Ruggles Puts Hawai‘i State Judges on Notice for Appearing to Commit War Crimes in Foreclosure Proceedings

Informs judges that foreclosure proceedings appear to be in violation of Article 46 of the Hague Convention, IV and Article 47 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV

Council member Ruggles released a letter today that she says she sent to all Hawai‘i Circuit Court judges meant to advocate on behalf of protected persons in foreclosure proceedings.

Ruggles says “Article 46 of the Hague Convention IV provides that ‘Private property cannot be confiscated,” and article 47 of the Geneva Convention IV provides, “Pillage is formally forbidden.”

Ruggles referred to the United Nations Human Rights Independent Expert, Dr. Alfred deZaya’s memorandum that had been sent to Hawaii State Judges in February of this year that stated, “The State of Hawaii courts should not lend themselves to a flagrant violation of the rights of the land title holders and in consequence of pertinent international norms. Therefore, the courts of the State of Hawaii must not enable or collude in the wrongful taking of private lands, bearing in mind that the right to property is recognized not only in U.S. law but also in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…”

Ruggles wrote that “The ‘wrongful taking of private lands’ by lenders, through the circuit courts of the State of Hawai‘i under foreclosure proceedings, appears to be the war crime of pillaging and that the courts appear to be complicit in a war crime by enabling and colluding ‘in the wrongful taking of private lands.’

Before lenders loan money they require the borrower to mortgage their real estate as collateral to secure the repayment of the loan. In order for the lender to accept the mortgaged property as collateral, the lender requires the borrower to also purchase a loan title insurance policy for the protection of the lender. The title insurance covers the full debt owed under the promissory note.

“As an agent for the United States I am bound ‘to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances,’ and, therefore, call upon you to cease and desist ‘in the wrongful taking of private lands’ from protected persons that are under foreclosure,” Ruggles wrote, “the lender is protected under the loan title insurance policy that was purchased by the borrower as a condition of the loan. As such, there is no reason to have any foreclosure proceedings in the first place…”

Ruggles finished the letter by stating, “This letter serves as knowledge and ‘awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict’ between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, the application of the HCIV and GCIV, and the protection afforded to protected persons.”

Ruggles sent the letters via certified mail and that she’s verified every judge across the islands received her letter on the Big Island and Oahu on September 25th, Kauai on September 26th, and Maui on September 27th.

Council member Ruggles will be holding a town hall on October 15th at 6pm at the Kea‘au Community Center to discuss this letter, among others that she is working on.


22 thoughts on “Ruggles Puts Hawai‘i State Judges on Notice for Appearing to Commit War Crimes in Foreclosure Proceedings

  1. Will that’s being done here in the United State’s too she given out good information I will pass this around here

  2. Mahalo!!!! Ruggles…..”all the good you have shared, will live on, in our hearts.” Our na kupuna, na makua, na keiki a me o `iwi o Hawaii nei, yesterday, today, and forever,

  3. #MahaloJenniferRuggles
    #InternationalCommitteeOfTheRedCross #ICRC

  4. Aloha Ruggles, There’s a Treaty of Friendship, commerce, and navigation between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Hawaii, December 20 1849. You are right about the Judges of the Circuit court, but it is not war crimes, it is utterance of forged documents that they are guilty of Aloha.

    • It becomes war crimes when they have been informed. Register return receipts of mail, acknowledge of acceptance of the information. The Hawaiian Kingdom is not in a State Peace with US, because of the illegal act of the military on January 16, 1893. Any military force that steps on any Independent State recognized by treaties. Is in of itself an act of war. International law forbids it.

  5. Then when did feudal lands become an estate (western concept)? If a king is the one to say so, which king said so? Where’s the kings record that says “I now decree these lands are Estates”, not AN estate, Estates? FLAW #1

    • I think this is where the King divests from absolute monarch to Constitutional Monarchy. Thus from 1 to Govt/Personal/people’s. The people’s coming from the Chief’s. Am I wrong? So, it would be with the Mahele. So many state employees/educators attempt to say that the Mahele was a bad decision, but it wasn’t. If he hadn’t divested, the title to all lands could have been taken in one sweep. By breaking it up, he was protecting it. 🤙🏼

    • Dianne the information your looking for would be with Donovan Preza. The Great Mahele is where you will find your answer.

  6. Thats how i saw it to, by breaking it up he was protecting it, because thats what the British Did when they took the Hawaiian Kingdom From Kamehameha the III, It Looks Like Thru That Experience He Learned What Could Happen As A Absolute Ruler, the thing to do would be to give the lands away to his Chiefs and the People than it would be harder for anyone to take all of the land. The Bad is the Bayonet Constitution and the Illegal Overthrow, because Prior to that The Hawaiians Were Still In Control. Thats why those people who overthrew the Hawaiian Kingdom Knew That was the Only way to take ” All of our Lands” was to gain support of the United States As A Body that could back them up, because the only way to to get all the hawaiians land and control hawaii for there advantage was to take it by force. But our people still secured our lands legally thru the anti annexation petition aka Ku’e Petition that prevented the annexation of hawaii to the United States. To me one of the most important thing for the World to know is America Committed Fraud when they falsely made the World Believe that they Annexed Hawaii. Also when a lot of us Hawaiians were battling the state of hawaii ” for our land claims back as hawaiians, there courts were using the joint resolution of annexation to claim there authority and jurisdiction over Hawaii and its people.
    Finally with Keanu Sai And Hui , The Fake State of Hawaii has Dr. Alfred M. deZayes of The United Nations Letter to deal with now. And it clearly points these things out.
    I would like to Thank Our Ancestors ame ko’u Haili moe for making me aware of these things, Mahalo, Aloha Aina!

  7. My apologies on comment. I was being “catty”, not that I didn’t know better. Sorry for unintended deception. I know about Keanu efforts since 1990 when I was arrested in search and seizure that took place all in one day on four homes totaling 15 individuals with four separate issues. What a day it was. After that simmered down, an offshoot group launched into their own legal endeavor efforts via Keanu and the rest is history. I was dismissed from the indictment, but not until the first group went to trial, ours. You don’t get dismissed after going to trial. Dismissal of indictment is to prevent going to trial, not after. So, what happened? Been working on it since to this day. Waiting for motion that caused the dismissal then we see what next. I represented myself to this day. That’s another story for another day as they say. Again, audience, my apologies for catty comment. I decided to use my newly found FB to post my comment on HK issues. Get more coverage on what I know from research and experience.

    • Oh, ok. I think I catch. So, maybe what u r speaking more about is probate? And like Hawaiians have all felt that sting! And w/ the mix of US law and that style of law vs Hawaiian law which is more like common law, “estates” sure seem to pop up out of nowhere. Like, Judge McBryde on Kauai, in the 1850’s, who created all kinds of “estates” long after people were dead. Or like more recent “estates” that get created, when property hasn’t even been probated to begin with. Somehow though, a court somewhere creates an estate, like, POOF!

      Hang in there! All I know is it feels more hopeful now than it did 30 years ago. Mahalo for your efforts!!! 😘💕

    • When you went to trial how long was that after you was arrested and arraigned? Are you sure you went to trial or maybe a pretrial? Pretrials play out similar to a trial, a pretrial show you how you’re trial will play out…. this is how they get a defendant to either proceed to trial or take a guilty plea deal, or have the case dismissed etc.

  8. Here’s a statement (like it or not) that made clear why the courts appear defensive. Something I found out from research work done by a Pete Stern and The Informer, plus work experience (paid volunteer) for the State Judiciary 14 years when I ended up houseless in the 90s, another story for another day. Quote, “The proper courts in this country (US) WILL INTERFERE TO PREVENT an abuse of the trusts confided to British corporations holding lands here [speaking of US] to charitable uses, and will aid in enforcing the due execution of the trusts;” Then in an eviction appeal, I hear the judge say, “it’s not my job to decide who is right or who is wrong”. Of course, my curt remark to myself was, “then whose job is it?” (The one who provided the funding like the British corporations did for the US). Irrelevant when you see “will interfere to prevent”. Then I understood. As long as the parties “follow the rules” you should be a winner. End of Class 101 in law. BTW I checked the American College Dictionary on “estates”. Posted my response on FB to reach the mass’. What you know as estate is not the same as Keanu. Check FB. I was more catty there. He chose one use while I countered with another “example”.

  9. The search and seizure took place on or about April 20, 1990 (state tax deadline). We were all taken in for finger printing and photo. I went to the USPS airport for this. Released that same day. I was the last to be released, I refused to sign the security bail. It wasn’t until late evening when I was coaxed into signing it. The indictment was rendered on November 14, 1990, then on November 30, 1990 the Writ of Possession was executed to evict us from the property that went into foreclosure, subject matter for the search and seizure. At pre-trial conference, I stood before the late Judge Harold Fong and the Prosecutor. When the prosecutor made reference to my English name, I corrected him by answering to a different name, it was mine, but not the one he was trying to identify me by, in addition to what I was coached to say. Then Fong, asked the prosecutor “knowing what you know now, do you still want to prosecute her?” He was undecided for awhile, then answered, yes. Thus, I went to trial with the rest of the family and friend of husband at the time (we divorced in 2004). We were the first of four separate trials. After all the trials ended, an appeal with the 9th circuit was filed on behalf of my ex, his now deceased friend and myself which was not suppose to be because the lawyer was not my lawyer. I didn’t request to be included. The court, nevertheless, affirmed the conviction of my ex and his friend while I was remanded back for a new trial, but it never happened, instead, the dismissal of indictment was ordered. A copy of the motion is pending 8 weeks to get. It was a suggestion from an attorney I had to get recently for an unrelated matter. He read the dismissal order and when I told him what I’ve been trying to get, conclusion of law, he said to get the motion which I didn’t get, because I was homeless and no way to find out what happened or what to do next. Moving onto 9th circuit means a trial did take place, not a pretrial. There was no plea deal or dismissal from the case, just the dismissal of indictment. Problem? Dismissal of indictment is to prevent you from going to trial. So, did I really go to trial? Yes, I appeared with the rest of them. No attorney for me. It had to do with my performance at the trial. Every time I was referred to by the name I was arrested as, I would correct the prosecutor with an alternate name. I am now thinking because of this performance, it was feasible after the order for remand, that the remand qualified as a new arrest and the indictment carried over to the remand qualifying the indictment as an arrest in the alternative? So the indictment could be in proper order now for dismissal before the second trial? Am I reading this correctly. This is the first time I’m looking deeper into what really happened to me in this case?

    • Maybe the dismissal of indictment had something to do with your name and alternate name switch? Hopefully you’ll find out soon. Good luck to you.

      • It was my name, rank and serial number that I stated, because I was taken prisoner to answer for a crime committed by the person named on the indictment, the STRAWMAN. Whatever and however I did what I did worked in my favor, so much so that Bumpy asked me to help his sovereign group soon after the trial. I took up residence with his group with the consent of two individuals, a male and female whom I was in their care before, during and after the trial until his transcending from the human realm on or about the date he told me six months prior to his departure date in June of 2001, three month before 9/11/2001. His part in what I did was fulfilled. It was he that gave me a crash course to what I needed to know and do in the federal court case. After that I was on my own until I met the third party of his group of three and am now in his care as his Executive Secretary, (c) The Heir Kane Kumu Honua Kama-kapu Mo’i Kamehameha(TM).

        • Kaulana, you have been very helpful in my quest to get the Conclusion of Law in that case. I believe it’s in the missing piece to the indictment, the motion for dismissal of indictment not dismissal of the case. Marked difference of the two types and no mentioning of with or without prejudice either. Is this case really over? The Heir says, no. So, we wait for a copy of the motion I already requested. One more, the 9th Circuit decision was not for publication. Attorney’s are barred from that rule of law.

          E Aloha Malama Pono!

  10. Correct. George Bush Jr created issue with 9/11 stating the act of terrorism is a violation of Geneva IV Convention. Recall what’s happened since 9/11. Recall Hussein’s death. 9/11 was an “orchestrated war” in so many ways, including, that lousy creation of identity theft sales pitch. Recall hearing that identifying cause from Judge Kavanaugh’s lips when he railed the committee and that he was working for the then President George W. Bush Jr. Hm, Charlottes Web. So, we need to be sure all our ducks are in a row when we take up the issue of War Crimes under Geneva IV Convention by not giving the intended defendant another reason to call it “orchestrated” which Kavanaugh already has that subject matter in mind to “orchestrate” his own “probable cause”, something nasty to keep all people in line. Recall he already targeting the first people of America and Hawai’i.

Leave a Reply