A zero-sum game is a “mathematical representation in game theory and economic theory of a situation that involves two sides, where the result is an advantage for one side and an equivalent loss for the other.” Examples of zero-sum games include poker and the American presidential election. In other words, the winner takes all. How does this type of game apply to the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom? The answer to this question derives from State sovereignty under international law.
An independent State is the highest status that a political entity can achieve. There is no political status higher than the State. Sovereignty is the authority over the territory of the State exercised by the State’s governing body, which is geo-political. All governments of independent States are not identical because they are the outcome of their geographic location and political experiences, e.g. constitutional monarchies, and republics. But all States are the same, which have four components: a defined territory, a population, a centralized government, and the ability to enter into foreign relations with other States.
In the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom arbitration, the arbitral tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration stated, “in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and various other States.” So there is no question that the Hawaiian Kingdom existed in the nineteenth century as a sovereign and independent State with all rights that afforded under international law.
In the Island of Palmas arbitration, which was a dispute between the United States and the Netherlands, the arbitrator explained that “Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other State, the functions of a State.” And in the S.S. Lotus case, which was a dispute between France and Turkey, the Permanent Court of International Justice stated:
Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention (treaty).
Since 1898, the United States has been directly exercising it authority over Hawaiian Kingdom territory without any ‘permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention (treaty).’ The United States claims its authority over the Hawaiian Islands derives from the joint resolution of annexation of July 7, 1898. However, the joint resolution is not customary international law nor is it a treaty. Rather, it is congressional legislation, which the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright, stated “Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.”
If congressional laws have no force in foreign territory, then the joint resolution could not have the force of annexing the Hawaiian Islands, which is 2,471 miles from its western border of California. The truth of the matter is that the joint resolution of annexation provided the means for erasing the history of the United States invasion of the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 16, 1893, and militarily overthrowing the Hawaiian government the following day, which, under international law, triggered the law of occupation. As an independent State under international law, the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government did not affect the Hawaiian State and its independence and sovereignty. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 unequivocally states that occupation does not transfer sovereignty. According to Section 358:
Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force. It is therefore unlawful for a belligerent occupant to annex occupied territory or to create a new State therein while hostilities are still in progress.
The permissive rule under international law that allows one State to exercise authority over the territory of another State is Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, that mandates the occupant to establish a military government in order to provisionally administer the laws of the occupied State until there is a treaty of peace where the occupation comes to an end. Section 362 of the FM 27-10 explains that “Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory.”
From January 17, 1893, to July 7, 1898, the United States has been unlawfully exercising its power, indirectly, over the territory of the Hawaiian State, through its puppet governments called the provisional government and the Republic of Hawai‘i that were installed after the overthrow. From July 7, 1898, to the present, the United States has been directly exercising unlawful authority over the territory of the Hawaiian State. How does international law and the law of occupation see this unlawful exercise of authority?
If the United States, to include the State of Hawai‘i, has no authority to exercise its power in Hawaiian territory, then everything that derives from its unlawful authority is invalid in the eyes of international law. This comes from the rule of international law called ex injuria jus non oritur, which is Latin for “law (or right) does not arise from injustice.” From this rule of international law, when applied to an Occupied State, is another rule of international law called postliminium, where all unlawful acts that an Occupying State may have done in occupied territory are invalid and cannot be enforced when the occupation comes to an end.
This rule also applied in the American Civil War from 1861-1865. In 1868, the U.S. Supreme Court had to mitigate the impact of this principle in the aftermath of when the war came to an end. In Texas v. White, the Supreme Court stated:
…that acts necessary to peace and good order among citizens, such for example, as acts sanctioning and protecting marriage and the domestic relations, governing the course of descents, regulating the conveyance and transfer of property, real and personal, and providing remedies for injuries to person and estate, and other similar acts, which would be valid if emanating from a lawful government must be regarded in general as valid when proceeding from an actual, though unlawful, government, and that acts in furtherance or support of rebellion against the United States, or intended to defeat the just rights of citizens, and other acts of like nature, must, in general, be regarded as invalid and void.
All acts done by the Texas government were ‘invalid and void’ during the rebellion, but certain acts were only recognized as valid after the Civil War ended. The Supreme Court’s decision had a retroactive effect to give validity to acts that were previously invalid. Just as the rule applied during the American rebellion, this rule applies while the territory of a State is under occupation by an Occupying State. Acts done by an Occupying State, if it is authorized under international law, are valid and its validity would continue to be recognized as valid when the occupation comes to an end.
This is not the case, however, because the acts of the United States since January 17, 1893, to the present, have not been in accordance with the law of occupation but rather the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. Usurpation of sovereignty is the unlawful imposition of American laws and administrative measures within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, a co-equal sovereign State.
The Hawaiian Council of Regency understands the scope and magnitude of the United States and the State of Hawai‘i’s violation of international laws even if the population does not see it themselves. The violation of international laws has rendered the population with absolutely no rights to property that can be protected, which include land, homes, cars, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and patents. The Council of Regency’s Operational Plan to Transition the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government addresses this significant issue.
The Hawaiian Kingdom exists as a sovereign and independent State, even under occupation. This existence, under international law, precludes the United States, as the Occupying State, from exercising its power unless it does so by virtue of international law as an occupant. It cannot co-exist with the Hawaiian Kingdom in its own territory, except by virtue of the law of occupation which temporarily allows for it.
The unlawful acts done by the United States has rendered all rights to property, whether tangible or intangible, void and invalid. For the people to have their rights to property intact and valid, the United States must show that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists and that it is the successor State to the Hawaiian Islands. It can’t because the Permanent Court of Arbitration already recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State since the nineteenth century. This is the devastating effect of the zero-sum on the people.
I believed Dr. David Keanu Sai did he’s due diligence. Mahalo Zero Sum for your inquiries on Hawaiian Kingdom and International Law’s.
Ae, Mahalo for your Diligence and your hard work throughout these years to revive our Hawaiian Kingdom and restore it!✅🤙🏾
Mahalo nui loa no kāu hana poʻokela e ke Kauka David Keanu Sai a me no kāu kū no ko mākou lākou Hawaiʻi nei.
One aspect of the HK situation that rarely gets discussed is the operation of the Uniform Commerical Code (UCC) – the laws (colorable) that govern commercial transactions in the United States , District of Columbia and U.S. territories.
The infamous Big 5, I imagine used the UCC its provision on sales contracts, warranties, and remedies for breaches of contract subjecting Hawaiians to its rules and provisions, colorable laws to this day.
We volunteered, continue to volunteer until we subrogate and I believe change our status- the palapala – the bonds. He manao wale…
Eo!
Nani, the UCC was created in 1952 after the occupation. It’s a foreign law/code to the HK. As far as the Big 5 is concerned they violated the entire code and principles of the code. Fraud voids all contracts. No Treaty = Fraud. All contracts Null and Void. From what I have experienced, it’s a sovereignty movement in the U.S. and Canada of individuals thinking they can use the UCC to reclaim their personal sovereignty. Separating themselves from the corporate entity created by the State from the real flesh and blood human. Doesn’t end well. Some of the pioneers that were doing seminars and videos teaching this became targets and ended up in prison. Basically, you trying to use the system against itself and those running the system won’t let you win. I have seen judges in Hawaii steamroll people that held a security interest as a creditor evidenced by a UCC 1 filing registered with the State. They spent hundreds of hours on paperwork and multiple court appearances only to get shut down.
Kekoa, it doesn’t matter if the code was established in 1952 because the principles and customs are the grounds for the code and is what the law is today. Our people suffering for lack of this knowledge and you’re no help. You must think in terms of creating public policy…upon what principles and customs of law will your code or statute be based?! Thus it is these principles and customs which are rooted in history that is necessary for Hawaiians to know today because it has been incorporated into HRS 1-1 and HRS 490. Moreover, the fact that our constitutional sovereign exercised her right to reserve her rights in contract (HRS 490:1-308) when yielding her authority to superior forces in 1893 not only demonstrates her knowledge of the law merchant and how she was capable of managing her own commercial affairs is evident that such principles are universal and timeless. Knowledge of the law merchant is the very means by which our Queen preserved our political and territorial sovereignty. Our Queen demonstrated that knowledge of the law merchant not only operated here in these islands prior to the codification of the UCC in 1952 but very is necessary for maintaining a persons status and standing in the world…just as she was able to do for her and our country.
Lopaka, the problem here is not me. It is you contradicting yourself and the Law. I’m just pointing out to Nani and everyone else your contradiction. This is not complicated. You already agreed in past posts that utilizing the applicable Laws, principles and practices it was determined that in 1843 the HK was recognized as an Independant nation state and remains in continuity although under a prolonged belligerent occupation by the United States. Now comes your contradiction. These laws, principles and practices used to justify the above determination also states that the occupier (U.S.) cannot change the occupied population’s citizenship even if they consented. (Art. 47 GC IV) The legal status of the population shall not be infringed by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the occupying power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory. (Art. 8 GC) Protected persons cannot abrogate their rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This principle applies to the entirety of international humanitarian law. In ALL circumstances it is prohibited for the inhabitants of an occupied territory to renounce their rights under GC IV. Whether on their own initiative or as a result of coercion, such a renunciation is null and void. This is to prevent the occupying authorities, acting from a position of strength, from exploiting the weak position of the subject population and to revoke, apparently legally, the protection guaranteed by international law. You see, your whole argument about UCC, HRS, SSN, ABC and XYZ is null and void. Even if the HK subjects consented to utilize the SSN it is null and void. You can’t claim it protected the HK as a nation state but not its nationals when the law says it does. HK subjects can’t abrogate their citizenship or rights even if they consented by contract with the (SSN) occupier. What don’t you understand about that Law? Stop contradicting the Law. Like I said in my previous post to Nani. What you are promoting is American sovereignty tactics.
I promote critical thinking and conscious reasoning because the basis of all law are principles whether the law merchant or international humanitarian law. All laws are based on principles of natural law and custom. We need more discussions on the subject matter nani suggested we have because our people are suffering for lack of this knowledge. They know nothing about commercial papers, promissory notes, secured transactions, nor the many titles of the Social Security Act which governs not just labor but everything from education to health. Your lack of knowledge has you blindly attacking anything in the dark as if nani suggesting we needing more discussions about the UCC are wrong or would be unfruitful because all you know about it is the public controversy rather then it’s mechanisms and effects.
Besides the decades of harassment that our fearless HK leaders have endured, inc. being disbarred & imprisoned, I can confirm that US Corp courts still remain quite brazen & are on the take. They still IGNORE any claim of HK’s illegal overthrow & ongoing belligerent occupation, still saying “it’s political”. Claims of Title Defect get the same rejection. Complicit lenders REFUSE to even file them. During the aftermath of the US Corp’s planned-demic, followed by s/elected green’s “smart city” plans & Lahaina’s DEW attack, it appears they’ve only amped up their landgrab efforts.
“The violation of international laws has rendered the population with absolutely no rights to property that can be protected, which include land, homes, cars, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and patents.”
Yep. Feeling that. I have mixed blessings about my Ma being taken by CV clot shots that ultimately provided me IRA funds to file bankruptcy after my own CV-related termination. YET having $ was NOT good enuf. The FED judge JUST denied my ‘motion to extend my automatic stay’ PROTECTIONS because he said my hearing date– that HIS STAFF controls/sets– was 11 days after what is permitted. When I reminded him of that fact, he said “IF you had a BAR attorney they’d would have known what to do”. Let’s guess my chances to APPEAL with that same, one judge. :-[
Since IRA funds are protected, he then suggested I sell them off prematurely to keep our home, ignoring the fact there’d be mass penalties & taxes to pay (again, under THEIR system) when ‘not of age’. Hence, I don’t think I’ll have sufficient funds as a single Ma to pay off lenders IN FULL which they are now requiring. How thoughtful.
It appears we can’t get “justice” in THIER closed-looped system. What to do? I’ve seen ALL THE UNDENIABLE PROOFS sleuthed by Dr. Sai et al, yet we’re still dependent on some ethical, outside ‘heroes’ (aka ‘white hats’?) to propel us towards freedom recovery. Regardless, we must all continue to wait, optimistically & probe their pukas when can. I’m in!
MAHALO for an EXCELLENT education, acting Council of Regency.
Indeed, “ex injuria jus non oritur” & “postliminium”! It WILL be such a glorious celebration when the occupation finally comes to an END.
<3 IMUA! <3
btw Look at this ENCOURGAGING NEWS happening in Canada re: Crown Lands: (piece the link together to access)
Fascinating. Stolen & plundered #HaidaNation lands RETURNED after decades of negotiation over the title of 200 islands off Canada’s west coast. #HawaiianKingdom has the same issue since 1893 by different pirates. #Justice
https://www.theguardian .com/world/2024/apr/15/haida-first-nation-land-canada
Terminate the Federal public trust here in Hawaiian Kingdom territory!
So if the US’ presumption is that fake state of Hawaii (defunct US Corp) is legit, I’m seeing “bonds for the win” by Michelle Klann saying that “The Lawful Notification of Corrective Action Will Be Sent To Public Servants Simultaneously Nationwide On April 24, 2024” per their video notification here:
The Whisper Campaign
https://us22.campaign-archive DOT com/?e=aa08dafc51&u=d2a7d5635c667488cc57ae68c&id=689e9e5618
Klann also says to CALL IN THE MILITARY on their bondsforthewin website– yet we know that has NOT worked for the Council of Regency yet (unless it’s a strategic delay?). Further…
“In the last two years, we have learned that if we stand up to anyone that is holding an office, we are attacked and the police try to arrest us. Therefore, we can’t serve these papers directly to any government official. We have but ONE OPTION LEFT and that is to send the papers DIRECTLY TO THE MILITARY and invite them into our states. The military protects this country and therefore, THEY WILL BE THE ONES WHO NEED TO REMOVE THESE PEOPLE from their offices.”
CALL IN THE MILITARY
“For the last few years, we have witnessed how governments have taken over control of our lives, livelihoods, schools, and health care. We have protested against the mask and vaccine mandate, and our school systems. Many people took to the courts to seek justice and we found out that all forms of our law enforcement, governments, and justice system are corrupt.
Our founding fathers experienced the same tyranny when trying to declare their independence and fight against the King of Great Britain. In the end, they were sold out by a group of men they trusted to negotiate peace. The peace treaty of 1783 was not what we were all led to believe. The men who signed this treaty were all esquires and were all controlled and took oaths to the King of Great Britain.
However, they had the insight to protect all of us when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Keep in mind it is the man who created governments and it is the man who can abolish and take out the leaders who are harming the people. We can remove the bodies in our government and elect new people who will protect us and serve us.
If the people who are sitting in the seats of government will not vacate their seats, we have the right to call in the military to have them removed. We created governments and we created the militaries to protect us. It is the military’s responsibility to come in and restore peace and remove anybody that is acting in bad faith”
It’s a bit lengthy yet insightful. I’ve not faired well flying solo in the fraud courts & you folks know why– so I’m curious about this approach.
Let’s see what next week brings?!