If you drove out, as I did, on Saturday, April 26, 2008, the first day of Hana’s 16th annual East Maui Taro Festival, it would have been difficult to ignore the series of bright hand-lettered signs posted on some of the one-lane bridges. They were taped in front of the places where you have to slow down or stop to let cars coming toward you pass by.

The first and largest sign, just before Twin Falls, was painted on what looked like a white bed sheet, and was tacked to a steep cliff on the right hand side of the road. It said, H20 for Honopou. A couple of miles further down the road, you would have seen a poster with Face the facts written on it. And then, at two or three mile intervals, signs appeared on the bridges saying, Fact #1: EMI diverts 160 million gallons a day; Fact #2: The amount of diverted water is enough to feed the entire island of Oahu; Fact #3: The Constitution of the State of Hawaii renders these diversions impermissible and illegal!; Fact #4: Loss of stream and marine life is accredited to these diversions; Fact #5: East Maui Hawaiians have fought over 120 years to restore stream flow. Today the fight continues…; Fact #6: Native Hawaiians and residents rely on these streams to live sustainably and to preserve Hawaiian culture.

And then, just after you round the bend and drive past the sweeping full-on view of deep, beautiful Honomanu Bay, traffic slowed to a crawl as cars threaded by crowds of Hawaiian taro farmers from all the major islands (and many others, including videographers from AKAKU television station) standing on the road and on the bridge, holding signs and passing out literature, trying to raise awareness and inform people passing by about the fact that massive amounts of stream water – the water they rely on to grow taro and feed their families – have been diverted by East Maui Irrigation Company for years. The farmers are demanding, once again but more emphatically than ever, that the water be restored to those streams. They are demanding justice.

Just days after the end of the legislative session and a failed attempt to reach an agreement over how much ceded-land revenue is owed to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the key parties involved appear to again be at loggerheads.

This time the issue is over what should happen next. While Gov. Linda Lingle says her administration stands by the existing proposal, lawmakers and OHA want to go back to the bargaining table.

Lawmakers did not approve an agreement reached between the Lingle administration and OHA that would have given the agency three parcels of land valued at $187 million and $13 million cash, as well as a minimum of $15.1 million in ensuing years.

But in the waning days of the session, legislators tacked onto the state budget a nonbinding proviso requiring the Lingle administration and OHA to resume negotiations on the 30-year-old dispute.

Meanwhile, Lingle on Friday told reporters her staff will not return to the negotiating table with OHA leaders.

A Native Hawaiian organization this morning is blocking entry into the Iolani Palace with no-trespassing signs, saying the grounds are the property of the "Hawaiian Kingdom."

About 70 people with the "Hawaiian Kingdom Government" gathered on palace grounds beginning at 5:30 a.m. today.

Signs are posted on the gates and only kanaka — those with Hawaiian bloodlines — along with media are being allowed entrance to the grounds.

The organization says it is the rightful owner of the palace and it is time to assume and resume its official state seat on Iolani grounds.

Security guards representing the Kingdom have been posted at each gate and they are giving out applications to those wanting to be recognized by the organization.

A group calling itself the Kingdom of Hawaii chained and locked all gates to Iolani Palace this morning, barring the public, tourists and government workers from the area.

Two men at the gate fronting the state Capitol, Harris Fuller and Kimo Kamakeeaina said they were sheriffs in the Hawaiian Kingdom government and would not let non-Hawaiians nor people who were not “citizens of the kingdom” enter.

The gates had large yellow signs claiming that entering the area would be considered “Criminal Trespass” by the Hawaiian Kingdom government.

Laura Thielen, chairwoman of the state’s board of Land and Natural Resources, said the property is controlled by the state’s land department and officials were talking to the protesters.

Thielen said about 35 people barred the public from entering the grounds, claiming sovereign rights over the area.

“The Department of Land and Natural Resources, state parks, which manages the palace with the Friends of Iolani Palace is closing the area,” Thielen said in a statement. “DLNR enforcement officers are working to fully assess the situation and are talking without the protesters to peacefully end the protest. We will continue to update the public as we get more information.”

i just sent around pono's photos. we pretty much covered the same ground, except for the students in front of the flag! those were great photos, pono! mostly we were both videotaping. that footage probably won't be ready to send around until tomorrow or friday.

mahealani asing mentioned that chief of police boise correa was advised by others not to enter the gate into the palace grounds because 'they might hold you hostage'. and his response was 'that's ridiculous! these people aren't terrorists or violent. besides, she's my cousin.' i thought that was funny. so he came onto the grounds next to the archives and behind the queen's statue and sat with mahealani for 10 minutes or so. they talked. he leaned over and gave her a hug. then he stood up and hugged or shook hands with the members of mahealani's group. then he left. i asked mahea what the outcome of the meeting was. she said he told her that the police wouldn't arrest them. since this was considered a state park, the state (not the city) had jurisdiction so he would direct the police to leave. she mentioned, too, that state law enforcement would probably come and try to arrest them. 

they might get arrested, or if they were offered the opportunity to leave, the group would leave rather than be arrested. but they would make sure that state law enforcement knew they would be back tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, until the issue was resolved. they don't want to occupy the palace, itself, nor did they try to.  the newspapers have it wrong.  the hawaiian kingdom government has entered into dialogue with kippen chu, ED of the friends of iolani palace, about use of the kanaina building. he, apparently, has to confer with the board of the friends.

we got all this down on tape, so you can see it later. i thought the whole thing was rather well done.

Hawaii has a "sovereign right" to sell and transfer lands previously owned by Hawaii's kingdom, the state told the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in an effort to lift a legal ban on the property deals until claims by native islanders are resolved.

In papers filed in Washington, D.C., state Attorney General Mark Bennett urged the nation's highest court to overturn a Hawaii Supreme Court decision that led to an injunction freezing any transaction of former royal land pending compensation to native Hawaiians.

Bennett contends Hawaii gained the right to manage more than 1.2 million acres of ceded lands, or about 29 percent of the islands' total land area, when it became a state through the Admission Act of 1959. He said the state court's unanimous ruling on Jan. 31 misinterpreted the Apology Resolution, which Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law in 1993 to acknowledge the illegal overthrow of Hawaii's monarchy.

Labeling the apology "symbolic," Bennett disputed the court's 5-0 decision that the resolution serves as a bar on the sale, exchange or transfer of ceded lands by the state.

The state has appealed a major Hawai'i Supreme Court decision that blocks the state from selling or transferring former Hawaiian monarchy lands.

State Attorney General Mark Bennett yesterday filed paperwork in Washington, D.C., asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the unanimous state court decision, issued Jan. 31.

That decision held that the state cannot transfer ownership of 1.4 million acres of former monarchy lands, now called ceded lands, pending resolution of claims by Native Hawaiians to those lands or revenues they produce.

The Hawai'i opinion, written by Chief Justice Ronald Moon, was based in large part on language in a Congressional Apology Resolution passed in 1993 to mark the 100th anniversary of the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom.

Moon wrote that the Apology Resolution and related state legislation impose upon the state a "fiduciary duty to preserve the corpus of the public land trust, specifically the ceded lands, until such time as the unrelinquished claims of the Native Hawaiians have been resolved."

Bennett, however, said the Moon opinion "is based on a wholly incorrect reading of the legal effect of the Apology Resolution" and unfairly blocks the state from "prudently managing" the ceded lands.

The decision "strips the state of its basic sovereign right to control and manage the lands it owns," Bennett said in a news release.

The Hawai'i Supreme Court opinion reversed a lower court ruling from Circuit Judge Sabrina McKenna in a suit filed against the state by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and four individual plaintiffs of Native Hawaiian ancestry.

Mr. FYFE, Kaoni Foundation, who spoke on behalf of the Hawaii Caucus, said that Hawaii rightfully belonged on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Indeed, a public law had been signed by United States President Clinton in 1993 -- the so-called “apology bill” –- that seemed to signify an acknowledgement that the indigenous peoples of Hawaii had never relinquished their sovereignty, and that the statehood plebiscite of 1959 had been fraudulent. He noted that, in 2008, the Supreme Court of Hawaii had barred the State from obtaining lands from the public land trust until the question had been resolved. Also, in 2008, the representative of the Russian Federation had asked the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination why Alaska and Hawaii had been excluded from the decolonization list. The representative of Romania had asked what steps were being taken to facilitate the self-determination of the Hawaiian people.

Kamehameha Schools is trying to get back as much as $2 million of the $7 million it paid last year to settle a lawsuit that challenged its admissions policy favoring Hawaiian students, according to legal papers filed in federal court in California.

Whereas: The Senate and House of Representatives of the United States have passed a Joint Resolution for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands, and such Joint Resolution has not been passed upon by the people of Hawaii, nor by their Representatives in Legislature assembled; and

Whereas: By memorial the people of Hawaii have protested against the consummation of an invasion of their political rights, and have fervently appealed to the President, the Congress and the People of the United States, to refrain from further participation in the wrongful annexation of Hawaii; and

Whereas: The Declaration of American Independence expresses that Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed:

Therefore, be it Resolved: That the representatives of a large and influential body of native Hawaiians, we solemnly pray that the constitutional government of the 16th day of January, A.D. 1893, be restored, under the protection of the United States of America.

April 16, 2008

I am responding to Mr. Ken Conklin’s assertions in the Maui News that De Jure recognition was given to the self-proclaimed republic in 1894. He cites as evidence letters written by heads of states including Great Britain, France and the United States formally recognizing the Republic that were sent to Sanford Dole.

Keanu Sai who has done a significant research in the area confirms that these letters do exist. What is not so clear is what the existence of these letters actually mean. Ken Conklin insists that foreign recognition of the Republic legalizes the actions of the United States and signifies the legal replacement of the Kingdom. But they actually signify nothing more than the willingness of these states to do business with the Republic—not a recognition of the Republic’s sovereignty. The sovereign Hawaiian nation was recognized by Britain, France and the United States in 1843. Thousands of people have seen that document. Regardless of what government these nations were willing to acknowledge in 1894, the nation’s essential sovereignty was already well-established. The question then becomes, did that sovereignty come to an end with the passage of the Newlands Resolution in 1898?

In terms of law the answer is clear. Only a treaty of annexation could actually extinguish Hawaiian sovereignty and transfer that sovereignty to the United States. As the United States was unable to ratify such a treaty, it settled for a joint resolution accepting the cession of the Republic. But could the Republic actually cede the governing authority of Hawai`i and the public and crown lands whose ownership was legally vested in the Kingdom? Perhaps the Republic could cede its willingness to govern and its control over the lands but it could not give away what it did not possess—sovereignty and title.

This is consistent with practically every published history. Even the haole historians: Allen; Dougherty; Russ and Coffman point out the Republic was not formed to be sovereign, it existed only to seek annexation. If the Republic was not sovereign, then what was? The lahui—the people who made their will known in the petitions sent to the Senate in 1897. There is a vast difference between the political reality of Hawaii’s occupation and a legal transferal of authority and sovereignty. This is what Keanu has been saying for the past fifteen years and nothing in Conklin’s latest foolishness challenges this.

Aloha ‘ina
Jon Osorio

I recently read a story in the Maui News at by Ken Conklin. Although he provides that same jiberish he does provide a very interesting link. His contention is that the overthrow of the Hawaiian government was legalized by the international recognition of the republic by the Queen and other States.

Firstly, other countries, as third parties, cannot legitimize an illegal situation between two States. And secondly, the investigation done by the U.S. President found that the provisional government was neither de facto (successful revolution) nor de jure (lawful by constitutional means), but self-proclaimed (criminal). This is what prompted the President to negotiate with the Queen, through U.S. Minister Albert Willis, to grant amnesty to those involved once restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom government was complete. You don't ask for amnesty, which means "a general pardon for offenders by a government," if they weren't criminals and the Queen didn't represent the Hawaiian Government. So how did these roles reverse whereby the criminals miraculously became the lawful Government and the representative of the lawful Government somehow became the criminal?

Hundreds of public charter school students and staff will rally at the state Capitol today to protest the budget pending at the Legislature that charter officials say will cut their funding by $400 to $900 per student.

Under the budget proposed by Gov. Linda Lingle and being considered by state lawmakers, charter school administrators say, the state's 27 public charter schools may have to cut services or positions.

"We're looking at a significant underfunding next year compared to this year, and certainly a significant underfunding for what is equitable and fair," said Reshela DuPuis, executive director of the Charter School Administrative Office.

Visitors to Iolani Palace can now walk through the home of Hawaii's last monarch while listening to an audio tour in the Hawaiian language.
[...]
The palace has offered self-guided tours in English since 2006 and added Japanese last year. The latest addition is the first Hawaiian-language tour ever produced for a museum, palace officials said.
[...]
The audio tours are available Tuesday through Saturday from 11:45 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Admission is $12 for adults. Children 5 to 12 years old pay $5.

More information is available by calling 522-0822 or online at www.iolanipalace.org.

Communications Pacific executive Puaalaokalani Aiu has been named administrator of the state Historic Preservation Division, the agency with responsibility for overseeing the treatment of archeological sites and Hawaiian burials on land slated for development.

Aiu's appointment has stirred some concern because she worked on Communications Pacific accounts linked to the development of Wal-Mart and the Ward Village Shops projects in Kaka'ako, which both involved controversies over burials.

The Honolulu Japanese Chamber of Commerce will host a seminar on the Akaka Bill, also known as the Native Hawaiian Recognition Bill, from noon to 1:30 p.m. April 24 at the chamber's Manoa Grand Ballroom Lounge at 2454 S. Beretania St.

Registration fee is $25 and includes lunch. For more information or to register, call 949-5531 or visit the Chambers Web site at www.honolulujapanesechamber.org.

You have to wonder about U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka's strategy in pushing for a vote this year on his bill for Native Hawaiian political recognition despite the certainty of a veto by President Bush if it passes.

It might be wiser to wait until after the election and hope for a Democratic president who is open to resolving indigenous claims of land and sovereignty stemming from the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and U.S. annexation of Hawai'i.

The proposed $200 million Office of Hawaiian Affairs settlement appears dead for this year's legislative session.

Senate President Colleen Hanabusa said yesterday that OHA trustees voted to urge the Legislature to pass a bill directing OHA to spend another year in negotiations.

It might be that you would be able to obtain recognition quickly. And especially if you pursue this process in accordance with principles of peaceful, non-violent struggle. And I submit that's the most effective technique you have today. And if you doubt me, you should read Gandhi's book, Satyagraha, Non-Violent Civil Resistance. It's about 300 pages long. And it explains how Gandhi threw the mighty British Empire out of India without using force. People power, what we call it today. And I submit that the Native Hawaiian people would be able to do the same thing, moving in this direction and adopting the techniques of peaceful, non-violent action, which is what Gandhi called for.

Searching for a balance between cultural tradition and science, the state House Agriculture Committee yesterday approved a bill that would impose a five-year moratorium on genetic experimentation with Hawaiian taro but would allow research into other varieties of the tropical plant.
[...]
The House is expected to approve the bill. It would be sent back to the state Senate, which agreed to a 10-year moratorium last session. House and Senate lawmakers could meet in conference committee on a final version, but that may depend on the reaction among taro farmers and scientists.

Several taro farmers yesterday said the House version is unacceptable and that they would urge lawmakers to adopt a 10-year moratorium.

"This bill is no good for the farmers. It doesn't protect us. It doesn't protect our Hawaiian varieties because you'll be contaminating them with the other varieties," said Jerry Konanui, a taro farmer and cultural practitioner in Puna on the Big Island. "They should kill this bill and face the consequences and the wrath of the people.

"It's ridiculous. They don't want to listen. But this is not the end. This is just the beginning."

Another legal challenge to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was filed yesterday in federal court by six Hawaii residents who contend state funding for the agency discriminates against non-Hawaiians.

The six contend that paying OHA a part of the revenues from ceded lands once held by the Hawaiian monarchy violates the state's trust obligations to all Hawaii residents.

The six non-Hawaiian residents are represented by H. William Burgess, the attorney who filed other challenges to OHA in the past.

It asks for a court order to halt state payments from ceded-land revenues to OHA and a halt to OHA spending that money to support the Akaka Bill pending in Congress. It also suggests that the pending settlement before the state Legislature to resolve past disputed claims by OHA to ceded-land revenues would also violate the rights of non-native Hawaiians.

A key Senate committee yesterday advanced a resolution urging state Auditor Marion Higa to conduct a financial and management audit of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, following more than three hours of testimony for and against the action.

OHA trustees and state Attorney General Mark Bennett said the sudden introduction of the resolution was punitive and tied to the critical comments they made after three Senate committees rejected a $200 million settlement of ceded land revenues last week.

They also pointed out that Higa is already scheduled to conduct an audit this year, under a statute that mandates such an audit of OHA every four years.

Senators said the suggestion for an audit came from growing calls from constituents who question OHA's expenditures and want more accountability from an agency established to benefit Native Hawaiians.

State senators will consider a measure today calling for a financial and management audit of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

The audit would come on the heels of the Senate's rejection last week of an agreement between the state and OHA to settle a 30-year dispute over revenue from land formerly owned by the Hawaiian government.

The settlement would give OHA $200 million in land and cash plus an annual $15.1 million payment. In exchange, OHA would relinquish any claims to revenues from the so-called "ceded lands."

Senate President Colleen Hanabusa said an audit of OHA would give everyone a chance to review the settlement.

"What the (OHA) beneficiaries are asking for, which we in the Senate do not find to be unreasonable, is to say, 'Slow it down a little bit. Let us participate in this. Talk to us.' And so the audit, to me, is an extension of that," said Hanabusa, D-21st (Nanakuli, Makaha).

Opponents of settlement have said it asks Hawaiians to give up too much for too little in return. Many Native Hawaiian leaders also complained they were not consulted on the settlement.

A movie about the life of Princess Kaiulani is being criticized as historically inaccurate and culturally insensitive by Democratic and Republican members of the state Senate.

In a letter circulated yesterday by Sen. Clayton Hee and signed by 16 senators, "The Last Princess" was questioned for taking state tax credits.

"Many members of the community wish to be assured that Princess Kaiulani and Iolani Palace will not be tarnished and exploited," said the senators' letter, addressed to Donne Dawson, state film commissioner.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees and Hawai'i Attorney General Mark Bennett yesterday vowed to continue pressing for legislative approval of a $200 million ceded lands settlement this year. But a key senator was skeptical that a resolution could be reached in the remaining six weeks of the Legislature.

"We want to make it clear that we are not giving up," OHA Chairwoman Haunani Apoliona said at a news conference, with five of her eight colleagues flanking her.

But Sen. Jill Tokuda, who chairs the Senate's Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs Committee, said Tuesday's decision to hold House Bill 266, which contained the settlement offer, speaks for itself.

"I think by holding the measure, that was a pretty definitive message that we do not intend to pass the bill this year," said Tokuda, D-24th (Kailua, Kane'ohe).

Tokuda stressed that she and other senators want the parties to get more feedback from the public, work on the bill and come back next year.

Bennett, the Lingle administration's chief negotiator in settlement talks with OHA, said, "We are going to do everything we can to try to still get this passed in this legislative session."

Nearly 100 people testified yesterday on a state bill that proposes a 10-year moratorium on developing or growing genetically engineered taro in Hawai'i, but a decision on whether to advance the measure wasn't immediately made.

The state House Committee on Agriculture deferred a bill that would impose a 10-year moratorium on developing or growing genetically engineered taro in Hawai'i late yesterday after a more than 7-hour hearing on the measure that attracted oral testimony from around 100 people.

Senate Bill 958 was introduced last year and passed by a Senate committee. But the bill carried over to this year's legislative session after the House Committee on Agriculture last year declined to hold a hearing on the measure. It still remains possible that the bill could be advanced after more deliberation by the committee.

A proposed $200 million settlement between the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the state over the use of former monarchy lands appears dead for this session.

Last night, three Senate committees rejected the proposal - the result of four years of negotiations between OHA and the state.

Sens. Jill Tokuda, Brian Taniguchi, Clayton Hee, Mike Gabbard and Russell Kokubun voted to reject the bill, House Bill 266, effectively stopping the measure for this year.

Hee (D, Kahuku-Kaneohe), a former OHA chairman, said that not enough was known about how the state and OHA reached their agreement and how it would benefit the native Hawaiian beneficiaries.

The senators represented the Committees of Water and Land, Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs, and Judiciary. Yesterday the committees heard more than five hours of mostly negative testimony regarding the bill.