American Samoa Airport Code

Which is the airport code for Pago Pago, American Samoa?

Which is the airport code for Pago Pago, American Samoa? If you ask: "What is the airport code for Pago Pago, American Samoa", we suppose you are referencing the three-digit airport code for the domestic airport in Pago Pago, American Samoa. In fact, the three-digit code's legal or more informal name is the International Air Transport Association Airport Code, or IATA Airport Code for short. A three-digit code is the International Air Transport Association Airport Code.

Pago Pago International Airport, Pago Pago, American Samoa, has an airport code of PPG. You can find out the airport code for Pago Pago, American Samoa, for many different reason. You may want to verify that your boarding card is accurate, that your baggage is properly marked at Pago Pago, American Samoa, or you may want to make it easy to enter the name of the airport in a form when shopping on-line.

When you need the airport code for another location, take a look at our What is the airport code page.

American-Samoa Bar Association

On October 28, 1957 in Fagatogo before MORROW, Chief Justice, MALEPEAI, Associate Judge, and FAUMUINA S., Temporary Associate Judge. Phoneti per se. Fagaima. Siania Punefu, lawyer for the Fagaima family. They are rebuilding the airport from Tafuna to Tutuila. As part of this rebuilding, the government has found that it needs certain plots of property in and at the airport to operate properly, as they are to be rebuilt.

We have no doubts that taking possession of such a property serves a common use. On 7 January 1957, the government initiated a study of these properties and then attempted to reach an understanding in accordance with 992 of the Code on their sale and purchase.

Since it was not possible to reach an accord on contradictory rights to title to the various properties, the government then took action under § 933 in the lack of an accord to purchase the properties. The Registrar has issued his certification in accordance with 993(h) for contradictory rights of title to the various plots of real estate to be purchased, which prevent an "amicable arrangement and remuneration of the real estate", and has applied to the court to "determine title to the real estate concerned".

Entitled parties to a package, however, are not usually the same as entitled parties to each other. Some plaintiffs also do not assert any claims to title to the property, but only to the plantation or furnishings. In our opinion, our obligation under 993(h) can be fulfilled most quickly if we provide proof of title to each individual package.

Pursuant to this opinion, on 28 October 1957 we provided proof of title to land 3, as shown in the poll, which was accepted as piece of proof "A". The court inspected property 3 in Tafuna three working nights before taking court custody in the company of the various plaintiffs.

Judge saw the country concerned, went around it, went through it at different places and watched its borders. The Fagaima lodged their complaint on the Fagaima family's name and claimed that Plot 3 was the family's municipal state. Punefu Siania's complaint on the Fagaima family's name had the same effect.

Fonoti claimed that Plot 3 was the common home country of the Fonotis. Fonoti witness witnessed that many years ago the Fonoti dynasty had a farm on plot 3; also a guesthouse and after the demolition of the guesthouse in 1916 a residential building that was used as a guesthouse for the then Fonoti-owner.

He is only 38 years old. Apparently, if there was a Fonoti guesthouse in the country that was demolished in 1916 (i.e. 41 years and 3 years before the birth of the Fonoti witness), the Fonoti testimony had no real information about it, but relied on myth.

As the court inspected the building before the trial, Fonoti tried to show the court the basement of the residence, which he alleged was used by the Fonoti as a guesthouse after the former guesthouse was demolished in 1916. Considering that an investigation of what Fonoti said was a trust, it was clear to the magistrates that it was not a trust but an authentic group of corals.

Then he asserted that the Navy had taken away the old bulldozer foundations when the initial Tafuna airport was built during the conflict, but that was obviously not the fact, because the heavier blacks of rock of lava above what he said were the foundations and what was not, were also taken away, but they were not.

An earthmover had obviously been used to construct a high road from which Fonoti asserted that the guesthouse was situated, but it was quite obvious that a earthmover had not been used in the place where Fonoti asserted that the old foundations were. The Fonoti also attested that the Fo[3ASR305]noti had plantations on plot 3 sometime in the past.

The 76 year old Gouulua, a member of the Fanene family who spent her whole lifetime living near plot 3, witnessed that the Fonoti never had any plantation or house on plot 3, but that the Fagaima had them. It was a testimony that was able to learn the reality about the occupation and use of plot 3 since it, as the Samoans say, "became old enough to know things".

For 70 years she has known the site 3, its use. There' s a pork barrier (now in a state of neglect, but which the court saw when it looked at the property) on Lot 3, which was undoubtedly used by the Fagaima, who currently have a farm on the plot.

Aifai, 57 years old and a member of the Fagaima dynasty, confirmed the statement of Gaulua, the evidence. In our view, the testimonies of these two old women (and we saw them and were struck by their openness) are much more important than the testimonies of Fonoti, whose testimonies are mainly rooted in his familial traditions, which are passed down only from generations to generations and are cumulatively erroneous at every repetition.

Fonoti, who is only 38 years old, had very little first-hand experience of what he said. As we have just said, he mainly depended on the familytradition, which is usually not very dependable. Aifai, whose own experience of Plot 3, its occupancy and use, 50 years in the case of Aifai and 70 years in the case of Aifai, are much more faithful witness to both the original and the further occupancy and use of Plot 3 as a fonoti.

It' s not without importance that Fonoti Vili is in Fogagogo and Fonoti Auega in Vaitogi. It is the ruling Samoan tradition to burial a chief[3ASR306] in the country that belongs to the name of the town to which his name belongs, not in another town.

Tafuna is added to the Fonoti name. Seigafo, Fonoti's testimony, said he borders some country on the country of Fonoti, about two mile from plot 3. This is however in Pavaiai, another town, and not Tafuna and is of no importance for the possession of property 3.

The Samoans bought their land by first occupation, combined with a right of possession. It is our belief that the proof s clearly outweigh the belief that the Fagaima tribe had taken the land 3 long before the conflict, had farms, homes and a pork barrier on it and was claiming it as Fagaima land.

It is this opinion of the gravity of the evidence that is reinforced by what we saw when we saw the country in the face of the plaintiffs before the hearings. The Fagaima tribe has no proof that they have been deprived of the Plot 3 status by applying the tenet of inconvenient property or by some kind of estrangement.

Accordingly, in accordance with 993(h) of the A.S. Code, the court finds that property 3, as shown on the measurement of Tafuna airport and some adjacent properties of 1.7.57 with the note "A" in this case, is the common home of the Fagaima von Tafunas. This plot 3 is described in particular as follows:

$00 are hereby set off against Fonoti, payable within 45 workingdays. After examining the evidence in the above case, it seems that the plaintiff's action was neither inconvenient nor reckless and that Fonoti did not inappropriately extend the period at the trial of his plaintiff:

According to the Governor of American Samoa's guideline (Reference GAS/1A on Series 755) to the Director of Budget and Finance of December 17, 1957, it is therefore ORDERED that the cost of $25. In the abovementioned proceedings on 20 November 1957, the plaintiff Fonoti was initially charged to the government instead of Fonoti.