For the first time in its history, the United Nations General Assembly received a complaint from a Non-Member State of the United Nations. Today, August 14, 2025, the President of the UN General Assembly received the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Complaint of the United States of America’s unlawful and prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since January 17, 1893, and the commission of war crimes and human rights violations pursuant to Article 35(2) of the UN Charter. It has been the practice of States to submit formal complaints with the UN Security Council but not with the General Assembly. This is a first ever complaint to be received by the General Assembly under to Article 35(2).

Article 35(2) provides: “A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.”

While the Hawaiian Kingdom is a State under international law, it is a Non-Member State of the UN. While Switzerland is a State and a Member of the UN, it did not join the UN until 2002. Like Switzerland prior to 2002, the Hawaiian Kingdom is a Non-Member State. Article 35(2) addresses situations that endanger international peace and security. The 132-year American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the commission of war crimes, and the refusal of the State of Hawai‘i to transform into a Military Government meet this criterion.

Before the President can apply the UN procedure for complaints submitted by a Non-Member State under Article 35(2), he would need to first determine the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom, according to international law, to be a State who is not a Member of the UN. In anticipation of this query, Dr. David Keanu Sai, Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim, in his letter to His Excellency Philomon Yang, President of the UN General Assembly, that enclosed the Hawaiian Kingdom Complaint, stated:

In the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (1999-2001), I served as Lead Agent for the Council of Regency representing the Hawaiian Kingdom. As such, I was in communication with the Permanent Court’s Principal Legal Counsel, Ms. Bette Shifman, whose responsibility was to determine whether the Hawaiian Kingdom exists as a State in continuity since the nineteenth century. This determination was necessary for the purpose of establishing the Permanent Court’s institutional jurisdiction in accordance with Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Article 47 provides, “The jurisdiction of the Permanent Court may, within the conditions laid down in the regulations, be extended to disputes between non-Contracting Powers or between Contracting Powers and non-Contracting Powers, if the parties are agreed on recourse to this Tribunal.” State continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom is determined by the rules of customary international law.

Prior to the Permanent Court’s establishment of the arbitral tribunal on 9 June 2000, the Secretariat determined that the Hawaiian Kingdom had met the standing of a State and was thus, recognized as a non-Contracting Power. This fact is noted in Annex 2—Cases Conducted under the Auspices of the PCA or with the Cooperation of the International Bureau in the Permanent Court’s Annual Reports from 2000 to 2011. The Permanent Court also recognized the Council of Regency as the Hawaiian Kingdom’s government. I am enclosing a copy of Annex 2 from the 2011 Annual Report. It identifies Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom as the thirty-third case that came under the auspices of the Permanent Court. Since 2012, the Annual Reports no longer include Annex 2 because the Permanent Court’s website provides the list of cases, which includes Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, Case no. 1999-01.

Under civilian law, the juridical fact, of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a State, produced the legal effect for the Secretariat to perform the juridical act of accepting the dispute, under the auspices of the Permanent Court, by virtue of Article 47. According to Professor Lenzerini, this juridical act “may be compared—mutatis mutandis—to a juridical act of a domestic judge recognizing a juridical fact (e.g. filiation) which is productive of certain legal effects arising from it according to law.” Since State members of the Permanent Court’s Administrative Council furnishes all Contracting States with an Annual Report, this represents “State practice [that] covers an act or statement by…State[s] from which views can be inferred about international law,” and it “can also include omissions and silence on the part of States.”

Since the United States and all Contracting States did not object to the Secretariat’s juridical act of acknowledging the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a non-Contracting State, this reflects the practice of States—opinio juris. Furthermore, the Secretariat and the Administrative Council are treaty-based components of an intergovernmental organization comprised of representatives of States, and, therefore, “their practice is best regarded as the practice of States.” According to Professor Lenzerini, “it may be convincingly held that the PCA contracting parties actually agreed with the recognition of the juridical fact of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State carried out by the International Bureau.”

Of the one hundred ninety-three Member States of the United Nations, one hundred twenty-three of these States are also Member States of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, to wit:

Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, the People’s Republic of China, Peru, Philippines, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Türkiye, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. And Palestine, who is an Observer State, is also a Member State of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Hence, these States already recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State and the Council of Regency as its Government by virtue of their membership, as Contracting States, of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Of note Your Excellency, is that your country—Cameroon is not only a Successor State to the 1851 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Great Britain but also recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom and its Council of Regency as a Member State of the Permanent Court.

Minister Sai also brought to the attention of President Yang the identification of 154 Member States of the UN that currently have treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom by virtue of international law. Minister Sai states:

The successor States of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s treaty partners, were not aware at the time of their independence, that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to exist as a State, therefore, neither the newly independent States nor the Hawaiian Kingdom could declare “within a reasonable time after the attaining of independence, that the treaty is regarded as no longer in force between them.” Until there is a clarification of the successor States’ intentions, as to a common understanding with the Hawaiian Kingdom regarding the continuance in force of the Hawaiian treaty with their predecessor States, the Hawaiian Kingdom will presume the continuance in force of its treaties with the successor States. The majority of Member States of the United Nations are successor States to treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom.

This position, taken by the Hawaiian Kingdom, is consistent with the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties. Article 24 states:

1. A bilateral treaty which at the date of the succession of States was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates is considered as being in force between a newly independent State and the other State party when:
a. they expressly so agree; or
b. by reason of their conduct they are to be considered as having agreed.
2. A treaty considered as being in force under paragraph 1 applies in the relations between the newly independent State and the other State party from the date of the succession of States, unless a different intention appears from their agreement or is otherwise established.

Since successor States, which include Member States of the United Nations, were unaware of the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom at the time of their independence, and its treaties with their predecessor States, Article 24(1)(a) and (b) could not arise. Therefore, under customary international law, in the absence of an express agreement or an agreement by conduct, the Hawaiian Kingdom will presume that its treaties continue in force, for two years from the receipt of this communication, with the successor States. Here follows the list of successor States to Hawaiian Kingdom treaties:

• 1875 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Austro-Hungarian Empire—Austria and Hungary.

• 1862 Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Belgium—Burundi, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rwanda.

• 1857 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and France—Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Vanuatu, and Viet Nam.

• 1851 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Great Britain—Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

• 1863 Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Italy—Libya and Somalia.

• 1871 Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Japan—Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea.

• 1862 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Netherlands—Indonesia and Suriname.

• 1882 Treaty between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Portugal—Angola, Cabo Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, and Timor-Leste.

• 1869 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Russia—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

• 1863 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Spain—Cuba and Equatorial Guinea.

• 1852 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway—Norway and Sweden.

• 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States—Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Philippines.

The Hawaiian Kingdom has treaties with one hundred fifty-four Member States of the United Nations, of which fourteen treaties are with the original States, and one hundred forty treaties are with the successor States.

According to the UN complaint procedure, when the President of the General Assembly receives a formal complaint by a State, whether a Member of the UN or not, he will assess the complaint based on the rules of procedure and the established practices of the General Assembly. Because there is no practice to follow by the President, given this is the first time a complaint has been submitted to the General Assembly by a State under Article 35(2), he will have to be guided by what the Hawaiian Kingdom is seeking in its complaint.

The Hawaiian Kingdom is not seeking to resolve a dispute but is rather bringing to the attention of the General Assembly the situation in the Hawaiian Kingdom so that it can take certain actions to address the situation of an unlawful and prolonged occupation of a State under international law. What the Hawaiian Kingdom requests of the General Assembly is clearly stated in paragraph 2.3 of the Complaint.

The Hawaiian Kingdom herein files this Complaint as a Non-Member State, pursuant to Article 35(2) of the United Nations Charter, for the violation of treaties and international law and calls upon the United Nations General Assembly:

1. To ensure the United States of America complies with international humanitarian law and the law of occupation;

2. To ensure that the United States of America establishes a military government, by its State of Hawai‘i, to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom as it stood before the American invasion and unlawful seizure of the Hawaiian Government on 17 January 1893, and the provisional laws, proclaimed by the Council of Regency on 10 October 2014, that bring Hawaiian Kingdom laws to the current state; and

3. To ensure that all Member States of the United Nations shall not recognize as lawful the United States of America’s presence and authority within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, except for its temporary and limited authority vested under the law of occupation.

The Hawaiian Kingdom’s third request does not require collective action to be taken by the General Assembly. The individual Member States of the General Assembly would be obligated to take individual action themselves regarding the Hawaiian situation once they have been made aware of the Hawaiian situation by the Complaint.

Under Article 41(2) of the UN Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts committed by the United States against the Hawaiian Kingdom, “No State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach within the meaning of article 40, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation.” Article 40 provides, “This chapter applies to the international responsibility which is entailed by a serious breach by a State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law.”

Since the prolonged occupation and the commission of war crimes is a serious breach of peremptory norms of general international law, Article 41(2) is triggered once a State is made aware of the Hawaiian situation by the Complaint. As such, States are obligated to take individual action on the Hawaiian Kingdom’s third request to “not recognize as lawful the United States of America’s presence and authority within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, except for its temporary and limited authority vested under the law of occupation.” A General Assembly resolution is not required for a State to immediately act.

According to Minister Sai, “The contents of my letter to President Yang and the information provided in the complaint reflects the tedious work of the Council of Regency in carrying out its strategic plan to address the prolonged occupation of the country. The State of Hawai‘i now finds itself at a cross road to begin to comply with the law of occupation by establishing a Military Government according to the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan or face prosecution for war crimes. The State of Hawai‘i’s deliberate failure has not only provided the evidential basis for submitting the complaint as a Non-Member State of the United Nations, but to bring international attention to our situation.”

Minister Sai also stated, “Oxford University Press’ recent publication of my chapter “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire,” in the 2024 book Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age, has opened many doors for the Council of Regency that were not opened before. As the entire world is watching our history in Chief of War on Apple TV, they will now know our true history that followed those epic battles of Kamehameha I when we became a British Protectorate in 1794, Kamehameha’s consolidation of the island kingdoms into the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1810, transforming into a constitutional monarchy in 1840, becoming a sovereign and independent State in 1843, and its continued existence as a State under international law despite the prolonged American occupation since our country was invaded by U.S. Marines in 1893. To use the idiom for the filing of the UN Complaint, ‘We must strike when the iron is hot!'”

The duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government of Hawai‘i was thought to be Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner who was the most senior officer in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard as a consequence of the war crime by omission committed by Major General Kenneth Hara—War Criminal Report no. 24-0001, and down the chain of command, by Brigadier General Stephen Logan—War Criminal Report no. 24-0002, Colonel Wesley Kawakami—War Criminal Report no. 24-0003, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick Werner—War Criminal Report no. 24-0004, Lieutenant Colonel Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr.—War Criminal Report no. 24-0005, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs—War Criminal Report no. 24-0006, and Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis—War Criminal Report no. 24-0007.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry was recently made aware that there was a change of command ceremony on September 7, 2024, with Brigadier General Tyson Tahara becoming commander of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard. The previous commander was Brigadier General Stephen Logan who was serving as both the Deputy Adjutant General under MG Hara as well as commander of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard. The change of command occurred because BG Logan took command as the Adjutant General after MG Hara retired in October.

Today, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) notified, by letter, BG Tahara of his duty to establish a Military Government of Hawai‘i by November 28, 2024, or become the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission under the Army doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes. Because BG Logan committed the war crime by omission, the RCI stated to BG Tahara that he needs to immediately request of Lieutenant Colonel Phelps, who is the Staff Judge Advocate for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard, answers to the following two questions.

First question: Do I have a duty to assume command as Adjutant General under Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 2-11? If yes, then go to the second question. If no, give me a legal reason why I do not have this duty.

Second question: Do I have a duty to establish a military government Under DOD Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation? If yes, then begin the mission of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a military government by November 28, 2024. If no, give me a legal reason why I do not have this duty.

The civilian population of the Hawaiian Islands was not consulted by the United States when its troops invaded the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893. Nor were they consulted when U.S. troops illegally overthrew the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom the following day. And they were not consulted when the United States disregarded the law on the administration of occupied territories, which would create a legal vacuum under the law of occupation.

Now that we are at 131 years of an illegal occupation, the law of occupation still requires the United States, through its State of Hawai‘i Army National Guard, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. To do so, would not require the civilian population to be consulted because it is a consequential military duty when territory is occupied. To not do so would be, for the most senior officer in the Army National Guard, to commit the war crime by omission.

Despite not being consulted, under customary international law, there are rules, however, that establish a working relationship between U.S. military governance, the government of the occupied State, and the civilian population. According to U.S. Army doctrine and regulations, governance in occupied territory is by military government, which is the civilian government of the occupied State headed by a military governor. The highest ranking commander of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard would be the military governor that replaces the civilian governor. Paragraph 6-24, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27 under the heading Limitations of Occupation, states:

Military occupation of enemy territory involves a complex, trilateral set of legal relations between the Occupying Power, the temporarily ousted sovereign authority, and the inhabitants of the occupied territory. Military occupation does not transfer sovereignty to the Occupying Power, but simply gives the Occupying Power the right to govern the enemy territory temporarily.

Article 50 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention states, the “Occupying Power shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children,” and Article 56 states, to “the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory.”

Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations triggers the obligation of the occupant of the occupying State the functions of governance:

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter 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.

The law on the administration of occupied territories recognizes a dual managerial obligation under Article 43’s “restore and ensure,” with each having two distinct goals. On this, Professor Benvenisti, in his book The International Law of Occupation, explains:

The need to “restore” public order and civil life arises in the wake of hostilities that disrupt the previous order. The restoration process includes immediate acts needed to bring daily life as far as possible back to the previous state of affairs. The occupant’s discretion in this process is limited. It is the other term, the command “to ensure,” that poses some difficulties. At issue is the extent to which the occupant must adhere to the status quo ante bellum [the situation as it existed before the war]. This question becomes more pressing when the occupation is protracted.

Professor Benvenisti problematizes this second command “to ensure,” because when many occupants who implement this duty “often created a whole cycle of events: new policies brought about new outcomes, which in their turn necessitated multiple other social decisions, and so forth.” This concern is an outcome of a normal situation of occupation when the occupant governs after securing effective control of occupied territory. There is no disregard by the occupant of the legal order of the occupied State, and the occupant is treated more as a temporary trustee of the legal order until a treaty of peace comes into effect.

In the Hawaiian situation, however, these two commands for the occupant to perform its duties is upended by the fact that the United States disregarded the law on the administration of occupied territories by unlawfully imposing its own laws over Hawaiian territory that ruptured the status quo ante bellum of the Hawaiian Kingdom. These American laws in Hawaiian territory constitute the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, which the United States recognizes as a war crime since the First World War.

Consequently, the command “to restore public order and safety” becomes a significant problem for the occupant because the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom remain as they were on January 17, 1893. For the occupant to strictly adhere to this rule and administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, it would be impossible to “restore public and order and safety,” as intended by Article 43. In fact, it would create chaos. Further cementing this problem for the occupant, which is recognized by its own regulations, “Military occupation does not transfer sovereignty to the Occupying Power, but simply gives the Occupying Power the right to govern the enemy territory temporarily.”

For that reason, the occupant, without Hawaiian sovereignty, cannot create law for the Hawaiian Kingdom as the occupied State, but it could create policies stemming from the existing laws of the occupied State that existed prior to the occupation. However, the Council of Regency, as the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, does have the authority to provisionally legislate. As concluded by Professor Lenzerini, in his legal opinion:

Under international humanitarian law, the proclamations of the Council of Regency—including the Proclamation recognizing the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties as the administration  of the occupying State on 3 June 2019—have on the civilian population the effect of domestic legislation aimed at protecting their rights and prerogatives, which should be, to the extent possible, respected and implemented by the occupying power.

“During the occupation,” according to Professor Benvenisti, “the ousted government would often attempt to influence life in the occupied area out of concern for its nationals, to undermine the occupant’s authority or both. One way to accomplish such goals is to legislate for the occupied population.” Furthermore, he states the “occupant should give effect to the sovereign’s new legislation as long as it addresses those issues in which the occupant has no power to amend the local laws, most notably in matters of personal status.”

On October 10, 2014, the Council of Regency, in order to fill the vacuum or empty space of Hawaiian law since 1893, proclaimed:

All laws that have emanated from an unlawful legislature since the insurrection began on July 6, 1887 to the present, to include United States legislation, shall be the provisional laws of the Realm subject to ratification by the Legislative Assembly of the Hawaiian Kingdom once assembled, with the express proviso that these provisional laws do not run contrary to the express, reason and spirit of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to July 6, 1887, the international laws of occupation and international humanitarian law, and if it be the case they shall be regarded as invalid and void.

Therefore, in order for the occupant to fully comply with Article 43—to restore and ensure public order and safety of the civilian population, it must have a working relationship with the Council of Regency that international humanitarian law provides for. On this working relationship, Professor Lenzerini concluded:

The working relationship between the Regency and the administration of the occupying State should have the form of a cooperative relationship aimed at guaranteeing the realization of the rights and interests of the civilian population and the correct administration of the occupied territory, provided that there are no objective obstacles for the occupying power to cooperate and that, in any event, the “supreme” decision-making power belongs to the occupying power itself. This conclusion is consistent with the position of the latter as “administrator” of the Hawaiian territory, as stated in the Council of Regency’s Proclamation recognizing the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties as the administration of the occupying State of 3 June 2019 and presupposed by the pertinent rules of international humanitarian law.

The Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government takes all of this into consideration that will align the provisional laws to the status quo ante bellum of the Hawaiian Kingdom so that the occupant can “restore and ensure public order and safety” of the civilian population.

Today, November 18, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps regarding his duty as the Hawai‘i Army National Guard’s Staff Judge Advocate to advise Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner of his duty to establish a military government no later than November 28, 2024, in order to put a stop to the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty and the secondary war crimes that are consequently triggered upon the population of the Hawaiian Islands. If LTC Phelps fails to advise and LTC Rosner fails to establish a military government, the Royal Commission of Inquiry will consider his conduct as an accessory to LTC Rosner’s war crime by omission under the Army doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes. Here is a link to the letter.

In my last communication to you, by letter dated June 22, 2024, I recommended you advise senior military leadership not to take my communications with them lightly. These communications concerned the interference of State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez with Major General Hara’s military duty to establish a military government in accordance with U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation. It appears senior military leadership did not take my communications with them seriously. This misguided attitude led them to commit the war crime by omission under the Army doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes.

Senior military leadership’s war crimes by omission include Major General Kenneth Hara—War Criminal Report no. 24-0001, Brigadier General Stephen Logan—War Criminal Report no. 24-0002, Colonel Wesley Kawakami—War Criminal Report no. 24-0003, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick Werner—War Criminal Report no. 24-0004, Lieutenant Colonel Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr.—War Criminal Report no. 24-0005, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs—War Criminal Report no. 24-0006, and Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis—War Criminal Report no. 24-0007.

As a result, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner, Executive Officer of the 29th Infantry Brigade, became the most senior officer in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard. In my letter dated November 11, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry notified LTC Rosner that he has until November 28, 2024, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government. Failure to do so will render him a war criminal by omission under the Army doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes.

Customary international law is the determining factor that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a sovereign and independent State. As a source of international law, academic scholars explain the applicable rules of customary international law on a particular subject. Therefore, the continuity of Hawaiian Statehood under customary international law was explained in two legal opinions, one by Professor Matthew Craven and the other by Professor Federico Lenzerini. In addition, war crimes that are being committed, by the imposition of American municipal laws over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, is also a matter of customary international law. This fact is explained by the legal opinion of Professor William Schabas. The continuity of Hawaiian Statehood and the commission of war crimes throughout the Hawaiian Islands is uncontested by the United States and the State of Hawai‘i.

As the most senior legal advisor in the Army National Guard, unless you discover a rule of customary international law that concludes the Hawaiian Kingdom was extinguished as a State under international law by the United States, you are duty bound to advise commanders of their duties and responsibilities under U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation. As such, I am enclosing an article written by JAG officer Major Michael Winn titled “Command Responsibility for Subordinates’ War Crimes: A Twenty-First Century Primer” published in Army Lawyer.

Moreover, in my latest letter to LTC Rosner I recommended that he immediately request of you an answer to the following two questions.

First question: Do I have a duty to assume command of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard under Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 2-11? If yes, then go to the second question. If no, give me a legal reason why I do not have this duty.

Second question: Do I have a duty to establish a military government Under DOD Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation? If yes, then begin the mission of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a military government by November 28, 2024. If no, give me a legal reason why I do not have this duty.

If LTC Rosner has not requested of you answers to these questions, then I am recommending you provide answers to him, as a matter of command responsibility, since the November 28, 2024, deadline is fast approaching. Should you fail to do so and LTC Rosner neglects to establish a military government, thereby, committing the war crime by omission, then the Royal Commission of Inquiry will view your conduct as an accessory by aiding in the commission of this war crime.

Since 2015, you were made aware of the continuity of Hawaiian Statehood and the commission of war crimes when you were the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Maui in State of Hawai‘i v. English et al., criminal no. 14-1-0819. This case was brought before Judge Joseph P. Cardoza of the Second Circuit Court and I served as an expert witness, for the defense, at an evidentiary hearing on March 5, 2015. The purpose for the evidentiary hearing was to meet the burden of proof, established by the Intermediate Court of Appeals in State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo for defendants who are contesting the subject matter jurisdiction of the court because of the unlawful overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, must provide a “factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.” My expert testimony served to answer this in the affirmative.

In my testimony, I provided the factual circumstances of the United States military occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws as to the reason why the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The court’s authority extends from the 1959 Statehood Act passed by the Congress, which has no extra-territorial effect. I stated that for the Court to proceed it would violate “Article 147 [1949 Fourth Geneva Convention], unfair trial [as] a grave breach, which is considered a war crime.” When asked by Judge Cordoza, “Any cross-examination?” You responded, “Your Honor, the State has no questions of Dr. Sai. Thank you for his testimony. One Army officer to another, I appreciate your testimony.” I am enclosing the transcript of my testimony so that LTC Rosner is aware of the severity of this situation.

As you know, I have ten years of service in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard as a field artillery officer so I am well aware of Army regulations and the role of a JAG. The State of Hawai‘i is at a critical juncture as it comes face to face with customary international law and its only recourse to transform itself into a military government. Your role as a legal advisor to LTC Rosner is critical. I am hopeful that you and LTC Rosner perform your affirmative duties and responsibilities to carry out the Army mission of military government without further delay.

In closing, I am also enclosing my recent law article “The Sweeping Effect of Hawaiian Sovereignty and the Necessity of Military Government to Curb the Chaos” that was published by the Hawaiian Journal of Law & Politics.

A particular rule of international humanitarian law addresses what an occupied State can do if the occupying State is violating international law by committing war crimes. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (FM 27-10), under the heading Remedies for Violation of International Law; War Crimes, paragraph 495 states:

In the event of violation of the law of war, the injured party may legally resort to remedial action of the following types:

a. Publication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending belligerent.

b. Protest and demand for compensation and/or punishment of the individual offenders. Such communications may be sent through the protecting power, a humanitarian organization performing the duties of a protecting power, or a neutral state, or by parlementaire direct to the commander of the offending forces. Article 3, H. IV, provides in this respect:

A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.

c. Solicitation of the good offices, mediation, or intervention of neutral States for the purpose of making the enemy observe the law of war. See Articles 11, GWS; 11, GWS Sea; 11, GPW; 12, GC (par. 19), concerning conciliation procedure through the protecting powers.

d. Punishment of captured offenders as war criminals.

e. Reprisals.

After returning from international arbitration proceedings in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in December of 2000, the Council of Regency chose ‘Publication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending belligerent.’ Dr. Keanu Sai is Chairman of the Regency and his publications focus on the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under customary international law and the ramifications of war crimes and human rights violations that have occurred by the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, which is the unlawful imposition of American laws and administrative measures over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State.

In volume 6 of the Hawaiian Journal of Law & Politics, Dr. Keanu Sai authored his most recent article titled “The Sweeping Effect of Hawaiian State Sovereignty and the Necessity of Military Government to Curb the Chaos,” in line with the international rule ‘Publication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending belligerent.’ Dr. Sai has ten years of service as a field artillery officer in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard and is very familiar with U.S. Army regulations such as FM 27-10.

Here is a link to download Dr. Sai’s latest article. In the article’s introduction, Dr. Sai states:

We are now at 131 years of an American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. There are two periods since the occupation began on 17 January 1893. The first period was when the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom was effectively obliterated in the minds of the population. The second period was when the government was restored as a Regency in 1997 up until the present where the national consciousness had begun to be restored. Underlying the first and second periods, however, was the non-compliance with the law of occupation under international humanitarian law, which the military calls the law of armed conflict. So, while the national consciousness in the minds of the population has begun to change, the United States and its proxy, the State of Hawai‘i, has not changed in its unlawful authority.

If the American military in Hawai‘i complied with the international law of occupation when Queen Lili‘uokalani conditionally surrendered to the United States in 1893, the occupation would not have lasted 131 years. Consequently, everything since 1893 that derives from American authority, that would otherwise be valid within the territory of the United States, is invalid and void in Hawaiian territory because the United States has not been vested with Hawaiian sovereignty by a treaty. The only way to bring order to this calamity is by establishing a military government of Hawai‘i where the American military governor has centralized command and control allowable under the law of occupation.

This article will explain the role and function of a military government that presides over occupied territory of a State under international law. And that it is only by a military government that remedial steps can be taken, considering 131 years of illegality, that has consequently placed the entire population of the occupied State in a dire situation where their possessions and rights have evaporated because of the United States unlawful conduct and actions under the law of occupation. Despite the deliberate failure to establish a military government, international law and American military law still obliges the occupant to do so that will eventually bring the American occupation to an end by a treaty of peace between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States.

In this situation, the establishment of a Military Government of Hawai‘i will have to deal the headwinds of chaos that began when the American occupation was initiated on January 17, 1893, after Queen Lili‘uokalani conditionally surrendered to U.S. troops. Why did the chaos begin on this day is because everything that was done by the United States within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom since then was illegal under international law. This is not a political statement, but rather according to the rules of customary international law, which the United States and every other State is bound by. Under his heading The Sweeping Effect of State Sovereignty During a Prolonged Occupation in his article, Dr. Sai writes:

The bedrock of international law is the sovereignty of an independent State. Sovereignty is defined as the “supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed.” For the purposes of international law, Wheaton explains:

Sovereignty is the supreme power by which any State is governed. This supreme power may be exercised either internally or externally. Internal sovereignty is that which is inherent in the people or any State, or vested in its ruler, by its municipal constitution or fundamental laws. This is the object of what has been called internal public law […], but which may be more properly be termed constitutional law. External sovereignty consists in the independence of one political society, in respect to all other political societies. It is by the exercise of this branch of sovereignty that the international relations of one political society are maintained, in peace and in war, with all other political societies. The law by which it is regulated has, therefore, been called external public law […], but may more properly be termed international law.

In the Island of Palmas arbitration, which was a dispute between the United States and the Netherlands, the arbitrator explained that “Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State.” And in the S.S. Lotus case, which was a dispute between France and Turkey, the Permanent Court of International Justice stated:

Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention [treaty].

The permissive rule under international law that allows one State to exercise authority over the territory of another State is Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that mandates the occupant to establish a military government to provisionally administer the laws of the occupied State until there is a treaty of peace. For the past 131 years, there has been no permissive rule of international law that allows the United States to exercise any authority in the Hawaiian Kingdom, which makes the prolonged occupation illegal under international law.

As the arbitral tribunal, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, noted in its award, “in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.” The scope of Hawaiian sovereignty can be gleaned from the Civil Code. §6 states:

The laws are obligatory upon all persons, whether subjects of this kingdom, or citizens or subjects of any foreign State, while within the limits of this kingdom, except so far as exception is made by the laws of nations in respect to Ambassadors or others. The property of all such persons, while such property is within the territorial jurisdiction of this kingdom, is also subject to the laws.

Property within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom includes both real and personal. Hawaiian sovereignty over the population, whether Hawaiian subjects or citizens or subjects of any foreign State, is expressed in the Penal Code. Under Chapter VI—Treason, the statute, which is in line with international law, states:

1. Treason is hereby defined to be any plotting or attempt to dethrone or destroy the King, or the levying of war against the King’s government, or the adhering to the enemies thereof, giving them aid and comfort, the same being done by a person owing allegiance to this kingdom.

2. Allegiance is the obedience and fidelity due to the kingdom from those under its protection.

3. An alien, whether his native country be at war or at peace with this kingdom, owes allegiance to this kingdom during his residence therein, and during such residence, is capable of committing treason against this kingdom.

4. Ambassadors and other ministers of foreign states, and their alien secretaries, servants and members of their families, do not owe allegiance to this kingdom, though resident therein, and are not capable of committing treason against this kingdom.

When the Hawaiian Kingdom Government conditionally surrendered to the United States forces on January 17, 1893, the action taken did not transfer Hawaiian sovereignty but merely relinquished control of Hawaiian sovereignty because of the American invasion and occupation. According to Benvenisti:

The foundation upon which the entire law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power, whether through the actual or the threatened use of force, or in any way unauthorized by the sovereign. Effective control by foreign military force can never bring about by itself a valid transfer of sovereignty. Because occupation does not transfer sovereignty over the territory to the occupying power, international law must regulate the inter-relationships between the occupying force, the ousted government, and the local inhabitants for the duration of the occupation. […] Because occupation does not amount to sovereignty, the occupation is also limited in time and the occupant has only temporary managerial powers, for the period until a peaceful solution is reached. During that limited period, the occupant administers the territory on behalf of the sovereign. Thus the occupant’s status is conceived to be that of a trustee (emphasis added).

The occupant’s ‘managerial powers’ is exercised by a military government over the territory of the occupied State that the occupant is in effective control. The military government would need to be in effective control of the territory to effectively enforce the laws of the occupied State. Without effective control there can be no enforcement of the laws. The Hawaiian government’s surrender on January 17, 1893, that transferred effective control over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom to the American military did not transfer Hawaiian sovereignty. U.S. Army regulations on this subject state, being “an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty (emphasis added).”

When the Queen surrendered, it transferred temporary authority to the American military, the government apparatus also came under the control of the American military where the office of the Monarch would be replaced by the theater commander of U.S. forces who would be referred to as the military governor. All members of the executive and judicial branches of government would remain in place except for the legislative branch because the military governor “has supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authority, limited only by the laws and customs of war and by directives from higher authority.”

Through the publications and awareness at the academic level and in the communities of the current legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State, the Council of Regency has managed to shift its position. From an outlier when it began its exposure campaign through academic research and presentations, to shifting the center of gravity in its direction by leveraging Hawaiian sovereignty in order to bring compliance with the law of occupation. The Council of Regency’s methodical and deliberate law-based and fact-based approach has pierced through the veil of a false narrative that the Hawaiian Islands are a part of the United States. This approach has also positioned the Council of Regency to remedy the sweeping effects of Hawaiian State sovereignty in accordance with Hawaiian Kingdom laws making them indispensable.

By employing lawfare, which according U.S. General Dunlap is “the strategy of using laws as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve an operational objective,” the Council of Regency has made tremendous strides toward American military compliance with the law of occupation since it began Phase II of its Strategic Plan. Phase I, “Verification of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and a subject of International Law,” was satisfied after the PCA recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law. This act by the PCA initiated Phase II, which is “Exposure of Hawaiian Statehood within the framework of international law and the law of occupation as it affects the realm of politics and economic at the both the international and domestic levels.”

On July 27, 2023, Major General Kenneth Hara admitted that Hawai‘i is occupied, after his judge advocate Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps could not refute the information provided to MG Hara by Dr. Keanu Sai, Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, at their meeting on April 13, 2023, at the Grand Naniloa Hotel in Hilo. Anticipating a second meeting with MG Hara to discuss the transition into a military government, the Council of Regency drafted an Operational Plan for the transformation of the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government on August 14, 2023.

That meeting never occurred and it was later revealed that Attorney General Anne Lopez interceded and instructed MG Hara to ignore Dr. Sai. It was later revealed to Dr. Sai that she also instructed MG Hara to not request a legal opinion that would qualify her baseless instruction to ignore. This placed MG Hara in a position of dereliction of duty and criminal culpability for the Army’s doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes. This command responsibility comes under paragraph 4-24 of U.S. Army Regulation 600-20, which states under the heading of Command responsibility under the law of war:

Commanders are legally responsible for war crimes they personally commit, order committed, or know or should have known about and take no action to prevent, stop, or punish.

When MG Hara tasked LTC Phelps to refute the information provided by Dr. Sai, he was not only made aware of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law, but he was also made aware that war crimes have and continue to be committed by the federal government, the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties through the unlawful imposition of American laws and administrative measures throughout the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

According to Professor William Schabas, in his legal opinion on war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom, the unlawful imposition of American laws and administrative measures is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. This war crime consequently triggered secondary war crimes that include the war crime of compulsory enlistment; the war crime of denationalization; the war crime of confiscation or destruction of property; the war crime of deprivation of fair and regular trial; the war crime of deporting civilians of the occupied territory; and the war crime of transferring populations into an occupied territory.

Dereliction of duty and failure to obey Army regulations that require the establishment of a military government in occupied territory are two court martial offenses under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If this duty has the effect of putting a stop to war crimes, it is a war crime by omission under the doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes.

Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner, Executive Officer of the 29th Infantry Brigade, became the most senior officer in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard because of war crimes by omission committed by Major General Kenneth Hara—War Criminal Report no. 24-0001, Brigadier General Stephen Logan—War Criminal Report no. 24-0002, Colonel Wesley Kawakami—War Criminal Report no. 24-0003, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick Werner—War Criminal Report no. 24-0004, Lieutenant Colonel Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr.—War Criminal Report no. 24-0005, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs—War Criminal Report no. 24-0006, and Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis—War Criminal Report no. 24-0007.

In a letter by Dr. Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, dated November 11, 2024, LTC Rosner was notified that he has until November 28, 2024, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government in accordance with U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation. 

To guide LTC Rosner in the transformation is the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan, which has four essential tasks, with each having corresponding implied tasks. The Operational Plan provides a comprehensive approach for the implementation of these essential and implied tasks in line with the law of occupation and Hawaiian Kingdom laws.

First essential task is for the Military Government to become temporary administrator of the laws of the occupied State—the Hawaiian Kingdom

a. First implied task is for the theater commander of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard to proclaim the establishment of the Military Government of Hawai‘i
b. Second implied task is for the Military Governor to proclaim provisional laws in order to bring the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom up to date
c. Third implied task is to disband the State of Hawai’i Legislature and the County Councils

The second essential task is to be the temporary administrator of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates that belong to the occupied State

a. First implied task is to remove the United States flag from all public buildings of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Third essential task is to protect the institutions of the occupied state

a. First implied task is to realign Departments and Agencies to the status quo ante as they were prior to the American occupation that started on January 17, 1893
b. Second implied task is for those in the Military Government sign oaths of allegiance to the Hawaiian Kingdom, which is required under Hawaiian law
c. Third implied task is to reinstate universal healthcare for aboriginal Hawaiians at Queen’s Hospital
d. Fourth implied task is to take affirmative steps to end denationalization through Americanization in the public and private schools

Fourth essential task is to protect the rights of the population of the occupied State

The State of Hawai‘i is the governing apparatus of the Hawaiian Kingdom with its three branches of government. On January 17, 1893, the insurgents, with the protection U.S. Marines, proclaimed the establishment of the provisional government. Their proclamation stated:

All officers under the existing Government are hereby requested to continue to exercise their functions and perform the duties of their respective offices, with the exception of the following named persons: Queen Liliuokalani, Charles B. Wilson, Marshal, Samuel Parker, Minister of Foreign Affairs, W.H. Cornwell, Minister of Finance, John F. Colburn, Minister of the Interior, Arthur P. Peterson, Attorney General who are hereby removed from office.

After their proclamation, the insurgents forced those remaining in government positions to sign oaths of allegiance to the new regime. On July 4, 1894, the insurgents renamed themselves the Republic of Hawai‘i. After illegally annexing the Hawaiian Islands in 1898, the Congress renamed the government apparatus to be the Territory of Hawai‘i in 1900. And in 1959, the Congress renamed the Territory of Hawai‘i to be the State of Hawai‘i.

Much of the departments and agencies of the Hawaiian Kingdom were renamed and reorganized in violation of the law of occupation. The cornerstone of the law of occupation is that the occupier cannot alter, change or replace the occupied State’s governing apparatus, its legal order, its territory, and its population. According to Professor Federico Lenzerini, in his recent international law article, published in the International Review of Contemporary Law, he states:

Intertemporal-law-based perspective confirms the illegality— under international law—of the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the US. In fact, as regards in particular the topic of military occupation, the affirmation of the ex injuria jus non oritur rule predated the Stimson doctrine, because it was already consolidated as a principle of general international law since the XVIII Century. In fact, “in the course of the nineteenth century, the concept of occupation as conquest was gradually abandoned in favour of a model of occupation based on the temporary control and administration of the occupied territory, the fate of which could be determined only by a peace treaty”; in other words, “the fundamental principle of occupation law accepted by mid-to-late 19th-century publicists was that an occupant could not alter the political order of territory.”

Under the law of occupation, a military government is the civilian government of the occupied State. The State of Hawai‘i is not the civilian government of the United States but rather the civilian government of the Hawaiian Kingdom that was hijacked by insurgents installed by the United States. As President Cleveland told the Congress on December 1893, “the provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States,” and that it “was neither a government de facto nor de jure.” In other words, the insurgents were pretending to be a government. According to Professor Krystyna Marek:

Puppet governments are organs of the occupant and, as such form part of his legal order. The agreements concluded by them with the occupant are not genuine international agreements because such agreements are merely decrees of the occupant disguised as agreements which the occupant in fact concludes with himself. Their measures and laws are those of the occupant.

Military governments operate on the budget of the occupied State and not the budget of the occupying State. Under the third essential task, federal agencies will cease to exist and be replaced by the corresponding department or agency of the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there are 23,453 federal employees in the Hawaiian Kingdom, with 18,135 from the U.S. Department of Defense. These employees of the Department of Defense, to include U.S. troops of the Indo-Pacific Command, will begin to withdraw from Hawaiian territory because the 1884 Pear Harbor Convention, which the Indo-Pacific Command based its presence on, was terminated on October 26, 2024, by the Council of Regency.

This leaves 5,318 non-Department of Defense employees. Some of these employees may remain employed if what they do under American law is not inconsistent with Hawaiian Kingdom law. To determine whether the function of these agencies is a provisional law under the second implied task corresponding to the first essential task would be to apply the formula, in the Operational Plan, to be used for determining what American municipal laws may be considered a provisional law of the Hawaiian Kingdom. An example of an agency that would appear to continue to exist is the function of TSA at the airports. Their salaries will have to be provided for by the budget of the Military Government of Hawai‘i and not from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The budget for the Military Government of Hawai‘i will be the collective budgets of the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties. If additional revenues are required, the collection of these revenues must be in accordance with the law of occupation.