Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Sinkin
Chief
Advisor
To
The
King
U.S.
Attorney
at
Law
Tx.
Bar
#18438675
[Admitted
to
Federal
Bar
of
Hawaii,
LR83.1(a)]
Admitted
to
Ninth,
Fifth,
and
Eleventh
Circuits
P.
O.
Box
944
Hilo,
Hawaii
96721
(808)
936-4428
lanny.sinkin@gmail.com
Counsel/Chief
Advocate
for
King
and
Kingdom
of
Hawaii
November
4,
2015
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Ninth
Circuit
P.
O.
Box
193939
San
Francisco,
California
94119-3939
Re:
Civ.
No.
15-17134
(D.C.
No.
1:15-cv-00322-JMS-BMK)
Kelii
Akina,
et
al.
v.
State
of
Hawaii,
et
al.
NOTICE
OF
ABSENT
NECESSARY
AND
INDISPENSABLE
PARTY
I.
PREFACE
Counsel
is
registered
to
use
the
CM/ECF
process
in
the
Ninth
Circuit.
The
client,
however,
is
a
sovereign
wishing
to
communicate
with
this
Honorable
Court,
while
explicitly
declining
to
come
within
the
jurisdiction
of
this
Court.
In
order
to
use
the
CM/ECF
system,
the
party
and
filer
need
to
be
identified.
As
the
client
declines
party
status,
there
is
no
means
of
filing
this
correspondence
electronically.
Under
these
circumstances,
this
Honorable
Court
is
asked
to
waive
the
requirement
for
electronic
filing
and
accept
a
hard
copy
filing
of
this
correspondence.
II.
INTRODUCTION
This
purpose
of
this
correspondence
is
to
bring
to
the
attention
of
the
judicial
panel
hearing
the
above
referenced
appeal
the
absence
of
a
necessary
and
indispensable
party.
On
October
8,
2015,
in
the
case
below,
the
Kingdom
of
Hawaii
filed
its
Notice
of
Absence
of
Necessary
and
Indispensible
[sic]
Party;
Exhibit
1;
Certificate
of
Compliance;
Certificated
of
Service.
Docket
No.
90;
see
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
19.
On
October
20,
2015,
at
a
hearing
convened
by
the
Court
below,
the
Court
acknowledged
receiving
the
Ninth
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
Civ.
No.
15-17134
Page
Two
aforementioned
Notice
and
had
a
brief
colloquy
with
Counsel
for
the
Kingdom.
Exhibit
1
at
4-5.
1
On
October
20,
2015,
the
Court
below
entered
an
order
that
stated:
[t]o
the
extent
the
[Kingdom]
Notice
seeks
dismissal
for
lack
of
jurisdiction,
the
Court
DENIES
such
relief,
and
will
take
no
further
action
regarding
this
filing.
Docket
No.
101.
The
Kingdom
herein
presents
similar
notice
for
consideration
by
this
Honorable
Court.
II.
THE
NOTICE
OF
AN
ABSENT
NECESSARY
AND
INDISPENSABLE
PARTY
MANDATES
AN
INQUIRY.
With
no
inquiry
or
discussion,
the
Court
below
essentially
ruled
that
the
Kingdom
is
not
a
necessary
and
indispensable
party,
that
cannot
be
brought
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Court,
requiring
dismissal
of
the
case
on
jurisdictional
grounds.
Exhibit
1;
Docket
No.
101.
The
Court
then
proceeded
to
decide
the
preliminary
injunction
issue
on
appeal
herein
without
the
participation
of
the
Kingdom.
The
Kingdom
respectfully
suggests
that
within
the
United
States
legal
system
an
inquiry
is
required
when
the
indispensable
party
question
is
raised.
The
United
States
Supreme
Court
characterized
the
inquiry
required
as
follows:
To
say
that
a
court
'must'
dismiss
in
the
absence
of
an
indispensable
party
and
that
it
'cannot
proceed'
without
him
puts
the
matter
the
wrong
way
around:
a
court
does
not
know
whether
a
particular
person
is
'indispensable'
until
it
has
examined
the
situation
to
determine
whether
it
can
proceed
without
him.
Provident
Tradesman
Bank
and
Trust
Co.
v.
Patterson,
390
U.S.
102,
119,
88
S.Ct.
733,
743.
(1968).
In
this
case,
there
was
no
such
examination.
III.
THE
KINGDOM
IS
A
NECESSARY
AND
INDISPENSABLE
PARTY
1
While
the
Court
characterizes
counsels
presentation
as
seeking
no
specific
action
from
the
Court,
the
actual
question
the
Court
posed
to
Counsel
was
whether
Counsel
sought
intervention
status.
Id.
The
Kingdom
did
not
and
does
not
seek
intervention
status,
particularly
if
seeking
such
status
would
involve
a
waiver
of
sovereign
immunity.
Such
status
is
not
required
to
raise
the
question
whether
there
is
an
absent
necessary
and
indispensable
party.
Makah
Indian
Tribe
v.
Verity,
910
F.2d
555,
560
(9th
Cir.
1990)
citing
Wichita
and
Affiliated
Tribes
of
Oklahoma
v.
Hodel,
788
F.2d
765,
775
(D.C.Cir.1986).
Counsel
did
state
to
the
Court
below
that
the
Notice
raised
a
jurisdictional
question.
Exhibit
1
at
4.
In
this
case,
the
Kingdom
is
bringing
a
matter
to
the
attention
of
a
United
States
Court
without
seeking
to
be
a
party
or
to
otherwise
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
United
States
Court.
The
Notice
filed
below
by
the
Kingdom
provides
extensive
grounds
for
finding
the
Kingdom
to
have
an
interest
in
the
outcome
of
this
litigation.
Docket
No.
90.
Ninth
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
Civ.
No.
15-17134
Page
Three
The
Court
below
indicated
an
open
question
as
to
whether
the
Kingdom
exists.
Exhibit
1
at
4
(
I
think
his
lawyer,
their
lawyer,
if
they
are
an
entity,
is
here.)
The
Kingdom
is
prepared
to
argue
that
the
Kingdom
still
exists
legally,
that
there
is
an
operational
Kingdom
of
Hawaii
Government,
and
that
there
is
a
legitimate
political
movement
to
fully
restore
the
Kingdom
of
Hawaii
as
an
independent
nation
a
movement
that
is
constitutionally
protected
within
the
United
States
legal
system.
United
States
Constitution,
First
Amendment.
By
skipping
any
inquiry,
the
Court
below
prevented
the
Kingdom
from
presenting
such
arguments.
At
the
same
time,
no
other
party
to
this
proceeding
even
pretends
to
represent
the
interests
of
the
Kingdom.
To
the
contrary,
the
entire
exercise
known
as
Nai
Aupuni
is
designed
to
offer
those
descended
from
subjects
of
the
Kingdom,
who
have
Native
Hawaiian
ancestry,
an
opportunity
to
essentially
secede
from
the
Kingdom
and
form
a
separate
governing
entity.
This
destruction
of
the
Kingdoms
historical
unity
obviously
impacts
the
Kingdoms
ability
to
seek
full
restoration
of
its
independence.
When
the
Kingdom
is
restored,
will
those
who
have
become
citizens
of
the
Native
Hawaiian
Governing
Entity
sought
by
Nai
Aupuni
be
excluded
from
citizenship,
hold
dual
citizenship,
or
be
required
to
choose
citizenship?
Would
such
persons
then
have
multiple,
and
possibly
conflicting,
obligations
imposed
upon
them?
While
the
ruling
on
appeal
centered
on
finding
the
Nai
Aupuni
election
to
be
a
private
affair,
that
ruling
was
reached
without
the
participation
of
the
Kingdom.
No
ex
post
facto
application
of
a
ruling
can
cure
the
defect
of
an
absent
necessary
and
indispensable
party.
The
Kingdom
asserts
that
the
Nai
Aupuni
election
is
part
of
a
long-term
conspiracy
to
extinguish
the
Kingdom
that
began
with
the
first
act
of
war
against
the
Kingdom
by
the
United
States
in
1893
and
continues
today
with
illegal
actions
designed
to
frustrate
the
legitimate
political
efforts
to
restore
the
Kingdom
Government.
See
42
U.S.C.
1983.
That
conspiracy
involves
private
and
public
parties.
Even
if
the
election
was
a
private
matter,
those
sponsoring
the
private
election
are
taking
actions
in
furtherance
of
that
conspiracy
and
the
elections
themselves
form
part
of
the
conspirators
plans.
No
party
other
then
the
Kingdom
would
be
arguing
those
and
similar
positions.
In
fact,
in
the
absence
of
the
Kingdom,
no
party
below
made
any
such
arguments
nor
otherwise
addressed
the
issues
raised
herein.
The
absence
of
a
representative
to
make
these
arguments
makes
dismissal
of
the
case
the
only
appropriate
remedy.
Wichita,
supra.
The
Court
below
essentially
ruled
the
Kingdom
to
be
unnecessary
as
a
party
to
the
litigation
without
having
considered
unique
arguments
and
evidence
that
the
Kingdom
would
present.
The
Court
then
proceeded
to
decide
the
question
whether
the
election
was
a
purely
private
matter
without
the
participation
of
a
party
that
has
the
most
to
lose
from
the
election
process.
If
the
Nai
Aupuni
process
successfully
creates
a
governmental
entity
that
destroys
the
political
unity
of
the
Kingdom,
that
destruction
will
threaten
the
ability
of
the
Kingdom
to
achieve
full
restoration.
The
attempt
to
destroy
Ninth
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
Civ.
No.
15-17134
Page
Four
Kingdom
sovereignty
once
and
for
all
obviously
creates
a
substantial
and
unique
interest
on
the
part
of
the
Kingdom
in
the
outcome
of
this
litigation.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The
Kingdom
brings
the
matter
of
an
absent
party
to
the
attention
of
this
Honorable
Court
because
one
founding
constitutional
principle
governing
the
actions
of
United
States
courts
is
that
the
courts
must
have
appropriate
and
adequate
jurisdiction
over
persons
and
subjects
before
the
court.
For
a
Court
to
allow
a
challenge
to
its
jurisdiction
to
be
denied
without
inquiry
would
seem
to
overturn
decades
of
jurisprudence.
To
allow
judicial
decisions
to
be
made
in
the
absence
of
a
necessary
and
indispensable
party
similarly
challenges
the
fundamental
requirement
of
jurisdiction.
Furthermore,
the
Notice
filed
before
the
Court
below,
as
supplemented
herein,
documents
that
a
manifest
injustice
is
being
perpetrated
against
the
King,
the
Kingdom
of
Hawaii
Government,
the
Kingdom
of
Hawaii,
and
all
persons
engaged
in
seeking
to
restore
the
Kingdom
of
Hawaii
to
its
rightful
place
within
the
community
of
nations.
The
Kingdom,
as
a
sovereign,
does
not
seek
to
be
a
party
to
this
case
nor
agree
to
submit
itself
to
the
jurisdiction
of
this
Honorable
Court.
The
rules
within
the
United
States
judicial
system
include
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
19(b),
which
states:
(b)
When
Joinder
Is
Not
Feasible.
If
a
person
who
is
required
to
be
joined
if
feasible
cannot
be
joined,
the
court
must
determine
whether,
in
equity
and
good
conscience,
the
action
should
proceed
among
the
existing
parties
or
should
be
dismissed.
This
matter
is
brought
before
this
Honorable
Court
in
the
hopes
that
equity,
good
conscience,
and
justice
will
prevail.
___________________________
Lanny
Alan
Sinkin
Alii
Manao
Nui
(Chief
Advocate)
By
appointment
of
Edmund
Kelii
Silva,
Jr.
Alii
Nui
Mi
(High
Chief/King)