MIN CHC 2000-05-31 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the U.S. Constitutions. Mr. Wurdeman wrote his decision based on Constitution. Certainly Yuen would not consider it frivolous too. Let us consider Yuen's reference to the Hawaii • Supreme Court, in Tight of Hawaii and the U.S. Constitution. The authority Mr. Yuen uses is the case of State v. Jim, in which Yuen attributed a quote by the Hawaii Supreme Court regarding the county police would exercise their ordinary powers on DHHL property because the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act contains no express language denying these powers. The subject of the propriety is the 67th Congress' construction of law or Construction Trust (showing of fraud overreaching, or other wrongdoings to impose constructive trust) invasion and overthrow by the Hawaii County Charter, or of the applicability of the County's jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. The Courts would not admit it is bound by the obligations imposed, by the Hawaii Constitution Article XII, Compact that federal statutes that comport with the constitution design. The case of Alden further stated that the State is barred by the scheme of American Federalism. Apparently Mr. Yuen's silence on that point, as an attorney at law, he must have conceded the existence of Hawaii's Constitution prohibition and it's violation by the Charter Article II, Section 1-1, the Powers of the County (prohibited by such constitution or by this charter.) Thus, this Commission should give no validity to that Charter (powers of other officials, the county), over Hawaiian Home Lands is restricted. And it's identified in Section 206 of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act which is under the U.S. Constitution. It is questionable whether Mr. Yuen took the time to read Hawaii's or the U.S. Constitution as well. The issue is Congress' authority to extend the protection of the Admissions Act under Hawaii or the U.S. Constitution compact over •the restricted Hawaii County and it's Charter, which restricted Hawaii County and it's Charter except with the consent of the United States. That is basically what we were telling you. Without that consent, and it's been already proven by this prosecution in this State, in this prosecuting office in this County, why we're here, that that document does not exist. The document is the consent. That's why we were here telling you that you're moving forward without it. But he says `that's all right. You guys have the right. Move forward. Don't worry about it.' So, in conclusion, Yuen's opposition memo is completely off the mark. Not one of our points, Aupuni's points, on why this Charter is in violation or grounds has been controverted. Yet the cavalier air in which Yuen addresses this issue suggests another reason for his confidence. It must be that because there's another game being played upon Hawaiian citizens. That is, that their claims to Hawaii Constitution Article XII, compact, by Congress's preemption as a matter of custom which now underlies the implicit judicial policy and not the law — it's the policy and not the law, must be simply shunted aside, demeaned as frivolous, lest it shakes the very foundations upon which the Hawaii County, through it's Charter, has established themselves as legitimate in Hawaii. To that extent, Aupuni is a mere puppet, a victim of the State Commission's game of hypocrisy, in a society where Hawaii County's words and creeds, count for nothing if it interferes with the entrenched County interests such as no fair compensation for improper use of our lands, use of water, the taxes, the diversion of the income and proceeds from the Hawaiian Home Lands into • the County funds. 14