Arakaki v. Lingle - Phase 2 - Revision history

WikiSysop: /* PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS' PETITION OF OCTOBER 3, 2005 FOR PANEL OR EN BANC REHEARING ON ISSUES WHERE THE DECISION OF AUGUST 31 RULED AGAINST THEM */

2005-11-09T10:00:52Z

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS' PETITION OF OCTOBER 3, 2005 FOR PANEL OR EN BANC REHEARING ON ISSUES WHERE THE DECISION OF AUGUST 31 RULED AGAINST THEM

WikiSysop: /* Note */

2005-11-09T09:56:07Z

Note

WikiSysop: /* = */

2005-11-09T09:55:30Z

WikiSysop: /* = */

2005-11-09T09:52:02Z

WikiSysop: /* == */

2005-11-09T09:51:09Z

WikiSysop: /* = */

2005-11-09T09:46:05Z

WikiSysop: /* = */

2005-11-09T09:45:04Z

WikiSysop: /* */

2005-11-09T09:41:14Z

WikiSysop: /* Delay to file answering brief requested - June 8/9, 2004 */

2005-11-09T09:33:04Z

Delay to file answering brief requested - June 8/9, 2004

WikiSysop: /* Should the court impose an injunction? */

2005-11-09T09:28:05Z

Should the court impose an injunction?

@@ Line 699: / Line 699: @@
 =PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS' PETITION OF OCTOBER 3, 2005 FOR PANEL OR EN BANC REHEARING ON ISSUES WHERE THE DECISION OF AUGUST 31 RULED AGAINST THEM=
-Caption and Table of Contents:
+*[[Media:arakaki29plpetrehrtoc100305.pdf|Caption and Table of Contents]]
-http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles/arakaki29plpetrehrtoc100305.pdf
+*[[Media:arakaki29plpetrehrtoa100305.pdf|Table of Authorities]]
+*[[Media:arakaki29plpetrehrbod100305.pdf|Main body of the petition]]
 http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051004/NEWS20/510040320/1170/NEWS
 Group wants suit over OHA reheard
-By Ken Kobayashi
+By Ken Kobayashi<br/>
 Advertiser Courts Writer
@@ Line 736: / Line 729: @@
 OHA officials estimated that OHA gets about $2.8 million annually from the state general fund, which amounts to about 10 percent of its budget.
------------------
+=Honolulu Advertiser, Friday, October 21, 2005=
 http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051021/NEWS23/510210375/1173/NEWS
 Input sought on Hawaiian cases
@@ Line 771: / Line 762: @@
 "As a result of the 9th Circuit decisions, Hawaiians face some of the most significant challenges in recent history," said Rep. Scott Saiki, D-22nd (McCully, Pawa'a).
------------------
+=Hawaii State Legislature Hearings on How to Circumvent Court Decisions October 30, 2005=
 October 30, 2005: Hawaii State Legislature Hearings on How to Circumvent Court Decisions Unfavorable to OHA and Kamehameha Schools, October 2005 -- webpage published October 30, 2005 includes news reports, analysis, and some of the testimony presented during 8 hearings on 5 islands during a period of 9 days as Hawai'i Senate and House committees on Hawaiian affairs held community meetings to discuss what laws the Legislature might pass to negate or circumvent decisions by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court in the Arakaki and Kamehameha lawsuits; hoping to prevent damage until the Akaka bill passes (they hope!). See:
 http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/HawnAffrsLegislHrngOct2005.html
-===============
+=Honolulu Advertiser, Tuesday, November 8, 2005=
 http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051108/NEWS23/511080342/1173/NEWS
 Court won't reconsider Hawaiians-only issues
@@ Line 801: / Line 789: @@
 OHA has not petitioned for a rehearing on the portion of the case that went against the agency, Burgess said.
------------------
+=Honolulu Star-Bulletin, November 8, 2005=
 http://starbulletin.com/2005/11/08/news/story11.html
-OHA case appeal rejected
+OHA case appeal rejected<br/>
 A group challenging Hawaiian programs has limited legal status

@@ Line 372: / Line 372: @@
 ARAKAKI v. LINGLE
-=Note=
+=Note 2=
 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS' PETITION FOR PANEL OR EN BANC REHEARING ON PORTIONS OF THE DECISION, FILED OCTOBER 3, 2005, CAN BE FOUND AFTER NEWS REPORTS THAT COVERED THE DECISION.

@@ Line 375: / Line 375: @@
 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS' PETITION FOR PANEL OR EN BANC REHEARING ON PORTIONS OF THE DECISION, FILED OCTOBER 3, 2005, CAN BE FOUND AFTER NEWS REPORTS THAT COVERED THE DECISION.
-===================
+=News coverage and commentary about the 9th Circuit Decision=
+==Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Wednesday, August 31, 2005==
-NEWS COVERAGE AND COMMENTARY ABOUT THE 9TH CIRCUIT DECISION NOW BEGINS, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
+http://starbulletin.com/breaking/breaking.php?id=3743
 Breaking News at 10:29 AM HST
@@ Line 417: / Line 413: @@
 In January 2004, U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway dismissed the case, noting that Congress was considering the Akaka Bill, which would grant federal recognition to native Hawaiians as an indigenous people.
---------------------
+==Honolulu Advertiser, Wednesday, August 31, 2005==
 Breaking News, Posted at 9:24 a.m.
 Court: Taxpayers may file OHA suit
-By Ron Staton
+By Ron Staton<br/>
 Associated Press
@@ Line 452: / Line 447: @@
 The Akaka bill is scheduled for a cloture vote in the U.S. Senate next Tuesday; if it wins at least 60 votes, that would force debate and a vote on the bill.
--------------------
+==KPUA Hilo Thursday, September 1st, 2005==
 http://www.kpua.net/news.php?id=6136
 Hawaiian leaders rally in support of Akaka bill
@@ Line 471: / Line 464: @@
 Backing OHA and its support for the Akaka bill at the news conference were U-S Senator Daniel Akaka, Governor Lingle, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands chairman Micah Kane, Kamehameha Schools C-E-O Dee Jay Mailer and University of Hawaii interim President David McClain.
-------------------
+==Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Thursday, September 1, 2005==
 http://starbulletin.com/2005/09/01/news/story2.html
 Supporters of OHA decry latest court ruling
@@ Line 526: / Line 517: @@
 "These bullets will not stop, and this decision was made in such a narrow sense and on such a technical (legal) basis that it does not preclude the next group from coming forward on another (legal) basis and challenging the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands again."
-----------------
+==Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Thursday, September 1, 2005 EDITORIAL==
 http://starbulletin.com/2005/09/01/editorial/editorials.html
 Appeals court ruling gives boost to Hawaiians
@@ Line 555: / Line 544: @@
 While government programs aiding Hawaiians may be safer from legal challenges, Kamehameha and other charitable organizations benefiting Hawaiians remain in need of the Akaka Bill's protection from court challenges.
--------------------
+==Honolulu Advertiser, Thursday, September 1, 2005==
 http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050901/NEWS23/509010342/1001
 Court OKs challenge to taxpayer funding of OHA
@@ Line 576: / Line 563: @@
 — Ken Kobayashi
-----------
+<!-- not sure if this is another article -->
 A group of Hawai'i taxpayers can challenge the expenditure of about $2.8 million a year in state tax money for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday in yet another appellate decision jeopardizing programs that benefit Native Hawaiians.
@@ Line 636: / Line 622: @@
 However, Hui Pu, an umbrella group of Native Hawaiians opposing the Akaka bill, said in a statement yesterday that it's wrong to use the court's decision to support the Akaka bill because "it actually hurts the group which this ruling protects — Hawaiian Homeland lessees. With ... new amendments, the bill takes away their right to file legitimate claims against the government. From 1959 to 1995 alone, more than 4,000 claims have been filed. The state Office of Hawaiian Affairs betrays the Hawaiian people by spending millions on Washington, D.C., lobbyists to pass a bad bill, instead of addressing the socio-economic conditions of the Hawaiian people."
--------------------
+==Honolulu Advertiser, Thursday, September 1, 2005==
 http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050901/NEWS23/509010368/1001
 OHA set up to help meet obligations to Hawaiians
@@ Line 655: / Line 639: @@
 Expenditures go largely to nonprofit agencies that provide educational, legal, health, vocational and other services to the Native Hawaiian community. Monies also go to loan programs to help Hawaiians start businesses and toward advocacy of protection of natural and cultural resources.
-----------------------
+==The Maui News, Thursday, September 01, 2005==
 http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=11990
 Decision seen as example of why Akaka Bill is needed
@@ Line 694: / Line 676: @@
 Maxwell today will participate in a public forum on the bill, sponsored by Ho'okahua and by Po'okela, both Native Hawaiian programs at Maui Community College. Kalei Ka'eo, a spokesperson for Hui Pu and NOA (Not of America) will speak in opposition to the bill.
-------------------
+==The Maui News, Tuesday, September 6, 2005==
 LETTERS TO EDITOR
@@ Line 716: / Line 697: @@
 Office of Hawaiian Affairs
-=========================
+=PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS' PETITION OF OCTOBER 3, 2005 FOR PANEL OR EN BANC REHEARING ON ISSUES WHERE THE DECISION OF AUGUST 31 RULED AGAINST THEM=
 Caption and Table of Contents:

@@ Line 372: / Line 372: @@
 ARAKAKI v. LINGLE
-===================
+=Note=
 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS' PETITION FOR PANEL OR EN BANC REHEARING ON PORTIONS OF THE DECISION, FILED OCTOBER 3, 2005, CAN BE FOUND AFTER NEWS REPORTS THAT COVERED THE DECISION.

@@ Line 137: / Line 137: @@
 THE PLAINTIFFS'/APPELLANTS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING, FILED ON JULY 17, 2004, WAS GRANTED. ARAKAKI V. LINGLE (ORIGINALLY ARAKAKI V. CAYETANO) HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT'S SEMI-ANNUAL WEEK OF HEARINGS IN HONOLULU. THE CASE WILL BE HEARD ON NOVEMBER 1, 2004. IT WILL BE THE 4TH CASE IN THE SESSION, WHICH BEGINS AT 9 AM AT 1132 Bishop Street, Honolulu, 6TH FLOOR COURTROOM. (This is the building Mauka of Hotel Street, between Bishop and Fort Street Mall, sometimes called First Hawaiian Tower.) The Ninth Circuit 3-judge panel hearing this case consists of Judges Brunetti, Graber and Bybee.
-==============
+=Red-shirt protest September 6, 2004=
 On September 6, 2004 (Labor Day) a large red-shirt protest march traveled through the heart of Waikiki, ending with a rally including speeches and music at the Waikiki Shell. For newspaper articles, photos, and analysis see:
 http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/redshirtsept2004.html
-===============
+=Land transfer from State of Hawai'i to DHHL reports=
 On Thursday September 16, 2004 both Honolulu newspapers reported that 1800 acres are being transferred from the State of Hawai'i to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. DHHL will then use a large portion of that land for residential leases to be awarded for rent of $1 per year to ethnic Hawaiians who have at least 50% blood quantum.
 This land transfer continues a 2-year-long policy of the Lingle administration to greatly accelerate the process of developing land and giving leases to "put Hawaiians back on the land." It seems clear that this accelerated granting of leases is an effort to pre-empt the anticipated success of the Arakaki2 lawsuit, which would abolish DHHL. In any case, regardless of the motive for the accelerated leasing, it is clear that time is of the essence and that delays in resolving this lawsuit allow an acceleration of losses of land and money that rightfully belong to all Hawai'i's people. Everyone acknowledges that If the Akaka bill passes, the land and money controlled by DHHL will become the core of the ethnic Hawaiian "tribal" lands and will be forever lost to the State of Hawai'i. As Lloyd Yonenaka, DHHL spokesman, was quoted saying: "Now we are not afraid of being creative and looking outside our own inventory. This is like our first round. We are looking at other properties and a plan for Kaua'i. This is just the beginning."
-------------
+==Honolulu Advertiser, Thursday, September 16, 2004,  Excerpts relevant to the Arakaki2 lawsuit==
 http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Sep/16/ln/ln03a.html
 Hawaiian Home Lands plans 3,500 new homes
@@ Line 187: / Line 183: @@
 Lloyd Yonenaka, DHHL spokesman, said the real change is a new political will to move forward with new ideas to get homes built. "That drives everything," he said. "Now we are not afraid of being creative and looking outside our own inventory. This is like our first round. We are looking at other properties and a plan for Kaua'i. This is just the beginning."
--------------------
+=Honolulu Advertiser, Thursday, October 14, 2004=
-On Thursday, October 14, 2004 Earl Arakaki, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, published an important op-ed in the Honolulu Advertiser. The main point of his letter was to oppose the Hawaiian recognition bill (Akaka bill), pointing out that the bill is an attempt to circumvent the Constitution and an attempt to prevent lawsuits like Arakaki2 from succeeding in overturning race-based programs.
+http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Oct/14/op/op10pletters.html
 Letters to the Editor
@@ Line 219: / Line 214: @@
 The Akaka bill would be unfair to real Indian tribes, be a recipe for permanent racial conflict in Hawai'i, diminish the territory and sovereignty of the state of Hawai'i, and, as Bruce Fein says, be the beginning of the end for the "indivisible Union composed of indestructible states" envisioned by the U.S. Constitution and secured by so much sacrifice in the Civil War.
-Earl Arakaki
+Earl Arakaki<br/>
 'Ewa Beach
 (Earl Arakaki is one of the plaintiffs in Arakaki v. Lingle, No. 04-15306 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, scheduled for oral argument Nov. 1, 2004.)
-===============
+=Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Sunday, October 31, 2004=
+<blockquote>''The following commentary was published on Sunday, October 31, 2004, just as the judges of the 9th Circuit Court were arriving in Honolulu for their week-long series of oral hearings on Hawai'i cases. The author, Robert Klein, is a former justice of the Hawai'i Supreme Court and is the attorney representing SCHHA, one of the defendants in the Arakaki2 lawsuit.''</blockquote>
 http://starbulletin.com/2004/10/31/editorial/commentary2.html
 Loss of OHA, Hawaiian Homes would devastate Hawaii
@@ Line 254: / Line 247: @@
-=================
+=ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL WERE HELD ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2004=
 THE ORAL ARGUMENTS WERE TAPED, AND THE AUDIO FILE WAS LATER MADE AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE OF THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT.
@@ Line 275: / Line 265: @@
-=================
+=Honolulu Advertiser, Tuesday, November 2, 2004=
 http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Nov/02/ln/ln40p.html
 Hawaiian advocates cite ruling
@@ Line 306: / Line 294: @@
 After the hearing, observers evaluated the legal discussion. Haunani Apoliona, who chairs the OHA board of trustees, expressed "cautious optimism." University of Hawai'i Hawaiian studies professor Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa said she thought the court showed an understanding of the sovereignty issue. But she added that Hawaiians should demonstrate their political solidarity during a second Hawaiian-rights case to be heard Thursday — Doe vs. Kamehameha, concerning the Hawaiian-preference admission policy of Kamehameha Schools. "I think we need to be there in force," she said.
-----------------
+=Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Tuesday, November 2, 2004=
 http://starbulletin.com/2004/11/02/news/story8.html
-Court hears arguments in Hawaiian agency case
+Court hears arguments in Hawaiian agency case<br/>
 Three judges will rule later on the matter of constitutionality
-By Ron Staton
+By Ron Staton<br/>
 Associated Press
@@ Line 339: / Line 325: @@
 The ruling in the case known as Kahawaiolaa v. Norton said the Department of Interior's exclusion of native Hawaiians from its regulations acknowledging the federally recognized status of Indian tribes is not unconstitutional. But the court said that "in many ways, the result is less than satisfactory," and sharply criticized the Department of Interior.
-===============
+=Pacific Business News, December 13, 2004=
+<blockquote>''Articles continue to be published describing massive expenditures underway for racially exclusionary housing projects on state-owned land and funded by state government money''</blockquote>
 http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2004/12/13/daily26.html
 Largest development in DHHL history breaks ground
@@ Line 356: / Line 340: @@
 Groundbreaking was this week. DHHL is finalizing a contract with Dick Pacific Construction to build the infrastructure for all 326 lots for $19.3 million. Site improvements are scheduled to take 18 months, but construction of actual houses can begin as soon as next fall, with the first residents moving in as early as spring 2006.
-=================
+=August 31, 2005 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision=
 THE DECISION BY THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS FINALLY HANDED DOWN ON AUGUST 31, 2005. IT WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION BY THE 3-JUDGE PANEL. This is NOT the end of the process. The decision remanded this lawsuit back to the Honolulu District Court for further proceedings; and it is possible that part or all of the 9th Circuit decision (and the results of the further proceedings) could be appealed by the plaintiffs-appellants or by one or more of the five defendants.
-The complete decision in pdf format can be downloaded by clicking here:
+[[Media:arakaki29Decision9Cir083105.pdf|The complete decision in pdf format can be downloaded by clicking here.]]
 The decision can also be downloaded directly from the 9th Circuit Court website:

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 One of the key arguments by plaintiffs in Arakaki2 is that the adoption of the HHCA violated the trust that established Hawaii's public lands as being for the benefit of all Hawaii's people, not just for one group defined by race. OHA, SCHHA, the State/DHHL and even the United States amazingly all question that the ceded lands were even held by the United States, and later the State, in trust for all the people of Hawaii.
-=================
+=August 21, 2004=
 As of August 21, it appears that all parties to this lawsuit have filed all the briefs they will file before oral arguments are heard. To this date there have been no rulings by the 9th Circuit Court on most of the documents filed with that court. There has also been nothing published about the case in any of the daily-circulation newspapers in Hawai'i, and no reports on television or radio. News reports will be posted below in the order they are published, along with announcements of oral hearings, and the actual text of any rulings that are made available in electronic form.

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
-===========================
+=Reply to briefs August 17, 2004=
 On August 17, 2004 attorney H. William Burgess filed the (plaintiffs') appellants' reply to all five of those answering briefs whose links are immediately above. This major document is extremely important, not only because it gives strong arguments against the answering briefs and in support of the plaintiffs' opening brief; but also because this document includes two addenda that contain historically valuable information. Mr. Burgess also explains in a cover letter that his brief, at 15,300 words, exceeds the usual word limit because he is replying to five answering briefs that total 55,000 words!
-COVER LETTER FILED WITH APPELLANTS' REPLY filed Auust 17, 2004
+*[[Media:arakaki29burgcovlet081704.pdf|COVER LETTER FILED WITH APPELLANTS' REPLY filed Auust 17, 2004]]
+*[[Media:arakaki29plnreplbrfad081704.pdf|(Plaintiffs') APPELLANTS' REPLY TO ANSWERING BRIEFS filed August 17, 2004]]
 Here are a few comments on the historically significant addenda included in the appellants' reply:

@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 [[Media:arakaki29aprplschopp072804.pdf|Appellants' Reply 7/28/2004]]
-======================== ========================
+=July 30, 2004 - August 3, 2004=
 From July 30, 2004 through August 3, 2004, lengthy answer briefs were filed by the five defendants. These are the most important, substantive briefs to be filed by defendants the 9th Circuit appeal of the Arakaki2 lawsuit. These five briefs are in answer to the major plaintiffs' (appellants) opening brief previously filed on June 4, 2004. Here are the five defendants' answer briefs.
-(1) DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS/APPELLEES STATE COUNCIL OF HAWAIIAN HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATIONS AND ANTHONY SANG, SR.'S ANSWERING BRIEF filed July 30, 2004
+*[[Media:arakaki29schanswrbrf073004.pdf|DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS/APPELLEES STATE COUNCIL OF HAWAIIAN HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATIONS AND ANTHONY SANG, SR.'S ANSWERING BRIEF filed July 30, 2004]]
+*[[Media:arakaki29usaanswerbrf080304.pdf|ANSWERING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE UNITED STATES filed August 3, 2004]]
-http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles/arakaki29schanswrbrf073004.pdf
+*[[Media:arakaki29stadhhlansbf080304.pdf|ANSWERING BRIEF OF STATE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES AND HHCA/DHHL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES filed August 3, 2004]]
+*[[Media:arakaki29huianswerbrf080304.pdf|DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS-APPELLEES HUI KAKO'O AINA HOOPULAPULA, BLOSSOM FEITEIRA AND DUTCHY SAFFERY'S ANSWERING BRIEF filed August 3, 2004]]
-(2) ANSWERING BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE UNITED STATES filed August 3, 2004
+*[[Media:arakaki29ohaanswerbrf080304.pdf|ANSWERING BRIEF OF THE OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS (OHA) DEFENDANTS filed August 3, 2004]] The answer brief sent by OHA was divided in more than one e-mail. During the assembly and conversion to pdf, the formatting changed somewhat, so the page numbers differ slightly. Also some unexplained glitches occurred. Thus, the appearance and page numbers may not conform exactly to the original. But the contents are unchanged.
 ===========================

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 This Court has not yet acted on Appellants' motion dated April 12, 2004 for injunction to preserve status quo pending appeal. If the Court does not intend to issue an injunction to preserve the status quo, it is critical to require timely filing of the answering briefs so that Appellants can promptly reply and this appeal can be decided expeditiously. Otherwise, the ongoing irreparable losses to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated will continue unabated and, the final judgment, if Appellants prevail, cannot accord full and effective redress.
----------------
+=APPELLANTS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING July 17,2004=
 On July 17, 2004 plaintiffs' attorney H. William Burgess filed a motion "to expedite the hearing of this appeal. Specifically Appellants request that oral argument be heard during this Court's next scheduled session in Honolulu, Hawaii November 1 - 5, 2004 or as soon thereafter as possible, consistent with the Court's due consideration of the briefs." (This motion to expedite was later granted, and oral hearings are scheduled for Honolulu for the week of November 1, 2004.) Mr. Burgess noted that "This Court has not yet acted on Appellants' Motion For Injunction To Preserve Status Quo Pending Appeal filed April 12, 2004." He once again reminded the court that irreparable harm is caused to plaintiffs because millions of dollars per month are being diverted from the state treasury to be spent on unlawful purposes; and he cited a newspaper article about the granting of additional leases on Maui by DHHL."
-APPELLANTS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING
+[[Media:arakaki29apmtnexphrng071704.pdf|Motion to expedite hearing 7/17/2004]]
 On July 23, 2004 Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations and Anthony Sang, Sr. (collectively, "SCHHA") filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to expedite hearing. Here is the SCHHA memorandum in opposition:
-DEFENDANTS-INTERVENORS-APPELLEES STATE COUNCIL OF HAWAIIAN HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATIONS AND ANTHONY SANG, SR. MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING
+[[Media:arakaki29schoppmtnexp072304.pdf|Memorandum in opposition 7/23/2004]]
 On July 28, 2004 attorney H. William Burgess filed appellants' reply to the SCHHA memorandum. Here is:
-APPELLANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING
+[[Media:arakaki29aprplschopp072804.pdf|Appellants' Reply 7/28/2004]]
 ======================== ========================

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 A memorandum in response to the motion for injunction was filed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, dated April 23, 2004. [Technical note regarding page numbers: An electronic copy in its original wordprocessing format as created by OHA was later converted to a pdf file. As a result of that conversion to pdf, the Table of Authorities in this pdf version appears to have one blank page and one nearly-blank page, even though the original document content was continuous. Thus, the Roman-numeral page numbers of the last few pages of the Table of Authorities might be one or two numbers higher than in the original. But all page numbers in the body of the memorandum remain unchanged, and therefore the citations to page numbers in the memo, as contained in the Table of Authorities, also remain correct.]
-==PLAINTIFFS'-APPELLANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTION TO PRESERVE STATUS QUO PENDING APPEAL==
+[[Media:arakaki29oharespmemo042304.pdf|OHA Response 4/23/2004]]
 On May 4, 2004 plaintiffs filed a reply to OHA's response of April 23 to the plaintiffs' motion of April 12 to preserve the status quo pending appeal. Despite the document's convoluted title, there are some very important substantive issues which will be of interest to the general public. Non-lawyers might prefer to skim or skip the first ten pages which deal with technical matters concerning precedents regarding standing, and standards for judging claims of irreparable harm.
 State Defendants – Appellees, HAUNANI APOLIONA, et al., PLAINTIFFS'-APPELLANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTION TO PRESERVE STATUS QUO PENDING APPEAL;
-[[Media:arakaki29plnrplohares050404.pdf|Reply in support of Injunction]]
+[[Media:arakaki29plnrplohares050404.pdf|Reply in support of Injunction 5/4/2004]]
 On June 4, 2004 plaintiffs (appellants) filed APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF. This is a major document laying out all the important issues of the appeal. The pdf document occupies 82 pages including table of authorities, table of contents, and certification of service. Later the defendants will file a lengthy and detailed answering brief, and then the plaintiff/appellants will file a reply brief (rebuttal).
 Some of the major issues on appeal are: Taxpayers should have standing to complain about racial diversion of ceded land revenues even though such revenues are not technically taxes (but revenue diversion has a direct impact on taxes). Taxpayers should have standing to complain about prior "settlements" to be fulfilled by $30 Million per year for many years to come. The "political question" doctrine should not prevent taxpayers from seeking to invalidate portions of the Admissions Act, and portions of the state constitutional amendments of 1978, that are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause and that violate the fiduciary duty of the trustees of the public land trust to treat all beneficiaries fairly. The fact that Congress is considering legislation (the Akaka bill) related to this case should not prevent the court from ruling on the issues, especially since Congress has been considering these matters for 4 years without resolving them. OHA and DHHL are agencies of the State of Hawai'i, not comparable to the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the Mancari decision cannot apply to OHA and DHHL, especially in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Rice v. Cayetano that "Hawaiian" and "Native Hawaiian" are racial groups and not political entities or recognized tribes. Judge Mollway needlessly and improperly delayed the case at the Honolulu District Court, and made a final ruling for (incorrect) reasons she could have used shortly after the case began 22 months earlier; and she should not be the judge to whom this case will be remanded for further hearings if plaintiffs are successful in their 9th Circuit appeal.
-To download APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF in pdf form, click here. The download might require several minutes for internet customers using dialup service.
+[[Media:arakaki29apelopenbrf060404.pdf|To download APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF in pdf form, click here.]] The download might require several minutes for internet customers using dialup service.
 On June 8, 2004 plaintiffs' attorney H. William Burgess' published an article summarizing the major issues in Arakaki v. Lingle (Arakaki2) on appeal in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The article was published in the on-line newspaper "Hawaii Reporter." See:
 http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/arakaki29burgesshawrept060804.html
 THIS WEBPAGE WILL MAINTAIN DOCUMENTS IN CHRONOLOGICAl ORDER
 Answer briefs from OHA, SCHHA, etc. in reply to appellants' opening brief were filed beginning July 30, but only after a series of other documents were filed. Those other documents included motions for an extension of time to reply (and responses to those motions), and a motion to request an expedited hearing (and oppositions to that morion). Those other documents are provided next, in chronological order. Scroll below them to find the important answer briefs beginning July 30.
-=====================
+=Delay to file answering brief requested - June 8/9, 2004=
 The State of Hawai'i on June 8, 2004, and OHA on June 9, 2004 asked for a delay to file their answering brief. The reasons why the State and OHA asked for a delay might best be described as frivolous, and the request for a delay is a continuation of a strategy of delay demonstrated in the previous 22 months of unnecessary delays at the District Court level. On June 12 the appellants responded in opposition to any extension of time. "With all due respect to counsels' personal, vacation and travel plans, their motions do not show, under the particular circumstances of this case, the good cause, diligence or substantial need required for extensions by Circuit Rule 31-2.2. Appellants oppose those motions, as well as any other motions by any other Defendants/Appellees for any extensions of briefing." Ordinarily, motions seeking and opposing an extension of time are highly technical and make boring reading for non-lawyers. But this pair of requests, and the opposition to them, are quite interesting.
-STATE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES' AND HHCA/DHHL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWERING BRIEF; DECLARATION OF GIRARD D. LAU; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+*[[Media:arakaki29stadhhltimex060804.pdf|STATE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES' AND HHCA/DHHL DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWERING BRIEF; DECLARATION OF GIRARD D. LAU; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE]]
+*[[Media:arakaki29OHAtimex060904.pdf|OHA DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWERING BRIEF; DECLARATION OF COUNSEL; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE]]
-http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles/arakaki29stadhhltimex060804.pdf
+*[[Media:arakaki29apelopptimex061204.pdf|APPELLANTS' OPPOSITION TO STATE'S AND OHA'S MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEFS]]
 On June 10, June 14, and June 18, 2004 three other defendants/appellees filed motions for an extension until August 3, 2004 to file their answering briefs. These three were: the HUI Defendants/Intervenors-Appellees, SCHHA (State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations), and the United States.