|
minutes 03-08-00Page 3 of 35
<br />how is a country recognized. It is recognized by other countries, and in international law, it appears to have authority and
<br />control over its citizens. To just give an example. If somebody claimed to be the King of France, and they said that the
<br />monarchy of France was illegally overturned, and that they are the rightful rulers of France, people would say, well, the
<br />monarchy in France has not been in existence for 150 years. You have no apparent control over this. There’s a French
<br />government that is recognized by all the governments of the world, and that’s why it is the legitimate government.
<br />There are a lot of things that he’s brought up. I could respond to them on a point-by-point basis, but it would take, kind of, a
<br />long time to do it. Another way of answering this question, and looking specifically at the authority of the United States
<br />government over the Hawaiian Islands, that this has been upheld by a number of court decisions in the United States court
<br />system. If somebody wants to challenge the validity of that, then there really aren’t any good ways to go from that. Beyond
<br />that, I could go through a history, certainly, of how Hawaii became United States territory, and what are the legal
<br />consequences of that, but I think that what he’s talking about is at an extremely fundamental level. It can be dealt with point-
<br />by-point on that kind of level, but as I say, it would take quite a bit of time to do it.
<br />RAY: Marni. did you have a -
<br />HERKES: Thank you very much for coming, Mr. Vicente, and I’m interested in your point, but we were appointed as Charter
<br />Commissioners. We had a specific job to do, a role to play. The County Council confirmed us. I think we need to stay within
<br />the parameters of the things that the County government has asked us to do. I don’t think we should get outside those
<br />parameters. If it is illegal for us to change the County Charter, then I think there are avenues besides this room, and besides
<br />this Commission, that you can pursue that under. This is not the place or the time to pursue an illegal Charter Commission, if
<br />that’s what you’re saying. If that’s what you want to do, then there are other places to pursue it. We can’t help you with it.
<br />There’s nothing we can do. We’ve agreed, and been appointed and confirmed by the Council, to change the County Charter.
<br />We have to do what we have to do. Otherwise we would not be fulfilling our responsibility and we have to fulfill our
<br />responsibility.
<br />VICENTE: Does that mean you’re going to usurp power over me?
<br />HERKES: That means I’m going to do what the County government has asked me to do. I don’t feel it’s usurping power over
<br />you, but I certainly know that there are a lot of avenues for you to take if you feel it is.
<br />VICENTE: Another thing I wanted to point out is that a lot of the case law dealing with so-called territories, are all based on
<br />what the Kings can do. The U.S. is arguing in the U.S. Supreme Court that the Kings of Europe is doing these things, and as a
<br />sovereign, they want to be able to do the same thing, but they don’t mention in the argument that they have constitutional
<br />authority, so you can see, they’re going beyond the constitutional authority by claiming they got a king now. Or they can
<br />amend Article 2, and replace the president with a king. He’s already acting like a king so put the crown on his head while
<br />they’re at it. Once he leaves Washington D.C., he’s no longer the President. What he’s done is vacated his office so he’s in a
<br />stationary power position, not a gallivanting king. So, I think when you look into the State Constitution, it says, I think it’s
<br />Section 3, that the State Constitution shall not be repugnant of the United States Constitution and the Declaration of
<br />Independence. Everything coming from there, that direction, and I see all the conflict coming in. That’s why Rice won.
<br />There’s conflict in law right now. The State is doing one thing and the U.S. Constitution is saying opposite. So I think that
<br />needs to be dealt with first. It’s putting the cart in front of horse. I don’t ride horse that way, or a wagon. I think that’s it.
<br />RAY: Okay, thanks Dwight.
<br />VICENTE: Thank you.
<br />RAY: Okay. Patrick Kahawaiola’a, representing self.
<br />KAHAWAIOLA’A: Myself and Aupuni O’Hawai’i. I have testimony that I’d like to pass out to all of you. I think this was
<br />addressed to Mr. Yuen back in December and we received no response from that. From your letter, Mr. Yuen wrote and told
<br />us that you had asked him to respond. He responded. We responded to that letter, and in December, the 28th, came to a
<br />meeting that was cancelled without us knowing about it. 5 o’clock the lady out front told us it was cancelled. You guys had
<br />one, I guess, some time in December that was cancelled. After notice was put out that they were going to have it, it was
<br />cancelled, but we were never informed of the cancellation, but that’s not my issue. My issue is, based on this response from
<br />your counsel, we responded to again address our issue of coming before you to say that we believe that the Charter provision,
<br />your Article I, Section 1-1, which encompasses the whole Island of Hawaii as it’s geographical limitations, or definition that
<br />what the County owns, and this Charter has all the rights on those lands. We spoke about it and Mr. Yuen addressed it, gave
<br />his perspective of what he believed based on, and he went back as far as somewhere in the Organic Act giving the counties
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 03-08-00.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|