Today the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) and the Water Protectors Legal Collective (WPLC), who the authors of the amicus brief as to why the court must transform itself into an Article II Occupation Court in Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden, filed a Motion for Leave to File a Letter Supplement to Amended Amicus Curiae Brief.
Attached to the Motion is a copy of the joint letter by the IADL and the American Association of Jurists—Asociación Americana de Juristas, sent to all the Embassies accredited to the United Nations in New York City and in Geneva on February 16, 2022.
In their Motion, the IADL-NLG-WPLC state, “Movants wish to supplement their amicus brief with a letter, dated February 16, 2022, from two international organizations with special consultative status with the U.N. Economic and Social Council and accredited before the Human Rights Council—the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the American Association of Jurists—which was sent to all Permanent Missions to the United Nations in New York City and Geneva, Switzerland. The letter addresses the ongoing illegal occupation of Hawai‘i under international law and will be presented before the United Nations Human Rights Council at its 49th session in Geneva beginning on February 28, 2022.”
They also state “The letter is provided for informational purposes to the Court and to provide additional context for the urgent and serious issues raised by this case, which are also the current subject of discussion in international forums.”
The Court will have to grant permission for the filing of the joint letter so that it becomes a part of the record. The decision by the judge is forthcoming.
UPDATE: Last night, Magistrate Judge Rom Trader entered an order denying the IADL-NLG-WPLC’s request to file the IADL-AAJ joint letter. The Court stated, “The letter is not being submitted in support of any moving papers, not all drafters of the letter have been approved as amicus, and the movants do not provide any concrete information as to why the letter is even needed.”
As the IADL-NLG-WPLC did state in its motion, “The letter is provided for informational purposes to the Court and to provide additional context for the urgent and serious issues raised by this case, which are also the current subject of discussion in international forums.”
Aside from the procedural matters as stated by Judge Trader, the letter, for informational purposes, can be accessed by the defendants in this case. The Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden lawsuit is a case of first impression where proceedings are taking place during a prolonged belligerent occupation by the United States outside of its territory. “In a case of first impression, the exact issue before the court has not been addressed by that court, or within that court’s jurisdiction, thus there is no binding authority on that matter.” The letter provides “additional context.”
In the amicus brief it states that the Article II court remains in effect until a Peace treaty Grants Sovereignty of the occupied territory to the United States. WTF!!?? I thought this whole process was to Restore the Hawaiian Kingdom Government!!??
a. What is an Article II Occupation Court? i. General Characteristics
The central attribute of an Article II court is an executive action that grants it criminal and civil jurisdiction over civilians in an occupied territory. The President’s ability to create Article II courts extends from the responsibility as commander in chief to govern areas occupied by U.S. forces.25 Most Article II courts in history have been created by an executive order—either before the creation of the court or by ratification after-the-fact—but creation of an Article II court does not require such express action. The President can authorize local commanders to form a civil government for the occupied territory.26 Any court whose jurisdiction over an occupied territory flows from the exercise of executive war powers is an Article II court.27 This authority remains until: (1) a peace treaty grants sovereignty of the occupied territory to the United States;
Aloha Kai, you saw that too huh. I’m not qualified to answer your question but looking at this I don’t see it saying that is what Hawaii must do. It’s referring to the general characteristics of an article II court where the U.S. could obtain a state’s territory through war and a Peace Treaty. The U.S. can’t expect to get Hawaii as part of a Treaty of Peace because you can’t take the territory of a Neutral state through war. That is against all the principles of international law and the laws of Neutrality. Besides the Queen already settled the U.S. invasion with President Cleveland through Executive Agreements. The Queen (head of state) gets restored and effective control goes back to her. Nowhere in there do you see her turning sovereignty over to the United States. MHO Would be nice to get your concern addressed since it is a valid and important concern.
Aloha e Kai and Kekoa,
I believe in the Queens story, Lili’u does in fact temporarily cede her authority under protest until the proper remedy could be found. Following international policy regarding war-time occupations, it in fact is within the confines of international law for the United States military to enforce the law of a recognized territory it is occupying , SO LONG AS those policies enforced follow the law of the land (I.e. this recent push for Article 2 courts, to begin to reimpose our Kingdom Governments policies, and retain the ability to create new laws with a newly established legislature). Historically speaking it is not the only way, however this path may be the most secure in terms of process and legality, at the international level.
I agree this is the safest path in process and legality. Any deviation would open up manipulation of the process to our detriment. That is why I am very skeptical of the motives and agendas of anyone suggesting a different path. It’s either they don’t know any better or they are deliberately trying to sabotage the process. Like the Queen trust no one with your process except yourself. That is why she did not arbitrarily surrender her authority hoping for a proper remedy as you suggested, she made a conditional surrender specifically naming the terms in which she surrendered her authority and the remedy on how it will be returned to her. She got it writing and if President Cleveland didn’t agree to her terms, then she wasn’t going to surrender her authority. Obviously, he agreed to her terms and conditions because he sent James Blount to investigate and entered into the Executive Agreements with her to remedy the wrong according to her terms. Smart Lady.
E kala mai, i understand what you mean, and I did not mean for that to sound as though it was done arbitrarily (which it wasn’t).
Kinoole, it’s all good. Aloha and be well.
I appreciate your opinion and like yourself I also would like to see the question addressed by Dr. Sai or any other representative from the Council of Regency.
Aloha Kai,
I think it’s important to realize that the amicus brief was not authored by the Council of Regency. I believe the goal of the Council of Regency is for the United Stated to begin to comply with the international laws of occupation. As I understand it, the purpose of the amicus brief is to point out that US Federal courts in Hawaii do not have legal jurisdiction as it is operating outside of US Territory…therefore they need to transition to an Article II court to have legal jurisdiction.
The section you’re referring to is explaining what an Article II court is under American law and not international law or Hawaiian Kingdom law. Article II courts authority derives from Article II of the US Constitution under Presidential authority.
When I read “Article II court remaining in effect until a Peace treaty grants sovereignty of the occupied territory to the United States;” it meant to me that in order for the US to have legal jurisdiction/sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands, they need to sign a Peace Treaty with the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Thank you Charlie for further explaining the situation and clearing up my question.
I have a few questions. Do federal judges and clerks have to be U.S. citizens to qualify for such a position? If so, does the judge presiding over this case have American citizenship under the laws of occupation, and if not, could they legally transform the court into an occupation court?
The answer to your first question is yes. The second question has two parts. Without more information it’s hard to answer the first part. The second part of the question gets misunderstood a lot. As a consequence of U.S. occupation all courts in Hawaii can only be de-facto article 2 courts. The only transformation needed is within the Judge. Follow the rule of law and be Honorable with proper jurisdiction or Dishonorable using political power to act like an article 3 court without jurisdiction, a war criminal. MHO
UN Media live schedule 10 pm 49th regular session human rights council