|
was for Pearl River or Pearl Harbor. What the United States tried to do with the treaty is to make
<br />this Kingdom a part of the Ohio River Valley under the Northwest Ordinance which is Article 5,
<br />and we are still not part of it.
<br />In the 1898, 1.8 million acres of the Republic of Hawaii gave to the United States, that was not
<br />under lease by the Hawaiian Kingdom. The 2.4 million acres were under lease. Under King
<br />Kalakaua, it's 25 years. And, you're going to notice that the, the guys that leased the lands all
<br />claim they own the lands. They did an adverse possession against the Hawaiian Kingdom. So,
<br />that's questionable whether these foreigners could be here because the Reciprocity Treaty was
<br />illegal to begin with, and all the other treaties of the other countries all ended in 18-1887, or
<br />should I say 97.
<br />The other point I want to make is the banks here are not chartered under the Hawaiian Kingdom,
<br />and the money used is not based on gold and silver. Its Federal Reserve notes which is "In God
<br />We Trust." Don't trust the money. So, the money is questionable. You are passing around fake
<br />money that's not authorized by the Hawaiian Kingdom nor under the U.S. Constitution. The
<br />U.S. Constitution recommends gold and silver. So, allowing these illegal developments to
<br />continue here and to prosper based on funny money is questionable. Usually, they use funny
<br />money when they're trying to take over another country. Like Vietnam and all these other
<br />countries, they did that, that scam.
<br />So, with that, I'll reserve the rights of this Kingdom under the Queen's Protest of January 17,
<br />1893, against U.S. Minister Stevens, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2. It has yet to make its way to
<br />the U.S. Supreme Court, and the other one is the constitutionality of the Reciprocity Treaty of
<br />1875 since the—King Kalakaua nor the U.S. President signed it. Thank you.
<br />CLARKSON: Thank you for your testimony. Next, please.
<br />MCGINN: My name is Martin McGinn, and I'm a property owner of the lot just to the north of
<br />the proposal, proposed lot, and I just want to talk about livability question with the proposed
<br />especially with the drive-through being right on the property, basically ten feet from our
<br />property, and so, there would be cars constantly going through the drive-through, and there is no
<br />privacy barrier included in the plans, and, you know, I just think if Bank of Hawaii is going to
<br />be a good neighbor, then they really need to build a wall, a privacy wall between the properties.
<br />Because, I mean, we have, there's going to be constant, there's going to be cars idling all day
<br />long basically. So, there's air pollution, there's noise pollution. So, if I'm in my garden, I'm
<br />going to be ten feet away from these cars that are idling, and, you know, there's going to be all
<br />kinds of vehicles, loud ones, people with their monster trucks. You name it, and basically, I
<br />realize that this is probably, this proposal is probably a forgone conclusion, but at least they
<br />should be a good neighbor and put up a privacy wall. Thank you.
<br />CLARKSON: Thank you. Any questions for either of the testifiers from the Commission?
<br />RAFFIPIY: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. What is a privacy wall? What kind of privacy
<br />wall? What do you have in mind? What kind of wall?
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
|