KAMAHANA KEALOHA’S CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AND COMMON LAW MOTION DEMANDING PROOF OF JURISDICTION: DENIED

SOURCE: BIG ISLAND VIDEO NEWS
August 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm
Hearing officer Riki May Amano denied a motion invoking “Quo Warranto” and a demand of jurisdiction brought forward by a participant in the Thirty Meter Telescope contested case hearing on August 12.

Kamahana Kealoha filed the motion, explaining:

Quo Warranto is the legal term for a writ (order) used to challenge another’s right to either public or corporate office or challenge the legality of a corporation’s charter. When the authority of an official or corporation to take action is challenged, a Quo Warranto action may be used to demand that the right upon which they base the action be stated.

– Brannon Kamahana Kealoha AFFIDAVIT

Kealoha had the chance to speak on his motion during the pre-hearing conference at Hawaii Community College, arguing that since a “detailed land survey of the meets and bounds” of Hawaii’s lands, such as the summit of Mauna Kea “have not been conveyed lawfully… these meetings are moot and invalid and should be terminated immediately.”

Ten minutes into his presentation, judge Amano had a question.

“Mr. Kealoha, you’re saying Mauna Kea is not part of the state of Hawaii?” Amano asked.

“Not just Mauna Kea, but the lands,” Kealoha answered.

“All the land in the State of Hawaii is not part of the State of Hawaii?” Amano asked.

“Yes, because there is no cessation,” said Kealoha, saying that the court must take judicial notice.

Attorneys for the Thiry Meter Telescope filed a motion in opposition, saying Kealoha’s challenge is not properly before the Hearing Officer, and must instead be addressed to a circuit court.

Amano agreed and denied Kealoha’s motion.

Participant Harry Fergerstom agreed Amano did not have the authority to determine if there is an answer to the question of jurisdiction, but also argued:

… it is the duty of this hearing officer to refer this matter back to the BLNR to notice them that a challenge to the entire assertion of Jurisdiction is being made. Further that because this factor of jurisdiction and ownership is pivotal, that a Quo Warranto is appropriate.

5 responses to “KAMAHANA KEALOHA’S CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AND COMMON LAW MOTION DEMANDING PROOF OF JURISDICTION: DENIED

  1. Pingback: MEHANA KIHOI: RECONSIDERATION TO DENY THE INTERVENTION OF PERPETUATING UNIQUE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AS A PARTY | Sacred Mauna Kea·

  2. Pingback: MEHANA KIHOE: RECONSIDERATION TO DENY THE INTERVENTION OF PERPETUATING UNIQUE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AS A PARTY | Sacred Mauna Kea·

  3. Pingback: BREAKING NEWS: ATTORNEY WURDEMAN WITHDRAWS AS COUNSEL!!! | Sacred Mauna Kea·

  4. Pingback: University of Hawaii’s Response to Kamahana’s motion invoking American Law demanding Jurisdiction | Sacred Mauna Kea·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s