The evidence debunking the fairy tale of Hawaii as the 50th State is conclusive but the news media ignores this.

As a contributor who previously published this article in Civil Beat, Keokani Marciel has allowed this piece to be posted on this blog. He is a lifelong aloha ʻāina (Hawaiian patriot) and kanaka ʻōiwi (aboriginal Hawaiian) who holds a B.S. in Nutrition Science from the University of California at Davis, and an M.S. in Exercise Science from California University of Pennsylvania. In 2008, Keokani made a career change to mathematics education, and is currently studying to pass his second actuarial exam. With his background, he brings a quantitative and scientific emphasis to the discussion regarding the legal status of Hawaiʻi as an occupied nation-state. He has created the following link which lists the data and references used in this article goo.gl/d6Ra2B.

The largest newspaper in the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom marked the kickoff for the TMT blockade on March 26th with an online poll asking whether or not readers support the intervention. The final score at the end of this 24-hour poll was 53% in favor of the blockade and 47% against it. More than 4,600 votes were gathered by this self-selected survey. Although not a scientific poll, the sample size is significantly larger than average for this daily feature of the newspaper.

The arrest of 31 subjects and supporters of the Hawaiian Kingdom on April 2nd triggered international media attention. In the United States, most news organizations circulated the two reports from the Associated Press, both of which made sure to ommit the legal status of the Hawaiian Islands as a nation-state which remains under prolonged, illegal occupation since August 12, 1898. Consequently, most Americans remain under the mistaken impression that Hawaiʻi is annexed, as influenced by the systematic pasttime of Occupation denial and distortion uniformly practiced by corporate news media in the U.S. This phenomenon represents a deliberate refusal to look at the raw data regarding Hawaiian sovereignty, which has become common knowledge in the Occupied Kingdom.

Throughout its history, the United States has entered into a total of 9 treaties of cession over a period of 168 years (1783-1951). The first 6 of these 9 treaties annexed the territories from which all 49 states and Washington D.C. were admitted to the American Union, known as the United States, during the first 84 years of its history (1783-1867). The consistent adherence to this procedure by the U.S. represents customary international law. Furthermore, the two failed attempts to pass a treaty of cession in the U.S. Senate, in 1893 and 1897, clearly demonstrates the intent by the U.S. to maintain compliance with this international custom.

Hence, the joint resolution passed by U.S. Congress in 1898, used as a measure to seize Hawaiʻi during the Spanish-American War, was in violation of this self-evident pattern of customary international law. Consequently, Hawaiʻi came under U.S. occupation and not annexation. According to the laws of occupation, the U.S. was required to end its occupation of Hawaiʻi at the end of the Spanish-American War. Instead, the U.S. Occupation of Hawaiʻi, prolonged to the present day, is illegal. Additionally, it is the longest military occupation in modern history, which means there is no historical precedent to suggest that it is not near or passed its expiration date.

The feigned annexation of Hawaiʻi by joint resolution in 1898 was not the end of U.S. adherence to the customary international law of territorial annexation through bilateral treaty of cession. Merely 5 months after unilaterally seizing Hawaiʻi, the U.S. picked up where it left of by annexing Guam, Phillipines, and Puerto Rico through the 1898 Treaty of Paris. This was the 7th treaty of cession that the U.S. entered across a total of 115 years up to this point. The pattern continued such that the U.S. acquired a total of 6 territories by entering into 3 treaties of cession over a period of 61 years (1898-1951), following its seizure of Hawaiʻi by joint resolution.

American Sāmoa is the only other territory ever acquired by the U.S. through a joint resolution of U.S. Congress instead of a treaty of a cession ratified by at least two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. However, not for the same reason as Hawaiʻi. The Indian Appropriation Act of 1871 marked the end of treaties being entered into by the United States with Native American tribes. Furthermore, the Island of Palmas arbitration in 1925 established a legal precedent that a State can only enter into a treaty with another State, and not with a non-State tribal group. Since the territorial cessions of American Sāmoa to the United States, in 1900 and 1904, were by chiefs rather than States, this prevented the United States from using the treaty process reserved for the U.S. Senate. Consequently, a joint resolution of U.S. Congress was used to ratify these bilateral territorial cessions.

What makes Hawaiʻi different is that the U.S. Congress entered a joint resolution with a puppet government that it had installed in 1893, which did not have the consent of the people governed. Therefore, it was a unilateral seizure of territory by joint resolution, whereas the joint resolution annexing American Sāmoa was not due to an inability to obtain two-thirds approval of the U.S. Senate. In other words, American Sāmoa is legitimately annexed to the United States, albeit a non-self-governing territory according to the United Nations. This further isolates Hawaiʻi as the single historical anomaly of customary international law, unprecedented by comparison to the 57 states and territories legitimately ceded to the United States throughout its history.

The score bears repeating: 56 territories annexed by 9 treaties of cession, and the unique annexation of American Sāmoa, compared to Hawaiʻi being the lone territory seized by joint resolution—all in a span of 168 years. Hawaiʻi is chronologically sandwiched between 6 of these treaties of cession, along with the 50 territories they annexed prior to the Newlands Resolution, and the remaining 3 treaties of cession, along with the 6 territories they annexed plus American Sāmoa.

If one looks objectively at the raw data shown above, customary international law regarding territorial annexation by the United States becomes self-evident, and it logically follows that Hawaiʻi is occupied. However, alleged annexation of Hawaiʻi by congressional joint resolution is also in violation of the U.S. Constitution, which does not enumerate territorial annexation as a power of U.S. Congress. Instead, U.S. Congress only has the power to admit states from territory annexed by way of treaty, which in turn requires ratification by a supermajority of the U.S. Senate. Consequently, the Newlands Resolution of 1898, the Organic Act of 1900, and the Statehood Admission Act of 1959, are domestic laws that are constitutionally restricted to the borders of the entire 49 United States. Since occupation and annexation are mutually exclusive, Hawaiʻi is not inside of the United States. By analogy, hijacking an airplane does not transfer ownership title to the hijacker.

Additionally, 88 out of the 90 members of the U.S. Senate, of the 55th Congress, argued in 1898 that annexation of Hawaiʻi by joint resolution was unconstitutional (youtu.be/yC4v0k0wd0Y). Conversely, only two senators argued that annexation by joint resolution was constitutional. Therefore, for someone today to insist that the alleged annexation of Hawaiʻi by joint resolution is somehow constitutional, is to believe that 98% of the 55th U.S. Senate misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution in 1898, and therefore didn’t know what they were talking about.

When faced with the evidence, the world eventually accepted the reality that the Earth is spherical and that the planets in our solar system revolve around the sun. Likewise, now faced with the unequivocal evidence that Hawaiʻi is occupied and has never been annexed, people will have to let go of the longheld myth that Hawaiʻi is part of the United States. A nation-state taken over by another nation-state is either occupied or annexed, but cannot be both simultaneously. In summary, without a treaty of cession, Hawaiʻi is not annexed to the United States. Without annexation, Hawaiʻi was never admitted to the United States. Without admission, Hawaiʻi cannot be called a state of the United States. What you have instead in Hawaiʻi is an occupant government masquerading as a state.

The evidence debunking the fairy tale of Hawaiʻi as the “50th State” is so conclusive that it is logically only a matter of time before the paradigm shift completes its natural course. Furthermore, the cognitive dissonance that this involves is being accelerated on an unprecedented scale by the TMT standoff on Mauna Kea. Therefore, how much longer can the world continue looking the other way and pretend that Hawaiʻi is annexed—rather than occupied—by the United States? How much longer can the corporate news media—especially in the United States—continue this cover-up by omission?

What many people may not know is that it was the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) in 1994 that established a landmark and precedent case where defendants have the burden to provide a factual or legal basis that would conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state when they are challenging the jurisdiction of the trial courts. This case is State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo. This has been an open legal question and not a political question that has been before the courts in Hawai‘i for the past twenty-one years. It was conclusively answered “yes” in another landmark case State of Hawai‘i v. English during an evidentiary hearing on March 5, 2015.

The Lorenzo case was in response to the United States Congressional apology for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893—U.S. Public Law 103-150. In 1993, the Congress admitted to the United States’ illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government, but it did not admit to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a state. A government is not a state in international law. A state is a sovereign country that is a member of the family of nations, while a government is the physical body that exercises the sovereign authority of the country. State and country are synonymous, and history shows that while governments were overthrown, it doesn’t mean that countries were overthrown. Examples include the overthrow of the Japanese government by the Allied countries in 1945 during World War II, the overthrow of the Kuwaiti government by Iraq in 1990 during the Gulf War, and the overthrow of the Iraqi government in 2003 by the United States during the Iraq War.

The Lorenzo case addressed this very issue of whether or not the Hawaiian state still exists despite the admitted illegal overthrow of its government in 1893. There has been a common misunderstanding that treats the overthrow of the Hawaiian government synonymous with the overthrow of the Hawaiian state. The Lorenzo case distinguishes the two and concluded that this is an open legal question. If the Hawaiian state continues to exist, then the State of Hawai‘i (USA) cannot legally exist in the Hawaiian Islands.

In 1991, Anthony Lorenzo was tried in the First Circuit Court after being indicted on criminal charges of failing to render assistance after being involved in an automobile accident, driving without a license, and negligent injury. A pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment was filed claiming that the State of Hawai‘i had no jurisdiction over him because the Hawaiian Kingdom still existed as a sovereign nation. The trial judge denied the motion to dismiss, which became the basis for the appeal to the ICA in 1994.

Judge Walter Heen, who authored the Lorenzo judgment, wrote, “The essence of the lower court’s decision is that even if, as Lorenzo contends, the 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom was illegal, that would not affect the court’s jurisdiction in this case. Although the court’s rationale is open to question in light of international law, the record indicates that the decision was correct because Lorenzo did not meet his burden of proving his defense of lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, we must affirm the judgment.” Judge Heen concluded, “it was incumbent on Defendant to present evidence supporting his claim. Lorenzo has 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. Consequently, his argument that he is subject solely to the Kingdom’s jurisdiction is without merit, and the lower court correctly exercised jurisdiction over him.”

In the ICA decision, Judge Heen provided the definition of a state as “an entity that has a defined territory and a permanent population, under the control of its own government, and that engages in, or has the capacity to engage in, formal relations with other such entities.” A careful reading of this definition clearly distinguishes the state from its government, where the “state” is “under the control of its own government.” The government is not the state.

Judge Heen also stated, “The illegal overthrow leaves open the question whether the present governance system should be recognized, even though the illegal overthrow predated the United Nations Charter.” The Lorenzo case put forth a legal question in both State of Hawai‘i and Federal Courts in the Hawaiian Islands, as well as bringing in international law. This legal question has profound consequences that centers on whether the Hawaiian Kingdom as a state exists or not. It is international law that will determine the existence of the Hawaiian state, and not the laws of the United States.

In the Nishitani v. Baker (1996), Judge Corrine Watanabe of the ICA stated, “In retrospect, our statement in Lorenzo that a criminal defendant has the burden of proving his or her defense of lack of jurisdiction may have generated some confusion. [Hawai‘i Revised Statutes] specifically provides that in a criminal case, a defendant may not be convicted unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt ‘facts establishing jurisdiction.’ The burden of proving jurisdiction thus clearly rests with the prosecution. However, where immunity claims are raised as a defense to jurisdiction, the burden is on the defendant to establish his or her immunity status.”

For the past twenty-one years, judges at the trial court level have consistently denied requests by defendants to dismiss either criminal or civil complaints filed in the State of Hawai‘i and Federal courts on the grounds that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. These judges have relied on the Lorenzo case to deny the requests. When these decisions are taken on appeal, the ICA has routinely upheld the judgments by citing the Lorenzo case, “Because the defendant had ‘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,’ we determined that the defendant had failed to meet his burden of proving his defense of lack of jurisdiction.”

The ICA cited the burden of the Lorenzo case was not met by the defendants in a total of forty-one appeals between 1994 and 2014, and the Hawai‘i Supreme Court during this same period cited the same failure of defendants to provide a “factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state” in six appeals. In total there have been forty-seven appeals that cited the landmark Lorenzo case that was decided on October 20, 1994. What isn’t accounted for, however, is how many trial courts denied defendants motions to dismiss that did not make it to an appeal.

In all of these cases that came before the State of Hawai‘i appellate courts, the defendants provided evidence of some sort, but the Lorenzo case required the defendants to provide evidence that is “conclusive,” and not just evidence. Conclusive is evidence that is “indisputable” between the prosecution or plaintiff and the defense. In order to overcome this hurdle of “indisputability,” which is a very high standard, the defendants need to have an evidentiary hearing where the rules of evidence are applied. It is in the evidentiary hearing that the defendants can introduce evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state according to the Lorenzo case. The prosecution or the plaintiff, however, cannot object to the evidence for the sake of objecting. They have to provide counter-evidence. If they object by providing counter-evidence then the evidence is considered “disputable,” and therefore would not meet the burden of the Lorenzo case where it has to be “indisputable” making the evidence “conclusive” that the Kingdom exists as a state.

One way to get the evidence to be recognized as “indisputable” and “conclusive” would be to have the court take “judicial notice” of the defendant’s evidence under Rules 201 and 202 of the Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence. Black’s Law Dictionary (p. 848, 6th ed. 1990) defines judicial notice as the “act by which a court recognizes the existence and truth of certain facts.” Under Rule 201 is judicial notice of “adjudicative facts,” and Rule 202 is judicial notice of laws. When Judge Cardoza took judicial notice of Dr. Keanu Sai’s legal brief titled, “The Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” at the request of the defense during the evidentiary hearing on March 5, 2015 in State v. English at the Second Circuit Court on the Island of Maui, it included both “adjudicative facts” and “laws.”

Throughout the evidentiary hearing, the prosecution did not object to Dr. Sai’s expert testimony that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state under international law, and it didn’t object to the Judge taking judicial notice of Dr. Sai’s brief that concludes the existence of the Hawaiian state. By not objecting during an evidentiary hearing, the prosecution was in agreement with the evidence being presented. What is extremely important during a criminal proceeding is the appearance of fairness and due process because the defendants are facing a judgment that could lead to imprisonment. In other words, the only way for the prosecution to object to the evidence presented by the defendants is that it must show counter evidence. Without counter evidence, the prosecution cannot object for the sake of objecting. To do so would be to violate the defendants’ right to a fair trial and due process.

State v. English is a landmark case, because the judge took judicial notice of adjudicative facts and laws that concludes the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state under international law. The evidentiary ruling made by Judge Cardoza during a fair evidentiary proceeding has “conclusively” determined that there is a “factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state.” In 21 years of case law (common law), the English case has finally and conclusively answered the legal question presented by Judge Heen in the Lorenzo case in 1994.

###

The forty-one cases heard by the ICA using the Lorenzo case are: State v. French, 77 Haw. 222, 228, 883 P.2d 644, 650 (1994); Nishitani v. Baker, 82 Hawai‘i 281, 289, 921 P.2d 1182, 1190 (1996); Chalon Int’l of Haw. v. Makuaole, 95 Haw. 243, 20 P.3d 676 (2000); State v. Sherman, 95 Haw. 243, 20 P.3d 676 (2000); State v. Joshua, Haw. App. LEXIS 247 (2001); State v. Moore, Haw. App. LEXIS 242 (2001); State v. Lindsey, 98 Haw. 142, 44 P.3d 293 (2002); State v. Miyahira, 98 Haw. 287, P.3d 754 (2002); State v. Keawemauhili, 101 Haw. 330, 76 P.3d 829 (2003); Makapono Partners, LLC v. Simeona, Haw. App. LEXIS 120 (2003); State v. Araujo, 103 Haw. 508, 83 P.3d 771 (2004); Betsill Bros. Constr., Inc. v. Akahi, Haw. App. LEXIS 218 (2004); State v. Keli‘ikoa, 105 Haw. 92, 93 P.3d 1199 (2004); State v. Fergerstrom, 106 Haw. 41, 101 P.3d 225 (2004); State v. Tanaka, 106 Haw. 246, 103 P.3d 406 (2004); State v. Spinney, 106 Haw. 389, 105 P.3d 266 (2005); State v. Ball, 113 Haw. 507, 155 P.3d 690 (2007); State v. Steffey, Haw. App. LEXIS (2008); State v. Nakatsu, Haw. App. LEXIS (2008); State v. Ampong, 120 Haw. 255, 203 P.3d 675 (2009); State v. Makekau, 121 Haw. 202, 216 P.3d 128 (2009); State v. Rodenhurst, Haw. App. LEXIS 588 (2010); State v. Craig-Rodenhurst, Haw. App. LEXIS 664 (2011); State v. Kaluau, 125 Haw. 251, 258 P.3d 948 (2011); RMS Residential Properties, LLC v. Valdez, 125 Haw. 475, 264 P.3d 53 (2011); Burgo v. State, 127 Haw. 240, 277 P.3d 334 (2012); State v. Au, 128 Haw. 476, 290 P.3d 546 (2012); State v. Kawa‘auhau, 128 Haw. 477, 290 P.3d 547 (2012); Federal National Mortgage Association v. Bise, 129 Haw. 268, 297 P.3d 1124 (2013); Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Armitage, 129 Haw. 295, 298 P.3d 1059 (2013); Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Griep, 129 Haw. 425, 301 P.3d 1266 (2013); Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Pa‘a, 130 Haw. 302, 309 P.3d 970 (2013); State v. Armitage, 129 Haw. 425, 301 P.3d 1266 (2013); Federal National Mortgage Association v. Duarte, 129 Haw. 452, 303 P.3d 1229 (2013); First Hawaiian Bank v. Kamakea, 129 Haw. 452, 303 P.3d 1229 (2013); The Bank of New York Mellon v. Velez, 129 Haw. 426, 301 P.3d 1267 (2013); U.S. Bank National Association v. Shim-Palama, 129 Haw. 427, 301 P.3d 1268 (2013); State v. Palama, 129 Haw. 428, 301 P.3d 1269 (2013); Federal National Mortgage Association v. Barros, 129 Haw. 449, 302 P.3d 717 (2013); State v. Kana‘ele, 132 Haw. 518, 323 P.3d 162 (2014); State v. Kanaka‘ole, 132 Haw. 518, 323 P.3d 162 (2014).

The six cases heard by the Supreme Court using the Lorenzo case are: State v. Lee, 90 Haw. 130, 976 P.2d 444 (1999); State v. Sinagoga, Haw. LEXIS 135 (2002); State v. Fergerstrom, Haw. LEXIS 254 (2004); State v. Rodenhurst, Haw. LEXIS 280 (2010); State v. Kaulia, 128 Haw. 479, 291 P.3d 377 (2013); State v. Armitage, 132 Haw. 36, 319 P.3d 1044 (2014).

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 27, 2015

Maui Circuit Court Judge takes Judicial Notice that the Hawaiian Kingdom still Exists and State of Hawai‘i Courts lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction

HONOLULU, HAWAI‘I—Today, Dexter K. Kaiama, attorney for Kaiula Kalawe English and Robin Wainuhea Dudoit, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Hawai’i Supreme Court in Honolulu seeking an order to compel Judge Joseph E. Cardoza to dismiss the criminal cases against his clients because Judge Cardoza took judicial notice that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, which admits that the State of Hawai‘i did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the arrests and criminal proceedings. Judge Cardoza refused to dismiss the criminal complaints despite taking judicial notice that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.

Click here to download the Petition for Mandamus.

English and Dudoit were two of four Molokai fishermen alleged to have boarded another fishing boat from the island of O‘ahu off the coast of Molokai and threatening those on board. The Associated Press reported, “Some Molokai residents are hailing four arrested fishermen as heroes for protecting their island’s resources from outsiders.” Hanohano Na‘ehu said after the arraignment where all four fishermen pleaded not guilty, “This happening is a great way to highlight that people have been coming from different islands to Molokai to rape, pillage and raid our resources for the longest time.” He also stated, “For us on Molokai, these four individuals are heroes. All they were doing was protecting the resources for our families, for our communities, for our island.”

Kaiama filed a motion to dismiss the criminal cases against his clients on February 6, 2015, and an evidentiary hearing was held in the Second Circuit Court in Wailuku, Island of Maui before Judge Cardoza on March 5. Kaiama’s motion to dismiss relied on the research and expertise of David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., a Hawai‘i political scientist, whose research is focused on the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent state. Included in Kaiama’s motion to dismiss was an extensive legal brief authored by Dr. Sai.

Kaiama’s motion to dismiss centered on two precedent cases from the Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo in 1994 and Nishitani v. Baker in 1996. These cases stated that if defendants are challenging the jurisdiction of the court by claiming the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist today as an independent state, they have a burden to provide “a factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state.” If defendants are successful in providing conclusive evidence, the trial court must dismiss the case.

The Lorenzo case came on the heels of the United States Congress passing a law in 1993 apologizing for the illegal overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States on January 17, 1893. In light of the admitted illegality by the United States, the ICA stated in the Lorenzo case, that the “illegal overthrow leaves open the question whether the present governance system should be recognized.”

Since 1994, this has been an open legal question and the Hawai‘i courts have repeatedly denied motions to dismiss because the defendants have failed to provide conclusive evidence of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a state under international law. These decisions have been routinely confirmed on appeal.

At the March 5 hearing on the island of Maui, Dr. Sai was acknowledged as an expert witness for the defense by Judge Cardoza without objection from the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Lloyd Phelps.

Click here to download the transcript of the Evidentiary hearing, which is Exhibit “4” of the Petition for Mandamus.

After being qualified as an expert witness, Kaiama asked, “Dr. Sai, based on all of your research, based on your background and your education and this specialty, you understand that on behalf of my clients I am bringing a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?” Dr. Sai responded, “Yes.”

Kaiama then asked, “Based on all of your research and your expertise in this area, Dr. Sai, have you reached any conclusions about this, and can you tell us what your conclusions are?” In response, Dr. Sai stated, “the Court would not have subject matter jurisdiction as a result of international law.”

Kaiama then followed up with, “And if you can explain or perhaps expand on that explanation and tell us why the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction in this case?” For the next thirty-five minutes Dr. Sai provided a historical and legal narrative that began when Great Britain and France jointly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent state on November 28, 1843, to the current situation of the Hawaiian Kingdom being occupied by the United States today since the Spanish-American War in 1898. Dr. Sai presented facts, law and other evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom as a state was never extinguished by the United States, and, therefore, by a principle known in international law as the presumption of continuity, the Kingdom still exists.

At no time did Deputy Prosecutor Phelps object to Dr. Sai’s expert testimony and when Judge Cardoza asked if the prosecution had any questions for Dr. Sai after Kaiama concluded his questions, Phelps stated, “Your Honor, the State has no questions of Dr. Sai. Thank you for his testimony. One Army officer to another, I appreciate your testimony.” Dr. Sai did state that he was a retired captain from the Army. Prosecutor Phelps served as a former Army Staff Judge Advocate officer.

After Dr. Sai’s testimony, Kaiama requested Judge Cardoza to take judicial notice of all the evidence of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence, which included Dr. Sai’s written brief. When Judge Cardoza asked, “What’s the prosecution’s position?” The prosecution responded, “No objection, your Honor.” Judge Cardoza then stated, “there being no objection, the Court will take judicial notice as requested.”

Click here to download the Dr. Sai’s legal brief titled “The Continuity of the Hawaiian State and the Legitimacy of the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” which is a part of Exhibit “1” of the Petition for Mandamus.

“Once judicial notice was taken of the evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state, it is considered indisputable and true,” according to Kaiama. “Judicial notice is a very significant ruling on evidence and when the court took judicial notice, it said that it is conclusive that the Hawaiian Kingdom exists,” said Kaiama. “And according to the precedent cases of State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo and Nishitani v. Baker, the trial court was compelled to dismiss the criminal cases against my clients.”

“This is the first time that a judge has taken judicial notice—meaning he has accepted under the Rules of Evidence, without protest, the whole set of findings that lead to the conclusion that the Hawaiian Kingdom exists,” said Williamson Chang, a senior law professor at the University of Hawai‘i Richardson School of Law. “This is groundbreaking.”

“The point is that judicial notice is a finding that acknowledges ‘the sun rises in the East,’—a judge cannot therefore, in his decision deny this fact he took notice of and say, ‘I find that the sun rises in the West,’” explained Professor Chang. “The Court’s acceptance of the offered facts under the doctrine of judicial notice and the Court’s decision to not grant the motions to dismiss are clearly at odds. As such, attorney Dexter Kaiama was required to file a petition for mandamus to compel the judge to correct his ruling.”

In the petition for mandamus, Kaiama called the decision by Judge Cardoza a violation of common law and Hawai‘i’s plain error doctrine. In the petition plain error is defined as seriously affecting “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, to serve the ends of justice, and to prevent the denial of fundamental rights.” The petition is seeking an order from the Hawai‘i Supreme Court directing Judge Cardoza to immediately dismiss the criminal complaints against his clients.

“The trial court cannot disregard twenty-one years of Hawai‘i case law,” said Kaiama. “In 1994, the Intermediate Court of Appeals provided keys to the door as to whether the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, and in 2015, with keys in hand, we unlocked and pushed wide open that door by conclusively proving the Hawaiian Kingdom does exist.”

https://vimeo.com/122847682

###

CONTACT: Dexter K. Kaiama, Esquire
Phone: (808) 284-5675
Email: cdexk@hotmail.com