State of Hawai‘i is an Armed Force Under International Law

Seal_of_the_State_of_HawaiiThe State of Hawai‘i has evaded a precise definition of standing in international law because it has pretended to be a government within the United States, when in fact it is a private organization outside of the United States. The U.S. Congress created the State of Hawai‘i in 1959 by a Congressional Act, but since Congress is limited to U.S. territory it could not vest the State of Hawai‘i with governmental powers outside of its territory in an occupied state. The State of Hawai‘i is a private organization that pretends to be a government.

While the State of Hawai‘i cannot claim to be a government de jure (lawful government) or de facto (government of a successful revolution), customary international law defines it as an Armed Force for the occupying state. Military manuals define Armed Forces as “organized armed groups which are under a command responsible to that party for the conduct of its subordinates (Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, vol. I, 14 (2009).” According to Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, “this definition of armed forces covers all persons who fight on behalf of a party to a conflict and who subordinate themselves to its command (Id., p. 15),” and that this “definition of armed forces builds upon earlier definitions contained in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention which sought to determine who are combatants entitled to prisoner-of-war status (Id.).” Article 1 of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, provides that

“The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions: (1) To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (2) To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; (3) To carry arms openly; and (4) To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”

The laws and customs of war during occupation applies only to territories that come under the authority of either the occupier’s military or an occupier’s Armed Force, such as the State of Hawai‘i, and that the “occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised (1907 Hague Convention, IV, Article 42).” According to Ferraro, “occupation—as a species of international armed conflict—must be determined solely on the basis of the prevailing facts (Tristan Ferraro, Determining the beginning and end of an occupation under international humanitarian law, 94 (no. 885) Int’l Rev Red Cross 133, 134 (Spring 2012).” Although unlawful, it is a fact that the United States created the State of Hawai‘i through congressional action and signed into law by its President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in 1959. It is also a fact that the United States approved the constitution of the State of Hawai‘i that provides for its organizational structure.

As an Armed Force, the State of Hawai‘i established its authority over 137 islands (“Hawai‘i Facts and Figures” (December 2014), State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism), “together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial and archipelagic waters (State of Hawai‘i Constitution, Article XV, section 1.” These islands include the major islands of Hawai‘i, Maui, O‘ahu, Kaua‘i, Molokai, Lana‘i, Ni‘ihau, and Kaho‘olawe. It is the effectiveness of the control exercised by the State of Hawai‘i over this territory, as an Armed Force for the United States, which triggers the application of occupation law.

Allegiance to the United States as the Occupying State

The State of Hawai‘i, as an Armed Force, bears its allegiance to the United States where its officials, to include its Governor, take the following oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as […] to best of my ability (Id., Article XVI, sec. 4).”

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates

A Governor who is elected by U.S. citizens in Hawai‘i is head of the State of Hawai‘i. The Governor is responsible for the execution of its laws from its legislature and to carry out the decisions by its courts. The Governor is also the “commander in chief of the armed forces of the State and may call out such forces to execute the laws, suppress or prevent insurrection or lawless violence or repel invasion (Id., Article V, sec. 5).” The Governor’s subordinates include all “executive and administrative offices, departments and instrumentalities of the state government (Id., sec. 6).”

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance

According to its constitution, “The Hawaiian flag shall be the flag of the State (Id., Article XV, sec. 3).”

To carry arms openly

Law enforcement officers of the State of Hawai‘i, to include the Sheriff’s Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources, and the police of the State’s four Counties (Hawai‘i, Maui, Honolulu, and Kaua‘i), all openly carry arms. Also included are the State of Hawai‘i’s Army National Guard and Air National Guard who openly carry arms while in tactical training.

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

As the Governor is the commander in chief of the State’s Armed Forces, and is responsible for the suppression or prevention of insurrection or lawless violence, as well as repelling an invasion, the State of Hawai‘i is capable of conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war during occupation. The State of Hawai‘i Army and Air National Guard are trained in the laws and customs of war.

48 thoughts on “State of Hawai‘i is an Armed Force Under International Law

  1. i’ve stated many times in posts and comments on various social media platforms that the “state of Hawai’i government” is an illegal government and a proxy puppet regime for the unlawful u.s. occupier of the kingdom and nation of Hawai’i and, as such, it has no legal authority or jurisdiction to govern the hawaiian islands.

    the legal authority and jurisdiction remains, as it always has, SOLELY with the Kingdom of Hawai’i government, aka the hawaiian monarchy, Hawai’i;s ONLY lawful government.

    this blog post confirms my position.

    ponokeali’i

  2. Wow, I just posted a comment to Bill regarding the Congressional Limitations thread and didn’t know that the answer was already posted here. Well there you go Bill, the answer to your question.
    The State of Hawaii (SOH) is NOT a Gov’t it is an Armed Force in an occupied territory. They are obligated to obey the U.S. constitution, U.S. Treaties, Geneva conventions, Hague Regulations, Laws and Customs of War and Humanitarian Laws during Armed Conflicts and Occupation.
    The SOH is the one in the actual control of 80% of the occupied territory versus the 20% controled by the U.S. Military.
    In other words according to the U.S. LAW and all international Laws applicable to an Occupation it is the DUTY of the SOH to set up the Provision that will apply the Laws of occupation and the process for DeOccupation. After all Governor IGE is the commander and chief of the Hawaii Army and Air National Guard, sheriffs and police and is in actual control of 80% of the occupied territory.
    This is a GAME CHANGER since the SOH as an Armed Force has to protect those who are defined as protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. SOH courts are a branch of an Armed Force so NOW all prisones are defined as POW’s and can seek the assistance of the ICRC. Those like the Protectors of Mauna a Wakea that have court dates can petition the ICRC for legal counsel and to monitor the unfair trials via video. Have the ICRC contact the Govenors office as to the status of the POW’s and their rights under the Geneva Conventions. TMT contracts are void since the SOH is not a gov’t and has a duty under the laws of occupation, Geneva conventions and Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts to protect the destruction of HK property and sacred sites.These are just some examples of how the SOH should be operating while in an occupied territory and it’s duty not to violate the rights of protected persons or the law.

  3. So if we had a political party that represented Hawaiians, and got someone elected to Governor, we could begin de-occupation?

    It would be in accordance with all laws, it is starting to appear.

  4. Aloha Tim, I believe the de-occupation process would be the same as if it was done by the military. Governor IGE would preform in the same manner as an Admiral or the one in charge of a military provisional gov’t. and administer the laws of occpation. The State of Hawaii personnel would remain in place for now and maintain their offices for a smooth transition. Governor IGE, State and County officials now carry an enormous amount of vicarious liability. Because they are members of an Armed Force and not a legit gov’t in the occupied territory they are held individually responsible for the violations of humanitarian law. They can’t blame it on the U.S. Federal gov’t anymore. It is very simple, either they are in compliance with the law or they are not.
    Since, as individuals they will be held civilly and criminally liable they can control their own destiny by just obeying the laws they swore to uphold and not be the patsy for the U.S. federal gov’t. The U.S. gov’t will not be able to absolve them for their War Crimes.
    Governor IGE can be the hero that preforms his lawful duties for a smooth transition or go down in history as the War Criminal that sent the world into economic chaos. His choice, choose wisely the world is watching.

    • Aloha Kekoa, I don’t think Ige or any of the other State or county officials, including law enforcement are going to risk violating their oaths of office, to uphold the laws of the US and State Constitutions. They would be committing treason against the US, which in reality is a bunch of baloney because the real treason being committed is against the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands. Besides the State of Hawaii, Gov. Ige, etc., is all fraudulent and/or based on fraud so to think that Ige would actually carry out some kind of de-occupation plan I think would be highly unlikely. Just my opinion and please correct me if I am wrong…. Blessings.

      • Aloha Lono, State officials including police would not be violating their oaths of office or committing treason by complying to the laws of occupation. They swore an oath to up the constitution and laws of the United States. Under that constitution Art.6 says that the Treaty is the Supreme Law of the Land and even the Judges are bound by it. The only Treaties that exist in Hawaii are those that were ratified by the HK gov’t with other countries including the United States such as trade and friendship. The United States is also a party to the Hague and Geneva Conventions. The U.S. also has U.S. code Title 18 sec. 2441 which prohibits grave breaches of the Geneva Convention and humanitarian law.
        If State officials with oaths of office do not comply with the laws of occupation and committee grave breaches of the Geneva Convention then they are in violation of their own oath and humanitarian law under Title 18.

  5. The state of Hawaii is a government defacto one whose very existence is and was created due in part to the act of usurpers whose very existence is and was created due in part to the continued usurpation till today.

  6. Aloha Kealii, President Mckinnely’s conclusion of the facts from his investigation of his U.S. military and minister in Hawaii resulted with his finding that the Provisional gov’t (usurpers) were neither de facto nor de jure. Meaning they were only self proclaimed and not (defacto) the result of a successful revolution or (dejure) the result of a lawful election.
    The legal definition for the State of Hawaii who is in actual control of Hawaii is an Armed Force. Lawfully it cannot be a government not even a de facto one. It was created by a lawful U.S. gov’t but is limited the U.S. territory. Once it goes outside of U.S. territory and into another states territory it is now defined as an Armed Force or it’s creator hence the occupation. Hope this claifies.

    • Aloha kekoa, President Grover Cleveland Message to the Senate and House of Representatives – December 18, 1893, he states:
      “When our Minister recognized the provisional government the only basis upon which it rested was the fact that the Committee of Safety had in the manner above stated declared it to exist. It was neither a government de facto nor de jure. That it was not in such possession of the Government property and agencies as entitled it to recognition is conclusively proved by a note found in the files of the Legation at Honolulu, addressed by the declared head of the provisional government to Minister Stevens, dated January 17, 1893, in which he acknowledges with expressions of appreciation the Minister’s recognition of the provisional government, and states that it is not yet in the possession of the station house (the place where a large number of the Queen’s troops were quartered), though the same had been demanded of the Queen’s officers in charge. Nevertheless, this wrongful recognition by our Minister placed the Government of the Queen in a position of most perilous perplexity.

      On the one hand she had possession of the palace, of the barracks, and of the police station, and had at her command at least five hundred fully armed men and several pieces of artillery. Indeed, the whole military force of her kingdom was on her side and at her disposal, while the Committee of Safety, by actual search, had discovered that there were but very few arms in Honolulu that were not in the service of the Government. In this state of things if the Queen could have dealt with the insurgents alone her course would have been plain and the result unmistakable.

      The provisional government has not assumed a republican or other constitutional form, but has remained a mere executive council or oligarchy, set up without the assent of the people. It has not sought to find a permanent basis of popular support and has given no evidence of an intention to do so. Indeed, the representatives of that government assert that the people of Hawaii are unfit for popular government and frankly avow that they can be best ruled by arbitrary or despotic power.

      The legal definition for the State of Hawaii who is in actual control of Hawaii is a de facto dependent state not a de jure one.
      Due to force and threat of force as against the lawful, de jure Sovereignty and People of the Kingdom of Hawaii, no title or claim of dominion is extended to the usurper under the Law of Nations, to wit:
      “But if the Nation which is protected, or which has placed itself in subjection upon certain condition, does not resist the encroachments of the power from which it has sought support, if it makes no opposition, and keeps absolutely silent when it could and should speak, its acquiescence constitutes, in the course of time, an implied consent, the silence must be voluntary. If the weaker Nation can show that the apparent absence of opposition was DUE TO THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IT, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN FROM
      ITS SILENCE, AND NO RIGHTS ACCRUE TO THE USURPER.” (The Law Of Nations Or The Principles Of The Natural Law, Emer De Vattel, Book I, Chapter XVI, § 199)This goes directly to the uniqueness of Hawaii’s political status since1893 when a coup d’état was made on January 17, 1893, against Queen Liliuokalani of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, (also known as the Hawaiian Kingdom, Government of the Hawaiian Islands). The general public has been duped into operating by the usurper’s domestic laws rather than applying the real authority of the “Law of Nations”, “Public international law” and the Kingdom of Hawaii’s last standing constitution.

      The current usurping government entity is well aware of all the ramifications of the legal defects concerning its domestic actions
      throughout history. This government fully understands that the domestic actions perpetrated by the Congress of the United States of America to subjugate the Kingdom of Hawai`i and its People and subsequent actions of Congress thereafter to keep the Kingdom of Hawai`i under its
      control by inferior laws in violation of the “Law of Nations”, International Law, and Treaties and other Agreements with the Kingdom of Hawai`i.

      For these very reasons, the Congress of The United States of America is currently attempting to gain the consensus of the Hawaiian masses to
      voluntarily accept some form of tribal status that will effectively keep them under U.S. control. If there was no legal right for us to reinstate our own lawful government, they would not be asking the Hawaiian people for their cooperation and permission to make this usurpation permanent and legally binding. Without our consent, they know it cannot be accomplished. These usurpers need our permission to rule us and there are those who are deceived enough to give that permission to them through the “Akaka Bill” or another like it like DOI rule changes. This is a result of calculated mass ignorance and this is why they fear the education of our people in these matters.

  7. Aloha Kealii, I think you are conflating the definitions of the provisional gov’t and the State of Hawaii. The Provisional gov’t was self declared by the committee of safety just because they said it was a gov’t but it was not defacto or dejure. That is addressing the Provisional gov’t only. The U.S. gov’t which is a dejure gov’t violated international law and the sovereignty of a neutral state when they illegally attempted to annexed the HK via joint resolution from a self declared Republic that was not defacto nor dejure and violated it’s own Executive agreements for restoration. Pursuant to customary international law, Humanitarian law in armed conflicts and laws of war on land, annexation cannot take place as long as there is an occupation. Pursuant to theses laws the status of the occupied state and it’s citizenry cannot change even with their consent during an occupation. So you see, even with or without consent by the occupied nationals nothing can change when there is occupation.
    If the State of Hawaii is a creation by the occupier than it is part of the occupiers armed forces and cannot lawfully be a gov’t of anykind while it is within the occupied territory.
    If Congress could not lawfully annex and extinguish the HK by a Congressional Act than what makes you think they can lawfully do any thing else by a Congressional Act, hence Congressional limitations.
    You are citing the book “Laws of Nations”, it is the least authoritative source of international law available. Check out the Geneva conventions, Hague Regs., Humanitarian law in armed conflicts and laws of war on land, customary international law and international cases that have already addressed these issues.
    Yes, all people need to be educated on this issue. With education we gain knowledge, from knowledge we obtain understanding, with understanding we have wisdom and with this wisdom we begin application.

  8. Aloha Kealii, sometimes I take it for granted everyone knows what I’m talking about and don’t provide the authority like you did. So this time I provided it for you and others reading this thread.
    De Vattel’s writing of “Laws of Nations” is an authority from the 18th century, who’s work has been superseded by other scholars like Marek, Oppenheim, and Crawford. Here is a more updated or modern authoritative writing of international law by Professor Marek, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law (1968), p. 82.
    According to Professor Marek, “The principle of the continuity of the occupied State cannot be definitely asserted, unless a possible and dangerous confusion is first eliminated; namely, the confusion between belligerent occupation and de facto government. … A de facto government, says Prof. Sauser-Hall, is a consequence of internal disturbances or civil wars, whereas belligerent occupation results from an international conflict. A de facto government can claim international recognition when it has has firmly established itself, while belligerent occupation is by its very nature provisional. A de facto government aims at the definite overthrow and elimination of the regular government, while belligerent occupation is bound to end with the re-establishment of peace. Finally, a de facto government tends to substitute a new sovereignty for that of its political adversaries; belligerent occupation, on the contrary, leaves the sovereignty of the occupied State intact.”
    Gotta update the authorities because international law has evolved tremendously since the 18th century. I’m pretty sure no one wants to go back to dial up internet service today right.

    • Gotta update the authorities because international law has evolved tremendously since the 18th century. I’m pretty sure no one wants to go back to dial up internet service today right.

      Quite ironic since all the authorities you’ve listed cite vattel as theres.

  9. Maui… has also awaken to these facts and findings of a fake state government……now to lead our next generation to rise in truth…… Maui Kingdom Capital will once again RISE…..IMUA…….PROTECT……AND FIGHT BACK……AFTER OVER 120 YEARS…….DEPORTATION……REMOVAL OF THE DISRESPECTFUL FOREIGNER……..REMOVAL OF THESE AMERICAN ILLEGAL MILITARY ARMED FORCES…….OAHU HAVE THE AMERICAN GUN…..POINTING DIRECTLY AT YOUR HEADS….. KANEOHE…..PEARL HARBOR……EWA BEACH….AND SADLY LOOK WAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO IN A VERY SACRED VALLEY ON OAHU……MAKUA VALLEY…….HAS BEEN SHOT AT FOR YEARS…..wat da…..??????

  10. After Cleveland’s investigation, he announced the U.S. actions as an act of war. The U.S. invasion, establishing and protecting the Provisional Government means that since it was neither de jure nor de facto, it is then ipso facto, which is in name only. The Provisional Government then becomes the civilian arm of the U.S. military and protected by it.
    *- Interesting to note that many in Washington, D.C. considered Dole and Thurston as the first two “Americans” to have overthrown and established their own country in a foreign country successfully.

    The Hawaiian Kingdom’s Government, its bureaus and agencies had unlawfully been taken over by the U.S.-protected Provisional Government. It was then renamed errantly as the Republic of Hawaii, the U.S. Territory of Hawaii and ultimately the alleged State of Hawaii. Prior to the alleged, unlawful and irregular Statehood, the governor was appointed by the U.S. President and was deemed the Commander-in-Chief of Hawaii’s military as he is today.

    De vattel and other international experts, base their assessments on international CUSTOMARY laws of War and Occupation; which stem from customary wars formulated since the late 1670s and clarified to what we know today.

    The Turpie Resolution of 1894 threatened Cleveland and other U.S. officials from interferring with the Hawaiian situation. This warning also extended to ALL nations in the world to back off and not interfere with Hawaii’s situation as it would be an unfriendly act against the United States. War-torn Europe still suffering the effects of the Crimean War was not in a disposition to engage in another war or tension with the United States. The U.S. was nearing its end of the American Indian Wars and could concentrate on other wars elsewhere.

    In the North American Review of December 1883, pg 602 – National Defense, words of W.B. Franklin – ” The Power of the United States is so great and their trade is so important to the European Powers, whose subjects, moreover, are large holders of American securities, that any of them would be loath to allow a difficulty with us to culminate in war.”

    Palapala Ku’e, known as the Ku’e Petitions of 1897, answers the other part of the Turpie Resolution which states, “That of right it belongs wholly to the people of the Hawaiian Islands to establish and maintain their own form of government and domestic polity;…”.
    Hawaiian Kingdom government officials that refused to sign the oath of allegiance to the Republic of Hawaii were removed or arrested. The American mercenaries protected the Provisional Government while the U.S. military troops did their maneuvers in Honolulu to intimidate the Hawaiian Subjects in a show of U.S. power and White-might; since the initial invasion on 16 January 1893. This means that the U.S. belligerent occupation began in 1893 and its presence continues today.

    The U.S. continuously violates the law of occupation, the internationally recognized neutrality status, and our unalienable human rights.

  11. Aloha Paul and Maile, may I suggest you read chapter 5 of Dr. Sai’s disertation to answer some of your questions.

  12. There is only !! One door to this problem !! Take the State of Hawaii United state of America Office of Hawaiian Affair Department of Hawaiian Home land Department of land and Natural Resources and take this official to the world court who Armed Force us off our LANDS our HISTORY our RESPECT our WAY OF LIFE and now we want it back LEGALLY and RIGHTFULLY and always our FOREVER da kanaka maoli the DNA to this problem take care be safe love u all pala’aina kaniela nae’ole na’auao on maui

  13. Aloha Kealii Makekau, I guess you did not understand my comparison of dial up internet vs. wireless high speed service. They both work but you don’t see anyone using dial up anymore. Modern citing of authorities are using scholars like Marek, Oppenheim, and Crawford but not Vattel.
    More important than the authority cited should be eliminating the CONFUSION.
    According to Professor Marek, “The principle of the continuity of the occupied State cannot be definitely asserted, unless a possible and dangerous confusion is first eliminated; namely, the confusion between belligerent occupation and de facto government. …
    Quite Ironic that even though these modern authorities mention Vattel, they still consider the State of Hawaii to be an Armed Force and NOT a de facto gov’t. like you suggested. It’s because they eliminated the CONFUSION.

    • Quite ironic that even though these modern authorities mention Vattel, they still consider the State of Hawaii to be an a de facto gov’t. Why else would they recognize it as such either through media or military exercises like rim pac currently going on

      • Well, if you don’t correct the perverted narrative they designed then they have succeeded in controlling your mind and you.

  14. I always assumed Hawaii, was a state in the union…as long as I remember…nothing else. What is the United States Congress, instituting now? It is very hard to fathom, since I am not verse in international law! Hawaii, is a beautiful state of the union,as well as scenic. Let the Hawaiian, people dictate it’s future and not the politicians. Long live the state of Hawaii, be it democrat,republican or independent.

    • Aloha Ruiz, your assumption of Hawaii being part of the union is made by years of being taught a narrative that is not based on facts. By design we were all taught a false history that provided a narrative that benefited the United States claim to Hawaii. However, once you are able to debunk that false history then the picture becomes crystal clear. Hawaii was never legally made part of the United States and continues to be it’s own independent state under a prolonged military occupation. The false history we were taught and all acts done by the U.S. was a clever process to disguise the occupation from the world in order to convince everyone they own Hawaii. It is not up to any political party, State of Hawaii or the U.S. because Hawaii is already independent. It will be settled within the international community under international law just like the issue in the South China Sea, between China and the Philippines. That same international court has already validated that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as an independent state in Larsen vs. Hawaiian Kingdom. This same case was referenced under the indispensable third party rule in the court’s decision against China’s claim to those (islands) rocks that were in dispute. Only a matter of time for the United States.

  15. I sincerely like the exchange of ideas and opinions on this website as well as the legal theories. As a practical matter, I think that the issues raised in this post all boil down to a matter of sovereignty. It is a two edged sword – because Hawaii is recognized as a state of the United States, it has the same sovereignty as any other state. However,that also means it is part of the United States and subject to its laws. Similar to efforts by Texas and Key West Florida to declare independence from the United States, the fact remains that they remain part of the United States. Much like when the South tried to secede from the North, I think any effort by Hawaii to truly make a break from the United States would result in a forced response by the federal government. Unless and until someone convinces the United States Supreme Court to rule that Hawaii is not a state, the federal government will consider it a state and not a territory of the United States. I say this as an international attorney and litigator at Urban Thier & Federer, P.A.

    • It is not a legal theory that Hawaii is not part of the United States; it IS NOT legally part of the United States; there’s no evidence to prove it got annexed in 1898. Without a treaty of cession, the United States cannot legally claim that Hawaii is part of the United States.

      • Lawyers should understand title and the notion of title. If I have title to a car and a thief steals the car. He/she, the thief, has the car. True enough. But he/she doesn’t have the “right” to the car. He/she doesn’t have title to the car. Can we agree on that? If the thief/possessor of the car, who doesn’t have title says to him/her self, in writing in say something called the “Newlands Resolution”, “I am taking taking title to [annexing] the car” Does the possessor/thief/would-be annexor obtain title by simply claiming it? Or does the non-possessor titled owner retain title because the owner never effectively transferred title? Now there are exceptions to the line of argument available in international to title: War of conquest, but that wouldn’t apply to Hawaii. War yes, War of conquest, no. Be clear. I am arguing that the US warred on Hawaii in 1893 by it’s invasion. It was an invasion. The lie that was told to cover the invasion was “protect Americans” but that was a political lie by Stevens. The US invaded, starting a war, and occupied the country. Cleveland admitted it was an act of war, a belligerency if you will. Acts of war create a state of war and the US after creating a state of war occupied the Hawaiian state, hence belligerent occupation which prevents “annexation” and “transfer of sovereignty”. Title isn’t obtained at gunpoint, in common language. But these is an argument for another time. Title focus on how title is passed in international law. Cheers.

        • Please see my above/prior posts.

          Again, I do not disagree with your theoretical positions.

          I am simply trying to emphasize the reality of the situation and what I see as the only realistic way to pursue and realize Hawaiian independence.

          The car thief may not have title, but he has your car….

          John L. Urban

          • You concede the theft but argue that the thief’s court as the location of the remedy [dispossession from thieved goods].

            This question then arises:
            Whence cometh the thief’s court’s jurisdiction? It would seem to have none.

            USG courts are a constituent part of the thief, the USG.

            That part of what I understand your argument, to be confuses me.

            Under what theory does the criminal constitute the court to judge the criminal’s action?

            Would you make such an argument on behalf of a client?

            Would you advise “Well the court doesn’t have jurisdiction but it has your but it doesn’t have the right to have your body, but my advise as your lawyer is to “agree to jurisdiction” and let the court that has your body but doesn’t have the right to your body decide your case?”

            If you admit the theft how does the thief’s court come by jurisdiction except by theft and theft seems to not provide a basis for jurisdiction?

            Now if you are making a “political” argument that it is politically “wise” to let the thief’s court decide then that’s just politics, it isn’t law. It’s advice to someone else in a matter that you are only, and not personally, affected by, so it would be bystander advice in the sense that you have no skin in the game. If I understand what you are saying. If I misunderstand, or mischaracterize your argument it is not for want of trying to understand the argument and where it leads. Cheers.

          • You’ve got it!! A thief without title (sovereignty) but has possession of your car (country) is called “occupation” and regulated by international humanitarian law, i.e., 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and 1949 Geneva Convention, IV.

            Section 358, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 states, “military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty.”

            John, since you are an international lawyer I recommend that you carefully review Dr. Sai’s Brief on the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law. It provides a comprehensive legal analysis that I’m sure you’ll find compelling. Here’s the URL:
            http://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Continuity_Brief.pdf

      • Lolani,

        I understand your position. My point is that Hawaii is currently recognized as a State of the United States and is governed as such. In order to bring the issue to a head and put your position into play, I think that it will take a United States Supreme Court decision that finds Hawaii is independent from the United States.

        Otherwise, any effort by Hawaii to declare true independence and act as its own sovereign nation will result in armed action/civil war. Again, that is my view as a practicing international litigator.

        Respectfully, until then it is a legal theory and not the current reality. Other practical considerations would be – who has standing to bring a case for a declaration of Hawaiian independence in a federal court? Who would pay for such a legal action? Etc…

        John L. Urban

        • An argument is made that “Hawaii is currently recognized as a State of the United States and is governed as such.” Assuming only for purposes of argument this “recognition”. Once can ask “recognized by who”? If the US “recognizes” it as a ‘state’ well okay the thief recognizes its “ownership” of the stolen property. Hardly a surprise and hardly as sound legal or moral or ethical or even “smart” political position. But if one says “the rest of the world” one can ask how did this mistaken recognition come about. It came about by deceit. A deceit begun, as near as I can tell, in 1901.

          In a “History of the Department of State of the United States” published by the US “Government Printing Office” in 1901 and available on the internet, on page 38, the following appears “A treaty was negotiated by Secretary Foster, agreed upon by both parties, and sent to the Senate by President Harrison February 14, 1893. The treaty was withdrawn by President Cleveland. President McKinley revived the question, and a treaty was ratified by both parties, and annexation consummated September 16, 189, which effected the absorption of the Sandwich Islands into the domain of the United States.”

          Now this is a lie about the fact “ratified”. This lie [I think intentional but even if unintentional still this falsehood] was broadcast to the other countries of the world who had no duty to “go behind the lie/falsehood”.

          So if the “current recognition” by other countries is based on a lie by the party seeking to deceive, the recognition is wrongfully obtained and is a “mistaken” due to the deceit and can be withdrawn as mistakenly granted and deceitfully obtained.

          So the “current recognition” is based on a falsehood and foreign countries can choose to do the honorable, truth-based, action.

          I could be in error, but I don’t see how else it plays out.

    • Aloha John, I would believe what you are saying if you could provide a Treaty that extinguished the nation state of Hawaii and incorporated it into the United States as required under international law. However, if we apply your logic that might makes right and a mere act of U.S. Congress can annex a foreign nation state then you have a problem. You are implying that China could apply the same logic and annex all the islands in the south and east China sea by a mere act of it’s legislature. In applying your logic Crimea now belongs to Russia. If it can work for the U.S. then the U.S. should have no legal reason to object to these other countries doing the same.

      • Aloha – excellent points.

        Unfortunately, might does make “right” (even if not mortally or ethically). That is sort of my point.

        All legal theories aside, the reality is that the federal government would most assuredly use force if Hawaii or any other state tried to succeed from the union.

        More Americans died in the US civil war than almost all other wars combined. That is why I believe that the only hope for and avenue towards Hawaiian independence would be via a federal court fight ending in the United States Supreme Court.

        Again, I may be biased by my legal training and experience but what other avenues do you possibly see – realistically?

        John L. Urban
        http://www.urbanthier.com

        • aloha John,

          please allow me to offer my mana’o regarding your comments on Hawai’i.

          first of all the aphorism “might makes right” is most commonly used by despotic, authoritarian dictators, jingoist, zealot uber-patriots and playground bullies to try to rationalize their oppressive, overly aggressive bad behavior.

          also, “Hawaii is recognized as a state of the United States” simply ignores the fact that the US congress does not have the constitutional authority to make a state from a foreign nation like Hawai’i which the US NEVER legally annexed, as proven by the fact that the US has never offered any valid proof of legal annexation other than referencing a unilateral, domestic law (the joint congressional resolution of annexation) which, like all US congressional acts, has no legal authority or jurisdiction outside US borders and territorial waters.

          the underlying theme that connects these two observations is that things aren’t in fact true just simply because the US “says so” regardless of the size of its military forces and its penchant to wield its military power at will like a crazed flasher in a raincoat. there are things called “laws” which are put into place to regulate the bad behavior of governments and individuals. The US however tends to recognize laws which are in its own best interests and to ignore laws that tend to restrict its rampant bad behavior and illegal actions.

          ponokeali’i
          ku’auhau mo’i ali’i
          ali’i aloha aina

          • Aloha ponokeali’i

            I must say that I agree with your comments.

            However, I also stand by my position that there is the righteous side and then there is the reality side. No matter how wrong or unjustified, the reality is what it is. The only way that I see to change it and achieve your goal of Hawaiian independence is to work within the system – the federal courts.

            John L. Urban

          • aloha John, mahalo again for your mana’o. I must however disagree with your conclusion and I’ll explain why in a minute.

            but first of all let’s examine your line of reasoning so that I can point out what I believe are flaws in your logic.

            first of all you say that “there is the righteous side and then there is the reality side. No matter how wrong or unjustified, the reality is what it is.”

            allow me if you will to rephrase the first part of that statement. first of all there is your term “the righteous side” which, if I may, I’d like to call what is “right” or “just” referring to the right of the 2000+ year old nation state of Hawai’i to exist, a right that I believe is inherent to EVERY nation.

            Then you use the term “the reality side”, which I would, if I may, rephrase as “the current state of affairs” which in comparison to my rephrasing of righteous as “right” or “just” would mean that “the reality side” meaning the unlawful US occupation of Hawai’i, would, by comparison, be considered “wrong” of “unjust”.

            The second part of your quote says “No matter how wrong or unjustified, the reality is what it is”. the clear implication that you’re making is that “the reality side” i.e. “the current state of affairs” is “set in stone” and therefore can NEVER be changed.

            History has shown us over and over again that things that we once considered to be permanent and “written in stone”, “the current state of affairs” or “the reality side”, were things that we thought would NEVER change. But if we study history we learn that there are many instances of current states of affair or realities changing sometimes dramatically. Some of the more examples would include the Roman Empire, Imperial China, Egypt under the Pharaohs, the British Empire, Russia under the Tsars and the Soviet Union and its Iron Curtain. All of these existed for a time and while they flourished each of them could well have been described as “No matter how wrong or unjustified, the reality is what it is.”

            Yet in every case these examples of “the reality” ended and the “reality” changed from “wrong and unjust” to “right and just”

            the simple lesson here is that, based on the universal law of karma and the Hawaiian philosophy of pono which both maintain that the universe will ALWAYS restore order out of chaos, right from wrong and justice from injustice, the principle of good over evil, right over wrong, just over unjust is an incontrovertible, inviolable universal law which the puny efforts of men can NEVER overcome.

            your final comment was “The only way that I see to change it and achieve your goal of Hawaiian independence is to work within the system – the federal courts.”

            The error in this statement lies in your incorrect assumption that the US government and its justice system have legal authority and jurisdiction in the kingdom of Hawai’i. The fact is that the US NEVER legally annexed the Kingdom of Hawai’i and therefore it has never had legal possession of our country. If you believe that the US has somehow acquired legal possession of the Kingdom of Hawai’i please provide legal evidence that proves this statement.

            Absent such proof we must assume that the presence of the US government and its military forces in Hawai’i constitutes an unlawful occupation and that such occupation is only a physical presence that does NOT constitute legal possession. an example of this principle is the current state of affairs between Israel and Palestine. In spite of the strength of the Israeli military and the presence of Israeli settlers inside Palestinian borders and in spite of Israel’s political rhetoric, its actions pertaining to Palestine constitute a de facto belligerent occupation of a foreign state.

            The same holds true of Hawai’i with regard to the US. the US occupation of Hawai’i is a belligerent and unlawful occupation the only obvious difference our situation and Israel and Palestine being that, rather than using hostile, violent, bloody resistance, we choose to use nonviolent legal and diplomatic means to end the US occupation of our Kingdom and restore our lawful government and our sovereign nation status.

            your claim that “The only way that I see to change it and achieve your goal of Hawaiian independence is to work within the system – the federal courts” is, imho, wrong because US courts and US laws have no legal authority or jurisdiction in the Kingdom of Hawai’i because Hawai’i is not now nor has it EVER been legally a part of the US.

            our efforts at deoccupation and restoration are focused on the international courts and with our ongoing diplomatic relations with the 100 or so nations with which the Kingdom of Hawai’i maintains still active diplomatic treaties.

            The US is a bully nation picking on a much smaller nation. but we are a nation with many powerful friends, our diplomatic allies. under the terms of our diplomatic treaties with each of these nations is the provision that requires diplomatic partners to come to the aid of their partner nation in its time if need. Our time of need has arrived and we call upon every single one of our more than 100 diplomatic partners to come to our aid to join us in a coalition of nations willing to impose harsh economic, financial, trade and diplomatic sanctions on the US until it does the right thing, the pono thing, and ends its unlawful. belligerent occupation of the Kingdom of Hawai’i.

            ponokeali’i
            ku’auhau mo’i ali’i
            ali’i aloha aina

        • Aloha John, realistically U.S. courts are rigged when addressing the status of the Hawaiian Kingdom. No matter how strong the case they will never rule in favor of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It is political suicide for any Judge to rule in that way. Typically the Judge rules against the HK and tells you to appeal the decision if you disagree. You could appeal it all the way up to the SCOTUS but they will rule the same or just refuse to hear the case. It is all a waste of time. The alternative is the international arena. It is a long process but I believe it will bring better results. In this arena the presumption of state continuity is with the HK. This replaces the false “unjust reality” of the U.S. with the truth and “just reality” of the Hawaiian Kingdom. As more of the international community becomes aware of this new reality then the natural progression to conform to this reality will follow.

          • Aloha my fellow mental gymnasts. I do not disagree with your intellectual, moral and ethical arguments and analysis. However, respectfully, taking the exchange of ideas into the reality of the situation and trying to formulate what I see as the only viable option for Hawaiian independence, I think you have no alternative but to play according to the sovereign’s own rules – that is a show down in a court of law.

            John L. Urban

          • Aloha John,

            mahalo for your mana’o. Make no mistake about it, aloha aina (Hawaiian patriots) are making impressive gains in the international arena on several fronts simultaneously.

            The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court in The Hague, has recognized the Kingdom of Hawai’i as an unlawfully occupied nation state. This means that we are a sovereign and independent neutral nation that is being unlawfully occupied by the US.

            We are now in the process of reinstating the Kingdom of Hawai’i government as a “government in exile” and are also in the process of informing the nearly 100 nations with which the Kingdom of Hawai’i maintains diplomatic treaties to come to our aid by forming a coalition of nations to impose harsh economic, financial, trade and diplomatic sanctions against the US until the US withdraws all of its federal agencies and military forces from Hawai’i. This is the exact same tactic that president Obama used when he formed a coalition of nations in 2014 to impose harsh sanctions against Russia to force it to reoccupy Eastern Ukraine.

            We could very well be forever rid of the Americans and reinstate our beloved monarchy by as early as 2020 !

          • Mr. Urban is giving political advice in a matter in which he seems to have no “skin in the game”. He is not, or doesn’t think he is, directly impacted by the “situation”. I’m not a mind reader and I don’t purport read his intent or perceptions. i don’t presume to give him advice. I will explain my opinion and how I came to it. He’s told us his opinion which is, in effect, you Hawaiians lost, you will lose, quit resisting along this path because you cannot/will not win. To his credit, he doesn’t argue that you “should not win”. It’s “practical” advice. Reasonable if you will. If this is an uncharitable restatement I apologize but that is how I read it. Bear with me now. I assume he’s a US national and cares about his “nation” to some extent. I want to present an argument that persuaded me, as a US national that it is in my interests, as a US national, and in my “nation’s interests, to deoccupy the “Hawaiians’ Islands”. This is a “Cliff’s notes” version. Without the Hawaiians’ Islands, the US doesn’t “dominate” the Pacific, without the Pacific it doesn’t dominate the world. US domination of the Pacific and World has been a disaster for countries such as China [better now] all southeast Asia [getting better], all of Muslim Eurasia [bad] and Muslim Middle East [bad and not getting any better or at least not much]. The endless wars, and losing wars at that. My country is better off going back home and bettering the lives of its nationals. My world is better off with my country’s government going home and resetting to say January 15, 1893. Holding the Hawaiians’ Islands is a massive negative for the US population and the World population as it has resulted in almost all bad and very little permanent good. Americans go home and even better is Americans come home. Leave the world alone and you don’t have to worry overmuch about another 911. So as an American national it is in my interest to deoccupy. My “skin in the game” is my fellow Americans peace and prosperity, World peace and doing the truth-based and honorable thing of returning control over another’s property. Cheers.

  16. I think it would be helpful to this discussion if we all established and agreed upon certain truths which are indisputable and which can be proven beyond any doubt by evidence obtained from the US Congressional Record and the US National Archives under the Freedom of Information Act.

    First of all, the US NEVER legally annexed Hawai’i. This is proven by the fact that the US Congress rejected the ratification of the Hawai’i Annexation Treaty of 1897 based upon the internationally accepted proposition that nations cannot legally annex one another for the obvious reason that if nations were allowed to annex other nations whether by treaty or by declaration, as in the case of the US and Hawai’i or Russia and Eastern Ukraine, chaos would quickly ensue as larger nations would quickly gobble up smaller ones similarly to the orgy of European colonization during the colonial era.

    Second, absent legal colonization or any other form of legal possession the presence of the US government and its military forces in the nation of Hawai’i can only be considered a belligerent occupation. This being the case the US as the occupying power in the nation of Hawai’i cannot 1) impose and enforce its US laws, 2) make Hawai’i a US possession, territory or state, 3) station its US military forces, 4) allow US citizens to freely settle, 5) make Hawai’i citizens US citizens, 6) collect taxes from Hawai’i citizens, 7) conscript, draft or enlist Hawai’i citizens into the US military, etc. under the international laws of occupation.

    Third, the Kingdom of Hawai’i government never ceded its sole authority to govern the Kingdom of Hawai’i so it remains the sole, rightful and lawful government of the Hawaiian Islands, In addition the Kingdom of Hawai’i never ceded its sovereign nation status so it remains a sovereign and independent nation state.

    Fourth, having never been legally annexed to the US (a point that the US itself no longer maintains since it cannot provide proof of a treaty of annexation between the US and the lawful government of Hawai’i government and since it accepts that its former claim of annexation by unilateral declaration (the joint congressional resolution of annexation) has no legal basis and is entirely unconstitutional) the Kingdom of Hawai’i cannot be made a US state because it remains a sovereign and independent nation. This fact also renders the state of Hawai’i government an illegal government since the US cannot create a government with authority to rule a foreign nation.

    Unfortunately American citizens, the people and governments of the nations of the world and even many Hawaiians have been victimized by 124 years of American false narrative (i.e. lies) and deliberate, insidious indoctrination (i.e. brainwashing) aimed and selling the world the blatant lies that “the US legally annexed Hawai’i”, “Hawai’i is a US state” and that “Hawaiian citizens are US citizens”.

    One need only examine the facts and the indisputable historical evidence to realize that “the US NEVER legally annexed Hawai’i”, “the Kingdom of Hawai’i is a peaceful, neutral, sovereign and independent nation state” and “Hawaiians are subject citizens of the Kingdom of Hawai’i”. Understanding and accepting these proven facts to be indisputable truths lifts the curtain to expose “Uncle Sam” like the proverbial “Wizard of Oz” pulling on chains and switching levers to make the “smoke and mirrors” that comprise the US government’s litany of lies about Hawai’i.

    ponokeali’i
    ku’auhau mo’i ali’i
    ali’i aloha aina

  17. Mahalo Ponokeali’i to explain the “TRUTH” of the Illegal occupation of the United Staes of America in the Hwaiian Kingdom. All one needs to do is look up the word “TRUTH”in The American College Dictionary:
    truth, n. 1. which is the true; that true or actual facts of a case: to tell the truth.

    American Dictionary, American Law to tell the truth and most important the actual facts are available and true.

    Case close move on to the process of Independence for the “TRUTH” is the karma.

  18. This is an extremely well-expressed presentation of commentaries being presented by the participants in this discussion. If at all possible, this information should be shared extensively to bring awareness and consciousness of the depth and breadth of the issues, concerns, interpretations, and possible procedures and considerations to address the illegalities of the current situation. It might help, also, to bring such discourse into the educational system to intensify focus and understanding of how all this has “come to be”, and how the constituency may participate in the process of clarifying and correcting what is deemed to be illegal.

Leave a Reply to Tim Reis Cancel reply