UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff,

Transcription

1 Alfred Napahuelua Spinney 155 Mamo Street, Hilo Hawaii Island Kingdom of Hawaii Contact: DAVID KEANU SAI vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Plaintiff, HILLARY DIANE RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES; ROBERT MICHAEL GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES; ADMIRAL ROBERT F. WILLARD, UNITED STATES PACIFIC COMMAND COMMANDER; AND LINDA LINGLE, GOVERNOR OF STATE OF HAWAI`I ALFRED NAPAHUELUA SPINNEY ETALII vs. Defendants, Kanaka Intervenor - Plaintiff, Elizabeth Ann Strance and ELIZABETH ANN STRANCE, JUDGE; Joseph P. Florendo Jr. and JOSEPH P. FLORENDO JR., JUDGE; Joey Guzman and JOEY GUZMAN, BALIFF; Ronald Ibarra and RONALD IBARRA, JUDGE; Jay Kimura

2 and JAY KIMURA, PROSECUTOR; Jeffrey Burlson and JEFFREY BURLSON, DEPUTY; Michael Schlueter and MICHAEL SCHULUETER, DEPUTY; Mark Disher and MARK DISHER, DEPUTY; Robert Andre Estacion and ROBERT ANDRE ESTACION, PROCESS SERVER; Joseph S. Pavao and JOSEPH S. PAVAO, SHERIFF; John Smith Sr. and JOHN SMITH SR., SHERIFF; John K. Kaluna and JOHN K. KALUNA, SHERIFF; Roland K. Perez and ROLAND K. PEREZ, SHERIFF; Pamela McLaughlin and PAMELA MCLAUGHLIN; Sarah Smith and SARAH SMITH, ETAL JOHN AND JANE DOES ad infinitum Joined - Defendants, Alfred Napahuelua Spinney KANAKA-INTERVENOR S MOTION TO JOIN PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT I, Alfred Napahuelua Spinney, Kanaka-intervenor submit this motion to join with David Keanu Sai (Dr. Sai) in his Motion for Reconsideration because I understand that in not requesting the Court to reconsider the Orders denying Alfred Napahuelua Spinney s and James Kimo Keka s Motion to intervene Dr. Sai is politely exercising a traditional protocol of a kanaka of the Hawaiian Kingdom in not speaking for other kanaka without their consent; but the rules require Dr. Sai to join all interested parties. I am kanaka, an interested party. Dr. Sai, the plaintiff, has not notified me of any of his filings.

3 I make this motion so that this case may not be dismissed because of Dr. Sai s error. Further, I incorporate all relevant facts and arguments set forth in Dr. Sai s Motion for Reconsideration as part of this motion. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT In the 12 th day of October 2010 I filed an application to intervene in this case (10cv899CKK). I am equally situated to Dr. Sai, and, like Dr. Sai, I request this court to reconsider its Order dated March 9, 2011 dismissing the case. Like Dr. Sai, I am an Hawaiian subject (See Document 17-1 Kingdom of Hawaii, Certificate of Hawaii Birth, page 4 of 9 in my Application to Intervene Motion to Join Defendants) living and conducting (See Document 17-1 Motorist Certificate page 7 of 9 and National Identification page 9 of 9 in my Application to Intervene Motion to Join Defendants) within the physical, political and geographical territorial boundaries of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Dr. Sai s representation, of my rights as a Hawaiian subject and those rights belonging to the people of the Hawaiian Kingdom, is inadequate. I understand that Dr. Sai s arguments and facts set forth in his motion for reconsideration clearly show that the jurisdictional issue is inextricable from the merits of this case. In ruling on a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, the district court is ordinarily free to hear evidence regarding jurisdiction and to rule on that issue prior to trial, resolving factual disputes where necessary. See Thornhill Publishing Co. v. General Telephone Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir.1979). In such circumstances, "[n]o presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff's allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims." Thornhill, 594 F.2d at 733. However, where the jurisdictional issue and substantive issues are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on the resolution of factual issues going to the merits, the jurisdictional determination should await a determination of the relevant facts on either a motion going to the merits or at trial. Thornhill, 594 F.2d at ; Wright & Miller Sec. 1350, at 558.

4 In ruling on a jurisdictional motion involving factual issues which also go to the merits, the trial court should employ the standard applicable to a motion for summary judgment, as a resolution of the jurisdictional facts is akin to a decision on the merits. Thornhill, 594 F.2d at Therefore, the moving party should prevail only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Unless that standard is met, the jurisdictional facts must be determined at trial by the trier of fact (emphasis add). Thornhill, 594 F.2d at In this case, as it is clear by Dr. Sai s motion to reconsider,...the jurisdictional issue and substantive issues are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on the resolution of factual issues going to the merits, the jurisdictional determination should await a determination of the relevant facts on either a motion going to the merits or at trial. PRAYER AND CLOSING Based on what is set forth above, I, Alfred Napahuelua Spinney, Kanaka-intervenor respectfully move this court to (i) affirm my right to join and grant my motion; then (ii) reconsider and rescind the order denying my right to intervene and affirm my right to intervene and grant my application to intervene; (iii) grant Dr. Sai s motion and reconsider its final and appealable order dismissing this case; (iv) such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate so that this unsatisfactory state of things may not continue and that we may not suffer further waste, that justice may be speedily granted and that peace and quiet may once more reign over our land, Hawaii Nei. Queen Liliuokalani Dated April 1, 2011 A. D. Manuka, Kau, Hawaii Island, Hawaiian Kingdom Respectfully Submitted Alfred Napahuelua Spinney

5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Alfred Napahuelua Spinney hereby certify that the JOINDER OF ALFRED NAPAHUELUA SPINNEY TO PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT is served on April 1, 2010 by [ x ] (HDS) Hawaii Delivery System [ x ] (USPS) United States Postal Service and [ x ] (PHD) Personal Hand Delivery on the following: Respectfully Submitted Alfred Napahuelua Spinney DAVID KEANU SAI Puapoo Place Kaneohe, Hawaii, Christian Alexander Natiello UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Civil Division 555 Fourth Street, NW Room E-4206 Washington, DC Care of Defendants; Hilary Diane Rodham Clinton, US Secretary of State; Robert Michael Gates, Secretary of Defense of the United States; Admiral Robert F. Willard, US Pacific Command Commander; Linda Lingle, Governor of State of Hawaii Marie Manuele Gavigan DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAII Tort Litigation Division 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI Care of Defendants; Linda Lingle, Governor of State of Hawaii