In 1994 a State of Hawai‘i Court asked “Does the Hawaiian Kingdom Continue to Exist?”

What many people may not know is that it was the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) in 1994 that established a landmark and precedent case where defendants have the burden to provide a factual or legal basis that would conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state when they are challenging the jurisdiction of the trial courts. This case is State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo. This has been an open legal question and not a political question that has been before the courts in Hawai‘i for the past twenty-one years. It was conclusively answered “yes” in another landmark case State of Hawai‘i v. English during an evidentiary hearing on March 5, 2015.

The Lorenzo case was in response to the United States Congressional apology for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893—U.S. Public Law 103-150. In 1993, the Congress admitted to the United States’ illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government, but it did not admit to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a state. A government is not a state in international law. A state is a sovereign country that is a member of the family of nations, while a government is the physical body that exercises the sovereign authority of the country. State and country are synonymous, and history shows that while governments were overthrown, it doesn’t mean that countries were overthrown. Examples include the overthrow of the Japanese government by the Allied countries in 1945 during World War II, the overthrow of the Kuwaiti government by Iraq in 1990 during the Gulf War, and the overthrow of the Iraqi government in 2003 by the United States during the Iraq War.

The Lorenzo case addressed this very issue of whether or not the Hawaiian state still exists despite the admitted illegal overthrow of its government in 1893. There has been a common misunderstanding that treats the overthrow of the Hawaiian government synonymous with the overthrow of the Hawaiian state. The Lorenzo case distinguishes the two and concluded that this is an open legal question. If the Hawaiian state continues to exist, then the State of Hawai‘i (USA) cannot legally exist in the Hawaiian Islands.

In 1991, Anthony Lorenzo was tried in the First Circuit Court after being indicted on criminal charges of failing to render assistance after being involved in an automobile accident, driving without a license, and negligent injury. A pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment was filed claiming that the State of Hawai‘i had no jurisdiction over him because the Hawaiian Kingdom still existed as a sovereign nation. The trial judge denied the motion to dismiss, which became the basis for the appeal to the ICA in 1994.

Walter HeenJudge Walter Heen, who authored the Lorenzo judgment, wrote, “The essence of the lower court’s decision is that even if, as Lorenzo contends, the 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom was illegal, that would not affect the court’s jurisdiction in this case. Although the court’s rationale is open to question in light of international law, the record indicates that the decision was correct because Lorenzo did not meet his burden of proving his defense of lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, we must affirm the judgment.” Judge Heen concluded, “it was incumbent on Defendant to present evidence supporting his claim. Lorenzo has presented no factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature. Consequently, his argument that he is subject solely to the Kingdom’s jurisdiction is without merit, and the lower court correctly exercised jurisdiction over him.”

In the ICA decision, Judge Heen provided the definition of a state as “an entity that has a defined territory and a permanent population, under the control of its own government, and that engages in, or has the capacity to engage in, formal relations with other such entities.” A careful reading of this definition clearly distinguishes the state from its government, where the “state” is “under the control of its own government.” The government is not the state.

Judge Heen also stated, “The illegal overthrow leaves open the question whether the present governance system should be recognized, even though the illegal overthrow predated the United Nations Charter.” The Lorenzo case put forth a legal question in both State of Hawai‘i and Federal Courts in the Hawaiian Islands, as well as bringing in international law. This legal question has profound consequences that centers on whether the Hawaiian Kingdom as a state exists or not. It is international law that will determine the existence of the Hawaiian state, and not the laws of the United States.

In the Nishitani v. Baker (1996), Judge Corrine Watanabe of the ICA stated, “In retrospect, our statement in Lorenzo that a criminal defendant has the burden of proving his or her defense of lack of jurisdiction may have generated some confusion. [Hawai‘i Revised Statutes] specifically provides that in a criminal case, a defendant may not be convicted unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt ‘facts establishing jurisdiction.’ The burden of proving jurisdiction thus clearly rests with the prosecution. However, where immunity claims are raised as a defense to jurisdiction, the burden is on the defendant to establish his or her immunity status.”

For the past twenty-one years, judges at the trial court level have consistently denied requests by defendants to dismiss either criminal or civil complaints filed in the State of Hawai‘i and Federal courts on the grounds that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. These judges have relied on the Lorenzo case to deny the requests. When these decisions are taken on appeal, the ICA has routinely upheld the judgments by citing the Lorenzo case, “Because the defendant had ‘presented no factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ we determined that the defendant had failed to meet his burden of proving his defense of lack of jurisdiction.”

The ICA cited the burden of the Lorenzo case was not met by the defendants in a total of forty-one appeals between 1994 and 2014, and the Hawai‘i Supreme Court during this same period cited the same failure of defendants to provide a “factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state” in six appeals. In total there have been forty-seven appeals that cited the landmark Lorenzo case that was decided on October 20, 1994. What isn’t accounted for, however, is how many trial courts denied defendants motions to dismiss that did not make it to an appeal.

In all of these cases that came before the State of Hawai‘i appellate courts, the defendants provided evidence of some sort, but the Lorenzo case required the defendants to provide evidence that is “conclusive,” and not just evidence. Conclusive is evidence that is “indisputable” between the prosecution or plaintiff and the defense. In order to overcome this hurdle of “indisputability,” which is a very high standard, the defendants need to have an evidentiary hearing where the rules of evidence are applied. It is in the evidentiary hearing that the defendants can introduce evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state according to the Lorenzo case. The prosecution or the plaintiff, however, cannot object to the evidence for the sake of objecting. They have to provide counter-evidence. If they object by providing counter-evidence then the evidence is considered “disputable,” and therefore would not meet the burden of the Lorenzo case where it has to be “indisputable” making the evidence “conclusive” that the Kingdom exists as a state.

One way to get the evidence to be recognized as “indisputable” and “conclusive” would be to have the court take “judicial notice” of the defendant’s evidence under Rules 201 and 202 of the Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence. Black’s Law Dictionary (p. 848, 6th ed. 1990) defines judicial notice as the “act by which a court recognizes the existence and truth of certain facts.” Under Rule 201 is judicial notice of “adjudicative facts,” and Rule 202 is judicial notice of laws. When Judge Cardoza took judicial notice of Dr. Keanu Sai’s legal brief titled, “The Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” at the request of the defense during the evidentiary hearing on March 5, 2015 in State v. English at the Second Circuit Court on the Island of Maui, it included both “adjudicative facts” and “laws.”

Throughout the evidentiary hearing, the prosecution did not object to Dr. Sai’s expert testimony that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state under international law, and it didn’t object to the Judge taking judicial notice of Dr. Sai’s brief that concludes the existence of the Hawaiian state. By not objecting during an evidentiary hearing, the prosecution was in agreement with the evidence being presented. What is extremely important during a criminal proceeding is the appearance of fairness and due process because the defendants are facing a judgment that could lead to imprisonment. In other words, the only way for the prosecution to object to the evidence presented by the defendants is that it must show counter evidence. Without counter evidence, the prosecution cannot object for the sake of objecting. To do so would be to violate the defendants’ right to a fair trial and due process.

State v. English is a landmark case, because the judge took judicial notice of adjudicative facts and laws that concludes the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state under international law. The evidentiary ruling made by Judge Cardoza during a fair evidentiary proceeding has “conclusively” determined that there is a “factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state.” In 21 years of case law (common law), the English case has finally and conclusively answered the legal question presented by Judge Heen in the Lorenzo case in 1994.

###

The forty-one cases heard by the ICA using the Lorenzo case are: State v. French, 77 Haw. 222, 228, 883 P.2d 644, 650 (1994); Nishitani v. Baker, 82 Hawai‘i 281, 289, 921 P.2d 1182, 1190 (1996); Chalon Int’l of Haw. v. Makuaole, 95 Haw. 243, 20 P.3d 676 (2000); State v. Sherman, 95 Haw. 243, 20 P.3d 676 (2000); State v. Joshua, Haw. App. LEXIS 247 (2001); State v. Moore, Haw. App. LEXIS 242 (2001); State v. Lindsey, 98 Haw. 142, 44 P.3d 293 (2002); State v. Miyahira, 98 Haw. 287, P.3d 754 (2002); State v. Keawemauhili, 101 Haw. 330, 76 P.3d 829 (2003); Makapono Partners, LLC v. Simeona, Haw. App. LEXIS 120 (2003); State v. Araujo, 103 Haw. 508, 83 P.3d 771 (2004); Betsill Bros. Constr., Inc. v. Akahi, Haw. App. LEXIS 218 (2004); State v. Keli‘ikoa, 105 Haw. 92, 93 P.3d 1199 (2004); State v. Fergerstrom, 106 Haw. 41, 101 P.3d 225 (2004); State v. Tanaka, 106 Haw. 246, 103 P.3d 406 (2004); State v. Spinney, 106 Haw. 389, 105 P.3d 266 (2005); State v. Ball, 113 Haw. 507, 155 P.3d 690 (2007); State v. Steffey, Haw. App. LEXIS (2008); State v. Nakatsu, Haw. App. LEXIS (2008); State v. Ampong, 120 Haw. 255, 203 P.3d 675 (2009); State v. Makekau, 121 Haw. 202, 216 P.3d 128 (2009); State v. Rodenhurst, Haw. App. LEXIS 588 (2010); State v. Craig-Rodenhurst, Haw. App. LEXIS 664 (2011); State v. Kaluau, 125 Haw. 251, 258 P.3d 948 (2011); RMS Residential Properties, LLC v. Valdez, 125 Haw. 475, 264 P.3d 53 (2011); Burgo v. State, 127 Haw. 240, 277 P.3d 334 (2012); State v. Au, 128 Haw. 476, 290 P.3d 546 (2012); State v. Kawa‘auhau, 128 Haw. 477, 290 P.3d 547 (2012); Federal National Mortgage Association v. Bise, 129 Haw. 268, 297 P.3d 1124 (2013); Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Armitage, 129 Haw. 295, 298 P.3d 1059 (2013); Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Griep, 129 Haw. 425, 301 P.3d 1266 (2013); Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Pa‘a, 130 Haw. 302, 309 P.3d 970 (2013); State v. Armitage, 129 Haw. 425, 301 P.3d 1266 (2013); Federal National Mortgage Association v. Duarte, 129 Haw. 452, 303 P.3d 1229 (2013); First Hawaiian Bank v. Kamakea, 129 Haw. 452, 303 P.3d 1229 (2013); The Bank of New York Mellon v. Velez, 129 Haw. 426, 301 P.3d 1267 (2013); U.S. Bank National Association v. Shim-Palama, 129 Haw. 427, 301 P.3d 1268 (2013); State v. Palama, 129 Haw. 428, 301 P.3d 1269 (2013); Federal National Mortgage Association v. Barros, 129 Haw. 449, 302 P.3d 717 (2013); State v. Kana‘ele, 132 Haw. 518, 323 P.3d 162 (2014); State v. Kanaka‘ole, 132 Haw. 518, 323 P.3d 162 (2014).

The six cases heard by the Supreme Court using the Lorenzo case are: State v. Lee, 90 Haw. 130, 976 P.2d 444 (1999); State v. Sinagoga, Haw. LEXIS 135 (2002); State v. Fergerstrom, Haw. LEXIS 254 (2004); State v. Rodenhurst, Haw. LEXIS 280 (2010); State v. Kaulia, 128 Haw. 479, 291 P.3d 377 (2013); State v. Armitage, 132 Haw. 36, 319 P.3d 1044 (2014).

19 thoughts on “In 1994 a State of Hawai‘i Court asked “Does the Hawaiian Kingdom Continue to Exist?”

  1. I know this is not related but we need help. Please kokua if you are able.

    PLEASE CONSIDER SHARING ON YOUR PAGE. MAHALO NUI

    Please Kokua we need your help.
    Please consider supporting these Aloha Aina / Protectors by donating to
    http://www.gofundme.com/mkbailfund
    All money received will go directly to pay bail for those who have or will be arrested.

  2. Mahalo Keanu! Always thorough and factual!!! I appreciate the clarity! There may be other questions that come up. It’s wonderful to know that there is information that clears up the mana’o that shows up. Take care.

  3. Hau`oli la `ola kakou! And as we celebrate the holiest day of the year, let us take the time to remember the reason we do so. God Almighty knows each and every one of us and what is in our hearts. He knows the suffering of everyone. That is why He sent His only begotten son to teach us about the good news of redemption; to free us from the condemnation of sin. We are redeemed through the blood of Jesus Christ. And today is the anniversary of His resurrection.
    I believe God heard our prayers; our cries of our na kupuna, the fears, oppression, and the wrong that has been done to us an our beloved Country. I believe God has granted the answer we seek and that he chose David Keanu Sai. I believe that He knew that Keanu could take on the burden at hand and has called out to him by way of Keanu’s tutu requesting that he learn his genealogy. He has done that and has also taken up his kuleana. That burden is heavy but by doing so, Keanu accepted his mission by saying yes.
    I believe that for whatever reason, God saw fit to free us from the grips of the enemy and chose David Keanu Sai for the task unbeknown to him that he had answered God’s call when he promised his Tutu to learn his genealogy and to take up his kuleana. He took up that heavy burden and continues to do so today.
    In the American Journal of International Law, vol. 95, p. 928 (2001), and reprinted in the Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics, vol. 1, p. 83 (2004), Bederman and Hilbert, state that at “the center of the PCA proceeding was…that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist.
    He came home with the promise to come educate all of us of the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s findings because we didn’t know what the truth was. And as part of his promise he created this blog. He took the steps necessary to get us thus far and continues to do so in other ways, as well. And while his work continues he has been forthright at reporting his work; bringing us closer to our goal. The truth, if not for his dedication, would have kept us in the dark. And as every good leader who has been been falsely accused, Keanu too is being slandered – defamation of character. He is being blamed by some and accused by those who either do not truly understand the predicament we are in or are upset because it doesn’t follow their agenda. Or it may be that they are seeking approval, as well. No matter the truth is being told in spite of these conspiracy’s to destroy Keanu’s reputation. That in itself will be dealt with at the correct time.
    As far as I know, and I’ve known Keanu for many years, he has never turned away anyone who asked a question. But in spite of the ridicule, he continues his promises.
    So, if you have questions, ask them. No question is stupid, or unimportant. This is how we get the answers and better educated. Just ask the right question to get the right answer. If you have insight and want to contribute to the conversation, by all means do so. We are all seeking education. If you have knowledge that needs to be shared, please do. It is in our best interest that your research is acknowledged. But if your comments are to smear the character of irrefutable evidence please, please tell us why and give us the citing. Otherwise it’s just a waste of time and space. Remember we are all in the same wa`a. It all depends who is kaho`okele to hoi our prize. Let’s all work to move towards that goal.
    God continues to lead us on the path of truth. And until someone can PROVE him wrong, Keanu has my vote as kaho`okele. Until then, onipa`a na po`e o Hawai`i nei.
    Aloha Ke Akua

    • Mahalo nui to the Old Gods as well…who we thank for the ‘aina, moana, ka wai, ka Lani, a mea mea mea….and too for Dr. Sai’s inestimable contribution to the understanding of the Kingdom of Hawai’i whose Government was illegally overthrown with a subsequent foreign occupation. BUT, a Government can be overthrown but not the Sovereignty of a Nation State…which without a Treaty cannot be annexed to another Nation as well.

    • Very well written MAHALO fo speaking up fo Dr. Keanu Sai…I too am grateful fo ALL he IS doing fo da KINGDOM of the Hawaiian Islands….

    • I agree with Kekoa, don’t expect justice.
      I represented myself, without success, but then again I was not seeking justice.
      I went to establish my claim as a Native tenant( interest in all the land of Hawaii) and a Hawaiian subject.
      I also went to notify the prosecutor and judge of the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and due to the lack of a treaty of annexation the courts were operating in foreign territory and they were unlawfully constituted, meaning they lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
      I attempted to create doubt as to whether there charges being brought against me we lawful.
      I tried to question the fact that Hawaii is a part of the US, which was a requirement for the State of Hawaii to exist under law.
      I tried to question the laws that were being enforced, within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
      Most of all I wanted answers. I had read enough and wanted to apply what I have learned in the real world, among legal professionals.
      I did learn a couple of things.
      The two officers that I cross examined were not very clear on their “oath of office.”. When I asked if the US Constitution was referenced in the oath, neither officer could say for certain.
      The other thing was that no one objected to my claims to be a native tenant or Hawaiian Subject.
      I did notify the judge of article 6 of the 1864 Hawaiian constitution that says: I shall not be punished by a court that lacksjurisdisystem. My sentencing is on April 23. We will see if the judge chooses to violate my constitutional rights.
      Looking back, I did not ask the most basic questions that might have made a difference:
      Could the prosecutor provide a treaty of annexation or some other document that showed the legal transfer of land from the Hawaiian Kingdom to the US?
      Could the prosecutor provide evidence of their jurisdiction over the 8 main Hawaiian Islands.
      I recommend every aloha aina to engage the legal system. Very educational, plus you get to
      Cross examine law enforcement. Ask them about their oath. Maybe it will remind them. Bring em back to reality.

      • Mahalo Tim for your mana’o, when was your court hearing? Was it before or after the state vs. English case a.k.a. Molokai Fishermen case? That is when Judge Cardoza took judicial notice of HK. My hearing is not til May 7. Yes I do believe asking if the treaty exist and to show proof is a great question, I believe that is what we all want to know, and not even Kerry have answered the Question. So with no proof of Treaty, America is occupying HK Illegally, their laws created and administered after the occupation is fact Fraud right? There for such american made laws would not exist, which is the laws enforced today (HRS).

  4. Aloha L and D, if you are a defendant than the burden is on you to defend yourself. It is you that have to provide the evidence in your case that the HK continues to exist according to the attributes of a sovereign state under internatioanl law. We are occupied and the courts are refusing to comply with their own law and the laws of occupation. Don’t expect a fair trial but you gotta make the record that can be later used if they injure you.

    • Mahalo Kekoa for your reply, I feel so disappointed in this State of Hawaii Dept of Human Services a.k.a. CPS. Being accused of beating my child. The “state” took away all our keiki’s even though we are not guilty of abuse. The state uses chapter 587a in Hawaii State Laws to authorize their authority. U.S. Laws not Kingdom laws again Illegal/war Crime. So in Hawaiian Kingdom Law the state is Kidnapping our kids. It’s upsetting that I feel helpless in this situation, our kids like come home but can’t because of this so called Chapter 587a. Would it be wrong to go and get our kids from the foster parents homes?

  5. Aloha L and D, this is not legal advice but hypothetically you could place the necessary facts and evidence on the record that was used in the English case. If you cannot afford an attorney than you may qualify for a Public Pretender. If you bring up the jurisdiction defense then the Pretender will most likely conflict out and then they will have to appoint a private attorney to represent you on their tab. Maybe that attorney could be Mr. Kaiama but not sure. Hypothetically your attorney could produce the necessary evidence in a evidentiary hearing. In any case if they raillroad you and claim they retain subject matter jurisdiction that you gotta go to plan B. Have your attorney bring up a defense using Hawaii Revised Statute 703-309 section (1) subsections (a) and (b) which allows you to use physical force for discipline of your children. Read the commentary of subsection 1 for additional information. Under the State Law it allows parents, teachers and institutions for the health and well being of minors the usel of force for discipline. The parameters on the amount of force alllowed is pretty broad.
    (1) The actor is the parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a minor, or a person acting at the request of the parent, guardian, or other responsible person, and:

    (a) The force is employed with due regard for the age and size of the minor and is reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the prevention or punishment of the minor’s misconduct; and

    (b) The force used is not designed to cause or known to create a risk of causing substantial bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain or mental distress, or neurological damage.

    I’m not sure of the particulars in your case or if you was justified in using force for discipline but that is something you will have to answer. I do believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
    The State passed a law protecting your rights as parents allowing you to discipline your children so that is your right according to a fake State in their fake system. Once again I am not giving legal advice and speaking only in the hypothetical.

    • Aloha, …Question…Has anyone heard what is the status on the writ of mandamus that was filed by Mr. Kaiama relating to the state v. English case? Mahalo four your mana’o. Malama pono. LLHK!

    • awesome Kekoa in yur response in empowering a fellow ‘subject/heir’ of Kingdom of Hawaiian Islands…I know it is a great kokua to many….
      learning to use da deceptive ‘State’ rules/laws fo da benefit of FREEING ourselves from their tactics and fraudulently lies….Mahalo

  6. What about marsh vs USA, he won criminal case with jury trial but feds came back with civil case judge verdict and the result changed drastically ,look it up its true.

Leave a Reply to lonokapu Cancel reply