Concert at Ward – La Ku‘oko‘a (Independence Day)
Reply
Category Archives: National
Waimanalo March – La Ku‘oko‘a (Independence Day)
O‘ahu Island Convoy – La Ku‘oko‘a (Independence Day)
OHA Trustees’ Legal Counsel Robert Klein Advises Board to Commit a Crime
The Office of Information Practices’s (OIP) investigation and conclusion that the Board of Trustees (BOT) of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) violated the Sunshine Law effectively voided the BOT’s May 9, 2014 letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry rescinding OHA’s CEO Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe’s May 5, 2014 letter to the Secretary seeking clarification on the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law.
At the center of the controversy was whether or not the BOT violated the Sunshine Law, which according to the OIP Guide to the Sunshine Law for State and County Boards, “the intent of the Sunshine Law is to open up governmental processes to public scrutiny and participation by requiring state and county boards to conduct their business as openly as possible. The Legislature expressly declared that ‘it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberation, decisions, and actions of governmental agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible.’”
The BOT attempted to justify their actions to rescind by taking the position that there was no Board meeting in Washington, D.C., that would have come under the scrutiny of the Sunshine Law. According to the OIP, “OHA’s argument is that the OHA Board’s decision to rescind the Crabbe Letter did not require a meeting, because the Crabbe Letter had no legal effect and the Rescission Letter was consistent with previously adopted OHA policy.”
It is unimaginable how the BOT could have construed Dr. Crabbe’s Letter as being inconsistent with OHA policy, when he was merely seeking information in order to inform the Trustees regarding policy. Dr. Crabbe’s Letter opened with, “As the Chief Executive Officer of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, being a governmental agency of the State of Hawai‘i, the law places on me, as a fiduciary, strict standards of diligence, responsibility and honesty. My executive staff, as public officials, carry out the policies and directives of the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in the service of the Native Hawaiian community. We are responsible to take care, through all lawful means, that we apply the best skills and diligence in the servicing of this community. It is in this capacity and in the interest of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs I am submitting this communication and formal request.”
After Dr. Crabbe explained the situation and circumstances that led him to seek clarification on the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law, he concluded, “While I await the opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, I will be requesting approval from the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that we refrain from pursuing a Native Hawaiian governing entity until we can confirm that the Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent sovereign State, does not continue to exist under international law and that we, as individuals, have not incurred any criminal liability in this pursuit.”
OHA did hold a meeting in Washington, D.C., on May 9, 2014, where Dr. Crabbe could have made his request to the Trustees as stated in his letter, but instead the Trustees held a closed meeting that did not include Dr. Crabbe. In this meeting, not all of the Trustees were in Washington, D.C., but some were still in Hawai‘i.
The meeting was a haphazard mix of emails, telephone conversations and face-to-face conversations amongst the Trustees, which concluded Dr. Crabbe’s Letter to be “void as an ultra vires act.” This resulted in another letter, with OHA’s letterhead, sent to Secretary Kerry rescinding Dr. Crabbe’s Letter where all nine Trustees provided their signatures. This so-called letter to rescind clearly showed that the action taken by the Trustees was a Board matter and therefore subject to the scrutiny of the Sunshine Law. Since the OIP concluded that the meeting was illegal, anything stemming from an illegal meeting is “void,” which includes the Trustees decision that concluded Dr. Crabbe’s Letter was “void as an ultra vires act.” In other words, the only valid act by OHA in these circumstances is Dr. Crabbe’s May 5 letter to Secretary Kerry.
OHA Trustees Dan Ahuna and Hulu Lindsey removed their names from the May 9 letter after conferring with Dr. Crabbe and both concurred that he was authorized to send his letter to Secretary Kerry to seek clarifications.
The other violation of the Sunshine Law was when the Trustees refused to accept oral testimony on an agenda item of a BOT meeting on May 19, 2014 in Honolulu where the Trustees were going into closed session to discuss the fate of Dr. Crabbe and his letter to Secretary Kerry. It was stated on the agenda that the BOT would go into executive session for “Consultation with Board Counsel Robert G. Klein re: questions and issues pertaining to the Board’s powers and duties with respect to Contract Number 2744, Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe, and to consider appropriate action with respect to the conduct of Dr. Crabbe.”
According to the minutes of that meeting, attorney Dexter Kaiama, stated to the BOT:
“The Sunshine Law states that any meeting held by the Trustees is required to allow public community testimony. He respectfully submits that failure to allow public testimony prior to going into executive session would be a violation of the Sunshine Laws. He is aware that OHA is in receipt of an OIP complaint regarding its May 9, 2014, letter signed by the Board of Trustees. The complaint questions the appropriateness of the actions taken by the Trustees at that time. In order to keep with the spirit of the law, he offers that no executive session be taken regarding item II.A. relating to Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe. The letter is inextricably intertwined with the actions the Board seeks to discuss this morning concerning Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe. If those actions of May 9th violate Sunshine Laws then these additional actions may also be in violation. He asks that no action take place until the Office of Information Practices completes its investigation.”
Former Hawai‘i Supreme Court Justice Robert G. Klein, who is retained by the BOT as their legal counsel, responded by stating:
“the Board is entitled to go into executive session on this matter without public comment because this is purely an executive session matter. With respect to the letter it is irrelevant to the decision to go into executive session inasmuch as this meeting has been duly and properly noticed for the purposes of the agenda item. Due to the fact that there is no public portion of the meeting it is not necessary to take public comment. He respectfully disagrees with attorney Kaiama and advises the Board that it is free to go into executive session without public comment.”
In light of the OIP’s findings, the advise given to the BOT at this meeting by their legal counsel was not only bad advise, but it was Klein’s legal advise for the BOT to violate the Sunshine Law, which carries a punishment of up to a year in prison, a fine, and removal from the Board. It is not clear whether the BOT consulted Klein during their “unlawful” meeting in Washington, D.C., but he was clearly consulted during the Board meeting in Honolulu on May 19, 2014 as reflected in the minutes. If he was consulted in Washington, D.C., he again gave advice to violate the Sunshine Law in light of the OIP’s investigation. As a former Hawai‘i Supreme Court Justice, Klein cannot claim ignorance of the Sunshine Law and it would appear to be a case of legal malpractice at the very least.
The attorney that gave the best legal advice at the Honolulu meeting was Mr. Kaiama, but the Trustees didn’t listen when they should have.
Office of Informational Practices Concludes Office of Hawaiian Affairs Violated Sunshine Law
An opinion published by the State of Hawai‘i Lieutenant Governor’s Office’s Office of Information Practices (OIP) dated November 7, 2014, concluded that the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs violated the Sunshine Law. Willful violation of the Sunshine Law is a misdemeanor. Hawai‘i misdemeanors are crimes that carry a maximum sentence of no more than one year imprisonment and a fine not exceeding $2,000, and removal from the Board. The opinion was authored by OIP Staff Attorney, Jennifer Z. Brooks.
The opinion stems from a letter by OHA CEO Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry requesting answers to the following questions.
• First, does the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a sovereign independent State, continue to exist as a subject of international law?
• Second, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, do the sole-executive agreements bind the United States today?
• Third, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and the sole-executive agreements are binding on the United States, what effect would such a conclusion have on United States domestic legislation, such as the Hawai‘i Statehood Act, 73 Stat. 4, and Act 195?
• Fourth, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and the sole-executive agreements are binding on the United States, have the members of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, Trustees and staff of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs incurred criminal liability under international law?”
After the letter was sent, the OHA Trustees lashed out at Dr. Crabbe and sought to terminate him for simply asking the questions. This action prompted massive support for Dr. Crabbe amongst the Hawaiian community, which ultimately led to the investigation by the OIP.
Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau Island Convoy – La Ku‘oko‘a (Independence Day)
Royal Order of Kamehameha I Aligns with AHCC Resolution 14-28 Acknowledging Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom
A March in Celebration of Lā Kūʻokoʻa, Hawaiian Independence Day
Hōlualoa, Kona, Hawaiʻi
For Immediate Release
November 12, 2014
NAUE I KE ALOHA ʻĀINA!
A march in celebration of Lā Kūʻokoʻa, Hawaiian Independence Day
November 28, 2014
8:00am
Old Airport to Keauhou Small Boat Harbor
Hawaiians and supporters across the islands will march on Lā Kūʻokoʻa (Hawaiian Independence Day) on Friday November 28, 2014 in an effort to enhance awareness in our communities and throughout the world about one of the longest standing National Holidays of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi. Marchers will gather at the Old Kona Airport across from Makala Blvd at 7:30am for opening thoughts and pule. The march will begin at 8:00am and will cover approximately eight miles starting from the Old Airport in the ahupuaʻa of Keahuolū and ending in the ahupuaʻa of Keauhou at the birth site of Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III).
In Hawaiian, naue means to march. It also means to move, to shake, to tremble, to vibrate and to quake, as the earth. Aloha ʻāina means love of oneʻs land or of oneʻs country. It means patriot, a patriot who illustrates a deep love for the land. On this day of national independence, we hope that our lāhui will naue. That is, this march is meant to illustrate a true and deep love that will shake, vibrate, tremble and move our land and people towards our true patriotism.
“This is a march of aloha. This is a march of love for our land and love for our country. We march together as one with the hope that our claim to national independence may be seen and heard by our local communities and throughout the world. Aloha ʻ āina is alive and it will never die,” says Hawaiian medium preschool teacher and march organizer, Kahoʻokahi Kanuha.
On July 8, 1842 King Kauikeaouli dispatched three delegates to America and Europe to ultimately secure recognition of Hawaiian independence by the major powers of the world. The Hawaiian Delegation, led by Timoteo Haʻalilio, was assured independence by the heads of state of the United States, Great Britain and France and on November 28, 1843 the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi was officially recognized as an independent country by Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland along with King Louis-Philippe of France through the signing of the Anglo-Franco proclamation at the Court of London, thereby making Hawaiʻi the first non-European nation in the world to be recognized as an independent country. Lā Kūʻokoʻa was celebrated throughout the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi from 1843 until 1893, when Queen Liliʻuokalani was illegally overthrown on January 17th with the assistance of the US Minister to Hawaiʻi, John L. Stevens.
The United States of America’s only claim to acquiring Hawaiʻi is the Newland’s resolution, a joint resolution passed by Congress and signed by President McKinley on July 7, 1898. A joint resolution, though, is limited to United States territory, which Hawaiʻi obviously was not and is not a part of. Because a treaty was never ratified between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, Hawaiʻi has been and continues to be an independent country under an illegal and prolonged military occupation by the United States of America.
Building off of the momentum of the Department of Interior hearings held across the archipelago this summer, unity marches will also be held on the islands of Maui, Molokaʻi and Oʻahu to raise awareness in communities about Hawaiian history, our national heritage and of the ever-growing support for a free and independent Hawaiʻi.
###
For more information, please contact:
Kaho‘okahi Kanuha
Tel: 808-936-4249
Fax: 1-866-908-4619
naueikealohaaina@gmail.com
Twitter: @nauekealohaaina
#naueikealohaaina
#lakuokoa
#alohaainaoiaio
Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs Acknowledges the Continued Existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom
The first Hawaiian Civic Club was established in 1918 by Prince Kuhio Kalaniana‘ole. The Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs (AHCC) is a confederacy of 67 clubs that advocates “for improved welfare of native Hawaiians in culture, health, economic development, education, social welfare, and nationhood,” that was established in 1959. According to Dot Uchima, Recording Secretary, the AHCC “has established a reputation of serious consideration on community issues and mana‘o of the membership as it convenes annually at locations where clubs are represented,” and that “many resolutions adopted by the Association’s delegation at convention have served as the basis for proposed state and federal legislation.”
The AHCC is a very influential civic body that is comprised of many leaders in the community, business community and government. All resolutions adopted by the Association are also given to the Governor of Hawai‘i, State Senate President, State Speaker of the House, State Senate Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, State House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chair of the Board of Trustees, and all County Mayors. The President of the AHCC is Soulee L. K. O. Stroud.
From October 26 through November 2, 2014, Hawaiian Civic Clubs from across the Hawaiian Islands and the United States met at its annual convention held at the Waikoloa Beach Resort Marriot hotel on the Island of Hawai‘i. Ka Lei Maile Ali‘i Hawaiian Civic Club introduced resolution 14-28, acknowledging the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom. After a lively debate by the delegates of the many clubs in its plenary session, the resolution was passed on November 1, 2014.
ACKNOWLEDGING THE CONTINUITY OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM AS AN INDEPENDENT AND SOVEREIGN STATE
WHEREAS, on November 28, 1843, both Great Britain and France jointly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent and sovereign State and admittance into the Great Family of Nations; and
WHEREAS, the Hawaiian Kingdom maintained over 90 embassies and consulates throughout the world; and
WHEREAS, November 28th is a national holiday throughout the country called La Ku‘oko‘a (independence day); and
WHEREAS, fifty years after independence, the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was illegally overthrown by United States forces on January 17, 1893; and
WHEREAS, negotiations for reinstatement of the Hawaiian government took place between Queen Lili‘uokalani and President Grover Cleveland, represented by U.S. Minister Plenipotentiary Albert Willis, at the United States Legation in Honolulu on November 13, 1893; and
WHEREAS, settlement and an agreement was reached on December 18, 1893, whereby the President would reinstate the Hawaiian government and thereafter the Queen would grant a pardon to all those who committed treason; and
WHEREAS, this agreement is called a sole executive agreement under U.S. constitutional law and a treaty under international law; and
WHEREAS, President Cleveland and his successor in office have not carried out this treaty in violation of international law; and
WHEREAS, the United States Congress purportedly annexed the Hawaiian Islands by a joint resolution of Congress on July 7, 1898; and
WHEREAS, neither a joint resolution or a statute enacted by the Congress can have any legal effect beyond the borders of the United States and affect the sovereignty of a foreign State; and
WHEREAS, the 1898 joint resolution of annexation is not a treaty whereby the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded its sovereignty to the United States of America; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 1898 at 12 noon, during the Spanish-American War, the United States began the illegal and prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom; and
WHEREAS, in 2001, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, acknowledged in its arbitral award that “in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties”; and
WHEREAS, under international law all States have sovereign equality, and have equal rights and duties as co-equal members of the international community regardless of their economic, social and political differences; and
WHEREAS, according to international law there is a legal presumption that occupation does not affect the continuity of the State even when there is no government claiming to represent the occupied State.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs at its 55th annual convention at Waikoloa, Hawai‘i, this 1st day of November, 2014, that it acknowledges the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent and sovereign State.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be given to the Governor of Hawaii, State Senate President, State Speaker of the House, State Senate Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, State House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chair of the Board of Trustees, and all County Mayors.
On November 1, 2014 at the AHCC Convention Annelle Amaral was elected to succeed Stroud as President.
Circle Hawai‘i Island Convoy – La Ku‘oko‘a (Independence Day)
U.S. Congressman Clark Says Annexation Against the Will of the Hawaiian People
After the defeat of the Spanish Pacific Squadron in the Philippines on May 1, 1898, just one month into the Spanish-American War, Congressman Francis Newlands (D-Nevada), submitted House resolution no. 259 for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 4, 1898. Six days later, hearings were held on the Newlands resolution, and on May 17, 1898, Chairman Robert Hitt (R-Illinois) reported the Newlands resolution out of the Committee of Foreign Affairs, and debates ensued in the House of Representatives until the resolution was passed on June 15, 1898.
On June 11, 1898, Congressman Hitt began the debate by giving a lengthy testimony calling for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands as a military necessity. One of the opponents to the scheme of annexation was Congressman Charles Nelson Clark (R-Missouri). He too gave a lengthy testimony on the floor of the House during the debate and one of his key points centered on the lack of support the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i had from the people of the Hawaiian Islands. He was making specific reference to the signature petition against the treaty of annexation by the Hawaiian Patriotic League that was submitted by Senator George Hoar (R-Massachusetts) after meeting with the officers of the league in Washington, D.C. This signature petition was a major reason why the Senate failed to acquire the necessary two-thirds vote to ratify a treaty of annexation that was signed by the McKinley administration and the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i. The treaty failed.
Here follows Congressman Clark’s testimony during the debate on June 11, 1898 (vol. 31, Congressional Record, p. 5793):
*******************************************************
AGAINST THE WILL OF THE HAWAIIAN PEOPLE
The cornerstone of this Republic is the proposition enunciated by Thomas Jefferson, the chief priest, apostle, and prophet of constitutional liberty—“Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
If that proposition is not true, then the American Revolution was a monstrous crime; Washington, Warren, Montgomery, Greene, Marion, and all that band of heroes were turbulent traitors to King George III; John Hancock, Old John Adams, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and their Congressional compeers pestilent disturbers of the peace; and all the blood shed in our two wars with Great Britain was wanton and wicked waste. If that proposition is not true, William McKinley is this day exercising functions usurped from Victoria Guelph, and this body is composed of mouthy brawlers doing unlawfully those things which the English House of Commons has the sole right to do.
If that proposition is not true, you, Mr. Speaker, are not Speaker de jure, but only Speaker de facto, interfering pro tanto with the prerogatives of the speaker of the English House of Commons, Mr. Gully, who is the grandson of a professional pugilist. [Laughter and applause.]
This annexation scheme is in flagrant violation of that basic principle of our Republic, for many thousand Hawaiians—more than the entire male adult population—have solemnly protested against the sale and delivery of their country to us by a little gang of adventurers who, claiming to be the whole thing, are offering to us a property of which they have robbed the rightful owners. And now America, which has been solemnly declared by the Supreme Court to be a Christian land, is to be made the receiver of these stolen Hawaiian goods.
If an ordinary citizen receives stolen goods, he commits a penitentiary offense. Wherein, I beg leave to inquire, is the difference of principle between in stealing ordinary property and in stealing an island or a group of islands, or in receiving them after they are stolen? The only justification lies in the thievish theory that if the theft is big enough, it ceases to be a crime and takes on the character and complexion of a virtue, and the perpetrators thereof, instead of being consigned to the striped uniforms, cramped quarters, meager diet, and hard labor of felons, are to be hailed as statesmen and rewarded with the plaudits of a grateful people—a theory which, I regret to say, is growing in this country.
But the jingoes tell us that this protest of the Hawaiians is all bogus, gotten up by designing knaves, and that the Hawaiians are falling over each other in their eagerness for annexation. If this is true, why not submit this annexation scheme to a popular vote in Hawaii, as was done in the case of Texas, and which was provided for in the treaty once negotiated with Santo Domingo, but which happily was never ratified, or have a plebiscite, as Napoleon III was in the habit of doing whenever he felt like it or wished to cure himself of ennui produced by wearing his uncle’s heavy crown, which was too large for him? That would be fair and would remove one difficulty. Certainly Mr. Sanford B. Dole could guarantee that every vote in favor of annexation would be counted at least once.
Does he or do his sponsors here shrink from the test of Hawaiian manhood suffrage on that proposition?
If a fair election on that proposition can not be had, what assurance have we that fair elections can be had hereafter, if we annex these islands? If the Hawaiians are not fit to vote on a proposition of vital interest to themselves, who will have the effrontery to say that they are fit to vote for all coming time on propositions of vital interest to us and to our posterity?
If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, how does it happen that the Hawaiians are to have no voice in a performance which transforms their country from an independent nation into a mere outpost of this Republic?
Let him answer who can.
This submission to a vote of the Hawaiian male adults of a proposition decisive of their destiny ought to be insisted on by Congress as a condition precedent to even considering annexation.
This is the American method of procedure—a method bottomed on the eternal principles of wisdom, justice, and liberty.
We should demand a free ballot and a fair count for the Hawaiians, whose patrimony has been appropriated by President Dole and his partners in the oligarchy.
The annexation shouters claim that the Hawaiian names appended to the remonstrance are largely fictitious, and chiefly secured as signers under false pretenses. We deny it. Issue is squarely joined on an important matter of fact. It can be settled by a vote of the Hawaiian males over 21 years of age. Who can deny that that is a fair test?
All the machinery of elections is in the hands of the little coterie of oligarchists. They are able, resolute, ambitious men. They can be relied upon to see to it that every annexation voter votes and that his vote is counted. They can also be relied on to see to it that not an unlawful vote is cast against the scheme of annexation, for their fortunes depend upon annexation. Can anything be more clearly just? Is President Dole afraid of the verdict of his own people? I pause for a reply.
None of his friends answer, so I will answer myself. He can not be induced to submit this scheme to a popular manhood suffrage vote, for the very good reason that he knows that he and his friends hold office through usurpation and that the vast majority of the Hawaiian people are bitterly opposed to him and all his works. He the friend of liberty, is he? How does it happen, then, that while under the monarchy 14,000 persons were permitted to vote, only 2,800 are given the elective franchise under the oligarchy?
Let it be remembered also that a large percentage of these 2,800 voters have been colonized in Hawaii by Dole & Co. since they have been conducting the Government. What a misleading misnomer is it to dignify this little handful of close-corporation oligarchists with the name of a republic! What a burlesque upon truth, what a travesty upon justice, what an affront to intelligence to assert that Dole and his gang have any claims upon us or upon any other friends of representative government and human freedom!
Oh, yes, but we are told that all male citizens of the Sandwich Islands can vote who will swear that they will support the present Republic and the present constitution of Hawaii. Now, at first blush that seems perfectly fair; but it is a delusion and a snare, as will readily appear from this fact: The constitution, which the Hawaiian people never had any hand in adopting, provides for this very scheme of annexation, which the Hawaiian people detest. That condition for voting is a very skillful contrivance. It exhausted human ingenuity to invent it as is worthy of Machiavelli himself. In order to vote at all a citizen of the Sandwich Islands must solemnly swear to support a constitution which deprives his country of its nationality. What man who has any reputation to lose indorses such a swindle on a feeble people? Under it only about 2,800 persons to vote, and that is about the number in favor of annexation.
Canadian Television Airs Episode – Hawai‘i
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb56Gjc2p5Y&feature=youtu.be
176 Countries Visiting Hawaiian Kingdom Blog
Since the Hawaiian Kingdom blog was launched in August 2012 there has been nearly half a million hits from 176 countries, which includes non-self-governing territories, e.g. French Polynesia, Guam, American Samoa, Macao, Hong Kong and the Northern Mariana Islands. The largest number of visits come from the United States at 427,227, followed by Germany at 1,932, and the United Kingdom at 1,255.
The highest number of visits on a single day was 5,709 on May 11, 2014, and the blog has averaged 2,500 visits per day. For the past 30 days there has been a total of 57,776 visits from the following countries.
Comprehensive Plan to Transition from Illegal Regime to Military Government
The United States has had its footprint in the Hawaiian Kingdom since U.S. troops unlawfully landed on Hawaiian territory on January 16, 1893, in order to secure protection for a puppet government, calling themselves the Committee of Safety. The puppet government was created by the U.S. diplomat John Stevens. The following day, Stevens extended de facto recognition to this small group of roughly 30 individuals calling themselves the provisional government and ordered the U.S. troops to protect them from arrest by the Hawaiian police force for treason. Their stated purpose was to seek annexation to the United States.
A treaty of annexation was signed in Washington, D.C. between the insurgency and President Benjamin Harrison on February 14, 1893 and submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification. On March 4th, President Grover Cleveland replaced Harrison and after receiving a diplomatic protest from Queen Lili’uokalani on the 9th he removed the treaty from the Senate and initiated a presidential investigation into the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government. His investigator, James Blount, who was the former Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported “The American minister and the revolutionary leaders had determined on annexation to the United States, and had agreed on the part each was to act to the very end.” The investigation was completed on December 18, 1893 and determined the United States was responsible for the unlawful overthrow of a friendly government.
Negotiations took place between the Queen and the President’s diplomat, Albert Willis, in Honolulu beginning on November 13, 1893, and an agreement was reached on December 18th that obligated the United States to reinstate the Queen in her constitutional authority and thereafter the Queen to grant a pardon to the insurgents. This agreement, which under international law is a treaty, was not carried out. This allowed the illegal regime to hire American mercenaries in order continue to intimidate and coerce government officials in the executive and judicial branches of the Hawaiian government to sign oaths of allegiance. This illegal regime changed its name to the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i on July 4, 1894.
On August 12, 1898, the United States disguised the military occupation during the Spanish-American War as if Hawai‘i ceded its territory and sovereignty by a treaty. There is no treaty. According to Marek’s Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law, p. 110, “a disguised annexation aimed at destroying the independence of the occupied State, represents a clear violation of the rule preserving the continuity of the occupied State.”
The regime’s name has since been changed to the Territory of Hawai‘i in 1900 and then to the State of Hawai‘i in 1959. For the past 121 years the United States footprint has never left the islands and because of its deliberate failure to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom through its illegal regimes since 1893 it has created a state of emergency that called for a comprehensive plan for transition from an illegal regime to a military government before the occupation can come to an end.
When a State is illegally occupying territory and has established an illegal regime, all official acts of the occupying State are null and void except for the registration of births, marriages and deaths. This is referred to as the Namibia exception, which was formulated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) during the existence of an illegal regime established by South Africa when it unlawfully occupied Namibia. Examples of official acts include, but are not limited to, the function of notaries, registration of land titles, decisions by judicial and administrative courts, enactment of laws, licensing, etc. In his comment on the Namibia exception, the United Nations Secretary General noted that the determination of any legal validity of South Africa’s illegal presence would be the prerogative of the Namibian Legislative Assembly.
When a country’s territory is occupied by a foreign State, acts of a political nature are suspended throughout the duration of the occupation, which includes the right to vote. And when neutral territory is occupied by a belligerent State, the 1907 Hague Convention IV is not applied in its entirety. According Takahashi’s International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, p. 251, and acknowledged by the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) School’s Text no. 11, Law of Belligerent Occupation, p. 4, the only sections of the Hague Convention IV that apply to neutral territory under occupation by a belligerent State are:
Article 42—on the elements and sphere of military occupation;
Article 43—on the duty of the occupant to respect the laws in force in the country;
Article 46—concerning family honour and rights, the lives of individuals and their private property as well as their religious convictions and the right of public worship;
Article 47—on prohibiting pillage;
Article 49—on collecting the taxes;
Article 50—on collective penalty, pecuniary or otherwise;
Article 51—on collecting contributions;
Article 53—concerning properties belonging to the state or private individuals, which may be useful in military operations;
Article 54—on material coming from neutral states; and
Article 56—on the protection of establishments consecrated to religious, warship, charity, etc.
The occupant State’s “authority may be exercised in every field of government activity, executive, administrative, legislative and judicial,” as stated in the JAG’s Law of Belligerent Occupation, p. 38. “The occupant’s laws and regulations which find justification in military necessity or in his duty to maintain law and safety are legitimate under international law. Conversely, the acts of the occupant which have no reasonable relation to military necessity or the maintenance of order and safety are illegitimate.”
The United States use of illegal regimes to further entrench the disguised occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom is a direct violation of the laws of occupation and general international law. As such, it has drawn to the forefront the Namibia exception with regard to these violations, which renders every executive, administrative, legislative and judicial acts done by these regimes since January 17, 1893 to be invalid and void except for the registration of births, marriages and deaths. As the national and international communities are becoming aware of the profound legal and economic ramifications of the United States’ failure to abide by international law, the situation in the Hawaiian Kingdom is cataclysmic.
In response to a course heading to unrivaled calamity for the country and the world at large, the acting Council of Regency could find no other recourse but to decree provisional laws for the Hawaiian Kingdom on October 10, 2014 in light of the United States’ violation of international law and the law of occupation for the past 121 years. Included in the decree of provisional laws are those laws having emanated from the Hawaiian legislatures that were convened under the so-called Bayonet Constitution of July 6, 1887, which was the beginning of the insurgency. This so-called constitution was not proclaimed in accordance with Hawaiian constitutional law.
For a detailed analysis of the formation of the acting Council of Regency under the doctrine of necessity download “The Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”
As a result of an effective American occupation, the acting Council of Regency does not have the capacity or the ability to enforce the provisional laws proclaimed under the doctrine of necessity. It is the United States that must carry this out. Failure to do so would only lead to economic ruination for not only the United States, but also for the Hawaiian Kingdom and its citizenry, being the victims of these egregious and criminal violations.
This is analogous to the United States having stepped on a land mine called Hawai‘i’s sovereignty on January 16, 1893. That foot has not moved since then, and for the United States to remove its foot from this land mine and begin to comply with the international laws of occupation would consequently admit to the illegality of 121 years and the land mine would blow up legally and economically. That explosion would not only severely injure the United States, but it could also do the same to the Hawaiian Kingdom and everyone residing in these Islands to include those who are legally and economically tied to these islands who live abroad. What’s needed is a means by which the weight of the United States as a government could be replaced by an equal weight so that the land mine can be disarmed. Only a government could do such a thing, and in this case it could only be done by the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which itself was established in 1997 by the doctrine of necessity. The decree of provisional laws is this equal weight needed in order for the United States to remove its foot and begin to administer the laws of the occupied State according to the 1907 Hague Convention IV and the 1949 Geneva Convention IV.
The decree of provisional laws is a practical and comprehensive plan for transition from an illegal regime to a military government that relies on international law, which includes treaties, international customs, general principles of law recognized around the world, the decisions of international courts, scholarly writing, and the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It is not intended to end the occupation, but rather to bring compliance to the laws of occupation. It is the responsibility of the acting government to ensure implementation of these provisional laws by any and all lawful means.
A State of War Between Hawai‘i and the United States Now at 121 years
Under international law, war does not only apply to belligerent States, but also applies to neutral States whose territories have been invaded and occupied by one of the belligerents in its course of war with the other belligerent. According to Oppenheim’s International Law (7th ed.), p. 685, “hostilities against a neutral [State] on the part of either belligerent are acts of war, and not mere violations of neutrality. Thus the German attack on Belgium in 1914, to enable German troops to march through Belgian territory and attack France, created war between Germany and Belgium.” While Belgium was occupied by Germany from 1914-1918, Belgium was, for the purposes of international law, also at war with Germany during the occupation.
By the 1839 Treaty of London, Great Britain, Austria, France, the German Confederation, Russia, and the Netherlands recognized Belgium as an independent and perpetual neutral State. Under international law, a neutral State cannot wage war but is limited to the defense of its territory. During World War I, Belgium’s neutrality was violated by Germany in its war against France.
When “neutral territory becomes the region and theatre of war, and is militarily occupied by a belligerent, the occupant does not possess such a wide range of rights with regard to the occupied country and its inhabitants as he possesses in occupied enemy territory,” states Oppenheim, p. 241. “He can indeed resort to all measures which are necessary for the safety of his forces; but he cannot exact contributions or appropriate cash, funds, and realizable securities which are the property of the neutral State.”
Like Belgium, the Hawaiian Kingdom was a neutral State explicitly recognized in its treaties with Spain in 1863 and the Kingdom of Sweden and Norway in 1852. Article 26 of the Hawaiian-Spanish treaty, states “All vessels bearing the flag of Spain, shall, in time of war, receive every possible protection, short of active hostility, within the ports and waters of the Hawaiian Islands, and Her Majesty the Queen of Spain engages to respect, in time of war the neutrality of the Hawaiian Islands.”
On April 25, 1898, war broke out between the United States and Spain, and fighting between the armed forces of both belligerents took place in the Spanish possessions of Guam and the Philippines in the Pacific Ocean, and Cuba and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean Ocean. The next month, United States naval convoys entered Honolulu harbor to re-coal their ships on their way to fighting in the Philippines. This action taken by the United States naval forces was a direct violation of Hawai‘i’s neutrality under the Hawaiian-Spanish Treaty, which prompted a formal protest by the Spanish Vice-Consul H. Renjes June 1, 1898.
The Spanish protest declared, “In my capacity as Vice Consul for Spain, I have the honor today to enter a formal protest with the Hawaiian Government against the constant violations of Neutrality in this harbor, while actual war exists between Spain and the United States of America.” The last battle was fought on August 13, 1898 when U.S. forces captured the city of Manila, and the war officially ended on December 10, 1898 when a treaty was signed in Paris.
As a result of United States intervention in 1893 and the subsequent creation of a puppet government, calling itself the provisional government and later renaming itself the Republic of Hawai‘i, the United States took complete advantage of its own creation in the islands during the Spanish-American War.
“Puppet governments are organs of the occupant and, as such form a part of his legal order,” explains Krystyna Marek in Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law (2nd ed.), p. 114. “The agreements concluded by them with the occupant are not genuine international agreements, however correct in form; failing a genuine contracting party, such agreements are merely decrees of the occupant disguised as agreements which the occupant in fact concludes with himself. Their measures and laws are those of the occupant.”
According T.A. Bailey, whose article “The United States and Hawai‘i During the Spanish-American War” was published in The American Historical Review (1931), “The position of the United States was all the more reprehensible in that she was compelling a weak nation to violate international law that had to a large degree been formulated by her own stand on the Alabama claims. Furthermore, in line with the precedent established by the Geneva award, Hawaii would be liable for every cent of damage caused by her dereliction as a neutral, and for the United States to force her into this position was cowardly and ungrateful. At the end of the war, Spain or cooperating power would doubtless occupy Hawaii, indefinitely if not permanently, to insure payment of damages, with the consequent jeopardizing of the defenses of the Pacific Coast.”
Bailey’s reference to the Alabama claims was an international arbitration case between the United States and Great Britain in the city Geneva that centered on Britain’s violation of neutrality by building war ships for the Confederate States in America’s Civil War. One of these ships was called the C.S.S. Alabama. The arbitral tribunal concluded the British violated the international law of neutrality and had to compensate the United States $15.5 million dollars for all damages inflicted by the ships built in Great Britain.
“Although the [Hague] conventions expressly apply only to the occupation of hostile or enemy territory, …it is usually held that they apply also to the forceful occupation of neutral territory,” says Gerhard von Glahn in The Occupation of Enemy Territory, p. 12. “Thus provisions of the applicable articles should have been mandatory in their application to the German occupation of Denmark, Norway, and other countries neutral at the time of their invasion by the forces of the Third Reich.”
In 1893, President Grover Cleveland reported to the Congress ““on the 16th day of January, 1893, between four and five o’clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States steamer Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at Honolulu. The men, upwards of 160 in all, were supplied with double cartridge belts filled with ammunition and with haversacks and canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical supplies. This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war, unless made either with the consent of the Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide purpose of protecting the imperiled lives and property of citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any such consent on the part of the Government of the Queen, which at that time was undisputed and was both the de facto and the de jure government.”
Failing to carry out the executive agreement of December 18, 1893 to reinstate the Hawaiian Kingdom government negotiated between U.S. Ambassador Albert Willis and Queen Lili‘uokalani, the United States allowed their puppet government calling itself the provisional government to remain in existence. On July 4, 1894, the name was changed to the Republic of Hawai‘i, then renamed to the Territory of Hawai‘i on April 30, 1900, and then the State of Hawai‘i on March 18, 1959.
Since the admitted “act of war” was committed by the United States on January 16, 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom has been in a state of war with the United States now going on for 121 years. This is the longest state of war between States in the history of international law since the Thirty Years’ War that established international law as we know it today through the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia.
Despite the prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, international law provides for its continued existence, especially in light of its legal status as a neutral State, and the failure of the United States to comply with international law, the international laws of occupation and international humanitarian laws. The Proclamation of the acting Council of Regency provides the legal foundation for the United States’ compliance to international law in light of 121 years of violation.