|
minutes 05-31-00Page 9 of 54
<br />HERKES: The same thing that Maui has. I can read that to you.
<br />TYLER: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t receive anything on this and it’s a very important part of our Charter. Is this a
<br />further amplification?
<br />HIGASHI: Either you can stay for the meeting or you can take the minutes from the meeting and react at the next meeting.
<br />TYLER: Okay. And finally – I think I’m done. I’ve taken more than enough of your time. I thank you very much. Again, I
<br />really appreciate the work you’ve done. I know that most, if not all, of you have put a lot of heart and soul into this and I
<br />think we can see it in terms of the results. It’s a very difficult and very awesome task that you have in a short period of time,
<br />and I think you’ve been very responsive, so thank you again for this opportunity.
<br />RAY: Thank you. Next, Mr. Jim, are you coming up with Patrick Kahawaiola’a?
<br />KAHAWAIOLA’A: Yes, I forgot to include Mr. Jim’s name.
<br />RAY: And we have written testimony.
<br />KAHAWAIOLA’A: I’ve given written testimony, and that written testimony is in response to the April 18th letter that all of
<br />you received, and that we received on May the 10th at the end of our statement to the Commission, so I would like to take
<br />this opportunity to again thank the Chairman and the Commission for allowing us, as Native Hawaiians, to come forward at
<br />this particular point in time, and I’m hoping to, maybe, shed some light as to why the letter from Mr. Yuen to all of you,
<br />which was referenced the county jurisdiction over Hawaiian home lands, and our response to that is what you received as
<br />written statement. And it is addressed to Mr. Yuen and to the Members of the Commission.
<br />But before I proceed with that, I’d like to say something and it’s only because I heard Mr. Tyler give his summation of the
<br />hard work that this Commission has been doing. I also heard one of the Commissioners, maybe, give her input into what the
<br />Preamble of the County Charter should reflect, and it has a very nice sound and ring to it however, again, I must say I would
<br />like to task the Commissioners with the fact that on this island, as I would think every island has but I’m particularly
<br />concerned about this island, that again, Native Hawaiians are sorely being missed and left out of your Charter based, again,
<br />on the representation from your attorney in his letter of April 18th.
<br />And in his letter, he states that – I’d like to start – that in his letter, he states that there have been testimony at the commission
<br />meeting about county jurisdiction over Hawaiian home land, most recently, police jurisdiction. Rather than take time of this
<br />meeting to go point-by-point, it may be helpful to mention that the two individuals, and I’m assuming the two individuals that
<br />he’s speaking about is myself and Mr. Jim – that the two individuals offering this testimony have had these same arguments
<br />rejected by the Hawaii Supreme Court. May I remind you, and if the record will reflect, we are not here speaking about
<br />police jurisdiction over Hawaiian home lands. The broad question was does this county have jurisdiction over Hawaiian
<br />home lands. The police powers comes along with it, but we were not here talking about the police cannot come and do this
<br />and do that. I only reflect back to the letter from Mr. Wurdeman, the Corporation Counsel, and his decision is totally contrary
<br />to what Mr. Yuen has said that you have the jurisdiction over everything. If you did, then this letter is obviously no good,
<br />from Mr. Wurdeman. If you’ve got the powers to do whatever you do, your Charter can do whatever it does, then we
<br />wouldn’t have the problem of the confusion within our community; how they were allowed to build a Wal-Mart without a
<br />permit, how the Hawaiians have got to be told we don’t look at your plans, we don’t sign your plans. That’s totally contrary
<br />to what Mr. Yuen is saying. So this is why I bring that forward after careful review of his letter, in it which he states that the
<br />two individuals in State v. Jim, in that case that he cites. I would wish that Mr. Yuen would have done the research that he
<br />writes in his letter that he did. In State v. Jim, Judge Love ordered – this is what Judge Love ordered the prosecutor to do was
<br />to send the records because we were going to appeal that on a writ. That has been buried, (indiscernible) somewhere in the
<br />waste, on a shelf some place, because since that time that we were found guilty by the Supreme Court who sent a one-page,
<br />or one-sentence, that Section 206 did not expressly say that they can or cannot. We have not paid the fines. We have not done
<br />the community service. It’s been buried off somewheres in hell, no where, but yet the case stands. So I just needed to bring
<br />that to you because this is where we’re at, as Native Hawaiians.
<br />So I’d like to take this time to look at the letter and express to you, and show you where the attorney, Christopher Yuen, has
<br />failed to rebut or address the Hawaii Constitution, Article XII, legal principles, as well as the historical evidence prepondered
<br />by the members of Aupuni O’ Hawaii in their arguments that the County lack jurisdiction over Hawaiian homes.
<br />Mr. Yuen’s derogations of this argument being frivolous, without any supporting basis for the remarks is unfortunate. Yuen
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 05-31-00.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|