The Piercing Effect of International Criminal Culpability upon Individuals that are Outside of the United States

When United States President Grover Cleveland admitted that the overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom was an “act of war,” it triggered international humanitarian law and the law of occupation on January 17, 1893. Instead of restoring Queen Lili‘uokalani as the Executive Monarch under a treaty called an executive agreement, by exchange of notes, between the Queen and President Cleveland, on December 18, 1893, Cleveland’s successor, President William McKinley unilaterally seized the Hawaiian Islands when he signed into American law the joint resolution of annexation on July 7, 1898. The purpose of the unilateral seizure of the Islands was to establish a military outpost to protect the west coast of the United States.

For the past 131 years, the United States has not been held to account for their violations of international law and the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom because violations of international law did not hold governmental officials of the State accountable for the actions of soldiers who committed war crimes. In 1919, there was an attempt to hold to account the German Kaiser for war crimes by an international tribunal established by the Allies of the First World War.

In its report, the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the First World War concluded, “All persons belonging to enemy countries, however high their position may have been, without distinction of rank, including Chiefs of States, who have been guilty of offenses against the laws and customs of war or the laws of humanity, are liable to criminal prosecution” by the international tribunal. The United States, however, was against this. U.S. members of the Commission stated:

In regard to the latter point, it will be observed that the American representatives did not deny the responsibility of the heads of states for acts which they may have committed in violation of law, including in so far as their country is concerned, the laws and customs of war, but they held that heads of states are, as agents of the people, in whom the sovereignty of any state resides, responsible to the people for the illegal acts which they may have committed, and that they are not and that they should not be made responsible to any other sovereignty.

In other words, the United States position was to have the countries themselves prosecute their Heads of State. This position also implied that if the country’s won’t prosecute their Heads of State, their criminal culpability would go unchecked. The United States position would change, however, after the fall of the Nazi government and the Imperial Japanese government during the Second World War. Here an international tribunal was established to try high-level officials of the Nazi regime for war crimes and high-level officials of the Imperial Japanese government. This unified system laid the groundwork for the creation of international criminal law.

As stated by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, in United States, France, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union v. Göring et al. (1948), “crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.” Abstract entities are countries called States. In other words, you can’t punish the State, but you can hold to account members of the government of a State, whether civilian or military, for war crimes.

In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in The Hague, Netherlands for the prosecution of war crimes. 123 States approved the Rome Statute that established the ICC with jurisdiction over their territories. Collectively, you have 124 governmental organizations to prosecute war crimes, which are the 123 prosecutors and criminal courts of the States, and the prosecutor and courts of the ICC. Prosecutions for war crimes by the ICC are “for the most serious crimes of international concern,” while prosecution by the 123 States are for war criminal that enters into the territory. According to Article 1 of the Rome Statute:

An International Criminal Court is hereby established. It shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concerns, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdiction. The jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute.

The significance of Article 1 is that the primary responsibility to prosecute war criminals are the 123 States and not the ICC. The war criminal reports by the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) establish the evidentiary basis for prosecution by these States when those subjects of the reports enter their territory. As part of its mandate, it is also the duty of the RCI to ensure that these war criminals get prosecuted by all means necessary. There are no statutes of limitations to prevent the prosecution of war crimes. The Council of Regency is currently in communication with the legal counsel at the United Nations regarding the Hawaiian Kingdom’s accession to the Rome Statute that grants jurisdiction of the ICC over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

To begin to comply with international humanitarian law and the law of occupation, the decision to be made by February 17, 2024, does not fall upon an “abstract entity” called the United States or the State of Hawai‘i but rather upon Major General Kenneth Hara and the members of the State of Hawai‘i Legislature and the County Councils themselves.

For Major General Hara, his duty under international humanitarian law and the law of occupation is to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a military government on February 17. The action to be taken by members of the State of Hawai‘i Legislature and the County Councils is to cease and desist by February 17 the commission of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.

Their failure to comply does not affect the mandate of the RCI or the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Their failure to comply with the law of occupation merely serves as evidence of meeting the elements of the war crime and having criminal culpability.

19 thoughts on “The Piercing Effect of International Criminal Culpability upon Individuals that are Outside of the United States

  1. With Hara and the
    Congressional corporate charter trustees and administrators all notified, the RCI has lined up a great dispute for ke ea o ka ‘aina i ka pono. So much for Federal reconciliation now. Ko lahui should focus on politically organizing and demanding Schatz, Hirono, Case and Tokuda, and Congress, which have more skin in the game, to condemn the Morgan Resolution, repeal the Newlands Resolution and explicitly rescind extraterritorial consular jurisdiction, restore our constitutional sovereign pursuant to Queens agreement where we can have an election serviced by the COR who will negotiate for reparations. Our banking system will be an immediate concern, usury should be outlawed, and the current liabilities of the COR via selling of government bonds will need to be setoff. Direct liability and ultimate responsibility however truly lays with Congress and the Hawaiian people!

    • Hear! Hear! Lopaka! Good points.

      btw I saw there’s a new CHINESE “Royal Bank” that popped up on Queen Street in Honolulu. No surprise given the uptick in foreign Chinese ownership of businesses, labor & land grabs that I’ve personally wittnessed. They’re scooping up land dirt cheap via foreclosure sales at the occupier’s fraud courts.

      Also, saw this recent video that may help clarify Hara”s allegiance…

      WHY would #Hawaii #MajorGeneralHara LIE about helicopters’ ability to fly during the 8/8 #Lahaina #DEW attack event? Friend or foe? 🤔

  2. Wow!!!
    VERY GRATEFUL I can include this in a pending foreclosure hearing next week 2/22! While they’ve continued to DISMISS my prior HK evidence (UN Dr. deZayas’ letter, Title Defect claims, etc..), saying “It’s a political Q”, I WANT to make certain your/my evidence becomes part of court records.
    It’s CLEAR they’re focus remains on “money, money, money” bec’ while paying in bankruptcy, they chose to SELL our home anyway– to themselves, during the holidays for 1/5 of value + more fees!
    I now know how this local “non-profit” credit union amassed their BILLIONS in assets (per NCUA records). Plus, they do NOT have to prove they even hold the ORGINAL wet ink Note (undoubtedly sold it), lawyers submit their own affidavits on behalf of their lenders, they IGNORE notarized requests for evidence & they never provide evidence signed “…UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the foregoing IS TRUE and CORRECT”. Go figure?

    Mahalo Council of Regency, Dr. Keanu Sai et al for ALL you’ve endured to BRING US TO WHERE WE ARE NOW. Once everyone is awakened to TRUTHS, there will be NOTHING stopping our collective efforts to make our island nation truly a PLACE of aloha in ALL ways (inc. affordability). Exciting future! IMUA! (((Much Aloha to all!)))

    • I remember when Routhe used Reyes-Toledo case in her foreclosure which upheld the traditional notice pleading standards of Hawaii courts. Not sure if she levied a counterclaim but you should know of this case at least.
      It’s all contracts basically, so stay in honor at all costs. There is no lawful money but they’re is money of account and money of exchange. However your labor is what the US government is banking on which is pledged by allegiance in contract under Social Security for government protections and privileges.
      We are at a disadvantage without knowledge of the principles of the law merchant. Negotiable instruments such as notes and reasonable standards of fair dealings are just some terms one should be familiar with. Language is key and public and private do not mix.
      People need to recognize that the government is simply floating privileges and benefits (licenses, loan, deeds, etc.) in the form of liens and debt levied against your word/promissory note which is bonded/securitized. The Federal welfare administrative state and Reserve feeds off of the Republic of the united States of America and the Hawaiian Kingdom.
      Your administrative judge is simply administering uniform Federal laws. I doubt however his bond can withstand the commercial liability brought into the court.
      Your capacity to be a liability rather than an asset to the occupier is where it’s at!

      • Mahalo Lopaka for your lengthy response. Yeah, I learned all about that. Even thought I was ‘lucky’ to have Judge Castagnetti as my judge since surely she’d understand when I included UN deZayas’ letter written TO HER about the war crimes. Nope. “That’s political”.
        Tried to be a quick study since my wake up in 2020.
        Have included I’m not ‘my’ strawman disclaimer language [i.e. I’m a living, breathing, flesh and blood woman on the land, one of We the People, not a “U.S. citizen”, not a “municipal citizen”, not a “person”, not a “corporation”, not a “vessel”….. with my name properly spelled only in upper and lower case letters…],

        Cited cases, read US Code, etc. Learned that you MUST respond to plaintiff’s endless motions else you’re agreeing– and they keep slinging ’em! Whew!
        Even confirmed State of Hawaii’s BUSINESS Dun & Bradstreet D-U-N-S® number: 077676997. No matter if you call the out as corporations interacting with our legal fiction they ignore.
        Maybe IF I had more years to prepare

        • Oops. Pre-sent. Working on docs to notarize & submit to civil court today– and will inc the newest letter to Major General Hara. Wish me … luck? 🙂 WWG1WGA!

          • A letter from an unknown party regarding the circumstances or legal matters before the court will do little. Try Chisolm v. Georgia where the US Supreme Court rules that the people are sovereign, and not the state of Georgia. It’s the 1st case of the US Supreme Court which held that Georgia did not have sovereign immunity.

    • Erin,
      I do not profess to be an expert, a legal professional or even knowledgable on the law, and I suggest you look into everything I mention in this comment yourself to come to your own conclusions and I highly recommend you seek the aid of a legal professional to advice you and explain this to you, but I think maybe it would be worth your while to look into the US Supreme Court case of Foster & Elam VS Neilson (or Foster VS Neilson).
      From my albeit limited understanding, it’s about a land dispute stemming from the Louisiana Purchase. I don’t know how familiar you are with the Louisiana purchase, but again my understanding of it is that the country now known as the Inited States of America was once the territory of multiple national states. One such nation state was Spain who sold some of its land (in what is not the US) to France. France in turn sold that land to the US. These transfers of territorial lands to other countries were done through treaties, as that’s how the transfer of lands and acquisitions of foreign lands must be conducted.
      There was a dispute about a land purchase between two men, one claiming to have bought or received the land from Spain prior to the Louisiana purchase and another who claimed to have bought the land afterwards free and clear. Both men claim to be the owners of the land.
      There’s a lot of layers to the case… like a LOT & it’s a lot to read through, but essentially from my understanding the US Supreme Court determined that land disputed regarding lands transferred between nation states must be resolved by what was outlined in the treaty used to acquire the territorial lands of the foreign country.
      Again, that’s just my understanding of the case, please come to your own conclusion.
      It’s my thought that this case may be of use to you, because it sets a legal precedent regarding land such as those in Hawai’i that, which according to the US, were acquired by the US. In order for the US to have control of Hawaiian lands it would have had to have entered into a treaty with the Hawaiian Kingdom and said treaty would detail what lands were being transferred to the US from the Hawaiian Kingdom and that treaty would be how you would resolve land issues, particularly title ownership of lands… according to the US Supreme Court. So all the State of Hawai’i, or you, would need, is the treaty by which the US acquired Hawaiian lands, and to see what lands were transferred. Again, since the US Supreme Court says land disputes must be resolve by looking at a treaty… ASK FOR THE TREATY.
      Again, I’m sorry to keep repeating myself, but I must reiterate that nothing in my comment should be misconstrued as being legal advice. This is not legal advice. I not an expert, I am not a legal professional. I ask that you not regard anything I say as legal advice nor advice AT ALL for that matter. You must come to your own conclusions. I recommend you seek the aid of a legal professional. 😬

      • I’m familiar w/ all the TREATIES of annexation used to acquire foreign land legally PRIOR to the mere Newlands Act to take HI.
        THAT case is a great lead for me– APPRECIATE your ‘hint’ to look into Aloha P!
        As for legal advice– found one ethical soul, D u b i n yet he’s overwhelmed & needs funds. My last one was clearly playing with the opposing side. Ugh. Gotta do what I can as pro se for now.
        MAHALO FOLKS! <3

        • My suggestion to get professional legal aid was just me covering my ‘ōkole 😁.

          ‘Ae, that’s the thing about having to argue your case in a court thats run by the citizens of your occupiers, administering the laws of your occupier, who want you to continue to remain occupied because they enjoy the benefits that your oppression grants them. I mean, if they rule in your favor, they’re essentially ruling that the house they “bought” isn’t theirs & that’s unlikely considering thus far they’re clearly willing to continue violating international law to keep the lie going. I think they truly believe they’ll keep getting away with it… & they may be right, we may not see deoccupation in our lifetime, but that’s one heck of a gamble to make.

          I wish you luck, go get em!

  3. You know, in the 1890’s Mahan stated “the commercial value is not great enough to provoke neutral interposition.” Considering the cost of living now, I wonder if the commercial value of the Hawaiian Islands is great enough to provoke neutral interposition.

  4. So what is the status concerning General Kenneth Hara in converting State of Hawaiʻi back to Our Moku Aupuni? Has he become another of many upon the War Criminals List and refused to do what is best for his own sake as far as his ʻohana is concerned to not have him arrested as a War Criminal and to do what is right?!

    • Hey Noelani,
      If I may, I have a spirited response for you and I’ll do my best to bite my Portuguese tongue. The truth is, anything can happen. However individual liability is now on the proverbial table, and names can be added to the RCI war crimes report which will be processed at the ICC under the Rome statute should there be nothing preventing it.
      This private international legal indictment by the RCI of the war crimes here by those who committed them via a private administrative process of the laws of war is profound to say the least, groundbreaking internationally…no doubt imho. Although this is a Hawaiian Kingdom State’s right matter, individual Hawaiian Civil and Political rights are not at issue in so far as the RCI is tasked except under the humanitarian law, and the COR can regulate, administer, and protect due to the commercial nature of the state of our state. (Larsen was a civil case, State Duty to Protect Civil right of Larsen) At war, a sovereign state’s right are at play & in flux, and this is simply administerial for now. Besides, the Hawaiian population has been Americanized as Federal subjects under the Social Security Act and either fear independence and the responsibility that comes with it because of a lack of knowledge or are still ignorant of their own hand in the pillaging and perpetuation of the fraud.
      Equity is at hand though with this action and it is just a matter of time before we stick out like a sore thumb. Mental slavery was never outlawed and voluntary servitude in America is the backbone of their Treasury. So, as Uncle John said “ask not what your government can do for you, but what you can do for your government.”
      Indeed, it is the task of all governed to keep the balance within international relations by checking their own foreign relations policies. For the protection of the collective whole of society requires the people to know, who they are and administer their rights!
      So, imho, Americans need to check their governments foreign policy, and Hawaiians need to support their own government by renouncing their Federal subjection. In the process of spreading awareness of one’s rights, Keanu called it legal mobilization as it is in academia but I call it “Imua Ea!” I wrote a thesis titled so at Manoa and am currently working on a book. In my knowledge, the lack of knowledge, and the capability to administer one’s own rights in their satisfactions, accords, applications, agreements, and contracts, is what causes subjection and domination. Freedom is the knowledge of the principles upon which all law rests. Mahalo for your inquiry! I hope I helped in someway.
      E malama,

      • I forgot to mention that there are many other reasons why Hawaiians may not be renouncing US subjection. Some are currently content with their station and status in life, others depend on the Welfare state for survival as there ancestors did since the great depression, while some see no other way. Just had to throw that in for the lot of us all depends on the one mind principal. One People, One Nation, One Mind!

        • Hellooo, it is a fact that under international law the U.S. did not lawfully extinguish the nation state called the Hawaiian Kingdom. The same law prevents the extinguishment of the nationality of the Hawaiian subjects. It doesn’t matter how many ssn, abc, xyz. 123 numbers they give you or you ask for the nationality just like the nation state is not extinguished. All contracts are null and void. There is no need to renounce something you are not. That is just plain STUPID.

Leave a Reply