Forum

Application of the 1849 Treaty of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States of America:  Some Evidence Documented

                                                                   - A Review -

                                                          Compiled by Amelia Gora (2016)

The Kingdom of Hawaii was wrongfully, criminally plundered upon by a Nation who did treaty with our Sovereign, Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli who set up the Alodio/Ano Alodio System for his heirs and his people.  To Aliens/foreigners he allowed a Fee Simple.  Furthermore, he did not wish for foreigners to own his private lands.

"The Court ruled in favor of the British plaintiff, holding that the treaty removed any bar to recovery created by Virginia law. Justice Cushing wrote that under the Supremacy Clause, a treaty “overrules all State laws upon the subject.”33 The other Justices agreed on this point,34 including Justice Iredell, who dissented on other grounds.35 Although Marshall argued eloquently on behalf of the losing defendants,36 he never challenged the consensus view that under the Supremacy Clause, the treaty displaced any state law inconsistent with U.S. treaty obligations."

"The Court held that judicial action was the appropriate means to implement the treaty because the combination of the treaty and the Supremacy Clause obligated state courts to “execute” the U.S. treaty obligation by ordering American debtors to pay their debts to British creditors."

" Marshall’s speech set forth his views about the allocation of constitutional responsibility for treaty implementation among the three branches of the federal government.52 In brief, Marshall believed that all government officers have a duty to execute treaties, insofar as they can do so by acting within the scope of authority granted under domestic law."

Marshall explained this position as follows: “[The President] is charged to execute the laws. A treaty is declared to be a law. He must then execute a treaty, where he . . . possesses the means of executing it.”60 Since Article 27 had the force of law under the Supremacy Clause, and the President had a duty under Article II to execute the law, the President had a duty to execute Article 27, at least in cases where Congress had not specified some other mechanism for treaty implementation.

"Republicans also argued that Article 27 required judicial, not executive implementation.61 In response, Marshall emphasized the distinction between a case “carried before a court as an individual claim” and a case “brought before the Executive as a national demand.”62 The Robbins case was “in its nature a national demand made upon the nation. The parties were the two nations. They cannot come into court to litigate their claims, nor can a court 

decide on them. Of consequence, the demand is not a case for judicial cognizance.”63 A treaty-related claim falls within the scope of judicial competence where parties “come into court, who can be reached by its process, and bound by its power . . . to which they are bound to submit.”64 Since the real parties in interest in the Robbins case were two sovereign powers, and they were not bound to submit to judicial authority, the case fell outside the scope of judicial competence."

"B. Application of the Two-Step Approach in Foster and Percheman In Foster v. Neilson, 90 Marshall penned the following words, which have come to be associated with the doctrine of non-self-executing treaties: Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract, when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule for the Court.91"

"Executory treaty provisions require the nation to undertake affirmative steps to fulfill its treaty commitments, whereas executed treaty provisions “require no further act to be done.”114"

"The Clause specifies that “all Treaties” are “the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”173 Read literally, the text seems to say that all treaties are directly binding on state governments. This interpretation is broadly consistent with the original understanding of the Supremacy Clause. Although commentators disagree about the original understanding, they generally agree that the Framers included treaties in the Supremacy Clause to make treaties binding on state government officers under domestic law.174 There are two problems, though, with a literal interpretation of the Supremacy Clause. First, the Constitution prohibits federal lawmakers from “commandeering” state legislatures or state executive officers.175"

"It is well established that “a State must afford to all individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard if it is to fulfill the promise of the Due Process Clause.”208 Writing for the Court in 1876, Justice Field expressed the principle as follows: Wherever one is assailed in his person or his property, there he may defend, for the liability and the right are inseparable. This is a principle of natural justice, recognized as such by the common intelligence and conscience of all nations. A sentence of a court pronounced against a party without hearing him, or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.209"

" Absent action by the federal political branches, though, the Supreme Court has a duty to apply the Supremacy Clause as written. Under the Supremacy Clause, a treaty is binding on state government officers if the treaty imposes non-discretionary duties on the United States under international law, state officers have the capacity to promote or hinder treaty performance, and application of treaty duties to state officers would not violate the anti-commandeering rule. The Clause applies both to treaties that delegate decisionmaking authority to international tribunals and those that do not. Whether, and in what circumstances, a treaty is judicially enforceable against state officers is a separate issue. This article does not analyze the myriad issues associated with judicial enforcement of treaties that are binding on state government officers under domestic law. However, the article does identify a narrow set of cases in which the Due Process Clause mandates judicial enforcement of treaties. When the state threatens to impose criminal sanctions on someone, and that person claims the sanction would violate a treaty-based, non-discretionary duty, the Due Process Clause requires a judicial hearing on the merits, provided the individual raises the argument at the first available opportunity in accordance with established procedural rules. State and federal judicial decisions in Medellin probably violated the petitioner’s constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause."

Reference:  http://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/HLI103.pdf

REVIEW

The Supreme Court is mandated "to apply the Supremacy Clause as written" in all court cases in the Hawaiian Islands.  

"Absent action by the federal political branches, though, the Supreme Court has a duty to apply the Supremacy Clause as written. Under the Supremacy Clause, a treaty is binding on state government officers if the treaty imposes non-discretionary duties on the United States under international law, state officers have the capacity to promote or hinder treaty performance, and application of treaty duties to state officers would not violate the anti-commandeering rule. The Clause applies both to treaties that delegate decisionmaking authority to international tribunals and those that do not. Whether, and in what circumstances, a treaty is judicially enforceable against state officers is a separate issue. This article does not analyze the myriad issues associated with judicial enforcement of treaties that are binding on state government officers under domestic law. However, the article does identify a narrow set of cases in which the Due Process Clause mandates judicial enforcement of treaties. When the state threatens to impose criminal sanctions on someone, and that person claims the sanction would violate a treaty-based, non-discretionary duty, the Due Process Clause requires a judicial hearing on the merits, provided the individual raises the argument at the first available opportunity in accordance with established procedural rules. State and federal judicial decisions in Medellin probably violated the petitioner’s constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause."

The Courts, etc. from an Identity Theft basis/Sham set-up/a Non-government entity

Because the United States did premeditate the dethronement of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893, set up the Territory disregarding the Opposition to Annexation of Queen Liliuokalani and her subjects numbering 40,000, and with the aid of the Army, Navy, and Federal officials developed the Territory and falsely claimed that the the "Territory was the successor of the Kingdom of Hawaii", the United States violated the 1849 Treaty of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and the the Supremacy Clause, violated their own citizens when they signed the illegal banker's Constitution, created a two government system called the United States, and the American Empire, instead of the United States of America, looted, pirated a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation and utilized monies, lands, assets, mineral rights, etc. for the purpose of Wars with other innocent nations...........the U.S., the bankers in the Hawaiian Islands needs to take their identity thieves, their pirates, current pirate operatives including the governor, judges, United States Minister of Interior, gun carrying Police officers, Sheriffs, Department of Land and Natural Resources officers, et. als. with them according to the 1849 Treaty of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States of America.

Injuries were made on all non-treasonous kanaka maoli, Hawaii's Royal Families, and innocent subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Injuries includes genocide activities, the deliberate incarceration of land owners on Kalaupapa, leper colonies, introducing small pox into the populations, etc.

Alodio/Ano Alodio, Superior titles to lands are held by those kanaka maoli documented in the Mahele books, validated by Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli in 1848.  Aliens were given Fee Simple/less than alodio/life interest only.

The United States of America paid for Fee Simple conveyances by those who had only Fee Simple titles or had no titles to convey.

The United States of America/United States/American Empire must pay rents, remove toxic containers such as the fuel storage buildings, etc. in Halawa Valley, Oahu,  removal of depleted uranium materials, missiles, etc  stored and used at Pohakuloa, Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, Wahiawa,Oahu, etc. and eventually face the Tribunals for all Nations who were wrongfully plundered upon through the funds gotten from the pirating of assets of a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation for the purposes of Wars/Business of Wars.

The above is additional supporting evidence which is added to the following:

1. 

   4:30

   Karen Hudes - The Bank Of Hawaii Holds 170,000 Tons Of Gold

   Schitt Report

   • 1 year ago
   • 7,831 views

   Emmmmm, nope.
2. 

   23:44

   World Bank Whistleblower makes Startling Confession Karen Hudes

   the jesuits' jungle

   • 2 years ago
   • 34,011 views

   Karen Hudes exposes The World Bank. Source: Next News Network' channelhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJwJENSGnhE ...
3. 

   23:25

   Karen Hudes - World Bank in Collusion with the Jesuits.

   the jesuits' jungle

   • 2 years ago
   • 29,231 views

   Source: Greg Hunter' channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHVgRgYdCsQ The Federal Reserve and the Bank for ...

18:46

10:41