Docstoc

legal wrangling over Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy

Document Sample
legal wrangling over Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy Powered By Docstoc
					ARTICLEDATE: 2/1/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

Breyer will weigh in on isle issues

By Ken Kobayashi
kkobayashi@starbulletin.com

Associate Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court will be on a panel next week discussing the legal
challenge to Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy giving preference to native Hawaiian applicants.

Other panelists include two key lawyers in the case - Kathleen Sullivan, who defended the private school's
admissions policy, and Eric Grant, who represented the unnamed non-native Hawaiian student in the lawsuit
contesting the policy.

The discussion is open to the public and will be held from 11:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. Thursday at the University of Hawaii
William S. Richardson law school's moot court courtroom.

Breyer will be visiting here as part of the law school's "Jurist-in-Residence" program, which has brought other
Supreme Court justices to Hawaii in the past years.

Breyer, 69, former chief judge of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was appointed to the high court in 1994 by
President Clinton. Breyer is considered part of the liberal wing of nine-member high court.

But in the landmark 2000 decision in the Rice v. Cayetano case, Breyer joined in the 7-2 majority that struck down the
requirement that only native Hawaiians could vote for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Lawyers for the unnamed non-Hawaiian student, identified as John Doe, filed the lawsuit that dealt with the
controversial issue of whether Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy violated federal civil rights law. The student
was denied admission to the schools. The case is known as Doe v. Kamehameha Schools.

A three-member panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision in behalf of Doe that the policy
violated the federal law. But a larger panel of the appeals court later voted 8-7 to uphold the policy.

Grant asked the Supreme Court to review the case, but the matter was settled before the high court could decide
whether to accept the appeal. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

The settlement leaves open the question of whether the land's highest court would find that Kamehameha's policy
violates the civil rights law.

The law school said one goal of the panel discussion is to "advance legal scholarship by analyzing how the
arguments in Doe fit into a historical, sociopolitical and legal context." Another goal is to learn more about the
"intricate issues" in the case from the panelists' viewpoints.

Cynthia Quinn, the law school's director of communications and external relations, said Breyer will be visiting Hawaii
for the first time and also will participate in a law school class on professional responsibility.

"It's an honor to have them here," Quinn said about Breyer and other justices who visited in the past. "They really
want to reach out to the students, which is quite an honor."

PANEL DISCUSSION

The topic of the discussion is "Doe v. Kamehameha Schools: A 'discreet and insular minority' in Hawaii 70 years after
Carolene Products (a U.S. Supreme Court decision)." The Doe case involved a challenge to the Kamehameha
Schools admissions policy that gives preference to native Hawaiians. The Carolene case involved "discreet and
insular" minorities generally and native Hawaiians in particular, according to the University of Hawaii William S.
Richardson School of Law.

Associate Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court will participate in the first hour of the discussion from
11:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the moot court courtroom at the University of Hawaii law school.

Other panelists are:

» Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of Stanford Law School, who defended Kamehameha Schools' admissions
policy.

» Eric Grant, a Sacramento, Calif., lawyer who represented Doe, the unnamed student who challenged the policy.

» David Forman, who teaches classes at the University of Hawaii law school and is an attorney with the Hawaii
Civil Rights Commission.

» U.S. District Judge David Ezra.

» Jon Van Dyke, a University of Hawaii law school professor, who will moderate and present questions to the
panel.

The forum is free and open to the public, but those wishing to attend should call Cynthia Quinn, the law school's
director of communications and external relations, at 956-6545.
ARTICLETITLE: Breyer will weigh in on isle issues
ARTICLEDATE: 2/2/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: University of Hawaii
ARTICLEBODY:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to participate in UH Law School public forumDoe v. Kamehameha
Schools: A ‘Discrete and Insular Minority’ in Hawai`i 70 years after Carolene Products?
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Contact: Cynthia Quinn, (808) 956-6545
School of Law, UH Manoa
Posted: February 01, 2008

HONOLULU - The William S. Richardson School of Law at UH Manoa presents its biennium Law Review
Symposium, February 7, 2008, from 11:30 a.m. to 2 p.m., during its Jurist-in-Residence Program featuring a week-
long visit by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer. This year marks the 70th anniversary of
“Footnote 4― in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938) regarding the “discrete and insular―
minorities, generally, and to Native Hawaiians in particular.

The goal for the symposium is two-fold: it will advance legal scholarship by analyzing how the arguments in Doe fit
into a historical, socio-political, and legal context; and, the Law School and the entire legal community can benefit
from learning more about the intricate issues in Doe from the unique vantage points of the following distinguished
panel participants:

         • Kathleen Sullivan, counsel for the Kamehameha Schools and Professor and former Dean of Stanford
         Law School, will analyze how the jurisprudence of “discrete and insular minorities― has evolved over
         the 70 years since Carolene Products;

         • Eric Grant, counsel for Doe and former law clerk to Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger and Associate
         Justice Clarence Thomas, will present his analysis of why 42 U.S.C. section 1981 must bar race-based
         policies, even for institutions seeking to remedy race-based historical inequities;

         • David Forman, adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Hawai‘i, attorney with the Hawai‘i
         Civil Rights Commission, and former chairman Hawai'i State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission
         on Civil Rights, will present his thoughts on how, if at all, Native Hawaiians fit into the “discrete and
         insular minority― jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court;
          • Honorable David Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai‘i will offer his unique
          perspective on adjudicating cases involving important Native Hawaiian issues.

The panelists will respond to and discuss questions presented by our moderator, Jon Van Dyke, Professor of Law at
the University of Hawai‘i. Justice Breyer will participate in the first hour of the panel discussion regarding the
evolution of the ‘discrete and insular minority' jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Seating is limited. For further information and to R.S.V.P. contact Cynthia Quinn, Director of Communications and
External Relations, at (808) 956-6545.

ARTICLETITLE: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to participate in UH Law School public forum
ARTICLEDATE: 2/6/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KGMB9
ARTICLEBODY:
Supreme Court
Justice in Hawaii
Written by Terry Hunter - thunter@kgmb9.com
Tuesday, February 05, 2008 04:35 PM
                                     Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is in Hawaii this week.

The 69-year-old former Harvard law professor has been a member of the high court since 1994 when he was
appointed by President Clinton.

As you might expect, the Justice takes his responsibilities very seriously. He even carries a copy of the U.S.
Constitution in his jacket pocket. And he sees his job as interpreting the democratic principles embedded in the
Constitution.

"We're all in an effort to try to take those simple guarantees written in those few amendments and those seven
articles and we're in the business of trying to make them real," Mr. Breyer told an overflow Rotary luncheon audience,
"as opposed to making them a Fourth of July speech, and anyone who thinks that's easy is wrong.

Justice Breyer said only a small percentage of the cases before the Supreme Court are controversial. He adds that all
9 members of the Court agree on about thirty to 40 percent of their cases.

On Thursday at 11:30 a.m., the Justice will join a panel at the UH Law School to discuss the admission policy at
Kamehameha Schools.
Last Updated ( Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:23 PM )
ARTICLETITLE: Supreme Court Justice in Hawaii
ARTICLEDATE: 2/8/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY: Posted on: Friday, February 8, 2008


Kamehameha Schools settled lawsuit for $7M
    StoryChat: Comment on this story

By Jim Dooley
Advertiser Staff Writer
Kamehameha Schools paid $7 million to settle a lawsuit filed by an
anonymous student who claimed the schools' Hawaiians-first admissions
policy violates civil rights laws, according to an attorney involved in the case.

Terms of the confidential settlement have been a closely guarded secret since
it was signed in May just before the U.S. Supreme Court was to decide
whether to hear the case.

The settlement ended a four-year effort by a non-Hawaiian teenager, known
only as John Doe, to enter the Kamehameha Schools system.                           John Goemans


Attorney John Goemans — who planned the legal action, found the plaintiff
and brought the case to Sacramento private attorney Eric Grant to litigate —
revealed the amount of the settlement in an exclusive interview with The
Advertiser.

"The amount of the settlement is important public information that should be
disclosed by a charitable institution that receives tax-exempt status from the
Internal Revenue Service," Goemans said in a telephone interview.
                                                                                    Eric Grant
The lawsuit challenging the schools' admissions policy was the first case of its
kind to reach the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court and stirred enormous controversy in Hawai'i.

Critics of the settlement pointed out that additional legal challenges could still be mounted against the admissions
policy, and news of the $7 million that the schools paid could increase the chances of new lawsuits.

Local attorney David Rosen, who made news last year by actively seeking plaintiffs for a new challenge to the
admissions policy, said yesterday he is preparing a suit against Kamehameha Schools.

Kamehameha Schools, previously known as Bishop Estate, is a nonprofit organization with assets of $7.7 billion.

Grant, appearing yesterday at a University of Hawai'i law school symposium on the lawsuit, known as John Doe vs.
Kamehameha Schools, declined to discuss the settlement when told that Goemans had disclosed the $7 million
figure.

Kamehameha Schools' lead attorney in the lawsuit, Kathleen Sullivan, a former dean of the Stanford University law
school, also declined comment.

"Terms of the settlement are inviolate," said Sullivan, also a participant at the UH symposium yesterday.

Ann Botticelli, spokeswoman for the Kamehameha Schools board of trustees, also declined to comment on
Goemans' statements or the size of the settlement.

The settlement says that anyone who discloses its contents is subject to a $2 million penalty, but Goemans said he
was not a party to the agreement and never signed it.

Goemans, who is recovering from heart surgery, said yesterday that he was opposed to the $7 million settlement but
that "it was the client's decision" to accept it.

PART OF TAX RECORD
Goemans said an attorney representing Grant breached the confidentiality clause by mailing a copy of the agreement
to Goemans last year.

Goemans added that Kamehameha Schools must disclose details of the settlement on its 2007 tax return, which is
due to be filed later this year, and on annual financial reports the charity is required to file with the state attorney
general's office and with the state court.

Tax returns of nonprofit institutions such as Kamehameha Schools are public records under federal law. The
institution's annual financial accountings — which date to its founding by Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop in 1888
— are also open to the public.

Kamehameha operates three campuses — its flagship at Kapalama Heights on O'ahu, one on Maui and another on
the Big Island — for the benefit of children of Hawaiian ancestry.

The institution plays a central role in Hawai'i society, in part because of its financial clout and in part because of its
mission to educate children of Hawaiian ancestry. It is also the state's largest private landowner.

There are about 70,000 school-age children with Hawaiian blood, and 5,400 students were enrolled at
Kamehameha's various schools last year. Kamehameha served 30,000 other children and adults through outreach
programs and through its support of charter schools.

TO SUPREME COURT

Hawai'i federal Judge Alan Kay initially dismissed the John Doe lawsuit in November 2003, upholding the schools'
argument that the admissions policy helped address cultural and socio-economic disadvantages that have beset many
Hawaiians since the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.

The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned it in a three-judge
decision in 2005. That ruling prompted protest rallies, prayer vigils and other gatherings around the state in support
of the schools.

Lawyers for Kamehameha Schools then asked that all members of the appellate court review the matter and the full
court reversed the three-judge panel's decision by an 8-7 vote in December 2006.

Grant then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, and last May, on the eve of the high court
announcement on whether it would take the case, the matter was settled out of court.

"We didn't think that there was a strong possibility (of losing) but that risk is always out there," J. Douglas Ing,
chairman of the Kamehameha board of trustees, said in announcing the settlement in 2007. "There are no guarantees
and there certainly were no guarantees from our lawyers that we would win the case."

Grant, the attorney for John Doe, said after the case was settled, "Obviously, a settlement is not exactly what either
side wanted. But it is something both sides eventually came to terms on."

SPATS OVER FEES

Goemans is involved in a continuing dispute with John Doe, whose identity has never been revealed, and with Grant
over how much money Goemans should receive for his part in the case.

Grant received 40 percent of the overall settlement — $2.8 million — although he had to sue the plaintiff and the
plaintiff's mother in federal court in Sacramento last year to collect the money, according to Goemans and federal
court records.
That collection lawsuit was filed in June after Kamehameha had paid the $7 million settlement. The dispute over the
payment of Grant's fee was settled and dismissed in September.

Goemans said he asked John Doe and Jane Doe for 25 percent of the total settlement — $1.75 million — but has
not yet received a response.

Grant filed a separate lawsuit against Goemans in California state court last year regarding how much compensation
Goemans is owed for his part in the case.

That suit is still pending, although Goemans said he believes it is groundless and will be dismissed.

Grant yesterday declined comment on the collection lawsuit he filed in Sacramento against his own clients or the
related action he filed against Goemans.

Goemans said he has received $20,000 in compensation to date from John Doe and his mother and is contemplating
filing a new legal action of his own against them.

Reach Jim Dooley at jdooley@honoluluadvertiser.com.

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools settled lawsuit for $7M
ARTICLEDATE: 2/8/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:




GEORGE F. LEE / GLEE@STARBULLETIN.COM
Kathleen Sullivan, left, a Stanford law school professor, U.S.
District Judge David Ezra and U.S. Supreme Court Associate
Justice Stephen Breyer participated yesterday in a panel
discussion at the University of Hawaii William S. Richardson
School of Law.




Breyer treads around admissions case

By Ken Kobayashi
kkobayashi@starbulletin.com

Affirmative action cases are so difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court because of two opposing views on how to fairly
treat the country's wide diversity of people, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer said here yesterday.
Speaking at the University of Hawaii law school, Breyer said one view is that it is "too dangerous" to deviate from a
"colorblind" principle with affirmative action programs.

The other -- which he said he believes in -- views those programs as a way to bring into a democratic society those
who have been oppressed or have been victims of "invidious discrimination."

But the lingering issue, he cautioned, would still be to what extent and under what circumstances those programs
should be permitted.

Breyer was on a panel that met to discuss the contentious legal challenge by an unnamed student to Kamehameha
Schools' admissions policy of giving preference to applicants with Hawaiian blood.

Other panelists at the UH William S. Richardson School of Law included Kathleen Sullivan, a Stanford law school
professor who defended the policy, and Sacramento attorney Eric Grant, who represented the student.

Kamehameha Schools reached a confidential out-of-court settlement last year with Grant just before a decision by
the U.S. Supreme Court on whether to hear his appeal of an 8-7 vote by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
upholding the policy.

Breyer, 69, considered part of the "liberal" group on the nine-member high court, made it clear that he would not talk
about the specifics of the Kamehameha case. Although the case is settled, another lawsuit with similar issues could
wend its way up to the high court.

Instead, Breyer talked broadly about the difficulties posed by affirmative action cases that sometimes lead to 5-4
decisions.

To underscore the point about the wide diversity in points of views and in the racial, ethnic and historical backgrounds
of the population, Breyer used a little levity. He said his mother used to say, "There's no point of view so crazy" that
some American does not hold it.

And because he and his mother are from San Francisco, she added, "And they all live in Los Angeles."

Breyer suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas
oppose affirmative action, no matter how well motivated, as just not being good for the country.

He cited the rationale for the other point of view in a case in which he joined a majority in upholding an affirmative
action program for a law school.

Breyer said lawyers for the military and businesses filed friend-of-the-court briefs saying that unless some version of
those programs are permitted, the top military officers and business leaders would all be white, while those who work
for them in this diverse country would say, "They're not us."

"Maybe if you allow a little affirmative action, we can try to prevent that," he said.

Read all 11 comments »
ARTICLETITLE: Breyer treads around admissions case
ARTICLEDATE: 2/8/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KHNL / KFVE - TV
ARTICLEBODY: Attorney: Kamehameha paid                         $7 million to settle suit


Associated Press - February 8, 2008 1:54 PM ET

HONOLULU (AP) - A Big Island attorney says Kamehameha School paid $7 million to settle a civil rights
lawsuit filed by an anonymous non-Hawaiian student.
Terms of the settlement announced in May have been kept secret until now.

Attorney John Goemans told The Honolulu Advertiser he believes the amount of the settlement is
important public information because Kamehameha is a charitable institution that receives tax-exempt
status.

Goemans planned the legal action brought on behalf of a youth known only as John Doe but was not a
party in the settlement. The non-Hawaiian youth was rejected in his application to attend the school which
has a policy that generally admits only Native Hawaiians.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed.

ARTICLETITLE: Attorney: Kamehameha paid $7 million to settle suit
ARTICLEDATE: 2/8/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Santa Barbara News-Press
ARTICLEBODY:

Attorney: Kamehameha paid $7 million to settle suit

February 8, 2008 6:08 PM

HONOLULU (AP) - Kamehameha Schools paid $7 million to an anonymous non-Hawaiian student to settle a
discrimination lawsuit, according to the attorney who started the civil rights case against the wealthy private school for
refusing admission to students who can't prove Native Hawaiian ancestry.

The previously confidential settlement, which came in May before the U.S. Supreme Court had decided whether to
hear the case, has led to a squabble over the settlement money and to other lawyers looking for clients to file more
suits against the richest independent elementary and secondary school in the nation. Kamehameha is backed by an
endowment last reported to be worth $7.7 billion.

Big Island attorney John Goemans said he disclosed terms of the settlement to The Honolulu Advertiser because he
believes the amount is important public information about a charitable institution given tax-exempt status by the
Internal Revenue Service.

Goemans planned and started the legal action brought four years ago on behalf of a youth known only as John Doe.

Eric Grant, a Sacramento attorney who represented the student, declined to discuss the settlement as did
Kamehameha Schools' lead attorney in the lawsuit, Kathleen Sullivan, a former Stanford University law school dean.
Both Grant and Sullivan appeared Wednesday at a University of Hawaii symposium on the case.

Grant had to sue the student's mother to collect his $2.8 million share of the settlement, according to Goemans, who
sites federal court records in Sacramento to back up the assertion. Goemans said the family paid him $20,000 for his
role but he has asked them for $1.75 million with no response.

Goemans said he has been sued by Grant on the issue of compensation and is considering a suit of his own against
the plaintiff he found.

Attorney David Rosen, who last year publicly sought plaintiffs for another suit challenging the Kamehameha
admissions policy, said he is preparing a suit now against the school system which has 5,400 students at three
campuses on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island.

The settlement includes a $2 million penalty for anyone who discloses its terms. Goemans, who opposed the
settlement, said he was not a signatory to the settlement but had received a copy of it from another lawyer.
Goemans said Kamehameha Schools would have to disclose details of the settlement in its 2007 tax return and in
state filings required from charities.

The suit against the school initially was dismissed in 2003 by federal Judge Alan Kay who upheld Kamehameha's
right to an admissions policy that addresses the cultural and socio-economic disadvantages of Native Hawaiians
since the 1893 U.S. overthrow of the island monarchy.

That suit was reinstated in 2005 by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which was reversed
the next year by the full appeals court in a decision widely hailed by state officials and others as a victory for Native
Hawaiians.

Lawyers for the rejected student then asked the Supreme Court to step in, prompting the settlement even though the
latest decision supported Kamehameha.

AP-WS-02-08-08 2050EST

ARTICLETITLE: Attorney: Kamehameha paid $7 million to settle suit
ARTICLEDATE: 2/8/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Santa Barbara News-Press
ARTICLEBODY:

Attorney: Kamehameha paid $7 million to settle suit

February 8, 2008 10:56 AM

HONOLULU (AP) - A Big Island attorney says Kamehameha School paid $7 million to settle a civil rights lawsuit filed
by an anonymous non-Hawaiian student.

Terms of the settlement announced in May have been kept secret until now.

Attorney John Goemans told The Honolulu Advertiser he believes the amount of the settlement is important public
information because Kamehameha is a charitable institution that receives tax-exempt status.

Goemans planned the legal action brought on behalf of a youth known only as John Doe but was not a party in the
settlement. The non-Hawaiian youth was rejected in his application to attend the school which has a policy that
generally admits only Native Hawaiians.

AP-WS-02-08-08 1338EST

ARTICLETITLE: Attorney: Kamehameha paid $7 million to settle suit
ARTICLEDATE: 2/9/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY: Posted on: Saturday, February 9, 2008


School's $7M deal raises ire, eyebrows
    StoryChat: Comment on this story

By Jim Dooley
Advertiser Staff Writer


Yesterday's disclosure of the $7 million payment made by Kamehameha Schools to settle a civil rights lawsuit
prompted questions and anger from individuals on both sides of the schools' controversial admissions policy that
gives preference to students of Native Hawaiian ancestry.
"It does seem like a lot of money. It sure would be if it was in my pocket," said University of Hawai'i law school
professor Jon Van Dyke, who served as a legal consultant to Kamehameha in the lawsuit.

Van Dyke said yesterday he wasn't part of the settlement discussions and still believes the payment led to the right
outcome for the school.

The settlement was signed in May just before the U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to announce whether it would
hear an appeal of the case. Terms of the settlement had been kept confidential until this week. John Goemans, an
attorney for the plaintiff in the case, revealed the $7 million figure to The Advertiser.

The settlement meant that an earlier 8-7 vote by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Kamehameha's
admissions policy is still the prevailing law.

H. William Burgess, a local attorney who filed legal papers with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the plaintiff in
the case, said yesterday, "Wow. The settlement was much larger than I thought."

Burgess said he still believes the case should have been heard by the Supreme Court so that legal questions
surrounding the school's Hawaiians-first admissions policy were settled.

"I actually think the trustees of the Kamehameha Schools have a legal duty, when there's a legitimate legal question
about what they're doing, to seek a resolution of the issue," Burgess said.

News of the $7 million payment provoked more than 500 online postings to The Advertiser that variously criticized
school officials who approved the payment and the lawyers and the client who received the money.

Beatrice "Beadie" Dawson, a native Hawaiian attorney who is active in Kamehameha Schools affairs, said yesterday
the settlement itself and now news of the $7 million amount "are like an open invitation for more lawsuits."

"I was very dismayed by news of the settlement last year and I was very surprised by the size of it today," Dawson
said.

Hawai'i attorney David Rosen, who last year announced plans to file another legal challenge to the school's
admission policy, confirmed this week that the lawsuit is taking shape but has not been filed.

He issued a news release yesterday reacting to the settlement amount that said, "The people of Hawai'i should be
outraged that the trustees of Kamehameha Schools place a higher value on discriminating rather than educating."

Goemans, the lawyer who publicly revealed the $7 million figure, said he believes the settlement should be a matter
of public record given Kamehameha Schools' status as a tax-exempt charitable institution.

Goemans helped bring the civil rights lawsuit against Kamehameha in 2003 on behalf of a non-Hawaiian student
denied admission to the high school. The student and the student's mother, who live on the Big Island, have never
been identified except as John Doe and Jane Doe.

Goemans also said the settlement is subject to review by the Internal Revenue Service and by the state attorney
general's office, which oversees Kamehameha Schools' annual financial accountings filed with state Probate Court.

Attorney General Mark Bennett could not be reached for comment yesterday.

David Fairbanks, a Honolulu lawyer serving as the appointed "master" who must review Kamehameha's financial
fillings for the Probate Court, did not respond to a telephone message for comment yesterday.
Reach Jim Dooley at jdooley@honoluluadvertiser.com.

                                                        • • •
ARTICLETITLE: School's $7M deal raises ire, eyebrows
ARTICLEDATE: 2/9/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

Amount of settlement raises critical concern

By Robert Shikina
rshikina@starbulletin.com

Supporters and critics expressed surprise yesterday at the $7 million Kamehameha Schools paid a student to settle a
lawsuit disputing its Hawaiians-first admission policy.

One Kamehameha Schools alumnus says disclosure of the settlement with the anonymous, non-Hawaiian student
will prompt questions among Hawaiians.

"I'm not happy with $7 million," said Kamehameha Schools alumnus Jan E. Hanohano Dill. "Unfortunately, that's a lot
of money, and it's going to create a lot of questions in the Hawaiian community whether it was right or wrong and to
continue."

Dill, also a board member of Na Pua a Ke Ali'i Pauahi, a nonprofit group whose members include students, parents,
and alumni of Kamehameha Schools, said he continues to support the school's decision.

"I don't know the details, and I think that's something that has to be cleared," he said. "You settle because you want
to avoid costs that would be incurred as you go forward."

He added, "I have to believe that they understood that this was something good for the Hawaiian people. ... It will be
clear as things unfold whether that was true."

Dill, who is also president of the nonprofit Partners in Development Foundation, said the admissions policy must
eventually be addressed and that the settlement avoids this case but does not stop other cases.

Marion Joy, former vice president of Na Pua, called the settlement a "misuse of trust funds."

"The trust is continually going to be challenged," she said. "This is not going to be the last. ... As far as settling for the
particular lawsuit, it's not in the best interests of the beneficiaries (of the 1883 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi
Bishop)."

Kamehameha Schools declined comment.

Honolulu attorney David Rosen, who has sought potential clients to sue Kamehameha over its admissions policy after
the settlement, sent out a statement yesterday that said the $7 million settlement was used to "buy off this case."

He added that the trustees should open a campus on the Leeward Coast of Oahu and possibly Molokai where
increased educational opportunities are needed.

H. William Burgess, a retired attorney and founder of Aloha for All, a group opposed to Hawaiian sovereignty, said the
settlement raises questions about the proper use of the trust funds.

"Normally, trustees, if they're doubtful about doing something, they ask the court to give them instructions," he said.
"Yet in this case, the biggest charitable trust, probably in the nation, instead of welcoming the opportunity to get the
highest court in the land to settle it, they pay $7 million to leave it open. And it is very much open."
ARTICLETITLE: Amount of settlement raises critical concern
ARTICLEDATE: 2/9/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:




COURTESY OF KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS / MAY 2007
Students at the Kamehameha Schools' Kapalama campus hold
hands as a sign of unity during a school assembly following the
news of the out-of-court settlement of the John Doe case
challenging the schools' admissions policy.


$7M

An attorney involved in a challenge to Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-only policy reveals the amount of a
settlement

» Amount raises critical concern

STORY SUMMARY »

A lawyer who represented an unnamed student who challenged Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy said the
schools made the first move to settle the case and later paid $7 million in a confidential out-of-court settlement.

John Goemans was one of the lawyers for the unnamed non-native Hawaiian student who challenged the schools'
policy that gives preference to applicants with Hawaiian blood.

Grant and Kamehameha Schools declined yesterday to comment on Goemans' remarks.

Supporters and critics expressed surprise yesterday at the amount.

STAR-BULLETIN


FULL STORY »

By Ken Kobayashi
kkobayashi@starbulletin.com
Kamehameha Schools made the first move to settle a legal challenge to their admissions policy giving preference to
native Hawaiians and later agreed to pay $7 million, a lawyer involved in the case said yesterday.

John Goemans, an attorney for an unnamed non-native Hawaiian student who filed a lawsuit contesting the policy,
said the charitable trust offered for the first time to talk about an out-of-court settlement last May, just days before the
U.S. Supreme Court was to decide whether to hear the case.

Goemans, a former Big Island attorney recuperating in Florida from heart surgery, and Sacramento, Calif., lawyer
Eric Grant, the lead attorney, represented the unnamed student and his mother.

"They (the schools) approached Eric and said we wanted to settle and we have to settle by Friday morning," when it
was believed the high court was to make a decision about accepting the case, Goemans said.

He said it appeared the high court would accept their appeal of an 8-7 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals that upheld the policy.

"They (the schools) were worried about losing in the Supreme Court," Goemans said.

Goemans said he did not know how Grant and the Kamehameha Schools arrived at the $7 million figure.

The hotly disputed federal civil rights lawsuit caused a firestorm of controversy among Kamehameha Schools
supporters who believed the challenge struck at the more than century-old admissions policy and the heart of the
charitable trust's mission to educate children of Hawaiian ancestry.

The confidential settlement was announced on May 14. Those connected with the case repeatedly refused to
disclose the terms.

Goemans said he was disclosing the amount because he said he recently learned from Internal Revenue Service
officials that Kamehameha Schools, a tax-exempt charitable trust, cannot keep the figure confidential.

"Because exempt organizations operate in the public good, you got to report all your expenses with particularity, and
you cannot keep information relative to those expenses confidential," he said. "It's in the public interest to have full
disclosure."

Ann Botticelli, Kamehameha Schools spokeswoman, said yesterday the settlement contained a confidentiality clause.

"We intend to honor the terms, and we will not be discussing the settlement or John Goemans' assertions," she said.

Grant said yesterday he had no comment.

Kamehameha Schools, a multibillion-dollar charitable trust and the state's largest private landowner, was established
under the 1883 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. It educates more than 6,700 students at its flagship campus
at Kapalama Heights, two other campuses on Maui and the Big Island, and 31 preschools throughout the state.

Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Kay upheld the school's Hawaiians-first policy, but a panel of the appeals court in San
Francisco ruled 2-1 that the practice violated federal civil rights laws. That decision triggered statewide protests and
marches by school supporters.

Later, a larger appeals court panel voted 8-7 to uphold the policy.

It was an appeal by Grant of that 8-7 ruling that was on the doorsteps of the U.S. Supreme Court when the settlement
was announced.

At the time, school officials indicated that the settlement calling for the dismissal of the lawsuit leaves intact the
appeals court's 8-7 decision upholding the admissions policy.
But the dismissal does not guarantee that another lawsuit might surface and make its way to the high court, although
it would first have to go through the federal trial and appeals courts, where the 8-7 ruling would be considered to be
binding on the issue. But even if those who file the new lawsuit lose on those two levels, they could still ask the high
court to review the case.

Honolulu attorney David Rosen said he has plaintiffs for a lawsuit to challenge the admissions policy. He said the
settlement does not affect his case. Rosen said he expects the suit will be filed this year.

Goemans said Grant received 40 percent, or $2.8 million of the $7 million. Goemans said he is preparing to file his
own lawsuit seeking to recover a "reasonable percentage" of the $7 million for his work in the case.

Goemans said he found the unnamed student and arranged for Grant to be the attorney for the student and his
mother.

"I put the whole thing together," Goemans said. "But for me there would not have been a $7 million payment."

The student never was admitted to Kamehameha Schools because his case was pending. He has since graduated
from high school and had been attending college, Grant said last year.

ARTICLETITLE: Schools initiated enrollment settlement
ARTICLEDATE: 2/9/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KGMB9
ARTICLEBODY:
Kamehameha's $7
Million Lawsuit
Written by KGMB9 News - news@kgmb9.com
Friday, February 08, 2008 06:17 PM
                                   It was kept a secret for months.

But Friday the attorney who initiated a lawsuit against Kamehameha schools enrollment policy reveals how much the
school paid to settle -- $7 million.

Attorney John Goemans said that's how much Kamehameha Schools paid a non-Hawaiian student who was denied
admission.

The anonymous student claimed his civil rights were violated by the schools Hawaiian preference policy.

The court battle united students, staff and supporters across the state. The school and the student settled in May but
a confidentiality agreement kept them from revealing the details.

Attorney John Goemans, who was not part of the settlement, believes the terms are public information.

"I had check with the IRS to find out if it was possible for a charitable organization, an organization exempt from
taxation to keep confidential information of that nature, and lo and behold IRS said no, they can't do that," Goemans
said.

"To have a clause of confidentiality on something that's public information is absurd, and that's why I released the
information."

Goemans is still trying to get a percentage of the $7-million settlement.

Although he didn't try it he believes he deserves a cut because he's the one who got the lawsuit rolling.

Goemans plans to file his own lawsuit against the plaintiff.
Last Updated ( Saturday, February 09, 2008 03:38 PM )
ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha 7 Million Dollar Law Suit
ARTICLEDATE: 2/9/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KITV-TV ABC 4 Honolulu
ARTICLEBODY:
ARTICLETITLE: (Video) Kamehameha School Entrance
ARTICLEDATE: 2/11/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Ka Leo O (University of Hawai'i at Manoa)
ARTICLEBODY:

Supreme Court Associate Justice visits UH Law School

Justice Breyer and wife help plant an ‘ōhi‘a lehua tree at law school

Kumari Sherreitt


Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Stephen Breyer, one of nine Supreme Court
justices, was a guest lecturer at the University of Hawai‘i at Mĕnoa's Richardson School of Law
last week, while also touring the island's historic sites.
                                                                                                            Media
Justice Breyer and his wife Joanna were welcomed warmly by the Law School. They were asked to               Credit:
participate by planting an ‘ōhi‘a lehua tree in the courtyard, in commemoration of their stay and     Kumari
the school's renovated planting beds of native Hawaiian fauna.                                             Sherreitt
                                                                                                          Supreme
Mrs. Breyer was asked to plant a young ‘ōhi‘a tree in one of the newly manicured courtyard              Court
beds, a planting tradition that can only be done by women, explained the speaker.                         Associate
                                                                                                           Justice
Justice Breyer was invited to participate in the UH Law School public forum "Doe v. Kamehameha             Stephen
Schools: A 'Discrete and Insular Minority' in Hawai‘i 70 years after Carolene Products?" in its        Breyer was
biennium Law Review Symposium.                                                                               given
                                                                                                         many gifts
Law students had a chance to hear about the day-to-day life of a Supreme Court justice, as Justice        Friday at
Breyer gave lectures in class and answered questions. "It's every law student's dream to become a          the UH
Supreme Court justice," said a group of Masters of Law (LLM) students after the ceremony.                 MÄ•noa
                                                                                                         Richardson
"He was very friendly, very liberal, and open-minded," said Micheal Saenger, an LLM student from         Law school
Germany. His friend Andreas Sider, an LLM student from Switzerland, added that Justice Breyer kept         during a
saying things like "take it easy, and don't work too much," during his talks.                             ceremony
                                                                                                            for his
If Justice Breyer had not been the guest speaker, he and his wife would have been hard to spot in the    departure.
crowd. His laid-back attitude was exemplified in his aloha attire and sense of humor.

"Everyone has been so generous here," Justice Breyer said while smiling through the stack of leis that
had been given to him by the UH law students and professors sad to see him leave.

The couple toured many of the tourist attractions, but as only a member of the Supreme Court could:
privately. Some of the places they went were the Arizona Memorial, ‘Iolani Palace, and Hanauma Bay (on its
closed day).

Breyer is the 108th Supreme Court Justice, inaugurated in 1994 by President Clinton. He has been on the court for
such decisions as maintaining the parental notification of teenage abortions.

Before Supreme Justice, he was Justice Arthur Goldberg's selected clerk, helping him to draft an opinion in the
landmark right-to-privacy case, Griswold v. Connecticut in 1964. He was also an aide to Archibald Cox in the
Watergate prosecutions of 1972.
ARTICLETITLE: Supreme Court Associate Justice visits UH Law School
ARTICLEDATE: 2/14/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Reporter
ARTICLEBODY:
Kamehameha School's $7 Million Should Have Been Used to Educate Instead of Discriminate and Litigate
By David B. Rosen, 2/13/2008 10:03:37 AM

The people of Hawaii should be outraged that the trustees of Kamehameha Schools place a higher value on
discriminating rather than educating. The community should also understand that the $7 million apparently paid to
buy off this case (filed against the school for its Hawaiians-first admission policy) is only the tip of the iceberg.

In addition to the millions of dollars in legal, public relations, lobbying and insurance fees that the Trustees have
expended solely to discriminate against disadvantaged non-native-Hawaiians, the Trustees also continue to place the
Trust’s tax-exempt status at risk. This decision could end up costing Kamehameha Schools hundreds of millions
of dollars when its racially exclusionary admissions policy is declared illegal by the United States Supreme Court.

It should be understood that the Trustees have admitted and the Judges of the Ninth Circuit have unanimously
recognized that the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop does not require the use of race as an admissions criteria
– nowhere did the Princess express that non-native-Hawaiians should be excluded from Kamehameha Schools.

Consequently, instead of continuing to focus the majority of its program funds on educating an elite group who share
the meaningless characteristic of at least one drop of common ancestry, Kamehameha Schools should instead be
focusing on educating those expressly identified by the Princess -- “indigents and orphans― -- regardless of
their current intellectual aptitude and irrespective of their race.

As a community we need to be demanding that the Trustees immediately move forward with opening a campus on
the Leeward Coast of Oahu and possibly on Molokai. In addition to these areas having high percentages of native-
Hawaiians, they are also the areas in which increased educational opportunities are the most needed in Hawaii.

David B. Rosen, Esq. is a Honolulu attorney who advocates against racial entitlement programs.

HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the
viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com


Guest Editorials...

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha School's $7 Million Should Have Been Used to Educate Instead of Discriminate and
Litigate
ARTICLEDATE: 2/17/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Tribune Herald
ARTICLEBODY:

The $7M settlement

Saturday, February 16, 2008 7:38 AM HST

Now anybody who is not of Hawaiian blood, and wants to make plenty of money, can sue Kamehameha Schools on
their admission policy, claiming racial discrimination.

For the million people who have moved to Hawaii since statehood, and the thousands who have grown up since and
don't know Hawaiian history, here's "da fax," and not according to the money-driven Western view.

Before the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian nation in 1893, anybody living in Hawaii was considered part of the
nation, no matter what your nationality was.

At that time, the Hawaiians were mixing with the haoles at first, then Asians and others brought in for the sugar
plantations.

I know: My family came from Australia in 1850, and started a North Kohala sugar mill. My mother's side came from
Japan to work in the fields of Hamakua. We were all considered to be Hawaiians in this world.
That's why Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop's will said Kamehameha will educate the children of Hawaii, the children
of this aina. The school was started in 1887 because the English-speaking haole schools would not except Hawaiian
children who couldn't speak the new language brought in by the missionaries.

This all changed in 1893 with the overthrow of a sovereign nation, and the humiliation of a proud queen. First,
annexation in 1898, then statehood in 1959 -- both rejected by the Hawaiian people, and enacted by the majority of
foreigners who continued to move here.

No choice for Kamehameha Schools -- they couldn't possibly educate all the keiki 'o ka aina, especially since many of
the new arrivals had been against the nation and its culture. What parameters should they use to determine who
goes to their school? The only logical answer is Hawaiian blood.

This is not racial discrimination, it's the overthrow of a sovereign nation, and a way of life that has existed long before
their European ancestors slaughtered native Indians in the Americas, and claimed it for themselves. Their westward
crusade to tame the savages ran into a roadblock when they reached Hawaii, and found people who had learned to
work with nature instead of trying to retrofit it for profit.

The only way to change this was to multiply until there were more of "us" than "them," then they could vote the
"natives" out. The only sturdy platform for the Hawaiian people at this time was Kamehameha Schools.

Now the school is going to have to deal with all these sham-artists and greedy lawyers from America who have no
idea what it is like to be Hawaiian. David Rosen, who is soliciting lawsuits against Kamehameha, has a Western
upbringing, and can't fathom the thought of being stewards of the land instead of owning it. To replenish the aina,
instead of putting concrete and asphalt, and capitalistic growth all over Hawaii.

Shame on you, American bigots, calling Kamehameha racist when you cast the first stone. If you overthrow a
sovereign nation, then you went against your own Constitution, and your laws don't apply here.

Stan Atkins

Olaa
ARTICLETITLE: The $7M settlement
ARTICLEDATE: 2/29/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Reporter
ARTICLEBODY:


Broken Rainbow: Hawaii's Racial Separatism Threatens America's Fundamental Principles
By Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D., 2/28/2008 6:28:18 AM

Among the 50 states, Hawaii is the most diverse. All ethnic groups are minorities. Intermarriage is commonplace. All
races live, work, play and pray side by side. But despite the Aloha Spirit, institutional racism has become entrenched
in Hawaii, causing huge problems. Hawaii is rapidly building a bridge to the Nineteenth Century.

Hawaii has "affirmative action" on steroids. The favorite racial group is the 20% who have at least one drop of
Hawaiian native blood. Two state government agencies serve "Native Hawaiians" exclusively.

The state's largest private landowner is Kamehameha Schools, with assets of $8 billion to $15 billion, serving only
ethnic Hawaiians. It recently paid $7 million "hush" money to settle a desegregation lawsuit just hours before the U.S.
Supreme Court would probably have taken the case.

The State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs openly boasts there are more than 160 federally funded programs
exclusively for ethnic Hawaiians.

Nearly every politician supports Hawaii's apartheid system because federal megabucks flow throughout the economy.
Wealthy racial separatist institutions (government and private) are so powerful that is extremely rare for a politician to
dare to defy them.

How did so many unconstitutional programs get established? Hawaii is the only state both of whose Senators served
for decades on the Indian Affairs Committee -- although Hawaii has no Indian tribes.
When bills passed through that committee providing housing, healthcare, or education to genuine Indian tribes,
Senators Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka quietly inserted "and Native Hawaiians."

Civil rights lawsuits have recently attacked "Hawaiians"-only programs. That's why a bill was introduced in Congress
eight years ago to arbitrarily declare ethnic Hawaiians an Indian tribe, giving immunity against 14th Amendment
challenges.

The "Akaka bill" passed the U.S. House in 2007 with every Democrat voting yes. Its Senate clone, S.310, awaits floor
action whenever Majority Leader Harry Reid calls it up. Two years ago every Democrat Senator supported it.

Ethnic Hawaiians are nothing like an Indian tribe. That's why S.310 relies on a dangerous new theory of the
Constitution that Congress has power to single out any group of so-called "indigenous" people and create a tribal
government for them out of thin air.

If that theory were enacted, get ready for thousands more new tribes composed of the vast majority of Indians not
currently eligible to join one. Also get ready for a "tribe" consisting of all Americans of Mexican ancestry, since they
have a drop of Aztec or Mayan "indigenous" blood. Their activists already demand a "Nation of Aztlan" comprising the
states that formerly were part of Mexico.

Once the Akaka tribe is created, S.310 empowers its leaders to negotiate with state and federal governments for
money, land, and jurisdictional authority. Agreements between leaders need approval only from the tribal council and
state legislature, requiring neither a vote of tribal members nor a state ballot question. Sweetheart deals will give
away massive state resources without voter approval.

No other state has 20 percent of its people being "Native American," let alone 20 percent eligible to join a single tribe
laying claim to half the state's land.

To envision the proportional impact of such apartheid on Hawaii, imagine 60 million African-Americans and Hispanic-
Americans combined being lumped together, electing a tribal council, and negotiating against the U.S. government
and all states for money and ethnic homelands with laws different from nearby communities.

The members of this huge "tribe" also remain citizens of the U.S. and of their states, sitting on both sides of
negotiations and making campaign contributions not limited by federal or state law.

What are the worst racial separatist problems already facing Hawaii?

OHA has begun "Plan B" to implement the Akaka bill and establish its own Hawaiian government even if the federal
legislation never passes.

The Hawaii State Legislature seems eager to pass some truly outrageous OHA bills in the name of "protecting
Hawaiian culture" or "paying our overdue debts." Some of these Include:

        Giving OHA ownership of several valuable parcels of land, including Hilo's waterfront where numerous large
         hotels have only a few years left on their land leases.

        Giving OHA management and eventual ownership of a huge portion of a suburban residential valley for a
         "cultural preserve." (OHA was previously given the entire valley containing Waimea Falls park, plus 40
         square miles of forrest on Hawaii Island).

        Declaring that all naturally occurring plants and animals on public and private land now belong to the state;
         no small samples can be taken for biological research without government permits; the permitting authority
         must have a guaranteed majority of ethnic Hawaiians; and a large portion of revenues generated from
         commercial applications of biological research must be given to OHA as payment for "indigenous intellectual
         property rights."
        The state Supreme Court ruled January 31, 2008, that the state cannot sell any "ceded lands" (about 95% of
         government lands) until such time as "claims" by ethnic Hawaiians can be resolved, based on a misguided
         1993 U.S. apology to the Hawaiians pushed by U.S. Senator Inouye under false pretenses.

The only way to stop this dangerous trend is if the U.S. Senate defeats the Akaka Bill; if the state holds a
Constitutional Convention before 2010 and the Concon delegates vote to curb OHA's power, implement government
reforms including legalizing referendum and initiative as well as recall so elected officials who betray the public trust
can be removed from office.

'''Dr. Conklin is a retired professor of philosophy. He recently published "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and
ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" (302 pages) available through Amazon.com, portions available free at
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa'''

REFERENCES

"Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" 302 pages, paperback. Chapter
1, detailed table of contents, and link to publisher's online bookstore: http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

WHY ALL AMERICA SHOULD OPPOSE THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION BILL, ALSO
KNOWN AS THE AKAKA BILL, S.310 and H.R.505 http://tinyurl.com/yhhz7o

Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- Watching the Moves It Makes to Expand the Evil Empire http://tinyurl.com/wv59r

OHA/Lingle 2008 legislation for $200 Million settlement of so-called back rent for ceded lands

http://tinyurl.com/yudtty

Hawaii Supreme Court ruled on January 31, 2008 that the State of Hawaii cannot sell any ceded lands until it
resolves the claims of ethnic Hawaiians based on the apology resolution of 1993. http://tinyurl.com/25orxd

Ceded Lands Belong to All the People of Hawai'i; There Should Be No Racial Allocation of Ceded Lands or Their
Revenues http://tinyurl.com/356xy

Text of bill in 2008 Legislature converting Haiku Valley (Oahu) into a cultural preserve to be managed by a
commission with a guaranteed majority of ethnic Hawaiians, under control of OHA, and automatic transfer of
ownership to a future "Native Hawaiian" nation recognized through the Akaka bill. http://tinyurl.com/yo9r64 Compiled
testimony on the bill http://tinyurl.com/23d6js and http://tinyurl.com/ywl6bw

Hawaii Bioprospecting -- Hearings by the Temporary Advisory Committee on Bioprospecting (late 2007), and
testimony by Ken Conklin http://tinyurl.com/yud9gw

Indigenous Intellectual Property Rights -- The General Theory, and Why It Does Not Apply in Hawaii
http://tinyurl.com/2b77k

ARTICLETITLE: Broken Rainbow: Hawaii's Racial Separatism Threatens America's Fundamental Principles
ARTICLEDATE: 3/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:
                 Volcanic Ash
                      A totally independent, slightly irreverent and hopelessly idealistic view of people
                      and events in Hawai'i and beyond. David Shapiro has covered Hawai'i and national
                      news for 38 years as a reporter, editor and columnist.
                      Reach David at dave@volcanicash.net.
Posted on: March 7, 2008 at 3:00:00 am
flASHback: Sex and dust bunnies

The most intriguing news of the week came from a study suggesting that husbands who help their wives with the
housework are rewarded with more frequent nookie.

I asked a few vacuum-trained husbands I know what they thought and they said they'd have to take the researchers'
word for it. They're too exhausted to remember.

This study does explain another report from the Centers for Disease Control that Hawaii residents sleep better than
people in the Northeast. We must have more husbands who help with the housework.

Other news that amused and confused in Hawai'i's week that was:

         Legislators heaved a sigh of relief as they passed their "crossover" deadline this week. The crossing refers
          to all the genuflecting to lobbyists lawmakers do as bills fly between the House and Senate.

         The frequently absent Kona Sen. Paul Whalen made a surprise appearance on the Senate floor to
          announce he won't seek re-election in November. Colleagues said it could only improve his attendance.

         Gov. Linda Lingle waited to endorse John McCain for president until weeks after he'd all but sewn up the
          Republican nomination. I wonder if Hallmark makes a card that says, "Thanks for nothing."

         The dispute between Mayor Mufi Hannemann and Senate President Colleen Hanabusa over the Waimanalo
          Gulch Landfill is getting nasty and personal. I hope this isn't a sign that the 2010 Democratic primary for
          governor will be fought out in a garbage pit.

         Hannemann says O'ahu residents who report potholes online or by phone can expect repairs within five
          working days. That's pretty darned good service. It's almost as fast as he wants to build the transit system.

         County liquor inspectors, whose good judgment has often come under question, are asking the Legislature
          to let them carry electronic stun guns like police use. If this bill passes, bar patrons could be in for way more
          of a buzz than they were looking for.

         Kamehameha Schools was criticized for hoarding its assets instead of spending more to educate Hawaiian
          children. They'd better save up if they're going to keep paying $7 million a pop to settle lawsuits filed by non-
          Hawaiian kids they don't educate.

         New UH football coach Greg McMackin is winning over fans with redesigned uniforms that will be greener
          next year and feature the name "Hawai'i" more prominently. They should send June Jones a souvenir jersey
          that says "Whodaguy" on the back.

         Justice Hawai'i style: Nelson Aguinaldo can still bid on city contracts after a plea deal in which he admitted
          underpaying his workers and overcharging the city for janitorial work and landscaping. While police
          investigated, Aguinaldo landed several new city contracts, including jobs to clean police facilities.

ARTICLETITLE: FlASHback: Sex and dust bunnies
ARTICLEDATE: 3/30/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:
Posted on: Sunday, March 30, 2008

The high spirits of Uncle George Naope
Merrie Monarch patriarch still loves a good party, hula




Naope sang at the 42nd Merrie Monarch Festival in 2005. At 81, even a wheelchair and faltering health can't keep the
colorful kumu hula from attending — and enjoying himself.

REBECCA BREYER | Advertiser library photo

By Wanda A. Adams
Assistant Features Editor

One of the not-to-be-missed sights of the Merrie Monarch Festival hula competition, which begins Thursday in Hilo, is
a little man in a big hat, wearing startlingly bright colors, shiny patent-leather shoes and a bulky ring on every finger.
He's generally surrounded by Japanese visitors, who clamor to have their pictures taken with "Ahnkoo Jaw-joo-san."




This is George Lanakilakekiahialii Naope — flamboyant and irresistibly charming. His health is failing now; he's in a
wheelchair and doesn't like to talk on the phone anymore, so he couldn't be interviewed for this story. But, says his
former student kumu hula Ray Fonseca, "All you gotta do is mention a party and he'll be there — wheelchair and
all."

There is another Naope, too, but first let's meet the one most of us have seen tottering onto the Merrie Monarch hula
competition stage during the vote-counting break, when kumu hula fill the time with nostalgic dance.

That Naope is the man known in his early hula and musical career as "The Menehune," for his small stature but
magical (and hilarious) stage presence:

 Who Merrie Monarch Festival executive director Auntie Dottie Thompson has called "the original free spirit."
 Who is sometimes teased by friends with the title "Dandy" Naope, after King Kalakaua's court hula master, "Dandy"
Ioane, who wore a top hat, a purple and pink velvet vest and flourished a cane.
 Who kicked off his career in 1948 in Hilo winning, of all things, a territory-wide Japanese singing contest (he still
credits his teachers, Mrs. Yamamoto and Mrs. Tsubaki, with his accomplished pronunciation and technique, which
would serve him well later when he traveled to hula-mad Japan and became a sought-after celebrity).
 Who, like many Hawaiian performers in the 1950s, found his largest audiences on the Mainland, in Canada and
Mexico. He traveled with Ray Kinney's troupe and his specialty was comic hula, a strain of the dance rarely seen
today. A signature, for example, was the 1880s composition " 'Anapau." (And all you need to know about this song is
that translates as "Frisky" and that it's danced in a style where the hips do it all while the feet are relatively still.)
 Who so loves pageantry that, in the early days of the Merrie Monarch hula competition, he organized a court of 30
or 40 people, gorgeously attired in period dress (there are fewer than a dozen now), depicting the whole Kalakaua
family and entourage.

But there is another Naope, whom fewer and fewer know or recall. This one, no less charismatic, is a rebel rather
than a rascal.

He is the son of merchant seaman Harry Naope Jr., of Hilo, and grandson of the famed Haili Church choral master
Harry Sr. In his young years, as was the custom in hula families, he lived with his great-grandmother, kumu hula
Malia Naope of Keaukaha, down the coast from Hilo; he still calls himself "a Keaukaha boy." Before her death at 103,
Malia Naope served as a key informant on Hawaiiana for Bishop Museum scholars, and she is the one who taught
Naope the old ways.

Throughout his career, he has bounced back and forth between O'ahu, where he was born, and the Big Island, where
he was raised and trained to dance. And he has also bounced back and forth between tradition and expediency.
This is a man who has been active in and led numerous Hawaiian civic organizations, working on such projects as
protecting the Kaloko Fish Pond on the Kona Coast and re-creating the Pu'uhonua O Honaunau Place of Refuge for
the National Parks system. ...

 Who studied dance, protocol and ritual with the woman known as the 20th century's foremost exponent of
traditional hula practices, 'Iolani Luahine, and also with the mother of Auntie Edith Kanaka'ole (for whom the Merrie
Monarch's stage home is named), known to all as "Mama" Fuji.
 Who was teaching male students in the 1940s, when male hula had all but died out.
 Who, in 1972, issued a fiery rebuttal to a legal decision questioning Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-only
admissions policies and called a public meeting of protest in Hilo.
 Who was among a group of pioneers in the 1970s who took hula into the men's prison at Kulani, an effort to
reconnect inmates with Hawaiian values, and introduce discipline, pride and a calming effect in a place that had
become chaotic and full of despair.
 Who, in 1977, ran for an Office of Hawaiian Affairs Big Island seat, because of his concern for "the future of my
people." Despite name familiarity, he lost.
 Who, in 1983, was invited to be the first to perform an 'uniki (graduation) ceremony for 20 of his students on the
hula pa (mound) Ke-ahu-a-Laka at Ha'ena, rescued from obscurity by Kaua'i's Kahiko Halapai Hula Alapai — the
first time the ceremony had been performed on that site in half a century.
 A man who, for all his on-stage charm, humor and kolohe (rascal) ways, is a stickler when he's teaching.

Kumu hula Ray Fonseca of Hilo, who was just 10 years old when he met Naope and was uniki'd (graduated) by him
years later, said he and other Naope students have taken many a crack from the back of a well-aimed 'ukulele
wielded by Uncle George. "He was very strict. His voice was always very stern in class ... But we could have a really
rough time in class with him by day and that night, it was like nothing. His whole personality changed when he was on
stage."

Today, Fonseca still consults with Naope before making any substantive decisions about his Halau Hula O
Kahikilaulani, just as Naope would often consult with his mentors. "He always went back to the source, whatever he
did, he was always researching with different elders or peers," said Fonseca, speaking by phone from his Hilo home.

And Naope is careful not to overstep his knowledge. "He always says that what we do, if we don't know for sure, we
should leave it alone. We should learn as much as we can, but we shouldn't make it up," said Fonseca.

On the other hand, Naope doesn't think Hawaiian culture should be frozen in time, Fonseca noted. "I remember once
he said, what we see, what we smell, how we live versus how our kupuna did is two different worlds. We can be
motivated by what we see today. Also, most hula are stories ... about incidents or happenings, so why can't we do
that today?"

Naope speaks fluent Hawaiian and gets a little salty when anyone implies that he might not, though many in his
generation never did acquire more than "hula Hawaiian." Fonseca says Naope would often mumble deprecations in
Hawaiian when his students weren't meeting his standards; a way of relieving his frustrations without their knowing
what he was saying.

Naope's connection to the Merrie Monarch Festival goes back to its very beginning, in 1963. As promoter of activities,
appointed by then-Hawai'i County mayor Helene Hale, he and Hale's administrative assistant Gene Wilhelm
proposed a festival in honor of King Kalakaua as a way to drum up business for tsunami-ravaged Hilo. The first
Merrie Monarch, in 1964, was a four-day festival loosely modeled on Lahaina's Whaler's Spree. The event lacked any
significant hula component, and it didn't go well. Neither did the next three.

Then, in 1968, Hilo volunteer Dorothy "Auntie Dottie" Thompson stepped in to chair the Merrie Monarch, drafting
Naope to help.

It wasn't until 1971 that competitive hula became part of the festival and, at first, it was tough to get enough
participants, recalled Luana Kawelu, Thompson's daughter and appointed successor. (Thompson, like Naope, is
ailing now.)

Despite (or because of) their very different personalities and skill sets, "they made a perfect team," said Kawelu. "She
was the organizer. He knew the hula. It wouldn't have survived without both of them."
Naope was determined that the competition include kahiko (old-style) hula, But so few were the hula studios teaching
the art that he had to travel the Islands, instructing kumu and students alike. Just 11 halau, all women (since so few
men were dancing hula then), participated in the first competition 45 years ago. It lasted nearly five hours, and most
of the audience stayed for the whole performance, which Naope then compared to events of King Kalakaua's
coronation, when more than 300 hula were performed, at a time when hula had all but disappeared due to the
influence of Westerners who found it objectionable.

Thompson still gets hot under the collar of her high-necked holoku when she recalls how difficult it was to get press
coverage for Merrie Monarch, or to find anyone who cared as much as she and Naope did about making the festival a
success.

Today, the festival is hard-pressed to limit the number of halau participating. Spots in the lineup virtually have to be
inherited through death or retirement. Tickets, distributed only by mail order, sell out in a day.

Despite his frailties — his legs have given out and he's in a wheelchair — Naope, who has received pretty much
every honor the state, the Hawaiian community and the music industry has to offer, including Living Legend status,
maintains his wit and mental sharpness, Fonseca said.

Kawelu took her mother to see Naope recently; Thompson rarely goes out now, and the two hadn't seen each other
in several years, though they have talked on the phone. (Kawelu said she herself now calls Naope for advice at least
once a week.)

"There is so much respect and admiration between them," said Kawelu. "(Thompson) attended his 81st birthday party
(a few weeks ago) and he told me, 'It meant a lot to me, Luana, that she was there.' "

Reach Wanda A. Adams at wadams@honoluluadvertiser.com.

ARTICLETITLE: Naope sang at the 42nd Merrie Monarch Festival in 2005. At 81, even a wheelchair and faltering
health can't keep the colorful kumu hula from attending — and enjoying himself.
ARTICLEDATE: 4/24/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY: Posted on: Thursday, April 24, 2008

ADMISSIONS SUIT

Kamehameha wants $2 million returned
By Jim Dooley
Advertiser Staff Writer




                                                                                      Paul Alston


                                                                                      ABOUT THE CASE

                                                                                      June 2003: On behalf of an
                                                                                      unnamed non-Hawaiian student,
                                                                                      identified only as John Doe,
                                                                                      attorneys John Goemans and Eric
                                                                                      Grant file a civil-rights lawsuit
disputing Kamehameha's
admissions policy.

August 2003: A federal court
orders Kamehameha Schools to
enroll a non-Hawaiian boy, 12-
year-old Brayden Mohica-
Cummings, until a final verdict on
the admissions policy is made.

November 2003: U.S. District
Judge Alan Kay decides against
John Doe, ruling that
Kamehameha Schools can
continue its Hawaiians-preference
admissions policy because of its
unique and historical
circumstances.

November 2003: Trustees for
Kamehameha Schools approve a
settlement allowing a seventh-
grade non-Hawaiian student to
continue attending the private
school until he graduates. In
exchange, Grant and Goemans,
the lawyers for Mohica-
Cummings, agree to drop one of
their two federal court challenges
to the school's admissions policy.
The two lawyers appeal Kay's
John Doe ruling.

Aug. 2, 2005: By a 2-1 vote, a
panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals decides in favor of
John Doe, ruling that
Kamehameha's admissions policy
constitutes unlawful racial
discrimination and throwing the
120-year-old policy into limbo. A
week later, the same three judges
deny a request by John Doe to be
admitted in the fall, pending an
appeal by the school.

Aug. 6, 2005: About 20,000
Kamehameha students, alumni
and other supporters rally on all
major Hawaiian islands and the
Mainland to show their support for
the embattled school. At a major
rally in Honolulu, thousands hear
a string of fiery speeches before
marching two miles to Mauna
'Ala, the Royal Mausoleum in
Nu'uanu, where school founder
Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop
is buried.

Feb. 22, 2006: The 9th Circuit
grants Kamehameha's request for
an en banc rehearing of its
August 2-1 decision, essentially
throwing out that decision
pending a review by a larger
panel of 15 judges.

Dec. 5, 2006: By an 8-7 vote, the
full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals upholds Kamehameha
Schools' longstanding policy
aimed at only admitting students
with Hawaiian blood.

March 2007: Doe's attorneys ask
the U.S. Supreme Court to look at
the legality of Kamehameha
Schools' admissions policy.

May 14, 2007: Kamehameha
Schools and Doe settle the
lawsuit, which was pending
before the U.S. Supreme Court.

THE SCHOOLS

Kamehameha Schools,
established under the 1884 will of
Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop,
has assets of more than $9 billion
and educates some 3,400
children of Hawaiian ancestry at
campuses on O'ahu, Maui and
the Big Island.

Another 30,000 students and
adults were served through the
schools' outreach programs and
support of charter schools.




John Goemans
Kamehameha Schools is trying to get back as much as $2 million of the $7
million it paid last year to settle a lawsuit that challenged its admissions
policy favoring Hawaiian students, according to legal papers filed in federal
court in California.

The papers are contained in new litigation filed after publication of an
Advertiser news story in February that revealed that the settlement was $7
million.
                                                                                     David Schulmeister
The money was paid to a Big Island mother and child in return for their
agreement to drop the lawsuit just before the U.S. Supreme Court was to
decide whether it would hear an appeal of the case.

The plaintiffs, who have never been publicly identified and are known as Jane and John Doe, alleged in the
California case that the schools "threatened" to publicly identify them if they did not place $2 million in an escrow
account for possible return to the schools because terms of the confidential settlement had been revealed.

Ken Kuniyuki, a Hawai'i lawyer who now represents the pair, is alleging that David Schulmeister, an attorney for
the schools, said that if the schools were forced to file suit over the issue, the names of the Does would become
public.

Kuniyuki made the allegation in a sworn declaration filed this month in federal court in Sacramento, seeking a court
order barring public identification of the plaintiffs.

Schools attorney Paul Alston denied that Schulmeister threatened to reveal the plaintiff's identities.

"Schulmeister told Kuniyuki that the (Kamehameha Schools/ Bishop Estate) believed the settlement agreement had
been breached and that the estate was entitled to damages," Alston said in court papers filed April 14 in Sacramento.

"He further explained that a public lawsuit could make it difficult for the Does' anonymity to be preserved" and
suggested that the $2 million be held in escrow while the parties discussed resolution of the dispute short of a
lawsuit, according to Alston.

Alston stressed on Tuesday that Kamehameha Schools has not filed a lawsuit or taken any action that would
publicly identify the Does.

"Kamehameha Schools is closely scrutinizing how to proceed," he said.

Tuesday night and yesterday, the Kamehameha Schools board of trustees and Chief Executive Dee Jay Mailer sent a
mass e-mail to parents and alumni notifying them of the new legal skirmishing in California and alerting them that
The Advertiser was preparing a story on the subject.

"A breach of confidentiality has occurred, and an investigation into the line of responsibility is in process. Legal
action as appropriate shall follow," the trustees' e-mail said.

"It is aggravating to be drawn into this complicated and unsavory infighting," the trustees' message continued.
"However, we will not allow this latest legal maneuver to distract us from our mission."

'FEAR FOR OUR SAFETY'

Jane and John Doe filed legal papers in Sacramento federal court denying any role in the release of the settlement
figure by John Goemans, an attorney who used to represent them but who now is involved in a dispute over
compensation for his services in the case.
Their attorney, Kuniyuki, also asked the federal court to issue a restraining order against all parties in the case
preventing any attempts to disclose the identities of Jane and John Doe.

He attached an April 2 sworn statement from Jane Doe that said, "both John Doe and I fear for our safety if our
identities are made public."

She noted that more than 1,550 reader comments were posted on the Advertiser's Web site following the February
story that disclosed the settlement amount.

"Many of them are extremely critical of us. Some include threats of violence against us," she said.

"I have lived in Hawai'i for many years. The negative comments and threats posted to the Honolulu Advertiser's
February 8, 2008 article are entirely consistent with my experience with many local residents regarding the
admissions policy of the Kamehameha Schools."

If their identities become public, she said, "we are prepared to move and go into hiding."

Last week, following a hearing before U.S. District Judge Frank Damrell Jr., all parties in the federal court case
stipulated that they would not disclose the true identities of the Does.

Goemans told The Advertiser in February that he believed the settlement amount should be a matter of public
record, given Kamehameha Schools' status as the wealthiest and most influential nonprofit institution in Hawai'i.

ATTORNEY'S TROUBLES

In a separate civil case now pending in Sacramento state court, Goemans was sentenced earlier this month to serve
eight days in jail and fined $4,000 for violating a court order to keep the settlement amount secret.

Goemans, 73, now living in Florida with his sister, said by telephone, "I have zero money, I have serious health
issues, and now I've been ordered to serve an eight-day jail sentence in California in the middle of May. I don't
know what's going to happen."

The California state case was filed against Goemans by Eric Grant, a Sacramento attorney who litigated the Does'
lawsuit from the time it was first filed in Hawai'i in 2003 through its settlement in May 2007.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Grant was entitled to 40 percent of the $7 million total, or $2.8 million.

He sued Goemans in Superior Court in Sacramento last year to try to settle the outstanding question of how much
Goemans should be compensated.

Goemans conceived the civil rights lawsuit against the schools, found the plaintiffs on the Big Island and brought
them together with Grant.

Goemans said the only money he has received was a $20,000 loan from Jane Doe but believes he is entitled to as
much as 25 percent of the total settlement, or $1.75 million.

According to documents filed in the California state case, Grant became concerned early this year that Goemans
intended to reveal the amount of the legal settlement and on Feb. 5 obtained a court order against Goemans blocking
any such disclosures.

Three days later, The Advertiser published a news story based on Goemans' statements about the settlement amount.
Goemans said in a sworn statement filed with the California court March 17 that he is "not medically or mentally
100 percent" and had no memory of being informed of the Feb. 5 court order.

"I want to emphasize to the court that it was not my intent to deliberately and knowingly violate the court's order,"
the statement said.

But he reiterated his belief that Kamehameha Schools, as a tax-exempt organization, should not and cannot keep the
terms of the settlement confidential.

After the settlement terms were made public, Grant filed a new federal lawsuit March 28 in Sacramento against
Kamehameha Schools and his own clients, Jane and John Doe, asking the court for a ruling that he was not
responsible for the disclosure and has no financial liability because of it.

Grant and an attorney who represents him did not return telephone requests for comment.

Alston filed a lengthy legal memo in the case last week questioning the Sacramento court's jurisdiction in the matter
since the Does and the schools are in Hawai'i.

Reach Jim Dooley at jdooley@honoluluadvertiser.com.

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha wants $2 million returned
ARTICLEDATE: 4/24/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KHNL / KFVE - TV
ARTICLEBODY: Attorney gets jail for revealing                  Kamehameha settlement amount


Associated Press - April 24, 2008 9:54 PM ET

HONOLULU (AP) - A Big Island attorney has been sentenced to eight days in jail.

John Goemans was also fined $4,000 for revealing the amount of a $7 million settlement Kamehameha
Schools reached with a woman and her son last year.

The confidential settlement ended a lawsuit filed on behalf of the non-Hawaiian student to settle a
discrimination lawsuit over Kamehameha's admissions policy favoring Native Hawaiians.

Goemans had planned and started the legal action brought four years ago against the schools.

He disclosed terms of the settlement in February, saying the amount was important public information
about a charitable institution given tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.

Goemans says he has no memory of being informed of a court order to keep the settlement amount
secret.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed.

ARTICLETITLE: Attorney gets jail for revealing Kamehameha settlement amount
ARTICLEDATE: 4/24/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KPUA-AM 670
ARTICLEBODY:
ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools looking to recover settlement
ARTICLEDATE: 4/24/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Santa Barbara News-Press
ARTICLEBODY:
ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools looking to recover settlement
ARTICLEDATE: 4/24/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Santa Barbara News-Press
ARTICLEBODY:

Kamehameha Schools looking to recover settlement

April 24, 2008 1:26 PM

HONOLULU (AP) - Kamehameha Schools is trying to recover up to $2 million it paid last year to settle a lawsuit over
its admissions policy favoring Hawaiians.

The Big Island mother and child who received the settlement money say the school is threatening to reveal their
names if they don't place the money in an escrow account for possible return to the schools.

They have asked a Sacramento federal court to issue a restraining order to prevent disclosure of their identities,
saying they fear for their safety.

But Paul Alston, an attorney for the schools, says no such threat was made.

He says an attorney representing the schools told the family that the settlement agreement had been violated by
revelation of the settlement amount, and the estate was entitled to damages.

AP-WS-04-24-08 1605EDT

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools looking to recover settlement
ARTICLEDATE: 4/25/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KPUA-AM 670
ARTICLEBODY:
Posted: Friday, April 25th, 2008 4:58 AM HST

     Attorney gets jail for revealing Kamehameha settlement
                               amount
By Associated Press
HONOLULU (AP) _ A Big Island attorney has been sentenced to eight days in
jail.

John Goemans was also fined $4,000 for revealing the amount of a 7 million
dollar settlement Kamehameha Schools reached with a woman and her son
last year.

The confidential settlement ended a lawsuit filed on behalf of the non-
Hawaiian student to settle a discrimination lawsuit over Kamehameha's
admissions policy favoring Native Hawaiians.

Goemans had planned and started the legal action brought four years ago
against the schools.
He disclosed terms of the settlement in February, saying the amount was
important public information about a charitable institution given tax-exempt
status by the Internal Revenue Service.

Goemans says he has no memory of being informed of a court order to keep
the settlement amount secret.

(Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved)
ARTICLETITLE: Attorney gets jail for revealing Kamehameha settlement amount
ARTICLEDATE: 7/11/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Weekly
ARTICLEBODY:

Talking story about silent protest

Native Hawaiian activist embraces Hawai'i Pono'i

by Travis Quezon / 7-9-2008




When it was revealed that Kamehameha Schools paid $7 million to settle a lawsuit that had called into question its
racially inclusive admissions process, Native Hawaiian activist Kanohowailuku Koko decided make a statement with
silence. Through a grassroots effort in handing out Xeroxed fliers and talking story with the people he comes across
while enjoying lunch at ‘Iolani Palace, Koko is asking all Kanaka Maoli to remain sitting and silent during the
playing of the Star Spangled Banner as a show of protest to what he says is not the national anthem of the Hawaiian
people who were illegally overthrown in 1893. Koko spoke with Honolulu Weekly about his message.




What is the meaning of the phrase “silence is golden― that you use with your message to Kanaka Maoli
to not stand or sing during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner?
Our purpose is to inform the children as well as the public, as Kanaka Maoli, as to what is our national anthem. Being
as it may, our national anthem is Hawai’i Pono’i.

So to get [across] that “silence is golden,― we pursued it at the time the Kamehameha Schools song contest
was about to happen. We thought that it would be a good time to pass those flyers out.

Before we got it done, I tried to get permission. I called up one of the people at the school, and they said my article
was too political. They gave me something in writing as to why I couldn’t distribute that.

They said they were going to call their legal office. They never did get back to me.

So based on that, we went ahead on the [Kamehameha Schools] campus and we started to distribute the flyer. And
we saw these Kau Inoa banners. So in our mind, [we were wondering] what is so political as compared to Kau Inoa?

We made about 2,500 flyers to pass out at the Blaisdell during the song contest.

We had to explain this wasn’t a program.

And there were people who said no, they don’t need the flyer. But when we said it was about the $7 million [that
Bishop Estate paid to settle a lawsuit about its admissions process], then they stopped and said they do need the
flyers.

I’m not contesting anything. Now I’m asking for some equal time. If they can let the facilitators of Kau Inoa
put their banner up and tell the students what it is all about, then I’m requesting for equal time [to talk about what
Kau Inoa and the Akaka Bill is really about]. I’m not saying I’m right. But I think I’ve been here long
enough to see right from wrong, and to know that you got to tell people the truth, not hide it.

I never saw anything in the Akaka Bill about recognition. It’s a reorganization of the Hawaiian government.
Because of that, I guess they would consider that as recognition for us. But we’ve already been recognized
throughout the world.

They’re presenting it as something else?

Right, so being that the Akaka Bill is a reorganization act, it’s contentious of us to know that if that is so, then the
Hawaiian government is still in tact. It’s still here. We never had an annexation treaty signed, and all government
officials know that. But yet they pretend that everything is good because of the Newlands Resolution, which by law
you could never acquire a country or a nation.

What does this mean for the state of Hawai’i today?

This points out that no matter what, the fraud has been committed and that’s where I’m at right now, making
people understand about the what has been perpetuated in Hawai’i since the overthrow.

You know, if you say you’re Hawaiian, fine. What kind of Hawaiian are you? Are you an American citizen
Hawaiian? We were never asked to be Americans.

You describe how Hawai’i had its own laws and missions for its schools prior to being claimed by the
United States. That’s something about history that no one seems to bring up.

The Constitution doesn’t belong in here. By law of nation,the domestic laws that were already in place [should be
what is recognized]. See I’m not an attorney, but it’s just common sense.

Beyond your understanding of the Akaka bill, the $7 million lawsuit and the original injustices that happened
to Hawai’i, was there anything more specifically you were advocating for?
The thing is, we are seriously trying to do a thank you letter to the [Bishop Estate] trustees for the mere fact that they
never play the Star Spangled Banner. It is the right thing to do. We are Hawaiians.

We also want to inform [government officals] that the $7 million that went down the drain could have been utilized for
better things. They could have used it for another immersion program or for the homeless, especially the Kanaka
Maoli.

The will [of Bernice Pauahi Bishop] did not say you could not invest in your own people. In her people. They’re
investing money all over the place, up in the mainland, in the banks. What’s wrong with investing their own
money in their own people?

There are think tanks and groups in Hawai’i who are ultimately trying to end services going to Native
Hawaiians, but they don’t offer an alternative solution.

They don’t have one. They’re in a system that they believe so highly about, but yet in the back of their head,
they wish it wasn’t there. It’s just something that they have to follow.

ARTICLETITLE: Talking story about silent protest
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: American School & University Magazine
ARTICLEBODY:

Suit challenges admissions policy at Hawaiian schools

Aug 7, 2008 12:34 PM

Four non-Hawaiian students and their families have filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to overturn Kamehameha
Schools' admission policy, which gives preference to native Hawaiian students. The lawsuit is nearly identical to a
court challenge filed in 2003. That lawsuit was settled for $7 million last year after a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals upheld the policy.
To read The Honolulu Star-Bulletin article, click here.

FROM MAY 2007: The private Kamehameha Schools in Hawaii have settled a civil rights lawsuit brought against
them by a student denied admission because he did not possess Hawaiian ancestry. The settlement avoided the
possibility of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the status of Native Hawaiians. The terms of the settlement
were not disclosed. But it left in place an 8-to-7 decision of the federal appeals court in San Francisco that allows the
schools to admit only students who can prove that at least one of their ancestors lived on the Hawaiian Islands in
1778, when the British explorer Capt. James Cook arrived. The schools, supported by an endowment from a 19th-
century Hawaiian princess, have 6,700 student with campuses on three of the state's islands.

Click here to read The New York Times article.

ARTICLETITLE: Suit challenges admissions policy at Hawaiian schools
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Reporter
ARTICLEBODY: Kamehameha Schools Sued Again for 'Unlawful Racial Discrimination'
By Hawaii Reporter Staff, 8/6/2008 5:09:11 PM

Editor's note: This was submitted by attorneys Eric Grant and David Rosen.

HONOLULU, HAWAII: Today Eric Grant, Esq. and David B. Rosen, Esq. filed a lawsuit in federal district court against
Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate on behalf of four children and their families who seek an end to the "Native
Hawaiians only" admissions policy maintained by the Estate's Trustees.

The present lawsuit is essentially identical to the earlier lawsuit filed on behalf of "John Doe," which the Trustees
settled last year in order to prevent the legality of their admissions policy from being considered by the United States
Supreme Court.
Mr. Grant, one of the attorneys who earlier represented John Doe, explained: "The purpose of today's action is to
obtain a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court that the Trustees' racially exclusionary admissions policy violates
our Nation's civil rights laws. Our clients believe, and we agree with them, that such a ruling will have a significant
impact in reversing unfortunate trends towards discrimination and even segregation in Hawaii."

The students and their families who bring this lawsuit are representative of Hawaii. They are kama'ina, multi-ethnic,
and of varying economic means. They reside across the State, and they are Hawaiian in every sense save the merely
genetic, i.e., the birthplace of their ancient ancestors. The plaintiffs seek no special treatment -- only equal treatment,
namely, the right to be considered for admission without regard to race or ancestry.

Mr. Rosen, a solo practitioner in Honolulu, added: "We are confident that most Hawaiians are justifiably proud of their
unique, multi-ethnic, local heritage. We are also confident that most Hawaiians are equally proud of the rights and
freedoms that we all share as citizens of the United States of America, among them the right to be free from racial
and ethnic discrimination. It is in furtherance of this basic right that we join our clients in beginning the journey back to
the United States Supreme Court."

An Adobe PDF version of the plaintiffs' complaint may be downloaded from Mr. Grant's website: http://www.eric-
grant.com/work.html#Top

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools Sued Again for 'Unlawful Racial Discrimination'
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY: BLOGS >> Wassap Wit Dat!



Haaaawaaaiian….. NOT!

August 7th, 2008 by Braddah Lance

If you’ve been on da rock da past decade, you’ve seen/heard it countless times,

Non-Hawaiian’s trying - and failing - to get admitted to KSBE (Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate) and then filing lawsuits becaus

Wassap Wit Dat!!!

First, you not Hawaiian by blood. Second, it’s not your money! Third, if you was Hawaiian at heart, you wouldn’t do a disservice
Last, you probably haole.


Ho, no get your panties in one bunch. Haole meaning foreigner, not from da islands - NOT used in a derogatory manner.

Just yesterday yet another lawsuit was filed against KSBE for being denied based on ethnicity.

C’mon. What’s it all about? Dat’s right, $KALA$. It’s not about ethnicity - even Hawaiian-blood applicants get denied.

I jus’ found out dat KSBE wen settle the last lawsuit for $7 million?! Mo’ worse, da same lawyer filing a near identical suit for the
Wow, talk about two fo’ one blue light special yeah? Da lawyer no need even do work fo’ dis one, jus’ gotta buss’ out d
KITV mentioned, he “solicited― for their case.

Would I like to send my future keiki to Kamehameha? HECK yeah! But I not going apply - I get mo’ class den dat! KSBE is a non-pr
Schools was founded by the will of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, a descendant of Hawaiian royalty, and the great-granddaughter of Kameham
her trust, her will set up for da keiki o ka aina of Hawaiian ancestry.

Dat would be jus’ like anyone of us suing McDonald’s cause they no like serve Pepsi products. Hey, anyone interested in class
yeah?
Prior to working at The Advertiser, I used to work fo’ a sister trust of KSBE, Queen Lili’uokalani. While working there, I nevah on
future keiki. I would have sincerely appreciated it if it was possible but I wasn’t about to make a stink about it. I understood the will o
perpetuity she established for those destitute and orphaned Hawaiian keiki - believe me, I was destitute, but not Hawaiian.

Am I impartial? Probably not cause I at least know/understand the will and trust of our last ali’i’s in addition to working for one. P
even come close to “qualifying―.

Get choke government programs I no qualify for, shall I sue da government?

What I cannot understand is why people think they are “owed― to get into KSBE. Believe me, I’ve had quite a few Hawaiian-b
tried for countless years trying to get in. I’ve filled out part of their forms for them each time and and if anyone deserved to get in, the
for admissions and getting in is not easy. There are literally tens of thousands of Hawaiian-blood keiki that get denied and they don’
of.

If KSBE wasn’t a private trust and it was “selecting― it’s students I can understand the lawsuit - but it is a private trust.
court and all ambulance chasing lawyers need is just one judge to say “yes― and let da floodgates open. But alas, KSBE is at lea
lawsuit against the last plaintiff for breach of confidential terms released to the media.

Anyone got da numbah of dat lawyer? I guess wen I finally get one keiki, going get different judges by dat time and I get chance yeah?

Nah, I get mo’ class and respect den dat!

Wat about you?

.

.
ARTICLETITLE: Haaaawaaaiian;.. NOT!
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:
Posted on: Thursday, August 7, 2008

Kamehameha Schools again being sued over admissions policy

Meanwhile, school sues previous plaintiffs over disclosure of settlement

    PDF: Read the complaint filed by Kamehameha Schools against John Doe
    PDF: Read the complaint challenging Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy

By Jim Dooley and Gordon Y.K. Pang
Advertiser Staff Writers




Some say they
hope the latest
challenge to
Kamehameha's
admissions policy
offers "legal
closure."
Advertiser library
photo

ABOUT KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS

Kamehameha Schools was established by the 1884 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The princess endowed
the schools with thousands of acres of land, which made the institution land-rich but cash-poor for much of the first
century of its existence.

But as the value of Island land increased exponentially in the latter half of the 20th century, so did the assets of the
Bishop Estate, as the institution was known at the time.

Its assets are now valued at more than $9 billion, making it one of the wealthiest nonprofits in the world.

Today, Kamehameha Schools occupies a central role in Hawai'i society, in part because of its financial clout and in
part because of its mission to educate children of Hawaiian ancestry.

Last year, 5,354 students were enrolled in the trust's K-12 programs at the flagship campus on Kapalama Heights on
O'ahu and at newer facilities on the Big Island and Maui.

Another 30,000 children and adults were served through various Kamehameha Schools preschool and community
outreach programs and support of 14 charter schools.

The schools maintain that the admissions policy only "favors" children of Hawaiian ancestry. Non-Hawaiian children
will be considered for admission if there are not enough applicants of Hawaiian ancestry to fill classrooms, the
institution has said.

There are about 70,000 school-age children of Native Hawaiian ancestry in the Islands.

A new federal court lawsuit challenging Kamehameha Schools' controversial admissions policy that favors students of
Native Hawaiian ancestry was filed yesterday on behalf of four unnamed students who allege they were denied entry
because of their ethnicity.

The action came just after the school filed a separate suit on the Big Island to recover some of the $7 million paid last
year to settle a similar challenge by a non-Hawaiian student.

The latest suit against the school was filed by local attorney David Rosen and Sacramento lawyer Eric Grant.

Grant earlier represented a Big Island youth, identified in court papers only as John Doe, who filed a similar claim
against the school's admission policy in 2003, but agreed to drop the suit last year after pursuing it all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court.

The new suit "is essentially identical" to the John Doe case, Grant said in a news release, a factor one legal expert
said could give weight to the argument the lawsuit is frivolous, citing Rule 11 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"Lawyers are not supposed to clog the courts with matters that have been adjudicated and resolved," said Jon Van
Dyke, a professor at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa Richardson School of Law. Van Dyke was a paid consultant for
Kamehameha Schools on the original John Doe lawsuit but not currently doing work for the institution. "The fact that
they themselves say it's the identical lawsuit is just bizarre."

Meanwhile, Kamehameha graduates said they are weary of the legal assaults against the schools.

"I'm tired of all this stuff," said Adrian Kamali'i, president of the Na Pua a Ke Ali'i Pauahi group of students, parents
and alumni.
Kamehameha Schools and other organizations of Hawaiian ali'i set up to aid Native Hawaiians continue to serve a
people still at the bottom of important socio-economic categories.

"These organizations don't exist to be greedy," Kamali'i said. "They have a purpose."

Several alumni, however, said they welcomed the possibility that the issue of the admissions policy may get to the
U.S. Supreme Court.

In his statement on the lawsuit, plaintiffs lawyer Grant said "The purpose of today's action is to obtain a definitive
ruling from the Supreme Court that the (Kamehameha Schools) trustees' racially exclusionary admissions policy
violates our nation's civil rights laws."

The trustees, in their own news release, called the lawsuit an attack not just on the schools but "on our history, our
heritage and the values of Hawai'i."

They said that prevailing law, a 2005 opinion from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, upheld the
legality of the school's admissions policy.

"We enter into this battle from a position of strength, well prepared to defend our admissions policy with legal
precedent at the 9th Circuit Court on our side," said the trustees.

"Eric Grant and David Rosen have a steep uphill battle ahead of them," the written statement said.

Differing opinions

Rosen yesterday acknowledged that legal precedent is against his clients, so far. He noted that a three-judge panel
of the 9th Circuit originally found the admissions policy to be illegal, but that ruling was set aside when all of the
appellate judges met "en banc" to re-examine the case and ruled in an 8-7 decision that the admissions policy is
legal.

"It was a very divided court," Rosen said.

However, Van Dyke said accepting the settlement meant accepting the 9th Circuit en banc ruling.

"They can argue that the U.S. Supreme Court could reverse the 9th Circuit, but they certainly can't argue that the law
of this circuit supports their position, and the fact that Mr. Grant himself decided to settle rather than have the U.S.
Supreme Court decide the matter, I think, perhaps undercuts his argument."

Grant said via e-mail that he believes the case could be "argued and decided" by the U.S. Supreme Court in the
October 2009 term, which runs to June 2010.

"It is difficult to predict these things, however, and the case could easily be put over to the following term" which runs
from October 2010 to June 2011, Grant said.

The trustees said yesterday that the suit was filed after they refused a demand from Grant and Rosen to admit the
four students to the schools.

"Clearly, we cannot comply," the trustees said. "We have no idea if any of the students qualified for admission, or
even applied to our campus programs."

Grant and Rosen described the students and their families as "representative of Hawai'i."

The plaintiffs "reside across the state, and they are Hawaiian in every sense save the merely genetic, i.e., the
birthplace of their ancient ancestors," Rosen and Grant said.
Some schools alumni yesterday said they hope the case gets to the highest court in the land.

"How else does Kamehameha stop them from coming back and bringing six guys next time?" said Jan Dill, another
Na Pua board member. "We need to have legal closure."

Dill echoed Kamali'i's comments about the need for a Hawaiians-only program, and especially those provided by
Kamehameha and its considerable financial resources.

"There are families hurting throughout our entire community that Kamehameha is willing to help, and this is all a
distraction from that," Dill said.

school seeks damages

In a second major legal development, the trustees filed their own suit on the Big Island yesterday against John and
Jane Doe, the student and parent who filed the 2003 admissions lawsuit against the school.

The new suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages because John Goemans, an attorney who once represented
the Does, revealed to The Advertiser in February the confidential terms of the $7 million settlement paid by the school
to the Does.

The agreement specified that a party breaching the confidentiality agreement could be found liable for damages of as
much as $2 million.

"Under the terms of the agreement, the Does agreed to be held liable for any breaches of confidentiality by their legal
counsel," the trustees said in a news release about the new suit.

"This includes Goemans, who was one of the attorneys of record throughout the four-year-long litigation."

Local attorney Ken Kuniyuki, who now represents the Does, yesterday would not comment on the new lawsuit.

Goemans, reached by telephone on the Mainland, repeated his belief that Kamehameha Schools, as a tax-exempt,
non-profit institution, cannot keep confidential such a settlement payment without endangering its Internal Revenue
Service tax exemption.

And he said that he was not an attorney of record in the case.

"I haven't been practicing law since 2000 and I was not admitted to appear before the Supreme Court" when the
appeal was filed there by Grant, Goemans said.

"My name was included in some places (when the case was being litigated)," Goemans said. "But that was Eric
Grant's doing. He never asked me and I never agreed."

Further, Goemans said that he learned the terms of the settlement from Grant before it was signed and "before there
was ever a confidentiality agreement."

some alumni pleased

Regarding the new challenge to Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy filed by Grant and Rosen, Goemans said,
"I'm glad. I don't think the first case should have been settled. The admissions policy is unconstitutional and they will
find that out unless there's another settlement of this (new) case."

Grant would not comment on the new suit filed against John and Jane Doe.

But some school alumni applauded it.
"I think it's really good (Kamehameha) starts going on the offensive instead of going on the defensive all the time,"
said alumnus and kumu hula Vicky Holt Takamine. "(The Does) opened the door by not abiding by the court ruling
and not keeping everything quiet."

Takamine said Kamehameha should consider releasing the identity of the original John Doe. She also criticized the
parents of the unnamed children who have challenged the admissions policy.

"I think parents of these children are making them pawns in this," she said. "I wouldn't want my children or
grandchildren put in that position."

Dill said: "I think that it's late in coming. I'm glad (the school is) doing it. They should really pursue every legal avenue
to hold these people accountable."

Reach Jim Dooley at jdooley@honoluluadvertiser.com and Gordon Y.K. Pang at gpang@honoluluadvertiser.com.

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools again being sued over admissions bias
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:
KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS:
PREFERENCE POLICY
FACING NEW CHALLENGE

4 challenge racial preference

An attorney for the plaintiffs believes this case could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court

» Lawsuit focuses on settlement's disclosure

STORY SUMMARY | READ THE FULL STORY

Four non-Hawaiian students and their families filed a lawsuit in federal court yesterday seeking to overturn
Kamehameha Schools' admission policy, which gives preference to native Hawaiian students.

The lawsuit is nearly identical to a court challenge filed in 2003 by a non-Hawaiian student known only as John Doe.
That lawsuit was settled for $7 million last year after a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
policy, said attorney John Goemans.

Sacramento attorney Eric Grant, a key figure in both lawsuits, said he intends to take this case to the U.S. Supreme
Court.

"This is something we've been expecting. We are certainly prepared to defend our policy," said Kekoa Paulsen, a
spokesman for Kamehameha Schools.

Also yesterday, Kamehameha Schools filed suit in state court against John Doe and his mother, alleging they
breached a confidentiality agreement when Goemans revealed the amount of the settlement.

Goemans said yesterday that Kamehameha Schools has no right to keep the settlement confidential.

The lawsuit seeks attorneys' fees and other, unspecified damages.

CRAIG GIMA


FULL STORY »
By Craig Gima
cgima@starbulletin.com

Kamehameha Schools is facing another challenge to its admissions policy favoring native Hawaiians with a lawsuit
filed in federal court yesterday that could eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

           Kamehameha Battles Court Lawsuit




Kamehameha is back in court defending its admission policy, saying that it gives preference to Native Hawaiians.

[ Watch ]




The lawsuit was filed on behalf of four unidentified children and their families under the Civil Rights Act and seeks a
"definitive ruling" that the "racially exclusionary admissions policy violates our nation's civil rights laws," according to a
news release from Sacramento, Calif., attorney Eric Grant and Honolulu attorney David Rosen, who filed the lawsuit.

Kamehameha Schools spokesman Kekoa Paulsen said the school had been expecting the lawsuit and is "prepared
to defend our policy."

"We operate entirely as a private organization, and our mission is to correct imbalances that were created years ago,"
Paulsen said. "We'd rather not be in court. We'd rather be doing what we need to do. We'd rather not have the
distraction of having to argue this thing again and just go on with doing our business."

The lawsuit alleges that the four children, identified only as Jacob Doe, Jane Doe, Karl Doe and Lisa Doe, would
have been admitted to a Kamehameha Schools campus this fall if they were of native Hawaiian ancestry.

The plaintiffs are seeking a judgment that the policy is "illegal and unenforceable," injunctions against implementing
the policy for the upcoming school year, damages and attorneys fees.

The lawsuit is similar to a 2003 court case that was settled before it could reach the Supreme Court.

In that case, John Doe v. Kamehameha Schools, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 8-7 in favor of
Kamehameha Schools in December 2006.

The court found that the preference policy does not violate federal civil rights laws and has a legitimate purpose of
addressing economic and educational imbalances suffered by native Hawaiians.

Rosen said he expects the case to work its way back to the 9th Circuit, where it can be appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
That process could take about two years, he said.

Paulsen said Kamehameha Schools has the 9th Circuit decision on its side, which also recognized that Congress has
a special political relationship with native Hawaiians.

"They have a pretty steep hill to climb to prove otherwise," Paulsen said.

Grant filed the John Doe lawsuit and, when it was settled, said he was disappointed it did not go to the Supreme
Court.

Rosen began soliciting potential clients for a new lawsuit shortly after the settlement in May 2007.

The four plaintiffs and their families were described as "representative of Hawaii" and "multi-ethnic, and of varying
economic means" in a news release.

"The plaintiffs seek no special treatment -- only equal treatment, namely, the right to be considered for admission
without regard to race or ancestry," the news release continued.

Jan Dill, a board member of Na Pua A Ke Ali'i Pauahi, an organization of Kamehameha Schools alumni, parents and
students, said he trusts the schools' trustees to defend the policy and hopes it will finally be resolved.

"It (the lawsuit) is like poking at a healing wound in the community. It creates bitterness. It creates misunderstanding
and we need to move forward," he said. "I think that's what the ohana wants. They want closure already."

Kamehameha Schools was founded by the 1883 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop and operates schools on
Oahu, Maui and the Big Island and other educational programs. The three campuses enroll about 5,000 students and
are subsidized by a $9 billion-plus trust. Only one in eight applicants is accepted into the schools.

To see the lawsuit
www.eric-grant.com/work.html#Top

Kamehameha Schools Message
www.ksbe.edu/article.php?story=20080806140238351

ARTICLETITLE: 4 challenge racial preference
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:
KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS:
PREFERENCE POLICY
FACING NEW CHALLENGE

Big Island lawsuit focuses on settlement’s disclosure

» 4 challenge racial preference
By Craig Gima
cgima@starbulletin.com

Kamehameha Schools is suing an unidentified non-Hawaiian student and his mother for disclosing a confidential
settlement reached last year in a 2003 lawsuit challenging the schools' admission policy.

The schools' lawsuit filed yesterday in state court on the Big Island is "separate and unrelated" to another lawsuit filed
in federal court that also challenges the admissions policy, according to a message from the Kamehameha Schools
trustees and Chief Executive Officer Dee Jay Mailer.
In February former attorney John Goemans revealed that the school paid $7 million to settle the 2003 case after a
panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Kamehameha Schools.

Goemans said yesterday that he was not the attorney for the plaintiffs -- identified only as John and Jane Doe -- at
the time of the settlement and was not bound by the confidentiality agreement.

Goemans said he learned of the settlement amount from attorney Eric Grant before the settlement was agreed to.

"It wasn't a breach of the confidentiality agreement because there was not a confidentiality agreement at that time,"
Goemans said.

Kamehameha Schools attorney Paul Alston said court documents show Goemans did represent the plaintiffs.

"His effort to try to weasel out of his role is baseless," Alston said.

Goemans also argues that because Kamehameha Schools is a tax-exempt organization, it must disclose the
settlement and cannot enter into secret agreements.

Alston said the school complied with federal disclosure requirements and does not have to specifically disclose the
settlement amount.

Kamehameha Schools is seeking attorneys' fees and other costs that it spent to respond to the disclosure, plus other
damages.

"The disclosure of the amount caused some significant disruption and caused KS (Kamehameha Schools) to devote
time and energy from other useful things to try and respond to the story," Alston said.

ARTICLETITLE: Lawsuit focuses on settlement's disclosure
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KGMB9
ARTICLEBODY:
Kamehameha Schools Files Lawsuit Against John Doe for Breach of
Confidentiality
Written by KGMB9 News - news@kgmb9.com
August 06, 2008 01:40 PM
Attorneys for Kamehameha Schools today filed a lawsuit in the Third Circuit Court against individuals known only as
John and Jane Doe for the disclosure of material terms of a confidential settlement agreement that resolved the Does'
unsuccessful legal challenge to the Schools' admissions policy. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of
monetary damages.

"Confidentiality was a material term of the settlement agreement reached between John and Jane Doe and
Kamehameha Schools in May 2007," said Colleen Wong, the Schools' vice president for legal affairs. "The
confidentiality provision included the attorneys for both parties, and each party agreed to be held liable for breaches
of confidentiality committed by their legal counsel," Wong said.

In February 2008, the Honolulu Advertiser published details of the settlement attributed to attorney John Goemans,
counsel of record for John and Jane Doe throughout the Does' four-year legal challenge. The next day, Goemans
provided statements about the settlement to additional television and print media.

Following Goemans' public disclosure, co-counsel Eric Grant filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Sacramento,
California asking the court to declare that he has no liability to Kamehameha Schools or John and Jane Doe for
breach of confidentiality in the settlement agreement. The Does then filed a crossclaim seeking to prevent
Kamehameha Schools from disclosing their identities, which the Schools' never intended to do. Kamehameha
Schools has asked the federal court to dismiss both claims for lack of jurisdiction.
ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools Files Lawsuit Against John Doe for Breach of Confidentiality
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KGMB9
ARTICLEBODY:
Two Lawsuits over
Kamehameha Schools
Written by KGMB9 News - news@kgmb9.com
August 06, 2008 07:55 PM
                                Battling lawsuits over Kamehameha Schools.

On Wednesday, an attorney filed a suit in federal court, claiming four children were illegally discriminated against by
the school's Hawaiian preference admissions policy.

Kamehameha Schools has filed another lawsuit of its own. The school's suit is against the very group it settled with
back in May 2007. The plaintiffs, known only as John and Jane Doe, had challenged the school's Hawaiian-first
admission policy.

The school eventually paid them $7 million to settle. That amount was then disclosed to the media by attorney John
Goemans. The school claims that information was protected by a confidentiality clause in the agreement. Now, it's
suing the plaintiffs for the breach.

"It's a breach of an agreement and settlement," said Kamehameha Schools Trustee Nainoa Thompson, "and it's
something we believe taking legal action is in the best interest of the institution."

"There was nothing to breach," said Goemans. "The only people who could breach it were the signatures Jane Doe,
or her counsel I'm not her counsel, Eric Grant, or Jane Doe, and there wasn't any confidential agreement when Eric
Grant told me what the settlement amount was therefore there was no breach."

Eric Grant was one of the attorneys in that John Doe case. Grant is now also representing four children in the other
suit we mentioned. The suit is nearly identical to the one settled last year. Grant claims the children were
discriminated against by the school. He wants to end the schools Hawaiian first admissions policy.
ARTICLETITLE: Two Lawsuits over Kamehameha Schools
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KHNL / KFVE - TV
ARTICLEBODY: Children            sue to become Kamehameha students
Updated: Aug 7, 2008 10:00 AM




                                                                                               David Mahelona
By Zahid Arab - bio | email                                                            Corbett Kalama


HONOLULU (KHNL) - Kamehameha schools is slapped with another
lawsuit, this time by four children who say they've been denied admission
because of what they say is the school's "hawaiians only" admissions
policy.

But the school says its admissions policy is not Hawaiians only it's
hawaiians preference and does not bar anyone from attending classes.

Discrimination or just following the direct wishes of the school's                      Tom McAuliffe
benefactor.

It's an issue that's being debated back and forth and may soon be up to
the U.S. Supreme Court to decide.

At Kamehameha schools, parents say taking their kids here is about
pride.

"I wanted them to really get up on their Hawaiian ancestry because I
didn't get that growing up," said Parent David Mahelona.
                                                                                        Nadine Chang

"We will fight to maintain our preference policy," said School Trustee
Corbett Kalama.                                                               News Links
                                                                                Hawaiian-Preference Policy
                                                                                Stands at Kamehameha
But the school, is coming under fire again, after 4 students filed lawsuits
for the right to be considered for admission without regard to their race.
The school says preference for Hawaiian students isn't prejudice, it's the
will of the school's benefactor.
                                                                              Email alerts from KHNL

"These attacks that come against Kamehameha are basically trying to           Click here to sign up...
take away everything that our princess intended to happen," said
Kalama.

"Kamehameha schools admission policy is the antithesis of what America is all about," said Grass Root
Institute Spokesman Tom McAuliffe.

A spokesman for Grass Root Institute of Hawaii disagrees, he says the school's policy requiring student's
to have Hawaiian blood needs to change.

"Segmenting people based upon race and the blood in their veins is not what America's all about nor
should it be what the state of Hawaii's all about," said McAuliffe.

Still, parents disagree the admission policy is discrimination.

"If I chose to leave my trust to whoever I decide to, I would expect my wishes to be kept. If you say
leaving my children my things is discrimination, I say you're wrong," said Parent Nadine Chang.

Attorneys say they're ready to take this court battle as high as the U.S. Supreme Court to finally get a
definitive ruling on this issue that's been debated for decades. The children say they don't want special
treatment, all they're after is equal treatment.
The school filed a lawsuit of it's own Wednesday against individuals known as John and Jane Doe who
also challenged its admission's policy, but settled the matter for $7 million five years ago.

Kamehameha says that information wasn't supposed to be made public and now they're seeking
damages.

ARTICLETITLE: Children sue to become Kamehameha students
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KHNL / KFVE - TV
ARTICLEBODY: Kamehameha                Schools sues over admissions settlement;
faces new suit


Associated Press - August 7, 2008 2:34 AM ET

HONOLULU (AP) - Kamehameha Schools is suing an unidentified white boy who received a $7 million
settlement over his attempts to gain admission even though he isn't Native Hawaiian.

Kamehameha claims a lawyer representing the boy and his mother violated a confidentiality agreement
by revealing the amount the school paid the family to settle a lawsuit they filed against the school.

Hilo attorney John Goemans told news media in February that the school paid the boy and his mother the
money.

But Goemans has told The Associated Press he didn't represent the two. He says he was only the
catalyst for the lawsuit and so wasn't covered by the confidentiality agreement.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

Meanwhile, Kamehameha is facing a new lawsuit challenging its admissions policy of offering preference
to applicants of Hawaiian ancestry. Only a few non-Hawaiians have ever been admitted.

The policy was upheld by the U.S. District Court and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before the
settlement in the previous case came in May 2007. The U.S. Supreme Court had not yet decided whether
to hear the case.

Attorney Eric Grant says the purpose of the new legal action is to obtain a definitive ruling from the
Supreme Court.

Grant is representing four non-Hawaiian children and their families.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed.

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools sues over admissions settlement; faces new suit
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KHON-TV FOX 2
ARTICLEBODY:




More Non-Hawaiians Sue Over Kamehameha Schools Admissions
By Gina Mangieri


Kamehameha Schools faces another lawsuit over its Hawaiians-first admissions policy -- this time on behalf of 4
students of non-Hawaiian descent who were denied admission.

The suit says the children were otherwise qualified for admission standards if not for their ancestry. Kamehameha
Schools stands by its policy.

Attorneys for the 4 unnamed students – two of whom appear to be siblings -- say they represent children who
applied to many campuses in a range of ages.

"The purpose of today's action is to obtain a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court that the trustees' racially
exclusionary admissions policy violates our nation's civil rights laws," said Eric Grant, representing the plaintiffs along
with David Rosen.

Kamehameha Schools says it is not violating civil rights with its admissions policy and instead is correcting wrongs
that put Hawaiians at a disadvantage.

"For the first 81 years there wasn't never a single lawsuit against Kamehameha Schools,― said trustee Nainoa
Thompson. “Now it's threatened on a daily basis. It takes resources it takes time it distracts us from our ability to
focus on our primary job that's to fulfill the mission of the schools."

This latest lawsuit had its origins in a May 2007 e-mail circulated by Rosen seeking non-Hawaiian plaintiffs to take on
Kamehameha Schools.

Also today, Kamehameha Schools filed suit in circuit court against the unidentified students with whom they settled a
previous admissions lawsuit. The school took court action for attorney John Goemans’ disclosure of $7 million
settlement terms Kamehameha Schools says were supposed to be confidential.

“There has been no breach of confidentiality; it's absurd,‍ Goemans said. “It’s a mystery to me
because it’s not possible for Kamehameha Schools to have a confidentiality clause in their agreement with
regard to keeping their expenses confidential.―

“Much of the proceedings are confidential and that's part of agreements that we write and sign,― Thompson
said. “We expect them to be upheld.―

Story Updated: Aug 6, 2008 at 7:50 PM HDT

ARTICLETITLE: More Non-Hawaiians Sue Over Kamehameha Schools Admissions
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KHON-TV FOX 2
ARTICLEBODY:

Education




Suit Filed Against Kamehameha Schools

By Olena Rubin

Kamehameha School’s preference to “Native Hawaiians― admissions policy is prompting yet another court
case from 4 non-Hawaiian children and their families.

its been nearly 15 months since Kamehameha Schools reached an out of court settlement with an anonymous non-
Hawaiian student referred to as John Doe, but the law suits continue...two attorneys on behalf of 4 non-Hawaiian
children have filed suit in federal district court against the school again.
Attorney Eric Grant says "The purpose of today's action is to obtain a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court that
the trustees' racially exclusionary admissions policy violates our nation's civil rights laws."

Kamehameha Schools trustee Nainoa Thomspson says the laws are no longer applicable.

"The suit is based on a civil rights law that was enacted two years after the civil war, where congress had to act on
the climate and situation of newly freed slaves,― Thompson said.

Attorneys representing the 4 children and their families say..."we are also confident that most Hawaiians are equally
proud of the rights and freedoms that we all share as citizens of the United States of America, among them the right
to be free from racial and ethnic discrimination."

A Hawaii federal Judge dismissed the John Doe lawsuit in late 2003; the decision was overturned by the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals two years later, a decision that prompted rallies and protests from school supporters. The case
eventually made its way into the hands into the U.S. Supreme court until it was settled out of court last year.

"We hope to get back what is rightfully Kamehameha School's and that will be determined by the courts,―
Thompson said.

At the same time, Kamehameha Schools has also filed suit against John Doe for violating the confidentiality
agreement of their out of court settlement, a disclosure of 7 million dollars Doe's attorney made public to the media.

"Much of the proceedings are confidential and that's part of agreements and agreements are that we write and sign
we expect them to be upheld,― Thompson said.

The attorney behind the lawsuit, David Rosen, circulated an email last year asking non-Hawaiian students to
participate in a class action suit against the school.

Story Updated: Aug 6, 2008 at 10:35 PM HDT

ARTICLETITLE: Suit Filed Against Kamehameha Schools
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KITV-TV ABC 4 Honolulu
ARTICLEBODY:
Kamehameha School Faces Another Lawsuit             Related To Story

4 Non-Hawaiian Students Sue

POSTED: 9:46 pm HST August 6, 2008
UPDATED: 9:15 am HST August 11, 2008
HONOLULU -- Four non-Hawaiian students are suing the
Kamehameha Schools after they were denied admission.
It was more than a year ago the estate settled a similar
lawsuit over its admissions policy which gives preference to
Native Hawaiians.
The school paid out a reported $7 million.
At the time, critics said they were very concerned a
settlement of that magnitude could lead to a long line of
others lining up to sue the school.
On Wednesday, two attorneys filed the lawsuit on behalf of         Video: Kamehameha Battles Court Lawsuit
two boys and two girls.
Their lawsuit claims the Kamehameha Schools admissions
policy giving preference to Native Hawaiian children is
discriminatory and illegal.
The schools said it received a demand letter from the students' attorneys last week threatening to sue unless the four
non-Hawaiian students were admitted.
The schools said no.
"The position of the schools is we are going to adhere to our preference policy," Kamehameha Schools Trustee
Corbett Kalama said.
Attorneys for the students said their clients applied to Kamehameha Schools and were denied admission at different
various and grade levels. Two attorneys filed the lawsuit on their behalf.
Eric Grant, who sued the school before and David Rosen who solicited new clients when Kamehameha settled the
original lawsuit for a reported $7 million before the case got to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"It's not an issue of whether we think we will be successful. We want a result but unfortunately that result was denied
when the trustees decided to throw money at the last case and have it settled," Rosen said. (An earlier version of this
story mistakenly attributed this quote to trustee Kalama.)
Kamehameha says it will vigorously defend itself against this latest challenge. It believes it will prevail with two lower
court decisions in its favor.
Meanwhile, the schools trustees filed their own lawsuit Wednesday against the plaintiffs in the original suit for breach
of confidentiality.
The trustees claim Honolulu Attorney John Goemans disclosed the multi-million dollar figure that was supposed to be
kept secret.
"We entered into agreement and they are certain values you adhere to and they didn't adhere to, they breached
confidentiality," Kalama said.

       Copyright 2008 by KITV.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
                                                                                                   redistributed.
ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha School Faces Another Lawsuit
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KPUA-AM 670
ARTICLEBODY:
Posted: Thursday, August 7th, 2008 4:33 AM HST

      Kamehameha Schools sues over admissions settlement
By Associated Press
HONOLULU (AP) _ Kamehameha Schools is suing an unidentified white boy
who received a 7 million dollar settlement over his attempts to gain
admission even though he isn't Native Hawaiian.

Kamehameha claims a lawyer representing the boy and his mother violated
a confidentiality agreement by revealing the amount the school paid the
family to settle a lawsuit they filed against the school.

Hilo attorney John Goemans told news media in February that the school
paid the boy and his mother the money.

But Goemans has told The Associated Press he didn't represent the two. He
says he was only the catalyst for the lawsuit and so wasn't covered by the
confidentiality agreement.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

Meanwhile, Kamehameha is facing a new lawsuit challenging its admissions
policy of offering preference to applicants of Hawaiian ancestry. Only a few
non-Hawaiians have ever been admitted.

The policy was upheld by the U.S. District Court and the Ninth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals before the settlement in the previous case came in May
2007. The U.S. Supreme Court had not yet decided whether to hear the
case.
Attorney Eric Grant says the purpose of the new legal action is to obtain a
definitive ruling from the Supreme Court.

Grant is representing four non-Hawaiian children and their families.

(Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved)
ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools sues over admissions settlement
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: MSNBC
ARTICLEBODY:
ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha School Faces Another Lawsuit
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: San Diego Union-Tribune
ARTICLEBODY:
Kamehameha Schools sues over admissions
settlement


By Greg Small
Honolulu, Hawaii (AP) 8-08

Kamehameha Schools sued an unidentified white boy who received a $7 million settlement over his attempts to gain
admission even though he isn’t Native Hawaiian.

The lawsuit was filed in state Circuit Court in Hilo on Aug. 4, the same day another group sued Kamehameha
Schools in U.S. District Court in Honolulu challenging the trust’s admission policy on behalf of four other non-
Hawaiian children.

Kamehameha Schools operates several private schools on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island that give admissions
preference to applicants of Hawaiian ancestry. Only a few non-Hawaiians have ever been admitted.

Legal challenges to the admissions policy have generated strong emotions in the islands. In August 2005, more than
15,000 demonstrated across the state to protest a federal appeals court panel ruling saying the race-based policy
violates federal anti-discrimination laws.

That ruling was later overturned.

Kamehameha Schools, in its lawsuit against the Caucasian child, claimed a lawyer representing the boy and his
mother violated a confidentiality agreement by revealing the amount the school paid the family to settle a lawsuit they
filed against the school.

Hilo attorney John Goemans told new media in February that the school paid the boy and his mother, known only as
John and Jane Doe, $7 million.

Kamehameha’s new lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

“The confidentially provision included the attorneys for both parties, and each party agreed to be held liable for
breaches of confidentiality committed by their legal counsel,― said Colleen Wong, the schools’ vice president
for legal affairs.―

But Goemans told The Associated Press that he didn’t represent the Does.

“I was not and am not their counsel,― Goemans said.

Goemans said he was the catalyst for the lawsuit.

“I put the whole thing together,― he said in a telephone interview. “You don’t have to be an attorney to
put the whole thing together. I got the cause of action. I got the plaintiff. I got the attorney (Eric Grant). I put them
together. And it went from there. I wasn’t operating as an attorney.―

“The only person who can breach it is Jane Doe, herself, or Eric Grant,― Goemans said.

  In April, Goemans was sentenced to eight days in jail and fined $4,000 for violating a court order to keep the
  settlement amount secret. He said he is challenging the order.

When asked about an earlier reported $20,000 the Does had given him, Goemans said the money was a loan. He
said he hasn’t repaid the money because he could press for as much as 25 percent to 30 percent of the
settlement for services rendered.

Goemans said he learned of the $7 million from Grant, a Sacramento, Calif., attorney, before the confidentially clause
went into effect.

Kamehameha Schools is a $9.1 billion trust established in 1883 by the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The
nonprofit trust dedicated to educating Hawaiian children is one of the nation’s largest charities, and the
state’s largest private landowner with more than 360,000 acres.

The Does filed their federal lawsuit in 2003, seeking to overturn Kamehameha’s policy of offering preference in
admissions to applicants of Hawaiian ancestry.

The policy was upheld by the U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before the settlement came
in May 2007. The U.S. Supreme Court had not yet decided whether to hear the case.

Grant and Honolulu attorney David Rosen filed the new lawsuit on behalf of four children and their families. The suit
is essentially identical to the lawsuit filed on behalf of John Doe, the attorneys said.

“The purpose of today’s action is to obtain a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court that the trustees’
racially exclusionary admissions policy violates our nation’s civil right laws,― Grant said in a statement.
“Our clients believe, and we agree with them, that such a ruling will have a significant impact in reversing
unfortunate trends towards discrimination and even segregation in Hawaii.―

Kamehameha officials issued a statement that said Grant and Rosen had written a letter declaring their intention to
file suit if the schools refused to admit their unidentified clients.

“Clearly we cannot comply,― the officials said. “We have no idea if any of the students qualified for
admission, or even applied to our campus programs.―
ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools sues over admissions settlement
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Santa Barbara News-Press
ARTICLEBODY:

Kamehameha Schools sues over admissions settlement

GREG SMALL, Associated Press Writer

August 6, 2008 9:54 PM

HONOLULU (AP) - Kamehameha Schools sued an unidentified white boy who received a $7 million settlement over
his attempts to gain admission even though he isn't Native Hawaiian.

The lawsuit was filed in state Circuit Court in Hilo on Monday, the same day another group sued Kamehameha
Schools in U.S. District Court in Honolulu challenging the trust's admission policy on behalf of four other non-
Hawaiian children.

Kamehameha Schools operates several private schools on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island that give admissions
preference to applicants of Hawaiian ancestry. Only a few non-Hawaiians have ever been admitted.
Legal challenges to the admissions policy have generated strong emotions in the islands. In August 2005, more than
15,000 demonstrated across the state to protest a federal appeals court panel ruling saying the race-based policy
violates federal anti-discrimination laws.

That ruling was later overturned.

Kamehameha Schools, in its lawsuit against the Caucasian child, claimed a lawyer representing the boy and his
mother violated a confidentiality agreement by revealing the amount the school paid the family to settle a lawsuit they
filed against the school.

Hilo attorney John Goemans told new media in February that the school paid the boy and his mother, known only as
John and Jane Doe, $7 million.

Kamehameha's new lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

''The confidentially provision included the attorneys for both parties, and each party agreed to be held liable for
breaches of confidentiality committed by their legal counsel,'' said Colleen Wong, the schools' vice president for legal
affairs.''

But Goemans told The Associated Press on Monday that he didn't represent the Does.

''I was not and am not their counsel,'' Goemans said.

Goemans said he was the catalyst for the lawsuit.

''I put the whole thing together,'' he said in a telephone interview. ''You don't have to be an attorney to put the whole
thing together. I got the cause of action. I got the plaintiff. I got the attorney (Eric Grant). I put them together. And it
went from there. I wasn't operating as an attorney.''

''The only person who can breach it is Jane Doe, herself, or Eric Grant,'' Goemans said.

In April, Goemans was sentenced to eight days in jail and fined $4,000 for violating a court order to keep the
settlement amount secret. He said he is challenging the order.

When asked about an earlier reported $20,000 the Does had given him, Goemans said the money was a loan. He
said he hasn't repaid the money because he could press for as much as 25 percent to 30 percent of the settlement
for services rendered.

Goemans said he learned of the $7 million from Grant, a Sacramento, Calif., attorney, before the confidentially clause
went into effect.

Kamehameha Schools is a $9.1 billion trust established in 1883 by the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The
nonprofit trust dedicated to educating Hawaiian children is one of the nation's largest charities, and the state's largest
private landowner with more than 360,000 acres.

The Does filed their federal lawsuit in 2003, seeking to overturn Kamehameha's policy of offering preference in
admissions to applicants of Hawaiian ancestry.

The policy was upheld by the U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before the settlement came
in May 2007. The U.S. Supreme Court had not yet decided whether to hear the case.

Grant and Honolulu attorney David Rosen filed the new lawsuit on behalf of four children and their families. The suit
is essentially identical to the lawsuit filed on behalf of John Doe, the attorneys said.

''The purpose of today's action is to obtain a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court that the trustees' racially
exclusionary admissions policy violates our nation's civil right laws,'' Grant said in a statement. ''Our clients believe,
and we agree with them, that such a ruling will have a significant impact in reversing unfortunate trends towards
discrimination and even segregation in Hawaii.''

Kamehameha officials issued a statement that said Grant and Rosen had written a letter declaring their intention to
file suit if the schools refused to admit their unidentified clients.

''Clearly we cannot comply,'' the officials said. ''We have no idea if any of the students qualified for admission, or even
applied to our campus programs.''

AP-WS-08-07-08 0029EDT

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools sues over admissions settlement
ARTICLEDATE: 8/7/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Wall Street Journal
ARTICLEBODY:
August 7, 2008, 11:45 am

Kamehameha School Controversy Bubbles Up Again; Dueling Suits Filed

Posted by Dan Slater

As a youngster, when we used to attend Minnesota Gopher hockey games on a semi-regular basis, we always took
pride in the then-coach, Doug Woog, who according to legend only recruited in-state players. Since Minnesota high
school hockey is clearly superior, Coach Woog’s policy simply made good sense.

                                                   This admittedly tangential anecdote came to mind today while
                                                   reading Scotus blog’s update on the long-running controversy
                                                   over the admissions policy of Hawaii’s exclusive Kamehameha
                                                   Schools to admit only native Hawaiians. The school, Hawaii’s
                                                   largest private landowner, was founded 120 years ago on the
                                                   instructions of the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop (pictured).
                                                   The school is financed by her estate’s $6.2 billion trust, the
                                                   mission of which is to educate and “improve the capability and
                                                   well-being of people of Hawaiian ancestry.― (As the LB noted in a
                                                   past post, the former Bishop estate was one of the largest outside
                                                   shareholders of Goldman Sachs before divesting its stake in 2002.)

                                                  An earlier Kamehameha case, testing whether an 1866 civil rights
                                                  law still bars the use of race in private school admissions, reached
                                                  the Supreme Court last year, via the Ninth Circuit, but was settled
                                                  before the Justices took final action on it. Now, notes Scotus blog, a
new suit, raising the same challenge, has been filed in U.S. District Court in Hawaii, but with new individuals suing.

Also, the Schools — there are three — filed a suit in Hawaii state court, claiming a violation of the 2007 settlement
agreement because one of the attorneys involved had disclosed the confidential terms of the deal — including, the
attorney said, a payment of $7 million to the youth who had sued — to the Honolulu Advertiser.

The new civil rights suit is a Section 1981 claim. In Runyon v. McCrary, notes Scotusblog, the Supreme Court ruled
that Section 1981 prohibits private, commercially operated, non-religious schools from denying admission to
prospective students who were black. The four plaintiffs in the new suit contend that they’ve been denied
admission to the Kamehameha Schools because they are not of Hawaiian ancestry.

Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/08/07/kamehameha-school-controversy-bubbles-up-again-
dueling-suits-filed/trackback/
Save & Share: Share on Facebook | Del.icio.us | Digg this | Email This | Print
Read more: Constitutional Law
More related content
ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha School Controversy Bubbles Up Again; Dueling Suits Filed
ARTICLEDATE: 8/8/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Tribune Herald
ARTICLEBODY:

Back in court

by John Burnett
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer

Published: Thursday, August 7, 2008 10:09 AM HST

Kamehameha Schools sues over settlement breach

Kamehameha Schools is suing an unidentified Caucasian boy who received a $7 million out-of-court settlement over
his attempts to gain admission to the private school, which provides admissions preference to students of Native
Hawaiian ancestry.

The lawsuit was filed in state Circuit Court in Hilo on Monday, the same day another group sued Kamehameha
Schools in U.S. District Court in Honolulu challenging the trust's admission policy on behalf of four other non-
Hawaiian children.

According to an open letter on the school's Web site from the school's trustees and its CEO, Dee Jay Mailer, the
school is alleging that the student violated a confidentiality agreement when one of the lawyers retained by the boy's
family, John Goemans, revealed the amount of the settlement in February to the Honolulu Advertiser in the case of
Doe vs. Kamehameha Schools.

"The confidentially provision included the attorneys for both parties, and each party agreed to be held liable for
breaches of confidentiality committed by their legal counsel," said Colleen Wong, the schools' vice president for legal
affairs.

The settlement was reached in May 2007 as the case was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Goemans -- a former Big Island attorney who underwent heart surgery several months ago and now spends most of
his time in Beverly Hills, Calif. -- said that he considered the settlement amount important public information about a
charitable institution given tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. Goemans said Monday that he did not
sign the confidentiality agreement and was not a party to it.

"I was not and am not their counsel," Goemans said. "I put the whole thing together. ... I got the cause of action. I got
the plaintiff. I got the attorney (Eric Grant). I put them together. And it went from there. I wasn't operating as an
attorney."

"The only person who can breach it is Jane Doe, herself, or Eric Grant," Goemans said. Goemans said he learned of
the $7 million from Grant, a Sacramento, Calif., attorney, before the confidentially clause went into effect.

In April, Goemans was sentenced to eight days in jail and fined $4,000 for violating a court order to keep the
settlement amount secret. He said he is challenging the order.

Grant did not return a phone call Wednesday. He received 40 percent of the settlement, or $2.8 million, after filing suit
to collect against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's mother last year in federal court in Sacramento. Goemans, who is
seeking $1.75 million for his services, has also been embroiled in a settlement dispute with the Does.

Kamehameha Schools is a $9.1 billion trust established in 1883 by the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The
nonprofit trust dedicated to educating Hawaiian children is one of the nation's largest charities, and the state's largest
private landowner with more than 360,000 acres.

The Does filed their federal lawsuit in 2003, seeking to overturn Kamehameha's admissions policy.

The policy was upheld by the U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before the settlement came
in May 2007. The U.S. Supreme Court had not yet decided whether to hear the case.
The lawsuit filed in Honolulu by Grant and Honolulu attorney David Rosen on behalf of four children and their families
will apply the same argument that Grant used in the Doe vs. Kamehameha lawsuit, that the Hawaiians-only
admission policy violates section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

"It is deeply disturbing to see a Civil Rights law, enacted to protect an oppressed population, used to undermine
Pauahi's desire to restore the vitality and health of her people, who were dispossessed in their own homeland," the
letter stated. " ... These attorneys and their plaintiffs attack more than Kamehameha Schools and our mission; it is an
attack on our history, our heritage and the values of Hawaii ...."

On the Internet: http://www.ksbe.edu.

The Associated Press contributed. E-mail John Burnett jburnett@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
ARTICLETITLE: Back in court
ARTICLEDATE: 8/8/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY: BLOGS >> Volcanic Ash



flASHback: The respect you deserve

August 8th, 2008 by David Shapiro

Since Sen. Barack Obama is gracing us with a visit, we’ll start with presidential politics as we “flASHback― on the week’s

        Obama plans to prepare for the Democratic National Convention while chilling out on our beaches. I hope we don’t see a p
         swim trunks.

        Sen. John McCain, who hasn’t cast a vote on the Senate floor since April, knocked Obama and other senators for taking a
         to work on the energy crisis. Then he resumed his nap.

        Paris Hilton responded to McCain’s ad mocking Obama at her expense by calling him a “wrinkly white-haired guy― a
         “bitches.‍ You usually don’t get that kind of respect until after you’re elected president.

        Top legislators defended Hawai’i Tourism Authority CEO Rex Johnson, who was caught e-mailing porn from his state com
         Hawai’i’s visitor industry. How, by stealing sex tourists from Bangkok?

        The Department of Education sent more than 650 people to a conference at the Disney resort in Florida for $1.2 million. No wo
         money to pay for $35 drug tests for teachers.

        Some state employees started a four-day work week. If they can get it down to 2 1/2 days, maybe they’ll get their pay doub
         trustees.

        An attorney who’s suing Kamehameha Schools over its Hawaiians-first admissions again after collecting $7 million last tim
         but true. Greed is one of the the oldest legal principles.

        An auditor criticized the city for a 44-percent increase in its energy costs. And that’s for just talking about trains. Wait until t

        University of Hawai’i enrollment is up as the local job market shrinks. These are mean times when you need a college degr

        A Kaka’ako massage parlor was robbed by eight men masking their identities. In other words, they looked like any other m

        Theresa Harden of Kane’ohe followed a carjacker and his abducted victim across the Pali and guided police to him by cell
         Chapman can be replaced if he shoots off his mouth again.
And the quote of the week …

… from mayoral candidate Ann Kobayashi on Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s $2.7 million war chest:

“Money isn’t everything. Money is power but so is people power, and I think people power is greater.―

This campaign will test the power of wishful thinking.

Tags: Ann Kobayashi, Barack Obama, Education, John McCain, Kamehameha Schools, Mufi Hannemann, presidential race, tourism, U
ARTICLETITLE: FlASHback: The respect you deserve
ARTICLEDATE: 8/8/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:
                                           Letters to the Editor



                                             Write a Letter to the Editor



Why go through this mess again?

Regarding your Aug. 7 story "Kamehameha Schools again being sued over admissions bias": Suing the school yet
another time is a waste for both the defendants and the school.

The Kamehameha Schools already experienced a similar lawsuit a few years back. Why should they repeat a similar
case when the previous had been already settled? The courts will only dig up old and familiar documents. What do
these four students and their attorneys think will happen? The Kamehameha Schools are already following the law to
an extent.

Suing a school for following a 120-year-old policy should not even be brought up. Students and their parents should
already know the admission policies of enrolling. How difficult is that to understand? And if the students do get
rejected, there are other private schools in Hawaii that they can attend.

I hope that this lawsuit will be a short and victorious fight for the Kamehameha Schools.

Sheila Gomez
Honolulu


Lawyers care about money, not principle

Boy, these guys don't give up! Bishop Estate is a cash cow and they are riding herd on it. Boo!

Can't these people let the Hawaiians have something of their own without all these buzzards circling overhead. It is
sickening ... their transparency is so obvious ... money is at the bottom of it ... makes me sick. This is a school -- it
should be concentrating on teaching its children, not constantly defending a princess' will.

Hmmm ... I just thought of something -- you don't see these attorneys trying to break policies at all-black
schools/colleges ... hmmmm ... but of course, once they find one with big bucks -- watch out!

Two hundred years ago (or whatever) the Hawaiians should've been very strict on immigration laws ... kept these
buggers out. But then there would have been lots of good malihini kept out ... and there are lots of good haoles ...
speak up all you who know that these actions are hewa -- so not pono. Shame, shame on you legal vultures ... you
don't really care about these kids -- you care only about what's in it for you. Get over yourselves and leave us alone!
Penny Kelii-Vredenburg
Waimea, Hawaii


Oahu has other worthy private schools

The Kamehameha Schools are yet again being sued for their admissions policies. How many times is this going to
happen? What I don't understand is why people are suing a school (and a private one at that) for its policies, which
have been in place since 1887.

In Bernice Pauahi Bishop's last will and testament, she expressed that admission to the school be determined by
proof of Hawaiian ancestry, and that preference be given to those who are able to show it.

On the other side of the coin, rejected applicants are displeased because the school enjoys tax breaks from the
federal government. The U.S. annexed Hawaii from its natives; a tax break is a small consolation prize.

I don't understand why, with the regulations so clearly stated, people who don't fit the requirements still apply to
Kamehameha Schools. I can understand that parents want their children to attend the finest schools, Kamehameha
being one of them. But there are many excellent private schools on the island. Pushy parents need to stop suing
schools for their policies. This is just as silly as suing St. Louis (an all boys school) for not admitting girls.

Billy Acosta
Ewa Beach
ARTICLETITLE: Letters
ARTICLEDATE: 8/8/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KHNL / KFVE - TV
ARTICLEBODY: Kamehameha                   Schools responds to new legal challenges
Updated: Aug 7, 2008 07:21 PM

                                                                                     Featured Videos
                                                                                        Kamehameha Schools
                                                                                        responds to new legal
                                                                                        challenges




                                                                                              William Burgess




                                                                                          Beadie Kanahele Dawson
By Leland Kim - bio | email

KAPALAMA (KHNL) - Kamehameha Schools' officials speak out, a day
after it faces fresh legal challenges to its admissions policy. Four new
lawsuits question the school's admission policy that gives "preference to
native Hawaiians." Some call it discrimination but the school continues to
insist it has legal precedence.

Two years ago an appeals court overturned a previous decision, which
allowed Kamehameha Schools to continue its native Hawaiian
preference. That's the law right now, but these new challenges could
change that.

Kamehameha Schools was established in 1887. It educates more than
5,000 students each year. It's financed by a trust willed by Princess
Bernice Pauahi Bishop, who wanted to educate children of Hawaii, giving
preference to "Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood."

Retired attorney William Burgess has long insisted this is discrimination.

"It's a question that really should be answered in any event whether the
largest charitable trust in the nation can continue to have a discriminatory   Email alerts from KHNL
admissions policy," said Burgess.
                                                                               Click here to sign up...

Many native Hawaiians disagree.

"Princess Pauahi's will was made at a time when Hawaii was a kingdom," said Beadie Kanahele Dawson,
an attorney of native Hawaiian ancestry. "It was made under kingdom law. It was legal then, and it should
be honored as being legal now."

Kamehameha Schools' officials continue to point out that money comes solely from the trust.

"All of our educational programs are purely funded by the resources from our endowment," said Ann
Botticelli, Kamehameha Schools' vice president of community relations and communications. "We don't
take any federal money. We don't take any state money."

Since the school enjoys tax-exempt charitable status it's required to answer if "the organization
discriminates by race with respect to students' rights or privileges and admissions policies."

The school answers "no."

"They give preference or they call it, Hawaiians only or Hawaiians first policy," said Burgess. "That is
discrimination based on race."

"To us, it's a question of our founder's wishes to use her private money to provide education for native
Hawaiian children," said Botticelli.

For now, Kamehameha Schools has the legal right to continue its admissions policy, but with the new
legal challenges, it'll face some tough times ahead.

"That doesn't deter from the fact that Kamehameha will fight vigorously to believe what they believe
Princess Pauahi's trust calls for," said Dawson. "And they will not relent on that, in any shape or form."
School officials don't know yet if they'll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. The first thing is to find
out more information about these anonymous plaintiffs, and whether or not they even applied to the
school or if they're even qualified for admission.

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools responds to new legal challenges
ARTICLEDATE: 8/8/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Maui News
ARTICLEBODY:

Kamehameha Schools sues over settlement

By GREG SMALL, The Associated Press
POSTED: August 7, 2008

HONOLULU - Kamehameha Schools sued an unidentified white boy who received a $7 million settlement over his
attempts to gain admission even though he isn't Native Hawaiian.

The lawsuit was filed in state Circuit Court in Hilo on Monday, the same day another group sued Kamehameha
Schools in U.S. District Court in Honolulu challenging the trust's admission policy on behalf of four other non-
Hawaiian children.

Kamehameha Schools operates private schools on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island that give admissions preference to
applicants of Hawaiian ancestry. Only a few non-Hawaiians have ever been admitted.

Legal challenges to the admissions policy have generated strong emotions in the islands. In August 2005, more than
15,000 demonstrated across the state to protest a federal appeals court panel ruling saying the race-based policy
violates federal anti-discrimination laws. That ruling was later overturned.

Kamehameha Schools, in its lawsuit against the Caucasian child, claimed a lawyer representing the boy and his
mother violated a confidentiality agreement by revealing the amount the school paid the family to settle a lawsuit filed
against the school.

Hilo attorney John Goemans said in February that the school had paid $7 million to the boy and his mother, known
only as John and Jane Doe.

Kamehameha's lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

''The confidentially provision included the attorneys for both parties, and each party agreed to be held liable for
breaches of confidentiality committed by their legal counsel,'' said Colleen Wong, the schools' vice president for legal
affairs.

But Goemans said Monday that he never represented the Does.

''I was not and am not their counsel,'' Goemans said.

Goemans said he was the catalyst for the lawsuit.

''I put the whole thing together,'' he said. ''You don't have to be an attorney to put the whole thing together. I got the
cause of action. I got the plaintiff. I got the attorney (Eric Grant). I put them together. And it went from there. I wasn't
operating as an attorney.''

''The only person who can breach it is Jane Doe, herself, or Eric Grant,'' Goemans said.

In April, Goemans was sentenced to eight days in jail and fined $4,000 for violating a court order to keep the
settlement amount secret. He said he is challenging the order.
When asked about an earlier reported $20,000 that the Does had given him, Goemans said the money was a loan.
He said he hasn't repaid the money because he could press for as much as 25 percent to 30 percent of the
settlement for services rendered.

Goemans said he learned of the $7 million settlement from Grant, a Sacramento, Calif., attorney, before the
confidentially clause went into effect.

Kamehameha Schools is a $9.1 billion trust established in 1883 by the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The
nonprofit trust dedicated to educating Hawaiian children is one of the nation's largest charities and is the state's
largest private landowner with more than 360,000 acres.

The Does filed their federal lawsuit in 2003, seeking to overturn Kamehameha's policy of offering preference in
admissions to applicants of Hawaiian ancestry.

The policy was upheld by the U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before the settlement came
in May 2007. The U.S. Supreme Court had not yet decided whether to hear the case.

Grant and Honolulu attorney David Rosen filed the new lawsuit on behalf of four children and their families. The suit
is essentially identical to the lawsuit filed on behalf of John Doe, the attorneys said.

''The purpose of today's action is to obtain a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court that the trustees' racially
exclusionary admissions policy violates our nation's civil right laws,'' Grant said. ''Our clients believe, and we agree
with them, that such a ruling will have a significant impact in reversing unfortunate trends towards discrimination and
even segregation in Hawaii.''

Kamehameha officials issued a statement that said Grant and Rosen had written a letter declaring their intention to
file suit if the schools refused to admit their unidentified clients.

''Clearly we cannot comply,'' the officials said. ''We have no idea if any of the students qualified for admission, or even
applied to our campus programs.''

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools sues over settlement
ARTICLEDATE: 8/10/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:
OUR OPINION


Kamehameha Schools should decide how to end lawsuits for good

THE ISSUE

A new lawsuit challenging Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-only admission policy is similar to a suit settled out of
court last year.
As predicted, Kamehameha Schools' settlement last year of a legal challenge to its Hawaiians-only admission policy
gave it a reprieve but kept it vulnerable to other lawsuits. Such a suit has been filed by the same attorney who
brought the first one to the door of the U.S. Supreme Court, forcing the schools to decide whether to follow the same
path or seek a lasting solution.

The new lawsuit filed by lead attorney Eric Grant of Sacramento, Calif., states that it is
"virtually identical" to the one that was settled as the Supreme Court was deciding
whether to hear an appeal of an 8-7 ruling by a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
that upheld the schools' admission policy. The suit says brazenly that its purpose is "to
have that ruling overturned" by the high court.

Kamehameha Schools spokesman Kekoa Paulsen said the suit was expected. He said
the private school was founded by the 1883 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop "to
correct imbalances that were created years ago." That has been the purpose of affirmative action, which has come
under increased scrutiny in the courts.

The Republican-dominated Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action
program five years ago and likely would have overturned the 9th Circuit Court ruling in the Kamehameha case last
year. Kamehameha contended that its admission policy is not an "absolute bar" to non-Hawaiians, but that was also
true at the University of Michigan.

Even enactment of Sen. Daniel Akaka's bill granting Hawaiian sovereignty might not be enough to establish the
"special relationship" between Kamehameha and the federal government to shield the school from lawsuits. Courts
have ruled that Indian tribal status does not protect discrimination by private parties.

Like the last lawsuit, this one accuses Kamehameha of violating an 1866 civil-rights law prohibiting racial
discrimination in contracts. The Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that the law prohibits discrimination by private schools
because tuition in return for education is a contract.

Eliminating tuition would make the suit go away. Grant's co-counsel, David Rosen of Honolulu, has maintained that
the Kamehameha policy violates the 5th and 14th amendments' prohibition against discrimination, but the suit makes
no such assertion.

The new lawsuit should be relatively inexpensive for both sides, which might have to merely re-file documents
prepared in the earlier "John Doe" case, replacing the plaintiff's name with Karl Doe, Lisa Doe, siblings Jacob and
Janet Doe and their parents.

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools should decide how to end lawsuits for good
ARTICLEDATE: 8/10/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:




Ho'opi'i aku, ho'opi'i mai

Kekeha Solis
Synopsis: Many suspected the Doe family to grow after the settlement. The author has a suggestion for
Kamehameha Schools, before the Doe family grows even bigger.

Ho'opi'i hou 'ia ke Kula 'o Kamehameha no ka lula ho'okomo keiki. 'A'ole paha i pū'iwa iki ka no'ono'o i ka lohe 'ana i
ia nūhou i ka pule nei i hala. Pēlĕ ka leo o nč kčnaka he nui i ke kūkala 'ia 'ana ē ua uku ke Kula 'o
Kamehameha he $7 miliona i mea e pau ai ka hihia o "John Doe," 'o ia ho'i, e kū laina ana ke kŕlea palaualelo ma
muli o ka uku wale 'ana aku o ia kula. A eia kĕkou ke 'ike maka aku nei i ka nui o ia 'Ohana Doe. A ke mana'o nei
kou mea kĕkau, ua 'oi aku paha ia 'ohana i ka 'Ohana Walton o ke kïwï o ke au i hala.

No ia lula ho'okomo keiki, 'o ia ho'i, ka 'ae mua 'ana i nĕ keiki Hawai'i ma mua o ka 'ae 'ana i nĕ kŕlea, he lula
kūpono nŕ ia, 'oiai, 'o ia ka makemake o ke Ali'iwahine Pauahi. Akĕ i loko nŕ o ke kūpono, eia mai kekahi
mea e no'ono'o ai, a inĕ he mea kū i ke kĕnĕwai, a ke ho'okŕ 'ia, 'a'ole paha e ho'ĕ'o hou kekahi kŕlea
"e pŕ'alo i ka maka o ka Hawai'i a e lawe aku i kona pono hope loa." 'Oiai, ua ho'opi'i mai lĕkou lĕ ('Ohana
Doe), he ho'opi'i aku ka hana a kĕkou, 'o ia ho'i, e ho'opi'i 'ia a'e ka uku kula o ke Kula 'o Kamehameha a ke
$30,000 o ka makahiki a 'oi aku paha. 'O ia ka uku kula o kekahi o nĕ kula ho'omĕkaukau pipi'i loa o 'Amelika. E
nïnau auane'i paha kekahi me ke 'ano 'ē o ka no'ono'o, "Pehea lĕ e hiki ai i nĕ 'ohana Hawai'i ke uku aku i ia
uku kula pipi'i loa?" Eia ka nani o ka hana, 'o nĕ keiki Hawai'i, na ka waiwai o ke Ali'iwahine Pauahi e uku i ka uku
kula no lĕkou.

'Eĕ, he mea maopopo wale, 'o ke Kula 'o Kamehameha, ua nui loa nĕ kĕnaka na'auao i puka mai ia kula mai.
Eia mai kekahi mau kĕnaka i puka mai ua kula hanohano nei o Kapĕlama, 'o No'eau Warner, Isabella Aiona
Abbott, April Drexel, Kimo Alama Keaulana, Naiwi Wurdeman, Manu Kaiama, Walter Ritte 'ŕpio, Kapĕ Oliveira,
Aaron Sala, Julie Kaomea, a me nĕ kĕnaka akamai he nui hou aku. A no laila, he uku kula kūpono nŕ paha ia
pu'u nui o ke kĕlč, 'oiai, wahi a ka lohe, he kula ia nona nč polokalamu like 'ole e holo mua ai ke keiki ma kēia
hope aku. 'O ia ihola kahi mana'o i lohe 'oukou.

['O kekahi mana'o o ka mea kĕkau, e 'ae 'ia nĕ keiki Hawai'i a pau i loko o ke Kula 'o Kamehameha. E kĕpae 'ia
ka hŕ'ike a me ke kūkĕ kama'ilio no ke komo 'ana. 'O ia paha kekahi kumu e ho'opi'i 'ia nei ia "pĕpū
ho'opakele hope loa o ka Lĕhui Hawai'i." E 'ŕlelo ana kekahi kŕlea, "Ua 'oi aku ka maika'i o ka hana o ka'u keiki
ma ia hŕ'ike ma mua o kekahi o nĕ keiki Hawai'i i komo aku, a ua hŕ

Online Resources:
» Ulukau.org
» Hawaiian-English Dictionary

This column is coordinated by the Hawaiian Language Department at the University of Hawai'i at MÄ•noa.

E ho'ouna 'ia mai nĕ leka iĕ mĕua, 'o ia ho'i 'o Laiana Wong a me Kekeha Solis ma ka pahu leka uila ma lalo
nei:
» kwong@hawaii.edu
» rsolis@hawaii.edu
a i 'ole ia, ma ke kelepona:
» 956-2627 (Laiana)
» 956-2624 (Kekeha)


                                                     BACK TO TOP




Ho'opi'i aku, ho'opi'i mai

Kekeha Solis

Synopsis: Many suspected the Doe family to grow after the settlement. The author has a suggestion for
Kamehameha Schools, before the Doe family grows even bigger.
Ho'opi'i hou 'ia ke Kula 'o Kamehameha no ka lula ho'okomo keiki. 'A'ole paha i pü'iwa iki ka no'ono'o i ka lohe 'ana
i ia nühou i ka pule nei i hala. Pëlä ka leo o nä känaka he nui i ke kükala 'ia 'ana ë ua uku ke Kula 'o
Kamehameha he $7 miliona i mea e pau ai ka hihia o "John Doe," 'o ia ho'i, e kü laina ana ke kölea palaualelo ma
muli o ka uku wale 'ana aku o ia kula. A eia käkou ke 'ike maka aku nei i ka nui o ia 'Ohana Doe. A ke mana'o nei
kou mea käkau, ua 'oi aku paha ia 'ohana i ka 'Ohana Walton o ke kïwï o ke au i hala.

No ia lula ho'okomo keiki, 'o ia ho'i, ka 'ae mua 'ana i nä keiki Hawai'i ma mua o ka 'ae 'ana i nä kölea, he lula
küpono nö ia, 'oiai, 'o ia ka makemake o ke Ali'iwahine Pauahi. Akä i loko nö o ke küpono, eia mai kekahi
mea e no'ono'o ai, a inä he mea kü i ke känäwai, a ke ho'okö 'ia, 'a'ole paha e ho'ä'o hou kekahi kölea "e
pö'alo i ka maka o ka Hawai'i a e lawe aku i kona pono hope loa." 'Oiai, ua ho'opi'i mai läkou lä ('Ohana Doe), he
ho'opi'i aku ka hana a käkou, 'o ia ho'i, e ho'opi'i 'ia a'e ka uku kula o ke Kula 'o Kamehameha a ke $30,000 o ka
makahiki a 'oi aku paha. 'O ia ka uku kula o kekahi o nä kula ho'omäkaukau pipi'i loa o 'Amelika. E nïnau auane'i
paha kekahi me ke 'ano 'ë o ka no'ono'o, "Pehea lä e hiki ai i nä 'ohana Hawai'i ke uku aku i ia uku kula pipi'i
loa?" Eia ka nani o ka hana, 'o nä keiki Hawai'i, na ka waiwai o ke Ali'iwahine Pauahi e uku i ka uku kula no läkou.

'Eä, he mea maopopo wale, 'o ke Kula 'o Kamehameha, ua nui loa nä känaka na'auao i puka mai ia kula mai.
Eia mai kekahi mau känaka i puka mai ua kula hanohano nei o Kapälama, 'o No'eau Warner, Isabella Aiona
Abbott, April Drexel, Kimo Alama Keaulana, Naiwi Wurdeman, Manu Kaiama, Walter Ritte 'öpio, Kapä Oliveira,
Aaron Sala, Julie Kaomea, a me nä känaka akamai he nui hou aku. A no laila, he uku kula küpono nö paha ia
pu'u nui o ke kälä, 'oiai, wahi a ka lohe, he kula ia nona nä polokalamu like 'ole e holo mua ai ke keiki ma këia
hope aku. 'O ia ihola kahi mana'o i lohe 'oukou.

['O kekahi mana'o o ka mea käkau, e 'ae 'ia nä keiki Hawai'i a pau i loko o ke Kula 'o Kamehameha. E käpae 'ia
ka hö'ike a me ke kükä kama'ilio no ke komo 'ana. 'O ia paha kekahi kumu e ho'opi'i 'ia nei ia "päpü
ho'opakele hope loa o ka Lähui Hawai'i." E 'ölelo ana kekahi kölea, "Ua 'oi aku ka maika'i o ka hana o ka'u keiki
ma ia hö'ike ma mua o kekahi o nä keiki Hawai'i i komo aku, a ua hö'ole 'ia ka'u keiki." 'A'ole na'e i nänä iki i
käna hana maha'oi pono'ï.]

Online Resources:
» Ulukau.org
» Hawaiian-English Dictionary

This column is coordinated by the Hawaiian Language Department at the University of Hawai'i at MÄ•noa.

E ho'ouna 'ia mai nĕ leka iĕ mĕua, 'o ia ho'i 'o Laiana Wong a me Kekeha Solis ma ka pahu leka uila ma lalo
nei:
» kwong@hawaii.edu
» rsolis@hawaii.edu
a i 'ole ia, ma ke kelepona:
» 956-2627 (Laiana)
» 956-2624 (Kekeha)
ARTICLETITLE: Kauakukalahale
ARTICLEDATE: 8/13/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

Pauahi's will specifies only Hawaiians in need

While I most definitely agree that the lawsuits against Kamehameha Schools have reached new heights, and I agree
with the "cash cow" description that some attorneys believe, I feel that if one is to quote the will of Bernice Pauahi
Bishop, one should first read it. In an Aug. 8 letter to the editor, reader Billy Acosta stated that:

"In Bernice Pauahi Bishop's last will and testament, she expressed that admission to the school be determined by
proof of Hawaiian ancestry, and that preference be given to those who are able to show it."

However, this is not the case. Her will clearly states that a school will be established to educate the poor and destitute
children of Hawaii, with preference being given to those of Hawaiian ancestry.
It does not state that all children must have Hawaiian ancestry, or any percentage of blood quantum to qualify to
attend. If we're going to follow the will, then follow it to the letter, not what we believe or wished it said.

John Shupe
Honolulu
ARTICLETITLE: Letter to Editor: Pauahi's will specifies only Hawaiians in need
ARTICLEDATE: 8/13/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Indian Country
ARTICLEBODY:
Kamehameha Schools sues over admissions
settlement


By Greg Small
Honolulu, Hawaii (AP) 8-08

Kamehameha Schools sued an unidentified white boy who received a $7 million settlement over his attempts to gain
admission even though he isn’t Native Hawaiian.

The lawsuit was filed in state Circuit Court in Hilo on Aug. 4, the same day another group sued Kamehameha
Schools in U.S. District Court in Honolulu challenging the trust’s admission policy on behalf of four other non-
Hawaiian children.

Kamehameha Schools operates several private schools on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island that give admissions
preference to applicants of Hawaiian ancestry. Only a few non-Hawaiians have ever been admitted.

Legal challenges to the admissions policy have generated strong emotions in the islands. In August 2005, more than
15,000 demonstrated across the state to protest a federal appeals court panel ruling saying the race-based policy
violates federal anti-discrimination laws.

That ruling was later overturned.

Kamehameha Schools, in its lawsuit against the Caucasian child, claimed a lawyer representing the boy and his
mother violated a confidentiality agreement by revealing the amount the school paid the family to settle a lawsuit they
filed against the school.

Hilo attorney John Goemans told new media in February that the school paid the boy and his mother, known only as
John and Jane Doe, $7 million.

Kamehameha’s new lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

“The confidentially provision included the attorneys for both parties, and each party agreed to be held liable for
breaches of confidentiality committed by their legal counsel,― said Colleen Wong, the schools’ vice president
for legal affairs.―

But Goemans told The Associated Press that he didn’t represent the Does.

“I was not and am not their counsel,― Goemans said.

Goemans said he was the catalyst for the lawsuit.

“I put the whole thing together,― he said in a telephone interview. “You don’t have to be an attorney to
put the whole thing together. I got the cause of action. I got the plaintiff. I got the attorney (Eric Grant). I put them
together. And it went from there. I wasn’t operating as an attorney.―

“The only person who can breach it is Jane Doe, herself, or Eric Grant,― Goemans said.

   In April, Goemans was sentenced to eight days in jail and fined $4,000 for violating a court order to keep the
   settlement amount secret. He said he is challenging the order.

When asked about an earlier reported $20,000 the Does had given him, Goemans said the money was a loan. He
said he hasn’t repaid the money because he could press for as much as 25 percent to 30 percent of the
settlement for services rendered.

Goemans said he learned of the $7 million from Grant, a Sacramento, Calif., attorney, before the confidentially clause
went into effect.

Kamehameha Schools is a $9.1 billion trust established in 1883 by the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The
nonprofit trust dedicated to educating Hawaiian children is one of the nation’s largest charities, and the
state’s largest private landowner with more than 360,000 acres.

The Does filed their federal lawsuit in 2003, seeking to overturn Kamehameha’s policy of offering preference in
admissions to applicants of Hawaiian ancestry.

The policy was upheld by the U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before the settlement came
in May 2007. The U.S. Supreme Court had not yet decided whether to hear the case.

Grant and Honolulu attorney David Rosen filed the new lawsuit on behalf of four children and their families. The suit
is essentially identical to the lawsuit filed on behalf of John Doe, the attorneys said.

“The purpose of today’s action is to obtain a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court that the trustees’
racially exclusionary admissions policy violates our nation’s civil right laws,― Grant said in a statement.
“Our clients believe, and we agree with them, that such a ruling will have a significant impact in reversing
unfortunate trends towards discrimination and even segregation in Hawaii.―

Kamehameha officials issued a statement that said Grant and Rosen had written a letter declaring their intention to
file suit if the schools refused to admit their unidentified clients.

“Clearly we cannot comply,― the officials said. “We have no idea if any of the students qualified for
admission, or even applied to our campus programs.―
ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools sues over admissions settlement
ARTICLEDATE: 8/14/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Maui News
ARTICLEBODY:

Why favor ‘Hawaiian’ over all the other bloodlines?

POSTED: August 13, 2008

Why does it matter so much to some people what ancestral bloodlines are in regard to being Hawaiian?

I believe that if you honor your Hawaiian bloodline and ancestors then you ought to honor all your bloodlines including
the German, Chinese, Portuguese, Filipino, etc., because they all contributed to who you are. Which would mean
hardly anyone living could claim to honor only their Hawaiian bloodline as last I heard there were very few "pure"
Hawaiians living.

Anyway, if you trace the "Hawaiian bloodline" past ancient Hawaii using DNA and latest scientific techniques, it was
shown that the ancestors of the Hawaiians came from southern China in the history of man.

Kamehameha Schools ought to rethink its admission policies to admit students based on their cultural Hawaiianess
and their needs, as Princess Pauahi stated in her will.

Ron Lau

Haiku

ARTICLETITLE: Why favor ‘Hawaiian’ over all the other bloodlines?
ARTICLEDATE: 8/22/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Maui News
ARTICLEBODY:
Letters to the Editor
> Local News > Letters to the Editor

Language key to taking back the island nation

POSTED: August 21, 2008

I believe in Hawaiian sovereignty, but not in the form of the monarchy. The first step to cultural genocide is to take
away the language. There was a time in Hawaii history where Hawaiians were not allowed to speak our own
language in schools.

That time has passed and it is through the olelo that we can reclaim our nation. It is unfortunate that Kamehameha
Schools wastes the resources of the Bishop Estate on lawsuit after lawsuit. Their time and resources would be better
spent teaching the keiki to be fluent in Hawaiian - native haole, etc., too; race doesn't matter, only loyalty to Hawaii.
That is how the nation can be reclaimed.

When all our children speak olelo o Hawaii, they can make the decision to speak only Hawaiian as it is one of the two
official languages of Hawaii and then begin to conduct business in Hawaiian. Then, if they remain united, Mainland
America will no longer have the upper hand and the tide will turn.

By learning the Hawaiian language, it is inevitable you will learn to think Hawaiian as well and that seems appropriate
as this is still Hawaii and we need Hawaiian stewardship principles now more than ever.

Ka'imiloa Wright

Kahului

ARTICLETITLE: Letters: Language key to taking back the island nation
ARTICLEDATE: 8/24/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

Kamehameha Schools isn't breaking the law

The Native Hawaiian Education Council supports the Kamehameha Schools' use of its private trust funds to give
priority to the education of students of Hawaiian ancestry.

We believe the law of the land as set forth by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the previous case against
the Kamehameha Schools is correct - namely that this private school's admission preference for Hawaiian students
does not constitute impermissible discrimination under federal law.

Education is the most effective way to empower Hawaiians and improve their lives. Imua Kamehameha for continuing
to educate Hawaiians in the face of these legal challenges.

Colin Kippen
Executive director
Native Hawaiian Education Council
ARTICLETITLE: Letters: Kamehameha Schools isn't breaking the law
ARTICLEDATE: 8/25/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

Law does not serve the Hawaiian people

There are two conflicts in Hawaii that demonstrate precisely why American law does not equally serve the interests of
Hawaiians.
The first case is the conflict at Naue Point in Haena, Kauai. Millionaire Joseph Brescia of California seeks to build his
beachfront mansion on the top of more than 30 native Hawaiian kupuna buried on "his land." He claims he has
received all the necessary approvals and permits under American law. Under American law, the 30 Hawaiian graves
are not considered a cemetery. Under Hawaiian law, he would still be missing one more permit, one which he would
never be able to receive, that of building your home on top of someone else's kupuna. This is desecration. Under
American law, our kupuna's burials will continue to be desecrated.

The second case is the admissions lawsuit against Kamehameha Schools. Under American law, Princess Bernice
Pauahi Bishop cannot leave her birthright, her very inheritance to her own people. Under American law, her right and
responsibility as a Hawaiian Ali'i, to care for her people is nullified. Under American law, she cannot leave to her
beneficiaries what is legally hers to give, her own resources for the education of her own people.

I wish the circumstances were different, but the truth is that under U.S. law, Hawaiian rights are not protected.

Kealiimahiai Burgess
Waipahu
ARTICLETITLE: Letters
ARTICLEDATE: 8/26/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Office of Hawaiian Affairs
ARTICLEBODY:

Kamehameha Schools again under siege


KS also files suit against previous plaintiff Doe
By T. Ilihia Gionson
Publications Editor



A        new lawsuit is again challenging the KS admissions policy in U.S. District Court. And in an unrelated suit,
Kamehameha is suing previous plaintiffs John and Jane Doe for breaching a confidentiality agreement in their May
2007 settlement with the estate.

On Aug. 6, attorneys Eric Grant and David Rosen filed a suit on behalf of four children and their families
who seek an end to Kamehameha Schools’ admissions policy favoring Native Hawaiians. The lawsuit is
almost identical to the 2003 lawsuit filed on behalf of John Doe, which Kamehameha settled last year as the U.S.
Supreme Court was deciding whether to hear an appeal of the case.

“These attorneys and their plaintiffs attack more than Kamehameha Schools and our mission; it is an
attack on our history, our heritage and the values of Hawai‘i, held by so many here and around the world,―
Kamehameha Schools trustees said in an open letter. “We enter into this battle from a position of strength, well-
prepared to defend our admissions policy and with legal precedent at the 9th Circuit Court level on our side.―

In 2005 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the legality of the school’s admissions
policy, the letter said.

In a press release, Grant, an attorney, said: “The purpose of (the new lawsuit) is to obtain a definitive ruling from
the Supreme Court that the Trustees’ racially exclusionary admissions policy violates our nation’s civil
rights laws. Our clients believe, and we agree with them, that such a ruling
will have a significant impact in reversing unfortunate trends towards discrimination and even segregation
in Hawai‘i.―

Asked how this suit differs from the virtually identical suit filed in 2003, Rosen replied, “Our intent is to get
a decision from the Supreme Court.― He said it is unlikely that his clients would agree to a settlement like the
one that ended the last suit.

That settlement is at the center of a lawsuit the school filed regarding an alleged breach of confidentiality by one of
the attorneys in the John Doe suit. Kamehameha is seeking to recoup some of the $7 million settlement.

In June 2003, attorneys John Goemans and Eric Grant filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on behalf of the Does
seeking admission into Kamehameha Schools. The lawsuit sparked outrage in the Hawaiian community, and ended
with a confidential settlement between the parties, which stipulated that those
who signed the settlement, including counsel, would not disclose the real names of the student plaintiffs or any term
of the settlement.

This February, attorney John Goemans disclosed details of the settlement to various Hawai‘i media in violation of
the settlement agreement. As a result, Grant filed lawsuits in California seeking judgments that he did not breach the
agreement. A similar suit was filed by the Does, which also asked that Kamehameha Schools not reveal their
identities.
ARTICLETITLE: (PDF) Ka Wai Ola, September 2008 edition
ARTICLEDATE: 9/3/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:
Opinion
Posted on: Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Letters to the Editor

grassroot institute


Group is 'wolf in sheep's clothing'

We have spent most of our lives advocating for the betterment of Hawaiians, Hawai'i residents and the preservation of Hawaiian culture
relating to the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

The institute would have you believe that it is advocating for the "little guys." In its opposition to self-determination for Hawaiians, its man

In its support for the lawsuits against Kamehameha Schools' admissions policies and the intent of a private trust, its goal is to destroy on
working for the betterment of Hawaiians.

In its alliance with Stop Rail Now and the Hawai'i Highway Alliance it, under the guise of transparency, has created another contentious
support of a toll road clearly demonstrates its lack of concern for the less-wealthy residents of Wai'anae and the Leeward Coast.

The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is a negative and detrimental force in our efforts to maintain the integrity and preservation of Hawaiian

How can anyone hold organizations like these accountable when their actions are designed to confuse and mislead, all under the guise
"haves"?

In reality, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is the wolf in sheep's clothing, advocating for the "haves" and misleading the "have-nots."

Look beyond the rhetoric and measure the truth and sincerity of their message, and then don't be fooled by the wolf.

A. "Frenchy" DeSoto | Wai'anae William J. AilA Jr.
Wai'anae
ARTICLETITLE: Letters: Grassroot Institute, Group is 'wolf in sheep's clothing'
ARTICLEDATE: 9/5/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: West Hawaii Today
ARTICLEBODY:
Kamehameha Schools


Thursday, September 4, 2008 9:51 AM HST

Kupuna speaks out

Shame, shame (hila-hila) nervy (mahaoi) on you, whom ever you are. You come here to our island (Hawaii) and want
to break our Hawaiian heritage, which is known as culture, tradition and birth rights of our alii wahine and ancestors
(pono o pilikino) private rights.

In English, I'm speaking about these people who want to break our Hawaiian heritage; they're known as leeches
(bloodsuckers), a parasite that lives at the expense of others, making no contribution to our Hawaiian issues.

Shame on you! If you are not happy here, you know what you can do "hoe" go!

I'm talking about our alii wahine Bernice Pauahi Bishop's heritage and what she had handed down to the Hawaiian
children for education. This is her culture, tradition and her birth rights. I say mahalo Pauahi for this gift of love.

History tells us, before any outsiders came, English was never a known language. Many of the Hawaiians during the
pass did not read, write or understood the English language.

This is why alii wahine Bernice Pauahi Bishop established a constitution, an act of setting ways in which to organize
her trust so it would be handed down to the Hawaiian children (children of Hawaiian ethnicity), and for the betterment
of educating children of Hawaiian blood. It is the constitutional rights of her monarchy; with constitutionality, with
quality, and condition to her trust. "Pau paa" close.

I, as a kupuna, say, this constitutes the wishes of our alii wahine Bernice Pauahi Bishop's legal and official trust and
to function in "pono" for our Hawaiian and part-Hawaiian children.

Lily Haanio Kong

Holualoa

ARTICLETITLE: Kupuna speaks out
ARTICLEDATE: 9/9/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:

Doe vs. Kamehameha Schools

September 9th, 2008 by Rick Daysog

Who are Jacob, Janet, Karl and Lisa Doe?

That’s going to be a subject of much debate in the federal court lawsuit seeking to overturn Kamehameha
Schools’ Hawaiian-preference admission policy.

The four Does and their parents filed a lawsuit last month seeking to overturn Kamehameha School’s 121-year-
old admission policy, saying it violates federal civil rights laws.

The suit is similar to one filed by another non-Hawaiian John Doe in which the Kamehameha Schools agreed to pay a
$7 million settlement but kept its admission policy in tact.

In the previous John Doe lawsuit, attorneys for the $9 billion charitable trust agreed to keep the student’s a name
confidential. This time they are not.
Eric Grant, the California-based attorney representing the Does, is seeking to keep the students names out of the
public eye, saying in a recent court filings that the disclosure would expose the children and their parents to
“public harassment and retaliation― and “would almost certainly cause them to abandon the case.―

Grant, who also handled the previous John Doe lawsuit, cited the “heated rhetoric― and threats of violence on
local radio talk shows and in the public comments sections of on-line versions of local newspapers.

Said Grant: “What mother want to gamble whether her child really will ‘get lickins every day’? What father
wants to wait and see if his child will be a part of a ‘final solution’ to the problem of lawsuits against
KSBE’s admission policy?―

Paul Alston, attorney for the schools, said Grant’s argument ignores the fact that two non-Hawaiian students —
Kalani Rosell and Brayden Mohica-Cummings — were been admitted to the Kamehameha Schools in recent years
and neither were the subject of retaliation or physical harm.

In a telephone interview yesterday, Alston said that many of the alleged threats cited by Grant were anonymous and
don’t represent the views of the local community.

In the previous John Doe lawsuit, the student’s kept his name private but were able to leak out portions of the
case that were favorable to their side, Alston said.

In February, an attorney for John Doe, John Goemans, disclosed that the schools agreed to pay $7 million to settle
the suit. The terms were the subject of a confidentiality agreement but Goemans has said that he was not a party to
the agreement.

“We want to know who they are because it makes a big difference to us if they have a record of speaking out
against things that are Hawaiian or if they have lived anonymous lives,― Alston said.

(For the record, the Does’ lawsuit provides few hints about the identities of the non-Hawaiian plaintiffs. The first
names of all four plaintiffs are fictitious, although court filings say that Jacob and Janet Doe are siblings. Karl Doe and
Lisa Doe are unrelated to any of the Does.)

(All four applied for admission for the 2008-2009 academic year but were rejected.)

Often times, courts will keep names of minors confidential, such as Child Protective Service cases and lawsuits
involving handicapped children such as the Jennifer Felix cases

But other landmark cases such as the Brown vs. Board of Education, in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned
racial segregation in the schools, the plaintiffs names remained on the docket.

To be sure, the legal tug-of-war on this topic signals a more aggressive strategy on Kamehameha School’s part.

You’ll probably see similar courtroom challenges which will could drag out the proceedings. It could be several
years before this case works its way to the Supreme Court, where the case is ultimately headed.

ARTICLETITLE: Doe vs. Kamehameha Schools
ARTICLEDATE: 10/14/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:

Who are Jacob, Janet, Karl and Lisa Doe, Part II

October 13th, 2008 by Rick Daysog

The identities of the non-Hawaiian students challenging the Kamehameha Schools admission policy — Jacob,
Janet, Karl and Lisa Doe — may become public as early as next week.
Attorneys for the Does recently disclosed their clients’ identities under seal to the Kamehameha Schools’
attorney Paul Alston and five other trust lawyers.

While the names of the students remain confidential, Alston and his fellow trust lawyers are arguing that those names
should be disclosed because anonymity gives the students an unfair advantage in the legal proceedings.

Alston and California attorney Kathleen Sullivan said the anonymity allows the Does’ lawyers to portray their
clients in a sympathetic light but would give the trust no means to say whether that portrayal is accurate.

They also noted that in the previous John Doe lawsuit, one of the attorneys, John Goemans, abused his client’s
anonymous status by leaking out the details of a confidential $7 million settlement.

“Plaintiffs cannot claim the benefit of anonymity and, at the same time, ‘promote media coverage’ in their
favor,― Alston and Sullivan wrote in an Oct. 7 court filing.

David Rosen and Eric Grant, the attorneys for the Does, says disclosing the students’ identities is will expose
them to public humiliation and retaliation.

They cited a number a number of anonymous threats posted on the Internet and hostile remarks attached to the
comments sections on local news stories about the admissions controversy.

U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren will hold a hearing on the matter on Oct. 21.

The other new wrinkle to the trust’s defense concerns the reasons the students weren’t admitted in the first
place.

Grant has argued that his clients have met all the qualifications except that they do not have Hawaiian ancestry.

But in court papers filed last week, Alston and Sullivan, a former Stanford University Law School dean, alleged that
the Does did not meet all of the admissions qualifications.

How do the Does’ past grades and test scores compare with students admitted in the 2008-2009 year? How do
their extracurricular activities rate?

Only one in eight native Hawaiian students who apply get admitted to the school each year.

And to get there, candidates have to pass a slew of tests before their ethnic backgrounds are even considered

Some people have compared entry into the Kamehameha Schools to running a decathlon.

Examining the Does’ records and comparing them with Hawaiian students who got in and Hawaiian students who
didn’t get in will likely become part of the court proceedings.

This kind of legal investigation wasn’t part of the previous John Doe suit but given the stakes involved it’s
surprising that Kamehameha School’s attorneys didn’t pursue this avenue in the previous litigation.

ARTICLETITLE: Who are Jacob, Janet, Karl and Lisa Doe, Part II
ARTICLEDATE: 10/15/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Reporter
ARTICLEBODY: Ceded Lands Supreme Court Case
What is this case about? How does the apology resolution of 1993 factor in? Who rightfully owns Hawaii's ceded
lands?
By Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D., 10/14/2008 8:51:39 AM

(1) WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT ?
On Wednesday October 1, 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari (i.e., it agrees to hear the case) in a
lawsuit that is very important to Hawaii. It also has nationwide significance, as evidenced by the fact that the
attorneys general of 29 other states submitted an amicus brief supporting the State of Hawaii's petition.

In January the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii issued a 5-0 ruling prohibiting the State from selling any of the
ceded lands (nearly all the State's public lands are in that category) "until such time as the unrelinquished claims of
the native Hawaiians have been resolved." The ruling explicitly and repeatedly placed heavy reliance on the U.S.
apology resolution of 1993.

The State's petition for certiorari frames the issue this way for the U.S. Supreme Court:

"In the Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of
Hawaii, Congress acknowledged and apologized for the United States' role in that overthrow. The question here is
whether this symbolic resolution strips Hawaii of its sovereign authority to sell, exchange, or transfer 1.2 million acres
of state land -- 29 percent of the total land area of the State and almost all the land owned by the State -- unless and
until it reaches a political settlement with native Hawaiians about the status of that land."

The State's way of phrasing the question tiptoes around a very delicate conflict of interest which has plagued Hawaii's
Attorneys General ever since 1978 when OHA was created. On one hand the State is obligated to defend its plethora
of racially exclusionary programs for ethnic Hawaiians, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs; and the State
vigorously supports the racially exclusionary admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools and zealously pushes for
the Akaka bill. On the other hand the State wants to defend itself against OHA in this case and in other cases
regarding disputed claims for ceded land revenues.

The Pacific Legal Foundation in its amicus brief phrased the (2) question(s) more accurately and more broadly, as
follows:

"1. Whether Congress by the Admission Act and the Apology Resolution, may, without violating the Fifth Amendment,
require or permit the State of Hawaii, Trustee of the Federally-created Ceded Lands Trust, to discriminate between
trust beneficiaries on the basis of race?

"2. Whether the State of Hawaii, Trustee of the Ceded Lands Trust, may, without violating the Fourteenth
Amendment, discriminate between trust beneficiaries on the basis of race?"

Let's hope the U.S. Supreme Court will use the PLF formulation of the issues, and will take this opportunity to put an
end to government-approved racial discrimination in allocating government lands and moneys to one racial group to
the exclusion of others.

A webpage has assembled many of the legal documents, news reports, and commentaries about this lawsuit;
including the state Supreme Court's decision, the state petition for certiorari, the brief in opposition to certiorari by
OHA, the amicus briefs in favor of certiorari by the attorneys general of 29 states and by the Pacific Legal
Foundation. The compilation of news, commentary, and legal documents will continue on this webpage going
forward. See http://tinyurl.com/49sx9j

(2) HOW DOES THE APOLOGY RESOLUTION OF 1993 FACTOR IN ?

The Hawaii Supreme Court ruling relied heavily on the apology resolution of 1993 in which the U.S. apologized to
ethnic Hawaiians for sending peacekeepers ashore in January 1893 during the revolution which overthrew the
Hawaiian monarchy. The apology resolution blames the U.S. for instigating the revolution, and says the revolution
could not have succeeded without the help of the U.S.

The resolution, written by Hawaiian sovereignty activists, is filled with falsehoods and distortions of history, some of
which are convincingly refuted by nationally famous Constitutional law attorney Bruce Fein in his 45 page monograph
"Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand" at http://tinyurl.com/7d6xq The apology resolution is also refuted by
Thurston Twigg-Smith's entire famous book "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter," especially Chapter 10.

What exactly does the apology resolution say about the ceded lands? It says that during the revolution, and the
annexation to the U.S. five years later, "the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to
their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy
or through a plebiscite or referendum" and therefore the U.S. "expresses its commitment to acknowledge the
ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation
between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people."

(3) WHO RIGHTFULLY OWNS HAWAII'S CEDED LANDS ?

A general explanation of what the ceded lands are and why there should be no racial allocation of the lands
themselves or the revenues they generate can be found at http://tinyurl.com/356xy

Hawaiian sovereignty activists proclaim that the apology resolution is a confession of a crime under international law.
They say that by means of the apology the U.S. admits it illegally overthrew the Hawaiian Kingdom. They say that
since the 1890s Hawaii has been under a belligerent military occupation by the U.S. They say that under international
law the U.S. is required to withdraw from Hawaii, and pay huge reparations. Therefore, they say, not only the ceded
lands but all the lands of Hawaii belong to ethnic Hawaiians (or else belong to today's descendants of Hawaiian
Kingdom subjects).

The Hawaii Supreme Court says that the apology resolution clouds the title to Hawaii's public lands, and therefore the
State of Hawaii is prohibited from selling any ceded lands until such time as the claims of ethnic Hawaiians have
been settled. Also, after OHA was created in 1978, the Legislature passed a law permanently giving OHA 20% of
ceded land revenues from that time forward; so OHA asserts that it has standing to prevent the sale of ceded lands
on the grounds that such sales would diminish its future income. Some sovereignty activists, including some OHA
trustees and bureaucrats, claim that ethnic Hawaiians as a racial group collectively own all the ceded lands.

In a thoughtful essay published in Hawaii Reporter on October 13, 2008, Leon Siu correctly points out that the
Kingdom of Hawaii was multiracial and therefore the apology resolution is misdirected in being addressed solely to
ethnic Hawaiians. See http://tinyurl.com/4mfq7r

The essay's tagline describes Mr. Siu this way: "Leon Siu is the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Ke Aupuni O Hawaii,
the Hawaiian Kingdom, and has served in that capacity since 2000. Prior to that, he served as the Deputy Minister of
Foreign Affairs for four years."

Not surprisingly, Siu concludes that the effect of the apology resolution should not be to give money and land to the
racial group of ethnic Hawaiians under the sovereign authority of the U.S., but rather to restore the sovereign
independence of the multiracial nation of Hawaii.

Where Mr. Siu goes wrong is his claim that "The land in question is the 1.8 million acres (nearly half the total land
area of the Hawaiian Archipelago) that was hijacked from the government and the crown heads of the Hawaiian
Kingdom in 1894 by the illegal, self-declared, rebel government, the Republic of Hawaii. A few years later, in 1898,
the Republic of Hawaii “annexed― itself to the United States, and in the process, passed off (“ceded―)
the stolen lands to the U.S. The puppet government, the State of Hawaii, is now holding the bag of stolen property
deceptively called the “Ceded Lands.― The salient point is, the Republic of Hawaii did not have lawful title (or
rights) to these lands when they were handed over (“ceded―) to the U.S. Thus, no lands lawfully transferred."

The truth is this. The revolution of January 17, 1893 was real. The monarchial form of government was replaced by a
temporary Provisional Government, which was immediately given temporary, de facto recognition by all the
governments of the world who had local consuls in Honolulu. By April 1, 1893, the few remaining U.S. peacekeepers
had all returned to their ship and there was no U.S. military presence. The Provisional Government stood on its own
despite a hostile U.S. President Grover Cleveland, who made every effort to destabilize it and to put the ex-queen
back on the throne. There was not any U.S. puppet regime.

In July, 1894 the permanent successor government was created, the Republic of Hawaii. During the remainder of that
year the Republic received permanent diplomatic recognition de jure as the rightful government of Hawaii. Letters of
de jure recognition were personally signed by emperors, kings, queens and presidents of at least 20 nations on four
continents in 11 languages. Photographs of the originals, plus Liliu'okalani's letter of abdication and loyalty oath to the
Republic from January 1895, are at http://tinyurl.com/4wtwdz

A webpage explaining the significance of these letters is at http://tinyurl.com/2pxqgz
Hawaiian sovereignty zealots will claim that the letters recognizing the Republic were merely attempts to curry favor
with the U.S., or to solidify exploitative relationships by foreign businessmen who owned land and buildings in Hawaii.
However, those same sovereignty zealots claim the Kingdom of Hawaii had international recognition as an
independent nation precisely because the Kingdom had enjoyed the same kind of diplomatic recognition which the
successor Republic received.

If foreign recognition established the independence of Hawaii as a member of the family of nations, then recognition
also established the Republic as the legitimate successor government of the still-independent nation of Hawaii. That
independent nation remained independent for four more years, standing alone without being anybody's puppet
regime, even withstanding an attempted violent counter-revolution.

Sovereignty zealots like Leon Siu want to stop the clock in 1893. But the plain fact is that governments change from
time to time in all nations throughout the world. Some governments change peacefully; some through revolution.
Changes of government are given legitimacy under international law precisely because the successor government
receives full diplomatic recognition de jure, exactly as happened with the Republic of Hawaii.

Just imagine today's descendants of the Russian Tsar or the French Kings claiming that they remain the rightful
rulers because their ancestors once upon a time had international recognition. Imagine that on January 21, 2009
George W. Bush refuses to vacate the White House because he once was the recognized leader of the U.S.

The letters of de jure recognition are especially compelling because some of them were sent by Kings, Queens, and
Emperors who themselves were worried about revolutions which might unseat them; yet they recognized the
Republic of Hawaii and used the word "friend" to greet President Dole who had ousted the Queen. Even Queen
Victoria addressed President Dole as "friend", despite the fact that Victoria had been a personal friend of Lili'uokalani
and of Queen Emma, and had been godmother to Emma's baby Prince Albert.

Some revolutions are accomplished with outside assistance. For example, the American revolution could never have
succeeded without the help of French and Polish generals (for example, Lafayette and Pulaski) leading tens of
thousands of troops, and dozens of warships, and huge amounts of armaments, all sent from Europe.

By contrast the U.S. sent ashore in Honolulu 162 armed sailors who served as peacekeepers, who never fired a shot
or took over any buildings or gave any guns or ammunition or supplies to the local revolutionaries. The Queen
gamely addressed her surrender to the U.S. rather than to the revolutionary forces who had actually overthrown her,
hoping her friend Grover Cleveland would come to her rescue; but she had her letter delivered to the President of the
Provisional Government Sanford B. Dole because she knew he was the man in charge.

As Leon Siu said, the apology resolution should not have been directed to a racial group. If indeed any apology is
owed (which is extremely unlikely), it should be addressed to the people of all races whose government was
overthrown in the revolution of 1893, not to ethnic Hawaiians. Throughout the Kingdom's history most cabinet
ministers and department heads, most judges, and about 1/4 to 1/3 of the members of the Legislature (both Nobles
and Representatives) had no Hawaiian native blood. By 1893 60% of the population had no Hawaiian native blood.
Let the U.S. send zillions of dollars in reparations if it wishes -- not to ethnic Hawaiians alone but to all the people of
Hawaii. We could surely use the money in these times of economic uncertainty.

In conclusion, today the public lands of Hawaii are owned by the government of Hawaii on behalf of all the people of
Hawaii without racial distinction, just as was true during the Kingdom. When Hawaii was an independent nation and
its government changed from Monarchy to Republic, the public lands remained under government control; only the
government changed (in fact, only five people lost their jobs: the Queen and four cabinet ministers).

The Republic of Hawaii was internationally recognized de jure as the rightful government, legally entitled to cede the
public lands to the U.S. as part of a merger. The U.S. agreed to pay off Hawaii's national debt and to hold the ceded
lands as a public trust solely to benefit the people of Hawaii for education and other public purposes. In 1959 the
lands once ceded to the U.S. were ceded back to the new State of Hawaii (except for national parks and military
bases).

The U.S. Supreme Court will undoubtedly rule that the apology resolution has no bearing on the right of the State of
Hawaii to sell ceded lands. If we're really lucky the Court will speak to the questions posed by the Pacific Legal
Foundation, and rule that there can be no racial discrimination in the way the State of Hawaii manages the ceded
lands or distributes the revenues they generate.
Dr. Conklin's recent book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" is
featured at http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa Send email to mailto:Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

ARTICLETITLE: Ceded Lands Supreme Court Case
ARTICLEDATE: 10/22/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:
Posted on: Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Anonymity at stake in Kamehameha case

Magistrate to decide if students in admissions dispute can be named

Advertiser Staff

A federal magistrate will rule on whether the non-Hawaiian students challenging the Kamehameha Schools' 121-year-
old admissions policy can remain anonymous.

U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren took the matter under advisement after holding an hourlong, closed-door hearing
yesterday.

Eric Grant, the Sacramento, Calif., attorney for the four unnamed students who sued the Kamehameha Schools,
declined comment yesterday.

Paul Alston, attorney for the Kamehameha Schools, also had no response.

The Does — Jacob, Janet, Karl and Lisa — are seeking to overturn Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiian-preference
admission policy, saying it violates federal civil rights laws.

They filed suit Aug. 6, alleging they were denied entry because of their ethnicity. Pursuing the latest lawsuit along
with Grant is local attorney David Rosen.

Grant earlier represented a non-Hawaiian Big Island youth, identified in court papers only as John Doe, who filed a
similar claim against the school's admissions policy in 2003, but agreed to drop the suit last year after pursuing it all
the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As part of the settlement, Kamehameha Schools agreed to pay $7 million to John Doe but kept its admissions policy
intact.

Still ongoing is a separate lawsuit filed by trustees for the schools on the Big Island against John Doe and Jane Doe,
the student and parent who filed the 2003 admissions lawsuit.

The trustees' suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages because John Goemans, an attorney who once
represented the Does, revealed to The Advertiser in February the confidential terms of the $7 million settlement paid
by the school to the Does.

The agreement specified that a party breaching the confidentiality agreement could be found liable for damages of as
much as $2 million.

ARTICLETITLE: Anonymity at stake in Kamehameha case
ARTICLEDATE: 10/22/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KHNL / KFVE - TV
ARTICLEBODY: Kamehameha Schools wants                          names of suing students


Associated Press - October 22, 2008 3:54 PM ET
HONOLULU (AP) - Four students challenging Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy in court could be
named if a federal magistrate agrees.

The students contend the private school system's 121-year-old preference for Native Hawaiians is at
odds with federal civil rights laws. The system operates several campuses on Oahu, Maui and the Big
Island.

U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren held an hourlong closed hearing on Tuesday but did not issue a decision. It
is not known when he will. The four students filed suit in early August, and are known as the Does -
Jacob, Janet, Karl and Lisa.

Their attorney, Eric Grant of Sacramento, California, represented an anonymous, non-Native Hawaiian
student who last year dropped a similar lawsuit against the schools after reaching a settlement.

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools wants names of suing students
ARTICLEDATE: 10/22/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KPUA-AM 670
ARTICLEBODY:
Posted: Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008 12:53 PM HST

      Kamehameha Schools wants names of suing students
By Associated Press
HONOLULU (AP) _ Four students challenging Kamehameha Schools'
admissions policy in court could be named if a federal magistrate agrees.

The students contend the private school system's 121-year-old preference
for Native Hawaiians is at odds with federal civil rights laws. The system
operates several campuses on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island.

U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren held an hourlong closed hearing on Tuesday
but did not issue a decision. It is not known when he will. The four students
filed suit in early August, and are known as the Does _ Jacob, Janet, Karl
and Lisa.

Their attorney, Eric Grant of Sacramento, California, represented an
anonymous, non-Native Hawaiian student who last year dropped a similar
lawsuit against the schools after reaching a settlement.

(Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved)
ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools wants names of suing students
ARTICLEDATE: 10/23/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Education Week
ARTICLEBODY: Kamehameha Schools wants names of                    suing students


Associated Press - October 22, 2008 3:54 PM ET

HONOLULU (AP) - Four students challenging Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy in court could be
named if a federal magistrate agrees.
The students contend the private school system's 121-year-old preference for Native Hawaiians is at
odds with federal civil rights laws. The system operates several campuses on Oahu, Maui and the Big
Island.

U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren held an hourlong closed hearing on Tuesday but did not issue a decision. It
is not known when he will. The four students filed suit in early August, and are known as the Does -
Jacob, Janet, Karl and Lisa.

Their attorney, Eric Grant of Sacramento, California, represented an anonymous, non-Native Hawaiian
student who last year dropped a similar lawsuit against the schools after reaching a settlement.

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools wants names of suing students
ARTICLEDATE: 10/23/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:

Time to name names

October 23rd, 2008 by David Shapiro

It’s good that Kamehameha Schools is finally challenging the right to anonymity of four “John Doe―
plaintiffs challenging its Hawaiians-first admissions policy.

U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren took the matter under advisement after Kamehameha attorneys argued that allowing
the four-non-Hawaiian plaintiffs seeking admissions to Kamehameha Schools to conceal their identities gives them
an unfair advantage by portraying them in a sympathetic light that the school can’t challenge.

David Rosen and Eric Grant, attorneys for the plaintiffs, claim their clients would be subject to dangerous threats and
harassment if their names were revealed, but there’s no evidence that happened to another non-Hawaiian
student who earlier gained admission to Kamehameha Schools in the resolution of another lawsuit.

The last John Doe plaintiff represented by Grant, who is still unidentified, received a $7 million settlement from the
school.

In the current case, the four plaintiffs were recruited by attorneys with promises that they would remain anonymous
and be charged no legal fees.

If plaintiffs who aren’t aggrieved until attorneys encourage them to be are allowed to pursue big settlements in
such no-risk lawsuits, it invites potentially frivolous suits and abuse of the judicial system.

There’s no compelling case that these plaintiffs would face unreasonable harm if they were identified, and the
court should subject them to the same scrutiny faced by litigants in nearly all other civil lawsuits.

Tags: Judiciary, Kamehameha Schools

ARTICLETITLE: Time to name names
ARTICLEDATE: 10/24/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Weekly
ARTICLEBODY:

Educate the state

Since the last Constitutional Convention what we found is that the Hawaiian issues are not state issues. Stolen land,
reparations, tribal issues, etc., are all federal issues.
The state of Hawai’i has been “holding the bag― inappropriately.

If the state taxpayers are paying back for “harms― then the Hawaiian taxpayers are paying themselves back (in
part) for reparations and harms they themselves suffered. How inappropriate is that?

Furthermore, any OHA programs serving local Hawaiians has little to no benefit for the class of Hawaiians living off
island and/or the class of Hawaiians not served by these programs.

Constitutionally this ancestor based state “hand-outs― are not in harmony with equal rights protections
fundamental to federal, state, and local laws and constitutional requirements. Where are the equal rights, equal
opportunity or equal protection under the law?

The millions of dollars dedicated to Hawaiian-only programs–beyond lacking harmony with federal law and the U.S.
Constitution– would be better spent on the many necessary expenses that the State is unable to budget and fund.
For example, education is under-funded while Kamehameha Schools shirks the public responsibility to both the race-
based class and non-race based class of beneficiaries, the “boys and girls of the state.―

Unfortunately, the citizens of Hawai’i have been taught fake history in school while the government ignores the
ceded land documents that require that the land be held “for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the Hawaiian
Islands―–not Hawaiians only.

Myron Berney

Honolulu

ARTICLETITLE: Educate the state
ARTICLEDATE: 10/24/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Maui News
ARTICLEBODY:

Kamehameha wants four students named

They’re plaintiffs in suit over admissions policy

POSTED: October 23, 2008

HONOLULU (AP) - Four students challenging Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy in court could be named if a
federal magistrate agrees.

The students contend the private school system's 121-year-old preference for Native Hawaiians is at odds with
federal civil rights laws.

The system operates several campuses on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island.

U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren held an hourlong closed hearing Tuesday but did not issue a decision.

It is not known when he will. The four students filed suit in early August, and are known as the Does - Jacob, Janet,
Karl and Lisa.

Their attorney, Eric Grant of Sacramento, Calif., represented an anonymous, non-Native Hawaiian student - ''John
Doe'' - who last year dropped a similar lawsuit against the schools after Kamehameha Schools agreed to pay him $7
million.

Kamehameha Schools operates several private schools that give admissions preference to those of Hawaiian
ancestry. Only a few non-Hawaiians have ever been admitted.
Legal challenges to the admissions policy have generated public outcry in the islands.

In August 2005, more than 15,000 demonstrated across the state to protest a federal appeals court panel ruling
saying the race-based policy violates federal anti-discrimination laws. That ruling was later overturned.

Still ongoing is a separate lawsuit filed by Kamehameha trustees against John Doe and Jane Doe, the student and
parent who filed the 2003 admissions lawsuit.

The trustees' suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages because Big Island attorney John Goemans revealed in
February the confidential terms of the $7 million settlement paid by the school to the Does.

The agreement specified that a party breaching the confidentiality agreement could be found liable for damages of as
much as $2 million.

Kamehameha Schools is a $9.1 billion trust established in 1883 by the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop.

The nonprofit trust dedicated to educating Hawaiian children is one of the nation's largest charities and the state's
largest private landowner with more than 360,000 acres.

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha wants four students named
ARTICLEDATE: 10/27/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

Money motivates lawsuit against schools

We note that attorney David Rosen has managed to unearth four more non-Hawaiians as candidates for a new
discrimination suit against Kamehameha Schools.

Life experience teaches us that pursuit of money is a great motivator, and further that money-grubbing is particularly
honed to a fine art as a lawyer's professional imperative. A certain envy of Eric Grant's settlement of $7 million in the
recent John Doe case might lead an attorney to actively solicit very bright non-Hawaiian students and their families to
participate in a discrimination lawsuit against the Kamehameha Schools, motivated by the inducement and
expectation of several million dollars paid out to each. Could this be Rosen's gig?

We don't necessarily see that any of these potential students have any desire to attend Kamehameha; they only need
seek reward for their exclusion. If this be the case, then these students will have learned a very important life lesson;
their scruples are easily purchased with the devalued coin of their ethics. This realization will no doubt propel them
toward legal careers.

Bob & Paulette Moore
Kamehameha Schools 1953, 1952
Pearl City
ARTICLETITLE: Letters to the Editor: Money motivates lawsuit against schools
ARTICLEDATE: 10/28/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:
Updated at 4:29 p.m., Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Judge orders disclosure of names in Kamehameha Schools case

By Rick Daysog
Advertiser Staff Writer

A federal judge today ruled that the names of the students seeking to overturn Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiian-
preference admission policy must be made public.
In a 22-page ruling, U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren said the names of the four anonymous students challenging the
121-year-old admissions policy will be disclose 10 days from today.

"The severity of the threatened harm and the reasonableness of plaintiffs' fears do not weigh in favor of anonymity,"
Kurren wrote.

"At most, plaintiffs are vulnerable children who have a reasonable fear of social ostracization."

David Rosen, attorney for the students, declined comment. A spokesman for the Kamehameha Schools could not be
reached.

Parents for the students — who are simply known as Jacob, Janet, Karl and Lisa Doe — have said in court papers
that they may drop the lawsuit if the children are not allowed to pursue their lawsuit anonymously. The four, who are
not of Hawaiian ancestry, applied for admission to Kamehameha in 2008-09 school year, but were rejected.

Kurren's ruling came after he held a one-and-a-half hour, closed door hearing on the matter on Oct. 21.

By issuing a 10-day stay to his ruling, Kurren allowed the student and their parents to consider whether to pursue the
action. The stay also allows the Does' attorneys to appeal the ruling to U.S. District Judge Michael Seabright, who is
assigned to the case.

Rosen and California attorney Eric Grant have said disclosing the students' identities is will expose them to public
humiliation and retaliation and "would almost certainly cause them to abandon the case."

They cited a number a number of anonymous threats posted on the Internet and hostile remarks attached to the
comments sections on local news stories about the admissions controversy.

Attorneys for the trust -- Paul Alston and former Stanford University Law School Dean Kathleen Sullivan -- said the
anonymity allows the Does' lawyers to portray their clients in a sympathetic light but would give the trust no means to
say whether that portrayal is accurate.

They also noted that in the previous lawsuit challenging the school's admission policy, Grant's co-counsel John
Goemans abused his client's anonymous status by leaking out the details of a confidential $7 million settlement.

Reach Rick Daysog at rdaysog@honoluluadvertiser.com.

ARTICLETITLE: Judge orders disclosure of names in Kamehameha Schools case
ARTICLEDATE: 10/28/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KHNL / KFVE - TV
ARTICLEBODY: Judge           sides with Kamehameha


Associated Press - October 28, 2008 11:14 PM ET

HONOLULU (AP) - U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren has ruled the names of 4 children legally challenging
Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy must be made public.

The challenge contends the private school system's 121-year-old preference for Native Hawaiians is at
odds with federal civil rights laws. The system operates several campuses on Oahu, Maui and the Big
Island.

The children's parents have said in court papers that they may drop the challenge if the children aren't
allowed to pursue the lawsuit anonymously.
Kurren issued a 10-day stay to his ruling, allowing the students and their parents to consider whether to
pursue the lawsuit.

The four are not of Hawaiian ancestry. They applied for admission to Kamehameha in 2008-09 school
year, but were rejected.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed.

ARTICLETITLE: Judge sides with Kamehameha
ARTICLEDATE: 10/29/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Education Week
ARTICLEBODY:

Judge sides with Kamehameha




HONOLULU (AP) — U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren has ruled the names of four children legally challenging
Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy must be made public.

The challenge contends the private school system's 121-year-old preference for Native Hawaiians is at odds with
federal civil rights laws. The system operates several campuses on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island.

The children's parents have said in court papers that they may drop the challenge if the children aren't allowed to
pursue the lawsuit anonymously.

Kurren issued a 10-day stay to his ruling, allowing the students and their parents to consider whether to pursue the
lawsuit.

The four are not of Hawaiian ancestry. They applied for admission to Kamehameha in 2008-09 school year, but were
rejected.

ARTICLETITLE: Judge sides with Kamehameha
ARTICLEDATE: 10/29/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:
Posted on: Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Judge orders names be made public in Hawaii school suit




Honolulu Advertiser file photos

By Rick Daysog
Advertiser Staff Writer

The identities of four unnamed, non-Hawaiian students challenging Kamehameha Schools' admission policy must be
made public in 10 days, a federal judge ruled yesterday.

In a 22-page order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren said the public, as in other civil rights cases, has "a strong
interest in knowing who is using the courts to vindicate their rights."
"The severity of the threatened harm and the reasonableness of plaintiffs' fears do not weigh in favor of anonymity,"
Kurren wrote. "At most, plaintiffs are vulnerable children who have a reasonable fear of social ostracization."

Kamehameha Schools spokeswoman Ann Botticelli said the schools appreciated the ruling, saying, "Judge Kurren
obviously deliberated carefully on the matter."

David Rosen, one of the attorneys representing the students, declined comment yesterday.

Rosen and California attorney Eric Grant previously argued that the disclosure of the students' identities would
expose them to public humiliation and retaliation.

Parents of the students — who are simply known as Jacob, Janet, Karl and Lisa Doe — have said in court papers
that they may drop the lawsuit if the children are not allowed to pursue their lawsuit anonymously.

The Does, who are not of Hawaiian ancestry, applied for admission to Kamehameha in the 2008-09 school year, but
were rejected.

Kurren's ruling came after a 1 1/2-hour, closed-door hearing on Oct. 21.

By issuing a 10-day stay to his ruling, he allowed the students and their parents to consider whether to continue
pursuing the action.

The stay also allows the Does' attorneys to appeal the ruling to U.S. District Judge Michael Seabright, who is
assigned to the case.

Founded by the 1884 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, Kamehameha Schools is a charitable trust that
educates children of native Hawaiian ancestry. The estate is the state's largest private landowner and is one of the
nation's wealthiest trusts, with assets of more than $9 billion.

lawyers cite threats

In their court filings, Rosen and Grant cited anonymous threats posted on the Internet and hostile remarks attached to
the comments sections of local news stories about the admissions controversy.

Grant and Rosen have noted that the threats were serious enough to prompt U.S. Attorney Ed Kubo in 2003 to issue
a warning against anyone looking to harm another non-Hawaiian student, Brayden Mohica-Cummings, who was
admitted to the school under a settlement agreement.

Kurren, however, ruled that Grant and Rosen didn't provide evidence of "any threat of physical or economic harm"
against the Does.

Botticelli, the Kamehameha Schools spokeswoman, added that the trust's leadership "would never take any action
that puts a child in danger."

"We would never engage in or condone any racial threats or actions, and we know our community wouldn't either,"
she said.

Adrian Kamali'i, a 2000 Kamehameha Schools graduate and president of the student-parent group Na Pua a Ke Ali'i
Pauahi, said Kurren's ruling "levels the playing field."

Allowing the students and parents to pursue the lawsuit anonymously takes away any accountability and hides from
the public "who is doing what and why," added Jan Dill, a 1961 graduate.

"I think it's tremendous that the judge has demanded transparency in a process that affects thousand of native
Hawaiian children," Dill said. "People who take actions like this should stand up and take responsibility rather that
hide behind confidentiality."
School hails ruling

Attorneys for the trust — Paul Alston and former Stanford University Law School Dean Kathleen Sullivan — said
anonymity has allowed the students' lawyers to portray their clients in a sympathetic light, but gave the trust no
means to say whether that portrayal is accurate.

They also noted that in the previous lawsuit challenging the school's admission policy, Grant's co-counsel John
Goemans abused his client's anonymity by leaking the details of a confidential settlement.

In that suit, a separate John Doe sought to overturn the trust's Hawaiian-preference admission policy. The policy was
upheld by the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and was headed to U.S. Supreme Court before it was settled.

The trust was able to save its admissions policy but ended up paying the student $7 million.

Beadie Dawson, a native Hawaiian attorney and former lawyer for Na Pua, said that given the stakes involved, she
expects the Does to appeal Kurren's decision.

"They are looking for another damages settlement, a free hand-out," she said. "Giving them anonymity encourages
others to file what I consider to be frivolous lawsuits."

Reach Rick Daysog at rdaysog@honoluluadvertiser.com.

ARTICLETITLE: Judge orders names be made public in Hawaii school suit
ARTICLEDATE: 10/29/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

Kamehameha Schools' critics told to give IDs

By Nelson Daranciang

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Oct 29, 2008

The four students and their parents who filed the latest lawsuit challenging Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiian
preference admission policy must reveal their identities, a federal magistrate judge ruled yesterday.

However, Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren, in a written order filed in U.S. District Court, stayed enforcement of his
order 10 days to give the students and their parents time to decide whether they will continue to pursue the lawsuit.

Parents of each of the students said in written declarations submitted to the court that if they are faced with the
choice between revealing their children's identities to the public or pulling out of the lawsuit, they would almost
certainly choose to pull out.

The lawsuit filed Aug. 6 identifies the students as Lisa Doe, Karl Doe, Jacob Doe and his sister Janet Doe. It identifies
James and Joyce Doe as the parents of Jacob and Janet Doe, Kirk and Kate Doe, the parents of Karl Doe and Laura
Doe, the mother of Lisa Doe.

In the previous lawsuit, both sides agreed to keep the name of plaintiff John Doe anonymous. That case ended in an
out-of-court settlement after the U.S. District Court in Hawaii and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor
of the policy but before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion.

However, in the current lawsuit, defendants Kamehameha Schools and the trustees of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop
Estate oppose keeping the names of the plaintiffs anonymous. They said they need the names of the students to
check on their claims that they applied for admission, were found to be qualified, but were not accepted because they
were not of Hawaiian ancestry.
In his order, Kurren said, "Plaintiffs' use of fictitious names runs afoul of the public's common law right of access to
judicial proceedings."

If the "plaintiffs seek the protections and benefits of litigating their action, they must do so openly," he said.

Kamehameha Schools spokes- woman Ann Botticelli said, "Judge Kurren deliberated thoroughly and carefully and
we appreciate his decision."

David Rosen, the Hawaii lawyer for the Doe plaintiffs, said yesterday he was not able to comment on Kurren's order
because he had not seen it.

The four students and their parents who filed the latest lawsuit challenging Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiian
preference admission policy must reveal their identities, a federal magistrate judge ruled yesterday.

However, Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren, in a written order filed in U.S. District Court, stayed enforcement of his
order 10 days to give the students and their parents time to decide whether they will continue to pursue the lawsuit.

Parents of each of the students said in written declarations submitted to the court that if they are faced with the
choice between revealing their children's identities to the public or pulling out of the lawsuit, they would almost
certainly choose to pull out.

The lawsuit filed Aug. 6 identifies the students as Lisa Doe, Karl Doe, Jacob Doe and his sister Janet Doe. It identifies
James and Joyce Doe as the parents of Jacob and Janet Doe, Kirk and Kate Doe, the parents of Karl Doe and Laura
Doe, the mother of Lisa Doe.

In the previous lawsuit, both sides agreed to keep the name of plaintiff John Doe anonymous. That case ended in an
out-of-court settlement after the U.S. District Court in Hawaii and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor
of the policy but before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion.

However, in the current lawsuit, defendants Kamehameha Schools and the trustees of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop
Estate oppose keeping the names of the plaintiffs anonymous. They said they need the names of the students to
check on their claims that they applied for admission, were found to be qualified, but were not accepted because they
were not of Hawaiian ancestry.

In his order, Kurren said, "Plaintiffs' use of fictitious names runs afoul of the public's common law right of access to
judicial proceedings."

If the "plaintiffs seek the protections and benefits of litigating their action, they must do so openly," he said.

Kamehameha Schools spokes- woman Ann Botticelli said, "Judge Kurren deliberated thoroughly and carefully and
we appreciate his decision."

David Rosen, the Hawaii lawyer for the Doe plaintiffs, said yesterday he was not able to comment on Kurren's order
because he had not seen it.

ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools' critics told to give IDs
ARTICLEDATE: 10/29/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KITV-TV ABC 4 Honolulu
ARTICLEBODY:

Judge Orders Release Of Names Of Children Suing Kamehameha

Plaintiffs Fear Retaliation If Names Released

POSTED: 9:25 am HST October 29, 2008
UPDATED: 10:03 am HST October 29, 2008
HONOLULU -- A federal magistrate ruled on Tuesday that children who are suing for admission to Kamehameha
Schools must have their names revealed to the public.
The latest lawsuit challenging the private school's Hawaiian preference for admission involves four non-Hawaiian
children.
The children's' attorneys said they feared retaliation if the names were made public.
However, Magistrate Barry Kurren ruled that a general fear of retaliation was not enough to overcome the need for
openness in court proceedings or the right of Kamehameha Schools to investigate the applicants and defend its case.
Attorneys for the four families said their clients may drop their suit if they are forced to make their names public.
They have 10 days to either drop the suit or appeal to the district judge handling the case.
ARTICLETITLE: Judge Orders Release Of Names Of Children Suing Kamehameha
ARTICLEDATE: 10/29/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KPUA-AM 670
ARTICLEBODY:
Posted: Wednesday, October 29th, 2008 4:37 AM HST

                               Judge sides with Kamehameha
HONOLULU (AP) _ U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren has ruled the names of four
children legally challenging Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy must be
made public.

The challenge contends the private school system's 121-year-old preference
for Native Hawaiians is at odds with federal civil rights laws. The system
operates several campuses on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island.

The children's parents have said in court papers that they may drop the
challenge if the children aren't allowed to pursue the lawsuit anonymously.

Kurren issued a 10-day stay to his ruling, allowing the students and their
parents to consider whether to pursue the lawsuit.

The four are not of Hawaiian ancestry. They applied for admission to
Kamehameha in 2008-09 school year, but were rejected.


(Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved)
ARTICLETITLE: Judge sides with Kamehameha
ARTICLEDATE: 10/29/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Maui News
ARTICLEBODY:

Kamehameha pupils must be named

Judge rules in favor of Hawaiian school in federal civil rights suit

POSTED: October 29, 2008

HONOLULU (AP) - U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren ruled Tuesday that the names of four children legally challenging
Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy must be made public.

The challenge contends the private school system's 121-year-old preference for Native Hawaiians is at odds with
federal civil rights laws. The system operates several campuses on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island.
The children's parents have said in court papers that they may drop the challenge if the children aren't allowed to
pursue the lawsuit anonymously.

Kurren issued a 10-day stay to his ruling, allowing the students and their parents to consider whether to pursue the
lawsuit. Their attorneys could also appeal the decision to U.S. District Judge Michael Seabright.

David Rosen, an attorney for the students, declined comment.

The four are not of Hawaiian ancestry. They applied for admission to Kamehameha for the 2008-09 school year, but
were rejected.

Attorneys for Kamehameha argued anonymity allowed the children's attorneys to portray their clients in a sympathetic
light but would give the trust no means to say whether that portrayal was accurate.

Rosen has argued disclosing the children's names would expose them to public humiliation as well as retaliation, and
''would almost certainly cause them to abandon the case.''

He cited a number of anonymous threats posted on the Internet and hostile remarks attached to the comments
sections on local news stories about the admissions controversy.

''The severity of the threatened harm and the reasonableness of plaintiffs' fears do not weigh in favor of anonymity,''
Kurren wrote.

''At most, plaintiffs are vulnerable children who have a reasonable fear of social ostracization,'' he said in a 22-page
ruling.

Kamehameha Schools operates several private schools that give admissions preference to those of Hawaiian
ancestry. Only a few non-Hawaiians have ever been admitted.

The $9.1 billion trust was established in 1883 by the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The nonprofit trust
dedicated to educating Hawaiian children is one of the nation's largest charities, and is the state's largest private
landowner with more than 360,000 acres.


ARTICLETITLE: Full Story
ARTICLEDATE: 10/29/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: MSNBC
ARTICLEBODY: Judge Orders Release Of Names Of Children Suing Kamehameha
Plaintiffs Fear Retaliation If Names Released
KITV-TV
updated 9:20 a.m. HT, Thurs., Oct. 30, 2008

HONOLULU - A federal magistrate ruled on Tuesday that children who are suing for admission to Kamehameha
Schools must have their names revealed to the public.

The latest lawsuit challenging the private school's Hawaiian preference for admission involves four non-Hawaiian
children.

The children's' attorneys said they feared retaliation if the names were made public.

However, Magistrate Barry Kurren ruled that a general fear of retaliation was not enough to overcome the need for
openness in court proceedings or the right of Kamehameha Schools to investigate the applicants and defend its case.

Attorneys for the four families said their clients may drop their suit if they are forced to make their names public.

They have 10 days to either drop the suit or appeal to the district judge handling the case.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27442690/

ARTICLETITLE: Judge Orders Release Of Names Of Children Suing Kamehameha
ARTICLEDATE: 10/29/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: San Diego Union-Tribune
ARTICLEBODY:
Judge sides with Kamehameha



ASSOCIATED PRESS
8:34 p.m. October 28, 2008
HONOLULU – U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren ruled Tuesday that the names of
four children legally challenging Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy must be
made public.

The challenge contends the private school system's 121-year-old preference for
Native Hawaiians is at odds with federal civil rights laws. The system operates
several campuses on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island.

The children's parents have said in court papers that they may drop the challenge if
the children aren't allowed to pursue the lawsuit anonymously.

Kurren issued a 10-day stay to his ruling, allowing the students and their parents to
consider whether to pursue the lawsuit. Their attorneys could also appeal the
decision to U.S. District Judge Michael Seabright.

David Rosen, an attorney for the students, declined comment.

The four are not of Hawaiian ancestry. They applied for admission to Kamehameha
in 2008-09 school year, but were rejected.

Attorneys for Kamehameha argued anonymity allowed the children's attorneys to
portray their clients in a sympathetic light but would give the trust no means to say
whether that portrayal was accurate.

Rosen has argued disclosing the children's names would expose them to public
humiliation as well as retaliation, and “would almost certainly cause them to
abandon the case.―

He cited a number of anonymous threats posted on the Internet and hostile
remarks attached to the comments sections on local news stories about the
admissions controversy.

“The severity of the threatened harm and the reasonableness of plaintiffs' fears
do not weigh in favor of anonymity,― Kurren wrote.

“At most, plaintiffs are vulnerable children who have a reasonable fear of social
ostracization,― he said in a 22-page ruling.

Kamehameha Schools operates several private schools that give admissions
preference to those of Hawaiian ancestry. Only a few non-Hawaiians have ever
been admitted.

The $9.1 billion trust was established in 1883 by the will of Princess Bernice
Pauahi Bishop. The nonprofit trust dedicated to educating Hawaiian children is one
of the nation's largest charities, and the state's largest private landowner with more
than 360,000 acres.




Information from: The Honolulu Advertiser, www.honoluluadvertiser.com
ARTICLETITLE: Judge sides with Kamehameha
ARTICLEDATE: 11/2/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

From the Forum




POSTED: 02:30 a.m. HST, Nov 02, 2008

Online readers are able to respond immediately to Star-Bulletin stories through our Web forum, which can be
accessed at the end of stories, editorials and columns at starbulletin.com. Below is a selection of forum comments
that appeared last week. Most forum contributors use pseudonyms; their "names" have been omitted here.

"Fines piled up for site of scaffold collapse," Star-Bulletin, Oct. 28: What good is handing out building
department violations if these inspectors do nothing about it? On our dead-end street in Palama a guy has converted
a family home into six illegal rentals and has received a building violation for illegal rentals. Come to find out he isn't
the owner and has been doing this against the (wishes of) the family who owns it. Cars are parked everywhere and
drugs are being sold there on a daily basis. We have complained numerous times to the building department and the
police, but they do nothing. With so many cars parked on the street and in the yard, there must be 50 people living in
this residence. Police have visited this home numerous times and so have building department (inspectors), but again
they do nothing.

-Why blame government when it is the owners of the land who are at fault? Complain about government intervention
as big brother and complain when government tries to do its job. Short of shooting the landlord, there is a process
that must be adhered to to take someone's land from them. Could be you next!

-"Racism and prejudice linger in Hawaii, says chief justice," Star-Bulletin, Oct. 25: We all have prejudice buried
deep in our subconscious. I think that this is a normal feeling to have. The problem comes when we act on these
feelings by beating up a person because of his race, not hiring people because you think their race inferior, and even
locking the door to your car when a person of a certain race walks by. We all can determine what is right and what is
wrong. Acting out on our prejudice feelings is wrong; treating someone according to their own merits and not
according to their race is right. I'm Hawaiian, married to a haole. I have Chinese cousins, Samoan and Japanese in-
laws, and I love all these people.

-We are lucky that we have a reputation of aloha, although there are many times when we really do not deserve it, as
Justice Moon has stated. Until that day comes when we can act and feel with aloha, we have a lot of time to clean up
our act. Visitors really don't want to bother to come to a place that does not welcome them.

-Yeah, racism and prejudice still linger in Hawaii. If you don't believe me, just go down to Iolani Palace on statehood
day.

-"Kamehameha Schools' challengers must go public," Star-Bulletin, Oct. 29: Thank you very much, Judge
Kurren. Some citizens are weary of these unwarranted attacks on Kamehameha Schools and the estate will.

-Funny that the plaintiffs don't mind their names being printed on a settlement check, but don't want their names
printed in the paper. Good ruling, Judge Kurren.

-The anonymity of the young plaintiffs was important to protect them from threats, bullying and other dangers that
have and continue to plague haole students. Let's not forget "kill haole day" or the false-cracking attacks on tourists.
These racist practices are well-known and have had a chilling effect on many. The discriminatory policies of KSBE
against non-Hawaiians and the often angry support it engenders, as during the most recent challenge, against haoles
are frightening manifestations of ill will against innocent kids and their families. Keep in mind that all that is being
asked is admittance to a school that benefits mightily from tax breaks because it falsely claims to be a charitable
organization. If the situation were reversed and Hawaiians were being denied admittance to a school, I think there
would be thousands in the streets rallying for their rights.

Online readers are able to respond immediately to Star-Bulletin stories through our Web forum, which can be
accessed at the end of stories, editorials and columns at starbulletin.com. Below is a selection of forum comments
that appeared last week. Most forum contributors use pseudonyms; their "names" have been omitted here.

"Fines piled up for site of scaffold collapse," Star-Bulletin, Oct. 28: What good is handing out building
department violations if these inspectors do nothing about it? On our dead-end street in Palama a guy has converted
a family home into six illegal rentals and has received a building violation for illegal rentals. Come to find out he isn't
the owner and has been doing this against the (wishes of) the family who owns it. Cars are parked everywhere and
drugs are being sold there on a daily basis. We have complained numerous times to the building department and the
police, but they do nothing. With so many cars parked on the street and in the yard, there must be 50 people living in
this residence. Police have visited this home numerous times and so have building department (inspectors), but again
they do nothing.

-Why blame government when it is the owners of the land who are at fault? Complain about government intervention
as big brother and complain when government tries to do its job. Short of shooting the landlord, there is a process
that must be adhered to to take someone's land from them. Could be you next!

-"Racism and prejudice linger in Hawaii, says chief justice," Star-Bulletin, Oct. 25: We all have prejudice buried
deep in our subconscious. I think that this is a normal feeling to have. The problem comes when we act on these
feelings by beating up a person because of his race, not hiring people because you think their race inferior, and even
locking the door to your car when a person of a certain race walks by. We all can determine what is right and what is
wrong. Acting out on our prejudice feelings is wrong; treating someone according to their own merits and not
according to their race is right. I'm Hawaiian, married to a haole. I have Chinese cousins, Samoan and Japanese in-
laws, and I love all these people.

-We are lucky that we have a reputation of aloha, although there are many times when we really do not deserve it, as
Justice Moon has stated. Until that day comes when we can act and feel with aloha, we have a lot of time to clean up
our act. Visitors really don't want to bother to come to a place that does not welcome them.

-Yeah, racism and prejudice still linger in Hawaii. If you don't believe me, just go down to Iolani Palace on statehood
day.

-"Kamehameha Schools' challengers must go public," Star-Bulletin, Oct. 29: Thank you very much, Judge
Kurren. Some citizens are weary of these unwarranted attacks on Kamehameha Schools and the estate will.

-Funny that the plaintiffs don't mind their names being printed on a settlement check, but don't want their names
printed in the paper. Good ruling, Judge Kurren.

-The anonymity of the young plaintiffs was important to protect them from threats, bullying and other dangers that
have and continue to plague haole students. Let's not forget "kill haole day" or the false-cracking attacks on tourists.
These racist practices are well-known and have had a chilling effect on many. The discriminatory policies of KSBE
against non-Hawaiians and the often angry support it engenders, as during the most recent challenge, against haoles
are frightening manifestations of ill will against innocent kids and their families. Keep in mind that all that is being
asked is admittance to a school that benefits mightily from tax breaks because it falsely claims to be a charitable
organization. If the situation were reversed and Hawaiians were being denied admittance to a school, I think there
would be thousands in the streets rallying for their rights.

ARTICLETITLE: From the Forum
ARTICLEDATE: 11/13/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:
Posted on: Thursday, November 13, 2008
Lawyer says clients at risk if identified

Advertiser Staff

Attorneys for non-Hawaiian students now suing for admission to Kamehameha Schools are protesting a judge's order
that the students' names be made public, saying that threats were made against the students, their families and their
lawyers.

Attorney David Rosen yesterday said that news stories about U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren's ruling generated
new threats and Rosen asked Kurren to reverse his decision. Rosen said callers to his office threatened physical
harm to him and his clients.

He also said the news stories in The Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin about Kurren's ruling generated online
threats of harm to him and the students. The Advertiser has been subpoenaed to provide unpublished letters to the
editor and online comments that were taken off The Advertiser's Web site.

Rosen said in an affidavit that he notified the FBI of a threatening phone call and e-mail message he received at his
office.

The lawsuit, filed by four non-Hawaiian students in August, alleges that the schools' policy of admissions preference
to Native Hawaiians violates federal civil rights law.

The suit closely followed similar claims filed in an earlier suit that Kamehameha Schools settled with a payment of $7
million to an unidentified Big Island student and parent.

Last month, Kurren granted a motion from Kamehameha lawyers that argued the identities of the plaintiffs in the new
lawsuit should be made public. Kurren rejected arguments that that would put the plaintiffs at physical risk.

"The severity of the threatened harm and the reasonableness of plaintiffs' fears do not weigh in favor of anonymity,"
Kurren wrote. "At most, plaintiffs are vulnerable children who have a reasonable fear of social ostracization."

ARTICLETITLE: Lawyer says clients at risk if identified
ARTICLEDATE: 11/13/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

Newswatch

For Thursday, November 13, 2008

By Star-Bulletin staff

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Nov 13, 2008

Unnamed plaintiffs appeal order

The four students and their parents challenging Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiian preference admission policy are
appealing a federal magistrate judge's order to reveal their identities or drop their lawsuit.

The students and their parents filed their lawsuit Aug. 6 under pseudonyms to conceal their true identities.

Federal Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren ordered the plaintiffs on Oct. 28 to reveal their identities. However, Kurren
stayed enforcement of his order for 10 days to give the students and their parents time to decide whether they will
continue to pursue the lawsuit.
In papers filed in U.S. District Court yesterday, the plaintiffs, through their lawyers Eric Grant and David Rosen, say
the public and private reactions to the order "demonstrate convincingly that plaintiffs' fear of harm if their identities are
revealed to the public is reasonable," and that the harm outweighs any prejudice to Kamehameha Schools and the
public's interest in knowing the plaintiffs' identities.

They are asking Kurren to reconsider his order denying their request to pursue their lawsuit anonymously.

ARTICLETITLE: Newswatch: Unnamed Plaintiffs Appeal Order
ARTICLEDATE: 12/6/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Tribune Herald
ARTICLEBODY:

More legal wrangling over Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy

by John Burnett
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer

Published: Saturday, December 6, 2008 7:51 AM HST

A Honolulu attorney representing Kamehameha Schools in a lawsuit against a Big Island teenager who received a $7
million out-of-court settlement from the educational trust says a related case in a California federal court may be
moving to U.S. District Court in Honolulu.

Paul Alston, who filed the suit in August in Hilo Circuit Court against the teen, identified as "John Doe," and his
mother, "Jane Doe," said that a California federal judge has ruled that the related case, Grant v. Kamehameha
Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, be moved to U.S. District Court in Honolulu.

The Does, who are Caucasian, sued Kamehameha Schools in 2003 because the boy's admission application was
rejected. Their suit alleged that Kamehameha's "Hawaiians first" admissions policy violated his civil rights.

The policy, however, was upheld by the U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before the
settlement came in May 2007. The U.S. Supreme Court had not yet decided whether to hear the case when the
settlement was reached.

Grant, a Sacramento attorney who negotiated the settlement for the Does, is seeking a declaratory judgment that he
is not liable to defendant Kamehameha Schools because John Goemans, a former Big Island attorney who brought
the Does' case to Grant, allegedly told the Honolulu Advertiser the monetary terms of the deal in February, a breach
of confidentiality provisions in the settlement agreement.

"(Grant's) suit will be moved back to Hawaii, where it belongs," Alston told the Tribune-Herald on Thursday.

"A judge has entered an order and we're waiting for a clerk to do (the paperwork).

"That case should start over here around Christmastime and from there, we're going to figure out how we're going to
proceed."

No trial date has been set for the state lawsuit, which Goemans said "is still in its very early stages."

If the Hilo case goes to trial, it will be heard by Circuit Judge Greg Nakamura. According to the suit filed by Alston, the
Does are defendants because "under the terms of the agreement, signatories were made liable for any actions of
their attorneys which violate the confidentiality provision of the settlement agreement."

Kamehameha Schools is a $9.1 billion trust established in 1883 by the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The
nonprofit trust dedicated to educating Hawaiian children is one of the nation's largest charities, and the state's largest
private landowner with more than 360,000 acres.

Goemans, who now lives in California, has his own dispute with the Does, and is seeking $1.75 million for his
services. Goemans said in August that he disclosed the settlement amount because he considers it important public
information about a charitable institution given tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. He added that he
did not sign the confidentiality agreement and was not a party to it.
Grant received 40 percent of the settlement, or $2.8 million, after filing suit to collect against the Does last year in
federal court in Sacramento.

Grant and Honolulu attorney David Rosen filed another civil suit in August in U.S. District Court in Honolulu. The
plaintiffs in that case, Jacob Doe v. Kamehameha Schools, are four anonymous non-Hawaiian students and their
parents, who also allege that Kamehameha's admissions policy denied them of their civil rights.

On Oct. 30, Federal Magistrate Barry Kurren ruled that the Jacob Doe plaintiffs had no compelling reason to sue
anonymously and gave them 10 days to disclose their identities if they decided to pursue their case. After motions
from both sides, the plaintiffs remain anonymous and the issue of whether they can proceed without revealing their
identities remains before the court.

E-mail John Burnett at -jburnett@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
ARTICLETITLE: More legal wrangling over Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy
ARTICLEDATE: 12/6/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: West Hawaii Today
ARTICLEBODY:
Kamehameha Schools-related lawsuit may move to Honolulu

by John Burnett
Stephens Media

Saturday, December 6, 2008 7:23 AM HST

A Honolulu attorney representing Kamehameha Schools in a lawsuit against an unidentified Big Island teenager who
received a $7 million out-of-court settlement from the educational trust says a related case in a California federal
court may be moving to U.S. District Court in Honolulu.

Paul Alston, who filed the suit in August in Hilo Circuit Court against the teen, "John Doe," and his mother, "Jane
Doe," in August, said that a California federal judge has ruled that the related case, Grant vs. Kamehameha
Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, be moved to U.S. District Court in Honolulu.

The Does, who are Causasian, sued Kamehameha Schools in 2003 because the boy's application for admission was
rejected. Their suit alleged that Kamehameha's "Hawaiians first" admissions policy violated his civil rights. That policy
was upheld by the U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before the settlement came in May
2007. The U.S. Supreme Court had not yet decided whether to hear the case when the settlement was reached.

Grant, a Sacramento attorney who negotiated the settlement for the Does, is seeking a declaratory judgment that he
is not liable to defendant Kamehameha Schools because John Goemans, a former Big Island attorney who brought
the Does' case to Grant, allegedly told the Honolulu Advertiser the monetary terms of the deal in February, a breach
of confidentiality provisions in the settlement agreement.

"(Grant's) suit will be moved back to Hawaii, where it belongs," Alston told the Tribune-Herald on Thursday. "A judge
has entered an order and we're waiting for a clerk to do (the paperwork).

"That case should start over here around Christmastime and from there, we're going to figure out how we're going to
proceed."

No trial date has been set for the state lawsuit, which Goemans said "is still in its very early stages."

If the Hilo case goes to trial, it will be heard by Circuit Judge Greg Nakamura. According to the suit filed by Alston, the
Does are defendants because "under the terms of the agreement, signatories were made liable for any actions of
their attorneys which violate the confidentiality provision of the settlement agreement."

Kamehameha Schools is a $9.1 billion trust established in 1883 by the will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The
nonprofit trust dedicated to educating Hawaiian children is one of the nation's largest charities, and the state's largest
private landowner with more than 360,000 acres.
ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools-related lawsuit may move to Honolulu
ARTICLEDATE: 12/8/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Tribune Herald
ARTICLEBODY:
Setting the record straight

Published: Sunday, December 7, 2008 7:44 AM HST

- Saturday's story, "More legal wrangling over Kamehameha School's admissions policy," omitted the first name of
Sacramento attorney Eric Grant.

The Hawaii Tribune-Herald believes in correcting its errors. If you would like to report an error, call Editor David Bock
at 930-7323, or Associate Editor Richard Palmer at 930-7324, Tuesdays through Saturdays. Corrections will appear
in this space.
ARTICLETITLE: Setting the record straight
ARTICLEDATE: 12/10/2008 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

Newswatch

For Wednesday, December 10, 2008

By Star-Bulletin staff

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Dec 10, 2008

Kamehameha lawsuit in isle court

A Hawaii court will settle a dispute, first aired in a California court, over whether damages are owed Kamehameha
Schools for the disclosure that it paid $7 million to an unnamed student who claims he was denied admission
because he is not Hawaiian.

A federal judge last month granted Kamehameha Schools' request to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court in
Hawaii. The court in Hawaii received the case yesterday.

On the eve of a decision last year by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether to hear the case on appeal, Kamehameha
Schools agreed to an out-of-court settlement in the 2003 lawsuit filed by the student and his mother.

Eric Grant, the student's California lawyer, then sued John Goemans, the student's Hawaii lawyer, over attorney fees
from the settlement. Grant also obtained a court order prohibiting Goemans from disclosing any of the confidential
details of the settlement.

But Goemans, claiming the public has a right to know how much Kamehameha Schools paid to settle the lawsuit,
reported that the amount was $7 million. He also reported that Grant received 40 percent of the settlement.

Following Goemans' disclosure, Grant filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that he is not liable for damages arising
out of the breach of the confidential settlement agreement. The student and his mother filed similar lawsuits against
Grant and Kamehameha Schools.

ARTICLETITLE: Newswatch: Kamehameha lawsuit in isle court
ARTICLEDATE: 1/1/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:
Posted on: Thursday, January 1, 2009

Judge: Students' names must be revealed

He reaffirms ruling in Kamehameha Schools admissions policy case
By Rick Daysog
Advertiser Staff Writer

For the second time in less than three months, a federal judge has ruled that the names of the students challenging
Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy must be publicly disclosed.

In an order issued yesterday, U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren ruled that lawyers for the four anonymous students
seeking to overturn the school's century-old Hawaiian-preference policy haven't provided any new facts to warrant a
reversal.

"Plaintiffs have not shown a sufficient 'need for anonymity' that trumps the 'presumption, firmly rooted in American law
of openess in judicial proceedings,' " Kurren wrote.

Kurren ruled on Oct. 28 that the names of the students, who are being referred to as Jacob, Janet, Karl and Lisa Doe,
must be disclosed.

He ruled then that the public, as in other civil rights cases, has "a strong interest in knowing who is using the courts to
vindicate their rights."

The attorneys for the four students, David Rosen and Eric Grant, had asked Kurren to reconsider, citing anonymous
threats posted on the Internet and hostile remarks attached to the comment sections of local online news stories
about the admissions controversy.

Parents of the students have said in court papers that they may drop the lawsuit if the children are not allowed to
pursue their lawsuit anonymously.

The four students, who are not of Hawaiian ancestry, applied for admission to Kamehameha in the 2008-09 school
year, but were rejected.

Rosen could not be reached for comment yesterday.

But Rosen and Grant can file an appeal with U.S. District Judge Michael Seabright, who is overseeing the case.

Founded by the 1884 will of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, Kamehameha Schools is a charitable trust that
educates children of native Hawaiian ancestry. The estate is the state's largest private landowner and is one of the
nation's wealthiest trusts, with assets of more than $9 billion.

The lawsuit is just one of several seeking to overturn the Hawaiian-preference policy. A previous lawsuit by an
anonymous student was settled before it went before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The trust was able to preserve its admissions policy but ended up paying the student $7 million.

Reach Rick Daysog at rdaysog@honoluluadvertiser.com.

ARTICLETITLE: Judge: Students' names must be revealed
ARTICLEDATE: 1/1/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KHNL / KFVE - TV
ARTICLEBODY: Judge rules to disclose Kamehameha                             suit names


Associated Press - January 1, 2009 6:04 PM ET

HONOLULU (AP) - For the second time in less than three months, a federal judge has ruled that the
names of 4 students challenging Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy must be publicly disclosed.
U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren ruled Wednesday that lawyers for the four anonymous students haven't
provided any new facts to warrant a reversal of his earlier decision to release the names.

Kurren says the plaintiffs haven't shown a sufficient 'need for anonymity' that trumps the presumption of
openness in judicial proceedings.

The students are seeking to overturn the school's century-old Hawaiian-preference admissions policy.

Kurren has says the public has "a strong interest in knowing who is using the courts to vindicate their
rights."

Information from: The Honolulu Advertiser, http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed.

ARTICLETITLE: Judge rules to disclose Kamehameha suit names
ARTICLEDATE: 1/2/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KPUA-AM 670
ARTICLEBODY:
   Posted: Friday, January 2nd, 2009 4:35 AM HST

           Judge rules to disclose Kamehameha suit names
   By Associated Press
  HONOLULU (AP) _ For the second time in less than three months, a
  federal judge has ruled that the names of four students challenging
  Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy must be publicly disclosed.

  U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren ruled Wednesday that lawyers for the four
  anonymous students haven't provided any new facts to warrant a
  reversal of his earlier decision to release the names.

  Kurren says the plaintiffs haven't shown a sufficient 'need for anonymity'
  that trumps the presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.

  The students are seeking to overturn the school's century-old Hawaiian-
  preference admissions policy.

  Kurren has says the public has ``a strong interest in knowing who is
  using the courts to vindicate their rights.''

  (Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved)
ARTICLETITLE: Judge rules to disclose Kamehameha suit names
ARTICLEDATE: 1/5/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

OUR OPINION
Appeal worthwhile in Kamehameha admissions case




POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jan 05, 2009


A new lawsuit challenging Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-only admission policy has been put on indefinite hold
over the issue of whether the young plaintiffs' names should be publicly disclosed. The circumstances in the case are
novel and may require a lengthy appeal on this decisive yet side issue, but no alternatives exist.

Federal Magistrate Barry Kurren ruled in October that the names of four non-Hawaiian students and their parents be
made public for the lawsuit to continue, and he reiterated his ruling last week. They now are identified as Lisa, Karl,
Jacob and Janet Doe.

The standoff follows an out-of-court settlement in 2007, as the U.S. Supreme was about to decide whether to
consider an appeal by a prospective non-Hawaiian student, who went unnamed. The school maintains in the current
lawsuit that it needs to check on the young plaintiffs' claims associated with their applications for admission.

Federal rules in civil lawsuits state that "every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest."
However, courts have granted exceptions in cases where privacy needs outweigh the "presumption of openness in
judicial proceedings."

Among the factors to be considered, according to court rulings, are not only whether the children's interests are at
stake -- they certainly are in this case -- but whether the young plaintiffs "would risk suffering injury if identified."

Attorneys for the children maintain that threats made to the anonymous children through media outlets attest to that
risk. The children are likely to back out of the suit if their names must be made public, according to the Doe attorneys.
Kurren rejected the explanation, ruling that "use of fictitious names runs afoul of the public's common-law right of
access to judicial proceedings."

A ruling on whether Kamehameha's admission policy violates federal law must await a final decision of the issue of
anonymity.

A new lawsuit challenging Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-only admission policy has been put on indefinite hold
over the issue of whether the young plaintiffs' names should be publicly disclosed. The circumstances in the case are
novel and may require a lengthy appeal on this decisive yet side issue, but no alternatives exist.

Federal Magistrate Barry Kurren ruled in October that the names of four non-Hawaiian students and their parents be
made public for the lawsuit to continue, and he reiterated his ruling last week. They now are identified as Lisa, Karl,
Jacob and Janet Doe.

The standoff follows an out-of-court settlement in 2007, as the U.S. Supreme was about to decide whether to
consider an appeal by a prospective non-Hawaiian student, who went unnamed. The school maintains in the current
lawsuit that it needs to check on the young plaintiffs' claims associated with their applications for admission.

Federal rules in civil lawsuits state that "every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest."
However, courts have granted exceptions in cases where privacy needs outweigh the "presumption of openness in
judicial proceedings."

Among the factors to be considered, according to court rulings, are not only whether the children's interests are at
stake -- they certainly are in this case -- but whether the young plaintiffs "would risk suffering injury if identified."

Attorneys for the children maintain that threats made to the anonymous children through media outlets attest to that
risk. The children are likely to back out of the suit if their names must be made public, according to the Doe attorneys.
Kurren rejected the explanation, ruling that "use of fictitious names runs afoul of the public's common-law right of
access to judicial proceedings."
A ruling on whether Kamehameha's admission policy violates federal law must await a final decision of the issue of
anonymity.

ARTICLETITLE: Appeal worthwhile in Kamehameha admissions case
ARTICLEDATE: 1/16/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Weekly
ARTICLEBODY:

The malihini kama‘ĕina

This mainlander knows Hawai‘i outside-in.

by Ragnar Carlson / 1-14-2009




Check out Jeanne Cooper’s Hawai‘i Insider blog and you’ll quickly see what makes it so popular—she
knows this place better than most. Recent posts discuss whale-watching, hiking and other touristy pleasures, but also
the ins and outs of Jasmine Trias’ recent career, the legacy of late local fashion pioneer Alfred Shaheen and the
rebranding of the Gold Coast’s W Hotel. The former San Francisco Chronicle travel editor is part of a hĕlau
hula (Aloha Dalire’s Keolalaulani Halau ‘Olapa O Laka), appears regularly on radio and television discussions
on Hawaiian and Polynesian culture and frequently drops Hawaiian words and references in conversation—yet
she’s never lived in the Islands. We caught up with the Bay Area’s premier Hawai‘i journalist this week as
she prepared for yet another visit.




You have a very interesting and unusual relationship to this place. Can you talk about the roots of it a little
bit?

I grew up with songs and stories of Hawai‘i, but didn’t actually get to Hawai‘i for the first time until I was in
my late 30s, in 1998.

How’s that?

I grew up in Texas, but my mom had lived in Hawai‘i and gone to Punahou as a Navy brat. Her parents lived in
Austin, and whenever we were there, they would ask my mom to sing songs, tell stories. Her mother believed it was
important to know the culture of the places you lived. So my mom composed songs and stories about her time in
Hawai‘i, she danced hula in my show and tell at school. She had learned hula from Aunty ‘Iolani Luahine, whom
she did not know as a famous kumu hula but just as a very strict Hawaiian lady. It made a deep impression on my
mother. So I grew up knowing that Hawai‘i was a beautiful place with a warm culture, but as a family of four in
Texas…we didn’t even get to go to Disneyland, let alone Hawai‘i.

Then when we did come, I just fell in love. I get choked up even thinking about, but I told a woman on Kaua‘i how
much my mother loved Hawai‘i, and she gave me a Hawaiian quilt to give to her. I was moved by the beauty of the
place, of course, but mostly by the warmth of the people.

You write for a mainland audience. Are people there aware of how much Hawai‘i is changing?

I think they are, based on which island you consider your “home― as a visitor. People who love Kaua‘i are
shocked at the development there. People are aware of the crackdown on B&Bs, on Maui in particular. And then also,
at least in the Bay Area, the local Hawaiian community here marched over [developments having to do with
Hawaiians-only admissions at] Kamehameha Schools. So there is some awareness of that situation as well. It’s
true that I have heard some people who aren’t plugged into that part of the community [upset at] seeing signs
that say “haole go home― in Anahola, or the goings-on at ‘Iolani Palace. Some here are a little surprised at
the anger welling up after so many years. But I do find that when you talk people through the issues, of the history
and the overthrow, etcetera, they tend to be much more sympathetic. I find that the visitor industry is somewhat
protective of what history tourists learn, and I’m not sure that’s always a good idea.

Really? I think it’s our perception that that’s changing.

Read the Drive Guide. That’s going to be what your visitors see. What they learn about Hawaiian culture and
history is going to be largely from there, and it’s not much.

I hear sometimes that people think we focus too much on the culture in presenting ourselves to the world,
that it’s too fraught to do so after all those decades of sexualizing Hawai‘i and exoticizing it. Should we
be marketing the water and the beaches more than we are?

I just think that’s very limiting. Think about what happened with the sewage in the Ala Wai. I thought Waikīkī
was caught very flat-footed during that episode. They didn’t organize shuttles to the North Shore, or say
“let’s hike the Pali.― Instead it was like, “we know you’re here for the beach, but sorry, it’s
closed.― There has to be a strong awareness that we are more than our beaches. Remember, if I just want to go a
nice warm beach, I can go to Mexico. That decision is based almost solely on how much the flights cost. From SF,
that can be affordable, but for the rest of the country, not so much.

Also from a budget standpoint, I can get three experiences in one, in Honolulu in particular: Hawaiian culture, the
physical beauty of the place, and the dynamic mix of people as well.

Staying with Honolulu a bit, it seems that the mainland perception of us as a city is evolving. How has that
happened, do you think?

I think Honolulu and the O‘ahu Visitors Bureau have gotten very smart about promoting the museums and nightlife
and things like that. The single biggest driver, though, I think, is the food. Hawai‘i Regional Cuisine, shopping at
fish markets, that kind of thing. American culture at large has become much more of a foodie culture over the past
decade. So that’s part of the appeal: sure you’re going to hang out on the beach, but you can also be a little
more hedonistic. Look at Anthony Bourdain…he was expecting a “Redneck Riviera― experience, and then
found he really loved it on a lot of levels.

The one thing about Honolulu, I have to say: it’s got to be one of the ugliest drives from the airport to the city
anywhere in the country…sometimes I have to remind myself that it gets prettier. It’s just a little sad that the way
tourists come in has to be a gauntlet of ugliness. I don’t know what to say, maybe some murals? There has to be
a way to soften that vibe. Here in the Bay Area, we’ve got ivy growing on the concrete, so there must be
something that could do the same there. And you can’t tell me that all the locals stuck in traffic wouldn’t like a
softer, greener experience.

We’ve talked before about your ideas about what it means to be a visitor, and how visitors can participate
in making Hawai‘i a better place.
No visitor wants to be in conflict with the host population. But I think visitors have to be forebearing and understand
that issues may come up during their trip that they’ve never thought about before. Even just, you may be in a
traffic jam, which is shocking to people. That said, I really believe that during the downturn, the counties and the state
government should be investing in infrastructure, for the benefit of everyone. I’m saddened, just like locals, by
dilapidated restrooms at local parks, by signage that’s been weathered so badly it can’t be read. And it’s
in everyone’s interest to have a good transportation system.

I’ve never addressed light rail in my writings, and as a visitor it’s not my place, but I do think all visitors want
to encourage Honolulu to solve its traffic problems. And when policy decisions are made…it should be from the
mindset that visitors will buy in if you give them the chance. I would think that’s totally obvious, but I have to say I
don’t see that mentioned much in the news coverage.

I just want to emphasize and stress, I don’t believe in the outsider coming in and telling people how to do things. I
just want the opportunity to contribute knowledge when it can help, and to be informed in a way that will help me buy
in to whatever decisions are made. And that’s the background I try to share with readers.

On a personal level, what’s it like to be “of― two places at the same time?

I have to say, I think I have the best of both worlds. Truly, my heart does skip a beat when I’m about to land in
Honolulu or Lihu‘e. I’m flying into town on Thursday, actually, and I’m starting to get everything ready,
I’ve got all these things to see. It’s wonderful…it’s like a reunion of sorts every time I got back home to
Hawai‘i. And then when that plane is about to land in the Bay Area again, I think, “I live in a lovely place,
too.― And I’m grateful to live in place where there are many, many people who love Hawai‘i.

ARTICLETITLE: The malihini kama‘ĕina
ARTICLEDATE: 2/13/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Tribune Herald
ARTICLEBODY:

Ancestral benefits

Published: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:39 AM HST

Hats off to Judge Barry Kurren for standing by an earlier ruling requiring the names of four students challenging
Kamehameha Schools admissions policy be disclosed. Attorneys David Rosen and Eric Grant cite threats posted on
the Internet and hostile remarks attached to the comment sections of local online news stories as reasons for client
anonymity. Duh! What did they expect?

If Rosen and Grant decided to leave their lucrative earthly possessions to their descendents, and I used the courts to
lay claim to that inheritance, would their families acquiesce? Would they gladly roll out the red carpet and say,
"Welcome to our wealth!" Don't think so. In fact, they might even post a threatening note or two on the Internet.

Why then do they defend those who try to claim what is not theirs? And why do these parents insist that their children
benefit from what was never intended for them? If this is their course of action then they shouldn't hide behind their
children or under a cloak of anonymity. Forming an alliance with attorneys who seek to usurp the will of our princess
also says a lot about them.

And if they think their kids are the only ones facing threats and hostility, think again. Every child of Hawaiian descent
must live with the threat that their ancestral benefits are subject to the whim of covetous individuals. The Hawaiian
community must always stand up to the attacks of those who continually challenge and sometimes, under the guise
of statehood, redirect native rights and resources (ceded lands).

If these families insist on laying claim to an education at Kamehameha, then they should step up to the plate so we
can see the name on the back of their jersey.

Whoever heard of a Warrior without a name?

Clayton Kua

Hilo
ARTICLETITLE: Letters: Ancestral benefits
ARTICLEDATE: 2/19/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Maui News
ARTICLEBODY:

Illuminating journey

Around-island march to throw light on Native Hawaiian issues

By KEKOA ENOMOTO, Staff Writer

POSTED: February 19, 2009

Article Photos




The Maui News / MATTHEW THAYER photo

Torchbearers will come in all sizes, shapes and styles. Ke‘eaumoku Kapu wears boots Wednesday while Friends
of Moku‘ula project assistant Shirley Ann Kahai, goes with sandals and painted toenails.



LAHAINA A group of Native Hawaiians plans to walk around Maui island under the auspices of E Ka'apuni A Ho'a
Kukui Na Moku'aina, which means: torch march through the moku, or districts.

Principals of this six-day, nearly 200-mile kaapuni, or circuit, include members of the Kapu ohana of Kauaula -
Ke'eaumoku and U'ilani Kapu, and their sons, daughter and son-in-law - and torch-maker John Aquino.

"This is a grass-roots initiative," Ke'eaumoku Kapu said last week. "Everybody is welcome to participate, everybody."

The event was timed to close the four-month makahiki season, a period of peace marked in ancient times by religious
and sports activities. Ancient Hawaiian alii, or chiefs, and their entourages had made such circumambulations of each
island during makahiki.

Besides closing makahiki, organizers want participants to reflect on and bring awareness to concerns, such as ceded
lands issues, Kamehameha Schools admissions, water rights, and the health, education and well-being of Native
Hawaiians.

The kaapuni will start at Moku'ula, or Malu-ulu-o-Lele Park in Lahaina, late Friday. Kumu hula Kapono'ai Molitau and
members of his halau, Na Hanona Kulike 'O Pi'ilani, will lead Native Hawaiian rituals at 11 p.m.
Organizers will light two of the 12 torches that Aquino had constructed by mounting a can on a 6-foot length of
bamboo. The torch symbolizes physical illumination as well as enlightenment in Native Hawaiian culture.

The 12 districts to be visited by in order by the marchers (with rough descriptions of less commonly known areas) are:
Lahaina; Kaanapali; Wailuku; Hamakuapoko, which extends from the northwest flank of Haleakala down to the
Spreckelsville-Paia areas; Hamakualoa, which includes Haiku and Kailua; Koolau, which includes Keanae; Hana;
Kipahulu; Kaupo; Kahikinui; Honuaula, which includes La Perouse and Makena; and Kula.

"The enlightenment is heartfelt, spiritual in nature, and in reverence to our ancestors," an announcement of the event
says. "A lighted torch to represent the enlightenment will accompany those participating. The torch must remain lit
throughout the 193-mile nonstop walk around Maui. Should the lighted torch go out, the walk must begin again at
Moku'ula."

Participants will set off at midnight from Moku'ula, and traverse coastal roads and trails clockwise around the island.

Marchers will acknowledge with protocol the kupuna and ohana in the various moku - such as award-winning
recording artist and kupuna Richard Ho'opi'i of Kahakuloa, Foster Ampong at Wailuku, Bully Ho'opai at Hana,
'Aimoku and Lehua Pali at Kahikinui, and Kaleikoa Ka'eo at Kula.

Ohana members wishing to represent their respective moku in the kaapuni can call Ke'eaumoku and U'i Kapu at 250-
1479.

People can join in at any time and trek as far as they wish, Ke'eaumoku Kapu said. They can pinpoint the location of
marchers at Web site www.kpoa.com (click on "News," then "Local News").

Prospective marchers are urged to bring layered clothing for varying weather conditions, sturdy walking shoes, safety
vests, hats, sunscreen, water, food and headlamp or flashlight for nighttime travel; and to arrange for a pickup at the
end of their walking segment.

People also may bring a walking stick and possibly gloves for lava areas.

Organizers said a responsible adult must accompany walkers 17 and younger. A vehicle with a first-aid kit and
emergency-communications radio and cell phone will be at the front and back of the caravan. Someone certified in
cardiovascular resuscitation will be available as will event informational brochures, although message and protest
signs are prohibited.

Organizers estimate the torch march will end Feb. 26 at Moku'ula, with ceremonies to honor deceased kupuna.

Seconding her husband's call for those interested to join E Ka'apuni A Ho'a Kukui Na Moku'aina, U'i Kapu said of the
spiritual journey: "The goal is unity, for all to unite as one."

* Kekoa Enomoto can be reached at kekoa@mauinews.com.

ARTICLETITLE: Illuminating journey
ARTICLEDATE: 3/1/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Maui News
ARTICLEBODY:

Torch-bearing march around island comes to conclusion

Participants relate how ‘spark of light’ spread along path

By KEKOA ENOMOTO Staff Writer
POSTED: March 1, 2009

Article Photos
Marchers and supporters watch kumu hula Kapono‘ai Molitau (center, in green) conduct haule-lani ceremonies
Friday evening at Moku‘ula. The ceremonies, which paid tribute to deceased members of the Native Hawaiian
community, ended the seven-day, nearly 200-mile circle-island torch march meant to unite Maui’s people.
The Maui News / MATTHEW THAYER photo




LAHAINA - A sea of people of all ages embraced and honi'd, or touched noses, Friday at Lahaina while celebrating
the end of a weeklong, 193-mile torch march around Maui to raise attention for Native Hawaiian issues.

Elders of Na Kupuna O Maui had joined the marchers at Puamana, walking the last 1.2 miles of the journey called E
Ka'apuni A Ho'a Kukui Na Moku'aina.

An estimated 400 people ended the march about 4:15 p.m. on a hot, dusty patch of Moku'ula, or Malu-ulu-o-Lele
Park, with traditional haule-lani rites honoring deceased members of the Native Hawaiian community.

Coordinator Ke'eaumoku Kapu said the marchers fulfilled their goal, to ignite "a spark of light that spread across all of
Maui." The "light," represented by the trek's continually lit torches, signified unity and enlightenment about Native
Hawaiian issues, he said. Those issues included the ceded-lands lawsuit now before the U.S. Supreme Court; threats
to Native Hawaiian trusts, exemplified by lawsuits related to Kamehameha Schools admissions; and Native Hawaiian
health, education and well-being, he said.

The crowd buzzed as people passed around plates of food: kalua pig, Okinawan sweet potato, pohole (fern shoot)
relish and potato salad, courtesy of The Ka'anapali Beach Hotel; and fresh poi from Palani Sinenci of Keanae. Amid
wind-swirled red dust, participants munched and reminisced about the seven-day sojourn.

Teri Freitas Gorman said she had walked the first leg - 22 miles from Moku'ula to Honokahua - in six hours. Kimokeo
Kapahulehua of Honokohau had given her an umeke of paakai, or bowl of sea salt, to carry on behalf of Clifford
Nae'ole, their mutual friend who was ill with a heart ailment. At the Honokahua burial grounds, Ke'eaumoku Kapu
placed the paakai as hookupu, or offering, while Gorman prayed and watched a pueo, or owl, fly overhead. She said
the pueo is her aumakua, or family deity.

Sol Kaho'ohalahala, who also had walked the first leg, recalled "the most poignant moment" when kupuna Eddie
Reimann of Napili sat waiting by his home for the marchers. At 4:30 a.m. Saturday, Reimann accepted a torch,
walked 20 feet slowly, then returned the torch. His neighborhood had prepared for the marchers a predawn breakfast
of sandwiches, boiled eggs, mochi cake, coffee, tea and cocoa, Kaho'ohalahala recalled.

Silla Kaina said she had walked from Lahaina to Kahakuloa. She tearfully remembered how 92-year-old Aunty Edna
Farden Bekheart, sister of late singer/composer Irmgard Farden Aluli, had waited by her window to hear the
marchers. Kapu had chanted to her and her ohana, and she had heard the early-morning oli, Kaina reported.

Makalapua Kanuha also reveled in the experience. She said she had joined the group at Launiupoko and, despite
people talking all around her, had marched silently and "felt near to our kupuna," or ancestors.
The communitywide march had started at midnight Feb. 20 at Lahaina, traversed coastal roads clockwise around
island, and stopped intermittently to honor ohana of Maui's 12 moku, or districts: Lahaina, Kaanapali, Wailuku,
Hamakuapoko, Hamakualoa, Koolau, Hana, Kipahulu, Kaupo, Kahikinui, Honuaula and Kula.

For more information, visit the Web site www.kpoa.com and click on "News."

ARTICLETITLE: Torch-bearing march around island comes to conclusion
ARTICLEDATE: 3/6/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

Secret plaintiffs appeal Kamehameha lawsuit

Students not at risk over suit, judge says

STORY SUMMARY | READ THE FULL STORY

Four non-Hawaiian students who believe Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy violates their civil rights are
appealing to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow them to pursue their legal case anonymously.

Their families fear for their safety if their names are made public. But Kamehameha alumnus Jan Dill says anyone
who lays claim to resources left by a Hawaiian princess to educate Hawaii's children should "stand up and be known."

U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren directed the plaintiffs in October to reveal their identities if they wished to pursue the
case. They declined, and another federal judge dismissed their case yesterday.

— Susan Essoyan



FULL STORY >>

By Susan Essoyan

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Mar 06, 2009

Non-Hawaiians challenging Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy should publicly identify themselves and need
not fear for their safety, according to a federal judge and Hawaiians close to the case.

But four students and their families whose case was dismissed in U.S. District Court yesterday are asking the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow them to pursue the issue anonymously.

Kamehameha Schools gives preference to native Hawaiians in admissions, and the idea of opening the campus to
students with no Hawaiian blood has stirred heated emotion. The plaintiffs argued in court that they feared retaliation
from "the public at large" if their identities were disclosed.

But U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren ruled in October that they had failed to show evidence of any threats of physical
violence or economic harm. He directed them to reveal their identities if they wished to pursue the case.

The plaintiffs declined to go public, and U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright dismissed their case yesterday.
Lawyers wasted no time in filing an appeal to the 9th Circuit.

"We've got a disagreement as to whether or not there's a risk to the plaintiffs and their families if their identities are
disclosed," said David B. Rosen, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "That's essentially the only issue that's going on
appeal."
The lawsuit was filed Aug. 6 in the names of Lisa Doe, Karl Doe, Jacob Doe and Janet Doe and their parents.
Kamehameha Schools said yesterday the students should not feel intimidated in making their case publicly.

"The trustees of Kamehameha Schools would never take an action that would place a child in danger," said Ann
Botticelli, vice president of community relations and communications for Kamehameha Schools. "We believe an
appeal has no merit, and we will oppose it."

The students' claims echo those of a 2003 lawsuit filed by a separate plaintiff, who remained anonymous and was
known only as John Doe. The U.S. District Court and 9th Circuit rejected his claim and upheld Kamehameha's
admissions policy. The suit was settled out of court for $7 million last year before it could be appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court, according to attorney John Goemans.

Jan Hanohano Dill, a 1961 Kamehameha Schools alumnus, said yesterday he objected to giving people anonymity in
their court challenges against the schools, the legacy of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. He said nothing negative
had happened to families involved in previous lawsuits against the school.

"The public and the Hawaiian community deserve to know the people that are attempting to essentially steal money
from the legacy," said Dill, former president of Na Pua a ke Ali'i Pauahi, an organization of Kamehameha Schools
alumni, parents and students. "I just hope that we can resolve it to save the resources for the needs of our keiki."

Kamehameha Schools operates campuses on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island, enrolling about 5,000 students. Only
one in eight applicants is accepted into the schools.

In arguing for anonymity, Eric Grant, a plaintiffs' attorney, pointed to threats and inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the
current case, the John Doe case and another court case involving a 12-year-old non-Hawaiian student from Kauai.

But in his October ruling, Kurren concluded that "at most, plaintiffs are vulnerable children who have a reasonable
fear of social ostracization." He said the public interest in the case outweighs that concern.




Non-Hawaiians challenging Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy should publicly identify themselves and need
not fear for their safety, according to a federal judge and Hawaiians close to the case.

But four students and their families whose case was dismissed in U.S. District Court yesterday are asking the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to allow them to pursue the issue anonymously.

Kamehameha Schools gives preference to native Hawaiians in admissions, and the idea of opening the campus to
students with no Hawaiian blood has stirred heated emotion. The plaintiffs argued in court that they feared retaliation
from "the public at large" if their identities were disclosed.

But U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren ruled in October that they had failed to show evidence of any threats of physical
violence or economic harm. He directed them to reveal their identities if they wished to pursue the case.

The plaintiffs declined to go public, and U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright dismissed their case yesterday.
Lawyers wasted no time in filing an appeal to the 9th Circuit.

"We've got a disagreement as to whether or not there's a risk to the plaintiffs and their families if their identities are
disclosed," said David B. Rosen, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "That's essentially the only issue that's going on
appeal."

The lawsuit was filed Aug. 6 in the names of Lisa Doe, Karl Doe, Jacob Doe and Janet Doe and their parents.
Kamehameha Schools said yesterday the students should not feel intimidated in making their case publicly.
"The trustees of Kamehameha Schools would never take an action that would place a child in danger," said Ann
Botticelli, vice president of community relations and communications for Kamehameha Schools. "We believe an
appeal has no merit, and we will oppose it."

The students' claims echo those of a 2003 lawsuit filed by a separate plaintiff, who remained anonymous and was
known only as John Doe. The U.S. District Court and 9th Circuit rejected his claim and upheld Kamehameha's
admissions policy. The suit was settled out of court for $7 million last year before it could be appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court, according to attorney John Goemans.

Jan Hanohano Dill, a 1961 Kamehameha Schools alumnus, said yesterday he objected to giving people anonymity in
their court challenges against the schools, the legacy of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. He said nothing negative
had happened to families involved in previous lawsuits against the school.

"The public and the Hawaiian community deserve to know the people that are attempting to essentially steal money
from the legacy," said Dill, former president of Na Pua a ke Ali'i Pauahi, an organization of Kamehameha Schools
alumni, parents and students. "I just hope that we can resolve it to save the resources for the needs of our keiki."

Kamehameha Schools operates campuses on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island, enrolling about 5,000 students. Only
one in eight applicants is accepted into the schools.

In arguing for anonymity, Eric Grant, a plaintiffs' attorney, pointed to threats and inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the
current case, the John Doe case and another court case involving a 12-year-old non-Hawaiian student from Kauai.

But in his October ruling, Kurren concluded that "at most, plaintiffs are vulnerable children who have a reasonable
fear of social ostracization." He said the public interest in the case outweighs that concern.

ARTICLETITLE: Secret plaintiffs appeal Kamehameha lawsuit
ARTICLEDATE: 3/6/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KHNL / KFVE - TV
ARTICLEBODY: Judges dismisses Kamehameha                           lawsuit


Associated Press - March 5, 2009 11:14 PM ET

HONOLULU (AP) - U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the
century-old Hawaiian-preference admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools. But the case isn't over.

The dismissal came Thursday at the request of the plaintiffs.

The four non-Hawaiian students who sued had sought to remain anonymous in the case.

But U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren had ruled their names must be publicly disclosed in order for them to
proceed with the lawsuit.

After Seabright's ruling, the students' attorney, David Rosen, filed an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in an effort to move forward with the case while maintaining his clients' anonymity.

Kamehameha is 1 of the nation's largest charities and the state's largest private landowner.

Information from: Honolulu Star-Bulletin, http://www.starbulletin.com

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed.
ARTICLETITLE: Judges dismisses Kamehameha lawsuit
ARTICLEDATE: 3/6/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KPUA-AM 670
ARTICLEBODY:
Posted: Friday, March 6th, 2009 4:45 AM HST

Judges dismisses Kamehameha lawsuit
By Associated Press

HONOLULU (AP) — U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright has dismissed a
lawsuit challenging the century-old Hawaiian-preference admissions policy of
Kamehameha Schools. But the case isn't over.

The dismissal came Thursday at the request of the plaintiffs.

The four non-Hawaiian students who sued had sought to remain anonymous
in the case.

But U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren had ruled their names must be publicly
disclosed in order for them to proceed with the lawsuit.

After Seabright's ruling, the students' attorney, David Rosen, filed an appeal
with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in an effort to move forward with
the case while maintaining his clients' anonymity.

Kamehameha is one of the nation's largest charities and the state's largest
private landowner.
ARTICLETITLE: Judges dismisses Kamehameha lawsuit
ARTICLEDATE: 3/6/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Maui News
ARTICLEBODY:

Kamehameha lawsuit dismissed, but that doesn’t mean it’s over

POSTED: March 6, 2009

HONOLULU (AP) - U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the century-old
Hawaiian-preference admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools. But the case isn't over.

The dismissal came Thursday at the request of the plaintiffs.

The four non-Hawaiian students who sued had sought to remain anonymous in the case.

But U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren had ruled their names must be publicly disclosed in order for them to proceed with
the lawsuit.

After Seabright's ruling, the students' attorney, David Rosen, filed an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
in an effort to move forward with the case while maintaining his clients' anonymity.

Kamehameha is one of the nation's largest charities and the state's largest private landowner.
ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha lawsuit dismissed, but that doesn’t mean it’s over
ARTICLEDATE: 3/9/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

OUR OPINION

Patience, tolerance needed in school case




POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Mar 09, 2009

A legal quarrel over whether to make public the names of non-Hawaiian youths challenging Kamehameha Schools'
Hawaiians-only admission policy is likely to significantly delay their lawsuit. If they are forced to abandon their
anonymity and win the case, the onus will be on Kamehameha to assure their safety.

Federal court rules specify the "presumption of openness in judicial proceedings." U.S. District Judge J. Michael
Seabright dismissed the lawsuit brought by children identified only as Lisa, Karl, Jacob and Janet Doe four months
after a magistrate required that they reveal their true identities. The children's attorneys are appealing the decision.

The rules allow the identity of plaintiffs in civil lawsuits to be kept hidden if they "would risk suffering injury if
identified." Eric Grant, one of the youths' attorneys, says threats and inflammatory rhetoric have surrounded the case.

Indeed, the issue of whether the admission policy is unlawful and should be changed has been highly emotional, but
the angry letters to the Star-Bulletin have been less than incendiary.

Kalani Rosell, a non-Hawaiian who was allowed to attend Kamehameha Schools on Maui in 2002, said upon
graduation two years ago that students would not talk to him at first. That quickly changed, he said, and his friends at
the campus called him "Snowy" as a term of endearment.

Ann Botticelli, the schools' vice president for community relations, says the schools "would never take an action that
would place a child in danger." If the youthful plaintiffs reveal their identities, win admission to Kamehameha Schools
and are injured as a result, Botticelli's assurance is sure to resound in court.

 A legal quarrel over whether to make public the names of non-Hawaiian youths challenging Kamehameha Schools'
Hawaiians-only admission policy is likely to significantly delay their lawsuit. If they are forced to abandon their
anonymity and win the case, the onus will be on Kamehameha to assure their safety.

Federal court rules specify the "presumption of openness in judicial proceedings." U.S. District Judge J. Michael
Seabright dismissed the lawsuit brought by children identified only as Lisa, Karl, Jacob and Janet Doe four months
after a magistrate required that they reveal their true identities. The children's attorneys are appealing the decision.

The rules allow the identity of plaintiffs in civil lawsuits to be kept hidden if they "would risk suffering injury if
identified." Eric Grant, one of the youths' attorneys, says threats and inflammatory rhetoric have surrounded the case.

Indeed, the issue of whether the admission policy is unlawful and should be changed has been highly emotional, but
the angry letters to the Star-Bulletin have been less than incendiary.

Kalani Rosell, a non-Hawaiian who was allowed to attend Kamehameha Schools on Maui in 2002, said upon
graduation two years ago that students would not talk to him at first. That quickly changed, he said, and his friends at
the campus called him "Snowy" as a term of endearment.

Ann Botticelli, the schools' vice president for community relations, says the schools "would never take an action that
would place a child in danger." If the youthful plaintiffs reveal their identities, win admission to Kamehameha Schools
and are injured as a result, Botticelli's assurance is sure to resound in court.
ARTICLETITLE: Patience, tolerance needed in school case
ARTICLEDATE: 4/5/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Tribune Herald
ARTICLEBODY:

Giving preference

Published: Sunday, April 5, 2009 8:16 AM HST

In recent years, Kamehameha Schools have been engaged in lawsuits with students that were denied enrollment.
Usually, the plaintiff's argument is that the Kamehameha Schools discriminated against those without Hawaiian
ancestry. Even if these lawsuits have long been settled, some clarifying is needed of what Bernice Pauahi Bishop's
intention was regarding her last request of the Kamehameha Schools.

In Bernice Pauahi Bishop's will, it states "... giving preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood ...."

The administrators are given right to the admission policy, and therefore are allowed to accept students based on
Hawaiian ancestry first before those without. According to a research paper written by Mr. Kristopher A. Breaux,
found on the Kamehameha Schools Web site, "it is undisputed that the Kamehameha Schools employ an express
racial classification designed to deny admission to all students possessing no aboriginal blood, so long as qualified
Native Hawaiian applicants see admission in sufficient number to fill the positions."

Sorry if you've been denied for not having Hawaiian blood, but it's first come, first accepted.

Kayla Leong

Hilo
ARTICLETITLE: Letters: Giving preference
ARTICLEDATE: 4/5/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

Despite ruling, commitment to Hawaiians is still strong

By James "Duke" Aiona

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Apr 05, 2009




Last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding ceded lands should not be looked at in terms of "winners" or
"losers." Rather, it should serve as a clear reminder that we, as a community, must commit to reaching a fair and
lasting resolution on ceded lands. Despite the disappointment being felt by some, the court's decision does not in any
way affect our administration's ongoing commitment to the Hawaiian community.

I am proud to be a native Hawaiian, and I remain committed to preserving and protecting Hawaiian rights,
entitlements and programs. I have been a vocal advocate for the passing of the Akaka Bill, both at home and in
Washington, D.C. I have also proudly marched in defense of the Kamehameha Schools admission policy, and have
continually supported the unique and enduring role of our alii trusts. I remain committed to working directly with the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs and other stakeholders in the Hawaiian community to advance a full and fair settlement to
the longstanding ceded land claims.

Contrary to the misinformation being circulated by a few individuals, our administration has no intention of selling or
transferring any particular ceded lands.

The current lawsuit that reached the U.S. Supreme Court did not begin with this administration. It began with the
Waihee administration's efforts to sell ceded land on Maui and Hawaii island back in the late 1980s and early 1990s
to provide affordable housing. OHA and others ultimately sued the Waihee administration, and in January of 2008,
the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the 2003 Congressional Apology Resolution dictated that ceded lands could not
be sold or transferred until the unrelinquished claims by the Hawaiian community were fully resolved. The recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision correctly held that the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling was incorrect.

As a person of Hawaiian ancestry, the Apology Resolution is significant to me. It is a document that both
acknowledges past wrongs and represents hope for a brighter future. Those who diminish the role of the Apology
Resolution as being merely a "symbolic" gesture are wrong, and I believe such rhetoric is insensitive to the Hawaiian
community. I also understand that native Hawaiians have a spiritual and emotional connection to the aina that is
rightly recognized by the Apology Resolution and, in some cases, codified by Hawaii law.

However, despite what the Apology Resolution means to me as a native Hawaiian, I simply could not agree that it
had any effect on the legal status of ceded lands. After repeated analysis, I found nothing on the face of the Apology
Resolution that supported the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision.

Regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, my longstanding belief has been that the resolution of the ceded
land issue is a political question, not a judicial question. The legislative branch, not the courts, should determine how,
or if, reparations must be made to the Hawaiian people. Indeed, the Akaka Bill and the Apology Resolution (both
legislative instruments) contemplate future negotiations between the state, the federal government and a native
Hawaiian governing entity.

Neither the Akaka Bill nor the Apology Resolution contemplates a lawsuit that clouds the state's title to ceded lands,
nullifies the Admission Act and diminishes the state's ability to fully negotiate as the clear and absolute title holder to
public lands. After all, if the state does not hold clear title to its lands, what authority can it have to negotiate any
settlement with Hawaiians?

From the onset of this controversy, my position has remained consistent. I will not support the sale or transfer of any
particular ceded lands. I also remain a steadfast supporter of the Akaka Bill, and I look forward with great enthusiasm
to its expected passage by Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court decision serves as a clear reminder of the task at
hand. There will be no "losers" if we, as a community, seize this valuable opportunity to achieve a fair and lasting
settlement for the Hawaiian community.

———

James "Duke" Aiona, Hawaii's lieutenant governor, has announced his intention to run for governor in 2010.




ARTICLETITLE: Despite ruling, commitment to Hawaiians is still strong
ARTICLEDATE: 4/5/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: The Garden Island Newspaper
ARTICLEBODY:

Legislative branch should determine ceded lands

By Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona Jr.

Published: Saturday, April 4, 2009 7:32 PM HST

This week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding ceded lands should not be looked at in terms of
“winners‍ or “losers.‍

Rather, it should serve as a clear reminder that we, as a community, must commit to reaching a fair and lasting
resolution on ceded lands. Despite the disappointment being felt by some, the U.S. Supreme Court decision does not
in any way affect our administration’s ongoing commitment to the Native Hawaiian community.

I am proud to be a Native Hawaiian and I remain committed to preserving and protecting Native Hawaiian rights,
entitlements and programs. I have been a vocal advocate for the passing of the Akaka Bill, both at home and in
Washington, D.C. I have also proudly marched in defense of the Kamehameha Schools admission policy and have
continually supported the unique and enduring role of our ali’i trusts.

I remain committed to working directly with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and other stakeholders in the Hawaiian
community to advance a full and fair settlement to the longstanding ceded land claims.

Contrary to the misinformation being circulated by a few individuals, our administration has no intention of selling or
transferring any particular ceded lands.

The current lawsuit that reached the U.S. Supreme Court did not begin with this administration. It began with the
Waihee administration’s efforts to sell ceded land on Maui and Hawai’i Island back in the late 1980s and
early 1990s to provide affordable housing. OHA and others ultimately sued the Waihee administration and in January
2008, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court ruled that the 2003 Congressional Apology Resolution dictated that ceded lands
could not be sold or transferred until the unrelinquished claims by the Native Hawaiian community were fully resolved.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision correctly held that the Hawai‘i Supreme Court ruling was incorrect.

As a person of Native Hawaiian ancestry, the Apology Resolution is significant to me. It is a document that both
acknowledges past wrongs and represents hope for a brighter future. Those who diminish the role of the Apology
Resolution as being merely a “symbolic― gesture are wrong and I believe such rhetoric is insensitive to the
Hawaiian community. I also understand that Native Hawaiians have a spiritual and emotional connection to the
‘aina that is rightly recognized by the Apology Resolution and, in some cases, codified by Hawai’i law.

However, despite what the Apology Resolution means to me as a Native Hawaiian, I simply could not agree that it
had any affect on the legal status of ceded lands. After repeated analysis, I found nothing on the face of the Apology
Resolution that supported the Hawai’i Supreme Court’s decision.

Regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, my longstanding belief has been that the resolution of the ceded
land issue is a political question, not a judicial question. The legislative branch, not the courts, should determine how,
or if, reparations must be made to the Native Hawaiian people. Indeed, the Akaka Bill and the Apology Resolution
(both legislative instruments) contemplate future negotiations between the state, the federal government and a Native
Hawaiian governing entity.

Neither the Akaka Bill nor the Apology Resolution contemplates a lawsuit that clouds the state’s title to ceded
lands, nullifies the Admission Act and diminishes the state’s ability to fully negotiate as the clear and absolute title
holder to public lands. After all, if the state does not hold clear title to its lands, what authority can it have to negotiate
any settlement with Native Hawaiians?

From the onset of this controversy, my position has remained consistent. I will not support the sale or transfer of any
particular ceded lands. I also remain a steadfast supporter of the Akaka Bill and I look forward with great enthusiasm
to its expected passage by Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court decision serves as a clear reminder of the task at
hand. There will be no “losers― if we, as a community, seize this valuable opportunity to achieve a fair and
lasting settlement for the Native Hawaiian community.
ARTICLETITLE: Legislative branch should determine ceded lands
ARTICLEDATE: 4/12/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

GATHERING PLACE

All kamaainas should decide on state lands

By Robert Tellander

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Apr 12, 2009


In last Sunday's Insight section, Ted Hong, the Hilo attorney, explained the recent U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous
decision on Hawaiian ceded lands that concluded that the state, not any subgroup, holds lands in public trust to
benefit all citizens. Succinctly stated: "Kamaainas are we."
Suddenly, like the original Hawaiians, we all find ourselves in the same boat. Sailing again aboard our Hokule'a, we
must depend on our own wits and wisdom to reach our common goals. Otherwise, we will not reach our destination,
nor survive should we arrive there.

In that same edition, Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona takes the classic, paternalistic position of the missionaries to protect the
native Hawaiians from involvement in a more open, larger and sharing community. Seeking to preserve Hawaiian
culture, he, in fact, manages to isolate Hawaiians from broader social interactions and common benefits.

Ironically, his paternalism alienates Hawaiians from making beneficial changes in the larger community. Instead, he
sees that the onus now transfers to the state to make good on the Apology Resolution and the Akaka Bill, and
separate out and herd the Hawaiians onto their own limited reservation.

Conversely, Abigail Kawananakoa apparently engaged the issue playing the blame game: According to Walter Heen,
vice chairman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, "She says OHA has not helped any families" (Star-Bulletin letters,
April 4). He asserts that OHA, at great cost, has assisted Hawaiian students in special immersion schools and
scholars at the University of Hawaii to advance themselves. By making Hawaiians a special class, we isolate them
from the benefits and contributions they could receive and make to the larger society. Worse, targeted charity
inadequately responds to the need.

Similarly, the "success" of the Kamehameha Schools trust focuses on educating a social elite funded with the income
that flows from the state's largest charitable trust reserved for the benefit of native Hawaiians. The fact that talented
Hawaiians emerge from these schools should surprise no one. The frustration comes when private charity limits the
range and size of that achievement. The trust thus converted a social benefit for all kamaainas into a limited benefit
for 4 percent of the native Hawaiians.

No wonder factions riddle the native Hawaiian community, they have so little over which they can contend.
Conversely, the reason they have not won over the majority to their minority demands reflects on goals that do not
benefit all parties equally. One cannot build a viable community based on charity. You cannot generate leaders with
real vision until they see the bigger picture. By rewarding all, they, in turn, will become more richly rewarded. Then
Hawaiian leaders will arise who lead rather than plead. By initiating programs that do not benefit all, but enhance and
benefit the few, they scavenge their own futures.

Seize the day; all state lands are ours. How will we use them to benefit everyone, and thus convert everyone into us?
Let's get on board now and sail this community into a united, better future.

———

Robert Tellander is a retired sociology professor.




In last Sunday's Insight section, Ted Hong, the Hilo attorney, explained the recent U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous
decision on Hawaiian ceded lands that concluded that the state, not any subgroup, holds lands in public trust to
benefit all citizens. Succinctly stated: "Kamaainas are we."

Suddenly, like the original Hawaiians, we all find ourselves in the same boat. Sailing again aboard our Hokule'a, we
must depend on our own wits and wisdom to reach our common goals. Otherwise, we will not reach our destination,
nor survive should we arrive there.

In that same edition, Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona takes the classic, paternalistic position of the missionaries to protect the
native Hawaiians from involvement in a more open, larger and sharing community. Seeking to preserve Hawaiian
culture, he, in fact, manages to isolate Hawaiians from broader social interactions and common benefits.

Ironically, his paternalism alienates Hawaiians from making beneficial changes in the larger community. Instead, he
sees that the onus now transfers to the state to make good on the Apology Resolution and the Akaka Bill, and
separate out and herd the Hawaiians onto their own limited reservation.
Conversely, Abigail Kawananakoa apparently engaged the issue playing the blame game: According to Walter Heen,
vice chairman of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, "She says OHA has not helped any families" (Star-Bulletin letters,
April 4). He asserts that OHA, at great cost, has assisted Hawaiian students in special immersion schools and
scholars at the University of Hawaii to advance themselves. By making Hawaiians a special class, we isolate them
from the benefits and contributions they could receive and make to the larger society. Worse, targeted charity
inadequately responds to the need.

Similarly, the "success" of the Kamehameha Schools trust focuses on educating a social elite funded with the income
that flows from the state's largest charitable trust reserved for the benefit of native Hawaiians. The fact that talented
Hawaiians emerge from these schools should surprise no one. The frustration comes when private charity limits the
range and size of that achievement. The trust thus converted a social benefit for all kamaainas into a limited benefit
for 4 percent of the native Hawaiians.

No wonder factions riddle the native Hawaiian community, they have so little over which they can contend.
Conversely, the reason they have not won over the majority to their minority demands reflects on goals that do not
benefit all parties equally. One cannot build a viable community based on charity. You cannot generate leaders with
real vision until they see the bigger picture. By rewarding all, they, in turn, will become more richly rewarded. Then
Hawaiian leaders will arise who lead rather than plead. By initiating programs that do not benefit all, but enhance and
benefit the few, they scavenge their own futures.

Seize the day; all state lands are ours. How will we use them to benefit everyone, and thus convert everyone into us?
Let's get on board now and sail this community into a united, better future.

———

Robert Tellander is a retired sociology professor.

ARTICLETITLE: All kamaainas should decide on state lands
ARTICLEDATE: 6/23/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Maui News
ARTICLEBODY:

Anti-Hawaiian attorney is given a laudatory send-off

POSTED: June 23, 2009

The Maui News carried a story about the passing of John Goemans and how he was able to steal $7 million from
Kamehameha Schools as a result of challenging the will of our Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop.

Do we now get to share his estate regardless of what his will dictates? It seems to me that when people steal from
the Hawaiian people they are considered to be champions. The story from The Honolulu Advertiser seems to glorify
his ability to manipulate the law and get enough support from people that support that kind of a mission and use the
name of the U. S. Supreme Court as a crutch, which, of course is made up of people from the same country that the
original set of manipulators came from to slowly take away what is rightfully the property of the Hawaiian people.

The state of Hawaii is paddling that same canoe by trying to take ceded land and selling it to balance the budget. Isn't
selling stolen goods already considered to be a crime? Of course, that depends on who is doing it. See where John
Goemans is now.

When John Goemans was doing what he was doing, was our princess here to defend herself? Ke Akua is on our
side. He will do what is right! If you're following in John Goemans' footsteps, watch out where they are taking you.

Henry P. Kahula Jr.

Paia

ARTICLETITLE: Anti-Hawaiian attorney is given a laudatory send-off
ARTICLEDATE: 6/26/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Reporter
ARTICLEBODY: Civil Rights Activist and Attorney Dies: Remembering Kama’aina John Goemans
By Gia Coluccio, 6/25/2009 1:01:27 PM

John Goemans, a revolutionary attorney well known for his initiation of the Rice v. Cayetano case, passed away on
June 15th in a California hospice. He had spent the past few years in California with his sister. Mr. Goemans was
passionately involved in various civil rights cases in the state of Hawaii and will be remembered as a kama’aina
with a vision of racial equality for Hawaii.

Goemans was born in 1934 in Milwaukee. He earned his undergraduate degree from Brown University and his law
degree from the University of Virginia, where he was Senator Ted Kennedy’s roommate. After Goemans moved
to the islands in 1959, he helped elect Ted’s brother, John F. Kennedy, to the presidency by campaigning for
votes in Hawaii.

His political involvement on the islands ranged from running a United States Department of State office on Oahu to
serving in the State House of Representatives in the early 1960’s. He also worked as an aide to Senator Malama
Solomon in the 1980’s. Rice v. Cayetano, perhaps one of the most famous civil rights Supreme Court cases, was
sparked by Goemans’ commitment to equality and justice.

The case was initiated when Goemans heard that public money would fund the formation of the Hawaii Sovereignty
Elections Council, a council that allowed only native Hawaiians to vote.

Mr. Goemans helped Freddy Rice challenge this policy. The Rice case was filed in 1996 and decided, in Rice’s
favor, in 2000.[3] The case ultimately declared that the policy in question was in violation of the 15th Amendment.
Civil rights attorney Bill Burgess, a personal friend of Mr. Goemans, described the case as “one of those
landmark cases that only comes around once in a while.―

Goemans also spoke out against racial discrimination in the 2000 Patrick Barrett case and the 2007 Kamehameha
Schools case. The Barrett case came about when Barrett applied for a small business loan from the Office of
Hawaiian Affairs. He later learned that OHA loans exclusively to native Hawaiians, which led many to question the
constitutionality of the organization. In May 2007, John Goemans represented a non-native Hawaiian student who
sought admission intoKamehameha Schools. The case was on its way to the Supreme Court when Kamehameha
Schools secretly approached the plaintiff with a settlement offer.

Those who knew Goemans describe him as charming and enjoyable. He was very social, surrounded by many
friends. Goemans was one of the most influential actors for racial equality in Hawaii. He rejected the idea that party
politics played a role in the state’s civil rights issues and instead acknowledged the issues as questions of
fundamental American values. John Goemans’ life has greatly impacted the state of Hawaii and the nation as a
whole. He will be greatly missed.

Gia Coluccio is a policy intern at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

ARTICLETITLE: Civil Rights Activist and Attorney Dies: Remembering Kamaaina John Goemans
ARTICLEDATE: 6/30/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Reporter
ARTICLEBODY: Hawaii's Two Top Civil Rights Issues
By Tom Macdonald, 6/29/2009 6:37:59 AM

We have two major civil rights issues of real concern in Hawaii :

        1) enactment of the"Akaka Bill," (HR 2314; S1011), and

        2) the continued practice of racial discrimination in admissions by the Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate.

The Akaka Bill
The Akaka Bill, which will discriminate against non-native-Hawaiians in the provision of government services, has a
very high probability of enactment this year. President Obama, a Hawaii native has promised to sign the bill if it
reaches his desk.

The House version of the bill has passed in earlier Congresses and it is 99% certain to pass the House again this
year. And with the Senate now completely controlled by Democrats, there is a high probability that it will pass there
also.

In anticipation of its passage, State government funds have already been expended in a program that has signed up
nearly 100,000 "native Hawaiians" to become citizens of the new sovereign Hawaiian government that the bill
provides for. "Native Hawaiian" is defined as any person who can document that his or her ancestry dates back to the
aboriginal Hawaiians occupying Hawaii prior to the 1778 arrival of Captain Cook in the islands. By this definition, the
vast majority of the 100,000 who have signed up have less than the 50% blood quantum required to qualify for
assistance under the Hawaiian Homes Act. Indeed large numbers of these newly defined native Hawaiians have less
that 1% Hawaiian blood ( they are 1/128 or less native Hawaiian)

Nevertheless, these native Hawaiians will qualify for benefits that will be derived from lands and other assets to be
transferred from the State of Hawaii to the new native Hawaiian government. And only "native Hawaiians" will qualify
for those government benefits, in clear violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In addition, the Akaka Bill contemplates that negotiations will occur between the State of Hawaii and the new
government as to which government will have civil and criminal jurisdiction over which people on which lands within
what is now the State of Hawaii . Because "native Hawaiians are scattered throughout the State, on all islands and in
most neighborhoods, the result of such negotiations will be that people living on the same street will be subject to
different civil and criminal laws-- another 14th Amendment violation.

The prospect of the implementation of the Akaka Bill has already begun to cause ethnic friction, and even limited
race-based violence in the islands. This will only intensify as the inevitable court challenges to the bill make their way
through the federal courts. The expected findings of the U.S. Supreme Court that the law is unconstitutional, four or
five years down the road, may even lead to bloodshed, as disappointed "native Hawaiians" react to their " loss."

Two years ago the USCCR issued a major criticism of the Akaka Bill, but its detailed findings were censored to
accomodate Commission Member Yagi before release, and only a terse recommendation against the bill was
released to the public. A belated release of the detailed findings right now would be most appropriate and would be
enormously helpful in educating John Q Public in Hawaii as to the true consequences of enactment and would
certainly be useful in stopping the bill in the U.S. Senate.

Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate

Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate amazingly continues to operate as a tax exempt 501c3 school, despite limiting
its admissions to those students who can produce written documentation that they have native Hawaiian ancestry. I
say "amazingly" because the IRS has investigated the school extensively, and forced the former governing trustees
to resign from office, but took no action require the school to end its racial discrimination.

The school has an endowment of over $8 Billion (larger than many of the biggest U.S. universities) and is the largest
private landowner in the State of Hawaii . It is arguably the most potent political force in the State, and the local courts
dare not interfere with it.

Last year, fearful of the outcome, the school reached a multi-million dollar settlement with a non-Hawaiian applicant
alleging racial discrimination, just before his case was to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The school appears to have perjured itself in signing its tax return (Form 990: Organization Exempt From Income
Tax). Despite admitting in advertisements that the school "gives preference to applicants of Hawaiian ancestry," and
that applicants must "have their ancestry verified by Kamehameha Schools...Hawaiian Data Center," the school
claims in Part V of its form 990 that the school "has a racially nondiscriinatory policy toward its students," (V.29) "that
it includes a statement of nondiscriminatory policies in its brochures," (V.30) and that it "publicizes its
nondiscriminatory policies in the media." (V.31)
It further appears to falsely claim that it does not discriminate by race in its admission policies,(V.33b) student rights
or privileges,(V.33a) or scholarships and financial assistance. (V.33d).

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rice v. Cayetano that it was unlawful for the State to limit voting in certain Hawaii
elections to only those with Hawaiian blood, since ethnic origin was clearly being used as a proxy for race.
Kameheameha Schools is using the same subterfuge to practice racial discrimination by limiting admission to onlhy
those with some Hawaiian blood.

The Kamehameha Schools practices are similar to those of the private "segregation academies" in the southern U.S.
that were adjudicated to be unlawfully discriminating against African-Americans decades ago.

Kamehameha Schools should either be required to stop their discrimination or lose their tax exemption.

I submit that both of these situations are major violations of U.S. law and deserve the careful scrutiny and action of
the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Tom Macdonald is a member of the Hawaii Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

ARTICLETITLE: Hawaii's Two Top Civil Rights Issues
ARTICLEDATE: 8/31/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Southern Poverty Law Center
ARTICLEBODY:
Intelligence Report
Fall 2009

             Prejudice in Paradise
Hawaii Has a Racism Problem
By Larry Keller

Celia Padron went on a Hawaiian vacation
                                            Roots of Resentment Go Way
last year, lured by the prospect of
beautiful beaches and friendly people.      Back
She, her husband and two teenage            Read More
daughters enjoyed the black sand beach
at Makena State Park on Maui. But a Hawaiian girl accosted her two teenage
daughters, saying, "Go back to the mainland" and "Take your white ass off our
beaches," says Padron, a pediatric gastroenterologist in New Jersey.

When her husband, 68 at the time, stepped between the girls, three young
Hawaiian men slammed him against a vehicle, cutting his ear, and choked and
punched him, Padron says. Police officers persuaded the Padrons not to press
charges, saying it would be expensive for them to return for court appearances
and a Hawaiian judge would side with the Hawaiian assailants, the doctor
contends.




                                       Professor Haunani-Kay Trask believes
                                       Native Hawaiians have every right to feel
"There is no doubt in my mind [the hostile toward whites.
attack] was racially motivated," she
adds.

With no known hate groups and a much-trumpeted spirit of aloha or tolerance,
few people outside Hawaii realize the state has a racism issue. One reason: The
tourism-dependent state barely acknowledges hate crimes. That makes it hard to
know how often racial violence is directed at Caucasians, who comprise about
25% of the ethnically diverse state's 1.3 million residents. Those who identify
themselves as Native Hawaiian — most residents are of mixed race —
account for nearly 20%.

Hawaii has collected hate crimes data since 2002 (most states began doing so a
decade earlier). In the first six years, the state reported only 12 hate crimes, and
half of those were in 2006. (All other things being equal, the state would be
expected to have more than 800 such crimes annually, given the size of its
population, according to a federal government study of hate crimes.) There was
anti-white bias in eight of those incidents. But that doesn't begin to reflect the
extent of racial rancor directed at non-Native Hawaiians in the Aloha State,
especially in schools. For example:

        The last day of school has long been unofficially designated "Beat
         Haole Day," with white students singled out for harassment and
         violence. (Haole — pronounced how-lee — is slang for a foreigner,
         usually white, and sometimes is used as a racial slur.)
        A non-Native Hawaiian student who challenged the Hawaiian-
         preference admission policy at a wealthy private school received a $7
         million settlement this year.
        A 12-year-old white girl new to Hawaii from New York City needed 10
         surgical staples to close a gash in her head incurred when she was
         beaten in 2007 by a Native Hawaiian girl who called her a "fucking
         haole."
        A vocal segment of Native Hawaiians is pushing for independence to
         end the "prolonged occupation" by the United States and governance
         by natives.
        Demonstrators shouting racial epithets at whites disrupted a statehood
         celebration in 2006.

Anti-white sentiments such as these have been more than 200 years in the
making. The pivotal event occurred when American and European businessmen,
backed by U.S. military forces, overthrew Hawaii's monarch in 1893 and placed
her under house arrest two years later. The United States annexed the islands
as a territory in 1898, and they became a state in 1959.

Little wonder then that as Hawaii prepares to observe the 50th anniversary of
becoming the 50th state on Aug. 21, it will a muted celebration, devoid of
parades or fireworks.

Classroom Warfare
Tina Mohr has lived in Hawaii for 25 years. She has Native Hawaiian friends. But
in the 2003-04 school year, her twin blond-haired daughters, aged 11 at the time,
began getting harassed by Native Hawaiian kids at their school on the Big
Island. "Our daughters would come home with bruises and cuts," she tells the
Intelligence Report.

One of her girls was assaulted twice in the same day. In one scuffle, she had her
head slammed into a wall, and her attacker continued to threaten her. Her
daughter suffered a dislocated jaw and had headaches for five weeks, Mohr
says.
The torment continued in the summer between 5th and 6th grades. Native
Hawaiian girls stalked and threatened her daughters and yelled "fucking haole"
at them. Midway through the 6th grade, Mohr began to home-school her
daughters.

She filed a complaint with the civil rights division of the U.S. Department of
Education in 2004. It was only recently, on Dec. 31, 2008, that the division finally
released its report. The report concluded there was "substantial evidence that
students experienced racially and sexually derogatory name-calling on nearly a
daily basis on school buses, at school bus stops, in school hallways and other
areas of the school" that Mohr's children attended.

The epithets included names such as "f*****g haole," "haole c**t" and "haole
whore," according to the report. Students were told "go home" and "you don't
belong here." Most of the slurs were directed by "local" or non-white students at
Caucasians, especially those who were younger, smaller, light-skinned and
blond.

The report also concluded that school officials responded inadequately or not at
all when students complained of racial harassment. Students who did complain
were retaliated against by their antagonists. "They learned not to report this
stuff," Mohr says of her own daughters.

The Hawaii Department of Education settled Mohr's complaint with a lengthy
agreement in which educators promised to take various steps to improve the
reporting, investigating and eliminating of student harassment in the future.
Today, Mohr's daughters are again attending the school where they used to
have trouble. They haven't been assaulted, but one was threatened on a school
bus earlier this year.

Racial Legacies
The resentment some Native Hawaiians feels toward whites today can be
chalked up in part to "ancestral memory," says Jon Matsuoka, dean of the
School of Social Work at the University of Hawaii. "That trauma is qualitatively
different than other ethnic groups in America. It's more akin to American Indians"
because Hawaiians had their homeland invaded, were exposed to diseases for
which they had no immunity, and had an alien culture forced upon them, he
says. Stories about the theft of their lands and culture have been passed down
from one generation to the next, Matsuoka adds. (One difference now, of course,
is that Native Hawaiians in Hawaii are far more numerous than American Indians
are in their own ancestral regions, where the Indians remain politically weak and
largely marginalized by the far larger white population.)

Racial violence directed at whites in Hawaii, while deplorable, is minor compared
to the larger issues underlying it, Matsuoka says. The Hawaiian spirit of aloha "is
pervasive, but you have to earn aloha. You don't necessarily trust outsiders,
because outsiders [historically] come and have taken what you have. It's an
incredibly giving and warm and generous place, but you have to earn it," he
says.

Further fueling the resentment that some Native Hawaiians feel for outsiders are
attempts by the latter to usurp entitlement programs given the former to redress
previous wrongs. In recent years, non-native residents have used the courts to
try and rescind these entitlements on grounds that they are racially
discriminatory and violate the U.S. Constitution.
Retired professor and "anti-sovereign" white activist
Kenneth Conklin and others prevailed in a lawsuit in 2000
that challenged a requirement that trustees of the Office of
Hawaiian Affairs — OHA — be of Native Hawaiian
descent. OHA oversees huge tracts of lands that the
United States took from Hawaii when it annexed the
islands as a territory, and collects revenues from them for
programs that benefit Native Hawaiians.

The state government was going to sell 1.2 million acres of
these lands to developers for two state-sponsored              Kenneth Conklin
affordable housing projects when OHA and four Native
Hawaiian plaintiffs sued to stop the deal. A state court sided with the
government, but the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed in favor of the plaintiffs.
This March 31, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Hawaii high
court erred and sent the case back for further action.

There also was an unsuccessful legal challenge to the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, passed by Congress in 1921. The act allows a Hawaiian
agency to make 99-year leases at $1 per year to Native Hawaiians (but not other
residents) for authorized uses on lands ceded to the United States when it
annexed Hawaii. More than 200,000 acres of land were designated for uses
such as homes and ranches.

One of the more protracted legal battles involved a lawsuit filed in 2003 by a
non-Native Hawaiian student against the hugely wealthy and influential private
Kamehameha Schools. Kamehameha operates three campuses for the benefit
of children of Hawaiian ancestry. The student's attorneys contended that violates
civil rights laws. As the U.S. Supreme Court was about to announce last year
whether it would hear the case, Kamehameha paid $7 million to settle it out of
court.

'A Hateful Place'
A violent incident with racial overtones in 2007 near Pearl Harbor prompted a
good deal of soul searching about race in Hawaii. A Native Hawaiian man and
his teenage son brutally pummeled and kicked a Caucasian soldier and his wife
near Pearl Harbor after the soldier's SUV struck the other man's parked car. The
son shouted "fucking haole" while attacking the soldier. The husband and wife
suffered broken noses, facial fractures and concussions. A prosecutor said the
assault was a road-rage incident, not a hate crime. But it generated much debate
on newspaper websites and blogs about the use of the word haole and whether
whites are the targets of racism in Hawaii.

"It is a hateful place to live if you are white," wrote a woman on one Hawaii
website's comments section. A Hawaii native who is white wrote, "Racism exists
in Hawaii. My whole life I've never really felt welcome here." A sailor stationed at
Pearl Harbor added that "this island is the most racist place I have ever been in
my life."

Other white residents, however, wrote that they had had no such experiences.
And many people maintained that arrogant mainlanders are the most likely to
incur natives' wrath. It's their "cultural inability to be humble [that] is a huge
contributing factor in a lot of violence against them," one person wrote. "There is
a high degree of arrogance and lack of respect that mainlanders exhibit," added
another.

A Hawaiian Studies professor at the University of Hawaii, Haunani-Kay Trask, is
one of the most caustic critics of whites in the islands. In her 1999 book, From A
Native Daughter, Trask wrote: "Just as … all exploited peoples are justified in
feeling hostile and resentful toward those who exploit them, so we Hawaiians are
justified in such feelings toward the haole. This is the legacy of racism, of
colonialism."

In a poem titled, "Racist White Woman," Trask wrote: "I could kick/Your face,
puncture/Both eyes./You deserve this kind/Of violence./No more
vicious/Tongues, obscene/Lies./Just a knife/Slitting your tight/Little heart."

Trask's opposite number is Conklin, the "anti-sovereignty" white activist who has
lived on Oahu for 17 years and says he loves Hawaii's culture, spirituality and
history, but is labeled a racist by some of his detractors. He wrote a book entitled
Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha
State.

"Here in Hawaii, there is no compulsion to speak out on racist attacks. There are
all these hate crimes and violent things happening to white people and you don't
hear sovereignty activists speaking out against it," says Conklin, who manages a
massive website on Hawaiian issues. "The violence has been going on for years
and it's always been hush-hush."

State and Race
It's against this backdrop that Hawaii approaches its 50th anniversary of
statehood. The non-celebration will consist largely of educational events at
various venues. Iolani Palace won't be one of them. Once home to Hawaii's
monarchy and where the last monarch was imprisoned after her government
was overthrown, the palace is a potent symbol of anti-statehood — and anti-
white — sentiment.

Republican state Sen. Sam Slom learned that the hard way. Although Statehood
Day is a holiday in Hawaii, there were no celebrations for about 10 years, until
he organized one in 2006 at the palace. He and others were confronted by
demonstrators shouting racial epithets. Slom, who is Caucasian and has lived in
Hawaii since 1960, said the 30 to 40 "hard-core" protesters intimidated a high
school band, which left early, as well as some spectators.

The 50-year anniversary events figure to be "soft celebrations" aimed at defusing
sovereignty passions, Slom says. "It is a divisive wedge that some people have
exploited," he says. "There are people who have made it a racial thing. [But] the
vast, overwhelming majority are proud to be United States citizens."

Still, a statehood commission planning commemorative events opted not to re-
enact the phone call to the Territorial House of Representatives meeting at Iolani
Palace in 1959 informing representatives that Congress had voted in favor of
Hawaiian statehood. Commission member Donald Cataluna strongly opposed a
reenactment, according to the Honolulu Advertiser, saying he "didn't want any
blood to spill."

That won't completely mollify sovereignty activists, Slom predicts. "There will be
protests, there's no question about it."

ARTICLETITLE: Prejudice in Paradise
ARTICLEDATE: 11/13/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Reporter
ARTICLEBODY: People of Hawaii -- Tear down this wall! Disband the evil empire!
By Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. , 11/12/2009 1:02:38 PM

On November 9, 2009 the world celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In speeches in 1983 President Ronald Reagan began referring to the Soviet Union as "The Evil Empire."
On June 12, 1987 President Reagan stood in front of the Berlin Wall and shouted "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this
wall!" Two and a half years later the wall came down. Courageous people of East and West Berlin attacked the hated
wall with their bare hands, hammers, small trucks, and forklifts. Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev wisely gave
orders to keep the troops in their barracks and not defend the wall. Thus began a series of events leading to the
collapse of the Soviet Union, the liberation of the captive nations of eastern Europe, and the end of the Cold War.

Today in Hawaii there is a wall of apartheid separating people by race. The wall has been built by Hawaii's own
version of the evil empire -- a large group of powerful, wealthy institutions providing benefits exclusively to ethnic
Hawaiians while walling out anyone who lacks a drop of the magic blood. Our evil empire has grown so powerful that
it now demands federal legislation (the Akaka bill) to create a phony Indian tribe whose existence might protect the
racially exclusionary institutions against lawsuits asserting they are unconstitutional.

Hawaii's evil empire began in 1921 with passage of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act that set aside 203,000
acres of land exclusively for the benefit of ethnic Hawaiians with at least 50% native blood quantum. The announced
purpose of the bill was benevolent -- to give a helping hand to poor, downtrodden people by putting them "back on
the land" with 99-year leases for homesteads or farms at a rent of one dollar per year. The help was also given to
wealthy Hawaiians, because the only criterion for getting a lease was to have 50% native blood, regardless of
economic status. But whether benevolent or not, it is plainly unconstitutional for government to give benefits based
solely on race to a group of people who are not an Indian tribe.

Hawaii's evil empire was expanded with the incorporation of Alu Like in 1975 to provide vocational training and other
special programs exclusively to ethnic Hawaiians having at least one drop of native blood. Alu Like then began
receiving federal funding in 1976 from the Administration for Native Americans, even though ethnic Hawaiians are not
an Indian tribe.

In 1978 the State of Hawaii held a Constitutional Convention which proposed many changes, including creation of the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The amendment creating OHA passed by the smallest margin of any of the amendments
on the ballot. Furthermore, it passed only because at that time ballots on which a voter left a particular question blank
were counted as "yes" votes for that question. Twenty years later voters appeared to have approved a proposal to
call a new Constitutional Convention until OHA, fearing that the people of Hawaii would abolish OHA, backed a
lawsuit causing the Supreme Court to reinterpret the rule to require that there must be an absolute majority of all
ballots cast (thus effectively making blank votes count as "No", and causing the proposal for a Con-Con to be
rejected).

When OHA was created by the Constitutional Convention of 1978, a lawsuit was filed (Kahalekai v. Doi), in which the
Supreme Court ruled that the Con-Con had not succeeded in creating OHA because the voters had not been
adequately informed about the racial restrictions on voting, candidacy, and benefits in OHA; but the Legislature then
somehow "fixed" the problem and OHA was created. OHA was founded on three pillars of unconstitutional racial
exclusion: Voting for OHA trustees was allowed only for ethnic Hawaiians; candidates for OHA trustee had to be
ethnic Hawaiians; and benefits distributed by OHA were for ethnic Hawaiians.

In 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rice v. Cayetano that the racial restriction on who could vote is
unconstitutional. Later that year the U.S. District Court in Honolulu (followed a year later by the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals) ruled in the Arakaki case that the racial restriction on who can be a candidate for OHA trustee is
unconstitutional. However, OHA continues to give benefits based on race because all efforts to have a court rule on
that issue have been dismissed on technicalities such as "standing" and the "political question" doctrine.

How big is Hawaii's evil empire? There are two branches of the state government exclusively for the benefit of ethnic
Hawaiians -- Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and Department of Hawaiian Homelands. Court filings have provided
evidence that OHA and DHHL cost the state treasury one billion dollars from 1990 to 2002, and were projected to
cost an additional two billion dollars during the ten years thereafter.

But that's not all. There is also the state agency KIRC (Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission) which administers
access and programs on the island of Kahoolawe until such time (described by state law) as the island is turned over
to a Native Hawaiian governing entity recognized by the federal and state governments. There's also the taxpayer
funded University of Hawaii Center for Hawaiian Studies, serving as a propaganda factory and recruiting agency for
the evil empire, with headquarters at the flagship Manoa campus and satellite departments at all the community
colleges.
But wait. There's more. In various court filings, and in the Akaka bill, OHA has stated that there are more than 150 (or
160) federally funded programs racially exclusionary for ethnic Hawaiians including such things as Alu Like, Papa Ola
Lokahi, Na Pua No'eau, etc. Federal dollars flowing into Hawaii help the economy for all our people; but funneling
those dollars through racially focused institutions for the benefit of racially exclusionary clientele gives tremendous
political power to the evil empire.

In addition, Hawaii's largest private landowner, Kamehameha Schools (formerly Bishop Estate), has assets perhaps
$8-15 Billion depending on how land is valued. All assets are supposed to support education, and a policy of the
trustees (not required by the will of Princess Pauahi) requires all students to have at least one drop of native blood.
The "school" maintains a large research division churning out "studies" to bolster the claim that ethnic Hawaiians are
poor and downtrodden and therefore deserve government and philanthropic help.

There are other private institutions giving benefits exclusively to ethnic Hawaiians, such as the Queen Liliuokalani
Childrens Centers.

Finally, there has been legislation in Congress for 10 years -- the Akaka bill -- to establish a racially exclusionary
government for ethnic Hawaiians which would be authorized to negotiate for money, land, and jurisdictional authority.
Thus the lands and people of Hawaii would be permanently divided by race.

The evil empire does not appear to be evil; it appears to be benevolent, to help people whose leaders claim they are
poor and downtrodden.

What makes it evil is racial separatism -- an apartheid regime established by law. Hawaii's wall of apartheid is not
(yet) visible as a physical structure like the Berlin wall.

Rather, it's a legal structure walling out anyone who lacks a drop of Hawaiian blood, preventing them from getting a
homestead lease on government land; or getting benefits from OHA or 160 federally funded programs; or getting
admitted to Kamehameha Schools. The most evil thing of all is the Akaka bill.

Hawaii's wall of apartheid might be destroyed brick by brick. The year 2000 saw decisions in two successful civil
rights lawsuits aimed at OHA. Rice used the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to destroy the racial restriction
on who can vote for OHA trustees, and Arakaki used both the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1964 to
destroy the racial restriction on who can run as a candidate for OHA trustee. But since then lawsuits to use the 14th
Amendment to destroy the racial restriction on who can receive benefits from OHA and DHHL have been sidetracked
by technicalities such as "standing" and the "political question" theory.

A lawsuit to prohibit the racial restriction for admission to Kamehameha School got all the way to the U.S. Supreme
Court and was awaiting its third conference wherein the Justices would decide whether to hear the case, when
Kamehameha paid seven million dollars to the plaintiff child and his attorneys to "settle" the case and prevent the
Court from hearing it. If the lawsuits against OHA, DHHL, and Kamehameha Schools are ever decided on the merits,
the racial exclusions will almost certainly be overturned.

In 2009 a beleaguered State of Hawaii finally fought back against OHA's claim that the state has no right to sell any
ceded lands without OHA's permission. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision clearly establishing that the
state owns the ceded lands in fee simple absolute.

However, the state Supreme Court, to whom the case was remanded for further proceedings, later ruled that an
ethnic Hawaiian plaintiff has a greater right to "standing" than non-ethnic-Hawaiian citizens, to complain about ceded
land sales, on account of alleged special ties between "indigenous" people and the land. That issue will arise in future
litigation that will become "ripe" if the legislature ever votes to allow the Governor to sell any parcel of ceded lands.

We cannot simply say "Abracadabra" or "Open Sesame" and expect Hawaii's wall of apartheid to fall down. Outside
the courts, there is a simple way to start tearing down Hawaii's wall of apartheid.

Money is the mother's milk of politics. OHA is the primary political arm of the evil empire, and the main pusher of the
Akaka bill. Since 1979 OHA has been funded by a law giving OHA 20% of ceded land revenues. That law was an
ordinary law passed by the Legislature -- it was not required by the 1959 Statehood Admission Act, and it is not a part
of the state Constitution. At any moment it chooses to do so, the Legislature could repeal that law.
Alternatively, the Legislature could reduce OHA's share of ceded land money to zero simply by passing a law to
clarify that 20% of ceded land revenue should be interpreted to mean 20% of ceded land income after expenses. It
turns out that the state spends more money to create and maintain revenue-generating capability on the ceded lands
than the amount of revenue it receives. The public lands of Hawaii cost more money for the state to construct
improvements and to maintain them than the money the state earns from fees and lease rents. Roads, schools,
libraries, hospitals, and parks cost a lot of money and do not produce much revenue.

Either by repealing the law to send 20% of ceded land revenue to OHA, or by enacting a new law to define the 20%
based on net income after expenses rather than gross revenue -- one way or another the state should cut off the flow
of money to OHA, especially in this time of financial crisis when there's not even enough money to keep the schools
operating on a normal schedule.

We can take inspiration from the words of President Obama, when he gave a campaign speech in July 2008 in the
shadow of the Berlin wall. Mr. Obama said: "... the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one
another. ... The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand.
These now are the walls we must tear down. ... Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down
in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance
ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous
people defeated apartheid."

The whole purpose of the Akaka bill is to divide the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines -- to declare that the
descendants of natives should be a hereditary elite with a racially exclusionary government walling out all who lack a
drop of the magic blood.

Why should such an abomination be inflicted on us in the very place where King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III
proclaimed racial unity and equality as law? In the first sentence of the first Constitution (1840) of the multiracial
Kingdom of Hawaii, the King wrote: "God hath made of one blood all races of people to dwell upon this Earth in unity
and blessedness." Why should we now erect a wall of racial separatism in the land of aloha?

As I look at Hawaii's evil empire and our growing wall of apartheid, I say to President Obama and to the people of
Hawaii: Tear down this wall.

Dr. Conklin's book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" is in the
Hawaii Public Library, and also at http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

REFERENCES

RICE V. CAYETANO (98-818) 528 U.S. 495 (2000) -- The right of citizens to vote, without racial restriction, in
elections for OHA trustees Syllabus (unofficial) http://tinyurl.com/ye6am5q Decision (official)
http://tinyurl.com/yeq75vw

Arakaki vs. State of Hawaii -- The Right to Run for OHA trustee, without racial restriction. Collection of some plaintiff
legal briefs at both the U.S. District Court and 9th Circuit Court levels, plus news reports and commentaries.
http://tinyurl.com/4t339

Arakaki v. Cayetano (became Arakaki v. Lingle after election) -- Seeking to abolish OHA and DHHL on the grounds
they are unconstitutional. All legal briefs filed by plaintiffs and 5 defendants at U.S. District Court, 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court; plus numerous news reports and commentaries. http://tinyurl.com/blhlc

OHA and DHHL Cost to State of Hawaii Treasury: $1 Billion 1990 to 2002. $2 Billion More Estimated for 2002-2012.
See Spreadsheets On This Webpage for Details. http://tinyurl.com/62qs2

Open letter to President Obama regarding the Akaka bill (Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill)
http://tinyurl.com/bl9rvv

Selling the Ceded Lands -- The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the State cannot sell ceded lands without
permission from ethnic Hawaiians; but the State appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which reversed the state court.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state owns the ceded lands in fee simple absolute. The state Legislature then
passed a law probibiting the Governor from selling any ceded lands without approval from 2/3 of each chamber of the
Legislature. See the original decision by Judge Sabrina McKenna in the state court; Hawaii Supreme Court decision;
many legal briefs filed on appeal along the way; all briefs filed at the U.S. Supreme Court (both principals and amici);
transcript of oral arguments; final decision by U.S. Supreme Court; final decision by Hawaii Supreme Court
dismissing plaintiff Orosio; plus numerous news reports and commentaries at all stages of litigation.
http://tinyurl.com/49sx9j

Kenneth R. Conklin, "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" (302 page
book) http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa

ARTICLETITLE: People of Hawaii -- Tear down this wall! Disband the evil empire!
ARTICLEDATE: 12/28/2009 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Tribune Herald
ARTICLEBODY:

Top 10 Of The Last 10

Published: Monday, December 28, 2009 9:16 AM HST

Do you remember Y2K? That was 10 years ago. How does that make you feel?

Between the computer disaster that didn't pan out and the financial disaster that is all too real, the Big Island has
seen a lot of news.

As the decade rolls over, we look back at the island's top 10 stories of each of the last 10 years, as chosen by
Tribune-Herald editors and reporters:



2000

1. Harry Kim elected mayor

2. November flooding

3. Non-Hawaiians vote for Office of Hawaiian Affairs trustees

4. University of Hawaii regents approve Mauna Kea master plan

5. Police Chief Wayne Carvalho retires

6. Albert Ian Schweitzer, Frank Pauline Jr. sentenced in Dana Ireland murder

7. Plane crash off Honolii kills one

8. Medical marijuana law approved

9. Akaka bill dies in Congress

10. Whitney Houston busted at Kona airport with marijuana


2001

1. Sept. 11 terror attacks

2. Teachers and professors strike

3. County raises minimum property tax
4. Redistricting

5. Hawaiian Air and Aloha Air merger announced

6. Murders of Kau'ilani Tadeo, Tetsuya Takahashi and Kallen Agliam

7. War on "ice"

8. Liquidation of C. Brewer & Co.

9. Lava viewing road opens

10. Coqui frog invasion


2002

1. Linda Lingle elected governor

2. Airlines still struggle

3. County raises homeowners' taxes

4. Rolling blackouts return

5. Fire Chief Daryl Oliveira, Police Chief Lawrence Mahuna hired

6. U.S. Rep. Patsy Mink dies; Ed Case wins her seat

7. Record cruise ship arrivals

8. Memorial Mortuary probed

9. Police detective Albert Pacheco murders wife

10. Coqui frog invasion spreads


2003

1. War on "ice"

2. Keck "outrigger" telescope project stalls

3. Iraq War's impact

4. Kamehameha Schools admits non-Hawaiian

5. Pohakuloa expansion proposed

6. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park expands

7. Veterans care home approved, funded

8. County settles police promotions case for $2 million

9. Hokulia project blocked

10. Smoking ban approved for restaurants, hotels
2004

1. Iraq War, Wesley Batalona dies

2. Real estate and building boom

3. Harry Kim re-elected

4. New government buildings and road projects

5. County approves University Terrace development

6. School troubles in Keaau, Hilo

7. Army approves Strykers for Hawaii

8. Clifto's Kona Coast rezoning denied

9. Police Commissioner Paul de Silva resigns

10. Keck "outrigger" telescopes approved


2005

1. Hyacinth Poouahi abuse case, killing of Sarah Fay

2. Gas price cap

3. East Hawaii garbage

4. Spc. Ray M. Fuhrmann II dies in Iraq

5. Building, buying boom

6. University of Hawaii at Hilo expands

7. Hawaii Naniloa Resort sold

8. County Council reorganizes

9. Kamehameha Schools admissions policy in limbo

10. 'Imiloa Astronomy Center set to open


2006

1. The earthquakes of Oct. 15

2. Hirono, Akaka and Lingle win; Case loses

3. go! and ATA arrive in Hawaii

4. Vernon Costa murder case

5. Five die in Volcano car crash

6. Thane Leialoha shot, killed in downtown Hilo

7. Ken Fujiyama buys, renames the Naniloa
8. Jeffrey Santos Jr. murder case

9. Pride of Hawaii cruise ship arrives

10. Sgt. Steve Sakoda, Staff Sgt. Henry Kahalewai Jr. die in Iraq


2007

1. Hurricane Flossie

2. Superstores

3. Physician shortage

4. Fight over Punaluu

5. Lava erupts from new vent on Kilauea

6. Saddle Road realignment

7. Vesperas tragedy

8. Trash incinerator contractor selected

9. Veterans care home opens

10. Hawaii Superferry protests


2008

1. Billy Kenoi, Barack Obama elected

2. Aloha crashes, cruise industry sinks

3. Faltering economy

4. Kilauea's antics

5. Medical crisis

6. Trash incinerator nixed

7. Council bans plastic bags, smoking, GMOs, panhandling

8. Marijuana

9. Mauna Kea

10. School consolidation


2009

1. Recession

2. State and county budget crunch

3. HSTA, HGEA furloughs

4. Hamakua land sale, 2 percent fund suspended
5. Mauna Kea

6. Council chaos

7. Kulani prison closes

8. Target and Safeway choose Hilo

9. Marijuana

10. Crimes against children

ARTICLETITLE: Top 10 Of The Last 10
ARTICLEDATE: 1/7/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Reporter
ARTICLEBODY: Trouble in Paradise: Akaka Bill’s Passage Would Threaten Many Hawaiian Institutions
By Ilya Shapiro, 1/6/2010 3:34:40 PM

As we enter 2010, we can at least be thankful that another year has passed without the Native Hawaiian Government
Reorganization Act becoming law. Rumors of it being attached to defense appropriations turned out to be
unsubstantiated and, though the Akaka Bill has cleared the committee stage, it still awaits a suitable legislative
vehicle on the Senate floor.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid certainly does not want to expend political capital on what most of his colleagues
see as a parochial Hawaiian issue. But the Akaka Bill is not some outlandish earmark providing for the construction of
bridges and tunnels among the Hawaiian islands. Instead, it would fundamentally redesign on racial lines a state that
has otherwise been a model of openness to all peoples.

Hawaii’s congressional delegation trumpets proudly that the reason for the bill is to protect native Hawaiian
entitlements. Cases in point are: admissions policies at the Kamehameha Schools; Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands leases to applicants with a native Hawaiian blood quantum of 50% or more; the University of Hawaii’s
special financial assistance to native Hawaiians; and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which finances a long list of
exclusive programs.

Whether you like any of these entitlements or not, the Akaka Bill—or rather, legal challenges resulting from its
passage—would jeopardize all of them. For example, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rice v. Cayetano that
the Hawaiians-only voting qualifications in OHA elections violated the Fifteenth Amendment—because Hawaiians
were not an Indian tribe and thus do not warrant special treatment—trustees prudently settled the Kamehameha
Schools lawsuit rather than allow their admissions policy to be struck down (and along with it the Bishop Estate’s
tax-free status). And just last year the Supreme Court unanimously rebuked OHA’s political posturing in the
ceded lands case.

Hawaii’s congressional delegation—including gubernatorial candidate Neil Abercrombie—seems not to have
gotten the message, intending to push the Akaka Bill as soon as Congress finishes with health care. And President
Obama has promised to sign it. Unfortunately, much as with health care, neither Congress nor the White House has
taken constitutional concerns seriously. Put simply, the Akaka Bill violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’
proscription on racially discriminatory state action.

Hawaii’s congressional delegation, meanwhile, continues to insist that there is enormous public support for the
bill—even while refusing to survey this support or allow a referendum. And for good reason: a recent Zogby poll
shows that 60% of those who have an opinion on the Akaka Bill oppose it and 76% oppose paying the higher taxes
that would be necessary to pay for a separate Hawaiian nation-tribe.

Even if the Akaka Bill somehow passed a referendum, however, it is almost certain that the Supreme Court would
ultimately declare it unconstitutional. Congress simply cannot create new sovereigns outside the constitutional
framework, and analogies to American Indians misconstrue both the history and legal status of peoples who predate
the United States.
That is, the Constitution’s Indian law exception arises from a unique compromise with pre-constitutional
realities—“dependent nations― with a separate existence and long-standing self-government. Once the
Constitution was ratified, no government organized under it could create another government that can exempt itself
from the Bill of Rights. And the Supreme Court said in the 1913 case of United States v. Sandoval that Congress
cannot create new Indian tribes.

Rice showed that one-drop rules and other race-based voting requirements are unconstitutional—in Hawaii as
elsewhere. Moreover, the Court found Native Hawaiians to be an ethnic group, so Congress cannot pass a law giving
them rights denied others. Indeed, racial preferences are contrary to the ongoing efforts to safeguard equality in an
America that now has a biracial president who grew up in Hawaii.

Both Rice and the ceded lands case suggest that a race-based governing entity of the kind the Akaka Bill envisions
simply does not pass constitutional muster. But forcing the Supreme Court to say so will have far-ranging
implications, opening the door to successful challenges of all Hawaiians-only entitlement programs.

Hawaiians have to decide for themselves if this institutional instability is what they want. The Bishop Estate trustees
found the challenge to their policies so threatening that they paid millions of dollars to prevent Supreme Court review.

Like the Bishop Estate trustees, all Hawaiians should now ask themselves whether they wish to endure the
Pandora’s Box of litigation the Akaka Bill would open. If the answer is no, they should petition their congressional
delegation to stop this legislation.

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, and member of the Grassroot Institute of
Hawaii’s Board of Scholars. At a University of Hawaii Law School debate last year, he correctly predicted that the
Supreme Court would unanimously reverse the Hawaii Supreme Court in ruling against OHA in the ceded lands case.

ARTICLETITLE: Trouble in Paradise: Akaka Bills Passage Would Threaten Many Hawaiian Institutions
ARTICLEDATE: 3/2/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Courthouse News Service
ARTICLEBODY:

Court Tosses Challenge to Hawaii Admissions Policy

By ELIZABETH BANICKI
ShareThis

    (CN) - The 9th Circuit affirmed dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the allegedly race-based admissions policy at
Hawaii's Kamehameha Schools, saying non-native students can't proceed as plaintiffs without disclosing their
identities.
    Hawaii's Kamehameha Schools were established in 1884, more than 10 years before Hawaii was annexed as a
U.S. territory, to preserve Hawaiian culture and identity.
    The schools provide classes on Hawaiian culture and teach classes in the Hawaiian language. Their trust totals
$9.1 billion, a private education endowment surpassed by few U.S. universities.
    In 2003, a non-native student was admitted to the Kamehameha Schools, only to have his admission rescinded
after the schools learned he wasn't a native Hawaiian.
    A federal judge ordered the school to admit him temporarily, and he was later allowed to re-enroll as part of a
settlement with Kamehameha.
    But the court order led to a "growing sense of anger and rage" among native Hawaiians and threats of "kill haole
(white person) day everyday," according to the U.S. Attorney for Hawaii.
    That ruling was followed by a similar settlement involving an unnamed "Doe" student who'd been denied
admission. That case was settled pending Doe's appeal to the Supreme Court, and the schools never challenged the
plaintiff's anonymity.
    The day after the settlement, Doe's attorney announced plans to file another lawsuit, this time with four student
plaintiffs, in a bid for Supreme Court review. The lawyer wanted the justices to weigh in on the full 9th Circuit's earlier
finding that the admissions policy is a valid affirmative action plan.
    Citing the backlash from the previous cases, the four non-native students sought to proceed anonymously,
arguing that they feared retaliation.
    The mother of the first Doe plaintiff, who settled his case, recounted that after news of the settlement was leaked
to the Honolulu press, there were calls to "break [the plaintiff and his attorney's] every bone and make [those]
bastards suffer." Hawaiians reportedly wanted the mother and son's identities revealed in order to force them "to
stand up and face those that they are robbing," the mother claimed in an affidavit.
    But the federal judge in the current case denied the four students' request to remain anonymous, saying the
children "do not reasonably fear severe harm."
    The 9th Circuit agreed.
    "We are sympathetic to the concerns of the Doe children and their parents, but we recognize the paramount
importance of open courts," Judge Robert Beezer wrote for the Honolulu-based panel.
    Beezer also noted that the panel was "constrained by the applicable standard of review," in this case whether the
lower court had abused its discretion.
    "Had the district court found that anonymity was appropriate, we likely would have concluded that the district court
did not abuse its discretion," Beezer wrote. "Or, were we permitted to make findings and weigh the factors anew, we
might have held that anonymity here was appropriate. As it is, however, we review the district court's decision only for
abuse of discretion."
    The case was properly dismissed, the court concluded, because the plaintiffs refused to disclose their
identities.

ARTICLETITLE: Court Tosses Challenge to Hawaii Admissions Policy
ARTICLEDATE: 3/2/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: MSNBC
ARTICLEBODY:

Court Upholds Ruling In Lawsuit Challenging Kamehameha Admission Policy

The Ruling Means The Students Cannot Remain Anonymous




KITV-TV
updated 1 hour, 19 minutes ago

HONOLULU - KITV.com

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Tuesday that four students challenging the admission
policy of Kamehameha Schools cannot sue the school anonymously.

The lawsuit says the students were illegally denied admission to the schools because they do not have Hawaiian
ancestry. Kamehameha Schools argues that its admissions preference for children of Native Hawaiian ancestry is
legal because the schools are a private institution and the policy is intended to address the social and economic
disadvantages of the Native Hawaiian people since the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

The ruling affirms an earlier ruling by Hawaii Federal District Judge J. Michael Seabright and Magistrate Barry Kurren.
An attorney for the students argued that the students should be allowed to remain anonymous because they feared
for their physical safety if their identities were revealed. The Hawaii judges ruled in 2008 that the students' fear of
harm was not sufficiently severe to override the public's right to know their identities.

Rather than have their names revealed, the students agreed to have the lawsuit dismissed while they appealed to the
Ninth Circuit, which ruled against them Tuesday.

The students' attorney, David Rosen, said "Given this ruling the dismissal stands." He said his clients still will not
proceed without anonymity, but Rosen said will discuss whether to appeal further with his clients.

Kamehameha Schools issued the following statement: "We are gratified that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court affirmed the
rulings of the district court in this case. We have believed from the outset that, if this case were to proceed, it should
do so as openly and honestly as possible. We understand that these plaintiffs may appeal this decision further, but
we are heartened by the consistent, unanimous and affirming legal determinations that have been made so far."

Rosen complained that Bishop Estate's legal team is continuing to punish him and his clients for challenging the
admissions policy. He says the estate attorneys have dragged him and the clients into a dispute over release of a
confidential settlement with a prior "John Doe".

The estate is claiming that Rosen's four clients were enticed into their lawsuit because they knew that the prior case
had settled for $7 million. Rosen says even though he was not involved in the prior case, the estate attorneys have
subpoenaed records and correspondance between him and his clients. He said that was "A veiled attempt to continue
harassing me. They are trying to make sure I don't go after new clients and no new client is willing to come forward."

Kamehameha Schools did not respond to Rosen's comments. The estate is suing the prior "John Doe" and attorney
Eric Grant to have the settlement money returned because they argue the settlement's confidentiality agreement was
breached.

ARTICLETITLE: Court Upholds Ruling In Lawsuit Challenging Kamehameha Admission Policy
ARTICLEDATE: 3/3/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: First Amendment Center
ARTICLEBODY: Plaintiffs can't remain anonymous while suing schools

By The Associated Press
03.03.10

HONOLULU — A federal appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the
Hawaiian-preference admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools because the plaintiffs refused
to publicly identify themselves.

Yesterday’s 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upheld U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry
Kurren's 2008 decision that plaintiffs’ names had to be disclosed in order for them to proceed
with their lawsuit.

Four non-Hawaiian children who sued Kamehameha had sought to remain anonymous in the
case.

An attorney for the children, David Rosen, had argued disclosing their names would expose them
to retaliation and public humiliation.

The unanimous three-judge appeals panel said it was sympathetic to the concerns of the children,
but cited "the paramount importance of open courts" in its ruling in Doe v. Kamehameha
Schools.
ARTICLETITLE: Plaintiffs can't remain anonymous while suing schools
ARTICLEDATE: 3/3/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:
Posted on: Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Court's ruling doesn't end battle

By Jim Dooley
Advertiser Staff Writer

Legal skirmishing between the Kamehameha Schools and attorneys challenging the school's admissions policy
continues, despite yesterday's federal appellate decision upholding dismissal of the latest legal challenge.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came in a 2008 lawsuit filed by four anonymous students who
claimed that the school's admissions policy that favors students of Native Hawaiian ancestry violates federal civil
rights laws.

The ruling upheld earlier decisions last year by Hawai'i Magistrate-Judge Barry Kurren and District Judge J. Michael
Seabright that denied anonymity to the student plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs agreed last year to drop their suit because they could not proceed anonymously, but preserved their
rights to an appeal.

"Few tenets of the United States justice system rank above the conflicting principles presented in this case: the
transparency and openness of this nation's court proceedings and the ability of private individuals to seek redress in
the courts without fear for their safety," the appellate court said.

Attorneys for Kamehameha Schools argued they would be prejudiced in their defense if the plaintiffs' identities were
kept secret.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued their clients would be in physical danger if they were publicly identified.

"We are sympathetic to the concerns of the children and their parents, but we recognize the paramount importance of
open courts," the court said.

David Rosen, one of the attorneys challenging the admissions policy, said yesterday: "I'm not sure what to say about
the (9th Circuit) ruling. It looks like the end of the line, although we're considering whether to continue with the
appeal."

anonymity at issue

Kamehameha Schools trustees said in a statement: "We have believed from the outset that if this case were to
proceed, it should do so as openly and honestly as possible. We understand that these plaintiffs may appeal this
decision further, but we are heartened by the consistent, unanimous and affirming legal determinations that have
been made so far."

Rosen said another challenge to the admissions policy would have to come from a non-Hawaiian student willing to be
publicly named in a lawsuit.

"I'm not sure I would want to be involved in such a case," Rosen said.

Rosen and his co-counsel in the suit, Eric Grant of California, are still enmeshed in a legal struggle related to an
earlier admissions suit that Kamehameha Schools settled out of court in 2007 for $7 million.
That original suit, now called "John Doe One," was filed by Grant and Honolulu attorney John Goemans on behalf of
an anonymous non-Hawaiian Big Island student who was denied admission to Kamehameha Schools.

The school did not challenge the plaintiff's anonymity in that case, which was appealed all the way to the U.S.
Supreme Court.

A federal judge here in 2003 upheld the legality of the admissions policy, agreeing with the school's argument that it
helped address cultural and socioeconomic disadvantages that have beset many Hawaiians since the 1893
overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy,

The school's assets, including thousands of acres of land bequeathed by Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, are worth
billions of dollars, making the institution one of the wealthiest nonprofits in the world.

Today, Kamehameha Schools occupies a central role in Hawai'i society, in part because of its financial clout and also
because of its mission to educate children of Hawaiian ancestry.

The 2003 court decision upholding the admission policy was overturned by three judges of the 9th Circuit in 2005,
prompting protest rallies, prayer vigils and other gatherings around the state in support of the schools.

Lawyers for Kamehameha Schools then won another legal reversal when the full 9th Circuit overturned the 2005
ruling by an 8-7 vote in December 2006.

Grant then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, and the schools agreed to the $7 million confidential
settlement on the eve of a high court announcement on whether it would hear the case.

legal fees dispute

Goemans revealed the $7 million figure to The Advertiser in 2008, saying he was not a party to the settlement, did not
agree with it and did not sign it. Goemans died last year.

The school filed a state suit on the Big Island against John Doe and his mother and Grant, demanding return of $2
million because of the breach of secrecy.

Now the school has expanded its claims in the Big Island case, alleging that the 2008 civil rights suit, dubbed "John
Doe Two," was a "copy cat" action filed only after the $7 million settlement figure in John Doe One was revealed.

"Doe Two was expressly modeled on Doe One ... about five months after Goemans disclosed the purported amount
of the settlement in Doe One," schools attorney Paul Alston said in court papers filed last week.

Alston is arguing that the John Doe One plaintiffs and their lawyers should be liable for legal fees and expenses
incurred by the schools in their now-successful defense of John Doe Two.

Rosen said in a declaration filed in the Big Island case that he and his clients in John Doe Two had agreed to sue
Kamehameha Schools months before the $7 million settlement was made public. Now Alston wants Rosen to
produce records supporting his claims.

"Mr. Rosen injected himself into the case by offering a one-sided declaration," Alston said yesterday. "All we want is
to get at the relevant documents and information."

"They're being vindictive," Rosen said yesterday of Kamehameha Schools. "They're trying to run up and cause
expenses to Eric Grant and myself."

The Kamehameha Schools "continue to spend ridiculous amounts of money" to avoid a court decision on the legality
of the admissions policy, Rosen said.
"We're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, if not more, to frustrate efforts to find out what the law
is," he said.

Reach Jim Dooley at jdooley@honoluluadvertiser.com.

ARTICLETITLE: Court's ruling doesn't end battle
ARTICLEDATE: 3/3/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:
ARTICLETITLE: VIDEO: Kamehameha encouraged by suit's dismissal
ARTICLEDATE: 3/3/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

Privacy in Kamehameha suit denied

By Susan Essoyan

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Mar 03, 2010

(Single Page View) | Return to Paginated View




Students who believe Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy is racially discriminatory must reveal their names
publicly if they want to sue in federal court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

"I think that's wonderful; it's the right decision," Antoinette "Toni" Lee, a former president of the Kamehameha Alumni
Association's Oahu region, said yesterday. "Everybody should be able to face their accuser. It's our constitutional
right to do that."

Four Hawaii students had sought anonymity to sue the school over its policy, which they believe violates their civil
rights by favoring native Hawaiians. Their parents feared for their safety if their identities were disclosed, pointing to
threatening postings on the Internet.

David Rosen, one of their attorneys, said yesterday the plaintiffs may now turn to the U.S. Supreme Court. The idea
of opening Kamehameha's campuses to students with no Hawaiian blood has stirred emotional debate. The students
filed suit on Aug. 6, 2008, under the names of Jacob, Janet, Karl and Lisa Doe.

In its 3-0 ruling yesterday, the appeals court upheld lower court rulings that the public interest in open courts
outweighs the need for privacy in this case.

"We are sympathetic to the concerns of the Doe children and their parents, but we recognize the paramount
importance of open courts," a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit said.

"The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiffs' fears were unreasonable. The
magistrate judge correctly recognized that many times people say things anonymously on the Internet that they would
never say in another context and have no intention of carrying out."

In October 2008, U.S Magistrate Barry Kurren ruled that the plaintiffs could not proceed anonymously. He said they
had failed to show evidence of threats of physical violence or economic harm, and concluded that "at most, plaintiffs
are vulnerable children who have a reasonable fear of social ostracization." That decision was upheld by U.S. District
Judge Michael Seabright.

"We are gratified that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court affirmed the rulings of the district court in this case," Kamehameha
Schools CEO Dee Jay Mailer said yesterday. "We have believed from the outset that if this case were to proceed, it
should do so as openly and honestly as possible. ... We are heartened by the consistent, unanimous and affirming
legal determinations that have been made so far."

Yesterday, Rosen said his clients would not challenge the admissions policy without confidentiality.

"That's not something I would be comfortable with as an attorney," he said. "I would not be comfortable with having
young children's identities known, in order to protect both the children and their families. I have a duty to look out for
what's in their best interests."

Kamehameha's policy, which gives preference to native Hawaiians, has been in contention for years. In 2002 the
schools voluntarily admitted a non-Hawaiian, triggering widespread protest. The next year, Kamehameha unwittingly
admitted another non-Hawaiian but rescinded its offer later when it discovered he did not have Hawaiian blood. After
a court challenge, he was allowed to attend.

In a separate case a student known only as John Doe sued Kamehameha

in 2003, alleging racial

discrimination. The U.S. District Court and 9th Circuit rejected his claim. The suit was settled out of court for $7
million last year before it could go before the U.S. Supreme Court, according to attorney John Goemans.

Kamehameha Schools operates campuses on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island, enrolling about 5,000 students. Only
one in eight applicants is accepted. Rosen said Kamehameha's admissions policy deserves scrutiny by the Supreme
Court, although in the current case the only aspect that can be appealed is the question of anonymity.

"There's a public and a private interest in having this issue (the admission policy) decided," he said. "It's a public
interest in that this institution is tax-exempt. And it's a private interest in that the trustees have a legal duty to follow
the law and ascertain what the law is, not make it up."

William Burgess, chairman of Aloha for All, a nonprofit devoted to equal rights for all citizens of Hawaii, said that as
minors the children should be able to protect their identity. "The school should welcome a decision on the merits, not
based on someone being in fear for their lives," he said.

However, the 9th Circuit Court revealed some mixed feelings on the question of confidentiality. "Were we permitted to
make findings and weigh the factors anew, we might have held that anonymity here was appropriate," the judges
said.




ON THE NET:

» PDF of the 9th Circuit's ruling: hsblinks.com/231

.

ARTICLETITLE: Privacy in Kamehameha suit denied
ARTICLEDATE: 3/3/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KHON-TV FOX 2
ARTICLEBODY:

Plantiffs Challenging Kamehameha Schools' Admissions Policy Cannot Proceed Anonymously
Last Update: 3/02 11:03 am




A ruling today by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld last year's ruling by a federal magistrate that the four
students challenging Kamehameha Schools' admissions policy cannot remain anonymous.


The plaintiffs seek to proceed anonymously in their suit against Kamehameha Schools
allegedly raced-based policy.

The plantiffs' parents fear for the children's safety if their identities are revealed.

According to today's ruling, "after carefully considering the issue, the magistrate judge
and district judge decided that the prejudice to the defendants and the public's interest
in open courts outweigh plaintiffs' fears of harm," and in order to move forward with the
lawsuit, the plaintiffs must be identified.
ARTICLETITLE: Plantiffs Challenging Kamehameha Schools' Admissions Policy Cannot Proceed Anonymously
ARTICLEDATE: 3/3/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KPUA-AM 670
ARTICLEBODY:
Posted: Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010 4:59 AM HST

Dismissal of lawsuit against Kamehameha upheld
By Associated Press

HONOLULU (AP) — A federal appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a
lawsuit challenging the Hawaiian-preference admissions policy of
Kamehameha Schools because the plaintiffs refused to publicly identify
themselves.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling came Tuesday on U.S.
Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren's 2008 decision that their names had to be
disclosed in order for them to proceed with their lawsuit.

Four non-Hawaiian children who sued Kamehameha had sought to remain
anonymous in the case.

An attorney for the children, David Rosen, had argued disclosing their names
would expose them to retaliation and public humiliation.
The appellate court said it was sympathetic to the concerns of the children,
but cited "the paramount importance of open courts."


(Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved)
ARTICLETITLE: Dismissal of lawsuit against Kamehameha upheld
ARTICLEDATE: 3/3/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Maui News
ARTICLEBODY:

Dismissal of Kamehameha Schools lawsuit is upheld

POSTED: March 3, 2010

HONOLULU (AP) - A federal appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the Hawaiian-
preference admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools because the plaintiffs refused to publicly identify themselves.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling came Tuesday on U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren's 2008 decision
that their names had to be disclosed in order for them to proceed with their lawsuit.

Four non-Hawaiian children who sued Kamehameha had sought to remain anonymous in the case.

An attorney for the children, David Rosen, had argued disclosing their names would expose them to retaliation and
public humiliation.

The appellate court said it was sympathetic to the concerns of the children, but cited ''the paramount importance of
open courts.''


ARTICLETITLE: Dismissal of Kamehameha Schools lawsuit is upheld
ARTICLEDATE: 3/3/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: MoreLaw
ARTICLEBODY:


Date: 03-03-2010

Case Style: Jacob Doe v. Kamehameha Schools

Case Number: 09-15448

Judge: Robert R. Beezer

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Appeal from the United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii, Honolulu County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Eric Grant

Defendant's Attorney: Kathleen M. Sullivan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
Description: Few tenets of the United States justice system rank above the conflicting
principles presented in this case: the transparency and openness of this nation’s
court proceedings and the ability of private individuals to seek redress in the courts
without fear for their safety. The plaintiffs, four minor children (“the Doe
children―), seek to proceed anonymously in their suit against Kamehameha
Schools’ allegedly race-based admissions policy. The plaintiffs’ parents fear for
the children’s safety if their identities are revealed. After carefully considering the
issue, the magistrate judge and district judge decided that the prejudice to the
defendants and the public’s interest in open courts outweigh plaintiffs’ fears of
harm. Rather than disclose their names, the Doe children suffered dismissal with
prejudice with leave to appeal, giving us jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
affirm.

I The Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown in 1893, and Hawaii was annexed as a
territory of the United States in 1897. Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop
Estate (Doe I), 470 F.3d 827, 831 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). By that time, U.S. and
foreign settlement had brought economic distress, mortality and disease; the Native
Hawaiian population had dwindled to 22,600 in 1919, from a population 10 to 50 times
larger a century and a half earlier. See id. at 830.

It was in this context that in 1884, Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the last descendant
of the Hawaiian monarchy, established two schools and a testamentary trust to fund
them. See Leigh Caroline Case, Note, Hawaiian Eth(n)ics: Race and Religion in
Kamehameha Schools, 1 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 131, 131 (1992). The Kamehameha
Schools have sought to preserve the Hawaiian culture and identity by providing classes
on Hawaiian culture and teaching classes in the Hawaiian language. The teaching and
use of the Hawaiian language were banned in public schools from 1896 to 1986. U.S.
Dep’t of Justice & U.S. Dep’t of Interior, From Mauka to Makai: The River of
Justice Must Flow Freely 29 (2000).

The schools have since expanded to three K-12 campuses, and the trust totaled $9.1
billion in 2008—a private educational endowment surpassed in the United States by
very few universities. See Rick Daysog, Kamehameha Assets Approach $9.1 Billion,
Honolulu Advertiser, Feb. 9, 2008; Donald A. Thompson, Note, Brown v. Kamehameha
Schools: An Instrumental Critique of Remedial Self-Segregation in Private Education,
81 S. Cal. L. Rev. 831, 833-34 (2008).

But the board of trustees has interpreted the trust instrument to require the admission of
Native Hawaiians to the near exclusion of applicants of other racial backgrounds. Doe I,
470 F.3d at 832. The Schools’ publicly acknowledged policy is to grant admission to
any applicant with any amount of Native Hawaiian blood before admitting other
applicants. Id. Indeed, since 1966, only two non-Native Hawaiians have been admitted.
David M. Forman, The Hawaiian Usage Exception to the Common Law: An Inoculation
Against the Effects of Western Influence, 30 U. Haw. L. Rev. 319, 331 (2008).1

The schools voluntarily admitted one non-Native applicant, Kalani Rosell, in 2002, after
determining that all qualified 1In the 1960s, Kamehameha Schools reversed its previous
policy of allowing children of faculty members to attend the schools. Doe I, 470 F.3d at
870 (Bybee, J., dissenting).

Native Hawaiian applicants had been admitted. See id.; Thompson, supra, at 833. The
ensuing protests prompted Kamehameha to amend its admissions policy. Thompson,
supra, at 833. Kamehameha waived the application fee and the minimum-test-score
requirement, effectively ensuring that there would never again be an insufficient number
of qualified Native-Hawaiian applicants. Id.

Another non-Native Hawaiian was admitted in 2003. Kamehameha Schools admitted
Brayden Mohica-Cummings, who applied as a Native Hawaiian because his mother was
adopted by a Native Hawaiian. Forman, supra, at 332. After determining that Mohica-
Cummings was not of Native Hawaiian ancestry, Kamehameha rescinded his
admission. Id. Mohica-Cummings sued for an injunction admitting him to the Schools.
Id. The District of Hawaii granted a temporary injunction admitting the boy, and he was
eventually allowed to matriculate as part of the settlement with Kamehameha. Id. In
2003, a non-Native applicant to Kamehameha, challenged the Schools’ admissions
policy under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See Doe I, 470 F.3d at 829.

The district court upheld the admissions policy. Id. A panel of this Court reversed, but
the en banc court reversed again, concluding that the admissions policy was a valid
affirmative action plan. See id. The suit settled while the petition for certiorari was
pending before the Supreme Court. Thompson, supra, at 835. The next day, the
attorney in Doe I announced his intention to bring this suit in order to seek Supreme
Court review of the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision. See id.

This case, however, quickly became mired in procedural conflict. In Doe I,
Kamehameha never objected to the fact that the plaintiff proceeded anonymously, but
the school objected to the Doe children’s request for anonymity in this case. The
Doe children moved for leave to proceed anonymously.2 2Plaintiffs’ names were
told to Kamehameha’s counsel and some staff under a protective order.

In their motion, the Doe children argued that they reasonably fear physical injury if their
identities are revealed. First, the Doe children pointed to public reactions to the District
of Hawaii’s injunction provisionally admitting Mohica- Cummings to Kamehameha.
After the district court’s order, the U.S. Attorney for Hawaii noted a “growing
sense of anger and rage― and threats of “kill haole day everyday,― prompting
him to warn the public that violence or threats of violence based on race are federal
offenses.3

Second, the plaintiffs referred to an affidavit executed by the Doe I plaintiff’s
mother. She recounted that after the amount of the Doe I settlement was leaked to the
Honolulu press, there were calls to “break [the plaintiff’s and his attorney’s]
every bone and make [those] bastards suffer.― Others stated that “now the boy
will have to pay‍ because they knew people “who want to kick this boys [sic]
****.― Still others urged that the identities of the Doe I plaintiff and his mother be
exposed to force them “to stand up and face those that they are robbing.― She
stated that because of these threats, she and her son would “fear for [their] safety if
[their] identities [were] made public― and that they were “prepared to move and
go into hiding― if their identities were revealed.

Third, the Doe children referred to various internet postings regarding their lawsuit. One
posting predicted that if the plaintiffs were admitted to Kamehameha, they were “jus
gonna get lickins everyday.― Another posting warned that if plaintiffs’ “haole
attorneys continue doing this, one day they’re gonna be targeted by some crazy
Hawaiian or group of Hawaiians armed with baseball bats or guns.― 3“Haole―
is a term in the Native Hawaiian language denoting a foreigner, especially a White or
Caucasian person. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English
Language, Unabridged 1030 (1981). “Kill haole day― is an unofficial tradition in
Hawaiian public schools when some Native Hawaiian children “beat[ ] up Caucasian
students on the last day of school.‍ Craig Gima, ‘Kill Haole Day’ Linked to
Hate-Crime Bill, Honolulu Star Bulletin, Mar. 24, 1999.

Finally, the plaintiffs called the court’s attention to violent crimes with racial
overtones committed by Native Hawaiians against non-Natives. In some of these
crimes, young children severely injured their non-Native classmates, calling the victims
derogatory names related to their skin color, especially “f------ haole.―

Magistrate Judge Kurren found that the threats against plaintiffs in previous lawsuits
and the attorneys were not directed toward the Doe children. The magistrate judge also
found that other internet “comments [were] not threats but [did] voice the
commentators’ frustration with this lawsuit.― Likewise, the magistrate judge
discounted the anonymous internet comments suggesting that the Doe children would
be injured at Kamehameha Schools, relying on the plaintiffs’ statement that they
“are fearful of public harassment and retaliation, as reflected in public threats and
other vitriol, not with possible retaliation and ostracism at KS if and when they are
admitted.―

Although the plaintiffs’ parents’ affidavits showed “subjective fear― of
retaliation, the court found that, “[a]t most, Plaintiffs’ evidence suggests they
may be socially ostracized.― The magistrate judge denied the motion to proceed
anonymously.

Later that afternoon, two Hawaiian newspapers published stories reporting on the
magistrate judge’s order. The online forums of each newspaper generated myriad
comments. The Doe children moved to reconsider based on this newly discovered
evidence, highlighting comments such as, “Good that the judge ordered them to
make these little brats [sic] names known to the public, so they can be tormented by
their fellow students and general public.― Another posting stated that these “4
kids . . . will need 10 bodyguards lol.―
Another read, “Sacrifice them!!!!!!!!,― and another: “And I’d say the
majority of ‘us’ don’t want anything bad to happen to the kids. We all realize
that they are mere pawns in this mess caused by ‘adults.’ Now stringing up those
scum lawyers is not such a bad idea. (Don’t be scared, it’s in the Halloween
spirit).―

Another predicted that if their names were revealed, the plaintiffs “would have to
watch their backs for the rest of their lives!― \Plaintiffs also introduced threatening
comments made to their attorney, David Rosen. Rosen received a phone call on the
afternoon the magistrate judge’s decision was filed. The caller warned that
“everyone is going to know who your clients are. Now, both you and your haole
clients can get the lickins’ you deserve. Why do you f------ haoles even come to
Hawaii?― He also received an email: You are a son of a bitch . . . I know so many
kids that did not get into kamehameha schools with Hawaiian blood and you are trying
to take that away . . . I am tired of haoles like you. yOU JEWISH SHITHEAD!!!! if i see
you ever in public..no worries . . . I will SPIT on you . . . and YOU will throw the first
punch . . . and believe me . . . it will be my pleasure to beat the crap out of you . . . by
the way . . . i am a NON Hawaiian . . . .

The magistrate judge found the additional comments “no more probative of a threat
of harm to Plaintiffs than evidence this Court previously considered― and denied the
motion to reconsider.

On review, the district court concluded that the motion to proceed anonymously was a
nondispositive matter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and upheld the
magistrate judge’s findings as neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The
district court determined that the Doe children had committed two fatal procedural flaws
in their briefing.4 In the 4The district court ruled against the Doe children’s motion to
proceed anonymously on two procedural grounds, which we reject. The district court
correctly determined that the Doe children’s motion was nondispositive under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 74.1 and alternative, the district
judge ruled against the Doe children on the merits. The court found that the Doe
children only appealed two of the relevant factors—whether the threatened harm is
sufficiently severe and whether reasonable persons in the plaintiffs’ position would
believe that they might actually be harmed.5 The court concluded that, “[g]iven the
absence of threats directed to Plaintiffs, no reasonable person in any position would
believe a threat would be carried out.―

II We review the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for leave to proceed
anonymously for an abuse of discretion. that the standard of review was whether the
magistrate judge’s findings were “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.― See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 747-48 (9th Cir.
1990). Nonetheless, the Doe children’s failure to argue under the correct standard
of review did not constitute procedural default.

Second, the district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s report on the ground that
the Doe children offered no arguments for reversal but just incorporated by reference
arguments made before the magistrate judge. Plaintiffs argue that Local Rule 74.1
requires only that the “appealing party [file and serve] a written statement of appeal
[on the district court] which shall specifically designate the order, or part thereof,
appealed from.― Kamehameha Schools argues that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
10(c) does not allow a party to incorporate earlier briefing by reference. See Swanson v.
U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 1996)). Yet the Doe children justify their
incorporation by reference under Local Rule 74.1, not Federal Rule 10(c).

Rule 74.1 must be interpreted in light of Local Rule 74.2, which requires a party
appealing a magistrate judge’s case dispositive order to file “written objections
that specifically identify the portions of the order, findings, or recommendations to which
objection is made and the basis for such objections.― The absence of such specific
requirements in Rule 74.1 is telling. Therefore, the Doe children did not default by
merely appealing the magistrate judge’s order and incorporating the arguments fully
briefed before the magistrate judge. 5Given that we hold that the Doe children did not
procedurally default, we also hold that they properly appealed consideration of all the
factors relevant to a motion to proceed anonymously.

Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1069 (9th Cir. 2000). We
must affirm the district court unless the district court “relied on an erroneous view of
the law, made a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or struck an
unreasonable balance of the relevant factors.― Id.

III [1] To determine whether to allow a party to proceed anonymously when the
opposing party has objected, a district court must balance five factors: “(1) the
severity of the threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s
fears, . . . (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation,― (4) the
prejudice to the opposing party, and (5) the public interest. Id. at 1068 (internal citations
omitted). [2] The Advanced Textile analysis here is quite difficult, particularly in light of
the controversy surrounding the case, the recognized tension between some Native
Hawaiians and non-Natives in Hawaii and the threats against the anonymous plaintiffs.
Still, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow anonymity because
the district court did not clearly err in its conclusion that the Doe children do not
reasonably fear severe harm. Thus, the district court did not unreasonably conclude that
the public interest and possible prejudice to the defendants outweigh the plaintiffs’
interest in anonymity.

A [3] The Advanced Textile factor concerning the public interest sets the stage for our
debate, so it is where we begin. The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must
use their real names. See id. at 1067-68; Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). This presumption is
loosely related to the public’s right to open courts, see Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d
at 1067, and the right of private individuals to confront their accusers, see S.

Methodist Univ. Ass’n of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707,
713 (5th Cir. 1979). [4] In this circuit, the common law rights of access to the courts and
judicial records are not taken lightly. We recognize that there is a “general right to
inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents.― Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The “public interest in
understanding the judicial process― has supported our “general history of
access.― Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks omitted).

[5] But, on the other side of the public-interest debate, it is difficult to see “how
disguising plaintiffs’ identities will obstruct public scrutiny of the important issues in
this case.― Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1072. The Doe children bring claims of
widespread discrimination. Neither the district court, the Ninth Circuit panel nor the en
banc court in Doe I placed any reliance on the plaintiff’s identity. There is no reason
to believe these issues will play a greater role here. The district court concluded that the
public scrutiny of the Doe children’s standing would be impaired by anonymity.
Defendants proclaim that “the standing issue is of critical (in fact, constitutional)
significance to the litigation.― Although standing is indeed of paramount importance
to the plaintiffs’ ability to sue, it is certainly not the main issue in the public’s
eye. And, with such a large applicant pool, the court will most likely be able to discuss
most aspects of an individual’s application without revealing the individual
plaintiff’s identity.

[6] Similarly, we recognize that the fact that the “public . . . has an interest in seeing
this case decided on the merits― weighs in favor of allowing anonymity. Id. at 1073.
Indeed, the district court’s finding that “this case presents extremely
controversial and very important issues in Hawaii― weighs in favor of allowing the
Doe children to proceed anonymously. See id. at 1072. Because the case was
dismissed for failure to include the plaintiffs’ names in the complaint, “permitting
the plaintiffs to use pseudonyms [would] serve the public’s interest in this lawsuit by
enabling it to go forward.― Id. at 1062, 1073.

[7] The district court properly weighed the arguments under the public-interest factor
both for and against anonymity. Given the strong general presumption that plaintiffs will
conduct litigation under their own names, we cannot say that the district court abused its
discretion by concluding that this factor favors defendants. B

[8] The important public-interest factors on both sides of the issue lay the foundation for
our debate, but the outcome of this case comes down to the two most important
factors— severity of the threatened harm and the reasonableness of the plaintiffs’
fears. As the district court recognized, these two Advanced Textile factors are intricately
related and should be addressed together. In order to proceed anonymously, a plaintiff
must show both (1) a fear of severe harm, and (2) that the fear of severe harm is
reasonable. The district court did not clearly err in concluding that the Doe children do
not reasonably fear severe harm. First, the district court must identify the harm that the
plaintiffs fear. Here, the Doe children primarily fear physical harm if their identities are
revealed. The Doe children point to threats that they were “jus gonna get lickins
everyday― and that these “4 kids . . . will need 10 bodyguards lol.― The
children likewise point to the phone call to their attorney threatening that now “both
you and your haole clients can get the lickins’ you deserve.― They also point to
the vitriolic threats of “kill haole day everyday― after Mohica-Cummings was
admitted to Kamehameha.

[9] These threats of physical retaliation are undoubtedly severe. In Advanced Textile,
we recognized that physical harm presents the paradigmatic case for allowing
anonymity. In that case, the non-resident plaintiffs faced the severe threats of
deportation, arrest, and imprisonment, such that they did “not need to prove that
they face[d] a danger of physical injury.― Id. at 1071.

[10] But, as the district court recognized, fear of severe harm is irrelevant if the plaintiffs
do not reasonably fear severe harm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that the Doe children’s fears of severe harm are not reasonable.
Advanced Textile instructs that “plaintiffs are not required to prove that the
defendants intend to carry out the threatened retaliation. What is relevant is [whether]
plaintiffs were threatened, and [whether] a reasonable person would believe that the
threat might actually be carried out.― Id.

To judge the reasonableness of the plaintiffs’ fears, we must consider the
surrounding context and other listeners’ reactions to the threats. Cf., e.g., Planned
Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 290 F.3d
1058, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (taking into account the context of the
“random acts of violence― of others); United States v. Prochaska, 222 F.2d 1, 2
(7th Cir. 1955) (finding in criminal speech case that “[w]ritten words or phrases take
their character as threatening or harmless from the context in which they are used,
measured by the common experience of the society in which they are published―).6
In 6These First Amendment cases discussing the concept of a “true threat― are
helpful, but the analysis here is not identical. The First Amendment cases pose a higher
bar to finding a reasonable fear. In those cases, one party’s fear of the threat must
be weighed against the opposing party’s First Amendment right to speak freely
because the threatened party seeks to prevent the other party’s speech (the alleged
threats). See, e.g., Planned Parenthood, 290 F.3d at 1071-72 (noting that the definition
of “threat― is strict in First Amendment cases because advocating violence is
protected but threatening violence is not). In this case, no one is arguing that the courts
should enjoin the internet posters or other speakers. context, a plaintiff might
reasonably fear a veiled threat of violence.

See Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 183 n.6 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding that the plaintiffs
reasonably feared harm and could proceed pseudonymously where locals reacted to a
lawsuit about school prayer at a meeting by saying things like “God is fixing to come
back. He’ll show them,― “Christians must beat the evil out of these
people,‍ and “We have got to band together and whop this evil thing‍). On
the other hand, a court may disregard a comment, which is a threat on its face, because
the context demonstrates frustration, a joke, or political commentary instead of a true
intent to harm. See Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 706-07 (1969) (per curiam)
(concluding that speech against military draft that “[i]f they ever make me carry a
rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.― was protected political speech
in part because listeners laughed). It is in the particular purview of the district court to
view alleged threats in context and determine what the “reasonable― person in
the plaintiffs’ situation would fear.

Here, there are several facts militating in favor of a finding that the Doe children’s
fears are reasonable. In context, the threats on the internet become much more
frightening. The context no doubt includes random acts of racial violence against non-
Native Hawaiian children. This is amplified by calls for “kill haole day everyday,―
when a non-Native was recently admitted to Kamehameha.

And as for evaluating the effect on other listeners, the U.S. Attorney for Hawaii did not
laugh or dismiss the calls for “kill haole day― as the listeners laughed at the
“threat― against President Johnson in the Watts case. Instead, the U.S. Attorney
issued a strongly worded warning, reminding the public that threats based on race are a
federal felony. Likewise, many of the “listeners― responding to the internet
postings took the comments very seriously. One internet poster accused the others of
“just want[ing] to persecute these kids,― and another poster responded that
“the majority of ‘us’ don’t want any- thing bad to happen to the kids,―
implying that others did wish the children harm.

[11] Nonetheless, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the
plaintiffs’ fears were unreasonable. The magistrate judge correctly recognized that
many times people say things anonymously on the internet that they would never say in
another context and have no intention of carrying out. See Mark Plate, Online Abuses
Spur Policy Changes, Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 24, 2008 (message from Senior Vice
President/Editor of The Honolulu Advertiser, noting the problems the newspaper had
with internet postings on many stories: “Since we opened up the option . . . for
readers to comment on every story, . . . . [u]nfortunately, we have seen a steady rise of
hateful name-calling, innuendo and inane drivel, all of it anonymous―). The
magistrate judge noted that plaintiffs had culled only a few comments out of hundreds of
anonymous comments regarding this case. And he recognized that many of the
“threats― were accompanied by statements supporting non-violence.

One poster the Doe children cite as making threatening comments later stated that
“No one wants to see any of the kids hurt by this. The people I know would fight to
the death to save these kids if anyone tries to harm them.― The district court also
correctly evaluated the Doe children’s concession “that they are not fearful of
‘retaliation and ostracism at [Kamehameha] if and when they are admitted’ ―
in discounting the threats that the children would get “lickins― everyday at school.
Likewise, Rosell and Mohica- Cummings both attended Kamehameha with no reported
incidents—either at school or outside the school setting. Mohica-Cummings used his
real name in litigation against Kamehameha, and his counsel specifically stated that the
U.S. Attorney’s warnings to the public were unnecessary. The district court did not
abuse its discretion in determining that the plaintiffs’ fears were unreasonable.
C [12] Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the
public interest weighs against anonymity and that the Doe children do not reasonably
fear severe harm, the remaining two factors do not tip the balance. The district court
correctly concluded that the third factor, the vulnerability of plaintiffs, weighs in favor of
anonymity. Although the “youth of these plaintiffs [is] a significant factor in the matrix
of considerations arguing for anonymity,― Stegall, 653 F.2d at 186, the district court
concluded that the Doe children do not reasonably fear severe harm despite this
vulnerability. Likewise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that
plaintiffs’ fears do not outweigh possible prejudice to defendants—however
minimal that prejudice might be—in light of the district court’s conclusion that these
fears are unreasonable.7

7The district court did not discuss this element because it found that the plaintiffs had
not sufficiently objected to the magistrate judge’s resolution of this factor. We
conclude that the plaintiffs raised this argument before the district court, see supra
notes 4-5, but hold that this factor does not sway our analysis. The magistrate judge
found that the defendants would be prejudiced if the Doe children were to proceed
anonymously due to standing-related discovery. The magistrate judge found that
obtaining records regarding the Doe children, such as applications, would be burdened
by the limited number of employees allowed to know the plaintiffs’ names. The Doe
children counter that thousands of pages of discovery, including plaintiffs’
application packages, have already been produced.

We doubt that anonymity would hinder the defendants’ standing defense. The Doe
children have revealed their names under a protective order, and the parties could refer
in general terms to the Doe children’s relevant characteristics, such as whether they
completed their applications or met the school’s requirements in terms of test
scores and grades. Likewise, the Doe children’s actual applications could be used
simply by redacting the children’s names and any particular identifying information.
However, the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that defendants would
have been hindered in their efforts to gather third-party discovery concerning standing
and in defending the high-profile case in the media, if not in the courts.

We are sympathetic to the concerns of the Doe children and their parents, but we
recognize the paramount importance of open courts. For this reason, the default
presumption is that the plaintiffs will use their true names. We also emphasize that, as
an appellate court, we are constrained by the applicable standard of review. Had the
district court found that anonymity was appropriate, we likely would have concluded that
the district court did not abuse its discretion.

Or, were we permitted to make findings and weigh the factors anew, we might have
held that anonymity here was appropriate. As it is, however, we review the district
court’s decision only for abuse of discretion. Because the district court did not
abuse its discretion in determining that the Doe children do not reasonably fear severe
harm, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing the case based on plaintiffs’
failure to disclose their identities.

****

See: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/02/09-15448.pdf

Outcome: AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: Digested by Jesse Antell

ARTICLETITLE: Doe v. Kamehameha Schools
ARTICLEDATE: 3/4/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

EDITORIAL

Core issue remains in complaints against Kamehameha Schools




POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Mar 04, 2010

(Single Page View) | Return to Paginated View




A federal appeals court appears to have derailed a challenge to Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-only admission
policy, but its ruling is no guarantee against similar lawsuits in the future. The only way Kamehameha can avoid the
risk may be to eliminate all tuition, the vehicle of the legal argument that the schools discriminate against non-
Hawaiians.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that the four students who brought the
lawsuit against the schools must reveal their names publicly in order to go forward with the litigation. The judges ruled
that U.S. District Judge Michael Seabright had the discretion to decide whether anonymity of the plaintiffs was
appropriate or not. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on the side issue of anonymity, if sought, is not likely to be
heard.

Attorneys for the students applying for admission said the children would face harassment and possible violence if
their identities were known. However, Judge Robert R. Beezer, who wrote the appellate ruling, pointed to two non-
Hawaiian children who were admitted in 2002 and 2003 "with no reported incidents -- either at school or outside the
school setting."

A student identified publicly only as John Doe sued Kamehameha in 2003 after being barred admission. The U.S.
District Court and the 9th Circuit rejected the claim of discrimination and Kamehameha settled the case for $7 million
in 2007 as it was on the verge of being heard by the Supreme Court.

The claims have been that the refusal to admit non-Hawaiians to the schools violates the Civil Rights Act of 1866,
which prohibits racial discrimination in contracts. On the same day in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in separate
cases that the law prohibits "discrimination against members of any particular race" -- not just minorities -- and that
tuition with schools amounts to "a contractual relationship."

In the 2003 lawsuit against Kamehameha, a 15-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled by an 8-7 vote in favor of allowing
Kamehameha's admission policy, with all six Republican nominees on the panel dissenting. Republican nominees
control the Supreme Court, as they did when the case was on its front steps as a settlement was reached.

Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski suggested during oral arguments in that case that Kamehameha Schools, a trust
worth $9.1 billion, consider not charging tuition.

"The schools' substantial endowment may enable them to continue operating without charging any tuition for a very
long time -- perhaps indefinitely," he remarked.

The alternative to eliminating tuition is for Kamehameha to hope that no publicly identified non-Hawaiian student
comes forward with a fresh lawsuit after being denied admission. The core legal issue of racial discrimination in
contracts remains.




ARTICLETITLE: Core issue remains in complaints against Kamehameha Schools
ARTICLEDATE: 3/5/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Pacific Legal Foundation
ARTICLEBODY:

Doe v. Kamehameha Schools: "Kill Haole Day" is not a reasonable concern

Author: Ralph W. Kasarda

For anyone unfamiliar with Native Hawaiian language, a "haole" is a term used to describe a foreigner, especially a
white person. Over time, it has become a derogatory slang term to be used in contempt of white people. See here.

While some Native Hawaiians may use the term in contempt, others use the term in connection with racial animus.
For instance, a tradition in Hawaiian schools includes "Kill Haole Day." On Kill Haole Day, which is traditionally the
last day of school before summer, some school children of Hawaiian ancestry harass and beat up white students.
The tradition dates back to the 1950s, and still occurs. See here and here. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center,
which is known for tracking and exposing hate groups, has documented racially motivated attacks against white
students and adults by native Hawaiians.

Recently, in Doe v Kamehameha Schools, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that white students could not bring
a lawsuit anonymously as "Doe" plaintiffs against an alleged discriminatory private school system, using fear of
reprisal as justification. Though racial hatred and racially motivated assaults on white students are well documented,
as noted above, the court found that any such fear was "unreasonable."

An unintended consequence of this decision may be to quell lawsuits brought by non-Native Hawaiian students
seeking to enroll in the prestigious Kamehameha Schools, which is a generously funded private school system in
Hawaii. As the court noted, the Kamehameha school system has a private educational endowment worth $9.1 billion,
which is more than most private universities. It is not surprising that the Kamehameha Schools, funded both by this
huge endowment and student tuition, provide an excellent education.

But the Kamehameha Schools gives such preferences to students of Native Hawaiian descent, that students of other
races are virtually excluded. That is despite the fact that in Runyon v McCrary, the Supreme Court held that
commercially operated private schools could not discriminate in enrollment on the basis of race. In 2003, by a 8-7
decision, the Ninth Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to the discriminatory enrollment policy of the
Kamehameha Schools. The case settled before it could be heard by the Supreme Court.

At least one blogger respectfully suggests that Non-Native Hawaiian students who identify themselves and continue
to challenge the legality of the Kamehameha Schools will face real and certain harm. The blogger also
questions whether the court would have ruled the same way if the case involved minority students challenging a
private school for whites only:

         Would the Ninth Circuit's ruling really be the same as it is here if we
         were talking about Little Rock in 1957? Would the Ninth Circuit really
         say that a district court could legitimately have found that the Little
         Rock Seven unreasonably feared for their safety? I think not. And, in
         this regard, the colors may have changed, as well as the reasons (and
         perhaps even the legitimacy of the opposition).

Posted at 09:59 AM in Discrimination and Preference, Individual Rights | Permalink

Technorati Tags: equal protection, haole, Hawaii, hawaiian, kamehamena, minority, preferences, race, race, schools

Tweet This!

ARTICLETITLE: Doe v. Kamehameha Schools: "Kill Haole Day" is not a reasonable concern
ARTICLEDATE: 3/8/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Star-Bulletin
ARTICLEBODY:

Letters to the Editor

For Monday, March 8, 2010




POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Mar 08, 2010

(Single Page View) | Return to Paginated View




Waive schools tuition, testing

It's about time that Kamehameha Schools waive tuition and testing for all.

If they don't do that, only the rich and the "smart ones" will get in, and lately, Kamehameha Schools has been caught
up in legal cases, splurging our moneys (from Princess Pauahi) on attorneys who are like vultures waiting to come in
for the kill.

The only ones who suffer from the lack of ike (understanding) on the part of Kamehameha Schools is our children
and our grandchildren, who are the ones who need to be in the schools that were created for educational purposes.

As a mother and grandmother of Hawaiian children, it is my hope that Kamehameha Schools take the leap and drop
not only tuition fees, but the "testing," the ways that block all Hawaiian children from benefiting from this sacred trust.
Bernice Pauahi Paki Bishop gave of her lands and funds to see her people benefit and make a real life for
themselves and their ohana and to play a positive role in their government.

Rita K. Kanui aka Kawehi Kanui
Waimanalo
How to write us

The Star-Bulletin welcomes letters that are crisp and to the point (~175 words). The Star-Bulletin reserves the right to
edit letters for clarity and length. Please direct comments to the issues; personal attacks will not be published. Letters
must be signed and include a daytime telephone number.

Letter form: Online form, click here
E-mail: letters@starbulletin.com
Fax: (808) 529-4750
Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 210, Honolulu, HI 96813




ARTICLETITLE: Letters to the Editor: Waive schools tuition, testing
ARTICLEDATE: 3/9/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Education Week
ARTICLEBODY:

No Anonymity for Admissions Challenge, Court Rules

By Mark Walsh on March 5, 2010 9:01 AM | No Comments | No TrackBacks

The Kamehameha Schools of Hawaii, a multi-campus private school, have seemingly been under constant legal
attack for their policy of admitting only native Hawaiian students. Native Hawaiians are defined as those having any
ancestry that can be traced to the indigenous population before the first landfall of Westerners in 1778.

In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, upheld the Kamehameha Schools' admission
policy against a challenge under federal civil rights laws. But when the non-native student who had filed that suit
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the schools decided to settle the case, for a reported $7 million.

A suit challenging the admissions policy by other non-native students was filed in 2008, but this time, the schools
objected to the plaintiffs' attempt to remain anonymous. A federal district court ruled that prejudice to the defendants
and the public's interest in open courts outweighed any fear of potential harm to the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed,
but the anonymous plaintff was given permission to appeal.

In a Tuesday decision, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit court upheld that decision. The panel said the lower
court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the plaintiff's request to remain anonymous, even though other
applicants who have challenged the schools' policy have been subject to threats. (There is considerable sentiment
among many native Hawaiians that the Kamehameha Schools should not be open to non-natives, the court noted.)

"We are sympathetic to the concerns of the Doe children and their parents, but we recognize the paramount
importance of open courts," said the unanimous decision in Doe v. Kamehameha Schools.

The ruling is interesting because anonymous litigation is fairly common in education, especially in areas such as
special education suits over such hot-button issues as religion in public education.

The appeals court in this case said that had the lower court "found that anonymity
was appropriate, we likely would have concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Or, were we
permitted to make findings and weigh the factors anew, we might
have held that anonymity here was appropriate."

But after applying the appropriate 9th Circuit precedents, the appeals court panel felt obliged to uphold the district
court.

As I have noted before, I would be perfectly happy to travel to Hawaii to get to the bottom of this never-ending story, if
only my editors would send me there.
ARTICLETITLE: No Anonymity for Admissions Challenge, Court Rules
ARTICLEDATE: 4/8/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: KITV-TV ABC 4 Honolulu
ARTICLEBODY:

Mom Reveals Details Of $7M Kamehameha Settlement

Kamehameha Schools Still Wants Payment For Leak

Daryl Huff KITV 4 News Reporter

POSTED: 5:50 pm HST April 7, 2010
UPDATED: 2:03 am HST April 8, 2010

HONOLULU -- For the first time since settling a race discrimination lawsuit with Kamehameha Schools, the mother of
a boy who won the settlement revealed details about the settlement amount, the negotiations and why she now feels
her attorneys let her down.
Most important, the amount paid by Kamehameha Schools -- $7,000,000 -- was revealed in a public court document.
In her declaration attached to a request for summary judgment, the woman, identified only as “Jane Doe,― said
she learned of the settlement offer during a conference call in which she and her son and attorneys Eric Grant and
John Goemans participated.
Neither “Jane Doe― nor her son have ever been publically identified. She said in her declaration that they
feared invasion of privacy, retaliation and physical or mental harm for challenging the Kamehameha Schools’
admissions policy. The policy gives preference to children with Hawaiian ancestry ahead of children without. Her son
is Caucasian and Kamehameha Schools had agreed during the lawsuit he would have likely been admitted if he had
native Hawaiian ancestry. The family’s lawsuit challenging the admissions process as illegal race discrimination
led to two rulings from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and was on the verge of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court
on whether to hear the case.
Kamehameha Schools decided to settle the case rather than face the prospect of the high court overturning its
admissions policy. Because of the settlement, the last ruling of the 9th Circuit, which upheld the admissions policy,
allows Kamehameha to continue to admit only Native Hawaiian students.
In her declaration, the mother said in the rush to approve the settlement offer before the Supreme Court acted, she
and her son signed a blank signature page and were not shown an actual copy of the settlement agreement. She
said Grant told her he would keep the settlement in his office to prevent details from leaking out.
(Read: Court Documents PDF)
She said during the conference call, Grant did not tell her that she and her son’s payoff could be affected if
Goemans violated the confidentiality agreement. In her declaration, Jane Doe said she would not have approved the
agreement if she’d known that, because she considered Goemans to be a “loose cannon― with no real law
practice, no permanent home of office and “appeared to me to seek publicity.―
The declaration said after the settlement was reached, disputes erupted between Grant and Goemans over how
much was to be paid in legal fees and to whom. She says Goemans began threatening to leak the terms of the
settlement, and that Grant obtained a restraining order in California requiring Goemans to keep the secret. Despite
that, in February 2008, the Honolulu Advertiser reported the $7,000,000 settlement amount, and attributed the figure
to Goemans.
Kamehameha Schools is now suing the mother and son, arguing that Goemans’ disclosure violated the
confidentiality agreement in the settlement. Goemans has since died. Grant did not respond to our request for
comment.
ARTICLETITLE: Mom Reveals Details Of $7 Million Settlement 5min
ARTICLEDATE: 4/9/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Advertiser
ARTICLEBODY:
Posted on: Friday, April 9, 2010

School blames lawyer in Hawaiians-first dispute

Advertiser Staff

A California lawyer for the Big Island student who challenged Kamehameha Schools' Hawaiians-first admission policy
has been accused of misrepresentation by the multibillion-dollar charitable trust.
Kamehameha Schools sued California attorney Eric Grant, the Big Island student and his mother in state Circuit
Court in Hilo last year after an Advertiser news story in February 2008 revealed that the lawsuit had been settled for
$7 million.

In an amendment to the lawsuit this month, Kamehameha said Grant failed to tell his clients that they would be legally
liable if the confidential terms of the settlement were made public.

Grant received about 40 percent of the settlement — about $2.8 million — for his work on the lawsuit, which was
settled just before the U.S. Supreme Court was to decide whether it would hear an appeal of the case.

"It would be unjust for Grant to obtain his share of the proceeds of the settlement agreement where ... he has caused
the validity of the settlement agreement to be called into doubt," trust attorney Paul Alston said in court papers.

Grant could not be reached for comment.

Kamehameha Schools' amended complaint asks for damages that would be proven at trial plus attorney fees and
other costs.

Grant had represented the Big Island student and his mother, who have never been publicly identified and are known
only as Jane and John Doe.

In June 2003, the Does sued to overturn Kamehameha Schools' century-old, Hawaiians-first admissions policy.

U.S. District Judge Alan Kay upheld the admissions policy in November 2003 but a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals overturned the ruling in August 2005, saying the admissions policy constituted unlawful racial
discrimination.

By an 8-7 vote, the full 9th Circuit upheld the policy a year later before the lawsuit was settled as Does' attorneys
were preparing an appeal before the Supreme Court.

ARTICLETITLE: School blames lawyer in Hawaiians-first dispute
ARTICLEDATE: 5/14/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Honolulu Weekly
ARTICLEBODY:

Film Blurbs
May 12 - May 18, 2010

May 12 - May 18, 2010


Unattributed film synopses indicate movies not yet reviewed by HW staff.

Indicates films of particular interest

Opening

Just Wright In this stock-romantic comedy, rapper Common plays an NBA all- star–which looks about as convincing
as Queen Latifah depicting a hetero sports trainer in search of his attention.

Letters to Juliet Well you can’t fault Amanda Seyfried for a lack of range. In Chloe, her last release, she played a
high-end escort with hopes of stabbing Julianne Moore to death. Now, in this cringe-worthy romance, she stars as a
wistful dreamer in floral skirts, roaming through the cobblestoned streets of Italy in search of Romeo.

NTLive: The Habit Of Art The National Theatre in London comes to you live in a greasy movie theater near you, this
week featuring Alan Bennett’s production about a poet’s complicated relationship to creativity in the ’70s.
Princess Kaiulani Originally titled Barbarian Princess, this dramatic biopic authentically chronicles the life of the last
heir to the Kingdom of Hawaii–save for the fact that Kaiulani is portrayed by Q’orianka Kilcher, a German native
who’d be denied entrance into Kamehameha schools.

ARTICLETITLE: Film Review Quickies
ARTICLEDATE: 7/2/2010 12:00:00 AM
PUBLICATION: Hawaii Tribune Herald
ARTICLEBODY:

Kamehameha Schools' court fight will be in Hilo

by John Burnett
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer

Published: Friday, July 2, 2010 10:09 AM HST

A judge ruled Thursday that Kamehameha Schools' lawsuit against a Big Island teen who received a $7 million
settlement from the educational trust will not be moved off-island.

Hilo Circuit Judge Greg Nakamura denied a request by attorneys for the anonymous defendants, student "John Doe"
and his mother, "Jane Doe," and Eric Grant, a Sacramento, Calif., attorney who negotiated the settlement on the
Does' behalf. The defendants wanted the case heard in Honolulu or California.

Big Island attorney John Goemans, who also represented the Does in their case against Kamehameha, disclosed
details of the settlement to the media in early 2008.

That disclosure triggered the current lawsuit by the multibillion-dollar educational trust endowed by the estate of
Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. Goemans has since died.

The Does, who are Caucasian, sued Kamehameha Schools in 2003 because the boy's admission application was
rejected. They alleged that Kamehameha's "Hawaiians first" admissions policy violated his civil rights.

That policy was upheld by the U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court
had not yet decided whether to hear the case when the out-of-court settlement was reached in May 2007.

Kamehameha's lawsuit demands the return of $2 million from the Does and Grant, alleging breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and intentional or reckless misrepresentation. Grant received $2.8 million of the settlement for his
services, after suing the Does to collect in a California federal court.

Ken Kuniyuki, the Does' attorney, argued Thursday that Hilo was an improper venue for the case because the
settlement was reached in California and most of the lawyers involved in the case are from Honolulu.

"I reside in Honolulu. Mr. Grant's attorney resides in California. The fact is that the plaintiff's attorney resides in
Honolulu. This court is inconvenient because of the travel considerations," he said.

"The Does live on the Big Island," replied Nakamura.

Afterwards, Kamehameha Schools' attorney Paul Alston said he and his client "are confident that the judge will allow
the case to go forward and the trial will start sometime early next year, right here in Hilo."

Nakamura took under advisement a motion by James Banks, a Sacramento attorney, to dismiss Kamehameha's
claim of intentional or reckless misrepresentation against Grant.

The complaint alleges that Grant obtained the Does' signature to an early draft of the settlement rather than the final
document.

"He knew that his clients had not approved the final document; they had not seen the final document," Alston told the
judge.

Banks argued that fraud "must be committed with actual malice," and there was no malicious intent by Grant to
defraud either Kamehameha Schools or the Does.
"The estate cannot allege truthfully that Mr. Grant was doing anything but representing his clients' interest in
consummating the settlement," he said.

Grant and Honolulu attorney David Rosen also filed a 2008 civil suit on behalf of four anonymous non-Hawaiian
students and their parents, who made allegations similar to those in the John Doe case. The case was called Jacob
Doe vs. Kamehameha Schools.

The Jacob Doe plaintiffs dropped their suit but preserved their right to appeal after Hawaii Magistrate Judge Barry
Kurren and U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright denied their request for anonymity. The plaintiffs said they feared
for their safety if their identities were made public.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March dismissed the four student-plaintiffs' appeal.

"Few tenets of the United States justice system rank above the conflicting principles presented in this case: the
transparency and openness of this nation's court proceedings and the ability of private individuals to seek redress in
the courts without fear for their safety," the appellate court's ruling stated.

E-mail John Burnett at -jburnett@hawaiitribune--herald.com.
ARTICLETITLE: Kamehameha Schools' court fight will be in Hilo

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:55
posted:3/21/2012
language:English
pages:151
yaohongm yaohongm http://
About