Hawaiian Kingdom/Kingdom of Hawaii Record No. 2015-1112 Reminders and Opposition to the U.S. set up of a government to be recognized based on the occupation of our neutral nation from Amelia Gora, a Royal Person, Acting Liaison of Foreign Affairs, Judicial Tribunal member, House of Nobles member, Konohiki,
|
2:41 AM (0 minutes ago)
 | |||
![[Kanaka Maoli flag]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEjiPWK0_sgGfWsjCd1AG4NXMW7RLsk3a3d-_wFUF-9WpOblBSV2SaHvpHRiqIhXhlBonlFGdr9eLkoQ_1ysWNMeT0x0Fs9UkgiMQ04nF2l6pxd5THTI2IwKAL7n94fA1Qyy2HjhbTiDiBlGskRRLWPJ5A=s0-d-e1-ft)
President Barack Obama
Secretary of State - John Kerry
Judges, et. als. in the Hawaiian Islands
Many Interested others
Greetings!
The following are friendly reminders:
1) I, Amelia Gora, am one of Kamehameha's heirs and successors through four (4) of his children; six (6) of his step children; and two (2) of his adopted children.
2) I, Amelia Gora, am also a descendant/heir/successor/land owner of the following ancestors: Kauikeaouli/ Kamehameha III - one of Kalaimoku, Akahi (female), Miriam Kekauonohi (female), Grace Kamaikui - daughter of John Young, counselor of Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli, Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli, Mataio Kekuanaoa/Kekuanaoa, Nuuanu, Nahuina, Kaaha, Kalola (female) -next of kin to Bernice Pauahi Bishop who was NOT the "last of the Kamehameha's" in Probate, Luluhiwalani - land owner whose lands the GMO /Monsanto, etc. are using without approval, Nauahi/Nauwahi, Kuanohua, Princess Poomaikelani, David Keawe/David Pauahi, et. als.
3) I, Amelia Gora, am also one of the heirs of Grace Kamaikui whose lands are being claimed by Non Royal Family members or Corporations not related to our Royal Families. Our ownership affects the following Trusts who are in violation of the Treaty of 1849/50 - Hawaiian Kingdom and the U.S.A., Article XIV - Piracy(ies), Pillaging, etc.:
- Queen's Hospital
- Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estates/Kamehameha Schools
- King Lunalilo Trust
- King Kalakaua's Trust
- Queen Liliuokalani's Trust
- Queen Kapiolani's Trust
- others
4) I, Amelia Gora, am one of the heirs and successors of the Crown Lands belonging to Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli "himself, his heirs and successors.....exclusively" documented.....information found in research.
5) Rents and Leases for land use, minerals, water, etc. are due as documented in Billings to Presidents William Clinton, George Bush, and numerous letters to you Mr. Obama because these are Private Properties of our Royal Families.
6) Return of all of our Hawaiian Kingdom Records, Files from the First Laws/Kamehameha's period through Queen Liliuokalani's decease November 11, 1917 requests continued.
7) Return of monies, assets of the Hawaiian Kingdom. More than $2 miillion loans by banker Charles Reed Bishop was forgiven by pirates, pillagers, and Not forgiven by our Royal Families, the Hawaiian Kingdom/Kingdom of Hawaii.
8) Return of valuables removed from the Kawaiahao Church Cemetery which added up to more than $2 million dollars from the removal of Alii, ancestral burials buried with some of their wealth: gold coins, gold jewelry, pearls, jade, diamonds, watches, engraved jewelry pieces, etc.
9) Removal of personnel, articles, furniture other than those belonging to the Royal Families, Governmental buildings built prior to 1893. Example: The Supreme Court building, The Palace was funded by Hawaiian Kingdom monies, Buildings on our Royal Families lands to be evaluated, such as Ruth Keelikolani building, Kamamalu building, etc.
10) As Acting Liaison of Foreign Affairs, Billings are due for the use of the government lands of our neutral, friendly, non - violent nation, along with shipping, taxes wrongfully charged to our subjects/citizens, those loyal to our Queen /Queen Liliuokalani who was under stress, duress, usurpation, coercion, intimidation, etc.
11) We have an alodio/ano alodial land system which is not the same as the American land system.
12) 556 Persons/entities have been listed affecting Article XIV of the 1849/50 Treaty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States of America. Those deemed guilty by our Judicial Tribunal members/Judges have been dispossessed legally, lawfully, and according to the Rule of Law.
Those who have deceased are no longer the owners and have been dispossessed. Their heirs/successors have no claims to those deceased persons who had the initial deed.
13) The Governor, Judges of the entity State of Hawaii have been deemed illegal and have failed to follow Rule of Law disregarding the Treaty which supersedes State, Federal laws, and is the supreme law of the land according to the U.S. Constitution. The Oath of Loyalty of the Judges also shows their acceptance of the U.S. Constitution and are in violation, etc.
14) Opposition to Annexation was made by Queen Liliuokalani, approximately 40,000 subjects, and Royal Family members who did oppose the illegal Statehood etc.
15) Opposition to OHA/Office of Hawaiian Affairs and all entities including Hawaiian Homelands, DLNR - Department of Land and Natural Resources, Kanaiolowalu, Kau Inoa, the Akaka Bill, Nai Aupuni/Na'i Aupuni, etc. continues from the Royal Families who are Kamehameha's Heirs and Successors, as a Representative of our Royal Families, and as the Acting Liaison of Foreign Affairs.
and, the following:
Opposition to the U.S. set up of a government to "recognize":
President Obama, Mr. Vladimir Putin, Neutral Nations: Hawaiian Kingdom/Kingdom of Hawaii, Switzerland, Austria, Costa Rico, Finland, Liechstenstein, Malta, Panama, San Marino, Sweden, Turkmenistan, Vatican City, Ghana, Maldova, Mexico, Serbia: Opposition to the U.S. set up of a government to be recognized based on the occupation of our neutral nation is hereby documented.
The following article was prepared by one of Kamehameha III's heirs, and successors who signed a contractual agreement, a permanent Treaty with the President of the United States of America in 1849/50. The people, subjects are Not parties to this particular Treaty. The Hawaiian Kingdom/Kingdom of Hawaii continues on with occupiers who are Not welcomed. There's much evidence of Premeditation uncovered by many researchers, references shown below:
Royal Families, Kamehameha's Heirs and Descendants Exists
Opposing the Illegal Nai Aupuni/Na'i Aupuni, etc.
by Amelia Gora (2015)
The people /kanaka maoli remain under stress, duress, usurpation, coercion, intimidation since the criminal dethronement of our Queen Liliuokalani who was wrongfully dethroned in 1893. Do you know that the United States actively engage in psyops in many other nations....Hawaii included/the Hawaiian Kingdom/ Kingdom of Hawaii ....let us start with the missionaries who were really mercenaries after Kamehameha died in 1819...then add the American Consulate spies Charles Reed Bishop, William Lee....then add the American Civil War Generals who were on assignment after 1865 included CC Harris et. als......they were all operatives engaged in criminally assuming our lands, assets, resources.... then add son of a bitch S.B. Dole/Sanford B. Dole who began the indoctrination /lies claiming that Kamehameha V was the last of the Kamehameha's which was perpetuated by a concerted effort of treasonous people who were Americans operating as subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom.....They all belonged to the Masons/Freemasons who defend the One World Order since the 1822 Secret Treaty of Verona with moves to break down monarchical/monarchy governments worldwide. These people fear Monarchy/Constitutional Monarchy governments because of greed, etc. Wars were started over the decimation of Monarchy governments, into the Hawaiian Kingdom, and continues today in the Middle East, etc. The documented culprits are those who signed into the 1822 Secret Treaty... and recently Russia bowed out from that conspirator, terrorist entity....manned mainly by the U.S., England, and the bankers - includes JP Morgan and the World Bank (see Vladimir Putin, Karen Hudes, and Alana Fleischmann, whistleblowers who stated that the U.S. Constitution was changed by the bankers and made the people slaves in 1871). The Hawaiian Kingdom remains a nation because the Royal Families exists with stories of evils, including beheadings of 800 Hawaiians, the cutting out/pulling out of tongues for those who spoke. Kamehameha III's heirs and successors exists from his own children, his stepchildren, and adopted children. There are 34+ lines which equates to many owners of the Crown Lands because we found the deeds showing that it was for himself, his heirs and successors ....exclusively. The 1850 Treaty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the U.S.A. (not the U.S. and the American Empire which became a substitute of the U.S.A. apparently resulted from the 1871 secret bankers Constitution but is recorded in a case in Hawaii in the year 1899 (Peacock case)). The true Crown Land owners are Kamehameha III's families also known as the Royal Families and we can prosecute pirates, pillagers, treasonous persons under Article XIV according to the Treaty....to date 556 have been dispossessed. see theiolani.blogspot.com for more information...The U.S. , illegal State /foreigners owns Nothing in the Hawaiian Islands and are illegally collecting taxes...we are surrounded by pirates, criminals, deviants, thieves, scoundrels who are now being challenged by facts, issues, Rule of Laws from our ongoing neutral, friendly, non- violent nation since the time of Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli. The Royal Families exists supporting all non treasonous kanaka maoli claims to their alodio/alodial lands......the Pirates have been caught in our candy store and all in the World are watching.....We continue on legally, lawfully, by Rule of Law since the time that the Hawaiian Kingdom /Kingdom of Hawaii was recognized as a Monarchy/ Monarchical Government since 1810. aloha.
Reference: theiolani.blogspot.com http://myweb.ecomplanet.com/
Wiki Leakey from Hawaii
Premeditation by the U.S. President Harrison Proven Through Telegrams 8/`1892! out of Buzzy Agard's book
***************************
Additional Article/Reference posted at Aljazeera:
Amelia Gora shared Williamson Chang's post.
19 hrs ·
important .-a keeper
Williamson Chang
20 hrs ·
Aloha--some corrections:
In the article: Occupation Denial and Cognitive Dissonance of Al Jazeera America, of November 9, 2015, that article states:
“The only claim that the United States has ever made to Hawaiian sovereignty is through the joint resolution of 1898. In a secret debate of the U.S. Senate in 1898, which was kept secret until 1969 (71 years), only two of the 90 senators claimed that annexation by joint resolution was constitutional. The rest stated that it was unlawful, unconstitutional, and logically impossible.”
Some small correction of facts:
Debates on the Treaty of Annexation of June 16, 1897 are regularly held in secret, executive session. There were no votes held in the winter of 1897-1898 on the Treaty of Annexation since it was clear the administration could not garner the two-thirds majority needed to achieve ratification.
When it came to the Joint Resolution Providing for the Annexing of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States [the Newlands Resolution] which was introduced in the Spring of 1898, after the beginning of the Spanish American War, and was NOT a treaty, but a bill, it was debated in public in both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.
The complete records of those debates are available publicly, including at Hamilton Library, and in my collection.
It is correct that only two Senators, Senators Foraker and Stewart made an attempt to explain how a joint resolution could acquire Hawaii. Other Senators did speak in favor of the Joint Resolution but did not attempt to explain how it could acquire Hawaii---they spoke to the military advantages of acquiring Hawaii and such topics.
One should not assume that all the rest of the Senators went on record as opposed to the Joint Resolution, particularly on the ground that it lacked the capacity to acquire Hawaii---the large majority were simply silent--and supported the President's joint resolution simply because it would help the war effort in the Philippines.
Senator Foraker and Senator Stewarts' attempted explanation of how the joint resolution could acquire Hawaii were ridiculed and Senator Foraker eventually admitted that a joint resolution could not acquire the Hawaiian Islands, see 31 Congressional Record at 6369 [Senator Stewart] and 31 Congressional Record 6336 [Senator Foraker's admission of defeat]
So what is called the "legislative history" of the Joint Resolution shows no evidence of support for the proposition that the Joint Resolution acquired Hawaii.
Indeed, the title of the Joint Resolution indicates what is was believed to do: it is titled the "Joint Resolution Providing for the Annexing of the Hawaiian Islands"---that is, the Joint Resolution was merely to pave the way, or provide for the "later” annexation of Hawaii---which was supposedly by the 1900 Organic Act creating a Government for the Territory of Hawaii.
But that bill could not acquire Hawaii as, it too, was merely a bill or act of Congress. Nonetheless, a second ceremony of annexation was held in Honolulu after the Organic Act passed on June 14, 1900. Of course, the Organic Act did not acquire the Hawaiian Islands because its description of what it acquired ---in Section Two of that act --- was "the islands acquired by the Joint Resolution".
Since the joint resolution of 1898 1) did not have the capacity to acquire Hawaii and 2) was not intended by Congress to acquire Hawaii means that no islands or waters were acquired by the Organic Act either--meaning the United States never acquired the Hawaiian Islands or the Crown and Government Lands.
Neither the Treaty of 1897, The Joint Resolution of 1898, the Organic Act of 1900, or the Act of Admission as a State in 1959 acquired the Hawaiian Islands as territory of the United States.
The United States does not have territorial jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands. The Crown and Government lands never passed or were conveyed to the Territory, State or United States.
Some small correction of facts:
Debates on the Treaty of Annexation of June 16, 1897 are regularly held in secret, executive session. There were no votes held in the winter of 1897-1898 on the Treaty of Annexation since it was clear the administration could not garner the two-thirds majority needed to achieve ratification.
When it came to the Joint Resolution Providing for the Annexing of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States [the Newlands Resolution] which was introduced in the Spring of 1898, after the beginning of the Spanish American War, and was NOT a treaty, but a bill, it was debated in public in both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.
The complete records of those debates are available publicly, including at Hamilton Library, and in my collection.
It is correct that only two Senators, Senators Foraker and Stewart made an attempt to explain how a joint resolution could acquire Hawaii. Other Senators did speak in favor of the Joint Resolution but did not attempt to explain how it could acquire Hawaii---they spoke to the military advantages of acquiring Hawaii and such topics.
One should not assume that all the rest of the Senators went on record as opposed to the Joint Resolution, particularly on the ground that it lacked the capacity to acquire Hawaii---the large majority were simply silent--and supported the President's joint resolution simply because it would help the war effort in the Philippines.
Senator Foraker and Senator Stewarts' attempted explanation of how the joint resolution could acquire Hawaii were ridiculed and Senator Foraker eventually admitted that a joint resolution could not acquire the Hawaiian Islands, see 31 Congressional Record at 6369 [Senator Stewart] and 31 Congressional Record 6336 [Senator Foraker's admission of defeat]
So what is called the "legislative history" of the Joint Resolution shows no evidence of support for the proposition that the Joint Resolution acquired Hawaii.
Indeed, the title of the Joint Resolution indicates what is was believed to do: it is titled the "Joint Resolution Providing for the Annexing of the Hawaiian Islands"---that is, the Joint Resolution was merely to pave the way, or provide for the "later” annexation of Hawaii---which was supposedly by the 1900 Organic Act creating a Government for the Territory of Hawaii.
But that bill could not acquire Hawaii as, it too, was merely a bill or act of Congress. Nonetheless, a second ceremony of annexation was held in Honolulu after the Organic Act passed on June 14, 1900. Of course, the Organic Act did not acquire the Hawaiian Islands because its description of what it acquired ---in Section Two of that act --- was "the islands acquired by the Joint Resolution".
Since the joint resolution of 1898 1) did not have the capacity to acquire Hawaii and 2) was not intended by Congress to acquire Hawaii means that no islands or waters were acquired by the Organic Act either--meaning the United States never acquired the Hawaiian Islands or the Crown and Government Lands.
Neither the Treaty of 1897, The Joint Resolution of 1898, the Organic Act of 1900, or the Act of Admission as a State in 1959 acquired the Hawaiian Islands as territory of the United States.
The United States does not have territorial jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands. The Crown and Government lands never passed or conveyed to the Territory, State or United States of America
Mahalo
Professor Williamson B.C. Chang
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Speaking in his own capacity Note from A.Gora: The U.S. is an illegal alien nation not welcomed in the Hawaiian Islands due to issues....athe 1850 Treaty continues on based a permanent treaty from a neutral friendly non violent nation whose Royal Families exists even today...aloha.
19 hrs ·
important .-a keeper
Williamson Chang
20 hrs ·
Aloha--some corrections:
In the article: Occupation Denial and Cognitive Dissonance of Al Jazeera America, of November 9, 2015, that article states:
“The only claim that the United States has ever made to Hawaiian sovereignty is through the joint resolution of 1898. In a secret debate of the U.S. Senate in 1898, which was kept secret until 1969 (71 years), only two of the 90 senators claimed that annexation by joint resolution was constitutional. The rest stated that it was unlawful, unconstitutional, and logically impossible.”
Some small correction of facts:
Debates on the Treaty of Annexation of June 16, 1897 are regularly held in secret, executive session. There were no votes held in the winter of 1897-1898 on the Treaty of Annexation since it was clear the administration could not garner the two-thirds majority needed to achieve ratification.
When it came to the Joint Resolution Providing for the Annexing of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States [the Newlands Resolution] which was introduced in the Spring of 1898, after the beginning of the Spanish American War, and was NOT a treaty, but a bill, it was debated in public in both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.
The complete records of those debates are available publicly, including at Hamilton Library, and in my collection.
It is correct that only two Senators, Senators Foraker and Stewart made an attempt to explain how a joint resolution could acquire Hawaii. Other Senators did speak in favor of the Joint Resolution but did not attempt to explain how it could acquire Hawaii---they spoke to the military advantages of acquiring Hawaii and such topics.
One should not assume that all the rest of the Senators went on record as opposed to the Joint Resolution, particularly on the ground that it lacked the capacity to acquire Hawaii---the large majority were simply silent--and supported the President's joint resolution simply because it would help the war effort in the Philippines.
Senator Foraker and Senator Stewarts' attempted explanation of how the joint resolution could acquire Hawaii were ridiculed and Senator Foraker eventually admitted that a joint resolution could not acquire the Hawaiian Islands, see 31 Congressional Record at 6369 [Senator Stewart] and 31 Congressional Record 6336 [Senator Foraker's admission of defeat]
So what is called the "legislative history" of the Joint Resolution shows no evidence of support for the proposition that the Joint Resolution acquired Hawaii.
Indeed, the title of the Joint Resolution indicates what is was believed to do: it is titled the "Joint Resolution Providing for the Annexing of the Hawaiian Islands"---that is, the Joint Resolution was merely to pave the way, or provide for the "later” annexation of Hawaii---which was supposedly by the 1900 Organic Act creating a Government for the Territory of Hawaii.
But that bill could not acquire Hawaii as, it too, was merely a bill or act of Congress. Nonetheless, a second ceremony of annexation was held in Honolulu after the Organic Act passed on June 14, 1900. Of course, the Organic Act did not acquire the Hawaiian Islands because its description of what it acquired ---in Section Two of that act --- was "the islands acquired by the Joint Resolution".
Since the joint resolution of 1898 1) did not have the capacity to acquire Hawaii and 2) was not intended by Congress to acquire Hawaii means that no islands or waters were acquired by the Organic Act either--meaning the United States never acquired the Hawaiian Islands or the Crown and Government Lands.
Neither the Treaty of 1897, The Joint Resolution of 1898, the Organic Act of 1900, or the Act of Admission as a State in 1959 acquired the Hawaiian Islands as territory of the United States.
The United States does not have territorial jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands. The Crown and Government lands never passed or were conveyed to the Territory, State or United States.
Some small correction of facts:
Debates on the Treaty of Annexation of June 16, 1897 are regularly held in secret, executive session. There were no votes held in the winter of 1897-1898 on the Treaty of Annexation since it was clear the administration could not garner the two-thirds majority needed to achieve ratification.
When it came to the Joint Resolution Providing for the Annexing of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States [the Newlands Resolution] which was introduced in the Spring of 1898, after the beginning of the Spanish American War, and was NOT a treaty, but a bill, it was debated in public in both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.
The complete records of those debates are available publicly, including at Hamilton Library, and in my collection.
It is correct that only two Senators, Senators Foraker and Stewart made an attempt to explain how a joint resolution could acquire Hawaii. Other Senators did speak in favor of the Joint Resolution but did not attempt to explain how it could acquire Hawaii---they spoke to the military advantages of acquiring Hawaii and such topics.
One should not assume that all the rest of the Senators went on record as opposed to the Joint Resolution, particularly on the ground that it lacked the capacity to acquire Hawaii---the large majority were simply silent--and supported the President's joint resolution simply because it would help the war effort in the Philippines.
Senator Foraker and Senator Stewarts' attempted explanation of how the joint resolution could acquire Hawaii were ridiculed and Senator Foraker eventually admitted that a joint resolution could not acquire the Hawaiian Islands, see 31 Congressional Record at 6369 [Senator Stewart] and 31 Congressional Record 6336 [Senator Foraker's admission of defeat]
So what is called the "legislative history" of the Joint Resolution shows no evidence of support for the proposition that the Joint Resolution acquired Hawaii.
Indeed, the title of the Joint Resolution indicates what is was believed to do: it is titled the "Joint Resolution Providing for the Annexing of the Hawaiian Islands"---that is, the Joint Resolution was merely to pave the way, or provide for the "later” annexation of Hawaii---which was supposedly by the 1900 Organic Act creating a Government for the Territory of Hawaii.
But that bill could not acquire Hawaii as, it too, was merely a bill or act of Congress. Nonetheless, a second ceremony of annexation was held in Honolulu after the Organic Act passed on June 14, 1900. Of course, the Organic Act did not acquire the Hawaiian Islands because its description of what it acquired ---in Section Two of that act --- was "the islands acquired by the Joint Resolution".
Since the joint resolution of 1898 1) did not have the capacity to acquire Hawaii and 2) was not intended by Congress to acquire Hawaii means that no islands or waters were acquired by the Organic Act either--meaning the United States never acquired the Hawaiian Islands or the Crown and Government Lands.
Neither the Treaty of 1897, The Joint Resolution of 1898, the Organic Act of 1900, or the Act of Admission as a State in 1959 acquired the Hawaiian Islands as territory of the United States.
The United States does not have territorial jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands. The Crown and Government lands never passed or conveyed to the Territory, State or United States of America
Mahalo
Professor Williamson B.C. Chang
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Speaking in his own capacity Note from A.Gora: The U.S. is an illegal alien nation not welcomed in the Hawaiian Islands due to issues....athe 1850 Treaty continues on based a permanent treaty from a neutral friendly non violent nation whose Royal Families exists even today...aloha.
1 ·
Sincerely and Thank you,
Amelia Gora
A Royal person, Acting Liaison of Foreign Affairs, Judicial Tribunal Judge/Member,
Konohiki, House of Nobles Member, Hawaiian Genealogical Society Representative,
Royal Family Representative, Supporter of Kanaka Maoli, Representatives Against
The Mauna Kea Project, Haleakala, Halawa Jet Fuel Storage, Ewa Marina, GMO/
Monsanto, Evil Projects including the Rail, the Drone Program in Honouliuli, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment