On October 20, 2023, the Council of Regency, as the government of the occupied State, initiated the process to terminate the 1884 Supplemental Convention (“Pearl Harbor Convention”). Secretary of State Antony Blinken received the notice of termination from the Council of Regency on October 26, 2023, at 05:47 hours, which consequently triggered the tolling of twelve months. According to the terms of the Pearl Harbor Convention, the treaty will be terminated on October 26, 2024, 05:47 hours.
The Pearl Harbor Convention extended the duration of the 1875 Commercial Reciprocity Treaty an additional seven years until 1894, unless either the United States or the Hawaiian Kingdom gives notice to the other of its intention to terminate the treaty and convention. According to Article I:
The High Contracting Parties agree, that the time fixed for the duration of the said Convention, shall be definitely extended for a term of seven years from the date of the exchange of ratifications hereof, and further, until the expiration of twelve months after either of the High Contracting Parties shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same, each of the High Contracting Parties being at liberty to give such notice to the other at the end of the said term of seven years or at any time thereafter.
As a condition for the extension of the commercial treaty, the United States sought exclusive access to Pearl Harbor. Article II of the Pearl Harbor Convention provides:
His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands grants to the Government of the United States the exclusive right to enter the harbor of Pearl River, in the Island of Oahu, and to establish and maintain there a coaling and repair station for the use of vessels of the United States, and to that end the United States may improve the entrance to said harbor and do all other things needful to the purpose aforesaid.
According to Article 1, the Pearl Harbor Convention came into effect in 1887 after ratifications were exchanged in Washington, D.C., and would last for seven years and further until “either of the High Contracting Parties shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same,” where termination would commence twelve months after the notification is received by the other High Contracting Party. Although the Hawaiian government was unlawfully overthrown by the United States on 17 January 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law continued to exist.
After the Hawaiian government was overthrown by the United States in 1893, the United States did nothing with Pearl Harbor until 1908 when the United States Congress allocated monies to build a naval station instead of a “coaling and repair station.” This violated the terms of the Pearl Harbor Convention as well as violating the Hawaiian Kingdom’s neutrality under international law.
A note of the Hawaiian Kingdom attached to the Pearl Harbor Convention stated, “that Hawaiian Sovereignty and jurisdiction were not impaired that the Hawaiian Government was not bound to furnish land for any purpose and that the privilege to be granted should be coterminous with the Treaty.” Coterminous is defined as “having the same boundaries,” which is limited to Pearl Harbor.
The unlawful presence of the United States military has transformed the Hawaiian Kingdom from a neutral State into a military target by its adversaries, which first occurred on 7 December 7, 1941 when Japan’s military forces attacked U.S. military targets. The high probability of military attacks by other countries, such as North Korea, China, and Russia continue due to the rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific region. In 1990, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Risks and Hazards—A State by State Guide listed 6 targets for nuclear attack that would effectively annihilate the entire Island of O‘ahu. The presence of the United States military places the civilian population of the Hawaiian Kingdom into perilous danger.
In light of the termination of the Pearl Harbor Convention, all Title 10 military forces of the four component commands of the Indo-Pacific Command—Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, shall forthwith cease and desist any and all military exercises, to include utilizing live fire ranges across the islands, and anywhere within 200 nautical miles from the low water mark of the shoreline of the islands that constitute the Hawaiian Kingdom’s territorial sea and its exclusive economic zone, and to complete the withdrawal from the Hawaiian Islands by 26 October 2024.
The Staff Judge Advocates of the Indo-Pacific Command and the 25th Infantry Division were also included with the notifications. In his letters, Dr. Sai restated from the Council of Regency’s proclamation terminating the Pearl Harbor Convention:
And, We do require that when the United States has received this notice of termination, it shall, prior to the expiration of twelve months in accordance with Article I of the 1884 Supplemental Convention, remove all movable property at its military facilities throughout the Hawaiian Islands, including unexploded munitions, and fuel, with the exception of real property attached to the land or erected on it, including manmade objects, such as buildings, homes, structures, roads, sewers, and fences, to include on other properties that have been or are currently under its supervision and command.
Dr. Sai stated that the reasoning for notifying the component commands was because it was unclear whether the State Department notified Indo-Pacific Command of the termination of the Pearl Harbor Convention. Dr. Sai also stated that it did not appear that U.S. troops were beginning to be withdrawn. In his letters to the commanders of the component commands, Dr. Sai addressed the war crimes of confiscation or destruction of property:
Military installations and target ranges beyond Pearl Harbor were unlawfully confiscated by the United States from the Hawaiian Kingdom public lands and the estates of private persons in violation of international humanitarian law and the law of occupation. Live fire at these target ranges constitute destruction of property. According to Professor William Schabas, renowned expert on international criminal law, war crimes and human rights, in his legal opinion on war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom, there are five elements of the war crime of confiscation or destruction of property.
Following the end of hostilities during the Second World War, the war crimes tribunals in Nuremburg and Tokyo, “marked a clear recognition by the international community that all members of the chain of command who participate or acquiesce in war crimes must bear individual criminal responsibility.” Command responsibility arises when the military superior during an occupation of a foreign State fails to exercise sufficient control and accountability for his/her subordinates’ in the commission of war crimes. And a “non-military commander is [also] responsible for omissions which lead to the commission of crimes.” The doctrine of command responsibility arises when a superior, by omission, fails to control or punish those under his/her command.
Dereliction of the performance of a duty arises when a commander took no action to prevent, stop, or punish. Confiscation and destruction of property are war crimes and commanders of the four component commands have a duty to stop the further commission of these and other war crimes. Dereliction of the performance of a duty is also a war crime of omission.
The presence of United States troops under the Indo-Pacific Command have no legal basis within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. As such, their conduct and actions would come under the purview of the Royal Commission of Inquiry in its investigation of war crimes. A particular war crime, under customary international law, is the destruction of property, which would apply to target ranges and the contamination of the Island of O‘ahu’s aquifers. According to Professor William Schabas, renowned expert in international criminal law and war crimes, in his legal opinion for the Royal Commission of Inquiry:
The actus reus consists of an act of confiscation or destruction of property in an occupied territory, be it that belonging to the State or individuals. The mens rea requires that the perpetrator act with intent to confiscate or destroy the property and with knowledge that the owner of the property was the State or an individual.
The letters to the component commanders of the Indo-Pacific Command constitute evidence that they “have knowledge that the owner of the property was the State or an individual.”
On October 1, 2024, Major General Kenneth Hara retired as Adjutant General of the Hawai‘i National Guard. At first glance, his willful failure to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government in accordance with U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation, which is the war crime by omission, is now a problem for someone else. On the contrary, he exacerbated the situation.
MG Hara, tasked his Staff Judge Advocate, also called JAG, Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps, to investigate the information on the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom that Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, provided to MG Hara at their meeting on April 13, 2023, at the Grand Naniloa Hotel in Hilo. LTC Phelps was unable to refute the fact of the American occupation, which led MG Hara to admit, on July 27, 2023, that Hawai‘i is an occupied State. Subsequently, the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez, instructed MG Hara and the Deputy Adjutant General, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, to ignore Dr. Sai. It was also revealed later to Dr. Sai, that the Attorney General also instructed MG Hara to not request of her a legal opinion to answer the question:
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?
His failure to perform his duty and abide by Army regulations, as the most senior officer in the Army National Guard, led to him being the subject of the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s (RCI) War Criminal Report no. 24-0001. The report provides the evidential basis for the commission of the war crime, which is an international crime. It is commonly stated in the U.S. Army, that there are regulations for everything that regulate military life.
MG Hara’s conduct and omission to establish a military government comes squarely under U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual, para. 18.22.1, which states, “Any person who commits an act that constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. International law imposes duties and liabilities on individuals as well as States, and individuals may be punished for violations of international law.” The Commission’s report is the evidence to punish MG Hara, and there is no statute of limitation for the war crime by omission. In other words, he will be punished because there is no time limit to prosecute unless he dies. Germany prosecuted a 97-year-old woman for committing Nazi war crimes in 2022.
Paragraph 18.22.1 directs MG Hara’s punishment to be done by a court martial. Although the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) does not have any “war crime” offenses, prosecutions can be made by a military court for war crimes that are also offenses under the UCMJ. In the case of prosecuting MG Hara, the willful failure to establish a military government, which is a violation of Army regulations, would be to prosecute him under UCMJ’s §892 Article 92(1), being the failure to obey a regulation, and Article 92(3), being dereliction in the performance of duties.
MG Hara’s cowardly conduct appeared to have established a leadership trait that was followed by his chain of command in the Army National Guard to their detriment. Because MG Hara committed a war crime and subject to be punished by a court martial, BG Logan was supposed to assume command under Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 2-11. This Army regulation states that the “senior officer, WO [warrant officer], cadet, NCO [non-commissioned officer], or junior enlisted Soldier among troops at the scene of an emergency will assume temporary command and control of the Soldiers present.”
Black’s Law Dictionary defines an emergency as “A sudden unexpected happening; an unforeseen occurrence or condition; perplexing contingency or complication of circumstances; a sudden or unexpected occasion for action; exigency; pressing necessity. Emergency is an unforeseen combination of circumstances that calls for immediate action without time for full deliberation.” A scenario of this sort, in battle, would be where a platoon’s leadership was killed by the enemy that left only soldiers of the rank of Private alive. The regulation would require the most senior enlisted Private to assume command of the platoon until relieved by a more senior soldier. The criteria would be which of the Privates had the longest time in the Army. Failure to assume command in an emergency is an offense under UCMJ Article 92(1) and 92(3). The regulation to assume command is para. 2-11—Emergency command, Army Regulation 600-20.
When BG Logan was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0002, it became the duty of Colonel Wesley Kawakami, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade, to assume command. When Colonel Kawakami was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0003, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Werner, Commander of 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, to assume command. When LTC Werner was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0004, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Bingham Tuisamataele, Jr., Commander of 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, to assume command. When LTC Tuisamataele, Jr. was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0005, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs, Commander of 29th Brigade Support Battalion, to assume command. When LTC Jacobs was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0006, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis, Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, to assume command. When LTC Balsis was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0007, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner, Executive Officer, 29th Infantry Brigade, to assume command.
LTC Rosner was spared, for now, being the subject of a war criminal report, because Senator Cross Makani Crabbe did what MG Hara did not have the courage to do. Senator Crabbe made a formal request of Attorney General Lopez, as a member of the State of Hawai‘i legislature under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-2, for a legal opinion answering the question:
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?
This act by Senator Crabbe has temporarily protected LTC Rosner from incurring criminal culpability for not establishing a military government as those before him did. LTC Rosner, however, is faced with the performance of his duty of assuming command under Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 2-11. What would prevent him from assuming command is that the Hawaiian Kingdom is not an occupied State under international law. If this were the case, surely the Attorney General Lopez could settle this matter by providing a legal opinion that the “State of Hawai‘i [is] within the territory of the United States” and not “within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”
What the Attorney General faces, however, is that under customary international law, as explained by the legal opinions of Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, is that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as an occupied State, which places the State of Hawai‘i “within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” The Attorney General’s silence, in fact, reinforces what customary international law already concludes, and that the RCI’s war criminal reports are authorized and valid. Dr. Sai, as Head of the RCI, explained this to LTC Rosner in his letter dated September 23, 2024.
The severity of the consequences of the conduct of MG Hara, as a war criminal, cannot be underestimated. LTC Rosner will assume command and then perform the duty of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. Time is not on the side of LTC Rosner to perform his Army duties.
Today, October 11, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner regarding his military duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government in light of Senator Cross Makani Crabbe’s request for a legal opinion from Attorney General Anne Lopez. Here is a link to the letter.
In my letter to you dated September 23, 2024, I apprised you of Senator Cross Makani Crabbe’s formal request, under §28-3 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, of Attorney General Anne Lopez for a legal opinion on this question:
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?
I also explained in that letter the presumption of continuity of a State, under customary international law, despite its government being overthrown by military force. Case in point was that the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s government in 2003, during the Second Gulf War, did not affect the continuity of the Iraqi State. Thereafter, United States forces established a military government by taking over the Iraqi civilian government, later to be called the Coalition Provisional Authority. Having been deployed to Iraq during the Second Gulf War you would know this.
When the Hawaiian Kingdom government was unlawfully overthrown by United States forces, the Hawaiian State continued to exist despite the failure of United States troops to establish a military government, to administer the laws of the occupied State, until a treaty of peace is established. Unlike Iraq, there is neither military government nor a treaty of peace that would have brought the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom to an end. The illegality of the overthrow was acknowledged by President Grover Cleveland in his message to the United States Congress on December 18, 1893. In his message, President Cleveland concluded:
The lawful Government of Hawaii was overthrown without the drawing of a sword or the firing of a shot by a process every step of which, it may safely be asserted, is directly traceable to and dependent for its success upon the agency of the United States acting through its diplomatic and naval representatives.
But for the notorious predilections of the United States Minister for annexation, the Committee of Safety, which should be called the Committee of Annexation, would never have existed.
But for the landing of United States forces upon the false pretexts respecting the danger to life and property the committee would never have exposed themselves to the pains and penalties of treason by undertaking the subversion of the Queen’s Government.
But for the presence of the United States forces in the immediate vicinity and in position to afford all needed protection and support the committee would never have proclaimed the provisional government from the steps of the Government building.
And finally, but for the lawless occupation of Honolulu under false pretexts by the United States forces, and but for Minister Steven’s recognition of the provisional government when the United States forces were its sole support and constituted its only military strength, the Queen and her Government would never have yielded to the provisional government, even for a time and for the sole purpose of submitting her case to the enlightened justice of the United States.
The continuity of Hawaiian Statehood is a matter of customary international law and not the domestic laws of the United States. In 1999, the Permanent Court of Arbitration recognized that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to exist as a State under customary international law. This provided the basis for the establishment of the arbitration tribunal on June 9, 2000. Furthermore, the continuity of Hawaiian Statehood under customary international law was explained in two legal opinions, one by Professor Matthew Craven and the other by Professor Federico Lenzerini. In addition, war crimes that are being committed, by the imposition of American municipal laws over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, is also a matter of customary international law. This is explained by the legal opinion of Professor William Schabas.
Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice identifies five sources of international law: (a) treaties between States; (b) customary international law derived from the practice of States; (c) general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; and, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law; (d) judicial decisions; and (e) the writings of “the most highly qualified publicists.” These writings by these academics are from “the most highly qualified publicists,” and are, therefore, a source of customary international law.
According to Professor Shaw, “[b]ecause of the lack of supreme authorities and institutions in the international legal order, the responsibility is all the greater upon publicists of the various nations to inject an element of coherence and order into the subject as well as to question the direction and purposes of the rules.” Thus, “academic writings are regarded as law-determining agencies, dealing with the verification of alleged rules.” As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in the Paquette Habana case:
International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations; and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators, who by years of labor, research and experience, have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is (emphasis added).
As a source of international law, the legal opinions establish a shift in the burden of proof. The presumption of State continuity shifts the burden of proof as to what is to be proven and by whom to rebut this presumption. 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. Likewise, the Hawaiian Kingdom need not prove its continued existence, but rather, the Attorney General must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Hawaiian Kingdom had been extinguished as a State under international law. Such proof would make the State of Hawai‘i legitimate.
In other words, the Attorney General need 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 as evidenced by the legal opinions of Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini. Evidence of a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, by 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.
In this case, there is no such treaty. There only exists a congressional joint resolution of annexation, purporting to have annexed a foreign State in 1898. This is an American municipal law limited in its effect to the territory of the United States. As the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”), concluded in its 1988 legal opinion, “[i]t is unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution,” and “[t]here is a serious question whether Congress has the authority either to assert jurisdiction over an expanded territorial sea for purposes of international law or to assert the United States’s sovereignty over it,” because only the President “has the authority to assert the United States’s sovereignty over the extended territorial sea.” This legal opinion also stated that “[o]nly by means of treaties […] can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force—confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted.”
Absent the evidence of a treaty, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, as an occupied State with its sovereignty intact, despite the prolonged nature of the American occupation. Therefore, to restate paragraph 358, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, “military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty (emphasis added).”
Do not wait for the Attorney General to provide Senator Crabbe with a legal opinion because, under customary international law, there is the presumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, continues to exist. Moreover, the Attorney General does not have the same legal status as Professor Craven, Professor Lenzerini or Professor Schabas, under international law, because she is not a source of international law. Her only offer of proof, that the State of Hawai‘i is lawful, is to provide a treaty of cession where the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded its territory and sovereignty to the United States.
Senator Crabbe’s letter begins with the presumption that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Unless the Attorney General can provide rebuttable evidence, in her legal opinion, that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States, then Senator Crabbe’s presumption remains as a matter of customary international law. The military duty to establish a military government is obligatory because the State of Hawai‘i is not within territorial boundaries of the United States.
More importantly, LTC Phelps was unable to refute the information and evidence I provided MG Hara at our meeting at the Grand Naniloa Hotel on April 13, 2023. Then MG Hara acknowledged to a mutual friend, on July 27, 2023, that the Hawaiian Kingdom is an occupied State. Subsequently, Attorney General Lopez interfered with MG Hara’s military duty by instructing him to ignore me.
From a legal standpoint, the Attorney General has been silenced by Senator Crabbe’s letter. Consequently, since MG Hara failed, as the Head of the Department of Defense to perform, as Senator Crabbe did, which resulted in the failure to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government, then MG Hara, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, Colonel Wesley Kawakami, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick Werner, Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr., Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs, and Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis, have all been made the subject of war criminal reports for the war crime by omission. As a result, you are, now, the most senior officer in the Army National Guard.
I strongly urge you to reach out to Lieutenant Colonel Phelps, as the Staff Judge Advocate, on this matter of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a military government, by developing an Operations Order from the Hawaiian Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government. The Council of Regency is prepared to meet with you on this matter because, as Professor Lenzerini explains in his legal opinion, “the working relationship between the Regency and the administration of the occupying State,” is paramount. I am enclosing my curriculum vitae.
International law comprises a body of rules by custom or treaty that govern the relations and conduct of sovereign and independent States in their relations with each other. At the core of international law is the sovereign equality among States despite the physical size of the different States. So, despite the difference in the size of their territory, the sovereignty of the United States is equal to the sovereignty of Luxemburg, which is the size of the Island of O‘ahu.
Because of this equality, there is no higher order or institution above the States, and there is no legislative body. International law is comprised of customary law that the States recognize as binding, and treaties that bind the States when they become a contracting party to the treaty. However, provisions in a treaty can become customary law when all States, which include States that did not sign the treaty, recognize its binding nature. Examples include the provisions in the 1907 Hague Regulations and 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention that regulate warfare and belligerent occupations.
The bedrock of international law is the sovereignty of an independent State. Black’s Law dictionary defines sovereignty as the “supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed.” For the purposes of international law, Wheaton explains:
Sovereignty is the supreme power by which any State is governed. This supreme power may be exercised either internally or externally. Internal sovereignty is that which is inherent in the people or any State, or vested in its ruler, by its municipal constitution or fundamental laws. This is the object of what has been called internal public law […], but which may be more properly be termed constitutional law. External sovereignty consists in the independence of one political society, in respect to all other political societies. It is by the exercise of this branch of sovereignty that the international relations of one political society are maintained, in peace and in war, with all other political societies. The law by which it is regulated has, therefore, been called external public law […], but may more properly be termed international law.
In the 1928 Island of Palmas arbitration, which was a dispute between the United States and the Netherlands, the arbitrator explained that “Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State.” And in the 1927 S.S. Lotus case, which was a dispute between France and Turkey, the Permanent Court of International Justice stated:
Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention [treaty].
As section 358, United States Army Field Manual 27-10 that regulates warfare and occupation of a foreign State’s territory, states:
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.
Because sovereignty remains vested in the Hawaiian Kingdom, even during a prolonged occupation, not only does this render the State of Hawai‘i as unlawful, but it also renders the sovereignty movement moot.
Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice identifies five sources of international law: (a) treaties between States; (b) customary international law derived from the practice of States; (c) general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; and, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law; (d) judicial decisions and the (e) writings of “the most highly qualified publicists.”
International judicial decisions and the writings of scholars are regarded as law-determining and not law making. According to Professor Malcolm Shaw, a British subject, “Because of the lack of supreme authorities and institutions in the international legal order, the responsibility is all the greater upon publicists of the various nations to inject an element of coherence and order into the subject as well as to question the direction and purposes of the rules.” The United States Supreme Court understood the significance of the writings of scholars in international law. In the 1900 Paquete Habana case, the Supreme Court stated:
International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations; and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators, who by years of labor, research and experience, have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.
The significance of the legal opinion by Professor Matthew Craven, a British subject, on the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, the legal opinion by Professor Federico Lenzerini, an Italian citizen, on the legitimacy of the Council of Regency, and the legal opinion by Professor William Schabas, a Canadian citizen, on war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom under the American occupation since 1893, are that all three legal opinions are written by publicists who are scholars and professors in international law. As such, these three legal opinions constitute one of the five sources of international law. As the Supreme Court stated, “the works of jurists and commentators [is considered] trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.”
The continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency, as its temporary government, does not rely on a person’s support or belief. It is a legal fact under international law, with profound consequences that are not debatable. The investigative work of the Royal Commission of Inquiry should not be taken lightly by members of the State of Hawai‘i because a senior State of Hawai‘i official says to ignore.
Attorney General Anne Lopez is directly responsible for causing other senior officials of the State of Hawai‘i to commit war crimes because she instructed them to ignore what international law says it is to their peril. Because a person doesn’t understand international law, they shouldn’t just ignore it especially when their conduct and action would constitute a war crime that they were pre-warned about. They should inquire from qualified persons, which the Attorney General is not.
Today, September 30, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to State of Hawai‘i Governor Josh Green, that he, Lieutenant Governor Sylvia Luke, Hawaiian Home Lands Chairman Kali Watson, and Deputy to the Chair Katie Lambert have been found guilty of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, subject to criminal prosecution under War Criminal Report no. 23-0001-1. Here is a link to the letter.
On September 23, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry notified “you and your Cabinet to cease and desist your functions under American municipal laws in light of Senator Cross Makani Crabbe’s formal request, pursuant to §28-3 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, to Attorney General Anne Lopez for a legal opinion regarding whether the State of Hawai‘i is lawful and that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist as an occupied State.”
In willful defiance of this order, on September 25, 2024, Kali Watson, Chairman of the Hawaiian Homes Commission and head of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, delivered a NOTICE OF IMPOUNDING OF CATTLE LOCATED ON HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS, HUMU‘ULA, HAWAII TMK 39001009, 38001002, 38001007, 26018002 to Mr. Lawrence Costa, Jr., a Hawaiian subject. Therefore, Chairman Watson and Deputy to the Chair, Katie L. Lambert, as the principals of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, and yourself, and Lieutenant Governor Sylvia Luke, as the accomplices, were made the subjects of the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s (“RCI”) War Criminal Report 23-00001-1. The RCI’s report provides the evidence necessary to meet the requisite elements of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, and provides the probable cause that all four of you are guilty dolus directus in the first degree, and subject to prosecution. There are no statutes of limitation for war crimes.
The failure of Attorney General Lopez to provide a legal opinion, that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist as an occupied State and that the State of Hawai‘i is, therefore, within the territory of the United States, has consequently placed you, and members of your staff, with criminal culpability as war criminals. Surely, if the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist as a State under international law, the Attorney General should have readily provided Chairman Watson a legal opinion that his action would be lawful.
Your Attorney General is confronted by insurmountable international law on the side of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and, consequently, creating a serious detriment to the State of Hawai‘i. The significance of the two legal opinions, by scholars of international law, demonstrate a significant difference from legal opinions written by attorneys at a national level. The latter is not a source of law, while the former is. Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice identifies five sources of international law: (a) treaties between States; (b) customary international law derived from the practice of States; (c) general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; and, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of international law; (d) judicial decisions and the (e) writings of “the most highly qualified publicists (emphasis added).”
According to Professor Shaw, “[b]ecause of the lack of supreme authorities and institutions in the international legal order, the responsibility is all the greater upon publicists of the various nations to inject an element of coherence and order into the subject as well as to question the direction and purposes of the rules.” Therefore, “academic writings are regarded as law-determining agencies, dealing with the verification of alleged rules.” As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in the Paquette Habana case:
International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations; and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators, who by years of labor, research and experience, have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is (emphasis added).
As a source of international law, the aforementioned legal opinions establish a shift in the burden of proof. The presumption of State continuity shifts the burden of proof as to what is to be proven and by whom to rebut this presumption. 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 means the evidence is so convincing that no reasonable person would have any doubts as to the person’s guilt. Likewise, the Hawaiian Kingdom need not prove its continued existence, but rather, the Attorney General must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Hawaiian Kingdom had been extinguished as a State under international law. This would make the State of Hawai‘i lawful.
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 as evidenced in the legal opinions by Professor Matthew Craven and Professor Federico Lenzerini. 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.
There is no such treaty. There only exists a congressional joint resolution of annexation, purporting to have annexed a foreign State in 1898, which is an American municipal law limited in its effect to the territory of the United States. As the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, stated in its 1988 legal opinion, “[i]t is unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution,” because “[t]here is a serious question whether Congress has the authority either to assert jurisdiction over an expanded territorial sea for purposes of international law or to assert the United States’s sovereignty over it.” This legal opinion also stated that “[o]nly by means of treaties […] can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force—confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted.”
Absent the evidence of a treaty, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, as an occupied State with its sovereignty intact, despite the prolonged nature of the American occupation. Therefore, to restate paragraph 358, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, “military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty (emphasis added).”
It should deeply concern the other members of your cabinet that the Attorney General has not relieved them of criminal culpability in the performance and functions under American law, by rebuking the legal opinions, as a recognized source of international law, of Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. They should be equally concerned that the “Legal Opinion on War Crimes Related to the United States Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 17 January 1893” by renowned expert in international criminal law, Professor William Schabas, is also a recognized source of international law. In his opening paragraph, Professor Schabas recognizes the authority of the RCI and directly links his legal opinion to Professor Craven’s legal opinion on the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
This legal opinion is made at the request of the head of the Hawaiian Royal Commission of Inquiry, Dr. David Keanu Sai, in his letter of 28 May 2019, requesting of me “a legal opinion addressing the applicable international law, main facts and their related assessment, allegations of war crimes, and defining the material elements of the war crimes in order to identify mens rea and actus reus”. It is premised on the assumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom was occupied by the United States in 1893 and that it remained so since that time. Reference has been made to the expert report produced by Prof. Matthew Craven dealing with the legal status of Hawai‘i and the view that it has been and remains in a situation of belligerent occupation resulting in application of the relevant rules of international law, particularly those set out in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. This legal opinion is confined to the definitions and application of international criminal law to a situation of occupation. The terms “Hawaiian Kingdom” and “Hawai‘i” are synonymous in this legal opinion.
Major General Hara’s failure to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government has denied all aboriginal Hawaiians—named Native Hawaiians today, of their legal right, under Hawaiian Kingdom law, as it was in 1893, to health care at no cost at Queen’s Hospital, and to access of government land at $.50 an acre. The inflation calculator has at $17.49 an acre today. As I stated in my letter to you and your cabinet, dated September 23, 2024, without a legal opinion by the Attorney General, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner is duty bound to replace you, and become a military governor by transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a military government pursuant to U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, U.S. Army Field Manuals 27-5 and 27-10, and the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan to Transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government. The operational plan has essential and implied tasks in accordance with Hawaiian Kingdom law and the Law of Armed Conflict, which is also known as international humanitarian law. Civilians of the occupying State have no place of authority in the territory of an occupied State.
On KITV Island Life Live yesterday, Dr. Keanu Sai explains Senator Cross Makani Crabbe’s letter to Attorney General Anne Lopez requesting a legal opinion on the legal status of the State of Hawai‘i in light of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State by the United States since January 17, 1893.
On KITV Island Life Live yesterday, Dr. Keanu Sai explains the termination of the 1887 Pearl Harbor Treaty and its impact on the U.S. military in the Hawaiian Islands. Here is a link to a blog post that explains the termination of the treaty on October 23, 2024.
The Chinese finger trap, which is a woven cylinder, is when a person puts their index fingers in both ends of the cylinder and try to pull their fingers out, the weave of the cylinder tightens around the fingers. The trap is in the way in which the material is woven. And so we have the Hawaiian finger trap that State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez finds herself in when Senator Cross Makani Crabbe wrote a formal letter requesting for a legal opinion about the State of Hawai‘i and its lawful status within the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The weave of the Hawaiian finger trap is made of years of historical facts interwoven with international law since the Hawaiian Kingdom became a sovereign and independent State on November 28, 1843, and, thereby, becoming a member of the Family of Nations. The United States followed by recognizing Hawaiian independence on July 6, 1844. By 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom had twenty-seven treaties with other countries, four of these treaties is with the United States.
The Hawaiian Kingdom maintained diplomatic representatives and consulates accredited to other countries. Hawaiian Legations were established in Washington, D.C., London, Paris, Lima, Valparaiso, and Tokyo, while diplomatic representatives and consulates accredited to the Hawaiian Kingdom were from the United States, Portugal, Great Britain, France, and Japan. There were two Hawaiian consulates in Mexico; one in Guatemala; two in Peru; one in Chile; one in Uruguay; thirty-three in Great Britain and her colonies; five in France and her colonies; five in Germany; one in Austria; ten in Spain and her colonies; five in Portugal and her colonies; three in Italy; two in the Netherlands; four in Belgium; four in Sweden and Norway; one in Denmark; one in Japan; and eight in the United States. Foreign Consulates in the Hawaiian Kingdom were from the United States, Italy, Chile, Germany, Sweden and Norway, Denmark, Peru, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Austria and Hungary, Russia, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and China.
Unlike other non-European States, the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a recognized neutral State, enjoyed equal treaties with European powers, including the United States, and full independence of its laws over its territory. In his speech at the opening of the 1855 Hawaiian Legislature, King Kamehameha IV, reported, “It is gratifying to me, on commencing my reign, to be able to inform you, that my relations with all the great Powers, between whom and myself exist treaties of amity, are of the most satisfactory nature. I have received from all of them, assurances that leave no room to doubt that my rights and sovereignty will be respected.”
In its 2001 arbitral award in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, the Tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) acknowledged this when it stated, “in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.”
Independent States are protected by international law, which is why States are the benefactors of international law. Unlike laws within countries like the United States where the source of law is a legislature, on the international plane there is no legislative body that enacts international law. Instead, the sources of international law are customary law, treaties, principles of law, judicial decisions, and scholarly articles written by experts in international law. A common misunderstanding is that the United Nations General Assembly creates international laws. It does not. It only enacts resolutions or position statements that may include international law.
Under international law, there is a presumption that the State continues to exist even though its government was militarily overthrown. Because there is a presumption, not an assumption, that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist under international law despite the United States overthrow of the Hawaiian government, the Attorney General would have to provide rebuttable evidence that there is no application of the principle of presumption because the Hawaiian Kingdom was extinguished under international law by a treaty of cession where the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded its sovereignty and territory to the United States. There is no such treaty except for American laws being imposed in the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Because the Hawaiian Kingdom exists, the State of Hawai‘i cannot lawfully exist within Hawaiian territory. The Hawaiian finger trap.
So the question the Attorney General has to answer is in light of the two legal opinions that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist under international law, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Like the presumption of innocence, the accused does not have to prove their innocence, rather the prosecution must prove with evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that the person is not innocent. What also sets the foundation is that because Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini are scholars in international law, their legal opinions that Senator Crabbe included in his letter to the Attorney General are a part of international law.
The premise is that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom until she can provide evidence beyond all reasonable doubt, a treaty, that the State of Hawai‘i is within the United States. Her silence answers the question that the State of Hawai‘i is in the Hawaiian Kingdom. Her legal opinion will say the same thing.
Her silence actually works against the State of Hawai‘i because under international law there is the principle of acquiescence. According to Professor Antunes, acquiescence “concerns a consent tacitly conveyed by a State, unilaterally, through silence or inaction, in circumstances such that a response expressing disagreement or objection in relation to the conduct of another State would be called for.” Silence conveys consent. Qui tacet consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset.
State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez is not only the chief law enforcement officer but is also a legal advisor to the Governor, Heads of the Departments, and to the individual members of the Senate and House of Representatives.
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3 states “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.” According to this State of Hawai‘i law, the Attorney General cannot refuse to give a legal opinion when a member of the legislature requests it. Senator Crabbe’s question he posed to the Attorney General 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?
Formal written legal opinions of the attorney general answer questions of law from state agencies or officials about the agency’s or official’s legal duties. Commonly known as attorney general opinions, these opinions are prepared by and reviewed by attorneys in the office, including the attorney general, through an established process and have the authority of the office behind them.
In Senator Crabbe’s letter, he specifically quotes from the legal opinions by two professors of international law. Senator Crabbe wrote:
In his legal opinion, Professor Craven states, under international law, there is a presumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, unless there can be referenced, “a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.” And Professor Lenzerini states, in his legal opinion, “The conclusion according to which the Hawaiian Kingdom cannot be considered as having been extinguished—as a State—as a result of the American occupation also allows to confirm, de plano, that the Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent State, has been under uninterrupted belligerent occupation by the United States of America, from 17 January 1893 up to the moment of this writing.”
From a legal standpoint, this is significant because it sets the foundation for the legal opinion as to why the State of Hawai‘i, being a creation of American law, cannot simultaneously exist with the Hawaiian Kingdom in its own territory. This places the Attorney General in an untenable position where she has to show that there is no presumption of continuity of a State under international law and that belligerent occupation does extinguish an occupied State. This is something that she is unable to do.
Being a State within a federation, the Attorney General is also bound by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel’s 1988 legal opinion regarding the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands in 1898 by a congressional law. She cannot counter the conclusion by this federal legal opinion. The opinion is not what you would expect from the federal government on Hawai‘i. The legal opinion was advising the State Department on the legal issues raised by a proposed Presidential proclamation to extend the territorial sea from three miles off the coast of the United States to twelve miles. In that legal opinion, Acting Assistant Attorney General Douglas W. Kmiec concluded:
The President has the authority to issue a proclamation extending the jurisdiction of the United States over the territorial sea from three to twelve miles out.
The President also has the authority to assert the United States’s sovereignty over the extended territorial sea, although most such claims in the nation’s have been executed by treaty.
There is serious question whether Congress has the authority either to assert over an expanded territorial sea for purposes of international law or assert the United States’s sovereignty over it.
It is therefore unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution. Accordingly it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.
In support of this conclusion, Acting Assistant Attorney General Kmiec relied on statements made in 1898 by members of the Congress, and the writings of constitutional scholar Professor Westel Willoughby who stated:
The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act. … Only by means of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force—confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted.
If it is unclear how Congress could annex foreign territory by legislative action, it would be equally unclear how Congress could establish the State of Hawai‘i by legislative action in 1959. Without a treaty, all American laws, which includes the Hawai‘i Statehood Act of 1959, imposed in the Hawaiian Kingdom constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.
More importantly, time is not on the side of the Attorney General to delay her legal opinion because she is up against the presumption, under international law, that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, which consequently means that the State of Hawai‘i does not lawfully exist. As the proverb goes, you can’t have your cake and eat it too, which is you cannot have two things at the same time if they are mutually exclusive. In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom and the State of Hawai‘i cannot exist at the same time. The existence of one cancels the other.
In light of the overwhelming evidence and law on the side of the Hawaiian Kingdom, her legal opinion will have to conclude that the State of Hawai‘i is not within the territory of the United States, but rather within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Her silence before her legal opinion is released already takes this position in law.
The Attorney General is in an inescapable legal bind. Her silence is the admission that the Hawaiian Kingdom is an occupied State and that the State of Hawai‘i is unlawful. Her silence on this matter should cause concern for the Governor, the Heads of the Departments, and individual members of the Senate and House of Representatives and their implication of committing war crimes. As Senator Crabbe concluded his letter with, “Given the severity of this request and that I may be implicated in war crimes for enacting legislation, your earnest attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.”
CLARIFICATION ON THE LAW-MAKING POWER OF THE UNITED STATES. There are three types of laws that the United States is empowered to create—international law, statutory law, and the common law. Within the territory of the United States, the Congress has plenary power to create statutory laws that is applied throughout the United States. But where the Congress has not made a law, the Supreme Court can make decisions that fill the void, which is called common law. A case in point is Roe v. Wade that made abortions legal, but it was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022. This change in its decision on abortion by the Supreme Court can be overturned by the Congress if it enacts a law reinstating what Roe v. Wade provided in a statute.
The statutory law and the common law are restricted in operation to only apply over the territory of the United States and not beyond. Of the three branches of the U.S. Government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, only the executive branch can exercise its authority outside of U.S. territory through the Department of State and the Department of Defense. In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation (1936), U.S. Supreme Court explained:
Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.
The sources of international law are customary law, treaties, general principles of law, judicial decisions, and scholarly articles written by experts in international law. The two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, as scholars in international law, are considered a source of international law.
On the subject of the limits of the Congress to enact laws, whether commercial laws or not, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Curtiss-Wright case, also stated:
Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.
So, the Attorney General will have to find a treaty of cession, whereby the Hawaiian Kingdom entered into negotiations with a President to cede its territory and sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States. There exists no such treaty, except for American laws and common laws being unlawful imposed within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Today, September 23, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to State of Hawai‘i Governor Josh Green and his Cabinet to cease and desist in the performance of the their functions under American municipal laws in light of Senator Crabbe’s formal request to Attorney General Anne Lopez for a legal opinion regarding whether the State of Hawai‘i is lawful and that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist as an occupied State. Senator Crabbe’s request also alleviated the Governor and any member of his Cabinet from requesting a legal opinion by September 20, 2024, as stated in the RCI’s letter to the Governor dated September 5, 2024. Here is a link to the letter.
The purpose of this letter is to notify you and your Cabinet to cease and desist your functions under American municipal laws in light of Senator Cross Makani Crabbe’s formal request, pursuant to §28-3 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, to Attorney General Anne Lopez for a legal opinion regarding whether the State of Hawai‘i is lawful and that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist as an occupied State, which I am enclosing. Senator Crabbe’s request also alleviates you and any member of your Cabinet from requesting a legal opinion by September 20, 2024, as stated in my letter to you dated September 5, 2024.
As I stated to you in my letter dated September 5th, 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 to determine. Since 1994, 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. Senator Crabbe’s letter included 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. 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.” In his letter, Senator Crabbe presented the Attorney General with this question for her legal opinion:
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?
As I stated in my letter of September 5th, 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. In other words, the Attorney General’s legal opinion would not prove the State of Hawai‘i lawfully exists, but rather, the opinion must prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exists, as a State, under the rules of international law, and that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States. 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.
In her legal opinion, 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.’ Otherwise, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, as a State, under international law. Furthermore, as I stated in my September 5th letter, she cannot claim that the question of law raises a political question. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, precludes her 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, the Attorney General 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. As the proverb goes, you can’t have your cake and eat it too, which is you cannot have two things at the same time if they are mutually exclusive. In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom and the State of Hawai‘i cannot exist at the same time. The existence of one cancels the other.
Because the Hawaiian Kingdom is presumed to continue to exist under international law, all acts taken by the United States within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom since January 17, 1893, to include the creation of the State of Hawai‘i by a congressional act, is void, unless the Attorney General provides 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. Without this basis, the State of Hawai‘i has no legal standing within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and thus, actions or conduct, taken by members of the State of Hawai‘i and or its Counties, can be construed as war crimes. I am enclosing Professor William Schabas’ legal opinion on war crimes currently being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Preliminary Report re Authority of the Council of Regency (May 27, 2020)
Preliminary Report re Legal Status of Land Titles throughout the Realm (July 16, 2020)
Supplemental Report re Title Insurance (October 28, 2020)
Preliminary Report re Explicit Recognition of the Hawaiian State and of the Council of Regency as its Government by the United States of America (April 2, 2021)
Preliminary Report re War Crimes of Transferring Populations in an Occupied Territory and Denationalization (September 30, 2021)
Preliminary Report re The Right of Self-Determination of the Hawaiian People in a State of War (October 23, 2021)
Preliminary Report re The Lorenzo doctrine on the Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State (June 7, 2022)
Preliminary Report re Attainder of Treason and the Corruption of Blood (October 26, 2022)
Preliminary Report re Termination of the 1875 Commercial Reciprocity Treaty and its 1884 Supplemental Convention (October 26, 2023)
Criminal Report no. 22-0001 re Insurgency of 1893 and Attainder of Treason (November 4, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0002 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Derek Kawakami & Arryl Kaneshiro (November 17, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0002-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Matthew M. Bracken & Mark L. Bradbury (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0003 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Mitchell Roth & Maile David (November 17, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0003-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Elizabeth A. Strance, Mark D. Disher & Dakota K. Frenz (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0004 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Michael Victorino & Alice L. Lee (November 17, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0004-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Moana M. Lutey, Caleb P. Rowe & Iwalani Mountcastle Gasmen (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0005 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—David Yutake Ige, Ty Nohara, & Isaac W. Choy (November 18, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0005-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Holly T. Shikada & Amanda J. Weston (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0006 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Anders G.O. Nervell (November 18, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0006-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Scott I. Batterman (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0007 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., Kamala Harris, Admiral John Aquilino, Charles P. Rettig, Charles E. Schumer, & Nancy Pelosi (November 18, 2022)
Amended War Criminal Report no. 22-0007—a Withdrawal of Admiral John Aquilino (February 23, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0007-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Brian M. Boynton, Anthony J. Coppolino & Michael J. Gerardi (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0008 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation & Deprivation of Fair and Regular Trial—Leslie E. Kobayashi & Rom A. Trader (November 23, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0009 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation, Deprivation of Fair and Regular Trial, & Pillage—Mark E. Recktenwald, Paula A. Nakayama, Sabrina S. McKenna, Richard W. Pollack, Michael D. Wilson, Todd W. Eddins, Glenn S. Hara, Greg K. Nakamura, Charles Prather, Sofia M. Hirosane, Daryl Y. Dobayashi, James E. Evers, Josiah K. Sewell, Clifford L. Nakea, Bradley R. Tamm, and Alana L. Bryant (December 28, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0009-1 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation, Deprivation of Fair & Regular Trial—Derrick K. Watson, J. Michael Seabright, Leslie E. Kobayashi and Jill A. Otake (February 28, 2023)
War Criminal Report no. 23-0001 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Anne E. Lopez, Craig Y. Iha, Ryan K.P. Kanaka‘ole, Alyssa-Marie Y. Kau, Peter Kahana Albinio, Jr., and Joseph Kuali‘i Lindsey Camara (March 29, 2023)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Kenneth Hara (August 5, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0002 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Stephen F. Logan (August 12, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0003 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Wesley Kawakami (August 19, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0004 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Fredrick Werner (August 26, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0005 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr. (September 2, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0006 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Joshua Jacobs (September 9, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0007 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Dale Balsis (September 16, 2024)
Memorandum regarding the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continuity as a State and subject of International Law (August 29, 2023)
Memorandum on why all 193 Member States of the United Nations recognize the Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency (December 22, 2023)
Memorandum on Bringing the American Occupation of Hawai`i to an End by Establishing an American Military Government (June 22, 2024)
In my September 5th letter, I recommended you view a presentation that I was invited to give 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). To further understand the situation, I am recommending that you also view two recent podcasts of Keep it Aloha with Kamaka Dias, which has collectively garnered over 22k views since August 1, 2024 (Part 1—online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvEdNx2dynE&t=6043s), (Part 2—online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBSFZQdC5bU&t=8466s).
Until the Attorney General provides a legal opinion, pursuant to §28-3, that concludes with an evidential basis, under international law, that the Hawaiian Kingdom does NOT exist “as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,” and that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the United States and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, you are ordered to cease and desist your functions under American municipal laws being unlawfully imposed within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
According to the law of occupation, and pursuant to U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and U.S. Army Field Manuals 27-5 and 27-10, you will be replaced by the most senior Army National Guard officer to be called a military governor. As a result of Major General Kenneth Hara’s willful failure to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government after his Staff Judge Advocate, Lieutenant Colonel Phelps, was unable to refute the evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom is an occupied State as of July 27, 2023, he became the subject of war criminal report no. 24-0001. Major General Hara also is responsible for commanders under his command to be subject to war criminal reports 24-0002, 24-0003, 24-0004, 24-0005, 24-0006, and 24-0007 as well for not establishing a military government. At present, the highest-ranking Army National Guard officer to replace you as military governor is Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner, Executive Officer of the 29th Infantry Brigade. I am enclosing my letter to him dated today.
Today, September 23, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner regarding the a formal request by Senator Cross Makani Crabbe for a legal opinion from the Attorney General regarding the legal standing of the State of Hawai‘i in light of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State under international law. Consequently, this alleviates LTC Rosner from requesting a legal opinion by 12 noon today, as stated in the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s letter to him dated September 16, 2024. LTC Rosner is, however, responsible for establishing a military government unless the Attorney General concludes in her legal opinion that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist as an occupied State.. Here is a link to the letter.
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that this past Thursday, September 19, 2024, Senator Cross Makani Crabbe, who represents District 22 on the west side of O‘ahu, submitted a formal request, pursuant to §28-3 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, to Attorney General Anne Lopez for a legal opinion regarding the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State, which I am enclosing. Consequently, this alleviates you from requesting a legal opinion by 12 noon on September 23, 2024, as stated in my letter to you dated September 16, 2024.
However, should Attorney General Lopez fail to show that the Hawaiian Kingdom had been extinguished by the United States under international law, you have the duty and obligation to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. Your duty and obligation is in accordance with Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, FM 27-5, FM 27-10, and the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government. The 322nd Civil Affairs Brigade at Fort Shafter Flats advises commanders on military government.
It has been twenty-five years, on November 8, 1999, since the international arbitral proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) were initiated, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. The subject of this arbitral dispute was the first allegation of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. 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 to determine. Since 1994, 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. 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 in 1994 that centered on a claim that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to exist as a country despite the unlawful overthrow of its government. 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 has 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, not the municipal law or common law of the United States and/or the State of Hawai‘i, 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.
Senator Crabbe’s letter included 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.” In his letter, Senator Crabbe presented the Attorney General with his question for her legal opinion:
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 would 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, and that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States. 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.
In her legal opinion, 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.’ Otherwise, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which triggers your duty and obligation to establish a military government. 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, because 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 thus, actions or conduct, taken by members of the State of Hawai‘i and or its Counties, could be construed as war crimes. I am enclosing Professor William Schabas’ legal opinion on war crimes currently being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Preliminary Report re Authority of the Council of Regency (May 27, 2020)
Preliminary Report re Legal Status of Land Titles throughout the Realm (July 16, 2020)
Supplemental Report re Title Insurance (October 28, 2020)
Preliminary Report re Explicit Recognition of the Hawaiian State and of the Council of Regency as its Government by the United States of America (April 2, 2021)
Preliminary Report re War Crimes of Transferring Populations in an Occupied Territory and Denationalization (September 30, 2021)
Preliminary Report re The Right of Self-Determination of the Hawaiian People in a State of War (October 23, 2021)
Preliminary Report re The Lorenzo doctrine on the Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State (June 7, 2022)
Preliminary Report re Attainder of Treason and the Corruption of Blood (October 26, 2022)
Preliminary Report re Termination of the 1875 Commercial Reciprocity Treaty and its 1884 Supplemental Convention (October 26, 2023)
Criminal Report no. 22-0001 re Insurgency of 1893 and Attainder of Treason (November 4, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0002 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Derek Kawakami & Arryl Kaneshiro (November 17, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0002-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Matthew M. Bracken & Mark L. Bradbury (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0003 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Mitchell Roth & Maile David (November 17, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0003-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Elizabeth A. Strance, Mark D. Disher & Dakota K. Frenz (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0004 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Michael Victorino & Alice L. Lee (November 17, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0004-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Moana M. Lutey, Caleb P. Rowe & Iwalani Mountcastle Gasmen (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0005 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—David Yutake Ige, Ty Nohara, & Isaac W. Choy (November 18, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0005-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Holly T. Shikada & Amanda J. Weston (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0006 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Anders G.O. Nervell (November 18, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0006-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Scott I. Batterman (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0007 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., Kamala Harris, Admiral John Aquilino, Charles P. Rettig, Charles E. Schumer, & Nancy Pelosi (November 18, 2022)
Amended War Criminal Report no. 22-0007—a Withdrawal of Admiral John Aquilino (February 23, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0007-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Brian M. Boynton, Anthony J. Coppolino & Michael J. Gerardi (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0008 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation & Deprivation of Fair and Regular Trial—Leslie E. Kobayashi & Rom A. Trader (November 23, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0009 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation, Deprivation of Fair and Regular Trial, & Pillage—Mark E. Recktenwald, Paula A. Nakayama, Sabrina S. McKenna, Richard W. Pollack, Michael D. Wilson, Todd W. Eddins, Glenn S. Hara, Greg K. Nakamura, Charles Prather, Sofia M. Hirosane, Daryl Y. Dobayashi, James E. Evers, Josiah K. Sewell, Clifford L. Nakea, Bradley R. Tamm, and Alana L. Bryant (December 28, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0009-1 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation, Deprivation of Fair & Regular Trial—Derrick K. Watson, J. Michael Seabright, Leslie E. Kobayashi and Jill A. Otake (February 28, 2023)
War Criminal Report no. 23-0001 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Anne E. Lopez, Craig Y. Iha, Ryan K.P. Kanaka‘ole, Alyssa-Marie Y. Kau, Peter Kahana Albinio, Jr., and Joseph Kuali‘i Lindsey Camara (March 29, 2023)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Kenneth Hara (August 5, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0002 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Stephen F. Logan (August 12, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0003 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Wesley Kawakami (August 19, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0004 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Fredrick Werner (August 26, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0005 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr. (September 2, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0006 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Joshua Jacobs (September 9, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0007 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Dale Balsis (September 16, 2024)
Memorandum regarding the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continuity as a State and subject of International Law (August 29, 2023)
Memorandum on why all 193 Member States of the United Nations recognize the Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency (December 22, 2023)
Memorandum on Bringing the American Occupation of Hawai`i to an End by Establishing an American Military Government (June 22, 2024)
In order to understand the gravity and severity of the situation, I recommend that you view a presentation that I was invited to give 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). To further understand the situation, I recommend that you also view two recent podcasts of Keep it Aloha with Kamaka Dias, which has collectively garnered over 22k views since August 1, 2024 (Part 1—online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvEdNx2dynE&t=6043s), (Part 2—online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBSFZQdC5bU&t=8466s).
Unless the Attorney General can provide you a legal opinion that concludes the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist ‘as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ you should begin to prepare for your role as military governor and transition the State of Hawai‘i into a military government according to the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan with essential and implied tasks. You should also begin to reach out to the 322nd Civil Affairs Brigade at Fort Shafter Flats.
This past Thursday, September 19, 2024, State of Hawai‘i Senator Cross Makani Crabbe sent a formal letter, by certified mail, to Attorney General Anne Lopez requesting a legal opinion from her that addresses whether the State of Hawai‘i is lawful. Senator Crabbe represents District 22 that includes Ko ‘Olina, Nānākuli, Wai‘anae, Mākaha, and Mākua on the west side of the island of O‘ahu. Carbon copied in the letter is Governor Josh Green, Senate President Ronald D. Kouchi, and Speaker of the House of Representatives Scott K. Saiki.
UPDATE: Senator Crabbe’s letter was delivered today with the Attorney General’s Office, according to USPS tracking no. 9589071052702326426110 on its website, at 9:15 am.
Section 28-3 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes authorizes any member of the State of Hawai‘i Legislature to request a legal opinion from the Attorney General and that the Attorney General shall provide a legal opinion. 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.” Here is a link to Senator Crabbe’s letter.
In both letters, the RCI is asserting that the laws enacted by the State of Hawai‘i Legislature and ordinances enacted by the County Councils constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. The RCI then refers to a renowned expert on international criminal law, war crimes and human rights, Professor William Schabas from Middlesex University London, Department of Law, that wrote a legal opinion on war crimes being committed in Hawai‘i today (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/3HawJLPol334_(Schabas).pdf).
In his letters, Dr. David Keanu Sai, as Head of the RCI, states that the State of Hawai‘i itself is a product of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty because of the Hawai‘i Statehood Act of 1959 enacted by the Congress. In Dr. Sai’s letter to Governor Green, he attached two legal opinions on the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law by Professor Matthew Craven from the University of London SOAS, Department of Law, and Professor Federico Lenzerini from the University of Siena, Italy, Department of Political and International Sciences. Both are professors of international law.
In his legal opinion, Professor Craven states, under international law, there is a presumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, unless there can be referenced, “a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.” And Professor Lenzerini states, in his legal opinion, “The conclusion according to which the Hawaiian Kingdom cannot be considered as having been extinguished—as a State—as a result of the American occupation also allows to confirm, de plano, that the Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent State, has been under uninterrupted belligerent occupation by the United States of America, from 17 January 1893 up to the moment of this writing.”
As a Senator that represents the 22nd district, I am very concerned of these allegations that the State of Hawai‘i, as a governing body, is not legal because the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as an occupied State under international law. I am also not aware of any legal opinion that conclusively explains that the State of Hawai‘i is legal under international law and that war crimes are not being committed in Hawai‘i. Therefore, I am respectfully requesting of you for a legal opinion, in accordance with Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3 that states, “The attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the…legislature, or its members,” to answer this question of law:
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?
Given the severity of this request and that I may be implicated in war crimes for enacting legislation, your earnest attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Today, September 16, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner regarding the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0007 on Lieutenant Colonel Balsis’ war crime by omission. The RCI also informed him that he has until 12 noon on September 23, 2024, to perform his military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i. Here is a link to the letter.
Today, September 16, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) published its War Criminal Report no. 24-0007 finding Lieutenant Colonel Dale R. Balsis guilty of the war crime by omission. LTC Balsis 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 Balsis, 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 Balsis is accountable by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Under international criminal law, LTC Balsis is subject to prosecution, by a competent court or tribunal, for the war crime by omission.
Consequently, as the Executive Officer 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 September 23, 2024. In my letter to LTC Balsis, dated September 9, 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 Balsis did not do so, which led to the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0007. 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 23, 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. The sequence of events will then loop to the Executive Officers. First, with the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, second, with the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, third with the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fourth 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.
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, September 9, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis regarding the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0006 on Lieutenant Colonel Jacobs’ war crime by omission. The RCI also informed him that he has until 12 noon on September 16, 2024, to perform his military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i. Here is a link to the letter.
Today, September 9, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) published its War Criminal Report no. 24-0006 finding Lieutenant Colonel Joshua A. Jacobs guilty of the war crime by omission. LTC Jacobs 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 Jacobs, 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 Jacobs is accountable by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Under international criminal law, LTC Jacobs is subject to prosecution, by a competent court or tribunal, for the war crime by omission.
Consequently, as the Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer 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 16, 2024. In my letter to LTC Jacobs, dated September 2, 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 Jacobs did not do so, which led to the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0006. 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 16, 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. The sequence of events will then 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.
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, 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.
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.
The perpetrator was aware that the measures went beyond what was required for military purposes or the protection of fundamental human rights.
The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an occupation resulting from international armed conflict.
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:
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;
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;
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.
