Dr. Keanu Sai does a Second Interview on Keep It Aloha Podcast
5
Monthly Archives: August 2024
Exposing the Truth—the American Dismantling of Universal Health Care for Aboriginal Hawaiian subjects
Under Hawaiian Kingdom law, the term for Native Hawaiians today is aboriginal Hawaiian, irrespective of blood quantum. American law created a blood quantum for aboriginal Hawaiians in order to have access to a 99-year lease of land from the Hawaiian Homes Commission. Hawaiian law has no blood quantum to exercise their vested rights under the law.
Aboriginal is defined as a people who first arrived in a particular region through migration. Aboriginal Hawaiians were the first people to arrive in the Hawaiian Islands from central Polynesia. In her 1884 will that established the Kamehameha Schools, Bernice Pauahi Bishop wrote:
I direct my trustees to invest the remainder of my estate in such manner as they may think best…to devote a portion of each years income to the support and education of orphans, and others in indigent circumstances, giving the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood.
Hawaiian is the short term for the nationality called Hawaiian subjects. Just as British is the short term for British subjects, which is the nationality of Great Britain. According to the 1890 census, the total population of the Hawaiian citizenry was at 48,107, with 40,622 being aboriginal Hawaiians and 7,495 being non-aboriginal.
Aboriginal Hawaiians are now beginning to see the devastating effects of the American occupation on their vested legal rights. The cause of the denial of these legal rights, under Hawaiian Kingdom law, is the unlawful imposition of American laws over the entire territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Since 1919, usurpation of sovereignty, which is the imposition of the laws of the Occupying State over the territory of the Occupied State, is a war crime. One of the legal rights of aboriginal Hawaiians is their right to free health care at Queen’s Hospital.
When the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was restored, through an acting Council of Regency in 1997, it knew it had to raise awareness of the circumstances of the American occupation and its devastating effects since the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian government by United States troops on January 17, 1893. After the Permanent Court of Arbitration recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law, despite the unlawful overthrow of its government, and the Council of Regency as the restored government, its primary focus in exposing Hawaiian Statehood was to restore the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the minds of its people. This was the Hawaiian citizenry.
As part of restoring Hawaiian national consciousness, education, research, classroom instruction, and community outreach was the key to piercing through the veil of over a century of lies. As Dresden James wrote, “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”
On July 31, 1901, an article was published in The Pacific Commercial Advertiser in Honolulu. It is a window into a time of colliding legal systems and the Queen’s Hospital would soon become the first Hawaiian health institution to fall victim to the unlawful imposition of American laws. The Advertiser reported:
The Queen’s Hospital was founded in 1859 by their Majesties Kamehameha IV and his consort Emma Kaleleonalani. The hospital is organized as a corporation and by the terms of its charter the board of trustees is composed of ten members elected by the society and ten members nominated by the Government, of which the President of the Republic (now Governor of the Territory) shall be the presiding officer. The charter also provides for the “establishing and putting in operation a permanent hospital in Honolulu, with a dispensary and all necessary furniture and appurtenances for the reception, accommodation and treatment of indigent sick and disabled Hawaiians, as well as such foreigners and other who may choose to avail themselves of the same.”
Under this construction all native Hawaiians have been cared for without charge, while for others a charge has been made of from $1 to $3 per day. The bill making the appropriation for the hospital by the Government provides that no distinction shall be made as to race; and the Queen’s Hospital trustees are evidently up against a serious proposition.
Queen’s Hospital was established as the national hospital for the Hawaiian Kingdom and that health care services for Hawaiian subjects of aboriginal blood was at no charge. The Hawaiian Head of State would serve as the ex officio President of the Board together with twenty trustees, ten of whom were from the Hawaiian government.
Since the hospital’s establishment in 1859, the legislature of the Hawaiian Kingdom subsidized the hospital along with monies from the Queen Emma Trust. With the unlawful imposition of the 1900 Organic Act that formed the Territory of Hawai‘i, American law did not allow public monies to be used for the benefit of a particular race. 1909 was the last year Queen’s Hospital received public funding and it was also the same year that the charter was unlawfully amended to replace the Hawaiian Head of State with an elected president from the private sector and reduced the number of trustees from twenty to seven, which did not include government officers.
These changes to a Hawaiian quasi-public institution is a direct violation of the laws of occupation, whereby the United States was and continues to be obligated to administer the laws of the occupied State—the Hawaiian Kingdom. This requirement comes under Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, and Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Article 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides, “[t]he 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 term “usufruct” is to administer the property or institution of another without impairing or damaging it.
Despite these unlawful changes, aboriginal Hawaiian subjects, whether pure or part, are to receive health care at Queen’s Hospital free of charge. This did not change, but through denationalization there was a destruction of Hawaiian national consciousness that fostered the web of lies that Hawai‘i was a part of the United States, that aboriginal Hawaiians were American citizens, and there was never free healthcare at Queen’s Hospital.
Aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are protected persons as defined under international law, and as such, the prevention of health care by Queen’s Hospital constitutes war crimes. Furthermore, there is a direct nexus of deaths of aboriginal Hawaiians as “the single racial group with the highest health risk in the State of Hawai‘i [that] stems from…late or lack of access to health care” to the crime of genocide.
Once the State of Hawai‘i is transformed into a military government, according to the international law of occupation, it must immediately begin to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The vested right of aboriginal Hawaiians to free healthcare is a law of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Included with Hawaiian Kingdom laws, as they were before the American occupation began, are the provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
In 2014, the Council of Regency proclaimed these provisional laws to be all Federal, State of Hawai‘i, and County Ordinances that “do not run contrary to the express, reason and spirit of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” In order to determine which laws are consistent with Hawaiian Kingdom law, Dr. Keanu Sai, as acting Minister of the Interior drafted a memorandum that was made public on August 1, 2023. A particular Federal law that is inconsistent with Hawaiian Kingdom law is the IRS tax code.
Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick J. Werner War Criminal – Lieutenant Colonel Tuisamatatele, Jr. to Establish a Military Government of Hawai‘i in One Week
Today, August 26, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Tuisamatatele, Jr. regarding the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0004 on Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick J. Werner’s war crime by omission. The RCI also informed him that he has until 12 noon on August 26, 2024, to perform his military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i. Here is a link to the letter.
Today, August 26, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) published its War Criminal Report no. 24-0004 finding Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick J. Werner guilty of the war crime by omission. LTC Werner willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government. Therefore, his conduct, by omission, constitutes a war crime. LTC Werner, in his official capacity as a senior member of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense, has met the requisite elements for the war crime by omission, by willfully disobeying an Army regulation and by willful dereliction in his duty to establish a military government, and is, therefore, guilty of the war crime by omission. These offenses do not have the requisite element of mens rea.
The term “guilty,” as used in the RCI war criminal reports, is defined as “[h]aving committed a crime or other breach of conduct; justly chargeable offense; responsible for a crime or tort or other offense or fault.” It is distinguished from a criminal prosecution where “guilty” is used by “an accused in pleading or otherwise answering to an indictment when he confesses to have committed the crime of which he is charged, and by the jury in convicting a person on trial for a particular crime.” According U.S. military law, Colonel Kawakami is accountable by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Under international criminal law, LTC Werner is subject to prosecution, by a competent court or tribunal, for the war crime by omission.
Consequently, as the Commander of the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, you are now the theater commander. You should assume the chain of command, as the theater commander of the occupied State of Hawaiian Kingdom and perform your duty of establishing a military government by 12 noon on September 2, 2024. In my letter to LTC Werner, dated August 19, 2024, I recommended that he submit a formal request to Major General Hara, as head of the Department of Defense, to request that the Attorney General, Anne Lopez, according to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3, provide a legal opinion that refutes the legal opinions of Profession William Schabas and Professor Federico Lenzerini that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law. It is a request as to a question of law, which the Attorney General is bound to answer, but a request from the head of the Department of Defense is required under §28-3.
It would appear that LTC Werner did not do so, which led to the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0004. For you to not perform this military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i, you will need a legal opinion from the Attorney General concluding that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the United States, and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I am attaching a sample letter from you to Major General Hara requesting of the Attorney General for a legal opinion according to §28-3.
If you make this request to MG Hara prior to 12 noon on September 2, 2024, then you will not be derelict in your military duty, because the Royal Commission of Inquiry will then give time for MG Hara to make a formal request for a legal opinion from the Attorney General and give time for the legal opinion to be completed.
If you are derelict in the performance of your duty to establish a military government, then you would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of your war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua A. Jacobs, Commander of 29th Brigade Support Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
If LTC Jacobs is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Jacobs’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Dale R. Balsis, Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
Should LTC Balsis be derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government and be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission, that will be published on the RCI’s website; then the sequence of events will loop to the Executive Officers. First, with the 29th Infantry Brigade, second, with the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, third, with the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, fourth with the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fifth with the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion.
This looping, within the 29th Infantry Brigade’s component commands, will cover all commissioned officers to include Majors, Captains, First Lieutenants and Second Lieutenants. After the commissioned officers have been exhausted in the 29th Infantry Brigade, the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 103rd Troop Command and its component commands will begin, followed by the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, and its component commands.
As you are aware, U.S. military officers are held to the highest personal and professional standards. When those standards are not met, officers may be administratively punished or criminally prosecuted. For you not to demand from the Attorney General for a legal opinion that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists under international law, is to place the men and women, under your command, into harm’s way with criminal culpability under both military law and international criminal law. To ignore this will have dire consequences for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard.
Colonel Wesley Kawakami War Criminal – Lieutenant Colonel Werner to Establish a Military Government of Hawai‘i in One Week
Today, August 19, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick Werner regarding the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0003 on Colonel Wesley Kawakami’s war crime by omission. The RCI also informed him that he has until 12 noon on August 26, 2024, to perform his military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i. Here is a link to the letter.
Today, August 19, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) published its War Criminal Report no. 24-0003 finding Wesley K. Kawakami guilty of the war crime by omission. BG Logan willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government. Therefore, his conduct, by omission, constitutes a war crime. Colonel Kawakami, in his official capacity as a senior member of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense, has met the requisite elements for the war crime by omission, by willfully disobeying an Army regulation and by willful dereliction in his duty to establish a military government, and is, therefore, guilty of the war crime by omission. These offenses do not have the requisite element of mens rea.
The term “guilty,” as used in the RCI war criminal reports, is defined as “[h]aving committed a crime or other breach of conduct; justly chargeable offense; responsible for a crime or tort or other offense or fault.” It is distinguished from a criminal prosecution where “guilty” is used by “an accused in pleading or otherwise answering to an indictment when he confesses to have committed the crime of which he is charged, and by the jury in convicting a person on trial for a particular crime.” According U.S. military law, Colonel Kawakami is accountable by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Under international criminal law, Colonel Kawakami is subject to prosecution, by a competent court or tribunal, for the war crime by omission.
Consequently, as the Commander of the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, you are now the theater commander. You should assume the chain of command, as the theater commander of the occupied State of Hawaiian Kingdom and perform your duty of establishing a military government by 12 noon on August 26, 2024. In my letter to Colonel Kawakami, dated August 15, 2024, I recommended that he submit a formal request to Major General Hara, as head of the Department of Defense, to request that the Attorney General, Anne Lopez, according to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3, provide a legal opinion that refutes the legal opinions of Profession William Schabas and Professor Federico Lenzerini that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law. It is a request as to a question of law, which the Attorney General is bound to answer, but a request from the head of the Department of Defense is required under §28-3.
It would appear that Colonel Kawakami did not do so, which led to the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0003. For you to not perform this military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i, you will need a legal opinion from the Attorney General concluding that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the United States, and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I am attaching a sample letter from you to Major General Hara requesting of the Attorney General for a legal opinion according to §28-3.
If you make this request to MG Hara prior to 12 noon on August 26, 2024, then you will not be derelict in your military duty, because the Royal Commission of Inquiry will then give time for MG Hara to make a formal request for a legal opinion from the Attorney General and give time for the legal opinion to be completed. I cannot understand why Colonel Kawakami did not make the request. In the absence of this legal opinion, you must perform your military duty.
If you are derelict in the performance of your duty to establish a military government, then you would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of your war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Bingham L. Tuisamatatele, Jr., Commander of 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
If LTC Tuisamatatele is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Tuisamatatele’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua A. Jacobs, Commander of 29th Brigade Support Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
If LTC Jacobs is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Jacobs’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Dale R. Balsis, Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
Should LTC Balsis be derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government and be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission, that will be published on the RCI’s website; then the sequence of events will loop to the Executive Officers. First, with the 29th Infantry Brigade, second, with the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, third, with the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, fourth with the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fifth with the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion.
This looping, within the 29th Infantry Brigade’s component commands, will cover all commissioned officers to include Majors, Captains, First Lieutenants and Second Lieutenants. After the commissioned officers have been exhausted in the 29th Infantry Brigade, the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 103rd Troop Command and its component commands will begin, followed by the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, and its component commands.
Colonel Kawakami’s conduct is unbecoming of an officer that has consequently placed every soldier under his command, to include yourself, subject to criminal culpability because he did not demand that the Attorney General provide him evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists as a State under international law. Consequently, he willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government.
As you are aware, U.S. military officers are held to the highest personal and professional standards. When those standards are not met, officers may be administratively punished or criminally prosecuted. For you not to demand from the Attorney General for a legal opinion that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists under international law, is to place the men and women, under your command, into harm’s way with criminal culpability under both military law and international criminal law. To ignore this will have dire consequences for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard.
Colonel Kawakami Should Request a Legal Opinion from State of Hawai‘i Attorney General prior to 12 noon on August 19, 2024, or be Derelict in his Duty
Today, August 15, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Colonel Wesley Kawakami advising him to request for a legal opinion from Attorney General Anne E. Lopez explaining that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist as a State under international law so that this claim can be rendered frivolous. The RCI also informed him that he has until 12 noon on August 19, 2024, to perform his military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i unless makes the request for the legal opinion through Major General Kenneth Hara.. Here is a link to the letter.
As Title 32 troops, the Army National Guard can serve under the Governor as their Commander in Chief, or, when activated for deployment to a foreign country, the President as their Commander in Chief. There is never a situation where there are two Commander in Chiefs that the Army National Guard reports to. In other words, unless activated by the President, if the Army National Guard is within the United States, then it reports to the Governor of the State they reside. If the Army National Guard is within the territory of an Occupied State, then the Commander in Chief is the President.
In my letter to Brigadier General Stephen Logan dated August 11, 2024, I brought to his attention Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3, “The attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department.” A legal opinion is “a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.” While you are not the head of the Department of Defense, you are implicated by the conduct of its head, Major General Kenneth Hara, in the performance of a military duty in an Occupied State. Enclosed is a legal opinion dated March 17, 2014, that was requested by the head of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.
In my letter to BG Logan, I brought to his attention that the legal existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, has become a precedence in Hawai‘i judicial proceedings since 1994. This precedence places the burden on defendants, who were arguing the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, that they must, according to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, “demonstrate a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i ‘exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.’”
Thus, since I provided two legal opinions that ‘demonstrate a factual or legal basis’ to conclude that the Hawaiian Kingdom does exist ‘as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne E. Lopez must provide a legal opinion that refutes these legal opinions. If the Attorney General is confident that the State of Hawai‘i is a lawful entity and the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist, then she should have no problem providing a legal opinion that explains it. This legal opinion would determine whether your Commander in Chief is the Governor or the President.
According to §28-3, only the head of the Department of Defense can request a legal opinion, but since you have been implicated by the inaction of MG Hara to make that initial request, you can make a formal request, as the Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade, of MG Hara, to make that initial request. If you make this request to MG Hara prior to 12 noon on August 19, 2024, then you will not be derelict in your military duty, because the Royal Commission of Inquiry will then give time for MG Hara to make a formal request for a legal opinion from the Attorney General and give time for the legal opinion to be completed.
However, should you fail to make the request of MG Hara for a legal opinion from the Attorney General by 12 noon on August 19th, you will be derelict in your duty and be the subject of a war criminal report by the RCI for the war crime by omission. For your consideration, I have enclosed a sample letter to provide to MG Hara.
Major General Hara and Brigadier General Logan Denies 714,847 Native Hawaiians of Their Legal Right to Free Healthcare and Land under Hawaiian Law
After United States troops invaded and overthrew the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893, international law, at the time, required the United States, as the occupant, to maintain the status quo of the occupied State until a treaty of peace was agreed upon between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States. To maintain that status quo of the Hawaiian Kingdom was for the senior military commander of U.S. troops in Hawai‘i, Admiral Skerrett, Commander of the U.S.S. Boston, to take control of the Hawaiian Kingdom governmental apparatus, called a military government, and continue to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law until there is a treaty of peace. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-5 states:
The term “military government” as used in this manual is limited to and defined as the supreme authority exercised by an armed occupying force over the lands, properties, and inhabitants of an enemy, allied, or domestic territory. Military government is exercised when an armed force has occupied such territory, whether by force or agreement, and has substituted its authority for that of the sovereign or previous government. The right of control passes to the occupying force limited only by the rules of international law and established customs of war.
But Admiral Skerrett did not comply with international law and the insurgents were allowed to continue to pretend that they were the legitimate government, ever after President Cleveland told the Congress on December 18, 1893, that the “provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States.” Five years later, in 1898, the United States unilaterally annexed the Hawaiian Islands in violation of Hawaiian State sovereignty and international law. According to U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10:
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. The exercise of these. rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force. It is therefore unlawful for a belligerent occupant to annex occupied territory or to create a new State therein while hostilities are still in progress.
After illegally annexing the Hawaiian Islands without a treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom, the United States began to unlawfully impose its laws throughout the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The imposition of the Occupying State’s laws over the territory of an Occupied State is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. This war crime had a devastating effect on the health of the native Hawaiian people who had universal healthcare, at no cost, at Queen’s Hospital, and native Hawaiian access to lands for their homes and businesses.
Queen’s Hospital was established in 1859 by King Kamehameha IV and Queen Emma under the 1859 Hospital Act. Its purpose was to provide universal health care, at no cost, for all native Hawaiians. Under its charter the Monarch would serve as President of a Board of Trustees comprised of ten persons appointed by the government and ten persons elected by the corporation’s shareholders.
The Hawaiian government appropriated funding for the maintenance of the hospital. “Native Hawaiians are admitted free of charge, while foreigners pay from seventy-five cents to two dollars a day, according to accommodations and attendance (Henry Witney, The Tourists’ Guide through the Hawaiian Islands Descriptive of Their Scenes and Scenery (1895), p. 21).” It wasn’t until the 1950’s and 1960’s that the Nordic countries followed what the Hawaiian Kingdom had already done with universal health care.
In 1909, the government’s interest in Queen’s Hospital was severed and native Hawaiians would no longer be admitted free of charge. The new Board of Trustees changed the 1859 charter where it stated, “for the treatment of indigent sick and disabled Hawaiians” to “for the treatment of sick and disabled persons.” Gradually native Hawaiians were denied health care unless they could pay. This led to a crisis of native Hawaiian health today. Queen’s Hospital, now called Queen’s Health Systems, currently exists on the islands of O‘ahu, Molokai, and Hawai‘i.
A report by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in 2017 stated, “Today, Native Hawaiians are perhaps the single racial group with the highest health risk in the State of Hawai‘i. This risk stems from high economic and cultural stress, lifestyle and risk behaviors, and late or lack of access to health care (Native Hawaiian Health Fact Sheet 2017, p. 2).” Hawaiians should not have died due to “late or lack of health care” because Queen’s Hospital was an institution that provided health care at no cost.
Another right of native Hawaiians, under Hawaiian Kingdom law, was access to government land for a home and/or business. Under the 1850 Kuleana Act, which has not been repealed by the Hawaiian Legislature and remained a law in 1893, native Hawaiians can receive from the Minister of the Interior up to 50 acres in fee-simple at $.50 an acre. According to the inflation calculator, $.50 in 1893 would be $20 today. So, for a quarter acre for a home, a native Hawaiian need only to pay $5.
According to the U.S. Census of 2022, there are 714,847 native Hawaiians. The majority of native Hawaiians presently reside in the United States. The reason for native Hawaiians moving to the United States is attributed to Hawai‘i’s high cost of living.
On February 20, 2024, Hawai‘i News Now did a story “Hawaii’s high cost of living testing patience of residents, poll shows.” The report interviewed two native Hawaiians, Patricia Pele and Kahi Kaonohi.
Patricia Pele grew up on Molokai and wanted to pursue a career in the state after graduating from Chaminade, but ultimately chose to move.
She and her partner Nathan Estes previously rented a one-bedroom apartment in Aiea for $1,700 a month.
They now pay less than half that for a home in Dayton, Ohio.
“We have a four-bedroom house and our mortgage is a little bit less than $700 a month,” Estes said. “Two full baths, a covered garage with extra driveway space.”
Pele acknowledges she misses home and struggled to adjust, but financial flexibility outweighed being homesick.
“You’ll get happy in paradise, but you’ll also have to pay that price,” Pele said. “It’s unfortunate that it takes multi-generational income under one roof, multiple jobs. I think all my friends had at least two jobs if not three and that was with another spouse or significant other.”
For lifelong Windward Oahu native and musician Kahi Kaonohi, leaving the islands isn’t an option.
“Hawaii to me is my home and it’s a special place,” Kaonohi said. “I just feel that I have to do and my wife, we just have to do what we have to do to live here.”
Kaonohi and his wife have six kids and 10 grandchildren.
He says all but one of his children still live on Oahu and while he’s retired, they’re in the daily grind.
“Every day items that used to be $1.50 is now $4.75, how did that happen?,” Kaonohi said. “It’s still the same product. How did it go for four dollars more?”
According to U.S. News, “Cost of Living: How to Calculate How Much You Need,” it explains how to calculate the cost of living.
Simply add up all of your monthly fixed expenses, like rent or a mortgage payment, and your variable expenses, such as groceries and gas costs. Also factor in occasional but expected purchases, such as new tires. The resulting amount, assuming you aren’t going to debt every month, is your cost of living.
Under the American occupation, Hawai‘i’s economy is the combination of inflated high costs for housing, healthcare and groceries. To live comfortably in Honolulu, you will need an annual income of $200,000. The U.S. Census, in 2019, had the median household income at around $80,000. According to Payscale.com, the cost of living in Honolulu is 84% higher than the average in the United States, housing is 214% higher, utilities is 42% higher, and groceries is 50% higher. On O‘ahu, the median price for a home is $1,100,000 and the median price for an apartment is $510,000. These high costs for home purchasing forces people to rent. The average median monthly rent for all islands is $3,000.
Contributing to the high cost of groceries, Hawai‘i imports 85-90% of food. The money it costs to bring this food, by sea or air, to the Hawaiian Islands is passed on to the consumer. In other words, the cost of fuel and labor on the planes or ships that carry the food, in addition to the cost of producing the food itself, is included in the costs to the buyer of the food.
In 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom had the reverse where it produced over 90% of its own food for the Hawaiian economy. According to the Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom, in 1891, exported 58% of its goods and imported 42%. The major articles for exports from 1862-1891 were sugar, molasses, rice, coffee, bananas, goat skins, hides, tallow, wool, betel leaves, sheep skins, guano, fruit, pineapples, vegetables, plants, and seeds. The major trading partners with the Hawaiian Kingdom from 1885 to 1893 were the United States, Great Britain, Germany, British Columbia, Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan and France. The Hawaiian Kingdom had a healthy economy.
The failure for the United States to maintain this status quo during the American occupation is not only a gross violation of international law but it, consequently, placed the native Hawaiian population in a dire situation in their own country. In his memorandum, as Minister of the Interior, Dr. Keanu Sai states:
While the State of Hawai‘i has yet to transform itself into a Military Government and proclaim the provisional laws, as proclaimed by the Council of Regency, that brings Hawaiian Kingdom laws up to date, Hawaiian Kingdom laws as they were prior to January 17, 1893, continue to exist. The greatest dilemma for aboriginal Hawaiians today is having a home and health care. Average cost of a home today is $820,000.00. And health care insurance for a family of 4 is at $1,500 a month. According to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Native Hawaiian Health Fact Sheet 2017, “Today, Native Hawaiians are perhaps the single racial group with the highest health risk in the State of Hawai‘i. This risk stems from high economic and cultural stress, lifestyle and risk behaviors, and late or lack of access to health care.”
Under Hawaiian Kingdom laws, aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are the recipients of free health care at Queen’s Hospital and its outlets across the islands. In its budget, the Hawaiian Legislative Assembly would allocate money to the Queen’s Hospital for the healthcare of aboriginal Hawaiian subjects. The United States stopped allocating moneys from its Territory of Hawai‘i Legislature in 1909. Aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are also able to acquire up to 50 acres of public lands at $20.00 per acre under the 1850 Kuleana Act. With the current rate of construction costs, which includes building material and labor, an aboriginal Hawaiian subject can build 3-bedroom, 1-bath home for $100,000.00.
Hawaiian Kingdom laws also provide for fishing rights that extend out to the first reef or where there is no reef, out to 1 mile, exclusively for all Hawaiian subjects and lawfully resident aliens of the land divisions called ahupua‘a or ‘ili. From that point out to 12 nautical miles, all Hawaiian subjects and lawfully resident aliens have exclusive access to economic activity, such as mining underwater resources and fishing. Once the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is acceded to by the Council of Regency, this exclusive access to economic activity will extend out to 200 miles called the Exclusive Economic Zone.
Major General Kenneth Hara and Brigadier General Stephen Logan denied all native Hawaiians their legal right to access free health care at Queen’s Hospital throughout the islands, and denied them their legal right to access government land to build a home or business, because they were both willfully derelict in their duty to establish a military government of Hawai‘i in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict—international humanitarian law, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army Regulations—FM 27-5 and FM 27-10. Thus, becoming war criminals for the war crime by omission.
This duty to establish a military government is now on the shoulders of Colonel Wesley Kawakami, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard. He has until 12 noon on August 19, 2024, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government of Hawai‘i. The Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government will provide Colonel Kawakami guidance to do so. If Colonel Kawakami is derelict in his duty and consequently commits the war crime by omission, it will fall upon the next officer in the chain of command to perform. This will continue until someone in the Army National Guard performs their military duty.
Brigadier General Stephen Logan War Criminal – Colonel Wesley K. Kawakami to Establish a Military Government of Hawai‘i in One Week
Today, August 12, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Colonel Wesley Kawakami regarding the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0002 on Brigadier Major General Stephen Logan’s war crime by omission. The RCI also informed him that he has until 12 noon on August 19, 2024, to perform his military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i. Here is a link to the letter.
Today, August 12, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) published its War Criminal Report no. 24-0002 finding Brigadier General Stephen Logan guilty of the war crime by omission. BG Logan willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government. Therefore, his conduct, by omission, constitutes a war crime. BG Logan, in his official capacity as a senior member of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense, has met the requisite elements for the war crime by omission, by willfully disobeying an Army regulation and by willful dereliction in his duty to establish a military government, and is, therefore, guilty of the war crime by omission. These offenses do not have the requisite element of mens rea.
The term “guilty,” as used in the RCI war criminal reports, is defined as “[h]aving committed a crime or other breach of conduct; justly chargeable offense; responsible for a crime or tort or other offense or fault.” It is distinguished from a criminal prosecution where “guilty” is used by “an accused in pleading or otherwise answering to an indictment when he confesses to have committed the crime of which he is charged, and by the jury in convicting a person on trial for a particular crime.” According U.S. military law, BG Logan is accountable by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Under international criminal law, BG Logan is subject to prosecution, by a competent court or tribunal, for the war crime by omission.
Consequently, as the Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade, you are now the theater commander. You should assume the chain of command, as the theater commander of the occupied State of Hawaiian Kingdom and perform your duty of establishing a military government by 12 noon on August 19, 2024. In my letter to BG Logan, dated August 11, 2024, I recommended that he submit a formal request to the Attorney General, Anne Lopez, for a legal opinion that refutes the legal opinions of Profession William Schabas and Professor Federico Lenzerini that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law.
It would appear that BG Logan did not do so, which led to the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0002. For you to not perform this military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i, you will need a legal opinion from the Attorney General concluding that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist as a State under international law. In the absence of this legal opinion, you must perform your military duty.
If you are derelict in the performance of your duty to establish a military government, then you would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of your war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick J. Werner, Commander of 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, who is next in the chain of command below you, shall assume command of the Army National Guard. LTC Werner will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
If LTC Werner is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Werner’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Bingham L. Tuisamatatele, Jr., Commander of 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
If LTC Tuisamatatele is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Tuisamatatele’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua A. Jacobs, Commander of 29th Brigade Support Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
If LTC Jacobs is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Jacobs’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Dale R. Balsis, Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
Should LTC Balsis be derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government and be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission, that will be published on the RCI’s website; then the sequence of events will loop to the Executive Officers. First, with the 29th Infantry Brigade, second, with the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, third, with the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, fourth with the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fifth with the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion.
This looping, within the 29th Infantry Brigade’s component commands, will cover all commissioned officers to include Majors, Captains, First Lieutenants and Second Lieutenants. After the commissioned officers have been exhausted in the 29th Infantry Brigade, the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 103rd Troop Command and its component commands will begin, followed by the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, and its component commands.
BG Logan’s conduct is unbecoming of an officer that has consequently placed every soldier under his command, to include yourself, subject to criminal culpability because he did not demand that the Attorney General provide him evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists as a State under international law. Consequently, he willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government.
As you are aware, U.S. military officers are held to the highest personal and professional standards. When those standards are not met, officers may be administratively punished or criminally prosecuted. For you not to demand from the Attorney General for a legal opinion that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists under international law, is to place the men and women, under your command, into harm’s way with criminal culpability under both military law and international criminal law. To ignore this will have dire consequences for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard.
Royal Commission of Inquiry Stating How Brigadier General Logan Should Request a Legal Opinion from State of Hawai‘i Attorney General prior to 12 noon on August 12, 2024
Today, August 10, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Deputy Adjutant General, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, stating how he should request a legal opinion from State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez by 12 noon tomorrow so that he will not be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission. Here is a link to the letter.
This is my last notification to you. According to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3, “The attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department.” While you are not the head of the Department of Defense, you are implicated by the conduct of the head, Major General Kenneth Hara, in the performance of a military duty. A legal opinion is “a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.”
The issue of the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State under international law, is not a novel legal issue for the State of Hawai‘i. It has been at the center of case law and precedence, regarding jurisdictional arguments that came before the courts of the State of Hawai‘i, since 1994. One year after the United States Congress passed the joint resolution apologizing for the United States overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government in 1993, an appeal was heard by the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals that centered on a claim that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. In State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo, the appellate court stated:
Lorenzo appeals, arguing that the lower court erred in denying his pretrial motion (Motion) to dismiss the indictment. The essence of the Motion is that the [Hawaiian Kingdom] (Kingdom) was recognized as an independent sovereign nation by the United States in numerous bilateral treaties; the Kingdom was illegally overthrown in 1893 with the assistance of the United States; the Kingdom still exists as a sovereign nation; he is a citizen of the Kingdom; therefore, the courts of the State of Hawai‘i have no jurisdiction over him. Lorenzo makes the same argument on appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the lower court correctly denied the Motion.
While the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, it admitted “the court’s rationale is open to question in light of international law.” By not applying international law, the court concluded that the trial court’s decision was correct because Lorenzo “presented no factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom [continues to exist] as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.” Since 1994, the Lorenzo case has become a precedent case that served as the basis for denying defendants’ motions to dismiss claims that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. In State of Hawai‘i v. Fergerstrom, the appellate court stated, “[w]e affirm that relevant precedent [in State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo],” and that defendants have an evidentiary burden that shows the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist.
The Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, clarified the evidentiary burden that Lorenzo placed upon defendants. The court stated:
Lorenzo held that, for jurisdictional purposes, should a defendant demonstrate a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai’i “exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature[,]” and that he or she is a citizen of that sovereign state, a defendant may be able to argue that the courts of the State of Hawai‘i lack jurisdiction over him or her.
Unlike Lorenzo, I provided you two legal opinions, by experts in international law, in my letter to you yesterday, August 10, 2024, that provided a factual and a legal basis for concluding that the Hawaiian Kingdom ‘exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ as called for by the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. These legal opinions were authored by two professors of international law, Matthew Craven, from the University of London, SOAS, Department of Law, and Federico Lenzerini, from the University of Siena, Department of Political and International Sciences.
As a result, this situation places the burden on the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General, Anne Lopez, to rebut these legal opinions pursuant to State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo and State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage. This would legally qualify her instruction to you to ignore the calls for performing your military duty to establish a military government.
There are two scenarios you face on this subject. The first scenario is to submit a formal letter to the Attorney General, with the approval of MG Hara as head of the Department of Defense, for a legal opinion that refutes the two legal opinions that opine that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law. The second scenario is for MG Hara, himself, as head of the Department of Defense, to submit a similar formal letter to the Attorney General. Consequently, both scenarios will remove the element of mens rea of willful dereliction of duty by MG Hara, and the Royal Commission of Inquiry will also withdraw its War Criminal Report no. 24-0001.
I am making every effort to shield both you and MG Hara from committing the war crime by omission, and it boils down to a simple letter asking the right question. Should you decide to request a legal opinion of the Attorney General pursuant to §28-3, HRS, I have enclosed a sample letter to be sent to the Attorney General before 12 noon tomorrow.
If you or MG Hara have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me before 12 noon tomorrow. If I do not hear from you, by email or otherwise, that you submitted the request for a legal opinion before 12 noon tomorrow, I will assume that you did not make the request, and you will be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission.
Royal Commission of Inquiry Stating Its Position Should Brigadier General Logan Request a Legal Opinion from State of Hawai‘i Attorney General prior to 12 noon on August 12, 2024
Today, August 10, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Deputy Adjutant General, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, stating the position of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on whether BG Logan has requested a legal opinion from State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez. Here is a link to the letter.
As August 12, 2024 is fast approaching, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) would like to separate the two actions you are faced with regarding your duty to establish a military government. The first action is the request by you of the Attorney General, Anne E. Lopez, to provide you with a legal opinion that concludes, with irrefutable facts and the law, that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist as a State under international law. The second action is the performance of the duty to establish a military government if the Attorney General has not provided you with a legal opinion.
If you did notify the Attorney General to provide you with a legal opinion before 12 noon on August 12th and she has not gotten back to you by 12 noon on August 12th, then the RCI will not demand that you perform your duty to establish a military government until the Attorney General has completed that legal opinion for you. If this is the course that you have taken, the Attorney General will have to rebuke the following legal opinions regarding the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, and the legal standing of the Council of Regency:
- Professor Matthew Craven, University of London, SOAS, Department of Law, attached as enclosure 1.
- Professor Federico Lenzerini, University of Siena, Italy, Department of Political and International Sciences, attached as enclosure 2.
If you do not notify the RCI, by email or by letter via email prior to 12 noon on August 12, 2024, that you have requested a legal opinion from the Attorney General, and she has not completed the same, then the RCI will assume that you did not make the request. If this is the case, and you have not established a military government by 12 noon on August 12, 2024, then you will be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission.
Brigadier General Logan—the Eyes of Hawai‘i and the World are Upon You
Today, August 7, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Deputy Adjutant General, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, drawing his attention to the U.S. Army’s view of the rule of law and his duty to establish a military government in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict—international humanitarian law, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army Regulations—FM 27-5 and FM 27-10. Here is a link to the letter.
As you are aware, yesterday, I notified the Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade and the Commanders of its component battalions apprising them as to the circumstances of their possible implication, of performing the duty to establish a military government of Hawai‘i, should you fail to perform your duty. I closed the letter with:
As senior Commanders in the chain of command of the Army National Guard, I implore you all to take this matter seriously and to demand, from the Attorney General or the JAG, a legal opinion that concludes there is no duty on you to establish a military government because the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist, and that this is the territory of the United States and the State of Hawai‘i under international law. With the legal opinion in hand, there is no duty to perform. Without it, there is the military duty to perform, and failure to perform would constitute the war crime by omission.
The demand for a legal opinion, by you, of the Attorney General, Anne E. Lopez, or of the JAG, LTC Lloyd Phelps, is not outside your duties as a military officer. Your duty is to adhere to the rule of law. According to section 4-106, FM 3-07:
The rule of law is fundamental to peace and stability. A safe and secure environment maintained by a civilian law enforcement system must exist and operate in accordance with internationally recognized standards and with respect for internationally recognized human rights and freedoms. Civilian organizations are responsible for civil law and order. However, Army forces may need to provide limited support.
According to the Handbook for Military Support to Rule of Law and Security Sector Reform (2016), the most frequently used definition of the rule of law “in the US government is one put forth by the UN.”
United Nations Definition of the Rule of Law
The rule of law refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness, and procedural and legal transparency.
Demanding a legal opinion that refutes, with irrefutable evidence and law, the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, under international law, is not a political act but rather an act to ‘ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness, and procedural and legal transparency.’ Under international law, legal title to territory is State sovereignty and it is a jurisdictional matter. As the Permanent Court of International Justice, in the Lotus case, 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].
In other words, without a treaty, where the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded its sovereignty to the United States, the United States and the State of Hawai‘i have no sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands. However, if the Attorney General is confident, that the State of Hawai‘i is lawfully the 50th state of the United States, she would have no problem providing you a legal opinion that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist under international law. To have instructed you, and Major General Hara, to simply ignore the call to perform a military duty, the Attorney General revealed that she has no legal basis for her instruction to you. To quote Secretary of State Walter Gresham regarding the status of the provisional government, he stated to President Grover Cleveland:
The earnest appeals to the American minister for military protection by the officers of that Government, after it had been recognized, show the utter absurdity of the claim that it was established by a successful revolution of the people of the Islands. Those appeals were a confession by the men who made them of their weakness and timidity. Courageous men, conscious of their strength and the justice of their cause, do not thus act.
The same can be said of the Attorney General, whose office is a direct successor of the lawless provisional government. An Attorney General, conscious of her lawful status, does not thus act.
The call upon you, to perform your military duty, is not an attack on you and on the men and women you command in the Hawai‘i National Guard. It is a call upon you because of the respect the I have, as a former Army Field Artillery officer, of your position as the United States theater commander in the occupied State of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
I recommend that you view a recent podcast I did with Kamaka Dias’ Keep It Aloha (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvEdNx2dynE) where I share my history and my time as a military officer, and how I got to where I am as a member of the Council of Regency. Since the podcast was posted on August 1, 2024, it has received over 6,700 views. I also recommend that you watch my presentation to the Maui County Council (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh4iVT77MG8&t=8s) on March 6, 2024, where I explain the legal basis of the American occupation and the duty of the Adjutant General to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. Since the Kamehameha Schools’ Kanaeokana posted the video on April 1, 2024, it has received over 16,000 views. I recommend that you also watch an award-winning documentary on the Council of Regency that premiered in 2019 at the California Film Festival (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF6CaLAMh98). Since the video was posted on August 13, 2019, it has received over 42,000 views.
Since my meeting with MG Hara on April 17, 2023, I have given him the latitude and time to do his due diligence with his JAG, LTC Phelps, who acknowledged that Hawai‘i is an occupied State. For MG Hara to simply ignore my calls on him to perform his duty is a sign of disrespect to a government official of the Hawaiian Kingdom whose conduct and action are in accordance with the rule of law. I implore you to not follow the same course MG Hara took, which led him to committing the war crime by omission. You have until 12 noon on August 12, 2024, to perform your duty, of establishing a military government for Hawai‘i, in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict—international humanitarian law, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army Regulations—FM 27-5 and FM 27-10. The eyes of Hawai‘i and the world are upon you.
Hawaiian Royal Commission of Inquiry Notifies Commanders of the Army National Guard of the Circumstances They Find Themselves Regarding the Establishment of a Military Government
Today, August 6, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade and its component battalions of the circumstances that has led up to performing the military duty of establishing a military government in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict—international humanitarian law, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army Regulations—FM 27-5 and FM 27-10.Here is a link to the letter.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the circumstances that has led up to performing the military duty of establishing a military government in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict—international humanitarian law, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army Regulations—FM 27-5 and FM 27-10. According to Article 42, 1907 Hague Regulations, territory is considered occupied when it comes under the effective control of the occupant. Effective control of the occupied territory triggers Article 43 to establish a military government to provisionally administer the laws of the occupied State. For Iraq during the Second Gulf War, this was the basis for establishing the Coalition Provisional Authority, as a military government, on May 16, 2003. Between the Federal government and the State of Hawai‘i, it is the latter that has this duty because it is in effective control of 10,931 square miles, while the former is in effective control of less than 500 square miles.
In 1999, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”), in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, recognized the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, under international law, and the Council of Regency as its temporary government. The Council of Regency is not a part of the Native Hawaiian sovereignty movement. It is a government established under Hawaiian constitutional law and the doctrine of necessity. I am enclosing a copy of the PCA’s case repository of the Larsen case.
At the center of the dispute was the unlawful imposition of American laws over Hawaiian territory, which led to Larsen’s unfair trial and subsequent incarceration. This is the same Permanent Court of Arbitration that oversaw the dispute between the Philippines and China—the South China Sea case. On its website, the PCA describes the Larsen case as:
Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency (“Hawaiian Kingdom”) on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Since January 17, 1893, the United States, by an act of war, began its prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom despite the overthrow of its government. Furthermore, the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian government did not affect Hawaiian sovereignty, which prevents any annexation of its territory without its consent by a treaty of cession. There is no such treaty of cession between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, except for an American municipal law, enacted on July 7, 1898, called a joint resolution of annexation purporting to have acquired the Hawaiian Islands. As section 358, FM 27-10—Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty states:
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 sovereignty. The exercise of these rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force. It is therefore unlawful for a belligerent occupant to annex occupied territory or to create a new State therein while hostilities are still in progress.
Under customary international law, during military occupation, the imposition of the occupier’s laws over the territory of an occupied State is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty. In his legal opinion for the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”), for prosecutions to take place, renowned expert in international criminal law and war crimes, Professor William Schabas, provides requisite elements of certain war crimes, including usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, which I am enclosing a copy of. It should be noted that if this were a frivolous matter, Professor Schabas surely would not have done his legal opinion for the RCI. He is a professor of international law at Middlesex University, London, Department of Law, and recognized as an expert in the field by the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.
I am aware of the military duty to establish a military government in occupied territories, because I served 10 years in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard from 1984 to 1994. I received my commission as a Second Lieutenant from New Mexico Military Institute in 1984, and, after returning home, joined the 1/487 Field Artillery. In 1994, I decided to resign my command of Charlie Battery in order to pursue the work I do now, and I was honorably discharged. I am enclosing my DD 214 separation papers. Former Commander of the Army National Guard, Brigadier General Keith Tamashiro, and I are not only colleagues, but friends, because, while I was the Charlie Battery Commander, he was the Bravo Battery Commander. I also served as Battalion Fire Support Officer for 2/299 Infantry, where Major General Kenneth Hara was a Lieutenant. Hence, I am thoroughly familiar with the Army National Guard.
On April 13, 2023, I had a meeting with MG Hara at the Grand Naniloa Hotel in Hilo. I started the meeting by telling MG Hara that circumstances, beyond our control, have placed us here today with duties to perform. He, as the senior officer of the Hawai‘i National Guard, and me, as head of the RCI, with the duty to protect the population from war crimes. This past June, the law journal, International Review of Contemporary Law, published my article titled “All States have a Responsibility to Protect their Population from War Crimes—Usurpation of Sovereignty During Military Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands.”
I explained to MG Hara the circumstances of the current situation, and his corresponding duty, as the theater commander of occupied territory, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. I provided him the necessary documentation as well. At the end of the meeting, I recommended that he task his JAG, Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps, to review the information I provided him and to see if LTC Phelps could refute it. If he could not, it would trigger MG Hara’s duty to perform. LTC Phelps could not refute the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence, which prompted MG Hara to acknowledge, on July 27, 2023, that Hawai‘i is an occupied State. On August 21, 2023, I provided MG Hara an Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government with essential and implied tasks, which was published by the law journal, Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics.
On May 25, 2024, I had a Zoom meeting with former Adjutant General, Major General Darryl Wong, and his Chief Master Sergeant, Robert Lee. Prior to this meeting, they both watched my March 6, 2024, presentation to the Maui County Council, updating them of the status of Hawai‘i under international law and the duty of MG Hara to establish a military government (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-VIA_3GD2A&t=1s). MG Wong and CMSAF Lee acknowledged that they understood why MG Hara, as the Adjutant General, had this military duty to perform. MG Wong also acknowledged that he had this duty when he was the Adjutant General, but I told him that the difference between them was that MG Wong was not aware of the factual circumstances of the occupation, but MG Hara was aware.
After numerous attempts to work with MG Hara and his refusals to meet, I was informed that he was instructed by State of Hawai‘i Attorney General, Anne E. Lopez, to ignore me and anyone else that called for the establishment of the military government. MG Hara’s conduct here, as the Adjutant General, was unbecoming of an officer. To not be unbecoming of an officer, he needed to ask for a legal opinion from the Attorney General that concludes, which provides conclusive evidence and law, that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist as an occupied State under international law. His failure to perform his duty of establishing a military government has made him the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 for the war crime by omission that was published on the RCI’s website yesterday (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/RCI_War_Criminal_Report_no._24-0001.pdf). His failure to perform his duty has led to everyone in the Army National Guard chain of command to be implicated in the performance of this duty.
As a war criminal, subject to prosecution by a competent tribunal, and where there is no statute of limitations, MG Hara is unfit to serve as Commander of the Hawai‘i National Guard. As such, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, as the Deputy Adjutant General and Commander of the Army National Guard, must assume the chain of command, and he has until 1200 hours on August 12, 2024, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. To escape criminal culpability, BG Logan must demand a legal opinion from the Attorney General or from LTC Phelps that shows, with irrefutable evidence and law, that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist a State under international law.
If BG Logan does not obtain a legal opinion, and fails to perform his military duty, he will then be the subject of a war criminal report by the RCI for the war crime by omission. After the publication of this war criminal report, Colonel Wesley K. Kawakami, Commander, 29th Infantry Brigade, will assume the chain of command and demand a similar legal opinion. If Colonel Kawakami receives no such legal opinion, he will have one week to perform his duty as the theater commander.
To speak to the severity of the situation, I am enclosing a letter to MG Hara, dated May 29, 2024, from police officers, both active and retired, from across the islands, that called upon him to perform his duties because “This failure of transition places current police officers on duty that they may be held accountable for unlawfully enforcing American laws.” These police officers also stated:
We also acknowledge that the Council of Regency is our government that was lawfully established under extraordinary circumstance, and we support its effort to bring compliance with the law of occupation by the State of Hawai‘i, on behalf of the United States, which will eventually bring the American occupation to a close. When this happens, our Legislative Assembly will be brought into session so that Hawaiian subjects can elect a Regency of our choosing. The Council of Regency is currently operating in an acting capacity that is allowed under Hawaiian law.
As senior Commanders in the chain of command of the Army National Guard, I implore you all to take this matter seriously and to demand, from the Attorney General or the JAG, a legal opinion that concludes there is no duty on you to establish a military government because the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist, and that this is the territory of the United States and the State of Hawai‘i under international law. With the legal opinion in hand, there is no duty to perform. Without it, there is the military duty to perform, and failure to perform would constitute the war crime by omission.
Major General Kenneth Hara War Criminal – Brigadier General Stephen Logan to Establish a Military Government of Hawai‘i in One Week
Today, August 5, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Brigadier General Stephen Logan regarding the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 on Major General Kenneth Hara’s war crime by omission. The RCI also informed him that he has until 12 noon on August 12, 2024, to perform his military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i. Here is a link to the letter.
Today, August 5, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) published its War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 finding Major General Hara guilty of the war crime by omission. Since acknowledging the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State on July 27, 2023, MG Hara willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government. Therefore, his conduct, by omission, constitutes a war crime. MG Hara, in his official capacity as the senior member of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense, has met the requisite elements for the war crime by omission, by willfully disobeying an Army regulation and by willful dereliction in his duty to establish a military government, and is, therefore, guilty of the war crime by omission. These offenses do not have the requisite element of mens rea.
The term “guilty,” as used in the RCI war criminal reports, is defined as “[h]aving committed a crime or other breach of conduct; justly chargeable offense; responsible for a crime or tort or other offense or fault.” It is distinguished from a criminal prosecution where “guilty” is used by “an accused in pleading or otherwise answering to an indictment when he confesses to have committed the crime of which he is charged, and by the jury in convicting a person on trial for a particular crime.” According U.S. military law, MG Hara is accountable by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Under international criminal law, MG Hara is subject to prosecution, by a competent court or tribunal, for the war crime by omission.
Consequently, as the Deputy Adjutant General and Commander of the Army National Guard, you are now the theater commander. You should assume the chain of command, as the theater commander of the occupied State of Hawaiian Kingdom, and perform your duty of establishing a military government by 12 noon on August 12, 2024. If you are derelict in the performance of your duty to establish a military government, then you would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of your war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Colonel Wesley K. Kawakami, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade, who is next in the chain of command below you, shall assume command of the Army National Guard. Colonel Kawakami will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
The chain of command, or what is called the order of battle, for the 29th Infantry Brigade units in the Hawaiian Islands, is first, the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, second, the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, third, the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fourth, the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion. The 29th Infantry Brigade has units stationed in Alaska and Guam but, since they are outside the Hawaiian territory, they do not have the military duty, as an occupant, to establish a military government in the Hawaiian Islands.
If Colonel Wesley K. Kawakami is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of Colonel Kawakami’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick J. Werner, Commander of 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
If LTC Werner is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Werner’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Bingham L. Tuisamatatele, Jr., Commander of 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
If LTC Tuisamatatele is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Tuisamatatele’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua A. Jacobs, Commander of 29th Brigade Support Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
If LTC Jacobs is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Jacobs’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Dale R. Balsis, Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
Should LTC Balsis be derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government and be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission, that will be published on the RCI’s website; then the sequence of events will loop to the Executive Officers. First, with the 29th Infantry Brigade, second, with the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, third, with the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, fourth with the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fifth with the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion.
This looping, within the 29th Infantry Brigade’s component commands, will cover all commissioned officers to include Majors, Captains, First Lieutenants and Second Lieutenants. After the commissioned officers have been exhausted in the 29th Infantry Brigade, the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 103rd Troop Command and its component commands will begin, followed by the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, and its component commands.
For you not to be derelict in the performance of your duty, and you are not be the theater commander of the occupied State of the Hawaiian Kingdom, you will need to provide the RCI with evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists as a State under international law. To do this, you must have Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps, as your legal advisor on military matters, provide you with evidence the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist under international law. And since Attorney General Anne E. Lopez instructed you to ignore your military duty to establish a military government, I recommend that you also have her, as your legal advisor on State of Hawai‘i matters, provide you evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist under international law.
MG Hara’s conduct is unbecoming of an officer that has consequently placed every soldier under his command, to include yourself, subject to criminal culpability because he did not demand that the Attorney General provide him evidence. Consequently, he willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government. As you are aware, U.S. military officers are held to the highest personal and professional standards. When those standards are not met, officers may be administratively punished or criminally prosecuted. For you not to demand the evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists under international law, is to place the men and women, under your command, into harm’s way with criminal culpability under both military law and international criminal law. As I stated to MG Hara, in my letter dated July 26, 2024, which you were cc’d, “to prevent all this from occurring, you must provide evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists as an occupied State under international law. To ignore this will have dire consequences for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard.”
Dr. Keanu Sai on Keep It Aloha Podcast
Dr. Keanu Sai Presented a History of the Kāʻei or Sash of Liloa at Bishop Museum on July 31st
The Bishop Museum invited Dr. Keanu Sai to present a history of the kāʻei or sash of Līloa who was King of Hawaiʻi Island in the fifteenth century. Here follows the speech that Dr. Sai gave yesterday at Bishop Museum in celebration of the Hawaiian Kingdom national holiday Restoration Day (Lā Hoʻihoʻi).
It is truly an honor for me to be here with you on this Hawaiian Kingdom national holiday of Restoration Day or Lā Ho‘iho‘i and share with you a bit of history of the kāʻei or sash of Līloa and its direct link as a royal emblem of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Ancient human society was comprised of tribes or bands that were either subsumed or grew into what anthropologists have come to call ancient States, which pre-dates the Westphalian States of the 17th century that was the genesis of current understanding of States under international law today.
Ancient States, which Hommon calls primary States, “are generally believed to have developed in six widely distributed regions of the world: Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, China, Mesoamerica, and Andean South America.” To these regions, Hommon and Kirch add the North Pacific and the emergence of the ancient Hawaiian State from the fifteenth century with “centralized, active leadership based on political power, delegation of such power through a formal bureaucracy, and territorial expansion by conquest warfare.”
According to Kirch, “the Hawaiians had invented divine kingship, a hallmark of archaic states.” Political science and law today distinguishes between the State and its government, but this distinction pertains to the Westphalian States that arose in Europe since 1648, and not the ancient States that Hommon and Kirch refer to.
When Captain James Cook arrived in the islands in 1778, he witnessed a phenomenon not seen in other parts of the Pacific he previously visited. What he observed was a society whose governmental structure was centralized, organized, and disciplined. He wrote, “I have no where in this Sea seen such a number of people assembled at one place.” Kirch concludes, the “combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria bolster the case that the late Hawaiian polities as encountered by Cook and other early European explorers fit conformably with the pattern of primary archaic states known for other regions of the world.”
Captain James King, who served under Cook, provides an eyewitness account of the Chiefs of that time. Captain King admired Hawaiian nobility and described their regal appearance. “These chiefs were men of strong and well-proportioned bodies, and of countenances remarkably pleasing. Kana‘ina especially, whose portrait Mr. Webber has drawn, was one of the finest men I ever saw. He was about six feet high, had regular and expressive features, with lively, dark eyes; his carriage was easy, firm, and graceful.”
Captain King also stated that Kana‘ina “was very inquisitive after our customs and manners; asked after our King; the nature of our government; our numbers; the method of building our ships; our houses; the produce of our country; whether we had wars; with whom; and on what occasions; and in what manner they were carried on; who was our God; many other questions of the same nature, which indicated an understanding of great comprehension.” I should also note that Kana‘ina is my fourth great grandfather who is also known along with another chief for causing the demise of Captain Cook.
Kana‘ina was a direct descendant of Līloa, King of Hawai‘i island in the 15th century. His father being Keawe ‘Opala and his grandfather being Alapa‘i Nui, both kings of Hawai‘i island. Since Pili Ka‘ea, progenitor of the line of Hawai‘i Island Kings, there were two royal emblems, the spittal-vessels called ipu kuha and the crown called the kahili.
Added to these royal emblems in the 15th century was the kā‘ei or sash of Līloa we see here this evening. Līloa ordered the making of the sash whom his son Umialiloa received when he ascended to the throne after defeating his half-brother, Hākau, in battle. The dimensions of the kā‘ei are 4.5 inches wide and 11 feet in length. As with feather capes and cloaks, the kāʻei consists of feathers tied to a netting of olona fiber. The read feathers of the ʻiʻiwi bird and the yellow of the ōʻō bird, along with rows of teeth, it creates an object that is still stunning to behold nearly six centuries after its creation. Carbon dating of feathers that naturally separated itself from the kāʻei ranged from 1406 to 1450 A.D.
The kāʻei eventually came into the possession of Kamehameha the Great, progenitor of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and it can be seen adorned on him as seen on his statue that fronts Ali‘iolani Hale across from the palace.
In 1794, Kamehameha became a part of the British Empire where he continued to be king of a British protectorate. By 1810, Kamehameha consolidated the former kingdoms of Maui and Kauaʻi into one kingdom that came to be known as the Hawaiian Kingdom. After his death in 1819, the ipu kuha, the kahili and the kāʻei descended to Kamehameha II. And after the death of Kamehameha II in 1824 these royal emblems descended to Kamehameha III.
In 1840, Kamehameha III transformed the Hawaiian Kingdom into a constitutional monarchy while still owing allegiance to the British Crown. Based on claims by the British Consul Richard Charlton that the rights of British subjects were being violated by the Hawaiian government, a British warship, HBMS Carysfort, under the command of Captain Lord Paulet, entered Honolulu harbor on February 10, 1843. Paulet eventually seized control of the Hawaiian government on February 25th after threatening to level Honolulu with cannon fire. Kamehameha III was forced to surrender the kingdom but did so under written protest and pending the outcome of the mission of his diplomats that were dispatched to the United States and Europe the previous year to seek recognition of Hawaiian independence.
News of Paulet’s action reached Admiral Richard Thomas of the British Admiralty, and he sailed from the Chilean port of Valparaiso and arrived in Honolulu on July 25, 1843. After a meeting with Kamehameha III, Admiral Thomas determined that Charlton’s complaints did not warrant a British takeover and ordered the restoration of the Hawaiian government, which took place in a grand ceremony on July 31, 1843, at a place that has come to be known today as Thomas Square. At a thanksgiving service after the ceremony, Kamehameha III proclaimed before a large crowd, ua mau ke ea o ka ‘āina i ka pono (the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness). The King’s statement became the national motto. July 31st also became a national holiday in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and it is why we are here today at the Bishop Museum.
Kamehameha III’s diplomats eventually succeeded in achieving recognition of Hawaiian independence. On November 28, 1843, both Great Britain and France, at the Court of London, jointly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State. The United States followed the next year on July 6, 1844. In the nineteenth century, the Hawaiian Kingdom was one of only forty-four independent States that comprised the family of nations. Today the United Nations is comprised of 196 independent States.
The Hawaiian Kingdom became one of the most progressive countries in the world with land reform, universal health care for native Hawaiians at no cost at Queen’s hospital, and universal education for the population at common schools, secondary schools and colleges. Dr. Sun Yat Sen, the father of modern China, and who received his education at Iolani College and Punahou between 1879 and 1883, told a reporter when he returned to Hawai‘i, “This is my Hawaii. Here I was brought up and educated; and it was here that I came to know what modern, civilized governments are like and what they mean.”
After the death of Kamehameha III on December 15, 1854, his wife, the Queen consort Kalama, inherited the kāʻei. When she passed away on September 20, 1870, her mother’s brother and adopted father, High Chief Charles Kana‘ina, father of King Lunalilo, inherited the kāʻei.
On March 13, 1877, Charles Kana‘ina died and probate proceeding ensued until 1882. At one of the auctions of the estate in 1877, Lucy Peabody, who would later become a Lady in Waiting to Queen Lili‘uokalani, stated that King Kālakaua retrieved the kāʻei before it could be auctioned. Thus, the kāʻei became a royal emblem of not just the Kamehameha Dynasty but also the Kālakaua Dynasty.
The following month, on April 10, 1877, Kālakaua received approval from the Nobles of the Legislative Assembly that Princess Lili‘uokalani would be his heir apparent. After the death of the King in 1891, Princess Lili‘uokalani became Queen Lili‘uokalani.
Preparing to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian independence, a dire situation would take place reminiscent of the British takeover in 1843. On January 16, 1893, U.S. resident Minister John Stevens ordered the landing of marines that eventually led to the takeover of the Hawaiian government the following day. Of note is that the Queen did not surrender to the insurgency but rather to the United States and called upon the President to investigate the actions taken by their resident Minister and the Admiral that landed of U.S. troops.
After President Cleveland conducted a presidential investigation he told the Congress on December 18, 1893, “And so it happened that on the 16th day of January, 1893, between four and five o’clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States steamer Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at Honolulu. The men upwards of 160 in all, were supplied with double cartridge belts filled with ammunition and with haversacks and canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself and act of war.”
President Cleveland also reported, “It has been the boast of our Government that it seeks to do justice in all things without regard to the strength or weakness of those with whom it deals. I mistake the American people if they favor the odious doctrine that there is no such thing as international morality, that there is one law for a strong nation and another for a weak one, and that even by indirection a strong power may with impunity despoil a weak one of its territory. By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. President Cleveland concluded that “A substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair.”
The President entered into a treaty with the Queen to restore her to the office of Monarch, but because of political wrangling in the Congress and the lust for Pearl Harbor, the agreement was not carried out. Five years later, on July 7, 1898, at the height of the Spanish-American War, President McKinley signed into American law a joint resolution for annexing the Hawaiian Islands. In 1910, Queen Lili‘uokalani, with the kāʻei in her possession, provided it to the Bishop Museum.
However, the story of the kāʻei, being one of the royal emblems of the Hawaiian Kingdom, is not finished. ‘A‘ole pau.
According to international law, the United States military overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 did not affect the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State. Nor did the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the Congress affect the Hawaiian State because a congressional joint resolution is a legislative act that can only operate within United States territory. In other words, American laws have no effect beyond the borders of the United States.
The United States could only have a acquired the Hawaiian Kingdom’s sovereignty by a treaty. There is no treaty. Only American laws being unlawfully imposed throughout Hawaiian territory. The United States could no more enact law annexing Hawai‘i in 1898 than it could enact a law today annexing Canada, Mexico or Cuba. It is absurd to think otherwise.
In 1997, the Hawaiian government was restored as a Regency under Hawaiian constitutional law and the legal doctrine of necessity. And in 1999, an international dispute was submitted for arbitration at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands called Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. The United States and other countries established the Permanent Court in 1899 to resolve international disputes that States may have with each other, or disputes between a State and an international organization, or a dispute between a State and private entity. In other words, the Permanent Court is only authorized to create an arbitration tribunal if one of the parties to the dispute is a State under international law.
On the Permanent Court’s website it describes the case as “Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”
Before the Permanent Court could form the arbitration tribunal to resolve this dispute it had to confirm that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State since the nineteenth century despite the overthrow of its government in 1893 and despite the American annexation in 1898. The Permanent Court did just that and it also recognized that the Council of Regency is its government. And more importantly, the United States did not protest or object to the Permanent Court’s recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In fact, the United States, through its embassy in the Netherlands, entered into an agreement with the Hawaiian Kingdom so that it could have access to all records and pleadings of the case.
Today is not just to celebrate Restoration Day or La Ho‘iho‘i, but it is also to celebrate that a sequence of events has begun today for the State of Hawai‘i to begin to comply with the international law of occupation, which will eventually bring 131 years of an unlawful and prolonged occupation of a sovereign and independent State to an end.
Despite over a century of revisionist history, the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign State is grounded in the very same principles that the United States and every other State have relied on for their own legal existence. The Hawaiian Kingdom is a magnificent story of perseverance and continuity.
Mahalo.