MIN CHC 2000-05-31 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

he's speaking about is myself and Mr. Jim — that the two individuals offering this testimony have had these same arguments rejected by the Hawaii Supreme Court. May I remind you, and if the record will reflect, we are not here speaking about police jurisdiction over Hawaiian home lands. The broad question was does this county have jurisdiction over Hawaiian home lands. The police powers comes along with it, but we were not here talking about the police cannot come and do this and do that. I only reflect back to the letter from Mr. Wurdeman, the Corporation Counsel, and his decision is totally contrary to what Mr. Yuen has said that you have the jurisdiction over everything. If you did, then this letter is obviously no good, from Mr. Wurdeman. If you've got the powers to do whatever you do, your Charter can do whatever it does, then we wouldn't have the problem of the confusion within our community; how they were allowed to build a Wal-Mart without a 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 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 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 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 to send the records because we were going to appeal that on a writ. That has been buried, (indiscernible) somewhere in the waste, on a shelf some place, because since that time that we were found guilty by the Supreme Court who sent a one-page, 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 the community service. It's been buried off somewheres in hell, no where, but yet the case stands. So I just needed to bring that to you because this is where we're at, as Native Hawaiians. 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 failed to rebut or address the Hawaii Constitution, Article XII, legal principles, as well as the historical evidence prepondered by the members of Aupuni 0' Hawaii in their arguments that the County lack jurisdiction over Hawaiian homes. Mr. Yuen's derogations of this argument being frivolous, without any supporting basis for the remarks is unfortunate. Yuen uses one of the avoidance techniques employed by those in positions of dominance against those on the ethical and moral high ground, "The Native Hawaiians". In the face of this failure to contest such the principles of Hawaii Constitution Article XII or historical evidence when the opportunity to do so was available, this failure must be taken as a concession to these principles and evidence. Among those principles set forth in Aupuni's earlier arguments on this subject was that the County may not excuse itself for violations of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act or Hawaii Constitution compact, implementing Congress's preemption (Admissions Act) on the basis that the County Charter or law permitting such violation. It is clear why Yuen would like to have the Commission accept the principle as frivolous. It is by Yuen's use of the Hawaii County Charter and State v. Jim that Yuen is now attempting to justify the violations in Hawaii Constitution compact, by Congress's preemption. Beware the thieves in judgment of itself! Let us address Yuen's restricted view of the law as being only those which arise out of the Hawaii Supreme Court. At the least, we should go one step further and bring into Hawaii's and 13