Today, September 23, 2024, Dr. Keanu Sai, as Head of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner regarding the a formal request by Senator Cross Makani Crabbe for a legal opinion from the Attorney General regarding the legal standing of the State of Hawai‘i in light of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State under international law. Consequently, this alleviates LTC Rosner from requesting a legal opinion by 12 noon today, as stated in the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s letter to him dated September 16, 2024. LTC Rosner is, however, responsible for establishing a military government unless the Attorney General concludes in her legal opinion that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist as an occupied State.. Here is a link to the letter.

The purpose of this letter is to notify you that this past Thursday, September 19, 2024, Senator Cross Makani Crabbe, who represents District 22 on the west side of O‘ahu, submitted a formal request, pursuant to §28-3 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes, to Attorney General Anne Lopez for a legal opinion regarding the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupied State, which I am enclosing. Consequently, this alleviates you from requesting a legal opinion by 12 noon on September 23, 2024, as stated in my letter to you dated September 16, 2024.

However, should Attorney General Lopez fail to show that the Hawaiian Kingdom had been extinguished by the United States under international law, you have the duty and obligation to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government. Your duty and obligation is in accordance with Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, FM 27-5, FM 27-10, and the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government. The 322nd Civil Affairs Brigade at Fort Shafter Flats advises commanders on military government.

It has been twenty-five years, on November 8, 1999, since the international arbitral proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) were initiated, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. The subject of this arbitral dispute was the first allegation of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. The claimant, Lance Larsen, alleged that the Hawaiian Kingdom, by its Council of Regency, was legally liable “for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws” over him within Hawaiian territory. This led to the war crimes of unfair trial and unlawful confinement by the District Court of the Third Circuit in Kea‘au.

Before the arbitral tribunal was established on June 9, 2000, the PCA Secretary General recognized, as a matter of institutional jurisdiction, the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a non-Contracting State pursuant to Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention, I, for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Article 47 states, “[t]he jurisdiction of the Permanent Court, may within the conditions laid down in the regulations, be extended to disputes between non-Contracting [States] or between Contracting [States] and non-Contracting [States], if the parties are agreed on recourse to this Tribunal.” This brought the dispute under the auspices of the PCA. The PCA Secretary General also recognized the Council of Regency as the Hawaiian Kingdom government. The Council of Regency did not claim to be the government of a new State but rather the legal personality of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom since the nineteenth century.

The issue of the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State under international law, is not a novel legal issue for the State of Hawai‘i to determine. Since 1994, this issue has been at the center of case law and precedence, regarding jurisdictional arguments that came before the courts of the State of Hawai‘i. One year after the United States Congress passed the 1993 joint resolution, apologizing for the United States overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals heard an appeal in 1994 that centered on a claim that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to exist as a country despite the unlawful overthrow of its government. In State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo, the appellate court stated:

Lorenzo appeals, arguing that the lower court erred in denying his pretrial motion (Motion) to dismiss the indictment. The essence of the Motion is that the [Hawaiian Kingdom] (Kingdom) was recognized as an independent sovereign nation by the United States in numerous bilateral treaties; the Kingdom was illegally overthrown in 1893 with the assistance of the United States; the Kingdom still exists as a sovereign nation; he is a citizen of the Kingdom; therefore, the courts of the State of Hawai‘i have no jurisdiction over him. Lorenzo makes the same argument on appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the lower court correctly denied the Motion.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, but it admitted “the court’s rationale is open to question in light of international law.” By not applying international law, the appellate court concluded that the trial court’s decision was correct because Lorenzo “presented no factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.”

Since 1994, Lorenzo has become the precedent case for denying defendants’ motions to dismiss claims that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. When the appellate court placed the burden on defendants to provide a ‘factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ it would require the application of international law, not the municipal law or common law of the United States and/or the State of Hawai‘i, for the defense to meet that burden.

The Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, clarified the evidentiary burden that Lorenzo placed upon defendants. The court stated:

Lorenzo held that, for jurisdictional purposes, should a defendant demonstrate a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i “exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature[,]” and that he or she is a citizen of that sovereign state, a defendant may be able to argue that the courts of the State of Hawai‘i lack jurisdiction over him or her.

Senator Crabbe’s letter included two legal opinions, published by the Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics, by experts in international law, that provide a legal basis for concluding that the Hawaiian Kingdom ‘exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ as called for by the State of Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. These legal opinions were authored by two professors of international law, Matthew Craven, from the University of London, SOAS, Department of Law, and Federico Lenzerini, from the University of Siena, Department of Political and International Sciences. I am also enclosing my latest law article on the responsibility to protect a State’s population from war crimes that was published this year by the International Review of Contemporary Law.

Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §28-3 states: “[t]he attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department (emphasis added).” The legal definition of shall “is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word ‘may,’ which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion.” In his letter, Senator Crabbe presented the Attorney General with his question for her legal opinion:

Considering the two legal opinions by Professor Craven and Professor Lenzerini, that conclude the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which are enclosed with this request, is the State of Hawai‘i within the territory of the United States or is it within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom?

Under international law, there is a presumption of continuity of the Hawaiian State despite the overthrow of its government by the United States on January 17, 1893. According to Judge James Crawford, International Court of Justice, there “is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations […] despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government,” and belligerent occupation “does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” Presumption is defined as an act or instance of taking something to be true. As a matter of law, in the absence of acceptable reasons to the contrary, presumption is an attitude adopted in law toward an action or proposal.

The presumption of State continuity shifts the burden of proof as to what is to be proven and by whom. Like the presumption of innocence, the accused does not prove their innocence, but rather the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that person’s guilt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is evidence so convincing that no reasonable person would have any doubts as to the person’s guilt. Matthew Craven, professor of international law, explains:

If one were to speak about a presumption of continuity, one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.

In other words, the Attorney General’s legal opinion would not prove the State of Hawai‘i lawfully exists, but rather, it must prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exists, as a State, under the rules of international law, and that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States. Evidence of ‘a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States’ would be an international treaty, particularly a peace treaty, whereby the Hawaiian Kingdom would have ceded its territory and sovereignty to the United States. Examples of foreign States ceding sovereign territory to the United States by a peace treaty include the 1848 Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement with the Republic of Mexico and the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain.

In her legal opinion, to answer, in the affirmative, that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States, the Attorney General must refer to a ‘valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States.’ Otherwise, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State under international law, which triggers your duty and obligation to establish a military government. For her to claim that the question of law raises a political question and, therefore, she cannot answer the question, is an admission to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s presumed existence since the nineteenth century. The political question doctrine refers to federal courts and their inability to adjudicate disputes that have been submitted to the courts for adjudication. According to the U.S. Supreme Court:

For purposes of Article III of the Constitution, “no justiciable ‘controversy’ exists when parties seek adjudication of a political question.” But the term “political question” is a legal term of art that on its face gives little indication of what sorts of cases the doctrine bars federal courts from deciding.

Furthermore, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, precludes the Attorney General from not answering the question if it was previously demonstrated, by the two legal opinions, that “a factual or legal basis that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i ‘exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.’” According to State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo, she would have to provide rebuttable evidence that counters the conclusions of the two legal opinions, otherwise the presumption of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence, as a State, remains. Therefore, all acts taken by the United States within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, to include the creation of the State of Hawai‘i by a congressional act, is void. According to the Permanent Court of International Justice, in the Lotus case (France v. Turkey):

Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention.

Therefore, the United States cannot ‘exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State,’ such as the Hawaiian Kingdom, because it already has international treaties with. The United States needs a treaty of cession with the Hawaiian Kingdom before it can exercise any power within the latter’s territory. Consequently, the State of Hawai‘i has no legal standing within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and thus, actions or conduct, taken by members of the State of Hawai‘i and or its Counties, could be construed as war crimes. I am enclosing Professor William Schabas’ legal opinion on war crimes currently being committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Since 2020, the Royal Commission of Inquiry has published, on its website (https://hawaiiankingdom.org/royal-commission.shtml), the following reports and memorandums:

Preliminary Report re Mens Rea (March 24, 2020)

Preliminary Report re Authority of the Council of Regency (May 27, 2020)

Preliminary Report re Legal Status of Land Titles throughout the Realm (July 16, 2020)

Supplemental Report re Title Insurance (October 28, 2020)

Preliminary Report re Explicit Recognition of the Hawaiian State and of the Council of Regency as its Government by the United States of America (April 2, 2021)

Preliminary Report re War Crimes of Transferring Populations in an Occupied Territory and Denationalization (September 30, 2021)

Preliminary Report re The Right of Self-Determination of the Hawaiian People in a State of War (October 23, 2021)

Preliminary Report re The Lorenzo doctrine on the Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State (June 7, 2022)

Preliminary Report re Attainder of Treason and the Corruption of Blood (October 26, 2022)

Preliminary Report re Termination of the 1875 Commercial Reciprocity Treaty and its 1884 Supplemental Convention (October 26, 2023)

Criminal Report no. 22-0001 re Insurgency of 1893 and Attainder of Treason (November 4, 2022)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0002 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Derek Kawakami & Arryl Kaneshiro (November 17, 2022)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0002-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Matthew M. Bracken & Mark L. Bradbury (November 20, 2022)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0003 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Mitchell Roth & Maile David (November 17, 2022)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0003-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Elizabeth A. Strance, Mark D. Disher & Dakota K. Frenz (November 20, 2022)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0004 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Michael Victorino & Alice L. Lee (November 17, 2022)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0004-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Moana M. Lutey, Caleb P. Rowe & Iwalani Mountcastle Gasmen (November 20, 2022)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0005 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—David Yutake Ige, Ty Nohara, & Isaac W. Choy (November 18, 2022)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0005-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Holly T. Shikada & Amanda J. Weston (November 20, 2022)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0006 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Anders G.O. Nervell (November 18, 2022)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0006-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Scott I. Batterman (November 20, 2022)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0007 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., Kamala Harris, Admiral John Aquilino, Charles P. Rettig, Charles E. Schumer, & Nancy Pelosi (November 18, 2022)

Amended War Criminal Report no. 22-0007—a Withdrawal of Admiral John Aquilino (February 23, 2024)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0007-1 re Accomplice to Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Brian M. Boynton, Anthony J. Coppolino & Michael J. Gerardi (November 20, 2022)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0008 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation & Deprivation of Fair and Regular Trial—Leslie E. Kobayashi & Rom A. Trader (November 23, 2022)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0009 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation, Deprivation of Fair and Regular Trial, & Pillage—Mark E. Recktenwald, Paula A. Nakayama, Sabrina S. McKenna, Richard W. Pollack, Michael D. Wilson, Todd W. Eddins, Glenn S. Hara, Greg K. Nakamura, Charles Prather, Sofia M. Hirosane, Daryl Y. Dobayashi, James E. Evers, Josiah K. Sewell, Clifford L. Nakea, Bradley R. Tamm, and Alana L. Bryant (December 28, 2022)

War Criminal Report no. 22-0009-1 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation, Deprivation of Fair & Regular Trial—Derrick K. Watson, J. Michael Seabright, Leslie E. Kobayashi and Jill A. Otake (February 28, 2023)

War Criminal Report no. 23-0001 re Usurpation of Sovereignty during Military Occupation—Anne E. Lopez, Craig Y. Iha, Ryan K.P. Kanaka‘ole, Alyssa-Marie Y. Kau, Peter Kahana Albinio, Jr., and Joseph Kuali‘i Lindsey Camara (March 29, 2023)

War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Kenneth Hara (August 5, 2024)

War Criminal Report no. 24-0002 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Stephen F. Logan (August 12, 2024)

War Criminal Report no. 24-0003 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Wesley Kawakami (August 19, 2024)

War Criminal Report no. 24-0004 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Fredrick Werner (August 26, 2024)

War Criminal Report no. 24-0005 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr. (September 2, 2024)

War Criminal Report no. 24-0006 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Joshua Jacobs (September 9, 2024)

War Criminal Report no. 24-0007 re Omission for willful failure to establish a military government—Dale Balsis (September 16, 2024)

Memorandum regarding the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continuity as a State and subject of International Law (August 29, 2023)

Memorandum on why all 193 Member States of the United Nations recognize the Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency (December 22, 2023)

Memorandum on Bringing the American Occupation of Hawai`i to an End by Establishing an American Military Government (June 22, 2024)

In order to understand the gravity and severity of the situation, I recommend that you view a presentation that I was invited to give to the Maui County Council’s Disaster, Resilience, International Affairs, and Planning (DRIP) Committee on March 6, 2024 (online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-VIA_3GD2A). To further understand the situation, I recommend that you also view two recent podcasts of Keep it Aloha with Kamaka Dias, which has collectively garnered over 22k views since August 1, 2024 (Part 1—online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvEdNx2dynE&t=6043s), (Part 2—online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBSFZQdC5bU&t=8466s).

Unless the Attorney General can provide you a legal opinion that concludes the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist ‘as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,’ you should begin to prepare for your role as military governor and transition the State of Hawai‘i into a military government according to the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan with essential and implied tasks. You should also begin to reach out to the 322nd Civil Affairs Brigade at Fort Shafter Flats.