• No categories


    A sample text widget

    Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

    Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

    Recent court developments.

    Oral Argument on the merits in Corboy v.  Bennett in SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII
    8/5/2010. The Justices were well prepared and asked good questions.

    See the Court’s brief description of Taxpayers’ arguments.

    To listen to the 8/5/2010 oral argument, click on the second link in the sidebar to the right.

    Briefs filed in SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII:

    4/21/2010 Corboy’s reply brief in Supreme Court of Hawaii

    4/5/2010 State’s answering brief in Supreme Copurt of Hawaii

    1/20/2010 Corboy’s Opening Brief in Supreme Court of Hawaii


    6/21/2010  Supreme Court denies petition for cert in Corboy v. Bennett.

    5/24/2010 Supreme Court denies petition for cert in 09-1165 Marumoto v. Apoliona.

    4/14/2010 John Corboy and other property owners petition Supreme Court of the United States for review of Hawaii Supreme Court’s denial of injunction pending appeal.

    3/22/2010 – Wendell Marumoto Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to review Ninth Circuit Court’s denial of  his right to intervene to stop diversions of Ceded Lands Trust revenues to support racial separatism.


    3/31/2009 U.S. Supreme Court in Hawaii v. OHA, 129 S.Ct. 1436,1439-1444 (2009) reversed the Hawaii Supreme Court’s injunction against sale or transfer of any ceded lands until claims of native Hawaiians against ceded lands are resolved.  Decision by Justice Alito for unanimous Court holds :

    Operative clauses of 1993 Congressional Apology Resolution created no substantive rights;

    State Supreme Court’s conclusion (that the Apologu Resolution’s 37 “whereas” clauses clearly recognize native Hawaiians’ “unrelinquished” claims over the ceded lands) is wrong.  The 37 “whereas” clauses would “raise grave constitutional concerns ” if they purported to cloud the State of Hawaii’s absolute title to the ceded lands.

    Pursuant to Newlands Resolution (1898) Republic of Hawaii ceded and transferred to U.S. “absolute fee and ownership” of all public, Government and Crown lands “without reserve.”  In 1900 Organic Act reiterated that U.S. acquired  absolute fee, and declared that  on  effective date of Newlands Resolution, and prior thereto, the Crown lands were property of the Hawaiian government “free and clear from any trust of or concerning the same, and from all claim of any nature whatsoever. ”

    The State of Hawaii in its brief  had argued that the Newlands Resollution (1898) and Organic Act (1900) “extinguished” and “foreclose” any Native Hawaiian or other claims over the ceded lands that preexist the date of annexation.  “For decades after Hawaii was admitted to the Union, the State had undisputed authority to dispose of the ceded lands as it deemed appropriate so long as it satisfied its “public trust” obligations, which run to all the citizens of Hawaii, not just to Native Hawaiians.”

    This landmark unanimous decision of the highest court has now finally adjudicated this major issue.   Native Hawaiians have no claim over the ceded lands arising out of events before Annexation in 1898.  The ceded lands are held by the State of Hawaii in trust for all the people of Hawaii, including but not limited to Native Hawaiians.