The federal courts of the United States represent a higher level of standard than courts within the various States of the American Union. What is at its core is the “rule of law” that provides legal predictability, continuity, and coherence; reasoned decisions made through publicly visible processes and based faithfully on the law. U.S. District Courts, unlike the Appellate Courts, have trials that apply the rule of law in filings, proceedings and evidence. You don’t have trials at the Appellate Court.
Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses representations to the Court. “By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper…an attorney…certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.”
If an attorney files any written motion that violates these conditions, he/she can be sanctioned by the Court under Rule 11(c)(1), which states, “If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.” In other words, if a motion is frivolous, the attorney can be sanctioned.
The basis of this rule would also apply to Declarations made in support of a motion where the declarant would have committed the crime of perjury if what was stated in the Declaration are false statements. This comes under U.S. Federal law 18 U.S.C. §1621 and §1623. This is why in Declarations filed with Federal Courts it states, “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.”
Rule 11(b)(2) applies to the content of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Reconsideration, which is “warranted by existing law.” In the District Courts, along with constitutional provisions and statutes, existing law includes Federal Court decisions that came before the Appellate Courts or the Supreme Court.
In the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Reconsideration, it provided clear evidence of two instances that the United States recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency as its government while administrative proceedings took place at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom (1999-2001).
The first instance was by executive agreement between the Council of Regency and the United States, by its Embassy in the Netherlands, that provided permission to the United States to access all records and pleadings of the case. Under international law, this is called an executive agreement, by exchange of notes. Pertinent Supreme Court decisions on this subject of executive agreements that were cited in the Motion for Reconsideration are United States v. Belmont (1937), United States v. Pink (1942), and American Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi (2003).
In Garamendi, the Supreme Court stated, “our cases have recognized that the President has authority to make ‘executive agreements’ with other countries, requiring no ratification by the Senate […] this power having been exercised since the early years of the Republic.”
In Belmont, the Supreme Court stated, “an international compact […] is not always a treaty which requires the participation of the Senate.”
And in Pink, the Supreme Court stated, “all international compacts and agreements’ are to be treated with similar dignity, for the reason that ‘complete power over international affairs is in the national government, and is not and cannot be subject to any curtailment or interference on the part of the several states.”
The significance on the executive agreement between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States is stated by the Supreme Court in Garamendi where, “valid executive agreements are fit to preempt state law, just as treaties are.” In other words, the executive agreement negates the legal existence of the State of Hawai‘i, and the consequences of this executive agreement where the United States recognizes the continued existence of the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom over the Hawaiian Islands is clearly stated by the Supreme Court in Jones v. United States (1890). In Jones, the Supreme Court stated:
By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. […] He is the mere organ by whom that will is communicated. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts.”
In Jones, the Supreme Court also stated that recognition of the sovereignty of a State “conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that government.” In other words, this executive agreement of recognition binds District Court Judge Micah Smith, the Plaintiffs Student for Fair Admission and the Defendant Kamehameha Schools and that it “can never be examinable by the courts” of the United States, which includes State courts.
The Court, together with the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, are not the contracting parties to the executive agreement, but are bound not to question or examine it, unless they can provide evidence that there is no such executive agreement ever made. To do so, however, is to have the United States Attorney General intervene in the case and provide evidence that there is no such thing as an executive agreement between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, a claim that would be considered frivolous under Rule 11(b). Therefore, the U.S. Attorney General, after intervening in the lawsuit, will have to counter the evidential basis of the executive agreement in the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion for Reconsideration. As a contracting party to the executive agreement, only the United States can examine the evidence of the executive agreement.
The second instance was by opio juris—customary international law where none of the Contracting States to the treaty that formed the Permanent Court, to include the United States, did not object to the Permanent Court’s recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency as its government in order for it to have established the arbitration tribunal on June 9, 2000. This was explained in a legal opinion by Federico Lenzerini, a professor of international law at the University of Siena, Italy, which was Exhibit 1 attached to his Declaration that was filed with the Motion for Reconsideration.
The Supreme Court has recognized that the writings of legal scholars are a source of customary international law. In the Paquete Habana case (1900), the Supreme Court stated, “the works of jurists and commentators, who by years of labor, research and experience, have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.”
These scholars also include Professor Matthew Craven’s legal opinion on the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law, which is Exhibit B attached to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion to Intervene; Professor Federico Lenzerini’s legal opinion on the authority of the Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom attached as Exhibit D to the Motion to Intervene; and Professor William Schabas’ legal opinion on war crimes related to the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom attached as Exhibit E to the Motion to Intervene.
As they say in the game of chess, checkmate, which is where there is no possible escape for the United States.
It sure looks like you blew them out of the water there!
Could this have been the precursor of the counterinsurgency that has led to the current demise of the global cabalist this very day? To me, Trump’s newly formed Board of Peace turned the table on the cabalist in the same fashion the UN and its Security Council did to the Hawaiian Kingdom. The Political Question Doctrine is a double edge sword and it cuts both ways. The cabalist didn’t think the other edge of that sword would cut them into pieces. I’ll read this again, but it sure looks like the District Court had and has no standing! They’re preempted and bound! Indeed, Checkmate!
Mahalo nui for all that you do, very much appreciated.
WYK,
Patriot Strong USA!
Excellent summary, WYK! I concur!
By some odd reason the U.S. Judge, Smith, denies the motion for reconsideration based on the political question, which they think has been settled with the 1959 plebiscite. We should challenge the validity of the plebiscite; the option to be independent was not on the ballet, and you had to be American to vote. Lock in that lie into their court system.
It was music to my ears to read aloud that “valid executive agreements” between the Hawaiian Kingdom & the US “are fit to PREEMPT state law, JUST AS TREATIES ARE”–NEGATING THE LEGAL EXISTENCE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII!!!
WOW! I wanna cry with joy! For too long the #NOtreaty admiralty law (state of) Hawaii courts have terrorized islanders, cornering them into compliance, based on one BIG LIE that we could not question– because it was “political”.
Now, after decades of unraveling the layers of mistruths via EDUCATION, the cabal criminals are FALLING after the acting Hawaiian Kingdom rose to defend Kamehameha School. It’s the *perfect* Full Circle Ending, says this (former) librarian!
It undoubtedly also helps to have “law and orders” President Trump at the helm too, whose goal is to RETURN sovereignty to ALL nations!
So mahalo, our dear “David” for your steadfastness toward JUSTICE while surrounding yourself with other determined, ethical souls who gifted their talents too.
FOREVER grateful!
🌴💗🌴
P.s. I also hope that ALL foreclosure & evictions are (((suddenly halted))) with warning of WAR CRIME charges (please)!
btw
If you want to SEE another *proof* of Hawaii already beginning to transition, those in Honolulu can see a NEW FLEET of C&C Honolulu vehicles with NEW logos, parked & ready to go in the DPP covered lot. The prior colorful logo w/ “State of Hawaii” is NO MORE! The DPP parking is getting fenced right now, torn down to build NEW, expanded parking (per an employee).🔥 [Altho’ I can sadly say their courts continue to do WAR CRIMES without remorse.]
Recall this and other MAJOR infrastructure & building projects are being done during Hawaii’s allegedly fiscally challenging years of lower tourism revenues. Reparations? 👀
fyi
Interesting. #Hawaii has had lots of #nonhurricane rainstorms that NEVER shutdown the state “except for essential workers”. 🤨
Also listen our faux #NOtreaty governor green. He says the names of everyone he’s introducing to speak EXCEPT MG Stephen Logan— who he refers to as “TAG.” 👀 I suspect MG Logan IS Hawaii’s current military governor while transitioning away from #Occupation. When TAG Logan speaks he details ALL THAT THE MILITARY WILL BE DOING.
Schools (it’s a HSTA Institute Day so children NOT in school anyway) & the Gov (inc the legislature ) CLOSED. Roads, ports, airport & still stores operating AS USUAL…
LET’S HOPE THIS IS “the (disclosure) storm” the globe has been waiting for! 😎
P.s. Years back, Kumu mentioned the importance of the date 2/17 without any elaboration– still wondering!
https://youtube.com/live/QYpYw2R7TB8?si=nSkXRiVz5Y8lO25H
Wow! The announcer DOES say, “from the MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON”! I think this is from the Superbowl today. https://tinyurl.com/zppp4cua
In the same post, there’s a link to a January 18, 2021 ABC/Good Morning America clip where Major General William Walker, the Commanding General of the DC National Guard, publicly stating there were “25,000 NG in DC to help with the PEACEFUL TRANSITION TO MILITARY POWER”.🫡That’s around the same time that black & white Prisoner of War (POW) flags went up on the Capitol, White House, post offices (even in Hawaii) and other select FED properties.
Wondering if in the Kamehameha School case where the courts REFUSE to acknowledge the binding “Executive Agreements”,(acknowledging HK’s sovereignty) WILL that trigger (officially) military intervention? It already seems that MG Logan is in effective control of our SAFETY during this recent (& former) ‘storm’ that is closing down Hawaii GOV tomorrow (except essential services).
JD Vance was in Armenia earlier today and signed an agreement for nuclear cooperation with the Prime Minister of Armenia. It’s on YouTube. I noticed that the American flags behind JD Vance does not have the gold fringe around them.
I saw a short clip of Bad Bunny’s performance, it sounded like he mentioned Hawaii shortly before Puerto Rico. IDK, maybe I’m imagining that.
On another note, I got an email from Quora yesterday, I normally delete it, but something caught my attention. It was posted by Zoya Gregory around 11 months ago. I found it interesting however I don’t know its accuracy.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has ruled that President Trump must unfreeze $1.9 billion in foreign USAID payments. Unbelievable.
Justice Samuel Alito BLASTS the majority with Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joining in dissent:
“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”
🤔
WYK
Patriot Strong USA!
Bad Bunny & Ricky Martin sang “Lo Que Le Pasó a Hawaii,” /What happened to Hawaii? at the Superbowl. It’s about American colonization & concern that Puerto Rica is in danger of suffering the same overdevelopment as Hawaii.
“We’re going be like Hawaii… when in the late 19th century US white elites were able to come in and actually start taking land.”
Bad Bunny vocalizes concerns that the island is “slowly being emptied out” and becoming a place that’s “not for Puerto Ricans.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/bad-bunny-new-album-puerto-rico-hawaii-development-property-statehood-2025-1
Hawaii courts “Jurisdiction” always HIDE behind “it’s a political question” claim. HK has fought against that BS for decades, and their former lawyers have LOST their BAR licenses for defending clients’ lawful rights.
The most recent “checkmate” is VERY encouraging since it allows HK to leap over that BS, landing where “executive agreements” ranks higher.
Yet now it seems there’s a waiting game… Kumu Sai’s discovery is the Hawaii equivalent of the US’ Brunson case, which is trapped at the Supreme Court level. BOTH will take down their respective governments. Given the battle is *really* vs. the armed deep state cabal, if appears strategic timing is everything to avoid casualties, etc.. Let’s guess TODAY’s Gov shutdown (w/o any BIG storm disaster) has something to do with that?
I just hope *it* happens before I get possibly arrested. 🫤 Regardless, TRUTH WILL WIN! #NCSWIC!
Kumu Sai– how can WE piggyback on your efforts?
We KNOW we’re under OCCUPATION and that the #NOtreaty State of Hawaii LACKS jurisdiction. Yet Courts (((ignore))) & PILLAGE anyway.
So if you’ve absolutely proven US COURTS Lack Jurisdiction due to BINDING Executive Agreements recognizing Hawaiian Kingdom Sovereignty– HOW can that FACT OF LAW immediately “STOP THE STEAL”?
For example, must homeowners facing eviction file motions [to DISMISS OR QUASH EVICTION for lack of subject matter jurisdiction] INDIVIDUALLY in Fed courts, or will the FED recognition HALT those unlawful actions immediately?
Would appreciate an updated POST to clarify Hawaiian subjects next steps too!
Mahalo for all that everyone IS doing to move Hawaii’s RECOVERY forward! 💗
fyi
I found other pro se litigants (without lawyers) fighting STATE Gov fraud by efforts to bypass their State courts to get to the FED level– which Kumu Sai successfully did via Kamehameha’s case leading to his CHECKMATE move.
NOT certain of this tactic’s success rate. YET VERY INTERESTING regardless, especially since Hawaii is also unlawfully occupied too. Also, seems the same logic could be applied to ALL court issues here in Hawaii? Here’s some of the language:
“Defendant appears especially and not generally and submits this DEMAND TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND DEMAND TO REMOVE AND TRANSFER THIS ACTION TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.” “A CONSTITUTIONAL EMERGENCY EXISTS because the court is proceeding without lawful authority over real property and possession issues and is acting in excess of its limited jurisdiction…” https://www.youtube.com/live/dSM4CZCAt5w?si=mI-7oRazDd7ANtaw
Says to also ADD “fraudulent concealment of a legal document” too.
For example, I witnessed lenders outright REFUSAL to produce the “original wet ink Note” (front & back) for my inspection that they said was “in a secure location”.
Usually the SELL them ASAP for $, therefore no longer have them. They’re just trying to suck more out of us with help from THEIR judge.. grrr.
None of my business but you will never see the original note. If you did it would be checkmate, game over and you win.
TOTALLY agree Kekoa! They already sold it & THEIR judges know that too = “fraudulent concealment of a legal document.” And they MUST know about the Title Defect too, from Kumu Sai’s letters & at least mine too.
So, this new angle to BYPASS state courts & resurrect as a “CONSTITUTIONAL EMERGENCY” (while under “occupation”?) at the FED US district Ct. level has me intrigued.
The video details how the mortgage fraud, of course, is for the entire US. Yet Hawaii’s occupation fact should kick it up a notch too.
Sadly there’s just so many layers to their deception plus they (lenders) essentially control the rulings too.
Still researching what/how to do…
Just know I need to figure out & file something before mid-March …
AND *if* HK does get a positive response to their checkmate rebuttal, that changes EVERYTHING too! 🙏🏼
Alohe e Erin,
If you are able to file a motion to dismiss due to the lack of jurisdiction on the basis of the following. The illegitimate State relies on the political question to dismiss any case regarding Hawaiian Subjects’ rights. Have we asked ourselves why they revert to the political question? They hope we don’t ask the right questions so they don’t have to answer them. What most do not know is that the U.S. courts rely on the political question, as they believe it had been settled with the 1959 plebiscite (vote to become a State of the Union).
There are two major issues in that plebiscite: the option to remain independent was left off the ballot, and voters had to be American. The latter immediately voided the plebiscite. Not to forget that the U.S. Congress held said plebiscite. It should have been the Hawaiian Kingdom Government initiating any plebiscite. The purpose of a plebiscite is to determine the will of the people. Thus, we, the Subjects (People) of the Hawaiian Kingdom never agreed to incorporate into the U.S.
I would suggest that everyone study the heck out of the illegitimate 1959 Hawai’i plebiscite and become familiar with that portion of history. I believe it holds the key.
Ke Akua pu, e Erin!
Mahalo for your response!
Yes, the FRAUD of the illegitimate plebiscite is ALSO a key issue, after the ORIGINAL SIN of #NOtreaty. However the illegitimate #StateOfHawaii courts IGNORE ALL defenses, while continuing to claim “the political Q”. I only know of *one* local where foreclosure actions were quietly filed away WITHOUT any payments (~10 years ago)! She was a HI notary.
That’s why Kumu’s recent “checkmate” via Executive Agreements = a ‘treaty’ agreement IS HUGE! [Even tho’ I *think* we already have a military governor in place– MG Logan.]
Regardless, I keep (((researching))) options to deal with these BAR CRIMINALS. Seems I need a miracle at this point. 🙏🏼
Hey! You folks see this (((new))) military-based WEEKLY WED program called “The Rally Point” on HNN? Guess who was the FIRST featured interview? MG Stephen Logan! Says the focus is on “MILITARY personnel & issues across Hawaii”!
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2026/02/11/rally-point-us-army-mg-logan-national-guards-mission-hawaii/
You can also see some more 2026 “emergency proclamations” made at this site by piecing together the parts. (seems can only list one link per post here). Guessing since those ‘suspend laws’ w/o need for legislative scrutiny it makes it easier for our military governor to ‘govern’.
https: // dod.hawaii .gov/ hiema/ category/ emergency-proclamations/ page/5/
Recall that since mid 2025, at 2 governor pressers related to weather threats, a mysterious MILITARY man addressed the public detailing ALL the MILITARY branches prepared to help—someone NEVER introduced by name by the governor. 🤨
MG Logan leads a combined force of 5,300 Army and Air National Guard soldiers and airmen, and ensures that the Hawaii Guard is properly trained to meet its state and federal mission. On the STATE side, he said Guard personnel were activated in response to help due to the severe weather… On the FEDERAL side, he shared the Hawaii Guard COULD ALSO BE ACTIVATED BY THE US PRESIDENT…
So can US President Trump (((activate))) MG Logan as Hawaii’s temp ‘military governor’?
YES. And presidential orders—specifically Presidential Emergency Action Documents (PEADs)—can be prepared, classified & potentially ACTIVATED IN SECRET during sensitive or catastrophic situations, WITHOUT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE or even congressional notification. 😎
For those still in doubt about Hawaii’s sovereignty, here’s Grok’s ai simplified summary of Hawaii’s situation:
The #HawaiianKingdom WAS A FULLY SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENT NATION, recognized by the US & major powers through treaties like the 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation and the 1875 Reciprocity Treaty—treating it as an EQUAL sovereign state.
Under US Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI), treaties are the “SUPREME LAW of the Land,” & international law REQUIRES a VALID BILATERAL TREATY OF CESSION /annexation between sovereigns for LAWFUL territorial transfer. NO SUCH TREATY EXISTED:
1897 Proposed annexation treaty FAILED in the US Senate.
1898 NEWLANDS RESOLUTION (domestic joint resolution, NOT A TREATY) annexed Hawaii after the ILLEGAL 1893 US-backed overthrow.
1993 US APOLOGY RESOLUTION (Pub. L. 103-150) ADMITTED the overthrow VIOLATED treaties and international law, deprived Native Hawaiians of self-determination, and suppressed sovereignty WITHOUT consent.
WITHOUT a ratified treaty from the legitimate Kingdom government, annexation LACKED valid international title. Under customary international law’s #presumptionofcontinuity, the Hawaiian Kingdom PERSISTS under PROLONGED US #BelligerentOccupation (as recognized in the 2001 Permanent Court of Arbitration case Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom).
HAWAII REMAINS OCCUPIED—NOT lawfully a US state—DUE TO NO TREATY-BASED CESSION. #OccupiedHawaii
So tune into the WEEKLY #TheRallyPoint to get educated things are lining up for Hawai’i nei! 🌴😉🌴
P.s. Still hopeful that our courts could soon reflect such optimism!