David Keanu Sai v. Hillary Clinton, et al.

KANE`OHE, HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, JUNE 1, 2010 — Dr. David Keanu Sai, a national of the Hawaiian Kingdom, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C., against President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, Pacific Command Commander Admiral Willard and State of Hawai`i Governor Lingle. The civil case was assigned no. 1:10-CV-00899CKK. This case arises under the Alien Tort Statute and the Plaintiff filed the suit as a Hawaiian subject for injuries suffered when he was wrongfully convicted of a so-called felony by the State of Hawai`i in violation of an Executive Agreement dated January 17, 1893, referred to as the Lili`uokalani assignment. The Lili`uokalani assignment legally bound President Cleveland and his successors in office, to include President Obama, to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, not U.S. law, by virtue of a temporary and conditional assignment of Hawaiian executive power by Queen Lili`uokalani made under a threat of war by U.S. forces that illegally landed on Hawaiian territory. This temporary and conditional assignment of Hawaiian executive power remains today in the office of the U.S. President. The Plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment by the Court declaring the 1898 Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States (30 U.S. Stat. 750) to be unconstitutional under U.S. law as well as a violation of Hawaiian sovereignty, and is also seeking permanent injunctive relief, redress, restitution, disgorgement, and other equitable relief against Defendants, which includes the State of Hawai`i, for violations of the Lili`uokalani assignment and other treaties that the United States government has ratified.

JULY 15, 2010 — Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint with the Federal Court in Washington, D.C. removing President Obama as one of the Defendants but all other Defendants remained. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the President has complete immunity from civil lawsuits. Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Plaintiff to amend the complaint without permission from the Court if there was no response filed by the Defendants with the Court beforehand. Since President Obama was removed as a Defendant, the case is referred to as Sai v. Clinton, et al.

JULY 30, 2010 — Assistant U.S. Attorney Christian Natiello for Washington, D.C., contacted the Plaintiff and requested an additional 30 days to respond to the Amended Complaint he received on July 26, 2010. Consent for the request was given. The initial 60 days began when the U.S. Attorney received the Summons and the initial Complaint on June 14, 2010, which now gives the U.S. Attorney 90 days to file an answer with the U.S. District Court. An answer to the Amended Complaint should be expected no later than mid-September.

AUGUST 26, 2010 — State of Hawai`i Attorney General, on behalf of Defendant Lingle, files a Motion to Dismiss. The Motion, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 — Plaintiff files Opposition to Defendant Lingle's Motion to Dismiss. The Opposition, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 — U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on behalf of Federal Defendants, files a Motion to Dismiss. The Motion, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 — Plaintiff Dimisses Defendant Lingle, but Defendants Clinton, Gates, Willard remain. In Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Lingle's Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff admitted that he is not seeking to sue Defendant Lingle, but only listed her as a nominal (name only) defendant. The Notice, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 — Plaintiff files Opposition Memorandum to Defendants Clinton, Gates, and Willard's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has also requested a hearing on the Opposition pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(f) of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Opposition Memorandum, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

OCTOBER 12, 2010 — U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on behalf of Federal Defendants, files Reply in Further Support of Their Motion to Dismiss. The Reply, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

OCTOBER 25, 2010 — Plaintiff files Memorandum in Response to Federal Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint. The Memorandum in Response, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

NOVEMBER 1, 2010 — Plaintiff files Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint by adding Defendants President Barack Obama and 35 Foreign States that unlawfully maintain Consulates in the Hawaiian Islands who were accredited through Defendant Clinton and the U.S. State Department. Initially, President Obama was removed as a defendant in the First Amended Complaint pursuant Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) that provides immunity to Presidents while in office, but because Federal Defendants have not denied, in their pleadings, the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Lili`uokalani assignment, Plaintiff can prove that President Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen, which is a constitutional requirement to be President. Since President Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961, he was not born in the United States, and therefore must be considered President de facto and not de jure. As a President de facto, Nixon v. Fitzgerald cannot provide President Obama sovereign immunity because it would only apply to Presidents de jure. The Motion, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

NOVEMBER 9, 2010 — Federal Defendants File Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint. The Opposition, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

NOVEMBER 17, 2010 — Plaintiff files Reply to Federal Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint. The Reply, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

NOVEMBER 21, 2010 — Plaintiff files Notice of Spanish Embassy's Reply to Plaintiff's Letter Apprising the Spanish Ambassador of Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Amended Complaint. On November 3, 2010, Plaintiff sent a letter apprising His Excellency Jorge Dezcallar de Mazarredo, Spanish Ambassador to the United States, of Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Amended Complaint requesting the Court's permission to add His Excellency as a Defendant. On November 15, 2010, Camilo Villarino Marzo, Deputy Chief of Mission, on behalf of the Spanish Ambassador, sent a letter to the Plaintiff stating, "We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated November 3rd, 2010 addressed to the Ambassador of Spain to the United States, and take note of the contents thereof, including your suggestion that we look into the pleadings of the case." The Notice, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded in PDF below under the heading "Court Docket Filings."

DECEMBER 2, 2010 — On November 13, 2010, the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs at their annual convention at the Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa, Island of Hawai`i, unanimously passed Resolution No. 10-15 titled Acknowledging Queen Lili`uokalani's Agreements with President Grover Cleveland to Execute Hawaiian Law and to Restore the Hawaiian Government. The resolution not only acknowledged the Lili`uokalani assignment and the Agreement of restoration as binding executive agreements upon the successors in office of President Cleveland, but also acknowledged the federal lawsuit: "WHEREAS, this agreement is called a sole executive agreement under U.S. constitutional law and is the basis of a federal lawsuit in Washingtion, D.C., filed by David Keanu Sai against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Admiral Robert Willard, and Governor Linda Lingle on June 1, 2010." The Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs was founded in 1918 by Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana`ole and is comprised of a confederation of fifty-eight (58) Hawaiian Civic Clubs located throughout the State of Hawai`i and in the States of Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Utah, Virginia, Washington State, Tennessee and Texas.

DECEMBER 13, 2010 — International attention. Truthout.org publishes article "Sai v. Obama, et al: Hawaii's Legal Case Against the United States", by Jon Letman.

MARCH 10, 2011 — On March 9, 2011, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issues Order granting the U.S. Attorney's motion to dismiss. In her opinion, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, states, "Plaintiff argues that he is not challenging the legality of the State of Hawaii and his conviction but is merely asserting a claim for a violation of the Lili`uokalani assignment under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. §1350. However, in order to find that Defendants have violated the Liliuokalani Assignment as alleged by Plaintiff — or even to conclude that Plaintiff is an alien capable of bringing claims under the Alien Tort Statute rather than a U.S. citizen — the Court would have to determine that the annexation of Hawaii by the United States was unlawful and void. As described above, that is a political question that this Court cannot decide. The fact that the answer might be gleaned through a straightforward analysis of federal and international law does not matter; "[t]he political question doctrine deprives federal courts of jurisdiction, based on prudential concerns, over cases which would normally fall within their purview." Lin, 561 F.3d at 506; see id. ("We do not disagree with Appellants' assertion that we could resolve this case through treaty analysis and statutory construction; we merely decline to do so as this case presents a political question which strips us of jurisdiction to undertake that otherwise familiar task.") (internal citations omitted). Therefore, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

What is profound is that the Court admits the existence of the executive agreements, which is the basis of Plaintiff's claim for relief, and the case can be resolved through treaty analysis and statutory construction, but because of the political question doctrine they are unable to grant relief to the Plaintiff for tort injuries. An appeal will be made to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that will address why the political question doctrine should not prevent the Court from granting relief in an Alien Tort Statute case. The Court also distinguished between a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss on subject matter jurisdictional grounds, which assumes facts alleged in the complaint to be true; and a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for Plaintiff's complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, where the basis of the lawsuit, which is the executive agreement, does not exist. The Court stated this is not a 12(b)(6) motion.

MARCH 13, 2011 — On March 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint. Plaintiff's Motion concludes: "In its Order, the Court admits it could resolve this case "through a straightforward analysis of federal and international law," but declines to do so because of the political question doctrine. As stated above, the political question doctrine is a flawed legal argument that fails to support Defendants' motion to dismiss because the U.S. Executive recognized Hawai`i as a sovereign and independent State since 1844, and the Lili`uokalani assignment is an extension of that sovereignty fully recognized and adhered to by President Cleveland in 1893 in his negotiations with Queen Lili`uokalani, executive of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Accordingly, the Court's analysis of case law, rules, statutes and the political question doctrine have no relevance to the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants under the Lili`uokalani assignment, whereby this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. §1350. For these reasons set forth above, this Court's Order should be reconsidered and Defendants' motion to dismiss should be denied.

MARCH 17, 2011 — On March 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of State of Hawai'i Legislature House Concurrent Resolution no. 107 Establishing a Joint Legislative Investigating Committee to Investigate the Status of Two Executive Agreements Entered into in 1893 Between United States President Grover Cleveland and Queen Lili'uokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, called the Lili'uokalani Assignment and the Agreeement of Restoration submitted by Representative Mele Carroll, Majority Whip, House of Representatives, Twenty-Sixth Legislature, 2011, State of Hawai'i. Representative Mele Carroll's press release states: "The purpose and duties of the joint investigating committee shall be to inquire into the status of the executive agreements by holding meetings and hearings as necessary, receiving all information from the inquiry, and submitting a final report to the Legislature. Representative Mele Carroll stated that the purpose of House Concurrent Resolution 107 is to 'ensure that we, as Legislators, who took an oath to support and defend not only the Constitution of the State of Hawai'i, but also the Constitution of the United States, must be mindful of our fiduciary duty and obligation to conform to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. As Majority Whip for the House of Representatives of the State of Hawai'i, it is my duty to bring the executive agreements to the attention of the Hawai'i State Legislature and that the joint investigating committee have the powers necessary to receive all information for its final report to the Legislature.'"

MARCH 27, 2011 — On March 23, 2011, House Concurrent Resolution 107 establishing a joint legislative investigative committee to investigate the status and impact of the 1893 Executive Agreements between President Grover Cleveland and Queen Lili'uokalani passed the House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs and will debated on the floor of the House of Representatives before moving on to the House Judiciary Committee. That evening Representative Mele Carroll, Majority Whip who introduced the resolution, taped a show filmed at the capital on the background of House Concurrent Resolution 107 with guests, Lynette Cruz, Ph.D., Keanu Sai, Ph.D. and Willy Kauai, Ph.D. candidate. The show is titled Aniani 'Ikena: Queen Lili'uokalani's Executive Agreements. The video can be viewed above.

MARCH 29, 2011 — On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia filed Federal Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider The Court will determine whether to rescind and/or revise the Order or deny Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. Either way it will be appealed by either party to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, known informally as the D.C. Circuit. The U.S. Attorney in its Opposition made no mention of the misapplication by the Court of a 2009 federal lawsuit out of the D.C. Circuit, Lin v. United States, justifying the Court's assertion of the political question doctrine as expounded in Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider. As stated in Plaintiff's Motion, in Lin v. United States, the D.C. Circuit, stated, "Once the Executive determines Taiwan's sovereign, we can decide Appellants' resulting status and concomitant rights expeditiously. ('[T]he judiciary ordinarily follows the executive as to which nation has sovereignty over disputed territory, once sovereignty over an area is politically determined and declared, courts may examine the resulting status and decide independently whether a statute applies to that area.')" The difference between Taiwan and the Hawaiian Kingdom is that recognition of Hawaiian sovereignty was afforded by the U.S. President [Executive] on July 6, 1844. Therefore, Plaintiff argues Lin v. United States cannot be used to invoke the political question doctrine in this case and therefore the Court "can decide [Plaintiff's] resulting status and concomitant rights expeditiously."

APRIL 2, 2011 — On April 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Reply to Federal Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider. In Plaintiff's Reply it states "Defendants allege Plaintiff is rearguing facts and theories that the court has already ruled and that 'Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider reads more like his previous filings that it does a fresh look at the issues in this case.' This is not so. As stated by Defendants in its Opposition, Plaintiff can succeed on his motion to reconsider if he can demonstrate some 'intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or manifest injustice.' Plaintiff's motion was filed to 'correct a clear error' of the Court's application of Lin v. United States, 561 F.3d 502; 385 U.S. App. D.C. 191 (2009), and the political question doctrine because unlike Taiwan, the U.S. Executive did recognize the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 1842, which has not been denied by Defendants throughout these proceedings." Plaintiff also filed Notice of Maui County Council Resolution Urging Support of the Intent of House of Concurrent Resolution no. 107, Establishing a Joint Legislative Investigating Committee to Investigate the Status of executive agreements known as the Lili'uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Restoration.

APRIL 18, 2011 — On April 6, 2011, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issues Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider. In her Order, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, states, "Plaintiff argues that the Court misapplied the political question doctrine and erred in holding that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Complaint. In this regard, Plaintiff's motion is an attempt to reargue the merits of his case. Plaintiff has not identified any intervening change in controlling law or new evidence that compels the Court to reconsider its prior ruling." It is the position of the Plaintiff that the Court erred and committed a grave error because unlike Taiwan in Lin v. United States, which the Court used to justify the application of the political question doctrine, the Hawaiian Kingdom had been recognized as a sovereign State since December 19, 1842 by U.S. President John Tyler. Plaintiff will appeal this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. According to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has 60 days from date of the Order to file an appeal since Defendants are U.S. government officers.

A U.S. District Court "accepts as true all the factual allegations contained in the complaint when reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)." Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164 (1993). In other words, the court has accepted, and the Defendants have not denied, the factual allegations in the amended complaint that the rights of the Plaintiff have been violated as a direct result of the Defendants' violation of the Lili`uokalani assignment, but the Court cannot move on the matter because, in its eyes, the political question doctrine prevents it. This is very different from a case being dismissed under Rule 12(b)6, which is failure state a claim upon which relief can be granted, i.e. the Lili`uokalani assignment fails to exist or is not an executive agreement, thereby Plaintiff cannot sue.

MAY 27, 2011 — On May 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Civil Notice of Appeal from the Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint entered on April 6, 2011. Since United States government officials are parties in the lawsuit, there is a 60 day window to file an appeal from the date of the Order. Appeals from the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., will take place at the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The sole issue on appeal is the U.S. District Court's application of the political question doctrine, which it says prevents it from adjudicating Plaintiff's lawsuit.

JUNE 6, 2011 — On June 3, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia transmitted to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed and Docket Sheet.

AUGUST 1, 2011 — On July 22, 2011, the Appellees filed with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit a Motion for Summary Affirmance. Appellees are asking the Appellate Court to affirm the U.S. District Court's determination that Appellant has presented a political question that prevents the court from adjudicating Appellant's lawsuit. The Appellate Court gave Appellant until August 4, 2011 to file its Reply to the Motion.

AUGUST 5, 2011 — On August 4, 2011, the Appellant filed with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit a Appellant's Reply to Motion for Summary Affirmance. In the Reply, Appellant addresses the political question doctrine relied upon by Appellees and why it is a flawed argument. Appellant requests the Court to deny the Motion for Summary Affirmance and remand the case back to the U.S. District Court for trial.

UPDATE: AUGUST 16, 2011 — On August 12, 2011, Appellees (Clinton, Gates and Willard) filed with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit a Appellee's Reply in Further Support of Their Motion for Summary Affirmance. Appellees are claiming that the Appellant (Dr. Keanu Sai) does not understand the political question doctrine. Appellant argues it is in fact the Appellees that do not understand the political question because they are using it to protect a "political decision" made in 1898 to annex the Hawaiian Islands. Appellee cannot use the court to protect a "political decision" that violated the Lili`uokalani assignment and call it a political question. Appellant's case centers on the violation of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the tort injuries suffered as a result of the President not faithfully executing this sole-executive agreement. What the President did five years later 1898 to seized the Hawaiian Islands for military purposes during the Spanish-American War cannot be protected as argued by the Appellees, even if it affects the legal status of President Obama who cannot claim to be a natural born Citizen.

In the Appellees' Motion for Summary Affirmance, they specifically seek protection of the "political decision" made in 1898, which is not a "law," and try to influence the Appellate Court on the politics of the case. On page 9 of Appellees' Motion they specifically state, "An 'unusual need' exists for adherence to the political decision to annex Hawaii in 1898. In the 113 years that have passed since that decision was made, Hawaii has become a firmly established part of the United States-a vital part of its political, economic, and military workings. Over one million Hawaiians live as United States citizens. Indeed, President Barack Obama's status as a 'natural born citizen' derives from his birth in the State of Hawaii. See U.S. Const. Art. II, §1, cl. 4 ('No person except a natural born Citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President'). Thus, the District Court correctly found an unusual need to adhere to a past political decision, rendering Appellant's claims nonjusticiable." This line of argument is not legal, but political, and how does a court of law define an "unusual need." In other words, the Appellees are saying that Hawaii was kidnapped in 1898, but it was treated like it was adopted for 113 years. Now that the kidnapping has been discovered, the Appellate Court is being asked to close its eyes. Use of the term "unusual" is to say that there was an "unusual need" to kidnap Hawaii. The Appellees have placed the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a precarious position of whether to maintain the U.S. Constitution or violate it.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION: There appears to be some confusion regarding the federal lawsuit so I would like to take this opportunity to provide some clarification. Some believe that I'm asking the court to determine the legal status of Hawai`i as a sovereign and independent State. This is not so. Whenever a lawsuit is filed, whether criminal or civil, there has to be a dispute. By definition, a dispute is "a conflict or controversy; a conflict of claims or rights; an assertion of a right, claim, or demand on one side, met by contrary claims or allegations on the other." My particular dispute is with the Federal Defendants (Clinton, Gates and Willard), who I allege are liable because as a result of not faithfully executing the Lili`uokalani assignment, which is to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, I was convicted of a felony under U.S. law through the State of Hawai`i, and since the indictment of attempted theft of real estate was manufactured, because you can't steal or attempt to steal land, it also constituted a violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention and Title 18 U.S.C. §2441(c)(1) regarding warcrimes which is defined as depriving a protected person of a fair and regular trial. My trial was neither fair nor regular. I contend Federal Defendants are liable and they are supposed to say "no we're not." Instead of answering the complaint to deny or accept the allegations, the Federal Defendants chose to attack the complaint on procedural grounds, which I completely expected. Since I filed the lawsuit under the Alien Tort Statute, alleging I'm an alien (Hawaiian subject) and the violation of the treaty (Lili`uokalani assignment) took place outside of the United States (in the Hawaiian Kingdom), they had to attack procedurally because if they answered and responded to my allegations they accept the court's jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute where I'm an alien and the violation took place outside of the U.S. So, in essence, the U.S. District Attorney would have to show that I'm not an alien, and to do this he would have to show that Hawai`i was lawfully annexed to the United States, thereby making the Hawaiian Kingdom to be the State of Hawai`i and my citizenship American and not Hawaiian.

In the U.S. Attorney's motion to dismiss they said the complaint fails on 4 procedural grounds: (1) the court cannot exercise jurisdiction because Hawai`i was admitted as State of the Federal Union in 1959 by Congress and as such it's a political question; (2) that Federal and State Courts in court decisions already determined that the Kingdom doesn't exist and therefore I have no claim upon which relief can be granted; (3) the complaint was not written according to the rules; and (4) the Statute of Limitation ran out because a complaint should have been filed 6 years after Congress admitted Hawai`i as a State in 1959. My Opposition to their motion refuted all four: (1) the 1959 Statehood Act is an internal law of the U.S. passed by Congress and has no effect outside of U.S. territory, and therefore cannot be argued by Defendants without violating the Lili`uokalani assignment; (2) Federal and State Courts did not rule on the Kingdom because every decision stated the "defendants provided no evidence"; (3) the complaint had to be written in that form because this information was never presented before any court of the U.S., and also because I'm representing myself I am given latitude; and (4) the Alien Tort Statute provides a Statute of Limitations to actually be 10 years after an injury to an alien occured, which began in 2005. In its reply to my opposition, the Federal Defendants did not press the 2nd and 3rd grounds, but are relying only on the 1st ground, which is that Hawai`i became a State in 1959. I then filed a response to their reply clarifying the weakness of their argument. An oral hearing should be set by the court in the near future.

The outcome of the pleadings is that it chiseled the matters regarding jurisdiction of the court, where the point of contention between the Federal Defendants and myself, as Plaintiff, is whether or not the 1959 Statehood Act prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction over the case because it is a political question. The U.S. Attorney is arguing that I'm challenging the legality of the State of Hawai`i, and therefore the challenge is a political question because they contend that the legal status of Hawai`i was committed to Congress and not the court. But I am not challenging the legality of the State of Hawai`i. Instead I am utilizing my indictment, conviction and sentencing by the State of Hawai`i as evidence of the violation of the Lili`uokalani assignment, and therefore my rights as a third-party beneficiary of the assignment. The State of Hawai`i can't exist at the same time as the Hawaiian Kingdom. Since there is a presumption of continuity on the part of the Hawaiian Kingdom, because U.S. President John Tyler afforded recognition as an independent State in 1842, and President Cleveland entered into an agreement with the Hawaiian Kingdom's Queen in 1893 temporarily assigning executive power to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, the U.S. Attorney cannot claim that Congress affected the status of the Hawaiian Kingdom by passing an internal law claiming Hawai`i was the 50th State in 1959, which is 66 years after the fact. The U.S. Attorney cannot get around the fact that Congressional laws have no force beyond the borders of the United States. Instead, what the U.S. Attorney was supposed to have done was show that the Hawaiian Kingdom became a part of the United States under international law, which would have succeeded the Lili`uokalani assignment and effectively allow Congress to transform Hawai`i from a Territory into a State of the Federal Union as well as having altered by alien status from a Hawaiian subject to a citizen of the United States.

ADDITIONAL POINT OF CLARIFICATION: There has also been some question as to why I'm requesting the Court to supplement the Complaint by reinstating President Obama and adding 35 Diplomats from Foreign States who have Consulates in Hawai`i. When President Obama was initially listed as a defendant in the original complaint along with the other Federal Defendants, it was because he is the successor of President Cleveland, and the only reason I had to remove him as a defendant was because of the U.S. Supreme Court case Nixon v. Fitzgerald decided in 1982. Since the filing of the lawsuit, President Obama has continued to violate the terms of the executive agreement (Lili`uokalani assignment) by administering U.S. Federal law in Hawai`i and not Hawaiian Kingdom law. Also Defendants Clinton, Gates and Willard have also continued to violate the executive agreement (Lili`uokalani assignment) by accrediting 35 foreign Consulates in Hawai`i under U.S. foreign relations law as well as meeting with China's military in Honolulu as well as Japan's Foreign Minister.

The First Amended Complaint specifically asks the Court "For a Judgment or Order Awarding PLAINTIFF all temporary and preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as may be necessary to avert the likelihood of continuous injury during the pendency of this action and to preserve the possibility of effective final relief," and "For a Judgment or Order Preliminarily and Permanently enjoining DEFENDANTS from continuing to violate the Lili`uokalani assignment." An injunction is a "court order prohibiting something from being done or commanding something to be done." Since the U.S. Attorney has not provided any evidence denying the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Lili`uokalani assignment, nor has he provided any evidence that Hawai`i was annexed to the U.S., is precisely why President Obama and the other 35 Diplomats needed to be added as Defendants to the Complaint because of the request for an injunction.

According to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, foreign States can't be sued for punitive damages, but can be sued for injunctive relief. As for President Obama, Nixon v. Fitzgerald would give immunity to the President from lawsuits, but President Obama can't claim to be a bona fide President since the U.S. Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen. Since President Obama was born in the Hawaiian Kingdom, and not born in the United States, he is a President de facto (in fact). Nixon v. Fitzgerald only applies to Presidents de jure (by law). I am not claiming Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen, because he is by his mother (jus sanguinis). He is, however, not a natural born citizen (jus soli), which is a constitutional requirement to be President. During occupations of a country, international law prevents individuals from acquiring the citizenship of the occupied country through birth on the soil (jus soli) and can only acquire citizenship from their parents (jus sanguinis).

According to Professor Von Glahn, "the nationality of the inhabitants of occupied areas does not ordinarily change through the mere fact that temporary rule of a foreign government has been instituted, inasmuch as military occupation does not confer de jure sovereignty upon an occupant. Thus under the laws of most countries children born in territory under enemy occupation possess the nationality of their parents." See Gehard von Glahn, The Occupation of Enemy Territory: A Commentary on the Law and Practice of Belligerent Occupation (University of Minnesota Press 1957), 60. Therefore, individuals born in the Hawaiian Kingdom while under occupation since August 12, 1898 during the Spanish-American War can only acquire the citizenship of their parents (jus sanguinis). Hawaiian subjects today must be a direct descendent of a Hawaiian subject by parentage, irrespective of ethnicity, as of August 12, 1898.

ADDITIONAL POINT OF CLARIFICATION: For those who may find it difficult to understand the latest round of pleadings concerning my reply to the U.S. Attorney's opposition to request for supplementing the complaint with additional defendants, here's some further explanation. According to Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants may be added by amending the complaint if it would provide a complete adjudication of the dispute and won't prejudice the original defendants in the case. The Court must give its permission first before adding on new defendants. The U.S. Attorney is opposing the addition of new defendants by arguing I'm attempting to throw a "monkey wrench" in the proceedings, i.e. filing it in bad faith, therefore "unfairly prejudice Defendants and hamper the Court's ability to manage its docket." They're trying to influence the judge so she will deny my request to supplement my first amended complaint with additional defendants. This is why I needed to file a reply to their argument, where I needed to clarify that its not filed in bad faith, but rather as a direct response to Defendants' continued violation of the Lili`uokalani assignment since the lawsuit was filed on June 1, 2010. The Alien Tort Statute allows individuals to be liable to a tort action if there exists a direct "nexus" or connection to U.S. government officials regarding an injury to an alien, which in this case, there is a direct nexus between foreign states and the Defendants by there own actions since the lawsuit began. President Obama was also identified as a new defendant along with the 35 foreign officials because he has continued to impose U.S. federal law in the Hawaiian Islands since the lawsuit was filed, and Nixon v. Fitzgerald cannot give him immunity because he's not a natural born U.S. citizen, which is a constitutional requirement to be President. In my reply I also further explain why the U.S. Attorney's reliance on the political question doctrine cannot be an affirmative defense to my complaint, which consequently cannot prevent my request to add new defendants. To ensure good faith on my part, I also stated that my Motion to Supplement (Amend) will follow the hearing on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

• If the Judge grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss I will appeal to the 2nd Circuit, and if the Judge denies the motion to dismiss, the U.S. Attorney will surely appeal.
• If the 2nd Circuit overrules the Judge's decision to dismiss, the case would be remanded to the District Court where my Motion to Supplement will be heard.
• If the 2nd Circuit affirms the Judges decision to dismiss, I will request for an en banc (entire bench) rehearing in the same fashion as Kamehameha Schools did in Doe v. Kamehameha.
• If the en banc overrules the 3 judge appellate panel of the 2nd Circuit, the case would be remanded to the District Court for hearing on the Motion to Supplement. If not, I appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

My pleadings were intended to fully elucidate or explain this apparent complexing case of why the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and the effects of the Lili`uokalani assignment and a tort injury I suffered from Defendants who were responsible for faithfully executing the assignment. Through these pleadings I have been preparing for an appeal from either side.

My Motion to Supplement the amended complaint with additional defendants who are officials of foreign states was not only prompted by the open and explicit actions taken by the Defendants during the lawsuit, but also put the foreign officials on notice of their violation of Hawaiian sovereignty and international law. I sent letters to these foreign officials apprising them of my intention to add them as defendants to the lawsuit along with copies of the treaties their country has with the Hawaiian Kingdom, which are still binding. In the letter to the French Ambassador, I end with "While permission is being sought from the Court to add Your Excellency as a defendant, may I suggest Your Excellency's government inquire into the pleadings of the case at the abovementioned URL, as well as the current legal status of the 1857 Hawaiian-French Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, that remains legally binding today between our two countries." Letters in PDF sent to officials of foreign States who unlawfully maintain their consulates in the Hawaiian Kingdom in violation of Article X, "The Diplomatic and Consular Agents of Foreign Nations," Civil Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Palau, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga,

NEW: Six short videos uploaded on Vimeo that cover sections of the Federal Complaint in chronological order from 1840 to the present.

• Hawai`i: An Independent and Sovereign State (1840-1893)
• Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government by the United States and Settlement (1893)
• United States' Second Failed Attempt to Annex the Hawaiian Islands (1894-1898)
• The United States' Unilateral Seizure of the Hawaiian Islands (1898)
• The United States' Prolonged Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands (1898-Present)
• Perfect Title Company and the Federal Lawsuit against the Obama Administration (1995-Present)

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Docket Filings

• Complaint (June 1, 2010)
• Amended Complaint (July 15, 2010)
• Amended Complaint Exhibits A-JJ
• Court Order Granting Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint to September 13, 2010 (August 3, 2010)
• Defendant Lingle's Motion to Dismiss (August 26, 2010)
• Court Order Advising Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant Lingle's Motion by September 20, 2010 (August 26, 2010)
• Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Lingle's Motion to Dismiss (September 8, 2010)
• Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (September 13, 2010)
• Defendant Linda Lingle, Governor of the State of Hawai`i's Memorandum in Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Lingles's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (September 16, 2010)
• Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to Defendant Lingle (September 20, 2010)
• Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Clinton, Gates & Willard's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7(f) (September 28, 2010)
• Federal Defendants' Reply in Further Support of Their Motion to Dismiss (October 12, 2010)
• Plaintiff's Memorandum in Response to Federal Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint (October 25, 2010)
• Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint by adding Defendants President Barack Obama and 35 Foreign States (November 1, 2010)
• Federal Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint (November 9, 2010)
• Plaintiff's Reply to Federal Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint (November 17, 2010)
• Notice of Spanish Embassy's Reply to Plaintiff's Letter Apprising the Spanish Ambassador of Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Amended Complaint (November 21, 2010)
• U.S. District Judge Judge Kollar-Kotelly's Order and Memorandum Granting Defendants 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss (March 9, 2011)
• Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint (March 13, 2011)
• Plaintiff's Notice of State of Hawai'i Legislature House Concurrent Resolution no. 107 Establishing a Joint Legislative Investigating Committee to Investigate the Status of Two Executive Agreements Entered into in 1893 Between United States President Grover Cleveland and Queen Lili'uokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, called the Lili'uokalani Assignment and the Agreeement of Restoration (March 17, 2011)
• Federal Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (March 28, 2011)
• Plaintiff's Reply to Federal Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (April 2, 2011)
• Plaintiff's Notice of Maui County Council Resolution Urging Support of the Intent of House of Concurrent Resolution no. 107, Establishing a Joint Legislative Investigating Committee to Investigate the Status of executive agreements known as the Lili'uokalani Assignment and the Agreement of Restoration (April 2, 2011)
• U.S. District Judge Judge Kollar-Kotelly's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (April 6, 2011)
• Plaintiff's Civil Notice of Appeal (May 26, 2011)

U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Docket Filings