Hawai‘i War Crimes: Willfully Depriving a Protected Person of a Fair Trial

Posted on January 28, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

War crimes are actions taken by individuals, whether military or civilian, that violates international humanitarian law, which includes the 1907 Hague Conventions, 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. War crimes include “grave breaches” of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which also applies to territory that is occupied even if the occupation takes place without resistance. Protected persons under International Humanitarian Law are all nationals who reside within an occupied State, except for the nationals of the Occupying Power. The International Criminal Court and States prosecute individuals for war crimes.

War Crimes: Willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial

Since January 17, 1893, there have been no lawfully constituted courts in the Hawaiian Islands whether Hawaiian Kingdom courts or military commissions established by order of the Commander of the United States Pacific Command in conformity with the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and the international laws of occupation.

The Federal courts and State of Hawai‘i courts in the Hawaiian Islands derive their authority from the Hawai‘i Statehood Act, which is a statute enacted by the United States Congress in 1959. Section 9 states that “the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii established by and existing under title 28 of the United States Code shall henceforth be a court of the United States with judicial power derived from article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States;” and Section 12 provides that “State courts shall be the successors of the courts of the Territory [of Hawai‘i] as to all cases arising within the limits embraced within the jurisdiction of such courts, respectively, with full power to proceed.”

The United States Constitution and Congressional laws have no legal effect beyond the borders of the United States. According to the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936), “Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law. As a member of the family of nations, the right and power of the United States in that field are equal to the right and power of the other members of the international family.” Without a treaty of cession, these Courts cannot claim to have any authority in the territory of a foreign State, and, therefore, they are not properly constituted to give defendant(s) a fair and regular trial whether in civil or criminal proceedings.

International law also provides limitations to the exercise of jurisdiction. The sovereignty of an independent state is territorial and international law provides for its restrictions and exceptions. In The Lotus case, 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 convention (treaty).” The Court continued, “In these circumstances, all that can be required of a State is that it should not overstep the limits which international law places upon its jurisdiction; within these limits, its title to exercise jurisdiction rests in its sovereignty.”

In 2006, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether or not the military courts at Guantanamo Bay were lawfully established. The case was Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557. The Court relied on the International Committee of the Red Cross that defines a “regularly constituted court” as a court “established and organized in accordance with the laws and procedures already in force in a country.” Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, prohibits “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” The Federal courts and State of Hawai‘i courts were not established “in accordance with the laws and procedures” of the Hawaiian Kingdom nor was it regularly constituted under the international laws of occupation, and therefore was not “regularly constituted” under any of the above standards.

Only a “regularly constituted court” may pass judgment, and when a court is not “regularly constituted,” the proceedings that would lead to a judgment imposed by it would not only be extrajudicial, but would also constitute a war crime. Enforcements of these judgments would also constitute war crimes because the judgments themselves are unlawful. In Hamdan, Justice Kennedy concluded that a court that is not regularly constituted could not provide any guarantees of a fair trial.

In a civil case hearing that came before Judge Glenn S. Hara, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., vs. Elaine E. Kawasaki, et al., civil no. 11-1-106, in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai‘i, on June 15, 2012, Mr. Kaiama, Esq., provided special appearance for Defendant Elaine E. Kawasaki on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on two executive agreements entered into between U.S. President Grover Cleveland and the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Queen Lili‘uokalani in 1893. The transcripts of the case fully layout the argument presented by Kaiama.

After arguing the merits of the case, Kaiama states, “I have now been arguing, Your Honor, this motion before judges of the courts of the circuit court and district court throughout the State of Hawai‘i, and nearly—and probably over 20 times, and in not one instance has the plaintiff in the cases challenged the merits of the executive agreement or that the executive agreements have been terminated. Because we believe, respectfully, again, Your Honor, they cannot.” He continues to argue that “it’s irrefutable that these are executive agreements and preempts state law, …which is the state statute that plaintiff relies on in their complaint seeking to confer jurisdiction upon that court,” and “once we have met our burden [of proof], the court cannot have no other, we believe, no other recourse but to dismiss the complaint.” Unable to deny the evidence, Judge Hara replies, “what you’re asking the court to do is commit suicide, because once I adopt your argument, I have no jurisdiction over anything. Not only these kinds of cases…, but jurisdiction of the courts evaporate. All of the courts across the state from the supreme court down, and we have no judiciary. I can’t do that.”

Two issues resonate from Judge Hara’s statement: first, he’s admitting to the veracity of the evidence; and, secondly, he knowingly and deliberately denied the Defendant, Ms. Elaine Kawasaki, and fair and regular trial, and allowed the Plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, to proceed to unlawfully seize upon her home. Unfair trials can lead to other crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction that include appropriation of property, both real and personal, which is also called pillaging, and unlawful confinement.

Kawasaki provided notice to Wells Fargo Bank of a defect in her fee-simple title as a result of the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian government, and for Wells Fargo Bank to file an insurance claim with the title insurance company in order to pay off the debt owed. Kawasaki was required by the lender to purchase a lender’s title insurance policy at escrow to protect the lender and have the debt paid off if there exists a defect in the title, which would render the mortgage invalid. A foreclosure process is directly tied to a valid mortgage, and if the mortgage is invalid there can be no foreclosure. Wells Fargo Bank disregarded Kawasaki’s notice and proceeded with the foreclosure in a court that was not regularly constituted.

Hawai‘i War Crimes: Compulsion to Serve in the Occupier’s Military

Posted on January 27, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

War Crimes: Compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of an Occupying Power

The United States Selective Service System is an agency of the United States government that maintains information on those potentially subject to military conscription. Under the Military Selective Service Act, “it shall be the duty of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder.”

Conscription of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands unlawfully inducted into the United States Armed Forces through the Selective Service System occurred since the First World War to the Vietnam War. The 1907 Hague Convention, V, “Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land,” also prohibits the Occupying Power from establishing recruiting stations on the territory of a neutral Occupied State (Article 4).

There were 4,336 residents of the Hawaiian Islands drafted in the United States military during the First World War (September 1917-November 1918) and 32,197 of Hawai‘i’s residents drafted during the Second World War (November 1940-October 1946). There are no statistics available as to the number of Hawai‘i’s residents drafted during the Korean War (June 1950-June 1953) and the Vietnam War (August 1964-February 1973), but there were over 25,000 of Hawai‘i’s residents who served during the Korean War and 13,000 of Hawai‘i’s residents who served during the Vietnam War.

Although induction into the United States Armed Forces has not taken place since February 1973, the requirements to have residents of the Hawaiian Islands who reach the age of 18 to register with the Selective Service System for possible induction is unlawful and therefore war crimes are still being committed. The Selective Service System in the Hawaiian Islands is headquartered on the Island of O’ahu.

Hawai‘i War Crimes: Extensive Appropriation of Property

Posted on January 25, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

War Crime: Extensive appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly

Between 2002 and 2012, the United States Internal Revenue Service, hereinafter “IRS,” illegally appropriated $74.8 million dollars from the residents of the Hawaiian Islands. During this same period, the government of the State of Hawai‘i additionally appropriated $2.2 billion dollars illegally. The IRS is an agency of the United States of America and cannot appropriate money from the inhabitants of an occupied State without violating international law. The State of Hawai‘i is a political subdivision of the United States of America established by an Act of Congress in 1959 and as an entity without any extraterritorial effect, it couldn’t appropriate money from the inhabitants of an occupied State without violating the international laws of occupation.

According to the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, taxes upon the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands include: an annual poll tax of $1 dollar to be paid by every male inhabitant between the ages of seventeen and sixty years; an annual tax of $2 dollars for the support of public schools to be paid by every male inhabitant between the ages of twenty and sixty years; an annual tax of $1 dollar for every dog owned; an annual road tax of $2 dollars to be paid by every male inhabitant between the ages of seventeen and fifty; and an annual tax of ¾ of 1% upon the value of both real and personal property.

The Merchant Marine Act, June 5, 1920 (41 U.S. Stat. 988), hereinafter referred to as the Jones Act, is a restraint of trade and commerce in violation of international law and treaties between the Hawaiian Kingdom and other foreign States. According to the Jones Act, all goods, which includes tourists on cruise ships, whether originating from Hawai‘i or being shipped to Hawai‘i must be shipped on vessels built in the United States that are wholly owned and crewed by United States citizens. And should a foreign flag ship attempt to unload foreign goods and merchandise in the Hawaiian Islands will have to forfeit its cargo to the to the U.S. Government, or an amount equal to the value of the merchandise or cost of transportation from the person transporting the merchandise.

As a result of the Jones Act, there is no free trade in the Hawaiian Islands. 90% of Hawai‘i’s food is imported from the United States, which has created a dependency on outside food. The three major American ship carriers for the Hawaiian Islands are Matson, Horizon Lines, and Pasha Hawai‘i Transport Services, as well as several low cost barge alternatives. Under the Jones Act, these American carriers travel 2,400 miles to ports on the west coast of the United States in order to reload goods and merchandise delivered from Pacific countries on foreign carriers, which would have otherwise come directly to Hawai‘i ports. The cost of fuel and the lack of competition drive up the cost of shipping and contribute to Hawai‘i’s high cost of living. Gas tax is $.47 per gallon as a result of the Jones Act because only American ship carriers can transport oil to the Hawaiian Islands to be converted into gas. And according to the USDA Food Cost, Hawai‘i residents in January 2012 pay an extra $417 per month for food on a thrifty plan than families who are on a thrifty plan in the United States of America.

Appropriating monies directly through taxation and appropriating monies indirectly as a result of the Jones Act to benefit American ship carriers and businesses is unlawful and therefore are international crimes.

Kanaka Express Television Show: Responding to the Star-Advertiser Newspaper Article

Posted on January 22, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

The Kanaka Express is a television show hosted by Kale Gumapac. In this segment, Kale Gumapac is interviewing Dr. Keanu Sai on his thoughts of the January 13, 2014 front page story of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser “Kingdom still in place courts told.”

Na Lula Halawai: A Parliamentary Guide to Conducting Meetings in Hawaiian

Posted on January 21, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

For more information visit Hawai‘i State Association of Parliamentarians

Excerpts from Na Lula Halawai.

“It is a sad reality of Hawaiian history that the language of the aboriginal people of the Hawaiian Kingdom was nearly lost in the 20th century as a result of efforts of U.S. forces in the Kingdom at the turn of the century to enforce an agenda of ‘one nation, one language’ in favor of the United States and the English language despite the lack of a bilateral treaty of cession between two sovereign states. A great debt of gratitude is owed to those who, nevertheless, labored to publish Hawaiian language literature and government documents throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries for future generations. This preservation effort has blossomed in recent decades as more and more cultural and educational organizations have been established to support and encourage what has become known since the 1970s as the ‘Hawaiian Renaissance,’ a concerted effort to reinvigorate studies in Hawaiian culture, art, history, language, and governance.” p. iii.

“Like Robert’s Rules, this book is also intended for non-legislative groups and organizations. And, Henry M. Robert adapted his rules manual of those in use by legislative assemblies at the time, this manual is based on and adapted from the Rules of Order once used in the early Hawaiian legislatures. The oldest known such pamphlets, published in both Hawaiian and English, date back to 1854 and were intended for use in the House of Nobles (Hale ‘Aha ‘olelo Ali‘i) and House of Representatives (Hale o ka Po‘e Koho ‘ia), both of which are included in the Appendix for reference. These early pamphlets are treasures of Hawaiian history and often bear amazing resemblance to Robert’s Rules, which is no surprise since it seems clear that the early Hawaiian legislative rules were themselves adapted from US models familiar to the early Western advisors to the Hawaiian monarchy. Subsequent legislatures in Hawai‘i revised their rules throughout the Kingdom period and as late at 1909 in the Territory. These and various early legislative journals and minutes have been drawn upon and adapted by the authors to establish acceptable terminology and grammar for current use.” p. 1.

Hawaiian Nationality: Who Comprises the Hawaiian citizenry

Posted on January 21, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

The European Convention on Nationality defines nationality as the legal bond between a person and a State and does not indicate the person’s ethnic origin. It is a person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a given State. The terms nationality and citizenship are synonymous, and affords a person the political right to participate in government. Without it, a person is prevented from electing governmental officials or serving as a government official themselves. A political right is distinctly different from a civil right, which are basic human rights protected by the constitution and laws of the State, irregardless of a person’s citizenship. Non-citizens residing in the State are categorized as Aliens or Foreigners.

There are three ways a person could acquire citizenship within an established State depending on its national laws: (1) jus sanguinis, where a person acquires the citizenship of his or her parents; (2) jus soli, where the nationality is conferred upon a person by birth within the territory of the State; and (3) naturalization, where the government grants citizenship upon the application of a foreigner.

On January 21, 1868, the Minister of the Interior for the Hawaiian Kingdom, His Excellency Ferdinand Hutchison, stated the criteria for Hawaiian nationality: “In the judgment of His Majesty’s Government, no one acquires citizenship in this Kingdom unless he is born here, or born abroad of Hawaiian parents, (either native or naturalized) during their temporary absence from the kingdom, or unless having been the subject of another power, he becomes a subject of this kingdom by taking the oath of allegiance.”

The position of His Majesty’s Government was founded upon Hawaiian statute. Section III, Art. I, Chap. V of an Act to Organize the Executive Departments, 1845 and 1846, provided that: “All persons born within the jurisdiction of this kingdom, whether of alien foreigners, of naturalized or of native parents, and all persons born abroad of a parent native of this kingdom, and afterwards coming to reside in this, shall be deemed to owe native allegiance to His Majesty. All such persons shall be amenable to the laws of this kingdom as native subjects. All persons born abroad of foreign parents, shall unless duly naturalized, as in this article prescribed, be deemed aliens, and treated as such, pursuant to the laws.”

There are two exceptions where birth within the territory does not result in citizenship. First, where a child is born within the territory, but the child’s parents are foreign ambassadors or diplomats, that child is not a citizen of the territory of birth; and second, where a child is born of Alien enemies in an area of the territory under hostile occupation, that child will not be a citizen.

Regarding children of foreign diplomats, Frederick Turrill was an American citizen born in the Hawaiian Islands, but later got naturalized on May 21, 1888; and E.H. Wodehouse was a British subject born in the islands and later naturalized on May 7, 1892. The second exception applies to belligerent occupations.

There are numerous references to “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,” and one such reference is a U.S. Supreme Court decision. In the same year the United States began its hostile occupation of Hawaii in 1898 during the Spanish-American War, its Supreme Court rendered a decision concerning the United States citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, a person of Chinese descent. In that decision it also expounded upon the two exceptions to the acquisition of citizenship by birth as determined by the common law of England and made reference to an English case, Calvin’s case, which was decided by the English Court in the year 1608. Although the Hawaiian Kingdom courts have stated that the common law is not in force in this Kingdom, it did state that “…in construing our law the Court must be guided by those enactments and the decisions of American and English Courts.” In re Apuna, 6 Haw. 732 (1869).

In United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, “The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith’ or ‘power,’ of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual—as expressed in the maxim, protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore naturalborn subjects. but the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction of the King.”

In the Calvin’s case (1608), the English Court stated: “…for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject of the King of England though he be born upon his soil;” and “if any of the King’s ambassadors in foreign nations have children…they are natural born subjects [of England], yet they are born out of the King’s dominion.”

Once a State is occupied, international law preserves the status quo of the occupied State as it was before the occupation began. To preserve the nationality of the occupied State from being manipulated by the occupying State to its advantage, international law only allows individuals born within the territory of the occupied State to acquire the nationality of their parents—jus sanguinis. To preserve the status quo, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention mandates that the “Occupying Power shall not…transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” For individuals, who were born within Hawaiian territory, to be a Hawaiian subjects they must be a direct descendant of a person or persons who were Hawaiian subjects prior to the American occupation that began at 12 noon on August 12, 1898, which was when ceremonies took place by the United States annexing the islands. All other individuals born after 12 noon on August 12, 1898 to the present are Aliens who can only acquire the nationality of their parents.

According to the 1890 government census, Hawaiian subjects numbered 48,107, with the aboriginal Hawaiian, both pure and part, numbering 40,622, being 84% of the national population, and the non-aboriginal Hawaiians numbering 7,485, being 16%. Despite the massive and illegal migrations of foreigners to the Hawaiian Islands since 1898, which, according to the State of Hawai‘i numbers 1,302,939 in 2009, the status quo of the national population of the Hawaiian Kingdom is maintained. Therefore, under the international laws of occupation, the aboriginal Hawaiian population of 322,812 in 2009 would continue to be 84% of the Hawaiian national population, and the non-aboriginal Hawaiian population of 61,488 would continue to be 16%. The balance of the population in 2009, being 918,639, are Aliens who were illegally transferred, either directly or indirectly, by the United States of America as the occupying Power.

Similar to the Hawaiian Kingdom, the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were occupied by the Russians for over half a century. In 1940, Russian intervention provided for the forced incorporation of these Baltic States into the U.S.S.R. In 1991, with the breakup of the Soviet Union, these Baltic States once again regained their independence and immediately had to deal with the pressing issue of citizenship in the aftermath of prolonged Russian occupation.

Roger Brubaker, author of the article Citizenship struggles in Soviet Successor States (1992), stated that Estonia adopted a model for defining the initial body of citizens as the restored State model. States who regained their former independence are called restored States, and as these States are not new there would be no need to redefine a new body of citizens, but rather utilize the laws that existed before the occupation to determine the citizenry.

Under this model, persons born in Estonia before the 1940 annexation and their descendants were recognized as having Estonian citizenship. This also included United States citizens who were the offspring of Estonians. Regarding the citizenry of the occupier, the Estonian government also applied the same view the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court had made in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark. It viewed all Russians who entered the country after the occupation in 1940, and their descendants, as illegal and could not claim Estonian citizenship. But if a Russian was born in Estonia before the occupation that person acquired citizenship. Latvia also adopted the restored State model. Therefore, it can be stated as a matter of law and based on contemporary examples, that the Hawaiian citizenry of today is comprised of descendants of Hawaiian subjects and those foreigners who were born in the Hawaiian Islands prior to August 12, 1898.

This exclusion of the Hawaiian citizenry is based upon precedence and law, but a restored Hawaiian government does have the authority to widen the scope of its citizenry and adopt a more inclusive model in the aftermath of prolonged American occupation. Brubaker stated that Lithuania adopted such a model. Under the inclusive model, the original citizenry of Lithuania was confirmed under the restored State model, but the foreigners, which included the Russians, were divided into two groups. The first group comprised of permanent residents who would be granted optional inclusion in the Lithuanian citizenry, while the second would be classified as aliens. The optional inclusion of the first group depended upon these residents meeting certain minimum requirements established by the Lithuanian government. (i.e. years of residency and/or language).

Addition: The first occupation by the United States of America took place from January 17, 1893 to April 1, 1893, which, according to international law, any child born between these dates can only acquire the citizenship of their parents. International law provides that an occupation begins when foreign troops are in effective control of an invaded State’s territory and not merely present within the territory. Although the U.S. troops were landed on January 16, 1893, it did not have effective control until Queen Lili‘uokalani temporarily yielded her executive power to the United States, which called for a Presidential investigation. Before Special Commissioner James Blount initiated his investigation he ordered the U.S. flag to be removed and ordered the troops back on to the U.S.S. Boston that was anchored in Honolulu harbor on April 1, 1893.

Despite over a century of illegal migration that exploded the Alien population from 41,873 in 1890, of which U.S. citizens merely number 1,928, to 918,639 in 2009, the population of Hawaiian subjects has remained intact with its ratio of 84% aboriginal Hawaiians and 16% non-aboriginal Hawaiians. This should alleviate the concern of aboriginal Hawaiian subjects who previously thought they were the minority, when in fact and law they remain the majority. Only Hawaiian subjects, whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal, have political rights, which means they alone can participate in government.

Patriot’s Song (Mele Aloha ‘Aina)

Posted on January 17, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

After the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government on January 17, 1893, the insurgency under the protection of U.S. troops began to force individuals in government to sign oaths of support for the provisional government. If they refused, they would lose their jobs.

This created much anxiety amongst the population and soon pit Hawaiian against Hawaiian. The majority, however, were heeding the call of Queen Lili‘uokalani to onipa‘a (hold fast) peacefully and await the conclusion of the investigation by President Cleveland who sent his Special Commissioner James Blount to the Islands. In a memorial submitted by the officers of the Hawaiian Patriotic League to President Grover Cleveland on December 27, 1893, they aptly explain:

“And while waiting for the result of [the investigation], with full confidence in the American honor, the Queen requested all her loyal subjects to remain absolutely quiet and passive, and to submit with patience to all the insults that have been since heaped upon both the Queen and the people by the usurping Government. The necessity of this attitude of absolute inactivity on the part of the Hawaiian people was further indorsed and emphasized by Commissioner Blount, so that, if the Hawaiians have held their peace in a manner that will vindicate their character as law-abiding citizens, yet it can not and must not be construed as evidence that they are apathetic or indifferent, or ready to acquiesce in the wrong and bow to the usurpers.”

After negotiating settlement with the Queen through executive mediation between November 16 and December 18, 1893, where an agreement of restoration was reached—called the Agreement of restoration, the Congress prevented President Cleveland from carrying out the executive agreements because it had its eyes on acquiring the Hawaiian Islands as a military outpost.

Cleveland’s failure to carry out the agreement allowed the provisional government to increase its power by hiring mercenaries from the United States who previously served in the U.S. armed forces. On July 4, 1894, the insurgency renamed themselves the Republic of Hawai‘i who would hold onto power at all costs until a new President could replace Cleveland. The insurgency’s goal from the beginning was to cede the Hawaiian Islands to the United States.The insurgency continued to force government officials to sign oaths of support to the so-called Republic.

The Hawaiian Kingdom’s Royal Hawaiian Band refused to take the oath to support the provisional government and were forced to relinquish their jobs on February 1, 1893. The former band members approached Ellen Kekoaohiwaikalani Wright Prendergrast and asked if she could compose a song of their loyalty to the Hawaiian Kingdom and their defiance to the insurgency. Mrs. Prendergrast composed “Mele Aloha ‘Aina,” which is translated to “Patriot’s Song.”

The song was sung by the former band members at the anniversary of the band’s resignation on February 1, 1894, and according to historian Albtertine Loomis, “One who heard the band boys sing it on the anniversary of their defiance said it had on the Hawaiians the effect of the ‘Marseillaise’ on the French—’exciting and exasperating.’ The hula ku‘i business (stamping, heel-twisting, thigh-slapping, dipping of knees, doubling of fists) almost drowned out the words, but the fierce loyalty was written in every shining face. Over and over they beat out the rhythm, thumping their drums and miming their scorn of the ‘paper of the enemy,’ of the ‘heap of government money.’ It was a pledge renewed. They had not thought it would be so long before President Cleveland kept his word, but they would wait.”

The Patriot’s Song has endured and it is a well-known song played today throughout the islands. The lyrics are still sung in the Hawaiian language, and for people today who do not know the language they are completely unaware as to the meaning of the song and its fierce loyalty to the Hawaiian Kingdom and Queen Lili‘uokalani. This is especially so because the melody has been drastically softened since the 1950’s, but the lyrics have remained nearly unchanged for over a century.

“Tell the story of the people who love their land.” Aloha ‘Aina.

January 17, 1893, United States Illegally Overthrows Hawaiian Government

Posted on January 17, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

Queen Lili‘uokalani’s reign was fraught with political power struggles and rumors of overthrow. The 1890 McKinley Tariff Act created an economic depression. On January 14, 1893, the Queen proclaimed her intent to reinstate the lawful constitution in response to calls by the people and political organizations, in particular the Hui Kalai‘aina (Hawaiian Political Association).

In reaction, Lorrin Thurston organized a small group of insurgents into a Committee of Safety to plan for the ultimate takeover of the government and to secure annexation to the United States. The so-called Committee of Safety sought support from U.S. Minister John L. Stevens on January 16, 1893 to order the landing of U.S. troops to protect the insurgents while they prepared for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States by a voluntary treaty of cession.

On January 17th the group declared themselves the Provisional Government with Sanford Dole as its president. Article 31 of the Hawaiian constitution provides, “To the [Queen] belongs the executive power.” Therefore, as the constitutional monarch, the Queen was vested with the faithful execution of Hawaiian law, and it was her duty to ensure that certain insurgents be apprehended by the police for committing the crime of treason, being a violation of Chapter VI of the Penal Code. However, under threat of war by the presence of U.S. troops who were ordered by the U.S. diplomat Stevens to protect the insurgents, the police force, headed by Marshall Charles Wilson, could not apprehend the insurgents without bloodshed between the police and U.S. troops. Later that day, the Queen made the following assignment of executive power under protest, called the Lili‘uokalani assignment:

I, Lili‘uokalani, by the Grace of God, and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom.

That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said Provisional Government.

Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do this under protest, and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.

Done at Honolulu this 17th day of January, A.D. 1893.

Lili‘uokalani, R.

Samuel Parker, Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Wm. H. Cornwell, Minister of Finance.

John. F. Colburn, Minister of the Interior.

A.P. Peterson, Attorney General.

In complete disregard of the Queen’s protest and assignment of executive power, the Provisional Government and Secretary of State James Blaine signed a treaty on February 14, 1893 at Washington, D.C. President Benjamin Harrison submitted the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Presidential election already had taken place in 1892, with Grover Cleveland defeating the incumbent Benjamin Harrison. After his inauguration on March 4, 1893, President Cleveland received the Queen’s protest and assignment from Paul Neumann, former Hawaiian Attorney General, who, by a power of attorney, represented the Queen.

On March 9, 1893, Cleveland withdrew the treaty from the Senate and appointed James H. Blount as Special Commissioner, a former U.S. Representative from Georgia and former Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, as special commissioner to investigate and report his findings to Secretary of State Walter Gresham. By accepting the Queen’s temporary assignment of executive power, President Grover Cleveland bound himself and his successors in the office to temporarily administer Hawaiian Kingdom law in accordance with Article 31 of the Hawaiian constitution until the executive power would be returned.

The investigation concluded that the United States diplomat and troops were directly responsible for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government with the ultimate goal of transferring the Hawaiian Islands to the United States. Blount reported that, “in pursuance of a prearranged plan, the Government thus established hastened off commissioners to Washington to make a treaty for the purpose of annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States.” The report also detailed United States government actions that violated international laws as well as Hawaiian territorial sovereignty.

Perfect Title Company – Setting the Record Straight

Posted on January 15, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

http://vimeo.com/18738329

With the recent news coverage by the Honolulu Star Advertiser, Perfect Title Company has again reentered mainstream media in the Hawaiian Islands.The video not only provides an accurate history of the formation of the Perfect Title Company and its deliberate and unlawful demise, but also the practical and profound effect it had on the real estate industry.

Since 1893, conveyances of real property could not take place because of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government. That government has not been restored, but instead insurgents who were established through United States intervention on January 17, 1893, were unlawfully maintained in power. A clear break in the chain of title originates since January 17th because the notaries public and the registrar of the Bureau of Conveyances were insurgents and not vested with authority under the Hawaiian Kingdom government.

Title Companies during escrow should have revealed this information to the lenders and buyers, but instead concealed it. Lenders and buyers, however, were protected by title insurance. Before the lender agrees to accept the borrowers property, as collateral to ensure the repayment of the loan, which is called a mortgage, the borrower is required to purchase title insurance in the amount of the money borrowed for the protection of the lender. This requirement is in the event there is a defect in the borrower’s title, which would render the mortgage void, the lender has insurance to cover the remaining amount of the unsecured loan.

Title insurance is an insurance policy that ensures the accuracy of the title search done by a title company. Covered risks in the title insurance policy are defective notaries public and recordation of the deed of conveyance. Title insurance that protects the lender is called a “loan policy,” and for the protection of the homeowner it is called an “owner’s policy.”

All land titles in the Hawaiian Islands are defective.

Hawai‘i Under Consideration to be Included in War Report

Posted on January 14, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

Professor Andrew Clapham has notified Dr. Keanu Sai that a team at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights will be reviewing information on the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom for inclusion in the Academy’s War Report. The War Report is a comprehensive global analysis of armed conflicts under international law, which includes military occupations. In 2012, the War Report identified at least 37 armed conflicts, of which 9 are military occupations, on the territory of 24 States for 2012.

The War Report: 2012 was launched on December 10, 2013, which was Human Rights Day, with an interactive panel hosted by journalist Xavier Colin at the Geneva Institute’s Auditorium Pictet. H.E. Ambassador Jürg Lindemann, Deputy Director of the Directorate of International Law at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, made opening remarks. Panelists included Andrew Clapham, Professor at the Graduate Institute and Director of the Geneva Academy, Keith Krause, Professor at the Graduate Institute, and Programme Director of the Small Arms Survey, Julie de Rivero, Geneva Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch, and H.E. Ambassador Jürg Lindemann.

The War Report is published by Oxford University Press and identifies “armed conflicts” according to international humanitarian law, which includes the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols. Only accused violators in conflicts classified as such can be prosecuted for war crimes. The Fourth Geneva Convention not only applies to “armed conflicts” but also “to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance (Article 2).” The Hawaiian Kingdom acceded to the Fourth Geneva Convention on January 14, 2013, and consequently became a “High Contracting Party.”

“The classification of an armed conflict under international law is an objective legal test and not a decision left to national governments or any international body, not even the UN Security Council,” says Andrew Clapham, Director of the Academy and Graduate Institute Professor in International Law.

“It is not always clear when a situation is an armed conflict, and hence when war crimes can be punished,” added Professor Clapham. “The War Report aims to change this and bring greater accountability for criminal acts perpetuated in armed conflicts.”

The War Report for 2012, the first edition of what will become an annual publication, aims to make this important legal analysis more accessible for governments, policy makers, the United Nations, academics, NGOs, and journalists. Oxford University Press has provided online access to Chapter 1.

Kingdom still in place courts told: Some homeowners fight foreclosure by claiming that the United States is illegally occupying Hawaii

Posted on January 13, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

January 13, 2014 Honolulu Star-Advertiser Newspaper Front Page Story by Rob Perez

Several years after he stopped making his mortgage payments, Kale Gumapac was evicted from his foreclosed Hawaii island home.

Days before Thanksgiving, sheriff’s deputies escorted a handcuffed Gumapac — he was arrested on a trespassing charge — from the Hawaiian Paradise Park property he had called home for more than a decade.

Gumapac said he stopped making his $3,000-a-month payments about five years ago because his lender couldn’t produce the original note for his loan, raising questions about who actually had title to the property.

After his mortgage subsequently was acquired by another bank but well before he was evicted in November, Gumapac switched strategies and embraced a controversial legal argument that has surfaced in a small but growing number of foreclosure cases over the past several years.

He argued that Hawaii courts are unlawfully constituted, dating from the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893. He also maintained that Hawaii land titles have been defective since the overthrow.

Like dozens of other Hawaii residents, Gumapac made those arguments based on the claim — repeatedly rejected by state and federal judges — that the Hawaiian kingdom still exists and the U.S. is illegally occupying the islands.

Gumapac even has a company that helps homeowners make the same kingdom argument to file defective-title claims.

Many inside and outside the real estate industry scoff at the argument, saying it is preposterous, ignores more than 100 years of history and has been discredited numerous times in the judicial arena.

“Every court that has considered this has found that the argument has no merit whatsoever,” said attorney David Rosen, who represents lenders. “These people are selling a scam.”

Gumapac and other proponents point to the same historical record to justify their position, citing, among other things, an 1893 executive agreement between Queen Liliuokalani and President Grover Cleveland that called for the eventual restoration of the kingdom government. They said the agreement obligated Cleveland’s successors as well.

State and federal judges, however, consistently have rejected the notion that the kingdom still exists or kingdom law still applies in Hawaii. Appellate courts have done the same.

Not even advocates of the kingdom defense can cite a single case in which a homeowner ultimately prevailed.

Yet more homeowners appear to be adopting the legal strategy, according to attorneys and others who deal with such matters.

One recent case involved Office of Hawaiian Affairs Trustee Dan Ahuna, who in a May court filing asked a state judge to dismiss his lender’s foreclosure lawsuit. Ahuna argued that the state court lacked jurisdiction because the kingdom still exists.

In September the court rejected Ahuna’s argument. Since then he and his wife have had their loan modified through the U.S. government’s foreclosure prevention program, according to Ahuna, who said financial difficulties, not personal beliefs, prevented them from making their mortgage payments when the 2008 foreclosure complaint was filed.

“I simply underestimated the scale and complexity of using this particular legal argument to improve my ability to avoid foreclosure,” Ahuna said in a written response to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, emphasizing that he was speaking as an individual and not as an OHA trustee.

Dexter Kaiama, a Kailua lawyer, says that over the past three years he has taken on more than 150 clients whose underlying defense questions the validity of local courts. The majority of those clients, including Gumapac, were homeowners already in the midst of foreclosure proceedings, according to Kaiama.

Gumapac, whose Big Island company is called Laulima Title Search and Claims, said he continues to get new clients even since his November eviction. Laulima now has about 300 total clients, and Gumapac charges $3,900 for his services, he said.

While the kingdom-still-exists argument has not prevailed in court, some homeowners seem to be benefiting in one significant way: They have stayed in their homes long after they stopped paying their mortgages, thanks largely to the slow pace in which such cases move through a strained judicial system.

Real estate officials say Gumapac’s challenge of the court’s authority likely contributed to the prolonged period he was able to stay in his home after defaulting on the mortgage.

Kaiama said dozens of eviction orders are pending against his clients, and he suspects the legal argument that the orders are unlawful have contributed to delays in enforcing them. A judge presiding over one of Kaiama’s foreclosure cases recently asked the attorney to provide more information on the jurisdiction issue.

Gumapac said he stopped paying his mortgage when his lender was unable to provide the original copy of his loan note and couldn’t answer certain questions about the property’s title. At the time, the nation was in the midst of a mortgage crisis that included a dramatic rise in foreclosures and growing questions about unfair and predatory practices by lenders.

“I wasn’t trying to run away from my obligation to pay that debt,” Gumapac said. “I was following my contract.”

After Deutsche Bank acquired Gumapac’s mortgage, he learned of research that called into question the validity of all Hawaii land titles since the 1893 overthrow. Proponents of that position say that titles filed since then are invalid because they were not processed under kingdom law. Gumapac became a believer.

Armed with such research, he asked his lender to file a title insurance claim, which he said he believed the bank was obligated to do under terms of his mortgage agreement. Gumapac said he was expecting Deutsche Bank to pursue a claim, which would have uncovered the defect and, under terms of the insurance policy, triggered the insurer to pay the debt.

But lenders generally have considered such kingdom-related title claims frivolous.

In Gumapac’s case, Deutsche Bank didn’t pursue an insurance claim and proceeded with the foreclosure, he said. In December 2011 the bank filed a so-called ejectment complaint seeking his eviction. Two years later Gumapac was forced out.

An attorney for Deutsche Bank didn’t respond to a request for comment.

One of the more interesting aspects of the rise in the kingdom-related foreclosure defense is a political scientist who is a key advocate of it.

David Keanu Sai, who has a master’s degree in international relations and a doctorate in political science from the University of Hawaii, serves as a consultant to Gumapac’s company and to Kaiama.

Sai also has taken his arguments to various international organizations, including the president’s office of the United Nations General Assembly, the International Criminal Court and the International Committee of the Red Cross in Switzerland, where he was joined last month by Kaiama. They are pursuing cases alleging war crimes and the illegal occupation of the islands by the United States.

Sai made headlines in the mid-1990s as co-founder of Perfect Title Co., which used kingdom law to claim existing land titles in Hawaii were invalid — essentially the same arguments being made today in the foreclosure cases. The company riled the real estate industry because it filed reports at the Bureau of Conveyances casting clouds on titles.

Perfect Title shut down in 1997 after the state seized its records as part of an investigation. Sai eventually was convicted of first-degree attempted theft, a felony, for helping a couple try to reclaim an Aiea home they lost through foreclosure. He received five years’ probation.

Though Sai makes the same basic points today that he did in his Perfect Title days, his argument is more refined now, benefiting from the advanced degrees he obtained since then. Even some of his harshest critics say he is more persuasive.

Sai said it’s not unexpected that Hawaii courts refuse to validate the kingdom argument, saying that one judge even acknowledged he would be committing political suicide if he did so.

But the historical evidence is overwhelming and has yet to be refuted, Sai added, and he expects justice eventually to prevail in the international arena, where international law applies.

“We have to be patient but patience is not a weakness,” Sai said.

Asked about Sai’s case, a spokeswoman for the U.N. president’s office said in an email to the Star-Advertiser that a sovereign matter is beyond the purview of the office.

The International Criminal Court did not respond to Star-Advertiser emails seeking comment.

Rosen, the lender attorney, is upset that the state and the courts have done nothing to prevent the discredited kingdom arguments from continuing to be made, giving homeowners false hope that their properties might be saved. People who charge homeowners to provide such a defense should be prosecuted or sanctioned, he said.

“How are they allowed to continue doing this?” Rosen asked. “It’s nothing more than a fraud.”

Meeting with Officials of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, Switzerland

Posted on December 22, 2013 by Hawaiian Kingdom

On December 17, 2013, Dr. David Keanu Sai and attorney Dexter Kaiama had a meeting with Stephane Ojeda, Deputy Head of Operations for the Americas for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) at the ICRC’s headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The ICRC is a humanitarian organization that has a specific mandate in the 1949 Geneva Conventions to provide protection for civilians during international conflicts and occupations. At a Conference on the Politics of Humanitarianism in the Occupied Territories held in Israel in 2004, Mr. Ojeda described the ICRC as “guardians of international humanitarian law” and independent of political influences.

The purpose of the meeting was to bring to the attention of the ICRC the severity of an illegal and prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands and the violation of the rights of protected persons in the Hawaiian Islands as defined under the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Protocol (1) Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as United States citizens, who are not protected persons under the Convention and Protocol, but do have rights protected under Title 18, United States Code, §2441 (War Crimes Act) that has force in territories occupied by the United States. These violations include deprivation of a fair and regular trial, pillaging of real and personal property, and unlawful confinement. Mr. Kaiama has represented over 150 clients in both Federal and State of Hawai‘i courts of the Hawaiian Islands centering on these violations. The majority of these clients are also clients of Laulima Title Search & Claims, LLC, to include the company’s president, Mr. Kale Gumapac.

In addition, Mr. Kaiama submitted a formal request to the ICRC for assistance in accordance with Article 30 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 30 states that “Protected persons shall have every facility for making application to…the International Committee of the Red Cross.” According to the ICRC, “The right in question is an absolute right, possessed by all protected persons both in the territory of a Party to the conflict and in occupied territory, whether they are not detained, or are internees, persons placed in assigned residence or detained. The communication may have a wide variety of causes, and it may take the form of an application, suggestion, a complaint, a protest, a request for assistance, etc.; it is not even necessary for an infringement of the Convention on the part of the authorities to have occurred. The right of communication may be exercised under all circumstances.” The Hawaiian Kingdom is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocol 1.

After Dr. Sai provided a brief overview of Hawai‘i’s status as an independent State under an illegal and prolonged occupation, Mr. Ojeda admitted he was not aware of Hawai‘i’s history despite the ICRC’s working relationship with the United States Pacific Command. Mr. Ojeda was also fascinated by the online news coverage provided Big Island Video News on the subject of occupation and war crimes. Later that day, Mr. Ojeda contacted Dr. Sai and Mr. Kaiama in order to schedule a follow up meeting with the ICRC’s legal advisor, Dr. Tristan Ferraro, the following day. Dr. Ferraro’s legal expertise is on occupations.

The meeting with Dr. Ferraro lasted 2.5 hours, and, like Mr. Ojeda, Dr. Ferraro was not aware of Hawai‘i’s legal and political history and its place in international law. The focus of the meeting centered on Hawai‘i’s status as an independent State and whether or not international law provided for its continued existence or its demise. In order for the ICRC to exercise its mandate to ensure protection for civilians during a prolonged occupation as requested by Mr. Kaiama, the ICRC needs to determine how the intervention will take place. Dr. Ferraro assured Mr. Kaiama that he would complete his recommendation by March 2014, and report his conclusion to Mr. Ojeda. Dr. Sai provided his legal brief titled “The Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” and other pertinent documents to assist Dr. Ferraro in his review. Dr. Sai specifically drew attention to a section of the legal brief that states:

“any claim to State continuity will be dependent upon the establishment of two legal facts: first, that the State in question existed as a recognized entity for purposes of international law at some relevant point in history; and, secondly, that intervening events have not been such as to deprive it of that status. It should be made very clear, however, that the issue is not simply one of ‘observable’ or ‘tangible facts,’ but more specifically of ‘legally relevant facts.’ It is not a case, in other words, simply of observing how power or control has been exercised in relation to persons or territory, but of determining the scope of ‘authority,’ which is understood as ‘a legal entitlement to exercise power and control.’ Authority differs from mere control by not only being essentially rule governed, but also in virtue of the fact that it is not always entirely dependent upon the exercise of that control.”

As the meeting came to a close, Dr. Sai provided Dr. Tristan the Hawaiian Kingdom’s formal request to have the ICRC assist in securing a Protecting Power that is neutral and not a party to the conflict in accordance with Article 5(3) & (5) of Protocol 1. A Protecting Power is a country that would serve as an intermediary between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States in order to assure compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention, Protocol 1 and international humanitarian law. If the ICRC is not able to secure a Protecting Power it has to offer itself as a substitute. According to the ICRC, a timetable for a decision will be no later than 60 days.

Big Island Video News Series: Defected – Testing Hawaiian Sovereignty

Posted on December 18, 2013 by Hawaiian Kingdom

Go to this link to view Big Island Video News feature story: Defected – Testing Hawaiian Sovereignty

Settling the Confusion of Sovereignty and Independence

Posted on December 10, 2013 by Hawaiian Kingdom

In Hawai‘i there is a political trend called the sovereignty or independence movement that began in the 1970s. This political wing, which grew out of the Hawaiian cultural renaissance movement, is comprised of diverse groups of aboriginal Hawaiians working toward the goal or aspiration of achieving sovereignty or independence. These groups vary in ideologies and organization, but all of them have been operating on the false assumption that the United States has independence and sovereignty over Hawai‘i and therefore the goal is separation or secession through a process commonly referred to as self-determination. According to the United Nations, self-determination is the right of the people of a non-sovereign nation to choose their own form of governance separate from the foreign State that has the sovereignty and independence under international law.

Actions taken by these groups are centered on political activism that have taken many forms at both the national and international levels. This political trend has led to confusion regarding Hawai‘i’s true status and basic terminology and the application of the terms “sovereignty” and “independence.” Also adding to the confusion is the psychological effects of “presentism” and “confirmation bias.” Presentism is “an attitude toward the past dominated by present-day attitudes and experience,” and confirmation bias is “a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.”

Sovereignty by definition is absolute authority exercised by a State over its territory, territorial seas, and its nationals abroad, which is independent of other States and their authority over their territory, territorial seas, and its nationals abroad. Authority over a State’s nationals abroad is called personal supremacy, and authority over territory is territorial sovereignty. Therefore, sovereignty is associated with political independence and the terms are often interchangeable.

The term State, under international law, means a political unit that has a centralized government, a resident population, a defined territory and the ability to enter and maintain international relations with other States. A State is a legal person in international law that possesses rights and obligations. A nation, however, is a group of people bound together by a common history, language and culture. Every State is a nation or a combination of nations, but not every nation or nations comprise a State. Since the nineteenth century, a State comes into existence only if other States have recognized it, which represents the entirety of the international order. In other words, a few States may have given explicit recognition, but the majority hasn’t. Until the majority of States have provided recognition to the nation or group of nations, international law does not recognize the new State because its independence over its territory, territorial seas, and its nationals abroad has not been acknowledged by the international community of States.

The most recent example of a sovereignty movement by a nation seeking State sovereignty and independence and ultimately achieving it was Palestine. On November 29, 2012, the member States of the United Nations voted overwhelmingly to recognize Palestinian Statehood. Up to this date, Palestine was a nation seeking sovereignty and independence, which is called self-determination. Once a State has been recognized the recognizing States cannot deny it later, and there exists a rule of international law that preserves the independence of an already recognized State, unless that State has relinquished its independence and sovereignty by way of a treaty or customary practice recognized by international law.

According to the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), in the 1927 seminal case S.S. Lotus between France and Turkey, “International law governs relations between independent States. The rules of law binding upon States therefore emanate from their own free will as expressed in conventions (treaties) or by usages generally accepted as expressing principles of law and established in order to regulate the relations between these co-existing independent communities or with a view to the achievement of common aims. Restrictions upon the independence of States cannot therefore be presumed.” In other words, once a State is acknowledged as being independent it will continue to be independent unless proven otherwise. Therefore, the State will still have sovereignty and independence over its territory, territorial seas, and its nationals, even when its government has been overthrown and is militarily occupied by a foreign State. During occupations the sovereignty remains vested in the occupied State, but the authority to exercise that sovereignty is temporarily vested in the occupying State, which is regulated by the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and international humanitarian law.

When the PCIJ stated that restrictions upon the independence of States could not be presumed, it did not mean that international law could not restrict States in its relations with other States that are also independent. In the Lotus case, the PCIJ explained, “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 convention (treaty).” The PCIJ continued, “In these circumstances, all that can be required of a State is that it should not overstep the limits which international law places upon its jurisdiction; within these limits, its title to exercise jurisdiction rests in its sovereignty.”

The United States Supreme Court in 1936 recognized this restriction and limitation of a State’s authority in international law in U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. The U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens…, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law. As a member of the family of nations, the right and power of the United States in that field are equal to the right and power of the other members of the international family. Otherwise, the United States is not completely sovereign.”

In 2001, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), in its dictum in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, verified Hawai‘i to be an independent State. In its arbitral award, the PCA stated, “in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.” As an independent State, international law provided a fundamental restriction on all States, to include the United States of America, that it may “not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State.”

Since 1898, the United States has unlawfully exercised its power within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom militarily, legislatively and economically. On July 7, 1898, the United States Congress enacted a joint resolution unilaterally annexing the Hawaiian Kingdom over the protests of Hawai‘i’s Queen and people. Two years later, Congress enacted another law by creating a territorial government that took over the governmental infrastructure of the Hawaiian Kingdom that was previously high jacked by insurgents since 1893 with the support of the United States military. In 1959, the Congress again passed legislation transforming the territorial government into the 50th state of the American Union. Under both international law and United States constitutional law, these Congressional actions have no force and effect in Hawai‘i. Despite the propaganda and lies that have been perpetuated since the beginning of the occupation that Hawai‘i was annexed by a treaty, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to be an independent State that still retains its personal supremacy over its nationals abroad, and territorial sovereignty over its territory and territorial seas. The exercising of this authority, however, is limited only by the Hague and Geneva Conventions and the fact of an illegal and prolonged occupation.

A common statement made by sovereignty advocates is that the people have to collectively decide on the question of sovereignty and that it should be put to a vote. This is incorrect if Hawai‘i is already a sovereign and independent State. This prospect is valid only if Hawai‘i is a nation seeking sovereignty and independence, which is commonly referred to as “nation-building” under a people’s right to self-determination, but Hawai‘i is not. Self-determination and nation-building is the United Nations process by which sovereignty and independence is sought, but it is not guaranteed. This process provides to the people of a non-sovereign nation who have been colonized by a foreign State to choose whether or not they want independence from the foreign State, free association as an independent State with the foreign State, or total incorporation into the foreign State.

Recently, Maohi Nui (French Polynesia) has been reaffirmed by the United Nations as having a right to choose independence from France, free association with France, or total incorporation into France. Maohi Nui is by definition a sovereignty movement and education is key to ensuring that the people decide Maohi Nui’s status through decolonization with full knowledge, and not be influenced or coerced by political activism that is French driven. It won’t be easy for Maohi Nui, but the process of exercising self-determination should be fair under United Nations supervision and in line with General Assembly resolutions.

If other independent States cannot affect or change the independence of an established State and its sovereignty under international law, how can Hawai‘i’s people believe they can do what States can’t? Because the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist under international law as an independent State, not only is the sovereignty movement rendered irrelevant, but also the status of Hawai‘i as an occupied State renders the State of Hawai‘i government and other federal agencies in the Hawaiian Islands self-proclaimed. It is within this international legal framework that actions taken by Federal government officials, State of Hawai‘i government officials, and County government officials are being reported to international authorities for war crimes under the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court.

Re-education is crucial for Hawai‘i’s people and the world on the reality that Hawai‘i is an already independent and sovereign State that has been under an illegal and prolonged occupation. Before restoration of the de jure Hawaiian government takes place in accordance with the 1893 executive agreements, international law mandates that the occupying Power must establish a military government in order to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law (Article 43, Hague Convention, IV) and to also begin the withdrawal of all military installations from Hawaiian territory (Article 2, Hague Convention, V). This is the first and primary step toward transition.

The following terms and definitions are from the Hawaiian history textbook “Ua Mau Ke Ea-Sovereignty Endures.”

Independent State—A state that has absolute and independent legal and political authority over its territory to the exclusion of other states. Once recognized as independent, the state becomes a subject of international law. According to United States common law, an independent State is a people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities around the globe.

Sovereignty—Supreme authority exercised over a particular territory. In international law, it is the supreme and absolute authority exercised through a government, being independent of any other sovereignty. Sovereignty, being authority, is distinct from government, which is the physical body that exercises the authority. Therefore, a government can be overthrown, but the sovereignty remains.

Colonization—Colonization is the building and maintaining of colonies in one territory by people from another country or state. It is the process, by which sovereignty over the territory of a colony is claimed by the mother country or state, and is exercised and controlled by the nationals of the colonizing country or state. Though colonization there is an unequal relationship between the colonizer and the native populations that reside within its colonial territory. These native populations are referred to as indigenous peoples and form the basis of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

De-colonization—De-colonization is the political process by which a non-self-governing territory under the sovereignty of the colonizing state or country becomes self-governing. According to the United Nations Resolution 1541 (XV), Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter, “A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self government by: (a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State; (b) Free association with an independent State; or (c) Integration with an independent State.”

Self-determination—A principle in international law that nations have the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The international community first used the term after World War I where the former territorial possessions of the Ottoman Empire and Germany were assigned to individual member countries or states of the League of Nations for administration as Mandate territories. The function of the administration of these territories was to facilitate the process of self-determination whereby these territories would achieve full recognition as an independent and sovereign state. After World War II, territories of Japan and Italy were added and assigned to be administered individual member countries or states of the United Nations, being the successor of the League of Nations, and were called Trust territories. Also added to these territories were territories held by all other members of the United Nations and called Non-self-governing territories. Unlike the Mandate and Trust territories, they were not assigned to other member countries or states for administration, but remained under the original colonial authority who reported yearly to the United Nations on the status of these territories. Self-determination for Non-self-governing territories had three options: total incorporation into the colonial country or state, free association with the colonial country or state, or complete independence from the colonial country or state. Self-determination for indigenous peoples does not include independence and is often referred to as self-determination within the country or state they reside in.

Sovereignty movement—A political movement of a wide range of groups in the Hawaiian Islands that seek to exercise self-determination under international law as a Non-self-governing unit, or to exercise internal self-determination under the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The commonality of these various groups is that their political platforms are based on aboriginal Hawaiian identity and culture and use of the United Nations term indigenous people. The movement presumes that the Hawaiian Kingdom and its sovereignty were overthrown by the United States January 17th 1893, and therefore the movement is seeking to reclaim that sovereignty through de-colonization. The movement does not operate on the presumption of continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent state and the law of occupation, but rather on the aspiration of becoming an independent state or some form of internal self-determination within the laws of the United States.

Hawai‘i: The Difference Between Occupation and Colonization

Posted on December 1, 2013 by Hawaiian Kingdom

International law provides an appropriate lens to the political and legal history of the Hawaiian Islands, which has been relegated under U.S. sovereignty and the right to internal self-determination of indigenous peoples. There are inherent contradictions and divergence of thought and direction between the concepts of Hawaiian State sovereignty and Hawaiian indigeneity.

On January 18, 2001, the U.S. National Security Council made known its position on indigenous peoples to its delegations assigned to the “U.N. Commission on Human Rights,” the “Commission’s Working Group on the United Nations (UN) Draft Declaration on Indigenous Rights,” and to the “Organization of American States (OAS) Working Group to Prepare the Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Populations.” The Council directed these delegates to “read a prepared statement that expresses the U.S. understanding of the term internal ‘self-determination’ and indicates that it does not include a right of independence or permanent sovereignty over natural resources.”

The Council also directed these delegates to support the use of the term internal self determination in both the U.N. and O.A.S. declarations on indigenous rights, and defined Indigenous Peoples as having “a right of internal self-determination.” By virtue of that right, “they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. This resolution sought to constrain the growing political movement of indigenous peoples “who aspire to rule their territorial homeland, or who claim the right to independent statehood under the doctrine of self-determination of peoples.”

The legal definition of a colony is “a dependent political economy, consisting of a number of citizens of the same country who have emigrated therefrom to people another, and remain subject to the mother country.” According to Albert Keller, a colonial studies scholar, colonization is “a movement of population and an extension of political power,” and therefore must be distinguished from migration.

Colonization is an extension of sovereignty over territory not subject to the sovereignty of another State, while migration is the mode of entry into the territory of another sovereign State. The “so-called ‘interior colonization’ of the Germans [within a non-German State] would naturally be a misnomer on the basis of the definition suggested.” This would suggest that the migration of United States citizens into the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom constituted American colonization and somehow resulted in the creation of an American colony.

The history of the Hawaiian Kingdom has fallen victim to the misuse of this term by contemporary scholars in the fields of post-colonial and cultural studies. These scholars have lost sight of the original use and application of the terms colony and colonization, and have remained steadfast in their conclusion that the American presence in the Hawaiian Islands was and is currently colonial in nature. This erroneous use of the word has caused much confusion and complicates agreement on legal and political solutions.

Slavoj Zizek, a philosophy scholar, critically suggests that in post-colonial studies, the use of the term colonization “starts to function as a hegemonic notion and is elevated to a universal paradigm, so that in relations between the sexes, the male sex colonizes the female sex, the upper classes colonize the lower classes, and so on.” He argues that in cultural studies it “effectively functions as a kind of ersatz-philosophy, and notions are thus transformed into ideological universals.

In the legal and political realm, the fundamental difference between the terms colonization/de-colonization and occupation/de-occupation, is that the colonized must negotiate with the colonizer in order to acquire state sovereignty, e.g. India from Great Britain, Rwanda from Belgium, and Indonesia from the Dutch. Under the latter, State sovereignty is presumed and not dependent on the will of the occupier, e.g. Soviet occupation of the Baltic States, and the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonization/de-colonization is a matter that concerns the internal laws of the colonizing State and presumes the colony is not sovereign, while occupation/de-occupation is a matter of international law relating to already existing sovereign States. Matthew Craven an international law scholar who has done extensive research on the continuity of the Hawaiian State, concludes:

“For the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, therefore, acceding to their identification as an indigenous people would be to implicitly accede not only to the reality, but also to the legitimacy, of occupation and political marginalization. All they might hope for at that level is formal recognition of their vulnerability and continued political marginalization rather than the status accorded under international law to a nation belligerently occupied.”

Hawaiian State sovereignty and the international laws of occupation not only presume the continuity of Hawaiian sovereignty, but also provide the legal framework for regulating the occupier, despite its history of non-compliance. It is clear that the U.S. government wrongfully administered the Hawaiian Islands since 1898 as if it were a colonial possession for the purpose of concealing a gross violation of international law. Therefore, colonialism must be viewed as a tool used by the occupant to commit fraud in an attempt to extinguish the memory of sovereignty and the legal order of the occupied State.

Self-determination, inherent sovereignty and indigenous peoples are terms fundamentally linked not just to the concept, but to the political and legal process of de-colonization, which presupposes sovereignty to be an aspiration and not a legal reality. The effects of colonization have affected the psychological and physiological make-up of many native Hawaiians, but these effects must be reinterpreted through the lens of international law. Colonial treatment is the evidence of the violation of the law, not the political basis of a sovereignty movement. As such, these violations should serve as the measurement for reparations and compensation to a people who, against all odds, fought and continue to fight to maintain their dignity, health, language and culture, and above all, their rightful and lawful sovereign status.

In 2009, a revised edition of Nation Within by Coffman was published with a significant change in its subtitle. In the original version published in 1998, the subtitle reads “The Story of America’s Annexation of the Nation of Hawai‘i,” but the revised edition now reads “The History of the American Occupation of Hawai‘i.” Coffman explains:

“In the book’s subtitle, the word Annexation has been replaced by the word Occupation, referring to America’s occupation of Hawai‘i. Where annexation connotes legality by mutual agreement, the act was not mutual and therefore not legal. Since by definition of international law there was no annexation, we are left then with the word occupation. In making this change, I have embraced the logical conclusion of my research into the events of 1893 to 1898 in Honolulu and Washington, D.C. I am prompted to take this step by a growing body of historical work by a new generation of Native Hawaiian scholars. Dr. Keanu Sai writes, ‘The challenge for…for the fields of political science, history, and law is to distinguish between the rule of law and the politics of power.’ In the history of Hawai‘i, the might of the United States does not make it right.”

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

Hawai‘i War Crimes: Willfully Depriving a Protected Person of a Fair Trial

Hawai‘i War Crimes: Compulsion to Serve in the Occupier’s Military

Hawai‘i War Crimes: Extensive Appropriation of Property

Kanaka Express Television Show: Responding to the Star-Advertiser Newspaper Article

Na Lula Halawai: A Parliamentary Guide to Conducting Meetings in Hawaiian

Hawaiian Nationality: Who Comprises the Hawaiian citizenry

Patriot’s Song (Mele Aloha ‘Aina)

January 17, 1893, United States Illegally Overthrows Hawaiian Government

Perfect Title Company – Setting the Record Straight

Hawai‘i Under Consideration to be Included in War Report

Kingdom still in place courts told: Some homeowners fight foreclosure by claiming that the United States is illegally occupying Hawaii

Meeting with Officials of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, Switzerland

Big Island Video News Series: Defected – Testing Hawaiian Sovereignty

Settling the Confusion of Sovereignty and Independence

Hawai‘i: The Difference Between Occupation and Colonization

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: