Category Archives: War Crimes

Hawai‘i War Crimes: Extensive Appropriation of Property

Posted on by
4

War crimes are actions taken by individuals, whether military or civilian, that violates international humanitarian law, which includes the 1907 Hague Conventions, 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. War crimes include “grave breaches” of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which also applies to territory that is occupied even if the occupation takes place without resistance. Protected persons under International Humanitarian Law are all nationals who reside within an occupied State, except for the nationals of the Occupying Power. The International Criminal Court and States prosecute individuals for war crimes.

War Crime: Extensive appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly

Between 2002 and 2012, the United States Internal Revenue Service, hereinafter “IRS,” illegally appropriated $74.8 million dollars from the residents of the Hawaiian Islands. During this same period, the government of the State of Hawai‘i additionally appropriated $2.2 billion dollars illegally. The IRS is an agency of the United States of America and cannot appropriate money from the inhabitants of an occupied State without violating international law. The State of Hawai‘i is a political subdivision of the United States of America established by an Act of Congress in 1959 and as an entity without any extraterritorial effect, it couldn’t appropriate money from the inhabitants of an occupied State without violating the international laws of occupation.

According to the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, taxes upon the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands include: an annual poll tax of $1 dollar to be paid by every male inhabitant between the ages of seventeen and sixty years; an annual tax of $2 dollars for the support of public schools to be paid by every male inhabitant between the ages of twenty and sixty years; an annual tax of $1 dollar for every dog owned; an annual road tax of $2 dollars to be paid by every male inhabitant between the ages of seventeen and fifty; and an annual tax of ¾ of 1% upon the value of both real and personal property.

The Merchant Marine Act, June 5, 1920 (41 U.S. Stat. 988), hereinafter referred to as the Jones Act, is a restraint of trade and commerce in violation of international law and treaties between the Hawaiian Kingdom and other foreign States. According to the Jones Act, all goods, which includes tourists on cruise ships, whether originating from Hawai‘i or being shipped to Hawai‘i must be shipped on vessels built in the United States that are wholly owned and crewed by United States citizens. And should a foreign flag ship attempt to unload foreign goods and merchandise in the Hawaiian Islands will have to forfeit its cargo to the to the U.S. Government, or an amount equal to the value of the merchandise or cost of transportation from the person transporting the merchandise.

As a result of the Jones Act, there is no free trade in the Hawaiian Islands. 90% of Hawai‘i’s food is imported from the United States, which has created a dependency on outside food. The three major American ship carriers for the Hawaiian Islands are Matson, Horizon Lines, and Pasha Hawai‘i Transport Services, as well as several low cost barge alternatives. Under the Jones Act, these American carriers travel 2,400 miles to ports on the west coast of the United States in order to reload goods and merchandise delivered from Pacific countries on foreign carriers, which would have otherwise come directly to Hawai‘i ports. The cost of fuel and the lack of competition drive up the cost of shipping and contribute to Hawai‘i’s high cost of living. Gas tax is $.47 per gallon as a result of the Jones Act because only American ship carriers can transport oil to the Hawaiian Islands to be converted into gas. And according to the USDA Food Cost, Hawai‘i residents in January 2012 pay an extra $417 per month for food on a thrifty plan than families who are on a thrifty plan in the United States of America.

Appropriating monies directly through taxation and appropriating monies indirectly as a result of the Jones Act to benefit American ship carriers and businesses is unlawful and therefore are international crimes.

Perfect Title Company – Setting the Record Straight

Posted on by
10

With the recent news coverage by the Honolulu Star Advertiser, Perfect Title Company has again reentered mainstream media in the Hawaiian Islands.The video not only provides an accurate history of the formation of the Perfect Title Company and its deliberate and unlawful demise, but also the practical and profound effect it had on the real estate industry.

Since 1893, conveyances of real property could not take place because of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government. That government has not been restored, but instead insurgents who were established through United States intervention on January 17, 1893, were unlawfully maintained in power. A clear break in the chain of title originates since January 17th because the notaries public and the registrar of the Bureau of Conveyances were insurgents and not vested with authority under the Hawaiian Kingdom government.

Title Companies during escrow should have revealed this information to the lenders and buyers, but instead concealed it. Lenders and buyers, however, were protected by title insurance. Before the lender agrees to accept the borrowers property, as collateral to ensure the repayment of the loan, which is called a mortgage, the borrower is required to purchase title insurance in the amount of the money borrowed for the protection of the lender. This requirement is in the event there is a defect in the borrower’s title, which would render the mortgage void, the lender has insurance to cover the remaining amount of the unsecured loan.

Title insurance is an insurance policy that ensures the accuracy of the title search done by a title company. Covered risks in the title insurance policy are defective notaries public and recordation of the deed of conveyance. Title insurance that protects the lender is called a “loan policy,” and for the protection of the homeowner it is called an “owner’s policy.”

All land titles in the Hawaiian Islands are defective.

Hawai‘i Under Consideration to be Included in War Report

Posted on by
3

war report

Professor Andrew Clapham has notified Dr. Keanu Sai that a team at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights will be reviewing information on the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom for inclusion in the Academy’s War Report. The War Report is a comprehensive global analysis of armed conflicts under international law, which includes military occupations. In 2012, the War Report identified at least 37 armed conflicts, of which 9 are military occupations, on the territory of 24 States for 2012.

The War Report: 2012 was launched on December 10, 2013, which was Human Rights Day, with an interactive panel hosted by journalist Xavier Colin at the Geneva Institute’s Auditorium Pictet. H.E. Ambassador Jürg Lindemann, Deputy Director of the Directorate of International Law at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, made opening remarks. Panelists included Andrew Clapham, Professor at the Graduate Institute and Director of the Geneva Academy, Keith Krause, Professor at the Graduate Institute, and Programme Director of the Small Arms Survey, Julie de Rivero, Geneva Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch, and H.E. Ambassador Jürg Lindemann.

The War Report is published by Oxford University Press and identifies “armed conflicts” according to international humanitarian law, which includes the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols. Only accused violators in conflicts classified as such can be prosecuted for war crimes. The Fourth Geneva Convention not only applies to “armed conflicts” but also “to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance (Article 2).” The Hawaiian Kingdom acceded to the Fourth Geneva Convention on January 14, 2013, and consequently became a “High Contracting Party.”

“The classification of an armed conflict under international law is an objective legal test and not a decision left to national governments or any international body, not even the UN Security Council,” says Andrew Clapham, Director of the Academy and Graduate Institute Professor in International Law.

“It is not always clear when a situation is an armed conflict, and hence when war crimes can be punished,” added Professor Clapham. “The War Report aims to change this and bring greater accountability for criminal acts perpetuated in armed conflicts.”

The War Report for 2012, the first edition of what will become an annual publication, aims to make this important legal analysis more accessible for governments, policy makers, the United Nations, academics, NGOs, and journalists. Oxford University Press has provided online access to Chapter 1.

Kingdom still in place courts told: Some homeowners fight foreclosure by claiming that the United States is illegally occupying Hawaii

Posted on by
12

January 13, 2014 Honolulu Star-Advertiser Newspaper Front Page Story by Rob Perez

Star Advertiser (Sai)

Several years after he stopped making his mortgage payments, Kale Guma­pac was evicted from his foreclosed Hawaii island home.

Days before Thanksgiving, sheriff’s deputies escorted a handcuffed Guma­pac — he was arrested on a trespassing charge — from the Hawaiian Paradise Park property he had called home for more than a decade.

Gumapac said he stopped making his $3,000-a-month payments about five years ago because his lender couldn’t produce the original note for his loan, raising questions about who actually had title to the property.

After his mortgage subsequently was acquired by another bank but well before he was evicted in November, Guma­pac switched strategies and embraced a controversial legal argument that has surfaced in a small but growing number of foreclosure cases over the past several years.

He argued that Hawaii courts are unlawfully constituted, dating from the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893. He also maintained that Hawaii land titles have been defective since the overthrow.

Like dozens of other Hawaii residents, Guma­pac made those arguments based on the claim — repeatedly rejected by state and federal judges — that the Hawaiian kingdom still exists and the U.S. is illegally occupying the islands.

Gumapac even has a company that helps homeowners make the same kingdom argument to file defective-title claims.

Many inside and outside the real estate industry scoff at the argument, saying it is preposterous, ignores more than 100 years of history and has been discredited numerous times in the judicial arena.

“Every court that has considered this has found that the argument has no merit whatsoever,” said attorney David Rosen, who represents lenders. “These people are selling a scam.”

Gumapac and other proponents point to the same historical record to justify their position, citing, among other things, an 1893 executive agreement between Queen Liliu­oka­lani and President Grover Cleveland that called for the eventual restoration of the kingdom government. They said the agreement obligated Cleveland’s successors as well.

State and federal judges, however, consistently have rejected the notion that the kingdom still exists or kingdom law still applies in Hawaii. Appellate courts have done the same.

Not even advocates of the kingdom defense can cite a single case in which a homeowner ultimately prevailed.

Yet more homeowners appear to be adopting the legal strategy, according to attorneys and others who deal with such matters.

One recent case involved Office of Hawaiian Affairs Trustee Dan Ahuna, who in a May court filing asked a state judge to dismiss his lender’s foreclosure lawsuit. Ahuna argued that the state court lacked jurisdiction because the kingdom still exists.

In September the court rejected Ahuna’s argument. Since then he and his wife have had their loan modified through the U.S. government’s foreclosure prevention program, according to Ahuna, who said financial difficulties, not personal beliefs, prevented them from making their mortgage payments when the 2008 foreclosure complaint was filed.

“I simply underestimated the scale and complexity of using this particular legal argument to improve my ability to avoid foreclosure,” Ahuna said in a written response to the Hono­lulu Star-Advertiser, emphasizing that he was speaking as an individual and not as an OHA trustee.

Dexter Kaiama, a Kai­lua lawyer, says that over the past three years he has taken on more than 150 clients whose underlying defense questions the validity of local courts. The majority of those clients, including Guma­pac, were homeowners already in the midst of foreclosure proceedings, according to Kai­ama.

Gumapac, whose Big Island company is called Lau­lima Title Search and Claims, said he continues to get new clients even since his November eviction. Lau­lima now has about 300 total clients, and Guma­pac charges $3,900 for his services, he said.

While the kingdom-still-exists argument has not prevailed in court, some homeowners seem to be benefiting in one significant way: They have stayed in their homes long after they stopped paying their mortgages, thanks largely to the slow pace in which such cases move through a strained judicial system.

Real estate officials say Guma­pac’s challenge of the court’s authority likely contributed to the prolonged period he was able to stay in his home after defaulting on the mortgage.

Kaiama said dozens of eviction orders are pending against his clients, and he suspects the legal argument that the orders are unlawful have contributed to delays in enforcing them. A judge presiding over one of Kai­ama’s foreclosure cases recently asked the attorney to provide more information on the jurisdiction issue.

Gumapac said he stopped paying his mortgage when his lender was unable to provide the original copy of his loan note and couldn’t answer certain questions about the property’s title. At the time, the nation was in the midst of a mortgage crisis that included a dramatic rise in foreclosures and growing questions about unfair and predatory practices by lenders.

“I wasn’t trying to run away from my obligation to pay that debt,” Guma­pac said. “I was following my contract.”

After Deutsche Bank acquired Guma­pac’s mortgage, he learned of research that called into question the validity of all Hawaii land titles since the 1893 overthrow. Proponents of that position say that titles filed since then are invalid because they were not processed under kingdom law. Guma­pac became a believer.

Armed with such research, he asked his lender to file a title insurance claim, which he said he believed the bank was obligated to do under terms of his mortgage agreement. Guma­pac said he was expecting Deutsche Bank to pursue a claim, which would have uncovered the defect and, under terms of the insurance policy, triggered the insurer to pay the debt.

But lenders generally have considered such kingdom-related title claims frivolous.

In Gumapac’s case, Deutsche Bank didn’t pursue an insurance claim and proceeded with the foreclosure, he said. In December 2011 the bank filed a so-called ejectment complaint seeking his eviction. Two years later Guma­pac was forced out.

An attorney for Deutsche Bank didn’t respond to a request for comment.

One of the more interesting aspects of the rise in the kingdom-related foreclosure defense is a political scientist who is a key advocate of it.

David Keanu Sai, who has a master’s degree in international relations and a doctorate in political science from the University of Hawaii, serves as a consultant to Guma­pac’s company and to Kai­ama.

Sai also has taken his arguments to various international organizations, including the president’s office of the United Nations General Assembly, the International Criminal Court and the International Committee of the Red Cross in Switzerland, where he was joined last month by Kai­ama. They are pursuing cases alleging war crimes and the illegal occupation of the islands by the United States.

Sai made headlines in the mid-1990s as co-founder of Perfect Title Co., which used kingdom law to claim existing land titles in Hawaii were invalid — essentially the same arguments being made today in the foreclosure cases. The company riled the real estate industry because it filed reports at the Bureau of Conveyances casting clouds on titles.

Perfect Title shut down in 1997 after the state seized its records as part of an investigation. Sai eventually was convicted of first-degree attempted theft, a felony, for helping a couple try to reclaim an Aiea home they lost through foreclosure. He received five years’ probation.

Though Sai makes the same basic points today that he did in his Perfect Title days, his argument is more refined now, benefiting from the advanced degrees he obtained since then. Even some of his harshest critics say he is more persuasive.

Sai said it’s not unexpected that Hawaii courts refuse to validate the kingdom argument, saying that one judge even acknowledged he would be committing political suicide if he did so.

But the historical evidence is overwhelming and has yet to be refuted, Sai added, and he expects justice eventually to prevail in the international arena, where international law applies.

“We have to be patient but patience is not a weakness,” Sai said.

Asked about Sai’s case, a spokes­woman for the U.N. president’s office said in an email to the Star-Advertiser that a sovereign matter is beyond the purview of the office.

The International Criminal Court did not respond to Star-Advertiser emails seeking comment.

Rosen, the lender attorney, is upset that the state and the courts have done nothing to prevent the discredited kingdom arguments from continuing to be made, giving homeowners false hope that their properties might be saved. People who charge homeowners to provide such a defense should be prosecuted or sanctioned, he said.

“How are they allowed to continue doing this?” Rosen asked. “It’s nothing more than a fraud.”

Meeting with Officials of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, Switzerland

Posted on by
16

Emblem_of_the_ICRCOn December 17, 2013, Dr. David Keanu Sai and attorney Dexter Kaiama had a meeting with Stephane Ojeda, Deputy Head of Operations for the Americas for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) at the ICRC’s headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The ICRC is a humanitarian organization that has a specific mandate in the 1949 Geneva Conventions to provide protection for civilians during international conflicts and occupations. At a Conference on the Politics of Humanitarianism in the Occupied Territories held in Israel in 2004, Mr. Ojeda described the ICRC as “guardians of international humanitarian law” and independent of political influences.

The purpose of the meeting was to bring to the attention of the ICRC the severity of an illegal and prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands and the violation of the rights of ICRC_HQprotected persons in the Hawaiian Islands as defined under the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Protocol (1) Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as United States citizens, who are not protected persons under the Convention and Protocol, but do have rights protected under Title 18, United States Code, §2441 (War Crimes Act) that has  force in territories occupied by the United States. These violations include deprivation of a fair and regular trial, pillaging of real and personal property, and unlawful confinement. Mr. Kaiama has represented over 150 clients in both Federal and State of Hawai‘i courts of the Hawaiian Islands centering on these violations. The majority of these clients are also clients of Laulima Title Search & Claims, LLC, to include the company’s president, Mr. Kale Gumapac.

In addition, Mr. Kaiama submitted a formal request to the ICRC for assistance in accordance with Article 30 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 30 states that “Protected persons shall have every facility for making application to…the International Committee of the Red Cross.” According to the ICRC, “The right in question is an absolute right, possessed by all protected persons both in the territory of a Party to the conflict and in occupied territory, whether they are not detained, or are internees, persons placed in assigned residence or detained. The communication may have a wide variety of causes, and it may take the form of an application, suggestion, a complaint, a protest, a request for assistance, etc.; it is not even necessary for an infringement of the Convention on the part of the authorities to have occurred. The right of communication may be exercised under all circumstances.” The Hawaiian Kingdom is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocol 1.

After Dr. Sai provided a brief overview of Hawai‘i’s status as an independent State under an illegal and prolonged occupation, Mr. Ojeda admitted he was not aware of Hawai‘i’s history despite the ICRC’s working relationship with the United States Pacific Command. Mr. Ojeda was also fascinated by the online news coverage provided Big Island Video News on the subject of occupation and war crimes. Later that day, Mr. Ojeda contacted Dr. Sai and Mr. Kaiama in order to schedule a follow up meeting with the ICRC’s legal advisor, Dr. Tristan Ferraro, the following day. Dr. Ferraro’s legal expertise is on occupations.

The meeting with Dr. Ferraro lasted 2.5 hours, and, like Mr. Ojeda, Dr. Ferraro was not aware of Hawai‘i’s legal and political history and its place in international law. The focus of Sai_Ferraro_ICRCthe meeting centered on Hawai‘i’s status as an independent State and whether or not international law provided for its continued existence or its demise. In order for the ICRC to exercise its mandate to ensure protection for civilians during a prolonged occupation as requested by Mr. Kaiama, the ICRC needs to determine how the intervention will take place. Dr. Ferraro assured Mr. Kaiama that he would complete his recommendation by March 2014, and report his conclusion to Mr. Ojeda. Dr. Sai provided his legal brief titled “The Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” and other pertinent documents to assist Dr. Ferraro in his review. Dr. Sai specifically drew attention to a section of the legal brief that states:

“any claim to State continuity will be dependent upon the establishment of two legal facts: first, that the State in question existed as a recognized entity for purposes of international law at some relevant point in history; and, secondly, that intervening events have not been such as to deprive it of that status.  It should be made very clear, however, that the issue is not simply one of ‘observable’ or ‘tangible facts,’ but more specifically of ‘legally relevant facts.’  It is not a case, in other words, simply of observing how power or control has been exercised in relation to persons or territory, but of determining the scope of ‘authority,’ which is understood as ‘a legal entitlement to exercise power and control.’ Authority differs from mere control by not only being essentially rule governed, but also in virtue of the fact that it is not always entirely dependent upon the exercise of that control.”

As the meeting came to a close, Dr. Sai provided Dr. Tristan the Hawaiian Kingdom’s formal request to have the ICRC assist in securing a Protecting Power that is neutral and not a party to the conflict in accordance with Article 5(3) & (5) of Protocol 1. A Protecting Power is a country that would serve as an intermediary between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States in order to assure compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention, Protocol 1 and international humanitarian law. If the ICRC is not able to secure a Protecting Power it has to offer itself as a substitute. According to the ICRC, a timetable for a decision will be no later than 60 days.

The Role of the International Committee of the Red Cross during Occupations

Posted on by
4

Emblem_of_the_ICRCThe International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a respected private organization comprised of Swiss citizens that intervenes, as a neutral party, in conflicts and occupations where international humanitarian law is being violated. Article 10 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) acknowledges the ICRC’s right it may “undertake for the protection of civilian persons and for their relief.”

The ICRC plays an important role as a non-government organization because it is not confined or limited by the politics of governments. According to its mission statement, the ICRC “is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence and to provide them with assistance.” This mission statement is drawn from Article 30 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides “Protected persons shall have every facility for making application to the…International Committee of the Red Cross…as well as to any organization that might assist them.”

In 1958, the ICRC published a commentary of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The following commentary is made in reference to Article 47—Inviolability of Rights. Article 47 states, “Protected persons who in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, in to the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”

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

1.  General—The position of Article 47 at the beginning of the Section dealing with occupied territories underlines the cardinal importance of the safeguard it proclaims. During the Second World War whole populations were excluded from the application of the laws governing occupation and were thus denied the safeguards provided by those laws and left at the mercy of the Occupying Power. In order to avoid a repetition of this state of affairs, the authors of the [Fourth Geneva] Convention made a point of giving these rules an absolute character. They will be considered in the following pages in the order in which they occur in the Convention.

2.  Changes in the institutions or the government of the occupied territory—During the Second World War Occupying Powers intervened in the occupied countries on numerous occasions and in a great variety of ways, depending on the political aim pursued; examples are changes in constitutional forms or in the form of government, the establishment of new military or political organizations, the dissolution of the State, or the formation of new political entities.

International law prohibits such actions, which are based solely on the military strength of the Occupying Power and not on a sovereign decision by the occupied State. Of course the Occupying power usually tried to give some colour of legality and independence to the new organizations, which were formed in the majority of cases with the co-operation of certain elements among the population of the occupied country, but it was obvious that they were in fact always subservient to the will of the Occupying Power. Such practices were incompatible with the traditional concept of occupation (as defined in Article 43 of the Hague Regulations of 1907) according to which the occupying authority was to be considered as merely being a de facto administrator.

This provision of the Hague Regulations is not applicable only to the inhabitants of the occupied territory; it also protects the separate existence of the State, its institutions and its laws. This provision does not become in any way less valid because of the existence of the [Fourth Geneva] Convention, which merely amplifies it so far as the question of the protection of civilians is concerned.

Interference by the Protecting Power with the institutions or government of an occupied country has the effect of transforming the country’s structure and organizations more or less radically. Such a transformation may make the position of the inhabitants worse, and the present Article is intended to prevent from harming protected persons measures taken by the Occupying Power with a view to restoring and maintaining law and order. It does not expressly prohibit the Occupying Power from modifying the institutions or government of the occupied territory. Certain changes might conceivably be necessary and even an improvement; besides, the text is question is of an essentially humanitarian character; its object is to safeguard human beings and not to protect political institutions and government machinery of the States as such. The main point, according to the [Fourth Geneva] Convention, is that changes made in the international organization of the State must not lead to protected persons being deprived of the rights and safeguards provided for them. Consequently it must be possible for the Convention to be applied to them in its entirety, even if the Occupying Power has introduced changes in the institutions or government of the occupied territory.

3.  Agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territory and the Occupying Power—Agreements concluded with the authorities of the occupied territory represent a more subtle means by which the Occupying Power may try to free itself from the obligations incumbent on it under occupation law; the possibility of concluding such agreements is therefore strictly limited by Article 7, paragraph 1, and the general rule expressed there is reaffirmed by the present provision. It may thus be regarded as a provision applying the safeguards embodied in Article 7, which are valid for the whole [Fourth Geneva] Convention; reference should therefore be made to the comments on that Article.

It should be noted, however, that the Diplomatic Conference wished to reaffirm that general rule by re-stating it at the beginning of the chapter dealing with occupied territory for a particular reason; because there is in this case a particularly great danger of the Occupying Power forcing the Power whose territory is occupied to conclude agreements prejudicial to protected persons. Cases have in fact occurred where the authorities of an occupied territory have, under pressure from the Occupying Power, refused to accept supervision by a Protecting Power, banned the activities of humanitarian organizations and tolerated the forcible enlistment or deportation of protected persons by the occupying authorities. Such stipulations are in flagrant contradiction with Articles 9, 39 and 51 of the [Fourth Geneva] Convention and are consequently strictly forbidden.

Lastly it will be noted that the same clause applies both to cases where the lawful authorities in the occupied territory have concluded a derogatory agreement with the Occupying Power and to cases where that Power has installed and maintained a government in power.

4.  Annexation—The occupation of territory in wartime is essentially a temporary, de facto situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty; it merely interferes with its power to exercise its rights. That is what distinguishes occupation from annexation, whereby the Occupying Power acquires all or part of the occupied territory and incorporates it in its own territory.

Consequently occupation as a result of war, while representing actual possession to all appearances, cannot imply any right whatsoever to dispose of territory. As long as hostilities continue the Occupying Power cannot therefore annex the occupied territory, even if it occupied the whole of the territory concerned. A decision on that point can only be reached in the peace treaty. That is a universally recognized rule which is endorsed by jurists and confirmed by numerous rulings of international and national courts.

And yet the Second World War provides us with several examples of “anticipated annexation,” as a result of unilateral action on the part of the victor to dispose of territory he had occupied. The population of such territories, which often covered a wide area, did not enjoy the benefit of the rules governing occupation, were without the rights and safeguards to which they were legitimately entitled, and were thus subjected to whatever laws or regulations the annexing State wished to promulgate.

Aware of the extremely dangerous nature of such proceedings, which leave the way open to arbitrary actions and decisions, the Diplomatic Conference felt it necessary to stipulate that actions of this nature would have no effect on the rights of protected persons, who would, in spite of them, continue to be entitled to the benefits conferred by the Convention.

It will be well to note that the reference to annexation in this Article cannot be considered as implying recognition of this manner of acquiring sovereignty. The preliminary work on the subject confirms this. In order to bring out more clearly the unlawful character of annexation in wartime, the government experts of 1947 proposed adding the adjective “alleged” before the word “annexation.” Several delegates at the Diplomatic Conference, concerned about the same point, went as far as to propose cutting out the reference to a hypothetical annexation in this Article. The Conference eventually decided to keep it because they considered that these fears were unfounded and also felt that it was wiser to mention such a situation in the text of the Article, in order to be better armed to meet it.

A fundamental principle emerges from the foregoing considerations; an Occupying Power continues to be bound to apply the Convention as a whole even when, in disregard of the rules of international law, it claims during a conflict to have annexed all or part of an occupied territory.

Registrar of the International Court of Justice Acknowledges Hawaiian Complaint But Won’t Take Action Until Hawaiian Kingdom Covers Court Expenses

Posted on by
139

ICJ_Peace_PalaceThe International Court of Justice is one of three principal organs of the United Nations together with the General Assembly and the Security Council. It is located in the city of The Hague, Netherlands, and sits within the Peace Palace along with the Permanent Court of Arbitration. According to its website, “The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies. The Court is composed of 15 judges who are elected for terms of office of nine years by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. It is assisted by a Registry, its administrative organ. Its official languages are English and French.”

Only States, which are independent countries, can initiate legal proceedings against other States for violations of international law. The ICJ, however, is also open for States which are not members of the United Nations. Switzerland did not become a member of the United Nations until 2002 but initiated legal proceedings with the ICJ in 1957 as a non-Member State against the United States of America. The case lasted for 2 years and final judgment was entered on March 21, 1959 in favor of the United States, whereby the subject of the international dispute, being a Swiss corporation, has not exhausted its local remedies against the United States, therefore making the complaint against the United States premature.

If a private individual or group attempts to file an Application Instituting Proceedings against a State with the ICJ, the Registrar does not acknowledge receipt of the Application, but rather sends a template letter, either by mail or email, that states:

Dear ___,

In reply to your email or mail, I have to inform you that the International Court of Justice is not authorized, in view of its functions strictly defined by its Statute (Article 34) and Rules, to give advice or make observations on questions such as those raised in your communication.

The Court’s activities are limited to rendering judgments in legal disputes between States submitted to it by the States themselves and giving advisory opinions when it is so requested by UN organs or specialized agencies of the UN system.

It follows that neither the Court nor its Members can consider applications from private individual or groups, provide them with legal advice or assist them in their relations with the authorities of any country.

That being so, you will, I am sure, understand that, to my regret, no action can be taken on your communication.

Yours faithfully,

Département de l’information | Information Department – Cour internationale de Justice | International Court of Justice

ICJ_RegistrarThe Registrar of the ICJ, Philippe Couvreur, serves in similar fashion to a Clerk of a Court that receives and file stamps civil and criminal complaints. The Registrar’s duty is to ensure that the party filing an Application (Complaint) is a State, whether a member or non-member of the United Nations, and that it meets the compliance provided for in the Statute and Rules of the ICJ. Once it meets the requirements and before it is submitted to the Judges, the Application must be translated by the Registrar’s office into both the English and French languages, a bilingual version of the State’s Application must be printed and a copy sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations and other States who have access to the ICJ, the case must be listed on the ICJ General List, and a press release must be sent to the media announcing the filing of the Application.

In order for the Registrar to complete these tasks he has a staff that includes a Deputy Registrar, a Legal Matters Department, a Linguistic Matters Department, an Information Department and 5 Technical Divisions comprised of Finance, Publications, Information and Communications Technology, Archives-Indexing and Distribution, and Text Processing and Reproduction. The funding of the ICJ is a portion drawn from the Regular Budget of the United Nations. The 2013 Regular Budget of the United Nations was $5.2 billion US dollars, and the proportionate budget for the ICJ was $47.7 million US dollars, which pays for these tasks to be completed by the Registrar’s office before the Court can take any action. If the State is a non-Member of the United Nations, it would have to contribute to cover the expenses of the Registrar’s office and Judges before the Court can taken any action. Article 35, paragraph 3 of the Statute of the ICJ states “When a state which is not a Member of the United Nations is a party to a case, the Court shall fix the amount which that party is to contribute towards the expenses of the Court. This provision shall not apply if such state is bearing a share of the expenses of the Court.”

On September 25, 2013, the Hawaiian Kingdom submitted to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice an “Application Instituting Proceedings” against 45 States for treaty violations and violations of international law. In addition, a “Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection” was also submitted requesting the Court to issue an order compelling the 45 States named in the complaint to no longer recognize the United States presence in Hawai‘i as legal. The Hawaiian Kingdom had previously deposited its declaration accepting jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with the Secretary General of the United Nations on September 6, 2013 in accordance with Article 36 of the Statute of the Court.

The Registrar’s office was very reluctant to acknowledge receipt of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Application because it was under the assumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom was not an independent State but rather a part of the United States of America. In fact, it received the template letter from the ICJ before the Agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom, Dr. David Keanu Sai, departed for the Netherlands to file the Application. While at The Hague, however, events transpired at the Peace Palace whereby the Registrar’s office was unable to deny the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as a State and the Application was accepted by the personal assistant to the Registrar of the ICJ.

As a non-Member State of the United Nations, the Hawaiian Kingdom is responsible for covering the expenses of the Court as required under Article 35 of the Statute and, without providing its share to cover these costs, the Registrar’s office would not be able translate the Application into the French language and print out a bilingual version of the Application for the other States named in the Application, the Judges of the ICJ and the Secretary General of the United Nations. In other words, the Court cannot take any action on the case until the matter of costs is settled.

In order to address these costs, the Hawaiian Kingdom submitted a formal request on October 16, 2013 to have the President of the International Court of Justice convene the other Judges of the Court to fix the amount, which the Hawaiian Kingdom is to contribute towards the expenses of the Court. The paradox to this request is that for the President to convene the Court in order to determine the amount the Hawaiian Kingdom is to contribute, there would be an expense for the Court to convene which the Hawaiian Kingdom was to pay beforehand.

Registrar_AckIn a letter to the Hawaiian Kingdom from the International Court of Justice dated October 18, 2013, the Registrar formally acknowledged receipt of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Application and Request for Interim Measures of Protection but stated the Court cannot take action at this time. In the letter, the Registrar alluded to this paradox by stating the Court can take no action and made specific reference to Article 35, which addresses the costs that must be paid by the Hawaiian Kingdom first. The last sentence of Article 35, paragraph 3, states the Court would not have to convene if the Hawaiian Kingdom provided its share to cover the expenses of the Court.

On September 28, 2013, the Hawaiian Kingdom provided a cashier’s check made out to the International Court of Justice to cover the expenses of the Court in the Hawaiian case. The Hawaiian Kingdom arrived at this amount by following the calculations used by the United Nations for member States to contribute their share to the 2013 Regular Budget, which included the proportionate share to the International Court of Justice.

After further thought on the matter, the Hawaiian Kingdom concluded that the United States of America has already paid its share to the Court for 2013. The United Nations measurement of costs incurred by member States is based on the country’s gross national income (GNI), which is also called the gross nation product (GNP). The United States has unlawfully seized control of the Hawaiian GNI and a large portion of the United States revenue derives from Internal Revenue Service (IRS) taxes. In 2012, the IRS collected $2.2 trillion dollars, of which residents and businesses in the Hawaiian Islands paid $5.1 billion dollars. As an occupier, the United States cannot collect taxes in a foreign country for its own benefit, and if it does it is called plundering. Unlawful appropriation of private property is plundering and extensive appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, is a war crime. In other words, the United States’ contribution of $618.5 million made to the United Nations 2013 Regular Budget, of which $5.7 million went to the International Court of Justice, is tainted with stolen property from the residents of an illegally occupied State.

On November 4, 2013, the Hawaiian Kingdom notified the Registrar of the severity of the situation. In its notice to the Registrar, the Hawaiian Kingdom stated that due to the “inability at the moment to have access to verifiable data and sources to arrive at a specific amount it could claim from the United States contribution to the International Court of Justice of its proportionate share pursuant to Article 35, the Hawaiian Kingdom requests Your Excellency to assess from the United States’ contribution of $5,710,018.66, which the Court has already received, and determine with verifiable data the specific amount of illegally appropriated monies derived from the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom and to place that entire amount in an interest bearing account under the International Court of Justice for reparations that the Hawaiian Kingdom seeks as provided in paragraph 4(l) of its Application.” The Hawaiian Kingdom maintained that the contribution it provided to the Court on September 28 should cover the expenses required by Article 35 of the Statute.

German Federal Prosecutor Receives War Crime Complaint From Hawai‘i Attorney Against Deutsche Bank

Posted on by
4

Yesterday, the German Federal Prosecutor received a war crime complaint filed by attorney Dexter Kaiama alleging the Management Board of Deutsche Bank, Judge Greg K. Nakamura, and Deutsche Bank attorneys Charles R. Prather, Sofia M. Hirosone, and Michael G.K. Wong committed criminal acts against his clients Mr. Kale Kepekaio Gumapac and Mr. Harris Bright, both being Hawaiian subjects and protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949. The basis of the complaint is Section 6(9) of the German Criminal Code, which authorizes the German government to prosecute crimes committed by a German abroad, the German Code of Crimes against International Law (CCAIL), and the 1879 Hawaiian-German Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation and Consular Convention. Deutsche Bank is a German financial institution headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany.

The complaint alleges that “Deutsche Bank, despite having no valid and legal interest in both of my clients’ property, has deliberately ignored pursuing its proper remedy for financial recovery, and instead, intentionally violated CCAIL (and international law) by initiating a fraudulent and unlawful court process to obtain unlawful orders to evict my clients from their property, thereby committing violations of the CCAIL.” In the complaint, it states that both clients mortgaged their properties that was eventually assigned to Deutsche Bank, but were unaware that their titles to their properties were defective as a direct result of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government by the United States in 1893 and the United States subsequent illegal and prolonged occupation.

Laulima Title Search and Claims, LLC, a company owned by Gumapac, was contracted to investigate the title to both properties and determined “This claim involves a defect of title by virtue of an executive agreement entered into between President Grover Cleveland of the United States and Queen Lili‘uokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, whereby the President and his successors in office were and continue to be bound to faithfully execute Hawaiian Kingdom law by assignment of the Queen under threat of war on January 17th 1893. The notaries public in the Hawaiian Islands and the registrar of the Bureau of Conveyances were not lawful since January 17th 1893, and therefore title to the estate in fee-simple” defective, “because…the deed of conveyance was not lawfully executed in compliance with Hawaiian Kingdom law.”

Since a mortgage is a lien on the title to the property, a defect in title would consequently render the lien invalid, which would also invalidate any foreclosure and ejectment proceedings stemming from the mortgage. In order for lenders to protect themselves from this type of situation,  they require the borrowers to purchase title insurance as a condition of the loan. Both Gumapac and Bright purchased title insurance while they were in escrow that covered the amount of the money each had borrowed. The complaint provides a definition of title insurance from Black’s Law dictionary as a “policy issued by a title company after searching the title, representing the state of that title and insuring the accuracy of its search against claims of title defects.” The complaint further states that title insurance is an “indemnity contract that does not guarantee the state of the title but covers loss incurred from a defect in land titles that would arise from an inaccurate title report.”

Both Gumapac and Bright each sent a letter with the evidence of the defect in title to Deutsche Bank, and called on “Deutsche Bank to cease the ejectment proceedings and to file an insurance claim under the lender’s title insurance policy.” Deutsche Bank refused to file the insurance claim and maintained the proceedings to evict Gumapac and Bright in the Third Circuit Court in Hilo.

Because Deutsche Bank refused to file the insurance claim, motions to dismiss with evidence were filed with the Third Circuit Court. The basis for the dismissals were that since Hawai‘i is under a prolonged and illegal occupation, the court, which is an American court, cannot claim to have authority in the Hawaiian Islands if Hawai‘i is not part of the United States. Despite having Judge Nakamura take judicial notice of the evidence and the attorneys for Deutsche Bank providing no counter evidence, Judge Nakamura denied the motion and eventually issued the orders for eviction. According to Kaiama, this is evidence of an unfair trial and pillaging because Deutsche Bank is attempting to seize property that they have no legal interest through a court that is illegal. Both unfair trial and pillaging are war crimes under Sections 8 and 9 of the German Code of Crimes against International Law.

On November 14, 2006, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a war crime complaint with the German Federal Prosecutor against:

  • Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
  • Former CIA Director George Tenet
  • Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Dr. Stephen Cambone
  • Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez
  • Major General Walter Wojdakowski
  • Major General Geoffrey Miller
  • Colonel Thomas Pappas
  • Major General Barbara Fast
  • Colonel Marc Warren
  • Former Chief White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales
  • Former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee
  • Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo
  • General Counsel of the Department of Defense William James Haynes, II
  • Vice President Chief Counsel David S. Addington

The complaint was filed under the same provisions of German law cited by Kaiama, but on April 27, 2007, the Federal Prosecutor announced she would not proceed to prosecute because in order for Germany to prosecute crimes committed abroad by foreigners against foreigners outside the country, there needs to be a domestic linkage. The defendants named in the complaint were not German, the victims were not German and there was no direct link to Germany. The Federal Prosecutor stated:

“The purpose of Sec. 153f StPO is to take account of the consequences for the German justice system arising from the applicability of universal jurisdiction. The view that the most consistent possible worldwide prosecution of violations of international criminal law should be ensured militates in favor of carrying out investigations. On the other hand, it is necessary to counteract the danger that complainants will seek out certain states as sites of prosecution—like Germany in this case—that have no direct connection with the acts complained of, simply because their criminal law is favorable to international law.”

Unlike the Rumsfeld complaint, the Hawaiian complaint has a “direct connection” to Deutsche Bank that is headquartered in the city of Frankfurt, Germany, and the German “prosecution of violations of international criminal law should be ensured militates in favor of carrying out investigations.” Kaiama has requested arrest warrants be issued for the following individuals:

  • Jürgen Fitschen, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Deutsche Bank
  • Anshu Jain, Co-Chief Executive Officer
  • Stefan Krause, Chief Financial Officer
  • Stephan Leithner, Chief Executive Officer Europe (except Germany and UK), Human Resources, Legal & Compliance, Government & Regulatory Affairs
  • Stuart Lewis, Chief Risk Officer
  • Rainer Neske, Head of Private and Business Clients, and
  • Henry Ritchotte, Chief Operating Officer
  • Greg K. Nakamura, Circuit Court Judge
  • Charles R. Prather, attorney for Deutsche Bank
  • Sofia M. Hirosone, attorney for Deutsche Bank
  • Michael G.K. Wong, attorney for Deutsche Bank

Kaiama also calls for those alleged defendants in Hawai‘i “be extradited to Germany for prosecution to the full extent of the law under the Treaty between the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany concerning Extradition that has been in force since August 29, 1980.” Kaiama also requests “immediate formal action be taken by the office of the prosecutor to have Deutsche Bank cease and desist the impending actions of Lt. Patrick Kawai, State of Hawai‘i Department of Public Safety Sheriff’s Department, to include his superiors and his deputies, to remove my clients from their home.” Kawai has already been reported to the Philippine Government for the war crime of pillaging a Filipino citizen’s property in Kona, Island of Hawai‘i.

OHA Trustee Apoliona, among Others, Reported for War Crimes by Filipino Citizen

Posted on by
14

Press Release

KAILUA, O‘AHU, August 26, 2013 — On August 15, 2013, a complaint for war crimes was filed with the Philippine government on behalf of my client, Mrs. Maria Alma Pilapil, pursuant to Philippine Republic Act no. 9851 (2009), known as the “Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity,” with the Philippines Consulate in Honolulu. The complaint alleges that the war crimes of “unfair trial” and “pillaging” were committed against Mrs. Pilapil by Circuit Judge Ronald Ibarra, Bank of Hawai‘i officers and directors Peter M. Biggs, Sharon M. Crofts, Wayne Y. Hamano, Kent T. Lucien, Mark A. Rossi, Mary E. Sellers, Donna A. Tanoue, Haunani Apoliona, Mary G.F. Bitterman, Mark A. Burak, Michael J. Chun, Clinton R. Churchill, David A. Heenan, Peter S. Ho, Robert Huret,  Martin Stein, Donald M. Takaki, Barbara J. Tanabe, Raymond P. Vara, Jr., Robert W. Wo, and Alton T. Kuioka. Also named in the complaint is Mitzi A. Lee, attorney for Bank of Hawai‘i, attorney Robert D.S. Kim, Kevin Shiraki, Jeannie Jorg Domingo, and Lieutenant Patrick Kawai of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Public Safety Sheriff’s Department, Hawai‘i Division, to include his superiors and deputies.

When Mrs. Pilapil, also known as Maria Alma Barbaso Schwartz, wife of Stephen Michael Schwartz, a U.S. citizen, took out a loan from Bank of Hawai‘i with her husband, Bank of Hawai‘i required the Schwartz’s to purchase a title insurance policy in the amount of the money borrowed, which was $1,499,999.00. The Schwartz’s paid a premium of $3,735.00 to Title Guaranty of Hawai‘i. Title insurance insures the accuracy of the title search done by Title Guaranty of Hawai‘i, and if the search is inaccurate and the title to the property is defective, the insurance pays off the balance of the loan. Evidence of a defect in title produced by Laulima Title Search and Claims, LLC, was provided to Bank of Hawai‘i, but it was willfully disregarded and the foreclosure proceedings continued.

A motion to dismiss was filed during the foreclosure proceedings based on evidence that the court is unlawful, under both international law and United States constitutional law, as a result of the United States illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893, and its prolonged and illegal occupation since the Spanish-American War in 1898. Mitzi Lee, attorney for Bank of Hawai‘i, provided no rebuttal evidence, and, without cause, Judge Ronald Ibarra denied the motion. This action constituted an “unfair trial” and a criminal complaint was filed with the Hawai‘i Police Department and the International Criminal Court. On June 29, 2013, Bank of Hawai‘i “pillaged” my clients’ property with the assistance of Lieutenant Kawai of the State of Hawai‘i Sheriff’s Department. The eviction was based on an unlawful order stemming from a court that did not have lawful authority in the Hawaiian Islands. My clients’ possession was valued at $2.2 million dollars.

In 2009, the Congress of the Philippines enacted the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity. In this Act the “State shall exercise jurisdiction over persons, whether military or civilian, suspected or accused of a crime defined and penalized in this Act, regardless of where the crime is committed, provided…the accused has committed the said crime against a Filipino citizen.” The war crimes of “unfair trial” and “pillaging” are punishable offenses under the Act, and since the alleged crimes were committed outside of Philippine territory the alleged perpetrators are subject to extradition to the Philippines under the 1994 U.S.-Philippines Extradition Treaty (1994 U.S.T. Lexis 185). According to the Act:

“The most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level, in order to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus contribute to the prevention of such crimes, it being the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes.”

Once the warrant for war crime(s) have been charged, my client demands the alleged perpetrators be extradited to the Philippines for prosecution to the full extent of the law.

1893 Executive Agreements and Their Profound Impact Today

Posted on by
10

On March 15, 2013, at the Keauhou Sheraton Hotel on the Island of Hawai‘i, Dr. Keanu Sai gave a presentation that provides a political science perspective of Hawaiian history that incorporates law on the repercussions of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government in 1893, and the effect of two executive agreements between Queen Lili‘uokalani and President Grover Cleveland that mandated the United States to administer Hawaiian law, restore the government, and thereafter the Queen to grant amnesty to the insurgents. The United States seizure of the Hawaiian Islands since 1898 and its willful violation of these agreements and international law have now given rise to war crimes that have and continue to be committed on a monumental scale. The presentation was sponsored by the Keauhou-Kahalu‘u Education Group, Kamehameha Schools, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo Kīpuka Native Hawaiian Student Center, Eia Hawai‘i Lecture Series, Keauhou Beach Resort, and The Kohala Center.

Dr. Sai received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa specializing in international relations and public law. His research specifically addressed the legal and political history of the Hawaiian Islands since the eighteenth century to the present. Dr. Sai has authored several law journal articles on the topic of the continuity of Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign state, is the author of a new history book titled “Ua Mau Ke Ea: Sovereignty Endures,” and served as lead agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom in arbitration proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, in Lance Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom (1999-2001).

International Criminal Court Acknowledges Receipt of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Request for Investigation into War Crimes

Posted on by
12

On June 17, 2013, the International Criminal Court (ICC) received the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Referral to initiate criminal investigations and its Declaration extending the jurisdiction of the ICC to investigate war crimes committed on Hawaiian territory since July 1, 2002.  Initially the ICC’s jurisdiction was limited to crimes committed after March 4, 2013 when it began its jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands. On June 24, 2013, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) acknowledged receipt of the communication and stated they “will give consideration to this communication, as appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.”

OTP_Ackn_p_1

OTP_Ackn_p_2

The ICC can initiate an investigation from three sources or a combination of the three: first, from the United Nations Security Council; second, from the government of the State that granted jurisdiction to the ICC; and, third, from private parties who were victims of war crimes committed on the territory that the ICC has jurisdiction. According to the ICC Prosecutor’s Policies, “in response to referrals or communications, the Prosecutor will gather and assess relevant information until such point as he is satisfied that there is, or is not, a reasonable basis to proceed. The Prosecutor makes the determination as to whether there is a reasonable basis to proceed based on the three factors required by the Statute:

  1. the factual/legal basis: the information available provides a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been or is being committed;
  2. the admissibility test: the case is or would be admissible (including on complementarity grounds) under Article 17;
  3. the interests of justice: taking into account the gravity of the crime and the interests of victims, there are nonetheless substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice.”

Because the Hawaiian Kingdom is occupied and not a part of the territory of the United States, U.S. government officials who have committed war crimes within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom are not immune from prosecution by the ICC. According to the Rome Statute, Article 27—Irrelevance of official capacity:

  1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
  2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

In its Referral, the Hawaiian Kingdom provided evidence of the following war crimes under Article 8 of the Rome Statute that have and continue to be committed on Hawaiian territory since July 1, 2002.

  • Article 8(2)(a)(iv)—Extensive…appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
  • Article 8(2)(a)(v)—Compelling a…protected person to serve in the forces of a [Occupying] Power
  • Article 8(2)(a)(vi)—Willfully depriving a…protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial
  • Article 8(2)(a)(vii)—Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement
  • Article 8(2)(a)(viii)—The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory
  • Article 8(2)(b)(xiii)—Destroying or seizing the [Occupied State’s] property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war

When evaluating the commission of a war crime, the Prosecutor will be guided by certain elements of the crime established by the ICC that need to be met. In addition to these elements, the ICC states:

  • There is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the perpetrator as to the existence of an occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party;
  • In that context there is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party; and
  • There is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party.

War crimes are not necessarily centered on the perpetrator or principal alone, but could include accessories to the crime. Accessories are persons who assist in the commission of the crime, whether before or after the crime was committed by the principal. An accessory is distinguished from an accomplice who is normally present when the crime is committed and has participated in some fashion. An accessory before the fact is a person who orders the commission of a crime or assists another person financially, emotionally, as well as  providing physical assistance in order for the crime to be committed by the principal. An accessory after the fact is a person who conceals the commission of the crime in order to shield the principal. Conspiracy and the obstruction of justice are common terms associated with accessories.

The ICC Prosecutor’s Policies also provides, “The Office of the Prosecutor will strive to complete all analyses as expeditiously as possible in order to reach timely decisions whether to investigate. It is worth emphasizing that Article 15 provides a valuable avenue by which concerned individuals and organizations may furnish information to the Prosecutor, but he retains his independence under the Statute. In particular, imposing rigid timetables on this process of analysis would not be workable under the framework of the Rome Statute.”

War Crimes: Federal Taxes and Costs Incurred from Jones Act

Posted on by

According to United States constitutional law, the federal government is separated into three distinct and separate branches, commonly referred to as the separation of powers doctrine. The Congress is the legislative branch that enacts federal statutes, the President heads the executive branch that executes or enforces federal statutes and treaties, and the Supreme Court is the judicial branch that interprets federal statutes and treaties. Under the separation of powers doctrine, the United States Supreme Court is the highest authority in the interpretation of federal statutes and treaties. In other words, when the Supreme Court makes a decision on a particular issue it is binding over everyone in the United States including the President and Congress.

In 1936, a very important case was heard by the United States Supreme Court that centered on the limitation of U.S. laws that became a binding precedent. The case was U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318, where the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Neither the Constitution nor the 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.” Expressed in a different way, the U.S. constitution and federal statutes have no legal effect outside of the United States and actions taken by the United States government in foreign territories are governed by international law and treaties.

For Hawai‘i, a few of the treaties include:

Federal statutes that were passed in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution by Congress regarding Hawai‘i include, but are not limited to:

Without a treaty of cession, the Hawaiian Islands remain a foreign territory and therefore the U.S. constitution and federal statutes have no legal effect. Two particular federal statutes, the 1913 Revenue Act that established the Internal Revenue Service and the 1920 Merchant Marine Act, also known as the Jones Act, are not only illegal but are the driving forces behind Hawai‘i’s high cost of living.

TAXES

According to the Tax Foundation 2013 Facts & Figures, the current taxes paid by residents of Hawai‘i under United States laws, which includes the laws of the State of Hawai‘i, with an average income of $42,925.00 are on average $16,311.00. This is $.38 on the dollar (38%), which is a conservative estimate. Here’s the breakdown:

  • $.13 cents/dollar (13%) – U.S. Federal Income Taxes;
  • $.08 cents/dollar (8%) – U.S. Social Security & Medicaid (actual rate is 15.3% but employers cover half);
  • $.08 cents/dollar (8%) – State Income Taxes;
  • $.05 cents/dollar (5%) – State Corporate Income Taxes; and
  • $.04 cents/dollar (4%) – State Sales Tax.

JONES ACT

The Jones Act is a restraint of trade and commerce in violation of international law and treaties between the Hawaiian Kingdom and other foreign States. According to the Jones Act, all goods, which includes tourists on cruise ships, whether originating from Hawai‘i or being shipped to Hawai‘i must be shipped on vessels built in the United States that are wholly owned and crewed by United States citizens. And should a foreign flag ship attempt to unload foreign goods and merchandise in the Hawaiian Islands will have to forfeit its cargo to the to the U.S. Government, or an amount equal to the value of the merchandise or cost of transportation from the person transporting the merchandise.

As a result of the Jones Act there is no free trade in the Islands. 90% of Hawai‘i’s food is imported from the United States, which has created a dependency on outside food. The three major American carriers for Hawai‘i are Matson, Horizon Lines, and Pasha Hawai‘i Transport Services, as well as several low cost barge alternatives. Under the Jones Act, these American carriers travel 2,400 miles to ports on the west coast of the United States in order to reload goods and merchandise delivered from Pacific countries on foreign carriers, which would have otherwise come directly to Hawai‘i ports. The cost of fuel and the lack of competition drives up the cost of shipping and contributes to Hawai‘i’s high cost of living. Gas tax is $.47 per gallon as a result of the Jones Act because only American carriers can transport oil to Hawai‘i to be converted into gas. And according to the USDA Food Cost, Hawai‘i residents pay an extra $296 per month for food than families in the United States.

Pacific countries with the highest number of carriers are led by Panama with 6,413; China with 2,771; Hong Kong with 1,644; Singapore with 1,599; Marshall Islands with 1,593; Indonesia with 1,340; South Korea with 786; Japan with 684; Vietnam with 579; Cambodia with 544; Philippines with 446; United States with 393; Thailand with 363; India with 340; Malaysia with 315; Canada with 181; North Korea with 158; Taiwan 112; Vanuatu with 77; Kiribati with 77; Tuvalu with 58; Mexico with 52; Australia with 41; Cook Islands with 35; Papua New Guinea with 31; Peru with 22; New Zealand with 15; French Polynesia with 12; Fiji with 11; Tonga with 7; New Caledonia with 3; Federated States of Micronesia with 3; Samoa with 2; Costa Rica with 1; Timor-Leste with 1.

Pacific_Carriers

The Jones Act functions as a barrier to entry for low-cost foreign carriers that Hawai‘i merchants could utilize to trade food and merchandise from other countries throughout the Pacific. This also includes purchasing oil at a much cheaper rate for conversion to gas. Free trade would also increase jobs here in the islands, especially after converting Pearl Harbor Naval Base into a commercial port similar to Subic Bay Free Port Zone in the Philippines, which used to be the second largest United States Naval Base in the world. Subic Bay “continues to be one of the country’s major economic engines with more than 700 investment projects, including the 4th largest shipbuilding facility in the world.” The military housing would also be converted to civilian housing.

Under the laws of occupation, U.S. Federal taxes cannot be collected in a foreign territory. If the State of Hawai‘i taxes were converted to Hawaiian Kingdom taxes in order to maintain government services, the taxes to be paid would be $.17 cents on the dollar, which is $7,297.25 for an income of $42,925.00, a savings of $9,013.75. Illegally collecting taxes in a foreign territory is a war crime called “appropriation of property [money]” (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, Title 18 U.S.C. §2441) not justified under the laws of occupation. The International Criminal Court also prosecutes individuals for committing the war crime of “appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.” Adding to this unlawful “appropriation of property [money]” is the collection of monies paid out by the Hawai‘i consumer as a direct result of the Jones Act.

The United States government is liable to compensate Hawai‘i’s residents, which includes foreign nationals, for these violations.

International Criminal Court to Consider Alleged War Crimes Committed by State of Hawai‘i Officials, Judges, Banks and Attorneys

Posted on by
16

KaiamaOn February 14, 2013, attorney Dexter Kaiama, filed a war crime complaint with the ICC alleging that the following State of Hawai‘i officials deprived his client of a “fair and regular trial” on the Island of O‘ahu. These individuals are District Court Judge MAURA M. OKAMOTO, Intermediate Court of Appeals Presiding Judge DANIEL R. FOLEY, Associate Judge KATHERINE G. LEONARD, Associate Judge LAWRENCE M. REIFURTH, Attorney General DAVID M. LOUIE, Deputy Attorney General DIANE K. TAIRA, Deputy Attorney General S. KALANI BUSH, Deputy Attorney General MATTHEW S. DVONCH, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Chair JOBIE MASAGATANI, successor in office to Mr. Alapaki Nahale-a, and Governor NEIL ABERCROMBIE.

Under Article 8 of the Rome Statute, it provides that the International Criminal Court “shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.” Article 8 further states that war crimes means “Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention…Willfully depriving a…protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial.”

Four days later on February 18, 2013, Kaiama filed six additional complaints with the ICC alleging the same war crime of unfair trial against the following judges, banks and attorneys that occured on the Island of Hawai‘i. These individuals include Circuit Court Judges RONALD IBARRA, GREG K. NAKAMURA, and GLENN S. HARA; Banks FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, BANK OF HAWAI‘I, DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, VANDERBILT MORTGAGE AND FINANCE, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, WELLS FARGO BANK; and Attorneys BLUE KAANEHE, CHARLES PRATHER, PETER K. KEEGAN, MITZI A. LEE, SOFIA M. HIROSANE, MICHAEL G.K. WONG, ROBERT E. CHAPMAN, MARY MARTIN, ROBERT D. TRIANTOS and EDMUND W.K. HAITSUKA.

In his letters to the ICC, Kaiama stated this “communication and complaint is provided to the office of the Prosecutor pursuant to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s accession to the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on December 10, 2012, and the Hawaiian Kingdom’s accession to the 1949 fourth Geneva Convention deposited with the Swiss Federal Council on January 14, 2013.”

According to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, the ICC would have jurisdiction “on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date of the deposit of…accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” which is March 4, 2013.

W.P. Dillon, Head of the Office of Information and Evidence Unit, Office of the Prosecutor, sent the following letter to Kaiama acknowledging receipt of the complaints. The letter was dated March 4, 2013, the date the ICC began jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands.

ICC_Ltr_Page_1

Dillon’s statement to Kaiama that the Prosecutor “will give consideration to this communication, as appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” is making specific reference to Article 17 of the Rome Statute titled “Issues of admissibility.” Since the ICC is a court of last resort where it compliments local courts of the country with primary responsibility to prosecute crimes, and not replace them, it can only intervene if (a) the perpetrators and being shielded, (b) there is an unjustifiable delay in the proceedings to bring the perpetrators to justice, or (c) where proceedings are not being conducted independently or impartially.

Article 17 also provides that the ICC “shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.” This provision has a direct nexus to the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government by the United States on January 17, 1893, whereby the “national judicial system” was overthrown and to date has been replaced by illegally constituted courts in violation of the international laws of occupation, in particular, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV.

MasudEAn example of where the Prosecutor of the ICC has rejected a claim based on lack of jurisdiction occurred last year in 2012. On October 1, 2012, Enver Masud, as CEO for The Wisdom Fund (TWF), submitted a letter to the ICC Prosecutor providing “information about the coverup of the facts of 9/11 used to justify the wrongful invasion of Afghanistan.” Masud’s letter was in response to posting on the ICC website that stated “The OTP is currently conducting preliminary examinations in a number of situations including Afghanistan, . . . ” and one is invited to “submit information about alleged crimes.” The Office of the Prosecutor received Masud’s letter on October 10, 2012.

Enver Masud is founder and CEO of TWF, and the recipient of the 2002 Gold Award from the Human Rights Foundation for his book The War on Islam. He is also a co-author of Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, and 9/11 and American Empire. TWF is a non-profit organization based in Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A. TWF’s mission is to advance social justice and peace.

On November 27, 2012, W.P. Dillon, Head of the Office of Information and Evidence Unit, Office of the Prosecutor, sent the following letter to Masud declining to consider the allegations on jurisdictional grounds.

TWF_ICC_Regection_Ltr

The reason why the ICC could not claim jurisdiction over international crimes alleged to have been committed within the United States when individuals planned the invasion of Afghanistan was because the United States of America did not grant jurisdiction to the ICC.  In 2000, the Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute, but the Bush Administration refused to ratify the Rome Statute and declared it would not be a party to the ICC. Therefore, the ICC cannot claim it has jurisdiction over international crimes committed within the territory of the United States of America.

If the Hawaiian Islands were a part of the United States of America, being the so-called 50th State of the American Union, the ICC would have sent a letter to Kaiama similar to its letter sent to Masud who was alleging international crimes took place within the territory of the United States. Especially when the alleged war criminals include the Governor, Attorney General, Deputy Attorney Generals and Judges who are government officials of the so-called State of Hawai‘i.

Instead, the ICC letter to Kaiama acknowledges receipt of the complaints and it will provide its response according to the Rome Statute regarding international crimes committed within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which has been under a prolong and illegal occupation by the United States since August 12, 1898.