ALAPAI

H. KAULIA
P. O. Box 852
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96745
(808) 333-0298
alapaikaulia@gmail.com

PRO SE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
HAMAKUA DIVISION
STATE OF HAWAII

STATE OF HAWAII,


)
REPORT NO. 15009843/HM






)
3DCW-15-0000967


vs.



)
MOTION FOR LIMITED SPECIAL






)
APPEARANCE BY KINGDOM
ALAPAI HULIHEE KAULIA,

)
REPRESENTATIVE






)






)
Court Date: JUNE 18, 2015


Defendant

)
Judge Barbara T. Takase, Presiding

MOTION FOR LIMITED SPECIAL APPEARANCE


Now comes ALAPAI HULIHEE KAULIA, Defendant herein and Kingdom of
Hawaii subject, to request the permission of this Honorable Court for the limited
special appearance in this case by Alii Manao Nui (Chief Advocate and Spiritual
Advisor to the King, hereinafter Chief Advocate) Lanny Sinkin to participate as
representative for Defendant, in all matters potentially infringing on the rights of
ALAPAI HULIHEE KAULIA, as a subject of the Hawaiian Kingdom; on the rights of
the Hawaiian Independence Movement; and/or on the rights of the King or the
Kingdom to operate as a sovereign government in its own lands

The Chief Advocate serves by appointment of Edmund K. Silva, Jr., Alii Nui

Mi (High Chief/King).

The King directed the Chief Advocate to offer his services to the Defendant

and the Court for purposes of assisting this Honorable Court in addressing serious
issues raised by the above-captioned case.

In seeking to make a limited special appearance before this Honorable Court,

the Kingdom is aware of the difficult position in which the Court finds itself.
Grievances accumulated over more than 120 years are being placed before the
Court seeking remedies that are beyond contemplation by this Court.

The central grievances are the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii

Government, with all that flowed from that initial act of aggression, and the lengthy
and continued suppression of the traditional Hawaiian faith, as represented today
by the desecration of the sacred mountaintop of Mauna a Wkea, committed with
the complete cooperation of the State of Hawaii and the University of Hawaii,
which is a state institution.

The Kingdom recognizes that the challenge based on the illegal overthrow

presents the Court with an untenable dilemma. To declare the Court to lack
jurisdiction because (1) the overthrow was illegal, (2) all subsequent governments
Provisional Government, Republic of Hawaii, Territory of Hawaii, and State of
Hawaii were or are illegal, (3) the annexation was illegal, (4) the Statehood
plebiscite was illegal, and, therefore, the Kingdom still exists would collapse the
entire edifice of law imposed on the Kingdom by the United States of America.

That in turn would mean that there would be no courts and no law

enforcement agencies in place because the Kingdom Government is still emerging

from its absent status and not prepared to assume responsibility for all aspects of
law enforcement.1

The potential for chaos resulting from such a ruling is high. Such chaos

would not be in the interest of the Kingdom or the United States of America.

Even if the Court were to agree with all the legal arguments presented

challenging the legitimacy of the Court itself, the Court, as a practical matter, would
have a very difficult time following that agreement to its logical conclusion.

For that reason, Defendant requests this Honorable Court to grant a limited

special appearance to a Kingdom representative to appear before this Honorable

Court to propose alternative resolutions of the issues and to assist Defendant in
presenting the case for making the findings requested and reaching the conclusions
suggested. Those resolutions will include identification of numerous alternative
grounds upon which this Honorable Court can dismiss this case and all similar cases
before the Court. Those resolutions could include the following components:

-- The Court takes judicial notice of the Directive issued by the King directing

Chief Advocate Lanny Sinkin to seek permission of this Honorable Court to make a
special limited appearance in this case.

-- The Court takes judicial notice of the rulings entered by the Kingdom

Supreme Court relevant to the matter before the Court in this case.

-- The Court finds that the Hawaiian Independence Movement to be a

legitimate political movement.

1 The Kingdom does have in place a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who recently
entered an Order relevant to this proceeding. See Motion for Court to Take Judicial
Notice, dated ___________________________.

-- The Court finds that the goal of that movement to restore the complete

independence of the nation is a legitimate political goal.

-- The Court takes judicial notice that the Kingdom of Hawaii has presented

evidence of its actions designed to secure international recognition as a functioning

government.

-- The Court finds itself to lack the legal competence or constitutional

authority to evaluate whether the evidence presented of the Kingdoms governance

actions to date are or would be sufficient for the Kingdom to be recognized by other
nations.

-- The Court finds that the determination of whether to recognize a foreign

nation is a function of the Executive Branch of the United States Government.

-- The Court finds that, if the Kingdom of Hawaii is a functioning government

and the defendant in this case is a citizen of the Kingdom relying upon Kingdom law
as a defense to the charge, the Court may be asked to rule on the application of
Kingdom Law to this case.

-- The Court finds that the applicable law of the Kingdom is in conflict with

United States of America law, such that the Court might be called upon to nullify
Kingdom law.

-- The Court finds that, because there is a conflict of laws between the two

sovereigns, the Kingdom is a necessary party to this proceeding.

-- The Court finds that the Kingdom has not conferred jurisdiction over the

Kingdom to this Court and declines to participate in this litigation, other than
through the limited special appearance.

-- The Court finds that sovereign immunity bars the Court from compelling

the participation of the Kingdom in this case.

-- The Court finds that the absence of a necessary party to the litigation

requires the litigation to be dismissed.

-- The Court finds, as a matter of law, that the controversy between the

Kingdom and the United States in this case is a political question and this case must
be dismissed on those grounds as well.

-- Alternatively, the Court finds that given the nature of the issues, this case

would more appropriately be litigated in the Federal Court system of the United
States. Given that there is no offense committed under Federal Law, this case cannot
be transferred to Federal Court. The case should, therefore, be dismissed on that
basis as well.

-- The Court finds that the traditional faith practitioners are still exercising

their United States constitutional rights to practice their faith.

-- The Court finds that within the traditional faith, Mauna a Wakea is a

sacred site upon which very little human intrusion should take place and no
permanent structures should be built

-- The Court finds that the traditional faith existed prior to the creation of the

Kingdom and holds a sovereignty of its own within the Kingdom.

-- The Court finds that the practitioners of the traditional faith are an

essential party in this case.

-- The Court finds that the traditional practitioners have not conferred

jurisdiction over their faith to this Court.

-- The Court finds that the Court lacks the authority to compel the

participation of the traditional faith practitioners in this case.

-- The Court finds that the absence of an essential party in this case requires

dismissal of the case.

-- The Court finds that the traditional faith practitioners sincerely consider

the actions taken by the University of Hawaii, a State agency, in permitting the
construction of telescopes on the mountaintop of Mauna a Wakea to constitute
desecration of a sacred site.

-- The Court finds that there is no compelling government interest in

burdening the practice of the traditional faith with continual desecration of the
sacred mountain.

-- The Court finds that taking into consideration the beliefs and practices of

the traditional faith, the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope on the top of
Mauna Kea violates the State of Hawaii law on desecration. HRS 711-1107(1)(b).2

2 HRS 711-701(b) states:
(1) A person commits the offense of desecration if the person intentionally
desecrates:


(b) A place of worship or burial
(2) Desecrate means defacing, damaging, polluting, or otherwise physically
mistreating in a way that the defendant knows will outrage the sensibilities of
persons likely to observe or discover the defendants action.

The top of Mauna a Wkea is a place of both worship and burial. That the initiation
of telescope construction produced outrage is demonstrated by the 31 cases now on
the Courts docket of people who chose to be arrested in order to prevent the
construction. Those 31 clearly represented thousands more who have responded in
opposition to the construction.

-- The Court finds that the action of defendant in protecting the mountaintop

from unlawful desecration and ecological harm is a protected exercise of faith and
an act of necessity.

-- The Court accepts the necessity defense and dismisses the charge against

the defendant.

Defendant requests a limited special appearance be granted to the Kingdom

representative for purposes of submitting evidence to support the Court making all
the findings suggested above and related findings.

The Alii Manao Nui will provide the relevant Kingdom law to be considered,

offer historical information relevant to this case, and otherwise represent the
interests of the Defendant, as a citizen of the Kingdom: the Hawaiian Independence
Movement, as a political movement; the King, as a sovereign, and the Kingdom, as a
sovereign nation.

Upon termination of the representation, the Kingdom representative will file

a Withdrawal of the Limited Special Appearance with this Honorable Court.

In support of this motion, Defendant submits the accompanying brief.







Respectfully Submitted,







_____________________________________






Alapai H. Kaulia

Date: _______________________________