2018-02-01 Hearing Transcript - HI Brewery SPP 842

Home

VICENTE: Okay, my name is—good morning, my name is Dwight Vicente. I'm representing the Hawaiian Kingdom. The question of jurisdiction comes to play. Where are we? We are in the Hawaiian Kingdom. There is no State of Hawaii. If there was, there would have been an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The land laws that are being applied in this situation is based on the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. That deals only with the Ohio River Valley. The application of the Northwest Ordinance to this Kingdom goes as far back as 1875 with the Reciprocity Treaty. You can look at the history. The homestead program in 1884, the Americans wanted to have homestead here. Why? The treaty was invalid because it's based on the Northwest Ordinance. It violates the U.S. Constitution and, therefore, violates the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The land planning is a political question for the Hawaiian Kingdom, not for anybody else, because the lands here are either Crown or government lands, and all Crown and government lands are subject to Native tenant rights first of all. Second, there's a 25 -year contract. You don't own land in the Hawaiian Kingdom. You only have a land lease, and the other one is a kuleana lands which is life term of the individual. So, by applying the land development here in this Kingdom, which is a foreign thing that applies only to the Ohio River Valley, is questionable. It's unconstitutional. These are political—whether the lands are developed or not is a political question for the Hawaiian Kingdom. You go back to Downes vs. Bidwell or even Sai vs. Clinton, they always cite the Article 4, Section 3 clause to the U.S. Constitution which is limited to one territory, that's the Ohio River Territory under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. There's no amendment to that ordinance or to Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 or Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. There is only 13 states. Everything was shoved—if you read Downes vs. Bidwell, everything was shoved under Article 5 of the Northwest Ordinance by the U.S. Congress. There's no amendments. They all, all was done by joint resolution, which is all questionable. And, the other point is, I want to make out that the treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom all ended in 1897 with the foreign countries except for the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875, which was term ended in 1894, which the Republic of Hawaii continued. It's not their treaty. And, again, was continued in 1898 by the U.S. Congress by joint resolution. So, to have a treaty continued, that means it's recognized that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. You cannot have a treaty by yourself. The question is was the Reciprocity Treaty constitutional? It cannot be based on the Northwest Ordinance. It has to be based on the U.S. Constitution which the Northwest Ordinance was superseded by the U.S. Constitution by at least two months. One was written in January, excuse me, July 1887 [sic], which is the Reciprocity which is the Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution was adopted in September of 1787. EXHIBIT A 6