State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists

[Kaimana]

quote:

---

Originally posted by grsjax

This is the text of the Supreme Court's decision in England vs Cardoza. The basis of the plea was that Cardoza had given "judicial notice" to the Hawaiian Kingdom still being in existence but refused to dismiss the case against the defendant due to lack of jurisdiction.

http://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/supre...00236.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaimana

quote:

---

Originally posted by grsjax

Actually judicial notice does not have any effect in law. Judicial notice can be used by a judge for several reasons other than recognizing that a fact is so well known that it isn't in dispute. It has no effect outside of his court and can be ignored by other courts or, as in this case, refuted by a higher court. What this amounts to is one judge using a term of art in a careless manner and having a higher court correct the mistaken impression.

No matter how thin you slice it, its still balony.

---

So the Supreme court corrected it? Is there a link to it? Not doubting you just want all the facts so I'm not saying something that's false.

---

No matter how thin you slice it, its still balony.

---

So what I'm reading from this is that they said it wasn't enough to dismiss the case, but the judicial notice still stands?