Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Keanu Sai's Hawaiian history fantasies underlying his adventures with the International Criminal Court, the community of diplomats, and the Hawaii mortgage market. The alleged Liliuokalani Assignment, and the alleged Executive Agreement of Restoration


Keanu Sai's Hawaiian history fantasies underlying his adventures with the International Criminal Court, the community of diplomats, and the Hawaii mortgage market. The alleged Liliuokalani Assignment, and the alleged Executive Agreement of Restoration

(c) Copyright November 7, 2013 by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved

** NOTE: A short easy-to-read summary of this webpage, with no footnotes, was published at
http://www.hawaiipoliticalinfo.org/node/6952

FANTASY -- PIGS HAVE WINGS; THEREFORE THEY CAN FLY (and the World Court must enforce porcine aeronautical rights)

Suppose pigs have wings. Therefore they can fly. Therefore pigs have rights to demand allocation of airport landing time slots from government air traffic controllers. The U.S. government has failed to respect the flying rights of pigs. International conventions on utilization of airspace have the same status as treaties. So the U.S. is guilty of violating international law, and pigs have a cause of action in the World Court. Porky Pua'a, who claims to be President Pro-tem of the Porcine Parliament, with help from his sweet-tempered Attorney General Dextrose Kapua'a, has filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court against individual U.S. air traffic controllers. Porky has also filed a demand with the International Court of Justice that nations which have signed the convention on utilization of airspace must allocate a proportionate number of landing time slots to pigs.

Of course we know that pigs don't really have wings. But someone might nevertheless keep proclaiming from the rooftops that pigs do have wings. Such a person might keep on asserting the logical consequences. He might keep filing documents with local, national, and international agencies demanding pigs' aeronautical rights and threatening government officials that they will be put on trial in the International Criminal Court if they deny or obstruct the rights of pigs.

Perhaps the best way for real governments and ordinary people to deal with such nonsense is to ignore it. The trouble is that a few people who have not personally inspected pigs might believe they really do have wings -- after all, the advocates for pigwings get lots of media attention while nobody stands up to deny it. Government officials might feel intimidated by threats of prosecution for failure to fulfill their obligations to the rights of pigs, and might begin to let pigs run wild or let them behave in ways that violate the genuine rights of real people. So, however crazy it might be for someone to say pigs have wings, it might also be a good idea to provide proof that pigs really do not have wings. Then everyone can feel safe to ignore Porky's rantings and go about our normal business.

DAVID KEANU SAI'S HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY FANTASY

Since the mid-1990s David Keanu Sai has engaged in a series of adventures on Hawaiian sovereignty issues, which have brought him fame, fortune, and awe-struck followers. For anyone unfamiliar with his escapades, perhaps the best way to learn about them is to begin by looking at his most recent activities to see what are their fundamental assumptions, and how earlier activities led logically to current ones.

This essay will focus on and debunk several of Keanu Sai's theories about Hawaiian history. He uses the names "Lili'uokalani Assignment" and "Executive Agreement of Restoration" to identify his most recent and outrageously absurd historical claims. This webpage will describe those two claims in greater detail later, and debunk them. But for now, very briefly: The "Lili'uokalani Assignment" claims that Lili'uokalani's surrender note on January 17, 1893 included a protest whose legal effect was to temporarily transfer her governance authority to the U.S. who would be obligated to exercise her authority in accord with Kingdom law. The "Executive Agreement of Restoration" claims that U.S. President Cleveland and Hawaii Queen Lili'uokalani made an executive agreement, in their capacities as heads of government and with the full force of a treaty binding upon all their successors in office including President Obama. The alleged executive agreement was that the U.S. would restore Lili'uokalani to the throne in return for her promise to give amnesty to the revolutionaries who had overthrown her and created the Provisional Government.

These new claims are outgrowths of broader, more general assertions made for many years by numerous Hawaiian sovereignty activists who say the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy was illegal, that the overthrow was executed through an armed invasion by the U.S., and there was never a Treaty of Annexation between Hawaii and the United States. Two consequences of such theories would be that nearly all land titles (property deeds) in Hawaii are invalid, and that Hawaii has been under a belligerent military occupation by the U.S. since 1898. If those claims were true then people representing the still-living Kingdom of Hawaii are entitled under international law to use the World Court to demand that the U.S. withdraw from Hawai, restore Hawaii as an independent nation, and pay reparations. Kingdom representatives would also be entitled to use the International Criminal Court to prosecute Hawaii judges and prosecutors who do harm to today's subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom by enforcing illegal laws imposed by the occupying power. Kingdom representatives would also be entitled to demand that foreign nations withdraw their local consulates from Hawaii, and to demand that foreign and U.S. corporations doing business in Hawaii stop paying taxes and tariffs to the illegal occupier (U.S.) and its puppet regime (the fake State of Hawaii).

What makes the Lili'uokalani Assignment and the Executive Agreement important is that, if true, they could theoretically be used to force outcomes in the real world. The older, more general claims about illegal overthrow and illegal annexation are like expressions of regret. Bad things happened but there's no requirement to fix them. But if there really was an Executive Agreement of Restoration, and if it has the weight of a treaty, and if there were a world court with actual authority to enforce its decisions, then the U.S. could be forced to withdraw from Hawaii and to pay for actual damages, plus punitive damages for the pain and suffering of the Hawaiian people, during more than 120 years.

At different times from the mid-1990s to now Keanu Sai has annointed himself with such titles as "Regent Pro-tempore" of the Kingdom of Hawaii, "Chairman of the Council of Regency", "Acting Minister of Interior", "Ambassador At-Large", etc. Busy fellow; a politician's dream -- be all things to all people! Sai behaves like a 21st Century reincarnation of Hawaii's 19th Century Walter Murray Gibson, flippantly known as the "Minister of Everything" because he held many cabinet positions and exercised so much authority during the reign of King Kalakaua. Sai's followers are like Obama's followers, filled with hope and zealous commitment to their cause. They are on a jihad, totally blind to flaws in Sai's theories and unwilling to listen to infidels or unbelievers. Pigs have wings, they say; and don't anyone dare to disagree!

Sai invented his first title, Regent pro-tem, as a basis for creating his Perfect Title real estate scam. He and partners set up a real estate company based on the premise that every land title in Hawaii is invalid if it has any transfers of title that took place after the revolution of 1893. That's because the ensuing Provisional Government, Republic, Territory, and State were all illegal and therefore had no authority to certify title transfers. Mr. Sai filed a series of documents in the Bureau of Conveyances which he said followed a procedure established in the Kingdom whereby any subject (citizen) of the Kingdom could temporarily take over the powers of the government in case the monarch or the legislature were somehow rendered incapable of acting. Sai used the analogy that if an army is under attack and the general, all the commissioned officers in the chain of command, and even the sergeant and corporal are killed or captured, then even a lowly private can temporarily take command. Being Regent pro-tem, Sai has the power to name himself to any additional Kingdom offices he wishes.

With his title of Regent pro-tem of the still-living sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii, Mr. Sai thereby had authority to sign a warranty deed condoning any particular series of title transfers. A client of the real estate company would pay a fee of approximately $2,000 for a title search to create a list of all the title transfers for his piece of property, and for creation and filing of the warranty deed retroactively condoning them. Through this procedure the current title had now been "perfected" under Kingdom law. Clients hoped the perfected title would enable them to fight off bank foreclosures, or even to re-claim a house that had already been foreclosed and sold, and had new owners living in it. According to newspaper reports there were hundreds of clients, who paid fees totaling many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Eventually the company was driven out of business and Mr. Sai was convicted of the felony of attempted grand theft (of a house). See a large compilation of news reports and commentaries about the Perfect Title scam at
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/fraudperfecttitle.html

In December 1999, two weeks after his felony conviction, Keanu Sai staged a televised fundraiser 6 hours long, from the grounds of Iolani palace, to raise money for his World Court scam. It wasn't really the World Court, but merely a panel of three arbitrators paid $10,000 each by Mr. Sai, who met in a room at the Hague (with the splendor of the flags of many nations) to hear a so-called "dispute" between Keanu Sai, regent pro-tem, vs. Lance Larsen, Keanu's friend and a subject of the Kingdom. Lance had been jailed for repeatedly driving without license plates or driver license. Larsen sued Sai for failing to protect Larsen against the illegal State of Hawaii. Sai and Larsen filed hundreds of pages of documents in which they agreed on all the historical issues about illegal overthrow etc., and disagreed only about whether Sai owes money to Larsen for failure to protect him. Sai and Larsen knew that arbitrators are required to accept as true everything which both parties agree upon, and rule only on whatever is disputed. They were hoping the arbitrators would publish a ruling that the Kingdom of Hawaii still exists, and issue the ruling from the Hague, home of the World Court, with all those flags flying. But in the end the arbitrators issued an "Award" (i.e., decision) that merely said case dismissed, unable to make any ruling or continue deliberations because the real dispute is between Sai/Larsen vs. the U.S. which is not a party to the hearings (because Sai and Larsen had dismissed the U.S. and numerous other nations very early in the process). Despite the very disappointing result, Sai loudly trumpeted that the "World Court" had recognized the continued existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii; and professors of Hawaiian Studies were happy to repeat that nonsense in their classes. See a more detailed analysis of the World Court scam, including a sarcastic spoof entitled "Conklin vs. Santa Claus for Non-delivery of Presents; U.S. to pay damages to both" at
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/fraudhague.html

In 2010 and 2011 there were reports that the Perfect Title scam was being reborn through a new real estate company, Laulima LLC, doing business mostly on Hawaii Island and Maui. This time around, Keanu Sai's theory is somewhat different. There's still a title search and list of title transfers that were all "illegal" due to the "fact" that all Hawaii governments after 1893 were illegal. But instead of Keanu Sai using his powers as regent pro-tem to condone and authorize the transfers retroactively, he is now attacking the title insurance companies. Nearly everyone who buys a house also buys title insurance, which guarantees that the title is valid and will pay the owner the full value of what the owner paid for the property in case it turns out that there's a defect in the title. In fact, banks that give mortgages require title insurance as part of the deal, to make sure the bank will get its money back in case there's a defect in the title. So now, if an owner fails to pay his mortgage and the bank forecloses, then the client gets a title search from Laulima LLC not only tracing the series of title transfers but also describing Keanu Sai's "expert analysis" (because he now has a Ph.D) of the Lili'uokalani Assignment and the Executive Agreement of Restoration, proving that the title transfers were invalid and therefore the title is defective. Then the client goes to court to demand payment from the title insurance company and/or nullification of the foreclosure. News reports indicate that this new title insurance scam now has as many clients, and perhaps more gross revenue, than the earlier Perfect Title scam. See followup notes from 2011 at the bottom of the webpage
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/fraudperfecttitle.html

During 2010-2013 Mr. Sai has unleashed a series of actions which would intimidate any opponent who took them seriously. He filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. demanding that the U.S. disgorge Hawaii as required under terms of the alleged Executive Agreement, and he tried to add numerous nations as defendants in that lawsuit. But the case was dismissed because the judge ruled it's a political question not decidable by the judicial system.

More recently Sai filed complaints with the International Criminal Court charging war crimes against Hawaii judges and prosecutors who enforced eviction orders against homeowners whose mortgages were foreclosed. When the attorney who filed the complaint got an acknowledgment from ICC that ICC had received the document, the acknowledgment was highly publicized as being proof that ICC actually recognizes the existence of a sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii! (Grasping at straws) Sai has also filed an application with the International Court of Justice demanding that it take action against 45 nations for being accessories to the illegal occupation of Hawaii by the U.S.

In September 2013 Keanu Sai issued a news release that on November 11 he would be making a presentation to a group of retired Swiss diplomats in Zurich. Ken Conklin then took time to compose a detailed message to the diplomats containing an analysis debunking Sai's claims about the so-called "Lili'uokalani Assignment" and so-called "Executive Agreement of Restoration." The message asked the Swiss diplomats to use Conklin's analysis to cross-examine Mr. Sai and to publicly repudiate his bogus assertions.

Below is Conklin's message to the Swiss Diplomats group. It's very lengthy, but provides historical details, citations to publicly available evidence, and logical reasoning. It begins with a brief introduction, and a summary of six main points; followed by detailed analyses of those points.

This is the inspection of pigs, to prove that they do not have wings.


==================

KEN CONKLIN'S LETTER TO THE SWISS DIPLOMATS

info@swissdiplomats.net, christian.blickenstorfer@bluewin.ch, webaumann@hotmail.com, maxschweizer@gmx.ch, thomasfueglister@compuserve.com, cdboesch@bluewin.ch

7 November, 2013

Aloha und guten Tag zu "Swiss Diplomats" Herren Christian Blickenstorfer, Werner Baumann, Max Schweizer, Thomas Füglister, und Christian Boesch,

I'm writing to give you information about the legal and political status of Hawaii, in hopes you will reject assertions by David Keanu Sai which he is scheduled to discuss with you on Monday November 11, 2013. Please allow me to introduce myself, and to summarize six main points which will then be explained in greater detail.

My name is Kenneth R. Conklin, a resident for 21 years in Kane'ohe Hawaii. I have a B.S. and M.S. in Mathematics, and Ph.D. in Philosophy, all earned from the University of Illinois between 1960-67. My teaching career spanned 30 years at all levels from grade 3 through doctoral dissertation adviser, including full-time positions with rank of Assistant Professor at Oakland University (Michigan) and Emory University (Atlanta), and rank of Associate Professor at Boston University. 43 of my academic articles were published in scholarly journals before the internet became widely available; 32 of them have been scanned and can be seen at
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/conklinpubsbeforehaw/

My greatest expertise during the past 16 years has become Hawaiian sovereignty -- philosophical, historical, moral, and legal issues related to the question whether Hawaii should become once again an independent nation and/or whether there should be race-based political sovereignty for ethnic Hawaiians as an American Indian tribe. My book is "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State (2007)"
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
and my very large website on Hawaiian sovereignty is at
http://tinyurl.com/6gkzk

I am aware that you have scheduled a presentation by David Keanu Sai entitled "Hawai'i – An American State or a State Under American Occupation" for Monday, November 11, 2013 in Zurich. Mr. Sai publicized this event in an announcement posted on September 11 on his "Hawaiian Kingdom Blog" at
http://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/?p=890

Mr. Sai notes that on July 20, 1864, the Hawaiian Kingdom entered into a Treaty of Friendship, Establishment and Commerce with Switzerland that established perpetual peace and reciprocal liberties. Mr. Sai will no doubt assert that the treaty of 1864 was never terminated by either the Hawaiian Kingdom or the Swiss Confederation. He will no doubt assert that the Swiss Confederation has ongoing treaty obligations to the Kingdom of Hawaii, which he claims to represent. Perhaps he and former Honorary Consul Niklaus Schweizer might ask you to ask the Swiss Confederation to support U.S. withdrawal from its alleged belligerent military occupation of Hawaii!

In this message I will make several points, which I hope you will keep in mind during Mr. Sai's presentation. Please make use of these points to cross-examine him. He would like to enlist your group of diplomats as accomplices in his ongoing scams and publicity stunts. I'm hoping that instead, you might issue a statement repudiating his assertions.

Here is a summary of my six main points:

1. The Hawaiian revolution of January 17, 1893 overthrew the monarchy and replaced it with a revolutionary Provisional Government which was promptly given de facto recognition within a day or two by the local consuls of every nation which had local consuls available in Honolulu at that time. Hawaii continued as an independent nation. Nearly all government officials kept their jobs except the ex-queen and her cabinet ministers. No nations filed protests or removed their diplomats.

2. There was no "Lili'uokalani Assignment" of Hawaii governmental authority to the U.S., contrary to the assertions of Keanu Sai. The ex-queen's representative delivered her letter of surrender, including her protest about the presence of U.S. peacekeeper troops, directly to the Provisional Government in the Government Building. The surrender/protest was not delivered to any U.S. representative, nor to any local consuls of foreign nations. Regardless if Lili'uokalani thought she was assigning her powers to the U.S., the U.S. never acknowledged nor accepted any such assignment. No other nation conducted business with the U.S. instead of directly with the Provisional Government. The letters of de facto recognition from the other nations were also delivered directly to the Provisional Government and neither to the U.S. nor to Lili'uokalani, indicating that the foreign consuls never heard of the "Lili'uokalani Assignment" or else they rejected it. The "Lili'uokalani Assignment" is a figment of Keanu Sai's imagination.

3. Contrary to the assertion of Keanu Sai, there was never an "Executive Agreement of Restoration" between President Grover Cleveland and Queen Lili'uokalani whereby Cleveland promised to restore Lili'uokalani to the throne in return for her promise to give amnesty to the members of the Provisional Government. The Hawaiian revolution took place and Lili'uokalani was overthrown on January 17, but Grover Cleveland did not become U.S. President until March 4. They were never both head of state at the same time; thus there could not be any Executive Agreement between them that would be binding on both nations. U.S. Minister Willis made an offer to Lili'uokalani to serve as mediator between Lili'uokalani and President Dole of the Provisional Government, including the outlines of a possible settlement between Dole and Lili'uokalani. But Dole was never informed of the possible mediation, and the U.S. did not have any power or authority to actually force Dole to resign or to restore the monarchy. When Willis sent a letter to Dole essentially ordering Dole to step down, Dole replied with a letter vehemently rejecting that demand.

4. The revolutionary Provisional Government held a Constitutional Convention, which wrote a Constitution for a permanent Republic of Hawaii (incidentally, there are at least 5 native Hawaiian names on the list of con-con delegates, and native Hawaiian John Kaulukou, formerly a supporter of the monarchy, was elected as Speaker of the House for the Republic of Hawaii). During the Fall of 1894, letters were received granting de jure recognition to the Republic, personally signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 19 nations on 4 continents in 11 languages. One of those letters was signed by the Swiss federal counsel [Attorney General] on behalf of the President of the Swiss Confederation, and also countersigned by the Chancellor of the Swiss Confederation (photo provided). Switzerland (and the other nations) thereby formally recognized the Republic as the rightful government of Hawaii. No foreign nation filed any protest or removed its diplomats. As the internationally recognized de jure government of Hawaii from 1894 to 1898, standing on its own despite initial U.S. efforts to destabilize it, the Republic had full authority to offer and ratify the Treaty of Annexation.

5. In 1897 diplomats for the Republic of Hawaii and the United States met in Washington D.C. and negotiated a Treaty of Annexation which was signed and sealed by the Secretaries of State of both nations. The Senate of the Republic of Hawaii unanimously passed a resolution later that year ratifying the Treaty. In 1898 the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution of the House and Senate ratifying the Treaty, which was signed by President McKinley. Article III, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Annexation makes clear that all treaties between the nation of Hawaii and other nations were thereby extinguished; and of course that includes the 1864 treaty between Hawaii and Switzerland. None of the nations that had treaties with Hawaii objected; all of them condoned annexation by their continuing relationship with the U.S, thereby continuously acknowledging U.S. sovereignty in Hawaii and condoning the extinguishment of previous international treaties with the Kingdom of Hawaii.

6. Keanu Sai is an adventurer with a history of highly publicized scams that brought him fame and fortune: Perfect Title; (so-called) World Court; new round of real estate title insurance claims based on bogus Lili'uokalani Assignment and Executive Agreement; Lawsuit in U.S. federal court demanding fulfillment in 2010 of the alleged Executive Agreement of 1893; allegations of war crimes against Hawaii judges and prosecutors filed with International Criminal Court; Application filed with International Court of Justice demanding that 45 nations comply with treaty obligations to the Kingdom of Hawaii and the normal ways nations interact in international commerce and law. Like some other Hawaiian sovereignty activists he has built a crowd of devoted followers, who bask in the glow of his charismatic self-assurance. There is never a reality check, because nobody demands accountability or conducts cross-examination. He produces writings and lectures, including a Ph.D. dissertation and academic panel discussions, where nobody is allowed or has the courage to challenge his statements or to present opposing views.

Detailed explanations and evidence are provided below. Thank you for your attention. I call upon the "Swiss Diplomats" group in Zurich to rigorously cross-examine Keanu Sai during his presentation on November 11, and I hope you will issue a public statement repudiating his assertions.

Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
46-255 Kahuhipa St. Apt. 1205
Kane'ohe, HI 96744-6083
tel/fax 1-808-247-7942
e-mail Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

** Webpage note added by Ken Conklin on November 22, 2013: About 10 days after the November 11 presentation, the website of the Swiss Diplomats posted a short report about the event including photos of the panel and the audience. The report stated no conclusions agreeing or disagreeing with Mr. Sai's views, but merely said that the event was interesting and enjoyable. The report is copied at the bottom of this webpage in the original German, with my English translation, and the two photos.

-----------------

1. The Hawaiian revolution of January 17, 1893 overthrew the monarchy and replaced it with a revolutionary Provisional Government which was promptly given de facto recognition within a day or two by the local consuls of every nation which had local consuls available in Honolulu at that time. Hawaii continued as an independent nation. Nearly all government officials kept their jobs except the ex-queen and her cabinet ministers. No nations filed protests or removed their diplomats.

Letters of recognition de facto were sent to President Sanford B. Dole on January 18 and January 19, 1893 by the Honolulu consuls representing Chile, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Mexico, Russia, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Japan, Italy, Portugal, Britain, United States, Denmark, Belgium, China, Peru, France. (that's the order in which their contents were copied into the Morgan Report).

The text of those initial letters of de facto recognition were published in the Honolulu newspapers and were also published on pp. 1103-1111 in the Morgan Report -- an official document of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs published in February 1894 . Full text of those letters can be seen at:
http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=DIPLOMATIC_RECOGNITION_OF_THE_PROVISIONAL_GOVERNMENT

For further information about the Hawaiian revolution of 1893, including population statistics, the political situation, and the history of several years leading up to it (including the previous revolution commonly known for having produced the "Bayonet Constitution" of 1887), see
http://tinyurl.com/72xeb

Hawaiian sovereignty activists today complain that the revolution of 1893 was "illegal" (of course, all revolutions are illegal). They claim that the landing of 162 U.S. peacekeepers was an armed invasion whereby the U.S. was responsible for overthrowing the monarchy and installing the Provisional Government.

Two major reports were commissioned by Congress specifically for the purpose of studying what, if anything, the U.S. owes to Native Hawaiians on account of the presence of U.S. peacekeepers during the Hawaiian revolution of 1893. Senate Report 227 of the 53rd Congress, second session, was dated February 26, 1894, and is now known informally as the "Morgan Report." The Native Hawaiians Study Commission was created by the Congress of the United States on December 22, 1980 (Title III of Public Law 96-565). The purpose of the Commission was to "conduct a study of the culture, needs and concerns of the Native Hawaiians." The Commission released to the public a Draft Report of Findings on September 23, 1982. Following a 120-day period of public comment, a final report was written and submitted on June 23, 1983 to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

Both of those reports refute the notion that the U.S. was responsible for the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, and both reports refute the claim that the U.S. owes anything to ethnic Hawaiians on account of it. The Morgan Report contains 808 pages. The Majority Report of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission contains 747 pages. Brief summaries of what's in those two reports regarding reparations, and links to full text of each report, are at
http://tinyurl.com/f4cqt

Both reports were swept under the rug by Hawaiian activists determined to extract land, money, and power from the U.S. government to the maximum extent possible. The resolution of sentiment passed by Congress in 1993 apologizing for the overthrow of the monarchy would never have been passed if Senators and Congressmen had been familiar with reports their predecessors had commissioned.

See also

HAWAIIAN REPARATIONS: NOTHING LOST, NOTHING OWED by Patrick W. Hanifin, esq.; Hawaii Bar Journal, XVII, 2 (1982). Mr. Hanifin's lengthy, heavily footnoted article can be downloaded in pdf format. An informal summary of it published in a newspaper is also available. A tribute to Mr. Hanifin with biographical information and some of his other publications is also available. To find all this material in one place, go to:
http://tinyurl.com/f78pv

Constitutional law scholar Bruce Fein provided a point-by-point criticism of the Hawaiian apology resolution on pp. 5-18 of his monograph "Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand." That entire monograph in pdf format is available at:
http://tinyurl.com/m5qxlmw

In 2013 the Hawaii state legislature passed a resolution commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Congressional resolution apologizing to ethnic Hawaiians. A point-by-point rebuttal of the 2013 state resolution, including an analysis of the harm done by the U.S. apology resolution, is available at
http://tinyurl.com/bkvv8e8

-----------------

2. There was no "Lili'uokalani Assignment" of Hawaii governmental authority to the U.S., contrary to the assertions of Keanu Sai. The ex-queen's representative delivered her letter of surrender, including her protest about the presence of U.S. peacekeeper troops, directly to the Provisional Government in the Government Building. The surrender/protest was not delivered to any U.S. representative, nor to any local consuls of foreign nations. Regardless if Lili'uokalani thought she was assigning her powers to the U.S., the U.S. never acknowledged nor accepted any such assignment. No other nation conducted business with the U.S. instead of directly with the Provisional Government. The letters of de facto recognition from the other nations were also delivered directly to the Provisional Government and neither to the U.S. nor to Lili'uokalani, indicating that the foreign consuls never heard of the "Lili'uokalani Assignment" or else they rejected it. The "Lili'uokalani Assignment" is a figment of Keanu Sai's imagination.

On the afternoon of January 17, 1893, the heavily armed militia of the revolutionary Provisional Government took control of the Government Building on King Street, and read a proclamation abrogating the monarchy. They took over the Treasury, all the other government buildings, and the Honolulu police station. They disarmed the Royal Guard. That same evening, January 17, Lili'uokalani sent a representative to the offices of the Provisional Government in the Government Building, carrying her letter of surrender, which included a protest against the presence of U.S. peacekeepers.

Lili'uokalani did not deliver her surrender/protest to the U.S.

"Shortly after dark [June 17], the Honorable W.H. Cornwell, minister of finance in the Queen's Cabinet, called at the Government Building to bring the Queen's written surrender, signed by the Queen and all the members of her Cabinet. This document contained a protest against the presence of American forces on shore ..." [from Sanford B. Dole's diary as quoted on page 252 of "S.B. Dole and His Hawaii" by Ethel M. Damon, 1957]

Liliuokalani clearly felt it was important for her surrender letter to be delivered to the Provisional Government, because otherwise she feared that the Provisional Government would launch attacks against her. She knew she had nothing to fear from the 162 U.S. peacekeepers, which is why she didn't bother to deliver any surrender to them.

Even if Lili'uokalani thought her letter of surrender, including a protest of the presence of U.S. peacekeepers, was somehow an assignment of authority to the U.S., there is no evidence that the U.S. accepted any such assignment either on that day or at any later time.

Furthermore the U.S. did not exercise any Hawaii governmental authority until several years later, following Annexation, when the U.S. actually owned Hawaii.

The 162 U.S. peacekeepers landed on January 16 to protect American lives and property, and to prevent rioting and arson, at a time when royalists and revolutionaries were holding competing mass meetings and it was clear a revolution would soon happen. The U.S. peacekeepers never patrolled the streets, never took over any buildings, never gave weapons or food or other assistance to the revolutionaries. They gradually returned to their ship during the ensuing several weeks; and however many remained were sent back to their ship on April 1 by order of the newly arrived U.S. Minister Blount. The U.S. never exercised any of the governing authority which Keanu Sai claims it was given by the "Lili'uokalani assignment." The U.S. never acknowledged or agreed to Lili'uokalani's alleged assignment of governing authority to it, and did not exercise any such authority.

On January 17, 1893 everyone already knew the results of the U.S. Presidential election of November 8, 1892. Incoming President Grover Cleveland (Democrat isolationist) was a personal friend of Liliuokalani, so she expected he would help her. That's why she claimed to be surrendering to the U.S. rather than to the Provisional Government that had actually won the revolution. Claiming to surrender to the U.S. was merely a shrewd political ploy by a savvy politician smart enough to know it's better to surrender to a far-away but powerful friend who will help to undo the surrender rather than to the closeup enemy who had actually defeated her.

A ruler can delegate powers or authority to anyone she wishes; but such a delegation of authority has no force or effect unless the recipient agrees to such delegation. The U.S. never made such an agreement. Furthermore, Lili'uokalani's monarchy had already been overthrown; whereupon she no longer had any governmental authority to delegate to anyone.

No other nations having diplomatic relations with Hawaii were informed in 1893 that the U.S. was now administering customs, taxation, and immigration, because in fact the U.S. never exercised such authority until the Organic Act took effect in 1900 to implement the Annexation of 1898.

The fact that all the local consuls granted de facto recognition to the Provisional Government on January 18 or 19 meant that either Lili'uokalani's so-called "assignment" was never delivered to them or else they rejected it as demonstrated by their letters of de facto recognition.

During the Spring, Summer and Fall of 1893, U.S. President Grover Cleveland and his Ministers Plenipotentiary to Hawaii (James Blount, followed by Albert Willis) did everything possible to destabilize the Provisional Government and restore Lili'uokalani to the throne. Far from exercising any powers delegated to it by the fictitious "Lili'uokalani Assignment", the U.S. was utterly impotent to accomplish regime change or anything else in a Hawaii where the Provisional Government was firmly in control despite open hostility from the U.S. Regarding that hostility from the U.S. to the Provisional Government, and the inability of the U.S. to force the Provisional Government to step down despite severe intimidation by the U.S. Navy, see the closing portion of section 3 below.

--------------------

3. Contrary to the assertion of Keanu Sai, there was never an "Executive Agreement of Restoration" between President Grover Cleveland and Queen Lili'uokalani whereby Cleveland promised to restore Lili'uokalani to the throne in return for her promise to give amnesty to the members of the Provisional Government. The Hawaiian revolution took place and Lili'uokalani was overthrown on January 17, but Grover Cleveland did not become U.S. President until March 4. They were never both head of state at the same time; thus there could not be any Executive Agreement between them that would be binding on both nations. U.S. Minister Willis made an offer to Lili'uokalani to serve as mediator between Lili'uokalani and President Dole of the Provisional Government, including the outlines of a possible settlement between Dole and Lili'uokalani. But Dole was never informed of the possible mediation, and the U.S. did not have any power or authority to actually force Dole to resign or to restore the monarchy. When Willis sent a letter to Dole essentially ordering Dole to step down, Dole replied with a letter vehemently rejecting that demand.

As noted above, all the local consuls representing foreign nations, who were present in Honolulu on January 17, 1893, promptly sent letters granting de facto recognition to the Provisional Government. In particular John L. Stevens, U.S. Minister Plenipotentiary, sent such a letter. Here it is:

To the Members of the Executive Council of the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands, Honolulu.
UNITED STATES LEGATION,
Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands, January 17, 1893.
A provisional government having been duly constituted in place of the recent Government of Queen Lilioukalani, and said Provisional Government being in full possession of the Government buildings, the archives, and the treasury, and in control of the capital of the Hawaiian Islands, I hereby recognize said Provisional Government as the de facto Government of the Hawaiian Islands.
JOHN L. STEVENS,
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States.

The U.S. President at that time was Benjamin Harrison, a Republican. Everyone knew that Grover Cleveland, a Democrat and friend of Lili'uokalani, had won the election in November and would be inaugurated on March 4. However, the de facto recognition of the Provisional Government by the U.S., granted on January 17, would remain in full force and effect unless President Cleveland withdrew it. Cleveland never withdrew it. In the eyes of the U.S., on account of the de facto recognition given by the U.S., the only government-to-government relationship could be with President Dole. Therefore Cleveland and his Ministers to Hawaii could only deal with ex-queen Lili'uokalani as a private citizen but not as a sovereign monarch. Thus there could not be either a "Lili'uokalani Assignment" of governing authority to President Cleveand, nor an "Executive Agreement of Restoration" between Cleveland and Lili'uokalani.

Throughout the Spring, Summer and Fall of 1893, President Cleveland and his Minister Plenipotentiary to Hawaii (James Blount followed by Albert Willis), did everything they could to destabilize the Provisional Government and restore Lili'uokalani to the throne. Blount met in private with the royalists and wrote a one-sided report blaming the U.S. peacekeepers for the overthrow of the monarchy. Blount ordred the few remaining U.S. sailors back to their ship, and he ordered the removal of the U.S. flag, which had flown alongside the Hawaiian flag on the Government Building as a sign of stability to reassure American and European residents of their safety.

Willis met secretly with Lili'uokalani to ask whether she would agree to a deal between her and President Dole. The deal was that if Dole would step down and restore Lili'uokalani to the throne, then Lili'uokalani would promise to grant amnesty to the revolutionaries. Willis had not spoken with Dole about this deal at all, but was willing to propose it to Dole if Lili'uokalani would agree to amnesty. But Lili'uokalani vehemently refused any such deal. She insisted she would confiscate the property of the revolutionaries and have them beheaded. Naturally Willis could not take such an offer to Dole! Later Willis asked Lili'uokalani again; and again she insisted on confiscation and beheading. Finally in December, as the ship bearing her rejection of the deal was about to set sail for America, she relented and sent a note saying she would accept the deal. President Dole had still not been informed about this proposal at all!

Was this an Executive Agreement between two heads of state that had the force of a treaty and would be binding upon their successors in office until today? Of course not. There was no document bearing the signatures of both Cleveland and Lili'uokalani, or their plenipotentiaries, that could be regarded as a treaty. Furthermore, Lili'uokalani was no longer head of state in reality and was not regarded as head of state even by the Cleveland administration which was still bound by the de facto recognition, never withdrawn, which the U.S. had given to the Provisional Government.

Furthermore, the U.S. had neither the legal right nor the moral authority to make this agreement with Lili'uokalani without the approval of President Dole. There cannot be an Executive Agreement when one of the executives does not own or control what she is offering. Cleveland and Willis could no more force Dole to step down and restore the Queen, than President Woodrow Wilson in 1917 could have forced Russian President Vladimir Lenin to undo the Russian revolution and restore the Tsar.

Here's an idea. If Mr. Sai agrees to apologize for troubling the Swiss Diplomats with his absurd assertions, then I will agree that Sai can remove the bears from the Bärengraben in Bern and replace them with lions; and this executive agreement between Sai and myself shall be binding upon our children and their descendants forever. Too bad I never got approval from the leaders of Bern for my executive agreement with Mr. Sai. Das schadet!

Perhaps after Lili'uokalani's last-minute change of heart it might be said there was an agreement between Cleveland and Lili'uokalani to offer to President Dole the services of the U.S. as mediator and to offer to Dole the deal of amnesty in exchange for stepping down. That's the maximum interpretation of any possible "Executive Agreement" between Cleveland and Lili'uokalani, and it is merely an agreement that Willis has the approval of Lili'uokalani to present the proposal to Dole to see whether Dole will accept it.

A fascinating exchange of letters in late December between Willis and Dole shows that Willis indeed tried to carry out his mediation by presenting the deal to Dole. But President Dole adamantly refused to step down, and President Cleveland had already sent a message to Congress turning over the matter to them. See full text of letters in December 1893 from Minister Willis to President Dole demanding Dole step down
http://tinyurl.com/6zlct
and from President Dole to Minister Willis saying, in effect, "Hell no, and stop interfering in the internal affairs of my country!"
http://tinyurl.com/8y6jo

Because Cleveland referred the matter to Congress in Decemner 1893, the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs held hearings in January and February, 1894, resulting in the 808-page Morgan Report which found that the Hawaiian revolution was homegrown and was not caused by U.S. actions; and also resulted in the Turpie Resolution of May 31, 1894, whereby the Senate ordered President Cleveland to keep hands off Hawaii, and warned other nations to do likewise.

President Cleveland's efforts to overthrow the Provisional Government were not merely diplomatic maneuvering. At exactly the same time as Willis was trying to get Dole to step down, Cleveland was also using the U.S. Navy to try to intimidate the Provisional Government into resigning.

William M. Morgan Ph.D, (no relation to Senator James T. Morgan of the 1894 Morgan Report), has a Ph.D. in History from Claremont Graduate University. According to information about his book at amazon.com, Dr. Morgan was a Foreign Service officer in the Department of State for more than 30 years, and lived in Japan for 13 years, first as a Marine lieutenant in 1971-72 and then three assignments in the Foreign Service. His State Department domestic jobs included Director of the Japan-Korea desk of the old U.S. Information Agency, Acting Director of the International Visitor Leadership Program, and Director of Analysis for East Asia and the Pacific in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. During 2007-09, he taught U.S.-Japan relations and National Security and Public Diplomacy at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service while on "detail" from the State Department. The author's background shows he has expert knowledge and credentials in history and diplomacy.

Dr. Morgan recently published a major book: "Pacific Gibraltar: U.S.-Japanese Rivalry over the Annexation of Hawaii, 1885-1898" (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2011). The following excerpts from pages 132-134 tell a fascinating story which hardly anyone today knows about.

"Unaware that his political bosses had thrown in the towel, Willis strove mightily to get the restoration policy back on track. The denouement -- popularly called Black Week -- began at dawn on December 14. The Corwin, with Gresham's revised instructions aboard, arrived flying the American flag, ... which caused a great crowd of Hawaiians to gather at the landing. Everyone expected a message to order Willis to restore the queen immediately, by force if necessary. ... While the legation staff decrypted the short cipher, thousands of people thronged the wharves hoping to see the Americans land. The captains of the British warship Champion, the Japanese cruiser Naniwa, and the USS Adams came aboard the Philadelphia to decide who would guard which portions of the city. Captain Evan Rooke of the Champion expected forcible restoration and promised one hundred British tars for patrol after he secured the British legation and the Anglican church, where Her Majesty's citizens might take refuge. Captain Barker readied the Philadelphia's landing parties' boats in the water beside the cruiser and guns and supplies stacked on deck. ... Sanford Dole called this tense situation 'warfare without the incidence of actual combat.' Willis intentionally prolonged the psychological offensive. He knew that only the threat of force might induce the provisional government to resign. On December 16 Willis reinterviewed the queen. Joseph Carter accompanied Lili'uokalani because Willis suggested she bring a trusted advisor. ... But when Willis asked about amnesty, the queen again demurred. There was no need for a death penalty, but supporters of the provisional government must be expelled and their property confiscated. Twice the queen refused to offer amnesty, so the second interview ended. As Willis prepared a report to go out on the Corwin that evening, Carter called to say that yet another meeting with the queen might produce the desired result. Willis hurried to Washington Place. Lili'uokalani seems not to have understood or at least not cared that, unless she agreed to Cleveland's amnesty precondition, she would never get back on the throne. ... perhaps she believed Willis would restore her no matter what her attitude. This feeling, if she had it, must have been daily strengthened by the all-so-public and intimidating 'readiness' posture of American forces. If so, the intimidation posture backfired on Gresham, making the queen more stubborn. Carter tried to help, giving a little speech about forgiveness, but for the third time, the monarch refused to accede. Lili'uokalani read and approved the notes of the meeting. That evening, as the Corwin prepared to sail, Carter telephoned that the queen now accepted the amnesty precondition and would deliver a written promise, which she did. Willis postponed the cutter's departure and gathered himself for what was sure to be a tense meeting with Dole the next day. Dole met Willis in 'Iolani Palace with the other council members ... Speaking carefully from prepared remarks, Willis ... described Lili'uokalani's guarantees of amnesty for the rebels and displayed her signed promise. The executive council should therefore 'promptly relinquish to her, her constitutional authority.' Willis asked, 'Are you willing to abide by the decision of the President?' They were not, but to gain time they replied that the matter would be carefully considered. ... On December 22 the steamer arrived not only with better news but also with Lorrin Thurston aboard, who outlined the antirestoration atmosphere in Washington. Now certain that force would not be used, Dole told Willis the provisional government would not yield. The crisis was over."

The Morgan Report of February 26, 1894 and the Turpie Resolution of May 31, 1894 were strong repudiations of U.S. MInister Willis' diplomatic demands in December 1893 and President Cleveland's military maneuvers in December 1893 to force President Dole to step down. Congress had clearly never been informed of any alleged executive agreement of restoration between Cleveland and Lili'uokalani, and none of the Congressional supporters of restoration ever mentioned the alleged agreement, which they surely would have mentioned if it had existed.

----------------------

4. The revolutionary Provisional Government held a Constitutional Convention, which wrote a Constitution for a permanent Republic of Hawaii (incidentally, there are at least 5 native Hawaiian names on the list of con-con delegates, and native Hawaiian John Kaulukou, formerly a supporter of the monarchy, was elected as Speaker of the House for the Republic of Hawaii). During the Fall of 1894, letters were received granting de jure recognition to the Republic, personally signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 19 nations on 4 continents in 11 languages. One of those letters was signed by the Swiss federal counsel [Attorney General] on behalf of the President of the Swiss Confederation, and also countersigned by the Chancellor of the Swiss Confederation (photo provided). Switzerland (and the other nations) thereby formally recognized the Republic as the rightful government of Hawaii. No foreign nation filed any protest or removed its diplomats. As the internationally recognized de jure government of Hawaii from 1894 to 1898, standing on its own despite initial U.S. efforts to destabilize it, the Republic had full authority to offer and ratify the Treaty of Annexation.

See "Republic of Hawaii Constitution adopted July 4, 1894", including the list of delegates to the convention and a link to the text of the Constitution. at
http://tinyurl.com/dmyf82

President Dole gave the local consuls of foreign nations copies of the Constitution and asked them to notify their home offices and to request formal recognition de jure.

During the Fall of 1894, letters were received granting de jure recognition to the Republic, personally signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 19 nations on 4 continents in 11 languages. Included are letters signed by Queen Victoria of Britain, Tsar Alexander III of Russia, Emperor Wilhelm of Prussia, President Casimir Perier of the Republic of France, King Umberto of Italy, Princes Kung and Ching on behalf of Emperor Kuangsu of China, King Alfonso XIII of Spain, President Grover Cleveland of the United States, and others. Photos of those 19 letters signed by heads of state, plus accompanying cover letters from ministers of foreign affairs, English translations, envelopes, etc. are on the internet, along with the formal letter of Abdication and Oath of Loyalty to the Republic of Hawaii personally signed by ex-queen Lili'uokalani and witnessed by all members of her cabinet. In case Keanu Sai wants to claim that Lili'uokalani was still the head of state of the Kingdom of Hawaii as late as 1895, her letter of Abdication and Oath of Loyalty put her on record formally recognizing the Republic as the legitimate government of Hawaii, along with those other 19 heads of state. The photographs can be seen at
http://www.angelfire.com/big11a/RepublicLettersRecog.html

Switzerland was one of the nations granting de jure recognition to the Republic of Hawaii. A two-page letter in French was dated September 11, 1894, addressed to President Sanford B. Dole. The letter was signed by the Swiss federal counsel [Attorney General] on behalf of the President of the Swiss Confederation, and also countersigned by the Chancellor of the Swiss Confederation. The Swiss Foreign Minister [Secretary of State] also sent a cover letter to his Hawaiian counterpart (Minister of Foreign Affairs Francis M. Hatch) to accompany the letter to President Dole. No English translations have survived. The original Swiss letters are in the Archives of the State of Hawaii. Photos of them are available at
http://tinyurl.com/4mzcv9

No foreign nation filed any protest about the establishment of the permanent Republic of Hawaii, or removed its diplomats. As the internationally recognized de jure government of Hawaii from 1894 to 1898, standing on its own despite initial U.S. efforts to destabilize it, the Republic had full authority to offer and ratify the Treaty of Annexation.

If there had been a "Lili'uokalani Assignment" or an "Executive Agreement of Restoration", surely the local consuls in Honolulu would have notified their home offices and urged them not to grant recognition de jure. Clearly none of them had heard about the alleged Assignment or Agreement; or else they all realized there was no Assignment or Agreement that would be binding on their nations.

-------------------

5. In 1897 diplomats for the Republic of Hawaii and the United States met in Washington D.C. and negotiated a Treaty of Annexation which was signed and sealed by the Secretaries of State of both nations. The Senate of the Republic of Hawaii unanimously passed a resolution later that year ratifying the Treaty. In 1898 the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution of the House and Senate ratifying the Treaty, which was signed by President McKinley. Article III, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Annexation makes clear that all treaties between the nation of Hawaii and other nations were thereby extinguished; and of course that includes the 1864 treaty between Hawaii and Switzerland. None of the nations that had treaties with Hawaii objected; all of them condoned annexation by their continuing relationship with the U.S, thereby continuously acknowledging U.S. sovereignty in Hawaii and condoning the extinguishment of previous international treaties with the Kingdom of Hawaii.

The Treaty of Annexation negotiated between Hawaii and the United States was signed and sealed on June 16, 1897 in Washington D.C. by the plenipotentiaries of the Presidents of both nations. For United States President William McKinley, the plenipotentiary who signed was John Sherman (Secretary of State). For Republic of Hawaii President Sanford B. Dole, the plenipotentiaries who signed were Francis March Hatch (Minister of Foreign Affairs), and annexation Commissioners Lorrin A. Thurston and William A. Kinney.

The Treaty of Annexation was unanimously ratified by a resolution of the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii on September 9, 1897. Following several months of political maneuvering in Washington, the Treaty of Annexation was ratified by the U.S. Congress by a joint resolution passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on June 15, 1898 by vote of 209–91, passed by the U.S. Senate on July 6, 1898 by vote of 42-21, and signed by President William McKinley on July 7th, 1898.

Article III, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Annexation makes clear that the treaty between Hawaii and Switzerland, along with all other treaties between the nation of Hawaii and other nations, were hereby extinguished.

"The existing treaties of the Hawaiian Islands with foreign nations shall forthwith cease and determine, being replaced by such treaties as may exist, or as may be hereafter concluded, between the United States and such foreign nations. The municipal legislation of the Hawaiian Islands, not enacted for the fulfillment of the treaty (treaties) so extinguished , and not inconsistent with this treaty, nor contrary to the Constitution of the United States, nor to any existing treaty of the United States, shall remain in force until the Congress of the United States shall otherwise determine."

For more details, see "Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now." at
http://tinyurl.com/2748fgg

The Swiss Confederation neither protested nor suspended diplomatic relations with the independent nation of Hawaii nor with the United States at any time during the period from 1864 to now. That includes the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 and establishment of the revolutionary Provisional Government, the establishment of the permanent Republic of Hawaii in 1894, the annexation of Hawaii to become a territory of the United States in 1898 (including explicit termination of all Hawaiian treaties), Organic Act of 1900 for U.S. governance of Hawaii, and Hawaii's full integration as the 50th state of the United States in 1959. Switzerland has acquiesced in and acknowledged the extinguishment of its Hawaii treaty of 1864 by virtue of Switzerland's lack of protest and continuous diplomatic recognition of the United States throughout the entire period from 1864 to now, and especially Switzerland's diplomatic relations with the Provisional Government of Hawaii, Switzerland's diplomatic relations with the Republic of Hawaii, and Switzerland's uninterrupted maintenance of dipomatic relations with the United states, without protest, during the period from 1898 to 1900 when the Treaty of Annexation and Organic Act for U.S. governance of Hawaii were implemented.

Keanu Sai and other Hawaiian sovereignty activists like to say that a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress can only exercise authority over what happens inside the borders of the U.S. They say that such municipal legislation lacks the power to reach outside the U.S. to grab Hawaii or any other territory. But such an analysis does not apply to the annexation of Hawaii, for many reasons.

The U.S. did not simply reach out and grab Hawaii without Hawaii's permission. The first step was taken by Hawaii, which offered a Treaty of Annexation to the U.S. The U.S. then accepted that offer. Hawaii not only gave its permission -- it was eager. The Senate of the Republic of Hawaii voted unanimously on September 9, 1897 to pass the Hawaii resolution ratifying the Treaty of Annexation. More than nine months later, in June and July of 1898, the U.S. House and Senate passed the U.S. resolution ratifying the Treaty. There was opposition to the Treaty both inside Hawaii and inside the U.S., but in both nations the internationally recognized governments had the right to make such decisions. In the U.S. the Treaty was never defeated in the Senate, contrary to what some Hawaiian activists like to say. As often happens with controversial legislation, the supporters were concerned that they lacked enough votes to pass it. So they decided not to bring it to the floor for a vote until after the House passed it. Then, the following month, it passed the Senate by a vote of 42-21 and was signed by President McKinley.

The method a nation uses to accept or ratify a treaty is entirely an internal matter for that nation alone to decide. The U.S. used the procedure known as "joint resolution" to ratify the Treaty of Annexation with Hawaii. That same procedure had been used half a century earlier in the annexation of Texas, thus establishing a precedent in U.S. law. Some say Texas was not a precedent for Hawaii because Texas was annexed with full status as a State whereas Hawaii was annexed only as a Territory. But clearly, if joint resolution was acceptable for annexation of something as important as a State, then it is also acceptable for the less important status as a Territory. In any case the decision what method to use for ratifying the Treaty of Annexation was a matter for the U.S. alone to decide. The Annexation of Hawaii was hotly debated in Congress. There were many Senators who opposed it. If those opponents had believed it was illegal to use joint resolution as the method to ratify the Treaty of Annexation, then those opponents could have filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court claiming that the Constitution prohibited it. But no such lawsuit was filed. It is true that a joint resolution is municipal legislation which can only affect what happens inside the U.S. The decision whether the U.S. chooses to accept and ratify a Treaty is an internal matter for the U.S. alone to decide through its own internal political process. That's why joint resolution is an acceptable method for the U.S. to use to decide whether the U.S. will ratify a Treaty.

------------------

6. Keanu Sai is an adventurer with a history of highly publicized scams that brought him fame and fortune: Perfect Title; (so-called) World Court; new round of real estate title insurance claims based on bogus Lili'uokalani Assignment and Executive Agreement; Lawsuit in U.S. federal court demanding fulfillment in 2010 of the alleged Executive Agreement of 1893; allegations of war crimes against Hawaii judges and prosecutors filed with International Criminal Court. Like some other Hawaiian sovereignty activists he has built a crowd of devoted followers, who bask in the glow of his charismatic self-assurance.

There is never a reality check, because nobody demands accountability or conducts cross-examination. He produces writings and lectures, including a Ph.D. dissertation and academic panel discussions, where nobody is allowed or has the courage to challenge his statements or to present opposing views.

The only occasion I know of during the past 20 years when anyone publicly challenged Keanu Sai's twisted version of history occurred in August 2011 when I published a webpage and a summary of it in an online newspaper. The webpage is "So-called executive agreements between Hawaii Queen Liliuokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland -- the new Hawaiian history scam by Keanu Sai" at
http://tinyurl.com/3vdttyp
The summary published in Hawaii Reporter online newspaper, along with Keanu Sai's reply also published in Hawaii Reporter, are placed together as a "dialog" along with online comments at
http://tinyurl.com/6hxvtg8

The essay I wrote provided an analysis of Sai's claims about the alleged Lili'uokalani Assignment and the alleged Executive Agreement of Restoration, making some of the rebuttals summarized in points 1-6 of the present essay. Apparently my essay was circulated among Mr. Sai's disciples and acolytes, who apparently urged him to write a response. But his response was very peculiar because it did not in any way address the points I had written about. Mr. Sai merely repeated his usual assertions, and in addition he launched a personal attack against me, calling me a sad and angry man, questioning whether I have a Ph.D., and saying I lack sufficient expertise to have any right to challenge his assertions. But my points are easily verifiable historical facts combined with clear and logical conclusions which any well-educated person can recognize without special expertise. Mr. Sai's refusal to deal with them in an honest and straightforward way demonstrates the weakness of his assertions and the arrogance of his self-righteousness.

I encourage your group of Swiss Diplomats to cross examine Mr. Sai most stringently instead of merely applauding and sending him to his next adventure. The points raised in my letter will help you get to the truth.

The purpose of this section 6 is not to pillory or demean Keanu Sai. Rather the purpose of section 6 is to review Sai's long career of making bogus claims about Hawaiian history and international law. His repeated assertion of these claims, accompanied by great publicity, poses a danger which can be alleviated through public exposure and debunking. Sai's apparent purpose has been to gather public attention to his claims, to cause confusion in Hawaii's real estate market and legal system, and ultimately to cause loss of public confidence in the sovereignty of the State of Hawaii and the United States of America. Mr. Sai seems to be following Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" -- keep repeating propaganda so often that people come to believe it; don't respond to criticism; make personal attacks to discredit your opponents so people won't pay attention to them.

Mr. Sai's previous and ongoing scams have enriched himself and his colleagues by hundreds of thousands of dollars and have caused innocent people to be unable to sell their homes or get mortgages on them because of unwarranted "clouds" on their land titles created by Mr. Sai for political purposes.

Title insurance companies have been forced to spend time and money in court proceedings to defend themselves against claims for payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars per house for allegedly defective property deeds whose alleged defect is that previous property transfers were never valid solely because, according to Mr. Sai, the territorial or state government which certified the transfers was not the legitimate government of Hawaii.

Most recently Mr. Sai and his colleagues have tried to undermine public confidence in Hawaii's legal system by intimidating state and county police, prosecutors and judges so they will stop enforcing the laws. The attempted intimidation was done by filing accusations with the International Criminal Court alleging that police, prosecutors and judges who enforce eviction orders are guilty of war crimes. Mr. Sai's theory is that the Kingdom of Hawaii remains sovereign, and that it is under a prolonged belligerent military occupation by the U.S.; and that according to international law an occupier is obligated to uphold the domestic laws of the occupied nation. Thus, according to this theory, it is a war crime to enforce the eviction of homeowners from properties which have been foreclosed due to non-payment of mortgages when the mortgages lack validity because property transfers were certified by illegal territorial and state governments. Perhaps the filing of war crimes complaints against Hawaii police, prosecutors and judges should be regarded as a form of terroristic threatening against those individuals and against the State of Hawaii. Anarchy would ensue if police, prosecutors and judges are afraid to do their jobs on account of threats that the International Criminal Court will issue arrest warrants against them.

If the "Swiss Diplomats" allow Mr. Sai to give his presentation without adequately cross-examining him, then the "Swiss Diplomats" will become accessories to the furtherance of his con-artistry. He will say to his future victims "See, the Swiss Diplomats listened to my presentation and gave me their blessing."

Retired University of Hawaii Professor Niklaus Schweizer is expected to be present at the November 11 meeting of the Swiss Diplomats. I know from personal observation that Professor Schweizer has frequently engaged in public meetings and panel discussions in Honolulu whose purpose was to support the theories of Keanu Sai and especially to try to convince the people of Hawaii that Hawaii retains its sovereignty as an independent nation under belligerent military occupation by the United States. Of course Professor Schweizer has every right to exercise freedom of speech to express his views, however absurd they may be and however hostile they are to the governments of the State of Hawaii and the United States. But during the time Professor Schweizer was proclaiming his opinions, he was also serving as Honorary Consul for the Swiss Confederation. Switzerland maintains full diplomatic relations with the U.S., and remains bound by its 1894 letter granting de jure recognition to the Republic of Hawaii, and by its continuous diplomatic relationship with the U.S. thereby condoning the Treaty of Annexation of 1898 including the provision terminating prior treaties between Hawaii and other nations including Switzerland. I believe that Professor Schweizer's frequent public expressions of opinion hostile to U.S. sovereignty in Hawaii were grossly inappropriate for someone serving as a diplomatic representative of Switzerland. The "Swiss Diplomats" group might wish to take the opportunity of his presence on November 11 to reprimand Professor Schweizer for his diplomatic misbehavior in abusing his title as Honorary Consul to create a false impression that Switzerland somehow agrees with his misguided personal views on the political status of Hawaii.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. So let's turn over some rocks to expose the slime lying beneath them.

-----------------

THE PERFECT TITLE SCAM

In 1995 David Keanu Sai began a process to proclaim himself Regent Pro-Tem of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The Bureau of Conveyances of the State of Hawaii provides a repository where anyone can file documents that are officially recorded as having been filed. Most such documents are records of transfer of land title following legitimate sales. But some people file very strange personal declarations or ideological documents just for the pleasure of seeing them officially recorded. Mr. Sai laid a paper trail at the Bureau of Conveyances that he claimed would follow procedures under Kingdom law to make him the official Regent pro-tem of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the absence of the monarch, the cabinet, and the Kingdom legislature.

Having declared himself Regent Pro-tem, Keanu Sai launched a series of lectures throughout Hawaii, including on public television, saying that all land title in Hawai'i is clouded because of the history of illegal overthrow, annexation, and statehood. He further told people that "native tenants" during the Kingdom had special rights which were never extinguished, including the right to claim fee-simple ownership of a parcel of land for their own residence so long as that parcel did not already have a validly recorded deed. Once he was officially Regent pro-tem, Keanu Sai then claimed the authority to officially condone and certify prior land title transfers that had been recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances during the periods of the Kingdom, (illegal) Republic, (illegal) Territory, and (illegal) State. Thus, people could pay a fee to Keanu Sai to have him research the chain of land title to their property and then to record a warranty deed signed by the "Regent pro-tem" at the Bureau of Conveyances, thereby assuring them that their property would be safe. In addition, "native" tenants not already owning property could pay Keanu Sai a title search fee to discover the chain of title to any property they liked, and if the title was not valid (which always happened!) then they could have Sai file a warranty deed to the property in their name. A real estate title search company was established under the name "Perfect Title" to manage the title searches, collect the fees, and process the paperwork. Each client ended up paying somewhere between $1500 to $2000 for the title search, warranty deed, and recording fees; and news reports indicated there were at least 400 clients.

On December 1, 1999 Mr. Sai was found guilty of a felony (attempted theft of title to a house). Not even one juror had any reasonable belief that Mr. Sai's fanciful theories could possibly be correct because, as Mr. Sai had argued during the trial, if his theories are correct then there would not have been any theft because the rightful owners of a house cannot steal it. The ordinary people of the multiracial jury gave their unanimous verdict beyond a reasonable doubt based on commonsense.

A very generous and sympathetic judge sentenced Mr. Sai to 5 years probation and a fine of $200. What a joke! Hundreds of thousands of dollars had been taken from gullible clients of the bogus title company for title searches and warranty deeds that were worthless. Dozens of genuine realtors and their clients were unable to do business because of "clouds" on titles resulting from bogus document filings. But the judge did not impose any requirement for restitution. She even announced at sentencing that she sympathized with Mr. Sai's self-sacrifice as a political protester, and she announced that Mr. Sai, even though on probation, would be allowed to travel to Europe for his next big "World Court" scam.

If the verdict had been appealed, then judges and legal scholars would also be able to sustain the verdict that Sai's theories are false. At first Mr. Sai said he would appeal the verdict as a way of proving his theories. If he truly believes his theories, that's what he should have done. But in view of his slap-on-the-wrist penalty, Mr. Sai apparently decided not to appeal, perhaps for fear his theories would be further discredited and perhaps for fear he would go to prison if the absurdly light sentence was also appealed by the government. An appeal was filed with the Hawaii Supreme Court by two of Mr. Sai's co-defendants, Carol Simafranca and Michael Simafranca, who lost their appeal. But it appears that neither Mr. Sai nor his business partner Donald Lewis appealed. See the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision at
http://hawaii.gov/jud/23332sdo.htm

A large webpage contains news reports and commentaries about the Perfect Title scam covering several years. See
http://tinyurl.com/nq5vs3

------------------

THE "WORLD COURT" SCAM

On December 1, 1999 Keanu Sai had been sentenced to 5 years probation and a fine of $200 for his felony conviction related to the Perfect Title scam which had cost many hundreds of clients many hundreds of thousands of dollars for worthless title searches and warranty deeds, and had placed clouds on the legitimate property deeds of many hundreds of innocent people. But the judge praised Mr. Sai as an idealist working peacefully for social change, and she gave him permission to travel to the Netherlands on his next great adventure.

Less than three weeks later Keanu Sai staged a 6-hour fundraiser and propaganda festival on the grounds of Iolani Palace. The event was televised live as an infomercial on KFVE from 4-10 PM on Sunday December 19, 1999. It appears that no report was ever published accounting for how much money was raised from the telethon, or how it was spent. The telethon's website also contains numerous detailed documents which were filed during the subsequent hearing at The Hague
http://www.alohaquest.com/

Here's what happened in "World Court." Two friends agree that the Hawaiian Kingdom was illegally overthrown, and the annexation of Hawaii to the U.S. was done illegally. They agree that the laws of the Kingdom of Hawaii still are the rightful laws of Hawaii today. One of these friends, Lance Larsen, repeatedly gets arrested for driving a car in Hawaii while failing to have a license plate and drivers' license issued by the State of Hawaii. Larsen refuses to pay the fines, and continues to defy State law. He gets thrown in jail for 30 days. He claims the State of Hawaii is not the rightful government and has no jurisdiction over him. Meanwhile, his friend Keanu Sai claims to be the Regent Pro-Tem of the Kingdom of Hawaii, having followed the laws of the Kingdom to establish himself in that office. The two of them cook up a scheme whereby Lance will sue Keanu, as acting head of state, for failing to protect Lance, a subject of the Kingdom, against the illegal actions of an illegal State of Hawaii. And just to make it complete, Lance also sues the United States and all the other nations that had treaty relationships with the Kingdom, claiming that they also had a duty under their treaties to protect Lance against harrassment from an illegal invader.

Through various maneuvers Sai and Larsen end up agreeing to have their "dispute" settled by a panel of three arbitrators at the permanent court of arbitration for international business disputes at the Hague (Netherlands). Sai and his followers glorify this arbitration panel by calling it the "World Court" or the "International Court of Justice at the Hague" as though it's the same court that presides over trials of war criminals and major boundary and jurisdictional disputes between nations. As in any arbitration, the "judges" are required to accept without question anything and everything which the plaintiff and defendant agree upon -- and in this case that includes hundreds of pages of false and twisted assertions about the history of Hawaii, the illegal overthrow of the monarchy, the illegal invasion and prolonged occupation of Hawaii by the U.S., and the assertion that the Kingdom of Hawaii has continuously remained the rightful, de jure government from 1810 through the present. The only dispute between Sai and Larsen is whether Sai must pay any damages to Larsen for failing to protect him against the illegal occupation by the U.S. and its puppet regime the State of Hawaii. In the end even the three arbitrators, who were each paid a fee of $10,000 by Sai/Larsen, cannot keep a straight face; and they dismiss the case on the grounds that the only real dispute is with the U.S. which is not a party to and not present at the arbitration. Sai then loudly proclaims that the International Court of Justice at the Hague has ruled that the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist and is under illegal belligerent military occupation by the U.S.

See a more detailed analysis of the World Court scam, including a sarcastic spoof entitled "Conklin vs. Santa Claus for Non-delivery of Presents; U.S. to pay damages to both" at
http://tinyurl.com/6lny5

-----------------

LAULIMA REAL ESTATE FORECLOSURE TITLE INSURANCE SCAM based on bogus Lili'uokalani Assignment and Executive Agreement

In summer 2011 people were reportedly paying $2900 to a real estate firm "Laulima LLC" in Kea'au, the Puna district of Hawaii Island, for a slightly individualized printed standard document the size of a book which, the customers are told, they can submit in court during foreclosure proceedings. If a homeowner fails to pay his mortgage, and the bank or mortgage company files for foreclosure to take possession of the home, the owner can file a notice with the court claiming that there's a defect in the title and demanding that the title insurance company must therefore pay off the mortgage. The alleged defect in the title is that all the transfers of ownership since 1893 have been improper because the governments of the Provisional Government, Territory, and State of Hawaii were illegal and thus unable to certify any title transfers. So the current homeowner, who borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy the home, can now demand payment in full by the insurance company that issued a policy insuring the validity of the title. Laulima encourgages its clients to believe that the title search and bogus history lesson abut the alleged Lili'uokalani Assignment and the Executive Agreement of Restoration can be filed with the court as proof of the defect in the title and that the court will then order the title search company to pay the insurance to settle the mortgage. Indeed there might be some greedy clients who take a large mortgage on a house knowing that they intend not to pay, in order to provoke the mortgage company to file foreclosure, in the expectation that they can then rely on documents generated by Laulima to demand payment by the title insurance company and end up owning a house whose mortgage has now been paid.

Has Laulima company, Kale Gumapac, or Keanu Sai committed a fraud? Morally perhaps, but probably not according to the legal definition. Laulima did what it was hired to do: research tracing a particular property title as it was transferred from owner to owner from 1850 to now, and produce a report. Keanu Sai qualifies as an "expert" on account of his Ph.D., so his book about the Lili'uokalai Assignment and Executive Agreement of Restoration can be submitted to the court as "expert analysis" or "expert testimony", which is what the client paid for. The client loses his home and the fees he paid to Laulima when the court rules against him; but the client is an adult who freely and knowingly paid Laulima thousands of dollars to purchase the documents and who made the decision to rely on them in court.

The title insurance company lost whatever money it had to pay its attorneys to defeat the client's demand for payment of the title insurance; but after a few such cases the title insurance attorneys no doubt develop a set of standard defense documents and a routine script for courtroom litigation. Any title insurance company must defend itself against each claim made against it, and would probably have a very hard time proving that numerous claimants somehow conspired to abuse the legal system by asserting the same bogus claims with the same bogus Laulima documents. An increase in the fee for title insurance paid by all customers would more than make up for the costs of litigation in the few cases where a defense must be presented against the claims made by Laulima. The situation is similar to what happens when a few medical patients file lawsuits for malpractice -- doctors begin practicing defensive medicine by ordering more tests that might be medically unnecessary but will help defend against accusations of malpractice; the insurance companies raise the premiums they charge to offset the need to defend against or settle frivolous lawsuits; the doctors charge higher fees to patients to offset the higher premiums for insurance; so in the end we all pay because a few con artists take advantage of weaknesses in a system that normally functions on trust.

So in the end the losers are the people who buy title insurance and must pay a higher price for it whether or not they ever use the services of Laulima. The losers are also the particular clients of Laulima who lost their homes and also paid thousands of dollars to Laulima in hopes of somehow beating the system and getting a free house.

But the biggest losers are the people of Hawaii who might begin to question the stability and reliability of Hawaii's land title system. Then they might begin to doubt the stability and legitimacy of the sovereign State of Hawaii. And that is precisely the outcome sought by Keanu Sai and his colleagues at Laulima, who are getting rich from the fees they charge to gullible clients even while working toward their political goal of creating chaos.

A Facebook page for Laulima Title Search & Claims LLC is at
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Laulima-Title-Search-Claims-LLC/202487183128079

In February 2011 Kale Gumapac, President of Laulima LLC, gave testimony in the Hawaii legislature regarding several bills under consideration concerning non-judicial foreclosure. Seven densely printed pages of testimony clearly show how the Laulima title search company is pursuing the same sort of claims made in Keanu Sai's Perfect Title scam, and how those claims are now amplified by Sai's Executive Agreements scam. See
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2011/testimony/SB1175_TESTIMONY_CPN_02-02-2011_LATE.pdf

A Google search will show the intimate relationship among Keanu Sai, Kale Gumapac, Mahealani Ventura-Oliver, and many other Hawaiian sovereignty scammers; use the keywords: Gumapac Laulima Mahealani Ventura

Keanu Sai, and his co-conspirator attorney Dexter Kaiama, have produced video panel discussions in the home of Kale Gumapac in which they explain the theory behind their Laulima realty scam. The videos have been broadcast on public-access television on several islands, and can also be viewed on Laulima's website at
http://laulimatitle.com
and especially at the bottom of the media subpage at
http://laulimatitle.com/media/

Resolution HCR107 in the Hawaii legislature of 2011 was based on Keanu Sai's new Executive Agreements scam. As passed by the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs, it required a joint committee of the House and Senate to hold hearings under oath, with powers of subpoena and contempt, to propagandize on behalf of Sai's scam. See text and status of the resolution, and testimony submitted to the committee, at
http://tinyurl.com/4t5pecj

The resolution HCR107 passed the Hawaiian Affairs committee but died in the legislature when other committees having jurisdiction refused to hold hearings; and the resolution has not been reintroduced since then. But a lot of time and money were wasted on it nevertheless. And a lot of publicity was generated for the Laulima company and for Keanu Sai's bogus theories of a Lili'uokalani Assignment and an Executive Agreement of Restoration.

-------------

"DAVID KEANU SAI V. BARACK OBAMA ET AL." -- SAI LATER TRIED TO ADD 35 FOREIGN NATIONS AS DEFENDANTS

In June 2010 Keanu Sai filed a lawsuit "David Keanu Sai v. Barack Obama, et al." in U.S. the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. demanding fulfillment in 2013 of the alleged Executive Agreement of 1893. Many documents in the lawsuit, and some special explanations or clarifications by Keanu Sai, can be found on Sai's special webpage for the lawsuit at
http://hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml

As can be seen on the webpage, eventually Keanu Sai filed documents with the court to add as defendants the Swiss Confederation and 34 other nations which have consulates in Hawaii. In response I sent messages to the national ambassadors and local Hawaii consuls for many of those nations. My message to the ambassador and local consul for Austria is posted on a webpage I created "Helping foreign diplomats understand the history of U.S. sovereignty in Hawaii and the legitimacy of the relationship between their nations and Hawaii" at
http://www.angelfire.com/big09a/SaiForeignDiplomats.html

A search of the internet shows that Sai's lawsuit was apparently dismissed by the court because it poses a political question which is a matter for the legislative branch of government and is outside the jurisdiction of the courts. But unfortunately Sai himself has failed to update his lawsuit webpage. Perhaps the outcome of the lawsuit was too embarrassing for him to reveal.

Mr. Sai's attempt to add dozens of nations as defendants in his 2010 lawsuit displays his willingness to harass innocent people, not only in Hawaii but throughout the world, in the course of seeking publicity for his bogus claims about history. Attorneys in the U.S. government, and the judge, were also forced to waste taxpayer dollars dealing with this frivolous lawsuit.

--------------

ALLEGATIONS OF WAR CRIMES AGAINST HAWAII JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS FILED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

http://hawaiiankingdom.org/warcrimes.shtml
** Hawaiian Kingdom website, author Keanu Sai
Retrieved October 4, 2013

Mr. Sai claims that the annexation of Hawaii in 1898, and the Statehood Act of 1959, were both illegal under terms of the Lili'uokalani Assignment and the Executive Agreement of Restoration, of 1893. He says they are war crimes under international law because they are usurpations of Hawaii's rightful sovereignty. Particular charges of war crimes have been filed with the International Criminal Court, against the following people, for their actions in recent years against Hawaiian Kingdom subjects:

On August 20, 2012, Judge Glenn S. Hara, Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai'i, was reported to the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit, Geneva, Switzerland, for war crimes.
War Crime. Willfully depriving a person a fair and regular trial (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV; also Article 14(1), 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
War Crime Victim. Elaine E. Kawasaki
Court proceeding—Docket number: 3CC 11-1-0106 (GSH)

On August 20, 2012, Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i, was reported to the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit, Geneva, Switzerland, for war crimes.
War Crime. Willfully depriving a person a fair and regular trial (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV; also Article 14(1), 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
War Crime Victim. Francis E. Chandler, III
Court proceeding—Docket number: CR. NO. 10-00134 LEK

On August 20, 2012, Judge Greg Nakamura, Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai'i, was reported to the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit, Geneva, Switzerland, for war crimes.
War Crime. Willfully depriving a person a fair and regular trial (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV; also Article 14(1), 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
War Crime Victim. Harris Bright
Court proceeding—Docket number: 3CC 11-1-0389
War Crime. Willfully depriving a person a fair and regular trial (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV; also Article 14(1), 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
War Crime Victim. Kale Kepekaio Gumapac
Court proceeding—Docket number: 3CC 11-1-0590
War Crime. Willfully depriving a person a fair and regular trial (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV; also Article 14(1), 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
War Crime Victim. Samson Okapua Kamakea, Sr. & Talia Pomaikai Kamakea, husband and wife
Court proceeding—Docket number: 3CC 11-1-0234

On August 20, 2012, Judge Barbara T. Takase, District Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai'i, was reported to the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit, Geneva, Switzerland, for war crimes.
War Crime. Willfully depriving a person a fair and regular trial (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV; also Article 14(1), 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
War Crime Victims. Landish K. and Robin R. Armitage, husband and wife Court proceeding—Docket number: 3RC 11-1-1142

--------------------

** This bigislandvideonews article was added to Ken Conklin's webpage on December 22, 2013.

http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2013/12/17/video-series-testing-hawaiian-sovereignty/

DECEMBER 17, 2013

VIDEO SERIES: Defected – Testing Hawaiian Sovereignty

** Several videos are embedded in the bigislandvideonews webpage at the URL for this article

DefectedIt's a story of a foreclosure; one of many on Hawaii Island. Or, it's a pivotal moment in the legal struggle of the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom. It's a documentation of a Puna man's forced eviction from the place he's called home for over a decade; or, it's a glimpse of a hidden reality that clouds the title of every commercial and residential property in the state; the lynch pin to testing an international understanding of America's relationship to Hawaii.

PART ONE

PUNA, Hawaii – We sat down with Kale Gumapac in late November, in the backyard of Robert Keliihoomalu's Hawaiian Beaches home. Robert is one of Gumapac's chief supporters. Also by Kale's side was Nanci Munro, who was there on the day that Kale was evicted from his home, just a few days before our interview. Munro filmed the sheriffs as they served Kale notice in August, and she was there again when they came back to kick Gumapac off his Hawaiian Paradise Park property a few months later.

But Kale's story is just a small part of a larger situation – a much larger situation – that he believes could rock the entire Hawaiian islands. Kale says that all along, he has simply been following the agreements he entered into when he bought his home, which now sits vacant here on 2nd Avenue. And although Munro's video of Gumapac in handcuffs makes it look like HE is the criminal, he says its the sheriffs officers, the judges, and the banks who are in trouble.

Gumapac made headlines recently not only for his high profile dispute with his mortgage bank, but for accusing those working in Hawaii's criminal justice system of war crimes. The whole argument is rooted in the belief – held by a small but growing number – that Hawaii remains a sovereign nation, occupied by the United States, and was never legally annexed. Gumapac says the wheels are in motion at the international level to address that injustice.

But this story begins with a house in a quiet part of Puna's Hawaiian Paradise Park. It was an attractive prospect to Kale Gumapac, years ago.

Kale was able to secure financing and go to closing. Like anyone who has ever bought a real estate property, there was a lot of paperwork involved. And when the paperwork was done, Gumapac had his new home.

Sadly, Gumapac would lose that home years later after an unusual foreclosure. We covered many of the events leading up to the ultimate moment of eviction, although we met Kale Gumapac years before. When we first filmed him in 2008 – Kale was already living at his HPP home – he was the alaka'i of the Kanaka Council, and he had political aspirations, running for the Hawaii County Council seat serving the Puna district in 2008.

We soon learned that Gumapac did not hesitate to raise his voice in public, like he did on behalf of the I'o, or Hawaiian hawk, which was under consideration for a delisting as an endangered species. His Hawaiian activism made him a familiar face at meetings and hearings, speaking out on the cultural impacts of development or military training. He also advocated for kanaka maoli to get what he thought was their rightful share, whenever Hawaii's natural resources where concerned.

But in 2010, Gumapac's focus changed. He teamed up with Dr. Keanu Sai, a Ph.D. in Political Science specializing in Hawaiian Constitutionalism and International Relations, and who also happens to be the lead Agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom in proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague.

Locally, though, Sai is best known for his eye-opening presentations on Hawaii's hidden history. Most who sit down to hear Keanu speak leave with a new understanding of Hawaii's sovereign situation.

Kale Gumapac was one of those who gained a new perspective… one that was about to affect his Puna home. Kale recalls his conversations with Dr. Sai. And remember all that paperwork Gumapac signed when he purchased his home? Dr. Sai told Gumapac it contained the answer for what to do next.

PART TWO

The former home of Kale Gumapac now sits empty on 2nd Avenue in Hawaiian Paradise Park. The bank foreclosed. Gumapac was evicted and taken away in handcuffs.

But Kale's fight is not over. Claiming he was only following his own contract with the mortgage lender, Gumapac is seeking legal recourse at home and abroad, with the help of Dr. Keanu Sai. Not only is Sai the lead agent of the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. He also gives a mean PowerPoint presentation.

We have video from a recent presentation done in Kona this year, part of the Kohala Center's Puana Ka ‘Ike lecture series. The talk occurs every year at the same time: King Kamehameha III's birthday celebration, part of the same event that includes the well-known poke contest with Sam Choy.

Used with permission, this video illustrates Sai's argument, and also captures the look on the faces of the audience as their perspective on commonly understood history becomes forever changed.

The story begins in 1843, with Hawaii's quest for sovereign recognition. Sai makes it a point early on to explain who or what has the sovereignty in an independent state. Sai explores the numerous international treaties that the Kingdom of Hawaii entered into at that time, and details the citizenship and seperation of government; an important distinction.

Then Sai gets to the infamous act of treason; the overthrow of January 27, 1893. The events that day gave rise to the Executive Agreement; the keystone with which all arguments over today's Hawaiian sovereignty are built.

On this, Sai says the Queen Liliuokalani's decision was wise. However, at that time, the United States' top executive – President Benjamin Harrison – was unsympathetic to the queen's plea. On February 14, 1893, President Harrison went ahead and signed a treaty of cession with the provisional government, made up of the insurgents who had ousted the queen. The treaty needed senate approval. But fate turned in favor of the queen, at least temporarily. A new president was elected, and Grover Cleveland returned to office on March 4, 1893.

The treaty of cession was put on hold. James Henderson Blount was sent to investigate the overthrow, and his findings – issued on July 17, 1893 – are known as the Blount Report. It found that international law had been violated. President Cleveland moved to restore Queen Liliuokalani's power but as a condition Cleveland wanted amnesty for the insurgents.

A settlement was eventually negotiated. An agreement was forged in two parts. First was the assignment of law enforcement. The second part restored the power to the queen, but Cleveland needed congressional approval to carry out that restoration.

Congress was unwilling, leaving Hawaii in a state of civil unrest.

At this point in his presentation, Sai takes a moment to explain the power of an executive agreement like the one between the queen and the president.

Those binding agreements are passed down to successors. Sai gave an example of that binding nature of in the modern era.

President Cleveland's successors in the oval office had their sites set on Pearl Harbor. Meanwhile back in the islands, Hawaiian activism takes shape. Thousands signed petitions asking the U.S. to withdraw from signing any treaties of annexation, and congress relented.

But then, war came to the Pacific, when the United States entered into war with the Kingdom of Spain. A joint resolution to annex Hawaii was introduced. Some elected officials raise concern over the constitutionality of the Newlands resolution, but the measure got the votes it needed in the wartime political climate.

What followed were a series of laws that ultimately resulted in Hawaii becoming the 50th U.S. state. Statehood was granted on August 21, 1959. And one hundred years after the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, an apology.

Accepting that Hawaii is an occupied state that never legally entered into a treaty of annexation comes with accepting numerous far reaching consequences. In his lecture, Dr. Sai jokes about one of those consequences, involving the current Hawaii-born president of the United States. He entitled it Why the birthers are right for all the wrong reasons.

Some folks in HAwaii are living out those consequences first hand.

Which brings us back Kale Gumapac in Puna. Armed with an understanding of Dr. Sai's presentation, we asked Gumapac what specifically makes all property titles in Hawaii defective. He said there are two things.

Gumapac's interpretation has deep implications for Hawaii's real estate market.

NEXT: The foreclosure fight begins… and "war crimes" are alleged.

PART THREE

In 2009, a foreclosure crisis had hit the country, and Hawaii was especially affected. In response, Hawaii passed one of the toughest foreclosure consumer aid laws in the country. Rep. Bob Herkes helped propose the legislation. Kale Gumapac had another idea to combat the crisis. Based on the research of Dr. Keanu Sai, Gumapac started a company, Laulima Title Search & Claims, to try to block foreclosures.

Keanu Sai was retained as a consultant. And Gumapac himself would be one of the first clients. This argument has been made before. In the 1990s, the company Perfect Title challenged the validity of title in court. Keanu Sai was one of the Perfect Title principals. Sai details the company and its relationship to the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in a presentation uploaded to Vimeo.

Eventually the company was raided by authorities – Sai says its because Perfect Title was threatening to upend the Hawaii real estate market. Sai was later indicted on an attempted theft charge in court. A jury found Sai guilty of first-degree attempted theft for helping a couple try to reclaim an Aiea home they lost through foreclosure.

Perfect Title is now defunct. And Kale Gumapac's Laulima seems to pick up where that company left off, informing Deutsche Bank of the defect he says exists in the title to his own property in Hawaiian Paradise Park. But according to Kale, the bank apparently had its own plans on how to move forward.

Gumapac had the documents with him, showing the foreclosure went to court in summer of 2011. Dianne Dee Gumapac was the defendant… thats Kale's ex-wife whom he shared the home with. Deutsche Bank is the plaintiff. The judge was the Honorable Harry Freitas. Attorney Dexter Kaiama represented Gumapac.

Gumapac and his wife Dianne have since divorced. Kale kept the house. And with it, the continued foreclosure litigation. Now, Gumapac and Laumlima would employ a different tactic. They would begin to argue jurisdiction, which would lead to this press conference in May of this year, held in Kale's still-occupied home on 2nd avenue, the home base of Laulima Title, surrounded by the other clients of Dexter Kaiama who were also fighting foreclosure.

NEXT: We will detail those War Crime accusations… its been called the nuclear option in Hawaiian legal circles… and the strange story of the so-called police investigation into those accusations, that resulted in the reprimand of an officer.

PART FOUR: War Crimes

It may seem like legal retaliation taken to an extreme: Complaints of war crimes made against judges and sheriffs officers. Recently, the accusations have been flying fast and furious.

In our previous installment of this five part series, Kale Gumapac detailed his legal fight with Deutsche Bank in court. In February of 2012, Gumapac filed a motion to dismiss Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's eviction complaint in Hilo Circuit Court, providing evidence of the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The evidence was laid out by Dr. Keanu Sai in the second part of this series. Judge Greg K. Nakamura denied the motion to dismiss without cause. In a media release issued by Laulima Title Search and Claims LLC, Gumapac alleged that Nakamura, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and their attorneys all committed a war crime by willfully depriving him of a fair and regular trial prescribed under Title 18, United States Code, section 2441, which applies to foreign countries that the United States military is occupying.

There would be more complaints of war crimes eventually, but first it might help to see what was happening at the international level at this same time. Dr. Keanu Sai has been testing the recognition of Hawaiian Kingdom sovereignty in international court for years.

For example, he represented the kingdom in the Hague. After that, he set him sights on the United Nations General Assembly. And on August 10, 2012, Sai filed a Protest and Demand against the United States of America with the President of the U.N. General Assembly. Sai says there is another international body getting involved: the International Criminal Court.

Back on the islands, Kale Gumapac was getting fired up as the international pressure mounted. Outside the Hale Kaulike Courthouse on August 31, 2012, supporters of Hawaiian sovereignty gathered to hear the latest news from Gumapac and Dexter Kaiama, attorney for Elaine Kawasaki, after a proceeding for an eviction hearing before Judge Hara. Sai's Protest and Demand was part of the evidence submitted by Kaiama.

In May of 2013, with a growing list of clients looking to Laulima Title and the Hawaiian Kingdom for help as they faced their own foreclosures, there was another round of war crime complaints. We sat down with Gumapac, Kaiama, and a number of their clients, at Gumapac's home in Hawaiian Paradise Park. Kaiama was not representing Laulima Title, he said, nor their title defect argument. He was there to challenge the court's jurisdiction. Kaiama also explained his legal recourse now that he has deemed the courts lack jurisdiction. Clients of Laumlima Title placed all hope into Kaiama's legal strategy.

March 4, 2103 was said to be the date that ICC jurisdiction would begin in Hawaii. We have been told that when that date came to pass, there were a lot of nervous employees in the state's judicial branch. Sources say some courts were ready to go on lockdown in anticipation of some sort of action by Hawaiian sovereignty groups. Keanu Sai told the crowd in Kona an interesting story about that time.

NEXT: Our final segment in this five part series: A Hawaii County Police officer gets in hot water for his role in a war crimes investigation, and the passions still exist over sovereignty.

PART FIVE – A Hidden History

In August of 2013, time was running out for Kale Gumapac. Undeterred by accusations of war crimes, the state began enforcing the eviction. Video shot by Nanci Munroe shows State Sheriff Patrick Kawai serving notice to Gumapac at his Hawaiian Paradise Park home, which is also the base of operations for Gumapac's Laulima Title Search and Claims, LLC. While being served, Gumapac tried to warn Sheriff Kawai that because of his actions, he too would be guilty of war crimes.

As we follow the unfolding story of Kale Gumapac and his argument that Hawaiian Kingdom law applies in his case and others, we ask: Could the people of Hawaii accept the idea that the islands are occupied by the United States? The possibility seems unlikely at this moment in time, given the strong sense of American patriotism that many in Hawaii feel. But imagine if everyone could accept the idea. How would authorities and leaders handle the discrepancies between U.S. and Kingdom law? The quandary has already come up. Confusing events unfolded during the investigation into alleged war crimes in circuit court.

The case of Hawaii County Police Officer Leland Pa would turn out to be one of the more mysterious aspects of this story. Hawaii County Police refuted Dexter Kaiama's claim in a media release, saying "The Police Department is conducting no such investigation" into certain state judges and attorneys for alleged war crimes. Kaiama disagrees. A written declaration of officer Leland Pa forwarded to us by Dexter Kaiama shows that Pa made a few phone calls about these allegations. Pa says he called the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch and confirmed the war crime complaints were made. Pa swore that he then telephoned the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Command and spoke with Principal Deputy Staff Judge Advocate Ronald Winfrey. According to Pa, Winfrey even admitted – without hesitation – that there is no treaty of annexation, and that the executive agreements have never been ruled on in the U.S. Supreme Court, remaining unresolved. Apparently, officer Pa's phone calls did not sit well with his superiors.

Kaiama forwarded copies of numerous internal police complaint reports, alleging that Pa violated police standards of conduct and misused his position when he called state of Hawaii judges and attorneys – while off duty – informing them that they are the subjects of war crime complaints and requested that they be interviewed as a part of his investigation. The police department said in the internal complaint documents the calls constituted prohibited subversive acts according to its standards of conduct. The police department also found fault with the police reports generated by Pa in regards to the case. Police could not talk to us about the situation as it is considered an internal personnel matter. And the most bizarre twist in the Leland Pa situation was when we uncovered – only recently – a description of officers in the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, on its own website. Listed as the acting Sheriff for the Island of Hawai'i was Leland Pa, patrolman with the Hawai'i County Police Department. We are told that Pa continues to serve in that position.

If authorities seem confused, it can be understood. Hawaii's sovereign status is still not commonly accepted and is still hotly debated. The fact that parts of Hawaii's history have been hidden is also a symptom of war crimes, as Dr. Keanu Sai points out.

New evidence is always surfacing. Knowledge of critical events have been lost over the generations, only to recently be rediscovered, like the Ku'e Petition. Today, the Ku'e Petition is recognized by the descendants of the people who signed in defiance of annexation. On occasion, the exhibit dedicated to the written protest travels around the islands. Here was the stop made in Waimea at about this time last year. The events were faithfully re-enacted in a play, introduced by Pua Case; an entire story that only a short time ago had been lost to history. An illustration of how emotions over Hawaiian sovereignty still run high, and that a passion to protest still festers in the sons and daughters of the kingdom's original activists.

As for the protest of Kale Gumapac: his last stand came to an end just a few weeks ago. Gumapac was escorted off his property in handcuffs, but had some parting threats for the sheriffs officers who arrested him.

And one last surprise for the authorities. Gumapac by chance had a houseguest there that day, who witnessed the entire arrest and ejectment: Dr. Kenu Sai, a face that is becoming well known internationally – and on the homefront – at the dawning of the next chapter in the story of Hawaiian sovereignty.

NEXT: There will be one final update to this feature story page. It will consist mainly of links to additional resources and a mahalo to all the people who contributed to this report.

----------------------------

AGGRESSIVE DEMAND THAT NATIONS COMPLY WITH KEANU SAI'S BOGUS THEORIES

http://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/?p=897
** Weblog of "the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom presently operating within the occupied State of the Hawaiian Islands"; author Keanu Sai
Posted on September 27, 2013

Hawaiian Kingdom files Application Instituting Proceedings at the International Court of Justice

THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS, 27 September 2013 — The acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom filed with the Registrar of the International Court of Justice an Application Instituting Proceedings against the Republic of Austria, Barbados, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Botswana, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Costa Rica, the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Djibouti, the Commonwealth of Dominica, the Dominican Republic, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Republic of Finland, Gambia, Georgia, the Hellenic Republic of Greece, the Republic of Guinea, the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, the Republic of Haiti, the Republic of Honduras, the Republic of Ireland, the Republic of Kenya, the Kingdom of Lesotho, the Republic of Liberia, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Madagascar, the Republic of Malawi, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Republic of Paraguay, the Republic of Peru, the Republic of Senegal, the Republic of South Sudan, the Republic of Suriname, the Kingdom of Swaziland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Swiss Confederation, the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, the Togolese Republic, the Republic of Uganda, and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay for treaty violations and serious breaches of peremptory norms. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland have treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom. All (45) States have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court beforehand, including the Hawaiian Kingdom.

The filing of the Application is directly tied to the Hawaiian Kingdom's Protest and Demand filed with the President of the United Nations General Assembly on August 10, 2012. The Application is seeking enforcement of the Hawaiian Kingdom's Demand that States comply with their treaty obligations and obligations under customary international law.

Also submitted with the Application was a Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection. The request states the "fact that serious breaches of rules of jus cogens have been ongoing for over a century only amplifies the urgent request that the Court indicate provisional measures to protect and preserve the rights of the Hawaiian Kingdom." The Court is requested to declare that:

a) All member States of the United Nations, which includes the States herein named, in compliance with the duty of non-recognition imposed under Articles 41(1) and 41(2) of the Articles of State Responsibility for International Wrongful Acts, are under an obligation:

1) to recognize the illegality and invalidity of the United States of America's continued presence in the Hawaiian Kingdom;

2) to refrain from lending any support or any form of assistance to the United States of America with reference to its illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom;

3) to abstain from entering into treaty relations with the United States of America in all cases whereby the government of the United States of America purports to act on behalf of or concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom;

4) to abstain from sending consular agents to the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, purportedly under arrangements and/or agreements with the United States of America, and to withdraw any such agents already there;

5) to abstain from entering into economic, military and any other form of relationship or dealing with the United States of America on behalf of or concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom, which may entrench its authority over the territory;

b) With respect to existing bilateral treaties, member States of the United Nations, which includes the States herein named, in compliance with the duty of non-recognition imposed under Articles 41(1) and 41(2) of the Articles of State Responsibility for International Wrongful Acts, must abstain from invoking or applying those treaties or provisions of treaties concluded by the United States of America on behalf of or concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom, which include and/or involve active intergovernmental co-operation.

c) With respect to multilateral treaties, however, the same rule cannot be applied to certain general conventions such as those of a humanitarian character, the non-performance of which may adversely affect the people of the Hawaiian Kingdom;

d) All member States of the United Nations, which includes the States herein named, in compliance with the duty of non-recognition imposed under Articles 41(1) and 41(2) of the Articles of State Responsibility for International Wrongful Acts, should not result in depriving the people of the Hawaiian Kingdom of any advantages derived from international co-operation. In particular, while official acts performed by the Government of the United States of America on behalf of or concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom since the occupation began on 12 August 1898 are illegal and invalid, this invalidity cannot be extended to those acts, such as, for instance, the registration of births, deaths and marriages, the effects of which can be ignored only to the detriment of the inhabitants of the Territory.

e) With respect to non-member States of the United Nations, the illegality of the United States of America's presence in the Hawaiian Kingdom is opposable to all States in the sense of barring erga omnes the legality of a situation which is maintained in violation of international law: in particular, no State which enters into relations with the United States of America concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom may expect the United Nations or its Members to recognize the validity or effects of such relationship, or of the consequences thereof.

The acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom designated David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., its Ambassador-at-large, as Agent for these proceedings, and Dexter Ke'eaumoku Ka'iama, Esq., its Attorney General, as Deputy Agent. Dr. Sai served as lead Agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom (1999-2001) and presented oral arguments at the Peace Palace on December 7, 8, and 11, 2000. Members of the arbitral tribunal included Professor James Crawford, SC, as presiding arbitrator, with Mr. Gavan Griffith, QC, and Professor Christopher Greenwood, QC, serving as associate arbitrators. Professor Greenwood is now a Judge of the International Court of Justice. Both the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the International Court of Justice are located in the Peace Palace, The Hague, Netherlands.

While in The Hague, Dr. Sai also met with a member of the International Criminal Court's Information & Evidence Unit at the Court's headquarters to inquire into the status of the Hawaiian Kingdom's Referral to initiate an investigation for war crimes. He confirmed that it is still under review and that the Office of the Prosecutor will be in communication shortly.


================

** Webpage note added by Ken Conklin on November 22, 2013: About 10 days after the November 11 presentation, the website of the Swiss Diplomats posted a short report about the event including photos of the panel and the audience. The report stated no conclusions agreeing or disagreeing with Mr. Sai's views, but merely said that the event was interesting and enjoyable. The fact that it took more than a week for the Swiss diplomats to post a report might indicate they had some disagreements among themselves about what to say. The fact that they did NOT issue a statement supporting Mr. Sai's views is very significant in view of the fact that they had issued the invitation for Mr. Sai to make the presentation. Mr. Sai and his sidekick Niklaus Schweizer must be very disappointed indeed, having spent all that money and traveled halfway around the world, only to end up with a report saying what an interesting and enjoyable event it was (sort of like a theatrical performance might be).

http://swissdiplomats.net/index.php/past-activities

SwissDiplomats - ZurichNetwork
Past Activities

** Conklin's translation of the German-language report:

Event on the topic: "Hawai'i - U.S. State or Pacific Kingdom"

On Monday, November 11, 2013 an event was held at the University of Zurich on the topic "Hawaii - U.S. State or Pacific Kingdom", which was organized by Swiss Diplomats - Zurich Network.

The approximately 75 attendees were informally welcomed by Max Stern , Director of foraus, and Max Schweizer. Then Niklaus Schweizer, who works as a professor at the University of Hawai'i, presented a richly illustrated introduction to the topic "Hawai'i". The highlight of the event was the presentation by Dr. David Keanu Sai, Ambassador-at-large of Hawai'i. Through an exposition of the history of Hawai'i he led the enthusiastic listeners to see that the country is still a currently occupied but independent state. The subsequent panel discussion with Dr. Sai, Christian Blickenstorfer, formerly Ambassador to the U.S., and Niklaus Schweizer, was moderated by Max Schweizer.

The reception afterward made ​​for a cozy conclusion of the successful, insightful evening.

** The report as posted

Veranstaltung zum Thema „Hawai'i – US State or Pacific Kingdom?"

Am Montag, 11. November 2013 fand an der Universität Zürich eine Veranstaltung zum Thema „Hawaii – US State or Pacific Kingdom?" statt, welche von SwissDiplomats – ZurichNetwork und foraus gemeinsam organisiert wurde.

Die etwa 75 Anwesenden wurden von Max Stern, Geschäftsleiter von foraus, und Max Schweizer auf lockere Art begrüsst. Darauf präsentierte Niklaus Schweizer, der als Professor an der University of Hawai'i tätig ist, eine bildreiche Einführung ins Thema „Hawai'i". Das Highlight des Events war der Vortrag von Dr. David Keanu Sai, Ambassador-at-large von Hawai'i. Durch eine Illustration der Geschichte Hawai'i's führte er den Zuhörenden enthusiastisch vor Augen, dass das Land immer noch ein zwar okkupierter, aber eigenständiger Staat ist. Die nachfolgende Podiumsdiskussion mit Dr. Sai, Christian Blickenstorfer, unter anderem Botschafter in den USA, und Niklaus Schweizer, wurde von Max Schweizer moderiert.

Der anschliessende Apéro sorgte für einen gemütlichen Abschluss des gelungenen, aufschlussreichen Abends.

** The two photos posted with the report:


-----------------------

** Webpage note added by Ken Conklin on November 27, 2013. On November 25 Keanu Sai finally posted on his blog a report about what happened at his presentation to the Swiss Diplomats group in Zurich (which had taken place on November 11). It seems quite possible that Keanu Sai posted this self-flattering report to counteract Ken Conklin's comment of November 22, above, which had noted that the Swiss Diplomats had posted a report about the event which did not in any way comment upon or support the substantive claims which Mr. Sai had made to them. Is Mr. Sai's report accurate? Or is it merely his wishful thinking, like his assertions about an alleged Lili'uokalani assignment and an alleged Executive Agreement of Restoration?

http://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/?p=980

Hawaiian Kingdom Blog
Weblog of the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom presently operating within the occupied State of the Hawaiian Islands.
[Keanu Sai's blog]

November 25, 2013

Ambassador Sai's Presentation to the Swiss Diplomats-Zurich Network Well Received

On November 11, 2013, Dr. David Keanu Sai, as Ambassador-at-large for the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, was invited by the Swiss Diplomats-Zurich Network to present on the status of the Hawaiian Kingdom at the University of Zurich. Dr. Sai was received and introduced as the Ambassador-at-large of the Hawaiian Kingdom with all the diplomatic protocol and etiquette.

The program began promptly at 6:30 pm with an introduction by Dr. Max Schweizer, Executive Director of the Swiss Diplomats-Zurich Network, welcoming everyone in attendance, which included former Swiss Ambassadors and Diplomats, students from the University of Zurich's Center of Foreign Affairs & Applied Diplomacy, as well as people from the public sector. Dr. Schweizer is Head of the Center of Foreign Affairs & Applied Diplomacy that trains future diplomats from Switzerland and other foreign countries. Dr. Schweizer also introduced Maximilian Stern, Executive Director of foraus, a think-tank for Swiss Foreign Policy, which co-sponsored the event.

At 6:40 pm Professor Niklaus Schweizer, a former Honorary Swiss Consul and current member of the Swiss Diplomats-Zurich Network, provided a short presentation on the historical background of Swiss-Hawaiian relations. Professor Schweizer is also a faculty member at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa and teaches a college course titled Europeans in the Pacific. Professor Schweizer also provided an incredible link from Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531), who was a religious leader of the Reformation in Zurich, to John Calvin (1509-1564) who was part of the Reform in Geneva, Switzerland, to the Calvinist missionaries from the United States that arrived on the island of Hawai'i in 1820. His presentation ended by stating there is a lot more history to Hawai'i than Waikiki and tourism.

Dr. Sai then followed with his power point presentation Hawai'i: An American State or a State under American Occupation. The presentation covered the legal and political history of the Hawaiian Kingdom; its treaty with Switzerland, the illegal overthrow; the ensuing illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States; the Protest and Demand filed with the United Nations General Assembly; the Referral filed with the International Criminal Court; the Application Instituting Proceedings at the International Court of Justice with Switzerland named as a defendant; and the ongoing commission of war crimes. A panel discussion immediately followed the presentation.

The panel was comprised of Dr. Sai, Professor Schweizer and Dr. Christian Blickenstorfer, who is President of the Swiss Diplomats-Zurich Network as well as former Swiss Ambassador to the United States, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Yemen, and Germany. Dr. Schweizer moderated the panel. Dr. Blickenstorfer stated that when he visited the Hawaiian Islands while Ambassador to the United States, he clearly saw two versions of the Hawaiian Islands that he didn't expect. First was the perception that Hawai'i was the 50th State of the United States and the other was a kingdom with a Palace and the Royal Hawaiian Band. He clearly didn't understand the distinction until Dr. Sai's presentation, which he said was very informative and clear. Dr. Schweizer then asked Dr. Sai about his position as Ambassador-at-large and if he could explain to the audience his position and how he was appointed. Dr. Sai responded with a short narrative of how the acting government was established in 1996 utilizing laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom as it existed before the occupation in the provisional and temporary establishment of a Regency that was provided for under the Hawaiian constitution under the legal doctrine of necessity. The panelists and audience understood the application of the doctrine of necessity as it applies to government.

Questions were then taken from the audience that centered on the economy of the Hawaiian Kingdom and how would it look like during and after the occupation ends. Another question was by a Swiss Human Rights activist asking for Dr. Sai's response to actions taken by Mr. Leon Siu who is trying to get Hawai'i listed on the United Nations list of colonies in order for Hawai'i to be de-colonized. She explained that Mr. Siu stated to her that all it takes is one country to support Hawai'i's listing, and she asked Dr. Sai for his thoughts or whether or not Switzerland could be that country. Dr. Sai's responded that it was not the appropriate action to be taken regarding Hawai'i's occupation, because to say that Hawai'i is a colony of the United States is to imply that Hawai'i is not an already existing sovereign, but occupied, State. He explained that de-colonization is the process of self-determination where the population of a colony will decide whether it wants one of three options; first, to be an independent and sovereign State; second, a status of free association with the former colonizer; or, third, total incorporation into the sovereignty of the colonizer. Because Hawai'i's government was illegally overthrown by the United States, does not mean Hawai'i became a U.S. colony. The diplomats in the audience understood Dr. Sai's response and agreed that de-colonization is not the process because the issue is State continuity and not the creation of State.

After the panel there was time for everyone to have some wine and to mingle. Dr. Sai was soon surrounded by the diplomatic students who were from Russia, France, Switzerland and Spain. The students from Russia, in particular, wanted a picture taken with Dr. Sai. There were specific questions from the students regarding economic trade between the Hawaiian Kingdom and European countries and how would that would look like. Dr. Sai explained that the treaties are still in force and that Hawaiian law provides for free trade. What resonated among the students and the diplomats was the clear understanding that the Hawaiian State would still exist under international law, despite its government being illegal overthrown. This was the basis for the Hawaiian Kingdom's continued existence and the formation of the acting government.

The evening ended with a dinner in Dr. Sai's honor at Kantorei restaurant, which was walking distance from the university. The senior officers of the Swiss Diplomats-Zurich Network's Executive Committee hosted the dinner. The diplomats and officers of the Swiss Diplomats-Zurich Network gave their support to the actions taken by the acting government and wished it well as it proceeds towards the path of de-occupation. What was conveyed to Dr. Sai, as they walked to the restaurant, was how logical a path the acting government has taken in light of a prolonged occupation. What was especially welcomed to these diplomats was the focus on re-education at the collegiate and secondary levels, as well as the community at large.

The next day Dr. Sai was given a message from one of the former Swiss ambassadors in attendance at the presentation the night before, where he wanted to convey to Ambassador Sai that he is a "very good diplomat." Dr. Sai asked the individual who delivered the message if that was a compliment. His response to Dr. Sai was absolutely, especially coming from another Ambassador who was a seasoned diplomat.

-----------------------

** Webpage note added November 25, 2013. Kale Gumapac, head of Laulima Title Search and Claims, was finally evicted from his former house 3 months after the bank holding the mortgage foreclosed for nonpayment. Gumapac followed the same procedure on his own house that he told his clients to follow. Gumapac was one of the people named in complaints filed with the International Criminal Court (see above) as being a victim of the "war crime" that the State of Hawaii, a "puppet" of the U.S., is illegally enforcing U.S. law instead of Kingdom law while "occupying" the Kingdom.

http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/local-news/man-sacrifices-home-hawaiian-kingdom.html
Hawaii Tribune-Herald, November 25, 2013

Man sacrifices home for Hawaiian Kingdom

By TOM CALLIS
Tribune-Herald staff writer

A Hawaiian sovereignty advocate who has questioned the legitimacy of land titles in the state was removed from his home last week after ignoring an eviction notice.

Kale Gumapac, CEO of Laulima Title Search and Claims, was arrested Thursday morning and charged with second-degree trespassing.

He had refused to leave after receiving an eviction notice in August after his Hawaiian Paradise Park home was foreclosed.

Gumapac said his arrest and removal constitutes a "war crime" since he believes jurisdiction over the land still rightfully belongs to the Hawaiian Kingdom.

The issue of Hawaiian sovereignty also prompted him to stop making his mortgage payments about three years ago after discovering what he says is a defect in the title of his land and all others in Hawaii.

"The defect is that the notary that has been signed on my title is wrong," Gumapac said. "… because the Kingdom of Hawaii is actually supposed to hold title."

He said he raised the issue then with his lender, Deutsche Bank, saying that it was their responsibility to then file a claim with the title insurance company.

Gumapac said he stopped making his payments to encourage it to do so, noting that title insurance payments would still be made if he continued paying.

His argument has caught on with others going through foreclosure.

Gumapac, whose company advises home owners how to make such arguments in court, said about five or six others have been evicted after challenging foreclosure by staking the same position.

Another in HPP, he said, has been given an eviction notice.

Gumapac said he and the others who have been evicted don't plan to back down, adding they are taking the issue to the International Criminal Court.

"The evidence we are submitting is irrefutable," he said.

A defective title would require the title insurance companies to pay the rest of the mortgage, Gumapac said.

But he said it's not about getting out of the mortgage or breaking contractual arrangements between home buyers and their lenders. Rather, he says he is trying to properly honor them.

"The bank is breaching the contract," Gumapac said.

"I didn't breach the contract. I'm following the terms of the contract."

When asked what he hopes his case leads to, his answer was simple: "Restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom."


=============

Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com

You may now

GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE

(c) Copyright November 7, 2013 by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved