|
HALL: Speak into the microphone. It's on.
<br />CLARKSON: It's on.
<br />VICENTE: Can you hear me now? Because each and every one of you, I believe, took an oath
<br />to the U.S. Constitution, it's questionable whether you have any authority to issue a sworn
<br />statement, have anybody issue a sworn statement.
<br />CLARKSON: We'll take that under advisement, sir. Let the record show that two of the three
<br />parcels [sic], participants so affirmed, and one did not. And, your name, again, sir?
<br />VICENTE: Dwight Vicente.
<br />CLARKSON: Dwight Vicente did not. Let's start with George Martin, and please speak into
<br />the microphone and introduce yourself.
<br />MARTIN: Good morning, Mr. Chair. George Martin. I'm speaking in favor of the Findings,
<br />and I think that I spoke the last time I was here, and in regards to it, again, if there's something
<br />that Hu Honua would need to do and the committee or members of could give them advice per se
<br />in making sure they meet whatever regulations and rules that are in place, please do so. But,
<br />again, there is nothing that they're doing that is per se illegal, wrong, or otherwise frowned upon.
<br />And, again, I would like to think that the council would vote accordingly and allow them to
<br />proceed.
<br />VICENTE: Good morning, Dwight Vicente. I'm representing the Hawaiian Kingdom. The
<br />Hawaiian Kingdom has longstanding questions of law between or based on the Reciprocity
<br />Treaty of 1875 with the United States. That Treaty is based on the Northwest Ordinance of
<br />1787, which is limited to Article 5 which is the Ohio River Valley only.
<br />So, the land speculation that's being done on what—these lands are Crown lands that's in
<br />question right now. You would need a lease for 25 years from the Crown. So, that question
<br />needs to be raised, and let me first start off with the jurisdiction. This is the Hawaiian Kingdom
<br />still. There is no State of Hawaii amended into the U.S. Constitution or even citing in Article 1,
<br />Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
<br />So, anybody saying that they are in the Hawaiian Kingdom [sic], they must be on Fantasy Island
<br />because that's not one and the same. It's the Hawaiian Kingdom. So, it's based on land
<br />speculation which the Hawaiian Kingdom does not do because it'll lease the land, and all lands
<br />are subject to native tenant rights. So, when those leases ended in 1920, early 1920's, the
<br />plantation claimed it owned the land, which is false. So, the question is always in play. The
<br />question of who owns the land or whether they have a valid lease. The claim as to they own the
<br />land is false so that could be settled right there.
<br />So, with that, I'll end with the reservation of the Kingdom, Kingdom's rights, under the Queen's
<br />protest of January 17, 1893, against U.S. Minister Stevens. [Inaudible] to make its way to the
<br />U.S. Supreme Court, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2, and the other one is the application, the
<br />EXHIBIT C
<br />3
<br />
|