Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The hard, cold facts are that if every single adult Native Hawaiian had voted in 1959, and if they had all voted against statehood, it still would not have changed the results. Not even close.
In the end it was not the Marines who took over Hawai'i, it was all the various people who moved to islands and raised families.
So if someone walks down the street and gets mugged? Do we say your not a victim because in the past you were a criminal or do we seek justice in prosecuting a criminal only if the victim has a spotless past? Of course we don't why? Because doing the right thing or justice has no bearing on outside forces other then the crime or event.
So we should mug someone today because their ancestors once mugged someone who was also a mugger?
According to the US Census Bureau, there are presently about 1,392,000 Hawaiians, of whom about 76,994 (a little over 5.5% of the total), are of Native Hawaiian blood. If this issue is not about race, then yes, if a vote were taken, it would be up to a majority of the entire population to make the decision.
And since the 1959 vote in favor of statehood was 94%, I would expect pretty much the same election results against any effort to restore the historical pre-territorial government.
I mean seriously, who would vote for it except the 76,994 people who could reasonably expect to gain something from it?
Vote.... nah no need. see congress had a vote on the akkaka bill.... its not in their best interest. the right thing to do is whats being done now, Papers are filed people are getting their notices. The US never wants to give up anything and by suppressing the rights of the HKG they violated soo many of their own..... constitution as well as international laws..
1959..... lol that was a farce... and if you don't think so better... better... I'll leave it at that.
Suppose I came to you and said that your ancestors did something wrong. Therefore, I am going to take what you have and give it to someone else even though their ancestors also did wrong. Yet, they and no one else will be punished for past crimes done by our fore fathers, only you.
Would that be the right thing to do?
what is the law in this case? international laws... broken? what about a constitution? did they have one.... was there a treaty signed? was it legal?
I think the world came down hard on people who committed war crimes... Oh yes this was total violation of some treaty.. some law... something was violated.. thats why its good to have friends...=0) watch the vedio....
She surrendered not to the provisional government, but to the United States. She surrendered not absolutely and permanently, but temporarily and conditionally until such time as the facts could be considered by the United States
What papers are being filed?
Who is getting these notices and what do they say?
What do you actually think will happen?
did you watch the vid? Man goes to court?
well..... the judge got served!! the judge knows he cannot make a ruling on someone thats the a.... a US citizen, least of all enforce laws on foreign soil. because Hawaii is occupied illegally... according to US laws that makes any judge who rules or imposes US laws a war criminal.
Back to the Game..... those are the rules..... is the US playing by them? nopes. the Jude will need to go back and realize he is violating international law... if he rules on this case....
Did the Hawaiians fight back when this was happening to them?
Some Hawaiians, like Robert Wilcox (aka the "Iron Duke of Hawaiʻi), did fight back. Although historians refer to the insurrections that Wilcox led as "rebellions", the first "rebellion" in 1889 against the "Reform Party" was more of a "revolt" and the second "rebellion" in 1895 against the "Provisional Government" was more of a "counter-revolution." In both instances, Wilcox was tried for "treason" and got off with an acquittal for the 1889 incident and a pardon for the 1895 incident. Ironically, after Hawaiʻi was annexed in 1898, Wilcox was the first person elected to represent the "Territory of Hawaiʻi" in the U.S. Congress.
Some Hawaiians, like Robert Wilcox (aka the "Iron Duke of Hawaiʻi), did fight back. Although historians refer to the insurrections that Wilcox led as "rebellions", the first "rebellion" in 1889 against the "Reform Party" was more of a "revolt" and the second "rebellion" in 1895 against the "Provisional Government" was more of a "counter-revolution." In both instances, Wilcox was tried for "treason" and got off with an acquittal for the 1889 incident and a pardon for the 1895 incident. Ironically, after Hawaiʻi was annexed in 1898, Wilcox was the first person elected to represent the "Territory of Hawaiʻi" in the U.S. Congress.
Great piece of info! Rep coming your way. Thanks for posting this!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kawena
well..... the judge got served!! the judge knows he cannot make a ruling on someone thats the a.... a US citizen, least of all enforce laws on foreign soil. because Hawaii is occupied illegally... according to US laws that makes any judge who rules or imposes US laws a war criminal.
I wish Mr Brown the very best of luck at getting out of his traffic ticket. However, I suggest you not go to Vegas and place money on this case changing anything.
well..... the judge got served!! the judge knows he cannot make a ruling on someone thats the a.... a US citizen, least of all enforce laws on foreign soil. because Hawaii is occupied illegally... according to US laws that makes any judge who rules or imposes US laws a war criminal.
This kind of amateur lawyering claim has been made hundreds, maybe thousands of times before in various permutations, and it has never been successful. For just one example, think of all the people who stopped paying Federal income taxes because they claimed, after buying a book from an infommercial, that income taxes are unconstitutional, then had their homes and businesses and other assets seized while they fruitlessly claimed the courts had no jurisdiction over them. . Anybody can sue at any time for any reason, and make any claim they want. And the courts can dismiss those claims and those suits on a multiplicity of grounds.
Quote:
Back to the Game..... those are the rules..... is the US playing by them? nopes. the Jude will need to go back and realize he is violating international law... if he rules on this case....
No, all this judge needs to do is rule that the objection raised is not relevant to the traffic violation. It is not within his jurisdiction in a County Court to rule on international law, nor on the validity of a 120 year old treaty. But it was a cute try, because it got Lopaka Brown on TV.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
