Opinion
NO. CAAP-16-0000081
12-13-2016
STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ronald Dale CAWTHON, Defendant-appellant
On the briefs: Dean T. Kauka, for Defendant-Appellant. David Blancett-Maddock, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
On the briefs:
Dean T. Kauka, for Defendant-Appellant.
David Blancett-Maddock, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge and Ginoza, J.; with Reifurth, J. concurring separately)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Defendant-Appellant Ronald Cawthon (Cawthon) appeals from the Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment, filed on January 14, 2016, in the District Court of the Third Circuit (District Court).
The Honorable Margaret K. Masunaga presided.
--------
Cawthon was convicted of Driving Without Valid Driver License, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-102(b) (Supp. 2015) and No Motor Vehicle Insurance, in violation of HRS § 431:10C-104 (a) (2005).
On appeal, Cawthon contends the District Court lacked jurisdiction because there was no proper transfer of sovereign power from the Hawaiian Kingdom to the United States, both the Kingdom of Hawai‘i and the State of Hawai‘i operate in the Hawaiian Islands, and his nationality is in the Hawaiian Kingdom, therefore, he is not subject to the governance of the State of Hawai‘i.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Cawthon's point of error as follows and affirm.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court has held that "'whatever may be said regarding the lawfulness' of its origins, ‘the State of Hawai‘i is now, a lawful government.’ Individuals claiming to be citizens of the Kingdom and not of the State are not exempt from application of the State's laws." State v. Kaulia, 128 Hawai‘i 479, 487, 291 P.3d 377, 385 (2013) (internal citation, brackets, and ellipses omitted) (quoting State of Fergerstrom, 106 Hawai‘i 43, 55, 101 P.3d 652, 664 (App. 2004), aff'd, 106 Hawai‘i 41, 101 P.3d 225 (2004) ).
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment, filed on January 14, 2016 in the District Court of the Third Circuit is affirmed.
CONCURRING OPINION OF REIFURTH, J.
I concur in both the result and the reasoning as expressed in the majority's opinion. I write separately, however, to note that I would have addressed the State of Hawai‘i's invitation that we "take the necessary action to stop frivolous claims[,]" and the implicit invitation that we hold this appeal to be frivolous and therefore assess reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 38 against Appellant and in favor of the State.
Appellant references the numerous pronouncements by the Hawai‘i appellate courts on the subject of jurisdiction, but contends that his argument that there has been no valid legal transfer of authorization from the Hawaiian Kingdom government to the United States and State of Hawai‘i government is brought "from a different perspective." Were we to reach that question in this case, I would conclude that the argument is not well-taken and would award fees and costs under Rule 38. See Rhoads v. Okamura , 98 Hawai‘i 407, 413–14, 49 P.3d 373, 379–80 (2002), overruled on other grounds by Alford v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 109 Hawai‘i 14, 122 P.3d 809 (2005).