Dr. Keanu Sai Presented a History of the Kāʻei or Sash of Liloa at Bishop Museum on July 31st

Posted on August 1, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

The Bishop Museum invited Dr. Keanu Sai to present a history of the kāʻei or sash of Līloa who was King of Hawaiʻi Island in the fifteenth century. Here follows the speech that Dr. Sai gave yesterday at Bishop Museum in celebration of the Hawaiian Kingdom national holiday Restoration Day (Lā Hoʻihoʻi).

It is truly an honor for me to be here with you on this Hawaiian Kingdom national holiday of Restoration Day or Lā Ho‘iho‘i and share with you a bit of history of the kāʻei or sash of Līloa and its direct link as a royal emblem of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Ancient human society was comprised of tribes or bands that were either subsumed or grew into what anthropologists have come to call ancient States, which pre-dates the Westphalian States of the 17th century that was the genesis of current understanding of States under international law today.

Ancient States, which Hommon calls primary States, “are generally believed to have developed in six widely distributed regions of the world: Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, China, Mesoamerica, and Andean South America.” To these regions, Hommon and Kirch add the North Pacific and the emergence of the ancient Hawaiian State from the fifteenth century with “centralized, active leadership based on political power, delegation of such power through a formal bureaucracy, and territorial expansion by conquest warfare.”

According to Kirch, “the Hawaiians had invented divine kingship, a hallmark of archaic states.” Political science and law today distinguishes between the State and its government, but this distinction pertains to the Westphalian States that arose in Europe since 1648, and not the ancient States that Hommon and Kirch refer to.

When Captain James Cook arrived in the islands in 1778, he witnessed a phenomenon not seen in other parts of the Pacific he previously visited. What he observed was a society whose governmental structure was centralized, organized, and disciplined. He wrote, “I have no where in this Sea seen such a number of people assembled at one place.” Kirch concludes, the “combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria bolster the case that the late Hawaiian polities as encountered by Cook and other early European explorers fit conformably with the pattern of primary archaic states known for other regions of the world.”

Captain James King, who served under Cook, provides an eyewitness account of the Chiefs of that time. Captain King admired Hawaiian nobility and described their regal appearance. “These chiefs were men of strong and well-proportioned bodies, and of countenances remarkably pleasing. Kana‘ina especially, whose portrait Mr. Webber has drawn, was one of the finest men I ever saw. He was about six feet high, had regular and expressive features, with lively, dark eyes; his carriage was easy, firm, and graceful.”

Captain King also stated that Kana‘ina “was very inquisitive after our customs and manners; asked after our King; the nature of our government; our numbers; the method of building our ships; our houses; the produce of our country; whether we had wars; with whom; and on what occasions; and in what manner they were carried on; who was our God; many other questions of the same nature, which indicated an understanding of great comprehension.” I should also note that Kana‘ina is my fourth great grandfather who is also known along with another chief for causing the demise of Captain Cook.

Kana‘ina was a direct descendant of Līloa, King of Hawai‘i island in the 15th century. His father being Keawe ‘Opala and his grandfather being Alapa‘i Nui, both kings of Hawai‘i island. Since Pili Ka‘ea, progenitor of the line of Hawai‘i Island Kings, there were two royal emblems, the spittal-vessels called ipu kuha and the crown called the kahili.

Added to these royal emblems in the 15th century was the kā‘ei or sash of Līloa we see here this evening. Līloa ordered the making of the sash whom his son Umialiloa received when he ascended to the throne after defeating his half-brother, Hākau, in battle. The dimensions of the kā‘ei are 4.5 inches wide and 11 feet in length. As with feather capes and cloaks, the kāʻei consists of feathers tied to a netting of olona fiber. The read feathers of the ʻiʻiwi bird and the yellow of the ōʻō bird, along with rows of teeth, it creates an object that is still stunning to behold nearly six centuries after its creation. Carbon dating of feathers that naturally separated itself from the kāʻei ranged from 1406 to 1450 A.D.

The kāʻei eventually came into the possession of Kamehameha the Great, progenitor of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and it can be seen adorned on him as seen on his statue that fronts Ali‘iolani Hale across from the palace.

In 1794, Kamehameha became a part of the British Empire where he continued to be king of a British protectorate. By 1810, Kamehameha consolidated the former kingdoms of Maui and Kauaʻi into one kingdom that came to be known as the Hawaiian Kingdom. After his death in 1819, the ipu kuha, the kahili and the kāʻei descended to Kamehameha II. And after the death of Kamehameha II in 1824 these royal emblems descended to Kamehameha III.

In 1840, Kamehameha III transformed the Hawaiian Kingdom into a constitutional monarchy while still owing allegiance to the British Crown. Based on claims by the British Consul Richard Charlton that the rights of British subjects were being violated by the Hawaiian government, a British warship, HBMS Carysfort, under the command of Captain Lord Paulet, entered Honolulu harbor on February 10, 1843. Paulet eventually seized control of the Hawaiian government on February 25th after threatening to level Honolulu with cannon fire. Kamehameha III was forced to surrender the kingdom but did so under written protest and pending the outcome of the mission of his diplomats that were dispatched to the United States and Europe the previous year to seek recognition of Hawaiian independence.

News of Paulet’s action reached Admiral Richard Thomas of the British Admiralty, and he sailed from the Chilean port of Valparaiso and arrived in Honolulu on July 25, 1843. After a meeting with Kamehameha III, Admiral Thomas determined that Charlton’s complaints did not warrant a British takeover and ordered the restoration of the Hawaiian government, which took place in a grand ceremony on July 31, 1843, at a place that has come to be known today as Thomas Square. At a thanksgiving service after the ceremony, Kamehameha III proclaimed before a large crowd, ua mau ke ea o ka ‘āina i ka pono (the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness). The King’s statement became the national motto. July 31st also became a national holiday in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and it is why we are here today at the Bishop Museum.

Kamehameha III’s diplomats eventually succeeded in achieving recognition of Hawaiian independence. On November 28, 1843, both Great Britain and France, at the Court of London, jointly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State. The United States followed the next year on July 6, 1844. In the nineteenth century, the Hawaiian Kingdom was one of only forty-four independent States that comprised the family of nations. Today the United Nations is comprised of 196 independent States.

The Hawaiian Kingdom became one of the most progressive countries in the world with land reform, universal health care for native Hawaiians at no cost at Queen’s hospital, and universal education for the population at common schools, secondary schools and colleges. Dr. Sun Yat Sen, the father of modern China, and who received his education at Iolani College and Punahou between 1879 and 1883, told a reporter when he returned to Hawai‘i, “This is my Hawaii. Here I was brought up and educated; and it was here that I came to know what modern, civilized governments are like and what they mean.”

After the death of Kamehameha III on December 15, 1854, his wife, the Queen consort Kalama, inherited the kāʻei. When she passed away on September 20, 1870, her mother’s brother and adopted father, High Chief Charles Kana‘ina, father of King Lunalilo, inherited the kāʻei.

On March 13, 1877, Charles Kana‘ina died and probate proceeding ensued until 1882. At one of the auctions of the estate in 1877, Lucy Peabody, who would later become a Lady in Waiting to Queen Lili‘uokalani, stated that King Kālakaua retrieved the kāʻei before it could be auctioned. Thus, the kāʻei became a royal emblem of not just the Kamehameha Dynasty but also the Kālakaua Dynasty.

The following month, on April 10, 1877, Kālakaua received approval from the Nobles of the Legislative Assembly that Princess Lili‘uokalani would be his heir apparent. After the death of the King in 1891, Princess Lili‘uokalani became Queen Lili‘uokalani.

Preparing to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian independence, a dire situation would take place reminiscent of the British takeover in 1843. On January 16, 1893, U.S. resident Minister John Stevens ordered the landing of marines that eventually led to the takeover of the Hawaiian government the following day. Of note is that the Queen did not surrender to the insurgency but rather to the United States and called upon the President to investigate the actions taken by their resident Minister and the Admiral that landed of U.S. troops.

After President Cleveland conducted a presidential investigation he told the Congress on December 18, 1893, “And so it happened that on the 16th day of January, 1893, between four and five o’clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States steamer Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at Honolulu. The men upwards of 160 in all, were supplied with double cartridge belts filled with ammunition and with haversacks and canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself and act of war.”

President Cleveland also reported, “It has been the boast of our Government that it seeks to do justice in all things without regard to the strength or weakness of those with whom it deals. I mistake the American people if they favor the odious doctrine that there is no such thing as international morality, that there is one law for a strong nation and another for a weak one, and that even by indirection a strong power may with impunity despoil a weak one of its territory. By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. President Cleveland concluded that “A substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair.”

The President entered into a treaty with the Queen to restore her to the office of Monarch, but because of political wrangling in the Congress and the lust for Pearl Harbor, the agreement was not carried out. Five years later, on July 7, 1898, at the height of the Spanish-American War, President McKinley signed into American law a joint resolution for annexing the Hawaiian Islands. In 1910, Queen Lili‘uokalani, with the kāʻei in her possession, provided it to the Bishop Museum.

However, the story of the kāʻei, being one of the royal emblems of the Hawaiian Kingdom, is not finished. ‘A‘ole pau.

According to international law, the United States military overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 did not affect the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State. Nor did the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the Congress affect the Hawaiian State because a congressional joint resolution is a legislative act that can only operate within United States territory. In other words, American laws have no effect beyond the borders of the United States.

The United States could only have a acquired the Hawaiian Kingdom’s sovereignty by a treaty. There is no treaty. Only American laws being unlawfully imposed throughout Hawaiian territory. The United States could no more enact law annexing Hawai‘i in 1898 than it could enact a law today annexing Canada, Mexico or Cuba. It is absurd to think otherwise.

In 1997, the Hawaiian government was restored as a Regency under Hawaiian constitutional law and the legal doctrine of necessity. And in 1999, an international dispute was submitted for arbitration at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands called Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. The United States and other countries established the Permanent Court in 1899 to resolve international disputes that States may have with each other, or disputes between a State and an international organization, or a dispute between a State and private entity. In other words, the Permanent Court is only authorized to create an arbitration tribunal if one of the parties to the dispute is a State under international law.

On the Permanent Court’s website it describes the case as “Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”

Before the Permanent Court could form the arbitration tribunal to resolve this dispute it had to confirm that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State since the nineteenth century despite the overthrow of its government in 1893 and despite the American annexation in 1898. The Permanent Court did just that and it also recognized that the Council of Regency is its government. And more importantly, the United States did not protest or object to the Permanent Court’s recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In fact, the United States, through its embassy in the Netherlands, entered into an agreement with the Hawaiian Kingdom so that it could have access to all records and pleadings of the case.

Today is not just to celebrate Restoration Day or La Ho‘iho‘i, but it is also to celebrate that a sequence of events has begun today for the State of Hawai‘i to begin to comply with the international law of occupation, which will eventually bring 131 years of an unlawful and prolonged occupation of a sovereign and independent State to an end.

Despite over a century of revisionist history, the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign State is grounded in the very same principles that the United States and every other State have relied on for their own legal existence. The Hawaiian Kingdom is a magnificent story of perseverance and continuity.

Mahalo.

The First in a Chain of Events has Begun with Major General Hara’s Failure to Set in Motion the Establishment of a Military Government of Hawai‘i

Posted on July 31, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

State of Hawai‘i Adjutant General, Major General Kenneth Hara, has not delegated complete authority to Brigadier General Stephen Logan to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government of Hawai‘i by 12 noon today, July 31st.

Consequently, MG Hara has incurred criminal culpability under international criminal law for the war crime by omission. By not establishing a military government to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, he has allowed the continued imposition of American laws, which is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. The Royal Commission of Inquiry will publish its war criminal report on MG Hara on Monday, August 5, 2024.

Since July 27, 2023, MG Hara acknowledged that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as an occupied State after his Staff Judge Advocate, Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps, was unable to to disprove the Hawaiian Kingdom existence. Consequently, this triggered MG Hara’s military duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government of Hawai‘i in order to administer Hawaiian Kingdom laws.

U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1 states it is the function of the Army in “[occupied] territories abroad [to] provide for the establishment of a military government pending transfer of this responsibility to other authority.” And U.S. Department of Directive 2000.13 states the Army’s “Civil affairs operations include…[e]stablish[ing] and conduct[ing] military government until civilian authority or government can be restored.”

MG Hara’s conduct is unbecoming of an officer that has consequently placed every soldier under his command subject to criminal culpability because he willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government. 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.

Unbecoming of an officer is a criminal offense under Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which states that this type of offense is any “action or behavior in an official capacity that, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises the officer’s character, or action or behavior [that] seriously compromises the person’s standing as an officer.” Maximum punishment for violating this offense is dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to a year.

Once the Royal Commission of Inquiry has published its war criminal report for MG Hara on its website, the Deputy Adjutant General, BG Logan, will have one week to perform his duty, as the theater commander of occupied territory, to proclaim the establishment of a military government. MG Hara is no longer the theater commander because he is a war criminal subject to prosecution.

If BG Logan is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of BG Logan’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Colonel David Hatcher II, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade, and who is next in the chain of command below BG Logan, will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. BG Logan would no longer be the theater commander because he would be a war criminal subject to prosecution.

The chain of command, or what is called the order of battle, for the 29th Infantry Brigade for units in the Hawaiian Islands is first the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, second the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, third the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fourth the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion. The 29th Infantry Brigade has units stationed in Alaska and Guam but because they are outside of Hawaiian territory they do not have the military duty as an occupant to establish a military government in the Hawaiian Islands.

If Colonel Hatcher is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of Colonel Hatcher’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick J. Werner, Commander of 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. Colonel Hatcher would no longer be the theater commander because he would be a war criminal subject to prosecution.

If LTC Werner is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Werner’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Bingham L. Tuisamatatele, Jr., Commander of 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. LTC Werner would no longer be the theater commander because he would be a war criminal subject to prosecution.

If LTC Tuisamatatele is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Tuisamatatele’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua A. Jacobs, Commander of 29th Brigade Support Battalion, will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. LTC Tuisamatatele would no longer be the theater commander because he would be a war criminal subject to prosecution.

If LTC Jacobs is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Jacobs’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Major Dale R. Balsis, Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. LTC Jacobs would no longer be the theater commander because he would be a war criminal subject to prosecution.

After LTC Balsis is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government and is the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission that will be published on the RCI’s website, the sequence of events will then loop to the Executive Officers beginning first with the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment Executive Officer, second the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, third the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fourth the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion. This looping will first cover all commissioned officers, then all non-commissioned officers, then all the soldiers down to the lowest rank of private.

This chain of events will continue by rank down the chain of command of the entire Hawai‘i Army National Guard down to the last soldier with the rank of private until there is someone who will perform their military duty.

Royal Commission of Inquiry’s Letter to Major General Hara Warning of a Cascading Effect for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard

Posted on July 26, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

On July 26, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Major General Kenneth Hara on a cascading effect for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard and its component commands of the 29th Infantry Brigade, the 103rd Troop Command, and the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, if he does not delegate complete authority and title to Brigadier General Stephen Logan to establish a military government by 1200 hours on July 31, 2024. Here is a link to the letter.

As July 31st is fast approaching, the chain of command of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard and its component commands of the 29th Infantry Brigade, the 103rd Troop Command, and the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, will be drawn into criminal culpability for war crimes if you do not delegate complete authority to Brigadier General Stephen Logan to establish a military government by 12 noon on July 31, 2024.

After United States troops invaded and unlawfully overthrew the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893, international law required that the most senior military commander take control of the civilian government, that was overthrown, in order to continue to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law until there is a treaty of peace. The United States violated this rule of international law when they allowed an insurgency, they created, to unlawfully govern. In 1898, the United States began to impose American laws throughout the Hawaiian Kingdom, which is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty. This illegal occupation has led to the establishment of 118 military sites throughout the Hawaiian Islands.

As you are aware, the current practice of the United States military imposes the responsibility on the Army to establish a military government to preside over occupied territory. Not the Navy, Marines, or Air Force. U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1 states it is the function of the Army in “[occupied] territories abroad [to] provide for the establishment of a military government pending transfer of this responsibility to other authority.” And U.S. Department of Directive 2000.13 states the Army’s “Civil affairs operations include…[e]stablish[ing] and conduct[ing] military government until civilian authority or government can be restored.”

At the start of the twentieth century, the U.S. Army took steps to prepare for military occupations by publishing field manuals—FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, FM 27-5, Civil Affairs Military Government, FM 3-57, Civil Affairs Operations, and FM 6-27, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Land Warfare. According to Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, territory is considered occupied when it is in effective control by the occupant, which triggers Article 43 to establish a military government to administer the laws of the occupied State.

Between the U.S. Federal government and the State of Hawai‘i, the latter is in effective control of 10,931 square miles, while the former is in effective control of less than 500 square miles. Thus, the duty to establish a military government is with the State of Hawai‘i Army National Guard and not with the U.S. Army Pacific under Indo-Pacific Combatant Command. This means that you are the theater commander under Army doctrine.

Paragraph 3, FM 27-5, states the “theater command bears full responsibility for [military government]; therefore, he is usually designated as military governor […], but has authority to delegate authority and title, in whole or in part, to a subordinate commander. In occupied territory the commander, by virtue of his position, has supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authority, limited only by the laws and customs of war and by directives from higher authority.”

In other words, the highest-ranking officer, in the theater of occupied territory, is duty bound to transform the civilian government of the occupied State into a military government. This government would be presided over by the Army theater commander who is called a “military governor.” Since the military governor “has supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authority, limited only by the laws and customs of war and by directives from higher authority,” the civilian government of the occupied State remains intact, except for the legislative branch.

Despite your announcement that you are retiring on October 1, 2024, you, as the theater commander, are obligated to begin the transformation of the State of Hawai‘i into a military government to administer Hawaiian Kingdom laws. The State of Hawai‘i’s governmental infrastructure is the civilian government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. What occurred since 1893 was a renaming of the civilian government from the Hawaiian Kingdom to the provisional government in 1893, the Republic of Hawai‘i in 1894, the Territory of Hawai‘i in 1900, and the State of Hawai‘i in 1959.

If you are derelict in the performance of your duties, by not delegating authority to BG Logan, then you would be the subject of a war criminal report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of your war criminal report on the RCI’s website, BG Logan will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

If BG Logan is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of BG Logan’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Colonel David Hatcher II, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade, who is next in the chain of command below BG Logan, will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

The chain of command, or what is called the order of battle, for the 29th Infantry Brigade for units in the Hawaiian Islands, is first, the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, second, the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, third, the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fourth, the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion. The 29th Infantry Brigade has units stationed in Alaska and Guam but since they are outside the Hawaiian territory, they do not have the military duty, as an occupant, to establish a military government in the Hawaiian Islands.

If Colonel Hatcher is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of Colonel Hatcher’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick J. Werner, Commander of 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, will assume command of the 29th Infantry Brigade and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

If LTC Werner is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Werner’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Bingham L. Tuisamatatele, Jr., Commander of 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, will assume command of the 29th Infantry Brigade and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

If LTC Tuisamatatele is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Tuisamatatele’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua A. Jacobs, Commander of 29th Brigade Support Battalion, will assume command of the 29th Infantry Brigade and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

If LTC Jacobs is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Jacobs’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Dale R. Balsis, Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, will assume command of the 29th Infantry Brigade and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

Should LTC Balsis be derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government and be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission, that will be published on the RCI’s website, 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 sequence of events will continue by rank down the chain of command of the entire Hawai‘i Army National Guard until there is someone who sees the “writing on the wall” that he/she either performs their military duty or becomes a war criminal subject to prosecution.

As I stated to you before, to prevent all this from occurring, you must provide evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists as an occupied State under international law. To ignore this will have dire consequences for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard.

Clarifying the Role and Function of the International Criminal Court regarding War Crimes Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom

Posted on July 24, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

There is confusion on the role and function of the International Criminal Court (ICC) regarding the prosecution of war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom. What is its role on this subject?

The ICC was established in 2002 by a treaty called the Rome Statute. Although the United States participated in negotiations and signed the treaty that eventually established the court, President Bill Clinton did not submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification. President George W. Bush, in 2002, sent a diplomatic note to the United Nations Secretary-General that the United States intends not to ratify the treaty. There are currently 137 countries that signed the treaty, but there are 124 countries that are State Parties to the Rome Statute.

According to the Rome Statute, the 124 countries have committed to be the ones primarily responsible for the prosecution of war crimes called complementarity jurisdiction. Article 1 of the Rome Statute states that the ICC “shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.”

This principle of complementarity is implemented through Articles 17 and 53 of the Rome Statute. The principle states that the ICC will not accept a case if a State Party with jurisdiction over it is already investigating it or unless the State Party is unwilling or genuinely unable to proceed with an investigation. According to Human Rights Watch:

Under international law, states have a responsibility to investigate and appropriately prosecute (or extradite for prosecution) suspected perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other international crimes. The ICC does not shift this responsibility. It is a court of last resort. Under what is known as the “principle of complementarity,” the ICC may only exercise its jurisdiction when a country is either unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate and prosecute these grave crimes.

On November 28, 2012, the Hawaiian Kingdom acceded to the Rome Statute and deposited its instrument of accession with the United Nations Secretary-General in New York City the following month on December 12, 2012. Under the principle of complementarity and its responsibility to investigate war crimes committed in the Hawaiian Islands, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) was established by proclamation of the Council of Regency on April 17, 2019. According to Article 2 of the proclamation:

The purpose of the Royal Commission shall be to investigate the consequences of the United States’ belligerent occupation, including with regard to international law, humanitarian law and human rights, and the allegations of war crimes committed in that context. The geographical scope and time span of the investigation will be sufficiently broad and be determined by the head of the Royal Commission.

The RCI has already conducted 18 war criminal investigations and published these war criminal reports on its website. The failure of the State of Hawai‘i to transform itself into a U.S. military government to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom has put a temporary hold on prosecutions. However, once the U.S. military government is established, prosecutions will begin. As a result, the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands to investigate war crimes because the RCI has already initiated its investigative authority and published its war criminal reports.

Under the principle of complementarity, the other State Parties to the Rome Statute could initiate prosecution proceedings for those persons who were the subjects of the RCI war criminal reports when these individuals enter the territory of a State Party.

CLARIFICATION: At first glance, it would appear that Major General Hara can escape criminal culpability by not transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a U.S. military government. This is incorrect because MG Hara is not the subject of a war criminal report by the RCI yet. However, he will be the subject of a war criminal report if he does not delegate full authority to Brigadier General Stephen Logan who must establish the military government by 12 noon on July 31, 2024.

If MG Hara is derelict in the performance of his duties by not delegating authority to BG Logan, he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of MG Hara’s war criminal report, BG Logan will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

If BG Logan is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of BG Logan’s war criminal report, Colonel David Hatcher, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade, and who is next in the chain of command below BG Logan, will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

These chain of events will continue down the chain of command of the entire Hawai‘i Army National Guard, and possibly the Hawai‘i Air National Guard, until there is someone who sees the “writing on the wall” that he/she either performs their military duty or become a war criminal subject to prosecution.

Dr. Keanu Sai to be a Panelist on the Demilitarization of Hawai‘i

Posted on July 20, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

Who Prosecutes Hawai‘i War Crimes?

Posted on July 17, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

War crimes in the Hawaiian Islands are violations of international humanitarian law during military occupation. There are war crimes under customary international law, and there are war crimes listed in the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court. In a legal opinion for the Hawaiian Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI), Professor William Schabas, identified certain war crimes under customary international law being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom:

Usurpation of sovereignty during occupation, which is the unlawful imposition of American laws and administrative measures

Compulsory enlistment, which is military draft

Denationalization, which is the destruction of the national identity and national consciousness of the population

Pillage, which is the unlawful seizure of certain property for private use

Confiscation or destruction of property of the State or individuals

Deprivation of fair and regular trial, which is a court that operates without lawful authority

Deporting civilians of the occupied territory

Transferring populations into an occupied territory

The domestic courts of countries have primary responsibility to prosecute war crimes committed on its territory. If the State is occupied, it is the military government established by the occupant under the law of occupation that has the responsibility to prosecute war criminals. In addition to the military government, the occupying State could also establish an international tribunal for the prosecution of war criminals in occupied territories like the United States did when it occupied Germany and Japan during the Second World War. The International Criminal Court is the last resort to prosecuting war crimes.

Stemming from its duty to investigate war crimes committed in the Hawaiian Islands, the Council of Regency established the RCI on April 17, 2019. The RCI collects necessary evidence from reliable sources that are independent, impartial, and objective.

Where the collection of evidence constitutes a particular war crime—the criminal act, the RCI will then determine whether there is evidence that constitutes the intent needed to commit the crime, which is the mental state of mind of the perpetrator. For example, Professor Schabas states that the elements of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation are:

1. The perpetrator imposed or applied legislative or administrative measures of the occupying power going beyond those required by what is necessary for military purposes of the occupation.

2. The perpetrator was aware that the measures went beyond what was required for military purposes or the protection of fundamental human rights.

3. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an occupation resulting from international armed conflict.

4. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of the armed conflict and subsequent occupation.

The first element is the criminal act, and the last three elements go to the state of mind of the perpetrator. With respect to the last two elements of the war crime, Professor Schabas states:

1. There is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the perpetrator as to the existence of an armed conflict or its character as international or non-international;

2. In that context there is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the conflict as international or non-international;

3. There is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict that is implicit in the terms “took place in the context of and was associated with.”

If there is evidence that has met all of the elements of the war crime, the RCI will publish a war criminal report on its website. The next stage is to initiate the prosecution of the perpetrator by seeking a bill of indictment under Hawaiian Kingdom law. Unlike the United States, there is no grand jury that issues an indictment. Under Hawaiian law, the Prosecutor of the Crown must prepare a bill of indictment for the approval of a judge of the court that will prosecute the alleged perpetrator. After the bill of indictment is signed by the judge, an arrest warrant is issued to apprehend the perpetrator and to begin prosecution.

The current system of governance in Hawai‘i is a product of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty because it is a product of American legislation by the U.S. Congress. The State of Hawai‘i was established by the Congress in 1959 under the Statehood Act. Until the State of Hawai‘i is transformed into an American military government to administer Hawaiian Kingdom laws under the law of occupation, prosecution of war criminals cannot take place. However, should any of the perpetrators identified in the RCI’s published war criminal reports travel to foreign countries they could be apprehended and tried by the courts of these countries under universal jurisdiction.

According to Human Rights Watch, “universal jurisdiction is the ability of the domestic judicial systems of a state to investigate and prosecute certain crimes, even if they were not committed on its territory, by one of its nationals, or against one of its nationals (i.e. crime beyond other bases of jurisdiction, such territoriality or active/passive personality.)” Under the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation, every foreign national that traveled to the Hawaiian Islands is a victim of war crimes having been subjected to American laws and administrative measures.

The current illegal situation in the Hawaiian Islands does not diminish the RCI’s published war criminal reports on its website because there are no statutory limitations for the prosecution of war crimes. In 2022, Germany convicted a 97-year-old woman for Nazi war crimes committed during the Second World War. War crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Islands should not be taken lightly.

The Associated Press reported, “A German court on Tuesday convicted a 97-year-old woman of being an accessory to more than 10,000 murders for her role as a secretary to the SS commander of the Nazi’s Stutthof concentration camp during World War II.”

Irmgard Furchner sits in the courtroom at the beginning of the trial day in Itzehoe, Germany, Tuesday, Nov. 9, 2021. *Christian Charisius/AP*

Major General Hara receives Royal Commission of Inquiry’s Draft of War Criminal Report No. 24-0001 for willful failure to establish a military government of Hawai‘i by July 31, 2024

Posted on July 15, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

On July 15, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a draft of a war criminal report to Major General Kenneth Hara for his war crime by omission for willful failure to establish a military government. Dr. Sai stated to MG Hara that War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 will be published on the RCI’s website if he fails to delegate complete authority and title to Brigadier General Stephen Logan to establish a military government by 1200 hours on July 31, 2024. Dr. Sai also stated to MG Hara that the military government shall be established by 1200 hours on July 31st, and not that MG Hara delegate’s complete authority and title BG Logan by 1200 hours on July 31st. The delegation of complete authority and title must take place prior to 1200 hours on July 31st.

Dr. Sai also stated that the intent of providing MG Hara with a copy of the draft war criminal report was to express to him the severity of his criminal culpability he would incur should he willfully fail to establish a military government. Dr. Sai then reminded MG Hara that at their meeting on April 13, 2023, at the Grand Naniloa Hotel, he forewarned MG Hara that if he was willful in his dereliction of duty to establish a military government, he would incur criminal culpability for the war crime by omission. Here is a link to the draft of War Criminal Report no. 24-0001.

Royal Commission of Inquiry’s Final Letter to Major General Hara as the Suspense Date of July 31st is Fast Approaching

Posted on July 13, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

On July 13, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a final letter to Major General Kenneth Hara on the severe ramifications on the chain of command for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard, and, potentially the chain of command for the Air National Guard, if he does not delegate complete authority and title to Brigadier General Stephen Logan to establish a military government by 1200 hours on July 31, 2024. Here is a link to the letter.

The suspense date of 1200 hours on July 31, 2024, for your delegation or not of complete authority and title to Brigadier General Stephen Logan (“BG Logan”), is fast approaching. The purpose of this letter is to expand on the consequences should you not delegate authority and title for BG Logan to establish a military government. Your failure to do so will have dire consequences down the chain of command for the Army National Guard, and, potentially, for the Air National Guard.

The Council of Regency employs lawfare to achieve compliance with international law obligations. According to U.S. Air Force Major General Charles Dunlap, Jr., lawfare is the strategy of using “law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve an operational objective.” The Council of Regency’s operational objective is to compel compliance with international laws. Pursuant to prior written and verbal communication providing undisputed historical, factual and legal evidence of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, fully substantiated at the conclusion of due diligence by your own Staff Judge Advocate, the use of lawfare in this instance by the Council of Regency is wholly justified.

The duration of the American occupation, which is now at 131 years, is not only unlawful but morally unacceptable. President Cleveland, in his message to the Congress, relied on jus ad bellum (law concerning the resort to military force) when he concluded that the invasion of Honolulu by U.S. Marines on January 16, 1893, and the overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893, were unjustified “acts of war.” President Cleveland stated:

It has been the boast of our Government that it seeks to do justice in all things without regard to the strength or weakness of those with whom it deals. I mistake the American people if they favor the odious doctrine that there is no such thing as international morality, that is one law for a strong nation and another for a weak one, and that even by indirection a strong power may with impunity despoil a weak one of its territory. By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair.

The 2015 Law of War Manual identifies certain jus ad bellum criteria to be “a competent authority to order the war for a public purpose,” and “a just cause (such as self-defense).” These criteria were relied on by President Cleveland in his message to the Congress in 1893, which has remained unchanged under current U.S. military doctrine. Despite the unlawfulness of the acts of war that have led to this prolonged occupation, jus in bello (laws of war) continues to be obligatory under the law of armed conflict, which is the military term for international humanitarian law.

According to Lauterpact, an illegal war is “a war of aggression undertaken by one belligerent side in violation of a basic international obligation prohibiting recourse to war as an instrument of national policy.” However, despite the President’s admittance that the acts of war were not in compliance with jus ad bellum, the United States was still obligated to comply with jus in bello when it occupied Hawaiian territory. In particular, the international rule for the occupant to transform the civilian government into a military government to administer the laws of the occupied State until the conclusion of a peace treaty. In the Hostages Trial (the case of Wilhelm List and Others), the Tribunal stated, “whatever may be the cause of a war that has broken out, and whether or not the cause be a so-called just cause, the same rules of international law are valid as to what must not be done, [and what] may be done.” What ‘must not be done’ is the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws and administrative measures within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In other words, the law of occupation still applies despite the illegality of the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

President Cleveland’s conclusion that a ‘substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair’ remains true then as it does today. This falls under your duties to perform as the theater commander in the occupied State of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The failure for the U.S. Marines to establish a military government on January 17, 1893, and the failure since by all preceding Adjutant Generals, beginning with Colonel John H. Soper, does not relieve you of your duty to do so today. This duty, under U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01 and Army regulation paragraph 3, FM 27-5, to establish a military government, is directly linked to President Cleveland’s conclusion that ‘the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair.’ The establishment of a military government will serve both to end the prolonged violations and victimizations and begin to repair the rights of the injured Hawaiian people under the law of occupation.

In its Law of War Manual, the U.S. Department of Defense concluded that “[c]ommanders have duties to take necessary and reasonable measures to ensure that their subordinates do not commit violations of the law of war [jus in bello].” It should also be noted that a commander can be held accountable for the conduct of forces under his command, either by taking an active role in the commission of a war crime(s), or by omission in failing to prevent the commission of a war crime(s). The forces under your command are the Hawai‘i Army and Air National Guard, which include police officers.

On May 29, 2024, police officers, both active and retired from across the islands, called upon you to perform your duty. This letter from law enforcement officers is at odds with the instructions given to you by Attorney General Lopez to ignore the calls for you to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. Their letter to you stated:

We hope this letter finds you in good health and high spirits. We are writing to you on behalf of a deeply concerned group of Active and Retired law enforcement officers throughout the Hawaiian Islands, about the current governance of Hawaii and its impact on the vested rights of Hawaiian subjects under Hawaiian Law.

As you are well aware, the historical transition of Hawai‘i from a sovereign kingdom to a U.S. state is fraught with significant legal and ethical issues. The overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 and its subsequent annexation by the United States in 1898 continue to be an illegal act. The Hawaiian Kingdom was recognized as a Sovereign State by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands, in Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom (https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/35/).

At the center of the dispute, as stated on the PCA’s website on the Larsen case, was the unlawful imposition of American laws over Lance Larsen, a Hawaiian subject, that led to an unfair trial and incarceration. It was a police officer, who believed that Hawai‘i was a part of the United States and that he was carrying out his lawful duties, that cited Mr. Larsen, which led to his incarceration. That police officer now knows otherwise and so do we. This is not the United States but rather the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State under international law.

It is deeply troubling that the State of Hawaii has not been transitioned into a military government as mandated by international law. This failure of transition places current police officers on duty that they may be held accountable for unlawfully enforcing American laws. This very issue was brought to the attention of the Maui County Corporation Counsel by Maui Police Chief John Pelletier in 2022. In their request to Chief Pelletier, which is attached, Detective Kamuela Mawae and Patrol Officer Scott McCalister, stated:

We are humbly requesting that either Chief John Pelletier or Deputy Chief Charles Hank III formally request legal services from Corporation Counsel to conduct a legal analysis of Hawai‘i’s current political status considering International Law and to assure us, and the rest of the Police Officers throughout the State of Hawai‘i, that we are not violating International Law by enforcing U.S. domestic laws within what the federal lawsuit calls the Hawaiian Kingdom that continues to exist as a nation state under international law despite its government being overthrown by the United States on 01/17/1893.

Police Chief Pelletier did make a formal request to Corporation Counsel, but they did not act upon the request, which did not settle the issue and the possible liability that Police Officers face.

Your failure to initiate such a transition may be construed as a violation of the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Geneva Convention, which outlines the obligations of occupying powers. Also, your actions, or lack thereof, deprive Hawaiian subjects of the protections and rights they are entitled to under Hawaiian Kingdom laws and international humanitarian law. According to the Geneva Convention, occupying powers are obligated to respect the laws in force in the occupied territory and protect the rights of its inhabitants. Failure to comply with these obligations constitutes a serious violation and can result in accountability for war crimes for individuals in positions of authority.

The absence of a military government perpetuates an unlawful governance structure that has deprived the rights of Hawaiian subjects which is now at 131 years. The unique status of these rights is explained at this blog article on the Council of Regency’s weblog titled “It’s About Law—Native Hawaiian Rights are at a Critical Point for the State of Hawai‘i to Comply with the Law of Occupation” (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/native-hawaiians-are-at-a-critical-point-for-the-state-of-hawaii-to-comply-with-the-law-of-occupation/). It is imperative that steps be taken to rectify these historical injustices and ensure the protection of the vested rights of Hawaiian subjects.

We also acknowledge that the Council of Regency is our government that was lawfully established under extraordinary circumstances, and we support its effort to bring compliance with the law of occupation by the State of Hawai‘i, on behalf of the United States, which will eventually bring the American occupation to a close. When this happens, our Legislative Assembly will be brought into session so that Hawaiian subjects can elect a Regency of our choosing. The Council of Regency is currently operating in an acting capacity that is allowed under Hawaiian law.

We urge you to work with the Council of Regency in making sure this transition is not only lawful but is done for the benefit of all Hawaiian subjects. Please consider the gravity of this situation and take immediate action to establish a military government in Hawaii. Such a measure would align with international law and demonstrate a commitment to justice, fairness, and the recognition of the rights of Native Hawaiians.

The U.S. military’s failure to establish a military government in 1893 has a direct nexus to the war crime of imposing American municipal laws and administrative measure here—usurpation of sovereignty during occupation, which the police officers brought to your attention. BG Logan is a former officer of the Honolulu Police Department, and his brother, Arthur Joseph Logan, was the former Adjutant General and is currently Chief of the Honolulu Police Department.

The establishment of the military government will, consequently, put a stop to this war crime and to the secondary war crimes it had set in motion. By your omission, in failing to prevent the commission of war crimes, you are accountable, as a commander, under the war crime by omission, which comprise two offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Article 92(1) for failure to obey […] regulation, and Article 92(3) for dereliction in the performances of duties. This conduct will result in the publication of War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 after 1200 hours on July 31, 2024, on the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s (“RCI”) website (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/royal-commission.shtml). As a matter of international law, the Council of Regency has a duty to protect the population from war crimes, which prompted the formation of the RCI on June 17, 2019. On this subject, I am attaching two recent law articles written by myself, as the Head of the RCI, and by Professor Federico Lenzerini, as the Deputy Head of the RCI, that was published by the International Review of Contemporary Law last month.

After the publication of the war criminal report, your Deputy Adjutant General, BG Logan, will assume the chain of command as the theater commander, because, as a war criminal, you would be unfit to continue to serve. BG Logan will then request Attorney General Lopez to provide him rebuttable evidence as to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State since the nineteenth century. In particular, she would need to refute the legal opinions, as to the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law, I mentioned in my letter to you dated July 1, 2024, to wit:

Professor Matthew Craven, “Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under International Law,” in David Keanu Sai (ed.) Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom 125-149 (2020).

Professor William Schabas, “War Crimes Related to the United States Belligerent Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” in David Keanu Sai (ed.) Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom 151-169 (2020).

Professor Federico Lenzerini, “International Human Rights Law and Self-Determination of Peoples related to the United States Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” in David Keanu Sai (ed.) Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom 173-216 (2020).

Professor Federico Lenzerini, “Legal Opinion on the Authority of the Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” 3 Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics 317-333 (2021).

Professor Federico Lenzerini, Legal Opinion of Civil Law on Juridical Fact of the Hawaiian State and the Consequential Juridical Act by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (December 5, 2021).

In the absence of evidence by the Attorney General refuting these legal opinions, BG Logan will have seven days, from the date of the publication of the war criminal report, to perform his duty of establishing a military government.

Should BG Logan fail to perform his duty, he will also be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission to be published on the RCI’s website. This will result for the Commander of the 25th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, Colonel David R. Hatcher II, to assume the chain of command and request that the Attorney General provide him evidence refuting the mentioned legal opinions. In the absence of such evidence, Colonel Hatcher will have seven days, from the date of the publication of BG Logan’s war criminal report, to perform his duty of establishing a military government. This process will continue down the chain of command until there is a soldier that understands what it is to be duty bound in order to perform his/her duty of establishing a military government.

To prevent this sequence of events, you are duty bound to determine whether Attorney General Lopez’s instruction to you is a lawful order under military law. As I stated in my letter to you dated July 3, 2024, to determine that it is a lawful order, you should request she provide you evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists as an occupied State under international law. Just as you tasked your Staff Judge Advocate, LTC Phelps, you should demand that Attorney General Lopez provide you with evidence that rebut the presumption of State continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law. In the absence of such evidence, you must perform your duty to establish a military government.

You should be aware that Attorney General Lopez does not possess the qualifications of an expert in international law matters as does Professor Matthew Craven from the University of London SOAS, Law Department; Professor William Schabas from Middlesex London University, Law Department; and Professor Federico Lenzerini from the University of Siena Department of Political and International Science, who authored legal opinions for the Council of Regency and the Royal Commission of Inquiry. Professor Lenzerini previously served as a professor of international law at the University of Siena Law Department. All three are professors of international law. Should you rely on her unqualified opinion, you, and you alone, have created a crisis for the chain of command of the Army National Guard, and, possibly, the Air National Guard.

You should also be aware that the Attorney General is a subject of the RCI’s War Criminal Report no. 23-0001 for the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation that was published on March 29, 2023. You are receiving instructions from a war criminal that is subject to prosecution by a competent court with subject matter jurisdiction. There are no statutory limitations for war crimes.

Your decision to delegate or to not delegate has profound ramifications for the Hawai‘i National Guard that you lead as their Adjutant General. Commanders must make command decisions to protect the men and women under their command. As I stated, if Attorney General Lopez can provide you clear evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exists, then you have no miliary duty to perform. But if she is unable to provide you with evidence, except for an unqualified instruction, you, and you alone, will be derelict in your military duty and will be held accountable as a war criminal in the annals of Hawaiian history. These letters to you will serve as evidence of the war crime by omission. This is lawfare.

Royal Commission of Inquiry Encourages Major General Hara to Make a Proper Command Decision for a Military Government of Hawai‘i to be Established

Posted on July 3, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

On July 3, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a followup letter to Major General Kenneth Hara on the subject of whether State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne E. Lopez’s instruction to him to ignore calls for establishing a military government is a lawful order. Dr. Sai’s followup letter is an attempt to encourage MG Hara to make the proper command decision. Here is a link to the letter.

Major General Hara:

Your decision to delegate, or to not delegate, full authority and title to Brigadier General Stephen Logan to perform the duty of establishing a military government, has profound consequences for you and the chain of command of the Army National Guard, and, possibly, the Air National Guard. This is a command decision that cannot be underestimated. As a Title 32 Army general officer, who is currently the Director of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense, Attorney General Anne E. Lopez is your legal adviser for State of Hawai‘i matters, but Lieutenant Colonel Phelps, as your Staff Judge Advocate, is your legal adviser for military matters. However, if you were activated for deployment to a foreign country, as you were deployed to Baghdad, Iraq, in 2005, the Attorney General would no longer be your legal adviser. Your legal adviser was then exclusively the Staff Judge Advocate that was in country with you and your unit.

From a military standpoint, Attorney General Lopez’s instruction to you, to ignore the calls to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government, would, at first glance, be considered a lawful order. Therefore, it is presumed to be valid. According to United States v. Kisala, 64 M.J. 50 (2006), the essential attributes of a lawful order, that sustains the presumption of lawfulness, include: (1) issuance by competent authority—a person authorized by applicable law to give such an order; (2) communication of words that express a specific mandate to do or not do a specific act; and (3) relationship of the mandate to a military duty. In light of the presumption of lawfulness, long-standing principles of military justice places the burden of rebutting this presumption on you.

You currently have two conflicting duties to perform—follow the order given to you by the Attorney General or obey an Army regulation. To follow the former, you incur criminal culpability for the war crime by omission. To follow the latter, you will not incur criminal culpability. As you are aware, soldiers must obey an order from a superior, but if complying with that order would require the commission of a war crime, then the order is not lawful, and it, therefore, must be disobeyed. The question to be asked of the Attorney General is whether the State of Hawai‘i is within a foreign State’s territory or whether it is within the territory of the United States. If the Hawaiian Islands is within the territory of the United States, then the Attorney General’s instruction can be considered a lawful order, but if the Hawaiian Islands constitute the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, an occupied State, then the order is unlawful, and must be disobeyed.

Because you have been made aware, and acknowledged on July 27, 2023, that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a matter of international law, you must question the Attorney General’s instruction to you. Just as I recommended to you, when we first met at the Grand Naniloa Hotel in Hilo on April 13, 2023, to have your Staff Judge Advocate refute the information I provided you regarding the presumed existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State under international law, I would strongly recommend you request the Attorney General to do the same.

Under international law, there is a presumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, continues to exist as a subject of international law despite the unlawful overthrow of its government by the United States on January 17, 1893. According to Judge Crawford, 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.” Professor Craven 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.

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. If the Attorney General is unable to rebut the presumption of continuity and the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, then you must disobey her instruction because she is NOT ‘a person authorized by applicable law to give such an order.’

You have until July 31, 2024, to either make a command decision to delegate your authority to BG Logan and retire, or should you refuse to delegate your authority, then you will be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission. Your refusal will meet the requisite element of “willfulness” for the war crime by omission.

The Seat of Hawaiian Sovereignty Remains Undisturbed Despite the American Occupation

Posted on July 2, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The occupant’s ‘managerial powers’ is exercised by a military government over the territory of the occupied State that the occupant is in effective control. The military government would need to be in effective control of the territory in order to effectively enforce the laws of the occupied State. Without effective control there can be no enforcement of the laws.

The Hawaiian government’s surrender that transferred effective control over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom to the American military did not transfer Hawaiian sovereignty. U.S. Army FM 27-10 explicitly states, “Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty.”

The United States never possessed sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands. It remained undisturbed for over a century, and in 1997 when the Hawaiian Kingdom government was restored as a Regency, Hawaiian sovereignty came to the forefront as the foundation for the existence of the Regency and the application of the law of occupation.

Restoration of Hawaiian sovereignty needs to be removed from the conversations because you cannot restore what was never taken. And restoring the Hawaiian Kingdom government also needs to be removed from the conversations because the government was already restored in 1997 as a Regency, in an acting capacity, until the Legislature can be reconvened to elect by ballot a lawful Regency according to Article 33 of the 1864 Constitution, as amended. The doctrine of necessity and Hawaiian constitutional law provides the legal basis for the Regency to serve in an acting role.

What should become a part of the conversation is the duty of the State of Hawai‘i Adjutant General to comply with the law of occupation by establishing a military government to temporarily administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom as they were prior to the American invasion and also the provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom proclaimed by the Council of Regency on October 10, 2014. These provisional laws shall be all Federal, State, and County laws that “do not run contrary to the express, reason and spirit of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to July 6, 1887, the international law of occupation and international humanitarian law, and if it be the case they shall be regarded as invalid and void.” The Minister of the Interior published a memorandum on the formula to be used in determining whether American laws can be considered provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Royal Commission of Inquiry gives Notice to establish a Military Government of Hawai‘i no later than 1200 hrs on July 31, 2024—Failure to do so could implicate the chain of command of the Army National Guard for the War Crime by Omission

Posted on July 1, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

On July 1, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to State of Hawai‘i Adjutant General Kenneth Hara giving him notice to delegate authority and title to Deputy Adjutant General Brigadier General Stephen Logan so that he can establish a Military Government of Hawai‘i no later than 1200 hours on July 31, 2024. There are severe consequences for failure to do so that could implicate the chain of command of the Army National Guard for the war crime by omission. Here is a link to the letter.

Major General Hara:

In my last communication to you, on behalf of the Council of Regency, dated February 10, 2024, I made a “final appeal for you to perform your duty of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a military government on February 17, 2024, in accordance with Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and Army regulations.” You ignored that appeal despite your admittance, on July 27, 2023, to John “Doza” Enos that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist.

This communication is not an appeal, but rather a notice to perform your duty, as the theater commander in the occupied State of the Hawaiian Kingdom, to establish a military government of Hawai‘i by 1200 hours on July 31, 2024. If you fail to do so, you will be the subject of a war criminal report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) for the war crime by omission. The elements of the war crime by omission are the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s (“UCMJ”) offenses under Article 92(1) for failure to obey order or regulation, and Article 92(3) for dereliction in the performances of duties. The maximum punishment for Article 92(1) is dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years. The maximum punishment for Article 92(3) is bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.

Despite the prolonged nature and illegality of the American occupation since January 17, 1893, the sovereignty has remained vested in the Hawaiian Kingdom. In 1999, this was confirmed in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, PCA Case no. 1999-01. In that case, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) recognized the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, under international law, and the Council of Regency as its government. At the center of the Larsen case was the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty. This fact renders the State of Hawai‘i unlawful because it was established by congressional legislation in 1959, which is an American municipal law. Ex injuria jus non oritur (law does not arise from injustice) is a recognized principle of international law.

After the Council of Regency returned from the oral proceedings, held at the PCA, in December of 2000, it directly addressed the devastating effects of denationalization through Americanization. This effectively erased the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the minds of the Hawaiian population and replaced it with an American national consciousness that created a false narrative that Hawai‘i became a part of the United States. Denationalization, under customary international law, is a war crime.

The Council of Regency decided to address the effects of Americanization through academic and scholarly research at the University of Hawai‘i. The Council of Regency’s decision was guided by paragraph 495—Remedies of Injured Belligerent, FM 27-10, that states, “[i]n the event of violation of the law of war, the injured party may legally resort to remedial action of the following […] a. [p]ublication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending belligerent.” Since then, a plethora of doctoral dissertations, master’s theses, peer review articles, and books have been published on the topic of the American occupation. The latest peer review articles, by myself as Head of the RCI, and by Professor Federico Lenzerini as Deputy Head of the RCI, were published in June of 2024 by the International Review of Contemporary Law:

Professor Federico Lenzerini, “Military Occupation, Sovereignty, and the ex injuria jus non oritur Principle. Complying with the Supreme Imperative of Suppressing “Acts of Aggression or Other Breaches of the Peace” à la carte?,” 6(2) International Review of Contemporary Law 58-67 (2024).

Dr. David Keanu Sai, “All States have a Responsibility to Protect their Population from War Crimes—Usurpation of Sovereignty During Military Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands,” 6(2) International Review of Contemporary Law 72-81 (2024).

In addition, legal opinions on this subject were authored by experts in the various fields of international law:

Professor Matthew Craven, “Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under International Law,” in David Keanu Sai (ed.) Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom 125-149 (2020).

Professor William Schabas, “War Crimes Related to the United States Belligerent Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” in David Keanu Sai (ed.) Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom 151-169 (2020).

Professor Federico Lenzerini, “International Human Rights Law and Self-Determination of Peoples related to the United States Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” in David Keanu Sai (ed.) Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom 173-216 (2020).

Professor Federico Lenzerini, “Legal Opinion on the Authority of the Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” 3 Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics 317-333 (2021).

Professor Federico Lenzerini, Legal Opinion of Civil Law on Juridical Fact of the Hawaiian State and the Consequential Juridical Act by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (December 5, 2021).

Notwithstanding your failure to obey an Army regulation and dereliction of duty, both being offenses under the UCMJ and the war crime by omission, you are the most senior general officer of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense. And despite your public announcement that you will be retiring as the Adjutant General on October 1, 2024, and resigning from the U.S. Army on November 1, 2024, you remain the theater commander over the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. You are, therefore, responsible for establishing a military government in accordance with paragraph 3, FM 27-5. Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and Article 64 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention imposes the obligation on the commander in occupied territory to establish a military government to administer the laws of the occupied State. Furthermore, paragraph 2-37, FM 41-10, states that “commanders are under a legal obligation imposed by international law.”

However, since paragraph 3 of FM 27-5 also states that you also have “authority to delegate authority and title, in whole or in part, to a subordinate commander” to perform the duty of establishing a military government. The RCI will consider this provision as time sensitive to conclude willfulness, on your part, to not delegate authority and title, thereby, completing the elements necessary for the war crime by omission. Therefore, you will delegate full authority and title to Brigadier General Stephen Logan so that he can establish a Military Government of Hawai‘i no later than 1200 hours on July 31, 2024. BG Logan will be guided in the establishment of a military government by the RCI’s memorandum on bringing the American occupation of Hawai‘i to an end by establishing an American military government (June 22, 2024), and by the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government (August 14, 2023).

Should you fail to delegate full authority and title to BG Logan, the RCI will conclude that your conduct is “willful,” and you will be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission. Military governments are under an obligation, under international law, to prosecute war criminals in occupied territory, and the Army National Guard is obligated to hold you accountable, by court martial, for violating Articles 92(1) and (3) of the UCMJ. The war criminal report for your war crime by omission will be based on the elements of the offenses of the UCMJ. Thus, your court martial will be based on the evidence provided in the war criminal report. Military law provides for your prosecution under the UCMJ, while international law provides for your prosecution for war crimes. One prosecution does not cancel out the other prosecution. Furthermore, war crimes have no statutes of limitations. In 2022, Germany prosecuted a 97-years old woman for Nazi war crimes.

I am aware that you stated to a former Adjutant General that State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne E. Lopez, who is a civilian, instructed you and Brigadier General Stephen Logan to ignore me and any organization calling for the performance of a military duty to establish a military government. This conduct is not a valid defense for disobedience of an Army regulation and dereliction of duty because Mrs. Lopez is a civilian interfering with a military duty.

This is tantamount to a soldier, under your command, refusing to follow your order given him because a civilian instructed him to ignore you. For you not to perform your military duty is to show that there is no such military duty to perform because the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist as an occupied State under international law. There is no such evidence. The RCI considers Mrs. Lopez’s conduct and action to be an accomplice to the war crime by omission and she will be included in your war criminal report should you fail to delegate your authority to BG Logan.

Once the war criminal report is made public on the RCI’s website, BG Logan is duty bound to immediately assume the chain of command and perform the duty of establishing a military government. The RCI will give BG Logan one week from the date of the war criminal report to establish a military government. Should BG Logan also be “willful” in disobeying an Army regulation and of dereliction of duty, then he will be the subject of a war criminal report. Thereafter, the next in line of the Army National Guard shall assume the chain of command. This will continue until a member of the Army National Guard performs the duty of establishing a military government.

Hawaiian Regency to Leverage Hawaiian Sovereignty to Compel the Establishment of a Military Government of Hawai‘i

Posted on June 29, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

We are now at 131 years of an American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. If the American military in Hawai‘i complied with the international law of occupation when Queen Lili‘uokalani conditionally surrendered to the United States on January 17, 1893, the occupation would not have lasted 131 years. Consequently, everything since 1893 that derives from American authority, that would otherwise be valid within U.S. territory, is invalid and void in Hawaiian territory because the United States has not been vested with Hawaiian sovereignty by a treaty. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, which regulates military occupations of foreign countries states:

Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty.

The function of the military government is to provisionally administer the laws of the occupied State until a peace treaty comes into effect where the occupation comes to an end. Paragraph 62 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 states that “Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory.”

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

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

The only way to bring order to this calamity is by establishing a military government of Hawai‘i where the military governor has centralized command and control allowable under the law of occupation in order to make command decisions. We are at the cusp of transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government of Hawai‘i. It is not a matter of “if” but rather “when.” It is also not a question of “choice” but rather a “duty” that has profound ramifications. A duty is a legal obligation called duty bound.

The current practice of the United States military is that it is the responsibility of the Army to establish a military government to preside over occupied territory. Not the Navy, Marines or the Air Force. U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1 states that it is the function of the Army in “[occupied] territories abroad [to] provide for the establishment of a military government pending transfer of this responsibility to other authority.” And U.S. Department of Directive 2000.13 states that the Army’s “Civil affairs operations include…[e]stablish[ing] and conduct[ing] military government until civilian authority or government can be restored.”

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the U.S. Army took steps to prepare for military occupations by publishing field manuals—FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, FM 27-5, Civil Affairs Military Government, FM 3-57, Civil Affairs Operations, and FM 6-27, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Land Warfare.

Paragraph 3, FM 27-5, states that the “theater command bears full responsibility for [military government]; therefore, he is usually designated as military governor […], but has authority to delegate authority and title, in whole or in part, to a subordinate commander. In occupied territory the commander, by virtue of his position, has supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authority, limited only by the laws and customs of war and by directives from higher authority.”

In other words, the highest-ranking officer in the theater of occupied territory is duty bound to transform the civilian government of the occupied State into a military government that would be presided over by the Army theater commander to be called a “military governor.” The civilian government of the occupied State remains intact, except for the legislative branch, because the military governor “has supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authority, limited only by the laws and customs of war and by directives from higher authority.”

If the theater commander refuses to establish a military government, he can be held accountable by court martial or by non-judicial punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). There are two offenses under the UCMJ that would collectively apply. The first offense is willfully disobeying a regulation where the maximum punishment is dishonorable discharge and up to 2 years in prison. The second offense is willful dereliction of duty that carries a maximum punishment of bad conduct discharge and up to 6 months in prison. Collectively, the theater commander could face a total of 2.5 years in prison.

For the occupied Government, there is a duty to protect the population from war crimes committed on occupied territory. Rule 158 of the International Committee of the Red Cross Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law specifies that “States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or armed forces, or on their territory, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. They must also investigate other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects.”

Under international criminal law, the willful failure to establish a military government is a violation of article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This is especially egregious when the failure to establish a military government to administer the laws of the occupied State allows the imposition of the laws of the occupied State within a foreign country’s territory is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty. So, the willful refusal to establish a military government is the war crime by omission.

To prepare for the transition to a military government, the Council of Regency, on October 10, 2014, proclaimed provisional laws for the Hawaiian Kingdom in order to bring the laws of 1893 up to date. The proclamation stated that all Federal, State of Hawai‘i and County laws shall be the provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom so long as these laws do not run “contrary to the express, reason and spirit of the laws Hawaiian Kingdom.” On August 1, 2023, the Minister of the Interior published a memorandum on the formula to be applied in determining which American laws can be considered provisional laws of the kingdom.

After the Council of Regency was made aware that the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General instructed Major General Kenneth Hara to ignore the call to establish a military government, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry sent a letter on June 22, 2024, to the Army National Guard Staff Judge Advocate, Lieutenant Colonel Phelps. The letter opened with:

It has been brought to my attention, that State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne E. Lopez has instructed Major General Kenneth Hara and Brigadier General Stephen Logan to ignore my efforts in calling upon MG Hara to perform his military duty of transforming the State of Hawai‘ into a military government. This baseless statement by Mrs. Lopez has criminal repercussions for herself and MG Hara for the war crime by omission. She has no lawful authority in the Hawaiian Islands because American laws do not apply here. There is no treaty of cession whereby the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded its territorial sovereignty to the United States. Therefore, sovereignty remains in the Hawaiian Kingdom, which the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) recognized in 1999 in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. The PCA recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a “State,” and the Council of Regency as its government. At the center of the international dispute was the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws.

This interference by a civilian of a clear military duty is a very serious matter in military law for MG Hara. For MG Hara to not perform his duty of establishing a military government, Lopez would have to show him clear and irrefutable evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist as an occupied State under international law. She did not show any such evidence. In closing, the letter stated:

As a result of the continuing and ongoing violations of the law of armed conflict, the law of occupation, and Army regulations, the Royal Commission of Inquiry is left with no choice but to take this particular course of action in order to compel the performance of a military duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government under the law of armed conflict, the law of occupation, and Army regulations. At present, there are two scenarios for MG Hara.

FIRST SCENARIO: Since the public announcement by MG Hara that he will be retiring in October of 2024, the third element of the offense of dereliction of duty—willfulness would appear to have been met. As a result, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) will publish a war criminal report on MG Hara for the war crime by omission for his failure to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. Mrs. Lopez would be included in this report as an accomplice.

After the RCI’s publication, BG Logan to assume the chain of command to perform the duty by establishing a military government according to the Council of Regency’s operational order dated August 14, 2023. BG Logan shall reach out to the 322nd Civil Affairs Brigade, Fort Shafter, to advise him on the function of a military government. It is a function of Civil Affairs to advise commanders on military governments. BG Logan will also hold MG Hara accountable for dereliction of duty by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment, under Article 15, UCMJ. The information in the RCI war criminal report will be the evidential basis for punishment. To not hold MG Hara accountable for dereliction of duty sets the wrong standard for the entire National Guard.

SECOND SCENARIO: To relieve MG Hara from criminal culpability and for the RCI to refrain from publishing a war criminal report, MG Hara must delegate his authority to BG Logan to perform his duty, and, thereafter, MG Hara immediately resigns. This delegation of authority is authorized under paragraph 3, Army Field Manual 27-5, that states the “theater command bears full responsibility for [military government]; […] but has authority to delegate authority and title, in whole or in part, to a subordinate commander.” This regulation provides a window for MG Hara to delegate authority because he is currently the theater commander. The second scenario is time sensitive. When the RCI concludes, with evidence, that MG Hara refuses to delegate authority, the first scenario will be implemented.

Should BG Logan be derelict of his duty, a war criminal report on him will be drafted and published, and the next officer in the Army National Guard’s chain of command, Colonel David Hatcher II, commander of the 29th Infantry Combat Brigade, will assume the chain of command. This process of publishing war criminal reports will continue down the chain of command to the last enlisted soldier in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard, after, which, it will begin anew with the chain of command for the Hawai‘i Air National Guard down to the last enlisted soldier.

The American occupation is now at 131 years, which is unacceptable. I provided MG Hara and yourself more than enough time to falsify the information and legal basis for the American occupation and the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law. Falsification would have rendered MG Hara without this military duty to perform. Neither yourself nor the State of Hawai‘i, to include Mrs. Lopez, has ever provided rebuttable evidence as to the presumption of the continuity of the Hawaiian State under international law. Because he is aware of his duty under military law, MG Hara, as the theater commander, is directly responsible for all the war crimes being committed by members of the State of Hawai‘i. There are no statutes of limitations for the prosecution of war crimes. The RCI’s published war criminal reports provides the necessary evidence of the actus reus and mens rea for prosecution. As the Staff Judge Advocate, I recommend that you advise your senior military leadership not to take this communication lightly. I am including, with this letter, an RCI memorandum on bringing the American occupation of Hawai‘i to an end by establishing a American military government.

I am also attaching two recent law articles that were published by the International Review of Contemporary Law by myself as Head of the RCI, and by Professor Federico Lenzerini as the Deputy Head of the RCI. I am including these documents to inform you of the military duty to establish a military government and the legal consequences for not performing the military duty.

Attached to the letter to LTC Phelps was an RCI memorandum on bringing the American occupation of Hawai‘i to an end by establishing an American Military Government.

Royal Order of Kamehameha I Calls Upon Major General Hara to Transform State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government

Posted on June 20, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

On June 15, 2024, the Royal Order of Kamehameha I sent a letter to State of Hawai‘i Adjutant General Major General Kenneth Hara to perform his duty of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government. Here is a link to download the letter.

Aloha Major General Hara:

We the members of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I (including Na Wahine O Kamehameha), was established in the early 1900s to maintain a connection to our country, the Hawaiian Kingdom, despite the unlawful overthrow of our country’s government on January 17, 1893, by the United States.

Our people have suffered greatly in the aftermath of the overthrow, but we, as Native Hawaiian subjects, have survived. Our predecessors, who established the Royal Order of Kamehameha I, had a national consciousness of their country that we didn’t have because of the Americanization of these islands. We, today, were taught that our country no longer existed and that we are now American citizens. We now know that this is not true.

When the Government was restored in 1997, the Council of Regency embarked on a monumental task to ho‘oponopono (right the wrong) from a legal standpoint. Their success to get the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands, to recognize the continued existence of our country and the Council of Regency as our government was no small task. When the Council of Regency returned from the Netherlands in 2000, they embarked on an educational campaign to restore the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the minds of its people. This led to classes being taught on the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom at the University of Hawai‘i, High Schools, Middle Schools, Elementary Schools, and Preschools throughout the Hawaiian Islands.

In 2018, the Hawai‘i State Teachers Association was able to get their resolution passed at the annual conference of the National Education Association in Boston, Massachusetts. The resolution stated, “The NEA will publish an article that documents the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy in 1893, the prolonged illegal occupation of the United States in the Hawaiian Kingdom and the harmful effects that this occupation has had on the Hawaiian people and resources of the land.” The HSTA asked Dr. Keanu Sai to write three articles, which were published on the NEA website. Dr. Sai is the Chairman of the Council of Regency, and he led the legal team for the Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent of Court of Arbitration in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom.

Because of this educational campaign, we are now aware that our country still exists and, as a people, we must owe allegiance to the Hawaiian Kingdom as our predecessors did. This is not a choice, but an obligation as Hawaiian subjects. We also acknowledge that the Council of Regency is our government that was lawfully established under extraordinary circumstances, and we support its effort to bring compliance with the law of occupation by the State of Hawai‘i on behalf of the United States, which will eventually bring the American occupation to close. When this happens, our Legislative Assembly will be brought into session so that Hawaiian subjects can elect a Regency of our choosing. The Council of Regency is currently operating in an acting capacity that is allowed under Hawaiian law.

We have read the Minister of the Interior’s memorandum dated April 26, 2024 (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Memo_re_Rights_of_Hawaiians_(4.26.24).pdf), and the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for the State of Hawai‘i to transform into a Military Government (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/HK_Operational_Plan_of_Transition.pdf), and we support this plan. After watching Dr. Sai’s presentation to the Maui County Council on March 6, 2024 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-VIA_3GD2A), we were made aware of your reluctance to carry out your duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government.

Because of the high cost of living brought here because of the unlawful American presence, the majority of Native Hawaiians now reside in the United States. The U.S. Census reported that in 2020, that of the total of 680,442 Native Hawaiians, 53 percent live in the United States. The driving factors that led to the move were not being able to afford a home and adequate health care. Dr. Sai, as the Minister of the Interior, clearly explains this in his memorandum where he states,

While the State of Hawai‘i has yet to transform itself into a Military Government and proclaim the provisional laws, as proclaimed by the Council of Regency, that brings Hawaiian Kingdom laws up to date, Hawaiian Kingdom laws as they were prior to January 17, 1893, continue to exist. The greatest dilemma for aboriginal Hawaiians today is having a home and health care. Average cost of a home today is $820,000.00. And health care insurance for a family of 4 is at $1,500 a month. According to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Native Hawaiian Health Fact Sheet 2017, “Today, Native Hawaiians are perhaps the single racial group with the highest health risk in the State of Hawai‘i. This risk stems from high economic and cultural stress, lifestyle and risk behaviors, and late or lack of access to health care.”

Under Hawaiian Kingdom laws, aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are the recipients of free health care at Queen’s Hospital and its outlets across the islands. In its budget, the Hawaiian Legislative Assembly would allocate money to the Queen’s Hospital for the healthcare of aboriginal Hawaiian subjects. The United States stopped allocating moneys from its Territory of Hawai‘i Legislature in 1909. Aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are also able to acquire up to 50 acres of public lands at $20.00 per acre under the 1850 Kuleana Act. With the current rate of construction costs, which includes building material and labor, an aboriginal Hawaiian subject can build 3-bedroom, 1-bath home for $100,000.00.

Hawaiian Kingdom laws also provide for fishing rights that extend out to the first reef or where there is no reef, out to 1 mile, exclusively for all Hawaiian subjects and lawfully resident aliens of the land divisions called ahupua‘a or ‘ili. From that point out to 12 nautical miles, all Hawaiian subjects and lawfully resident aliens have exclusive access to economic activity, such as mining underwater resources and fishing. Once the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is acceded to by the Council of Regency, this exclusive access to economic activity will extend out to 200 miles called the Exclusive Economic Zone.

On behalf of the members of the Royal Order, I respectfully call upon you to carry out your duty to proclaim the transformation of the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government so that all Hawaiian subjects, and their families, would be able to exercise their rights secured to them under Hawaiian Kingdom law and protected by the international law of occupation. We urge you to work with the Council of Regency in making sure this transition is not only lawful but is done for the benefit of all Hawaiian subjects that are allowed under Hawaiian Kingdom law, the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.

International Law Journal Publishes Articles by the Head and Deputy Head of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Royal Commission of Inquiry

Posted on June 14, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

The International Review of Contemporary Law released its volume 6, no. 2, earlier this month. The theme of this journal is “77 Years of the United Nations Charter.” The Head, Dr. Keanu Sai, and Deputy Head, Professor Federico Lenzerini, of the Royal Commission of Inquiry that investigates war crimes and human rights violations committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom, each had an article published in the journal.

Dr. Sai’s article is titled “All States have a Responsibility to Protect their Population from War Crimes—Usurpation of Sovereignty During Military Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands.” Dr. Sai’s article opened with:

At the United Nations World Summit in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect was unanimously adopted. The principle of the Responsibility to Protect has three pillars: (1) every State has the Responsibility to Protect its populations from four mass atrocity crimes—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing; (2) the wider international community has the responsibility to encourage and assist individual States in meeting that responsibility; and (3) if a state is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take appropriate collective action, in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter. In 2009, the General Assembly reaffirmed the three pillars of a State’s responsibility to protect their populations from war crimes and crimes against humanity. And in 2021, the General Assembly passed a resolution on “The responsibility to protect and the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” The third pillar, which may call into action State intervention, can become controversial.

Rule 158 of the International Committee of the Red Cross Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law specifies that “States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or armed forces, or on their territory, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. They must also investigate other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects.” This “rule that States must investigate war crimes and prosecute the suspects is set forth in numerous military manuals, with respect to grave breaches, but also more broadly with respect to war crimes in general.”

Determined to hold to account individuals who have committed war crimes and human rights violations throughout the Hawaiian Islands, being the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the Council of Regency, by proclamation on 17 April 2019, established a Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) in similar fashion to the United States proposal of establishing a Commission of Inquiry after the First World War “to consider generally the relative culpability of the authors of the war and also the question of their culpability as to the violations of the laws and customs of war committed during its course.” The author serves as Head of the RCI and Professor Federico Lenzerini from the University of Siena, Italy, as its Deputy Head. This article will address the first pillar of the principle of Responsibility to Protect.

Professor Lenzerini’s article is titled “Military Occupation, Sovereignty, and the ex injuria jus non oritur Principle. Complying with the Supreme Imperative of Suppressing ‘Acts of Aggression or Other Breaches of the Peace’ à la carte?” After covering the Iraqi military occupation of Kuwait and the Russian military occupation of Ukraine, Professor Lenzerini’s article draws attention to the American military occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Professor Lenzerini writes:

As a factual situation, the occupation of Hawai‘i by the US does not substantially differ from the examples provided in the previous section. Since the end of the XIX Century, however, almost no significant positions have been taken by the international community and its members against the illegality of the American annexation of the Hawaiian territory. Certainly, the level of military force used in order to overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom was not even comparable to that employed in Kuwait, Donbass or even in Crimea. In terms of the illegality of the occupation, however, this circumstance is irrelevant, because, as seen in section 2 above, the rules of international humanitarian law regulating military occupation apply even when the latter does not meet any armed resistance by the troops or the people of the occupied territory. The only significant difference between the case of Hawai‘i and the other examples described in this article rests in the circumstance that the former occurred well before the establishment of the United Nations, and the resulting acquisition of sovereignty by the US over the Hawaiian territory was already consolidated at the time of their establishment. Is this circumstance sufficient to uphold the position according to which the occupation of Hawai‘i should be treated differently from the other cases? An attempt to provide an answer to this question will be carried out in the next section, through examining the possible arguments which may be used to either support or refute such a position.

In the next section, Professor Lenzerini undermines the argument that international law in 1893 allowed the occupying State, in this case the United States, to have acquired the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom because the United States exercised effective control over the territory. He wrote:

The main argument that could be used to deny the illegality of the US occupation of Hawai‘i rests in the doctrine of intertemporal law. According to this doctrine, the legality of a situation “must be appraised […] in the light of the rules of international law as they existed at that time, and not as they exist today”. In other words, a State can be considered responsible of a violation of international law—implying the determination of the consequent “secondary” obligation for that State to restore legality—only if its behaviour was prohibited by rules already in force at the time when it was held. In the event that one should ascertain that at the time of the occupation of Hawai‘i by the US international law did not yet prohibit the annexation of a foreign territory as a consequence of the occupation itself, the logical conclusion, in principle, would be that the legality of the annexation of Hawai‘i by the United States cannot reasonably be challenged. In reality even this conclusion could probably be disputed through using the argument of “continuing violations”, by virtue of the violations of international law which continue to be produced today as a consequence of the American occupation and of its perpetuation. In fact, it is a general principle of international law on State responsibility that “[t]he breach of an international obligation by an act of a State having a continuing character extends over the entire period during which the act continues and remains not in conformity with the international obligation”.

However, it appears that there is no need to rely on this argument, for the reason that also an intertemporal-law-based perspective confirms the illegality—under international law—of the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the US. In fact, as regards in particular the topic of military occupation, the affirmation of the ex injuria jus non oritur rule predated the Stimson doctrine, because it was already consolidated as a principle of general international law since the XVIII Century. In fact, “[i]n the course of the nineteenth century, the concept of occupation as conquest was gradually abandoned in favour of a model of occupation based on the temporary control and administration of the occupied territory, the fate of which could be determined only by a peace treaty”, in other words, “the fundamental principle of occupation law accepted by mid-to-late 19th-century publicists was that an occupant could not alter the political order of territory”. Consistently, “[l]es États qui se font la guerre rompent entre eux les liens formés par le droit des gens en temps de paix; mais il ne dépend pas d’eux d’anéantir les faits sur lesquels repose ce droit des gens. Ils ne peuvent détruire ni la souveraineté des États, ni leur indépendance, ni la dépendance mutuelle des nations”. This was already confirmed by domestic and international practice contemporary to the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States. For instance, in 1915, in a judgment concerning the case of a person who was arrested in a part of Russian Poland occupied by Germany and deported to the German territory without the consent of Russian authorities, the Supreme Court of Germany held that an occupied enemy territory remained enemy and did not become national territory of the occupant as a result of the occupation.

Professor Lenzerini when on to state:

In light of the foregoing, it appears that the theories according to which the effective and consolidated occupation of a territory would determine the acquisition of sovereignty by the occupying power over that territory—although supported by eminent scholars—must be confuted. Consequently, under international law, “le transfert de souveraineté ne peut être considéré comme effectué judiquement que par l’entrée en vigueur du Traité qui le stipule et à dater du jour de cette mise en vigueur”, which means that “[t]he only form in which a cession [of territory] can be effected is an agreement embodied in a treaty between the ceding and the acquiring State. Such treaty may be through the outcome of peaceable negotiations or of war.” This conclusion had been confirmed, among others, by the US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in 1928, holding that the fate of a territory subjected to military occupation had to be “determined at the treaty of peace.”

There is no treaty where the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded its territorial sovereignty to the United States. The American military occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom is now at 131 years.

CHANGE IN SCHEDULE: Dr. Keanu Sai to Present at FestPAC Tomorrow at 10:30am to 12:00 noon in the Kaua‘i Room 311

Posted on June 12, 2024 by Hawaiian Kingdom

There’s been a change in schedule for Dr. Keanu Sai’s presentation at the Festival of the Pacific Culture and Arts held at the Hawai‘i Convention Center. Dr. Sai was previously scheduled to present on the American Occupation at 11:00am to 12:30pm in the Kaua‘i Room 311. It is now changed to 10:30am to 12 noon in the same Kaua‘i Room 311.

Hawaiian Kingdom Blog

Weblog of the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom presently operating within the occupied State of the Hawaiian Islands.

Author Archives: Hawaiian Kingdom

Dr. Keanu Sai Presented a History of the Kāʻei or Sash of Liloa at Bishop Museum on July 31st

The First in a Chain of Events has Begun with Major General Hara’s Failure to Set in Motion the Establishment of a Military Government of Hawai‘i

Royal Commission of Inquiry’s Letter to Major General Hara Warning of a Cascading Effect for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard

Clarifying the Role and Function of the International Criminal Court regarding War Crimes Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom

Dr. Keanu Sai to be a Panelist on the Demilitarization of Hawai‘i

Who Prosecutes Hawai‘i War Crimes?

Major General Hara receives Royal Commission of Inquiry’s Draft of War Criminal Report No. 24-0001 for willful failure to establish a military government of Hawai‘i by July 31, 2024

Royal Commission of Inquiry’s Final Letter to Major General Hara as the Suspense Date of July 31st is Fast Approaching

Royal Commission of Inquiry Encourages Major General Hara to Make a Proper Command Decision for a Military Government of Hawai‘i to be Established

The Seat of Hawaiian Sovereignty Remains Undisturbed Despite the American Occupation

Royal Commission of Inquiry gives Notice to establish a Military Government of Hawai‘i no later than 1200 hrs on July 31, 2024—Failure to do so could implicate the chain of command of the Army National Guard for the War Crime by Omission

Hawaiian Regency to Leverage Hawaiian Sovereignty to Compel the Establishment of a Military Government of Hawai‘i

Royal Order of Kamehameha I Calls Upon Major General Hara to Transform State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government

International Law Journal Publishes Articles by the Head and Deputy Head of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Royal Commission of Inquiry

CHANGE IN SCHEDULE: Dr. Keanu Sai to Present at FestPAC Tomorrow at 10:30am to 12:00 noon in the Kaua‘i Room 311

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: