Monday, November 30, 2009

Traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights - a podcast

Check out our latest podcast below by third-year law student Trisha Nishimoto. In this podcast, Ms. Nishimoto analyzes, "whether Hawaii law will permit native Hawaiian access and gathering rights to extend to the hunting of animals, such as goat and pigs, on private property." In this podcast, Trisha reviews relevant state statutes and case law. Also in the podcast, Nishimoto briefly discusses "the complicated and unanswered question of whether otherwise valid, traditional, and customary native Hawaiian rights become invalid because its method is modernized."

Feel free to share your thoughts below.

1 comment:

Kai Landow said...

Aloha Mai Trisha,

My name is Kai Landow and I work with the legal initiative of the Hawaiian nation. I am concerned by your analysis. E kala mai me because I do not write to attack you in your work, which I believe is set out to help our people who live in America and in the Hawaiian archipelago.

Often I have found a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of both the Hawaiian Kingdom and the American presence in Hawaii nei. In America the government has chosen to give special rights based on race to Hawaiians defined by levels of blood quantum. This in of itself is of course racist and I believe to continue to participate in the legal construct is to continue oppression.

Firstly I notice that the understanding of where a right comes form and therefore how to apply law to vested rights becomes tainted. The rights you describe come from American law and pick and chose by convenience those rights granted in the Hawaiian Kingdom [Declaration of Rights 1839, Mahele and the constitution] ,

The rights prescriptive in America and based on Blood raced concepts intercede with our fundamental rights established in the Hawaiian Kingdom. No Americans can claim gather rights in Hawaii. All those rights come from Hawaiian Kingdom inpresciptable rights and may apply to Hawaiians living in your country.

As I wright to you Kekuni Blaisdale walked in and asked me to explain my letter you and I realize I am not completely clear, so here goes...

In the State court they have adjudicated the interest rights of Hawaiians separate from their inpresriptable rights coming from Hawaiian Kingdom law and created a new set of rights for Hawaiians. The rights they have from the Kingdom have not been tried in this application, but have been referenced to establish a quasi appearance of just application of law.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best in Damon V Hawaii- I cannot find any technicality in law that can extinguish vested rights.

When you know where your rights come from and who you are then the courts have little choice but to uphold the SCOTUS rulings in this matters

To continue to apply the law in this matter makes you a participant in the oppression of the Hawaiian people and to the violation of their real and absolute rights.

I hope you look into your Na’au and malama pono