Exposing the Achilles Heel of the State of Hawai‘i Judiciary

Since the Permanent Court of Arbitration verified and acknowledged the Hawaiian Kingdom to still exist as a State under international law in 1999 in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, it’s been a slow but methodical progression of exposing this legal reality. For the Hawaiian Kingdom to be a State in continuity since the nineteenth century despite the United States illegal overthrow of its government on January 17, 1893, it radically shifted the legal and political terrain concerning the United States’ presence and the State of Hawai‘i’s control over Hawaiian territory. From the 50th State of the American Union to an Occupied State under a prolonged and illegal occupation.

While under international law, there is a rule that effective control by the government of the State over its territory is the exercise of sovereignty, this independence rule does not apply over territory of another State during military occupation. Under international humanitarian law, when a State is in effective control over occupied territory it triggers the law of occupation, not sovereignty, which obligates the occupying State to temporarily administer the laws of the occupied State until a treaty of peace is concluded. In the Hawaiian situation, the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties are in effective control of the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom and are subject to the international law of occupation. Their effective control is not an exercise of sovereignty. According to Professor Krystyna Marek:

Belligerent occupation is thus the classical case in which the requirement of effectiveness as a condition of validity of a legal order is abandoned. The explanation of this unusual fact is to be found in the temporary nature of belligerent occupation. International law could not permanently relinquish the requirement of effectiveness, since this would mean reducing international law and relations to a pure fiction. But belligerent occupation is by definition not of a lasting character. Sooner or later it is bound to end, whether in favour of the occupied or the occupying State.

Once believed to be a democratically elected government under United States laws, the State of Hawai‘i, under international law, is an American armed force and not a government. The leadership of the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties are citizens of the United States. This is similar to the situation in Cyprus after it became an independent State on August 16, 1960, from Great Britain. In 1974, Turkey invaded the Republic of Cyprus and established the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as a Turkish armed force. The northeastern territory of Cyprus has been under Turkish occupation, through its proxy the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, since 1974. The difference, however, is that the Hawaiian Kingdom is an internationally recognized sovereign and independent State, but the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is not.

In 1959, the United States Congress established the State of Hawai‘i by legislation to be the successor of the Territory of Hawai‘i that the Congress established in 1900. In the 1900 statute, the Congress specifically stated that the Territory of Hawai‘i is the successor of the Republic of Hawai‘i. And the Republic of Hawai‘i was the successor to the provisional government that President Grover Cleveland stated to the Congress that it “owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States” on January 16, 1893. President Cleveland also concluded that the provisional government was “neither a government de factor nor de jure” but self-declared.

When an occupying power imposes its legislation and administrative measures over the territory of an occupied State, it constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. For this war crime not to have been committed in the Hawaiian Islands, the Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent State, would had to have been extinguished by the United States under international law and acquired its sovereign territory. To have extinguished the Hawaiian Kingdom, the United States needs to show evidence of a treaty of cession, whether by conquest or otherwise. Examples of foreign States ceding portions of their 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 that ended the Mexican American War, and the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain that ended the Spanish American War.

There exists no such treaty. Instead, the United States enacted a congressional law on July 7, 1898, purporting to have annexed the Hawaiian Islands. The legislation was called a joint resolution of annexation. This act itself, being American legislation, is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.

In 1994, the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals established a precedent case called State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo. In that case, it set the precedence for defendants who argue that the courts do not have jurisdiction because of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence, they must present a factual or legal basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a State under the rules of international law. 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 of jurisdiction over him or her.

Since 1994, State of Hawai‘i courts denied attempts by defendants to dismiss their cases because of the Lorenzo principle. In other words, these courts were asserting that the defendants failed to present any factual or legal basis that the Kingdom continues to exist as a State. This was the case until the Council of Regency got involved in order to expose the illegality of the American occupation in the court system.

The Regency was working with attorney Dexter Ka‘iama who had been representing defendants who were arguing that the courts of the State of Hawai‘i have no jurisdiction. His arguments were based on State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo, which the Appellate court and the Supreme Court stated that defendants had the burden of providing evidence of a factual or legal basis that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State. Ka‘iama provided evidence that met that burden.

In a 2012 case that came before Circuit Judge Glenn Hara in Hilo, Wells Fargo Bank v. Kawasaiki, Judge Hara openly stated what all the judges knew after Ka‘iama presented the irrefutable evidence of the Kingdom’s continued existence. The transcript of the case preserved the record, which stated:

MR. KAIAMA: The scope of my special appearance, Your Honor, is to make argument and presentation with respect to Ms. Kawasaki’s 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of this court, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So here’s the court’s inclination, Mr. Kaiama. And in answer to the plaintiff’s comment that maybe the motion may be delayed, it looks like the motion is one that challenges the subject matter jurisdiction. At least on its face. But—and any time there is a jurisdictional challenge, it can be made at any time. That’s my understanding. Because if the court has no jurisdiction then whatever the court does is void. Um, so I’m treating this as a motion to dismiss for the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the reasons stated. And that is that the argument is that the Kingdom of Hawaii still exists, and therefore, in essence, this court has no jurisdiction, it’s the courts of the Kingdom of Hawaii. That’s how I’m taking the motion. Mr. Kaiama?

MR. KAIAMA: And that is essentially Ms. Kawasaki’s motion and our argument.

MR. KAIAMA: I have now been arguing, Your Honor, this motion before judges of the courts of the circuit court and district court throughout the State of Hawaii, and nearly—and probably over 20 times, and in not one instance has the plaintiff in the cases challenged the merits of the executive agreements to show that either it’s not an executive agreement or that the executive agreements have been terminated. Because we belief, respectfully, again Your Honor, they cannot.

THE COURT: No, but, Mr. Kaiama, I think you failed—in my mind, what you’re asking the court to do is commit suicide, because once I adopt your argument, I have no jurisdiction over anything. Not only these kinds of cases where you may claim either being a citizen of the kingdom, but jurisdiction of the courts evaporate. All of the courts across the state, from the supreme court down, and we have no judiciary. I can’t do that.

THE COURT: I think what [Mr. Kaiama is] saying is the argument is that if, in fact, I buy into his arguments then this court has no jurisdiction over any matter. That’s his analysis, I think.

MS. HIROSANE [for Wells Fargo]: And that’s my understanding of it too, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So the court will deny the motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Hara’s extra-judicial or unlawful order led to Wells Fargo Bank’s pillaging of defendant’s home and property by a court that possessed no jurisdiction. As acknowledged by Hara in the transcript, “if the court has no jurisdiction then whatever the court does is void.” The defendant was the victim of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, deprivation of fair and regular trial, and pillaging.

To stop the State of Hawai‘i’s judiciary from unravelling, the Supreme Court, in 2013, in State of Hawai‘i v. Kaulia, responded to a defendant’s arguments that was like the case that came before Judge Hara except that Ka‘iama was not his attorney. The Supreme Court stated that the defendant “contends that the courts of the State of Hawai‘i lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his criminal prosecution because the defense proved the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the illegitimacy of the State of Hawai‘i government.” With only American case law and municipal laws to rely on, the Supreme Court responded with, “Whatever may be said regarding the lawfulness of its origins, the State of Hawai‘i is now, a lawful government. Individuals claiming to be citizens of the Kingdom and not the State are not exempt from application of the State’s laws.”

The Supreme Court was silent in providing evidence of the lawfulness of the State of Hawai‘i, which, according to the rules of evidence, silence is an acknowledgement of its unlawfulness. According to Professor Nuno Antunes, under international law, acquiescence “concerns a consent tacitly conveyed by a State, unilaterally, through silence or inaction, in circumstances such that a response expressing disagreement or objection in relation to the conduct of another State would be called for.” On acquiescence, the International Court of Justice in Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), the Court stated:

It has been contended on behalf of Thailand that this communication of the maps by the French authorities was, so to speak, ex parte, and that no formal acknowledgment of it was either requested of, or given by, Thailand. In fact, as will be seen presently, an acknowledgment by conduct was undoubtedly made in a very definite way; but even if it were otherwise, it is clear that the circumstances were such as called for some reaction, within a reasonable time, on the part of the Siamese authorities, if they wished to disagree with the map or had any serious question to raise in regard to it. They did not do so, either then or for many years, and thereby must be held to have acquiesced. Qui tacet consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset.

On June 1, 2013, Ka‘iama was licensed to practice law in the Hawaiian Kingdom. His license was issued by Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court First Associate Justice Allen K. Hoe. On August 11, 2013, Ka‘iama petitioned the Council of Regency for a commission as Attorney General after Gary V. Dubin resigned. Ka‘iama stated:

As an Attorney, Counselor, Solicitor and Proctor who has been admitted to practice in al the courts of the Hawaiian Kingdom on June 1, 2013, by the Honorable Allen K. Hoe, First Associate Justice, I respectfully and humbly petition the Council to consider me for the office of acting Attorney General of the Hawaiian Kingdom in light of the recent resignation of Gary V. Dubin, Esq., from the office of the same.

After consideration, the Council of Regency commissioned Dexter Ke‘eaumoku Ka‘iama as Attorney General.

Attorney General Ka‘iama continued to represent defendants in both civil and criminal cases making the argument that the court does not have jurisdiction or authority over the cases because they were unlawful. But in every case that came before these courts across the islands, the judges were not following the Lorenzo precedent, which is their own rule. Without any proof of evidence that countered Attorney General Ka‘iama’s or, in other words, provided any evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists as a State under the rules of international law, they just steam rolled forward as if there was no problem with their authority. As Professor Marek explained:

Thus, the relation between effectiveness and title seems to be one of inverse proportion: while a strong title can survive a period of non-effectiveness, a weak title must rely heavily, if not exclusively, on full and complete effectiveness. It is the latter which makes up for the weakness in title. Belligerent occupation presents an illuminating example of this relation of inverse proportion.

The utter disregard by the State of Hawai‘i courts, to include the Supreme Court, to the rules of fair play and evidence based arguments only proves its “weakness in title” against the Hawaiian Kingdom’s “strong title.” Under international criminal law, these actions taken by the courts, which are preserved in the court filings, comprise the Achilles heel, which is the weakness despite the strength of the State of Hawai‘i judiciary. The actions taken in violation of the law of occupation gives rise to war crimes and individual criminal culpability. There are no statute of limitations for war crimes. These actions do come under the investigative authority of the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

25 thoughts on “Exposing the Achilles Heel of the State of Hawai‘i Judiciary

  1. Once again my deepest mahalo nui loa to Dexter and Keanu for your relentless efforts and perseverance in exposing the truth of the Hawaiian Kingdoms continued existence and the United States illegal occupation..May 2023 bring happiness,prosperity,and success in exposing the truth..Let this be the year the HK will “Huli” the state of Hawaii LLHK…

  2. So, there are no courts of law and equity in the Hawaiian islands because the ones who steer and pilot the mind and spirit like feeding off the lives of the people of these islands by dealing in commerce with their legal fictions. Well, we always knew who we were dealing with. Indeed however the RCI and Council of Regency did well to elucidate the matter. Some people just love there jobs and paychecks too much to renounce their citizenship or bite lady liberty’s tit.
    Blame is useless. Some are not ready to be unplugged from the matrix and I understand but knowledge is key to life. I just love the legal jiu jitsu 101 though & filling the dockets of the RCI to set charges/record straight!!! Ready to see RCI do their thing in 2023!!!
    Kane and Kanaloa guide the way! We must learn the ways of the water. Tacit, implied or expressed, guard your consent and be careful of every deal you seal/sign. The truth will set you free but our people suffer for lack of knowledge. We all know we dealing with successors of usurpers of sovereignty, use your legal fiction wisely or learn how to be sovereign/private!!!
    Deuteronomy 15.

    • As per your comment about people not wanting to renounce their American citizenship: ART. 50 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states — “The Occupying Power shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parentage. It may not, in any case, change their personal status, nor enlist them in formations or organizations subordinate to it.” — Now admittedly, I’m no lawyers nor am I a political scientist, but it’s my understanding that our personal status is that of Hawaiian Kingdom Subjects, that’s the status we are born with as descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom Subjects prior to the illegal invasion, overthrow and continued occupation. The US cannot alter that status “in any case” which includes parents applying for US birth certificates for their Hawaiian children. Likewise just as the US has no jurisdiction within The Hawaiian Kingdom to annex us via a joint resolution, or to impose its laws upon us in courts, it also has no jurisdiction to operate a department to issue US birth certificates to Hawaiian citizens in our Kingdom. It seems to me that if you’re going to argue that the US has jurisdiction to issue US citizenship via birth certificates in our Kingdom, you would likewise have to agree then that the US had jurisdiction to annex us via a joint resolution, otherwise aren’t you picking and choosing when the US does and doesn’t have jurisdiction in our Kingdom? The answer is never, their jurisdiction never extends beyond the borders of their own country… in ALL cases & circumstances only The Hawaiian Kingdom, as a sovereign country, has jurisdiction here, right?!

      • Aloha P., Pololei. The prohibition of changing the legal status of the population during occupation is also addressed in Article 47 Geneva Convention (GC) IV. During occupation Protected Persons (Hawaiians) cannot abrogate their rights under the Fourth (GC) Article 8. This means even if they voluntarily signed or agreed to something it is void. Those who say otherwise are those who keep taking the red pill and don’t want to unplug from the matrix. As why hard.

        • Oops, meant to say there are those who keep taking the blue pill and don’t want to unplug from the matrix but want to act as if they did. A total contradiction or what is referred to as double minded. James 1: 8 ..he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

          • Public international law is ineffective in our case and has been since the national population has been brainwashed. Our monarchy did not subscribe to the Geneva or Hague convention. Private international law however is what we have to cure our situation. For instance, our Executive Agreements, diplomatic correspondence, and treaties are private. This is where law and equity exists…he who seeks equity must do equity, come with clean hands and good faith. We have a nation built on custom and usage so be careful what you become accustomed to and use!

        • Mahalo nui e Kekoa for the reply… I have a question that hopefully you can clear up for me. Article 4 of IVGC which talks of protected persons and who is considered a protected person, also says this: “Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.”… likewise when I look up what it means to be bound by the conventions, I find this: “The Geneva Conventions are multilateral, international treaties. This means that they bind only those nation-states that have signed, ratified, and deposited their ratification with the United Nations.”. So it’s my understanding that only the nationals of nation-states that have ratified and deposited a treaty to the UN regarding the GC’s are protected by it. The Hawaiian Kingdom has not done so, so are we not protected persons? Are we not protected by the conventions?

      • Hey Aloha,
        I suggest stop waiting for Godot. We must realize we the people are doing this to ourselves. Let me explain with some detail and reason.
        The obligation and responsibility of the occupier is very clear, and we all know it very well thanks to Keanu and others. We also know the US has never recognized and remains noncompliant with the laws of war since dealing in contract and commerce with the Republic (State) of Hawaii in 1898. In fact, we’ve even witnessed in modern times the same US foreign relations policies impacting other countries as it did ours over a century ago with Iraq being the most recent experiment applying the law of occupation.
        On top of all this, we as well know that there are two legal orders, that of the occupier (admiralty/maritime law of the sea) where we can barely keep our head above water and that of our Kingdom (law of the land) where most can only imagine Kanehunamoku. So…with all that we know, we can’t keep playing the victim and not do anything about it on our part.
        For what is our responsibility and obligations considering our knowledge of the occupation?
        What is our kuleana?
        Should we continue to subscribe to the prescriptive measures of a federal trust framework prescribed by Congress as a remedy to their unlawful intervention and non-compliance? No!
        We must do what is in our power to do which is identify ourselves as nationals rather than US citizens when dealing with their agents. We must stand on our square and be steadfast. Onipa’a!!!
        We should not feed the economic machine which pillages and plunders by fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, that is the State of Hawaii by subscribing our newborn children to their social security system of labor exploitation! And if we do not believe that a federal trust established by Congress is a proper cure for US invasion, occupation and installation of a puppet government, then we should not subscribe to any of it’s acquisitive prescriptions except strictly under protest as our Queen did for we know who we are and who we dealing with.
        You see Aloha, you say US laws cannot impact us because international law says so but yet it does is many ways cause most people in these islands use it to benefit themselves. The same system they use to benefit themselves as US citizens is that which exploits their families by name and pillages and plunders their ancestral estates and national lands as Hawaiian nationals. If all knew the power they have to be self determining then we would be playing on our beloved shoals of Kane now instead navigating the waters of Kanaloa. We should stop trading the labor of our hands and production of our minds with the usurpers giving life to merchants which destroy our way of life. Your rights as a Hawaiian national comes from your responsibility to identify yourself as such to all agents of the matrix. Your energy by tacit procreation gives the US corporation life which tramples all over your rights and liberties as Hawaiian nationals. These are silent weapons for quiet wars. Learn to execute an administrative process.

        • Lopaka, Obviously, you haven’t figured out how to work the system to your benefit and in return benefit the HK. You do understand we are in a state of war? Better learn the art of war.

          • kekoa, you don’t know me but I look forward to meeting you in the flesh on 2/11/2023 @ UH Manoa.

      • Hi Aloha, I am not an expert either but I do have a Political Science degree with a Certificate in Law and wrote a thesis titled Imua ‘Ea; The legal mobilization of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I graduated in 2012 and was a member of Hawaiian Society of Law and Politics when Willie Kauai was President. Theoretically you are correct but as we all know the application of those public international laws has not come to fruition because it’s a source of public embarrassment and financial liability for the US.
        I simply provide an individual rights perspective rather than a states rights perspective which Keanu’s focus has been. I’ve worked with Keanu educating the public and even Dexter before he teamed up with Keanu. What I am trying to say is that there are 7 principles to the US constitution which effectively governs these. From the principle foundation of individual rights we can efficiently restore self government. When individuals know their rights, then they can run thru the heavens.

      • How’s this one, “..Our monarchy did not subscribe to the Geneva or Hague convention.” Of course, they did. How the hell do you think they got Hawaii to become an independent nation state. They followed Customary International Law. That is what the Geneva and Hague Conventions are made of. The codification of the already existing Customary International Laws and practices that were in use and practiced by the international community. It is not something new that was legislated. The GCs are everything already in use and agreed upon by all states. The GC took everything and cataloged it into a uniformed easy to use reference guide. When someone has no substance, they proffer long winded rants instead. Lose money.

        • Stop lying to yourself…the HK is not a signatory to the GC/HC except for the acting government/Council of Regency. Legal facts!
          There is no evidence to prove that our constitutional monarchy were signatory and subscribed to the GC/HC because the HK was buried alive under US trade and commerce. Check the documentation! All the signatories are there in black and white including their reservations and concerns. Stop your make believe!

          • Why do you have to sign something you already using in order for it to be valid. It’s tacit consent through performance. They already acting under customary international law. Those who signed it were already using it. They just agreeing to the codification and format of existing customary law they already subjected themselves to in the past. It’s all about accountability. You make no sense. You think these signatories can say that the HK cannot use the GCs against them because the HK is not a signatory to the convention? Hell yeah, the HK can. Or the HK can say it cannot be held accountable for violations of the GCs because it’s not a signatory to the GCs. Hell yeah, the HK can be held accountable. If you think not, then all one needs to do is sidestep the GCs and use customary international law instead of referencing the GCs. Bottom line they held accountable. What’s the problem? Nothing. You make no sense just like talking about private international law. Brah just because you attended some club or university with some of these professors means nothing. I had guys/girls in school or clubs and some of them were lolo and still lolo today. Just gotta look at what they say and how they act.

    Aloha, the KUPAU ‘OHANA, Kamani/Kamanu Pukuilua 2023

  4. The House Of Cards Is Coming Down & The Tyrants Will Be Brought To Justice. If We Don’t Get International Support To Arrest This Tyranical Rogue Goverment Known As The State Of Hawai’i These Islands Will Become Even More Chaotic & Lawless Then They Ever Were Before. If You Do Simple Math & Equate Time Into The Picture If Everyone Has To Use Money To Purchase Everything & People Are Slowly Losing Money Each Day To Pay Electric Bills Water Bills Food Expenditure Mortgages Rent Tax Automobiles Etc. Pretty Much Eveything You Can Conceive Of. Eventually I Think Most People Will Be Broke Displaced & Without The Essential Resources To Survive. Especially With Overpopulation In Countries Like The U.S & Hawaiian Kingdom. People Will Not Be Able To Purchase Anything Because There Will Be Nothing To Purchase. Also Millions Of People In The U.S & The Hawaiian Kingdom Will Be Displaced. Everything Will Eventually Crumble Like The Fall Of Rome Due To Lack Of Innovation Over Expenditure & Just Complete Chaos & Everything Will End With The Rich Getting Richer & The Poor Getting Poorer. If There Is No Work Force In America It Crumbles. When There Is No Justice In America It Crumbles. When There Is Nowhere For The People To Turn It Crumbles. Simple Put America Will Fall The Hawaiian Kingdom Will Fall & Everyone In It Will Fall. I Only Speak The Truth & From The Looks Of It Were All Gunna Be Living In A Dark Age That Was Darker Than The Middle Ages & The Renissance. So I Would Prepare Now Because It’s Only Going To Get Worst. Mahalo & Blessing To All The People Struggling Out There. I Wish You All Well & Safe Passage. Mahalo.

    • We must stand on our own. No one will help us up if we cannot stand on our own two, ten toes down! No retreat, no compromise.

  5. A poisonous tree only produces poisonous fruit. There isn’t any way around this fact, and the State of Hawaii Supreme Court exposed their poisonous fruits in perpetuity in court records. “…Whatever may be said regarding the lawfulness of its origins, the State of Hawai‘i is now, a lawful government…” Yeah right. Mattew 7: 18-19 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
    19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. Can I get an Amen.

    • Aloha Kekoa, I’m replying to your other comment to me here because the other comments were getting squished.
      So I have questions I hope you can clear up for me…. you said in your other comment that Hawaiians are protected persons in accordance to art 4 of the IVGC, and that has been my understanding as well, however upon closer inspection, art 4 of the IVGC also states this: “Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.”… so that lead me to ask myself if The Hawaiian Kingdom is in fact “bound by the convention” and what that means. And THAT lead me to this: “The Geneva Conventions are multilateral, international treaties. This means that they bind only those nation-states that have signed, ratified, and deposited their ratification with the United Nations.”… The Hawaiian Kingdom has NOT ratified and deposited a treaty to the UN regarding the conventions. Soooo The Hawaiian Kingdom is not bound by the conventions??? And if THK is not bound by the conventions that would mean Hawaiians are not protected persons in accordance to art 4 of the IVGC??? And if THK is not bound by the conventions and Art4 of the IVGC says “Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.”… Hawaiians are not protected by The Hague & Geneva Conventions???

      Im sorry for asking you, but (& no offense to others) I find your comments the easiest to understand, so I hope you don’t mind.

  6. 👋🏽 Question for Dr. Sai that I really hope you can clear up or address for me…

    Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions states that: “Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.”.

    When I looked up what it meant to be “bound by the conventions”, I came across this answer: “The Geneva Conventions are multilateral, international treaties. This means that they bind only those nation-states that have signed, ratified, and deposited their ratification with the United Nations.”.

    So if I’m understanding this correctly, doesn’t that mean The Hawaiian Kingdom and subsequently Hawaiians are not protected by The Hague & Geneva Conventions because The Hawaiian Kingdom hasn’t ratified and deposited a treaty to the U.N. regarding the conventions?

    • Follow up question… can YOU sign, ratify and deposit a treaty to the UN as the interim acting Hawaiian Kingdom government?

Leave a Reply