Island of O‘ahu Targeted for Nuclear Strikes

The United States prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Islands is a direct violation of Hawai‘i’s neutrality. Article 1 of the 1907 Hague Convention, V, provides “The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable,” and Article 2 provides “Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.” The United States’ violation of these Articles have placed the residents of the Hawaiian Islands into harms way when Japan attacked U.S. military installations on O‘ahu on December 7, 1941, and continue to place Hawai‘i’s residents in harms way in the event of a nuclear attack.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense’s Base Structure Report for 2012, the U.S. military has 118 military sites that span 230,929 acres of the Hawaiian Islands, which is 20% of the total acreage of Hawaiian territory. As the headquarters for the U.S. Pacific Command, being the largest unified command in the world, the Hawaiian Islands is targeted for nuclear strikes by Russia and China. At present the concern is North Korea, as well as any adversary of the United States.

In 1990, the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published Risks and Hazards: A State by State Guide. One of the subjects included nuclear targets and identified 6 nuclear targets on the island of O‘ahu that coincided with the locations of military posts of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Also included as a target is the Headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Command at Camp Smith that lies in the back of a residential area in Halawa. According to FEMA, the entire Island of O‘ahu would be obliterated if a nuclear attack were to take place.


Americanization has desensitized Hawai‘i’s population and has made the presence of the U.S. military in the islands normal. Americanization has also erased the memory of the U.S. invasion in 1893 and portrayed the military presence as protecting the islands from an aggressor country intent on invasion, when in fact the Hawaiian Islands were seized in 1898 to serve as a defense to protect the United States west coast from invasion.

NewlandsAfter the defeat of the Spanish Pacific Squadron in the Philippines, U.S. Congressman Francis Newlands (D-Nevada), submitted House Resolution 259 annexing the Hawaiian Islands (also known as the Newlands Resolution), to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 4, 1898.

Six days later, hearings were held on the Newlands Resolution, and U.S. Naval Captain Alfred Mahan’s testimony explained the military significance of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States:

“It is obvious that if we do not hold the islands ourselves we Mahancannot expect the neutrals in the war to prevent the other belligerent from occupying them; nor can the inhabitants themselves prevent such occupation. The commercial value is not great enough to provoke neutral interposition. In short, in war we should need a larger Navy to defend the Pacific coast, because we should have not only to defend our own coast, but to prevent, by naval force, an enemy from occupying the islands; whereas, if we preoccupied them, fortifications could preserve them to us. In my opinion it is not practicable for any trans-Pacific country to invade our Pacific coast without occupying Hawai‘i as a base.”

The Hawaiian Islands was and continues to be the outpost to protect the United States and their presence in the Hawaiian Islands is in violation of international law and the laws of occupation.

War Crimes: Federal Taxes and Costs Incurred from Jones Act

According to United States constitutional law, the federal government is separated into three distinct and separate branches, commonly referred to as the separation of powers doctrine. The Congress is the legislative branch that enacts federal statutes, the President heads the executive branch that executes or enforces federal statutes and treaties, and the Supreme Court is the judicial branch that interprets federal statutes and treaties. Under the separation of powers doctrine, the United States Supreme Court is the highest authority in the interpretation of federal statutes and treaties. In other words, when the Supreme Court makes a decision on a particular issue it is binding over everyone in the United States including the President and Congress.

In 1936, a very important case was heard by the United States Supreme Court that centered on the limitation of U.S. laws that became a binding precedent. The case was U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318, where the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens; and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.” Expressed in a different way, the U.S. constitution and federal statutes have no legal effect outside of the United States and actions taken by the United States government in foreign territories are governed by international law and treaties.

For Hawai‘i, a few of the treaties include:

Federal statutes that were passed in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution by Congress regarding Hawai‘i include, but are not limited to:

Without a treaty of cession, the Hawaiian Islands remain a foreign territory and therefore the U.S. constitution and federal statutes have no legal effect. Two particular federal statutes, the 1913 Revenue Act that established the Internal Revenue Service and the 1920 Merchant Marine Act, also known as the Jones Act, are not only illegal but are the driving forces behind Hawai‘i’s high cost of living.


According to the Tax Foundation 2013 Facts & Figures, the current taxes paid by residents of Hawai‘i under United States laws, which includes the laws of the State of Hawai‘i, with an average income of $42,925.00 are on average $16,311.00. This is $.38 on the dollar (38%), which is a conservative estimate. Here’s the breakdown:

  • $.13 cents/dollar (13%) – U.S. Federal Income Taxes;
  • $.08 cents/dollar (8%) – U.S. Social Security & Medicaid (actual rate is 15.3% but employers cover half);
  • $.08 cents/dollar (8%) – State Income Taxes;
  • $.05 cents/dollar (5%) – State Corporate Income Taxes; and
  • $.04 cents/dollar (4%) – State Sales Tax.


The Jones Act is a restraint of trade and commerce in violation of international law and treaties between the Hawaiian Kingdom and other foreign States. According to the Jones Act, all goods, which includes tourists on cruise ships, whether originating from Hawai‘i or being shipped to Hawai‘i must be shipped on vessels built in the United States that are wholly owned and crewed by United States citizens. And should a foreign flag ship attempt to unload foreign goods and merchandise in the Hawaiian Islands will have to forfeit its cargo to the to the U.S. Government, or an amount equal to the value of the merchandise or cost of transportation from the person transporting the merchandise.

As a result of the Jones Act there is no free trade in the Islands. 90% of Hawai‘i’s food is imported from the United States, which has created a dependency on outside food. The three major American carriers for Hawai‘i are Matson, Horizon Lines, and Pasha Hawai‘i Transport Services, as well as several low cost barge alternatives. Under the Jones Act, these American carriers travel 2,400 miles to ports on the west coast of the United States in order to reload goods and merchandise delivered from Pacific countries on foreign carriers, which would have otherwise come directly to Hawai‘i ports. The cost of fuel and the lack of competition drives up the cost of shipping and contributes to Hawai‘i’s high cost of living. Gas tax is $.47 per gallon as a result of the Jones Act because only American carriers can transport oil to Hawai‘i to be converted into gas. And according to the USDA Food Cost, Hawai‘i residents pay an extra $296 per month for food than families in the United States.

Pacific countries with the highest number of carriers are led by Panama with 6,413; China with 2,771; Hong Kong with 1,644; Singapore with 1,599; Marshall Islands with 1,593; Indonesia with 1,340; South Korea with 786; Japan with 684; Vietnam with 579; Cambodia with 544; Philippines with 446; United States with 393; Thailand with 363; India with 340; Malaysia with 315; Canada with 181; North Korea with 158; Taiwan 112; Vanuatu with 77; Kiribati with 77; Tuvalu with 58; Mexico with 52; Australia with 41; Cook Islands with 35; Papua New Guinea with 31; Peru with 22; New Zealand with 15; French Polynesia with 12; Fiji with 11; Tonga with 7; New Caledonia with 3; Federated States of Micronesia with 3; Samoa with 2; Costa Rica with 1; Timor-Leste with 1.


The Jones Act functions as a barrier to entry for low-cost foreign carriers that Hawai‘i merchants could utilize to trade food and merchandise from other countries throughout the Pacific. This also includes purchasing oil at a much cheaper rate for conversion to gas. Free trade would also increase jobs here in the islands, especially after converting Pearl Harbor Naval Base into a commercial port similar to Subic Bay Free Port Zone in the Philippines, which used to be the second largest United States Naval Base in the world. Subic Bay “continues to be one of the country’s major economic engines with more than 700 investment projects, including the 4th largest shipbuilding facility in the world.” The military housing would also be converted to civilian housing.

Under the laws of occupation, U.S. Federal taxes cannot be collected in a foreign territory. If the State of Hawai‘i taxes were converted to Hawaiian Kingdom taxes in order to maintain government services, the taxes to be paid would be $.17 cents on the dollar, which is $7,297.25 for an income of $42,925.00, a savings of $9,013.75. Illegally collecting taxes in a foreign territory is a war crime called “appropriation of property [money]” (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, Title 18 U.S.C. §2441) not justified under the laws of occupation. The International Criminal Court also prosecutes individuals for committing the war crime of “appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.” Adding to this unlawful “appropriation of property [money]” is the collection of monies paid out by the Hawai‘i consumer as a direct result of the Jones Act.

The United States government is liable to compensate Hawai‘i’s residents, which includes foreign nationals, for these violations.

Websites for Acting Government and Its Blog Went Off Line Due to High Volume of Internet Traffic

On May 19, 2013 the websites for the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom ( and its blog ( were temporarily offline with the following message:

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.

The reason for temporarily going offline was that there was too much internet traffic. Webalizer reported monthly visits to were between 3,900 and 6,000 from June to December 2012.  In January 2013 the visits rocketed to 15,000+. In February visits soared to 22,000, and in March visits spiked to 37,000.

In the month of April, daily visits totaled between 6,500 and 12,400, but on April 30 visits exploded to 18,431. On May 1 visits went back down to 4,989 visits and average visits per day since May 1 to May 21 was at 915. It is not clear what caused the dramatic spike in visitors between April 30 and May 1, but we are happy to report that increased visits from across the world is a very good indication that people are aware of the prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

As of May 21, 2013, Webalizer has reported for the month of May, 365,790 total hits; 41,391 total pages; and 19,223 visits.


For the month of May there were 109 countries where visits came from.


International Criminal Court to Consider Alleged War Crimes Committed by State of Hawai‘i Officials, Judges, Banks and Attorneys

KaiamaOn February 14, 2013, attorney Dexter Kaiama, filed a war crime complaint with the ICC alleging that the following State of Hawai‘i officials deprived his client of a “fair and regular trial” on the Island of O‘ahu. These individuals are District Court Judge MAURA M. OKAMOTO, Intermediate Court of Appeals Presiding Judge DANIEL R. FOLEY, Associate Judge KATHERINE G. LEONARD, Associate Judge LAWRENCE M. REIFURTH, Attorney General DAVID M. LOUIE, Deputy Attorney General DIANE K. TAIRA, Deputy Attorney General S. KALANI BUSH, Deputy Attorney General MATTHEW S. DVONCH, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Chair JOBIE MASAGATANI, successor in office to Mr. Alapaki Nahale-a, and Governor NEIL ABERCROMBIE.

Under Article 8 of the Rome Statute, it provides that the International Criminal Court “shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.” Article 8 further states that war crimes means “Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention…Willfully depriving a…protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial.”

Four days later on February 18, 2013, Kaiama filed six additional complaints with the ICC alleging the same war crime of unfair trial against the following judges, banks and attorneys that occured on the Island of Hawai‘i. These individuals include Circuit Court Judges RONALD IBARRA, GREG K. NAKAMURA, and GLENN S. HARA; Banks FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, BANK OF HAWAI‘I, DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, VANDERBILT MORTGAGE AND FINANCE, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, WELLS FARGO BANK; and Attorneys BLUE KAANEHE, CHARLES PRATHER, PETER K. KEEGAN, MITZI A. LEE, SOFIA M. HIROSANE, MICHAEL G.K. WONG, ROBERT E. CHAPMAN, MARY MARTIN, ROBERT D. TRIANTOS and EDMUND W.K. HAITSUKA.

In his letters to the ICC, Kaiama stated this “communication and complaint is provided to the office of the Prosecutor pursuant to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s accession to the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on December 10, 2012, and the Hawaiian Kingdom’s accession to the 1949 fourth Geneva Convention deposited with the Swiss Federal Council on January 14, 2013.”

According to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, the ICC would have jurisdiction “on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date of the deposit of…accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” which is March 4, 2013.

W.P. Dillon, Head of the Office of Information and Evidence Unit, Office of the Prosecutor, sent the following letter to Kaiama acknowledging receipt of the complaints. The letter was dated March 4, 2013, the date the ICC began jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands.


Dillon’s statement to Kaiama that the Prosecutor “will give consideration to this communication, as appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” is making specific reference to Article 17 of the Rome Statute titled “Issues of admissibility.” Since the ICC is a court of last resort where it compliments local courts of the country with primary responsibility to prosecute crimes, and not replace them, it can only intervene if (a) the perpetrators and being shielded, (b) there is an unjustifiable delay in the proceedings to bring the perpetrators to justice, or (c) where proceedings are not being conducted independently or impartially.

Article 17 also provides that the ICC “shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.” This provision has a direct nexus to the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government by the United States on January 17, 1893, whereby the “national judicial system” was overthrown and to date has been replaced by illegally constituted courts in violation of the international laws of occupation, in particular, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV.

MasudEAn example of where the Prosecutor of the ICC has rejected a claim based on lack of jurisdiction occurred last year in 2012. On October 1, 2012, Enver Masud, as CEO for The Wisdom Fund (TWF), submitted a letter to the ICC Prosecutor providing “information about the coverup of the facts of 9/11 used to justify the wrongful invasion of Afghanistan.” Masud’s letter was in response to posting on the ICC website that stated “The OTP is currently conducting preliminary examinations in a number of situations including Afghanistan, . . . ” and one is invited to “submit information about alleged crimes.” The Office of the Prosecutor received Masud’s letter on October 10, 2012.

Enver Masud is founder and CEO of TWF, and the recipient of the 2002 Gold Award from the Human Rights Foundation for his book The War on Islam. He is also a co-author of Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, and 9/11 and American Empire. TWF is a non-profit organization based in Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A. TWF’s mission is to advance social justice and peace.

On November 27, 2012, W.P. Dillon, Head of the Office of Information and Evidence Unit, Office of the Prosecutor, sent the following letter to Masud declining to consider the allegations on jurisdictional grounds.


The reason why the ICC could not claim jurisdiction over international crimes alleged to have been committed within the United States when individuals planned the invasion of Afghanistan was because the United States of America did not grant jurisdiction to the ICC.  In 2000, the Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute, but the Bush Administration refused to ratify the Rome Statute and declared it would not be a party to the ICC. Therefore, the ICC cannot claim it has jurisdiction over international crimes committed within the territory of the United States of America.

If the Hawaiian Islands were a part of the United States of America, being the so-called 50th State of the American Union, the ICC would have sent a letter to Kaiama similar to its letter sent to Masud who was alleging international crimes took place within the territory of the United States. Especially when the alleged war criminals include the Governor, Attorney General, Deputy Attorney Generals and Judges who are government officials of the so-called State of Hawai‘i.

Instead, the ICC letter to Kaiama acknowledges receipt of the complaints and it will provide its response according to the Rome Statute regarding international crimes committed within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which has been under a prolong and illegal occupation by the United States since August 12, 1898.

Attorney Kaiama’s Response to May 9, 2013 Tribune Herald Newspaper Article “Officials deny ‘war crimes’ investigation”


For immediate release – May 13, 2013                                                                       Contact: Dexter K. Kaiama, Esq.                                                                            Telephone:  (808) 284-5675

Response to May 9, 2013 Tribune Herald Newspaper Article “Officials deny ‘war crimes’ investigation”

KAILUA, O‘AHU, May 13, 2013—I wish to correct errors and misinformation reported in the article of May 9, 2013 in the Tribune Herald Newspaper titled “Officials deny ‘war crimes’ investigation.” My clients are victims of felonies and it is my responsibility to advocate and protect their lawful rights and to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice.

Be advised the following criminal complaint numbers have been assigned by the Hawai‘i Police Department concerning the commission of war crime felonies committed against my clients under Title 18 USC §2441 referred to in the Tribune Herald’s article: criminal complaint no. C13004901; C13004904; C13004910; C13004911; C13004913; C13004915; C13004916.

The assignment of the criminal complaint numbers by the Hawai‘i Police Department contradict (or at least clarifies) Assistant Police Chief Marshall Kanehailua’s reported statement to the Tribune Herald “that the department received information about the alleged crimes and forwarded the material to the FBI without investigation.”

Additionally, information and communications between Detective Derek Morimoto, Criminal Investigation Division, Area 1, Hawaii Police Department, myself and the victims directly contradict Assistant Chief Kanehailua’s statement that “we are not investigating judges on the Big Island.” Detective Morimoto was explicit with my clients and myself that he was the investigating officer from the Criminal Investigation Section for the alleged war crime felonies committed by the judges.

The Tribune Herald’s article reporting of Assistant Chief Kanehailua’s disclosure that routing (of the criminal complaints) was made to the FBI was significant.  The Hawai‘i Police Department’s disclosed routing, though improperly referred to the FBI, affirms the existence and ongoing investigation into these serious charges.  My May 7, 2013 press release informs that completion of the investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators of war crimes outside the United States, under 18 USC Sec. 2441, is lawfully with the U.S. Pacific Command and not with the FBI. The FBI is limited in its exercise of authority to territory of the United States and not on foreign territory unless it receives consent by the foreign government of that territory.

The Tribune Herald’s article evidences a lack of knowledge about this serious issue, a failure to complete an in-depth journalistic investigation and an irresponsibility to properly inform the public.

Existing treaties and historical records, supported by U.S. Congressional enactment, affirms the illegal overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.  The Tribune Herald’s inference that the illegal overthrow may not have occurred indicates either an ignorance of or irresponsibility to truthful journalism.

On March 4, 2013 the Head of the Information and Evidence Unit, Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), The Hague, Netherlands, acknowledged receipt of the war crime complaints filed on behalf of my clients. The ICC’s acknowledgment signifies its recognition of Hawai‘i as an independent state as well as its jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute these criminal complaints.  A copy of the ICC’s March 4, 2013 acknowledgment, written in both English and French, has been provided to the Tribune Herald and the news media.



I have no personal knowledge of information that has been disclosed or made available to Court Administrator Lester Oshiro concerning the war crimes investigations of Judges in the Third Circuit.  However, the Tribune Herald report, in which Mr. Oshiro claims he was unaware of these criminal investigations, belie events which occurred on March 4, 2013 when a “High Alert” was issued by the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General’s Investigation Division and additional security was ordered for Judges throughout the Islands.  This was in reaction to the day the ICC would begin jurisdiction, which was March 4, 2013. It is the journalist’s rush to publication, at the expense of in-depth and responsible investigation, that resulted in the printing of misinformation.

Finally, concerning the Hawai‘i Police Department’s media release, released in the afternoon of May 9, 2013, on behalf of the victims, I have kept the ICC apprised of all events, protest and demands, written requests for investigation and reports and evidence submitted to the Hawai‘i Police Department, the Sheriff’s Department, and the U.S. Pacific Command.

Accordingly, the Hawai‘i Police Department’s May 9, 2013 media release, that it is not conducting an investigation, will be forwarded to the ICC.  The ICC’s exercise of jurisdiction over these war crime complaints, as the court of last resort, can be invoked if the responsible law enforcement agency fails or refuses to investigate and prosecute or attempts to shield the perpetrators of the war crime.

The Hawai‘i Police Department’s May 9, 2013 media release provides evidence that exercise of the ICC’s jurisdiction should take place immediately.