|
TRUE AND LAWFUL DOCUMENTED FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS. 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 predecessor to the current government of Hawaii that administers to us. Again, following the implications of that law, the state government of Hawaii occupies a similar position to that of the 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 [without 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, "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 has now been invalidated.
The annexation of the land is invalid, then where does the title come from, whom 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 (See Bureau of Records, commonly referred to as Bureau of Conveyance in the unlawful state of Hawaii, ancestral title document numbers; 2002-005573 Through 2002-005574, 2002-005579 Through 2002-005580, 2002-005577 Through 2002-005578, 2002-005575 Through 2002-005576. The true ancient Allodial Title vested exclusively in Majesty Akahi Nui, Kingdom of Hawaii Nation Ministries Trust. The truth of the findings of facts and conclusions of law are now officially set forth to Congress. "[The 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 vested and still vests, 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.
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, have 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. The 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 Granting 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.83 The 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 under the U.N. Charter provides a right 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 live, which affirms the existence of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. The Sovereign authority of these lands.
I, Majesty Akahi Nui have 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). Rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.90.
We can come together with a great understanding and great respect for each other's Nation state to speak with peace and brotherly love.
"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.
I ,His Royal Majesty Akahi Nui, have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Great Seal of the Hawaiian Islands to be affixed on this Seventh day of the Second month in the Holy Year of our Lord and Savior Iesu Kristo Two Thousand and Three.
In Sacred Trust I am;
Majesty Akahi Nui
Copies To: The Washington Post
Do you have a lawful governmental foundation and lawful jurisdiction over the aboriginal Na Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i (Hawaiian people) by the illegitimate state of Hawai'i and its entities since January 16,1893 and to this present day in 2003? (Read Justice O Connor Opinion USSC) The apology letter from the U.C.C. (United Church Of Christ), U.S. P.L. 103-150 and the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) 1992 National Convention RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING SUPPORT FOR THE RESTORATION OF HUMAN, CIVIL, PROPERTY AND SOVEREIGN RIGHTS OF HAWAII'S INDIGENOUS PEOPLE.
Yes ( ) Please explain in full with attached lawful documentation of original evidence truth of law.
No ( ) No Jurisdiction
Sworn Officials of the United States, being duly sworn on oath, deposes say; that the foregoing question is answered to the best of his or her knowledge and behalf.
Failure to answer this lawful document within 20 days may result in an entry of default.
__________________________________
__________________________________
____________________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me This ____ day of ______________, 2003.
___________________________________
|
|
40. Whereas, the United States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition to the Provisional Government that was formed by the conspirators without the consent of the Native Hawaiian people or the lawful Government of Hawaii and in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law. Overthrow of Hawaii Resolution Public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1511. Return 41. See J Timothy McGuire, International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories: Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, 8 Emory International Rev. 383 (1994). Return 42. See David Schulman, The Israli-PLO Accord on the declaration of Principles of Interim Self-Government Arrangements; The First Step Toward Palestinian Self-Determination, 7 Emory International Law Rev.739 (Fall 1993);Gumar Halley, Issues Confronting the return of the Palestinian Arab Refugees After the 1993 Declaration of Principles of Interim Self-Government Arrangements, 8 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 149(1994) Return 43. Declaration of Principles of Interim Self-Government Arrangements. Sept. 13,1993. 1st.-PLO, art. VI,32 I.L.M. 1524, 1527 Return 44. Overthrow of Hawaii Resolution Public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1511. Return 45. See Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of The Crime of Genocide (Bosnia & Herzpgovina v. Yugoslavia), 1993 I.C.J. 325 (Sept. 13). Return 46. See Alan C. Laifer, Note, Never Again? The Concentration Camps in Bosnia Herzpgovina; A legal Analysis of Human Rights Abuses, 2 New Eur. L. Rev, 159, 187 (Spring 1994) Return 47. " A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force on violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations." Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, supra note 12, at art. 52. Return 48. Overthrow of Hawaii Resolution, Public Law No. 103-150, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1512 Return 49. Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law 103-150, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1512. Return 50. Id. ("Presidential established investigation conducted by Congressman James Blount into the events surrounding the insurrection and overthrow"). Return 51. See Nark A. Inciong, Note, The Lost Trust; Native Hawaiian Beneficiaries Under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 8 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 174, 191 n.34 (1991) ("The Blount Report ... found that the overthrow ... had been illegal ... and that Liliu'okalani [should] be restored to power"). Return 52."Whereas, in a message to congress on December 18,1893, President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on the illegal acts of the conspirators." Overthrow of Hawaii Resolution public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1511. Return 53. Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1511. Return 54. U.N. Charter, art. 1,&2. Return 55. Newlands Resolution, Public Law No. 55, 30 Stat. 750 (1898). Return 56. "{It was held that, by 1939, the rules on belligerent occupation [that it does not transfer sovereignty] been recognized by all civilized nations and were regarded as being declatory of the law and customs of war." George Shwwarzenberger. 2 international Law 165 (1965) (citing Nuremberg Judgment, International Military Tribunal, Cmd. 6964 at 65 (1946). Return 57. Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510. Return 58. Id. at 1510 Return 59. Mililani B. Trask, Historical and Contemporary Hawaiian Self-Determination: A Native Hawaiian Perspective, 8 Ariz. J. Int'l Comp. L. 77, 91-95 (1991). Return 60. "[A]nnexation of occupied territory is a violation of International LawƒTitle to the territory in question must not change until there is a complete subjection (debellatio) or a peace treaty has been put into effect." Gerhard Von Glahn, Law Among Nations 768 (1992). Return 61.Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1512. Return 62. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res.217 (III) U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess, 61. Return 63. Id. at art. 25. Return 64. Id. at art. 18. Return 65. Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1512. Return 66. "Belligerent,
occupation does not transfer sovereignty. Instead it
transfers to the occupant the authority to exercise some
rights of sovereignty." Von Glahn, supra note 58 at 744.
See also footnote# 67 P.L. 150-130 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107
Stat.) 1514, 1512 67. Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law, No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.)1510, 1512. Return 68. See Martin Hession, The legal framework of European Community in International Environmental Agreements, 2 New Eur. L. Rev. 59, 103 (Spring 1994) Return 69. Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1512. Return 70. U.N. Charter art. 73, The Admission Act of March 18, 1959, Public Law 86-3, 73 Stat. 4. Return 71. U.N. CHARTER art. 1 paragraph 2 Return 72. Overthrow of Hawaii Resolution, Public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1511. Return 73. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, January 12, 1951, 78 U.N.T.S. 277. Return 74. Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987, Public Law no. 100-106, 102 stat.3045 (1987). Return 75. See Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of The Crime of Genocide (Bosnia & Herzogovina v. Yugoslavia, 1993 I.C.J. 325 (Sept. 13.) Return 76. Overthrow of Hawaii Resolution, Public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1511 Return 77. Id. Return 78. Case concerning the Factory at Chorzow, 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17, at 1 (Sept. 13). Return 79. Id. Return 80. Case concerning the Factory at Chorzow, 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser.A) No. 17, at 1 (Sept. 13). Return 81. Id. Return 82. Id. Return 83. Id. Return 84. Id. Return 85. U.N. CHARTER art. 1, paragraph 2. Return 86. Overthrow of Hawaii Resolution, public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1511 Return 87. Id. Return 88. International Covenant on Civil Political, Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16 at 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966). Return 89. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/122, reprinted in 21 I.L.M. 1261 (1982). Return 90. Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, G.A. Res 217 (III), U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948) reprinted in 21 I.L.M. 1261 (1982). Return |