Resolve homelands issue - Hawaii Editorials

Mahalo, Star Bulletin.

Your column sets out a few points regarding the history behind the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), 1920, but omits key historical events leading up to its passage.

Under the Kingdom of Hawaii, at the time of the Mahele of 1848, three (3) parties were identified as holding an interest in the formerly undivided communal lands. 1) Kamehameha III; 2) the Chiefs and Konohiki; and, 3) the native tenants, which also included the defeated alii, dispossessed alii and disinherited alii who, without land, were treated as common native Hawaiian tenants.

Under the Mahele of 1848, Kam III received his share, the 245 Chiefs and Konohiki received their share, but the native tenants did not receive one acre and were cheated out of their one-third share by the Kingdom of Hawaii.

The reason behind this was that the greedy Chiefs and Konohiki, with approval of Kam III, wanted to insure the common native Hawaiian tenants would be ingratiated toward the Chiefs and Konohiki in a formula that included impoverishing the common native tenants, and throwing out morsels of "benefits" or "gratuities" to the native tenants, in order to continue to keep this class subservient and obedient. That is the hisory behind these "Alii Trusts" as well today.

As one Chief said at the time, "If we give them their land, what use would they have of us?"

After cheating the native tenants in 1848, two years later, in 1850, and then only as an afterthought, did the Kingdom pretend to want to deliver lands to the native tenants under the Kuleana Land Grant Acts of 1850-54.

Evidence of its design to fail is found that out of the 33.33% of the lands that were supposed to go to native tenants, the Kingdom only delivered .8 percent to the native tenants.

Driven off their ancestral lands, into the urban core and centers of Hilo, Lahaina and Honolulu, for example, the native tenants were left impoverished, destitute and in a condition of homeless vagrants in their own homeland by the Kingdom of Hawaii.

So abysmal were their condition, the United States in 1920, looked at the situation, found the root cause linking the Mahele of 1848 to the native tenant condition, and were so moved to enact the HHCA, 1920.

That instrument is now contained in a federal-state compact in Section 4, and the funding mechanism to implement the HHCA and in Section 5(f), of the Hawaii Statehood Admission Act, 1959.

Those who desire to return to the foreign, european-import concept of the "monarchy," are often quite ignorant of what great harm the corrupt Kingdom of Hawaii did to the native tenants and their heirs.

OHA advances a form of "restore the monarchy" effort, "if not, give us cash," and their Akaka Bill is based on milking the United States tax payers regarding the overthrow of that corrupt monarchy in 1893, but using the native tenants heirs share of 5(f), to do so. The cruel irony is that 5(f) was placed there to fund the HHCA beneficiaries and remediate their condition suffered as a result of the corrupt monarchy having cheated them out of their share.

To have a State agency, OHA, use the 5(f) monies to pay lobbyists and p.r. people to seek passage of legislation to invent a fake Indian tribe under the Akaka bill, and try to take over the HHCA and 5(f) lands too, is absolutely unbelievable.

The Kingdom of Hawaii was corrupt to the core. The native Hawaian tenants Section 4 HHCA, and 5(f) share, SHOULD NOT be used to advocate restoration of any form of the Kingdom, neither under the Akaka bill, nor any of these vaious "sovereignty groups" that have sprouted up, many led by frauds, felons and con-artists.

Doesn't the SB editors remember the $600 Million paid for the same claims by the Waihee administration? How much is enough for these greedy grubbers. Free land, free welfare, free school, free free free. Appeal the case, the state should not be responsible for a program forced upon them from the federal government.

The highly superstitious and strongly feudal society that also played a big part in keeping the kanaka maoli down and out was also part of the unplanned scheme of the haves against the have nots. Anyone who reads the book "The Journal of William Ellis" would wonder why any modern day Hawaiian would want to go back in time??? They must think that the old days were spent in hula dancing surfing and feasting !!!

Take a look at the mainland indian tribes that went into gambling. First the outside "consultants" made tons of money, then the "leaders" started grabbing big kickbacks and phony "improvement" contracts. Now the technique is to remove entire families from the tribal membership lists so that a small pool of insiders gets to scoop the revenues.

To this day a few ali'i families make enormous sums leasing out their land grants, for example Pearl Harbor. Everybody else got thrown under the bus.

There should be no further delay concerning Hawaii Home Lands payouts. The Attorney General and Governor only look like fools continuing the obvious discrimination against what is rightfully owed Hawaiians. Lets have some honorable action for a change! Pay up!

Kalli wrote:

Doesn't the SB editors remember the $600 Million paid for the same claims by the Waihee administration? How much is enough for these greedy grubbers. Free land, free welfare, free school, free free free. Appeal the case, the state should not be responsible for a program forced upon them from the federal government.

Kalli, the Hawaiian Home Lands are not free land. These Hawaiian Home Lands are the undelivered share belonging to the native tenants and their heirs, cheated by the Kingdom and which the Kingdom wrongfully converted into "Government Land."

You are also ignorant of the fact that administration of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, is part of a federal-state compact you can read for yourself in Section 4 of the Statehood Admission Act, 1959. Go ahead, look it up. I dare you.

That was a condition of Statehood. It was not "forced" on the State of Hawaii, it was agreed to as a condition of statehood. You ignoramus.

If you don't like it, go find another State.

My suggestion is you pack your stuff today, get on a flight tonight, and move to California because they are broke right now and you need to suffer with them in order to gain some appreciation about your arrogance.

"Free school?" That sounds to me like you are a product of a private or not so "free school."

If so, you may just be another insensitive, privileged snob and spoiled brat that went to a private school and think you show class by looking down your nose of ignorance.

Please, take that snooty nose with you to California.

Bye!

The Mahele did not award rights based on race. The word "hoa'aina" refers simply to "tenants" not "native tenants."

The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921 was unconstitutional, and will be overturned by the federal courts whenever a plaintiff can be found who is able to get past the technical requirements for "standing." Accordingly, the portions of the Statehood Act of 1959 that require the State of Hawaii to take upon itself the obligations of HHCA, will be removed from the Statehood Act.

What about the "damages" to be awarded in this case?

Suppose I make you a "promise" that someday I will give you a yummy, but I cannot predict exactly when that will happen. Then many years later you sue me for failing to give you the yummy. You say you have "sufered" all these years because you had to go out and buy your own yummy, so I owe you bigtime damages for all the money you spent on your yummy and the increase in value of yummies that you failed to get during the time you didn't have one. Isn't that absurd?

The court should award the plaintiffs one dollar.

Pat wrote:

There should be no further delay concerning Hawaii Home Lands payouts. The Attorney General and Governor only look like fools continuing the obvious discrimination against what is rightfully owed Hawaiians. Lets have some honorable action for a change! Pay up!

Um, the latest lawsuit specifies the years of neglect as being the 60s and 70s when the Plantation Asian Democrats had complete power.

More Hawaiian Homestead lots have been given out under Lingle that any other administration.

Now, while George Ariyoshi was governor, he had 42 staff members that he hired to work in his office.

Guess how many were Japanese?

All. 100%.

You think he was worried about Hawaiians when he was in power?

Ken Conklin wrote:

The Mahele did not award rights based on race. The word "hoa'aina" refers simply to "tenants" not "native tenants."

You might be right.

But that was a time when a few hundred Haole lived in and around Honolulu and Lahaina and every other inch of land was populated by Hawaiians.

So you are attempting to twist definitions using realities of today imposed upon the reality of the 1840s.

Nice try Mr. PhD. but a weak one.

Ken Conklin wrote:

The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921 was unconstitutional,

You are probable right.

But interesting how you pull up the Constitution only when you feel like it.

The Annexation of Hawaii was also unconstitutional.

Lets please correct unconstitutional events in the order of their occurrence.

Fix the Annexation problem and then we can fix the Homelands problem.

Ken Conklin wrote:

Suppose I make you a "promise" that someday I will give you a yummy, but I cannot predict exactly when that will happen. Then many years later you sue me for failing to give you the yummy. You say you have "sufered" all these years because you had to go out and buy your own yummy, so I owe you bigtime damages for all the money you spent on your yummy and the increase in value of yummies that you failed to get during the time you didn't have one.

No.

What is absurd is if a country claims to be a Constitutional Republic but ignores its own Constitution when certain "yummies" like oil and Hawaii come along.

Also absurd is a person who touts their PhD, signifying years and years of extra "education" being so incapable of recognizing such obvious facts.

Ken Conklin wrote:

The Mahele did not award rights based on race. The word "hoa'aina" refers simply to "tenants" not "native tenants."
The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921 was unconstitutional, and will be overturned by the federal courts whenever a plaintiff can be found who is able to get past the technical requirements for "standing." Accordingly, the portions of the Statehood Act of 1959 that require the State of Hawaii to take upon itself the obligations of HHCA, will be removed from the Statehood Act.
What about the "damages" to be awarded in this case?
Suppose I make you a "promise" that someday I will give you a yummy, but I cannot predict exactly when that will happen. Then many years later you sue me for failing to give you the yummy. You say you have "sufered" all these years because you had to go out and buy your own yummy, so I owe you bigtime damages for all the money you spent on your yummy and the increase in value of yummies that you failed to get during the time you didn't have one. Isn't that absurd?
The court should award the plaintiffs one dollar.

Suddenly Conklin tries to pass himself off as an expert on the Hawaiian language.

The historical useage of that term "hoa'aina" referred only to the native tenants.

That opinion by experts qualified to render as much, would completely evaporate any credible claim made Conklin or others, to the contrary.

More than that, it is a dishonest position.

It ignores the historical and undisputed fact that at the time of the Mahele, only the native Hawaiian commoner tenants had an identifiable interest in such lands (aside from Kam III and the Chiefs and Konohiki).

Mr. Conklin either does not know, or here purposefully conceals, that NO FOREIGNERS were allowed to own property in fee simple absolute, prior to the Mahele of 1848.

Hence the need by the Kingdom to implement the Mahele of 1848, under pressure by foreigners to own the former communal lands in fee simple absolute.

What Mr. Conklin risks is that, although some of his arguments are correct with regard to restoration attempts of the monarchy (or its multivariate forms and guises from OHA to the Akaka bill,) his entire credibility is at stake, and therefore his arguments and representations as well, when Mr. Conklin engages in what amounts to lying by omission in rendering a dishonest account of the events surrounding the Mahele of 1848.

Mr. Conklin justifiably holds in contempt the Kingdom of Hawaii, but makes the fatal mistake of confusing the corruption of such Government, with the undelivered property right belonging to the heirs of the native tenants or hoa'aina, encumbered in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, in the federal-state compact of Section 4 of the Admission Act, along with the funding mechanism in Section 5(f) thereto.

Poi wrote:

<quoted text>
You are probable right.
But interesting how you pull up the Constitution only when you feel like it.
The Annexation of Hawaii was also unconstitutional.
Lets please correct unconstitutional events in the order of their occurrence.
Fix the Annexation problem and then we can fix the Homelands problem.

Eh, lolo.

You going listen to, let alone argue with, a non lawyer rendering what he thinks is "a legal opinion?"

Conklin is here appearing to be practicing law without a license by rendering such an opinion.

Use some common sense. The guy ain't no lawyer. Unless he has a crystal ball and can predict the future, I wouldn't believe him.

Moreover, Conklin completely omits to mention that the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT in a 9-0 decision UPHELD the constitutionality of the Section 5(f) Admission Act, deciding that one of the five purposes was "native Hawaiians as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920."

By the way, there is no "Homelands problem," only the State of Hawaii not carrying out this HHCA provision as they AGREED to by federal-state compact.

The "problem" is the State of Hawaii claiming it does not have money to implement the Hawaiian Homes program, at the same time funneling monies dedicated to these beneficiaries, to OHA,

OHA, in turns, wastes it on stupid stuff like Kau Inoa, the Akaka bill and masquerading as alii in Washington, DC.

Poi wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, the latest lawsuit specifies the years of neglect as being the 60s and 70s when the Plantation Asian Democrats had complete power.
More Hawaiian Homestead lots have been given out under Lingle that any other administration.
Now, while George Ariyoshi was governor, he had 42 staff members that he hired to work in his office.
Guess how many were Japanese?
All. 100%.
You think he was worried about Hawaiians when he was in power?

I see Lingle and Kane fooled you too, huh.

Lingle and Kane only took care of the Residential applicants, stacking them like sardines, packing as many as they could in the smaller parcels of land possible-----ignoring the needs of the Agricultural and Pastoral applicants and lessees.

Also, Kane was too chicken kukae to go after the 5(f) monies OHA is wasting on non-beneficiaries.

He will fit in as a KSBE trustee.

Meanwhile Lingle protege and yes-man, Aiona, wants to be liked too, and has signaled he supports passage of the Akaka bill, authored by US Senator Inouye using Akaka as a front, which proposed legislation is also known as the "Let's Invent A Fake Indian Tribe."

What Conklin advocates here, elimination of the recognized, undelivered property right belonging to the native tenants, is the very same cold-hearted position designed by the corrupt Kingdom of Hawaii to cheat the heirs of the maka'ainana, then known as the hoa'aina or native tenants under that Kingdom,

and the very same cold-blooded position the State of Hawaii has taken since 1959,

and the very same intent and plan when the State of Hawaii invented OHA in 1978,

and the very same intent and plan Senator Inouye using Akaka wants under the Akaka bill.

The only thing standing in their way is us.

Guess what?

We got nothing to lose, and we are playing for keeps.

Kalli wrote:

Doesn't the SB editors remember the $600 Million paid for the same claims by the Waihee administration? How much is enough for these greedy grubbers. Free land, free welfare, free school, free free free. Appeal the case, the state should not be responsible for a program forced upon them from the federal government.

"Forced Upon Them?" Those greedy haoles voted for this state... NOW PAY FOR IT !!

Ken Conklin wrote:

The Mahele did not award rights based on race. The word "hoa'aina" refers simply to "tenants" not "native tenants."
The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921 was unconstitutional, and will be overturned by the federal courts whenever a plaintiff can be found who is able to get past the technical requirements for "standing." Accordingly, the portions of the Statehood Act of 1959 that require the State of Hawaii to take upon itself the obligations of HHCA, will be removed from the Statehood Act.
What about the "damages" to be awarded in this case?
Suppose I make you a "promise" that someday I will give you a yummy, but I cannot predict exactly when that will happen. Then many years later you sue me for failing to give you the yummy. You say you have "sufered" all these years because you had to go out and buy your own yummy, so I owe you bigtime damages for all the money you spent on your yummy and the increase in value of yummies that you failed to get during the time you didn't have one. Isn't that absurd?
The court should award the plaintiffs one dollar.

"Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921 was unconstitutional, and will be overturned by the federal courts" Well, hold your breath til you are blue in the face, hold it, hold it,....... keep holding........ And you claim to have a Ph.D ? You are about as smart as you look !!

packed like sardines wrote:

<quoted text>
I see Lingle and Kane fooled you too, huh.
Lingle and Kane only took care of the Residential applicants, stacking them like sardines, packing as many as they could in the smaller parcels of land possible-----ignoring the needs of the Agricultural and Pastoral applicants and lessees.
"

Two sides to every story.

The attack used to be that all Hawaiians were getting was "useless" empty land with no water or sewer to build a house.

Now its, too much developed land not enough farm land. Either way, somebody's bitching.

Also, I know of plenty of Hawaiian Homesteaders with large agricultural tracts that simply lease their land to non-Hawaiians who actually grow something. That should be illegal as well.

Bottom line is more Hawaiians got home lots under Lingle.

mookane wrote:

<quoted text>
"Forced Upon Them?" Those greedy haoles voted for this state... NOW PAY FOR IT !!

Actually, statehood didn't happen until Asians (or yellow Haole) had a sufficient numerical advantage to "vote" for it.

Haole are responsible for the overthrow, the unconstitutional annexation and ruling the Hawaii with an iron fist.

Asians, or the yellow Haole, are responsible for statehood and the systematic selling of all prime lands in order to enrich themselves and their own kind.

That's historical fact.

Poi wrote:

<quoted text>
Two sides to every story.
The attack used to be that all Hawaiians were getting was "useless" empty land with no water or sewer to build a house.
Now its, too much developed land not enough farm land. Either way, somebody's ****.
Also, I know of plenty of Hawaiian Homesteaders with large agricultural tracts that simply lease their land to non-Hawaiians who actually grow something. That should be illegal as well.
Bottom line is more Hawaiians got home lots under Lingle.

I am interested to learn of, what you claim to be "plenty of Hawaiian Homesteaders with large agricultural tracts that simply lease their land to non-Hawaiians."

THAT IS illegal, and was ruled as much in the Han case on Molokai. Interestingly, the State of Hawaii was all for that mis-use of the land by the beneficiaries, before the Court ruled.

Alarmingly, the State of Hawaii continues such practice with regards to the undelivered lands as well.

It cannot be argued that, yes, more residential awards were issued under Lingle, but that cannot be used as a justification to ignore the other two areas of Agricultural and Pastoral leases contemplated and expressed by Congressional intent in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, can it?

Otherwise, it looks like Lingle can use folks like you to repeat how great a job she did getting Hawaiians onto their land, but omits to mention the two other prongs of the program she has utterly failed at carrying out.

It just looks dishonest, that's all.

It IS dishonest.