VIDEO: Hawaii court judges accused of war crimes
The War Crimes Act is enforceable “outside” of U.S. territory when the United States military is the occupant of an occupied State. Title 18, U.S.C., §2441 reinforces the Lili`uokalani assignment, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 to criminally prosecute individuals who commit war crimes/felonies within Hawaiian territory.
Also under investigation for war crimes are the plaintiffs who initiated the complaints for foreclosure and ejectment that include Federal National Mortgage Association, Bank of Hawai‘i, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, The Bank of New York Mellon, Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Wells Fargo Bank, and the lenders’ attorneys Blue Ka‘anehe, Esq., Charles Prather, Esq., Peter K. Keegan, Esq., Mitzi A. Lee, Esq., Sofia M. Hirosane, Esq., Michael G.K. Wong, Esq., Robert E. Chapman, Esq., Mary Martin, Esq., Robert D. Triantos, Esq., Edmund W.K. Haitsuka, Esq., and Peter Stone, Esq.
Kale Gumapac, President of Laulima Title Search & Claims, LLC, who is one of the seven victims of the alleged felony war crimes, said the other six victims are also clients of his company. Laulima Title packages title insurance claims that provide evidence of a defect in title to property that triggers the title insurance policy purchased at escrow by the borrowers to cover the debt owed to the bank. Purchasing title insurance to protect the bank is a condition of the loan. The banks disregarded the insurance claims and proceeded to foreclose and evict Laulima clients.
The defect stems from two executive agreements entered into in 1893 between Queen Lili‘uokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland that settled the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government and mandates the U.S. military in the Hawaiian Islands to administer Hawaiian law, restore the government, and thereafter for the Hawaiian government to grant amnesty to the insurgents. The United States violated the terms of these agreements and began its illegal and prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since the Spanish-American War in August 1898.
Real estate transactions are defective since January 17, 1893 because deeds were notarized and registered in the Bureau of Conveyances by insurgents calling themselves government officials. The Queen did not pardon these individuals and they were not government officials of the Hawaiian Kingdom. And as a result of the illegal occupation by the United States since 1898, deeds could not be properly notarized and recorded because Hawaiian law was not being administered.
Gumapac stated that when the banks disregarded the insurance contract and used the courts to foreclose and evict, he had no choice but to present evidence that the courts are illegal because the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign state still exists. Attorney Dexter Kaiama represented Gumapac and other clients of Laulima with this argument by providing special appearance in these hearings.
Kale-GumapacGumapac stated, “If land titles in Hawai‘i are defective because of 1893, then U.S. courts in Hawai‘i are defective as well.” Gumapac says the reason why people today don’t know this is because we’ve been indoctrinated through Americanization since the early 1900s. He says Americanization is not an excuse for committing a felony.
In the criminal complaint, Gumapac stated that on January 13, 2012 he filed a motion to dismiss Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s eviction complaint providing evidence of the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and that the court was illegally constituted. The hearing was heard before Judge Greg K. Nakamura in Hilo’s Circuit Court on February 14, 2012. Although Kaiama was able to get Nakamura to acknowledge and take judicial notice of the evidence, Nakamura still denied the motion to dismiss without cause.
Nakamura’s decision relied on the 1959 Hawai‘i Admissions Act for the court’s jurisdiction, but without a treaty of cession the Statehood Act is limited to United States territory because Congressional laws have no force and effect in foreign countries. In the criminal complaint Gumapac cited a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, where the court stated, “Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens; and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law.”
Gumapac alleges that Nakamura, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and their attorneys Charles Prather, and Sofia Hirosone from the law firm Routh Crabtree Olsen, aka RCO, committed a war crime by willfully depriving him of a fair and regular trial prescribed under Title 18, United States Code, section 2441, which applies to foreign countries that the United States military is occupying. Gumapac argues that the appropriate court is a military commission established by the U.S. Pacific Command that administers Hawaiian Kingdom law. The Pacific Command has yet to comply with international law and establish a military commission.
The Pacific Command has primary responsibility for the prosecution of individuals for violations of Title 18, United States Code, §2441, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV. The International Criminal Court has secondary responsibility and will step in if:
The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court;
There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice; and
The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.
By not complying with the international obligations and the International Criminal Court exercises jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Islands as a result of the Pacific Command’s failure to prosecute, the Pacific Command itself and the military in the islands will also be the subject of prosecution by the International Criminal Court for the commission of war crimes.
It was necessary for the U.S. to lie in all of its communications coming out of the State Department to cover-up their illegal acts. History books used in Hawaii’s Dept of Education were changed so those of us growing up in Hawaii would never know the truth. The U.S. made all of us dependent upon their money, laws and military.
The U.S. took Hawaii to protect their own West Coast from attack by other foreign countries. General Schofield testified before Congress in 1898 that Hawaii has to be “taken” as a buffer from attack by other foreign countries. Today the U.S. policy has not changed.
Hawaii is considered a “first strike” target by China, Russia and N. Korea for a nuclear attack. Hawaii has the largest U.S. military force in the world stationed in these islands which makes it a “WAR CRIME.” Hawaii will no longer be a “first strike” target once the military leaves Hawaii. The U.S. sees Hawaii and its population as acceptable “Collateral Damage” (losses) in order that the West Coast will have time to respond from a nuclear strike.
The U.S. military needs to get out of Hawaii. This is in response to those who are fearful of the U.S. pulling out of Hawaii and leaving “us” defenseless from nuclear attack…..think about it.
NEW YORK, December 10, 2012 — This afternoon the Ambassador-at-large and Agent for the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, H.E. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., filed with the United Nations Secretary General in New York an instrument of accession acceding to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is a permanent and independent tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands, that prosecutes individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC only prosecutes individuals and not States.
The instrument of accession was deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General in accordance with Article 125(3) of the ICC Rome Statute, which provides, “This Statute shall be open to accession by all States. Instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.” The instrument of accession was received and acknowledged by Mrs. Bernadette Mutirende of the United Nations Treaty Section, Office of Legal Affairs, at 380 Madison Avenue, New York.
By acceeding to the ICC Rome Statute, the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, accepted the exercise of the ICC’s jurisdiction over war crimes committed within its territory by its own nationals as well as war crimes committed by nationals of States that are not State Parties to the ICC Rome Statute, such as the United States of America. According to Article 13 of the ICC Rome Statute, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if a situation is referred to the ICC’s Prosecutor by the Hawaiian Kingdom who is now a State Party by accession.
The current situation in the Hawaiian Islands 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. The United States disguised its occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom as if a treaty of cession annexed the Hawaiian Islands. There is no treaty.
On August 10, 2012 a Protest and Demand of the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, being a non-Member State of the United Nations, was deposited with the President of the United Nations General Assembly pursuant to Article 35(2) of the United Nations Charter. The Protest and Demand was acknowledged and received by Mrs. Hanifa Mezoui, Ph.D., Special Coordinator, Third Committee and Civil Society, Office of the President of the Sixty-Sixth Session of the General Assembly.
Individuals of the State of Hawai‘i government who have committed a war crime have been reported to the United States Pacific Command and the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, Switzerland, for deliberately denying a fair and regular trial to Defendants, irrespective of nationality, and with the Hawaiian Kingdom’s accession to the jurisdiction of the ICC, these alleged war criminals will now come under the prosecutorial authority of the Prosecutor of the ICC.
Regarding the occupation of Hawaiian territory, the ICC is authorized under the Rome Statute to prosecute individuals for:
• war crime of destruction and appropriation of property;
• war crime of denying a fair trial;
• war crime of unlawful deportation and transfer of persons to another State;
• war crime of unlawful confinement;
• the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies;
• war crime of destroying protected objects dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments;
• war crime of destroying or seizing the property of the Occupied State;
• war crime of compelling participation in military operations;
• war crime of outrages upon personal dignity;
• war crime of displacing civilians.
H.E. David Keanu Sai, Ph.D. represented 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), at The Hague, Netherlands, and also did an interview with South-South News, a news agencey of the United Nations, regarding the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
While waiting for a decision attorney Dexter Kaiama submitted a letter to the U.S Pacific Command informing four-star Rear Admiral Locklear that Judge Greg Nakamura did not provide a fair trial under the laws of occupation according to the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1949 to defendants in Hawaii. As a result Judge Nakamura committed war crimes under the prolonged occupation of the Kingdom of Hawaii by enforcing U.S. laws in the occupied Kingdom of Hawaii.
Nakamura dismissed the writ of possession filed by Deutsche Bank
Nakamura filed a harassment complaint against my attorney with the Office of Disciplinary Council that I believe has to do with this letter regarding war crimes that was sent to the U.S. Pacific Commander. It is a fact that Nakamura committed war crimes by enforcing U.S. law in an occupied country and under the laws of occupation that is a war crime. He is filing a complaint! Nakamura was provided all the evidence regarding the Executive Agreements to the illegal taking of Hawaii of the Newlands Resolution of 1898 and still he said he has jurisdiction over these matters….
Nakamura was given every opportunity to do the right thing….instead he decided to go corrupt and now he is trying to intimidate my attorney who I believe was doing a great job! Holomua Ke’eaumoku!
The hearing was called by Judge Hara to address the Motion for Stay on a Writ of Possession (Eviction from a house) particularly to hear evidence regarding a letter that was submitted to the U.S. Pacific Commander Rear Admiral Locklear. The letter accuses Judge Hara of committing a war crime for an unfair trial with court transcripts attached in the occupied state of the Kingdom of Hawai’i.
Dexter Kaiama attorney for the defendant Elaine Kawasaki introduces evidence of the U.N. Protest that was filed on August 10 and accepted by the Pres. of the U.N. General Assembly. This move provides evidence to the court that the Kingdom of Hawai’i exist and was never lost and that the U.S. is now recognized by the U.N. as a belligerent occupier of the Kingdom of Hawai’i since 1898. Dexter asks the court to dismiss the Writ of possession against his client with this new evidence showing that the court no longer has jurisdiction in this matter and cannot enforce U.S. law in an occupied country. If the judge does not dismiss this case the sheriffs, foreclosure attorneys, banks and others will also face charges under international law (war crimes).
The foreclosure attorney objects as Dexter improperly moved for a dismissal of the writ of possession as this was a hearing on the Motion for a stay on the writ of possession. Dexter did not provide a written motion to the court and opposing attorney. Judge Hara agreed and ruled to dismiss the motion for a stay however he instructed Dexter to submit Motion for Relief under 60B to both the Court and Foreclosure attorney to dismiss the writ of possession with the new evidence that was introduced from the U.N.
This means we will be going to court once more to hear the case regarding war crimes…..it is still alive!
ALOHA AINA (LOVE OF COUNTRY-HAWAII) WE NEED YOUR KOKUA AND KAKO’O IN A PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION ON AUGUST 31st, AGAINST THE ILLEGAL COURTS. THE KANAKA COUNCIL MOKU O KEAWE IS COORDINATING THIS DEMONSTRATION REGARDING THE UNFAIR TRIALS THAT THE U.S AND STATE COURTS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING IN HAWAII…..WAR CRIMES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED UNDER THE LAWS OF OCCUPATION.
HAWAII IS AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY, WHICH IS OCCUPIED BY THE U.S. AND THE U.S. IS SUPPOSED TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF OCCUPATION. THE LIE HAS BEEN UNCOVERED AND THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII IS NOW RECOGNIZED AS A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY BY THE WORLD COURT AT THE HAGUE, AND MOST RECENTLY THE UNITED NATIONS WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROTEST FILED BY DR. KEANU SAI, AGAINST THE U.S. FOR ITS PROLONGED OCCUPATION OF THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII JUST LAST WEEK.
THE JUDGES IN THE STATE OF HAWAII COURTS WHO HAVE MADE RULINGS AGAINST PEOPLE USING U.S. LAWS ARE NOW FACING CHARGES OF WAR CRIMES BECAUSE THEY CANNOT ENFORCE U.S. LAWS IN AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY…..THIS WILL BE THE ISSUE AT THE AUGUST 31ST HEARING BEFORE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE HARA……WE NEED PEOPLE TO SHOW THEIR ALOHA FOR THEIR COUNTRY…..THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII AND THE NECESSITY FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE GOVERNMENT BY SHOWING THEIR SUPPORT IN THIS DEMONSTRATION……
MAHALO NUI LOA
Laulima wins 5th foreclosure case on Lanai in Bandalan v. Federal National Mortgage Association
On October 18, 2011 Laulima Title Search and Claims won our 4th foreclosure case by successfully presenting legal arguments of defect in title resulting from the 1893 Executive Agreements between Queen Liliuokalani and President Grover Cleveland. Attorney Dexter Kaiama represented the defendants Arceli Bandalan, Anthony Bandalan Jr. and Anthony Bandalan Sr. Bandalan before District Court Judge McDonald on Lanai asking the judge to grant the motion to dismiss the foreclosure and render the writ of possession moot. Representing the lender was Routh, Crabtree and Olsen….(RCO).
In RCO’S Memorandum in Opposition they attempted a smear campaign against Laulima Title Search and Claims, Dr. Keanu Sai and Perfect Title. RCO weaved their tale and tried to connect Laulima to Dr. Keanu Sai’s former company Perfect Title, Non-consensual Common Law Lien and the fines that arose back in the 1990′s. Non-consensual Common Law Lien were used by activists across America against judges, cops and anyone in authority to place a lien on their property. A law was passed to make it illegal to place liens on property if you are not the owner and to expunge these liens and hand out a $5000 fine. RCO cited several cases of which Perfect Title was accused of using the Non-consensual Common Law Lien when they attached “Notice of Inspection upon Claim”. The claim by RCO is Laulima and Dr. Sai are doing the same thing.
It’s not the same thing. The Notice of Defect is a Notice filed by the client of Laulima, LLC. It is not a notice filed by Laulima itself. As filed by the owner of the property as a notice, it is not a non-consensual common law lien.
By definition, HRS §507D-2 states that a Non-consensual Common Law Lien “does not…call for the consent of the owner of the property affected for its existence.”
As the owner of the property, the Defendants were well within their right to file a notice of defect by their own consent, whereby “defects” are a covered risk in Defendant’s owner’s title insurance policy and lender’s title insurance policy that the Defendants were required to purchase for the protection of the lender.
In addition, Judge McDonald commented that the evidence presented by Laulima was substantial for him to justify the dismissal of the foreclosure. Judge McDonald presided over Peelua case that influenced his decision. In the Peelua case the issue of Title was brought up during the hearing but Judge McDonald still ruled in favor of the lender to foreclose. The case was heard in Lahaina and his decision was overturned by the Intermediate Court of Appeals.
Mahalo nui loa to Dr. Keanu Sai, Momi Kapahu Glushenko and Dexter Kaiama……Pupukahi i holomua!
Laulima wins 4th foreclosure case that opposing attorneys say sets precedence
Puna District Court Judge Harry Freitas dismissed Deutsche Bank’s Motion for Relief against Dianne Gumapac on Monday, October 17, 2011 in their attempt to try to reopen a devastating foreclosure loss to Laulima Title Search and Claims in July 1, 2011. At that time Laulima Title Search and Claims provided substantial evidence to Judge Harry Freitas of a defective title as a result of the 1893 Executive Agreement between Queen Liliuokalani and President Grover Cleveland.
Attorney Dexter Kaiama representing defendant Dianne Gumapac brought to the attention of Judge Freitas that Kale Gumapac’s name was not on the complaint. Judge Freitas immediately questioned the plaintiff’s RCO attorney Peter Keegan why was my name left off the complaint. It was serious enough for Judge Freitas to dismiss the complaint based just on that alone. RCO attorney Keegan responded that he did not know why my name was not on the complaint and a recess was called.
I did not want Judge Freitas to make the ruling based on my name not being on the complaint. I wanted him to decide based on the defect of title that Laulima presented as evidence. Judge Freitas moved forward with the hearing regardless notwithstanding of my name being left off the complaint. Upon completing hearing arguments from both sides he said he was ready to make his ruling and it would be based on “TITLE”.
He dismissed the foreclosure, thus rendering the writ of possession moot.
Plaintiff’s Attorney Peter Keegan then files a Motion for Relief asking Judge Freitas to reopen the case accusing Defendant’s Attorney Dexter Kaiama of “misrepresentation” in the trial because he said my name was not included in the complaint……. the Plaintiff’s Attorney ask the court to please excuse him for leaving my name off the complaint because it was “excusable negligence”……
Keegan provides the court with previous notices with my name on it that was supposedly served on me for previous hearings but they did not have any notices for the October 17, 2011 court date to show that I was served. Keegan alleges that according to court transcripts Judge Freitas made his ruling based on my name being left off the complaint. Judge Freitas interrupts Keegan and says “I seem to recall that I made my ruling based on title. You can read in the transcripts on page……”
Attorney Kaiama says that all correspondence they received from plaintiff’s attorney was for Ms. Gumapac only and they only represent Ms. Gumapac. They should not be dragged into this dispute as they do not represent Mr. Gumapac. Judge Freitas agreed.
Plaintiff’s attorney said that the decision on this hearing would have the impact on all future cases for findings of fact, conclusions of law and a draft decision. Judge Freitas agreed…….He was ready to rule on the motion…….He “DISMISSED” RCO’S MOTION FOR RELIEF. The Gumapac’s, Laulima and the people win!