Category Archives: National

War Crimes: The Role of the International Criminal Court during the Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Posted on by
10

Arizona Memorial

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a court of last resort for the prosecution of individuals for war crimes. Primary responsibility for criminal prosecutions lie with the government of a State that has acceded to the Rome Statute. And during occupation of a State’s territory, primary responsibility for criminal prosecution then lies with the Occupant under Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV. In the case of Hawai‘i, primary responsibility for initiating investigations and ultimate prosecutions for war crimes lie with the U.S. Pacific Command as the Occupant of Hawaiian territory. If the Occupant fails or refuses to prosecute individuals within the Hawaiian Kingdom for war crimes, then and only then will the ICC be compelled to step in.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

According to Article 17 of the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor of the ICC cannot initiate an investigation into alleged war crimes if:

  1. The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
  2. The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
  3. The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint; or
  4. The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.

Article 17 further states that in order to determine unwillingness to investigate and/or prosecute, which will compel the ICC involvement is where:

  1. The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court;
  2. There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice; and
  3. The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.

The enforcement of criminal law within a State is referred to as police power. Police power is the capacity by which a government of a State regulates the behavior of its inhabitants in order to promote and maintain the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public. To maintain public order, the Hawaiian Kingdom enacted a penal code, whose duty of the Hawaiian government’s executive branch was to investigate, indict, and prosecute individuals who commit crimes that are listed in the penal code.

On January 17, 1893, the Hawaiian police, headed by Marshal Charles Wilson, was unable to apprehend insurgents for committing the crime of treason, Chapter VI, Penal Code, without colliding with U.S. Marines who were illegally landed by order of the U.S. diplomat, John Stevens, to protect them. This constituted a threat of war, and compelled Queen Lili‘uokalani to temporarily yield and assign Hawaiian police power, being a portion of the executive power, to the President of the United States or risk war and bloodshed. This assignment of Hawaiian police power is referred to as the Lili`uokalani assignment, which is a binding international agreement-a treaty. After an investigation and confirming the overthrow of the Hawaiian government was illegal, President Cleveland and the Queen entered into a Restoration Agreement whereby the police power would be returned to the Hawaiian government and the Queen thereafter to grant amnesty to the insurgents. These agreements have not been carried out since 1893, but nevertheless remain binding on the President to enforce Hawaiian law.

When the Hawaiian Islands were illegally occupied during the Spanish-American War on August 12, 1898 and thereafter “Americanized,” the international laws of occupation that mandates the Occupant to temporarily enforce the laws of the Occupied State, which includes the penal code, only reinforced the Lili`uokalani assignment. The international laws of occupation has since been codified under the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. War crimes listed in the Rome Statute have since been added to the Hawaiian penal code by virtue of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s accession to the Rome Statute on December 10, 2012.

First War Crime Complaint Filed with International Criminal Court

Posted on by
40

ICC

The first war crime complaint was filed on February 14, 2012, with the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and copied to the United Nations Human Rights Commission by Dexter Kaiama, attorney, on behalf of his client Kenneth K.K. Kawa‘auhau. Kawa‘auhau is a Hawaiian subject and a protected person under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. The specific war crime is denying a protected person a fair and regular trial. According to the ICC, elements of the war crime of denying a fair trial include:

  1. The perpetrator deprived one or more persons of a fair and regular trial by denying judicial guarantees as defined, in particular, in the third and the fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949.
  2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
  3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
  4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party].
  5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party].

The ICC also clarifies that with respect to the last two elements listed for the war crime of denying a fair trial:

  1. There is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the perpetrator as to the existence of an [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party] or its character as international or non-international;
  2. In that context there is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party] as international or non-international;
  3. There is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an [occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party] that is implicit in the terms “took place in the context of and was associated with.”

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

In 2012, ejectment proceedings were instituted by the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General against Kawa‘auhau seeking a court order from the District Court of the First Circuit, Waianae Division, to remove him from his home in Waianae. Kawa‘auhau held a 99-year lease from the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. On January 24, 2012, Kawa‘auhau filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the District Court was not lawfully constituted because the United States has been illegally occupying the Hawaiian Kingdom in violation of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Restoration Agreement, being international compacts, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and international law. Kaiama provided special appearance for Kawa‘auhau at the hearing on the motion that was held on February 7, 2012.

According to Kawa‘auhau’s pleadings in the case, his argument and supporting evidence centered on the fact that there is no treaty between Hawai‘i and the United States, and without a treaty United States laws enacted by the Congress have no force and effect beyond U.S. territory. As a result, the District Court, which derives its authority from An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai‘i into the Union (March 18, 1959), cannot claim to have jurisdiction in territory that does not belong to the United States. Kawa‘auhau argues that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that international laws, not U.S. laws, apply in his situation.

Despite Kaiama getting District Court Judge Maura Okamoto to take judicial notice of the evidence, she denied the motion to dismiss without cause and the court eventually granted the order for eviction. Kawa‘auhau’s appeal with the Intermediate Court of Appeals was also denied by Presiding Judge Daniel Foley, Associate Judge Katherine Leonard and Associate Judge Lawrence Reifurth without any counter-evidence as well. (United States) State of Hawai‘i Government is a War Crime under International Law.

The War Crime Complaint alleges:

“State of Hawai‘i Judges OKAMOTO, FOLEY, LEONARD, and REIFURTH committed a war crime by willfully depriving my client, a protected person, of a fair and regular trial prescribed by the fourth Geneva Convention.  The Plaintiff, State of Hawai‘i Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Chair JOBIE MASAGATANI and State of Hawai‘i Governor NEAL ABERCROMBIE, represented by the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General DAVID M. LOUIE and Deputy Attorney Generals MATTHEW S. DVONCH, DIANE K. TAIRA and S. KALANI BUSH were complicit in these proceedings and therefore committed a war crime as accessories.”

The War Crime Complaint concludes:

“Accordingly, pursuant to Article 17(3) of the Rome Statute, I respectfully request the office of the Prosecutor, with all due speed, investigate the situation in order to determine if the alleged perpetrators should be charged with the war crime specified above.”

The ICC jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands will begin March 4, 2013.

Hawaiian Kingdom Treaties and International Law

Posted on by
Reply

The Hawaiian Kingdom is a member State of the Universal Postal Union since January 1, 1882, has forty-six (46) State treaty partners, and, to a limited degree, one hundred twenty-seven (127) successor State quasi-treaty partners. In the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Protest and Demand filed with the President of the United Nations General Assembly on August 10, 2012, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s identification of successor States collectively included former colonial, mandate and trust territories. This identification was made without any prejudice to the particular rights of each successor States in relation to the mode of exercising self-determination when they achieved their independence.

According to Professor Oppenheim, “there is room for the view that in case of separation resulting in the emergence of a new State the latter is bound by—or at least entitled to accede to—general treaties of a ‘law-making’ nature, especially those of a humanitarian character.”Beato explains, “contrary to conventional law’s clean slate doctrine, relatively few newly independent states renounce all of their predecessor state’s treaties. Instead, new states tend to adopt a pragmatic approach which balances issues of self-determination and sovereignty in foreign affairs against the need to foster stability in international relations.” Professor Hershey states that it “is generally agreed that the purely local or personal rights and obligations of the [predecessor State]…remain with the [successor State].” Treaty obligations to private individuals survive the succession and bind the successor State.

Provisions of these treaties not only protect the private rights and obligations of the citizenry of the predecessor States and their successor States while within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, but also protect the private rights and obligations of the citizenry of the Hawaiian Kingdom while within the territories of the predecessor States and their successor States. This rule stems from the principle of international law that change in sovereignty does not affect the private rights of individuals.

An example of successorship is Australia. Under the Hawaiian-British Treaty of 1851, British territory included Australia, which at the time was a Crown colony. On January 1, 1901, Australia was granted independence by Great Britain and was no longer a part of British territory. Australia became a successor State of Great Britain, who is now the predecessor State to Australia. The private rights which British subjects held under the 1851 Hawaiian-British Treaty while within Hawaiian territory would now apply to Australian citizens, and the private rights of Hawaiian subjects held under the Hawaiian-British Treaty would apply when Hawaiian subjects are in Australian territory.

Hawaiian Territory and the Law of Occupation

Posted on by
1

Territorial sovereignty is the independent right of a State to carry out its activities over a territory that has been internationally recognized as belonging to a State. Since the occupation of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States on August 12, 1898, the laws of occupation apply to Hawaiian territory and where the Hawaiian Kingdom exercised its right of territorial sovereignty, the United States would temporarily exercise the Hawaiian right within the limitations imposed by the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Restoration Agreement, being international compacts, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10. §6 of the Hawaiian Civil Code states:

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

The Islands constituting the defined territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom that was internationally recognized in 1893, together with its territorial seas whereby the channels between adjacent Islands are contiguous, its exclusive economic zone of two hundred miles, and its air space, include:

Island:                   Location:                               Square Miles/Acreage:

Hawai‘i                 19º 30′ N 155º 30′ W             4,028.2 / 2,578,048
Maui                      20º 45′ N 156º 20′ W             727.3 / 465,472
O‘ahu                    21º 30′ N 158º 00′ W             597.1 / 382,144
Kaua‘i                   22º 03′ N 159º 30′ W             552.3 / 353,472
Molokai                 21º 08′ N 157º 00′ W             260.0 / 166,400
Lana‘i                    20º 50′ N 156º 55′ W             140.6 / 89,984
Ni‘ihau                  21º 55′ N 160º 10′ W             69.5 / 44,480
Kaho‘olawe           20º 33′ N 156º 35′ W             44.6 / 28,544
Nihoa                    23º 06′ N 161º 58′ W             0.3 / 192
Molokini               20º 38′ N 156º 30′ W             0.04 / 25.6
Lehua                    22º 01′ N 160º 06′ W             0.4 / 256
Ka‘ula                   21º 40′ N 160º 32′ W             0.2 / 128
Laysan                   25º 50′ N 171º 50′ W             1.6 / 1,024
Lisiansky               26º 02′ N 174º 00′ W             0.6 / 384
Palmyra                 05º 52′ N 162º 05′ W             4.6 / 2,944
Ocean                    28º 25′ N 178º 25′ W             0.4 / 256

TOTAL:                   6,427.74 (square miles) / 4,113,753.6 (acres)

Hawaiian Nationality and the Law of Occupation

Posted on by
53

The Hawaiian nationality is termed Hawaiian subject and not Hawaiian citizen. The distinction between subject and citizen is that the former is the political status of an individual in a monarchical form of government, whether absolute or constitutional, and the latter is the political status of an individual in a republic or non-monarchical government.

Under Hawaiian law, nationality can be acquired four ways:

  1. Born within Hawaiian territory—jus soli, also called native-born or natural-born;
  2. Born outside of Hawaiian territory from parents with Hawaiian nationality—jus sanguinis;
  3. Naturalize. The Minister of the Interior, with the approval of the Monarch, shall have the power in person upon the application of any alien foreigner who shall have resided within the Kingdom five years or more, stating his intention to become a permanent resident of the Kingdom, to administer the oath of allegiance to such foreigner, if satisfied that it will be for the good of the Kingdom. (§429, Article VIII, Hawaiian Civil Code);
  4. Denizen. The Monarch can confer upon any alien resident abroad, or temporarily resident in this Kingdom, letters patent of denization, conferring upon such alien, without abjuration of allegiance, all the rights, privileges and immunities of a native. The letters patent shall render the denizen in all respects accountable to the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and impose upon him the like fealty to the King, as if he had been naturalized. (§433, Article VIII, Hawaiian Civil Code).

Once a State is occupied, international law preserves the status quo of the occupied State as it was before the occupation began. To preserve the nationality of the occupied State from being manipulated by the occupying State to its advantage, international law only allows individuals born within the territory of the occupied State to acquire the nationality of their parents. To preserve the status quo, Article 49 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention mandates that the “Occupying Power shall not…transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” To do so is a war crime.

For individuals, who were born within Hawaiian territory, to be a Hawaiian subjects they must be a direct descendant of an individual who was a Hawaiian subject prior to the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893. All other individuals born this date to the present are aliens who can only acquire the nationality of their parents.

According to the 1890 government census, Hawaiian subjects numbered 48,107, with the aboriginal Hawaiians, both pure and part, numbering 40,622, being 84% of the national population, and the non-aboriginal Hawaiians numbering 7,485, being 16%. Despite the massive migrations of foreigners to the Hawaiian Islands since 1898, which, according to the State of Hawai‘i Office of Hawaiian Affairs, numbers 1,302,939 in 2009, with the aboriginal Hawaiian population at 322,812 (25.3%), the status quo of the national population of the Hawaiian Kingdom is maintained.

In other words, with the increase in numbers of Hawaiian subjects, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, since 1893, the status quo of the Hawaiian national population has been maintained to date. Therefore, under the international laws of occupation, the aboriginal Hawaiian population of 322,812 in 2009 would continue to be 84% of the Hawaiian national population, and the non-aboriginal Hawaiian population of 61,488 would continue to be 16%. The balance of the population in 2009, being 918,639, are aliens.

Swiss General Secretariat Receives the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Accession to the Fourth Geneva Convention

Posted on by
8

Ambassador BattigOn January 14, 2013, Ambassador Benno Bättig, General Secretariat of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), received at his office in Berne, Switzerland, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Instrument of Accession to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Along with the Instrument of Accession, Ambassador Bättig also received a copy of the Hawaiian Protest and Demand deposited with the President of the United Nations General Assembly, August 10, 2012; and a DVD package of the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom arbitration case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, 2001.

Swiss_Receipt_GCIV

The FDFA is responsible for maintaining the foreign relations of Switzerland and serves as the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The department is headed by Federal Councillor Didier Burkhalter. The FDFA is composed of a General Secretariat and the State Secretariat, to which the department’s directorates and agencies are subordinate. Ambassador Bättig was appointed General Secretariat January 11, 2012.

CLARIFICATION: Article 156  of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that accessions shall be notified in writing to the Swiss Federal Council and the Swiss Federal Council shall communicate the accessions to all the Powers in whose name the Convention has been signed, or whose accession has been notified. The Swiss Federal Council receives accessions through the FDFA. And according to Article 159, the Swiss Federal Council also informs the Secretary-General of the United Nations of all ratifications, accessions and denunciations received by them.

War Crime: “Americanization” of the Hawaiian Islands

Posted on by
13

Statehood Photo

Usurpation of sovereignty is the unlawful exercise of the sovereignty of another country by a foreign government during the occupation of occupied territory. Usurpation of sovereignty is the means by which a foreign government denationalizes the inhabitants of an occupied territory through political, cultural, social and economic means. The intent of denationalizing the inhabitants is to obliterate the national character of the occupied state.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

Usurpation of sovereignty and attempts to denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territory were listed as “war crimes” after World War I by the 1919 Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties. In the Nuremburg trials after World War II, Germany’s usurpation of sovereignty and their attempt to denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territories was categorized under Count III of the Nuremburg Indictment, “GERMANIZATION OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES.”

Indictment_CoverCount_III

Germanization

Like the Nazis during World War II, United States President McKinley’s administration during the Spanish-American War in 1898 purported to annex the Hawaiian Islands and put into operation a plan that endeavored to assimilate Hawaiian subjects and residents of the islands politically, culturally, socially and economically into the United States of America. Their goal was to obliterate the national character of the Hawaiian Kingdom and to fortify the Hawaiian Islands as a military outpost to protect the west coast of the United States from foreign invasion. To do this, the administration enlisted the assistance of insurgents such as Sanford Dole who was appointed by McKinley as governor of the puppet government called the Territory of Hawai‘i. Dole headed the insurgency of businessmen whose leadership comprised of:

  • Charles Reed Bishop, Hawaiian subject
  • Henry Ernest Cooper, American citizen
  • Crister Bolte, Hawaiian subject
  • Andrew Brown, British subject
  • William Richards Castle, Hawaiian subject
  • John Emmeluth, American citizen
  • Theodore F. Lansing, American citizen
  • John A. McCandless, Hawaiian subject
  • Frederick W. McChesney, American citizen
  • William Owen Smith, Hawaiian subject
  • Lorrin A. Thurston, Hawaiian subject
  • Edward Suhr, German citizen
  • Henry Waterhouse, Hawaiian subject
  • William C. Wilder, Hawaiian subject
  • Charles L. Carter, Hawaiian subject
  • Samuel Mills Damon, Hawaiian subject
  • Peter Cushman Jones, Hawaiian subject
  • James A. King, British subject

AmericanizeIntimidation and propaganda in the early part of the 20th century was used by the insurgents and U.S. Armed Forces to “Americanize” the Hawaiian Islands. Hawai‘i’s history books were revised and used to “Americanize” the children in the schools throughout the islands. The Hawaiian language was shunned and replaced with English, and mass migration of United States citizens to the islands took place on a grand scale, which included people from U.S. territories and possessions. According to the 1890 Hawaiian Kingdom government census, United States citizens numbered a mere 1,928 out of a population of 89,980. Within 60 years, the number of U.S. citizens grew exponentially to 423,174 out of 499,794 by 1950 according to the U.S. Census Reports. For more information see law article: American Occupation of the Hawaiian State: A Century Unchecked. Also conscription or the drafting of Hawaiian subjects into the United States Armed Forces took place during the First World War (1914-1918), the Second World War (1939-1945), the Korean War (1950-1953) and the Vietnam War (1965-1975).

People today that have no knowledge of the Hawaiian Kingdom being an independent and sovereign State since 1843; with over 90 embassies and consulates though out the world; with 46 treaty partners in 1893; a progressive government with a limited and constitutional monarchy; a multi-ethnic national population; and international agreements settling the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government in 1893 that remain binding agreements today, speaks volumes as to the success of the propaganda and plan to assimilate the population into the belief that Hawaiian subjects are United States citizens and that Hawai‘i is the 50th State of the American Federal Union.

Because Germany was held to account by the international community for their illegal actions during the Second World War, Norway, France, Luxembourg, the former Soviet Union, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands are not politically, culturally, socially and economically tied to Germany and they are not speaking German. But if Germany was not held accountable, these countries would no more be German through “Germanization,” than the Hawaiian Kingdom would be American through “Americanization.” Both “Germanization” and “Americanization” are War Crimes, and the situation would be regulated by the international laws of occupation and humanitarian law.

Since the Spanish-American War, the Hawaiian Islands have been under an illegal and prolong occupation by the United States, and through an effective plan of “Americanization” it has been able to conceal its occupation for over a century. Today, over 20% of the islands are under the direct control of the United States Armed Forces Pacific Command and, as a result, the islands are presently targeted for nuclear attack by China, Russia and any other adversary of the United States who are threatened by the military presence in the Hawaiian Islands.

The war criminals who set this in motion are dead, but their legacy has effectively replaced the memory of Hawai‘i’s people of the national character of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The fact that the public has no recollection of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent State and that it is currently under occupation is the evidence of the war crime of “Americanization.”

U.S. Pacific Command Admits to Police Officer “No Treaty of Annexation”

Posted on by
25

PACOM insigniaOn January 17, 2013 a hearing was held in a foreclosure case, Bank of Hawai‘i v. Keli‘iho‘omalu, in the Circuit Court of Second Circuit in Wailuku, Island of Maui. The Keli‘iho‘omalus filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court does not legally exist and if the case was not dismissed the actions taken by the Court and the Plaintiff would constitute war crimes and they will be reported to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, Switzerland.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

In their motion, the Keli‘iho‘omalus provided clear evidence of an illegal occupation by the United States and that without a treaty of annexation, the State of Hawai‘i government and its courts are illegal. The Keli‘iho‘malus argued, “This Court cannot claim the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit has subject matter jurisdiction in light of the evidence to the contrary, and if this court disregards the evidence it will be in direct violation of Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, by willfully depriving the Defendants a fair and regular trial, which is a grave breach and a war crime.”

Attorney Dexter Kaiama provided special appearance for the Keli‘iho‘omalus at the hearing. In addition to the evidence already submitted, Kaiama read into the record a “Declaration of Leland Pa,” a Hawai‘i County police officer that inquired into war crimes committed by Hawai‘i Island Circuit Court Judges Greg Nakamura and Glen S. Hara, and District Court Judge Barbara Takase.

The complaints were filed by Kaiama with the U.S. Pacific Command and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland, and alleged these judges deprived his clients of their right to a fair and regular trial during occupation, being a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV. The basis of the complaints were the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Restoration Agreement, being international compacts, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10.

According to the declaration, Pa initiated the inquiry in September 2012 as part of his “duty to identify potentially serious law enforcement and government problems” after obtaining “copies of war crime complaints from the Law Office of Dexter K. Kaiama.” He stated he began the inquiry to see how he would be affected as a police officer and “if it would pose potential problems for law enforcement and government officials.”

At 10:30 p.m., November 6, 2012, Pa called the “Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit, United Nations Office at Geneva” and that a spokesperson confirmed they are in receipt of the complaints but could not provide any more assistance. Pa stated the spokesperson recommended that he “contact U.S. departments that deal with war crime complaints.”

On November 8, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., Pa called the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Command at Camp Smith, Island of O‘ahu, and spoke with Ronald Winfrey, Principal Deputy Staff Judge Advocate. Pa informed Winfrey of his concerns and how these complaints could affect his duties as a police officer. When asked about the complaints from Kaiama, Winfrey stated “he knows those complaints because out of all the complaints he has read those are the most precise and clear.”

Pa stated that as he “began discussing the basis of the complaints such as no treaty of annexation, Mr. Winfrey candidly and without hesitation said, ‘Oh yes, there is no treaty.’” According to Pa, Winfrey attempted to ease Pa’s concerns about the implications of war crimes by stating that U.S. Courts will not hear these cases because they would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Pa then asked Winfrey to respond to his questions.

  • “Since there is no treaty, can the unresolved issues of the executive agreements and Hawaii’s occupation get resolved by a U.S. Court in the future?” Winfrey “stated that is possible.”
  • “If a U.S. Court should find in favor of plaintiff’s claim regarding the executive agreements and Hawai‘i’s occupation, then the prosecution of said War Crimes would come into play?” Winfrey “stated that is possible.”
  • “Since there is no treaty, the plaintiff does not need a U.S. court ruling? The Plaintiff could get these issues resolved in an International venue and then prosecution of war crimes would come into play?” Winfrey “stated that is possible.”

Pa informed Winfrey that as a police officer he swore “an oath to uphold the laws and constitution of the United States. Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. constitution declares that treaties, which includes executive agreements, are the supreme law of the land. Because there is no treaty of annexation we are faced with a difficult situation, which needs clarification and I find it necessary to notify my superiors.”

Pa’s telephone conversation with Winfrey took place before the Hawaiian Kingdom acceded to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on December 10, 2012 and beginning on March 4, 2013 the ICC can begin the investigation of war crimes committed within Hawaiian territory. After March 4, 2013, the U.S. Pacific Command will also be subject to investigation and prosecution by the ICC.

The Maui News Admits No Treaty of Annexation (October 20, 1900)

Posted on by
12

Maui NewsOn October 20, 1900, the Maui News published a commentary by its editor, George B. Robertson, that focused on Thomas Clark’s candidacy for Territorial senator from Maui. Thomas Clark was a British subject who applied for naturalization with the Minister of the Interior and was granted Hawaiian citizenship on December 23, 1867.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

The editorial reads: “Thomas Clark, a candidate for Territorial senator from Maui, holds that it was an unconstitutional proceeding on the part of the United States to annex the Islands without a treaty, and that as a matter of fact, the Island[s] are not annexed, and cannot be, and that if the democrats come into power they will show the thing up in its true light and demonstrate that…the Islands are de facto independent at the present time. Thomas, necessity knows no law, and it was absolutely necessary to annex the Islands at the time it was done. And further, Thomas, if it becomes to annex Cuba, it will be quicker tha[n] a wink. It is but fair to give you credit for being honest in your views, Thomas, but you don’t quite understand the American people just yet, hence you are very misleading.”

Thomas Clark was from Wailuku, Maui, and he was a signatory on the 1897 Hawaiian Patriotic League’s Petition against Annexation. He was 42 years of age when he signed the petition on page 245, September 11, 1897. You will notice next to his signature is written “Hawaiian” because Thomas Clark, although formerly British, was a Hawaiian subject.

Clark_PetitionThe reason for the petition was because on June 16, 1897, President William McKinley signed a treaty of annexation with insurgents from Hawai‘i and was preparing to submit it to the United States Senate for approval when it reconvenes in December 1897. McKinley ignored the June 17, 1897 diplomatic protest from Queen Lili‘uokalani, and the July 24, 1897 protests from the Hawaiian Patriotic League (Hui Aloha ‘Aina) and the Hawaiian Political Association (Hui Kalai‘aina). This resulted in activating the Hawaiian Patriotic League and the Hawaiian Political Association in order to gather signatures from the people. According to the 1890 government census, the national citizenry numbered 48, 107. The Patriotic League gathered 21,269 signatures and the Political Association gathered 17,000. The two organizations agreed to only submit the Patriotic League’s petition because the Political Association’s petition could be viewed by the Senate as too pro-monarchy.

The Patriotic League’s Petition was entered into the record of the United States Senate by Massachusetts Senator George Fisbie Hoar when it convened in December of 1897. As a result of these signature petitions, the Senate could not garner 2/3’s of the Senators to ratify the McKinley treaty. By March the treaty was dead. On July 7, 1898, a joint resolution of annexation was signed by President McKinley purporting to annex the Hawaiian Islands justified as a war measure, but Congressional legislation has no force and effect beyond the borders of the United States. (See U.S. State of Hawai‘i is a War Crime under International Law). Thomas Clark knew this.

Propaganda was effectively used to disguise the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom as if the Hawaiian Islands were annexed by a treaty and made a part of the United States.  Thomas Clark knew the Hawaiian Kingdom was still independent, but propaganda did not spare the generations after.

D’Souza’s 2012 Book “Obama’s America” Interviews Ph.D. Candidate Willy Kauai on President Obama

Posted on by
6

D'Souza CoverAmerican right-wing author Dinesh D’Souza interviewed Willy Kauai, a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, for his book “Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream” that was released in August of 2012. Kauai’s doctoral research centers on Hawaiian nationality/citizenship since the 18th century to the present.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

On page 73 of “Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream,” D’Souza writes:

“At the University of Hawaii I also interviewed Willy Kauai, a graduate student who recently gave a talk on ‘Why the Birthers Are Right for All the Wrong Reasons.’ Kauai’s argument is very interesting. He says that of course Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but he is still ineligible to be president. That’s because the Constitution specifies not only that the president must be a U.S. citizen but also that the president must be ‘natural born.’ The president, in other words, must be born in the United States. But Kauai’s argument is that Hawaii is not legally part of the United States because U.S. forces illegally annexed Hawaii in the late nineteenth century. So from Kauai’s point of view the birthers are right not because Obama was born in Kenya, but because Hawaii, where Obama was born, is actually a foreign country. The only difference between Hawaii and Kenya is that Hawaii is under direct U.S. occupation. Kauai said he would like to see a restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom, what he calls ‘independence for Hawaii.’ I asked him if this would amount to Hawaii seceding from the United States. He said no. ‘Seceding would imply that Hawaii was ever part of the United States.’”

Kauai’s presentation referenced by D’Souza, titled “Why the Birthers Are Right for All the Wrong Reasons: Re-centering Law and De-centering Race in Hawai‘i,” at the University of Hawai‘i Political Science Department, can be viewed on YouTube in 6 parts. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.