2 Hawaii female inmates allege sex assaults at Kentucky prison

What does this have to do with Quiet Title in Ko Hawaii Pae Aina?

The titles to all the aina were quieted with the first and then second mahele and the fact that these quieted titles are being buried under a bunch of paperwork that holds no legal or lawful value, affects directly every Kanaka Maoli, including Kanaka Maoli and their prison sentence.

There’s money to made in them thar kanaka’s!

As one commenter said, they would never be raped here because these guards would have to go home and probably face the families of these women at the grocery store some day.

2 Hawaii female inmates allege sex assaults at Kentucky prison

Accusations not first at Otter Creek facility in Kentucky

By Mary Vorsino
Advertiser Staff Writer

Two female inmates from Hawai’i allege they were sexually assaulted by one or more corrections officers at a Kentucky prison, and police are investigating one of the incidents.

Advertisement
//

Honolulu attorney Myles Breiner said he is representing the two women, who allege the sexual assaults occurred while they were in isolation in a medical unit at the Otter Creek Correctional Center in Wheelwright, Ky.

One of the assaults was reported June 23 and allegedly involved a male corrections officer, Kentucky police said. The other incident, earlier this year, also allegedly involved a male corrections officer at the same prison, Breiner said.

Kentucky state police spokesman Mike Goble said last week that no arrests have been made in the June 23 case. He added that forensic tests have been conducted and that other evidence has been collected.

An October 2007 report of another sexual assault of a Hawai’i female inmate at Otter Creek by a corrections officer led to his firing.

There are 165 Hawai’i women at Otter Creek, a private prison operated by Corrections Corporation of America. In an e-mailed statement, spokesman Steven Owen said, “CCA has a zero-tolerance policy for any form of sexual misconduct and takes any such allegations very seriously.”

He said the company is “in the process of thoroughly reviewing” the allegations, adding that “any public discussion” of the allegations before the completion of an investigation “would be premature and inappropriate.”

Tommy Johnson, deputy director of the state Department of Public Safety, said investigations are under way at the prison in two separate incidents. He would not say whether those incidents are sex assaults, but confirmed that one stems from something that was reported June 23.

“At this point, they’re just allegations,” Johnson said.

Other incidents

The investigations come more than a year after Otter Creek officials said they would change their procedures following a sex assault case involving a Hawai’i inmate and corrections officer. In the October 2007 incident, the inmate alleged the corrections officer came to her room and demanded she perform sex acts.

The officer was fired, and subsequently convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense.

Johnson told that inmate’s relatives in a September 2008 letter that after the incident Corrections Corporation of America immediately changed its operating procedures at Otter Creek to require “whenever possible, a female correctional officer is paired with a male correctional officer in the housing dorms/units.”

The state renewed its $3.6 million annual contract to house Hawai’i inmates at Otter Creek in November. Johnson said the contract is set to expire in October.

Allegations of sexual misconduct involving corrections workers and Hawai’i inmates have surfaced before in other private prisons, including in Oklahoma in 2000 and Colorado in 2005. Those allegations were followed by the felony conviction of a corrections officer in Colorado and inmate lawsuits in both states.

Otter Creek Correctional Center, a 656-bed prison that houses minimum- and medium-security men and women, was also under scrutiny last year after a secretary got a .22-caliber pistol through the facility’s security system, including a metal detector, and then committed suicide in the warden’s office.

Here vs. there

Lawmakers and advocates for the inmates say the new sex assault allegations raise questions about the safety of the women at Otter Creek and the procedures in place to prevent assaults. The allegations could also reignite a debate about whether the state should be shipping female inmates to the Mainland at all.

State Sen. Will Espero, D-20th (‘Ewa Beach, Waipahu), chairman of the Senate Public Safety Committee, said, “We’ve always had issues with the women being so far away.” Espero added that he believes the women should return.

“There’s no reason why we can’t begin to bring some of them back,” he said.

The state pays about $50 million annually to CCA to house some 2,000 male and female inmates in Mainland prisons because there isn’t enough room for them in Hawai’i. All female inmates are at Otter Creek.

The practice of exporting women has been criticized because many of them have children and advocates say long separations can cause irreparable harm to families. Espero said the Hawai’i women on the Mainland should instead be housed at the Federal Detention Center near Honolulu International Airport.

In December, the state Public Safety Department said in a report to the Legislature that holding 164 female inmates at the Federal Detention Center would cost about $84 a day each. That’s $5 million a year — about $1.6 million more than the cost of keeping them at Otter Creek. The report said the detention center has enough space for the female inmates now housed on the Mainland, but they could be held at the facility for no longer than three years because the center isn’t set up for longer stays.

Johnson added that the annual costs of holding the women at Otter Creek is about half of the cost of keeping them in state facilities in Hawai’i. The report also pointed out that about 64 percent of women at Otter Creek had, as of October 2008, five or more years to go before they complete their sentences or are eligible for parole.

Reach Mary Vorsino at mvorsino@honoluluadvertiser.com.

Rubellite Kinney Johnson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States

I Love You Auntie Rubellite but the fact remains…our land cannot be sold, it can only be handed down to our lineal descendants. In this way, Kamehameha III secured our land titles, our Palapala Sila Nui and Palapala Hooko so ownership would never, ever, even though it may appear so (right now) to the general public.
But…until the United States can come up with proof that there was a transfer of jurisdiction from Ko Hawaii Pae Aina to the Provisional Government, later becoming the Territory of Hawaii and then the United States, the lands remain intact here in the original jurisdiction of Ko Hawaii Pae Aina and ownership is held by Kanaka Maoli.

To date, no proof has been forthcoming.

Take note:

1. There are no United States Land Patents here in Ko Hawaii Pae Aina.

2. There are Palapala Sila Nui and Palapala Hooko.

If there are no United States Land Patents that means that all the ingredients needed to meet the requirements to have our land transferred was not met.

Rubellite Kinney Johnson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States, Defendant-appellee

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. – 976 F.2d 747

Aug. 10, 1992

Before NIES, Chief Judge, RICH, Circuit Judge, and MILLS, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM.

1Rubellite Kinney Johnson appeals from the November 25, 1991 judgment of the United States Claims Court, No. 91-1627L, dismissing Johnson’s complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
2DISCUSSION
3Johnson contends that the United States wrongfully deprived her of property to which she claims entitlement as a descendant of King Kamehameha IV of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The Claims Court (Nettesheim, J.) dismissed Johnson’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that (1) Johnson’s quiet title claim is outside the Claims Court’s jurisdiction, and (2) her Fifth Amendment taking claim accrued more than six years (the applicable limitations period) before commencing suit. For these reasons, as explicated in the Claims Court’s November 22, 1991 Order directing dismissal, we agree that the Claims Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we adopt the Order, reproduced below, as our opinion in this appeal. We decline to consider Johnson’s latest argument, that the United States has engaged in a ” ‘continuing trespass’ … upon Appellant’s properties,” as improperly raised for the first time on appeal.
4APPENDIX
5Adopted opinion of the United States Claims Court:
6ORDER
7Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on November 21, 1991. It is the court’s obligation to assure itself that it has jurisdiction over a complaint before addressing the merits. Hambsch v. United States, 857 F.2d 763, 765 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1054 (1989). Pro se plaintiffs are not expected to frame issues with the precision of a common law pleading. Roche v. USPS, 828 F.2d 1555, 1558 (Fed.Cir.1987). Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint has been reviewed carefully to ascertain whether, given the most favorable reading, it supports jurisdiction in the Claims Court.
8Plaintiff bases jurisdiction on the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (1988). It is well established that the United States, as sovereign, “is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued … and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941) (citation omitted). “[E]xcept as Congress has consented there is no jurisdiction in the [Claims Court] more than in any other court to entertain suits against the United States….” Id. at 588.
9Plaintiff complains that private property of her ancestor King Kamehameha IV was wrongfully appropriated pursuant to judicial decree of the Supreme Court of Hawaii in 1864 and that the legislature in 1865 rendered the estate inalienable referring to it as the “Crown Lands of Hawaii.” Revenues of the Crown Lands were appropriated by the Provisional Government after 1893. Plaintiff further alleges that in 1894 the Crown Lands were illegally conveyed by the Republic of Hawaii into public domain. According to plaintiff, the Crown Lands eventually were conveyed to the United States under the Treaty of Annexation of 1898 without ascertaining the rights of heirs or successors to the estate of King Kamehameha IV. The United States Court of Claims held in Liliuokalani v. United States, 45 Ct.Cl. 418 (1910), that the Crown Lands belonged to the office of the king and not the individual and that upon the annexation of Hawaii they passed to the United States as part of the public domain. In 1959 the United States conveyed the Crown Lands to the State of Hawaii, reserving some federal territory.
10Plaintiff claims that all conveyances by the United States without first quieting the existing title have been illegal, since the heirs and successors to the Kamehameha estate have not received compensation for their interests. Plaintiff asks that the surviving heirs and successors to the estate be awarded title to the Crown Lands at the time of King Kamehameha IV’s death, that the title granted by the United States to the State of Hawaii in 1959 be rescinded, for a declaration that revenues and lands from former Crown Lands be determined to be the sole and exclusive property of the living heirs and successors of King Kamehameha IV, and for other relief.
11Plaintiff’s complaint can be construed broadly as asking for a declaration of property rights. The Claims Court’s jurisdictional statute, the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(3), restricts the court’s jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief to those actions brought by disappointed bidders seeking to enjoin the award of contracts. Plaintiff’s complaint also can be read broadly as a claim for compensation under the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution based on a taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Although 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) gives jurisdiction over such actions, the applicable statute of limitations is six years pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2501. Jurisdiction is foreclosed if the actions of which plaintiff complains took place more than six years before suit was filed. Hart v. United States, 910 F.2d 815 (Fed.Cir.1990).
12To the extent that plaintiff’s complaint states a cause of action against the United States, as opposed to prior governments of Hawaii before it became a State of the United States, plaintiff admits that the United States Government acquired dominion over Hawaii in 1898. The United States exercised dominion over the Crown Lands, according to the complaint, by conveying them to the State of Hawaii in 1959, reserving some federal territory. The statute of limitations has long expired on the more recent of these events. Plaintiff pleads no facts that would toll the statute of limitations. See Japanese War Notes Claimants Ass’n v. United States, 389 U.S. 971 (1968). Indeed, the gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint relating to actions since 1959 concerns the State of Hawaii. Based on the foregoing,
13IT IS ORDERED, as follows:
14The Clerk of the Court shall dismiss the complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
15/s/ Christine Cook Nettesheim
16/s/ Judge

Maui Coastal Land Trust (MCLT) and it’s take on Land Title

Something to think about:

There are no United States Land Patents here in Ko Hawaii Pae Aina.

There are Palapala Sila Nui and Palapala Hooko.

If there are no United States Land Patents then that must mean transfer of jurisdiction never occurred.

If transfer of jurisdiction never occurred then how can the United States enforce laws from their jurisdiction here in the original jurisdiction of Ko Hawaii Pae Aina?

The answer is: they cannot.

When I imagine a family, nice, mom and dad, 3 kids, a dog, work hard to provide the children with a nice comfortable life, a house, good school, food being held hostage by a couple of criminals at gunpoint (Bayonet Constitution) because these criminals want to now waltz in there and take everything that this hard working, loving family built for their children, for their future…that’s how picture the enormity and the graveness of what the United States did here in Ko Hawaii Pae Aina.


Pu`u O Hoku Ranch Donates Development Rights
According to the Maui Coastal Land Trust (MCLT) Executive Director Dale
Bonar last month, 2800 acres of East Molokai’s Puu O Hoku Ranch will remain forever in open space and agriculture thanks to a conservation easement agreement between MCLT and ranch owner Lavinia Currier.
Why? Several honorable reasons are possible, but legally, a landowner who
donates a conservation easement may be eligible for three federal tax benefits:

a charitable income tax deduction under [I.R.C.] ß170(h),

a charitable gift tax deduction under [I.R.C.] ß2522(d),
and an exclusion of up to 40 percent of the value of the land subject to
the  easement from the landowner’s estate for estate tax
purposes under [I.R.C.]
Why not just write land covenents in their own land deeds instead of MCLT?
Dale Bonar said this: “Per the covenants question, its and issue of legal standing.
When you put covenants on your lands it is only you (and your heirs) that
have legal standing to enforce them. So if you sell the lands and a future owner goes against the covenants, neither the county, nor the neighbors can enforce against those violations… The federal and state regulations which permit Land Trusts to operate give them the specific legal standing to be a third party enforcer of those covenants….So our job as the land trust is to ensure that those covenants are ALWAYS obeyed and enforced, regardless of who owns the land.”
What do you do when the lands are claimed by multiple parties, as in he case
of Paul Kauka Naki who obtained a Judgment from the Supreme Court of Hawaii?
Dale Bonar’s reply: The short answer is, we follow US law and title company
guarantees of title. As far as the US legal system is concerned, the titles to
Kainalu ranch are free and clear titles, and were insured by Title Guaranty.
We faced similar claims in our purchase of the Waihe`e Refuge lands here on
Maui. Both Akahi Nui and the Sovereignty folks Mahealani Ventura Oliver works with have claimed title, although we have, according to US legal titles, clear title to all but six small Kuleana parcels. (Incidentally, the claims by Akahi Nui for all of Hawaii are refuted by the other sovereignty folks who do not recognize his claim as rightful King of Hawaii).

Since the “Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Islands” has no legal standing
under US law, we cannot legally accept their claims, as we are incorporated under specific IRS tenents of US law and are required to follow US law. This does not mean we do not pay close attention to these issues, nor summarily reject any claim. Our policy on lands which have clouded titles (as determined by US Title Company research and US law) is to exclude them from any easements we do.

On lands such as Waihe`e which we own, if any potential claimant for the clouded parcels comes forward we work them to perfect their claim, and if they do have a real claim, work them to either bring them into the conservation efforts, trade them for another more useful piece of land outside the conservation area, or purchase their interest.
Dale B. Bonar, Ph.D. has offered to discuss such issues in the future, and I
presume he will exchance communications with any Molokai resident or land claiment on Molokai, so his contact info follows.
Maui Coastal Land Trust , POB 965
Wailuku, Maui, HI 96793 808-244-5263
808-357-7740 (cell)
dale@mauicoastallandtrust.org
http://www.mauicoastallandtrust.org

Alexander & Baldwin (A&B) first to pledge exclusive farmland???

All this fuss over land that doesn’t belong to them in the first place.

Honolulu Advertiser

Posted on: Saturday, June 27, 2009

A&B first to pledge exclusive farmland
Perpetual agriculture use allows company to get aid in shoring up operations

By Andrew Gomes
Advertiser Staff Writer

Alexander & Baldwin Inc. has become the first owner of farmland in the state to voluntarily devote property to perpetual agricultural use under a controversial law passed last year.

The Honolulu-based company has preserved 30,878 acres on Maui and Kaua’i under cultivation of sugarcane, coffee, seed corn, rice, taro and cattle grazing.

The move, approved by the state Land Use Commission yesterday and in March, allows A&B to seek financial benefits from the state that could help shore up what have been money-losing agricultural operations for the company.

A&B, however, precluded itself from taking a controversial benefit allowed under the law that allows owners of prime agricultural land to convert land equivalent to 15 percent of the acreage protected for urban or rural use such as housing.

The Hawai’i Farm Bureau Federation applauded A&B for dedicating a “significant infusion” of high-quality ag land for perpetual farm use, and expected that more landowners large and small will use the so-called Important Agricultural Lands law.

“People often talk about how much they love agriculture, and want to see it stay in Hawai’i, but then do little to support the local farmers,” Dean Okimoto, president of the trade association and owner of Waimanalo-based Nalo Farms Inc., said in a statement. “Agriculture is a business — it’s not a lifestyle or a hobby. It has to be viable to survive.”

Sandra Lee Kunimoto, director of the state Department of Agriculture, called the A&B protections a historic moment culminating from years of effort by state leaders, farmers and landowners.
stems urban move

Supporters of the law say it’s good for farming and will encourage large landowners such as A&B, Kamehameha Schools, Maui Land & Pineapple Co., James Campbell Co., Castle & Cooke Hawai’i and Grove Farm among others to stop converting ag land for urban development as they have done over decades.

The law also will provide financial incentives to help small farmers who own their land.

So far, the worst fear of conservationists — that the law would accelerate the loss of prime ag land — has not come to pass. Still, it remains to be seen what the long-term impact of the law will be in terms of how much land it preserves and at what cost.

Lawmakers initially passed a law in 2005 that established a process for private landowners and county governments to designate prime ag land. That law fulfilled a mandate issued nearly 30 years earlier at the 1978 Constitutional Convention requiring the state to identify such land so it could be protected from development. But incentives to encourage protection didn’t pass the Legislature until last year as Act 233.
tradeoff in law

Some conservationists and farmers feared the provision allowing for urbanization of some prime ag land would speed its loss.

The tradeoff was an idea introduced by the Farm Bureau in partnership with the Land Use Research Foundation, a research and trade organization representing large landowners and developers.

Supporters of the law believe the tradeoff will spur landowners to lock up agricultural property that may, in the long run, be converted to urban use through conventional land-use laws. They say that the loss of high-quality ag land without the incentive would be greater than 15 percent.

To qualify, the land for protection and conversion has to be in the same county. Also, the land for protection has to be certified as prime farmland by the state Department of Agriculture, and approved by the Land Use Commission.

Any conversion for urban or rural use would ultimately have to obtain a County Council zoning change before nonagricultural use could take place.
veto was urged

Opponents of the provision — including Earthjustice, Life of the Land, Sierra Club Hawai’i Chapter and some farmers — fear the law will expedite conversion of farmland for development and lead to a proliferation of rural residential subdivisions that contribute to suburban sprawl.

“True farmland protection doesn’t come from giving away the farm,” the local Sierra Club chapter said on its Web site last year as part of a plea for Gov. Linda Lingle to veto the measure.

Some small farmers were particularly concerned that rural residential subdivisions will pop up next to farms that could inflate property values and produce incompatible neighbors that threaten to displace farming.

Incentives in the law include $7.5 million in annual tax credits for investments in agriculture facilities, a $2.5 million loan guarantee program, expedited ag processing facility permits and allowance of employee housing on prime ag land.
cost to state

The Agriculture Department said the primary cost of the incentives for the state will be the tax credits that may be claimed annually for five years.

A&B, as part of its petition to the Land Use Commission, waived all rights to seek any reclassification of land for urban or rural use in connection to the nearly 31,000 acres being preserved.

A&B could have sought to convert 4,632 acres for urban or rural use under the law.

A&B said it hasn’t determined what incentives it might pursue. “We are in the process of assessing what agricultural incentives we may seek,” company spokeswoman Meredith Ching said in a statement.

A&B said the decision to protect land under the law wasn’t easy.

“We believe this confirms the Legislature’s intent behind the IAL law — that using an incentive approach that supports the viability of agricultural businesses on agricultural lands will result in significant important agricultural lands being designated and protected in this state, sooner rather than later,” Ching said.
maui, kaua’i acreage

On Maui, A&B protected 27,105 acres in ag use by subsidiary Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co., the largest sugar producer in the state.

On Kaua’i, the company protected 3,773 acres in ag use mostly by subsidiary Kaua’i Coffee Co.

A&B’s agribusiness division last year lost $12.9 million, which compared with a $200,000 profit the year before.

The company largely attributes the loss to HC&S because of two years of record-low rainfall, suppressed raw sugar prices, increased costs, and decreased power sales revenue due to recent regulatory decisions.

Reach Andrew Gomes at agomes@honoluluadvertiser.com.

Kimo69 wrote:
The Kudo’s alloted A&B are completely absurd and, at best, a great publicity stunt… A&B is Hawaii’s biggest land developer and continues to build residential/vacation/second home subdivisions, condominiums/time-share projects, and related retail and industrial on far more valuable lands on far more important AG lands than any developer ever in Hawaii’s history… Addtionally, A&B makes a negative contribution to oudated Infrastructure, such as Sewage and waterways, and is a majority user of FRESH WATER, and it’s developments have a major impact on Ocean pollution… What a JOKE!
06/27/2009 7:01:11 a.m.

Keawehano Palapala Hooko

Keawehano RP

Waterhouse, Castle, Poloke Land, Keawehano

I found this while browsing for information…HERE

This was done in 1991 on land that belongs to the descendants of Keawehano.


Waterhouse Castle 1991 sold land RP 001

Makila Map

makila_map2