Today, August 6, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Commander of the 29th Infantry Brigade and its component battalions of the circumstances that has led up to performing the military duty of establishing a military government in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict—international humanitarian law, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army Regulations—FM 27-5 and FM 27-10.Here is a link to the letter.

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the circumstances that has led up to performing the military duty of establishing a military government in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict—international humanitarian law, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army Regulations—FM 27-5 and FM 27-10. According to Article 42, 1907 Hague Regulations, territory is considered occupied when it comes under the effective control of the occupant. Effective control of the occupied territory triggers Article 43 to establish a military government to provisionally administer the laws of the occupied State. For Iraq during the Second Gulf War, this was the basis for establishing the Coalition Provisional Authority, as a military government, on May 16, 2003. Between the Federal government and the State of Hawai‘i, it is the latter that has this duty because it is in effective control of 10,931 square miles, while the former is in effective control of less than 500 square miles.

In 1999, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”), in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, recognized the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, under international law, and the Council of Regency as its temporary government. The Council of Regency is not a part of the Native Hawaiian sovereignty movement. It is a government established under Hawaiian constitutional law and the doctrine of necessity. I am enclosing a copy of the PCA’s case repository of the Larsen case.

At the center of the dispute was the unlawful imposition of American laws over Hawaiian territory, which led to Larsen’s unfair trial and subsequent incarceration. This is the same Permanent Court of Arbitration that oversaw the dispute between the Philippines and China—the South China Sea case. On its website, the PCA describes the Larsen 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.

Since January 17, 1893, the United States, by an act of war, began its prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom despite the overthrow of its government. Furthermore, the unlawful overthrow of  the Hawaiian government did not affect Hawaiian sovereignty, which prevents any annexation of its territory without its consent by a treaty of cession. There is no such treaty of cession between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, except for an American municipal law, enacted on July 7, 1898, called a joint resolution of annexation purporting to have acquired the Hawaiian Islands. As section 358, FM 27-10—Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty states:

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 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.

Under customary international law, during military occupation, the imposition of the occupier’s laws over the territory of an occupied State is the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty. In his legal opinion for the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”), for prosecutions to take place, renowned expert in international criminal law and war crimes, Professor William Schabas, provides requisite elements of certain war crimes, including usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, which I am enclosing a copy of. It should be noted that if this were a frivolous matter, Professor Schabas surely would not have done his legal opinion for the RCI. He is a professor of international law at Middlesex University, London, Department of Law, and recognized as an expert in the field by the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.

I am aware of the military duty to establish a military government in occupied territories, because I served 10 years in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard from 1984 to 1994. I received my commission as a Second Lieutenant from New Mexico Military Institute in 1984, and, after returning home, joined the 1/487 Field Artillery. In 1994, I decided to resign my command of Charlie Battery in order to pursue the work I do now, and I was honorably discharged. I am enclosing my DD 214 separation papers. Former Commander of the Army National Guard, Brigadier General Keith Tamashiro, and I are not only colleagues, but friends, because, while I was the Charlie Battery Commander, he was the Bravo Battery Commander. I also served as Battalion Fire Support Officer for 2/299 Infantry, where Major General Kenneth Hara was a Lieutenant. Hence, I am thoroughly familiar with the Army National Guard.

On April 13, 2023, I had a meeting with MG Hara at the Grand Naniloa Hotel in Hilo. I started the meeting by telling MG Hara that circumstances, beyond our control, have placed us here today with duties to perform. He, as the senior officer of the Hawai‘i National Guard, and me, as head of the RCI, with the duty to protect the population from war crimes. This past June, the law journal, International Review of Contemporary Law, published my article titled “All States have a Responsibility to Protect their Population from War Crimes—Usurpation of Sovereignty During Military Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands.”

I explained to MG Hara the circumstances of the current situation, and his corresponding duty, as the theater commander of occupied territory, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. I provided him the necessary documentation as well. At the end of the meeting, I recommended that he task his JAG, Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps, to review the information I provided him and to see if LTC Phelps could refute it. If he could not, it would trigger MG Hara’s duty to perform. LTC Phelps could not refute the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence, which prompted MG Hara to acknowledge, on July 27, 2023, that Hawai‘i is an occupied State. On August 21, 2023, I provided MG Hara an Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government with essential and implied tasks, which was published by the law journal, Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics.

On May 25, 2024, I had a Zoom meeting with former Adjutant General, Major General Darryl Wong, and his Chief Master Sergeant, Robert Lee. Prior to this meeting, they both watched my March 6, 2024, presentation to the Maui County Council, updating them of the status of Hawai‘i under international law and the duty of MG Hara to establish a military government (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-VIA_3GD2A&t=1s). MG Wong and CMSAF Lee acknowledged that they understood why MG Hara, as the Adjutant General, had this military duty to perform. MG Wong also acknowledged that he had this duty when he was the Adjutant General, but I told him that the difference between them was that MG Wong was not aware of the factual circumstances of the occupation, but MG Hara was aware.

After numerous attempts to work with MG Hara and his refusals to meet, I was informed that he was instructed by State of Hawai‘i Attorney General, Anne E. Lopez, to ignore me and anyone else that called for the establishment of the military government. MG Hara’s conduct here, as the Adjutant General, was unbecoming of an officer. To not be unbecoming of an officer, he needed to ask for a legal opinion from the Attorney General that concludes, which provides conclusive evidence and law, that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist as an occupied State under international law. His failure to perform his duty of establishing a military government has made him the subject of War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 for the war crime by omission that was published on the RCI’s website yesterday (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/RCI_War_Criminal_Report_no._24-0001.pdf). His failure to perform his duty has led to everyone in the Army National Guard chain of command to be implicated in the performance of this duty.

As a war criminal, subject to prosecution by a competent tribunal, and where there is no statute of limitations, MG Hara is unfit to serve as Commander of the Hawai‘i National Guard. As such, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, as the Deputy Adjutant General and Commander of the Army National Guard, must assume the chain of command, and he has until 1200 hours on August 12, 2024, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. To escape criminal culpability, BG Logan must demand a legal opinion from the Attorney General or from LTC Phelps that shows, with irrefutable evidence and law, that the Hawaiian Kingdom ceases to exist a State under international law.

If BG Logan does not obtain a legal opinion, and fails to perform his military duty, he will then be the subject of a war criminal report by the RCI for the war crime by omission. After the publication of this war criminal report, Colonel Wesley K. Kawakami, Commander, 29th Infantry Brigade, will assume the chain of command and demand a similar legal opinion. If Colonel Kawakami receives no such legal opinion, he will have one week to perform his duty as the theater commander.

To speak to the severity of the situation, I am enclosing a letter to MG Hara, dated May 29, 2024, from police officers, both active and retired, from across the islands, that called upon him to perform his duties because “This failure of transition places current police officers on duty that they may be held accountable for unlawfully enforcing American laws.” These police officers also stated:

We also acknowledge that the Council of Regency is our government that was lawfully established under extraordinary circumstance, and we support its effort to bring compliance with the law of occupation by the State of Hawai‘i, on behalf of the United States, which will eventually bring the American occupation to a close. When this happens, our Legislative Assembly will be brought into session so that Hawaiian subjects can elect a Regency of our choosing. The Council of Regency is currently operating in an acting capacity that is allowed under Hawaiian law.

As senior Commanders in the chain of command of the Army National Guard, I implore you all to take this matter seriously and to demand, from the Attorney General or the JAG, a legal opinion that concludes there is no duty on you to establish a military government because the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist, and that this is the territory of the United States and the State of Hawai‘i under international law. With the legal opinion in hand, there is no duty to perform. Without it, there is the military duty to perform, and failure to perform would constitute the war crime by omission.