Here’s a commment that arrived in my inbox yesterday that’s worth sharing and deserves a substantive reply.

I have long been an avid reader of this column, however I think you (Ian), do yourself injustice by implying sovereignty folks have no basis to stand on. It is such a singular view of a colonizer.

Does not every single person on this planet deserve self-determination and sovereignty?

It may be easy to dismiss such land claims, but speak to enough locals, and you will hear stories about outright theft in the land “transfers”, from strange names appearing in the tax ledgers who would turn up later to lay claim, to new names replacing owner ones when transferring deeds from paper to computer.

While I appreciate you can’t very well give any of this any credence, because, as you say, it would jeopardize every home/tract here, and we can’t have that, can we, that does not mean that theft did not occur during the Mahele. I just think it is disingenuous and in the interest of the dominant (occupying) culture, to gloss over that fact.

Signed, always been a fan, but don’t appreciate the condescension on matters relating to Kanaka Maoli.

To be clear. I have never implied that there is no basis for aspirations for Hawaiian sovereignty.

But I am extremely critical of “sovereignty folks” who rely on half-truths, untruths, misrepresentations, the denial of history, suspension of disbelief, or plain old lies, as the basis for their claims.

And I think that those who would just shrug and excuse these distortions do a disservice to those who are pursuing or have grounds for valid land claims, as those claims based on pure mumbo jumbo confuse the issues and devalue legitimate claims that stand up to scrutiny.

In addition, of course, we allow proponents of these off-base ideas to (a) use them to deceive and rip off others, or (b) get themselves into rapidly increasing legal jeopardy with the risk of escalating penalties out here in the “real” world.

One problem in my reporting on the case of the Kunia land claimants is that I have tried to present their case in reasonable terms, rather than highlighting the batshit crazy stuff they have been repeatedly filing in court.

So I’ve attached the latest legal memo filed in the case this week, a motion to set aside the default judgement against them in the Circuit Court ejectment lawsuit that resulted in their eviction and nine arrests. The response by the landowner’s attorney can be found here.

The motion was submitted by Travis and Kaiulani Mokiao, a brother and sister who have adopted new Hawaiian aliases.

Among their bizarre stuff are some substantive claims. At item #6, they say one of the defendants, Wayne Kaleimamahu, was not properly served. They have argued this same point several times before, and it was answered. And the very simple answer is that Kaleimamahu was dropped as a defendant after his arrest and incarceration. Period. He’s no longer part of the case, and so no longer needs to be served any of the legal papers. The court record is clear on this.

And it should be noted that the Mokiaos have repeatedly tried to stall or deflect the legal process by claiming they were not properly served. If true, it would be a valid concern. However, evidence shows they have repeatedly prevented documents from being served and have used their newly adopted names as covers to ignore or avoid service made using their legal names.

A video submitted as evidence in court after they applied for a temporary restraining order against the landowner’s agent, Tom Berg, shows that Berg packed legal documents in a box, carefully marked with the case number, and dropped in over the gate into the property that had been occupied. Several people came forward, including two named defendants in the case, and not only threw the box of what they termed “rubbish” back over the gate as Berg retreated, they continued to follow him, repeatedly throwing or kicking the box of papers in his direction while chasing him from the area. To then step forward later and complain about the lack of “proper service” is a very transparent fraud.

Later, they say several earlier court filings included affidavits in their names which made allegations and included a demand for answers to be filed with 10 or 21 days, with a twist: “Their non-response is treated as consent to judgment.”

Of course, that’s a total fiction. A failure to respond to an arbitrary demand carries no legal penalties at all. Ask a lawyer. Sometimes you can learn something.

Honestly, I don’t see any advantage in “normalizing” this kind of approach to the issues, which necessarily undermines legitimate Hawaiian claims.

In any case, read on if you’re interested.

Motion to set aside default… by Ian Lind