FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 3, 2026
Today, the Council of Regency, as interim government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, filed its Motion for Reconsideration with the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i, seeking reconsideration of Judge Micah Smith’s January 23, 2026, Order to deny the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Motion to Intervene in the case between Students for Fair Admissions and the Kamehameha Schools filed on January 21, 2026.
The Hawaiian Kingdom argues that the Court committed “manifest errors of law” including its misapplication of the political question doctrine at the intervention stage. Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only requires a legally protectable interest related to the subject of the action to permit intervention, conclusively established by the Hawaiian Kingdom in its initial Motion to Intervene. Judge Smith, in his Order, manifestly erred by stating that intervention would require adjudication of issues constitutionally committed to the political branches.
The political question doctrine bars federal courts from adjudicating disputes that are “textually committed” by the U.S. Constitution to another branch or lack judicially manageable standards to resolve. In the case of Hawai‘i, the court invoked this doctrine because prior courts asserted that the United States executive branch has not recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom. In this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom provides conclusive evidence that this is incorrect.
The United States did recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom during arbitration proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom from 1999-2001.
First, the United States explicitly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency as a matter of opinio juris, under customary international law, when it did not object to the Permanent Court’s recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency before it formed the arbitration tribunal on June 9, 2000. An example of such customary international practice occurred when Palestine became a contracting State to the treaty on October 30, 2015, that formed the Permanent Court, the United States filed a protest with the Dutch Foreign Ministry that stated “the government of the United States considers that ‘the State of Palestine’ does not answer to the definition of a sovereign State and does not recognize it as such.”
Second, the United States explicitly recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State since the nineteenth century and the Council of Regency as its government when it entered into an executive agreement with the Council of Regency that allowed the United States, through its Embassy, in The Hague, Netherlands, to access records and pleadings of the case.
If Hawai‘i was legally the 50th State of the American Union and not the State of the Hawaiian Kingdom, customary international practice obligates the United States to have protested the Permanent Court’s recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence and the Council of Regency as its government. Customarily, its failure to protest, binds the United States’ (as well as all countries of the Permanent Court) recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency as its government.
Moreover, the United States would not be able to say that the State of Hawai‘i is lawful because at the center of the dispute between Larsen and the Hawaiian Kingdom was the unlawful imposition of American laws over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. On its website the Permanent Court described the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom case as:
Lance Paul Larsen, a resident of Hawaii, brought a claim against the Hawaiian Kingdom by its Council of Regency (“Hawaiian Kingdom”) on the grounds that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continual violation of: (a) its 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the United States of America, as well as the principles of international law laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 and (b) the principles of international comity, for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The State Hawai‘i was established in 1959 by an American law, which would make its existence unlawful under international law.
In its arbitration award in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, the arbitration tribunal stated that “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, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.”
The Permanent Court’s institutional recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom prevents the United States, under international law, from denying its existence today as a sovereign State, unless the United States can show it extinguished the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law. To have extinguished the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law it would have to show that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded or transferred its sovereignty and territory to the United States by a treaty of cession. There is no such evidence.
Significantly, NONE of the current 126 Contracting States to the treaty that formed the Permanent Court, to include the United States, objected to the Permanent Court’s conclusion that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that it is a non-Contracting State under Article 47 of the treaty permitting the Hawaiian Kingdom access to the Permanent Court. Article 47 states, the “jurisdiction of the Permanent Court may…be extended to disputes [with] non-Contracting Powers.” In international law, “Powers” is used interchangeably with “States.”
This means the following 126 States also recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency by opinio juris—customary international law:
Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Pakistan, Palestine, Panama, Paraguay, the People’s Republic of China, Peru, Philippines, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Türkiye, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
All Hawaiian Kingdom treaty partners, to include the United States, are also Contracting States to the treaty that formed the Permanent Court, and these treaties have not been terminated. These treaties are also binding on the successor States of the Hawaiian Kingdom treaty partners. A successor State is a former colony of a State that gained its independence. Examples of successor States are Vietnam who was a former colony of France and New Zealand who was a former colony of Great Britain. Currently, the Hawaiian Kingdom has treaties with 153 Member States of the United Nations, of which 14 treaties are with original States and 139 treaties are with successor States.
Judge Smith’s Order created further manifest error when he prematurely and improperly expanded the court’s review for intervention, under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in stating that the Hawaiian Kingdom’s intervention made “arguments about the proper interpretation of federal law and the Constitution of the United States, and refer to materials that might aid in interpreting both,” and that Plaintiffs (SSFA) and Defendant (Kamehameha Schools) “are ably represented by counsel fully capable of submitting and raising arguments based on any such pertinent materials.”
In its Motion for Reconsideration, the Hawaiian Kingdom provides evidence that Kamehameha Schools explicitly decided not to represent the Hawaiian Kingdom’s interests as a sovereign and independent State under international law. Conversely, it defies reason to presume that Plaintiff SSFA would either raise or assert the application of Hawaiian Kingdom law resulting in the very extinguishment of its complaint. This decision prompted the Hawaiian Kingdom to file its motion to intervene, as it believes neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendant will adequately represent its interests.
The Hawaiian Kingdom references various legal cases and opinions, including State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo and United States v. Goo, which establish an evidentiary standard for proving the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a sovereign State. It also cites international law principles, treaties, and legal opinions conclusively establishingthe Hawaiian Kingdom’s claims. The Hawaiian Kingdom’s motion for reconsideration has met that evidentiary standard of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence.
The Hawaiian Kingdom requests Judge Smith to reconsider its denial of the motion to intervene, arguing that the court’s decision was based on manifest errors of law and that the Hawaiian Kingdom has a legally protectable interest in the case. It emphasizes the United States’ recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the failure of Kamehameha Schools to represent its interests as a basis to grant its motion to intervene.
The Council of Regency is represented by Hawaiian attorney Edward Halealoha Ayau of the Law Office of Edward Halealoha Ayau.
DOWNLOAD FILED HAWAIIAN KINGDOM PLEADINGS:
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Reconsideration
Declaration of Dr. David Keanu Sai with Exhibits 1-4
Declaration of Professor Niklaus Schweizer with Exhibit 1
Declaration of Professor Federico Lenzerini with Exhibits 1-2
MEDIA CONTACT:
Dr. David “Keanu” Sai, Ph.D.
Chairman of the Council of Regency
Acting Minister of the Interior
Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim
Email: interior@hawaiiankingdom.org
The Exhibits submitted clearly provide evidence that the U.S. spoke with the HK Gov.t, contacted the PCA as an intermediary through its embassy at the Hauge requesting permission from the HK Gov. for access to all pleadings of the proceedings. It also provides evidence the U.S. did not protest the PCA proceedings or its findings by the PCA that the HK and its Gov. continue to exist. The rule is if you don’t protest than you agree. Now the Judge is boxed in because there is evidence to the fact the U.S. gave recognition of the continued existence to the HK and its Gov. so the” Political Question” rule he use to deny intervention just went out the window. That rule cannot apply once recognition is given. Let’s see if he is an honorable or dishonorable Judge in his ruling to the motion to reconsider.
During my personal interactions with #NOtreaty faux state of Hawaii courts since 2021 they nokea what the laws are, even after the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continuity has BEEN AFFIRMED in international PCA proceedings in 2001– which recognized the Kingdom’s ongoing existence. Consequently, the courts of the State of Hawaii operate under an unlawful regime, lacking jurisdiction over matters within Hawaiian Kingdom’s territory. Kamehameha School’s case proves the same bias in FED courts, violations of international humanitarian law, constituting war crimes.
SO IS MILITARY the ONLY way now? (aka MG Logan as our temp military governor?) Yesterday I saw physical proofs of our (seemingly slow) transition! 🔥
fyi Those in Honolulu can see a NEW fleet of C&C Honolulu vehicles (at the DPP) in which the logo does NOT have “State of Hawaii” on them anymore! And the DPP is getting fenced– evidently tearing down the old parking to build NEW, hopefully expanded parking during Hawaii’s allegedly fiscally challenging years of lower tourism profits. Reparations?
Also the newly formed Department of Law Enforcement website (HPD & Sheriff combined) does NOT say “State of Hawaii” on it either. YET sneakily at the end says “state” of Hawaii– capitalization matters! 😁
https://tinyurl.com/3buu7ws4
I wonder *IF* Judge Smith WILL reconsider its denial of the motion to intervene? If he does NOT, what would be his consequence in a judicial system fraught with cabal criminals RUNNING it? AG Lopez refused to respond to state employees concerned about their potential war crime charges while under our sustained OCCUPATION. Recall Maui Police Detective per his lawyer Ayau then stated he would BEGIN “complying” to Law of Occupation…
Regardless, during the fog of our ongoing info wars I remain GRATEFUL for ongoing glimmers of HOPE activated by engaged patriots of all countries who continue to fight back vs. cabal/deep state Gov injustices.
So hele on, Dr. Sai et al! The sweet smell of justice lingers in the air like a newly-formed plumeria blossom! 🌼
Why does the Hawaiian Kingdom have to intervene. Why can’t KS, just hire Dr. Sai as their lawyer?
HK was offering to provide key historical context to KS’s case. Yet MORE IMPORTANTLY, it provided the *perfect* time to interject & to lawfully restate that the Hawaiian Kingdom was NEVER extinguished. And that the US still recognizes HK’s existence via various hearings/court sessions by NOT disputing the claim nor producing the alleged TREATY OF CESSION to prove such claim.
#NOtreaty fake State of Hawaii courts continue to hide behind their claim that discussing the HK unlawful overthrow is a “political doctrine question” so they just IGNORE the truth while rape locals of the dignity, property & rights.
Yet cases at the FED level have different rules, as Dr. Sai PROVES in his most recent CHECKMATE post!
CORRECTION: On their main landing page there STILL is the blanket “State of Hawaii” & seal logo… ☹️
For the first time since the overthrow a HK gov’t entered the court and placed on the record, irrefutable evidence, which are now facts before the court. RE: PCA, Executive Agreements between the U.S. and the HK govt and the PCA opinio juris of the legal determination of the continued existence of the HK and its gov’t. with no objections by the U.S. or any of the other contracting states to the PCA. This kills the political question rule and according to the rules it ties the hands of the Judge, Plaintiff and Defendant. It’s impossible for them to refute the evidence or witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the proceedings that were in the PCA. What option do they have? Bring in the U.S. attorney General? To do what? There’s no way to impeach the evidence its all factual and documented at the PCA. Its too late to object to the PCA findings, that ship has sailed. It doesn’t matter what nonsense the Judge comes up with and he probably will. Its checkmate because the record has been set. IMHO read between the lines, its a set up.