David Keanu Sai v. Barack Obama, et al.

KANE`OHE, HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, JUNE 1, 2010 — Dr. David Keanu Sai, a national of the Hawaiian Kingdom, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C., against President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, Pacific Command Commander Admiral Willard and State of Hawai`i Governor Lingle. The civil case was assigned no. 1:10-CV-00899CKK. This case arises under the Alien Tort Statute and the Plaintiff filed the suit as a Hawaiian subject for injuries suffered when he was wrongfully convicted of a so-called felony by the State of Hawai`i in violation of an Executive Agreement dated January 17, 1893, referred to as the Lili`uokalani assignment. The Lili`uokalani assignment legally bound President Cleveland and his successors in office, to include President Obama, to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, not U.S. law, by virtue of a temporary and conditional assignment of Hawaiian executive power by Queen Lili`uokalani made under a threat of war by U.S. forces that illegally landed on Hawaiian territory. This temporary and conditional assignment of Hawaiian executive power remains today in the office of the U.S. President. The Plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment by the Court declaring the 1898 Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States (30 U.S. Stat. 750) to be unconstitutional under U.S. law as well as a violation of Hawaiian sovereignty, and is also seeking permanent injunctive relief, redress, restitution, disgorgement, and other equitable relief against Defendants, which includes the State of Hawai`i, for violations of the Lili`uokalani assignment and other treaties that the United States government has ratified.

JULY 15, 2010 — Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint with the Federal Court in Washington, D.C. removing President Obama as one of the Defendants but all other Defendants remained. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the President has complete immunity from civil lawsuits. Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Plaintiff to amend the complaint without permission from the Court if there was no response filed by the Defendants with the Court beforehand. Although President Obama was removed as a Defendant, the case is still referred to as Sai v. Obama, et al.

JULY 30, 2010 — Assistant U.S. Attorney Christian Natiello for Washington, D.C., contacted the Plaintiff and requested an additional 30 days to respond to the Amended Complaint he received on July 26, 2010. Consent for the request was given. The initial 60 days began when the U.S. Attorney received the Summons and the initial Complaint on June 14, 2010, which now gives the U.S. Attorney 90 days to file an answer with the U.S. District Court. An answer to the Amended Complaint should be expected no later than mid-September.

AUGUST 26, 2010 — State of Hawai`i Attorney General, on behalf of Defendant Lingle, files a Motion to Dismiss. The Motion, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 — Plaintiff files Opposition to Defendant Lingle's Motion to Dismiss. The Opposition, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 — U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on behalf of Federal Defendants, files a Motion to Dismiss. The Motion, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 — Plaintiff Dimisses Defendant Lingle, but Defendants Clinton, Gates, Willard remain. In Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Lingle's Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff admitted that he is not seeking to sue Defendant Lingle, but only listed her as a nominal (name only) defendant. The Notice, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 — Plaintiff files Opposition Memorandum to Defendants Clinton, Gates, and Willard's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has also requested a hearing on the Opposition pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(f) of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Opposition Memorandum, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

OCTOBER 12, 2010 — U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on behalf of Federal Defendants, files Reply in Further Support of Their Motion to Dismiss. The Reply, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

OCTOBER 25, 2010 — Plaintiff files Memorandum in Response to Federal Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint. The Memorandum in Response, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

NOVEMBER 1, 2010 — Plaintiff files Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint by adding Defendants President Barack Obama and 35 Foreign States that unlawfully maintain Consulates in the Hawaiian Islands who were accredited through Defendant Clinton and the U.S. State Department. Initially, President Obama was removed as a defendant in the First Amended Complaint pursuant Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that provides immunity to Presidents while in office, but because Federal Defendants have not denied, in their pleadings, the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Lili`uokalani assignment, Plaintiff can prove that President Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen, which is a constitutional requirement to be President. Since President Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961, he was not born in the United States, and therefore must be considered President de facto and not de jure. As a President de facto, Nixon v. Fitzgerald cannot provide President Obama sovereign immunity because it would only apply to Presidents de jure. The Motion, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

NOVEMBER 9, 2010 — Federal Defendants File Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint. The Opposition, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

UPDATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2010 — Plaintiff files Reply to Federal Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint. The Reply, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

POINT OF CLARIFICATION: There appears to be some confusion regarding the federal lawsuit so I would like to take this opportunity to provide some clarification. Some believe that I'm asking the court to determine the legal status of Hawai`i as a sovereign and independent State. This is not so. Whenever a lawsuit is filed, whether criminal or civil, there has to be a dispute. By definition, a dispute is "a conflict or controversy; a conflict of claims or rights; an assertion of a right, claim, or demand on one side, met by contrary claims or allegations on the other." My particular dispute is with the Federal Defendants (Clinton, Gates and Willard), who I allege are liable because as a result of not faithfully executing the Lili`uokalani assignment, which is to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, I was convicted of a felony under U.S. law through the State of Hawai`i, and since the indictment of attempted theft of real estate was manufactured, because you can't steal or attempt to steal land, it also constituted a violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention and Title 18 U.S.C. §2441(c)(1) regarding warcrimes which is defined as depriving a protected person of a fair and regular trial. My trial was neither fair nor regular. I contend Federal Defendants are liable and they are supposed to say "no we're not." Instead of answering the complaint to deny or accept the allegations, the Federal Defendants chose to attack the complaint on procedural grounds, which I completely expected. Since I filed the lawsuit under the Alien Tort Statute, alleging I'm an alien (Hawaiian subject) and the violation of the treaty (Lili`uokalani assignment) took place outside of the United States (in the Hawaiian Kingdom), they had to attack procedurally because if they answered and responded to my allegations they accept the court's jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute where I'm an alien and the violation took place outside of the U.S. So, in essence, the U.S. District Attorney would have to show that I'm not an alien, and to do this he would have to show that Hawai`i was lawfully annexed to the United States, thereby making the Hawaiian Kingdom to be the State of Hawai`i and my citizenship American and not Hawaiian.

In the U.S. Attorney's motion to dismiss they said the complaint fails on 4 procedural grounds: (1) the court cannot exercise jurisdiction because Hawai`i was admitted as State of the Federal Union in 1959 by Congress and as such it's a political question; (2) that Federal and State Courts in court decisions already determined that the Kingdom doesn't exist and therefore I have no claim upon which relief can be granted; (3) the complaint was not written according to the rules; and (4) the Statute of Limitation ran out because a complaint should have been filed 6 years after Congress admitted Hawai`i as a State in 1959. My Opposition to their motion refuted all four: (1) the 1959 Statehood Act is an internal law of the U.S. passed by Congress and has no effect outside of U.S. territory, and therefore cannot be argued by Defendants without violating the Lili`uokalani assignment; (2) Federal and State Courts did not rule on the Kingdom because every decision stated the "defendants provided no evidence"; (3) the complaint had to be written in that form because this information was never presented before any court of the U.S., and also because I'm representing myself I am given latitude; and (4) the Alien Tort Statute provides a Statute of Limitations to actually be 10 years after an injury to an alien occured, which began in 2005. In its reply to my opposition, the Federal Defendants did not press the 2nd and 3rd grounds, but are relying only on the 1st ground, which is that Hawai`i became a State in 1959. I then filed a response to their reply clarifying the weakness of their argument. An oral hearing should be set by the court in the near future.

The outcome of the pleadings is that it chiseled the matters regarding jurisdiction of the court, where the point of contention between the Federal Defendants and myself, as Plaintiff, is whether or not the 1959 Statehood Act prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction over the case because it is a political question. The U.S. Attorney is arguing that I'm challenging the legality of the State of Hawai`i, and therefore the challenge is a political question because they contend that the legal status of Hawai`i was committed to Congress and not the court. But I am not challenging the legality of the State of Hawai`i. Instead I am utilizing my indictment, conviction and sentencing by the State of Hawai`i as evidence of the violation of the Lili`uokalani assignment, and therefore my rights as a third-party beneficiary of the assignment. The State of Hawai`i can't exist at the same time as the Hawaiian Kingdom. Since there is a presumption of continuity on the part of the Hawaiian Kingdom, because U.S. President John Tyler afforded recognition as an independent State in 1842, and President Cleveland entered into an agreement with the Hawaiian Kingdom's Queen in 1893 temporarily assigning executive power to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, the U.S. Attorney cannot claim that Congress affected the status of the Hawaiian Kingdom by passing an internal law claiming Hawai`i was the 50th State in 1959, which is 66 years after the fact. The U.S. Attorney cannot get around the fact that Congressional laws have no force beyond the borders of the United States. Instead, what the U.S. Attorney was supposed to have done was show that the Hawaiian Kingdom became a part of the United States under international law, which would have succeeded the Lili`uokalani assignment and effectively allow Congress to transform Hawai`i from a Territory into a State of the Federal Union as well as having altered by alien status from a Hawaiian subject to a citizen of the United States.

ADDITIONAL POINT OF CLARIFICATION: There has also been some question as to why I'm requesting the Court to supplement the Complaint by reinstating President Obama and adding 35 Diplomats from Foreign States who have Consulates in Hawai`i. When President Obama was initially listed as a defendant in the original complaint along with the other Federal Defendants, it was because he is the successor of President Cleveland, and the only reason I had to remove him as a defendant was because of the U.S. Supreme Court case Nixon v. Fitzgerald decided in 1982. Since the filing of the lawsuit, President Obama has continued to violate the terms of the executive agreement (Lili`uokalani assignment) by administering U.S. Federal law in Hawai`i and not Hawaiian Kingdom law. Also Defendants Clinton, Gates and Willard have also continued to violate the executive agreement (Lili`uokalani assignment) by accrediting 35 foreign Consulates in Hawai`i under U.S. foreign relations law as well as meeting with China's military in Honolulu as well as Japan's Foreign Minister.

The First Amended Complaint specifically asks the Court "For a Judgment or Order Awarding PLAINTIFF all temporary and preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as may be necessary to avert the likelihood of continuous injury during the pendency of this action and to preserve the possibility of effective final relief," and "For a Judgment or Order Preliminarily and Permanently enjoining DEFENDANTS from continuing to violate the Lili`uokalani assignment." An injunction is a "court order prohibiting something from being done or commanding something to be done." Since the U.S. Attorney has not provided any evidence denying the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Lili`uokalani assignment, nor has he provided any evidence that Hawai`i was annexed to the U.S., is precisely why President Obama and the other 35 Diplomats needed to be added as Defendants to the Complaint because of the request for an injunction.

According to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, foreign States can't be sued for punitive damages, but can be sued for injunctive relief. As for President Obama, Nixon v. Fitzgerald would give immunity to the President from lawsuits, but President Obama can't claim to be a bona fide President since the U.S. Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen. Since President Obama was born in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and not born in the United States, he is a President de facto (in fact). Nixon v. Fitzgerald only applies to Presidents de jure (by law). I am not claiming Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen, because he is by his mother (jus sanguinis). He is, however, not a natural born citizen (jus soli), which is a constitutional requirement to be President. During occupations of a country, international law prevents individuals from acquiring the citizenship of the occupied country through birth on the soil (jus soli) and can only acquire citizenship from their parents (jus sanguinis).

According to Professor Von Glahn, "the nationality of the inhabitants of occupied areas does not ordinarily change through the mere fact that temporary rule of a foreign government has been instituted, inasmuch as military occupation does not confer de jure sovereignty upon an occupant. Thus under the laws of most countries children born in territory under enemy occupation possess the nationality of their parents." See Gehard von Glahn, The Occupation of Enemy Territory: A Commentary on the Law and Practice of Belligerent Occupation (University of Minnesota Press 1957), 60. Therefore, individuals born in the Hawaiian Kingdom while under occupation since August 12, 1898 during the Spanish-American War can only acquire the citizenship of their parents (jus sanguinis). Hawaiian subjects today must be a direct descendent of a Hawaiian subject by parentage, irrespective of ethnicity, as of August 12, 1898.

ADDITIONAL POINT OF CLARIFICATION: For those who may find it difficult to understand the latest round of pleadings concerning my reply to the U.S. Attorney's opposition to request for supplementing the complaint with additional defendants, here's some further explanation. According to Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants may be added by amending the complaint if it would provide a complete adjudication of the dispute and won't prejudice the original defendants in the case. The Court must give its permission first before adding on new defendants. The U.S. Attorney is opposing the addition of new defendants by arguing I'm attempting to throw a "monkey wrench" in the proceedings, i.e. filing it in bad faith, therefore "unfairly prejudice Defendants and hamper the Court's ability to manage its docket." They're trying to influence the judge so she will deny my request to supplement my first amended complaint with additional defendants. This is why I needed to file a reply to their argument, where I needed to clarify that its not filed in bad faith, but rather as a direct response to Defendants' continued violation of the Lili`uokalani assignment since the lawsuit was filed on June 1, 2010. The Alien Tort Statute allows individuals to be liable to a tort action if there exists a direct "nexus" or connection to U.S. government officials regarding an injury to an alien, which in this case, there is a direct nexus between foreign states and the Defendants by there own actions since the lawsuit began. President Obama was also identified as a new defendant along with the 35 foreign officials because he has continued to impose U.S. federal law in the Hawaiian Islands since the lawsuit was filed, and Nixon v. Fitzgerald cannot give him immunity because he's not a natural born U.S. citizen, which is a constitutional requirement to be President. In my reply I also further explain why the U.S. Attorney's reliance on the political question doctrine cannot be an affirmative defense to my complaint, which consequently cannot prevent my request to add new defendants. To ensure good faith on my part, I also stated that my Motion to Supplement (Amend) will follow the hearing on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

• If the Judge grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss I will appeal to the 2nd Circuit, and if the Judge denies the motion to dismiss, the U.S. Attorney will surely appeal.
• If the 2nd Circuit overrules the Judge's decision to dismiss, the case would be remanded to the District Court where my Motion to Supplement will be heard.
• If the 2nd Circuit affirms the Judges decision to dismiss, I will request for an en banc (entire bench) rehearing in the same fashion as Kamehameha Schools did in Doe v. Kamehameha.
• If the en banc overrules the 3 judge appellate panel of the 2nd Circuit, the case would be remanded to the District Court for hearing on the Motion to Supplement. If not, I appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

My pleadings were intended to fully elucidate or explain this apparent complexing case of why the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and the effects of the Lili`uokalani assignment and a tort injury I suffered from Defendants who were responsible for faithfully executing the assignment. Through these pleadings I have been preparing for an appeal from either side.

My Motion to Supplement the amended complaint with additional defendants who are officials of foreign states was not only prompted by the open and explicit actions taken by the Defendants during the lawsuit, but also put the foreign officials on notice of their violation of Hawaiian sovereignty and international law. I sent letters to these foreign officials apprising them of my intention to add them as defendants to the lawsuit along with copies of the treaties their country has with the Hawaiian Kingdom, which are still binding. In the letter to the French Ambassador, I end with "While permission is being sought from the Court to add Your Excellency as a defendant, may I suggest Your Excellency's government inquire into the pleadings of the case at the abovementioned URL, as well as the current legal status of the 1857 Hawaiian-French Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, that remains legally binding today between our two countries." Letters in PDF sent to officials of foreign States who unlawfully maintain their consulates in the Hawaiian Kingdom in violation of Article X, "The Diplomatic and Consular Agents of Foreign Nations," Civil Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Palau, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga,

NEW: Six short videos uploaded on Vimeo that cover sections of the Federal Complaint in chronological order from 1840 to the present.

• Hawai`i: An Independent and Sovereign State (1840-1893)
• Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government by the United States and Settlement (1893)
• United States' Second Failed Attempt to Annex the Hawaiian Islands (1894-1898)
• The United States' Unilateral Seizure of the Hawaiian Islands (1898)
• The United States' Prolonged Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands (1898-Present)
• Perfect Title Company and the Federal Lawsuit against the Obama Administration (1995-Present)

Court Docket Filings

• Complaint (June 1, 2010)
• Amended Complaint (July 15, 2010)
• Amended Complaint Exhibits A-JJ
• Court Order Granting Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint to September 13, 2010 (August 3, 2010)
• Defendant Lingle's Motion to Dismiss (August 26, 2010)
• Court Order Advising Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant Lingle's Motion by September 20, 2010 (August 26, 2010)
• Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Lingle's Motion to Dismiss (September 8, 2010)
• Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (September 13, 2010)
• Defendant Linda Lingle, Governor of the State of Hawai`i's Memorandum in Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Lingles's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (September 16, 2010)
• Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to Defendant Lingle (September 20, 2010)
• Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Clinton, Gates & Willard's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7(f) (September 28, 2010)
• Federal Defendants' Reply in Further Support of Their Motion to Dismiss (October 12, 2010)
• Plaintiff's Memorandum in Response to Federal Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint (October 25, 2010)
• Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint by adding Defendants President Barack Obama and 35 Foreign States (November 1, 2010)
• Federal Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint (November 9, 2010)
• Plaintiff's Reply to Federal Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint (November 17, 2010)

Dr. Sai has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Hawai`i at Manoa specializing in international relations and public law, with particular emphasis on the legal and political history of the Hawaiian Kingdom. His doctoral dissertation is titled "The American Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom: Beginning the Transition from Occupied to Restored State." Dr. Sai also served as lead agent in international arbitration proceedings (Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom) at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands (1999-2001); filed a Complaint with the United Nations Security Council on July 5, 2001; and has numerous articles on the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent State.

In the Federal complaint, Dr. Sai alleges the violation of an executive agreement entered into between Queen Lili`uokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom and President Grover Cleveland of the United States in 1893, whereby Hawaiian executive power was temporarily and conditionally assigned to the President to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law throughout the Hawaiian Islands. This executive agreement, known as the Lili`uokalani assignment (January 17, 1893), was assigned under threat of war, and binds President Cleveland's successors in office in the administration of Hawaiian Kingdom law until such time as the Hawaiian Kingdom government has been restored in accordance with a second executive agreement between the Queen and President, known as the Agreement of restoration (December 18, 1893), whereupon the executive power would be returned and the Hawaiian Kingdom would grant amnesty to those individuals who participated or supported the 1893 insurrection.

In U.S. v. Belmont (1937), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that executive agreements entered into between the President and a sovereign nation does not require ratification from the U.S. Senate to have the force and effect of a treaty; and executive agreements bind successor Presidents for their faithful execution. Other landmark cases on executive agreements are U.S. v. Pink (1942) and American Insurance Association v. Garamendi (2003). In Garamendi, the Court stated, "Specifically, the President has authority to make 'executive agreements' with other countries, requiring no ratification by the Senate or approval by Congress." Dr. Sai alleges that President Barack Obama, being the successor in office to President Cleveland, is legally bound to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom until the Hawaiian Kingdom government is restored in accordance with the Agreement of restoration.

The suit was filed under Title 28, United States Code, §1350, "Alien's action for tort," for maliciously prosecuting and convicting Dr. Sai for complying with Hawaiian Kingdom law, whereby the prosecution and conviction were violations of the Lili`uokalani assignment; the 1907 Hague Convention, IV; and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV. §1350 provides that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."

In the complaint, it states that the Hawaiian Kingdom became a full member of the Universal Postal Union in 1882, and currently has treaties with Austria-Hungary (June 18, 1875), now Austria and Hungary; Belgium (October 4, 1862); Bremen (March 27, 1854) now Germany; Denmark (Oct. 19, 1846); France (September 8, 1858); French Tahiti (November 24, 1853); Germany (March 25, 1879); Great Britain (March 26, 1846); Great Britain's New South Wales (March 10, 1874), now Australia; Hamburg (January 8, 1848), now Germany; Italy (July 22, 1863); Japan (Aug. 19, 1871, January 28, 1886); Netherlands (October 16, 1862); Portugal (May 5, 1882); Russia (June 19, 1869); Samoa (March 20, 1887); Spain (October 9, 1863); Sweden and Norway (April 5, 1855), now separate States; Switzerland (July 20, 1864); and the United States of America (December 20, 1849).

On July 7, 1898, the United States unilaterally annexed the Hawaiian Islands for military purposes by enacting a joint resolution of annexation through its Congress over protests by the Queen and political organizations representing the people of Hawai`i that was filed with the U.S. State Department in the summer of 1897, and a 21,269 signature petition protesting annexation that was also filed with the U.S. Senate on December 9, 1897 by Senator George Hoar (R-MA). On August 12, 1898, the Hawaiian Kingdom was occupied during the Spanish-American War and the Hawaiian Kingdom has since been under prolonged occupation under the guise of a U.S. territory. Presently, Hawai`i serves as headquarters for the largest U.S. Unified Combatant Command in the world, the U.S. Pacific Command, which controls 20.6% of lands (nearly 200,000 acres) throughout the islands under troop commands of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. The complaint alleges that the U.S. military's presence has been and continues to be a violation of the Hawaiian Kingdom's status as a Neutral State under international law and the laws of occupation.

According to the complaint, the United States misrepresented Hawai`i to be a part of the United States since the Spanish-American War by enacting Congressional laws claiming to have annexed the Hawaiian Islands in 1898; to have established the Territory of Hawaii in 1900; and to have transformed the Territory of Hawai`i into the State of Hawai`i in 1959. The complaint alleges that these actions by the Congress are in direct violation of the 1893 executive agreements, and that the Congress has no force and effect beyond U.S. territory.

In a 1988 U.S. Department of Justice legal opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, acting Assistant Attorney General Douglas Kmiec stated, "It is unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution. Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea." According to Dr. Sai, "The U.S. Congress could no more annex the Hawaiian Islands in 1898 by passing a joint resolution when it was at war with Spain, than it could annex Afghanistan today by passing a joint resolution while fighting the war on terrorism. U.S. laws do not have extraterritorial force and are limited and confined to U.S. territory. Only through a treaty of cession with the Hawaiian Kingdom could Hawai`i's territorial sovereignty be ceded or transferred to the United States, the 1893 executive agreements and other international treaties being superseded, and only thereafter could Congressional laws be legally enforced throughout the Hawaiian Islands without violating international law."

Among the alleged misrepresentations that the United States made to the international community:

• That the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands was lawfully ceded to the United States by a treaty of cession in 1898;
• That the international treaties between the Hawaiian Kingdom and other sovereign States were superseded by the United States' treaties with those States;
• That United States laws and not Hawaiian Kingdom laws governed the Hawaiian Islands to include taxation, tariffs and duties; and
• That the Hawaiian Islands is the territory of the United States through the State of Hawai`i and not the Hawaiian Kingdom, being a sovereign State, which has been under prolonged occupation since the Spanish-American War.

Dr. Sai's complaint alleges Clinton, Gates, and Willard with violating the Lili`uokalani assignment, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and for allowing the State of Hawai`i to have maliciously indicted, prosecuted and convicted Dr. Sai of a manufactured felony count of attempted theft of real property on March 7, 2000 for adhering to Hawaiian Kingdom laws, which by definition constitutes a "war crime" under Title 18 U.S.C. §2441(c)(1). The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, including punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution, to prevent and remedy any violations of the Lili`uokalani assignment and the international laws of occupation.

# # #

For more information about this law suit, contact:

Dr. Keanu Sai at: 808-383-6100 or email: