Today, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Governor Josh Green, M.D., and the members of his cabinet that he or any member of his cabinet have until September 20, 2024, to submit a request for a legal opinion from the Attorney General according to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3. The legal opinion must provide a legal basis, under international law, that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the United States and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. To not do so, Dr. Sai stated that Governor Green and the members of his cabinet will be subject to war criminal reports, after September 20th, for the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. Here is a link to the letter.

The purpose of this letter is to apprise you of the severity of the current situation and its impact on the State of Hawai‘i’s legislative bodies. Enacting American municipal laws is in violation of international humanitarian law and the law of occupation, as is the enforcement of these laws by the executive branch. The continuous enacting of State of Hawai‘i laws, to include County ordinances, constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. According to Professor William Schabas, a renowned expert on international criminal law, war crimes and human rights, in his legal opinion on war crimes, being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom, Professor Schabas identifies four elements of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation that has taken place within Hawaiian territory.

1. The perpetrator imposed or applied legislative or administrative measures of the occupying power going beyond those required by what is necessary for military purposes of the occupation.
2. The perpetrator was aware that the measures went beyond what was required for military purposes or the protection of fundamental human rights.
3. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an occupation resulting from international armed conflict.
4. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of the armed conflict and subsequent occupation.

Regarding the last two elements of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, Professor Schabas explains:

1. There is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the perpetrator as to the existence of an armed conflict or its character of the conflict as international or non-international;
2. In that context there is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the conflict as international or non-international;
3. There is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict that is implicit in the terms “took place in the context of and was associated with.”

It has been twenty-five years since the international arbitral proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) were initiated on November 8, 1999, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. The first allegation of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, was the subject of this arbitral dispute, whereby the claimant, Lance Larsen, alleged that the Hawaiian Kingdom, by its Council of Regency, was legally liable “for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws” over him within Hawaiian territory. This led to the war crimes of unfair trial and unlawful confinement by the District Court of the Third Circuit in Kea‘au.

Before the arbitral tribunal was established on June 9, 2000, the PCA Secretary General recognized, as a matter of institutional jurisdiction, the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a non-Contracting State pursuant to Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention, I, for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Article 47 states, “[t]he jurisdiction of the Permanent Court, may within the conditions laid down in the regulations, be extended to disputes between non-Contracting [States] or between Contracting [States] and non-Contracting [States], if the parties are agreed on recourse to this Tribunal.” This brought the dispute under the auspices of the PCA. The PCA Secretary General also recognized the Council of Regency as the Hawaiian Kingdom government. The Council of Regency did not claim to be the government of a new State but rather the legal personality of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom since the nineteenth century.

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. This issue 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 1993 joint resolution, apologizing for the United States overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals heard an appeal that centered on a claim that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued 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.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, but it admitted “the court’s rationale is open to question in light of international law.” By not applying international law, the appellate court concluded that the trial court’s decision was correct because Lorenzo “presented no factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.” Since 1994, Lorenzo become the precedent case for denying defendants’ motions to dismiss claims that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. When the appellate court placed the burden on defendants to provide a ‘factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ it would require the application of international law and not the municipal law or common law of the United States and/or the State of Hawai‘i in order for the defense to meet that burden.

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.

I am enclosing two legal opinions, published by the Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics, by experts in international law, that provide 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. I am also enclosing my latest law article on the responsibility to protect a State’s population from war crimes that was published this year by the International Review of Contemporary Law.

Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3 states: “[t]he 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 (emphasis added).” The legal definition of shall “is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word ‘may,’ which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion.” As Governor, you are authorized to request a legal opinion on a question of law, and the Attorney General shall provide you with it. That question of law, that I propose you request for a legal opinion on is:

Considering the two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which are enclosed with this request, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom?

Under international law, there is a presumption of continuity of the Hawaiian State despite the overthrow of its government by the United States on January 17, 1893. According to Judge James Crawford, International Court of Justice, there “is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations […] despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government,” and belligerent occupation “does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” Presumption is defined as an act or instance of taking something to be true. As a matter of law, in the absence of acceptable reasons to the contrary, presumption is an attitude adopted in law toward an action or proposal.

The presumption of State continuity shifts the burden of proof as to what is to be proven and by whom. Like the presumption of innocence, the accused does not prove their innocence, but rather the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that person’s guilt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is evidence so convincing that no reasonable person would have any doubts as to the person’s guilt. Matthew Craven, professor of international law, explains:

If one were to speak about a presumption of continuity, one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.

In other words, the Attorney General’s legal opinion does not prove the State of Hawai‘i lawfully exists, but rather, it must prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exists, as a State, under the rules of international law. Evidence of ‘a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States’ would be an international treaty, particularly a peace treaty, whereby the Hawaiian Kingdom would have ceded its territory and sovereignty to the United States. Examples of foreign States ceding sovereign territory to the United States by a peace treaty include the 1848 Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement with the Republic of Mexico and the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain.

To answer, in the affirmative, that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States, the Attorney General must refer to a ‘valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States,’ in her legal opinion. Otherwise, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law. For her to claim that the question of law raises a political question and, therefore, she cannot answer the question, is an admission to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s presumed existence since the nineteenth century. The political question doctrine refers to federal courts and their inability to adjudicate disputes that have been submitted to the courts for adjudication. According to the U.S. Supreme Court:

For purposes of Article III of the Constitution, “no justiciable ‘controversy’ exists when parties seek adjudication of a political question.” But the term “political question” is a legal term of art that on its face gives little indication of what sorts of cases the doctrine bars federal courts from deciding.

Furthermore, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, precludes the Attorney General from not answering the question if it was previously demonstrated, by the two legal opinions, that “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.’” According to State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo, she would have to provide rebuttable evidence that counters the conclusions of the two legal opinions, otherwise the presumption of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a State remains. Therefore, all acts taken by the United States within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, to include the creation of the State of Hawai‘i by a congressional act, is void. According to the Permanent Court of International Justice, in the Lotus case (France v. Turkey):

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.

Therefore, the United States cannot ‘exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State,’ such as the Hawaiian Kingdom, which it already has international treaties with. The United States needs a treaty of cession with the Hawaiian Kingdom before it can exercise any power within the latter’s territory. Consequently, the State of Hawai‘i has no legal standing within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and actions or conduct taken by members of the State of Hawai‘i and or its Counties could be construed as war crimes.

Unless the Adjutant General, Major General Kenneth Hara, as the theater commander, takes affirmative steps 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, the State of Hawai‘i has no lawful authority allowable under international law. A legal opinion, to the contrary, pursuant to HRS §28-3, must be made by yourself, as Governor, or by any of your department heads by Friday, September 20, 2024. War crimes have no statute of limitations. I recommend that all of you view a presentation that I gave to the Maui County Council’s Disaster, Resilience, International Affairs, and Planning (DRIP) Committee on March 6, 2024 (online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-VIA_3GD2A). .

For you and the members of your cabinet, this letter constitutes actual notice for committing the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation and thus, you all will be subject to war criminal reports by the Royal Commission of Inquiry after September 20, 2024. To render this as frivolous, it is in your vested interest, as the Governor of the State of Hawai‘i, or of any of your heads of the departments, to get a legal opinion from the Attorney General pursuant to HRS §28-3 that provides the legal basis that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the United States and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Yesterday, September 2, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Joshua A. Jacobs regarding the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0005 on Lieutenant Colonel Tuisamatatele, Jr.’s war crime by omission. The RCI also informed him that he has until 12 noon on September 9, 2024, to perform his military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i. Here is a link to the letter.

Today, September 2, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) published its War Criminal Report no. 24-0005 finding Lieutenant Colonel Bingham L. Tuisamatatele, Jr. guilty of the war crime by omission. LTC Tuisamatatele 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 Tuisamatatele, 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 to U.S. military law, LTC Tuisamatatele is accountable by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Under international criminal law, LTC Tuisamatatele is subject to prosecution, by a competent court or tribunal, for the war crime by omission.

Consequently, as the Commander of the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, 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 9, 2024. In my letter to LTC Tuisamatatele, dated August 26, 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 Tuisamatatele did not do so, which led to the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0005. 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 9, 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 29^th 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 19^th, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”