As soon as the High Court published its decision in Opelle v. Kneubuhl (2006-2007), wherein it ordered that individual beneficiaries could sell their interests — but not the land itself — defendants began a continuing (ten year) effort to market, often surreptitiously, their claimed valid titles, mostly by using anonymous or misleading ads.  This section documents those attempts, beginning with a summary section for each of 7 attempts.  These are elaborated in detail individually, thereafter.  The court has since ruled in 2018 that all transfers were invalid.  Because the litigation continues in California, the individual files are pin access only for now.

Mark never planned to sell, but instead wanted to expand his land holdings and buy all the adjacent acreage, which offer they always declined.  Mark built three additional structures to lease or rent, and pitched new projects from outside investors, a power grid, a dialysis unit, a bed and breakfast, all despite  the residential rule and without clarification of the formality of legal title.  Defendants, weirdly, forgot acquiescence, and no one thought to review the years of caretaking he and his wife Via contributed to the others.  (see research section)

It was all a very disturbing “Wild, Wild West.” Potential buyers were confused as to what was being sold, and worse, who even owned it?  Buyers wanted legal title, not vague “interests.”

Rumor was that an Attorney General expressed interest, but Margaret put her foot down.  We know the Halecks pitched interest to Charles Alailima.  The Perelini Lutu Sanchez family was said to be interested.  Margaret was adamant none of the land could be sold, and planned to leave it to her children, despite any statutory requirements to the contrary.  After all, her grandson Cody was sufficiently Samoan to own the land.

Douglas, Jr.  found non-family buyers, but could never obtain majority approval to sell; all of this concluded when Trustee Langkilde resigned abruptly.   In 2012, with Roy Hall in charge, the daughters  became lead sellers of only one acre, to be sold jointly.  Oddly, Douglas went along with that.

Some believe the larger plan was to force forfeiture by forcing the family plaintiffs into court with his Memorandum.  He certainly emphasized forfeiture above everything else in the present litigation.  While the Judge called his arguments “spurious nonsense,”  everyone was made anxious, and plaintiffs very grateful for this decision.  Sadly, Douglas, Jr. died in 2015, and therefore without resolution of his 10 year effort.

Pending resolution of the California litigation, all but the last of these files are protected for now,  since they may be needed there.