OHA's Ceded lands grab shifts to Legislature

Hawai'i Free Press

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

OHA's Ceded lands grab shifts to Legislature
By Andrew Walden @ 9:39 AM :: 10442 Views :: Akaka Bill, Land Use, OHA

Here's a complete round up of all the legislative moves and all the lies being told today...a day when almost every "not surprised" Hawaii Democrat is admitting they have been lying through their teeth for the last 15 years...and not a single interviewer is calling them on it.

Advertiser: Ceded lands fight will go another round in Hawaii's high court

Both the state administration and OHA claimed victory.

The state attorney general said he believes the issue is over.

"As a result of this decision, there cannot be a new ruling barring the state from transferring ceded lands," Bennett said. "We would absolutely argue that under state law the state has the absolute right to transfer ceded lands under procedures set up by the Legislature." ...

What happens now is up to the Hawai'i Supreme Court, which must decide whether to simply reverse its decision to ban sale of ceded lands or reissue its opinion in OHA's favor, citing only state laws.

Attorneys for OHA and the individuals believe they can still pull out a victory. While the Apology Resolution can no longer be used as a reason for a moratorium, said OHA attorney Sherry Broder, there have been state actions in the judicial, administrative and legislative realms that point to a move toward reconciliation that would provide ample reason for a moratorium.

Judicially, the courts have ruled that Kaho'olawe is to be held in trust until a Hawaiian nation is formed, and has also upheld the rights of Native Hawaiians to hunt and gather on private lands, and to access the shoreline, Broder said. ...

The Democratic leaderships in both the state Senate and House have made it clear that they support OHA's position. Besides adopting resolutions urging the governor to drop the U.S. Supreme Court appeal, the state lawmakers have also proposed bills that would either place a moratorium on the sale of ceded lands, or require that two-thirds of state lawmakers approve any sale of either ceded lands or any state lands. (Actually the two bills reflect sharply different attitudes towards ceded lands sales -- old boy vs OHA gang. The Advertiser should be thanked for helping State Democrats to cover up their differences....)

Those bills are still alive.

Hanabusa said Senate leadership prefers a two-thirds approval process. "We believe that these lands should be sold only under very extraordinary circumstances," she said.

SB: Ceded lands fight shifts to Legislature

One measure already advanced by the Senate is Bill 1085, which calls for a five-year moratorium on the sale or transfer of ceded lands to allow time for Hawaiians to settle claims over the land with the state and federal governments. After five years, sales or transfers would require two-thirds' approval by the Legislature.

The bill has stalled in the House, where members are considering a measure that would only require a majority vote of the Legislature -- or two-thirds' votes in either chamber -- to reject the sale or exchange of ceded land to a non-state entity.

That proposal, S.B. 1677, is scheduled for a hearing before the House Finance Committee at 3 p.m. today.

Attorney General Mark Bennett said the Lingle administration was unlikely to oppose such legislation.

SB: Ceded lands ruling creates quick need for ~~sovereignty~~ Hawaiian Indian Tribe

Panic mode over at propaganda HQ: THE U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of claims that a congressional apology for the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy prohibits public land transfers in Hawaii will return the case to state courts. The ruling should expedite enactment of Hawaiian sovereignty legislation to allow negotiations of land issues to proceed.

The high court's unanimous ruling that the congressional Apology Resolution of 1993 does not block sales or transfers of ceded lands was not surprising.

(REALLY? OHA, Richardson, the State Supreme Court, the so-called sovereignty movement, and many elected officials have been peddling this LIE that the Apology Resolution has some legal force over the Admission Act ever since this ceded lands case was filed in 1994--and now after 15 years of lies the Star-Bulletin says the decision was not surprising? Somebody call George Orwell.)

When the case arrives back in Hawaii's courts, state law will be cited. It could include a Senate-approved freeze on ceded land transfers now pending in the House.

But that could pose other problems. In opposing the bill, Attorney General Mark Bennett testified that such a moratorium on land transfers "raises the potential for additional federal court lawsuits." Foremost would be a challenge that it would violate the 14th Amendment protection against racial discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the Hawaiians-only voting provision in elections of OHA trustees was unconstitutionally discriminatory. The ruling is bound to be cited in challenging a land-transfer moratorium intended for the ultimate benefit of Hawaiians.

That is why enactment of the Akaka Bill is necessary, since it would give Hawaiians the same tribal status as indigenous peoples on the mainland, overcoming challenges alleging racial discrimination.

(WRONG. And the explanation why the 1/5 provision is protected comes in the very next section of the Supreme Court Decision. more on this later....)

Maui News: Apology Resolution didn’t strip state of property rights

The major difference is that OHA cannot rely on Congress' 1993 Apology Resolution in its arguments, said retired 2nd Circuit Court judge and Maui OHA Trustee Boyd Mossman. He added that he wasn't surprised (ANOTHER ONE 'NOT SURPRISED) by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling since a resolution is not a law.

"My own personal opinion is that the result shouldn't be any different without the Apology Resolution," Mossman said.

OHA stands a very good chance of succeeding based on numerous state laws, resolutions, and court decisions and other precedents that support its stance, he said.

As far as state legislation goes to protect ceded lands, a bill that called for a full moratorium on land transactions died in committee without being heard. But Carroll said it could still be recalled, brought to the floor for a vote or added as an amendment to another bill.

She appeared to hold out more faith for Senate Bill 1677, which will be heard today in the House Finance Committee.

That bill would require two-thirds approval from the Legislature for individual resolutions on the sale or transfer of any ceded lands, she said.

State Sen. J. Kalani English, whose district covers Upcountry, East Maui, Lanai and Molokai, co-authored the Senate bill and called the U.S. Supreme Court's decision a wonderful opportunity for the Legislature to set policy for ceded lands.

"The decision puts the question of ceded lands back in our hands; and that's what we want and we need," English said. "We don't want this decided outside of Hawaii."

Inverse Condemnation: Good collection of spin on Ceded Lands decision

Statement from Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa (fka Lilikala L. Dorton) , Director, UH Center for Hawaiian Studies

Today we learn that the Supreme Court of Injustice of America, has ruled unanimously that the illegal State of Hawaii has the right to sell "ceded" lands.

Why are we not surprised? (ANOTHER ONE 'NOT SURPRISED) If they had ruled otherwise every native nation whose lands have been taken by America would file suit for a return of their lands.... (Exactly the point, this was an effort to dismantle the entire United States)

Therefore, we, the Hawaiian people, who are born from the Hawaiian land, and who have resided here for over 100 generations, reject forever the decision of the Supreme Court of American injustice! (Well at least one State-taxpayer-supported perfesser at a land-grant college rejects it. The rest can speak for themselves....)

That court only has the "right" to rule because its military is illegally occupying our country, it does not have the moral right! (The 95% of Hawaiians who don't follow perfesser LK and the 80% of non-Hawaiians might see this a bit differently....)

Remember that was the court that once found slavery legal, and that was the court that eventually had to find that slavery was illegal. They did so because of the moral outrage of the American people. (And how was it that semi-slavery was abolished in Hawaii? Oh that's right, the Organic Act, 1900 Annexation....)

(But then what did you expect from somebody who changed her name to sound more kanaka than thou?)

Rep Mele Carroll wants kapu on ceded lands and ... thinks her constituents are so stupid they will believe this....

“It is a good thing that the U.S. Supreme Court is sending the case back to the State instead of ruling in favor of the Attorney General and the Governor’s claims,” said Rep. Mele Carroll, Chairwoman of the House Hawaiian Affairs Committee and Chairwoman of the Legislative Hawaiian Caucus.

“The Legislature has an opportunity to pass a law where we can set policy to ensure that ‘ceded lands’ are not sold or transferred until the State fulfills its fiduciary responsibility and moral obligation to ~~native Hawaiians~~ OHA,” Rep. Mele Carroll said.

Hanabusa: No injunction against selling Ceded land?

Prior to this point in time, when you look at the decisions by the Hawaii Supreme Court, I never saw a reference to injunctions being offered. They've already and always felt that the resolutions with the Native Hawaiians was always a political issue and would always throw it back to the legislature for determination. So I would be relatively surprised if there's a basis in Hawaii law they're going to rely on."

(If you are surprised by this, you aren't paying attention. This is at root a tussle between the old boys and the OHA gang for control over the State's land holdings.)

Hanabusa: KGMB video

NYT: Supreme Court Backs Hawaii in Land Dispute

During oral arguments before the court in February, Bennett urged the justices to go beyond addressing the effect of the apology resolution and consider who had proper ownership of the ceded land.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed reservations about doing so. "Why is it necessary? Why isn't it sufficient just to say that this resolution has no substantive effect, period?" she asked during the arguments.

Meanwhile, Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to be leaning in the opposite way.

"As I read federal law, it extinguished all property rights in these lands," Scalia argued at the time. "If you are telling me the Hawaii Supreme Court is now finding as a matter of state law that there is a property interest on the part of the native Hawaiians -- I don't care what you call it, equitable or whatever -- it seems to me that is flat contradiction of federal law, and probably is an issue that we ought to address in this opinion."

Today's opinion did not "venture in that direction," said Matthew Fletcher, director of Michigan State University's Indigenous Law Center.

WSJ: When Sorry Isn’t Good Enough

"What’s an apology worth?

At issue: whether a congressional apology for an 1893 American-instigated coup in Hawaii conferred property rights on modern-day descendents of native Hawaiians.

The answer, it turns out, is no — delivered today in a resounding 9-0 opinion, penned by Justice Alito. Click here for the WSJ article; here for the opinion.