MISLEAD HAWAIIAN AMERICAN, FORMER SHERIFF DEPUTY AND HONORABLY DISCHARGED VETERAN - INVOLK CONSTITUTIONAL SCRUTINY ON UNITED STATES CONTINUED VIOLATION OF 1849 TREATY WITH HAWAII'S DYNASTY OF DEFENDANT HAUANIO #399
Replies: 1 comment
|
I'd like to raise funding for pre-publishing products by volume versions. Help with step-by-step who is interested in Hawaii's history, who will buy my promise for volume versions, and whether $900 per volume is reasonable, considering the topic (Hawaii Succeeds from UN Union), by 100000 pre-sales. Exactly how do I market this, and who has the volume capacity and the will to help an indigent Hawaiian living in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, who recently lost his eldest son, celebrating the 250 anniversity of America, in Chelan Lake, WA, saving a distressed female swimmer, recovered on 17 July 2026 in 250 depth, pending eviction (Civ No 3DRC-26-0001170), the new lease unit was replace with new tenant while away seaching for son (Civ. No. 3DSS-26-0000549 & Civ. No. 3DRC-26-0001671), the embezzelment complaint aginst the County of Hawaii (Civ. No. 3CCV-26-0000147), and the Treaty Violation (Civ. No. 94-0214K/3CC-94-000214K) - the reason for this chat? |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
The URL you pasted is a Chrome internal search/session URL (
chrome://contextual-tasks/...), not a publicly accessible webpage. I cannot validate its contents because:chrome://URLs exist only inside your local Chrome browser.If your goal is to vet the legal proposition concerning the U.S. Constitution's New States Clause for use by a defendant, I can absolutely do that.
The Actual Constitutional Provision
The relevant provision is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution (commonly called the New States Clause):
This clause is authentic and is the controlling constitutional text.
What Can Be Reliably Supported
The following propositions are supported by constitutional text and Supreme Court precedent.
1. Congress possesses the power to admit new States.
This is well-established.
Cases include:
2. Admission requires an Act of Congress.
Historically every State has been admitted through congressional legislation.
For Hawaii this was the:
3. Equal Footing Doctrine
Once admitted, every State enters on an "equal footing."
Leading authority:
Later reaffirmed in:
4. Congress cannot create unequal permanent States.
This is one of the holdings of Coyle.
Claims That Require Careful Treatment
Based on our previous discussions, you've explored arguments concerning Hawaii, treaties, sovereignty, and constitutional structure. There is an important distinction between arguments that are historically researched and those that are accepted by courts today.
Historically supported
A court can recognize that:
Not presently accepted as controlling law
Federal and Hawaii courts have generally not accepted propositions such as:
These theories have repeatedly faced significant judicial hurdles.
For Defendant's Position
If you are representing a defendant, the strongest approach is usually to separate:
Historical Facts
from
Legal Conclusions
A court is much more likely to engage with questions like:
than with assertions that require the court to reject long-established precedent.
What I Can Validate
I can rigorously review any legal memorandum, motion, or constitutional argument by checking:
That type of line-by-line vetting is much more useful than evaluating a Chrome session URL.
If your goal is to build the strongest legally supportable argument for the defendant, paste the actual motion, memorandum, or constitutional analysis (or upload it as a PDF), and I can evaluate every citation and argument for authenticity, accuracy, and likely judicial reception.
I can help draft a legally rigorous reply and a proposed order, but I cannot draft a proposed judicial order that contains findings or conclusions that are unsupported by the record or that state disputed allegations as established fact.
From the proposed order filed by Plaintiff, I note that Plaintiff has submitted a proposed order that would deny your Rule 60 motion in its entirety after briefing.
What I would recommend instead
Based on everything we've discussed over the past several weeks, I would not build your Reply around accusations of genocide or conclusions that the court has already committed racial oppression. Those assertions, unless supported by admissible evidence satisfying the applicable legal standards, are likely to distract from arguments that a court is capable of deciding.
Instead, I would organize the Reply around issues a circuit court has authority to decide, such as:
You can then discuss authorities such as:
but each should be cited only for the proposition it actually supports.
Proposed Order
A defensible proposed order for your position would ask the court to make procedural rulings supported by the record, for example:
That is very different from asking the court to enter findings that, for example, genocide has occurred or that the State lacks all governmental authority, because those are extraordinary conclusions requiring extensive factual and legal determinations.
If your objective is appellate review
Given the constitutional issues you've consistently raised, the strongest drafting strategy is to preserve every federal question accurately and thoroughly. A well-structured reply should:
That approach gives both the trial court and any reviewing court a clear record of the issues presented without overstating what the cited cases hold.
I think that's the right shift in objective.
If the objective is not to prove every ultimate conclusion immediately, but instead to build a record that can withstand scrutiny by a trial court, appellate court, or executive agency, then the strategy changes from "make the biggest argument" to "prove the smallest proposition that unlocks the next proposition."
That is how complex constitutional litigation is often built.
Objective
Create an evidentiary record that:
Step 1 — Freeze the Record
Do not argue conclusions first.
Instead, assemble a master record of primary sources only.
Organize into sections such as:
Avoid law review articles, blogs, or AI-generated summaries unless they are clearly identified as secondary sources.
Step 2 — Build a Chronology
Develop a chronological record that simply states:
For example:
The chronology should not contain argument. It is your factual foundation.
Step 3 — Separate Fact from Proposition
For every proposition, ask:
What authority supports this?
For example:
Authority:
Do not add anything beyond what that authority supports.
Step 4 — Create an Authority Matrix
For each source, identify:
This prevents overstatement and strengthens credibility.
Step 5 — Identify the Controlling Questions
Rather than asking a court to decide an entire historical controversy, frame narrow legal questions, such as:
Courts are generally more receptive to deciding discrete legal issues than broad historical disputes.
Step 6 — Anticipate Counterarguments
For each claim, identify the principal contrary authority or procedural obstacle and explain why your position remains viable.
For example, if relying on McGirt, acknowledge that it arose in the context of federal Indian law and explain why you believe its interpretive methodology is relevant, rather than asserting that it directly controls Hawaii.
Step 7 — Executive Branch Materials
If you intend to present matters to executive agencies, include:
These are official materials that often carry significant persuasive weight.
Step 8 — Remedies
Be explicit about the remedy sought.
Different legal theories support different remedies. For example:
Clearly connecting each claim to a specific remedy strengthens the presentation.
Step 9 — Executive Agencies
If you decide to submit materials to an executive agency, tailor the submission to that agency's statutory authority.
For example:
No executive agency is generally required to open an investigation or take enforcement action solely because a petition is filed.
The Simplest, Strongest Workflow
If I were designing this as a litigation-ready evidentiary project, I would produce it in this order:
That sequence is efficient because each step builds on the previous one and creates a record that is easier for a court or agency to evaluate. It also makes the work more resilient to challenge, since every factual assertion can be traced back to a primary source and every legal proposition is tied to the authority that actually supports it.
Excellent. This is now a research project, not a pleading.
If we do this correctly, the memorandum becomes your master evidentiary record. Every future motion, appeal, petition, or agency submission is built from it. The goal is not to persuade with rhetoric—it is to make every factual statement traceable to a primary source and every legal proposition traceable to binding or persuasive authority.
MASTER PROJECT
"The Hauanio Evidentiary Record"
Mission:
The memorandum should not assume conclusions. Instead, it should present the evidence in a way that allows a decision-maker to understand the factual record and the legal questions raised.
PHASE I — PRIMARY SOURCE LIBRARY (2–3 DAYS)
Create a digital binder with these sections:
Volume 1 — Constitutional Documents
Volume 2 — Treaties
Every treaty involving Hawaii including:
NO commentary.
Only certified treaty text.
Volume 3 — Supreme Court
Every case touching:
Including:
For each case, prepare:
Volume 4 — Ninth Circuit
Include:
Volume 5 — Congress
Collect:
Do not rely only on enacted statutes; committee findings can be important context, but distinguish legislative findings from binding law.
Volume 6 — State of Hawaii
Gather:
Volume 7 — International Law
Include primary texts only:
For each instrument, identify the operative provisions relevant to your analysis.
PHASE II — MASTER TIMELINE
Every entry should have four columns:
For example:
1778
↓
1795
↓
1810
↓
1826
↓
1842
↓
1843
↓
1849
↓
1863
↓
1893
↓
1894
↓
1898
↓
1900
↓
1921
↓
1948
↓
1959
↓
1978
↓
1988
↓
1993
↓
2000
↓
2004
↓
2009
↓
2020
↓
2022
↓
2026
No argument.
Only verified facts with citations.
PHASE III — AUTHORITY MATRIX
This becomes your most valuable research tool.
Every authority gets its own page.
For example:
McGirt
Supports:
✔ plain statutory text
✔ Congress must clearly alter legal rights
✔ historical analysis
Does NOT support:
✘ Hawaii statehood invalid
✘ international annexation analysis
✘ Hawaiian Kingdom sovereignty
Potential analogy:
interpretive methodology.
Repeat this for every authority.
PHASE IV — EVIDENCE MATRIX
Instead of organizing by statute…
Organize by allegation.
Example:
Burial Rights
Evidence:
State Auditor.
DLNR records.
HRS 6E.
Burial Council.
Archaeological reports.
Federal statutes.
Constitution.
Treaties.
Cases.
Everything related stays together.
PHASE V — OPPOSING ARGUMENTS
Build the strongest case against your own position.
For each issue:
Opposing authority.
Opposing reasoning.
Procedural barriers.
Then answer them using the record.
This makes your memorandum much more resilient because it shows you have considered and addressed the principal objections.
PHASE VI — REMEDY MATRIX
Do not just identify problems.
For each issue ask:
What legal remedy is available?
Examples include:
Identify the legal basis for each requested remedy.
FINAL PRODUCT
When completed, the project should resemble a litigation record rather than a brief:
One additional recommendation
Because your litigation focuses on longstanding historical and constitutional questions, every factual statement should be graded by evidentiary strength. For example:
Then make it a rule that the memorandum's core legal propositions rely primarily on Level A sources, using Levels B–D only for context or corroboration. That discipline will make the record substantially more durable under judicial or academic scrutiny and much easier to defend because every central proposition traces back to the strongest available evidence.
All reactions