Kuhio (Mossman) Vogeler (4th from left) presented data from his dissertation this evening at Palolo Media Center on how the Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) restored their independence and how/whether their strategies might have relevance to the situation in Hawaii today.

[Excerpts from Baltic Independence from the Soviet Union by James Graham http://www.historyorb.com/russia/baltic_independence.shtml]

Under Joseph Stalin the USSR re-annexed the Baltic countries in 1940. The independence the Baltic states had enjoyed since the collapse of the Tsarist empire was over. The pretext for the invasion was the articles of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that acknowledged Nazi Germany’s and the USSR’s separate spheres of influence. Stalin promptly invaded Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and deported or executed anyone who held nationalist beliefs. Without national elites the USSR gained complete control over the Baltic people and the articles formed the basis of the post Second World War Soviet state.

Lithuania and the other Baltic states Latvia and Estonia set an example of rebellion for the rest of the USSR to follow. In 1988 while the rest of the USSR was relatively calm the Baltic states were in open defiance of the Kremlin. On 24 August 1989 half the adult population of the Baltics formed a human chain stretching the entire length of the three republics to protest against the fiftieth anniversary of Soviet rule. The Soviet authorities such was their loss of touch with the average person viewed the anniversary as a celebration. In the parliamentary elections Sajudis swept the board. They were elected to the Supreme Soviet in Moscow allowing their voices to be heard nationwide through televised coverage. On 11 March 1990 by 124 votes to zero with six abstentions the Lithuanian parliament passed the Act of the Supreme Council on the Restoration of the Independent Lithuanian State. This shocked the Kremlin who replied in the only way they knew how. Tanks were sent in on the 22 March and five days later Soviet troops occupied strategic buildings. Estonia and Latvia were not far behind declaring independence on 30 March and 4 May respectively. Economic sanctions were applied but had no effect just like the military actions before them.

The Baltic republics blew a hole in the walls of the Soviet state. They had achieved the unthinkable by use of mere people power, along the way setting an example for the other republics to follow. National fronts were quickly established in most Soviet republics. Lithuania brought into the USSR by force had proved it could leave through mass protests and popular support for independence.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Hawaii-celebrates-50-years-of-statehood/articleshow/4285086.cms

Hawaii celebrates 50 years of statehood

Nice photo in today’s online Star Bulletin:

http://www.starbulletin.com/news/hawaiinews/20090313_Front_Page_photo_gallery.html?page=1&c=y

Hawaiian Independence Action Alliance members gathered at several places today to honor our ancestors at the ahu, Queen Liliuokalani, and King Kamehameha during a time set aside by the illegal state of Hawaii to commemorate its 50 year anniversary of misinformation, disinformation,  illegality, and theft.  It was a good day!

Beginning at the ahu at Iolani Palace grounds, participants wearing black shirts with large bright green letters lined themselves up to spell words that challenged the state’s celebration of itself:  FAKE STATE, A HISTORY OF THEFT/A HISTORY OF THE U.S.   Large red and black banners spelling out HAWAIIAN and INDEPENDENCE, as well as Hawaiian flags, Ka Hae Hawaii, and Ka Hae Kalaunu, rounded out the display and provided a colorful alternative to the drab white of the military band and the mostly colorless good Americans who attended the state’s event at the capitol. 

Security challenges were minimal.  Energy was high.  The state’s agenda for the day changed a couple of times.  The rotunda gathering ended up in the House Chambers, so our messages lined up on either side of the entrance and across the way.  While those who entered the chambers where former governors were being recognized waited for the sound of jets overhead, what they actually heard was the pu, loud and clear.  And following that, HIAA members chanting “I Ku Mau Mau”.  Photographers were everywhere.

Photo opportunities took place at the Queen’s statue, where Kekuni Blaisdell offered hookupu to the Queen on our behalf; in front of the military band on Beretania St., on the street itself, fronting Washington Place; inside the rotunda of the state capitol; in front of Iolani Palace; on King St., where the A HISTORY OF THEFT blocked traffic until an ambulance came down the road; and in front of the Kamehameha statue.

Here’s a great photo from Jon S. of jets flying overhead with our Hawaiian Independence banners in the foreground. 

HIAA member, Kelea Levy-Sandfort from San Francisco, shared a site with descriptions from a recent action to protest the sale of “ceded lands”  and provided us with a couple of photos.   Note the partially blocked ”ceded=stolen” sign.

Organizers of the San Francisco events yesterday (Feb. 25, 2009, same day as our “Seized not Ceded” sign holding at the state capitol) are now planning to organize workshops throughout the Bay Area to help people understand the historical, legal, and political issues surrounding Hawaiian public lands and to facilitate inquiry and discussion about these important issues.

Members of the Hawaiian Independence Action Alliance posed with their message to the state of Hawaii re the state’s upcoming ‘celebration of statehood’, more recently becoming a ‘commemoration of statehood’.  Maybe next year it will be a commemoration of what was once considered a state of the United States.  That’ll work!

Ka Lei Maile Alii Hawaiian Civic Club, a founding member group of the Hawaiian Independence Action Alliance, performed the re-enactment titled Ka Lei Maile Alii - The Queen’s Women as part of the Native Hawaiian Health Festival & Hoikeike at Bishop Museum on Sunday, March 8.  Dr. Keanu Sai provided context for both performances, at 10 am and 1 pm.  Both performances were well-attended.

The re-enactment is based on a newspaper article titled “Strangling Hands Upon a Nation’s Throat”, authored by newspaper reporter Miriam Michelson.  Ms. Michelson was present at a meeting of the Hui Aloha Aina o na Wahine, the Women’s Branch of the Hawaiian Patriotic League, which took place at the Salvation Army Hall in Hilo in September 1897.  The meeting itself was conducted in Hawaiian language.  Ms. Michelson had a translator and took note of everything that was said.  On her way home to San Francisco, while on the passenger ship AUstralia, she wrote this article about how the people of Hilo and surrounding areas responded to a plea by Mrs. Emma Aima Nawahi and Mrs. Kuaihelani Campbell, officers in the Hui Aloha Aina o na Wahine, to sign petitions in resistance to the planned annexation of Hawaii to the United States.

Keanu Sai’s presentation helped the audience understand how actions of the men’s and women’s branches of the Hui Aloha Aina helped to defeat the treaty of annexation submitted to the U.S. by the Republic of Hawaii.  Thus no treaty exists to this day, except in the hand of the statue of William McKinley, fronting McKinley High School in downtown Honolulu.

Next scheduled performance is March 16, 2009 @ 6 pm at McCoy Pavilion in Ala Moana Park.  The Monday evening performance is part of several activities planned for Women’s History Month, and honors Queen Liliuokalani and the women who supported her in resisting U.S. invasion of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Some 2000 supporters rallied at the state capitol in support of the Civil Unions bill, now at the legislature, with a candlelight vigil on March 7, 2009.  Organizer Ka`iwi Lum, who also happens to be a member of the Hawaiian Independence Action Alliance, pulled together at fairly short notice numerous individuals, groups, and legislators during a rainy evening to show solidarity and demand equal justice for all members of society.

Other HIAA members were also present, including Pono Kealoha, Donna Burns, Richard Kinney, and Piilani Kaopuiki.  Long-time activist, Marion Kelly, was surrounded by signs calling attention to the state’s discriminatory practices re same sex marriage.

A number of participants honored Queen Liliuokalani by placing flowers and candles at the foot of the statue after the event. 

 Poka Laenui and Pua Burgess admire the Queen

The underlying message?  Justice for all.  We are not free until we are all free.  Kehau Watson says it all below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPXTnHz1AnA

Join us in-studio at Palolo Olelo Media Center for a presentation by Keanu Sai, PhD, on “Hawaii and the Law of Occupation” on Wednesday, March 11, 6 pm.  Seats are limited, so come early.  Parking on Kalua St. next to Jarrett Middle School.  For more information, call 284-3460 or email lcruz@hawaiianindependencealliance.org.

The following document was distributed at the recent Hawaiian Society of Law and Politics symposium on Feb. 28, 2009 at East West Center.  Titled “Ka Nalu:  Towards  Hawaiian National Consciousness”, the symposium was a tribute to Dr. Kanalu Young and to recent graduates of HSLP.  Featured speakers:  Dr. Kamana Beamer, Dr. Sydney Iaukea, Dr. Keanu Sai

L to R: Beamer, Osorio, Vogeler, Iaukea, Correa, Sai, Gonschur, Schweizer

Members of HSLP with their advisor, Dr. Niklaus Schweizer.

The Myth of Ceded Lands and the State of Hawai`i’s Claim to Perfect Title
by Keanu Sai, PhD

In the recent Ceded lands hearing at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on February 25, 2009, Attorney General Mark Bennett repeatedly asserted in the hearings that the State of Hawai`i has perfect title to over one million acres of land that were transferred to the United States government upon annexation in 1898 and then transferred to the State of Hawai`i in 1959. This is an incorrect statement. This falsehood, however, is not based on arguments for or against the highly charged Hawaiian sovereignty movement; rather, it is a simple question to answer since ownership of land is not a matter of rhetoric but dependent on a sequence of deeds in a chain of title between the party granting title and the party receiving title. In fact, the term “perfect title” in real estate terms means “a title that is free of liens and legal questions as to ownership of the property. A requirement for the sale of real estate.”

What determines a perfect title is a chain of title that doesn’t have a missing link. Here in Hawai`i all titles originate from the Hawaiian Kingdom government whether by Royal Patents or Land Commission Awards and all subsequent conveyances between individuals are registered at the Bureau of Conveyances located at the corner of Punchbowl and Beretania Streets on the ground floor of the Kalanimoku Building. An example of a chain of title would be the Hawaiian Kingdom government to Joe Smith, Joe Smith to Alex White, Alex White to Alapa`i, Alapa`i to Yao Wong, Yao Wong to Jonathan Judd. If there is no record of the deed between Alapa`i and Yao Wong there is a break in the chain of title and therefore Jonathan Judd cannot claim to have a perfect title, which is a “requirement for the sale of real estate.”

For so-called Ceded Lands, being the Hawaiian Kingdom government and Crown lands, the chain of title is supposedly from the Hawaiian Kingdom government and Queen Lili`uokalani to the Provisional government, the Provisional government to the Republic of Hawai`i, the Republic of Hawai`i to the United States, the United States to the State of Hawai`i. In this chain, however, there are two missing links and not just one. On January 17, 1893, the Provisional government seized control of the Government and Crown lands without conveyance, but through revolt, and after investigating the revolt, President Cleveland reported to the Congress on December 18, 1893 that the Provisional government was neither de facto (a successful revolution), nor de jure (the lawful government), but self-proclaimed (committing the crime of high treason). On November 13, 1893, U.S. Ambassador Albert Willis began to negotiate with the Queen, on behalf of President Cleveland, to grant amnesty for these criminals and an agreement to restore the Hawaiian Kingdom government was concluded with the condition that the Queen grant amnesty after the government was restored.

The other missing link is that there is no record of conveyance from the so-called Republic of Hawai`i to the United States when the Hawaiian Islands were supposedly annexed in 1898. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term cede is “to yield or give up by treaty.” In order for countries to cede territory to the United States it must be made by treaty, e.g. Louisiana Purchase from France in 1803, or the Alaska Purchase from Russia in 1867. For Hawai`i, there are two failed treaties of cession, the first in 1893 and the other in 1897, but the first was permanently withdrawn from the Senate by Cleveland in March of 1893, and the second was not able to be ratified by the Senate because of protests by the Queen and Hawaiian subjects. Instead, the United States enacted a Congressional joint resolution proclaiming that the Hawaiian Islands had been annexed. The joint resolution of annexation is not a treaty or conveyance from the so-called Republic of Hawai`i. It is a unilateral declaration that was used to seize and occupy the Hawaiian Islands during the Spanish-American War. The United States today could no more annex Iraq by a joint resolution than it could annex the Hawaiian Islands by joint resolution in 1898. Congressional laws have no effect beyond the borders of the United States.

If there is no record of a deed from the Hawaiian Kingdom government and the Queen to the Provisional government transferring Government and Crown lands, there is a break in the chain of title and therefore the State of Hawai`i cannot claim to have a perfect title, which is a “requirement for the sale of real estate.” As far as the term “Ceded lands,” there is no such thing because the Government and Crown lands were never “yielded or given up by treaty” to the United States in the first place. Confusing cession for occupation is tantamount to confusing adoption for kidnapping. This is not a case of semantics, but ignorance of the legal and political history of Hawai`i.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

By Leon Siu
February 27, 2009

Washington, D.C., USA

Reading the newspaper accounts of the State of Hawaii v. the Office of Hawaiian Affairs oral arguments at the Supreme Court I asked myself, were they in the same courtroom that I was? Hawaii papers put a phony, positive spin on what actually went down. The stories were written with the kind of provincial slant… home-town-team, win-or-lose, they’re-our-boys and we’re-darn proud-of- ‘em and we-love- ‘em.

Well, we do love ‘em, but those of us who were there saw a very different picture than the hometown news reported. The fact is, the state and OHA choked.

Hawaii’s little league ball teams do much better in rallying and coming through in the clutch in their world-series encounters. But the State and OHA got dirty lickins playing in this big league, world-series-level of court. They performed like a bunch of amateur scam artists, but in nice suits.

In essence, the Supreme Court justices appeared not just skeptical, they seemed to be downright annoyed at the state’s convoluted arguments and manipulative efforts to have the federal court undo the results of 14 years of dragging through the state courts.

The justices took their line of questioning way outside the expectations and comfort zone of both the state and OHA. Neither party was prepared to (or wanted to) address the issue of title except to reinforce the state’s claim to so-called “perfect title” as “a given.” So they did some fancy footwork to try to dodge the title issue; which did not amuse or make any points with the court. Neither was the court pleased when the state and OHA tried to steer the justices back to the actual narrow question on deck about state’s rights.

The state’s whole case is built upon the premise that the State of Hawaii has “indisputable perfect title” to the “ceded lands.” Well guess what? If their title was “indisputable” and “perfect” why are they in court? And why have they been in court over this issue for 14 years? Because there is a dispute! There is a question of title!

The injunction leveled against the State of Hawaii by the State Supreme Court in January 2008 caused the State to run crying to the U.S. Supreme Court saying, “No fair, no fair! The Apology Law would force us to give Hawaiians back the lands stolen from them over 100 years ago! It’s ours fair and square because the U.S. gave it to us! The Apology means nothing. We have “perfect title!”

[Ironically, this is the very Apology Law that the state embraces in their support the Akaka Bill. But that’s another story.]

The Apology Law undermines the state’s “perfect title” claim. The State Court ordered the injunction because the Apology Law clearly shows that there is a dispute — a big one! The Apology Law flatly says that the seizure of Hawaii was illegal and that the native Hawaiians never gave up their claims (title) to the lands of Hawaii.

These two glaring admissions of fact, framed within this federal Apology Law (USPL 103-150) don’t merely suggest a problem of land title; they cast serious doubt on the very legitimacy of the State of Hawaii. How can something that results from an illegal act now be considered legal, or in this case, perfect?

The illegality of the initial act (the seizure of the lands of Hawaii) means that anything else based on that illegal act is likewise, illegal; and that means the State of Hawaii and its construct, OHA are illegal entities. That means the only valid, lawful claimant to the lands and jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Islands is, after all these years, the still-existing Hawaiian Kingdom.

That is why the state claimed right off the bat that it had “indisputable” “perfect title.” The state was desperately trying to keep the court from inquiring about any other option regarding title by eliminating that, first off, as a point of contention. But the court’s refusal to wear such blinders was unnerving to the state. You could almost hear the state attorney general saying to the court, “focus! focus!”

But just because the state took a beating, doesn’t mean OHA fared much better.

Probably the most egregious action that day was by OHA when it chose to agree with the state’s “perfect title” position and by doing so, failing to present the Native Hawaiians’ un-relinquished claims as a challenge to the state. They virtually abandoned the Native Hawaiian land claim implicit in the Apology Law! By doing so, they virtually abandoned the Native Hawaiians; the clients they purport to represent!

At best it was a stupid legal maneuver; at worst it was a shameful betrayal.

OHA never challenged the state’s “perfect title” claim and argued instead that according to state laws, the state had a “fiduciary duty,” sort of a moral obligation, to take care of the Native Hawaiians.

That led Justice Ginsburg to ask, “The Native Hawaiians — they do get 20 percent of the proceeds, correct?” And the OHA attorney to answer, “That’s correct…as a matter of State law they get 20 percent of the revenue from the ceded-lands trust…” (we all looked incredulously at each other…since when?) Then he clarified, “…though the amount of that revenue has itself been the subject of protracted and unresolved litigation.”  Oh, so we get 20%, but not yet! The check’s in the mail… Yeah, right.

Later, Justice Kennedy stated to the OHA attorney: “Your whole case rests on a cloud on the title in favor of your clients. But you — you ignore the cloud on the title that has been entered against the State.”

So, OHA’s strategy is: don’t press for the Native Hawaiian’s outstanding claim on the land, but instead, shift to begging for handouts from the state because, according to “state law,” the state has a “fiduciary duty” to take care of Native Hawaiians. OHA in essence was making a pitch (in the Supreme Court of the United States!) for a welfare claim, not a land claim!

In my opinion, both the state and OHA were way out of their league in this court. But you can’t blame them. They had a flimsy case to begin with; one in which they are trying to defend a situation that resulted from a long series of illegal actions. It’s very hard to defend a string of lies.

Two good things came from this: 1) the state and OHA have proven they have nothing to stand on, and 2) there is now a gaping doorway for the Hawaiian Kingdom to walk through, assert itself and claim its rightful title the lands of Hawaii.

Imua! Let’s go get ‘um!

Malama pono,
Leon