The Royal Commission of Inquiry has just published its latest memorandum on why all 193 Member States of the United Nations recognizes the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency as its government.
It has been 24 years since the arbitral proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) were initiated on 8 November 1999 in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. Before the arbitral tribunal was established on 9 June 2000, the PCA Secretary General recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a non-Contracting State to the 1907 Hague Convention, I, for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (“PCA Convention”). The PCA Secretary General also recognized the Council of Regency as its government. The Council of Regency was not claiming to be a new State but rather it claimed the legal personality of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom since the nineteenth century.
One of the four sources of international law is customary international law, which is a general practice by an international actor and accompanied by opinio juris. Opinio juris takes place when acts or omissions by States occur following a belief that these States are obligated as a matter of law to take action or refrain from acting in a particular way. According to the International Court of Justice, for a rule of customary international law to exist, there needs to be “two conditions [that] must be fulfilled” where there is a “‘settled practice’ together with opinio juris,” where the practice is accepted as law by States. This acceptance can be achieved by the silence or omission of the concerned States regarding the practice. In the Nicaragua case, the International Court of Justice explained:
[F]or a new customary rule to be formed, not only must the acts concerned “amount to a settled practice,” but they must be accompanied by opinio juris sive neccessitatis. Either the States taking such action or other States in a position to react to it, must behave so that their conduct is evidence of a belief that the practice is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it. The need for such belief […] the subjective element, is implicit in the very notion of opinio juris sive neccessitatis.
The relevant rule of customary international law, which is applicable to the Hawaiian Kingdom, is the presumption of continuity of the State despite the military overthrow of its government. Because international law provides for the presumption of the continuity of the State despite the overthrow of its government by another State, the burden of proof shifts as to what must 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.” Addressing the presumption of the German State’s continued existence despite the military overthrow of the Nazi government during the Second World War, Professor Brownlie explains:
Thus, after the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War the four major Allied powers assumed supreme power in Germany. The legal competence of the German state [its independence and sovereignty] did not, however, disappear. What occurred is akin to legal representation or agency of necessity. The German state continued to exist, and, indeed, the legal basis of the occupation depended on its continued existence.
Therefore, “[i]f 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 and the 1898 Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain. There is no treaty of peace where the Hawaiian Kingdom ceded its sovereignty and territory to the United States.
This practice or action taken by the PCA Secretary General was uncontested by all 122 Contracting States to the PCA Convention. This serves as evidence of their acceptance of the continuity of Hawaiian Statehood. The acceptance by the 122 States of the PCA’s recognition of continuity, as opposed to discontinuity of the Hawaiian State, established a normative character of opinio juris supporting the existence of the rule of customary international law sanctioning the presumption of continuity of a State, despite the military overthrow of its government. As the International Court of Justice explains, the behavior of these States is such “that their conduct is evidence of a belief that the practice is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it,” as regards the international legal rule of the presumption of State continuity despite the persistence of a status of military occupation. The significance of the Larsen case under international law cannot be underestimated.
Since the Larsen case, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Council of Regency took deliberate and incremental steps, under international law, to assure that all Member States of the United Nations would recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as an independent State despite the prolonged occupation by the United States. This memorandum looks at those steps that eventually got all 193 Members States of the United Nations to acknowledge, under international law, the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State since the nineteenth century, and the Council of Regency as its government, being the successor to Queen Lili‘uokalani’s administration.
I do believe it’s getting closer then I thought Mahalo Dr. Sai and all those behind you who worked tirelessly with you.God bless you all.
Yeah– a NEW post!
Bravo Hawaiian Kingdom Council of Regency for your LENGTHY commitment to PROVE through LAW & ORDER the illegitimacy of the #FakeState of Hawaii. The pilfering s/elected crooks & their appointees have clearly stepped up their efforts to desecrate our islands with their most recent #Lahaina #massacre. 🙁 ..
Also wondering about the Nation of Hawaii .org group that has been popping up on social media. They also have a NOH .GOV portal which states that it’s the “Official website of the Independent Sovereign Nation State of Hawaii. Fast access to government information and services”. (((Hoping))) this is the next phase of islanders’ FREEDOM kicking in via HK concerted efforts!
Thankful that censorship finally lessened these past years so that ALL prior HK videos became visible– to LEARN from, and to FLIP previous tainted narratives.
MAHALO for your steadfast commitment to the people of Hawaii. Forevah grateful I am! <3
P.s. What happened to young Maui TRUTHER Jen Ruggles? Hoping AOK!
Aloha e Erin,
The organization you mentioned is not in any capacity an official government or organization of the Hawaiian Kingdom, they are a misguided “sovereignty activism” group. The Council of Regency are the only ones who followed the law in creating an interim government. In fact the other group claiming to be a government is technically treason (from my understanding). Likewise they don’t have the right or ability to grant non-Hawaiians citizenship to the Hawaiian Kingdom.
As for Jen Ruggles, she’s not from Maui, she’s from the big island and I think she’s around, although I haven’t heard anything about her in awhile.
Mahalo for your response Aloha P! Yes, I’ve been following the lawful steps of proving the continuity of HK– what a journey of sacrifice for so many. <3
Most recently, I see another HK website yet not certain if it's affiliated: HawaiianKingdom.net
While there appears to be ties between the .org & .net websites (citing Dr. Sai's work), the latter doesn't seem to mention the Council of Regency. Instead it appears its focus is Hawaii Nationals. Also in a number of photos, locals are making the pyramid sign w/ their hands– a known freemason symbol.
I figured that since most all the Hawaiian groups NEED to come together to be successful, there might be some concessions? Fingers all crossed that it remains on a focus of LAW & ORDER to avoid future infiltrations.
Queen Liliuokalani would be SO PROUD of the Council of Regency & other's efforts. Most importantly was the translation/publicity of ALL THE VOICE from the past that CRACKED through all the denationalization LIES. Hele on folks! IMUA!
God blessed the Hawaiian Kingdom Council of Regency!
Finally 193 Member States of the United Nations and by International Law Recognized the Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency as it’s Government and 131 Years with the up coming New Year,Do we wait another 100 Plus Years,with this World Crisis,War with Ukraine and Russia,China/North Korea/USA/Middle East Israel/ Hazbola,Palestine/Iran and so on Someone is Bound to Use a New Clear War Head,Let’s Face Reality and where are we at,before U.S.A. gets Hit, Yes You Got It Right,But We just goin continue to Vala Au and Vala Au,Just a Reminder, Russia’s Ukrainian New Clear Power Plant Chernobyl Disaster and Japan’s Fukushima New Clear Power Plant Disaster the Ghost Town’s and Civilian Populations Lost,just a reminder what’s Past and what’s to Come, Mahalo Nui.
I took the time to read word for word and agree to Remove the illegal fake state of War Crimes and put in effect our Hawaiian Kingdom Council of Regency immediately in place our our OAHU GREAT QUEEN LILIUOKALANI…💜🙏🏽💜
The Council of Regency doesn’t need you to “agree to put them in effect”, you AREN’T a Princess & you claiming to have a royal title is treason.
What you SHOULD read word for word, is the Hawaiian Kingdom constitution, particularly Article 35, which states:
“All titles of Honor, Orders, and other distinctions, emanate from the King.” … which means royal titles are no longer inheritable, they must be granted by the reigning King. What reigning King granted you a royal title of Princess?!?! None!
You’re delusional.
Mahalo, your support is refreshing. We all should give positive energy to our council of regency, on our road to a Hawaiian election. Good to see H.K. laws being applied. So exciting, been many years in the making…
Aloha makahiki hou! Education is key. Understanding is powerful. Action is unstoppable 💪. E hoomau kakou e ka lahui Hawaii no ka pono o ko kakou poe, ko kakou aina, a me ko kakou aupuni i aloha nui ia. E mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono!
Mahalo e Robert! Keep it coming with the olelo, we need more participation and olelo commentary on this blog.
Peace Tour, rebuilding international bonds with the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Aloha mai ‘oukou… I have questions if you’ll indulge me…
1). As per what you wrote in this post (& the memorandum), where it says:
“two conditions [that] must be fulfilled” where there is a “‘settled practice’ together with opinio juris,” where the practice is accepted as law by States. This acceptance can be achieved by the silence or omission of the concerned States regarding the practice.”
I by no means claim to be an expert in any of this, heck I don’t even claim to be a novice lol, this all goes right over my head, so e kala mai ia’u ke ‘olu’olu if I’m completely misunderstanding all of this, but, if “silence or omission” is necessary, would the silence of the international community in the US’s claim that they “annexed” The Hawaiian Kingdom, which has gone unchallenged internationally, constitute acceptance of a new customary international law regarding means by which to annex foreign countries? And if so, what then is stopping other countries, such as Israel, China, Russia etc etc from following suit & passing municipal laws of their own to unilaterally annex other foreign countries? Or for that matter, seeing as UN member states have recognized the continuity of the sovereign Hawaiian Kingdom and the Council of Regency as its interim government, what then is stopping the Council of Regency from following suit and passing municipal laws for the annexation of foreign countries… say the US for example? Or literally every sovereign state in the world, even if for no other reason than to bring attention to the illegality of what the US did?!
2). Before it’s entry into the UN charter, states had the right to wage wars and use force in the pursuance of annexation of foreign states & consequently the annexation of the territory of another state was considered a legally valid mode of acquisition of territory, either through a unilateral declaration or by the entry into force of a peace treaty after a military defeat.
UNILATERAL DECLARATION DEFINITION: “A binding unilateral declaration is a statement made on behalf of a State, which creates legal rights or obligations under international law. Unlike a treaty, a binding unilateral declaration is made by a State without any requirement for reciprocation or response from another State.”
So my question is, seeing as our annexation occurred prior to annexations entrance into UN charters that make annexation illegal, and as modern laws cannot be applied retroactively to past events, can a joint resolution be considered an unilateral declaration, making our annexation legal (or in the least acceptable) in accordance to customary international law? OR is it that since the US committed an act of war by invading The Hawaiian Kingdom, and as such we are effectively in a state of war from that point until currently, would a treaty of peace be required & an unilateral declaration would be insufficient?
Trying to understand International law… and any legal jargon in general for that matter, is difficult, to say the least, for me. So again, e kala mai ia’u, I’m just trying to understand everything.
You’re closer to the truth then you know! Customs change over time which means laws change over time. What was customary in the 60s for men to open doors for women is no longer, and thus is considered gentlemen like qualities. Unlike abortions under Roe v Wade which became custom by judicial ruling. However the principles under which such laws, judgements and doctrines are founded are immutable.
Aloha P., Short and to the point. The answer to questions 1 is NO. The answer to question is NO.
Aloha P. sorry for the typo in previous response. Answer to question 2 is also NO.
Aloha E Kekoa,
Mahalo for the reply. I’m however trying to wrap my head around this and educate myself.
I understand you’re probably not interested in writing a long comment, but replying with “No” is not helpful. In the future, if you’re going to reply could you please explain why my comment is wrong in detail, so I can try to understand, that would be helpful… and appreciated greatly.
Mahalo nui and it’s nice to see you back on the blog, you’ve been gone for awhile. 🤙🏽
Aloha e Kekoa,
E kala mai, I’ve replied to this comment but it’s not showing, so disregard this if the other one eventually shows up.
I made my comments to learn, not to share my opinion or impose myself.
For that reason, I ask that in the future if you’re going to reply, please explain in detail how am I wrong so that I can learn, simply saying “No” is not helpful in helping me learn & understand.
But mahalo none the less for replying and I’m glad to see you back on the blog. 🤙🏽
Aloha P, I was not trying to be disrespectful in answering your question with a one-word answer. I just wanted to give you the answer. In response to your last post, I am not making an offer or contracting to be a teacher and never did. Bottom line, all 122 States including the United States had an obligation to file a declaration if they contested the PCA’s legal opinion that as a Juridical fact the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist which gave institutional jurisdiction for PCA’s Juridical act of conducting an Arbitration. They all chose to remain silent and by omission they all acquiesced (agreed by tacit consent) to the findings of the PCA that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. Hope this short explanation helped.
In your memorandum, you mention that annexation is illegal, and it is in modern codified international law, but it wasn’t at the time of our illegal overthrow & modern codified international laws cannot be applied retroactively to our annexation, which occurred prior to currently existing international laws… is that correct? There’s an argument that modern international laws can be applied from the time they were created and therefore some laws, such as the transfer of the civilian population into the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom, is illegal, however modern international laws applying to annexation, would not apply, as they were created after the annexation. Only customary international laws of annexation of the time, would apply.
“The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self administered by it’s victim.” (Dresden)
Think a good PROOF of the US’s understanding of the “annexation” process is to look at their actions BEFORE it’s meddling in Hawaii. It’s well known that US OFFICIALLY, via treaties, annexed Alaska from Russia & other parts of the continental US using TREATIES w/ other countries.
Hence, WHY would US change their procedures UNLESS their intent WAS to deceive, acquiring Hawaii (that it already had treaties with) by merely a joint resolution?
Citing prior actions by US between other countries SHOULD be presented as THEIR “customary international laws of annexation” prior to their plot to steal HK by-deception — THEFT.
Unlike the English and French Proclamation, the US recognition of the independence of the Hawaiian government never promised not to take possession either as protectorate or under any other form. Congress has sought to use their power to regulate commerce as a means to effectively control Hawaiians and occupy the Hawaiian Islands. Schofields secret mission in 1872 reporting on the lands to be used as Schofield Barracks and Pearl Harbor, and Congresses Morgan Resolution is proof that Congress intended to occupy and subject Hawaiians to Federalism and that US foreign policy is corrupt to the core!
Erin, in all Law, fraud voids everything. Example, In 1969 the Security Council called upon South Africa to withdraw its administration from the Territory, and on 30 January 1970 it declared that the continued presence of the South African authorities in Namibia was illegal and that all acts taken by the South African Government on behalf of or concerning Namibia after the termination of the Mandate were illegal and invalid; it further called upon all States to refrain from any dealings with the South African Government that were incompatible with that declaration.
Mahalo Erin,
I’m very familiar with customary international law and the necessity to prove a custom, vs modern codified international laws… that wasnt the point of that comment however. I simply was pointing that out as a means to make sure the T’s are crossed and I’s dotted in the memorandum, because “they” will be looking for all of that. The memorandum said annexation is illegal and that is modernly a correct statement, however annexation was NOT illegal when our Kingdom was illegally overthrown, and I was simply pointing that out. Which is not to say OUR annexation was legal, it wasn’t.
Aloha P, I believe the latest article posted of 02-04-24 will provide you more clarity about international law and annexation. Customary international law existed, was practiced and recognized before the codification. I liken it to an international cookbook. Every country had its own cookbook with the recipe to prepare the same meal. However, every country’s recipe was on different pages of its own book. All codification did was get everyone’s recipes and organized them. Now it’s easier for all countries to be on the same page when referencing a recipe for oxtail soup. Every country knew how to cook oxtail soup before the codification but now it’s just easier for everyone to find the page to get the recipe.
Hey– ANY rulings come out from Dexter Kaiama’s “WAR CRIMES” case he forwarded to the Pacific Command in 2014 to STOP foreclosure actions vs. his clients? WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO CITE BEFORE 2/22!
While thieving bank has claimed they already auctioned our home to themselves (of course!) for 20% of it’s value, IF I can (((finally))) prove HK’s legitimacy I can give ’em some slippah slaps to BACK OFF which they sorely deserve.
Judge Castagnetti et al (that UN deZayas wrote to) IGNORES any claims ALWAYS saying it was “political” as she orders your property seized while approving max fees allowed to bank BAR attorneys. Even Title Defect claims are dismissed on the same premise.
Mahalo folks! <3
You have to learn commerce and the principles of the law merchant. You have to follow generally accepted accounting principles in order to setoff the debt. You should know what negotiable instruments are and the difference between a bill and a note. Truth is, we never received a good commercial education so when contracting in commerce, use the UCC for guidance and always sign under protest to reserve your rights should their be a dispute. Remember our Queen reserved her rights and preserved our Kingdom by yielding under protest. When you realize that Congress no longer has the power to coin money but has surrendered that power to the Federal Reserve, and thus States are now making Fed reserve notes as a payment for debt rather then gold and silver as is constitutionally required. So any promissory note you sign and the security agreement which attaches to it that secures to the lender the property upon which any loan was financed by the lender should be thoroughly reviewed prior to signing and understood according to the applicable article within the UCC. We are operating on the debit side of the ledger and proof of this is shown by the national debt which increases as more Fed notes are printed. It’s all business, commerce!
Lopaka, here you go again. Interjecting your commercial theory. It’s very obvious to me you don’t understand the game that is being played regarding the SSN you gave up and its role in commerce. If you did understand it, you wouldn’t have given it up in the first place. You thought that SSN actually belonged to you, so you gave it up. Talk about not understanding contracts. You talk about loans and the national debt but have no clue how to remove it from circulation. I would never take any commercial advice from you. Go study some more before posting nonsense.
E kekoa the troll…why you still arguing with ghosts? Too bad you don’t have anything better to do then serve as a constant interferer and intervener in this blog. Seems like you just want to disrupt what I share as if more knowledge about the law merchant and Congresses power to regulate commerce would somehow take away from.your understanding of the states rights situation. While I try to expose people to the ways in which trade and commerce governs every aspect of our lives you want to just attack me personally but yet you offer no substance. Just cause you don’t want to learn about this stuff and rather sign your rights and life away when dealing with Federal agents and successors of usurpers doesn’t mean everyone else has too. If you no like sign under protest and promise to perform under a reservation of rights like our Queen did and in accordance with UCC 1-308 then don’t. But don’t act like you know what you talking about when you don’t especially because you obviously have no problem with our Queens use of contract law and the law merchant as she did yield her authority under protest in a diplomatic note which serves as proof of the charge of Congresses usurpation of Hawaiian sovereignty. Quit trolling for attention. Provide some value here or beat it!
The Queen did a diplomatic protest through the State Department. It’s implicit in any protest that your rights are reserved. Even if you didn’t add it with your signature. I am not saying don’t do it but it doesn’t nullify your rights if you don’t. Especially if you file a protest. Now my question to you is, since you utilized UCC 1-308 in signing your loan. What kind of protest would you be filing to get it discharged? Which UCC section would you use? Let’s hear it Mr. I know everything. Hint, read the 73 Congress Session 1. CHS, 48,49. June5,6, 1933. You can discharge debt dollar for dollar. That is how you bring down the national debt. Those Fed notes you borrowed gets taken out of circulation. If you pay it off with other Fed notes you just recirculating debt instruments. I’m listening. I’m all ears. LETS GO!!!
Tsaaa! A’ole muhe’e!
Lopaka, No UCC knowledge to answer simple UCC procedural questions? It’s not hard, you will find it in the UCC, contract law and case law. Your stupid response shows me, and I am pretty sure everyone else that you are clueless on the process. Haven’t you realized by now that I am asking questions, I already have the answers to. I know the process inside and out, but this is not the appropriate blog for such things. There are other blogs that promote those ideas so go post on there but be sure you understand the process, or they also will call you on it.
Troll!
If you had any sense you would see the subject matter which Erin spoke of and understand how the UCC applies to such sale of goods. You’re just a troll and don’t know anything about administering let alone securing your rights in commercial transactions. You alone proved you’re an idiot and wanted to argue the UCC on this blog rather then help. Now run along with your federal social communist trolling!
Lopaka, your advice to Erin utilizing the UCC is crap and I called you on it. You did not give her the remedy to solve her problem using the UCC that you keep preaching. You claim you want to help so then prove it. Provide the remedy that you preach. It’s simple, put up or shut up. If you not going to provide the detailed remedy, then you are just another false prophet preaching rubbish. You claim to know contracts so then you understand that you made an offer by interjecting the UCC into the conversation. I conditionally accepted your offer with a counteroffer that you provide the remedy. Therefore, refusing to provide a detailed remedy is your tacit consent through acquiescence that you are a fraud. You should be more careful when making offers (contracts) in public forums. Your offer might get accepted and your nonperformance puts in dishonor. One that dishonors his contracts is a dishonorable person. Mic drop.
E kala mai Erin I forgot to mention that the information was forwarded to the Pacific Command without any substantive reply however Dexter is no longer licensed to practice law in the State of Hawaii.
Kumu-Regent-Kauka Sai,
This persons (Erin) comment brought up a good question… I’ve noticed in the last few years that anytime anything regarding the illegal overthrow, land issues, what legal mechanism was used to annex the Sovereign Hawaiian Kingdom etc, it is brought up, it’s countered with “that is a political question, not a legal question”. From court to the UN, that keeps being used to cut our arguments off. Thus far it doesn’t seem like anyone has been able to counter the “political question” argument. How do we counter that?
Ashwander rules. Unlike political science, political engineering is real. But so is reverse engineering.