Usurpation of sovereignty is the unlawful exercise of the sovereignty of another country by a foreign government during the occupation of occupied territory. Usurpation of sovereignty is the means by which a foreign government denationalizes the inhabitants of an occupied territory through political, cultural, social and economic means. The intent of denationalizing the inhabitants is to obliterate the national character of the occupied state.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

Usurpation of sovereignty and attempts to denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territory were listed as “war crimes” after World War I by the 1919 Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties. In the Nuremburg trials after World War II, Germany’s usurpation of sovereignty and their attempt to denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territories was categorized under Count III of the Nuremburg Indictment, “GERMANIZATION OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES.”

Like the Nazis during World War II, United States President McKinley’s administration during the Spanish-American War in 1898 purported to annex the Hawaiian Islands and put into operation a plan that endeavored to assimilate Hawaiian subjects and residents of the islands politically, culturally, socially and economically into the United States of America. Their goal was to obliterate the national character of the Hawaiian Kingdom and to fortify the Hawaiian Islands as a military outpost to protect the west coast of the United States from foreign invasion. To do this, the administration enlisted the assistance of insurgents such as Sanford Dole who was appointed by McKinley as governor of the puppet government called the Territory of Hawai‘i. Dole headed the insurgency of businessmen whose leadership comprised of:

• Charles Reed Bishop, Hawaiian subject
• Henry Ernest Cooper, American citizen
• Crister Bolte, Hawaiian subject
• Andrew Brown, British subject
• William Richards Castle, Hawaiian subject
• John Emmeluth, American citizen
• Theodore F. Lansing, American citizen
• John A. McCandless, Hawaiian subject
• Frederick W. McChesney, American citizen
• William Owen Smith, Hawaiian subject
• Lorrin A. Thurston, Hawaiian subject
• Edward Suhr, German citizen
• Henry Waterhouse, Hawaiian subject
• William C. Wilder, Hawaiian subject
• Charles L. Carter, Hawaiian subject
• Samuel Mills Damon, Hawaiian subject
• Peter Cushman Jones, Hawaiian subject
• James A. King, British subject

Intimidation and propaganda in the early part of the 20th century was used by the insurgents and U.S. Armed Forces to “Americanize” the Hawaiian Islands. Hawai‘i’s history books were revised and used to “Americanize” the children in the schools throughout the islands. The Hawaiian language was shunned and replaced with English, and mass migration of United States citizens to the islands took place on a grand scale, which included people from U.S. territories and possessions. According to the 1890 Hawaiian Kingdom government census, United States citizens numbered a mere 1,928 out of a population of 89,980. Within 60 years, the number of U.S. citizens grew exponentially to 423,174 out of 499,794 by 1950 according to the U.S. Census Reports. For more information see law article: American Occupation of the Hawaiian State: A Century Unchecked. Also conscription or the drafting of Hawaiian subjects into the United States Armed Forces took place during the First World War (1914-1918), the Second World War (1939-1945), the Korean War (1950-1953) and the Vietnam War (1965-1975).

People today that have no knowledge of the Hawaiian Kingdom being an independent and sovereign State since 1843; with over 90 embassies and consulates though out the world; with 46 treaty partners in 1893; a progressive government with a limited and constitutional monarchy; a multi-ethnic national population; and international agreements settling the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government in 1893 that remain binding agreements today, speaks volumes as to the success of the propaganda and plan to assimilate the population into the belief that Hawaiian subjects are United States citizens and that Hawai‘i is the 50th State of the American Federal Union.

Because Germany was held to account by the international community for their illegal actions during the Second World War, Norway, France, Luxembourg, the former Soviet Union, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands are not politically, culturally, socially and economically tied to Germany and they are not speaking German. But if Germany was not held accountable, these countries would no more be German through “Germanization,” than the Hawaiian Kingdom would be American through “Americanization.” Both “Germanization” and “Americanization” are War Crimes, and the situation would be regulated by the international laws of occupation and humanitarian law.

Since the Spanish-American War, the Hawaiian Islands have been under an illegal and prolong occupation by the United States, and through an effective plan of “Americanization” it has been able to conceal its occupation for over a century. Today, over 20% of the islands are under the direct control of the United States Armed Forces Pacific Command and, as a result, the islands are presently targeted for nuclear attack by China, Russia and any other adversary of the United States who are threatened by the military presence in the Hawaiian Islands.

The war criminals who set this in motion are dead, but their legacy has effectively replaced the memory of Hawai‘i’s people of the national character of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The fact that the public has no recollection of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent State and that it is currently under occupation is the evidence of the war crime of “Americanization.”

On January 17, 2013 a hearing was held in a foreclosure case, Bank of Hawai‘i v. Keli‘iho‘omalu, in the Circuit Court of Second Circuit in Wailuku, Island of Maui. The Keli‘iho‘omalus filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court does not legally exist and if the case was not dismissed the actions taken by the Court and the Plaintiff would constitute war crimes and they will be reported to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, Switzerland.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

In their motion, the Keli‘iho‘omalus provided clear evidence of an illegal occupation by the United States and that without a treaty of annexation, the State of Hawai‘i government and its courts are illegal. The Keli‘iho‘malus argued, “This Court cannot claim the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit has subject matter jurisdiction in light of the evidence to the contrary, and if this court disregards the evidence it will be in direct violation of Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, by willfully depriving the Defendants a fair and regular trial, which is a grave breach and a war crime.”

Attorney Dexter Kaiama provided special appearance for the Keli‘iho‘omalus at the hearing. In addition to the evidence already submitted, Kaiama read into the record a “Declaration of Leland Pa,” a Hawai‘i County police officer that inquired into war crimes committed by Hawai‘i Island Circuit Court Judges Greg Nakamura and Glen S. Hara, and District Court Judge Barbara Takase.

The complaints were filed by Kaiama with the U.S. Pacific Command and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland, and alleged these judges deprived his clients of their right to a fair and regular trial during occupation, being a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV. The basis of the complaints were the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Restoration Agreement, being international compacts, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10.

According to the declaration, Pa initiated the inquiry in September 2012 as part of his “duty to identify potentially serious law enforcement and government problems” after obtaining “copies of war crime complaints from the Law Office of Dexter K. Kaiama.” He stated he began the inquiry to see how he would be affected as a police officer and “if it would pose potential problems for law enforcement and government officials.”

At 10:30 p.m., November 6, 2012, Pa called the “Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit, United Nations Office at Geneva” and that a spokesperson confirmed they are in receipt of the complaints but could not provide any more assistance. Pa stated the spokesperson recommended that he “contact U.S. departments that deal with war crime complaints.”

On November 8, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., Pa called the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Command at Camp Smith, Island of O‘ahu, and spoke with Ronald Winfrey, Principal Deputy Staff Judge Advocate. Pa informed Winfrey of his concerns and how these complaints could affect his duties as a police officer. When asked about the complaints from Kaiama, Winfrey stated “he knows those complaints because out of all the complaints he has read those are the most precise and clear.”

Pa stated that as he “began discussing the basis of the complaints such as no treaty of annexation, Mr. Winfrey candidly and without hesitation said, ‘Oh yes, there is no treaty.’” According to Pa, Winfrey attempted to ease Pa’s concerns about the implications of war crimes by stating that U.S. Courts will not hear these cases because they would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Pa then asked Winfrey to respond to his questions.

• “Since there is no treaty, can the unresolved issues of the executive agreements and Hawaii’s occupation get resolved by a U.S. Court in the future?” Winfrey “stated that is possible.”
• “If a U.S. Court should find in favor of plaintiff’s claim regarding the executive agreements and Hawai‘i’s occupation, then the prosecution of said War Crimes would come into play?” Winfrey “stated that is possible.”
• “Since there is no treaty, the plaintiff does not need a U.S. court ruling? The Plaintiff could get these issues resolved in an International venue and then prosecution of war crimes would come into play?” Winfrey “stated that is possible.”

Pa informed Winfrey that as a police officer he swore “an oath to uphold the laws and constitution of the United States. Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. constitution declares that treaties, which includes executive agreements, are the supreme law of the land. Because there is no treaty of annexation we are faced with a difficult situation, which needs clarification and I find it necessary to notify my superiors.”

Pa’s telephone conversation with Winfrey took place before the Hawaiian Kingdom acceded to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on December 10, 2012 and beginning on March 4, 2013 the ICC can begin the investigation of war crimes committed within Hawaiian territory. After March 4, 2013, the U.S. Pacific Command will also be subject to investigation and prosecution by the ICC.

After two failed attempts to acquire the Hawaiian Islands by a treaty of cession as required by international law, the U.S. Congress “unilaterally” enacted a Joint Resolution purporting to annex the Hawaiian Islands, which was signed into law by President McKinley on July 7, 1898 during the Spanish-American War as a war measure.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

On June 15, 1898, during debates over the joint resolution annexing Hawai‘i in the House of Representatives, Congressman Thomas H. Ball (D-Texas) stated, “The annexation of Hawai‘i by joint resolution is unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unwise. If the first proposition be true, sworn to support the Constitution, we should inquire no further. I challenge not the advocates of Hawaiian annexation, but those who advocate annexation in the form now presented, to show warrant or authority in our organic law for such acquisition of territory. To do so will be not only to subvert the supreme law of the land but to strike down every precedent in our history. …Why, sir, the very presence of this measure here is the result of a deliberate attempt to do unlawfully that which can not be done lawfully.”

And on June 20, 1898, during Senate debates over the joint resolution annexing Hawai‘i, Senator Augustus Bacon (D-Georgia) stated, “That a joint resolution for the annexation of foreign territory was necessarily and essentially the subject matter of a treaty, and that it could not be accomplished legally and constitutionally by a statute or joint resolution. If Hawaii was to be annexed, it ought certainly to be annexed by a constitutional method; and if by a constitutional method it can not be annexed, no Senator ought to desire its annexation sufficiently to induce him to give his support to an unconstitutional measure.” Senator Bacon further explained, “Now, a statute is this: A Statute is a rule of conduct laid down by the legislative department, which has its effect upon all of those within the jurisdiction. In other words, a statute passed by the Congress of the United States is obligatory upon every person who is a citizen of the United States or a resident therein. A statute can not go outside the jurisdiction of the United States and be binding upon the subjects of another power. It takes the consent of the subjects of the other power, speaking or giving their consent through their duly authorized government, to be bound by a certain thing which is enacted in this country; and therein comes the necessity for a treaty. ”

The United States Congress was fully aware that a joint resolution is not a cession of territory by treaty, but only an opinion or will of the U.S. Congress limited in authority to territory of the United States. The Hawaiian Kingdom was not annexed to the United States and remained an independent, but occupied State.

Usurping Hawaiian sovereignty, U.S. President McKinley signed into United States law An Act To provide a government for the Territory of Hawai’i on April 30, 1900; and on March 18, 1959, U.S. President Eisenhower signed into United States law An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai’i into the Union.

According to the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., (1936), “Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens; and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law…. [T]he court recognized, and in each of the cases cited [involving the exercise of the sovereign power of the United States] found, the warrant for its conclusions not in the provisions of the Constitution, but in the law of nations”.

United States laws are not only limited to United States territory, but the 1898 joint resolution of annexation, the 1900 Territorial Act, and the 1959 Hawai‘i Statehood Act stand in direct violation of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Restoration Agreement, being international compacts, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV.

According to the United Nations War Crimes Commission “war crimes” include:

• Usurpation of sovereignty during occupation;
• Deportation of civilians;
• Compulsory enlistment of soldiers among the inhabitants of occupied territory;
• Denationalizing the inhabitants of occupied territory;
• Confiscation of property;
• Exaction of illegitimate or of exorbitant contributions and requisitions;
• Wanton devastation and destruction of religious, charitable, educational and historical buildings and monuments.

Usurpation of sovereignty is to illegally take by force the sovereignty of another country. International tribunals and national tribunals prosecuted both military and civilians after World War I and World War II for these war crimes. The State of Hawai’i government, established by an Act of Congress in 1959, is a usurpation of sovereignty during occupation and therefore not only illegal but also constitutes a war crime.