To hear the ABC news radio coverage click here.
ABC Radio Australia: Stars and stripes replaced with Hawaiian flag in university protest
1
Category Archives: War Crimes
Big Island Video News: Students Take Down American Flags at the University of Hawai‘i
Big Island Video News reported: On Monday, a group of students and activists took down the American flag flying at main entrance of the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, instead raising the Hawaiian flag that was beneath it. The action was related to what they say is the continued illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States. The American flag that was taken down was folded and handed over to university administrators. The group then went over to do the same thing at the flag pole of Hawai‘i Community College in Hilo. While there, they encountered security.
This video was shot by David Lakota. He and fellow participant Gene Tamashiro spoke on camera afterwards. UH student La‘akea Caravalho explained more.
Big Island Video News asked the university for an official response to what occurred. We have yet to receive a statement.
UPDATE – The reasoning behind the action is evident in a letter written by students of the University of Hawai‘i to faculty and administrators, which began by saying the students have found the university has committed war crimes under the illegal occupation, specifically “pillaging” and “Americanization.” The letter relies on evidence presented in the recent “Memorandum for Ka Pouhana, CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs regarding Hawai‘i as an independent State and the Impact it has on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs” by Dr. Keanu Sai.
After detailing the background of the war crime accusations, students wrote:
“In closing if you are able to refute the evidence in the Memo then assuredly the felonies—war crimes—have not been committed. But if you are not able to refute the evidence, then beginning on November 28, 2014, Hawaiian Independence Day, La Ku‘oko‘a, which has been celebrated since 1843, the United States Flag will no longer be raised over the Hawaiian flag from that day forth. We demand that the Hawaiian flag shall be raised first and be last taken down each day. The occupying United States flag shall be on a separate flag pole of exact same height with the flag flown as well at the same height. If no flag pole is provided for the U.S. flag it shall not be raised until one is provided by the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo and Hawai‘i Community College at no cost to the students. The none refute of evidence means that all State of Hawai‘i officials and employees, as well as We/Students are compelled to comply with Hawaii Kingdom Law and the law of occupation.”
An Act of War of Aggression: United States Invasion of the Hawaiian Kingdom on August 12, 1898
Incredible as it may sound, the United States committed an act of war of aggression against the Hawaiian Kingdom, being a neutral State, when it was at war with Spain in 1898, and that the United States has been in a war of aggression against Hawai‘i ever since. This war of aggression has lasted over 116 years, the longest ever since the Thirty Years War (1618-1648). According to Oppenheim’s International Law (7th ed.), p. 685, “hostilities against a neutral [State] on the part of either belligerent are acts of war, and not mere violations of neutrality. Thus the German attack on Belgium in 1914, to enable German troops to march through Belgian territory and attack France, created war between Germany and Belgium.”
The United States intent and purpose was to deliberately violate the neutrality of the Hawaiian Kingdom in order to fight Spain in its colonies of Guam and the Philippines, and after the war to use the Hawaiian Islands as a military outpost to protect the west coast of the United States as well as a base of operations for future wars. The action taken by the United States draws parallels to Germany’s occupation of neutral States during World War I and II, which at the time was thought of as unprecedented, but it wasn’t. The United States set the precedent in 1898.
On May 10, 1940, Germany invaded and occupied the neutral territories of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg in order to fight France and Great Britain during World War II. The Nuremburg Tribunal concluded in its Nuremburg Judgment, that these invasions and subsequent occupations were unjustified acts of an aggressive war. The Tribunal stated:
“There is no evidence before the Tribunal to justify the contention that the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg were invaded by Germany because their occupation had been planned by England and France. British and French staffs had been operating in the Low Countries, but the purpose of this planning was to defend these countries in the event of a German attack.”
“The invasion of Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg was entirely without justification.”
“It was carried out in pursuance of policies long considered and prepared, and was plainly an act of aggressive war. The resolve to invade was made without any other consideration than the advancement of the aggressive policies of Germany.”
Of the three neutral States, the situation with Luxembourg bears the closest similarity to the Hawaiian Kingdom, whereby Germany also unilaterally annexed Luxembourg and initiated an aggressive campaign of “Germanization” and “Nazification” in the public schools. The United States also initiated an aggressive campaign of “Americanization” in the public schools that sought to obliterate the national character of the Hawaiian Kingdom and replace it with American patriotism.
Luxembourg was previously occupied by Germany for the same unjustified reasons from 1914-1918 during World War I.
The Hawaiian Kingdom also has Treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, with all three countries: Belgium (October 4, 1862), and the Netherlands and Luxembourg (October 16, 1862). William III, King of the Netherlands, who entered into the Dutch treaty, was also the Grand Duke of Luxembourg.
War, under international law, is considered an extension of a State’s sovereignty and therefore regulated by the laws of war as opposed to the laws of peace. International law separates the rights of belligerent States from the rights of neutral States. Laws of war—jus in bello, make up a part of customary international law until declared in law making treaties that began in the mid-nineteenth century. The first treaty was the 1856 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law that abolished privateering, which later progressed to the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. In order for the laws of peace to return, war must come to an end. If not, then the laws of war—jus in bello, remain over the regions that are affected by the war itself. For the case of neutral States being illegally occupied during a war, being an act of war of aggression, its state of war with the belligerent occupant will continue until the occupying State ceases to occupy the neutral State, and the laws of war would still apply according to the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV.
Hawaiian neutrality began with King Kamehameha III’s proclamation of neutrality during the Crimean War on May 16, 1854. Since then, the Hawaiian government worked with other Powers, to include the United States, to have Hawai‘i’s neutrality respected in all subsequent wars. Neutrality provisions were inserted in the treaties with Sweden/Norway, Spain, Germany, and Italy.
On April 7, 1855, His Majesty King Kamehameha IV opened the Legislative Assembly, and in his speech he reiterated the Kingdom’s neutrality.
“It is gratifying to me, on commencing my reign, to be able to inform you, that my relations with all the great Powers, between whom and myself exist treaties of amity, are of the most satisfactory nature. I have received from all of them, assurances that leave no room to doubt that my rights and sovereignty will be respected. My policy, as regards all foreign nations, being that of peace, impartiality and neutrality, in the spirit of the Proclamation by the late King, of the 16th May last, and of the Resolutions of the Privy Council of the 15th June and 17th July. I have given to the President of the United States, at his request, my solemn adhesion to the rule, and to the principles establishing the rights of neutrals during war, contained in the Convention between his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, and the United States, concluded in Washington on the 22nd July last.”
The aforementioned Declarations and the 1854 Russian-American Convention represented the first recognition of the right of neutral States to conduct free trade without any hindrance from war. Stricter guidelines for neutrality were later established in the 1871 Treaty of Washington between the United States and Great Britain that was negotiated during the aftermath of the American Civil War, which also formed the basis of the Alabama claims arbitration in Geneva, Switzerland.
Without justification, the United States of America is directly responsible for the violation of the neutrality of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the occupation of its territory for military purposes during the 1898 Spanish-American War. Article XXVI of the Hawaiian-Spanish Treaty of October 29, 1863, provides, “All vessels bearing the flag of Spain, shall, in time of war, receive every possible protection, short of active hostility, within the ports and waters of the Hawaiian Islands, and Her Majesty the Queen of Spain engages to respect, in time of war the neutrality of the Hawaiian Islands, and to use her good offices with all the other powers having treaties with the same, to induce them to adopt the same policy toward the said Islands.”
According to the well-known American publicist on international law, Quincy Wright’s A Study of War, 2nd ed., p. 787, “The status of neutrality reached its climax in the nineteenth century with the especial support of Great Britain and the United States.” According to Wright, the rules of neutral status “were to a considerable extent codified in the American Neutrality act (1794), the British Foreign Enlistment Act (1819), the Declaration of Paris (1856), the rules of the Treaty of Washington (1871), the Hague Conventions (1907), and the Declaration of London (1909).”
Article VI of the 1871 Treaty of Paris between the United States and Great Britain declared that a neutral government is bound “Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.” The United States regarded this rule as declaratory of existing customary international law of the time. This rule was reproduced in Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the 1907 Hague Convention, V, which contained these provisions—“The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable” (Article 1); “Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys, whether of munitions of war or of supplies, across the territory of a neutral Power” (Article 2); “Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents” (Article 4).
There is no doubt of the binding force of the 1863 Hawaiian-Spanish Treaty, the 1871 Treaty of Washington, and customary international law, as well as assurances by the United States through diplomatic notes since 1854, which guaranteed the neutrality of the Hawaiian Islands during the Spanish-American War.
On December 18, 1893, an executive agreement was reached through exchange of diplomatic notes between United States President Grover Cleveland and the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Queen Lili‘uokalani, whereby the United States committed to the reinstatement of the constitutional government, and thereafter the Queen to grant a full pardon to a minority of insurgents who participated with the United States Legation in the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian government. Prior to the agreement, the United States initiated a presidential investigation on April 1, 1893 after ordering U.S. troops to return to the U.S.S. Boston that was anchored in Honolulu harbor. The investigation was concluded on October 18, 1893 and concluded that the United States was entirely responsible for the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian government by its military force.
President Cleveland declared in his message to Congress on December 18, 1893, “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, unless made either with the consent of the Government of Hawaii or for the bona fide purpose of protecting the imperiled lives and property of citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any such consent on the part of the Government of the Queen, which at that time was undisputed and was both the de facto and the de jure government.” Cleveland also concluded that the provisional government that seized control of the constitutional government with U.S. troops, “was neither a government de facto nor de jure,” but self-declared.
After President Cleveland submitted a request to Congress for authorization to use force in order to reinstate the constitutional government of the Queen, which had been usurped by the United States, the House of Representatives and the Senate each passed resolutions calling upon the President to not carry out the executive agreements and also issued warnings to foreign States to not intervene in the Hawaiian situation.
U.S. Senate resolution, May 31, 1894, 53 Cong., 2nd Sess., 5499 (1894):
“Resolved, That of right it belongs wholly to the people of the Hawaiian Islands to establish and maintain their own form of government and domestic polity; that the United States ought in nowise to interfere therewith, and that any intervention in the political affairs of these islands by any other government will be regarded as an act unfriendly to the United States.”
U.S. House resolution, February 7, 1894, 53 Cong., 2nd Sess., 2000 (1894):
“Resolved, First. That it is the sense of this House that the action of the United States minister in employing United States naval forces and illegally aiding in overthrowing the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Islands in January, 1893, and in setting up in its place a Provisional Government not republican in form and in opposition to the will of a majority of the people, was contrary to the traditions of our Republic and the spirit of our Constitution, and should be condemned. Second. That we heartily approve the principle announced by the President of the United States that interference with the domestic affairs of an independent nation is contrary to the spirit of American institutions. And it is further the sense of this House that the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to our country, or the assumption of a protectorate over them by our Government is uncalled for and inexpedient; that the people of that country should have their own line of policy, and that foreign intervention in the political affairs of the islands will not be regarded with indifference by the Government of the United States.”
Without Congressional support, the President could not deploy U.S. troops back to Hawai‘i in order to reinstate the constitutional government and the insurgents hired mercenaries from the United States to fill the vacuum left by the departure of U.S. troops. On July 4, 1894, the insurgency was renamed the Republic of Hawai‘i, which Congress over one hundred years later in its apology for the 1893 overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom government, U.S. Public Law 103-150, admitted was “self-declared.”
The insurgents were desperately holding on to power until a new President entered office so that the original plan of annexation could be completed. On March 4, 1897, President William McKinley entered office and another attempt to annex by treaty failed as a result of protests by Queen Lili‘uokalani and by the people.
On April 25, 1898, Congress declared war on Spain. Battles were fought in the Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico and Cuba, as well as the Spanish colonies of the Philippines and Guam. After Commodore Dewey defeated the Spanish Fleet in the Philippines on May 1, 1898, U.S. Representative Francis Newlands, submitted House joint resolution no. 259 for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 4, 1898. Six days later, hearings were held on the Newlands resolution, and in testimony submitted to the committee, U.S. military leaders called for the immediate violation of Hawaiian neutrality and occupation of the Hawaiian Islands due to military necessity for both during the war with Spain and for any future wars that the United States would enter.
U.S. Naval Captain Alfred Mahan stated to the committee: “It is obvious that if we do not hold the islands ourselves we cannot expect the neutrals in the war to prevent the other 
belligerent from occupying them; nor can the inhabitants themselves prevent such occupation. The commercial value is not great enough to provoke neutral interposition. In short, in war we should need a larger Navy to defend the Pacific coast, because we should have not only to defend our own coast, but to prevent, by naval force, an enemy from occupying the islands; whereas, if we preoccupied them, fortifications could preserve them to us. In my opinion it is not practicable for any trans-Pacific country to invade our Pacific coast without occupying Hawaii as a base.”
While the debates ensued in both the U.S. House and Senate, the U.S.S. Charleston, a protected cruiser, was ordered to lead a convoy of 2,500 troops to reinforce U.S. troops in the Philippines and Guam. These troops were boarded on the transport ships of the City of Peking, the City of Sidney and the Australia. In a deliberate violation of Hawaiian neutrality during the war as well as of international law, the convoy, on May 21, set a course to the Hawaiian Islands for re-coaling purposes. The convoy arrived in Honolulu on June 1, and took on 1,943 tons of coal before it left the islands on June 4.
As soon as it became apparent that the self-declared Republic of Hawai‘i, a puppet regime of the United States since 1893, had welcomed the U.S. naval convoys and assisted in re-coaling their ships, H. Renjes, Spanish Vice-Consul in Honolulu, lodged a formal protest on June 1, 1898. Minister Harold Sewall, from the U.S. Legation in Honolulu, notified Secretary of State William R. Day of the Spanish protest in a dispatch dated June 8. Renjes declared, “In my capacity as Vice Consul for Spain, I have the honor today to enter a formal protest with the Hawaiian Government against the constant violations of Neutrality in this harbor, while actual war exists between Spain and the United States of America.” A second convoy of troops bound for the Philippines, on the transport ships the China, Zelandia, Colon, and the Senator, arrived in Honolulu on June 23, and took on 1,667 tons of coal.
In a secret session of the U.S. Senate on May 31, 1898, Senator William Chandler warned of the consequences Alabama claims arbitration in Geneva, whereby Great Britain was found guilty of violating its neutrality during the American Civil War and compensated the United States with 15.5 million dollars in gold. Chandler cautioned, p. 278 of the secret session transcripts, “What I said was that if we destroyed the neutrality of Hawai‘i Spain would have a claim against Hawai‘i which she could enforce according to the principles of the Geneva Award and make Hawai‘i, if she were able to do it, pay for every dollar’s worth of damage done to the ships of property of Spain by the fleet that may go out of Hawai‘i.”
He later poignantly asked Senator Stephen White (p. 279), “whether he is willing to have the Navy and Army of the U.S. violate the neutrality of Hawai‘i?” White responded, “I am not, as everybody knows, a soldier, nor am I familiar with military affairs, but if I were conducting this Govt. and fighting Spain I would proceed so far as Spain was concerned just as I saw fit.”
Senator Henry Cabot Lodge answered Senator White’s question directly (p. 280). “I should have argued then what has been argued ably since we came into secret legislative session, that at this moment the Administration was compelled to violate the neutrality of those islands, that protests from foreign representatives had already been received and complications with other powers were threatened, that the annexation or some action in regard to those islands had become a military necessity.”
The transcripts of the Senate’s secret session were not made public until 1969.
Commenting on the United States flagrant violation of Hawaiian neutrality, T.A. Bailey wrote in his article The United States and Hawaii During the Spanish-American War, “The position of the United States was all the more reprehensible in that she was compelling a weak nation to violate the international law that had to a large degree been formulated by her own stand on the Alabama claims. Furthermore, in line with the precedent established by the Geneva award, Hawai‘i would be liable for every cent of damage caused by her dereliction as a neutral, and for the United States to force her into this position was cowardly and ungrateful. At the end of the war, Spain or cooperating power would doubtless occupy Hawai‘i, indefinitely if not permanently, to insure payment of damages, with the consequent jeopardizing of the defenses of the Pacific Coast.”
On July 6, the joint resolution passed both House and Senate, despite objections by Congressmen that annexation could only take place by a treaty and not by a domestic statute, and President McKinley signed the measure on July 7, 1898. On August 12, 1898, at 12 noon, the Hawaiian Kingdom was invaded by the United States with full military display on the grounds of the ‘Iolani Palace. The first military base was Camp McKinley established on August 16, 1898 at Kapi‘olani Park adjacent to the famous Waikiki beach and Diamond Head mountain.
Since the invasion, the Hawaiian Kingdom has served as a base of operations for United States troops during World War I and World War II. In 1947, the United States Pacific Command (USPACOM), being a unified combatant command, was established as an outgrowth of the World War II command structure, with its headquarters on the Island of O‘ahu. USPACOM has served as a base of operations during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Afghan War, the Iraq War, and the current war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). There are currently 118 U.S. military sites throughout the Hawaiian Kingdom that comprise 230,929 acres (20%) of Hawaiian territory.
The United States Navy’s Pacific Fleet headquartered at Pearl Harbor on the Island of O‘ahu also hosts the Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) every other even numbered year, which is the largest international maritime warfare exercise. RIMPAC is a multinational, sea control and power projection exercise that collectively consists of activity by the U.S. Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Naval forces, as well as military forces from other foreign States. During the month long exercise, RIMPAC training events and live fire exercises occur in open-ocean and at the military training locations throughout the Hawaiian Islands. In 2014, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, People’s Republic of China, Peru, Republic of Korea, Republic of the Philippines, Singapore, Tonga, and the United Kingdom participated in the RIMPAC exercises.
Since the belligerent occupation by the United States began on August 12, 1898 during the Spanish-American War, the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a neutral state, has been in a war of aggression for over a century. Although it is not a state of war in the technical sense that was produced by a declaration of war, it is, however, a war in the material sense that Yoram Dinstein’s War, Aggression and Self-Defense, 2nd ed., p. 16, says, is “generated by actual use of armed force, which must be comprehensive on the part of at least one party to the conflict.” The military action by the United States on August 12, 1898 against the Hawaiian Kingdom triggered the change from a state of peace into a state of war of aggression—jus in bello, where the laws of war would apply.
When neutral territory is occupied, however, the laws of war are not applied in its entirety. According to Sakuye Takahashi’s International Law applied to the Russo-Japanese War, p. 251, Japan limited its application of the Hague Convention to its occupation of Manchuria, being a province of a neutral China, in its war against Russia, to Article 42—on the elements and sphere of military occupation, Article 43—on the duty of the occupant to respect the laws in force in the country, Article 46—concerning family honour and rights, the lives of individuals and their private property as well as their religious conviction and the right of public worship, Article 47—on prohibiting pillage, Article 49—on collecting the taxes, Article 50—on collective penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, Article 51—on collecting contributions, Article 53—concerning properties belonging to the state or private individuals, which may be useful in military operations, Article 54—on material coming from neutral states, and Article 56—on the protection of establishments consecrated to religious, warship, charity, etc.
Hawai‘i’s invasion and occupation was anomalous and without precedent. The closest similarity to the Hawaiian situation would not take place until sixteen years later when Germany occupied the neutral States of Belgium and Luxembourg in its war against France from 1914-1918, and its second war against France where both States were occupied again from 1940-1945. The Allies considered Germany’s actions to be acts of aggression. According to James Wilford Garner’s International Law and the World War, vol. II, p. 251, the “immunity of a neutral State from occupation by a belligerent is not dependent upon special treaties, but is guaranteed by the Hague convention as well as the customary law of nations.”
Now that this information is coming to light after a century of indoctrination through “Americanization,” the entire world is being transformed by the harsh reality that Hawai‘i has been in a region of war since 1898. Stemming from this reality is the ongoing commission of war crimes, as well as defects in real property ownership that affect investments, such as mortgage-backed securities. The subprime mortgage crisis took place as a result of mortgages in these securities going into foreclosures, but a new crisis on the horizon is that these mortgages that originated in the Hawaiian Islands were never valid in the first place. Hawaiian Kingdom law was not complied with in the transfer of real property and the securing of mortgages since January 17, 1893.
In light of this severity, the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom has developed a comprehensive plan through the decree of provisional laws to address this problem head on that is based on international law and precedents. The acting government is in the process of implementation according to the laws of war.
Comprehensive Plan to Transition from Illegal Regime to Military Government
The United States has had its footprint in the Hawaiian Kingdom since U.S. troops unlawfully landed on Hawaiian territory on January 16, 1893, in order to secure protection for a puppet government, calling themselves the Committee of Safety. The puppet government was created by the U.S. diplomat John Stevens. The following day, Stevens extended de facto recognition to this small group of roughly 30 individuals calling themselves the provisional government and ordered the U.S. troops to protect them from arrest by the Hawaiian police force for treason. Their stated purpose was to seek annexation to the United States.
A treaty of annexation was signed in Washington, D.C. between the insurgency and President Benjamin Harrison on February 14, 1893 and submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification. On March 4th, President Grover Cleveland replaced Harrison and after receiving a diplomatic protest from Queen Lili’uokalani on the 9th he removed the treaty from the Senate and initiated a presidential investigation into the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government. His investigator, James Blount, who was the former Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported “The American minister and the revolutionary leaders had determined on annexation to the United States, and had agreed on the part each was to act to the very end.” The investigation was completed on December 18, 1893 and determined the United States was responsible for the unlawful overthrow of a friendly government.
Negotiations took place between the Queen and the President’s diplomat, Albert Willis, in Honolulu beginning on November 13, 1893, and an agreement was reached on December 18th that obligated the United States to reinstate the Queen in her constitutional authority and thereafter the Queen to grant a pardon to the insurgents. This agreement, which under international law is a treaty, was not carried out. This allowed the illegal regime to hire American mercenaries in order continue to intimidate and coerce government officials in the executive and judicial branches of the Hawaiian government to sign oaths of allegiance. This illegal regime changed its name to the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i on July 4, 1894.
On August 12, 1898, the United States disguised the military occupation during the Spanish-American War as if Hawai‘i ceded its territory and sovereignty by a treaty. There is no treaty. According to Marek’s Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law, p. 110, “a disguised annexation aimed at destroying the independence of the occupied State, represents a clear violation of the rule preserving the continuity of the occupied State.”
The regime’s name has since been changed to the Territory of Hawai‘i in 1900 and then to the State of Hawai‘i in 1959. For the past 121 years the United States footprint has never left the islands and because of its deliberate failure to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom through its illegal regimes since 1893 it has created a state of emergency that called for a comprehensive plan for transition from an illegal regime to a military government before the occupation can come to an end.
When a State is illegally occupying territory and has established an illegal regime, all official acts of the occupying State are null and void except for the registration of births, marriages and deaths. This is referred to as the Namibia exception, which was formulated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) during the existence of an illegal regime established by South Africa when it unlawfully occupied Namibia. Examples of official acts include, but are not limited to, the function of notaries, registration of land titles, decisions by judicial and administrative courts, enactment of laws, licensing, etc. In his comment on the Namibia exception, the United Nations Secretary General noted that the determination of any legal validity of South Africa’s illegal presence would be the prerogative of the Namibian Legislative Assembly.
When a country’s territory is occupied by a foreign State, acts of a political nature are suspended throughout the duration of the occupation, which includes the right to vote. And when neutral territory is occupied by a belligerent State, the 1907 Hague Convention IV is not applied in its entirety. According Takahashi’s International Law Applied to the Russo-Japanese War, p. 251, and acknowledged by the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) School’s Text no. 11, Law of Belligerent Occupation, p. 4, the only sections of the Hague Convention IV that apply to neutral territory under occupation by a belligerent State are:
Article 42—on the elements and sphere of military occupation;
Article 43—on the duty of the occupant to respect the laws in force in the country;
Article 46—concerning family honour and rights, the lives of individuals and their private property as well as their religious convictions and the right of public worship;
Article 47—on prohibiting pillage;
Article 49—on collecting the taxes;
Article 50—on collective penalty, pecuniary or otherwise;
Article 51—on collecting contributions;
Article 53—concerning properties belonging to the state or private individuals, which may be useful in military operations;
Article 54—on material coming from neutral states; and
Article 56—on the protection of establishments consecrated to religious, warship, charity, etc.
The occupant State’s “authority may be exercised in every field of government activity, executive, administrative, legislative and judicial,” as stated in the JAG’s Law of Belligerent Occupation, p. 38. “The occupant’s laws and regulations which find justification in military necessity or in his duty to maintain law and safety are legitimate under international law. Conversely, the acts of the occupant which have no reasonable relation to military necessity or the maintenance of order and safety are illegitimate.”
The United States use of illegal regimes to further entrench the disguised occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom is a direct violation of the laws of occupation and general international law. As such, it has drawn to the forefront the Namibia exception with regard to these violations, which renders every executive, administrative, legislative and judicial acts done by these regimes since January 17, 1893 to be invalid and void except for the registration of births, marriages and deaths. As the national and international communities are becoming aware of the profound legal and economic ramifications of the United States’ failure to abide by international law, the situation in the Hawaiian Kingdom is cataclysmic.
In response to a course heading to unrivaled calamity for the country and the world at large, the acting Council of Regency could find no other recourse but to decree provisional laws for the Hawaiian Kingdom on October 10, 2014 in light of the United States’ violation of international law and the law of occupation for the past 121 years. Included in the decree of provisional laws are those laws having emanated from the Hawaiian legislatures that were convened under the so-called Bayonet Constitution of July 6, 1887, which was the beginning of the insurgency. This so-called constitution was not proclaimed in accordance with Hawaiian constitutional law.
For a detailed analysis of the formation of the acting Council of Regency under the doctrine of necessity download “The Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”
As a result of an effective American occupation, the acting Council of Regency does not have the capacity or the ability to enforce the provisional laws proclaimed under the doctrine of necessity. It is the United States that must carry this out. Failure to do so would only lead to economic ruination for not only the United States, but also for the Hawaiian Kingdom and its citizenry, being the victims of these egregious and criminal violations.
This is analogous to the United States having stepped on a land mine called Hawai‘i’s sovereignty on January 16, 1893. That foot has not moved since then, and for the United States to remove its foot from this land mine and begin to comply with the international laws of occupation would consequently admit to the illegality of 121 years and the land mine would blow up legally and economically. That explosion would not only severely injure the United States, but it could also do the same to the Hawaiian Kingdom and everyone residing in these Islands to include those who are legally and economically tied to these islands who live abroad. What’s needed is a means by which the weight of the United States as a government could be replaced by an equal weight so that the land mine can be disarmed. Only a government could do such a thing, and in this case it could only be done by the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which itself was established in 1997 by the doctrine of necessity. The decree of provisional laws is this equal weight needed in order for the United States to remove its foot and begin to administer the laws of the occupied State according to the 1907 Hague Convention IV and the 1949 Geneva Convention IV.
The decree of provisional laws is a practical and comprehensive plan for transition from an illegal regime to a military government that relies on international law, which includes treaties, international customs, general principles of law recognized around the world, the decisions of international courts, scholarly writing, and the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It is not intended to end the occupation, but rather to bring compliance to the laws of occupation. It is the responsibility of the acting government to ensure implementation of these provisional laws by any and all lawful means.
U.S. Department of Justice Acknowledges War Crimes Being Committed in Hawai‘i
Under the criminal code of the United States of America, Title 18 U.S.C. §4, provides for the reporting of felonies to federal authorities, whether civil or military, as a duty and not a choice. According to Black’s Law Dictionary (1996), a duty is defined as an obligation “to conform to legal standard of reasonable conduct in light of apparent risk.” A person who fails to report a felony as soon as possible risks being fined or face up to three years in prison, which is a felony as well. In other words, failure to report a felony is a felony.
On September 17, 2014, Professor Williamson Chang, senior law professor at the University of Hawai‘i William S. Richardson School of Law, reported the commission of war crimes to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C. Professor Chang held a press conference on September 22, 2014 at the University of Hawai‘i in front of the William S. Richardson School of Law. Although American media in the United States and Hawai‘i were notified by press release of the press conference, none were present, and the press conference was covered by Kingdom Media Hawai‘i. The story was then picked up by ABC Australia news and radio and New Zealand’s radio The Wire. ABC Australia reported:
In his letter to the Attorney General, Professor Chang stated, “Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §4—Misprision of felony, I am legally obligated to report to you the knowledge I have about multiple felonies that prima facie have been and continue to be committed here in the Hawaiian Islands. I have been made aware of these felonies through the memorandum by political scientist David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., who was contracted by the State of Hawai‘i Office of Hawaiian Affairs, entitled Memorandum for Ka Pouhana, CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs regarding Hawai‘i as an Independent State and the Impacts it has on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.” Professor Chang’s letter was endorsed with the signatures of seventeen other State of Hawai‘i officials and employees.
The U.S. Attorney General received Professor Chang’s reporting of war crimes on September 19, 2014 by FedEx courier under tracking number 8061 7191 0836.
“Further, as a State of Hawai‘i employee, I and other State officials and employees receive State monies that have been implicated as being gained through the commission of felonies, namely the war crime of pillaging,” stated Professor Chang. Under 18 U.S.C. §662, receiving stolen property is a felony punishable by a fine or up to three years in prison. Receiving stolen property has four elements that need to be met in order to be considered a crime: (1) the property must be received; (2) it must have been previously stolen; (3) the person receiving the property must know it was stolen; and (4) the receiver must intend to deprive the owner of his or her property.
Professor Chang’s reporting of war crimes, being felonies under 18 U.S.C. §2441, to the DOJ effectively placed a corresponding obligation upon the U.S. Attorney General to either initiate a criminal investigation into the reported felonies, or explicitly state that felonies have not been committed thereby removing the apparent risk of a fine or up to three years in prison under both §4—misprision of felony, and §662—receiving stolen property.
Professor Chang stated, “If your office’s response in two weeks is able to refute the evidence provided for in the Memo, then assuredly the felonies—war crimes—have not been committed. But if you office is not able to refute the evidence, then this is a matter for the U.S. Pacific Command, being the occupying power, and all State of Hawai‘i officials and employees, as well as I, are compelled to comply with Hawaiian Kingdom law and the law of occupation.” The U.S. Attorney General was requested to respond by October 3, 2014.
The U.S. Department of Justice has not responded to Professor Chang’s reporting within the requested time of two weeks, which expired yesterday. The DOJ’s silence on the reporting is acquiescence or acknowledgment that war crimes have and continue to be committed in Hawai‘i. According to Black’s Law Dictionary (1996), acquiescence is “equivalent to assent inferred from silence with knowledge or from encouragement and presupposes knowledge and assent.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1984) also defines acquiescence as “a silent appearance of consent.” Specifically, the silence of the DOJ admits there is evidence of the commission of war crimes and that it “is a matter for the U.S. Pacific Command, being the occupying power,” and not the DOJ.
In order to refute Professor Chang’s reporting that the State of Hawai‘i government committed war crimes of pillaging by illegally appropriating monies from the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands, would be for the DOJ to show evidence that the United States is the successor to the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law and that the State of Hawai‘i, being an extension of the United States government, is a lawful government and legally authorized to collect taxes.
In Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom arbitral award, the international tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration stated “in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.” This acknowledgment of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as a State under international law by an international tribunal is called “presumptive evidence,” which Black’s Law Dictionary (1996) defines as “evidence which must be received and treated as true and sufficient until and unless rebutted by other evidence.”
According to Professor James Crawford, in his book The Creation of States in International Law (2006), p. 34, “There is a strong presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations, despite revolutionary changes in government, or despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government. Belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” Professor Crawford is the leading expert in State sovereignty under international and he also served as President of the Arbitral Tribunal in the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom arbitration case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
The fundamental problem for the DOJ is that there is no treaty where the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded its sovereignty and territory to the United States. The only claim the United States has over the Hawaiian Islands is that the Congress says it annexed the Hawaiian Islands in 1898 and then later created the State of Hawai‘i government in 1959. It is undisputed that Congress has no effect beyond its borders, so the U.S. Congress could no more annex Hawai‘i and create a State of Hawai‘i government by enacting statutes, than it could annex Canada and create a State of Canada government by enacting statutes. There is no treaty, which is evidence under international law that would rebut the evidence of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as an independent and sovereign State under international law. Without extinguishing the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law, the United States presence in the Hawaiian Islands is a situation of military occupation, which is regulated by the international laws of occupation and international humanitarian law.
As a federal agency of the United States government, the DOJ is limited to investigating the violation of federal criminal laws that occur within the territory of the United States. The DOJ does not have extra-territorial authority, and nor do federal statutes, which includes §2441. Since the DOJ acquiesced to the evidence that Hawai‘i is not a part of the territory of the United States as provided in Dr. Sai’s Memo for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which Professor Chang relied on for his reporting of felonies, the investigation of war crimes now falls upon the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command who is the occupying power in Hawai‘i.
§2441 states “Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.” According to the House Report 104-698 that accompanied the War Crimes Act of 1996 under the heading Current Prosecutability Under United States Law of Individuals for “Grave Breaches” of the Geneva Conventions and the Impact of H.R. 3680, “Military tribunals—or commissions—have been used widely by the United States from the Mexican-American War to the Civil War to World War II to prosecute criminals and to provide a system of justice in lands occupied by our armed forces.”
The House Report continued to state, “Military commissions were most recently used during and immediately following World War II to prosecute German and Japanese war criminals and to provide a legal system for occupied areas,” and that “American military commissions have generally prosecuted individuals whose acts were committed in lands occupied by our military.” Since the Hawaiian Kingdom has been under an illegal and prolonged occupation by the armed forces of the United States, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command is primarily responsible for the United States presence and its compliance with international law and the law of occupation.
According to U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, section 498, “any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. Section 449, which has a more expansive definition of war crimes than 18 U.S.C. §2441, “the term ‘war crime’ is the technical expression for a violation of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.” And according to section 500, “Conspiracy, direct incitement, and attempts to commit, as well as complicity in the commission of war crimes are punishable.”
UPDATE: Professor Chang receives letter from Department of Justice regarding the reporting of war crimes.
New Zealand Radio Station “The Wire” Interviews Dr. Keanu Sai
Nick Bond of 95bFM – The Wire, an independent radio station in Auckland, New Zealand, interviewed Dr. Keanu Sai.
Most people would say that the United States of America has 50 states, and that Hawai‘i is one of them. But Hawaiian academic Dr. Keanu Sai says otherwise. Sai says that Hawai‘i was never legally annexed to the United States, and has been illegally occupied for the past 121 years. Wire producer Nick Bond asks Sai whether Hawai‘i really is a nation under occupation.
To listen to the interview of Dr. Keanu Sai click here.
Aloha ‘Aina Talk Story with Dr. Keanu Sai
https://vimeo.com/107290353
ABC Radio Australia: Could the U.S. be Guilty of Committing War Crimes in Hawai‘i?
To hear the ABC news radio coverage click here.
ABC News Australia Covers War Crimes Reported to U.S. Attorney General
To go to ABC News Australia coverage click here.
State of Hawai‘i Hawaiian Homes Commissioner “Uncle Joe” Tassil Calls for Moratorium on all Evictions in Hawaiian Homes because of War Crimes
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSIONER “UNCLE JOE” TASSIL CALLS FOR MORATORIUM ON ALL EVICTIONS IN HAWAIIAN HOMES
9/22/2014
At Hawaiian Homes hearing at Paukukalo 10:00 a.m. this morning, “Uncle Joe” Tassil called for a moratorium of all evictions in Hawaiian Homes until the Justice Department responds to a letter authored by Dr. Chang, Professor of Law at UH which letter was premised upon a letter and memorandum drafted by Dr. Keanu Sai, Ph.D. regarding the current existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the unlawful occupation by the United States in Hawai’i. Attorney Dexter Kaiama testified on behalf of qualified Hawaiian Beneficiaries as to Department of Hawaiian Homelands, a state agency’s, lack of jurisdiction. Christopher Fishkin, a legal assistant to a law office in Wailuku, testified separately, to numerous violations of Federal law by DHHL and violations of the rights of qualified Hawaiian beneficiaries pursuant to the Federal law. Fishkin also encouraged the Commissioners to adopt Commissioner Tassil’s recommendation of a moratorium of evictions, to review and address the violations of Hawaiians’ rights in Hawaiian Homes which Fishkin asserted were being perpetuated against qualified Hawaiian beneficiaries under the color of state law.
Representative of Habitat for Humanity and solar energy providers to Hawaiian Homes testified as to lengthy delays in their being able to provide services to Hawaiians in Hawaiian Homes and unclear contractual obligations in order to do so.
Contact Commissioner Joe Tassil for more info. 808-664-6901
Aloha ‘Aina Talk Story with Associate Professor Kaleikoa Ka‘eo
https://vimeo.com/106904451
A very provocative talk story session with Associate Professor Kaleikoa Kaeo of the University of Hawai‘i Maui College and Keala Kelly about Hawaiian Consciousness and being Enlightened. This is part 1 of 2.
Press Conference of Professor Williamson Chang at the University of Hawai‘i Law School
Click here to download Professor Chang’s prepared statement read at the press conference.
Kingdom Media Hawai‘i Live Stream of Professor Chang’s Press Conference
Kingdom Media Hawai‘i will be providing a live stream of Professor Chang’s press conference at the University of Hawai‘i William S. Richardson School of Law. The press conference will begin at 2:00 pm in front of the Law School’s administration building across from the Law Library.
UPDATE: Due to technical difficulties the live streaming was not able to take place. Kingdom Media Hawai‘i, however, did record the press conference and will be playing it on its website.
https://vimeo.com/107008784
Senior Law Professor Reports War Crimes to U.S. Attorney General
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Conference at William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, Monday, September 22, 2014, at 2:00 pm
University of Hawai‘i’s senior law professor notifies U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, Jr., of war crimes committed in the Hawaiian Islands
HONOLULU (September 19, 2014) – Senior law professor Williamson B.C. Chang has reported to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. that war crimes have and continue to be committed in the Hawaiian Islands. Professor Chang is a faculty member of the University of Hawai‘i William S. Richardson School of Law and has been with the law school for the past thirty-eight years.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ (OHA) top executive, CEO Kamanaopono Crabbe, contracted political scientist, Dr. Keanu Sai, to draft a memorandum on the legal status of Hawai‘i under international law. Based on information Sai disclosed in what has become known as the OHA Memo, CEO Crabbe authored a letter to Secretary of State, John Kerry. Crabbe sought legal clarification on the status of Hawai‘i from Secretary Kerry primarily because Sai concluded that OHA is in possession of monies acquired from the “State of Hawai‘i’s” general fund through pillaging.
Pillaging is prohibited under article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, being a war crime under U.S. federal criminal law as well as a felony. According to 18 U.S.C. §2441 “Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime…shall be fined under the this title or imprisoned for life or any number of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.”
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has defined pillaging, which is the same as plunder, as “the fraudulent appropriation of public and private funds belonging to…the opposing party.” According to the OHA Memo, the State of Hawai‘i is not a legitimate government under international law and as a self-declared entity it has no authority to collect taxes from individuals throughout the Hawaiian Islands. This fraudulent collection of monies is a form of pillaging from public property that belongs to the Hawaiian Kingdom, not the United States.
In the letter addressed to Attorney General Holder, Professor Chang described his reporting of war crimes as being obligated under Federal criminal law and if he did not report the war crimes he could be fined or imprisoned for three years. “Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §4—Misprision of felony, I am legally obligated to report to you the knowledge I have about multiple felonies that prima facie have been and continue to be committed here in the Hawaiian Islands,” Chang said. “I have been made aware of these felonies through the memorandum by political scientist David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., who was contracted by the State of Hawai‘i Office of Hawaiian Affairs, entitled Memorandum for Ka Pouhana, CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs regarding Hawai‘i as an Independent State and the Impacts it has on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.”
Chang explained the action taken was not only prompted by a legal obligation, but also because he’s a State of Hawai‘i employee. “I and other State officials and employees receive State monies that have been implicated as being gained through the commission of felonies, namely the war crime of pillaging, and we could also face prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §3—Accessory after the fact,” Chang said. “I am deeply concerned about this matter that affects all State of Hawai‘i officials and employees, including myself personally.”
Due to the urgency of the matter Chang’s letter asks for a response from the Department of Justice within two weeks. If the Department of Justice’s “response in two weeks is able to refute the evidence provided for in the Memo, then assuredly the felonies—war crimes—have not been committed,” Chang said. The letter goes on to say, “But if your office is not able to refute the evidence, then this is a matter for the U.S. Pacific Command, being the occupying power, and all State of Hawai‘i officials and employees, as well as I, are compelled to comply with Hawaiian Kingdom law and the law of occupation.”
Chang’s letter was also carbon copied to the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command headquartered at Camp Smith, Island of O‘ahu, and to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
The press conference will be located in front of the Administration building across from the Law Library. Parking is provided in the parking structure behind the law school at $5.00.
Joining Professor Chang at Monday’s press conference will be some of the 17 State of Hawaii employees from the University of Hawaii, the Department of Human Services, the Department of Public Safety, the Maui Fire Department, and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, who endorsed the letter. Dr. Sai will also be at the press conference.
Click here to download Professor Chang’s letter.
Click here to download the OHA Memo.
Star-Advertiser Front Page: Memo implies nation effort leads to war crimes
In today’s Honolulu Star-Advertiser newspaper, reporter Rob Perez centers his story on a 44-page memorandum authored by Dr. David Keanu Sai, political scientist, under contract by the CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe. Perez reports, “The state Office of Hawaiian Affairs administrator paid a controversial political scientist $25,000 to write a memo that calls into question the validity of OHA’s nation-building effort, even raising the question of whether the office’s trustees are committing war crimes by pursuing it.”
The article draws attention to the memo, but it may give the impression that Dr. Crabbe was not authorized to contract the services of Dr. Sai without OHA Trustees approval as stated by Trustee Peter Apo. Perez, however, correctly stated, if you keep reading, “Crabbe, OHA’s chief executive since January 2012, has the authority to spend up to $25,000 without getting prior board approval.” Perez reported: “It was part of a follow-up due diligence effort so I could protect trustees and OHA leadership of any risks that might be incurred,” Crabbe wrote. “I also provided Dr. Sai’s memo to trustees so they could use it in their deliberations. I believe we should consider all points of view, even controversial ones, to fully understand this complex issue.”
Dr. Crabbe was seeking to have the Trustees, after receiving a copy of the memo, to meet with Dr. Sai in a Board meeting to ask questions regarding the memo, but he was unsuccessful. Instead, you get uninformed opinions made by Chair Trustee Collette Machado and Apo attempting to paint the picture that there was some collusion going on between Dr. Crabbe and Dr. Sai. This was clearly not the case as Perez reported.
Perez also mentions another contract Dr. Sai has with OHA entered in 2009 for $70,000.00 to complete a book on land titles to be academically published by the University of Hawai‘i Press. Perez reported, “OHA recently agreed to an extension allowing him more time to work on the manuscript and has withheld a final payment of $5,000 until the book is published. Sai’s initial research led him in the 1990s to co-found Perfect Title Co., which cited Hawaiian kingdom law to contend that existing land titles in Hawaii were defective. Sai said his book will detail how the title problem can be fixed.” This book contract with OHA occurred before Dr. Crabbe was at OHA.
The article also mentions that Dr. Sai was convicted of a felony, attempted theft, but failed to explain what the subject of the theft was, therefore implying Dr. Sai was convicted of stealing money from clients of Perfect Title Company. The crime Dr. Sai was alleged to have committed was not the attempted theft of money, but rather the attempted theft of land by doing title reports and providing the remedy to the defect in title under Hawaiian law. When applying the larceny (theft) law it can only apply to personal property, which is moveable property, as opposed to real property (real estate), which is immovable. This distinction is clearly stated in the definition of larceny where the property has to be “carried away” or “attempted to carried away.”
According to the United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), larceny-theft is “the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or constructive possession of another. Examples are thefts of bicycles, motor vehicle parts and accessories, shoplifting, pocket-picking, or the stealing of any property or article that is not taken by force and violence or by fraud. Attempted larcenies are included.” A home, being real property, cannot be carried away by doing a title search. Dr. Sai and two clients of Perfect Title Company are the only individuals in the world to have been convicted of attempting to steal a home through a title report, which is not theft. If there was to be any allegation of a crime, it should have been conspiracy and/or fraud. That was not the case because the title report by Perfect Title Company was irrefutable.
As egregious as it sounds, it is not only used in an attempt to disparage the reputation of Dr. Sai, but it is also a war crime by depriving Dr. Sai a fair and regular trial, especially on a manufactured charge of a crime that doesn’t legally exist. This was the subject of a federal lawsuit Dr. Sai filed in a United States District Court in Washington, D.C., Sai v. Clinton, et. al., in 2010. The Federal judge dismissed the case stating it was a political question, which is an option U.S. judges can use to say it belongs to the executive or legislative branches of government and not the judicial branch. The complaint was not dismissed because it was a frivolous claim.
In his interview with Perez, Dr. Sai brought to his attention that $25,000.00 to do a memorandum needs to be kept in context. A prior memo contracted by OHA with an attorney that centered on strategies toward federal recognition cost $75,000.00. Dr. Sai also told Perez that Norma Wong, a consultant to Kana‘iolowalu, and close confidant and advisor to former Governor John Waihe‘e, III, Chair of the Roll Commission, was paid two increments of $250,000.00 a year for a total of $500,000.00. Chair Waihe‘e also contracted Dennis Dwyer for a total of $1.3 million dollars to be Kana‘iolowalu’s federal lobbyist in Washington, D.C. Dwyer was also contracted by the Honolulu Rail Project’s HART to be its federal lobbyist and was paid $1.43 million dollars from 2007 to 2013. Dr. Sai also told Perez that Clyde Namuo, who was also the former CEO for OHA before Dr. Crabbe, was simultaneously collecting a full-time salary as Kana‘iolowalu’s Executive Director while he was also collecting a full-time salary as director for the Polynesian Voyaging Society.
We have provided a link to Dr. Sai’s memorandum in order to provide the public with access to the information that was at the center of the story. The public can now read what the Trustees have in their possession and be informed by the diligent research of a political scientist and not a politician. In the memo, Dr. Sai did not solely focus on federal recognition, but also recommended that OHA continue its services to the Native (aboriginal) Hawaiian community, under the doctrine of necessity, so long as it does not conflict with Hawaiian Kingdom law and the international laws of occupation.
Trustees Apo and Machado would be better served by focusing on the existence or non existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a country under international law first and whether or not war crimes have been committed. To render Dr. Sai’s memorandum moot, the Trustees should focus on the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, to rebut the analysis and provide evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom was extinguished under international law, which was the subject of Dr. Crabbe’s letter to Secretary of State Kerry. If the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist under international law and Hawai‘i is the 50th State of the American Union, then the U.S. Department of Justice should have no hesitation providing the evidence in a timely manner. The problem, however, is it hasn’t, which only reinforces the presumption of continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
This is a very serious issue and this subject should not be taken lightly.