On KITV Island Life Live yesterday, Dr. Keanu Sai explains Senator Cross Makani Crabbe’s letter to Attorney General Anne Lopez requesting a legal opinion on the legal status of the State of Hawai‘i in light of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State by the United States since January 17, 1893.
On KITV Island Life Live yesterday, Dr. Keanu Sai explains the termination of the 1887 Pearl Harbor Treaty and its impact on the U.S. military in the Hawaiian Islands. Here is a link to a blog post that explains the termination of the treaty on October 23, 2024.
The Chinese finger trap, which is a woven cylinder, is when a person puts their index fingers in both ends of the cylinder and try to pull their fingers out, the weave of the cylinder tightens around the fingers. The trap is in the way in which the material is woven. And so we have the Hawaiian finger trap that State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez finds herself in when Senator Cross Makani Crabbe wrote a formal letter requesting for a legal opinion about the State of Hawai‘i and its lawful status within the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The weave of the Hawaiian finger trap is made of years of historical facts interwoven with international law since the Hawaiian Kingdom became a sovereign and independent State on November 28, 1843, and, thereby, becoming a member of the Family of Nations. The United States followed by recognizing Hawaiian independence on July 6, 1844. By 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom had twenty-seven treaties with other countries, four of these treaties is with the United States.
The Hawaiian Kingdom maintained diplomatic representatives and consulates accredited to other countries. Hawaiian Legations were established in Washington, D.C., London, Paris, Lima, Valparaiso, and Tokyo, while diplomatic representatives and consulates accredited to the Hawaiian Kingdom were from the United States, Portugal, Great Britain, France, and Japan. There were two Hawaiian consulates in Mexico; one in Guatemala; two in Peru; one in Chile; one in Uruguay; thirty-three in Great Britain and her colonies; five in France and her colonies; five in Germany; one in Austria; ten in Spain and her colonies; five in Portugal and her colonies; three in Italy; two in the Netherlands; four in Belgium; four in Sweden and Norway; one in Denmark; one in Japan; and eight in the United States. Foreign Consulates in the Hawaiian Kingdom were from the United States, Italy, Chile, Germany, Sweden and Norway, Denmark, Peru, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Austria and Hungary, Russia, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and China.
Unlike other non-European States, the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a recognized neutral State, enjoyed equal treaties with European powers, including the United States, and full independence of its laws over its territory. In his speech at the opening of the 1855 Hawaiian Legislature, King Kamehameha IV, reported, “It is gratifying to me, on commencing my reign, to be able to inform you, that my relations with all the great Powers, between whom and myself exist treaties of amity, are of the most satisfactory nature. I have received from all of them, assurances that leave no room to doubt that my rights and sovereignty will be respected.”
In its 2001 arbitral award in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, the Tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) acknowledged this when it stated, “in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.”
Independent States are protected by international law, which is why States are the benefactors of international law. Unlike laws within countries like the United States where the source of law is a legislature, on the international plane there is no legislative body that enacts international law. Instead, the sources of international law are customary law, treaties, principles of law, judicial decisions, and scholarly articles written by experts in international law. A common misunderstanding is that the United Nations General Assembly creates international laws. It does not. It only enacts resolutions or position statements that may include international law.
Under international law, there is a presumption that the State continues to exist even though its government was militarily overthrown. Because there is a presumption, not an assumption, that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist under international law despite the United States overthrow of the Hawaiian government, the Attorney General would have to provide rebuttable evidence that there is no application of the principle of presumption because the Hawaiian Kingdom was extinguished under international law by a treaty of cession where the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded its sovereignty and territory to the United States. There is no such treaty except for American laws being imposed in the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Because the Hawaiian Kingdom exists, the State of Hawai‘i cannot lawfully exist within Hawaiian territory. The Hawaiian finger trap.
So the question the Attorney General has to answer is in light of the two legal opinions that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist under international law, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Like the presumption of innocence, the accused does not have to prove their innocence, rather the prosecution must prove with evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that the person is not innocent. What also sets the foundation is that because Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini are scholars in international law, their legal opinions that Senator Crabbe included in his letter to the Attorney General are a part of international law.
The premise is that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom until she can provide evidence beyond all reasonable doubt, a treaty, that the State of Hawai‘i is within the United States. Her silence answers the question that the State of Hawai‘i is in the Hawaiian Kingdom. Her legal opinion will say the same thing.
Her silence actually works against the State of Hawai‘i because under international law there is the principle of acquiescence. According to Professor Antunes, acquiescence “concerns a consent tacitly conveyed by a State, unilaterally, through silence or inaction, in circumstances such that a response expressing disagreement or objection in relation to the conduct of another State would be called for.” Silence conveys consent. Qui tacet consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset.
State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez is not only the chief law enforcement officer but is also a legal advisor to the Governor, Heads of the Departments, and to the individual members of the Senate and House of Representatives.
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3 states “The attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department.” According to this State of Hawai‘i law, the Attorney General cannot refuse to give a legal opinion when a member of the legislature requests it. Senator Crabbe’s question he posed to the Attorney General is:
Considering the two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which are enclosed with this request, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom?
According to the National Association of Attorneys General:
Formal written legal opinions of the attorney general answer questions of law from state agencies or officials about the agency’s or official’s legal duties. Commonly known as attorney general opinions, these opinions are prepared by and reviewed by attorneys in the office, including the attorney general, through an established process and have the authority of the office behind them.
In Senator Crabbe’s letter, he specifically quotes from the legal opinions by two professors of international law. Senator Crabbe wrote:
In his legal opinion, Professor Craven states, under international law, there is a presumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, unless there can be referenced, “a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.” And Professor Lenzerini states, in his legal opinion, “The conclusion according to which the Hawaiian Kingdom cannot be considered as having been extinguished—as a State—as a result of the American occupation also allows to confirm, de plano, that the Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent State, has been under uninterrupted belligerent occupation by the United States of America, from 17 January 1893 up to the moment of this writing.”
From a legal standpoint, this is significant because it sets the foundation for the legal opinion as to why the State of Hawai‘i, being a creation of American law, cannot simultaneously exist with the Hawaiian Kingdom in its own territory. This places the Attorney General in an untenable position where she has to show that there is no presumption of continuity of a State under international law and that belligerent occupation does extinguish an occupied State. This is something that she is unable to do.
Being a State within a federation, the Attorney General is also bound by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel’s 1988 legal opinion regarding the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands in 1898 by a congressional law. She cannot counter the conclusion by this federal legal opinion. The opinion is not what you would expect from the federal government on Hawai‘i. The legal opinion was advising the State Department on the legal issues raised by a proposed Presidential proclamation to extend the territorial sea from three miles off the coast of the United States to twelve miles. In that legal opinion, Acting Assistant Attorney General Douglas W. Kmiec concluded:
The President has the authority to issue a proclamation extending the jurisdiction of the United States over the territorial sea from three to twelve miles out.
The President also has the authority to assert the United States’s sovereignty over the extended territorial sea, although most such claims in the nation’s have been executed by treaty.
There is serious question whether Congress has the authority either to assert over an expanded territorial sea for purposes of international law or assert the United States’s sovereignty over it.
It is therefore unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution. Accordingly it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.
In support of this conclusion, Acting Assistant Attorney General Kmiec relied on statements made in 1898 by members of the Congress, and the writings of constitutional scholar Professor Westel Willoughby who stated:
The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act. … Only by means of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force—confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature it is enacted.
If it is unclear how Congress could annex foreign territory by legislative action, it would be equally unclear how Congress could establish the State of Hawai‘i by legislative action in 1959. Without a treaty, all American laws, which includes the Hawai‘i Statehood Act of 1959, imposed in the Hawaiian Kingdom constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.
More importantly, time is not on the side of the Attorney General to delay her legal opinion because she is up against the presumption, under international law, that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, which consequently means that the State of Hawai‘i does not lawfully exist. As the proverb goes, you can’t have your cake and eat it too, which is you cannot have two things at the same time if they are mutually exclusive. In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom and the State of Hawai‘i cannot exist at the same time. The existence of one cancels the other.
In light of the overwhelming evidence and law on the side of the Hawaiian Kingdom, her legal opinion will have to conclude that the State of Hawai‘i is not within the territory of the United States, but rather within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Her silence before her legal opinion is released already takes this position in law.
The Attorney General is in an inescapable legal bind. Her silence is the admission that the Hawaiian Kingdom is an occupied State and that the State of Hawai‘i is unlawful. Her silence on this matter should cause concern for the Governor, the Heads of the Departments, and individual members of the Senate and House of Representatives and their implication of committing war crimes. As Senator Crabbe concluded his letter with, “Given the severity of this request and that I may be implicated in war crimes for enacting legislation, your earnest attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.”
CLARIFICATION ON THE LAW-MAKING POWER OF THE UNITED STATES. There are three types of laws that the United States is empowered to create—international law, statutory law, and the common law. Within the territory of the United States, the Congress has plenary power to create statutory laws that is applied throughout the United States. But where the Congress has not made a law, the Supreme Court can make decisions that fill the void, which is called common law. A case in point is Roe v. Wade that made abortions legal, but it was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022. This change in its decision on abortion by the Supreme Court can be overturned by the Congress if it enacts a law reinstating what Roe v. Wade provided in a statute.
The statutory law and the common law are restricted in operation to only apply over the territory of the United States and not beyond. Of the three branches of the U.S. Government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, only the executive branch can exercise its authority outside of U.S. territory through the Department of State and the Department of Defense. In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation (1936), U.S. Supreme Court explained:
Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.
The sources of international law are customary law, treaties, general principles of law, judicial decisions, and scholarly articles written by experts in international law. The two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, as scholars in international law, are considered a source of international law.
On the subject of the limits of the Congress to enact laws, whether commercial laws or not, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Curtiss-Wright case, also stated:
Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens, and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.
So, the Attorney General will have to find a treaty of cession, whereby the Hawaiian Kingdom entered into negotiations with a President to cede its territory and sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States. There exists no such treaty, except for American laws and common laws being unlawful imposed within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Today, September 23, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to State of Hawai‘i Governor Josh Green and his Cabinet to cease and desist in the performance of the their functions under American municipal laws in light of Senator Crabbe’s formal request to Attorney General Anne Lopez for a legal opinion regarding whether the State of Hawai‘i is lawful and that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist as an occupied State. Senator Crabbe’s request also alleviated the Governor and any member of his Cabinet from requesting a legal opinion by September 20, 2024, as stated in the RCI’s letter to the Governor dated September 5, 2024. Here is a link to the letter.
The purpose of this letter is to notify you and your Cabinet to cease and desist your functions under American municipal laws in light of Senator Cross Makani Crabbe’s formal request, pursuant to §28-3 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, to Attorney General Anne Lopez for a legal opinion regarding whether the State of Hawai‘i is lawful and that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist as an occupied State, which I am enclosing. Senator Crabbe’s request also alleviates you and any member of your Cabinet from requesting a legal opinion by September 20, 2024, as stated in my letter to you dated September 5, 2024.
As I stated to you in my letter dated September 5th, the issue of the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State under international law, is not a novel legal issue for the State of Hawai‘i to determine. Since 1994, this issue has been at the center of case law and precedence regarding jurisdictional arguments that came before the courts of the State of Hawai‘i. Senator Crabbe’s letter included two legal opinions, published by the Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics, by experts in international law, that provide a legal basis for concluding that the Hawaiian Kingdom ‘exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ as called for by the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. I am also enclosing my latest law article on the responsibility to protect a State’s population from war crimes that was published this year by the International Review of Contemporary Law.
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3 states: “[t]he attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department (emphasis added).” The legal definition of shall “is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word ‘may,’ which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion.” In his letter, Senator Crabbe presented the Attorney General with this question for her legal opinion:
Considering the two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which are enclosed with this request, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom?
As I stated in my letter of September 5th, under international law, there is a presumption of continuity of the Hawaiian State despite the overthrow of its government by the United States on January 17, 1893. In other words, the Attorney General’s legal opinion would not prove the State of Hawai‘i lawfully exists, but rather, the opinion must prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exists, as a State, under the rules of international law, and that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States. Evidence of “a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States” would be an international treaty, particularly a peace treaty, whereby the Hawaiian Kingdom would have ceded its territory and sovereignty to the United States. Examples of foreign States ceding sovereign territory to the United States by a peace treaty include the 1848 Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement with the Republic of Mexico and the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain.
In her legal opinion, to answer in the affirmative that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States, the Attorney General must refer to a ‘valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States.’ Otherwise, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, as a State, under international law. Furthermore, as I stated in my September 5th letter, she cannot claim that the question of law raises a political question. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, precludes her from not answering the question if it was previously demonstrated, by the two legal opinions, that “a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i ‘exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.’” According to State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo, the Attorney General would have to provide rebuttable evidence that counters the conclusions of the two legal opinions, otherwise the presumption of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence, as a State, remains. As the proverb goes, you can’t have your cake and eat it too, which is you cannot have two things at the same time if they are mutually exclusive. In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom and the State of Hawai‘i cannot exist at the same time. The existence of one cancels the other.
Because the Hawaiian Kingdom is presumed to continue to exist under international law, all acts taken by the United States within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom since January 17, 1893, to include the creation of the State of Hawai‘i by a congressional act, is void, unless the Attorney General provides a legal basis, under international law, that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the United States and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Without this basis, the State of Hawai‘i has no legal standing within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and thus, actions or conduct, taken by members of the State of Hawai‘i and or its Counties, can be construed as war crimes. I am enclosing Professor William Schabas’ legal opinion on war crimes currently being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Since 2020, the Royal Commission of Inquiry has published, on its website (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/royal-commission.shtml), the following reports and memorandums:
Preliminary Report re Mens Rea (March 24, 2020)
Preliminary Report re Authority of the Council of Regency (May 27, 2020)
Preliminary Report re Legal Status of Land Titles throughout the Realm (July 16, 2020)
Supplemental Report re Title Insurance (October 28, 2020)
Preliminary Report re Explicit Recognition of the Hawaiian State and of the Council of Regency as its Government by the United States of America (April 2, 2021)
Preliminary Report re War Crimes of Transferring Populations in an Occupied Territory and Denationalization (September 30, 2021)
Preliminary Report re The Right of Self-Determination of the Hawaiian People in a State of War (October 23, 2021)
Preliminary Report re The Lorenzo doctrine on the Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State (June 7, 2022)
Preliminary Report re Attainder of Treason and the Corruption of Blood (October 26, 2022)
Preliminary Report re Termination of the 1875 Commercial Reciprocity Treaty and its 1884 Supplemental Convention (October 26, 2023)
Criminal Report no. 22-0001 re Insurgency of 1893 and Attainder of Treason (November 4, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0002 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Derek Kawakami & Arryl Kaneshiro (November 17, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0002-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Matthew M. Bracken & Mark L. Bradbury (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0003 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Mitchell Roth & Maile David (November 17, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0003-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Elizabeth A. Strance, Mark D. Disher & Dakota K. Frenz (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0004 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Michael Victorino & Alice L. Lee (November 17, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0004-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Moana M. Lutey, Caleb P. Rowe & Iwalani Mountcastle Gasmen (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0005 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—David Yutake Ige, Ty Nohara, & Isaac W. Choy (November 18, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0005-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Holly T. Shikada & Amanda J. Weston (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0006 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Anders G.O. Nervell (November 18, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0006-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Scott I. Batterman (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0007 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., Kamala Harris, Admiral John Aquilino, Charles P. Rettig, Charles E. Schumer, & Nancy Pelosi (November 18, 2022)
Amended War Criminal Report no. 22-0007—a Withdrawal of Admiral John Aquilino (February 23, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0007-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Brian M. Boynton, Anthony J. Coppolino & Michael J. Gerardi (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0008 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation & Deprivation of Fair and Regular Trial—Leslie E. Kobayashi & Rom A. Trader (November 23, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0009 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation, Deprivation of Fair and Regular Trial, & Pillage—Mark E. Recktenwald, Paula A. Nakayama, Sabrina S. McKenna, Richard W. Pollack, Michael D. Wilson, Todd W. Eddins, Glenn S. Hara, Greg K. Nakamura, Charles Prather, Sofia M. Hirosane, Daryl Y. Dobayashi, James E. Evers, Josiah K. Sewell, Clifford L. Nakea, Bradley R. Tamm, and Alana L. Bryant (December 28, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0009-1 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation, Deprivation of Fair & Regular Trial—Derrick K. Watson, J. Michael Seabright, Leslie E. Kobayashi and Jill A. Otake (February 28, 2023)
War Criminal Report no. 23-0001 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Anne E. Lopez, Craig Y. Iha, Ryan K.P. Kanaka‘ole, Alyssa-Marie Y. Kau, Peter Kahana Albinio, Jr., and Joseph Kuali‘i Lindsey Camara (March 29, 2023)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Kenneth Hara (August 5, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0002 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Stephen F. Logan (August 12, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0003 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Wesley Kawakami (August 19, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0004 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Fredrick Werner (August 26, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0005 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr. (September 2, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0006 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Joshua Jacobs (September 9, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0007 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Dale Balsis (September 16, 2024)
Memorandum regarding the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continuity as a State and subject of International Law (August 29, 2023)
Memorandum on why all 193 Member States of the United Nations recognize the Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency (December 22, 2023)
Memorandum on Bringing the American Occupation of Hawai`i to an End by Establishing an American Military Government (June 22, 2024)
In my September 5th letter, I recommended you view a presentation that I was invited to give to the Maui County Council’s Disaster, Resilience, International Affairs, and Planning (DRIP) Committee on March 6, 2024 (online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-VIA_3GD2A). To further understand the situation, I am recommending that you also view two recent podcasts of Keep it Aloha with Kamaka Dias, which has collectively garnered over 22k views since August 1, 2024 (Part 1—online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvEdNx2dynE&t=6043s), (Part 2—online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBSFZQdC5bU&t=8466s).
Until the Attorney General provides a legal opinion, pursuant to §28-3, that concludes with an evidential basis, under international law, that the Hawaiian Kingdom does NOT exist “as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,” and that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the United States and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, you are ordered to cease and desist your functions under American municipal laws being unlawfully imposed within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
According to the law of occupation, and pursuant to U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and U.S. Army Field Manuals 27-5 and 27-10, you will be replaced by the most senior Army National Guard officer to be called a military governor. As a result of Major General Kenneth Hara’s willful failure to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government after his Staff Judge Advocate, Lieutenant Colonel Phelps, was unable to refute the evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom is an occupied State as of July 27, 2023, he became the subject of war criminal report no. 24-0001. Major General Hara also is responsible for commanders under his command to be subject to war criminal reports 24-0002, 24-0003, 24-0004, 24-0005, 24-0006, and 24-0007 as well for not establishing a military government. At present, the highest-ranking Army National Guard officer to replace you as military governor is Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner, Executive Officer of the 29th Infantry Brigade. I am enclosing my letter to him dated today.
Today, September 23, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner regarding the a formal request by Senator Cross Makani Crabbe for a legal opinion from the Attorney General regarding the legal standing of the State of Hawai‘i in light of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State under international law. Consequently, this alleviates LTC Rosner from requesting a legal opinion by 12 noon today, as stated in the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s letter to him dated September 16, 2024. LTC Rosner is, however, responsible for establishing a military government unless the Attorney General concludes in her legal opinion that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist as an occupied State.. Here is a link to the letter.
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that this past Thursday, September 19, 2024, Senator Cross Makani Crabbe, who represents District 22 on the west side of O‘ahu, submitted a formal request, pursuant to §28-3 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, to Attorney General Anne Lopez for a legal opinion regarding the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State, which I am enclosing. Consequently, this alleviates you from requesting a legal opinion by 12 noon on September 23, 2024, as stated in my letter to you dated September 16, 2024.
However, should Attorney General Lopez fail to show that the Hawaiian Kingdom had been extinguished by the United States under international law, you have the duty and obligation to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. Your duty and obligation is in accordance with Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, FM 27-5, FM 27-10, and the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government. The 322nd Civil Affairs Brigade at Fort Shafter Flats advises commanders on military government.
It has been twenty-five years, on November 8, 1999, since the international arbitral proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) were initiated, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. The subject of this arbitral dispute was the first allegation of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. The claimant, Lance Larsen, alleged that the Hawaiian Kingdom, by its Council of Regency, was legally liable “for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws” over him within Hawaiian territory. This led to the war crimes of unfair trial and unlawful confinement by the District Court of the Third Circuit in Kea‘au.
Before the arbitral tribunal was established on June 9, 2000, the PCA Secretary General recognized, as a matter of institutional jurisdiction, the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a non-Contracting State pursuant to Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention, I, for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Article 47 states, “[t]he jurisdiction of the Permanent Court, may within the conditions laid down in the regulations, be extended to disputes between non-Contracting [States] or between Contracting [States] and non-Contracting [States], if the parties are agreed on recourse to this Tribunal.” This brought the dispute under the auspices of the PCA. The PCA Secretary General also recognized the Council of Regency as the Hawaiian Kingdom government. The Council of Regency did not claim to be the government of a new State but rather the legal personality of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom since the nineteenth century.
The issue of the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State under international law, is not a novel legal issue for the State of Hawai‘i to determine. Since 1994, this issue has been at the center of case law and precedence, regarding jurisdictional arguments that came before the courts of the State of Hawai‘i. One year after the United States Congress passed the 1993 joint resolution, apologizing for the United States overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals heard an appeal in 1994 that centered on a claim that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to exist as a country despite the unlawful overthrow of its government. In State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo, the appellate court stated:
Lorenzo appeals, arguing that the lower court erred in denying his pretrial motion (Motion) to dismiss the indictment. The essence of the Motion is that the [Hawaiian Kingdom] (Kingdom) was recognized as an independent sovereign nation by the United States in numerous bilateral treaties; the Kingdom was illegally overthrown in 1893 with the assistance of the United States; the Kingdom still exists as a sovereign nation; he is a citizen of the Kingdom; therefore, the courts of the State of Hawai‘i have no jurisdiction over him. Lorenzo makes the same argument on appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the lower court correctly denied the Motion.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, but it admitted “the court’s rationale is open to question in light of international law.” By not applying international law, the appellate court concluded that the trial court’s decision was correct because Lorenzo “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.”
Since 1994, Lorenzo has become the precedent case for denying defendants’ motions to dismiss claims that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. When the appellate court placed the burden on defendants to provide a ‘factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ it would require the application of international law, not the municipal law or common law of the United States and/or the State of Hawai‘i, for the defense to meet that burden.
The Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, clarified the evidentiary burden that Lorenzo placed upon defendants. The court stated:
Lorenzo held that, for jurisdictional purposes, should a defendant demonstrate a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i “exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature[,]” and that he or she is a citizen of that sovereign state, a defendant may be able to argue that the courts of the State of Hawai‘i lack jurisdiction over him or her.
Senator Crabbe’s letter included two legal opinions, published by the Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics, by experts in international law, that provide a legal basis for concluding that the Hawaiian Kingdom ‘exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ as called for by the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. These legal opinions were authored by two professors of international law, Matthew Craven, from the University of London, SOAS, Department of Law, and Federico Lenzerini, from the University of Siena, Department of Political and International Sciences. I am also enclosing my latest law article on the responsibility to protect a State’s population from war crimes that was published this year by the International Review of Contemporary Law.
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3 states: “[t]he attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department (emphasis added).” The legal definition of shall “is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word ‘may,’ which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion.” In his letter, Senator Crabbe presented the Attorney General with his question for her legal opinion:
Considering the two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which are enclosed with this request, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom?
Under international law, there is a presumption of continuity of the Hawaiian State despite the overthrow of its government by the United States on January 17, 1893. According to Judge James Crawford, International Court of Justice, there “is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations […] despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government,” and belligerent occupation “does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” Presumption is defined as an act or instance of taking something to be true. As a matter of law, in the absence of acceptable reasons to the contrary, presumption is an attitude adopted in law toward an action or proposal.
The presumption of State continuity shifts the burden of proof as to what is to be proven and by whom. Like the presumption of innocence, the accused does not prove their innocence, but rather the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that person’s guilt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is evidence so convincing that no reasonable person would have any doubts as to the person’s guilt. Matthew Craven, professor of international law, explains:
If one were to speak about a presumption of continuity, one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.
In other words, the Attorney General’s legal opinion would not prove the State of Hawai‘i lawfully exists, but rather, it must prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exists, as a State, under the rules of international law, and that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States. Evidence of ‘a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States’ would be an international treaty, particularly a peace treaty, whereby the Hawaiian Kingdom would have ceded its territory and sovereignty to the United States. Examples of foreign States ceding sovereign territory to the United States by a peace treaty include the 1848 Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement with the Republic of Mexico and the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain.
In her legal opinion, to answer, in the affirmative, that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States, the Attorney General must refer to a ‘valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States.’ Otherwise, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which triggers your duty and obligation to establish a military government. For her to claim that the question of law raises a political question and, therefore, she cannot answer the question, is an admission to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s presumed existence since the nineteenth century. The political question doctrine refers to federal courts and their inability to adjudicate disputes that have been submitted to the courts for adjudication. According to the U.S. Supreme Court:
For purposes of Article III of the Constitution, “no justiciable ‘controversy’ exists when parties seek adjudication of a political question.” But the term “political question” is a legal term of art that on its face gives little indication of what sorts of cases the doctrine bars federal courts from deciding.
Furthermore, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, precludes the Attorney General from not answering the question if it was previously demonstrated, by the two legal opinions, that “a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i ‘exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.’” According to State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo, she would have to provide rebuttable evidence that counters the conclusions of the two legal opinions, otherwise the presumption of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence, as a State, remains. Therefore, all acts taken by the United States within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, to include the creation of the State of Hawai‘i by a congressional act, is void. According to the Permanent Court of International Justice, in the Lotus case (France v. Turkey):
Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention.
Therefore, the United States cannot ‘exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State,’ such as the Hawaiian Kingdom, because it already has international treaties with. The United States needs a treaty of cession with the Hawaiian Kingdom before it can exercise any power within the latter’s territory. Consequently, the State of Hawai‘i has no legal standing within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and thus, actions or conduct, taken by members of the State of Hawai‘i and or its Counties, could be construed as war crimes. I am enclosing Professor William Schabas’ legal opinion on war crimes currently being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Since 2020, the Royal Commission of Inquiry has published, on its website (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/royal-commission.shtml), the following reports and memorandums:
Preliminary Report re Mens Rea (March 24, 2020)
Preliminary Report re Authority of the Council of Regency (May 27, 2020)
Preliminary Report re Legal Status of Land Titles throughout the Realm (July 16, 2020)
Supplemental Report re Title Insurance (October 28, 2020)
Preliminary Report re Explicit Recognition of the Hawaiian State and of the Council of Regency as its Government by the United States of America (April 2, 2021)
Preliminary Report re War Crimes of Transferring Populations in an Occupied Territory and Denationalization (September 30, 2021)
Preliminary Report re The Right of Self-Determination of the Hawaiian People in a State of War (October 23, 2021)
Preliminary Report re The Lorenzo doctrine on the Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State (June 7, 2022)
Preliminary Report re Attainder of Treason and the Corruption of Blood (October 26, 2022)
Preliminary Report re Termination of the 1875 Commercial Reciprocity Treaty and its 1884 Supplemental Convention (October 26, 2023)
Criminal Report no. 22-0001 re Insurgency of 1893 and Attainder of Treason (November 4, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0002 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Derek Kawakami & Arryl Kaneshiro (November 17, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0002-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Matthew M. Bracken & Mark L. Bradbury (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0003 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Mitchell Roth & Maile David (November 17, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0003-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Elizabeth A. Strance, Mark D. Disher & Dakota K. Frenz (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0004 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Michael Victorino & Alice L. Lee (November 17, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0004-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Moana M. Lutey, Caleb P. Rowe & Iwalani Mountcastle Gasmen (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0005 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—David Yutake Ige, Ty Nohara, & Isaac W. Choy (November 18, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0005-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Holly T. Shikada & Amanda J. Weston (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0006 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Anders G.O. Nervell (November 18, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0006-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Scott I. Batterman (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0007 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., Kamala Harris, Admiral John Aquilino, Charles P. Rettig, Charles E. Schumer, & Nancy Pelosi (November 18, 2022)
Amended War Criminal Report no. 22-0007—a Withdrawal of Admiral John Aquilino (February 23, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0007-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Brian M. Boynton, Anthony J. Coppolino & Michael J. Gerardi (November 20, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0008 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation & Deprivation of Fair and Regular Trial—Leslie E. Kobayashi & Rom A. Trader (November 23, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0009 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation, Deprivation of Fair and Regular Trial, & Pillage—Mark E. Recktenwald, Paula A. Nakayama, Sabrina S. McKenna, Richard W. Pollack, Michael D. Wilson, Todd W. Eddins, Glenn S. Hara, Greg K. Nakamura, Charles Prather, Sofia M. Hirosane, Daryl Y. Dobayashi, James E. Evers, Josiah K. Sewell, Clifford L. Nakea, Bradley R. Tamm, and Alana L. Bryant (December 28, 2022)
War Criminal Report no. 22-0009-1 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation, Deprivation of Fair & Regular Trial—Derrick K. Watson, J. Michael Seabright, Leslie E. Kobayashi and Jill A. Otake (February 28, 2023)
War Criminal Report no. 23-0001 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Anne E. Lopez, Craig Y. Iha, Ryan K.P. Kanaka‘ole, Alyssa-Marie Y. Kau, Peter Kahana Albinio, Jr., and Joseph Kuali‘i Lindsey Camara (March 29, 2023)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Kenneth Hara (August 5, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0002 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Stephen F. Logan (August 12, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0003 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Wesley Kawakami (August 19, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0004 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Fredrick Werner (August 26, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0005 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr. (September 2, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0006 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Joshua Jacobs (September 9, 2024)
War Criminal Report no. 24-0007 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Dale Balsis (September 16, 2024)
Memorandum regarding the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continuity as a State and subject of International Law (August 29, 2023)
Memorandum on why all 193 Member States of the United Nations recognize the Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency (December 22, 2023)
Memorandum on Bringing the American Occupation of Hawai`i to an End by Establishing an American Military Government (June 22, 2024)
In order to understand the gravity and severity of the situation, I recommend that you view a presentation that I was invited to give to the Maui County Council’s Disaster, Resilience, International Affairs, and Planning (DRIP) Committee on March 6, 2024 (online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-VIA_3GD2A). To further understand the situation, I recommend that you also view two recent podcasts of Keep it Aloha with Kamaka Dias, which has collectively garnered over 22k views since August 1, 2024 (Part 1—online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvEdNx2dynE&t=6043s), (Part 2—online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBSFZQdC5bU&t=8466s).
Unless the Attorney General can provide you a legal opinion that concludes the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist ‘as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ you should begin to prepare for your role as military governor and transition the State of Hawai‘i into a military government according to the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan with essential and implied tasks. You should also begin to reach out to the 322nd Civil Affairs Brigade at Fort Shafter Flats.
This past Thursday, September 19, 2024, State of Hawai‘i Senator Cross Makani Crabbe sent a formal letter, by certified mail, to Attorney General Anne Lopez requesting a legal opinion from her that addresses whether the State of Hawai‘i is lawful. Senator Crabbe represents District 22 that includes Ko ‘Olina, Nānākuli, Wai‘anae, Mākaha, and Mākua on the west side of the island of O‘ahu. Carbon copied in the letter is Governor Josh Green, Senate President Ronald D. Kouchi, and Speaker of the House of Representatives Scott K. Saiki.
UPDATE: Senator Crabbe’s letter was delivered today with the Attorney General’s Office, according to USPS tracking no. 9589071052702326426110 on its website, at 9:15 am.
Section 28-3 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes authorizes any member of the State of Hawai‘i Legislature to request a legal opinion from the Attorney General and that the Attorney General shall provide a legal opinion. The legal definition of shall “is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word ‘may,’ which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion.” Here is a link to Senator Crabbe’s letter.
I am in possession of a letter from the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI), dated February 7, 2024, that was sent to my predecessor, Senator Maile Shimabukuro, as well as all the Senators and Representatives of the State of Hawai‘i and the Council Members of the four Counties (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/RCI_Ltr_to_SOH_Legislature_(2.7.24).pdf). I am also in possession of another letter by the RCI, dated September 5, 2024, to Governor Josh Green and the members of his cabinet (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/RCI_Ltr_to_Gov.Green_Cabinet_(9.5.24).pdf).
In both letters, the RCI is asserting that the laws enacted by the State of Hawai‘i Legislature and ordinances enacted by the County Councils constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. The RCI then refers to a renowned expert on international criminal law, war crimes and human rights, Professor William Schabas from Middlesex University London, Department of Law, that wrote a legal opinion on war crimes being committed in Hawai‘i today (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/3HawJLPol334_(Schabas).pdf).
In his letters, Dr. David Keanu Sai, as Head of the RCI, states that the State of Hawai‘i itself is a product of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty because of the Hawai‘i Statehood Act of 1959 enacted by the Congress. In Dr. Sai’s letter to Governor Green, he attached two legal opinions on the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law by Professor Matthew Craven from the University of London SOAS, Department of Law, and Professor Federico Lenzerini from the University of Siena, Italy, Department of Political and International Sciences. Both are professors of international law.
In his legal opinion, Professor Craven states, under international law, there is a presumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, unless there can be referenced, “a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.” And Professor Lenzerini states, in his legal opinion, “The conclusion according to which the Hawaiian Kingdom cannot be considered as having been extinguished—as a State—as a result of the American occupation also allows to confirm, de plano, that the Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent State, has been under uninterrupted belligerent occupation by the United States of America, from 17 January 1893 up to the moment of this writing.”
As a Senator that represents the 22nd district, I am very concerned of these allegations that the State of Hawai‘i, as a governing body, is not legal because the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as an occupied State under international law. I am also not aware of any legal opinion that conclusively explains that the State of Hawai‘i is legal under international law and that war crimes are not being committed in Hawai‘i. Therefore, I am respectfully requesting of you for a legal opinion, in accordance with Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3 that states, “The attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the…legislature, or its members,” to answer this question of law:
Considering the two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which are enclosed with this request, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom?
Given the severity of this request and that I may be implicated in war crimes for enacting legislation, your earnest attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Today, September 16, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner regarding the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0007 on Lieutenant Colonel Balsis’ war crime by omission. The RCI also informed him that he has until 12 noon on September 23, 2024, to perform his military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i. Here is a link to the letter.
Today, September 16, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) published its War Criminal Report no. 24-0007 finding Lieutenant Colonel Dale R. Balsis guilty of the war crime by omission. LTC Balsis willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government. Therefore, his conduct, by omission, constitutes a war crime. LTC Balsis, in his official capacity as a senior member of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense, has met the requisite elements for the war crime by omission, by willfully disobeying an Army regulation and by willful dereliction in his duty to establish a military government, and is, therefore, guilty of the war crime by omission. These offenses do not have the requisite element of mens rea.
The term “guilty,” as used in the RCI war criminal reports, is defined as “[h]aving committed a crime or other breach of conduct; justly chargeable offense; responsible for a crime or tort or other offense or fault.” It is distinguished from a criminal prosecution where “guilty” is used by “an accused in pleading or otherwise answering to an indictment when he confesses to have committed the crime of which he is charged, and by the jury in convicting a person on trial for a particular crime.” According to U.S. military law, LTC Balsis is accountable by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Under international criminal law, LTC Balsis is subject to prosecution, by a competent court or tribunal, for the war crime by omission.
Consequently, as the Executive Officer of the 29th Infantry Brigade, you are now the theater commander. You should assume the chain of command, as the theater commander of the occupied State of Hawaiian Kingdom and perform your duty of establishing a military government by 12 noon on September 23, 2024. In my letter to LTC Balsis, dated September 9, 2024, I recommended that he submit a formal request to Major General Hara, as head of the Department of Defense, to request that the Attorney General, Anne Lopez, according to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3, provide a legal opinion that refutes the legal opinions of Profession William Schabas and Professor Federico Lenzerini that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law. It is a request as to a question of law, which the Attorney General is bound to answer, but a request from the head of the Department of Defense is required under §28-3.
It would appear that LTC Balsis did not do so, which led to the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0007. For you to not perform this military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i, you will need a legal opinion from the Attorney General concluding that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the United States, and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I am attaching a sample letter from you to Major General Hara requesting of the Attorney General for a legal opinion according to §28-3.
If you make this request to MG Hara prior to 12 noon on September 23, 2024, then you will not be derelict in your military duty, because the Royal Commission of Inquiry will then give time for MG Hara to make a formal request for a legal opinion from the Attorney General and give time for the legal opinion to be completed.
If you are derelict in the performance of your duty to establish a military government, then you would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. The sequence of events will then loop to the Executive Officers. First, with the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, second, with the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, third with the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fourth with the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion.
This looping, within the 29th Infantry Brigade’s component commands, will cover all commissioned officers to include Majors, Captains, First Lieutenants and Second Lieutenants. After the commissioned officers have been exhausted in the 29th Infantry Brigade, the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 103rd Troop Command and its component commands will begin, followed by the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, and its component commands.
This looping, within the 29th Infantry Brigade’s component commands, will cover all commissioned officers to include Majors, Captains, First Lieutenants and Second Lieutenants. After the commissioned officers have been exhausted in the 29th Infantry Brigade, the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 103rd Troop Command and its component commands will begin, followed by the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, and its component commands. As you are aware, U.S. military officers are held to the highest personal and professional standards. When those standards are not met, officers may be administratively punished or criminally prosecuted. For you not to demand from the Attorney General for a legal opinion that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists under international law, is to place the men and women, under your command, into harm’s way with criminal culpability under both military law and international criminal law. To ignore this will have dire consequences for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard.
Today, September 9, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis regarding the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0006 on Lieutenant Colonel Jacobs’ war crime by omission. The RCI also informed him that he has until 12 noon on September 16, 2024, to perform his military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i. Here is a link to the letter.
Today, September 9, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) published its War Criminal Report no. 24-0006 finding Lieutenant Colonel Joshua A. Jacobs guilty of the war crime by omission. LTC Jacobs willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government. Therefore, his conduct, by omission, constitutes a war crime. LTC Jacobs, in his official capacity as a senior member of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense, has met the requisite elements for the war crime by omission, by willfully disobeying an Army regulation and by willful dereliction in his duty to establish a military government, and is, therefore, guilty of the war crime by omission. These offenses do not have the requisite element of mens rea.
The term “guilty,” as used in the RCI war criminal reports, is defined as “[h]aving committed a crime or other breach of conduct; justly chargeable offense; responsible for a crime or tort or other offense or fault.” It is distinguished from a criminal prosecution where “guilty” is used by “an accused in pleading or otherwise answering to an indictment when he confesses to have committed the crime of which he is charged, and by the jury in convicting a person on trial for a particular crime.” According to U.S. military law, LTC Jacobs is accountable by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Under international criminal law, LTC Jacobs is subject to prosecution, by a competent court or tribunal, for the war crime by omission.
Consequently, as the Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, you are now the theater commander. You should assume the chain of command, as the theater commander of the occupied State of Hawaiian Kingdom and perform your duty of establishing a military government by 12 noon on September 16, 2024. In my letter to LTC Jacobs, dated September 2, 2024, I recommended that he submit a formal request to Major General Hara, as head of the Department of Defense, to request that the Attorney General, Anne Lopez, according to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3, provide a legal opinion that refutes the legal opinions of Profession William Schabas and Professor Federico Lenzerini that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law. It is a request as to a question of law, which the Attorney General is bound to answer, but a request from the head of the Department of Defense is required under §28-3.
It would appear that LTC Jacobs did not do so, which led to the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0006. For you to not perform this military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i, you will need a legal opinion from the Attorney General concluding that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the United States, and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I am attaching a sample letter from you to Major General Hara requesting of the Attorney General for a legal opinion according to §28-3.
If you make this request to MG Hara prior to 12 noon on September 16, 2024, then you will not be derelict in your military duty, because the Royal Commission of Inquiry will then give time for MG Hara to make a formal request for a legal opinion from the Attorney General and give time for the legal opinion to be completed.
If you are derelict in the performance of your duty to establish a military government, then you would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. The sequence of events will then loop to the Executive Officers. First, with the 29th Infantry Brigade, second, with the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, third, with the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, fourth with the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fifth with the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion.
This looping, within the 29th Infantry Brigade’s component commands, will cover all commissioned officers to include Majors, Captains, First Lieutenants and Second Lieutenants. After the commissioned officers have been exhausted in the 29th Infantry Brigade, the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 103rd Troop Command and its component commands will begin, followed by the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, and its component commands.
This looping, within the 29th Infantry Brigade’s component commands, will cover all commissioned officers to include Majors, Captains, First Lieutenants and Second Lieutenants. After the commissioned officers have been exhausted in the 29th Infantry Brigade, the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 103rd Troop Command and its component commands will begin, followed by the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, and its component commands. As you are aware, U.S. military officers are held to the highest personal and professional standards. When those standards are not met, officers may be administratively punished or criminally prosecuted. For you not to demand from the Attorney General for a legal opinion that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists under international law, is to place the men and women, under your command, into harm’s way with criminal culpability under both military law and international criminal law. To ignore this will have dire consequences for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard.
Today, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Governor Josh Green, M.D., and the members of his cabinet that he or any member of his cabinet have until September 20, 2024, to submit a request for a legal opinion from the Attorney General according to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3. The legal opinion must provide a legal basis, under international law, that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the United States and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. To not do so, Dr. Sai stated that Governor Green and the members of his cabinet will be subject to war criminal reports, after September 20th, for the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. Here is a link to the letter.
The purpose of this letter is to apprise you of the severity of the current situation and its impact on the State of Hawai‘i’s legislative bodies. Enacting American municipal laws is in violation of international humanitarian law and the law of occupation, as is the enforcement of these laws by the executive branch. The continuous enacting of State of Hawai‘i laws, to include County ordinances, constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. According to Professor William Schabas, a renowned expert on international criminal law, war crimes and human rights, in his legal opinion on war crimes, being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom, Professor Schabas identifies four elements of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation that has taken place within Hawaiian territory.
Regarding the last two elements of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, Professor Schabas explains:
It has been twenty-five years since the international arbitral proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) were initiated on November 8, 1999, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. The first allegation of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, was the subject of this arbitral dispute, whereby the claimant, Lance Larsen, alleged that the Hawaiian Kingdom, by its Council of Regency, was legally liable “for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws” over him within Hawaiian territory. This led to the war crimes of unfair trial and unlawful confinement by the District Court of the Third Circuit in Kea‘au.
Before the arbitral tribunal was established on June 9, 2000, the PCA Secretary General recognized, as a matter of institutional jurisdiction, the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a non-Contracting State pursuant to Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention, I, for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Article 47 states, “[t]he jurisdiction of the Permanent Court, may within the conditions laid down in the regulations, be extended to disputes between non-Contracting [States] or between Contracting [States] and non-Contracting [States], if the parties are agreed on recourse to this Tribunal.” This brought the dispute under the auspices of the PCA. The PCA Secretary General also recognized the Council of Regency as the Hawaiian Kingdom government. The Council of Regency did not claim to be the government of a new State but rather the legal personality of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom since the nineteenth century.
The issue of the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State under international law, is not a novel legal issue for the State of Hawai‘i. This issue has been at the center of case law and precedence, regarding jurisdictional arguments that came before the courts of the State of Hawai‘i since 1994. One year after the United States Congress passed the 1993 joint resolution, apologizing for the United States overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals heard an appeal that centered on a claim that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to exist. In State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo, the appellate court stated:
Lorenzo appeals, arguing that the lower court erred in denying his pretrial motion (Motion) to dismiss the indictment. The essence of the Motion is that the [Hawaiian Kingdom] (Kingdom) was recognized as an independent sovereign nation by the United States in numerous bilateral treaties; the Kingdom was illegally overthrown in 1893 with the assistance of the United States; the Kingdom still exists as a sovereign nation; he is a citizen of the Kingdom; therefore, the courts of the State of Hawai‘i have no jurisdiction over him. Lorenzo makes the same argument on appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the lower court correctly denied the Motion.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, but it admitted “the court’s rationale is open to question in light of international law.” By not applying international law, the appellate court concluded that the trial court’s decision was correct because Lorenzo “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.” Since 1994, Lorenzo become the precedent case for denying defendants’ motions to dismiss claims that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. When the appellate court placed the burden on defendants to provide a ‘factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ it would require the application of international law and not the municipal law or common law of the United States and/or the State of Hawai‘i in order for the defense to meet that burden.
The Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, clarified the evidentiary burden that Lorenzo placed upon defendants. The court stated:
Lorenzo held that, for jurisdictional purposes, should a defendant demonstrate a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i “exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature[,]” and that he or she is a citizen of that sovereign state, a defendant may be able to argue that the courts of the State of Hawai‘i lack jurisdiction over him or her.
I am enclosing two legal opinions, published by the Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics, by experts in international law, that provide a legal basis for concluding that the Hawaiian Kingdom ‘exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ as called for by the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. These legal opinions were authored by two professors of international law, Matthew Craven, from the University of London, SOAS, Department of Law, and Federico Lenzerini, from the University of Siena, Department of Political and International Sciences. I am also enclosing my latest law article on the responsibility to protect a State’s population from war crimes that was published this year by the International Review of Contemporary Law.
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3 states: “[t]he attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department (emphasis added).” The legal definition of shall “is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word ‘may,’ which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion.” As Governor, you are authorized to request a legal opinion on a question of law, and the Attorney General shall provide you with it. That question of law, that I propose you request for a legal opinion on is:
Considering the two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which are enclosed with this request, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom?
Under international law, there is a presumption of continuity of the Hawaiian State despite the overthrow of its government by the United States on January 17, 1893. According to Judge James Crawford, International Court of Justice, there “is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations […] despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government,” and belligerent occupation “does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” Presumption is defined as an act or instance of taking something to be true. As a matter of law, in the absence of acceptable reasons to the contrary, presumption is an attitude adopted in law toward an action or proposal.
The presumption of State continuity shifts the burden of proof as to what is to be proven and by whom. Like the presumption of innocence, the accused does not prove their innocence, but rather the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that person’s guilt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is evidence so convincing that no reasonable person would have any doubts as to the person’s guilt. Matthew Craven, professor of international law, explains:
If one were to speak about a presumption of continuity, one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.
In other words, the Attorney General’s legal opinion does not prove the State of Hawai‘i lawfully exists, but rather, it must prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exists, as a State, under the rules of international law. Evidence of ‘a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States’ would be an international treaty, particularly a peace treaty, whereby the Hawaiian Kingdom would have ceded its territory and sovereignty to the United States. Examples of foreign States ceding sovereign territory to the United States by a peace treaty include the 1848 Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement with the Republic of Mexico and the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain.
To answer, in the affirmative, that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States, the Attorney General must refer to a ‘valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States,’ in her legal opinion. Otherwise, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law. For her to claim that the question of law raises a political question and, therefore, she cannot answer the question, is an admission to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s presumed existence since the nineteenth century. The political question doctrine refers to federal courts and their inability to adjudicate disputes that have been submitted to the courts for adjudication. According to the U.S. Supreme Court:
For purposes of Article III of the Constitution, “no justiciable ‘controversy’ exists when parties seek adjudication of a political question.” But the term “political question” is a legal term of art that on its face gives little indication of what sorts of cases the doctrine bars federal courts from deciding.
Furthermore, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, precludes the Attorney General from not answering the question if it was previously demonstrated, by the two legal opinions, that “a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i ‘exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.’” According to State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo, she would have to provide rebuttable evidence that counters the conclusions of the two legal opinions, otherwise the presumption of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a State remains. Therefore, all acts taken by the United States within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, to include the creation of the State of Hawai‘i by a congressional act, is void. According to the Permanent Court of International Justice, in the Lotus case (France v. Turkey):
Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention.
Therefore, the United States cannot ‘exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State,’ such as the Hawaiian Kingdom, which it already has international treaties with. The United States needs a treaty of cession with the Hawaiian Kingdom before it can exercise any power within the latter’s territory. Consequently, the State of Hawai‘i has no legal standing within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and actions or conduct taken by members of the State of Hawai‘i and or its Counties could be construed as war crimes.
Unless the Adjutant General, Major General Kenneth Hara, as the theater commander, takes affirmative steps to establish a military government in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict—international humanitarian law, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army Regulations—FM 27-5 and FM 27-10, the State of Hawai‘i has no lawful authority allowable under international law. A legal opinion, to the contrary, pursuant to HRS §28-3, must be made by yourself, as Governor, or by any of your department heads by Friday, September 20, 2024. War crimes have no statute of limitations. I recommend that all of you view a presentation that I gave to the Maui County Council’s Disaster, Resilience, International Affairs, and Planning (DRIP) Committee on March 6, 2024 (online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-VIA_3GD2A). .
For you and the members of your cabinet, this letter constitutes actual notice for committing the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation and thus, you all will be subject to war criminal reports by the Royal Commission of Inquiry after September 20, 2024. To render this as frivolous, it is in your vested interest, as the Governor of the State of Hawai‘i, or of any of your heads of the departments, to get a legal opinion from the Attorney General pursuant to HRS §28-3 that provides the legal basis that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the United States and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Yesterday, September 2, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Joshua A. Jacobs regarding the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0005 on Lieutenant Colonel Tuisamatatele, Jr.’s war crime by omission. The RCI also informed him that he has until 12 noon on September 9, 2024, to perform his military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i. Here is a link to the letter.
Today, September 2, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) published its War Criminal Report no. 24-0005 finding Lieutenant Colonel Bingham L. Tuisamatatele, Jr. guilty of the war crime by omission. LTC Tuisamatatele willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government. Therefore, his conduct, by omission, constitutes a war crime. LTC Tuisamatatele, in his official capacity as a senior member of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense, has met the requisite elements for the war crime by omission, by willfully disobeying an Army regulation and by willful dereliction in his duty to establish a military government, and is, therefore, guilty of the war crime by omission. These offenses do not have the requisite element of mens rea.
The term “guilty,” as used in the RCI war criminal reports, is defined as “[h]aving committed a crime or other breach of conduct; justly chargeable offense; responsible for a crime or tort or other offense or fault.” It is distinguished from a criminal prosecution where “guilty” is used by “an accused in pleading or otherwise answering to an indictment when he confesses to have committed the crime of which he is charged, and by the jury in convicting a person on trial for a particular crime.” According to U.S. military law, LTC Tuisamatatele is accountable by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Under international criminal law, LTC Tuisamatatele is subject to prosecution, by a competent court or tribunal, for the war crime by omission.
Consequently, as the Commander of the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, you are now the theater commander. You should assume the chain of command, as the theater commander of the occupied State of Hawaiian Kingdom and perform your duty of establishing a military government by 12 noon on September 9, 2024. In my letter to LTC Tuisamatatele, dated August 26, 2024, I recommended that he submit a formal request to Major General Hara, as head of the Department of Defense, to request that the Attorney General, Anne Lopez, according to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3, provide a legal opinion that refutes the legal opinions of Profession William Schabas and Professor Federico Lenzerini that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law. It is a request as to a question of law, which the Attorney General is bound to answer, but a request from the head of the Department of Defense is required under §28-3.
It would appear that LTC Tuisamatatele did not do so, which led to the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0005. For you to not perform this military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i, you will need a legal opinion from the Attorney General concluding that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the United States, and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I am attaching a sample letter from you to Major General Hara requesting of the Attorney General for a legal opinion according to §28-3.
If you make this request to MG Hara prior to 12 noon on September 9, 2024, then you will not be derelict in your military duty, because the Royal Commission of Inquiry will then give time for MG Hara to make a formal request for a legal opinion from the Attorney General and give time for the legal opinion to be completed.
If you are derelict in the performance of your duty to establish a military government, then you would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of your war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Dale R. Balsis, Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
As you are aware, U.S. military officers are held to the highest personal and professional standards. When those standards are not met, officers may be administratively punished or criminally prosecuted. For you not to demand from the Attorney General for a legal opinion that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists under international law, is to place the men and women, under your command, into harm’s way with criminal culpability under both military law and international criminal law. To ignore this will have dire consequences for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard.
Under Hawaiian Kingdom law, the term for Native Hawaiians today is aboriginal Hawaiian, irrespective of blood quantum. American law created a blood quantum for aboriginal Hawaiians in order to have access to a 99-year lease of land from the Hawaiian Homes Commission. Hawaiian law has no blood quantum to exercise their vested rights under the law.
Aboriginal is defined as a people who first arrived in a particular region through migration. Aboriginal Hawaiians were the first people to arrive in the Hawaiian Islands from central Polynesia. In her 1884 will that established the Kamehameha Schools, Bernice Pauahi Bishop wrote:
I direct my trustees to invest the remainder of my estate in such manner as they may think best…to devote a portion of each years income to the support and education of orphans, and others in indigent circumstances, giving the preference to Hawaiians of pure or part aboriginal blood.
Hawaiian is the short term for the nationality called Hawaiian subjects. Just as British is the short term for British subjects, which is the nationality of Great Britain. According to the 1890 census, the total population of the Hawaiian citizenry was at 48,107, with 40,622 being aboriginal Hawaiians and 7,495 being non-aboriginal.
Aboriginal Hawaiians are now beginning to see the devastating effects of the American occupation on their vested legal rights. The cause of the denial of these legal rights, under Hawaiian Kingdom law, is the unlawful imposition of American laws over the entire territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Since 1919, usurpation of sovereignty, which is the imposition of the laws of the Occupying State over the territory of the Occupied State, is a war crime. One of the legal rights of aboriginal Hawaiians is their right to free health care at Queen’s Hospital.
When the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was restored, through an acting Council of Regency in 1997, it knew it had to raise awareness of the circumstances of the American occupation and its devastating effects since the unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian government by United States troops on January 17, 1893. After the Permanent Court of Arbitration recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State under international law, despite the unlawful overthrow of its government, and the Council of Regency as the restored government, its primary focus in exposing Hawaiian Statehood was to restore the national consciousness of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the minds of its people. This was the Hawaiian citizenry.
As part of restoring Hawaiian national consciousness, education, research, classroom instruction, and community outreach was the key to piercing through the veil of over a century of lies. As Dresden James wrote, “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”
On July 31, 1901, an article was published in The Pacific Commercial Advertiser in Honolulu. It is a window into a time of colliding legal systems and the Queen’s Hospital would soon become the first Hawaiian health institution to fall victim to the unlawful imposition of American laws. The Advertiser reported:
The Queen’s Hospital was founded in 1859 by their Majesties Kamehameha IV and his consort Emma Kaleleonalani. The hospital is organized as a corporation and by the terms of its charter the board of trustees is composed of ten members elected by the society and ten members nominated by the Government, of which the President of the Republic (now Governor of the Territory) shall be the presiding officer. The charter also provides for the “establishing and putting in operation a permanent hospital in Honolulu, with a dispensary and all necessary furniture and appurtenances for the reception, accommodation and treatment of indigent sick and disabled Hawaiians, as well as such foreigners and other who may choose to avail themselves of the same.”
Under this construction all native Hawaiians have been cared for without charge, while for others a charge has been made of from $1 to $3 per day. The bill making the appropriation for the hospital by the Government provides that no distinction shall be made as to race; and the Queen’s Hospital trustees are evidently up against a serious proposition.
Queen’s Hospital was established as the national hospital for the Hawaiian Kingdom and that health care services for Hawaiian subjects of aboriginal blood was at no charge. The Hawaiian Head of State would serve as the ex officio President of the Board together with twenty trustees, ten of whom were from the Hawaiian government.
Since the hospital’s establishment in 1859, the legislature of the Hawaiian Kingdom subsidized the hospital along with monies from the Queen Emma Trust. With the unlawful imposition of the 1900 Organic Act that formed the Territory of Hawai‘i, American law did not allow public monies to be used for the benefit of a particular race. 1909 was the last year Queen’s Hospital received public funding and it was also the same year that the charter was unlawfully amended to replace the Hawaiian Head of State with an elected president from the private sector and reduced the number of trustees from twenty to seven, which did not include government officers.
These changes to a Hawaiian quasi-public institution is a direct violation of the laws of occupation, whereby the United States was and continues to be obligated to administer the laws of the occupied State—the Hawaiian Kingdom. This requirement comes under Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, and Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Article 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides, “[t]he occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the [occupied] State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.” The term “usufruct” is to administer the property or institution of another without impairing or damaging it.
Despite these unlawful changes, aboriginal Hawaiian subjects, whether pure or part, are to receive health care at Queen’s Hospital free of charge. This did not change, but through denationalization there was a destruction of Hawaiian national consciousness that fostered the web of lies that Hawai‘i was a part of the United States, that aboriginal Hawaiians were American citizens, and there was never free healthcare at Queen’s Hospital.
Aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are protected persons as defined under international law, and as such, the prevention of health care by Queen’s Hospital constitutes war crimes. Furthermore, there is a direct nexus of deaths of aboriginal Hawaiians as “the single racial group with the highest health risk in the State of Hawai‘i [that] stems from…late or lack of access to health care” to the crime of genocide.
Once the State of Hawai‘i is transformed into a military government, according to the international law of occupation, it must immediately begin to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The vested right of aboriginal Hawaiians to free healthcare is a law of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Included with Hawaiian Kingdom laws, as they were before the American occupation began, are the provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
In 2014, the Council of Regency proclaimed these provisional laws to be all Federal, State of Hawai‘i, and County Ordinances that “do not run contrary to the express, reason and spirit of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” In order to determine which laws are consistent with Hawaiian Kingdom law, Dr. Keanu Sai, as acting Minister of the Interior drafted a memorandum that was made public on August 1, 2023. A particular Federal law that is inconsistent with Hawaiian Kingdom law is the IRS tax code.
Today, August 26, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Tuisamatatele, Jr. regarding the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0004 on Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick J. Werner’s war crime by omission. The RCI also informed him that he has until 12 noon on August 26, 2024, to perform his military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i. Here is a link to the letter.
Today, August 26, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) published its War Criminal Report no. 24-0004 finding Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick J. Werner guilty of the war crime by omission. LTC Werner willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government. Therefore, his conduct, by omission, constitutes a war crime. LTC Werner, in his official capacity as a senior member of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense, has met the requisite elements for the war crime by omission, by willfully disobeying an Army regulation and by willful dereliction in his duty to establish a military government, and is, therefore, guilty of the war crime by omission. These offenses do not have the requisite element of mens rea.
The term “guilty,” as used in the RCI war criminal reports, is defined as “[h]aving committed a crime or other breach of conduct; justly chargeable offense; responsible for a crime or tort or other offense or fault.” It is distinguished from a criminal prosecution where “guilty” is used by “an accused in pleading or otherwise answering to an indictment when he confesses to have committed the crime of which he is charged, and by the jury in convicting a person on trial for a particular crime.” According U.S. military law, Colonel Kawakami is accountable by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Under international criminal law, LTC Werner is subject to prosecution, by a competent court or tribunal, for the war crime by omission.
Consequently, as the Commander of the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, you are now the theater commander. You should assume the chain of command, as the theater commander of the occupied State of Hawaiian Kingdom and perform your duty of establishing a military government by 12 noon on September 2, 2024. In my letter to LTC Werner, dated August 19, 2024, I recommended that he submit a formal request to Major General Hara, as head of the Department of Defense, to request that the Attorney General, Anne Lopez, according to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3, provide a legal opinion that refutes the legal opinions of Profession William Schabas and Professor Federico Lenzerini that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law. It is a request as to a question of law, which the Attorney General is bound to answer, but a request from the head of the Department of Defense is required under §28-3.
It would appear that LTC Werner did not do so, which led to the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0004. For you to not perform this military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i, you will need a legal opinion from the Attorney General concluding that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the United States, and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I am attaching a sample letter from you to Major General Hara requesting of the Attorney General for a legal opinion according to §28-3.
If you make this request to MG Hara prior to 12 noon on September 2, 2024, then you will not be derelict in your military duty, because the Royal Commission of Inquiry will then give time for MG Hara to make a formal request for a legal opinion from the Attorney General and give time for the legal opinion to be completed.
If you are derelict in the performance of your duty to establish a military government, then you would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of your war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua A. Jacobs, Commander of 29th Brigade Support Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
If LTC Jacobs is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Jacobs’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Dale R. Balsis, Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
Should LTC Balsis be derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government and be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission, that will be published on the RCI’s website; then the sequence of events will loop to the Executive Officers. First, with the 29th Infantry Brigade, second, with the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, third, with the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, fourth with the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fifth with the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion.
This looping, within the 29th Infantry Brigade’s component commands, will cover all commissioned officers to include Majors, Captains, First Lieutenants and Second Lieutenants. After the commissioned officers have been exhausted in the 29th Infantry Brigade, the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 103rd Troop Command and its component commands will begin, followed by the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, and its component commands.
As you are aware, U.S. military officers are held to the highest personal and professional standards. When those standards are not met, officers may be administratively punished or criminally prosecuted. For you not to demand from the Attorney General for a legal opinion that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists under international law, is to place the men and women, under your command, into harm’s way with criminal culpability under both military law and international criminal law. To ignore this will have dire consequences for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard.
Today, August 19, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick Werner regarding the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0003 on Colonel Wesley Kawakami’s war crime by omission. The RCI also informed him that he has until 12 noon on August 26, 2024, to perform his military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i. Here is a link to the letter.
Today, August 19, 2024, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) published its War Criminal Report no. 24-0003 finding Wesley K. Kawakami guilty of the war crime by omission. BG Logan willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government. Therefore, his conduct, by omission, constitutes a war crime. Colonel Kawakami, in his official capacity as a senior member of the State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense, has met the requisite elements for the war crime by omission, by willfully disobeying an Army regulation and by willful dereliction in his duty to establish a military government, and is, therefore, guilty of the war crime by omission. These offenses do not have the requisite element of mens rea.
The term “guilty,” as used in the RCI war criminal reports, is defined as “[h]aving committed a crime or other breach of conduct; justly chargeable offense; responsible for a crime or tort or other offense or fault.” It is distinguished from a criminal prosecution where “guilty” is used by “an accused in pleading or otherwise answering to an indictment when he confesses to have committed the crime of which he is charged, and by the jury in convicting a person on trial for a particular crime.” According U.S. military law, Colonel Kawakami is accountable by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Under international criminal law, Colonel Kawakami is subject to prosecution, by a competent court or tribunal, for the war crime by omission.
Consequently, as the Commander of the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, you are now the theater commander. You should assume the chain of command, as the theater commander of the occupied State of Hawaiian Kingdom and perform your duty of establishing a military government by 12 noon on August 26, 2024. In my letter to Colonel Kawakami, dated August 15, 2024, I recommended that he submit a formal request to Major General Hara, as head of the Department of Defense, to request that the Attorney General, Anne Lopez, according to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3, provide a legal opinion that refutes the legal opinions of Profession William Schabas and Professor Federico Lenzerini that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law. It is a request as to a question of law, which the Attorney General is bound to answer, but a request from the head of the Department of Defense is required under §28-3.
It would appear that Colonel Kawakami did not do so, which led to the publishing of War Criminal Report no. 24-0003. For you to not perform this military duty of establishing a military government of Hawai‘i, you will need a legal opinion from the Attorney General concluding that the State of Hawai‘i exists within the territory of the United States, and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I am attaching a sample letter from you to Major General Hara requesting of the Attorney General for a legal opinion according to §28-3.
If you make this request to MG Hara prior to 12 noon on August 26, 2024, then you will not be derelict in your military duty, because the Royal Commission of Inquiry will then give time for MG Hara to make a formal request for a legal opinion from the Attorney General and give time for the legal opinion to be completed. I cannot understand why Colonel Kawakami did not make the request. In the absence of this legal opinion, you must perform your military duty.
If you are derelict in the performance of your duty to establish a military government, then you would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of your war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Bingham L. Tuisamatatele, Jr., Commander of 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
If LTC Tuisamatatele is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Tuisamatatele’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Joshua A. Jacobs, Commander of 29th Brigade Support Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
If LTC Jacobs is derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government, then he would be the subject of an RCI war criminal report for the war crime by omission. From the date of the publication of LTC Jacobs’s war criminal report on the RCI’s website, Lieutenant Colonel Dale R. Balsis, Commander of 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion, will assume command of the Army National Guard and will have one week to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government.
Should LTC Balsis be derelict in the performance of his duties to establish a military government and be the subject of a war criminal report for the war crime by omission, that will be published on the RCI’s website; then the sequence of events will loop to the Executive Officers. First, with the 29th Infantry Brigade, second, with the 1st Squadron, 299th Cavalry Regiment, third, with the 1st Battalion, 487th Field Artillery Regiment, fourth with the 29th Brigade Support Battalion, and fifth with the 227th Brigade Engineer Battalion.
This looping, within the 29th Infantry Brigade’s component commands, will cover all commissioned officers to include Majors, Captains, First Lieutenants and Second Lieutenants. After the commissioned officers have been exhausted in the 29th Infantry Brigade, the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 103rd Troop Command and its component commands will begin, followed by the chain of command of commissioned officers of the 298th Regiment, Regional Training Institute, and its component commands.
Colonel Kawakami’s conduct is unbecoming of an officer that has consequently placed every soldier under his command, to include yourself, subject to criminal culpability because he did not demand that the Attorney General provide him evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists as a State under international law. Consequently, he willfully disobeyed an Army regulation and was willfully derelict in his duty to establish a military government.
As you are aware, U.S. military officers are held to the highest personal and professional standards. When those standards are not met, officers may be administratively punished or criminally prosecuted. For you not to demand from the Attorney General for a legal opinion that the Hawaiian Kingdom no longer exists under international law, is to place the men and women, under your command, into harm’s way with criminal culpability under both military law and international criminal law. To ignore this will have dire consequences for the Hawai‘i Army National Guard.