Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
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.
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
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
-- 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 goal of that movement to restore the complete
-- The Court takes judicial notice that the Kingdom of Hawaii has presented
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
-- 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 Court finds that the absence of a necessary party to the litigation
-- 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
-- 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
-- The Court finds that the practitioners of the traditional faith are an
-- The Court finds that the traditional practitioners have not conferred
-- The Court finds that the Court lacks the authority to compel the
-- The Court finds that the absence of an essential party in this case requires
-- 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.
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.
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.