Armed Honolulu police officers arrived on Wednesday to enforce a court order and evict a group of tresspassers who have been illegally occupying 30-acres of land in an agricultural subdivision in Kunia for more than nine months.
They were greeted by several people, including Travis Mokiao.
“This is my private property,” Mokiao announced confidently.
Mokiao claims an undivided interest in the property because he has traced his genealogy back to the original recipient of a land grant covering the area awarded following the Great Mahele of 1848.
Police eventually left without clearing the squatters from the property, although Mokiao’s claims are wrong on many different levels.
First, Mokiao’s claim to an “ownership” interest in the property was dismissed by Circuit Court Judge James McWhinnie after six months of court proceedings, who then issued an order directing police and sheriffs to eject the squatters and return the property to its owner, Guyland LLC.
Mokiao was able to bluff police by presenting documents that had been filed in court tracing his family back to the original landowner, although McWhinnie had already determined that those same papers did not support any claim to the land. Mokiao did not, and could not, present a conflicting court order because there is none.
Second, Mokiao told police they could not take further action because there is a pending case in federal court. However, court records show that federal case was dismissed within one day of its filing.
Mokiao also repeatedly cited a state law which, he alleged, supported their land claim.
In previous court filings, Mokiao referenced Section 172-11 Hawaii Revised Statutes.
§172-11 Land patents on land commission awards; to whom, for whose benefit. Every land patent issued upon an award of the board of commissioners to quiet land titles, shall be in the name of the person to whom the original award was made, even though the person is deceased, or the title to the real estate thereby granted has been alienated; and all land patents so issued shall inure to the benefit of the heirs and assigns of the holder of the original award. [L 1872, c 21, §1; RL 1925, §568; RL 1935, §1587; RL 1945, §4641; RL 1955, §100-11; HRS §172-11]
Of course, a plain reading of this statute confirms that land rights follow the heirs or “the assigns of the holder of the original award.”
If the original holder assigned all of their rights in a proporty to another person by sale, gift, or inheritance, the person those rights were assigned to would then own the property, and not the heirs of the original holder, who would no longer have property for them to inherit.
And that’s why genealogical claims to property, in the absence of a valid title search confirming the chain of title, are irrelevant to determining modern property rights.
At this point, Guyland LLC has been determined to be the legal owner of the property, and a court has ordered police to clear the property of the trespassers and their belongings.
HPD’s decision yesterday to withdraw without removing the trespassers appears to be without a valid basis. I’m sure that a lot of other landowners are watching and waiting to see how long it will take for this standoff to be ended.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Your headline should be “HPD Bamboozled Again By Pot Squatters.”
Hopefully they’re sharp enough to spot the cosplay army’s phony “driver’s licenses” if they pull someone over. But probably not.
Dear Rambo, I thank Mr Lind for not really taking sides, but just showing what is going on. ” HPD Bamboozled …” has certain judgements attached to it. ” Pot squatters ” also has prejudgements. I am in harmony with your thoughts as well. This reporter is very careful with his words. Because really, we have NO IDEA how this will end! but angry people with military weapons is a very bad place to start.
I see no mention of “military weapons” and you’re missing a few other beats here but I’ll just leave it at that.
You would think that the commander of the detail would have been fully briefed on the situation so law enforcement couldn’t be deceived so easily.
Or they could be accompanied by an officer of the court to provide on-site legal expertise.
At the very least the commander could make a phone call to get expert help.
Good point Dean.
Great article Ian. So appreciate you.
Are they still growing cannabis there and is it a legal grow site? It either has to be a state-licensed dispensary that’s subject to inspection and strict regulation or state-registered cannabis patients who grow no more than a supply for five patients at one grow site and identify the site in their registration. If this is a big illegal grow, it makes a mockery of the state’s medical cannabis program and its drug enforcement efforts, as well as the pathetic failure to protect taxpayers’ private property.
Are these the best and the brightest that our newly minted Chief of Police hope to install?
What an embarrassment. To say nothing of the needless waste of tax dollars to do a do-over and get it right.
Normally eviction is conducted by the State Sheriff’s, Department of Public Safety, with assistance from Police. Payment for services by HPD is by Special Duty.
Major issue of an existing Hawaii State Law requiring Accreditation of State Sheriff’s has remained unfulfilled and unqualified for many years now.
Surveillance would be first issue and establishing how many people are on site. Perhaps a drone and geo-tracking (cell phones) was employed to scan the area and reaction to law enforcement presence?
Major issue will be how the property will be secured to prevent, easy reentry. All major expenses faced by the land owner.
Perhaps HPD left without clearing the squatters not because of any documents they presented or claims they made, but because police were first trying to determine whether the squatters would comply without resistance before tying up more personnel to carry out a forced eviction and make multiple arrests. That would at least make sense.
I concur, hpd has to play it safe after a lot of bad press lately. Most officers are actually attempting to keep the peace as you surmise but when they encounter blatant lies and refusal to comply with court orders left to arrange for arrests and possibly a showdown….
So what’s stopping anybody else from barging onto that property with their own bogus documents and telling Mokiao to piss off because his rights were extinguished and he can go to court and try to prove otherwise? And if Mokiao and his “troops” physically prevent such a claimant from entering and remaining on that land, then what? But what if the new squatters successfully escort Mokiao and co. off the land and stake their own claim? Does the whole charade just start over again in court until the actual owner can obtain and enforce a new ruling? Could a cartel of tag-team squatters just keep changing seats and drag this thing out forever, or at least until the weed grows high enough for maximum value? Could someone break into your home when you’re away and pull the same thing?
This is nuts. HPD should have been briefed on the situation. Hopefully the next time they come out the special duty pay is comped.