Swiss Federal Criminal Court Recognizes Switzerland’s Treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom was Never Cancelled and Implies Hawai‘i was Never Annexed

In a cogent and thoughtful decision the Swiss Federal Criminal Court Objections Chamber recently issued two important and profound statements as to the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Although the Court held that, the filing was untimely and no longer appropriate in a Swiss Federal Criminal Court. The case has now been moved to the Criminal Law section of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne. These procedural issues do not diminish the two critical statements the Court made about the status of Hawai‘i.

Download Federal Criminal Court Decision (German) (translation to English)

First, the Court stated that the 1864 Treaty between Switzerland and the Hawaiian Kingdom was never canceled—and is still in effect. Second, the Court identified certain officials and former officials of the State of Hawaii by name as possibly subject to a continuing investigation as to alleged war crimes. Although the Court ruled the filing was untimely, the Court did provide a means by which the plaintiffs could obtain review in the Swiss Supreme Court.

Professor Williamson B.C. Chang, a law professor at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, called this statement by the Swiss Court “an extraordinary assessment of the status of Hawaii with enormous ramifications. It confirms my own views that the United States never acquired the Hawaiian Islands, either in 1898 or thereafter.”

Professor Chang also stated, “Indeed, the fact that the statement was made, given that there was no need to make such a statement, renders the statement even more significant. If Hawai‘i had been annexed then all treaties of the Hawaiian Kingdom would have become void.”

The U.S. congressional joint resolution that purportedly annexed Hawai‘i in 1898 during the Spanish-American War stated, “The existing treaties of the Hawaiian Islands with foreign nations shall forthwith cease and determine, being replaced by such treaties as may exist, or as may be hereafter concluded, between the United States and such foreign nations.” Obviously the Swiss Court was not swayed by the language of the joint resolution of Congress, and therefore concluded that the Hawaiian-Swiss Treaty was not cancelled.

To Professor Chang, the statement of the Swiss Court directly contradicts the official position of the United States as currently maintained by the United States Department of State, Office of the Historian, on its official website, “The McKinley Administration also used the [Spanish-American] war as a pretext to annex the independent state of Hawaii… At McKinley’s request, a joint resolution of Congress made Hawaii a U.S. territory on August 12, 1898.”

Second, and equally significant, the Objections Chamber of the Swiss Federal Criminal Court specifically named present and former State of Hawai‘i officials as well others who are defendants and alleged war criminals. Again, the Swiss Criminal Court dismissed on the grounds of untimeliness, nevertheless, the Court held that plaintiffs had a pathway to bring their claims before the Swiss Supreme Court. Thus, the actions of the Defendants will continue to be examined before that Court.

The naming of names is significant because the Court had no need to identify these individuals. Those named are the former Chief Executive Officer of Deustch Bank, Joseph Ackerman, the former Governor of the State of Hawai‘i, Neil Abercrombie, current Lieutenant Governor Shan Tsutsui, former Director of the Department of Taxation, Frederik Pablo, and former deputy Director, Joshua Wisch.

The Swiss criminal action began when the Swiss Attorney General received a war crimes report by Dr. Keanu Sai, as the attorney-in-fact for Mr. Kale Gumapac, a Hawaiian subject, who was a victim of war crimes in December 2014. Dr. Sai also represents another war crimes victim who is a Swiss citizen residing in the Hawaiian Islands, but his name is kept confidential for safety concerns. Prosecutor Andreas Muller from the Attorney General’s Competence Centre for Terrorism and Competence Centre for International Criminal Law initiated a war crimes investigation.

Prosecutor Muller abandoned the investigation on February 3, 2015, and Dr. Sai objected to the Swiss Federal Criminal Court Objections Chamber seeking an order to direct the Prosecutor to complete the investigation and proceed with the prosecution.

The Objections Chamber concluded they were prevented from hearing the objection because of a previous court case that stated if a private courier, such as FedEx, was used to submit documents to a court it would only recognize the date it was received and not the date it was postage marked. There was a 10-day period to object after Dr. Sai received the Prosecutor’s decision and report on March 23, 2015. The deadline to object was April 2, 2015. Although, the objection was sent via FedEx on April 1, 2015, it did not arrive at the Objections Chamber until April 8.

“When I received the Prosecutor’s report I needed to get it translated into the English language in order to draft the objection,” said Dr. Sai. “Once I got the translation, I wrote the objection, which was 12 pages, and then I proceeded to get it translated into German before sending it off. After the translation was completed on April 1, I immediately went to FedEx.” At the request of Dr. Sai, the Clerk of the Federal Criminal Court forwarded the case to the Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne.

In a letter (German) (translation to English) to Dr. Sai from the Criminal Law Section of the Federal Supreme Court dated May 21, 2015, the Clerk of the Court stated the Supreme Court will accept the case if Dr. Sai would “explicitly state by June 5, 2015 that the Federal Supreme Court should accept and treat [his] submission as an objection in criminal matters.” As directed, Dr. Sai drafted a letter dated May 24, 2015 (German) (translation to English), which stated “I hereby explicitly state that the Federal Supreme Court should accept and treat my submission in the above case as an objection in criminal matters pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Supreme Court Act (BGG) of June 17, 2005.” Dr. Sai’s letter arrived in Switzerland by a personal courier and mailed to the Supreme Court through the Swiss postal service on May 28, 2015, which met the deadline of June 5.

80 thoughts on “Swiss Federal Criminal Court Recognizes Switzerland’s Treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom was Never Cancelled and Implies Hawai‘i was Never Annexed

  1. Assumption presumption and words like war crimes are beginning to be the norm as we connect the dots back to our pass… Mahalo k Akua 4this blessings…

    • Spot on Pomai. It is resonating out there, the words that bring about our Hawaiian Nation’s Reestablishment and Restoration. Our na Aumakua are here too! Ku’u mana’o.

  2. Dr Sai have always been superbly supported by Ke Akua, Na Kupuna Kahiko and Na Aumakua in his search for the truth and to pursue the procedural path of light through the international processes of the international community towards the truth of life for the Hawaiian Kingdom and inheritance let for their people of this little country in the middle of the ocean, remotely removed from all other countries in the world. We, the beneficiaries of this Kingdom on earth serve a higher purpose in life as Na Poe o Hawaii Nei Ko Hawaii Pae Aina for the people of the world. Mahalo Nui Loa Dr Keanu Sai.

    Aloha no! Keoki

    • Why is it there is always someone who wants to rain on the parade? Why do they use the old tired and vulgar argument that if the USA hadn’t taken Hawai’i someone else would have? And so, again I point out by way of words, “Well, if I hadn’t raped that girl dressed so provocatively then someone else would have”. And, I do hope that ugly picture above is noted that it is just an ugly picture to bring home a truth about an equally ugly statement by KW. No joy for both comments to be sure!

      • Aloha, Christopher

        I know. Well, we cannot blame anyone in Hawaii for saying that. It goes to show how absolutely terrible this occupation is! It makes us live in fear (such as that propaganda, rhetoric saying that someone else would’ve taken Hawaii if not the U.S.), it poorly educate us, and above all, it economically starves us (no free trade, which is why everything is high price)

        This occupation is a stain! It has to come to an end.

    • If Japan wanted islands there are plenty of others closer to them that they could invade, but guess what? They haven’t and have never shown an indication that they want to. They, China, Japan, and other nations recognize the sovereignty of plenty of other Pacific nations, so on what grounds do you make the assertion that they’d try to take over Hawai‘i? It’s such a ridiculous and desperate argument from folks who are threatened by the Kingdom’s potential return to sovereignty. Boo hoo.

  3. Wow, that is great news, now lets start working on the removable of the state of hawaii and reinstate the Lawful Hawaiian Kingdom Government, like China did with Great Britain. FREEDOM and LIBERTY for DA Kanaka Maoli People and their new and bright future with the rest of DA World.

    • Just a question. Has anyone seriously pondered what would have happened to Hawaii if it had not been taken over by the U.S.? While today a hostile takeover may not be tolerated by foreign nations, in those days…I just assume that if not the U.S. it would have been England or some other country that would have taken over Hawaii. And in no way was Hawaii of old prepared to do real battle with foreign powers. As strategic of a location as Hawaii is, I just can’t fathom it surviving as an independent nation should the British or French have wanted to take it over. Is my thinking completely wrong?

      And to kpuaoi- The British returned the colony of Hong Kong to China. A piece of China was returned…and the people and government of Hong Kong remain semi-separate from China. Being friends with people from Hong Kong, I know first hand that they do not want to be “Chinese”…they spent too much time not being a part of China. There are many parallels between that situation and Hawaii so one would be wise to look into the effect of Brittains withdrawal had long term. China on the other hand, still maintains ultimate control over Tibet, despite international pleas to “free Tibet”. I mean, let’s be real…in war, there is always a loser. It just so happens that the U.S. is a country that was founded on the principal of freedom, which is the only reason this discussion is even taking place. Had Hawaii been taken over by another country…there’s a damn good chance that Hawaiians of today would have no voice whatsoever. I’m not justifying the actions of the U.S. in the past. But, if we look at world today, Hawaii could have done a lot worse.

      And as a side note, freedom and liberty are synonymous.

      • Freedom and liberty were written into the Kingdom’s constitution, along with no slavery, which the US was still very much for at the time and its legacy with inequality lingers still (think Ferguson, Baltimore, Rosa Parks, etc.). Not so in the Kingdom. Women’s suffrage was in the Kingdom a century before in the US. More than anything it is WE who decide our laws and domestic and international policies and no one else. The US can decide for itself how it wants to mold its society. God bless the US for that. But the US has no rights over any other country’s territory or citizens. This is not complicated. Imagining a hypothetical and negative situation is fiction. God bless the Kingdom.

      • Reid, your spiel is a bit short on the facts. I think you need to do a better job of being more insightful and aware of history. Even Japan received it’s Independence back after the US Occupation of WWII. Why can’t you accept the same for us here in our Nation of Hawaii. We didn’t have anything to do with you two guys fighting each other. If you find it difficult to live here because of encroachment by a foreign country, you can always go back to your country of origin. You have that option.

          • If you or your parents arrived here after the so called illegal overthrow of 1893, your being born here in ko pae’aina does not entitle you to anything. You are an alien settler. If the US allowed you to be here, you need to move to the Continent of the US. Or, return to your parents Asian country of origin. This is the Nation of the Hawaiian Kingdom not the 50th State of America. There has never been a Treaty of Annexation/Cession according to International law and that of the US Constitution.

        • Aloha Frank, nothing, my Ancestor’s would still continue their lives in Harmony and in Peace. Because of International Public Law called The Law of Nation. Please read it on the internet and learn about how People of Earth is all born FREE and has the perfect right to choose what Government they want and that NO other Nation may take that a way from them No matter how big the Nation is or how small. Then, I have a question for you Frank, Why did america steal the lands from the Aborignal Indian People that was already living in America? Aloha Mau Keoki.

          • Kpuaoi, we na Kanaka/citizen nationals have every right to enjoy our life, liberty and happiness. As a member nation under the International Law of Nations (US signed in 1846), we are protected from being menaced or violated by any other member in that Alliance. That’s how it supposed to work. But, the US has violated this contract, which it signed and promised to uphold. Your last question, regarding the land thefts committed by the US, the only answer is, manifest destiny, the barbaric practice of seizure and confiscation. This of course was accomplished in our homeland by military backed by missionaries.

      • Mr. Nakamura, We no longer need or want to deal in “what if”. The foreign countries that you seem to feel are a threat to Hawaii never invaded. The US did and has admitted its heinous crimes in its US 103-150. The “what if” argument simply tries to avoid what actually happened.


        • My version of history ain’t that great either, but we all share a common timeframe: 19th and 20th Century. “Who’s fault it is” doesn’t matter as much as “what can we do with the history that we got”.

      • Reid, take a look at the May 31, 2015, interview with
        Professor Chang and his explanation on how super
        patriot U.S. Sen. Clinton Anderson participated in the
        cover up concerning Hawaii to save face in front of
        the iron curtain:

        Forgive the U.S. for they know not what they’ve done,
        but don’t forget to punish them for what they did!

        • Around the time of the overthrow, indigenous people’s lifestyles where still in upheaval. Indians up and down the “new world”, Pacific Islanders, Africans and Asians. Oppression and overthrow was in full swing. Native Hawaiians were one of the few indigenous cultures that came out of it with a self governing forum, a monarchy. Bribery and political influence surrounded the people in power even back then, and Hawaii had many viable resources to be exploited upon. Land and water, ideal weather and year round crops; american plantation owners benefited the most, out of the overthrow.
          Giant metal ships soon change the look of the rustic seaports, and Aviation elevated the Industrial Age to suit the supply and demands of the 1st world war. Weaponry advancements, vehicles for deployment, weapons of mass destruction. Radio and soon after, television, shaped our awareness of the modern world, living the American Dream, the “western standard of living” preoccupied mainstream attention.
          So, if the Hawn Govt had not been overthrown, would our rulers have been prepared for the changes that the 20th century took us thru?

          • Aloha Kalani,

            In short, to answer your question “would our
            rulers have been prepared for the changes
            that the 20th century took us thru? IMHO, yes!
            Our Queen was so ahead of her time that
            her actions are still leading us through the
            slight of hand that Professor Chang spoke
            of in the May 31, 2015 interview with Ehu.

            Our people were well educated for their
            time, so much so that its been boasted
            that Lahainaluna in Lahaina, Maui has
            the oldest printing press west of the
            U.S. rockies. The Islands also produced
            scholars like Samuel M. Kamakau and
            David Malo. It was mandatory for a
            Konohiki to be educated in political

            The Hawaiian Kingdom went from an
            absolute monarchical system of
            governance as experienced by
            Kamehameha I, his son Liholiho and
            younger son Kauikeaouli Kamehameha III
            who during his reign as Mo’i changed it
            to a constitutional system of governance.
            This conversion is extremely advanced
            thinking and should not be set aside as
            a simple shifting of paper work, a lot was
            sacrifice by Kaukeaouli and other Alii during
            that period for the benefit of na kanaka.
            Hawaii gained its independence on November
            28, 1843, around 66 years after the U.S.
            secured its independence around July 4, 1776.

            The Hawaiian Kingdom enjoyed nearly fifty
            years of independence before its system
            of governance was rudely and unlawfully
            interrupted by U.S. intervention.
            As Professor Chang had explained in the
            interview the only way to transfer the
            sovereignty of a country is by a treaty.
            Annexation by an internal public policy of
            one country has no affect over another!
            It was an American who stated that a joint
            resolution to annex another country is
            So, according to U.S. law the Joint Resolution
            to unilaterally (one sided) annex Hawaii was
            unlawful, unconstitutional and impossible.
            Now then if there are no provision in any U.S.
            laws to support its 1898 joint resolution to
            annex Hawaii (which as stated is impossible)
            why does the U.S. feel the need to oppress
            the Hawaiian nationals who are helping them
            see their mistake? The U.S. is hurting us while
            at the same time we are attempting to educate
            them on their own laws!

            The U.S. will continue to create hewa because
            of this hidden secret! How can it effectively rule
            on a global level when it cannot effectively
            control the damage it has created?

            How can Russia, China, Iran and other
            independent nation states trust the U.S. after
            the evidence clearly shows what it did to the
            Hawaiian Kingdom?

            Now knowing only this much, how can honor,
            integrity and justice be associated with the United States of America? The U.S. has a 122
            year stain to deal with!



  4. The law is REAL! This must be pushed in other countries too. The momentum is unavoidable. END THE US OCCUPATION! We have business to take care of in our country!

    • Aloha,

      I concur with Kiei! We have business to tend to in
      our country! Mahalo Dr. Sai, Dexter, Professor Chang,
      Kale and everyone involved for making this happen!

      A hui hou

  5. Aloha Ried Nakamura, Britian already documented in writing that they would never take over or become a protectorate over Hawaii. Britian and France were the two countries that formally brought us into the Family of Nations to begin with, that’s why Britian remedied the mistake their naval officer did in Hawaii. Remember Thomas Square? Hawaii is a neutral country and a hostile military take over would be seen as a direct violation and considered an occupation from the begining. That is why the U.S. administration instructed those U.S. citizens involved with backing the overthrow not to use precedent. Need to be sneaky and give the appearance that it was an uprising by Hawaii’s own citizens and not the United States. Seeing as how the United States can’t stand to have another country in control and having an advantage it the Pacific they would get involved to rectify any take over or occupation by another country since it’s in their best interest. Just look at how crazy the U.S. is getting over China and the development of the disputed islands. Since the U.S. cannot control China like the other claimant countries they getting ready for World War III just to keep China from gaining the advantage in the China seas. The U.S. is not chastizing the Philipines for doing the same thing as China on other disputed islands. Talking about what the if’s is a waste of time since it has no direct affect on what actually happened and the ending of our occupation. The FACT is we are occupied by the U.S. and the goal is to hold them accountable to the LAW and end this LIE. If the U.S. don’t want to leave they still have to be held accountable under the laws of occupation and the fake State dissolves and the U.S. administer the right laws.
    …”I mean, let’s be real…in war, there is always a loser. It just so happens that the U.S. is a country that was founded on the principal of freedom, which is the only reason this discussion is even taking place….” What a contradiction!!!!!!!!!! If that was TRUE then the U.S. would have honored their TREATY and not commit the crimes and oppress the Hawaiians with a fake revolution and annexation. What you fail to realize is that there was no WAR. Hawaii is NEUTRAL and cannot be legally conqured unless we went to war. We did not go to war so we cannot be conquered only occupied and that is all about to end since the truth is exposing the illegal occupation.

    • I guess my rant got a little off topic. I’m just tired of villifying the U.S. There are certain and many benefits to being a part of the U.S., whether you’d like to admit it or not. And the U.S. isn’t trying to screw over Hawaiians consciously. I understand and agree that the kingdom was taken over illegally. And I do feel that there should be serious action to right this wrong. But let’s be balanced. One thing I’ve noticed on a lot of forums is that the U.S. is being blamed for everything up until this very day. Even authorities like Professor Chang have stated that because of the U.S. occupation that kids can be taken from their families and the like. Well, those people should have taken better care of their children. If your kid got taken away, or you are in jail for something, chances are it is you who f’ed up. I think many more people would be supportive of your cause if you were balanced in your arguments. The legal status of Hawaii is what should be argued. Don’t throw in the kitchen sink.

      • There is no benefits from america, there the ones getting the benefits from hawaii. America’s nipple is full of poison and we killing ourselves drinking it..

      • Actually the U.S. Did in fact try to screw over Hawaiians (and arguably succeeded), By destroying the national character of Hawaiians through patriotic exercises.

        Also making the Hawaiian language illegal they successfully destroyed a large part of Hawaiian culture. Although we have seen a great resurgence of the Hawaiians language, the damage it did to previous generations is terrible.

      • Reid, your being tired of vilifying the US sounds like a personal problem to me. The bottom line is the US are the “villain”. What they did was wrong, sneaky like a snake, and intentional. If those are not villainous traits… and on top of that, now they say “sorry”, just like nothing, and continue their occupation, invasion, and exploitation of our aina and its resources. As for the many benefits you are certain of, you got to be two quarts low on a one quart high. Jus’ saying…LLHK!

    • Then by your own contradictory statement…no war should mean no case for war crimes? Am I wrong? (no sarcasm, really trying to understand)

      • If I understand it correctly, war crimes are committed when nations do not adhere to international law. While Hawaii cannot go to war because of its neutral stance, other nations can commit “acts of war” on neutral countries. How else would neutral countries be able to protect themselves?

    • Also after reading the courts decision, I don’t see where it agreed with any of what Dr. Sai had presented to them. It seems as though they just were stating what was presented.

      Can someone point out or explain where they agreed with what was presented.


      • Hi Mike,

        A little deductive & inductive reasoning will help to
        obtain a broader perspective:

        Although Mr. Gumapac’s case is currently at the center
        of attention the focus is on the sovereign independent
        status of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Keep in mind however
        that the sovereign continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom
        is not being directly adjudicated upon, but indirectly as
        a result of Mr. Gumapac’s claims of war crimes being
        committed against him as there is no evidence to show
        that the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom was ever

        If Hawaii was indeed a part of the United States of America,
        as they wish everyone to believe, we would not be talking
        about this issue as it would’ve been dismissed shortly
        after initially filed! This on its own is huge!

        The fact that the court lack standing to proceed due to an
        untimely filing is a procedural error. Perhaps not too late
        to recover as Dr. Sai already submitted to the Federal
        Supreme Court for they to accept his objection before
        the June 5, 2015 deadline.
        The interaction between the Swiss courts and Mr. Gumapac
        is an unspoken prima facie evidence (without being directly told)
        that sovereign continuity was never extinguished!

        Yes, this is very serious! What it means is that the court
        could not on its own dismiss Mr. Gumapac’s case as a
        frivolous filing. And yes it was an actual ruling, albeit
        based upon an untimely filing not on the merits!
        In and of itself it may not hold any tangible weight, however
        the interaction with the Swiss courts shows that the
        Hawaiian Kingdom is a player in this game!
        Mr. Gumapac is only one case out of many, sooner or later
        the kingdom will puka through!

        As to your last statement “I’m hoping when they take it to
        the supreme Court they come to the same conclusion.”
        Well, Dr. Sai said he already filed with the Federal
        Supreme Court so it looks like they too won’t discard the
        filing as frivolous! Same conclusion!

        Sometimes when pitcher only focuses on the batter people
        like Shane Victorino or Kolten Wong will steal a base on
        them. The pitcher needs a broad perspective to remain in
        the game!

        JMM again

        Pau, I talk too much!!

        • When I said I hope they come to the same conclusion, I meant the same conclusion as the article title. I should have probably explained that. I’m Pro-Kingdom.

          Also I’m not sure if it’s just coming off wrong over text, but you’re coming off really condescending. Again not sure if it’s on purpose or not but I just thought you should know.

          Ok with your statement of using deductive or inductive reasoning to determine what the overall power the courts statement has, I’m not familiar with how the Swiss Courts work so there is no way for me to deduce or induce anything from the document. For all I know they could do the same thing with every case, regardless if they consider it valid or not. I mean that’s how the US courts work right? You can always appeal a decision until you reach the Supreme Court.

          Also nothing in the courts statement would lead me to infer that they agreed with Dr. Sai’s reports or any other evidence presented. Of course unless the court only states things they agree with, but it seems as though they were just stating the evidence that was brought forward. But that’s why I asked the question.

          The only thing that I can find in the document that might be them agreeing with is in their considerations where they say that the appeal is admissible. That too could mean a few different things though. Which is again why I asked for someone to specifically explain what exactly in the document is the Swiss Courts claiming the treaties between the Swiss and Hawaiian Kingdom still exist.

          I’ve been promoting the restoration of the Kingdom on a lot of websites lately and I wanted to make sure I fully understood the decision and it’s ramifications before I started using it on those website. One of the main things that people against the movement bring up is that Dr. Sai and others exaggerate the truth, I just wanted to fully understand so I could shut that down.


          • Thank you for continuing to ask. I am hoping for clarification and also seeing it just as you are. Hope someone with firsthand knowledge can pipe in. Mahalo!!

          • Aloha Noelani, treaty no treaty is da question???? What does this mean???? We must still remember that the Country’s that our Ancestor’s had treaty with are still active because under International Laws a treaty only can be un-active is when both Country’s agree to un-active period. Since, the Lawful Hawaiian Kingdom did not get a chance to un-active they treaty’s with the other Country’s all treaty’s are still active. Now, that you know this, the question is did the u.s.a use our Treaty’s to they advantage, because history tells you that u.s.a did not have treaty’s with other Country’s. In my opinion, that was the main reason why u.s.a needed to do this to our Ancestor’s, steal from them all their hard work in establishing Treaty’s with the rest of the World we call Earth. It was not because of pearl habor. Now, to the main country’s that we should ask if our Treaty’s are still active would be England and France because of the Hawaiian flag. Now, if they decline to recognize the Lawful Hawaiian Kingdom Treaty’s then we should burn the Flag. Because they were both was one of the first Country’s to recognize the Lawful Hawaiian Kingdom as a Independent Nation AMONG Nation. That is why they colors are on the Lawful Hawaiian Kingdom Flag. Aloha Mau Ke Akua.

          • Aloha Mike,

            No condescension intended on my end!

            It’s important for each individual to do
            their own due diligence to comprehend
            Hawaii’s history. You shouldn’t have to
            be accountable for anything someone
            else has to share, that would be utilizing
            information under the assumption. If you
            want to help others lead them back to the
   website where they
            can obtain the necessary information to
            properly operate under the presumption!
            No one however, should assume the
            information provided on that site to be
            accurate. In fact they should do their best
            to prove it in accurate backed by supporting
            evidence, but be prepared to have their
            evidence scrutinized!
            Again, no condescension intended just
            a basic self-preservation principle.

            Okay with that said, the document from the
            Swiss Federal CCAC is straight up!
            From above: “. . .the filing was untimely and
            no longer appropriate in a Swiss Federal Criminal Court.” That statement is accurate,
            it is what it is, absolutely no exaggeration!
            There is no need to sugar coat it, deliver the
            information just like that and when you find
            people weeping believing the end has come
            for the Hawaiian Kingdom then you can
            actually tell who’ll need more information!

            One of the first thing Mr. Dubin mentioned
            in the Larsen case at the Permanent Court
            of Arbitration, The Hague, was jurisdiction
            without it courts are prevented from proper
            adjudication! (Not a direct quote from Dubin)

            Taking into account what Dr. Sai has been
            advocating over many years and hopefully
            you saw the interview with Professor Chang
            and Ehu where an American stated it is
            “IMPOSSIBLE” to annex another country
            through a joint resolution the final resolute
            would be pacta sunt servanda with every
            country that entered into treaties with the
            Hawaiian Kingdom including the countries
            that broke out from the main country.

            No one knows how the Supreme Court will
            rule we’ll have to be patient, but like it was
            also stated above “These procedural issues
            do not diminish the two critical statements
            the Court made about the status of Hawai‘i.”
            There is no silver bullet!

            I don’t believe the issue on the sovereignty
            of the Hawaiian Kingdom is so much a
            movement (I could be wrong) as it is a
            process as the evidence is on the side
            of the Hawaiian Kingdom and that’s why
            I stated the Swiss Courts could not on its
            own dismiss Mr. Gumapac’s case as frivolous!

            Kalama’i au if my earlier response sounded
            condescending it was not intended that way!

            Hope this helps!
            A hui hou

  6. Wow, it appears the Swiss have a case law regarding timely filings. As long as the filing is post marked by Swiss postal service it is considered filed on the post marked date. However, this post marked date will not be accepted in the same manner if done through a private courier. Filing date by private courier is seen as the actual delivery date by the courier.
    I guess they don’t take into consideration that the plaintiff(s) in this case are outside of the Swiss postal system. Unlike the case law used, where the plaintiff(s) were within the Swiss postal system and could have utilized it instead of a private courier.
    Well, I guess they will pass this hot potato into someone elses hands until it is time to be heard.
    Ke akua’s timing is perfect.

    • I wonder if those documents could’ve been filed Ex Parte,
      at the Swiss Consulate in Honolulu as an agency of the
      Swiss government.
      Or, maybe a bare bones brief prepared in advance, sent the
      second the filed order is received to preserve the time
      stamp filing, later supplemented to contain the full contention
      of the facts.
      Ah, but we learn by testing! Like zeroing in the sites on a gun
      the first few rounds may not hit dead center, but eventually it’ll
      all be second nature!

      The thing that we now know is that the treaty between
      the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Swiss government was
      formally recognized after many years of obscurity. That
      recognition is like a promissory note acknowledging that
      the State of Hawaii is without authority in Hawaiian jurisdiction!
      Even more guidance for the Supreme Court of Hawaii
      to follow when it has to deliver its self destructing opinion
      concerning the writ of mandamus in the Moloka’i fisherman’s
      case. This recognition is equivalent to a drop of blood in
      shark infested waters, the U.S. knows we are around but without
      knowledge as to when they’ll get hit!

      Is Obama a legitimate U.S. president or like the fake State of
      Hawaii a fake too? The fall of america, ku’e I ka hewa!

  7. Ho, brahdda! Nui! Very nui! A foreign law court implies that Hawaii was never legally annexed to the U.S. and in addition, that War Crimes are being committed here.

    It’s only a matter of time before the government of Swiss Confederation not only no longer recognizes the U.S. presence in Hawaii, but recognizes that Hawaii is an independent state under U.S. occupation.

  8. Aloha Reid, there is no contradiction. War crimes are happening in Hawaii because of the illegal occupation. War crimes can happen at time of war and in occupation. When I said we did not go to war, I meant that the Queen ordered the police to stand down and not fire upon the U.S. military inorder to affect the arrests of the insurgents. This would have been the excuse the U.S. could use as engagement (war) and the lost of the protection of the laws of neutrality and the laws of war would apply and the winner takes all. Glad the Queen did not fall for that trick.

    • Amene to that, kekoa! It is a good thing Her Majesty did not fall for that vileness at all. Because if so, then there’s no doubt that we would be legally a part of the United States………after war between the USA and the H.K. This is why I love H.K. law–idiots are not accepted in government. (It better stay that way after the H.K. Government has been re-instated lol)

      The suppression of this occupation is strong, but our intellect is stronger! (Especially when you think H.K. style.) Because look what is happening now! It is only a matter of time before the government of the Swiss Confederation no longer recognizes the U.S. presence in Hawaii and recognizes it as occupied territory

  9. Aloha Win808, I don’t think the Swiss Consulate in Oahu could be used because they were reported to the U.N. General Assembly as one of the states that were violating the HK rights along with the United States. That Consulate was created upon a treaty between the Swiss and United States in the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
    Not to worry. If one door closes, Ke akua makes sure another door opens up.
    I gotta give a big MAHALO to the Swiss Federal Criminal Court Appeals Chambers on how they wrote their findings. Although they sald they could not hear the case based on a procedural rule of timeliness. They stepped up and showed how the case could be heard at the Swiss Supreme Court. In other words, although you can’t come in through our door, the issue is so serious that a technicality should not stop if from being addressed. Please use the other door at the Swiss Supreme Court where it can be addressed. I bet the Canadian war crime investigators and Canadian investors of the TMT are watching this very carefully. Oh yeah, also those listed as suspects from the State of Hawaii. Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, when the ICC comes looking for you. LOL

    • Aloha Kekoa, I agree, MAHALO NUI to the Swiss Federal Criminal
      Court Appeals Chambers!
      Hey, maybe we’ll see the arrest of those bad boys utilizing zip ties
      that were made in China! LOL!
      And, if we need to, we can always look at what Kahekili did to punish
      the dead criminals! LOL!
      122 years of oppression = 244 years of punishment 🙂

      • Sorry, submitted before pau!

        Perhaps the Swiss Consulate on Oahu would now be more
        inclined to assist the acting Hawaiian Kingdom government
        to achieve its endeavors in light of how the Swiss Federal
        judges seem to view the relationship between the Swiss and
        the Hawaiian Kingdom. When you wrong somebody the
        pono thing to do is to go over and beyond to make right!

        After all, the Swiss Consulate on Oahu is in our house and
        sleeping with our enemy! Their hand is deep in the cookie
        jar of wrong doing, now would be the perfect opportunity to
        make things pono! They can implement Dr. Sai’s theory
        where they were not wrong just temporarily off track, but if
        they wait too long they too will be as one with the enemy!
        You don’t know what you don’t know until enlightened now
        they are with the proper knowledge to make an informed
        decision, lets hope it will be the right one!
        We can knock again at this door of opportunity and if it
        opens a lot more will also open!

        Just my mana’o

  10. I think it’s time we get our mana’o together and identifiy who we are as human- bing our oha’na has been talking to us to protect to have respect to have love to be fair to be with the law’s. and this is the right thing to do. Our oha’na has been opening the door’s for us by showing us what we need to do. To take back the kingdom of Hawaii . we also need to known that this is a ko’ko related stiution . With respect to people here and around the world because my root’s go’s back Before Kamehameha the great and I sure want to known who chief nae’ole was who took him in and be cane who he was and until this very day . I thank Dave for all the hard work that you have done aloha

  11. Aloha Win808, you are on the right track. Gotta see the kaona. The U.N. General Assembly complaint was to first educate and put those member states on notice. Second, to give them a way to relieve themselves of the liability they created or else be held accountable. If Switzerland would declare not to recognize the U.S.’s authority over the HK and become the protecting power for the HK they would be pono and removed from the complaint. They got their own policies and procedures they have to comply with before that could happen.
    I’m pretty sure you can see where this is going??

  12. Aloha pala’aina, no disrespect but this is a legal issue and not only a ko’ko issue.
    Legally, all those that are able to prove through parentage that their kupuna were hawaiian subjects the day before the occupation started are able to participate. This also includes those of other ethnicities who’s kupuna were natrualized into the Hawaiian Kingdom. It also depends on their alligance to the Hawaiian Kingdom. You might have a pure Hawaiian that will not swear alligance to the Kingdom because he wants to belong to a different country like the United States. He/she chooses not to participate.

  13. I pray the truth continues to be exposed and receives International exposure with all world nations asking america to show them the treaty if not return Hawaii back to its people.

  14. Mahalo to Dr. Sai and company for their dedication and diligence. This must not be “KOKO” flavored for if it is the issue will be another TECHNICALITY with RICE vs CAYETANO blowing it out of reality. It is about “War or Civil Crimes” that leads to the Genocide of Nation who has been a victim of TECHNICALITIES for the past 122 years. Crime has no ETNICITY. The Hawaiian Kingdom gave Birth to a Nation in 1843. Only the “Whoring Invader” remains pregnant!

  15. Aloha Kalani, you asked “…So, if the Hawn Govt had not been overthrown, would our rulers have been prepared for the changes that the 20th century took us thru?

    Hell Yeah they would!!!

  16. Aloha Win808, in regards to Mike, might I add, that the Swiss did not fall for that U.S. joint resolution of annexation nonsense. If they did they would have said that their Treaty with the HK was canceled as a result of the joint resolution. The Swiss said that the Treaty between them and the HK was NOT canceled. So, through deductive reasoning (lol) they believe the HK continues to exist. You cannot say you have a Treaty without having a Treaty partner to go along with that Treaty.

    • Can you point to me where in attached document you are getting that info from? That’s all I’m asking. I’m pro-Kingdom I just need clarification as to what exactly in the document they are referring to when they say the things in the title of the article.

  17. Aloha Mike, I’m not sure what you mean by promoting the restoration of the Kingdom on other websites. What websites? How exactly do you plan on doing it? What process? Nation within a nation? Decolonization at the U.N.?
    I’m interested in knowing about what you are promoting.
    I’m sure those wrongfully claiming Dr. Sai is exaggerating don’t understand the process or rules. Inorder to give you a better explanation can you tell me what you think is going on in this situation and what is the goal.

    • I mean when I go on other websites or on discuss I’m defending Dr. Sai’s arguments that the Kingdom was never annexed and is still sovereign and being occupied.

      All I’m asking is if someone can specifically show me where in the Swiss courts say that the treaty with the HK is still active.

      I’ve read this a few times and can’t find anywhere that I can definitely say that’s what the court is saying. But like I said earlier, I’m ignorant to how the Swiss court works.

      Again, I’m all in when it comes to the Hawaiian Kingdom being illegally occupied and there being no treaty etc. all I’m looking for is someone to clarify specifically where in the document provided by the Swiss court state that the Treaty still stands etc. Because from reading it I’m not seeing it.

      • Aloha Mike,

        In short, the court did not specifically state anything
        about the treaty between the Hawaiian Kingdom and
        the Swiss. It is not so much explicit as it is implicit!

        When most people see a light switch they don’t expect
        it to operate the kitchen faucet. Explicitly most would
        believe (assume) it would operate a light fixture, if one
        worked the switch before implicitly one would be with the
        knowledge (presumption) that it will not only operate
        a light fixture but know the exact one that will operate!

        The title is for advance bloggers to this site, if you read
        it on its face value its not there! Jurisdiction is the acid test!

        Hope this helps

      • Howzit Mike. I think you asked a good question and it needs a good answer. The easiest way to determine whether it was the Swiss judges that made the statement or if it was Gumapac that made the statement that the treaty wasn’t cancelled and the judges just reiterated that statement is to look at the document the judges were speaking about. The judges were referencing the amended complaint of Gumapac dated January 22, 2015 where he invoked his rights as a Hawaiian subject under the 1864 Swiss Treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom. If you go to the blog entry dated January 23, 2015 “Former Swiss Diplomat Reports War Crimes to Swiss Attorney General “ there’s a link to Gumapac’s amended complaint. It’s right below the video link,

        When I read the amended complaint, it was very clear that Gumapac made no implicit or explicit statement that the treaty wasn’t cancelled. He only invoked his rights under the treaty so he could have equal access to government agencies in any of the cantons because he was now naming Josef Ackermann who lives in Switzerland as an alleged war criminal. So if Kale didn’t say the treaty wasn’t cancelled, then it has to be the Judges that stated that. So if the treaty wasn’t cancelled then it means it still exists between Switzerland and the Hawaiian Kingdom.

  18. Aloha Mike, here is the quick answer page 2 paragraph 4. I’m not sure if you are aware that the Swiss uses the traditional civil law as in contrast to the U.S. common law. If you are having difficulty in understanding what’s going on I would suggest you research their civil law and it’s procedures. If not, it will be like watching a soccer game and trying to apply american football rules to understand what’s going on.

    • Aloha Kekoa,

      Isn’t that paragraph just stating what the complaints filed by Gumapac and Sai are just like all the others in that section?

      It’s hard for me to discern whether the statement “which has not been cancelled” is the Swiss courts opinion or just restating the complaint filed.

      Mahalo for replying.

      • Aloha Mike,
        All of this information could be boggling to the mind. But rest assured that it is pono. I commend you on your persistence.

        Click on “all treaties of the Hawaiian Kingdom” in the 5th paragraph of this article. It is a resource that could answer your question. Read it in its entirety. It a great resource.


  19. Aloha Mike, Gumapac only invoked his rights under the Treaty. Dr. Sai provided the proof of the Treaty and within the Treaty contained the terms by which either party needed to preform inorder to terminate it. Neither of them stated that the Treaty was not cancelled. The court made that statement.

    • OK so by not dismissing the case they were acknowledging that the treaty still exists?

      Are we sure about that? Because, again, I’m all in when it comes to restoring the Kingdom, I just hate to say things that aren’t true and then have the whole argument called into question.


Leave a Reply