Laulima Title, LLC

Blog

The reporting of war crimes on this website is authorized by Section 495(a), U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, whereby the remedial action of “Publication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending [individuals]” is legally authorized under the laws of occupation. This website will be periodically updated by publicly identifying individuals, whether government or civilian, who committed a war crime and were reported to the United Nations Human Rights Council, Geneva, Switzerland.

Ambassador’s Letter to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, November 11, 2012

War Crimes

Unable to procure a treaty of cession from the Hawaiian Kingdom government acquiring the Hawaiian Islands as required by international law, the U.S. Congress enacted a Joint Resolution, which was signed into law by President McKinley on July 7, 1898 during the Spanish-American War (30 U.S. Stat. 750) as a war measure. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, a resolution is “a formal expression of the opinion or will of an official body or public assembly, adopted by vote; as a legislative resolution. Such may be either a simple, joint or concurrent resolution.” Therefore, a joint resolution is not a ceding of territory by treaty, but only an opinion or will of the U.S. Congress. The Hawaiian Kingdom was not annexed to the United States and remained an independent, but occupied State.

Usurping Hawaiian sovereignty, U.S. President McKinley signed into United States law An Act To provide a government for the Territory of Hawai’i on April 30, 1900 (31 U.S. Stat. 141); and on March 18, 1959, U.S. President Eisenhower signed into United States law An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai’i into the Union (73 U.S. Stat. 4). These laws not only have no extraterritorial effect, but stand in direct violation of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Restoration Agreement, being international compacts, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV.

At the close of World War I, the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties classified the following types of war crimes capable of being committed by military and civilians (American Journal of International Law, vol. 14, p. 114 (1920)):

  1. Usurpation of sovereignty during occupation;
  2. Deportation of civilians;
  3. Compulsory enlistment of soldiers among the inhabitants of occupied territory;
  4. Denationalizing the inhabitants of occupied territory;
  5. Confiscation of property;
  6. Exaction of illegitimate or of exorbitant contributions and requisitions;
  7. Wanton devastation and destruction of religious, charitable, educational and historical buildings and monuments.

Usurpation of sovereignty is to illegally take by force the sovereignty of another country. International tribunals and national tribunals prosecuted both military and civilians after World War I and World War II for these war crimes. The State of Hawai’i government, established by an Act of Congress, is a usurpation of sovereignty during occupation and therefore not only illegal but also constitutes a war crime.

Article 147 of the Geneva Convention, IV also listed the following as war crimes:

  1. Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person;
  2. Compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of an occupying State;
  3. Willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
  4. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully.

Drawing from the Trial of Josef Altstotter and Others, the United Nations War Crimes Commission laid out the following as proof of the offense of a denial of a fair trial (Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, United Nations War Crime Commission, vol. 6, p. 103 (1949)):

  1. Denial of the right to know the charge against them, and this a reasonable time before the opening of trial;
  2. Denial of the right to the full aid of counsel of their own choice, and sometimes no counsel at all was allowed to defend the accused;
  3. Denial of the right to be tried by an unprejudiced judge;
  4. Denial in whole or in part of the right to give or introduce evidence;
  5. Denial of the right to know the evidence against them;
  6. Denial of the general right to a hearing adequate for a full investigation of a case.

Field Manual 27-10

In the Trial of Sergeant-Major Shigeru Ohashi and Six Others, the Judge Advocate in setting out the rules which the Court was to observe stated, “United States Basic Field Manual F.M. 27-10 (Rules of Land Warfare), though not a source of law like a statute, prerogative order or decision of a court, is a very authoritative publication.” (Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, United Nations War Crime Commission, vol. 5, p. 27 (1949)). “The rules which govern the armed forces of the United States are set forth in the War Department’s Basic Field Manual 27-10. Rules of Land Warfare. While the Hague rules apply legally only to enemy territory, as a matter of policy they are generally applied to other territories occupied by United States forces.” (Law of Belligerent Occupation, J.A.G.S. Text No. 11, p. 6, footnote 13.)

Section 495—Remedies of Injured. In the event of violation of the law of war, the injured party may legally resort to remedial action of the following types:

  1. Publication of the facts, with a view to influencing public opinion against the offending [individuals];
  2. Protest and demand for compensation and/or punishment of the individual offenders. Such communications may be sent through the protecting power, a humanitarian organization performing the duties of a protecting power, or a neutral state, or by parlementaire direct to the commander of the offending forces. Article 3, H. IV, provides in this respect: A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.
  3. Solicitation of the good offices, mediation, or intervention of neutral States for the purpose of making the enemy observe the law of war.

Section 358—Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty. Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force. It is therefore unlawful for a belligerent occupant to annex occupied territory or to create a new State therein while hostilities are still in progress.

Section 362—Necessity for Military Government. Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory. The necessity for such government arises from the failure or inability of the legitimate government to exercise its functions on account of the military occupation, or the undesirability of allowing it to do so.

Section 499—War Crimes. The term “war crime” is the technical expression for a violation of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime.

Section 509—Defense of Superior Orders. The fact that the law of war has been violated pursuant to an order of a superior authority, whether military or civil, does not deprive the act in question of its character of a war crime, nor does it constitute a defense in the trial of an accused individual, unless he did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the act ordered was unlawful. In all cases where the order is held not to constitute a defense to an allegation of war crime, the fact that the individual was acting pursuant to orders maybe considered in mitigation of punishment.

Section 510—Government Officials. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a war crime acted as the head of a State or as a responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility for his act.

War Crimes Reported

  • On August 20, 2012, Judge Glenn S. Hara, Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai’i, was reported to the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit, Geneva, Switzerland, for war crimes.
    • War Crime. Willfully depriving a person a fair and regular trial (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV; also Article 14(1), 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
    • War Crime Victim. Elaine E. Kawasaki
    • Court proceeding—Docket number: 3CC 11-1-0106 (GSH)

     

  • On August 20, 2012, Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Court for the District of Hawai’i, was reported to the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit, Geneva, Switzerland, for war crimes.
    • War Crime. Willfully depriving a person a fair and regular trial (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV; also Article 14(1), 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
    • War Crime Victim. Francis E. Chandler, III
    • Court proceeding—Docket number: CR. NO. 10-00134 LEK

     

  • On August 20, 2012, Judge Greg Nakamura, Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai’i, was reported to the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit, Geneva, Switzerland, for war crimes.
    • War Crime. Willfully depriving a person a fair and regular trial (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV; also Article 14(1), 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
    • War Crime Victim. Harris Bright
    • Court proceeding—Docket number: 3CC 11-1-0389

     

    • War Crime. Willfully depriving a person a fair and regular trial (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV; also Article 14(1), 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
    • War Crime Victim. Kale Kepekaio Gumapac
    • Court proceeding—Docket number: 3CC 11-1-0590

     

    • War Crime. Willfully depriving a person a fair and regular trial (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV; also Article 14(1), 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
    • War Crime Victim. Samson Okapua Kamakea, Sr. & Talia Pomaikai Kamakea, husband and wife
    • Court proceeding—Docket number: 3CC 11-1-0234

     

  • On August 20, 2012, Judge Barbara T. Takase, District Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai’i, was reported to the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit, Geneva, Switzerland, for war crimes.
      • War Crime. Willfully depriving a person a fair and regular trial (Article 147, 1949 Geneva Convention, IV; also Article 14(1), 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
      • War Crime Victims. Landish K. and Robin R. Armitage, husband and wife
      • Court proceeding—Docket number: 3RC 11-1-1142

    This information was originally posted on Dr. Keanu Sai’s website, @ http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/warcrimes.shtml

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release – August 10, 2012

Contact: Dr. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D.

*Hawaiian Kingdom Protest and Demand filed with United Nations General
Assembly against the United States of America and one hundred seventy-two
(172) member-States of the United Nations*

NEW YORK, 11 August 2012 — On Friday afternoon, August 10, the
Ambassador-at-large and Agent for the *acting* Government of the Hawaiian
Kingdom, H.E. Dr. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., filed with the President of the
United Nations General Assembly at United Nations headquarters in New York
a Protest and Demand against the United States of America concerning the
prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since the Spanish American War
of 1898, and 172 member-States of the United Nations. All the named States
in the Protest have treaty relations with the Hawaiian Kingdom either as
States or as successor States to their predecessor. There are forty-six
(46) States and one hundred twenty-seven (127) successor States that have
treaty relations with the Hawaiian Kingdom.

The Protest was received and acknowledged by Dr. Hanifa Mezoui, Ph.D.,
Special Coordinator, Third Committee and Civil Society, Office of the
President of the Sixty-Sixth Session of the General Assembly. The Protest
was also received and acknowledged by the Executive Secretary of the G-77
at the United Nations, and the Executive Secretary of the Council of
Presidents, a think tank of former Presidents of the United Nations that
advise the sitting President of the General Assembly. One hundred twenty
(120) of the named States are members of the G-77.

The Protest and Demand was filed with the General Assembly in accordance
with Article 35(2) of the United Nations Charter, which provides, “a State
which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of
the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is
a party if it accepts in advance, for the purpose of the dispute, the
obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.” The
Hawaiian Kingdom is a non-Member State of the United Nations.

The Protest and Demand calls upon the United Nations General Assembly:

1.   To ensure the United States of America comply with the 1893 *Lili‘uokalani
assignment* & *Agreement of restoration*, 1899 Hague Convention, IV, the
1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and international law, as hereinafter described;

2.  To ensure that the United States of America establishes a military
government, to include tribunals, to administer and enforce the civil and
penal laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom pursuant to the 1893 *Lili‘uokalani
assignment* and Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, as hereinafter
described;

3.  To ensure that all member States of the United Nations shall not
recognize as lawful the United States of America’s presence and authority
within the territory, territorial seas, exclusive economic zone and
airspace of the Hawaiian Kingdom, except for its temporary and limited
authority vested under the 1893 *Lili‘uokalani assignment* and Article 43
of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, as hereinafter described;

4.  To ensure full reparation for the injury caused by the serious breach
of obligations and internationally wrongful acts in the form of
restitution, compensation and satisfaction, whether singly or in
combination.

The Ambassador-at-large and Agent for the Protest, Dr. Sai, served as lead
Agent for the *acting* Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in arbitral
proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, *Larsen v. Hawaiian
Kingdom*, 119 International Law Reports 566
(2001).[1]<#13916442594b4f2e_139162989dbfa229_13916218551b7c39_139161b297a1ab4f__ftn1>
 The Arbitral Tribunal in the *Larsen* arbitration comprised of Professor
James Crawford, SC, Presiding Arbitrator, who at the same time was a member
of the United Nations International Law Commission and *Special Rapporteur* on
State Responsibility (1997-2001); Professor Christopher Greenwood, QC,
Associate Arbitrator, who now serves as a Judge on the International Court
of Justice since February 6, 2009; and Gavan Griffith, QC, Associate
Arbitrator, who served as former Solicitor General for Australia. The
jurisdictional basis of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in *Larsen v.
Hawaiian Kingdom* was a dispute between a State and a private person. Dr.
Sai also served as Agent for the *acting* Government when a a Complaint was
filed against the United States of America with the United Nations Security
Council on July 5, 2001, under the Presidency of
China.[2]<#13916442594b4f2e_139162989dbfa229_13916218551b7c39_139161b297a1ab4f__ftn2>

The Hawaiian Kingdom will withdraw States named in the Protest and Demand,
with the exception of the United States of America, when these States shall
declare, whether individually or collectively, that they will not recognize
as lawful the United States of America’s presence and authority within the
territory, territorial seas, exclusive economic zone and airspace of the
Hawaiian Kingdom according to Article 41(2), *Responsibility of States for
International Wrongful Acts* (2001), except for the United States’
temporary and limited authority vested by virtue of the 1893 *Lili‘uokalani
assignment*, Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and international
law.

The Hawaiian Kingdom achieved the recognition of its independence as a
sovereign State on November 28, 1843 by joint proclamation from Great
Britain and France and by 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom maintained over ninety
(90) Legations and Consulates throughout the world. The Hawaiian Kingdom
has been a Member State of the Universal Postal Union since January 1,
1882, which is currently an agency of the United Nations.

This case arises out of the prolonged and illegal occupation of the entire
territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States of America since the
Spanish-American War on August 12, 1898, and the failure on the part of the
United States of America to establish a direct system of administering the
laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. There are currently 119 United States
military sites throughout the Hawaiian Islands encompassing 230,622 acres
of land under the command and control of the United States Pacific Command
whose headquarters is situated on the Island of O‘ahu. These military sites
have been illegally established within the territory of the Hawaiian
Kingdom and have consequently placed the Hawaiian State and its population
in grave danger from military attack by foreign States, *e.g.* Japan’s
military attack of United States military sites on the Island of O‘ahu on
December 7, 1941, and the threat of missile attacks from China, the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation.

The United States disguised its occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom as if a
treaty of cession annexed the Hawaiian Islands. There is no treaty. For the
past 114 years, the United States of America has committed a serious
international wrongful act and deliberately misled the international
community that the Hawaiian Islands had been incorporated into the
territory of the United States. It has unlawfully imposed its internal
laws, by Congressional legislation, over Hawaiian territory, which includes
its territorial seas, its exclusive economic zone, and its airspace, in
violation of its treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom, the 1907 Hague
Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and international law.

The Protest and Demand and Annexes is available @:
http://laulimatitle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/download.pdf
COPYRIGHT 2012, LAULIMA TITLE SEARCH AND CLAIMS, LLC.