Correcting Misinformation: The Great Māhele is a “Process” of Hawaiian Land Tenure, not a “Singular Event”

There is much confusion on the 1848 Great Māhele that stems from the Hawaiian Indigeneity movement made up of scholars at the universities. This prompted Dr. Keanu Sai to write an article titled “Setting the Record Straight on Hawaiian Indigeneity” in 2021 that was published in volume 3 of the Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics. Dr. Sai covers the false narrative of the Māhele that was promoted by the Hawaiian Indigeneity movement. The Māhele, as a process, is explained under the heading of Land Reform on page 67 in the eBook published by the Royal Commission of Inquiry. And the Royal Commission of Inquiry published its Preliminary Report on the Legal Status of Land Titles throughout the Real in 2020.

The Hawaiian Indigeneity movement manufactured the false belief that the Hawaiian Kingdom was controlled by Americans. In his book Dismembering Lahui: A History of the Hawaiian Nation to 1887, Professor Jon Osorio wrote that the Hawaiian Kingdom “never empowered the Natives to materially improve their lives, to protect or extend their cultural values, nor even, in the end, to protect that government,” because the system itself was foreign and not Hawaiian. Professor Sally Merry stated, in her book Colonizing Hawai‘i: The Cultural Power of Law, “the relationship between Euro-Americans and Native Hawaiians was a classical colonial relationship [that sought] to transform the society of the indigenous people and subsequently wrested political control from them.” Dr. Robert Stauffer wrote, in his book Kahana: How the Land was Lost, “the government that was overthrown in 1893 had, for much of its fifty-year history, been little more than a de facto unincorporated territory of the United States…[and] the kingdomʻs government was often American-dominated if not American-run.” And in her book Aloha Betrayed: Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism, Professor Noenoe Silva wrote that the overthrow “was the culmination of seventy years of U.S. missionary presence.” These conclusions have no basis in historical facts and relevant laws.

Another false narrative driven by the Hawaiian Indigeneity movement is that all Native Hawaiians are called Kanaka Maoli. In Hawaiian law, kanaka maoli refers to aboriginal Hawaiians that are pure blood, and those that are part aboriginal Hawaiian are hapa. According to Pukui and Elbert’s Hawaiian Dictionary, kanaka maoli are “Full-blooded Hawaiian persons.” This is also reflected in Bernice Pauahi’s will that established the Kamehameha Schools. Article 13 states, “I direct my trustees to devote a portion of each years income to the support and education of orphans, and others in indigent circumstances, giving the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood.” Hawaiian is short for Hawaiian subject, which is the nationality, while aboriginal Hawaiian whether full or part is the race. If you are not a full-blooded aboriginal Hawaiian, you are not kanaka maoli but rather hapa.

The cornerstone of the Hawaiian Indigeneity movement is how terrible the 1848 Great Mahele was for the commoner or native tenant. In her book Native Land and Foreign Desires, Professor Lilikala Kame‘eleihiwa wrote, “The culmination of changes in traditional Land tenure in Hawai‘i in 1848 is commonly known as the ‘Great Māhele.’ I refer to it simply as the ‘1848 Māhele’ because it proved to be such a terrible disaster for the Hawaiian people, and the word ‘great’ has a connotation of superior. It was a tragic historical event, a turning point that had catastrophic negative consequences for Hawaiians.”

In his book, Dismembering Lahui, Professor Osorio agrees with Professor Kame‘eleihiwaʻs conclusion by writing, “As significant an event as the Māhele has proven to be, historians have seen it as a way of making specific indictments either of Ali‘i or of colonialism. No one disagrees that the privatization of lands proved to be disastrous for Maka‘ainana [commoners], yet the focus of every study, from John Chinen’s 1958 work to Kame‘eleihiwa in 1992, has been to try and establish the principal responsibility for its ‘failure.’”

Professor Kame‘eleihiwa wrongly claimed that the native tenants that submitted their claims with the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles, also known as the Land Commission, were the only native tenants that got land through the Māhele. She stated that the commoner class only received “a total of 28,658 acres of Land, which is less than 1 percent of the total acreage of Hawai‘i.” These native tenants were able to acquire fee-simple titles to their land under the 1850 Act Confirming Certain Resolutions of the King in Privy Council, passed on the 21st day of December, A.D. 1849, Granting to the Common People Allodial titles for their own Lands and House lots, and certain other Privileges. This law came to be known as the Kuleana Act.

The Kuleana Act addressed those native tenants that were not able to file their claim with Land Commission before the due date of February 14, 1848, by empowering them to go to the Minister of the Interior or his special agents to acquire up to fifty acres of land. The Minister of the Interior was responsible for the administration of Government lands that it received through the Mahele on June 7, 1848. In 1882, the Surveyor General reported to the Legislative Assembly that between “the years 1850 and 1860, nearly all the desirable Government land was sold, generally to natives.”

Donovan Preza, in his M.A. thesis on the Great Māhele tallied the number of acreage acquired by native tenants within this ten year period to be a remarkable 111,448.36 acres. This number of acreage is in addition to the 28,658 acres that commoners acquired from the Land Commission that Kame‘eleihiwa and Osorio hang theirs hats on as their sole evidence of oppression. By 1893, native tenants acquired from the Government a total of 167,290.45 acres. This is not evidence of dispossession and oppression of the commoners by the aristocracy and missionaries as argued by the movement of Hawaiian Indigeneity.

In a podcast interview on November 28, 2020, Professor Osorio made a startling comment. He said that the Māhele was “done to protect the hoaʻāina, the makaʻāinana, the people of the land who are not chiefs; to protect their existence on the land, and this is one of the most amazing things about the Māhele, and it was something that I didn’t really understand when I wrote my book. It was something that, really…Professor Keanu Sai makes clear to all of us.”

Professor Kame‘eleihiwa mistakenly thought that the Māhele was a singular event and not a process for separating the rights of the Government, Konohikis and the native tenants. The rights of these three entities were undivided. In the Hawaiian language, mahele is to divide and mahele‘ole is undivided. The 1839 Declaration of Rights established three vested rights in all the lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom. As the 1840 Constitution explains:

Kamehameha I, was the founder of the kingdom, and to him belonged all the land from one end of the Islands to the other, though it was not his own private property. I belonged to the chiefs and people in common, of whom Kamehameha I was the head, and had the management of the landed property.

The land tenure system was feudal. In 1882, the Surveyor General reported to the Legislative Assembly, “The ancient system of land titles in the Hawaiian Islands was entirely different from that of tribal ownership prevailing in New Zealand, and from the village or communal system of Samoa, but bore a remarkable resemblance to the feudal system that prevailed in Europe during the Middle Ages.”

As part of their vassalage, the chiefs had to pay the King taxes from their plantations, which was in swine, and the native tenants had to provide labor tax for both King and their chiefs on their plantation lands. The chiefs had to pay a particular weight of the swine per plantation or its equivalent in cash. The chiefs were also referred to as landlords. According to the Laws of 1842 Laws of the Hawaiian Islands that accompanied the 1840 Constitution, it stated:

The following is the rate of taxation for plantations, and, farms including plantations. There shall be no state, country, town and district tax, but only the following:

A large farm—a swine one fathom long.
A smaller one—a swine three cubits long.
A very small one—a swine one yard long.
If not a fathom swine, then 10 dollars.
If not a three cubit swine, then 7 ½ dollars.
If not a yard swine, then 5 dollars.

For the native tenants, the 1842 laws stated:

Hereafter a tax in labor shall not be required on every week of the month.—On two weeks, labor shall be done for his Majesty the King and also the landlords, and two weeks the people shall have wholly to themselves. The first week in the month the people shall work two days for the king and one for the landlords; the second week in the month they shall work one day for his Majesty the King, and two days for the landlords, and the next two weeks the people shall have to themselves.

Foreigners who were granted lands by the King and the chiefs were not part of the feudal system so they did not do any labor tax. On December 10, 1845, the Legislature began land reform by enacting a law establishing the Land Commission. The mandate of the Land Commission was to investigate all claims to private property that existed outside of the feudal system. Claimants to these lands had to file their claims for investigation between February 14, 1846, and February 14, 1848. Those that were required to file their claims to land were those who acquired their lands from the King or a chief prior to December 10, 1845.

After the investigation, the Land Commission would grant a Land Commission Award with a number if the claim was found valid. If it was rejected there was no Land Commission Award. Foreigners and those chiefs or native tenants that possessed property outside of the feudal system were required to file their claims. If they did not get their claim in before February 14, 1848, the lands reverted to the King and Government.

According to the Principles of the Land Commission:

The following benefits will result from these investigations and awards:—

1st. They will separate the rights of the King and Government, hitherto blended, and leave the owner, whether in fee, or for life, or for years, to the free agency and independent proprietorship of his lands as confirmed. So long as the King or Government continue to have an undivided proprietary share in the domain the King’s and Premier’s consent is necessary, by the old law, to real sales, or tranfers from party to party, and, by parity of reasoning, to real mortgages also. This is because of the share which Government or the body politic has in the lands of the kingdom uniformly. To separate these rights, and disembarrass the owner or temporary possessor from this clog upon his free agency, is beneficial to that proprietor in the highest degree, and also to the body politic; for it not only sets apart definitely what belongs to the claimant, but untying his hands, enables him to use his property more freely, by mortgaging it for commercial objects, and by building upon it, with the definite prospect that it will descend to his heirs. This will tend more rapidly to an export, and to a permanency of commercial relations, without which, there can never be such a revenue as to enable the Government to foster its internal improvements.

At this stage, the Land Commission was not authorized by law to grant titles to property but only to investigate and where found to be a valid claim issue a Land Commission Award. These Land Commission Awards vary from fee-simple, life estates, to leasehold. Below is Land Commission Award no. 511 issued to J.P. Parker. The Land Commission verified that Kamehameha III and the Premier Kekāuluohi conveyed a conditional fee-simple title to Parker on January 1, 1843.

On December 11, 1847, King Kamehameha III and his chiefs in Privy Council began to discuss the process of separating the rights of the Government from the chiefs, who were also called Konohikis, that would eventually lead to separating the rights of the Government and the Konohikis from native tenants. The purpose was to bring to an end the feudal system whereby the Konohiki and the native tenant will have an allodial title to their lands. According to Blackʻs Law Dictionary, allodial is “Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal.” Fee-simple is synonymous with allodial.

There were 254 Konohikis and King Kamehameha III considered himself the highest of all Konohikis. He was making the separation of himself as a Konohiki under the feudal system and as Head of the Government. In the Privy Council minutes it states:

The King now claims to Konohiki of a great portion of the lands. He therefore makes known to the other Konohikis, that they are only holders of Lands under him, but he will only take a part and leave them a part…subject only to the rights of the Tenants.

The Chiefs do not greatly object to this, but they ask. Has the Government a third interest in the lands left to us? The King replies Yes and the Government has 1/3 interest in his. There are some who say no. Let us have an Allodial Title to what the King has left us subject only to the rights of the Tenants.

The Māhele formally began on January 17, 1848, where the King and Konohikis signed in a book the separation of the lands between themselves. This gave them a life estate to the lands assigned to them in the Māhele book called ahupua‘a and ‘ili kūpono. If they wanted to acquire the fee-simple interest in these lands they had to give the Government certain lands they received in the Māhele that would satisfy the one-third interest of the Government. Kamehameha III was the first Konohiki to do this when the Government, acting through its Legislature, accepted certain lands to be Government lands and the remaining lands became the fee-simple ownership of Kamehameha III. Kamehameha III’s lands came to known as Crown Lands that descended to the successors of the throne. According to the 1848 Act Relating to the Lands of His Majesty the King and of the Government:

[Listing of the ahupua‘a and ‘ili]

To be the private lands of His Majesty Kamehameha III, to have and to hold to himself, his heirs, and successors, forever; and said lands shall be regulated and disposed of according to his royal will and pleasure subject only to the rights of tenants.

[Listing of the ahupua‘a and ‘ili]

Made over to the Chiefs and People, by our Sovereign Lord the King, and we do hereby declare those lands to be set apart as the lands of the Hawaiian Government, subject always to the rights of tenants.

During the Māhele process amongst the Konohikis, native tenants were encouraged to file their claim with the Land Commission before the due date of February 14, 1848. Many native tenants did not make it in time. This is where the confusion lies regarding the Māhele. What is important to remember, the Land Commission was not authorized to grant titles to those who filed their claim, but rather only to investigate the claims to land. Native tenants that filed their claims with the Land Commission did not divide their rights yet with the Government or the Konohikis so they could not claim to have a fee-simple title to their lands. This will change the following year.

On December 21, 1849, the King in Privy Council passed resolutions so that the common people can get allodial or fee-simple titles to their lands, and to empower the Land Commission to grant these titles on behalf of the King and Konohikis. This would facilitate the process of separating the rights of the Government and the Konohikis from those claims that were filed with the Land Commission by native tenants. Although the resolution empowered the Land Commission to grant titles to native tenants, the Legislature was needed to amend the law that would allow the Land Commission to grant titles.

On August 6, 1850, the Legislature enacted an Act Confirming Certain Resolutions of the King and Privy Council, passed on the 21st day of December, A.D. 1849, Granting to the Common People Allodial titles for their Own Lands and House Lots, and Certain other Privileges. This law came to known as the Kuleana Act. The Kuleana Act stated:

Be it enacted by the House of Nobles and Representatives of the Hawaiian Islands, in Legislative council assembled:

That the following sections which were passed by the King, in privy council on the 21st of December, A.D. 1849, when the legislature was not in session, be and are hereby confirmed; and that certain other provisions be inserted, as follows:

  1. That fee-simple titles, free of commutation, be and are hereby granted to all native tenants, who occupy and improve any portion of any government land, for the lands they so occupy and improve, and whose claims to said lands shall be recognized as genuine by the land commission: Provided, however, that this resolution shall not extend to konohikis or other persons having the care of government lands, or to the house lots and other lands in which the government have an interest in the districts of Honolulu, Lahaina and Hilo.
  2. By and with the consent of the King and chiefs in privy council assembled, it is hereby resolved, that fee-simple titles free of commutation, be and are hereby granted to all native tenants who occupy and improve any lands other than those mentioned in the preceding resolution, held by the King or any chief or konohiki for the land they so occupy and improve; Provided, however, that this resolution shall not extend to house lots or other lands situated in the districts of Honolulu, Lahaina and Hilo
  3. That the board of commissioner to quiet land titles be, and is hereby empowered to award fee-simple titles in accordance with the foregoing resolutions; to define and separate the portions of lands belonging to different individuals; and to provide for an equitable exchange of such different portions, where it can be done, so that each man’s land may be by itself.
  4. That a certain portion of the government lands in each island shall be set apart, and placed in the hands of special agents, to be disposed of in lots from one to fifty acres, in fee-simple, to such natives as may not be otherwise furnished with sufficient land, at minimum price of fifty cents per acre.
  5. In granting to the people, their house lots in fee-simple, such as are separate and distinct from their cultivated lands, the amount of land in each of said house lots shall not exceed one quarter of an acre.
  6. In granting to the people their cultivated grounds, or kalo lands, they shall only be entitled to what they have really cultivated, and which lie in the form of cultivated lands; and not such as the people may have cultivated in different spots, with the seeming intention of enlarging their lots; nor shall they be entitled to the waste lands.
  7. When the landlords have taken allodial titles to their lands, the people on each of their lands, shall not be deprived of the right to take firewood, house timber, aho cord, thatch, or ti leaf, from the land on which they live, for their own private use, should they need them, but they shall not have a right to take such articles to sell for profit. They shall also inform the landlord or his agent, and proceed with his consent. The people shall also have a right to drinking water, and running water, and the right of way. The springs of water, and running water, and roads shall be free to all, should they need them, on all lands granted in fee-simple: Provided, that this shall not be applicable to wells and water courses which individuals have made for their own use.

Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 applied to those native tenants that filed their claim with the Land Commission. While sections 4 and 7 applied to those native tenants that were not able to file their claim with the Land Commission but would go to the Minister of the Interior or special agents appointed by him to separate their interest with the Government. This group of native tenants did not get Land Commission Awards, but rather Royal Patent Grants. Below is Land Commission Award no. 4491 to Kuapu‘u by virtue of the Kuleana Act, followed by Royal Patent Grant no. 1042 to Kawahinekalewa by virtue of the Kuleana Act.

Of the three vested rights in the land, the Māhele was able to separate the Government from the 254 Konohiki lands, which included the Crown lands, and native tenants throughout the nineteenth century, whether by a Land Commission Award or a Royal Patent Grant. The Kuleana Act has not been repealed and still exists today for native tenants to acquire up to fifty acres in fee-simple. This is why the Māhele is a continuing process and not a singular event.

The Māhele was such a monumental event of moving Hawaiian land tenure from feudal to private ownership that it became known as the Great Māhele. On December 18, 1848, the King and Privy Council approved certain rules to be followed for the Māhele that was drafted by Hawaiian Chief Justice William Lee. After submitting the rules for consideration, Chief Justice Lee stated:

In submitting the above rules to the consideration of You Majesty, I beg to state that I believe these rules to be such as are dictated by the Constitution and Laws of Your Kingdom and by the liberal and bountiful spirit which it has pleased Your Majesty to manifest for the good of Your Nation. It is my firm conviction that this silent and bloodless in the landed tenures of Your Kingdom will be the most blessed change that has ever fallen to the lot of Your Nation. It will remove the mountain of oppression that has hither to rested upon the productiveness of your soil, unbind the fetters of industry and wealth, and give a life and action to the dormant resources of Your Kingdom, which cover your land with the stream of prosperity and gladness. It is difficult at this day to foresee the bright results of this momentous change. I am aware that the division of lands between the Chiefs and Tenants of Your Kingdom will be attended with a multitude of difficulties. I cannot say that the great mass of Your Nation are full prepared to receive so great an Emancipation. They may spurn this proposed freedom. But I do not sincerely believe, that this great measure, by raising the Hawaiian Nation from a state of hereditary servitude, to that of a free and independent right in the soil they cultivate, will promote industry and agriculture, check depopulation, and ultimately prove the salvation of Your People. I believe it to be a measure which will meet the approval of Your Majesty in years to come, and cause your name to be remembered with veneration and gratitude by generations yet unborn. I believe that if this measure be fully carried out in the liberal spirit in which it is begun, if the lands of Your Majesty’s Kingdom be unlocked, it will open the hidden fountains of prosperity, and prove the dawn of a new and bright era to Your Kingdom.

57 thoughts on “Correcting Misinformation: The Great Māhele is a “Process” of Hawaiian Land Tenure, not a “Singular Event”

  1. I’m just going to paste these here. These are not my words.

    The concept of private land ownership has deep historical roots and varies across cultures. Let’s explore a few perspectives:

    Western Culture:
    In Western societies, private property ownership is a fundamental principle. It emerged during the transition from communal land use to individual ownership.
    Once indigenous peoples were dispossessed of their lands, the land was surveyed, subdivided, and sold to the highest bidder. This process led to the current patchwork of green and yellow farms, suburban homes, and city blocks.
    The central logic of this regime is productivity, and it has indeed been monstrously productive. However, its flaws are now apparent, including vast wealth concentration and environmental degradation.

    Indigenous Cultures:
    Indigenous peoples often have a different relationship with land. They view it as more than a commodity; it holds spiritual, cultural, and ecological significance.
    Indigenous communities emphasize stewardship rather than ownership. They recognize the interconnectedness of all life and prioritize sustainable practices.
    From Standing Rock to Queensland, colonized and indigenous people are demanding new relationships to water and land. This approach involves returning lands and resources to indigenous control and protecting indigenous values and the rights of nature through the law.

    General Considerations:
    Private ownership enhances personal freedom for those who are owners but can lead to wealth concentration and deny freedom and power to those without great wealth2.
    Historically, land ownership was associated with power and wealth, primarily benefiting the elite3.
    The degree of private ownership among Native Americans reflected the scarcity of land and the ease of defining and enforcing rights. Agricultural land was often privately owned by families or clans.

    In summary, while private property has transformed the world, indigenous perspectives remind us to consider the broader implications and responsibilities associated with land ownership.

    Americans had hindsight, insight, foresight and they had money, and they knew how it all was going to play out because they are smart. However, Hawaiians are displaced now and more of us are moving away every day. There are more Hawaiians living off island then there is on the islands. Let’s talk about that, let’s talk about native Hawaiians being displaced from their ancestral homeland. Many of them will assimilate and never return.

  2. Citations are in order if you consider yourself a scholar of history. You left out an important thing; Eugenics of the Kanaka/Native.

    • The only legal instruments were the Declaration of Rights, 1840 Constitution, and the LCAs and Royal Patents. Other writings that were used to further develop Hawaiian self governance at the time were “Elements of Moral Science (1835)” and “Elements of Political Economy (1837)” by Francis Waylands.

        • Of course. I should add that the significance of an instrument or instrumentality should never be disregarded as it is pivotal, and sometimes vital. When doing business with the US, and it’s agencies, or vassals under your government name and social security, their instruments and instrumentalities, especially those of commerce which are as pernicious as they are pervasive, will serve as the legal basis for a charge back against you as a surety for the debt, lien, charge, etc. established in your name. Such are the tools of the occupying administrative state.

          • Hi Lopaka,
            Would what you said work in reverse to the occupier?
            For collecting taxes in an occupied state. Is there an instrument saying that they can? Over a century, that’s alot of tax revenue illegally collected by the occupier.

        • The key word in your question for me is the term “work.” I believe you intend it to mean ‘successful’ but correct me if I’m wrong because I must always be careful of the fraudulent conveyance of language to avoid misinterpretations and misunderstandings that could lead me astray. So based upon this, I will say that it depends on your definition of work and success.
          What is essential to our understanding is that our compliance with Federal law and usage of Social Security is what prevents any case in equity against Congress for the actions here since 1893. One cannot complain if one is accepting the privileges and benefits of US citizenship via Social Security (Ashwander rules). If Hawaiian nationals have only an acting government and all of the Hawaiian nationals are operating as US citizens, who is occupying the Hawaiian Islands? Where are Hawaiian nationals?
          Due to usage of the Social Security which transmits all privileges and benefits, one must pay the taxes on it. And you should be informed that all taxes go to pay the interest on the US national debt (Grace Commission).

          • Actually, not all taxes but just 1/3rd…according to the Grace Commission report.

          • Hi Lopaka,
            Let me rephrase my question.
            Could that be used also to the occupier? In an occupied state.

          • Lopaka, love your standup comedy. Paying taxes decreases the national debt. Lmao

          • Hi James,
            Only if one signs under protest or without prejudice and can articulate the position taken in respect to the instrument during a legal proceeding. The same instrument that would be used to reposess your private property is the very instrument that must be learned. Accords and satisfactions are different cause your already sold half way down the river via your ens legis/legal fiction. A knowledge of notes and bills of exchange and the law merchant is a must. Certain maxims of law and principles must be understood.

        • Hey, I’m related to the Naki’s 😁. My great grandma was Clara “Kau’i” Naki from Moloka’i (married to a Brito).

      • Aloha e Lopaka,
        I was wondering where you learned what sources the ali’i used to develop the government and laws, I would like to read up on it and look into it.

        • Aloha e Aloha,
          I took Keanu’s class back in 2009 (HWST 297) and that’s how I learned about those sources. Those primary sources came directly from his research. The most recent blog post has links to those sources.

    • Aloha e James,
      Neither the Hawaiian Kingdom government nor the ali’i used the Blacks Law dictionary to write the māhele, we know this because the first edition of the Blacks law dictionary was not even published until 1891, well after the māhele was introduced, which is why its puzzling that kauka Sai always mentions blacks law definitions. The ali’i potentially may have used Bouviers law dictionary, which was first introduced in 1839, but I’m not sure if they did or not, and I’m not sure what edition they may have used.

    • I already commented this so ignore this if another identical comment pops up, it doesnt appear to have been posted….

      The Blacks law dictionary was NOT used to write the māhele, we know this because the first edition of the Blacks law dictionary was not published until 1893, well after the māhele was even introduced. They may have used the Bouvier law dictionary, which was originally released in 1839 or subsequent other editions of it, I’m not sure.

  3. The analytical rigor and persistent drive to enhance our national consciousness is greatly appreciated. In consideration of the fact that native tenants came with the territory annexed by the US in 1898, HRS 172-11 acknowledges Hawaiian land patents and the rights of native tenants therein as beneficiaries. Pursuant to rule 73 of the land court, a family can be determined as heirs to set the record straight and begin to benefit from their lands. The requisite rule 73 procedure allow families to unite under one common ancestor and attain the vested rights, interests in their ancestral lands.
    When one door is closed, another is open! They can’t foreclose our sovereignty.

    • Aloha e Lopaka,
      HRS 172-11 is Hawai’i “state” law, in other words its fraudulent. HRS stands for Hawai’i REVISED statute, revised meaning altered. So the “state” altered the original law, which was Hawaiian Kingdom law. We need to know what the original Kingdom law that HRS 172-11 was based on said, as that’s OUR laws. Have you ever come across it?

      • The comment is for those who seek to set the land court record straight and possibly benefit from being legally determined as heirs while they’re alive. Whether it is fraudulent or not, the state has effective control over our lands. Like I said, when one door closes another opens.

  4. So, I understand how the Mahele is made out to benefit the Native Hawaiians to own private property. But this is not the problem I have with the issue; the problem is that it opened it up to the world to purchase and own private land in Hawaii from the working class to the rich. Why is there no mention about it in this article concerning foreigners? Where do they tie into all of this? There were a lot of foreigners living In Hawaii. That’s a concern all on Its own. However private land is now a resource that can be bought and sold. Native Hawaiians can sell their land. Is there no protection to that? At least with Feudalism they always had land to live on, land that was occupied by native Hawaiians and were not foreign owned and unoccupied by Natives. If Hawaiians become landless, they will have to pay rent to their landlords (eventually foreigners) or they may be forced to move out, so what’s the difference? It’s like hopping out of the pot and into the frying pan. They will be pursued relentlessly from anxious property investors. Why did the king’s advisors advise him on the Mahele it if it wasn’t to benefit themselves? Because they were looking out for the best interest of the Native Hawaiian people? Not only were they looking on becoming private landowners but were looking on amassing great wealth and power. This will eventually lead to the dispossession of land for the Native Hawaiians or am I wrong? Regardless if Hawaiians had land to live on or not, the fact that foreigners can own private land In Hawaii will cause a lot of trouble for the Natives in the near and distant future. I don’t know what to think about Private property ownership all I know it’s very American and It happen so soon in the mid 1800s. I don’t even think Hawaiians understood the process of private property ownership in the mid 1800s. Some of them probably didn’t even speak English for crying out loud. What were Hawaiians thinking moving so fast like this? Did they think they were Americans or something?

    • The Hawaiians were one of the most literate people on the planet in both Hawaiian and English. They understood private property. They had the choice to participate in either the ancient system or the modern system. They ran parallel to each other. The problem came when the occupation started. The U.S. violating the Laws of Occupation and orchestrating a fake annexation led to all the BS that’s happened in Hawaii. Hawaiians weren’t the problem the occupiers are the problem. Hawaiians vested rights are still in the land and subject to every land title in Hawaii today. During this occupation and after it ends. Not sure why you can’t understand the Mahele and why it had to be done. Did you read the article? Did you go beyond the article and look at the history and what was happening back then? I guess not.

      • Yes, I did hear that Hawaiians were literate but at what level? Did many of them write books? Songs? Did many of them serve in government? And what that got to do with understanding private property, taxes and all the political jargon and laws that came with the process of the Mahele? They understood that too? If they understood so well, why did many of them fail to file their claims? What eventually happened to those lands? That’s a big deal don’t you think? Answer my question did the Mahele allow for foreigners to own land? Will the Mahele provide an opportunity to private land ownership for all? How did that evolve over the years? How would it evolve if we assume the overthrow didn’t happen? The Mahele had to be done because white people said It had to be done. Kamehameha didn’t know a thing about it. It was American as apple pie. And don’t bring up the Admiral Thomas incident because Kamehameha’s advisors failed there too, or did they? You don’t get it the issue isn’t whether Hawaiians owned land or not, the issue I have is do foreigners own land? I have the hardest time figuring this one out, I can’t get enough information about it. Not enough details, maybe you can fill me in.

        • If you don’t take the time to do your due diligence you won’t figure it out for sure. The details are overwhelming. You will not have a hard time finding them. Also, if you read the article and subsequent references you will find out that the Hawaiians knew the timeline did not affect their 1/3 interest in the lands because their vested rights were secured in Hawaiian Law as a condition of title. What is preventing Hawaiians today from claiming those lands is the government of the occupier. Happy reading.

          • Actually, I read some articles and they all say the same thing. “Foreigners acquiring much of the land. Foreigners owned a great deal of land.” The lands that natives failed to claim, was sold to foreigners. I’m sure a lot of foreigners owned a lot of land and that they have titles to those lands. Do you know the total of land that were leased to foreigners and how much land they owned before 1893? What is your perspective of foreigners owning land in Hawaii?

        • It would be better to use firsthand sources such as gov’t records when doing your research instead of articles. Documented facts are the myth busters to foreigners owning large amounts of land in Hawaii. If foreigners were able to obtain the Land Commission awards validating their title, it’s all good. If not, oh well. You do know that all Land titles acquired after the overthrow are defective.

          • Where did you get Hawaiians were the most literate on the planet? From the government records? Can you define due diligence for me? Also, defective titles can be remedied through the department of the interior or through the bureau of conveyances. I’m not sure through which department or agency but land titles can be fixed. Were the plantations and Parker Ranch a myth too? I get it its complex and I ask complex questions. But if you can’t answer questions and rather resort to making condescending remarks you don’t have to reply. Just leave the conversation.

          • “Alien Land Ownership Act (1850):
            Passed while Kamehameha IV, Kamehameha V, and missionary physician Gerrit Judd were away, this act allowed foreigners to hold title to land.”

            Go look into the Bureau of conveyances and get copies of the records. I’m not a professor it’s not my job to know the facts. I’m fine with what everyone else is saying. I’m confident foreigners did own land. If you disagree with that go and debunk it. Go get the facts. It’s only right the process of private land ownership extended to foreigners. There was a lot of them serving in government. Imagine if only natives and Hawaiian subjects were allowed to own land. The overthrow would’ve come much sooner than 1893.

        • Only approved denizens, foreigners/alien residents were permitted to serve in the Hwn. gov’t.. Usually in a limited term and capacity. Not any foreigner could serve in gov’t. Also, your statements are confusing because you are mixing title and ownership. Title does not necessarily mean ownership. You could hold a life estate title and not own the land. You got the land only for your lifetime. You die the title dies, can’t give it to an heir(s). Reverts back to the one that issued the title. Land patents have conditions of title regarding rights of native tenants. You got to give right of ways, easements, even give up a portion(s) of land to native tenant(s). Generalized statements like the foreigners/haoles owned all the land doesn’t cut it.
          Only a full title abstract from the bureau of conveyances and the archives will determine the status of the land. You sound like the U.S. and it’s courts. They make the claim Hawaii is theirs. Ask them to prove their claim with a Treaty and they flip the script and say you the one with the obligation to prove the Kingdom exists. Sorry brah, doesn’t work that way. You make an offer with a claim, I accept your offer with a counteroffer for proof of claim and it’s your burden to prove your claim, not mine. Straight up contract law. Nice try though.

          • It doesn’t matter title, leases or ownership. Any and all of them, did foreigners own land that’s my question. Did they own or lease a lot of land? If yes, then why are we arguing for? Don’t explain and make excuses I didn’t ask you to explain what ‘conditions’ land titles entails. I said foreigners owned a lot of land. Don’t say that it does cut it, go right ahead and debunk it if it’s not true. If someone owns property for 100 years or forever it doesn’t matter. That person still has ownership. Didn’t I just show you… “Alien Land Ownership Act (1850):
            Passed while Kamehameha IV, Kamehameha V, and missionary physician Gerrit Judd were away, this act allowed foreigners to hold title to land.” It says ownership, right? They use the word ownership; I use the word ownership and if you take it a certain way then you’re just confusing yourself.

            Talk about confusing “Only approved denizens, foreigners/alien residents were permitted to serve in the Hwn. gov’t.” What are you trying to say here? You don’t have to make it more complicated than it is did foreigners serve in government yes or no? You confirm that they did and that’s all there is to it. And what about Professor Lenzerini who serves in the council of regency? Is he a foreigner? Is he a resident? Is he Hawaiian? Why is this even a thing in the 21st century? Does this have something to do with meritocracy? Lol my goodness we’re in trouble and a laughingstock to the world. And another confusing thing you said was when you told me to do my due diligence. Research and due diligence are not the same thing. Due diligence is something someone needs to exercise when making legal and financial decisions like buying property. You’re so predictable I knew you was going to compare this particular history with the false annexation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. All of a sudden everything becomes a conspiracy.

        • Kaulana, obviously you have a problem with the Mahele and foreigners owning land in Hawaii. Also, the Alien Land Ownership Act “1850” Somehow, it’s led to Hawaiians being dispossessed of their lands. Give me a break. You mention an article, uncited as usual, ““Foreigners acquiring much of the land. Foreigners owned a great deal of land.” Like I said do your research before opening your mouth and spreading misinformation and confusion. Here are the statistics according to the Hawaiian Kingdom Government Survey. Sales of gov’t lands in Hawaii via Royal Patent Grants from 1846 to 1893. Total of 3,470 Gov’t. Grants sold. 2,450 (71%) purchased by Hawaiians and 1,020 Gov’t Grants (29%) by non-Hawaiians. Doesn’t seem like they dispossessed the Hawaiians. So what if foreigners owned land in Hawaii? What’s the big deal. The uninformed like yourself for lack of research wouldn’t know that the Royal Patent Grants sold to non- Hawaiians came with strict conditions. A violation would automatically forfeit title/ownership back to the government. You also made some comments like foreigners can buy kuleana lands not claimed by Hawaiians before the deadline. That is totally false. Kuleana lands can only be acquired by aboriginal Hawaiians. Hawaiians today, tomorrow next decade can still get Kuleana Lands. Also, you said defects in title can be fixed. Titles held prior to the overthrow are valid as long as the owners didn’t commit treason. All other titles conveyed after the overthrow are defective because of the break in chain of title. Conveyances conducted by a puppet regime of the occupier is illegal. Not the Feds, State or county can fix that defect in Hawaii’s titles. Unless they can get everyone to believe they didn’t overthrow Hawaii’s Government. Good luck with that.

          • Misinformation? Here’s a couple articles you can read. And like I said multiple times earlier if you disagree with what everyone is saying, if it’s a bunch of misinformation then refute it WITH FACTS. I get how you want me to get all the facts, but these are not only my words. This is what is being taught, if you disagree then debunk it. Get a clue Kekoa. You seem so dense sometimes, all you had to do was do research and understand where I’m coming from, but you have no idea do you? Do your own research. I feel like I’m doing all the research for you.




            Yeah, I got a problem with foreigners owning land in Hawaii. And if you can’t see why then there’s no use explaining this to you. If you don’t care, then bug off. I mentioned earlier I DONT HAVE THE DETAILS AND I DONT HAVE THE INFORMATION. I can’t give you a whole list of foreigner’s names and how much acres of land they own. I can’t give you the type of titles they own. So, if you’re confused that’s because you can’t comprehend what I’m saying. It’s like I got to draw you pictures or something. However, if you got the details and the information, then provide it. You don’t tell me to provide facts about something all these articles are saying refute it. Explain to us whether foreigners in Hawaii have land for their plantations and ranches. Lands they occupy because they need a place to live. The lands they cultivated. Were they paying rent to the king? To the natives? I don’t care what ‘conditions’ these grants came with. I didn’t ask you that. And you didn’t ask me if I knew that already because I do. Whether their leases, royal grants or fee simple titles it doesn’t matter. And if you think they don’t own much of the land than prove it.

            “You also made some comments like foreigners can buy kuleana lands not claimed by Hawaiians before the deadline. That is totally false. Kuleana lands can only be acquired by aboriginal Hawaiians. Hawaiians today, tomorrow next decade can still get Kuleana Lands.”
            What you don’t understand is that fee simple land titles can be sold over time. It can be sold to foreigners. It’s a process remember. No matter who owned it first, no matter if natives were granted titles exclusively. Eventually land ownership extends to foreigners as well. I said foreigners could purchase land and I showed you the ALien land ownership act as a reference. Natives can buy land today, what’s stopping many of them from doing it? What if all the land is owned, what kuleana lands they going to get? They’re going to have to confiscate the land first lol.

            You know what would’ve been of convenience is if the Council of Regency would provide the information concerning foreigners and land they owned, land they used, land they leased in this article. I mean why not? They did that with natives. And what’s 100k+ acres anyways? 5%? 6%? How long did Natives hold on to their lands? What happens if Natives stop cultivating the land? Are they forced to sell?

          • Prove it Kekoa, what happened to those lands natives failed to claim? Did they stay vacant all this time? Btw I’m writing this short answer to see if it will get posted. My last msg didn’t get posted, maybe it’s under inspection.

        • I just debunked your statements and the articles you cited with the facts from the Hawaiian Gov’t survey on the number of Lands owned by Hawaiians vs. Non-Hawaiians. This also debunks your idea that the Mahele was the main mechanism that dispossessed Hawaiians from their lands. You and many other people mistakenly believe the Mahele divided up the lands amongst the three classes. The Mahele divided up the 1/3 vested interests of each class in their rights to the land. You wouldn’t understand this from those unvetted articles you read. You got to be kidding you want proof that only aboriginal Hawaiians could claim Kuleana lands. Just read the Kuleana Act, it’s right there in the Act. Either you are too lazy and didn’t read it or just plain stupid to comprehend what you read. I think everyone that has been following and learning from this blog knows the Mahele wasn’t the main factor in the dispossession of Hawaiians from their lands. The main factor of dispossession was the 1893 overthrow when the Hawaiians lost the ability of governance that ensured in Law their rights in the lands were protected. You have the 1893 overthrow, where the Lawful Gov’t was replaced by foreigners. The foreigners then passed a new “Land Act of 1895” violating the Hawaiians rights in the land. In 1865 the Law made Crown lands inalienable, illegal to sell. Only option was to lease. Govt. data shows between 1865 and 1895 Plantations did not purchase land. Plantations held leases to these lands. 1895 Land Act changed that. The foreign gov’t confiscated the Crown Lands, added it to the Gov’t Land inventory to be sold. That’s when Plantations purchased those leased lands. Although native tenant rights are a condition of title to every deed in Hawaii the foreign gov’t not even entertaining any claim or upholding any right of ways or gathering rights to those purported deeds. The 1895 Land act was made to dispossess the Hawaiians but benefitted the overthrowers, plantations, U.S. military and immigrants. All in violations of Hawaiian Kingdom Law and International Law. By the way also in violation of the U.S. Constitution. You so short sighted and focused on the land, which is a symptom, rather than treating the root cause which is the occupation. Cure the root cause and all symptoms disappear. Then healing can begin for the afflicted.

          • First of all ‘its not my idea’ you fool. Didn’t I just ‘cite’ you the articles? You got a bad habit of doing this. Everything you said that I said is false. I never said those things like this one
            “You got to be kidding you want proof that only aboriginal Hawaiians could claim Kuleana land” when did I say that? And I showed you foreigners could own land. Do you agree or not? And I never mentioned the word ‘Kuleana.’
            “You also made some comments like foreigners can buy kuleana lands not claimed by Hawaiians before the deadline.” When did I say this? I said lands that were not claimed from natives was eventually sold to foreigners. And I got that from an article. And if you believe it’s not true, then show the proof that it wasn’t true. Here is one way to debunk that statement, if you can prove that hawaiians did not fail to claim those lands and was indeed rewarded those lands and kept those lands, then that’s a good place to start. Do you agree did some hawaiians FAIL OR NOT FAIL TO CLAIM THEIR LANDS? Start here. If you’re going to quote me, quote me precisely and make sure you understand what is being said.
            There are more things you said and took what I said out of context. That’s just sad. I had to explain everything to you for your lack of comprehension. And even when I do you still don’t understand. You still assume things. You assume I don’t know things like Kuleana lands and the fact that hawaiians had exclusive rights to ownership lol. Foreigners having Leases? Lol I’m getting tired repeating myself. Obviously you don’t get it. Also I shifted the conversation away from native hawaiians and to foreigners having the right to own land many statements ago. Why you keep bringing up native hawaiians and land? I moved on from that a while back. Go re read, comprehend and stop building strawman arguments.

          • “Sales of gov’t lands in Hawaii via Royal Patent Grants from 1846 to 1893. Total of 3,470 Gov’t. Grants sold. 2,450 (71%) purchased by Hawaiians and 1,020 Gov’t Grants (29%) by non-Hawaiians.”

            Source please? Here’s another detail on this matter. In the Hawaiian Annual a reported number of 667,317.41 acres of government grants had been awarded by 1893. And a reported number of 195k of that were purchases and the result of the Kuleana act was acquired by native Hawaiians.

        • I mentioned the source, it’s the Hawaiian Govt. Survey. Other source is the Minister of Interior report on Gov’t land sales that is put out I believe every 2 years. It’s all public record. You should watch the video in the latest post. Lots of information based on intense research.

          • Yea I watched the latest video and it confirmed the 670 K acres that was sold by 1893 that I got from my research from the Hawaiian Annual. And this answered my question you avoided this whole time about foreigners owning a lot of land. C. Sinclair alone owned 180 K acres of land almost equivalent to what all natives Hawaiians owned combined.

        • I never said foreigners never owned land. My position was like the speaker in the video stated. Every land title has to be individually reviewed and here is why. C.C. Harris not Sinclair was the purchaser of the 181K acres in Kahuku Ka’u on Hawaii Island for cattle ranching. Heck if anyone knows Big Island, 1861 that land and location was not desirable. Isolated with no infrastructure. Not to mention the lava flows. Probably why it remained in a big chunk. Harris got Royal Patent Grant (RPG) #2791. According to his RPG those 181k acres are subject to claims for Kuleana rights by native tenants. Hawaiians can file claims for house lots and farm lots on those lands. That is the condition of title on his RPG. How did Hawaiians lose any rights by his purchase? They didn’t. The reality is he purchased 181K acres knowing he might lose land as Kuleana claims are awarded. If 20 Hawaiians file their claims and get fee simple Kuleana titles for 1/4acre house lots. He just lost 5 acres. My question to you Kaulana. Who came out loser in that transaction? Do you still think foreigners with condition of titles like Harris really own all the land they purchased? I am not concerned with foreigners owning land. Like the speaker stated, the Mahele is not the main factor of Hawaiians being dispossessed from exercising their rights in the land. The main factor is the loss of Hawaiian governance due to an illegal occupation. I am more concerned in getting compliance of the laws of occupation so our vested rights can be applied and realized. The rest will fall into place.

      • Kekoa,
        Do we know where the stats of “near universal literacy” has come from? I have never come across any polls conducted amongst the entirety of Hawai’i that could be used to suggest that. I know there was a law passed in 1846 mandating that all children had to attend school, but that to me suggests there were many children who were not going to school and therefore not literate. Ive heard people suggest the literacy rate was an estimation based on the sheer number of newspapers and articles produced, but I don’t see how that would suggest a literacy rate amongst the entire population, only a thriving hunger amongst a certain population who were literate, to document, entertain, archive and inform those of the population who were also literate.
        I’m not even contesting the literacy rate, I just dont know where those stats are coming from, I also dont think a literacy rate is a good argument for the entire or majority of the population of aboriginal Hawaiians to be able to understand legal documents, particularly real estate documents, considering property ownership was a new concept to them AND most importantly, the legal definition of real estate terms wasn’t set in stone yet, it was a work in progress and despite Dr. Sai quoting Blacks law dictionary definitions, that law dictionary wasn’t even first published until 1891, well after the māhele was introduced, and even then Blacks law dictionary had undergone a revision and additional editions to get it to where it is today, because definitions, particularly real estate terms derived from numerous global sources who had their own types of real estate structures, were ever evolving at the time.


        You say that “kuleana lands can only be acquired by aboriginal Hawaiians”… from my understanding, thats not true, while unable to file a claim for a land commission award, foreigners could acquire kuleana lands from aboriginal Hawaiians who had kuleana lands.

        This is a conveyance of deed of land from the Bureau of Convenances (not to be confused with conveyance of lease, which was specified as lease, not deed):
        Its for RP 1997 stemming from LCA 00453

        This is that persons RP/LCA claim proving the person got the kuleana Helu 453 (land commission award) and paid the commutation to acquire the Helu 1997 (royal patent).

        Lastly this is the description of terms:

        So from my understanding, this is a sale of kuleana lands to a non aboriginal Hawaiian (foreigner). This was for a Royal Patent, which were Land commission awards for kuleana lands, where the claimant paid the commutation to acquire quitclaim, not to be confused with a Royal Patent Grant, which was a fee simple title to Government lands, not kuleana lands.

        To be noted, this sale took place in 1876 (as documented on the top of the page), well before the illegal overthrow.


        You said “So what if foreigners owned land in Hawai’i? What’s the big deal?”… I would argue that its a HUGE deal, especially if they were allowed access to ⅔ of the land (kuleana lands and government lands), because we are a small nation state with a limited and finite amount of land, if we didn’t know it back then, we definitely know now how valuable our land is, but most importantly in the 2 occupations we faced, the first (Britain) stemmed from a land dispute and the second, the occupation we are currently under, we were told straight out and frankly that the US (& likely other foreign countries) considers an invasion and occupation “necessitated” if they consider American “life and property” in danger in Hawai’i, we know that from then President Clevelands message to congress where he states: “the military occupation of Honolulu by the United State on the day mentioned was wholly without justification, either as an occupation by consent or as an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American life and PROPERTY”… that means that by allowing foreigners to own property in our Kingdom, we open ourselves up to threats of occupation by countries that feel there may be a danger to their citizens life and PROPERTY here in our Kingdom. There are a LOT of countries that dont allow foreigners to own land in their country, countries with a lot more land than us and MUCH larger militaries than us who can defend themselves against an occupation. A government that allows foreigners to buy lands in their country, does not have the best interest of THEIR citizens at heart, especially not when its already a small and vulnerable country in likely THE most strategically valuable location on Earth.

        • Aloha P, what I said was in fact true. If you read the Kuleana Act, it specifically states it is for native tenants. Not anyone else. You actually proved this for me in your example when you pointed out “…while unable to file a claim for a land commission award, foreigners could acquire kuleana lands from aboriginal Hawaiians who had kuleana lands…” Only a native tenant could acquire an award. Once a native tenant got an award in fee simple it is that native’s private property and he/she can do whatever they want with it. They can sell it to another native or a foreigner. Look at the present situation regarding land in Hawaii. Since 1893 you have an illegal occupier’s gov’t conducting conveyances of defective titles. Remember the South African’s Govt. illegally running of Namibia? What was the outcome and the precedent? ALL acts done in Namibia by the South African Gov’t are deemed null and void. You are talking about EVERYTHING. It’s the same here. This is why it’s not a big deal for me. It’s all null and void. Do you still believe foreigners own anything in the HK?? Now, if you are asking me about post occupation and possible legislation regarding foreigners and land ownership, that is a whole different conversation.

          • “Now, if you are asking me about post occupation and possible legislation regarding foreigners and land ownership, that is a whole different conversation.”

            If I’m not mistaken, you said you was cool with foreigners owning private land. But yeah, that’s what I want to ask you. What have you got to say about it? And please for the 100th time don’t be stuck in the 1800s and repeat yourself about Kuleana lands. Don’t repeat that titles are defected. I knew all this already. I’m looking beyond all that. So, what do you think about private land ownership and foreigners post occupation? It’s not short sightedness as you’ve claimed earlier but rather on the contrary.

          • With respect Kekoa, you are dancing around the question Kaulana is asking you, which is CAN foreigners own land in the Hawaiian Kingdom… and that answer is yes, they can, they can purchase government lands and they can purchase Kuleana lands from native Hawaiians. While the kuleana act is specifically for native Hawaiians (meaning only Native Hawaiians can file for a land claim), foreigners are allowed to purchase kuleana lands from native Hawaiians, and also at auction, as Ive come across articles of kuleana lands up for auction in newspapers (pre illegal overthrow btw) because native Hawaiians couldnt afford to pay the taxes on the multiple properties they inherited and lost them.
            You say “Since 1893 you have an illegal occupier’s gov’t conducting conveyances of defective titles”… yes, but the images/example I provided was a sale BEFORE 1893 and therefore NOT conducted illegally by occupiers, but rather by our own government. You make mention of Namibia and say “ALL” transaction will be null and void”, but thats not true, only transaction occurring AFTER the illegal overthrow will be null and void.. but what about those Native Hawaiians who had no choice but to sell prior to the illegal overthrow? F them? Not to mention, even when all of the sales after 1893 are overturned, our people will once again face a time where they may have to sell their lands and overtime that will once again result in foreigners owning most of the land & Native Hawaiians facing diaspora or homelessness once again… unless foreigners are not allowed to buy land here.
            I honestly don’t see the argument for allowing foreigners to buy land here… unless you are a foreigner, in which case you obviously wouldn’t care about the negative affects it would have on the native Hawaiian population, so long as you got to own land. There a lot of countries that dont allow foreigners to purchase land, including most other Polynesian nations & we should do the same to protect our limited lands and limited resources from foreign exploitation.

            You mention the treasonists and their land being forfeited.. NO ONE has ever officially been charged with treason, there has never been a court case regarding it, and moreover those treasonists are no longer alive to now face trial, so no, their lands arent forfeited, unfortunately AND our Queen agreed to not charge them, in exchange for the US pulling the US military out of our Kingdom. The US may have not upheld their part of that agreement, but our Queen did. You can’t just assume the treasonists descendants wont be able to get a court to uphold those land titles, at least not those titles that were owned prior to the illegal overthrow.. we can’t assume our courts would rule simply on emotions or morals, they would have to follow the law, as they SHOULD, and the law would be on the treasonists side, again unfortunately.

        • Aloha P, I forgot to mention that in addition to the Occupier’s gov’t illegally conveying defective titles which are null and void. You have the HK’s law regarding Treason and the loss of property rights. There are a whole bunch of traitors like the insurgents, Big 5 and others already found guilty of Treason through process. Their properties were forfeited back to the HK when those crimes happened way back then. Good luck trying to defend those titles today.

    • The biggest reason to ban foreigners from owning land in the Hawaiian Kingdom…
      Our first occupation (Britain) was the result of a land dispute. Our second and current occupation (The US), then US President Cleveland in his message to congress stated:
      “The military occupation of Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly without justification, either as an occupation by consent OR AS AN OCCUPTION NECESSITATED BY THE DANGERS THREATENING AMERICAN LIFE AND PROPERTY.”… that message by Cleveland explicitly admits that the US views “dangers threatening American life and PROPERTY” in the Hawaiian Kingdom as a “danger necessitating occupation”.
      By allowing foreigners to own land in the Hawaiian Kingdom, we open ourselves up to unnecessary dangers and threats of occupation and potential legal overthrows by foreign countries perceived threats of danger towards their citizens properties in the Hawaiian Kingdom. We can argue that they couldnt get away with that in this modern age… but the US IS getting away with it in this modern age.

      • Yes, that’s a big reason to address the matter specifically towards America and other countries like China etc. It’s a national security issue. And we have history to learn from our past unfortunate events. I mention this very fact on this blog several times before. I was curious to know how others thought about it especially whether the council has any intentions on addressing this matter or even If the HK government post occupation will discuss these matters. It’s a good point you made. I guess we can bring up the issue every now and then to get a conversation rolling.

        • Yes, indeed a huge national security issue and one that SHOULD be a top priority considering our history.
          I think imo the C.O.R. seems to be FOR allowing foreigners to remain in our Kingdom after the occupation ends and allowing them to own land.. thats just the vibe I get from his presentations/speeches. He used to say that we could deport all non-Hawaiians, but more recently either doesnt bring it up, or says we could allow them to stay.. so something has changed along the way, or appears to have.
          The HK government, it’s too early to say, we have no idea who will sit on the throne or who will part of our government… for all we know it may be foreigners again. We can only hope that whoever the “powers that be” ends up being, they prioritizes the Hawaiian people above foreigners, otherwise if thats not the case, they would be no better than the fraudulent “state of Hawai’i” that prioritizes.. well, literally EVERYONE above Hawaiians.

      • Aloha P., I am not dancing around the question if foreigners should own land. Right now, foreigners own nothing. They don’t have lawful Title. There is legislative precedent in Hawaiian Kingdom law to restrict foreign ownership of land. However, I and I would hope a de jure HK govt. would base such a decision on a qualified study with data to prove the positives and negatives for long- and short-term effects on such a decision. If the positives out weight the negatives, then go for it. I would also suggest research for a happy medium. Which could benefit the HK through foreign investment but place restrictions on title, such as a HK subject needs to hold 51% of title,or that use of the land and all subsequent sales of such land would need Gov’t approval. Violations of such restrictions would automatically forfeit title back to HK Gov’t. Accurate data makes for sound decisions. As for your comment about traitors and treason, it’s a done deal. No courts needed because they were found guilty through process. Their lands are already forfeited back to the HK at the time they commited the crime. Anyone holding it is the same as the rest of the people claiming to own land. They don’t own it. It was illegally conveyed. If you read the blog, you would have seen how the AHKG forfeited the traitors’ lands through process. Now, that is only the traitors around the time of the overthrow. There are many more traitors from then to present that needs to be investigated.

  5. Please don’t forget…currently less than 1% of the population has title verified by the Minister of Interior…at the end of occupation everyone else will need to submit their claim to a competent jurisdiction…including us!

  6. 1. The use of Blacks law dictionary definitions in regards to real estate terms in the māhele is misleading in my opinion, as the first Blacks law dictionary was not even published until 1891, well after the introduction of the māhele and therefore was not used in the creation of it. Legal terms, particularly for real estate, were ever evolving at that time. Pūku’i and Elbert’s Hawaiian Dictionary, likewise was not in existence during the māhele or prior to illegal overthrow of the Kingdom, I know this for a fact because Kawena Pūku’i was my aunt and she was born in 1895 and passed away when I was young…. Yet still old enough to have had many years with her, in fact she’s the first person to have told me the overthrow was illegal and that we weren’t American.

    2. It seems to me, that considering our first occupation (Britain) was the result of a land dispute and that our second and current occupation (the US) had a President (Cleveland) admit that perceived threats of “danger” to American “life and PROPERTY” in Hawai’i “Necessitates” an occupation in the eyes of America, that allowing foreigners to own land in our Kingdom opens us up to and makes us vulnerable to occupations by foreign countries. That, in and of itself, seems like reason enough to not allow foreigners to own land in Hawai’i. We are a small island nation with a small military comparably to many other countries, it would be wise to limit, to any extent that we can, foreign countries attempts, excuses, justifications etc to occupy us in the future, and allowing foreigners to own land here has already PROVEN to be a danger and risk to our country, our people and our freedom. There is no reason to allow foreigners to buy land in our Kingdom, I dont see the benefit of doing so, but I see a LOT of negatives to it. Look at the US and how China/Chinese nationals own so much land there now and how Americans are mad at the government for allowing the US to allow foreigners to own land in America… its ironic because China doesnt allow foreigners to buy land in China… so the US is letting China buy up all the land in the US, and Americans couldnt buy so much as an inch of land in China. These are countries that have a lot of money… are we going to allow China to buy up all the land? America?

    3. Lastly, kānaka maoli are nearly extinct. There may be hundreds of thousands of part kanaka maoli people left, but when the last pure blooded kānaka maoli dies, so too does the kānaka maoli people. Like the Taino of Puerto Rico who are extinct, yet whose blood still exists in various percentages in the people of Puerto Rico, that too is the fate of the kānaka maoli people if something isn’t done. Our bloodlines are diluted and even if part kanaka maoli only had offspring with other kanaka maoli people, our bloodlines would never be restored to full blooded because we will always have other dna in us. Once gone, there will never again be any full blooded kānaka maoli and having so many foreigners and non kānaka maoli in our KIngdom further promotes the loss of those bloodlines, the permanent loss of our kūpuna. Sure we can say we’re an inclusive kingdom, but if the aboriginal people and restoring those bloodlines is not prioritized, what are we even fighting for? What good is a Hawaiian Kingdom that has no kānaka maoli left in it, a Hawaiian Kingdom that is populated by other ethnicities who practice our culture as if its theirs, but aren’t OF our culture?!

    • A lot of countries banned foreigners from buying land in their country.. the Hawaiian Kingdom needs to do the same, theres no reason to allow them to own land in our Kingdom, they can lease lands.

  7. An excellent issue to present to the legislature at the end of occupation as a condition for foreigners to own land, or must reside in the islands.

    • The insurgents resided in the Kingdom, it didn’t work out well for Hawaiians… for foreigners it worked out great though.

Leave a Reply