The Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement: Operating on a False Premise

Posted on June 14, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

The Hawaiian sovereignty movement appears to have grown out of a social movement in the islands in the mid-20th century. According to one scholar, Professor Lawrence Fuchs’ Hawai‘i Pono: A Social History (1961), p. 68, “the essential purpose of the haole [foreigner] elite for four decades after annexation was to control Hawai‘i; the major aim for the lesser haoles was to promote and maintain their privileged position…Most Hawaiians were motivated by a dominant and inclusive purpose—to recapture the past.”

Native Hawaiians were experiencing a sense of revival of Hawaiian culture, language, arts and music—euphoria of native Hawaiian pride. Momi Kamahele in her article, Ilio‘ulaokalani: Defending Native Hawaiian Culture, Amerasia Journal (2000), p. 40, states that “the ancient form of hula experienced a strong revival as the Native national dance for our own cultural purposes and enjoyment rather than as a service commodity for the tourist industry.” The sovereignty movement also resulted in the revitalization of “the Hawaiian language through immersion education.” John Dominis Holt, author of the 1964 book On Being Hawaiian (1995), p. 7, is credited for igniting the resurgence of native Hawaiian consciousness.

“I am a part-Hawaiian who has for years felt troubled concern over the loss of Hawaiianness or ethnic consciousness among people like ourselves. So much that came down to us was garbled or deliberately distorted. It was difficult to separate truth from untruth; to clarify even such simple matters for many among us as the maiden name of a Hawaiian grandmother, let alone know anything at all of the Hawaiian past.”

Tom Coffman, Nation Within (1999), p. xii, explained that when he “arrived in Hawai‘i in 1965, the effective definition of history had been reduced to a few years. December 7, 1941, was practically the beginning of time, and anything that might have happened before that was prehistory.” Coffman admits that when he wrote his first book in 1970 he used Statehood in 1959 as an important benchmark in Hawaiian history. The first sentence in chapter one of this book reads, the “year 1970 was only the eleventh year of statehood, so that as a state Hawai‘i was still young, still enthralled by the right to self-government, still feeling out its role as America’s newest state.” He recollected in a another book, Catch a Wave: A Case Study of Hawai‘i’s New Politics (1973), p. 1:

“Many years passed before I realized that for Native Hawaiians to survive as a people, they needed a definition of time that spanned something more than eleven years. The demand for a changed understanding of time was always implicit in what became known as the Hawaiian movement or the Hawaiian Renaissance because Hawaiians so systematically turned to the past whenever the subject of Hawaiian life was glimpsed.”

The native Hawaiian community had been the subject of extreme prejudice and political exclusion since the United States imposed its authority in the Hawaiian Islands in 1898, and the history books that followed routinely portrayed the native Hawaiian as passive and inept. Holt explained, p. 7, that after the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom the self respect of native Hawaiians had been “undermined by carping criticism of ‘Hawaiian beliefs’ and stereotypes concerning our being lazy, laughing, lovable children who needed to be looked after by more ‘realistic’ adult-oriented caretakers came to be the new accepted view of Hawaiians.” This stereotyping became institutionalized, and is evidenced in the writings by Professor Gavan Daws, an American historian, who wrote in 1974, Shoal of Time, p. 291:

The Hawaiians had lost much of their reason for living long ago, when the kapus were abolished; since then a good many of them had lost their lives through disease; the survivors lost their land; they lost their leaders, because many of the chiefs withdrew from politics in favor of nostalgic self-indulgence; and now at last they lost their independence. Their resistance to all this was feeble. It was almost as if they believed what the white man said about them, that they had only half learned the lessons of civilization.

Although the Hawaiian Renaissance movement originally had no clear political objectives, it did foster a genuine sense of inquiry and thirst for an alternative Hawaiian history that was otherwise absent in contemporary history books. Professor Noenoe Silva’s Aloha Betrayed: Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonization (2004), p. 3, a political scientist, states, “When the stories can be validated, as happens when scholars read the literature in Hawaiian and make the findings available to the community, people begin to recover from the wounds caused by that disjuncture in their consciousness.”

As a result, Native Hawaiians began to draw meaning and political activism from a history that appeared to parallel other native peoples of the world who had been colonized, but the interpretive context of Hawaiian history was, at the time, primarily historical and not legal. State sovereignty and international laws were perceived not as a benefit for native peoples, but were seen as tools of the colonizer. According to Professor James Anaya’s Indigenous Peoples in International Law (2000), p. 22, who specializes in the rights of indigenous peoples, “international law was thus able to govern the patterns of colonization and ultimately to legitimate the colonial order.”

Following the course Congress set in the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, under which “the United States returned 40 million acres of land to the Alaskan natives and paid $1 billion cash for land titles they did not return,” it became common practice for Native Hawaiians to associate themselves with the plight of Native Americans and other ethnic minorities throughout the world who had been colonized and dominated by Europe or the United States.

The Hawaiian Renaissance gradually branched out to include a political wing often referred to as the “sovereignty movement,” which evolved into political resistance against U.S. sovereignty. As native Hawaiians began to organize, their political movement “paralleled the activism surrounding the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, student uprisings and the anti-Vietnam War movement,” explained Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (1999), p. 113.

In 1972, an organization called A.L.O.H.A. (Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian Ancestry) was founded to seek reparations from the United States for its involvement in the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government in 1893. Frustrated with inaction by the United States it joined another group called Hui Ala Loa (Long Road Organization) and formed Protect Kaho’olawe ‘Ohana (P.K.O.) in 1975. P.K.O. was organized to stop the U.S. Navy from utilizing the island of Kaho’olawe, off the southern coast of Maui, as a target range by openly occupying the island in defiance of the U.S. military. The U.S. Navy had been using the entire island as a target range for naval gunfire since World War II, and as a result of P.K.O.’s activism, the Navy terminated its use of the island in 1994. Another organization called ‘Ohana O Hawai‘i (Family of Hawai‘i), formed in 1974, even went to the extreme measure of proclaiming a declaration of war against the United States of America.

The political movements also served as the impetus for native Hawaiians to participate in the State of Hawai‘i’s Constitutional Convention in 1978, which resulted in the creation of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (O.H.A.). O.H.A. recognizes two definitions of aboriginal Hawaiian: the term “native Hawaiian” with a lower case “n,” and “Native Hawaiian” with an upper case “N,” both of which were established by the U.S. Congress. The former is defined by the 1921 Hawaiian Homestead Commission Act as “any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778,” while the latter is defined by the 1993 Apology Resolution as “any individual who is a descendent of the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of Hawai‘i.” The intent of the Apology resolution was to offer an apology to all Native Hawaiians, without regard to blood quantum, while the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act’s definition was intended to limit those receiving homestead lots to be “not less than one-half” of native Hawaiian descent by blood. O.H.A. states that it serves both definitions of Hawaiian. As a governmental agency, O.H.A.’s mission is to:

“…malama (protect) Hawai‘i’s people and environmental resources and OHA’s assets, toward ensuring the perpetuation of the culture, the enhancement of lifestyle and the protection of entitlements of Native Hawaiians, while enabling the building of a strong and healthy Hawaiian people and nation, recognized nationally and internationally.”

The sovereignty movement created a multitude of diverse groups, each having an agenda as well as varying interpretations of Hawaiian history. Operating within an ethnic or tribal optic stemming from the Native-American movement in the United States, the sovereignty movement in Hawai‘i eventually expanded itself to become a part of the global movement of indigenous peoples who, according to Ivison, Patton & Sanders’ Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2000), p. 89, reject colonial “arrangements in exchange for indigenous modes of self-determination that sharply curtail the legitimacy and jurisdiction of the State while bolstering indigenous jurisdiction over land, identity and political voice.”

In her article Settlers of Color and “Immigrant” Hegemony: “Locals” in Hawai‘i, Amerasia (2000), p. 17, Professor Haunani-Kay Trask, an indigenous peoples’ rights advocate, argues that “documents like the Draft Declaration [of Indigenous Human Rights] are used to transform and clarify public discussion and agitation.” Specifically, Trask states that, “legal terms of reference, indigenous human rights concepts in international usage, and the political linkage of the non-self-governing status of the Hawaiian nation with other non-self-governing indigenous nations move Hawaiians into a world arena where Native peoples are primary and dominant states are secondary to the discussion.”

This political wing of the renaissance is not in any way connected to the legal position that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to exist as a sovereign State under international law, but rather focuses on the history of European and American colonialism and the prospect of decolonization. As a result, sovereignty is not viewed as a legal reality, but a political aspiration.

According to Professor Noel Kent’s Hawai‘i: Islands under the Influence (1993), p. 198, the “Hawaiian sovereignty movement is now clearly the most potent catalyst for change,” and “during the late 1980s and early 1990s sovereignty was transformed from an outlandish idea propagated by marginal groups into a legitimate political position supported by a majority of native Hawaiians.” The political activism relied on the normative framework of the developing rights of indigenous peoples within the United States and at the United Nations. At both these levels, indigenous peoples were viewed not as sovereign States, but rather non-State nations. According to Corntassel & Primeau’s article Indigenous “Sovereignty” and International Law: Revised Strategies for Pursuing “Self-Determination, Human Rights Quarterly (1995), p. 347, “indigenous peoples were viewed not as sovereign states, but rather ‘any stateless group’ residing within the territorial dominions of existing sovereign states.”

When the General Synod of the United Church of Christ (UCC) passed a resolution “Recognizing the Rights of Native Hawaiians to Self-Governance and Self-determination” in 1991, it was heralded as the beginning of a reconciliatory process between native and non-native Hawaiians for the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government. This resolution prompted the President of the UCC, in 1993, to issue a formal apology and committed the church to redress the wrongs done to native Hawaiians. In Professor Andrew H. Walsh’s Historical Memorandum on the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 for the UCC’s Sovereignty Project (1992), p. 24, who was commissioned by the UCC’s Sovereignty Project to assist UCC officials in preparing a statement of apology in 1993, found that certain members of the Hawaiian Evangelical Association were complicit in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government:

“The Christian church founded by American missionaries in Hawai‘i played no direct role in the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893. The Hawaiian Evangelical Association was, however, clearly under the control of white leaders who backed the revolution and attempted—at some cost—to influence indigenous Hawaiians to accept its outcome. The church’s leaders endorsed the revolution in their correspondence with Congregational officials in the United States and vigorously attempted to enlist American Protestant support for annexation. In addition, several individual ministers of the HEA played active roles as advocates of the revolution to the American public.”

The UCC’s Redress Plan included multi-million dollar reparations and the transference of six parcels of land on five islands to Native Hawaiian churches, the Association of Hawaiian Evangelical Churches, and the Pu‘a Foundation. Professor Eric Yamamoto, a legal expert in reconciliation, in his book Interracial Justice: Conflict & Reconciliation in Post-Civil Rights America (1999), p. 215, views these reconciliatory efforts by the UCC within the framework of post-colonial theory in post-civil rights America, and focuses on interracial justice for Native Hawaiians within the United States legal system—an approach similar to the “United States’ 1988 apology to and monetary reparations for Japanese Americans wrongfully interned during World War II.” Yamamoto and other contemporary scholars, view the U.S. takeover of the Hawaiian Islands as fait accompli—a history and consequence no different than other colonial takeovers throughout the world of indigenous people and their lands by western powers.

The UCC apology also prompted the Congress to pass a joint resolution in 1993 apologizing only to the Native Hawaiian people, rather than to the entire citizenry of the Hawaiian Kingdom, for the United States’ role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian government. This resolution maintained an indigenous and historically inaccurate focus that implied that only ethnic Hawaiians constituted the kingdom, and fertilized the incipient ethnocentrism of the sovereignty movement. The Resolution provided:

“Congress…apologizes to the Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination.”

The Congressional apology rallied many Native Hawaiians, who were not fully aware of the legal status of the Hawaiian Islands as a sovereign State, in the belief that their situation had similar qualities to Native-American tribes in the nineteenth century. The resolution reinforced the belief of a native Hawaiian nation grounded in Hawaiian indigeneity and culture, rather than an occupied State under prolonged occupation.

Consistent with the Apology Resolution, Senator Akaka attempted five times since 2000 to have the Senate pass a bill that would provide for federal recognition of tribal status for Native Hawaiians. On February 4, 2009, he reintroduced Senate Bill 381 for the sixth time, known as the Akaka Bill, to the 111th Congress. According to Akaka, the bill’s purpose is to provide “a process within the framework of Federal law for the Native Hawaiian people to exercise their inherent rights as a distinct aboriginal, indigenous, native community to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government for the purpose of giving expression to their rights as native people to self-determination and self-governance.”

According to Professor Rupert Emerson, an international law scholar, in his article Self-Determination, American Journal of International Law (1971), p. 463, there are two major periods when the international community accepted self-determination as an operative right or principle. President Woodrow Wilson and others first applied the principle to nations directly affected by the “defeat or collapse of the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Turkish land empires” after the First World War. The second period took place after the Second World War and the United Nations’ focus on disintegrating overseas empires of its member states, “which had remained effectively untouched in the round of Wilsonian self-determination.”

These territories have come to be known as Mandate, Trust, and Article 73(e) territories under the United Nations Charter. Because Native Hawaiians were erroneously categorized as a stateless people, the principle of self-determination would underlie the development of legislation such as the Akaka bill.

In 2011, the State of Hawai‘i enacted their version of the Akaka Bill that established a Native Hawaiian Roll Commission called Act 195, which provided “Native Hawaiians as the only indigenous, aboriginal, maoli population of Hawai‘i.” Act 195 also committed the State of Hawai‘i “to support the continuing development of a reorganized Native Hawaiian governing entity and, ultimately, the federal recognition of Native Hawaiians.” The Roll Commission will “determine eligible individuals that with to participate in the process of reorganizing a Native Hawaiian government for the purposes of Native-Hawaiian self-governance recognized by the State of Hawai‘i. Act 195 also expresses the State’s desire to support federal government recognition of a Native Hawaiian government.” Act 195 also provides that OHA will house the Commission and is responsible for it’s funding. The text of Act 195 is replete with inaccuracies and admissions to violations of the law of occupation.

The identification of Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people with a right to self-determination relies upon the U.S. National Security Council’s position on indigenous peoples. On January 18, 2001, the Council made known its position to its delegations assigned to the “U.N. Commission on Human Rights,” the “Commission’s Working Group on the United Nations (UN) Draft Declaration on Indigenous Rights,” and to the “Organization of American States (OAS) Working Group to Prepare the Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Populations.” The Council directed these delegates to “read a prepared statement that expresses the U.S. understanding of the term internal ‘self-determination’ and indicates that it does not include a right of independence or permanent sovereignty over natural resources.”

The Council also directed these delegates to support the use of the term internal self-determination in both the U.N. and O.A.S. declarations on indigenous rights, and definedIndigenous Peoples as having “a right of internal self-determination.” By virtue of that right, “they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. This resolution sought to constrain the growing political movement of indigenous peoples “who aspire to rule their territorial homeland, or who claim the right to independent statehood under the doctrine of self-determination of peoples.”

The sovereignty movement and Kana‘iolowalu falsely maintains that aboriginal Hawaiians have a right to self-determination, which implies that aboriginal Hawaiians were never nationals of a sovereign and independent State. Self-determination also implies that aboriginal Hawaiians are an ethnic group residing within the United States of America. Hawaiian history cannot support this position. Aboriginal Hawaiians are the majority of the population of Hawaiian subjects who have been subjected to Americanization and indoctrination. As an occupied State under an illegal and prolonged occupation, the proper framework to understand Hawai‘i’s unique situation is through international law and the laws of occupation and not through the laws of the United States, and, by extension, the laws of the State of Hawai‘i. In this way, Hawai‘i’s vibrant political and legal history is not only embraced, but is honored and respected.

The State of Hawai‘i: A Government Neither De Facto nor De Jure

Posted on June 13, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

After investigating the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government by United States forces on January 17, 1893, President Cleveland notified the Congress on December 18, 1893, “When our Minister [diplomat] recognized the provisional government the only basis upon which it rested was the fact that the Committee of Safety had in the manner above stated declared it to exist. It was neither a government de facto nor de jure (p. 453).”

The Committee of Safety was a group of thirteen insurgents that sought the protection of United States troops from the American diplomat, John Stevens, assigned to the Hawaiian Kingdom when they would declare themselves to be a provisional government. The insurgents sought protection from being apprehended for the crime of treason by law enforcement of the Hawaiian Kingdom. As soon as the Committee of Safety declared themselves to be the provisional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the American diplomat extended de facto recognition. De facto is a government “in fact” where it is in complete control of all governmental machinery, while de jure is a government “in law” established through the normal course of a country’s legal system. Cleveland concluded, “the Government of the Queen…was undisputed and was both the de facto and the de jure government (p. 451).” He explained to the Congress,

“That it was not in such possession of the Government property and agencies as entitled it to recognition… Nevertheless, this wrongful recognition by our Minister placed the Government of the Queen in a position of most perilous perplexity. On the one hand she had possession of the palace, of the barracks, and of the police station, and had at her command at least five hundred fully armed men and several pieces of artillery. Indeed, the whole military force of her kingdom was on her side and at her disposal, while the Committee of Safety, by actual search, had discovered that there were but very few arms in Honolulu that were not in the service of the Government. In this state of things if the Queen could have dealt with the insurgents alone her course would have been plain and the result unmistakable. But the United States had allied itself with her enemies, had recognized them as the true Government of Hawaii, and had put her and her adherents in the position of opposition against lawful authority. She knew that she could not withstand the power of the United States, but she believed that she might safely trust to its justice. Accordingly, some hours after the recognition of the provisional government by the United States Minister, the palace, the barracks, and the police station, with all the military resources of the country, were delivered up by the Queen upon the representation made to her that her cause would thereafter be reviewed at Washington, and while protesting that she surrendered to the superior force of the United States, whose Minister had caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the provisional government, and that she yielded her authority to prevent collision of armed forces and loss of life and only until such time as the United States, upon the facts being presented to it, should undo the action of its representative and reinstate her in the authority she claimed as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands (p. 453).”

The investigation concluded that the United States unlawfully intervened in the internal affairs of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and that its diplomat and troops were directly responsible for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government. Secretary of State Walter Gresham recommended to President Cleveland that the Hawaiian government must be restored and compensation provided. This prompted executive mediation between U.S. diplomat Albert Willis and Queen Lili‘uokalani in Honolulu to settle the dispute and by exchange of notes an executive agreement, called the “Agreement of Restoration,” was concluded whereby the President committed to the restoration of the Hawaiian government and the Queen, thereafter, to grant amnesty to the insurgents.

The President, however, did not carry out the international agreements because of political wrangling in the Congress, and the insurgents renamed themselves the Republic of Hawai‘i. President Cleveland’s successor, William McKinley, after failing to acquire Hawai‘i by a treaty of cession, signed a Congressional joint resolution of annexation into United States law on July 7, 1898, and unilaterally seized the Hawaiian Islands during the Spanish-American War on August 12, 1898, which began an illegal and prolonged occupation.

The Hawaiian Kingdom had completely adopted the separation of powers doctrine since 1864 and the government separated into three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. Here is what the government would have looked like if restoration took place according to the executive agreements, as provided by Thrum’s Hawaiian Annual for the year 1893.

In 1900, President McKinley signed into United States law An Act To provide a government for the Territory of Hawai‘i, and transformed the so-called Republic of Hawai‘i into the Territory of Hawai‘i. After which the United States intentionally sought to “Americanize” the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Kingdom politically, culturally, socially, and economically. To accomplish this, a plan was instituted in 1906 by the Territorial government, titled “Program for Patriotic Exercises in the Public Schools, Adopted by the Department of Public Instruction,” whose purpose was to denationalize the children of the Hawaiian Islands through the public schools on a massive scale.

Nearly 50 years later where denationalization was nearly complete, steps were taken to transform the government of the Territory of Hawai‘i into the State of Hawai‘i. President Eisenhower signed into United States law An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai‘i into the Union on March 18, 1959. These laws, which have no effect beyond United States territory, stand in direct violation of treaties between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, IV.

For the United States to have secured such a stronghold in the Hawaiian Islands as a governing body in a relatively short span of time was dependent upon the seizure of an already existing governmental infrastructure. The way in which thirteen insurgents calling themselves the Committee of Safety could take over the entire Hawaiian government on January 17, 1893, was by merely replacing the Queen as the chief executive and forcing everyone in the executive and judicial branches of government to sign oaths of allegiance while the U.S. troops provided oversight through intimidation and firepower. And when the U.S. troops were ordered to leave Hawai‘i on April 1, 1893, mercenaries replaced them until 1898 when U.S. troops returned to the islands.

A common misunderstanding is that the United States created the governmental infrastructure we have today through Congressional legislation such as the 1900 Organic Act that created the Territory of Hawai‘i, and the 1959 Admission Act that created the State of Hawai‘i. This is false. All that took place was the change in names and a few added agencies. The government of the State of Hawai‘i was formerly known as the government of the Territory of Hawai‘i. The government of the Territory of Hawai‘i was formerly known as the Republic of Hawai‘i. The government of the Republic of Hawai‘i was formerly known as the provisional government. And the government of the provisional government was formerly known as the Hawaiian Kingdom. The governmental infrastructure we see today was already in place in 1893.

In a presentation at the University of Hawai‘i Richardson School of Law on April 17, 2014, senior Law Professor Williamson Chang stated, “The power of the United States, over the Hawaiian islands, and the jurisdiction of the United States in the State of Hawai‘i, by its own admissions, by its own laws, doesn’t exist. And so that means that ever since the 1898 annexation of Hawai‘i, by a Joint Resolution, they say, we have been living a myth.” “A joint resolution, as an act of Congress, cannot acquire another country,” he said. “If Congress cannot, by Joint Resolution in 1898, acquire Hawai‘i unilaterally, it cannot do so in 1959,” Chang said.

Because the United States Congress has no authority beyond the territory of the United States, the State of Hawai‘i cannot claim that it is a government duly authorized under a Congressional Act to govern the Hawaiian Islands. And as a direct successor of an insurgency that was unlawfully installed by the United States diplomat and troops on January 17, 1893, it too is neither a government de facto nor de jure. This means that actions that were understood to be governance are now interpreted as actions taken by individuals pretending to be a government. The law of occupation interprets these actions as war crimes: e.g. taxation is now interpreted as the crime of pillaging and theft; civil and criminal trials done by a court not properly constituted is now interpreted as the crime of depriving a person of a fair and regular trial; and to pursue federal recognition of Native Hawaiians as a tribe is interpreted as the crime of denationalization.

With this backdrop, Professor Chang warned the audience at the Law School, “I’m going to make one big point. …Its like a hand grenade, I’m going to give you the pin to the hand grenade, you pull the pin and everything blows up. So don’t pull the pin.”

The only way for the State of Hawai‘i to remedy this situation is to begin to comply with the laws of occupation, and by the doctrine of necessity, begin to act as a United States military government administering the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the laws of occupation. This is a very complex situation and it should not be taken lightly. Dr. Keanu Sai was retained by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe to draft a memorandum and analysis of public international law and its effect on OHA and to provide recommendations in light of the alleged violations of international law and alleged war crimes. Dr. Crabbe provided all nine trustees a copy of Dr. Sai’s memorandum last week Friday.

Anecdotally—in 1893, the Hawaiian Porsche was carjacked by the United States and painted red, white and blue. Although we have not been driving the Porsche for the past 121 years and were brainwashed to believe it was not a Hawaiian car, it doesn’t mean the Porsche belongs to the United States. The fact that this history, which only spans two generations, is not common knowledge is the evidence of denationalization and the violation of Hawaiian sovereignty.

1897 Signature Petition Against Annexation

Posted on June 12, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

To download the entire signature petition click here.

There was a total of 21,269 signatures with 21,109 signatures of Hawaiian subjects and 160 signatures of resident aliens.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO’s Questions to Secretary of State Kerry: Were these Rhetorical Questions?

Posted on June 10, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

It has been nearly a month since the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) CEO Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe posed four questions to Secretary of State Kerry in a letter dated May 5, 2014.

First, does the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a sovereign independent State, continue to exist as a subject of international law?
Second, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, do the sole-executive agreements bind the United States today?
Third, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and the sole-executive agreements are binding on the United States, what effect would such a conclusion have on United States domestic legislation, such as the Hawai‘i Statehood Act, 73 Stat. 4, and Act 195?
Fourth, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and the sole-executive agreements are binding on the United States, have the members of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, Trustees and staff of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs incurred criminal liability under international law?

These questions centered on the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and generated so much attention that it has awakened a sleeping giant—the Hawaiian community. Academics and professionals that stood shoulder to shoulder behind Dr. Crabbe at his press conference on May 12, 2014 showed their solidarity and support. One of these individuals who stood directly behind Dr. Crabbe was Professor Williamson Chang, senior law professor at the University of Hawai‘i Richardson School of Law. In a Star-Advertiser article, Professor Chang described the letter as “a profound and important moment in history.” “He has raised an issue that has not been approached before. It’s remarkable that a state agency is asking these questions,” he said.

What has replaced the rhetoric of politicians and sovereignty activists that often distorts Hawaiian history and law has been replaced by historical accuracy and legal sophistication. Academics armed with Ph.D.’s have begun to address Hawai‘i’s revisionist history that became institutionalized since the American occupation began in 1898, and attorneys have begun to apply this information in the courts throughout Hawai‘i.

From an international law perspective, these questions were cleverly worded and organized and are grounded in the recognized principle of international law called the presumption of continuity of an established sovereign State, which is similar to the principle of presumption of innocence. An assumption is a conclusion “without” facts and a presumption is a conclusion “with” facts. So when a person is accused of committing a crime that person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because of the fact that the accused has legal rights. In international law, an established sovereign State is presumed to continue to exist because of the fact that it has legal rights, until evidence can be shown by another State that it has extinguished the sovereignty of the former State.

In 2001, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands verified the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, 119 Int’l L. Rep. 566, 581 (2001) . The Court stated in its arbitration award, “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.” As an established State under international law since the nineteenth century, the Hawaiian Kingdom has these legal rights that apply to all States:

States are judicially equal;
Each State enjoys the rights inherent in full sovereignty;
Each State has the duty to respect the personality of other States;
The territorial integrity and political independence of the State are inviolable;
Each State has the right freely to choose and develop its own political, social, economic and cultural systems; and
Each State has the duty to comply fully and in good faith with its international obligations and to live in peace with other States.

According to Professor Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2006), p. 34, who is not only the leading authority on States, but was also the presiding arbitrator in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, “There is a strong presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations, despite revolutionary changes in government, or despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government. Belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” So despite the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government by the United States on January 17, 1893, and the prolonged occupation since the Spanish-American War in 1898, the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, would continue to exist even if there was no Hawaiian government.

The presumption of continuity places the burden on the United States to show legally relevant facts that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not continue to exist under international law. In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom does not have to prove its own existence because it is presumed to continue to exist, just as a person does not have to prove their innocence. To effectively remove the presumption of continuity, there must be uncontroverted evidence of the extinguishment of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States. Since the Hawaiian Kingdom has legal rights under international law, the United States will have to provide evidence of extinguishment that only international law recognizes. According to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the following sources of international law, ranked in order of precedence, are:

International conventions (treaties), whether general or particular;
International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; and
Judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

Under international law, a State who claims to be the successor of another State, when not at war, must take place by cession. Professor Oppenheim, International Law (1948), p. 499, explains that, “cession of State territory is the transfer of sovereignty over State territory by the owner-State to another State.” He further points out that the “only form in which a cession can be effected is an agreement embodied in a treaty between the ceding and the acquiring State.” The United States only claim to have extinguished the Hawaiian Kingdom is by a joint resolution of annexation passed by its Congress.

A joint resolution, however, is not a treaty or agreement between two states, but rather an agreement between the House of Representatives and the Senate in Washington, D.C. A joint resolution is a municipal law of the United States whose effect is limited to United States territory. The United States Supreme Court, The Apollon, 22 U.S. 362, 370 (1824), affirmatively stated, that the “laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territory” for it would be “at variance with the independence and sovereignty of foreign nations” In U.S. v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 332 (1937), the Court also stated that, “our Constitution, laws and policies have no extraterritorial operation.”

Further complicating the problem for the United States was a legal opinion by the United States Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel in 1988. In the 1988 memorandum titled “Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea,” the Office of Legal Counsel addressed the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by joint resolution. Douglas Kmiec, Acting Assistant Attorney General, authored the memorandum for Abraham D. Sofaer, legal advisor to the U.S. State Department. After covering the limitation of Congressional authority and the objections made by members of the Congress, Kmiec concluded, “Notwithstanding these constitutional objections, Congress approved the joint resolution and President McKinley signed the measure in 1898. Nevertheless, whether this action demonstrates the constitutional power of Congress to acquire territory is certainly questionable. … 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.”

Sovereignty of an established State is never in abeyance or in suspension. The sovereignty is either vested in the Hawaiian State itself or in the United States as its successor. If the Attorney General’s Office of Legal Counsel is “unclear” as to the authority of Congress, it cannot be considered to have extinguished the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continuity under international law, and, therefore, the presumption of continuity would remain with the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent sovereign State.

So when we revisit Dr. Crabbe’s letter and his questions posed to Secretary of State Kerry there is only the first question that would need to be answered with clear and convincing evidence that the Hawaiian State no longer exists under international law. But to do so, the United States would need to provide evidence of a treaty of annexation or an international custom that has terminated the Hawaiian State, which it doesn’t have. In other words, Dr. Crabbe’s questions were really rhetorical questions that he already knew the answers to. The significance of the letter, however, is that it was a formal notification of a State of Hawai‘i government official to the Secretary of State that OHA is aware that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that it will have to deal with issues of criminal liability under international law.

University of Hawai‘i Libraries Special Collection: The 1897 Petitions Protesting Annexation

Posted on June 7, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

University of Hawai‘i Libraries Special Collection – The 1897 Petitions Protesting Annexation by Professor Noenoe K. Silva

When William McKinley won the presidential election in November of 1896, the question of Hawaii’s annexation to the U.S. was again opened. The previous president, Grover Cleveland, was a friend of Queen Liliuokalani. He had remained opposed to annexation until the end of his term, but McKinley was open to persuasion by U. S. expansionists and by annexationists from Hawaii. He agreed to meet with a committee of annexationists from Hawaii, Lorrin Thurston, Francis Hatch and William Kinney. After negotiations, in June of 1897, McKinley signed a treaty of annexation with these representatives of the Republic of Hawaii. The President then submitted the treaty to the U. S. Senate for approval.

The Hui Aloha Aina for Women, the Hui Aloha Aina for Men, and the Hui Kalaiaina formed a coalition to oppose the treaty. Together, these three organizations represented a majority of the Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians). Hui Kalaiaina had originally been formed after the Bayonet Constitution of 1887 as a vehicle for Kanaka Maoli political power. The two Hui Aloha Aina organizations were founded just after the overthrow of the Native government in 1893, expressly to support the Queen and to oppose U.S. annexation.

The Kanaka Maoli believed that the American government was committed to their stated principles of justice and of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. They believed that once the U.S. President and members of Congress saw that the great majority of Hawaiian citizens opposed the annexation, the principles of fairness would prevail, that is, their Native government would be restored. The three huis therefore began to organize mass petition drives The heading on Hui Aloha Aina’s petition read: PALAPALA HOOPII KUE HOOHUI AINA, Petition Protesting Annexation

On September 6, 1897, the Hui Aloha Aina held a halawai makaainana – a mass meeting – , at Palace Square, which thousands of poe aloha aina – patriots – attended. President James Kaulia gave a rousing speech, saying “We, the nation (lahui) will never consent to the annexation of our lands, until the very last patriot lives.” He said agreeing to annexation was like agreeing to be buried alive. He predicted that annexation would open the door for many foreigners to come here, and to take jobs and resources away from the Native people. He asked, “Then where will we live?” The crowd answered, “In the mountains,” which figuratively means, “we shall be homeless.” He asserted that a mass refusal by the people could prevent the annexation: “If the nation remains steadfast in its protest of annexation, the Senate can continue to strive until the rock walls of Iolani Palace crumble, and never will Hawaii be annexed to America!” The annexationist newspapers had published threats that the leaders of the mass meeting would be arrested for treason, but Mr. Kaulia assured the people that their assembly was legal. He said that it was because the brains of the government could not push over the brains of the Kanaka Maoli that the government had to resort to weapons of war. (At this time, Hawaii was ruled by a haole – European- American – oligarchy called the Republic of Hawaii that had deprived the Native people of political participation.) He said, “Let us take up the honorable field of struggle, brain against brain.” He told the people, “Do not be afraid, be steadfast in aloha for your land and be united in thought. Protest forever the annexation of Hawaii until the very last aloha aina [lives]!” The crowd cheered.

Following Kaulia, David Kalauokalani, President of the Hui Kalaiaina, explained the details of the annexation treaty to the crowd. He told them that the Republic of Hawaii had agreed to give full government authority over to the United States, reserving nothing. It would also give all the government’s money, the government and crown lands, government buildings, harbors, bays, military forts, military armaments and warships, and all resources claimed by the government of the Hawaiian Islands. Furthermore, he explained, the laws of the United States would not extend to the Hawaiian Islands, but the Congress of the U.S. would decide how Hawaii was to be governed. It was uncertain whether the Kanaka Maoli would have the right to vote. He said those who favored annexation would want to deny Kanaka Maoli voting rights because, from the very beginning, they have known that the Kanaka Maoli would overwhelmingly vote against annexation and anyone who supported it. This is the reason they were always afraid to put a vote to the people.

A resolution protesting the annexation was read to the crowd, who approved it. It was announced that U.S. Senator Morgan, an advocate of annexation, would be arriving soon, and that there would be another mass meeting held while he was here.

The petition drive started at about this time. Very soon afterwards, Mrs. Abigail Kuaihelani Campbell, President of the Women’s branch of the Hui Aloha Aina, and Mrs. Emma Aima Nawahi boarded the inter-island ship the Kinau for Hilo on a signature gathering mission.

On September 14, Senator Morgan and four congressmen from the U.S. indeed arrived. On the same day, Mr. Enoch Johnson and Mr. Simon Peter Kanoa boarded the Claudine for Maui, and Mrs. Kaikioewa Ulukou departed for Kauai – all bound to gather signatures on those islands. The Hui Aloha Aina paid all of their expenses.

At the same time, there was a branch of the Hui Aloha Aina active at Kalaupapa (on the island of Molokai) where people with leprosy were imprisoned. The President of the Kalaupapa branch was Mr. Robert M. Kaaoao, who not only gathered signatures on the protest petitions, but had also organized a full day’s activities to commemorate the Queen’s birthday on September 2. The activities included a prayer service; boating, swimming, running, horse, and donkey races; as well as pole climbing and apple eating contests.

When Mrs. Campbell and Mrs. Nawahi arrived in Hilo harbor, they were greeted with honors. A delegation of the Hilo chapter of the Hui, consisting of Mr. Henry West, Mrs. Hattie Nailima, Mrs. Kekona Pilipo, and Mrs. J.A. Akamu met them at the harbor. The Hilo delegation showered them with leis, and proclaimed that a Hawaiian double-hulled canoe would carry them into the harbor. They had decorated five seats on the beautiful vessel with leis of maile, lehua, and other flowers, and had a Hawaiian flag waving at the back. The people of Laupahoehoe had sent welcome gifts of opihi, limu, and fish. Mrs. Campbell and Mrs. Nawahi attended meetings of the Hui Aloha Aina all over the Hilo and Puna area, and returned with thousands of signatures.

Meanwhile Mrs. Laura Mahelona was working hard in Kona and Kau; she was the committee member delegated to gather signatures there of both men and women. She traveled from North Kona south to Kau, leaving blank petitions with instructions everywhere she went. She told the chapter presidents to get the petitions signed and return them in a few days when her ship would stop again at the same harbors. When she returned, signed petitions were ready at every harbor. When she landed at each port, she was welcomed by the women of the Hui Aloha Aina branches, carrying leis over their arms, and when she returned to the boat, her clothes couldn’t be seen because she was completely covered by leis. Mrs. Mahelona gathered 4,216 signatures.

Mrs. Kaikioewa Ulukou gathered 2,375 on the island of Kauai.

Mr. Simon P. Kanoa gathered 1,944 in the district of Hana, Maui.

When all the work was done, there were over 21,000 signatures- men’s and women’s in about equal numbers. When one considers that the population of Native Hawaiians at the time was less than 40,000, this is an impressive number.

The Hui Kalaiaina also had a substantial membership- -they conducted their own petition drive at the same time, collecting about 17,000 signatures.

The Hui Aloha Aina held another mass meeting on October 8, 1897, and at that time decided to send delegates to Washington D.C. to present the petitions to President McKinley and to the Congress.

The executive committees of the three hui met and decided to send four delegates: James Kaulia of Hui Aloha Aina, David Kalauokalani of Hui Kalaiaina, with John Richardson, and with William Auld as secretary. All four were Kanaka Maoli. This was an important sign to the nation. Some people had written in the papers that previous delegates to Washington had failed because they were not Kanaka Maoli, or because they were too wealthy to truly have the nation’s well-being in mind at all times. It is important to note that although a women’s representative did not travel to Washington, Mrs. Campbell, President of the women’s branch of Hui Aloha Aina, was part of the decision-making committee, and was viewed as a leader of the nation along with the men.

The four Elele Lahui – National Delegates – left Hawaii on November 20, 1897. In San Francisco on November 28, they commemorated La Kuokoa – Hawaiian Independence Day.

They arrived in Washington on December 6, the day that the Senate opened. They first met briefly with Queen Liliuokalani, who was staying in Washington. Then they met Senator Richard Pettigrew who took them in to the Senate’s opening ceremonies. After the ceremonies, they returned to Ebbitt House where the Queen was staying, and where they would also stay. Someone told them at that time that their trip to Washington was useless, since it was known that there 58 votes on the side of annexation, with only 2 more votes needed for the treaty to pass. They said they didn’t answer but remained as quiet as doves. They spoke amongst themselves later, however, to plan what to do.

The next day, December 7, they met again with the Queen to consider how to present the petitions. They chose the Queen as chair of their Washington committee. Together, they decided to present the petitions of Hui Aloha Aina only, because the substance of the two sets of petitions was different. Hui Aloha Aina’s was called “petition protesting annexation,” but the Hui Kalaiaina’s petitions called for the monarchy to be restored. They agreed that they did not want to appear divided, as if they had different goals.

The day after that, the delegates met with Senator Hoar, who was against annexation. They braved snow, cold and slippery streets to get to the Senator’s residence. They said the “elemakule” (old man) greeted them with a handshake. He asked them what the people of Hawaii thought about annexation. John Richardson, the spokesman, explained everything. While he was explaining, they could see tears welling up in the old man’s eyes. Richardson told him that they brought petitions signed by the whole nation protesting the annexation. Senator Hoar told them to submit the petitions to him, and he would bring them before the Senate, and then to the Foreign Relations Committee. David Kalauokalani of Hui Kalaiaina also submitted his endorsement of those petitions (so that the U.S. would know both huis had the same goal). On December 9, Senator Hoar read the text of the petitions to the Senate and had them formally accepted. The delegates were present, seated in the area where people are allowed to observe the Senate proceedings.

On December 10, the delegates met with Secretary of State John Sherman, and Kalauokalani submitted a memorial protesting annexation (Ka Memoriala a ka Lahui) to him.

In the following days, the delegates met with many different Senators and Congressmen. Senators Pettigrew and White encouraged them in the hope that the annexation treaty would be defeated. They said that they were asked a lot of questions about Japan or England trying to annex Hawaii. They answered that either of them could have taken Hawaii if they had wanted to any time in the past five years. Why would they wait for America to try before they did so? They also reminded the U.S. Congressmen that Hawaii had remained independent for fifty years, partly because of the 1843 resolution signed by Great Britain and France guaranteeing Hawaii’s independence.

By the time they left Washington on February 27, there were only 46 votes in the Senate on the pro-annexation side, down from 58 when they had arrived. Forty-six votes was far too few for the treaty to pass — sixty votes were necessary.

Senator Pettigrew and Senator Turpie insisted that the Kanaka Maoli of Hawaii be given a chance to vote on annexation. But Senator Morgan and the other pro-annexation Senators knew that if a vote were taken, it would be overwhelmingly in favor of Hawaii’s independence. In a report, these Senators wrote, “If a requirement should be made by the United States of a plebiscite [vote] to determine the question of annexation, it would work a revolution in Hawaii which would abolish its constitution.” They knew, in other words, that if the people were allowed to vote, not only would they reject annexation, they would also reject the haole Republic that had been forced upon them against their will.

Three of the delegates, James Kaulia, David Kalauokalani, and William Auld returned to Honolulu victorious, sure that the treaty would fail, as indeed it did. They had carried the hard work and hopes of the whole nation to Washington in the form of the protest petitions. They had succeeded in persuading many senators to vote against the treaty. They left behind John Richardson to continue the work, along with Queen Liliuokalani, her secretary Joseph Heleluhe, and her devoted friend, J.O. Carter.

One annexation crisis was over, but another was soon to follow. This same year, the peoples of Cuba and the Philippines were fighting wars of independence against Spain. The United States also declared war on Spain after the U.S. warship, the Maine was blown up in a harbor in Cuba. The reason that the Maine was even in Cuba is questionable, since the U.S. had not been involved until it involved itself by sending the ship there. Be that as it may, the United States was at war. Suddenly, the empire- builders of the United States were saying that they needed to send military troops on ships to the Philippines to fight Spain. For this, they said they needed Hawaii. In the midst of the fever of war, a Joint Resolution of Congress called the Newlands Resolution passed by a simple majority of each house, making Hawaii a territory of the United States. That was in July of 1898; the flag of the United States was hoisted over Hawaii on August 12th.

The Kanaka Maoli continued to protest. The Hui Kalaiaina concentrated on persevering to undo the annexation, and restore the Native government. Hui Aloha Aina began to work towards securing full civil and political rights for Hawaiian citizens in the U.S. territorial system. In 1900, the two huis banded together as one political organization called the Home Rule Party. David Kalauokalani was elected President, and James Kaulia as Vice-President. This was the party that elected Robert Kalanihiapo Wilcox as (non-voting) Delegate to the U.S. Congress.

James Keauiluna Kaulia continued his work for his nation until the day of his death at age 41, in 1902. On that Sunday, he spent the morning at the jail house trying to help prisoners assert their rights. After church and lunch, he lay down for a nap from which he never woke up. He died of heart failure.

David Kalauokalani lived until 1915, also serving his people all of his life. He served as a senator in the territorial legislature, and as a member of the Board of Health. His son, also named David, became the first clerk of the City and County of Honolulu.

Mrs. Kuaihelani Campbell served as President of Hui Aloha Aina for its entire existence. She later became well-known as a benefactor for the ill and poor among her people, and for her many charitable deeds. She married Samuel Parker in 1902. Her daughter Abigail married Prince David Kawananakoa at about the same time, and Mrs. Campbell-Parker thereby became an ancestor to the royal family remaining in Hawaii today. She passed away in 1908.

Mrs. Emma Aima Nawahi kept the newspaper Ke Aloha Aina running for many years as its owner and business manager. She sold it in 1910. She also remained active in charities until her death in 1935.

The petitions protesting annexation, consisting of five hundred fifty-six pages, are now held in the National Archives in Washington D.C.

The Kanaka Maoli continue to protest today. We have never relinquished our national sovereignty. Kanaka Maoli are working on state, national, and international levels to have our existence as a nation recognized. Kanaka Maoli also continue to resist and protest every encroachment upon our inherent rights to this land, our ocean and fresh waters, and all the other natural resources of Hawaii. We are insisting as well on our rights to keep our language and cultural traditions, and the land itself, alive.

Radio Australia Interview with Dr. Willy Kauai on OHA and the Obama Administration

Posted on June 2, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

To listen to the interview click here.

KAUAI: I think one of the problems that you see is that they’ve poured a lot of energy, a lot of resources into federal recognition, that is building a stronger relationship with the United States. What you failed to see however as Kaleikoa had pointed out was there’s going to be this resurgence with regard to education, with regarding to knowing our history, a history that is just important for historical purposes, but has current implications today, specifically legal implications. And so, I think when you see the passion, the passionate work in which we hear from people like Kaleikoa, you start to see kind of this history becomes a source of empowerment, a source that we can go today to help to kind of resolve some of our problems that we have right now.

EWART: You made the point there about the legal issue that is tied up in this. Now, just a couple of weeks ago, we heard the chief executive of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, we heard that he’d written to the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, asking for legal clarification on the status of the Kingdom of Hawaii and that letter in itself stirred up a certain amount of debate. How does that request, coming from the OHA sit with this apparent push for federal recognition. It would seem the two things don’t really add up?

KAUAI: Yeah. I mean one is definitely running contrary to the other, but I think what’s important is that, that was just a mere question, that was a simple question posed to the United States by a state official, of the State of Hawaii, asking for clarification, that’s all it was, was simply a question. What’s interesting is the response, not only of the board to the request, to that question, but also from the community as well. And it’s at that moment, where you can see how out of touch the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is with the Hawaiian community. I don’t necessarily think that OHA had I think realised how informed the community has become in the last 15 years, especially with regard to this idea of Hawaii being occupied, all right, or this, excuse me, not the idea, but of the fact that Hawaii is currently occupied, especially given that the United States has never shown legal title to these islands and therefore.

EWART: Are you satisfied therefore, that you were amongst a group of around 100 or so people who were present at that meeting of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. I mean do you believe that you and those people who were there are truly representative of the wider indigenous Hawaiian community?

KAUAI: I wouldn’t necessarily say that and there in lies the problem. What you’ve seen there and what OHA is pretty responsive to was this call for education, that if we’re going to go about doing these important things, such as nation building, then the 500 thousand native Hawaiians that exist in the world today should have a very clear understanding of their history and the current legal position that Hawaii is in today, so that we can move forward, not with a clear understanding of our history, but with strength we can move forward with strength in knowing that what our ancestors did in the 19th. Century and the bullet proof legal argument that they have left there is so important for Hawaii and for native Hawaiians. That, I think is what the rallying cry was from the majority of those 100 participants, but also for the larger Hawaiian community as well, yeah. that we need to become educated on these matters.

EWART: So therefore, it would seem to be vitally important from the perspective of yourself and like minded others that Barack Obama’s offer to vast track the legal recognition of native Hawaii, native Hawaiians by Washington has to be at least delayed until these matters can be put to the wider group of people?

KAUAI: Absolutely, that when I had seen that kind of fast track proposal from the Obama administration, you can, in fact, see how powerful that question to the State Department was in asking the United States to clarify their legal jurisdiction of Hawaii. We expect to see how everybody is responding to this, such as the 9 trustees, such as the State Department, and now such as Barack Obama. And that gives you, I think a feeling of how powerful education is in these matters.

The War Report: 2013 Will Note Hawai‘i’s Occupation

Posted on May 27, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

The next publication of The War Report: 2013 is schedule to be released by Oxford Press on December 6, 2014. The War Report: 2013 is the second in a series of annual reports that will give an overview of armed conflicts and occupations for that particular year, and is designed as a resource for those working in the field, governments, policy-makers, journalists and the United Nations.

For the year 2012, The War Report reported 37 armed conflicts on the territory of 24 states; of the 38 only one was an active international armed conflict, between South Sudan and Sudan. Also reported were 9 “belligerent occupations”, which fall under laws governing international armed conflicts. These occupations included the occupation of Azerbaijan by Armenia; Cyprus by Turkey; Eritrea by Ethiopia; Georgia by Russia; Lebanon by Israel; Moldova by Russia; Palestine by Israel; Syria by Israel; and Western Sahara by Morocco. Each of the occupations reported have the following headings: Classification of the Conflict; Summary of Applicable International Law; History of the Conflict; Parties to the Conflict; Casualties; Displacement; and War Crimes Allegations, Investigations, and Prosecutions.

The genevalunch.com reported, “The long-term trend from officially declared wars between sovereign states to armed conflicts inside states and territories has important implications for international justice,” says Dr. Stuart Casey-Maslen, editor of The War Report. “Without a clearer legal basis for what constitutes an armed conflict under international law, accused perpetrators of war crimes will not be prosecuted.”

“The classification of an armed conflict under international law is an objective legal test and not a decision left to national governments or any international body, not even the UN Security Council,” says Andrew Clapham, Director of the Academy and Graduate Institute Professor in International Law.

“It is not always clear when a situation is an armed conflict, and hence when war crimes can be punished,” added Professor Clapham. “The War Report aims to change this and bring greater accountability for criminal acts perpetuated in armed conflicts.”

On May 24, 2014, Dr. Maslen notified Dr. Keanu Sai by email that Hawai‘i would be noted in the next publication of The War Report: 2013. When Dr. Sai met with Dr. Maslen at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law’s office in Geneva on March 26, 2014, the staff of the War Report was already in their final stages of editing the reported armed conflicts and occupations for the year 2013 before submitting the manuscript to Oxford Press. Dr. Sai sought to have Hawai‘i included, but realized at the meeting it was too late for this edition.

At the meeting, Dr. Sai presented a power point presentation on the history of the Hawaiian Kingdom and how it came under an illegal and prolonged occupation. Dr. Maslen was also provided with information and evidence of the occupation. In March, Dr. Maslen assured Dr. Sai that a decision would be made and if it has been determined that Hawai‘i is occupied according to the Academy’s criteria it will be listed on its website Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts in June. The website provides monthly updates on armed conflicts and occupations and is currently under construction, but was scheduled to be completed by June. Dr. Maslen also told Dr. Sai in the email that the website will be completed at the end of July instead of June as previously thought.

It would appear that the information on Hawai‘i’s occupation is what prompted Dr. Maslen to note Hawai‘i’s occupation in the publication of The War Report: 2013. Dr. Sai was very thankful to Dr. Maslen and his staff for the last minute notation, and he has been told that the Geneva Academy will be monitoring the developments in Hawai‘i for inclusion in the next publication, which will be released in December 2015.

Australia Network News: Kingdom of Hawaii may still exist, challenges US over sovereignty

Posted on May 24, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

Australia Network News reports: “The CEO of the Hawaiian Affairs Office (OHA) has retained his job and gained public support to challenge the US on whether the Kingdom of Hawaii still exists as a sovereign country.”

Kamanaopono Crabbe sparked an internal crisis when he sent a letter to US Secretary of State John Kerry, asking for a ruling on whether the Kingdom of Hawaii still legally exists.

The letter, which was quickly rescinded by the OHA’s trustees, was prompted by the US Government’s acknowledgment that the overthrow of the kingdom in 1893 was illegal.

Political scientist Dr Keanu Sai, from Windward Communtiy College in Honolulu, told Pacific Beat the OHA board thought Dr Crabbe had violated their policy by sending the letter without approval, but later realised they were mistaken.

“[Dr Crabbe] was not in violation of any policy of the board but rather was operating on his diligence and risk management,” Dr Sai said.

Mr Crabbe has now won the support of the OHA trustees, who have moved to send the letter again and retain him in his role as CEO.

“They’re in full support and they say that his questions definitely do have merit.”

Public support for Mr Crabbe’s campaign is also growing, with 2,500 people signing an online petition.

Dr Sai said Hawaiians need clarification on the issue.

“What was overthrown was the government, not the country,” he said.

Dr Sai blames revisionist history education for misconstruing local understanding of Hawaii’s true status.

“A revisionist history has been taught here in Hawaii since the early 1900s that presented Hawaii as if it was a part of the United States when in fact there is clear evidence that it’s not,” he said.

“We need to address this because it will affect our people but it also affects everyone.”

Dr Sai says if the Kingdom of Hawaii does indeed still exist, many historical treaties with nations including the UK and Australia would still be in effect.

International law

The US may be in violation of international law if Hawaii is still technically its own country.

The US would be guilty of appropriating funds by taxation and other related crimes, by not complying with occupation laws.

Dr Sai says within the framework of international law, there is presumed of continuity of a country when it is established.

“All that needs to be provided is evidence that Hawaii was a country (and it was, fully recognised by the United States and Great Britain and everyone else),” he said.

“It places the burden upon the United States to provide overwhelming evidence that it in fact extinguished Hawaii as an independent state under international law.

“In the absence of that evidence, the Hawaiian kingdom continues to exist.”

Radio Australia Interview with Dr. Keanu Sai on OHA’s Letter to Kerry

Posted on May 21, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

To listen to the interview click here.

Hawai‘i News Now – Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO to keep job

Posted on May 20, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

Hawai‘i News Now reports “Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO to keep job.”

Hawaii News Now – KGMB and KHNL

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – Trustees with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs met for hours behind closed doors Monday to discuss the fate of CEO Dr. Kamana’opono Crabbe. There was concern from Dr. Crabbe’s supporters, dozens of whom gathered outside the OHA boardroom, that he would be fired and the longer trustees stayed in executive session the more anxious the crowd grew. But just before 6 p.m., Dr. Crabbe and the Board of Trustees emerged united to say they were moving forward together.

Dr. Crabbe ignited an internal dispute that has since sparked a public debate after he sent an official inquiry to the state department asking for a legal opinion on whether the Kingdom of Hawaii still exists.

When OHA’s nine trustees learned of the letter — they sent a letter of their own rescinding the request. Two trustees later changed their mind and now support Dr. Crabbe’s inquiry.

“In our discussions today, the board and I do agree that there’s merit to the questions that were brought up in the letter. We have agreed to move forward with our community. I believe the board will be conducting a meeting on March 29 to hear feedback from our community regarding our nation building process. The board has agreed that we recognize the illegal overthrow of our Hawaiian Kingdom and how to best seek clarification of that status as we move forward,” said Dr. Crabbe.

Questions have been raised about whether Dr. Crabbe had the authority to request a legal written opinion without first obtaining board approval.

Several complaints have also been filed with the Office of Information Practices challenging the trustees letter to rescind Dr. Crabbe’s inquiry citing it may have violated the state’s sunshine law — which prohibits board members from voting on an action without first calling a public meeting.

Officials say all legal challenges are still under review.

Dozens of Dr. Crabbe’s supporters showed up to rally for the CEO, but their attempts to sign up for public testimony were turned down as Monday’s meeting was scheduled specifically as an “executive session” to consult with board counsel Robert Klein about Dr. Crabbe’s conduct and to discuss appropriate action.

“It was a really gut-wrenching discussion. I think we attempted to look at the overarching issues here and not to pinpoint a particular blame on one individual. I believe the message I would like to send to all our lahui is that if OHA can repair and move forward, examine our responsibilities both at the board of trustee level and at the administrative level, and see a common, unified effort to move forward, I truly believe that we will move forward with the building of our Native Hawaiian entity. That will never change,” said Chair Colette Machado.

“At the time of the discussion, we had no idea that the level of hurt was so deep that we had to take it layer by layer, and I’m so proud that we had that opportunity today with Dr. Kamana’o Crabbe in ho’oponopono and there is a unifying effort to moving forward. Once we were able to release one another from our past transgressions and all of the pilikia that may have been caused either by intention or in addition to something that came through the side door. So to me I am blessed to have had that opportunity today and then we’ll be moving forward, but looking seriously at some modifications or changes to the previous policy on building the Native Hawaiian entity,” Machado said.

OHA has decided to hold a public meeting on May 29 for community feedback on how to best move forward with nation-building.

New Book: Jon Olsen’s “Liberate Hawai‘i!”

Posted on May 20, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

Author Jon Olsen has come out with his new book “Liberate Hawai‘i,” which can be purchased online at Amazon.com.

“If the government of Hawaii had not been illegally overthrown by the U.S. Marines through a classic act of Manifest Destiny and American-style gunboat diplomacy, Hawaii would still be an independent sovereign nation today. Notwithstanding a series of clever illegal moves by the U.S. government, Hawaii cannot be considered a legally bona fide state of the United States. . . . In 1959 the U.S. falsely informed the U.N. that Hawaii had become the 50th state of the United States after an illegal plebiscite. . . . Jon Olsen . . .convincingly points out that the fraudulent claim of Hawaiian statehood is immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional.” –The late Thomas H. Naylor, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Duke University

“Jon Olsen is a warrior of truth, proclaiming a vision of Hawaiian sovereignty. He is not alone. The Hawaiian Resistance that began sweeping across the islands forty years ago has become a storm of new consciousness. Where will it blow? Olsen charts that storm’s history and possibilities. For readers whose eyes can see a radically free Hawaii, here it is.” –Jim Douglass, author of JFK and The Unspeakable

“. . .you are an incredibly gifted writer and inquiring spirit. Congratulations on such a difficult achievement! The research is impressive and your writing cohesive and erudite without being pompous.” –Belva Ann Prycel accomplished artist and author of memoirs Passage, Times and Tides, and Water Tales

“Jon Olsen’s new book, Liberate Hawai’i: Renouncing and Defying the Continuing Fraudulent U.S. Claim to the sovereignty of Hawai’i, makes a compelling case — a legal case as well as a moral one.” –David Swanson

“Good quick over view of 19th century illegal takeover of independent Kingdom of Hawaii. Lots of documentation of the sad period in Hawaii’s History. This aspect of US History is soulfully lacking in “normal” History from the view point of rich Americans Recommend to all interested in the real history of US takeover in Hawaii. Tom Hoffman’s Nation Within is also an excellent history of this period.” –Bill Smith

“Having been involved since 1982 in many aspects of the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement, mostly as a photographer, I find Jon D. Olsons’ book, Liberate Hawaii, to be a fascinating and well put together collection of historical facts about the great injustice done to the Hawaiian people by a rambunctious and greedy group of American businessmen. It is a compelling read, and I highly recommend it.” –G. Brad Lewis

Radio Australia Interview with Film Maker Keala Kelly on Hawai‘i’s Occupation

Posted on May 20, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

To listen to the interview click here.

Maui College Professor Kaleikoa Ka‘eo’s Testimony at OHA Community Meeting on Maui

Posted on May 17, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

Complaints for Violation of the Sunshine Law by OHA filed with the Office of Information Practices

Posted on May 17, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

Three complaints have been filed this week with the Office of Information Practices alleging the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees (BOT) violated the State of Hawai‘i Sunshine Law. The first complaint was filed anonymously, but the other two were not filed anonymously. The other two complaints were filed by Donovan Preza and Nanci Munroe that cite sections of the Office of Information Practices Guide to the Sunshine Law for State and County Boards.

The complaints center on the May 9, 2014 rescinding letter the BOT sent to Secretary of State Kerry that had all nine Trustees signatures.

Investigation of complaints are handled either by the State of Hawai‘i Attorney General or any of the Country Prosecutors. Willful violation of the Sunshine Law is a misdemeanor. Hawai‘i misdemeanors are crimes that carry a maximum sentence of no more than one year imprisonment and a fine not exceeding $2,000, and removal from the Board.

COMPLAINT BY DONOVAN PREZA

I, Donovan Preza, resident of Hawai‘i and Native Hawaiian, am filing this complaint with the State of Hawaii Office of Information Practices asking for an investigation into the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Board of Trustees (BOT) compliance to the State open meetings law, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 92, Part I, commonly known as the “Sunshine Law”. The substance of this complaint is to cause an investigation by (OIP), which has jurisdiction over OHA’s BOT, into the actions taken by the BOT of OHA in regards to the May 9, 2014 letter (see email attachment) and to determine if proper protocol was followed in regards to Hawai‘i’s Sunshine Law requiring open public meetings.

On May 9, 2014 a letter was sent from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) addressed to The Honorable John F. Kerry, Secretary of State. The substance of that letter and the signatures of all nine members of the Board of Trustees (BOT) of OHA suggest that a meeting took place on Friday May 9, 2014 whereby the BOT conducted business and took an action as suggested in the letter, “That letter [the CEO’s letter dated May 5, 2014] is hereby rescinded”.

It is my understanding that individual members of the BOT were in different locations on Friday, May 9^th where the CEO of OHA and Chairwoman of the BOT were in Washington DC. The OIC’s Guide to “The Sunshine Law” for State and County Boards January 2013 (OIC Guide) states, “…with a few exceptions, board members are not allowed to discuss board business with each other outside of a social meeting, including by telephone or through e-mail or social media” (Page 4). As such, the following questions require investigation, 1) Was the board business discussed in the May 9th, 2014 letter with the signature of the 9 trustees the product of a meeting? If so, what specific kind of meeting does the BOT suggest it was (ie: Open, Executive, Emergency, Unanticipated Event, Limited Meeting)? It cannot be considered an “Open” meeting as the requirement for 6 day notice was not met. It could not have been an Executive meeting as the OIC Guide states, “To convene an executive meeting, a board must vote to do so in an open meeting and must publicly announce the purpose of the executive meeting” and there is no evidence of a prior open meeting whereby the BOT voted to delay and resume an Executive Meeting on Friday May 9, 2014. In my estimation a Limited Meeting would also not seem to apply to this situation.

As such I am left to infer that the meeting was either an “Emergency” meeting or a meeting for an “Unanticipated Event”. If it was an Emergency Meeting, then the board would have to show, according to the OIC Guide, that there was “an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare”. The May 9, 2014 letter states, “We understand that you received a letter from Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chief Executive Officer Kamana‘opono M. Crabbe, PhD dated May 5, 2014. The contents of that letter do not reflect the position of the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or the position of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.” I do not feel that a difference in “position” on this matter constitutes a peril to the public’s health, safety or welfare and as such the board cannot claim that the requirements for an Emergency meeting were met.

The OIC Guide also states, “When the board finds an emergency meeting is appropriate, (1) the board must state its reasons in writing, (2) two-thirds of all members to which the board is entitled must agree that an emergency exists, and (3) the board must file an emergency agenda and the board’s reasons in its office and with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor or the appropriate county clerk’s office”. I have found no evidence of the board explicitly stating its reason or even the public identification of there being an “Emergency” meeting on May 9, 2014. The letter of May 9, 2014 does not provide a reason for the meeting but instead speaks to a reason for BOT actions. Neither have I seen any evidence of the BOT stating that an Emergency existed. Their ability to take such action “behind closed doors” is what is in question here.

Secondly, as mentioned previously, some of the BOT were on different islands and at least one was in Washington DC which suggests that such a meeting would have had to have taken place over the phone or some other form of “interactive conference technology”. Did the BOT convene all together via teleconference, Skype or some other technology? In other words, did all nine trustees, as evidenced by 9 signatures on the letter, meet via “interactive conference technology” as provided for by law or did they meet and discuss individually via telephone conversation or some other form of communication. In the section titled, “Discussions Between Board Members Outside of a Meeting” it states, “The sunshine law generally prohibits discussions about board business between board members outside of a properly noticed meeting, with certain statutory exceptions.” It continues, “…such interactions cannot be used to circumvent the requirements or spirit of the law to make a decision or deliberate towards a decision upon a matter over which the board has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. In practical terms, this means that board members cannot “caucus” or meet privately before, during or after a meeting to discuss business that is before the board…” Can individual phone calls, if that is in fact how the meeting occurred, be considered to constitute a proper Emergency Meeting or would it be evidence of a “caucus” or private meeting which the Sunshine Law does not provide for by law. Third, in regards to an “Emergency Meeting”, I have found no evidence of the BOT filing an emergency agenda, as required, as to the board’s reasons in either OHA’s office or the Office of the Lieutenant Governor or appropriate county clerk. In other words, there is no evidence that a meeting took place. And there is even less evidence that a legally constituted meeting took place.

One could also infer that the meeting was an “Unanticipated Meeting”. My general comments and argument to the Emergency Meeting, also applies to an Unanticipated Meeting as applicable. The OIC guide states, “The law defines an unanticipated event to mean (1) an event that the board did not have sufficient advance knowledge of or reasonably could not have known about; (2) a deadline beyond the board’s control established by a legislative body, a court, or an agency; and (3) the consequences of an event for which the board could not have reasonably taken all necessary action. This seems to be the BOT’s best argument but again the May 9, 2014 letter does not articulate or identify the source of authority by which the BOT was acting and it did not explicitly mention that their actions were the result of an “Unanticipated Meeting”. Again the public is left to infer that the alleged meeting was in fact an “Unanticipated Meeting”. My aforementioned argument above starting with the paragraph “Secondly” applies here. Can an “Unanticipated Meeting” be properly called to order considering the BOT were on different islands and would have had to have occurred over the phone or some other form of “interactive conference technology.” I am not questioning the technology or method of conversation. Instead my question focuses on whether the trustees actually had an opportunity to meet all together, as a board, as suggested by the nine signatures on the letter. Is there any evidence that the trustees actually talked to one another as a group or did this occur through conversations between their staff? If the conversations occurred individually between two trustees at a time does this constitute a “meeting behind closed doors”

Additionally, the requirement for an “Unanticipated Meeting” are as follows, “…(1) the board states, in writing, its reasons for finding that an unanticipated event has occurred and that an emergency meeting is necessary; (2) the attorney general and two-thirds of all members to which the board is entitled concur with the board’s finding; and (3) the board’s findings and the agenda for the emergency meeting are filed in the board’s office and with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor or the appropriate county clerk’s office”. As previously stated, the public is left to infer from the letter dated May 9, 2014 that an “Unanticipated Meeting” occurred. I have seen no evidence articulated elsewhere by OHA that such a meeting occurred in regards to this matter. Secondly, I have seen no evidence from the Attorney General suggesting that it concurred with the actions of the BOT to call an “Unanticipated Meeting” in the first place as required by law. Probably because OHA has not publicly stated that such a meeting ever took place. Additionally, the office of the Attorney General is not “cc’d” in the May 9^thletter. As the law requires, the attorney general to “concur” with the necessity of the emergency meeting, one would think they would have been a logical entity to cc on the letter. Instead the BOT cc’d John Waihe‘e III, Governor Neil Abercrombie, and Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, USN, Commander U.S. Pacific command. Third, I have seen no evidence of the “board’s findings” or “agenda” for the emergency meeting either in the board’s office or with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.

In summary, the IOC Guide states, “the intent of the Sunshine Law is to open up governmental processes to public scrutiny and participation by requiring state and county boards to conduct their business as openly as possible. The legislature expressly declared that “it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy-the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and actions of governmental agencies-shall be conducted as openly as possible. In implementing this policy, the Legislature directed that the provisions in the Sunshine Law requiring open meetings be liberally construed and the provisions providing for exceptions to open meeting requirements be strictly construed against closed meetings.” (emphasis mine) It was necessary to articulate all of these arguments because OHA has not publicly provided, to my knowledge, an explanation of when or how the BOT met and held a meeting as suggested by the May 9, 2014 letter and the actions taken by the BOT articulated in the letter. Investigation into these matters outlined above is of critical time significance considering that the agenda of the “Meeting of the Board of Trustees” on Monday May 19, 2014 is to discuss in “Executive Session”, and in consultation “with Board Counsel Robert G. Klein” to consider “appropriate action with respect to the conduct of Dr. Crabbe [CEO of OHA]”. The agenda items for the Monday May 19, 2014 meeting are directly related to the actions and difference of “position” articulated in the letter dated May 9, 2014. Furthermore OHA’s legal counsel Robert Klein apprised the BOT, as found in the minutes of January 13, 2014, regarding potential previous violations of the Sunshine Law by the BOT in issues surrounding the commercial development of Kaka‘ako so the board cannot claim ignorance of the Sunshine Laws. More disturbingly does this suggest a pattern of behavior in how the BOT has been recently operating in relation to Hawai‘i Sunshine laws? In accordance with the Sunshine Laws of Hawai‘i and the OIP’s jurisdiction over such matters I ask that an investigation be started into the matters discussed in this letter. In the spirit of transparency please consider this letter and my name associated with this letter as public record.

Mahalo for your consideration.

Ho‘opa‘a au i ko‘u inoa,

Donovan Preza
preza@hawaii.edu

COMPLAINT BY NANCI MUNROE

Aloha Office Of Information Practices,

I’m writing this e-mail to request that you investigate the Office Of Hawaiian Affairs meeting with the trustees that appears to be in violation of the Sunshine Law.

I’m am NOT a native Hawaiian, but a U.S. citizen, and a resident of the state of Hawai`i since 1976.

This is in regards to the so-called “Rescind Letter” dated May 9, 2014 in which the OHA Board of Trustees demanded that the letter issued by CEO Dr. Kamana`opono Crabbe dated May 5, 2014 to Secretary Of State John Kerry requesting that the State Department investigate the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s relationship to the United States be rescinded. A copy of that letter is attached.

I am not able to access any information that any minutes were filed in regards to the meeting held on May 9, 2014. The signatures on the letter indicate that a meeting was held and that a vote was taken. There are no minutes to indicate the discussion that was held, what the subject was, or why a vote was taken.

Mahalo for your time,

Nanci Munroe
alohakaneohe@gmail.com
Ph:  808-223-3359

OHA’s “Executive Meeting” Monday Another Violation of Sunshine Law?

Posted on May 16, 2014 by Hawaiian Kingdom

As a State of Hawai‘i government agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs comes under the Sunshine Law. The purpose of the sunshine law is to provide public input and oversight for board and commission meetings of the State of Hawai‘i government. The State of Hawai‘i Office of Information Practices (OIP) oversees compliance to the Sunshine Law, which is a criminal statute.

According to the OIP Guide to the Sunshine Law for State and County Boards, “the intent of the Sunshine Law is to open up governmental processes to public scrutiny and participation by requiring state and county boards to conduct their business as openly as possible. The Legislature expressly declared that ‘it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberation, decisions, and actions of governmental agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible.’”

All meetings of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of Trustees (BOT) must be open to the public and the BOT must accept testimony, both written and oral, at its meetings. The BOT, however, can hold meetings that are not open to the public, which are called “executive meetings.” Executive meetings can only be convened for eight reasons: licensee information, personnel decisions, labor negotiations/public property acquisition, consult with Board’s attorney, investigate criminal misconduct, public safety/security, private donations, and State/Federal law or court order.

The OIP Guide states, that in order to “convene an executive meeting, a board must vote to do so in an open meeting and must publicly announce the purpose of the executive meeting. Two-thirds of the board members present must vote in favor of holding the executive meeting, and the members voting in favor must also make up a majority of all board members, including members not present at the meeting or membership slots not currently filled. The minutes of the open meeting must reflect the vote of each board member on the question of closing the meeting to the public.”

The BOT, however, could hold an “emergency meeting” that does not require notification with the Lieutenant Governor’s office and agenda only if there’s “an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare.”

The OIC Guide states, “A willful violation of the Sunshine Law is a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, may result in the person being removed from the board. The Attorney General and the country prosecutor have the power to enforce any violations of the statute.”

As reported by Larry Geller of the Disappeared News.com, there is no evidence that the BOT complied with the Sunshine Law and that the BOT’s meeting in Washington, D.C., where the Trustees voted to rescind the CEO Dr. Kamana‘opono Crabbe’s letter to Secretary of State Kerry, was held in secret. Information is now surfacing that there was no meeting of the BOT in Washington, D.C., and consequently if there was no meeting then there could have been no votes. The only evidence to confirm that a meeting was held is to have minutes of the meeting that would signify each of the Trustee’s votes and the discussion that preceded it. Furthermore, in order for this meeting to be in compliance with the Sunshine Law, the Lieutenant Governor’s office was supposed to have been notified six days in advance with the agenda for the meeting that was supposed to have been open to the public. But the Lieutenant Governor’s office has no record that any meeting took place in the month of May.

If there was to be a meeting, which we know there wasn’t, the Chairperson of the BOT could have convened an “special meeting” in Washington, D.C., where there existed an unanticipated event that requires a board to take immediate action. On this matter, the OIC Guide states that a “board may convene a special meeting with less than six calendar days’ notice because of an unanticipated event when a board must take action or a matter over which it has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.” However, as confirmed by Mr. Gellar of Disappeared News.com, the Lieutenant Governor’s office has no record that notice of the May 9, 2014 BOT meeting was filed, thereby signaling a clear violation of the Sunshine Law and calling into question the validity of the May 9, 2014 BOT meeting and all actions allegedly discussed and voted on by the BOT.

On May 13, 2014, the Lieutenant Governor’s office received a request from OHA Trustee Colette Y. Machado, Chairperson, Board of Trustees announcing an “Executive Session” meeting of the BOT for Monday, May 19, 2014, to “consider appropriate action with respect to the conduct of Dr. Crabbe,” and “questions and issues pertaining to the Board’s powers and duties under its governance initiate.” This is an executive meeting not open to the public.

The glaring problem with having this closed “executive meeting” is that it required an open “meeting” first. According to the Sunshine Law, “two-thirds of the board members present must vote in favor of holding the executive meeting, and the members voting in favor must also make up a majority of all board members,” and that “the minutes of the open meeting must reflect the vote of each board member on the question of closing the meeting to the public.” If there was no open meeting in Washington, D.C., to begin with, how could Trustee Chairwoman Colette Machado call for an “executive meeting” without first having a open meeting? Simply answered, she can’t because there was never a meeting to begin with.

Further complicating this issue for the BOT is that the Sunshine Law was directly addressed in an open meeting at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs on January 13, 2014. The issues centered on the commercial development of Kaka‘ako and whether or not actions taken by the Board violated the Sunshine Law. Former Associate Justice of the Hawai‘i Supreme Court and now BOT Counsel, Robert Klein, made the following statement to the Board’s open meeting of the Committee on Beneficiary Advocacy and Empowerment, which are reflected in the minutes. All nine of the Trustees were present.

Minutes of January 13, 2014:
Board Counsel Klein shares that there are a few exceptions. We operate on the principle that if you have two trustees, you’re fairly safe in not filing agendas for meetings between the two. The whole point of the sunshine law is to give notice to the public; if you’re having something that resembles a meeting (a quorum of Trustees that are meeting about anything).

In the case where you have two trustees who are meeting, in most situations that is way short of a quorum. Whatever they’re discussing, as long as they’re not trading votes or making arrangements on a certain issue, you’re not going to run afoul of the sunshine law.

When you get to three trustees, you need a special exemption. Many boards and commissions have 5 members, so when you have 3 together, you have quorum. However, this is a large board where there are 9 of you, so you don’t have a quorum until there are 5 you; so 3 is a safe number. The question is whether you can find an exception in the sunshine law for 3 trustees to meet together and when you look at the sunshine law there are certain exceptions called “Permitted Interactions” and what that means is you can have interactions with 2 or more trustees short of a quorum as long as you’re not trading votes and deciding things away from the public eye.

Under these circumstances the legislature has provided for exceptions. In this situation, the only exception that potentially applies is the exception where two or more but less than a quorum of trustees meet to discuss or negotiate a point that the trustees as a whole in public have already agreed to be the position of OHA and that commission or committee of the Board is moving forward running with the proposal already approved in public by the trustees.

Trustee Chairwoman Machado cannot claim ignorance of the Sunshine Law and nor can all nine of the Trustees. The actions taken by the Board in Washington, D.C., clearly was in violation of the Sunshine Law. The irony of the whole situation is that the May 9 letter to Secretary of State Kerry attempting to rescind the CEO’s letter of inquiry, which has all nine signatures of the Trustees, is the evidence of the violation of the Sunshine Law. As such, this would consequently render the Trustees’ letter to Secretary of State Kerry “void” because it stemmed from a direct violation of the law itself.

Trustees Dan Ahuna and Hulu Lindsey took the right steps in removing their names from the May 9, 2014 rescinding letter because it shows that there was no “willful violation of the Sunshine Law,” which is a misdemeanor, on their part. It would make sense for all of the Trustees to follow their example before its too late.

CORRECTION: It was incorrectly stated that the meeting scheduled for Monday, May 19, 2014, was an executive meeting closed to the public. The meeting is an open meeting, but a portion of the meeting would be closed to the public. Since the closed meeting is an extension of the original violation of the Sunshine Law that took place in Washington, D.C., the Monday meeting is illegal.

Hawaiian Kingdom Blog

Weblog of the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom presently operating within the occupied State of the Hawaiian Islands.

The Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement: Operating on a False Premise

The State of Hawai‘i: A Government Neither De Facto nor De Jure

1897 Signature Petition Against Annexation

Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO’s Questions to Secretary of State Kerry: Were these Rhetorical Questions?

University of Hawai‘i Libraries Special Collection: The 1897 Petitions Protesting Annexation

Radio Australia Interview with Dr. Willy Kauai on OHA and the Obama Administration

The War Report: 2013 Will Note Hawai‘i’s Occupation

Australia Network News: Kingdom of Hawaii may still exist, challenges US over sovereignty

Radio Australia Interview with Dr. Keanu Sai on OHA’s Letter to Kerry

Hawai‘i News Now – Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO to keep job

New Book: Jon Olsen’s “Liberate Hawai‘i!”

Radio Australia Interview with Film Maker Keala Kelly on Hawai‘i’s Occupation

Maui College Professor Kaleikoa Ka‘eo’s Testimony at OHA Community Meeting on Maui

Complaints for Violation of the Sunshine Law by OHA filed with the Office of Information Practices

OHA’s “Executive Meeting” Monday Another Violation of Sunshine Law?

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: