Registrar of the International Court of Justice Acknowledges Hawaiian Complaint But Won’t Take Action Until Hawaiian Kingdom Covers Court Expenses

ICJ_Peace_PalaceThe International Court of Justice is one of three principal organs of the United Nations together with the General Assembly and the Security Council. It is located in the city of The Hague, Netherlands, and sits within the Peace Palace along with the Permanent Court of Arbitration. According to its website, “The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies. The Court is composed of 15 judges who are elected for terms of office of nine years by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. It is assisted by a Registry, its administrative organ. Its official languages are English and French.”

Only States, which are independent countries, can initiate legal proceedings against other States for violations of international law. The ICJ, however, is also open for States which are not members of the United Nations. Switzerland did not become a member of the United Nations until 2002 but initiated legal proceedings with the ICJ in 1957 as a non-Member State against the United States of America. The case lasted for 2 years and final judgment was entered on March 21, 1959 in favor of the United States, whereby the subject of the international dispute, being a Swiss corporation, has not exhausted its local remedies against the United States, therefore making the complaint against the United States premature.

If a private individual or group attempts to file an Application Instituting Proceedings against a State with the ICJ, the Registrar does not acknowledge receipt of the Application, but rather sends a template letter, either by mail or email, that states:

Dear ___,

In reply to your email or mail, I have to inform you that the International Court of Justice is not authorized, in view of its functions strictly defined by its Statute (Article 34) and Rules, to give advice or make observations on questions such as those raised in your communication.

The Court’s activities are limited to rendering judgments in legal disputes between States submitted to it by the States themselves and giving advisory opinions when it is so requested by UN organs or specialized agencies of the UN system.

It follows that neither the Court nor its Members can consider applications from private individual or groups, provide them with legal advice or assist them in their relations with the authorities of any country.

That being so, you will, I am sure, understand that, to my regret, no action can be taken on your communication.

Yours faithfully,

Département de l’information | Information Department – Cour internationale de Justice | International Court of Justice

ICJ_RegistrarThe Registrar of the ICJ, Philippe Couvreur, serves in similar fashion to a Clerk of a Court that receives and file stamps civil and criminal complaints. The Registrar’s duty is to ensure that the party filing an Application (Complaint) is a State, whether a member or non-member of the United Nations, and that it meets the compliance provided for in the Statute and Rules of the ICJ. Once it meets the requirements and before it is submitted to the Judges, the Application must be translated by the Registrar’s office into both the English and French languages, a bilingual version of the State’s Application must be printed and a copy sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations and other States who have access to the ICJ, the case must be listed on the ICJ General List, and a press release must be sent to the media announcing the filing of the Application.

In order for the Registrar to complete these tasks he has a staff that includes a Deputy Registrar, a Legal Matters Department, a Linguistic Matters Department, an Information Department and 5 Technical Divisions comprised of Finance, Publications, Information and Communications Technology, Archives-Indexing and Distribution, and Text Processing and Reproduction. The funding of the ICJ is a portion drawn from the Regular Budget of the United Nations. The 2013 Regular Budget of the United Nations was $5.2 billion US dollars, and the proportionate budget for the ICJ was $47.7 million US dollars, which pays for these tasks to be completed by the Registrar’s office before the Court can take any action. If the State is a non-Member of the United Nations, it would have to contribute to cover the expenses of the Registrar’s office and Judges before the Court can taken any action. Article 35, paragraph 3 of the Statute of the ICJ states “When a state which is not a Member of the United Nations is a party to a case, the Court shall fix the amount which that party is to contribute towards the expenses of the Court. This provision shall not apply if such state is bearing a share of the expenses of the Court.”

On September 25, 2013, the Hawaiian Kingdom submitted to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice an “Application Instituting Proceedings” against 45 States for treaty violations and violations of international law. In addition, a “Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection” was also submitted requesting the Court to issue an order compelling the 45 States named in the complaint to no longer recognize the United States presence in Hawai‘i as legal. The Hawaiian Kingdom had previously deposited its declaration accepting jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with the Secretary General of the United Nations on September 6, 2013 in accordance with Article 36 of the Statute of the Court.

The Registrar’s office was very reluctant to acknowledge receipt of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Application because it was under the assumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom was not an independent State but rather a part of the United States of America. In fact, it received the template letter from the ICJ before the Agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom, Dr. David Keanu Sai, departed for the Netherlands to file the Application. While at The Hague, however, events transpired at the Peace Palace whereby the Registrar’s office was unable to deny the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as a State and the Application was accepted by the personal assistant to the Registrar of the ICJ.

As a non-Member State of the United Nations, the Hawaiian Kingdom is responsible for covering the expenses of the Court as required under Article 35 of the Statute and, without providing its share to cover these costs, the Registrar’s office would not be able translate the Application into the French language and print out a bilingual version of the Application for the other States named in the Application, the Judges of the ICJ and the Secretary General of the United Nations. In other words, the Court cannot take any action on the case until the matter of costs is settled.

In order to address these costs, the Hawaiian Kingdom submitted a formal request on October 16, 2013 to have the President of the International Court of Justice convene the other Judges of the Court to fix the amount, which the Hawaiian Kingdom is to contribute towards the expenses of the Court. The paradox to this request is that for the President to convene the Court in order to determine the amount the Hawaiian Kingdom is to contribute, there would be an expense for the Court to convene which the Hawaiian Kingdom was to pay beforehand.

Registrar_AckIn a letter to the Hawaiian Kingdom from the International Court of Justice dated October 18, 2013, the Registrar formally acknowledged receipt of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Application and Request for Interim Measures of Protection but stated the Court cannot take action at this time. In the letter, the Registrar alluded to this paradox by stating the Court can take no action and made specific reference to Article 35, which addresses the costs that must be paid by the Hawaiian Kingdom first. The last sentence of Article 35, paragraph 3, states the Court would not have to convene if the Hawaiian Kingdom provided its share to cover the expenses of the Court.

On September 28, 2013, the Hawaiian Kingdom provided a cashier’s check made out to the International Court of Justice to cover the expenses of the Court in the Hawaiian case. The Hawaiian Kingdom arrived at this amount by following the calculations used by the United Nations for member States to contribute their share to the 2013 Regular Budget, which included the proportionate share to the International Court of Justice.

After further thought on the matter, the Hawaiian Kingdom concluded that the United States of America has already paid its share to the Court for 2013. The United Nations measurement of costs incurred by member States is based on the country’s gross national income (GNI), which is also called the gross nation product (GNP). The United States has unlawfully seized control of the Hawaiian GNI and a large portion of the United States revenue derives from Internal Revenue Service (IRS) taxes. In 2012, the IRS collected $2.2 trillion dollars, of which residents and businesses in the Hawaiian Islands paid $5.1 billion dollars. As an occupier, the United States cannot collect taxes in a foreign country for its own benefit, and if it does it is called plundering. Unlawful appropriation of private property is plundering and extensive appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, is a war crime. In other words, the United States’ contribution of $618.5 million made to the United Nations 2013 Regular Budget, of which $5.7 million went to the International Court of Justice, is tainted with stolen property from the residents of an illegally occupied State.

On November 4, 2013, the Hawaiian Kingdom notified the Registrar of the severity of the situation. In its notice to the Registrar, the Hawaiian Kingdom stated that due to the “inability at the moment to have access to verifiable data and sources to arrive at a specific amount it could claim from the United States contribution to the International Court of Justice of its proportionate share pursuant to Article 35, the Hawaiian Kingdom requests Your Excellency to assess from the United States’ contribution of $5,710,018.66, which the Court has already received, and determine with verifiable data the specific amount of illegally appropriated monies derived from the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom and to place that entire amount in an interest bearing account under the International Court of Justice for reparations that the Hawaiian Kingdom seeks as provided in paragraph 4(l) of its Application.” The Hawaiian Kingdom maintained that the contribution it provided to the Court on September 28 should cover the expenses required by Article 35 of the Statute.

139 thoughts on “Registrar of the International Court of Justice Acknowledges Hawaiian Complaint But Won’t Take Action Until Hawaiian Kingdom Covers Court Expenses

  1. Reference last sentence immediately preceding the October 18th ICJ’s registrar’s letter of acknowledgement should perhaps read: “it will be an expense for the Court to convene which the Hawaiian [Kingdom] was to pay beforehand.” Mahalo.

  2. Unreal! Leave it to the legal system to find a loophole to make getting paid more important than serving justice. Especially shameful is that the ICJ would make a bill more important than deciding whether a country and her people are living under tyranny and occupation. I understand Article 35 and the ridiculous paradox, but doesn’t this truly underscore racial biased in favor of colonizing and predominantly European countries?

  3. Q? I don’t understand it but, would the “Secretary-General’s Trust Fund to Assist States in the Settlement of Disputes” through the ICJ, be something that would be beneficial? Obviously I appreciate your stance better, that “illegally appropriated monies” have traded hands. This makes me wonder…is the ICJ committing any wrong doing by accepting the questionable money, since they have accepted (implying merit?) the Application? Any thoughts?

  4. Now we have to wait for a response from the ICJ. With this amount charged against the credit of the United States of America for 2013: $57,859,142., Hawaii is paid in full to the ICJ. If! the U.S. claims Hawaii is not included in this sum I would be uproar. So, calm down Ginger Girl, take a deep breath and wait for Keanu to let us know on the Registrar response. I must focus and be positive…

  5. Why does the documents have to be translated in to those European languages at the expense of the Hawaiian Kingdom…It is Europe who has encroached on Native Hawaiian Polynesian soil it should be the other way around

  6. Okay so now I’m even more confused. What is the registrar referring to when he says paragraph 1, article 34? That refers to only being able to be heard by the court if you’re a state. Is there an issue after all, in his view, with our status or with Mr. Sai’s status? Someone please help me understand what they are trying to say.

    • If I’m understanding this correctly, the registrar denied the Application based on the idea that Hawaii was not a country. Now, after accepting the Application, the registrar is sighting the same article…what’s the deal. Can they arbitrarily change their mind over and over?

    • The last sentence in the letter he received from the ICJ states, “Having carefully examined these documents, I have to draw your attention to paragraph 1 of article 34 and to article 35 of the Statute of the Court, and to inform you that your above-mentioned communications and the various documents attached thereto or received thereafter do not call for any action on the part of the Court.” It doesn’t really get any more explicit than that. It is a court of law. There’s nothing to be implied by this letter. It is to be taken at face value. Text from the paragraphs/statutes mentioned in this sentence states the following:

      o Article 34. 1. Only states may be parties in cases before the Court.

      o Article 35. 1. The Court shall be open to the states parties to the present Statute.

      So what is the court saying? They’re saying the court can’t start proceedings because the Kingdom of Hawaii is not a recognized sovereign state (or even a recognized non-member state, which is an actual status in the United Nations

      • I think I may have answered this part of my puzzlement in my previous posting…Now I want to know how this court of law, with their explicit language, can be so unprofessionally indecisive. Implications are abundant because of their indecisiveness. The same office in the same court has flip flopped 3 times now. The only thing this illustrates, for me, is that this court is operating under complete confusion, and now I’d like to know what’s guiding their indecisive judgements.

        • They’re actually not being indecisive at all. When they say, “your above-mentioned communications and the various documents attached thereto or received thereafter do not call for any action on the part of the Court,” they are saying they are not taking the case because the Hawaiian Kingdom is not a recognized sovereign state in any way, shape, or form.

          • That recognition was already afforded to The Acting Hawaiian Kingdom Government after the Permanent Court of Arbitration recognized their legitimacy with the Larsen case. That’s why they’ve been able to file documents with the UN, ICJ, ICC, etc… There’s a film posted to their website that’s worth viewing if you’d like to be updated on the history, to this point. It’s a good viewing, only 2 hours and very comprehensive. Then maybe you’d understand where my confusion in the matter is coming from.

          • “That recognition was already afforded”

            Actually, the case went to the PCA (versus the ICJ), because the PCA can take cases filed by organizations rather than just states. Also, one has to pay attention to the award in the PCA case, which stated, “the Tribunal finds that these arbitral proceedings are not maintainable.” In other words, they didn’t have a case.

            In regards to this blog post, I think what is confusing is the really oversimplified accounting brought in, which is supposed to address Article 35.3. The thing is though, Article 35.2. states that if a case is brought by a state that is not a member of the United Nations, it must be “laid down by the Security Council,” where the United States has a permanent seat and veto power. Not one state in the world has recognized the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and it’s not going to be recognized by the USA in the UN Security Council. So this case cannot pass the rigor of Article 35.2. In regards to the 35.3, the ICJ would bill the state which is not a member of the United Nations IF they took the case because that state hasn’t paid into the court system, as member states do.

            BTW, any individual can file paperwork to these international institutions. Do a Google search for individuals who have filed cases with the ICC, and you’ll get pages of results. Send letters to the ICC on your own behalf and you too will get back all the same form letters.

      • I believe the Registrar of the International Court of Justice is simply asking for money to cover expenses. The Hawaiian Kingdom is obligated to cover costs in publishing the formal announcements and deliberations of the court in its
        commencement of the juridical process. Once these formalities are completed, the case will move forward against the United States and its Illegal Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

        We must not allow ourselves to get entangled in semantics. Let us all stay positive and that the Rule of law will prevail. We will then be able to proceed with the compliance of Restoration given the fact that there has never been a treaty of cession.

        Our Hawaiian Kingdom governance awaits its day at the helm, so the Daughters and Sons of Ko Pae Aina Hawaii can return home.

        Nani wale na pua onaona, a me maluhia mau.

        • Unfortunately, a case cannot be made against the United States in the ICJ, because they are not members of the court. In other words, the US can choose to ignore any case brought against them in the ICJ with impunity.

          • I’ll agree. Decolonization has a pretty crappy rate of success lately. Although it will be very interesting to see what happens with Tahiti.

            But do you really believe Hawaii will have better luck in the UN Security Council, where the US has a permanent seat and veto power?

          • What evidence is there to suggest that decolonization has a better probability of succeeding than de-occupation for the Hawaiian Kingdom territory? Reinscription of Tahiti has so far proven worthless. The UN won’t even update its website to include French Polynesia in its list of non-self-governing territories:
            I have e-mailed them twice about this and nothing has changed.

            Decolonization and de-occupation can be pursued simultaneously, and let’s see which one might succeed first.

      • M A, I believe the Hawaiian Kingdom can file they just have to come up with the kala to start the proceedings,and the US,can be held accountable for treaty violations,as they are signatory to the UN. of which the ICJ is a part.

  7. Ooh! Wow! Seems like Hawaii is getting close to the possibility of unbelievableness!! Only Article 35 of the ICJs Statute is its obstacle! And unfortunately there is nothing we can do or say in contrast against it because, while it is kinda ludicrous, Her Majesty pointed out while negotiating with the U.S. ambassador of the Executive Agreements, the law is the law.

    However I do have to admit, that was pretty good thinking of the expenses the HK has to pay to the ICJ. We, as every resident living here in occupied Hawaii, already paid it! That is in terms of illegal tax collections the U.S. Government is collecting from us! At least all those illegal collections can contribute to not only something good, but also bigger and unbelievable things that is right now bordering on the possibility of happening!

  8. @m.a.
    I was clear in my posting to state that the case did take place in the Permanent Court of Arbitration and not the ICJ. The verdict that was handed down was exactly what The Acting Government Of Hawaii was looking for, which was recognition from the PCA that they were in existence as still yet. The verdict you are referring to is the actual verdict on the Larsen matter which could not be worked out because the US WOULD NOT come to the court, to their own detriment.

    Now, I will not claim or try to sound as if I know legal codes and their meanings, for if I did, this discussion would never have arisen, but it does not take more than my own eyes to see that Hawaii did gain sovereign recognition BWO treaties with major and numerous countries prior to a group of pineapple farmers, backed by the US Navy, removing Her government and inserting themselves.

    I pose to you this question… How then, are these farmers, or the US who with their Navy, took the government and then gave it to themselves, any more recognizable in the courts eye than the previous government who had binding treaties, recognizing the Kingdom Of Hawaii? (The passage of time is not a legal answer because Her Majesty did file legal protest in a judicious manner.) as it stands, these are the people who are being recognized by the same court.

    As far as the US’s veto power, I was not aware that they alone had the power to veto all cases that come before the security council, but I wasn’t even talking about that. One thing I may comment on though, your reference of this makes them sound very imperialistic! Was that what you were trying to do?

    Oversimplification is on the courts part here. Thus, my confusion.

    • The award by the PCA only recognized the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an organization not a state. The PCA, ICJ, ICC, etc, do not have the power to recognize non-states as states. Only the UN Security Council can do that, and yes, unfortunately, like I mentioned above, the US has a permanent seat and veto power.

      In regards to the UN Security Council sounding imperialistic, it most definitely is. That’s why there is talk in the United Nations General Assembly right now about how to make the UN more democratic, especially the Security Council, which has a choke hold on democracy. But will we see a change in the structure of the United Nations in our lifetimes? Probably not.

      And yes, the United States is not party to the ICC or ICJ, and even if a case was brought against the US in either of those courts, they could ignore them with impunity.

      In answering your questions, “How then, are these farmers, or the US who with their Navy, took the government and then gave it to themselves, any more recognizable in the courts eye than the previous government who had binding treaties recognizing the Kingdom Of Hawaii?”

      After WWII, it was as if a “reset” button was hit on how the world was ordered. All states in the Axis were forced to decolonize their territories immediately. All states in the Allied Forces held on to their territories, with the expectation of eventual decolonization. At the formation of the United Nations, Hawaii was recognized by the international community not as an independent state but as a territory (aka colony) of the United States. And this is what sucks, state sovereignty has more to do with recognition than almost anything else. The Hawaiian Kingdom could fulfill all the criteria of sovereignty (population, territory, government), but the big exception is recognition by other states, which is imperative to sovereignty. So to answer your question about how the US can be seen as legitimate while the Hawaiian Kingdom is not comes down to the world being a very unfair place, filled with inequality and injustice, and international laws that often protect the colonizers more than the colonized; if the world (as in other sovereign states) does’t recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom as sovereign, it’s not sovereign.

      The thing is, this is more of a political issue than legal, because there are no domestic or international courts which the United States is party to, where any Hawaiian sovereignty group can address this crime. So it has to be addressed politically in the United Nations. If the narrative used to approach the United Nations is “occupation,” then is has to be brought to the Security Council, which as we discussed is a dead end. The only other way to approach the UN is through the decolonization process, which would be brought to the General Assembly.

      • I have heard of this avenue of decolonization before. I just have difficulty understanding how one goes about decolonizing a place that is not a legitimate colony. To go that route, without exhausting all others would be inappropriate. You suggest that we act as if we are not a recognized nation because no one will ever recognize us. Truthfully, you can not say what will happen if we continue down this path. People are becoming educated on history and intl. law. Lively dialogue such as ours is occurring. So, good is coming from this process. In this case, we will need to agree to disagree on the path to justice/freedom but I appreciate the healthy conversation.

      • Confiscated without a treaty of cession, plebiscite, or referendum, the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom remains a territory occupied by the United States. This is an undisputed fact, not a “narrative.” It is a legal issue of compliance by the United States, not a political issue requiring majority support. The de jure Hawaiian Kingdom is an occupied and exiled state, not a “sovereignty group.”

        The decolonization model was popular in the 1990’s, but has yet to make any headway for the Hawaiian Kingdom territory. De-occupation is the new paradigm of Hawaiian independence, which clearly has more popular support than decolonization. As the diagnosis and prescription, occupation and de-occupation are more accurate than colonization and decolonization.

    • BTW, all that being said, today, no state/s or international institution would ever recognize the sovereignty of Hawaii without at least half the permanent population of Hawaii participating in some kind of voting process and voting in favor of sovereignty, because of human rights issues/potential violations.

      • My friend. I would strongly suggest that you educate yourself over the political and legal history of Hawaii by Dr. Sai. Go to Hawaiian

        • I totally agree with you Iolani. Voting in favor of sovereignty, because of human rights issues/potential violations??? What about our rights and the violations and War Crimes that have and are continuing to be committed against our people….the Kanaka Maoli’s/Hawaiian Kingdom Subjects??? Hawaii was and has always been an independent and sovereign country so why would there be a need for a vote and in regards to human rights issues/potential violations??? Who are you referring to the huge number of people who are here illegally complaining about their rights being violated when they are ones who are here illegally??? It is like the thief crying to the police because he had to return the car that he had stole and is being deported because he was here illegally. You really need to educate yourself as Iolani has indicated!!!

      • International recognition of the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom already exists on paper: There are forty-six (46) States and one hundred twenty-seven (127) successor States that have treaty relations with the Hawaiian Kingdom. That is 100% of the 173 member states of the United Nations. Therefore, recognition is a matter of compliance with what already exists, not a voting process in the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom territory.

        The majority of the Hawaiian Kingdom defeated the treaty of annexation in 1898. Hence, the will of the majority has already spoken. So, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. To believe otherwise is to believe in acquisitive prescription, which is forever negated by the abundant history of protest against U.S. imperialism in the Hawaiian Kingdom.

        In the past 13 years, the will of the majority has spoken again, in the opposition to, absence of support for, and failure to obtain, domestic federal recognition, which has always been a unilateral initiative of the U.S.

        • That’s a lot of rhetoric. Show me one treaty the Hawaiian Kingdom, post-1947, has brokered with another sovereign state.

          BTW, you should read about the history of treaty making and breaking in Europe, especially between England and France, as well as all the treaties the Iroquois had with the French and English, that were later broken.

          Historically, broken treaties are nothing new.

          • The burden is on you to prove how my comment is full of rhetoric, but I’ll take that remark as a compliment.

            It is not reasonable to expect an occupied state to broker new treaties while it is under occupation and exiled. That cannot be used in lieu of a treaty of cession, plebiscite, or referendum, to relinquish the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom government. Your contention is based on the premise of acquisitive prescription, which has been forever negated by the well-established history of protest against U.S. imperialism in the Hawaiian Kingdom.

            Yes, it’s true that the U.S. picks and chooses which treaties it complies with. Because of that, you’re suggesting that we abandon the lawful deoccupation process, and compromise by returning to the inaccurate de-colonization model that has not done any better than the de-occupation model. Personally, I’m not in favor of such a compromise.

            As long as the U.S. remains in the Hawaiian Kingdom, occupation will remain as the legal status. There is nothing that the U.S. will ever be able to do to relinquish Hawaiian sovereignty and lawfully annex it. As time goes on, it will only get harder and harder for the U.S. to continue covering up the occupation from the rest of the world.

            Why is it that you are so against de-occupation? Is it that you are afraid of returning to a constitutional monarchy? I don’t think there is anyone in this forum who would disagree that most people of Hawaiʻi don’t want to return to kings and queens. I certainly don’t. However, the de jure Hawaiian Kingdom government must first be de-occupied before we can change it to a democratic republic, which is the most likely scenario. I think most people would agree with me on that.

          • No. I’m not saying the deoccupation narrative has to be abandoned. People can do whatever they what. We can all claim to be ministers or kings or queens and send off letters to international institutions and receive form letters in response, and then post them to the internet. Viva la free speech!

            And it’s not that I’m so “against” the narrative in as much as I believe it’s a huge waste of time and is a distraction from what really needs to be done in order to regain our sovereignty. I also find the “war crimes” claims to be distasteful and insensitive (which is behavior I believe to be the antithesis of our culture) in context of the real war crimes happening in the world. But we’re all entitled to our own opinions, whether it’s US or HK law.

            In regards to your statement, “It is not reasonable to expect an occupied state from brokering new treaties while is it under occupation,” this is EXACTLY why making the case that Hawaii is occupied is not working. Occupied territories still have sovereign rights to broker treaties. For example Palestine is an occupied nation, but they have still brokered treaties with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, etc. If a state is no longer recognized as sovereign by the international community, than it is not sovereign.

        • Decolonization has not worked any better than de-occupation. Therefore, de-occupation is no more a waste of time than de-colonization is. Sai and Kaiama are working in an acting capacity, until such time that elections can be held, and appointments made. They were very clear about this in the previous blog post.

          International recognition has already been conferred by the existing treaty relations with the 173 UN member states—not to mention the absence of a treaty of cession, plebiscite, or referendum. Non-compliance with those treaties does not equate to a relinquishment of the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom. That is the difference between political (non-compliance) and legal (compliance).

          Political non-recognition does not legally relinquish sovereignty. Legally, the United States will never be able to transfer the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom. No matter how long they remain, occupation will remain the correct legal status, which they cannot continue to cover up forever.

          Pursuit of the lawful de-occupation process is an initiative that is barely in its infancy. Give it time, and it will prevail. Decolonization has had since at least the early 1990’s to do better, and it hasn’t. Be fair, and allow de-occupation to have at least as much time to succeed as the de-colonization has. Right now, it is premature to write-off the lawful de-occupation process.

          • Since the formation of the United Nations in 1947, 80 states have been decolonized and become sovereign.

            Deoccupation goes through the UN Security Council, where again, the US has a permanent seat and veto power.

            But regardless, neither decolonization or deoccupation is going anywhere without mass support from a majority of the citizens of Hawaii today. This is a human rights matter that the international community will not ignore because of current human rights standards.

          • I disagree that this is a political issue requiring majority support of the current inhabitants of the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom territory. The absence of a treaty of cession, plebiscite, or referendum supersedes any claim that the U.S. could try to make based on acquisitive prescription, which is negated in the Hawaiian Kingdom territory by case law.

            I agree in the sense that U.S. compliance with the lawful de-occupation process will not materialize until a threshold of international support and pressure is reached. This requires dissemination of the legal status of Hawaiʻi, which is just getting started. I also believe that the unprecedented U.S. initiative to obtain domestic federal recognition (of “Native Hawaiians” as an “Indian tribe”) is paramount evidence that the alternative of independence (via decolonization or de-occupation) is more realistic than ever.

          • Aloha KKM,MA,seems to not being ableto grasp what is obviously the truth.You do,maybe he is Ken Conklin or works for the de facto’s,it’s great that you are that well versed in the study of makaea.

          • Mahalo, Lono. Definitely as obstinate as Conklin, and not here to construct anything positive. It might as well be the work of a secret agent, if not already the case. You have to pick your battles, and, at some point, disengage from interactions with people that are nothing more than a lost cause.

          • M.A., you are so off track that I too agree that you are trying to confuse everything with your statements of we being in need of regaining our sovereignty….when we never lost it, voting by the mass population…when the mass population are illegal immigrants/aliens, human rights issues and potential violations….against people who are here illegally!!! Sure sounds like a serious condition “Americanized Brainwash” to me. Please forgive me, but I am no longer going to waste anymore of my time reading your post!!! Poho!!!

          • MA, don’t believe me feel like you just want to argue with others,I’m a Hawaiian national by birth,don’t know about you,and direct lineal descendant of KeaweOMoku and His high priest Keawe ae and still sovereign in my homeland, and my Ohana still reside at Hale O Keawe,on Moku O Keawe.Aloha enough said/Pau.

          • The Hawaiian Kingdom met all four criteria on recognized on November 28, 1843 by the states of England, France and then one year later, United State of America.

            No Treaty of Annexation – no cession. Ku pa`a

            Aloha ke akua pau ole

          • Lono, It’s not arguing. It’s disagreeing. And keeping in the spirit of our kupuna who ALWAYS questioned leadership.

            Doreene, Yes! You are right. And if any state, regardless of whether they did once meet all four criteria, fails to continue to meet those criteria, that state is no longer sovereign.

          • “… the legal existence of a state… has a relative character. A state exists legally only in its relations to other states. There is not such thing as absolute existence.” -James Crawford, “The Concept of Statehood in International Law”

        • M.A. – This is not rocket science. With no treaty of cession, plebiscite or referendum to transfer the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom—as conceded by U.S. Public Law 103-150—the legal existence of the United States in the Hawaiian Kingdom cannot be classified as anything other than military occupation. Furthermore, this occupation cannot be negated by acquisitive prescription, given the history of protest against against U.S. imperialism in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and supported by case law. In other words, the United States has never legally existed in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom has never been legally relinquished.

          • US Public Law 103-150 is known in international relations as a “satisfaction.” It’s actually considered a reparation without actually providing any reparations. And this particular apology is considered a domestic apology.

            Again, show me ONE treaty the Hawaiian Kingdom has brokered since 1898. Once a nation can no longer broker treaties, that nation is no longer sovereign. Read the Montevideo Convention. It’s not rocket science.

          • The Apology Resolution is an admission of guilt that there is no treaty of cession—neither unilateral nor bilateral—plebiscite, or referendum that has ever transferred the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom to the United States. Furthermore, it has not been transferred through acquisitive prescription. Without any of those four criteria, military occupation remains as the legal status. It appears that you are not disputing this.

            Instead, it looks like you are disputing that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, de jure, as a state. Whether or not it does has no bearing on what the legal status continues to be, which is military occupation. If you think that colonization is more accurate, or that the decolonization process has more merit, then lets see if it prevails. Remember that it has been pursued longer (since at least the early 90’s) than de-occupation (some 20 years later), and has done no better. This fact does not support the idea that de-occupation is more improbable than decolonization.

            Currently, the Hawaiian Kingdom has a defined territory, permanent population (of descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom nationals who were alive prior to August 12, 1898), and an acting government (through the doctrine of necessity, as outlined in the previous blog post). There is nothing stopping the acting government from entering into relations with other nations.

            I think that one of the reasons why some people may not be in support of de-occupation is an irrational fear of returning to a constitutional monarchy. Is this one of your underlying motivations for opposing de-occupation?

            Based on all of the evidence, I have reached the conclusion that de-occupation is the only lawful expression of Hawaiian sovereignty. The prescription (de-occupation) follows the diagnosis (occupation). Once the de jure government has been restored, then we can change it. I believe that most—myself included—will want to change it from a constitutional monarchy to a democratic republic.

          • Good luck convincing anyone here that a “domestic” apology can be used in lieu of a treaty of cession, or a plebiscite, or a referendum, or acquisitive prescription, to transfer sovereignty. How about giving us an historical example? There are no examples of that ever happening in the first 173 years of U.S. history, during which the first 49 states were each annexed by a treaty of cession that we can point to today. (The annexation of Texas was made unequivocal by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, for example.)

            Since Hawaiian sovereignty has never actually been transferred to the United States, it is incorrect to call U.S. Public Law 103-150 a domestic apology, because it is directed toward the inhabitants of a territory whose sovereignty has never been transferred to the United States. If a joint resolution of U.S. Congress doesn’t apply beyond its own borders—which has never included the Hawaiian Kingdom territory (which is why military occupation has been the ongoing legal status since August 12, 1898)—then it is not valid to call it a “satisfaction” either.

          • Maivân Clech Lâm herself said that U.S. Public Law 103-150 was half the work already done to restore independence, because the U.S. admitted that the purported annexation was illegal.

          • The General Assembly already voted to add Tahiti to the list of Non-Self Governing Territories. Tahiti is now in the decolonization process. Or did you not know that? Now it’s up to the people of Tahiti. They will have numerous referendums until they vote for total sovereignty.

            But that being said, if Hawaii had an independence referendum today, would over 50% of the permanent population vote for independence? Probably not. And that’s a human rights issue. So there’s a lot of serious work to be done.

          • And honestly, I’m kind of all pau here. Reading everything that is written, I’ve come to the conclusion that no one here is actually interested in Hawaii becoming sovereign. They’re interested in TALKING about Hawaii becoming sovereign. This blog is nothing more than a virtual community cult meeting. All hail the mes-SAI-ah. Again, good luck with that.

          • Yes, I know Tahiti was reinscribed back in May, but France has yet to even acknowledge it. The United Nations has not even updated their website to include French Polynesia in their list of non-self-governing territories. In other words, the decolonization process has yet to begin for Tahiti.

            The Hawaiian territory has not been reinscribed yet. Meanwhile, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Criminal Court, and now the International Court of Justice, have all acknowledged the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a state. So, there is nothing to suggest that decolonization has made more progress than de-occupation for the Hawaiian Islands.

            I’ve already addressed your hypothetical scenario of a decolonization referendum in the Hawaiian territory—and have explained my rationale to you ad nauseam. As I said the first time, colonization is an inaccurate diagnosis, and decolonization is an inaccurate prescription. Hawaiian sovereignty has never been transferred from the Hawaiian Kingdom to the United States, which makes it an occupied territory, not an annexed territory.

            To me, decolonization is too much of a compromise compared to de-occupation, because of the possibility that people will not vote for independence. I have no interest in compromise. It’s all (de-occupation) or nothing for me. Decolonization has had a 20-year head start on de-occupation, but has not done any better in the Hawaiian case.

            It is a false dilemma to propose that “if there were a vote today…” The proper course of action is to allow enough time to disseminate the correct information before de-occupation or decolonization could move forward. In terms of this education process, I agree with you that there is much work to be done before independence can move forward.

            Let me quote Maivân Clech Lâm for you again, regarding de-occupation vs. decolonization:

            “These narratives are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive…I think that if there is any kind of false dichotomy that has been rigidly set up between the two, we should really put that behind us.”

          • It doesn’t matter if France recognized the UN vote or not. The UN General Assembly overwhelmingly added Tahiti back on the Non-Self Governing Territories List. They have entered the process of decolonization, like the 80 countries before them. Name me ONE country that has entered the process of deoccupation. Oh yeah. There is no process of deoccupation.

            And saying the PCA, ICJ, and ICC have recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign state is a complete lie, because none of those courts have the authority to recognize a state that is not currently recognized by the United Nations. Again, the Larsen case went to the PCA because the PCA can hear cases from organizations.

            The fourth criteria of the Montevideo Convention clearly states that a sovereign state has the “capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” In other word, sovereignty is based on recognition from other states.

            The thing is, this is what one learns in international area studies/international relations. If the world recognized every self-proclaimed “leader” of a sovereignty movement, the world would be in complete chaos. Just in Hawaii alone, how many self-declared kings, queens, and ministers do we have? What would happen if the world recognized as sovereign the territories of Bumpy Kanahele, The Kingdom of Atooi, Mahealani Ventura in Maui, Keanu Sai’s 38 properties, etc? Hawaii would be broken into pieces. This is why leadership has to be chosen through a democratic process and sovereignty has to be voted on. It has to be very clear to the international community that this is a choice by the people. This is an international human rights issue that cannot be ignored.

            You can continue with all your SAI-splanations/rhetoric, but if anyone thinks pushing paper is the key to sovereignty, again, I can’t really believe they want sovereignty.

          • You obviously don’t give a damn about that quote I just left you from Maivân Clech Lâm. You have proven to be nothing but hostile, adversarial, and obstinate toward those of us the independence community at large. We have done our best to have a civil dialogue with you, but you are too enraged to do so.

            You are more interested in waging war on us. Obviously that has always been your intention to begin with here. So, we are not obligated to pull punches with you anymore. You chose to come into this forum and start trouble. Nobody forced you to come here.

            How does it not matter if France has yet to acknowledge the reinscription? France has to authorize and administer the referendum. France is also a member of the U.N. Security Council, which comes down to the same argument you try to make against Hawaiian Kingdom de-occupation. Also, unless and until Hawai’i gets reinscribed, you have no case for decolonization of the Hawaiian territory. Furthermore, unless and until decolonization actually happens for Tahiti, you don’t need to tell us about it again.

            The burden is on you to prove that the acting Hawaiian Kingdom government does not have the “capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” PCA, ICJ, and ICC only accept complaints or cases from states, not sovereignty groups. If the Hawaiian Kingdom was not a state, the PCA would not have done the arbitration to begin with.

            The acting Hawaiian Kingdom government acceded to the ICC, which began its jurisdiction over its territory in March. All of this is notwithstanding the fact that Hawaiian sovereignty has never been transferred to the United States, something which you have never disputed in your comments.

            The end of the Nazi empire is an example of de-occupation. Again, you are continuing down this road of false dichotomy between decolonization and de-occupation. The relative lack of a de-occupation process does not automatically mean that it should not be pursued, especially when it is the only lawful expression of self-determination in the Hawaiian case. Unlike you, we are not willing to take the compromise and risks that decolonization offers. Like I said, de-occupation is all-or-nothing for many of us.

            Like I said, the decolonization has had a 20-year head start on de-occupation, and you have nothing to show for it. Hence, you have no evidence that de-occupation is any less probable than decolonization. After reinscription and decolonization has begun for the Hawaiian territory, then come back and talk to us. Until then, I’m not going to address it with you again.

            An acting government for the de jure Hawaiian Kingdom is not the same thing as a “sovereignty group” (which you used pejoratively). You’re playing ignorant about what an acting government is, and what acting roles are, i.e., acting Minister of the Interior, and acting Attorney General. Sai and Kaiama have acknowledged that these are temporary roles, until people can be elected to positions. It is unreasonable for you to expect this to occur while the U.S. occupation is still ongoing.

            When the U.S. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, they overthrew the governments of these countries, but not their sovereignty. Acting governments were established until the countries were destabilized to permit elections. Since the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom has never been relinquished—through a treaty of cession, plebiscite, referendum, acquisitive prescription, or otherwise—de-occupation is the only lawful process to reconstitute Hawaiian independence. This is primarily a legal issue of U.S. compliance with the laws of occupation (Hague and Geneva Conventions, U.S. Public Law 104-192). Colonization and human rights are secondary.

            The sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom was voted on by a democratic process. Therefore, de-occupying the Hawaiian Kingdom is not anti-democratic. Once de-occupied, the subjects can vote to establish a new constitution and form of government to fit the world that we live in today. For example, I believe that most subjects will choose to change it from a constitutional monarchy to a democratic republic. I have proposed this scenario to you multiple times, and you refuse to consider it, since you are so hellbent on pushing your decolonization agenda.

            In order to characterize the initiative for Hawaiian Kingdom de-occupation as paper-pushing, you would have to demonstrate that decolonization has made more headway, which even you have admitted that it hasn’t for the Hawaiian case, even with the 20-year head start that it has had compared to de-occupation.

          • Correction in my previous post, ninth paragraph, second sentence, should read “restabilized.” The autocorrect changed it to “destabilized.”

          • I think Maivan has made it more than clear that she believes decolonization is the best route for sovereignty. So your taking her quotes out of context is disingenuous.

            Again… the PCA took the Larsen case because the PCA can take cases filed by organizations. And, btw, the ICC takes cases filed by individuals. So your assessment that the PCA, ICJ, and ICC only take cases filed by states is a lie. And getting form letters back from the ICC is not coming under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Do your own homework. Find out the truth. Write your own letter to the ICC, and you too will get back the same form letters!

            Regarding Tahiti’s reinscription, NO, France isn’t going to oversee the referendum. The United Nations is going to oversee the referendum. That’s why it doesn’t matter what France’s attitude is about the whole thing.

            And yes! Germany was deoccupied, because deoccupation happens after A WAR has ended!

            The Hawaiian Kingdom could have elections TODAY!! The Lawful Hawaiian Government does. Why can’t the Hawaiian Kingdom? The Palestinians have a sovereign, democratically elected government working within a very hostile occupation! This is EXACTLY why Palestine is recognized by over 120 states as a sovereign state!

            And I’m not pushing the decolonization narrative. I just think as far as narratives go, it’s a far better option because our sovereignty will never be had through the UN Security Council. It’s just not going to happen, until the Security Council is democratized, which will not be in our lifetimes.

            What I’m pushing is actual activism and encouraging more democratic processes in the sovereignty movement. Really, who is the Hawaiian Kingdom? Dexter and Keanu? I’m a Kanaka Maoli, and they don’t represent me. They represent you. How many people are part of the Hawaiian Kingdom? I’ve been told the Lawful Hawaiian Government group has thousands of citizens. My point is, my kupuna were Kingdom subjects just like yours. So I have just as much of a right to choose my leadership as you do. But I don’t because our sovereignty groups act like exclusive clubs. Your leader has a self-proclaimed position as minister and not given me the opportunity to vote on that. And then he goes out into the world and claims to represent me as the Hawaiian Kingdom? Sorry. That doesn’t even begin to resemble a constitutional monarchy with democratic processes.

            You call me enraged and hostile (ad hominem attack), but actually what I am is extremely disappointed.

          • It is quite clear to everyone how ill-tempered your comments have been so far in this forum. There is nothing ad hominem about that. Your referring to us as cult members is closer to ad hominem. I cornered you with Clech Lam quotes. It’s easy to say something is taken out of context. The burden is on you to prove how it is.

            If decolonization has more merit than de-occupation, then it would have a bigger following than de-occupation. Consequently, you would have no interest in coming over to this forum to complain and criticize. You would be too busy with it. You would have an easier time selling it than people have been sold on de-occupation. It would sell itself.

            The fact that you are investing time and energy here in this forum, so disgruntled, suggests that decolonization lacks such a following. I think you are bitter or jealous that decolonization doesn’t have a comparable base of support that you can point to. If it did, it would have a website that we would all know about.

            By the way, congratulations on sucking me into this zero-sum game in which you are reinforcing the false dichotomy of de-occupation vs. decolonization that Maivan Clech Lam warned about in her quote which you ignored then rejected.

            Perhaps part of the reason why so many are in favor of de-occupation today is because decolonization hasn’t worked for the past 20 years. Until de-occupation has had at least that long to succeed, you can’t say that it is less likely to succeed. If re-inscription of Hawai’i was achieved by now, then your claim would have something to stand on.

            If you are so confident in decolonization, then why do you need to waste your time bickering with everyone in this forum? Are you hoping to gain some converts?

  9. Aloha,

    The bottom line is that the ICJ acknowledged the Hawaiian Kingdom’s
    (complaint) application! That is a huge accomplishment in and of itself!

    [Form above]
    “The Registrar’s office was very reluctant to acknowledge receipt of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Application because it was under the assumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom was not an independent State but rather a part of the United States of America.”

    “…the Registrar’s office was unable to deny the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as a State and the Application was accepted by the personal assistant to the Registrar of the ICJ.”

    Can anyone blame the ICJ Registrar’s office for not knowing the true history concerning
    the Hawaiian Islands? Hawaiian history is smothered in U.S. HEWA!
    Once the Registrar of the ICJ was informed (kuleana) he did the right thing and accepted the application. The ICJ can only accept an application from independent nation states
    regardless as to whether they’re a member of the United Nations or not!
    As you can conclude by now the acceptance of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s application at the ICJ is prima facie evidence of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s sovereign independence and not a
    part of the U.S. (State of Hawaii) corruption!

    The U.S. is without a treaty of cession of the Hawaiian Islands and a U.S. Public policy
    is not an alternative for a treaty! That is why the U.S. has not contested the Protest and
    Demand submitted to the U.N. Over a year has gone by and the U.S. has done nothing!
    If the U.S. had anything worthy to say they could’ve prevented the Hawaiian Kingdom’s
    application from being filed at the ICJ!

    All courts have some kind of administrative process. The ICJ requires that its court’s cost be covered in order for them to provide documents in both English and French and for a press release to be sent to the media announcing the filing of the Application.

    As stated above: “On September 28, 2013, the Hawaiian Kingdom provided a cashier’s check made out to the International Court of Justice to cover the expenses of the Court in the Hawaiian case.” The Hawaiian Kingdom is financially prepared, but: ” After further thought on the matter, the Hawaiian Kingdom concluded that the United States of America has already paid its share to the Court for 2013.” Also “In 2012, the IRS collected $2.2 trillion dollars, of which residents and businesses in the Hawaiian Islands paid $5.1 billion dollars. As an occupier, the United States cannot collect taxes in a foreign country for its own benefit, and if it does it is called plundering.” “Unlawful appropriation of private property is plundering and extensive appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, is a war crime.”

    In other words why should the Hawaiian Kingdom contribute to the ICJ court’s fee when
    in fact the U.S. made a payment a portion of which was unlawfully collected from the
    Hawaiian Kingdom’s jurisdiction! But if the kingdom needs to pay in order play it looks like
    a cashiers check is ready to go!

    How can we determine that the U.S. is in the wrong? The ICJ accepted the Hawaiian
    Kingdom’s application!

    Can anyone say PLUNDERING? Ah, ah, war crime!

    Hope this helps!

    A hui hou,

    • My confusion began with the Registrar’s letter where he mentions article 34 par. 1. I don’t think the blog mentions anything about the court flip flopping on its stance in this regard. It wasn’t just about the court fees. Hope that helps if you missed it. ; )

      • Aloha Noelani,

        [From above]
        “In reply to your email or mail, I have to inform you that the International Court of Justice is not authorized, in view of its functions strictly defined by its Statute (Article 34) and Rules, to give advice or make observations on questions such as those raised in your communication.”

        The office of the Registrar for the ICJ sent this generic generated
        letter to the Hawaiian Kingdom, in essence rejecting the Hawaiian
        Kingdom’s (complaint) application based upon ICJ’s assumption that the Hawaiian Kingdom was a part of the United States of America.

        They send these generic letters or emails to parties that
        are not independent states!

        After Dr. Sai educated them and they became enlightened they realized that they had made a terrible mistake by not recognizing
        the sovereign independent nation of the Hawaiian kingdom as Registrar’s office was unable to deny the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as a State and the Application was accepted by the personal assistant to the Registrar of the ICJ.
        The ICJ is now authorized to address on matters concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom because of the Hawaiian Kigndom’s
        status as an independent sovereign nation state!

        As soon as the Hawaiian Kingdom’s application was accepted
        based upon the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as an independent
        nation state the generic letter of rejection based upon article 34
        became moot! No need to be concerned with article 34 anymore that applies only to entities that are not states!

        The Hawaiian Kingdom became an independent nation state by
        a joint proclamation dated November 28, 1843, La ku’oko’a!

        Wouldn’t it be sweet to have the media release information concerning the application filed by the Hawaiian Kingdom on
        our day of independence! Wow!

        Eh, but no matter what we in for the long haul, we have to, we have kuleana!

        Dr. Sai indicated that the Hawaiian Kingdom offered up a check to cover the courts cost, but Dr. Sai is pointing out to
        the court that had just accepted the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Application that a portion of the payment made by the U.S. which the court received came from the occupied nation that they just acknowledged!
        How’s that for an in your face moment!!

        But again we cannot be too harsh on the ICJ they’re only now becoming aware of Hawaii’s independent status!

        Evidence is on our side, ignorance is what we need to overcome!

        Slowly the questions will stop once education sets in!

        Hope this helps!

        A hui hou,

        • Mahalo for your response Wayne. So far you are the only person who has dialogues with me concerning my question.

          My actual question, however, is concerning the second and most recent response from the Registrar. If you click on the most recent letter, not the generic letter that was written for us all to read. There is a small picture of it in the blog and it does magnify.

          In it, the Registrar mentions Article 34, Paragraph 1, as well as Article 35. The blog does not address this. Thus, my confusion.

          It seems to me that the Registrar or Court, whichever, ruled “no” then “yes” then “no” again. I want to know how that is possible without explanation. I want to know the precedence for their action.

          Clearly their most recent response is not just the financial issue. I wanted to know more. If I’m mistaken, I just want clarification.

          Mahalo for your mana’o.

          • Aloha Noelani,

            I think I know what you’re wanting to know.

            The timing of the cashier’s check provided on September 28, 2013 by the HK to the ICJ may
            not have been factored into the ICJ’s letter dated
            October 18, 2013. In that October 18, 2013 letter
            from the ICJ it referenced article 35 (the money
            obligation to the ICJ) as its reason to initiate article 34 against the HK that could’ve put the HK’s application on the back burner!

            However, keep in mind that there is a cashier’s
            check provided by the HK in order to cover the ICJ’s court cost.

            And on the other hand, pointing out to the ICJ
            that its acceptance of the HK’s application
            would mean that payments made by the U.S.
            to keep the ICJ operating in accordance
            with article 35 is not 100% U.S. but a portion
            derived from the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom!
            [Something they’re pondering over right now]

            You can now see that there is a cashier’s check available to overcome article 35, so article 34 will no longer be an issue anymore, but what about our contribution made through the occupying U.S.
            who collected monies within Hawaiian Kingdom
            jurisdiction upon which the U.S. is without authority?

            Shouldn’t the Hawaiian Kingdom be covered under article 35 for its indirect payment for the purpose of maintaining the operational
            expenses of the ICJ, what say you?

            It would be hypocritical for the ICJ to accept the application from the HK and not take into consideration U.S. standing in the Hawaiian Islands!

            Hope this helps!

            A hui hou,

  10. Pololei e Wayne pela ho’i au on this matter. Hopefully people will catch the spirit of your message and kokua in the positive. Can’t help but think of the old kupuna axiom “ai ho’o kano”, proud eating; to eat food that one has not helped prepare. It seems to have some relevance these days.

    Mahalo nui loa

    • Okay Frank, I’m gonna sing for my dinner…. : )
      Thanks for the opportunity to share my uplifting message!

      I adore that we have been
      The children they saw born of sin.
      Living life from the Divine
      While they were deaf and dumb and blind.
      The Keiki who had come before,
      Who walked the aina, are no more.
      But their Mana shines inside
      A tiny seed that we must hide.

      For if they see it, they will lust,
      What’s little left in each of us.
      That sense of knowing we had been
      Not the children defaced by sin.
      Rather, we had been the ones
      Who showed how little need be done,
      To live harmonic, full and free
      To share aloha inside of thee.

      Until the One to unify,
      Will come to soothe na Keiki cries,
      To lift the thumb up from our chest
      To finally give our Queen Her rest.
      To set us free from tyranny
      The gift of those who couldn’t see
      The simplicity of life Divine.
      No greed, no need, no mine, mine, mine.

      Now’s the time, we passed their test
      And stood down at the Queen’s request.
      The line was towed, but now can see,
      The sovereign light inside of we.
      So World Nations, hear our pleas
      And shake them to their humble knees.
      Do what’s pono, do what’s right,
      To be na hoku in our night.

  11. Aloha Kakou,

    This is Kawehi Kanui, co-owner..Hawaiian Kingdom Housing, Energy and Economic Development Corporation…representing the Waimanalo Ahupuaa Community Hui…a Hawaiian business created in 1996… under Hawaiian laws…what we have to say is dead serious. Granted I am trying to say this with aloha and staying positive always.

    A few weeks ago I wrote to this site and did not get any response…basically, this is what I was afraid of…that could happen when every entity is guided by the gangster-banksters to rip us (all poor/small nations) off of our lands, water, people, air space and resources and the truth is, as you can see, is unfolding…it is time we all go back to basics…organize your ahupuaa and beat these guys from the bottom up…because the top down system has professional gangsters and blockers like the Danner sisters brought to Hawaii to block us from our freedom, making us Indians…we will continue to run into blocks because these are the nations; US, Israel, UK, France, China, India and Arabia who are one big Mafia gang…wake up people, everybody has to do their work in your communities that is where the keys are…not to mention the multinational corporations such as Monsanto and billionaires in our islands sent here to buy our lands and if they cannot buy it they will steal it, kill us for it and plunder everything.

    That is why I have been asking, what is the Council of Regency going to do to help our country out of the US occupation…I say; education, planning and apply our community development plans from the bottom up…is key. It is time to organize again…ahupuaa, by ahupuaa…starting in Waimanalo…where we are strong and ready…we are a great example to the rest.

    There is no mistake the ICJ knows and understands that we are still an independent nation…they, like their workers, are puppets for the international military industrial complex, all central banks, including three of the richest families in the world who would never give us our freedom…they want our lands, resources, people, air space and finances…it is true that UN told the ICJ to get our money…all of them are greedy dogs…sorry it is the truth and they are not afraid to break the law because they own the courts and everyone in them from the international to local courts…natural born crooks and war mongers.

    I would like to use this time to invite The Council of Regency to come to our meetings in Waimanalo to discuss ground up organizing to de-occupy Hawaii…it is clear to me, that this is one of the best ways to free this choke hold from the grips of the ever growing US military industrial complex in our islands…who BTW is working with China to buy our land, waters, buildings, air space and people…or nuke us. I am ready to die for my country…what about you? Meanwhile the beat goes on, never say die…we are smart people…let us come together and do something for our country.

    Mahalo Piha,
    Kahu Kawehi Kanui, Co-Owner
    Hawaiian Kingdom Housing and Economic Development Co.
    Owner, Creator and Author
    Website… (under construction)
    Follow us on Twitter…@HawaiianTweets

    • Maika’i loa e Kawehi:

      I think your posting of the Waimanalo Ahupuaa as a sovereign setting for hosting National Restoration Conferences is an excellent idea. It would provide a first step approach to getting nationhood started, one Ahupuaa at a time, like you mentioned.

      I would like think to that the Council of Regency is cognizant of your spirited concern and interest in implementing the logistics on the ground on Oahu, for providing governance of the Hawaiian Kingdom Nation. We need to ready our people for the replacement of the current State government in Honolulu.

      I do think the Council of Regency has taken a discreet approach in it’s communiques with our people, and I am certain for good reason. For the time being my approach would be to continue to have patience, trust and understanding. Given the current controversy of NSA, reluctance of Newswires locally and nationally to report our Independence Progress, we have no choice but to be careful in what we say and do. We need to Malama the proprietary interest of our Restoration and Hawaiian Kingdom Nationhood.

      It is extremely important for the Waimanalo Ahupua’a to continue its regular meet-ups in order to bind Na Kanaka Maoli and Nationals in one cohesive voice. Hopefully, the other Ahupua’a will bring forward their support.

      P.S. Beware of pa’akiki elements along the way!


  12. @ M.A.,
    That side note about the war crimes being insensitive, and distasteful and the antithesis of our culture was nauseating, as I am allowed my own feelings on the matter.
    If there is a just backing to the charges then it’s legit. To mix the culture with this idea that we should just let it slide, sickens me. It’s a form of propaganda. It’s part of indoctrination, in my opinion. The idea of NOT rocking the boat (not taking legal action) is far from a Hawaiian cultural value. On the contrary. The Queen took legal action, but it fell on deaf ears. If anything our cultural values and kupuna precedents shows us to take legal action. Like yours, my POV.

    • E kala mai. Let me rephrase that. In MY ohana, we were taught to be sensitive to other’s suffering and not belittlling it.

      And sending papers and posting papers is rocking the boat, huh? I suppose we have different interpretations of “rocking the boat.” I think revolution. You think paper-pushing.

      To each their own. No hard feelings.

      • I can only assume that here again you believe that the war crimes charges are not sustainable and see it as paper pushing?? Not sure, but that’s my guess.

        And YES we are worlds apart in terms of how we view revolution! Your version is more along the lines of Aloha shirts hanging in Macys ( you know, the ones the bankers wear), conservative and safe. Mine is like the traditional, vintage, loud and proud Aloha shirt that business men killed.

        Deoccupation vs. decolonization: the choice is a no brainier. One is far more revolutionary than the other.

        But, just so we are clear, and it’s good that you clarified that it was your familial values and not the Hawaiian culture that you were referencing, (worlds apart) …..
        A crime was committed here, and because of that crime, many more have been committed. To not take action against those that commit the crimes and use the tools available, to keep the community updated on its progress or lack thereof, would make the Acting HK less transparent and may cause less trust amongst people. There is a need to post, or at least I see one. (Is this possibly what you meant by paper pushing? Posting? Not sure)

  13. Mahalo nui e Noelani:

    Enjoyed your mele kupono. I owe you lunch! I like the kuhela of your message, maika’i no. It is far reaching no doubt. Hopefully, it will stir kokua out there in our communities to participate in the Restoration of our Hawaiian Nation.

  14. @ M.A.

    I don’t concoct stories. It was an analogy of/for what I see. Is this forum only for those schooled in the proper law classes with the right debate background?

    One thing I noticed in all of your postings was an attitude of omniscience that I needed to back away from. The only reason I engaged you once again was to say that your description of the Hawaiian culture was offensive and call it what it was.

    I have enjoyed reading all of the posts between you and KKM, and it’s too bad that they will be ending, but if you feel it is due to a “me-sai-ah” thing, all one can say is that you gave it your best shot to sway some minds in this forum, but knew what the forum was before you got here.

    In the end, I still don’t understand how attempting both avenues simultaneously isn’t acceptable for you. What it sounds like, to me, is that it’s a waste of time, effort, in bad taste, and a waste of stamps as well as the uncool anti revolutionary thing, to believe, discuss, hope for or pray, that Deoccupation would/could work out.

    What you have done in your threads is degrade the Deoccupation “side”. And this belittling attitude is something that Hawaiian people are all too familiar with. It’s called “crabs in a bucket”. I believe it to be a nasty byproduct of survival under oppression.

    That’s what I enjoy about the “Me-sai-ah” group. They’re transparent and don’t seem to have a hidden agenda. They aren’t former politicians (waihee, hee, OHA, etc). They are educating at lightening fast speed, and talk about revolution! Nothing’s more revolutionary than education. Heck, the Principal of McKinley High pleaded for people not to cut the mascots arm off after it revealed the propaganda “annexation” document it was holding. (Maybe you would just see that as anarchist , though)

    I used to wonder why my grandparents didn’t do more to stop what happened. It messed with my head and my heart. Dr. Sai, as a Historian, as offered the documentation of the indoctrination of my grandparents. Noenoe Silva has brought home their parent’s signatures for me to see, so that I know that they did more than any U.S. History book would ever have allowed me to know.

    How then, as it is my turn, my generation who is up to bat, can I only ask for decolonization?

    • Aloha,Noelani MA,just wants to argue with everyone that post,and I don’t see the PHD. in his title,whereas Keanu and Dexter have the schooling to back them up,MA is all waha,and he keeps saying that we aren’t sovereign,bruddah has trouble adding 1+1,and he should learn how to read(MA REREAD THE TITLE TO THE POST).

      • Yeah… Lono… Ken Conklin has a PhD too. But I’m not all that impressed with his interpretation of information either. Not all PhDs are created equal. Look at the work these PhDs are doing. Are they working in the real world? For example, one of my professors (who is obviously also a PhD) works for the United Nations and was recruited to a special peacekeeping team. He has worked in Iraq, the Phillipines, Palestine, etc., and has actually brokered peace deals between groups in conflict. So do I trust a lot of what he says when we’re discussing peace negotiations in conflict zones? Yeah. Because he has proven success in his field. And luckily I find myself in an environment where our law department has professors like the one who actually successfully lead the case against members of the Guatemalan government for state-sanctioned murders. So do I trust her when we talk about the definition of war crimes? Yeah. Because she has a proven record.

        But even after I talk to all these amazing professors, with all of their professional experience and success in their fields, I still always ask for book recommendations.

        All I’m saying here is, do your own reading. Don’t believe things because your leader tells you to believe them. Do your own research. Buy your own books. Don’t just read Keanu Sai’s dissertation. Read Julian Aguon’s too! Inform yourselves. Educate yourselves. And choose information from more than one source. Try reading stuff written outside of Hawaii, because well respected academics who know about Hawaiian academia have made comments about it being self-referential (that’s not a compliment).

        • Ken Conklin claims to have a PhD, but it is in Philosophy, not in Political Science. He is not a faculty member at a college or university, and has not published articles in peer-reviewed law or political science journals.

          Your presumption is that the people in this forum are narrowly informed, narrowly educated, and not already reading broadly from different sources relevant to Hawaiian sovereignty. We don’t have a problem reading Julian Aguon, for example. Who said that none of us have? Provide us with your bibliography and we would be happy to review those sources.

          You disparage the credentials of Sai and Kaiama by saying that their experience abroad is not as good as that of your own professors. War crimes are not limited to armed conflict and murder, something which you refuse to accept, because it doesn’t fit your personal crusade against Hawaiian Kingdom de-occupation.

          You refer to this group as a cult, which is unfortunate, because you are baiting us into the false dichotomy of de-occupation vs. decolonization. It would be better to seek a constructive third alternative, rather than inaccurately portraying these two alternatives as a zero-sum game, which is misleading, while treating the participants in this forum with condescension.

        • MA,Mr.Sai is not my leader,God is,just give him credit for striving to right the wrongs in our homeland,along with others like Henry Noa,Walter Ritter,George Helm,Kekuni Blaisdell Noenoe Silva,and other patriots of ko Hawaii pae aina.,and all our kupuna who signed the Kue petitions.

  15. Not turn some minds. Open some minds, as in opening minds to actually open their own law and international relations books instead acting like cult members. My agenda is THINKING ON YOUR OWN! But I know. I’m talking to wrong crowd.

    And transparent? LOL! If they were truly transparent, every financial document would made wholly available to the publlic. And what I am referring to is how much people are charged for every little piece of paper attached to these bogus “legal” cases put together by your cult leader.

    If someone truly believed in their ideology, they wouldn’t charge anything for producing the “copy and paste” job paperwork being produced.

    My kupuna were indoctrinated with all the colonial bullcrap too. But that didn’t inspire to be indoctrinated in another ideology. It inspired me to go to school and study these things on my own. And my conclusion is we, Kanaka Maoli, have a lot of work to do that goes beyond bogus paperwork.

    • I misspoke, I meant sway opinions. iPads are difficult to type on. Opening minds is a good thing which is why I’ve enjoyed the debate in a strictly educational manner. Heck, I would like to look into the authors you’ve mentioned in your last post. I just would like to see less name calling and sneering, because that’s not academic it’s just high makamaka (sp?).

      As for the monies you mentioned, I was referring to organizations who dish out millions of dollars to get signatures from Hawaiians to “build a nation”. They don’t have a blog like this that I know of, so I don’t see them as transparent and their funding seems to come from government groups like OHA. The Acting Government of HK doesn’t get that kind of funding, so I see them doing more with less.

      As for the licking stamps and cut and paste…. Well, the name of the blog and the reply from the ICJ did have to do with money that needed to be collected. So either it does cost a good deal of money to be heard by the ICJ or their reply, which includes Article 35 is what should be confusing me and maybe I should be less confused about Article 34.

  16. When monies are taken from one place and put into any fund, along with other monies, the amount paid out from that fund is only distinguished *under the law* if there is a *law* regarding how that money is distinguished. For example, this is why there is a huge debate in the US about the way social security monies just get thrown into a slush fund and why people want there to be a “lock box” for social security funding. And yet, even with social security there is law regarding these funds which gives people *legal* recourse to them. This statement above from the Hawaiian Kingdom blog, that the monies are “tainted,” has no legal recourse. Show me the law that anyone made saying that these monies are LEGALLY distinguished in this way. What’s more is that, the US actually sends more money back to Hawaii every year than it takes, so by this same logic, the US could just as easily turn around and say they gave back 100% of the “tainted” money, plus send us a bill saying we owe them for the rest.

    • They are saying that the money is tainted because they are not legally allowed to collect taxes from the citizens in Hawaii, as occupiers. But something tells me that you already understand this part of their argument and just don’t agree with it?

      It makes sense to me. But, I, like many who read the blog would like to hear the reply from the Registrar or Court.

      • Yah – I get the whole “it’s tainted” thing, but what I’m pointing out is that the legal argument is flawed, 1) because it’s not based on actual law (which it needs to be if someone is going to take it to a court, which is the point of all this right?), and 2) if you take this argument out to it’s logical end, it would mean that anyone, including the US, could come along and re-frame the way certain monies are distinguished just by saying so. It’s bad for us that someone would even try to argue on that point.

        • I will disagree with you on the “its bad for us that someone would even try to argue on that point”, part of your response…we’ll just agree to disagree on that, as we will never see eye to eye on that. As for points 1 & 2, the same could be said for all of the historical facts that have happened to the Kingdom. I.E. “joint resolution” while a law, has no bearing on a foreign country, logically.

          The point of all of this, as I see it, is to get to the court and have the actual court make a ruling.

          If I’m “hearing” you, I think I’m hearing that we need to be careful and quiet, and not “rock the boat” because we may put what we “have” at jeopardy. This may make some feel uneasy if what we “have” is good enough for them. For those who feel that it is their obligation to demand what is PONO, we can ask for nothing less, than EVERYTHING.

          And how is it not based on actual law, if it is part of what is waiting to be addressed by the court? If part of the case is about the illegal collection of taxes by an occupying government, which is then disseminated to the ICJ, then how is that not part of the legal issue, or as you put it, based on law?

          I’m not open to penal code wrangling and angling, just thoughtful convo.


    • Kelea – Here is your outrageous logic: Hold someone hostage in their home, pay their monthly expenses for awhile, then say that the homeowner owes a bill for the payments made by the occupier on behalf of the occupied during the occupation. By this same logic, the three hostages of Ariel Castro owe him for the food and shelter that he provided to them for 10 years.

      • You’re going to have to show me where such analogies hold up in court, but in any case, I have to make a correction to the analogy. It goes something more like – Hold someone hostage in their home, and then pay SOMEONE ELSE’S COURT EXPENSES, then say that the homeowner owes a bill for the payments made by the occupier on behalf of A COUPLE PEOPLE GOING TO COURT during the occupation.

        • Of course, you want to construe it that way, because your agenda it to oppose de-occupation in favor of decolonization. People representing the acting Hawaiian Kingdom government—established based on the doctrine of necessity, as outlined in the previous blog post—are going to court.

          • I’m actually first and foremost concerned about our people loosing their homes and land and other resources by buying into these legal theories that are so deeply flawed. I would really like to know how much Keanu Sai and his business partners are charging people for his “services.” There is a huge lack of transparency in terms of where this “government” is getting it’s revenues which points to the idea that this is a private endeavor.

        • Kelea, no one has to show you, or your sister anything! Why don’t you just stick to your site, where you continuously trash folks that are doing productive things? This site is for people who are loyal to our Hawaiian Kingdom and country and are genuinely moving toward correcting the wrongs and creating a stronger and better nation for our children & grandchildren.

        • Kelea – You spend more time criticizing and opposing people who support Hawaiian independence, than you do opposing the country that is suppressing it. I have yet to see anything constructive result from your objections to the de-occupation initiative led by folks like Sai and Kaiama.

          • Kelea, you and MA are so wrapped up in your agenda’s that you can’t even see how ignorant you really are. You act as if you are so, educated and yet neither one of you have done anything for anyone except to criticize others who are. You talk so much about how educated you are in law and how much you care about people losing their homes and yet none of you have ever gone to court to prove your knowledge or to help someone who is losing their home. WHY??? Because you don’t know as much as you think you do and I know for a fact that if you did go to court you will have your OKOLE’S handed right back to you….hahahaha!!! For as they say: “talk is cheep” real cheep!!! Why don’t the two of you stop wasting our time with your idiotic posts and go complain to somebody who cares about what you have to say. CAUSE WE DON”T!!! This blog is for the Hawaiian Kingdom and issues that are important to we Hawaiians. Since you know so much why don’t the two of you start your own website, blog or better yet your own law firm to help people stay in their homes and to restore our Hawaiian Kingdom Government. Oh, did I hear you say that you don’t know how or that you’re not educated enough??? Then STFU!!! I hope I won’t have to translate this for you too…….Duh!!!!

  17. The two detractors making comments in this forum, who are totally opposed to the lawful de-occupation process, go so far out of their way in trying to discredit everything about it, that they might as well be agents of the occupier, if they aren’t already. Some of their replies have escalated to the level of road rage. I have never seen any productive third alternatives result from their confrontational interactions. In other words, nobody comes out a winner. Agree to disagree, disengage, or don’t engage them to begin with.

  18. KKM, making personal attacks like saying we might “as well be agents of the occupier” or generalizing our very specific points as being a form of “road rage” means that you don’t have a any sufficient evidence as to why what we are saying is wrong. Instead of making these kinds of personal attacks, you should go do some more research.

  19. You should be telling that to your cohort, not me. I’m not the one calling this group a “Mes-SAI-ah” cult, or pejoratively referring to it as a “sovereignty group,” and presuming that people here are not reading broadly enough from different sources. As a perfect example, look at how you just accused me of not doing enough research. It is this kind of condescension that alienates you from the Hawaiian independence community.

    Many of the folks in this forum have been in the sovereignty struggle longer than you’ve been alive. Imagine how they get turned off by someone fresh out of college and reared on the continent, telling them that they have not educated themselves enough about the issue. It shows a lack of humility and respect, which is not the Hawaiian way. If you want to have a civil dialogue here, then stop acting like you have a chip on your shoulder, as though you are more educated or have done more research than everyone else here.

    The two of you spend 100% of your time here trying to refute every single premise or line of evidence that we have. This is invalidating to people when you never offset your rebuttals with anything supportive or positive to say. Nor do you look for common ground or third alternatives. When a dissenter resorts to accusing us of being a cult, that is a clear sign that the person ran out of ammunition.

  20. Here is one of the real reasons for the acrimonious exchanges in this discussion, and I’m willing to bet the ranch on this one: two avowed feminists who can’t stand the idea that Hawaiian Kingdom de-occupation happens to be spearheaded by men. If it were the Trask sisters spearheading de-occupation, they wouldn’t have this same hostility toward it. The fact that they are scrutinizing comments in this forum, only serves to legitimize it. The number of comments keeps ticking upward like Nielsen ratings. No other Hawaiian independence blog has a higher volume of replies to posts. Mahalo for your participation.

  21. Well here is a perfect example of what’s gone wrong with the sovereignty movement: Incorrect and baseless assumptions are being made based on non-facts created by irrational actors. In all honesty, I don’t care who spearheads the work and narrative, as long as it’s honest and based on facts.

    From my reading of historic events AND the law (Benvenisti, Rothwell, Kelsen, Crawford, etc. I have all the books right here in front of me.), I’ve come to much different conclusions than what is posted here. (And it’s OK to disagree with people, even Keanu Sai.) Like I said, I’ve read Sai’s dissertation, but I’ve also read Julian Aguon’s, which posited a very different and more rational conclusion (again, based on my reading of the law). I recommend that everyone here read his paper, “The Commerce of Recognition.”

    I’m not writing what I’m writing out of any personal problem I have with Sai. I’m writing what I’m writing because Sai’s assertions are problematic based on… again… the law and a rational understanding of liberal internationalism.

    This isn’t a popularity contest. I’m not choosing sides based on personality. I’m choosing the truth based on the stacks of law and international relations books that are laid out before me. as well as the testimony of people (my professors) who have worked in the United Nations and out in the field in real conflict zones.

    I want Hawaii to be sovereign. But I don’t believe Hawaii will ever become sovereign if we waste our time going down rabbit holes, based on false readings of the law, misinterpretations of historic events, and ignoring historic documents. For example, I understand that it totally sucks and the disloyalty of Queen Victoria to Queen Liliuokalani is sickening, when she along with 19 other sovereign states/leaders gave Sanford Dole as President and the Republic of Hawaii sovereign recognition. But knowing, per international law, that state recognition by other states is one of they key components of sovereignty, as a student of law and international relations, I can’t ignore that fact, even as much as I hate it and it makes me sick. I am forced to acknowledge these kinds of facts, move on, change course, and try to figure out how to move forward from there.

    So while you may dislike and even hate me as a person because I disagree with you, I can say, I don’t feel the same way about anyone here. What I hate is unproductivity, misinformation, and worse, disinformation, because in the end, as painful as the truth is, non-truths hurt our people and movement more than anything.

    I know you’ll misunderstand this entire post and misconstrue and twist it into something awful. I’ve come to expect nothing less. But I wholly believe the truth will set us free. So be it.

    • Let’s put this into proper perspective; due to the unique nature of our situation, we are treading in areas that have not been previously explored. We do not fall into a “fill-in-the-blanks” mold that you have been studying in your classes. The Hawaiian Kingdom is doing ground-breaking work that could eventually benefit other oppressed people who have suffered from effects of the Doctrine of Discovery mentality. We know that Lili’uokalani tried to “play by the rules” 120 years ago and after all this time of waiting for other folks to play by the rules they wrote, we are farther away from regaining our independence than we were 120 years ago. It’s time to throw away the “fill-in-the-blanks” paperwork and create new rules that apply to our situation. You may view this as unrealistic, but I have nothing but respect and admiration for Dr. Keanu Sai, Dexter Ke’eaumoku Kaiama and all those that work with them for undertaking such an enormous task and educating the international community about our truthful history. And when your textbooks start teaching about what really happened here (instead of the USA version) you will have Dr. Sai, Dexter, and the rest of them to thank. It would be nice if you would come back and share that information with us…

      • No new law is going to be “created” based on any of these cases/presentations/paperwork, because for one, the Hawaiian Kingdom doesn’t even have proof of a citizenry/population it can present to the international community. The international community is not going to make groundbreaking decisions without some proof that people support what is happening. There has to be some kind of Hawaiian Kingdom vote or something to show that we are all (or the majority of us are) in agreement on this, and that what the Hawaiian Kingdom is doing is what we all want. A petition… something.

        Again, the international community cannot support or promote random sovereignty leaders (from anywhere in the world). There has to be some kind of proof of representation.

        Someone asked above how I would do things differently. Well step one, we need to somehow come together and start voting on leadership and issues such as sovereignty, because we have to start showing that real people support this. I know… easier said than done. But you all are part of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Why don’t you guys have some sort of election and citizen drive to prove to the international community there are people behind this movement?

        • Aloha,it’s me again,I believe we do have a population of HKG SUBJECTS,it’s us,you and me and all poster’s to this blog,and you even said it in your last paragraph,and we don’t need a election or drive,we just need the american’s to go back home,and not to America as they stole it from our aboriginal cousins,as the great Oglala Lakota leader, Russell Means said,in his book Where White Men Fear To Tread,the last section in the book says it clearly,the problem is a Eurocentric way of viewing the world,the kanaka’s and native extended a hand in aloha and got a pahoa in the back instead.

        • There are enough people who are descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects alive prior to the overthrow and occupation, who we can point to today as the population base. This can be shown with demographic data rather than a vote. Furthermore, the will of the majority was already expressed in 1898, through the Kūʻē Petitions.

          Since the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom has never been relinquished through a treaty of cession, plebiscite, referendum, acquisitive prescription (which is the argument you’re making), or otherwise, it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel by having another vote today. This is not a political issue requiring majority support, but a legal issue requiring U.S. compliance with the laws of occupation.

          It is unreasonable to get a majority of a country’s subjects to vote while it is under occupation, especially with 120 years of diaspora. It is not realistic to track down all of the descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects prior to August 12, 1898, much less get them to vote. If Kanaʻiolowalu can’t do it with millions of dollars, then why would you expect any other effort to do better?

          Your endless objections to the lawful de-occupation process amount to stonewalling, and reveals an underlying agenda to derail it. Furthermore, it might be good enough to be the work of a secret agent, if not already the case.

          De-occupation should precede another vote on what form of government the people want to today, not the other way around. That is a fundamental difference between de-occupation and decolonization. Besides, it is just plain disrespectful to not honor the will of the majority expressed in 1898, before expressing the will of the majority today. The law of occupation requires restoration of the government that existed prior to occupation—Constitution of 1864 in the Hawaiian Kingdom case—before any changes can be made to it based on the will of its contemporary subjects.

          • Aloha KKM,yes I believe it is called Postliminium,not sure of the spelling.The occupiers have to restore what was before the illegal occupation.

    • I’m just looking over some of those “recognitions” or acknowledgements that several countries sent to say hello to Dole, and at least the one from Spain had a translation attached. I think it is of extreme importance for us to note that the person writing the recognition is “responding” to a letter received from Dole and is referring to a “vote of his fellow citizens” that he was elevated to his position through.

      Seeing it through that perspective, it is very clear that the correspondence that Dole sent out to these countries was lies, and that the responses he received was based on lies.

      What does the law say about that?

      • Oh yeah. It doesn’t matter that he lied. They knew very well what was happening in Hawaii, just like Hawaiians knew what was going on in the world around them. What those letters prove is how racist the rest of the world is and what little respect those leaders had for the Hawaiian monarchy based on racism.

    • I agree with Mahina.

      To many of us, having Esq. after your name, defending a dissertation, getting a PhD, publishing in a peer-reviewed law journal, becoming a faculty member, teaching university courses on the subject, publishing a textbook that is used in high schools throughout the Hawaiian Islands, as well as being interviewed on Al Jazeera, PBS Hawai’i, and South-South News, means a lot in terms of credibility and authoritativeness. This is as true for Sai and Kaiama today, as it was for the Trask sisters when they were at the front of the sovereignty movement.

      In the absence of a treaty of cession, plebiscite, referendum, or acquisitive prescription based on case law, I disagree that non-recognition—via non-compliance with existing treaties—of an occupied state by other countries, equates to a transfer of sovereignty. In the first 173 years of U.S. history, the U.S. obtained a bilateral treaty of cession for each of the preceding 49 states, all of which we can point to today. (The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo made annexation of Texas unequivocal.)

      In a radical departure from this well-established historical procedure, the U.S. broke its own rule by incorporating—thereby occupying—Hawai’i without a treaty of cession. This cannot be superseded by non-compliance with treaties on the part of the international community. The absence of a bilateral treaty of cession cannot be overlooked. There is no statute of limitations on the ramifications. If the absence of a treaty of cession is not consequential, then the U.S. would not have made two failed attempts to obtain one for Hawai’i.

      By the way, I read the abstract of Aguon’s article. Do we have a link to the full text? I would love to see a review of the article by Dr. Sai, which might be a good idea for an upcoming blog post too.

      • Aloha kaua e KKM.
        As with you I have encountered great difficulty in ascertaining Julian Aguon’s Peer-reviewed Conference paper which is noteworthy in being unpublished, it is feasible if you contact him directly at his Law Office:
        He may be able to facilitate you with the full text. Aloha.

        • Julian’s paper was never published because he never shopped it around. He’s been too busy working towards the decolonization of Guam. But if you email him, he’ll be more than happy to send it to anyone interested.

          • The key here is that it was presented at a conference, but never published in a peer-reviewed law journal. Until it does it does get published in a peer-reviewed law journal, it is not a candidate for being the trump card that you imply it is.

      • So would you let a political scientist taken your unemployment case to court? Would you let a labor lawyer take your real estate case to court? Lawyers specialize in different types of law, and it is unethical for a lawyer, who specializes in one type of law to then say he/she is an expert in another. At least that’s what I’ve been told by law professors (who are working lawyers) here on campus.

        And why not pick up a law book yourself? They’re available on the internet. And if you don’t have a lot of money, like me, you can get them for pennies on the dollar at (buy used). Don’t take the word of other people. Do research for yourself. Read the books yourself. Go into the footnotes of the papers you read and see from what books information is being drawn and get those books.

        • Why not stop treating us like a bunch of dummies who don’t do our homework, or who don’t know how to do academic research. Until your curriculum vitae is commensurate with that of Dr. Sai or Esq. Kaima, your views will be taken with a grain of salt. If you did have those kind of credentials, you would be too busy with professional duties to have time for this forum.

    • M.A. I respect your quest for truth and studies. Why don’t you make
      a personal appointment with Dr. Sai to discuss your legal studies and how they oppose his disertations. And see if there is something
      you both either don’t see or can agree on. I think that is best. I am for truth also. I hope to see things move in a forward direction with all in Unity if at all possible.

  22. I was raised by my g/mother who was pure Hawaiian and I remembered she always said ” if you have nothing nice to say keep it to yourself “. So many times I asked myself, how it would be if the Hawaiians and the non Hawaiian was to speak up at the time when Hawaii was illegally taken over?

    Today, I am amazed to read on how you all care about Hawaii and want things to be done right. Although there’s various point a views, it boils down to where you flat out care and wishing you could do more then just blogging.

    So, lets all get along and try to strategize in the legal way to make things right. My personal opinion, Hawaii needs to be given back and once that is done then we can lay the cards on the table and mediate on what is best for the People and Hawaii.

    Right now, Keanu and Dexter is on the move with this, lets wait to hear the verdict from Keanu or ICJ.

    Let all Ho’oponopono.

  23. @ KKM / M. A. / Anyone who can explain it….

    I realize that I’m on a completely different level from your legal codes and abstracts ( I do try my best and am finding all of the information educational but confusing and a lot to take in!) But, could you please help me to understand a few things, if you’d be so kind?

    1) Registrar DENIES Application w/ template letter, ACCEPTS Application in person, and DENIES (Application or special requests) with most recent reply? Also, in the most recent reply, mentions Article 34 (only States may participate in court) is mentioned, again, but also mentions Article 35, which is confusing because, why would there be a mention of Article 35 if they are referencing Article 34 to begin with? Is Application denied at this point? If so, is there a precedence for The Court to deny, accept, and deny again, the same application as it has done here. Is that something that happens all the time, like they make that mistake often?

    2) I can’t find Dole’s letter to any of the countries…I read Spain’s reply, however, and it translated into “I had the satisfaction to receive the letter by which you notify me that by the vote of your fellow citizens you have been elevated to the first Magistracy of the Republic of Hawaii, recently proclaimed.” We all agree that the Ku’e petitions contradict that any vote elevated Dole to any position by his fellow citizens, so what does that mean to his received letters? And what do the received letters really hold as far as legal weight within the Intl. community, as I noticed that they simply look a lot different from the treaties that I’ve looked at between countries. They look very informal in comparison.

    I realize that my questions are “simple” ones and not highly educated…but that’s where it begins for some of us, so if you have the time, much mahalo!

    • To answer question #1. Article 34.1 is mentioned because it clearly states that cases cannot be brought to the ICJ by non-states. (Those cases go to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which can take cases brought by organizations.) Article 35 is mentioned because it again states that cases must be brought by states. But 35.2 goes on to say that in special circumstances a case can be brought my a non-member state if recommended by the UN Security Council (again, where the USA has a permanent seat and veto power). 35.3 states that if the case is recommended by the UN Security Council and is brought by a non-member state, that non-member state will be billed for the costs incurred in the case. Please note though. The order of paragraphs in these articles is significant. If you cannot meet the criteria of 35.1, you will not meet the criteria of 35.2. Therefore if you cannot meet the criteria of 35.2, you will not meet the criteria of 35.3. In other words, if the UN Security Council is not recommending your case to the ICJ, there’s no reason to talk about accounting.

      So no. The ICJ is not taking the case. They make that clear in the last sentence of the letter. I hope that isn’t all too confusing.

    • To answer #2, those letters are letters of recognition only. Treaties do not need to be renegotiated between states, notwithstanding a change in government. In other words, treaties are between states not governments.

  24. @ M.A.
    I thank you for your reply, could you elaborate on your answer to #2. The majority of the question, or at least what I was trying to get across and hoping for an answer with, is in regard to the quote. Spain is referencing a “vote” that “elevated” Dole to his position as President. Since the citizens of Hawaii did not vote Dole into his position, how does that effect their letter of recognition and all of the other nation’s letters of recognition, also? What do these letters really offer in terms of international law?
    Thank you in advance.

    • I just saw this reply from you on a comment I left, above. Sorry to confuse things here….

      M. A. Ka’upenamana on November 19, 2013 at 8:07 pm said:

      Oh yeah. It doesn’t matter that he lied. They knew very well what was happening in Hawaii, just like Hawaiians knew what was going on in the world around them. What those letters prove is how racist the rest of the world is and what little respect those leaders had for the Hawaiian monarchy based on racism.

      I am at a complete and TOTAL loss for any kind of grasp of anything now. Ex:
      1) After ww2 a “reset” button was set and things in the world changed. can’t wrap my mind around that or how people are just supposed to suck on that one.
      2) How can it not matter that a farmer decided to lie about a vote elevating him to a position, when that vote was a vital part of what was legally necessary to put him in that position of power? Something smells fishy about that?
      3) Not sure what you mean by “Hawaiians knew what was going on in the world around them.” Please elaborate.

      • “can’t wrap my mind around that or how people are just supposed to suck on that one” Tell me about it. I took a class one semester titled “Ethnic Cleansing in 20th Century Europe.” It was in that class that I learned how unfair, unjust, and just how much the world sucked. Since then I’ve taken classes where we’ve covered colonization, genocide, economic imperialism, etc all over the planet, and it’s there that I learned that even in a world of law, historically law has been written to protect those in power.

        Anyway, to answer your questions. About treaties. I’ll give you an example. So Iraq has been entering into treaties since it gained independence in 1932. Well, as I’m sure you know, there’s been a lot of turmoil over the years regarding government. But regardless of the change in government, the treaties still remained intact, as long as both signatories agreed to keep the treaty intact. That’s because treaties are attached to states not governments. Another example is Egypt. Since the Arab Spring, Egypt has had the overthrow of Mubarak (a dictator), the overthrow of Morsi (a democratically elected leader who was turning into a dictator, and now an interim president, Mansour, propped up by the military. During all this, at no time were any treaties broken between Egypt and other nations, because it didn’t matter what government/leader signed the treaty, again, the treaty isn’t between sitting governments but the states themselves. Same happened with the French. Their monarchy had treaties with other governments. When the French monarchy was overthrown and the Republic of France became the new government, all the treaties remained intact.

        Now if, let’s say, a new Egyptian government came into power that Libya found to be intolerably hostile and the two had a treaty, Libya would the right to no longer recognize the treaty.

        In the case of Hawaii, the treaties between Hawaii and France and Hawaii and Great Britain transferred over to the Republic of Hawaii after recognition. All those countries could have revoked the treaties between them and Hawaii, but by not doing anything with the treaties, they essentially recognized their continued existence.

        • Too much theory coupled with absolutely no experience!

          What’s your solution?

          Time to put up or shut up!

          So again, what is your proposed solution?

          • Actually it’s not theory. The answer to #2 is history and fact.

            Regarding what really needs to happen is (which I wrote above), first thing is the Hawaiian Kingdom needs to prove that it actually has a citizenry. A government is only a government when it is actually governing people. No international court or institution is going to recognize Hawaii’s sovereignty unless it can be proven that that is what the people of Hawaii want.

            In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom needs to get the people together to elect leadership and vote on independence, so it can be proven on paper that there are people who support this government and the people want sovereignty.

            The Hawaii census reported that there are 289,970 Kanaka Maoli living in Hawaii (out of a population of 1,360,301). So that’s 23.1% of the total population of Hawaii. Never has a nation received sovereign status without at least 50% of the [entire] population supporting sovereignty. So let’s just, for the sake of discussion, we ignore all the population who immigrated here after 1898 and say that we want to get at least 50% of all Kanaka Maoli to vote and support sovereignty. That would mean approximately 145,000 Kanaka Maoli have to get involved and support the sovereignty movement.

            I’m making this point because there are human rights conventions and declarations (International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights) that have been made in the last 100 years that cannot and will not be ignored by the United Nations and no matter which narrative we pursue, it goes to the United Nations. Those conventions and declarations include the rights of citizens to vote on their governance and future. The UN will not come in and unseat the current government if the majority of people don’t want that. It would be a violation of human rights by today’s standards.

            So that is the REAL work ahead of us. Sovereignty is not easy. It’s educating people. It’s trying once again to unite our people, so we can vote on our representation and our sovereign future, and show the world this is what the people really want.

      • “Not sure what you mean by “Hawaiians knew what was going on in the world around them.” Please elaborate.”

        I was just referring to the international news published in Hawaiian language newspapers. Kanaka Maoli in the 19th Century were as up to date in international news as everyone else in the world. Therefore it’s easy to assume that all those world leaders knew exactly what happened in Hawaii. It didn’t matter that those involved in the coup were liars and crooks. The 19th Century was a time when science was used to defend and promote racism. And those crooks and liar were white.

      • The sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom has already been achieved and recognized, and never relinquished. Kanaka Maoli, who make up 21% of the population currently living in the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom, or 289,970, only need to be identified. Add to that a comparable number of Kanaka Maoli living outside of the Hawaiian Kingdom, who are also descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects alive prior to August 12, 1898, as well as all the people of other races who are also descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects prior to that date, and you easily get more than 50%.

        However, a majority vote—or an indigenous majority of population—is not required prior to the lawful de-occupation process. Only after the de jure government has been restored through de-occupation, can the descendants of its subjects today vote on a different form of government. I suspect that a majority—myself included—will choose to change it from a constitutional monarchy to a democratic republic. Instead of monarchs, I think people today would prefer to have a fourth branch of government, or third camera of the legislature, made up of kupuna and/or ali’i, to represent and maintain cultural traditions.

  25. I was told by one of my instructor’s “opinions are like asses and everybody’s got one the only difference is how big is yours” and from what I’ve read there are some huge ones that are full of….Kaka!!! And there are those who are right on the money and you know who you are. Remember as Dr. Sai has stated in his lectures: “From this moment on be extremely careful in what you do and say because it can comeback to hurt you”!!! BE CAREFUL!!!

  26. In re: M. A. Ka’upenamana on November 20, 2013 at 5:17 pm.

    Mahalo, I see your area of concern: “…first thing is the Hawaiian Kingdom needs to prove that it actually has a citizenry.”

    Although I am not completely opposed to that concern myself, some of us see that there is a pressing issue that takes precedence above all other concerns.

    Most of the global community are not aware of Hawaii’s true history. Most believe
    that Hawaii’s sovereign existence was transferred in 1898 via annexation from the Republic of Hawaii to the U.S. but all that exist is a U.S. public policy to annex the Hawaiian Islands.

    As you know an internal U.S. Public Policy is without affect over another country
    and that no treaty exist between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the U.S.

    The 1897 Ku’e petition presented from the Po’e Aloha Aina to the U.S. congress in opposition to the Republic of Hawaii’s treaty of annexation of the Hawaiian Islands
    was effective in that the U.S. congress was not able to obtain the required 2/3 vote to
    ratify that instrument of annexation.

    That said, we can now conclude that the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom was
    never transferred to any foreign country including the U.S.A. and remains with the Hawaiian Kingdom right on up till this day. That said we can also conclude that we
    do not qualify for decolonization because the Hawaiian Kingdom gained its sovereign
    independence and cannot move toward sovereignty because it’s already sovereign!

    Remember, the Hawaiian Kingdom obtained its sovereign independence by a joint
    proclamation on November 28, 1843, and have enjoyed its independence for almost
    50 years before it was interrupted. There are only a few ways the sovereignty of a
    country can be transferred, a topic I won’t discuss here, however a U.S. Public Law
    is not one of those ways! And as far as the recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom
    government around the time of the unlawful annexation of 1898, I won’t bring that up,
    but remember Cuba and how the U.S. recognize its sovereignty but not Castro’s
    government, same thing with the Hawaiian Kingdom but the U.S. was and still
    remains under obligation to Queen Liliuokalani and the lawful Hawaiian Kingdom
    government. Don’t be concerned with other groups that proclaim to be the
    lawful Hawaiian Kingdom they don’t even have a fraction of the intellect to get
    them onto a logical stand point!

    Certain U.S. individuals were bent on taking the Hawaiian Islands for the benefit of
    the U.S. and did the unthinkable, duping the entire global community with the help
    of the Republic of Hawaii. Evil helping evil!

    Anyway, what’s pressing now is providing accurate information to the international
    community backed by a level of respected authority, Dr. Sai and Attorney Kaiama!

    The fact that the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague accepted the
    complaint submitted by the Hawaiian Kingdom back in 1999 – 2001 is evidence
    that that Court recognized the sovereign Hawaiian Kingdom. That Court couldn’t
    do anything because the U.S. declined to engage! No group would be allowed
    to enter that Court without first proving its sovereign existence!

    The fact that the Chinese delegate seated at the time on U.N. Security Council accepted documents submitted by the Hawaiian Kingdom is evidence that U.N.
    Security counsel is aware of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s sovereign existence,
    perhaps limited but learning every day!

    The U.N. General Assembly is now aware of what happened to the Hawaiian
    Kingdom by way of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Protest and Demand.

    The fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom was allowed entry into the ICC Rome statute.

    The fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom was allowed to enter into treaty with the IV
    Geneva Convention is evidence of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s ability to enter into
    contract with other nations.

    If this Hawaiian Kingdom was a sovereign movement it would’ve been deferred
    to the U.S. department of Interior, much like the Akaka Bill process, Kanaiolowalu,
    but these entities are formed under the U.S. which takes us back to the U.S. not
    having a treaty transferring the sovereign authority of the Hawaiian Kingdom to

    The statement made above stated that the ICJ did not first accept the Hawaiian
    Kingdom’s application it assumed that Hawaii was a part of the U.S. when they
    learned what happened the accepted the application, the money part, the
    language translation part is all a part of their Court’s administrative process not
    a big concern unless you can’t comply! As stated they have a cashier’s check
    to cover the Court’s cost.

    Anyway, like any Court you don’t really know what they will do, the only thing you
    can do is to support your contention until the right combination of people agree
    with your argument by logical conclusion!

    Before we congregate as citizen subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom it makes
    good sense to open up the doors! I guarantee you na Kanaka will come home!


    • Mahalo nui e Kanekeawe, for taking the time to lay this all out for all of us; it is a huge help! What some folks fail to appreciate is that this is a process and an enormous undertaking that will take time. As you so beautifully elaborated on, Dr. Sai, Dexter, and all the others that are working with them have already accomplished major progress just by educating the world of our true history, which has opened doors for the work that lies ahead. We cannot expect the damage done from 120 years of lies to be undone instantly.To witness people, in my lifetime, taking on this challenge with such bravery and conviction, inspires me to look for ways I can help here on the home-front. The more we share the truth about the illegal overthrown and bogus annexation to those around us, the sooner it will start sinking in. Sometimes you just have to plant the seed, sometimes you’ve got to water it, but eventually it will start bearing fruit. Being part of the planting and the watering is an honor.

  27. @ Kelea and Maija (M.A. Ka’upenamana),

    Have you not spewed enough of your vitriolic criticism of Dr. Sai on your own site (Lawfful Hawaiian…)?
    Why, then, do you presume to come to the Hawaiian Kingdom blog spewing even more?

    Quoting from textbooks in an attempt to flaunt your education, calling us a cult and Dr. Sai “Mes-SAI-ah” only serves to substantiate your ignorance and prove your disloyalty to the Hawaiian Kingdom. Perhaps your loyalty lies with Palestine and other such countries which, as you say, are experiencing “real War Crimes.”

    Only when you two have accomplished as much as Dr. Sai will you have a right to say how the restoration of the Kingdom should be undertaken.

    I apologize to the other participants on this blog for calling these two out in this manner. I at least had the courtesy of not doing so on their site.

  28. Someone just sent me this link in an email today and I thought
    I’d pass it along. It’s a 2.47 minute recording from the late ABC
    radio commentator Paul Harvey done back on April 3, 1965, 48
    years ago:

    Mental transitioning over a period of time!
    It took time, but what was once considered unacceptable 48
    years ago is the reality today in the U.S.A.

    All the more to be thankful for on November 28, 2013, La Ku’oko’a,
    170 years and counting!

    Mahalo Dr. Sai for standing in the gap!

  29. It is clear that Kelea and Maija (M.A. Ka’upenamana) is simply using Dr. Sai’s Hawaiian Kingdom Government website and blog to confuse everyone and to try to impress people with how much they supposedly know when it is clear that it is not as much as they think they do or even worst not even relevant especially when it comes to De-colonization when Hawaii was never a colony of any country including the United Fakes of America. I for one am not impressed in fact I feel ashamed for the organizations including those of the illegal occupiers that they do support……SHAME!!!

    M.A. even stated that he/she was no longer going to be a part of this cult/blog and yet he/she continues to rattle on with additional POSTS as if this was his/her personal website and that everyone wanted to hear what he/she had to say. What an idiot cause….WE DON’T!!! And for your information we are not a cult unlike the organizations you folks belong to. I know it is hard for you folks, but for the last time we are not interested in what either of you have to say and can you at the very least keep your word by “staying off of this blog”??? Please??? Pretty Please???

    I know it’s going to be hard because you have so much to say and every other website don’t want you there either, but try, try real hard and if you feel the urge coming on leave another Post simply take two shots of tequila, slap yourselves in the face, kick yourselves in the okole and repeat 10 times: “Nobody Cares”!!! Because seriously after all that you folks have posted…..WE REALLY DON’T CARE!!! Time for the two of you to move on!!!

    By the way M.A. are you a “He” or a “SHE”….oh never mind my bad I don’t even care about that either!!! Seriously, I really don’t!!!

    • You can’t refute anything I’m saying with actual law or political discourse, so you debase the whole conversation here and resort to an outright deluge of personal attacks. Bor-ing!

      So this is how discourse/dialogue works. Someone writes something. Those who agree, agree. Those who do not agree explain why they don’t agree, using valid sources and evidence if necessary. It’s not something to be emotional about. It’s just about presenting facts.

      And someone named “Dutchy” is really questioning my gender? As if gender actually matters. But really?

      • M.A., you are absolutely correct gender does not matter. Intelligence and verifying your information does….so, I rest my case!!!

        By the way I thought you said that you are no longer going to be a part of this cult/blog and here you go again making another post? So, did you take the two shots of tequila, slap yourself in the face, kick yourself in the okole and repeat 10 times: “Nobody Cares”???

        Apparently not…….

        Aaa, remember what you said….don’t do it!!! Don’t do it!!!

    • Dear Dutchy,
      With all the crap that has been going on today: the Roll Commission/Kana’iolowalu sending their agents with their bogus signatures to DC, Schatz & Hirono throwing the DHHL folks under the bus and opening a can of worms with their Senate Resolution 12 and practically begging Congress to challenge the 1920 HHA on that grounds that it is racial discrimination, and Hanabusa claiming that Hawaiian Homes is federal land, I really needed a good laugh, which you gave me when I read this comment from you! Thank-you so much, I haven’t had a good laugh like that for quite a while!

      • A’ole Pilikia. These idiots need to start their own website or blog, but they won’t because no one would join them so, they have to go and disrupt someone else’s with their ignorance. Poho!!!

        Don’t worry they’ll be back, but because we already know how ignorant they are all we need to do is scroll right pass their post and read those that are far more worth reading. That is what I am doing……NEXT!!!

        Hau’oli La Ku’oko’a Kakou…….Eo!!!!

Leave a Reply