Category Archives: War Crimes

Attorney Kaiama’s Response to May 9, 2013 Tribune Herald Newspaper Article “Officials deny ‘war crimes’ investigation”

Posted on by
14

PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release – May 13, 2013                                                                       Contact: Dexter K. Kaiama, Esq.                                                                            Telephone:  (808) 284-5675

Response to May 9, 2013 Tribune Herald Newspaper Article “Officials deny ‘war crimes’ investigation”

KAILUA, O‘AHU, May 13, 2013—I wish to correct errors and misinformation reported in the article of May 9, 2013 in the Tribune Herald Newspaper titled “Officials deny ‘war crimes’ investigation.” My clients are victims of felonies and it is my responsibility to advocate and protect their lawful rights and to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice.

Be advised the following criminal complaint numbers have been assigned by the Hawai‘i Police Department concerning the commission of war crime felonies committed against my clients under Title 18 USC §2441 referred to in the Tribune Herald’s article: criminal complaint no. C13004901; C13004904; C13004910; C13004911; C13004913; C13004915; C13004916.

The assignment of the criminal complaint numbers by the Hawai‘i Police Department contradict (or at least clarifies) Assistant Police Chief Marshall Kanehailua’s reported statement to the Tribune Herald “that the department received information about the alleged crimes and forwarded the material to the FBI without investigation.”

Additionally, information and communications between Detective Derek Morimoto, Criminal Investigation Division, Area 1, Hawaii Police Department, myself and the victims directly contradict Assistant Chief Kanehailua’s statement that “we are not investigating judges on the Big Island.” Detective Morimoto was explicit with my clients and myself that he was the investigating officer from the Criminal Investigation Section for the alleged war crime felonies committed by the judges.

The Tribune Herald’s article reporting of Assistant Chief Kanehailua’s disclosure that routing (of the criminal complaints) was made to the FBI was significant.  The Hawai‘i Police Department’s disclosed routing, though improperly referred to the FBI, affirms the existence and ongoing investigation into these serious charges.  My May 7, 2013 press release informs that completion of the investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators of war crimes outside the United States, under 18 USC Sec. 2441, is lawfully with the U.S. Pacific Command and not with the FBI. The FBI is limited in its exercise of authority to territory of the United States and not on foreign territory unless it receives consent by the foreign government of that territory.

The Tribune Herald’s article evidences a lack of knowledge about this serious issue, a failure to complete an in-depth journalistic investigation and an irresponsibility to properly inform the public.

Existing treaties and historical records, supported by U.S. Congressional enactment, affirms the illegal overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.  The Tribune Herald’s inference that the illegal overthrow may not have occurred indicates either an ignorance of or irresponsibility to truthful journalism.

On March 4, 2013 the Head of the Information and Evidence Unit, Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), The Hague, Netherlands, acknowledged receipt of the war crime complaints filed on behalf of my clients. The ICC’s acknowledgment signifies its recognition of Hawai‘i as an independent state as well as its jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute these criminal complaints.  A copy of the ICC’s March 4, 2013 acknowledgment, written in both English and French, has been provided to the Tribune Herald and the news media.

ICC_Ltr_Page_1

ICC_Ltr_Page_2

I have no personal knowledge of information that has been disclosed or made available to Court Administrator Lester Oshiro concerning the war crimes investigations of Judges in the Third Circuit.  However, the Tribune Herald report, in which Mr. Oshiro claims he was unaware of these criminal investigations, belie events which occurred on March 4, 2013 when a “High Alert” was issued by the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General’s Investigation Division and additional security was ordered for Judges throughout the Islands.  This was in reaction to the day the ICC would begin jurisdiction, which was March 4, 2013. It is the journalist’s rush to publication, at the expense of in-depth and responsible investigation, that resulted in the printing of misinformation.

Finally, concerning the Hawai‘i Police Department’s media release, released in the afternoon of May 9, 2013, on behalf of the victims, I have kept the ICC apprised of all events, protest and demands, written requests for investigation and reports and evidence submitted to the Hawai‘i Police Department, the Sheriff’s Department, and the U.S. Pacific Command.

Accordingly, the Hawai‘i Police Department’s May 9, 2013 media release, that it is not conducting an investigation, will be forwarded to the ICC.  The ICC’s exercise of jurisdiction over these war crime complaints, as the court of last resort, can be invoked if the responsible law enforcement agency fails or refuses to investigate and prosecute or attempts to shield the perpetrators of the war crime.

The Hawai‘i Police Department’s May 9, 2013 media release provides evidence that exercise of the ICC’s jurisdiction should take place immediately.

Judges, Banks and Attorneys Under Criminal Investigation For War Crimes

Posted on by
33

Hawai‘i Island Circuit Court Judges Ronald Ibarra, Greg K. Nakamura, Glenn S. Hara, and District Court Judges Harry P. Freitas and Joseph Florendo are formally under criminal investigation by the Criminal Investigation Section of the Hawai‘i County Police Department for their alleged role in war crimes by denying defendants a fair and regular trial in foreclosure and ejectment proceedings at the court houses in Hilo and Kona. War crimes are felonies under federal law according to the 1996 War Crimes Act, Title 18 United States Code §2441. These preliminary investigations will then be routed to the United States Pacific Command headquartered at Camp Smith in Honolulu for prosecution because it is the federal agency responsible under the War Crimes Act.

The War Crimes Act is enforceable “outside” of U.S. territory when the United States military is the occupant of an occupied State. Title 18, U.S.C., §2441 reinforces the Lili`uokalani assignment, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 to criminally prosecute individuals who commit war crimes/felonies within Hawaiian territory.

Also under investigation for war crimes are the plaintiffs who initiated the complaints for foreclosure and ejectment that include 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 the lenders’ attorneys Blue Ka‘anehe, Esq., Charles Prather, Esq., Peter K. Keegan, Esq., Mitzi A. Lee, Esq., Sofia M. Hirosane, Esq., Michael G.K. Wong, Esq., Robert E. Chapman, Esq., Mary Martin, Esq., Robert D. Triantos, Esq., Edmund W.K.  Haitsuka, Esq., and Peter Stone, Esq.

Kale Gumapac, President of Laulima Title Search & Claims, LLC, who is one of the seven victims of the alleged felony war crimes, said the other six victims are also clients of his company. Laulima Title packages title insurance claims that provide evidence of a defect in title to property that triggers the title insurance policy purchased at escrow by the borrowers to cover the debt owed to the bank. Purchasing title insurance to protect the bank is a condition of the loan. The banks disregarded the insurance claims and proceeded to foreclose and evict Laulima clients.

The defect stems from two executive agreements entered into in 1893 between Queen Lili‘uokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland that settled the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government and mandates the U.S. military in the Hawaiian Islands to administer Hawaiian law, restore the government, and thereafter for the Hawaiian government to grant amnesty to the insurgents. The United States violated the terms of these agreements and began its illegal and prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since the Spanish-American War in August 1898.

Real estate transactions are defective since January 17, 1893 because deeds were notarized and registered in the Bureau of Conveyances by insurgents calling themselves government officials. The Queen did not pardon these individuals and they were not government officials of the Hawaiian Kingdom. And as a result of the illegal occupation by the United States since 1898, deeds could not be properly notarized and recorded because Hawaiian law was not being administered.

Gumapac stated that when the banks disregarded the insurance contract and used the courts to foreclose and evict, he had no choice but to present evidence that the courts are illegal because the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign state still exists. Attorney Dexter Kaiama represented Gumapac and other clients of Laulima with this argument by providing special appearance in these hearings.

Kale-GumapacGumapac stated, “If land titles in Hawai‘i are defective because of 1893, then U.S. courts in Hawai‘i are defective as well.” Gumapac says the reason why people today don’t know this is because we’ve been indoctrinated through Americanization since the early 1900s. He says Americanization is not an excuse for committing a felony.

In the criminal complaint, Gumapac stated that on January 13, 2012 he filed a motion to dismiss Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s eviction complaint providing evidence of the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and that the court was illegally constituted. The hearing was heard before Judge Greg K. Nakamura in Hilo’s Circuit Court on February 14, 2012. Although Kaiama was able to get Nakamura to acknowledge and take judicial notice of the evidence, Nakamura still denied the motion to dismiss without cause.

Nakamura’s decision relied on the 1959 Hawai‘i Admissions Act for the court’s jurisdiction, but without a treaty of cession the Statehood Act is limited to United States territory because Congressional laws have no force and effect in foreign countries. In the criminal complaint Gumapac cited a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, where the 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.”

Gumapac alleges that Nakamura, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and their attorneys Charles Prather, and Sofia Hirosone from the law firm Routh Crabtree Olsen, aka RCO, committed a war crime by willfully depriving him of a fair and regular trial prescribed under Title 18, United States Code, section 2441, which applies to foreign countries that the United States military is occupying. Gumapac argues that the appropriate court is a military commission established by the U.S. Pacific Command that administers Hawaiian Kingdom law. The Pacific Command has yet to comply with international law and establish a military commission.

The Pacific Command has primary responsibility for the prosecution of individuals for violations of Title 18, United States Code, §2441, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV. The International Criminal Court has secondary responsibility and will step in if:

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

By not complying with the international obligations and the International Criminal Court exercises jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands as a result of the Pacific Command’s failure to prosecute, the Pacific Command itself and the military in the islands will also be the subject of prosecution by the International Criminal Court for the commission of war crimes.

KITV News: Man Goes to Court to Fight for More Than Traffic Citations

Posted on by
119

KITV News_Brown

Watch KITV News Man Goes to Court to Fight for More Than Traffic Citations.

Yesterday, Lopaka Brown, through his attorney Dexter Kaiama, esq., provided evidence and argument in District Court that the court is not lawfully constituted according to United States constitutional law and international law because there exists no treaty of annexation that would have incorporated the Hawaiian Islands into the United States of America. Without a treaty, U.S. law enacted by the Congress have no force and effect beyond U.S. territory, which nullifies the 1898 Joint Resolution of Annexation and the 1959 Statehood Act. The District Court derives its authority from the 1959 Statehood Act. The proper Court is a military commission established by the U.S. Pacific Command that administers Hawaiian Kingdom law and the laws of occupation.

Additional evidence provided to the court were two executive agreements entered into between Queen Lili‘uokalani and President Grover Cleveland that settled the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government. The first agreement, called the Lili‘uokalani assignment, binds the U.S. President, through the Pacific Command, to administer Hawaiian law and the laws of occupation. The second agreement, called the Agreement of restoration, binds the U.S. President to restore the government and thereafter the Queen to grant amnesty. Both agreements are treaties and under U.S. constitutional law are called sole-executive agreements. Sole-executive agreements are also binding upon successor Presidents for their faithful execution. See also War Crimes: The Role of the International Criminal Court during the Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

If the Court disregards the evidence, it would be committing a felony by denying Brown a fair trial according to Title 18, U.S.C., §2441. In 1996, Congress enacted the War Crimes Act that criminalized war crimes identified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions as felonies. Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that failure to provide a fair trial in an occupied territory is a war crime. See also War Crimes are Felonies under U.S. Federal Law. The War Crimes Act is enforceable “outside” of U.S. territory when the United States military is the occupant of an occupied State.

War Crimes are Felonies under U.S. Federal Criminal Law

Posted on by
18

War Crimes Act 1

In 1996, the United States Congress enacted the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. §2441, “to carry out the international obligations of the United States under the Geneva Conventions to provide criminal penalties for certain war crimes.” §2441 provides:

    (a) Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the death penalty.
    (b) The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
    (c) As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949.

Applicable “grave breaches” under Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention are:

  1. Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person
  2. Compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of an Occupying State,
  3. Willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial
  4. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly

Because §2441 (War Crimes Act) provides punishment to include life imprisonment or the death penalty, war crimes are felonies or high crimes as opposed to misdemeanors. Law enforcement officers are under a duty to arrest, without the need of a warrant, when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a felony, whether in the officer’s presence or otherwise.

The War Crimes Act is enforceable “outside” of U.S. territory when the United States military is the occupant of an occupied State. Title 18, U.S.C., §2441 reinforces the Lili`uokalani assignment, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 to criminally prosecute individuals who commit war crimes/felonies within Hawaiian territory.

Americanization in Action in 1907 at Ka‘iulani Elementary School in Honolulu

Posted on by
1

Harper's Weekly 1907

In 1907, a reporter from New York’s Harper’s Weekly magazine was in the Hawaiian Islands doing a story on the Territorial government’s “Programme for Patriotic Exercises in the Public Schools” taking place since 1906. His article was titled “Hawaii’s Lesson to Headstrong California: How the Island territory has solved the problem of dealing with its four thousand Japanese Public-School children.” The schools covered in the article are Queen Ka‘ahumanu Elementary School, Princess Victoria Ka‘iulani Elementary School, and Honolulu High School, which was renamed later to President William McKinley High School. All three schools remain in existence today.

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

On page 227, the article reads:

“At the suggestion of Mr. Babbitt, the principal, Mrs. Fraser, gave an order, and within ten seconds all of the 614 pupils of the school began to march out upon the great green lawn which surrounds the building. Hawaii differs from all our other tropical neighbors in the fact that grass will grow here. To see beautiful, velvety turf amid groves of palms and banana trees and banks of gorgeous scarlet flowers gives a feeling of sumptuousness one cannot find elsewhere.

Out upon the lawn marched the children, two by two, just as precise and orderly as you can find them at home. With the ease that comes of long practice the classes marched and countermarched until all were drawn up in a compact array facing a large American flag that was dancing in the northeast trade-wind forty feet above their heads. Surely this was the most curious, most diverse regiment ever drawn up under that banner—tiny Hawaiians, Americans, Britons, Germans, Portuguese, Scandinavians, Japanese, Chinese, Porto-Ricans, and Heaven knows what else.

‘Attention!’ Mrs. Fraser commanded.

The little regiment stood fast, arms at sides, shoulders back, chests out, heads up, and every eye fixed upon the red, white, and blue emblem that waved protectingly over them.

‘Salute!’ was the principal’s next command.

Every right hand was raised, forefinger extended, and the six hundred and fourteen fresh, childish voices chanted as one voice:

‘We give our heads and our hearts to God and our Country! One Country! One Language! One Flag!’

The last six words were shot out with a force that was explosive. The tone, the gesture, the gaze fixed reverently upon the flag, told their story of loyal fervor. And it was apparent that the salute was given as spontaneously and enthusiastically by the Japanese as by any of the other children. There were hundreds of them in the throng, and their voices rang out as clearly as any others, their hands raised in unison. The coldest clod of a man who sees the children perform this act of reverence must feel a tightening at the throat, and it is even more affecting to see these young atoms from all the world actually being fused in the crucible from which they shall issue presently as good American citizens.”

Children_Salute_1907

NOTE: In the text under this photo, Harper’s Weekly specifically used the word “inculcate” in the sentence, “The drill is constantly held as a means of inculcating patriotism in the hearts of the children.” By definition, inculcate is to instill an idea, attitude, or habit by persistent instruction. And indoctrination, by definition, is the process of inculcating ideas and attitudes.

War Crime of Americanization: Programme for Patriotic Exercises in the Public Schools

Posted on by
10

Patriotic Exercises_TH

In 1906, a pamphlet was published titled “Programme for Patriotic Exercises in the Public Schools” for the Territory of Hawai‘i. The theme of the program was to indoctrinate the children of the Hawaiian Islands to be “American” and to speak “English.”

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

The public schools would adopt one of three formations and salute to the flag, which will end with a salutation by the students in unison, “We give our heads and our hearts to God and our Country! One Country ! One Language ! One Flag !”

Here follows an excerpt from the pamphlet:

PROGRAMME FOR PATRIOTIC EXERCISES

I. Formation and Salute to Flag.

(a) At three minutes to nine o’clock the children assemble in front of the school, the classes forming a circle (or circles) about the flag pole or facing the building over which the stars and stripes are to float. The principal gives the order, “Attention!” or “Face!” The boys remove hats and the teachers, and pupils watch the flag hoisted by two of the older boys. When it reaches the top of the flag-pole, the principal gives the order, “Salute!” or three cheers may be given for the flag as it is being raised.

At nine o’clock the pupils march to their class rooms to the beating of a drum or to some march played by the pianist or school band.

On reaching their class rooms, the children may stand by their seats and repeat in concert the following salutation:

“We give our heads and our hearts to God and our Country! One Country! One Language! One Flag!”

(NOTE: The flag is dipped while the children raise the right hand, forefinger extended, and repeat the pledge. When they salute, the flag is raised to an upright position.)

(b) All the children to be drawn up in line before the school building.

A boy and a girl each holding a medium-sized American flag, stand one on the right and one on the left of the school steps. Boy on the right and girl on the left. The flags should be held military style.

The children at a given signal by the principal or teacher in charge, file past the flags, saluting in correct military manner. The boys to the right and the girls to the left, entering and taking their positions in the school. The flag bearers enter last, and take their positions right and left of the principal, remaining in that position during the salutation, “We give our heads and our hearts to God and our Country! One Country! One Language! One Flag!”

The flag bearers place the flags in position at the head of the school. The boy and girl who carry the flags should be chosen from among the pupils for good conduct during the hours of school.

(c) Pupils attention! at chord on piano or organ, or stroke of drum or bell.

The teacher will call one of the pupils to come forward and stand at one side of desk while the teacher stands at the other. The pupil shall hold an American flag in military style.

At second signal all children shall rise, stand erect and salute the flag, concluding with the salutation, “We give our heads and our hearts to God and our Country! One Country! One Language! One Flag!”

Public schools in the Hawaiian Islands were established by the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1840 under the supervision of the Board of Education. In 1891, a history book was published by order of the Board of Education to be used in the public schools titled “A Brief History of the Hawaiian People.” In 1899, this book was revised to promote the propaganda of annexation and that the Hawaiian Islands were incorporated into the United States of America.

In 1945, the Allied Forces of World War II indicted, prosecuted and convicted Nazi government officials for war crimes. In Count III(j) of the Indictment, one of the war crimes was “Germanization of occupied territories.” Here follows the text of the indictment, which is eerily on point with what the United States did in the Hawaiian Kingdom through “Americanization” at the turn of the 20th century.

“In certain occupied territories purportedly annexed to Germany the defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavored to assimilate those territories politically, culturally, socially, and economically into the German Reich. The defendants endeavored to obliterate the former national character of these territories. In pursuance of these plans and endeavors, the defendants forcibly deported inhabitants who were predominantly non-German and introduced thousands of German colonists. This plan included economic domination, physical conquest, installation of puppet governments, purported de jury annexation and enforced conscription into the German Armed Forces. This was carried out in most of the occupied countries including: Norway, France (particularly in the Departments of Upper Rhine, Lower Rhine, Moselle, Ardennes, Aisne, Nord, Meurthe, and Mosselle), Luxembourg, the Soviet Union, Denmark, Belgium, and Holland.”

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

Posted on by
10

Arizona Memorial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First War Crime Complaint Filed with International Criminal Court

Posted on by
40

ICC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The War Crime Complaint alleges:

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

The War Crime Complaint concludes:

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

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

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

Posted on by
8

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

Swiss_Receipt_GCIV

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

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

War Crime: “Americanization” of the Hawaiian Islands

Posted on by
13

Statehood Photo

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

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

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

Indictment_CoverCount_III

Germanization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1949 Geneva Convention, IV, Took Effect Over the Hawaiian Islands January 14, 2013

Posted on by
11

SWITZERLAND GENEVA CONVENTIONS 60th ANNIVERSARYIn the aftermath of World War II, countries met in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1949 to draft four treaties (conventions) and three additional protocols that establish standards for the humanitarian treatment during war. The Fourth Geneva Convention, in particular, would also “apply 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 Convention also provides protection to “those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals (Article 4).”

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

Nationals who are “protected persons” under the Convention are protected from, “willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly (Article 147).” Violation of these rights of “protected persons” constitute a “war crimes.”

There are currently 194 countries who are High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Of the High Contracting Parties, 193 comprise all of the member States of the United Nations, and 1 is a non-member State of the United Nations, Cook Islands.

On November 28, 2012, the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom signed the instrument of accession acceding to the Fourth Geneva Convention for the protection of the civilian population during Hawai‘i’s occupation, and on January 14, 2013, the instrument was deposited with the Swiss Federal Council in Berne, Switzerland. Pursuant to Article 157, the Convention took immediate effect from the date of the deposit because Hawai‘i is currently under occupation.

By acceding to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, became a High Contracting Party and its territory now comes under the Fourth Geneva Convention and Hawaiian nationals are presently considered “protected persons.” The International Criminal Court prosecutes perpetrators who commit war crimes that violate the rights of “protected persons” as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

UPDATE: This posting was withheld for the past two weeks until confirmation of the receipt of the instrument of accession could be obtained. It is confirmed that the deposit of the instrument of accession took place on January 14, 2013.

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

Posted on by
25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(United States) State of Hawai‘i Government is a War Crime under International Law

Posted on by
18

State of HI Seal

After two failed attempts to acquire the Hawaiian Islands by a treaty of cession as required by international law, the U.S. Congress “unilaterally” enacted a Joint Resolution purporting to annex the Hawaiian Islands, which was signed into law by President McKinley on July 7, 1898 during the Spanish-American War as a war measure.

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

On June 15, 1898, during debates over the joint resolution annexing Hawai‘i in the House of Representatives, Congressman Thomas H. Ball (D-Texas) stated, “The annexation of Hawai‘i by joint resolution is unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unwise. If the first proposition be true, sworn to support the Constitution, we should inquire no further. I challenge not the advocates of Hawaiian annexation, but those who advocate annexation in the form now presented, to show warrant or authority in our organic law for such acquisition of territory. To do so will be not only to subvert the supreme law of the land but to strike down every precedent in our history. …Why, sir, the very presence of this measure here is the result of a deliberate attempt to do unlawfully that which can not be done lawfully.”

And on June 20, 1898, during Senate debates over the joint resolution annexing Hawai‘i, Senator Augustus Bacon (D-Georgia) stated, “That a joint resolution for the annexation of foreign territory was necessarily and essentially the subject matter of a treaty, and that it could not be accomplished legally and constitutionally by a statute or joint resolution. If Hawaii was to be annexed, it ought certainly to be annexed by a constitutional method; and if by a constitutional method it can not be annexed, no Senator ought to desire its annexation sufficiently to induce him to give his support to an unconstitutional measure.” Senator Bacon further explained, “Now, a statute is this: A Statute is a rule of conduct laid down by the legislative department, which has its effect upon all of those within the jurisdiction. In other words, a statute passed by the Congress of the United States is obligatory upon every person who is a citizen of the United States or a resident therein. A statute can not go outside the jurisdiction of the United States and be binding upon the subjects of another power. It takes the consent of the subjects of the other power, speaking or giving their consent through their duly authorized government, to be bound by a certain thing which is enacted in this country; and therein comes the necessity for a treaty. ”

The United States Congress was fully aware that a joint resolution is not a cession of territory by treaty, but only an opinion or will of the U.S. Congress limited in authority to territory of the United States. The Hawaiian Kingdom was not annexed to the United States and remained an independent, but occupied State.

Usurping Hawaiian sovereignty, U.S. President McKinley signed into United States law An Act To provide a government for the Territory of Hawai’i on April 30, 1900; and on March 18, 1959, U.S. President Eisenhower signed into United States law An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai’i into the Union.

According to the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., (1936), “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…. [T]he court recognized, and in each of the cases cited [involving the exercise of the sovereign power of the United States] found, the warrant for its conclusions not in the provisions of the Constitution, but in the law of nations”.

United States laws are not only limited to United States territory, but the 1898 joint resolution of annexation, the 1900 Territorial Act, and the 1959 Hawai‘i Statehood Act stand in direct violation of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Restoration Agreement, being international compacts, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV.

According to the United Nations War Crimes Commission “war crimes” include:

  • Usurpation of sovereignty during occupation;
  • Deportation of civilians;
  • Compulsory enlistment of soldiers among the inhabitants of occupied territory;
  • Denationalizing the inhabitants of occupied territory;
  • Confiscation of property;
  • Exaction of illegitimate or of exorbitant contributions and requisitions;
  • Wanton devastation and destruction of religious, charitable, educational and historical buildings and monuments.

Usurpation of sovereignty is to illegally take by force the sovereignty of another country. International tribunals and national tribunals prosecuted both military and civilians after World War I and World War II for these war crimes. The State of Hawai’i government, established by an Act of Congress in 1959, is a usurpation of sovereignty during occupation and therefore not only illegal but also constitutes a war crime.

Jurisdiction of ICC over Hawaiian Territory begins March 4, 2013

Posted on by
14

ICC-Logo

When the Hawaiian Kingdom deposited its Instrument of Accession with the United Nations Secretary-General on December 10, 2012 in New York City, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will possess jurisdiction over Hawaiian territory beginning on March 4, 2013. According to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, the ICC will have jurisdiction “on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date of the deposit of the…instrument of…accession.”

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

The ICC prosecutes individuals and not states for war crimes committed within occupied territories. Only states can accede to the jurisdiction of the ICC, and that Hawai‘i achieved the international recognition of its statehood on November 28, 1843 by joint proclamation of Great Britain and France and entered into extensive diplomatic relations and treaties with other states.

The justification for the accession was based on two points: first, the acting government is not able to enforce and prosecute individuals for violating Hawaiian law and the law of occupation taking place within Hawaiian territory; and second, the U.S. Pacific Command has refused to hold to account individuals for committing war crimes that have been reported since July 6, 2012.

UPDATE: According to the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) jurisdiction is limited to events taking place since July 1, 2002, which is the date the ICC came into existence. Since the Hawaiian Kingdom acceded to the ICC’s Rome Statute on December 10, 2012, the Rome Statute provides that jurisdiction for the ICC will begin on March 4, 2012. The Hawaiian Kingdom, however, can accept the jurisdiction of the ICC for the period before March 4, 2012, which will include events that have transpired since July 1, 2002. At this time, the Hawaiian Kingdom has not done so, but does reserve that right.