08-05-2019, 03:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge
They’re following the letter of the law. A novel concept?
They are following a letter of a set of laws, what's really the question here is jurisdiction.
"Furthermore, the University of Hawai’i cannot escape the fact that even the United States Congress, in its Apology Resolution in 1993 (107 Stat. 1512), admitted that the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government was not only unlawful but that the so-called transfer of Hawaiian government and crown lands, which included the ahupua’a of Ka’ohe, to the United States in 1898, was done “without the consent of or compensation to the Native Hawaiian people of Hawai’i or their sovereign [Hawaiian Kingdom] government.” This was not known in 1968.
The United States did not acquire title to Ka’ohe in 1898, therefore it could not convey what it didn’t have to the State of Hawai’i in 1959. Consequently, the State of Hawai’i could not lease what it didn’t have to the University of Hawai’i in 1968, and, therefore, the University of Hawai’i could not sublease what it didn’t have to TMT. When Congress admitted that the transfer of the property occurred without consent, it is also an admission of who the true owner of the fee-simple title to Ka’ohe is, which isn’t the United States nor the State of Hawai’i. The University of Hawai’i’s general lease needs to be understood in this light, which clearly makes it invalid, and, therefore, the sublease to TMT is invalid."
http://mauicounty.us/wp-content/uploads/...ndence.pdf

