Site hosted by Build your free website today!

The latest nonsense from Keanu Sai (April 2015). Does an 1864 treaty between Switzerland and the Kingdom of Hawaii remain in force? Can the treaty be used as a basis for charging a Swiss banker with war crimes for foreclosing on a mortgage in Hawaii? Can the treaty be used by a Swiss citizen residing in Hawaii to demand that the Swiss government seek restitution from the private entity State of Hawaii for the war crime of pillaging regarding taxes it forced the Swiss citizen to pay and for rendering his property deed valueless?

(c) Copyright April 20, 2015, Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved

A scam cites an 1864 treaty of friendship and commerce between Switzerland and the Kingdom of Hawaii as the basis for accusing a Swiss banker of a war crime when he foreclosed on a Deutsche Bank mortgage on a house in Hawaii.

Keanu Sai celebrates the publicity given to his bogus theory by a news report in a Zurich newspaper, even though the report makes clear that a Swiss prosecutor has refused to file charges against the banker because the theory is absurd.

ORDER OF APPEARANCE (Scroll down to the item you want to read)

(1) Ken Conklin's rebuttal published in an online comment to news reports on two newspapers' websites.

(2) A notice provided on Keanu Sai's blog, including an English translation of the news report published in Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

(3) A different news report in an online Swiss news aggregator

(4) A longer summary published in the online newspaper The Daily Beast

(5) A compilation of titles and links to webpages tracing Keanu Sai's series of scams during a period of about 20 years.


(1) Online comment posted on two newspapers' websites by Ken Conklin on April 20 and April 21, 2015, focusing on how the 1864 treaty between the Kingdom of Hawaii and Switzerland has long ago been abrogated by both parties.

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 asserts that the treaty of 1864 was never terminated by either the Hawaiian Kingdom or the Swiss Confederation. But that is false.

The treaty of 1864 was terminated by the following sequence of events, described more fully below: The Hawaiian revolution of 1893 overthrew the monarchial government of the Kingdom of Hawaii; a revolutionary Provisional Government created a Constitution for a permanent successor government known as the Republic of Hawaii; the Republic was formally recognized by the heads of state of at least 19 nations including Switzerland as the rightful, lawful government; the Republic later initiated and offered a Treaty of Annexation to the U.S. which the U.S. accepted; the Treaty included a provision that explicitly terminated all treaties between Hawaii and other nations; all other nations, including Switzerland, continued uninterrupted diplomatic relations with the U.S. until today, without any protest of annexation, thereby acquiescing in the Treaty of Annexation and its termination of prior treaties with Hawaii and acknowledging the sovereignty of the U.S. in Hawaii.

The Hawaiian revolution of January 17, 1893 was done by an armed militia of local residents, led by a Committee of Safety with 7 out of 13 men being native-born or naturalized subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The last of 162 U.S. peacekeepers were withdrawn from Honolulu by April 1. For the remainder of 1893 U.S. President Grover Cleveland and his representatives in Hawaii did all they could to undermine and oust the Provisional Government, including the use of gunboat diplomacy in December to try to restore the ex-queen -- the Hawaiian government was clearly not a U.S. puppet regime. The Provisional Government held a Constitutional Convention in Spring 1894, creating the Republic of Hawaii. The President of the Republic, Sanford B. Dole, sent copies of the Constitution to the local consuls of all the nations which had consulates in Honolulu, asking them to request their home governments to grant formal diplomatic recognition to the Republic as the rightful, lawful successor government. During the Fall of 1894 emperors, kings, queens, and presidents of at least 19 nations personally signed letters granting that recognition to the Republic. Photos of them are at

Switzerland was one of the nations granting that 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

No foreign nation, including Switzerland, filed any protest about the establishment of the permanent Republic of Hawaii, or removed their 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 a Treaty of Annexation. That Treaty was initiated and offered by the Republic of Hawaii to the U.S. in 1897, and confirmed by a joint resolution of the U.S. Senate and House signed by President McKinley in 1898.

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

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 diplomatic 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.

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.


(2) A notice provided on Keanu Sai's blog, including an English translation of the news report published in Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
Hawaiian Kingdom Blog [Keanu Sai], Monday April 20, 2015

Reputable Swiss Newspaper NZZ Breaks Story on War Crimes in Hawai'i

In its Sunday edition (April 19, 2015) on page 12, Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) a Swiss German language daily newspaper published in Zurich, broke the story of war crimes committed by the United States in Hawai'i. NZZ has a reputation as a quality newspaper and as the Swiss newspaper of record, the newspaper is known for its detailed reports on international affairs, stock exchange, and the intellectual, in-depth style of its articles.

Here is the English translation of the article.

Click here for the article in NZZ Sunday [in German].

The authorities of the Federal Judiciary are confronted with a strange case, which has the potential of straining the relations between Switzerland and the USA. What is to be clarified is nothing less than the question of whether in the view of the [Swiss] Confederation Hawaii is recognized in accordance with international law as the 50th Federal State of the USA, or whether the Kingdom of Hawaii rather still exists -- albeit since 1898 under occupation. Furthermore, it is to be determined whether the USA committed war crimes in Hawaii, including against Swiss residing there -- and this possibly even with the assistance of the Swiss Joe Ackermann. It is indeed a delicate dossier, which since April 9 has been with the Federal Criminal Court in Bellinzona.

Coup against Lili'uokalani

Specifically, the case is about the criminal complaints by a Swiss and a "Hawaiian Subject," as the latter identifies himself in the documents. In petitions to the Office of the Swiss Federal Attorney General dating from January, these two accuse the US authorities of war crimes, including pillaging, unfair trials and unlawful detention. These are said to have taken place in the context of financial disputes in Hawaii -- disputes which, however, are directly related to the question of Hawaii's status in international law: Both plaintiffs hold the view that the Kingdom of Hawaii still exists, and that in consequence, the US authorities have no rights whatsoever in the archipelago. The Swiss, who by virtue of his nationality considers the Office of the Federal Attorney General to have jurisdiction in this case, is bringing action for unlawful appropriation of property as well as pillaging in form of taxation by the US tax authorities. The Hawaiian subject, on the other hand, sees himself as being cheated when purchasing a real property: The transaction at first followed US-American law and was notarized accordingly. But then the subject came to the conclusion that the USA was not authorized to do such official acts on the territory of the occupied Kingdom of Hawaii -- in consequence he discontinued his interest payments to the lending bank.

The bank in question was Deutsche Bank, which ordered the mortgaged property to be foreclosed, by US authorities of course. In this context the subject was temporarily arrested. At that time, Joe Ackermann was heading Deutsche Bank -- a sufficient reason for the Hawaiian to make a criminal complaint against the Swiss banker to the Office of the Federal Attorney General in Berne. So much on the specific cases.

The matter might be dismissed as a legal frivolity by two odd characters, were it not for a larger movement standing behind it, a movement which has seriously been addressing the question of the continuity of the Kingdom of Hawaii for years. The prime mover is Keanu Sai, "a political scientist whose research and expertise centers on the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent and sovereign State," as he states.

At the center of the debate are historical events: In 1893, the last Queen of Hawaii, Lili'uokalani, was deposed in a coup d'état and in 1895 forced to abdicate (see box). Goal of the coup leaders -- protected by US troops -- was the annexation of Hawaii by the USA. The latter happened, effectively, in 1898, in connection with the Spanish-American war, when Hawaii gained strategic importance in the Pacific. The USA employed as a basis for the occupation a so-called "joint resolution," a legal act jointly passed in the Senate and the Congress [sic] in Washington. The admittance to the United States as the 50th State happened only in 1959, after a plebiscite with a clear-cut result -- by then, of course, the culture of the Hawaiian people had already been pushed back strongly by American and Asian immigrants.

For Sai and his colleagues, the unilateral American decisions are all null and void. A "joint resolution" of the legislature in Washington, such as the one of 1898, could be legally effective according to constitutional law only within the USA and could not be extended to another territory, such as the Kingdom of Hawaii. The Federal State of Hawaii of today, therefore, is seen as a direct successor to the Republic of Hawaii that was proclaimed by the coup leaders in the 1890s. Thus, it would have no legitimacy whatsoever under international law. Sai has placed his struggle for the Kingdom of Hawaii into courtrooms all over the world, including in Switzerland. Here he is now representing the two plaintiffs. His argument includes a friendship treaty between the [Swiss] Confederation and the Kingdom of Hawaii from 1864: The Treaty is said to have been never officially cancelled or replaced with another convention. The treaty obliges both parties to protect each other's citizens -- thus, it is argued, the Office of the Federal Attorney General must now prosecute the alleged war crimes of the USA in Hawaii.

Diplomatic Help

In Berne, sure enough, the situation is assessed differently: Pointing to the factual recognition of the USA in its present boundaries by the [Swiss] Federal Government, the prosecutor in charge decided not to accept the complaint. Berne, he argued, has no jurisdiction in the case. He included reference to the fact that Switzerland maintains a consulate in Hawaii -- which is not without irony since, of all things, it is a long-serving diplomat who today is acting as a door-opener for Sai in Switzerland.

The dismissive decision of the Federal Attorney General's Office was indeed unable to stop the Hawaiian independence fighter Sai: The latter appealed the decision -- now the case is up to the judges in Bellinzona.


(3) A different news report in an online Swiss news aggregator Swiss news in 10 languages, April 21, 2015

Switzerland pulled into Hawaii sovereignty battle

By Anand Chandrasekhar

A Swiss citizen residing in Hawaii has filed a petition with the Swiss Federal Prosecutor's Office against the US Pacific island state. He is demanding that all taxes levied on him by the state be regarded as theft.

The Swiss man, who wishes to remain anonymous, wants the Swiss government to try the Hawaiian state for the criminal offense of "pillaging" under a complex legal technicality - the passive personality jurisdiction - that allows countries, in certain cases, to try a foreign national for offenses committed abroad that affect its own citizens.

The Swiss petitioner is represented by David Keanu Sai, a well-known leader of a group called Hawaiian Kingdom, which refuses to recognise US sovereignty over Hawaii.

According to the petition dated January 20, the Swiss citizen claims to have "suffered grave harm" and is demanding the Swiss authorities investigate "the private organization called the State of Hawaii" for the "war crime of pillaging under the guise of taxation".

Besides taxes, the petitioner also blames the Hawaiian state for rendering his Hawaiian property valueless, as he considers the authority issuing the title deeds to be illegal.

This is not the first attempt by the Hawaiian Kingdom group to involve the Swiss legal system in their sovereignty battle. A Hawaiian citizen filed a petition with the Swiss authorities in December 2014 against Joe Ackermann, former chief executive officer of Deutsche Bank. The Hawaiian man had refused to pay his mortgage to the bank, which he deemed illegal. The bank ordered the property to be foreclosed and the man was subsequently arrested.

His petition to the Swiss authorities alleges that "war crimes have been committed against himself by Deutsche Bank for the pillaging of his home, whose Chief Executive Officer at the time was a Swiss citizen and resident of Zurich".

The Swiss authorities admit that this petition is currently making the rounds of the Swiss legal system.

"Based on the results of a preliminary investigation, the case was dismissed in February," Andre Marty, spokesperson for Attorney General's Office, told "This was challenged in the court of appeals and the appeal is currently pending in the Federal Criminal Court in Bellinzona."

The Hawaiian Kingdom group has also apparently explored other avenues to obtain Swiss legitimacy for its cause. It alleges that it met with the Swiss authorities in March 2014 to convince Switzerland to act as a protecting power for the Hawaiian Kingdom. Switzerland serves as a protecting power by mediating between countries whose diplomatic relations have ceased, like between the US and Cuba.

By involving a Swiss citizen in its latest petition, the Hawaiian Kingdom group seeks to ensure that the petition carries as much legal weight as possible in the eyes of the Swiss authorities.


(4) A longer summary published in the online newspaper The Daily Beast
The Daily Beast, April 21, 2015

Collecting Taxes Might Just Be a 'War Crime' in Hawaii

by M.L. Nestel

They say they don't owe the state of Hawaii any money -- because Hawaii is still a kingdom and doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the IRS.

A growing movement of defense attorneys, tax dodgers, and legal scholars in Hawaii dismiss their home as the 50th state in the union and instead call it an occupied kingdom. In the past couple years they've been daring D.C. to prove them wrong -- calling any attempt to collect taxes from them "war crimes" and challenging the feds in courts around the globe.

Take the taxpaying Swiss national, a Hawaiian resident, who wants to withhold his taxes from the state. The Daily Beast isn't naming him, because he says he fears reprisal. But the Swiss man, a farmer in his mid-40s, is dusting off an 1864 treaty between Switzerland and the Kingdom of Hawaii -- to prove that he's not beholden to Uncle Sam but Queen Lili'uokalani.

Revisionists like the farmer suggest that the Kingdom of Hawaii was brought down in a coup d'état and was never legitimately annexed during the Spanish-American War in 1898. Instead, it's just occupied or "kidnapped."

Dr. Keanu Sai, the farmer's attorney, suggests that the United States and the state Hawaii government are receiving "stolen money" from those who pay them taxes. He believes his client's case is exposing how America is committing, in his words, "war crimes" by taxing Hawaiians and his Swiss client.

"The monies received through taxation, that's stolen money. The tax collectors from the state of Hawaii and the federal government under the guise of taxation are pillaging," Sai told The Daily Beast. (That's defined, by the Geneva Convention, as "the taking of property contrary to humanitarian law.)

The case was evaluated and then directed by the federal Swiss prosecutor to an appellate judge in the Swiss city of Bellinzona.

A Swiss Consulate employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, says the case is an isolated incident and doesn't represent the rest of the 700 Swiss who call Hawaii home. "This has strictly to do with the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement," the worker said. "It's in the courts now in Switzerland, and the government refused to accept the case. They just took it further to a higher court."

The case comes almost two decades after Lance Larsen thumbed his nose at the United States by chucking his driver's license and unscrewing his license plate, and replacing them with a massive placard on his Jeep Comanche that cited Hawaiian Civil Code.

He was subsequently handed multiple driving citations, and when he appeared before a judge in court with his attorney, he demanded the prosecutor reveal the Treaty of Annexation that made Hawaii part of the United States.

The strategy failed and he was ultimately dumped into a jail.

The judge sentenced Larsen to 30 days' confinement; seven of them were in solitary confinement.

When it was over, Larsen sued the Hawaiian Kingdom for failing to protect him during his driving malfeasance. A three-year battle in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague ensued.

A State Department official added that the Aloha State isn't going to split from the union anytime soon: "As you are aware, Hawaii is a state within the United States."

Larsen's case eventually petered out because the U.S. government refused to join. But toward the end, the respected American Journal of International Law suggested that "the Hawaiian Kingdom was legally obligated to protect Larsen from the United States' 'unlawful imposition [over him] of [its] municipal laws' through its political subdivision, the State of Hawai'i."

The unnamed Swiss man now seeking tax relief may not do much better in court. Potentially sinking his case is its reliance on a foreclosure lawsuit filed back in 2011 by Kale Kepekaio Gumapac. In that suit, Gumapac claimed he didn't have to pay his mortgage to Deutsche Bank on his $300,000 Hawaiian plot for which he contests his title in order to get the insurance to kick in, because, as a "Hawaiian subject", he believed the Kingdom of Hawaii as a constitutional monarchy still existed.

But the Gumapac case was quickly dismissed by a judge who said the "fanciful Kingdom of Hawaii theory" failed to provide a reason to stop paying. And the judge noted that other courts in Hawaii "have rejected similar arguments based on the continued sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawai'i."

Sai said the judge in the 2011 case had it wrong. "This case is evidence in the Swiss criminal complaint for Gumapac, because it shows that Deutsche Bank knew of the situation," he added, "and instead used the State of Hawai'i Court to seize his property through the war crimes of an unfair trial, the pillaging of his home, and his unlawful arrest when he attempting to protect his home."

Sai, who served in the U.S. Army as a captain before being honorably discharged in 1994, said it was when he wore the uniform that he began wondering about his citizenship. "I began researching, and it's a shock," Sai, who is Keanu Reeves's cousin, said.

The political scientist pointed out that Reeves's movies are remarkably similar to Hawaiians reexamining their history.

"The Matrix is a script about Hawaii," he said. "It's all made up until you take the red pill. And people here are waking up to this reality that we've been brainwashed."

The Hawaiian Kingdom argument isn't just being used in tax and mortgage scofflaw cases.

Last November a criminal indictment was handed down against four Molokai fishermen who allegedly hopped aboard a boat belonging to a group of rival fishermen from Oahu.

Floyd Kapuna, Kaiula English, Robin Dudoit, and Albert Dudoit Jr. allegedly menaced the group, snatched their catch, and began scrapping "with the intent to terrorize" their spearfishing competitors.

At the time, Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources chairman said the incident wouldn't be tolerated.

But in pretrial proceedings, two of the defendants (save for Floyd Kapuna and Albert Dudoit Jr.) used the Hawaiian Kingdom argument into the criminal proceedings. Sai was even called as an expert witness in the case. He supplied a legal brief titled "The Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom," which seeks to prove why Hawaii is a sovereign state.

"It provides conclusive evidence that the kingdom continues to exist as a country," he told The Daily Beast. "For the last 20 years the Supreme Court of the state of Hawaii says that if a defendant is challenging the jurisdiction of the state of Hawaii's courts…the defendants have to provide conclusive evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist."

Hawaii state circuit court Judge Joseph Cardoza seemed to be on board when he took "judicial notice" to allow the kingdom evidence to be used at trial this summer.

Williamson Chang, a law professor at the University of Hawaii, is also a supporter of the kingdom legal theory. Last September, he wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder claiming that "multiple felonies" that he called "war crimes" were being "committed here in the Hawaiian Islands."

He went on to challenge Holder. "But if your office is not able to refute the evidence, then this is a matter for the U.S. Pacific Command, being the occupying power, and all the State of Hawai'i officials and employees, as well as I, are compelled to comply with Hawaiian Kingdom law and the law of occupation."

The Department of Justice did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Chang told The Daily Beast that the joint resolution between the House and Senate from 1898 that served as the legal precedence for annexation is weak at best and that several senators came out opposing it as a means to grab Hawaii. "The U.S. has never used it," he said.

Chang, who is writing a book on the Hawaiian occupation titled A Rope of Sand, said he received a form letter from the Department of Justice that read: "Dear Friend, We are going to look into this."

Secretary of State John Kerry also fielded a similarly charged letter from Office of Hawaiian Affairs CEO Kamana'opono Crabbe on May 5, 2014. In it, the CEO relies on Sai's tenets and "raised grave concerns," posing a series of questions to determine if the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist under international law.

A State Department official said they never received Crabbe's letter and added that the Aloha State isn't going to split from the union anytime soon. "As you are aware, Hawaii is a state within the United States," the official said.


These are approximately in chronological order. Therefore, items closely related to the issue of treaties with the Kingdom of Hawaii, and allegations of war crimes, are near the bottom of this compilation.


The Perfect Title Scam -- Self-Proclaimed Regent of Hawaiian Kingdom Collects Huge Fees, Causes Grief to Property Owners, Messes Up Land Titles, Escapes With Probation and $200 Fine. [includes compilation of news reports and commentaries from 1995 to 2011 related to Perfect Title"]


** News report and two letters to editor regarding Sai's 1999 conviction of a felony in relation to Perfect Title.
Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Thursday, December 2, 1999

Perfect Title Co. co-founder guilty of theft
David Sai tried to help a couple reclaim a home lost through foreclosure

By Rob Perez

The co-founder of a now-defunct title company that challenged the validity of land titles in Hawaii faces up to 10 years in prison after being convicted of an attempted theft charge.

A Circuit Court jury yesterday found David Keanu Sai guilty of first-degree attempted theft for helping a couple try to reclaim an Aiea home they lost through foreclosure. The couple, Michael and Carol Simafranca, also was found guilty of the attempted-theft charge, as well as first-degree burglary for illegally entering the residence. The latter charge also carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years. Sentencing is set for March 7.

The Simafrancas in early 1997 entered the home while the owners were away. The couple had lost the residence through foreclosure in 1996 but subsequently tried to reclaim ownership based on a warranty deed issued by Sai, a founder of Perfect Title Co.

Sai previously has said he issued the deed in his capacity as regent of the Hawaiian kingdom and based on Perfect Title research. The company used 19th century kingdom law to determine that existing land titles in Hawaii were invalid.

Earlier in the trial, Circuit Judge Sandra Simms acquitted Donald Lewis, who was president and co-founder of Perfect Title, of the attempted-theft charge.

Sai and the Simafrancas declined comment after the jury's unanimous verdict was announced. Their attorneys said they planned to appeal.

Deputy Attorney General Dwight Nadamoto, who handled the case for the state, said he was pleased with the verdict.

But Lewis said the decision was improper. He said the state made a criminal case out of what basically was a civil dispute over land titles. "I feel bad," he said. "These people are not criminals. They're good people." Lewis and other supporters said they hoped the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court so the issue of whether kingdom law applies in Hawaii can be resolved.

While at Perfect Title, Lewis and Sai maintained that Hawaii is still a sovereign nation because sovereignty never was transferred to the United States via a treaty -- the only way such a transfer legally could be done, they said.

But critics said such reasoning was absurd, citing, among other things, the annexation of the islands by the federal government in 1898.

Perfect Title shut down in late 1997 after the state seized its records as part of an investigation. Lewis still faces charges of failing to obtain a state license to do business in Hawaii and failing to file a general excise tax return.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Thursday December 9, 1999, Letters to the Editor

Jury decision was right in Perfect Title case

The guilty verdict against Keanu Sai of Perfect Title is important for Hawaii. He had full opportunity to "educate" the jury that the overthrow and annexation of were illegal, and that land titles in Hawaii are therefore invalid.

An interracial jury of 12, randomly selected, was certified impartial. Sai, articulate and persuasive, tried his best. But not a single juror thought his theories reasonable. Nobody was even willing to let him escape on "technicalities." They decided unanimously that his sovereignty theories are wrong, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now that the people have given their common-sense judgment, the case should be appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, so scholars and judges can rule on his claims. Let's have a clean decision on fundamental principles.

Sai is no ordinary thief. He does not hide in the shadows. He files documents openly, broadcasting his views publicly. He is an honorable Hawaiian nationalist patriot, exploring serious issues. And he is wrong.

Ken Conklin
Via the Internet


Title company will be proved right one day

With reference to the claim of Perfect Title Co.'s critics that illegal ratification of the annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii after the illegal overthrow by Sanford Dole and others is absurd: I wait with bated breath until the U.S. Supreme Court has to rule on this issue. As anyone knows who is knowledgeable about U.S. history, any treaty with the United States must be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, which the annexation treaty of Hawaii was not.

Even President McKinley refused to support the annexation of Hawaii because of its constitutional illegality. [** Ken Conklin's note: This statement is totally false. McKinley helped organize the push for annexation in Congress, and was happy to sign the annexation treaty.]

When, not if, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling is obtained by Perfect Title Co. and Messrs. Sai and Lewis, it will be extremely interesting to see the resurrection of the original "illegal Kingdom of Hawaii"!

William Afong Kaipo Kuamoo
Scottsdale, Ariz.
Via the Internet


Fraudulent Hague Arbitration -- The Use of "the International Court at the Hague" for a Propaganda Circus


The Republic of Hawaii was given formal diplomatic recognition as the rightful government of Hawaii by at least 19 other nations from July 1894 through January 1895. Liliuokalani herself proclaimed the Kingdom was finished and swore her oath of loyalty to the Republic. Also Japan, in April 1897, raised the status of its office in Honolulu from Consulate to Legation (a status not previously accorded during the Kingdom period).

This webpage has a section which provides an example of a serious assertion of the fraudulent claim that the Republic of Hawaii was never internationally recognized. This claim was asserted by Hawaiian sovereignty activist Keanu Sai before a panel of international law experts at the permanent court of arbitration at the Hague. Quotes and citations are provided to Keanu Sai's webpage about this case. After the case was dismissed Mr. Sai and his legion of followers widely proclaimed that the "World Court" had confirmed that the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist and is the lawful government of Hawaii today.


Helping foreign diplomats understand the history of U.S. sovereignty in Hawaii and the legitimacy of the relationship between their nations and Hawaii. [Ken Conklin's message to diplomats in the U.S. representing foreign nations which Hawaiian independence activist Keanu Sai was seeking to add as defendants in his bogus lawsuit against the U.S.] Webpage created November 2010.


HCR107 in the Hawaii legislature of 2011 -- A resolution establishing a joint legislative investigating committee to investigate the status of two executive agreements allegedly entered into in 1893 between United States President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, called the Liliuokalani assignment and the agreement of restoration.


So-called executive agreements between Hawaii Queen Liliuokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland -- the new Hawaiian history scam by Keanu Sai. Webpage published August 29, 2011


Ken Conklin Ph.D. vs. Keanu Sai Ph.D. -- Dialog regarding a theory that Hawaii Queen Liliuokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland had executive agreements, still binding today, which would require the U.S. to disgorge Hawaii and recognize its continuing sovereign independence

On August 29, 2011 Ken Conklin published a webpage "So-called executive agreements between Hawaii Queen Liliuokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland -- the new Hawaiian history scam by Keanu Sai" at
On September 1, 2011 a shortened summary of that webpage was published in Hawaii Reporter online newspaper, and is copied in full.
On September 12, 2011 Keanu Sai published a response in Hawaii Reporter, which is copied in full.

Sai's very lengthy essay was merely a self-serving summary of his views and a description of his personal history, along with a character assassination calling Conklin an angry, bitter and self-centered man" and "driven by anger and hate." In his essay, Sai repeatedly raised doubts whether Conklin truly has a Ph.D. However, his essay did not in any way respond to any of the specific points of fact and logic which Conklin had raised regarding Sai's theory about the "executive agreements." Thus, the "dialog" entered into by Sai was focused on personalities and credentials rather than any substantive debate concerning his bogus new scam.

Ken Conklin posted a lengthy comment on Hawaii Reporter which shows up at the bottom of Sai's article, and is copied in full. Conklin's comment provides confirmation from an independent investigative news report that Conklin really does have a Ph.D.; links to photocopies of refereed scholarly articles he published which include confirmation of his Ph.D. and his university affiliations; and links to audios and videos displaying that his personality is friendly and mellow, not angry or bitter. Conklin also takes note that Sai's essay was indeed angry and bitter, unlike Conklin's; and that Sai's essay never addressed the facts or logic which were the entire content of Conklin's September 1 article that Sai was allegedly responding to.

There were several other comments as well, by other people; and more comments on other blogs.


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.

A short sarcastic parody of Keanu Sai's work: Fantasy -- Pigs have wings; therefore they can fly (and the World Court must enforce porcine aeronautical rights). Followed by a description and analysis of historical events, and then a lengthy, detailed letter to the Zurich group of Swiss diplomats who were scheduled to listen to a presentation by Keanu Sai on November 11, 2013.

Hawaii Tribune-Herald, May 4, 2017

Lawyer censured for accusing Big Island judge of 'war crimes'

The Hawaii Supreme Court has publicly censured a Kailua, Oahu, attorney for accusing a Big Island district court judge of committing a war crime against his client in a legal document filed in 2012 in an ejectment case.

The May 1 censure order said Dexter K. Kaiama "with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the allegation, accused the presiding judge of committing war crimes under international conventions, and thereby filed a frivolous document that served no legal or practical purpose."

Neither the judge nor the client are identified in the document, but Kaiama sent a letter dated Feb. 21, 2013, to the Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, accusing Hilo District Judge Harry Freitas of committing a war crime against his client, whose name was redacted in publicly disseminated copies of the document.

The 58-year-old Kaiama, who was admitted to the Hawaii State Bar on Oct. 16, 1986, was cautioned that further such conduct may result in a period of suspension.


** Ken Conklin's note: Dexter Kaiama often serves as attorney for Keanu Sai. In the case referenced in this news report, Kale Gumapac was a homeowner whose property was foreclosed after he failed to pay his mortgage, which he did because of reliance on Sai's theory about illegal occupation of Hawaii by U.S. and lack of jurisdiction by federal or (puppet regime) state courts. Sai and Gumapac have had numerous joint appearances on TV podcasts. Sai has cited Gumapac's eviction and legal proceedings against Gumapac as a war crime.

Hawaii Free Press, May 7, 2017

Dexter Kaiama: Keanu Sai's Favorite Lawyer Censured

By News Release
Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

Decided: May 01, 2017

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack and Wilson, JJ.)


Upon examination of the July 18, 2016 report filed with this court by the Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court, the exhibits appended to it, and the record as a whole, and upon full and careful consideration of the briefs in this matter submitted to this court by Respondent Dexter K. Kaiama and by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, we conclude, by clear and convincing evidence, that the record supports the violations identified by the Disciplinary Board: 1 specifically, that, on July 13, 2012, by filing the Notice of Protest and its attachments in the Third Circuit litigation presided over by the Judge in question, Respondent Kaiama, with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the allegation, accused the presiding Judge of committing war crimes under international Conventions, and thereby filed a frivolous document that served no legal or practical purpose, in violation of Rule 3.1 of the Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) (1994), harassed and embarrassed the Judge, in violation of HRPC Rule 3.5(b), engaged in conduct reasonably likely to disrupt the tribunal - and which did disrupt the tribunal - in violation of HRPC Rule 3.5(c), and made statements with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity concerning the integrity of the Judge, in violation of HRPC Rule 8.2.

With regard to Respondent's arguments concerning the scope of permitted testimony at the disciplinary hearings, we note Respondent Kaiama had an opportunity to argue before the Hearing Officer for the admission of witness testimony, and was allowed to submit written evidence into the proceedings regarding the legal arguments which he asserted supported his accusations against the Judge. We therefore conclude the Hearing Officer's evidentiary rulings, made following the October 17, 2014 hearing, and the general conduct of the proceedings did not deny Respondent Kaiama's rights to due process. See Bank of Hawaii v. Kunimoto, 91 Hawai'i 372, 388, 984 P.2d 1198, 1214 (1999).

We conclude that Respondent Kaiama's allegations are clearly false upon the evidence in the record, as Respondent Kaiama has not proffered any evidence the Judge in question has been convicted of war crimes by any court or tribunal.

We further conclude the Respondent's accusations were not opinion based upon fully-disclosed facts, but were mere allegations, based upon tenuous legal analysis of broad statutory provisions which do not survive analysis. We conclude Respondent Kaiama's allegations " 'imply a false assertion of fact' " which could "reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about their target" which are not true, and the charge of war criminal does, by its plain language, charge the Judge with "commission of a criminal offense." See Standing Comm. on Discipline of the U.S. Dist. Ct. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430, 1438 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19 (1990)). In sum, in the words of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Respondent Kaiama's accusations "erode public confidence without serving to publicize problems that justifiably deserve attention," id. at 1438. As such, Respondent's allegations are not protected speech. Cf. State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Porter, 766 P.2d 958, 968 (1988). We further conclude these allegations were made with a reckless disregard to their truth or falsity, and were not assertions a reasonable attorney, considered in light of all his professional functions, would make in the same or similar circumstances. See Yagman, 55 F.3d at 1440, U.S. Dist. Ct. v. Sandlin, 12 F.3d 861, 866-67 (9th Cir. 1993); In re Terry, 394 N.E.2d 94, 95-96 (Ind. 1994); In re Comfort, 159 P.3d 1011, 1019-20, 1027 (Kan. 2007); Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Blum, 404 S.W.3d 841, 856 (Ky. 2013); In re Cobb, 838 N.E.2d 1197, 1212 (Mass. 2005); In re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Nathan, 671 N.W.2d 578, 584-86 (Minn. 2013), In re Coe, 903 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Mo. 1995); Matter of Westfall, 808 S.W.2d 829, 837 (Mo. 1991); Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 793 N.E.2d 425, 429 (Ohio 2003); Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Hall, 765 S.E.2d 187, 198 (W.Va. 2014).

We also emphasize Respondent Kaiama faces discipline for the allegations made in the Notice of Protest, not for his arguments in the underlying litigation that the court lacked jurisdiction because of the continued existence of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, an argument which, if successful, could achieve an articulable objective for his client, i.e., dismissal of the litigation. See ODC v. Burgess, No. 12608 (August 3, 1988) (drawing a similar distinction and imposing a public censure for Burgess's personal denial of the de jure legitimacy of the government of the State of Hawai'i and its courts, in so doing repudiating his oath taken upon admission to the bar). By contrast, the allegations for which Respondent Kaiama faces discipline do not serve any discernible purpose within the underlying litigation and, hence, cannot be characterized as mere 'zealous representation' of the Respondent's clients. Nor do the allegations bear a rational relationship to any previous opinions of this or other courts of the State and, hence, are not good faith arguments for an extension of such precedent. Nor was the filing of the Notice justified for any other proper purpose: Respondent Kaiama does not offer any specific evidence, cite to any court rule or procedure of any other fora, or articulate any reasonable legal theory to support his assertion that filing the Notice of Protest was necessary to preserve the issue for review by another forum. In short, we conclude that the allegations serve no other purpose but to harass the presiding Judge by threatening him with dire consequences for his previous and subsequent rulings in the litigation.

Respondent Kaiama's conduct warrants suspension, absent mitigating circumstances. See American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2000), Standards 6.22 and 6.32; ODC v. Ng, SCAD-12-414 (March 1, 2013); ODC v. Shea, SCAD-11-777 (May 1, 2012); see also ODC v. Cook, No. 28300 (March 6, 2007); Gardner, 793 N.E.2d at 424, Sandlin, 12 F.3d at 862-63, 867; Cf. Westfall, 808 S.W.2d at 838.

We find, in aggravation, that Respondent Kaiama has substantial experience in the practice of law while, in mitigation, we find Respondent Kaiama has a clean disciplinary record, his conduct was absent a dishonest or selfish motive, and he was fully cooperative with the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, in light of the mitigating factors, which outweigh those in aggravation,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Kaiama is publicly censured for his misconduct. Respondent Kaiama is, however, cautioned that further such conduct may result in a period of suspension.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Kaiama shall bear the costs of the disciplinary proceedings upon the approval of a timely-submitted verified bill of costs from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Paula A. Nakayama
Sabrina S. McKenna
Richard W. Pollack
Michael D. Wilson


1. We accept the Findings and Conclusions as amended by the Board, with two exceptions. Based upon the Hearing Officer's role as finder of fact, we accept Finding No. 12 as proposed by the Hearing Officer, and accept Finding 13, as amended to read "It was never Respondent's intent to be disruptive." Nevertheless, insofar as we join other jurisdictions in applying an objective test regarding such conduct, and conclude Respondent Kaiama, at a minimum, leveled his accusations with a reckless disregard to their truth or falsity, we conclude the record supports the violations of the Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct identified by the Board.

Mark E. Recktenwald


Send comments or questions to: