Today, August 10, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Deputy Adjutant General, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, stating how he should request a legal opinion from State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez by 12 noon tomorrow so that he will not be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission. Here is a link to the letter.

This is my last notification to you. According to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3, “The attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department.” While you are not the head of the Department of Defense, you are implicated by the conduct of the head, Major General Kenneth Hara, in the performance of a military duty. A legal opinion is “a statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.”

The issue of the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State under international law, is not a novel legal issue for the State of Hawai‘i. It has been at the center of case law and precedence, regarding jurisdictional arguments that came before the courts of the State of Hawai‘i, since 1994. One year after the United States Congress passed the joint resolution apologizing for the United States overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government in 1993, an appeal was heard by the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals that centered on a claim that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. In State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo, the appellate court stated:

Lorenzo appeals, arguing that the lower court erred in denying his pretrial motion (Motion) to dismiss the indictment. The essence of the Motion is that the [Hawaiian Kingdom] (Kingdom) was recognized as an independent sovereign nation by the United States in numerous bilateral treaties; the Kingdom was illegally overthrown in 1893 with the assistance of the United States; the Kingdom still exists as a sovereign nation; he is a citizen of the Kingdom; therefore, the courts of the State of Hawai‘i have no jurisdiction over him. Lorenzo makes the same argument on appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the lower court correctly denied the Motion.

While the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, it admitted “the court’s rationale is open to question in light of international law.” By not applying international law, the court concluded that the trial court’s decision was correct because Lorenzo “presented no factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom [continues to exist] as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.” Since 1994, the Lorenzo case has become a precedent case that served as the basis for denying defendants’ motions to dismiss claims that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. In State of Hawai‘i v. Fergerstrom, the appellate court stated, “[w]e affirm that relevant precedent [in State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo],” and that defendants have an evidentiary burden that shows the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist.

The Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, clarified the evidentiary burden that Lorenzo placed upon defendants. The court stated:

Lorenzo held that, for jurisdictional purposes, should a defendant demonstrate a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai’i “exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature[,]” and that he or she is a citizen of that sovereign state, a defendant may be able to argue that the courts of the State of Hawai‘i lack jurisdiction over him or her.

Unlike Lorenzo, I provided you two legal opinions, by experts in international law, in my letter to you yesterday, August 10, 2024, that provided a factual and a legal basis for concluding that the Hawaiian Kingdom ‘exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ as called for by the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. These legal opinions were authored by two professors of international law, Matthew Craven, from the University of London, SOAS, Department of Law, and Federico Lenzerini, from the University of Siena, Department of Political and International Sciences.

As a result, this situation places the burden on the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General, Anne Lopez, to rebut these legal opinions pursuant to State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo and State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage. This would legally qualify her instruction to you to ignore the calls for performing your military duty to establish a military government.

There are two scenarios you face on this subject. The first scenario is to submit a formal letter to the Attorney General, with the approval of MG Hara as head of the Department of Defense, for a legal opinion that refutes the two legal opinions that opine that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law. The second scenario is for MG Hara, himself, as head of the Department of Defense, to submit a similar formal letter to the Attorney General. Consequently, both scenarios will remove the element of mens rea of willful dereliction of duty by MG Hara, and the Royal Commission of Inquiry will also withdraw its War Criminal Report no. 24-0001.

I am making every effort to shield both you and MG Hara from committing the war crime by omission, and it boils down to a simple letter asking the right question. Should you decide to request a legal opinion of the Attorney General pursuant to §28-3, HRS, I have enclosed a sample letter to be sent to the Attorney General before 12 noon tomorrow.

If you or MG Hara have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me before 12 noon tomorrow. If I do not hear from you, by email or otherwise, that you submitted the request for a legal opinion before 12 noon tomorrow, I will assume that you did not make the request, and you will be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission.

Today, August 10, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Deputy Adjutant General, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, stating the position of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on whether BG Logan has requested a legal opinion from State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez. Here is a link to the letter.

As August 12, 2024 is fast approaching, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) would like to separate the two actions you are faced with regarding your duty to establish a military government. The first action is the request by you of the Attorney General, Anne E. Lopez, to provide you with a legal opinion that concludes, with irrefutable facts and the law, that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist as a State under international law. The second action is the performance of the duty to establish a military government if the Attorney General has not provided you with a legal opinion.

If you did notify the Attorney General to provide you with a legal opinion before 12 noon on August 12th and she has not gotten back to you by 12 noon on August 12th, then the RCI will not demand that you perform your duty to establish a military government until the Attorney General has completed that legal opinion for you. If this is the course that you have taken, the Attorney General will have to rebuke the following legal opinions regarding the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, and the legal standing of the Council of Regency:

• Professor Matthew Craven, University of London, SOAS, Department of Law, attached as enclosure 1.

• Professor Federico Lenzerini, University of Siena, Italy, Department of Political and International Sciences, attached as enclosure 2.

If you do not notify the RCI, by email or by letter via email prior to 12 noon on August 12, 2024, that you have requested a legal opinion from the Attorney General, and she has not completed the same, then the RCI will assume that you did not make the request. If this is the case, and you have not established a military government by 12 noon on August 12, 2024, then you will be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission.

Today, August 7, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Deputy Adjutant General, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, drawing his attention to the U.S. Army’s view of the rule of law and his duty to establish a military government in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict—international humanitarian law, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army Regulations—FM 27-5 and FM 27-10. Here is a link to the letter.

As you are aware, yesterday, I notified the Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade and the Commanders of its component battalions apprising them as to the circumstances of their possible implication, of performing the duty to establish a military government of Hawai‘i, should you fail to perform your duty. I closed the letter with:

As senior Commanders in the chain of command of the Army National Guard, I implore you all to take this matter seriously and to demand, from the Attorney General or the JAG, a legal opinion that concludes there is no duty on you to establish a military government because the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist, and that this is the territory of the United States and the State of Hawai‘i under international law. With the legal opinion in hand, there is no duty to perform. Without it, there is the military duty to perform, and failure to perform would constitute the war crime by omission.

The demand for a legal opinion, by you, of the Attorney General, Anne E. Lopez, or of the JAG, LTC Lloyd Phelps, is not outside your duties as a military officer. Your duty is to adhere to the rule of law. According to section 4-106, FM 3-07:

The rule of law is fundamental to peace and stability. A safe and secure environment maintained by a civilian law enforcement system must exist and operate in accordance with internationally recognized standards and with respect for internationally recognized human rights and freedoms. Civilian organizations are responsible for civil law and order. However, Army forces may need to provide limited support.

According to the Handbook for Military Support to Rule of Law and Security Sector Reform (2016), the most frequently used definition of the rule of law “in the US government is one put forth by the UN.”

United Nations Definition of the Rule of Law

The rule of law refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness, and procedural and legal transparency.

Demanding a legal opinion that refutes, with irrefutable evidence and law, the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State, under international law, is not a political act but rather an act to ‘ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness, and procedural and legal transparency.’ Under international law, legal title to territory is State sovereignty and it is a jurisdictional matter.  As the Permanent Court of International Justice, in the Lotus case, stated:

Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention [treaty].

In other words, without a treaty, where the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded its sovereignty to the United States, the United States and the State of Hawai‘i have no sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands. However, if the Attorney General is confident, that the State of Hawai‘i is lawfully the 50th state of the United States, she would have no problem providing you a legal opinion that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist under international law. To have instructed you, and Major General Hara, to simply ignore the call to perform a military duty, the Attorney General revealed that she has no legal basis for her instruction to you. To quote Secretary of State Walter Gresham regarding the status of the provisional government, he stated to President Grover Cleveland:

The earnest appeals to the American minister for military protection by the officers of that Government, after it had been recognized, show the utter absurdity of the claim that it was established by a successful revolution of the people of the Islands. Those appeals were a confession by the men who made them of their weakness and timidity. Courageous men, conscious of their strength and the justice of their cause, do not thus act.

The same can be said of the Attorney General, whose office is a direct successor of the lawless provisional government. An Attorney General, conscious of her lawful status, does not thus act.

The call upon you, to perform your military duty, is not an attack on you and on the men and women you command in the Hawai‘i National Guard. It is a call upon you because of the respect the I have, as a former Army Field Artillery officer, of your position as the United States theater commander in the occupied State of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

I recommend that you view a recent podcast I did with Kamaka Dias’ Keep It Aloha (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvEdNx2dynE) where I share my history and my time as a military officer, and how I got to where I am as a member of the Council of Regency. Since the podcast was posted on August 1, 2024, it has received over 6,700 views. I also recommend that you watch my presentation to the Maui County Council (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh4iVT77MG8&t=8s) on March 6, 2024, where I explain the legal basis of the American occupation and the duty of the Adjutant General to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. Since the Kamehameha Schools’ Kanaeokana posted the video on April 1, 2024, it has received over 16,000 views. I recommend that you also watch an award-winning documentary on the Council of Regency that premiered in 2019 at the California Film Festival (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF6CaLAMh98).  Since the video was posted on August 13, 2019, it has received over 42,000 views.

Since my meeting with MG Hara on April 17, 2023, I have given him the latitude and time to do his due diligence with his JAG, LTC Phelps, who acknowledged that Hawai‘i is an occupied State. For MG Hara to simply ignore my calls on him to perform his duty is a sign of disrespect to a government official of the Hawaiian Kingdom whose conduct and action are in accordance with the rule of law. I implore you to not follow the same course MG Hara took, which led him to committing the war crime by omission. You have until 12 noon on August 12, 2024, to perform your duty, of establishing a military government for Hawai‘i, in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict—international humanitarian law, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army Regulations—FM 27-5 and FM 27-10. The eyes of Hawai‘i and the world are upon you.

Today, August 6, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade and its component battalions of the circumstances that has led up to performing the military duty of establishing a military government in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict—international humanitarian law, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army Regulations—FM 27-5 and FM 27-10.Here is a link to the letter.

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the circumstances that has led up to performing the military duty of establishing a military government in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict—international humanitarian law, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army Regulations—FM 27-5 and FM 27-10. According to Article 42, 1907 Hague Regulations, territory is considered occupied when it comes under the effective control of the occupant. Effective control of the occupied territory triggers Article 43 to establish a military government to provisionally administer the laws of the occupied State. For Iraq during the Second Gulf War, this was the basis for establishing the Coalition Provisional Authority, as a military government, on May 16, 2003. Between the Federal government and the State of Hawai‘i, it is the latter that has this duty because it is in effective control of 10,931 square miles, while the former is in effective control of less than 500 square miles.

In 1999, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”), in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, recognized the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, under international law, and the Council of Regency as its temporary government. The Council of Regency is not a part of the Native Hawaiian sovereignty movement. It is a government established under Hawaiian constitutional law and the doctrine of necessity. I am enclosing a copy of the PCA’s case repository of the Larsen case.

At the center of the dispute was the unlawful imposition of American laws over Hawaiian territory, which led to Larsen’s unfair trial and subsequent incarceration. This is the same Permanent Court of Arbitration that oversaw the dispute between the Philippines and China—the South China Sea case. On its website, the PCA describes the Larsen case as:

Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency (“Hawaiian Kingdom”) on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Since January 17, 1893, the United States, by an act of war, began its prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom despite the overthrow of its government. Furthermore, the unlawful overthrow of  the Hawaiian government did not affect Hawaiian sovereignty, which prevents any annexation of its territory without its consent by a treaty of cession. There is no such treaty of cession between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, except for an American municipal law, enacted on July 7, 1898, called a joint resolution of annexation purporting to have acquired the Hawaiian Islands. As section 358, FM 27-10—Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty states:

Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights sovereignty. The exercise of these rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force. It is therefore unlawful for a belligerent occupant to annex occupied territory or to create a new State therein while hostilities are still in progress.

Under customary international law, during military occupation, the imposition of the occupier’s laws over the territory of an occupied State is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty. In his legal opinion for the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”), for prosecutions to take place, renowned expert in international criminal law and war crimes, Professor William Schabas, provides requisite elements of certain war crimes, including usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, which I am enclosing a copy of. It should be noted that if this were a frivolous matter, Professor Schabas surely would not have done his legal opinion for the RCI. He is a professor of international law at Middlesex University, London, Department of Law, and recognized as an expert in the field by the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

I am aware of the military duty to establish a military government in occupied territories, because I served 10 years in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard from 1984 to 1994. I received my commission as a Second Lieutenant from New Mexico Military Institute in 1984, and, after returning home, joined the 1/487 Field Artillery. In 1994, I decided to resign my command of Charlie Battery in order to pursue the work I do now, and I was honorably discharged. I am enclosing my DD 214 separation papers. Former Commander of the Army National Guard, Brigadier General Keith Tamashiro, and I are not only colleagues, but friends, because, while I was the Charlie Battery Commander, he was the Bravo Battery Commander. I also served as Battalion Fire Support Officer for 2/299 Infantry, where Major General Kenneth Hara was a Lieutenant. Hence, I am thoroughly familiar with the Army National Guard.

On April 13, 2023, I had a meeting with MG Hara at the Grand Naniloa Hotel in Hilo. I started the meeting by telling MG Hara that circumstances, beyond our control, have placed us here today with duties to perform. He, as the senior officer of the Hawai‘i National Guard, and me, as head of the RCI, with the duty to protect the population from war crimes. This past June, the law journal, International Review of Contemporary Law, published my article titled “All States have a Responsibility to Protect their Population from War Crimes—Usurpation of Sovereignty During Military Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands.”

I explained to MG Hara the circumstances of the current situation, and his corresponding duty, as the theater commander of occupied territory, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. I provided him the necessary documentation as well. At the end of the meeting, I recommended that he task his JAG, Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps, to review the information I provided him and to see if LTC Phelps could refute it. If he could not, it would trigger MG Hara’s duty to perform. LTC Phelps could not refute the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence, which prompted MG Hara to acknowledge, on July 27, 2023, that Hawai‘i is an occupied State. On August 21, 2023, I provided MG Hara an Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government with essential and implied tasks, which was published by the law journal, Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics.

On May 25, 2024, I had a Zoom meeting with former Adjutant General, Major General Darryl Wong, and his Chief Master Sergeant, Robert Lee. Prior to this meeting, they both watched my March 6, 2024, presentation to the Maui County Council, updating them of the status of Hawai‘i under international law and the duty of MG Hara to establish a military government (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-VIA_3GD2A&t=1s). MG Wong and CMSAF Lee acknowledged that they understood why MG Hara, as the Adjutant General, had this military duty to perform. MG Wong also acknowledged that he had this duty when he was the Adjutant General, but I told him that the difference between them was that MG Wong was not aware of the factual circumstances of the occupation, but MG Hara was aware.

After numerous attempts to work with MG Hara and his refusals to meet, I was informed that he was instructed by State of Hawai‘i Attorney General, Anne E. Lopez, to ignore me and anyone else that called for the establishment of the military government. MG Hara’s conduct here, as the Adjutant General, was unbecoming of an officer. To not be unbecoming of an officer, he needed to ask for a legal opinion from the Attorney General that concludes, which provides conclusive evidence and law, that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist as an occupied State under international law. His failure to perform his duty of establishing a military government has made him the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 for the war crime by omission that was published on the RCI’s website yesterday (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/RCI_War_Criminal_Report_no._24-0001.pdf). His failure to perform his duty has led to everyone in the Army National Guard chain of command to be implicated in the performance of this duty.

As a war criminal, subject to prosecution by a competent tribunal, and where there is no statute of limitations, MG Hara is unfit to serve as Commander of the Hawai‘i National Guard. As such, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, as the Deputy Adjutant General and Commander of the Army National Guard, must assume the chain of command, and he has until 1200 hours on August 12, 2024, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. To escape criminal culpability, BG Logan must demand a legal opinion from the Attorney General or from LTC Phelps that shows, with irrefutable evidence and law, that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist a State under international law.

If BG Logan does not obtain a legal opinion, and fails to perform his military duty, he will then be the subject of a war criminal report by the RCI for the war crime by omission. After the publication of this war criminal report, Colonel Wesley K. Kawakami, Commander, 29th Infantry Brigade, will assume the chain of command and demand a similar legal opinion. If Colonel Kawakami receives no such legal opinion, he will have one week to perform his duty as the theater commander.

To speak to the severity of the situation, I am enclosing a letter to MG Hara, dated May 29, 2024, from police officers, both active and retired, from across the islands, that called upon him to perform his duties because “This failure of transition places current police officers on duty that they may be held accountable for unlawfully enforcing American laws.” These police officers also stated:

We also acknowledge that the Council of Regency is our government that was lawfully established under extraordinary circumstance, and we support its effort to bring compliance with the law of occupation by the State of Hawai‘i, on behalf of the United States, which will eventually bring the American occupation to a close. When this happens, our Legislative Assembly will be brought into session so that Hawaiian subjects can elect a Regency of our choosing. The Council of Regency is currently operating in an acting capacity that is allowed under Hawaiian law.

As senior Commanders in the chain of command of the Army National Guard, I implore you all to take this matter seriously and to demand, from the Attorney General or the JAG, a legal opinion that concludes there is no duty on you to establish a military government because the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist, and that this is the territory of the United States and the State of Hawai‘i under international law. With the legal opinion in hand, there is no duty to perform. Without it, there is the military duty to perform, and failure to perform would constitute the war crime by omission.

Today, August 5, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Brigadier General Stephen Logan regarding the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 on Major General Kenneth Hara’s war crime by omission. The RCI also informed him that he has until 12 noon on August 12, 2024, to perform his military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i. Here is a link to the letter.

Today, August 5, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) published its War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 finding Major General Hara guilty of the war crime by omission. Since acknowledging the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State on July 27, 2023, MG Hara willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government. Therefore, his conduct, by omission, constitutes a war crime. MG Hara, in his official capacity as the senior member of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense, has met the requisite elements for the war crime by omission, by willfully disobeying an Army regulation and by willful dereliction in his duty to establish a military government, and is, therefore, guilty of the war crime by omission. These offenses do not have the requisite element of mens rea.

The term “guilty,” as used in the RCI war criminal reports, is defined as “[h]aving committed a crime or other breach of conduct; justly chargeable offense; responsible for a crime or tort or other offense or fault.” It is distinguished from a criminal prosecution where “guilty” is used by “an accused in pleading or otherwise answering to an indictment when he confesses to have committed the crime of which he is charged, and by the jury in convicting a person on trial for a particular crime.” According U.S. military law, MG Hara is accountable by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Under international criminal law, MG Hara is subject to prosecution, by a competent court or tribunal, for the war crime by omission.

Consequently, as the Deputy Adjutant General and Commander of the Army National Guard, you are now the theater commander. You should assume the chain of command, as the theater commander of the occupied State of Hawaiian Kingdom, and perform your duty of establishing a military government by 12 noon on August 12, 2024. If you are derelict in the performance of your duty to establish a military government, then you would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of your war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Colonel Wesley K. Kawakami, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade, who is next in the chain of command below you, shall assume command of the Army National Guard. Colonel Kawakami will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

The chain of command, or what is called the order of battle, for the 29th Infantry Brigade units in the Hawaiian Islands, is first, the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, second, the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, third, the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fourth, the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion. The 29th Infantry Brigade has units stationed in Alaska and Guam but, since they are outside the Hawaiian territory, they do not have the military duty, as an occupant, to establish a military government in the Hawaiian Islands.

If Colonel Wesley K. Kawakami is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of Colonel Kawakami’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick J. Werner, Commander of 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

If LTC Werner is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Werner’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Bingham L. Tuisamatatele, Jr., Commander of 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

If LTC Tuisamatatele is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Tuisamatatele’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua A. Jacobs, Commander of 29th Brigade Support Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

If LTC Jacobs is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Jacobs’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Dale R. Balsis, Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

Should LTC Balsis be derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government and be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission, that will be published on the RCI’s website; then the sequence of events will loop to the Executive Officers. First, with the 29th Infantry Brigade, second, with the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, third, with the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, fourth with the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fifth with the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion.

This looping, within the 29th Infantry Brigade’s component commands, will cover all commissioned officers to include Majors, Captains, First Lieutenants and Second Lieutenants. After the commissioned officers have been exhausted in the 29th Infantry Brigade, the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 103rd Troop Command and its component commands will begin, followed by the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, and its component commands.

For you not to be derelict in the performance of your duty, and you are not be the theater commander of the occupied State of the Hawaiian Kingdom, you will need to provide the RCI with evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists as a State under international law. To do this, you must have Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps, as your legal advisor on military matters, provide you with evidence the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist under international law. And since Attorney General Anne E. Lopez instructed you to ignore your military duty to establish a military government, I recommend that you also have her, as your legal advisor on State of Hawai‘i matters, provide you evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist under international law.  

MG Hara’s conduct is unbecoming of an officer that has consequently placed every soldier under his command, to include yourself, subject to criminal culpability because he did not demand that the Attorney General provide him evidence. Consequently, he willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government. As you are aware, U.S. military officers are held to the highest personal and professional standards. When those standards are not met, officers may be administratively punished or criminally prosecuted. For you not to demand the evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists under international law, is to place the men and women, under your command, into harm’s way with criminal culpability under both military law and international criminal law. As I stated to MG Hara, in my letter dated July 26, 2024, which you were cc’d, “to prevent all this from occurring, you must provide evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists as an occupied State under international law. To ignore this will have dire consequences for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard.”

On July 26, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Major General Kenneth Hara on a cascading effect for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard and its component commands of the 29th Infantry Brigade, the 103rd Troop Command, and the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, if he does not delegate complete authority and title to Brigadier General Stephen Logan to establish a military government by 1200 hours on July 31, 2024. Here is a link to the letter.

As July 31st is fast approaching, the chain of command of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard and its component commands of the 29th Infantry Brigade, the 103rd Troop Command, and the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, will be drawn into criminal culpability for war crimes if you do not delegate complete authority to Brigadier General Stephen Logan to establish a military government by 12 noon on July 31, 2024.

After United States troops invaded and unlawfully overthrew the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893, international law required that the most senior military commander take control of the civilian government, that was overthrown, in order to continue to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law until there is a treaty of peace. The United States violated this rule of international law when they allowed an insurgency, they created, to unlawfully govern. In 1898, the United States began to impose American laws throughout the Hawaiian Kingdom, which is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty. This illegal occupation has led to the establishment of 118 military sites throughout the Hawaiian Islands.

As you are aware, the current practice of the United States military imposes the responsibility on the Army to establish a military government to preside over occupied territory. Not the Navy, Marines, or Air Force. U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1 states it is the function of the Army in “[occupied] territories abroad [to] provide for the establishment of a military government pending transfer of this responsibility to other authority.” And U.S. Department of Directive 2000.13 states the Army’s “Civil affairs operations include…[e]stablish[ing] and conduct[ing] military government until civilian authority or government can be restored.”

At the start of the twentieth century, the U.S. Army took steps to prepare for military occupations by publishing field manuals—FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, FM 27-5, Civil Affairs Military Government, FM 3-57, Civil Affairs Operations, and FM 6-27, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Land Warfare. According to Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, territory is considered occupied when it is in effective control by the occupant, which triggers Article 43 to establish a military government to administer the laws of the occupied State.

Between the U.S. Federal government and the State of Hawai‘i, the latter is in effective control of 10,931 square miles, while the former is in effective control of less than 500 square miles. Thus, the duty to establish a military government is with the State of Hawai‘i Army National Guard and not with the U.S. Army Pacific under Indo-Pacific Combatant Command. This means that you are the theater commander under Army doctrine.

Paragraph 3, FM 27-5, states the “theater command bears full responsibility for [military government]; therefore, he is usually designated as military governor […], but has authority to delegate authority and title, in whole or in part, to a subordinate commander. In occupied territory the commander, by virtue of his position, has supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authority, limited only by the laws and customs of war and by directives from higher authority.”

In other words, the highest-ranking officer, in the theater of occupied territory, is duty bound to transform the civilian government of the occupied State into a military government. This government would be presided over by the Army theater commander who is called a “military governor.” Since the military governor “has supreme legislative, executive, and judicial authority, limited only by the laws and customs of war and by directives from higher authority,” the civilian government of the occupied State remains intact, except for the legislative branch.

Despite your announcement that you are retiring on October 1, 2024, you, as the theater commander, are obligated to begin the transformation of the State of Hawai‘i into a military government to administer Hawaiian Kingdom laws. The State of Hawai‘i’s governmental infrastructure is the civilian government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. What occurred since 1893 was a renaming of the civilian government from the Hawaiian Kingdom to the provisional government in 1893, the Republic of Hawai‘i in 1894, the Territory of Hawai‘i in 1900, and the State of Hawai‘i in 1959.

If you are derelict in the performance of your duties, by not delegating authority to BG Logan, then you would be the subject of a war criminal report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of your war criminal report on the RCI’s website, BG Logan will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

If BG Logan is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of BG Logan’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Colonel David Hatcher II, Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade, who is next in the chain of command below BG Logan, will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

The chain of command, or what is called the order of battle, for the 29th Infantry Brigade for units in the Hawaiian Islands, is first, the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, second, the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, third, the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fourth, the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion. The 29th Infantry Brigade has units stationed in Alaska and Guam but since they are outside the Hawaiian territory, they do not have the military duty, as an occupant, to establish a military government in the Hawaiian Islands.

If Colonel Hatcher is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of Colonel Hatcher’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick J. Werner, Commander of 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, will assume command of the 29th Infantry Brigade and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

If LTC Werner is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Werner’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Bingham L. Tuisamatatele, Jr., Commander of 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, will assume command of the 29th Infantry Brigade and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

If LTC Tuisamatatele is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Tuisamatatele’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua A. Jacobs, Commander of 29th Brigade Support Battalion, will assume command of the 29th Infantry Brigade and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

If LTC Jacobs is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Jacobs’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Dale R. Balsis, Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, will assume command of the 29th Infantry Brigade and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.

Should LTC Balsis be derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government and be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission, that will be published on the RCI’s website, the sequence of events will then loop to the Executive Officers. First, with the 29th Infantry Brigade, second, with the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, third, with the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, fourth with the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fifth with the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion.

This looping, within the 29th Infantry Brigade’s component commands, will cover all commissioned officers to include Majors, Captains, First Lieutenants and Second Lieutenants. After the commissioned officers have been exhausted in the 29th Infantry Brigade, the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 103rd Troop Command and its component commands will begin, followed by the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, and its component commands. This sequence of events will continue by rank down the chain of command of the entire Hawai‘i Army National Guard until there is someone who sees the “writing on the wall” that he/she either performs their military duty or becomes a war criminal subject to prosecution.

As I stated to you before, to prevent all this from occurring, you must provide evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists as an occupied State under international law. To ignore this will have dire consequences for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard.

On July 15, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a draft of a war criminal report to Major General Kenneth Hara for his war crime by omission for willful failure to establish a military government. Dr. Sai stated to MG Hara that War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 will be published on the RCI’s website if he fails to delegate complete authority and title to Brigadier General Stephen Logan to establish a military government by 1200 hours on July 31, 2024. Dr. Sai also stated to MG Hara that the military government shall be established by 1200 hours on July 31st, and not that MG Hara delegate’s complete authority and title BG Logan by 1200 hours on July 31st. The delegation of complete authority and title must take place prior to 1200 hours on July 31st.

Dr. Sai also stated that the intent of providing MG Hara with a copy of the draft war criminal report was to express to him the severity of his criminal culpability he would incur should he willfully fail to establish a military government. Dr. Sai then reminded MG Hara that at their meeting on April 13, 2023, at the Grand Naniloa Hotel, he forewarned MG Hara that if he was willful in his dereliction of duty to establish a military government, he would incur criminal culpability for the war crime by omission. Here is a link to the draft of War Criminal Report no. 24-0001.

On July 13, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a final letter to Major General Kenneth Hara on the severe ramifications on the chain of command for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard, and, potentially the chain of command for the Air National Guard, if he does not delegate complete authority and title to Brigadier General Stephen Logan to establish a military government by 1200 hours on July 31, 2024. Here is a link to the letter.

The suspense date of 1200 hours on July 31, 2024, for your delegation or not of complete authority and title to Brigadier General Stephen Logan (“BG Logan”), is fast approaching. The purpose of this letter is to expand on the consequences should you not delegate authority and title for BG Logan to establish a military government. Your failure to do so will have dire consequences down the chain of command for the Army National Guard, and, potentially, for the Air National Guard.

The Council of Regency employs lawfare to achieve compliance with international law obligations. According to U.S. Air Force Major General Charles Dunlap, Jr., lawfare is the strategy of using “law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve an operational objective.” The Council of Regency’s operational objective is to compel compliance with international laws. Pursuant to prior written and verbal communication providing undisputed historical, factual and legal evidence of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, fully substantiated at the conclusion of due diligence by your own Staff Judge Advocate, the use of lawfare in this instance by the Council of Regency is wholly justified.

The duration of the American occupation, which is now at 131 years, is not only unlawful but morally unacceptable. President Cleveland, in his message to the Congress, relied on jus ad bellum (law concerning the resort to military force) when he concluded that the invasion of Honolulu by U.S. Marines on January 16, 1893, and the overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 17, 1893, were unjustified “acts of war.” President Cleveland stated:

It has been the boast of our Government that it seeks to do justice in all things without regard to the strength or weakness of those with whom it deals. I mistake the American people if they favor the odious doctrine that there is no such thing as international morality, that is one law for a strong nation and another for a weak one, and that even by indirection a strong power may with impunity despoil a weak one of its territory. By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair.

The 2015 Law of War Manual identifies certain jus ad bellum criteria to be “a competent authority to order the war for a public purpose,” and “a just cause (such as self-defense).” These criteria were relied on by President Cleveland in his message to the Congress in 1893, which has remained unchanged under current U.S. military doctrine. Despite the unlawfulness of the acts of war that have led to this prolonged occupation, jus in bello (laws of war) continues to be obligatory under the law of armed conflict, which is the military term for international humanitarian law.

According to Lauterpact, an illegal war is “a war of aggression undertaken by one belligerent side in violation of a basic international obligation prohibiting recourse to war as an instrument of national policy.” However, despite the President’s ad­mittance that the acts of war were not in compliance with jus ad bellum, the United States was still obligated to comply with jus in bello when it occupied Hawaiian territory. In particular, the international rule for the occupant to transform the civilian government into a military government to administer the laws of the occupied State until the conclusion of a peace treaty. In the Hostages Trial (the case of Wilhelm List and Others), the Tribunal stated, “whatever may be the cause of a war that has broken out, and whether or not the cause be a so-called just cause, the same rules of international law are valid as to what must not be done, [and what] may be done.” What ‘must not be done’ is the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws and administrative measures within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In other words, the law of occupation still applies despite the illegality of the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

President Cleveland’s conclusion that a ‘substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair’ remains true then as it does today. This falls under your duties to perform as the theater commander in the occupied State of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The failure for the U.S. Marines to establish a military government on January 17, 1893, and the failure since by all preceding Adjutant Generals, beginning with Colonel John H. Soper, does not relieve you of your duty to do so today. This duty, under U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01 and Army regulation paragraph 3, FM 27-5, to establish a military government, is directly linked to President Cleveland’s conclusion that ‘the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair.’ The establishment of a military government will serve both to end the prolonged violations and victimizations and begin to repair the rights of the injured Hawaiian people under the law of occupation.

In its Law of War Manual, the U.S. Department of Defense concluded that “[c]ommanders have duties to take necessary and reasonable measures to ensure that their subordinates do not commit violations of the law of war [jus in bello].” It should also be noted that a commander can be held accountable for the conduct of forces under his command, either by taking an active role in the commission of a war crime(s), or by omission in failing to prevent the commission of a war crime(s). The forces under your command are the Hawai‘i Army and Air National Guard, which include police officers.

On May 29, 2024, police officers, both active and retired from across the islands, called upon you to perform your duty. This letter from law enforcement officers is at odds with the instructions given to you by Attorney General Lopez to ignore the calls for you to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. Their letter to you stated:

We hope this letter finds you in good health and high spirits. We are writing to you on behalf of a deeply concerned group of Active and Retired law enforcement officers throughout the Hawaiian Islands, about the current governance of Hawaii and its impact on the vested rights of Hawaiian subjects under Hawaiian Law.

As you are well aware, the historical transition of Hawai‘i from a sovereign kingdom to a U.S. state is fraught with significant legal and ethical issues. The overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 and its subsequent annexation by the United States in 1898 continue to be an illegal act. The Hawaiian Kingdom was recognized as a Sovereign State by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands, in Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom (https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/35/).

At the center of the dispute, as stated on the PCA’s website on the Larsen case, was the unlawful imposition of American laws over Lance Larsen, a Hawaiian subject, that led to an unfair trial and incarceration. It was a police officer, who believed that Hawai‘i was a part of the United States and that he was carrying out his lawful duties, that cited Mr. Larsen, which led to his incarceration. That police officer now knows otherwise and so do we. This is not the United States but rather the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State under international law.

It is deeply troubling that the State of Hawaii has not been transitioned into a military government as mandated by international law. This failure of transition places current police officers on duty that they may be held accountable for unlawfully enforcing American laws. This very issue was brought to the attention of the Maui County Corporation Counsel by Maui Police Chief John Pelletier in 2022. In their request to Chief Pelletier, which is attached, Detective Kamuela Mawae and Patrol Officer Scott McCalister, stated:

We are humbly requesting that either Chief John Pelletier or Deputy Chief Charles Hank III formally request legal services from Corporation Counsel to conduct a legal analysis of Hawai‘i’s current political status considering International Law and to assure us, and the rest of the Police Officers throughout the State of Hawai‘i, that we are not violating International Law by enforcing U.S. domestic laws within what the federal lawsuit calls the Hawaiian Kingdom that continues to exist as a nation state under international law despite its government being overthrown by the United States on 01/17/1893.

Police Chief Pelletier did make a formal request to Corporation Counsel, but they did not act upon the request, which did not settle the issue and the possible liability that Police Officers face.

Your failure to initiate such a transition may be construed as a violation of the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Geneva Convention, which outlines the obligations of occupying powers. Also, your actions, or lack thereof, deprive Hawaiian subjects of the protections and rights they are entitled to under Hawaiian Kingdom laws and international humanitarian law. According to the Geneva Convention, occupying powers are obligated to respect the laws in force in the occupied territory and protect the rights of its inhabitants. Failure to comply with these obligations constitutes a serious violation and can result in accountability for war crimes for individuals in positions of authority.

The absence of a military government perpetuates an unlawful governance structure that has deprived the rights of Hawaiian subjects which is now at 131 years. The unique status of these rights is explained at this blog article on the Council of Regency’s weblog titled “It’s About Law—Native Hawaiian Rights are at a Critical Point for the State of Hawai‘i to Comply with the Law of Occupation” (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/native-hawaiians-are-at-a-critical-point-for-the-state-of-hawaii-to-comply-with-the-law-of-occupation/). It is imperative that steps be taken to rectify these historical injustices and ensure the protection of the vested rights of Hawaiian subjects.

We also acknowledge that the Council of Regency is our government that was lawfully established under extraordinary circumstances, and we support its effort to bring compliance with the law of occupation by the State of Hawai‘i, on behalf of the United States, which will eventually bring the American occupation to a close. When this happens, our Legislative Assembly will be brought into session so that Hawaiian subjects can elect a Regency of our choosing. The Council of Regency is currently operating in an acting capacity that is allowed under Hawaiian law.

We urge you to work with the Council of Regency in making sure this transition is not only lawful but is done for the benefit of all Hawaiian subjects. Please consider the gravity of this situation and take immediate action to establish a military government in Hawaii. Such a measure would align with international law and demonstrate a commitment to justice, fairness, and the recognition of the rights of Native Hawaiians.

The U.S. military’s failure to establish a military government in 1893 has a direct nexus to the war crime of imposing American municipal laws and administrative measure here—usurpation of sovereignty during occupation, which the police officers brought to your attention. BG Logan is a former officer of the Honolulu Police Department, and his brother, Arthur Joseph Logan, was the former Adjutant General and is currently Chief of the Honolulu Police Department.

The establishment of the military government will, consequently, put a stop to this war crime and to the secondary war crimes it had set in motion. By your omission, in failing to prevent the commission of war crimes, you are accountable, as a commander, under the war crime by omission, which comprise two offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Article 92(1) for failure to obey […] regulation, and Article 92(3) for dereliction in the performances of duties. This conduct will result in the publication of War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 after 1200 hours on July 31, 2024, on the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s (“RCI”) website (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/royal-commission.shtml). As a matter of international law, the Council of Regency has a duty to protect the population from war crimes, which prompted the formation of the RCI on June 17, 2019. On this subject, I am attaching two recent law articles written by myself, as the Head of the RCI, and by Professor Federico Lenzerini, as the Deputy Head of the RCI, that was published by the International Review of Contemporary Law last month.

After the publication of the war criminal report, your Deputy Adjutant General, BG Logan, will assume the chain of command as the theater commander, because, as a war criminal, you would be unfit to continue to serve. BG Logan will then request Attorney General Lopez to provide him rebuttable evidence as to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State since the nineteenth century. In particular, she would need to refute the legal opinions, as to the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law, I mentioned in my letter to you dated July 1, 2024, to wit:

Professor Matthew Craven, “Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under International Law,” in David Keanu Sai (ed.) Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom 125-149 (2020).

Professor William Schabas, “War Crimes Related to the United States Belligerent Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” in David Keanu Sai (ed.) Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom 151-169 (2020).

Professor Federico Lenzerini, “International Human Rights Law and Self-Determination of Peoples related to the United States Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” in David Keanu Sai (ed.) Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom 173-216 (2020).

Professor Federico Lenzerini, “Legal Opinion on the Authority of the Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” 3 Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics 317-333 (2021).

Professor Federico Lenzerini, Legal Opinion of Civil Law on Juridical Fact of the Hawaiian State and the Consequential Juridical Act by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (December 5, 2021).

In the absence of evidence by the Attorney General refuting these legal opinions, BG Logan will have seven days, from the date of the publication of the war criminal report, to perform his duty of establishing a military government.

Should BG Logan fail to perform his duty, he will also be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission to be published on the RCI’s website. This will result for the Commander of the 25th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, Colonel David R. Hatcher II, to assume the chain of command and request that the Attorney General provide him evidence refuting the mentioned legal opinions. In the absence of such evidence, Colonel Hatcher will have seven days, from the date of the publication of BG Logan’s war criminal report, to perform his duty of establishing a military government. This process will continue down the chain of command until there is a soldier that understands what it is to be duty bound in order to perform his/her duty of establishing a military government.

To prevent this sequence of events, you are duty bound to determine whether Attorney General Lopez’s instruction to you is a lawful order under military law. As I stated in my letter to you dated July 3, 2024, to determine that it is a lawful order, you should request she provide you evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists as an occupied State under international law. Just as you tasked your Staff Judge Advocate, LTC Phelps, you should demand that Attorney General Lopez provide you with evidence that rebut the presumption of State continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law. In the absence of such evidence, you must perform your duty to establish a military government.

You should be aware that Attorney General Lopez does not possess the qualifications of an expert in international law matters as does Professor Matthew Craven from the University of London SOAS, Law Department; Professor William Schabas from Middlesex London University, Law Department; and Professor Federico Lenzerini from the University of Siena Department of Political and International Science, who authored legal opinions for the Council of Regency and the Royal Commission of Inquiry. Professor Lenzerini previously served as a professor of international law at the University of Siena Law Department. All three are professors of international law. Should you rely on her unqualified opinion, you, and you alone, have created a crisis for the chain of command of the Army National Guard, and, possibly, the Air National Guard.

You should also be aware that the Attorney General is a subject of the RCI’s War Criminal Report no. 23-0001 for the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation that was published on March 29, 2023. You are receiving instructions from a war criminal that is subject to prosecution by a competent court with subject matter jurisdiction. There are no statutory limitations for war crimes.

Your decision to delegate or to not delegate has profound ramifications for the Hawai‘i National Guard that you lead as their Adjutant General. Commanders must make command decisions to protect the men and women under their command. As I stated, if Attorney General Lopez can provide you clear evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exists, then you have no miliary duty to perform. But if she is unable to provide you with evidence, except for an unqualified instruction, you, and you alone, will be derelict in your military duty and will be held accountable as a war criminal in the annals of Hawaiian history. These letters to you will serve as evidence of the war crime by omission. This is lawfare.

On July 3, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a followup letter to Major General Kenneth Hara on the subject of whether State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne E. Lopez’s instruction to him to ignore calls for establishing a military government is a lawful order. Dr. Sai’s followup letter is an attempt to encourage MG Hara to make the proper command decision. Here is a link to the letter.

Major General Hara:

Your decision to delegate, or to not delegate, full authority and title to Brigadier General Stephen Logan to perform the duty of establishing a military government, has profound consequences for you and the chain of command of the Army National Guard, and, possibly, the Air National Guard. This is a command decision that cannot be underestimated. As a Title 32 Army general officer, who is currently the Director of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense, Attorney General Anne E. Lopez is your legal adviser for State of Hawai‘i matters, but Lieutenant Colonel Phelps, as your Staff Judge Advocate, is your legal adviser for military matters. However, if you were activated for deployment to a foreign country, as you were deployed to Baghdad, Iraq, in 2005, the Attorney General would no longer be your legal adviser. Your legal adviser was then exclusively the Staff Judge Advocate that was in country with you and your unit.

From a military standpoint, Attorney General Lopez’s instruction to you, to ignore the calls to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government, would, at first glance, be considered a lawful order. Therefore, it is presumed to be valid. According to United States v. Kisala, 64 M.J. 50 (2006), the essential attributes of a lawful order, that sustains the presumption of lawfulness, include:  (1) issuance by competent authority—a person authorized by applicable law to give such an order; (2) communication of words that express a specific mandate to do or not do a specific act; and (3) relationship of the mandate to a military duty. In light of the presumption of lawfulness, long-standing principles of military justice places the burden of rebutting this presumption on you.

You currently have two conflicting duties to perform—follow the order given to you by the Attorney General or obey an Army regulation. To follow the former, you incur criminal culpability for the war crime by omission. To follow the latter, you will not incur criminal culpability. As you are aware, soldiers must obey an order from a superior, but if complying with that order would require the commission of a war crime, then the order is not lawful, and it, therefore, must be disobeyed. The question to be asked of the Attorney General is whether the State of Hawai‘i is within a foreign State’s territory or whether it is within the territory of the United States. If the Hawaiian Islands is within the territory of the United States, then the Attorney General’s instruction can be considered a lawful order, but if the Hawaiian Islands constitute the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, an occupied State, then the order is unlawful, and must be disobeyed.

Because you have been made aware, and acknowledged on July 27, 2023, that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a matter of international law, you must question the Attorney General’s instruction to you. Just as I recommended to you, when we first met at the Grand Naniloa Hotel in Hilo on April 13, 2023, to have your Staff Judge Advocate refute the information I provided you regarding the presumed existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State under international law, I would strongly recommend you request the Attorney General to do the same.

Under international law, there is a presumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, continues to exist as a subject of international law despite the unlawful overthrow of its government by the United States on January 17, 1893. According to Judge Crawford, there “is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations […] despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government,” and belligerent occupation “does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” Professor Craven explains:

If one were to speak about a presumption of continuity, one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.

Evidence of ‘a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States’ would be an international treaty, particularly a peace treaty, whereby the Hawaiian Kingdom would have ceded its territory and sovereignty to the United States. Examples of foreign States ceding sovereign territory to the United States by a peace treaty include the 1848 Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement with the Republic of Mexico and the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain. If the Attorney General is unable to rebut the presumption of continuity and the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, then you must disobey her instruction because she is NOT ‘a person authorized by applicable law to give such an order.’

You have until July 31, 2024, to either make a command decision to delegate your authority to BG Logan and retire, or should you refuse to delegate your authority, then you will be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission. Your refusal will meet the requisite element of “willfulness” for the war crime by omission.