Hawaiian Embassy on Face Book


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Order to dimiss Habeas Corpus Spinney V Hawaii DHS

SERVICES, et al.,
CIV. NO. 11-00702 JMS/RLP
On November 18, 2011, Plaintiff Alfred Napahuelua Spinney, as
“Kanaka-Hawaiian subject and Prime Minister for the government of the Kingdom
of the Hawaiian Islands,” (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for
a Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus” seeking the release of three minor children
from the State of Hawaii, Catholic Charities Hawaii, and various individuals
(“Defendants”). Plaintiff asserts that these three minors were unlawfully removed
under the pretense that they needed protection from their father, David Kaawa IV.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are “engaging in a conspiracy to alienate the []
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 19
children from their father, their family, the country of their birth, their culture and
their ethnicity,” which constitutes “GENOCIDE against the Hawaiian people
. . . .”
Although titled as a Writ of Habeas Corpus, neither Plaintiff nor any
of the minor children he seeks release of are “in custody” such that 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 does not apply. See Cucalon v. Rice, 317 Fed. Appx. 602, 603 (9th Cir.
2008) (“We lack habeas corpus jurisdiction because [the mother] and her children
are not ‘in custody’ as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”). In any event, upon sua
sponte review, the court DISMISSES the Complaint without leave to amend.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court liberally construes his
pleadings. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The
Supreme Court has instructed the federal courts to liberally construe the ‘inartful
pleading’ of pro se litigants.”) (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam)). The court also recognizes that “[u]nless it is absolutely clear
that no amendment can cure the defect . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of
the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the
action.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995).
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 20
Nevertheless, the court may dismiss a complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on its own motion. See Omar v. Sea-Land Serv.,
Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua
sponte under [Rule] 12(b)(6). Such a dismissal may be made without notice where
the claimant cannot possibly win relief.”); Ricotta v. California, 4 F. Supp. 2d 961,
968 n.7 (S.D. Cal. 1998) (“The Court can dismiss a claim sua sponte for a
Defendant who has not filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”).
Additionally, a complaint that is “obviously frivolous” does not confer federal
subject matter jurisdiction and may be dismissed sua sponte. Franklin v. Murphy,
745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Grupo
Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (“[I]t is the
obligation of both district court and counsel to be alert to jurisdictional
“To survive a motion to dismiss [pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)], a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see
also Weber v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 521 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008). This
tenet — that the court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 21
complaint — “is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.
Accordingly, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported
by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555). Rather, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Factual allegations that only permit the court to infer “the mere possibility of
misconduct” do not show that the pleader is entitled to relief as required by Rule 8.
Id. at 1950.
The court may also dismiss a complaint sua sponte for failure to
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Rule 8 mandates that a complaint
include a “short and plain statement of the claim,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and that
“each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). A
complaint that is so confusing that its “‘true substance, if any, is well disguised’”
does not satisfy Rule 8. Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124,
1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431
(9th Cir. 1969)); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996)
(“Something labeled a complaint but written . . . prolix in evidentiary detail, yet
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 22
without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what
wrongs, fails to perform the essential functions of a complaint.”).
Put differently, a district court may dismiss a complaint for failure to
comply with Rule 8 where the complaint fails to provide defendants with fair
notice of the wrongs they have allegedly committed. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at
1178-80 (affirming dismissal of complaint where “one cannot determine from the
complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough
detail to guide discovery”); cf. Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d
1097, 1105 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding dismissal under Rule 8 was in error where
“the complaint provide[d] fair notice of the wrongs allegedly committed by
defendants and [did] not qualify as overly verbose, confusing, or rambling”). Rule
8 requires more than “the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” and “[a]
pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citations and
quotations omitted). “The propriety of dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8
does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly without merit.” McHenry, 84
F.3d at 1179.
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 23
Plaintiff, as Prime Minister of the “Kingdom of Hawaii,” seeks release
of three minor children that were apparently taken from the custody of their father
and are allegedly being detained unlawfully by Defendants. Plaintiff asserts that
these children are citizens of the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands, and that their
removal constitutes genocide as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1091(6).
First, the court rejects out of hand Plaintiff’s assertions suggesting that
the “Kingdom of Hawaii” is a separate legal entity from the United State, and that
the State of Hawaii commits “genocide” by taking children into protective services.
There is no legally cognizable Kingdom of Hawaii; the State of Hawaii is a part of
the United States; and Hawaii state custody of children is not “genocide.”
Second, this court appears to lack jurisdiction over the Complaint —
both Plaintiff and Defendants appear to be citizens of the State of Hawaii and no
federal question appears to be presented.
Third, even if Plaintiff presents a Constitutional claim, it fails. After
stripping away the nonsensical allegations from the Complaint, the court is left
with the basic allegations that Defendants took three minor children into custody in
violation of David Kaawa IV’s parental rights. Although Plaintiff did not provide
any details regarding precisely how David Kaawa IV’s parental rights were
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 24
allegedly violated (or why Plaintiff has standing to object to any violation of
Kaawa’s rights), the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over such
issues — the court may not issue child custody decrees, see Ankenbrandt v.
Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992) (holding that the domestic relations exception
to federal subject matter jurisdiction “divests the federal courts of power to issue
divorce, alimony and child custody decrees”); nor may it may review state court
child custody proceedings. See Hanson v. Firmat, 272 Fed. Appx. 571, 572 (9th
Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal of claims asserting due process violations in child
custody proceedings due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine); Watkins v. Proulx, 235 Fed. Appx. 678, 679 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Watkins’ action amounted to a
de facto appeal of a state court child custody order.” (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (Rooker-Feldman bars
“state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments
rendered before the district court proceedings commenced” from asking district
courts to review and reject those judgments.)).
The court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint. Because any
amendment would be futile, this dismissal is without leave to amend.
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 25
For the reasons stated above, the court DISMISSES the Complaint.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case file.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 28, 2011.
/_s_/ _J_. _M_i_c_h_a_e_l _S_e_a_b_ri_g_h_t__________
J. Michael Seabright
United States District Judge
Spinney v. State of Hawaii et al., Civ. No. 11-00702 JMS/RLP; Order Dismissing Complaint
Case 1:11-cv-00702-JMS-RLP Document 4 Filed 11/28/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 26

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Habeas Corpus just filed on behalf of Keiki o ka Aina


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Notice to the US district court in Kona


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

A repost of an old article about the Crown land case


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hawaiian Kingdom responds to US false claims of a scam

Story link


The Hawaiian Kingdom
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Honolulu, Hawaii
May 24, 2011


The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hawaiian Kingdom deeply regrets the recent confusion and controversy caused by the Hawaiian Kingdom visas in the Kingdom of Tonga referenced in the Pacific Islands Report story of May 24, 2011.

The Hawaiian Kingdom visas are genuine and authorized by the Hawaiian Kingdom government in keeping with international law. However, the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom disavows any involvement in the scheme referenced in the Taimi story.

First, the Hawaiian Kingdom does not sell visas. Second, the Hawaiian Kingdom does not claim that these visas can be used for entry into the United States of America. A visa issued by the Hawaiian Kingdom is free of charge, and only allows a person to enter the Hawaiian Kingdom, and no other foreign country such as the United States.

By issuing documentation for those within its borders and those who enter as visitors, the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom endeavors to address the problem of so many aliens illegally entering and taking up residence in the Hawaiian Kingdom.

The Hawaiian Kingdom is a sovereign, independent kingdom in continuity since at least 1810. However, currently the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom has been under prolonged occupation by the United States (since 1898).

This confusion over visas arises because the United States government, after admitting in essence that it wrongfully occupies Hawaii, still refuses to vacate Hawaii and continues to violate international law by maintaining its superimposed rulership over Hawaii. Thus, in the Hawaiian Islands there exist two concurrent jurisdictions: one lawful (the Hawaiian Kingdom); and one not lawful (the United States of America).

The US Embassy in Suva claims the Hawaiian Kingdom visa is not valid for entry into the US. The embassy is correct! But we never said our visas were US visas. We are saying our visa is valid for entry into the Hawaiian Kingdom. Apparently it is the US embassy that doesn’t understand the difference.

We contend that in reality, it is the United States that is engaged in trafficking and profiteering in visas by forcing Tongans and other South Pacific islanders to bear the high costs to travel to the US embassy in Suva, Fiji to apply for US visas (which may or may not be forthcoming). We also point out that it is the United States government who is insisting on using our country as an entry point into the US, without our permission; and it is the United States government who is brazenly acting as the bully toll-gate-keeper refusing entry to those wishing to enter the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Aloha ke Akua,

I am:

Leon K. Siu

Minister of Foreign Affairs

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Customary Land Reform from Solomon Islands

Customary Land Reform must recognize and respect Indigenous Peoples Rights


THE CUSTOMARY Land Reform must accord equal, effective and full recognition and respect to the rights of the Indigenous Peoples who are rights holders and owners of customary lands.


The Network of the Indigenous Peoples-Solomons (NIPS) says it is vital, respectful relationships between the Indigenous customary landowners and the government’s Customary Land Reform, is established so that deliberations and considerations are on merits of recognition and respect naturally due to Indigenous Peoples Rights as rights holders and not be considered as mere stakaeholders.


The local NGO welcomes government asserting that the reform will not alienate traditional owners.


However, NIPS cautions, opening up customary lands for economic development, without the Indigenous Peoples recognition and respect, will advance more land, resource and territories grabbing on the part of the state in the name of national economic development interests.


It further adds that the NCRA government must now seriously consider signing on to the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous peoples (UNDRIP) because the interests of Indigenous peoples regarding their customary lands, resources and territories are enshrined therein.


Also, NIPS says that any reform without constitutional recognition of the rights of the Indigenous owners of customary land is meaningless and only reflects compliance to foreigners, be they investors or inter governmental organizations.


It emphasizes the reform must be objective to whilst creating a welcoming investment environment, be subjective to the indigenous peoples to be recognized to allow them maintain their land claims to prosper and flourish alongside investment and national economic development.


The NGO highlights the Mines and Minerals Act as an example where in the interest of national interest, mineral resources in customary land are legalized to be in ownership and tenure of the Government and the Indigenous landowners are left to be negotiators only with access and not with benefits as the latter falls within the powers of the Government.


“This is an example that the Government must avoid with its land reform for it takes away what belongs to the Indigenous peoples since time immemorial – well before the arrivals of the colonizers and law makers, and awards ownership to the state, “says NIPS.


Such is the example that Indigenous owners of resources, territories and lands must be accorded full, effective and equal recognition and respect for their rights in this reform exercise.


The Indigenous Peoples Organization sees the land reform is heading towards customary lands being exposed to be used as collaterals for mortgage, securities and as a conditionality to change land tenure system as required by foreign interests.


It concludes that the requirement with our laws being long overdue and outdated are that in promoting recognition and rights of Indigenous peoples to a level where the indigenous peoples as owners and holders of customary lands, resources and territories are pivotal.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pacific caucus global statement

Pacific caucus global statement

Water-Salt Water

The life, culture and health of the Pacific Region is tied to our lands and waters. As custodians of traditional territories possessed by the Pacific Nations, Indigenous Peoples must have the right to say “no” to activities that negatively impact on our sovereignty, and use of lands and water environments. Free, prior and informed consent that is determined by our own mechanisms of governance must become the accepted practice.

The life of our land is fatally affected in Tuvalu, Marshall Islands, Torres Strait Islands and many other low lying islands within the Pacific, where they are facing high tide surges as a result of global warming. The preservation of several Sovereign Nations lost to sea water inundation must be remedied to the satisfaction of their own national interests.

The continuing affect of military colonial occupations such as that of Hawaii, Malukus, Tahiti, Rapa Nui prevent the exercising of accepted indigenous rights.

As a result the preservation of environments from the destructive effects of unsustainable uranium mining, nuclear testing and exporting toxic waste to our lands, as well as commercial over-fishing of our waters can not be checked.

Ground water contamination as a result of these unsafe practices degrade the health of our peoples and force us to abandon our sacred lands. We the Indigenous Peoples assert our rights to maintain, control, protect and develop our lands, waters and seas, maximising our absolute right to access and use these resources.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Joint Statement of the Global Caucus of Indigenous Peoples

10th Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

New York, May 16 to 27, 2011

Joint Statement of the Global Caucus of Indigenous Peoples

Thank you Chairperson,

The Global Caucus of Indigenous Peoples and our communities throughout the globe are calling for action to respond to the critical issues that continue to be experienced by our Peoples. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration) has been passed by the general assembly and is now a consensus document, and now is the time to implement the Declaration and cease the injustices that have persisted in our territories. The Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus has met and recommends the following issues and concerns:

Economic and Social Development

The right to chew Coca leafs, a capacity to build an economic social base which is self-designed and decolonized, access to coastal natural resources is essential to our wellbeing, to recognize and create solutions of environmental contamination due to mineral and natural resource extraction, The above captures the worldview of Indigenous Peoples’ Doctrine of Living Well

Human and Indigenous Rights & Implementation of the Declaration

Indigenous Peoples are equal to all other Peoples. Human Individual’s and Indigenous rights must be recognized by governments and states. Additionally, education and awareness must be made available to Indigenous Peoples regarding rights under the Declaration. Furthermore, mechanisms are needed to ensure Indigenous Peoples are meaningfully included in decision-making processes, and urging state assemblies to ratify domestic laws relating to the Declaration and its implementation.

In keeping with the recommendation in paragraph 94 of the report from UNPFII 9, the we express our appreciation to the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) 3rd session in July 2010 for its formal acceptance of the report of the 2nd UN Seminar on Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements [A/HRC/EMRIP/2010/5] held in Samson Cree Nation in November 2006, and encourage the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights to continue its work, in conjunction with Indigenous Peoples,  to organize a 3rd UN Seminar on Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements planned for 2012.  We request the ongoing encouragement of the UN Permanent Forum in this regard, so that this vital area of work can continue in these and other UN bodies

We are concerned current UN processes addressing the environment and impacts of unsustainable development are failing to implement Article 42 of the Declaration, including recognizing the right to participate in decision-making as stipulated by Article 18, and all of the Declaration’s provisions affirming and upholding Free, Prior, and Informed Consent. We call upon the UN PFII to renew recommendations made in past sessions that UN processes provide mechanisms and procedures for Indigenous Peoples’ full and effective participation, and a meaningful role in decision-making and policy development, which process included, inter alia, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the International Maritime Organizations, calling upon the UN to implement Article 42 of the Declaration and asking for clarification regarding the steps to be taken to include formal participation of Indigenous Peoples in the decision-making processes.

Free, Prior, and Informed Consent

The Indigenous Peoples declare Free, Prior, and Informed Consent is not negotiable and must be implemented as adopted in Articles 19, 26, and 32 of the Declaration. The participation and consultation of Indigenous peoples is absolutely necessary in all development processes.

Adverse social and environmental impacts on Indigenous peoples occur when states and corporations fail to engage Indigenous Peoples. Nuclear energy and uranium mining are of irreversible concerns to Indigenous Peoples resulting in environmental contamination which create health consequences felt directly by our communities.

Climate change and environmental disasters adversely affect the waterways, forests and glaciers used for ceremonial purposes, livelihood and cultural practices. The Corporations must take responsibility for the environmental disasters effecting quality of all life.


We Indigenous peoples have an intrinsic relationship with our lands and territories. The natural environment is our Mother Earth and we recognize she nurtures, shelters, nourishes and we are spiritually connected through her to the plants, animals, waters and places we inhabit since time immemorial. Today we are increasingly witnessing the crime of Terracide, defined as the willful and premeditated crime against Humanity and the Rights of Mother Earth that results in the destruction of the capacity of Earth to be a Mother to the Future Generations.

Articles 25 through 32 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples outline the rights in relation to maintaining and strengthening our spiritual, cultural, social, economic relationship with the environment, including land rights and uses to avoid adverse effects from development strategies and to maintain, control, protect and develop cultural heritage and traditional knowledge including knowledge of fauna and flora.

We endorse the 2010 World People’s Conference on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth adoption of the People’s Agreement of Cochabamba.

We are deeply concerned about REDD proposed policies and initiatives to utilize a carbon market as part of the Green Economy Initiative and compel us to safeguard the rights of women, including those enshrined in the UN Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

The Permanent Forum has continually recommended from the second to ninth sessions a range of environmental issues and the participation of and policies on indigenous peoples still remain unresolved.

The Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus recognizes the report of the first International Indigenous Women’s Environmental Toxics and Reproductive Health Symposium held  June 30 – July 1, 2010 in Alamo, California, contained in CRP 9 for the 10th session, which called attention to and proposed strategies to address the critical health, environmental and human rights impacts of toxic contaminants which  disproportionately affect Indigenous women, children, infants and unborn generations.   The Global Caucus therefore reiterates the recommendation presented in our closing statement to UNPFII-9 last year calling on the UNPFII to organize an expert group meeting on Indigenous women, reproductive health and environmental toxins, and  requests that this this EGM be held in 2012 before UNPFII-11


Declaration Article 32.2, we have the right to protect the sovereignty of lands and resources, including water. We will work with states to exercise the right to protect our sacred waters from contamination and commodification. Water is a human right and not a commodity. We request a report on actions taken concerning water issues from previous recommendations. Indigenous women are the caretakers of the water, and consulting with and including Indigenous women in water protection processes is of great importance. We, as women water vessel carriers which symbolize life itself, are guardians of the power of water in all its forms through Mother Earth. We commend the UNGA’s passage onf64/292 on the Human Right to Water and Sanitation.

Indigenous Women’s Rights

Indigenous women’s rights and health status have remained a critical matter of concern and the right to safely breastfeed and to practice safe and healthy maternal methods of motherhood has been seriously damaged and impacted as a result of environmental disasters caused by land development and contamination. Equal access to judicial processes is needed to enforce maternal rights of Indigenous women as stated in Articles 17 and 22. A strategic plan must be developed to protect mothers and infants from environmental harm, and overall implementation of CEDAW.

Unrecognized and Unrepresented Indigenous Peoples

The Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus calls attention to the challenges of the unrecognized and unrepresented Indigenous Peoples. Administrative processes must include a viable means to incorporate the Indigenous participation, use of traditional Indigenous forms of government, and individual Indigenous recognition. As indicated in Article 6 of the Declaration, individual Indigenous rights must be implemented.

Borders – Article 36

Article 36 states Indigenous People have the rights to freely cross borders of adjacent nations to access traditional lands. Human rights are violated when indigenous peoples are prevented from interaction with other Indigenous Nations, including the use of militarization on border. The forced displacements are survival acts that are criminalized.

The Women’s Caucus recommendations for the Global Caucus:

We the GIWC call upon the PF to organize an Expert Group Meeting on Indigenous Women’s reproductive health and environmental toxins before the 11th Sessions and support the Indigenous women’s call for a strong, effective global treaty to eliminate mercury and other poisonous minerals that cause contamination.

Endorsement of the People’s Agreement of Cochabamba adopted at the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth held in April 2010 in Bolivia.

Protection of Water Position Paper presented by the American Indian Law Alliance

The legal foundation upon all life remains institutionalized in law and policies adversely impacting life. The Doctrine of Discovery today is in direct violation of the entirety of the UNDRIP.

Therefore, we respectfully request the Expert Group Meeting address the theme for 2012 of the Doctrine of Discovery in all seriousness of purpose and practical effects.

Future Work of the Permanent Forum, including issues of the Economic and Social Council and Emerging Issues

Mindful of the Report on UNPFII-9, E/2010/43-E/C.19/2010/15 (19 May 2010) and its acknowledgement of the Preliminary study of the impact on Indigenous Peoples of the international legal construct known as the Doctrine of Discovery, E/C.19/2010/13 (4 February 2010), by Special Rapporteur Tonya Gonnella Frichner, the Preliminary study reiterates its call for additional attention, study and documentation of the racism of Christian discover, and the manner in which the doctrine of Christian discovery has been constructed, elaborated, applied and extended in law, policy, socio-cultural practices, through both secular and religious practices, and to set the stage for its eradication and reversal as a fundamental element of colonization, imperialism as well as violence against Indigenous women and mother earth.
Given the decision by the 9th Session of the UNPFII to make the “Doctrine of Discovery” the theme of the 11th Session of the UNPFII, the global Indigenous Peoples’ caucus expresses its unqualified support for the convening of an Expert Group Meeting on the Doctrine of Discovery We recommend an international expert group meeting be convened January 2012, which will expand upon and discuss the findings and implications of the “Preliminary Study of the Impact of the International Legal Construct known as the Doctrine of Discovery” (UN ECOSOC document E/c.19 2010/13) that also identifies the past and continuing impact of the “Framework of Dominance” on Indigenous nations and Indigenous peoples.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The start of the UN Forum on Indigenous Issues

Aloha Kakou,

The Start of the UNPFII is on Monday the 16, we have already begin with caucus meetings.  You may be surprised to know that rights of Hawaiian people, as well as Indigenous people globally are affected by these meetings.  Policy and political decisions are decided at this venue.
So this year we have attempted to have a greater presence of Kanaka Maoli to have a say in this forum. Mahalo for your mana’o and I will do my best to preserve Hawaiian interests.  I will be posting position and working papers on this site.

A Hui Hou Kakou

Kai Landow

Mana’o to hawaiianembassy@gmail.com

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments