BREAKING NEWS: Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government according to International Law made Public

Despite the prolonged nature of the occupation and 130 years of non-compliance to the law of occupation, there are two fundamental rules that prevail: (1) to protect the sovereign rights of the legitimate government of the Occupied State; and (2) to protect the inhabitants of the Occupied State from being exploited. From these two rules, the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention circumscribe the conduct and actions of a military government, notwithstanding the failure  by the occupant to protect the rights of the occupied government and the inhabitants since 1893. These rights remain vested despite over a century of violating these rights. The failure to establish a military government facilitated the violations.

The law of occupation does not give the occupant unlimited power over the inhabitants of the Occupied State. As President McKinley interpreted this customary law of occupation under General Orders No. 101 (July 18, 1898), that predates the 1899 and 1907 Hague Regulations during the Spanish-American War, the inhabitants of occupied territory “are entitled to security in their persons and property and in all their private rights and relations,” and it is the duty of the commander of the occupant “to protect them in their homes, in their employments, and in their personal and religious beliefs.” The Order also stated that “the municipal laws of the conquered territory, such as affect private rights of person and property and provide for the punishment of crime, are considered as continuing in force” and are “to be administered by the ordinary tribunals, substantially as they were before the occupation.”

United States practice under the law of occupation acknowledges that sovereignty remains in the Occupied State, because according to the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, “military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty” through effective control of the territory of the Occupied State.

The prolonged occupation did not diminish Hawaiian State sovereignty and the continued existence of the Hawaiian State was acknowledged by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 1999 in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. On March 22, 2023, the United Nations Human Council, at its 49th session in Geneva, was made aware of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an Occupied State and the commission of war crimes and human rights violations within its territory by the United States and the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties.

International humanitarian law is silent on a “prolonged occupation” because the authors of 1907 Hague Regulations viewed occupations to be provisional and not long term. According to Professor Scobbie, “The fundamental postulate of the regime of belligerent occupation is that it is a temporary state of affairs during which the occupant is prohibited from annexing the occupied territory. The occupant is vested only with temporary powers of administration and does not possess sovereignty over the territory.”

The effective control by the United States since Queen Lili‘uokalani’s conditional surrender on January 17, 1893, did not transfer Hawaiian sovereignty. As Professor Benvenisti explains, “Effective control by foreign military force can never bring about by itself a valid transfer of sovereignty. Because occupation does not transfer sovereignty over the territory to the occupying power, international law must regulate the inter-relationships between the occupying force, the ousted government, and the local inhabitants for the duration of the occupation. From the principle of inalienable sovereignty over a territory springs the basic structural constraints that international law imposes upon the occupant.”

Despite the prolonged nature of the American occupation, the law of occupation continues to apply because sovereignty was never ceded or transferred to the United States by the Hawaiian Kingdom. At a meeting of experts on the law occupation, that was convened by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the experts “pointed out that the norms of occupation law, in particular Article 43 of the Hague Regulations and Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, had originally been designed to regulate short-term occupations. However, the [experts] agreed that [international humanitarian law] did not set any limits to the time span of an occupation. It was therefore recognized that nothing under [international humanitarian law] would prevent occupying powers from embarking on a long-term occupation and that occupation law would continue to provide the legal framework applicable in such circumstances.” They also concluded that since a prolonged occupation “could lead to transformations and changes in the occupied territory that would normally not be necessary during short-term occupation,” they “emphasized the need to interpret occupation law flexibly when an occupation persisted.” The prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom is, in fact, that case, where drastic unlawful “transformations and changes in the occupied territory” occurred.

As the occupant in effective control of 10,931 square miles of Hawaiian territory, the State of Hawai‘i, being the civilian government of the Hawaiian Kingdom that was unlawfully seized in 1893, is obligated to transform itself into a military government in order “to protect the sovereign rights of the legitimate government of the Occupied State, and…to protect the inhabitants of the Occupied State from being exploited.” The military government has centralized control, headed military governor, and by virtue of this position, according U.S. Army Field Manual 27-5, the military governor has “supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authority, limited only the laws and customs of war and by directives from higher authority.”

The reasoning for the centralized control of authority is so that the military government can effectively respond to situations that are fluid in nature. Under the law of occupation, this authority by the occupant is to be shared with the Council of Regency, being the government of the Occupied State. As the last word concerning any acts relating to the administration of the occupied territory is with the occupying power, “occupation law would allow for a vertical, but not a horizontal, sharing of authority [in the sense that] this power sharing should not affect the ultimate authority of the occupier over the occupied territory.”

By virtue of this shared authority, the Council of Regency, in its meeting on August 14, 2023, approved an “Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government.” International humanitarian law distinguishes between the “Occupying State” and the “occupant.” The law of occupation falls upon the latter and not the former, because the former’s seat of government exists outside of Hawaiian territory, while the latter’s military government exists within Hawaiian territory.

This operational plan lays out the process of transition from the State of Hawai‘i government to a Military Government in accordance with international humanitarian law, the law of occupation, and U.S. Army regulations in Field Manuals 27-5 and 27-10. The 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention shows there are four essential tasks of the Military Government. This operational plan addresses these essential tasks with their implied tasks for successful execution despite the prolonged nature of the occupation where the basic rules of occupation have been violated for over a century. The operational plan lays out governing rules of maintaining a Military Government until a peace treaty has been negotiated and agreed upon between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States of America.

The insurgents, who were not held to account for their treasonous actions in 1893, were allowed by the United States to control and exploit the resources of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its inhabitants after the Hawaiian government was unlawfully overthrown by United States troops. Some of these insurgents came to be known as the Big Five, a collection of five self-serving large businesses, that wielded considerable political and economic power after 1893. The Big Five were Castle & Cooke, Alexander & Baldwin, C. Brewer & Company, American Factors (now Amfac), and Theo H. Davies & Company. One of the Big Five, Amfac, acquired an interest in Pioneer Mill Company in 1918, and in 1960 became a wholly owned subsidiary of Amfac.

Pioneer Mill Company operated in West Maui with its headquarters in Lahaina. In 1885, Pioneer Mill Company was cultivating 600 of the 900 acres owned by the company and by 1910, 8,000 acres were devoted to growing sugar cane. In 1931, the Olowalu Company was purchased by Pioneer Mill Company, adding 1,200 acres of sugar cane land to the plantation. By 1935, over 10,000 acres, half-owned and half leased, were producing sugar cane for Pioneer Mill. To maintain its plantations, water was diverted, and certain lands of west Maui became dry.

The Lahaina wildfire’s tragic outcome also draws attention to the exploitation of the resources of west Maui and its inhabitants—water and land. West Maui Land Company, Inc., became the successor to Pioneer Mill and its subsidiary the Launiupoko Irrigation Company. When the sugar plantation closed in 1999, it was replaced with real estate development and water management. Instead of diverting water to the sugar plantation, it began to divert water to big corporations, hotels, golf courses, and luxury subdivisions. As reported by Hawai‘i Public Radio, “Lahaina was formerly the ‘Venice of the Pacific,’ an area famed for its lush environment, natural and cultural resources, and its abundant water resources in particular.” Lahaina became a deadly victim of water diversion and exploitation. It should be noted that Lahaina is but a microcosm of the exploitation of the resources of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its inhabitants throughout the Hawaiian Islands for the past century to benefit the American economy in violation of the law of occupation.

Considering the devastation and tragedy of the Lahaina wildfire, transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a military government is only amplified and made much more urgent. It has been reported that the west Maui community, to their detriment, are frustrated with the lack of centralized control by departments and agencies of the federal government, the State of Hawai‘i, and the County of Maui. The law of occupation will not change the support of these departments and agencies, but rather only change the dynamics of leadership under the centralized control by the military governor. The operational plan provides a comprehensive process of transition with essential tasks and implied tasks to be carried out. The establishment of a military government would also put an end to land developers approaching victims of the fire who lost their homes to purchase their property. While land titles were incapable of being conveyed after January 17, 1893, for want of a lawful government and its notaries public, titles are capable of being remedied under Hawaiian Kingdom law and economic relief by title insurance policies. It is unfortunate that the tragedy of Lahaina has become an urgency for the State of Hawai‘i to begin to comply with the law of occupation and establish a military government. To not do so is a war crime of omission.

56 thoughts on “BREAKING NEWS: Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government according to International Law made Public

      • Dear Brothers + Sisters:
        Pearl Harbor… We knew it was an enemy! This is so much WORSE as was & continues to be done by many insiders: Husband of the 1st Lady of Hawai’i. She knows he’s stabbing her & her people in the back? Reminds us of enemies of our Queen Lili’uokalani. We’re Prayerfully together in this with you all standing with ❤️

  1. Serious question: Does this not assume that a US military government can be trusted to be honorable? Do you have evidence that would support this assumption in the face of so much evidence to the contrary?

    • I would love for this public international trusteeship (Statehood via UN Charter) to end but I don’t think the successors of usurpers will transform to a military government just cause Lahaina was destroyed. However I do understand it is a cause for concern that residents are not receiving adequate public health and safety services but that is not the tipping point needed because all the problems are due to the local, state, and Federal governments, their regulatory agencies, and systems. Thus this public emergency cannot be a tipping point for transformative change in government and is only evidence of the successors of usurpers inability to keep the ship of state that they stole from Hawaiians from rocking. An operational plan is great and all but to compel the ship of the State to transform into a military government will take much more than just unmarketable land titles and public outrage in Lahaina.
      I think it will take the will of the Hawaiian people of all ethnicities to corner Hawaii Congress members regarding the seizure of Hawaiian territory and the Americanization of the Hawaiian population via the 1898 Newlands Resolution as well as the maladministration and fraud perpetuated in the Statehood vote as governed under the UN Charter. All of which should put the US in it’s corner and all of which would be done by the Hawaiian population. The power of the people is the source of government authority and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Unlike the Republic of Hawaii and Territory of Hawaii, arguably the State of Hawaii too.

      • Seems like the source of government authority for Fed and State, resides in the vision of the senior Democratic leader, and the voting party members have the power. The power of the people, in this case, are party members. One time I involved myself in the Democratic party to see how the concept of the Hawaiian Kingdom would take to party members. They heard and understood the logic, but it didn’t take, because the arena that they were in wouldn’t provide any personal gains for using the Hawaiian Kingdom card.
        So I was thinking for this coming up November 5th, 2024 elections, a total of 468 seats in the U.S. Congress (33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats) are up for election, and guarantee there would be at least one ambitious young “woke” candidate who may inquire about the legitimacy of the State of Hawaii committee members holding a voting seat in the Federal government. Just gotta provide a one page letter that talks about land title claims and the Larsen v Hawaiian kingdom case, and throw the palu in the water for see which fish going bite.

        • Always worth a shot. I was thinking as well that they just started this whole program for special advisors for US territories and since Hawaii was once considered a non self governing US territory we could move for one of our own, statehood vote notwithstanding.

    • Yes, I think we all share your concern that the military of the occupier cannot be trusted anymore than the government (or proxy thereof), however I believe the crux of transferring to a military government is 1) to adhere to international humanitarian law. And 2) It would be an undeniable global admittance of occupation, rather than continuing the lie that there was a legal annexation through fraudulent means. So in other words, no one is currently viewing our situation through a lens of truth, they’re viewing it with the false belief that we are part of America, and therefore they are not holding America accountable for things that America should be held accountable for as occupiers. With a transition into a military government, the US would no longer be able to hide behind their veil of lies.

      • I think “…no one is currently viewing our situation through a lens of truth, they’re viewing it with the false belief that we are part of America..” is contradicted by this analysis:

        Dumberry, P. (2002) The Hawaiian Kingdom Arbitration Case and the Unsettled Question of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Claim to Continuity as an Independent State under International Law, Chinese Journal of International Law, Volume 1, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 655–684,

      • I actually don’t mind the Hawaii National Guard leading the deoccupation rather then active duty Army. But I don’t think much people realize that that is the force leading our way to independence because most only think of the US as the occupant. However when you say…”they are not holding America accountable…who exactly do you mean? Because it is my opinion that “they”, whoever they are, have little to do with our response and actions in this situation. It is WE that need to stop acting like we are (N)native Hawaiian US citizen, and that this is the US.
        WE, as Hawaiians, are not holding Congress accountable. WE, as Hawaiians, are accepting and perpetuating the fraud and remedy Congress prescribed. WE, as Hawaiians, have been going along to get along knowing we have God’s Armour at hand. WE, as Hawaiians, have accepted the situation for too long. WE, as Hawaiians, are pledging our children to the Federal government for a Social Security number to operate in this foreign matrix. So therefore, WE, as Hawaiians, must save ourselves and grow a backbone as a people to take these Hawaii Congress member to task and make them deliver us our independence upon renunciation! It is our kuleana, individually and collectively. Our agency, our time…ka’anani’au!

      • @La’ahiwa,

        Regarding the abstract article you said contradicts what I wrote…
        I don’t think it contradicts what I wrote at all, in fact I would argue that it reenforces what I wrote because the author in fact left out key pieces of information and most importantly, he completely failed to acknowledge that the mere fact that the PCA heard the case of Larsen vs Hawaiian Kingdom, is that they (after an investigation into it) confirmed The Hawaiian Kingdoms sovereignty remains intact. As per the PCA’s requirements to bring a case before them, it was required to verify that one of the parties was a state. Likewise the author mentions the plebiscite vote (statehood), and fails to acknowledge that only AMERICANS were allowed to vote or that the vote, the author only makes mention of a lack of options on the ballot & that the fact that Hawaiians were “outnumbered” (lol, yeah I’ll say! It’s hard not to be outnumbered on a vote that Hawaiians weren’t allowed to participate in). But I’m not trying to counter his abstract (theory) non-peer reviewed article, if I wanted to do that I could simply mention that he is not an expert in International Humanitarian Law, his expertise focuses around investment law. My point is, he too was not viewing our situation through a lens of truth, he was viewing it through a lens of lack of pertinent knowledge… aaaand perhaps ego with a bit of bias. After all, his conclusion essentially (and I’m paraphrasing greatly) is the same old “too bad, get over it, you’re American”, that we hear altogether too frequently.

        • Aloha P,
          Contradictory, meaning that there’s people out there that are viewing our situation with truth. To say that no one is seeing our situation with truth sounds like a defeatist mentality. At the end of Dumberry’s article, he praises the council of regency for getting the Hawaiian Kingdom situation on the international stage show. There is no condemnation of being poor Americans from Dumberry, at least I didn’t see it in his article..
          Dumberry also cites Craven (2002), saying that the issue of State continuity is concerned with the parameters of a state’s existence and demise (or extinction) in international law. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom may be refuted only by referencing a valid demonstration of legal title or sovereignty on the part of the United States. The survival of the Hawaiian Kingdom is, it seems, premised upon the legal ineffectiveness of present or past U.S. claims to sovereignty over the Islands. The Hawaiian Kingdom exists until proven otherwise. In other words, the PCA couldn’t make a ruling that Hawaii is not the 50th state, nor assume that it is not a State, due to the “monetary gold principle” that the U.S. didn’t show up to defend their claim or fight the accusation. Thus, the presumption of continuity came about.

          Craven, M. (2002). CONTINUITY OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM. Reader in International Law SOAS, University of London.

  2. THIS IS IT! The Pathway! / Mahalo Keanu & to all those behind the scenes for your tireless work! It’s hard to imagine the time you must sacrifice to do all this word-smithing! Your dedication is off the charts! / Another Implied task: On USA military bases while they last, flag precedence must switch – they’re in foreign territory. Hae Hawaiian Kingdom above, USA flag below. / Mike Adam’s “The Health Ranger Show” is primed for a Keanu interview (or Dexter, or other). A Joe Rogan Podcast exposure wouldn’t hurt either. / Max Congrats on the Op Plan! 🫡 🤙

  3. I spoke too soon about the Mike Adams Show; his knowledge about Hawai’i is quite skewed and he interjects some notions that are “a little bit speculative,” I’ll kindly say. My initial hopes for this show completely evaporated.

  4. Broken link at Pg 5, footnotes 4: a closing paren got latched on to the end of the url & broke it. I tried pasting it here but it made the reply fail. Here’s the end where the break is: “… Hawaiian_Royal_Commission_of_Inquiry_(2020).pdf) <—(Delete the paren & it’ll work.)

  5. Beautiful literary work and plan! The pressing question is, how do you get unmotivated personnel in these offices to initiate the actions in this plan?
    Political suicide and the potential loss of a job and loss of medical insurance and lifestyle, all seem to be waiting for those people that are in the position to get the ball rolling and in the position to keep the ball, rolling.

    • Tell me about it…it’s like the Battle of Nuuanu Pali all over again. Some will leap, others will climb down while most will fight.

    • The bottom line is… we cant. But the more traction we get & the more eyes on our situation & the more knowledge people have & the more pressure we put on people & the more these people realize there are legal consequences for their refusal to adhere to international humanitarian law… eventually someone will realize it’s not worth it to them personally to continue the lie. I’m no political scientists, but from my (albeit limited) understanding, refusal to adhere to International humanitarian law could result in someone eventually facing charges of committing a war crime, much like Nazi’s did. Someone will eventually realize that and adhere to the law, especially with the knowledge that there’s now (thanks to Dr. Sai & others) organizations outside of Hawai’i watching.

  6. I would love for this public international trusteeship (Statehood via UN Charter) to end but I don’t think the successors of usurpers will transform to a military government just cause Lahaina was destroyed. However I do understand it is a cause for concern that residents are not receiving adequate public health and safety services but that is not the tipping point needed because all the problems are due to the local, state, and Federal governments, their regulatory agencies, and systems. Thus this public emergency cannot be a tipping point for transformative change in government and is only evidence of the successors of usurpers inability to keep the ship of state that they stole from Hawaiians from rocking. An operational plan is great and all but to compel the ship of the State to transform into a military government will take much more than just unmarketable land titles and public outrage in Lahaina.
    I think it will take the will of the Hawaiian people of all ethnicities to corner Hawaii Congress members regarding the seizure of Hawaiian territory and the Americanization of the Hawaiian population via the 1898 Newlands Resolution as well as the maladministration and fraud perpetuated in the Statehood vote as governed under the UN Charter. All of which should put the US in it’s corner to stand up on the lies they told and all of which would be done by the Hawaiian population. The power of the people is the source of government authority and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Unlike the Republic of Hawaii and Territory of Hawaii, arguably the State of Hawaii too. The people of these islands have to stand for truth and justice cause it is only a matter of time before ‘aloha no’ becomes ‘no aloha!’

    • The will of the Hawaiian people? I like that idea but we’ve been aware for some time now so what happen? They are people talking about it but its ineffective as of now. Here’s an idea from Barack Obama.

      Time stamp: 1:19:23
      Q starts at: 1:17:27

      Not the right question concerning our situation with occupation but still in the same neighborhood and a good idea imo.

  7. It would be nice, and suitable for that matter, for the State to transform into a military government given the Lahaina disaster since the 1839 Hawaiian Declaration of Rights and 1840 Luaehu Constitution was written in Lahaina which is the foundation and security for Hawaiian Rights as opposed to the State of Hawaii constitution.

  8. For our country/ our nation, the Hawaiian Kingdom, our state of Hawaii, that stood Strong and Firm. Our Past has walked with us, til Today onward. Together with Justice and Truth, Revealed and Prevails.
    As Stated. by International Humanitarian Law, the Law of Occupation, and the U. S. Military Regulations in Field Manuals 27-5 and27-10, our ALOHA, our PU’UWAI goes out to Keanu, Kau’i, Dexter and the Council of Regency and ALL People, who took the time of learning Hawaii’s True History……”UA MAU KE E’A O KA `AINA I KA PONO”-The Life of this land is perpetuated in righteousness”. ALOHA `OE, Uncle Francis Palakiko Kupau, Aunty Cecelia Kekelia Kupau and the KUPAU OHANA, deep rooted, from Pukuilua-Kamani,Hana, since 1845-2023.

  9. [E kala mai if this ends up double post; it may have been too long and reached some space limit. So, I’m reposting it in 2 parts.]

    Part 1 – BIG, BIG Problem in the Transition Plan (I think):

    Synopsizing from Pg 12, re “Hawaiian Citizenry under Military Occupation”: Re 1890 Census: 84% aboriginal Hawaiians, 16% Others = national pop of THK. / Today, to keep the status quo ante balance, with aboriginal Hawaiians roughly comprising 333k pop vs a total HI pop of 1.3 mil (and Others tracing roots to pre-1893 at 61.5k), that would mean the Alien Pop of 917,639 (of those with no roots pre-1893) are living in HI today.

    Then, this data transitions to the next paragraph, citing the opinion & “remedy” of UN Special Rapporteur Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, who says, “transfers engage both state responsibility and the criminal liability of individuals.” Professor Ronen’s opinion next is cited: “The remedy, “The remedy…is reversion to the status quo ante, i.e. the occupying should remove its nationals from the occupied territory and repatriate them…”

    I’ve reread this at least three times to determine if I’m misconstruing something or not. But, it seems to state what it seems to state. Please let me know if I’m wrong:

    It seems to imply, that, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, whose ancestors immigrated to HI after 1893, who now comprise way more than the “balanced figure“ of 61.5k, would be considered “Aliens” who should be expatriate by the USA in order to “remedy” the out of balance status quo ante.

    Were Al-Khasawneh & Professor Ronen addressing Hawai’i’s “sui generis” (not like anything else, unique) situation of 130 yrs of the “strange form of occupation” that deceived not only Hawaiian nationals into believing they were Americans, but also deceived citizens of the USA too who believed HI was part of America and, who were not born in HI, but who have settled here (which incls pono settlers)and have planted roots – is there some equitable interest in HI for them, property-wise and melted-cultural-wise?

    I can imagine TAG, MG Hara reading this and taking righteous umbrage at such blanket remedy. His ancestry immigrated from Japan. Will he & family be expected to be “expatriated” by the USA de-occupying forces back to where he came from: the Mainland of Japan? Or P.I., China, Korea, etc?! Gov Green would not be very accepting of such “remedy” either. Reading these words as they seem to mean, would erect a concrete wall greater than China’s in the minds of those expected to be compelled by the otherwise moral & righteous of THK’s restoration. It would cement their rejection forever toward the “remedy” to restore THK.

    • If the remedy is to repatriate US citizens back to US territory, then Hawaiians should renounce their US citizenship before they end up on the continent. When you really think about it, we Hawaiian nationals acting as US citizens in order to be socially secured are the problem. Truth is, the ties that bind us with the successors of usurpers are our contracts and we should be signing everything under protest as our Queen taught us. We can promise to perform under reservation of rights and compel the successors of usurpers to produce our contracts upon controversy. We must stand our ground! And it starts when we learn how Congress used their power to regulate commerce with foreign nations like the Republic of Hawaii, and Indian tribes like the native Hawaiian population today. From there, all interstate and interstate commercial contracts are administered.

      • Human beings are built to be socially secured to help with their survival in the wild. On average, each person belongs to 5 to 10 different social groups, where each social group have their own identity that solely functions as a tool for a person to use and gain a sense of emotional fulfillment from each group. The psychology behind social role and group theory, is fascinating.
        Congress controls other countries by giving them U.S. dollars with the clause that Congress’s criteria be codified into a country’s domestic legal system, which then, the local law enforcement, enforces U.S. interests. Imperial control at its finest.
        Congress controls each state through medicaid and medicare funds with criteria, unique, to each state that each state is responsible for enforcing. Congress created both the “native Hawaiian” and “Native Hawaiian” terms, which they use to corral ethnic Hawaiians into thinking that they’re indigenous peoples.
        Once anyone starts talking about Native Hawaiian and or indigenous rights, the Hawaiian Kingdom suffers a little bit more from U.S. imperial control.

        • I meant socially secured as in Social Security. Congress is the source of authority which controls and regulates all US citizens. We can however be free without the chains of SS# but we instead settle for the commercial value of it. It is a tough decision but we either register our biological property and pledge ourselves and children over to the Federal government by delivering the birth certificate (bill of lading) to the state or suffer being able to work and earn a living. Secured then by our pledge, we are rendered bankrupt and insolvent then stripped of our rights and given a commercial value to enter the matrix. All we have to do is stop pledging our children over for SS# and renounce our US citizenship. Then we’ll see how they deal with us.

          • When the Hawaiian Kingdom government is put back into full control over the Hawaiian Kingdom, I am understanding that there will be a “cherry-picking” process, where the Hawaiian Kingdom government will pick what they want from the American occupation’s, work.
            So I wouldn’t be surprised if the concept of birth certificates, social security numbers, and drivers licenses are picked by the Hawaiian Kingdom government to stay. Hopefully in the exchange of power, the Hawaiian Kingdom government will also acquire land title, to Midway Island.

        • If you have a social security number then you have that contract with a Federal agency. If you have a driver’s license then you have that contract with a state agency, and so forth and so on. Each contract specifies the authority, terms and conditions, and most sign these contracts never reading the terms and conditions but suffer them when held to account. For instance, when applying for your driver’s license one of the conditions is that you agree to any breathalyzer test you may be subject to basically implying that you consent to waiving your constitutional guarantee to self incrimination. However if one decides not to take the breathalyzer, not to incriminate one self, after being issued a license and being lawfully stopped for some reason, and stand on their right, then the privilege to drive can be revoked administratively. Thus the piko or source of our problems are our contracts with the foreign agents and agencies doing business as the State of Hawaii.

          • Driving is a privilege, not a right. A privilege is granted under certain conditions and can be revoked or suspended if those conditions are not met. Citizenship is not a right but a privilege as well. Citizenship is given and what is given can be taken away too. Most of these ‘contracts’ comes with an expiration date so if any hawaiians who are under contract with American agencies can simply do nothing and the contracts will expire or be terminated all on their own. SS is not a contract.

        • Kaulana, no one said driving is a right so I’m not sure what your point is here because in fact, I stated “the privilege to drive can be revoked administratively.” My point was to highlight how we Hawaiians are subject to our own contracts/agreements/applications/waivers/etc as US citizens. Aside from getting hung up on terms such as contract, suffice it to say that these “applications” with the successor of usurpers and their associates subject Hawaiians to there Federal pledge under social security as a US citizen. What you are not getting is that Hawaiians are applying for Federal and State citizen privileges and benefits under their transmitting utility of Social Security, thus as US citizens. Social security is a contract and no one has the right to contract under 18 yet all children somehow end up subject to the number and jurisdiction eventually signing when of age in order to work and earn a living as US citizens in their own homelands. You may think that SS is not a contract but that’s just your opinion because it functions just as one.

          • Lopaka, we can’t help ourselves we were American the day we were born. So being American on paper and being a US citizen on paper will follow us around everywhere we go. We apply for SS, DL, school, dental, bank account etc. What do you recommend we do? Not work? Maybe soon we can sort it all out, we need to get our country back and restore our government. Then we can fix these problems.

            Did you speak to Keanu Sai about this matter? Are you aware that you don’t have to be a US citizen to have a SSN? I mean if a chinese can get a SSN why not us Hawaiians? Americans work in our country and In HK era prior to the overthrow. Countries sign treaties, they borrow money from foreign banks, they do business with merchants etc. Citizens and non-citizens have these privileges too does it make them US citizens?

            You can call it a contract if you want as far as I’m concern that’s your opinion. I never applied for SSN did not sign the dotted line. What’s the difference between an application and a contract? Do we just call everything a contract now? And everyone of these contracts would be accepted as a contract in the court of law? I understand it works in the spirit of a contract but it doesn’t mean it is one it could just be an application. If I’m wrong then I stand corrected.

            Lastly do you currently have a drivers license and ID card? Did you renounce your US citizenship? And if you don’t mind me asking how old are you?

    • If not voluntary repatriation (which i think many will do) then deportation right? Isn’t that lawful? I brought up this issue before and the blog published articles about ‘protected persons etc.’ It seems the HK is not all that interested in deporting Americans something about ‘were all part haoles now’ and ‘we have family members who are americans etc.’ But I say what does the law say? The Hawaiian Law and not humanitarian laws. And I’m not trying to be disrepectful but Keanu Sai makes the impression upon me that he is by the book kind of guy, but I think I’m wrong.

      • Hawaiian law is silent on laws of occupation however you may be able to trace a custom or tradition of war within Hawaiian history from which you could manufacture a remedy. Truth is, international humanitarian law as it was developed over the past century since the American Civil War has been based on Euro-American customs and traditions of war and the Hawaiian Kingdom is not a party to these conventions so our interests as neutral Hawaiians are not protected.

  10. And…

    Part 2 – BIG, BIG Problem in the Transition Plan (I think):

    And what about pono settlers or originated from the USA? Should the same blanket “remedy” be applied to them? (Like I consider myself & wife (immigrant from PI & Army vet, too, like me) to be?)

    To proffer this as a plan of transition implies this “remedy” would be expected to precede a full de-occupation wherein, afterwards, a re-established Constitutional Monarchy’s Legislature would then come into being.

    A legislature can work out the subject of who can be Subjects, who & how applicants can be Naturalized. Who can vote or not vote. Whether there can be dual citizenship or not. Etc. Otherwise, Art II courts will be choked for years with requests for redress pleading against the unfairness of such “remedy.” This will only hinder and lengthen the process of De-Occupation – IF there’s even a sympathetic will to do so; such “remedy” may will likely quash the will – it’s blatantly unfair on its face.

    Isn’t this “remedy” issue the proper purview of a re-established Legislature and not a legitimate function of an Acting Regency on its own accord & role as an interim step back to restoration?

    This seems to be big howitzer round in the foot, if I’m reading & understanding it correctly. The Op Plan won’t inspire, it’ll smother.

    Please tell me I misunderstand.

    If I understand correctly, please reconsider whether or not this is a legitimate decision to be made by an Acting Regency in lieu of a Constitutionally seated Legislature of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

    This seems to be a poison, black pill.

    • I think you understand it correctly and many others like you also disagree with the remedy as well as prescription proffered by the Royal Commission. Issues are the same…the administrator of this conventional regulatory framework and the systemic implications in and of itself. However, and more importantly, it is clear that the political will necessary to move this government to transform is not only officially absent for the privileges and benefits of the current US political trusteeship but civically inherent and inactive in Hawaii people. We’ve finally uncovered the truth and we cannot muster the movement against Hawaii Congress members to stand up on the lies the US told and demand restitution and reparations. Rather we act as US citizens subject to Federal government and the successors of usurpers. And most don’t even know it. Thus, the problem regarding people who may decide otherwise based on the prescribed remedy.
      Truth is, the whole world was duped by the fraud perpetuated by the US not just settlers who may have to repatriate and that’s why the remedy is as so because the will of the people in this particular situation is clouded, like State of Hawaii land titles. What the US citizen must learn is that just as US national interests must align with national principles, so must a citizens. And just as the citizen benefitted from the fraud so shall it suffer. A citizen cannot covet fraud once uncovered and the US was aware of this so most with title insurance won’t have to worry. So if title insurance claims based on defective deeds start piling up, then perhaps the peoples recognition of being sold stolen private property by the US, who mind you had the gaw to have you pay to insure it for those undisclosed purposes, may surely lead to the restoration of the sovereign government of these Hawaiian Islands.

    • Since the times of Kamehameha III, since the mid1840-ies, there is a prescribed way, codified law, providing a way for naturalization of foreigners.

      • Naturalization and natural born citizenship should be abolish in the HK. There shouldn’t be automatic citizenship it should be limited, controlled and granted through a process. Also denizens and foreigners shouldn’t be allowed to serve in government. It shouldn’t be a thing anymore in the 21st century.

    • As someone who is just beginning to understand all of this I have two questions~ Am I to understand then that basically the Hawai’ian kingdom is now going to be transitioning into a military kingdom (who is the military that will be running such) and that those of us who live here who are not of Hawai’ian decent would have to then leave and come back to live through acquiring citizenship? And if this is the case, when would this go into affect or is it now in affect? Trying to seek clarity so I understand what is written in this blog. Mahalo

  11. A p.s.: Yesterday (before having read the “BIG problem” section cited above), I went to Office Depot (Max?) and had 3 copies ea of this Blog post & 4 copies ea of the Op Plan made (280 sheets, 292 total) for ab $45. One of the plans I had for one set, was to present it Mayor Roth himself at tomorrow’s town hall meeting in Volcano. Roth & his aids plan 1 1/2 hr open floor for residents to speak; I had planned to introduce the Op Plan then. I can’t do that now, without clarification that the “remedy” as written, is what is ACTUALLY meant. / This referenced section may be a bigger problem than realized. AGAIN, Council of Regency, PLEASE clarify your position! Mahalo.

    • Not speaking for the council of regency, but just a heads up when promoting Hawaiian Kingdom awareness to public forums not initiated by Hawaiian Kingdom advocates. You may get the “So what” response. Meaning that they’ll be that one person or many people in the crowd that will be like, why should I care?
      You may have to be ready for something like that if it comes your way at the forum. Good luck,and thanks for promoting Hawaiian Kingdom awareness.

      • Mahalo, La’ahiwa! Knowing when NOT to say something has been a key lesson for my USA-raised background. If I go & if I speak it’ll only be very brief and will mainly just reference the paper I’ll hand Mayor Roth, my misgivings about the “BIG problem” notwithstanding – it won’t make it break De-Occupation. Roth is a lawyer and a Mensch; two factors that can break through to the right side.

        • Hey William,
          Given the State lease on Pohakuloa expires 2029 and that the lease entailed the acquisition of private properties and use rights without the consent of the landowners or their heirs…would you bring this to the attention of your community so that community interests in these so called “Public lands” do not overrule or overrun the private interests of the heirs? Please consider doing so. It is always a problem when the private interests of heirs or lineal descendants are ignored for the interest of the public in general.

        • William,
          Maybe include this attached court case to give to the audience and Mitch Roth, too. It challenges U.S. jurisdiction in the Hawaiian Islands, which the court says something that sounds like, “Well, Congress said it is.”
          And it goes back to questioning Congress’s ability to annex a foreign country, which they cannot, which puts the Hawaiian Kingdom in the spot light.
          Mitch Roth could use this to challenge Kimo Alameda’s campaign, saying, how can perpetuating American governance in the Hawaiian Kingdom be legal?
          Should be entertaining to watch if it gains momentum. Thanks.


  12. Why is this not made public by mainstream media? The vast majority of people need to know, so that those committing crimes know that it is unlawful under HK Law to continue to do so, i.e., land-grabbing.

  13. Went to Mayor Roth’s town hall meeting in Volcano on Thur (24 Aug) with a hard copy of this blog article & 70-pg copy of the Op Plan (along w/ a cover letter) with the intention to make only a brief reference to the packet by identifying it as an issue of “Public Safety,” that I would rather not open a discussion on it (bc it was complex & not suited for the setting), and request that he receive it from me – a 30-second exchange, I figured it would have been. But THAT did not happen and it’s for the better good that it didn’t [although I Priority mailed it to Mayor Roth the next day]. / The meeting was a mess! It was an overflow crowd with many (1/2?) from other communities, from Hilo to Pahala. Chaotic and contentious and conspiracy-theory ladened. I arrived early but the entire parking lot was already full; I had to stand in the outer lanai. So, I left within the first 15-mins of its start. [Here a link to the meeting, if you’re interested: (Btw, at 1:13:44, Gene Tamashiro spoke.)] The atmosphere & venue was not at all conducive to presenting the packet. The Priority mailing actually provided an enhanced impact on presentation, as I was able to add a brief personalized note to accompany it and making a connecting reference to a mutual friend/acquaintance, etc. So, all’s well that ends well. (Town halls just don’t seem to be a suitable venue to make our case(s) – the natives are restless….and they weren’t the Kānaka kind!)

  14. To: Lopaka & La’ahiwa,
    I hadn’t seen your reply until only yesterday, after the town hall meeting two days earlier. But, my post just above explains just how any presentation would have been ineffective and just totally not conducive. There’s so many agendas going on at the same time & presenting any bonafide issues, like ours here, can be counterproductive. So, I’m glad it turned out the way it did by resorting to Plan B: Priority mail-in with a brief, handwritten intro note indicating it being a “Personal Note to Mayor Roth” (which obligates staff to ensure he is at least handed the note & packet). Though it’ll be up to him to actually read it or not, at least he’ll have the opportunity to do so in the quite of his office without the bombastic environment, with barbs and jeers, that he was subjected to at the town hall in Volcano. The issues you mentioned might be be addressed in the same way: Priority mail, a cover letter, and – brief – handwritten note to invite his attention. Of course his jurisdiction only goes so far, but it at least helps in spreading the EAducation.

  15. Tulsi & BJ Penn on Rogan’s podcast talking about Maui, etc. Am only 1/3 into it so far, but they’re touching on some HI history, but not the essentials yet. I’ll return & post if they go more into substantive history re overthrow, etc. / But, it just reminds me again of just how primed Rogan is to receive an essentials brief by Keanu or other in Austin. Rogan has been here several to a dozen+ times, has hunted Moloka’i, & has expressed his love for & interest in HI, its history, and its native issues (Mauna Kea), but no one has given any sort of accurate account nor gotten into any depth. / Here’s the link:

  16. [Disappointing]:

    On Joe Rogan Podcast #2032 Starting at 1:33:47…

    Rogan: “Has there been talk about Hawai’i seceding from the United States?”
    [Both responses muted, un-enthused, almost dismissive]:
    BJP: “That’s always been talked about, always…”
    Tulsi: “I mean there’s always been a sovereignty movement in Hawai’i, who point to the overthrow of the Queen…
    BJP: “That they don’t have a treaty, whatever, and these things…, but”
    Tulsi: “…and their effort to return Hawai’i back to a sovereign kingdom.”
    Rogan: “It’s kind of crazy, that, it’s America and it’s five hours over the ocean in a plane! That’s so crazy!”

    [Rogan has expressed in the past that he thinks Hawai’i should be its own country based partially on how disconnected it is geographically from the USA & its overall different kind of society. / But, once again, Joe asks, and gets an uninformed response on the n My steer of Hawai’i being its own country!]

    Disappointingly, Tulsi showed no interest in the subject, revealed her lack of knowledge, and seemed dismissive of the notion as not realistic or worth further consideration. BJ Penn showed a lack of knowledge & concern, too. (It may be due to all his MMA bouts, but he was often incoherent, or out of sync, throughout the whole interview.)

    THIS revealed to me in a very big way, that Tulsi would NOT be an immediate candidate if De-Occupation; she might even be an adversary against it. My hopes for her as a current battalion commander of an Army Civil Affairs (THE exact operational arm of De-Occupation) Army Reserve unit in Colorado (her monthly assigned locale) were completely dashed by her lackluster, dismissive response! My read on her response is that she has a negative view of the “sovereignty movement,” phrased as if she thinks it’s the same old movement of 30 years ago – she’s obviously uninformed!

Leave a Reply