Dr. Keanu Sai on KITV Island Life Live television show to explain certain events that transpired after the filing of an amici curiae brief in support of the Kamehameha Schools on September 1, 2026, in the federal lawsuit initiated by Students for Fair Admissions.
On September 14, 2026, the attorney for the Amici Curiae was notified that Judge Micah Smith will sign an Order granting Amici’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying Amici Curiae’s Brief in Support of the Kamehameha Schools. However, the filing of the signed Order is pending.
On PACER, which is Public Access to Court Electronic Records, Amici’s attorney was advised “that Document 160 MOTION for Reconsideration requires the judge’s signature. If the filing party has not already done so, please email in Microsoft Word format to the applicable chambers’ email address.” On PACER, Document 160 is identified as “MOTION for Reconsideration; Proposed Order Granting Amici Curiae’s Motion for Reconsideration; Certificate of Service.”
Included in the Amici’s Motion for Reconsideration was a Proposed Order Granting its Motion for Reconsideration.
Amici’s Proposed Order was a generic form of an Order, but it would appear that Judge Smith needed a copy of the Proposed Order in Microsoft Word format so that he is able to write in order to elaborate as to why he made the decision. In Orders, this is usually done under the heading of “Discussion.” A pdf file does not allow any altering of the document.
In Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden, U.S. Magistrate Judge Rom Trader filed a three page Order granting permission for the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Water Protector Legal Collective to file their brief as Amici or friends of the court. Their brief was cited by the Amici in the Kamehameha lawsuit because it explained the legal reasoning as to why the Federal Court must transform into an Article II occupation court to administer Hawaiian Kingdom laws.
Like the Amici in the Kamehameha lawsuit, the Amici in Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden filed a generic Order granting permission to file their brief in support of the plaintiff Hawaiian Kingdom. Magistrate Judge Trader explained his reasoning to grant permission under the heading of “Discussion.”
According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reconsideration of a Court’s Order is allowed where the Judge committed a manifest error of law, which is a clear and undeniable mistake made during a legal proceeding that justifies a reversal of the Court’s decision. This type of error typically occurs when a judge disregards the established facts, applicable laws, or credible evidence in the case. Manifest errors are significant because they can fundamentally affect the outcome of a case.
The amici curiae comprise of sixty-eight scholars and academics, along with the Hawaiian Kingdom Council of Regency, from eleven countries—France, Germany, Hawaiian Kingdom, India, Italy, Japan, Palestine, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Switzerland, and the United States. All amici have an interest in ensuring an informed interpretation by the Court of the consequences that international humanitarian law, the law of occupation, and international criminal law have on its jurisdiction. Four of the amici are scholars of international law.
In their brief, the amici explain why the Court is not legal because it is operating within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, a country that still exists since the nineteenth century despite the unlawful overthrow of its government by U.S. troops on January 17, 1893. However, the amici state that the Court can make itself legal by transforming into an occupation court, under the law of occupation, that would administer Hawaiian Kingdom law in order for the Defendant Kamehameha Schools to have a fair trial. At present, the Court and the Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions are operating under American law, which the amici point out is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty. Amici conclude their brief by stating if the Court does not begin to comply with international law and the law of occupation it would be committing the war crimes of usurpation of sovereignty and depriving Kamehameha Schools of a fair trial.
According to Blackstone, the English common law rule of jus soli—any person born within British territory is a British subject by birth, is traced back to the feudal law of England based on allegiance to the King. Because allegiance was at the core of natural born citizenship, the common law rule carved out exceptions for those born within British territory whose parents held foreign allegiances such as foreign diplomats or enemy invaders.
On February 25, 1794, King Kamehameha I, showing his allegiance to King George III, ceded the Island Kingdom of Hawai‘i to the British King thereby establishing Hawai‘i as a British Protectorate. Since that date, Kamehameha I, his Chiefs and people were British subjects. According to Captain Vancouver, who was present at the ceremony, he stated the issues “being fully discussed, and thoroughly understood on both sides, the king repeated his former proposition, which was now unanimously approved of, and the whole party declared their consent by saying, that they were no longer Tanata no Owhyhee [Hawai‘i], (i.e.) the people of Owhyhee [Hawai‘i]; but Tanata no Britannee (i.e.) the people of Britain.”
As a result, English common law applied over the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, to include Kamehameha’s acquisition of the Island Kingdom of Maui 1795, and the Island Kingdom of Kaua‘i in 1810. Anyone born within Kamehameha’s kingdom were natural born British subjects.
When the Hawaiian Kingdom became an independent State on November 28, 1843, English common law no longer applied over Hawaiian territory because there was a new allegiance to be owed to King Kamehameha III, a constitutional monarch. Addressing Hawaiian citizenship, the Hawaiian Legislature enacted the Third Act of Kamehameha III in 1847:
All persons born within the jurisdiction of this kingdom, whether of alien foreigners, of naturalized or of native parents, and all persons born abroad of a parent native of this kingdom, and afterwards coming to reside in this kingdom, shall be deemed to owe native allegiance to His Majesty. As such persons shall be amendable to the laws of this kingdom as native subjects.
Natural born citizenship was codified by Hawaiian statute until the legislature enacted the 1859 Civil Code that repealed the Third Act of Kamehameha III. However, natural born citizenship survived by Hawaiian common law in 1856 in Naone v. Thurston, where the Supreme Court stated, “defendant in this case was born of foreign parentage, within the jurisdiction of this realm, and claims to be a Hawaiian subject by birth.” The Civil Code does not mention natural born, but rather Hawaiian citizenship by naturalization and letters patent of denization, which is dual citizenship.
On January 21, 1868, Ferdinand Hutchison, Hawaiian Minister of the Interior, stated the criteria for Hawaiian nationality. He announced it in the Hawaiian Government’s newspaper, The Hawaiian Gazette:
In the judgment of His Majesty’s government no one acquires citizenship in this Kingdom unless he is born here, or born abroad of Hawaiian parents (either native or naturalized) during their temporary absence from the Kingdom, or unless have been the subject of another power, he becomes the subject of this Kingdom by taking the oath of allegiance.
The “judgment of His Majesty’s government” firmly established the means by which a person acquires Hawaiian citizenship through being natural born—jus soli, born abroad of Hawaiian parents—jus sanguinis, naturalization, and denization. The latter two are by virtue of taking the oath of allegiance.
When U.S. troops unlawfully overthrew the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, by an act of war, and began its prolonged occupation on January 17, 1893, sovereignty remained vested in the Hawaiian Kingdom. According to paragraph 353 of the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10:
Being an incident of war [act of war], military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order [by administering the laws of the occupied State], indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force. It is therefore unlawful for a belligerent occupant to annex occupied territory or to create a new State therein (See Geneva Convention, art. 47).
Consequently, allegiance to the Hawaiian Kingdom, under its domestic law, remained unaffected. Therefore, natural born citizenship of the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to apply to children born within Hawaiian territory except for those children born of diplomats and those children born of the population of the invader—United States citizens. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court explained:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual—as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
The last census done in the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1890 listed the entire population at 89,990. Here follows the breakdown by nationality:
According to the United States Census of the population in the Hawaiian Islands from 1900 to 1950, migration from the continental U.S. and its territories in fifty years exploded to 293,379. Here follows the breakdown by year:
On April 30, 1900, the U.S. Congress passed “An Act to Provide a Government for the Territory of Hawaii. Regarding U.S. nationals, section 4 of the 1900 Act stated that:
all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii on August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii. And all citizens of the United States resident in the Hawaiian Islands who were resident there on or since August twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight and all the citizens of the United States who shall hereafter reside in the Territory of Hawaii for one year shall be citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.
In addition to this Act, the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution also provided that individuals born in the Hawaiian Islands since 1900 would acquire U.S. citizenship. It states, in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Under these American municipal laws, the putative U.S. national population exploded in the Hawaiian Kingdom from a meager 1,928 out of a total population of 89,990, in 1890, to 423,174 out of a total population of 499,794 in 1950.
The migration of the American population into Hawaiian territory, to include Puerto Ricans and the Filipinos, having both become U.S. territory by the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain, constitutes the war crime of unlawful transfer of populations to the occupied territory. According to Professor Schabas, who authored a legal opinion on war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom since January 17, 1893, “[b]elligerent occupation is a temporary situation and not the prelude to annexation. For this reason, the Occupying Power must not change the demographic, social and political situation in the territory it has occupied to the social and economic detriment of the population living in the occupied territory.”
The unlawful imposition of American laws within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, under an American occupation, constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation, and, therefore, have no legal effect. According to Professor Schabas, the “crime of ‘usurpation of sovereignty’ was referred to by Judge Blair of the American Military Commission in a separate opinion in the ‘Justice Case:’ ‘This rule is incident to military occupation and was clearly intended to protect the inhabitants of any occupied territory against the unnecessary exercise of sovereignty by a military occupant.'”
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., stated, (“[n]either the [federal] Constitution nor the [federal] laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of inter-national law; and it also stated, in The Apollon, “[t]he laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territories except so far as regards its own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction.”
On July 4, 1894, the provisional government, which President Cleveland stated in his manifesto to the Congress on December 18, 1893, “owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States,” changed its name to the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i. Thereafter, twenty countries violated their obligation of neutrality by recognizing the American puppet and consequently became parties to the war on the side of the United States. These countries spanned Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Customary international law in the nineteenth century required that countries had to have been made aware that a state of war existed between the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom in order to trigger their obligation to be neutral or to become co-belligerents with the United States.
The publication of the President’s manifesto to the Congress on December 18, 1893, in The Alexandria Gazette would have satisfied awareness of the state of war by the Legations in Washington, D.C. He stated to the Congress:
And so it happened that 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.
“If a neutral neglects this obligation,” explains Professor Oppenheim, “he himself thereby commits a violation of neutrality, for which he may be made responsible by a belligerent who has suffered through the violation of neutrality committed by the other belligerent and acquiesced in by him.” The recognition by these countries was an attempt to provide de facto or diplomatic recognition of the American puppet in a state of war that the U.S. initiated. Of these countries, Austria-Hungary, Brazil, Chile, China, France, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Russia, and Spain maintained Legations accredited to the United States in Washington, D.C. in 1893, and, therefore, cannot claim they were unaware of the circumstances of the invasion and overthrow of the Hawaiian government. Under the law of neutrality, countries must refrain from siding with one belligerent to the detriment of the other belligerent. The Hawaiian Kingdom became a belligerent, under international law, as a consequence of the U.S. invasion.
The dates of the recognition are as follows—Austria/Hungary on January 1, 1895, Belgium on October 20, 1894, Brazil on September 29, 1894, Chile on September 26, 1894, China on September 12, 1894, France on August 31, 1894, Germany on October 4, 1894, Guatemala on September 30, 1894, Italy on September 23, 1894, Mexico on August 8, 1894, Netherlands on November 2, 1894, Peru on September 10, 1894, Portugal on December 17, 1894, Russia on August 26, 1894, Spain on November 26, 1894, Sweden/Norway on December 17, 1894, Switzerland on September 11, 1894, and the United Kingdom on September 19, 1894.
The recognition of the so-called Republic did not alter the status of the puppet regime but rather serves as the indisputable evidence that these countries violated their obligation to be neutral during a state of war and instead chose to become co-belligerents with the United States against the Hawaiian Kingdom. Diplomatic recognition of governments does not occur during a state of war between countries but rather only in a situation where revolutionaries within a country succeed in replacing the former government, thus becoming a de facto government by recognition of other countries.
These recognitions were made under the false pretense that the so-called Republic, being an American puppet, succeeded in a revolution and therefore was the new government of Hawai‘i. This narrative was refuted by the President’s manifesto, where he stated that the provisional government “was neither a government de facto nor de jure [because] it was not in such possession of the Government property and agencies as entitled it to recognition.” The insurgents’ control was by virtue of a foreign State’s intervention and not revolution. The co-belligerent States cannot deny this legal reality, notwithstanding their belligerent acts of recognizing the so-called Republic.
Despite the unlawful imposition of American laws, Hawaiian Kingdom laws continued to be in force throughout Hawaiian territory. This included Hawaiian natural born citizenship until the Council of Regency, by proclamation, repealed “the Hawaiian common law of native born or jus soli” on October 2, 2023. Another exception to acquiring Hawaiian natural born citizenship would be foreign populations that entered the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom under United States immigration laws after 1898.
Consequently, the children born in the Hawaiian Kingdom of the populations of the co-belligerent States of Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, did not acquire Hawaiian nationality if they were born after the date of their country’s recognition of the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i.
All other children born of foreign parentage in the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to the United States imposition of its laws in 1898 are Hawaiian subjects. If children born of foreign parents that arrived in the Hawaiian Kingdom after 1898, under U.S. immigration laws, they acquire the citizenship of their parents and are not natural born Hawaiian subjects. If a person is a direct descendant of foreign parentage that arrived in the Hawaiian Kingdom before 1898 and born before the repealing of Hawaiian natural born citizenship on October 2, 2023, they would be natural born Hawaiian subjects.
Today, the attorney for the Amici Curiae filed a Supplemental Brief in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying Amici Curiae’s Brief in Support of the Kamehameha Schools.
The Supplemental Brief brings in new evidence not seen by the Court regarding the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom case, which was at the center of oral arguments, in Nicaragua v. Germany, at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from September 7-10, 2026.
On March 1, 2024, Nicaragua filed an Application instituting proceedings against Germany for alleged violations by Germany of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, as well as “intransgressible principles of international humanitarian law and other peremptory norms of general international law” in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in particular the Gaza Strip.
In its Application, Nicaragua states that “[e]ach and every Contracting Party to the Genocide Convention has a duty under the Convention to do everything possible to prevent the commission of genocide” and that since October 2023, there has been “a recognised risk of genocide against the Palestinian people, directed first of all against the population of the Gaza Strip.”
Nicaragua further argues that by providing political, financial and military support to Israel and by defunding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, “Germany is facilitating the commission of genocide and, in any case has failed in its obligation to do everything possible to prevent the commission of genocide.”
The Application was accompanied by a request for the indication of provisional measures, in which Nicaragua asks the Court to indicate such measures as a matter of extreme urgency, pending the Court’s determination on the merits of the case, with respect to the “participation [of Germany] in the ongoing plausible genocide and serious breaches of international humanitarian law and other peremptory norms of general international law occurring in the Gaza Strip.”
Germany was seeking to have the ICJ dismiss Nicaragua’s case on jurisdictional grounds. Germany stated that because Israel is not a party to the case the ICJ does not have jurisdiction because Israel is a necessary third party based on the Monetary Gold principle that came before the ICJ in 1954. The Monetary Gold principle is a rule in international law that international courts cannot settle a dispute if doing so requires ruling on the legal interests of an absent third-party State that has not consented to the court’s jurisdiction.
The ICJ scheduled the first round of oral arguments for Germany on September 7, 2026, followed by Nicaragua on September 8. Second round of oral arguments was scheduled for Germany on September 9, followed by Nicaragua on September 10.
During the first round on September 8th, Nicaragua drew the Court’s attention to the arbitration award in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom that was held at the Permanent Court of Arbitration from 1999-2001. Nicaragua was arguing that the Larsen award stated there is an exception to the Monetary Gold principle. According to the transcript Nicaragua stated:
But it is necessary to go further, Ladies and Gentlemen, you who are the judges of the court: In our court case it is no longer a question of the risks of genocide or of risks of grave violations of international humanitarian law or the right of humanity, including the right of the Palestinian people to decide by themselves. It is clear and already established that these risks have become concrete and that the responsibility of Israel is involved by reason of grave and persistent violations of numerous imperative norms of international law. This is in fact established, a “given.” Furthermore when even the principle of Monetary Gold, as Germany interpreted it, would be a stake in the current dispute (quod non [“which it is not”]), it cannot get into the way of you exercising your authority. The Court of Arbitration, which made a pronouncement in the case of Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, presided by James Crawford, recalled very clearly within a different context: The principle of Monetary Gold does not apply as long as “the legal finding against an absent third party could be taken as a “given.”
In the second round on September 9th, Germany responded to Nicaragua’s argument that the Larsen case is an exception to the Monetary Gold principle. According to the transcript, Germany stated:
Ultimately, Nicaragua has not sought to challenge Germany’s point that Nicaragua’s Application and Memorial “are replete with assertions that Israel is in breach of multiple and fundamental norms of international law”, and instead Nicaragua seeks to turn this into a positive, its more strongly argued answer to Monetary Gold, which is the argument that Israel’s breaches can be taken as a “given”. The juridical underpinning of this argument is the decision of the Tribunal ⎯ and certainly a very distinguished Tribunal ⎯ in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. The dispute concerned alleged breach by Hawaii of its Treaty of Amity with the USA through the alleged unlawful imposition of US municipal law in Hawaii. Following its consideration of the Monetary Gold line of cases, with East Timor and Nauru being regarded as “particularly pertinent”, the Tribunal stated:
“11.23. . . . The Tribunal cannot rule on the lawfulness of the conduct of the respondent in the present case if the decision would entail or require, as a necessary foundation for the decision between the parties, an evaluation of the lawfulness of the conduct of the United States of America, or, indeed, the conduct of any other State which is not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. [You can see that is obviously borrowing the formulation from the East Timor case, picked up of course by this Court in Guyana v. Venezuela, and in many other cases.]
11.24. The Tribunal notes, for the sake of completeness, that there may well be exceptions to the Monetary Gold principle. For example, if the legal finding against an absent third party could be taken as given (for example, by reason of an authoritative decision of the Security Council on the point), the principle may well not apply. It is also possible that the principle does not apply where the finding involving an absent third party is merely a finding of fact, not entailing or requiring any legal assessment or qualification of that party’s conduct or legal position. [That is not our case, I note in passing, and Nicaragua has not suggested otherwise. The Tribunal continued:] In the present case, however, the parties did not seek to rely on any possible exception . . . ”
So, of course, the Tribunal did not dig any deeper into this possibility.
On September 10th, Nicaragua responded to Germany’s position regarding the Larsen case. According to the transcript, which is in French, but here is the translation into English, Nicaragua stated:
My contradictor is also coming back at me, in a rather longwinded way, concerning the subject of the argument by Nicaragua according to which, in order once more to take up the formulation of the passage pertinent to the ruling made in the case of Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom—to which he is in deep disagreement. For example, if the legal finding against an absent third party could be taken as given (for example, by reason of an authoritative decision of the Security Council on the point), the principle may well not apply.
Nicaragua pointed out that the Security Council did determine a legal finding that Israel is a belligerent State, a “given,” when it invaded Gaza in its Resolution 2803 (2025), Resolution 2735 (2024), and Resolution 2728 (2024), that determined Israel to be a belligerent State. In its oral argument, Nicaragua also provided a powerpoint slide showing the relevant two articles of the Larsen award.
The significance of these proceedings cannot be underestimated. First, the Larsen case is now being used as a precedent case where there are exceptions to the Monetary Gold principle. Second, it is drawing international attention to the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the illegal imposition of American laws on a world’s stage the International Court of Justice.
It should be noted that when Germany, in its statement, stated to the ICJ that in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom “The dispute concerned alleged breach by Hawaii of its Treaty of Amity with the USA through the alleged unlawful imposition of US municipal law in Hawaii,” it was stating an fact that American laws being imposed in the Hawaiian Kingdom is unlawful. Germany’s statement is from the case description at the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s website states:
Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency (“Hawaiian Kingdom”) on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Both Nicaragua and Germany are Contracting States of the Permanent Court of Arbitration that recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State since the nineteenth century and the Council of Regency as its government. This fact was specifically noted in the Amici Curiae’s Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae’s Brief.
Another particular importance is that William Schabas, Professor of International Law at Middlesex University, and Professor Emeritus of International Criminal Law and Human Rights, at Leiden University, is a member of Nicaragua’s legal team as Counsel.
In 2019, at the request of Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, Professor Schabas wrote a Legal Opinion on War Crimes Related to the United States Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 17 January 1893. One of the war crimes he mentioned was the unlawful imposition of American laws within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation. Professor Schabas is cited in the Amici Brief.
On September 12, 2026, the attorney for Amici Curiae filed a motion for the Court to reconsider its September 4th Order denying Amici Curiae’s brief in support of the Kamehameha Schools. The amici curiae comprise of sixty-eight scholars and academics, along with the Hawaiian Kingdom Council of Regency, from eleven countries. Four of the amici are scholars of international law.
Amicus curiae is Latin for friend of the court. If there is more than one person, the filing is called an amici curiae or friends of the court. In the American court system, an amici curiae are individuals who are not a party to the case but have a particular expertise that can assist the judge in making a consequential decision. Thus, they are called friends of the court. These kinds of briefs are important because they provide expert knowledge, highlight the broader real-world consequences of a potential ruling, and help judges make fully informed decisions.
In their brief, the amici explain why the Court is not legal because it is operating within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, a country that still exists since the nineteenth century despite the unlawful overthrow of its government by U.S. troops on January 17, 1893. However, the amici state that the Court can make itself legal by transforming into an occupation court, under the law of occupation, that would administer Hawaiian Kingdom law in order for the Defendant Kamehameha Schools to have a fair trial.
At present, the Court and the Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions are operating under American law, which the amici point out is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty. Amici conclude their brief by stating if the Court does not begin to comply with international law and the law of occupation it would be committing the war crimes of usurpation of sovereignty and depriving Kamehameha Schools of a fair trial.
According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for reconsideration is allowed if the Court committed a manifest error by applying a wrong legal standard. The motion argues the court committed a manifest error of law by misapplying Jones v. United States. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Who is the sovereign, de jure or de facto, of a territory is not a judicial, but a political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that government.”
The amici stated in their motion that the executive branch of the U.S. did “determine” the Hawaiian Kingdom as the sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands when it recognized it as an independent State. Amici then state:
What followed were the 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom at the United States (9 Stat. 977); the 1875 Treaty of Reciprocity (19 Stat. 625); the 1883 Postal Convention Concerning Money Orders (23 Stat. 736); the 1884 Supplementary Convention to the 1875 Treaty of Reciprocity (25 Stat. 1399); and the establishment of the Hawaiian Legation in Washington, D.C., and the United States Legation in Honolulu, to include both establishing Consulates in both countries.
Also, the amici curiae provided, in their brief, clear and undeniable evidence, under international law, that the United States executive branch, by its Embassy at The Hague, recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State since the nineteenth century and the Council of Regency as its interim government during arbitration proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, 119 International Law Reports 566 (2001), under customary international law grounded on opinio juris (Doc. 157, p. 40-41), and by treaty under the 2000 Sai-Clinton agreement (Id., p. 37-39). These are contemporary determinations made by the executive branch of the United States that conclusively binds this Court and the Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions pursuant to Jones.
The amici argued that the Court misapplied the legal standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Jones as if the executive branch did not recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State and sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands. Because the U.S. executive made these determinations of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State since the nineteenth century it is not a political question, and that such determinations are binding on the Court and Students for Fair Admissions because the plaintiff are citizens of the United States. In its Order the Court disregarded the actions taken by the executive branch as if it never occurred. Thus, the Court is wrongly claiming it is still a political question as to who the sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands is.
In its Order, the Court also claims that it is “bound to accept the lawfulness of the government of the United States and the applicability of its laws” in the State of Hawai‘i. The amici assert that U.S. laws, which includes the law establishing the State of Hawai‘i in 1959, have no effect outside of the United States, as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in two cases.
In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., the Supreme Court stated, “Neither the [federal] Constitution nor the [federal] laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.” In The Apollon, it stated, “The laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territories except so far as regards its own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction.”
The amici state that imposing U.S. laws in the Hawaiian Kingdom is a violation of international humanitarian law and the law of occupation, amounting to the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation.
The motion also critiques the Court’s disregard of the Lorenzo principle, which places the burden on defendants to prove the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In 2014, the State of Hawai‘i Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, stated:
Lorenzo held that, for jurisdictional purposes, should a defendant demonstrate a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i “exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature[,]” and that he or she is a citizen of that sovereign state, a defendant may be able to argue that the courts of the State of Hawai‘i lack jurisdiction over him or her.
Amici, show that this legal standard has applied to all State of Hawai‘i courts for the past thirty-two years and applies to the U.S. District Courts in Hawai‘i for the past twenty-four years. Amici provided sufficient factual and legal evidence of the Kingdom’s continued existence, and that the Court erred by disregarding the binding nature of the Lorenzo principle. The amici stated:
Neither did the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals in Lorenzo, the State of Hawai‘i Supreme Court in Armitage, nor did Judge Ezra in United States v. Goo, invoke Jones. For the Court now to invoke Jones is a blatant manifest error of law that runs counter to the Lorenzo principle that has bound U.S. District Courts in Hawai‘i for the past 24 years.
Under international law, there is a legal principle of the presumption of State continuity, even under occupation. In its motion that amici state:
“[t]here is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations […] despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government,” and that “belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” Judge Crawford further points out that “the presumption—in practice a strong one—is in favour of the continuance, and against the extinction, of an established state.” See James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law 417 (1979). Consequently, “[i]f one were to speak about a presumption of continuity, one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States.”
Consequently, Lorenzo and Armitage erred when it placed the burden on the defendant because under international law that burden is placed on the Plaintiff or the Judge who oppose that continuity to provide rebuttable evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom has ceased to exist as a State under international law. Failure to provide rebuttable evidence the presumption of Hawaiian State continuity remains. By disregarding the facts and international law, the Court committed manifest error of law by not properly applying the Lorenzo principle and providing no rebuttable evidence as to the presumption of Hawaiian State continuity and the evidence provided by the amici curiae in its brief.
These arguments, by the amici, collectively challenge the court’s jurisdiction and the application of U.S. law in Hawai‘i, grounding their claims in both U.S. and international law, and emphasizing the ongoing legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The amici conclude its motion with:
Under international humanitarian law and the law of occupation, the Court is obligated to transform itself into an Article II occupation court so that it can administer Hawaiian Kingdom law that protect the rights of the Defendant Kamehameha Schools, unless the Court can provide rebuttable evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom is not the de jure sovereign over the Hawaiian Islands, which it has not done. Until there is rebuttable evidence, this Court IS situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom and NOT within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
The burden is on the Court, pursuant to Curtiss-Wright Corp., to provide evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist as a State, under international law, by reference to “treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.” And Curtiss-Wright Corp. precludes the Court from referencing “the [federal] Constitution [or] the [federal] laws passed in pursuance of it,” because it has no “force in foreign territory.” In its Order denying amici curiae’s motion for leave to file amici curiae brief, the Court could have, sua sponte, provided rebuttable evidence as to the presumption of Hawaiian State continuity and evidence provided in the amici curiae’s brief, but it did not.
Therefore, the Court’s willful act not to transform into an Article II occupation court would be a violation of international humanitarian law and the law of occupation, and, consequently, would constitute the commission of the war crimes of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation and deprivation of fair and regular trial, thereby making the Defendant Kamehameha Schools a war crime victim. Under international law, the Council of Regency, as the interim government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, has a duty and obligation to investigate war crimes committed within Hawaiian territory. See David Keanu Sai, “All States have a Responsibility to Protect their Population from War Crimes—Usurpation of Sovereignty During Military Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands,” 6(2) International Review of Contemporary Law 72-81 (2024).
Students for Fair Admissions filed a federal lawsuit in October 2025 challenging the long-standing admissions policy of Kamehameha Schools in Hawaiʻi that grants enrollment preference to pure and part aboriginal Hawaiian students. The Kamehameha Schools is a private estate established by the probate court of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1885 under the last will and testament of High Chiefess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The admission policy was the intent of High Chiefess Mrs. Bishop that began in 1887.
The Hawaiian Kingdom Council of Regency, the restored government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, along with 66 scholars and academics from 11 countries, have filed an amici brief in support of the defendant Kamehameha Schools.
Amicus curiae is Latin for friend of the court. If there is more than one person, the filing is called an amici curiae or friends of the court. In the American court system, an amici curiae are individuals who are not a party to the case but have a particular expertise that can assist the judge in making a consequential decision. Thus, they are called friends of the court. These kinds of briefs are important because they provide expert knowledge, highlight the broader real world consequences of a potential ruling, and help judges make fully informed decisions.
Minister Dr. David Keanu Sai and Professor Federico Lenzerini authored the amici brief. Minister Dr. Sai is Chairman of the Council of Regency and is a Senior Lecturer in Political Science and Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai‘i Windward Community College and an affiliate faculty at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education graduate program. Dr. Sai is also a recognized scholar with his recent publication by Oxford University Press “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire.” Professor Lenzerini is a full Professor of International Law, Human Rights and International Organization, at the University of Siena, Italy, Department of Political and International Sciences.
An additional 66 amici with doctoral degrees joined in on the brief. Under the heading of “Interests of Amici Curiae,” it states,
Amici curiae, Minister Dr. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., and Professor Federico Lenzerini, Ph.D., international scholars whose views are represented in this brief, along with attesting amici curiae Professors Prabhakar Singh, Ph.D., and Alfred de Zayas, Ph.D., have expertise in public international law, international human rights, international humanitarian law, and international norms regarding statehood and sovereignty, self-determination and the rule of law. The remaining amici have joined solely representing themselves as doctoral degree recipients that understand the highest level of academic and legal research, and attest the amici brief to be factual and true. Amici are from eleven countries—France, Germany, Hawaiian Kingdom, India, Italy, Japan, Palestine, Philippines, Solomon Islands, Switzerland, and the United States. All amici have an interest in ensuring an informed interpretation by the Court of the consequences that international humanitarian law, the law of occupation, and international criminal law have on its jurisdiction.
The amici states that U.S. federal courts (Article III courts) lack jurisdiction in Hawaiian territory under international law, unless acting as Article II occupation courts during military occupation. International law, including treaties and customary law must be enforced by U.S. courts established in foreign territory that is under an American occupation. The Hawaiian Kingdom is an occupied State.
Article III courts are referred to as the third branch of government in the U.S. Constitution. Article II occupation courts are referred to the second branch of government called the executive branch that stems from the President’s authority over U.S. forces in occupied territories. Article I courts are referred to as the first branch of government, which are courts established by the Congress such as bankruptcy courts.
The amici state that the Hawaiian Kingdom was recognized as an independent State in the nineteenth century by the U.S. and other nations. The 1893 overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by U.S. forces is described as illegal and an act of war, with no valid treaty of cession transferring sovereignty to the U.S. Consequently, U.S. congressional acts, such as the “annexation resolution” in 1898, Hawai‘i territorial status in 1900, and Hawai‘i statehood in 1959, have no legal effect outside U.S. territory and do not lawfully transfer U.S. sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands. Amici states that international law presumes the continued existence of an independent State even if its government is militarily overthrown or absent.
The amici explain that what was overthrown, albeit illegally, was the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and not the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State. This is why when the Iraqi government was militarily overthrown by U.S. forces in April of 2003, the Iraqi State and its sovereignty continued to exist during the Second Gulf War, widely known as the Iraq War. During the American occupation, Iraqi sovereignty and laws, not American sovereignty and laws, continued to be enforced by the American led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The status of the CPA was a provisional government under U.S. military occupation. According to paragraph 353 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10:
Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the possession of enemy territory, necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power. Occupation is essentially provisional. On the other hand, subjugation or conquest implies transfer of sovereignty, which generally takes the form of annexation and is normally affected by a treaty of peace.
The amici state, in the case of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893, that U.S. forces did not administer Hawaiian Kingdom law but rather allowed the provisional government to pretend to be a government who created draconian laws. President Cleveland branded the provisional government as a puppet of the United States. On December 18, 1893, the President stated to the Congress that the “provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States.”
Five years later, the United States Congress passed a joint resolution purporting to have unilaterally annexed the Hawaiian Islands during the Spanish-American War. Since 1898, the United States began to unlawfully impose American laws over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom in violation of international law, Hawaiian Kingdom law, the law of occupation, and U.S. law.
The amici also draw attention to a legal opinion by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel in 1988, that concluded Congress did not have the authority to annex the Hawaiian Islands, being a foreign country, by enacting a joint resolution. The legal opinion also stated that only “by means of treaties can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force—confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted.” There has never been any treaty of cession of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s sovereignty and territory to the United States.
The amici states that in 1997, a Council of Regency was established under the Hawaiian Constitution to serve as the acting government in the absence of a monarch. Amici further affirm that the Council of Regency has legitimate authority to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom domestically and internationally. And that according to international law, under the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, the Hawaiian Kingdom currently has treaties with 92 Member States of the United Nations, of which 12 treaties are with the original States, and 80 treaties are with their successor States.
The amici also draw attention to an international arbitration case that came before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, from 1999-2001. Before the arbitration proceedings began, the Permanent Court recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State for the purposes of the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom case (1999-2001), and the U.S. entered into an executive agreement (the 2000 Sai-Clinton agreement) regarding access to case records. Under international law and U.S. law, an executive agreement is a treaty.
The Permanent Court’s recognition and the lack of objection from 129 Member States of the Permanent Court, to include the United States, was presented as evidence of these States’ recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued legal existence and the Council of Regency as its government. Together with the Hawaiian Kingdom treaty partners and their successor States, 185 of these States are also Members of the United Nations that recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence by treaties and customary international law. The current membership of the United Nations is 193 States.
The amici bring to the attention of the Court the Lorenzo principle that has been in effect since 2002. In the Federal courts in Hawai‘i, the Lorenzo principle sets an evidentiary standard for those claiming the federal court lack’s jurisdiction because of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Lorenzo principle stems from a 1994 State of Hawai‘i Appellate decision in State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo that set that evidentiary burden.
In 2014, the Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, clarified the evidentiary burden that Lorenzo placed upon defendants. The Supreme Court stated, “Lorenzo held that, for jurisdictional purposes, should a defendant demonstrate a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i ‘exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ and that he or she is a citizen of that sovereign state, a defendant may be able to argue that the courts of the State of Hawai‘i lack jurisdiction over him or her.” The amici state that they have met the evidentiary burden, under the Lorenzo principle, proving the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law.
Amici state that the imposition of U.S. laws and administrative policies in Hawai‘i is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during occupation under international law. Denial of a fair and regular trial to protected persons, like Kamehameha Schools, in occupied territory is also described by the amici as a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, which is also a war crime.
The amici urge the Court to recognize U.S. obligations under international law and to transform itself into an Article II occupation court, rather than remaining as an Article III court, when sitting in the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Amici further state that for the Court not to comply with international law, war crimes would be committed. In its closing, the amici state:
For the foregoing reasons, amici request that the Court consider U.S. obligations under international law when sitting in the territory of an occupied State, in evaluating the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 1893. The amici urge the Court to also evaluate the amici curiae brief filed by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Water Protector Legal Collective, which is enclosed herein as Exhibit 2, so as to enhance its own understanding of why the Court must transform itself from an Article III court to an Article II occupation court.
The filed amici curiae brief is available online.
CONTACT:
Dr. Keanu Sai was again invited to do a podcast interview by Professor Pascal Lottaz on the subject of the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, a Neutral State. Professor Lottaz is an Assistant Professor for Neutrality Studies at the Waseda Institute for Advanced Study in Tokyo. He is a also a researcher at Neutrality Studies, where its YouTube channel, which airs their podcasts, has 153,000 subscribers worldwide.
The first podcast was titled “EX-Army Officer WAGES LAWFARE To End Illegal Occupation of Hawaii” that was posted December 5, 2024.
Today in Hawai‘i is Statehood Day or Admission Day. It is a holiday for the State of Hawai‘i set for the third Friday in August. It is supposed to commemorate the anniversary of when Hawai‘i was admitted to the American Union in 1959.
On March 18, 1959, the U.S. Congress enacted a statute called An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union. This Act of Congress began the process where Hawai‘i would eventually be admitted into the Union. On August 21, 1959, the third Friday of August, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a proclamation making Hawai‘i the 50th State. With the unveiling of a more accurate and objectively true history, the State of Hawai‘i never legally existed in the first place.
In 1999, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State since the 19th century. And in 2024, Oxford University Press published a chapter by Dr. Keanu Sai “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire,” in H.E. Chehabi and David Motadel’s book Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age. In this chapter Dr. Sai covers: the legal and political history of my country—the Hawaiian Kingdom; the evolution of governance as a constitutional monarchy; the unlawful overthrow of the government by United States troops in 1893; the prolonged American occupation since 1893; the restoration of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1997; and the recognition, by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 1999, of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State and the Council of Regency as its provisional government. Because the Hawaiian Kingdom currently exists as a State under international law, the State of Hawai‘i cannot simultaneously exist as a State under American law.
In a recently uploaded interview on the podcast called KalikoVision, with host Kaliko Castille, Dr. Sai explains why Hawai‘i was never acquired by the United States and why the State of Hawai‘i does not legally exist.
For the first time in its history, the United Nations General Assembly received a complaint from a Non-Member State of the United Nations. Today, August 14, 2025, the President of the UN General Assembly received the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Complaint of the United States of America’s unlawful and prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since January 17, 1893, and the commission of war crimes and human rights violations pursuant to Article 35(2) of the UN Charter. It has been the practice of States to submit formal complaints with the UN Security Council but not with the General Assembly. This is a first ever complaint to be received by the General Assembly under to Article 35(2).
Article 35(2) provides: “A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.”
While the Hawaiian Kingdom is a State under international law, it is a Non-Member State of the UN. While Switzerland is a State and a Member of the UN, it did not join the UN until 2002. Like Switzerland prior to 2002, the Hawaiian Kingdom is a Non-Member State. Article 35(2) addresses situations that endanger international peace and security. The 132-year American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the commission of war crimes, and the refusal of the State of Hawai‘i to transform into a Military Government meet this criterion.
Before the President can apply the UN procedure for complaints submitted by a Non-Member State under Article 35(2), he would need to first determine the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom, according to international law, to be a State who is not a Member of the UN. In anticipation of this query, Dr. David Keanu Sai, Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim, in his letter to His Excellency Philomon Yang, President of the UN General Assembly, that enclosed the Hawaiian Kingdom Complaint, stated:
In the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (1999-2001), I served as Lead Agent for the Council of Regency representing the Hawaiian Kingdom. As such, I was in communication with the Permanent Court’s Principal Legal Counsel, Ms. Bette Shifman, whose responsibility was to determine whether the Hawaiian Kingdom exists as a State in continuity since the nineteenth century. This determination was necessary for the purpose of establishing the Permanent Court’s institutional jurisdiction in accordance with Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Article 47 provides, “The jurisdiction of the Permanent Court may, within the conditions laid down in the regulations, be extended to disputes between non-Contracting Powers or between Contracting Powers and non-Contracting Powers, if the parties are agreed on recourse to this Tribunal.” State continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom is determined by the rules of customary international law.
Prior to the Permanent Court’s establishment of the arbitral tribunal on 9 June 2000, the Secretariat determined that the Hawaiian Kingdom had met the standing of a State and was thus, recognized as a non-Contracting Power. This fact is noted in Annex 2—Cases Conducted under the Auspices of the PCA or with the Cooperation of the International Bureau in the Permanent Court’s Annual Reports from 2000 to 2011. The Permanent Court also recognized the Council of Regency as the Hawaiian Kingdom’s government. I am enclosing a copy of Annex 2 from the 2011 Annual Report. It identifies Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom as the thirty-third case that came under the auspices of the Permanent Court. Since 2012, the Annual Reports no longer include Annex 2 because the Permanent Court’s website provides the list of cases, which includes Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, Case no. 1999-01.
Under civilian law, the juridical fact, of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a State, produced the legal effect for the Secretariat to perform the juridical act of accepting the dispute, under the auspices of the Permanent Court, by virtue of Article 47. According to Professor Lenzerini, this juridical act “may be compared—mutatis mutandis—to a juridical act of a domestic judge recognizing a juridical fact (e.g. filiation) which is productive of certain legal effects arising from it according to law.” Since State members of the Permanent Court’s Administrative Council furnishes all Contracting States with an Annual Report, this represents “State practice [that] covers an act or statement by…State[s] from which views can be inferred about international law,” and it “can also include omissions and silence on the part of States.”
Since the United States and all Contracting States did not object to the Secretariat’s juridical act of acknowledging the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a non-Contracting State, this reflects the practice of States—opinio juris. Furthermore, the Secretariat and the Administrative Council are treaty-based components of an intergovernmental organization comprised of representatives of States, and, therefore, “their practice is best regarded as the practice of States.” According to Professor Lenzerini, “it may be convincingly held that the PCA contracting parties actually agreed with the recognition of the juridical fact of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State carried out by the International Bureau.”
Of the one hundred ninety-three Member States of the United Nations, one hundred twenty-three of these States are also Member States of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, to wit:
Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, the People’s Republic of China, Peru, Philippines, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Türkiye, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. And Palestine, who is an Observer State, is also a Member State of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
Hence, these States already recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State and the Council of Regency as its Government by virtue of their membership, as Contracting States, of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Of note Your Excellency, is that your country—Cameroon is not only a Successor State to the 1851 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Great Britain but also recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom and its Council of Regency as a Member State of the Permanent Court.
Minister Sai also brought to the attention of President Yang the identification of 154 Member States of the UN that currently have treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom by virtue of international law. Minister Sai states:
The successor States of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s treaty partners, were not aware at the time of their independence, that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to exist as a State, therefore, neither the newly independent States nor the Hawaiian Kingdom could declare “within a reasonable time after the attaining of independence, that the treaty is regarded as no longer in force between them.” Until there is a clarification of the successor States’ intentions, as to a common understanding with the Hawaiian Kingdom regarding the continuance in force of the Hawaiian treaty with their predecessor States, the Hawaiian Kingdom will presume the continuance in force of its treaties with the successor States. The majority of Member States of the United Nations are successor States to treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom.
This position, taken by the Hawaiian Kingdom, is consistent with the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties. Article 24 states:
1. A bilateral treaty which at the date of the succession of States was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates is considered as being in force between a newly independent State and the other State party when:
a. they expressly so agree; or
b. by reason of their conduct they are to be considered as having agreed.
2. A treaty considered as being in force under paragraph 1 applies in the relations between the newly independent State and the other State party from the date of the succession of States, unless a different intention appears from their agreement or is otherwise established.
Since successor States, which include Member States of the United Nations, were unaware of the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom at the time of their independence, and its treaties with their predecessor States, Article 24(1)(a) and (b) could not arise. Therefore, under customary international law, in the absence of an express agreement or an agreement by conduct, the Hawaiian Kingdom will presume that its treaties continue in force, for two years from the receipt of this communication, with the successor States. Here follows the list of successor States to Hawaiian Kingdom treaties:
• 1875 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Austro-Hungarian Empire—Austria and Hungary.
• 1862 Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Belgium—Burundi, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rwanda.
• 1857 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and France—Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Vanuatu, and Viet Nam.
• 1851 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Great Britain—Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
• 1863 Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Italy—Libya and Somalia.
• 1871 Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Japan—Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea.
• 1862 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Netherlands—Indonesia and Suriname.
• 1882 Treaty between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Portugal—Angola, Cabo Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, and Timor-Leste.
• 1869 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Russia—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
• 1863 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Spain—Cuba and Equatorial Guinea.
• 1852 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway—Norway and Sweden.
• 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States—Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Philippines.
The Hawaiian Kingdom has treaties with one hundred fifty-four Member States of the United Nations, of which fourteen treaties are with the original States, and one hundred forty treaties are with the successor States.
According to the UN complaint procedure, when the President of the General Assembly receives a formal complaint by a State, whether a Member of the UN or not, he will assess the complaint based on the rules of procedure and the established practices of the General Assembly. Because there is no practice to follow by the President, given this is the first time a complaint has been submitted to the General Assembly by a State under Article 35(2), he will have to be guided by what the Hawaiian Kingdom is seeking in its complaint.
The Hawaiian Kingdom is not seeking to resolve a dispute but is rather bringing to the attention of the General Assembly the situation in the Hawaiian Kingdom so that it can take certain actions to address the situation of an unlawful and prolonged occupation of a State under international law. What the Hawaiian Kingdom requests of the General Assembly is clearly stated in paragraph 2.3 of the Complaint.
The Hawaiian Kingdom herein files this Complaint as a Non-Member State, pursuant to Article 35(2) of the United Nations Charter, for the violation of treaties and international law and calls upon the United Nations General Assembly:
1. To ensure the United States of America complies with international humanitarian law and the law of occupation;
2. To ensure that the United States of America establishes a military government, by its State of Hawai‘i, to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom as it stood before the American invasion and unlawful seizure of the Hawaiian Government on 17 January 1893, and the provisional laws, proclaimed by the Council of Regency on 10 October 2014, that bring Hawaiian Kingdom laws to the current state; and
3. To ensure that all Member States of the United Nations shall not recognize as lawful the United States of America’s presence and authority within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, except for its temporary and limited authority vested under the law of occupation.
The Hawaiian Kingdom’s third request does not require collective action to be taken by the General Assembly. The individual Member States of the General Assembly would be obligated to take individual action themselves regarding the Hawaiian situation once they have been made aware of the Hawaiian situation by the Complaint.
Under Article 41(2) of the UN Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts committed by the United States against the Hawaiian Kingdom, “No State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach within the meaning of article 40, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation.” Article 40 provides, “This chapter applies to the international responsibility which is entailed by a serious breach by a State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law.”
Since the prolonged occupation and the commission of war crimes is a serious breach of peremptory norms of general international law, Article 41(2) is triggered once a State is made aware of the Hawaiian situation by the Complaint. As such, States are obligated to take individual action on the Hawaiian Kingdom’s third request to “not recognize as lawful the United States of America’s presence and authority within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, except for its temporary and limited authority vested under the law of occupation.” A General Assembly resolution is not required for a State to immediately act.
According to Minister Sai, “The contents of my letter to President Yang and the information provided in the complaint reflects the tedious work of the Council of Regency in carrying out its strategic plan to address the prolonged occupation of the country. The State of Hawai‘i now finds itself at a cross road to begin to comply with the law of occupation by establishing a Military Government according to the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan or face prosecution for war crimes. The State of Hawai‘i’s deliberate failure has not only provided the evidential basis for submitting the complaint as a Non-Member State of the United Nations, but to bring international attention to our situation.”
Minister Sai also stated, “Oxford University Press’ recent publication of my chapter “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire,” in the 2024 book Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age, has opened many doors for the Council of Regency that were not opened before. As the entire world is watching our history in Chief of War on Apple TV, they will now know our true history that followed those epic battles of Kamehameha I when we became a British Protectorate in 1794, Kamehameha’s consolidation of the island kingdoms into the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1810, transforming into a constitutional monarchy in 1840, becoming a sovereign and independent State in 1843, and its continued existence as a State under international law despite the prolonged American occupation since our country was invaded by U.S. Marines in 1893. To use the idiom for the filing of the UN Complaint, ‘We must strike when the iron is hot!'”
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 7, 2025
HONOLULU, Hawaiian Kingdom—Press release from the office of Edward Halealoha Ayau. On July 7, 2025, Ayau, on behalf of his client Maui Police Detective Kamuela Lanakila Mawae, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Michael Rosner of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard explaining the circumstances of his client’s concern that he may be criminally culpable for war crimes.
To download Ayau’s letter to LTC Rosner go to this link.
In the letter Ayau stated, “On June 3, 2025, I personally went to Attorney General Anne Lopez’s office in Honolulu to deliver a letter, on behalf of my client, explaining the circumstances of my client’s concern that he may be criminally culpable for war crimes by enforcing American laws in the County of Maui, which I am attaching.” He requested for the Attorney General “to make public a legal opinion that was formally requested by Senator Cross Makani Crabbe by letter dated September 19, 2024, pursuant HRS §28-3,” by June 11, 2025.
Ayau stated, “June 11th has passed, and the Attorney General has yet to make public that legal opinion providing rebuttable evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist and that war crimes are not being committed. For you and all officials and employees of the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties, the significance of her failure to provide a legal opinion is an acknowledgment that Hawai‘i is an occupied State and not the State of Hawai‘i, and that war crimes are being committed. The Attorney General is the highest-ranking law officer of the State of Hawai‘i and her failure to provide a legal opinion that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom is a dereliction of her duty she owes to all officials and employees of the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties.”
Ayau goes on to state, “This is very concerning for my client because he is not only a law enforcement officer and employee of the County of Maui, but he is also the Vice-Chair of the Maui Chapter of the State of Hawai‘i Organization of Police Officers Union (SHOPO). Also affected by the dereliction of the Attorney General are SHOPO’s collective bargaining agreements. Because collective bargaining agreements are governed by Federal and State of Hawai‘i statutes, administrative agency regulations, and American judicial decisions, which all constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty, the silence by the Attorney General is a recognition that our collective agreements are void because they are a product of war crimes.”
Ayau apprised LTC Rosner of the work of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) that was established in 2019 to investigate war crimes in the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom. Ayau stated, “The Royal Commission of Inquiry has already published 26 War Criminal Reports since 2002 of State of Hawai‘i officials. Of significance, these officials include Governors David Ige and Josh Green, Mayors Derek Kawakami, Mitchell Roth, and Michael Victorino, and Supreme Court Justices Mark Recktenwald, Paula Nakayama, Sabrina McKenna, Richard Pollack, Michael Wilson and Todd Eddins. The Attorney General is also the subject of a war criminal report.”
Ayau also cited a very favorable book review, by Professor Anita Budziszewska from the University of Warsaw, of the Commission’s 2020 eBook “The Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom” that was published in the Polish Journal of Political Science in 2022. He stated, “It would clearly appear that the authority of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, established by the Council of Regency in 2019 with its mandate to investigate war crimes and human rights violations, is a legitimate commission of inquiry and whose reports, that have been published on its website, would serve as the evidential basis for prosecution of war criminals.” Ayau then states, “The Attorney General is up against a wall of law and evidence that renders the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties, established by American law, as unlawful and the product of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.”
Ayau then cites Dr. Keanu Sai, who is head of the RCI, that sent LTC Rosner a letter explaining the circumstances that led to his military duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government. Dr. Sai wrote, “It is now over a year since the Hawai‘i Army National Guard’s leadership became aware that the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation is being committed and that its their duty to put a stop to it by establishing a military government in accordance with U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation. Major General Kenneth Hara’s willful failure to obey Army regulations, and resulting his dereliction of duty, has led to war criminal reports for the war crime by omission on himself, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, Colonel Wesley Kawakami, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick Werner, Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr., Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs, and Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis. As a result, you are, now, the most senior officer in the Army National Guard.”
Ayau refers to the Council of Regency’s 2023 Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government that would guide LTC Rosner in his performance of his military duty. On the Military Government of Hawai‘i, Ayau states, “It is my understanding of the Operational Plan that by transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government, you, as the American Theater Commander, will be replacing Governor Josh Green with yourself as Military Governor just as General Douglas MacArthur replaced the head of the Japanese civilian government as Military Governor of the Occupied State of Japan in 1945. Like Japan, all officials and employees would continue to exist except for the State of Hawai‘i Legislature and the County Councils, which have been enacting American laws in violation of the law of occupation.”
“When you perform your duty,” Ayau states, “law enforcement officers, especially those of Hawaiian ancestry, would greatly benefit from their rights under Hawaiian Kingdom laws.” Ayau then refers to Dr. Sai’s statement of some of those benefits.”
Section 67. The following persons shall be exempt from all internal taxes: His Majesty the King; the Diplomatic Agents of Foreign Countries and their Attaches duly made know to the Department of Foreign Affairs. The following persons shall be exempt from personal taxes: All clergymen of any Christian denomination regularly engaged in their vocation; all teachers of youth employed in public or private schools for more than six months of the year; all soldiers in actual service and all volunteer soldiers duly enrolled and actually doing duty. Act to Consolidate and Amend the Law Relating to Internal Taxes (1883); 1884 Compiled Laws, p. 131.
4. That a certain portion of the government lands in each island shall be set apart, and placed in the hands of special agents, to be disposed of in lots of from one to fifty acres, in fee-simple, to such natives as may not be otherwise furnished with sufficient land, at a minimum price of fifty cents per acre. An Act Confirming Certain Resolutions of the King and Privy Council, passed on the 21st day of December, A.D. 1849, Granting to the Common People Allodial Titles for Their Own Lands and House Lots, and Certain Other Privileges (1850), also known as the Kuleana Act. According to the inflation calculator, $.50 in 1893 is equivalent in purchasing power to $17.77 in 2025.
Queen’s Hospital was established “for relief of indigent, sick, and disabled people of the Hawaiian Kingdom; as well as of such foreigners, and others, as may desire to avail themselves of the same.” Charter of Queen’s Hospital (1859) established by virtue of An Act to Provide Hospitals for the Relief of Hawaiians in the City of Honolulu and other Localities (1859).
“The Queen’s Hospital is, from the nature of its character, a quasi-public institution. When it was chartered it was provided that all Hawaiians, of native birth, should be treated free of charge. Foreigners were to be treated by payment of fees.” George W. Smith, a Trustee of the Queen’s Hospital wrote in an editorial, Honolulu Advertiser (1900a:2).
The 1886 budget provided $12,000 for the Queen’s Hospital. According to the Charter, the Queen’s Hospital would match those funds. According to the inflation calculator, $12,000.00 in 1886 is equivalent in purchasing power to $408,254.04 in 2025. Queen’s Hospital’s annual budget in 1886 was $816,508.08.
There is no right to bear arms in the Hawaiian Kingdom, which has similar gun laws like Japan. “2. The following persons are hereby declared to be authorized to bear arms, viz: All persons holding official, military or naval rank, either under this government, or that of any nation at peace with this kingdom, when worn for legitimate purposes. Penal Code, Chapter LIV—To Prevent the Carrying of Deadly Weapons (1869). Hawaiian law also provides for yearly licensing of firearms for hunting. Assault weapons are not hunting weapons.
Free trade with foreign countries not impeded by the American Jones Act, formally known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Under the Jones Act, foreign goods and products destined for Hawai‘i had to offload from foreign ships at designated American ports on the west coast, and then reloaded on ships destined for Hawai‘i. Under free trade, as the Hawaiian Kingdom had before American invasion and occupation, Hawaiian ports would be open for foreign goods and products to be off loaded directly and then continue to ports of the United States.
According to customary international law, the Hawaiian Kingdom not only has treaties with Austria, Belgium, Bremen, Denmark, France, Germany, Hamburg, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, but also with their successor States. Of the 193 Member States of the United Nations, the Hawaiian Kingdom has treaties with 154 of its Member States.
The Hawaiian Kingdom is also a recognized neutral State like Switzerland. As a neutral State, international laws protects its territorial integrity and independence. The territory of states whose neutrality is permanent is inviolable and gives rise to its neutral rights that its territory cannot be violated by belligerents. This neutral right proscribes belligerents from moving their troops across neutral territory or using neutral territory for belligerent purposes. These prohibitions have been codified under articles 2 through 4 of the 1907 Hague Convention V.
Under the provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom taxes for the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties would continue so that government service can be maintained. Tax collection by the Internal Revenue Service, however, would cease to be collected in Hawai‘i because these taxes are for American government services.
“The Attorney General’s dereliction of her duty to protect all officials and employees of the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties, to include my client,” Ayau states, “has now compelled him to not only continue to perform his duties as a police officer under the laws of 1893 and the provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, but to also call for the lawful transformation of the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government according to the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan. It is your military duty, as the most senior commander in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard, to immediately transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government in accordance with international humanitarian law, the law of occupation, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army regulations, so that the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation would cease and that Hawaiian Kingdom laws, together with the provisional laws, will be administered.”
Ayau closes his letter by citing a Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court case in 1847, Shillaber v. Waldo, on the court’s view of the rule of law and its tie to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s coat of arms. The Supreme Court stated, “For I trust that the maxim of this Court ever has been, and ever will be, that which is so beautifully expressed in the Hawaiian coat of arms, namely, ‘The life of the land is preserved by righteousness.’ We know of no other rule to guide us in the decision of questions of this kind, than the supreme law of the land, and to this we bow with reverence and veneration, even though the stroke fall on our own head. In the language of another, ‘Let justice be done though the heavens fall.’ Let the laws be obeyed, though it ruin every judicial and executive officer in the Kingdom. Courts may err. Clerks may err. Marshals may err—they do err in every land daily; but when they err let them correct their errors without consulting pride, expediency, or any other consequence.”
In his email to LTC Rosner, Ayau wrote, “I strongly yet respectfully urge a careful read and discussions with Lt Col Lloyd Phelps, the Staff Judge Advocate of the U.S. Army National Guard in Hawai‘i.”
Contact: Edward Halealoha Ayau, Esq.
Attorney for Maui Detective Kamuela Lanakila Mawae
(808) 646-9015
halealohahapai64@gmail.com
###
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 12, 2025
HONOLULU, Hawaiian Kingdom—Press release from the office of Edward Halealoha Ayau. On June 3, 2025, attorney Edward Halealoha Ayau, on behalf of his client Maui Police Detective Kamuela Lanakila Mawae, hand delivered a 10-page letter to State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez. That letter addresses legal concerns regarding the status of Hawai‘i as an occupied State and potential war crimes being committed by law enforcement officers.
To download Ayau’s letter to the Attorney General go to this link.
In the letter, Ayau stated, “on behalf of my client, I am respectfully submitting to you a deadline by June 11, 2025, for you to make public the legal opinion, as formally requested by former Senator Crabbe, that clearly states, by citing sources of international law, i.e. treaties, custom, general principles of law, and judicial decisions and scholarly writings, that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States and not within the territory of the Kingdom.” He also stated that if “you do not make public your legal opinion by this day, my client will be forced to comply with the law of occupation.”
As of today, Lopez did not make public a legal opinion as requested by former Senator Crabbe. According to Ayau, “the significance of Lopez’s failure to provide a legal opinion that was formally requested back in September of 2024 is an acknowledgment that Hawai‘i is an occupied State and not the State of Hawai‘i, and that war crimes are being committed.”
In his letter to Lopez, Ayau referenced Judge James Crawford of the International Court of Justice who stated, there “is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations…despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government,” and he goes on to state that military occupation “does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.”
Ayau also referenced Professor Matthew Craven, an international law scholar from the University of London (SOAS) that wrote a legal opinion on the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State under international law. Craven wrote, “If one were to speak about a presumption of continuity, one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.”
Ayau also referenced renowned expert and scholar, Professor William Schabas from Middlesex University London, who authored a legal opinion for the Royal Commission of Inquiry identifying war crimes being committed since January 17, 1893. One of those war crimes is the unlawful imposition of American laws and administrative measures within the territory of an occupied State, which is called the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.
Ayau stated in his letter, “If you do not make public your legal opinion by this day, my client will be forced to comply with the law of occupation where the Maui Police Department will continue to exist under the provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom that was proclaimed by the Council of Regency in 2014 because it does “not run contrary to the express, reason and spirit of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” which is explained on page 222 of the Council of Regency’s operational plan to transition the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government, which I am attaching.”
Ayau further stated, “My client while continuing to perform his duties as a police officer, will call for the lawful transformation of the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government according to the Council of Regency’s operational plan. It is the legal duty of Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner, who is the most senior commander in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard, to immediately transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government in accordance with international humanitarian law, the law of occupation, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army regulations, so that the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation would cease and that Hawaiian Kingdom laws, together with the provisional laws, will be administered. Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps is the Army National Guard’s Staff Judge Advocate to advise LTC Rosner of his military duties as the theater commander of the Occupied State of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”
Ayau also stated in his letter that Native Hawaiians, irrespective of blood quantum, comprise the majority of the citizenry of the Hawaiian Kingdom. He stated that as aboriginal Hawaiian subjects they have certain rights under Hawaiian Kingdom law.
Under Hawaiian Kingdom laws, aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are the recipients of free health care at Queen’s Hospital and its outlets across the islands. In its budget, the Hawaiian Legislative Assembly would allocate money to the Queen’s Hospital for the healthcare of aboriginal Hawaiian subjects. The United States stopped allocating monies from its Territory of Hawai‘i Legislature in 1909. Aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are also able to acquire up to 50-acres of public lands at $20.00 per acre under the 1850 Kuleana Act.
The greatest dilemma for aboriginal Hawaiians today is having a home and health care. The average cost of a home today is $820,000.00. And health care insurance for a family of 4 is at $1,500 a month. According to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Native Hawaiian Health Fact Sheet 2017, “Today, Native Hawaiians are perhaps the single racial group with the highest health risk in the State of Hawai‘i. This risk stems from high economic and cultural stress, lifestyle and risk behaviors, and late or lack of access to health care.”
Ayau says, “The denial of Native Hawaiian rights under kingdom law for over a century can no longer be tolerated, and compliance with international law and the law of occupation will correct this international crime.”
Contact: Edward Halealoha Ayau, Esq.
Attorney for Maui Detective
Kamuela Lanakila Mawae
(808) 646-9015
halealohahapai64@gmail.com
###
Below is the video of Dr. Keanu Sai’s presentation on his recent chapter “Hawai‘iʻs Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire” published by Englandʻs Oxford University Pressʻ Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age in December of 2024.
Below is the video of questions and answers of Dr. Keanu Sai following his presentation.
Dr. Keanu Sai, a graduate of the Kamehameha Schools Kapālama campus in 1982 has been invited by Kamehameha Schools Ka‘iwakīloumoku Pacific Indigenous Institute, in partnership with Kanaeokāna, for a presentation on March 5, 2025, with questions and answers to follow about his recent chapter “Hawai‘iʻs Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire” published by Englandʻs Oxford University Pressʻ Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age in December of 2024. No registration is required for this free public in-person event and light refreshments to follow.
The public is encouraged to attend because Dr. Saiʻs presentation will get into the operational plan for transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a military government of Hawai‘i and the impact it will have on the population of Hawai‘i, e.g. health care, land, taxes, cost of living. The session will be recorded and uploaded on Kanaeokana’s website.
The session will be recorded and uploaded on Kanaeokana’s YouTube channel.
