DOI RULE IGNORES OVERWHELMING HAWAIIAN OPPOSITION TO FED WRECK

The Grassroot Institute criticized the Department of the Interior for subverting the will of Native Hawaiians on the issue of federal recognition. With the announcement of the DOI's rule to facilitate the reestablishment of a formal government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community, the President has reignited a controversy that had begun to wane in the wake of Na`i Aupuni's dissolution.

"Native Hawaiians are on record as overwhelmingly opposed to efforts by the Department of Interior to recognize or establish a Hawaiian tribe or government," stated Keli`i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute. "Every survey by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, from 1978 to the present, shows that Native Hawaiians want OHA to stop wasting money on federal recognition and, instead, to spend those millions on meeting the real needs of Hawaiians for housing, jobs, education, and healthcare. OHA and the DOI are on a crash course in their rejection of the will of the Hawaiian people."

The DOI proposed the rule in 2015, and the Grassroot Institute was among the many who submitted comments in opposition to the creation of a federal Native Hawaiian tribe. Grassroot's comments cited problems with the rule's Constitutionality, its attempt to usurp Congressional authority, and its divisive nature as only a few of the many reasons the rule should have been set aside.

Most of all, Grassroot cited the continual Native Hawaiian opposition to federal recognition, pointing out that by pushing for the creation of a Native Hawaiian polity, the rule would precipitate a legal challenge and fracture any sense of cultural unity among Native Hawaiian groups.

Dr. Akina continued: "With today's announcement, the bureaucrats in Washington have proved that they aren't listening to the Native Hawaiian people. We are still fresh from the disaster that was the Native Hawaiian Roll and the Na`i Aupuni constitutional convention. This rule only encourages OHA and the state to waste more time and resources on a problematic and unconstitutional nation-building effort."

GRASSROOT INSTITUTE AFFIRMS RESULTS OF LAWSUIT DESPITE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT RULING

In the wake of the latest ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Grassroot Institute of Hawai`i affirmed the overall results of the Akina v. State of Hawaii litigation. According to the Institute, the suit has been very successful in educating the public about the problems in the state's nation-building process.

With the help of the group Judicial Watch, a group of Native Hawaiians and other concerned citizens brought suit against the state for launching an unconstitutional election. The plaintiffs then sought a preliminary injunction that would halt any race-based vote. Because the ratification of the Native Hawaiian Constitution has been indefinitely suspended--and because Na`i Aupuni, one of the defendants, has been dissolved--the Ninth Circuit dismissed the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction as moot.

"Overall, our litigation is achieving its objectives. Through the course of this lawsuit, we have seen the state cancel one unconstitutional election and postpone another one indefinitely," stated Keli`i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute and a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "We have seen Na`i Aupuni--the organization that was created for the purpose of holding the election--shut down. And thanks to our efforts, more questions are being asked about how funds intended for the benefit of Native Hawaiians should be spent."

Dr. Akina continued: "At present, we are reviewing all of our options regarding the decision in order to determine what our next step will be. We cannot forget that during oral arguments, the defendants claimed that OHA has set aside money for a ratification vote. The state has not yet discarded its disastrous nation-building plans, but this suit has put them on notice. We will not allow an unconstitutional and divisive election to go forward, unchallenged, in Hawai`i," Dr. Akina concluded.

The Grassroot Institute of Hawai`i reaffirmed its commitment to defending the Constitution and expressing the concerns of Native Hawaiians opposed to the state's race-based nation-building process.

9TH CIRCUIT COURT HEARS NA`I AUPUNI LAWSUIT IN HONOLULU

Grassroot Institute Warns Closer To Native Hawaiian Tribe Than Ever Before

The challenge to the state's Native Hawaiian race-based election scheme moved forward today as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held a hearing in Honolulu to consider the case of Akina v. Hawaii.

The lawsuit, which was brought by four Native Hawaiians and two non-Hawaiian locals through the assistance of Judicial Watch, raises Constitutional issues regarding the use of race to qualify voters for elections and plebiscites related to the creation and approval of a Native Hawaiian tribal government. In addition, the Native Hawaiian plaintiffs have raised free speech questions related to the Roll's requirement that voters affirm the "unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people."

"What many people do not realize is that we are closer today to the creation of a state-sponsored Native Hawaiian government than we were on the day that we instituted this suit," stated Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "That is why this issue is very much alive despite the dissolution of Na'i Aupuni. Neither the state nor the Office of Hawaiian Affairs--which are also defendants in this case--have indicated any desire to abandon the nation-building process. Only a permanent injunction preventing a race-based election would put a true end to the matter."

Dr. Akina continued: "The majority of Native Hawaiians, along with general population of the state, do not support the use of public resources to form a race-based separatist nation. Our lawsuit is critical for preserving the Aloha Spirit in Hawaii."

"Finally, the Constitution and case law are clear in rejecting the race-based election and voter roll that are at the heart of the state's nation-building process. For this reason, we are confident that we will ultimately prevail," Dr. Akina concluded.

THEY CHICKENED OUT

Na`i Aupuni Will Not Pursue Constitution Ratification

The Grassroot Institute criticized the announcement from Na`i Aupuni that they do not intend to pursue a ratification vote on the constitution created through their "aha" (Constitutional Convention). Citing the organization's earlier decision not to recognize the election for "aha" delegates, the watchdog group asked why Na`i Aupuni appears so determined to avoid submitting it to a public vote.
 
"Despite their continued assertions that their actions are lawful and democratic, and that they are soliciting the full spectrum of opinions from the Native Hawaiian people, every decision Na`i Aupuni makes flies in the face of such claims," stated Keli`i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute. 

"At this point, it is obvious that the state recognizes that it lacks the support of the Hawaiian people as well the citizens of the state as a whole. Otherwise, why would they continue to hide from a public vote?"

Dr. Akina continued, "After the millions that have been spent on the state's nation-building process, from the marketing and lobbying efforts to the aha, what do the Hawaiian people have to show for it? An unconstitutional race-based election effort and a 'constitution' that the state seems to want to wash its hands of. This represents a significant waste of funds that could have been better used on the projects that Hawaiians truly care about--like health care, job training, housing, and education. 

Perhaps it's time for Na`i Aupuni and the state to open their books and show some accountability to the Hawaiian people for this failed project."

LAWSUIT TO SHUT DOWN NA`I AUPUNI MOVES FORWARD

Today, the Grassroot Institute of Hawai`i issued comments on the case against the Na`i Aupuni election. 

While the Court rejected the argument that the Na`i Aupuni was using the Native Hawaiian Roll in a way that violated their injunction, the suit against the race-based and unconstitutional election is still going forward. 

The Court denied a motion for civil contempt filed when Na`i Aupuni chose to seat all the delegates in their disputed election, thereby ignoring an injunction order from the court not to proceed with the election or certify winners.

The attempt to bypass the election was seen by many as a high-handed attempt to dodge the Constitutional challenge. However, those involved in the case stressed that they have no intention of giving up. The case is currently before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"The Supreme Court has only denied a temporary remedy related to our case," said Keli`i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "We remain confident that when the full case is argued before the Ninth Circuit Court or Supreme Court, it will prevail on its merits. In the end, we expect the US Constitution to be upheld for the benefit of Native Hawaiians and all people of Hawai`i."

"Regardless of what happens in the courts, this case has successfully exposed the agenda of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Na`i Aupuni and the state when it comes to their nation-building scheme," Dr. Akina continued. "They do not truly represent the people they purport to speak for. The public resources they are expending would be better utilized providing Hawaiians access to housing, job training, education, and health care."

JUDICIAL WATCH OPPOSES  OBAMA EXECUTIVE ACTION 

TO CREATE HAWAIIAN TRIBE

Grassroot Group Warns Hawai`i Plan Is Racially Discriminatory & Unconstitutional

Judicial Watch today announced its opposition to an effort by the Obama administration to recognize a new race-based “tribe” of Native Hawaiians.  

The government watchdog details how the Obama Interior Department’s proposed regulation would be contrary to laws against racial discrimination and would be an unconstitutional end-run around Congress, which has repeatedly rejected legislation granting tribal status to Native Hawaiians.

Last month, Judicial Watch persuaded the US Supreme Court to issue an injunction to stop the counting of ballots in a race-based election that sought to seat delegates to a planned constitutional convention, which would then prepare the “governance documents” for a separate Native Hawaiian entity that the Obama administration could grant “government-to-government” recognition.  

Judicial Watch attorneys argued that its clients would be denied the right to vote either because of their race or their political views, in direct violation of the US Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  

The Supreme Court issued the injunction despite the Obama administration’s legal support for the Hawaiian election, which would have been limited to those with at least “one drop of blood” of Native Hawaiian ancestry.

Judicial Watch, citing last month’s extraordinary Supreme Court intervention, warned that “the process described in the Department’s regulations is racially discriminatory and would violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights of Hawaiian citizens.”  

The proposed regulation would provide for governing documents created and ratified by the Native Hawaiian community, and expressly forbids the inclusion of votes cast by “persons who were not Native Hawaiians.”  

Indeed, the ancestry requirement set forth in the proposed regulations is virtually identical to ancestry requirements that have twice been enjoined by the Supreme Court in the context of elections—most recently, just a few weeks ago.  

Judicial Watch urged the Obama Interior Department to stand down:

We urge you and the administration not to insert yourselves into a political movement that would deprive citizens of the right to vote—and ultimately divide them—on the basis of race. The Department’s recognition of the results of such an election would not only condone, but institutionalize, racial discrimination. It would not only be unlawful, it would be unconscionable for the Department of the Interior to use this election—or any process that similarly denies citizens the right to vote because of their lack of a particular bloodline—to advance an administrative agenda.

The Obama administration’s plan also subverts the will of Congress, as federal recognition of tribes is granted only through “a process set forth in congressional statute, not by unilateral executive action … Without proper statutory authorization by Congress, a regulatory scheme promulgated by an executive agency to grant tribal status to Native Hawaiians would violate fundamental separation-of-powers principles.”

In fact, Congress repeatedly rejected attempts by Hawaii’s former Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) to pass legislation (the Akaka Bill) to grant tribal status to Native Hawaiians:

Despite [the proposed regulations’] many references to a “special political and trust relationship” between the United States and Native Hawaiians, the fact remains that the federal government has never recognized Native Hawaiians as a sovereign entity like other Indian tribes.  If it had, there would have been no need for the Akaka Bill.  The Department’s claim that Congress has “already” recognized Native Hawaiians as a tribe defies both fact and reason.  If that is the case, one must wonder: what exactly was the point of the Akaka Bill?  And why did members of Congress spend political energy for more than a decade trying to pass it?  If Congress has “already exercised [its] plenary power to recognize Native Hawaiians,” as the Department contends, then why did Congress decline to pass the Akaka Bill, not once, but repeatedly?  The Department’s proposal is based on a fiction and ignores the obvious: Native Hawaiians have not been granted federal tribal status because Congress does not support the effort to do so.  The Department’s proposed rule is a transparent attempt to implement the failed Akaka Bill through executive action.  Without statutory authorization, it would be unlawful to promulgate this regulation.

Judicial Watch warns that the Obama administration’s plan to recognize a tribe in Hawai`i “would condone the division of Hawaiian citizens based on their race, and set a ‘dangerous precedent’ for further race-based divisions by other groups in other states.”

“The Obama administration’s latest attempted bureaucratic action to create a new tribe of Native Hawaiians is racist, unconstitutionally steals power from Congress, and could tear the country apart,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  

“Of course, one of the insuperable obstacles to ‘recognizing’ a Native Hawaiian entity is that Hawai`i had a truly multicultural and modern society before it ever became a United States territory or state.  

"The Obama administration’s latest executive action would illegally help a radical secessionist movement in Hawai`i that is engaged a dangerous game of racial division.”

CONTEMPT OF US SUPREME COURT MOTION FILED AGAINST NA`I AUPUNI CONVENTION

FREE HAWAI`I TV
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK
 
"WHY YOU SHOULD MAHALO THE GRASSROOT INSTITUTE"

Youʻre Kidding, Right?

Why Would I Want To Say Mahalo To Them?

Could It Be Because They Did Something You Couldnʻt?

Watch This To See Why You Couldnʻt & Why They Now Deserve Everyoneʻs Thanks. 

Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.

FIGHT TO STOP NA`I AUPUNI GOES TO US SUPREME COURT

The Grassroot Institute has reassured those concerned about the impropriety of the state-sponsored Hawaiians-only election that the legal battle is far from over. 

Although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' request for an injunction to stop the election, Grassroot Institute President Dr. Keli`i Akina promised that they would continue to press the case and shine a light on the issues important to Native Hawaiians.

"The 9th Circuit Ruling is still at an early stage in the legal fight, and we remain confident that we will ultimately prevail on the merits of the case," stated Dr. Akina, who is also a plaintiff in the case. 

"We are currently looking at all of our options, and plan to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision to the US Supreme Court."

"Everyday, more and more Native Hawaiians make it clear that they are dissatisfied with the Na`i Aupuni and the election process. We have a duty to them and all the people of Hawaii to put a halt to this unconstitutional and racially divisive scheme. 

"We must ensure that Native Hawaiian monies are used for the betterment of Native Hawaiians and not for an unconstitutional election," Dr. Akina concluded.

MOTION FILED TO STOP PHONY NA`I AUPUNI CONVENTION & ELECTIONS

The plaintiffs in the suit against the State of Hawai`i and its agencies to stop the racially exclusive election and constitutional convention to establish a native Hawaiians-only nation (Keli’i Akina, et al v. The State of Hawai`i, et al) have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.  

The motion asks the court to put the election on hold until after a decision is reached. 

The group of four Native Hawaiians and two non-Native Hawaiians who brought forth the suit against the election are asking that all the groups involved—including OHA, Na`i Aupuni, and the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission—be prevented from engaging in voter registration or calling and holding elections while the case is ongoing.
 
Keli`i Akina, Ph.D., President of the Grassroot Institute and one of the Native Hawaiian plaintiffs says, “It is imperative to stop draining public funds on a racially discriminatory process that the majority of native Hawaiians have chosen not to endorse, especially while the needs of native Hawaiians for housing, jobs, education, and health go underfunded....”
 
...Dr. Akina adds, “Many Native Hawaiians have come forward to state their objections to being put on the roll without their permissions. Others, like I, object to the Roll’s effort to exclude those who do not endorse a specific set of beliefs about Hawaiian sovereignty. To pretend that this election represents and honest effort to embody the voice of native Hawaiians is disingenuous.”

FREE HAWAI`I TV
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK
 
"DID THEY SNEAK YOUR NAME ONTO THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN ROLL?"

You Can Now See If Your Name Was Added Fraudulently To The Native Hawaiian Roll.

A Recent Court Decision Forced The Native Hawaiian Roll Commission To Hand A Copy Of The Roll Over To Judicial Watch & The Grassroot Institute.

In A Desperate Attempt To Look Legitimate, The Roll Commissioners Also Posted The Roll Online Themselves.

Watch This To See What They Were Trying To Hide & How To Find Your Name.

Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.

COURT ORDERS RELEASE OF NATIVE HAWAIIAN ROLL

In a victory for transparent government, a state court has ordered the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission to release its enrollment list. 

The suit was filed by Judicial Watch with the assistance of the Grassroot Institute of Hawai`i after an open records request for the Roll was repeatedly denied by the Commission. 

In a decision that emphasized the importance of open government, the Court rejected the Commission's reasons for denying the request, requiring the Commission to produce the list and pay attorney's fees in the case.

Said former Hawai`i Attorney General, Michael A. Lilly, who represented Judicial Watch in the case, "Today, in a victory for open government, Judicial Watch won a case seeking a roll of over 125,000 people allegedly registered with the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission."

Keli`i Akina, President of the Grassroot Institute stated, "With the release of the Roll, it will now be possible to answer concerns over the tens of thousands of names that have been placed on the list without the express permission of individuals. 

"The fact stands that the vast majority of Hawaiians have chosen not to support the efforts of OHA and the Native Hawaiian Roll to create a sovereign government. 

"Their voices can now be heard. And, hopefully, OHA will stop wasting public money on its unconstitutional push for sovereignty and, instead, spend it on housing, education, employment, and health services for those in need."

NATIVE HAWAIIAN ROLL "SWEETHEART DEALS" INVESTIGATION REQUESTED
 
A request by the Grassroot Institute of Hawai`i for information about the expenditures of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission has led to additional questions about the Commission's possible violation of the state procurement code.  

Former Hawai`i Attorney General Michael Lilly has requested that the Directors of the Departments of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and Accounting and General Services review whether the expenditure of over $800,000 on two vendors by the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission without public bid violated the State’s procurement code.  Such a violation of the code is subject to possible criminal and civil penalties.
 
The Grassroot Institute requested from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs the check register of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission as part of their ongoing government transparency effort. With the Commission's response now made public, citizens and government observers have been stepping forward with more questions about the expenditures listed and the process behind them.

In his letters sent as a private citizen to the state department directors, Michael Lilly states:

Some $4 million was reportedly transferred by OHA to the NHRC. The attached ledger summarizes payments by the NHRC to various vendors including over $600,000 to Makauila, a multimedia company ... Another some $200,000 went to "1013" which is a branding company found on your web site here as "One Zero Ten Three" ... None of these payments to vendors apparently complied with the procurement code, Chapter 103D.

According to Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President/CEO of Grassroot Institute, "Much of the money being spent by OHA and the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission could better be used to meet the real needs of Hawaiians for housing, job opportunities, education, and health-care.  And, if any of this public money is being fraudulently used, OHA and the Roll Commission must be held accountable."

Mr. Lilly added in a statement to Grassroot Institute: "The procurement code was established to ensure transparency and openness in public bidding, to ensure everyone has an equal right to bid on public contracts and to protect public funds from being overspent on insider deals."

FREE HAWAI`I TV
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK

"DID THEY STEAL YOUR NAME?"

Was Your Name Transferred Without Your Permission From The Kau Inoa List To Kana`iolowalu? 

Did This Happen To Anyone In Your `Ohana? 

If So, Hereʻs Your Chance To Recover From This Identity Theft. 

Watch Our Report & Find Out How You Can Help Reclaim Your Name. 

Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.

FREE HAWAI`I TV
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK

"TOO HOT TO HANDLE?"

They Had Everything Planned So Carefully - Bring The Native Hawaiian Roll Back To The Office Of Hawaiian Affairs.

Have The Hawai`i Legislature Give Their Support Through A Seemingly Harmless Resolution.

Then The Unexpected Happened & Ruined Everything - What Is It?

Watch Our Report To See What Came Out Of Left Field & What  Now Is The Only Right Thing To Do.

Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.

US SENATORS QUESTION LEGALITY OF NATIVE HAWAIIAN TRIBE

Grassroot Institute - August 6, 2014

A group of US Senators has sent a letter to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI), criticizing the recent Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that explored the creation of a government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian community.

The letter, signed by Senators Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Mike Lee (R-UT), objects strongly to the Department's ANPRM on legal as well as prudential grounds.

In the letter, the Senators reiterate the concerns about the constitutionality of a race-based government.

They then go on to question the DOI's authority to act in this matter and raise the issue of whether this is more properly the domain of the US Congress -

"Even if you disagree that the reestablishment of a Native Hawaiian Government would be patently unconstitutional, Congress has not enacted legislation authorizing the Department of the Interior ("the Department") to engage in such a rulemaking. In fact, Congress has repeatedly refused to adopt legislation that would recognize a Native Hawaiian government or reestablish an administrative path for doing so. As such, any unilateral efforts by the Department to move forward administratively are unlawful."