Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 1 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1

C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam 1425 Pensacola St., # 12 Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 808-450-1166 Shaloha1@yahoo.com Pro Se

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam

)

1415 Pensacola St., # 12

)

Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

)

Native Hawaiian, Beneficiary

)

)

Plaintiff

)

)

)

)

VS.

)

)

)

)

Governor Neil Abercrombie, Individually and )

Governor of the State of Hawaii, Senator and

)

Individually Clayton Hee, Representative and )

Individually Joseph Souki, Senator and Indiv-

)

idually Donna Mercado Kim, and Representa- )

tive and Individually Karl Rhoads.

)

State Capitol

)

415 S. Beretania St.

)

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

)

)

)

Defendants

)

)

)

-------------------------------)

tv 0 13 CIVIL NO.

06 4 9 ~

C-eM P411 fill
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT TO ENJOIN SENATE BILL 1, HRS, CHAPTER 572, EQUAL RIGHTS, ACT RELATING TO TO INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME SEX,
11/13,2013; HAWAII MARRIAGE EQUAI!TI'Y Am ron
COMPLAINT; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE; EXHIBIT: A, B
j)EC~RATION
MOTICN FOR THi\IDRARY IN JUNCTION

COMPLAINT AND MOTION. The Plaintiff, C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam, respectfully comes before the Honorable United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii and requests an order for judgement on the Motion as presented herein the Plaintiff's Complaint to enjoin the LAW OR ACT RELATING TO INDIVIDUALS OF

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 1 Filed 11/25/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2
OF THE SAME SEX, 11/13/2013, FROM SENATE BILL 1, HRS, CHAPTER 572, EQUAL RIGHTS. BASIS OF LAW
The applicable Rule of Law of this case and Motion to stop or enjoin this Law or Act is that of a Breach of Trust of the State of Hawaii through the Defendants, who are the Governor and Legislative Officers who originated and voted for and advanced the Bill made into Law. The Hawaii Admission Act Of 1959 placed a fiduciary responsibility on the State of Hawaii and its' representative as previously included. The Defendants as Fiduciaries have been in violation of their duty as Representatives of the State as equity requires. According to Trust Law, a breach need not be intentional or malicious. The majority of Native Hawaiians or Kanaka Maoli who testified at hearings regarding SB 1 were against it and requested that their cultural and spiritual values and beliefs, which conform to the Motto of the State of Hawaii that "the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness/ Ua Mau Ka Ea 0 Ka Aina I Ka Pono", which were established during the time of a King and Queen of The Kingdom of Hawaii, and which contributed to the basis for not accepting SB 1, be respected and maintained. Additionally, the majority of non-Hawaiian testifiers and, indeed, overall testifiers had similar or the same values, which didn't support SB 1 and support traditional values as expressed in traditional marriage. Even though the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the right of testifiers who didn't support SB 1, the Legislators, lead by the Defendants, rejected the majority's position and requests and voted for the Bill. Such total disregard and dismissal of Native Hawaiian moral and cultural values of righteousness, beliefs, religion, and history is a Breach of Trust, discriminatory, and violation of Native Hawaiian Human and Civil Rights as prOVided by the First and Fouteenth Amendments to the US Consititution and the Hawaii Admission Act of 1959.
DAMAGE AND INJURY The injurious and damaging results of such violations are presented in the Plaintiff's injunction
2

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 1 Filed 11/25/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 3
and include individual and family weakening, destabilization, and erosion, subsequent further downtrends such as Native Hawaiians having the shortest lifespan, highest unemployment, highest incarceration, and lowest educational achievement, loss and weakening of parental roles, influence, and effectiveness, weakening and loss of self-identity and positive image, and a weakening of motivation, self-determination, and overall achievement. Such deficient thought and action by the Defendants toward Native Hawaiians can lead to further alienation, loss of the Aloha Spirit, and societal breakdown. Accordingly requests, the Plaintiff requests enjoinment of this Law. Native Hawaiians in this situation should have, but have not been given priority.
STANDING The Plaintiff has a right to present the Complaint, Temporary Injunction, aand Declaration. He is a descendant of a full-blooded Hawaiian, Alii, Kalakaua line, a Beneficiary of the Native HaHawaiian Trust Fund established by the Hawaii Admission Act of 1959, president of three Native Hawaiian humanitarian organizations, provider of health, cultural, and social programs for Hawaiian Kupuna, an author also on Hawaiian topics, a Hawaiian Jewish educator educated at 8 universities in the US, Europe, and the Middle East, an international Project coordinator, and leader in the Native Hawaiian, and Jewish communities. Such practical service and work, background, educational preparation, and heritage qualifies him to present this case.
FEDERAL JURISDICTION As elaborated in the Hawaii Admission Act of 1959 as seen in Sec. 5(f), the US Federal Court has Jurisdiction and the Admission Act creates a federally enforceable right also enforceable under 42 U.S.c. Sec. 1983, to take action in such a case and regarding associated rights of Native Hawaiian Beneficiaries. Since Hawaiians have a special relationship with the US Federal and Hawaii State governments as expressed in the Hawaii Admission Act of 1959, necessary and sufficient consideration, attention,
3

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 1 Filed 11/25/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 4
Responsibility, and justice must be given to Kanaka Maoli. Such is the basis for this Court Action. Supporting the US Federal Courts the right to intervene in this case are Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 2000d etseq.), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, (20 U.S.C.A. Section 1681 et seq.), the Hawaiian Education Act, and violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.A. Section794), and Title VI, Sandovai v. Hagan C.A. II (Ala) 1999, 197F. 3D 484.
CONCLUSION Thus, the Plaintiff, C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam, in presenting standing, US Federal Court Jurisdiction, Basis of Law, injury and damage of the Plaintiff and Native Hawaiians, and Remedy to ask judgement in favor of the Plaintiff and Native Hawaiians and to stop or enjoin the Law, Senate Bill 1, HRS, Chapter 572, Equal Rights, an Act Relating To Individuals Of The Same Sex and thereby advance Justice. Finally, the Plaintiff expresses {{Mahalo" for the Court's consideration and acknowledges The Lord G-d.
NOVEffiber 25, 20 I3
Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~-+--+------+1r-------
Ct~'~~
Plaintiff Pro Se
4

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 9 Filed 12/24/13 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 33

C. KAUI JOCHANAN AMSTERDAM 1415 PENSACOLA ST. #12 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96822
808-450-1166 shaloha1@yahoo.com . PRO SE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI1

C. KAUI JOCHANAN AMSTERDAM 1415 PENSACOLA ST. # 12 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96822 NATIVE HAWAIIAN, BENEFICIARY

) ) ) )
) CIVIL NO. CV13 00649S0M

~laintiff

)

KSC

)

)

)

)

VS.

)

)

)

)

GOVERNOR NEIL ABERCROMBIE, INDIVIDUALLY )

AND GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAII,

) AMENDED COMPLAINTr

SENATOR AND INDIVIDUALLY CLAYTON HEE, ) PLAINTIFF'S MOTIOl\r"FOR

REPRESENTATIVE AND INDIVIDUALLY JOSEPH ) JUDGEMENT TO ENJOt'N

SOUKI, SENATOR AND INDIVIDUALLY DONNA ) HAWAII MARRIAGE EQUALIT

MERCADO KIM, AND REPRESENTATIVE AND

) ACT OF 2013, 11/13/2013

INDIVIDUALLY KARL RHOADS.

)

STATE CAPITOL

)

415 S. BERETANIA ST.

)

HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813

)

)

)

l Defendants
--------------------------------------------

AMENDED COMPLAINT

1.

.' INTRODUCTION

The Plaintiff C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam~ a Native Hawaiian

Beneficiary of the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund established by the

Hawaii Admission Act of 1959, a descendant of a full-blooded, Ali

Kalakaua line, President of three Native Hawaiian humanitarian or

ganizations, officer of The Interim Government of The Kingdom of

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 9 Filed 12/24/13 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 34
Hawaii, and leader in the Native Hawaiian and Jewish communities, respectfully comes before the Honorable United states District Court for the District of Hawaii and requests to enjoin a recently enacted state law called the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013 that allows same-sex couples to marry as violative of (1) the Laws or. Acts and associated situations of the special, unique and political relationship and status between the U.S. Federal and Hawaii State governments and the Native Hawaiian or Kanaka Maoli People of which the Plaintiff is an active responsible part and with such a special relationship and status evidenced by the inclusion of Native Hawaiians in numerous Acts of Congress such includes the Hawaii Admission Act of 1959, (2) the Laws or Acts and associated situations of the unique, aboriginal, political status of Native Hawaiians~ who have unrelingushed claims of sovereignity, who according to the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Hawaii and the Native Hawaiian Education Act of 1994 have the unique right "to practice and perpetuate their Culture, Religious Customs, Beliefs, Practices, and Languages",who, acco!ding to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA), have a political status comparable to that of Native Americans and the Act is "to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians'!, and according to The
2

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 9 Filed 12/24/13 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 35
Apology Bill, United states Public Law 103-150, which states: "Whereas, the health and well-being of the Native Hawaiian people is intrinsically tied to their deep feelings and attachment to the land", ,which links the diverse facets of Native Hawaiians, who link their Land, Culture, Beliefs, Values, and Religion with their Health and Well-being, and (3) the Laws or Acts and cases on point and associated situations of the unique and Special Relations between the us Federal and Hawaii state governments and the Native Hawaiian People, the unique and political status of Native Hawaiians, and the Principle or Right of Equal Protection as demonstrated by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that States canl support or not support an Act as the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013 and cases on point of Morton v. Mancari, Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks, and United States ~.John demonstrate that the Special Relationship and Status factors can take precede~t over Equal Protection-~nd~the Cou~t c~n~u~e discretion.
Thus, Native Hawaiians have a right within their Special Relationship with the U.S. Federal and Hawaii State governments and their Special Status to express and preserve their Culture, Values, Religious Customs, and such as represented in the Hawaii Motto that~the Life of the Land is Perpetuated in ~ighteousnes~". and with such a right to overrule a claim of violation of Equal Protection. In this case, same-sex sexual relations of same-sex couples violate the cultural moral values of Righteousness of
3

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 9 Filed 12/24/13 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 36

Native Hawaiians and the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013, which authorizes such prohibited behavior expressed by Hawaii's Motto, can be enjoined by Native Hawaiian's right to do so over the objections and claim of violation of Equal protectionj by adv00ates,:ofc~ame-sex ~arriage and associated state law. Being a member of a disadvantaged entity, Native Hawaiians, the Plaintiff brings forth the request and right as previously elaborated.,Just as the Superferry was terminated for not having completed important responsibilities here in Hawaii the same situation exists presently in Hawaii with the state government not having completed important responsibilities with Native Hawaiians with whom the state has a Special Relationship for which the Plaintiff, who is in this Special Relationship, is exercising-his spiritual, moral, temporal, and legal right.

2.

BACKGROUND

First, according to the Native Hawaiian Education Act of 1994, there is a special political relationship between the U.S. Federal government and the Native Hawaiian People and is evidenced by the inclusion of Native Hawaiian in numerous Congressional Acts which include the Native American Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2991 et seq.), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996), the National Museum of the American Indian Act (20 U.S.C. 80q et seq.), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), the National
Historic Preservation Act (16 p.S.C. 470 et seq.), the Native
American Languages Act (25 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.), the American

4

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 9 Filed 12/24/13 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 37

Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian culture and Art De-

velopment Act (20 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.), the Workforce Invest-

ment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), and the Older Ameri~

cans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.). Other Acts include

the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act of 1992, the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Native American Programs Act

of 1974, the Development Disabilities Assistance and Bill of

Rights Act Amendments of 1987, the Disadvantaged Minority

Health Improvement Act of 1990, the Indian Health Care Amend-

ments of 1988,and the the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.

Second, Native Ha,waiians havea 'unique and polj.tical Status

1

j ,"

which enables them lito protect and preserve their inherent

right of freedom to believe, express and exercise their Re-

ligious Customs, Beliefs, Practices, and Language(s)" as

~reseRted in the Native Hawaiian Education Act of 1994 and the

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA).

Third, the factors of their Special Relationship(s) and unique Status, provide Hawaiians a_unique' impact or priority

of exercising their rights and being able to overcome claims

by others that their right of Equal Protection is being violated. Such associated cases on point include Morton v. Mancari, De-

laware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks, and United States

v. John. Fourth, beigg Native Hawaiian as previously explained,

the Plaintiff has a right to use the factors of his status of being a Native Hawaiian and Special Relationship in practice of his religious, cultural m0rallval~e of Righteousness as repre-

5

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 9 Filed 12/24/13 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 38
sented in Hawaii's Motto of "Ua Mau Ke Ea 0 Ka Aina I Ka Ponol the Life of the Land is Perpetuated in Righteousness". The seriousness of the Plaintiff's religious, cultural moral value of Righteousness is acknowledged in the Apology Bill, United states Public Law 103-150, "Whereas, the health and well-being of the Native Hawaiian People is intrinsically tied tQ their deep feelings and attachment to the land~ Such seriousness is further evident in light of the Motto originating with a Hawaiian Queen and formalized by King Kamehameha III. On the other hand, the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013, authorizes same-sex sexual relations, which is contrary to and undermines Hawaii's Motto and the religious, cultural moral values of the Plaintiff and the majority of Native Hawaiians as evidenced by the majority of Native Hawaiians who testified against the same-sex marriage Act. The Defendants did not seriously consider, acknowledge, or address Native Hawaiians and their religious, cultural moral values of Righteousnes. Any attempt was one-sided and prejudicial as seen in their dismissal of the majority of Native Hawaiians. Comparing this case with that of the Civil Rights of Rosa Parks, the issue(s) of the Plaintiff and Native' Hawaiian People before the Defendants was not even considered, but rather dismissed. Therefore, like Rosa Parks, the Plaintiff and the Native Hawaiian People were kept disadvantaged and violated rather then having rights advanced. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's current action is to stop such irresponsibility of the Defendants and support the
6

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 9 Filed 12/24/13 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 39
plaintiff and Native Hawaiian people's right~to express, pre~~L~_ serve, and practice religious, cultural moral values rather then to have them undermined, weakened, and eliminated, which is what is happening with same-sex marriage Act. Same-sex sexual relations are viewed as a desecration of the land and as such weakens and destroys the health and well-being of the land, the Native Hawaiian People, the population-at-large, and the Plaintiff. Such injury is redressed by an enjoinment of the same~sex marriage Act
Fifth,the plaintiff and the Native Hawaiian People were discriminated against by the Defendantslbecause the-sarne=sex marriage Act was ramroded through the legislative process without serious, fair, and due consideration given to the plaintiff and Native Hawaiian People by the Defendants, who led the advance of the Act's passage. Being Native Hawaiian, the Plaintiff and the Native Hawaiian People were lumped into the overall, general population without regard for the important factors of Special Relationship and Unique Status given to the plaintiff and Native Hawaiian People by the Defendants, who thereby violated their mandated responsibility to do so by Congressional Acts and they also violated the plaintiff and Native Hawaiian People's rights.Like the Superferry, the Defendants mistakenly ramroded the same-sex marriage Act through the process without fair and due regard toward meeting associated responsibilities toward the Native Hawaiian plaintiff and Native Hawaiian People. Indeed, the Defendants breached their responsibility toward the
7

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 9 Filed 12/24/13 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 40
Hawaii voting public, who in 1998 after their majority vote were led to believe the Hawaii government would uphold their majority vote for traditional marriage. The same-sex marriage Act and the Defendants should be held to the same responsibility and scrutiny as was the Superferry. To dismiss the Defendant's irresponsible dismissal of their responsibility to the Native Hawaiian Plaintiff and Native Hawaiian People_iti.this'matter of the same-sexmarriage Act is a serious oversight and is ~eferred to by Native Hawaiians as the "Second Overthrow", which refers to the 1893 conspiracy and overthrow by conspirators of the Kingof Hawaii. The Defendan:ts _,v-iola ted the· 'Eq'ua 1 ,Protection Rights of the Plaintiff and Native-Hawaiian People because Culture, Belief, Expression, and Value of Righteousness are violated by exercise of the same-sex marriage Act and they have no alternative but to experience a weakening, undermining, and loss of their Values, Culture, etc. and will continue to do so. On the other hand, the supporters of the same-sex marriage Act by not being able to have the Act, can still go to another State which supports a same-sex marriage Act and, be married, and still live in Hawaii without a loss. Accordingly, the plaintiff and Native Hawaiians are injured. because same-sex sexual relation of those in same-sex marriage is a value ~th'a't belies or .runS counter to the values of the Plaintiff and Native Hawaiian's cultural moral values, is unfair, abusive, defamatorYi and tarnishes the
8

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 9 Filed 12/24/13 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 41
standing, all or which are considered injurious according to the dictionary. Same-sex marriage promotes behavior, character, and conduct prohibited by the values and culture of the Plaintiff and Native Hawaiians. Such a prohibited value or action undermines or subverts insidiously, weakens, and wins by degrees, which is injurious. On the other hand, the Plaintiff's use of Special Relationship and Unique Status trumps the Defendant's and supporters of same-sex marriage claim of their being violated their Equal Protection rights and avoid the plaintiff and Native Hawaiians needing to claim their Equal Protection Rights are violated. Thus, the plaintiff and Native Hawaiians claim injury because the action and value of same-sex sexual relations afforded through the same-sex marriage Act violates Culture, Values, Practice, etc. of the Plaintiff and Native Hawaiians with injurious results or impact previously described with such injuries being concrete, particularized, actual, and imminent with such injury causally connected to the conduct of those who practice same-sex marriage, and such injury will be redressed by a favorable decision of enjoining the same-sex marriage Act. Likewise, with the Apology Bill clarifying that the health and well-being of the Native Hawaiian People being intrinsically tied to their deep feelings and attachment to the land", with such physical and mental health ~and well-being and deep feeLing or emotional and Qsychological state tied or linkefr
9

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 9 Filed 12/24/13 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 42
to the land, and with the same-sex sexual relations of same-sex marriage viewed as a des~cration of the land, then such desacration negatively impacts or injures the level of physical and mental health and well-being and emotional and psychological state of the Plaintiff and Native Hawaiians. Additionally, the Plaintiff and Native Hawaiian People's injury comes not only with the concern and worry over the desecration of the land by the prohibited behavior of same-sex marriage as exemplified in the converse presentation of Hawaii's Motto of "the death of the land is perpetuated in unrighteousness" which can include dangerous conditions such as tsunamies, hurricanes, earthquakes, foreign invasion, economic problems, etc. Thus, injury results from the great worry of what will happen, but also from the dangerous conditions resulting from unrighteous action of same-sex marriage~ The Plaintiff has the support of several Hawaiian Kahus or religious leaders who hold the belief of such imminent injurious dangers will result from same-sex marriage in Hawaii. Thus, such emotional, psycholqgical,- and mental anxiety, stress, worry, and pre-occupation is how the Plaintitf is injuF~d.
Fifth, the Plaintiff is injured as an Educator. The Plaintiff received his Masters in Education at U.C.L.A. A Sex Education Program called Pono Choices is currently in the Hawaii ~ublic School System. Among--other things, the system teaches eleven
10

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 9 Filed 12/24/13 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 43
year olds about oral and anal sex and promotes and normalizes ho~ mosexual values and lifestyle. Because my cultural moral values of Righteousness consistent with the Hawaii Motto,are in opposition with the educational system and its values, I am unable to teach such a system or knowledge. Such preclusion limits my teaching and financial situation and is injurious to my financial stablility. Likewise, I am subject to prosecution if I refuse to discuss the subject with my students~Such a situation has happene~ in Maine and other States which have accepted the same~sex marriage Act. Also being a health care provider, I know of the health problems such as cancer that can result from anal and oral sex. Accordingly, in such a situation, my ~ultural moral values of Righteousness, my knowledge of health and wellness, and my financial and professional well-being are in jeapardy and I am placed into an injurious situation due to the same-sex marriage act. With the Act being recently passed, the situation will get worse as 'exemplified in States, which have already accepted the Act.
Six, serving the Hawaiian community and members of my family, I see that over 45% of foster children are Native Hawaiian. This means that this percentage of families are dysfunctional. With the same-sex marriage eliminating an opposite gender parent, the family unit is further weakend· and eroded. Michigan University research recently revealed that a lack of a male gender correlates with a rise in youth violence. Accordingly, a lack
1 1

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 9 Filed 12/24/13 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 44

of a father in a family would further erode a family and allow

an increase in violence. Such a situation does nothing to improve

a dysfunctional family of foster children. Likewise, same-sex

marriage eliminates reproduct~on and growth in a famil~. Be-

cause my family and relatives are amongst problematic segment

of society, I am injured by the same-sex marriage Act because

it does nothing to improve the problems, but rather makes it

worse. Native Hawaiians have the shortest lifespan, the highest

unemployment, the highest incarceration, and the lowest education

level. As exemplified with the family situation, same-sex mar-

riage doesn't help such problematic situations and statistics,

but rather keeps them the same or makes it worse.

Seven, the Native Hawaiian H~story, Culture, Values, and

Practice is rich and diverse. Historically, Native Hawaiians have

enjoyed close or orthodox trends of religious, cultural moral

values of Righteousness and also a drifting from such. Kanaka

Maoli have a history and tradition of Ke Akua, Kane, Lono, and

Ku, which is the

GcJhe~-, which goes back even before 88 B.C o ,

the City of Refuge, which goes back to the time of the City of

Refuge found in Deuteronomy, the Kahuna, which parallels the

the Cohen or Priest in the Holy Land, and finally, the visit of

Lono as remembered in the Makahiki, which Hawaiians mistook Cap-

Cook for being Lono, who was predicted to come as the Messiah

amongst the Tribes of Israel. with the arrival of the Chris-

tian missionaries in 1820, it was natural for Native Hawaiians

12

Case 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-KSC Document 9 Filed 12/24/13 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 45

to embrace Christianity. The Hawaii Motto, which was established

during the reign of King Kamehameha III, was a formalization of

our ancient traditional values, which includes that of Aloha.

Since such Cultural Moral Values of Righteousness have such deep roots for Native Hawaiians, such values are manifested

in the numerous and diverse areas and activities of life.

Therefore, to undermine such values causes great displacement, disruption, and injury for Native Hawaiians and for the Plaintiff~

Therefore, the Plaintiff requests consideration to stop further

injury and problems for Native Hawaiians and the Plaintiff by

enjoinment of the same-sex marriage Act. To do so will help to

to alleviate injury and problems, but to do otherwise will

invite greater injury and dangers.

3.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the plaintiff expr~eses - appreciation tQ the HQQ:or_

able Court. Likewise, the Plaintiff asks consideration for a tavo~ rable outcome by considering the Special Relationship between the

U.S. Federal and the Hawaii State governments, which allow

advancing through' the judicial system associated civil and human

humans. To do so is an important opportunity and step to advance

"reconciliation", which is an important aim of the Apology Bill,.

Mahalo to the ~onorable Court, Happy Holiday, and Mahalo to G-d.

Dated: Honolulu,Hawaii, ____~D&ee€c~e~ffi~b~e~rr_~2~4~,~.-r2BO~1~3r---~~~-------b /
Q,kvJ~~~
Plaintiff Pro Se
13

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

C. KAUI JOCHANAN AMSTERDAM, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEIL ABERCROMBIE; CLAYTON

)

HEE; JOSEPH SOUKI; DONNA

)

MERCADO KIM; and KARL RHOADS, )

in their individual and

)

official capacities,

)

)

Defendants. )

)

_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 13-00649 SOM-KSC
ORDER DISMISSING CASE; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL PENDING MOTIONS

ORDER DISMISSING CASE; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL PENDING MOTIONS

I.

INTRODUCTION.

Plaintiff C. Kaui Johanan Amsterdam, a native Hawaiian,

seeks to enjoin as violative of section 5(f) of Hawaii’s

Admission Act a recently enacted state law that allows same-sex

couples to marry. Because Amsterdam’s Complaint fails to assert

a claim for which he has standing, the court dismisses his

Complaint and denies as moot his motions to enjoin the law

allowing same-sex marriages.

II.

BACKGROUND.

Hawaii became a state via the Admission Act, P.L. 86-3

(March 18, 1959), reprinted in 73 Stat. 4, 5. In the Admission

Act, the United States granted Hawaii title to all public lands

and public property within Hawaii, except for lands that the

federal government retained for its own use. P.L. 86-3, § 5(b),

73 Stat. at 5. The public lands granted to Hawaii, as well as the proceeds and income therefrom, became lands held by Hawaii “as a public trust.” Haw. Const. art. XII, § 4; Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 507-08 (2000).
According to the Admission Act, the State of Hawaii is the trustee of that public trust, and is supposed to use the trust for one or more of five enumerated purposes:
[1] for the support of the public schools and other public educational institutions, [2] for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, [3] for the development of farm and home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible[,][4] for the making of public improvements, and [5] for the provision of lands for public use. P.L. 86-3, § 5(f), 73 Stat. at 6. The Ninth Circuit has determined that section 5(f) of the Admissions Act creates rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Keaukaha–Panaewa Cmty. Ass’n v. Hawaiian Homes Comm’n, 739 F.2d 1467, 1472 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Price v. Akaka, 928 F.2d 824, 828 (9th Cir. 1990). On November 13, 2013, Governor Neil Abercrombie signed into law Senate Bill 1 from the 2013 Special Session of the Hawaii Legislature. That new law, known as the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013, takes effect on December 2, 2013, and provides same-sex couples with the same rights, benefits,
2

protections, and responsibilities of marriage that opposite-sex

couples enjoy.

III.

THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED BECAUSE AMSTERDAM LACKS STANDING TO PURSUE THE CLAIM(S) ASSERTED IN IT.

On November 25, 2013, Amsterdam filed the Complaint in

this matter, along with a motion to enjoin the Hawaii Marriage

Equality Act of 2013 and a motion seeking to temporarily enjoin

that act. Because Amsterdam has asked this court to temporarily

enjoin a law that is about to take effect, the court immediately

examined his filings. Determining that Amsterdam lacks standing

to pursue his claim(s), this court dismisses his Complaint.

“[W]hether or not the parties raise the issue, federal

courts are required sua sponte to examine jurisdictional issues

such as standing.” D’Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites, 538

F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks, citation, and

alterations omitted). This court therefore has “both the power

and the duty” to examine the Amsterdam’s standing. Id.; Bernhardt v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir.

2002).

In order to have standing to bring this suit, Amsterdam

must show that: 1) he suffered a “concrete and particularized”

and “actual or imminent” (as opposed to “conjectural or

hypothetical”) injury-in-fact; 2) his injury is causally

connected to the conduct complained of; and 3) it is likely (not

merely speculative) that its injury will be “redressed by a

3

favorable decision.” San Diego Cnty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996); accord Ass'n of Pub. Agency Customers v. Bonneville Power Admin., 733 F.3d 939, 950 (9th Cir.
2013).
Amsterdam’s Complaint argues that the Hawaii Marriage
Equality Act of 2013 breaches the public trust established by
section 5(f) of the Admission Act because the majority of Native
Hawaiians who testified during the legislative process were
against it and requested that their cultural and spiritual
beliefs be respected. Although Amsterdam claims a violation of
section 5(f), nothing alleged in the Complaint actually indicates
that any claim arises out of the use of the public trust for any
of section 5(f)’s five enumerated purposes, which are:
[1] for the support of the public schools and other public educational institutions, [2] for the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians, as defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended, [3] for the development of farm and home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible[,][4] for the making of public improvements, and [5] for the provision of lands for public use.
P.L. 86-3, § 5(f), 73 Stat. at 6.
This court recognizes that claims may be brought under
§ 1983 for alleged breaches of the public trust created by
section 5(f), but Amsterdam fails to assert viable section 5(f)
claims. That is, he fails to demonstrate that the Hawaii
Marriage Equality Act of 2013 could, in any way, be interpreted
4

as violating section 5(f) of the Admission Act such that he could be said to have suffered an injury to his rights under section 5(f). Without such a demonstration, Amsterdam fails to show a legally cognizable injury caused by Defendants’ conduct that this court could redress. Because he lacks standing to pursue the claim(s) asserted in the Complaint, the court dismisses this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that standing pertains to a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction).
Although it is not entirely clear from the Complaint, Amsterdam may believe that the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013 violates his federal constitutional rights under the Freedom of Religion Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, he alleges no facts supporting any such claim. He does not even sufficiently allege that he practices a religion affected by the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013 or that he is a member of a protected class that is being treated less favorably than another. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” (quotation marks and citations omitted)); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“the pleading standard Rule 8
5

announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it

demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-

harmed-me accusation” (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)). A

liberal but fair reading of the Complaint does not permit a

conclusion that Amsterdam actually asserts claims that

Amsterdam’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights are being

violated.

IV.

CONCLUSION.

The court dismisses the Complaint. Given this

dismissal, the court denies as moot all pending motions. In

dismissing the Complaint, the court has not examined whether any

particular Defendant is properly named or may have some sort of

immunity with respect to Amsterdam’s claim(s).

In case Amsterdam intended to assert violations of his

First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States

Constitution, the court invites him to file a First Amended

Complaint no later than December 24, 2013. If Amsterdam fails to

timely amend his Complaint, the Clerk of Court is directed to

enter judgment in favor of Defendants.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this

order to David M. Louie, Attorney General for the State of

Hawaii, 425 Queen Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, November 26, 2013.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway Susan Oki Mollway Chief United States District Judge
Amsterdam v. Abercrombie, et al.; Civil No. 13-00649 SOM/KSC; ORDER DISMISSING CASE; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL PENDING MOTIONS
7

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

C. KAUI JOCHANAN AMSTERDAM, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

NEIL ABERCROMBIE; CLAYTON

)

HEE; JOSEPH SOUKI; DONNA

)

MERCADO KIM; and KARL RHOADS, )

in their individual and

)

official capacities,

)

)

Defendants. )

)

_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 13-00649 SOM-KSC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING AS MOOT ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING AS MOOT ALL PENDING MOTIONS

I.

INTRODUCTION.

On November 26, 2013, this court dismissed Plaintiff C.

Kaui Johanan Amsterdam’s Complaint, which sought to enjoin a

recently enacted state law that allows same-sex couples to marry.

ECF No. 7. Because the law was about to take effect, this court

treated Amsterdam’s motion for “immediate temporary injunction”

as a request for a temporary restraining order and reviewed the

claims in Amsterdam’s Complaint posthaste. The court noted that

it was “required sua sponte to examine jurisdictional issues such

as standing,” D’Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d

1031, 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation omitted), and held

that Amsterdam failed to assert a claim for which he had

standing. The court gave Amsterdam leave to amend his Complaint

to assert the particularized injury he would allegedly suffer, or

to clarify any constitutional claims he sought to bring.

On December 24, 2013, Amsterdam filed his First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”), along with a “motion for an immediate

temporary injunction” and a “motion for judgment.” ECF Nos. 9,

15, 16. On January 14, 2014, the State filed a motion to dismiss

Amsterdam’s FAC. ECF No. 29. Because Amsterdam continues to

provide insufficient allegations of individualized injury giving

him standing to challenge Hawaii’s marriage equality law, the

court grants the motion to dismiss and denies as moot all other

pending motions. Noting that there is no indication that

Amsterdam will be able to cure the FAC’s deficiencies by further

amendment, this court concludes that any future amendment would

be futile.

II.

BACKGROUND.

On November 13, 2013, Governor Neil Abercrombie signed

into law Senate Bill 1 from the 2013 Special Session of the

Hawaii Legislature. That new law, known as the Hawaii Marriage

Equality Act of 2013, took effect on December 2, 2013, and

provides same-sex couples with the same rights, benefits,

protections, and responsibilities of marriage that opposite-sex

couples enjoy.

Amsterdam, a Native Hawaiian, claims to be an “officer

of The Interim Government of The Kingdom of Hawaii” and a “leader

2

in the Native Hawaiian and Jewish communities.” FAC 1-2, ECF No. 9. Amsterdam seeks to enjoin the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act as violating various laws that recognize the “unique [] political status of Native Hawaiians.” Id. at 3. In his original Complaint, Amsterdam largely relied on section 5(f) of the Admission Act as the legal basis for his claim. Amsterdam argued that section 5(f) was violated “because the majority of Native Hawaiians who testified during the legislative process were against [marriage equality] and [had] requested that their cultural and spiritual beliefs be respected.” ECF No. 7 at 4. This court, having been called upon in prior cases to construe section 5(f), is conscious that it says nothing about marriage at all.
This court noted that Amsterdam had “fail[ed] to show a legally cognizable injury caused by Defendants’ conduct that th[e] court could redress.” Id. at 5. The court also noted, “Although it [wa]s not entirely clear from the Complaint, Amsterdam may believe that the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013 violates his federal constitutional rights under the Freedom of Religion Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. However, the court stressed that Amsterdam “allege[d] no facts supporting any such claim” and did not “even sufficiently allege that he practices a religion affected by the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act
3

of 2013 or that he is a member of a protected class that is being

treated less favorably than another.” Id. The court then noted

that “[i]n case Amsterdam intended to assert violations of his

First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States

Constitution, [he should] file a First Amended Complaint no later

than December 24, 2013.” Id. at 6.

On December 24, 2013, Amsterdam filed his First Amended

Complaint, along with a “motion for an immediate temporary

injunction” and a “motion for judgment.” ECF Nos. 9, 15, 16.

With the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act already in effect, the

court saw no need to take immediate action. See Granny Goose

Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No.

70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974) (“[U]nder federal

law [temporary restraining orders] should be restricted to

serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and

preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold

a hearing, and no longer.”). On January 14, 2014, the State

filed a motion to dismiss Amsterdam’s FAC on the grounds of lack

of standing and failure to state a claim.

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attacks can be either

facial or factual.” White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir.

2000). “In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the

allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their

4

face to invoke federal jurisdiction. By contrast, in a factual

attack, the challenger disputes the truth of the allegations

that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal

jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035,

1039 (9th Cir. 2004)

When, as here, the challenge is facial rather than

factual, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and

construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Fed'n of African Amer. Contractors v. City of Oakland, 96 F.3d

1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1996). In a facial attack on jurisdiction,

the court “confin[es] the inquiry to allegations in the

complaint.” Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., Dist. No. 205, Maricopa Cnty., 343 F.3d 1036, 1040, n.2 (9th Cir. 2003).1

IV.

ANALYSIS

As this court said in its order dismissing Amsterdam’s

original Complaint, Amsterdam must establish standing by showing

that: 1) he suffered a “concrete and particularized” and “actual

or imminent” (as opposed to “conjectural or hypothetical”)

injury-in-fact; 2) his injury is causally connected to the

conduct complained of; and 3) it is likely (not merely

speculative) that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable

1 Although the State also moves to dismiss the FAC under Rule 12(b)(6), this court does not reach that issue and therefore does not include here the legal standard for such a motion.
5

decision.” San Diego Cnty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996); accord Ass'n of Pub. Agency Customers v. Bonneville Power Admin., 733 F.3d 939, 950 (9th Cir. 2013). “At the preliminary injunction stage, plaintiffs must make a clear showing of each element of standing.” Townley v. Miller, 722 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation omitted).
Although Amsterdam lists many federal statutes that he says entitle him to relief, the FAC fails to cure the basic defect evident in the original Complaint: Amsterdam simply fails to articulate a legally cognizable injury. Amsterdam argues that the Act “is contrary to and undermines Hawaii's Motto and the religious, cultural moral values of the Plaintiff and the majority of Native Hawaiians.” FAC at 6, ECF No. 9. Amsterdam further asserts that “[s]ame-sex sexual relations are . . . a desecration of the land and as such weaken[] and destroy[] the health and well-being of the land, the Native Hawaiian People, the population-at-large, and the Plaintiff.” Id. at 7.
These generalized grievances reflect Amsterdam’s disapproval of the legislature’s judgment, not a concrete and particularized injury to him personally. “Under Article III, the Federal Judiciary is vested with the ‘Power’ to resolve not questions and issues but ‘Cases’ or ‘Controversies.’” Arizona Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 131 S. Ct. 1436, 1441 (2011). The courts are not a “vehicle for the vindication of
6

value interests.” Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986), nor is their proper role to superintend the political judgment of democratically elected legislators. See Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 598-99 (2007) (“[T]he judicial power of the United States defined by Art. III is not an unconditioned authority to determine the [lawfulness of] legislative or executive acts.”). A plaintiff “seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2663 (2013). A “generalized grievance, no matter how sincere, is insufficient to confer standing.” Id.
Amsterdam does not even attempt to identify an injury unique to him; instead, quite to the contrary, Amsterdam styles himself as a representative of a Native Hawaiian community that he alleges disapproves of the State’s policy. There is no authority for the proposition that Native Hawaiians are exempt from the ordinary rules of party standing applicable to all litigants in federal court. In failing to articulate an injury other than generalized disapproval of same-sex marriage, Amsterdam fails to meet his burden of showing that he has suffered an injury.
The closest Amsterdam comes to a particularized grievance is his claim that he is injured “as an [e]ducator”
7

because the “Hawaii Public School System . . . teaches eleven year olds about oral and anal sex and promotes and normalizes homosexual values and lifestyle,” and his “cultural moral values of Righteousness . . . [make him] unable to teach such [information].” FAC at 10. However, the FAC does not actually allege that Amsterdam is a school teacher, only that he “received his Masters in Education at U.C.L.A.” Id. In any event, Amsterdam fails to articulate any reason why the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act affects the classes taught in Hawaii’s schools. That is, Amsterdam does not allege that, without same-sex marriage, schools would refrain from teaching about oral and anal sex or about what he calls “homosexual values and lifestyle.” In fact, he appears to be complaining that such matters have been addressed in schools even before the law in issue took effect. Amsterdam’s alleged injuries as an “educator,” even if they were real, would not be redressable by a court order enjoining the Act. See Glanton ex rel. ALCOA Prescription Drug Plan v. AdvancePCS Inc., 465 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that when there is “no redressability, [there is] no standing”).
The State provides a series of alternative reasons to dismiss the Complaint, including Amsterdam’s failure to state a claim under federal law, the improper naming of certain parties, and certain Defendants’ immunity from suit. Because Amsterdam
8

lacks standing to bring his claims, the court does not address

any of the State’s nonjurisdictional arguments.

The State also asks the court to deny Amsterdam any

further leave to amend. A district court's “discretion . . . [to

deny leave] is particularly broad where, as here, a plaintiff

previously has been granted leave to amend.” Griggs v. Pace Am.

Grp., Inc., 170 F.3d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 1999). “Dismissal

without leave to amend is proper if it is clear that the

complaint [cannot] be saved by amendment.” Kendall v. Visa

U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). In dismissing

his original Complaint, the court clearly informed Amsterdam that

his abstract disapproval of the Hawaii legislature’s judgment did

not constitute sufficient Article III injury for him to challenge

the Marriage Equality Act. Amsterdam has expounded on his

disapproval of the law further in the FAC, but has not explained

how he has suffered particularized injury. Moreover, based on

the allegations in the FAC, the court cannot see how the Act’s

operation could possibly harm Amsterdam in a concrete and

particularized way. The court therefore concludes that any

further amendment by Amsterdam would be futile.

V.

CONCLUSION.

The court grants the State’s motion to dismiss, and

denies as moot all other pending motions. The Clerk of Court is

9

directed to enter judgment for Defendants and to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 19, 2014. /s/ Susan Oki Mollway Susan Oki Mollway Chief United States District Judge
Amsterdam v. Abercrombie, et al.; Civil No. 13-00649 SOM/KSC; ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS CASE AND DENYING AS MOOT ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS
10

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-649 As of: 11/06/2017 07:04 AM HST 1 of 6
U.S. District Court District of Hawaii (Hawaii) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−00649−SOM−KSC

CLOSED

Amsterdam v. Abercrombie et al Assigned to: JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY Referred to: JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG Case in other court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 14−15377 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/25/2013 Date Terminated: 02/19/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam Email: Shaloha1@yahoo.com [Note: address in upper left hand corner reflects 1425 Pensacola St., # 12, Honolulu, HI 96822]

represented by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam 1415 Pensacola Street., # 12 Honolulu, HI 96822 (808) 450−1166 PRO SE

V. Defendant Governor Neil Abercrombie Individually and Governor of the State of Hawaii
Defendant Clayton Hee Senator and Individually
Defendant Joseph Souki Representative and Individually
Defendant Donna Mercado Kim Senator and Individually
Defendant Karl Rhoads Representative and Individually

represented by John F. Molay Office of the Attorney General−State of Hawaii Civil Rights Litigation 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI 96813 586−1494 Fax: 587−3077 Email: john.f.molay@hawaii.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John F. Molay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John F. Molay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John F. Molay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John F. Molay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

Case: 1:13-cv-649 As of: 11/06/2017 07:04 AM HST 2 of 6

11/25/2013
11/25/2013 11/25/2013 11/25/2013 11/25/2013 11/25/2013 11/26/2013

1 COMPLAINT −− "Plaintiff's Motion for Judgement to Enjoin Senate Bill 1, HRS, Chapter 572, Equal Rights, Act Relating to Individuals of the Same Sex 11/13, 2013; Hawaii Marriage Equality Act 2013" against All Defendants filed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(emt, ) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
2 Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference for 09:00AM on 2/24/2014 before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG − Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 11/25/13. (Attachments: # 1 Memo from Clerk Re: Corporate Disclosure Statements)(emt, ) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
3 Filing fee: $ 400, receipt number HI010133 re 1 Complaint. (emt, ) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
4 Plaintiff's MOTION for Judgement to Enjoin Senate Bill 1, HRS, Chapter 572, Equal Rights, Act Relating to Individuals of the Same Sex 11/13/2013, Hawaii Marriage Equality Act 2013 − by Plaintiff C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam (emt, ) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
5 Plaintiff's MOTION for an Immediate Temporary Injunction on Senate Bill 1, HRS Chapter 572, Equal Rights, Act Relating to Individuals of the Same Sex, 11/13, 2013, Cease and Desist in Issuance of Marriage Licenses, 12/2/13; Certificate of Service − by Plaintiff C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam (emt, ) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
6 Plaintiff's DECLARATION Regarding Senate Bill 1, HRS, Chapter 572, Equal Rights Act, Relating to Individuals of the Same Sex re 1 , 4 , 5 − by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam. (emt, ) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
7 ORDER DISMISSING CASE; ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL PENDING MOTIONS re 1 , 4 , 5 − Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 11/26/13. "In case Amsterdam intended to assert violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment
rights under the United States Constitution, the court invites him to file a First Amended Complaint no later than December 24, 2013. If Amsterdam fails to timely amend his Complaint, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to David M. Louie, Attorney General for the State of Hawaii, 425 Queen Street, Honolulu, Hawaii
96813." (emt, )

11/27/2013 12/24/2013
12/24/2013 12/24/2013 12/24/2013 12/24/2013 12/24/2013 12/24/2013
12/24/2013 12/24/2013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Kaui C. Jochanan Amsterdam shall be served by first class mail at the address of record on November 27, 2013. A copy of this order shall be served to David M. Louie, Attorney General for the State of
Hawaii, at 425 Queen Street, Honolulu, HI 96813 on November 27, 2013. (Entered: 11/26/2013)
8 Summons Issued as to Neil Abercrombie, Clayton Hee, Donna Mercado Kim, Karl Rhoads, Joseph Souki. (emt, ) (Entered: 11/29/2013)
9 AMENDED COMPLAINT ; Plaintiff's Motion for Judgement to Enjoin Hawaii Marriage Equalit Act of 2013, 11/13/2013 against Neil Abercrombie, Clayton Hee, Donna Mercado Kim, Karl Rhoads, Joseph Souki − filed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam.(emt, ) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
10 Summons Issued as to Karl Rhoads. (emt, ) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
11 Summons Issued as to Donna Mercado Kim. (emt, ) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
12 Summons Issued as to Clayton Hee. (emt, ) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
13 Summons Issued as to Joseph Souki. (emt, ) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
14 Summons Issued as to Neil Abercrombie. (emt, ) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
15 Plaintiff's MOTION for an Immediate Temporary Injunction on the Hawaii Marriage Act of 2013, Cease and Desist in the Issuance of Marriage Licenses − by Plaintiff C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam (emt, ) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
16 MOTION for Judgement to Enjoin the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013 − by Plaintiff C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam (emt, ) (Entered: 12/26/2013)
17 Plaintiff's DECLARATION Regarding the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013 re 15 , 16 − by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam. (emt, ) (Entered: 12/26/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-649 As of: 11/06/2017 07:04 AM HST 3 of 6

12/26/2013

18 EO: re 15 MOTION for an Immediate Temporary Injunction on the Hawaii Marriage Act of 2012, Cease and Desist in the Issuance of Marriage Licenses, 16 MOTION for Judgement to Enjoin the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013. Plaintiff's Motion for an Immediate Temporary Injunction on the Hawaii Marriage Act of 2013, Cease and Desist in the Issuance of Marriage Licenses and Plaintiffs Motion for Judgement to Enjoin the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013will be considered by Judge Susan Oki Mollway as Non Hearing Motions. Memorandum in Opposition is due 1/10/2014. Reply Memorandum is due 1/27/2014. Plaintiff's Motion for an Immediate Temporary Injunction on the Hawaii Marriage Act of 2013, Cease and Desist in the Issuance of Marriage Licenses and Plaintiffs Motion for Judgement to Enjoin the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013will be taken under Advisement by Judge Susan Oki Mollway thereafter. (JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(wnn, )

12/27/2013 12/27/2013
12/27/2013
12/27/2013 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 12/30/2013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 12/26/2013)
19 REQUEST for Grammatical Corrections − by Plaintiff C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam (emt, ) (Entered: 12/27/2013)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by John F. Molay on behalf of Neil Abercrombie, Clayton Hee, Donna Mercado Kim, Karl Rhoads, Joseph Souki on behalf of Neil Abercrombie, Clayton Hee, Donna Mercado Kim, Karl Rhoads, Joseph Souki. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 12/27/2013)
21 Summons Returned Unexecuted by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam as to Karl Rhoads. (Attachments: # 1 copy of Amended Complaint, # 2 copy of Motion for Judgement, # 3 copy of Declaration, # 4 copy of Motion for Immediate Temporary Injunction)(emt, ) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
22 SUMMONS Returned Executed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam. Neil Abercrombie served on 12/27/2013, answer due 1/17/2014. (emt, ) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
23 SUMMONS Returned Executed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam. Clayton Hee served on 12/27/2013, answer due 1/17/2014. (emt, ) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
24 SUMMONS Returned Executed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam. Donna Mercado Kim served on 12/27/2013, answer due 1/17/2014. (emt, ) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
25 SUMMONS Returned Executed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam. Joseph Souki served on 12/27/2013, answer due 1/17/2014. (emt, ) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
26 EO: re 19 On 12/27/13, Plaintiff filed a Request for Grammatical Corrections. The Court hereby construes the Request as an errata. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )

01/10/2014
01/13/2014 01/14/2014

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 12/30/2013)
27 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 15 MOTION for an Immediate Temporary Injunction on the Hawaii Marriage Act of 2012, Cease and Desist in the Issuance of Marriage Licenses, 16 MOTION for Judgement to Enjoin the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013 filed by Neil Abercrombie, Clayton Hee, Donna Mercado Kim, Karl Rhoads, Joseph Souki. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Declaration of Brian Y. Horiuchi, # 3 Certification of Word Count, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Neil Abercrombie, Clayton Hee, Donna Mercado Kim, Karl Rhoads, Joseph Souki re 27 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, Amended Certificate of Service. (Molay, John) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
29 MOTION to Dismiss for failure to State a Claim , etc. and John F. Molay appearing for Defendants Neil Abercrombie, Clayton Hee, Donna Mercado Kim, Karl Rhoads, Joseph Souki (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, # 2

Case: 1:13-cv-649 As of: 11/06/2017 07:04 AM HST 4 of 6

01/15/2014
01/27/2014 02/14/2014 02/19/2014 02/19/2014
02/19/2014 02/24/2014 02/24/2014

Exhibit A, # 3 Certification of Word Count, # 4 Certificate of Service)(Molay, John) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
30 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 29 MOTION to Dismiss for failure to State a Claim , etc. and, 16 MOTION for Judgement to Enjoin the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013, 15 MOTION for an Immediate Temporary Injunction on the Hawaii Marriage Act of 2012, Cease and Desist in the Issuance of Marriage Licenses :. Motion Hearing set for 2/24/2014 09:00 AM before JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY. (tbf, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry. (Entered: 01/15/2014)
31 Plaintiff's REPLY Memorandum to Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for an Immediated Temporary Injunction on the Hawaii Marriage Act of 2013, Cease and Desist in the Issuance of Marriage Licenses and Plaintiff's Motion for Judgement to Enjoin the Hawaii Marriage Act of 2013, filed December 26, 2013; Defendant's Opposition Memorandum filed January 10, 2014; Certificate of Service re 15 , 16 − filed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam. (Although referenced in the caption, this document does not include a Certificate of Service) (emt, ) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
32 EO: At Defendant's request, Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set 2/24/14 shall be continued to 09:00AM on 3/28/2014 before JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference statements due: 3/21/14. Marnie with John F. Molay to notify all parties. (JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG)(sna, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 02/14/2014)
33 Plaintiff's Amended REPLY MEMORANDUM to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for an Immediate Temporary Injunction on the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013, Cease and Desist in the Issuance of Marriage Licenses and Plaintiff's Motion for Judgement to Enjoin the Hawaii Marriage Equlaity Act of 2013 filed December 26, 2013; Defendant's Oppositional Memorandum filed January 10, 2014; Certificate of Service re 15 , 16 − filed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam. (emt, ) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
34 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENY AS MOOT ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS 15 ; 16 ; 29 − Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 2/19/2014. " The court grants the State's motion to dismiss, and denies as moot all
other pending motions. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for Defendants and to close this
case." (emt, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam shall be served by first class mail at the address of
record on February 20, 2014. (Entered: 02/19/2014)
35 CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered on 2/19/2014 pursuant to 34 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENY AS MOOT ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS. (emt, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam shall be served by first class mail at the address of
record on February 20, 2014. (Entered: 02/19/2014)
36 REQUEST to Strike My Testimony from this Case (Declaration of Patricia O. Nakama) − by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam. (emt, ) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
37 EO: The "Request To Strike My Testimony From This Case" is denied, but Plaintiff's statements clarifying his earlier statements are included in the record in the form of the filing of his Request. (JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY)(tbf, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case: 1:13-cv-649 As of: 11/06/2017 07:04 AM HST 5 of 6

02/25/2014

Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry (Entered: 02/24/2014)
38 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 34 , 35 − by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam. Filing fee $ 505. 9CCA NO.14−15377 (emt, )

02/25/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014
03/07/2014 03/13/2014 08/04/2016 08/24/2016
10/24/2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class
mail on the date of this docket entry. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals served. Modified on 2/28/2014 (emt, ). (Entered: 02/25/2014)
39 USCA Appeal Fees received re 38 Notice of Appeal filed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam (emt, ) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
40 USCA Case Number 14−15377 for 38 Notice of Appeal filed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam. (emt, ) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
41 USCA TIME SCHEDULE ORDER as to 38 Notice of Appeal filed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam, 9CCA NO. 14−15377. (emt, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 02/28/2014)
42 Attorney/Pro Se Appeal Packet re 38 Notice of Appeal filed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam; 9CCA NO. 14−15377. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal, # 2 Instructions for Civil Cases, # 3 Additional Instructions for Transcript Designation and Ordering Form, # 4 Letter Re: Court Reporters, # 5 Transcript Designation and Ordering Form, # 6 Docket Sheet)(emt, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam served by first class mail at the address of record on
February 28, 2014. (Entered: 02/28/2014)
43 TRANSCRIPT Designation and Ordering Form by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam, 9CCA NO. 14−15377. (NO TRANSCRIPTS REQUESTED) (emt, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/12/2014: # 1 Mailing Documentation) (emt, ). (Entered: 03/12/2014)
44 Letter addressed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from the Clerks Office, dated March 13, 2014 −− Re: Forwarding "Statement of Issues" received from C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam on March 7, 2014. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of the Issues, # 2 Mailing Documentation) (emt, ) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
45 MEMORANDUM of USCA as to 38 Notice of Appeal (No. 14−15377) filed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam : AFFIRMED. (ecs, )No COS issued for this docket entry (Entered: 08/05/2016)
46 ORDER of USCA as to 38 Notice of Appeal filed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam, 9CCA NO. 14−15377:
"Amsterdam's motion for an extension of time to file a petition for rehearingis granted. Any petition for rehearing is due on September 6, 2016."
(emt, )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Parties served by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Entered: 08/25/2016)
47 ORDER of USCA as to 38 Notice of Appeal filed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam. 9CCA NO. 14−15377:
Rodney Iaea's motion for leave to file amicus curae brief is denied. Appellant's petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
(emt, )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Parties served by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Entered: 10/24/2016)

Case: 1:13-cv-649 As of: 11/06/2017 07:04 AM HST 6 of 6

11/02/2016

48 MANDATE of USCA as to 38 Notice of Appeal filed by C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam, 9CCA NO. 14−15377: "The judgment of this Court, entered August 04, 2016, takes effect this date. This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 4l(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure." (emt, )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Participants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e−mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam served by first class mail at the address of record on
November 2, 2016. (Entered: 11/02/2016)