The duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government of Hawai‘i was thought to be Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner who was the most senior officer in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard as a consequence of the war crime by omission committed by Major General Kenneth Hara—War Criminal Report no. 24-0001, and down the chain of command, by Brigadier General Stephen Logan—War Criminal Report no. 24-0002, Colonel Wesley Kawakami—War Criminal Report no. 24-0003, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick Werner—War Criminal Report no. 24-0004, Lieutenant Colonel Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr.—War Criminal Report no. 24-0005, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs—War Criminal Report no. 24-0006, and Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis—War Criminal Report no. 24-0007.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry was recently made aware that there was a change of command ceremony on September 7, 2024, with Brigadier General Tyson Tahara becoming commander of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard. The previous commander was Brigadier General Stephen Logan who was serving as both the Deputy Adjutant General under MG Hara as well as commander of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard. The change of command occurred because BG Logan took command as the Adjutant General after MG Hara retired in October.

Today, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) notified, by letter, BG Tahara of his duty to establish a Military Government of Hawai‘i by November 28, 2024, or become the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission under the Army doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes. Because BG Logan committed the war crime by omission, the RCI stated to BG Tahara that he needs to immediately request of Lieutenant Colonel Phelps, who is the Staff Judge Advocate for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard, answers to the following two questions.

First question: Do I have a duty to assume command as Adjutant General under Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 2-11? If yes, then go to the second question. If no, give me a legal reason why I do not have this duty.

Second question: Do I have a duty to establish a military government Under DOD Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation? If yes, then begin the mission of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a military government by November 28, 2024. If no, give me a legal reason why I do not have this duty.

The civilian population of the Hawaiian Islands was not consulted by the United States when its troops invaded the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893. Nor were they consulted when U.S. troops illegally overthrew the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom the following day. And they were not consulted when the United States disregarded the law on the administration of occupied territories, which would create a legal vacuum under the law of occupation.

Now that we are at 131 years of an illegal occupation, the law of occupation still requires the United States, through its State of Hawai‘i Army National Guard, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. To do so, would not require the civilian population to be consulted because it is a consequential military duty when territory is occupied. To not do so would be, for the most senior officer in the Army National Guard, to commit the war crime by omission.

Despite not being consulted, under customary international law, there are rules, however, that establish a working relationship between U.S. military governance, the government of the occupied State, and the civilian population. According to U.S. Army doctrine and regulations, governance in occupied territory is by military government, which is the civilian government of the occupied State headed by a military governor. The highest ranking commander of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard would be the military governor that replaces the civilian governor. Paragraph 6-24, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27 under the heading Limitations of Occupation, states:

Military occupation of enemy territory involves a complex, trilateral set of legal relations between the Occupying Power, the temporarily ousted sovereign authority, and the inhabitants of the occupied territory. Military occupation does not transfer sovereignty to the Occupying Power, but simply gives the Occupying Power the right to govern the enemy territory temporarily.

Article 50 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention states, the “Occupying Power shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children,” and Article 56 states, to “the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory.”

Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations triggers the obligation of the occupant of the occupying State the functions of governance:

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

The law on the administration of occupied territories recognizes a dual managerial obligation under Article 43’s “restore and ensure,” with each having two distinct goals. On this, Professor Benvenisti, in his book The International Law of Occupation, explains:

The need to “restore” public order and civil life arises in the wake of hostilities that disrupt the previous order. The restoration process includes immediate acts needed to bring daily life as far as possible back to the previous state of affairs. The occupant’s discretion in this process is limited. It is the other term, the command “to ensure,” that poses some difficulties. At issue is the extent to which the occupant must adhere to the status quo ante bellum [the situation as it existed before the war]. This question becomes more pressing when the occupation is protracted.

Professor Benvenisti problematizes this second command “to ensure,” because when many occupants who implement this duty “often created a whole cycle of events: new policies brought about new outcomes, which in their turn necessitated multiple other social decisions, and so forth.” This concern is an outcome of a normal situation of occupation when the occupant governs after securing effective control of occupied territory. There is no disregard by the occupant of the legal order of the occupied State, and the occupant is treated more as a temporary trustee of the legal order until a treaty of peace comes into effect.

In the Hawaiian situation, however, these two commands for the occupant to perform its duties is upended by the fact that the United States disregarded the law on the administration of occupied territories by unlawfully imposing its own laws over Hawaiian territory that ruptured the status quo ante bellum of the Hawaiian Kingdom. These American laws in Hawaiian territory constitute the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, which the United States recognizes as a war crime since the First World War.

Consequently, the command “to restore public order and safety” becomes a significant problem for the occupant because the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom remain as they were on January 17, 1893. For the occupant to strictly adhere to this rule and administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, it would be impossible to “restore public and order and safety,” as intended by Article 43. In fact, it would create chaos. Further cementing this problem for the occupant, which is recognized by its own regulations, “Military occupation does not transfer sovereignty to the Occupying Power, but simply gives the Occupying Power the right to govern the enemy territory temporarily.”

For that reason, the occupant, without Hawaiian sovereignty, cannot create law for the Hawaiian Kingdom as the occupied State, but it could create policies stemming from the existing laws of the occupied State that existed prior to the occupation. However, the Council of Regency, as the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, does have the authority to provisionally legislate. As concluded by Professor Lenzerini, in his legal opinion:

Under international humanitarian law, the proclamations of the Council of Regency—including the Proclamation recognizing the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties as the administration  of the occupying State on 3 June 2019—have on the civilian population the effect of domestic legislation aimed at protecting their rights and prerogatives, which should be, to the extent possible, respected and implemented by the occupying power.

“During the occupation,” according to Professor Benvenisti, “the ousted government would often attempt to influence life in the occupied area out of concern for its nationals, to undermine the occupant’s authority or both. One way to accomplish such goals is to legislate for the occupied population.” Furthermore, he states the “occupant should give effect to the sovereign’s new legislation as long as it addresses those issues in which the occupant has no power to amend the local laws, most notably in matters of personal status.”

On October 10, 2014, the Council of Regency, in order to fill the vacuum or empty space of Hawaiian law since 1893, proclaimed:

All laws that have emanated from an unlawful legislature since the insurrection began on July 6, 1887 to the present, to include United States legislation, shall be the provisional laws of the Realm subject to ratification by the Legislative Assembly of the Hawaiian Kingdom once assembled, with the express proviso that these provisional laws do not run contrary to the express, reason and spirit of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to July 6, 1887, the international laws of occupation and international humanitarian law, and if it be the case they shall be regarded as invalid and void.

Therefore, in order for the occupant to fully comply with Article 43—to restore and ensure public order and safety of the civilian population, it must have a working relationship with the Council of Regency that international humanitarian law provides for. On this working relationship, Professor Lenzerini concluded:

The working relationship between the Regency and the administration of the occupying State should have the form of a cooperative relationship aimed at guaranteeing the realization of the rights and interests of the civilian population and the correct administration of the occupied territory, provided that there are no objective obstacles for the occupying power to cooperate and that, in any event, the “supreme” decision-making power belongs to the occupying power itself. This conclusion is consistent with the position of the latter as “administrator” of the Hawaiian territory, as stated in the Council of Regency’s Proclamation recognizing the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties as the administration of the occupying State of 3 June 2019 and presupposed by the pertinent rules of international humanitarian law.

The Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government takes all of this into consideration that will align the provisional laws to the status quo ante bellum of the Hawaiian Kingdom so that the occupant can “restore and ensure public order and safety” of the civilian population.

Today, November 18, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps regarding his duty as the Hawai‘i Army National Guard’s Staff Judge Advocate to advise Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner of his duty to establish a military government no later than November 28, 2024, in order to put a stop to the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty and the secondary war crimes that are consequently triggered upon the population of the Hawaiian Islands. If LTC Phelps fails to advise and LTC Rosner fails to establish a military government, the Royal Commission of Inquiry will consider his conduct as an accessory to LTC Rosner’s war crime by omission under the Army doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes. Here is a link to the letter.

In my last communication to you, by letter dated June 22, 2024, I recommended you advise senior military leadership not to take my communications with them lightly. These communications concerned the interference of State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez with Major General Hara’s military duty to establish a military government in accordance with U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation. It appears senior military leadership did not take my communications with them seriously. This misguided attitude led them to commit the war crime by omission under the Army doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes.

Senior military leadership’s war crimes by omission include Major General Kenneth Hara—War Criminal Report no. 24-0001, Brigadier General Stephen Logan—War Criminal Report no. 24-0002, Colonel Wesley Kawakami—War Criminal Report no. 24-0003, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick Werner—War Criminal Report no. 24-0004, Lieutenant Colonel Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr.—War Criminal Report no. 24-0005, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs—War Criminal Report no. 24-0006, and Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis—War Criminal Report no. 24-0007.

As a result, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner, Executive Officer of the 29th Infantry Brigade, became the most senior officer in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard. In my letter dated November 11, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry notified LTC Rosner that he has until November 28, 2024, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government. Failure to do so will render him a war criminal by omission under the Army doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes.

Customary international law is the determining factor that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a sovereign and independent State. As a source of international law, academic scholars explain the applicable rules of customary international law on a particular subject. Therefore, the continuity of Hawaiian Statehood under customary international law was explained in two legal opinions, one by Professor Matthew Craven and the other by Professor Federico Lenzerini. In addition, war crimes that are being committed, by the imposition of American municipal laws over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, is also a matter of customary international law. This fact is explained by the legal opinion of Professor William Schabas. The continuity of Hawaiian Statehood and the commission of war crimes throughout the Hawaiian Islands is uncontested by the United States and the State of Hawai‘i.

As the most senior legal advisor in the Army National Guard, unless you discover a rule of customary international law that concludes the Hawaiian Kingdom was extinguished as a State under international law by the United States, you are duty bound to advise commanders of their duties and responsibilities under U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation. As such, I am enclosing an article written by JAG officer Major Michael Winn titled “Command Responsibility for Subordinates’ War Crimes: A Twenty-First Century Primer” published in Army Lawyer.

Moreover, in my latest letter to LTC Rosner I recommended that he immediately request of you an answer to the following two questions.

First question: Do I have a duty to assume command of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard under Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 2-11? If yes, then go to the second question. If no, give me a legal reason why I do not have this duty.

Second question: Do I have a duty to establish a military government Under DOD Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation? If yes, then begin the mission of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a military government by November 28, 2024. If no, give me a legal reason why I do not have this duty.

If LTC Rosner has not requested of you answers to these questions, then I am recommending you provide answers to him, as a matter of command responsibility, since the November 28, 2024, deadline is fast approaching. Should you fail to do so and LTC Rosner neglects to establish a military government, thereby, committing the war crime by omission, then the Royal Commission of Inquiry will view your conduct as an accessory by aiding in the commission of this war crime.

Since 2015, you were made aware of the continuity of Hawaiian Statehood and the commission of war crimes when you were the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Maui in State of Hawai‘i v. English et al., criminal no. 14-1-0819. This case was brought before Judge Joseph P. Cardoza of the Second Circuit Court and I served as an expert witness, for the defense, at an evidentiary hearing on March 5, 2015. The purpose for the evidentiary hearing was to meet the burden of proof, established by the Intermediate Court of Appeals in State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo for defendants who are contesting the subject matter jurisdiction of the court because of the unlawful overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, must provide a “factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.” My expert testimony served to answer this in the affirmative.

In my testimony, I provided the factual circumstances of the United States military occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws as to the reason why the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The court’s authority extends from the 1959 Statehood Act passed by the Congress, which has no extra-territorial effect. I stated that for the Court to proceed it would violate “Article 147 [1949 Fourth Geneva Convention], unfair trial [as] a grave breach, which is considered a war crime.” When asked by Judge Cordoza, “Any cross-examination?” You responded, “Your Honor, the State has no questions of Dr. Sai. Thank you for his testimony. One Army officer to another, I appreciate your testimony.” I am enclosing the transcript of my testimony so that LTC Rosner is aware of the severity of this situation.

As you know, I have ten years of service in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard as a field artillery officer so I am well aware of Army regulations and the role of a JAG. The State of Hawai‘i is at a critical juncture as it comes face to face with customary international law and its only recourse to transform itself into a military government. Your role as a legal advisor to LTC Rosner is critical. I am hopeful that you and LTC Rosner perform your affirmative duties and responsibilities to carry out the Army mission of military government without further delay.

In closing, I am also enclosing my recent law article “The Sweeping Effect of Hawaiian Sovereignty and the Necessity of Military Government to Curb the Chaos” that was published by the Hawaiian Journal of Law & Politics.

A particular rule of international humanitarian law addresses what an occupied State can do if the occupying State is violating international law by committing war crimes. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (FM 27-10), under the heading Remedies for Violation of International Law; War Crimes, paragraph 495 states:

In the event of violation of the law of war, the injured party may legally resort to remedial action of the following types:

a. Publication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending belligerent.

b. Protest and demand for compensation and/or punishment of the individual offenders. Such communications may be sent through the protecting power, a humanitarian organization performing the duties of a protecting power, or a neutral state, or by parlementaire direct to the commander of the offending forces. Article 3, H. IV, provides in this respect:

A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.

c. Solicitation of the good offices, mediation, or intervention of neutral States for the purpose of making the enemy observe the law of war. See Articles 11, GWS; 11, GWS Sea; 11, GPW; 12, GC (par. 19), concerning conciliation procedure through the protecting powers.

d. Punishment of captured offenders as war criminals.

e. Reprisals.

After returning from international arbitration proceedings in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in December of 2000, the Council of Regency chose ‘Publication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending belligerent.’ Dr. Keanu Sai is Chairman of the Regency and his publications focus on the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under customary international law and the ramifications of war crimes and human rights violations that have occurred by the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, which is the unlawful imposition of American laws and administrative measures over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State.

In volume 6 of the Hawaiian Journal of Law & Politics, Dr. Keanu Sai authored his most recent article titled “The Sweeping Effect of Hawaiian State Sovereignty and the Necessity of Military Government to Curb the Chaos,” in line with the international rule ‘Publication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending belligerent.’ Dr. Sai has ten years of service as a field artillery officer in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard and is very familiar with U.S. Army regulations such as FM 27-10.

Here is a link to download Dr. Sai’s latest article. In the article’s introduction, Dr. Sai states:

We are now at 131 years of an American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. There are two periods since the occupation began on 17 January 1893. The first period was when the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom was effectively obliterated in the minds of the population. The second period was when the government was restored as a Regency in 1997 up until the present where the national consciousness had begun to be restored. Underlying the first and second periods, however, was the non-compliance with the law of occupation under international humanitarian law, which the military calls the law of armed conflict. So, while the national consciousness in the minds of the population has begun to change, the United States and its proxy, the State of Hawai‘i, has not changed in its unlawful authority.

If the American military in Hawai‘i complied with the international law of occupation when Queen Lili‘uokalani conditionally surrendered to the United States in 1893, the occupation would not have lasted 131 years. Consequently, everything since 1893 that derives from American authority, that would otherwise be valid within the territory of the United States, is invalid and void in Hawaiian territory because the United States has not been vested with Hawaiian sovereignty by a treaty. The only way to bring order to this calamity is by establishing a military government of Hawai‘i where the American military governor has centralized command and control allowable under the law of occupation.

This article will explain the role and function of a military government that presides over occupied territory of a State under international law. And that it is only by a military government that remedial steps can be taken, considering 131 years of illegality, that has consequently placed the entire population of the occupied State in a dire situation where their possessions and rights have evaporated because of the United States unlawful conduct and actions under the law of occupation. Despite the deliberate failure to establish a military government, international law and American military law still obliges the occupant to do so that will eventually bring the American occupation to an end by a treaty of peace between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States.

In this situation, the establishment of a Military Government of Hawai‘i will have to deal the headwinds of chaos that began when the American occupation was initiated on January 17, 1893, after Queen Lili‘uokalani conditionally surrendered to U.S. troops. Why did the chaos begin on this day is because everything that was done by the United States within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom since then was illegal under international law. This is not a political statement, but rather according to the rules of customary international law, which the United States and every other State is bound by. Under his heading The Sweeping Effect of State Sovereignty During a Prolonged Occupation in his article, Dr. Sai writes:

The bedrock of international law is the sovereignty of an independent State. Sovereignty is defined as the “supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed.” For the purposes of international law, Wheaton explains:

Sovereignty is the supreme power by which any State is governed. This supreme power may be exercised either internally or externally. Internal sovereignty is that which is inherent in the people or any State, or vested in its ruler, by its municipal constitution or fundamental laws. This is the object of what has been called internal public law […], but which may be more properly be termed constitutional law. External sovereignty consists in the independence of one political society, in respect to all other political societies. It is by the exercise of this branch of sovereignty that the international relations of one political society are maintained, in peace and in war, with all other political societies. The law by which it is regulated has, therefore, been called external public law […], but may more properly be termed international law.

In the Island of Palmas arbitration, which was a dispute between the United States and the Netherlands, the arbitrator explained that “Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State.” And in the S.S. Lotus case, which was a dispute between France and Turkey, the Permanent Court of International Justice stated:

Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention [treaty].

The permissive rule under international law that allows one State to exercise authority over the territory of another State is Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that mandates the occupant to establish a military government to provisionally administer the laws of the occupied State until there is a treaty of peace. For the past 131 years, there has been no permissive rule of international law that allows the United States to exercise any authority in the Hawaiian Kingdom, which makes the prolonged occupation illegal under international law.

As the arbitral tribunal, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, noted in its award, “in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.” The scope of Hawaiian sovereignty can be gleaned from the Civil Code. §6 states:

The laws are obligatory upon all persons, whether subjects of this kingdom, or citizens or subjects of any foreign State, while within the limits of this kingdom, except so far as exception is made by the laws of nations in respect to Ambassadors or others. The property of all such persons, while such property is within the territorial jurisdiction of this kingdom, is also subject to the laws.

Property within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom includes both real and personal. Hawaiian sovereignty over the population, whether Hawaiian subjects or citizens or subjects of any foreign State, is expressed in the Penal Code. Under Chapter VI—Treason, the statute, which is in line with international law, states:

1. Treason is hereby defined to be any plotting or attempt to dethrone or destroy the King, or the levying of war against the King’s government, or the adhering to the enemies thereof, giving them aid and comfort, the same being done by a person owing allegiance to this kingdom.

2. Allegiance is the obedience and fidelity due to the kingdom from those under its protection.

3. An alien, whether his native country be at war or at peace with this kingdom, owes allegiance to this kingdom during his residence therein, and during such residence, is capable of committing treason against this kingdom.

4. Ambassadors and other ministers of foreign states, and their alien secretaries, servants and members of their families, do not owe allegiance to this kingdom, though resident therein, and are not capable of committing treason against this kingdom.

When the Hawaiian Kingdom Government conditionally surrendered to the United States forces on January 17, 1893, the action taken did not transfer Hawaiian sovereignty but merely relinquished control of Hawaiian sovereignty because of the American invasion and occupation. According to Benvenisti:

The foundation upon which the entire law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power, whether through the actual or the threatened use of force, or in any way unauthorized by the sovereign. Effective control by foreign military force can never bring about by itself a valid transfer of sovereignty. Because occupation does not transfer sovereignty over the territory to the occupying power, international law must regulate the inter-relationships between the occupying force, the ousted government, and the local inhabitants for the duration of the occupation. […] Because occupation does not amount to sovereignty, the occupation is also limited in time and the occupant has only temporary managerial powers, for the period until a peaceful solution is reached. During that limited period, the occupant administers the territory on behalf of the sovereign. Thus the occupant’s status is conceived to be that of a trustee (emphasis added).

The occupant’s ‘managerial powers’ is exercised by a military government over the territory of the occupied State that the occupant is in effective control. The military government would need to be in effective control of the territory to effectively enforce the laws of the occupied State. Without effective control there can be no enforcement of the laws. The Hawaiian government’s surrender on January 17, 1893, that transferred effective control over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom to the American military did not transfer Hawaiian sovereignty. U.S. Army regulations on this subject state, being “an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty (emphasis added).”

When the Queen surrendered, it transferred temporary authority to the American military, the government apparatus also came under the control of the American military where the office of the Monarch would be replaced by the theater commander of U.S. forces who would be referred to as the military governor. All members of the executive and judicial branches of government would remain in place except for the legislative branch because the military governor “has supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authority, limited only by the laws and customs of war and by directives from higher authority.”

Through the publications and awareness at the academic level and in the communities of the current legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State, the Council of Regency has managed to shift its position. From an outlier when it began its exposure campaign through academic research and presentations, to shifting the center of gravity in its direction by leveraging Hawaiian sovereignty in order to bring compliance with the law of occupation. The Council of Regency’s methodical and deliberate law-based and fact-based approach has pierced through the veil of a false narrative that the Hawaiian Islands are a part of the United States. This approach has also positioned the Council of Regency to remedy the sweeping effects of Hawaiian State sovereignty in accordance with Hawaiian Kingdom laws making them indispensable.

By employing lawfare, which according U.S. General Dunlap is “the strategy of using laws as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve an operational objective,” the Council of Regency has made tremendous strides toward American military compliance with the law of occupation since it began Phase II of its Strategic Plan. Phase I, “Verification of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and a subject of International Law,” was satisfied after the PCA recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law. This act by the PCA initiated Phase II, which is “Exposure of Hawaiian Statehood within the framework of international law and the law of occupation as it affects the realm of politics and economic at the both the international and domestic levels.”

On July 27, 2023, Major General Kenneth Hara admitted that Hawai‘i is occupied, after his judge advocate Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps could not refute the information provided to MG Hara by Dr. Keanu Sai, Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, at their meeting on April 13, 2023, at the Grand Naniloa Hotel in Hilo. Anticipating a second meeting with MG Hara to discuss the transition into a military government, the Council of Regency drafted an Operational Plan for the transformation of the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government on August 14, 2023.

That meeting never occurred and it was later revealed that Attorney General Anne Lopez interceded and instructed MG Hara to ignore Dr. Sai. It was later revealed to Dr. Sai that she also instructed MG Hara to not request a legal opinion that would qualify her baseless instruction to ignore. This placed MG Hara in a position of dereliction of duty and criminal culpability for the Army’s doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes. This command responsibility comes under paragraph 4-24 of U.S. Army Regulation 600-20, which states under the heading of Command responsibility under the law of war:

Commanders are legally responsible for war crimes they personally commit, order committed, or know or should have known about and take no action to prevent, stop, or punish.

When MG Hara tasked LTC Phelps to refute the information provided by Dr. Sai, he was not only made aware of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law, but he was also made aware that war crimes have and continue to be committed by the federal government, the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties through the unlawful imposition of American laws and administrative measures throughout the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

According to Professor William Schabas, in his legal opinion on war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom, the unlawful imposition of American laws and administrative measures is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. This war crime consequently triggered secondary war crimes that include the war crime of compulsory enlistment; the war crime of denationalization; the war crime of confiscation or destruction of property; the war crime of deprivation of fair and regular trial; the war crime of deporting civilians of the occupied territory; and the war crime of transferring populations into an occupied territory.

Dereliction of duty and failure to obey Army regulations that require the establishment of a military government in occupied territory are two court martial offenses under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If this duty has the effect of putting a stop to war crimes, it is a war crime by omission under the doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes.

Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner, Executive Officer of the 29th Infantry Brigade, became the most senior officer in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard because of war crimes by omission committed by Major General Kenneth Hara—War Criminal Report no. 24-0001, Brigadier General Stephen Logan—War Criminal Report no. 24-0002, Colonel Wesley Kawakami—War Criminal Report no. 24-0003, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick Werner—War Criminal Report no. 24-0004, Lieutenant Colonel Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr.—War Criminal Report no. 24-0005, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs—War Criminal Report no. 24-0006, and Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis—War Criminal Report no. 24-0007.

In a letter by Dr. Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, dated November 11, 2024, LTC Rosner was notified that he has until November 28, 2024, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government in accordance with U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation. 

To guide LTC Rosner in the transformation is the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan, which has four essential tasks, with each having corresponding implied tasks. The Operational Plan provides a comprehensive approach for the implementation of these essential and implied tasks in line with the law of occupation and Hawaiian Kingdom laws.

First essential task is for the Military Government to become temporary administrator of the laws of the occupied State—the Hawaiian Kingdom

a. First implied task is for the theater commander of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard to proclaim the establishment of the Military Government of Hawai‘i
b. Second implied task is for the Military Governor to proclaim provisional laws in order to bring the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom up to date
c. Third implied task is to disband the State of Hawai’i Legislature and the County Councils

The second essential task is to be the temporary administrator of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates that belong to the occupied State

a. First implied task is to remove the United States flag from all public buildings of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Third essential task is to protect the institutions of the occupied state

a. First implied task is to realign Departments and Agencies to the status quo ante as they were prior to the American occupation that started on January 17, 1893
b. Second implied task is for those in the Military Government sign oaths of allegiance to the Hawaiian Kingdom, which is required under Hawaiian law
c. Third implied task is to reinstate universal healthcare for aboriginal Hawaiians at Queen’s Hospital
d. Fourth implied task is to take affirmative steps to end denationalization through Americanization in the public and private schools

Fourth essential task is to protect the rights of the population of the occupied State

The State of Hawai‘i is the governing apparatus of the Hawaiian Kingdom with its three branches of government. On January 17, 1893, the insurgents, with the protection U.S. Marines, proclaimed the establishment of the provisional government. Their proclamation stated:

All officers under the existing Government are hereby requested to continue to exercise their functions and perform the duties of their respective offices, with the exception of the following named persons: Queen Liliuokalani, Charles B. Wilson, Marshal, Samuel Parker, Minister of Foreign Affairs, W.H. Cornwell, Minister of Finance, John F. Colburn, Minister of the Interior, Arthur P. Peterson, Attorney General who are hereby removed from office.

After their proclamation, the insurgents forced those remaining in government positions to sign oaths of allegiance to the new regime. On July 4, 1894, the insurgents renamed themselves the Republic of Hawai‘i. After illegally annexing the Hawaiian Islands in 1898, the Congress renamed the government apparatus to be the Territory of Hawai‘i in 1900. And in 1959, the Congress renamed the Territory of Hawai‘i to be the State of Hawai‘i.

Much of the departments and agencies of the Hawaiian Kingdom were renamed and reorganized in violation of the law of occupation. The cornerstone of the law of occupation is that the occupier cannot alter, change or replace the occupied State’s governing apparatus, its legal order, its territory, and its population. According to Professor Federico Lenzerini, in his recent international law article, published in the International Review of Contemporary Law, he states:

Intertemporal-law-based perspective confirms the illegality— under international law—of the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by the US. In fact, as regards in particular the topic of military occupation, the affirmation of the ex injuria jus non oritur rule predated the Stimson doctrine, because it was already consolidated as a principle of general international law since the XVIII Century. In fact, “in the course of the nineteenth century, the concept of occupation as conquest was gradually abandoned in favour of a model of occupation based on the temporary control and administration of the occupied territory, the fate of which could be determined only by a peace treaty”; in other words, “the fundamental principle of occupation law accepted by mid-to-late 19th-century publicists was that an occupant could not alter the political order of territory.”

Under the law of occupation, a military government is the civilian government of the occupied State. The State of Hawai‘i is not the civilian government of the United States but rather the civilian government of the Hawaiian Kingdom that was hijacked by insurgents installed by the United States. As President Cleveland told the Congress on December 1893, “the provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States,” and that it “was neither a government de facto nor de jure.” In other words, the insurgents were pretending to be a government. According to Professor Krystyna Marek:

Puppet governments are organs of the occupant and, as such form part of his legal order. The agreements concluded by them with the occupant are not genuine international agreements because such agreements are merely decrees of the occupant disguised as agreements which the occupant in fact concludes with himself. Their measures and laws are those of the occupant.

Military governments operate on the budget of the occupied State and not the budget of the occupying State. Under the third essential task, federal agencies will cease to exist and be replaced by the corresponding department or agency of the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, there are 23,453 federal employees in the Hawaiian Kingdom, with 18,135 from the U.S. Department of Defense. These employees of the Department of Defense, to include U.S. troops of the Indo-Pacific Command, will begin to withdraw from Hawaiian territory because the 1884 Pear Harbor Convention, which the Indo-Pacific Command based its presence on, was terminated on October 26, 2024, by the Council of Regency.

This leaves 5,318 non-Department of Defense employees. Some of these employees may remain employed if what they do under American law is not inconsistent with Hawaiian Kingdom law. To determine whether the function of these agencies is a provisional law under the second implied task corresponding to the first essential task would be to apply the formula, in the Operational Plan, to be used for determining what American municipal laws may be considered a provisional law of the Hawaiian Kingdom. An example of an agency that would appear to continue to exist is the function of TSA at the airports. Their salaries will have to be provided for by the budget of the Military Government of Hawai‘i and not from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The budget for the Military Government of Hawai‘i will be the collective budgets of the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties. If additional revenues are required, the collection of these revenues must be in accordance with the law of occupation.

Today, November 7, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner regarding his military duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government no later than November 28, 2024. Here is a link to the letter.

It is now over a year since the Hawai‘i Army National Guard’s leadership became aware that the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation is being committed and that its their duty to put a stop to it by establishing a military government in accordance with U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation. Major General Kenneth Hara’s willful failure to obey Army regulations, and resulting his dereliction of duty, has led to war criminal reports for the war crime by omission on himself, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, Colonel Wesley Kawakami, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick Werner, Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr., Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs, and Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis. As a result, you are, now, the most senior officer in the Army National Guard.

Their conduct and omission to establish a military government falls squarely under  Department of Defense Law of War Manual, para. 18.22.1, which states, “Any person who commits an act that constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. International law imposes duties and liabilities on individuals as well as States, and individuals may be punished for violations of international law.” And under para. 4-24, Army Regulations 600-20, which states that “Commanders are legally responsible for war crimes they personally commit, order committed, or know or should have known about and take no action to prevent, stop, or punish.”

MG Hara, BT Logan, Colonel Kawakami, LTC Werner, LTC Tuisamatatele, Jr., LTC Jacobs, and LTC Balsis “knew” that the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation was being committed by the federal government, the State of Hawai‘i, and the Counties and they each took no action to stop it by establishing a military government. According to Major Michael Winn, who is chief of administrative law at U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command at Fort Lee, Virginia, in his article Command Responsibility for Subordinates’ War Crimes—A Twenty-First Century Primer, he states “Commanders who fail to comply with their obligations with regard to the LOAC are at risk of an administrative reprimand or elimination. Worse, failure to comply could serve as the basis for a court-martial for dereliction of duty.” Major Winn then concludes:

Meeting our Nation’s obligations under the law of war does not come automatically—it requires leadership. In this era of increased focus on command responsibility for war crimes, legal advisors have an important role to play in helping their commanders prevent, stop, and punish such offenses. Accordingly, legal advisors keep their commanders on the high road of command responsibility, where they can focus on their mission—to prepare Soldiers for combat and lead them in defense of our Nation.

Because the senior leadership of the Army National Guard committed war crimes, para. 18.22.1 and para. 4-24 renders them all unfit to lead. Consequently, as the most senior officer, you have a duty to assume command under Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 2-11, which states that the “senior officer, WO, cadet, NCO, or junior enlisted Soldier among troops at the scene of an emergency will assume temporary command and control of the Soldiers present.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines an emergency as a “sudden unexpected happening; an unforeseen occurrence or condition; perplexing contingency or complication of circumstances; a sudden or unexpected occasion for action; exigency; pressing necessity. Emergency is an unforeseen combination of circumstances that calls for immediate action without time for full deliberation.”

We are approaching November 28th, a national holiday, where Great Britain and France jointly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State. This day of Hawaiian independence ushered the Hawaiian Kingdom into the family of nations as a subject of international law. As a government officer of the Hawaiian Kingdom and Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI), I am giving you until November 28, 2024, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government or become the subject of a war criminal report like the commanders before you.

To comply with Army regulations and directives and to avoid criminal culpability, you must obtain legal advice from Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps, who is the Staff Judge Advocate for the Hawai‘i National Guard and now your legal adviser. I recommend that you immediately request of LTC Phelps an answer to the following two questions.

First question: Do I have a duty to assume command of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard under Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 2-11? If yes, then go to the second question. If no, give me a legal reason why I do not have this duty.

Second question: Do I have a duty to establish a military government Under DOD Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation? If yes, then begin the mission of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a military government by November 28, 2024. If no, give me a legal reason why I do not have this duty.

The law of occupation provides for a working relationship between the occupant, the government of the occupied State, and the population. Para. 6-24, FM 6-27, states “Military occupation of enemy territory involves a complex, trilateral set of legal relations between the Occupying Power, the temporarily ousted sovereign authority, and the inhabitants of the occupied territory.” Appropriately, Professor Federico Lenzerini explains this relationship between the occupant and the Council of Regency in his “Legal Opinion on the Authority of the Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” Professor Lenzerini states:

In light of the foregoing, it may be concluded that the working relationship between the Regency and the administration of the occupying State should have the form of a cooperative relationship aimed at guaranteeing the realization of the rights and interests of the civilian population and the correct administration of the occupied territory, provided that there are no objective obstacles for the occupying power to cooperate and that, in any event, the “supreme” decision-making power belongs to the occupying power itself. This conclusion is consistent with the position of the latter as “administrator” of the Hawaiian territory, as stated in the Council of Regency’s Proclamation recognizing the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties as the administration of the occupying State of 3 June 2019 and presupposed by the pertinent rules of international humanitarian law.

After serving 10 years in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard and having been the commander of Charlie Battery, 1/487th Field Artillery, I know Army regulations. In my letters to you, I provided the legal framework regarding occupied territory and war crimes under customary international law. Military occupations are matters of fact and not law. The law of occupation comes into play when the occupant is in effective control of occupied territory—1907 Hague Regulations (art. 42). The State of Hawai‘i is in control here and not the federal government. The law of occupation regulates the actions and conduct of U.S. military personnel within the occupied territory.

Attorney General Anne Lopez has provided no legal explanation that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States. Instead, her instructions were to ignore all of this information. Until she provides the legal basis for this assertion, the presumption, that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, remains, and you, as the senior officer in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard, are duty bound to comply with U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation.

I am enclosing my curriculum vitae so you can see my credentials, qualifications, and publications. Of note, is my forthcoming chapter titled Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire in a book titled Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age, which I am also enclosing. Here is the abstract for my chapter:

From archaic state to a British protectorate to a sovereign and independent state, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s evolution of governance during the imperial age is unparalleled in the world. While being the first country of Oceania to become a member of the international community of states since the nineteenth century, the Hawaiian Kingdom was not able to escape the tentacles of empire, but it was able to engage foreign aggression on its own terms and ultimately survive. This chapter covers the Hawaiian Kingdom from the death of Captain James Cook, the rise of the warrior king Kamehameha I—progenitor of the kingdom, government reform, independence, the overthrow of its government by United States forces, and its continued existence as a state under international law.

Oxford University Press, a renowned academic publisher in England, is publishing this book. If it is a frivolous assertion of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s ‘continued existence as a state under international law,’ then Oxford University Press would not have accepted my chapter for publication.

In addition, a book review of my latest book The Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom (2020) was published in the Polish Journal of Political Science, which I am also enclosing. In her book review, Professor Anita Budziszewska concludes:

I regard this publication as an exceptionally valuable one that systematises matters of the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom, taking up the key issues surrounding the often ignored topic of a difficult historical context occurring between Hawaii and the United States. The issue at stake here has been regenerated synthetically, on multiple levels, with a penetrating analysis of the regulations and norms in international law applying to Hawaii – starting from potential occupied-territory status, and moving through to multi-dimensional issues relating to both war crimes and human rights. This is one of the few books – if not the only one – to describe its subject matter so comprehensively and completely. I therefore see this work as being of exceptional value and considerable scientific importance. It may serve not only as an academic source, but also a professional source of knowledge for both practicing lawyers and historians dealing with the matter on hand. The ambition of those who sought to take up this difficult topic can only be commended.

Thus, it has now become a known fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom is an occupied State under international law.

Queen Lili‘uokalani arrived in Washington, D.C., on the evening of January 24, 1897, and departed on July 10, 1898. Her purpose was to use her stately influence to correct the wrong that occurred when her government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was unlawfully overthrown with the participation of U.S. troops on January 17, 1893. The Queen’s conditional surrender stated:

I, Liliuokalani, by the grace of God and under the constitution of the Hawai­ian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a provisional government of and for this Kingdom.

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

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

U.S. President Grover Cleveland initiated a presidential investigation on March 11, 1893, by appointing Special Commissioner James Blount to travel to the Hawaiian Islands and provide periodic reports to the U.S. Secretary of State Walter Gresham. Commissioner Blount arrived in the Islands on March 29th after which he “directed the removal of the flag of the United States from the government building and the return of the American troops to their vessels.” His last and final report was dated 17 July 1893, and on 18 October 1893, Secretary of State Gresham reported to the President:

The Provisional Government was established by the action of the American min­ister and the presence of the troops landed from the Boston, and its continued existence is due to the belief of the Hawaiians that if they made an effort to over­throw it, they would encounter the armed forces of the United States.

The earnest appeals to the American minister for military protection by the offi­cers of that Government, after it had been recognized, show the utter absurdity of the claim that it was established by a successful revolution of the people of the Islands. Those appeals were a confession by the men who made them of their weakness and timidity. Courageous men, conscious of their strength and the jus­tice of their cause, do not thus act. …

The Government of Hawaii surrendered its authority under a threat of war, until such time only as the Government of the United States, upon the facts being presented to it, should reinstate the constitutional sovereign…

Should not the great wrong done to a feeble but independent State by an abuse of the authority of the United States be undone by restoring the legitimate govern­ment? Anything short of that will not, I respectfully submit, satisfy the demands of justice.

On December 18, 1893, President Cleveland delivered a message to the Congress on his investigation into the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government. The President con­cluded that the “military occupation of Honolulu by the United States…was wholly without justification, either as an occupation by consent or as an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American life and property.” He also determined “that the provisional govern­ment owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States.” Finally, the President admitted that by “an act of war…the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown.”

Through executive mediation between the Queen and the new U.S. Minister to the Hawaiian Islands, Albert Willis, that lasted from November 13th through December 18th, an agreement of peace was reached. According to the executive agreement, by exchange of notes, the President committed to restoring the Queen as the constitutional sovereign, and the Queen agreed, after being restored, to grant a full pardon to the insurgents. Political wrangling in the Congress, however, blocked President Cleveland from carrying out his obligation of restoration of the Queen.

While she was in Washington, D.C., the Queen received word that the insurgents, calling themselves the Republic of Hawai‘i since July 4, 1894, signed a treaty of cession with President William McKinley on June 16, 1897. The following day, Queen Lili‘uokalani filed the following protest with U.S. State Department:

I, Lili‘uokalani of Hawai‘i, by the will of God named heir apparent on the tenth day of April, A.D. 1877, and by the grace of God Queen of the Hawaiian Islands on the seventeenth day of January, A.D. 1893, do hereby protest against the ratification of a certain treaty, which, so I am informed, has been signed at Washington by Messrs. Hatch, Thurston, and Kinney, purporting to cede those Islands to the territory and dominion of the United States. 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.

Because the official protests made by me on the seventeenth day of January, 1893, to the so-called Provisional Government was signed by me, and received by said government with the assurance that the case was referred to the United States of America for arbitration.

Because that protest and my communications to the United States Government immediately thereafter expressly declare that I yielded my authority to the forces of the United States in order to avoid bloodshed, and because I recognized the futility of a conflict with so formidable a power.

Because the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and an envoy commissioned by them reported in official documents that my government was unlawfully coerced by the forces, diplomatic and naval, of the United States; that I was at the date of their investigations the constitutional ruler of my people.

Because neither the above-named commission nor the government which sends it has ever received any such authority from the registered voters of Hawaii, but derives its assumed powers from the so-called committee of public safety, organized on or about the seventeenth day of January, 1893, said committee being composed largely of persons claiming American citizenship, and not one single Hawaiian was a member thereof, or in any way participated in the demonstration leading to its existence.

Because my people, about forty thousand in number, have in no way been consulted by those, three thousand in number, who claim the right to destroy the independence of Hawaii. My people constitute four-fifths of the legally qualified voters of Hawaii, and excluding those imported for the demands of labor, about the same proportion of the inhabitants.

Because said treaty ignores, not only the civic rights of my people, but, further, the hereditary property of their chiefs. Of the 4,000,000 acres composing the territory said treaty offers to annex, 1,000,000 or 915,000 acres has in no way been heretofore recognized as other than the private property of the constitutional monarch, subject to a control in no way differing from other items of a private estate.

Because it is proposed by said treaty to confiscate said property, technically called the crown lands, those legally entitled thereto, either now or in succession, receiving no consideration whatever for estates, their title to which has been always undisputed, and which is legitimately in my name at this date.

Because said treaty ignores, not only all professions of perpetual amity and good faith made by the United States in former treaties with the sovereigns representing the Hawaiian people, but all treaties made by those sovereigns with other and friendly powers, and it is thereby in violation of international law.

Because, by treating with the parties claiming at this time the right to cede said territory of Hawaii, the Government of the United States receives such territory from the hands of those whom its own magistrates (legally elected by the people of the United States, and in office in 1893) pronounced fraudulently in power and unconstitutionally ruling Hawaii.

Therefore I,  Lili‘uokalani of Hawaii, do hereby call upon the President of that nation, to whom alone I yielded my property and my authority, to withdraw said treaty (ceding said Islands) from further consideration. I ask the honorable Senate of the United States to decline to ratify said treaty, and I implore the people of this great and good nation, from whom my ancestors learned the Christian religion, to sustain their representatives in such acts of justice and equity as may be in accord with the principles of their fathers, and to the Almighty Ruler of the universe, to him who judgeth righteously, I commit my cause.

Done at Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America, this seventeenth day of June, in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-seven.

[signed]  Lili‘uokalani

[signed]   Joseph Heleluhe     )
[signed]   Wakeki Heleluhe     )  Witness to signature
[signed]   Julius A. Palmer      )

From Washington, the Queen notified two political organizations in Hawai‘i, the Hui Aloha ‘Āina (Hawaiian Patriotic League) and the Hui Kālaiʻāina (Hawaiian Political Association) to gather signature petitions against the treaty by the people. Through the direction of the Queen, representatives of these organizations that arrived in Washington on December 6, 1897, managed to get enough Senators to not ratify the treaty. By March of 1898, the treaty failed.

When the Congress declared war upon Spain the following month on April 25, 1898, the Congress set a course to unilaterally seize the Hawaiian Islands at the height of the Spanish-American War. The war did not end until December 10, 1898. On July 6, 1898, the Congress passed a joint resolution of annexation, and President McKinley signed it into American law the following day.

The congressional records, however, reveal that Congressmen and Senators were fully aware that a joint resolution is not a treaty, and that any American legislation, whether by an Act or a Joint Resolution, is limited in authority to American territory and not foreign territory. One of these Senators was Senator William Allen of Nebraska that stated on the floor of the Senate on July 4, 1898, when the joint resolution of annexing the Hawaiian Islands was being debated. Senator Allen stated:

The 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. In other words, the Constitution and statutes can not reach across the territorial boundaries of the United States into the territorial domain of another government and affect that government or persons or property therein.

Two years later, on February 28, 1900, during a debate on senate bill no. 222 that proposed the establishment of the Territory of Hawai‘i, Senator Allen reiterated, “I utterly repudiate the power of Congress to annex the Hawaiian Islands by a joint resolution such as passed the Senate. It is ipso facto null and void.”  

In its 1824 decision in The Apollon, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the “laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territories except so far as regards its own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction.” The Hawaiian Supreme Court also cited The Apollon in its 1858 decision, In re Francis de Flanchet, where the court stated that the “laws of a nation cannot have force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction. And however general and comprehensive the phrases used in the municipal laws may be, they must always be restricted in construction, to places and persons upon whom the Legislature have authority and jurisdiction.” Both the Apollon and Flanchet cases addressed the imposition of French municipal laws within the territories of the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States were fully aware of the limitation of a country’s legislation so it stands to reason that the Queen knew this as well.

In a 1988 legal opinion by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, the Acting As­sistant Attorney General, Douglas Kmiec, agreed. After covering the limitation of congressional authority, which, in effect, confirmed the statements made by Senator Allen, Acting As­sistant Attorney General Kmiec concluded that it is “unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution.” If it was unclear how Congress “acquired Hawaii by joint resolution,” it would be equally unclear how Congress could establish the Territory of Hawai‘i in 1900, and the State of Hawai‘i in 1959.

From 1893 to the writing of her book, Hawai‘i’s Story by Hawai‘i’s Queen, that was published in 1898 after she returned from Washington, Queen Lili‘uokalani relied on justice and the law to preserve the rights of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its people in the face of American racism and its pursuit of becoming a naval power in the world. After exhausting all diplomatic and legal efforts, she could not stop the American theft of a country not theirs. So, she ends her final chapter with the story about Naboth’s vineyard and a stark warning to the American people.

Oh, honest Americans, as Christians, hear me for my down-trodden people! Their form of government is as dear to them as yours is precious to you. Quite as warmly as you love your country, so they love theirs. With all your goodly possessions, covering a territory so immense that there yet remain parts unexplored, possessing islands that, although near at hand, had to be neutral ground in time of war, do not covet the vineyard of Naboth’s so far from your shores, lest the punishment of Ahab fall upon you, if not in your day in that of your children, for ‘be not deceived, God is not mocked.’ The people to whom your fathers told of the living God, and taught to call ‘Father,’ and whom the sons now seek to despoil and destroy, are crying aloud to Him in their time of trouble; and He will keep His promise, and will listen to the voices of His Hawaiian children lamenting for their homes.

It is for them that I would give the last drop of my blood; it is for them that I would spend, nay, am spending, everything belonging to me. Will it be in vain? It is for the American people and their representatives in Congress to answer these questions. As they deal with me and my people, kindly, generously, and justly, so may the Great Ruler of all nations deal with the grand and glorious nation of the United States of America.

The story of Naboth comes from the Old Testament of the Bible. According to 1 Kings 21:1-28:

Some time later there was an incident involving a vineyard belonging to Naboth the Jezreelite. The vineyard was in Jezreel, close to the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. 

² Ahab said to Naboth, “Let me have your vineyard to use for a vegetable garden, since it is close to my palace. In exchange I will give you a better vineyard or, if you prefer, I will pay you whatever it is worth.”

³ But Naboth replied, “The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my ancestors.”

⁴ So Ahab went home, sullen and angry because Naboth the Jezreelite had said, “I will not give you the inheritance of my ancestors.” He lay on his bed sulking and refused to eat.

⁵ His wife Jezebel came in and asked him, “Why are you so sullen? Why won’t you eat?”

⁶ He answered her, “Because I said to Naboth the Jezreelite, ‘Sell me your vineyard; or if you prefer, I will give you another vineyard in its place.’ But he said, ‘I will not give you my vineyard.’”

⁷ Jezebel his wife said, “Is this how you act as king over Israel? Get up and eat! Cheer up. I’ll get you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.”

⁸ So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, placed his seal on them, and sent them to the elders and nobles who lived in Naboth’s city with him. 

⁹ In those letters she wrote: “Proclaim a day of fasting and seat Naboth in a prominent place among the people. 

¹⁰ But seat two scoundrels opposite him and have them bring charges that he has cursed both God and the king. Then take him out and stone him to death.”

¹¹ So the elders and nobles who lived in Naboth’s city did as Jezebel directed in the letters she had written to them. 

¹² They proclaimed a fast and seated Naboth in a prominent place among the people. 

¹³ Then two scoundrels came and sat opposite him and brought charges against Naboth before the people, saying, “Naboth has cursed both God and the king.” So they took him outside the city and stoned him to death. 

¹⁴ Then they sent word to Jezebel: “Naboth has been stoned to death.”

¹⁵ As soon as Jezebel heard that Naboth had been stoned to death, she said to Ahab, “Get up and take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite that he refused to sell you. He is no longer alive, but dead.” 

¹⁶ When Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, he got up and went down to take possession of Naboth’s vineyard.

¹⁷ Then the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite: 

¹⁸ “Go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, who rules in Samaria. He is now in Naboth’s vineyard, where he has gone to take possession of it. 

¹⁹ Say to him, ‘This is what the Lord says: Have you not murdered a man and seized his property?’ Then say to him, ‘This is what the Lord says: In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood—yes, yours!’”

²⁰ Ahab said to Elijah, “So you have found me, my enemy!” “I have found you,” he answered, “because you have sold yourself to do evil in the eyes of the Lord. 

²¹ He says, ‘I am going to bring disaster on you. I will wipe out your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel—slave or free. 

²² I will make your house like that of Jeroboam son of Nebat and that of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have aroused my anger and have caused Israel to sin.’

²³ “And also concerning Jezebel the Lord says: ‘Dogs will devour Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.’

²⁴ “Dogs will eat those belonging to Ahab who die in the city, and the birds will feed on those who die in the country.”

²⁵ (There was never anyone like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, urged on by Jezebel his wife. 

²⁶ He behaved in the vilest manner by going after idols, like the Amorites the Lord drove out before Israel.)

²⁷ When Ahab heard these words, he tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and fasted. He lay in sackcloth and went around meekly.

²⁸ Then the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite: 

²⁹ “Have you noticed how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself, I will not bring this disaster in his day, but I will bring it on his house in the days of his son.”

Since 1893, the United States has not treated the Hawaiian people fairly or justly. Their lands have been taken, their rights to free healthcare at Queen’s Hospital has been denied, and they continue to suffer from the high cost of living, which has driven the majority of the Hawaiian people to live in the United States. Native Hawaiians are the majority in the prisons. All of this did not exist before the American occupation began in 1893.

As customary international law concludes that despite the unlawful overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 and the unilateral seizure of the Hawaiian Islands in 1898, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under a prolonged occupation. Customary international law also reveals that war crimes have and continue to be committed by officials of the United States and the State of Hawai‘i, which will lead to their prosecutions. And the current state of politics in the United States is so revulsive and hateful, it appears to be literally tearing the United States in half.

Is this the “punishment of Ahab” that the Queen warned of?

On October 20, 2023, the Council of Regency, as the government of the occupied State, initiated the process to terminate the 1884 Supplemental Convention (“Pearl Harbor Convention”). Secretary of State Antony Blinken received the notice of termination from the Council of Regency on October 26, 2023, at 05:47 hours, which consequently triggered the tolling of twelve months. According to the terms of the Pearl Harbor Convention, the treaty will be terminated on October 26, 2024, 05:47 hours.

The Pearl Harbor Convention extended the duration of the 1875 Commercial Reciprocity Treaty an additional seven years until 1894, unless either the United States or the Hawaiian Kingdom gives notice to the other of its intention to terminate the treaty and convention. According to Article I:

The High Contracting Parties agree, that the time fixed for the duration of the said Convention, shall be definitely extended for a term of seven years from the date of the exchange of ratifications hereof, and further, until the expiration of twelve months after either of the High Contracting Parties shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same, each of the High Contracting Parties being at liberty to give such notice to the other at the end of the said term of seven years or at any time thereafter.

As a condition for the extension of the commercial treaty, the United States sought exclusive access to Pearl Harbor. Article II of the Pearl Harbor Convention provides:

His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands grants to the Government of the United States the exclusive right to enter the harbor of Pearl River, in the Island of Oahu, and to establish and maintain there a coaling and repair station for the use of vessels of the United States, and to that end the United States may improve the entrance to said harbor and do all other things needful to the purpose aforesaid.

According to Article 1, the Pearl Harbor Convention came into effect in 1887 after ratifications were exchanged in Washington, D.C., and would last for seven years and further until “either of the High Contracting Parties shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate the same,” where termination would commence twelve months after the notification is received by the other High Contracting Party. Although the Hawaiian government was unlawfully overthrown by the United States on 17 January 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law continued to exist.

After the Hawaiian government was overthrown by the United States in 1893, the United States did nothing with Pearl Harbor until 1908 when the United States Congress allocated monies to build a naval station instead of a “coaling and repair station.” This violated the terms of the Pearl Harbor Convention as well as violating the Hawaiian Kingdom’s neutrality under international law.

The Pearl Harbor Convention has a direct nexus to the presence of the U.S. military component commands of the Indo-Pacific Command that has military installations and firing ranges outside of the perimeter of Pearl Harbor. Component commands of the Indo-Pacific Command include: United States Army Pacific, United States Marine Corps Forces Hawai‘i, and United States Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam.

A note of the Hawaiian Kingdom attached to the Pearl Harbor Convention stated, “that Hawaiian Sovereignty and jurisdiction were not impaired that the Hawaiian Government was not bound to furnish land for any purpose and that the privilege to be granted should be coterminous with the Treaty.” Coterminous is defined as “having the same boundaries,” which is limited to Pearl Harbor.

The unlawful presence of the United States military has transformed the Hawaiian Kingdom from a neutral State into a military target by its adversaries, which first occurred on 7 December 7, 1941 when Japan’s military forces attacked U.S. military targets. The high probability of military attacks by other countries, such as North Korea, China, and Russia continue due to the rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific region. In 1990, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Risks and Hazards—A State by State Guide listed 6 targets for nuclear attack that would effectively annihilate the entire Island of O‘ahu. The presence of the United States military places the civilian population of the Hawaiian Kingdom into perilous danger.

The component commanders—General Charles A. Flynn, Commander U.S. Army Pacific, Lieutenant General William M. Jurney, Commander U.S. Marine Corps Forces Hawai‘i, Captain Mark Sohaney, USN, Commander U.S. Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, and Colonel Monica Gramling, Deputy Commander U.S. Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, were notified by Dr. David Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry:

In light of the termination of the Pearl Harbor Convention, all Title 10 military forces of the four component commands of the Indo-Pacific Command—Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, shall forthwith cease and desist any and all military exercises, to include utilizing live fire ranges across the islands, and anywhere within 200 nautical miles from the low water mark of the shoreline of the islands that constitute the Hawaiian Kingdom’s territorial sea and its exclusive economic zone, and to complete the withdrawal from the Hawaiian Islands by 26 October 2024.

The Staff Judge Advocates of the Indo-Pacific Command and the 25th Infantry Division were also included with the notifications. In his letters, Dr. Sai restated from the Council of Regency’s proclamation terminating the Pearl Harbor Convention:

And, We do require that when the United States has received this notice of termination, it shall, prior to the expiration of twelve months in accordance with Article I of the 1884 Supplemental Convention, remove all movable property at its military facilities throughout the Hawaiian Islands, including unexploded munitions, and fuel, with the exception of real property attached to the land or erected on it, including manmade objects, such as buildings, homes, structures, roads, sewers, and fences, to include on other properties that have been or are currently under its supervision and command.

Dr. Sai stated that the reasoning for notifying the component commands was because it was unclear whether the State Department notified Indo-Pacific Command of the termination of the Pearl Harbor Convention. Dr. Sai also stated that it did not appear that U.S. troops were beginning to be withdrawn. In his letters to the commanders of the component commands, Dr. Sai addressed the war crimes of confiscation or destruction of property:

Military installations and target ranges beyond Pearl Harbor were unlawfully confiscated by the United States from the Hawaiian Kingdom public lands and the estates of private persons in violation of international humanitarian law and the law of occupation. Live fire at these target ranges constitute destruction of property. According to Professor William Schabas, renowned expert on international criminal law, war crimes and human rights, in his legal opinion on war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom, there are five elements of the war crime of confiscation or destruction of property.

Following the end of hostilities during the Second World War, the war crimes tribunals in Nuremburg and Tokyo, “marked a clear recognition by the international community that all members of the chain of command who participate or acquiesce in war crimes must bear individual criminal responsibility.” Command responsibility arises when the military superior during an occupation of a foreign State fails to exercise sufficient control and accountability for his/her subordinates’ in the commission of war crimes. And a “non-military commander is [also] responsible for omissions which lead to the commission of crimes.” The doctrine of command responsibility arises when a superior, by omission, fails to control or punish those under his/her command.

Dereliction of the performance of a duty arises when a commander took no action to prevent, stop, or punish. Confiscation and destruction of property are war crimes and commanders of the four component commands have a duty to stop the further commission of these and other war crimes. Dereliction of the performance of a duty is also a war crime of omission.

The presence of United States troops under the Indo-Pacific Command have no legal basis within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. As such, their conduct and actions would come under the purview of the Royal Commission of Inquiry in its investigation of war crimes. A particular war crime, under customary international law, is the destruction of property, which would apply to target ranges and the contamination of the Island of O‘ahu’s aquifers. According to Professor William Schabas, renowned expert in international criminal law and war crimes, in his legal opinion for the Royal Commission of Inquiry:

The actus reus consists of an act of confiscation or destruction of property in an occupied territory, be it that belonging to the State or individuals. The mens rea requires that the perpetrator act with intent to confiscate or destroy the property and with knowledge that the owner of the property was the State or an individual.

The letters to the component commanders of the Indo-Pacific Command constitute evidence that they “have knowledge that the owner of the property was the State or an individual.”

On October 1, 2024, Major General Kenneth Hara retired as Adjutant General of the Hawai‘i National Guard. At first glance, his willful failure to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government in accordance with U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation, which is the war crime by omission, is now a problem for someone else. On the contrary, he exacerbated the situation.

MG Hara, tasked his Staff Judge Advocate, also called JAG, Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps, to investigate the information on the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom that Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, provided to MG Hara at their meeting on April 13, 2023, at the Grand Naniloa Hotel in Hilo. LTC Phelps was unable to refute the fact of the American occupation, which led MG Hara to admit, on July 27, 2023, that Hawai‘i is an occupied State. Subsequently, the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez, instructed MG Hara and the Deputy Adjutant General, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, to ignore Dr. Sai. It was also revealed later to Dr. Sai, that the Attorney General also instructed MG Hara to not request of her a legal opinion to answer the question:

Considering the two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which are enclosed with this request, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom?

His failure to perform his duty and abide by Army regulations, as the most senior officer in the Army National Guard, led to him being the subject of the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s (RCI) War Criminal Report no. 24-0001. The report provides the evidential basis for the commission of the war crime, which is an international crime. It is commonly stated in the U.S. Army, that there are regulations for everything that regulate military life.

MG Hara’s conduct and omission to establish a military government comes squarely under U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual, para. 18.22.1, which states, “Any person who commits an act that constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. International law imposes duties and liabilities on individuals as well as States, and individuals may be punished for violations of international law.” The Commission’s report is the evidence to punish MG Hara, and there is no statute of limitation for the war crime by omission. In other words, he will be punished because there is no time limit to prosecute unless he dies. Germany prosecuted a 97-year-old woman for committing Nazi war crimes in 2022.

Paragraph 18.22.1 directs MG Hara’s punishment to be done by a court martial. Although the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) does not have any “war crime” offenses, prosecutions can be made by a military court for war crimes that are also offenses under the UCMJ. In the case of prosecuting MG Hara, the willful failure to establish a military government, which is a violation of Army regulations, would be to prosecute him under UCMJ’s §892 Article 92(1), being the failure to obey a regulation, and Article 92(3), being dereliction in the performance of duties.

MG Hara’s cowardly conduct appeared to have established a leadership trait that was followed by his chain of command in the Army National Guard to their detriment. Because MG Hara committed a war crime and subject to be punished by a court martial, BG Logan was supposed to assume command under Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 2-11. This Army regulation states that the “senior officer, WO [warrant officer], cadet, NCO [non-commissioned officer], or junior enlisted Soldier among troops at the scene of an emergency will assume temporary command and control of the Soldiers present.”

Black’s Law Dictionary defines an emergency as “A sudden unexpected happening; an unforeseen occurrence or condition; perplexing contingency or complication of circumstances; a sudden or unexpected occasion for action; exigency; pressing necessity. Emergency is an unforeseen combination of circumstances that calls for immediate action without time for full deliberation.” A scenario of this sort, in battle, would be where a platoon’s leadership was killed by the enemy that left only soldiers of the rank of Private alive. The regulation would require the most senior enlisted Private to assume command of the platoon until relieved by a more senior soldier. The criteria would be which of the Privates had the longest time in the Army. Failure to assume command in an emergency is an offense under UCMJ Article 92(1) and 92(3). The regulation to assume command is para. 2-11—Emergency command, Army Regulation 600-20.

When BG Logan was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0002, it became the duty of Colonel Wesley Kawakami, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade, to assume command. When Colonel Kawakami was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0003, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Werner, Commander of 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, to assume command. When LTC Werner was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0004, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Bingham Tuisamataele, Jr., Commander of 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, to assume command. When LTC Tuisamataele, Jr. was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0005, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs, Commander of 29th Brigade Support Battalion, to assume command. When LTC Jacobs was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0006, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis, Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, to assume command. When LTC Balsis was the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0007, it became the duty of Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner, Executive Officer, 29th Infantry Brigade, to assume command.

LTC Rosner was spared, for now, being the subject of a war criminal report, because Senator Cross Makani Crabbe did what MG Hara did not have the courage to do. Senator Crabbe made a formal request of Attorney General Lopez, as a member of the State of Hawai‘i legislature under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-2, for a legal opinion answering the question:

Considering the two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which are enclosed with this request, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom?

This act by Senator Crabbe has temporarily protected LTC Rosner from incurring criminal culpability for not establishing a military government as those before him did. LTC Rosner, however, is faced with the performance of his duty of assuming command under Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 2-11. What would prevent him from assuming command is that the Hawaiian Kingdom is not an occupied State under international law. If this were the case, surely the Attorney General Lopez could settle this matter by providing a legal opinion that the “State of Hawai‘i [is] within the territory of the United States” and not “within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”

What the Attorney General faces, however, is that under customary international law, as explained by the legal opinions of Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, is that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as an occupied State, which places the State of Hawai‘i “within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” The Attorney General’s silence, in fact, reinforces what customary international law already concludes, and that the RCI’s war criminal reports are authorized and valid. Dr. Sai, as Head of the RCI, explained this to LTC Rosner in his letter dated September 23, 2024.

The severity of the consequences of the conduct of MG Hara, as a war criminal, cannot be underestimated. LTC Rosner will assume command and then perform the duty of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. Time is not on the side of LTC Rosner to perform his Army duties.