AS YOU WILL SEE WE PLEAD FOR YOUR SUPPORT NOW MORE THAN EVER. PLEASE CLICK, CONSIDER AND SHARE:
Just submitted- THE DEMAND FOR JURISDICTION IS NOT DEAD IT IS ALIVE AND WELL AND AS OF YET THE HEARING OFFICER HAS STATED SHE IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE THAT RELIEF.
UNABLE TO PROVE JURISDICTION? WOW. DEMAND FOR JURISDICTION REMAINS UNFULFILLED AND LIVES ON IN MANY MOTIONS LIKE THE ONE SUBMITTED MOST RECENTLY:
Motion to Extend Hearing Commencement Date and Request for Reconciliation of Possible Criminal Activity:
If any part of my motion is inappropriate or does not fit a format or requirement of the mysterious “user-friendly system” parties promoting the desecration of my burial grounds, who erroneously and unprofessionally claim I have no right to a “user-friendly” apparatus, I reserve what rights I know and do not know about and reserve the right to refashion this instrument given the information I need to navigate this system. To date no such user- friendliness is apparent or accessible. Am I to assume, and maybe all others looking in as well, that when the term user-friendly is touted it may relate to the developer not the citizen. Because the outcome and results show this to be true no matter the disingenuous claimed intent. I move on with my motion forced under duress as pro se, forced under duress by the purposely dictated schedule and unnecessarily inflated costs that I, not being a 1.4 billion dollar foreign investor, nor a prestigious judge or lawyer am forced to appear under- let me be frank THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN AND DISENFRANCHISES ALL JUSTICE AND PEOPLE. Onward with my motion:
I, Kamahana Kealoha through this instrument move the Hearing Officer Amano to adhere to The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment which states that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due-process of law” and I although not being a lawyer agree with, understand, and interpret the same as the following precedence upheld by the 9th circuit court of Hawaii in 1988, namely that “The hallmarks of the protection afforded by the due-process clause are notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful way.” Brady v. Gebbie, 859 F.2d 1543, 1554 (9th Cir.1988).
The evidence as exhibited through verbal testimony of the gross majority of parties on 10/03/2016 explicitly exhibit that this right has not been afforded we parties.
The hearing recorders record should indeed reflect that no resolution nor reasoned decision based on the testimonies and claims, to outstanding and supremely essential pre-hearing decisions, on 10/03/2016, was given a meaningful time to be heard in a meaningful way.
In fact the Hearing Officer refused to allow the large majority of parties to argue our case in a meaningful time and in a meaningful way by abruptly ending the hearings without confirmation of the most pertinent, yet dictated scheduling, which every single party not intent on permitting the Telescope stood in solidarity against.
Everyone of the aforementioned requested the date be pushed back and I suggest now that the hearings begin in November and I give good quality reason and evidence as to why, including not only my own pending motion on Quo Warranto awaiting decision (required by the Hearing Officer for the due-process opportunity of a motion of reconsideration to be made).
My Quo Warrantor motion I presumed considered and verbally ruled upon, and other motions made by other parties that are pertinent to all of our witness testimonies and our own preparation of written testimony, as well as evidence of jurisdiction, have been knowingly and purposely denied the due-process provided by §13-1-39 of HRS Title 13, namely, an opportunity to request reconsideration.
The confirmation of hearing commencement notice DICTATED also deprives me and my fellow parties of due-process and to somehow allude that speculation of the date means that we were expected to go through the duress of clearing a whole month before confirmation of such commencement is ludicrous. We were told explicitly by HO Amano that it was to be confirmed and that she was speculating for October. Nothing more.
I don’t need a reference to exhibit that. MUST BE SEEN AS JUST!
Since when does a State Constitution supersede U.S. Constitutional law?
I am unaware of this clause or stipulation if it exists. Why would the Hearing Officer a retired Judge, suddenly pretend not to know the U.S. Constitution supersedes any State Constitution. Am I mistaken. I am pro se. I don’t have 1.4 billion dollars to throw around. I am not getting paid almost 400$ an hour as an asking price. I am not a hired henchmen that is presumed to be a lawyer. Pro Se.
Where does the idea that this is supposed to be user friendly system come from? Unless by user they mean applicant for permit.
Does not the Hearing Officer still hold an Oath of Office?
Do not the hired lawyers have a formal legal, professional, and ethical obligation to their profession that would jeopardize their license to practice because of premeditated, blatant distortion and deception of law?
Please reconcile this because I am definitely accusing the Hearing Officer, although not herein making a motion of accusation, of Misprision of Felony, which I will bring to motion if these answers are not justifiably reconciled with law. I would like to give the retired Judge who took an oath of office a chance to educate me, kindly. But I must say what I see as a pro se victim to these predatory hired legal henchmen who I am supposed to believe are lawyers by word alone.
Did they take their Oath?
State law is not above that of the so-called supreme law of this land, the U.S. Constitution and to explicitly claim so and then support this statement is a blatant and preposterous violation of profession, license and formal legal oaths.
Did not the court case that brings us here to this hearing state that “for something to be just IT MUST BE SEEN AT JUST?”
And if so I feel no need to quote or reference that case for the blatant reason we are here in the first place- DUE-PROCESS has already been found to be deprived. If needed, in the apparent absence of the good will of the “honorable” Hearing Officer and these presumedly licensed so-called “professionals” calling themselves lawyers (I have not seen their certifications) I will be happy to add a memo to this if such duress is going to be enforced, namely some kind of requirement that I quote the very Supreme Court decision that brings us to this sad, what I see as a farce. “Seen to be just.” Key words. I don’t see it and I would like to see who does?
The lack of due-process regarding my motion, the deprival of due-process would be more accurate, and the deprival of due-process regarding meaningful time and meaningful way in regards of the dictated ludicrous schedule ONLY BENEFITS ONE PREDETERMINED OUTCOME AND THE PARTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ONE PREDETERMINED OUTCOME.
I, WITH ALL THE RIGHTS VESTED IN ME AS A CITIZEN BY FORCE OR NOT, DEMAND THE HEARING OFFICER UPHOLD HER OATH OF OFFICE AS A RETIRED JUDGE, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND IT APPLIES PERTINENTLY, AND THAT THESE SO-CALLED LAWYERS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVER COMMITTING A BLATANT VIOlATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, UNDER THE BASELESS CLAIM OF JURISDICTION OF A RETIRED JUDGE AND HEARING’S OFFICER. THAT THE STATE LAW SUPERSEDES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THAT DEPRIVAL OF DUE-PROCESS IS NOT APPARENT AND EVIDENT AND BLATANT IS A CRIME IN PROGRESS.
THE CONTESTED HEARING IS NOT ALLOWED TO DEPRIVE CONSTITUTIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS. NOT AT ALL. NO WHERE IN THE STATUTE DOES IT STIPULATE SUCH.
Again that due-process includes the dictating of the deplorably unjust and untimely hearing date I motion herein as well to PUSH THE HEARING COMMENCEMENT DATE BACK TO NOVEMBER KINDLY.
Have some respect for your professions.
I want to have that same respect for your profession but a blatantly evidenced Misprision of Felony is all the evidence I need personally to take un-deserved respect and jurisdiction away from this process and these individuals if so. I believe such a charge of Misprision of Felony should be pursued by all parties and civil court interests and will do everything in my humble power to see to it that this is the case.
Now what evidence can anyone provide to show me that U.S. Constitutionally protected due-process is not being deprived NOR Misprision of Felony is being committed, through allowing to stand that the State constitution somehow supersedes the U.S. CONSTITUTION.
I implore you to take more pride in your offices, positions and professions.
Please do not take my assertiveness as aggression or misconstrue my motion as some question of sovereignty. JURISDICTION AS AFFORDED BY THE UNITED STATE’S CONSTITUTION AND I SHOULD NOT BE ABUSED HERE AND CONTINUALLY SEE MY MOTION CONTRIVED INTO SOME KIND OF KINGDOM LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW OR POLITICAL QUESTION. THE QUESTION IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ONE AND IT IS SHAMEFUL THAT A SWORN JUDGE AND PRESUMED BAR CERTIFIED LAWYERS WOULD DEPRIVE OUR CIVIL RIGHTS THAT WAY, JUST SHAMEFUL. HAVE YOU NO MORAL RESPONSIBILITY?
This process and the circumstance above is clearly evidence of lack of good intent, a definite predetermined outcome, and an organized, premeditated ethnocide and genocide. Why genocide? Because unlike the superiority-centric culture that is trivializing and rendering mine dead, our iwi (burials), remain ALIVE and I contend, and am here to assert, that my lineal ascendants and my own iwi and generations are, and will, have our jurisdiction and rights to our prospective burial grounds, the entire summit of SACRED MAUNA KEA KA MAKAHIAPO NA WAKEA, supersede those of International corporation and business people parading as cultural practitioners, licensed lawyers and a sworn to oath retired Judge and now hearing officer still beholden to that oath of office to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.
I pray for you and aloha you, because pitiful is a form of aloha too and I hope I am wrong with all DUE respect.
Please educate me.
I mean I’m not a lawyer I’m a pro se victim under duress of threat to my grandmothers sacred interment. And from my education here so far the user-friendly term only applies if you have 1.4 billion dollars and you are the applicant for permit. Not for the people.