C. STATEMENT OF CASE:
a. The U.S. is obligated to conduct
itself in international affairs in accordance with
international law.
The U.S. Constitution has incorporated treaties
of the United States of America with other states
as "the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges of
every State shall be bound
thereby16." The U.S.
Constitution explicitly recognized the validity of
international law when it conferred to Congress the
right to define and duty to punish offenses against
the law of nations.17
The United States Supreme Court has already stated
that it must take judicial notice of international
customary law.18
·
"The United States has
concluded that it has a trust obligation to
indigenous Hawaiians because it bears a
responsibility for the destruction of their
government and the unconsented and uncompensated
taking of their lands. U.S Solicitor General Seth
Waxman to the U.S. Supreme
Court"19
While international law may differ from
municipal, internal or domestic laws in that
internal laws have a system of enforcement while
the enforcement of international law is uncertain
at best, the fact that a law is enforceable doesn't
make it law. Rather, the fact that it is law
demands its obedience, whether enforceable by arms
or by moral
conscience.20 Grover
Cleveland, in addressing the joint houses of the
U.S. Congress, declared that:
The considerations that international law is
without a court for its enforcement, and that
obedience to its commands practically depends upon
good faith, instead of upon the mandate of a
superior tribunal, only give additional sanction to
the law itself and brand any deliberate infraction
of it not merely as a wrong but as a disgrace.
The U.S. Constitution itself requires courts to
view treaties as part of the Supreme Law of the
Land21 Furthermore,
it is a fundamental doctrine of International Law
that a state may not excuse itself for violations
of international law on the basis that its
municipal constitution or laws permitted violations
of such international
laws.22
Thus, every court in the United States is
obligated to look beyond the mere legislative
pronouncements of the Congress and hold up these
transactions of the U.S. government with regards to
Hawai'i against the backdrop of international law
and the Constitution of the United
States.23
B. The transactions engaged in by the U.S. in
its dealings with Hawai'i in accordance with
international law in its pattern of conduct
attempting to annex Hawai'i to the
U.S..
The United States had formally recognized
Hawai'i as an international personality,
recognizing the Nation of Hawai'i as a
sovereign, independent nation state. The treaty
of Friendship, Commerce, Navigation and Extradition
(hereafter FCN&E) proclaimed November 9, 1850,
declared, "There shall be perpetual peace and amity
between the United States and the King of the
Hawaiian Islands, his heirs and his
successors.24The U.S.
was to violate this treaty time and again.
By 1873, U.S. Minister to Hawai'i Henry Pierce,
bent on annexation, informed U.S. Secretary of
State Fish that annexation would be achieved only
if "...the planters, merchants and foreigners...
will induce the people to overthrow the Hawaiian
Government, establish a republic, and then ask the
United States for admittance into its
Union"25 The U.S.
government was not limited to merely writing
letters between high officials. On January 15,
1873, Major General and commander of the United
States Army Military Division of the Pacific, John
Schofield, (formerly Secretary of War) and
Brigadier General B.S. Alexander of the Corps of
Engineers, arrived in Hawai'i pretending to be on a
vacation. Instead, they were spies to report about
"the defense capabilities of [Hawai'i] different
ports and their commerce facilities, and to examine
any other subjects that may occur to you as
desirable, in order to collect all information that
would be of service to the Country in the event of
war with a powerful maritime nation. They submitted
a secret report on the great value of Pearl Harbor
as a port to provide a safe harbor to protect
several hundreds ships. This report was kept secret
until 1897 when it was declassified to support
annexation in
Congress.26
By 1882, the U.S. President administration was
engaged in encouraging the destabilization of the
Hawaiian government through discussion with Lorrin
Thurston. The Arthur administration assured
Thurston that the U.S. government would look with
great favor to an annexation treaty should there be
a revolt and overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and
a new government formed.
The U.S. government subsequently sent to Hawai'i
annexationist John L. Stevens, as its Minister
Plenipotentiary. Stevens was well known as an
annexationist. As editor of the Kennebec
Journal. for time, in partnership with U.S.
Secretary of State Blaine, he and Mr. Blaine wrote
numerous articles for the annexation of Hawai'i.
27 On March 8, 1892,
he requests instructions from Blaine on how far he
may deviate from established international rules
and precedents in order to advance the goal of
destabilization and annexation of
Hawai'i.28
By 1892, U.S. Harrison administration, itself,
as on the same course as the Arthur administration
10 years earlier, encouraging Thurston toward the
destabilization of
Hawai'i.29 On the 17th
of January, 1893, through the connivance of the
U.S. Minister plenipotentiary, with Thurston, the
Hawaiian monarch was forced to yield her authority
to the U.S. government by the aggression of the
U.S. military upon Hawaiian
soil.30
Every one of these acts was in violation of
international law, both as a matter of customary
international law31 as
well as the FCN&E treaty. They were also in
contradiction to the much earlier declaration of
the U.S. President to the Congress on December 31,
1842, recognizing Hawai'i independence and pledging
never to take possession of
Hawai'i.32
In Article 6(a) of the Nuremberg
Charter, we find Crimes Against Peace; namely,
planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a
war of aggression, or a war in violation of
international treaties, agreements or assurances,
or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for
the accomplishment of any of the
foregoing.33
The United Nations General Assembly at its first
session in 1946 recognized the principles set out
in the Nuremberg
Charter.34
The United States committed crimes against peace
under the law of nations by planning and
implementing the use of force to overthrow the
Hawaiian monarch without any provocation by her
official representatives. United States President
Cleveland in addressing the joint houses of
Congress on December 18, 1893, stated it accurately
when he said, "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." The United
States Congress, in its apology bill signed by
President Clinton on November 23, 1993, was equally
explicit when it stated:
"On January 14, 1893 John L. Stevens...the U.S.
minister ...conspired with a small group of
non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawai'i,
including citizens of the United States, to
overthrow the indigenous and lawful
government..."35 The
U.S. Congress concede that the
government of the Kingdom of Hawai'i was the lawful
government at that time, and that an official agent
of the United States government conspired to
overthrow the government of Hawai'i. The United
States government is bound by the actions of its
agents, of its
ministers.36 The
President was bound by the actions of the minister.
The United States government conspired to overthrow
the lawful government of the Kingdom of Hawai'i,
which was an internationally illegal act at the
time it was done, and is currently acknowledged by
President Clinton and congress.
The next paragraph continues, "pursuant to the
conspiracy... naval representatives called armed
forces to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation on
January 16, 1893, and to position themselves near
the Hawaiian government buildings and the (Iolani)
Palace to intimidate the Queen Liliu'okalani and
her government."37
Congress significantly calls an invasion an
invasion. That is what it was, a clearly illegal
act, an invasion in violation of treaties and
international agreements, an invasion in violation
of international law, and an invasion in violation
of the United States Constitution the overthrow of
a lawful government.
Under the international law when you have a
violation of treaties of this magnitude, the World
Court has ruled that the only appropriate remedy is
restitution.38
The Kingdom of Hawai'i, that is our independent
nation state. This is the appropriate remedy.
The Public Law goes on from here, reciting the
sorry history of what happened,
the establishment of the
provisional
government.39 Well,
that is not entitled to any legitimacy at all. It
was imposed by raw, naked, and brutal military
force, at the point of a bayonet, (gunboat
diplomacy), just as was practiced in many other
countries, only here now Congress has finally
admitted this.
The next paragraph points out that the
establishment of this provisional government was
without the consent of the Native Hawaiian people
or the lawful government of Hawai'i, and violated
all of the international treaties and
agreements.40 So under
international law, you would not call this
provisional government. You would call it a
government of military occupation. That is, we had
military forces here and then we had a civilian arm
of the military occupying regime.
The occupied Palestinian lands where the Israeli
occupying forces have set up a civilian arm if
their military occupation authorities to administer
the civil affairs of the Palestinian
people.41 The
negotiations centered around the withdrawal of the
civilian military occupation arm, and the
withdrawal of the military occupation forces
themselves.42 The
September 13, 1993 agreement calls for the
dissolution of the civilian occupation arm and then
the withdrawal of the military occupation forces
themselves.43
Therefore, this "provisional government "
referred to in the Public Law is really the
civilian arm of a military occupation force. That
was the predecessor to the current government of
Hawai'i that administers to us. Again, following
the implications of that law, the state government
of Hawai'i occupies a similar position to that
provisional government. The federal military forces
here keeping it in power.
We then come to the statement by our precious so
loved Queen Liliu'okalani, "that I yield to the
superior force of the United States of
America,"44 She made
it very clear that this statement and her later
abdication were procured under duress and force. It
could not be treated by anyone as a valid surrender
of sovereignty by the Native Hawaiian people at all
and she made that very clear in this language. She
was simply bowing to superior power, but NOT as a
matter of right or of
law.45
In a parallel case communicating with the World
Court, the Owen-Stoltenberg
plan46 to partition
the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was
concluded, by means of threats and duress,
compulsion and coercion. It was therefore invalid,
under international law and the Vienna Convention
on the Law of
Treaties.47 Our Queen
Liliu'okalani a very powerful person, and
preserving the rights of her people under duress,
she committed an act now seen as "under extreme
duress".
The law goes on, with Congress admitting that
[w]ithout the active support and intervention by
the United States... the insurrection...would have
failed for lack of popular support
and insufficient
arms.48 And in 1893
"the minister raised the flag and declared Hawai'i
to be a protectorate of the United
States."49 They did
not protect anything, did they? Was there a need to
protect Hawai'i from itself, from its own people?
Who was threatening Hawai'i at that time? It was
the United States. They needed protection from the
United States, so this is absurd. Hence, The
occupation was entitled to no legal validity at all
at the time and is not now. That is basically what
Congress is saying.
The Blount Report states that "military
representatives had abused their authority and were
responsible for the change in
government."50 Again,
this is further admission that the United States
acted illegally under international law. The
implication then. of these admissions by Congress,
by the Blount Committee, is that there must be
restitution.51 Na
Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people,
Na po'e O Hawai'i have a right to be returned to
the situation they were in, as of January 17, 1893.
The federal government disciplined the minister and
forced him to resign his commission. The overthrow
should be reversed. The President could have done
it if he wanted to; he just did not do it.
President Cleveland's message to congress
admitted all this. "An act of war, committed with
the participation of a diplomatic representative of
the United States and without authority of
Congress."52 The
President clearly admitted that this was illegal
behavior of the most heinous type. A "substantial
wrong" was done, calling for the restoration of the
Hawaiian monarchy.53
The United Nations
Charter.54
The Newlands Joint
Resolution55 provided
for the annexation of Hawai'i in 1893. Where is the
authority for this? There is none. They stole the
land, the country, displaced the government, and
now they have annexed it. This very issue was
addressed by the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945, where
German Nazi government tried to maintain that some
of the annexations of foreign territory that it had
undertaken before and during the Second World War
were entitled to legal recognition. The Nuremberg
Tribunal itself in 1945 said, "no annexations are
valid prior to the conclusion of a peace
treaty."56
The United States government and the President
conceded that they engaged in acts of war, that
they are occupying our land and that they put
themselves at war with our
people.57 The United
States annexation has no validity under
international law. The U.S. have effectively, in
this law, invalidated the entire annexation. The
whole legal basis for it now been
invalidated.
The annexation of the land is invalid, then
where does the title come from, who has title to
the land? It is Na Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people
who retain title to the lands of Hawai'i, as a
matter of international law. It is not the federal
government, not the state government, but Na Kanaka
Maoli (Hawaiian) people themselves. That is the
implication here. The truth of the findings of
facts and conclusions of law are now officially set
forth by Congress.
"[T]he Newlands Resolution, the...Republic of
Hawai'i ceded sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands
to the United
States."58 But the
Republic of Hawai'i
59never had
sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands. We have
already determined the Republic of Hawai'i was the
civilian occupying arm of a military occupation
forces. Sovereignty remains in the hands of the
displaced sovereign. This is black letter
international
law.60
"The Republic of Hawai'i ceded 1,800,000 acres
of crown, government, and public lands of the
Kingdom of Hawai'i, without the consent of or
compensation to Na Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people,
or sovereign
government.61 The
Republic had no authority to do this. The Republic
of Hawai'i was a military occupation authority, the
civilian arm, without any sovereign claims to the
land under the laws of military occupation and the
laws of war. So they had no power to cede anything.
The title to the land rested and still rests, under
international law, with the Kingdom of Hawai'i Na
Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people.
Our Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i, Hawaiian people of the
Kingdom of Hawai'i cannot "trespass" on our own
land. The trespassers are the state of Hawai'i, the
land developers, the golf courses, and the resorts.
What this fact does is point out that the whole
situation is completely turned around on its head.
It now changes the whole way that these U.S. and
state authorities should be looking into this
matter. The federal government is the trespasser
and the criminal. The Kingdom of Hawai'i is Na
Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people asserting our rights
under international law. This reversal of positions
between who is the criminal and who are the
VICTIMS, and between who is asserting their RIGHTS
and who is violating our rights has been
effectively conceded by Congress.
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.62
Article 25 of Declaration provides that
"everyone has the right to a standard of living
adequate for health, well-being of themselves and
their family, including food, clothing, housing,
medical care and necessary social
services."63 In 1994 a
survey was done in the state. Na Kanaka Maoli
(Hawaiian) people were ranked #1 as highest in
poverty, ill health, homelessness, and
imprisonment. The state of Hawai'i has no right to
throw anyone of our Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people
out. Where is the governments right?
Article 18 of the Declaration provides that
"everyone has the right to freedom of thought,
conscience, and religion. This includes freedom to
manifest his religion or belief in teaching,
practice, worship, and
observance."64 The
state of Hawai'i, real estate developers, or resort
developers, has no right to destroy any of what our
ancestors have created as Heiau to worship on our
lands or burial sites to respect. Under Article 18.
"Whereas, the Congress...annexed Hawai'i...and
vested title to the lands in Hawai'i in the United
States.65 This is
clearly illegal. The annexation was invalid. The
United States cannot get title from the Republic of
Hawai'i because the Republic of Hawai'i never had
title in the first place. They had no sovereignty.
They were nothing more than a military occupation
power, and a military occupation power cannot
validly transfer title to land. Again, black letter
international law.66
The occupying power cannot sell land legally. You
cannot transfer land title. It does not make it
lawful, but invalid. It's illegal. Occupying power
cannot sell land legally. All transactions that
were done, are all invalid. It is illegal. It's all
arguably, they are obliged to leave, and not to
stay.
The law goes on to state; "Where, the Newlands
Resolution effected the transaction between the
Republic of Hawai'i and the United States
government.67 The
Newlands Resolution is entitled to no validity at
all, since it is based on an illegal invasion, a
violation of treaties, and a violation of the
principle of pacta sunt
servanda.68 Many
numerous and repeated violations of law have
accrued as a result of this.
Congress admits that "the indigenous Kanaka
Maoli (Hawaiian) people never directly relinquished
their claims to ... inherent sovereignty... through
a plebiscite or a
referendum.69 The U.N.
General Assembly subsequently adopted its
Declaration on the Gantion of Independence to
Colonial Countries and peoples, (GA Res. 1514
(XV) of 14 December 1960) and formed the Special
Committee On The Situation with regard to the
Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting
of Independence of Colonial Countries and
Peoples. That declaration and the activities of
the special committee reflect that the actions
taken by the United States in Hawai'i did meet the
standard of self-governance contemplated under
Article 73. The exercise of self-determination in
Hawaii [Hawai'i] has not been accomplished. The
plebiscite taken in 1959 failed to meet the
requirements of the exercise of self-determination
for at least two reasons; the U.S. government
altered the "self" in defining who qualified to
participate in the process, and limited the choices
which the people should have had only to a form of
integration within the United States of America
(territorial status or statehood), not to
independence.70 The
vote is meaningless, as a matter of international
law and of United States domestic law. Pursuant to
the principle of self-determination in article 1,
Paragraph 2 of the United Nations
Charter.71
The Public Law more admissions "Whereas, the
long-range economic and social changes in Hawai'i
over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
have been devastating to the population and to the
health and well-being of the Hawaiian
people."72 A survey
done in Hawai'i in 1994 the Hawaiian people rank
number 1 in poverty, ill health, homelessness, and
imprisonment. The Hawaiian people have been
subjected to the international crime of Genocide,
as determined and defined by the 1948 Genocide
Convention,73 and the
1987 Genocide Convention Implementation
Act,74 the Proxmire
Resolution. That was one of the findings of the San
Francisco Tribunal. The key findings held here
concerning Hawai'i Ka Ho'okolokolonui Kanaka
Maoli.
In the International Court of Justice, they have
been convinced that Genocide is going on in
Bosnia-Herzegovina,75
There is no reasonable doubt my next step is the
World Court. GENOCIDE has being practiced by the
United States government against Na Kanaka Maoli
Hawaiian People. This will take my people, Na
Kanaka Maoli back to the creation of a nation and
will bring protection for Na Kanaka Maoli
(Hawaiian) people and the Hawaiian Citizens of
Hawai'i. I, Majesty Akahi Nui, King of the Hawaiian
Islands will not at all even consider what
Secretary Babbitt is considering as the same status
as Native Americans. My people are not even as
close to the same status of a Native American. My
people are Na Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i and the people
not of the race are Hawaiian citizens.
"It is proper and timely for Congress to
acknowledge the historic significance of the
illegal overthrow."76
It had no validity at all.
The Resolution then addresses support for the
reconciliation
efforts.77 Under
international law for a violation of this nature,
the remedy is
restitution.78 To set
right the harm that has been done to restore the
situation to what it had been before the violation
in 1893. See the Chorzow Factory
case.79
Section 1, acknowledgment and
apology.80 The law
again repeats, "illegal overthrow. " the
significance of the various "whereas" clauses were
"resolved by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America, in
Congress and Senate, and signed by the President
.81 This provision of
the law recognizes the illegal overthrow and
"acknowledges the historical significance of this
event which was ultimately the suppression of the
inherent
sovereignty.82
Paragraph 2 apologizes for the overthrow "with
the participation of agents of the United
States.83The U.S.
government again is responsible for the actions of
its ministers, Congress now calls these people
"agents" Their illegal conduct, binds the United
States government. The United States government is
under an obligation to undo the harm that was done.
But even if the United States does not, I,
Majesty Akahi Nui and my Na Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian
people) have our right to act to undo the curse
of injustice in the World Court It is presently
active in the World Court. The rest of the sentence
reads, "the deprivation of the rights of Native
Hawaiians to
self-determination.84
Congress has conceded that the Native Hawaiian
peoples have the right to
self-determination. Self-determination of the
people is under the U.N. Charter provides a rights
to full
sovereignty.85
Paragraph 4 expresses its commitment to
acknowledge the
ramifications.86
The ramifications, and the implications, of the
overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i.
The definition section, Congress defines Native
Hawaiians as "any individual who is a descendant of
the aboriginal people, prior to 1778...occupied and
exercised sovereignty, in the area that now
constitutes the state of
Hawai'i.87 Our right
to determine our political status, our government,
through customary systems, and to freely pursue our
economic, social, and cultural development in
accordance with article 1 of both the International
Covenant on Civil Political, Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights.88
This affirms that the Kingdom of Hawai'i is still
in existence. The descendants of the aboriginal
people still lives which affirms the existence of
the Kingdom of Hawai'i. The sovereign authority of
these lands.
I, Majesty Akahi Nui has been recognized by the
illegitimate government that I am a descendant of
1778 on 12th of March 1998.
It is not the state or the federal government,
but the Hawaiian people. The sovereignty is still
and will always remain in the hands of my people
Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i. The territory is the state.
The Hawaiian Archipelago, the lands before the
invasion of 1893.We claim a twelve mile territorial
sea and a 200 mile exclusive economic zone, in
accordance with customary international law and the
Law of the Sea Treaty of
1982.89
Congress has recognized Na Kanaka Maoli
Hawai'i with sovereign powers. We are the
original inhabitants and occupants of these
islands. We have always been in possession of our
land. Our sovereign nation the Kingdom of Hawai'i
was always in existence because the race still
lives Na Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i (Hawaiian
people).
Our rights under the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.90.
We can come together with a great understanding
and great respect for each others nation state to
speak with peace and brotherly love.
"Men may change the laws of the
land." "They can not change the truth."
"May we pray for healing to the
Hearts and Lands of our people,"
Mahalo, thank you for your time in reviewing the
importance of the truth that has been brought to
your attention. Future communications will be
considered.
On this Sixteenth day of the Eighth month in the
Holy Year of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Nine.
In Sacret Trust I am;;
Majesty Akahi Nui
| 
