[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
HawaiianSon's Blurty:
| Tuesday, December 12th, 2006 | |
| 6:17 pm | In memory of my aunt.  You are missed. |
| Sunday, July 30th, 2006 | |
| 7:02 pm | On the eve of an old holiday. What have we learned? What do we unlearn? As we approach July 31, I briefly want to emphasize the historical importance of the date to Hawaiians. It was traditionally a holiday of the Hawaiian Kingdom known as Ka La Hoihoi Ea or Sovereignty Restoration Day. In 1843, there was an incident involving a Lord George Paulet (a British Commander) and he took over, by occupation, the Hawaiian Islands. The occupation was ended on July 31, 1843 by British Admiral Richard Thomas, who restored Kamehameha III as the Sovereign of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Instrumental to the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdoms sovereign status were two haole, Dr. Gerrit P. Judd (Hawaiian citizen) who wrote an important dispatch and prepared other necessary documents while hiding in the royal tomb with the coffin of Queen Kaahumanu as a writing desk and James F.B. Marshall (American citizen) who delivered that dispatch and provided the other documents that led to the eventual restoration of the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In the afternoon [of July 31, 1843] a thanksgiving service was held in the Stone Church (Kawaihao), during which the king stated that, in accordance with the hope expressed by him at the time of the cession, the life of the land had been restored, and the country would henceforth be governed according to the constitution and laws. This is where the current state motto comes from, Ua mau ke ea o ka aina I ka pono. translation = The life/sovereignty of the land is perpetuated by righteousness. Hooulu Lâhui What is Hooulu Lâhui? I have been told by Iolani Palace docents and have heard University Professors say that (in the Hawaiian Kingdom era) Hooulu Lâhui meant increase the race. This assertion was often supported by the fact that the aboriginal Hawaiian population had drastically declined, mostly in part, by introduced illnesses for which the aboriginal Hawaiians had no immunity to. It made sense, perfect sense. This assertion has been made for years and ingrained into the minds of many aboriginal Hawaiians young and old. The emphasis of Hawaiians as a racial group has had the result of excluding non-aboriginal Hawaiians. The assertion that Hooulu Lâhui means increase the race helps to further that exclusionary ideology because race, as one type of identity, is being promoted over all other types of identity. But, what if the fact of the population decline was accurate while the translation of Houlu Lâhui was inaccurate? How, if at all, does that change the way aboriginal Hawaiians identify ourselves? What happens to the academic scholarship that has depended on race for Hawaiian identity? What would happen if we found out that our ancestors in the 19th century identified themselves differently than many of us identify ourselves today? I believe what happens is, we have to do what John Singleton asks us to do at the very end of his 1995 film, Higher Learning. We must UNLEARN. So again, what is Hooulu Lâhui? People have believed, for a long time, that it means increase the race. I believed that as well. But, I no longer can. In the Hawaii State Archives there is a Report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the [Hawaiian Kingdom] Legislative Assembly of 1884. It is dated April 24, 1884. On the 14th page, under FOREIGN IMMIGRATION, it reads, Perhaps the most vital question for this Kingdom is increase of population which is absolutely necessary in order to maintain the rank of an independent State. Unfavorable conditions of living . . . having affected the native race, the sovereign constituent of the Kingdom, so as to cause a gradual decline, it behooved an enlightened statesmanship, anxious for the preservation of national independence, and for the promotion of national welfare, to take steps for the supply of people as recruits for the up-building of the nation. His Majesty King Kalakaua . . . early gave expression to his appreciation of this important measure, and, in a public speech, declared his royal purpose to favor the increase of the nation (Hooulu Lahui) . . . the introduction of new people to mingle with them [aboriginal Hawaiians] has been appreciated by the native race . . . of whose members [in the Legislative Assembly] fully three-fourths have been native Hawaiians, [ ] voted successively for immigration in 1868 . . . 1874 . . . 1878 . . . 1880 . . . and 1882. Hawaiian Kingdom law reads as follows: Every foreigner so naturalized, shall be deemed to all intents and purposes a native of the Hawaiian Islands . . . . And every foreigner so naturalized, shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of an Hawaiian subject. I think it can be easily understood and recognized now that Hooulu Lâhui didnt mean, in the 19th century, to increase the race. Hooulu Lâhui apparently was a policy of the Hawaiian Kingdom that favored foreign immigration. Foreign immigration, followed with naturalization for citizenship, was a practice designed to maintain the Hawaiian Kingdoms independence. But also, it allowed others the privilege of becoming Hawaiian by national identity, enlarging an inclusive and collective identity recognized and respected under international law. Today, how should we, as Hawaiians identify ourselves? |
| Wednesday, June 21st, 2006 | |
| 1:11 pm | On being Native - the Albuquerque experience I have wanted to write about this for a long time because of the relativity of the topic to many different people, despite a lack of “native-ness.” While this post may refer to native Hawaiians and other native peoples, in essence, it speaks of identity in terms of how we define ourselves. So, I was fortunate enough to be sent to the 31st Annual Federal Bar Association Indian Law Conference in April at Albuquerque, New Mexico with some fellow schoolmates: Jason Iokona Baker, Tia Blankenfield, Jocelyn M. Doane, and Laura Edmunds. We were very fortunate to have been sponsored by the Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law. Soon after arriving in New Mexico, Amy Ono (our advisor who also went) and I met with Heidi Nesbitt in our hotel lobby. Ms. Nesbitt is the Director of the Pre-Law Summer Institute for Native Americans and Alaska Natives(“PLSI”) which operates at the University of New Mexico. We had previously never met and all our prior interactions were through e-mail and phone conversations. When we met, she was able to share with us some details about PLSI. The reason for meeting with Ms. Nesbitt is because I am interested in creating a program to prepare Native Hawaiians for the rigors of law school by either creating a comparable program to PLSI for Native Hawaiians or if we can’t do that, then I would like to provide funding to send Hawaiians to PLSI so as to help us to produce competent and excellent Native Hawaiian legal scholars. A program like PLSI for native Hawaiians would complement our current efforts to increase the number of Native Hawaiian law students. Anyway, later that day, Jocelyn M. Doane, (who is also my moot court team partner) and I were reunited with several of the friends we made in February at the Moot Court competition we participated in at the University of Washington. Friends such as: Daron, Kealoha, Maymangwa, Natalie, Brooke, Yon, Brad, Eric, April and several others. Unfortunately, not all the people we met in February were able to make it to the conference this year. We also made several more new friends as well, like: Dave “aka ‘Spring Break’,” Casey, Dana, Naomi from UCLA ( and I probably should have written this earlier so that I’d remember more people). Anyway, the last day of the conference I was particularly interested in two discussions; Tribal Enrollment and Disenrollment: (Ab)using Sovereignty? and Hiding Behind Tribal Sovereignty Immunity: Good Insurance Defense or Exploitation of Tribal Sovereignty? I’m only going to write about the first because that’s what is relevant to what I want to express here today. I was interested in the enrollment/disenrollment issue for various reason, one being, should either federal recognition for Native Hawaiians occur, or independence, citizenship is going to be an issue that needs to be dealt with appropriately and adequately. With the 6-year attempt at the Akaka Bill from the Hawaii congressional delegation, enrollment and disenrollment seemed to be an important discussion panel to witness. But for now, rather that discuss that actual topic, I would like to focus more on what one of the panelist said that day. His name is the Honorable Philip D. Lujan. Philip Lujan, in addition to being a Professor Emeritus (ret.) at the University of Oklahoma is/was also the Chief District Judge for the Potawatomi Nation, Kaw Nation and the Iowa Nation; Federal Magistrate, Court of Indian Offences for Western Oklahoma, Anadarko Agency. Prof. Lujan spoke about how Indians lived prior to their use of horses and asked the audience, “How did the white man’s introduction of horses become an ‘Indian thing’?” He answered, “It is because of the practicalities observed by Indians back then and they weren’t as confused about their Native identity as us.” He went on to describe that the implementation of horses (introduced by the white man to the tribes) increased their ability to hunt and gather more food. The use of horses was deemed more efficient and helped to ensure survival of the people. Prof. Lujan spoke about Native American identity today, and how many Natives are “confused” about their identity; that too often, being Native means just being different and/or doing things differently. He then said, practically verbatim, “White men ride on horses backs, but, today to be Indian we’ll ride horses differently by riding upside down on the stomach.” He further went on to discuss how riding on the stomachs of horses, just to be “Indian” was impractical. What I took away from Prof. Lujan’s discussion is, implementing modern innovations into one’s culture for practical purposes does not take away from the unique-ness of that culture or people, instead, it adds to it. Integrating those modern innovations into our lives and communities, whether it be horses, automobiles, weapons, technology, etc., does not make one less native or somehow removed from their own community. For Hawaiians (and actually all people) I think this is something we must keep in mind. I remember as a teenager feeling like I had to do things differently and unique just to have “my own identity.” There was a period in my life where I felt that I had to do things the old way just to maintain my “Hawaiian” identity. While I shed those misperceptions long ago, it was comforting to know that a Native elder felt the same way. As Hawaiians, we should not fear that the integration of new technologies somehow makes us less Hawaiian. I know for a fact, that my ancestors would not want me to struggle and do things the same way they did. They’d want me to find more efficient ways of doing things. I’m willing to bet that they’d be pretty disappointed in me if I was to commute from Ewa Beach to Honolulu by an outrigger canoe when there are vehicles that could get me there faster. And I’m confident that they’d prefer that I use e-mail (or a cell phone) to communicate rather than finding the fastest runner in my region to relay the same message to my intended receiver. I too would not want my descendants to rely on old methods to complete certain tasks. All-in-all, Albuquerque was a great experience for me. I still maintain the same idea however; while Hawaiians are culturally indigenous, unlike many Native American tribes, they are neither legally nor politically indigenous, at least under the standards of international law. But, Hawaiians have been placed in an awkward position under U.S. domestic law and Hawai'i State law and are considered to be indigenous. |
| Monday, February 6th, 2006 | |
| 11:48 pm | Oral arguments, a federal Judge, and a US Supreme Court Associate Justice. I'm leaving tomorrow night to the University of Washington for a few days to participate in a moot court competition. Oral arguments. agh! Last year I loved it, this year - well, I'll have to see how it goes. Different issues, unknown judges and I actually have to compete unlike last year's Appellate Advocacy class. Nerve racking indeed, but I'm going to have to have some fun. We've got three teams this year; 3 females and 3 males. One team member is Cathy another is Sonny. Actually, the three of us are on different teams, but in the sense that we're all representing the William S. Richardson School of Law, we're on the same team. Unfortunately, I'm going to miss out on most of our Jurist-in-Residence Program, which officially begins tomorrow. Today however, I was able to sit in on the Honorable Myron H. Bright, the senior judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as he spoke to class full of students today. Fascinating man. I'm also going to miss out when U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy teaches our Constitutional Law class this Thursday. Tomorrow morning our student organization, 'Ahahui O Hawai'i will be doing the following oli. Ke Lei maila ‘o Ka‘ula i ke kai ‘eā Ke mālamalama ‘o Ni‘ihau ua mālie ē A mālie pā ka īnuwai lā Ke inu maila nā hala o Naue i ke kai No Naue ka hala, No Puna ka wahine No ka lua no i Kīlauea.
There was much debate as to what was the most appropriate oli for this event. Our Hui is giving both judges some makana. One will be the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom DVD. We'll also have some books for them also. Let's pray that they learn a more accurate history of the Hawaiian people and their government than they may currently know.
|
| Friday, February 3rd, 2006 | |
| 1:34 am | She called, so I went. This past Friday, I spent a part of the morning picking up red and white wine and beer for the Hawaiian Society of Law and Politics general membership meeting. While I was at the store, I was called for a visit and I knew I had to go. It's been a while since I visited her, but I had to. It's a shame that I had waited so long, to visit this someone who loved me unconditionally, this someone who inspired me this someone who, when I was sick she gave up her bed and took care of me. Saturday, the day after, would be her birthday. She knew I was going to be busy. So she wanted me to visit her on Friday. Before leaving the store, I picked up for her a bouquet of flowers. She welcomed me when I sat on her grass, overwhelming me with pure happiness. Reminding me, she's here for me. Letting me know everything will be alright. I miss you grandma and I love you too. Althought I'm busy, I can't help but think of you. I thank you for the sacrifices you made, and I know you're around me every day. She reminded me to call my grandpa, my uncle Kimo and Uncle Hammy too, to see how they've been. and I will grandma. A misty rain began to fall on me in Punchbowl. She thanked me for coming knowing I had things to do I could now go. "Grandma, there's a few things I want to tell you , well you already know. But I miss you, I miss kissing you on the cheek goodbye and hello and trying to comfort you at Tripler when you went for chemo." "I miss you grandma. Happy Birthday and I hope you like the flowers." I stood up and began to walk to my truck. I could hear her start to give me scoldings when I almost turned my back to her. We have an interesting understanding that while I'm on her grass and leaving, I don't turn my back to her. It's been so long since I made a visit that I almost forgot. I can walk sideways or backwards when leaving and on the grass. But until I reach the pavement, I don't walk forward. She also insists that I walk along and above the headstones so as to not disrespect the other dead, surrounding her, by walking over their bodies. Not that I was trying to hide it from her, but when I got inside my truck, she made sure to let me know that she wanted some of my ahi poke I bought at the store. "Grandma, you and I both know you can't physically eat it and you know this isn't aku. You're with God now so I'll give you a piece because the essence of this offering will be yours, the substance of this offering will stay with us. This, we know, is the right thing to do." I got out of my truck and walked back to her headstone and quickly contemplated if I should put the poke in the bronze flower vase or on the ground. She let me know that she didn't like her poke with water. I smiled, wanting to laugh. "Who does, Grandma? But there are birds and ants around and I don't want them coming near you too soon to take this away." She let me know that it'd be alright. So I placed it on the grass close to her headstone. I walked backwards, than sidewards and once I made it to the road, it was okay to turn my back and walked forward. My grandma was a magnificent woman with a calm, loving spirit. |
| Tuesday, January 10th, 2006 | |
| 12:05 am | Native Leadership Forum. Today I attended the Native Leadership Forum at the Hilton. Eleven of us from Patricia Zell's class, Building a Nation. We're very VERY fortunate to have been invited to the forum. The fee was $600 per person and we were complimentary guests of hers. She's awesome, a remarkable woman. Anyhow, there were a number of morning speakers: Haunani Apoliona, Richard Trudell, Senator Ed Case, Byron Mallot, Nainoa Thompson, Billy Frank Jr., John Echohawk, and a college student, Ben Young. My two favorite speakers were Byron Mallot and Nainoa Thompson. One thing Byron Mallot said that stuck with me was, "When we, as indigenous people, end up on the editorial pages as a cartoon, we have someting to think about." He said he saw a cartoon this morning when he opened this mornings newspaper. I thought he was talking about this cartoon. But, after looking at yesterday's cartoon, I think he was talking about this one, which was published yesterday. Another thing he said was, "We're living in dangerous times when our goal is to obtain wealth and keep it at the expense of others. [When we do this, we as indigenous people have] lost our way." Nainoa Thompson, as always was an awesome speaker. From the heart, no pre-written stuff, off-the-cuff and from the heart. His presention included slides. There were a number of things he said that resonated with me in my mind, heart and na'au. First, when he came into the room and came upon Iokona, myself and Donavan Kealoha, he greeted each of us individually with an "aloha" and a hug. I've noticed that he does this every time he is around Hawaiians. I went to his family's compound in Niu Valley a few times for some parties. We don't know each other on a personal basis, but he always greets people. Anyway, among the many stories he told, what I found profound was the story of his father, Myron "Pinky" Thompson, who in 1941, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and while a Junior in high school, falsified a birth certificate to fight in World War II. From what Nainoa shared, Myron Thompson's father told him, "if you want to go to war, go. But, don't bring shame to Hawai'i." Imagine that. It's the 1940's and your father tells you, "Don't bring shame to Hawai'i." Assuming that Myron Thompson's father was 40 years of age at the time he said this to his son, he would've been born in either 1900, 1901 or 1902 (depending on how soon after the Bombing of Pearl Harbor Myron Thompson sought to join the military), 7-8 years after the 1893 overthrow and 2-3 years after the purported annexation to the US. This to me, is Hawaiian patriotism. Hawaiian patriotism, not in the ethnic/ancestral sense, but in the national identity sense. He didn't say, "Don't bring shame to the Territory of Hawai'i." He didn't say, "Don't bring shame to the Thompson family." He said, "Don't bring shame to Hawai'i!" I wanted to cry. Mr. Myron Thompson eventually made his way to Washington State where he (if I recall correctly) enlisted in the Army with his falsified birth certificate and was thought to be a Native American. B/c he was thought to be Native American he was placed on the "front lines" as a first scout. Nainoa was careful to explain that first scouts never lasted more than a few seconds on the front lines. Unfortunately, as Nainoa shared, his father was shot by a sniper. Fortunately, he survived. He also talked about the earliest voyages of the Hokule'a. Before mentioning anything specific, I got the impression that he would mention Eddie Aikau. He did and I began to get "chicken-skin." I've heard people talk about Uncle Eddie before and I never got chicken skin. But this time was different. For the first time, I was hearing someone, Nainoa, taking full responsibility for the mis-hap with Eddie Aikau. The mis-hap being his death. It shared that's it's a guilt he's carried for almost 30 years and it's a guilt he'll take with him to his grave. He shared that, there was a number of things "they" did wrong, things they should've done, but didn't do in their preparation. I hope he doesn't keep this guilty for too long. I think he needs to let it go. In retrospect, it's always easy to say, "we should've done this, we should've done that." He talked about Uncle Eddie a little bit. He talked about what everyone knows Eddie for; surfing big waves, the biggest waves. Nainoa described him as the best surfer and lifeguard. THat he chose to be a lifeguard at Waimea because he was willing, to risk his life to save others' who could not hand the awesome strength of Waimea or who were just unfamiliar with it. What I really liked hearing was when he said, "Eddie didn't surf the biggest waves for himself. He surfed the biggest waves for the dignity of the Hawaiian people." wow. Nainoa also talked about how his grandparents saw poverty all around them and dealt with it. He said they would often feed children who weren't their own. I thought he was talking about his own parents and not his grandparents. Perhaps he did, I don't know. But, regardless, it's not who did it, but that it was done period. He said, it wasn't un-common for them to feed all the kids including their own, while they drank water for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Few people today care about children not their own and these guys exemplified what it is to have Hawaiian values and to share those values with others, not related to them. I also recall Nainoa suggesting that not all the children helped were Hawaiian. That's a story of aloha if I ever heard one. |
| Sunday, January 8th, 2006 | |
| 3:46 pm | Ode To Chris ODE TO CHRIS I won't cry for you, Chris. Instead, I'll do what I know you wanted us to do. I'll live with the inspiration that you imbued. The inspiration you shared with Me, Donavan, Chester, Lisa and Delanie, Brenyei, Tia and Rozie, gave us strength that first day, we met you in October, 2004, the 8th. You were weak but strong, a metaphorical physical manifestation of duality, that we must become, - individually as students and attorneys. A valuable lesson from a teacher and friend whose physical life, one day, would end. But, collectively too, you said, us 12 must be united. And we are, to the degree, that we need be. And we're doing things, never done before, that should be. Human greatness, you embodied and, as you say found in us. Recognizing our potential and responsibility in trust in the pursuit of social justice. You were the one Chris, who didn't feed us, but The one who yelled, when needed, and whose words we heeded. You believed in us Chris, you supported us Chris, when you was weak, you probably shouldn't have, but you still visited us Chris. for a better school and society Chris. For all, a better Hawai'i Chris. While we mourn your departure Chris, we still feel your spirit Chris. This is for you, My Ode To Chris. |
| Wednesday, December 14th, 2005 | |
| 6:03 pm | Evidence This morning, I woke up, got ready and left for school. I spent the morning studying for my Evidence exam. Evidence has been an interesting class; at three days a week it’s a four-credit course. I studied in Seminar Room 6 with a few friends. Wanting to take the Evidence final exam in a specific seat, my seat, I left seminar room 6 at 12:30 pm, one hour before the exam room was scheduled, and chose my seat. I studied some more, reviewing notes I had taken, past exams, outlines and Emanuel flashcards. Nothing I had studied the prior 36 hours was “sticking” in my head. That’s not even accurate to say. Is it? It’s more likely that the material I studied over the course of the semester and re-inforcing that with the recent studying is in my head, my difficulty isn’t with storing it, it’s with recalling that information. Around 1 pm, my bare toes felt a cold sensation similar to being standing with bare feet in white snow. An omen I thought immediately. The freezing temperature of classroom two was a sign of what the Evidence exam was going to be like, cold and uncomfortable. That’s what it was, cold, uncomfortable and very difficult. When I walked into the exam rooms for my other tests, I walked in not feeling confident, but walked out like I did well. Taking this test though was murder. Murder on my brain and murder on my confidence. Temporarily at least. My confidence was resurrected from death when several other of my classmates shared their lack of confidence. YES! I didn’t fail ----- yet. Plenty people might’ve helped to bring the curve down, at least it seems like they did. Bring that curve down boys and girls and think about the rest of us. |
| Tuesday, December 13th, 2005 | |
| 10:37 am | December 13, 2005 Y'know, I should be sick right now. It's a miracle I'm not. Mahalo e Ke Akua. It's been a hectic last week and a half with finals, negotiating a contract with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and the newest addition to the Kauanoe family, my sister's new born daughter, Tehani. Yesterday, I completed my third final exam and have two more. One tomorrow and one on Friday. Then, I fly out on Tuesday to spend a week for Christmas with my parents. I can't wait. I have to come back rather early though, unlike last year when I stayed for three weeks. I have the Native American Moot Court competition to prepare for and that means writing a brief with my partner. The brief is due January 4 and then we fly out to competition a month later. It's great being on a fully-funded moot court team. That means we don't have to do any fundraising at all. |
| Friday, December 9th, 2005 | |
| 12:21 pm | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FINAL EXAM! oh boy! Constitutional law final exam in about an hour and a half. I've been studying with my great study group. It's really be great to study with them again. It's almost like last year. My sister will be starting her delivery process and I'll be able to join her for that. I've been fortunate enough to postpone my taking of the Torts exam to tend to this important family event. |
| Sunday, October 23rd, 2005 | |
| 8:35 pm | The look I watched the movie, The Greatest Game Ever Played yesterday. At the end of the movie, I saw a facial expression I haven’t seen for more than 12 years. I remember that expression as if it were yesterday. Sometime in May 1993, while my dad and I were driving in our maroon colored 1977 GMC Custom pick-up truck from Lacey to Tacoma we had a conversation. We were driving to a courthouse in Tacoma because I was ticketed for speeding on the I-5 Freeway and decided to argue against the fine. It was a school day and my dad took me up there. I remember him talking to me about standing before the judge and if I knew what I was going to say. At one point, he began to talk to me in a tone I hadn’t heard at all during my rebellious teenage years. It was encouraging. Among the words he shared with me he closed with, “I’m very proud of you Derek.” It wasn’t just the words that conveyed the message; it was the eyes, the calmness of his face and what I perceived to be a struggle to get the words past his lips. His eyes alone expressed emotion similar to how actor Nicholas Cage tries to convey emotions through the eyes in his movies. Nicholas Cage is a fan of the old silent movies because facial expressions were the only means in which the characters could convey messages. Cage tried to learn from silent films how to convey such expressions through the eyes and tries to do this in his films. But getting back to my dad, the look on the face of Francis Ouimets’ father at the end of the movie was the look I saw on my dad’s face in our old truck more than 12 years ago. The movie’s ending was a nice reminder of that encouraging look. The Greatest Game Ever Played was an awesome film. It wasn’t just about golf nor was it about the U.S. vs. England. It was also about the poor struggling for recognition and respect from the rich. This, I believe, is what moviegoers should take from the film. In societies where people seek to maintain their unique identities that distinguish them from others, I think it’s important to remember, that we should also find room to look for commonality. In the movie, you have Harry Vardon from England, a well-known golf champion who grew up poor, yet mastered a rich man’s sport. You also have Francis Ouimet, who grew up in a poor immigrant family in America who also become a great golf amateur. Both men were rejected by their rich countrymen because of their socio-economic status. Because England wanted to dominate sports, they supported Vardon as a representative of England, but the rich class refused to extend full country club membership to him because his father was a gardener. Ouimet was considered America’s last hope in beating the Brits. But what this really came down to wasn’t patriotism but “sticking it” to the rich; making sure they knew, that the poor class was just as good as the rich class. Whether we’re Hawaiians, African-Americans, Southeast Asians, Samoans, Hispanic or trailer park Caucasians, we’re all under-represented, exploited, and to some degree still discriminated against. This fact alone is should a significant common factor that brings us together. |
| Sunday, September 11th, 2005 | |
| 2:28 pm | To my surprise . . . a review of history I had never seen it done before in any other law class, but, to my surprise, Professor Jon Van Dyke (law students affectionately refer to him as "JVD")on his first day of class instruction (for American Constitutional Law) decided to discuss Hawaiian history. There's around 100 students in the class with about 13-14 aboriginal Hawaiian students in the class. I considered this to be monumental, discussing Hawaiian history on the first day, because, it's something that is generally not done on the first day unless you're specifically in the Hawaiian rights class which enrollment is usually no more than 20 students or so. Plus, there are no cases in our text/casebook involving Hawaiians in regards to U.S. constitutional law. JVD led our class in the direction that the annexation of Hawaii, because it was not done by the appropriate procedures under both international law and U.S. Federal Law, was not valid. He employs the Socratic method, so, when I say he "led our class" to a particular understanding, what I mean is that he asked the necessary questions in such a way that we reach that understanding, not by him providing us the answers, but rather by him asking us questions. It was awesome. He provided a slide show on Hawaiian history as part of the discussion. There's one particular part with his history that I disagree with and while the rest of my classmates were taking notes on his presentation, I was typing away on my keyboard, writing an e-mail to my classmates, explaining my disagreement with JVD's portrayal of history. The disagreement is on Kamehameha V (Lot Kapuaiwa) and his political intentions as the Sovereign Monarch of the Hawaiian Kingdom during his reign. JVD contends, as most other Hawaiian history scholars do also, that Kamehameha V sought to increase his own political power as the Monarch. I, and few others believe Kamehameha V actually sought to give more political power to the citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom by limiting the power of the Monarch. The basis for our position rests in the actions of Kamehameha V himself. "I just wanted to e-mail you guys and complement yesterday's Constitutional Law lecture in regards to Hawaiian Kingdom history. By no means is this e-mail intended to replace yesterday's lecture. Instead what I would prefer to do is provide you with some information that wasn't part of yesterday's lecture that I think is important to know in regards to Hawaiian Kingdom history. Please remember that Prof. Van Dyke said we will be re-visiting Hawaiian issues during the semester. A widely held understanding among many people here in Hawaii, both in the Hawaiian community and non-Hawaiian communities, is that Kamehameha V Lot Kapuaiwa, sought to increase his political power as Monarch because he was dis-satisfied with the decrease of political power. Many scholars have written papers, articles and books stating this. I disagree. If you will give me the pleasure of taking a few minutes of your time, I'll share with you why I disagree. I am convinced that after reading this, you too will disagree as well. First, it is important to understand how Lot Kapuaiwa came to be Kamehameha V. Most people consider Kamehameha IV (Kamehameha V's younger brother) to have been the monarch who immediately preceded him in office. This would not be entirely accurate. Kamehameha IV was indeed "a" Monarch who preceded Kamehameha V, but not "the" Monarch who immediately preceded him. No successor to the Hawaiian throne was named by Kamehameha IV. From the time of Kamehameha II through Kamehameha V, the position of Kuhina Nui (Premier) was crucial to the Kingdom in that, in the death of the Monarch, the Kuhina Nui was responsible for the Kingdom. Essentially, the Kuhina Nui was the "next in command" to the Kingdom under the Monarch. At the time of Kamehameha IV's death, the Kuhina Nui was Victoria Kamamalu. The Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution of 1852, Sec. 2 Article 47 reads, [w]henever the throne shall become vacant by reason of the King's death, . . . the Kuhina Nui, . . . shall, . . . perform all the duties incumbent on the King, and shall have and exercise all the powers, which by this Constitution are vested in the King. As a result of and in accordance with this constitutional provision, Kamamalu ascended to the rank of Monarch. Upon ascending to this role, she immediately named her brother, Lot Kapuaiwa, to become Monarch. The next day, Lot Kapuaiwa, became Kamehameha V. Victoria Kamamalu was literally a "Queen for a Day." Now, upon being named the Sovereign of the Kingdom, Article 94 of the 1852 Constitution provided, The King, after approving this Constitution, shall take the following oath: 'I solemnly Swear, in the presence of Almighty God, to maintain the Constitution of the Kingdom whole and inviolate, and to govern in conformity with that and and the laws.' Looking at this provision, a reasonable inference to be drawn from it is, that the Monarch must swear to maintain the Constitution AFTER he approves it. Kamehameha V interpreted this important provision to mean that the Monarch has the complete power to change the Constitution if he disapproves of it. As Prof. Van Dyke provided in his presentation, Kamehameha V promulgated the 1864 Constitution on his own. The interpretation of the Constitutional provision in 1852 was that the Monarch had the authority to abandon a Constitution, under the constitutional provision, if s/he was in disagreement with it and then create another Constitution or modify the existing one that s/he would approve of. Understanding this provision, we can only conclude that the 1852 Constitution gave a high level of power to the Monarch because it allowed the Monarch to make Constitutional amendments without the consent of neither the House of Representatives nor the House of Nobles. Kamehameha V, did not approve of the 1852 Constitution, specifically articles 45, and 94. Kamehameha V refused to take an oath to the 1852 Constitution. Article 94 of the Constitution, in effect, allowed him to do so. He disagreed with it because he believed that every Monarch should be required to take the oath whether they approved of it or not. He also did not believe Article 45 was good for the Kingdom. Article 45 of the 1852 Constitution reads as follows: All important business for the Kingdom which the King chooses to transact in person, he may do, but not without the approbation of the Kuhina Nui. The King and Kuhina Nui shall have a negative on each other¹s public acts. The Kuhina Nui who appointed him as Monarch was his own sister. This clearly was a conflict of interest. The Hawaiian Kingdom Legislature was called to session to deal with these issues of the Constitution. A collective effort involving the House of Nobles, House of Representatives and the Monarch to promulgate a constitution that the King would approve of (as required by the 1852 Constitution) was attempted but eventually hit a stalemate. Under Article 94 of the 1852 Constitution, Kamehameha V had the authority to promulgate a Constitution without the consent of the Legislative Assembly. So far, what we have here is a strong Monarchical power to alter the constitution that derives itself from the 1852 Constitution (Article 94) and a Monarch who was appointed by his sister who was the Kuhina Nui or "Premier" of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Additionally, another provision (Article 45) of the 1852 Constitution permitted the Monarch to make business transactions for the Kingdom with only the authorization of the Kuhina Nui. As we can see, there was a high degree of political power possessed by the Monarch. If we are to assume, as many scholars write, that Kamehameha V sought to increase his power as Monarch, we must then ask, why is it that when he promulgated the 1864 Constitution did he 1.) terminate the position of the Kuhina Nui, 2.) omit the Constitutional provision (Article 94) requiring the Monarch to approve of the Constitution prior to swearing by it, and 3.) omit the Constitutional provision (Article 45) requiring only the approval of the Kuhina nui? These were three key Constitutional provisions that gave great power to the Monarch, yet Kamehameha V did not maintain these provisions in his promulgated Constitution. Kamehameha V, artfully used what he considered to be flaws (Articles 45 and 94) in the existing 1852 Constitution to create the Constitution of 1864 without those same flaws and giving more political power to both the House of Nobles and the House of Representatives. Article 24 of Kamehameha V's 1864 Constitution states, His Majesty Kamehameha V, will, and His Successors upon coming to the Throne, shall take the following oath: The only conclusion to be drawn by this is that Kamehameha V was not trying to increase his monarchical power but was actually doing the opposite; securing political power to the people." How much more democratic could you get in a 19th century kingdom? It's obvious, Kamehameha V used his own authority as provided in Article 94 of the 1852 Constitution to abolish that high degree of authority. He used the loophole of that constitution to get rid of that same loophole. Nothing short of being impressive. |
| Wednesday, August 24th, 2005 | |
| 9:51 pm | Day 3 What a long day today seemed to be. I've decided that one of my main goals is to create a support system for the Hawaiians in the incoming class at the law school. I've spoken with a few of them and some seem very overwhelmed. I don't want them to be discouraged from the challenges and rigors of law school. They have a support system here. Well, there is no current organized support system, but I'm building one with the help of other Hawaiian students such as, Iokona Baker, Kauanoe[] Brooks, Shyla Cockett, Laura Edmunds, Coti Haia, Kalikolihau Hannahs, Kelli Lee and Jocelyn Macadangdang-Doane. We need more Hawaiian attorneys here and we start increasing the number of Hawaiian attorneys by 1.) retaining (through an adequate support system) Hawaiian law students and 2.) actively recruiting more Hawaiian students to the law school. Today was an interesting day. I have Criminal Law with the incoming 1L class. There are a few, what I describe, over zealous students. I suppose this is typical of every class. There's a young man in the class who, seems to lack certain graces and tact. The perception among many people is that he's trying to show how smart he is. But, most people seem annoyed by it. Yesterday I had Constitutional Law and I'll have it again tomorrow. To my suprise, Professor Jon Van Dyke, on the first day, decided to talk about the history of Hawai'i. He did a great job, I thought, of presenting some of the legal/political questions and ultimately asking what is the current status of Hawai'i. Without saying show explicitly, he led the class to the conclusion, that Hawai'i was never legally annexed by the U.S. But, he did it with style. He presented facts, legal definitions, etc, and put us in the position to make the determination. But after being presented with the facts he showed us, there is no other conclusion to come to. IMPRESSIVE! Who'd ever think that an accredited American law school would teach something like that on the first day of a Constitutional law class. This seems like a great, interesting, and promising semester, I just have to make sure I stay focused, something that is proving very difficult to do when there are so many other things catching my interest. |
| 12:14 am | Starting my second year of law school Wow! It sure has been a long time since I've posted anything here. A LOT has happened since I last wrote in here in April. Too much has happened for me to write everything in this in post, so I hope to eventually write everything down before I forget about it. I had originally hoped to have posted something here yesterday after my first day of my second year at law school. It obviously didn't happen. There is just way too much stuff going on. I'm writing right now only because, after drinking a few beers with some great friends, Juan Ortiz, Scott Ok, and my good friend since the fifth grade who is visiting Hawai'i, Vince Azanza, I feel pretty relaxed. After only two days of law school for this year, things are very hectic. I'm taking five classes this semester. 1.) Evidence 2.) Criminal Law 3.) Constitutional Law 4.) Torts 5.) Federal Indian Law. Let me tell you.... there is a lot of reading to do. It does though, feel a lot easier than last year. This is because I have a better grasp of legal doctrine. So, now that I have an increased understanding, we are now bombarded with a lot of stuff. Law school was once summed up for me as, "The first year, they scare you. The second year, they overwork you. The third you, they bore you. As it seems, I'll am being overworked. Having a few drinks with friends was great. My friend Vince, I've known since the 5th grade. We met each other while performing at an elementary school orchestra rehearsal. He was sitting in front of me with another guy named Todd Herring. I was sitting with a haole girl named Brandy. Ever since that day in 5th grade (May), Vince and I have been friends. We attended the same middle school, Nisqually, but attended different High Schools and colleges. Through the many years that passed, we were able to keep our friendship. We hadn't really seen much of eachother throughout high school and college. Basically never, but we had the opportunity to return to our friendship in 2002 when he came to a Hawai'i for a trip. Ever since then, he's been coming to Hawai'i annually and everytime he comes, I enjoy his visit. He's a GREAT guy and a GREAT friend. For Torts, our Professor is Mari Matsuda. I worked as her research assistant this summer. I was thoroughly impressed with her class today. She normally teaches at the Georgetown University Law Center and is here as a visiting professor. I wish more professors were like her. She's awesome and I couldn't have enjoyed her first day of instruction than how I did today. She's awesome and impressive. She is one of the most cited law professors in America and is the first tenured female Asian professor throughout America as well. She is awesome and I enjoy her teaching style and honesty. Did I mention she is awesome? About 17 days ago, August 7, I woke up and stared at the ceiling while lying in bed. I thought to myself, "I'm 30 years old today. What have you accomplished so far? Thirty, thirty THIRTY, THIRTY. Don't remind me how old I am. I remember in high school watching a movie from the 70's where some rockstar decided to run for President of the U.S. and America's young 18-20 year olds voted him into office. I remember him saying, "Don't trust anyone over 30." I can't begin to tell you how much I had subscribed to that idea. Now that I'm 30, I don't think I can trust anyone under 30. Well, to varying degrees of course. THIRTY Definitely not something to brag about. END OF SUMMER BASH!. Alright. This is the deal. At the law school this Friday, we're having the End Of Summer Bash. What does this mean? Essentially, it's a way for us to officially kiss our summer goodbye and spend a low $20 on all you can eat pupu's and drinks. Yes, for a meager $20, we can eat and drink to our hearts content (or more adequately, kill as many brain cells as humanly possible in one night). To me, it's actually a good way to end the first week of school, a very strenuous week for both new incoming students and repeat students. Even though its only been two days, I feel like I've been in school for two months already. Perhaps that's because I worked as a research assistant this summer to Professor Melody Mackenzie, Prof. Mari Matsuda, and Prof. Charles Lawrence and I've literally been at school throughout the summer since the Spring 2005 semester ended. At any rate, the END of SUMMER BASH is a good way to end the first week. |
| Thursday, April 28th, 2005 | |
| 9:53 pm | Blood and Sweat Okay...... so maybe there wasn't any blood, but there was a lot of sweat. On my way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, located downtown, I was in my suit. It was HOT! and while on my way I sweated in the car. Luckily for me, I didn't stink from it. I was thinking maybe I should've worn different clothes to the court room and then changed my clothes somewhere but I think it would have been awkward to be carrying a garment bag. Oh well. Prior to that though... when I was getting read to drive downtown, the car wouldn't start. I noticed that I left the lights on. Lucky for me, I was able to get it jump started by Jennifer's brother. Oral arguments were very interesting. It was actually quite awesome and as nerdy and dorky as it sounds, it was rush to be making oral arguments in front of Federal District Court Judge David Ezra and Judge Leslie Kobayashi. The third panelist, James Koshiba is an attorney and doesn't seem to have ever sat in a judges chair. As the appellant (the party who asked for the appeal, that means, my client lost in the previous court) I made my first arguments and was able to reserve three minutes for a rebuttal. Rebuttals are made after the appellee (the party not appealing) makes their oral arguments. The rebuttal gives me an opportunity to discuss with the court anything the appellee said after my oral arguments. Oral arguments at this level is limited to a total of 20 minutes. So, since I reserved three minutes, my first attempt at oral arguments was not to exceed 17 minutes. I barely got finished introducing myself to the court when Koshiba began asking me questions. Unlike some of my other classmates who had different judge panels, our judges actually read our briefs to the court and were very familiar with the arguments written in them. So, when Koshiba began asking me the questions, he was asking for clarification on what exactly I was arguing. It might be interesting to note, that, since I am an avid viewer of Boston Legal (the best legal show on television EVER!) I've been wanting to adopt the best court room styles ever shown on TV. Those styles come from characters Alan Shore and Denny Crane. Alan Shore exudes poise and wit while Denny Crane reaks of confidence (even when he doesn't know what he's doing) and ownership of the court. So anyway, when I initially approached the podium to make my oral arguments, I approached it with the attitude that I owned that podium, that the court room belonged to me, and the judges would hear what I wanted to say, understand what I wanted them to hear, and be convinced that I knew what I was doing up there. Having the first bite at the apple, I wanted to make sure my opponent knew that my first bite would be big... VERY BIG, leaving little for her to take. By reserving three minutes for rebuttal, I was letting her know that I would be taking two bites. It did catch me a little off guard that I was being questioned so quickly, but I was cautious not to let that show. I smiled, and quickly answered Koshiba's question and proceeded with my presentation. Not much time passed before he asked me a question again. I heard him, but I hadn't produced an answer in my head yet and I couldn't risk spending time on silence, that wouldn't look good. I smiled and asked him to rephrase the question. It gave the appearance that I didn't understand his question, but I knew what I was doing and I did understand his question. I needed to buy myself some time to formulate an answer in my head. I paid little attention to his rephrasing and thought about my answer. I figured out the answer and had only a few seconds to spare before he finished his re-phrasing of the question. This was great, because it allowed me to answer the question immediately after he asked it, rephrased. This looks so much better than looking dumbfounded and silent. I answered his open-ended question completely and to his satisfaction. Throughout the couse of those 17 minutes, I was questioned by Judges Ezra and Kobayashi. I was having a field day. I was a kid in a toy store on a shopping spree. Although they asked very probing questions to my arguments forcing me to think quickly, it was still like I was a child in that toy store and they were asking me how I liked each toy. My responses echoed that confidence. The podium became a throne to me, and I was sitting as King. It's important to know that in the lower court, my client lost to the Defendants motion for summary judgment. When a party wins/prevails on a motion for summary judgment, that means, the court is confident that based on the facts provided and the law, this case doesn't have to proceed to an actual trial. Summary Judgment stops a case from going to trial because, based on the information, there is supposed to be no way that the party filing the motion for summary judgment would lose in a trial. Summary Judgments are necessary because, court dockets are crowded and if there are cases that don't need to go to trial, then, they shouldn't go to trial. So anyway, the defendant, (I represented the Plaintiff) won in the lower court for summary judgment. My client, through me, appealled. An appeal doesn't mean that a party is asking a court to "re-try" the case. An appeal is essentially saying, "the lower court was wrong when it made its decision and we want you, a higher court, to review ONLY all of the facts, evidence, and arguments that were presented in the lower court b/c we believe they came to the wrong decision. In an appeal, you cannot introduce new evidence, new witnesses, etc, etc. In our case, we were saying that we believe the court applied the wrong law. We weren't asserting that there was a dispute in the facts but rather the application of the law. The last question posed to me was by Judge Ezra who asked me, (and it seemed to have been coming out of left field, I didn't expect it) "Are you saying there is a general issue of material fact?" I was stumped and immediately recalled what my "bruddah" Donavan K. told me about his recent oral argument. "Brah, the guy asked me a question about something we haven't even learned yet. I never know what for do, so I turned around and looked at my professor and he just wen shrug his shoulders. I told the judge, I never know." I wasn't about to do what Bruddah Donavan did. NO WAY! I was sitting on this throne and there was no way anyone, not even Judge Ezra was going to take me off until I was ready. But, I was stumped because, we appealed under the argument that the court used the wrong law, not that there was an issue of fact. So, I responded with, "Your honor, I'm a little hesitant right now to say no." Unlike Donavan's question, we had been taught about general issues of material fact, but, during my practice oral arguments, this question never came up. So, when Ezra asked a second time, after my response, I simply said, "Yes, your honor, I am." Because I am the appellant, I want the judge to reverse the lower court's decision. Summary Judgments are given to parties when there is no issue of general material fact. What this means is, the facts of a case are in such a way that a jury could not find against the party who wants summary judgment. Unfortunately though, I was so surprised at the question that I didn't really think about it. I believe Ezra recognized the strength in the arguments I was making, and was now convinced after my arguments that the lower court was wrong in granting summary judgment. My time was up and was actually over when Judge Ezra asked me the last question. I went overboard on my 17 minutes, but Judge Ezra made sure the court room clerk continued to reserve my three minutes for rebuttal. That was the fastest 17 minutes of my life. My opponent, (who is a good friend of mine at school) approached the podium for her oral argument. She would have 20 minutes to present her case and answer questions. I was anticipating that she would make reference to two cases that I was hoping to discuss in my rebuttal. In court, attorneys refer to other cases to help guide the judges in making their decisions. As lawyers, we look for similar cases to defend our position and say, "we should follow the decision in this case because it is the same and...either the court we're standing in made that decision and are bound to it, or, a higher court made the decision and we're bound to it too. Or, when our opponent refers to cases, we'll try to distinguish their cases and tell the judges, "We shouldn't follow that case because it's significantly different." My opponent never referred to the cases that I was hoping she would, but, lucky for me, Judge Kobayashi brought one of the cases up and asked a question about it. This provided me the opportunity in my rebuttal to distinguish that case. Judge Kobayashi knew about the case and that the defendant was relyng on that case, because in our briefs, we make those same arguments and cite to those cases. But, when you make oral arguments, you don't always cite to the judges the cases. So, again, by her raising a question about that case, I was now able to use it. The other case I wanted to talk about wasn't raised by any of the judges nor was it raised by my opponent. But, my opponent discussed the definition of a word in controversy. The word in controversy was "accident." It was in controversy, because the insurance policy that existed between our clients didn't define the term, so there was a degree of ambiguity. So, the defendant is defining the word differently than I was. But, I could use her discussion of that term to bring up the other case I was hoping she would discuss. Now, I had another argument to use in my rebuttal. But BANG! she began to distinguish my key case (Sheets v. Brethren Insurance Company) and attempted to convince the court that they should not apply the test provided in my key case nor should they apply the decision and rule reached in it. It was a valiant attempt on her part. My rebuttal is only 3 minutes long and I knew there was no way I could talk about her two cases AND convince the court that my key case was the case to follow, AND still answer any questions they had, if any. I had a big decision to make and quick. I didn't know which case I was going to leave out of my rebuttal, but I knew I had to defend the case I wanted them to use. Her 20 minutes was up and my last three minutes had crept up on me. I approached the podium one last time, "Your honors, I would like to draw your attention to opposing counsel's definition of the word, 'accident.' Again, I must re-iterate, that the insurance policy was ambiguous because it did not define the term. But, keeping that in mind, I would like to direct you to a case cited by the defendant in her brief, Gaylord v. ProPump. In that very same case the defendant cites, it defines 'accident' differently than she defines it. The court in that case defined accident in a way that defines it more consistent with our definition." I then read that court opinion word for word. Sure, I was off the throne for 20 minutes, but I was back on it. I didn't just own that podium, the court room was now my Camelot or better yet, my 'Iolani Palace. Mine. I had taken out my sword from its scabbard and placed it on the shoulders of my opponent's case (Gaylord v. ProPump) as it knelt down on one knee before me. I knighted the Gaylord case. The Gaylord case would now work for me and defend my castle/palace, my argument, my position. With less than than two minutes remaining, I had to come to the rescue of my fiercest warrior, Ke'eaumoku (the warrior for and teacher to Kamehameha). The Sheets v. Brethren Insurance Company case was my Ke'eaumoku. It was the case that stood proudly, tall and strong over this case I was arguing in. My opponent had stabbed my Ke'eaumoku badly but not vitally. The strong warrior he is, he would survive. Whether or not he would be strong enough to continue fighting would be up to me. It was my obligation to quickly tend to those wounds and heal them immediately. Time was becoming another fierce opponent to us in the wake of my opponents brutal attack. "My opponent attempts to distinguish Sheets but it is the most appropriate case, of all the cases cited by both of us, to apply here. She's right. Sheets requires a causal nexus. Her interpretation of the causal nexus however, is incorrect. If you look at the facts of the case in Sheets you'll see that, like the case before us today, the causal nexus does not have to be direct. In can be indirect. In Sheets the suing party alleged that negligent misrepresention influenced them to buy the house. They relied on the representation that the septic tank was in good working order. After hearing that representation, they decided to buy the house. When the suing party moved its family of eleven into the house, the septic tank could not sustain the sewage and waste of the 11 people. As a result there was flooding. Representations of the septic tank being in good working order were made to the customer from the seller. The customer relied on that representation, then bought the house and moved their family in. Soon after, the septic tank failed to work correctly because it could not sustain the 11 members of the family living in the house. Flooding occurred and there were damages. The buyer said, if they had known that the septic tank wasn't in good working order, they wouldn't have bought it. That same scenario happened here. In our case, Johnson Construction relied on Tom's Crane's representations that the crane was safe, reliable and would comply with state statutes on crane height. Johnson Construction relied on those representations. Later, it was found that the Crane had servo malfunctions, excessive wearing of the tracks and hoist stalls, did not comply with state statues on crane height (the crane exceeded the height limit), and a Johnson Construction employee was injured. The causal nexus in Sheets was the same as in this case. I defended my warrior Ke'eaumoku and he was now standing tall and strong again. He defended my domain once more as I reminded the judges of his strength. "Sheets is the most appropriate case to guide this court in reaching its decision. There are too many similarities here which, again, includes the same language existing in both insurance policies. The insurance policies in both cases are strikingly identical even down to the ambiguity of the term, 'accident.' The causal nexus here is very similar and therefore, the test created in Sheets should be applied. We satisfy that test." About ten seconds were left. "If there are no are further questions, I would just like to state that 1.) Negligent misrepresentation is an occurrence, 2.) that Sheets is the most appropriate case to apply here, and 3.) Bermuda Mutual committed bad faith when it refused to defend Tom's Crane. Thank you. The battle was over. DENNY CRANE! WHEW! Oral arguments were now over. The judges showered us with numerous compliments and commended us for our poise and style and expressed clearly that they were impressed with our oral arguments and, as they described it, well-written appellate briefs. Both Judges Ezra and Kobayashi praised my rebuttal calling it great. Kobayashi stated that I did very well in defending Sheets, my key case. THey equally made compliments to my opponent (and friend) as well. She did great. While litigation is very adversarial, neither the judges, nor our professors declared a winner to the oral arguments. Our oral aguments were simply an exercise for us to verbally demonstrate our understanding of our case and to defend our arguments when they were criticized and/or questioned respectively by opposing counsel and the judges. It was awesom experiences and I would leap at the opportunity to do it again. Until then, I must now dedicate myself to studying for final exams. In less than two days, my parents will be here. I can't wait! Current Mood: accomplished |
| Wednesday, April 27th, 2005 | |
| 2:27 pm | the battlefield When I was in the fourth grade, I began learning Tae Kwon Do and eventually learned to spar in a "ring." From the fifth grade through the eigth grade, I began learning a different and more comprehensive martial art and began sparring in a more intense fighting "ring." When I was in the eigth grade, I moved to the "grid-iron" battlefield. When I moved to Hawai'i, the new battlefield was the streets when I participated in protests and marches against the injustices done to the Hawaiian People. Lua took me to a more traditional battle field where I wore traditional clothing, used traditional weapons, techniques and battle formations. Today, in less than two hours, I will enter a new battle field, the court room. For my Appellate Advocacy class, I will be making oral arguments in the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in from of Judge David Ezra, Federal Magistrate Leslie Kobayashi, and James Koshiba. I've been preparing and I am now ready and waiting. We'll see how it goes. Current Mood: anxious |
| Monday, April 25th, 2005 | |
| 9:03 am | hmmm i woke up this morning and feel.... "bleh" I'm wondering if I really want to return to the law school in the spring. I guess I'll come to some determination soon. |
| Wednesday, April 13th, 2005 | |
| 7:37 pm | Whew! What an idiot! I did it again. This past Sunday, I went to school and was there around 8:45-9:00 am. I worked on the final draft of my appellate brief. I was there until................ How pathetic is that? that's almost 20 hours!!!! well, atleast it's over. Now, I have practice oral arguments this Friday and in about 12 or so days after that I have formal oral arguments in front of an actual panel of Federal Judges. I don't know which one is worse now. Today, we had a kalua pig and cabbage fundraiser sale at school. It was cool, but a very VERY hot day today. |
| Sunday, March 6th, 2005 | |
| 8:45 pm | Long time no post. 03/06/05 2046 hrs The time is now 8:46pm, Sunday, March 6, 2005. I have been at school for a consecutive 12 hours and 16 minutes. I have a 30 page paper due in slightly more than 12 hours. AAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! i have to get back to work. I'll probably be here for another 12 hours. |
| Saturday, December 25th, 2004 | |
| 1:25 am | An idiot submits a letter and the Newspaper prints it Earlier this month, an idiot submitted a letter to the editor of the Honolulu Advertiser, and they printed it here. All Islanders share in gifts of Creator Proponents of government preferences for natives of Hawai'i often challenge the people of Hawai'i with "Imagine Hawai'i without Hawaiians." So what would the people of Hawai'i — descendants of people who gave their lives building and protecting Hawai'i — find if they found no "Hawaiians"? A glorious sun, nurturing climate, striking mountains and an enchanting ocean. These are gifts from the Creator to all humanity. A wonderful spirit of cooperation and mutual respect called aloha spirit here (and neighborliness where I was born). That is a gift here (as it was in my birthplace) from varied immigrants whose harsh and unjust lives forced them to cooperate with, respect and mutually support one another, and to find a common means to communicate. Vibrant and vital art and culture of islands such as Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Tahiti, etc. Even today tourism depends more on the vitality and variety of these cultures than on the recent preachiness of proponents for natives of Hawai'i. Relief from the massive government and tax expenditures dedicated to a minority that by its own claim is characterized by below-average health, accomplishment and education, and above-average violence toward those they should love. The Bishop Estate tax exemption alone costs the people of Hawai'i more than twice the cost of raises that teachers deserve. In short, the people of Hawai'i would find the same Hawai'i blessed with the Creator's gifts and the aloha spirit of all Hawai'i's people. George L. Berish Honolulu Here was the response I submitted, It was initially unclear if George Berish, when writing about a Hawai'i with no Hawaiians (12/08/04), was referring to the result of ethnic genocide or a discovery of the islands without the aboriginal people. However, it was very easy to interpret his letter as supporting ethnic genocide when he referred to the absence of Hawaiians as a "relief from the massive government and tax expenditures . . . ." In addition to not writing complete sentences using a subject and predicate (as taught in public elementary schools), Berish fails to recognize that it is the commonalities among Hawaiian, Fijian, Samoan and Tahitian cultures that allow local tourism to implement elements of those cultures here in Hawai'i as parts of the collective Polynesian culture. In response to his Kamehameha Schools tax exemption comment; I wonder how much more it would cost the state to educate all students currently enrolled at Kamehameha. Suggesting that a single ethnic group is a burden to tax payers and encouraging readers to imagine the absence of that same entire group lacks aloha; the very thing Berish says would remain and claims to value. Ethnic extinction is not aloha and I hope Advertiser readers know that. Derek H. Kauanoe Honolulu My response was printed on December 15 and can be read here. Of course they edited it even though it was 199 words, one word less than the required minimum. The editor omitted the exact part I suspected s/he would. That part was actually my subtle attempt to insult Berish, which was, In addition to not writing complete sentences using a subject and predicate (as taught in public elementary schools), Berish also submitted his letter to the Star-Bulletin and it was printed on 12/12/04. I submitted my response that same day and it was printed as well. Mele Kalikimaka, I gotta go sleep! I hear reindeer on my roof. |
But I briefly heard him speak today.