https://vimeo.com/100486404
Awakening the Sleeping Giant! A discussion with Dr. Keanu Sai and the recent D.O.I. Hearing in Hawaii and How we need to transition from Kuʻe to Kulia I Ka Nuʻu.
Hawaiian Kingdom Blog
Weblog of the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom presently operating within the occupied State of the Hawaiian Islands.
All VERY interesting! I wonder if treating the Hawaiian Kingdom as the 594th Nation of Indigenous People within the Territorial Boundaries of the US is not the best compromise. My wife and I will be visiting Oahu, Maui, and Kuai next week. Can you recommend anyone I might talk to about the History and Aims of the Hawaiian Kingdom? Thank you, Michael Creamer
I recommend Dr. Sai’s publication, “Ua Ma. Ke ‘Ea, Sovereignty Endures. It is the best recommendation you could have at this point. Google Pua. Publications.
Sorry no compromise. We are not indigenous to the us and we are not within its borders. “KANAKA MAOLI ARE NOT INDIANS”.
Such a compromise would not work or make sense. You can no more make the Hawaiian Kingdom a tribe than you can make the United Kingdom a tribe. The Hawaiian Kingdom had a multi-ethnic society, and today there are Kingdom subjects who have no Kanaka Maoli (ethnic Hawaiian) blood. Making a multi-ethnic Kingdom into a race-based tribe would disenfranchise those citizens.
We were (and still are) the 33rd nation to be recognized in the family of nations. We cannot step backwards and become the 594th tribe recognized by America.
Aloha
hawaiiankingdom.org is a great place to start
Please share with others
There is NO TREATY OF CESSION there for
Hawaiian Kingdom is a sovereign independent country equal to the US
Enjoy your visit on Oahu, Maui and Kauai
mr. creamer, you seem to have missed the point that the kingdom and nation of Hawai’i lies well OUTSIDE the territorial boundaries of the US by more than 2000 miles.
there’s no compromise. america has only one course of action available to it… leave Hawai’i, period.
there can be NO compromise because, if you were paying attention to dr. sai’s points based on well-documented legal and historical evidence, the u.s. has no treaty of annexation with Hawai’i therefore it has no authority or legal jurisdiction over the kingdom and nation of Hawai’i or any of its subjects and citizens.
if someone were to break into your home, claim it was now there’s, move in some bully’s to enforce their authority over you and invite all of their relatives to come and live in your, now their, home would you negotiate a compromise with them? i hope not.
i hope that you would have them thrown back out into the streets from which they crawled and allow the legal and judicial system to enforce the laws that were created to protect your right to live within your own home unmolested.
the u.s. government and its military forces have no right to be in the kingdom and nation of Hawai’i and their is NO justification for the u.s. denying us our sovereign independence, our lawful government and our freedom. none whatsoever.
ponokeali’i
#iiwk #imuaHawaii #ponoKeAlii
Obviously you have not truly educated yourself about our Hawaiian Kingdom… The Hawaiian Islands are not any part of the US, rather their military illegally occupies our lands and shares them with greedy US corporations who cater to ignorant tourists like yourself… If you must visit Hawaiian Kingdom and you are truly seeking information, your best source would be the UH masters and doctoral programs where candidates and professors are in the thick of this research… and while you are on the flight, you might want to read the documentation filed in the international courts and UN on hawaiiankingdom.com… not the blog…
We are who we were… a classic
http://www.oiwi.tv/channels/culture/we-are-who-we-were
Till the last one… Free Hawaii
Aloha Ke Akua
Really nice to hear the information on the Swiss meeting in August. It would be great to have a bulletin board on this site for important dates like that so people can stop wondering. Like Keanu mentioned; technology has made it possible for people to look up the info, as long as it’s posted somewhere.
It would be great to have protecting power, in Hawaii. On Kauai, we have a Swiss company poisoning the aina and our people. I hope demanding Syngenta cease such operations is part of the negotiations, with Switzerland.
Because the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist Hawaii is not within the territorial boundaries of the US. The US is within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom and that situation is the definition of an occupation under international law. Nation of Indigenous People does not apply to Hawaii because we already acheived nation state status. We are moving forward to deoccupation not going backwards to a lesser status, who in their right mind would want anything less.
It looks like the Swiss are pretty busy being a protecting power.
Switzerland is currently exercising six Protecting Power mandates:
USA in Cuba (since 1961)
Iran in Egypt (1979)
USA in Iran (1980)
Cuba in the USA (1991)
Russia in Georgia (2008)
Georgia in Russia (2009)
A nation acts as a Protecting Power when it accepts a mandate to mediate between two States which do not have any diplomatic and/or consular relations with one another, in order to ensure a minimum level of reciprocal contact. A distinction is made between two types of mandate: the “Geneva mandate” and the “Vienna mandate”. The less common “Geneva mandate” is based on humanitarian international law and aims to ensure the proper application of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the appropriate treatment of civilians, prisoners of war and injured persons. The ICRC usually acts as a Protecting Power under the “Geneva mandate”.
Protecting Power mandates today are generally the representation of interests under the “Vienna mandate”. They focus on the diplomatic and consular relations between two States and are based on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963.
Info from the Swiss Review website. Aloha Mahalo Ke Akua
If what you wrote is true, then wouldn’t it follow that the men and women who are currently imprisoned could be defined as “prisoners of war”, possibly, and therefore the need for both the Swiss and ICRC might be necessary?
The term P.O.W. only applies to arm conflict. So I don’t think it would have effect here since we are not armed but ruled by force. When we do get the gorilla to go home we really need to think about protecting our borders i.e. our own military or some kind of security force. I know our kupuna preached non violence but that doesn’t mean we cannot protect ourselves.
Kekoa commented about people convicted of a crime here in the HK being shipped out to serve there time in the foreign country america. If the us has no jurisdiction here and there laws are de facto I think that would open up a whole new can of worms for the gorilla since they are protected persons.
I forgot to mention that the ICRC is a Swiss organization so I don’t know how that would play out. I think it would be cool if they had a branch office here. Like Keanu said in the video and I quote: There are 600 Swiss nationals living here that where effected. So that’s something to think about. Aloha.
Mahalo nui for the info… I am still learning all I can and this helps my understanding…
Aloha ‘Āina..
What did Aunty Lynette mean when she said “GO OHA” in the beginning of this video? It really threw me off.
Sarcasm?
Aunty just giving mahalo for OHA funding the program. Might as well use their money for educating everyone on the kingdom, right.
Aloha Noelani, the term “prisoners of war” under the Geneva convention is not applicable to those people convicted of a crime and are now in prison serving their sentence. “Prisoners of war” are those serving in the military of either party to an armed conflict and are captured and imprisoned even if they committed no crime. This also applies to civilians that have committed no crime but are placed into interment by the military in an armed conflict or occupation.
However, protected people under the Geneva convention that have been removed from the occupied territory and transported out of the (HK) country are now victims of Humanitarian Law and are afford the assistance of the ICRC or protecting power.
Cuz,one thing to remember is they were tried in state courts that have no subject matter jurisdiction,so it is a war crime I believe,cause they had no fair or regular trial,they should be tried I think under HKG LAWS thru a military tribunal like Dr. Sai said,aloha to all who support our freedom and your manao.lono
Very well another edition of important education! Oh, and thanks for the update on the Switzerland Protecting Power negotiations! Especially Swiss nationals in Hawaii petitioning their government to encourage them to become Hawaii’s Protecting Power! Good news! I’m glad Hawaii’s legal history is not only spreading, but is publically being explained! By the way, where did those numbers of how much Swiss nationals in Hawaii came from? I would really like to find out for myself, along with knowing what kind and how much foreign nationals are here in Hawaii. So for example, do we have Russian nationals in Hawaii?
Aloha lono, I agree that these courts lack subject matter jurisdiction. However, actions of each Judge has to be reviewed individually on a case by case basis to determine if the evidence meets the required elements a war crime inorder to indict and convict. Judges in the Nuemberg Trials were all charged with war crimes but not all of them were found guilty.
Food for thought. In general, all law enforcement in Hawaii are part of the illegal regime’s occuping force and may have enforced a State of Hawaii statute on a HK subject but that does not make it a war crime, especially if that officer can articulate the reasons for his actions under the doctrine of necessity. One must keep in mind the doctrine of necessity is limited and cannot be used as an umbrella justification for all the actions taken by law enforcement.
Very good point kekoa! Can you use the doctrine of necessity without the doctrineof restoration? What a tangled web they have woven.
So here is my situation. No automobile insurance. I was not in an accident. No one was injured, no property was damaged. I was pulled over because of my expired safety check and registration. My vehicle is not legal according to the State of Hawaii and i am not in compliance with the State of Hawaii requirement that every vehicle has to have proof of insurance.
I am questioning the manner in which the insurance is obtained and the fine that I would be forced to pay, by the courts. I feel that to pay my registration, safety check and the fine issued, for not having insurance, would be funding the usurpation of my sovereignty, or to acquiesce, as these fees and fines are paid to the State of Hawaii.
Are the insurance providers in compliance with Hawaiian Kingdom Law? I suspect “No”, as they are probably not paying taxes to the Hawaiian Kingdom and possibly paying taxes to entities that are usurping my sovereignty.
At court, without passing the gate, I claimed my nationality as a Hawaiian subject and stated that I would answer to the charges brought before me as long as the court noted that I was doing so under protest, due to the illegal occupation. The judge chose not to grant my request, which has now resulted in a bench warrant, bail of 500 dollars, “due to a failure to appear.”‘
So now I will be incarcerated until my arraignment. Once at my arraignment i will repeat my same request. To pay the bail would be to fund the usurpation of sovereignty.
This is where my liberty is being injured, due to the illegal occupation. I will lose time at work, time with my family and my efforts to fix the damage caused by illegal occupation will be put on hold.
I believe everyone should have automobile insurance.
If I had been in an accident which resulted in property damage or personal injury I would not be using the Hawaiian argument, as I would have a moral obligation to make things right.
In 20 years of driving I have never been the cause of an accident.
It would be easy to say “just buy insurance.” ” just pay your registration and safety check.”
I would say, that is easy when you don’t know what sovereignty means, when you don’t understand how we are consenting to the illegal occupation through the term acquiesce, when you don’t understand what it means to be a Hawaiian Subject.
There are a lot of questions. To me this is an attempt to punish me for claiming my nationality. I have a documented case where a judge noted my protest, and the charges were dismissed, with prejudice.
Out kupuna never received justice, what makes me any different.
Protest FOREVER!
Kekoa,here is my thoughts on your reply.everything that the so called state and the Feds do in our homeland is an illegal act or war crime,remember what Dr. Sai said about the Geneva conventions,and about his lawsuit against Obama,gates,Willard,and Secretary of State,can’t remember who it was,and his filing under alien tort,you have to remember who you are with a name like Kekoa,a national of your homeland,everything that they do to descendants of ko Hawaii pae aina,is a war crime,or human rights violation,all courts are illegal here,they are putting kanaka nationals in jails illegally,or fining us illegally,I have a friend who was put in jail here on Kauai Island for excercising his god given rights,under kingdom law and USA constitutional law(14amendant),which states that you have to be born or naturalized in so called state to be subject to its jurisdiction,guess they can’t understand their own language.He was in court for 3 years,they knew he was right,but like they told Keanu,if we rule on this there goes the state of Hawaii.Anyway way they sentenced him to 3 months in the funny farm,and the charge fraudulent license,because he was running his kauwila without fake state documentation.
Cuzin Kekoa,since all kanaka are related thru our koko,I feel that we all need to help each other understand what is happening,we even need to help the Ken Conklins and Mr. Tsuchida,hope I spelled your name right,because we are all victims of the hewa that was committed by those that didn’t live the aloha that was right before their MAKA ,because the supreme power of the universe gave each of us free will,and the right to walk with aloha or the opposite which is basically fear.Let us as lineal descendants of our kupuna who lived aloha,follow their example and bring healing and aloha back to the world,and be a shining example to our keiki and keiki around our beautiful planet that their is another way and that is aloha or love for each other,blessing to all,strive for the summit,your highest goodness that is within all of us,aloha pumehana lono
Aloha Kekoa,another thing is that the courts have no rights to exist because as you realize they are judging kanaka and American citizens illegally.A perfect example is Iraq,when America broke every international law when they overthrew a sovereign nation,but what makes it interesting is when they found Saddam,they had to reinstate the government that they overthrew and restore the Iraqi court system and basically their whole infrastructure,because if they had tried Saddam under American jurisprudence big trouble for King George and his cabinet,and glaring disregard for international laws and the Geneva compacts and Hague conventions.Actually if Bush or Cheney step foot outside USA,without their bodyguards they will go straight to you know where,food for thought.
Aloha Tim, The point I was making in my last post was that not all actions taken by individuals of the occupier can be lumped together as a war crime. You were subjected to both courts that lack subject matter jurisdiction but the first Judge’s actions avoided a war crime and the second Judge may have committed one. I understand the frustration you feel and it’s the same frustration the victims in the Nuemberg Trials had to suffer. They finally got their justice but it took awhile to get the perpetrators to trial. Just like it will take awhile before you can take your alleged perpetrator to trial. We have to understand that these courts are not properly constitued. They can never give us a fair trial so why would we want to be there and then expect to get a fair trial. If we were in occupied France and it’s courts were ran by Nazi Judges, would we want to be in that court thinking we would get a fair trial? I would only be there if the situation was unavoidable and I would not expect any justice. However, I would take that unfortunate opportunity to place as much written documentation with admissible evidence as exhibits on the record so that it can be used later in a war crime trial. Not legal advice but just saying. Maybe we could look at this from a different perspective. One that we are in control of and would actually be in compliance with the laws of occupation to keep us out of these illegal courts unless it was absolutely unavoidable. If this is an occupation than we are obligated to follow the laws of occupation irregardless of what the occupier is doing. So,left to it’s own a HK gov’t, like all the other gov’ts of the world would have addressed traffic regulations, licensing,vehicle insurance, vehicle registration …etc. Because of the prolonged occupation there was no HK gov’t to address this, so there is a void, all we have are laws from the occupier. Under necessity a law enforcement officer could articulate that in order for him to ensure the saftey of the entire community, HK subjects, resident aliens and illegal alliens. It is necessary for him to enforce the HRS or CC to fill that void in HK traffic law for the benefit of the entire community and not just the benefit of the occupier. We HK subjects, temporarily can maintain the safety of our HK roads by using this doctrine of necessity to fill that void in HK traffic laws. This would be in compliance to the laws of occupation and keep us out of the occupiers courts. I am not trying to put down anyone’s personal belief on how they want to deal with things but just offering another perspective. Good luck.
Sound advice, Kekoa. Mahalo for your input. I agree with a lot of your comments.
I am playing a dangerous game, because I do not have an education in law. However, this is not a jailable offense. So it is not that dangerous, really.
I am seeing a different way of going about my fight. Such as signing the court documents with my signature followed by ” under protest”. That way I don’t need the approval of an ignorant judge, to have my protest noted.
At trial, to prove my innocence, I will question the jurisdiction of the courts. It will be in that moment the war crime will or will not be committed. I don’t like the war crime option. It is not something I wish to pursue. However, it is the only legal recourse available to me.
I think to even consider evoking a doctrine of necessity, would acknowledge the illegal occupation hence the lack of enforcing Hawaiian Kingdom Law.
Here is an interesting legal term “political question” and an intetesting act of congress “Uniform Commercial Code” of 1960. I definitely am not a scholar regarding either subject, so corrections to my input will be greatly appreciated.
“Political question” will be America’s response to the Hawaiian Argument, in a court of law. It ensures that we will NEVER see justice in their judicial system. I came across this term while reading Obama v Sai et al. It appears that this doctrine undermines the separation of powers doctrine. Removing accountability of the judicial system to work as a check against the executive and legislative branches. Very interesting!
Uniform Commercial Code allowed Maritime Admiralty Law to come ashore, where as its jurisdiction is limited to high seas. This allows citizens to be convicted of a crime and forced to pay a fine when no one was injured, property was not damaged and no ones liberty was injured. This has turned law enforcement into revenue generators for the state. We all know their is a certain time of the month when law enforcement is out in force. It has something to do with the definition of a legally binding contract.
In Maritime Admiralty Law you only need to receive a benefit in order to be bound to a contract. I believe our monarchs felt the sting of this as they received goods, while under the influence, only to find out a year later when the ship returned, claiming huge amounts of interest had occurred. Would this be in violation of Hawaiian Kingdom law, or would this carry on through the doctrine of necessity? I am a farmer, fisherman and craftsman. I would much rather leave this to the politicians and legal scholars.
Just my thoughts.
Thanks again for your input. Good stuff! Keep it coming.
The moment a doctrine of restoration was issue, my legal argument would be frivilous
Aloha Tim, I don’t really understand your question. You mentioned the “political question” that arised in Dr. Sai’s case. I don’t think he cited the UCC for his response to that question. I believe the Judge cited a supreme court case which basically said that if the U.S. president did not recognized the sovereign of a country than it becomes a “political question” and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain a tort action against the president or his agents. However, Dr. Sai rebutted that I believe by saying that three U.S. Presidents had already recognized the sovereign of the HK and the last even made executive agreements with the queen as he recognized her to be the lawful constitutional sovereign of the HK. My previous post was for a preventive measure to avoid having to go to court.
E kala mai. I was kinda jumping between two thoughts.
I don’t believe the Uniform Commercial Code had anything to do with Sai v Obama.
I believe Sai v Obama was dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction because of the political question raised. That question was, Is Hawaii part of the united States?
Once again, I don’t have an education in law, however I believe the evidence clearly indicated that Hawaii is not part of the US.
I brought up the Uniform Commercial Code as it would relate to a doctrine of necessity. Being an act of the US congress in 1960, it would need to pass the test of not being in conflict with Hawaiian Kingdom Law. Not to mention Congressional acts are necessarily without extraterritorial effect.
I guess my question was, Would the UCC pass that test of not conflicting with Hawaiian Kingdom Law?
I feel UCC does relate to my situation. I don’t know what I’m doing! I’m trying to make sense of a system that doesn’t make sense. I’m trusting in the teachings of my kupuna, wherever that takes me.
Some legal advice would be really helpful
about now, even if it was “pay your registration and buy their insurance.”. I’m confident I will figure it out.
I think your advice “stay out of court”, is sound advice. Enough about my crap, we get real issues to deal with like education.
Thanks again.
Aloha Tim! Just a comment. The UCC governs money and it’s presence is seen in Hawaiian Kingdom cases, such as, 1871, Burdick vs. Executors, etc. Go to, https://sites.google.com/site/hksupremecourt/. But care should be considered when using the UCC in state court. For more info only, visit, MKN VIEWPOINT, Mastering-the-ucc, at https://sites.google.com/site/mkntrust/home/viewpoint.
My 25 years experience in Hawaii’s court system as a pro se defendant would advise you to “pay your registration and buy their insurance.” That being said, you may find yourself in court, in similar situations where you can still raise Keanu’s legal argument for the court’s lack of jurisdiction, even if you have all the illegal contracts. The triable issues, of evidence, are not being heard before a competent military authority, denying us a trial. Ultimately we hold the judges and lawyers accountable for their actions in future proceedings.
One step at a time, you have a good perspective. Focus! Good luck!
Mahalo nui, maltbie! I find your link to the Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court a valuable source of information for those wishing to further their understanding of our situation.
Mahalo for your manao and your time.
In closing, there is this nagging question. ” If the US Constitution does not allow congressional acts to acquire foreign territory and the the peaceful means of transferring territory from one nation to another requires a treaty, then wouldnt the jurisdiction claimed by this court fit the legal description of unlawful.”
Maybe I will ask the judge.
In a civil case hearing that came before Judge Glenn S. Hara, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., vs. Elaine E. Kawasaki, et al., civil no. 11-1-106, in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai‘i, on 15 June 2012. Unable to deny the evidence, Judge Hara replies, “what you’re asking the court to do is commit suicide, because once I adopt your argument, I have no jurisdiction over anything. Not only these kinds of cases…, but jurisdiction of the courts evaporate. All of the courts across the state from the supreme court down, and
we have no judiciary. I can’t do that.”
Aloha lono, thank you for making my point. We all know it’s illegal and they will make you a victim, so why even go there at this time. Our kupuna gave us a HK penal code, pretty good one at that. It’s purpose was to maintain the order and safety of the HK. They weren’t given the chance to address traffic regulations but we can and should keep our roads safe. The only plausible way given our occupation is to utilize what’s here now temporarily. This would not be unpatriotic to the HK because it falls within the same scope and spirit of why our HK penal code was made. This would also comply with the laws of occupation when there is a void. This is what Dr. Sai mentioned as a possible solution for the U.S. military when they set up a provisional gov’t to run our occupation. All the illegal laws since the occupation began to the present will be the provisional laws unless they are not in conformity with HK law. Here’s an example of how we might all be subject to the HRS traffic laws in our occupation even when the courts are reconstituted to article 2 courts. You run the red light and almost hit someone. You have no drv.lic, insurance, reg. and safety chk. You get a bunch of tickets and go court. Judge says we will implement HK law and procedure in your trial. HK law is absent of traffic laws so under necessity we use HRS and you were found guilty. What now, should have just complied from the start.
I fully understand what you are saying, Kekoa. Maybe this is why I am pushing the issue, to get the courts to that point. Currently, we are not there.
I believe the international community has taken a political stance rather than a legal stance.
I believe if every Hawaiian stood up for their rights, wherever they are violated we will see positive action quicker than waiting for the international community to step in.
I am not asking people to act illegally, as it may appear through our Americanization, but rather claim your lawful rights.
The Acting Hawaiian Kingdom Government can only do so much. At some point the people need to stand with the tools provided by the Acting Hawaiian Kingdom Government, or not. OUR KUPUNA DID NOT HAVE THESE TOOLS (US v Belmont, US v Pink examples) A lot of us just standing around looking at these tools, why? These are tools to be used in a court of law?
How many practicing attorneys are going to use these tools in a court of law? You know of any on Kauai? Do we Hawaiians have access to legal advice? (Mahalo maltbie, for being the exception)
I would like to touch on your scenario but my post would become very long.
Aloha Tim, I believe the Acting gov’t already paved the way for us all with an end game in mind. They have a game plan and are executing it so we do not have to intentionally suffer the side effects of battle prematurely. Some might feel things aren’t moving fast enough but I would think timing is everything. The only ones that would know the best time to move would be them. Let’s face it, it’s because of what they have started since the mid 90’s that we are even having this type of conversation. Who are we to second guess them. We need to be patient just a little longer. Wouldn’t you feel more confident exercising your rights in court knowing that you have a representative of the protecting power with you monitoring your case. For those who feel they need to exercise their rights now. all I can say is have your strategies and game plan in place before you even start and good luck.
I believe you are both right! Stay out of court if you can.
If you can’t, as Hawaiian nationals we must always assert our rights under Hawaiian and international law. This will insure future redress of our current illegal activities against us.
On the future hand, we can only correct our personal situations by presenting the illegal evidence of the past. This way many of us with, so called, criminal records, may now have a clean slate to start with. Such as a clean traffic abstract or clear land title. Kekoa’s perspective on occupation should be a focus for thought and how each of us should govern ourselves now. Whatever our situations may be, traffic, land, business, banking, legal or culture.
One step at a time.