Canada Responds to War Crime Complaint and Japanese Consulate receives War Crime Complaint against TMT

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Responds to War Crime Complaint by Protector of Mauna Kea and Japanese Consulate Receives War Crime Complaint against TMT

HONOLULU (Sep. 11, 2015) – In a letter dated July 7, 2015, attorney Dexter Kaiama was notified by the Superintendent of the Sensitive and International Investigations National Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) that their Department of Justice’s War Crime Program had reviewed the evidence of war crimes alleged to have been committed on the summit of Mauna Kea. The RCMP concluded, at that time, it did not have “jurisdiction over the issues brought forward based on the requirements of section 8 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes act.”

Section 8 states the RCMP would have jurisdiction if the alleged perpetrator “was a Canadian citizen or was employed by Canada in a civilian or military capacity [section 8(a)(i)];” or if the alleged victim “was a Canadian citizen [section 8(a)(iii)].” The July 7, 2015 RCMP response did not refuse jurisdiction on grounds that there is no armed conflict and that Hawai‘i is a part of the United States.

On May 13, 2015, Kaho’okahi Kanuha, who was accompanied by Dr. Keanu Sai, Ph.D., filed a war crime complaint with the RCMP in Ottawa, Canada. On behalf of his client, Attorney Kaiama drafted the complaint for Mr. Kanuha and Dr. Sai provided a report on the status of Hawai‘i as an independent and sovereign state under international law that has been under an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States. The war crimes that were reported were destruction of property, unlawful confinement, and denial of a fair and regular trial.

On August 12, 2015, Mr. Kaiama submitted a response to the RCMP, where he stated, “While my client is not a Canadian citizen, the alleged perpetrators of war crimes committed against him stemming from the unlawful arrest and confinement of his person on the summit of Mauna Kea does fulfill the requirement under section 8(a)(i). This section provides that persons outside of Canada may be prosecuted for war crimes if they were ‘employed by Canada in a civilian or military capacity.’”

The August 12, 2015 response provided that “TMT hired the Honolulu based law firm Watanabe Ing LLP to represent them in Hawai‘i and is primarily responsible for the war crimes committed against my client by orchestrating and ordering the unlawful detainment carried out by State of Hawai‘i enforcement officers,” and that “James Douglas Ing is the primary attorney in charge of TMT matters on the summit of Mauna Kea.” The submitted response also identified others employed in a civilian capacity by the Canadian component of TMT, “the CEO and President of Goodfellow Bros, Inc., J. Stephen Goodfellow, and Chad Goodfellow, respectively, who was hired as the primary contractor for construction of the telescope on the summit of Mauna Kea. Other civilians included are the employees of Goodfellow, Inc.”

In his response, Mr. Kaiama also identified additional perpetrators meeting the requirements of Section 8 of the Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act including those “individuals operating in a military capacity, and by direction of Douglas Ing in a civilian capacity, include, State of Hawai‘i armed force Governor David Ige, Attorney General Doug Chin, Deputy Attorney Generals Linda Chow and Julie China, and Director of the Department of Land and Natural Resources Suzanne D. Case, Hawai‘i County Police Officer Captain Richard Sherlock, Lieutenant DareenHorio, Supervising Officer Nelson Acob, Reporting Officer James Pacheco, and arresting Officer Kelsey K. Kobayashi.”

On August 24, 2015 Martin Bedard, Inspector in Charge of the War Crimes Section in Ottowa, confirmed receipt of Mr. Kaiama’s August 12, 2015 response “containing additional allegations” and that the Section is would be (“are and will be”) considering the additional allegations contained in said response.

Attorney Kaiama, representing Mr. Kanuha (and additional presently unnamed victims), also filed a complaint with the Japanese Consul General in Honolulu, Hawai’i on August 14, 2015 to report the violation of international laws in the unlawful detention and deprivation his clients rights to a fair and regular trial, and the destruction of public property during occupation carried out by TMT International Observatory, LLC, (TMTIO) upon the summit of Mauna a Wakea.

Through the filed Complaint, the Japanese Consul General was apprised of: (a) the comprehensive analysis of the international armed conflicts between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States from January 16, 1893 to April 1, 1893 and the current armed conflict since August 12, 1898; (b) Japan’s partnership in TMTIO through the Natural Institutes of Natural Sciences (NINS); (c) the destruction of public property during occupation upon the summit of Mauna a Wakea, beginning in 1970, and including Japan’s Subaru Telescope built in 1999; and (d) identification of the war crimes committed, and perpetrators of the reported violations.

The Complaint filed with the Japanese Consul General invoked Japan’s obligations to investigate the reported violations and initiate criminal proceedings under Article IV of the 1871 Hawaiian-Japanese Treaty which provides:

“It is hereby stipulated that the Hawaiian Government and its subjects, upon terms and conditions, will be allowed free and equal participation in all privileges, immunities and advantages that may have been or may hereafter be granted by His Majesty the Tenno of Japan, to the Government, citizens or subjects of any other nation.”

Click the following links to download:

Dexter Kaiama
Cell: (808) 284-5675

20 thoughts on “Canada Responds to War Crime Complaint and Japanese Consulate receives War Crime Complaint against TMT

  1. AWESOME!!! This means that the War Crime Complaints with the Canadian Government is not only “VALID”, but it also means that ALL countries that have binding “Treaties” with the Hawaiian Kingdom including Japan must honor their Treaty no matter what!!!

  2. WOW!! First Switzerland, then Canada, New Zealand, and now Japan!Hopefully the UK is enjoying Dr. Sai’s jaw-dropping presentation hahahaha!

    Ohh I would love to hear Japan’s reaction to all this! Cannot wait to hear more!

  3. Aloha Dutchy, you are correct. The fact that the RMPC only cited section 8 as the technicality in which they cannot move forward with the complaint is a clear indication they agree Hawaii is occupied. They easily could have denied the complaint on the basis that Hawaii was annexed by the United States and therefore, without an international armed conflict or an occupation no war crimes could have been committed. Sometimes silence speaks volumes if you are listening. Mr. Kaiama resolved the RMCP’s jurisdictional requirement by identifying the individuals hired by Canada pursuant to section 8’s requirement. Now, according to the RCMP, section 8 was the only issue with the complaint. If they come up with another issue based on procedure then it will be most obvious they are stalling for political reasons since they could have pointed out ALL the procedural issues in their first response.

  4. OK help a lay person out here Canada says it really can’t do anything as they have no jurisdiction, meaning they have no say in the matter right? Right or wrong they are unable to do anything correct?

    • Aloha David, the RCMP said …it did not have “jurisdiction over the issues brought forward based on the requirements of section 8 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes act.”
      Simply put, the complaint failed to provide the RCMP jurisdiction because it did not properly identify the perpetrators as being Canadian citizens or them being employed by Canada in a civilian or military capacity as required under Section 8(a)(i)];
      Mr. Kaiama. has since remedied that defect by properly identifying the perpetrators as being employed by Canada in both civilian and military capacities. This now gives the RCMP jurisdiction in accordance with section 8.
      I’m pretty sure they will be going over all filings with a fine tooth comb for any defects since it now appears some of their own gov’t officials are on the hot seat. Maybe it’s time for them to rethink their involvement with TMT. It is always possible to make things pono on the mountain and with the alleged victim(s) in return for the complaint to be withdrawn.

      • What about the Hawaiian Kingdom’s recognized international status of neutrality? With NASA’s involvement with the telescopes, it would be a violation of Hawaii’s neutrality including U.S. violations of their spy globe in Hawaii which is a violation of Hawaii’s neutrality including all the military bases in Hawaii since the U.S. is a belligerent throughout the world in a never-ending war. How strong is the neutrality status world-wide and how does the U.S. circumvent this status of a country that has declared its neutrality as does Switzerland and Hawaii?

  5. I disagree with the date of the belligerent occupation dated 1898. The fact of the matter is that it began on 16 January 1893, the landing of U.S. troops under protest of the Hawaiian Government. The takeover was 17 January 1893 with the establishment of a U.S. Provisional Government which one can substantiate as a civilian arm of the U.S. military which protected the Provisional government for the next 78 days. From the Blount report, Cleveland declared the actions of the U.S. military commanded by the plenipotentiary minister John L. Stevens on behalf of U.S. President Benjamin Harrison. There were no withdrawals of the U.S. troops except for the lowering of the U.S. flags followed by troops replacements by U.S. mercenaries to protect the U.S. Provisional Government.

    31 May 1894, Turpie Resolution was passed in U.S. Congress which threatened U.S. officials and Nations worldwide to not interfere with Hawaii’s situation lest it be an unfriendly act against the United States of America. In 1895, the U.S. military did one of their several military exercises at the walls of Kawaiahao Church grounds to intimidate Hawaiian subjects.

    Since 1893 to 1898, the U.S. presence in Hawaii demonstrated its control and power over Hawaii and protection of its government takeover which renamed itself the Republic of Hawaii. As far as the Hawaiian subjects were concerned, the U.S. military and its mercenaries protected the belligerent occupation which continues today. There has been no peace treaty. In 1897, the Ku’e Petitions answered the Turpie Resolution’s second part of it and because of it, U.S. Congress once again rejected a treaty of annexation/cessation.

    We know the U.S. Congress’ mere majority passed the unlawful Newlands Resolution to proclaim annexing Hawaii over the objection of the Hawaiian Kingdom subjects. U.S. intervention and interference within the Hawaiian Kingdom since 1893 has not let up and continuously violates the law of occupation and the international recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as a neutral nation.

    The cover-up of U.S. belligerent occupation and name-change of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s government erased the U.S. concerns of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s neutrality status. This was the concern of the U.S. in its plans to wage war against Spain; whether the new (unlawful) government still maintained its neutrality status. This is why it was imperative that the Hawaiian Kingdom become annexed to the U.S. in 1898.

    A lot of the U.S. planning was long-ranged since prior to 1887 to destabilize the Hawaiian Kingdom government and set it up for the takeover in 1893 so the U.S. could gain naval power and domination in the Pacific Ocean.

    • Aloha Tane,

      I agree with you that U.S. insurgents landed on Hawaiian soil
      without provocation nor authority on January 16, 1893.

      I believe the reason focus is on 1898, rather than 1893, is due
      to the December 18, 1893, Agreement of Restoration, that
      concluded the events prior to its inception. (The first failed attempt
      to annex the Hawaiian Islands)

      The fact that some U.S. congressman conspired against restoring
      the executive authority back to Hawaii’s Queen does not relieve
      the office of the U.S. President of its obligation entered into on
      December 18 1893, with the Hawaiian Queen. Pacta Sunt

      On August 12, 1898, 12:00 P.M., the U.S. deliberately violates
      international laws and customs when it raises its flag over the
      sovereign independent nation state of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
      By treaty a neutral state. Having only a U.S. internal public law
      to unilaterally annex a sovereign independent state and without
      regard to its December 18, 1893, Agreement of Restoration, the
      U.S. egregiously secured its control over Hawaiian jurisdiction,
      a neutral state, during the height of the Spanish-American war in
      order to take advantage of the military strategic position in the
      middle of the pacific. (The second failed attempt to annex the
      Hawaiian Islands and reason the Hawaiian Kingdom is under
      the prolonged occupation of the U.S.)

      Second attempt failed because:

      1. The December 18, 1893, Agreement of Restoration compact
      treaty remains a priority and obligates the U.S. to fulfill.

      2. The internal affairs of one state have no affect over another.
      The unilateral (one sided) U.S. Joint Resolution to annex
      another co-equal sovereign, the Hawaiian Kingdom state is
      improper to transfer sovereign authority.

      3. The submission of a treaty to the U.S, congress in 1898, to
      annex the Hawaiian Islands by the same individuals found
      to be neither de facto nor de jure under a U.S, Presidential
      investigation back in 1893, fails to get two third 2/3 vote to
      ratify it. The failure to get the two third 2/3 vote for ratification
      was due to the will of the Hawaiian people in their Ku’e petitions,
      anti-annexation protest petitions.

      Hope this helps,
      A hui hou

      • The problem with subsequent actions in 1893 when Blount ordered the U.S. flag to be removed; the U.S. Americans placed in the Provisional government later renamed the Republic of Hawaii were not removed and the Queen was not restored as head of the government which they took over and renamed.

        As far as 18 December, 1893 Cleveland left it for Congress to rectify and in 31 May 1894, the Turpie Resolution barred any U.S. official and other nations from interfering in Hawaii’s situation or else it would be an unfriendly act against the United States. This of course restrained Cleveland, Japan, Great Britain, and a few other countries who questioned U.S. involvement from interfering with Hawaii.

        Did this also damage the Hawaiian Kingdom’s neutrality status?

        • Aloha Tane,

          The U.S. President, in his executive capacity, entered
          into a binding contract with Hawaii’s Queen on 18
          December, 1893, the agreement of restoration. The
          “Lame Duck” U.S. congressional session did not
          support President Cleveland’s efforts to comply with
          that 18 December, 1893, binding agreement of
          restoration. However, congress’ choice not to support
          that binding contract does not nullify its existence.
          The U.S. congress have no extraterritorial authority
          beyond their borders only the U.S. President.

          To date, the U.S. have not fulfilled that binding contract
          creating the illusion of a continuous occupation since
          16 December, 1893, thereby marginalizing the full force
          and effect of that 18 December, 1893, agreement of
          restoration and avoiding its binding obligation under it.

          All the events that occurred after December 18, 1893,
          from the mercenaries who prevented the lawful
          Hawaiian Kingdom government from conducting its
          normal course of business after the U.S. left the
          Islands without any military assistance, the Turpie
          Resolution, the recognition of the Republic of
          Hawaii, the arrest of Queen Lili’uokalani, right on up
          to today with Kana’iolowalu provide clear evidence
          that the U.S. had no intent of fulfilling that 18
          December, 1893, agreement of restoration with

          IMHO, Queen Lili’uokalani was a step ahead of
          the treasonous events that occurred. The
          insistence from members of the King’s cabinet to
          appoint them as her cabinet required their
          resignation first. Bam! Stopped them dead in their
          tracks! She blasted them again when she temporarily
          transferred her constitutional executive authority
          to the superior force of the U.S. Bam! caught the
          treasonous group off guard. After the U.S.
          investigation and in spite of the U.S. interference
          on the internal affairs of the Hawaiian Kingdom the
          Queen enters into the 18 December, 1893, binding
          contract agreement of restoration with the U.S.
          Bam! Bested by a wahine, a Kanaka Alii intellect!
          The U.S. and the treasonous group had nearly 5
          years, well perhaps around 4 years and 8 months
          to come up with a plan of action to take control of
          Hawaii and they come up with the Newlands
          Resolution and they act on it! 4 years 8 months,
          ass all? Wah, wah wah! An utter disgrace to the
          Free Masons! The U.S. should’ve fulfilled its
          obligation of 18 December, 1893, before doing
          what it did on 12 August, 1898. Bam! Bested again!
          A touch down is not a touch down if it’s preceded
          by an off-side penalty by the offense.

          Damage to Hawaii’s status as a neutral state and
          whether a country wants to terminate its treaty
          agreement with the Hawaiian Kingdom could be
          addressed once the Hawaiian Kingdom government
          is restored and fully functioning again. IMHO anyway.

          I don’t think anyone can blame or put a time limit on
          the Hawaiian Kingdom government on when it should
          or should’ve had its government fully functioning
          again given the tremendous oppression implemented
          against it and its people!

          A hui hou

        • I do believe there are reparations owed for damages done to Hawaii’s neutrality. However, I do not believe the occupation can affect Hawaii’s status of neutrality. Luxembourg’s status or neutrality was not damaged from the occupation by Germany. The laws of occupation protects the status of the occupied state. IMHO
          Mahalo for the great dialog.

    • Aloha Tane, I totally understand your compelling argument of a single and continuous occupation. I believe they are separating the occupations because of how the elements of each incident is applied within the definitions of an occupation and armed force. IMHO

      • Under the law of occupation, with the process of de-occupation, the Hawaiian Kingdom has to be restored to previous conditions prior to the U.S. belligerent occupation; which meant the withdrawal of U.S. troops and U.S. mercenaries, removal of the civilian-arm of the U.S. military which were set up as the Provisional government which usurped the Hawaiian Kingdom’s government which they renamed the Republic of Hawaii. There was a U.S. demonstration of might in their maneuvers at the walls of Kawaiaha’o Church in August of 1895, one of several to intimidate the Hawaiian subjects and reminder that they would protect the ipso facto (U.S.) Republic of Hawaii. As far as the Hawaiian Kingdom subjects were concerned, the U.S. belligerent occupation never ceased till today. In 1897, the Ku’e Petitions was the last major attempt to answer the Turpie Resolution of 1894 again to protest against U.S. annexation and cessation of Hawaii to the U.S. with the desire to restore the Queen to her rightful government usurped by the U.S.A. I believe it meets the conditions of the continuous U.S. belligerent occupation stemming from 1893 ongoing to 1898 and beyond to today.

  6. I have a couple questions. I’ve read some of the treaties the Hawaiian Kingdom has with other nations…like the Hawaiian-Japanese treaty, for example, says that there will have to be a 6 month notice for termination of said treaty. Is it even possible for the Japanese government to give a 6 month notice WHILE Hawaii is occupied? If so, who could they give notice to? The acting government? I know this is probably a silly question because I would imagine this wouldn’t be possible, but I’m curious to know what international law says about it.

    • Aloha Kauila, It is a catch 22 situation. If Japan wants to terminate the Treaty they would have to give notice to the other party to the Treaty which is the Hawaiian Kingdom via the acting HK gov’t. By doing so, they just admitted to the world they have a valid Treaty with the HK and the HK continues to exists under international law and therefore the HK is occupied. This places liability on Japan because they are also a party to the Geneva Convention and UN General assembly who’s charter mandates that they help with stopping the occupation and the violation of states rights. Terminating the Treaty would open up a can of worms and I don’t think they want to go there just yet. IMHO

      • I agree with Kekoa, but it is also my understanding that Japan could face serious consequences, penalties and fines for violating their treaty. I also believe that it would have a negative affect and serious concerns regarding their treaties and relationships with other countries as well. I believe Japan is also concerned about their own relationship with the United States and the United States intent of wanting to expend their military base in Japan an expansion and military presence that many of the Japanese people oppose along with their opposition to the building of the TMT and the public funds of the Japanese people that are being used. Japan has a lot to think about!!!

  7. Aloha! On Wed 21 Oct 2015, I overheard a conversation from an astrophysicist from Italy on commission at Mauna Kea. He stated that he is aware of some controversy concerning the new telescope project. He also stated that the UK is preparing to dismantle it’s observatory for reasons unknown.

    • Maybe they realize that Hawaii is not apart of the U.S. of America! After all they did have a treaty with the Kingdom of Hawaii!

Leave a Reply