Today, November 7, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner regarding his military duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government no later than November 28, 2024. Here is a link to the letter.

It is now over a year since the Hawai‘i Army National Guard’s leadership became aware that the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation is being committed and that its their duty to put a stop to it by establishing a military government in accordance with U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation. Major General Kenneth Hara’s willful failure to obey Army regulations, and resulting his dereliction of duty, has led to war criminal reports for the war crime by omission on himself, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, Colonel Wesley Kawakami, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick Werner, Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr., Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs, and Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis. As a result, you are, now, the most senior officer in the Army National Guard.

Their conduct and omission to establish a military government falls squarely under  Department of Defense Law of War Manual, para. 18.22.1, which states, “Any person who commits an act that constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. International law imposes duties and liabilities on individuals as well as States, and individuals may be punished for violations of international law.” And under para. 4-24, Army Regulations 600-20, which states that “Commanders are legally responsible for war crimes they personally commit, order committed, or know or should have known about and take no action to prevent, stop, or punish.”

MG Hara, BT Logan, Colonel Kawakami, LTC Werner, LTC Tuisamatatele, Jr., LTC Jacobs, and LTC Balsis “knew” that the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation was being committed by the federal government, the State of Hawai‘i, and the Counties and they each took no action to stop it by establishing a military government. According to Major Michael Winn, who is chief of administrative law at U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command at Fort Lee, Virginia, in his article Command Responsibility for Subordinates’ War Crimes—A Twenty-First Century Primer, he states “Commanders who fail to comply with their obligations with regard to the LOAC are at risk of an administrative reprimand or elimination. Worse, failure to comply could serve as the basis for a court-martial for dereliction of duty.” Major Winn then concludes:

Meeting our Nation’s obligations under the law of war does not come automatically—it requires leadership. In this era of increased focus on command responsibility for war crimes, legal advisors have an important role to play in helping their commanders prevent, stop, and punish such offenses. Accordingly, legal advisors keep their commanders on the high road of command responsibility, where they can focus on their mission—to prepare Soldiers for combat and lead them in defense of our Nation.

Because the senior leadership of the Army National Guard committed war crimes, para. 18.22.1 and para. 4-24 renders them all unfit to lead. Consequently, as the most senior officer, you have a duty to assume command under Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 2-11, which states that the “senior officer, WO, cadet, NCO, or junior enlisted Soldier among troops at the scene of an emergency will assume temporary command and control of the Soldiers present.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines an emergency as a “sudden unexpected happening; an unforeseen occurrence or condition; perplexing contingency or complication of circumstances; a sudden or unexpected occasion for action; exigency; pressing necessity. Emergency is an unforeseen combination of circumstances that calls for immediate action without time for full deliberation.”

We are approaching November 28th, a national holiday, where Great Britain and France jointly recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State. This day of Hawaiian independence ushered the Hawaiian Kingdom into the family of nations as a subject of international law. As a government officer of the Hawaiian Kingdom and Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI), I am giving you until November 28, 2024, to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government or become the subject of a war criminal report like the commanders before you.

To comply with Army regulations and directives and to avoid criminal culpability, you must obtain legal advice from Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps, who is the Staff Judge Advocate for the Hawai‘i National Guard and now your legal adviser. I recommend that you immediately request of LTC Phelps an answer to the following two questions.

First question: Do I have a duty to assume command of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard under Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 2-11? If yes, then go to the second question. If no, give me a legal reason why I do not have this duty.

Second question: Do I have a duty to establish a military government Under DOD Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation? If yes, then begin the mission of transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a military government by November 28, 2024. If no, give me a legal reason why I do not have this duty.

The law of occupation provides for a working relationship between the occupant, the government of the occupied State, and the population. Para. 6-24, FM 6-27, states “Military occupation of enemy territory involves a complex, trilateral set of legal relations between the Occupying Power, the temporarily ousted sovereign authority, and the inhabitants of the occupied territory.” Appropriately, Professor Federico Lenzerini explains this relationship between the occupant and the Council of Regency in his “Legal Opinion on the Authority of the Council of Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” Professor Lenzerini states:

In light of the foregoing, it may be concluded that the working relationship between the Regency and the administration of the occupying State should have the form of a cooperative relationship aimed at guaranteeing the realization of the rights and interests of the civilian population and the correct administration of the occupied territory, provided that there are no objective obstacles for the occupying power to cooperate and that, in any event, the “supreme” decision-making power belongs to the occupying power itself. This conclusion is consistent with the position of the latter as “administrator” of the Hawaiian territory, as stated in the Council of Regency’s Proclamation recognizing the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties as the administration of the occupying State of 3 June 2019 and presupposed by the pertinent rules of international humanitarian law.

After serving 10 years in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard and having been the commander of Charlie Battery, 1/487th Field Artillery, I know Army regulations. In my letters to you, I provided the legal framework regarding occupied territory and war crimes under customary international law. Military occupations are matters of fact and not law. The law of occupation comes into play when the occupant is in effective control of occupied territory—1907 Hague Regulations (art. 42). The State of Hawai‘i is in control here and not the federal government. The law of occupation regulates the actions and conduct of U.S. military personnel within the occupied territory.

Attorney General Anne Lopez has provided no legal explanation that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States. Instead, her instructions were to ignore all of this information. Until she provides the legal basis for this assertion, the presumption, that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, remains, and you, as the senior officer in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard, are duty bound to comply with U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation.

I am enclosing my curriculum vitae so you can see my credentials, qualifications, and publications. Of note, is my forthcoming chapter titled Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire in a book titled Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age, which I am also enclosing. Here is the abstract for my chapter:

From archaic state to a British protectorate to a sovereign and independent state, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s evolution of governance during the imperial age is unparalleled in the world. While being the first country of Oceania to become a member of the international community of states since the nineteenth century, the Hawaiian Kingdom was not able to escape the tentacles of empire, but it was able to engage foreign aggression on its own terms and ultimately survive. This chapter covers the Hawaiian Kingdom from the death of Captain James Cook, the rise of the warrior king Kamehameha I—progenitor of the kingdom, government reform, independence, the overthrow of its government by United States forces, and its continued existence as a state under international law.

Oxford University Press, a renowned academic publisher in England, is publishing this book. If it is a frivolous assertion of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s ‘continued existence as a state under international law,’ then Oxford University Press would not have accepted my chapter for publication.

In addition, a book review of my latest book The Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom (2020) was published in the Polish Journal of Political Science, which I am also enclosing. In her book review, Professor Anita Budziszewska concludes:

I regard this publication as an exceptionally valuable one that systematises matters of the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom, taking up the key issues surrounding the often ignored topic of a difficult historical context occurring between Hawaii and the United States. The issue at stake here has been regenerated synthetically, on multiple levels, with a penetrating analysis of the regulations and norms in international law applying to Hawaii – starting from potential occupied-territory status, and moving through to multi-dimensional issues relating to both war crimes and human rights. This is one of the few books – if not the only one – to describe its subject matter so comprehensively and completely. I therefore see this work as being of exceptional value and considerable scientific importance. It may serve not only as an academic source, but also a professional source of knowledge for both practicing lawyers and historians dealing with the matter on hand. The ambition of those who sought to take up this difficult topic can only be commended.

Thus, it has now become a known fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom is an occupied State under international law.