Alii Manao Nui Lanny A.

Sinkin
Chief Advisor To The King
U.S. Attorney at Law
Tx. Bar #18438675
[Admitted to Federal Bar of Hawaii, LR83.1(a)]
Admitted to Ninth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits
P. O. Box 944
Hilo, Hawaii 96721
(808) 936-4428
lanny.sinkin@gmail.com
Counsel/Chief Advocate for King and Kingdom of Hawaii
November 4, 2015

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
P. O. Box 193939
San Francisco, California 94119-3939


Re: Civ. No. 15-17134 (D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00322-JMS-BMK)


Kelii Akina, et al. v. State of Hawaii, et al.


NOTICE OF ABSENT NECESSARY AND INDISPENSABLE PARTY

I. PREFACE

Counsel is registered to use the CM/ECF process in the Ninth Circuit. The client, however, is a sovereign
wishing to communicate with this Honorable Court, while explicitly declining to come within the
jurisdiction of this Court. In order to use the CM/ECF system, the party and filer need to be identified.
As the client declines party status, there is no means of filing this correspondence electronically. Under
these circumstances, this Honorable Court is asked to waive the requirement for electronic filing and
accept a hard copy filing of this correspondence.

II. INTRODUCTION

This purpose of this correspondence is to bring to the attention of the judicial panel hearing the above
referenced appeal the absence of a necessary and indispensable party.
On October 8, 2015, in the case below, the Kingdom of Hawaii filed its Notice of Absence of Necessary
and Indispensible [sic] Party; Exhibit 1; Certificate of Compliance; Certificated of Service. Docket No.
90; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.

On October 20, 2015, at a hearing convened by the Court below, the Court acknowledged receiving the




Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Civ. No. 15-17134
Page Two

aforementioned Notice and had a brief colloquy with Counsel for the Kingdom. Exhibit 1 at 4-5. 1

On October 20, 2015, the Court below entered an order that stated:
[t]o the extent the [Kingdom] Notice seeks dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, the Court DENIES
such relief, and will take no further action regarding this filing.
Docket No. 101.
The Kingdom herein presents similar notice for consideration by this Honorable Court.
II. THE NOTICE OF AN ABSENT NECESSARY AND INDISPENSABLE PARTY MANDATES AN INQUIRY.
With no inquiry or discussion, the Court below essentially ruled that the Kingdom is not a necessary and
indispensable party, that cannot be brought within the jurisdiction of the Court, requiring dismissal of
the case on jurisdictional grounds. Exhibit 1; Docket No. 101.
The Court then proceeded to decide the preliminary injunction issue on appeal herein without the
participation of the Kingdom.
The Kingdom respectfully suggests that within the United States legal system an inquiry is required
when the indispensable party question is raised.
The United States Supreme Court characterized the inquiry required as follows:
To say that a court 'must' dismiss in the absence of an indispensable party and that it 'cannot
proceed' without him puts the matter the wrong way around: a court does not know whether a
particular person is 'indispensable' until it has examined the situation to determine whether it
can proceed without him.
Provident Tradesman Bank and Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 119, 88 S.Ct. 733, 743. (1968).
In this case, there was no such examination.
III. THE KINGDOM IS A NECESSARY AND INDISPENSABLE PARTY

1
While the Court characterizes counsels presentation as seeking no specific action from the Court, the
actual question the Court posed to Counsel was whether Counsel sought intervention status. Id. The
Kingdom did not and does not seek intervention status, particularly if seeking such status would involve
a waiver of sovereign immunity. Such status is not required to raise the question whether there is an
absent necessary and indispensable party. Makah Indian Tribe v. Verity, 910 F.2d 555, 560 (9th Cir. 1990)
citing Wichita and Affiliated Tribes of Oklahoma v. Hodel, 788 F.2d 765, 775 (D.C.Cir.1986). Counsel did
state to the Court below that the Notice raised a jurisdictional question. Exhibit 1 at 4. In this case, the
Kingdom is bringing a matter to the attention of a United States Court without seeking to be a party or
to otherwise fall within the jurisdiction of the United States Court.



The Notice filed below by the Kingdom provides extensive grounds for finding the Kingdom to have an
interest in the outcome of this litigation. Docket No. 90.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Civ. No. 15-17134
Page Three

The Court below indicated an open question as to whether the Kingdom exists. Exhibit 1 at 4 ( I think
his lawyer, their lawyer, if they are an entity, is here.)

The Kingdom is prepared to argue that the Kingdom still exists legally, that there is an operational
Kingdom of Hawaii Government, and that there is a legitimate political movement to fully restore the
Kingdom of Hawaii as an independent nation a movement that is constitutionally protected within the
United States legal system. United States Constitution, First Amendment.
By skipping any inquiry, the Court below prevented the Kingdom from presenting such arguments.
At the same time, no other party to this proceeding even pretends to represent the interests of the
Kingdom.

To the contrary, the entire exercise known as Nai Aupuni is designed to offer those descended from
subjects of the Kingdom, who have Native Hawaiian ancestry, an opportunity to essentially secede from
the Kingdom and form a separate governing entity. This destruction of the Kingdoms historical unity
obviously impacts the Kingdoms ability to seek full restoration of its independence.
When the Kingdom is restored, will those who have become citizens of the Native Hawaiian Governing
Entity sought by Nai Aupuni be excluded from citizenship, hold dual citizenship, or be required to
choose citizenship? Would such persons then have multiple, and possibly conflicting, obligations
imposed upon them?
While the ruling on appeal centered on finding the Nai Aupuni election to be a private affair, that ruling
was reached without the participation of the Kingdom. No ex post facto application of a ruling can cure
the defect of an absent necessary and indispensable party.
The Kingdom asserts that the Nai Aupuni election is part of a long-term conspiracy to extinguish the
Kingdom that began with the first act of war against the Kingdom by the United States in 1893 and
continues today with illegal actions designed to frustrate the legitimate political efforts to restore the
Kingdom Government. See 42 U.S.C. 1983. That conspiracy involves private and public parties.
Even if the election was a private matter, those sponsoring the private election are taking actions in
furtherance of that conspiracy and the elections themselves form part of the conspirators plans.
No party other then the Kingdom would be arguing those and similar positions. In fact, in the absence
of the Kingdom, no party below made any such arguments nor otherwise addressed the issues raised
herein. The absence of a representative to make these arguments makes dismissal of the case the only
appropriate remedy. Wichita, supra.
The Court below essentially ruled the Kingdom to be unnecessary as a party to the litigation without
having considered unique arguments and evidence that the Kingdom would present. The Court then
proceeded to decide the question whether the election was a purely private matter without the
participation of a party that has the most to lose from the election process. If the Nai Aupuni process



successfully creates a governmental entity that destroys the political unity of the Kingdom, that
destruction will threaten the ability of the Kingdom to achieve full restoration. The attempt to destroy
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Civ. No. 15-17134
Page Four

Kingdom sovereignty once and for all obviously creates a substantial and unique interest on the part of
the Kingdom in the outcome of this litigation.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Kingdom brings the matter of an absent party to the attention of this Honorable Court because one
founding constitutional principle governing the actions of United States courts is that the courts must
have appropriate and adequate jurisdiction over persons and subjects before the court. For a Court to
allow a challenge to its jurisdiction to be denied without inquiry would seem to overturn decades of
jurisprudence. To allow judicial decisions to be made in the absence of a necessary and indispensable
party similarly challenges the fundamental requirement of jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the Notice filed before the Court below, as supplemented herein, documents that a
manifest injustice is being perpetrated against the King, the Kingdom of Hawaii Government, the
Kingdom of Hawaii, and all persons engaged in seeking to restore the Kingdom of Hawaii to its rightful
place within the community of nations.
The Kingdom, as a sovereign, does not seek to be a party to this case nor agree to submit itself to the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.
The rules within the United States judicial system include Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b), which states:
(b) When Joinder Is Not Feasible. If a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be
joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should
proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed.
This matter is brought before this Honorable Court in the hopes that equity, good conscience, and
justice will prevail.

Respectfully submitted for the

Kingdom of Hawaii,

___________________________
Lanny Alan Sinkin
Alii Manao Nui (Chief Advocate)
By appointment of
Edmund Kelii Silva, Jr.
Alii Nui Mi (High Chief/King)