Usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation was listed as a war crime in a 1919 report by the Commission on Responsibilities of the Paris Peace Conference that was established by the Allied and Associated Powers at war with Germany and its allies in the First World War. The Commission was especially concerned with acts perpetrated in occupied territories against non-combatants and civilians.
Usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation is the imposition of the laws and administrative measures of the Occupying State over the territory of the Occupied State. Usurpation, according to Black’s Law dictionary, is “The unlawful encroachment or assumption of the use of property, power or authority which belongs to another.”
The Commission did not indicate the source of this crime in treaty law but it would appear to be Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, which states, “The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” Article 43 is the codification of customary international law that existed on January 17, 1893, when the United States unlawfully overthrew the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and began its prolonged belligerent occupation.
In the annex of its 1919 report, the Commission charged that in Poland the German and Austrian forces had “prevented the populations from organising themselves to maintain order and public security” and that they had “[a]ided the Bolshevist hordes that invaded the territories.” It said that in Romania the German authorities had instituted German civil courts to try disputes between subjects of the Central Powers or between a subject of these powers and a Romanian, a neutral, or subjects of Germany’s enemies. In Serbia, the Bulgarian authorities had “[p]roclaimed that the Serbian State no longer existed, and that Serbian territory had become Bulgarian.” It listed several other war crimes committed by Bulgaria in occupied Serbia: “Serbian law, courts and administration ousted;” “Taxes collected under Bulgarian fiscal regime;” “Serbian currency suppressed;” “Public property removed or destroyed, including books, archives and MSS (e.g., from the National Library, the University Library, Serbian Legation at Sofia, French Consulate at Uskub);” “Prohibited sending Serbian Red Cross to occupied Serbia.” It also charged that in Serbia the German and Austrian authorities had committed several war crimes: “The Austrians suspended many Serbian laws and substituted their own, especially in penal matters, in procedure, judicial organisation, etc.;” “Museums belonging to the State (e.g., Belgrade, Detchani) were emptied and the contents taken to Vienna.”
The crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation was referred to by Judge Blair of the American Military Commission in a separate opinion in the Justice Case, holding that “This rule is incident to military occupation and was clearly intended to protect the inhabitants of any occupied territory against the unnecessary exercise of sovereignty by a military occupant.” Australia, Netherlands and China enacted laws making usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation a war crime. In the case of Australia, the Parliament enacted the Australian War Crimes Act in 1945 that included the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.
The war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation has not been included in more recent codifications of war crimes, casting some doubt on its status as a crime under customary international law. And there do not appear to have been any prosecutions for that crime by international criminal tribunals of late. However, the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation is a war crime under “particular” customary international law. According to the International Law Commission, “A rule of particular customary international law, whether regional, local or other, is a rule of customary international law that applies only among a limited number of States.” In the 1919 report of the Commission, the United States, as a member of the commission, did not contest the listing of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, but rather only disagreed, inter alia, with the Commission’s position on the means of prosecuting heads of state for the listed war crimes by conduct of omission.
The Hawaiian Kingdom Royal Commission Inquiry views usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation as a war crime under “particular” customary international law and binding upon the Allied and Associated Powers of the First World War—United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, principal Allied Powers and Associated Powers that include Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Thailand, Czech Republic, formerly known as Czechoslovakia, and Uruguay. Great Britain, as an empire at the time, included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa who also fought in the First World War. Therefore, as an international crime under particular customary international law, these countries are obligated to prosecute this war crime in their courts.
In the Hawaiian situation, usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation serves as a source for the commission of other war crimes within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which includes the war crimes of compulsory enlistment, denationalization, pillage, destruction of property, deprivation of fair and regular trial, deporting civilians of the occupied territory, and transferring populations into an occupied territory. The reasoning for the prohibition of imposing extraterritorial prescriptions or measures of the occupying State is addressed by Professor Eyal Benvenisti:
The occupant may not surpass its limits under international law through extraterritorial prescriptions emanating from its national institutions: the legislature, government, and courts. The reason for this rule is, of course, the functional symmetry, with respect to the occupied territory, among the various lawmaking authorities of the occupying state. Without this symmetry, Article 43 could become meaningless as a constraint upon the occupant, since the occupation administration would then choose to operate through extraterritorial prescription of its national institutions.
Usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation came before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) in 1999. In Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, the Permanent Court of Arbitration convened an arbitral tribunal to resolve a dispute where Larsen, the claimant, alleged that the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, by its Council of Regency, the respondent, was liable “for allowing the unlawful imposition of American municipal laws over the claimant’s person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom.” The PCA accepted the case as a dispute between a “State” and a “private party” and acknowledged the Hawaiian Kingdom to be a non-Contracting State in accordance with Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention. The PCA annual reports of 2000 through 2011 specifically states that the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom proceedings were done “Pursuant to article 47 of the 1907 Convention.” According to Bederman and Hilbert of the American Journal of International Law:
At the center of the PCA proceeding was the argument that … the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that the Council of Regency (representing the Hawaiian Kingdom) is legally responsible under international law for the protection of Hawaiian subjects, including the claimant. In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom was legally obligated to protect Larsen from the United States’ “unlawful imposition [over him] of [its] municipal laws” through its political subdivision, the State of Hawai‘i [and its County of Hawai‘i].
In the situation of Hawai‘i, the usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation would appear to have been total since the beginning of the twentieth century. This is an ongoing crime where the criminal act would consist of the imposition of legislation or administrative measures by the occupying power that goes beyond what is required necessary for military purposes of the occupation. Since 1898, when the United States Congress enacted an American municipal law purporting to have annexed the Hawaiian Islands, it began to impose its legislation and administrative measures to the present in violation of the laws of occupation.
Given that this is essentially a crime involving government action or policy or the action or policies of an occupying State’s proxies such as the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties, a perpetrator who participated in the act would be required to do so intentionally and with knowledge that the act went beyond what was required for military purposes or the protection of fundamental human rights.
Usurpation of sovereignty has not only victimized the civilian population in the Hawaiian Islands for over a century, but it has also victimized the civilians of other countries that have visited the islands since 1898 who were unlawfully subjected to American municipal laws and administrative measures. These include State of Hawai‘i sales tax on goods purchased in the islands but also taxes placed exclusively on tourists’ accommodations collected by the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties.
The Counties have recently added 3% surcharges to the State of Hawai‘i’s 10.25% transient accommodations tax. Added with the State of Hawai‘i’s general excise tax of 4% in addition to the 0.5% County general excise tax surcharges, civilians who are visiting the islands will be paying a total of 17.75% to the occupying power. In addition, those civilians of foreign countries doing business in the Hawaiian Islands are also subjected to paying American duties on goods that are imported to the United States destined to Hawai‘i. These duty rates are collected by the United States according to the United States Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.
The far reach of the victims of war crimes committed in the Hawaiian Islands includes civilians throughout the world in various countries.
At the United Nations World Summit in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect was unanimously adopted. The principle of the Responsibility to Protect has three pillars: (1) every State has the Responsibility to Protect its populations from four mass atrocity crimes—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing; (2) the wider international community has the responsibility to encourage and assist individual States in meeting that responsibility; and (3) if a state is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take appropriate collective action, in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter. In 2009, the General Assembly reaffirmed the three pillars of State’s Responsibility to Protect their populations from war crimes and crimes against humanity under resolution A/63/308, and in 2021, the UN General Assembly passed resolution A/75/277 on “The responsibility to protect and the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”
Rule 158 of the International Committee of the Red Cross Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law specifies that “States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or armed forces, or on their territory, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. They must also investigate other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects.” This “rule that States must investigate war crimes and prosecute the suspects is set forth in numerous military manuals, with respect to grave breaches, but also more broadly with respect to war crimes in general.”
Determined to hold to account individuals who have committed war crimes and human rights violations throughout the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the Council of Regency, by Proclamation on April 17, 2019, established a Royal Commission of Inquiry in similar fashion to the United States proposal of establishing a Commission of Inquiry after the First World War “to consider generally the relative culpability of the authors of the war and also the question of their culpability as to the violations of the laws and customs of war committed during its course.”
In mid-November of 2022, the Royal Commission of Inquiry published War Criminal Reports no. 22-0002, 22-0002-1, 22-0003, 22-0003-1, 22-0004, 22-0004-1, 22-0005, 22-0005-1, 22-0007, and 22-0007-1 that provides the evidence that U.S. President Joseph Biden, Jr., Vice-President Kamala Harris, Admiral John Aquilino, IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, Senator Charles Schumer, Representative Nancy Pelosi, State of Hawai‘i Governor David Ige, Commissioner Ty Nohara, Tax Director Isaac Choy, Hawai‘i County Mayor Mitchell Roth, Hawai‘i County Council Chairwoman Maile David, Maui County Mayor Michael Victorino, Maui County Council Chairwoman Alice Lee, County of Kaua‘i Mayor Derek Kawakami, and Kaua‘i County Council Chair Arryl Kaneshiro have committed the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation. Accomplices to this war crime include: U.S. Attorneys Brian Boynton, Anthony Coppolino, and Michael Gerardi; State of Hawai‘i Attorneys Holly T. Shikada and Amanda J. Weston; County of Hawai‘i Attorneys Elizabeth Strance, Mark Disher and Dakota Frenz; County of Maui Attorneys Moana Lutey, Caleb Rowe and Iwalani Mountcastle; and County of Kaua‘i Attorneys Matthew Bracken and Mark Bradbury.
The reports have documented the necessary evidence that satisfies the elements of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation: (1) the perpetrators imposed imposed or applied legislative or administrative measures of the occupying power going beyond those required by what is necessary for military purposes of the occupation, which is the actus reus or the criminal act; (2) the perpetrators were aware that the measures went beyond what was required for military purposes or the protection of fundamental human rights, which is the mens rea or the guilty mind; (3) their conduct took place in the context of and was associated with a military occupation; and (4) the perpetrators were aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of the military occupation.
With regard to the last two elements listed for the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation: (1) there is no requirement for a legal evaluation by the perpetrator as to the existence of an armed conflict or its character as international or non-international; (2) in that context there is no requirement for awareness by the perpetrator of the facts that established the character of the conflict as international or non-international; and (3) there is only a requirement for the awareness of the factual circumstance that established the existence of an armed conflict that is implicit in the terms “took place in the context of and was associated with.”
According to Professor Dietrich Schindler, “the existence of an [international] armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2 common to the Geneva Conventions can always be assumed when parts of the armed forces of two States clash with each other. … Any kind of use of arms between two States brings the Conventions into effect.” Dr. Stuart Casey-Maslen, author of The War Report 2012, further concludes that an international armed conflict “also exists whenever one state uses any form of armed force against another state, irrespective of whether the latter state fights back.”
The Hawaiian Kingdom has been in an international armed conflict with the United States since January 16, 1893, when U.S. troops invaded the city of Honolulu. The Hawaiian Kingdom has been under military occupation since January 17, 1893, when Queen Lili‘uokalani conditionally surrendered to the United States forces. For a comprehensive legal narrative and analysis of this international armed conflict download the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s ebook The Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom (2020).
The 123 countries who are States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court have primary responsibility to prosecute war criminals under complementary and universal jurisdiction. This type of jurisdiction gives State Parties the first responsibility before the International Criminal Court can initiate proceedings and authority to prosecute individuals for international crimes to include the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation without regard to the place the war crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrator. With the exception of the United States, China, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Thailand, the Allied Powers and Associated Powers of the First World War are State Parties to the Rome Statute.
In this situation where the citizenry of these countries have become victims of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation, they can seek extradition warrants in their national courts in order for their governments to prosecute these war criminals under the passive personality principle. The passive personality principle provides countries with jurisdiction for crimes committed against their nationals while they were abroad in the Hawaiian Islands. This has the potential of opening the floodgate to lawsuits from all over the world.
The commission of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation can stop when the United States, the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties begin to comply with Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and administer the laws of the Occupied State—the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Mahalo nui to the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom for the time and effort spent researching the plethora of international laws of occupation, and for explaining everything in layman terms.
QUESTION: Would petitioning the 123 countries who are States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court be a feasible and practical option for moving forward? Perhaps a petition with signature collection similar to the Ku’e petition?
If the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom is of the opinion that petitioning the 123 states is a feasible and practical act, would the acting government entertain the idea of creating such a petition? Mahalo!
Aloha Isaac, I believe the answer is in the second to last paragraph. Individuals that are victims can initiate their cases in their national courts and obtain arrest warrants/extradition warrants with their respective governmental agency. This makes the most sense because if a country is a party to the Rome Statute, then they have a duty to protect their own citizenry.
Aloha Kekoa,
Mahalo for responding to my question. I’m interested in what action we as Hawaiian Kingdom citizens might take to initiate action. I believe your response is action that foreign nationals might take.
Because the 123 countries have primary responsibility to prosecute, I’m interested in how we might encourage them to do so.
Mahalo!
Aloha Isaac,
If I am reading this right, the third to the last paragraph indicates you could use any of the 123 countries that are parties to the Rome Statute to investigate and prosecute war crimes regardless of where it happened or the nationality of the war criminals.
Isaac, could I give you my mana’o on this article? I have been on this blog for a long time now and I have come to realize that this is not only an excellent educational blog but also a, how could I describe it? Like a reality TV soap opera blog. We are watching what is happening and how it is happening and why it is happening and then boom the commercial comes on and pau. We got to wait until the next episode. So, the way I see it is we have been watching our HK actors in this series and I don’t think they went through this past season just to leave us hanging. Stay tuned because maybe the next episode we will be watching our favorite HK actors in a scene where they are filing information complaints to obtain arrest warrants. So, no jump the gun, watch some more HK tv blog and we can see how it’s done. Stay tuned LOL
Aloha Kekoa,
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me. I enjoy an open discussion where anyone can share their opinions, and I really like the convenience of doing so at our convenience. Most have little time for this type of interaction due to life’s constant distractions. Survival is pretty important 🙂
As the original post states, the 123 countries who are Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court have primary responsibility to prosecute war criminals under complementary and universal jurisdiction. My thought was that by petitioning all 123 states in a Ku’e style petition we might get lucky and have one or more states take action. If each of the 123 states is aware that the other 122 states received the same petition that might encourage a few to step forward to accept their kuleana similar to peer pressure.
Although I’ve slowed down in recent years, Keanu and Keeaumoku probably understand that I’m not one who enjoys sitting on the sidelines. Although I’m at an age where most people retire I prefer to remain proactive, but not to the point of interfering with what the acting government is doing or has planned. This is why I asked the question before even considering taking action. If I’m interfering with the acting government’s plans I’m sure they’ll let me know.
It was just a question that I asked, not a request to take action so no worries, I don’t plan to jump the gun 🙂
Mahalo, Paka
Aloha “Paka”, I enjoy our interactions also. Excuse me for not addressing your question better regarding 123 countries and a possible petition. My understanding is that a criminal complaint is initiated by an individual. Unlike a civil case when you can have multiple people or entities in a class action suit on the same complaint.
In the previous article posted regarding New Zealand’s attempt to apprehend the suspect identified in the arrest warrant for war crimes I looked at New Zealand’s Criminal Procedure Act 2011 Part 2 articles 14 and 15 allows anyone to initiate a complaint.
The most interesting part is Article 16.I am pretty sure we both can read between lines. Wink wink.
Article
16Charging documents
(1)
The charging document must contain 1 charge only.
(2)
The charging document must include—
(a)
particulars of the defendant; and
(b)
particulars of the person commencing the proceeding; and
(c)
a statement by the person commencing the proceeding that he or she has good cause to suspect that the defendant has committed the offence specified in the charge; and
(d)
particulars of the charge that satisfy the requirements of section 17; and
(e)
except if the prosecution is a private prosecution brought by an individual,—
(i)
the name of the prosecuting organization; and
(ii)
the particulars of an appropriate contact person in relation to the prosecution; and
(f)
any other information required by rules of court.
I started with New Zealand since it was in the previous article and now, I got to go research the rest of the 122 countries. Aloha and Mahalo for the chat.
Aloha e Isaac,
I believe getting the signatures of living Hawaiians would be unnecessary, as we already have the ku’e petitions of our kūpuna who originally objected to annexation preventing the ratification of the treaty, and therefore we don’t need to petition or prove our unwillingness to be part of the US any further, and could/should submit those signatures, rather than ours, as proof.
Aloha Isaac, we just got a sneak preview of things to come. In the latest article the RCI will be moving for arrest warrants. Like I said in my, previous posts if you take the totality of the last three articles you could read between the lines and predict this is where it was headed. I am certain this is the reason for no petition being done. Like the old saying goes, you don’t say you going fishing before you go because the fish might hear you. In this case you don’t tell other governments you will be prosecuting war crimes in their jurisdictions because some bureaucrats play by politics instead of the law. Case in point, the New Zealand Attorney General playing politics by blocking the arrest warrant that a Judge issued for the war criminal. Best to false crack these kinds of bureaucrats and get the arrest warrant before they can play games behind the scenes. Once the arrest warrants are issued, they have to expose themselves if they will be playing by the rule of law or playing politics. Hopefully victims will step up and hold the criminals accountable. MHO Aloha
I will share this with my Ohana’s. Mahalo Dr Keanu Sai for your hard work God bless
This is what I was missing Kumu, thanks for this post. This whole week I was perplexed but now I finally understand what you meant when we spoke Monday…so with the counties defaulting and the state and Federal defendants notwithstanding the presumptions made in Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden via motions to dismiss, all previous Federal, State and County officials and future individuals taking office are now liable and cannot claim qualified or personal immunity BECAUSE the only requirement is for one to have awareness of the factual circumstances that established the existence of the armed conflict and NOT the facts of the character of the armed conflict. I couldn’t grasp all you were saying then because I didn’t know the legal threshold although I was tracking mens rea but now I fully get it. Mahalo Kumu for laying out the legal elements and requirements necessary to draw up charges. I wonder though how Japan, Tahiti or a Melanesian Spearhead group state court would decide!
…NOT the facts that established the character of the conflict.
Lopaka, I forgot to mention that although ignorance can’t be used as a defense in a war crime it can be used to lessen the sentence of one that committed the war crime. My thinking is that if you are going to the trouble of filing an information complaint in order to get an arrest warrant and prosecute someone for a war crime why do it half a_ _ so they can get a lesser sentence. Do it right and nail that sucker to the wall. MHO
kekoa, you sound like you are responding to me as my Kumu; Keanu Sai. I do not know who you are or what you are referring too when you state you “forgot to mention something” but if you are Keanu, then you’re gonna have to prove it. Aside from not knowing you kekoa, mahalo for sharing.
Lopaka, I am not Keanu. The reason I said I forgot to mention something is because I responded to your other post and forgot to mention the defense of ignorance in that post. Which by the way your response to me in that post is wrong. But I will address it in that post as not to confuse you as to who I am.
Lopaka, the default that you mentioned is not sufficient for mens rea. You need evidence that the individual was personally made aware of the factual circumstances. Such as providing documentation to that individual by way of certified mail or if that individual is personally involved in a court case and was made aware through the filings or pleadings, etc. Can’t prove an individual knows something if they was never made aware of it. An individual in their defense would only need to say they never read or knew about the Federal case. I can name at least a hundred County and State personnel that have not heard of it and are not aware of Hawaii’s occupation.
The individuals listed as war criminals in the RCI probably never knew they were receiving all the information about the occupation so they couldn’t claim ignorance as a defense. Just like the Judges in the Fed case should have known if they weren’t going to comply with the law and only use American law, they also become war criminals. They definitely can’t claim ignorance. MHO
The Federal, state and county executive offices of the Federally constructed trust administrative state have been given legal notice via Hawaiian Kingdom v Biden. Defendants did not rebut or provide any shred of evidence against the presumptions and evidence of Hawaiian Kingdom state continuity. The RCI analyzed the matter and concluded to published war crimes reports naming the individuals and offices internationally liable domestically. Moreover, the defendants admitted their criminal actions in the administration of defendants municipal laws thereby expressly admitting their guilt as if that was a justifiable defense in light of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s proof of war crimes provided in complaint. Therefore, every individual the RCI reported, and coming into any Federal, state and county office since Hawaiian Kingdom v Biden is subject can be extradited and prosecuted for war crimes charges in foreign countries brought up by such foreign citizens.
All offices executing US municipal laws in Hawaiian Kingdom territory have officially received actual and constructive legal adversarial notice either via Hawaiian Kingdom v Biden while the Apology resolution & the state’s “ceded” land trust where OHA is trustee provide such awareness to all public citizens and officials of the factual circumstances that established the factual existence of the armed conflict. Thus all officials are subject to Title 18;USC;2441.
Lopaka, your last paragraph “…All offices executing US municipal laws in Hawaiian Kingdom territory have officially received actual and constructive legal adversarial notice either via Hawaiian Kingdom v Biden while the Apology resolution & the state’s “ceded” land trust where OHA is trustee provide such awareness to all public citizens and officials of the factual circumstances that established the factual existence of the armed conflict. Thus all officials are subject to Title 18;USC;2441…”
You assume too much. When you assume something, you will end up looking like the first three letters of that word based on your assumptions. Like I said in the above post to you. You can either do it the right way and convict them with the harshest sentences available or half-ass it and they get reduced sentences.
Furthermore, you are citing the wrong law. Title 18: USC:2441? They are not going to be tried in a U.S. court. The statute will be dependent on what country the information complaint is made in and what statute they have for war crimes.
Brah, do your homework and get it right.
Ask yourself why out of the 185 defendants prosecuted in the Nuremberg Trials for war crimes only 97 were convicted. Go figure it out.
Meant to say out of 185 defendants only 97 received sentences.
kekoa, you obviously got something to prove against me as if you know who I am. I’ve been a student of Keanu’s since 2009 and actually met and spoke to him last Monday on the subject matter (and some future plans). I have my Kumu, return to yours.
Lopaka, I don’t have anything against you personally. I don’t even know who you are. If you haven’t noticed I respond to you in a positive way when what you are posting makes sense. You will get negative comments from me when you post incorrect information just like anyone else that does the same.
You are incorrect kekoa. I stated, you got something to prove against me because you’re posturing. I never stated you had something against me personally. Moreover nothing was assumed in my comment, you just problematized it to prove yourself in some sort of weird way. Follow my logic as I will explicate your posturing.
If it is true that foreign citizens can charge someone for war crimes who can then be extradited and tried in foreign courts, then it is also true that US citizens can do the same in the US courts. Your problem is that I never stated that “they are going to get tried in a US court” as you replied. I simply implied that they CAN be by providing the US statute. Furthermore, even you expressly agree with my point when you stated “(t)he statute will be dependent on what country the information complaint is made in and what statute they have for war crimes.” But yet you have a problem with the US statute I provided even though I in no part stated anyone was getting tried in US courts.
You see now…and honestly, how do you know they are not going to get tried in US courts? I just stated I spoke to Keanu last Monday. You can do a lot more by reading slowly and carefully, as well as correcting others with care. E malama, aloha ‘oe!
Lopaka, OMG there you go again. Can you even comprehend what the article is saying and why it is saying it? The whole point of this article is that U.S. courts are weaponizing the judicial system against the HK, its nationals and anyone else that will bring this type of case before them. The article is telling victims, foreign and domestic go and seek redress in foreign courts as listed in the article because you can’t get a fair trial in the occupier’s courts. The AHKG already tried this in HK V. BIDEN and although they did an excellent job, the Judges decided not to follow the rule of law. They subjected the plaintiffs to an unfair trial and became war criminals instead. Have you not learned anything from HK v. Biden? Why are you telling everyone that U.S. citizens can use U.S. courts to prosecute and extradite just like the foreigners can in their courts. A total contradiction to the article. According to your own words that is why you cited Title 18. Go back and read your own words. Why would you suggest something that will hurt people instead of helping them. Brah, enough with your riddles.
Little boy, you did not rebut any one of my points or even speak to them little kekoa. You just brought up more crap to muddy these waters notwithstanding my proof. It’s like your spinning around in circles avoiding the logic I laid before you in a lame attempt to argue other points and quite frankly, you’ve proven yourself in these threads. Tsaaa!
Just to shred your whole position and prove you are an idiot.
You stated…”The whole point of this article is that U.S. courts are weaponizing the judicial system against the HK, its nationals and anyone else that will bring this type of case before them.” You’re incorrect. The whole point of the article is the title and explains the legal principles upon which the law is based as well as the legal threshold or requirements. You also state that “the article is telling victims, foreign and domestic go and seek redress in foreign courts as listed in the article because you can’t get a fair trial in the occupier’s courts.” You’re incorrect hereto as the article does not tell victims to do anything so please cite your reference. Then you state that “The AHKG already tried this in HK V. BIDEN and although they did an excellent job, the Judges decided not to follow the rule of law. They subjected the plaintiffs to an unfair trial and became war criminals instead.” Wrong again…the point of the case was to flip the court to an Art. 2 court from which public international law can be dispensed however Federal district courts are administrative, not constitutional and are subject to Congress. Lastly you write “Why are you telling everyone that U.S. citizens can use U.S. courts to prosecute and extradite just like the foreigners can in their courts.” I simply implied the war criminals are also subject to US war crimes statutes as in foreign countries. Please cite what you claim cause you’re just a disgruntled Hawaiian that is biting off more then he can chew. Somebody chime in on this and get this little monkey off my back!
Lopaka, if you have a learning problem or a mental problem. There is hope for you with therapy and medication. If you have neither of those problems than there is no hope for you because no one can fix stupid. Let me draw the picture for you. I will go slow so you can keep up. I won’t go farther back than the last three articles so you can follow along easily. I will break it down in the simplest terms.
A Spectacular “Mic Drop”—Hawaiian Kingdom Withdraws Complaint in Federal Court Because of War Crimes Committed by Defendants and the Court
Plan (A) Months of research, court filings, evidence and excellent legal arguments by the Plaintiffs in the U.S. Federal Court. Results? Bias Court rejects Plaintiffs case and Defendants walk away Scott free. Let Me remind you this is not the only case that ended this way.
Ok, bottom line U.S. Courts bad. Don’t use U.S. court, they bunch of war criminals. You will be wasting your time and money. Try Plan B instead.
Prosecution of War Crimes by Foreign Governments—New Zealand
Plan (B) Use foreign courts to investigate and prosecute war crimes. It Lays out the foundation of the war crime of Usurpation of Sovereignty during military occupation which will be the basis for the complaint. Article directs our attention to New Zealand and its process. Got it? Now we are given Plan (C).
The Far Reach of the War Crime of Usurpation of Sovereignty Being Committed in the Hawaiian Islands Since 1898
Plan(c) Has provided an even more detailed breakdown for the war crime of Usurpation of Sovereignty during occpation, what states are parties to the Rome statute. The specific statutes for war crimes used in New Zealand. Heck it is pretty much laying out the blueprint to file a complaint in New Zealand.
Bottom line, these latest three articles, is steering everyone away from US courts because it will be a total waste of time and money. Instead use courts from countries that are parties to the Rome statute.
This is basically the direction in which things will be going. Hopefully you can comprehend this.
🤣🤣👏🏼👏🏼
kekoa, don’t forget to show up 2/11/2023 @ UH Art Auditorium…come enjoy the work of HSLP presenting the HK COR, RCI and war crimes report…plus going have music celebrating the progress of our countries continuity by Kawika Kahiapo, Heua’ola Sai-Dudoit, Na Wai & more!!! Hope you can make it!
Well I know for sure Alice Lee was in the Maui County Council Meeting when Kauka Sai did the presentation.
Aloha Crystal, this is exactly what I meant by having evidence of awareness. The video of Alice Lee in the Maui presentation is concrete evidence which can prove beyond a reasonable doubt she was made aware of the factual circumstance that established an armed conflict. Can’t get any better evidence than that to prove she is a war criminal.
Does the fact that she seemed more concerned with losing property she “bought” than the crimes being committed against the Hawaiian Kingdom and its people, mean she could have further or harsher charges brought against her??? 😏
I, AGREE with Crystal…… cause I too was present at the Maui County Council Meeting when Dr. David Keanu Sai gave his presentation.!
E kala mai Dr. Sai for bringing this up here, but I’m trying to bring awareness…
The deadline to submit written testimony for the “ DOI Consults on its Native Hawaiian Community Consultation Policy and Procedures” has been extended to Feb 1st 2023 & Ive been trying to get people to submit written testimony. If anyone reading this feels so moved, please do so. Please write from the perspective of the Hawaiian Subject you are. Please be respectful, yet firm. Please note that your participation in their process should not be misconstrued to mean you agree that the US has any authority or jurisdiction in or over The Hawaiian Kingdom. Basically everything our good doctor teaches. And let them know that in order to move forward we need the US to prove by what authority it so called annexed The Hawaiian Kingdom.
This is about US executive order 13175 in relation to native american tribes… so basically another push for fed rec probably. BUT more importantly it’s an opportunity to get our opposition to the occupation recorded & get them to face the music. The 2 zoom conferences they held were full of fed rec supporters who were listing things they want the US to do for Hawaiians as part of executive order 13175. The ONLY thing we want is for the US to end its occupation of our Kingdom.
I don’t want to put a link here, so please search “ DOI Consults on its Native Hawaiian Community Consultation Policy and Procedures” and hopefully you’ll find it.
Mahalo nui for your time.
Mahalo Aloha P. I’m against fed wreck . Mind you those who sent in their agreement to fed wreck maybe NONE HAWAIIAN. j.s.
Aloha.
Aloha e Mamo,
Yes I’m wholly against fed rec as well, no offense or disrespect to native Americans, but we are not native to America, we are citizens of the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom.
The original signup process for what turned out to be the push for fed rec, required participants to verify their kanaka maoli ancestry in order to be counted.
This current DOI meetings aren’t asking for ancestry verification so I’m not sure how they’re verifying that those speaking on behalf of kānaka maoli actually ARE kānaka maoli, which is why it’s so important to have our voices be heard by submitting written testimony, in opposition of the illegal occupation and questioning the DOI & the US’s authority in our occupied Kingdom.
If you haven’t done so already and are interested, please consider submitting testimony. Mahalo nui
I agree with you a 100%
Yes I’ll submit my support for NaKanaka Maoli. Aloha P.