Alii

Nui Mi (High Chief/King) Edmund KeliI Silva, Jr.

c/o AliI Manao Nui (Chief Advocate) Lanny Sinkin
P. O. Box 944
Hilo, Hawaii 96721
(808) 936-4428
lanny.sinkin@gmail.com

MI (THE CROWN) BY APPEARANCE

OF ALII MANAO NUI (CHIEF ADVOCATE)

KINGDOM OF HAWAII
IN THE SUPREME COURT

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS

Introduction

The arrest of thirty-one Protectors of Mauna a Wakea, by agents of a foreign nation,
which currently does not recognize the Kingdom and currently occupies the
Kingdom, creates the possibility that a foreign court will make findings and/or enter
rulings that infringe on the rights of Protectors who are subjects of the Kingdom,
infringe on the rights of participants in the Hawaiian Independence Movement, and
infringe on the rights of the King and the Kingdom itself.

Petitioner seeks declaratory judgments from this Supreme Court in order to provide
the foreign court with the Kingdoms law on issues that may arise in the foreign
court.1 This memorandum offers Petitioners evidence supporting each judgment
sought.

This memorandum assumes that the Apology Resolution, Public Law 103-150,
passed by the United States Congress and signed by President William Jefferson
Clinton, constitutes a series of admissions against interest that make production of
independent evidence on such admitted facts unnecessary.2 At a minimum, the

1 The Crown will be directing Alii Manao Nui Lanny Sinkin to deliver the Kingdoms

Message to the District Court of the Occupying Power, once this Court has made its
determinations of the issues.
2 Petitioner accepts that the Apology Resolution did not change the status quo; the
United States simply apologized without committing itself to any remedial action,
other than a call for reconciliation. It is the statement of facts contained in the
Apology Resolution that are relevant to this Petition. The word whereas in the
context of this resolution carries the meaning because. Whatever the outcome of
the resolution (therefores), the causative factors are identified in the preliminary
whereas) clauses. Those causative factors provide the factual context for the
ultimate action taken.

Apology Resolution shifts the burden of proof to the United States to show that the
facts set forth are incorrect.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 1: The Committee of Safety seizure of the Queen
in 1893 constituted high treason against the Kingdom on the part of those
participating who owed allegiance to the Kingdom.

The Apology Resolution states that the purpose of the resolution is to offer an
apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the
Kingdom of Hawaii.3

Exhibit 1, Cl. 1. 4

The Apology Resolution further states:

Whereas, on January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens (hereafter referred to in this

Resolution as the "United States Minister"), the United States Minister
assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired
with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii,
including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and
lawful Government of Hawaii .5

Ibid., Cl. 6.

The Hawaiian Kingdom Penal Code defines treason as follows:

Treason is hereby defined to be any plotting or attempt to dethrone or
destroy the King, or the levying of war against the Kings government, or the
adhering to the enemies thereof giving them aid and comfort, the same being
done by a person owing allegiance to this kingdom.
Hawaiian Kingdom Penal Code, Chapter VI, 1.

3 The Apology Resolution repeatedly conflates the Hawaiian population tracing its
ancestry to the time prior to the arrival of Captain Cook with the subjects of the
Kingdom. At the time of the overthrow, Native Hawaiians were subjects of the
Kingdom of Hawaii. The Kingdom had subjects of Hawaiian ancestry and non-
Hawaiian ancestry.
4 The published Apology Resolution does not have the clauses numbered. For ease
of reference in this Memorandum, Exhibit 1 adds a number to each clause and
references those clauses in this Memorandum in the format Exhibit 1, Cl. *-*
5 Again the Apology Resolution conflates indigenous with Government. The
Kingdom was not an indigenous government; indigenous Hawaiians were part of a
larger group of subjects of the Kingdom Government.

In the overthrow, there were two separate groups for purposes of applying this
statute: Hawaiian Subjects and Aliens. The key people involved in the overthrow
were:

Committee of Safety

Hawaiian Subjects: Crister Bolte, William Richards Castle, John A. McCandless,
William Owen Smith, Loren Thurston, Henry Waterhouse
U.S. Citizens - Henry Ernest Cooper, John Emmeluth, Theordore F. Lansing,
Frederick W McChesney

Non-U.S. Foreigner - Andrew Brown, Edward Suhr, William Wilder

Assisting

Hawaiian Subjects Charles Carter, Samuel Mills Damon, Sanford B. Dole, Peter
Cushman Jones

Non-U.S. Foreigner James A. King.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Safety_%28Hawaii%29

Under the statute, Hawaiian subjects (owing allegiance to this Kingdom) were
subject to prosecution for treason.

Applying the law to the facts of the overthrow, supports the Court entering a
declaratory judgment that the Committee of Safety seizure of Queen Liliukolani in
1893 constituted high treason against the Kingdom of Hawaii.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 2: The attempted overthrow of the Kingdom
Government would not have succeeded had it not been for United States support of
the treasonous attempt.
From the Apology Resolution:

Whereas , on January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens (hereafter referred to in this
Resolution as the "United States Minister"), the United States Minister
assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired
with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii,
including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and
lawful Government of Hawaii;

Whereas , in pursuance of the conspiracy to overthrow the Government of
Hawaii, the United States Minister and the naval representatives of the
United States caused armed naval forces of the United States 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
Queen Liliuokalani and her Government;

Whereas, on the afternoon of January 17,1893, a Committee of Safety that
represented the American and European sugar planters, descendants of
missionaries, and financiers deposed the Hawaiian monarchy and
proclaimed the establishment of a Provisional Government;
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;

Whereas, without the active support and intervention by the United States
diplomatic and military representatives, the insurrection against the
Government of Queen Liliuokalani would have failed for lack of popular
support and insufficient arms;

Whereas, the report of a Presidentially established investigation conducted

by former Congressman James Blount into the events surrounding the
insurrection and overthrow of January 17, 1893, concluded that the United
States diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority
and were responsible for the change in government .

Exhibit 1, Cl. 6-9, 12, 14.

http://kingdomofhawaii.info/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/kingdomofhawaii.info_United-States-Public-Law-103-
150.pdf

The United States admits that United States agents, acting without authority, had
responsibility for the overthrow. This admission supports the Court entering a
declaratory judgment that the attempted overthrow of the Kingdom Government
would not have succeeded had it not been for United States support of the
treasonous attempt.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 3: Queen Liliuokalanis protest of the overthrow
reserved all rights belonging to the Crown, the Kingdom Government, and the
subjects of the Kingdom.

In response to the attack on her government, the Queen issued a protest.


I Liliuokalani, by the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian
Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done
against myself and the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom
by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of
and for this Kingdom.
That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose
Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United
States troops to be landed a Honolulu and declared that he would support the
Provisional Government.

Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do
this under protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such
time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented
to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority
which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.
Done at Honolulu this 17th day of January, A.D. 1893.

Exhibit 1, Cl. 11.

In the face of the treason and the United States role in the treason and to avoid
bloodshed, the Queen stepped aside temporarily and placed responsibility on the
United States to restore her to her throne.

The Queens clear protest supports the Court entering a declaratory judgment that
the Queen reserved all rights belonging to the Crown, the Kingdom Government, and
the subjects of the Kingdom.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 4: The actions of the United States Minister in
supporting the plan by the Committee of Safety to seize the Queen and annex the
Kingdom to the United States constituted acts of war in violation of the United States
Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands dated December 20, 1849.
Article I of the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands, December 20, 1849
stated: There shall be perpetual peace and amity between the United States and the
King of the Hawaiian Islands, his heirs and his successors.
Exhibit 2 at 1.
Obviously, the actions of the United States Minister violated Article I of the Treaty.

From the Apology Resolution:

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;


Whereas, in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover
Cleveland reported fully and accurately on the illegal acts of the conspirators,
described such acts as an "act of war, committed with the participation of a
diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of
Congress", and acknowledged that by such acts the government of a peaceful
and friendly people was overthrown;

Whereas, President Cleveland further concluded that a "substantial wrong

has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as
the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair" and
called for the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy;

Exhibit 1, Cl. 6, 16-17.

Article I of the 1849 Treaty and the admissions against interest found in the Apology
Resolution support the Court entering a declaratory judgment that the actions of the
United States Minister in supporting the plan by the Committee of Safety to seize the
Queen and annex the Kingdom to the United States constituted acts of war in
violation of the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands dated December 20,
1849.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 5: The United States Ministers support of the
Committee of Safetys plan to seize the Queen and annex the Kingdom to the United
States made the United States Minister a co-conspirator with the traitors.

From the Apology Resolution:

Whereas, in pursuance of the conspiracy to overthrow the Government of
Hawaii, the United States Minister and the naval representatives of the
United States caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the
sovereign Hawaiian nation on January 16, 1893, and to position themselves
near the Hawaiian Government buildings and Iolani Palace to intimidate
Queen Liliuokalani and her Government;


Whereas, the report of a Presidentially established investigation conducted
by former Congressman James Blount into the events surrounding the
insurrection and overthrow of January 17, 1893, concluded that the United
States diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority
and were responsible for the change in government;

Whereas, as a result of this investigation, the United States Minister to

Hawaii was recalled from his diplomatic post and the military commander of
the United States armed forces stationed in Hawaii was disciplined and
forced to resign his commission .

Exhibit 1, Cl. 7, 14-15.

These admissions against interest are sufficient to support the Court entering a
declaratory judgment that the United States Ministers support of the Committee of
Safetys plan to seize the Queen and annex the Kingdom to the United States made
the United States Minister a co-conspirator with the traitors.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 6: The Provisional Government had no
legitimacy.

From the Apology Resolution:

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 .

Exhibit 1, Cl. 6.

With a pedigree as laid out in the Apology Resolution, there is no possibility of the
Provisional Government being legitimate. To the contrary, this clause of the
Resolution leaves out the violations of Kingdom law, e.g. treason.

The Court can legitimately find the Provisional Government to have no legitimacy.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 7: The United States Ministers recognition of
the Provisional Government formed by the traitors constituted another act of war in
violation of the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands dated December 20,
1849.

From the Apology Resolution:

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 .

These admissions against interest, along with the evidence adduced to support
Proposed Declaratory Judgments 5 and 6, are a sufficient basis for the Court to enter

a declaratory judgment that the United States Ministers recognition of the

Provisional Government formed by the traitors constituted another act of war in
violation of the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands dated December 20,
1849.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 8: The United States Ministers recognition of
the Provisional Government continued the Ministers participation in the conspiracy
of traitors.

The evidence adduced to support Proposed Declaratory Judgment 5 and 6 provide a
sufficient basis for the Court to enter a declaratory judgment that the United States
Ministers recognition of the Provisional Government continued the Ministers
participation in the conspiracy of traitors.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 9: Had the United States Minister denied
recognition to the Provisional Government, it is reasonable to conclude that no
other nation would have recognized the Provisional Government.

The swiftness with which other governments extended recognition to the
Provisional Government, after the United States Minister recognized the Provisional
Government, was clearly not based on the claim of the Provisional Government to be
the legitimate government of Hawaii. See Proposed Declaratory Judgment 6, supra.

Instead, the other governments almost certainly deferred to the United States
action, particularly when the Minister showed a willingness to use United States
Marines and cannons to support the Committee of Safety.

It is reasonable to assume that if the Minister had refused to recognize the
Provisional Government, the other nations would have deferred to that decision as
well. The Court should so find.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 10: The failure of the United States Government
to take effective steps to restore the Queen to her throne and the Hawaiian Kingdom
to independent status violated the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands
dated December 20, 1849.

As noted above, the Treaty of 1849 established a permanent peaceful relationship
between the United States and Hawaii. Proposed Declaratory Judgment 2 infra.

Once the United States Government was on notice of the complicity of United States
Government diplomatic and military personnel in the illegal overthrow of the
Kingdom Government, the United States had an obligation to take whatever
measures were necessary to restore the status quo ante.

From the Apology Resolution:

Whereas, President Cleveland further concluded that a "substantial wrong

has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as
the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair" and
called for the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy .

Exhibit 1, Cl. 17.

Despite this admission of a substantial wrong and the need to repair that wrong,
the United States never took effective action to repair the wrong..

The Treaty and the admissions against interest support the Court entering a
declaratory judgment that the failure of the United States Government to take
effective steps to restore the Queen to her throne and the Hawaiian Kingdom to
independent status violated the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands
dated December 20, 1849.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 11: Had the United States restored the Queen to
her throne, the Ministers recognition of the Provisional Government would have
been nullified.

The President of the United States found that morality and law called for the Queen
to be restored to her throne. That decision, however, was not acted upon.

That failure left open the continued usurpation of legitimate Kingdom authority.

Given that the only initial act giving even a shred of legitimacy to the Provisional
Government was the United States Ministers extending of recognition, effective
action by the United States to restore the Queen to her throne would mean the
United States was withdrawing its recognition of the Provisional Government.

That withdrawal of recognition would have nullified the United States Ministers
recognition of the Provisional Government.

The failure of the United States to act effectively left the Queen to choose between
armed resistance and abdication.

Whereas, on January 24, 1895, while imprisoned in Iolani Palace, Queen
Liliuokalani was forced by representatives of the Republic of HawaiI to
officially abdicate her throne .

Exhibit 1, Cl. 23.

The United States could have used its Marines to undo what they had done and
chose not to. While the United States military commander involved in facilitating
the overthrow was disciplined and forced to resign his commission, Exhibit 1, Cl. 15,

the Commander in Chief (President) remained derelict in his duty to correct what
his subordinate had done. That dereliction continues to this day.

The abandonment of the Queen and the Kingdom by the United States produced the
failure to nullify the Ministers recognition of the Provisional Government. The
Court should so find.

Declaratory Judgment 12: Had the United States nullified its recognition of the
Provisional Government, it is reasonable to conclude that other nations recognizing
the Provisional Government would have withdrawn such recognition.

Other nations had no interest in seeing the Committee of Safety members or the
Provisional Government, both of whom had the sole objective of annexing Hawaii to
the United States, take over Hawaii.

If the United States had repudiated the Provisional Government, it is reasonable to
conclude that other nations, which extended recognition following the United States
lead, would have withdrawn that recognition.

The United States controlled the diplomatic process surrounding the treasonous
uprising. The United States had a diplomatic obligation, based on treaties and
international law, not to recognize the Provisional Government. Had the United
States effectively reversed the treasons seizure of the government, other nations
would have followed suit. The Court should so find.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 13: The United States recognition of the
Republic of Hawaii violated the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands
dated December 20, 1849.

From the Apology Resolution:

Whereas, the report of a Presidentially established investigation conducted
by former Congressman James Blount into the events surrounding the
insurrection and overthrow of January 17, 1893, concluded that the United
States diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority
and were responsible for the change in government;

Whereas, as a result of this investigation, the United States Minister to
Hawaii was recalled from his diplomatic post and the military commander of
the United States armed forces stationed in Hawaii was disciplined and
forced to resign his commission .

Exhibit 1, Cl. 14-15.

The United States acknowledged that the recognition of the Provisional Government
was not a legitimate act by recalling the United States Minister, who had extended

10

that recognition so quickly after the traitors acted and played an ongoing part in the
conspiracy to destroy the Kingdom Government and annex the Kingdom to the
United States.

From the Apology Resolution:

Whereas, on July 4, 1894, the Provisional Government declared itself to be
the Republic of Hawaii.

The illegitimate Provisional Government created an illegitimate Republic.

The Treaty of 1849 reaffirms that both nations are independent and sovereign.
The preamble of the Treaty identifies the foundation for the treaty as the relations
of good understanding which have hitherto so happily subsisted between their
respective states. (emphasis added). Exhibit 2 at 1.

For the United States to recognize the Republic of Hawaii, which existed based
solely on the illegal overthrow and was not a lawful successor to the Kingdom, as
the legitimate government of HawaiI, violated the Treaty provisions pledging
mutual recognition between the Kingdom and the United States. The evidence
submitted is sufficient to support the Court entering a declaratory judgment that the
United States recognition of the Republic of Hawaii violated the United States
Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands dated December 20, 1849.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 14: The first attempt to annex the Kingdom to
the United States failed.

Shortly after seizing the Queen, the Committee of Safety formed the Provisional
Government.

Because the Provisional Government was illegitimate, that government could not
legally pursue the annexation of the Kingdom to the United States.

Nevertheless, representatives of that body took a treaty of annexation to President
Benjamin Harrison in Washington, D.C. Exhibit 3. That treaty had not been ratified
by representatives of the Hawaiian people or by any process other than the
machinations of the traitors.
On February 14, 1893, the Secretary of State in the Harrison administration signed
the treaty.

On February 15, 1893, President Benjamin Harrison submitted the treaty to the
United States Senate for ratification.

At that point, President Harrison was replaced by President Grover Cleveland.

11

President Cleveland received a protest from Queen Liliuokalani stating that the
United States had violated its relationship with Hawaii by participating in her
overthrow. Exhibit 4.

President Cleveland withdrew the annexation treaty submitted to the Senate in
1893 and sent a representative to the islands to investigate the change in
government.

From the Apology Resolution:

Whereas, the report of a Presidentially established investigation conducted
by former Congressman James Blount into the events surrounding the
insurrection and overthrow of January 17, 1893, concluded that the United
States diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority
and were responsible for the change in government;

Whereas, as a result of this investigation, the United States Minister to
Hawaii was recalled from his diplomatic post and the military commander of
the United States armed forces stationed in Hawaii was disciplined and
forced to resign his commission;

Whereas, in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover
Cleveland reported fully and accurately on the illegal acts of the conspirators,
described such acts as an "act of war, committed with the participation of a
diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of
Congress", and acknowledged that by such acts the government of a peaceful
and friendly people was overthrown;

Whereas, President Cleveland further concluded that a "substantial wrong
has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as
the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair" and
called for the restoration of the Hawaiian monarch .

Exhibit 1, Cl. 14-17.6

6 The Apology Resolution recognizes that there was a second investigation of the
overthrow.

Whereas, the Provisional Government protested President Cleveland's call
for the restoration of the monarchy and continued to hold state power and
pursue annexation to the United States;

Whereas, the Provisional Government successfully lobbied the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as
the "Committee") to conduct a new investigation into the events surrounding
the overthrow of the monarchy;

12


The withdrawal of the treaty and the report from the President to the Congress
ended any consideration of that treaty by the United States Senate. The annexation
attempt did fail and entry of a declaratory judgment to that effect is warranted.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 15: The Republic of Hawaii had no authority to
propose annexation of the Kingdom to the United States.

The Republic of Hawaii proposed a treaty to annex Hawaii to the United States.
Exhibit 5. The Senate of the Republic ratified the treaty on September 9, 1897.
http://hookele.com/non-hawaiians/consent.html

This act of ratification had no more legitimacy than did the creation of the Republic
by the Provisional Government.

For the United States to agree to such a treaty would be simply a perpetuation of the
injuries inflicted on the Kingdom by the United States.

While the proposed treaty was submitted to the United States Senate for ratification,
that referral was without legal basis.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 16: The Treaty of Annexation submitted to the
United States by the Republic of Hawaii Senate failed to achieve ratification.
At that point, President William McKinley replaced President Cleveland. President
McKinley submitted the treaty from the Republic to the Senate of the United States.


Whereas, the Committee and its chairman, Senator John Morgan, conducted
hearings in Washington, D.C., from December 27,1893, through February 26,
1894, in which members of the Provisional Government justified and
condoned the actions of the United States Minister and recommended
annexation of Hawaii .

Exhibit 1, Cl. 18-20.

The Apology Resolution discounts the validity of that second investigation and its
conclusions.

Whereas, although the Provisional Government was able to obscure the role
of the United States in the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, it was
unable to rally the support from two-thirds of the Senate needed to ratify a
treaty of annexation .

Exhibit 1, Cl. 21.

13

Under the Constitution of the United States, a treaty is approved if 2/3 of the
members of the Senate present vote to ratify the treaty. United States Constitution,
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

During this period, the traitors forced the Queen to abdicate.

From the Apology Resolution:

Whereas, on January 24, 1895, while imprisoned in Iolani Palace, Queen
Liliuokalani was forced by representatives of the Republic of Hawaii to
officially abdicated her throne.

Exhibit 1, Cl. 23.

A petition opposing annexation, known as the Kue (Resistance) Petition, circulated
in the islands.7

The Ku`e petitions was organized first by island. The women's petitions
within each island are first, divided into districts. The men's petitions are
organized, divided into districts as well. During the duress task of securing
these petition signatures there were several key players in the fortifying this
crucial document. One of them was Mrs. Laura Mahelona who went to Kona
and Kau, by way of steamer mail boats that would go to every village once a
week or so and deliver the mail. Mrs. Mahelona, along with a group of
volunteers and because of their tireless efforts by November of 1897 had
successfully gathered the signatures and support of over 21,000 patriots. In a
joint effort, the Hui Kalaiaina also gathered through their petition drive
nearly 17,000 signatures. Together there were over 38,000 signatures;
representing ninety-five percent of the Native Hawaiian population. The
estimated population at that time of Kanaka Maoli was 40,000.

The petition clearly stated the intentions of all Native Hawaiians, Hawaiian
subjects, men, women and children that sought out the petitions. We, the
undersigned, native Hawaiian subjects and residents who are members of
the Hawaiian Patriotic League of the Hawaiian Islands, and other citizens
who are in sympathy with the league, earnestly protest against the
annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States of America in any
form or shape.

http://maoliworld.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ku-e-petitions


7 This part of the history does not appear in the Apology Resolution.

14

Members of the United States Congress joined the powerful opposition from the
Queen and the Hawaiian people.

"...The present [Republic] government of Hawaii, which undertakes to cede
territory to the United States, has no title to the islands, for the reason that
their title is derived from the revolution instigated and carried to
consummation by the United States Minister, Mr. Stevens. The revolutionists
are not the representatives of the wishes of the people of Hawaii, and can
convey no title to the sovereignty of territory, the control of which they have
usurped...."

Historical Letter dated March 12, 1898 by United States Senator Donelson Caffrey
(D- Louisiana), Hawaii Annexation. 1895, 1898-1899 Donelson Caffery letters
commenting on the quasi-protectorate policy of the United States and McEnery s
support of the treaty to annex Hawaii as a territory, 5 letters, v. 2, p. 257-260, 269-
270; v. 3, p. 98; v. 6, p. 156-160. Cafferys opposition to the annexation of Hawaii, v.
6, p. 147.

In the face of the Kue Petition, and the objections from members of the Senate,
there were insufficient votes to meet the constitutional requirement for an
affirmative vote of 2/3 of Senators present. The ratification effort failed. The United
States Senate gave no further consideration to the 1897 Treaty.

Granting the Proposed Declaratory Judgment is warranted by the facts presented.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 17: The United States Joint Resolution seeking
to annex the Kingdom to the United States had no legal effect.

Subsequent to the failure of the 1897 treaty to be ratified, the United States House of
Representatives proposed a joint resolution annexing Hawaii. The resolution
passed the House and the Senate. The resolution is known as the Newlands
Resolution. Exhibit 6

From the Apology Resolution:
Whereas, on July 7, 1898, as a consequence of the Spanish-American War,
President McKinley signed the Newlands Joint Resolution that provided for
the annexation of Hawaii .

Exhibit 1, Cl. 25.

Whether the joint resolution could effectively annex the Kingdom to the United
States is an issue that remains unresolved in the United States. An official
examination of the question could find no authority for such an act.

15

We have identified two instances in which the United States acquired

territory by legislative action. In 1845, the United States annexed Texas by
joint resolution. Joint Res. 8, 5 Stat. 797 (1845). Several earlier proposals to
acquire Texas after it gained its independence from Mexico in 1836 had
failed. In particular, in 1844 the Senate rejected an annexation treaty
negotiated with Texas by President Tyler. 13 Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 1st
Sess. 652 (1844). Congress then considered a proposal to annex Texas by
joint resolution of Congress. Opponents of the measure contended that the
United States could only annex territory by treaty. See, e.g., 14 Cong. Globe,
28th Cong., 2d Sess. 247 (1845) (statement of Sen. Rives); id. at 278-81
(statement of Sen. Morehead); id. at 358-59 (statement of Sen. Crittenden).
Supporters of the measure relied on Congress power under Article IV,
Section 3 of the Constitution to admit new states into the nation. See, e.g., id.,
at 246 (statement of Sen. Walker); id. at 297-98 (statement of Sen.
Woodbury); id. at 334-36 (statement of Sen. McDuffie). These legislators
emphasized that Texas was to enter the nation as a state, and that this
situation was therefore distinguishable from prior instances in which the
United States acquired land by treaty and subsequently governed it as
territories. Congress power to admit new states, it was argued, was the basis
of constitutional power to affect the annexation. Congress approved the joint
resolution, President Polk signed the measure, and Texas consented to the
annexation in 1845.

The United States also annexed Hawaii by joint resolution in 1898.
Joint Res. 55, 30 Stat. 750 (1898). Again, the Senate had already rejected an
annexation treaty, this one negotiated by President McKinley with Hawaii.
And again, Congress then considered a measure to annex the land by joint
resolution. Indeed, Congress acted in explicit reliance on the procedure
followed for the acquisition of Texas. As the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee report pronounced, [t]he joint resolution for the annexation of
Hawaii to the United States . . . brings that subject within reach of the
legislative power of Congress under the precedent that was established in
the annexation of Texas. S. Rep. No. 681, 55th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1898). This
argument, however, neglected one significant nuance: Hawaii was not being
acquired as a state. Because the joint resolution annexing Texas relied on
Congress power to admit new states, the method of annexing Texas did not
constitute a proper precedent for the annexation of a land and people to be
retained as a possession or in a territorial condition. Andrew C. McLaughlin,
A Constitutional History of the United States 504 (1936). Opponents of the
joint resolution stressed this distinction. See e.g. 31 Cong. Rec. 5975 (1898)
(statement of Rep. Ball). [footnote 30] Moreover, as one constitutional
scholar wrote:
The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple
legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress
and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it
was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act . . . Only
by means of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States

16

be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial

forceconfined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose
legislature it is enacted.

1 Westel Woodbury Willoughby, The Constitutional Law of the United
States 239, at 427 (2d ed. 1929).

Notwithstanding these constitutional objections, Congress approved
the joint resolution and President McKinley signed the measure in 1898.
Nevertheless, whether this action demonstrates the constitutional
power of Congress to acquire territory is certainly questionable. The
stated justification for the joint resolution the previous acquisition of
Texas simply ignores the reliance the 1845 Congress placed on its power
to admit new states. It is therefore unclear which constitutional power
Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution.
Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an
appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an
extended territorial sea. [footnote omitted]

We believe that the only clear congressional power to acquire
territory derives from the constitutional power of Congress to admit
new states into the union. The admission of Texas is an example of the
exercise of this power.
Footnote 30: Representative Ball argued:
Advocates of the annexation of Texas rested their case upon the
express power conferred upon Congress in the Constitution to admit
new States. Opponents o f the annexation of Texas contended that
even that express power did not confer the right to admit States not
carved from territory already belonging to the United States or some
one of the States forming the Federal Union. Whether, therefore, we
subscribe to the one or the other school of thought in that matter, we
can find no precedent to sustain the method here proposed for
admitting foreign territory.
31 Cong. Rec 5975 (1898). He thus characterized the effort to annex Hawaii
by joint resolution after the defeat of the treaty as a deliberate attempt to do
unlawfully that which can not be lawfully done Id.

United States Department of Justice, Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential
Proclamation to Extend the Territorial Sea, Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel,
vol. 12, p. 251-252, October 4, 1988 (emphasis added).

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1988/10/31/op-olc-
v012-p0238_0.pdf

The United States Justice Department found the debate to be whether territory,
other than a new state, could be added to the United States by joint resolution.
Having concluded that new states can be added by joint resolution and new

17

territory must be added by treaty, the Justice Department could not find a legal basis
for the annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii as a territory, not a state, through use
of a joint resolution.

The United States Justice Department analysis stopped short of dealing with the
more fundamental question whether a joint resolution of Congress can change the
status of a foreign nation.

There is a fundamental problem with the use of the joint resolution process where
two independent nations are involved. A resolution is by definition limited in its
effectiveness to the nation passing the resolution. To argue otherwise in this case
would mean any nation could simply pass a resolution dissolving the government of
another nation and seizing its territory. That premise is obviously ludicrous. Yet
that is exactly what the United States claims happened to the Kingdom of Hawaii.

The two annexation treaties that failed both specified the need for the Senate to
ratify the treaty by the 2/3 constitutional requirement. Exhibit 3 at 3; Exhibit 4 at 2.
Clearly both parties considered a treaty necessary to effectuate the change in status
sought for the Kingdom.

A second problem is that the United States approach to annexing the Kingdom blurs
the distinction between ratification of a treaty and a joint resolution. Ratification
takes place pursuant to a very specific constitutional requirement. In Article II,
Section 2, Clause 2, the United States Constitution states: [The President] shall
have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties,
provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

A resolution can be passed by a simple majority.

A treaty and a resolution are, therefore, quite distinct.

Also, there is no role for the House of Representatives in the treaty ratification
process. The exclusion of the House from the ratification process is another
distinction between ratification and joint resolution.

In the case of Hawaii, the House of Representatives proposed and passed the joint
resolution before the Senate considered the resolution.

The fact that two attempts to annex Hawaii by treaty failed suggests that the pursuit
of a joint resolution reflected an assessment that a third attempt to ratify a treaty
would be fruitless.

While not equating the ratification process and the joint resolution process, the fact
that the joint resolution did not receive a 2/3 favorable vote in the Senate is another
indicator of the absence of the necessary votes for ratification, had a third treaty
been submitted to the Senate.

18


The recorded vote in the Senate on the Joint Resolution was 52 aye, 28 nay, and 9
not voting. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/55-2/s329

The total of 89 differs from the official record that there were 90 Senators. If there
were 89 Senators, the required 2/3 would be 59. If there were 90 Senators, the
required 2/3 would be 60. In either case, 52 is not 2/3.

The use of a joint resolution to annex the Kingdom to the United States was clearly
without support in the United States legal system. The joint resolution was a
relatively transparent attempt to evade the legally required process of ratification
precisely because the annexationists lacked the votes to satisfy the constitutional
requirement for ratification.

While the joint resolution passed by majority vote in both the House and Senate, the
passage of that resolution was legally ineffective. The Proposed Declaratory
Judgment should be granted.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 18: The United States attempts to annex the
Kingdom of Hawaii failed because those efforts perpetuated a crime.

The goal of those who overthrew the Kingdom government was to annex Hawaii to
the United States and extinguish the Kingdom.

In order to effectuate their goal, the conspirators had to satisfy three requirements:
(1) the Kingdom body seeking annexation had to have the legal authority to transfer
sovereignty over the Kingdom to the United States, (2) the United States had to
accept that transfer in a legally effective process, and (3) The transaction between
the Kingdom and the United States had to be free of any coercion, fraud, or other
corrupting elements.
The traitors and their allies in the United States Government attempted three times
to annex the Kingdom. None of these attempts would have been nor were legally
effective because the three criteria set forth above could not be met.

The Joint Resolution was nothing more than an additional act of war, constituting an
attempt to forcibly seize the Kingdom knowingly in violation of the wishes of the
Hawaiian people.

The whole annexation process was an attempt to have two wrongs (hewa hewa)
make a right. The illegitimate government of Hawaii, in whatever form it took,
sought to make an agreement with the state sponsor of its illegality to pretend the
Kingdom was legitimately acquired.

The Proposed Declaratory Judgment should be accepted and entered.

19

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 19: The attempted transfer of Kingdom lands

from the Republic to the United States had no legal effect.

The Apology Resolution appears to contradict itself on the issues of sovereignty,
land transfer, and annexation.

From the Apology Resolution:

Whereas, through the Newlands Resolution, the self-declared Republic of
Hawaii ceded sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States;

Whereas, the Republic of Hawaii also ceded 1,800,000 acres of crown,
government and public lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii, without the consent
of or compensation to the Native Hawaiian people of Hawaii or their
sovereign government;

Whereas, the Congress, through the Newlands Resolution, ratified the
cession, annexed Hawaii as part of the United States, and vested title to the
lands in Hawaii in the United States .

Exhibit 1, Cl. 26-28.

Also from the Apology Resolution:

Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their
claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands
to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or
referendum .

Exhibit 1, Cl. 31.

The only way to harmonize these clauses is to accept that the parties identified took
the actions identified, that the actions taken were without legal basis, and, therefore,
that the actions taken had no legal effect.

The Provisional Government created the Republic. The use of the term self-
declared confirms that the Republic of Hawaii did not have any basis for claiming
legitimacy.

The United States seeking to accept the fruits of its involvement in the destruction of
a legitimate Hawaiian government, in violation of agreements the United States had
with the Kingdom and international law, only demonstrated that the conspiracy
continued.

The post hoc pretense of legitimacy did not confer any legitimacy on an illegal
process. The transaction was essentially two thieves, who participated in a

20

conspiracy to steal a nation, transferring the fruits of their looting amongst

themselves. The Newlands Resolution did not ratify the cession of land, annex
Hawaii, or vest title to the lands in Hawaii in the United States.

The lands of the Kingdom never passed to the United States. The Proposed
Declaratory Judgment should be entered.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 20: The United States placement of the Hawaiian
Islands on the United Nations list of non-self governing territories in 1946
confirmed that annexation never took place.

The United Nations Charter includes a section addressing non-self-governing
territories. U. N. Charter, Chapter XI, Articles 73, 74.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml

Such territories are defined as lands whose peoples have not yet attained a full
measure of self-government . Id.

The country administering such territories is charged
to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of
the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free
political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each
territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement .
Id.
Chapter 11 of the Charter embodies the concept of Non-Self-Governing
Territories in a state of evolution and progress towards a full measure of
self-government. As soon as a territory and its peoples attain a full measure
of self-government, the obligation [to report regularly to the United Nations
of the status of the non-self-governing territory] ceases.8
United Nations General Assembly, Fifteenth Session, 1541 (XV)., Principles which
should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to
transmit the information called for under Article 73e of the Charter, Principle II at
30.

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/1541%28XV%29


8 Of course, the Kingdom of Hawaii had a fully functional constitutional monarchy
more than 100 years before the United States placed Hawaii on the non-self-
governing territory list.

21

The clear intent of this provision of the United Nations Charter is to move countries
from non-self-governing status to self-governing status.

In 1946, the United States placed Hawaii on the United Nations list of non-self-
governing territories. United Nations Resolution 55(I) of 1946-12-14.

http://www.un.org/en/events/nonselfgoverning/background.shtml

The obligation placed on the United States by that designation was to move Hawaii
to one of three options for self-government: (a) Emergence as a sovereign
independent State; (b) Free association with an independent state, or (3)
Integration with an independent State. Principle VI, supra.

If the joint resolution of annexation approved by the United States in 1898
effectively annexed Hawaii to the United States, then Hawaii would already have
been disqualified from the non-self-governing territory provisions because it would
already be integrated with the United States.

By placing Hawaii on the non-self-governing list, the United States admitted that the
joint resolution annexation was ineffective in integrating Hawaii into the United
States. The Court should find that the United State placement of the Hawaiian
Islands on the United Nations list of non-self governing territories confirmed that
annexation never took place.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 21: The United States plebiscite on Statehood
failed to be performed in a legally effective manner.

In 1959, the United States held a plebiscite on whether Hawaii should become a
state within the United States.

If the intent of the United States in putting Hawaii on the United Nations list was to
move Hawaii into option (3) integration with an independent State the required
process was that:

The integration should be the result of the freely express wishes of the
territorys peoples acting with full knowledge of the change in their status,
their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic
processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage.

Principle IX(b), Ibid.

The Statehood Plebiscite offered one question: Shall Hawaii immediately be
admitted to the Union as a State? Exhibit *. The Plebiscite offered a choice between
remaining a territory and becoming a State.

22

Thus, the Plebiscite offered only one of the three self-governing options, excluding
full independence and free association. As such, the Plebiscite violated the
principles that should have guided the United States as the supposed administrator
of this territory.

The Plebiscite offering statehood exclusively precluded a discussion of all options,
so the process did not provide the people with full knowledge of the change in their
status.

Those who favored full independence as their self-governing option, had no
opportunity to have their wishes expressed through informed and democratic
processes.

By offering only the statehood option, the Plebiscite demonstrated a bias towards
integration that violated the requirement for an election impartially conducted.

The agenda of those promoting this form of Plebiscite was to have Hawaii formally
become a State to strengthen the United States claim to the Kingdom. The strategy is
revealed in a letter from the United States Secretary of State John Foster Dulles to
Senator William F. Knowland dated June 26, 1956.

On this latter point I would like to add that reporting to the United Nations
on Alaska and Hawaii in no way implies any derogation of the United States
Governments sovereignty or responsibility over these territories.

http://statehoodhawaii.org/2009/08/01/statehood-countdown/

Clearly there was no consideration of allowing the Kingdom to be free again.

I fully agree that the United States should stop reporting on Alaska and
Hawaii at the earliest practicable moment. When we do cease reporting,
however, it will be greatly to our advantage if other Members of the United
Nations are satisfied with our decision that the two territories have, in the
language of the Charter, attained a full measure of self-government. Our
experience with the Puerto Rican case in the United Nations indicates that if
we cease reporting on Alaska and Hawaii, without granting the two
territories further steps towards self-government, we may be severely
criticized. I can assure you, however, that the United States alone has the
power to determine the constitutional status of territories under its
sovereignty, and that we have consistently maintained this position in the
General Assembly.

The grant of statehood to Alaska and Hawaii would provide the best means of
convincing other United Nations Members that the two territories have
achieved a full measure of self-government. Such a step would be generally

23

welcomed as a further indication of the traditional attachment of the

American people to the principle of self-determination.

Id.

Given the violations of international requirements demonstrated by the Statehood
Plebiscite, the Plebiscite did not serve as a valid opportunity for the wishes of the
people to be known and, therefore, was not legally effective.

The proposed declaratory judgment that the Statehood Plebiscite had no legal effect
should be adopted.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 22: The Admission Act making Hawaii a State
within the United States Union is simply one more act in furtherance of the
conspiracy to extinguish the Kingdom and seize its lands.

After the Statehood Plebiscite, the United States admitted Hawaii as a State within
the Union. The Admission Act, Public Law 86-3, 73 Stat. 4.

The Admission Act is no more legitimate than the Provisional Governments
declaring itself the legitimate government of the Kingdom. The Admission Act is an
attempt to finally extinguish the Kingdom and, as such, is an act in furtherance of the
ongoing conspiracy to steal the Kingdom.

The history compels granting the proposed declaratory judgment that the
Admission Act making Hawaii a State within the United States Union is simply one
more act in furtherance of the conspiracy to extinguish the Kingdom and seize its
lands..

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 23: The United States representation to the
United Nations that the Statehood Plebiscite served as a basis for removing the
Hawaiian Islands from the United Nations list of non-self governing territories
constituted a fraud upon the United Nations.

After the Statehood Plebiscite, the United States stopped reporting the status of
Hawaii to the United Nations and Hawaii was removed from the list.

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtml

As anticipated by Dulles, the other members of the United Nations were satisfied
with our decision that the two territories have, in the language of the Charter,
attained a full measure of self-government.
http://statehoodhawaii.org/2009/08/01/statehood-countdown/

24

That the United States was able to deceive the other members of the United Nations
with the phony Statehood Plebiscite does not mean Hawaiians consented to
statehood.

This Court is justified in entering a declaratory judgment that the representation
that Hawaiians had chosen statehood in a legitimate plebiscite constituted an act of
fraud against the United Nations.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 24: Given that the United States never
effectively annexed the Kingdom of Hawaii, the Kingdom still exists.

For the sake of argument, the actions which the United States could claim
extinguished the Kingdom as an independent nation are:

(1) the overthrow of the Kingdom government and its replacement with the
Provisional Government,

(2) the joint resolution of annexation,

(3) the Statehood Plebiscite, and

(4) the Admission Act.

As examined above, none of the acts had the legal effect of extinguishing the
Kingdom. The clearest statement on that matter is:

Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their
claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands
to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or
referendum .9

Exhibit 1, Cl. 31.

The examination of the facts and law provided herein support a finding by the Court
that the Kingdom still exists.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 25: Given that the United States never
effectively annexed the Kingdom of Hawaii, the joint resolution attempting
annexations section abrogating the treaties of the Kingdom was similarly
ineffective.

The joint resolution of annexation included the following provision:


9 Again the Resolution conflates indigenous Hawaiian people and the Kingdom.

25

The existing treaties of the Hawaiian Islands with foreign nations shall
forthwith cease and determine, being replaced by such treaties as may exist,
or as may be hereafter concluded, between the United States and such
foreign nations.

Exhibit 4 at 1.

Because the joint resolution was legally ineffective to annex the Kingdom, see
Proposed Declaratory Judgment 17, infra., the abrogation of the Kingdoms treaties
was equally ineffective.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 26: The United States Treaty with the Hawaiian
Islands dated December 20, 1849 is still in effect.

Because the joint resolution was ineffective and the abrogation of the treaties within
that resolution was ineffective, the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands
dated December 20, 1849 is still in effect.

The failure to effectuate annexation and abrogation of existing treaties with the joint
resolution supports a finding that the Treaty of 1849 between the United States and
the Kingdom is still in effect.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 27: Because the United States Treaty with the
Hawaiian Islands dated December 20, 1849 is still in effect, the proper relationship
between the Kingdom and the United States is sovereign to sovereign.

The preamble of the Treaty identifies the foundation for the treaty as the relations
of good understanding which have hitherto so happily subsisted between their
respective states. (emphasis added).

There is no question that the treaty is an agreement between two sovereign nations,
much like all the other treaties signed by the Kingdom with other foreign countries.
See e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_treaties_signed_by_the_Kingdom_of_
Hawaii

Because the Treaty is still in effect, the relationship between the two nations
affirmed in the Treaty is still in effect. The continuous nature of the Treatys
effectiveness supports a Court finding that the appropriate relationship between the
Kingdom and the United States today is sovereign to sovereign.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 28: The lands of Mauna a Wakea belong to the
Crown.

The 1846 Mahele (division) transformed the lands of Hawai'i from a shared
value into private property, but left many issues unresolved. Kauikeaouli

26

(Kamehameha III) agreed to the Mahele, which divided all land among the
mo'i (king), the ali'i (chiefs), and the maka'ainana (commoners), in the hopes
of keeping the lands in Hawaiian hands even if a foreign power claimed
sovereignty over the Islands.

The king's share was further divided into Government and Crown
Lands, the latter managed personally by the ruler until a court decision
in 1864 and a statute passed in 1865 declared that they could no longer
be bought or sold by the Moi and should be maintained intact for future
Monarchs. After the illegal overthrow of the monarchy in 1893, Government
and Crown Lands were joined together, and after annexation in 1898, they
were managed as a public trust by the United States. At statehood in 1959, all
but 373,720 acres of Government and Crown Lands were transferred to the
State of Hawai'i. The legal status of Crown Lands remains controversial and
misunderstood to this day.

Overview of Who Owns the Crown Lands of Hawaii?, Jon M. Van Dyke, University of
Hawaii Press (emphasis added).

While the history of land in Hawaii is complicated, that is an issue within the
Kingdom, which is of no legitimate concern to the United States.

The history is not complicated outside the Kingdom. The United States never had
legitimate title to the lands of the Kingdom, the United States never had the legal
right to transfer the lands belonging to the Kingdom Crown and Government to the
State of Hawaii, the State of Hawaii never had the legal right to lease those lands to
the University of Hawaii, and the University never had the legal right to lease those
lands to the Thirty Meter Telescope promoters.

Given that the King is in place and that there is no Government separate from the
King yet in place to accept the return of the Government lands, the King is the
rightful owner of all lands that were once Kingdom or Government lands. Those
lands include Mauna a Wakea.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 29: The telescopes on Mauna a Wakea represent
a long history of trespass onto Crown lands.

Neither the University of Hawaii nor any of those that have built telescopes on
Mauna Kea even pretend that they asked permission of the Kingdom. They have
turned a blind eye to where the lands came from that they so easily claim to have an
interest in.

From the Apology Resolution, it is worth repeating:

Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their
claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands

27

to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or

referendum .

The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that, to date, the University of Hawaii
facilitated the construction of thirteen telescopes prior to the Thirty Meter
Telescope. http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/mko/telescope_table.htm

Because the lands belong to the Kingdom and the Kingdom never gave permission
for such construction, the Court should find that each of these telescopes
represented a trespass into Kingdom lands.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 30: The Thirty Meter Telescope would be an
additional trespass on Crown lands.

The Thirty Meter Telescope does not have the permission of the Kingdom to use the
lands of Mauna Kea where they intend to build their telescope.

For the Thirty Meter Telescope to proceed without such permission would be a
trespass similar to that committed when the first thirteen telescopes were built.

The Court should find that the Thirty Meter Telescope is just such an additional
trespass.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 31. The Thirty Meter Telescope also represents
a threat to the ecological systems on the Mountain.

There are numerous ecological issues brought out by the proposed Thirty Meter
Telescope. See e.g. http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/04/does-the-thirty-meter-
telescope-pose-environmental-risks/

Given the past poor performance of the Mauna Kea Management Office, id., the
Thirty Meter Telescope will simply be adding to the irreparable environmental
harm.

Given the bias towards approval apparent in the proceedings to date, the Protectors
of Mauna Kea can have little confidence in the competence, objectivity, or
comprehensiveness of the environmental analysis nor the likelihood that any
decision other than approval will be made whatever the impacts.

The history of the perpetual trespass, the ecological damage done to date, and the
plans for construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope warrant the Court entering a
finding that the Thirty Meter Telescope will cause irreparable environmental harm.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 32: The traditional faith of the Hawaiian people
is still practiced.

28

All too often, the traditional faith of the Hawaiian people is treated as if it is no
longer practiced.

For example, the Imiloa Astronomy Center operated by the University of Hawaii
states:

The summit of Maunakea was considered a wao akua, or realm of the gods
and was therefore visited only rarely by humans.

http://www.imiloahawaii.org/60/cultural-significance (emphasis added). The use
of the word was is the attempt of the astronomers to deny the continued practice of
the traditional faith.

Just because the people ignoring the traditional faith do not respect the practices of
the traditional faith does not mean that the traditional faith is no longer practiced.

The position of the Protectors that Mauna a Wakea is sacred and that the telescopes
represent acts of desecration brought out the religious bigotry and
misunderstandings that have plagued the traditional Hawaiian faith since the
missionaries came to the islands.

http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/04/the-science-based-faith-of-the-hawaiian-
people/

One trustee of a State agency supposedly charged with serving the people of original
Hawaiian ancestry actually suggested that the traditional faith practitioners simply
evolve their faith to accommodate the telescopes.

http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/04/peter-apo-we-are-hawaii-and-we-will-find-a-
way/

Although fledgling in my understanding of the spiritual complexities of
Mauna Kea I do understand that Mauna Kea is fundamental to our spiritual
existence as a people requiring a pristine environment free of any spiritual
obstructions. And that any penetration of the mountain or structures that
interrupt the air space where the spirits dwell is an unacceptable violation.

My cautiously stated hope, absent any intent of spiritual insult, is that there
may be some cultural vetting process to consider the evolution of our
spirituality. A spiritual thought process that would, rather than consider the
telescope as an injury to Mauna Kea, view this instrument as an extension of
that spirituality directly connecting us to the celestial bodies and the very
stars themselves.

Id.

29

From inside the faith, the evolution that has taken place looks more like the
journey from highest authority in a civilization to being forced into hiding to being
allowed to reemerge into a condition of limited toleration and continued
suppression. The faith can hope that the next step is being once again a faith
recognized as having full rights to practice and to have its sacred land base returned.

In response to the Protectors raising the issue of faith, traditional practitioners
issued a statement tracing the history of oppression running from the early 1800s
and continuing to this day. Exhibit 7.

http://kingdomofhawaii.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Temple-of-Lono-and-
Hale-O-Papa.pdf

Another document from the Temple of Lono traced prior history of the Temples
involvement with the issue of protecting Mauna a Wakea. Exhibit 8.

http://kingdomofhawaii.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Faith-and-the-
Mountain-Final.pdf

As part of the Temples effort to recover its spiritual land base, the Temple
communicated its views on that issue to the United States Supreme Court. Exhibit 9.

http://kingdomofhawaii.info/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/kingdomofhawaii.info_docs_Temple-of-Lono-Letter-to-
U.S.-Supreme-Court.pdf

Contrary to the attempt to characterize the traditional faith as a historical artifact of
a lost civilization, the traditional faith is alive and well in the contemporary
Kingdom. The Court should so find.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 33: The mountaintop of Mauna a Wakea is a
protected area within the traditional faith of the Hawaiian people.

The Imiloa Astronomy Center does accurately record the practice of the traditional
faith when it states:

The Mountain of Wakea

The original name of Maunakea is Mauna a Wakea, or "Mountain of Wakea."
In Hawaiian tradition Wakea (sometimes translated in English as "Sky
Father") is the progenitor of many of the Hawaiian Islands, and of the
Hawaiian people. This mountain is his piko, or the place of connection where
earth and sky meet and where the Hawaiian people connect to their origins
in the cosmos.

"Realm of the gods"

30


As a sacred site, many of the physical features and environmental conditions
of the mountain are associated with Hawaiian gods and goddesses. Lilinoe,
Poliahu and Waiau are just a few of the deities associated with this place.

The summit of Maunakea was considered a wao akua, or "realm of the gods"
and was therefore visited only rarely by humans. The arduous trek to the top
was made occasionally by royaltyamong the last of those being
Kamehameha III and Queen Emma. This was also a burial site for some
royalty in ancient times. Today certain families still connect to this mountain
by leaving their babies' piko (umbilical stubs) at sites that are historically
significant to their ohana (family).

http://www.imiloahawaii.org/60/cultural-significance

The presentation of the Imiloa Astronomy Center amounts to an admission against
interest; the astronomers are on notice of the mountains meaning to the Hawaiian
people and cannot avoid the responsibility they have for disrespecting that belief
system.

Given the statements of the traditional faith and the acknowledgement of the
astronomers regarding the beliefs of that faith, the Court is justified in finding that
the mountaintop of Mauna a Wakea is a protected area within the traditional faith of
the Hawaiian people

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 34: The construction of telescopes on Mauna a
Wakea is a desecration of a sacred site.

Given that the top of Mauna Kea is reserved for the Gods and no permanent
structures are to be built there, the construction of telescopes represents a trespass
into the spiritual realms and desecration of sacred sites. The Court should so find.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 35: The Thirty Meter Telescope would be an
additional act of desecration.

The Thirty Meter Telescope simply continues the practice of ignoring the traditional
faith beliefs to commit yet another desecration. The Court should so find.
Proposed Declaratory Judgment 36: The United States extraterritorial arrest of a
Kingdom subject, exercising his right to practice his faith by protecting a site sacred
to his faith, violated, Article XI of the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands
dated December 20, 1849, which states:
It is agreed that perfect and entire liberty of conscience shall be enjoyed by
the citizens and subjects of both the contracting parties, in the countries of

31

the one of the other, without their being liable to be disturbed or molested on
account of their religious belief.

Exhibit 2 at 4.

A Hawaiian National (Protector) witnessing the desecration of a sacred site in
progress took steps to prevent the desecration.

In response, United States agents arrested the Protector, forcibly restrained the
Protector, forced the Protector to pay to be released, ordered the Protector to
appear before a foreign judge, and threatened further harm if the Protector did not
appear as ordered.

Such actions certainly disturbed and molested the Hawaiian Nationals in violation of
the Treaty of 1849. The Court should so find.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 37: Hawaiian Nationals, acting on behalf of the
nation, have an obligation and civic duty to prevent ecological harm and desecration
of sacred sites.

Witnessing the initiation of a trespass on to Kingdom lands and of construction that
would desecrate a sacred site, Hawaiian Nationals acted to prevent both intrusions.

The United States law enforcement personnel present acted to protect those
violating Kingdom laws and acted after being put on notice of the crimes being
committed. United States law enforcement chose to be complicit in the crimes being
committed by arresting the Protector, rather than those engaged in truly violating
the law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR3dDKUZRlM

The failure of United States law enforcement personnel to intervene to prevent the
commission of crimes left the burden of law enforcement on Kingdom citizens. The
Court should find that the Hawaiian Nationals fulfilled their obligations and civic
duty to prevent ecological harm and desecration of sacred sites.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 38: In the absence of a restored law
enforcement capacity within the Kingdom, the responsibility to enforce the law
devolves upon those whose Kuleana compels them to protect the Kingdom, the
aina, and each other.

In the process of completing the restoration of the Kingdom Government, the King
will have law enforcement personnel available to keep the peace and protect the
people. That force is not in place as yet. In the absence of a Kingdom law
enforcement capacity, Hawaiian Nationals have the kuleana to enforce the Kingdom
laws.

32


Based on the proposed declaratory judgments set forth above, the Petitioner seeks
the following Conclusions of Law:

Proposed Conclusion of Law 1: Subjects of the Kingdom acting to prevent the
construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope by peaceful resistance are fulfilling their
obligation as Hawaiian Nationals and/or citizens of the Kingdom.

Proposed Conclusion of Law 2: In the absence of Kingdom law enforcement
capacity, Hawaiian Nationals and subjects of the Kingdom acting to prevent the
construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope are acting out of necessity.





Respectfully submitted,






_____________________________________________




Alii Manao Nui Lanny Sinkin




Chief Advocate for the Crown and Kingdom





Appearing for Alii Nui Moi Edmund Kelii Silva, Jr.


Date: May 18, 2015

33