|
Monday Town Hall with Ruggles
|
09-19-2018, 07:19 AM
quote:He was hired by my ex boyfriend's attorney to try to stop an 'illegal' forecloseure. $1000s later, we just a long spiel about the Hawaiian overthrow on the witness stand (and he lost the home anyway). Mahalo!
Mahalo!
09-19-2018, 07:37 AM
That's not quite the case, he was speaking up for the ethnic Germans who were forcefully removed from areas (where they had lived for centuries) after the end of the war.
It’s more than Zayas speaking up for the rights of displaced Germans. His arguments simultaneously downplay the actions of the Nazi regime, from before WW2 through what is happening today in Israel. If he has shown support for advocates of the Hawaiian Kingdom, it’s because it fits in with his other views, considered questionable at best by many, including historians and scholars: • Dr. Bernward Dörner, German historian specializing in antisemitism: Zayas ignores decades of research in his quest to absolve the Germans of having known about the Holocaust, and his evidence and reasoning are faulty. (Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, April 18, 2011, review of Zayas’ most recent book • Professor Frank M. Brucher, in 1993 German Studies Review article: Zayas “makes no attempt to integrate his work with that of existing historiography on World War II, Nazi Germany or war crimes in general • Rainer Ohliger, German social scientist and historian, reviewing Zayas’ book “A Terrible Revenge” in 1997 German historians’ forum: The “murderous Nazi-German foreign policy that was in place between 1938 and 1945. . . is starkly underemphasized [by Zayas’] book and arouses suspicion that we are dealing with a historical revisionist work.” “It's tremendously big and tremendously wet, tremendous amounts of water.” "The wettest we've ever seen from the standpoint of water." President Donald J. Trump describing an active hurricane on Tue, Sept 11, 2018 & Sept 18, 2018
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
09-19-2018, 08:10 AM
quote: OK, I suppose these can be ignored as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bi..._of_Hawaii 
09-19-2018, 09:00 AM
The letter referenced above is not covering any NEW material, that would cause Jen to suddenly question her position. And it does not cover serving on a county council, the area covered under the referenced letter is on land rights in the court of law.
I want the letter, from the UN, that has caused Jen to feel that it is violation of law for her to represent people in her district.... there are many lots in east Hawaii, within Jens district, that have lands that were legally obtained and subdivided.... It will surprise some here that some of the landowners, including some of the biggest landowners, were obtained legally, both through marriage and also by legal being residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The letter referenced above would have bearing only if Jen thought that all of the land she was representing was illegal obtained, which would be a wrong assumption. Since Jen has not actually provided the actual letter that caused her to feel her representation was not legal, I will wait for her to provide it, but still question WHY SHE DOES NOT SUPPLY IT TO HER CONSTITUENTS....
09-19-2018, 09:45 AM
The deed to my property in Pahoa, when I went through escrow, was located in the basement of the palace in Honolulu. I am the second owner after the King.
Like Carey said....
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
09-19-2018, 10:03 AM
The letter referenced above would have bearing only if Jen thought that all of the land she was representing was illegal obtained, which would be a wrong assumption.
... I am the second owner after the King. Here's a little more info expanding on what Carey and Rob posted, about the Great Mahele. It was the Hawaiian Kingdom that willingly divided the land, and set up record keeping for ownership. This occurred 45 years before the Queen abdicated her throne. Some of the land today is managed by DHHL, and in a way OHA. The Great Mahele (great land division) occurred in 1848. The King and 245 ali`i and konohiki came together to divide the land. In a process that took several months, the land was divided into three classifications. Of the approximate four million acres in Hawai`i, the king reserved one million acres for himself and his family. These were called crown lands. Of the remaining three million acres, approximately half were designated as Government Lands and the other half was given to the ali`i and konohiki and which became known as Konohiki Lands. The record of the distribution of lands in the three classifications was set forth in the Mahele Book. The Great Mahele is the single most important event in the history of land title in Hawai`i. It essentially abolished the feudal system and gave rise to an allodial system of land tenure. Private ownership of most of the property in Hawai`i began with the Great Mahele. http://files.hawaii.gov/dcca/reb/real_ed...hawaii.pdf If there hadn't been a Great Mahele, and the Hawaiian Kingdom had ruled without interruption, it's possible the average Hawaiian would still be living and toiling on the King or Queen's land, even today. “It's tremendously big and tremendously wet, tremendous amounts of water.” "The wettest we've ever seen from the standpoint of water." President Donald J. Trump describing an active hurricane on Tue, Sept 11, 2018 & Sept 18, 2018
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
09-19-2018, 10:16 AM
quote: You're missing the point. The "letter" in question from the UN bla-de-blah is about a land rights case. He is speaking to the land rights issues. As background, he states that "I have come to understand that the lawful poitical status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation-state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and a fraudulent annexation." He then states stuff pertinent to the case. The BACKGROUND is the relevant part you need to focus on. If the United States legally took control of the Islands, he would have stated such and come to a different conclusion. If you take his research into the topic as valid (he is supposed to be an expert), then you realize that the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists and the occupying power (the USA) have to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, not US law. To do otherwise is considered a war crime. That is what Jen is saying. She is not speaking about the land rights issues in the Bolomet case.
09-19-2018, 10:29 AM
Jen has repeatedly committed war crimes so she needs to resign her position with the county and surrender to the Hawaiian Kingdom to face her punishment.
09-19-2018, 11:01 AM
Riversnout wrote: "(he is supposed to be an expert)"
I would like to suggest that supposed to be an expert is not a position of any authority, anywhere.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
09-19-2018, 01:22 PM
How are the people here asking for Jen to explain her CURRNT UNEASE WITH REPRESENTING HER CONSTITUIENTS "missing the point"?
Perhaps the writer of the letter referenced above, and Riversnout, have just "come to understand that the lawful poitical status of the Hawaiian Islands ", but for most living here, in east Hawaii, the issues of the sovereign state of Hawaii and the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement should be nothin new.. ... As I stated before, this issue is more than 100 years old, was an issue when Jen decided to run for office, was an issue when Jen won the office, has been an issue throughout her service. WHY IS THIS NOW AN ISSUE? Again, we are all trying to make sense of an educated person, who has lived in east Hawaii, that just realized that there may be a sovereignty issue.... This is why I would like JEN to post exactly which letter has made her decide, in late August, that she cannot legally represent us. As far as the letter that was posted above, that would be more of an issue for Mike than Jen & more of an issue of her property status PRIOR to taking office than of her office in August 2018.... And those two instances may also explain why some of her constituents are surprised by her sudden unease with legally ambiguous issues.... |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
