On October 9, 2017, Dr. Keanu Sai was interviewed on a show “Law Across the Sea” hosted by Mark Shklov who is a practicing attorney. The interview centered on the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom arbitration and the International Commission of Inquiry in Incidents of War Crimes in the Hawaiian Islands—The Larsen Case that stemmed from the arbitration case.
Hawaiian Kingdom Blog
Weblog of the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom presently operating within the occupied State of the Hawaiian Islands.
Imua
Amazing after 125 years, something’s about to happen.
Can’t wait to see the outcome.
Go get em Keanu
I wish more Hawaiians could understand this
Interesting he notes at 11.20 that he took steps to reinstate the government as it was in 1893! But he promotes the 1864 constituion which wasnt in use at that time or since 1887?
So what gives here? The nation was clearly under the authority of the 87!
1893 was the last time the legitimate government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was in power before the fake “revolution”. Dr. Sai supports the 1864 constitution because the 1887 “Bayonet constitution” was not the legitimate constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The 1887 had no authority at all because,
1) It did not receive the approval of the Legislative assembly and was not ratified as stated in the 1864 Constitution.
2) It was signed under duress. In Black’s Law Dictionary: (Deluxe Ninth Edition), duress is defined as “threat of harm made to compel a person to do something against his or her will or judgment; esp., a wrongful threat made by one person to compel a manifestation of seeming assent by another person to a transaction without real volition”. Therefore, the “Constitution of 1887” can hold no legitimacy and is considered null and void.
Ku, mahalo. People don’t realize that many U.S. laws and policies have been passed and utilized as if legitimate until it is put to a constitutional challenge and than it is repealed or parts of it repealed. For those who claim we need to follow the 1887 please show me how it was done constitutionally. You know you can’t so why the hell follow it. This is the “fruits of the poisonous tree” maximum, where nothing legal can come from an illegal act. There is no statute of limitation for a challenge so anyone can challenge it at anytime, even today and what do you think the out come would be??? It would be deemed unconstitutional. Dah! No matter how you want to rationalize it the fact is that you can’t prove the 1887 was enacted constitutionally. End of story. Pau
1893 was the last time the legitimate government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was in power before the Coup d’ etat. And that government had been opearating under the 87 for several years with out a challenge because back then you didnt challege the monarch and further more it was passed via a special session which the king set up. As far as statue of limitations go LOL no one was there from today to object and the kingdom isnt even running let alone recognized for someone to object to it? So what gives anyone one the right to object it happened and was in effect let alone with out it there would be no queen for she swore an oath to it and ran the nation by it.
Dude you better go do your home work before you get schooled. I am done with you, it’s a waste of my time. Why should I even listen to someone that wanted Federal Recognition and got shut down.
@ Kealii Makekau
Actually, you are wrong. I suggest you read “The 1887 Bayonet Constitution: The Beginning of the Insurgency”
You said, “further more it was passed via a special session which the king set up.” – That is not true.
Under the name “Honolulu Rifles” on 1 July 1887, these men threatened the King with bodily harm should he not accept a new Cabinet Council, and within just a matter of days, on 7 July 1887, a new constitution was forced upon him by those individuals.
In Hawaii’s Story by Hawaii’s Queen, Liliuokalani, the appointed heir after the death of King Kalakaua describes the events of the “Bayonet Constitution”. She says,
[H]e had discovered traitors among his most trusted friends, and knew not in whom he could trust; and because he had every assurance, short of actual demonstration, that the conspirators were ripe for revolution, and had taken measures to have him assassinated if he refused… he signed that constitution under absolute compulsion.
You said, “As far as statue of limitations go LOL no one was there from today to object and the kingdom isnt even running let alone recognized for someone to object to it?” – Queen Liliʻuokalani was there and her diary is a primary source, so your argument has been refuted.
You said, “that government had been opearating under the 87 for several years with out a challenge” – Not true
– Throughout the revolt, there was active opposition to the minority of insurgents by the Hawaiian citizenry that ranged from peaceful organized resistance to unsuccessful armed attacks. On November 22, 1888, the Hawaiian Political Association (Hui Kalai‘aina) was established with the purpose of “restoration of the constitutional system existing before June 30, 1887.” For the next five years this organization was the most persistent and influential in maintaining that the constitution of 1864, as amended, was the legal constitution of the country.
In response to the Hawaiian Leagues actions, Kuykendall wrote, “a secret society was formed, the “Liberal Patriotic Association,” of which Wilcox was president and the Belgian Albert Loomens was vice-president, its stated purpose being to restore the former system of government and the former rights of the king.” There were seven meetings that were held by this secret society and on July 30th, Robert Wilcox, led 80 men to have the King sign in a new constitution that would ultimately undo the 1887 “constitution”. However, Wilcox’s plan had failed and he was indicted for treason. Kuykendall further wrotes that “Wilcox, who was to be tried by a native jury, was at first indicted for treason, but it became clear that, whatever the evidence, no native jury would convict him of that crime. The treason charge was dropped and he was brought to trial on an indictment for conspiracy.” Wilcox was found not guilty.
– There is a strong argument that the actions taken by Wilcox and other members of the Liberal Patriotic Association was a lawful but unsuccessful citizen’s arrest, and not a counter-revolt as characterized by the cabinet ministry. In theory, a counter-revolt can only take place if the original revolt was successful. But if the original revolt was not successful, or in other words, the country was still in a state of revolt or unlawfulness, any action taken to apprehend or to hold accountable the original perpetrators is not a violation of the law, but rather an enforcement of the law. Under the common law, every private “person that is present when any felony is committed, is bound by the law to arrest the felon.”
By 1890 King Kalakauaʻs health had deteriorated and he died in San Francisco on January 20, 1891. His body was returned to Honolulu on board the USS Charleston on the 29th.
You said, “because back then you didnt challege the monarch” – In Hawaii’s Story by Hawaii’s Queen, Liliʻuokalani wrote, “Petitions poured in from every part of the islands for a new constitution; these were addressed to myself as the reigning sovereign… out of a possible nine thousand five hundred registered voters, six thousand five hundred, or two thirds, had signed these petitions.” This was the voices of the people of the Hawaiian Kingdom wanting a new Constitution, not a small group of men that wanted what was in their best interest. To counter the effects of the so-called constitution of 1887, Her Majesty Queen Liliʻuokalani, drafted a new constitution that embodied the principles and wording of the Constitution of 1864.
You said, “there would be no queen for she swore an oath to it and ran the nation by it.” – Again, not true.
In a meeting of the Privy Council that afternoon, Lili‘uokalani took the oath of office, where she swore “in the presence of Almighty God, to maintain the Constitution of the Kingdom whole and inviolate, and to govern in conformity therewith.” Chief Justice Albert F. Judd administered the oath and Lili‘uokalani was thereafter proclaimed Queen. The oath did not state that she maintain the 1887 Bayonet Constitution, but rather “the Constitution.” The Bayonet Constitution was never ratified by the Legislative Assembly, so therefore it was never a constitution to begin with. The 1864 Constitution remained the constitution of the country.