Setting the Record Straight on Descendants of Kamehameha I and Heirs to the Hawaiian Crown

There is a common misunderstanding that if you are a direct descendent of Kamehameha I today you are an heir to the throne as well as an heir to the Crown Lands. This is incorrect.

It is true that Kamehameha I had many wives. According to the second revised edition of the book Kamehameha’s Children Today by Charles Ahlo, Rubellite Kawena Kinney Johson, and Jerry Walker, Kamehameha I had 30 wives, 18 of whom had 35 children. The other 12 did not have any children. Of the 18 was Keōpūolani who gave birth to Liholiho, who later succeeded to the throne as Kamehameha II in 1819, Kauikeaouli, who succeeded to the throne as Kamehameha III in 1824, and a daughter, Nahiʻenaʻena who died in 1836 while her brother Kamehameha III was King. Of all the wives, she had the highest chiefly rank and she was acknowledged as such by Kamehameha’s Chiefs.

The Kamehameha extended family was not the leadership of the kingdom. Rather, the leadership of the Island of Kingdom of Hawai‘i was comprised of Kamehameha as its Ali‘i Nui (King) and his most trusted Chiefs, which included Kalaʻimamahu, Chief of Hāmākua, Ke‘eaumoku, Chief of Kona, Ka‘iana, Chief of Puna, and Kame‘eiamoku, Chief of Kohala. After defeating the Maui Kingdom of Kalanikupule in 1795 and acquiring the Kaua‘i Kingdom from Kaumuali‘i in 1810, the leadership of Chiefs increased due to the acquisition of additional islands of his expanded domain. These Chiefs extended from Kamehameha’s Chiefs, while the Kamehameha Dynasty extended from the children of Keōpūolani and not from the other 17 wives who had children. The decision of which wife’s children were to be the heirs to the throne was not the decision for Kamehameha I to make on his own. It had to be sanctioned by his Council of Chiefs. Without the support of his Chiefs, Kamehameha’s kingdom would be fractured after his death.

As Kuykendal wrote, “The desertion of Kaʻiana [in 1795], the revolt of Nāmākēhā [in 1796], and Kaumuialiʻi’s dalliance with the Russians [in 1817] were overt acts showing clearly how unwillingly some of the chiefs submitted to his authority.” The Russian explorer, Lieutenant Otto von Kotzebue, who arrived in the islands in 1816 and 1817, was made aware of Kamehameha’s concerns of the longevity of his kingdom. In his 1821 book, Voyage of Discovery, Kotzebue states of a proposed division of the kingdom with Kalanimoku having O‘ahu, Ke‘eaumoku having Maui, Kaumuali‘i retaining Kaua‘i, and Liholiho, Kamehameha’s heir, having Hawai‘i island. Kamehameha took the necessary steps to prevent such breakup from happening. According to Kamakau, Kamehameha sought to strengthen the British alliance because he believed the British supported his dynasty. He was correct.

On May 18, 1824, Kamehameha II arrived in London with the Hawaiian royal retinue that included Mataio Kekūanāo‘a husband to Kamehameha II’s sister, Kīnaʻu. Before the King could meet with King George IV he and his wife Queen Kalama died of measles. High Chief Boki was the highest ranking Chief and he and the royal retinue met with King George IV. According Kekuanao‘a:

The King then asked Boki what was the business on which you and your King came to this country?

Then Boki declared to him the reason of our sailing to Great Britain We have come to confirm the words which Kamehameha I gave in charge to Vancouver thus—“Go back and tell King George to watch over me and my whole Kingdom. I acknowledge him as my landlord and myself as tenant (or him as superior and I inferior). Should the foreigners of any other nation come to take possesion of my lands, then let him help me.”

And when King George had heard he thus said to Boki, “I have heard these words, I will attend to the evils from without. The evils within your Kingdom it is not for me to regard; they are with yourselves. Return and say to the King, to Kaahumanu and to Kalaimoku, I will watch over your country, I will not take possession of it for mine, but I will watch over it, lest evils should come from others to the Kingdom. I therefore will watch over him agreeably to those ancient words.”

Kamehameha II’s body arrived in Lahaina on May 4, 1825. After the funeral and time of mourning had passed, the Council of Chiefs met on June 6, 1824, in Honolulu with Lord Byron and the British Consul. It was confirmed that Liholiho’s brother, Kauikeaouli, was to be Kamehameha III, but since he was only eleven years old, Ka‘ahumanu would continue to serve as Regent and Kalanimōkū as Premier. Kalanimōkū addressed the Council “setting forth the defects of many of their laws and customs, particularly the reversion of lands” to a new King for redistribution and assignment. The chiefs collectively agreed to forgo this ancient custom, and the lands were maintained in the hands of the original tenants in chief and their successors, subject to reversion only in times of treason. Lord Byron was invited to address the Council, and without violating his specific orders of non-intervention in the political affairs of the kingdom, he prepared eight recommendations on paper and presented it to the chiefs for their consideration.

1. That the king be head of the people.

2. That all the chiefs swear allegiance.

3. That the lands descend in hereditary succession.

4. That taxes be established to support the king.

5. That no man’s life be taken except by consent of the king or regent and twelve chiefs.

6. That the king or regent grant pardons at all times.

7. That all the people be free and not bound to one chief.

8. That a port duty be laid on all foreign vessels.

Lord Byron introduced the fundamental principles of British governance to the chiefs and set them on a course of national consolidation and uniformity. His suggestions referred “to the form of government, and the respective and relative rights of the king, chiefs, and people, and to the tenure of lands,” but not to a uniform code of laws. Since the death of Kamehameha in 1819, the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a feudal autocracy, had no uniform system of laws systematically applied throughout the islands. Rather it fell on each of the tenants in chief and their designated vassals to be both lawmaker and arbiter over their own particular tenants living on the granted lands from the King.

When the Hawaiian Kingdom was transformed into a constitutional monarchy, written laws became the legal foundation for the kingdom. Confirming that only the children of Keōpūolani were the heirs to the Throne, the 1840 Constitution stated:

The origin of the present government, and system of polity, is as follows: KAMEHAMEHA I, was the founder of the kingdom, and to him belonged all the land from one end of the Islands to the other, though it was not his own private property. It belonged to the chiefs and people in common, of whom Kamehameha I was the head, and had the management of the landed property. Wherefore, there was not formerly, and is not now any person who could or can convey away the smallest portion of land without consent of the one who had, or has the direction of the kingdom.

These are the persons who have had the direction of it from that time down, Kamehameha II, Kaahumanu I, and at the present time Kamehameha III. These persons have had the direction of the kingdom down to the present time, and all documents written by them, and no others are the documents of the kingdom.

The kingdom is permanently confirmed to Kamehameha III, and his heirs, and his heir shall be the person whom he and the chiefs shall appoint, during his life time, but should there be no appointment, then the decision shall rest with the chiefs and house of Representatives.

In the 1852 Constitution, Article 25 states:

The crown is hereby permanently confirmed to His Majesty Kamehameha III during his life, and to his successor. The successor shall be the person whom the King and the House of Nobles shall appoint and publicly proclaim as such, during the King’s life; but should there be no such appointment and proclamation, then the successor shall be chosen by the House of Nobles and the House of Representatives in joint ballot.

In the 1864 Constitution, Article 22 states:

The Crown is hereby permanently confirmed to His Majesty Kamehameha V, and to the Heirs of His body lawfully begotten, and to their lawful Descendants in a direct line; failing whom, the Crown shall descend to Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria Kamamalu Kaahumanu, and their heirs of her body, lawfully begotten, and their lawful descendants in a direct line. The Succession shall be to the senior male child, and to the heirs of his body; failing a male child, the succession shall be to the senior female child, and the heirs of her body. In case there is no heir as above provided, then the successor shall be the person whom the Sovereign shall appoint with the consent of the Nobles, and publicly proclaim as such during the King’s life; but should there be no appointment and proclamation, and the Throne should become vacant, then the Cabinet Council, immediately after the occurring of such vacancy, shall cause a meeting of the Legislative Assembly, who shall elect by ballot some native Aliʻi of the Kingdom as Successor to the Throne; and the Successor so elected shall become a new Stirps for a Royal Family; and the succession from the Sovereign thus elected, shall be regulated by the same law as the present Royal Family.

According to this constitutional provision, the Kamehameha Dynasty would continue if Kamehameha V had “Heirs of His body lawfully begotten.” The term “lawfully begotten” is a child born in wedlock. A child born out of wedlock was called a bastard child. Kamehameha was not married, and he had no children. In that case, his sister Princess Victoria Kamamalu Kaahumanu would be the successor to the Throne should Kamehameha V not “appoint [a successor to the throne] with the consent of the Nobles, and publicly proclaim as such during the King’s life.” She never married before her death on May 29, 1866, leaving the successor to the Throne to be decided by Kamehameha V. The are some who claim that the Princess had a child. Whether this is true or not, it does not matter because the Constitution states that a child shall be “lawfully begotten,” which can only happen if the child is born in wedlock. The Princess was never married.

When Kamehameha V died on December 11, 1872, he did not appoint a successor and receive confirmation by the Nobles. This was precisely why the Cabinet of Kamehameha V, serving as a Council of Regency, stated to the Legislative Assembly on January 8, 1873, when it was convened in extraordinary session to elect a successor to the throne:

His Majesty left no Heirs.

Her late Royal Highness the Princess Victoria Kamamalu Kaahumanu, to whom in the event of the death of His late Majesty without heirs, the Constitution declared that the Throne should descend, died, also without heirs, on the twenty-ninth day of May, in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty-six.

His late Majesty did not appoint any successor in the mode set forth in the Constitution, with the consent of the Nobles or make a Proclamation thereof during his life. There having been no such appointment or Proclamation, the Throne became vacant, and the Cabinet Council immediately thereupon considered the form of the Constitution in such case made and provided.

There is no doubt that there are descendants of Kamehameha I from his 17 wives, other than Keōpūolani. Ahlo, Johnson and Walkerʻs book Kamehameha’s Children Today reveals that. There is no dispute.

These descendants, however, which include Ahlo, Johnson and Walker, are not a part of the Kamehameha Dynasty that headed the government from 1791, after the death of High Chief Keōua, until the death of Kamehameha V in 1872. Those children and grandchildren that headed the Hawaiian government as an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy were Kamehameha II, Kamehameha III, Kamehameha IV and Kamehameha V. The Kamehameha Dynasty was succeeded by the Lunalilo Dynasty in 1873, and the Kalākaua Dynasty replaced the Lunalilo Dynasty in 1874. In 1922, the Kalākaua Dynasty ended with the passing of Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole.

The Lunalilo and Kalākaua Dynasties descended from Kamehameha Iʻs Chiefs, which are part of the nobility class of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The genealogies published throughout 1896 in the Maka‘anana newspapers reveal the families of the nobility class. To access these genealogies go to The Three Estates of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Presently the Hawaiian Crown is Not Inheritable but Rather Subject to an Election by the Legislative Assembly after the U.S. Occupation Comes to an End

During this time of the rising of the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom after over a century of the war crime of denationalization through Americanization, it is important for Hawaiian subjects to understand the laws of the country as they existed prior to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893. Especially the laws that apply to the Hawaiian Crown.

There is a common misunderstanding that the Hawaiian Crown is hereditary. This is not an accurate understanding of Hawaiian constitutional law. Hereditary descent is a part of Hawaiian law, but it works in tandem and within the limits of Hawaiian constitutional law.

Individuals claiming Hawaiian Titles of Nobility, which include Abigail Kawananakoa, Owana Salazar, Mahealani Ahsing, Windy Lorenzo, Ruth Bolomet, just to name a few, are not who they claim. There is a distinction between Titles of Nobility and noble lineage. The former derives from a sitting Monarch, while the latter is a status by virtue of chiefly genealogy called mo‘o ku‘auhau. This is not to say that these individuals are not of noble lineage. Rather the titles they claim are self-declared that have no basis under Hawaiian constitutional law.

Only a sitting Monarch can nominate an heir apparent to the Throne, which will then require confirmation by the Nobles in the Legislative Assembly. The history of Hawaiian Monarchs began with the Kamehameha Dynasty that ended in 1873, followed by the Lunalilo Dynasty that ended in 1874, and then finally the Kalākaua Dynasty that ended in 1922.

In the latter part of the eighteenth century, the northern archipelago of islands consisted of four distinct kingdoms: Hawai‘i Island under Kamehameha I; Maui Island with its dependent islands of Lāna‘i and Kaho‘olawe under Kahekili; Kaua‘i Islalnd and its dependent island of Ni‘ihau under Kā‘eo; and O‘ahu Island with its dependent island of Molokaʻi under Kahahana. Kamehameha, King of Hawai‘i Island, consolidated the four kingdoms establishing the Kingdom of the Sandwich Islands in 1810, which later became the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands. In 1829, the Kingdom of the Sandwich Islands came to be known as the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands. By 1840, the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands came to be known as the Hawaiian Kingdom, a constitutional monarchy.

The Kamehameha Dynasty

Kamehameha I governed his kingdom according to ancient tradition and strict religious protocol. In 1794, after voluntarily ceding the island Kingdom of Hawai‘i to Great Britain, Kamehameha and his chiefs considered themselves British subjects and recognized King George III as emperor. The cession to Great Britain did not radically change traditional governance, but principles of English governance and titles were instituted.

In 1795, Kamehameha conquered the Maui Kingdom, and in 1810 the Kaua‘i Kingdom became a vassal under Kamehameha through voluntary cession by its King, Kaumuali‘i. By 1840 all the Island Kingdoms were consolidated under the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to the 1840 Constitution:

The origin of the present government, and system of polity, is as follows: KAMEHAMEHA I, was the founder of the kingdom, and to him belonged all the land from one end of the Islands to the other, though it was not his own private property. It belonged to the chiefs and people in common, of whom Kamehameha I was the head, and had the management of the landed property. Wherefore, there was not formerly, and is not now any person who could or can convey away the smallest portion of land without consent of the one who had, or has the direction of the kingdom.

These are the persons who have had the direction of it from that time down, Kamehameha II, Kaahumanu I, and at the present time Kamehameha III. These persons have had the direction of the kingdom down to the present time, and all documents written by them, and no others are the documents of the kingdom.

The kingdom is permanently confirmed to Kamehameha III, and his heirs, and his heir shall be the person whom he and the chiefs shall appoint, during his life time, but should there be no appointment, then the decision shall rest with the chiefs and house of Representatives.

On June 14, 1852, a new Constitution was granted by Kamehameha III confirming the successorship of the Crown. Article 25 provides:

The crown is hereby permanently confirmed to His Majesty Kamehameha III during his life, and to his successor. The successor shall be the person whom the King and the House of Nobles shall appoint and publicly proclaim as such, during the King’s life; but should there be no such appointment and proclamation, then the successor shall be chosen by the House of Nobles and the House of Representatives in joint ballot.

Article 25 is tempered by Article 26 that states, “No person shall ever sit upon the throne who has been convicted of an infamous crime, or who is insane or an idiot. No person shall ever succeed to the crown, unless he be a descendant of the aboriginal stock of Aliʻis.” It would appear that Kamehameha III was aware of King George III’s insanity while the Hawaiian Kingdom was a British Protectorate and it no doubt informed Hawaiian governance.

Alexander Liholiho, the adopted son of the King, was confirmed by the House of Nobles as successor on April 6, 1853, in accordance with Article 25 of the 1852 Constitution. In 1854, after the death of the King, he succeeded to the throne as Kamehameha IV. Kamehameha IV was the biological son of Mataio Kekuūanaoʻa and Kīnaʻu, who was the half-sister to Kamehameha III. The confirmation process ensured that Alexander Liholiho was not “convicted of an infamous crime, or who is insane or an idiot.”

On November 30, 1863, Kamehameha IV died unexpectedly, and left the Kingdom without a successor. On the same day, the Kuhina Nui—Premier, Victoria Kamāmalu, in Privy Council, proclaimed Lot Kapuaiwa to be the successor to the throne in accordance with Article 25 of the Constitution of 1852, and the Nobles confirmed him. Lot Kapuaiwa was thereafter called Kamehameha V. Victoria Kamāmalu, as Kuhina Nui, provided continuity for the office of the Crown pending the appointment and confirmation of Lot Kapuaiwa.

Article 47, of the 1852 Constitution provided that “whenever the throne shall become vacant by reason of the King’s death the Kuhina Nui shall perform all the duties incumbent on the King, and shall have and exercise all the powers, which by this Constitution are vested in the King.” This provision prevented the House of Nobles and the House of Representives to choose a successor by joint ballot.

On August 20, 1864, Kamehameha V proclaimed the 1864 Constitution. The office of Kuhina Nui—Premier was removed and replaced by the Cabinet Council. Article 22 provided the successorship of the Hawaiian Crown:

The Crown is hereby permanently confirmed to His Majesty Kamehameha V, and to the Heirs of His body lawfully begotten, and to their lawful Descendants in a direct line; failing whom, the Crown shall descend to Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria Kamamalu Kaahumanu, and their heirs of her body, lawfully begotten, and their lawful descendants in a direct line. The Succession shall be to the senior male child, and to the heirs of his body; failing a male child, the succession shall be to the senior female child, and the heirs of her body. In case there is no heir as above provided, then the successor shall be the person whom the Sovereign shall appoint wiht the consent of the Nobles, and publicly proclaim as such during the King’s life; but should there be no appointment and proclamation, and the Throne should become vacant, then the Cabinet Council, immediately after the occurring of such vacancy, shall cause a meeting of the Legislative Assembly, who shall elect by ballot some native Aliʻi of the Kingdom as Successor to the Throne; and the Successor so elected shall become a new Stirps for a Royal Family; and the succession from the Sovereign thus elected, shall be regulated by the same law as the present Royal Family.

The constraints upon the Crown was reiterated in Article 25, which stated, “No person shall ever sit upon the Throne, who has been convicted of any infamous crime, or who is insane, or an idiot.”

On December 11, 1872, Kamehameha V died without naming a successor to the throne. This caused the Cabinet Council to serve temporarily as a Council of Regency that serves in the absence of a Monarch. According to Article 22 of the 1864 Constitution, “the Cabinet Council, immediately after the occurring of such vacancy, shall cause a meeting of the Legislative Assembly, who shall elect by ballot some native Aliʻi of the Kingdom as Successor to the Throne.” Article 33 also provides that “the Cabinet Council at the time of such decease shall be a Council of Regency, until the Legislative Assembly, which shall be called immediately, may be assembled.”

The Lunalilo Dynasty

On January 8, 1873, the Cabinet serving as a Council of Regency convened the Legislative Assembly into Extraordinary Session. In its address to the Legislature, the Cabinet stated:

Documents delivered to your President, contain official evidence of the decease of His late Majesty Kamehameha V. His earthly existence terminated at Iolani Palace, in Honolulu, in the Island of Oahu, upon the forty-second anniversary of his birth, being the eleventh day of December, in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy-two.

His Majesty left no Heirs.

Her late Royal Highness the Princess Victoria Kamamalu Kaahumanu, to whom in the event of the death of His late Majesty without heirs, the Constitution declared that the Throne should descend, died, also without heirs, on the twenty-ninth day of May, in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty-six.

His late Majesty did not appoint any successor in the mode set forth in the Constitution, with the consent of the Nobles or make a Proclamation thereof during his life. There having been no such appointment or Proclamation, the Throne became vacant, and the Cabinet Council immediately thereupon considered the form of the Constitution in such case made and provided, and

Ordered—That a meeting of the Legislative Assembly be caused to be holden at the Court House in Honolulu, on Wednesday which will be the eighth day of January, A.D. 1873, at 12 o’clock noon; and of this order all Members of the Legislative Assembly will take notice and govern themselves accordingly.

By virtue of this Order you have been assembled, to elect by ballot, some native Aliʻi of this Kingdom as Successor to the Throne. Your present authority is limited to this duty, but the newly elected Sovereign may require your services after his accession.

The Members of the Cabinet Council devoutly ask the blessings of Heaven upon your deliberations and public acts. They have appreciated the responsibility resting upon them, and have striven to maintain tranquility and order, and, especially, to guard your proceedings against improper interference.

Acknowledging the obligation to preserve all the rights, honors and dignities appertaining to the Throne, and to transmit them unimpaired to a new Sovereign, it will become their duty, upon his accession, to surrender to him the authority conferred upon them by his late lamented predecessor.

The Legislative Assembly, empowered to elect a new monarch under the 1864 Constitution, elected William Charles Lunalilo on January 8, 1873. Lunalilo was not a descendant of Kamehameha I but his mother, Kekāuluohi, was the Queen Consort to Kamehameha I and Kamehameha II. His father was High Chief Charles Kana‘ina.

The Kalākaua Dynasty

The Hawaiian Kingdom’s first elected King died a year later without a named successor, and the Legislature was again convened by Lunaliloʻs Cabinet Council and elected David Kalākaua as King on February 12, 1874. On February 14, 1874, King Kalākaua appointed his younger brother, Prince William Pitt Leleiōhoku, his successor, and was confirmed by the Nobles. On April 10, 1877, Leleiōhoku died. The next day Kalākaua appointed his sister, Princess Lili‘uokalani, as heir-apparent and received confirmation from the Nobles.

When Kalākaua was elected, a new royal lineage replaced the Kamehameha and Lunalilo Dynasty. Kalākaua declared royal titles upon: Princess Lili‘uokalani, Queen Kapiʻolani, Princess Virginia Kapoʻoloku Poʻomaikelani, Princess Kinoiki, Princess Victoria Kawekiu Kaiʻulani Lunalilo Kalaninuiahilapalapa, Prince David Kawānanakoa, Prince Edward Abner Keliʻiahonui, and Prince Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole comprised the new royal lineage. Everyone with the exception of Princess Lili‘uokalani, as heir-apparent, were heirs to the Hawaiian Throne. To move from an heir to heir-apparent is when the Monarch nominates you as successor among the other heirs, and the nominee receives confirmation from the Nobles.

When Kalākaua embarked on his world tour on January 20, 1881, Princess Lili‘uokalani served as Regent, together with the Cabinet Council. Her second time to serve as Regent with the Cabinet Council occurred when Kalākaua departed for San Francisco on November 25, 1890. Kalākaua died in San Francisco on January 20, 1891, and his body returned to Honolulu on the 29th. That day Princess Liliʻuokalani succeeded to the Throne.

The legislative and judicial branches of government had been compromised by the revolt in 1887. The Nobles became an elected body of men whose allegiance was to the foreign population, and three of the justices of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, participated in the revolt by drafting the 1887 constitution. The Queen was prevented from legally confirming her niece, Victoria Kawekiu Kaiʻulani Lunalilo Kalaninuiahilapalapa, as heir-apparent, because the Nobles had not been in the Legislative Assembly since 1887. Ka‘iulani died at the age of 23 on March 6, 1899.

Up to her death on November 11, 1917, Lili‘uokalani was prevented from naming a successor to the Throne and receiving confirmation by the Nobles. The last of the Kalākaua Dynasty to die was Prince Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole on January 7, 1922, which ended the Kalākaua Dynasty. Royal titles are not inheriteable.

The Kamehameha, Lunalilo and Kalākaua Dynasties came to a close. There are no heirs to the Throne, and the Legislative Assembly will have to be reconvened, by the Council of Regency, after the occupation comes to an end to “elect by ballot some native Aliʻi of the Kingdom as Successor to the Throne.” A “native Aliʻi” will be drawn from those who are a direct descendant of the genealogies provided by the Board of Genealogists that were published in 1896 in the Ka Maka‘ainana newspaper. To access these genealogies go to The Three Estates of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Direct descendants of these genealogies comprise the Nobility class of the Hawaiian Kingdom and would be qualified to be elected by the Legislative Assembly after the Nobles determine that the candidate has not “been convicted of any infamous crime, or who is insane, or an idiot.”

Until such time the Council of Regency serves in the absence of the Monarch.

Reaping the Fruits of Labor – Strategic Plan of the Council of Regency

The Council of Regency, serving as the provisional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, was established within Hawaiian territory—in situ, and not in exile. The Hawaiian government was established in accordance with the Hawaiian constitution and the doctrine of necessity to serve in the absence of the office of Executive Monarch. Queen Lili‘uokalani was the last Executive Monarch from 1891-1917.

By virtue of this process the Hawaiian government is comprised of officers de facto. According to U.S. constitutional scholar Thomas Cooley:

A provisional government is supposed to be a government de facto for the time being; a government that in some emergency is set up to preserve order; to continue the relations of the people it acts for with foreign nations until there shall be time and opportunity for the creation of a permanent government. It is not in general supposed to have any authority beyond that of a mere temporary nature resulting from some great necessity, and its authority is limited to the necessity.

During the Second World War, like other governments formed during foreign occupations of their territory, the Hawaiian government did not receive its mandate from the Hawaiian legislature, but rather by virtue of Hawaiian constitutional law as it applies to the Cabinet Council, which is comprised of the constitutional offices of the Minister of Interior, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Finance and the Attorney General.  

Although Article 33 of the 1864 Constitution, as amended, provides that the Cabinet Council “shall be a Council of Regency, until the Legislative Assembly, which shall be called immediately [and] shall proceed to choose by ballot, a Regent or Council of Regency, who shall administer the Government in the name of the King, and exercise all the Powers which are constitutionally vested in the King,” the convening of the Legislative Assembly was not possible in light of the prolonged occupation. The impossibility of convening the Legislative Assembly during the occupation did not prevent the Cabinet from becoming the Council of Regency because of the operative words “shall be a Council of Regency, until…,” but only prevents, for the time being of occupation, the Legislature from electing a Regency or Regency. That election will take place when the occupation comes to an end.

Therefore, the Council was established in similar fashion to the Belgian Council of Regency after King Leopold was captured by the Germans during the Second World War. As the Belgian Council was established under Article 82 of its 1821 Constitution, as amended, in exile, the Hawaiian Council was established under Article 33 of its 1864 Constitution, as amended, not in exile but rather in situ. As Professor Oppenheim explained:

As far as Belgium is concerned, the capture of the king did not create any serious constitutional problems. According to Article 82 of the Constitution of February 7, 1821, as amended, the cabinet of ministers have to assume supreme executive power if the King is unable to govern. True, the ministers are bound to convene the House of Representatives and the Senate and to leave it to the decision of the united legislative chambers to provide for a regency; but in view of the belligerent occupation it is impossible for the two houses to function. While this emergency obtains, the powers of the King are vested in the Belgian Prime Minister and the other members of the cabinet.

The existence of the restored government in situ was not dependent upon diplomatic recognition by foreign States, but rather operated on the presumption of recognition these foreign States already afforded to the Hawaiian government as of 1893.

The recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State on November 28, 1843, was also the recognition of its government—a constitutional monarchy, as its agent. Successors in office to King Kamehameha III, who at the time of international recognition was King of the Hawaiian Kingdom, did not require diplomatic recognition. These successors included King Kamehameha IV in 1854, King Kamehameha V in 1863, King Lunalilo in 1873, King Kalākaua in 1874, and Queen Lili‘uokalani in 1891. The legal doctrines of recognition of new governments only arise “with extra-legal changes in government” of an existing State. Successors to King Kamehameha III were not established through “extra-legal changes,” but rather under the constitution and laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to Professor Peterson:

A government succeeding to power according to the constitution, basic law, or established domestic custom is assumed to succeed as well to its predecessor’s status as international agent of the state. Only if there is legal discontinuity at the domestic level because a new government comes to power in some other way, as by coup d’état or revolution, is its status as an international agent of the state open to question.

The Hawaiian Council of Regency is a government restored in accordance with the constitutional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom as they existed prior to the unlawful overthrow of the previous administration of Queen Lili‘uokalani. It was not established through “extra-legal changes,” and, therefore, did not require diplomatic recognition to give itself validity as a government. It was a successor in office to Queen Lili‘uokalani as the Executive Monarch.

According to Professor Lenzerini in his legal opinion, based on the doctrine of necessity, “the Council of Regency possesses the constitutional authority to temporarily exercise the Royal powers of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” He also concluded that the Regency “has the authority to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, which has been under a belligerent occupation by the United States of America since 17 January 1893, both at the domestic and international level.”

After all four offices of the Cabinet Council were filled on September 26, 1999, a strategic plan was adopted based on its policy: first, exposure of the prolonged occupation; second, ensure that the United States complies with international humanitarian law; and, third, prepare for an effective transition to a completely functioning government when the occupation comes to end. The Council of Regency’s strategic plan has three phases to carry out its policy.

Phase I: Verification of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and subject of International Law

Phase II: Exposure of Hawaiian Statehood within the framework of international law and the laws of occupation as it affects the realm of politics and economics at both the international and domestic levels.

Phase III: Restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and a subject of International Law, which is when the occupation comes to an end.

This Grand Strategy of the Council of Regency is long term, not short term, and can be compared to China’s Grand Strategy, which is also long term. As Professors Flynt Leverett and Wu Bingbing explain in their article The New Silk Road and China’s Evolving Grand Strategy:

What is grand strategy, and what does it mean for China? In broad terms, grand strategy is the culturally shaped intellectual architecture that structures a nation’s foreign policy over time. It is, in Barry Posen’s aphoristic rendering, “a state’s theory of how it can best ‘cause’ security for itself.” Put more functionally, grand strategy is a given political order’s template for marshalling all elements of national power to achieve its self-defined long-term goals. Diplomacy—a state’s capacity to increase the number of states ready to cooperate with it and to decrease its actual and potential adversaries—is as essential to grand strategy as raw military might. So too is economic power. For any state, the most basic goal of grand strategy is to protect that state’s territorial and political integrity. Beyond this, the grand strategies of important states typically aim to improve their relative positions by enhancing their ability to shape strategic outcomes, maximize their influence, and bolster their long-term economic prospect.

Phase I was completed when the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) acknowledged the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State for the purposes of its institutional jurisdiction under Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention, I, for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes prior to forming the arbitration tribunal on June 9, 2000. This acknowledgment of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State can be found at its case repository for Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom and on its website. The non-participation of the United States in the arbitration proceedings occurred “after” the PCA already acknowledged the continued existence of Hawaiian Kingdom Statehood.

On the day when the arbitration tribunal was formed, Phase II was initiated—exposure. Phase II would be guided by Section 495—Remedies of Injured Belligerent, United States Army FM 27-10, which states, “In the event of violation of the law of war, the injured party may legally resort to remedial action of…Publication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending belligerent.” The exposure began with the filings of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the arbitration proceedings and its oral arguments on December 8 and 11, 2000, at the PCA, in The Hague, Netherlands, which can be seen in this mini-documentary of the proceedings.

After the last day of the Larsen hearings were held at the PCA on December 11, 2000, the Council was called to an urgent meeting by Dr. Jacques Bihozagara, Ambassador for the Republic of Rwanda assigned to Belgium. Ambassador Bihozagara had been attending a hearing before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on December 8, Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium, where he became aware of the Hawaiian arbitration case taking place in the hearing room of the PCA across the hall of the Peace Palace. Both the PCA and the ICJ are housed in the same building.

The following day, the Council, which included David Keanu Sai, acting Minister of Interior and Chairman of the Council of Regency, as Agent, and two Deputy Agents, Peter Umialiloa Sai, acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Mrs. Kau‘i P. Sai-Dudoit, formerly known as Kau‘i P. Goodhue, acting Minister of Finance, met with Ambassador Bihozagara in Brussels. In that meeting, the Ambassador explained that since he accessed the pleadings and records of the Larsen case on December 8 from the PCA’s Secretariat, he had been in communication with his government in Kigali. This prompted our meeting where the Ambassador conveyed to the Council that his government was prepared to bring to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States and to place our situation on the agenda. The Council requested a short break from the meeting to discuss this offer.

After careful deliberation, the Council of Regency decided that it could not, in good conscience, accept this offer. The Council felt that the timing was premature because Hawai‘i’s population remained ignorant of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s profound legal position due to institutionalized denationalization through Americanization by the United States for over a century. The Council graciously thanked the Ambassador for his government’s offer but stated that the Council first needed to address over a century of denationalization. After exchanging salutations, the meeting ended, and the Council returned that afternoon to The Hague. The meeting also constituted recognition of the restored government.

Since the Council of Regency returned home from the Netherlands, it was agreed that David Keanu Sai would enter the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa to pursue a Masters Degree in Political Science, specializing in international relations and law, and then a Ph.D. Degree in Political Science with particular focus on the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State. Dr. Sai is currently a Lecturer in Political Science and Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai‘i Windward Community College and Affiliate Faculty of the Graduate Division of the University of Hawai‘i College of Education.

Kau‘i Sai-Dudoit would work for the Hawaiian newspaper project and she is currently Programs Director for Awaiaulu, Inc. Awaiaulu is dedicated to developing resources and resource people that can bridge Hawaiian knowledge from the past to the present and the future. Historical resources are made accessible so as to build the knowledge base of both Hawaiian and English-speaking audiences, and young scholars are trained to understand and interpret those resources for modern audiences today and tomorrow.

Since Phase II of Exposure began:

In a documentary film on the Council of Regency, Donovan Preza, an Instructor at the University of Hawai‘i Kapi‘olani Community College stated:

Keanu was a boxer. He attended New Mexico [Military Institute] on a boxing scholarship so this is where I like to use this metaphor. Keanu has been brilliant about if the ring is this big-this is the boxing ring-when you’re standing here and America is standing there you’re not going to punch, you’re not going to land your knockout punch from across the ring. And America has been evading, dancing and sidestepping, not answering the question. You bring anything up in an American court and the political strategy used by the court is to make it a political question. Political question, the courts don’t have to answer it. So they kept dancing around not answering the question and Hawai‘i has never gotten close enough to force them to answer the question. And that’s what Keanu and the acting Council of Regency has been doing is systematically making that ring smaller, and smaller, and smaller, day by day, step by step, inch by inch. Everybody wants the ring to be this small now but small steps, increments, they’ve been doing that incrementally. If you’ve been paying attention to what they’ve been doing they have been making the ring smaller. Everybody wants to watch the knockout punch. Have some patience. Watch the ring get smaller until America has to answer the question. When they have to answer the question that’s when you can knock them out.

In the latest filings in Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden et al., the Hawaiian Kingdom delivered the “knockout punch.” Judge Leslie Kobayashi was forced to answer the question of whether the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State under international law was extinguished by the United States. Because of the international rule of the presumption of continuity of a State despite the overthrow of its government, the question was not whether the Hawaiian Kingdom “does” continue to exist but rather can Judge Kobayashi state with evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom “does not” continue to exist.

Under international law, according to Judge James Crawford, there “is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations despite a period in which there is no effective, government,” and that belligerent “occupation does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.”

As Professor Matthew Craven explains, “If one were to speak about a presumption of continuity, one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts sustaining its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal rights, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.” According to Craven, only by the Hawaiian Kingdom’s “incorporation, union, or submission” to the United States, which is by treaty, can the presumption of continuity be rebutted.

After eleven months of these court proceedings, the Hawaiian Kingdom was finally able to corner Judge Kobayashi to legally compel her to answer the question of extinguishment after she made it an issue in her Order of March 30, 2022 and Order of March 31, 2022. In these two Orders, Judge Kobayashi made the terse statement “there is no factual (or legal basis) for concluding that the [Hawaiian] Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.” This statement runs counter to international law where an international rule exists regarding the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State despite the United States admitted illegal overthrow of its government on January 17, 1893. She provided no evidence to back up her one line statement in these Orders but she did, however, open the door for the Hawaiian Kingdom to respond.

The Hawaiian Kingdom responded with a Motion for Reconsideration filed on April 11, 2022, that legally compelled Judge Kobayashi to provide a “valid demonstration of legal rights, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.” In her Order of April 19, 2022, denying the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Reconsideration, Judge Kobayashi provided no “valid demonstration of legal rights, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States.” She simply stated, “Although Plaintiff argues there are manifest errors of law in the 3/30/22 Order and the 3/31/22 Order, Plaintiff merely disagrees with the Court’s decision.” This statement without any evidence is not a rebuttal of the presumption of the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

As a United States District Court Judge, by not providing any evidence in these proceedings that the Hawaiian Kingdom was extinguished, she simultaneously acknowledged its continued existence. This is the power of the international rule of the presumption of continuity that operates no different than the presumption of innocence in a criminal trial. Just as a defendant does not have the burden to prove his/her innocence but rather the prosecution has the burden to prove with evidence the guilt of the defendant, the Hawaiian Kingdom does not have the burden to prove its continued existence but rather the opposing party has the burden to prove with evidence that the United States extinguished the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law.

These federal proceedings have now come to a close and the records have been preserved when the Hawaiian Kingdom filed a Notice of Appeal on April 24, 2022, to be taken up by an Article II Occupation Court of Appeals that has yet to be established by the United States. By preserving the record, the Hawaiian Kingdom can utilize Judge Kobayashi’s statements against the United States and the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties.

Clarifying the Presumption of Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom—the 800-pound Gorilla in the Room

There appears to be some confusion as to who needs to prove that the Hawaiian Kingdom—the 800-pound Gorilla in the room continues to exist as a sovereign and independent State despite its government being unlawfully overthrown on January 17, 1893, by the United States military and occupied for over a century.

As Professor Quincy Wright asserts “international law distinguishes between a government and the state it governs.” Professor Sheldon Cohen also states that the “state must be distinguished from the government. The state, not the government, is the major player, the legal person, in international law.” This raises an important point that the overthrow of the Hawaiian government did not affect, in the least, the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, being a “legal person” under international law. As Professor Ian Brownlie explains:

Thus after the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War the four major Allied powers assumed supreme power in Germany. The legal competence of the German state [its independence and sovereignty] did not, however, disappear. What occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity. The German state continued to exist, and, indeed, the legal basis of the occupation depended on its continued existence.

Under international law, there exists a legal principle that when a government of an internationally recognized State is overthrown after a military invasion by another State and is occupied, the invaded State is “presumed” to continue to exist. This principle is called the presumption of the continuity of a State.

To presume is a verb that means to suppose or to take for granted “based on evidence.” To assume is to suppose or take for granted “without evidence.” According to Merriam-Webster e-dictionary, “‘Presume’ is the word to use if you’re making an informed guess based on reasonable evidence. If you’re making a guess based on little or no evidence, the word to use is ‘assume.’”

According to Judge James Crawford from the International Court of Justice, “there is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations despite a period in which there is no effective government.” He also stated that “belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” Paragraph 6-1 of the United States Army Field Manual 6-27, also states:

Military occupation of [another State’s] territory establishes a special relationship between the government of the Occupying Power, the occupied government, and the civilian population of the territory occupied. The body of international law governing occupations recognizes that the Occupying Power is responsible for the general administration of the occupied territory and its civilian inhabitants, including the maintenance of public order or safety.

“If one were to speak about a presumption of continuity,” explains Professor Matthew Craven, “one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.” A legal title under international law would be a treaty between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States where the Hawaiian State would merge with the State of the United States. In other words, the question is not whether the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, but rather can “the party opposing that continuity” establish factual evidence, e.g. treaty, that it doesn’t continue to exist. No evidence that it doesn’t exist, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law.

The “presumption of the continuity of a State” is similar to the “presumption of innocence.” A person on trial does not have the burden to prove their innocence. Rather, the prosecutor has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the person. Without proof of guilt, the person remains innocent. In international law, a recognized sovereign and independent State does not have the burden to prove it continues be a State after being belligerently occupied for over a century. Rather, the opposing State has to prove with evidence under international law that the State was extinguished. Absent the evidence, the State continues to exist.

In Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden, the United States has not provided any “valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty,” that the Hawaiian Kingdom was extinguished as a State under international law. Rather it claimed that “the United States annexed Hawaii in 1898 and Hawaii entered the union as a state in 1959.” Both the 1898 Joint Resolution of annexation and the 1959 Hawai‘i Admission Act are municipal laws and, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, in The Apollon, these laws cannot “extend beyond its territory except so far as regards its citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction.” The U.S. Supreme Court also stated, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., that “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.”

In 1988, the U.S. Department of Justice, in a legal opinion titled “Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea,” it stated that “we doubt that Congress has constitutional authority to assert either sovereignty over an extended territorial sea or jurisdiction over it under international law on behalf of the United States.” The Department of Justice also concluded, “It is therefore unclear which constitutional power of Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution.”

Anecdotally, the Hawaiian Kingdom is the 800-pound Gorilla whose home is the Hawaiian Islands. On January 16, 1893, his home was invaded by Uncle Sam of the United States and on the following day he was put in chains. Uncle Sam made it appear that the Gorilla was dead and he was the new owner of the Hawaiian Islands. The Gorilla, however, was still alive. When Queen Lili‘uokalani, who spoke on behalf of the Gorilla, died on November 11, 1917, the Gorilla fell asleep. 80 years later on February 28, 1997, the Gorilla woke up after the Regency was established as the successor to Queen Lili‘uokalani. As the Gorilla is walking around in the islands, and at the Permanent Court of Arbitration from 1999-2001, in the United States District Court in Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden since May 20, 2021, and the United Nations Human Rights Council on March 22, 2022, people are saying, “I thought you were dead!” No, the Gorilla never died, he was just sleeping for 80 years because he couldn’t speak. In the Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden case, District Court Judge Leslie Kobayashi is having a conversation with the 800-pound Gorilla.

Volume 4 of the Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics Released

The Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics (HJLP) at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa just published its fourth volume.The journal is published by the Hawaiian Society of Law and Politics (HSLP) which is a student organization at the university comprised of students, faculty and staff at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.

The Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics is presently the only academic journal published and copywritten in the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Volume 4 of the HJLP has six original articles and one reprint of an article that was published by the academic journal Geography Compass. Of the original articles, Dr. Kalawai‘a Moore is the Editor of HJLP and is the author of the “Editorʻs Notes,” and the article “Native Hawaiian Indigenous Discourse: Contained Resistance to US Hegemony, Rejection of the Hawaiian Kingdom Nation-State.” Kau‘i Sai-Dudoit and Blaine Namahana Tolentino are the authors of “Aloha ‘Āina: From The Historical Record.” Dr. Larson Ng is the author of “Reaffirming Aboriginal Hawaiian Agency Towards English Medium Schooling in the Hawaiian Kingdom.” Dr. Lorenz Gonschor is the author of “Reconnecting Polynesian kingdoms during the Age of Empire: Kalakaua, Pomare V, and the plan to create a Tahitian Royal Order.” Dr. Keanu Sai is the author of “Backstory – Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (1999-2001).” Dr. Xiang Gao and Professor Guy C. Charlton are the authors of “The Law, the Plague and Colonial Hong Kong: The Development of the Political Identity in Present Day Hong Kong.” And Dr. Edward Robinson is the author of the reprint article “The Distinction Between State and Government.”

U.S. Files Their Reply to Hawaiian Kingdom’s Opposition to the U.S. Motion to Dismiss

Today the United States filed its Reply to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Opposition to their Motion to Dismiss. At no point in these proceedings has the United States countered the facts and evidence provided by the Hawaiian Kingdom. In other words, the facts of this case have not been contested and, as such, are considered in favor of the Hawaiian Kingdom in its effort to have the federal court transform itself into an Article II Occupation Court.

This is also the first time ever where the United States had to present their position as to its claim of sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands. In all prior cases that came before the federal courts, the United States relied on the judges of these courts to dismiss the cases because it presents a political question. The political question doctrine prevents federal courts from recognizing the sovereignty of a country if, and only if, the political branches of the President and/or Congress had not already recognized that sovereignty.

In other words, a federal court cannot assert the political question doctrine if a country such as Switzerland filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., against certain officials of the United States because the United States recognized Switzerland as a sovereign and independent State and entered into a treaty of friendship, commerce and extradition with the Swiss government on November 25, 1850.

This is exactly the same situation with the Hawaiian Kingdom where the United States recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent State on July 6, 1844, and entered into a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation with the Hawaiian Kingdom on December 20, 1849. Just as the United States has a treaty with Switzerland so does the Hawaiian Kingdom has a treaty of friendship, establishment and commerce with Switzerland dated July 10, 1864. The political question doctrine does not apply to the Hawaiian Kingdom but it has been used as an expedient remedy to temporarily protect the United States in its own courts.

In its Motion to Dismiss, the United States takes the position that it has sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands because the Congress passed a joint resolution of annexation in 1898 and in 1959 Hawai‘i became the 50th State of the Federal Union. This is a frivolous claim because United States laws, which includes the federal constitution, have no force and effect beyond the borders of the United States. If this is true, the United States Congress can pass a joint resolution annexing Canada today. Only by a treaty can one country acquire the territory of another country. As pointed out by the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., in 1936:

“Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law. As a member of the family of nations, the right and power of the United States in that field are equal to the right and power of the other members of the international family. Otherwise, the United States is not completely sovereign.”

This is consistent at the international level where the Permanent Court of International Justice, in The Lotus Case (France v. Turkey), stated, in 1927, “the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State.”

The U.S. District Court claims to be an Article III Court by virtue of Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which provides for the authority of the Judiciary. Because the Supreme Court in Curtiss-Wright stated that “Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory,” the U.S. District Court in Hawai‘i cannot claim to be an Article III Court because the U.S. Constitution has no force in foreign territory. It can only exist as an Article II Court under the President’s authority as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces in foreign territory. As stated in the Amicus Brief:

“Under the concept of void ab initio, there are structures that have no legal effect from inception. The United States occupation of Hawai‘i began with unclean  hands, and this can only be remedied by a clean slate and a new beginning.”

In the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, it stated that the United States cannot rely on its internal laws, which includes federal court decisions that dismissed cases under the political question doctrine, for its failure to perform its obligation under international law. Under international law, the United States is obligated to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom because it still exists as a sovereign and independent State despite that its government was illegally overthrown on January 17, 1893. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, acknowledged the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State in 1999 and the Council of Regency as its restored government.

In its Reply, the United States continued to attempt to confuse the Court by stating what the Arbitration Tribunal stated and what the PCA did as explained by Italian scholar Professor Federico Lenzerini in his legal opinion, which is attached to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 1. As the Hawaiian Kingdom clearly explained in all of its pleadings to include its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, there is a very clear distinction between the institutional jurisdiction of PCA, which is an inter-governmental organization, and the subject matter jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal that is established by the PCA.

In accordance with Article 47 of the 1907 Convention that established the PCA, it allows access to the institutional jurisdiction of the PCA by States that have not signed and ratified the 1907 Convention, which are called non-contracting States. As the Hawaiian Kingdom is not a contracting State to the 1907 Convention, it would have access to the PCA’s institutional jurisdiction under Article 47.

The Arbitral Tribunal in the Larsen case was established in accordance with Article 47 as stated in the PCA’s Annual Reports from 2000 to 2011. If the Hawaiian Kingdom was not a State under international law, there would not have been a Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom case. The United States stated in their Reply:

“The primary authority cited as support for Plaintiff’s theory remains Prof. Lenzerini’s interpretation of the significance of the decision by the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) to institute an arbitration involving Plaintiff. The arbitral award explicitly rejects this inference. It demonstrates that the PCA refused to reach a conclusion about Plaintiff’s sovereignty. Nonetheless, even if Plaintiff’s interpretation of the PCA’s actions were correct, it would not matter. The questions raised by Plaintiff and Prof. Lenzerini are classic political questions about the recognition of state sovereignty that the Court has no jurisdiction to answer.”

This statement is convoluted and a word salad. Foremost, the United States implies that the PCA and the Arbitral Tribunal are one in the same when it stated that the “PCA refused to reach a conclusion about Plaintiff’s sovereignty.” This is a false statement because the PCA did reach a conclusion “about Plaintiff’s sovereignty” when it formed the Tribunal on June 9, 2000. The proceedings were initiated on November 8, 1999, but the International Bureau had to be sure that the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as a State before it could form the Tribunal in the first place.

The United States relies on what the Tribunal stated in its Award that “in the absence of the United States of America [as a party], the Tribunal can neither decide that Hawaii is not part of the USA, nor proceed on the assumption that it is not.” What the United States leaves out is that it was the Hawaiian Kingdom that requested the Tribunal to declare that the Hawaiian Kingdom exists as a State. The request was made because the 2000 Annual Report acknowledging the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a State in accordance with Article 47 did not come out yet.

The Hawaiian Kingdom also knew that even if the Tribunal did pronounce the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a State without the participation of the United States in the proceedings it would only apply and be binding between Larsen and the Hawaiian Kingdom. As stated under Article 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), decisions of the ICJ have “no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.” And as stated by ICJ Judge Thomas Buergenthal before the membership of the American Society of International law in 2009:

“It is clear, of course, that the doctrine of stare decisis is not part of international law. For states not parties to a case, judgments of the ICJ and of some other international courts are formally not lawmaking in character in the sense in which decisions of Common Law courts are binding precedents within their respective jurisdictions.”

The existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State is a question of fact and not a question of law to be decided by an international court because independent States are co-equal to each other and cannot be subjected to an international court unless it consents to its jurisdiction to preside over the dispute. To allow an international court to determine whether a State exists undermines the sovereignty of the State in the first place. Furthermore, to give consent to an international court the party to the case has to be a State in the first place. The United States is trying to argue the significance of an egg without acknowledging the chicken that laid the egg by arguing the egg and the chicken are the same thing.

When the United Nations was considering an Advisory Opinion by the ICJ on the status of Palestine in 1948, Israeli Foreign Minister Eban argued that the “existence of a State is a question of fact and not of law.” Professor Oppenheim also stated, “The formation of a new State is…a matter of fact, and not law.” The Hawaiian Kingdom is not a new State but rather an existing State since the nineteenth century and the United States has not contested the facts that show this.

Because the United States Motion to Dismiss was filed after the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Judicial Notice of Civil Law that explains the actions taken by the PCA in acknowledging the existence of Hawaiian Statehood, the judge will have to make that determination first. When the Court has transformed itself into an Article II Occupation Court it can then take up the Motions to Dismiss filed by the United States and the Swedish Consul, and also the Statement of Interest by the United States because it would have jurisdiction to address the arguments. But then again, when the Court transforms into an Article II Occupation Court, the Motions to Dismiss and the Statement of Interest are moot and fall to the ground.

Right now it doesn’t have jurisdiction because it is not within the territory of the United States but rather sits within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, being an occupied State. The United States at no time in these proceedings presented any counter evidence, such as a treaty, that the Hawaiian Islands have been ceded to the United States. They solely rely on Congressional law and not international law.

The United States has backed itself into a corner that it cannot get out of and appears to be relying on the Court to try to get it out of a predicament of its own making since 1893. Based on the evidence before this Court and the involvement of 30 other countries that have Consulates in the Hawaiian Kingdom in the case, and the authors of the Amicus Brief, which are the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Water Protectors Legal Collective, all of whom are organizations of lawyers and jurists at both the international and national levels, the Court is bound to follow the rule of law and grant the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Judicial Notice. The United States has given no credible reason for the Court to not take judicial notice, which would lead to the transformation of the Court from an Article III Court to an Article II Occupation Court.

Hawaiian Kingdom files its Reply to the US Opposition of Judicial Notice of Civil Law and Exposes a Conspiracy at the Highest Level of the US Government

On January 14, 2022, the United States filed their Opposition to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Judicial Notice of Civil Law regarding the action taken by the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration acknowledging the Hawaiian Kingdom as a non-Contracting State to the 1907 Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The United States simultaneously filed a Cross-Motion to Dismiss the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Amended Complaint, which it combined with their Opposition.

Today the Hawaiian Kingdom filed two pleadings in the federal lawsuit. The first filing was its Reply to the United States Opposition to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Judicial Notice of the Civil Law. The second filing was its Opposition to the United States Cross-Motion to Dismiss. The United States will need to file their Reply to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Opposition by February 11, 2022. In its opening of both the Reply and the Opposition, the Hawaiian Kingdom states:

Federal Government Defendants’ (“FGDs”) opposition and cross-motion to dismiss is based entirely on the jurisdiction of this Court as an Article III Court. FGDs contend that Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the legitimate sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands because “[t]he United States annexed Hawaii in 1898, and Hawaii entered the union as a state in 1959 [and that] [t]his Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the courts of the state of Hawaii have repeatedly ‘rejected arguments asserting Hawaiian sovereignty’ distinct from its identity as a part of the United States.” FGDs’ claims lack merit on several grounds and are an attempt to obscure, mislead and misinform this Honorable Court’s duty to apply the rule of law.  Furthermore, while Plaintiff views the actions taken by this Court as a matter of due diligence regarding Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice, which is not a dispositive motion, FGDs’ motion to dismiss, being a dispositive motion, can only be entertained after the Court possesses subject matter and personal jurisdiction as an Article II Court.

Both filings are substantially the same but because of the limited word count for the Reply, the Opposition’s word count allowed more information to be added, especially adding critical information of a conspiracy at the highest level of President McKinley’s administration to illegally seize the Hawaiian Islands for military purposes. Leading this conspiracy was the former President Theodore Roosevelt, who at the time was serving as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Under international law today, this conspiracy would be considered an internationally wrongful act in the unilateral seizure of the territory of a sovereign and independent State.

It is important for the reader to understand this part of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s history from a legal standpoint and why the United States claims of sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands lack any credible evidence under both international laws and United States laws. These legal proceedings have cleared the “smoke and mirrors” that the United States has relied on in claiming Hawai‘i is the 50th State of the Federal Union. It has forced the United States to admit its claim over the Hawaiian Islands is “only” by virtue of a joint resolution of annexation. Not by conquest and not by prescription, which is lapse of time. But by a joint resolution, which, as a congressional action, has no force and effect beyond the borders of the United States.

In order for the readers to understand the scope and magnitude of the legal consequences of the United States’ actions in its prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, here follows the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Reply and Opposition in its entirety. The footnotes have been omitted but can be retrieved in the filings.

********************************

II. UNITED STATES RECOGNITION OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM AS A STATE AND ITS GOVERNMENT PREDATES 1898

The legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State predates, not postdates, 1898. FGDs omit in their pleading that President John Tyler on July 6, 1844, explicitly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State by letter from Secretary of State John C. Calhoun to the Hawaiian Commission. This was confirmed by the arbitral tribunal in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom:

[I]n the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.

The recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State was also the recognition of its government—a constitutional monarchy, as its agent. Successors in office to King Kamehameha III, who at the time of the United States recognition was King of the Hawaiian Kingdom, did not require diplomatic recognition. These successors included King Kamehameha IV in 1854, King Kamehameha V in 1863, King Lunalilo in 1873, King Kalākaua in 1874, and Queen Lili‘uokalani in 1891.

The legal doctrines of recognition of new governments only arise “with extra-legal changes in government” of an existing State. Successors to King Kamehameha III were not established through “extra-legal changes,” but rather under the constitution and laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to Professor Peterson,

A government succeeding to power according to the constitution, basic law, or established domestic custom is assumed to succeed as well to its predecessor’s status as international agent of the state. Only if there is legal discontinuity at the domestic level because a new government comes to power in some other way, as by coup d’état or revolution, is its status as an international agent of the state open to question.

On January 17, 1893, by an act of war, the United States unlawfully overthrew the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. President Grover Cleveland entered into an executive agreement with Queen Lili‘uokalani on December 18, 1893, in an attempt to restore the government but was politically prevented from doing so by members of Congress. The failure to restore the government, however, did not affect the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State under international law.

In Texas v. White, the Supreme Court stated that a State “is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.” The Supreme Court also stated that a “plain distinction is made between a State and the government of a State.” The Supreme Court’s position is consistent with international law where the “state must be distinguished from the government. The state, not the government, is the major player, the legal person, in international law.”

According to Judge Crawford, “[p]ending a final settlement of the conflict, belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State. The governmental authorities may be driven into exile or silenced, and the exercise of the powers of the State thereby affected. But it is settled that the powers themselves continue to exist. This is strictly not an application of the ‘actual independence’ rule but an exception to it…pending a settlement of the conflict by a peace treaty or its equivalent.” There is no peace treaty or its equivalent between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States.

In 1996, remedial steps were taken to restore the Hawaiian government. An acting Council of Regency was established in accordance with the Hawaiian Constitution and the doctrine of necessity to serve in the absence of the Executive Monarch. The Council was established in similar fashion to the Belgian Council of Regency after King Leopold was captured by the Germans during the Second World War. As the Belgian Council of Regency was established under Article 82 of its 1821 Constitution, as amended, in exile, the Hawaiian Council was established under Article 33 of its 1864 Constitution, as amended, in situ. According to Professor Oppenheimer, the inability for the Belgian Council to convene the Legislature under Article 82 to provide a Regent due to Germany’s belligerent occupation it “did not create any serious constitutional problems. … While this emergency obtains, the powers of the King are vested in the Belgian Prime Minister and the other members of the cabinet.”

Like Belgium, Article 33 provides that the Cabinet Council “shall be a Council of Regency, until the Legislative Assembly, which shall be called immediately shall proceed to choose by ballot, a Regent or Council of Regency, who shall administer the Government in the name of the King, and exercise all the Powers which are constitutionally vested in the King.” Like the Belgian Council, the Hawaiian Council was bound to call into session the Legislative Assembly to provide for a regency but because of the prolonged belligerent occupation it was impossible for the Legislative Assembly to function. Until the Legislative Assembly can be called into session, Article 33 provides that the Cabinet Council, comprised of the Ministers of the Interior, Foreign Affairs, Finance and the Attorney General, “shall be a Council of Regency, until the Legislative Assembly” can be called into session. The operative words are “shall” and “until.”

The Hawaiian Council was established in accordance with the domestic laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom as they existed prior to the unlawful overthrow of the previous administration of Queen Lili‘uokalani, and, therefore, did not require diplomatic recognition like the previous administrations. Hence, the FGDs are estopped, as a matter of United States practice from 1846 to 1893 and international law, from denying the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State and its government—the Council of Regency.

III. PRESUMPTION OF CONTINUITY OF THE HAWAIIAN STATE

Under international law, there “is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations…despite a period in which there is…no effective, government,” and that belligerent “occupation does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” “A presumption is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted.” “If one were to speak about a presumption of continuity,” explains Professor Craven, “one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts sustaining its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by a reference to a valid demonstration of legal rights, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.”

According to Craven, “[under international law,] as it existed at the critical date of 1898, it was generally held that a State might ceased to exist in one of three scenarios: a) By the destruction of its territory or by the extinction, dispersal or emigration of its population (a theoretical disposition). b) By the dissolution of the corpus of the State (cases include the dissolution of the German Empire in 1805-6; the partition of the Pays-Bas in 1831 or of the Canton of Bale in 1833). [And] c) By the State’s incorporation, union, or submission to another (cases include the incorporation of Cracow into Austria in 1846; the annexation of Nice and Savoy by France in 1860; the annexation of Hannover, Hesse, Nassau and Schleswig-Holstein and Frankfurt into Prussia in 1886). Of the three scenarios only the third would in principle apply to the Hawaiian situation, which occurs by an agreement that is evidenced by a valid treaty between the acquiring and the ceding State, whether in a state of peace or in a state of war. Since 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom has been in a state of war with the United States.

The 1898 joint resolution of annexation is not a treaty of State “incorporation” under international law but rather an internal law of the United States that stems from a failed treaty. To give the joint resolution proper context, the legislative history is important in understanding the backstory of the joint resolution. The driving force for annexation was military interest as advocated by U.S. Naval Captain Alfred Mahan.

After the United States admitted unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian Government, Mahan wrote a letter to the Editor of the New York Times where he advocated seizing the Hawaiian Islands. On January 31, 1893, he wrote that the Hawaiian Islands, “with their geographical and military importance, [is] unrivalled by that of any other position in the North Pacific.” Mahan used the Hawaiian situation to bolster his argument of building a large naval fleet. He warned that a maritime power could well seize the Hawaiian Islands, and that the United States should take that first step. He stated that to hold the Hawaiian Islands, “whether in the supposed case or in war with a European state, implies a great extension of our naval power. Are we ready to undertake this?” Mahan would have to wait four years to find an ally in President William McKinley’s Department of the Navy, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt.

Roosevelt sent a private and confidential letter, on May 3, 1897, to Mahan. He wrote, “I need not tell you that as regards Hawaii I take your views absolutely, as indeed I do on foreign policy generally. If I had my way we would annex those islands tomorrow.”  Moreover, Roosevelt told Mahan that Cleveland’s handling of the Hawaiian situation was “a colossal crime, and we should be guilty of aiding him after the fact if we do not reverse what he did.” Roosevelt also assured Mahan “that Secretary [of the Navy] Long shares [their] views. He believes we should take the islands, and I have just been preparing some memoranda for him to use at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow.”

In a follow up letter to Mahan, on June 9, 1897, Roosevelt wrote that he “urged immediate action by the President as regards Hawaii. Entirely between ourselves, I believe he will act very shortly. If we take Hawaii now, we shall avoid trouble with Japan.” Eight days later, on June 16, 1897, the McKinley administration signed a treaty of “incorporation” with its American puppet—the Republic of Hawai‘i, in Washington, D.C. On the following day, Queen Lili‘uokalani submitted a formal protest to the U.S. State Department stating, “I declare such a treaty to be an act of wrong toward the native and part-native people of Hawaii, an invasion of the rights of the ruling chiefs, in violation of international rights both toward my people and toward friendly nations with whom they have made treaties, the perpetuation of the fraud whereby the constitutional government was overthrown, and, finally, an act of gross injustice to me.”

Ignoring the protest, President McKinley submitted the treaty for Senate ratification, which required a minimum of 60 votes under United States law.  The Senate, however, was not convening until December 6, 1897. This prompted two Hawaiian political organizations to mobilize signature petitions protesting annexation. According to Professor Silva, the “strategy was to challenge the U.S. government to behave in accordance with its stated principles of justice and of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The Hawaiian Political Association (Hui Kalai‘āina) gathered over 17,000 signatures, and the Hawaiian Patriotic League (Hui Aloha ‘Āina) gathered 21,269 signatures. The last official census, done in 1890, tallied Hawaiian subjects at 48,107, and, therefore, the petitions, in fact, represented the majority of the Hawaiian citizenry.

The leaders representing the Hawaiian Patriotic League and the Hawaiian Political Association, arrived in Washington, D.C., on December 6, 1897, the same day the Senate opened its session, and were told there were 58 votes for annexation. The next day, they met with Queen Lili‘uokalani and chose her as chair of the Washington Committee. In that meeting, “they decided to present only the petitions of Hui Aloha ‘Āina because the substance of the two sets of petitions were different. Hui Aloha ‘Āina’s petition protested annexation, but the Hui Kālai‘āina’s petitions called for the monarchy to be restored. They agreed that they did not want to appear divided or as if they had different goals.”

Senators Richard Pettigrew and George Hoar met with the Committee and said they would lead the opposition in the Senate. Senator Hoar stated he would introduce opposition into the Senate and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “On December 9, with the delegates present, Senator Hoar read the text of the petitions to the Senate and had them formally accepted.” In the days that followed, the Committee would meet with many Senators urging them not to ratify the treaty. Two of the leading Senators for annexation were Senators Henry Cabot Lodge and John Morgan, who were both strong believers in Captain Mahan’s views on Hawai‘i.

Unbeknownst to the Queen and the Hawaiian delegates, Senators began to inquire into the military importance of annexing the Hawaiian Islands. On this matter, Senator James Kyle made a request, by letter, to Mahan, on February 3, 1898, where he wrote, “[r]ecent discussions in the Senate brought prominently to the front the question of the strategic features of the Hawaiian Islands, and in this connection many quotations have been made from your valuable and highly interesting contribution to literature in regard to these islands.”

This was war rhetoric to justify the preemptive seizure of a neutral State for military interests. It was precisely what Germany did in 1914 to justify its invasion and occupation of Luxembourg. Germany invaded Luxembourg before formally declaring war against France. German military commander, Herr von Jagow then stated, “to our great regret, the military measures which have been taken have become indispensable by the fact that we have received sure information that the French military were marching against Luxemburg. We were forced to take measures for the protection of our army and the security of our railway lines.” Herr von Jagow then issued a proclamation stating “all the efforts of our Emperor and King to maintain peace have failed. The enemy has forced Germany to draw the sword. France has violated the neutrality of Luxemburg and has commenced hostilities on the soil of Luxemburg against German troops, as has been established without a doubt.” The French protested against this German invasion and confirmed there were no French troops in Luxembourg. Thus, according to Garner, “The alleged intentions of France were merely a pretext, and the violation of Luxemburg was committed by Germany solely in her military interest and in no sense on the ground of military necessity.”

It appears the Senators were not swayed by Mahan’s position because by the time the Hawaiian Committee left Washington, D.C., on February 27, 1897, they had successfully chiseled the 58 Senators in support of annexation down to 46. Unable to garner the necessary 60 votes, the treaty failed by March, yet war with Spain was looming over the horizon, and the Hawaiian Kingdom would have to face the belligerency of the United States again. American military interests would be the driving forces behind the occupation of the islands, and Mahan’s philosophy, the guiding principles. On April 25, 1898, Congress declared war on Spain.

On May 1, 1898, the U.S.S. Charleston, a protect cruiser, was commissioned. Then on May 5, it was ordered to lead a convoy of 2,500 troops to reinforce Dewey in the Philippines and Guam. In a move to deliberately violate Hawaiian neutrality, the convoy set a course to re-coal and arrived in Honolulu harbor on June 1. This convoy took on 1,943 tons of coal before it left on June 4. A second convoy of troops arrived in Honolulu harbor on June 23 and took on 1,667 tons of coal. On June 8, H. Renjes, the Spanish Vice-Counsel in Honolulu, lodged a formal protest. Renjes declared, “In my capacity as Vice Consul for Spain, I have the honor today to enter a formal protest with the Hawaiian Government against the constant violations of Neutrality in this harbor, while actual war exists between Spain and the United States of America.”

The U.S. gave formal notice to the other powers of the existence of war so that these powers could proclaim neutrality, yet the United States was also violating the neutrality of the Hawaiian Kingdom at that time. From Professor Bailey’s view, the position taken by the United States “was all the more reprehensible in that she was compelling a weak nation to violate the international law that had to a large degree been formulated by her own stand on the Alabama claims. Furthermore, in line with the precedent established by the Geneva award, Hawaii would be liable for every cent of damage caused by her dereliction as a neutral, and for the United States to force her into this position was cowardly and ungrateful.” Bailey also wrote, “At the end of the war, Spain or a cooperating power would doubtless occupy Hawaii, indefinitely if not permanently, to insure payment of damages with the consequent jeopardizing of the defenses of the Pacific Coast.”

On May 4, Representative Francis Newlands submitted a joint resolution for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. On May 17, the joint resolution was reported out of the Committee without amendment and headed to the floor of the House of Representatives. The joint resolution’s accompanying Report justified the congressional action to seize the Hawaiian Islands as a matter of military interest, which was advocated by Mahan.

The Congressional record clearly showed that when the joint resolution of annexation reached the floor of the House of Representatives, members of Congress knew the limitations of congressional laws. Representative Thomas H. Ball emphatically stated, “[t]he annexation of Hawaii by joint resolution is unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unwise. …Why, sir, the very presence of this measure here is the result of a deliberate attempt to do unlawfully that which can not be done lawfully.” When the resolution reached the Senate, Senator Augustus Bacon sarcastically remarked that the “friends of annexation, seeing that it was not possible to make this treaty in the manner pointed out by the Constitution, attempted then to nullify the provision in the Constitution by putting that treaty in the form of a statute, and here we have embodied the provisions of the treaty in the joint resolution which comes to us from the House.” Senator William Allen added, “[t]he Constitution and the statutes are territorial in their operation; that is, they can not have any binding force or operation beyond the territorial limits of the government in which they are promulgated.” He later reiterated, “I utterly repudiate the power of Congress to annex the Hawaiian Islands by a joint resolution.”

Despite these objections the Congress passed the joint resolution and President McKinley signed it into law on July 7, 1898. This notwithstanding, the Department of Justice in 1988 concluded in a legal opinion, it is “unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution. Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.”

Since the United States failed to carry out its obligation to reinstate the Executive Monarch and her Cabinet, under the executive agreement concluded with the Cleveland administration, the McKinley administration took complete advantage of its puppet called the Republic of Hawai‘i, and deliberately violated Hawaiian neutrality during the war. This served as leverage to force the hand of Congress to pass the joint resolution purporting to annex a foreign State. This was revealed while the Senate was in secret session on May 31, 1898, where Senator Lodge argued that the “[a]dministration was compelled to violate the neutrality of those islands, that protests from foreign representatives had already been received, and complications with other powers were threatened, that the annexation or some action in regard to those islands had become a military necessity.”

The transcripts of the secret session would not be made public until January 1969, after a historian noted there were gaps in the Congressional records. The transcripts were made public after the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the U.S. National Archives to open the records. The Associated Press in Washington, D.C., reported that “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 in Manila Bay.”

In violation of international law and the treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom, the United States maintained the insurgents’ control until the Congress could reorganize its puppet. By statute, the Congress changed the name of the Republic of Hawai‘i to the Territory of Hawai‘i on April 30, 1900. Later, on March 18, 1959, the Congress, again by statute, changed the name of the Territory of Hawai‘i to the State of Hawai‘i. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, however, “[n]either the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory,” which renders these congressional acts ultra vires. Of significance is this Court’s Article III status that derives from Section 9(a) of the 1959 Statehood Act.

Under the maxim ex injuria jus non oritur, FGDs’ argument that “[t]he United States annexed Hawaii in 1898, and Hawaii entered the union as a state in 1959” fails to constitute “a valid demonstration of legal rights, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States.” Therefore, the United States has provided no “facts sustaining its rebuttal” of the continuity of the Hawaiian State. Furthermore, under international law, the 1898 joint resolution of annexation and the 1959 Statehood Act, are considered internationally wrongful acts, and the FGDs are estopped from asserting that it is the legitimate sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands.

IV. DEFENDANTS ARE PRECLUDED FROM INVOKING ITS INTERNAL LAW AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH ITS INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

When the United States assumed control of its installed puppet under the new title of Territory of Hawai‘i in 1900, and later the State of Hawai‘i in 1959, it surpassed “its limits under international law through extraterritorial prescriptions emanating from its national institutions: the legislature, government, and courts.” The purpose of this extraterritorial prescription was to conceal the belligerent occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and bypass their duty to administer the laws of the occupied State in accordance with customary international law at the time, which was later codified under Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. According to Professor Benvinisti, “[t]he occupations of Hawaii, The Philippines, and Puerto Rico reflected the same unique US view on the unlimited authority of the occupant.” This extraterritorial application of American municipal laws is prohibited by the rules of jus in bello.

The occupant may not surpass its limits under international law through extra-territorial prescriptions emanating from its national institutions: the legislature, government, and courts. The reason for this rule is, of course, the functional symmetry, with respect to the occupied territory, among the various lawmaking authorities of the occupying state. Without this symmetry, Article 43 could become meaningless as a constraint upon the occupant, since the occupation administration would then choose to operate through extraterritorial prescription of its national institutions.

According to Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, FGDs are prohibited from “invok[ing] the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty,” which is Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. Although the United States has not ratified the Vienna Convention, U.S. foreign relations law pronounced the rule that no State may invoke its internal law as justification for the nonobservance of a treaty by which it is bound. In Coplin v. United States, the Supreme Court referred to the U.S. government’s brief in Weinberger v. Rossi: “[a]though the Vienna Convention is not yet in force for the United States, it has been recognized as an authoritative source of international treaty law by the courts…and the executive branch.” The court was referring to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention. “The first sentence of article 27 gives expression to a well-established principle of international law that a State may not evade its international obligations by pleading its own law as an excuse for noncompliance.” While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and the Local Rules of the Court are not internal law, they are administrative rules that do not have binding force but are instructional for the purposes of these proceedings until the Court transforms itself into an Article II Court and declare these rules to be binding.

V. DISTINGUISHING THE INSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION OF THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE LARSEN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL

FGDs erred when they stated that “[c]entral to Professor Lenzerini’s opinion is an arbitration between an individual, Lance Larsen, and the Plaintiff before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) at the Hague, which Plaintiff and Professor Lenzerini believe is a tacit acknowledgment of Plaintiff’s status as a sovereign entity. However, the final arbitral award from the PCA in this dispute, issued on February 5, 2001, explicitly stated that, ‘in the absence of the United States of America [as a party] the Tribunal can neither decide that Hawaii is not part of the USA, nor proceed on the assumption that it is not.’”

Plaintiff is puzzled by this statement, given Plaintiff’s previous pleadings clearly distinguishes between the institutional jurisdiction of the PCA and the subject matter jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. What are the undisputed facts is that a notice of arbitration was filed by Larsen’s counsel with the International Bureau of the PCA on November 8, 1999, and that six months later the International Bureau, by virtue of Article 47 of the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (“1907 Convention”), established the arbitral tribunal on June 9, 2000. Professor Lenzerini, in his opinion attached to Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice, addressed the actions taken by the International Bureau of the PCA prior to the formation of the arbitral tribunal, which the civil law tradition explains from an evidentiary standpoint, and not the arguments of the arbitral tribunal, which did not have subject matter jurisdiction because of the indispensable third-party rule. Without the Hawaiian Kingdom being a juridical fact, the International Bureau could not have completed the juridical act of establishing the arbitral tribunal in the first place.

The institutional jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) was also recently the central issue relating to the “Situation in the State of Palestine.” Like Article 47 of the 1907 Convention, Article 12(2)(a) of the Rome Statute grants the ICC the authority to “exercise its jurisdiction” to investigate international crimes within the territory of a State Party to the Statute. Professor Malcolm Shaw authored an amicus curiae brief filed with the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber I on March 16, 2020, that addressed the question of Palestinian Statehood. According to Shaw:

[W]hether or not Palestine is a state is actually critical to defining and determining the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in this matter. If Palestine is not a state, then it cannot have sovereignty over territory and cannot come within the terms of article 12 of the Statute. Thus, in the absence of clear and irrefutable evidence of Palestine’s existence as a state and taking into account the lack of an international consensus in this regard, both quantitative and qualitative, the Court cannot assert that there is such a state at this point in time.

Article 12 does not refer to the subject matter jurisdiction of an ICC trial court, but rather provides institutional jurisdiction for the Prosecutor of the ICC to investigate international crimes that may or may not go to trial. Similarly, Article 47 does not refer to the subject matter jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, but rather provides the institutional jurisdiction for the International Bureau to form the arbitral tribunal to resolve an international dispute.

VI.  CONCLUSION

The FGDs have provided no legal basis for the Court to grant FGDs’ cross-motion to dismiss. While this Court has yet to transform itself from an Article III Court to an Article II Court, the Plaintiff perceives this Court to be in a state of due diligence regarding Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice. In the meantime, neither the Plaintiff nor the FGDs can get relief for their amended complaint and cross-motion to dismiss, respectively, until the Court possesses subject matter and personal jurisdiction as an Article II Court pursuant to Pennoyer v. Neff.

On September 30, 2021, Magistrate Judge Rom A. Trader issued an Order granting the Motion for Leave to File Amended Amicus Curiae Brief on Behalf of Nongovernmental Organizations with Expertise in International Law and Human Rights Law [ECF 90]. Amici filed their Amended Amicus Curiae Brief on October 6, 2021 [ECF 96]. Before the Court can address FGDs’ motion to dismiss it must first transform itself into an Article II Court for the reasons stated in the filed Amicus Brief, which is “trustworthy evidence of what [international] law really is.”

Therefore, this Court is bound by treaty law to take affirmative steps to transform itself into an Article II Court by virtue of Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, just as the International Bureau of the PCA established the arbitral tribunal by virtue of Article 47 of the 1907 Convention because of the juridical fact of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a State. This Court is bound to transform itself into an Article II Court because it is situated within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom and not within the territory of the United States. Furthermore, FGDs have provided no rebuttable evidence to the contrary other than invoking its internal laws as justification for not complying with its international obligations, which are barred by customary international law and treaty law.

National Holiday – Independence Day (November 28)

November 28th is the most important national holiday in the Hawaiian Kingdom. It is the day Great Britain and France formally recognized the Hawaiian Islands as an “independent state” in 1843, and has since been celebrated as “Independence Day,” which in the Hawaiian language is “La Ku‘oko‘a.” Here follows the story of this momentous event from the Hawaiian Kingdom Board of Education history textbook titled “A Brief History of the Hawaiian People” published in 1891.

**************************************

George Simpson
Haalilio

The First Embassy to Foreign Powers—In February, 1842, Sir George Simpson and Dr. McLaughlin, governors in the service of the Hudson Bay Company, arrived at Honolulu on business, and became interested in the native people and their government. After a candid examination of the controversies existing between their own countrymen and the Hawaiian Government, they became convinced that the latter had been unjustly accused. Sir George offered to loan the government ten thousand pounds in cash, and advised the king to send commissioners to the United States and Europe with full power to negotiate new treaties, and to obtain a guarantee of the independence of the kingdom.

Accordingly Sir George Simpson, Haalilio, the king’s secretary, and Mr. Richards were appointed joint ministers-plenipotentiary to the three powers on the 8th of April, 1842.

William Richards

Mr. Richards also received full power of attorney for the king. Sir George left for Alaska, whence he traveled through Siberia, arriving in England in November. Messrs. Richards and Haalilio sailed July 8th, 1842, in a chartered schooner for Mazatlan, on their way to the United States*

*Their business was kept a profound secret at the time.

Proceedings of the British Consul—As soon as these facts became known, Mr. Charlton followed the embassy in order to defeat its object. He left suddenly on September 26th, 1842, for London via Mexico, sending back a threatening letter to the king, in which he informed him that he had appointed Mr. Alexander Simpson as acting-consul of Great Britain. As this individual, who was a relative of Sir George, was an avowed advocate of the annexation of the islands to Great Britain, and had insulted and threatened the governor of Oahu, the king declined to recognize him as British consul. Meanwhile Mr. Charlton laid his grievances before Lord George Paulet commanding the British frigate “Carysfort,” at Mazatlan, Mexico. Mr. Simpson also sent dispatches to the coast in November, representing that the property and persons of his countrymen were in danger, which introduced Rear-Admiral Thomas to order the “Carysfort” to Honolulu to inquire into the matter.

Daniel Webster

Recognition by the United States—Messres. Richards and Haalilio arrived in Washington early in December, and had several interviews with Daniel Webster, the Secretary of State, from whom they received an official letter December 19th, 1842, which recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and declared, “as the sense of the government of the United States, that the government of the Sandwich Islands ought to be respected; that no power ought to take possession of the islands, either as a conquest or for the purpose of the colonization; and that no power ought to seek for any undue control over the existing government, or any exclusive privileges or preferences in matters of commerce.” *

*The same sentiments were expressed in President Tyler’s message to Congress of December 30th, and in the Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, written by John Quincy Adams.

Aberdeen

Success of the Embassy in Europe—The king’s envoys proceeded to London, where they had been preceded by the Sir George Simpson, and had an interview with the Earl of Aberdeen, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on the 22d of February, 1843.

Lord Aberdeen at first declined to receive them as ministers from an independent state, or to negotiate a treaty, alleging that the king did not govern, but that he was “exclusively under the influence of Americans to the detriment of British interests,” and would not admit that the government of the United States had yet fully recognized the independence of the islands.

Sir George and Mr. Richards did not, however, lose heart, but went on to Brussels March 8th, by a previous arrangement made with Mr. Brinsmade. While there, they had an interview with Leopold I., king of the Belgians, who received them with great courtesy, and promised to use his influence to obtain the recognition of Hawaiian independence. This influence was great, both from his eminent personal qualities and from his close relationship to the royal families of England and France.

Encouraged by this pledge, the envoys proceeded to Paris, where, on the 17th, M. Guizot, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, received them in the kindest manner, and at once engaged, in behalf of France, to recognize the independence of the islands. He made the same statement to Lord Cowley, the British ambassador, on the 19th, and thus cleared the way for the embassy in England.

They immediately returned to London, where Sir George had a long interview with Lord Aberdeen on the 25th, in which he explained the actual state of affairs at the islands, and received an assurance that Mr. Charlton would be removed. On the 1st of April, 1843, the Earl of Aberdeen formally replied to the king’s commissioners, declaring that “Her Majesty’s Government are willing and have determined to recognize the independence of the Sandwich Islands under their present sovereign,” but insisting on the perfect equality of all foreigners in the islands before the law, and adding that grave complaints had been received from British subjects of undue rigor exercised toward them, and improper partiality toward others in the administration of justice. Sir George Simpson left for Canada April 3d, 1843.

Recognition of the Independence of the Islands—Lord Aberdeen, on the 13th of June, assured the Hawaiian envoys that “Her Majesty’s government had no intention to retain possession of the Sandwich Islands,” and a similar declaration was made to the governments of France and the United States.

At length, on the 28th of November, 1843, the two governments of France and England united in a joint declaration to the effect that “Her Majesty, the queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty, the king of the French, taking into consideration the existence in the Sandwich Islands of a government capable of providing for the regularity of its relations with foreign nations have thought it right to engage reciprocally to consider the Sandwich Islands as an independent state, and never to take possession, either directly or under the title of a protectorate, or under any other form, of any part of the territory of which they are composed…”

John C Calhoun

This was the final act by which the Hawaiian Kingdom was admitted within the pale of civilized nations. Finding that nothing more could be accomplished for the present in Paris, Messrs. Richards and Haalilio returned to the United States in the spring of 1844. On the 6th of July they received a dispatch from Mr. J.C. Calhoun, the Secretary of State, informing them that the President regarded the statement of Mr. Webster and the appointment of a commissioner “as a full recognition on the part of the United States of the independence of the Hawaiian Government.”

Hawaiian Law and Order: Stop Spreading COVID-19—It’s the Law

Law comprises a set of rules that regulate the behavior of persons, to include businesses and organizations, within a country. In a constitutional monarchy, laws reflect the national consciousness of its subjects because they directly enact legislation for the country as members of the legislative branch, which are then signed into law by the Monarch.

In 1840, the Hawaiian Kingdom was transformed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy under a written constitution. This constitution was succeeded by the 1852 constitution, and then by the 1864 constitution, which is the present constitution of the country. According to the 1864 constitution there are three Estates in the Kingdom: the Monarch, the Nobility, and the People. The Monarch appoints Nobles to the Legislative Assembly, but their number cannot exceed 20. Representatives are elected by the People, which always outnumbered the Nobles in the Legislative Assembly where both Estates sat together in a unicameral legislative body. Prior to 1864, there were two separate houses in the legislature, the House of Nobles and the House of Representatives.

On June 21, 1850, both Houses of the Hawaiian Legislature enacted the Penal Code for the Hawaiian Kingdom. Under Hawaiian law, imprisonments for all crimes are at hard labor. Hawaiian crimes are felonies if the imprisonment is two years or more, or misdemeanors if imprisonment is less than two years. Like the United Kingdom, there is no statute of limitations for Hawaiian crimes.

Under Chapter 37 was the misdemeanor crime of “Common Nuisance.” Section 1 states, “The offense of common nuisance is the endangering of the public personal safety or health. … As, for example, the…spreading or endangering the spreading of…infectious disease.” Endangering the spreading is placing the “public personal safety or health at risk.” Section 9 and 10 provides for the punishment. “9. Whoever is guilty of the offense of common nuisance in the first degree…shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor not more than six months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars. 10. Whoever is guilty of the offense of common nuisance in the second degree…shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor not more than two months, or by fine no exceeding twenty-five dollars.” According to the Penal Code, malice “includes the acting with a heedless, reckless disregard or gross negligence of the life or lives, the health or personal safety, or legal rights or privileges of another or others, many or few, known or unknown.”

In 1868, the Legislative Assembly enacted a statute directing the Judges of the Supreme Court to compile and revise the 1850 Penal Code. On April 3, 1869, the revised Penal Code came into effect and included thirty-six additional chapters, and the common nuisance chapter was changed from Chapter 37 to Chapter 36. Spreading an infectious disease is a serious crime under Hawaiian law.

According to §12 of the Hawaiian Civil Code, “One of the most effectual ways of discovering the true meaning of the law…is by considering the reason and spirit of it, or the cause which induced the Legislature to enact it.” The single most threat to the aboriginal Hawaiian population was the introduction of infectious diseases that decimated the population. In 1848, Governor Kekuanāo‘a made the following report that was published in Ka Elele Hawaii newspaper. The report was in Hawaiian, but an English translation is provided by Awaiaulu, Inc.

Regarding Illness in Hilo. Regards to you, the Elele. All of the students of this school are afflicted with the contagious smallpox. Previously, some individuals had coughs. They did not have whooping cough. At church service yesterday, there was one boy with whooping cough. Some had fevers, perhaps two, almost exactly like the illness of 1847. Many are somewhat fatigued. Different sick ones may have frequent cramps or headaches.

Malo is carrying out his duties among the folks of this area. In a nearby land area, there are perhaps 80 who are doing required public service. 18 of them have died since the contagious smallpox got here. Most were strong and able-bodied.

Illness at Lahaina. Lahaina has illness much like what is seen here in Honolulu. There is smallpox and whooping cough. Earlier, all the children had whooping cough, and afterwards, all the adults had already contracted it, and we heard that some have died.

Illness at Molokaʻi. Most of the people here are very ill. Some have died, and many more have the coughing illness. There are many sick folk at Hālawa. Someone dies there nearly every day. Few individuals went to church services on the last Sabbath. At services in the new month, there were none. There is no school at this time. All of the teachers are sick, as are most of the students. There have been no deaths among those who drank the medicine that we provided.

Illness at Honolulu. Here below is the letter from the Governor, M. Kekūanāoʻa, regarding those who died in the two week period from the 1st to the 15th of this November.

Fort of Honolulu. 18 November, 1848. Regards. I am reporting to you about the number those who died from Waikīkī to Moanalua in these past two weeks of November. Waikīkī, 7 dead. Honolulu area and Honolulu town, 271 dead. Kapālama, 7 dead. Kalihi, 24 dead. Moanalua, 7 dead.

You should publish this in the Elele Hawaii, and announce it in churches during services, which is all I have to say to you, with appreciation. M. Kekūanāoʻa.

If those numbers of the reported deaths are added up, it equals 380. And if you divide it by the 15 days, you get 25, that being the number of people who died each single day.

Illness at Waialua (Oʻahu). A letter from there states thus: Everyone here is ill, and some, if not ill, are recovering. Not many have actually died. There were perhaps ten that I heard of, and some of them had been infirm previously.

Extensive death has just hit here in Honolulu. Chiefs are dying, as are their people. Those of status great and small are entering the house of darkness. The wrongdoers and the righteous all end up falling.

This last Sabbath, Iakoba Malo, an attendant of Leleiōhoku, passed on. He was born on Hawaiʻi; he had always been a chiefs attendant, and was nearly 70 when he died. For many years he had been a servant of God, and appeared to be truly pious, steadfast to the oath he had made. It was never heard about him being in trouble, though he was connected to the royal circles, but did not get involved in pleasure seeking or wantonness because of where he resided. That was because his faith in Almighty God was sincere. He died with hope on God’s holy day. Smallpox and its resulting diarrhea were the causes of his death.

Here is another death: Mose Kekūāiwa, the son of Kekūanāoʻa and Kīnaʻu, died on the 24th of November; He was 19 years and four months old. He attended the Chiefs’ Children’s School for seven years, and mastered the English language. His body had been weakened previously by this illness, and when he contracted smallpox again, along with a cough, he passed on. How tragic is the death of the young!

Here is another: Ioana Kaʻiminaʻauao, the foster daughter of Kalama, wife of the king. She was three years and two days old. Kapaʻakea and Keohokālole were her actual parents. Liver failure was the cause of her death.

This as well: On the 19th of November, John Meek Jr. died, he being the firstborn of Captain J. Meek, and being 27 years old.

Because the printers have been ill, the Elele was not published at its usual time. Perhaps it will be published at its customary time in the future. Those who want a good paper should write articles for it. There are few who are writing articles; some have nearly abandoned this.  Those who care about the Elele should give this careful consideration.

There is no doubt that Governor Kekuanāo‘a’s 1848 report on the carnage from disease and virus across the Hawaiian Islands influenced the legislators’ 1850 common nuisance criminal statute of “spreading or endangering the spreading of…infectious disease.” This led to the formation of the Hawaiian Board of Health and the establishment of the Queen’s Hospital that provided free healthcare for aboriginal Hawaiians throughout the Hawaiian Islands.

Like the smallpox virus in the Hawaiian Kingdom, COVID-19 is an infectious disease under Hawaiian law, which has risen to a level of a pandemic in the Hawaiian Islands and the world. The Hawaiian public personal safety and health has been directly impacted by the spreading of COVID-19 and the only “scientific” defenses to the virus are vaccinations, quarantine, masks, and social distancing. Yes, there is no Hawaiian law that mandates these COVID-19 defenses because this virus didn’t exist then, but the common nuisance law exists that includes COVID-19 as an infectious disease. These “scientific” defenses, however, is what prevents the “spreading or endangering the spreading of” COVID-19.

§7 of the Hawaiian Civil Code states, “individuals may, in all cases in which it is not expressly or impliedly prohibited, renounce what the law has established in their favor, when such renunciation does not affect the rights of others, and is not contrary to the public good.”

Don’t commit the Hawaiian crime of common nuisance. Stop spreading COVID-19. It’s the law.

COVID-19: What is the Difference Between Anecdotal Evidence and Scientific Evidence

As Hawai‘i’s people begin to awake to the reality of their country, the Hawaiian Kingdom, having been under an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States since January 17, 1893, they have to contend with conflicting information on a daily basis. It is like walking down the hallway of a house in the dark. Every door that opens is someone telling “their” story with evidence “they” gathered that “they” say supports “their” conclusion. Which story is accurate and which story is not? There needs to be some sort of standard to discern fact from fiction whether it is about the Hawaiian Kingdom or COVID-19 that is in the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Stories are called anecdotes, and information that someone may use to tell the story could be anecdotal evidence. “Anecdotal Evidence is information you obtain from a subjective report, an observation, or some kind of example that may or may not be reliable. In addition, anecdotal evidence is not scientifically valid or representative of a larger group or of conditions in another location.” In academic research, anecdotal evidence is considered a fallacy. The anecdote is the story to be told and the evidence is selectively chosen by the storyteller to support the story. This is commonly referred to as “confirmation bias” or “cherry picking” because the storyteller would ignore evidence that would undermine the story being told.

Anecdotal evidence is on the opposite spectrum of science, which is “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” In political science, which is social science, it is “the systematic study of governance by the application of empirical and generally scientific methods of analysis. As traditionally defined and studied, political science examines the state and its organs and institutions.”

In both the hard sciences and the social sciences, there is a reliance on theory, which is an explanation of a set of known facts. A simple way to think of it is that the theory of football exists to explain the facts of a football game. Both sciences have a critical component called research and research relies on theories and evidence.

One of the ways to discern a person using anecdotal evidence from a person using scientific evidence is to first see their credentials, whether professional or academic, that would indicate that they have a particular expertise in the subject area. You should not prefer a golf coach to explain to you a football game. Second, does the person have published articles on the subject that has been peer-reviewed. This is very important because peer-review is a form of a vetting process that qualifies a person’s explanation and conclusions of a particular subject.

The way peer-review works is a journal’s editorial board will receive a manuscript that represents the author’s research and findings. If the manuscript satisfies the editorial board’s criteria of topic and form, the editorial board will seek out academics that are recognized as experts in certain fields that are covered in the manuscript. A peer-review journal can have up to 4 referees to review and provide comment on the manuscript. Peer-review is usually double blind where the referees do not know who the author is, and the author does not know who the referees are. All the author knows is that the referees are experts in certain fields that the editorial board reached out to.

After the reviews by the referees are submitted to the editorial board, the board will go over the comments made by the referees and determine whether the manuscript is suitable for publication. Some manuscripts would be rejected, while others would be conditionally accepted with adjustments as recommended by the referees. A manuscript based on anecdotal evidence would not be accepted for publication from the start.

In the case of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the vetting process was the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. Larsen sought to hold the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom legally accountable for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over him that caused him to have an unfair trial and be subsequently incarcerated. However, before the PCA could form an arbitration tribunal to resolve the dispute, it had to ensure that the institution had jurisdiction or authority to do so in the first place.

Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention (PCA) only allows access to the PCA if one of the parties is a “State” recognized under international law. The proceedings were instituted on November 8, 1999, and after the PCA verified the Hawaiian Kingdom to be a “State” an arbitration tribunal was formed on June 9, 2000. The Secretariat of the PCA, also known as the International Bureau, served as a vetting institution, and after its due diligence in reviewing the evidence through the legal theory of international law, it concluded that the Hawaiian Kingdom is an independent State.

This finding by an intergovernmental institution, falsifies the storytellers using anecdotal evidence. Since then, academics have published peer-review journal articles and publications that speak to the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State in continuity that has been under a prolonged belligerent occupation by the United States since January 17, 1893.

In this time of the pandemic, it is crucial to distinguish anecdotal evidence from scientific evidence. Dr. Anthony Fauci is an expert in this field, and he does have the credentials. More importantly, Dr. Fauci has publications on the topic of COVID-19 in peer-review journals. If Dr. Fauci lived in nineteenth century, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government’s Board of Health would have relied on his opinions and recommendations regarding COVID-19 if it arrived in the Hawaiian Islands.