BURNS, C.J., FOLEY AND NAKAMURA, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY BURNS, C.J.
Defendant-Appellant Harry Fergerstrom (Fergerstrom) appeals from the December 13, 2002 Judgment entered in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit by Judge Greg K. Nakamura. We affirm.
I.
THE COMPLAINT
The complaint filed on May 21, 2002 by the Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai`i (the State) charged that, on February 9, 2002, Fergerstrom violated the following laws:
Count I: Driving Without a License, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-102(a) (1993);1
Count II: Operation of a Vehicle Without a Certificate of Inspection, HRS § 286-25 (1993);2
Count III: Delinquent Motor Vehicle Tax, HRS § 249-11 (1993);3 and
Count IV: Conditions of Operation and Registration of Motor Vehicles, HRS § 431:10C-104(a) (Supp. 2003).4
II.
On September 5, 2002, Fergerstrom filed "Defendant Harry Fergerstrom's Motion to Dismiss (First Amendment)" in which he argued, in relevant part, as follows:
7. Mr. Fergerstrom believes that to comply with these State regulations would compel him to recognize the legitimacy of the State of Hawai`i as a political entity, which he considers himself unable to do so long as the federal government refuses to recognize Hawaiian political sovereignty.
8. Mr. Fergerstrom's acts of political protests are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
9. There is no reasonably available lawful alternative to Mr. Fergerstrom's acts of political protests, which are responsive to an immediate, present and continuing threat to his Hawai`ian [sic] political sovereignty and which are designed to provide direct, legal challenge to the United States' continuing unlawful refusal to recognize Hawaiian political sovereignty.
On September 13, 2002, Fergerstrom filed a "Declaration of Harry Fergerstrom" in which he declared, in relevant part, as follows:
2. For 30 years, I have protested the United States' [sic] federal government's failure to recognize the political sovereignty of native Hawaiians in a variety of ways, including public demonstration, participation in education and outreach efforts to restore the constitutional monarchy of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, and acts of refusal to accept the legitimacy of the institutions established by the United States' [sic] federal government in Hawai`i, including establishment and maintenance of the State of Hawai`i. My commitment to acts of protest continued and strengthened after the apology resolution, U.S. Public Law 103-150.
3. I have declined to obtain a driver's license from the State of Hawai`i because the State is a political sub-entity of the United States federal government, which does not recognize the political sovereignty of Hawaiians. My refusal to obtain a license, pay a weight tax and safety inspection for vehicles I drive and my decision not to obtain State-mandated no-fault insurance are purely acts of political protest compelled by my religion. I am hiapo no koa o Puu Kohola Heiau, a spiritual warrior dedicated to the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I sincerely continue my religious practice which requires that I make pono [right]5 the illegalities of the past.
4. I chose these forms of protest because they would cause no harm to anyone. I believe that to comply with these State regulations would compel me to recognize the legitimacy of the State of Hawai`i as a political entity, which I am unable to do so long as the federal government refuses to recognize Hawaiian political sovereignty. I chose to do these acts instead of trespass or more violent acts because the public is not harmed. My acts of political protests are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, I request that this Court dismiss the charges against me on the basis of my First Amendment rights.
(Footnote added.)
On September 13, 2002, Fergerstrom filed a "Motion to Dismiss Based on Gross Violations of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." In Fergerstrom's words, the right violated was "[t]he right to equal protection under the law."
Fergerstrom's two pre-trial motions were heard on September 30, 2002 and October 1, 2002, and immediately prior to the commencement of the jury trial on October 7, 2002, the court entertained three motions in limine.
At the September 30, 2002 pre-trial hearing, the court heard the testimony of Eleanor Ahuna (Ahuna), Keoni Choy (Choy), and Fergerstrom. Ahuna testified, in relevant part, as follows:
THE COURT: Do you personally recognize Mr. Fergerstrom as a hiapo na koa [first born warrior]6?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: You do? Okay. You said that in order to become a hiapo na koa, he had to take an oath?
THE WITNESS: Yes, . . . he had to take an oath . . . with the group of people that were authorized to hold their authority to allow him to be a na koa, a hiapo na koa.
. . . .
THE COURT: . . . [I]s it your view that . . . someone who holds your religious beliefs . . . must drive without a license issued by the State of Hawaii?
. . . .
THE WITNESS: No, I don't think it's a must drive [sic] without a license. It's . . . just that . . . along with the, uh, na koa oath, they were given the freedom . . . to live according to the Hawaiian way, which was trying to get the Hawaiian kingdom back, trying to get their freedom back, which would mean that they would try their best to abide by what was before, uh, not having to have a license and not having to abide by the laws that were made after the kingdom was overthrown.
. . . .
THE COURT: . . . [M]y question had been what is your personal view about driving without a license
. . . .
THE WITNESS: I wouldn't do it but [Fergerstrom] is a different person.
. . . .
Q. Kupuna [a grandparent or a person of the grandparent's generation]7, in — in determining whether something is pono for an individual, is that accomplished through prayer and through a determination for oneself or is that something that is determined consistent with what other people have taught or what other people have said?
A. E hoo pono pono, the — the matter that needs to be resolved, uh, needs to be resolved by that person with the people. And if they cannot agree, there has to be a time to get together to see what is wrong there. What is wrong. And when a person has his own, uh, creed to live by and — and he refuses to agree, e hooponopono, as long as it's pono, we need to agree to what he's saying.
. . . .
A. What's happening is . . . the American law says that he has to have that license, and in his law that he lives by says no. In order to be pono, it is his kuleana [right or privilege]8 to make a decision and if he chooses not to do it, he . . . has to live by that.
. . . .
Q. Kupuna, are you familiar with the dress that Mr. Fergerstrom has on?
A. Ae, yes.
Q. And do you know what occasion such dress is worn for?
A. In . . . events where occasions where great, uh, decisions are made, this is the garments of the na koa that they stand up in judgment or in . . . preparing for anything that is pono. And this is something that they wear [because] this is to show your manhood, uh, the way that the Hawaiian people would dress was just the malo [a male's loincloth]9 and the kikepa [a tapa or sarong worn by women under one arm and over the shoulder of the opposite arm][.]10
That's all they wore. But . . . to put on that, uh, drape there . . . is a sign of respect to be in the presence of others that are higher than he is. Unless he comes as a warrior, he doesn't have to do that. He can come with only his malo.
(Footnotes added.)
Choy testified, in relevant part, as follows:
Q. Now, . . . do you understand what the obligations, if any, of a hiapo na koa are?
A. Ae.
Q. What are those obligations?
A. . . . [A] na koa is to protect and perpetuate . . . the culture.
Q. And how are those obligations accomplished?
A. Through actions to either challenge or to educate. To bring forward, uh, knowledge. To — to make sure that, uh, in case something happens to — for them to go in the lead and they have to form the way.
. . . .
Q. Do you yourself have a driver's license?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. . . . [A]ssume for the moment that Mr. Fergerstrom considers that he is spiritually and politically precluded from having or carrying a driver's license. That is something that he cannot do and be pono. How can you reconcile that with your own practice . . . ?
. . . .
THE WITNESS: A. As — as a hiapo, he's the point. He has to go out there first. It is his duty. He is also protecting us by being out there first.
. . . .
Q. How — how does it come that Mr. Fergerstrom is out in front?
A. Well, . . . actually he's ordered out under the direction of an alii [royalty or chief, male or female]11 to take point. Actually it's more than one alii. There's, uh, many of them he is taking direction from.
My orders are not to get arrested and not to do exactly the same challenges; that I am supposed to be the next wave.
. . . .
A. The duty of a na koa is to follow the orders of an alii.
. . . .
Q. You have any choice about whether to follow those?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. And do you know why there are different challenges for different individuals?
A. They don't always tell us, uh, the reasons why that the aliis have. . . .
Q. And do you know what the consequences are, if any, for a na koa not to follow or not to follow through on a challenge or accept a challenge?
A. Death.
Q. By what agent? How does death occur?
A. By an order from the alii. And if he was to be excluded from the alii like an outcast or something, we would be not able to survive.
Even if he were
...
