BOARD OF LAND AND N AT U R A L RESOURCES

STATE OF HAWAI‘I

IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. BLNR-CC-16-002

Contested Case HearingReConservation DistrictUse Application (CDUA) PIA-3568 For theThirty Meter Telescope at the Mauna Kea ScienceReserve,Ka‘ohe Mauka, Hamakua, Hawai‘iTMK (3) 4-4-015009

Quo WarrantoDemand of Jurisdiction

Name of PartyzBraann Kamahana Keglgha

DATED:7/25/16 revious date rec nized 7/18/16) W

Zvekvxr‐ m l ”‘wtureybartyorLawyér)

Attachment 10-21-2016)

Kamahana Kealoha: MOTION invoking Quo Warranto, respectfully, a demand of Jurisdiction; Declaratory Judgment on a Constitutional Issue/Violation RESUBMITTED 8/8/2016

KamahanaKealoha’sMOTIONinvokingQuoWarranto,respectfully,ademandofJurisdiction;DeclaratoryJudgmentonaConstitutionalIssue/Violation

Irespectfullyassertandrequest,asseemstobesupportedunderSupremeCourt

law,underarticleIVattached,thatthehonorableproceedingsofficerAmano

provideabsoluteproofofherjurisdiction.Theabsoluteproofshouldnotinclude

incongruenttermslike“ceded”landswhileusinganinternallawofanation,“house

resolution,”asafraudulentsubstituteforatreatyofcessation.Iproposethatatleast

one,ormore,conflictsofinterestsexiststhatrequirethehonorableproceedings

officertorecusethemselffrommakingjudgmentorparticipatinginmaking

judgmentforanypartofthiscontestedcasehearing.Ialsosubmitthattheentities

involvedinassertingthesemeetingsanditsadministrationareinvalidifsuch

evidencecannotbeprovidedandthereforethesehearingshavenoauthorityandare

alsoinvalidandshouldbeimmediatelydiscontinued.

Inmylimitedunderstanding,andwithmylimitedaccesstolegalsupportforthisso-

called“user-friendly”processmeantforthepublictoaccessinareasonablemanner,

thelawsinvokedinthismotionrequireAmanotoprovideevidence,andnotjust

repetitive,conflictingevidenceforherauthorityinthesematter.Theonusisonthe

hearing’sofficertoprovidetangible,unclouded,anddefinitiveevidenceofthisproof

ofjurisdictionandauthority,howeverinpastmotions,distinctlydifferentfromthis

one,thehearing’sofficerhasrepeatedandregurgitatedblatantlyincongruent

claimsusingterms“ceded”andresolution,seeminglyambivalenttothefactthatfor

acessationtotakeplacetheland-owningentitymustengageintransactionof

conveyingitsownershipofland,withitsbordersidentifiedandclearlydelineated,

toanotherentity.

Onesuchincidentamongothers,clearlydemonstratingconflictofinterestinthis

casesinceIhavebeenaparty,amongothers,hearingofficerAmanohasinfluenced,

coordinated,facilitatedandmadesignificantjudgmentonpartymotionsthat

directlyimplicatethehearingofficerinitsallegationsandinturndirectly,and

unjustly,moldtheoutcomeofthiscontestedcourtcasesothatthispermitting

processsupportsonepre-meditatedoutcome,there-permittingoftheThirtyMeter

Telescopeprojectuponthehistoricalandpresent-daylivingburialgroundsofmy

ancestor’s,familiars,andmyself.

TheincidentIwouldliketoreferenceinthisjustopportunityandrighttore-submit

thisintended,andclearmotionofdemandofJurisdiction,canbefoundinDoc-84,

“MaelaniLeemotiontointervene(motiontotakejudicialnotice,tworequests).”

Respectfully,onAugust5,2016hearing’sofficerAmano,whileatthesametime

claimingtodeferissuesofpossibleconflictofinteresttotheBLNR,blatantlydidthe

oppositeandsubsequentlyalsoproceededtodistortaclearissueofmeetsand

boundswiththatofsimply“jurisdiction.”Tobeclear,withoutandetailedland

surveyofthemeetsandboundsoftheoccupyingStateofHawaiilandsuchasthe

summitofMaunaKeahavenotbeenconveyedlawfully,orcededinanytreatyof

cessation,totheoccupyingStateofHawaii,ortheUnitedStatesGovernmentthe

landsfraudulentlyhandedtotheDLNR/BLNRandsubsequentlyfraudulently

handedovertotheUniversityofHawaiiandfraudulentlysub-leasedtotheTMT

CorporationarenotlandsthatbelongtotheoccupyingStateofHawaiinorthe

occupyingUnitedStates,thereforethesemeetingsaremootandinvalidandshould

beterminatedimmediately.

Thehearingofficerthenproceededtogroupthemeetsandboundsissueproposed

byDoc-84withthatofjurisdictionandcommandeertheintentandclearlanguageof

themotioninDoc-84thatputforththefactthatMaunaKea,andinparticularthe

exactareaofthesummitregionthisprojectintendstobuildin,werenever

conveyedinanytreatyorlanddeed,inanylawfulwayorform,fromthetitle-

holdingentity,theHawaiianKingdom,andthereforenocleartitletotheBLNRexists

andthesubsequentappropriationoftheselandstotheUniversityofHawaiifor

furthersub-leasingisnotsupportedbyclear-titleoranytypeofcessation.

HearingOfficerAmanolumpedthismotionthatdirectlyinvolvesthequestionof

authorityofherselfandoftheBLNRandtheUniversityofHawaii,amongothers,as

asimplematterofjurisdiction.HearingOfficerAmano,indeliberatingand

subsequentlydenyingthismotionmakesajudgmentthatdirectlyevidencesthe

conflictofinteresthereindescribedandthereforewarrantstheimmediatedismissal

oftheseproceedings.Furthermore,andjustasimportant,HearingOfficercitesin

particularthattheSupremeCourtofHawaii,makingjudgmentuponchargesagainst

itsselfaswell,claimsthetitleoftheseso-called“ceded”landsis“unclouded.”

EssentiallythisjudgmentisalsoaconflictofinterestastheUnitedStates

governmentbecomesnotonlytheperpetratorofillegalseizureoflandbelongingin

cleartitletotheHawaiianKingdom,butthejudgeandjuryofanyallegationsagainst

itself.

HearingOfficerAmano,byherveryownstatement,claimsthata“resolution”anda

biasedSupremeCourtdecisionclaiming“unclouded”titletotheseso-calledceded

landsseemstooverlooktheobviouswhilerelegatingDoc-84asdeniedandasa

simple“jurisdictionissue.”

Intheblatantlyincongruentuseoftheword“ceded,”usedwhilereferencingan

internalhouseresolutionassupportfordenyingDoc-84,HearingOfficerAmano

demonstratesaclearexampleofconflictofinterestbecausetheapprovalofthis

motionwouldmakeinvalidtheseproceedings,inparticularherparticipationinitas

thehearing’sofficer,andallentitiesclaimingfalselythataninternalhouse

resolutionhasanylawfulpoweroutsideofthecountrythatcreatessuchaninternal

law.Theso-calledcededlandsthisinitiativeintendstobuildonwasinfactnever

cededasnotreatyofcessationexists.Ahouseresolution,aninternallaw,doesnot

substituteasatreatyofcessationandthehearingofficer,continuingtomaintainthe

term“ceded”whileusinga“houseresolution”asevidencenotonlycontinuesa

blatantandwellknownfraud,butalsomaintainsthefalsejurisdictionofherseaton

thisinitiativeandtheBLNR,UniversityofHawaii,andotherentitiesthatwould

otherwisedisqualifytheauthorityoftheseproceedings.

ThisisoneofexampleofothersinwhichhearingofficerAmano,inconflictof

interest,influencesdirectlyissuesthatinvolvehervalidityashearingofficer.Her

choicetomaintainthefraudofatreaty,byusinganirrelevanthouseresolution

whileusingtheterm“ceded,”influencingandrelegatingmotionsof“meetsand

bounds”tojurisdiction,andherdenyingofmotionsbasedonincongruentfallacies

likeequatingcessationwithaninternalhouseresolutionarejustafewexamples,in

oneincidentaloneamongmore,thatdemonstratetheclearreasonwhyconflictof

interestinvalidatesthisproceedingsandherownauthoritytoinfluence,deliberate

anddecideonanyoftheseissuesthatinvolvethelandsneverceded-theCrownand

GovernmentlandoftheHawaiianKingdomthattheStateofHawaiihasnosuch

thingascleartitleto.

Despitethedirectandunconscionableharmthisprocess,permittingrequest,and

administrationofthisprocessiscausingmanyothersandmyselfdirectly,Isubmit

thiswiththegreatestalohaandhopeforjustice.InparticularIwouldliketoexpress

alohaforhearingofficerAmanoandmyhopesthatthisissuewillbeservedall

justiceitisdue.

Ifanymistakesregardingthisstatementormyparticipationandsubmissionstothis

so-calleduserfriendlyprocessaremade,IrequestthatIbeallowedtorectifyor

amendthembeingthatalthoughthisprocessiscalled“userfriendly”thereisno

publicresource,website,manualorguidanceavailablethathasbeenmadeknown

tomeoranyoftheotherpartieswhomIhaveapproachedaccordingtothem.The

coercionofsilence,lackofguidance,pre-setstatementsoffacilitatingascheduleof

deadlinesandpriordeliberations,notonlysuggestapre-setoutcomebutevidence

theknowndisingenuoususeoftheterm“userfriendly”fortheBLNR’sConservation

DistrictUseApplicationandContestedCourtCaseprocess.Forany“userfriendly”

processresourcesandguidanceshouldbeavailable,yethereitisnot.Iappreciate

anyguidanceandleewaytomodifyanyinteractionswiththisprocessandapologize

aheadoftimeforwhomever,individualorentity,thatmayhaveanagendaor

scheduleinconveniencedasweengageinwhatisproclaimedas-atleastonpaper-a

“userfriendly”systemunderseeminglaw.

Becauseofculturalmoresthatmaintainprivacyingenealogicalandburialmatters,

inthismotionandsubmissionIreserveanyandallrightsknownandunknown,in

particulartherighttoclarifyanyandallstatementsmadehereinwithofficial

documentationunderavarietyofculturalstandards,andtherighttosubmitinthe

futureanyandallevidenceandwitnessesinthefuturethatmaybelacking

presentlyorinthefuturerequested,requiredandorpertinent,asaliving,direct,

linealdescendant,amongmany,toourlivingiwi,remains,burialsandentireburial

groundsandlandssituatedonthesenon-ceded,HawaiianKingdomCrownand

Governmentlandsheldunderfraudoftreatyandinternalhouseresolution-the

sacred,andprotectedsummitofMaunaKea.

ThedocumentssupportingmyrighttodemandQuoWarrantoareattached.ALOHA.

AFFIDAVITQUOWARRANTO

DEMANDOF JURISDICTION

QuoWarranto is the legal term for awrit (order) used to challenge another's right toeither public or corporate office or challenge the legality of a corporation's charter.When the authority of an official or corporation to take action is challenged, aQuo

Warranto action may beused to demand that the right upon which they base the actionbestated.

"(a) An action may be commenced under this article, in the name of the state, against theoffending corporation, on the information of any person for the purpose of vacating the charter orannulling the existence of any corporation, other than municipal, whenever such corporation:

1. Offends against any of the acts creating, altering or renewingsuch corporation;2. Violates the provisions of any law, by which such corporationfmfeits its charter, by

abuse of itspowers;3, Hasforfeited itsprivileges orfi'anchises byfailure to exercise itspowers;4. Hasdone or omittedany act which amounts to a surrender of its corporate rights,

privileges andfi‘anchises; or5. Exercises a.franchise or privilege not conferredon it by law.

(b) The judge of the circuit court, whenever he believes that any of the acts or omissionsspecified in subsection (a) of this section can be proved and it is necessary for the public good,must direct the district attomey to commence anaction, or anaction may be commenced withoutthe direction of the judge on the informationof any person giving security for the costs of theaction, to beapproved by the clerk of the court in which the action is commenced.

(c) Actions under this section must becommenced in the circuit court of the county in which thecorporation has its principal office or, if it has noprincipal office, of any county in which it doesbusiness; or if it has noprincipal.

DeclaratoryJudgment On A ConstitutionalIssue/Violation

Per "...this Constitution for the United States of America,” Article I V, section 4 “Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of

Government, and shall protect each ofthem against Invasion; and on Application of the

Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot beconvened) against domestic

Violence.”

INTRODUCI ‘I O NA N D OPENINGSTATEMENT

nowCOMES,Declarant I Brannon K a m a h mKealoha , ( Now Knownasthe Declarant),

with this DeclarationofChallenge; a Declaratory Judgment OnA Constitutional lssue/Violat ion in the f o r mof a QuoWarran to , inhm pawns.

I I .Jurisdictionof the “ one supreme Court”

All facts andallegationsset forth in paragraphs 1and 2 are incorporatedherein in their entirety

by reference.

1. “...this Constitution for the UnitedStates of America” Article 1,Section 1,andSection2,clause 1.

Section 1.

The Judicial Powerof the UnitedStates,shallbevested in one supreme Court, and in such

inferiorCourts asthe Congress may from time to time ordain andestablish.The Judges, both

of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall holdtheir Offices duringgood Behavior,andshall, at

StatedTimes, receivefor their Services, a Compensation,which shall not bediminished during

their Continuance in Office.

Section2, clause 1.

The Judicial Powershall extendto allCases, in Lawand Equity,arisingunder this Constitution,

the Laws of the UnitedStates, andTreaties made,or which shallbemade,under the Authority;-‐‑

to allCasesaffectingAmbassadors,other public ministersandConsuls;-‐ to allCases of admiralty

andmaritimeJurisdiction;‐‐- to Controversies to which the UnitedStates shallbea Party;‐~- to

Controversies betweentwo or moreStates;‐-‐betweenaState andCitizens of another State;«~

betweenCitizens of different States;~‐‐betweenCitizens of the same State claiming Landsunder

Grants of different States,andbetweena State,or the

Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

111.Declaratory JudgmentIssuePer “...this Constitution...”

All facts and allegations set forth in paragraphs 1through 3are incorporated herein in their

entirety by reference.

3. Per “...this Constitution for the United States of America,” Article I V, section 4, does “this

Constitution” declare and create aRepublican form of government or aDemocratic form of

government ?

I V. in formapauperis

Al l facts and allegations set forth in paragraphs 1through 7 are incorporatedherein in their

entirety by reference.

4. This Declarant points to "...this Constitution for the UnitedStates ofAmerica,” Article 1,

section 10, clause 1.Section 10.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or

Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills ofCredit; make

any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any

BillofAttainder, expost facto Law,or Law impairingthe Obligation of Contracts, or

grantany Title of Nobility.

5. This Declarant also points to FL . 1,48 Stat C l.

6. This Declarant also points to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. section 16,with the clear

intent of the venue and use of Federal ReserveNotes: “Federal reserve notes, to be issued at

the discretion of the Boardof Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of

making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents ashereinafter

set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall beobligations of the

United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve

banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful

money on demand at the Treasury Department ofthe United States, in the city of

Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.”

7. This Declarant also points to P.L.40, 40 stat L 411,section 5, subdivision (b) of the

October 6, 1917 Act as it is written in P.L.I, 48 stat C 1.And, therefore, files this action in

fbrmapauperz‘s because of the lack of access to “gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment

of Debts.”

V. Quo Warranto Challenge

All facts and allegations set forth in paragraphs 1through 9 are incorporated herein in their

entirety by reference.

8. the RESPONDENT,, appears to be in violation of “...this Constitution for the United States

ofAmerica,” Article 4, Section 4 by declaring our form of government to beunder a

“Democracy.”

9. This Declarant CITES THAT, under the Constitutionally , declared and mandated

“...Republican Form of Government...” in compliance with “...this Constitution for the United

States of America,” Article I V, section 4 in force before it was systematically destroyed by

Franklin D. Roosevelt, and succeeding others. See the “TRAINING MANUAL } WAR

DEPARTMENT, No. 2000-25 } WASHINGTON, November 30, 1928,” Section IX, Lesson

9 - “Representative Government” starting at paragraph 118 for a published and

governmentally approved statement of the form of government for these United States of

America. Roosevelt and others systematically took this manual out of circulation to eliminate

any evidence of previous administration's written intent of the Founders of this nation.

Examinethismanual for yourselfto seewhat hasbeencontinually usurped.over the years.

fiomtheAmericanPeople inSection1x,lesson9startingatparagraph118andapecifically

in paragraph 121asapprovedforpublicationbyBYORDEROFTHESECRETARYOF

WAR: C.P. SUMMERALL,lilajorGeneral. ChiefofSrqfl.‘ SeetheNationalrecordsfor the

evidence of itspublication.

VI.S W !of theFacts

All factsandallegations setforth inpuagrapbs l rlnougb l7are imorpomedherein intheir

entirety by refereme.

10.“...ThisConstitution for the UnitedStatesof America.” Article IV,section4, guarantees

the States in this Union“a Republicanformof government" andNOTa“democracy.”

11.FranklinD.Rooseveltinlgaspubliclydeclaredthiagwemmenttobea

“democrat?"therebyviolating"...thisConstitutionfor theUnitedStatesof

America"with itsguaranteeof“...aRepublicanFormof Government”forthePeopleof theUnitedStatesof America.

12.BarackObamahasdeclaredmany times this isa “Democracy"onNationalTV.

13.BarackObamabeingaconstiurtional lawyermustbeawareof this fact (“...aRepublican

poemof Government"),but.yet.hedeclares this government sobea“Demcracy” and

pushesthatlthia form of government intoother foreignnations.

14.This Declarantwasanational.write-incandidatefor thepresidency in theelectionof

November6, 20l2 underthe Carmimtionallymandated “RepublicanFormof Govertunent.”

VII:ConclusionAllfaetsandallegationsaetfortbinparasraflrs 1though Mare incorporatedherein intiteir

entirety by reference.

Contested Case HearingReConservationDistrict UseApplication (CDUA) HA-3568

BOARDOFLANDANDNATURALRESOURCE

STATEor HAWAl'l

for the Thirty MeterTelescope at the MaunaKea Science Reserve, Ka’oheMauka,Hémakua, Hawai’i,TMK (3)440152009

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE

BLNRContested Case HA-16-02Document title: MinuteOrder 13

The undersigned hereby certifies that the above referenced document was served upon the followingparties by the means indicated:

MichaelCainOffice of Conservation andCoastalLands1151Punchbowl,Room 131Honolulu,HI 96813michael.cain@hawaii.govCustodian of the Records(original4-digital copy)

Judge RikiMayAmano (Ret)rmaScchahoocomHearingOfl’icer

Julie China, DeputyAttorney Generaliulie.h.chinthawaii.govCounselfor the Boardof LandandNaturalResources

Carlsmith Ball LLPisandisocharlsmith.comCounselfor the applicant UniversityofHawai’iat Hilo

Richard N.WurdemanRNWurdemanQRNWLaw.comCounselfor thepetitionersMaunaKeaAnaina Hou, ClarenceKukauakahiChing, Flores-Case ’Ohana,DeborahJ.Ward, PaulK.Neves, andKahea: TheEnvironmentalAlliance

Watanabe lng LLPrshinyamaQwik.comdougingQwikcomCounsel for TMTObservatory, LLC

International

Harry Fergerstromhankhawaiiananhoo.com

Richard LDeLeonkekagkikeQmsncom

Mehana Kihoi

C.M. Kaho'okahi Kanuhakahookahngmailcom

Joseph Kualii LindseyCamarakualiithotmailcom

Torkildson, Katz, Moore, Hetherington& HarrisIsa t rkilds n.comnicQtorkildsonxomCounselfor PerpetuatingUniqueEducationalOpportunities (PUEO)

J.Leina'ala Sleightholmleina.ala.5808@gmail.com

Maelani LeemaelanileeQxahoocom

LannyAlan Sinkinlanny.sinkin@gmail.comRepresentativefor The Temple of Lona

Kalikolehua KanaeleakuleleQxahoocom

Stephanie-Malia:Tabbadas.tabbada@hawaiiantel.net

Signature: MMZ/Q

Tiffnle Kakaliatiffniekakalianmailcom

Glen Kilamakakilanmailcom

DwightJ.Vicente2608Ainaola DriveHilo,Hawaiian Kingdom

Brannon Kamahana KealohabrannonkQhawaii.edu

Cindy FreitashanahanaiQhawaiiJmom

William Freitaspohaku7flyahoocom

Wilma H.HoliP. O. Box 368Hanapepe, Hl 96716

Ivy McIntosh3Qogoki@gmail.com

Moses Kealamakia,Jr.mkealamaflyahoocom

CrystalW. WestMWPatricia lkedagehekeanilanmail.com

\

Name (Print): MichaelCain, ustodian of the RecordsDate: July 21, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the attached motion was duly served on the following parties by electronic e-mail unless indicated otherwise:

Kamahana Kealoha: MOTION invoking Quo Warranto, respectfully, a demand of Jurisdiction; Declaratory Judgment on a Constitutional Issue/Violation RESUBMITTED 8/8/2016