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.

 

Advertisements

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.

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

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

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/

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.

Hawaiian Affairs CEO moving forward after letter


Posted: May 12, 2014 12:21 PM HST Updated: May 13, 2014 12:21 AM HST

By Mileka Lincoln

Connect

 

CEO Kamana‘opono Crabbe

SEE VIDEO

News Links

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) –

Does the Hawaiian Kingdom still exist? That’s the question the CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs wants answered by the U.S. Justice Department.

His inquiry has sparked an internal dispute within OHA, as several trustees have attempted to rescind the request, but he’s standing by his decision and now a few trustees are switching sides and backing him as well.

Dr. Kamanaʻopono Crabbe addressed the public today for the first time since submitting a formal request to Secretary of State John Kerry seeking clarification on the legal status of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi.

Flanked by dozens of supporters, Dr. Crabbe held a press conference Monday morning to clarify the intent of his inquiry, which he says was sent within his authority under OHA’s governing documents and Hawai’i statutory law.

He says the chief reason for requesting that Secretary Kerry seek a legal opinion of the U.S. Attorney General regarding the status of Hawai’i under international law is to ensure OHA can effectively facilitate a process of rebuilding a Hawaiian nation.  Dr. Crabbe went on to say highly qualified experts have provided their answers to the questions posed, but it would be irresponsible for OHA to assume the United States views the situation similarly.

“My staff and I have held some 30 community meetings in the past two months regarding our proposed process to rebuild our nation. In that same period we also held two governance summits with key community leaders. At these gatherings, and in other virtual contexts, we heard repeatedly concerns about engaging in a process of rebuilding a nation when — following the research of many legal, historical, and political experts — our nation continues to exist in the context of international law,” Dr. Crabbe said.

Dr. Crabbe says he made the inquiry because these claims appear to be valid, but for over 120 years, Native Hawaiians voices and concerns have not been properly answered.

“It is imperative for us to move forward to have at least accurate information and truth so that our people can make well informed decisions,” Dr. Crabbe said.

Among the questions Dr. Crabbe asked in his letter to Secretary Kerry:

“First, does the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, as a sovereign independent State, continue to exist as a subject of international law?
Second, if the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist, do the sole-executive agreements bind the United States today?”

Experts say these are questions that have come up for decades, since the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi in 1893 and since the U.S. government formally apologized for the illegal overthrow in 1993, but supporters say this is the first time the State Department has ever been asked point blank for an answer.

OHA’s CEO says his inquiry is not intended to invalidate the nation-building efforts of Kanaʻiolowalu but to make sure self-determination is achieved legally and with no unanswered questions.

“I can only imagine the burden that our Queen Lili’uokalani faced in 1893, but her charge and her legacy, and most of all, her spirit remains with us today, but most of all we must heed not only her guidance but each other,” Dr. Crabbe said.  “For we are all Natives.  We are patriots.  We are sons and daughters of this great land and as we move forward let not the differences divide us, but let our common beliefs and values and the principals of our kupuna unite us.  That is the call I ask from our people, from our trustees and our staff as we move forward in unity,” said Dr. Crabbe.

Only one trustee was present at Monday morning’s press conference, Oswald Stender.  Dr. Crabbe addressed the disagreement that exists between himself and OHA’s trustees since they learned of his inquiry, but says he has not been asked to resign or step down from his position as CEO.

“I continue to believe my decision to send the letter was in the best interest of OHA and the beneficiaries we serve,” said Dr. Crabbe. “The Hawaiian community needed to know that I was inquiring about the very matters they sought to bring forward.  And this is the reason I felt it was imperative to not only ask the questions but that the community be aware of the inquiry.”

Initially, all nine trustees signed a letter asking Secretary Kerry to rescind Dr. Crabbe’s inquiry, which was sent by OHA Chair Colette Machado Friday afternoon.

However, over the weekend Trustee Dan Ahuna sent another letter to Secretary Kerry — this time, asserting his support for Dr. Crabbe’s initial inquiry.

“It clearly appears that Dr. Crabbe is carrying out his fiduciary authority of due diligence in gathering evidence needed to make decisions as the Chief Executive Officer of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs,” Ahuna wrote.  “It is the best interest of our people to gather further information and pertinent documents.”

Immediately following Dr. Crabbe’s press conference Monday morning, Trustee Carmen Hulu Lindsey sent a letter to Chair Machado asking her name be removed from the rescind request.

“I have attended the many community town hall meetings OHA has held throughout the islands and heard the concerns articulated in Dr. Crabbe’s letters expressed by several people.  While those questions may be troubling and difficult to address, it is precisely because they are so that I now believe Dr. Crabbe demonstrated courage and integrity in moving those concerns forward to try to get the clarity we need,” Lindsey wrote.

More than 1,200 people have signed He Mana’o Pono, a petition in support of Dr. Crabbe’s State Department request since Saturday.

“Really what we’ve sought in that letter of support is first to honor Dr. Kamana’opono Crabbe and the position that he’s taken and really bringing to the forefront questions that have plagued our community for generations.  We’re not committed to any particular answers to those questions or outcome , but we are committed to having those questions asked,” said said Dr. Kamanamaikalani Beamer, a law professor with the University of Hawaiʻi at Manoa.  “Hawaiʻi is at a pivotal time.  We need facilitative leadership.  We need people that are going to bring our communities together and I feel like answers to these questions and clarifications will help and I want to support a leader that listens to our people.”

“Those are important questions — some of which are coming out of the University right now.  This is cutting edge research on the legal political history of Hawaiʻi that I think is prompting a new kind of awareness in the community.  What you’ve seen the CEO do today is respond to that new awareness — this new curriculum, this new education and research that’s coming out of the university,” said Dr. Willy Kauai, a UH Manoa lecturer in the Ethnic Studies department.  “I think what’s paramount in what took place today was kind of a call for education that, ʻEh, if we’re going to go about doing these important things, such as nation-building, we should probably have a very clear understanding of our own history’.”

Hundreds have commented on the petition.

“The truth can only be hidden from the world for so long. People in positions of power and policy making who have a conscience must speak out to the truth and challenge those who continue to perpetuate the lie that Hawaiʻi is a state of the USA.  Kamanaʻopono Crabbe is another champion in our history of leaders to step forth and question what is perceived to be the truth.  Mahalo nunui e Kamanaʻopono and to all who continue to keep the fire alive!” one supporter wrote.

“As a person of non-Hawaiian ancestry, I stand in solidarity with the statement of support by He Mana’o Pono.  It has been over 100 years of illegal occupation by the US goverment of these sovereign islands and it is high time the US government obliged to its obligations under international law as an occupying power, to uphold the Hawaiian constitution until such time as to the end of said occupation,” wrote another who signed the petition.

In a statement from OHA Chair Colette Machado sent to Hawaii News Now and all of the OHA staff, Machado writes she agrees Dr. Crabbe “has identified important questions that have been asked by many advocates for Hawaiʻi’s independence throughout the decades since the illegal overthrow of our Queen”, but says his actions “by-passed our Hawaiian legislators who have worked diligently, against great odds, to protect our Native Hawaiian trusts, programs, lands and entitlements.  They also sponsored and promoted Act 195 for the Kanaʻiolowalu roll.”

“I believe that the action pursued by Ka Pouhana demonstrates a lack of respect for the over 125,000 Native Hawaiians who registered to participate in the process,” Machado wrote.

According to Machado, an executive session will be held to address the trustees concerns with Dr. Crabbe next week at which time they will “initiate an investigation of the breach of established processes” and decide on a strategy to have the questions Dr. Crabbe raised addressed “without affecting the Kanaiʻiolowalu process and OHA’s commitment to facilitating a process to reorganize a Native Hawaiian Governing Entity.” Machado says the trustees will take “appropriate action” following their meeting.

Statement of Chair Colette Machado – http://bit.ly/1onwhim

Chair Machado’s Message to all OHA – http://bit.ly/1onwkdW

Here is a copy of Dr. Crabbe’s address from Monday morning’s press conference in its entirety:

Prepared Comments of Dr. Kamana’opono Crabbe 

Office of Hawaiian Affairs Ka Pouhana and CEO Press Conference of May 12, 2014 

Aloha mai kakou, 

I called this media conference today to offer additional information about my letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, which was sent within my authority under OHA’s governing documents and Hawai’i statutory law.  As with any leader, I am often called upon to make tough decisions, which are sometimes controversial. I continue to believe my decision to send the letter was in the best interest of OHA and the beneficiaries we serve. I stand behind this decision and accept full responsibility for it.

As Ka Pouhana and CEO of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, I must ensure that the policies and commitments of the OHA Board of Trustees are implemented with thorough due diligence and a minimization of risk to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. I take this responsibility seriously. And that was the chief reason for my inquiry with Secretary Kerry. 

As stated in the media release sent out this past Friday, I requested that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry seek a legal opinion of the U.S. Attorney General regarding the status of Hawai’i under international law. I also posed additional questions to clarify how the answer to that primary question impacts current efforts to rebuild a Hawaiian nation. 

Answers from the U.S. Attorney General are needed for OHA to effectively facilitate a process of rebuilding a Hawaiian nation. We must start with agreed upon facts (or begin identifying points of disagreement that require clarification).  Highly qualified experts have provided their answers to the questions posed. However, it would be irresponsible for OHA to assume that the United States views the situation similarly. The stakes are far too high for OHA to proceed under assumptions. 

A second reason for my questions to Secretary Kerry stems from our Hawaiian community. My staff and I have held some 30 community meetings in the past two months regarding our proposed process to rebuild our nation. In that same period we also held two governance summits with key community leaders. At these gatherings, and in other virtual contexts, we heard repeatedly concerns about engaging in a process of rebuilding a nation when-following the research of many legal, historical, and political experts-our nation continues to exist in the context of international law. 

Such concerns have led our community to request more time in the nation rebuilding process to have questions– such as I raised with Secretary Kerry– fully explored and shared with our people so that they can make well-informed decisions throughout the process. 

The Hawaiian community needed to know that I was inquiring about the very matters they sought to bring forward. And this is the reason I felt it was imperative not only that I ask the questions but that the community be aware of the inquiry. 

However, recognizing the gravity of the questions posed, I met with Chair Machado before making the letter public. I explained that my questions were a matter of due diligence and risk management to avoid OHA missteps in its nation rebuilding facilitation. I believed I had her consent to proceed with sharing publicly my letter to Secretary Kerry. Unfortunately, it is now apparent that we walked away from that meeting with a misunderstanding and misinformation. 

Despite disagreements that will need to be worked out between myself and OHA’s trustees, I am certain that the Board and I stand firmly together in our commitment to do all that we appropriately can to reestablish a Hawaiian nation. I look forward to engaging with the trustees in the ho’oponopono, which Chair Machado graciously suggested, so that we can work collectively to Ho’oulu Uihui Aloha, to Rebuild a Beloved Nation.

We must succeed in our efforts for the good of our lahui, our community, and our families for generations to come.

 

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/25496399/hawaiian-affairs-ceo-moving-forward-after-letter?page=2&N=L

 

No copyright infringement is ever intended.

FAIR USE STATEMENT:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material. Fair use: Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. We believe that because we are a news/education/research website, that our use of such copyrighted material falls under “fair use”.

If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting us at: {ascendingstarseed at gmail dot com} We will respond and take necessary action immediately. If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.

We believe in the free-flow of information, and this site may feature content that is not created by us, including articles, videos, and images. All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright to the respective owners/authors. http://www.ascendingstarseed.wordpress.com makes no claim of copyright on such material.

They Truly Are Poisoning Paradise by Gary Hooser


Our community cannot rely on “good neighbors” to protect our health and environment. Government intervention is needed now.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced recently its intent to ban chlorpyrifos, a Restricted Use Pesticide, stating that it “ … could not conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure to chlorpyrifos meets the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) safety standard.” The report further states there is “potential for risks in small watersheds with high concentrations of farming where chlorpyrifos may be widely used.”

Numerous studies indicate children exposed to chlorpyrifos have lower IQs and poorer working memory which impacts learning, reading comprehension and the ability to pay attention. Columbia University reported “Even low to moderate levels of exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos during pregnancy may lead to long-term, potentially irreversible changes in the brain structure of the child … ”

So, the EPA has announced its intent to ban chlorpyrifos — yet its use will likely continue into the foreseeable future. Why?

Dow AgroScience, the largest supplier of chlorpyrifos in Hawaii, has no intention of stopping its use and will be fighting the EPA every step of the way.

This of course, is to be expected. The industry playbook originally written by Big Tobacco and adopted by the agrochemical industry starts with one primary strategy — obfuscate and delay.

First, it will claim the EPA is just wrong and that chlorpyrifos is safe. Then, it will claim that even if chlorpyrifos were dangerous, it’s only a little bit dangerous, and if people would just follow the label, all would be OK.

Along the way they will generate a media narrative that the EPA is bowing to political pressure from activists who do not understand science. They will tell us in so many words to suck it up, and that pesticides are a part of everyday life. In the end, they will demand more studies, then claim the resulting additional study outcomes are flawed.

To be clear, these corporations are not “good neighbors” and no amount of money thrown at agricultural scholarships can change this. To the contrary, their mission is dominated by the pursuit of corporate profits, with the protection of health, the environment and workers — always taking a back seat.

A genuine good neighbor, one who cared about how its actions might impact the health of children who live and play on the same street, would err on the side of caution and stop using chlorpyrifos now, and not wait for the EPA’s final directive banning it.

According to the state Department of Agriculture, 7,282 pounds of chlorpyrifos were sold in Hawaii during 2014.

A 2013 air sampling report by the state and Kauai County showed, “Five pesticides (including chlorpyrifos) were detected in the indoor and outdoor passive air samples and the high volume outdoor air samples collected at Waimea Canyon Middle School.”

In 2013-2014, state stream water testing found chlorpyrifos in the Kekaha Ditch on Kauai and in Hawaii County streams. The amounts found were small. But as noted in reports such as Columbia University’s cited above, study after study showed chronic long-term exposure to even very small amounts is harmful, especially to a developing fetus and the neurological systems of young children.

The state of Hawaii can and should ban the use of chlorpyrifos today. The Department of Agriculture can do this via rule-making, the Legislature can do it via law, and the governor can accomplish this via executive order.

The EPA says it is unable to confirm chlorpyrifos’ safety and that our drinking water may be at risk. Our government can stop this harm from occurring now. Why wait?

The above blog piece was first published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on Sunday December 27, 2015

https://garyhooser.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/they-truly-are-poisoning-paradise/

 

ICYMI: Mark Ruffalo became a consumer champion just after Monsanto CEO blatantly lied on the air this month. “Hugh Grant must be made to feel uncomfortable for what he allows his company to do in the world. That is why I told him what I did and why I am sharing it with you.” http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/04/mark-ruffalo-monsanto/ #stopmonsanto #food #ag #GMOs #chemicals #labelGMOs #righttoknow #GMfood

Mauna Kea ~ Ho‘okahi ka umauma, Ho‘okahi pu‘uwai together we rise


MAIKA’I LOA HAWANE…

Melissa Leina'ala Haa Moniz's photo.
Melissa Leina’ala Haa Moniz to KAI ‘ULA

Hāwane Rios
Posted yesterday

Ho‘okahi ka umauma, Ho‘okahi pu‘uwai together we rise – Gathering at 7 am tomorrow morning at Hale Pōhaku. As we prepare to make our way up to the Mauna tomorrow to chant and sing while the machinery that has been sitting at proposed TMT site leaves, I reflect on the journey that brought us to this moment. The power in aligning with the kapu aloha has manifested in boundless blessings and it has been the Mauna that has guided us this far. When I think of the mountain, I think of profound grace, humble wisdom, and unwavering compassion. These are the virtues I carry in my heart especially on a day like tomorrow. It is a gentle reminder to remain in a place of gratitude for the incredible blessings that have come forth, to remain in a place of humility as we witness the manifestation of these blessings, and to remain in a place of compassion for all people and all beings. May we stand like mountain and forward on with all of our strength, all of our courage, and all of our love. Eō Wākea. ‪#‎protectmaunakea‬ ‪#‎wearemaunakea‬ ‪#‎kukiaimauna‬

VIDEO: Ku’e Petition Comes To Mauna Kea


To learn more on Hawaii’s hidden history and Kanaka Maoli’s fight to restore the Hawaiian Kingdom see: www.Manaoha.org

MAY 3, 2015: Ku’e Petition comes to Mauna Kea. Video by David Corrigan, voice of Sherry Bracken

MAUNA KEA – On Sunday, supporters of the Mauna Kea Hui and the Ku Kia’i Mauna movement drew a visual connection between the current fight against the Thirty Meter Telescope and their long sovereignty struggle.

At Pu’u Huluhulu – at the base of the Mauna Kea Access Road – many gathered to pay homage to the kupuna who first took a stand as far back as 1897. Hundreds of names written on small signs were dispersed around the grounds. The names are the ancestors who first stood against annexation by signing the Ku’e Petitions. Over 21,000 adult native Hawaiians joined the effort. Their names were gathered from across Hawaii, by foot, boat, and by horseback. The petitions were hand-carried to Washington and delivered to the United States Senate. The petition convinced congress not to sign a treaty of annexation between the U.S. and the Republic of Hawaii, which took over after the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani on January 17, 1893.

In July 1898 – during the Spanish-American War – The Republic of Hawaii was annexed under the Newlands Resolution, a joint resolution of congress. To this day, many Hawaiians insist that the Newlands Resolution is no substitute for a legal treaty of annexation, and therefor Hawaii is under a prolonged occupation by the United States. The question over who has the legal right to lease lands – especially the crown lands of Mauna Kea – is one of the driving factors in today’s opposition to the TMT project.

We interviewed political scientists Dr. Keanu Sai a few weeks ago on the subject.

The Ku’e Petition was nearly lost to history; the population has only recently become educated about this chapter in Hawaii’s history.

On Sunday, gathering in tents by the ahu along Saddle Road, families of the Ku’e petitioners consulted with the records and looked for the names of their kupuna within documents. Later, in the cold mist and rain, the hundreds of names were placed in the lava field. Some – by coincidence – stumbled upon the names of their ancestors as they worked… an emotional moment for many, young and old.

The names of the Ku'e Petitioners on display at Pu'u Huluhulu.

http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2015/05/04/video-kue-petition-comes-to-mauna-kea/#sthash.BuuurnuQ.dpuf

Stand with Kaua`i! Sign the Petition to Syngenta’s Swiss HQ


summary

Syngenta, one of the world’s largest chemical corporations, sprays tons of restricted use pesticides on the tiny island of Kaua`i – next to schools, hospitals, and homes. Many of these pesticides are banned in Switzerland, Syngenta’s HQ. Show your support for Kaua`i by signing this petition! – See more at: https://ujoin.org/campaigns/44/actions/public?action_id=48#sthash.FiB74H6b.dpuf

why sign?

  • People of Kaua`i should be afforded the same rights and protections by Syngenta that its home country of Switzerland requires for its own people!
  • Please sign the petition, share with your friends and help the residents of Kaua`i send a loud message half way around the world on behalf of all Hawai`i.
  • This petition will be presented to the Swiss government and Syngenta Execs on May 8th!
  • Kauai`i is “Ground Zero” for pesticide intensive research operations by the world’s largest chemical corporations!

– See more at: https://ujoin.org/campaigns/44/actions/public?action_id=48#sthash.FiB74H6b.dpuf

I join the residents of Kaua`i and support them in asking the government and people of Switzerland to instruct Syngenta, which is headquarted in Switzerland, to:

  1. Offer Kaua`i and all Hawai`i the same respect and protections that are afforded to the residents of Switzerland.
  2. Stop spraying Atrazine, Paraquat and 4 other pesticide “active ingredients” which are banned in Switzerland but are sprayed by Syngenta on a regular basis next to and upwind from Kaua`i schools, hospitals and homes.
  3. Honor Kaua`i’s laws as they honor the people and the laws of Switzerland. Ask Syngenta to drop their lawsuit against the people of Kaua`i over a democratically passed law (Bill 2491/Ordinance 960) that would establish pesticide buffer zones around the places we live and go to school. Ask them to stop using the courts to hide information about what they spray and to what they expose Kaua`i’s people on a daily basis.

I stand with Kaua`i and all the people of Hawai`i in asking the Swiss people and the Swiss government for their support.

Sign here: https://ujoin.org/campaigns/44/actions/public?action_id=48#sthash.FiB74H6b.dpuf

Sparks fly at hearing for TMT protesters


HOLLYN JOHNSON/Tribune-Herald TMT protester Danette Godines speaks to District Judge Barbara Takase (not pictured) Thursday in Waimea.

WAIMEA — It was round two in court Thursday for Thirty Meter Telescope protesters arrested April 2 on Mauna Kea. But unlike the earlier court proceedings last month in Hilo, numerous defendants came out swinging.

Thirty of the 31, who call themselves “protectors” of Mauna Kea, appeared in Hamakua District Court in Waimea. They were joined in the tiny courthouse by an overflow crowd of more than 100, some of whom viewed the hearings from outside through the building’s screened jalousie windows.

One, Keoni Payton, a 39-year-old Kaneohe, Oahu, resident, was a no-show, as he was on April 28 in Hilo. Judge Barbara Takase issued a bench warrant for his arrest for contempt of court and set bail at $400. She also ordered forfeiture of his $250 bail on a charge of disobeying a police officer. His arrest, and those of the others, stemmed from the blockade of Mauna Kea Access Road in an attempt to prevent construction of the $1.4 billion observatory on the mountain they consider sacred.

Some face a charge of disobeying a police officer, others face charges of trespassing or obstructing a roadway, all petty misdemeanors punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

Moanikeala Akaka of Hilo demanded the hearings be moved back to Hilo. “Are you just trying to give us a hard time because of the role that we’re playing in the community?” she asked Takase.

Another Hilo resident, Danette Godines, said holding the hearings in Waimea presented a hardship and took issue with being asked to come back June 18 for further proceedings.

“On April 28 we were supposed to be given our arraignment and plea,” she said. “I drove for over two hours, just for you to tell me to turn back around and come back another time? No. This is wrong. … This is undue harassment.”

Godines said she’d “like to hold this court in contempt of the law.”

Hawaiian sovereignty also was brought up by several of the defendants, including Akaka.

“As far as I’m concerned, this court has no legal authority over me,” she said.

Lakea Trask of Hilo said he’d “like to object to this whole process” and said he complied with the order to appear “under duress.”

“I’m only here, in distress, because of the threat of force,” he said.

Oahu attorney Dexter Kaiama, who represented numerous defendants, asked that hearings for some of his clients include a Hawaiian language interpreter, because his clients want to exercise their right to speak in Hawaiian. One, Chase Kahookahi Kanuha of Kailua-Kona, addressed the court in Hawaiian.

“Mr. Kanuha, I can’t understand you, so I can’t respond to you,” Takase replied.

Some defendants entered not guilty pleas while others deferred entering a plea until a later court date. Most were given June 18 return dates; others were told to return July 2.

Anastasha Dandelion Luttrell of Hilo engaged in several testy exchanges with the judge, who threatened to hold her in contempt of court. Takase warned her and others if they continued to argue or speak out of order she would find them in contempt.

As she did at the April 28 hearing, Takase granted refunds of the $250 bail to several defendants. The judge again denied the return of Luttrell’s bail money as she did at the first hearing after Luttrell said she had transportation problems. That prompted an outburst from Luttrell.

“I’d like to know why my bail’s being denied,” she said, loudly, as she was restrained by co-defendants.

Gov. David Ige has announced a temporary moratorium on TMT’s construction while hoping to reach agreement with those who oppose the project.

An emailed statement after the hearing from one of the defendants, Craig Neff, said the group was “wrongfully arrested for practicing aloha ‘aina and exercising our rights to protect our sacred mountain and precious elements from further desecration.”

Email John Burnett at jburnett@hawaii tribune-herald.com.

http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/local-news/sparks-fly-hearing-tmt-protesters