After investigating the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government by United States forces on January 17, 1893, President Cleveland notified the Congress on December 18, 1893, “When our Minister [diplomat] recognized the provisional government the only basis upon which it rested was the fact that the Committee of Safety had in the manner above stated declared it to exist. It was neither a government de facto nor de jure (p. 453).”

The Committee of Safety was a group of thirteen insurgents that sought the protection of United States troops from the American diplomat, John Stevens, assigned to the Hawaiian Kingdom when they would declare themselves to be a provisional government. The insurgents sought protection from being apprehended for the crime of treason by law enforcement of the Hawaiian Kingdom. As soon as the Committee of Safety declared themselves to be the provisional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the American diplomat extended de facto recognition. De facto is a government “in fact” where it is in complete control of all governmental machinery, while de jure is a government “in law” established through the normal course of a country’s legal system. Cleveland concluded, “the Government of the Queen…was undisputed and was both the de facto and the de jure government (p. 451).” He explained to the Congress,

“That it was not in such possession of the Government property and agencies as entitled it to recognition… Nevertheless, this wrongful recognition by our Minister placed the Government of the Queen in a position of most perilous perplexity. On the one hand she had possession of the palace, of the barracks, and of the police station, and had at her command at least five hundred fully armed men and several pieces of artillery. Indeed, the whole military force of her kingdom was on her side and at her disposal, while the Committee of Safety, by actual search, had discovered that there were but very few arms in Honolulu that were not in the service of the Government. In this state of things if the Queen could have dealt with the insurgents alone her course would have been plain and the result unmistakable. But the United States had allied itself with her enemies, had recognized them as the true Government of Hawaii, and had put her and her adherents in the position of opposition against lawful authority. She knew that she could not withstand the power of the United States, but she believed that she might safely trust to its justice. Accordingly, some hours after the recognition of the provisional government by the United States Minister, the palace, the barracks, and the police station, with all the military resources of the country, were delivered up by the Queen upon the representation made to her that her cause would thereafter be reviewed at Washington, and while protesting that she surrendered to the superior force of the United States, whose Minister had caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the provisional government, and that she yielded her authority to prevent collision of armed forces and loss of life and only until such time as the United States, upon the facts being presented to it, should undo the action of its representative and reinstate her in the authority she claimed as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands (p. 453).”

The investigation concluded that the United States unlawfully intervened in the internal affairs of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and that its diplomat and troops were directly responsible for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government. Secretary of State Walter Gresham recommended to President Cleveland that the Hawaiian government must be restored and compensation provided. This prompted executive mediation between U.S. diplomat Albert Willis and Queen Lili‘uokalani in Honolulu to settle the dispute and by exchange of notes an executive agreement, called the “Agreement of Restoration,” was concluded whereby the President committed to the restoration of the Hawaiian government and the Queen, thereafter, to grant amnesty to the insurgents.

The President, however, did not carry out the international agreements because of political wrangling in the Congress, and the insurgents renamed themselves the Republic of Hawai‘i. President Cleveland’s successor, William McKinley, after failing to acquire Hawai‘i by a treaty of cession, signed a Congressional joint resolution of annexation into United States law on July 7, 1898, and unilaterally seized the Hawaiian Islands during the Spanish-American War on August 12, 1898, which began an illegal and prolonged occupation.

The Hawaiian Kingdom had completely adopted the separation of powers doctrine since 1864 and the government separated into three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. Here is what the government would have looked like if restoration took place according to the executive agreements, as provided by Thrum’s Hawaiian Annual for the year 1893.

In 1900, President McKinley signed into United States law An Act To provide a government for the Territory of Hawai‘i, and transformed the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i into the Territory of Hawai‘i. After which the United States intentionally sought to “Americanize” the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Kingdom politically, culturally, socially, and economically. To accomplish this, a plan was instituted in 1906 by the Territorial government, titled “Program for Patriotic Exercises in the Public Schools, Adopted by the Department of Public Instruction,” whose purpose was to denationalize the children of the Hawaiian Islands through the public schools on a massive scale.

Nearly 50 years later where denationalization was nearly complete, steps were taken to transform the government of the Territory of Hawai‘i into the State of Hawai‘i. President Eisenhower signed into United States law An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai‘i into the Union on March 18, 1959. These laws, which have no effect beyond United States territory, stand in direct violation of treaties between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, IV.

For the United States to have secured such a stronghold in the Hawaiian Islands as a governing body in a relatively short span of time was dependent upon the seizure of an already existing governmental infrastructure. The way in which thirteen insurgents calling themselves the Committee of Safety could take over the entire Hawaiian government on January 17, 1893, was by merely replacing the Queen as the chief executive and forcing everyone in the executive and judicial branches of government to sign oaths of allegiance while the U.S. troops provided oversight through intimidation and firepower. And when the U.S. troops were ordered to leave Hawai‘i on April 1, 1893, mercenaries replaced them until 1898 when U.S. troops returned to the islands.

A common misunderstanding is that the United States created the governmental infrastructure we have today through Congressional legislation such as the 1900 Organic Act that created the Territory of Hawai‘i, and the 1959 Admission Act that created the State of Hawai‘i. This is false. All that took place was the change in names and a few added agencies. The government of the State of Hawai‘i was formerly known as the government of the Territory of Hawai‘i. The government of the Territory of Hawai‘i was formerly known as the Republic of Hawai‘i. The government of the Republic of Hawai‘i was formerly known as the provisional government. And the government of the provisional government was formerly known as the Hawaiian Kingdom. The governmental infrastructure we see today was already in place in 1893.

In a presentation at the University of Hawai‘i Richardson School of Law on April 17, 2014, senior Law Professor Williamson Chang stated, “The power of the United States, over the Hawaiian islands, and the jurisdiction of the United States in the State of Hawai‘i, by its own admissions, by its own laws, doesn’t exist.  And so that means that ever since the 1898 annexation of Hawai‘i, by a Joint Resolution, they say, we have been living a myth.” “A joint resolution, as an act of Congress, cannot acquire another country,” he said. “If Congress cannot, by Joint Resolution in 1898, acquire Hawai‘i unilaterally, it cannot do so in 1959,” Chang said.

Because the United States Congress has no authority beyond the territory of the United States, the State of Hawai‘i cannot claim that it is a government duly authorized under a Congressional Act to govern the Hawaiian Islands. And as a direct successor of an insurgency that was unlawfully installed by the United States diplomat and troops on January 17, 1893, it too is neither a government de facto nor de jure. This means that actions that were understood to be governance are now interpreted as actions taken by individuals pretending to be a government. The law of occupation interprets these actions as war crimes: e.g. taxation is now interpreted as the crime of pillaging and theft; civil and criminal trials done by a court not properly constituted is now interpreted as the crime of depriving a person of a fair and regular trial; and to pursue federal recognition of Native Hawaiians as a tribe is interpreted as the crime of denationalization.

With this backdrop, Professor Chang warned the audience at the Law School, “I’m going to make one big point. …Its like a hand grenade, I’m going to give you the pin to the hand grenade, you pull the pin and everything blows up. So don’t pull the pin.”

The only way for the State of Hawai‘i to remedy this situation is to begin to comply with the laws of occupation, and by the doctrine of necessity, begin to act as a United States military government administering the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the laws of occupation. This is a very complex situation and it should not be taken lightly. Dr. Keanu Sai was retained by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe to draft a memorandum and analysis of public international law and its effect on OHA and to provide recommendations in light of the alleged violations of international law and alleged war crimes. Dr. Crabbe provided all nine trustees a copy of Dr. Sai’s memorandum last week Friday.

Anecdotally—in 1893, the Hawaiian Porsche was carjacked by the United States and painted red, white and blue. Although we have not been driving the Porsche for the past 121 years and were brainwashed to believe it was not a Hawaiian car, it doesn’t mean the Porsche belongs to the United States. The fact that this history, which only spans two generations, is not common knowledge is the evidence of denationalization and the violation of Hawaiian sovereignty.

Australia Network News reports: “The CEO of the Hawaiian Affairs Office (OHA) has retained his job and gained public support to challenge the US on whether the Kingdom of Hawaii still exists as a sovereign country.”

Kamanaopono Crabbe sparked an internal crisis when he sent a letter to US Secretary of State John Kerry, asking for a ruling on whether the Kingdom of Hawaii still legally exists.

The letter, which was quickly rescinded by the OHA’s trustees, was prompted by the US Government’s acknowledgment that the overthrow of the kingdom in 1893 was illegal.

Political scientist Dr Keanu Sai, from Windward Communtiy College in Honolulu, told Pacific Beat the OHA board thought Dr Crabbe had violated their policy by sending the letter without approval, but later realised they were mistaken.

“[Dr Crabbe] was not in violation of any policy of the board but rather was operating on his diligence and risk management,” Dr Sai said.

Mr Crabbe has now won the support of the OHA trustees, who have moved to send the letter again and retain him in his role as CEO.

“They’re in full support and they say that his questions definitely do have merit.”

Public support for Mr Crabbe’s campaign is also growing, with 2,500 people signing an online petition.

Dr Sai said Hawaiians need clarification on the issue.

“What was overthrown was the government, not the country,” he said.

Dr Sai blames revisionist history education for misconstruing local understanding of Hawaii’s true status.

“A revisionist history has been taught here in Hawaii since the early 1900s that presented Hawaii as if it was a part of the United States when in fact there is clear evidence that it’s not,” he said.

“We need to address this because it will affect our people but it also affects everyone.”

Dr Sai says if the Kingdom of Hawaii does indeed still exist, many historical treaties with nations including the UK and Australia would still be in effect.

International law

The US may be in violation of international law if Hawaii is still technically its own country.

The US would be guilty of appropriating funds by taxation and other related crimes, by not complying with occupation laws.

Dr Sai says within the framework of international law, there is presumed of continuity of a country when it is established.

“All that needs to be provided is evidence that Hawaii was a country (and it was, fully recognised by the United States and Great Britain and everyone else),” he said.

“It places the burden upon the United States to provide overwhelming evidence that it in fact extinguished Hawaii as an independent state under international law.

“In the absence of that evidence, the Hawaiian kingdom continues to exist.”

Hawai‘i News Now reports “Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO to keep job.”

Hawaii News Now – KGMB and KHNL

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – Trustees with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs met for hours behind closed doors Monday to discuss the fate of CEO Dr. Kamana’opono Crabbe.  There was concern from Dr. Crabbe’s supporters, dozens of whom gathered outside the OHA boardroom, that he would be fired and the longer trustees stayed in executive session the more anxious the crowd grew.  But just before 6 p.m., Dr. Crabbe and the Board of Trustees emerged united to say they were moving forward together.

Dr. Crabbe ignited an internal dispute that has since sparked a public debate after he sent an official inquiry to the state department asking for a legal opinion on whether the Kingdom of Hawaii still exists.

When OHA’s nine trustees learned of the letter — they sent a letter of their own rescinding the request.  Two trustees later changed their mind and now support Dr. Crabbe’s inquiry.

“In our discussions today, the board and I do agree that there’s merit to the questions that were brought up in the letter. We have agreed to move forward with our community. I believe the board will be conducting a meeting on March 29 to hear feedback from our community regarding our nation building process. The board has agreed that we recognize the illegal overthrow of our Hawaiian Kingdom and how to best seek clarification of that status as we move forward,” said Dr. Crabbe.

Questions have been raised about whether Dr. Crabbe had the authority to request a legal written opinion without first obtaining board approval.

Several complaints have also been filed with the Office of Information Practices challenging the trustees letter to rescind Dr. Crabbe’s inquiry citing it may have violated the state’s sunshine law — which prohibits board members from voting on an action without first calling a public meeting.

Officials say all legal challenges are still under review.

Dozens of Dr. Crabbe’s supporters showed up to rally for the CEO, but their attempts to sign up for public testimony were turned down as Monday’s meeting was scheduled specifically as an “executive session” to consult with board counsel Robert Klein about Dr. Crabbe’s conduct and to discuss appropriate action.

“It was a really gut-wrenching discussion. I think we attempted to look at the overarching issues here and not to pinpoint a particular blame on one individual. I believe the message I would like to send to all our lahui is that if OHA can repair and move forward, examine our responsibilities both at the board of trustee level and at the administrative level, and see a common, unified effort to move forward, I truly believe that we will move forward with the building of our Native Hawaiian entity.  That will never change,” said Chair Colette Machado.

“At the time of the discussion, we had no idea that the level of hurt was so deep that we had to take it layer by layer, and I’m so proud that we had that opportunity today with Dr. Kamana’o Crabbe in ho’oponopono and there is a unifying effort to moving forward. Once we were able to release one another from our past transgressions and all of the pilikia that may have been caused either by intention or in addition to something that came through the side door. So to me I am blessed to have had that opportunity today and then we’ll be moving forward, but looking seriously at some modifications or changes to the previous policy on building the Native Hawaiian entity,” Machado said.

OHA has decided to hold a public meeting on May 29 for community feedback on how to best move forward with nation-building.

As a State of Hawai‘i government agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs comes under the Sunshine Law. The purpose of the sunshine law is to provide public input and oversight for board and commission meetings of the State of Hawai‘i government. The State of Hawai‘i Office of Information Practices (OIP) oversees compliance to the Sunshine Law, which is a criminal statute.

According to the OIP Guide to the Sunshine Law for State and County Boards, “the intent of the Sunshine Law is to open up governmental processes to public scrutiny and participation by requiring state and county boards to conduct their business as openly as possible. The Legislature expressly declared that ‘it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberation, decisions, and actions of governmental agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible.’”

All meetings of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees (BOT) must be open to the public and the BOT must accept testimony, both written and oral, at its meetings. The BOT, however, can hold meetings that are not open to the public, which are called “executive meetings.” Executive meetings can only be convened for eight reasons: licensee information, personnel decisions, labor negotiations/public property acquisition, consult with Board’s attorney, investigate criminal misconduct, public safety/security, private donations, and State/Federal law or court order.

The OIP Guide states, that in order to “convene an executive meeting, a board must vote to do so in an open meeting and must publicly announce the purpose of the executive meeting. Two-thirds of the board members present must vote in favor of holding the executive meeting, and the members voting in favor must also make up a majority of all board members, including members not present at the meeting or membership slots not currently filled. The minutes of the open meeting must reflect the vote of each board member on the question of closing the meeting to the public.”

The BOT, however, could hold an “emergency meeting” that does not require notification with the Lieutenant Governor’s office and agenda only if there’s “an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare.”

The OIC Guide states, “A willful violation of the Sunshine Law is a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, may result in the person being removed from the board. The Attorney General and the country prosecutor have the power to enforce any violations of the statute.”

As reported by Larry Geller of the Disappeared News.com, there is no evidence that the BOT complied with the Sunshine Law and that the BOT’s meeting in Washington, D.C., where the Trustees voted to rescind the CEO Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe’s letter to Secretary of State Kerry, was held in secret. Information is now surfacing that there was no meeting of the BOT in Washington, D.C., and consequently if there was no meeting then there could have been no votes. The only evidence to confirm that a meeting was held is to have minutes of the meeting that would signify each of the Trustee’s votes and the discussion that preceded it. Furthermore, in order for this meeting to be in compliance with the Sunshine Law, the Lieutenant Governor’s office was supposed to have been notified six days in advance with the agenda for the meeting that was supposed to have been open to the public. But the Lieutenant Governor’s office has no record that any meeting took place in the month of May.

If there was to be a meeting, which we know there wasn’t, the Chairperson of the BOT could have convened an “special meeting” in Washington, D.C., where there existed an unanticipated event that requires a board to take immediate action. On this matter, the OIC Guide states that a “board may convene a special meeting with less than six calendar days’ notice because of an unanticipated event when a board must take action or a matter over which it has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.” However, as confirmed by Mr. Gellar of Disappeared News.com, the Lieutenant Governor’s office has no record that notice of the May 9, 2014 BOT meeting was filed, thereby signaling a clear violation of the Sunshine Law and calling into question the validity of the May 9, 2014 BOT meeting and all actions allegedly discussed and voted on by the BOT.

On May 13, 2014, the Lieutenant Governor’s office received a request from OHA Trustee Colette Y. Machado, Chairperson, Board of Trustees announcing an “Executive Session” meeting of the BOT for Monday, May 19, 2014, to “consider appropriate action with respect to the conduct of Dr. Crabbe,” and “questions and issues pertaining to the Board’s powers and duties under its governance initiate.” This is an executive meeting not open to the public.

The glaring problem with having this closed “executive meeting” is that it required an open “meeting” first. According to the Sunshine Law, “two-thirds of the board members present must vote in favor of holding the executive meeting, and the members voting in favor must also make up a majority of all board members,” and that “the minutes of the open meeting must reflect the vote of each board member on the question of closing the meeting to the public.” If there was no open meeting in Washington, D.C., to begin with, how could Trustee Chairwoman Colette Machado call for an “executive meeting” without first having a open meeting? Simply answered, she can’t because there was never a meeting to begin with.

Further complicating this issue for the BOT is that the Sunshine Law was directly addressed in an open meeting at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs on January 13, 2014. The issues centered on the commercial development of Kaka‘ako and whether or not actions taken by the Board violated the Sunshine Law. Former Associate Justice of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court and now BOT Counsel, Robert Klein, made the following statement to the Board’s open meeting of the Committee on Beneficiary Advocacy and Empowerment, which are reflected in the minutes. All nine of the Trustees were present.

Minutes of January 13, 2014:
Board Counsel Klein shares that there are a few exceptions. We operate on the principle that if you have two trustees, you’re fairly safe in not filing agendas for meetings between the two. The whole point of the sunshine law is to give notice to the public; if you’re having something that resembles a meeting (a quorum of Trustees that are meeting about anything).

In the case where you have two trustees who are meeting, in most situations that is way short of a quorum. Whatever they’re discussing, as long as they’re not trading votes or making arrangements on a certain issue, you’re not going to run afoul of the sunshine law.

When you get to three trustees, you need a special exemption. Many boards and commissions have 5 members, so when you have 3 together, you have quorum. However, this is a large board where there are 9 of you, so you don’t have a quorum until there are 5 you; so 3 is a safe number. The question is whether you can find an exception in the sunshine law for 3 trustees to meet together and when you look at the sunshine law there are certain exceptions called “Permitted Interactions” and what that means is you can have interactions with 2 or more trustees short of a quorum as long as you’re not trading votes and deciding things away from the public eye.

Under these circumstances the legislature has provided for exceptions. In this situation, the only exception that potentially applies is the exception where two or more but less than a quorum of trustees meet to discuss or negotiate a point that the trustees as a whole in public have already agreed to be the position of OHA and that commission or committee of the Board is moving forward running with the proposal already approved in public by the trustees.

Trustee Chairwoman Machado cannot claim ignorance of the Sunshine Law and nor can all nine of the Trustees. The actions taken by the Board in Washington, D.C., clearly was in violation of the Sunshine Law. The irony of the whole situation is that the May 9 letter to Secretary of State Kerry attempting to rescind the CEO’s letter of inquiry, which has all nine signatures of the Trustees, is the evidence of the violation of the Sunshine Law. As such, this would consequently render the Trustees’ letter to Secretary of State Kerry “void” because it stemmed from a direct violation of the law itself.

Trustees Dan Ahuna and Hulu Lindsey took the right steps in removing their names from the May 9, 2014 rescinding letter because it shows that there was no “willful violation of the Sunshine Law,” which is a misdemeanor, on their part. It would make sense for all of the Trustees to follow their example before its too late.

CORRECTION: It was incorrectly stated that the meeting scheduled for Monday, May 19, 2014, was an executive meeting closed to the public. The meeting is an open meeting, but a portion of the meeting would be closed to the public. Since the closed meeting is an extension of the original violation of the Sunshine Law that took place in Washington, D.C., the Monday meeting is illegal.

Disappeared News.com reports “OHA apparently violated state Sunshine Law with secret meeting(s) in Washington, DC”

Tuesday’s Star-Advertiser reported a meeting of OHA trustees held in Washington DC at which the trustees discussed a letter sent to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry by OHA Chief Executive Officer Kama­na‘o­pono. The trustees then voted to send a rescinding letter:

“After learning about the letter Friday while on business in Washington, OHA trustees voted unanimously to fire off another letter to Kerry rescinding Crabbe’s letter, explaining that it doesn’t reflect the position of the board.” [Star-Advertiser p. A1, OHA executive defends letter to Kerry, 5/13/2014]

It appears that whatever meetings the OHA trustees may have held in Washington, or any meetings since that time, were held in secret—that is, no agendas were filed in advance with the Lieutenant Governor’s office, and no public notice appears to have been given.

I attempted to call OHA Chair Colette Machado, but was routed to voicemail, so I checked instead with the Lieutenant Governor’s office. They were able to confirm that no notice is on record with them, a requirement of the Sunshine Law.

The calendar page for the OHA Board of Trustees on the eHawaii.gov website shows no events for the entire month.

I learned yesterday that someone has filed a complaint on the same issue with the Office of Information Practices. Today, since telephone contact with the Chair was not successful, I faxed a request for any agendas that might have been filed, and a request for minutes of the meetings.

Stay tuned.

Although a board or commission may be traveling outside of Hawaii, the responsibility for complying with the Sunshine Laws still holds. Otherwise, boards could (for example) escape to Vegas and hold meetings outside of public scrutiny. So it’s appropriate that someone filed a complaint, and I don’t mind that they beat me to it.

[Thanks to the astute Disappeared News reader who called this to my attention. I’ll have to admit that in reading the article, I was drawn to the significance of the letter to Kerry and didn’t notice that the trustee meeting might itself be illegal under state law. OHA is a state agency and subject to open meeting and open records laws.]

KITV News reported “OHA CEO defends decision citing risk management”

HONOLULU —“I take this responsibility very, very seriously,” said Kamana’opono Crabbe, chief executive officer of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs during a morning news conference.

Flanked by his chief financial officer and other Native Hawaiian scholars and lawyers, Crabbe defended his decision to send a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry without consulting with OHA trustees first.

The letter asked for a legal opinion to clarify whether Hawaii’s sovereignty is recognized under  international law.

“It is imperative for us to move forward to have at least accurate information, and truth so that our people can make well-informed decisions,” said Crabbe.

The rift went public when OHA trustees asked to have the letter rescinded, although at least two trustees, Dan Ahuna and Carmen Hulu Lindsey, are now siding with Crabbe.

The Hawaiian community is in the process of political self-determination. The deadline for signing up for the Native Hawaiian Roll in order to be counted ended May 1.

“A well-informed decision may be, in our Hawaiian community, is that we need to stop this whole process until these questions are answered. There are reasonable questions to ask of the right authority,” said attorney Dexter Kamiama.

But this internal clash has trustees scrambling for damage control.

Supporters of OHA’s CEO were out in force Monday. Although Crabbe says he has not been asked to resign, some fear he may lose his job over this.

“Over 800 Hawaii residents have signed on to this petition we simply want to support pono leadership and we feel Dr. Crabbe has embodied that,” said University of Hawaii professor Kamana Beamer.

OHA Chairwoman Collette Machado said she sent a two-page letter to staff outlining the difficult position Crabbe’s letter has put the office in.

OHA chairwoman Collette Machado said trustees will meet with Crabbe next week to talk about the letter and the breach of process and take appropriate action.
Machado said Crabbe disrespected the trustees, Hawaii lawmakers and the 125,000 native Hawaiians who signed the roll.

Former Gov. John Waihee who heads the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission said he does not believe this rift will affect the process.

He said the next step is to verify the signatures on the roll and to elect delegates to a convention, something he hopes is still possible.

Maui Now.com reports “OHA to Host Two Maui Meetings Amid Nation Building Concerns”

Two meetings are planned on Maui following public concerns raised over a letter sent from the top executive at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to the US Department of State, seeking an opinion on the legal status of Hawai‘i under international law.

Kamana‘opono Crabbe, Ka Pouhana and CEO at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs submitted the formal request to US Secretary of State John Kerry, “as part of the organizationʻs broader effort to facilitate a Hawaiian nation-building process.”

Crabbe explained in a press release statement that the action was prompted by a presentation and panel discussion last month that featured former Hawai‘i Governor John Waihe‘e, III, Chairman of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, senior Law Professor Williamson Chang, and Dr. Keanu Sai, a political scientist.

“The presentations of Professor Chang and Dr. Sai provided a legal analysis of the current status of Hawai‘i that appeared to undermine the legal basis of the Roll Commission, and, as alleged in the panel discussions, the possibility of criminal liability under international law,” Crabbe said in a press release.

Crabbe continued saying, “These matters have raised grave concerns with regard to not only the Native Hawaiian community we serve, but also to the vicarious liability of myself, staff and Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and members of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission. The community we serve, the Trustees, and many of my staff members, to include myself, and the members of the Roll Commission are Native Hawaiians, who are direct descendants of Hawaiian subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”

In a press conference held on Monday, Crabbe said, “I continue to believe my decision to send the letter was in the best interest of OHA and the beneficiaries we serve. I stand behind this decision and accept full responsibility for it.”

Maui Trustee Carmen Hulu Lindsey wrote a formal request on Monday asking that her name be removed from a letter in which trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs rescinded Crabbe’s letter sent to the Secretary of State.

Lindsey said she called Crabbe and listened to his account of what transpired, and said, “I am now confident that he acted in good faith and with the powers vested in him as CEO to safeguard the interests of those we serve.”

She continued saying, “I have attended the many community town hall meetings OHA has held throughout the islands and heard the concerns articulated in Dr. Crabbe’s letters expressed by several people.  While those questions may be troubling and difficult to address, it is precisely because they are so that I now believe Dr. Crabbe demonstrated courage and integrity in moving those concerns forward to try to get the clarity we need.”

In conclusion, she stated that, “I regret the circumstances that led me to allow my name to be added to a letter that I now believe was sent off without adequate reflection and discussion among the trustees.”

Native Hawaiians on Maui will get an opportunity to provide feedback to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs at a community forum as well as a regular meeting scheduled by the Board of Trustees this week.

The community meeting is designed for OHA officials to listen to concerns and highlight efforts to improve conditions within Hawaiian communities.  That meeting will take place at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 14, 2014, at the Waiola Church Hall on Waineʻe Street in Lahaina.

The Board of Trustees meeting will be held the following day at 9 a.m. on Thursday, May 15, 2014, at the Cameron Center Auditorium in Wailuku.

Both meetings are open to the public.

KHON News reports “Embattled OHA official receives community support“

Controversy continues to grow at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA).

Last week, the CEO of OHA, Kamanaopono Crabbe, sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry asking for legal clarification on the issues surrounding the re-building of a Hawaiian nation. Crabbe said that “the Hawaiian community needed to know that I was inquiring about the very matters they sought to bring forward.”

But OHA trustees quickly rescinded the letter, essentially scolding Crabbe by claiming he exceeded his powers.

But now members of the Hawaiian community are coming to Crabbe’s defense with an online petition.

“There’s been over 1,100 people that have signed on in a little over two days,” said Dr. Kamana Beamer of the University of Hawaii. “We have about a thousand Hawaii (signees), as well as (those from) 19 other countries.”

Beamer supported Crabbe’s decision to ask for legal clarity when it comes to Hawaiian independence.

“What is the status of the Hawaiian kingdom under international law? We’re not committed to any particular outcome per se, but we feel like we need to get these questions addressed so we can make informed decisions in the future,” he said.

All nine OHA trustees had originally signed a letter asking that Crabbe’s inquiry to the State Department be rescinded, although trustee Dan Ahuna wanted his signature be removed a day later, in support of Crabbe.

“All sides agree, Hawaiian independence, sovereignty, is a complex issue,” said trustee Colette Machado via a teleconference call. “This is just the latest in discussions that have been going on for years.”

Crabbe’s supporters say he did the right thing.

“When’s the last time that you’ve heard that the conversation is about doing the right thing, about the pono thing,” said University of Hawaii student Donovan Preza. “For me, that’s the takeaway from this experience.”

From the Office of Hawaiian Affairs website

Kamana‘opono Crabbe, the Ka Pouhana and CEO at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, held a press conference today to address much-publicized concerns over a letter he sent to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as part of the organizationʻs broader effort to facilitate a Hawaiian nation-building process.

Below are the prepared comments of Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe.

—

Prepared Comments of Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe
Office of Hawaiian Affairs Ka Pouhana and CEO
Press Conference of May 12, 2014
(Spontaneous comments were also provided in addition to what is noted below.)

Aloha mai kākou,

I called this media conference today to offer additional information about my letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, which was sent within my authority under OHA’s governing documents and Hawai‘i statutory law.

As with any leader, I am often called upon to make tough decisions, which are sometimes controversial. I continue to believe my decision to send the letter was in the best interest of OHA and the beneficiaries we serve. I stand behind this decision and accept full responsibility for it.

As Ka Pouhana and CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, I must ensure that the policies and commitments of the OHA Board of Trustees are implemented with thorough due diligence and a minimization of risk to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. I take this responsibility seriously. And that was the chief reason for my inquiry with Secretary Kerry.

As stated in the media release sent out this past Friday, I requested that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry seek a legal opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the status of Hawai‘i under international law. I also posed additional questions to clarify how the answer to that primary question impacts current efforts to rebuild a Hawaiian nation.

Answers from the Office of Legal Counsel are needed for OHA to effectively facilitate a process of rebuilding a Hawaiian nation. We must start with agreed upon facts (or begin identifying points of disagreement that require clarification).
Highly qualified experts have provided their answers to the questions posed. However, the stakes are far too high for OHA to proceed under assumptions. We need clarity to understand the United States’ position.

A second reason for my questions to Secretary Kerry stems from our Hawaiian community. My staff and I have held some 30 community meetings in the past two months regarding our proposed process to rebuild our nation. In that same period we also held two governance summits with key community leaders. At these gatherings, and in other virtual contexts, we heard repeatedly concerns about engaging in a process of rebuilding a nation when—following the research of many legal, historical, and political experts—our nation continues to exist in the context of international law.

Such concerns have led our community to request more time in the nation rebuilding process to have questions—such as I raised with Secretary Kerry—fully explored and shared with our people so that they can make well-informed decisions throughout the process.

The Board of Trustees, OHA staff, and the Hawaiian community needed to know that I was inquiring about the very matters many of them sought to bring forward. And this is the reason I felt it was imperative not only that I ask the questions but that everyone be aware of the inquiry.

However, recognizing the gravity of the questions posed, I met with Chair Machado before making the letter public. I explained that my questions were a matter of due diligence and risk management to avoid OHA missteps in its nation rebuilding facilitation. I believed I had her assent to proceed with sharing publicly my letter to Secretary Kerry. Unfortunately, it is now apparent that we walked away from that meeting with a misunderstanding and misinformation.

Despite disagreements that will need to be worked out between myself and OHA’s trustees, I am certain that the Board and I stand firmly together in our commitment to do all that we appropriately can to reestablish a Hawaiian nation. I look forward to engaging with the trustees in the ho‘oponopono, which Chair Machado graciously suggested, so that we can work collectively to Ho‘oulu Lāhui Aloha, to Rebuild a Beloved Nation. We must succeed in our efforts for the good of our lāhui, our community, and our families for generations to come.