Author Archives: Hawaiian Kingdom

Proclamation by the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Posted on by
64

PROCLAMATION

August 21, 2013

Whereas, the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State in the nineteenth century, as acknowledged by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2001 by dictum in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, and that international law provides for the presumption of the Hawaiian State’s continuity, which 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;

Whereas, because there exists no valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States over the Hawaiian Islands, all United States government agencies operating within the territory of the Hawaiian State that was established by the United States Congress, which includes the State of Hawai‘i and County governments, are self-declared and their authority unfounded;

Whereas, Hawaiian subjects took the necessary and extraordinary steps, by virtue of the legal doctrine of necessity and according to the laws of the country and international law, to reestablish the Hawaiian government as it stood on January 17, 1893, in an acting capacity on February 28, 1997, in order to exercise the country’s preeminent right to self-preservation during an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States of America since August 12, 1898;

Whereas, for the past 13 years, the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom has been vested with a prescriptive special customary right under international law to represent the Hawaiian State during this prolonged and illegal occupation by virtue of the legal doctrine of acquiescence, as well as explicit acknowledgment by the United States of America, and other States, of the acting government’s de facto authority before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the United Nations Security Council, and the United Nations General Assembly;

Whereas, a Brief on the Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom can be accessed online at: http://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Continuity_Brief.pdf.

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in the acting government, we do hereby declare, proclaim, and make known as follows:

  1. The laws are obligatory upon all persons, whether subjects of this kingdom, or citizens or subjects of any foreign State, while within the limits of this kingdom, except so far as exception is made by the laws of nations in respect to Ambassadors or others. The property of all such persons, while such property is within the territorial jurisdiction of this kingdom, is also subject to the laws (§6, Civil Code). The Hawaiian Civil Code, Penal Code and the 1884 and 1886 Session Laws can be accessed online at http://hawaiiankingdom.org/constitutional-history.shtml.
  2. The acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom reclaims its sovereignty over all property within the territorial jurisdiction of this kingdom by virtue of its special customary right to represent the Hawaiian State during an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States of America.
  3. As a result of Hawaiian law not being complied with since January 17, 1893, all titles to real estate within the territorial jurisdiction of this kingdom are invalid and void for want of a competent notary public and registrar for the Bureau of Conveyances (§1249, §1254, §1255, §1262, §1263, §1267, Civil Code). Remedy for these defects will take place in accordance with Hawaiian Kingdom law and the international law of occupation.

Peter Umialiloa Sai, Acting Vice Chair of the Council of Regency, and Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs

Archives Takes Wraps off 1898 Senate Transcript: Secret Debate on U.S. Seizure of Hawaii Revealed [Feb. 1, 1969]

Posted on by
6

1969_Article

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Saturday, February 1, 1969

WASHINGTON (AP) – Now it can be told—what happened during the longest of three Senate sessions during the Spanish-American War, a debate over whether to take over Hawaii.

The debate of nearly three hours on that day—May 31, 1898—and in two secret sessions the previous month had remained locked up until last week. Then at the request of a historian who noted gaps in the Congressional Record, the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the National Archives to take the wraps off the debate transcript.

The government’s only explanation for the long suppression of the debate records is that they had been long forgotten.

THE SECRECY WAS clamped on during a debate over whether to seize the Hawaiian Islands—called the Sandwich Islands then—or merely developing leased areas of Pearl Harbor to reinforce the U.S. fleet at Manila Bay.

Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, grandfather and namesake of the current chief U.S. peace negotiator in Paris, had the floor. He was pleading for all war measures and particularly for the dispatch of reinforcements to Adm. George Dewey who already had destroyed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay.

But before Lodge could press his case for the need of Hawaii as a rear base, Sen. David Turpie of Indiana demanded and got the Senate chamber cleared. Even the official reporter of debate was expelled for five minutes.

Study of the transcripts is unlikely to add more than a minor footnote to history, for as Lodge contended during the debate:

“I do not know anything that would give them (the enemy) any information,” because “there is nothing, nothing not already in the newspapers.”

LODGE COMPLAINED BITTERLY at the time about the secrecy, but his peers went along with Turpie and Sen. Georg Gray of Delaware, who questioned the “propriety” of public utterances “addressed to the ears of the enemy.”

Going further, Sen. Eugene Hale of Maine declared that the Senate is “the last place in which to discuss what shall be done about war,” for its word “goes on the wing of the lightning to every part of the globe.”

Lodge said Dewey’s need for reinforcement was urgent because “great and powerful interests in Europe (Paris bankers holding Spanish loan bonds) are directly interested in having Manila wrested from him and his fleet destroyed.”

Sen. William Stewart of Nevada saw “no possible secrets involved in the discussion of the annexation of the Sandwich Islands.” He contended the Navy required a coaling station for its ships and a “residing place” for the men enroute to the Philippines.

PEARL HARBOR, ALREADY UNDER LEASE, Stewart argued, wouldn’t be much use until costly dredging operations opened the entrance channel. “Either we must have the Sandwich Islands,” he declared, “or the administration must recall Dewey.”

The senate was unimpressed by the argument of Sen. Richard F. Pettigrew of South Dakota that the great circle route to Manila, skirting the Aleutian Islands, was 500 miles shorter than the route through Honolulu.

He argued that many warships and fortifications could be built with $10 million proposed to be “thrown away in the interest of a few sugar planters and adventures in Hawaii,” and asked: “Why embarrass that feeble republic, or monarchy, or oligarchy or whatever it is, with our presence?”

Sen. John T. Morgan of Alabama was concerned about the bubonic plague, cholera, yellow fever, small pox and “all the horrible diseases to which humanity is incident” prevailing in the Philippines. Therefore, “we cannot refuse to men going there a stopping place on the salubrious islands of Hawaii.”

Sen. Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina had the last word about the islands, saying “is not Hawaii lying there praying to the United States: ‘Please come and swallow me and pay the $4 million you promised.’”

THE UNITED STATES ANNEXED the Hawaiian Islands five weeks after the debate. But before the Senate reopened its doors that day, Morgan steered the discussion back to Cuba, the original cause of the war with Spain.

The first secret session, April 25, 1898, involved technical and emotional debate over wording of the declaration of war and why it or some accompanying resolution did not formally recognize the independence of Cuba or at least declare the Cubans to have the rights of belligerents in the conflict.

THE SENATE ENDED UP BY ACCEPTING the House passed version reading that “war and the same is hereby declared to exist and that war has existed since the 21st of April”—four days earlier.

Dropped from the final declaration was a Senate proposed tagline requiring the administration to “prosecute said war to a successful conclusion.”

Sen. Stephen White of California joined the unanimous vote for war “even with that mild prevarication” about when the war started.

1893 Executive Agreements and Their Profound Impact Today

Posted on by
10

On March 15, 2013, at the Keauhou Sheraton Hotel on the Island of Hawai‘i, Dr. Keanu Sai gave a presentation that provides a political science perspective of Hawaiian history that incorporates law on the repercussions of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government in 1893, and the effect of two executive agreements between Queen Lili‘uokalani and President Grover Cleveland that mandated the United States to administer Hawaiian law, restore the government, and thereafter the Queen to grant amnesty to the insurgents. The United States seizure of the Hawaiian Islands since 1898 and its willful violation of these agreements and international law have now given rise to war crimes that have and continue to be committed on a monumental scale. The presentation was sponsored by the Keauhou-Kahalu‘u Education Group, Kamehameha Schools, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo Kīpuka Native Hawaiian Student Center, Eia Hawai‘i Lecture Series, Keauhou Beach Resort, and The Kohala Center.

Dr. Sai received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa specializing in international relations and public law. His research specifically addressed the legal and political history of the Hawaiian Islands since the eighteenth century to the present. Dr. Sai has authored several law journal articles on the topic of the continuity of Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign state, is the author of a new history book titled “Ua Mau Ke Ea: Sovereignty Endures,” and served as lead agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom in arbitration proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, in Lance Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom (1999-2001).

Speech of Dr. G. P. Judd at the Celebration – July 31, 1865

Posted on by
2

A1C65120A38111DCTwenty years ago, Kauikeaouli emerged from the grounds of Kanaina; he and Kekuanaoa, Paki, Keoniana, Kanoa, Kivini, and some foreigners on horseback, and they rode for Kulaokahua.

Admiral Thomas was there with his troops and mounted guns in all his grandeur, and also there were the young chiefs, and a crowd of natives and foreigners awaiting the arrival of the King.

When he arrived, Admiral Thomas came to him holding the Hawaiian flag in his hands. The King and all his people dismounted and the Admiral came and opened the flag to the wind, and then gave it to Kauikeaouli’s flag bearer.

Right then, 21 mounted guns fired as a salute to the Flag, and the British flag was lowered on Puowaina, while the Hawaiian flag was drawn up again, whereupon 21 guns of Puowaina sounded. Then the British flag was pulled down at the Fort and the Hawaiian flag was raised, so the Fort fired a 21 gun salute, followed by 21 guns from the ship Carysfort, 21 from the Dublin, 21 more from the Hazzard, and then the American ship Constellation fired a 21-gun salute. When that was over, the 21 mounted guns fired a salute in honor of the King.

The British soldiers stood in a circle saluting the King, and when that was done the King returned to the palace. At 3[1] o’clock the King, his soldiers and the crowd of people all went to the church of Kawaiaha’o and gave thanks to God for his grace in restoring the sovereignty of the Nation.

At three o’clock, the King went aboard the ship Dublin to a dinner hosted by the Admiral, and when the Carysfort saw the King’s flag on the launches, a 21-gun salute was fired, followed by 21 guns from the Hazzard, then the Dublin, and then a final 21 gun salute came from the Constellation.

When the dinner on board the ship was finished, the King and his retinue came ashore and the Dublin fired a salute, followed by the Carysfort, then the Hazzard and the Constellation, 21 guns each.

The next day the great feast at Luakaha was held for the Admiral, and Kauikeaouli decided that the 31st of July would become a holiday for the Nation and the people. What was the reason for this great festivity?

What was the reason for the resounding of 315 guns, startling the mountains and roiling the seas? It was because the flag, once pulled down, had been raised up again.

I should perhaps recount the source of this entanglement. It was the desire of British foreigners here ashore for Britain to take this island chain. It would not then remain independent, so Consul [Charlton] sought to petition the Admiral, whereupon the Admiral ordered Lord George Paulet to sail here to Hawaii and do everything according to the terms of the Consul, and he intended to take the land by war, but, the King gave in advance the sovereignty of the land to the two of them, so as to escape battle, in the manner of a mortgage until such time as the British government could decide about the entanglements that the foreigners had made up.

The Admiral perhaps recognized his own entanglement because of the transfer to George Paulet under Consul, therefore he was concerned and restored the sovereignty of the Nation.

Therefore, the chiefs and the common people are joyful on this day because of the victory of righteousness over wrong, and the religious ones praise God, their Savior, for allowing them not to live as prisoners under Britain. Glory! Glory!! Glory!!!

Speech of His Highness William Charles Lunalilo at the Celebration – July 31, 1865

Posted on by
2

LunaliloLadies and Gentlemen:

This is the day we commemorate the return of the Hawaiian Flag by Admiral Thomas. Twenty-two years have passed since that officer arrived at these shores, restoring the Flag to our King and the nation. Our hearts were filled with joy on that day that is forever remembered, and many tears were shed, not from sadness, but from joy. How very different from the previous February 25. I recall what I saw as I stood in the grounds of the old Fort with our current King and his younger brothers, now deceased; we witnessed our Flag being brought down. On that day, these islands were surrendered to the Crown of Great Britain, and on that day the flying star flag of Albion waved victoriously over these Islands. Many here probably heard the short speech King Kamehameha III gave regarding that event.

“Attention, Nobles, people, and subjects from my ancestors’ time, as well as those of foreign lands! Pay heed all of you! I say to you all that I am in distress as a result of predicaments into which I have been drawn without cause, therefore I have surrendered the sovereignty of our land, and so you should all heed that! However, my reign over all of you, my people, and your rights, will continue because I am hopeful that the sovereignty of the land will yet be restored, if my actions are just.”

That speech by the King to his people was short, but important nonetheless. He expressed his sadness about what he had seen. There were many tears that day. Those were dark and fearful days. The entire nation mourned during those months of investigation, thinking that the government might have been lost for all time to the hands of a foreign power. For five long months all remained calm, as at the outset, and on the 31st of July, the day we now commemorate, we saw “the flag for which they had dared for a thousand years to valiantly face war and the wind” brought down by one of the own sons of England.

As Doctor Gulick clarified, “America gaining independence was not something that simply came to be, nor was it some short-lived foolishness. Instead, it was something that came about and will be remembered for centuries, and is something that will continue on into the future.” The same is true of this, our restoration day, it is not something that just came to be. Admiral Thomas did not simply come here regarding trouble that was occurring and seek the facts as they have done before, but he heard, from a high-level source, of actions happening between this Government and those under its domain. He carefully considered it, and the setting was perfectly clear to him prior to his sailing here and his return of the land to its King who had acted justly. The people (though I speak as an individual) had acted appropriately, were thoughtful and vigilant in the workings of the Government, and if they had spoken or acted irresponsibly, they would certainly have incurred the wrath of the opposition. Something real that was witnessed was whether the assets that the nation had entrusted to someone in a certain department would continue to exist. It was assumed they had not. The books of every kind, which were critical, were taken away from the offices and hidden, then taken to the Royal Crypt, there to be left among the residents of that eerie place. Night and day, the work was carried out there, and the casket of Good Ka’ahumanu became the desk for writing.

But the sun rose again, brighter than ever. The hopes of the good and benevolent Kauikeaouli were fulfilled (you will likely never forget the short speech he gave with the wishes for his people on the day he surrendered the land to Great Britain, and his hopes that once his actions on behalf of his Kingdom were justified, it would be restored to him as before). At this time, we are an independent modern nation, and we are seen as such, and though we have only recently emerged from darkness into enlightenment, our status has grown, and continues to expand through righteousness.

Each of the many peoples of the earth has things of which they may be proud. England has promoted its powerful navy and through its colonies all around the world (and it is said to be true) the sun never sets on its bounds. France glorifies its Bonaparte, and the way all of Europe trembled while that soldier of a hundred wars sat on the French throne. Rome prided itself on its strength and its wealth. The United States of America was boastful that when it moved toward liberty, it gained its independence, and in recent years, stamped out both rebellion and slavery, never to rise again. Of what do we boast? I say sincerely, indeed there is something, for in the few, short years since the light of God’s word reached our shores, the tree of knowledge and wisdom has been planted, the roots have expanded out, the branches have spread wide, and now its fruits are being sent out among the benighted peoples of this great Pacific Ocean. The brightness of our enlightenment grows every day, and I am proud to say that we are assuming a position among the learned and civilized peoples of the world. I call this the true beauty of this land, Hawai’i.

As a closure to my reflections, I say that we should give our love to Him, the Judge of all things, because of his love for us, in our hours of strife and in times of good fortune and joy.

“May God Save The King With His Eternal Love.”

National Holiday – Restoration Day (July 31)

Posted on by
9

Today is July 31st which is a national holiday in the Hawaiian Kingdom called “Restoration day,” and it is directly linked to another holiday observed on November 28th called “Independence day.” Here is a brief history of these two celebrated holidays.

Kam IIIIn the summer of 1842, Kamehameha III moved forward to secure the position of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a recognized independent state under international law. He sought the formal recognition of Hawaiian independence from the three naval powers of the world at the time—Great Britain, France, and the United States. To accomplish this, Kamehameha III commissioned three envoys, Timoteo Ha‘alilio, William Richards, who at the time was still an American Citizen, and Sir George Simpson, a British subject. Of all three powers, it was the British that had a legal claim over the Hawaiian Islands through cession by Kamehameha I, but for political reasons the British could not openly exert its claim over the other two naval powers. Due to the islands prime economic and strategic location in the middle of the north Pacific, the political interest of all three powers was to ensure that none would have a greater interest than the other. This caused Kamehameha III “considerable embarrassment in managing his foreign relations, and…awakened the very strong desire that his Kingdom shall be formally acknowledged by the civilized nations of the world as a sovereign and independent State.”

PauletWhile the envoys were on their diplomatic mission, a British Naval ship, HBMS Carysfort, under the command of Lord Paulet, entered Honolulu harbor on February 10, 1843, making outrageous demands on the Hawaiian government. Basing his actions on complaints made to him in letters from the British Consul, Richard Charlton, who was absent from the kingdom at the time, Paulet eventually seized control of the Hawaiian government on February 25, 1843, after threatening to level Honolulu with cannon fire. Kamehameha III was forced to surrender the kingdom, but did so under written protest and pending the outcome of the mission of his diplomats in Europe. News Admiral Thomasof Paulet’s action reached Admiral Richard Thomas of the British Admiralty, and he sailed from the Chilean port of Valparaiso and arrived in the islands on July 25, 1843. After a meeting with Kamehameha III, Admiral Thomas determined that Charlton’s complaints did not warrant a British takeover and ordered the restoration of the Hawaiian government, which took place in a grand ceremony on July 31, 1843. At a thanksgiving service after the ceremony, Kamehameha III proclaimed before a large crowd, ua mau ke ea o ka ‘aina i ka pono (the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness). The King’s statement became the national motto.

The envoys eventually succeeded in getting formal international recognition of the Hawaiian Islands “as a sovereign and independent State.” Great Britain and France formally recognized Hawaiian sovereignty on November 28, 1843 by joint proclamation at the Court of London, and the United States followed on July 6, 1844 by a letter of Secretary of State John C. Calhoun. The Hawaiian Islands became the first Polynesian nation to be recognized as an independent and sovereign State.

The ceremony that took place on July 31 occurred at a place we know today as “Thomas Square” park, which honors Admiral Thomas, and the roads that run along Thomas Square today are “Beretania,” which is Hawaiian for “Britain,” and “Victoria,” in honor of Queen Victoria who was the reigning British Monarch at the time the restoration of the government and recognition of Hawaiian independence took place.

Hawai‘i’s Lawful Status Educating Our Community

Posted on by
11

In this edition of “Kanaka Express,” the host, Kale Gumapac, asks Dexter K. Kaiama, Esq. to elaborate on the points he brought up when he was on a panel hosted by Dan Boylan on PBS television called “Insights.” With Kaiama is another guest of the show Dr. Keanu Sai who is a political scientist specializing in international relations and public law.

PBS Hawai‘i – Insights: Native Hawaiian Sovereignty

Posted on by
64

Dan Boylan asks, “Is an independent Native Hawaiian government within reach?” To date, no sovereignty effort has managed to truly galvanize the Native Hawaiian population. Now armed with the state’s approval, the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission has high hopes that will change. However, the commission is falling far short of its yearlong goal of signing up 200,000 eligible Hawaiians to help establish an independent government. Will a six-month extension change the tide and bring Native Hawaiians closer to self-governance?

Dan Boylan hosts a discussion with the following scheduled guests: Sen. Clayton Hee, Chairman of the State Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee; Dexter Kaiama, Honolulu Native Hawaiian rights attorney; Esther Kiaaina, Deputy Director of the Department of Land and Natural Resources; and Former Gov. John Waihee, Chairman of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.

The Hawaiian National Flag and Royal Flag

Posted on by
167

Another example of misinformation centers on the Hawaiian national flag. Lately, there is a common misunderstanding that the current flag that has the Union Jack at the top left corner is not Hawaiian, but rather British that was imposed here in the islands in 1843 by British Naval Officer Lord Paulet. According to the story published in the Honolulu Adverstiser in 2001, Gene Simeona of Honolulu, stated “he resurrected the ‘original’ Hawaiian green, red and yellow striped flag, destroyed by British navy Capt. Lord George Paulet when he seized Hawai‘i for five months in 1843.” Sonoda calls this flag the Kanaka Maoli flag.

Kanaka Maoli Flag

A very simple way to falsify or refute this claim is to show that the flag with the Union Jack existed before 1843. There is a lot of evidence that refutes this claim such as ship logs of foreign ships that visited the islands since 1816, which is the date the flag was created by order of Kamehameha I. Below are two portraits painted around 1819. The first portrait was painted in 1819 of the baptism of Kalanimoku, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s former Prime Minister on board the French ship Uranie after the death of Kamehameha I, and the second portrait was done sometime after 1819 of the Hawaiian ship commanded by Captain Alexander Adams during the reign of Kamehameha II. Both ships had the presence of Kamehameha II.

Baptism of Kalanimoku

Hawn Flag (Adams Collection)

The second portrait is also called a flagship that has both the national flag and the royal flag. The royal flag, also called the royal ensign, is a flag that signals the presence of the Hawaiian monarch and in this portrait it signaled the presence of  Kamehameha II on board. The royal ensign also flies at the residence of the Hawaiian monarch and wherever the monarch travels.

Royal Ensign

Sonoda’s claim that the Union Jack symbolizes British colonialism in Hawai‘i is also not accurate, because Kamehameha I joined the British Empire voluntarily, along with his principle chiefs, on February 25, 1794, when Kamehameha entered into an agreement with British Captain George Vancouver. The agreement provided that the British government would not interfere with the kingdom’s religion, government and economy—“the chiefs and priests, were to continue as usual to officiate with the same authority as before in their respective stations.”

If the island Kingdom of Hawai‘i was colonized, Kamehameha would not have maintained the status of King, but would have been replaced by a British Governor-General. Queen Victoria recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent and sovereign State on November 28, 1843 after Lord Paulet’s seizure from February to July 1843. Therefore, Sonodo’s other claim of Lord Paulet’s seizure is true, but there is no evidence that the green, red and yellow striped flag ever existed.

The Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi

Posted on by
121

We’ve received many inquiries requesting commentary on the Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi because of the recent news conference at the United Nations Indigenous Forum as well as local news coverage. The purpose for this blog entry is to correct historical inaccuracies especially in light of legal matters now before the United Nations General Assembly,  the International Criminal Court, and State of Hawai‘i Courts.

The term “Atooi” is not a Hawaiian word, but rather a British word spelled out with British phonics. The word “Attooi” was first uttered by the crew of Captain James Cook’s Third Voyage when his ships arrived in the Islands in 1778. Today we call these islands the Hawaiian Islands, but in 1778 there were four separate and distinct kingdoms: Islands of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau under Ka‘eo; Islands of O‘ahu and Molokai under Kahahana; Islands of Maui, Lanai and Kaho‘olawe under Kahekili; and the Island of Hawai‘i under Kalaniopu‘u.

Cook was tasked by the British Admiralty to map the Pacific Islands and find the northwest passage that could link the north Pacific Ocean with the north Atlantic Ocean. Cook was not only a British explorer, but also cartographer, which is a map maker. Cook sailed north from the Island of Borabora in the Society Islands on December 9, 1777 and came upon the Island of O‘ahu on a Sunday on January 19, 1778, and soon after came upon the island of Kaua‘i the next day. His first encounter with the natives in canoes took place off the coast of Kaua‘i, where they bartered fish and vegetables for nails and iron. According to Cook’s journal (p. 221), “Their language differed from that of every other people we had before visited; but we had learnt to converse by signs, and very soon made ourselves understood.”  It was probably at this point that the natives were asked what was the name of the island in order to map it, and to the British ear they spelt what they heard using British phonics–Atooi (Kaua‘i). It wasn’t until after 1820 that Hawaiian phonics was formally established through collaboration of the missionaries and Hawaiian chiefs.

The first publication of the island names using British phonics was published in London in 1781 titled “Journal of Captain Cook’s Last Voyage to the Pacific Ocean on Discovery,” identifying the Island of Hawai‘i as “O-why-e,” the Island of Maui as “Maw-whee,”  the Island of O‘ahu as “O-aa-ah,” and the island of Ni‘ihau as “Ne-hu.” Three years later, the island names were refined using British phonics in the first map of the islands published in London in 1784. On this map the islands were named oWhyhee (Hawai‘i), Mowee (Maui), Tahoorowa (Kaho‘olawe), Ranai (Lanai), Morotoi (Molokai), Woahoo (O‘ahu), Atooi (Kaua‘i), and Oneeheow (Ni‘ihau). Later maps using the British names of the islands were published in the French and German languages.

Cook's map

On the Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi website, it is claimed that “Atooi” is translated in the native language to mean “Light of God,” but this is not correct because “Atooi” is not a Hawaiian word, but rather a British version of a Hawaiian word spelled using British phonics. The website also claims “Atooi was the ancient name for, Hawaii, the head [po’o] of the Polynesian Triangle.” This is also not correct because the word is not ancient, but rather  a British invention by Captain Cook’s crew.

It has also been commonly stated that Kaua‘i was never conquered by Kamehameha. Yes this is true, but it was conquered by Ka‘ahumanu who was serving at the time as Regent while Kamehameha II was in London. After Kahekili invaded and conquered the O‘ahu Kingdom in 1783, there were no longer four separate kingdoms, but now three. In 1795, Kamehameha, successor to Kalaniopu‘u, invaded and conquered the Maui Kingdom, and in 1810, Kaumuali‘i, successor to Ka‘eo of the Kaua‘i Kingdom, peacefully acknowledged Kamehameha as his superior, thereby consolidating all of the former kingdoms into the Kingdom of the Sandwich Islands. On August 8, 1824, the Kaua‘i chiefs unsuccessfully rebelled under the leadership of George Humehume, successor and son of Kaumuali‘i, the late King of Kaua‘i. Humehume was removed to the Island of O‘ahu under the watch of Kalanimoku, the Prime Minister, and all of the Kaua‘i chiefs were dispersed throughout the islands and the lands were seized by Hawai‘i Islands chiefs.

Additional blog entries will address misinformation on the Hawaiian national flag, the United Nations Forum on Indigenous Peoples, and the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories.

International Criminal Court Acknowledges Receipt of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Request for Investigation into War Crimes

Posted on by
12

On June 17, 2013, the International Criminal Court (ICC) received the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Referral to initiate criminal investigations and its Declaration extending the jurisdiction of the ICC to investigate war crimes committed on Hawaiian territory since July 1, 2002.  Initially the ICC’s jurisdiction was limited to crimes committed after March 4, 2013 when it began its jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands. On June 24, 2013, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) acknowledged receipt of the communication and stated they “will give consideration to this communication, as appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.”

OTP_Ackn_p_1

OTP_Ackn_p_2

The ICC can initiate an investigation from three sources or a combination of the three: first, from the United Nations Security Council; second, from the government of the State that granted jurisdiction to the ICC; and, third, from private parties who were victims of war crimes committed on the territory that the ICC has jurisdiction. According to the ICC Prosecutor’s Policies, “in response to referrals or communications, the Prosecutor will gather and assess relevant information until such point as he is satisfied that there is, or is not, a reasonable basis to proceed. The Prosecutor makes the determination as to whether there is a reasonable basis to proceed based on the three factors required by the Statute:

  1. the factual/legal basis: the information available provides a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been or is being committed;
  2. the admissibility test: the case is or would be admissible (including on complementarity grounds) under Article 17;
  3. the interests of justice: taking into account the gravity of the crime and the interests of victims, there are nonetheless substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice.”

Because the Hawaiian Kingdom is occupied and not a part of the territory of the United States, U.S. government officials who have committed war crimes within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom are not immune from prosecution by the ICC. According to the Rome Statute, Article 27—Irrelevance of official capacity:

  1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
  2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

In its Referral, the Hawaiian Kingdom provided evidence of the following war crimes under Article 8 of the Rome Statute that have and continue to be committed on Hawaiian territory since July 1, 2002.

  • Article 8(2)(a)(iv)—Extensive…appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
  • Article 8(2)(a)(v)—Compelling a…protected person to serve in the forces of a [Occupying] Power
  • Article 8(2)(a)(vi)—Willfully depriving a…protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial
  • Article 8(2)(a)(vii)—Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement
  • Article 8(2)(a)(viii)—The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory
  • Article 8(2)(b)(xiii)—Destroying or seizing the [Occupied State’s] property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war

When evaluating the commission of a war crime, the Prosecutor will be guided by certain elements of the crime established by the ICC that need to be met. In addition to these elements, the ICC states:

  • There is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the perpetrator as to the existence of an occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party;
  • In that context there is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party; and
  • There is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party.

War crimes are not necessarily centered on the perpetrator or principal alone, but could include accessories to the crime. Accessories are persons who assist in the commission of the crime, whether before or after the crime was committed by the principal. An accessory is distinguished from an accomplice who is normally present when the crime is committed and has participated in some fashion. An accessory before the fact is a person who orders the commission of a crime or assists another person financially, emotionally, as well as  providing physical assistance in order for the crime to be committed by the principal. An accessory after the fact is a person who conceals the commission of the crime in order to shield the principal. Conspiracy and the obstruction of justice are common terms associated with accessories.

The ICC Prosecutor’s Policies also provides, “The Office of the Prosecutor will strive to complete all analyses as expeditiously as possible in order to reach timely decisions whether to investigate. It is worth emphasizing that Article 15 provides a valuable avenue by which concerned individuals and organizations may furnish information to the Prosecutor, but he retains his independence under the Statute. In particular, imposing rigid timetables on this process of analysis would not be workable under the framework of the Rome Statute.”

Island of O‘ahu Targeted for Nuclear Strikes

Posted on by
49

The United States prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Islands is a direct violation of Hawai‘i’s neutrality. Article 1 of the 1907 Hague Convention, V, provides “The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable,” and Article 2 provides “Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.” The United States’ violation of these Articles have placed the residents of the Hawaiian Islands into harms way when Japan attacked U.S. military installations on O‘ahu on December 7, 1941, and continue to place Hawai‘i’s residents in harms way in the event of a nuclear attack.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense’s Base Structure Report for 2012, the U.S. military has 118 military sites that span 230,929 acres of the Hawaiian Islands, which is 20% of the total acreage of Hawaiian territory. As the headquarters for the U.S. Pacific Command, being the largest unified command in the world, the Hawaiian Islands is targeted for nuclear strikes by Russia and China. At present the concern is North Korea, as well as any adversary of the United States.

In 1990, the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published Risks and Hazards: A State by State Guide. One of the subjects included nuclear targets and identified 6 nuclear targets on the island of O‘ahu that coincided with the locations of military posts of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Also included as a target is the Headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Command at Camp Smith that lies in the back of a residential area in Halawa. According to FEMA, the entire Island of O‘ahu would be obliterated if a nuclear attack were to take place.

hi-nu

Americanization has desensitized Hawai‘i’s population and has made the presence of the U.S. military in the islands normal. Americanization has also erased the memory of the U.S. invasion in 1893 and portrayed the military presence as protecting the islands from an aggressor country intent on invasion, when in fact the Hawaiian Islands were seized in 1898 to serve as a defense to protect the United States west coast from invasion.

NewlandsAfter the defeat of the Spanish Pacific Squadron in the Philippines, U.S. Congressman Francis Newlands (D-Nevada), submitted House Resolution 259 annexing the Hawaiian Islands (also known as the Newlands Resolution), to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 4, 1898.

Six days later, hearings were held on the Newlands Resolution, and U.S. Naval Captain Alfred Mahan’s testimony explained the military significance of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States:

“It is obvious that if we do not hold the islands ourselves we Mahancannot expect the neutrals in the war to prevent the other belligerent from occupying them; nor can the inhabitants themselves prevent such occupation. The commercial value is not great enough to provoke neutral interposition. In short, in war we should need a larger Navy to defend the Pacific coast, because we should have not only to defend our own coast, but to prevent, by naval force, an enemy from occupying the islands; whereas, if we preoccupied them, fortifications could preserve them to us. In my opinion it is not practicable for any trans-Pacific country to invade our Pacific coast without occupying Hawai‘i as a base.”

The Hawaiian Islands was and continues to be the outpost to protect the United States and their presence in the Hawaiian Islands is in violation of international law and the laws of occupation.

War Crimes: Federal Taxes and Costs Incurred from Jones Act

Posted on by

According to United States constitutional law, the federal government is separated into three distinct and separate branches, commonly referred to as the separation of powers doctrine. The Congress is the legislative branch that enacts federal statutes, the President heads the executive branch that executes or enforces federal statutes and treaties, and the Supreme Court is the judicial branch that interprets federal statutes and treaties. Under the separation of powers doctrine, the United States Supreme Court is the highest authority in the interpretation of federal statutes and treaties. In other words, when the Supreme Court makes a decision on a particular issue it is binding over everyone in the United States including the President and Congress.

In 1936, a very important case was heard by the United States Supreme Court that centered on the limitation of U.S. laws that became a binding precedent. The case was U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318, where 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.” Expressed in a different way, the U.S. constitution and federal statutes have no legal effect outside of the United States and actions taken by the United States government in foreign territories are governed by international law and treaties.

For Hawai‘i, a few of the treaties include:

Federal statutes that were passed in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution by Congress regarding Hawai‘i include, but are not limited to:

Without a treaty of cession, the Hawaiian Islands remain a foreign territory and therefore the U.S. constitution and federal statutes have no legal effect. Two particular federal statutes, the 1913 Revenue Act that established the Internal Revenue Service and the 1920 Merchant Marine Act, also known as the Jones Act, are not only illegal but are the driving forces behind Hawai‘i’s high cost of living.

TAXES

According to the Tax Foundation 2013 Facts & Figures, the current taxes paid by residents of Hawai‘i under United States laws, which includes the laws of the State of Hawai‘i, with an average income of $42,925.00 are on average $16,311.00. This is $.38 on the dollar (38%), which is a conservative estimate. Here’s the breakdown:

  • $.13 cents/dollar (13%) – U.S. Federal Income Taxes;
  • $.08 cents/dollar (8%) – U.S. Social Security & Medicaid (actual rate is 15.3% but employers cover half);
  • $.08 cents/dollar (8%) – State Income Taxes;
  • $.05 cents/dollar (5%) – State Corporate Income Taxes; and
  • $.04 cents/dollar (4%) – State Sales Tax.

JONES ACT

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 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 carriers for Hawai‘i 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 drives up the cost of shipping and contributes to Hawai‘i’s high cost of living. Gas tax is $.47 per gallon as a result of the Jones Act because only American carriers can transport oil to Hawai‘i to be converted into gas. And according to the USDA Food Cost, Hawai‘i residents pay an extra $296 per month for food than families in the United States.

Pacific countries with the highest number of carriers are led by Panama with 6,413; China with 2,771; Hong Kong with 1,644; Singapore with 1,599; Marshall Islands with 1,593; Indonesia with 1,340; South Korea with 786; Japan with 684; Vietnam with 579; Cambodia with 544; Philippines with 446; United States with 393; Thailand with 363; India with 340; Malaysia with 315; Canada with 181; North Korea with 158; Taiwan 112; Vanuatu with 77; Kiribati with 77; Tuvalu with 58; Mexico with 52; Australia with 41; Cook Islands with 35; Papua New Guinea with 31; Peru with 22; New Zealand with 15; French Polynesia with 12; Fiji with 11; Tonga with 7; New Caledonia with 3; Federated States of Micronesia with 3; Samoa with 2; Costa Rica with 1; Timor-Leste with 1.

Pacific_Carriers

The Jones Act functions as a barrier to entry for low-cost foreign carriers that Hawai‘i merchants could utilize to trade food and merchandise from other countries throughout the Pacific. This also includes purchasing oil at a much cheaper rate for conversion to gas. Free trade would also increase jobs here in the islands, especially after converting Pearl Harbor Naval Base into a commercial port similar to Subic Bay Free Port Zone in the Philippines, which used to be the second largest United States Naval Base in the world. Subic Bay “continues to be one of the country’s major economic engines with more than 700 investment projects, including the 4th largest shipbuilding facility in the world.” The military housing would also be converted to civilian housing.

Under the laws of occupation, U.S. Federal taxes cannot be collected in a foreign territory. If the State of Hawai‘i taxes were converted to Hawaiian Kingdom taxes in order to maintain government services, the taxes to be paid would be $.17 cents on the dollar, which is $7,297.25 for an income of $42,925.00, a savings of $9,013.75. Illegally collecting taxes in a foreign territory is a war crime called “appropriation of property [money]” (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, Title 18 U.S.C. §2441) not justified under the laws of occupation. The International Criminal Court also prosecutes individuals for committing the war crime of “appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.” Adding to this unlawful “appropriation of property [money]” is the collection of monies paid out by the Hawai‘i consumer as a direct result of the Jones Act.

The United States government is liable to compensate Hawai‘i’s residents, which includes foreign nationals, for these violations.

Websites for Acting Government and Its Blog Went Off Line Due to High Volume of Internet Traffic

Posted on by
6

On May 19, 2013 the websites for the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom (hawaiiankingdom.org) and its blog (hawaiiankingdom.org/blog) were temporarily offline with the following message:

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.

The reason for temporarily going offline was that there was too much internet traffic. Webalizer reported monthly visits to hawaiiankingdom.org were between 3,900 and 6,000 from June to December 2012.  In January 2013 the visits rocketed to 15,000+. In February visits soared to 22,000, and in March visits spiked to 37,000.

In the month of April, daily visits totaled between 6,500 and 12,400, but on April 30 visits exploded to 18,431. On May 1 visits went back down to 4,989 visits and average visits per day since May 1 to May 21 was at 915. It is not clear what caused the dramatic spike in visitors between April 30 and May 1, but we are happy to report that increased visits from across the world is a very good indication that people are aware of the prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

As of May 21, 2013, Webalizer has reported for the month of May, 365,790 total hits; 41,391 total pages; and 19,223 visits.

Webalizer1

For the month of May there were 109 countries where visits came from.

Webalizer2

International Criminal Court to Consider Alleged War Crimes Committed by State of Hawai‘i Officials, Judges, Banks and Attorneys

Posted on by
16

KaiamaOn February 14, 2013, attorney Dexter Kaiama, filed a war crime complaint with the ICC alleging that the following State of Hawai‘i officials deprived his client of a “fair and regular trial” on the Island of O‘ahu. These individuals are District Court Judge MAURA M. OKAMOTO, Intermediate Court of Appeals Presiding Judge DANIEL R. FOLEY, Associate Judge KATHERINE G. LEONARD, Associate Judge LAWRENCE M. REIFURTH, Attorney General DAVID M. LOUIE, Deputy Attorney General DIANE K. TAIRA, Deputy Attorney General S. KALANI BUSH, Deputy Attorney General MATTHEW S. DVONCH, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Chair JOBIE MASAGATANI, successor in office to Mr. Alapaki Nahale-a, and Governor NEIL ABERCROMBIE.

Under Article 8 of the Rome Statute, it provides that the International Criminal Court “shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.” Article 8 further states that war crimes means “Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention…Willfully depriving a…protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial.”

Four days later on February 18, 2013, Kaiama filed six additional complaints with the ICC alleging the same war crime of unfair trial against the following judges, banks and attorneys that occured on the Island of Hawai‘i. These individuals include Circuit Court Judges RONALD IBARRA, GREG K. NAKAMURA, and GLENN S. HARA; Banks FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, BANK OF HAWAI‘I, DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, VANDERBILT MORTGAGE AND FINANCE, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, WELLS FARGO BANK; and Attorneys BLUE KAANEHE, CHARLES PRATHER, PETER K. KEEGAN, MITZI A. LEE, SOFIA M. HIROSANE, MICHAEL G.K. WONG, ROBERT E. CHAPMAN, MARY MARTIN, ROBERT D. TRIANTOS and EDMUND W.K. HAITSUKA.

In his letters to the ICC, Kaiama stated this “communication and complaint is provided to the office of the Prosecutor pursuant to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s accession to the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on December 10, 2012, and the Hawaiian Kingdom’s accession to the 1949 fourth Geneva Convention deposited with the Swiss Federal Council on January 14, 2013.”

According to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, the ICC would have jurisdiction “on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date of the deposit of…accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” which is March 4, 2013.

W.P. Dillon, Head of the Office of Information and Evidence Unit, Office of the Prosecutor, sent the following letter to Kaiama acknowledging receipt of the complaints. The letter was dated March 4, 2013, the date the ICC began jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands.

ICC_Ltr_Page_1

Dillon’s statement to Kaiama that the Prosecutor “will give consideration to this communication, as appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” is making specific reference to Article 17 of the Rome Statute titled “Issues of admissibility.” Since the ICC is a court of last resort where it compliments local courts of the country with primary responsibility to prosecute crimes, and not replace them, it can only intervene if (a) the perpetrators and being shielded, (b) there is an unjustifiable delay in the proceedings to bring the perpetrators to justice, or (c) where proceedings are not being conducted independently or impartially.

Article 17 also provides that the ICC “shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.” This provision has a direct nexus to the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government by the United States on January 17, 1893, whereby the “national judicial system” was overthrown and to date has been replaced by illegally constituted courts in violation of the international laws of occupation, in particular, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV.

MasudEAn example of where the Prosecutor of the ICC has rejected a claim based on lack of jurisdiction occurred last year in 2012. On October 1, 2012, Enver Masud, as CEO for The Wisdom Fund (TWF), submitted a letter to the ICC Prosecutor providing “information about the coverup of the facts of 9/11 used to justify the wrongful invasion of Afghanistan.” Masud’s letter was in response to posting on the ICC website that stated “The OTP is currently conducting preliminary examinations in a number of situations including Afghanistan, . . . ” and one is invited to “submit information about alleged crimes.” The Office of the Prosecutor received Masud’s letter on October 10, 2012.

Enver Masud is founder and CEO of TWF, and the recipient of the 2002 Gold Award from the Human Rights Foundation for his book The War on Islam. He is also a co-author of Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, and 9/11 and American Empire. TWF is a non-profit organization based in Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A. TWF’s mission is to advance social justice and peace.

On November 27, 2012, W.P. Dillon, Head of the Office of Information and Evidence Unit, Office of the Prosecutor, sent the following letter to Masud declining to consider the allegations on jurisdictional grounds.

TWF_ICC_Regection_Ltr

The reason why the ICC could not claim jurisdiction over international crimes alleged to have been committed within the United States when individuals planned the invasion of Afghanistan was because the United States of America did not grant jurisdiction to the ICC.  In 2000, the Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute, but the Bush Administration refused to ratify the Rome Statute and declared it would not be a party to the ICC. Therefore, the ICC cannot claim it has jurisdiction over international crimes committed within the territory of the United States of America.

If the Hawaiian Islands were a part of the United States of America, being the so-called 50th State of the American Union, the ICC would have sent a letter to Kaiama similar to its letter sent to Masud who was alleging international crimes took place within the territory of the United States. Especially when the alleged war criminals include the Governor, Attorney General, Deputy Attorney Generals and Judges who are government officials of the so-called State of Hawai‘i.

Instead, the ICC letter to Kaiama acknowledges receipt of the complaints and it will provide its response according to the Rome Statute regarding international crimes committed within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which has been under a prolong and illegal occupation by the United States since August 12, 1898.