Blog

Sharing.   A perspective.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

THE TWENTY-SIXTH LEGISLATURE

REGULAR SESSION OF 2011

Madame Chair, distinguished committee members, ladies and gentlemen:

          My name is Keoni Kealoha Agard, a Native Hawaiian attorney.  We testify today on behalf of the members of Hui Aloha Aina so that their voices are no longer silenced.  We testify in opposition to SB 1520.

NEITHER STATE OF HAWAII LEGISLATURE NOR THE U.S. CONGRESS HAS THE

RIGHT TO USURP, INTERVENE OR ENCROACH UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OR THE U.S.PRESIDENT

The sovereign status of the Kingdom of Hawaii is protected and

preserved by two EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS in 1893 made by President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani, two soverign heads of two distinct and separate nations.

          Because of the existence of the EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS between President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani,.this legislative body cannot consider legislation to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government in connection with SB 1520.

THE 1893 EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS WERE NEVER TERMINATED OR EXTINIGUISHED AND REMAIN IN LEGAL FORCE AND EFFECT

          These Executive Agreements remain intact under the authority of the executive branch of the United States Government.  The responsibility to administer these Executive Agreements now are held in the hands of President Barack Obama.

EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO BY TWO SOVEREIGN HEADS OF STATE:  THE UNITED STATES AND THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII BOTH RECOGNIZED BY U.S. LAW AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL LAW

                   A pact or understanding with a foreign government reached by the

                   President or a Presidential agent is called an executive agreement.

                   The agreement may be written or oral. Unlike a treaty, it does not

                    require the advice and consent of the Senate. 

          The Executive Agreements in question were negotiated in 1893 between President Grover Cleveland, as sovereign head on behalf of the United States, and Queen Liliuokalani, as sovereign head on behalf of the Kingdom of Hawaii. 

The President entered into these Executive Agreements under his sole constitutional authority to represent the United States in foreign relations and the Congress cannot intervene without violating the separation of powers doctrine.  Intervention constitutes an encroachment upon the executive branch.

THE LI’LIUOKALANI ASSIGNMENT, the first agreement, assigned executive power to the United States President to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law and to investigate the overthrow of the Hawaiian government. 

THE RESORATION AGREEMENT , the second agreement,  obligated the President of the United States to restore the Hawaiian government as it was prior to the landing of U.S. troops on January 16, 1893, and for the Queen, after the government was restored and the executive power returned to grant full amnesty to those members and supporters of the provisional government who committed treason.         

QUEEN LILIUOKALANI YIELDED HER EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII CONDITIONAL TO PRESIDENT CLEVELAND OF THE UNITED STATES UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII WAS RESTORED,

THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII STILL REMAINS AND IS PROTECTED UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

          Because the executive power was yielded by Queen Liliuokalani to President Cleveland, the sovereign status of the Kingdom of Hawaii still remains in the hands of Cleveland and his successors in office under the executive branch of the U.S. government.

All other actions by the U.S. Congress, the legislative branch of the U.S. government, are invalid or ineffective as Congress has no jurisdiction to legislate where it concerns foreign countries.  Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress cannot legislate beyond the territorial borders of the United States.

Five years after the 1893 Executive Agreements were enacted, the purported successor governments of Hawaii (the Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawaii), had no authority to cede any Hawaiian lands to the United States.  Under Hawaiian Kingdom Law they were insurgents and traitors who were never pardoned by Queen Liliuokalani because the United States never restored the Kingdom.

These traitors never had the right to cede any land to the United States  

The executive power of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the administration of Kingdom laws were in the hands of President of the United States when the Newlands Resolution was passed.

The President granted no authority in connection with Kingdom lands to the Republic of Hawaii.

Therefore, the Republic of Hawaii had no lands to cede to the United States of America.

The attempt by the Republic of Hawaii and the United States Congress to cede all lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii is simply invalid.  That attempt was a perpetration of a massive fraud upon all peoples of Hawaii over the course of the past 118 years.

EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS ARE CONSIDERED TREATIES THUS ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND

          The Supremacy clause is found in the United States Constitution in Article IV, clause 2 which states in relevant part as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…(emphasis added)

          In U.S. v. Belmont, the U.S. Supreme Court held that;

although an executive agreement might not be a treaty requiring ratification  by the Senate, it was a compact negotiated and proclaimed under the authority of the President, and as such was a “treaty”.

Accordingly, the Executive Agreements between Liliuokalani and Cleveland are considered a treaty between two foreign nations.

EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT ASSIGNED UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

          Executive agreements enable the U.S. President to make international arrangements without senatorial participation, as is constitutionally required for treaties. Presidents may thus circumvent the Constitution by calling treaties executive agreements.    Executive agreements are practical alternatives made under presidential authority. Starting early with postal relations, executive agreements cover many complex subjects such as copyrights, foreign aid, and trade. Big disputes mostly concern agreements made by presidents acting independently as national negotiator and commander in chief. After a modest debut with President James Monroe's agreement to limit arms on the Great Lakes in 1817, a convenient device for temporary or detailed arrangements developed into an instrument for major foreign policies. Further, President Franklin D.  Roosevelt converted executive agreements into primary instruments of foreign relations. He approved the Litvinov Agreement recognizing the Soviet Union in 1933, and the destroyer bases deal of 1940. During World War II, President Roosevelt and President Truman made secret agreements with allies at Cairo, Yalta, and Potsdam affecting most of the world. Postwar alliances and a global economy spawned thousands of executive agreements, more than 2,800 in the Reagan administration alone.  As such, the U.S.President has exclusive and sole authority as it relates to conducting foreign affairs on behalf of the United States of America. Given this authority, the U.S. President is duly authorized to negotiate executive agreements with other foreign nations.

IN 1843, UNITED STATES AND THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII  ENTERED INTO

TREATY RELATIONS TO OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZE THE INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN STATUS OF THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII AS WITNESSED BY

THE ENTIRE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

            In the 19^th century, Great Britain and France entered into a joint proclamation acknowledging and recognizing the Kingdom of Hawai`i as an independent and sovereign State on November 28^th 1843. Moreover,on July 6^th 1844, United States Secretary of State John C. Calhoun notified the Hawaiian government of the United States formal recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent and sovereign state as of December 19^th 1842 by President John Tyler. As a result of the United States’ recognition, the Hawaiian Kingdom entered into a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, Dec. 20^th 1849 at 9 U.S.Stat. 977; Treaty of Commercial Reciprocity, Jan. 13^th 1875 at 19 U.S. Stat. 625; Postal Convention Concerning Money Orders, Sep. 11^th 1883 at 23 U.S. Stat. 736; and a Supplementary Convention to the 1875 Treaty of Commercial Reciprocity, Dec. 6^th 1884 at 25 U.S. Stat. 1399.   The Hawaiian Kingdom also entered into treaties with Austria-Hungary, June 18^th 1875; Belgium, Oct. 4^th 1862; Bremen, March 27^th 1854; Denmark, Oct. 19^th 1846; France, July 17^th 1839, March 26^th 1846, Sep. 8^th 1858; French Tahiti, Nov. 24^th 1853; Germany, March 25^th 1879; Great Britain, Nov. 13^th 1836 and March 26^th 1846; Great Britain’s New South Wales, March 10^th 1874; Hamburg, Jan. 8^th 1848); Italy, July 22^nd 1863; Japan, Aug. 19^th 1871, Jan. 28^th 1886; Netherlands, Oct. 16^th 1862; Portugal, May 5^th 1882; Russia, June 19^th 1869; Samoa, March 20^th 1887; Spain, Oct. 9^th 1863; Sweden-Norway, April 5^th 1855; and Switzerland, July 20^th 1864.

          In the 21^st century, an international tribunal as well as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as an internationally recognized state in the 19^th century. In Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, 119 ILR 566, 581 (2001), the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague stated,

                   in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom

                   existed as an independent State recognized as such by

                   the United States of America, the United Kingdom,

                   and various other States.

          In addition, the 9^th Circuit Court, in Kahawaiola`a v. Norton, 386 F.3rd 1271

 (2004), also acknowledged the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as “a co-equal sovereign alongside the United States.” Furthermore, in Doe v. Kamehameha, 416 F.3d 1025, 1048 (2005), the Court stated that, “in 1866, the Hawaiian Islands were still a sovereign kingdom.”  Clearly, the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist.

PRESIDENT GROVER CLEVELAND’S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS IN 1893 CALLED

FOR THE RESTORATION OF KINGDOM OF HAWAII GOVERNMENT

          After a thorough investigation into the facts surrounding the unlawful overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii government by U.S. military forces in January 1893, President Grover Cleveland made an important speech to Congress, which states in pertinent part as follows:

     Thus it appears that Hawaii was taken possession of by the United States forces without the consent or wish of the government of the islands, or of anybody else so far as shown, except the United States Minister…Therefore the military occupation of Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly without justification… (emphasis added)… I believe that a candid and thorough examination of the facts will force the conviction that the provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States.  Fair-minded people with the evidence before them will hardly claim that the Hawaiian Government was overthrown by the people of the islands or that the provisional government had ever existed with their consent.  I do not understand that any member of this government claims that the people would uphold it by their suffrages if they were allowed to vote on the question…

          In short, President Grover Cleveland’s message was a re- affirmation of his understanding of the executive communications he had with Queen Liliuokalani and further buttressed his intent to restore the Kingdom of Hawaii government. Further, his words to Congress were indeed consistent with his diplomat negotiations with Queen Liliuokalani pursuant to their Executive Agreements.

CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE CLEVELAND/ LILIUOKALANI  EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS TO BE EFFECTIVE

          Applicable federal caselaw establishes that Congressional approval is not required in order for an Executive Agreement to be effective.   Executive Agreements entered into by the President under his constitutional authority with foreign States are treaties that do not need ratification by the Senate. See United States v. Belmont.  The U.S. Constitution provides that treaties, like acts of Congress, are considered the “supreme law” of the land; see U.S. Constitution Article VI, Clause (2).

          In Belmont, supra, 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 (emphasis added).  Other landmark cases on executive agreements are United States v. Pink, and American Insurance Association v. Garamendi.  In Garamendi, supra, 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.”  According to Justice Douglas, Pink, supra, executive agreements “must be read not as self-contained technical documents, like a marine insurance contract or a bill of lading, but as characteristically delicate and elusive expressions of diplomacy.” 

          In short, Executive Agreements are considered a treaty, which is treated as the supreme law of the land, not requiring ratification by Congress.  Likewise, Congress cannot encroach upon the Executive powers of the President as it relates to Executive Agreements, including such Agreement between President Cleveland with Queen Liliuokalani in 1893.

NO CONGRESSIONAL ACT CAN SUPERCEDE THE EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

          Based on the court decisions in Rose, supra, and The Apollon, supra, cited above, the United States cannot legislate by passing laws that impact the citizens of other foreign states.  There is no precedent or authority for taking such action.  For example, the U.S. is precluded from passing laws via Congress on behalf of citizens from Great Britain, France, Germany and others.  Likewise, it is precluded from passing laws via Congress on behalf of citizens of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

          Queen Liliuokalani turned over her executive power to the President for him to faithfully administer Hawaiian Kingdom law.  To this day, the President still holds that executive power, consistent with the Liliuokalani assignment.  As such, Congress cannot encroach upon the exclusive executive power of the President. 

“SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE”- PRECLUDES ENCROACHMENT BY THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT WITH EACH OTHER

          Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating from the United States Constitution, whereby the legislative, executive, and judical branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This U.S. form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.  Each branch of government is given exclusive powers and assigned certain responsibilities under the U.S. Constitution. The separation of powers doctrine precludes encroachment by any one branch into the responsibilities assigned to other branches of government.

ANY ACTS BY SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENTS, BY CONGRESS OR BY OTHERS AFTER LILIUOKALANI ASSIGNMENT ARE INVALID

          Any acts taken by successor governments, the Congress and/or others are ineffective and invalid.  The executive power remains in the hands of President Cleveland and his successors in office.  Hawaiian lands and Kingdom of Hawaii government was never legitimately transferred because they were under the protection of the office of the President pursuant to the Executive Agreement between President Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani.  Such executive power was held by Cleveland and his successors until such time that the Kingdom of Hawaii government is restored.

THE UNITED STATES IS PRECLUDED FROM LEGISLATING BEYOND ITS OWN TERRITORIAL BORDERS

          According to Born, “American courts, commentators, and other authorities understood international law as imposing strict territorial limits on national assertions of legislative jurisdiction.”  Furthermore, in Rose v. Himely, the U.S. Supreme Court illustrated this view by asserting, “that the legislation of every country is territorial;” and in The Apollon, the Court stated that the “laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territory” for it would be “at variance with the independence and sovereignty of foreign nations.” The Court also explained, “however general and comprehensive the phrases used in our municipal laws may be, they must always be restricted in construction, to places and persons, upon whom the legislature have authority and jurisdiction.”  

NO TREATY OF ANNEXATION WAS EVER PASSED BY U.S. CONGRESS TO EXTINGUISH THE EXISTENCE OF THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII

          There were two attempts to introduce a treaty of annexation before the U.S. Congress first in 1893, then again in 1897.  Both failed in Congress (see Exhibit 1-2), attached hereto. The history books must be corrected to reflect the real facts. There never was any annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii. As such, the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist (see Hague decision in Larsen v. Kingdom of Hawaii, supra), notwithstanding the unlawful military occupation of the Kingdom of Hawaii by the U.S.

JOINT RESOLUTION BY U.S.CONGRESS IN 1898 IS INEFFECTIVE AS KINGDOM

WAS UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE PRESIDENT THUS KINGDOM OF

HAWAII CONTINUES TO EXIST

          President Cleveland had already entered in an agreement to restore the Kingdom of Hawaii government prior to Congressional efforts to take Hawaii.  Because Cleveland retained the executive power of Liliuokalani, the successor government, Republic of Hawaii, had no legal standing to attempt to cede any Hawaiian lands to the U.S. by way of a joint resolution.  Further, Cleveland never authorized ceding of lands to either the Provisional government or the Republic of Hawaii.  Neither successor government could have ceded Hawaii lands because they had nothing to cede.  Two attempts to secure a treaty of annexation failed in Congress.  Although a Joint Resolution to annex Kingdom of Hawaii to the United States was passed in Congress, such measure has no legal force and effect.  First, the Kingdom of Hawaii was under the protection of President Cleveland pursuant to the Executive Agreements.  Second, there is no constitutional authority under the U.S. Constitution that authorizes Congress to annex a territory by way of joint resolution, as opposed to a treaty of annexation (that failed twice in Congress).  Third, the Provisional government and Republic of Hawaii under Kingdom law were traitors under Hawaiian Kingdom law, and had no legitimate claim to Lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

          In 1898, the U.S. Congress, in an act of desperation, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and further in violation of and also contrary to international law, passed a joint resolution.  Said resolution purportedly claimed annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii; it falsely claimed then and still continues to claim, without merit, the extinction of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

          However, the facts reveal that the Congress failed at two different points in time in 1893 and 1897, thus was never able to pass a law, nor to approve any treaty of annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii, contrary to many fictitious commentaries throughout history who claim that Kingdom of Hawaii was annexed.  Nothing can be farther from the truth. A careful examination will reveal that there is no provision whatsoever in the U.S. Constitution that allows for annexation of any foreign country, including the Kingdom of Hawaii, by the United States by use of a joint resolution resolution.  Any attempt to declare otherwise has no merit. In short, the passage of the joint resolution was simply a political ploy to dupe others into falsely believing the Kingdom of Hawaii was annexed to the U.S., when it was not.

ALL EVENTS OCCURING AFTER LILIUOKALANI ASSIGNMENT ARE INEFFECTIVE AND HAS NO LEGAL FORCE AND EFFECT

          The separation of powers doctrine does not allow any U.S. branch of government to encroach upon the duties and responsibility assigned to the other branches.

          When Liliuokalani yielded her executive power to the U.S. President, he was charged to faithfully carry out the terms of the Executive Agreements on her behalf.  That same power still rests with the President today.  Other branches of government cannot encroach.   It is important to emphasize that all of the events described earlier, had no effect whatsoever on the executive power entrusted to the President.  Any events occurring after the Liliuokalani assignment to President Cleveland had no legal force and effect whatsoever.  Any actions by alleged successor governments of the Kingdom of Hawaii, or by Congress, or by anyone else, is a direct encroachment on the powers of the President.

NO STATE LAW CAN SUPERCEDE EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

          The State of Hawai`i’s may allege a claim to territorial jurisdiction under HRS 701-106(1)(a). However, it is in direct conflict with the 1893 Executive Agreements and the judicial precedence set in three U.S. Supreme Court decisions pursuant to  Belmont, supra (1937), Pink, supra, (1942), and Garamendi, supra (2003), which is in violation of the Supremacy clause.

          Since the United States is a Federal government, States within the Federal Union are subject to the supremacy of Federal laws and treaties, in particular, executive agreements. U.S. constitution, article VI, clause 2, provides:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United  States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made,or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges           in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding (emphasis added).

          In Belmont, supra and Pink,supra, the Court gave effect to the express terms of an executive agreement that extinguishes all underlying claims of relief sought under State law.  The Lili`uokalani assignment mandates the President to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law until the Hawaiian Kingdom government can be restored as mandated by the Agreement of restoration.  Instead, the State of Hawai`i was established by an Act of Congress in 1959, which is an encroachment on the executive power of the President, and the recognized principle of the “exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations,” (emphasis added).

     In Belmont, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that:

no state policy can be found to legally supersede an executive agreement between the federal government and a foreign country. The external powers of the U.S. government can be exercised without regard to State laws.

          The Lili`uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Restoration are Federal matters under the exclusive authority of the President by virtue of Article II of the U.S. Constitution.  The Lili`uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Restoration divests this legislative body from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over such matters.  

MILITARY OCCUPATION BY THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT EXTINGUISH THE SOVEREIGN STATE OF THE KINDGOM OF HAWAII

          Let us address the question on whether or not the Hawaiian Kingdom status as a sovereign state was extinguished after its government was overthrown by U.S. troops on January 17^th 1893.  As a subject of international law, statehood of the Hawaiian Kingdom can only be measured and determined by the rules of international law and not the domestic laws of any State to include the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom. 

According to Professor Crawford, a well recognized international law scholar, “A State is not necessarily extinguished by substantial changes in territory, population or government, or even, in some cases, by a combination of all three.”  In particular, military “occupation does not extinguish the State pending a final settlement of the conflict. And, generally, the presumption—in practice a strong presumption—favors the continuity and disfavors the extinction of an established State.”  Professor Wright, a renowned scholar in U.S. foreign relations law, states that, “international law distinguishes between a government and the state it governs.”  Wright says that:

A state may continue to be regarded as such even though, due to insurrection or other difficulties, its internal affairs become anarchic for an extended period of time;”  and “Military occupation, whether during war or after an armistice, does not terminate statehood (emphasis added)

          Therefore, a sovereign State would continue to exist despite its government being overthrown by military force.  Two contemporary examples illustrate this principle of international law, including the overthrow of the Taliban (Afghanistan) in 2001 and of Saddam Hussein (Iraq) in 2003. The former has been a recognized sovereign State since 1919, while the latter since 1932.  Further, Professor Dixon explains:

If an entity ceases to possess any of the qualities of statehood…this does not mean that it ceases to be a state under international law. For example,           the absence of an effective government in Afghanistan and Iraq following the intervention of the USA did not mean that there were no such states,         and the same is true of Sudan where there still appears to be no entity          governing the country effectively. Likewise, if a state is allegedly ‘extinguished’ through the illegal action of another state, it will remain a state in international law.  

          According to Professor Marek, “the legal order of the occupant is…strictly subject to the principle of effectiveness, while the legal order of the occupied State continues to exist notwithstanding the absence of effectiveness [e.g. no government]. …[Occupation] is thus the classical case in which the requirement of effectiveness as a condition of validity of a legal order is abandoned.”  Referring to the United States’ occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom in his law journal article, Professor Dumberry states:

the 1907 Hague Convention protects the international personality of the           occupied State, even in the absence of effectiveness.  Furthermore, the legal order of the occupied State remains intact, although its effectiveness is greatly diminished by the fact of occupation.  As such, Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV provides for the co-existence of two distinct           legal orders, that of the occupier and the occupied.  

          In the case of Kingdom of Hawaii, it remained protected under the power of the Executive Branch pursuant to the terms of the Executive Agreements.  Said Agreements remain under the protection of the current President to this very day.  Therefore, although the occupation continues to the present day, the Kingdom of Hawaii continues to exist as a sovereign state.  The Lili`uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Rrestoration are Federal matters under the exclusive authority of the President by virtue of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, this legislative body  cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction without violating the Supremacy Clause and the separation of powers doctrine under the U.S.Constitution.

CONCLUSION

          The Lili`uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Restoration, being Executive Agreements, were entered into under the sole authority of the President in foreign relations.  The proper authority rests in the Executive Branch.  Only the President reserves the proper authority to resolve this controversy.  This legislative body does not have such authority.  The legislative body cannot usurp or intervene when the Executive Agreements are reserved to the President.  Under the separation of powers doctrine, the question of which branch reserves the power to conduct foreign affairs, it is clearly the President.  

          In short, we strongly urge this legislative body to drop this bill and allow the proper branch of government to address these matters described above.  Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns on SB 1520.                              

Acknowledgement to Louis Buzzy Agard, John M. Agard, Keanu Sai, Dexter Kaiama, Kale Gumapac, Sol Naluai, Lehua Kinilau-Cano, Tracy Tamanaha, Mary Ann Saindon, Lynette & Franklin Valdez and many others

Keanu Sai's motion to reconsider was denied and we wait to see how the judge will rule on the motion to reconsider by the Kanaka intervenor.

All the new filing are posted at the link below

http://kingdomofhawaii.wordpress.com/about/kanaka-intervenor/

ALERT!
April 10, 2011

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED...
Auwe! - The one remaining Akaka-scheme enabling bill (SB1520 SD2 HD3) is scheduled for “third reading” (final floor vote) during the House session on Tuesday, April 12...

Please send emails and make phone calls to all the members of the House of Representatives to URGE THEM NOT TO VOTE FOR SB1520. (You can send one generic email to all 51 reps at one time at:  reps@capitol.hawaii.gov  )

The reasons to use are:

1. This would be bad for Hawaii. The majority of the people of Hawaii, native and non-native, oppose this measure. They have not even had the opportunity to vet this idea at public hearings...
2. SB1520 is unconstitutional. It sets into motion the Akaka bill scheme of “federal recognition” and “creating a Native Hawaiian government,” actions which the state has no constitutional authority to perform.
3. Passage of SB1520 would literally commit the state to hundreds of millions of dollars in increased expenditures and diminished revenues.
4. SB1520 would be a redundancy as the state already has the Aha Na ‘Oiwi, Native Hawaiian Convention program in process, but which is uncompleted and stalled for lack of funding.
   

1. Do not pass SB1520.
2. Put off SB1520 until next year after sufficient public hearings are held throughout the state.
3. Set SB1520 aside and provide funds to complete the Aha Na ‘Oiwi, Native Hawaiian Convention process as called for in HR56 and HCR63.
   

I'm sorry! Please forgive me! I thank you! And I love you!

I'm sorry! Please forgive me! I thank you! And I love you!

These are the special words, God sent to us all.

These are the magic words, God gave to us all.

Ho'oponopono・

...I'm sorry! Please forgive me! I thank you! And I love you!

I'm sorry! Gomen ne! Yurushite ne! Please forgive me

I'm sorry! Please forgive me・I love you!

Aishiteru yo! Makoo no kotoba kami-sama kara no fushigi na hibik Ho'oponopono・

hitori hitori e no okurimono

I'm sorry! Please forgive me! I thank you! And I love you!

I'm sorry! Please forgive me! I thank you! And I love you!

These are the special words, God sent to us all.

These are the magic words, God gave to us all.

Ho'oponopono・

...I'm sorry! Please forgive me! I thank you! And I love you!

I'm sorry! Gomen ne! Yurushite ne! Please forgive me

I'm sorry! Please forgive me・I love you!

Aishiteru yo! Makoo no kotoba kami-sama kara no fushigi na hibik Ho'oponopono・

hitori hitori e no okurimono

http://kingdomofhawaii.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/the-sarah-vowell-problem/

A review of a presentation about Unfamiliar Fishes by Sara Vowell

Yesterday I attended a presentation and reading by Sarah Vowell at the Brooklyn library.  The good news was Ms. Vowell did a very thorough job of research of Hawaiian Kingdom history.  It was good to hear a somewhat accurate discourse on our nations past.  As time went on I felt a little queasy.  It was not so much that Ms. Vowell was so put off by Hawaiian names and found so much difficultly in pronouncing them, to the point of calling Henry Opukahaia, Opuna, but to a lack of patient understanding.  She reported that it took her three years to complete her book, written mostly in New York and researched in Hawaii during two to three week visits.

What begins to worry me is the continuation of mythologies about our status.  She states that the deposing of our Queen was done as a conspiracy of business people and the minister John L. Stevens, but relies on the American claim to a legal annexation.  You know the facts and still miss the central point.  When Ms. Vowell discusses the opposition to Statehood she dismisses it as a vocal minority and appears to see legitimacy of the plebiscite or the vote for Statehood.  It occurs to me that the short period of time she dedicated to the Hawaiian condition relied on many of her prejudices as an American.  This includes a disdain for Monarchy and a suggestion on her part that good came out of the piratical acts of America by ending a hated Crown government.  But wait I also heard her say Queen Liliuokalani [She mispronounced the name] was probably the best person for the Hawaiian people at that time.

I realize she is trying to make history entertaining and cracks wise about Hawaii’s unique qualities. Good fun!  So what I see as the danger here is that because of her fame she becomes the de-facto spokesperson on the issues most dear to us in the independence movement.  Ms. Vowell alludes to her ancestry, Cherokee, then English and Scottish if I got that right, but claims some kind of correct deportment as a native person to be fair in her conclusions.

Conclusions are the problem!  She is capable as a historian [but spotty in her research] and suffers from a colonial mind when she comes to conclusion about Hawaiians as a people, as humans with rights.  Her self stated New England prejudices continue to bolster the US fraud.

She does not speak for Hawaiians and when she quotes David Malo that Unfamiliar fishes will come from dark shores and devourer our own, she sadly is unfamiliar to me.

Get On Track With The Facts - HawaiiFakeState.com

Danner is a master artist of lies and obfuscation!

Think Sovereign.....Think Ahupua`a

IT'S TYPICAL!  $100,000 to the Arizona Memorial Museum, $250,000 for Apec cultural training and when a charter school asked for a grant to help fund their trip to Tahiti for a cultural exchange, they were told by OHA that they ran out of grant money for that year.  How convenient!  This reminds me of "The Broken Trust"  scandal of Bishop Estate Kamehameha Schools trustees and government corruption.   It's evident that OHA spends money on everything but for the betterment of the native Hawaiians.  Muhe'e piele sons of a B!!!!!!!   God bless those puka mimi schiesters; for they know what they do; but do-do.   Like Aunty Miriam once said to a scoundrel, they came like the wind and they can go like the wind!  Hewa is as hewa does.  Is it time to pound the ti-leaf?   Auwe no ho'i e!  God bless those little devils!  God willl not forget nor will He be mocked by them!

Subject: OHA supports efforts to pass Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act
Reply-To: "Office of Hawaiian Affairs" <webmaster@oha.org>

OHA supports efforts to pass Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act  HONOLULU—The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) Board of Trustees supports U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, and the rest of Hawai‘i’s congressional delegation as they work to enact the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (NHGRA), which will extend federal recognition to Native Hawaiians. OHA stands ready to assist the congressional delegation as it works to achieve this goal. “Thanks to the efforts of Senator Akaka and the Hawai‘i delegation, the Native Hawaiian people will soon have a process to achieve a government-to-government relationship that will help to protect our land, culture and way of life,” said OHA Chairperson Colette Machado. “The trustees believe now is the time for congress to act.” “We commend Senator Akaka and the congressional delegation for moving federal recognition forward,” said Clyde Nämu‘o, OHA’s chief executive officer. “Recognition is good for Native Hawaiians and we believe it will be beneficial for everyone in the state of Hawai‘i.”   Media Contact: Garett Kamemoto Media Relations and Messaging Manager 808-594-1937 About OHA... The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, (OHA) under the direction of its nine trustees elected statewide,  is charged with the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians. For more information on OHA visit the link below. Links www.oha.org »

ALOHA Kakou, e Hawaii,

       Since January 16, 1893 when United States thru an "Act of War" invaded and occupied the Hawaiian Kingdom, Hawaii is an Occuped Nation! 

       There was No Overthrow, No Treaty of Annexation, No Cededing of the National Lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom of Hawaii to the United States! 

       On January 17, 1993 I renounced my citizenship to the United States and went home to my country, the Hawaiian Kingdom nation that is under the Occupation of the Military Forces of the United States!  

       I am a Hawaiian National of the Occupied Hawaiian Kingdom nation! 

       United States needs to Pull Down their Flag and GO HOME, Get Out of Hawaii, ALOHA OE, U.S.A.

                  Long Live The Hawaiian Kingdom, o Pomaikaiokalani, Hawaiian National Royalist 1993

This is H.C.R. 107, introduced on March 14, 2011:

http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/HCR107_.pdf

The investigations into the two executive agreements are based solely from a legal stand point and not from a racial or sovereignty stand point.

Also, you can no more tell the race or ethnic background of an American than you can that of a Hawaiian, so race is not an issue!

This is the latest post on Sai v. Clinton, April 2, 2011:

http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/?p=736

The U.S. cannot rely on the political question doctrine, non-justiciable issue to be determined by the U.S. Congress as the U.S. officially recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom on July 6, 1844 as an independent nation State. U.S. officials must yield to the U.S. Supremacy clause. The impact will be so huge you can't blame the U.S. for defending in whatever way they can! 

The information posted in the link below came out in Maui News too: http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info:80/?p=729

The Maui County Council is in support of H.C.R. 107, introduced by Representative Mele Carroll on March 14, 2011, calling for a joint legislative committee to investigate two Executive Agreements, international compacts, entered into by U.S. President Grover Cleveland and Queen Lili'uokalani of the Hawaiian Islands back in 1893.

The first illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Islands occurred on January 17, 1893.

Newly elected U.S. President Grover Cleveland commissioned James Blount to investigate the events that led to the January 17, 1893 Executive Assignment from Hawaii's Queen [the overthrow]. James Blount's investigation concluded that U.S. diplomatic and military representative had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in [the Hawaiian] government. Emphasis added.

This was also noted in U.S. Public Law 103-150, the Apology Bill. That however, is a House Joint Resolution which has no affect 

over another country. Although this Public Policy was not put into a treaty to properly apologize to native Hawaiians as well as

Hawaiian nationals for the change in government the U.S. caused to the sovereign people of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the apology itself has resonated serious repercussions in the global community and the external sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom is still recognized by many countries, the internal sovereignty is currently oppressed by the belligerent occupation of the United States.

The January 17, 1893 Executive Assignment, International Compact, between the U.S. and the Kingdom triggers the U.S. to implement Hawaiian Kingdom law, this is in accordance to the International Laws of Occupation.

On December 18, 1893 the Queen entered into the Executive Agreement of Restoration, which was conditioned by U.S.

President Cleveland to provide amnesty to insurgents that perhaps were influenced by U.S. Plenipotentiary Minister John L. Stevens who himself was afforded diplomatic immunity to escape treason under Hawaiian Kingdom law.

The December 18, 1893 Executive Agreement of Restoration, International Compact, estops any transactions within the Hawaiian Kingdom jurisdiction and bind the office of the U.S. President under the U.S. Executive Branch of Government until that Agreement has been fulfilled; unless the U.S. implements Kingdom law, in which to date it has not done so!

You can see the monumental impact this will have not only in Hawaii, but globally, as anything recorded at the Bureau of Conveyances and business registrations are all null and void since January 17, 1893.

The Provisional Government was made up of a group calling themselves the committee of safety. They were in fact insurgents and without any authority from the Hawaiian Kingdom!

The Provisional Government, which President Cleveland had pleaded to the Queen to provide amnesty, later changed their name to the Republic of Hawaii in 1894.

The U.S. Congress prevented President Cleveland from restoring the Hawaiian Kingdom in two separate House Joint Resolutions, rendering him a Lame Duck! We now have case law that clearly indicate that Congress of the U.S. has no authority beyond its borders as authority belongs to the U.S. President in his Executive capacity and the Executive Agreements entered into must be honored under the U.S. Supremacy Law as the Law of the Land, overriding State of Hawaii laws and U.S. Federal laws.

Officers of the Court are held to a higher degree to observe the U.S. Supremacy Law as they have taken an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, failure to recognize the two Executive Agreements, International Compacts, will equate to an International War Crime in accordance to the Geneva Convention and U.S. military rules of engagement.

The second illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom occurred on August 12, 1898.

The signatures of around 38,000 Hawaiian Nationals, against the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the U.S. in 1897, known as the Ku'e petitions, resulted in the failure of the U.S. Congress meeting the required votes in order to accept the proposed Bill for a Treaty of Annexation of the Hawaiian Islands. A true victory procured by our kupunas and certain members of the U.S. Congress for the preservation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

That Treaty of Annexation was proposed by the Republic of Hawaii insurgents, not the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Further, the December 18, 1893 Agreement of Restoration would have stopped that transaction had it gone through.

President McKinley via Newlands Resolution annexed Hawaii on July 7, 1898, in which a formal ceremony took place in Hawaii on August 12, 1898. The second illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Islands!

The Hawaiian Kingdom gained its independence as an independent nation State on November 28, 1843 [La Kuokoa] by a Joint Anglo-Franco Proclamation signed at the Court of London.

Timoteo Haalilio was the first diplomatic envoy from the Hawaiian Islands along with William Richards and Sir George Simpson to accomplish that task.

http://hawaiiankingdom.org/treaties.shtml

Hawaii's independence was further officially recognized by the U.S. a little over seven months later on July 6, 1844 in its informal recognition of Hawaii's independence back in 1842, by U.S. President John Tayler.

Once independence is recognized it is done, the only way a country can loose it is by a treaty of cession or treaty by conquest none of which happened in Hawaii. Note: a treaty by conquest was only outlawed in 1920, so you can see that the Queen had much to be concerned about even up to the time of her death in 1917.

This is a funny clip about our Hawaiian history on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:

http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/?p=682

Comparing the Newlands Reslution to Annex Hawaii to a New Jersey law declaring for Jon Bon Jovi day.

This is what happened in Honolulu cocerning H.C.R. 107:

http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/?p=687

And this concerns the McKinley statute:

http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/?p=694

The statute displays the words Treaty of Annexation, now they want to recast it! It would only be right to return it to Washington D.C. and exchange it for the Kamehameha statute over there!

I would also suggest that they change the name McKinley High School back to Honolulu High School, there being no treaty of annexation!

If anything check out this short video, it's easy to comprehend:

http://vimeo.com/14074723

The U.S. and State of Hawaii has no title to Hawaiian lands!

This is where you can find the rest of the short video's and check out the lawsuit and Keanu Sai's dissertation:

http://vimeo.com/14074723

This is where a lot of information can be found:

http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/

http://freehawaii.blogspot.com/

http://www.hawaiianindependencealliance.org/

Some terms to know:

Kanaka Maoli, is a full blooded native Hawaiian.

Kanaka, is a part native Hawaiian.

Hawaiian national is a Hawaiian Subject regardless of ethnic background.

Something to keep in mind:

Kamehameha III, was the last autocratic ruler in the Hawaiian Kingdom as he voluntarily gave up his absolute sovereignty for a Constitutional system of governance comprising of three branches of government, the Legislative branch, which makes laws. The Judicial branch who make decisions on the laws. And the Executive branch that implements the law. Very similar to the U.S. government structure.

The people of the Hawaiian Kingdom was the most literate people in the world as about 90% of its population could read and write.

The Hawaiian Kingdom was the first in the world to make education mandatory among its citizens regardless of class.

It was law for all Konohiki to comprehend Political Economy. William Richards converted a book by Fancis Wayland, late President of Brown University in Providence, Road Island, for the Konohiki to learn.

http://www.franciswayland.org/wayland.pdf

The Hawaiian Kingdom was not colonized and we are not moving for sovereignty. We are already sovereign because of our recognized Joint Proclamation of Independence back on November 28, 1843.

Queen Lili’uokalani temporarily assigned only her authority as head of state on January 17, 1893, not the entire sovereign body or country!

The 1864 Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution remain in effect as the 1887

Bayonet Constitution was signed under duress by King Kalakaua while the Legislators were out of session and there being no just cause to change anything in the Constitution that could not wait until regular session was convened. The 1887 Hawaiian Constitution is unlawful.