COUNTY OF KAUA v. JOHN DOES 30 AND JANE DOES 30 (2025)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Tom Kanahele (Kanahele) and Purported Interested Parties-Appellants Gene Tamashiro (Tamashiro) and Andrew Cabebe (Cabebe) (together referred to as Appellants) appeal from the October 10, 2023 Writ of Possession and Judgment for Possession entered by the District Court of the Fifth Circuit (District Court).¹ Appellants also challenge the District Court's October 10, 2023 Order Granting Plaintiff County of Kauai's (County's) Motion for Summary Judgment [(MSJ)] and For Writ of Possession (Order Granting MSJ).

Only Tamashiro filed an opening brief (OB). He has identified himself variously as Defendant-Appellant and Secretary General of Hawaii Transitional Governance. As noted in this court's August 12, 2025 Order to Show Cause (OSC), Tamashiro and Cabebe were not parties in the District Court proceedings. In an August 19, 2025 response to the OSC (Response to OSC), Tamashiro confirmed that he is not licensed to practice law in the State of Hawai i. Kanahele also signed the Response to OSC, which states, inter alia, that Tamashiro, Kanahele, and Cabebe are in the process of abjuration/renunciation from the occupying foreign corporations.

The OB fails to comply with Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4), and states no points of error. Liberally construed, the OB appears to contend that the District Court erred in granting the County's MSJ and issuing the Writ of Possession and Judgment for Possession because the District Court lacked jurisdiction as the State of Hawai i (State) has no authority to adjudicate the issue of land in Hawai i and the State does not have title to the subject property due to the continued sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve this appeal as follows:

Most liberally construing Kanahele's signature on the Response to the OSC, it appears that Kanahele is attempting to assert the issues raised in the OB.

“The sovereignty of the State and its lawful jurisdiction over the inhabitants of the State is a matter of law that is well established.” Coco Palms Hui LLC v. Mau-Espirito, No. CAAP-18-0000106, 2019 WL 2021634, at *1 (Haw. App. May 8, 2019) (SDO), (quoting State v. Kaluau, No. 30460, 2011 WL 3805761, at *1 (Haw. App. Aug. 29, 2011) (SDO)). Accordingly, the District Court had jurisdiction over this matter.

It is undisputed that the subject property is former “Crown Land.” It has been conclusively determined that former Crown Lands are the property of the State. See, e.g., Section 99 of the Organic Act of April 30, 1900; Section 5 of the Admission Act of March 18, 1959; Corboy v. Louie, 128 Hawai i 89, 91, 283 P.3d 695, 697 (2011). Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did not err in granting the County of Kauai's motion for summary judgment.

For these reasons, the District Court's October 10, 2023 Writ of Possession and Judgment for Possession are affirmed. The July 9, 2025 motion for retention of oral argument is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, September 29, 2025.

Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge

Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge

Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Stephanie R. Char presided.