IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
May 9, 2013
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
BARBARA J.K. DUARTE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND CLAYTON CARVALHO; AILEEN CARVALHO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (DC CIVIL NO. 11-1-0353)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakamura, Chief Judge, and Reifurth and Ginoza, JJ.)
In this action for ejectment, Defendant-Appellant Barbara J.K. Duarte (Duarte) appeals from the Judgment for Possession entered in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Federal National Mortgage Association, which was filed on February 15, 2012, in the District Court of the Second Circuit (District Court).*fn1
The sole argument raised by Duarte on appeal is that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her case because she has demonstrated the continuing existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Our appellate courts, however, have repeatedly held that claims of this nature are without merit. In State v. Kaulia, 128 Hawaii 479, 291 P.3d 377 (2013), the Hawaii Supreme Court reaffirmed this view where it stated:
Kaulia appears to argue that he is immune from the court's jurisdiction because of the legitimacy of the Kingdom government. In that regard, we reaffirm that "[w]hatever may be said regarding the lawfulness" of its origins, "the State of Hawaii . . . is now, a lawful government." State v. Fergerstrom, 106 Hawaii 43, 55, 101 P.3d 652, 664 (App. 2004), aff'd, 106 Hawaii 41, 101 P.3d 225 (2004). Individuals claiming to be citizens of the Kingdom and not of the State are not exempt from application of the State's laws. See id. at 55, 101 P.3d at 664; State v. Lorenzo, 77 Hawaii 219, 883 P.2d 641 (App. 1994); State v. French, 77 Hawaii 222, 883 P.2d 644 (App. 1994); Nishitani v. Baker, 82 Hawaii 281, 921 P.2d 1182 (App. 1996); State v. Lee, 90 Hawaii 130, 976 P.2d 444 (1999).
Kaulia, 128 Hawaii at 487, 291 P.3d at 385 (ellipsis points and brackets in original).
Accordingly, the February 15, 2012, Judgment for Possession entered by the District Court is affirmed.
Chief Judge Associate Judge Associate Judge