have had no problem and was underwater for a career that covered 27 years. Hey hanalei395, want to challenge me to a swim contest? Hanalei395 only exposes himself for what he really is, while never actually contributing anything to the discussion. Poor her.
on September 2,2013 | 09:31PM
jkjones wrote:
There he goes again, Mr negative--Rob Perez. Typical mercenary. Why don't you write about the real problems facing the State of Hawaii? You can go into any State department and dig up dirt, instead you select DHHL. Why? Because you want to drum up support to take it down. Your path? To encourage federal intervention by the DOI, thereby striking a blow against self-determination, nation building and sovereignty. That and another devious agenda to reinstate the most notorious sell-out in Hawaiian history--Robin Danner.
on September 2,2013 | 10:08PM
Reade1 wrote:
Everyone for or against the Kingdom of Hawaii please google: "1893 EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS & PROFOUND IMPACTS TODAY". It is about the Agreement between the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States of America of 1893. Most interesting is the presentation to the United Nation, United States Military at Scholfield Barracks and HEG on the illegal occupation of the United States and War Crimes in Hawaii. Responds from countries who have treaties with the Kingdom will allow you to have an idea what's going on today and brings you up date. You make the call!
on September 3,2013 | 10:09AM
DiverDave wrote:
The author of the above article mentioned by Reade1 is a convicted felon David Sai. Not to be trusted for a second, as he was found guilty of ripping off his own race in a mortgage fraud scam.
on September 3,2013 | 10:44AM
Reade1 wrote:
DiverDane what is your back ground, do you have a PHD in Political Science, were you born and raised in Hawaii understanding the many illegal actions that caused the political problems and the removal of the Hawaiian language from all schools during the turn of the ninth-teen century. It does not matter who got here first where it matters is the truth on the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom but not the Hawaiian Nation. It seems the United States did the same in Bosnia over throwing the government by the Bosnia Nation still lives. It seems the United Sates got away from breaking their own Constitution and International Law when it came to Hawaii. I believe someday the world will know the truth of what happen to Hawaii. Education to the world will be the key to the future outcome for Hawaii.
on September 3,2013 | 04:10PM
Reade1 wrote:
You need to view for yourself and make your own Judgement call. I don't know DiverDave but he seems to be negative when issues concerning Hawaiians. When I was advised to google and watch the tap it was very interesting and educational. Dr. David Keanu Sai has a PHD in Political Sciences. He is a graduate from Kamehameha Schools, retired Captain from the United Sates Arm Forces and did twenty years of research to receive his PHD. Invited by the US Military to do presentation and educate the US Military on Hawaii History. Life is based on your own opinion after education. There is so much I have learned from the tap that was never taught to us in our own schools on the history of Hawaii and events that took place why the United States and how they came about occupying Hawaii. Whatever DiverDave dislikes or against Dr. Sai that is between them. Watch and you will have your own concerns what is to come about. I am most surprise on the support he is receiving from countries the Kingdom of Hawaii has Treaties with and the concerns the Sate of Hawaii Government has because of War Crimes.
on September 3,2013 | 03:44PM
DiverDave wrote:
I don't need a PHD to know you are speaking quack!
on September 7,2013 | 06:36PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Blogs
Political Radar
`Toss up’

Political Radar
Super

Political Radar
Hilton; Plaza Club

Political Radar
Direct mail

Political Radar
Direct mail

Aperture Cafe
Ramadan #latergram