PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 23, 2015
A former diplomat reported war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Islands to Swiss Attorney General in Bern
ZURICH, SWITZERLAND – On December 22, 2014, it was reported by a former diplomat to Swiss Attorney General Michael Lauber that war crimes are being committed in the Hawaiian Islands. The case has been assigned to a Prosecuting Attorney of the Center of Competence of International Crimes, an agency of the Office of the Attorney General that is empowered to prosecute war crimes.
Click here to download war crimes report. The exhibits for Mr. Kale Gumapac identified in the war crimes report can be downloaded here: Exhibit #1, Exhibit #2, Exhibit #3, Exhibit #4, Exhibit #5, Exhibit #6, Exhibit #7, Exhibit #8, Exhibit #9-A, Exhibit #9-B, Exhibit #9-C.
A month later on January 22, 2015, the Prosecuting Attorney received a formal criminal complaint in Bern by a Swiss citizen residing in the Hawaiian Islands alleging war crimes have been committed against him and his family by the State of Hawai‘i and the government of the United States. The Swiss citizen traveled to Bern for this very reason. His name is kept confidential for safety reasons and he has invoked his right to protective measures under Article 152 of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code.
Click here to download complaint by Swiss citizen.
“Through rigorous academic research, especially in the department of political science at our university, a revised view of the status of Hawai‘i in international law has emerged,” explained the diplomat. “In several dissertations that came out in the last few years it was proven that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as an independent State, yet under a prolonged occupation by the United States of America since the Spanish-American War (1898).”
“In this context,” the diplomat stated, “it should also be mentioned that the Hawaiian Kingdom entered into a treaty of friendship, establishment and commerce with the Swiss Confederation in 1864, which has never been terminated by any of the two contracting parties.”
“Spearheading this research concerning the legal status of Hawai‘i is Dr. David Keanu Sai who graduated from the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa with a Ph.D. dissertation on that topic a few years ago, and who has subsequently inspired a series of other academic researchers,” said the diplomat.
On September 19, 2014, Professor Williamson Chang, a senior law professor at the William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder, in which he reported war crimes being committed by the United States on Hawaiian territory. ABC News Australia covered the story and Attorney General Holder has been silent on the reporting.
The diplomat explained to Swiss Attorney General Lauber, “It is Professor Chang’s letter to Attorney General Holder concerning the committing of war crimes in Hawai‘i that prompted me to turn to the Swiss authorities, because it directly affects the estimated 600 Swiss citizens residing here in the Islands, as well as all foreign citizens residing or doing business in the Islands. Because of his expertise, I have therefore asked Dr. Sai to put together an exhaustive report for the attention of Swiss citizens, which I have the honor to forward to you.”
Dr. Sai’s report answers three initial questions in order to provide context for the reporting of war crimes: first, whether the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State and a subject of international law; second, whether the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as an independent State and a subject of international law, despite the illegal overthrow of its government by the United States; and, third, whether war crimes have been committed in violation of international humanitarian law.
After the three questions have been answered in the affirmative, Dr. Sai addressed whether the Swiss Federal Government is capable of investigating and prosecuting war crimes that occur outside of its territory. According to the report, Dr. Sai states that the Swiss authorities are authorized under Swiss law to prosecute war crimes committed outside of its territory under passive personality jurisdiction where the victim is a Swiss citizen, under active personality jurisdiction where the perpetrator is a Swiss citizen, and also under universal jurisdiction where the victim and/or perpetrator of the war crime are not Swiss citizens.
A complainant who is identified in Dr. Sai’s report is Mr. Kale Kepekaio Gumapac, a Hawaiian subject, who resides on the island of Hawai‘i and has alleged war crimes have been committed against himself by Deutsche Bank for the pillaging of his home, whose Chief Executive Officer at the time was Josef Ackermann, a Swiss citizen and resident of Zurich. Deutsche Bank’s pillaging of his home was carried out by State of Hawai‘i Deputy Sheriff Lieutenant Patrick Kawai.
On January 22, 2015, Gumapac amended his complaint to include active personality jurisdiction due to the fact that Josef Ackermann is a Swiss citizen and resides within the territory of the Swiss Confederation. Swiss law mandates an investigation of crimes committed abroad where the perpetrator or victim are Swiss citizens. Gumapac also invoked his rights as a Hawaiian subject under the 1864 Hawaiian-Swiss Treaty that states, “Hawaiians shall be received and treated in every canton of the Swiss Confederation, as regards their persons and their properties, on the same footing and in the same manner as now or may hereafter be treated, the citizens of other cantons.”
Click here to download Gumapac’s amended complaint.
The pillaging stemmed from an unfair trial, which is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, because since the State of Hawai‘i is self-declared, its courts cannot claim that they are properly constituted under the law. Gumapac also named the trial judge, Greg Nakamura, had committed the war crime of depriving Gumapac of a fair trial after Gumapac’s attorney, Dexter Kaiama, provided clear evidence that the court was unlawful. Nakamura disregarded the evidence and allowed Deutsche Bank to pillage Gumapac’s home despite the fact that Gumapac had title insurance to cover the debt owed to Deutsche Bank.
Dr. Sai also serves as the attorney for both claimants by virtue of specific powers of attorney entered into in Geneva, Switzerland, by the unnamed Swiss citizen, and by Gumapac in the State of Washington, United States of America.
In his report, Dr. Sai drew a comparison of Hawai‘i’s occupation by the United States to the German occupation of Luxembourg during the First World War from 1914-1918. Like Luxembourg, the Hawaiian Kingdom was a recognized neutral State, and both occupations took place without armed resistance.
According to Dr. Sai, “The Germans invaded Luxembourg in order to use it as a military base to launch attacks against France, and the United States invaded the Hawaiian Kingdom and used it as a military base to launch attacks against Spain in its Pacific colonies of Guam and the Philippines. Where the German occupation ended in four years, only to be reoccupied again by Germany from 1940-1945, the Hawaiian Kingdom has since been under a prolonged occupation and its territory has and continues to be used as a military base of operations in all the wars the United States has participated in since 1898.”
On March 30, 2013, the Peoples Republic of North Korea formally declared war on South Korea and the United States. In its declaration North Korea specifically stated they have targeted Hawai‘i because of the presence of the United States military. Hawai‘i serves as the headquarters for the Pacific Command, which is the largest combatant command for the Department of Defense.
“What people don’t realize,” said Dr. Sai, “is that the Hawaiian Islands was never a part of the United States. It is the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom that has been an independent and sovereign State since November 28, 1843 and a recognized neutral State since the Crimean War in 1854. The Hawaiian Islands were never acquired by the United States under international law and it is international law that maintains and protects its independence and continued existence.”
Dr. Sai emphasizes that Hawai‘i is not seeking its independence from the United States through self-determination because it was never a part of the United States to begin with. It has been independent since 1843 and its international treaties remain binding today with Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. In the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom maintained over ninety legations and consulates throughout the world.
In his report, Dr. Sai identifies two armed conflicts. The first was an armed invasion by United States troops on January 16, 1893 and lasted until April 1, 1893. A subsequent Presidential investigation concluded the United States to be in the wrong and negotiated settlement by executive agreement with the Hawaiian government. The second armed conflict occurred during the Spanish-American War when the Hawaiian Kingdom was occupied on August 12, 1898 after the Congress passed a law unilaterally seizing the Hawaiian Islands on July 7, 1898. The President and the Congress knowingly violated Hawaiian neutrality after the Spanish consul in the Hawaiian Islands made a formal protest. Hawai‘i’s neutral status was explicitly stated in Article 26 of the 1863 Spanish-Hawaiian Treaty. Hawai‘i was used as a base of operations against the Spanish in the Pacific. The war came to an end on December 10, 1898, but the United States remained as an occupier and fortified the Hawaiian Islands as a military outpost.
According to Dr. Sai, “What you have here is deception and fraud on a grand scale where the United States government deliberately mislead the international community that Hawai‘i was made a part of the United States in order to conceal the military occupation of a neutral and independent State.”
According to the report, Dr. Sai states that a formal policy of Americanization through denationalization was instituted in the public schools throughout the Hawaiian Islands in 1906 called Program for Patriotic Exercises in the Public Schools. The Hawaiian language was banned and replaced by the English language. The children were also taught American history, patriotic songs, figureheads, and holidays. The purpose, according to Dr. Sai, was to obliterate the national character of the Hawaiian Kingdom through institutionalized indoctrination.
Dr. Sai states that the Americanization is reminiscent of Germanization and Italianization in occupied territories during World War II that took place in Norway, France, Luxembourg, the Soviet Union, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Yugoslavia. In only three generations, this indoctrination nearly succeeded in erasing any memory of the national character of the Hawaiian Kingdom, but through academic research at the University of Hawai‘i the true status of Hawai‘i is being exposed.
This revelation not only has legal and political consequences, but also economic consequences as well. As a direct result of the United States deliberate failure to abide by international law, titles to real estate in the Hawaiian Islands could not be conveyed since 1893 because there were no functioning notaries under Hawaiian law to acknowledge the deeds of conveyances. Without valid titles, mortgages can’t exist. And because there are no valid mortgages, this has a direct and dire impact on mortgage-backed securities that include mortgages from the Hawaiian Islands, which are now realized to be defective. The recent banking crisis that centered on mortgage-backed securities and foreclosures pales in comparison to the Hawaiian situation.
“My reporting of war crimes is a very serious issue and it should not be taken lightly by anyone, including myself,” said the diplomat. “According to Swiss law, a person must report a crime to the proper authorities if there is corroborating evidence. And that is what I did.”
CONTACT: Dr. David Keanu Sai
Email: keanu.sai@gmail.com
The fact is the U.S. belligerent occupation began on 17 January 1893 and periodically reinforced such as 27 April 1895. The fact that the U.S. used its military then U.S. mercenaries to protect their Puppet government. The U.S. belligerent occupation has been ongoing till today along with violations against occupation and neutrality.
PHEW!!! Ho, brah! The ocean is getting deeper every day!! I hope people are taking this in the most highly serious matter!!
Especially Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, III, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command! I hope he is taking this very, very seriously! I can no longer stress how important this is!
This is AWESOME!!!
It is not only Swiss citizen’s living in Hawaii whose rights are being violated it is also the rights of Japanese, Chinese, Russian’s, French, British and the list goes on and on and on. All of these countries have the right to file war crime charges on behalf of their citizen’s as well and should sanctions against the United States be needed I am sure these countries will have absolutely no problem implementing them and in doing so, it will have serious implications on America’s economy.
It appears that Kale Gumapac’s war crime complaint is being filed with the Swiss Government as well and I am sure there are others. As the post states: “My reporting of war crimes is a very serious issue and it should not be taken lightly by anyone, including myself,” said the diplomat. This should be a waring to EVERYONE that “war crimes is a very serious issue” and you don’t want to be on the receiving end of one.
Mahalo Nui Loa Dr. Sai……..
This is great work! Mahalo Dr. Keanu Sai and all involved.
If the mystery diplomat is Niklaus R. Schweizer, then I suggest editing your documents because all signs are pointing at him. He is credited in Dr. Sai’s war report, which is linked to this blog article. Also feel free to delete this post if it is him.
I think the identity of the diplomat is of no consequence. The bigger picture and effect is to get an internationally recognized court with universal jurisdiction to serve notice directly and publicly to the State of Hawaii and those individuals that have committed war crimes in the past, present and future that they will be actively investigated and prosecuted. This will also impact the USPACOM, U.S. state dept. and the U.S. Dept. of justice. Love the strategy.
After WWII when martial law was declared in Japan by the US, it took approx. 7 years to return its nationhood and autonomy back to them. Likewise, here in Hawaii the same timeline should be established to once again Restore the Hawaiian Kingdom back to its fully functioning status among the International Family of Nations. Its quite probable that an even shorter timeline is also possible.
We could start the process by re–establishing & restarting our embassies in those countries within the Family of Nations that we currently have treaties with. I think this should be pursued promptly, in order to help facilitate the process of H/K Restoration post haste.
Lets not have the stumbling blocks and cooption by the US agencies such as OHA and the proxy government of the State of Hawaii serve as a hindrance on our progress forward to Restore and Reinstate our H/K. The lack of sponsorship in our moving forward does not demean our enthusiasm nor should it discourage our kokua and input as we approach our reality. The fact that funding is lacking, does not mean a work- around is not possible. In fact to the contrary the potentials are out there, regardless of the pillaging and plunder of the coopting agencies like OHA and the State of Hawaii.
The Trending is very positive, let’s keep it going. Kulia i ka nu’u!
Aloha Frank, I can follow the logic of your post but it might be a little premature at this time. In Japan’s situation the entire International Community understood it was a belligerent occupation. The U.S. themselves called it an occupation. In Hawaii’s situation the U.S. does not call it an occupation and lied to the international commuinty inorder to portray Hawaii was annexed by treaty to the United States. The majority of the International Community have not come to the understanding of Hawaii’s true history and legal status. They are victim’s of Americanization and must be de-programed in order for them to realize the belligerent occupation of Hawaii. The War Report is an excellent tool and resource to provide them with that information. The War Report noted allegations of Hawaii’s occupation and now they are actively investigating and putting together a full report inorder to substantiate the allegations. They will update the War Report some time in the near future with the confirmation that Hawaii is under a belligerent occupation by the United States. Once that is done the entire International community has no choice but to treat Hawaii as occupied. That will open a lot of doors for diplomacy with our treaty partners. Also it will strengthen negotiations for a supporting power and the involvement of the ICRC. One of the reasons a supporting power is aquired is to provide the AHKG with assistance in diplomatic negotiations with the occupier in order to achieve de-occupation. They also can facilitate monitoring elections for a dejure HK Gov’t. Then your suggestion of filling the vacant seats of HK diplomats can transpire and be effective. You are on the right track in this cross country race. See you at the finish line.
Imagine all the Hawaiian nationals of Japanese ethnicity
living in the Islands that were forced into interment camps
during WWII, perhaps those victims or their descendents
could pursue claims of war crimes committed against them
or their loved ones not only for the U.S. admission of the
injustice of the interment, but now upon foreign subjects
of a neutral country based upon international acceptance
and acknowledgment of the sovereign continuity of the
Hawaiian Kingdom.
If I remember correctly, some people of Japanese ethnicity
that were forced into interment camps on the U.S. as well
as here in the Islands were financially compensated by the
U.S. The evidence of that compensation by the U.S. in
addition to evidence of Hawaiian nationality will further
discredit U.S. authority in Hawaiian jurisdiction.
It’s like the Bibala said, whatever is hidden shall come to
light. Seems light the lights are getting brighter!
Just to be clear:
U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented
Executive Order 9066, on February 19, 1942, while
in his executive capacity.
U.S. President Jimmy Carter initiated investigations
in 1980, where a group of nine people appointed by
the U.S. Congress were to conduct an official
governmental study of Executive Order 9066. In 1981,
the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment
of Civilians concluded that the incarceration of Japanese
Americans during World War II was a “grave injustice.”
U.S. President Ronald Regan implemented U.S. Public
Law 100-383, on August 10, 1988, a United States federal
law that granted reparations to Japanese Americans who
had been interned by the United States government during World War II.
Notice the limitations made only to Japanese Americans
and no mention of Japanese Hawaiians!
Mr. Obama, now in his questionable executive capacity
as U.S. President of the United States, would perhaps
be the improper party to direct a complaint of war crimes
against, but perhaps U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
and or Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, USN Commander,
in his capacity as Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command.
Admiral Locklear was already informed of being in violation
of General Order 101, but could now include “grave
injustice” against Japanese Hawaiians who were
altogether ignored!
According to Hawaiian Kingdom census up to 1890, only 3 Japanese and 72 or so Chinese naturalized to the HK. The rest were citizens of their respective countries; since they were contractual workers as were some of the other ethnic groups that entered the Hawaiian Kingdom as hired laborers. Under the U.S. Republic of Hawaii, all Asians were not allowed to vote and thus not recognized as citizens of the ROH. Only citizens of the republic of Hawaii were proclaimed as U.S. American citizens. Hawaiian Kingdom subjects were not citizens of the ROH and thus it left most ROH citizens as already U.S. Americans and only citizens of the ROH were proclaimed U.S. citizens when the alleged-annexation took place.
The ipso facto ROH had taken over the government buildings and made claim to the Kingdom’s government and offices without the support and recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom subjects or the Asian nationals residing within the Hawaiian Kingdom.
This further complicates the U.S. situation within the Hawaiian Kingdom’s territory; which it placed itself in a catch-22 position through its criminal actions. Many Asians including those who naturalized to the Hawaiian Kingdom were prevented from returning to the Hawaiian Kingdom territory once they went back to their motherland even if they went for a visit. The ROH adopted the U.S. Chinese Ban law and aligned itself with the U.S. American laws. The U.S. racist, WASP ethnocentric doctrines of Manifest Destiny prevails till today.
Aloha Kanekeawe, I don’t believe Admiral Locklear can be held accountable for the internment of individuals during World War II. Can you prove he was directly involved in the internment by giving the orders or carrying out the orders. Two key elements are missing, mens rea and actus reus. If the victim(s) were compensated or individual already prosecuted by another state then prosecution is moot. Hawaiian Nationals of Japanese ethnicity cannot seek prosecution for war crimes during World War II since the HK was not a party to Geneva Conventions at that time. The HK did not ratify the Rome Statute in order for the ICC to have jurisdiction for war crimes at that time. These are just some of the issues regarding prosecution. MHO
Aloha Kekoa, good point on the Geneva Conventions and the
ICC Rome Statute. I cannot prove Admiral Locklear was directly
involved with the interment of individuals during WWII. However,
only recently was the Hawaiian Kingdom mentioned in the 2013,
War Report as being occupied by the U.S. This was largely based
upon the sovereign continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a state.
Hawaii was generally accepted as having been annexed to the
U.S. since August 12, 1898, however the truth of its continuity
recently qualified it to be listed in that 2013, War Report.
The Hawaiian Kingdom was occupied at the time President
Roosevelt implemented EO 9066, so there was no protection
afforded to Japanese Hawaiians because of U.S. occupation
in Hawaii then, and an occupation that is still present to date.
Admiral Locklear is the successor of U.S. military authority in
Hawaiian jurisdiction and a responsible party held to be in
compliance with Field Manual 27-10, his reluctance to comply
after learning about the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom
to me, makes him an accomplice to unlawful acts against
Japanese Hawaiians. Perhaps the time has long past for any
type of redress, but the Japanese Americans were compensated
what about our Japanese Hawaiians who had no means of
protection as foreign subjects to the U.S.? Just a thought!
I think Dr. Sai spoke about conscription in WWII, Korean,
Vietnam and the Middle East wars. Again, the U.S. being in
violation of General Order 101, concerning occupation,
what sort of redress would participants of WWII, Korean and
Vietnam have?
Trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together!
Mahalo
Aloha Kanekeawe, I don’t think war crimes would be the proper cause of action for redress regarding those you mentioned prior to the ratification of the Geneva Convention or Rome Statute. If individuals died because of U.S. conscription then family members could bring an alien tort claim for wrongful death as a cause of action. This could also be used for damages of bodily injuires, lose of property(real or personal), loss of income and/or projected income. The statute of limitations is not a problem since it starts when you first have knowledge of the violation as it relates to Hawaii’s occupation. Since alot of people still believe Hawaii is part of the U.S. and the U.S. has not made it known to be an occupation then the clock is not ticking on the statute of limitations. Once the U.S. starts to deal with the occupation because of international pressure, then it will be public knowledge and the people should file their claims before the statute of limitation runs out. Not legal advise just MHO.
I am a student at William S. Richardson School of Law focusing on international law. The following is my brief analysis of the issues presented and certain concerns I have with the “acting government.” I would appreciate a response from the “acting government.”
“PROLONGED OCCUPATION”
In his conclusion, Dr. Sai asserts that there exists a “prolonged occupation” of the Hawaiian State by the United States. While I do not disagree that if the Hawaiian State exists, then its territory, having not been transferred to the U.S., would be under U.S. occupation.
However, there are different types of occupations and the one necessary for the consideration of war crimes (belligerent occupation) is that which results from an international armed conflict.
The International Committee of the Red Cross, an organization tasked with ensuring humanitarian protection in time of conflict, defines “international armed conflict” as “opposing two or more States.”
The ICRC derived its definition from common article 2 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The ICRC goes on to say,
“An IAC occurs when one or more States have recourse to armed force
against another State, regardless of the reasons or the intensity of this confrontation.”
Dr. Sai, in section 1.2 of his Report, alleges that the prolonged U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Islands began on August 12, 1898. In his blog article titled, An Act of War of Aggression: United States Invasion of the Hawaiian Kingdom on August 12, 1898″ Dr. Sai states,
“On August 12, 1898, at 12 noon, the Hawaiian Kingdom was invaded by the United States with full military display on the grounds of the ‘Iolani Palace. The first military base was Camp McKinley established on August 16, 1898 at Kapi‘olani Park adjacent to the famous Waikiki beach and Diamond Head mountain.”
I do not disagree that the U.S. occupied the Hawaiian Islands, as I am now occupying this chair – physical presence in a location. Whether the U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Islands can be considered a belligerent occupation requires, on the facts, an international armed conflict in addition to there being no consent on the part of the State controlling the territory (Hawaiian State).
The actual conflict between the United States and Spain effectively ended with the signing of the Protocol of Peace in Washington D.C. on August 12, 1898. The New York Times on August 12, 1898 reported that the Peace Protocol was signed at 4:23 (assuming PM).
There is a seven hour time difference between Washington D.C. and Honolulu. If the Peace Protocol was signed at 4:23 PM in Washington D.C. then it was 9:23 AM in Honolulu.
http://www.nytimes.com/learni…/general/onthisday/…/0812.html
Dr. Sai, in the above blog article mentions the landing of U.S. troops in the Hawaiian Islands at 12 (noon) – nearly 3 hours after the Peace Protocol had been signed, ending the international armed conflict.
Furthermore, a belligerent occupation can hardly be said to be one, if the State being occupied consented to the occupation. The Republic of Hawai’i consented to the U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Islands.
Indeed, it could be argued that the Republic of Hawai’i government did not have the authority to speak on behalf of the Hawaiian State, however, did anyone with that authority actually protest? What did Queen Lili’uokalani have to say about it? Silence is acquiescence.
Worth consideration is when a belligerent occupation ends. The ICRC states,
“The normal way for an occupation to end is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it. However, the continued presence of foreign troops does not necessarily mean that occupation continues.”
Another issue worth noting is that the laws governing international armed conflict, the 1907 Hague Conventions and the 1949 Geneva Conventions, were established after 1898 – there is no retroactivity in law, following the principle of international law, nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law).
Basically, a law created after an act was committed cannot be (retroactively) applied to that act.
Yes, the Hague and Geneva Conventions codified customary international law, however still, the law at the time (1898) was the Law of Nations and that is the set of laws that need to be considered when determining what exactly is going on (legally) in the Hawaiian Islands in the latter part of the 19th century.
WAR CRIMES
Dr. Sai alleges “pillaging” and “unfair trial” as war crimes being committed in the Hawaiian Islands, citing Mr. Kale Gumapac’s complaint dated January 22, 2015. The complaint does not detail the issue at complaint, however, Dr. Sai’s blog article links a video, which chronicles Mr. Gumapac’s eviction on “August of 2013.”
War crimes requires the state of war, or rather, an armed conflict.
In 2013, was there an armed conflict? Is there an armed conflict today?
The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) defined armed conflict stating,
“An armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State.”
The War Report 2013 notes, “an [International Armed Conflict] exists whenever one state uses armed force against the territorial integrity of another state, irrespective of whether the latter state fights back.”
One could make the argument that U.S. military training here in the Hawaiian Islands constitutes “armed force against the territorial integrity” of the Hawaiian State. Whether or not that actually holds is determined by a competent court.
Did the Hawaiian State ever consent to U.S. authority here? This is an issue that ultimately needs to be determined before an actual international armed conflict can be established.
In addition to there being an armed conflict, war crimes require the elements of intent (mens rea) and an unlawful act (actus reus) – in addition to other elements.
PILLAGING
Article 8 (2)(b)(xvi) of the International Criminal Court’s Elements of Crimes (ICCEC) details the requisite elements for the war crime of pillaging:
1. The perpetrator appropriated certain property.
2. The perpetrator intended to deprive the owner of the property and to appropriate it for private or personal use.
3. The appropriation was without the consent of the owner.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.
As noted earlier, war crimes are committed by individual actors and not States. The first step here, should be identifying the actor. Dr. Sai’s blog article states,
“Mr. Kale Kepekaio Gumapac, a Hawaiian subject, who resides on the island of Hawai‘i and has alleged war crimes have been committed against himself by Deutsche Bank for the pillaging of his home, whose Chief Executive Officer at the time was Josef Ackermann, a Swiss citizen and resident of Zurich.”
Here, it appears the individual is Josef Ackermann. The question then turns to whether Mr. Ackermann intend to appropriate Mr. Gumapac’s property; whether Mr. Ackermann intended to appropriate the property for personal use; whether Mr. Gumapac did not consent; whether there exists an international armed conflict; and whether Mr. Ackermann was aware there was an international armed conflict.
I’m a law school student at William S. Richardson School of Law. I have taken a number of international law courses including one on war crimes. I am also writing a law journal article (and thesis paper) on Hawai’i’s legal status under international law. I consider myself a Hawaiian patriot – and not even I am aware that there is an international armed conflict in the Hawaiian Islands.
In my opinion, I do not think Mr. Ackermann meets the requisite criteria necessary to be found guilty of war crimes.
UNFAIR TRIAL
Article 8 (2)(a)(vi) of the ICCEC details the requisite elements for the war crime of denying a fair trial:
1. The perpetrator deprived one or more persons of a fair and regular trial by denying judicial guarantees as defined, in particular, in the third and the fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949.
2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.
Dr. Sai, states in his blog article titled, “State of Hawai’i Judge Says He Received Summons from the International Criminal Court,”
“In February 2013, Kaiama submitted the following complaint on behalf of his client with the Prosecutor of the ICC alleging Judge Harry P. Freitas committed a war crime by willfully depriving his client of a fair and regular trial prescribed by the Fourth Geneva Convention, and that Federal National Mortgage Association, and attorneys Blue Kaanehe, Charles Prather, and Peter Keegan were complicit in these proceedings and therefore committed a war crime as accessories.”
Although Dr. Sai indicates in the title of the blog article that Judge Freitas “says he received summons from the [ICC],” there is no evidence that he actually did say that.
Whatever the case may be, Judge Freitas (and his “accomplices”) needs to be aware that an armed conflict exists to be meet the necessary elements constituting the war crime of denying a fair trial. Again, the factual circumstances establishing an armed conflict here in the Hawaiian Islands is still at issue.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Dr. Sai indicates in a number of blog articles (including some listed here) that complaints have been filed in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC has jurisdiction over States, which have consented to the Court’s jurisdiction.
The ICC was established in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – the Rome Statute is a multi-lateral treaty to which the United States and the Hawaiian State are not parties.
Both the U.S. and Hawaiian State – not parties to the treaty – have not consented to the jurisdiction of the ICC. This means that the ICC cannot prosecute crimes occurring in either State.
Dr. Sai in his blog article titled, “Jurisdiction of ICC over Hawaiian Territory begins March 4, 2013,” indicates that the ICC has jurisdiction over the Hawaiian State because he, on behalf of the Hawaiian State, acceded to the Rome Statute.
Dr. Sai has NO AUTHORITY to accede to any treaty on behalf of the Hawaiian State. With that said, he could not have successfully acceded to the Rome Statute, thereby not succeeding in acquiring the ICC’s jurisdiction over the Hawaiian State.
In summary, the ICC has no jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes in the Hawaiian Islands. So, what is the real purpose for bringing these claims?
If belligerent occupations end by way of the occupier complying, then how exactly is the “acting government” planning to force the U.S. to leave if it does not want to (like Israel in Palestine)? Are war crimes allegations a more effective way of ending an occupation than the establishment of an effective Hawaiian government? Shouldn’t Hawaiians establish an effective government (with a democratic process – legislative organ) in order to engage in government to government (State to State) relationships?
The Queen was far from silent. The Ku’e Petitions roar across the decades. But, like impolite children or foolish people, you cant make them listen.
In your version of this description, you leave out that congress voted against annexation. You speak nothing to the illegality of joint resolution. And as the kicker you attempt to put the consequence of that illegal action upon Hawaiian citizens for a supposed silence that didnt happen.
You have the benefit of a western education that Hawaiian citizens were not privy to in the 1880’s and 90’s and yet you stand on your soap box and say “you’re out of luck, you didnt do enough”.
My faith is in The Queen, who spent her life being schooled and trained for diplomacy and international relations. While the world has changed since then, it MUST be acknowledged that, in her hands, at that time, it was handled appropriately. And, until the other party responds appropriately, Hawaii is protected and maintained through international protections. Like weve been put into a safety deposit box : )
Anyway, your comment about silence is possibly the most sickening thing anyone can say to a Hawsiian its even . More perverse when its a Hawaiian saying it.
Malamapono yourself!
Malamapono your psyche!
Aloha.
Aloha Z, first I want to commend you for pursuing higher education. I’m pretty sure I could go point for point to answer all your questions but it would be redundant to what experts in international law and political science have already concluded. They have concluded that Hawaii is under belligerent prolonged occupation. The Geneva Academy would not have noted allegations of Hawaii’s occupation in their 2013 War Report if the preliminary investigation was not sufficient or without merit. They printed it with the intentions to further investigate the allegations inorder to provide a full report. Other international venues have also vetted Dr. Sai’s information on the creation of the AHKG and the presumption of continuity of the HK and have concluded the HK is under Belligerent prolonged occupation. They also found that the information Dr. Sai provided met all of their statutory requirements to allow the AHKG to utilize their venues. These are well established and respected venues. They would not dare subject themselves to be ridiculed by critics for allowing the AHKG access on behalf of the HK if they could not justify their actions in law. If you claim that the HK is not under Belligerent prolonged occupation or that the AHKG is not valid then you are saying all of these experts that have PHD’s in international law and political science are wrong. I find it very difficult to believe these highly qualified individuals with such credentials are all wrong and you are right. The good thing is that you are a student and can further research to see why these experts came to there conclusion. Are you a PHD candidate and what will be the subject of your dissertation?
Aloha e Kekoa,
The War Report 2013 says this about Hawai’i:
“Other belligerent occupations that have been ALLEGED include the occupation by the UK of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas… of Tibet by China, and of the state of Hawaii by the USA. The War Report MAKES NO DETERMINATION as to whether belligerent occupation is occurring in these cases.” (emphasis added).
The War Report 2013 made no determination that a belligerent occupation exists in Hawai’i – it even referred to it as the “state of Hawai’i.” The Geneva Academy notes allegations, but they won’t do an analysis unless it is determined, on the facts, that there exists a belligerent occupation. The fact that the Academy printed it, does not mean that it will conclude as such.
If I may inquire, what are those venues you speak of – with regard to accepting the “acting government”?
I am not saying that the Hawaiian Islands are not under belligerent occupation. I am also not saying that they are. I am simply saying that it has yet to be determined.
As an international law student, I have access to a number of Professors, who are both JDs and PHDs with ample experience in international law including international courts and tribunals. One of of my professors is a former student of renown international jurist James Crawford who presided over the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom case in the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
That professor specifically inquired on my behalf to Dr. Crawford regarding the possibility of a belligerent occupation in the Hawaiian Islands and Dr. Crawford was doubtful.
I also inquired with Dr. Cohen, an expert in war crimes and international armed conflict, who is highly doubtful of the factual circumstances establishing both an international armed conflict and a belligerent occupation in the Hawaiian Islands.
These highly qualified people are international lawyers and international law experts, who I have access to – I believe Dr. Sai should inquire with these people. Dr. Sai is a political scientist, he is not an international lawyer.
As noted earlier, I am an international law student. I have had substantial instruction on the area of law and that includes war crimes. Upon graduation, I will have a juris doctor (doctor of law), which is an equivalent to a PhD – graduation is soon.
What is your opinion on Hawaii’s sovereign history,
if in your opinion Hawaii was even a state at all?
If Hawaii was a state when was its continuity extinguished?
Ask your professors why won’t the U.S. just pass a
joint resolution to annex the entire middle east? That
would put an end to all the fighting going on over
there and save the U.S. a whole bunch of money.
The U.S. and the EU claim Russia unlawfully annexed
Crimea, what is your position on that? Was it even
annexation?
Do you know about the ku’e petitions?
Do you know that the U.S. has an obligation to fulfill?
The Queen acquiesced? Is that Professor Crawford’s
position too?
There’s no question that the Hawaiian Kingdom was a State as recognized under international law. I strongly believe that the Hawaiian State continues to exist – whether or not I’m right is to be determined on the facts.
With that said, I don’t believe the Hawaiian State was ever extinguished.
My position on the Russia-Crimea incident is that if the US can annex the Hawaiian Islands by joint-resolution of its Congress, then Russia can certainly annex Crimea. The understanding, however, is that Russia’s annexation is illegal on that note, so was the US’s annexation of the Hawaiian Islands.
I know about the Ku’e Petitions. I have a BA in Hawaiian Studies from the University of Hawai’i.
The Queen did not acquiesce. She was coerced and she openly defended her actions under duress. The 122 years since the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, however, requires the consideration of acquiescence by the Hawaiian people.
The United States had an obligation to fulfill. Whether or not that obligation still stands depends on the status of the Hawaiian State. Another issue here is that in the absence of a Hawaiian government, the US cannot enter into relations with the Hawaiian State. The “acting government” is not a legitimate government.
How many Hawaiians are proud to be American? How many Hawaiians support US control over the Hawaiian Islands. I believe there are a substantial number of Hawaiians who feel this way and as a result, acquiescence by the population needs to be taken into consideration.
Yes Z Aki, this is true, but the equivalency is only really good in an educational setting or teaching institution. Your ability to teach a course on a college campus does command the respect on the magnitude of a doctor. However, when taking that acquired education into the public sector the criteria changes and in order to practice law, as you well know, requires a JD to pass the State Bar, very much on the order of a mechanical engineer who must pass the State Board in order to get his State seal/approval stamp in his profession and the right to approve projects under his supervision. Ku’u mana’o.
Aloha Z, yes the War Report alleges belligerent occupation but makes no determination. The reason they make no determination at this time for Hawaii is because they obtained the information to late to prepare a full report for the publication’s deadline . This is why the report will be updated to substantiate the allegations. They refered to the state of Hawaii with the small (s) which indicates international recognition as a nation state not a Federal State of a union in which a capital (S) would be used. If you look at how the report is layed out it listed Hawaii under an international conflict instead of a non-international conflict. This indicates that Hawaii is an independant nation state and has not been extinguished and incorporated into the U.S. to be the (S)tate of Hawaii which would be listed as a non-international conflict. The fact that the Academy printed Hawaii in it’s report clearly shows they know it is not part of the United States. So it is definitely an occupation but if you want to see if it is a belligerent occupation, I guess you need to wait for the updated report. If Dr. Sai is wrong in his analysis that Hawaii is under belligerent occupation then it could be easily remedied by any one of the professors you mentioned writing a law journal article refuting Dr. Sai’s work. Maybe that could be done by you for your dissertation for PHD. I have somewhere in my files the distinctions between the various degrees at the university. If my memory serves me right a juris doctor is not the equivelant of a PHD. I’ll go dig that up and post it.
I think Dr. Sai spoke about that with Kale in his latest video.
If that is what Dr. Sai is saying then the truth can easily be ascertained by contacting the Geneva Academy and inquiring with them – as I am about to do.
JD = doctor of law. PhD = doctor of philosophy. Doctors… it’s as easy as that.
Aloha Z, you are wrong. After a simple search on Google, “Is a juris Doctorate degree a Bachelers, Masters or Doctoral Degree?” a Ph.D. is NOT equivalent to a J.D. (juris doctor). Is that what your professors are telling you? Here is what its says:
It’s a first degree. That’s the way it can be best explained. Its not a terminal degree, which happens to be the highest degree one can hope to attain in his/her field. For instance, a Ph.D. happens to be a terminal degree, while a Bachelors’ is a first degree.
A J.D. or Juris Doctorate is what we call a professional doctorate, similar to the M.D. program for those in the medical profession.
Professional doctorates in the United States
In the United States, there are numerous degrees which incorporate the word “doctor” and are known as “professional doctorates.” Such fields include law, medicine, dentistry, optometry, pharmacy, and many others that usually require such degrees for licensure. These degrees are also termed “first professional degrees,” since they are also the first degree in their field.
Professional doctorates were developed in the United States in the 19th century during a movement to improve the training of professionals by raising the requirements for entry and completion of the degree necessary to enter the profession. These first professional degrees were created to help strengthen professional training programs. The first professional doctorate to be offered in the United States was the M.D. in 1807, which was nearly sixty years before the first Ph.D. was awarded in the U.S. in 1861. The Juris Doctor (J.D.) was subsequently established by Harvard University for the same reasons that the M.D. was established.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professiona…
There has been much debate in the United States as to whether J.D. recipients may use the title of Doctor and refer to themselves as “Doctor”. A recent law article on the topic appeared in the November 2006 issue of the American Bar Association Journal, entitled “Lawyers Are Doctors, Too”. ABA Informal Opinion 1152 (1970) allows those who hold a Juris Doctor (J.D.) to use the title doctor. (See also ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility, Disciplinary Rule 2-102(E).) The North Carolina Bar Association permits the use of the title in post-secondary academic contexts in that state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juris_Docto…
The Juris Doctor (J.D.), like the Doctor of Medicine (M.D.), is a professional doctorate. The Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.), or Doctor of Jurisprudence (J.S.D.) (“Scientiae Juridicae Doctor” in Latin), and Doctor of Comparative Law (D.C.L.), are research and academic-based doctorate level degrees, comparable to Ph.D. degrees in other fields or doctoral degrees in law in Europe (such as the Dr.iur. degree in Germany). In the U.S., the Legum Doctor (LL.D.) is only awarded as an honorary degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_o…
After further research on the internet, I found that a J.D. was created in 1971 to replace L.L.B. degree, which is what you received after graduating from law school. It is the first-professional degree in Law, because what follows secondly is a Master’s degree (L.L.M.) that specializes in an area of study, and then what follows finally, which is also called a terminal degree or highest degree in the field of law is a Doctoral degree (S.J.D., J.S.D. or a J.S.D.), that focuses on a particular topic that is original where you become the expert in that particular area. A Master’s degree in Law is equal to a Master’s degree in Political Science, and a Doctorate degree in Law is equal to a Doctorate degree in Political Science.
Z, you’re misinformed. So if I’m looking at this correctly, you are four levels behind Dr. Sai, because you’re still a student, which is why your stated opinion is just that, your opinion that I can now say is not qualified by academic standards. Also, you haven’t even passed the bar exam to practice law. I know people who didn’t pass the bar, and their J.D.s are worthless. I also know people who had a J.D. and applied directly into the Doctoral degree in Political Science thinking they already had a doctorate in law. They were rejected because before applying for any doctoral program you have to have a Master’s degree first, not a professional degree (J.D.), which would include a Master’s in law (L.L.M). But you have neither. Don’t pass yourself off to be something you’re not.
Mahalo Kekoa, I like many others have been trying to tell Z this to no avail. Hopefully he will listen and be more careful in misleading people with his “personal opinions”.
JD = Juris Doctor. I believe that speaks for itself.
If a JD, as per your link, is a professional degree on par with an MD, and MDs are referred to as “doctor,” then… well… you can figure it out.
Read the comments from people who are JDs and PhDs:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/2011/11/is-a-jd-degree-the-same-as-a-phd.html
Aloha Z, no matter which way you try to spin the semantics you are wrong. Read my post and links again. Be sure you have a full and complete understanding of what you are reading before commenting any further. Without full understanding it only makes your position worst. This will only help you in the future, unless you want to get schooled by someone without a college degree again.
By your own logic, what you say doesn’t matter because you lack a PhD. I’m sure it must give you some sense of achievement when you try to convince yourself that you “schooled” anyone with a college degree – but, you go on telling yourself that and we’ll just go on with our college degrees.
In the meantime, I suppose you should leave the intellectual discussions to the intellectuals – by your own logic – you’re just a highly opinionated person without a college degree. What do you know?
Now, I personally, don’t put great weight on college degrees. I feel that there are enough accessible resources out there to allow people to educate themselves and develop valid scholarly discourse.
It seems here, however, that a substantial portion of your argument is based on your idea that a certain college degree (specifically a PhD) qualifies a person (their opinions and their scholarship) with it, over a person without it. In fact, your argument seems to be that a JD is lesser than a PhD and therefore incapable of rising to that kind of analytic capacity.
By your own admission, you have no college degree. So, why then, would you make the argument that certain degrees have greater weight in knowledge than other degrees? This excludes your opinion and analysis entirely.
In one fell swoop, you seem to suggest that Dr. Sai is smarter than me because he has a PhD, while making the argument that what you’re saying has substantial weight and intellectual bearing because you have no college degree – ironic and hypocritical.
I suppose that’s one way of having your cake and eating it.
You have a lot to learn! The piece of paper you are
hoping to achieve is just the beginning for you.
The difficulty and type of cases you are successful
at will determine whether you’re a stud or a dud!
Self-promotion is like pissing in the wind, you’ll soon
learn to regret it!
Before you can get any respect, you first need to earn it!
In an entry I read above, you stated: “How many Hawaiians
are proud to be American? How many Hawaiians support
US control over the Hawaiian Islands. I believe there are a
substantial number of Hawaiians who feel this way and as
a result, acquiescence by the population needs to be taken
into consideration.”
What! “acquiescence by the population needs to be taken
into consideration.” Stockholm syndrome thinking, as if
there was an option!
You’re not a law student! If you are, the money you’ve
invested to get the JD paper would’ve been better
off spent on toilet paper “da roll commission.”
Then you, my friend, have a lot to learn.
If you don’t believe there’s a substantial number of Hawaiians who support US control, then you are severely out of touch with the Hawaiian community. You need only look to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, and Kanai’olowalu to see a great many number of Hawaiians who support US control.
Call it what you will, Stockholm Syndrome or not, the fact is, many Hawaiians support US control. If you think otherwise, you’re simply in denial.
I am a law student and I am Hawaiian patriot. You seriously think it’s in the best interest of our country to have me in the oppositions camp?
Well, in the spirit of this divisiveness you’re proposing, perhaps you can tell me your name? You certainly know mine. When I put this JD to use for the betterment of our country, I’d like to know who the naysayers were who did nothing but grumble and complain.
If you recall, it was CEO Kamana’opono
Crabbe of OHA who sent a letter to U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry, dated May
5, 2014, seeking clarification on the legal
status of the Hawaiian Kingdom. One
question among other questions focused
on the sovereign continuity of the Hawaiian
state, soliciting Secretary Kerry to answer
how did the U.S. extinguished kingdom’s sovereignty.
This letter brought the Hawaiian community
and other supporters of the kingdom together
who in a majority voice expressed to the U.S.
Department of Interior that they were not
wanted, needed and unlawfully in the
Hawaiian Islands and a lot of people had
demanded Secretary Kerry to answer CEO Kamana’opono Crabbe May 5, 2014 letter!
That was the epitome of Hawaiian unity, a
unity that will be readily available again!
You’re a Hawaiian patriot who supports
US control? That is nonsense!
You are an American who supports US
control over the Hawaiian Islands, this
statement is consistent with your claim.
(You can’t even figure out who you are!)
You and names! You couldn’t keep things
confidential, you had to mention the name
of the Swiss citizen, what if it’s not?
You just threw out a name of an innocent
party, what’s your remedy, sorry? Idiot!
The U.S. apologized for something in U.S.
Public Law 103-150, did it make sense to
you that they screwed Hawaii? Whose in
denial now, huh! You can see how the U.S.
is left without a legitimate tongue to answer
the question on how the continuity of the
Hawaiian Kingdom was extinguished!
Don’t rely only on the JD from the UH law
school, your expertise in the field of your
choice will far outweigh any degree earned
in an occupied state.
The only opposing camp is the one you
create! You came here, for what reason?
Perhaps you don’t even know!
We share the possibilities here, thinking
outside the box with respect to each other,
but every so often we help bring others up
to speed. Some get it, some don’t!
All you need to do is successfully refute the
continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, you’ll
get my attention!
See this piece on Professor Crawford:
http://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/office-of-hawaiian-affairs-ceos-questions-to-secretary-of-state-kerry-were-these-rhetorical-questions/
Pau
Aloha Dutchy, just keeping it real and accountable.
Aloha Kekoa, keeping it real and accountable just as it should be…….Mahalo!!!
As an everyday kanaka, without an extensive understanding of law, the problem I have is a government that won’t abide by it’s constitution. When presented with factual evidence, they don’t respond. We deserve answers, from the US. If the argument that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist was frivolous, it would be easy to prove.
It almost begins to look as if there are laws that the people have to follow and the wealthy do not. Historically, I believe it could be determined that there is an expected result when adhering to such concepts.
Analyzing every little detail, prolonging justice is a joke. Especially, while they are frantically try to push development and large land sales.
Therein lies another problem.
The Hawaiian State does not have a government – if it did, the situation might be different. Governments deal with governments and we need to keep that in mind.
Some, including Dr. Sai, argue that the “acting government” is the government of the Hawaiian State (Hawaiian Kingdom). If that is the case and if the “acting government” violated the Hawaiian constitution to establish itself, then how can we feel so justified in making claims that the US is violating its own constitution?
Yes, we deserve answers, but we also need to realize that there are proper procedures and protocols to delivering these answers. Hawaiians don’t have a Hawaiian government. Governments enter diplomatic relations with governments.
Right now, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is perceived as the representative organization for Hawaiians. I’m not making the argument that it is – I’m simply saying that that is how it is perceived. OHA CEO Kamana’o Crabbe requested answers, but the OHA trustees also cancelled that request. I’m not defending the DOI, but if we want answers, then the trustees should not have done what they did.
We’ll get answers when Hawaiians can come together and create an effective government. Until then, we basically don’t have a voice.
Aloha Z, I must say you do display an ability to turn words and their context around. Nice try to spin it but the fact remains it was you and not I that was playing the college degree card. I was just being truthful, unlike your misrepresenting yourself. I just keep things simple, so here is a simple test. Graduate with your J.D. then apply for the doctorate program. I GUARANTY your application will get denied. You do not posses a Master’s Degree which is a requirement to qualify your application. Yes this even includes a (L.L.M.) Master’s in Law. I got into posting with you so I could see your true intentions. You posted..”Some, including Dr. Sai, argue that the “acting government” is the government of the Hawaiian State (Hawaiian Kingdom). If that is the case and if the “acting government” violated the Hawaiian constitution to establish itself, then how can we feel so justified in making claims that the US is violating its own constitution?” Dr. Sai already covered the creation of the AHKG and the case law precedence that affords a legal justification to trumpt the Treason allegation. However, the only way it will work is if you did it right, there is no room for error. As far as the legitamacy of the AHKG and it’s recognition, it is in the proof of what they have accomplished on behalf of the HK state. They entered international venues that vetted the AHKG and then allowed them access. You posted ..” The Hawaiian State does not have a government ..” “…We’ll get answers when Hawaiians can come together and create an effective government. Until then, we basically don’t have a voice.”
Well well, now we all know what you are all about. I can’t believe it was this easy.
You’re not in the higher ed system, so I’ll keep this simple. You’re wrong – that’s not how it works.
Yep, you know what I’m all about – which is having Hawaiians unite to free our country, whereas, you seem quite happy and content to sit on your ‘elemu and let someone do the work for you. Have fun drinking the kool-aid.
Cognitive dissonance – ever heard of it? I believe you have it bad.
Bravo “Kekoa” another coconut bites the dust !
I totally agree!!!
Aloha kakou apau, I agree too! Kekoa your mana’o is real, humble, mature, and non-egotistical!
I have long believed that the white men committed GENOCIDE! against our people when they used their military to threaten and coerce us.
Z, for you being in the higher educational system I cannot for the life of me understand why you are so reckless. As a student you are under an obligation not to criticize professors. Go read your student guide. You are not qualified by academic standards to criticize Dr. Sai or anyother professor. Your recklessness has placed yourself and others in harms way for possible disciplinary action. By mentioning that you are learning this from your other professors also implicate them for possible disciplinary action for violation of their obligation of conduct towards staff. Education is the pursute of knowledge but it does not stop there. Once you obtain that knowledge you must seek understanding because understanding brings the fulfilment of wisdom. Wisdom is what is needed to provide wise counsel for the betterment of our people. Pride and arrogance are road blocks to wisdom. Proverbs 16: 18 Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.
If your true goal is to be a great leader for our hawaiian people then you need to be well rounded like our ali’i of old. You need to be proficient in mind, body and spirit.
Psalms 111: 10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom…
Z, when you come into to the full understanding of what I am saying then you will be a student in the highest educational system and ready to lead. Aloha.
Mahalo Kekoa, couldn’t have said it better myself!!!
I disagree with ” As a student you are under an obligation not to criticize professors.” This strips away critical thinking and promotes governing hegemony. It’s a dysfunctional way of thinking when it is allowed in the democratic society-at-large. I have witnessed professors publicly criticize other professors. Having a degree on college does not make one infallible and all-knowing. Knowledge is not dependent on a piece of paper that one inherits a title of learning. Practical knowledge is just as valid as is personal research. I know for a fact that higher education is open to flaws, agendas, and interpretation as well as one’s perspective, experience, and concepts which are open to debates.
Switzerland however did officially accept the Republic of Hawaii that prepared the island for a forced annexation by the US (Clinton offered an apology). The issue is really twisted since the native population was not able to vote for these changes at the time due to racial ideologies by Europeans and Asians. And now a native favored or dominated independent government would not stand under the US constitution due to racial bias.
Let’s not forget that Cleveland stated that U.S. military actions was an act of war. We know it was led by the U.S. Executive Branch spearheaded by the Secretary of State James G. Blaine. Don’t forget the Turpie Resolution of 1894 which threatened other nations to NOT interfere in the Hawaii situation for it will be an unfriendly act against the United States of America. Since 1893, the U.S. military have protected the puppet Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawaii/Territory/State of Hawaii by intimidating the Hawaiian subjects with its demonstration of its might and control of Hawaii despite the protests of the Hawaiian Kingdom subjects. The U.S. lawlessness continues and disregards international laws with its hegemony “might makes right” tactics.
Aloha Tane, although you may have valid views for critical thinking it does not apply in this particular situation. The students and faculty of the U.H. of Hawaii by their own consent agreed to these terms and conditions by contract. There are proper ways to voice one’s views but it must be in accordance to the guidelines per the agreement. If one obligates themselves by contract than they take the liability for their violation of that contract. That was the point for my post.