FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF HAWAII

MAY? " 19Q~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

tJJ/ at q o·dockand~min.~ w1iJER A. Y. H. CHINN, CI.fRK

LINDSAY L. LINDSEY, ex reI., ) PEOPLE OF THE HAWAI'I(AN) SOCIETY, )

Plaintiffs,

vs.

THE CORPORATE STATE OF HAWAII, et al.,

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

----------------------------------)

Civ. No. 96-00089 HG

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTiFFS' COMPLAINT AND DENYiNG PLAINTIFFS' MOTiONS RE: FiLiNG FEE

On February 28, 1996, the OHA Defendants1 filed a motion to

dismiss Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) and

12 (b) (6), and on March 22, 1996, the State Defendants2 filed a

joinder to this motion. The Court has also received the April 12,

1996 motion of Plaintiffs for an extension of the filing fee

deadline and their April 18, 1996 motion for declaratory judgment

compelling the Office of Hawaiian Affairs ("OHAn) to pay the filing

fee for the instant. action. Pursuant to Local Rule 220-2 (d), the

Court finds these matters appropriately decided without a hearing.

1 The "OHA Defendants" consist of A. French DeSoto, Abraham Aiona, Rowena N. Akana, Samuel L. Kealoha, Jr., Moanike'ala Akaka, Billie Beamer, Kina'u Boyd Kamali'i, Linda Delaney, Moses K. Keale, Sr., Sherry P. Broder, Dante Carpenter, Sesnita Moepono, Clayton Hee, the State Office of Hawaii Affairs (de facto) and the Board of Trustees.

2 The "State Defendants" consist of the State of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Hawaiian Homes Commission, Governor Benjamin Cayetano, and Kali Watson, Director of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.

FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF HAWAII

MAY? " 19Q~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

tJJ/ at q o·dockand~min.~ w1iJER A. Y. H. CHINN, CI.fRK

LINDSAY L. LINDSEY, ex reI., ) PEOPLE OF THE HAWAI'I(AN) SOCIETY, )

Plaintiffs,

vs.

THE CORPORATE STATE OF HAWAII, et al.,

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

----------------------------------)

Civ. No. 96-00089 HG

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTiFFS' COMPLAINT AND DENYiNG PLAINTIFFS' MOTiONS RE: FiLiNG FEE

On February 28, 1996, the OHA Defendants1 filed a motion to

dismiss Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) and

12 (b) (6), and on March 22, 1996, the State Defendants2 filed a

joinder to this motion. The Court has also received the April 12,

1996 motion of Plaintiffs for an extension of the filing fee

deadline and their April 18, 1996 motion for declaratory judgment

compelling the Office of Hawaiian Affairs ("OHAn) to pay the filing

fee for the instant. action. Pursuant to Local Rule 220-2 (d), the

Court finds these matters appropriately decided without a hearing.

1 The "OHA Defendants" consist of A. French DeSoto, Abraham Aiona, Rowena N. Akana, Samuel L. Kealoha, Jr., Moanike'ala Akaka, Billie Beamer, Kina'u Boyd Kamali'i, Linda Delaney, Moses K. Keale, Sr., Sherry P. Broder, Dante Carpenter, Sesnita Moepono, Clayton Hee, the State Office of Hawaii Affairs (de facto) and the Board of Trustees.

2 The "State Defendants" consist of the State of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Hawaiian Homes Commission, Governor Benjamin Cayetano, and Kali Watson, Director of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.

FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF HAWAII

MAY? " 19Q~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

tJJ/ at q o·dockand~min.~ w1iJER A. Y. H. CHINN, CI.fRK

LINDSAY L. LINDSEY, ex reI., ) PEOPLE OF THE HAWAI'I(AN) SOCIETY, )

Plaintiffs,

vs.

THE CORPORATE STATE OF HAWAII, et al.,

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

----------------------------------)

Civ. No. 96-00089 HG

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTiFFS' COMPLAINT AND DENYiNG PLAINTIFFS' MOTiONS RE: FiLiNG FEE

On February 28, 1996, the OHA Defendants1 filed a motion to

dismiss Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) and

12 (b) (6), and on March 22, 1996, the State Defendants2 filed a

joinder to this motion. The Court has also received the April 12,

1996 motion of Plaintiffs for an extension of the filing fee

deadline and their April 18, 1996 motion for declaratory judgment

compelling the Office of Hawaiian Affairs ("OHAn) to pay the filing

fee for the instant. action. Pursuant to Local Rule 220-2 (d), the

Court finds these matters appropriately decided without a hearing.

1 The "OHA Defendants" consist of A. French DeSoto, Abraham Aiona, Rowena N. Akana, Samuel L. Kealoha, Jr., Moanike'ala Akaka, Billie Beamer, Kina'u Boyd Kamali'i, Linda Delaney, Moses K. Keale, Sr., Sherry P. Broder, Dante Carpenter, Sesnita Moepono, Clayton Hee, the State Office of Hawaii Affairs (de facto) and the Board of Trustees.

2 The "State Defendants" consist of the State of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Hawaiian Homes Commission, Governor Benjamin Cayetano, and Kali Watson, Director of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.

FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF HAWAII

MAY? " 19Q~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

tJJ/ at q o·dockand~min.~ w1iJER A. Y. H. CHINN, CI.fRK

LINDSAY L. LINDSEY, ex reI., ) PEOPLE OF THE HAWAI'I(AN) SOCIETY, )

Plaintiffs,

vs.

THE CORPORATE STATE OF HAWAII, et al.,

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

----------------------------------)

Civ. No. 96-00089 HG

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTiFFS' COMPLAINT AND DENYiNG PLAINTIFFS' MOTiONS RE: FiLiNG FEE

On February 28, 1996, the OHA Defendants1 filed a motion to

dismiss Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) and

12 (b) (6), and on March 22, 1996, the State Defendants2 filed a

joinder to this motion. The Court has also received the April 12,

1996 motion of Plaintiffs for an extension of the filing fee

deadline and their April 18, 1996 motion for declaratory judgment

compelling the Office of Hawaiian Affairs ("OHAn) to pay the filing

fee for the instant. action. Pursuant to Local Rule 220-2 (d), the

Court finds these matters appropriately decided without a hearing.

1 The "OHA Defendants" consist of A. French DeSoto, Abraham Aiona, Rowena N. Akana, Samuel L. Kealoha, Jr., Moanike'ala Akaka, Billie Beamer, Kina'u Boyd Kamali'i, Linda Delaney, Moses K. Keale, Sr., Sherry P. Broder, Dante Carpenter, Sesnita Moepono, Clayton Hee, the State Office of Hawaii Affairs (de facto) and the Board of Trustees.

2 The "State Defendants" consist of the State of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Hawaiian Homes Commission, Governor Benjamin Cayetano, and Kali Watson, Director of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.

University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

After reviewing the motions and the applicable law, the Court

GRANTS the motion of the OHA and State Defendants for dismissal of

Plaintiffs' claims against them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12 (b) (1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; DISMISSES

Plaintiffs' complaint against the remaining Defendants, m!9. sponte,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction; and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs' motions for an

extension of the filing fee deadline and for declaratory judgment

compelling the Office of Hawaiian Affairs ("OHA") to pay the filing

fee for the instant action.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Lindsay L. Lindsey ("Lindsey"), entitling himself a

"private attorney general n for Plaintiff The People of the

Hawaii (an) Society, a self-declared Provisional Government for the

Kingdom of Hawaii, has filed a complaint which charges at least one

hundred and eight (108) named defendants (collectively, the

"Defendants") with violations of criminal statutes, namely 18

U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, in connection with the death of Hilbert

Kahale Smith ( .. Smi th") and John Miranda Ohana ("Miranda"). 3 Each

3 In their January 26, 1996 Original Complaint, Plaintiffs only seek redress for the Smith death, and they make clear that their claims are brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, the criminal statutes for civil rights violations, not pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code, which provides for civil causes of action for civil rights violations. See Plaintiffs' Original Complaint, filed January 26, 1996, at 7.

On February 15, 1996, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which, on its face, indicates that it was intended to incorporate by reference, rather than supersede, their January 26, 1996 Original Complaint. See Amended Complaint, filed February 15, 1996, at 1, s. Specifically, the Amended Complaint named eighty-

2

After reviewing the motions and the applicable law, the Court

GRANTS the motion of the OHA and State Defendants for dismissal of

Plaintiffs' claims against them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12 (b) (1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; DISMISSES

Plaintiffs' complaint against the remaining Defendants, m!9. sponte,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction; and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs' motions for an

extension of the filing fee deadline and for declaratory judgment

compelling the Office of Hawaiian Affairs ("OHA") to pay the filing

fee for the instant action.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Lindsay L. Lindsey ("Lindsey"), entitling himself a

"private attorney general n for Plaintiff The People of the

Hawaii (an) Society, a self-declared Provisional Government for the

Kingdom of Hawaii, has filed a complaint which charges at least one

hundred and eight (108) named defendants (collectively, the

"Defendants") with violations of criminal statutes, namely 18

U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, in connection with the death of Hilbert

Kahale Smith ( .. Smi th") and John Miranda Ohana ("Miranda"). 3 Each

3 In their January 26, 1996 Original Complaint, Plaintiffs only seek redress for the Smith death, and they make clear that their claims are brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, the criminal statutes for civil rights violations, not pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code, which provides for civil causes of action for civil rights violations. See Plaintiffs' Original Complaint, filed January 26, 1996, at 7.

On February 15, 1996, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which, on its face, indicates that it was intended to incorporate by reference, rather than supersede, their January 26, 1996 Original Complaint. See Amended Complaint, filed February 15, 1996, at 1, s. Specifically, the Amended Complaint named eighty-

2

After reviewing the motions and the applicable law, the Court

GRANTS the motion of the OHA and State Defendants for dismissal of

Plaintiffs' claims against them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12 (b) (1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; DISMISSES

Plaintiffs' complaint against the remaining Defendants, m!9. sponte,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction; and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs' motions for an

extension of the filing fee deadline and for declaratory judgment

compelling the Office of Hawaiian Affairs ("OHA") to pay the filing

fee for the instant action.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Lindsay L. Lindsey ("Lindsey"), entitling himself a

"private attorney general n for Plaintiff The People of the

Hawaii (an) Society, a self-declared Provisional Government for the

Kingdom of Hawaii, has filed a complaint which charges at least one

hundred and eight (108) named defendants (collectively, the

"Defendants") with violations of criminal statutes, namely 18

U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, in connection with the death of Hilbert

Kahale Smith ( .. Smi th") and John Miranda Ohana ("Miranda"). 3 Each

3 In their January 26, 1996 Original Complaint, Plaintiffs only seek redress for the Smith death, and they make clear that their claims are brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, the criminal statutes for civil rights violations, not pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code, which provides for civil causes of action for civil rights violations. See Plaintiffs' Original Complaint, filed January 26, 1996, at 7.

On February 15, 1996, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which, on its face, indicates that it was intended to incorporate by reference, rather than supersede, their January 26, 1996 Original Complaint. See Amended Complaint, filed February 15, 1996, at 1, s. Specifically, the Amended Complaint named eighty-

2

After reviewing the motions and the applicable law, the Court

GRANTS the motion of the OHA and State Defendants for dismissal of

Plaintiffs' claims against them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12 (b) (1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; DISMISSES

Plaintiffs' complaint against the remaining Defendants, m!9. sponte,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction; and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs' motions for an

extension of the filing fee deadline and for declaratory judgment

compelling the Office of Hawaiian Affairs ("OHA") to pay the filing

fee for the instant action.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Lindsay L. Lindsey ("Lindsey"), entitling himself a

"private attorney general n for Plaintiff The People of the

Hawaii (an) Society, a self-declared Provisional Government for the

Kingdom of Hawaii, has filed a complaint which charges at least one

hundred and eight (108) named defendants (collectively, the

"Defendants") with violations of criminal statutes, namely 18

U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, in connection with the death of Hilbert

Kahale Smith ( .. Smi th") and John Miranda Ohana ("Miranda"). 3 Each

3 In their January 26, 1996 Original Complaint, Plaintiffs only seek redress for the Smith death, and they make clear that their claims are brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, the criminal statutes for civil rights violations, not pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code, which provides for civil causes of action for civil rights violations. See Plaintiffs' Original Complaint, filed January 26, 1996, at 7.

On February 15, 1996, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which, on its face, indicates that it was intended to incorporate by reference, rather than supersede, their January 26, 1996 Original Complaint. See Amended Complaint, filed February 15, 1996, at 1, s. Specifically, the Amended Complaint named eighty-

2

University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

of the named defendants was allegedly involved in some manner with

the events surrounding the Smith and Miranda deaths.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In addressing a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b) (1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff

bears the burden of proof that subject matter jurisdiction does in

fact exist. Thornhill Publishing Co., Inc. v. General Telephone &

Electronics Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th eire 1979). No

presumptive truthfulness attaches to the allegations of the

complaint, and the existence of disputed fact need not preclude the

court from evaluating for itself the merits of the jurisdictional

claims. Augustine V. U.S., 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983).

In resolving factual disputes, the court may consider extraneous

materials submitted by the parties, including affidavits, without

converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.

St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 493 U.S. 993 (1989); Sudano v. Federal Airports Corp., 699

one (81) of the John and Jane Doe U.S./State Citizen Defendants, and eight (8) of the John and Jane Roe Corporate Defendants, and sought redress for the Miranda death, in addition to the Smith death. .

Local Rule 120-3 provides that:

Any party filing or moving to file an amended pleading shall reproduce the entire pleading as amended and may not incorporate any part of a prior pleading by reference, except with leave of court.

The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to incorpor~te by reference their January 26, 1996 Original Complaint ~n its entirety. Plaintiffs' claims are therefore construed as seeking criminal prosecution of Defendants for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 in connection with the Smith and Miranda deaths.

3

of the named defendants was allegedly involved in some manner with

the events surrounding the Smith and Miranda deaths.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In addressing a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b) (1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff

bears the burden of proof that subject matter jurisdiction does in

fact exist. Thornhill Publishing Co., Inc. v. General Telephone &

Electronics Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th eire 1979). No

presumptive truthfulness attaches to the allegations of the

complaint, and the existence of disputed fact need not preclude the

court from evaluating for itself the merits of the jurisdictional

claims. Augustine V. U.S., 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983).

In resolving factual disputes, the court may consider extraneous

materials submitted by the parties, including affidavits, without

converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.

St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 493 U.S. 993 (1989); Sudano v. Federal Airports Corp., 699

one (81) of the John and Jane Doe U.S./State Citizen Defendants, and eight (8) of the John and Jane Roe Corporate Defendants, and sought redress for the Miranda death, in addition to the Smith death. .

Local Rule 120-3 provides that:

Any party filing or moving to file an amended pleading shall reproduce the entire pleading as amended and may not incorporate any part of a prior pleading by reference, except with leave of court.

The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to incorpor~te by reference their January 26, 1996 Original Complaint ~n its entirety. Plaintiffs' claims are therefore construed as seeking criminal prosecution of Defendants for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 in connection with the Smith and Miranda deaths.

3

of the named defendants was allegedly involved in some manner with

the events surrounding the Smith and Miranda deaths.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In addressing a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b) (1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff

bears the burden of proof that subject matter jurisdiction does in

fact exist. Thornhill Publishing Co., Inc. v. General Telephone &

Electronics Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th eire 1979). No

presumptive truthfulness attaches to the allegations of the

complaint, and the existence of disputed fact need not preclude the

court from evaluating for itself the merits of the jurisdictional

claims. Augustine V. U.S., 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983).

In resolving factual disputes, the court may consider extraneous

materials submitted by the parties, including affidavits, without

converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.

St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 493 U.S. 993 (1989); Sudano v. Federal Airports Corp., 699

one (81) of the John and Jane Doe U.S./State Citizen Defendants, and eight (8) of the John and Jane Roe Corporate Defendants, and sought redress for the Miranda death, in addition to the Smith death. .

Local Rule 120-3 provides that:

Any party filing or moving to file an amended pleading shall reproduce the entire pleading as amended and may not incorporate any part of a prior pleading by reference, except with leave of court.

The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to incorpor~te by reference their January 26, 1996 Original Complaint ~n its entirety. Plaintiffs' claims are therefore construed as seeking criminal prosecution of Defendants for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 in connection with the Smith and Miranda deaths.

3

of the named defendants was allegedly involved in some manner with

the events surrounding the Smith and Miranda deaths.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In addressing a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b) (1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff

bears the burden of proof that subject matter jurisdiction does in

fact exist. Thornhill Publishing Co., Inc. v. General Telephone &

Electronics Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th eire 1979). No

presumptive truthfulness attaches to the allegations of the

complaint, and the existence of disputed fact need not preclude the

court from evaluating for itself the merits of the jurisdictional

claims. Augustine V. U.S., 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983).

In resolving factual disputes, the court may consider extraneous

materials submitted by the parties, including affidavits, without

converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.

St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 493 U.S. 993 (1989); Sudano v. Federal Airports Corp., 699

one (81) of the John and Jane Doe U.S./State Citizen Defendants, and eight (8) of the John and Jane Roe Corporate Defendants, and sought redress for the Miranda death, in addition to the Smith death. .

Local Rule 120-3 provides that:

Any party filing or moving to file an amended pleading shall reproduce the entire pleading as amended and may not incorporate any part of a prior pleading by reference, except with leave of court.

The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to incorpor~te by reference their January 26, 1996 Original Complaint ~n its entirety. Plaintiffs' claims are therefore construed as seeking criminal prosecution of Defendants for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 in connection with the Smith and Miranda deaths.

3

University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

F.Supp. 824, 825-26 (D. Haw. 1988 ) .

DISCUSSION

I. ORA Defendants' and State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

There is no private right of action under federal criminal

statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 , which proscribe conspiring to

deprive, and the deprivation of rights under color of law. See

Purk v . U.S., 747 F.Supp. 1243 (S.D. Ohio 1989 ) ; Dugar v .

Coughlin, 613 F.Supp. 849 (S.D.N.Y. 1985 ) (18 U. S.C. § 242);

Weil a nd v. Byrne, 392 F.Supp. 21 (D.C. Ill. 1975 ) (18 U. S.C. §§ 241

and 242 ) In that Plaintiffs are private parties, they lack

standing to sue Defendants fo r al l eged v iolat i ons of 1 8 U.S . C. §§

241 and 242 in connection with the Smith and Miranda deaths.

Contrary to Plaintiffs' assertions, Public Law 103-150,

S.J.Res. 19, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1993) ("Joint Resolution P.L.

103-150") does not recognize the Kingdom of Hawaii as a government

with criminal prosecutorial authority. Joint Resolution P.L. 103-

150 was intended to acknowledge the ov erthrow of the Kingdom of

Hawaii and to commend and encourage reconciliation efforts between

Native Hawaiians and others. See Senate Report No. 103-126 (Aug.

6, 1993). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found no basis for

recognizing the current existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii prior to

the enactment of Joint Resolution P.L. 103-150. U.S. v. Lorenzo,

995 F . 2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir. ) , cert . denied, 114 S.Ct. 225 (1993).

Joint Resolution P.L. 103-150 does not recognize the current

existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Indeed, Joint Resolution P.L .

103-150 specifically states that it does not create any new legal

4

F.Supp. 824, 825-26 (D. Haw. 1988 ) .

DISCUSSION

I. ORA Defendants' and State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

There is no private right of action under federal criminal

statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 , which proscribe conspiring to

deprive, and the deprivation of rights under color of law. See

Purk v . U.S., 747 F.Supp. 1243 (S.D. Ohio 1989 ) ; Dugar v .

Coughlin, 613 F.Supp. 849 (S.D.N.Y. 1985 ) (18 U. S.C. § 242);

Weil a nd v. Byrne, 392 F.Supp. 21 (D.C. Ill. 1975 ) (18 U. S.C. §§ 241

and 242 ) In that Plaintiffs are private parties, they lack

standing to sue Defendants fo r al l eged v iolat i ons of 1 8 U.S . C. §§

241 and 242 in connection with the Smith and Miranda deaths.

Contrary to Plaintiffs' assertions, Public Law 103-150,

S.J.Res. 19, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1993) ("Joint Resolution P.L.

103-150") does not recognize the Kingdom of Hawaii as a government

with criminal prosecutorial authority. Joint Resolution P.L. 103-

150 was intended to acknowledge the ov erthrow of the Kingdom of

Hawaii and to commend and encourage reconciliation efforts between

Native Hawaiians and others. See Senate Report No. 103-126 (Aug.

6, 1993). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found no basis for

recognizing the current existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii prior to

the enactment of Joint Resolution P.L. 103-150. U.S. v. Lorenzo,

995 F . 2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir. ) , cert . denied, 114 S.Ct. 225 (1993).

Joint Resolution P.L. 103-150 does not recognize the current

existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Indeed, Joint Resolution P.L .

103-150 specifically states that it does not create any new legal

4

F.Supp. 824, 825-26 (D. Haw. 1988 ) .

DISCUSSION

I. ORA Defendants' and State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

There is no private right of action under federal criminal

statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 , which proscribe conspiring to

deprive, and the deprivation of rights under color of law. See

Purk v . U.S., 747 F.Supp. 1243 (S.D. Ohio 1989 ) ; Dugar v .

Coughlin, 613 F.Supp. 849 (S.D.N.Y. 1985 ) (18 U. S.C. § 242);

Weil a nd v. Byrne, 392 F.Supp. 21 (D.C. Ill. 1975 ) (18 U. S.C. §§ 241

and 242 ) In that Plaintiffs are private parties, they lack

standing to sue Defendants fo r al l eged v iolat i ons of 1 8 U.S . C. §§

241 and 242 in connection with the Smith and Miranda deaths.

Contrary to Plaintiffs' assertions, Public Law 103-150,

S.J.Res. 19, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1993) ("Joint Resolution P.L.

103-150") does not recognize the Kingdom of Hawaii as a government

with criminal prosecutorial authority. Joint Resolution P.L. 103-

150 was intended to acknowledge the ov erthrow of the Kingdom of

Hawaii and to commend and encourage reconciliation efforts between

Native Hawaiians and others. See Senate Report No. 103-126 (Aug.

6, 1993). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found no basis for

recognizing the current existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii prior to

the enactment of Joint Resolution P.L. 103-150. U.S. v. Lorenzo,

995 F . 2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir. ) , cert . denied, 114 S.Ct. 225 (1993).

Joint Resolution P.L. 103-150 does not recognize the current

existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Indeed, Joint Resolution P.L .

103-150 specifically states that it does not create any new legal

4

F.Supp. 824, 825-26 (D. Haw. 1988 ) .

DISCUSSION

I. ORA Defendants' and State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

There is no private right of action under federal criminal

statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 , which proscribe conspiring to

deprive, and the deprivation of rights under color of law. See

Purk v . U.S., 747 F.Supp. 1243 (S.D. Ohio 1989 ) ; Dugar v .

Coughlin, 613 F.Supp. 849 (S.D.N.Y. 1985 ) (18 U. S.C. § 242);

Weil a nd v. Byrne, 392 F.Supp. 21 (D.C. Ill. 1975 ) (18 U. S.C. §§ 241

and 242 ) In that Plaintiffs are private parties, they lack

standing to sue Defendants fo r al l eged v iolat i ons of 1 8 U.S . C. §§

241 and 242 in connection with the Smith and Miranda deaths.

Contrary to Plaintiffs' assertions, Public Law 103-150,

S.J.Res. 19, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1993) ("Joint Resolution P.L.

103-150") does not recognize the Kingdom of Hawaii as a government

with criminal prosecutorial authority. Joint Resolution P.L. 103-

150 was intended to acknowledge the ov erthrow of the Kingdom of

Hawaii and to commend and encourage reconciliation efforts between

Native Hawaiians and others. See Senate Report No. 103-126 (Aug.

6, 1993). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found no basis for

recognizing the current existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii prior to

the enactment of Joint Resolution P.L. 103-150. U.S. v. Lorenzo,

995 F . 2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir. ) , cert . denied, 114 S.Ct. 225 (1993).

Joint Resolution P.L. 103-150 does not recognize the current

existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Indeed, Joint Resolution P.L .

103-150 specifically states that it does not create any new legal

4

University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

rights . See Joint Resolution P.L. 103-150 § 3.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion of the

OHA Defendants and the State Defendants to dismiss Plaintiffs'

claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction .

II. Sua Sponte Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Claims Against Remaining Defendants

The remaining Defendants, exclusive of the OHA Defendants and

the State Defendants, have not filed a motion to dismiss for lack

of subj ect matter jurisdiction. The Court, however, must 21!.i!

sponte dismiss actions whenever it appears that subject matter

jurisdiction is lacking, even if the parties do not raise the

issue. Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541

(1986 ); In re Kelly, 841 F.2d 908, 917 (9th Cir. 1988); Emrich v.

Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988). The

Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiffs' claims against the remaining

Defendants for the same reasons Plaintiffs' claims against the OHA

and State Defendants should be dismissed, that is, for lack of

sub ject matter jurisdict ion. See Section I, supra.

III. Plaintiffs' motions reo filing fee

Because the Court has already disposed of all claims of

Plaintiffs' complaint against all Defendants pursuant t o Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b) (1) , Plaintiffs' motions for an extension of the

filing fee deadline and for declaratory judgment ordering OHA to

pay the filing fee for the instant case are hereby DENIED.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

rights . See Joint Resolution P.L. 103-150 § 3.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion of the

OHA Defendants and the State Defendants to dismiss Plaintiffs'

claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction .

II. Sua Sponte Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Claims Against Remaining Defendants

The remaining Defendants, exclusive of the OHA Defendants and

the State Defendants, have not filed a motion to dismiss for lack

of subj ect matter jurisdiction. The Court, however, must 21!.i!

sponte dismiss actions whenever it appears that subject matter

jurisdiction is lacking, even if the parties do not raise the

issue. Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541

(1986 ); In re Kelly, 841 F.2d 908, 917 (9th Cir. 1988); Emrich v.

Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988). The

Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiffs' claims against the remaining

Defendants for the same reasons Plaintiffs' claims against the OHA

and State Defendants should be dismissed, that is, for lack of

sub ject matter jurisdict ion. See Section I, supra.

III. Plaintiffs' motions reo filing fee

Because the Court has already disposed of all claims of

Plaintiffs' complaint against all Defendants pursuant t o Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b) (1) , Plaintiffs' motions for an extension of the

filing fee deadline and for declaratory judgment ordering OHA to

pay the filing fee for the instant case are hereby DENIED.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

rights . See Joint Resolution P.L. 103-150 § 3.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion of the

OHA Defendants and the State Defendants to dismiss Plaintiffs'

claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction .

II. Sua Sponte Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Claims Against Remaining Defendants

The remaining Defendants, exclusive of the OHA Defendants and

the State Defendants, have not filed a motion to dismiss for lack

of subj ect matter jurisdiction. The Court, however, must 21!.i!

sponte dismiss actions whenever it appears that subject matter

jurisdiction is lacking, even if the parties do not raise the

issue. Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541

(1986 ); In re Kelly, 841 F.2d 908, 917 (9th Cir. 1988); Emrich v.

Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988). The

Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiffs' claims against the remaining

Defendants for the same reasons Plaintiffs' claims against the OHA

and State Defendants should be dismissed, that is, for lack of

sub ject matter jurisdict ion. See Section I, supra.

III. Plaintiffs' motions reo filing fee

Because the Court has already disposed of all claims of

Plaintiffs' complaint against all Defendants pursuant t o Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b) (1) , Plaintiffs' motions for an extension of the

filing fee deadline and for declaratory judgment ordering OHA to

pay the filing fee for the instant case are hereby DENIED.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

rights . See Joint Resolution P.L. 103-150 § 3.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion of the

OHA Defendants and the State Defendants to dismiss Plaintiffs'

claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1) for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction .

II. Sua Sponte Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Claims Against Remaining Defendants

The remaining Defendants, exclusive of the OHA Defendants and

the State Defendants, have not filed a motion to dismiss for lack

of subj ect matter jurisdiction. The Court, however, must 21!.i!

sponte dismiss actions whenever it appears that subject matter

jurisdiction is lacking, even if the parties do not raise the

issue. Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541

(1986 ); In re Kelly, 841 F.2d 908, 917 (9th Cir. 1988); Emrich v.

Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988). The

Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiffs' claims against the remaining

Defendants for the same reasons Plaintiffs' claims against the OHA

and State Defendants should be dismissed, that is, for lack of

sub ject matter jurisdict ion. See Section I, supra.

III. Plaintiffs' motions reo filing fee

Because the Court has already disposed of all claims of

Plaintiffs' complaint against all Defendants pursuant t o Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b) (1) , Plaintiffs' motions for an extension of the

filing fee deadline and for declaratory judgment ordering OHA to

pay the filing fee for the instant case are hereby DENIED.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

1. The motion of the OHA Defendants and the State Defendants

for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1), for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction, is GRANTED; Plaintiffs' claims

against Defendants A. French DeSoto, Abraham Aiona, Rowena N.

Akana, Samuel L. Kealoha, Jr., Moanike'ala Akaka, Billie Beamer,

Kina'u Boyd Kamali'i, Linda Delaney, Moses K. Keale, Sr., Sherry P.

Broder, Dante Carpenter, Sesnita Moepono, Clayton Hee, the State

~ffice of Hawaiian Affairs (de facto), the Board of Trustees, the

State of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Hawaiian Homes

Commission, Governor Benjamin Cayetano, and Watson, Director of the

Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, are DISMISSED;

2. Plaintiffs' claims against the remaining Defendants are

DISMISSED, ~ sponte, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3. The motions of Plaintiffs for an extension of the filing

fee deadline, and for declaratory judgment ordering the Office of

Hawaiian Affairs to pay the filing fee in the instant case are

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 2.3·,. 1996.

District Judge

Order Dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint and Denying Plaintiffs' Motions re: Filing Fee; CV 96-00089 HG; Lindsay L. Lindsey, ex reI., People of the Hawai'i{an) Society v. The Corporate State of Hawaii, et ale

6

1. The motion of the OHA Defendants and the State Defendants

for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1), for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction, is GRANTED; Plaintiffs' claims

against Defendants A. French DeSoto, Abraham Aiona, Rowena N.

Akana, Samuel L. Kealoha, Jr., Moanike'ala Akaka, Billie Beamer,

Kina'u Boyd Kamali'i, Linda Delaney, Moses K. Keale, Sr., Sherry P.

Broder, Dante Carpenter, Sesnita Moepono, Clayton Hee, the State

~ffice of Hawaiian Affairs (de facto), the Board of Trustees, the

State of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Hawaiian Homes

Commission, Governor Benjamin Cayetano, and Watson, Director of the

Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, are DISMISSED;

2. Plaintiffs' claims against the remaining Defendants are

DISMISSED, ~ sponte, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3. The motions of Plaintiffs for an extension of the filing

fee deadline, and for declaratory judgment ordering the Office of

Hawaiian Affairs to pay the filing fee in the instant case are

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 2.3·,. 1996.

District Judge

Order Dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint and Denying Plaintiffs' Motions re: Filing Fee; CV 96-00089 HG; Lindsay L. Lindsey, ex reI., People of the Hawai'i{an) Society v. The Corporate State of Hawaii, et ale

6

1. The motion of the OHA Defendants and the State Defendants

for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1), for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction, is GRANTED; Plaintiffs' claims

against Defendants A. French DeSoto, Abraham Aiona, Rowena N.

Akana, Samuel L. Kealoha, Jr., Moanike'ala Akaka, Billie Beamer,

Kina'u Boyd Kamali'i, Linda Delaney, Moses K. Keale, Sr., Sherry P.

Broder, Dante Carpenter, Sesnita Moepono, Clayton Hee, the State

~ffice of Hawaiian Affairs (de facto), the Board of Trustees, the

State of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Hawaiian Homes

Commission, Governor Benjamin Cayetano, and Watson, Director of the

Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, are DISMISSED;

2. Plaintiffs' claims against the remaining Defendants are

DISMISSED, ~ sponte, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3. The motions of Plaintiffs for an extension of the filing

fee deadline, and for declaratory judgment ordering the Office of

Hawaiian Affairs to pay the filing fee in the instant case are

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 2.3·,. 1996.

District Judge

Order Dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint and Denying Plaintiffs' Motions re: Filing Fee; CV 96-00089 HG; Lindsay L. Lindsey, ex reI., People of the Hawai'i{an) Society v. The Corporate State of Hawaii, et ale

6

1. The motion of the OHA Defendants and the State Defendants

for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1), for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction, is GRANTED; Plaintiffs' claims

against Defendants A. French DeSoto, Abraham Aiona, Rowena N.

Akana, Samuel L. Kealoha, Jr., Moanike'ala Akaka, Billie Beamer,

Kina'u Boyd Kamali'i, Linda Delaney, Moses K. Keale, Sr., Sherry P.

Broder, Dante Carpenter, Sesnita Moepono, Clayton Hee, the State

~ffice of Hawaiian Affairs (de facto), the Board of Trustees, the

State of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Hawaiian Homes

Commission, Governor Benjamin Cayetano, and Watson, Director of the

Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, are DISMISSED;

2. Plaintiffs' claims against the remaining Defendants are

DISMISSED, ~ sponte, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3. The motions of Plaintiffs for an extension of the filing

fee deadline, and for declaratory judgment ordering the Office of

Hawaiian Affairs to pay the filing fee in the instant case are

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 2.3·,. 1996.

District Judge

Order Dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint and Denying Plaintiffs' Motions re: Filing Fee; CV 96-00089 HG; Lindsay L. Lindsey, ex reI., People of the Hawai'i{an) Society v. The Corporate State of Hawaii, et ale

6

University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

AO 450 (Rev. 5/8S) Judgment in a Civil Case FILED If' WE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURl'STRICTOFHAWAII

--------------District of Hawaii MAY 2 3 19q6 u/ ~ ~~.~ at _ o'dock and _ nu

WALTER A. Y. H. CHINN.

LINDSAY L. LINDSEY, et a1. JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

THE CORPORATE STATE OF HAWAII, etal. Case Number: CIVIL NO. 96-00089HG

[ ] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

[Xl Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

that Plaintiffs' Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

cc: all parties

MAY 23 1996 WALTER A. Y. H. CHINN

Date Clerk

(By) Deputy Clerk

AO 450 (Rev. 5/8S) Judgment in a Civil Case FILED If' WE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURl'STRICTOFHAWAII

--------------District of Hawaii MAY 2 3 19q6 u/ ~ ~~.~ at _ o'dock and _ nu

WALTER A. Y. H. CHINN.

LINDSAY L. LINDSEY, et a1. JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

THE CORPORATE STATE OF HAWAII, etal. Case Number: CIVIL NO. 96-00089HG

[ ] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

[Xl Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

that Plaintiffs' Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

cc: all parties

MAY 23 1996 WALTER A. Y. H. CHINN

Date Clerk

(By) Deputy Clerk

AO 450 (Rev. 5/8S) Judgment in a Civil Case FILED If' WE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURl'STRICTOFHAWAII

--------------District of Hawaii MAY 2 3 19q6 u/ ~ ~~.~ at _ o'dock and _ nu

WALTER A. Y. H. CHINN.

LINDSAY L. LINDSEY, et a1. JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

THE CORPORATE STATE OF HAWAII, etal. Case Number: CIVIL NO. 96-00089HG

[ ] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

[Xl Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

that Plaintiffs' Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

cc: all parties

MAY 23 1996 WALTER A. Y. H. CHINN

Date Clerk

(By) Deputy Clerk

AO 450 (Rev. 5/8S) Judgment in a Civil Case FILED If' WE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURl'STRICTOFHAWAII

--------------District of Hawaii MAY 2 3 19q6 u/ ~ ~~.~ at _ o'dock and _ nu

WALTER A. Y. H. CHINN.

LINDSAY L. LINDSEY, et a1. JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

THE CORPORATE STATE OF HAWAII, etal. Case Number: CIVIL NO. 96-00089HG

[ ] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

[Xl Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

that Plaintiffs' Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

cc: all parties

MAY 23 1996 WALTER A. Y. H. CHINN

Date Clerk

(By) Deputy Clerk

University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection