June 25, 2013
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
TRAVIS KAIMANA BARROS, Defendant-Appellant and LISA MARIE BARROS; CORY BARROS; LINDSAY PUNA; JOHN DOES 1-50; AND JANE DOES 1-50, Defendants
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT (CV. NO. 11-1-0286).
Travis Kaimana Barros Defendant-Appellant Pro Se.
Charles R. Prather Sofia m. Hirosane Blue Kaanehe for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Nakamura, Chief Judge, and Leonard and Ginoza, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
In an appeal arising from an action for summary possession and ejectment, Defendant-Appellant Travis Kaimana Barros (Barros),  appearing pro se, appeals from the Judgment for Possession in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Federal National Mortgage Association, which was filed on November 3, 2011, in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (Circuit Court). We affirm.
On appeal, Barros contends that the Circuit Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case because he 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 Hawai'i 479, 291 P.3d 377 (2013), the Hawai'i 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 Hawai'i . . . is now, a lawful government." State v. Fergerstrom, 106 Hawai'i 43, 55, 101 P.3d 652, 664 (App. 2004), aff'd, 106 Hawai'i 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, 7 7 Hawai'i 219, 883 P.2d 641 (App. 1994); State v. French, 77 Hawai'i 222, 883 P.2d 644 (App. 1994); Nishitani v. Baker, 82 Hawai'i 281, 921 P.2d 1182 (App. 1996); State v. Lee, 90 Hawai'i 130, 976 P.2d 444 (1999).
Thus we also reject Kaulia's argument that the circuit court erred in precluding Kaulia from calling a witness to present evidence concerning the existence of the Kingdom in support of his Motion to Dismiss.
Kaulia, 128 Hawai'i at 487, 291 P.3d at 385 (brackets and ellipsis points in original).
Accordingly, the November 3, 2011, Judgment for Possession is affirmed.