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 thereby (16)." 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 U.S. Constitution itself requires courts to view treaties as part of the Supreme Law of the Land (21) 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.(24) The 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 law (31) 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:
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 plan (46) 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 Resolution (55) 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 (59) never 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 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 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 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). 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.
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 Thirtyfirst day of the Seventh month in the Holy Year of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ Two Thousand and One.
In Sacred Trust I am;
Majesty Akahi Nui
What Follows is the form for the Notary Public and the Footnotes for the Above Document (Part III)