Hawai‘i Law Professor Provides Clarity of Dispute on Mauna Kea to UH Board of Regents

Williamson_ChangTestimony of Williamson B.C. Chang, Professor of Law, April 16, 2015 at a meeting of the University of Hawai‘i Board of Regents, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo.

Honorable Board of Regents:

I have had the honor and pleasure to serve as a Professor of Law at the University of Hawai’i for the last 39 years. I have served the University and the community well. I am also grateful for the opportunity to serve and work in the University.

Let me start by saying this: I know a place, I know a country where there would never be a question whether to build an eighteen-story thirty meter telescope on the summit of Mauna Kea. That country, that nation is “Hawai’i.”

Before 1893, it would have been unthinkable that the Government of the Kingdom of Hawai’i would ever conceive of such a plan. Yes, Kalakaua loved astronomy. All Hawaiians loved the stars. However, they loved Mauna Kea even more. Mauna Kea is “sacred” it is the Sky-Father it is the essence, the beginning of the creation chant of the Hawaiian people. All Hawaiians, all Islands, even Taro are descendants of Mauna Kea.

Mauna_Kea_Telescopes

When I say “Mauna Kea” is sacred, I do not mean to use “sacred” the way most people use that term. I mean “sacred” not in the same sense of worship. I use “sacred” in the sense of “precious” and “so important that nothing else counts”—I apply it to those things and people that we care so much about that we would do anything, even flout and break the law, to preserve their existence.

The child of a parent, especially a young child is “sacred” in this sense. So are parents to their children. So are grandparents. Even the family pet is “sacred.” If your house was burning down would you risk your life to go into the burning house to rescue your children, your mother, your grandparents, even your beloved dog or cat? Would you go even if forbidden by first responders, firemen or policemen? Yes, many of us would go without hesitation–without thinking of the consequences. Would you give a kidney to save or extend the life of your child, your brother, your uncle? Would you spend all of your money to save a loved one from cancer? from Lou Gehrig’s disease or from a life in prison without parole? Yes, we all would.

Moreover, we praise such emotions and desires of others who make such sacrifices every day. We understand the soldier who sacrifices himself by instinctively jumping on a grenade. We understand the parent or grandparent who gives all their money to see their child or grandchild through college.

Whether one worships Mauna Kea or not, whether one considers it “sacred” does not matter as much as understanding the instincts that drive those to defend and save Mauna Kea—much as one would understand the absolute love for a child, or a parent even if such acts break the law.

When we see the instinct of family, of brotherhood, of sisterhood of love for mankind in others we celebrate that—we gravitate to that. We love and defend Mauna Kea because it reminds us what makes us human. Sacred is not necessarily a place. It is a relationship, a deep visceral relationship: beyond reason, beyond law, beyond rationality.

The Mauna Kea movement is a movement that has grown because of young people. They live in new confusing world themselves—a world of cognitive dissonance. That is they live within an outright contraction—a Hawaii in decline where there is nothing they can do. They see their world being attacked and destroyed, its water taken, its plants doused with foreign chemicals, its agricultural lands disappear in the name of gentlemen farmers, its open lands used for artillery practice, and its shoreline becoming high-end condominiums that only rich foreigners can afford.

Mauna Kea Protectors 1

Moreover, to the young, Hawaii is unlivable, there is no viable future: There are no places to rent, no jobs that fit their training, no money for retirement and the endless, life-sapping traffic congestion. And now an eighteen story telescope on Mauna Kea!

TMT telescope

It would never be built on other sacred sites: not over the Western Wall, the Dome of the Rock, Angor Wat, Gettysburg, Arlington, or the Arizona Memorial? No one would think of putting a pair of glasses on the eyes of God. Why then, Mauna Kea? We, and our youth are inundated today with the attacks on the treasures of the earth and why?

So, what happened to this “nation” called Hawai‘i, where Mauna Kea was loved and adored? Hawai‘i was a nation, that by a series of events, starting with an overthrow in 1893 and ending with annexation in 1900, by which another nation, the United States, forcefully took the sovereignty of Hawai‘i.

What do I mean by that?—to take one nation’s sovereignty? Sovereignty is the monopoly of a government on the legitimate use of violence.

By that I mean the State, the police and DLNR are the only ones today who can do so-called “legal” violence to Mauna Kea. Similarly, the police of Hawai‘i County and the officers DLNR are the only ones who can use the violence of arrest and jail or fine to force down the protectors of Mauna Kea. Protect the mountain and you go to jail. It is legal. It is called law. It is a power possessed only by the sovereign of a nation. There once was a time in Hawaii when that monopoly on the use of legal power protected not defiled Mauna Kea.

In 1893 and 1900 a new Nation took over in Hawai‘i—a new nation with new rules. These were new rules that had the power to interfere with our very human, emotions and instincts, instincts derived over time from our kupuna, our ancestors and the culture of this nation of Hawai‘i. Hawai‘i has changed.

Today, government has the legitimate power to do violence to families as well. Government agencies can take a child away from a parent. Government agencies can put a Hawaiian in prison for the smallest of offenses—denying him or her freedom and the chance to be with and raise their families. The world of Hawai‘i has been turned upside down.

The answer lies in power, that is law—the shift over their lives by which all is reversed.

In 1898 the United States, by Joint Resolution took the nation of Hawai‘i. I am a legal historian. In the appendix attached I show my work—that concludes definitively that the joint resolution had no such power. It was impotent, it was an act of Congress not a treaty. It could no more take Hawai‘i by a law then Hawai‘i by a law could take America.

It was a fraud—it created a disease that spread, a malaise we all suffer—called the myth of annexation. We all believe we are part of America, we all act as if that were true. We have been taught that way. We follow the lead of others who act that way.

The truth is that the joint resolution did not give to the United States the monopoly on the use of legitimate violence—a violence to build on Mauna Kea, the violence to arrest those who seek to stop that building. Most of all the University claims Mauna Kea by lease—a lease derived from the Joint Resolution.

It is said that the Joint Resolution gave Mauna Kea to the United States, which gave it to the State, which gave it to the University. As a matter of law that is false. It is a lie. The University has no power over Mauna Kea. It cannot build, it cannot give permits, it cannot arrest us.

The mass of young people are here today in protest because we live in a world of cognitive dissonance. They live in a world where they are learning, at the University about the truth of the Joint Resolution, which gives no power, no sovereignty to the state. Outside of their classes they see the State taking what they love—preventing them from running into the burning house to save their Mauna Kea, their father, their sky-father.

And this dissonance makes them ill. It makes our youth sick. It is a crisis that creates mental illness. In short, to build on Mauna Kea is to cast a sickness throughout these islands, a sickness and sadness, not only on Native Hawaiians but on all people who live here.

I have included an appendix, taken from my work, which speaks to the myth of annexation and demonstrates that the Joint Resolution had no capacity to take the Nation of Hawai‘i. I will place this testimony and my appendix on my “Scholar Space” at Hamilton Library, the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, under my name. This is the link to that site.

Mahalo and Mahalo Ke Akua.
Williamson Chang
Professor of Law

Reputable Swiss Newspaper NZZ Breaks Story on War Crimes in Hawai‘i

In its Sunday edition (April 19, 2015) on page 12, Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) a Swiss German language daily newspaper published in Zurich, broke the story of war crimes committed by the United States in Hawai‘i. NZZ has a reputation as a quality newspaper and as the Swiss newspaper of record, the newspaper is known for its detailed reports on international affairs, stock exchange, and the intellectual, in-depth style of its articles. Here is the English translation of the article.

Click here to download the article in NZZ Sunday newspaper.

NZZ_HI_Article

NZZ_Lili‘uokalaniThe authorities of the Federal Judiciary are confronted with a strange case, which has the potential of straining the relations between Switzerland and the USA. What is to be clarified is nothing less than the question of whether in the view of the [Swiss] Confederation Hawaii is recognized in accordance with international law as the 50th Federal State of the USA, or whether the Kingdom of Hawaii rather still exists – albeit since 1898 under occupation. Furthermore, it is to be determined whether the USA committed war crimes in Hawaii, including against Swiss residing there – and this possibly even with the assistance of the Swiss Joe Ackermann. It is indeed a delicate dossier, which since April 9 has been with the Federal Criminal Court in Bellinzona.

Coup against Lili‘uokalani

Specifically, the case is about the criminal complaints by a Swiss and a “Hawaiian Subject,” as the latter identifies himself in the documents. In petitions to the Office of the Swiss Federal Attorney General dating from January, these two accuse the US authorities of war crimes, including pillaging, unfair trials and unlawful detention. These are said to have taken place in the context of financial disputes in Hawaii – disputes which, however, are directly related to the question of Hawaii’s status in international law: Both plaintiffs hold the view that the Kingdom of Hawaii still exists, and that in consequence, the US authorities have no rights whatsoever in the archipelago. The Swiss, who by virtue of his nationality considers the Office of the Federal Attorney General to have jurisdiction in this case, is bringing action for unlawful appropriation of property as well as pillaging in form of taxation by the US tax authorities. The Hawaiian subject, on the other hand, sees himself as being cheated when purchasing a real property: The transaction at first followed US-American law and was notarized accordingly. But then the subject came to the conclusion that the USA was not authorized to do such official acts on the territory of the occupied Kingdom of Hawaii – in consequence he discontinued his interest payments to the lending bank.

Joe AckermannNZZ_AckermanAs former CEO of Deutsche Bank, the Swiss business leader was targeted by Hawaiian subjects

The bank in question was Deutsche Bank, which ordered the mortgaged property to be foreclosed, by US authorities of course. In this context the subject was temporarily arrested. At that time, Joe Ackermann was heading Deutsche Bank – a sufficient reason for the Hawaiian to make a criminal complaint against the Swiss banker to the Office of the Federal Attorney General in Berne. So much on the specific cases.

The matter might be dismissed as a legal frivolity by two odd characters, were it not for a larger movement standing behind it, a movement which has seriously been addressing the question of the continuity of the Kingdom of Hawaii for years. The prime mover is Keanu Sai, “a political scientist whose research and expertise centers on the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent and sovereign State,” as he states.

At the center of the debate are historical events: In 1893, the last Queen of Hawaii, Lili‘uokalani, was deposed in a coup d’état and in 1895 forced to abdicate (see box). Goal of the coup leaders – protected by US troops – was the annexation of Hawaii by the USA. The latter happened, effectively, in 1898, in connection with the Spanish-American war, when Hawaii gained strategic importance in the Pacific. The USA employed as a basis for the occupation a so-called “joint resolution,” a legal act jointly passed in the Senate and the Congress [sic] in Washington. The admittance to the United States as the 50th State happened only in 1959, after a plebiscite with a clear-cut result – by then, of course, the culture of the Hawaiian people had already been pushed back strongly by American and Asian immigrants.

For Sai and his colleagues, the unilateral American decisions are all null and void. A “joint resolution” of the legislature in Washington, such as the one of 1898, could be legally effective according to constitutional law only within the USA and could not be extended to another territory, such as the Kingdom of Hawaii. The Federal State of Hawaii of today, therefore, is seen as a direct successor to the Republic of Hawaii that was proclaimed by the coup leaders in the 1890s. Thus, it would have no legitimacy whatsoever under international law. Sai has placed his struggle for the Kingdom of Hawaii into courtrooms all over the world, including in Switzerland. Here he is now representing the two plaintiffs. His argument includes a friendship treaty between the [Swiss] Confederation and the Kingdom of Hawaii from 1864: The Treaty is said to have been never officially cancelled or replaced with another convention. The treaty obliges both parties to protect each other’s citizens – thus, it is argued, the Office of the Federal Attorney General must now prosecute the alleged war crimes of the USA in Hawaii.

Diplomatic Help

In Berne, sure enough, the situation is assessed differently: Pointing to the factual recognition of the USA in its present boundaries by the [Swiss] Federal Government, the prosecutor in charge decided not to accept the complaint. Berne, he argued, has no jurisdiction in the case. He included reference to the fact that Switzerland maintains a consulate in Hawaii – which is not without irony since, of all things, it is a long-serving diplomat who today is acting as a door-opener for Sai in Switzerland.

The dismissive decision of the Federal Attorney General’s Office was indeed unable to stop the Hawaiian independence fighter Sai: The latter appealed the decision – now the case is up to the judges in Bellinzona.

Swiss Federal Criminal Court Hears Case on War Crimes Committed by United States in Hawai‘i

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 19, 2015

Swiss Federal Criminal Court to Hear Appeal on War Crimes Committed by United States Officials and Deutsche Bank in the Hawaiian Islands

HONOLULU—A Swiss citizen and a Hawaiian subject from the Hawaiian Kingdom filed an appeal with the Swiss Federal Criminal Court Appeals Chamber in Bellinzona, Canton of Ticino, on April 1, 2015. The identity of the Hawaiian subject is Mr. Kale Kepekaio Gumapac, but the identity of the Swiss citizen is being kept confidential for safety reasons. Both appellants are residents of the Hawaiian Islands and are represented in these proceedings by Dr. David Keanu Sai through powers of attorney. Dr. Sai is a political scientist whose research and expertise centers on the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent and sovereign State.

“During the Spanish-American War in 1898, the United States has belligerently occupied the Hawaiian Kingdom being a neutral State,” says Dr. Sai. “As a result of the prolonged occupation of a neutral country, the United States is responsible for the commission of war crimes that have been committed for over a century on a monumental scale. The war crimes committed against the two appellants include pillaging, unfair trial, unlawful confinement and unlawful appropriation of property.”

The initial war crime complaint was filed with the Swiss Attorney General’s office in Bern on December 22, 2014 by Gumapac alleging war crimes have been committed against himself by Deutsche Bank for the pillaging of his home, whose Chief Executive Officer at the time was a Swiss citizen and resident of Zurich. Deutsche Bank’s pillaging of Gumapac’s home was carried out by State of Hawai‘i Deputy Sheriff Lieutenant Patrick Kawai, which also led to his unlawful arrest.

Click here to download war crimes report. The exhibits for Mr. Kale Gumapac identified in the war crimes report can be downloaded here: Exhibit #1, Exhibit #2, Exhibit #3, Exhibit #4, Exhibit #5, Exhibit #6, Exhibit #7, Exhibit #8, Exhibit #9-A, Exhibit #9-B, Exhibit #9-C.

The second complaint was filed with the Attorney General’s office on January 22, 2015 by the unnamed Swiss citizen alleging the war crimes of pillaging and unlawful appropriation of property under the guise of taxation that were committed against himself between 2006 and 2013 by the self-declared State of Hawai‘i and the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

“The State of Hawai‘i has no lawful authority in the Hawaiian Islands because Congress created it by a Congressional law in 1959, which has no effect outside of U.S. territory.” said Dr. Sai. “It is also a direct successor of the provisional government of 1893 and the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i of 1894, both of which the United States determined were self-declared. So a self-declared entity is not a government that can lawfully tax people, and the IRS can only tax their own citizens who reside in a foreign country. It can’t tax the entire population of a foreign country. This is a war crime.”

The complaints were given criminal case number SV.15.0101-MUA and assigned to Federal Prosecutor Andreas Muller of the Center of Competence of International Crimes, an agency of the Office of the Attorney General that is empowered to prosecute war crimes.

Prosecutor Muller officially notified Dr. Sai in a letter dated February 3, 2015 that he completed his criminal investigation into the alleged war crimes and concluded there are no war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Islands. Dr. Sai received the report (German) (English translation) on March 23, 2015. Both the Prosecutor’s notification and the report were in the German language. Prosecutor Muller stated to Dr. Sai that his decision could be appealed to the Swiss Criminal Court Appeals Chamber within 10 days after receiving the report.

In his report, Prosecutor Muller specifically cites the 1898 Congressional joint resolution of annexation as the means by which the Hawaiian Islands was annexed. He also stated that there was an agreement of annexation between the United States and the self-declared Republic of Hawai‘i. Prosecutor Muller further stated that Congress created the State of Hawai‘i in 1959 and that Switzerland officially recognizes that Hawai‘i is a part of the United States and maintains a Consulate in Honolulu.

However, according to Dr. Sai, there is a clear contradiction in the Prosecutor’s report. In the beginning of the report, Prosecutor Muller stated that Hawai‘i was officially recognized as being a part of the United States, but later he stated that the 1864 treaty between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Swiss Confederation was not cancelled. Article 13 of the treaty states that in order to terminate the treaty, either the Swiss government or the Hawaiian Kingdom government must notify the other in writing of its intention to terminate. There is no record that the Swiss government or the Hawaiian government provided any notice of termination.

“A treaty is a contract between States and in this case it is a contract between the Swiss State and the Hawaiian State,” said Dr. Sai. “A treaty is not a contract between governments because governments represent States and are not the States themselves. Should a government be illegally overthrown, as is the case for Hawai‘i, the contracting State, being the Hawaiian Kingdom, would still exist and therefore the treaty would still be in effect. When the Japanese and German governments were overthrown at the end of World War II, their treaties with other countries were not cancelled.”

Another way a treaty could be canceled under international law is where one of the contracting States ceded its sovereignty to another State by a treaty. This absorption of one of the contracting States into another State would have effectively replaced the former treaty with the treaty the absorbing State would have with the other contracting State. In other words, if the Hawaiian Kingdom were annexed by the United States under international law, then the United States-Swiss treaty would have replaced and therefore cancelled the Hawaiian-Swiss treaty. This is what occurred to the 1848 Hawaiian-Hamburg treaty and the 1854 Hawaiian-Bremen treaty when both of these States joined the German Empire in 1871. Both treaties were cancelled when Germany entered into a treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1879.

Dr. Sai said, “If the Prosecutor was convinced that a domestic law of the American Congress could annex a foreign State and terminate its existence under international law, he wouldn’t conclude in an official report that the Hawaiian-Swiss Treaty was not cancelled. He would have stated that the Hawaiian-Swiss treaty was cancelled and replaced by the United States-Swiss treaty. That was clearly not the case.”

Dr. Sai, who is a political scientist that specializes in international relations, said that it is proper diplomatic etiquette that governments must presume that other countries would not violate international law. This presumption, though, is rebuttable if there is convincing evidence that the country has violated international law. “So the Swiss government probably approached the American Embassy in the city of Bern and asked the United States how did it annex the Hawaiian Islands,” stated Dr. Sai. “And when the American government said they passed a law in Congress to annex Hawai‘i, the Swiss government would have to take it at face value and assume that under American law, Congress has the ability to annex a foreign country.”

Since Dr. Sai received the official report by the prosecutor on March 23, Swiss law would allow the appeal to be mailed from Hawai‘i no later than April 2. FedEx received the appeal in Honolulu on April 1 from Dr. Sai, and on April 8 it was delivered to the Swiss Criminal Court Appeals Chamber in the city of Bellinzona, Canton of Ticino. Dr. Sai received confirmation that the court is in receipt of the appeal and the case has been assigned reference no. BB.2015.36-37 (German) (English translation).

In a letter (German) (English translation) dated April 9, 2015, the Clerk of the Federal Criminal Court notified the Federal Prosecutor that the court is in receipt of the appeal and has requested the Prosecutor to furnish the Federal Criminal Court right away with the records in this matter with an index of the records.

“The appeal to the Swiss Criminal Court Appeals Chamber is the perfect forum to provide the rebuttable evidence that the United States has violated international law,” said Dr. Sai. “Our appeal centers on four points: first, United States Congressional laws are not a source of international law and therefore cannot annex a foreign country; second, there is no agreement between the United States and the self-declared Republic of Hawai‘i; third, Switzerland acknowledges the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as contracting State in the Hawaiian Swiss-Treaty; and, fourth, the United States cannot deny the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom because a criminal court of the so-called State of Hawai‘i recognized the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom by a ruling on evidence on March 5, 2015.”

###

CONTACT: Dr. David Keanu Sai
Phone: (808) 383-6100
Email: keanu.sai@gmail.com

War Crimes: TMT Told to Cease and Desist

Mauna Kea Illegal Occupation

On April 17, 2015 the following cease and desist letter was sent by Dexter Kaiama, legal counsel for Chase Kaho‘okahi Kanuha and Lanakila Mangauil, to Douglas Ing from the law firm Watanabe and Ing who is the legal counsel for TMT International Observatory, LLC. Kanuha and Mangauil are the leaders of the protectors of Mauna Kea.

The cease and desist letter was also sent to the Canadian Department of Justice, who investigates war crimes, the Prosecutor the International Criminal Court, the Board of Regent of the University of Hawai‘i, the State of Hawai‘i Board of Land and Natural Resources, the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, County of Hawai‘i Police Department.

******

TMT International Observatory, LLC,
by its attorney James Douglas Ing
First Hawaiian Center
999 Bishop Street, 23rd Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813

Re: WAR CRIMES CEASE & DESIST NOTIFICATION- Construction of 30-Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea

Dear Mr. Ing:

This law office represents Chase Kaho‘okahi Kanuha and Lanakila Mangauil, both being Hawaiian subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom with vested undivided rights in the lands as native tenants under Hawaiian law.

Your client, TMT International Observatory, LLC, is hereby directed to immediately cease and desist in the construction of a 30-meter telescope on the summit of Mauna Kea that is situated within the ahupua‘a of Ka‘ohe, district of Hamakua, Island of Hawai‘i, Hawaiian Kingdom. The ahupua‘a of Ka‘ohe is public land under the administration of the Minister of the Interior of the Hawaiian Kingdom under An Act Relating to the Lands of His Majesty the King and of the Government (1848). The Hawaiian Kingdom has been under an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States of America since August 12, 1898 during the Spanish-American War.

Under international law, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly is a war crime. The construction of permanent fixtures on public property that belongs to the Hawaiian Kingdom government is extensive destruction of that property.

On behalf of my clients, be advised that the construction of the 30-meter telescope is a war crime in violation of:

  • Article 56, Hague Convention, IV (1907), “All seizure of, destruction or willful damage done to institutions [dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property], historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings;”
  • Article 53, Geneva Convention, IV (1949), “Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or other public authorities, or to social or co-operative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations;” and
  • Article 147, Geneva Convention, IV (1949), “Grave breaches… shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: …extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”

The United States military’s omission of preventing the destruction of the public property of the Hawaiian Kingdom is also a war crime in violation of:

  • Article 55, Hague Convention, IV (1907), “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the [occupied] State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”

The Final Declaration adopted by the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993 urged all States to make every effort to, “Reaffirm and ensure respect for the rules of international humanitarian law applicable during armed conflicts protecting…the natural environment…against wanton destruction causing serious environmental damage.” In its advisory opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1996, the International Court of Justice stated, “States must take environmental considerations into account when assessing what is necessary and proportionate… Respect for the environment is one of the elements that go to assessing whether an action is in conformity with the principle of necessity.”

War crimes of destruction of real property on the summit of Mauna Kea belonging to the occupied State have been committed since the State of Hawai‘i leased 13,321.054 acres of the summit of Mauna Kea to the University of Hawai‘i in 1968. Thirteen telescopes have been constructed as permanent fixtures since 1970, and your client will make it fourteen. TMT International Observatory, LLC, has already committed the war crime of destruction of property when it began the construction of the 30-meter telescope by breaking ground, and has committed secondary war crimes of unlawful confinement (Article 147, Geneva Convention, IV) when 31 individuals who were preventing TMT International Observatory, LLC, from committing additional destruction.

The Hawaiian Islands was never an incorporated territory of the United States and is currently under an illegal and prolonged occupation. The Hawaiian Kingdom was recognized as an independent and sovereign State since November 28, 1843 by joint proclamation of Great Britain and France. As a result of the United States’ recognition of Hawaiian independence, the Hawaiian Kingdom entered into a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, Dec. 20th 1849 (9 U.S. Stat. 977); Treaty of Commercial Reciprocity, Jan. 13th 1875 (19 U.S. Stat. 625); Postal Convention Concerning Money Orders, Sep. 11th 1883 (23 U.S. Stat. 736); and a Supplementary Convention to the 1875 Treaty of Commercial Reciprocity, Dec. 6th 1884 (25 U.S. Stat. 1399).

The Hawaiian Kingdom also entered into treaties with Austria-Hungary, June 18, 1875; Belgium, Oct. 4, 1862; Bremen, March 27, 1854; Denmark, Oct. 19th 1846; France, July 17, 1839, March 26, 1846, Sep. 8, 1858; French Tahiti, Nov. 24, 1853; Germany, March 25, 1879; Great Britain, Nov. 13, 1836 and March 26, 1846; Great Britain’s New South Wales, March 10, 1874; Hamburg, Jan. 8, 1848; Italy, July 22, 1863; Japan, Aug. 19, 1871, Jan. 28, 1886; Netherlands, Oct. 16, 1862; Luxembourg, Oct. 16, 1862; Portugal, May 5, 1882; Russia, June 19, 1869; Samoa, March 20, 1887; Spain, Oct. 9, 1863; Sweden-Norway, April 5, 1855; and Switzerland, July 20, 1864.

Unable to procure a treaty of cession from the Hawaiian Kingdom government acquiring the Hawaiian Islands as required by international law, Congress enacted a Joint Resolution To provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, which was signed into law by President McKinley on July 7, 1898 during the Spanish-American War (30 U.S. Stat. 750) as a war measure. Congressional laws have no extraterritorial effect and are confined to United States territory.

The Hawaiian Kingdom came under military occupation on August 12, 1898 at the height of the Spanish-American War in order to reinforce and supply troops that have been occupying the Spanish colonies of Guam and the Philippines since May 1, 1898. Following the close of the Spanish-American War by the Treaty of Paris signed December 10, 1898 (30 U.S. Stat. 1754), U.S. troops remained in the Hawaiian Islands and continued its occupation to date in violation of international law.

U.S. War Department General Orders no. 101 (July 18, 1898) regulated U.S. troops when it began the occupation of the Hawaiian Islands on August 12, 1898. General Orders no. 101 mandated the Commander of U.S. troops to administer the laws of the occupied territory, being the civil and penal laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. This order was not complied with. Administration of the laws of the occupied State was codified by Article 43, 1899 Hague Convention, II (32 U.S. Stat. 1803), and then superseded by Article 43, 1907 Hague Convention, IV (36 U.S. Stat. 2227). On August 12, 1949, the United States signed and ratified the (IV) Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 (6 U.S.T. 3516, T.I.A.S No. 3365, 75 U.N.T.S. 287).

In direct violation of the 1899 Hague Convention, II, President McKinley signed into United States law An Act To provide a government for the Territory of Hawai‘i on April 30, 1900 (31 U.S. Stat. 141); and on March 18, 1959, President Eisenhower signed into United States law An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai‘i into the Union (73 U.S. Stat. 4) in direct violation of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV. These domestic laws have no extraterritorial effect and stand in direct violation of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, IV, international humanitarian law, and customary international law—jus cogens.

In an evidentiary ruling in State of Hawai‘i v. English (CR 14-1-0820) on March 5, 2015, where I served as defense counsel, the State of Hawai‘i Circuit Court took judicial notice of adjudicative facts that concluded the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, despite the illegal overthrow of its government by the United States of America on January 17, 1893 and the prolonged occupation since August 12, 1898. This ruling reaffirms the illegitimacy of the State of Hawai‘i and therefore its claim to be a de jure government is unfounded. State of Hawai‘i officials are also named in a pending criminal investigation for war crimes that is currently before the Swiss Federal Criminal Court Appeals Chamber under Gumapac, et al., vs. Office of the Federal Attorney General, reference no. BB.2015.36-37. A Hawaiian subject filed the first war crime complaint with the Swiss Attorney General on December 22, 2015 [2014],  and a Swiss citizen filed the second complaint on January 21, 2015. Both complaints allege State of Hawai‘i officials committed war crimes of unfair trial, pillaging, and unlawful appropriation of property.

Being a self-declared entity, the State of Hawai‘i was never lawfully vested with the freehold in fee-simple to the ahupua‘a of Ka‘ohe, and therefore its so-called general lease no. S-4191 to the University of Hawai‘i dated June 21, 1968 is null and void. Consequently, all 10 subleases from the University of Hawai‘i that extend to December 31, 2033 are null and void as well, to wit:

  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration dated November 29, 1974;
  • Canada-France-Hawai‘i Telescope Corporation dated December 18, 1975;
  • Science Research Council dated January 21, 1976;
  • California Institute of Technology dated December 20, 1983;
  • Science and Engineering Research Council dated February 10, 1984;
  • California Institute of Technology dated December 30, 1985;
  • Associated Universities, Inc., dated September 28, 1990;
  • National Astronomical Observatory of Japan dated June 5, 1992;
  • National Science Foundation dated September 26, 1994; and
  • Smithsonian Institution dated September 28, 1995.

Therefore, the proposed University of Hawai‘i sublease to TMT International Observatory, LLC, would also be considered null and void.

The funders for the construction of the 30-meter telescope who are not the principal partners are accomplices to the principal partners’ war crime of destruction of an occupied State’s property. On April 6, 2015, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the Canadian government’s intent to provide nearly $250 million dollars over the next decade to assist in the destruction. The Canadian government’s involvement would be a war crime as defined under Article 6(3) of Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000), which is similar to Switzerland’s legislation implementing the International Criminal Court Rome Statute into the Swiss Criminal Code in 2010. I will be providing a copy of this cease and desist to the Canadian Department of Justice, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Section.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Very truly yours,
DEXTER K. KA‘IAMA
Attorney-at-law

Encl. (hotlinks to e-documents)

cc:

Canadian Department of Justice
Prosecutor, International Criminal Court
Board of Regents, University of Hawai‘i, State of Hawai‘i
Board of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai‘i
Trustees, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, State of Hawai‘i
Police Department, Hawai‘i County, State of Hawai‘i

Enclosures

(Hotlinks to e-documents)

News Media Misses Real Story in Reporting on TMT Protest

The evidence debunking the fairy tale of Hawaii as the 50th State is conclusive but the news media ignores this.

Keokani MarcielAs a contributor who previously published this article in Civil Beat, Keokani Marciel has allowed this piece to be posted on this blog. He is a lifelong aloha ʻāina (Hawaiian patriot) and kanaka ʻōiwi (aboriginal Hawaiian) who holds a B.S. in Nutrition Science from the University of California at Davis, and an M.S. in Exercise Science from California University of Pennsylvania. In 2008, Keokani made a career change to mathematics education, and is currently studying to pass his second actuarial exam. With his background, he brings a quantitative and scientific emphasis to the discussion regarding the legal status of Hawaiʻi as an occupied nation-state. He has created the following link which lists the data and references used in this article goo.gl/d6Ra2B.

The largest newspaper in the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom marked the kickoff for the TMT blockade on March 26th with an online poll asking whether or not readers support the intervention. The final score at the end of this 24-hour poll was 53% in favor of the blockade and 47% against it. More than 4,600 votes were gathered by this self-selected survey. Although not a scientific poll, the sample size is significantly larger than average for this daily feature of the newspaper.

The arrest of 31 subjects and supporters of the Hawaiian Kingdom on April 2nd triggered international media attention. In the United States, most news organizations circulated the two reports from the Associated Press, both of which made sure to ommit the legal status of the Hawaiian Islands as a nation-state which remains under prolonged, illegal occupation since August 12, 1898. Consequently, most Americans remain under the mistaken impression that Hawaiʻi is annexed, as influenced by the systematic pasttime of Occupation denial and distortion uniformly practiced by corporate news media in the U.S. This phenomenon represents a deliberate refusal to look at the raw data regarding Hawaiian sovereignty, which has become common knowledge in the Occupied Kingdom.

Throughout its history, the United States has entered into a total of 9 treaties of cession over a period of 168 years (1783-1951). The first 6 of these 9 treaties annexed the territories from which all 49 states and Washington D.C. were admitted to the American Union, known as the United States, during the first 84 years of its history (1783-1867). The consistent adherence to this procedure by the U.S. represents customary international law. Furthermore, the two failed attempts to pass a treaty of cession in the U.S. Senate, in 1893 and 1897, clearly demonstrates the intent by the U.S. to maintain compliance with this international custom.

Hence, the joint resolution passed by U.S. Congress in 1898, used as a measure to seize Hawaiʻi during the Spanish-American War, was in violation of this self-evident pattern of customary international law. Consequently, Hawaiʻi came under U.S. occupation and not annexation. According to the laws of occupation, the U.S. was required to end its occupation of Hawaiʻi at the end of the Spanish-American War. Instead, the U.S. Occupation of Hawaiʻi, prolonged to the present day, is illegal. Additionally, it is the longest military occupation in modern history, which means there is no historical precedent to suggest that it is not near or passed its expiration date.

The feigned annexation of Hawaiʻi by joint resolution in 1898 was not the end of U.S. adherence to the customary international law of territorial annexation through bilateral treaty of cession. Merely 5 months after unilaterally seizing Hawaiʻi, the U.S. picked up where it left of by annexing Guam, Phillipines, and Puerto Rico through the 1898 Treaty of Paris. This was the 7th treaty of cession that the U.S. entered across a total of 115 years up to this point. The pattern continued such that the U.S. acquired a total of 6 territories by entering into 3 treaties of cession over a period of 61 years (1898-1951), following its seizure of Hawaiʻi by joint resolution.

American Sāmoa is the only other territory ever acquired by the U.S. through a joint resolution of U.S. Congress instead of a treaty of a cession ratified by at least two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. However, not for the same reason as Hawaiʻi. The Indian Appropriation Act of 1871 marked the end of treaties being entered into by the United States with Native American tribes. Furthermore, the Island of Palmas arbitration in 1925 established a legal precedent that a State can only enter into a treaty with another State, and not with a non-State tribal group. Since the territorial cessions of American Sāmoa to the United States, in 1900 and 1904, were by chiefs rather than States, this prevented the United States from using the treaty process reserved for the U.S. Senate. Consequently, a joint resolution of U.S. Congress was used to ratify these bilateral territorial cessions.

What makes Hawaiʻi different is that the U.S. Congress entered a joint resolution with a puppet government that it had installed in 1893, which did not have the consent of the people governed. Therefore, it was a unilateral seizure of territory by joint resolution, whereas the joint resolution annexing American Sāmoa was not due to an inability to obtain two-thirds approval of the U.S. Senate. In other words, American Sāmoa is legitimately annexed to the United States, albeit a non-self-governing territory according to the United Nations. This further isolates Hawaiʻi as the single historical anomaly of customary international law, unprecedented by comparison to the 57 states and territories legitimately ceded to the United States throughout its history.

The score bears repeating: 56 territories annexed by 9 treaties of cession, and the unique annexation of American Sāmoa, compared to Hawaiʻi being the lone territory seized by joint resolution—all in a span of 168 years. Hawaiʻi is chronologically sandwiched between 6 of these treaties of cession, along with the 50 territories they annexed prior to the Newlands Resolution, and the remaining 3 treaties of cession, along with the 6 territories they annexed plus American Sāmoa.

If one looks objectively at the raw data shown above, customary international law regarding territorial annexation by the United States becomes self-evident, and it logically follows that Hawaiʻi is occupied. However, alleged annexation of Hawaiʻi by congressional joint resolution is also in violation of the U.S. Constitution, which does not enumerate territorial annexation as a power of U.S. Congress. Instead, U.S. Congress only has the power to admit states from territory annexed by way of treaty, which in turn requires ratification by a supermajority of the U.S. Senate. Consequently, the Newlands Resolution of 1898, the Organic Act of 1900, and the Statehood Admission Act of 1959, are domestic laws that are constitutionally restricted to the borders of the entire 49 United States. Since occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive, Hawaiʻi is not inside of the United States. By analogy, hijacking an airplane does not transfer ownership title to the hijacker.

Additionally, 88 out of the 90 members of the U.S. Senate, of the 55th Congress, argued in 1898 that annexation of Hawaiʻi by joint resolution was unconstitutional (youtu.be/yC4v0k0wd0Y). Conversely, only two senators argued that annexation by joint resolution was constitutional. Therefore, for someone today to insist that the alleged annexation of Hawaiʻi by joint resolution is somehow constitutional, is to believe that 98% of the 55th U.S. Senate misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution in 1898, and therefore didn’t know what they were talking about.

When faced with the evidence, the world eventually accepted the reality that the Earth is spherical and that the planets in our solar system revolve around the sun. Likewise, now faced with the unequivocal evidence that Hawaiʻi is occupied and has never been annexed, people will have to let go of the longheld myth that Hawaiʻi is part of the United States. A nation-state taken over by another nation-state is either occupied or annexed, but cannot be both simultaneously. In summary, without a treaty of cession, Hawaiʻi is not annexed to the United States. Without annexation, Hawaiʻi was never admitted to the United States. Without admission, Hawaiʻi cannot be called a state of the United States. What you have instead in Hawaiʻi is an occupant government masquerading as a state.

The evidence debunking the fairy tale of Hawaiʻi as the “50th State” is so conclusive that it is logically only a matter of time before the paradigm shift completes its natural course. Furthermore, the cognitive dissonance that this involves is being accelerated on an unprecedented scale by the TMT standoff on Mauna Kea. Therefore, how much longer can the world continue looking the other way and pretend that Hawaiʻi is annexed—rather than occupied—by the United States? How much longer can the corporate news media—especially in the United States—continue this cover-up by omission?

International Law “Forbids” Construction of the 30-meter Telescope

TMT telescope

The position taken by Mauna Kea protectors that the building of the 30-meter telescope is a desecration of sacred land is firmly grounded in international law. Because the Hawaiian Kingdom has been under an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States since the Spanish-American War in 1898, the international laws of occupation apply to Hawai‘i’s situation and not United States law.

International law prohibits a neutral country from being occupied when two or more other countries are at war with each other. In other words, the United States was prohibited from occupying the Hawaiian Kingdom, being an internationally recognized neutral country since 1854, in its war against Spain in 1898. Despite the violation of international law, the laws of occupation mandates the occupier to temporarily administer the laws of the occupied State until the occupation comes to an end.

During the Spanish-American War the laws of war and occupation of countries were considered customary international law and in 1899, The Hague Conventions codified these laws into four treaties. In 1907, The Hague Conventions were revised into fifteen treaties. The United States ratified all of the Hague Conventions. The 1907 Hague Convention, IV—Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, applies to Hawai‘i’s occupation even if Hawai‘i is not a war with the United States.

Article 43 mandates the occupier “shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” In addition, Article 56 specifically protects “institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, [and] the arts and sciences. All seizure of, destruction or willful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.” The United States military considers violations of the provisions of the Hague Convention, IV, to be war crimes. Section 499 of the U.S. Army FM 27-10 states, “The term ‘war crime’ is the technical expression for a violation of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.”

Mauna Kea Protectors

The Mauna Kea protectors have generated worldwide awareness, much through social media, in order to prevent the building of a 30-meter telescope on the revered mountain in the Hawaiian Kingdom called Mauna Kea. Some are calling this the “Hawaiian Spring” that has similar traits to the “Arab Spring” where the younger generation in the Arab world was mobilized through social media to protest and demonstrate against undemocratic rule.

We Are Mauna Kea

The developers of this would be 18-story telescope is TMT International Observatory (TIO) that was formed in 2014. Presently TIO is a partnership of six international organizations—the California Institute of Technology (USA), the National Institutes of Natural Science (Japan), the National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Science (China), the Regents of the University of California (USA), the Association of Canadian Universities for Research in Astronomy (Canada), and the Indian Institute of Astrophysics (India).

The proposed development began in 2010. According to the TMT website, “TMT completed an Environmental Impact Statement, after 14 community meetings, and it was signed by the Governor of Hawaii. The Cultural Impact Statement, as key part of the document, included consultations with Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners. No groups or individuals challenged the contents or process of this important and required document.”

TMT also stated that in 2013, “the Kahu Ku Mauna Council, made up of local Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners approved the University of Hawaii granting a sublease to TMT to build on Mauna Kea. The University of Hawaii Board of Regents, after another public hearing, agreed.” The following year, “the Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources voted to approve the sublease for the TMT site.”

Mauna Kea is government land of the Hawaiian Kingdom and in 1848 it came under the administration of the Minister of the Interior under An Act Relating to the Lands of His Majesty the King and of the Government. The Act states, “And we do hereby appoint the Minister of the Interior and his successors in office, to direct, superintend, and dispose of said lands, as provided in the Act to organize the Executive Departments… Provided, however, that the Minister of the Interior and his successors in office shall have the power, upon the approval of the King in Privy Council, to dispose of the government lands to Hawaiian subjects, upon such other terms and conditions as to him and the King in Privy Council, may seem best for the promotion of agriculture, and the best interests of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” By an Act in 1854, the Hawaiian Legislature allowed foreign nationals to own property in the Kingdom, but subject to Hawaiian law.

On October 18, 1893, a Presidential investigation concluded that the United States diplomat assigned to the Hawaiian Kingdom, John Stevens, and Naval Captain Gilbert Wiltse were directly responsible for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government that occurred on January 17, 1893. On December 18, President Cleveland entered into an executive agreement to reinstate Queen Lili‘uokalani and her cabinet but due to political wrangling in the Congress, Cleveland was not able carry out the agreement. What was on the minds of the Congress was to secure the Hawaiian Islands as a military outpost in order to protect the American west coast from foreign invasion.

Unable to secure a treaty of annexation, the United States Congress unilaterally seized the Hawaiian Islands during the Spanish-American War under what a Senator called a war necessity. The United States claim to sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands relies on a congressional joint resolution of annexation that was signed into U.S. law by President McKinley on July 7, 1898. The underlying problem that congressmen at the time knew was that no law of Congress can have any force and effect beyond the borders of the United States. In other words, the United States could no more annex the Hawaiian Islands by passing a domestic law, than it could annex Canada today by passing a law. American diplomats and revisionist historians took measures to conceal this from the world. Today, the Hawaiian Islands serves as headquarters for the largest United States combatant unified command in the world called the U.S. Pacific Command, and 20% of the Hawaiian Islands come under the direct control of U.S. troops.

On January 17, 1893, U.S. forces seized the Hawaiian Kingdom government by illegally removing the Queen, as the chief executive officer, and her cabinet of ministers, and replaced them with insurgents. All other officials and employees in the executive and judicial branches of government were then forced to sign oaths of allegiance to the insurgents under threat by U.S. troops. This is called regime change.

The Hawaiian Kingdom government was renamed to the self-declared provisional government on January 17, 1893. On July 4, 1894, the same insurgents renamed themselves to be the Republic of Hawai‘i. By an Act of Congress on April 30, 1900, the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i was renamed the “Territory of Hawai‘i,” and by another Act of Congress on March 18, 1959, it was renamed the “State of Hawai‘i.” Interestingly, the Congress passed a joint resolution on November 23, 1993, apologizing for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, and specifically called the Republic of Hawai‘i “self-declared.” Self-declared means it wasn’t a government a lawful government. So if the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i was self-declared, then its successors are self-declared as well since the so-called Territorial and State of Hawai‘i government can claim no U.S. authority if Congressional laws have no effect beyond U.S. borders.

Simply said, the Hawaiian Kingdom government was carjacked and merely painted red, white and blue.

In light of this important historical and legal information, TIO cannot claim to have a valid lease from the States of Hawai‘i to build the 30-meter telescope if the State of Hawai‘i is self-declared. Only a U.S. military governor established under the laws of occupation and temporarily acting in the capacity of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Minister of the Interior could enter into a lease, but only after hearings and public input is gathered under Hawaiian Kingdom law and not the laws of the United States. The issue is not whether or not the 30-meter telescope should be built on Mauna Kea, but rather have Hawaiian laws been complied with that would allow or not allow the construction of the telescope. Should TIO disregard the law they would be prosecuted for war crimes.

UH Hilo & UH Hawai‘i Community College Student Walkout in Support of Mauna Kea Protectors

UH Hilo and HCC Student WalkoutCORRECTION: The Student walkout at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo and Hawai‘i Community College will take place at 12 noon, and not a 8:30. This is consistent with the Student walkouts at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Kapi‘olani Community College, Windward Community College, and University of Hawai‘i Maui College.

Press Release: Protectors of Mauna Kea Update Status

Mauna Kea, Kaʻohe, Hāmākua, Hawaiʻi
For Immediate Release
April 7, 2015

TMT SHUTDOWN

Protectors of Mauna Kea update the status of their encampment on the mountain

The protectors of Maunakea continue to camp out across the Maunakea Visitors Center at approximately 9,200 feet elevation night in and night out and will soon reach the two week mark of their encampment.  Although over 30 arrests were made on Thursday,  April 2 by the Hawaii County Police Department and the DOCARE officers of the DLNR, the protectors atop the mountain of Wākea, continue their stance against the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope and continue to build momentum and gain support.  One reason for the building of momentum and support, they say, is what they are calling the Kapu Aloha.  “Abiding by this is what has fueled and protected us in this movement,” says Lanakila Mangauil.  Mangauil says the Kapu Aloha is about conducting oneself with respect towards others, under any and all circumstances.  Over the weekend, hundreds of supporters ascended the mountain to join in the protection efforts, with many flying in from Maui, Molokaʻi, Oʻahu and Kauaʻi.  Although no construction has taken place since the day arrests were made, the protectors have kept a constant presence and plan to continue to do so while attempting to garner more support.

Protectors of the mountain have many reasons why they oppose the proposed construction of the TMT, one being that the mountain is considered sacred and perhaps the most sacred lands in all of Hawaiʻi.  The mountain is named after Wākea who mated with Papahānaumoku to birth Hawaiʻi Island.  The peak of the mountain is considered to be wao akua, or the realm of the gods, as it is the dwelling place of gods and goddesses such as Poliahu, Waiau, Lilinoe, Lihau, Kukahauula, Kahoupokane and Mooinanea.  Another reason for the opposition to the TMT is the fact that protectors feel that the TMT does not adhere to the developmental laws of conservation lands as determined by the State of Hawaiʻi and the mountain also contains many religious shrines as well as burial sites and sits on top of the largest aquifer on the island of Hawaiʻi and therefore they consider it to be desecration.  Lastly, the protectors realize and understand that even if the TMT was in compliance with the laws of developing on conservation lands, the State of Hawaiʻi is illegal and the Hawaiian Kingdom was never lawfully annexed by the United States of America and therefore continues to exits today according to International Law.  This stems from the fact that Americaʻs only claim to annexing Hawaiʻi is by Joint Resolution on July 7, 1898, which is really just a domestic law having no authority outside the boundaries of its territory, and Hawaiʻi clearly was not a part of the U.S in 1898 since it required annexation.  Because the State of Hawaiʻi is illegal, the protectors argue that every extension and branch of the State is therefore also illegal and due to this, all contracts between the contractors and the State of Hawaiʻi are void and illegal.  Protectors of the mountain call upon all countries involved to honor the continued independence of Hawaiʻi that America has refused to acknowledge for the last 122 years while illegally occupying Hawaiʻi in violation of the laws of occupation.

The protectors of the mountain know that there are many out there who have and continue to offer their support through donations of food, water, money and other necessities, and while appreciated, those atop the mountain humbly and respectfully ask that any attempts of raising funds and collecting and delivering donations be communicated first with the protectors  so as not to mismanage resources and cause confusion amongst the people in regards to what  certain funds and donations could be used for.  Kahoʻokahi Kanuha, one of the protectors and one who was arrested in the first group last Thursday, says “We canʻt thank everyone enough.  The amount of support we have received over the past week is absolutely unbelievable and simply amazing.  I am not quite sure our people have seen a movement like this in their lifetime and I think itʻs a testament to the fact that our people have been ignited and are ready to move forward and solidify ourselves once again throughout the world as a people and a country.”

###

For more information, contact:
1-808-494-0626 or 1-808-936-4249
tmtshutdown@gmail.com
Twitter: @tmtshutdown
#TMTshudown on Facebook, Instagram & Twitter
http://www.gofundme.com/maunakeaohana

Big Island Video News: Mauna Kea and the Occupied Hawaiian Kingdom

Talk story with Dr. David Keanu Sai and attorney Dexter Kaiama in Hilo concerning the international ramifications of the proposed Thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea, and the growing awareness of the continued existence of the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom.

by David Corrigan

HILO – Inspired by the kapu aloha on display during the blockade of the Thirty Meter Telescope, Hawaii residents are flocking to Mauna Kea. Last Thursday, 31 people were arrested in connection with the blockade of the $1.4 billion observatory. However, the incident only strengthened the support for the protectors of the sacred mountain. On Monday, two figures active on the international front lines of the Hawaiian Kingdom joined the gathering.

Big Island Video News interviewed Dr. David Keanu Sai and attorney Dexter Kaiama about the latest developments on Mauna Kea and the international response.

In 1994 a State of Hawai‘i Court asked “Does the Hawaiian Kingdom Continue to Exist?”

What many people may not know is that it was the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) in 1994 that established a landmark and precedent case where defendants have the burden to provide a factual or legal basis that would conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state when they are challenging the jurisdiction of the trial courts. This case is State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo. This has been an open legal question and not a political question that has been before the courts in Hawai‘i for the past twenty-one years. It was conclusively answered “yes” in another landmark case State of Hawai‘i v. English during an evidentiary hearing on March 5, 2015.

The Lorenzo case was in response to the United States Congressional apology for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893—U.S. Public Law 103-150. In 1993, the Congress admitted to the United States’ illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government, but it did not admit to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a state. A government is not a state in international law. A state is a sovereign country that is a member of the family of nations, while a government is the physical body that exercises the sovereign authority of the country. State and country are synonymous, and history shows that while governments were overthrown, it doesn’t mean that countries were overthrown. Examples include the overthrow of the Japanese government by the Allied countries in 1945 during World War II, the overthrow of the Kuwaiti government by Iraq in 1990 during the Gulf War, and the overthrow of the Iraqi government in 2003 by the United States during the Iraq War.

The Lorenzo case addressed this very issue of whether or not the Hawaiian state still exists despite the admitted illegal overthrow of its government in 1893. There has been a common misunderstanding that treats the overthrow of the Hawaiian government synonymous with the overthrow of the Hawaiian state. The Lorenzo case distinguishes the two and concluded that this is an open legal question. If the Hawaiian state continues to exist, then the State of Hawai‘i (USA) cannot legally exist in the Hawaiian Islands.

In 1991, Anthony Lorenzo was tried in the First Circuit Court after being indicted on criminal charges of failing to render assistance after being involved in an automobile accident, driving without a license, and negligent injury. A pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment was filed claiming that the State of Hawai‘i had no jurisdiction over him because the Hawaiian Kingdom still existed as a sovereign nation. The trial judge denied the motion to dismiss, which became the basis for the appeal to the ICA in 1994.

Walter HeenJudge Walter Heen, who authored the Lorenzo judgment, wrote, “The essence of the lower court’s decision is that even if, as Lorenzo contends, the 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom was illegal, that would not affect the court’s jurisdiction in this case. Although the court’s rationale is open to question in light of international law, the record indicates that the decision was correct because Lorenzo did not meet his burden of proving his defense of lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, we must affirm the judgment.” Judge Heen concluded, “it was incumbent on Defendant to present evidence supporting his claim. Lorenzo has presented no factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature. Consequently, his argument that he is subject solely to the Kingdom’s jurisdiction is without merit, and the lower court correctly exercised jurisdiction over him.”

In the ICA decision, Judge Heen provided the definition of a state as “an entity that has a defined territory and a permanent population, under the control of its own government, and that engages in, or has the capacity to engage in, formal relations with other such entities.” A careful reading of this definition clearly distinguishes the state from its government, where the “state” is “under the control of its own government.” The government is not the state.

Judge Heen also stated, “The illegal overthrow leaves open the question whether the present governance system should be recognized, even though the illegal overthrow predated the United Nations Charter.” The Lorenzo case put forth a legal question in both State of Hawai‘i and Federal Courts in the Hawaiian Islands, as well as bringing in international law. This legal question has profound consequences that centers on whether the Hawaiian Kingdom as a state exists or not. It is international law that will determine the existence of the Hawaiian state, and not the laws of the United States.

In the Nishitani v. Baker (1996), Judge Corrine Watanabe of the ICA stated, “In retrospect, our statement in Lorenzo that a criminal defendant has the burden of proving his or her defense of lack of jurisdiction may have generated some confusion. [Hawai‘i Revised Statutes] specifically provides that in a criminal case, a defendant may not be convicted unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt ‘facts establishing jurisdiction.’ The burden of proving jurisdiction thus clearly rests with the prosecution. However, where immunity claims are raised as a defense to jurisdiction, the burden is on the defendant to establish his or her immunity status.”

For the past twenty-one years, judges at the trial court level have consistently denied requests by defendants to dismiss either criminal or civil complaints filed in the State of Hawai‘i and Federal courts on the grounds that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. These judges have relied on the Lorenzo case to deny the requests. When these decisions are taken on appeal, the ICA has routinely upheld the judgments by citing the Lorenzo case, “Because the defendant had ‘presented no factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ we determined that the defendant had failed to meet his burden of proving his defense of lack of jurisdiction.”

The ICA cited the burden of the Lorenzo case was not met by the defendants in a total of forty-one appeals between 1994 and 2014, and the Hawai‘i Supreme Court during this same period cited the same failure of defendants to provide a “factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state” in six appeals. In total there have been forty-seven appeals that cited the landmark Lorenzo case that was decided on October 20, 1994. What isn’t accounted for, however, is how many trial courts denied defendants motions to dismiss that did not make it to an appeal.

In all of these cases that came before the State of Hawai‘i appellate courts, the defendants provided evidence of some sort, but the Lorenzo case required the defendants to provide evidence that is “conclusive,” and not just evidence. Conclusive is evidence that is “indisputable” between the prosecution or plaintiff and the defense. In order to overcome this hurdle of “indisputability,” which is a very high standard, the defendants need to have an evidentiary hearing where the rules of evidence are applied. It is in the evidentiary hearing that the defendants can introduce evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state according to the Lorenzo case. The prosecution or the plaintiff, however, cannot object to the evidence for the sake of objecting. They have to provide counter-evidence. If they object by providing counter-evidence then the evidence is considered “disputable,” and therefore would not meet the burden of the Lorenzo case where it has to be “indisputable” making the evidence “conclusive” that the Kingdom exists as a state.

One way to get the evidence to be recognized as “indisputable” and “conclusive” would be to have the court take “judicial notice” of the defendant’s evidence under Rules 201 and 202 of the Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence. Black’s Law Dictionary (p. 848, 6th ed. 1990) defines judicial notice as the “act by which a court recognizes the existence and truth of certain facts.” Under Rule 201 is judicial notice of “adjudicative facts,” and Rule 202 is judicial notice of laws. When Judge Cardoza took judicial notice of Dr. Keanu Sai’s legal brief titled, “The Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” at the request of the defense during the evidentiary hearing on March 5, 2015 in State v. English at the Second Circuit Court on the Island of Maui, it included both “adjudicative facts” and “laws.”

Throughout the evidentiary hearing, the prosecution did not object to Dr. Sai’s expert testimony that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state under international law, and it didn’t object to the Judge taking judicial notice of Dr. Sai’s brief that concludes the existence of the Hawaiian state. By not objecting during an evidentiary hearing, the prosecution was in agreement with the evidence being presented. What is extremely important during a criminal proceeding is the appearance of fairness and due process because the defendants are facing a judgment that could lead to imprisonment. In other words, the only way for the prosecution to object to the evidence presented by the defendants is that it must show counter evidence. Without counter evidence, the prosecution cannot object for the sake of objecting. To do so would be to violate the defendants’ right to a fair trial and due process.

State v. English is a landmark case, because the judge took judicial notice of adjudicative facts and laws that concludes the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state under international law. The evidentiary ruling made by Judge Cardoza during a fair evidentiary proceeding has “conclusively” determined that there is a “factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state.” In 21 years of case law (common law), the English case has finally and conclusively answered the legal question presented by Judge Heen in the Lorenzo case in 1994.

###

The forty-one cases heard by the ICA using the Lorenzo case are: State v. French, 77 Haw. 222, 228, 883 P.2d 644, 650 (1994); Nishitani v. Baker, 82 Hawai‘i 281, 289, 921 P.2d 1182, 1190 (1996); Chalon Int’l of Haw. v. Makuaole, 95 Haw. 243, 20 P.3d 676 (2000); State v. Sherman, 95 Haw. 243, 20 P.3d 676 (2000); State v. Joshua, Haw. App. LEXIS 247 (2001); State v. Moore, Haw. App. LEXIS 242 (2001); State v. Lindsey, 98 Haw. 142, 44 P.3d 293 (2002); State v. Miyahira, 98 Haw. 287, P.3d 754 (2002); State v. Keawemauhili, 101 Haw. 330, 76 P.3d 829 (2003); Makapono Partners, LLC v. Simeona, Haw. App. LEXIS 120 (2003); State v. Araujo, 103 Haw. 508, 83 P.3d 771 (2004); Betsill Bros. Constr., Inc. v. Akahi, Haw. App. LEXIS 218 (2004); State v. Keli‘ikoa, 105 Haw. 92, 93 P.3d 1199 (2004); State v. Fergerstrom, 106 Haw. 41, 101 P.3d 225 (2004); State v. Tanaka, 106 Haw. 246, 103 P.3d 406 (2004); State v. Spinney, 106 Haw. 389, 105 P.3d 266 (2005); State v. Ball, 113 Haw. 507, 155 P.3d 690 (2007); State v. Steffey, Haw. App. LEXIS (2008); State v. Nakatsu, Haw. App. LEXIS (2008); State v. Ampong, 120 Haw. 255, 203 P.3d 675 (2009); State v. Makekau, 121 Haw. 202, 216 P.3d 128 (2009); State v. Rodenhurst, Haw. App. LEXIS 588 (2010); State v. Craig-Rodenhurst, Haw. App. LEXIS 664 (2011); State v. Kaluau, 125 Haw. 251, 258 P.3d 948 (2011); RMS Residential Properties, LLC v. Valdez, 125 Haw. 475, 264 P.3d 53 (2011); Burgo v. State, 127 Haw. 240, 277 P.3d 334 (2012); State v. Au, 128 Haw. 476, 290 P.3d 546 (2012); State v. Kawa‘auhau, 128 Haw. 477, 290 P.3d 547 (2012); Federal National Mortgage Association v. Bise, 129 Haw. 268, 297 P.3d 1124 (2013); Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Armitage, 129 Haw. 295, 298 P.3d 1059 (2013); Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Griep, 129 Haw. 425, 301 P.3d 1266 (2013); Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Pa‘a, 130 Haw. 302, 309 P.3d 970 (2013); State v. Armitage, 129 Haw. 425, 301 P.3d 1266 (2013); Federal National Mortgage Association v. Duarte, 129 Haw. 452, 303 P.3d 1229 (2013); First Hawaiian Bank v. Kamakea, 129 Haw. 452, 303 P.3d 1229 (2013); The Bank of New York Mellon v. Velez, 129 Haw. 426, 301 P.3d 1267 (2013); U.S. Bank National Association v. Shim-Palama, 129 Haw. 427, 301 P.3d 1268 (2013); State v. Palama, 129 Haw. 428, 301 P.3d 1269 (2013); Federal National Mortgage Association v. Barros, 129 Haw. 449, 302 P.3d 717 (2013); State v. Kana‘ele, 132 Haw. 518, 323 P.3d 162 (2014); State v. Kanaka‘ole, 132 Haw. 518, 323 P.3d 162 (2014).

The six cases heard by the Supreme Court using the Lorenzo case are: State v. Lee, 90 Haw. 130, 976 P.2d 444 (1999); State v. Sinagoga, Haw. LEXIS 135 (2002); State v. Fergerstrom, Haw. LEXIS 254 (2004); State v. Rodenhurst, Haw. LEXIS 280 (2010); State v. Kaulia, 128 Haw. 479, 291 P.3d 377 (2013); State v. Armitage, 132 Haw. 36, 319 P.3d 1044 (2014).

State of Hawai‘i Judge Rules Hawaiian Kingdom Still Exists

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 27, 2015

Maui Circuit Court Judge takes Judicial Notice that the Hawaiian Kingdom still Exists and State of Hawai‘i Courts lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction

HONOLULU, HAWAI‘I—Today, Dexter K. Kaiama, attorney for Kaiula Kalawe English and Robin Wainuhea Dudoit, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Hawai’i Supreme Court in Honolulu seeking an order to compel Judge Joseph E. Cardoza to dismiss the Judge_Cardozacriminal cases against his clients because Judge Cardoza took judicial notice that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, which admits that the State of Hawai‘i did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the arrests and criminal proceedings. Judge Cardoza refused to dismiss the criminal complaints despite taking judicial notice that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.

Click here to download the Petition for Mandamus.

English and Dudoit were two of four Molokai fishermen alleged to have boarded another fishing boat from the island of O‘ahu off the coast of Molokai and threatening those on board. The Associated Press reported, “Some Molokai residents are hailing four arrested fishermen as heroes for protecting their island’s resources from outsiders.” Hanohano Na‘ehu said after the arraignment where all four fishermen pleaded not guilty, “This happening is a great way to highlight that people have been coming from different islands to Molokai to rape, pillage and raid our resources for the longest time.” He also stated, “For us on Molokai, these four individuals are heroes. All they were doing was protecting the resources for our families, for our communities, for our island.”

Dexter_KaiamaKaiama filed a motion to dismiss the criminal cases against his clients on February 6, 2015, and an evidentiary hearing was held in the Second Circuit Court in Wailuku, Island of Maui before Judge Cardoza on March 5. Kaiama’s motion to dismiss relied on the research and expertise of David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., a Hawai‘i political scientist, whose research is focused on the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent state. Included in Kaiama’s motion to dismiss was an extensive legal brief authored by Dr. Sai.

Kaiama’s motion to dismiss centered on two precedent cases from the Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo in 1994 and Nishitani v. Baker in 1996. These cases stated that if defendants are challenging the jurisdiction of the court by claiming the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist today as an independent state, they have a burden to provide “a factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state.” If defendants are successful in providing conclusive evidence, the trial court must dismiss the case.

The Lorenzo case came on the heels of the United States Congress passing a law in 1993 apologizing for the illegal overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States on January 17, 1893. In light of the admitted illegality by the United States, the ICA stated in the Lorenzo case, that the “illegal overthrow leaves open the question whether the present governance system should be recognized.”

Since 1994, this has been an open legal question and the Hawai‘i courts have repeatedly denied motions to dismiss because the defendants have failed to provide conclusive evidence of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a state under international law. These decisions have been routinely confirmed on appeal.

Dr. Keanu SaiAt the March 5 hearing on the island of Maui, Dr. Sai was acknowledged as an expert witness for the defense by Judge Cardoza without objection from the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Lloyd Phelps.

Click here to download the transcript of the Evidentiary hearing, which is Exhibit “4” of the Petition for Mandamus.

After being qualified as an expert witness, Kaiama asked, “Dr. Sai, based on all of your research, based on your background and your education and this specialty, you understand that on behalf of my clients I am bringing a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?” Dr. Sai responded, “Yes.”

Kaiama then asked, “Based on all of your research and your expertise in this area, Dr. Sai, have you reached any conclusions about this, and can you tell us what your conclusions are?” In response, Dr. Sai stated, “the Court would not have subject matter jurisdiction as a result of international law.”

Kaiama then followed up with, “And if you can explain or perhaps expand on that explanation and tell us why the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction in this case?” For the next thirty-five minutes Dr. Sai provided a historical and legal narrative that began when Great Britain and France jointly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent state on November 28, 1843, to the current situation of the Hawaiian Kingdom being occupied by the United States today since the Spanish-American War in 1898. Dr. Sai presented facts, law and other evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom as a state was never extinguished by the United States, and, therefore, by a principle known in international law as the presumption of continuity, the Kingdom still exists.

At no time did Deputy Prosecutor Phelps object to Dr. Sai’s expert testimony and when Judge Cardoza asked if the prosecution had any questions for Dr. Sai after Kaiama concluded his questions, Phelps stated, “Your Honor, the State has no questions of Dr. Sai. Thank you for his testimony. One Army officer to another, I appreciate your testimony.” Dr. Sai did state that he was a retired captain from the Army. Prosecutor Phelps served as a former Army Staff Judge Advocate officer.

After Dr. Sai’s testimony, Kaiama requested Judge Cardoza to take judicial notice of all the evidence of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence, which included Dr. Sai’s written brief. When Judge Cardoza asked, “What’s the prosecution’s position?” The prosecution responded, “No objection, your Honor.” Judge Cardoza then stated, “there being no objection, the Court will take judicial notice as requested.”

Click here to download the Dr. Sai’s legal brief titled “The Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” which is a part of Exhibit “1” of the Petition for Mandamus.

“Once judicial notice was taken of the evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state, it is considered indisputable and true,” according to Kaiama. “Judicial notice is a very significant ruling on evidence and when the court took judicial notice, it said that it is conclusive that the Hawaiian Kingdom exists,” said Kaiama. “And according to the precedent cases of State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo and Nishitani v. Baker, the trial court was compelled to dismiss the criminal cases against my clients.”

Williamson_Chang“This is the first time that a judge has taken judicial notice—meaning he has accepted under the Rules of Evidence, without protest, the whole set of findings that lead to the conclusion that the Hawaiian Kingdom exists,” said Williamson Chang, a senior law professor at the University of Hawai‘i Richardson School of Law. “This is groundbreaking.”

“The point is that judicial notice is a finding that acknowledges ‘the sun rises in the East,’—a judge cannot therefore, in his decision deny this fact he took notice of and say, ‘I find that the sun rises in the West,’” explained Professor Chang. “The Court’s acceptance of the offered facts under the doctrine of judicial notice and the Court’s decision to not grant the motions to dismiss are clearly at odds. As such, attorney Dexter Kaiama was required to file a petition for mandamus to compel the judge to correct his ruling.”

In the petition for mandamus, Kaiama called the decision by Judge Cardoza a violation of common law and Hawai‘i’s plain error doctrine. In the petition plain error is defined as seriously affecting “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, to serve the ends of justice, and to prevent the denial of fundamental rights.” The petition is seeking an order from the Hawai‘i Supreme Court directing Judge Cardoza to immediately dismiss the criminal complaints against his clients.

“The trial court cannot disregard twenty-one years of Hawai‘i case law,” said Kaiama. “In 1994, the Intermediate Court of Appeals provided keys to the door as to whether the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, and in 2015, with keys in hand, we unlocked and pushed wide open that door by conclusively proving the Hawaiian Kingdom does exist.”

###

CONTACT: Dexter K. Kaiama, Esquire
Phone: (808) 284-5675
Email: cdexk@hotmail.com