Part II -- Continuing the rant on the brain-eating amoeba and where Hawaiian sovereignty fits in

Lono and siblings saw their mother, calabash aunties and uncles, and supporters get dragged off Waimanalo Beach for protesting the state's inability (and/or unwillingness) to recognize Hawaiian land claims stemming from the overthrow in 1893, and the history of United States (thus the eventual State of Hawaii) with regard to these claims. so whenever Hawaiians pushed the issue, especially through (re)occupation of lands, the state pushed back, complete with men in blue and weapons, and Hawaiians were always on the losing end. As I recall, one woman shouted as she was driven away by HPD, "this our land, Hawaiian land."

Fast forward to 2008, and we see that the Hawaii State Supreme Court has tossed an interesting tidbit into the fray re Public Law 103-150, also known as the Apology Bill [Jerry Burris writes about this in his 2/6/08 Honolulu Advertiser editorial: "In 1993, when Congress (or rather, about five members of an otherwise fairly uninterested U.S. Senate) debated the so-called "Apology bill" for Native Hawaiians, Sen. Daniel Inouye argued it was merely a "simple apology" designed to set the nation's historical facts in order. What Inouye was focused on were arguments that the Apology bill was the first step toward independence for Hawai'i. Nothing, he said, could be further from the truth. That may be so. But it is now abundantly clear the Apology bill is far more than a mere token of remorse. It is, according to the state Supreme Court in its Jan. 31 opinion on a lawsuit involving ceded lands, the very law of the land. Put it this way: The Apology resolution is the controlling law when it comes to ongoing questions about whether the overthrow of the monarchy was illegal, whether Hawaiians are due restitution for that overthrow and whether ceded lands (property that went from the Hawaiian government and crown to the U.S. and then to the state of Hawai'i) should be held in impregnable trust until that restitution debate is settled. To each point, the legal answer, as declared by our highest court, is "yes."

Backtrack to 1986 and (re)occupation of lands, Waimanalo Beach Park for example, that are 'ceded'. Hawaiians protested the taking of those lands, citing basically the same reasons for doing so as the State Supreme Court did this past January. Since the land was taken [read 'stolen'], asking about its legality at this time seems a big strange. If there's a question about whose land it is now, then there's obviously a question about whose land it was when it was taken. We know whose land it wasn't. At the time of (re)occupation, meaning in 1986, that Hawaiians decided to challenge the legality of the State of Hawaii in designating so-called ceded lands as state lands and turning them into parks, schools, government buildings, etc. for the use of the 'general public', they seemed to have overlooked the ugly history of the U.S. in Hawaii.

I imagine few people know that anyone who purchases property in Hawaii is required to do a title search--a title insurance company is contracted to research the title of the property to its title of origin. Most people contract with firms like Title Guaranty and trust that their title searches guarantee that the property they are seeking to purchase actually are clear of any kind of encumbrances and can be purchased. But never has Title Guaranty or any other title company (except Perfect Title Co.) ever researched title to its origin. And therein lie two problems: 1) no one has clear title to any property in Hawaii by either American or Hawaiian law, and 2) the state of Hawaii cannot legally claim to own title to any lands, thus every time the state tries to sell land, it is challenged by various individuals and organizations [see, for example, HCDCH vs. OHA et al]. Yes, the state will continue to do whatever it wants with so-called ceded lands, but it cannot ever prove clear title to any of it, and it's exempt from doing so, because it cannot trace its title to the origin of all lands in Hawaii, which happened in 1848 during the dividing of all lands at the Great Mahele. What a pickle!

Okay, back to 1986 and the eviction of Hawaiians from Waimanalo Beach Park...

My nephew, Lono Nihoa, and his ohana were evicted from Waimanalo Beach Park. They had nowhere to go. The family ended up at Sand Island Park, along with 18 other families, mostly Hawaiian.

Stay tuned for Part III