QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THIS ACTION
1. Does the Plaintiff claim that the DISTRICT COURT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION COURT STATE OF HAWAII has standing to hear a case wherein the property, its legal owner, and those in possession are
within The Kingdom of Hawaii Nation and without the jurisdiction of the de-facto STATE OF HAWAII?
2. Since the alleged offense this case took place within the meets and bounds
of the Republic of Hawaii and/or the Hawaiian Republic, The Kingdom of Hawaii and/or in the STATE OF HAWAII, does the Plaintiff define
the ‘meets and bounds’ within its constitution?
3. What facts is the Plaintiff relying on to determine that the DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION of the STATE OF HAWAII, has standing to hear the case?
the DISTRICT COURT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION COURT(S) constitutional court of due process?
the DISTRICT COURTS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION COURT(S) administrative unit/tribunals?
6. Does the Plaintiff claim that this case and the court that is hearing it,
is outside of and/or not subject to the authority of the Constitution
of the united States of America via Oath of Office of all officers of the court?
7. Is the Plaintiff and/or the Court subject to the contractual restrictions of
the Bill of Rights by Oath of Office as well?
8. Does the Plaintiff’s agent(s) subscribe to the doctrine proclaimed
by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 when he invoked what he called “Emergency War Powers” and under that alleged
authority suspended the Constitution of the United States of America, declared a state of “National Emergency” and placed the
United States in receivership to the Federal Reserve and officially placed the country under martial law including the State of Hawaii
and its agencies, i.e.; counties?
this case being heard and subject to and or under military authority, jurisdiction and venue of the “Declared National Emergency”
doctrine of the United States and its federal enclave, as it operates within the STATE OF HAWAII?
10. Is the evidence of such National Emergency/ Military
authority/jurisdiction found on the outside of the courthouse as well
as in the courtroom via the ‘War’ flag of the ‘federal’ United States, Inc.?
11. Is this court and the STATE OF HAWAII
and/or its principle the UNITED STATES, INC. subject to any control of a foreign agency as a result of being in receivership from the
bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES that can effect the claimed
sovereignty of these governments and/or effect or influence any part of the outcome of this case?
12. Will the judge in this case receive any ‘enrichment’ of any
percentage of any so-called monetary judgment that may be laid against the Defendant(s)/Debtor(s).
13. If the judge in this case or any judge that hears this case not have a
CONFLICT OF INTEREST in receiving a portion of any monetary judgment?
14. Does the Plaintiff and/or STATE OF HAWAII in this Case condone the Courts
displaying of a foreign flag of war for the de-facto government that under the law of the flag signifies “Marital Law”. (under
which a “federal Marshal” presides and enforces law?)
WELL CERTAINLY THEY CONDONE IT! THEY’RE
FLYING IT AREN’T THEY?
15. Can the court in this case/matter, operating under Martial Law protect
and defend the unalienable and constitutionally protected rights of the Defendants as might exist under the
American Flag of Peace? Or under The Kingdom of Hawaii Flag as described in financing statement: 2008-158-9982-4 and recorded
December 6, 1996 out of necessity with the STATE OF HAWAII BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES?
16. As the Real parties in Interest we have the right to challenge the
jurisdiction of the Court/tribunal, will the Court prove jurisdiction
of the Court/tribunal in this case/matter production of evidence of said jurisdiction?
17. Have all the officers of this Court involved in this case taken an oath
and affirmation to defend their Constitution
of the United States of America, and/or the Hawaiian Republic
(identify each officer and the constitutions they have taken an oath to)?
18. Do all the officers of this Court, involved in this case, maintain
certified copies of their oaths and affirmations to said
constitutions available on demand of the public as required (identify each officer who does)?
19. Do all of the attorneys attending this Court in DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION STATE OF HAWAII, involved in this case, hold a valid license to practice law as issued by the Secretary
of State of the STATE OF HAWAII. (identify each officer who does)?
20. Are all of the attorneys representing the Plaintiff
in this case members of the Hawaii State Bar Association holding a membership (stockholder) ‘Bar Card’. And bonded?
(identify each attorney who is or is not)
21. Are any of the attorneys representing the Plaintiff in this case
registered as agents of a foreign principle as required by law (identify each attorney who is not)?
22. Are each of the attorneys representing the Plaintiff in this case in
compliance with the Immigration and Nationality Act as required by
Title 8 USC §§ 1481, 1484 and 1488 (identify each attorney who is not)?
23. Is the administrative tribunal hearing this case a legislative or
executive court and/or a tribunal of limited or special jurisdiction (identify specifically)?
24. Does the Plaintiff claim that the named Defendants are legally created or
statutory ‘person’s’ whose name’s are spelled
with all capital letters creating a ‘fictional’
Strawminious Homo and that said Defendants do not have a claim to or
guarantee on the Bill of Rights via Oath of Office of all officers of the court?
25. Is the reason that the Defendants are
identified with a ‘nom de guerre’ (all upper case letters) because said war name represents a “Constructive
Trust” created by operation and color of law within the jurisdiction of one or more of the de-facto governments and/or does
this Court require a natural person to act as ‘agent’ for
same to establish joinder with the court?
26. Does this Court have jurisdiction over sovereign Citizens and/or their
property and interests which are without the jurisdiction of DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION or the STATE OF HAWAII?
27. Does this Court have jurisdiction over sovereign Citizens whose Christian
appellation is spelled the same as the ‘nom de guerre’ but is properly spelled in upper and lower case letters in proper English?
28. Does this Court have jurisdiction over sovereign people whose Christian
appellation is spelled the same as the ‘nom de guerre’ but is properly spelled in upper and lower case letters in proper
English who are within the Kingdom of Hawai’i?
29. Does the Constitution of the State of Hawai’i operate upon the
people and more specifically upon the Real Parties of Interest found within the Kingdom of Hawai’i?
the Real Parties of Interest the ‘object and the subject’ of State of Hawai’i?
the Real Parties of Interest signatories to the State of Hawai’i Constitution?
32. Are the Real Parties of Interest parties to that social compact?
33. Have the Real Parties of Interest been noticed of their LIABILITY to the
statutes of the State of Hawaii Coporation?
If the action is presumed to be against a fictional entity (the Defendant) is the Real Parties of
Interest required by law to appear and answer for the fictional entity/Defendant?
35. Is the action commenced against the so-called Defendants merely
commercial action to collect revenue/monies from the so-called Defendants?
36. Is any complaint, information or indictment that might be filed against
the so-called Defendants merely a commercial presentment seeking monetary payment per each ‘charge’, whereby each ‘charge’
is merely part of the commercial program?
37. Does the Plaintiff claim that the Defendants are something other than
sovereign people with all the rights and powers that are inherent to
the said sovereign people pursuant to Hale v. Henkle?
38. Please disclose the status of the Real Party(s) in Interest if other
than sovereign people with all the rights and powers that are inherent to the said sovereign pursuant to Hale v. Henkle?
39. How is the Defendants and/or Real Party’s in Interest made subject
to the liability to the statutes of the State of Hawaii?
this ‘action’ as commenced in “the” State or “This” State of Hawaii'
41. If the Plaintiff claims that U.S. citizens (14th Amendment citizens)
have the same legal standing and rights as sovereign people, what facts does the Plaintiff rely on to make that claim?
42. Is the Plaintiff in this case the principle party of interest, or is the
pleading being brought in the Plaintiff’s name as an agent for another principle or a corporate co-business partner?
the State of Hawaii have authority to sue in its own name in and for this instant matter?
44. If the Plaintiff is an agent for another principle and if so,
what is the correct name of the true party in interest?
45. Is the jurisdiction in this matter criminal, civil, admiralty (maritime
contract) or of some other jurisdiction (specifically identify)?
46. Is this case being heard as a proceeding in law, in equity, in
admiralty, in civilian military or some other form of proceeding (specifically identify)?