Hawaii Becomes the First State to Pass a Bill in Support of Universal Basic Income


03778_mapheader

In Brief

This month has shown that Hawaii may be the U.S.’s most forward-thinking state. Earlier in June, it became the first state to formally accept the provisions of the Paris Climate Accord, and now, the state congress has passed a bill that puts Hawaii on the path to universal basic income.

Eyes on the Future

Innovation and forward-thinking may be Hawaii’s two biggest exports in 2017. Earlier this month, the state earned the distinction of being the first in the U.S. to formally accept the provisions of the Paris Climate Agreement after President Donald Trump decided to withdraw the nation from it, and now, Hawaii is taking the lead in embracing yet another innovative idea: universal basic income (UBI).

Today, Hawaii state representative Chris Lee wrote a Reddit post about House Concurrent Resolution 89, a bill he says he introduced in order to “start a conversation about our future.” According to Lee, “After much work and with the help of a few key colleagues, it passed both houses of the State Legislature unanimously.”

Lee also mentioned the development via Twitter:

The bill has two major provisions. First, it declares that all families in Hawaii are entitled to basic financial security. “As far as I’m told, it’s the first time any state has made such a pronouncement,” wrote Lee. The second provision establishes a number of government offices “to analyze our state’s economy and find ways to ensure all families have basic financial security, including an evaluation of different forms of a full or partial universal basic income.”

The congressman thanked “redditors” in his post, as he said the site became his first resource in considering UBI, and added a Reddit-standard TL;DR at the end: “The State of Hawaii is going to begin evaluating universal basic income.”

A Step Forward

Under a UBI program, every citizen is granted a fixed income that’s not dependent on their status in life. Despite the current focus on the concept, it actually isn’t particularly new. In fact, former U.S. President Richard Nixon actually floated the idea back in 1969.

Universal Basic Income: The Answer to Automation?
Click to View Full Infographic

However, the benefits of such a program have become more appealing in light of recent technological advances, specifically, the adoption of automated systems that could result in widespread unemployment.

Proponents of UBI have highlighted how it would be an improvement on existing social welfare programs while mitigating the effects of the joblessness expected to follow automation. Critics think that UBI would encourage a more lax attitude about work and argue that funding such a system would be difficult, if not impossible.

Existing pilot programs, however, seem to indicate otherwise.

Hawaii may be the first U.S. state to pass any sort of UBI-positive legislation, but several countries around the globe are already testing the system. Finland began its two-year UBI pilot in 2016, and Germany has one as well. Canada plans to start trials in Prince Edward Island (PEI) and Ontario, while India is currently debating the merits of UBI. Several private UBI endeavors are also in the works, including one that uses blockchain and cryptocurrency.

Of course, the implementation of any major UBI program requires a great deal of political will. As Lee wrote, “Planning for the future isn’t politically sexy and won’t win anyone an election […]. But if we do it properly, we will all be much better off for it in the long run.”

 

https://futurism.com/hawaii-becomes-the-first-state-to-pass-a-bill-in-support-of-universal-basic-income/

Advertisements

Who Determines a State of War Exists in International Law? by Hawaiian Kingdom


loweringtheflagofthehawaiiankingdomandrepublic

There has been some confusion as to who, in particular, determines whether a state of war exists for international law purposes. Is it a decision made by army commanders, international courts, or the heads of state? To answer this question we first need to understand the term war. By definition, war is a violent contention between two or more countries, called States, which is allowable under international law.

War as it is understood today is different from what it was understood in the nineteenth century when the Hawaiian Kingdom government was unlawfully overthrown by United States armed forces on January 17, 1893. According to Professor Brownlie, “The right of war, as an aspect of sovereignty, which existed in the period before 1914, subject to the doctrine that war was a means of last resort in the enforcement of legal rights, was very rarely asserted either by statesmen or works of authority without some stereotyped plea to a right of self-preservation, and of self-defence, or to necessity or protection of vital interests, or merely alleged injury to rights or national honour and dignity.” (Ian Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States (1963) 41).

In the absence of a system of dispute resolution, such as today’s Permanent Court of Arbitration (est. 1899) or the International Court of Justice (est. 1945), war was seen as a form of judicial procedure, a litigation of sorts between nations that involved lethal punishment. It was a means by which one State could obtain redress for wrongs committed against it. War, however, was considered a course of last resort.

“It was generally thought that a state of war came into existence between two countries if, and only if, one of these countries made it clear that it regarded itself as being in a state of war,” says Judge Greenwood. (Christopher Greenwood, “Scope of Application of Humanitarian Law,” in Dieter Fleck (ed), The Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations (2nd ed., 2008) 45). Representatives of countries in international law are Heads of States, whether they are Presidents, Monarchs or Prime Ministers. Any political determination made by these Heads of States that their countries are in a state of war is conclusive. In the case of the United States it would the President, and in the case of the Hawaiian Kingdom it would be the Monarch.

International law differentiates a “declaration of war” from a “state of war.” According to McNair and Watts, “the absence of a declaration…will not of itself render the ensuing conflict any less a war.” In other words, since a state of war is based upon concrete facts of military action there is no requirement for a formal declaration of war to be made. In 1946, a United States Federal Court had to determine whether a United States naval captain’s life insurance policy, which excluded coverage if death came about as a result of war, covered his death during the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1945. The family of the captain was arguing that the United States was not a war at the time of his death because the Congress did not declare war against Japan until the following day. The Court denied the family’s claim and determined, “that the formal declaration by the Congress on December 8th was not an essential prerequisite to a political determination of the existence of a state of war commencing with the attack on Pearl Harbor.” (New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bennion, 158 F.2d 260 (C.C.A. 10th, 1946), 41 American Journal of International Law (1947), 682).

cannon252520on252520the252520steps252520of252520iolani252520palace25255b325255d_thumb25255b425255d

On the 100th anniversary of the United States unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government in 1893, the United States Congress enacted a joint resolution offering an apology. Of significance in the resolution was a particular “whereas” clause, which stated “Whereas, in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland reportedly 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.” (Annexure 2Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, 119 International Law Reports (2001) 612).

At first read, it would appear that the “conspirators” were the subjects that committed the “act of war,” but this is misleading. First, under international law, only a country can commit an “act of war”, whether through its military and/or its diplomats; and, second, under municipal laws, which are the laws applicable to a particular country, conspirators within a country could only commit treason not “acts of war.” These two concepts are reflective in the terms coup de main and coup d’état. The former is a successful invasion by an outside military force, while the former is a successful internal revolt, which was also referred to in the nineteenth century as a revolution. According to the United States Department of Defense, a coup de main is an “offensive operation that capitalizes on surprise and simultaneous execution of supporting operations to achieve success in one swift stroke.” (U.S. Department of Defense, The Dictionary of Military Terms (2009)).

In a petition to President Cleveland on December 27, 1893, from the Hawaiian Patriotic League, its leadership, comprised of Hawaiian statesmen and lawyers, clearly articulated the difference between a “revolution” and a “coup de main,” and, as such, an international crime was committed. The petition read:

“Last January, a political crime was committed, not only against the legitimate Sovereign of the Hawaiian Kingdom, but also against the whole of the Hawaiian nation, a nation who, for the past sixty years, had enjoyed free and happy constitutional self-government. This was done by a coup de main of U.S. Minister Stevens, in collusion with a cabal of conspirators, mainly faithless sons of missionaries and local politicians angered by continuous political defeat, who, as revenge for being a hopeless minority in the country, resolved to ‘rule or ruin’ through foreign help. The facts of this ‘revolution,’ was it is improperly called, are now a matter of history.” (Petition of the Hawaiian Patriotic League to President Cleveland (Dec. 27, 1893), The Executive Documents of the House of Representatives (1895), 1295).

Whether by chance or design, the 1993 Congressional Apology Resolution did not accurately reflect what President Cleveland stated in his message to Congress on December 18, 1893. When Cleveland stated the “military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war,” he was referring to United States armed forces and not to any of the conspirators. Cleveland noted, “that on the 16th day of January, 1893, between four and five o’clock in the afternoon, a detachment of marines from the United States steamer Boston, with two pieces of artillery, landed at Honolulu. The men, upwards of 160 in all, were supplied with double cartridge belts filled with ammunition and with haversacks and canteens, and were accompanied by a hospital corps with stretchers and medical supplies.” Clearly the act of war was committed by the armed forces of the United States. The landing, however, was just the beginning stage of a coup de main with the ultimate goal of seizing control of the Hawaiian government.

As part of the plan, the U.S. diplomat, John Stevens, would prematurely recognize the small group of insurgents on January 17th as if they were a successful revolution thereby giving it de facto status. International law, however, provides the parameters by which a revolution is deemed to have been successful. Foreign States would acknowledge success when an insurgency has secured complete control of all governmental machinery, no opposition by the lawful government, and has the acquiescence of the national population. According to Professor Lauterpacht, “So long as the revolution has not been successful, and so long as the lawful government…remains within national territory and asserts its authority, it is presumed to represent the State as a whole.” (E. Lauterpacht, Recognition in International Law (1947) 93). With full knowledge of what constitutes a successful revolution, Cleveland provided a blistering indictment:

“When our Minister recognized the provisional government the only basis upon which it rested was the fact that the Committee of Safety…declared it to exist. It was neither a government de facto nor de jure. That it was not in such possession of the Government property and agencies as entitled it to recognition is conclusively proved by a note found in the files of the Legation at Honolulu, addressed by the declared head of the provisional government to Minister Stevens, dated January 17, 1893, in which he acknowledges with expressions of appreciation the Minister’s recognition of the provisional government, and states that it is not yet in the possession of the station house (the place where a large number of the Queen’s troops were quartered), though the same had been demanded of the Queen’s officers in charge.”

“Premature recognition is a tortious act against the lawful government,” explains Professor Lauterpacht, which “is a breach of international law.” (Ibid, 95). And according to Stowell, a “foreign state which intervenes in support of [insurgents] commits an act of war against the state to which it belongs, and steps outside the law of nations in time of peace.” (Ellery C. Stowell, Intervention in International Law (1921) 349, n. 75). Furthermore Stapleton, states, “Of all the principles in the code of international law, the most important—the one which the independent existence of all weaker States must depend—is this: no State has a right FORCIBLY to interfere in the internal concerns of another State.” (Augustus Granville Stapleton, Intervention and Non-Intervention (1866) 6).

Cleveland then explained to the Congress the egregious effects these acts of war had upon the Hawaiian government and its apprehension of a “cabal of conspirators” who committed high treason.

135_w_full

“Nevertheless, this wrongful recognition by our Minister placed the Government of the Queen in a position of most perilous perplexity. On the one hand she had possession of the palace, of the barracks, and of the police station, and had at her command at least five hundred fully armed men and several pieces of artillery. Indeed, the whole military force of her kingdom was on her side and at her disposal, while the Committee of Safety, by actual search, had discovered that there were but very few arms in Honolulu that were not in the service of the Government. In this state of things if the Queen could have dealt with the insurgents alone her course would have been plain and the result unmistakable. But the United States had allied itself with her enemies, had recognized them as the true Government of Hawaii, and had put her and her adherents in the position of opposition against lawful authority. She knew that she could not withstand the power of the United States, but she believed that she might safely trust to its justice. Accordingly, some hours after the recognition of the provisional government by the United States Minister, the palace, the barracks, and the police station, with all the military resources of the country, were delivered up by the Queen upon the representation made to her that her cause would thereafter be reviewed at Washington, and while protesting that she surrendered to the superior force of the United States, whose Minister had caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the provisional government, and that she yielded her authority to prevent collision of armed forces and loss of life and only until such time as the United States, upon the facts being presented to it, should undo the action of its representative and reinstate her in the authority she claimed as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.”

According to Professor Wright, “War begins when any state of the world manifests its intention to make war by some overt act, which may take the form of an act of war.” Quincy Wright, “Changes in the Concept of War,” 18 American Journal of International Law (1924) 758). In his review of customary international law in the nineteenth century, Professor Brownlie concluded, “that in so far a ‘state of war’ had any generally accepted meaning it was a situation regarded by one or both parties to a conflict as constituting a ‘state of war.’” (Brownlie, 38).

Cleveland concluded by an “act of war…the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown.” More importantly, Cleveland referred to the Hawaiian people as “friendly and confiding,” not “hostile.” This is a classic case of where the United States President admits an unjust war, but a state of war nevertheless. In the absence of a treaty or agreement to end the state of war that has ensued for over a century, international humanitarian law regulates the Hawaiian situation.

These are the very matters that will come before the International Commission of Inquiry: Incidents of War Crimes in the Hawaiian Islands—The Larsen Case.

 

Hawaii Reacts To New Trump Executive Order (Mar. 6, 2017) Tulsi Gabbard


Note: Absolutely love Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii’s pride and joy! IMO she’s someone to watch, would love to see her run for President. She has the heart, integrity, perseverance and intellect to lead America into the new paradigm.

Ancient Pyramids found in Hawaii?


Note: When I lived on Kauai I found ancient pyramid clusters in mountains all over the island, even had a pyramid approx as large as the Great Pyramid in Giza less than a mile from my home where the elevation was about 850ft. Below you can  see the tip as it appeared from our back porch, every time I came out meditation this is what I saw. Naturally my roommates didn’t believe it was a pyramid.

But, right before I left the island the elders told me I was correct, the pyramid is known by the elders as being an ancient sacred site. You can also see the top of what appears to be a burial mound, there were two near the pyramid. The entire area was once considered to be sacred grounds and home to the royal family’s, villagers were not allowed up there except for special ceremonys.  

So this article is no surprise to me, only much welcomed confirmation.

Blessing, {~A~}

Wailua River Pyramid

Wailua River Pyramid

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The image illustrates what some call ordinary geological formation but with a very symmetrical and defined shape. According to many, this indicates the presence of an extremely ancient and eroded pyramid.


Hawaii is definitely one of the most beautiful places on the surface of the planet and has attracted tourists because of its unique environment, beautiful beaches, and friendly people. However, after a tourist took images of peculiar structures on one of the islands, people started talking about what appear to be huge Pyramidal structures surrounded by the ocean.

Many people around the globe believe that there are pyramids on every continent on the planet. From Egypt, Mexico, and Asia, these enigmatic ‘monuments’ were developed thousands of years ago for an unknown purpose. According to a hypothesis proposed by author William “Pila” Chiles in his book ‘The Secrets and Mysteries of Hawaii: A Call to the Soul’, the pyramids may have been built on one of the Hawaiian Islands by an ancient culture and share a connection with other pyramids on Earth, through the configuration of a ancient planetary grid.


Hawaii – a place all the world knows as paradise and one of the most remote places on earth — may hold a clue for all humanity during our very defining moment in history. Pila explains why Hawaii is the crossroads of all our mysteries. The Hawaiian people, their legends, and culture, even the location of the islands themselves hold a key that could unlock a giant door and reveal the path to our future. Pila of Hawaii will take you on a journey through time and captivate your soul with the life-transforming power that the islands’ sacred sites, folklore, and myths bring to those who are willing to seek it. Whether you are planning a trip to this tropical paradise or searching for greater insights into your spirit, this book will open you to a world of exquisite beauty and power. – ‘The Secrets and Mysteries of Hawaii: A Call to the Soul’


As Chiles writes in his book, the Pyramid –or Pyramids in this case—are located on the Island of Oahu, some five miles from Punaluu, the famous black sand beach.

An image taken by a photographer seems to depict these pyramids. The image illustrates what some call ordinary geological formation but with a very symmetrical and defined shape. According to many, this indicates the presence of an extremely ancient and eroded pyramid. The images of the alleged structures were posted on ‘Exploration Hawaii’ but later taken down for an unknown reason.


6223273_orig


Venturing into an even complex hypothesis, Chiles suggests that  Hawaii is one of the few places on Earth that still preserve evidence of the existence of the ancient civilization of Atlantis, which is believed to have existed some 13,000 years ago when a catastrophic even wiped out the civilization, creating mass destruction around the globe.

According to many authors, the sheer number of Pyramids found around the globe is the ultimate evidence that an extremely powerful and advanced ancient civilization existed on Earth in the distant past. This ancient civilization is believed to have been the ‘mother civilization’ of all later ancient cultures.

Mainstream scholars, on the other hand, remain convinced that such history never existed and that there never was an advanced civilization before ours.

Author William “Pila” Chiles is firmly convinced that there is a lost Pyramid(S) in Hawaii and points to a study conducted by Lee Ross, an independent researcher who believes that Hawaii is located in a so-called ‘World Grid Node.’

A very important point to consider is that many believe that just as the Nazca Lines, the Pyramids of Giza, the Temple of Angkor Wat, the Pyramids of Hawaii were placed in specific locations around the globe.

Ross’ proposal is based solely on the theory of the Planetary Grid, an intelligent geometric pattern which suggests that our planet and its energy are organized in such a way that ancient cultures build megalithic sites around the globe, harnessing natural energies.

Planetary Grid theorists suggest that grid lines are a naturally energetic and organized network, a source of free and inexhaustible energy, which supplies power to ancient technology of great civilizations like  Atlantis. Interestingly, many believe that this technology can be recovered again and used in modern times.

There isn’t doubt that ancient cultures around the globe gave extreme importance to symbols and signs, means by which information and knowledge were encoded in ancient times. Geometry thus assumes a sacred dimension, thanks to which knowledge is transmitted to new generations. But for some experts, Sacred Geometry also had the function of governing invisible forces of nature.

Ancient cultures around the globe easily manipulated the invisible energy of our planet. These ancient cultures were not as primitive as many scholars suggest, in fact, the study of the remote past of humanity reveals how our ancestors were able to combine science and wisdom, intelligence and spirituality, technology and nature. Our modern civilization today is incapable of that since our lifestyle and culture is constantly in contradiction with science, wisdom, intelligence, spirituality, technology and nature.

Researchers need to take a step back and analyze with detail the development of ancient civilizations around the globe. This will allow them to understand how ancient cultures functioned in harmony with the lays of the cosmos and energies around us, and maybe then we will find the answers to the numerous problems mainstream scholars are facing when trying to decipher the past of our species.

 

http://www.ancient-code.com/ancient-pyramids-found-hawaii/

Andrew Bartzis – Galactic Historian Concept Origin – To Checkmate the Elimination of Indigenous Oral Teachers


Andrew’s Event Site:
http://andrewbartzis.com/events/

Galactic History Visual Concept:
http://www.servantoftruth.org/galacti…

I offer perspectives of Andrew with the intent as being a Brother in the Trenches of truth with him. For me, after enormous information based searching. I have found him and his offerings to be so far beyond anyone out there. I offer in the ways I do to make it easier to find. Now. Having had many linear reality time interactions that few will get the chance to have going forth. And, going through my own information journey. I offer a lot of his nuggets of what I consider wisdom that may be hidden or lost due to the volumes offered and the fact that most interested in his perspectives now also have little precious time surviving the reality at present…..

In this collection of clips…..

I offer him being asked back in mid 2013 what the concept of the Galactic Historian is as per his name. It is fascinating. Too improbable to make up. But, again with much he offers. No one close as yet to be able to offer a confirmation.

I find the concept that the Universe births a being that can Checkmate the Systematic Elimination of Cultures who as a Harmonic Representation of life on Earth. Had beings called Oral Teachers. Who tapped into the Crystal Akashic Earth History to teach their people. Extremely Valid. And, a balance to the efforts of Domination and Control in a Freewill Universe…..I invite you to…..Maybe see you in September also…..Enjoy

My Website:
http://www.servantoftruth.org

Forget Zuckerberg’s wall; beach access is the story


Posted: Sunday, July 3, 2016 12:00 am

tgi-logo

There is both a delicious irony and the core of a public policy issue that needs resolution much more than ever in the dustup over Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg erecting a rock wall in front of his 700-acre oceanfront property at 7480 Koolau Road in Kilauea.

If I were someone given to shameless puns, I’d observe that this is a case of Zuckerberg stonewalling the entire community, ensuring a continually rocky relationship with his neighbors, and I would advise that he cement a much better bond with local people if he only cared to do so. Which, apparently, he does not.

The controversy over the rock wall itself verges on a non-starter. The wall is not, in fact, much higher than the earth berm in front of which it’s being built and the view of the ocean from Koolau Road won’t be much different post-wall than it is now. Some people on Koolau Road have tried to make an issue of the wall. This is squandering an opportunity.

There is, however, a magnificent irony in Zuckerberg’s approach to the community in which he wants to create, at least, a mega-million dollar vacation retreat, even if he only intends to spend a couple of weeks a year here. Zuckerberg has tried to impose — and largely succeeded, so far, in imposing — a veil of secrecy over his Kauai plans so extensive it would challenge even WikiLeaks. It isn’t even possible to find his name among ownership documents for the property. READ MORE

Maui Completely Stops Spraying RoundUp, Switches to Organic Herbicides


Note: Way to go Maui!!!

While this is a GREAT step forward in eradicating Round-up from Maui, unfortunately there’s no mention here of a complete ban. Meaning homeowners, business’s and agriculture will still be drenching the island in toxins.

But nonetheless, it’s a first step. Here on the Big Island, we’re fighting an uphill battle trying to pass similar legislation to ban Round-up from roadsides.

FYI..the chemical assault here is so bad, in 2013 a good friend  of mine witnessed the state spraying Agent Orange on foliage next to beach’s where people swim – the spray tank had a hazard warning that said Agent Orange…she couldn’t believe what she witnessed . Honestly, this BS makes my blood boil! It’s genocide in it’s most insidious form – silent and long acting so no one can point the finger at the state, or the manufacturers.

Much love, {~A~}

spraying-680x330

(UR) Maui, Hawaii — Maui’s State Department of Transportation just agreed not to spray Monsanto’s RoundUp along roadways. All purchases of the glyphosate-based, carcinogenic weed killer have been halted, according to Maui Mama. What’s more, the department is about to change the signs on all of their spray trucks to say “Certified Organic Herbicide.”

Beyond Pesticides has also agreed to teach county workers how to make the switch from the health-damaging RoundUp chemical applications to a non-toxic solution, FREE OF CHARGE. The county of Maui has yet to take the offer to heart, but with some world-wide support, they could be gently urged to do so.

Any move away from herbicide application in Hawaii is an enormous win for the people who live there, since the state has been treated as ground zero by companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, BASF Plant Sciences, and Dow Chemical for the spraying of agricultural chemicals for genetically modified crop trials for decades now. Paradise has been poisoned for far too long, and Hawaii’s impeccable ecosystem is affected just as adversely as human health by the use of industrial pesticides and herbicides.

Just seven of the highly toxic chemicals most commonly used (including RoundUp) on the test fields has been linked to a variety of serious health problems ranging from childhood cognitive disorders to cancer.

Moreover, just recently, Hawaii residents were shocked to learn that the U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to spray carcinogenic and mutagenic toxins into the environment to eradicate fruit flies. It seems the spraying never ends — but there’s hope.

 

http://undergroundreporter.org/maui-stops-spraying-roundup/

Is Hawaii a legal state of the United States ? Megeso Kou


On February 23rd, 2016, the following conversations took place on KKCR radio, with Kauai Chief Prosecutor Justin Kollar. The discussion was in regards to the Prosecutor seeing, and providing, irrefutable proof that Hawaii is a legal state of the United States. During this discussion, the Chief Prosecutor says that he is “COMFORTABLE” with what he has seen that Hawaii is a legal state of the United States. The question is, ‘Did he see the actual Treaty’? If so, then producing a copy in court would be easy and legally satisfy those who pursue this truth. As of now, people are being prosecuted and oppressed on an assumption that the United States has jurisdiction in Hawaii. The truth must be told and proven, or was Hawaii illegally annexed? Where’s the treaty? Also, in the court of law, the Chief Prosecutor is well aware that one must be found guilty of something “BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT”. Does “BEING COMFORTABLE”, regarding what he has seen as proof, even though he has not shared this proof with those of us being denied our human rights, and our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the process of getting to the truth, individuals are being oppressed, harassed, assaulted, arrested and prosecuted, against their will, especially when no bodily harm has been committed. I ask again, “Does BEING COMFORTABLE seeing something, that is not the actual treaty, qualify as “BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I don’t know about you, but I have a lot of doubt when one cannot produce a document that is supposedly a part of history, one way or the other. Seems like abuse of power. I choose to live, and co-create, in a world of peaceful nations. Stop the insanity of world war and separation and evolve into a world of peace and unity, where abundance is for all.

Crowd Hits Hilo Lawmakers On Pesticides, Biotech


Hilo Talk Story

HILO – State representatives Richard Onishi and Clift Tsuji were on the hot seat during a public talk story at UH-Hilo, where a crowd showed up to hold them accountable following the 2016 legislative session at the Capitol.

Video by Dave Corrigan, recorded on May 12, 2016.

HILO, Hawaii – State lawmakers faced a tough crowd at the University of Hawaii-Hilo on Thursday evening.

A number of residents in attendance during the post-legislative session talk story hammered Hilo’s state representatives Richard Onishi and Clift Tsuji for their positions on pesticides and the biotech industry. Tsuji and Onishi serve as chair and vice chair of the House Committee on Agriculture, respectively, which means they have the say as to which pesticide bills get heard and which are left off the agenda.

Leilani Lindsey-Kaapuni asked the lawmakers why HB2564, which would have “established a pilot program that creates a vegetative buffer zone around five selected schools near a commercial agricultural production area”, was deferred at the House Ag Committee even though hundreds testified in support. Onishi said there weren’t enough votes in the committee to pass the bill out.

Anti-GMO activist Jim Albertini called it corruption, declaring that the Monsanto agrochemical and biotech company is one of Rep. Tsuji’s top campaign donors.

“If you do believe…. that I’m corrupt,” Rep. Tsuji answered, “I think there’s an avenue for you to take besides accusing me directly, that you can do and go through legal channels.”

Carol Hart flew in from Kauai so she could confront the state lawmakers on their actions. Hart says her family lives in a community surrounded by an experimental seed company, and says she and her family have been tested and have found elevated levels of pesticide in their bodies.

“There is no evidence of any kind of effect on Kauai or Maui (compared to) anywhere else in the state, due to the application of pesticides by the large seed companies,” Onishi said.

“There’s no data!” yelled someone in the crowd.

“The reason for that is because the state and the federal government have not done a more extensive data collection,” Onishi responded. “This is an issue of how much work are you going to put into something that may not prove to have any truth behind the accusation.” Hart shook her head as Onishi answered.

Both Onishi and Tsuji are running for re-election.

The talk story was organized by Hilo State Senator Kai Kahele, who joined the Hilo reps in making a post-legislative session presentation, detailing the bills and appropriations of interest to East Hawaii. Big Island Video News will have the video of all three presentations shortly.

http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2016/05/13/video-crowd-hits-hilo-lawmakers-on-pesticides-biotech/

Under International Law Native Hawaiians are Victims of Genocide


by Hawaiian Kingdom
Under international humanitarian law, which is the law of occupation and the protection afforded civilians who are not engaged in war, denationalization is not only a war crime but is synonymous with the term genocide. Since the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom began during the Spanish-American War, the United States embarked on a deliberate campaign of forced denationalization in order to conceal the occupation and militarization of a neutral State. Denationalization, in its totality, is genocide.
Children_Salute_1907
Prior to World War I, violations of international law did not include war crimes, or, in other words, crimes where individuals, as separate and distinct from the State or country, could be prosecuted and where found guilty be punished, which included the death penalty. The Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties (Commission on Responsibility) of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 took up the matter of war crimes after World War I (1914-1918). The Commission identified 32 war crimes, one of which was “attempts to denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territory.”
Although the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, did not specify the term “denationalization” as a war crime, the Commission on Responsibility relied on the preamble of the 1899 Hague Convention, II, which states, “Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.” This preamble has been called the Martens clause, which was based on a declaration read by the Russian delegate, Professor von Martens, at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.
In October of 1943, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union established the United Nations War Crimes Commission (UNWCC). World War II had been waging since 1939, and atrocities committed by Germany, Italy and Japan drew the attention of the Allies to hold individuals responsible for the commission of war crimes. On December 2, 1943, the UNWCC adopted by resolution the list of war crimes that were drawn up by the Commission on Responsibility in 1919 with the addition of another war crime—indiscriminate mass arrests. The UNWCC was organized into three Committees: Committee I (facts and evidence), Committee II (enforcement), and Committee III (legal matters).
Committee III was asked to draft a report expanding on the war crime of “denationalization” and its criminalization under international law. Committee III did not rely solely on the Martens clause as the Commission on Responsibility did in 1919, but rather used it as an aid to interpret the articles of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV. It, therefore, concluded that “attempts to denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territory” violated Article 43, where the occupying State must respect the laws of the occupied State; Article 46, where family honor and rights and individual life must be respected; and Article 56, where the property of institutions dedicated to education is protected.
In 1944, Professor Raphael Lemkin first coined the term “genocide” in his publication Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (p. 79-95). The term is a combination of the Greek word genos (race or tribe) and the Latin word cide (killing). The 1919 Commission on Responsibility did list “murders and massacres; systematic terrorism” as war crimes, but Professor Lemkin’s definition of genocide was much broader and more encompassing.
Raphael LemkinAccording to Professor Lenkin, “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.”
“Genocide has two phases,” argued Professor Lemkin, “one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain, or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization of the area by the oppressor’s own nationals. Denationalization was the word used in the past to describe the destruction of a national pattern.” Professor Lemkin believed that denationalization was inadequate and should be replaced with genocide.
The term genocide, however, was not a war crime under international humanitarian law at the time, but it appears that Committee III was in agreement with Professor Lenkin that it should be a war crime. The problem that faced Committee III was how to categorize genocide as a war crime under the Hague Convention, IV. On September 27, 1945, Committee III argued that denationalization was not a single act of “depriving the inhabitants of the occupied territory of their national characteristics,” but rather a program that attempted to achieve this result through: “interference with the methods of education; compulsory education in the language of the occupant; … the ban on the using of the national language in schools, streets and public places; the ban on the national press and on the printing and distributing of books in the language of the occupied region; the removal of national symbols and names, both personal and geographical; [and] interference with religious services as far as they have a national peculiarity.”
Committee III also argued that denationalization included other activities such as: “compulsory or automatic granting of the citizenship of the occupying Power; imposing the duty to swearing the oath of allegiance to the occupant; the introduction of the administrative and judicial system of the occupying Power, the imposition of its financial, economic and labour administration, the occupation of administrative offices by nationals of the occupying Power; compulsion to join organizations and associations of the occupying Power; colonization of the occupied territory by nationals of the occupant, exploitation and pillage of economic resources, confiscation of economic enterprises, permeation of the economic life through the occupying State or individuals of the nationality of the occupant.”
Committee III also stated that these activities by the occupying State or its nationals would also “fall under other headings of the list of war crimes.”
There were apparent similarities between Professor Lemkin’s definition of genocide and the Committee III’s definition of denationalization. Professor Lemkin argued that genocide was more than just mass murder of a particular group of people, but “the specific losses of civilization in the form of the cultural contributions which can only be made by groups of people united through national, racial or cultural characteristics (Lemkin, Genocide as a Crime under International Law, 41 AJIL (1947) 145, at 147).” Similarly, Committee III argued that denationalization “kill[s] the soul of the nation,” and was “the counterpoint to the physical act of killing the body, which was ordinary murder (Preliminary Report of the Chairman of Committee III, C.148, 28 Sept. 1945, 6/34/PAG-3/1.1.0, at 2).”
In its October 4, 1945 report “Criminality of Attempts to Denationalise the Inhabitants of Occupied Territory,” Committee III renamed denationalization to be genocide.
On December 11, 1946, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution that declared genocide a crime under the existing international law and recommended member States to sign a convention. After two years of study, the General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on December 9, 1948. By the Convention, genocide has been recognized as a crime even when there is no war or the occupation of a State. Genocide became an international crime along with piracy, drug trafficking, arms trafficking, human trafficking, money laundering and smuggling of cultural artifacts. During war or the occupation of a State, genocide is synonymous with the war crime of denationalization.
In the Trial of Ulrich Greifelt and Others (October 10, 1847-March 10, 1948) at Nuremberg, the United States Military Tribunal asserted Committee III’s interpretation that genocide can be committed through the war crime of denationalization. In its decision, the Tribunal concluded that, “genocide…may be perpetuated through acts representing war crimes. Among these cases are those coming within the concept of forced denationalisation (p. 42).”
The Tribunal explained, “In the list of war crimes drawn up by the 1919 Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, there were included as constituting war crimes ‘attempts to denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territory.’ Attempts of this nature were recognized as a war crime in view of the German policy in territories annexed by Germany in 1914, such as in Alsace and Lorraine. At that time, as during the war of 1939-1945, inhabitants of an occupied territory were subjected to measures intended to deprive them of their national characteristics and to make the land and population affected a German province (p. 42).”
When the Hawaiian Kingdom was occupied during the Spanish-American War, the United States operated in complete disregard to the recognized principles of the law of occupation at the time. Instead of administering the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, being the occupied State, the United States imposed its own laws, administration, judiciary and economic life throughout the Hawaiian Islands in violation of Hawaiian independence and sovereignty. According to Professor Limken, this action taken by the United States would be considered as “the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor,” which is the second phase of genocide after the national pattern of the occupied State had been destroyed under the first phase.
In other words, the actions taken by the United States was precisely what the Axis Powers did in occupied territories during World War I and II, which, according to Committee III, included “interference with the methods of education; compulsory education in the language of the occupant; … the ban on the using of the national language in schools, streets and public places; the ban on the national press and on the printing and distributing of books in the language of the occupied region; the removal of national symbols and names, both personal and geographical; [and] interference with religious services as far as they have a national peculiarity. [As well as] compulsory or automatic granting of the citizenship of the occupying Power; imposing the duty to swearing the oath of allegiance to the occupant; the introduction of the administrative and judicial system of the occupying Power, the imposition of its financial, economic and labour administration, the occupation of administrative offices by nationals of the occupying Power; compulsion to join organizations and associations of the occupying Power; colonization of the occupied territory by nationals of the occupant, exploitation and pillage of economic resources, confiscation of economic enterprises, permeation of the economic life through the occupying State or individuals of the nationality of the occupant.”
Under Hawaiian law, native (aboriginal ) Hawaiians had universal health care at no charge through the Queen’s Hospital, which received funding from the Hawaiian Kingdom legislature. Early into the occupation, however, American authorities stopped the funding in 1904, because they asserted that the collection of taxes used to benefit a particular ethnic group violated American law. In a legal opinion by the Territorial Government’s Deputy Attorney General E.C. Peters on January 7, 1904, to the President of the Board of Health, Peters stated, “I am consequently of the opinion that the appropriation of the sum of $30,000.00 for the Queen’s Hospital is not within the legitimate scope of legislative authority.”
Since 1904, aboriginal Hawaiians had to pay for their healthcare from an institution that was established specifically for them at no charge. As a result, many aboriginal Hawaiians could not afford medical care in their own country, which has led to the following dire health statistics today.
  • 4% of aboriginal Hawaiians who were surveyed in 2013 reported that they do not have any kind of health care coverage, which is the highest rate across all ethnic groups surveyed (Nguyen & Salvail, Hawaii Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, State of Hawai‘i Department of Health).
  • Aboriginal Hawaiians have the highest rate of diabetes in the Hawaiian Islands (Crabbe, Eshima, Fox, & Chan (2011), Native Hawaiian Health Fact Sheet 2011, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Demography Section, Research Division).
  • 5% of aboriginal Hawaiians are overweight, which is higher than any other ethnic group in the Hawaiian Islands (Nguyen & Salvail, 2013).
  • 7% of aboriginal Hawaiians have high blood pressure, being second only to Japanese at 39.7% (Nguyen & Salvail, 2013).
  • Aboriginal Hawaiians are more likely to have chronic diseases than non-aboriginal Hawaiians (Nguyen & Salvail, 2013).
  • 48% of the deaths of aboriginal Hawaiian children occur during the perinatal period (Crabbe et al., 2011).
  • 7% of aboriginal Hawaiian adults report being diagnosed with a depressive disorder (Nguyen & Salvail, 2013).
Professor Lemkin would view these statistics as connoting “the destruction of the biological structure” of aboriginal Hawaiians, which is the outcome of the second phase of genocide where the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor has been established. In addition to these statistics are added the deaths of aboriginal Hawaiians who died in the wars of the United States after forced conscription into the Armed Forces and their compulsion to swear allegiance. These wars included World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

US Recruiting PosterURL: http://wp.me/p31YBQ-Wk

This video of ‘Hawaii Aloha’ is the most moving version you’ll see


Note: It’s my wish that this music fills your heart with as much warmth, love and joy, as it did mine. It’s such a blessing to be embraced by such a remarkably beautiful and enlightened peoples, Am so humbled and proud to call Hawaii my home now…I wouldn’t live anywhere else in the world. With love and the deepest gratitude for your support thru the years, Aloha!

hawaii aloha music video

Kuana Torres Kahele, Palani Vaughan and Irie Love are a few of the many artists.

A timeless Hawaiian mele (song) receives a beautiful live version spanning the Islands. Seriously, stop what you’re doing and take a real life moment to pause and press play for this.

cyril pahinui mana mele
Cyril Pahinui.

 

Dozens of noteworthy local artists—like Cyril Pahinui, Ledward Kaapana, Paula Fuga, Imua Garza and Kimie Miner—from across genres come together and are joined by more than 1,000 keiki (youth) from 10 Hawaiian charter schools for this new rendition of “Hawaii Aloha.”

Hawaiian nonprofit Mana Maoli teamed up with Playing for Change and 4 Miles as part of their Mana Mele Project, which uses the world’s first solar-powered mobile studio and multimedia academy to gather and produce these recordings in support of Hawaii music education. Their mission is “designed to empower youth, support artists and honor elders.”

mana mele mobile studio
Mana Mele features the world’s first solar mobile
recording studio and multimedia center.

 

“Hawaii Aloha” is one of the most recognizable songs here, a classic Hawaiian anthem. If you’re born and/or raised in Hawaii, you likely have memories of learning all the words in school and singing it to conclude gatherings both formal and informal throughout your life—everything from the ends of concerts to political gatherings. Traditionally, during the final refrain everyone holds hands, raises and sways them in the air.

It was written in the 19th century by Rev. Lorenzo Lyons, who lifted the music from a hymn. Lyons was a beloved missionary, inducted into the Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame in 1998, and a strong, vocal advocate for the “the grand old, sonorous, poetical Hawaiian language,” considering it “an interminable language,” one that “may well be classed among the best.” He spoke out often in support of its revitalization, “the thought to displace it, or to doom it to oblivion by substituting the English language, ought not for a moment to be indulged.”

mana mele hawaii aloha video
Students of Ke Kula ‘o Samuel M. Kamakau PCS and Hakipuu Learning Center Site of Kaneohe, Oahu.

Native Hawaiians and Hawaii residents revere “Hawaii Aloha” as a call to action and tribute to its native and local culture. You can hear, see and feel the unity in this video, recorded in 27 locations (how many do you recognize?) across the Islands.


You can learn more about Mana Mele here and their Mana Mele Project on their Kickstarter.

 

 

http://www.hawaiimagazine.com/content/video-%E2%80%98hawaii-aloha%E2%80%99-most-moving-version-youll-see

PITIFUL CHIEFS ~ Mohawk Nation News


Note: This was sent to me by an elder with the royal family, it’s the same covert template used to control and subjugate indigenous peoples worldwide, including the Kanaka Maoli aka native Hawaiian’s.

mnnlogo1

Please post & distribute.

MNN. Apr. 21, 2016. Our communities are privately owned by corporations called band and tribal councils. These corpo chiefs are created by the occupiers. The bankers are the shareholders of every municipality in the Corporation of CANADA, including INDIAN reserves. The band/tribal council’s job is to provide ever growing dividends for the shareholders of the corporation called the “Mohawk Council of Kahnawake Inc.”

Oswego/Six Nations [Caledonia] 8 years ago.

For a “finder’s fee” the chief’s job is to sign off all our assets on great turtle island to the corporation as collateral for their private investments.Check out some of the characteristics of psychopathic behaviors of the corpo band/tribal councils.sitting bull stolen land

  1. Callous unconcern for the people. They do secret projects without telling us while liquidating our assets.
  1. No meaningful relationship with their people. They watch us and report our weaknesses to their corporate masters. They even sit in our longhouses with us. The super “Iroquois Caucus Inc.” is created to impersonate the rotin’shonni/Iroquois Confederacy and usurp our inherent powers.
  1. No regard for our security. They open the doors to taxation, confiscation, imprisonment and violence against us. They help law enforcement to plan how to attack and threaten us. They pit families against each other.
  1. Lie and con. Their propagandists spread disinformation about us by infiltration. They report their critics. rabbit hole
  1. Abuse our rights. They open the door for many non-onkwe’hon:weh entities to enter our communities to operate businesses abusing our collective rights.
  1. No guilt. Outside systems are brought in like courts, police, armies, law and order and “low level warfare”. Cheap labor is created for their sweat shops, with long hours and no benefits. We are kept in fear of harassment, loss of our children, jobs, houses, benefits and services.
  1. Steal identity. They don’t like being called “sell outs”. They call themselves a “nation” or a “chief”. These predators imitate us to steal our cultural infrastructure and identity. trudeaus syrian migrants

Our mother and we are going to take back great turtle island by following the original instructions.

The corporate INDIANS owe their soul to the company store. They are not our leaders, even though they prance around in ribbon shirts with corporate logos.

As Tennessee Ernie Ford pointed out in his song “Sixteen Tons”: “If you see me coming, better step aside. A lot of men didn’t and a lot of men died. One fist of iron, the other of steel. If the right one don’t get you, then the left one will. You load 16 tons, what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter don’t call me, cause I can’t go. I owe my soul to the company store”.

MNN Mohawk Nation News kahentinetha2@yahoo.com or more news, to donate and sign up for MNN newsletters, go to www.mohawknationnews.com More stories at MNN Archives. thahoketoteh@ntk.com Address: Box 991, Kahnawake [Quebec, Canada] J0L 1B0 or original Mohawk music visit https://soundcloud.com/thahoketoteh

FIRST NATIONS TAX COMMISSION

... to y off-shore account!

Queenie & Off-shore Banking.

Monty Python & Occupy Wall St.

YOUR VOICE NEEDS TO BE HEARD:

Indian Affairs Toronto, 25 St. Clair Avenue East, 8th floor
TORONTO, ON M4T 1M2
Tel.: 1-800-567-9604 FREE
Fax: 1-866-817-3977 FREE
TTY: 1-866-553-0554 FREE
Email: InfoPubs@aadnc-aandc.gc.ca

President, De Beers Diamond Mines, Suite 400, 65 Overlea Blvd. Toronto, Ont. M4H 1P1, linda.dorrington@ca.debeersgroup.com

Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, %The Privy Council, Buckingham Palace, London, SW1A 1AA, UK press@royalcollection.org.uk;

Governor General of Canada, info@gg.ca

Premier of Ontario, premier@premier.gov.on.ca

New Democratic Party of Canada, mulcair.b@parl.gc.ca

Bloc Quebecois Party, Duceppe.g@parl.gc.ca

Hon. Beverley McLachlin, Supreme Court of Canada, 301 Wellington St., Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0J1 613-995-4330

Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, onbox@psepc.gc.ca

Assistant Deputy Minister, First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada, fnihb-dgspni@hc-sc.gc.ca

Minister of National Defence, sujjan.h@gc.ca

U.S. President Barak Obama, president@whitehouse.gov

Royal Canadian Military Institute, 426 University Ave., Toronto ON M5G 1S9 president@rcmi.org
Canadian High Commission Trade Office in Johannesburg, South Africa jobrg@international.gc.ca

All Media, Pope Benedictum XVI, St. Peter’s Sq., Vatican City, Rome Italy; Canadian Center for Foreign Policy Development,press@royalcollection.org.uk(National Forum on Africa);

Surete du Quebec, 514-598-4141 http://www.sq.gouv.qc.ca/english/contact-us/to-contact-us-surete-du-quebec.jsp

Quebec Minister of Justice Stephane Valee, 418-643-5140, 1-800-536-5140 FREEinformations@justice.gouv.qc.ca

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau j.trudeau@parl.gc.ca

RCMP HQ 613-993-7267 http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cont/index-eng.htm

CSIS 613-993-9620 https://www.csis.gc.ca/contact-en.php

Minister of Indian Affairs, Carolyn Bennett, minister@aadnc-aandc.gc.ca

Algonquins anishnabe, Alice Cooper “Poison”, Attawapiskat, bankers City of London, Canada East Pipeline, Carolyn Bennett Indian Affairs Minister, DeBeers Diamonds, Economic Hit Man, Indian Affairs war room, james bay, Kaia’nereh:kowa Great Peace, Karla Homolka, Kaschewan, Lac Simon Quebec, Missing & Murdered Women, Pharmacies & antidepressants, PM Justin Trdeau, Rotino’shonni/Iroquois longhouses, SQ terrorism, SQ-OPP-RCMP-CSIS-, TRC apologies, US school shootings, Val d’Or rape by SQ

 

http://mohawknationnews.com/blog/2016/04/22/pitiful-chiefs/

Swiss Criminal Court Accepts Case on War Crimes Committed in Hawai‘i


Swiss AG Office

Where the following linked documents are in the original German language, an English translation follows.

In 2011, Switzerland passed a statute authorizing the Swiss Attorney General the authority to prosecute war crimes committed abroad. Under Swiss law, all criminal complaints are required to be investigated, and should it be the opinion of the investigator that there are no crimes being committed he is required to draft a report that explains why. This report is subject to review, however, by the Swiss Federal Criminal Court if the report is contested. The review is initiated when a formal Objection is filed with the Court within 10 days in accordance with Article 396(1) of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code (SCPC). If the Court upholds the Objection, “it may issue instructions to the public prosecutor…on the continuation of the proceedings (Art. 397(3), SCPC).”

This criminal investigation process is very different from criminal investigations that occur within the United States, where the prosecutor has full and complete discretion to investigate a crime or not to investigate, and the decision not to investigate is not subject to review by a higher authority.

In a 2012 decision, the Swiss Federal Criminal Court rejected immunity claims made by a former Algerian Defense Minister Khaled Nezzar that he was immune from prosecution because the alleged war crimes occurred during his time in government office. The Court stated immunity is not available for international crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture or genocide.

Dr. Keanu SaiIn December 2014, Dr. Keanu Sai, who represented two victims of war crimes from Hawai‘i through limited powers of attorney, filed a war crime complaint with the Swiss Attorney General (AG) in Bern, Switzerland. Dr. Sai filed additional complaints in January 2015. This initiated an investigation by Prosecutor Andreas Müller from the Swiss AG’s War Crimes Unit that eventually came before the Swiss Federal Criminal Court Objections Chamber in April 2015. The Court decreed that it could not accept Dr. Sai’s Objection due to a procedural technicality.

The Hawaiian Kingdom blog has redacted the name of one of the complainants for security and safety concerns.

After the Court’s decision, Dr. Sai was given information from a reliable source in Switzerland that a former Prosecutor of the Attorney General’s War Crime Unit (Center of Competence for International Crimes) admitted that after receiving the war crime complaints, the War Crime Unit could not refute the evidence of war crimes, and stated, anecdotally, it was as if a bomb went off in the office. He also admitted that the Swiss AG Office deliberately used a procedural technicality to prevent the Court from reviewing the investigation.

In his Report dated February 3, 2015, Prosecutor Müller took the position that war crimes are not being committed because Hawai‘i was annexed in 1898 by a Congressional joint resolution and in 1959 Congress created the State of Hawai‘i as the 50th State. Because of this, according to the Prosecutor, Hawai‘i is not occupied and therefore war crimes have not been committed. The problem with this reasoning, which the Prosecutor knows is wrong, is that he is relying on United States (US) laws enacted by the US Congress, which has no force and effect beyond US borders. According to this logic, Congress could pass a law today annexing Switzerland and then pass another law calling Switzerland its 50th State of the American Federal Union.

US laws are domestic or national laws that apply over the territory of a particular Nation or State. It has no effect beyond the borders of the country whose legislature enacted it. International laws, however, which are laws between nations, can annex foreign territory, which is a treaty or an agreement between the two States. There is no treaty between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States. Instead, Hawai‘i was occupied during the Spanish-American War on August 12, 1898, and that occupation has since continued under a cloak of deception and lies.

Responding to Prosecutor Müller’s error of relying on US laws and not international laws, Dr. Sai sent an Objection dated March 31 to the Federal Criminal Court, via FedEx, on April 1, 2015, which was one day prior to the expiration of the ten-day period. The Objection reached the Court in Bellinzona on April 8, 2015. The following day, the Court issued an Order to the Prosecutor to turn over all evidence of his investigation for consideration by the Court.

In just twenty days, the Court issued their Decision on April 28, 2015. After the Court named the former CEO of Deutsche Bank Josef Ackermann, State of Hawai‘i Governor Neal Abercrombie, Lt. Governor Shan Tsutsui, Director of Taxation Frederik Pablo, and Deputy Director Joshua Wisch as alleged war criminals of pillaging, and stating that the 1864 Hawaiian-Swiss Treaty was not cancelled, the Court concluded it was unable to accept the Objection because it was not filed timely within the required 10-day period.

In its judgment, the Court cited a 2012 Federal Criminal Court decision that concluded if a party uses FedEx, being a private courier, and not the Swiss Postal Service or diplomatic representative, the Court can only accept the filings on the day received and not sent. This was the procedural technicality that the former prosecutor spoke of, which is what they used in an attempt to slow down the process. Having been made aware of the actions taken by the Swiss AG’s office, Dr. Sai was preparing to re-file the complaints.

“At the center of these proceedings,” said Dr. Sai, “is whether a domestic law of the United States could have annexed another independent State, being the Hawaiian Kingdom. From a law standpoint it is clear that it cannot because domestic laws are limited to the territory of that particular country.” Dr. Sai also stated, “since the Permanent Court of Arbitration recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a “State” during arbitration proceedings from 1999-2001, the Swiss Prosecutor cannot claim otherwise unless he has evidence under international law that the Permanent Court of Arbitration didn’t have that Hawai‘i was annexed by a treaty. If there is a treaty then there are no war crimes, but if there is no treaty then you have war crimes. It’s that simple. ”

Mike McCartneyBefore the re-filing, Dr. Sai met with Governor David Ige’s Chief of Staff Mike McCartney on three occasions in June of 2015. In these meetings that lasted over two hours each, Dr. Sai conveyed to McCartney that his clients were willing to forgo re-filing the complaint with the Swiss AG’s office if the Governor’s office would take corrective measures to address this matter. Dr. Sai also explained the remedy to the situation, which stems from his doctoral research in political science. On July 2, 2015, Dr. Sai provided McCartney a Report that covered what was discussed in the three meetings and a proposed remedy in line with international law and relevant rules of the State of Hawai‘i. After numerous failed attempts to reach McCartney, it left Dr. Sai with no alternative but to re-file the complaint, which would include Lt. Governor Shan Tsutsui who is a carry over from the previous administration under Governor Abercrombie.

On August 18, 2015, the War Crimes Report and Complaint was re-filed.  The investigation commenced in August and lasted for nearly six months. Prosecutor Müller issued a Report on January 28, 2016, again relying on the 1898 joint resolution of annexation and the 1959 Statehood Act.

Dr. Sai received Prosecutor Müller’s Report on February 13, 2016, which made the ten-day window expire on February 23. Dr. Sai sent his Objection to the Federal Criminal Court Objections Chamber on February 20, through the Swiss Postal Service in Geneva, and the Court received it on February 22. According to Article 91(2), SCPC, filings “must be delivered on the day of expiry of the time limit at the latest…handed for delivery to SwissPost, a Swiss diplomatic or consular representations.” In other words, delivery by the Swiss Postal Service or to a diplomatic or consular post is recognized by its post date and not by its date received.

On that same day the Court received Dr. Sai’s Objection, it issued an Order to Prosecutor Müller to furnish the Court right away all records of his investigation. Dr. Sai was copied on the Order.

The following month, Dr. Sai received a Letter from the Court dated March 2, 2016, whereby the Court notified him that the case has been accepted for review and that he will need to provide a security for court costs in the amount of 2,000 Swiss Francs to be deposited in the Court’s bank account by March 14, 2016. Additionally, Dr. Sai was also directed by the Court to resubmit the Objection with his original signature. Dr. Sai’s original Objection pleading that was sent on February 20 had a scanned signature and not his original.

On March 9, 2016, while Dr. Sai was visiting with a friend in San Francisco, he went to the Swiss Consulate to have his letter and package sent to the Court through diplomatic courier. The Consulate acknowledged its receipt of the package on the same day. Swiss law recognizes the “post-date” if sent through the Swiss Consulate, which means the package would be recognized by the Court as being filed on March 9, which is before the March 14 deadline.

Here follows the list of individuals who have been under a criminal investigation for war crimes since August 2015, and which is now under review by the Swiss Federal Criminal Court in Bellinzona, Switzerland.

  1. Greg K. Nakamura—Judge, Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai‘i, whose address is Hale Kaulike, 777 Kilauea Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720-4212, Alleged War crime—Principal perpetrator of denial of a fair and regular trial;
  1. Josef Ackermann, former Chief Executive Officer, Deutsch Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Gottfried Keller-Strasse 7, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of pillaging and accomplice to denial of a fair and regular trial and unlawful arrest and detention;
  1. Jürgen Fitschen, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Deutsche Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of pillaging and accomplice to denial of a fair and regular trial and unlawful arrest and detention;
  1. Anshu Jain, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Deutsche Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of pillaging and accomplice to denial of a fair and regular trial and unlawful arrest and detention;
  1. Stefan Krause, Chief Financial Officer, Deutsche Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of pillaging and accomplice to denial of a fair and regular trial and unlawful arrest and detention;
  1. Stephan Leithner, Chief Executive Officer Europe (except Germany and UK), Human Resources, Legal & Compliance, Government and Regulatory Affairs, Deutsche Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of pillaging and accomplice to denial of a fair and regular trial and unlawful arrest and detention;
  1. Stuart Lewis, Chief Risk Officer, Deutsche Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of pillaging and accomplice to denial of a fair and regular trial and unlawful arrest and detention;
  1. Rainer Neske, Head of Private and Business Clients, Deutsche Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of pillaging and accomplice to denial of a fair and regular trial and unlawful arrest and detention;
  1. Henry Ritchotte, Chief Operating Officer, Deutsche Bank Management Board, parent company of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, whose address is Taunusanlage 12, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of pillaging and accomplice to denial of a fair and regular trial and unlawful arrest and detention;
  1. Charles R. Prather, attorney for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, belonging to the law firm RCO Hawaii, LLLC, whose address is 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 800, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of pillaging and accomplice to denial of a fair and regular trial and unlawful arrest and detention;
  1. Sofia M. Hirosone, attorney for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, belonging to the law firm RCO Hawaii, LLLC, whose address is 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 800, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of pillaging and accomplice to denial of a fair and regular trial and unlawful arrest and detention;
  1. Michael G.K. Wong, attorney for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, belonging to the law firm RCO Hawaii, LLLC, whose address is 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 800, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of pillaging and accomplice to denial of a fair and regular trial and unlawful arrest and detention; and
  1. Glenn Swanson, realtor belonging to the real estate firm Savio Realty, whose address is 15-2911 Pahoa Village Rd, Pahoa, HI 96778, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of pillaging and accomplice unlawful arrest and detention; and
  1. Sandra Hegerfeldt, realtor belonging to the real estate firm Savio Realty, whose address is 15-2911 Pahoa Village Rd, Pahoa, HI 96778, Alleged War Crimes—Accomplice to pillaging and unlawful arrest and detention; and
  1. Jessica Hall, realtor belonging to the real estate firm Savio Realty, whose address is 15-2911 Pahoa Village Rd, Pahoa, HI 96778, Alleged War Crimes—Accomplice to pillaging and unlawful arrest and detention; and
  1. Dana Kenny, realtor belonging to the real estate firm Savio Realty, whose address is 15-2911 Pahoa Village Rd, Pahoa, HI 96778, Alleged War Crimes—Accomplice to pillaging and unlawful arrest and detention; and
  1. Shawn H. Tsuha, at the time of the pillaging, unfair trial and unlawful arrest, Sheriff, State of Hawai‘i Department of Public Safety Sheriff’s Department, whose address is 919 Ala Moana Boulevard, 4th Floor, Honolulu, HI 96814, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of pillaging and accomplice to denial of a fair and regular trial and unlawful arrest and detention; and
  1. Patrick Kawai, Lieutenant, State of Hawai‘i Department of Public Safety Sheriff’s Department, whose address is Hale Kaulike, 777 Kilauea Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720-4212, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of pillaging and accomplice to denial of a fair and regular trial and unlawful arrest and detention.
  1. Samuel Jelsma, Captain, County of Hawai‘i Police Department, State of Hawai‘i, whose address is 15-2615 Kea‘au-Pahoa Road, Hilo, HI 96778, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of unlawful arrest and detention;
  1. Reed Mahuna, Lieutenant, County of Hawai‘i Police Department, State of Hawai‘i, whose address is 15-2615 Kea‘au-Pahoa Road, Hilo, HI 96778, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of unlawful arrest and detention;
  1. Brian Hunt, Patrolman, County of Hawai‘i Police Department, State of Hawai‘i, whose address is 15-2615 Kea‘au-Pahoa Road, Hilo, HI 96778, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of unlawful arrest and detention;
  1. Glenn Hara, Judge, Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai‘i, whose address is Hale Kaulike, 777 Kilauea Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720-4212, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of denial of a fair and regular trial; and
  1. Mitch Roth, Prosecuting Attorney, County of Hawai‘i, whose address is Aupuni Center, 655 Kilauea Avenue, Hilo, HI 96820, Alleged War Crimes—Principal perpetrator of unlawful arrest and accomplice to denial of a fair and regular trial.
  1. Barack Obama, President of the United States, whose address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of unlawful appropriation of property;
  1. Jack Lew, Secretary, United States Treasury, since February 28, 2013, whose address 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20220, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of unlawful appropriation of property;
  1. Neal Wolin, former Secretary, United States Treasury, from January 25, 2013 to February 28, 2013, whose address 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20220, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of unlawful appropriation of property;
  1. Timothy F. Geithner, former Secretary, United States Treasury, from January 26, 2009 to January 25, 2013, whose address 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20220, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of unlawful appropriation of property;
  1. Stuart A. Levey, former Secretary, United States Treasury, from January 20, 2009 to January 26, 2009, whose address 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20220, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of unlawful appropriation of property;
  1. Henry M. Paulson, former Secretary, United States Treasury, from July 10, 2006 to January 20, 2009, whose address 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20220, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of unlawful appropriation of property;
  1. Robert M. Kimmit, former Secretary, United States Treasury, from June 30, 2006 to July 10, 2006, whose address 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20220, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of unlawful appropriation of property;
  1. John W. Snow, former Secretary, United States Treasury, from February 3, 2003 to June 30, 2006, whose address 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20220, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of unlawful appropriation of property;
  1. Neal Abercrombie, former Governor, State of Hawai‘i, from December 6, 2010 to December 1, 2014, whose address is State of Hawai‘i Executive Chambers, State Capital, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Linda Lingle, former Governor, State of Hawai‘i, from December 2, 2002 to December 6, 2010, whose address is State of Hawai‘i Executive Chambers, State Capital, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Ben Cayetano, former Governor, State of Hawai‘i, from December 2, 1994 to December 2, 2002, whose address is State of Hawai‘i Executive Chambers, State Capital, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Shan Tsutsui, Lieutenant Governor, State of Hawai‘i, since December 27, 2012, whose address is State of Hawai‘i Executive Chambers, State Capital, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Brian Schatz, former Lieutenant Governor, State of Hawai‘i, from December 6, 2010 to December 26, 2012, whose address is State of Hawai‘i Executive Chambers, State Capital, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Duke Aiona, former Lieutenant Governor, State of Hawai‘i, from December 4, 2002 to December 6, 2010, whose address is State of Hawai‘i Executive Chambers, State Capital, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Mazie Hirono, former Lieutenant Governor, State of Hawai‘i, from December 2, 1994 to December 2, 2002, whose address is State of Hawai‘i Executive Chambers, State Capital, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Frederik Pablo, former Director of Taxation, State of Hawai‘i, from 2010 to 2014, whose address is State of Hawai‘i Executive Chambers, State Capital, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Stanley Shiraki, former Director of Taxation, State of Hawai‘i, from 2009 to 2010, whose address is State of Hawai‘i Executive Chambers, State Capital, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Kurt Kawafuchi, former Director of Taxation, State of Hawai‘i, from 2006 to 2009, whose address is State of Hawai‘i Executive Chambers, State Capital, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Joshua Wisch, former Deputy Director of Taxation, State of Hawai‘i, from 2012 to 2013, and currently serving as Spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office of the State of Hawai‘i, whose address is State of Hawai‘i Executive Chambers, State Capital, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Randolf L.M. Baldemor, former Deputy Director of Taxation, State of Hawai‘i, from 2010 to 2012, whose address is State of Hawai‘i Executive Chambers, State Capital, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Ronald B. Randall, former Deputy Director of Taxation, State of Hawai‘i, from 2009 to 2010, whose address is State of Hawai‘i Executive Chambers, State Capital, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Sandra Yahiro, former Deputy Director of Taxation, State of Hawai‘i, from 2006 to 2009, whose address is State of Hawai‘i Executive Chambers, State Capital, Honolulu, HI 96813, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Bernard Carvalho, Mayor for Kaua‘i County, State of Hawai‘i, since December 1, 2008, whose address is 4444 Rice St., Suite 235, Lihue, HI 96766, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging;
  1. Kaipo Asing, former Mayor for Kaua‘i County, State of Hawai‘i, from July 17, 2008 to December 1, 2008, whose address is 4444 Rice St., Suite 235, Lihue, HI 96766, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging; and
  1. Bryan Baptiste, former Mayor for Kaua‘i County, State of Hawai‘i, from 2002 to July 17, 2008, who is deceased, Alleged War Crime—Principal perpetrator of pillaging.

These individuals are named as alleged war criminals for pillaging, unlawful appropriation of property, unfair trial and unlawful confinement, which are all war crimes under the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) and international humanitarian law.

To understand the background of the alleged war crimes committed against Kale Kepekaio Gumapac by Deutsche Bank and State of Hawai‘i officials, Big Island Video News uploaded a 5-part news series in 2013.

Swiss Criminal Court Accepts Case on War Crimes Committed in Hawai‘i

Hawaii. Shouldn’t someone be warning the public of dangerous bacteria levels lurking at the beach?


In recent months, we’ve seen the absolute failure of government at all levels to protect the people of Flint, Michigan from the harmful impacts of lead contaminated water that was pumped into their homes for cost savings.  Even in the face of growing protest and concern from the community, this unsafe practice continued for months before anyone in the government acknowledged the problem and took steps to improve conditions. Unfortunately it is the children of Flint who will suffer the most and the longest from their unnecessary exposure to unhealthy levels of lead in their homes.

In the wake of this public health crisis, we would hope that government officials around the country would take their responsibility to protect public health and to listen to the concerns of their communities seriously, but unfortunately our Surfrider Chapters in Hawai’i continue to meet resistance from the Hawai’i Department of Health as they implore the State to post warning signs near chronically polluted streams to protect the public from getting sick at the beach.

On the island of Kaua’i, Surfrider’s Blue Water Task Force (BWTF) program tests over 25 surf breaks, estuaries and freshwater streams in order to provide water quality information to the public at popular recreational sites where the Department of Health (DOH) is not testing.  For the past seven years, the Kaua’i chapter has been documenting several cases of severe and chronic contamination in a number of island streams through their volunteer-led water testing program. In 2015, seven streams — ones that families and children commonly choose to splash around in — failed to meet public health standards over 90% of the time they were tested. Four of those streams failed health standards every single time they were tested.  The most egregious site is the Waiopili Stream that exceeded health standards 100% of the time, with average bacteria levels 77 times greater than the Hawai’i state water quality standard which was set to protect public health in recreational waters.  The state standard is 130 colonies of enterococcus bacteria per 100 ml of water.  The average bacteria count measured by the Kaua’i BWTF during 2015 was over 10,000 colonies of enterococcus, up from an average count of 9,000 measured in 2014. The statistics are more than alarming — they are truly dangerous.

Each year, Surfrider’s BWTF Coordinator in Kaua’i, Dr. Carl Berg, publishes an analysis of both Surfrider’s and the DOH’s water quality results.  Every year the story is the same.  The open ocean surf is generally clean and safe, but there are several streams that are constantly contaminated and present a real health threat to the bathing public.  Read this year’s report at TheGardenIsland.com 

Unfortunately the families and children who love to play in these polluted streams as they flow across the beach don’t know to stay away. Why?  Because the State refuses to post warning signs or investigate the problem — despite pleas from Surfrider and the convincing scientific evidence that demonstrates a real public health concern.  See where Surfrider is testing on Kaua’i and view the data yourself at kauai.surfrider.org.

In addition to ignoring the results of Surfrider’s credible citizen science program on Kaua’i, the DOH is also ignoring the results from its own monitoring program and only sporadically posts warning signs to close beaches or issue swim advisories.  The Hawai’i DOH receives an annual grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to implement their beach water quality monitoring and public notification program.  This funding source authorized by the BEACH Act of 2000, requires states or local implementing agencies to notify the public when bacteria levels exceed or are expected to exceed state determined, and federally recommended, water quality criteria.  The Hawai’i DOH only posts warning signs of high bacteria levels at the beach when there is a known human source of the contamination, such as a sewage spill or culpable cess pool.  Otherwise, they do nothing.

Even at Waiopili Stream, the DOH has taken its own samples and performed a sanitary survey to try to identify the sources of pollution, but it has been nearly two years since their investigation and they have not released their findings and public health remains unprotected.

The mission of the Department of Health is to protect and improve the health and environment for all people in Hawai`i, and in many instances they have taken this responsibility seriously.  Earlier this month Governor David Ige signed new wastewater system rules that were proposed by the Health Department to start fixing one of the biggest sources of water quality pollution in Hawai’i – cesspools.

“Hawaii has about 88,000 cesspools, far more than any other state,” a release from the Governor’s office stated. “Cesspools provide no treatment, and inject about 55 million gallons of raw sewage into Hawaii’s groundwater every day, potentially spreading diseases and harming the quality of drinking water supplies and recreational waters.”

Surfrider applauds the approval of these new rules that will prevent any new cesspools from being installed across the state, and will provide incentives for homeowners to upgrade their systems to reduce the impact on local waters.  It’s time for the Department of Health to do the right thing now and post warning signs at chronically polluted streams and whenever bacteria levels exceed health standards at the beach, so tourists and locals alike can be protected from contracting a whole host of water-borne illnesses such as eye, ear and sinus infections, gastro-intestinal illnesses, rashes and serious skin infections.

 

https://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/hawaii.-shouldnt-someone-be-warning-the-public-of-dangerous-bacteria-levels

The Misuse of the term Self-determination Regarding Hawai‘i


Whether by chance or design, the term “self-determination” is used to confuse an already confusing situation regarding Hawai‘i. The term is constantly applied as a sound bite employed by individuals who don’t have an understanding of its application. In news coverage of the so-called nation building process of Native Hawaiians, the term is so constantly used that it lost its meaning or that its true meaning was never known in the first place.

In her 1991 law article titled, Historical and Contemporary Hawaiian Self-Determination: A Native Hawaiian Perspective (8 Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 77), Mililani Trask wrote, “Since [Native] Hawaiians never surrendered their political rights through treaties nor voted on annexation, they fall under the United Nations category of a ‘non-self-governing people.’” Is Mililani correct? This begs the question, what is the United Nations definition of “non-self-governing”? And based on this definition, does it apply to Hawai‘i? To know what is “non-self-governing,” we need to know first the definition of “self-governing.”

Since its creation in 1945, the United Nations defines self-governing three ways: first, as an independent State, second, a State in association with another State, and, third, total incorporation into an existing State, all three of which can only occur through consent of the particular people. The process of consent is called “self-determination,” which is also referred to as “nation building.” Consequently, the term “non-self-governing” is a people who are neither an independent State, a State in association with another State, or have been totally incorporated into an existing State.” This is consistent with Encyclopedia Britannica’s definition of self-determination, which is “the process by which a group of people, usually possessing a certain degree of national consciousness, form their own state and choose their own government.”

The principle of self-determination is always opposed to the State and is not an attribute of a State. In other words, States do not have a right to self-determination, but rather an obligation for member States of the United Nations since 1945, to recognize that peoples, who are non-States, have this right to choose for themselves their form of governance. In the Charter of the United Nations, Article 1 provides, “The Purposes of the United Nations are…to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.” For the purpose of self-determination, the term “people” or “peoples” are not the State, but rather reside within the State.

What has to be kept in mind was that when the Charter was drafted in 1945 the term “self-determination of peoples” was specifically referring to “Mandate” and “Trust” territories that were under the administration of States since the end of the First World War, and colonial territories of the victors of the Second World War under Article 73(e) of the United Nations Charter. Mandate territories were former territorial units of Germany and the Ottoman Empire that were taken under the control of members of the League of Nations, and Trust territories were former mandate territories under the League of Nations, and territories formerly held by Japan prior to the Second World War. The victors of the Second World War also were required to regularly report the status of their colonial territories, being non-self-governing, on the position where each of its territories stood toward self-governance. The administration of territories, however, and the fostering of self-determination, remained with the colonial State, unlike the Mandate and Trust territories. Article 73(b) of the UN Charter requires the administrating State “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.”

These territorial units were often referred to as colonial territories of empires that were comprised of different people than that of the citizenry of the colonial power. An example of a Mandate territory is Iraq, being a former colonial territory of the Ottoman Empire, under the administration of the United Kingdom after the First World War. Iraq achieved independence as an independent State in 1932. The Federated States of Micronesia was a Trust territory under the administration of the United States of America. Micronesia achieved independence as a State in association with the United States in 1986. Fiji was an Article 73(e) territory that achieved independence as a State from the United Kingdom in 1970. Iraq, Micronesia, and Fiji, as non-self-governing territories, exercised self-determination in order to achieve self-governance and became independent sovereign States.

Indigenous people, however, are not placed on the same status as Mandate, Trust or Article 73(e) territories. Indigenous peoples are peoples that reside within the territories of the State themselves, which are not considered under international law as colonial territories. According to the United Nations Special Rapporteur Jose Martinez Cobo of the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, self-determination “constitutes the exercise of free choice by indigenous peoples, who must, to a large extent, create the specific content of this principle, in both its internal and external expressions, which do not necessarily include the right to secede from the State in which they live and to set themselves up as sovereign entities. This right may in fact be expressed in various forms of autonomy within the State.” Autonomy and independence are not synonymous, whereby the former is governance “within” a State and the latter is governance “separate” from the State.

In 2001, the United States confirmed Cobo’s definition of self-determination for indigenous peoples. According to the United States National Security Council, “Indigenous peoples have a right of internal self-determination. By virtue of that right, they may negotiate their political status within the framework of the existing nation-state and are free to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right of internal self-determination, have the internal right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their local affairs, including determination of membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare, maintenance of community safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resources management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous functions.”

The original members of the United Nations only numbered 51 States, and through self-determination of peoples, the membership of the United Nations grew exponentially to 193, which were all former non-self-governing peoples. In 1843, the Hawaiian Kingdom achieved international recognition of independence as a State in the nineteenth century, what one hundred forty two States, including Iraq, Micronesia and Fiji, achieved in the twentieth century. The United Nations is an international organization of States, but not all States are members of the United Nations. Switzerland is an example of a State that was not a member of the United Nations until 2002. The Hawaiian Kingdom, as well, is not a member of the United Nations, but is an independent and sovereign State today.

In 1946, the United States disguised the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, by reporting Hawai‘i to the United Nations under Article 73(e) of the UN Charter as if it was a non-self-governing territory of the United States. This began the deception that Hawai‘i was annexed as a colonial territory to the United States, which formed the foundation for the use of the terms today such as colonization, indigenous rights, and self-determination that only reinforces the illusion that Hawai‘i is a part of the United States.

Self-determination does not apply to Hawai‘i, because Hawai‘i already attained the international status as an independent State in the nineteenth century, like Iraq, Micronesia and Fiji in the twentieth century, which was confirmed by the Permanent Court of Arbitration during arbitral proceedings from 1999-2001, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. The concept of indigenous people, as well, does not apply to the natives of Hawai‘i, because the Hawaiian Islands remain the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom and not the United States, and that the natives of Hawai‘i are the ones who comprised the majority of the citizenry of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent and sovereign State.

 

http://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/the-misuse-of-the-term-self-determination-regarding-hawaii/

Dr. Keanu Sai’s Presentation on the Island of Kaua‘i


On February 26, 2016, Dr. Keanu Sai and Ph.D. candidate Lorenz Gonschor each gave a presentation on the legal and political history of the Hawaiian Kingdom at Wilcox Elementary School for the community of Kaua‘i.

Dr. Sai and Gonschor were invited by the Hui Aloha ‘Aina o Kaua‘i as part of Halawai Kū`oko`a, a series of 6 monthly events, open to the public and free of charge.

According to Hui Aloha ‘Aina o Kaua‘i, the purpose of the events is to educate the residents of Kaua’i of the legal and historical facts surrounding Hawai‘i.

We are witnessing a convergence of two very different versions of Hawaiian history:

One version claims Hawai‘i is the 50th State of the United States of America, which by their own admission is flawed. See:

U.S. Department of State’s Website: Article on Hawaiian Annexation Removed

http://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/u-s-d…

The other belief is that Hawai`i is an independent nation, since 1843, enduring a prolonged, unlawful, belligerent occupation by the United States of America

Our hope is to provide clarity and an opportunity for residents to ask questions and ultimately be able to make informed decisions.

This is a kākou thing. This is a “we” thing.

 

http://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/dr-keanu-sais-presentation-on-the-island-of-kauai/

Hawaii Citizens Beat Monsanto, Bypass ‘Right to Spray’ Pesticides Bill


Mar 15, 2016

by Christina Sarich

Residents of the Hawaiian Islands just breathed a sigh of relief – literally, as the deadline passed for Hawaii’s House Judiciary Committee to hear House Bill 849, relating to Right to Farm, that would force residents to succumb to pesticide spraying without any say. All the while, companies like Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, and BASF use Hawaii land as a testing ground for GM crops.

Bill 849 amends Hawaii’s Right to Farm Act to ensure that counties cannot enact laws, ordinances, or resolutions to limit the rights of farmers and ranchers to engage in agricultural practices – including spraying with carcinogenic pesticides.

Hundreds of citizens called and wrote letters to state legislators urging them to stop giving Monsanto, one of the largest lobbyists in the Islands, permission to continue spraying pesticides, especially near their schools, homes, and hospitals.

Lorna Cummings Poe, a Kaua‘i resident whose daughter and granddaughters are impacted by pesticide drift in Kekaha on the island’s west side, said:

“We can no longer put the interests of industrial agriculture before the interests of our keiki [children] and ‘?ina [land]. Today’s decision shows that we’re moving in the right direction. I am hopeful for the future.”

As with many Big Ag bills, the title is confusing. Contrary to the language in the bill title, this measure would have protected the agrichemical industry’s ‘right-to-spray’ pesticides near schools and homes.

The death of this preemption bill means that industry lobbyists just choked on their own greed.

Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice legal teams are poised to deliver oral arguments and defend these ordinances before the Federal Court in Honolulu in June 2016.

Additional Sources:

CenterforFoodSafety

Featured image credit: EarthJustice / NOEL MORATA

+++

Monster North Shore surf uncovers hidden petroglyphs


February 13th 2016

Image Courtesy: Avi Salvio
Image Courtesy: Avi Salvio

Image Courtesy: Avi Salvio

NORTH SHORE, OAHU (HawaiiNewsNow) – The waves at Pine Trees surf break constantly reshape the shoreline. And when really big surf comes in, the resulting erosion can briefly uncover Hawaiian petroglyphs.

That’s exactly what happened Thursday, and resident Avi Salvio was lucky enough to snap photos of two petroglyphs she spotted before they disappeared under sand again less than 24 hours later.

Image Courtesy: Avi Salvio

“They’re a really special thing to see, but they disappear really fast,” Salvio said.

Normally, you wouldn’t even see the lava rock on the beach. That’s because it’s typically covered with at least 10 feet of sand.

University of Hawaii anthropology professor James Bayman said petroglyphs were created by pecking one rock with another rock.

Because the carvings at Pine Trees are rarely seen, not much is known about them. But Bayman says they could easily date back several hundred years.

It’s been reported there are as many as 70 carvings chiseled into the lava rock there, mostly depicting human like figures and dogs.

Bayman says dogs were very meaningful in Hawaiian culture; their meat was reserved for men with a very high status.

In 42 years, Adam Salvio says he’s only seen the carvings four times.

“As you’re watching during the day the sand will cover them up and you try to sweep the sand off of them so they’ll stay up a little longer,” said Adam Salvio.

He always appreciates the rare glimpse of history.

“You’re realizing that people were here so long ago and you know they were at your same beach and you’re just reliving history again and you’re doing the same thing that they’ve done, playing in the same area. It’s pretty cool.”

Residents say there are more petroglyphs at Rock Piles and Ke Iki Beach.

WatchHawaii News Now VIDEO of petroglyphs

Copyright 2016 Hawaii News Now. All rights reserved.

 

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/31213245/huge-north-shore-surf-uncovers-hidden-petroglyphs

Kanuha Found Not Guilty Of Obstruction on Mauna Kea


2016-01-08kanuha

WAIMEA, Hawaii – Kaho’okahi Kanuha was found not guilty by Judge Barbare Takase at the Third-Circuit District Court in Waimea.

Kanuha was charged with obstructing Thirty Meter Telescope crews on the Mauna Kea Access Road on June 24, 2015. He was one of 12 arrested on the mountain that day. Kanuha was a leader in the effort to block construction of the TMT which was granted the right to proceed with the project by the state. The $1.4 billion observatory was set to be located on the northern plateau of the Mauna Kea summit, an area prized by astronomers for being one of the best spots in the world from which to observe the cosmos. The Hawaii Supreme Court later invalidated the telescope’s conservation district use permit, remanding the project back to the start of its permit process, effectively delaying construction for years. The high court ruled that the state did not follow proper procedure when it awarded the permit.

Sources in the courtroom say Kanuha appeared pro se and defended himself in ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi. A court interpreter assisted by translating the Hawaiian language for Judge Takase.

Kanuha “chanted 17 generations of his genealogy dating back to the 1400’s, which goes back to Umialiloa,” said Chandell Asuncion, who was in the court and noted there “wasn’t a dry eye in the room.”

“He then told a story told by Kanuha in the mid 1800’s of Umi going to war with a man who was cutting down the coconut grove,” Asuncion said. “The story goes into detail about Umi protecting the desecration of ‘Aina Mauna which is defined as Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, Hualalai and all the land in between. He very clearly described destruction, and his traditional, kuleana to protect the sacred lands of ‘Āina Mauna.”

“The judge recognized that Kaho’okahi BELIEVED that on June 24, 2015 the day of the arrest he was making a choice to protect the Mauna and be arrested,” Asuncion reported, “which is less harm than allowing construction.

Kanuha was first arrested on Mauna Kea on April 2, 2015. He was one of 31 to be removed from the mountain by law enforcement working to clear a path for TMT crews. Kanuha was determined from the beginning to defend himself in court using the Native Hawaiian language. (VIDEO: Hawaiian Language Confounds Court). Big Island Video News covered the story in May 2015.

His defense in ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi continued for his June 24 arrest. In this video, Kanuha asks Judge Takase for a bail refund.

%d bloggers like this: