Interview of Kale Gumapac by Dr. Lynette Cruz Regarding His Home and War Crimes

Kale Gumapac and Nanci Munroe are interviewed by Dr. Lynette Cruz regarding the pillaging of his home and the commission of war crimes. Kale speaks to the issues first hand and shares his journey of knowledge and awareness of the history of his country to a victim of war crimes. Kale’s case was reported by his attorney Dexter Kaiama to the United States Pacific Command, the International Criminal Court, the Hawai‘i Police Department, and the Swiss Attorney General for prosecution.

On December 12, 2005, Kale and his former wife took out a loan with Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, in the amount of $290,000.00. As security for the loan, the Gumapacs mortgaged their home property, which was recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances. The Gumapacs, as the mortgagor, assumed their title was free and clear as did Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, being the mortgagee of the title since it cleared escrow. As the mortgagee, Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, did not have title to the property, but only a lien. Title being vested in the Gumapacs as the mortgagor.

When the Gumapacs mortgaged their property in order to secure the repayment of the loan, they were required by Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, as a condition of the loan, to go to escrow, being Security Title Guaranty Corporation, to purchase a loan title insurance policy in the amount of $290,000.00 for the benefit of Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, should there be a defect in title, which would render the mortgage invalid. Many people confuse the terms mortgage and a promissory note, which is a loan, as if they are synonymous. In fact, a mortgage is a security instrument or collateral that secures the the promissory note, it is not a loan. So if a mortgage is invalid due to a defect in title, it does not release the borrower from the debt owed to the bank, which is, however, covered by the lender’s insurance policy the borrower purchased.

According to the loan policy the Gumapacs purchased at escrow on December 19, 2005, they paid a premium $1,050.00 for the policy with Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, as the named insured. The Gumapacs previously paid a premium of $660.00 for an owner’s title insurance policy for their protection against title defects on February 24, 2003 for a coverage of $178,000.00 from Title Guaranty Company. Deutsche Bank purchased the Gumapac’s mortgage and loan, which was included with other mortgages and loans in a mortgage-backed security. Along with the mortgage and loan, Deutsche Bank replaced Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, as the beneficiary of the loan title insurance policy.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed., title insurance is a “policy issued by a title company after searching the title, representing the state of that title and insuring the accuracy of its search against claims of title defects.” It is an indemnity contract that does not guarantee the state of the title but covers loss incurred from a defect in land titles that would arise from an inaccurate title report.

Below is a copy of the lender’s policy they purchased at escrow from Stewart Title Guaranty Company, being a Texas corporation. Both lender’s and owner’s title insurance policies provide the same coverage of risks to the title.

Stewart Title Insurance

On January 21, 2011, Kale’s company Laulima Title Search and Claims, LLC, (LTSC) investigated the status of his fee-simple title that was acquired from the Linda Vivian Little and Alice Evelyn Little on April 17, 2002, and recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances. Kale is the owner of LTSC, which provides claims packages to be filed with title insurance companies under a lender’s and owner’s policy.

LTSC’s investigation identified defects in Kale’s fee-simple title that should have been disclosed in the title report done by Security Title Corporation, which they paid $468.75 at escrow and reflected in section 1100—Title Charges of the HUD Final Settlement Statement. The title report was the basis of the lender’s title insurance policy the Gumapacs purchased. Security Title Corporation and Title Guaranty Company, Inc., are fully aware that all land titles in the Hawaiian Islands originate in the year 1845 through Land Commission Awards and Royal Patents. It was also in 1845 that the Hawaiian legislature established notaries public and the Bureau of Conveyances. LTSC’s processor’s report was based on an expert memorandum Dr. Keanu Sai authored as a consultant to LTSC. The report summarized the defect by stating:

“This claim involves a defect of title by virtue of an executive agreement entered into between President Grover Cleveland of the United States and Queen Lili‘uokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, whereby the President and his successors in office were and continue to be bound to faithfully execute Hawaiian Kingdom law by assignment of the Queen under threat of war on January 17th 1893. The notaries public in the Hawaiian Islands and the registrar of the Bureau of Conveyances were not lawful since January 17th 1893, and therefore title to the estate in fee-simple described as Lot 2787, area 1.00 acre, more or less, Block 7, as shown on Map 58 filed in the Office of the Assistant Registrar of the Land Court of the State of Hawai`i with Land Court Application no. 1053 (amended) of W.H. Shipman, Limited, under document no. 2895104 & certificate no. 505052, filed with the Registrar of the Bureau of Conveyances on February 24th 2003, is vested other than Kale Kepekaio Gumapac and Dianne Dee Gumapac, now divorced, because the aforementioned deed of conveyance was not lawfully executed in compliance with Hawaiian Kingdom law.”

According to a United States presidential investigation into the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government, President Cleveland concluded in his message to Congress on December 18, 1893, that the so-called provisional government “was neither a government de facto nor de jure,” but self-declared (see page 453, Exhibit A of the memorandum). Additionally, the United States Congress in its 1993 joint resolution of apology for the illegal overthrow (Public Law 103-150) admitted that the provisional government’s successor was also self-declared. The resolution stated “Whereas, through the Newlands Resolution, the self-declared Republic of Hawaii ceded sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States.” This preamble in the apology resolution is problematic because it conflates two problems—the first is that Congress by legislation has no effect beyond the borders of the United States, and, second, the so-called Republic was self-declared and therefore not a government, since by definition self-declared is defined as proclaimed or announced by oneself.

Since all titles in the Hawaiian Islands originated in 1845, the defective notaries and registrars of the Bureau of Conveyances after January 17, 1893, which were members of the self-declared provisional government and the Republic of Hawai‘i, are covered risks under section 2(a)(iii) and 2(a)(vi) of the lender’s title insurance the Gumapacs purchased to protect the lender. By letter to Deutsche Bank dated November 22, 2011, Kale demanded Deutsche Bank to file a loss of title claim with Stewart Title Insurance Company under the lender’s title insurance policy he purchased to protect the bank should their be a defect in title and consequently an invalid mortgage. Because Deutsche Bank was the beneficiary of the title insurance policy purchased by the Gumapacs, Deutsche Bank is supposed to file the insurance claim and not the Gumapacs.

Section 3 of the lender’s title insurance policy stated: “The Insured shall notify the Company promptly in writing…in case Knowledge shall come to an insured of any claim of title or interest that is adverse to the Title or the lien of the insured Mortgage, as insured, and that might cause loss or damage for which the Company may be liable by virtue of this policy… If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the Insured Claimant to provide prompt notice, the Company’s liability to the Insured Claimant under the policy shall be reduced to the extent of the prejudice.”

Deutsche Bank who was represented by attorneys Charles Prather, Sofia Hirosone and Michael G.K. Wong of the law firm RCO Hawai‘i, LLLC, refused to file the claim and continued to proceed against Kale. These proceedings in the Third Circuit Court i in the city of Hilo, Island of Hawai‘i, constituted the war crime of denying Kale a fair trial as well as pillaging his home.

What many people may not know is that a title insurance policy does not insure the validity of the title, but only the accuracy of the title search that the title insurance underwrites. Only the grantor of the title, who in the case of the Gumapacs is Linda Vivian Little and Alice Evelyn Little, ensures that the title is valid under a warranty, not Deutsche Bank as the mortgagee or Stewart Title Guaranty Corporation who issued the policy. Again, the definition of title insurance, it is a “policy issued by a title company after searching the title, representing the state of that title and insuring the accuracy of its search against claims of title defects.”

The foreclosure process is a collection of a debt, and Kale has been consistent with his obligations in the repayment of that debt to Deutsche Bank. It is Deutsche Bank that did not comply with the contractual obligations. If Deutsche Bank filed an insurance claim, and the insurance company in their response provided clear evidence that the provisional government and the Republic of Hawai‘i were not self-declared, but lawful governments of Hawai‘i, then Deutsche Bank would be legally authorized, by virtue of the mortgage agreement, to carry out the eviction as a means by which a debt is being collected.

There was no lawful basis for Deutsche Bank to carry out the foreclosure and eviction if they were given due notice of the defect in the mortgagor’s title by Kale as the mortgagor, himself. As a mortgagee, Deutsche Bank can claim no better interest in the property than Kale, which is precisely why a lender’s title insurance policy was made a condition of the loan in the first place. What is for sure is that war crimes were committed against an innocent person by the following individuals who were reported to the U.S. Pacific Command, the International Criminal Court, the Hawai‘i Police Department, and the Swiss Attorney General:

  1. Judge Greg K. Nakamura, Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai‘i, whose address is Hale Kaulike, 777 Kilauea Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720-4212;
  2. Jürgen Fitschen, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Deutsche Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany;
  3. Anshu Jain, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Deutsche Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany;
  4. Stefan Krause, Chief Financial Officer, Deutsche Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany;
  5. Stephan Leithner, Chief Executive Officer Europe (except Germany and UK), Human Resources, Legal & Compliance, Government and Regulatory Affairs, Deutsche Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany;
  6. Stuart Lewis, Chief Risk Officer, Deutsche Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany;
  7. Rainer Neske, Head of Private and Business Clients, Deutsche Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany;
  8. Henry Ritchotte, Chief Operating Officer, Deutsche Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany;
  9. Charles R. Prather, attorney for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, belonging to the law firm RCO Hawaii, LLLC, whose address is 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 800, Honolulu, HI 96813;
  10. Sofia M. Hirosone, attorney for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, belonging to the law firm RCO Hawaii, LLLC, whose address is 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 800, Honolulu, HI 96813;
  11. Michael G.K. Wong, attorney for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, belonging to the law firm RCO Hawaii, LLLC, whose address is 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 800, Honolulu, HI 96813;
  12. Lieutenant Patrick Kawai, State of Hawai‘i Department of Public Safety Sheriff’s Department, to include his superiors and deputies, whose address is Hale Kaulike, 777 Kilauea Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720-4212;
  13. Police Chief Harry S. Kubojiri, County of Hawai‘i Police Department, whose address is 349 Kapiʻolani Street, Hilo, HI 96720;
  14. Detective Brian D. Prudencio, Office of Professional Standards, County of Hawai‘i Police Department, whose address is 349 Kapiʻolani Street, Hilo, HI 96720;
  15. Captain Samuel Kawamoto, County of Hawai‘i Police Department, whose address is 349 Kapiʻolani Street, Hilo, HI 96720; and
  16. Detective Derek Morimoto, County of Hawai‘i Police Department, whose address is 349 Kapiʻolani Street, Hilo, HI 96720.

Everyone who claims to own property in the Hawaiian Islands all have a defective title and consequently mortgages that are invalid. But everyone also purchased title insurance at escrow to protect the bank in case of a defective title, which pays off the debt the borrowers owe. The irony of this whole situation is that the above named perpetrators of war crimes assuredly have the same insurance policies Kale has if they currently have a mortgaged loan. These individuals have quickly moved from victims themselves to alleged war criminals who mistakenly thought that Kale was a sovereignty activist. Everyone should begin to read their escrow papers and they will find the very same documents that were at the center of the war crimes.

34 thoughts on “Interview of Kale Gumapac by Dr. Lynette Cruz Regarding His Home and War Crimes

  1. I’m puzzled, If indeed Kale has been paying monthly as is proper, what is the justification for filing foreclosure? Was it merely his challenge to the title documentation? I used to do land title research myself in Honolulu for a title company, so much of this is familiar.

    • I think he paid for title insurance and pointed out to the
      title insurance company that land title conveyances since
      January 17, 1893, (without a notary public of the kingdom)
      are invalid.
      Kale has a valid claim, but for now the courts that are hearing
      these types of claims in Hawaii are corrupt themselves! If the
      title insurance companies are required to comply it would lead
      to the fact that the State of Hawaii courts are without authority
      in Hawaiian Kingdom jurisdiction, leading to the current laws
      in Hawaii are without authority and so on and on!
      We’ve heard about people wanting to buy insurance after a
      tragic event, Kale along with a whole bunch of us whether pro
      kingdom or not could and should cash in on title insurance claim
      based upon the kingdom’s presumption of continuity!
      Who in their right mind wouldn’t call the title insurance company
      to the table. If one paid for title insurance, what did one really
      pay for?
      If land titles are no good in Hawaii since January 17, 1893, it
      doesn’t only apply to Hawaiian subjects, but everyone in Hawaii.

      There are people who make things happen, there are people who
      watch things happen and then there are people who’ll say what

      Collecting monies for title insurance knowing that the U.S. has
      no defense to the presumption is just plain evil!

      Yes Jon, I do believe its a title challenge.

      • We have 2 choices for justice:
        1-corrupt statutory courts where judgments are made by the guy in the black robe who profits.
        2-common/natural law trail by jury where judgments are made by people of your own peers, based upon evidence. Illusion
        *What if every elected official, government agency, and even the unelected nameless faceless bureaucrats working for the Statutory and Regulatory Industrial Complex feared YOU?

        *What if every single move they made would be under the watchful eye of We The People, with real tangible and immediate consequences?

        *Instead of burning up their phone lines, email inboxes and fax machines with empty threats of “if you vote for that, we might not vote for you in 2 years!”, what if they would actually tremble when you called because they knew their power, positions and personal assets would be on the line?

        *Instead of the empty threats of just losing the next election for breaking their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, what if their indiscretions meant actual prison time?

        *What if you have the power to subpoena records and require elected officials to testify under oath before a panel of We The People?

        *What if this isn’t some new-fangled idea, but rather existing power available to We The People …?

        The fact is, We The People, already have this power!

      • liskir, if Kale does go back to court it would most likely
        be to echo what he has been telling them all along,
        the U.S. and the State of Hawaii is without authority
        in Hawaiian jurisdiction! Perhaps one reason for him to
        go to court would be to leave a paper trail, some day
        the U.S. will be held accountable for its arrogance!
        There would be no need for him to advance common
        law in courts that have no authority in Hawaiian jurisdiction.
        The U.S. has a valid reason to fear the Hawaiian Kingdom,
        their hewa is being exposed and understood worldwide!

        No treaty = no jurisdiction!

        Even in extreme situations paper trails can be investigated.
        For example:

  2. Aloha Win, I agree, according to the evidence presented by the defendants and that the plaintif did not provide any evidence rebutting the defendants, the judges should have dismissed the cases. The judges are ruling based on their politics and not on the the rule of law. They are afraid of the ramifications a correct ruling would have on their entire system. The banks are relying on these judges to protect the illegal system and the banks. If banks had to file for title insurance claims to get paid off the title insurance companies would just stop writing policies and the banks could not do any more mortgage business. Not to mention everyone who has a mortgage would file a claim since they would not want to pay for a defective title.

  3. Aloha Jon, I believe when Kale found out there was a defect in his title he immediately notified the bank and the title company as required by the contract. The bank accordidng to the contract has to address and remedy the defect. If it cannot remedy the defect it cannot take legal action. Kale stopped making payments because a defect in title is a covered risk in the insurance policy. Why would you keep paying for something that is covered by your insurance and you will not have clear title? It would be like your doctor taking you to court and collecting money from you instead of the insurance company because he/she did not want to file the claim. The bank for obvious reasons did not want to file the claim. They chose to forclose inorder to clear their books without having to jepordize themselves and the title insurance company. The judges, attorneys and banks know the truth about this whole situation but they will not do what is right. They rather have the majority benefit from the fraud and injure the minority. Bottom line they are violating their oaths, the Geneva convention, causing injuries and committing crimes. They are not honorable people, they walk in dishonor.

  4. This is absolute fraud being committed by the mortgage banker, the title insurance company and most serious of all the Judicial process of the US proxy State of Hawaii. This is a dishonorable faction and pressure group committing extortion. It is very clear here that there is collaboration. There’s a squeeze (unjustifiably) being put on homeowners and people like Kale who paid for defective title insurance, who do not deserve to be sullied and violated as they have obviously been in this case. There is a huge need for mediation by an outside arbiter. It should be provided by an Internationally approved country. It is quite clear that the US continues to violate, aids and abets this injustice in violation of the International Treaty of 1843 (the Family of Nations Treaty) which it is a signatory and acknowledged in 1846. They need to be held accountable for their actions. “Pity the Fool”! The right of the wolf to pillage the fold has come to end.

  5. Aloha Win808, I agree with you on the paper trial. However, if the compIaint is NOT abandoned then the Swiss gov’t just verified “war crimes” have taken place in Hawaii. War crimes can only happen in an armed conflict or bellligerent occupation. It doesn’t matter if they can’t prosecute the alleged criminals because they are NOT on Swiss territory. That can come later. Kale’s proper documentation (paper trial) was crucial. If the Swiss (gov’t) prosecutor verified the war crimes and belligerent occupation then why settle for just a paper trial at the next hearing? Why not have the ICRC be an eyewitness to the unfair trial of a protected person. Check out the rights of protected persons under the Geneva Convention IV and how it relates to the ICRC. Protected persons should be proactive and invoke their rights.Not legal advice just MHO.

  6. I was wondering and if anyone has a comment to enlighten it would be greatly appreciated. As to the Executive Agreement between our Queen and the American President. I was watching the News, if you can call it that maybe Tabloid News on cable. Presently, American President Mr. Obama is arranging a “deal” with the Iranians that will curtail their nuclear plans. Now, 27 (37?) Senators have written a letter to the Iranian government to stop the negotiations, saying in effect that Congress has to have a say in it. Well, the commentator for the News programme said that Executive agreements can be voided by the next American president in office. Is this true? Can this effect the Executive Agreement between our Queen and Mr. Cleveland? Are we once again vunerable to the political whims, twists and turns of the Americans? I pray not.

    • From today’s post from Citizens for Legitimate Government, quoting Tehran Times:


      TEHRAN – The Iranian foreign minister on Monday reacted to an open letter to Iran’s leaders by 47 U.S. Republican senators who had warned Tehran that any nuclear deal that the Islamic Republic signs with President Barack Obama’s administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.

      Mohammad Javad Zarif said the letter lacks “legal validity” and shows that the signatories of the letter are “ignorant of international law”

      “In our view this letter has no legal validity and is just a propaganda scheme,” Zarif noted.

      Zarif said it is surprising that while nuclear talks have not reached a result yet pressure groups in the U.S. have become so “worried” that they have resorted to any “unconventional way” to kill it

      The letter proved that “like” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu these senators “are opposed to any deal”.

      Expressing surprise on how it is possible that the legislators of a country write a letter against their own president and government to the leaders of another country, Zarif said, “The letter by the senators show that not only they are alien to international law but even not familiar with the details of the their own constitution about the authority of the president” in implementing foreign agreements

      • I saw this too! Haa, the senators are overreaching! Or,
        attempting to overreach! How do they know the next
        U.S. President won’t continue what Obama is doing?
        Is the Office of the U.S. Presidency rigged?

        As far as the Executive Agreements, in my humble
        opinion anyway, if it was entered into by both Executive
        parties (Bi-lateral) I believe it can only be terminated
        bi-laterally and not uni-laterally (one party). To me, if
        Iran said screw you 47 American senators, how will the
        senators get out of that agreement? Hanapa’a!

        The Queen entered into an Executive contract on
        December 18, 1893, with President Grover Cleveland.
        That was a bilateral agreement (two party contract)
        by two individual entities that were authorized by their
        individual countries to act as such in that capacity.

        Notwithstanding the December 18, 1893, agreement, the
        U.S. have bullied itself into an authoritative position in
        Hawaiian jurisdiction by way of the State of Hawaii upon
        which it has no jurisdiction because of that December 18,
        1893, binding contract!

        The U.S. can ignore it, they can pretend it never happened,
        they can say they unilaterally terminated that agreement,
        but until they get a bilateral termination they have an
        obligation to satisfy! Haaa! Hanapa’a!! 🙂

        As far as Judge Cardoza, now knowing what he knows,
        he cannot adjudicate any case before him until he can
        resolve the presumption of continuity expert information
        presented to him. He is tainted! Hanapa’a!
        He cannot sit and do no thing, nothing! He is an officer
        of the court, albeit unlawful, but still in his capacity his
        education and experience places him on a higher level
        than the average person to procure answers concerning
        not only his authoritative capacity, but that of the entire
        U.S. and the State of Hawaii in a foreign Hawaiian

  7. Aloha Christopher, the executive agreements (Treaties) are cemented into U.S. law under the President’s authority of Article II of the U.S. constitution. These are sole executive agreements under Article II and does not need ratification by the house or senate. If they do not need ratification by the legislative branch to become law then they have no authority under the U.S. constitution to repeal them. The only way the executive agreements could be terminated would be by the two executives that entered into them, meaning President Cleveland and Queen Lili’uokalni. No other President can terminate those agreements without the consent of a Hawaiian Kingdom Executive (ie. Monarch) . According to the U.S. constitution and Supreme Court rullings, the legislative branch cannot pass a law that conflicts with executive agreements. Acts by congress to annex Hawaii and all subsequent laws are unconstitutional under U.S. law because they are violations of the (Treaty) executive agreements. Hope this helps.

  8. Mahalo for the clarification…the continued clarification…and isn’t that the process? A good one of education and pono choices. I do confess laughed out loud when I read the comment that because Mr. Obama was born in Hawai’i he was not born on American soil. Oh, what a tangled mess the US has entwined themselves…Iran…The infamous Letter of the 47….foreign birthed Executive….a bilateral Executive(s) Agreement cannot be voided etc. etc….my brain hurts! Ha! Imua Ka Aupuni Hawai’i.

    • Aloha Chris, check out this article a family member sent to me,
      keep in mind this was justice Scalia’s answer to a student:

      If he is supposed to be America’s Supreme authority on justice,
      you can see the U.S. has issues! Too much Hollywood, not
      enough facts!

      I think Professor Chang, backed by his many years of experience,
      should send these 47 U.S. Republicans a letter to remind them of
      the honorable act Republican Senator George Hoar did before the
      1898 U.S. congress with the presentation of 1897, Ku’e petition
      upon which congress could not obtain the necessary 2/3 vote to
      ratify the treaty of annexation placed before it by the treasonous
      representatives of the Republic of Hawaii, a criminal entity of the
      Hawaiian Kingdom!

      How shameful, the U.S. is falling all over itself! Too much lies,
      they don’t know whats real anymore!!

  9. Aloha,

    Just wanted to further point out:

    “The Iranian Foreign Minister added that ‘Change of administration
    does not in any way relieve the next administration from international
    obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement
    about Iran`s peaceful nuclear program.’ He continued ‘I wish to enlighten
    the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the
    stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant
    violation of international law.'”

    Dr. Zarif further states:
    Foreign Minister Zarif added that “I should bring one important point to the
    attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and
    the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not
    by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international
    law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible
    for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake
    with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to
    perform their international obligations.


    Dr. Zarif’s comprehension of international law concerning executive agreements
    are consistent with our knowledge and understanding in comparison to the
    December 18, 1893, Restoration Agreement entered into by Queen Liliuokalani
    and President Grover Cleveland validating its full force and effect to date.


    The question here is, did the 47 U.S. senators commit treason under the
    1799, Logan Act by sending that March 9, 2015, open letter to the Islamic
    Republic of Iran?

    The law, passed in 1799 and revised in 1994, states:

    Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority
    of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any
    correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer
    or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any
    foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any
    disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures
    of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
    than three years, or both.

    From what we’ve learned only the U.S. President is with authority beyond
    U.S. borders. The actions of the 47 senators resemble the actions of the
    senators who participated in the May 31, 1898, closed (secret) meeting.

    Dr. Zarif stated in part that the letter was “. . .unprecedented in diplomatic
    history.” Sadly, he is not yet aware of our history!

    Growing up, more than a handful of teachers had stated that the Hawaiian
    Kings, the leaders were drunken fools who lost their lands to the Americans.
    Thankfully, the paper trail they left behind, especially by Queen Liliuokalni
    disproves that horrible myth and reveals that the U.S. is the epitome of bullying!

    Funny how things are coming full circle. The top secret service agents were
    drunk and nearly ran over an unattended box under investigation and ran
    into a barrier?

    A hui hou

    • Hmm, looking over the logan act and taking into consideration
      Dr. Sai’s position as the Acting Minister of Interior of the Hawaiian
      Kingdom, and all the people from the State of Hawaii, America
      that contentiously interacted with him, wow!

      The logan act is a U.S. law, but look how loosely it’s being violated
      in Hawaii, having no sense of urgency to implement any proper
      protocol to insure its own well being, especially without having a
      treaty or rebuttal to the presumption of sovereign continuity of the
      Hawaiian Kingdom!

      Hmm, all the courts (Judges) here in Hawaii and in America, wow!


  10. “Everyone who claims to own property in the Hawaiian Islands all have a defective title and consequently mortgages that are invalid. But everyone also purchased title insurance at escrow to protect the bank in case of a defective title, which pays off the debt the borrowers owe.”

    Just looking forward, the banks could possibly be compensated on defective title
    claims here in the Hawaiian Islands, but what will happen to home owners when
    jurisdiction reverts back to the kingdom?
    Say someone purchases a multimillion dollar home here in the islands just
    before official noticed is globally accepted on Hawaii’s sovereign status, that
    person will be relieved from the mortgage obligation, but what’s the assurance on retaining that property now that it is under a different jurisdiction?
    Also, what happens to the value of the homes for people who paid off or
    don’t have a mortgage?
    One invested very little and the other a lifetime of payments on properties of
    unequal values, the first would walk away with very little if any financial lost,
    but the later would not be able to recover any repayments and would have
    file a claim in the U.S. against a distressed title insurance policy company,
    if that’s even possible after the mortgage has been satisfied, as there is no
    guarantee what will happen to land titles after jurisdiction reverts back.

    Something to think about as we’re moving forward.

    • Very good point, Win. Remember, 80% of the full time residents of Hawai’i are non-Hawaiian and we need them to be on OUR side in the showdown with the Empire. Refusing to recognize their decades of payments for their homes is a sure way to alienate them irretrievably. There must be some sort of accommodation for the average family that both sides (ordinary citizens and those of us supporting full sovereignty restoration can live with.

      • Mahalo Jon! Although we don’t know what the kingdom
        will do, I think that this kind of dialog will help us
        comprehend the transition from possibility into reality.

        Wow, 80%! That’s huge!

        I’m currently involved in 95 year old Land Court case and
        just went through a scheduling conference last Monday.
        A successor corporation wants to perfect title to lands
        that could not be perfected in the past.
        The lands are located on the west side of Maui, it involves
        a suspicious mass residential exodus that ironically took
        place six months after the Queen was arrested!
        Those lands were then placed under one of the most
        prominent sugar plantation, whose successor is determined
        to get the title perfected! So, the transfer occurred in 1895,
        and the case to perfect the title in 1920. My great grand aunt,
        whom I’ve never met, was a party to the case! I have
        wondered if this was how the islanders lost possession
        of their properties, after all what kind of a defense could
        anyone put forth after the head of state had been placed
        under arrest?

        Perhaps it may seem shocking that all the properties
        transferred since January 17, 1893, is null and void, but
        the reality is that it may be the reversal of what happened
        to many Islanders in Hawaii’s past! I guess we’ll witness
        how bitter the pill will be when it’s returned!
        Hopefully the kingdom will extend mercy and aloha!

        I did inform the court on the continuity of the Hawaiian
        Kingdom back in 2009, through an affidavit. The court
        is caught in a strange situation, the real Hawaii or the
        fake Hawaii. To rule in favor of myself and family would
        affirm that the State of Hawaii has no jurisdiction here
        in Hawaii and to rule in favor of the successor corporation
        would be committing a war crime.
        This case is a carry over from the kingdom days! 95 years
        old, how’s that? Even OJ Simpson’s case never took that

        A hui hou

  11. What if ?

    Portugal ‘land grab’ laws:

    Local and foreign landowners must be able to produce documents that prove their property has been privately owned for at least 150 years under a law recently reinstated by the Portuguese government.

    In 2005 policymakers revived the “water resources ownership” law which allows the state to reclaim land it deems to be public property. It is targeting properties built on valuable waterfront land that is within 50 metres of the ocean or 30 metres of other waterways such as lakes and rivers. The law aims to protect the natural environment around coastlines and waterways.

    Just for information

  12. Aloha Win, the U.S. gov’t is liable for those who suffered any loss not covered by title insurance since it was their illegal acts that caused the loss. Sounds like a class action suit.

  13. Mahalo Kuniole and Kekoa!

    Interesting issue concerning the Portuguese government’s land reclamation

    We can safely conclude that all land transactions that occurred here in Hawaii
    since January 17, 1893, are null and void, due to the absence of an authorized
    notary public commissioned under the Hawaiian Kingdom.

    I’m not sure when the first title insurance company was established in Hawaii,
    but if it began after January 17, 1893, most likely after August 12, 1898, to
    have the assurance (and not the authority) from the U.S. to conduct business
    in the Hawaiian Islands, everything done since day one is null and void!
    That’s a no brainer for most of us, but the magnitude of its implication is

    How can the U.S. shore up a tremendous hit of this magnitude? They’re
    already trillions of dollars in depth, what are they going to do, barter? 🙂
    FEMA is still struggling with insurance claims from hurricanes Katrina and
    Sandy, this catastrophe will cause a meltdown!

    Perhaps the reason the BRICS are hedging the NDB against the IMF.

    In any case, whether worthless U.S. fiat dollars (they still need to survive)
    or the acquisition of all U.S. assets (which they have perhaps already
    burred in depth) they owe the Hawaiian Kingdom, na kanaka and the
    nationals! We should relieve them from their governmental operation
    until it can achieve stabilization, we can relieve some of their depth by
    keeping its military functioning in order to restore the kingdom.
    A reverse occupation, what are they going to say, no?
    The borrow is servant to the lender!

    Eh, just thinking!
    Mahalo again

  14. Aloha Win, we do not need to only get paid with U.S. dollars. We could get some hard assets such as a few satellites with maintenance contracts included, oil reserves, soft ware and technologies just to name a few. Monies will be paid to us according to our exchange rate for the U.S. dollar. If they ain’t got the cash, no problem, we take the court’s order for the amount owed. Put that amount on the HK books as accounts receivables. These receivables can be assigned to payoff debts for goods and services made by the HK in the United States. If the HK so desires, they can take all or a portion of these receivables and assign it to an international bank for yuan,let the bank become owner of that debt and collect from the United States. Just thinking of options to the U.S. dollar.

  15. Does anyone actually know how to secure fee simple absolute in possession and what that that document would look like in its true form? After reading this, it makes one think twice about buying a home without hours and hours of research prior to purchase. This is absolutely ridiculous in regards to what this man had to endure.

Leave a Reply to kekoaCancel reply