National Holiday – Restoration Day (July 31)

Posted on by
9

Today is July 31st which is a national holiday in the Hawaiian Kingdom called “Restoration day,” and it is directly linked to another holiday observed on November 28th called “Independence day.” Here is a brief history of these two celebrated holidays.

Kam IIIIn the summer of 1842, Kamehameha III moved forward to secure the position of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a recognized independent state under international law. He sought the formal recognition of Hawaiian independence from the three naval powers of the world at the time—Great Britain, France, and the United States. To accomplish this, Kamehameha III commissioned three envoys, Timoteo Ha‘alilio, William Richards, who at the time was still an American Citizen, and Sir George Simpson, a British subject. Of all three powers, it was the British that had a legal claim over the Hawaiian Islands through cession by Kamehameha I, but for political reasons the British could not openly exert its claim over the other two naval powers. Due to the islands prime economic and strategic location in the middle of the north Pacific, the political interest of all three powers was to ensure that none would have a greater interest than the other. This caused Kamehameha III “considerable embarrassment in managing his foreign relations, and…awakened the very strong desire that his Kingdom shall be formally acknowledged by the civilized nations of the world as a sovereign and independent State.”

PauletWhile the envoys were on their diplomatic mission, a British Naval ship, HBMS Carysfort, under the command of Lord Paulet, entered Honolulu harbor on February 10, 1843, making outrageous demands on the Hawaiian government. Basing his actions on complaints made to him in letters from the British Consul, Richard Charlton, who was absent from the kingdom at the time, Paulet eventually seized control of the Hawaiian government on February 25, 1843, after threatening to level Honolulu with cannon fire. Kamehameha III was forced to surrender the kingdom, but did so under written protest and pending the outcome of the mission of his diplomats in Europe. News Admiral Thomasof Paulet’s action reached Admiral Richard Thomas of the British Admiralty, and he sailed from the Chilean port of Valparaiso and arrived in the islands on July 25, 1843. After a meeting with Kamehameha III, Admiral Thomas determined that Charlton’s complaints did not warrant a British takeover and ordered the restoration of the Hawaiian government, which took place in a grand ceremony on July 31, 1843. At a thanksgiving service after the ceremony, Kamehameha III proclaimed before a large crowd, ua mau ke ea o ka ‘aina i ka pono (the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness). The King’s statement became the national motto.

The envoys eventually succeeded in getting formal international recognition of the Hawaiian Islands “as a sovereign and independent State.” Great Britain and France formally recognized Hawaiian sovereignty on November 28, 1843 by joint proclamation at the Court of London, and the United States followed on July 6, 1844 by a letter of Secretary of State John C. Calhoun. The Hawaiian Islands became the first Polynesian nation to be recognized as an independent and sovereign State.

The ceremony that took place on July 31 occurred at a place we know today as “Thomas Square” park, which honors Admiral Thomas, and the roads that run along Thomas Square today are “Beretania,” which is Hawaiian for “Britain,” and “Victoria,” in honor of Queen Victoria who was the reigning British Monarch at the time the restoration of the government and recognition of Hawaiian independence took place.

Hawai‘i’s Lawful Status Educating Our Community

Posted on by
11

In this edition of “Kanaka Express,” the host, Kale Gumapac, asks Dexter K. Kaiama, Esq. to elaborate on the points he brought up when he was on a panel hosted by Dan Boylan on PBS television called “Insights.” With Kaiama is another guest of the show Dr. Keanu Sai who is a political scientist specializing in international relations and public law.

PBS Hawai‘i – Insights: Native Hawaiian Sovereignty

Posted on by
64

Dan Boylan asks, “Is an independent Native Hawaiian government within reach?” To date, no sovereignty effort has managed to truly galvanize the Native Hawaiian population. Now armed with the state’s approval, the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission has high hopes that will change. However, the commission is falling far short of its yearlong goal of signing up 200,000 eligible Hawaiians to help establish an independent government. Will a six-month extension change the tide and bring Native Hawaiians closer to self-governance?

Dan Boylan hosts a discussion with the following scheduled guests: Sen. Clayton Hee, Chairman of the State Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee; Dexter Kaiama, Honolulu Native Hawaiian rights attorney; Esther Kiaaina, Deputy Director of the Department of Land and Natural Resources; and Former Gov. John Waihee, Chairman of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission.

The Hawaiian National Flag and Royal Flag

Posted on by
166

Another example of misinformation centers on the Hawaiian national flag. Lately, there is a common misunderstanding that the current flag that has the Union Jack at the top left corner is not Hawaiian, but rather British that was imposed here in the islands in 1843 by British Naval Officer Lord Paulet. According to the story published in the Honolulu Adverstiser in 2001, Gene Simeona of Honolulu, stated “he resurrected the ‘original’ Hawaiian green, red and yellow striped flag, destroyed by British navy Capt. Lord George Paulet when he seized Hawai‘i for five months in 1843.” Sonoda calls this flag the Kanaka Maoli flag.

Kanaka Maoli Flag

A very simple way to falsify or refute this claim is to show that the flag with the Union Jack existed before 1843. There is a lot of evidence that refutes this claim such as ship logs of foreign ships that visited the islands since 1816, which is the date the flag was created by order of Kamehameha I. Below are two portraits painted around 1819. The first portrait was painted in 1819 of the baptism of Kalanimoku, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s former Prime Minister on board the French ship Uranie after the death of Kamehameha I, and the second portrait was done sometime after 1819 of the Hawaiian ship commanded by Captain Alexander Adams during the reign of Kamehameha II. Both ships had the presence of Kamehameha II.

Baptism of Kalanimoku

Hawn Flag (Adams Collection)

The second portrait is also called a flagship that has both the national flag and the royal flag. The royal flag, also called the royal ensign, is a flag that signals the presence of the Hawaiian monarch and in this portrait it signaled the presence of  Kamehameha II on board. The royal ensign also flies at the residence of the Hawaiian monarch and wherever the monarch travels.

Royal Ensign

Sonoda’s claim that the Union Jack symbolizes British colonialism in Hawai‘i is also not accurate, because Kamehameha I joined the British Empire voluntarily, along with his principle chiefs, on February 25, 1794, when Kamehameha entered into an agreement with British Captain George Vancouver. The agreement provided that the British government would not interfere with the kingdom’s religion, government and economy—“the chiefs and priests, were to continue as usual to officiate with the same authority as before in their respective stations.”

If the island Kingdom of Hawai‘i was colonized, Kamehameha would not have maintained the status of King, but would have been replaced by a British Governor-General. Queen Victoria recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent and sovereign State on November 28, 1843 after Lord Paulet’s seizure from February to July 1843. Therefore, Sonodo’s other claim of Lord Paulet’s seizure is true, but there is no evidence that the green, red and yellow striped flag ever existed.

The Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi

Posted on by
121

We’ve received many inquiries requesting commentary on the Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi because of the recent news conference at the United Nations Indigenous Forum as well as local news coverage. The purpose for this blog entry is to correct historical inaccuracies especially in light of legal matters now before the United Nations General Assembly,  the International Criminal Court, and State of Hawai‘i Courts.

The term “Atooi” is not a Hawaiian word, but rather a British word spelled out with British phonics. The word “Attooi” was first uttered by the crew of Captain James Cook’s Third Voyage when his ships arrived in the Islands in 1778. Today we call these islands the Hawaiian Islands, but in 1778 there were four separate and distinct kingdoms: Islands of Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau under Ka‘eo; Islands of O‘ahu and Molokai under Kahahana; Islands of Maui, Lanai and Kaho‘olawe under Kahekili; and the Island of Hawai‘i under Kalaniopu‘u.

Cook was tasked by the British Admiralty to map the Pacific Islands and find the northwest passage that could link the north Pacific Ocean with the north Atlantic Ocean. Cook was not only a British explorer, but also cartographer, which is a map maker. Cook sailed north from the Island of Borabora in the Society Islands on December 9, 1777 and came upon the Island of O‘ahu on a Sunday on January 19, 1778, and soon after came upon the island of Kaua‘i the next day. His first encounter with the natives in canoes took place off the coast of Kaua‘i, where they bartered fish and vegetables for nails and iron. According to Cook’s journal (p. 221), “Their language differed from that of every other people we had before visited; but we had learnt to converse by signs, and very soon made ourselves understood.”  It was probably at this point that the natives were asked what was the name of the island in order to map it, and to the British ear they spelt what they heard using British phonics–Atooi (Kaua‘i). It wasn’t until after 1820 that Hawaiian phonics was formally established through collaboration of the missionaries and Hawaiian chiefs.

The first publication of the island names using British phonics was published in London in 1781 titled “Journal of Captain Cook’s Last Voyage to the Pacific Ocean on Discovery,” identifying the Island of Hawai‘i as “O-why-e,” the Island of Maui as “Maw-whee,”  the Island of O‘ahu as “O-aa-ah,” and the island of Ni‘ihau as “Ne-hu.” Three years later, the island names were refined using British phonics in the first map of the islands published in London in 1784. On this map the islands were named oWhyhee (Hawai‘i), Mowee (Maui), Tahoorowa (Kaho‘olawe), Ranai (Lanai), Morotoi (Molokai), Woahoo (O‘ahu), Atooi (Kaua‘i), and Oneeheow (Ni‘ihau). Later maps using the British names of the islands were published in the French and German languages.

Cook's map

On the Polynesian Kingdom of Atooi website, it is claimed that “Atooi” is translated in the native language to mean “Light of God,” but this is not correct because “Atooi” is not a Hawaiian word, but rather a British version of a Hawaiian word spelled using British phonics. The website also claims “Atooi was the ancient name for, Hawaii, the head [po’o] of the Polynesian Triangle.” This is also not correct because the word is not ancient, but rather  a British invention by Captain Cook’s crew.

It has also been commonly stated that Kaua‘i was never conquered by Kamehameha. Yes this is true, but it was conquered by Ka‘ahumanu who was serving at the time as Regent while Kamehameha II was in London. After Kahekili invaded and conquered the O‘ahu Kingdom in 1783, there were no longer four separate kingdoms, but now three. In 1795, Kamehameha, successor to Kalaniopu‘u, invaded and conquered the Maui Kingdom, and in 1810, Kaumuali‘i, successor to Ka‘eo of the Kaua‘i Kingdom, peacefully acknowledged Kamehameha as his superior, thereby consolidating all of the former kingdoms into the Kingdom of the Sandwich Islands. On August 8, 1824, the Kaua‘i chiefs unsuccessfully rebelled under the leadership of George Humehume, successor and son of Kaumuali‘i, the late King of Kaua‘i. Humehume was removed to the Island of O‘ahu under the watch of Kalanimoku, the Prime Minister, and all of the Kaua‘i chiefs were dispersed throughout the islands and the lands were seized by Hawai‘i Islands chiefs.

Additional blog entries will address misinformation on the Hawaiian national flag, the United Nations Forum on Indigenous Peoples, and the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories.

International Criminal Court Acknowledges Receipt of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Request for Investigation into War Crimes

Posted on by
12

On June 17, 2013, the International Criminal Court (ICC) received the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Referral to initiate criminal investigations and its Declaration extending the jurisdiction of the ICC to investigate war crimes committed on Hawaiian territory since July 1, 2002.  Initially the ICC’s jurisdiction was limited to crimes committed after March 4, 2013 when it began its jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands. On June 24, 2013, the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) acknowledged receipt of the communication and stated they “will give consideration to this communication, as appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.”

OTP_Ackn_p_1

OTP_Ackn_p_2

The ICC can initiate an investigation from three sources or a combination of the three: first, from the United Nations Security Council; second, from the government of the State that granted jurisdiction to the ICC; and, third, from private parties who were victims of war crimes committed on the territory that the ICC has jurisdiction. According to the ICC Prosecutor’s Policies, “in response to referrals or communications, the Prosecutor will gather and assess relevant information until such point as he is satisfied that there is, or is not, a reasonable basis to proceed. The Prosecutor makes the determination as to whether there is a reasonable basis to proceed based on the three factors required by the Statute:

  1. the factual/legal basis: the information available provides a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been or is being committed;
  2. the admissibility test: the case is or would be admissible (including on complementarity grounds) under Article 17;
  3. the interests of justice: taking into account the gravity of the crime and the interests of victims, there are nonetheless substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice.”

Because the Hawaiian Kingdom is occupied and not a part of the territory of the United States, U.S. government officials who have committed war crimes within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom are not immune from prosecution by the ICC. According to the Rome Statute, Article 27—Irrelevance of official capacity:

  1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
  2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

In its Referral, the Hawaiian Kingdom provided evidence of the following war crimes under Article 8 of the Rome Statute that have and continue to be committed on Hawaiian territory since July 1, 2002.

  • Article 8(2)(a)(iv)—Extensive…appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
  • Article 8(2)(a)(v)—Compelling a…protected person to serve in the forces of a [Occupying] Power
  • Article 8(2)(a)(vi)—Willfully depriving a…protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial
  • Article 8(2)(a)(vii)—Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement
  • Article 8(2)(a)(viii)—The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory
  • Article 8(2)(b)(xiii)—Destroying or seizing the [Occupied State’s] property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war

When evaluating the commission of a war crime, the Prosecutor will be guided by certain elements of the crime established by the ICC that need to be met. In addition to these elements, the ICC states:

  • There is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the perpetrator as to the existence of an occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party;
  • In that context there is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party; and
  • There is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party.

War crimes are not necessarily centered on the perpetrator or principal alone, but could include accessories to the crime. Accessories are persons who assist in the commission of the crime, whether before or after the crime was committed by the principal. An accessory is distinguished from an accomplice who is normally present when the crime is committed and has participated in some fashion. An accessory before the fact is a person who orders the commission of a crime or assists another person financially, emotionally, as well as  providing physical assistance in order for the crime to be committed by the principal. An accessory after the fact is a person who conceals the commission of the crime in order to shield the principal. Conspiracy and the obstruction of justice are common terms associated with accessories.

The ICC Prosecutor’s Policies also provides, “The Office of the Prosecutor will strive to complete all analyses as expeditiously as possible in order to reach timely decisions whether to investigate. It is worth emphasizing that Article 15 provides a valuable avenue by which concerned individuals and organizations may furnish information to the Prosecutor, but he retains his independence under the Statute. In particular, imposing rigid timetables on this process of analysis would not be workable under the framework of the Rome Statute.”

Island of O‘ahu Targeted for Nuclear Strikes

Posted on by
49

The United States prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Islands is a direct violation of Hawai‘i’s neutrality. Article 1 of the 1907 Hague Convention, V, provides “The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable,” and Article 2 provides “Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.” The United States’ violation of these Articles have placed the residents of the Hawaiian Islands into harms way when Japan attacked U.S. military installations on O‘ahu on December 7, 1941, and continue to place Hawai‘i’s residents in harms way in the event of a nuclear attack.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense’s Base Structure Report for 2012, the U.S. military has 118 military sites that span 230,929 acres of the Hawaiian Islands, which is 20% of the total acreage of Hawaiian territory. As the headquarters for the U.S. Pacific Command, being the largest unified command in the world, the Hawaiian Islands is targeted for nuclear strikes by Russia and China. At present the concern is North Korea, as well as any adversary of the United States.

In 1990, the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published Risks and Hazards: A State by State Guide. One of the subjects included nuclear targets and identified 6 nuclear targets on the island of O‘ahu that coincided with the locations of military posts of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Also included as a target is the Headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Command at Camp Smith that lies in the back of a residential area in Halawa. According to FEMA, the entire Island of O‘ahu would be obliterated if a nuclear attack were to take place.

hi-nu

Americanization has desensitized Hawai‘i’s population and has made the presence of the U.S. military in the islands normal. Americanization has also erased the memory of the U.S. invasion in 1893 and portrayed the military presence as protecting the islands from an aggressor country intent on invasion, when in fact the Hawaiian Islands were seized in 1898 to serve as a defense to protect the United States west coast from invasion.

NewlandsAfter the defeat of the Spanish Pacific Squadron in the Philippines, U.S. Congressman Francis Newlands (D-Nevada), submitted House Resolution 259 annexing the Hawaiian Islands (also known as the Newlands Resolution), to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 4, 1898.

Six days later, hearings were held on the Newlands Resolution, and U.S. Naval Captain Alfred Mahan’s testimony explained the military significance of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States:

“It is obvious that if we do not hold the islands ourselves we Mahancannot expect the neutrals in the war to prevent the other belligerent from occupying them; nor can the inhabitants themselves prevent such occupation. The commercial value is not great enough to provoke neutral interposition. In short, in war we should need a larger Navy to defend the Pacific coast, because we should have not only to defend our own coast, but to prevent, by naval force, an enemy from occupying the islands; whereas, if we preoccupied them, fortifications could preserve them to us. In my opinion it is not practicable for any trans-Pacific country to invade our Pacific coast without occupying Hawai‘i as a base.”

The Hawaiian Islands was and continues to be the outpost to protect the United States and their presence in the Hawaiian Islands is in violation of international law and the laws of occupation.

War Crimes: Federal Taxes and Costs Incurred from Jones Act

Posted on by

According to United States constitutional law, the federal government is separated into three distinct and separate branches, commonly referred to as the separation of powers doctrine. The Congress is the legislative branch that enacts federal statutes, the President heads the executive branch that executes or enforces federal statutes and treaties, and the Supreme Court is the judicial branch that interprets federal statutes and treaties. Under the separation of powers doctrine, the United States Supreme Court is the highest authority in the interpretation of federal statutes and treaties. In other words, when the Supreme Court makes a decision on a particular issue it is binding over everyone in the United States including the President and Congress.

In 1936, a very important case was heard by the United States Supreme Court that centered on the limitation of U.S. laws that became a binding precedent. The case was U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318, where the U.S. Supreme Court 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.” Expressed in a different way, the U.S. constitution and federal statutes have no legal effect outside of the United States and actions taken by the United States government in foreign territories are governed by international law and treaties.

For Hawai‘i, a few of the treaties include:

Federal statutes that were passed in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution by Congress regarding Hawai‘i include, but are not limited to:

Without a treaty of cession, the Hawaiian Islands remain a foreign territory and therefore the U.S. constitution and federal statutes have no legal effect. Two particular federal statutes, the 1913 Revenue Act that established the Internal Revenue Service and the 1920 Merchant Marine Act, also known as the Jones Act, are not only illegal but are the driving forces behind Hawai‘i’s high cost of living.

TAXES

According to the Tax Foundation 2013 Facts & Figures, the current taxes paid by residents of Hawai‘i under United States laws, which includes the laws of the State of Hawai‘i, with an average income of $42,925.00 are on average $16,311.00. This is $.38 on the dollar (38%), which is a conservative estimate. Here’s the breakdown:

  • $.13 cents/dollar (13%) – U.S. Federal Income Taxes;
  • $.08 cents/dollar (8%) – U.S. Social Security & Medicaid (actual rate is 15.3% but employers cover half);
  • $.08 cents/dollar (8%) – State Income Taxes;
  • $.05 cents/dollar (5%) – State Corporate Income Taxes; and
  • $.04 cents/dollar (4%) – State Sales Tax.

JONES ACT

The Jones Act is a restraint of trade and commerce in violation of international law and treaties between the Hawaiian Kingdom and other foreign States. According to the Jones Act, all goods, which includes tourists on cruise ships, whether originating from Hawai‘i or being shipped to Hawai‘i must be shipped on vessels built in the United States that are wholly owned and crewed by United States citizens. And should a foreign flag ship attempt to unload foreign goods and merchandise in the Hawaiian Islands will have to forfeit its cargo to the to the U.S. Government, or an amount equal to the value of the merchandise or cost of transportation from the person transporting the merchandise.

As a result of the Jones Act there is no free trade in the Islands. 90% of Hawai‘i’s food is imported from the United States, which has created a dependency on outside food. The three major American carriers for Hawai‘i are Matson, Horizon Lines, and Pasha Hawai‘i Transport Services, as well as several low cost barge alternatives. Under the Jones Act, these American carriers travel 2,400 miles to ports on the west coast of the United States in order to reload goods and merchandise delivered from Pacific countries on foreign carriers, which would have otherwise come directly to Hawai‘i ports. The cost of fuel and the lack of competition drives up the cost of shipping and contributes to Hawai‘i’s high cost of living. Gas tax is $.47 per gallon as a result of the Jones Act because only American carriers can transport oil to Hawai‘i to be converted into gas. And according to the USDA Food Cost, Hawai‘i residents pay an extra $296 per month for food than families in the United States.

Pacific countries with the highest number of carriers are led by Panama with 6,413; China with 2,771; Hong Kong with 1,644; Singapore with 1,599; Marshall Islands with 1,593; Indonesia with 1,340; South Korea with 786; Japan with 684; Vietnam with 579; Cambodia with 544; Philippines with 446; United States with 393; Thailand with 363; India with 340; Malaysia with 315; Canada with 181; North Korea with 158; Taiwan 112; Vanuatu with 77; Kiribati with 77; Tuvalu with 58; Mexico with 52; Australia with 41; Cook Islands with 35; Papua New Guinea with 31; Peru with 22; New Zealand with 15; French Polynesia with 12; Fiji with 11; Tonga with 7; New Caledonia with 3; Federated States of Micronesia with 3; Samoa with 2; Costa Rica with 1; Timor-Leste with 1.

Pacific_Carriers

The Jones Act functions as a barrier to entry for low-cost foreign carriers that Hawai‘i merchants could utilize to trade food and merchandise from other countries throughout the Pacific. This also includes purchasing oil at a much cheaper rate for conversion to gas. Free trade would also increase jobs here in the islands, especially after converting Pearl Harbor Naval Base into a commercial port similar to Subic Bay Free Port Zone in the Philippines, which used to be the second largest United States Naval Base in the world. Subic Bay “continues to be one of the country’s major economic engines with more than 700 investment projects, including the 4th largest shipbuilding facility in the world.” The military housing would also be converted to civilian housing.

Under the laws of occupation, U.S. Federal taxes cannot be collected in a foreign territory. If the State of Hawai‘i taxes were converted to Hawaiian Kingdom taxes in order to maintain government services, the taxes to be paid would be $.17 cents on the dollar, which is $7,297.25 for an income of $42,925.00, a savings of $9,013.75. Illegally collecting taxes in a foreign territory is a war crime called “appropriation of property [money]” (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, Title 18 U.S.C. §2441) not justified under the laws of occupation. The International Criminal Court also prosecutes individuals for committing the war crime of “appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.” Adding to this unlawful “appropriation of property [money]” is the collection of monies paid out by the Hawai‘i consumer as a direct result of the Jones Act.

The United States government is liable to compensate Hawai‘i’s residents, which includes foreign nationals, for these violations.

Websites for Acting Government and Its Blog Went Off Line Due to High Volume of Internet Traffic

Posted on by
6

On May 19, 2013 the websites for the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom (hawaiiankingdom.org) and its blog (hawaiiankingdom.org/blog) were temporarily offline with the following message:

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.

The reason for temporarily going offline was that there was too much internet traffic. Webalizer reported monthly visits to hawaiiankingdom.org were between 3,900 and 6,000 from June to December 2012.  In January 2013 the visits rocketed to 15,000+. In February visits soared to 22,000, and in March visits spiked to 37,000.

In the month of April, daily visits totaled between 6,500 and 12,400, but on April 30 visits exploded to 18,431. On May 1 visits went back down to 4,989 visits and average visits per day since May 1 to May 21 was at 915. It is not clear what caused the dramatic spike in visitors between April 30 and May 1, but we are happy to report that increased visits from across the world is a very good indication that people are aware of the prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

As of May 21, 2013, Webalizer has reported for the month of May, 365,790 total hits; 41,391 total pages; and 19,223 visits.

Webalizer1

For the month of May there were 109 countries where visits came from.

Webalizer2

International Criminal Court to Consider Alleged War Crimes Committed by State of Hawai‘i Officials, Judges, Banks and Attorneys

Posted on by
16

KaiamaOn February 14, 2013, attorney Dexter Kaiama, filed a war crime complaint with the ICC alleging that the following State of Hawai‘i officials deprived his client of a “fair and regular trial” on the Island of O‘ahu. These individuals are District Court Judge MAURA M. OKAMOTO, Intermediate Court of Appeals Presiding Judge DANIEL R. FOLEY, Associate Judge KATHERINE G. LEONARD, Associate Judge LAWRENCE M. REIFURTH, Attorney General DAVID M. LOUIE, Deputy Attorney General DIANE K. TAIRA, Deputy Attorney General S. KALANI BUSH, Deputy Attorney General MATTHEW S. DVONCH, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Chair JOBIE MASAGATANI, successor in office to Mr. Alapaki Nahale-a, and Governor NEIL ABERCROMBIE.

Under Article 8 of the Rome Statute, it provides that the International Criminal Court “shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.” Article 8 further states that war crimes means “Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention…Willfully depriving a…protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial.”

Four days later on February 18, 2013, Kaiama filed six additional complaints with the ICC alleging the same war crime of unfair trial against the following judges, banks and attorneys that occured on the Island of Hawai‘i. These individuals include Circuit Court Judges RONALD IBARRA, GREG K. NAKAMURA, and GLENN S. HARA; Banks FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, BANK OF HAWAI‘I, DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, VANDERBILT MORTGAGE AND FINANCE, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, WELLS FARGO BANK; and Attorneys BLUE KAANEHE, CHARLES PRATHER, PETER K. KEEGAN, MITZI A. LEE, SOFIA M. HIROSANE, MICHAEL G.K. WONG, ROBERT E. CHAPMAN, MARY MARTIN, ROBERT D. TRIANTOS and EDMUND W.K. HAITSUKA.

In his letters to the ICC, Kaiama stated this “communication and complaint is provided to the office of the Prosecutor pursuant to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s accession to the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on December 10, 2012, and the Hawaiian Kingdom’s accession to the 1949 fourth Geneva Convention deposited with the Swiss Federal Council on January 14, 2013.”

According to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, the ICC would have jurisdiction “on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date of the deposit of…accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” which is March 4, 2013.

W.P. Dillon, Head of the Office of Information and Evidence Unit, Office of the Prosecutor, sent the following letter to Kaiama acknowledging receipt of the complaints. The letter was dated March 4, 2013, the date the ICC began jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands.

ICC_Ltr_Page_1

Dillon’s statement to Kaiama that the Prosecutor “will give consideration to this communication, as appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” is making specific reference to Article 17 of the Rome Statute titled “Issues of admissibility.” Since the ICC is a court of last resort where it compliments local courts of the country with primary responsibility to prosecute crimes, and not replace them, it can only intervene if (a) the perpetrators and being shielded, (b) there is an unjustifiable delay in the proceedings to bring the perpetrators to justice, or (c) where proceedings are not being conducted independently or impartially.

Article 17 also provides that the ICC “shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.” This provision has a direct nexus to the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government by the United States on January 17, 1893, whereby the “national judicial system” was overthrown and to date has been replaced by illegally constituted courts in violation of the international laws of occupation, in particular, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV.

MasudEAn example of where the Prosecutor of the ICC has rejected a claim based on lack of jurisdiction occurred last year in 2012. On October 1, 2012, Enver Masud, as CEO for The Wisdom Fund (TWF), submitted a letter to the ICC Prosecutor providing “information about the coverup of the facts of 9/11 used to justify the wrongful invasion of Afghanistan.” Masud’s letter was in response to posting on the ICC website that stated “The OTP is currently conducting preliminary examinations in a number of situations including Afghanistan, . . . ” and one is invited to “submit information about alleged crimes.” The Office of the Prosecutor received Masud’s letter on October 10, 2012.

Enver Masud is founder and CEO of TWF, and the recipient of the 2002 Gold Award from the Human Rights Foundation for his book The War on Islam. He is also a co-author of Islam: Opposing Viewpoints, and 9/11 and American Empire. TWF is a non-profit organization based in Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A. TWF’s mission is to advance social justice and peace.

On November 27, 2012, W.P. Dillon, Head of the Office of Information and Evidence Unit, Office of the Prosecutor, sent the following letter to Masud declining to consider the allegations on jurisdictional grounds.

TWF_ICC_Regection_Ltr

The reason why the ICC could not claim jurisdiction over international crimes alleged to have been committed within the United States when individuals planned the invasion of Afghanistan was because the United States of America did not grant jurisdiction to the ICC.  In 2000, the Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute, but the Bush Administration refused to ratify the Rome Statute and declared it would not be a party to the ICC. Therefore, the ICC cannot claim it has jurisdiction over international crimes committed within the territory of the United States of America.

If the Hawaiian Islands were a part of the United States of America, being the so-called 50th State of the American Union, the ICC would have sent a letter to Kaiama similar to its letter sent to Masud who was alleging international crimes took place within the territory of the United States. Especially when the alleged war criminals include the Governor, Attorney General, Deputy Attorney Generals and Judges who are government officials of the so-called State of Hawai‘i.

Instead, the ICC letter to Kaiama acknowledges receipt of the complaints and it will provide its response according to the Rome Statute regarding international crimes committed within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which has been under a prolong and illegal occupation by the United States since August 12, 1898.

Attorney Kaiama’s Response to May 9, 2013 Tribune Herald Newspaper Article “Officials deny ‘war crimes’ investigation”

Posted on by
14

PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release – May 13, 2013                                                                       Contact: Dexter K. Kaiama, Esq.                                                                            Telephone:  (808) 284-5675

Response to May 9, 2013 Tribune Herald Newspaper Article “Officials deny ‘war crimes’ investigation”

KAILUA, O‘AHU, May 13, 2013—I wish to correct errors and misinformation reported in the article of May 9, 2013 in the Tribune Herald Newspaper titled “Officials deny ‘war crimes’ investigation.” My clients are victims of felonies and it is my responsibility to advocate and protect their lawful rights and to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice.

Be advised the following criminal complaint numbers have been assigned by the Hawai‘i Police Department concerning the commission of war crime felonies committed against my clients under Title 18 USC §2441 referred to in the Tribune Herald’s article: criminal complaint no. C13004901; C13004904; C13004910; C13004911; C13004913; C13004915; C13004916.

The assignment of the criminal complaint numbers by the Hawai‘i Police Department contradict (or at least clarifies) Assistant Police Chief Marshall Kanehailua’s reported statement to the Tribune Herald “that the department received information about the alleged crimes and forwarded the material to the FBI without investigation.”

Additionally, information and communications between Detective Derek Morimoto, Criminal Investigation Division, Area 1, Hawaii Police Department, myself and the victims directly contradict Assistant Chief Kanehailua’s statement that “we are not investigating judges on the Big Island.” Detective Morimoto was explicit with my clients and myself that he was the investigating officer from the Criminal Investigation Section for the alleged war crime felonies committed by the judges.

The Tribune Herald’s article reporting of Assistant Chief Kanehailua’s disclosure that routing (of the criminal complaints) was made to the FBI was significant.  The Hawai‘i Police Department’s disclosed routing, though improperly referred to the FBI, affirms the existence and ongoing investigation into these serious charges.  My May 7, 2013 press release informs that completion of the investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators of war crimes outside the United States, under 18 USC Sec. 2441, is lawfully with the U.S. Pacific Command and not with the FBI. The FBI is limited in its exercise of authority to territory of the United States and not on foreign territory unless it receives consent by the foreign government of that territory.

The Tribune Herald’s article evidences a lack of knowledge about this serious issue, a failure to complete an in-depth journalistic investigation and an irresponsibility to properly inform the public.

Existing treaties and historical records, supported by U.S. Congressional enactment, affirms the illegal overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.  The Tribune Herald’s inference that the illegal overthrow may not have occurred indicates either an ignorance of or irresponsibility to truthful journalism.

On March 4, 2013 the Head of the Information and Evidence Unit, Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), The Hague, Netherlands, acknowledged receipt of the war crime complaints filed on behalf of my clients. The ICC’s acknowledgment signifies its recognition of Hawai‘i as an independent state as well as its jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute these criminal complaints.  A copy of the ICC’s March 4, 2013 acknowledgment, written in both English and French, has been provided to the Tribune Herald and the news media.

ICC_Ltr_Page_1

ICC_Ltr_Page_2

I have no personal knowledge of information that has been disclosed or made available to Court Administrator Lester Oshiro concerning the war crimes investigations of Judges in the Third Circuit.  However, the Tribune Herald report, in which Mr. Oshiro claims he was unaware of these criminal investigations, belie events which occurred on March 4, 2013 when a “High Alert” was issued by the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General’s Investigation Division and additional security was ordered for Judges throughout the Islands.  This was in reaction to the day the ICC would begin jurisdiction, which was March 4, 2013. It is the journalist’s rush to publication, at the expense of in-depth and responsible investigation, that resulted in the printing of misinformation.

Finally, concerning the Hawai‘i Police Department’s media release, released in the afternoon of May 9, 2013, on behalf of the victims, I have kept the ICC apprised of all events, protest and demands, written requests for investigation and reports and evidence submitted to the Hawai‘i Police Department, the Sheriff’s Department, and the U.S. Pacific Command.

Accordingly, the Hawai‘i Police Department’s May 9, 2013 media release, that it is not conducting an investigation, will be forwarded to the ICC.  The ICC’s exercise of jurisdiction over these war crime complaints, as the court of last resort, can be invoked if the responsible law enforcement agency fails or refuses to investigate and prosecute or attempts to shield the perpetrators of the war crime.

The Hawai‘i Police Department’s May 9, 2013 media release provides evidence that exercise of the ICC’s jurisdiction should take place immediately.

Judges, Banks and Attorneys Under Criminal Investigation For War Crimes

Posted on by
33

Hawai‘i Island Circuit Court Judges Ronald Ibarra, Greg K. Nakamura, Glenn S. Hara, and District Court Judges Harry P. Freitas and Joseph Florendo are formally under criminal investigation by the Criminal Investigation Section of the Hawai‘i County Police Department for their alleged role in war crimes by denying defendants a fair and regular trial in foreclosure and ejectment proceedings at the court houses in Hilo and Kona. War crimes are felonies under federal law according to the 1996 War Crimes Act, Title 18 United States Code §2441. These preliminary investigations will then be routed to the United States Pacific Command headquartered at Camp Smith in Honolulu for prosecution because it is the federal agency responsible under the War Crimes Act.

The War Crimes Act is enforceable “outside” of U.S. territory when the United States military is the occupant of an occupied State. Title 18, U.S.C., §2441 reinforces the Lili`uokalani assignment, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 to criminally prosecute individuals who commit war crimes/felonies within Hawaiian territory.

Also under investigation for war crimes are the plaintiffs who initiated the complaints for foreclosure and ejectment that include Federal National Mortgage Association, Bank of Hawai‘i, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, The Bank of New York Mellon, Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Wells Fargo Bank, and the lenders’ attorneys Blue Ka‘anehe, Esq., Charles Prather, Esq., Peter K. Keegan, Esq., Mitzi A. Lee, Esq., Sofia M. Hirosane, Esq., Michael G.K. Wong, Esq., Robert E. Chapman, Esq., Mary Martin, Esq., Robert D. Triantos, Esq., Edmund W.K.  Haitsuka, Esq., and Peter Stone, Esq.

Kale Gumapac, President of Laulima Title Search & Claims, LLC, who is one of the seven victims of the alleged felony war crimes, said the other six victims are also clients of his company. Laulima Title packages title insurance claims that provide evidence of a defect in title to property that triggers the title insurance policy purchased at escrow by the borrowers to cover the debt owed to the bank. Purchasing title insurance to protect the bank is a condition of the loan. The banks disregarded the insurance claims and proceeded to foreclose and evict Laulima clients.

The defect stems from two executive agreements entered into in 1893 between Queen Lili‘uokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland that settled the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government and mandates the U.S. military in the Hawaiian Islands to administer Hawaiian law, restore the government, and thereafter for the Hawaiian government to grant amnesty to the insurgents. The United States violated the terms of these agreements and began its illegal and prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since the Spanish-American War in August 1898.

Real estate transactions are defective since January 17, 1893 because deeds were notarized and registered in the Bureau of Conveyances by insurgents calling themselves government officials. The Queen did not pardon these individuals and they were not government officials of the Hawaiian Kingdom. And as a result of the illegal occupation by the United States since 1898, deeds could not be properly notarized and recorded because Hawaiian law was not being administered.

Gumapac stated that when the banks disregarded the insurance contract and used the courts to foreclose and evict, he had no choice but to present evidence that the courts are illegal because the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign state still exists. Attorney Dexter Kaiama represented Gumapac and other clients of Laulima with this argument by providing special appearance in these hearings.

Kale-GumapacGumapac stated, “If land titles in Hawai‘i are defective because of 1893, then U.S. courts in Hawai‘i are defective as well.” Gumapac says the reason why people today don’t know this is because we’ve been indoctrinated through Americanization since the early 1900s. He says Americanization is not an excuse for committing a felony.

In the criminal complaint, Gumapac stated that on January 13, 2012 he filed a motion to dismiss Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s eviction complaint providing evidence of the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and that the court was illegally constituted. The hearing was heard before Judge Greg K. Nakamura in Hilo’s Circuit Court on February 14, 2012. Although Kaiama was able to get Nakamura to acknowledge and take judicial notice of the evidence, Nakamura still denied the motion to dismiss without cause.

Nakamura’s decision relied on the 1959 Hawai‘i Admissions Act for the court’s jurisdiction, but without a treaty of cession the Statehood Act is limited to United States territory because Congressional laws have no force and effect in foreign countries. In the criminal complaint Gumapac cited a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, where the court 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.”

Gumapac alleges that Nakamura, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and their attorneys Charles Prather, and Sofia Hirosone from the law firm Routh Crabtree Olsen, aka RCO, committed a war crime by willfully depriving him of a fair and regular trial prescribed under Title 18, United States Code, section 2441, which applies to foreign countries that the United States military is occupying. Gumapac argues that the appropriate court is a military commission established by the U.S. Pacific Command that administers Hawaiian Kingdom law. The Pacific Command has yet to comply with international law and establish a military commission.

The Pacific Command has primary responsibility for the prosecution of individuals for violations of Title 18, United States Code, §2441, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV. The International Criminal Court has secondary responsibility and will step in if:

  1. The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court;
  2. There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice; and
  3. The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.

By not complying with the international obligations and the International Criminal Court exercises jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands as a result of the Pacific Command’s failure to prosecute, the Pacific Command itself and the military in the islands will also be the subject of prosecution by the International Criminal Court for the commission of war crimes.