The Federal Court in Honolulu Comes Face to Face with its own Lorenzo Doctrine

The Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden federal lawsuit is still playing out at the United States District Court for the District of Hawai‘i, despite the case also being heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

What is before the Ninth Circuit are not the two preliminary judgments made by Judge Leslie Kobayashi, but rather the lawful authority for Judge Kobayashi to make the judgments in the first place. The proceedings before the federal court in Honolulu was to get Judge Kobayashi to transform into an Article II Occupation Court so it would have lawful authority.

Right now, the federal court in Honolulu is operating as an Article III Court which is a part of the judiciary branch of government under article III of the United States Constitution. An Article II Occupation Court is a part of the executive branch of government under article II of the U.S. Constitution headed by the President as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Article II Occupation Courts are federal courts established in territory that is being occupied by the United States. Because Article III Courts operate within the territorial boundaries of the United States, they administer United States law. Article II Occupation Courts, on the other hand, administer the laws of the occupied State and the international law of occupation. Article II Occupation Courts were established in Germany after the defeat of the Nazi regime. These courts administered German law and the law of occupation.

Whenever defendants in Hawai‘i challenged the authority of the United States and the State of Hawai‘i in court, judges in State of Hawai‘i courts and in the federal court in Honolulu always referred to a 1994 State of Hawai‘i appeals case called State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo to quash the challenge. In that case, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“Lorenzo Court”) stated:

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

According to the Lorenzo Court it based its denial of the motion to dismiss because it “was incumbent on Defendant to present evidence supporting his claim. Lorenzo has presented no factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.”

The Lorenzo Court’s standard of review in determining whether the Hawaiian Kingdom exists as a State placed the burden of proof on Lorenzo as the defendant. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court, in State of Hawai‘i v. Armitage, clarified this evidentiary burden. The Supreme Court stated:

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

Lorenzo became a precedent case on the subject of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a State in State of Hawai‘i courts, and is known in the United States District Court in Hawai‘i, since 2002, as the Lorenzo principle or doctrine. There have been seventeen federal cases that applied the Lorenzo doctrine, two of which came before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The Lorenzo Court, however, did acknowledge that its “rationale is open to question in light of international law.” Whether or not the Hawaiian Kingdom “exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,” international law is supposed to be applied. By placing the burden of proof on the defendant, the Lorenzo Court did not apply international law. Because international law provides for the presumption of the continuity of the State despite the overthrow of its government by another State, it shifts the burden of proof and what is to be proven.

According to Judge Crawford, there “is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations…despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government,” and belligerent occupation “does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.” “If one were to speak about a presumption of continuity,” explains Professor Craven, “one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.”

Evidence of “a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States” would be an international treaty, particularly a peace treaty, whereby the Hawaiian Kingdom would have ceded its territory and sovereignty to the United States. Examples of foreign States ceding sovereign territory to the United States by a peace treaty include the 1848 Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement with the Republic of Mexico that ended the Mexican-American war, and the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain that ended the Spanish-American War.

The 1898 Joint Resolution To provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, is a municipal law of the United States without extraterritorial effect. It is not an international treaty. Under international law, to annex territory of another State is a unilateral act, as opposed to cession, which is a bilateral act between States. Under international law, annexation of an occupied State is unlawful. According to The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts:

The international law of belligerent occupation must therefore be understood as meaning that the occupying power is not sovereign, but exercises provisional and temporary control over foreign territory. The legal situation of the territory can be altered only through a peace treaty or debellatio. International law does not permit annexation of territory of another state.

When the Lorenzo Court acknowledged that Lorenzo did state in his motion to dismiss the indictment that the Ha­waiian Kingdom “was recognized as an independent sovereign nation by the United States in numerous bilateral treaties,” it set the presumption to be the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a State under international law and not the existence of the State of Hawai‘i as a political subdivision of the United States. This would have resulted in placing the burden “on the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal.”

Under international law, it was not the burden of Lorenzo to provide evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom “exists” when the Lorenzo Court already acknowledged its existence and recognition by the United States. Rather, it was the burden of the prosecution to provide evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom “does not exist.” As a result, the Lorenzo Court’s ruling was wrong and all decisions that followed in State of Hawai‘i courts and Federal courts applying the Lorenzo doctrine also were wrong.

In Hawaiian Kingdom v. Biden, the United States filed a Motion to Dismiss the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Amended Complaint claiming that Hawai‘i was annexed by a joint resolution of Congress in 1898 and that Hawai‘i is the 50th State of the Union since 1959. Despite the frivolous claim by the United States that Hawai‘i was annexed by an American law, the Hawaiian Kingdom opposed the motion to dismiss because the Court has no authority to make any ruling until it transforms itself into an Article II Occupation Court. Article III Courts can only operate within the territory of the United States and not outside of it unless it is an Article II Occupation Court.

On June 9, 2022, Judge Kobayashi filed her Order granting the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Hawaiian Kingdom’s amended complaint claiming she doesn’t have to transform into an Article II Occupation Court because of the Lorenzo doctrine! Today the Hawaiian Kingdom filed its Motion to Amend or Alter the Order because Judge Kobayashi used the Lorenzo doctrine in error. In its Motion, the Hawaiian Kingdom concluded with:

Without citing any rebuttable evidence to the presumption of continuity of the Hawaiian State, the Court relied on Fonoti. This case, however, is not judge-made law or federal common law like Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino regarding international relations. The Fonoti case was a decision that did not comply with the Lorenzo doctrine and, therefore, cannot be used by this Court as if it is federal common law. While the Court cited the Fonoti case in its granting of the Defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss, which was based on the Lorenzo doctrine, albeit in error, the Court willfully disregarded international law and the Lorenzo doctrine to the detriment of the Plaintiff Hawaiian Kingdom, being a manifest error of law and fact and a manifest injustice. The Court has willfully avoided the Lorenzo doctrine that calls for evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist “as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature.” The Lorenzo doctrine does not seek to determine whether the government of the Hawaiian State exists. Notwithstanding the restoration of the government of the Hawaiian State three years after State of Hawai‘i v. Lorenzo in 1994 as a Council of Regency and Plaintiff in this case, the Lorenzo doctrine’s evidentiary burden was not altered except by the application of international law.

The Court has provided no legal basis to grant Defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss first amended complaint. Therefore, this Court is bound by treaty law to take affirmative steps to transform itself into an Article II Court by virtue of Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, just as the International Bureau of the PCA established the arbitral tribunal by virtue of Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes because of the juridical fact of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a State. This Court is also bound to transform itself into an Article II Court because it is situated within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom and not within the territory of the United States pursuant to the Lorenzo doctrine. Furthermore, Federal Defendants have provided no rebuttable evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State was extinguished under international law other than invoking its internal laws as justification for not complying with its international obligations, which are barred by customary international law and treaty law.

For 28 years the State of Hawai‘i courts and the U.S. federal court in Hawai‘i have been applying the Lorenzo doctrine, which they created, wrong. This is not a matter of reading the fine print in the Lorenzo Court’s decision. It was in plain view when the Lorenzo Court stated that “the court’s rationale is open to question in light of international law.”

As a federal judge, Judge Kobayashi is obligated to apply international law to the Lorenzo doctrine, because the U.S. Supreme Court, in the The Paquette Habana case, stated, “International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.”

27 thoughts on “The Federal Court in Honolulu Comes Face to Face with its own Lorenzo Doctrine

  1. wow awesome..outstanding work to the Council of Regents. As a federal judge, Judge Kobayashi is obligated to apply international law to the Lorenzo doctrine, because the U.S. Supreme Court, in the The Paquette Habana case, stated, “International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.”

  2. Why wouldn’t the Hawaiian Kingdom just present the evidence and get this court case over with already? Should be an open- shut court case if both sides claim to have evidence proving there side of the story.

      • KR, I see your point. The evidence of executive agreements was not used to prove continuity as is customary and treaty. As an article 3 court faced with evidence of a Article 2 treaty under treaty law, the court could have made a more definitive ruling in light of customary international and treaty law. Public international law aside.
        Of course, the defendant’s would be arguing the plenary powers of congress overruled the presidents executive agreement via the annexation resolution and organic act rendering the US President head of a dummy corporation. Furthermore, defendant’s would be implying that congress had the power to incorporate an unincorporated nation via a Federal customs union with the successors of usurpers as explicated by the executive agreements.
        Stay private my friends!!!

        • Nohea, she already knows she is not living in America. Why do you think she and all the other Judges in the other 17 cases somehow forgot to apply international law? They have to misapply the law in order to keep the illusion going. What is the alternative? Correctly apply the law and prove to everyone Hawaii is not part of the United States. That will take a special person, an honorable person. Someone that will honor their oath of office. So far there are no Honorable Judges.

          • Yes Kekoa, the judge knows Hawaii is a sovereign nation, but she will not admit it. When she does, every judge will have to vacate the building. Their services has been corruupt and illegal. Its ironic they preach the law, same time they themselves knowingly are breaking the law.. Same America today, as it was when they impriosoned our Queen, shred our flag. Stole the land from the Hawaiian people. Shame on America. Hawaiians are NOT Native Americans. We Are Hawaiian.

          • Nohea, I hear you, but Judges won’t have to vacant the buildings. Everything can be kept running during the occupation as long as they operate as Article II courts. If you’re a Judge be a Judge not a politician. For sure people and corporations are going to freak out but so what. Our Kupunas had their world turned upside down and their descendants brain washed through Americanization. Guess what? We are still here. These foreigners can survive, we did.

          • the judges do have to vacate the building because they broke the law when they became the judge until today. They have been dishonest. Jailed people but not themselves. hahaha.They did not have the authority to put one Hawaiian in prison. American law does supercede the Hawaiian Kingdom.

          • Nohea, only Judges that were made factually aware of Hawaii’s occupation by someone before them and subjected him/her to an unfair trial can be held accountable. Just being a Judge in general does not make you a criminal. You need to read the Declaration of the AHKG. These guys are smart. They figured out a way to keep order for the time being without violating HK law or Humanitarian law. More importantly it prevents this place from going into chaos.

    • KR, The HK doesn’t have the burden of providing the evidence. The burden is upon the defendants in this case to provide evidence that the HK was extinguished by a Treaty. Instead, the Court misapplied the law and used a U.S. joint resolution as evidence that Hawaii is a State of the United States. I don’t know if you have read the pleadings and evidence presented by the HK. The HK has not only met the burden of preponderance of the evidence it has provided evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the HK “exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,” The evidence is not the problem here. The problem is the Court’s inability or refusal in the correct application of the law.
      I find it hard to believe that in 17 similar cases all the Judges somehow overlooked the application of international law as stated in The Paquette Habana case. These Judges are intelligent people, that’s why I find it hard to believe all 17 could mistakenly misapply the law. I am of the belief that they created the Lorenzo principle and its misapplication of the law to quash this type of cases so they would not have to apply international law. Can you imagine what would happen if they correctly applied the law? The scam would be over. When it comes to Hawaii the Courts are not interested in the law. They are being weaponized and used in lawfare to maintain a clandestine occupation. By far this HK vs. Brendon case has done the best in exposing how the Courts are intentionally not providing a fair trial. MHO

    • Aloha P., I’m also curious of how the Ninth Circuit will respond. The defendants filed a motion stating that the Ninth Circuit does not have jurisdiction over the case because the orders from the Hawaii Federal Court are not final. The Appeals court can only have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal if the case is final.

  3. Kekoa have to disagree with you in the belief that these judges aren’t criminals.They know that they are committing war crimes,because they were presented with the truth from the United Nations special counsel,can’t spell his name.But I know you are aware of who I’m referring to so that can’t claim ignorance of the laws of war and humanitarian law.They are well aware of their.It’s like that judge in Hilo admitting to dexter Kaiama and everyone there observing that if I rule correctly there goes the state of Hawaii,but much aloha cuz for your post keeps all of us engaged.Hapai oe hapai au iluna Kakou (I lift you you lift me together we rise.MALUHIA

    • Lono, I hear you, and I don’t want to come off as technical or arrogant, but what is the use in calling them criminals if we can’t get a conviction for their crimes? A criminal conviction can’t be based on a belief. The burden is based on beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual knowingly and intentionally committed the crime. That requires proving with facts and evidence that the individual Judge had factual knowledge, such as, a pleading filed in his/her court, or a transcript/video of an oral pleading in his/her court. Can’t rely on generalizations such as a letter sent to the State Judiciary from Dr. Alfred deZayas. Too many pukas to escape. The registered mail that gets delivered to the State Judiciary will be signed for by an office clerk and not every individual Judge. A Judge can claim they never personally saw such a letter. A Judge can claim he/she never read the transcripts of Judge Hara’s case in Hilo Circuit court it’s not their case or court. These things provide reasonable doubt that probably gets them out of being convicted. Sorry for ranting, guess I’m being too technical.

      • Kekoa still don’t agree with you,they are all aware of their misdeeds, the judges the cops the mayors the governor.I think that keanu said that they can’t claim ignorance regarding international laws regarding what’s happening in hawaii its been exposed by keanu at the united nations for christ sake and at the Hague. Also remember that the usa government asked to get approval from keanu and the council of regency of transcripts of the arbitration findings.But you should get a law degree because you are great at lawyer speak imo

        • Lono, I guess we can agree to disagree. Speaking in general terms may work in everyday conversations but not in legal proceedings. Interesting that you mentioned cops along with Judges, mayors and the Governor. Hmm?

          • Kekoa,I just pray that in the time I have left being 72 years young,that we finally are able to get justice for our kupuna who signed the kue petitions nothing more nothing less

        • lono, here is our Queen speaking in 1898. The time she is speaking about is now. The power and economic monetary structure in this world is changing like it never has in the last thousand years. This is what I have been speaking about for the past 20 years. Once it is implemented it will speed up our path to justice that the AHKG continues to put in place. Hear her words my friend… Oh, honest Americans, as Christians, hear me for my down trodden people! Their form of government is as dear to them as yours is precious to you. Quite as warmly as you love your country, so they love theirs. With all your goodly possessions, covering a territory so immense that there yet remain parts unexplored, possessing islands that, although near at hand, had to be neutral ground in time of war, do not covet the little vineyard of Naboth’s so far from your shores, lest the punishment of Ahab fall upon you, if not in your day in that of your children, for “for be not deceived, God is not mocked.”

          • The current judges did nothing for the Hawaiian Kingdom take over..Why,?, for several reasons, they chose to ignore the Hawaiian kingdom, they wanted to be Americans, second many were haoles, Japanese, etc etc.How many were Hawaiians??Little or non at all.
            The Japanese got their orders from Japan, make lots of children and take over all government positions. That they did. (Thats what the muslims just accomplished in Minnepolis). Now as for the other govt jobs, police, military,prosecuting lawyers and judges.Lets go back to the Numberg trial. The German officers, military officers, who starved, killed, gas the jews, men women and children, claimed they were just following orders, These Germans were hung or shot to death, ONE reason, they could have done the right thing, but they refused and went on with the killings of innocent people. So the Fake American police and military, prosecuting lawyers, judges were required to do the right thing also, but they did not. Non of these judges, police, military in Hawaii will have their sames position in the Hawaiian Kingdom.

          • Nohea, I would only agree with your statement if individuals belonging to the mentioned agencies were proven guilty. Those that did not commit violations could remain until transition takes place.

  4. “AMENE”, I TRULY BELIEVE……MAHALO NUI, for that “piercing, profound and resounding” words of our Queen Liliuokalani, it touches the piko-the center of my being,”for be not deceived, GOD is not mocked.”

  5. Aloha mai e Kekoa,
    It might be interesting to compare the Lorenzo Doctrine as to how citizenship and application of US law outside their borders is described by the Special Agency of the United States on Jan 7th, 1899 in the Decision of Supreme Court regarding Chinese Habeas Corpus cases in Hawai’i. If I am understanding the archival documents correctly its stated that the US federal court has no jurisdiction over Hawai’iʻs courts as “they are NOT inferior Courts established by Congress and therefore have no jurisdiction to consider questions arising under the laws of the United States.” If these Hawai’i courts were never dismantled and the continuity operation remains intact would that not mean all courts in Hawai’i are not inferior nor can they actually apply US federal law? While I understand a US federal judge might argue that this finding was supposedly “pre Hawai’i statehood” it is post “US territory”. Iʻm not sure if this document is significant with regard to the Ninth circuit but it does raise some interesting questions as to judicial hierarchy in Hawai’i.
    Me ka ha’aha’a,
    -k

    Heres the link:
    https://catalog.archives.gov/id/189271678

Leave a Reply