Today, I want you all to take a look at the legal status of OWNERSHIP vs. TRUST. If you were to do your due diligence you will be able to find that every single Federal law that was created and passed concerning Native Hawaiians have three (3) key words: a. Special; b. Trust ; and c. Relationship. For example, in Title 42 U.S.C. § 11711 (13) it states in pertinent part, (13) In 1921, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 which designated 200,000 acres of the ceded public lands for exclusive homesteading by Native Hawaiians, thereby affirming the TRUST RELATIONSHIP between the United States and the Native Hawaiians... ...again in Title 42 U.S.C. § 11711 (15) Under the Act entitled An Act to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union, approved March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4), the United States transferred responsibility for the administration of the Hawaiian Home Lands to the State of Hawaii but reaffirmed the TRUST RELATIONSHIP which existed between the United States and the Hawaiian people... ... again in Title 42 U.S.C. § 11711 (16) Under the Act entitled An Act to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union, approved March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4), the United States transferred responsibility for administration over portions of the ceded public lands trust not retained by the United States to the State of Hawaii but reaffirmed the TRUST RELATIONSHIP which existed between the United States and the Hawaiian people... ...again in Title 42 U.S.C. § 11711 (18) In furtherance of the TRUST RESPONSIBILITY for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians... ...again in Title 42 U.S.C. § 11711 (19) This historical and unique legal relationship. I can go on and on. But what I wanted to point out is the use of specific language. And that my friends is what LAW really is, the use of specific language. Here we find that the United States have a SPECIAL, TRUST OR RELATIONSHIP with Native Hawaiians. Why are we the only people who the United States have a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP OR A TRUST RELATIONSHIP with? Well think about it... We are in fact, Occupied. How do we now this? We need to take a look at Geneva Conventions Art.60 where it states, The Occupying Power shall in no way whatsoever divert relief consignments from the purpose for which they are intended, except in cases of urgent necessity, in the interests of the population of the occupied territory and with the consent of the Protecting Power. The occupying power mentioned above is in fact the United States. The relief consignments mentioned is the monies sent from the Federal Government. The population mentioned is in fact the Native Hawaiians; and the occupied territory is in fact the Hawaiian Islands. NOW, this is the reason why OHA was created. OHA was responsible to accept the relief consignments to be distributed amongst the population (Native Hawaiians) sent by the Occupying Power (United States) pursuant to the Geneva Conventions. Now lets take a look Section 395. Seized Property, where it states - Valid capture or seizure of property requires both an intent to take such action and a physical act of capture or seizure. The mere presence within occupied territory of property which is subject to appropriation under international law does not operate to vest title thereto in the occupant. Did you see the last part? The mere presence within occupied territory of property which is subject to appropriation under international law does not operate to vest title thereto in the occupant. ......Does NOT operate to VEST TITLE thereto in the OCCUPANT. Who is the OCCUPANT? Thats right, the United States. So instead of holding our lands in ownership, they are claiming what? Thats right...they are holding it in TRUST. They cannot legally claim ownership of our lands because the United States are held accountable pursuant to the Geneva Conventions. According to the Geneva Conventions, they in fact are the occupying power...WHY? Because of this: Title 42 U.S.C. § 11701, The United States Congress finds that: (B) extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government; and (C) entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875 and 1887. (7) In the year 1893, the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii, John L. Stevens, conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii. (8) In pursuance of that conspiracy, the United States Minister and the naval representative of the United States caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian Nation in support of the overthrow of the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii and the United States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition of a provisional government formed by the conspirators without the consent of the native people of Hawaii or the lawful Government of Hawaii in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law. (9) In a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, then President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on these illegal actions, and acknowledged that by these acts, described by the President as acts of war, the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown, and the President concluded that a substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people required that we should endeavor to repair. (10) Queen Liliuokalani, the lawful monarch of Hawaii, and the Hawaiian Patriotic League, representing the aboriginal citizens of Hawaii, promptly petitioned the United States for redress of these wrongs and for restoration of the indigenous government of the Hawaiian nation, but this petition was not acted upon. (11) In 1898, the United States annexed Hawaii through the Newlands Resolution without the consent of or compensation to the indigenous people of Hawaii or their sovereign government who were thereby denied the mechanism for expression of their inherent sovereignty through self-government and self- determination, their lands and ocean resources. ------- they in fact, violated international law..PERIOD! This is why the United States are OBLIGATED to continue to send monies OR as it is legally worded as relief consignments to Hawaii. They have to.... So what is the difference between OWNERSHIP and TRUST? The legal definition of OWNERSHIP in law is: The complete dominion, title, or proprietary right in a thing or claim. (BLACKS LAW) The legal definition of TRUST in law is: An equitable or beneficial right or title to land or other property, held for the beneficiary by another person, in whom resides the legal title or ownership, recognized and enforced by courts of chancery, OR a holding of property subject to a duty of employing it or applying its proceeds according to directions given by the person from whom it was derived. (BLACKS LAW) Goodwin v. McMinn, 193 Pa. 046, 44 Atl. 1094, 74 Am. St. Rep. 703; Beers v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 613; Seymour v. Freer, 8 Wall. 202, 19 L. Ed. 300; Munroe v. Crouse. 59 Hun. 248, 12 N. Y. Supp. 815. Kana`iolowalu and OHA is trying to change this, and I will get into that at a later time. This is why I always stress educate, educate and educate. Never take laws and misinterpret them. Remember, laws are the use of specific language. LAW - Learn And Win. ...but at least now you know the reason WHY we are occupied and not just SAYING that we are...ALSO, PLEASE NOTE not once did I post Public Law 103-150. I used Title 42 U.S.C. § 11701, which is LAW... Believe me, dont believe me, that is up to you to decide... E.M. Keali`i Blaisdell, J.D ICMA
Posted on: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 23:04:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015