British Newspaper The Guardian: Hawai‘i Politician Stops Voting, Claiming Islands are ‘Occupied Sovereign Country’

Two days after celebrations of Hawaiian Independence Day took place throughout the Hawaiian Islands, the British Newspaper “The Guardian” published an article on Hawai‘i County Council Member Jennifer Ruggles titled Hawaii politician stops voting, claiming islands are ‘occupied.’

Important take aways from a good article.

  • After the Guardian reporter reached out to the U.S. Department of State and State of Hawai‘i Governor for comment on Jennifer Ruggles’ position that war crimes are being committed throughout the Hawaiian Islands and on the memorandum of the United Nations Independent Expert to State of Hawai‘i Judges stating that the Hague and Geneva Conventions obligate the United States to administer Hawaiian Kingdom laws and not the domestic laws of the United States, both offices gave no comment. If Hawai‘i was not an occupied State, but rather legally a part of the United States, and that the Hague and Geneva Conventions don’t apply to Hawai‘i, the State Department and the Governor’s office would have surely stated that. Instead they gave no comment. When a government agency gives no comment it would imply that they cannot deny the facts of the story.
  • Dr. deZayas statement that Hawai‘i is “formally” a part of the United States. Careful statement made because the word formally is defined as “pertaining to the outward aspect of something as distinguished from its substance or material.” Formally is not the same as legally.
  • Spokesman from the United Nations Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights stated “They are [Dr. deZayas’] own views.” This is true because it was his view as United Nations Independent Expert before his term expired in April 2018.
  • In his February 25, 2018 memorandum to the State of Hawai‘i, Dr. deZayas clearly stated, “currently serving as the UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation-state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and a fraudulent annexation.”
  • The Guardian reported, “Keanu Sai, a political science lecturer at the University of Hawaii and member of the Hawaiian Kingdom provisional government, says the unilateral annexation of Hawaii by passing a law was tantamount to the US passing a law annexing the UK or any other country. Sai said: ‘You can’t pass a law annexing a foreign country.'”

#ProtectedPersonsHawaii
#WarCrimesHawaii

National Holiday – Independence Day (November 28)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Federal Court Acknowledges the Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom and U.S. Violations of International Law

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 be like the traffic court and 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. TrumpPetition 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 Ruggles Places the State of Hawai‘i on Notice for Pillaging Protected Persons

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

State of Hawai‘i Official Reports Queen’s Hospital and Hawai‘i State Judges to FBI

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

Ruggles Puts Hawai‘i State Judges on Notice for Appearing to Commit War Crimes in Foreclosure Proceedings

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 Three Estates of the Hawaiian Kingdom

There are some today who mistakenly believe that if they can show a family genealogy that traces back to a Hawaiian ali‘i (nobility) they can lay claim to the throne. If this were true than anyone can lay claim. But it is not true because the Hawaiian Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy that provides rules and protocol.

The first rule is that under Hawaiian law titles of nobility are not inheritable. However, in Europe titles of nobility are inheritable, which traces back to the Middle Ages. This is a feudal rule that developed when the nobility were able to inherit their lands and consequently their titles were also inheritable within the family. The Hawaiian Kingdom did not rise from the Middle Ages. It is Polynesian. According to Article 35 of the 1864 Hawaiian Constitution “All Titles of Honor, Orders, and other distinctions, emanate from the King.”

Three Estates of the Hawaiian Kingdom

The government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is a constitutional and limited monarchy comprised of three Estates: the Monarch, Nobles and the People. An Estate is defined as a “political class.” All three political classes work in concert and provides for the legal basis of the government and its authority. Article 45 of the 1864 Hawaiian constitution, provides: “The Legislative power of the Three Estates of this Kingdom is vested in the King, and the Legislative Assembly; which Assembly shall consist of the Nobles appointed by the King, and of the Representatives of the People, sitting together.”

This provision is further elaborated under §768, Hawaiian Civil Code (Compiled Laws, 1884), “The Legislative Department of this Kingdom is composed of the King, the House of Nobles, and the House of Representatives, each of whom has a negative on the other, and in whom is vested full power to make all manner of wholesome laws, as they shall judge for the welfare of the nation, and for the necessary support and defense of good government, provided the same is not repugnant or contrary to the Constitution.” As each Estate has a negative on each other, no law can be passed without all three Estates agreeing.

According to Hawaiian law “No person shall ever sit upon the Throne, who has been convicted of any infamous crime, or who is insane, or an idiot (Article 25, 1864 Constitution),” which, by extension, extends to the Nobles whereby “The King appoints the members of the House of Nobles, who hold their seats during life, unless in case of resignation, subject, however, to punishment for disorderly behavior. The number of members of the House of Nobles shall not exceed thirty (§771, Compiled Laws).”

Representatives of the People shall be Hawaiian subjects or denizens “who shall have arrived at the full age of twenty-five years, who shall know how to read and write; who shall understand accounts, and who shall have resided in the Kingdom for at least one year immediately preceding his election; provided always, that no person who is insane, or an idiot, or who shall at any time have been convicted of theft, bribery, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, polygamy, or other high crime or misdemeanor, shall ever hold seat as Representative of the people (§778, Compiled Laws).”

The number of the Representatives of the people in the Legislature shall be twenty-eight: eight for the Island of Hawai‘i (one for the district of North Kona, one for the district of South Kona, One for the district of Ka‘u, one for the district Puna, two for the district of Hilo, one for the district Hamakua, one for the district of Kohala); seven for the Island of Maui (two for the districts of Lahaina, Olowalu, Ukumehame, and Kaho‘olawe, one for the districts of Kahakuloa and Ka‘anapali, one for the districts of Waihe‘e and Honuaula, one for the districts of Kahikinui and Ko‘olau, one for the districts of Hamakualoa and Kula); two for the Islands of Molokai and Lanai; eight for the Island of O‘ahu (four for the districts of Honolulu that extends from Maunalua to Moanalua, one for the districts of Ewa and Waianae, one for the district of Waialua, one for the district of Ko‘olauloa, and one for the district of Ko‘olaupoko); and three for the island of Kaua‘i (one for the districts of Waimea, Nualolo, Hanapepe and the Island of Ni‘ihau, one for the districts of Puna, Wahiawa and Wailua, and one for the districts of Hanalei, Kapa‘a and ‘Awa‘awapuhi) (§780, Compiled Laws).

Electors of the Representatives shall be Hawaiian subjects or denizens “who shall have paid his taxes, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have been domiciled in the Kingdom for one year immediately preceding the election, and shall know how to read and write, if born since the year 1840, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters of his district…shall be entitled to one vote for Representative or Representatives of that district; provided, however, that no insane or idiotic person, or any person who shall have been convicted of any infamous crime within this Kingdom unless he shall have been pardoned by the King, and by the terms, and by the terms of such pardon have been restored to all the rights of a subject, shall be allowed to vote (p. 222, Compiled Laws).”

The Estate of the Crown

Kam IIIThe first constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom was promulgated in 1840 by King Kamehameha III, which was superseded by the 1852 Constitution. Article 25 of the 1852 Constitution provided: “The crown is hereby permanently confirmed to His Majesty Kamehameha III. during his life, and to his successor. The successor shall be the person whom the King and the House of Nobles shall appoint and publicly Kam IVproclaim as such, during the King’s life; but should there be no such appointment and proclamation, then the successor shall be chosen by the House of Nobles and the House of Representatives in joint ballot.” Kamehameha III proclaimed his adopted son, Alexander Liholiho, to be his heir apparent after receiving confirmation from the Nobles in 1853. Alexander ascended to the Throne upon the death of King Kamehameha III on December 15, 1854.

Kamehameha VKing Kamehameha V ascended to the Throne through the process of appointment by the Premier (Kuhina Nui) Victoria Kamamalu, and confirmation by the Nobles in 1863, because Kamehameha IV had no surviving children. His son and heir, Prince Albert Kamehameha, died at the age of four Victoria_Kamamaluon August 27, 1862. Since the young Prince’s death, Kamehameha IV did not appoint a successor before he died on November 30, 1863.  According to the 1852 Constitution, Article 47 provided, “Whenever the throne shall become vacant by reason of the King’s death…the Kuhina Nui, for the time being, shall…perform all the duties incumbent on the King, and shall have and exercise all the powers, which by this Constitution are vested in the King.”

In 1864, a new constitution was promulgated by King Kamehameha V, and Article 22 of the 1864 Constitution provides that, “The Crown is hereby permanently confirmed to His Majesty Kamehameha V. and to the Heirs of His body lawfully begotten, and to their lawful Descendants in a direct line; failing whom, the Crown shall descend to Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria Kamamalu Kaahumanu, and the heirs of her body, lawfully begotten, and their lawful descendants in a direct line. The Succession shall be to the senior male child, and to the heirs of his body; failing a male child, the succession shall be to the senior female child, and to the heirs of her body.” Princess Kamamalu died on May 29, 1866 without any lineal descendants, leaving the successors to the Throne solely with King Kamehameha V.

Since Kamehameha V had no children, Article 22 of the 1864 Constitution provides that a “successor shall be the person whom the Sovereign shall appoint with the consent of the Nobles, and publicly proclaim as such during the King’s life; but should there be no such appointment and proclamation, and the Throne should become vacant, then the Cabinet Council, immediately after the occurring of such vacancy, shall cause a meeting of the Legislative Assembly, who shall elect by ballot some native Ali‘i of the Kingdom as Successor to the Throne.” The Cabinet Council replaced the function of the Premier (Kuhina Nui) under the former constitution, whose office was repealed by the 1864 Constitution, and according to Article 33 would serve as a Council of Regency.

On December 11, 1872, Kamehameha V died without children and he did not appoint a successor. Kamehameha V’s Cabinet, as a Council of Regency, convened the Legislative Assembly in special session on January 8, 1873. A regent is a person or persons who serve in the absence of a monarch. In their speech to the Legislature, the Council stated:

“His late Majesty did not appoint any successor in the mode set forth in the Constitution, with the consent of the Nobles or make Proclamation thereof during his life. There having been no such appointment or Proclamation, the Throne became vacant, and the Cabinet Council immediately thereupon considered the form of the Constitution in such case made and provided, and Ordered—That a meeting of the Legislative Assembly be caused to be holden at the Court House in Honolulu, on Wednesday which will be the eighth day of January, A.D. 1873, at 12 o’clock noon; and of this order all Members of the Legislative Assembly will take notice and govern themselves accordingly. By virtue of this Order you have been assembled, to elect by ballot, some native Ali‘i of this Kingdom as Successor to the Throne. Your present authority is limited to this duty, but the newly elected Sovereign may require your services after his accession.”

LunaliloOn that day the Legislature elected Lunalilo as King. From December 11, 1872 to January 8, 1873, the Kingdom was headed by a Council of Regency. Article 33 of the 1864 Constitution provides that “the Cabinet Council at the time of such decease shall be a Council of Regency…who shall administer the Government in the name of the King, and exercise all the Powers which are Constitutionally vested in the King.”

KalakauaThe Legislative Assembly convened again in special session on February 12, 1874 and elected King Kalakaua after Lunalilo, who died without children, failed to appoint a successor. Upon ascension to the Throne, King Kalakaua appointed his brother Prince William Pitt Leleiohoku as his heir apparent and received confirmation from the Nobles. Leleiohoku died April 10, 1877, which prompted Princess_LiliuokalaniKalakaua to immediately appoint his sister on the same day, Princess Lili‘uokalani, as his heir apparent and he received confirmation from the Nobles. An heir apparent is a person who is first in line of succession to the Throne according to Hawaiian law and cannot be displaced. An heir presumptive, however, is the person, male or female, entitled to succeed to the Throne, but can be replaced by an heir apparent pronounced according to Hawaiian law.

When the Legislative Assembly elected King Kalakaua in 1874, a new Stirps had effectively replaced the former Stirps, being the Kamehameha dynasty, with the Keawe-a-Heulu dynasty. Although Lunalilo was an elected King, he was of the Kamehameha dynasty, through Kamehameha’s father, Keoua. Stirps is a direct “line descending from a common ancestor,” and applies to monarchical dynasties. The Stirps for the Kamehameha Dynasty was a direct line from Kamehameha with Keopuolani, being the highest ranking of his wives. Lunalilo was not a direct descendant of Kamehameha, but a direct descendant of Kamehameha’s father, Keoua, whose son, Kalaimamahu, was Kamehameha’s half-brother.

Keawe-a-Heulu was one of the four counselor chiefs to Kamehameha I when the national-coatofarmsislands were consolidated under one kingdom. The other three counselor chiefs were Ke‘eaumoku, Kamanawa and Kame‘eiamoku. Ke‘eaumoku was the father of Ka‘ahumanu, one of Kamehameha’s wives and who later served as Prime Minister after Kamehameha’s death in 1819. Kamanawa and Kame‘eiamoku were brothers and are also represented in the Hawaiian Kingdom’s coat of arms.

The Kamehameha dynasty also included the descendants of Kamehameha’s other wives, other than Keopuolani who was the mother of Kamehameha II and III, and the young Princess Nahienaena. These wives and children included: Peleuli who had Maheha Kapulikoliko, Kahoanoku Kina‘u, Kaiko‘olani and Kiliwehi; Kaheiheimalie who had Kamamalu and Kina‘u, who was the mother of Kamehameha IV and V, and Premier Victoria Kamamalu.

In 1883, the Keawe-a-Heulu Stirps was formally declared at the Coronation of King Kalakaua and Queen Kapi‘olani. Princess Lili‘uokalani as the heir apparent, and the heirs presumptive, being Princess Virginia Kapo‘oloku Po‘omaikelani, Princess Kinoiki, Princess Victoria Kawekiu Kai‘ulani Lunalilo Kalaninuiahilapalapa, Prince David Kawananakoa, Prince Edward Abnel Keli‘iahonui, and Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole comprised the new royal lineage.

KaiulaniQueen Lili‘uokalani appointed Princess Ka‘iulani as her heir apparent in 1891, but was unable to get confirmation by the Nobles because they were prevented from entering the Legislative Assembly as a result of the so-called 1887 bayonet constitution that began the insurgency. In 1917, Queen Lili‘uokalani died with no such appointment or Proclamation leaving the Throne vacant. After the Queen’s death, only Prince Kuhio was left of the heirs presumptive. All the rest had died. Of the heirs presumptive, only Prince David Kawananakoa died with lineal descendants, but these lineal descendants did not inherit the title of heirs presumptive because they were not proclaimed as such by a reigning Monarch, as King Kalakaua did by proclamation in 1883. While these lineal descendants have no claim to the Throne, they are part of the Estate of the Ali‘i (Chiefs).

Crown Lands

Under the 1848 Great Mahele (Division), the King and Chiefs divided their interest between themselves and the Government. Under an Act Act relating to the lands of His Majesty the King and of the Government of June 7, 1848, the King separated his lands to be called Crown lands from the Government. In the Act it stated:

Know all men by these presents, that I, Kamehameha III, by the grace of God, King of the Hawaiian Islands, have given this day of my own free will and have made over and set apart forever to the chiefs and people the larger part of my royal land, for the use and benefit of  the Hawaiian Government, therefore by this instrument I hereby retain (or reserve) for myself and for my heirs and successors forever, my lands inscribed at pages 178, 182, 184, 186, 190, 194, 200, 204, 206, 210, 212, 214, 216, 218, 220, 222, of this book, these lands are set apart for me and for my heirs and successors forever, as my own property exclusively.

The “book” Kamehameha was referencing the page numbers was the 1848 Buke Mahele also called the Mahele Book.

In 1863, the Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court decided a case titled In the Matter of the Estate of His Majesty Kamehameha IV, 2 Haw. 715 (1863). The case centered on dower rights of Queen Kalama wife of Kamehameha III and Queen Emma wife of Kamehameha IV. The case also clarified who are the successors to the nearly one million acres of Crown land. The Supreme Court stated:

By the said Act, which is entitled “An Act relating to the lands of his Majesty the King and of the Government,” the lands reserved to the then reigning sovereign, descend in fee, the inheritance being limited to the successors to the throne, each successive possessor having the right to dispose of the same as private property.

The heirs and successors to the Crown lands are successors to the throne and not the family. In 1864, Kamehameha V asked the Legislature to remove all encumbrances such as mortgage liens on the property that had greatly encumbered the Crown lands.

That year on January 3, the Legislature passed An Act to Relieve the Royal Domain from Encumbrances (January 3, 1865).This Act authorized the Minister of Finance to issue government bonds up to $30,000.00, and the money received through the bonds would pay off the debt lenders had on the Crown in order to release the mortgages. After the debts were cleared, the Act made Crown lands inalienable and limited the ownership of tenants to 30 year leases. By making the Crown lands inalienable they were no longer capable of being mortgaged.

The Act also established a Board of Commissioners of Crown Lands who collected the lease rent. The Commissioners of Crown Lands  managed the purse of the Crown. There was no tax that the people paid for to maintain the office of the Crown.

Currently, there are pretenders to the Estate of the Crown. Some claims are well known, while others are not, but all claims to the Crown lands have no basis in Hawaiian law because Her late Majesty Queen Lili‘uokalani did not appoint and thereafter proclaim her successor in accordance with the law as it was done in the past. The office of the Crown can only be filled by an election by the Legislative Assembly as it was done in the case of King Lunalilo in 1873 and King Kalakaua in 1874.

The Estate of Nobles (Chiefs)

The political class of Ali‘i is an integral component of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its government and has its origin deeply rooted in Polynesian society. The entire land system of the Kingdom that continues to exist today is grounded and based on actions taken by the Ali‘i such as the granting of Royal Patents, Land Commission Awards, and the Great Land Division (Mahele) between the Government and Chiefs, which also set the terms of division between both the Government and Chiefs and native tenants desiring to get a fee-simple title to their lands.

In 1880, confusion as to who comprises the Hawaiian nobility got the Hawaiian Legislature to enact “An Act to Perpetuate the Genealogy of the Chiefs of Hawaii.” In the preamble of the act it stated, “at the present day it is difficult to ascertain who are the chiefs, as contemplated by said Article of the Constitution, and it is proper that such genealogies of the kingdom be perpetuated.”

Genealogy Act 1880According to the Rules of the Board, their principle duties are: “1. To gather, revise, correct and record the Genealogy of Chiefs. 2. To gather, revise, correct and record all published and unpublished Ancient Hawaiian History. 3. To gather, revise, correct and record all published and unpublished Meles (Songs), and also to ascertain the object and the spirit of the Meles, the age and the History of the period when composed and to note the same on the Record Book. 4. To record all the tabu customs of the Mois (Kings) and Chiefs.”

In its Report in 1884, the Board stated it was examining copies of genealogical books by Kamokuiki, Kaoo, Kaunahi, Unauna, Hakaleleponi, Piianaia, Kalaualu and David Malo, and that the “Board has not entered into revision of these books and those written by foreign historians as the time has been taken up mostly in attesting the genealogy of those that have applied to have their genealogy established.” The Board also reported, that it “has avoided entering into controversies with the genealogical discussions that have been going on for a year or more in the local Hawaiian newspapers, as these discussions have been more or less conducted in a partisan spirit instead of on scientific principles. They loose the merit of usefulness by the hostilities assumed by the contending writers.”

On July 5, 1887, the newly appointed Cabinet Council and two members of the Supreme Court committed the high crime of treason by coercing King Kalakaua to sign a new constitution under threat of assassination. This so-called constitution came to be known as the Bayonet Constitution and was never submitted to the Legislative Assembly for approval, which is required under law.  Hawaiian constitutional law provides that any proposed change to the constitution must be submitted to the Legislative Assembly, and upon majority agreement, would be deferred to the next legislative session for action. Once the next legislature convened, and the proposed amendment or amendments were “agreed to by two-thirds of all members of the Legislative Assembly, and be approved by the King, such amendment or amendments shall become part of the Constitution of this country (Article 80, 1864 Constitution).”

Lorrin_ThurstonThis so-called constitution was drafted by a select group of twenty individuals and effectively placed control of the Legislature and Cabinet in the hands of individuals who held foreign allegiances, which led to the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government by the United States of America. The leader of this insurgency, Lorrin Thruston, was the Minister of the Interior, and he refused to fund the Board of Genealogists Poomaikelanias required by law. In a letter to Her Royal Highness Princess Po‘omaikelani, President of the Genealogical Board, dated July 29, 1887, Thurston writes, “I beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 27th inst. in which you state the labors of the board need not be suspended because the appropriation cannot be paid. There can, of course, be no objection to a continuation of the work of the Board of Genealogy so long as it is carried out without expense to the Government.”

Despite the lack of government funding and the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, the Board continued their work to compile the genealogies of Hawaiian Chiefs (Mo‘okua‘auhau Ali‘i) that were eventually published in the Ka Maka‘ainana newspaper in the year 1896.

Ka Makaainana Masthead

The acting Government is providing these publications, which are in the Hawaiian language, to the public at large with a link to the original publication in PDF by date of the publication. The names of Hawaiian Chiefs below are printed as they are written in the published genealogies, which did not have any diacritical markers such as the ‘okina or kahako. The English translations of these publications can be drawn from Edith Kawelohea McKinzie and Ishmael W. Stagner, II, Hawaiian Genealogies, vol. 1. A basic glossary of terms that can be used to understand the published genealogies are:

“k” is short for kane (male)
“w” is short for wahine (female)
noho (to live with, but used to mean the same as marriage)
mare (married)
a‘ohe pua (no lineal descendants)
kuamo‘o (lineage)
kuauhau (genealogy)
loa‘a (had)
mo‘o kuauhau (genealogical succession)

June 1, 1896—Genealogies of King Kamehameha IV and King Lunalilo, both of whom died without lineal descendants.

June 8, 1896—Genealogies of King Kalakaua and Queen Liliuokalani, both of whom died without lineal descendants.

June 15, 1896—Genealogy of Princess Kaiulani, who died without lineal descendants.

June 29, 1896—Genealogies of Queen Kapiolani, who died without lineal descendants; Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole who died without lineal descendants; and David Kawananakoa.

July 6, 1896—Genealogies of William Piikoi Wond, Lydia Kamakee Cummins, and Maraea Cummins; Daisy Napulahaokalani, Eva Kuwailanimamao, Roberto Kalaninuikupuaikalaninui Keoua and Virginia Kahoa Kaahumanu Kaihikapumahana.

July 13, 1896—Genealogy of Albert Kekukailimoku Kunuiakea who died without lineal descendants.

July 20, 1896—Genealogies of Princess Bernice Pauahi who dies without lineal descendants, Princess Ruth Keelikolani who died without lineal descendants, and John Kamehamehanui who died without lineal descendants.

July 27, 1896—Genealogies of Alexandrina Leihulu Kapena who died without lineal descendants, Edward Kamakau Lilikalani, and Annie Palekaluhi Kaikioewa who died without lineal descendants.

August 3, 1896—Genealogies of Sabina Kahinu Beckley, Frederick Kahapula Beckley, Jr., and Frederica Beckley; Leander Kaonowailani, Violet Kahaleluhi Kinoole, Grace Namahana i Kaleleokalani, Frederick Malulani, George Heaalii and Benjamin Kameeiamoku; William Kauluheimalama Beckley, Henry Hoolulu Beckley, Juanita Beckley, and George Mooheau Beckley, Jr.; Henry Hoolulu Pitman, Mary Kinoole (Mrs. Mary Ailau), and Benjamin Pitman, Jr.; Robert Hoapili Baker, Henry Kanuha, and Rev. J. Kauhane of Kau.

August 10, 1896—Genealogies of William Hoapili Kaauwai, Jr., Luka Kaauwai and Lydia Kahanu Kaauwai; Mary Parker (Mrs. Maguire), Eva Kalanikauleleiaiwi Kahiluonapuaonahonoapiilani Parker, Helen Umiokalani Parker, John Palmer Parker, Hattie Kaonohilani Parker, Palmer Kuihelani Parker, Samuel Keaoililani Parker, Ernest Napela Parker, and James Kekookalani Parker.

August 17, 1896—Genealogies of Lydia Kamakanoe Kanehoa, Albert Kaleinoanoa Kanehoa, Jno Kupakee Kanehoa, Davida K. Hoapili Kanehoa, and Maria Kalehuaikawekiu Kanehoa; Hoapiliwahine-a-Kanehoa; and the children of Makainai-a-Kuakini and Kauina, being Jesse Makainai, Keeaumoku, Kapaleiliahi, Kaumaumaeha, Hoapili Liilii, and Paulo Hoapili; Henry St. John Kaleookekoi Nahaolelua, George William Lua Nahaolelua, John Vivian St. John Kapokini Nahaolelua, Charles Kalaninoheainamoku Nahaolelua, Albert Kamainiualani Nahaolelua, Alexander Pahukula Kuanamoa Nahaolelua, Elizabeth Alice Kalakini Nahaolelua, and Emma Rhoda Kaaiohelo Nahaolelua; William Kapahukula Enelani Stevens who died without lineal descendants, and Keliikui Stevens who also died with lineal descendants.

August 24, 1896—Genealogies of Rose Kekupuohi Simerson, William Kuakini Simerson and Isaac Kaleialii Simerson; and the children of Annie Niulii and Kahaleaahu, being Helen Kalolowahilani, John Paalua and David Kauluhaimalama.

August 31, 1896—Genealogies of Annie Thelma Kahiluonapuaonahonoapiilani Parker; Kahaule-o-Kuakini and Mrs. Maluhi Reis; John Meek, Jr.; and Maraea Kaoaopa died without lineal descendants.

September 7, 1896—Genealogies of Adele Mikahala Unauna, John Koii Unauna, Maraea Kapumakokoulaokalani Unauna, Kaniu Unauna, Kahelemanolani Unauna, Jane Kulokuloku Unauna, Hattie Kaauamookalani Unauna and James Kalimaila Unauna; Julia Kailimahuna Koii, Lydia Kahuakai Koii, Lydia Kahuakai Koii, David Koii who died without lineal descendants, and Esther Namahana Koii; Julia Kapakuialii Kalaninuipoaimoku Doiron and Moses Koii Luhaukapewa Doiron; William Kahoapili Kekohimoku Alohikea, Alfred Unauna Alohikea, David Kauahiaalaiwilani Kaili; Alexander Boki Reis, Palmyra Lonokahikini Reis, and Helen Kekumualii Reis; and Helina Kaiwaokalani Maikai, David Unualoha Maikai, Samuela Kahilolaamea Maikai, and Abigaila Kalanikuikepo‘oloku Maikai.

October 5, 1896—Genealogies of Stella Keomailani Cockett who died without lineal descendants; and the child of Kekulu and Kaiakoili, being David Kalani.

October 19, 1896—Genealogies of Tilly Kaumakaokane Cummins, Thomas Keauiaole Cummins, and John T. Walker Cummins; King Keaweaua Mersberg, James Kahai Mersberg, Jr., Lily Kahalewai Mersberg, Marie Mersberg, Lydia Mersberg, Jane Piilani Mersberg, and Charles Mersberg; John Adams Kaenakulani Cummins, Thomas C. Kaihikapu Cummins, and Raplee Kawelokalani Cummins; May Kaaolani Cummins Creighton; Flora Kahanolani Cummins; children of Kekupuo-i; Ponilani Kaiama (w), Margaret Loe Kaiama, Esther Nahaukapuokalani Kaiama, Levi Kaiama and Keliimaikai Kaiama; Grace Kamaikui Piianaia, Niaupio Piianaia, and Heulumanawaokalani Piianaia (k); Phoebe Ulualoha Wilcox; and Daniel Kekuhio Keliiaa and Kekukamaikalani Keliiaa.

October 26, 1896—Genealogy of Katherine Kaonohiulaokalani Brown who died without lineal descendants.

November 2, 1896—Genealogy Hana Kaunahi and Akahi who both died without lineal descendants.

After the death of Prince Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole on January 13, 1922, the Associated Press reported, “Fourteen chiefs selected by the committee from the high chiefs of Hawaii will bear the casket of Prince Kuhio at the funeral Sunday morning. The selection are Henry P. Beckley, Edwin Kea, David Hoapili, Sr., Kaliinonao, John Nahaolelua, Alex Nahaolelua, Jesse Makainai, William Simerson, John H. Wise, William Taylor, Geo. Kalohapauole, David Maikai, Ahapuni Boyd, Clement Parker, Samuel Parker, Jr., as bearer of orders and David Hoapili, Jr. as bearer of the tabu stick.” These men were selected from the Estate of Ali‘i (Chiefs).

Kuhio_Pall_BearersAny person today who is a direct lineal descendant of the Hawaiian Chiefs identified in these published genealogies belong to the Estate of Nobles (Chiefs), and are eligible to be appointed as Nobles in the Legislative Assembly and/or to the Throne in accordance with Hawaiian law.

The Estate of the People

Any person today who is a direct lineal descendant of a Hawaiian subject before the United States occupation began on January 17, 1893, belong to the Estate of the People.