#ProtectedPersonsHawaii
#WarCrimesHawaii

When the United States Senate resumed its debate of senate bill no. 222 to provide a government for the Territory of Hawai‘i in 1900, there was an exchange between Senator William Allen of Nebraska and Senator John Spooner of Wisconsin that warrants special attention. Two years earlier, Senator Allen voted against the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by congressional legislation.

During the debate on July 4, 1898, Senator Allen said, “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 (31 Cong. Rec. 6635).”

He continued to clarify, that the “power of acquiring additional territory, rests exclusively in the President and the Senate, that it is an executive power which in its very nature can not be exercised by the House of Representatives, and that the only method of exercising it is by treaty and not by joint resolution or act of Congress; and the case of Texas, when rightly understood, forms no exception to this rule; therefore an attempt to annex or acquire territory by act or joint resolution of Congress is in violation of the letter, spirit, and policy of the Constitution (id.).”

Consistent with his position in 1898, Senator Allen asserted on February 28, 1900, “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 (33 Cong. Rec. 2391).” If the annexation was null and void, then there would be no need to debate senate bill no. 222 that would establish an American government on Hawaiian territory. Senator Spooner response to Senator Allen was “that is a political question, not subject to review by the courts (id.).” He then reiterated, “The Hawaiian Islands were annexed to the United States by a joint resolution passed by Congress. I reassert…that that was a political question and it will never be reviewed by the Supreme Court or any other judicial tribunal (id.).”

What did Senator Spooner mean that “it will never be reviewed by the Supreme Court or any other judicial tribunal.” He was referring to the “political question” doctrine. William Howard Taft acknowledged that Senator Spooner was “a great constitutional lawyer,” which is why he knew precisely what the political question doctrine was when he said it. Under this doctrine that was in use by American courts at the time, to include the United States Supreme Court, political questions were considered by the courts as factual determinations made by the executive and legislative branches. As such, these determinations, even if they were considered by the courts as unconstitutional, would bind the courts to accept them as conclusive. What Senator Spooner meant was no matter how illegal the annexation was, the American courts will have to accept it because Congress did it.

As an example, the U.S. Supreme Court in Williams v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 415, 420 (1839) treated as binding on the court the executive’s determination that a given country was in control of foreign territory “whether the executive be right or wrong.” According to Nelson “an important branch of [the political question] doctrine operated to identify factual questions on which courts would accept the political branches’ determinations as binding.” See Caleb Nelson, Adjudication in the Political Branches, 107 Colum. L. Rev. 559, 592-93 (2007). Under this doctrine courts at the time did not question whether it had jurisdiction to resolve a political question “but rather enforced and applied the political branches’ determinations.” See Tara Leigh Grove, The Lost History of the Political Question Doctrine, 90 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1908, 1963 (Dec. 2015).

Senator Spooner’s statement is not only telling but malicious. The federal government knew that the illegal annexation of Hawai‘i would be locked within the American political system under the political question doctrine and never see the light of day. This shows an intent on the part of the United States government to conceal the fact that the annexation of Hawai‘i by a joint resolution, as Senator Allen stated, was “ipso facto null and void.” The political question doctrine, however, would later be revamped by the United States Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) that would ironically unlock the door in exposing the prolonged occupation of Hawai‘i and the violations of international law.

Moving away from the courts accepting the factual determinations of the political branches as binding, the Supreme Court would now assert a revised doctrine where the courts would deny it has jurisdiction to address a political question because that decision has to be addressed by either of the two political branches—the executive or legislative, not the judicial branch. The issue would no longer be the acceptance of the factual determinations made by the executive or legislative branches, but whether or not the courts have jurisdiction to hear the case. It would now become a question of whether a case was justiciable or non-justiciable. In other words, under the traditional doctrine where the courts did not dismiss as non-justiciable but rather enforced the political branches determinations whether they were “right or wrong,” the courts under the modern doctrine would dismiss as non-justiciable because there exists a political question.

Today the invoking of the political question doctrine in cases that have been filed in federal courts come by way of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or done by the court’s own volition called sua sponte. Rule 12(b)(1) addresses subject matter jurisdiction, which is whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the case before it. Where a motion to dismiss on subject matter jurisdiction grounds would be filed is in a situation where a prosecutor is attempting to prosecute someone for murder in traffic court. A traffic court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute a murder case, another type of court does. Applying the modern political question doctrine, the American courts would say the proper jurisdiction is either with executive or legislative branches of government and not the courts.

Therefore, the court’s dismissal of the case because of a political question only addresses the jurisdictional question of whether the court can preside over the case and not the merits of the case. In fact, under the modern doctrine, when a court dismisses a case as a political question under Rule 12(b)(1), the court accepts as true the factual allegations in the complaint.

In 2008, the federal district court in Washington, D.C., dismissed a case concerning Taiwan as a political question under Rule 12(b)(1) in Lin v. United States, 539 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.D.S. 2008). The federal court in its order stated that it “must accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint when reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).” When this case went on appeal, the D.C. Appellate Court underlined the modern doctrine of the political question, “We do not disagree with Appellants’ assertion that we could resolve this case through treaty analysis and statutory construction; we merely decline to do so as this case presents a political question which strips us of jurisdiction to undertake that otherwise familiar task.” See Lin v. United States, 561 F.3d 506 (2009).

In 2018, federal judge Tanya S. Chutkan presided over Sai v. Trump—Petition for Writ of Mandamus, which sought an order from the federal court to compel President Trump to comply with the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, by administering the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State. The case was filed on June 25, 2018 with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and assigned civil case no. 1:18-cv-01500.

The factual allegations of the complaint were stated in paragraphs 79 through 205 under the headings From a State of Peace to a State of War, The Duty of Neutrality by Third States, Obligation of the United States to Administer Hawaiian Kingdom laws, Denationalization through Americanization, The State of Hawai‘i is a Private Armed Force, The Restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, Recognition De Facto of the Restored Hawaiian Government, War Crimes: 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and War Crimes: 1949 Geneva Convention, IV.

On September 11, 2018, Judge Chutkan, on her own accord (sua sponte), issued an order dismissing the case as a political question. On the very same day the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to Answer in light of the order dismissing this action,” but it was denied by minute order. Judge Chutkan stated, “Because Sai’s claims involve a political question, this court is without jurisdiction to review his claims and the court will therefore DISMISS the Petition.” By dismissing the complaint, the Court accepted “as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint.”

Under the traditional political question doctrine, the Federal Court would have accepted as true the annexation of Hawai‘i even though it wasn’t, but under the modern doctrine it accepted as true the “illegality” of the annexation as well as the violations of international law since the American invasion of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 16, 1893.

For the first time since President Grover Cleveland, in his message to the Congress on December 18, 1893, presented the facts of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, the United States government, through its federal court in Washington, D.C., accepted “as true” the facts of the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the commission of war crimes.

The proper venue for resolving the violations of international law is not with the executive or legislative branches of the United States government, but rather international bodies, which will include the International Commission of Inquiry in Incidents of War Crimes in the Hawaiian Islands—The Larsen Case (Hawaiian Kingdom – Lance Paul Larsen) under the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. These proceedings stemmed from the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom arbitration.

The United States has admitted to the violations of international law. Drawing from the Miranda warning, “Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.”

#ProtectedPersonsHawaii
#WarCrimesHawaii

Council member Jen Ruggles released a letter today that she had sent to Governor Ige, every mayor, and every county taxation department in the State of Hawai‘i regarding “War crimes of pillaging committed against Protected Persons by the State of Hawai‘i and its Four Counties.”

The letter begins by stating, “To my dismay, I have become aware of Hawai‘i’s status as a nation-state, under international law, which has been under an illegal occupation by the United States since it, by its own admission, illegally overthrew the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893.” Referring to President Cleveland’s 1893 address to the U.S. Congress where he declared U.S. had committed “an act of war” against the Hawaiian Kingdom, she writes, “these acts of war created a state of war between itself and the Hawaiian Kingdom…International law bound, and still binds, the United States to adhere to the law of occupation.”

Ruggles also referred to the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Dr. Alfred de Zayas’ memorandum sent to Hawaii State judges this past February which stated Hawai‘i was “under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and a fraudulent annexation.”

“After reading Dr. de Zayas’s memorandum,” Ruggles wrote, “I attempted to verify his claim of ‘a fraudulent annexation.’ It became apparent to me that there is no clear U.S. constitutional basis for the enforcement of United States law on Hawaiian Kingdom territory…As a Council member, I have come to understand that legislation is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the law-making body. The U.S. Congress has no constitutional authority, nor any authority under international law, to unilaterally annex a foreign country by a joint resolution.”

Ruggles also noted that according to international law definitions, what is called the “State of Hawai‘i” is, in fact, an “organized armed force.” “The State of Hawai‘i cannot, therefore claim to be a lawful government because its only claim to authority derives from U.S. congressional legislation that has no extraterritorial effect,” Ruggles wrote,  “The ‘State of Hawai‘i’ meets the jus in bello—the laws of war definition of an organized armed group acting for and on behalf of the United States within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”

According to Ruggles, because there is no evidence that Hawaii was ever legally made apart of the United States, the laws of occupation apply. These laws would include the Hague and Geneva Conventions, which are U.S. ratified treaties. According to Title 18, section 2441 of the United States Code, any breach to these treaties constitute “war crimes.”

Article 64 of the 1949 Geneva Convention mandates that the laws of the occupied territory must remain in force. Ruggles says these laws include the 1882 Hawaiian Kingdom Act To Consolidate and Amend the Law Relating to Internal Taxes which consists of poll, school, dog, horse, mule, road, and real and personal property taxes. Ruggles asserts that the State of Hawaii and the four counties collection of money from protected persons is a form of pillaging.

Black’s Law dictionary defines plunder as to “pillage or loot. To take property from persons or places by open force, and this may be in course of war…The term is also used to express the idea of taking property from a person or place, without just right.” The U.S. ratified Hague and Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit pillaging.

“This letter serves to give you both knowledge, and ‘awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict’ between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, the application of the HCIV and GCIV, and the protection afforded aboriginal Hawaiians as protected persons,” Ruggles wrote, “Therefore, you must cease and desist from committing these war crimes unless the State of Hawai‘i transforms itself into a Military Government recognizable under international law”

Council member Ruggles concluded the letter with an excerpt from a report Dr. Keanu Sai had provided Governor Ige’s Chief of Staff, Mike McCartney in 2015 titled “Report on Military Government.” According to the report, the State of Hawaii is obligated to comply with U.S. Army Field Manual FM 27-5 and establish a military government to work with the acting Hawaiian Kingdom Government to provisionally serve as the administrator of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

During Ruggles’ October Town Hall she explained how she is doing her job “as mandated by her oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution that says treaties are the supreme law of the land through putting every agent of the United States in Hawaii concerning the rights of protected persons on notice for violations of the Hague and Geneva Conventions.”

Ruggles confirmed Governor Ige, Mayor Kim, Mayor Arakawa, Mayor Caldwell, Mayor Carvalho, Linda Chu Takayama, Lisa Miura, Mark Walker, Nelson H. Koyanagi, Jr., and Ken Shimonishi all received her letter on November 19th, 2018.

#ProtectedPersonsHawaii
#WarCrimesHawaii

#ProtectedPersonsHawaii
#WarCrimesHawaii

Puna Council Member Ruggles Reports Queen’s Hospital and Hawaii State Judges to the FBI

Puna Council Member Jen Ruggles received confirmation that Hawaii’s Federal Bureau of Investigation, (FBI), Special Agent in Charge, Sean Kaul, received her letter reporting Queen’s Hospital and Hawaii Circuit Court Judges for alleged war crimes Monday. Ruggles opened the letter by writing, “To my dismay, I have become aware of Hawai‘i’s status as a nation-state, under international law, which has been under an illegal occupation by the United States since it, by its own admission, illegally overthrew the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893.”

Ruggles made reference to a memorandum released by the United Nation Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner that she says, caused her to look into the issue of potential war crimes more seriously. Ruggles says the memorandum uses the terms “plundering,” “enabling,” and “colluding,” and that she could not take it lightly. In her report to the FBI, she also referred to an article published by the National Education Association in April this year which concluded Hawaii is illegally occupied and that the laws of war apply. The NEA is America’s largest union in the United States with over 3 million members. The Hawaii State Teacher’s association is Hawaii’s chapter.

According to Ruggles, war crimes are felonies and she is legally obligated to report felonies under Title 18 United States Code §4 “Misprision of a Felony” which reads that any person, “having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” Ruggles says the FBI’s primary responsibility is to investigate federal crimes. Ruggles also cc’d the International Criminal Court located in the Hague, Netherlands.

Ruggles said, “if the FBI has evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist as an independent nation State that has been in an unjust state of war with the U.S. since 1893, and that war crimes and the international crime of genocide as defined under federal law have not taken place, I want to see that evidence. If not, then the FBI is obligated to immediately initiate a criminal investigation.”

Last month Ruggles had sent a letter to Queen’s Hospital explaining how it appears they are committing war crimes against protected persons by abrogating their original charter which mandated free health care to aboriginal Hawaiians. Ruggles also sent a letter to every Hawaii State Circuit Court Judge outlining how foreclosures violate the rights of protected persons in Hawaii, (including Americans), and constitute war crimes.

Ruggles wants to be clear that she is not advocating for those who borrowed money from the lender to disregard their debt owed. As she stated in the letter to the judges, “The lender is protected under the loan title insurance policy that was purchased by the borrower as a condition of the loan. As such, there is no reason to have any foreclosure proceedings in the first place because the defects in titles have rendered all mortgage liens invalid.” According to Ruggles, a defect in title is a covered risk in the loan title insurance policy, and, as such, the lenders should file an insurance claim to have the insurance company pay off the debt owed since the borrower was required to purchase the insurance policy to protect the lender as a condition of the loan.

During Ruggles’ last town hall she announced that she would be “putting every agent of the United States on notice concerning the rights of protected persons.”

#ProtectedPersonsHawaii
#WarCrimesHawaii

Informs judges that foreclosure proceedings appear to be in violation of Article 46 of the Hague Convention, IV and Article 47 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV

Council member Ruggles released a letter today that she says she sent to all Hawai‘i Circuit Court judges meant to advocate on behalf of protected persons in foreclosure proceedings.

Ruggles says “Article 46 of the Hague Convention IV provides that ‘Private property cannot be confiscated,” and article 47 of the Geneva Convention IV provides, “Pillage is formally forbidden.”

Ruggles referred to the United Nations Human Rights Independent Expert, Dr. Alfred deZaya’s memorandum that had been sent to Hawaii State Judges in February of this year that stated, “The State of Hawaii courts should not lend themselves to a flagrant violation of the rights of the land title holders and in consequence of pertinent international norms. Therefore, the courts of the State of Hawaii must not enable or collude in the wrongful taking of private lands, bearing in mind that the right to property is recognized not only in U.S. law but also in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…”

Ruggles wrote that “The ‘wrongful taking of private lands’ by lenders, through the circuit courts of the State of Hawai‘i under foreclosure proceedings, appears to be the war crime of pillaging and that the courts appear to be complicit in a war crime by enabling and colluding ‘in the wrongful taking of private lands.’

Before lenders loan money they require the borrower to mortgage their real estate as collateral to secure the repayment of the loan. In order for the lender to accept the mortgaged property as collateral, the lender requires the borrower to also purchase a loan title insurance policy for the protection of the lender. The title insurance covers the full debt owed under the promissory note.

“As an agent for the United States I am bound ‘to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances,’ and, therefore, call upon you to cease and desist ‘in the wrongful taking of private lands’ from protected persons that are under foreclosure,” Ruggles wrote, “the lender is protected under the loan title insurance policy that was purchased by the borrower as a condition of the loan. As such, there is no reason to have any foreclosure proceedings in the first place…”

Ruggles finished the letter by stating, “This letter serves as knowledge and ‘awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict’ between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, the application of the HCIV and GCIV, and the protection afforded to protected persons.”

Ruggles sent the letters via certified mail and that she’s verified every judge across the islands received her letter on the Big Island and Oahu on September 25th, Kauai on September 26th, and Maui on September 27th.

Council member Ruggles will be holding a town hall on October 15th at 6pm at the Kea‘au Community Center to discuss this letter, among others that she is working on.

#ProtectedPersonsHawaii
#WarCrimesHawaii

The article below was printed on page 14 of The Pacific Commercial Advertiser on July 31, 1901 in Honolulu. It is a window into a time of colliding legal systems and the Queen’s Hospital would soon become the first Hawaiian health institution to fall victim to the unlawful imposition of American laws. Queen’s Hospital was established as the national hospital for the Hawaiian Kingdom and that health care services for Hawaiian subjects of aboriginal blood was at no charge. The Hawaiian head of state would serve as the ex officio President of the Board together with twenty trustees, ten of whom were from the Hawaiian government.

Since the hospital’s establishment in 1859 the legislature of the Hawaiian Kingdom subsidized the hospital along with monies from the Queen Emma Trust. With the unlawful imposition of the 1900 Organic Act that formed the Territory of Hawai‘i, American law did not allow public monies to be used for the benefit of a particular race. 1909 was the last year Queen’s Hospital received public funding and it was also the same year that the charter was unlawfully amended to replace the Hawaiian head of state with an elected president from the private sector and reduced the number of trustees from twenty to seven, which did not include government officers.

These changes to a Hawaiian quasi-public institution is a direct violation of the laws of occupation, whereby the United States was and continues to be obligated to administer the laws of the occupied State—the Hawaiian Kingdom. This requirement comes under Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and Article 64 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV.

Article 55 of the Hague Convention provides, “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the [occupied] State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.” The term “usufruct” is to administer the property or institution of another without impairing or damaging it.

Despite these unlawful changes, aboriginal Hawaiian subjects, whether pure or part, are to receive health care at Queen’s Hospital free of charge. This did not change, but through denationalization there was an attempt to erase. Aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are protected persons as defined under international law, and as such, the prevention of health care by Queen’s Hospital constitutes war crimes.

***********

MAY LOSE ITS MONEY

Queen’s Hospital Appropriation Peculiar.

PROVISION AS TO TREATMENT

Collision Between the Charter and the Bill Making the Grant for Period.

The Board of Health has a very delicate question to consider at its meeting this afternoon—one which places the Queen’s Hospital in a very queer situation.

The Legislature at its last session made an appropriation for the Queen’s Hospital of $40,000, to be used in the next biennial period. This was in line with the previous policy of the Government in making appropriation for the hospital, similar appropriations being made at the same time to other like institutions. There was, however, one very peculiar incident in connection with the appropriation made for the Queen’s Hospital. In the past the sum of $20,000 had always been given to the hospital for the biennial period, and Governor Dole recommended that the Legislature make the usual appropriation. Instead that body appropriated just double the amount asked, or $40,000.

Attached to the bill, however, was a rider providing that no distinction should be made as to race in the care of patients at the hospital. The appropriation was also placed in the hands of the Board of Health for proper payment and the Board now finds itself in a rather peculiar predicament.

The Queen’s Hospital was founded in 1859 by their Majesties Kamehameha IV and his consort Emma Kaleleonalani. The hospital is organized as a corporation and by the terms of its charter the board of trustees is composed ten members elected by the society and ten members nominated by the Government, of which the President of the Republic (now Governor of the Territory) shall be the presiding officer. The charter also provides for the “establishing and putting in operation a permanent hospital in Honolulu, with a dispensary and all necessary furniture and appurtenances for the reception, accommodation and treatment of indigent sick and disabled Hawaiians, as well as such foreigners and other who may choose to avail themselves of the same.”

Under this construction all native Hawaiians have been cared for without charge, while for others a charge has been made of from $1 to $3 per day. The bill making the appropriation for the hospital by the Government provides that no distinction shall be made as to race; and the Queen’s Hospital trustees are evidently up against a serious proposition.

Under the provisions of the Organic Act the Legislature has no power to give a subsidy to any institution and, under the construction likely to be placed by the Board of Health of the intentions of the Legislature, the Queen’s Hospital must be placed under the control of the Government before it may receive the appropriation of $40,000.

“I can see no way out of the difficulty at present,” said Secretary [George W.] Smith of the board of trustees for the Queen’s Hospital when his attention was called to the matter yesterday afternoon. “The hospital has been receiving regular stipulated amounts from the Government, generally $20,000 for each biennial period. This year when the Governor asked for a statement of the condition of the hospital’s finances it was handed to him, and he recommended that the Legislature make the usual allowance. I do not know they gave us $40,000 instead of the usual amount. There was a rider placed on the bill, however, to the effect that no distinction should be made as to race. The appropriation was also placed in the hands of the Board of Health. Formerly it was the custom for this money to be placed into the hands of the Minister of Finance and by him paid over quarterly directly to our treasurer. Why the change was made at this time I do not understand.”

“I do not see myself how the hospital could be placed in the hands of the Government, even if we wished to do so. The Government now has ten members upon the Board and also the presiding officer. Under our charter we are compelled to treat native Hawaiians free of charge, and I do not see how it can be changed. Then again we have in our hands $36,000 in trust funds which cannot very well be given over to the Government except in violation of the terms of the trust. Taken all around it is a very delicate question, and it is to be hoped that it may be settled without the loss of appropriation to the hospital. The hospital now treats free all soldiers and sailors and also the members of the police force.”

The matter will be discussed at this afternoon’s meeting of the Board of Health, though it is hardly likely that the matter can be definitely settled at this time. A joint meeting of the Board of Health and the trustees of the Queen’s Hospital will probably be held, at which the matter will be talked over before final action is taken.

***********

#ProtectedPersonsHawaii
#WarCrimesHawaii