Te Karere New Zealand Television (NZTV) covers the illegal occupation of Hawai‘i by the United States. For the past week Dr. Keanu Sai has been meeting with tribal and political leaders in an act to raise awareness and gain support from Māori and New Zealanders on the illegal occupation of Hawai’i by the United States of America.
During his visit to New Zealand, Dr. Sai has met with Members of Parliament, a Cabinet Minister of the New Zealand government, Political Party Officials, Academics, and Tribal Leaders regarding the prolonged occupation of Hawai‘i by the United States. Dr. Sai brought to their attention the recent decision by the Swiss Federal Criminal Court specifically naming the State of Hawai‘i Governor Neal Abercrombie, Lt. Governor Shan Tsustui, the director of the Department of Taxation Frederik Pablo and his deputy Joshua Wisch, and the CEO of Deutsche Bank, Josef Ackermann.
In these meetings, Dr. Sai explained:
As my fellow countrymen and women are awakening to the stark reality that we’ve been under an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States since the Spanish-American War, 1898, there are profound economic, legal and political ramifications that transcend Hawai‘i. My country was seized by the United States for military interests, and the belligerent occupation was disguised through lies and effected through a program of denationalization—Americanization—in the schools at the turn of the 19th century.
This revelation is reconnecting Hawai‘i to the international community and its treaty partners regarding the violations of rights and war crimes committed against the citizens and subjects of foreign states who have visited, resided or have done business in the Hawaiian Islands. My country’s treaty partners include Austria, Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, the United States, and the United Kingdom, to include Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu, as member states of the Commonwealth Realm.
The State of Hawai‘i has evaded a precise definition of standing in international law because it has pretended to be a government within the territorial borders of the United States, when in fact it is a private organization operating outside of the United States. The U.S. Congress created the State of Hawai‘i in 1959 by a Congressional Act, but since Congress has no extra-territorial effect it could not vest the State of Hawai‘i with governmental powers outside of its territory in an occupied state. According to the laws and customs of war, the State of Hawai‘i is defined as an Armed Force of the United States, which pretends to be a government.
As an Armed Force, the State of Hawai‘i is presently operating from a position of no lawful authority, and everything that it has done and that it will do is unlawful. From the creation and registration of commercial entities, the collection of tax revenues, the conveyance of real estate, to judicial proceedings, the State of Hawai‘i cannot claim to be a government de jure. This has the potential of generating catastrophic economic, legal and political ramifications in foreign countries, and the mandate for some of these countries, which includes New Zealand (International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000), is to prosecute war crimes committed in the Hawaiian Islands under universal jurisdiction.
Her British Majesty Queen Victoria was the first to recognize Hawaiian independence in a joint proclamation with the French on November 28, 1843, and subsequently entered into a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation on July 10, 1851. In 1893, my country maintained a Legation in London, and two Consulates in the cities of Auckland and Dunedin, and the United Kingdom maintained a Legation and a Consulate in Honolulu. These Consulates were established in accordance with Article XII of the 1851 Hawaiian-British Treaty, which provides:
“It shall be free for each of the two contracting parties to appoint consuls for the protection of trade, to reside in the territories of the other party; but before any consul shall act as such, he shall, in the usual form, be approved and admitted by the Government to which he is sent; and either of the contracting parties may except from the residence of consuls such particular places as either of them may judge fit to be excepted. The diplomatic agents and consuls of the Hawaiian Islands, in the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, shall enjoy whatever privileges, exemptions and immunities are, or shall be granted there to agents of the same rank belonging to the most favored nation; and, in like manner, the diplomatic agents and consuls of Her Britannic Majesty in the Hawaiian Islands shall enjoy whatever, privileges, exemptions, and immunities are or may be granted there to the diplomatic agents and consuls of the same rank belonging to the most favored nation.”
The New Zealand Government’s recent creation of the New Zealand Consulate General in Honolulu was established by virtue of Article 16 of the 1794 Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and the United States, also called the “Jay Treaty,” and not the Hawaiian-British Treaty. Therefore, the New Zealand Consulate in Honolulu stands in direct violation of the Hawaiian-British Treaty, and therefore is unlawful. This year, the Swiss authorities were faced with the same circumstances. In a decision by the Swiss Federal Criminal Court Objections Chamber this year, the Court concluded that the 1864 Hawaiian-Swiss Treaty was not cancelled and that the Swiss Consulate in Honolulu is unlawful. These decisions stemmed from war crime complaints filed with Swiss authorities by a Swiss expatriate residing in Hawai‘i and a Hawaiian subject. I represent both men in these proceedings.
The Court specifically named the CEO of Deutsche Bank and high officials of the State of Hawai‘i as alleged war criminals for committing the war crime of pillaging. Allegations of war crimes can only arise if there is an international armed conflict, and the evidence acquired by the Swiss Attorney General that was provided to the Court clearly established that an international armed conflict does exist between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States. According to customary international law, an international armed conflict is not limited to states engaged in hostilities, but also the military occupation of a state’s territory even if it occurred without armed resistance, i.e, Common Article 2, Geneva Conventions.
Mahalo for the link to the International Crimes and International Crimes Court Act 2000. It makes perfect sense, New Zealand is mandated to prosecute war crimes under universal jurisdiction. Even war crimes that have been perpetrated by individuals of the Armed Force aka State of Hawaii. New Zealand might not take to kindly that individuals are destroying our sacrade sites and their cousins are being arrested for protecting Mauna a Wakea. A right that they have under the Geneva Conventions.
Aloha ka kou,
Mahalo nui to Te Karere New Zealand Television (NZTV) for raising awareness
of the prolonged occupation on the Hawaiian Kingdom.
“The U.S. Congress created the State of Hawai‘i in 1959 by a Congressional Act, but since Congress has no extra-territorial effect it could not vest the State of Hawai‘i with governmental powers outside of its territory in an occupied state. According to the laws and customs of war, the State of Hawai‘i is defined as an Armed Force of the United States, which pretends to be a government.”
“As an Armed Force, the State of Hawai‘i is presently operating from a position of no lawful authority, and everything that it has done and that it will do is unlawful.”
1. January 16, 1893 to December 18, 1893. U.S. Presidential investigation revealed
that U.S. military personnel landed on Hawaiian soil without authority and later an
Agreement of Restoration entered into upon which the U.S. has failed to comply
with since its inception.
2. December 18, 1893 to July 4, 1894. The unlawful Provisional government
transforms to the unlawful Republic of Hawaii now assisted by mercenaries.
3. July 4, 1894 to August 12, 1898. The unlawful Republic of Hawaii’s desire to
have the Hawaiian Kingdom annexed to the U.S. fails on the floor of the U.S.
congress, but President William McKinley utilizes an internal U.S. public domestic
law, a U.S. Joint Resolution to “annex” the sovereign independent nation of the
4. August 12, 1898 to April 30, 1900. The unlawful, unconstitutional and impossible
annexation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the U.S. leads to the U.S. congress enacting
the Organic Act to provide for a government for the territory of Hawaii.
5. April 30, 1900 to August 21, 1959. State of Hawaii, created by the U.S. congress.
The U.S. is obligated by that December 18, 1893, international Agreement of
Restoration compact and every event since then is unlawful including the State of
Hawaii. This Agreement of Restoration could have even served to nullify a U.S.
congressional act to annex Hawaii had it been ratified.
How can the U.S. annex Hawaii when it failed to first honor its Agreement of
Restoration? There is no way to secure a bilateral treaty of cession otherwise!
So, the Armed Force of the U.S. occupying the Hawaiian Kingdom is actually the
Provisional Government, turned Republic of Hawaii, turned State of Hawaii who,
“…is presently operating from a position of no lawful authority, and everything that it
has done and that it will do is unlawful.”
How dare the State of Hawaii threaten na kanaka at mauna kea with the use of
the national guard against them when they can show lawful authority to explain
their lawful existence here in the kingdom!
American Sam is not my uncle! Sen’um back!
Ku’e I Ka Hewa!
A hui hou
Aloha Win808, as the exposure of our prolonged occupation gains momentum and the international community start court proceedings for war crimes, the dynamics of the Armed Force in Hawaii will change.
The rank and file of the Armed Force will realize they personally carry vicarious criminal and civil liability and are being held accountable. Now, members of the Armed Force can use these war crimes proceedings to justify refusing to obey an unlawful orders by their superiors. Such as, arresting protectors of Mauna a Wakea inorder to allow individuals to destroy crown lands and sacred sites which is a violation of Humanitarian Law.
County Police Departments and all State Law Enforcement Agencies such as Sheriffs and DLNR, have in their General Orders or policies and procedures, a clause that says …an officer has the right to refuse an UNLAWFUL order. This means that they have a duty not to violate the Geneva Conventions since the U.S. is a party to that convention. They are actually suppose to be following this now but they haven’t seen the consequence yet so it is business as usual. That is all about to change.
The Hawaii State National Guard will also be in the same position, so it would be to our advantage to have them involved because their rank have all had training in how to operate in an occupied territory. With the military it is pretty cut and dry. Either you are incompliance with the code or you are in violation of it. Same goes for the U.S. military in Hawaii.
Is the situation between France and Tahiti similar to the situation between Hawaiʻi and the U.S.?
NO NAME NO GAME. COM KATEOFGAIA.COM learn the truth???