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.

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.

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.

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.