************************************************
ISSUE #2:  Keanu Sai vs. Obama


http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml

David Keanu Sai v. Barack Obama, et al.
Share |

Dr. David Keanu Sai is interviewed by Dr. Lynette Cruz of Hawai`i
Pacific University on her show "Issues that Matter" about the Federal
lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C.

http://vimeo.com/13626402

obama suit in dc court from David
Keanu Sai on Vimeo.

KANE`OHE, HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, JUNE 1, 2010 — Dr. David Keanu Sai, a
national of the Hawaiian Kingdom, filed a complaint in U.S. District
Court, Washington, D.C., against President Obama, Secretary of State
Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, Pacific Command Commander Admiral
Willard and State of Hawai`i Governor Lingle. The civil case was
assigned no. 1:10-CV-00899CKK. This case arises under the Alien Tort
Statute and the Plaintiff filed the suit as a Hawaiian subject for
injuries suffered when he was wrongfully convicted of a so-called felony
by the State of Hawai`i in violation of an Executive Agreement dated
January 17, 1893, referred to as the Lili`uokalani assignment. The
Lili`uokalani assignment legally bound President Cleveland and his
successors in office, to include President Obama, to administer Hawaiian
Kingdom law, not U.S. law, by virtue of a temporary and conditional
assignment of Hawaiian executive power by Queen Lili`uokalani made under
a threat of war by U.S. forces that illegally landed on Hawaiian
territory. This temporary and conditional assignment of Hawaiian
executive power remains today in the office of the U.S. President. The
Plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment by the Court declaring the
1898 Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to
the United States (30 U.S. Stat. 750) to be unconstitutional under U.S.
law as well as a violation of Hawaiian sovereignty, and is also seeking
permanent injunctive relief, redress, restitution, disgorgement, and
other equitable relief against Defendants, which includes the State of
Hawai`i, for violations of the Lili`uokalani assignment and other
treaties that the United States government has ratified.
JULY 15, 2010 — Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint with the Federal
Court in Washington, D.C. removing President Obama as one of the
Defendants but all other Defendants remained. In Fitzgerald v. Nixon
(1982) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the President has complete immunity
from civil lawsuits. Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
allows the Plaintiff to amend the complaint without permission from the
Court if there was no response filed by the Defendants with the Court
beforehand. Although President Obama was removed as a Defendant, the
case is still referred to as Sai v. Obama, et al. JULY 30, 2010 —
Assistant U.S. Attorney Christian Natiello for Washington, D.C.,
contacted the Plaintiff and requested an additional 30 days to respond
to the Amended Complaint he received on July 26, 2010. Consent for the
request was given. The initial 60 days began when the U.S. Attorney
received the Summons and the initial Complaint on June 14, 2010, which
now gives the U.S. Attorney 90 days to file an answer with the U.S.
District Court. An answer to the Amended Complaint should be expected no
later than mid-September. AUGUST 26, 2010 — State of Hawai`i Attorney
General, on behalf of Defendant Lingle, files a Motion to Dismiss. The
Motion, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below
under the heading "Court Docket Filings." SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 — Plaintiff
files Opposition to Defendant Lingle's Motion to Dismiss. The
Opposition, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below
under the heading "Court Docket Filings." SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 — U.S.
Attorney for the District of Columbia, on behalf of Federal Defendants,
files a Motion to Dismiss. The Motion, as well as all court filings, can
be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 — Plaintiff Dimisses Defendant Lingle, but Defendants
Clinton, Gates, Willard remain. In Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant
Lingle's Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff admitted that he is not
seeking to sue Defendant Lingle, but only listed her as a nominal (name
only) defendant. The Notice, as well as all court filings, can be
downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."
UPDATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 — Plaintiff files Opposition Memorandum to
Defendants Clinton, Gates, and Willard's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff
has also requested a hearing on the Opposition pursuant to Local Civil
Rule 7(f) of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The
Opposition Memorandum, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded
in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings." NEW: Six short
videos uploaded on Vimeo that cover sections of the Federal Complaint in
chronological order from 1840 to the present.

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

Court Docket Filings

* Complaint (June 1, 2010)
* Amended Complaint (July 15, 2010)
* Amended Complaint Exhibits A-JJ
* Court Order Granting Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint to
September 13, 2010 (August 3, 2010)
* Defendant Lingle's Motion to Dismiss (August 26, 2010)
* Court Order Advising Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant Lingle's Motion
by September 20, 2010 (August 26, 2010)
* Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Lingle's Motion to Dismiss
(September 8, 2010)
* Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (September 13, 2010)
* Defendant Linda Lingle, Governor of the State of Hawai`i's Memorandum
in Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Lingles's Motion to
Dismiss Complaint (September 16, 2010)
* Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to
Defendant Lingle (September 20, 2010)
* Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Clinton, Gates & Willard's
Motion to Dismiss and Request for Hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7(f)
(September 28, 2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

For more information about this law suit, contact:

Dr. Keanu Sai at: 808-383-6100 or email: keanu.sai@gmail.com

***********************

My Notes:

Keanu interview with Lynette Cruz:

'Non U.S. citizens can file.'

'Under Benjamin Cayetano and Bronster caused injury due to felony
charges to Keanu Sai, denied a fair trial, cannot steal land because
it's immovable. He was charged due to Perfect Title Company.'

'If one or more defendants reside outside of the U.S. they can
file....Federal Court is no better than a State Court in a foreign
country.'

'Keanu looks to expunge his convictions, looks to annul the Treaty of
Annexation, confirm his prosecution was a War Crime, etc.'

'State vs. Kaulia - case can be filed as a third party.'

'Individuals/U.S. have 60 days to respond: 1) attack complaint - defects
in complaint 2) show no basis and 3) have to answer the complaint.
---they will accept or deny.'

'Original Complaint June 1, 2010.
Amended Complaint filed June 30, 2010. Then 60 days they have to
respond.'

'The U.S. needs to show/prove that Hawaii is part of the U.S.'

'Information used can be used as a template for their case(s) because it
affects everybody'.

Keanu takes heed from ancestral directions.

************
These are the facts:

Note: Sai "was forced to file" this suit.

Keanu pushes the "native tenants rights" but the real wording in the
Royal Patents are "rights of native tenants" which means totally
different things.

Keanu has unresolved issues over "subject matter jurisdiction" or the
court has no jurisdiction.

The facts are:

During King Kalakaua's period, a U.S. Representative approached the
Hawaiian Kingdom for loans and would not pay back for thousands of
years, only small amounts of interest would be paid.

Our House of Nobles denied them. The U.S. is on record
Evidence of Premeditation to assume a neutral, friendly nation occurred
by bankrupt nations and their banking investor - U.S., England, and the
Morgan bankers (includes international bankers - Bank of England).

President Cleveland gave Hawaii back to Queen Liliuokalani.

The usurpers failed to allow Queen Liliuokalani any of the despatches.

Results:

PARASITES OF PARADISE, PIRATES OF THE PACIFIC: Charles Reed Bishop and
Friends, PIRATES OF THE WORLD: U.S., England, and the Morgan bankers
(including International bankers such as the Bank of England, etc.)
caused an Identity Theft on the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Public Information sent to many.

Documented Genocide Activities filings continue.

As one of the members of the Royal Families House of Nobles, we continue
to support aboriginal Hawaiians/kanaka maoli as well as assigning
Protective Orders for those aboriginal Hawaiians/ kanaka maoli to help
malama /take care of our families interests.

Consult/review with others in regards to intervene or place and Amicus
Curiae, etc.

aloha.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txG-aVfao5k






















Brudda Iz and the Makaha Sons of Niihau"">
7:07






|
1
year ago
|
9,151
views