KalikoVision Podcast in Oregon has Dr. Keanu Sai as a Guest

Posted on by
4

Today in Hawai‘i is Statehood Day or Admission Day. It is a holiday for the State of Hawai‘i set for the third Friday in August. It is supposed to commemorate the anniversary of when Hawai‘i was admitted to the American Union in 1959.

On March 18, 1959, the U.S. Congress enacted a statute called An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union. This Act of Congress began the process where Hawai‘i would eventually be admitted into the Union. On August 21, 1959, the third Friday of August, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a proclamation making Hawai‘i the 50th State. With the unveiling of a more accurate and objectively true history, the State of Hawai‘i never legally existed in the first place.

In 1999, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, recognized the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State since the 19th century. And in 2024, Oxford University Press published a chapter by Dr. Keanu Sai “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire,” in H.E. Chehabi and David Motadel’s book Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age. In this chapter Dr. Sai covers: the legal and political history of my country—the Hawaiian Kingdom; the evolution of governance as a constitutional monarchy; the unlawful overthrow of the government by United States troops in 1893; the prolonged American occupation since 1893; the restoration of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1997; and the recognition, by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 1999, of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State and the Council of Regency as its provisional government. Because the Hawaiian Kingdom currently exists as a State under international law, the State of Hawai‘i cannot simultaneously exist as a State under American law.

In a recently uploaded interview on the podcast called KalikoVision, with host Kaliko Castille, Dr. Sai explains why Hawai‘i was never acquired by the United States and why the State of Hawai‘i does not legally exist.

UN General Assembly Receives Hawaiian Kingdom’s Complaint of the American Occupation

Posted on by
9

For the first time in its history, the United Nations General Assembly received a complaint from a Non-Member State of the United Nations. Today, August 14, 2025, the President of the UN General Assembly received the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Complaint of the United States of America’s unlawful and prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since January 17, 1893, and the commission of war crimes and human rights violations pursuant to Article 35(2) of the UN Charter. It has been the practice of States to submit formal complaints with the UN Security Council but not with the General Assembly. This is a first ever complaint to be received by the General Assembly under to Article 35(2).

Article 35(2) 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 purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.”

While the Hawaiian Kingdom is a State under international law, it is a Non-Member State of the UN. While Switzerland is a State and a Member of the UN, it did not join the UN until 2002. Like Switzerland prior to 2002, the Hawaiian Kingdom is a Non-Member State. Article 35(2) addresses situations that endanger international peace and security. The 132-year American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the commission of war crimes, and the refusal of the State of Hawai‘i to transform into a Military Government meet this criterion.

Before the President can apply the UN procedure for complaints submitted by a Non-Member State under Article 35(2), he would need to first determine the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom, according to international law, to be a State who is not a Member of the UN. In anticipation of this query, Dr. David Keanu Sai, Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim, in his letter to His Excellency Philomon Yang, President of the UN General Assembly, that enclosed the Hawaiian Kingdom Complaint, stated:

In the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (1999-2001), I served as Lead Agent for the Council of Regency representing the Hawaiian Kingdom. As such, I was in communication with the Permanent Court’s Principal Legal Counsel, Ms. Bette Shifman, whose responsibility was to determine whether the Hawaiian Kingdom exists as a State in continuity since the nineteenth century. This determination was necessary for the purpose of establishing the Permanent Court’s institutional jurisdiction in accordance with Article 47 of the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Article 47 provides, “The jurisdiction of the Permanent Court may, within the conditions laid down in the regulations, be extended to disputes between non-Contracting Powers or between Contracting Powers and non-Contracting Powers, if the parties are agreed on recourse to this Tribunal.” State continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom is determined by the rules of customary international law.

Prior to the Permanent Court’s establishment of the arbitral tribunal on 9 June 2000, the Secretariat determined that the Hawaiian Kingdom had met the standing of a State and was thus, recognized as a non-Contracting Power. This fact is noted in Annex 2—Cases Conducted under the Auspices of the PCA or with the Cooperation of the International Bureau in the Permanent Court’s Annual Reports from 2000 to 2011. The Permanent Court also recognized the Council of Regency as the Hawaiian Kingdom’s government. I am enclosing a copy of Annex 2 from the 2011 Annual Report. It identifies Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom as the thirty-third case that came under the auspices of the Permanent Court. Since 2012, the Annual Reports no longer include Annex 2 because the Permanent Court’s website provides the list of cases, which includes Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, Case no. 1999-01.

Under civilian law, the juridical fact, of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a State, produced the legal effect for the Secretariat to perform the juridical act of accepting the dispute, under the auspices of the Permanent Court, by virtue of Article 47. According to Professor Lenzerini, this juridical act “may be compared—mutatis mutandis—to a juridical act of a domestic judge recognizing a juridical fact (e.g. filiation) which is productive of certain legal effects arising from it according to law.” Since State members of the Permanent Court’s Administrative Council furnishes all Contracting States with an Annual Report, this represents “State practice [that] covers an act or statement by…State[s] from which views can be inferred about international law,” and it “can also include omissions and silence on the part of States.”

Since the United States and all Contracting States did not object to the Secretariat’s juridical act of acknowledging the Hawaiian Kingdom’s existence as a non-Contracting State, this reflects the practice of States—opinio juris. Furthermore, the Secretariat and the Administrative Council are treaty-based components of an intergovernmental organization comprised of representatives of States, and, therefore, “their practice is best regarded as the practice of States.” According to Professor Lenzerini, “it may be convincingly held that the PCA contracting parties actually agreed with the recognition of the juridical fact of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State carried out by the International Bureau.”

Of the one hundred ninety-three Member States of the United Nations, one hundred twenty-three of these States are also Member States of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, to wit:

Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, the People’s Republic of China, Peru, Philippines, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Türkiye, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. And Palestine, who is an Observer State, is also a Member State of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Hence, these States already recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as a State and the Council of Regency as its Government by virtue of their membership, as Contracting States, of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Of note Your Excellency, is that your country—Cameroon is not only a Successor State to the 1851 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Great Britain but also recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom and its Council of Regency as a Member State of the Permanent Court.

Minister Sai also brought to the attention of President Yang the identification of 154 Member States of the UN that currently have treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom by virtue of international law. Minister Sai states:

The successor States of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s treaty partners, were not aware at the time of their independence, that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to exist as a State, therefore, neither the newly independent States nor the Hawaiian Kingdom could declare “within a reasonable time after the attaining of independence, that the treaty is regarded as no longer in force between them.” Until there is a clarification of the successor States’ intentions, as to a common understanding with the Hawaiian Kingdom regarding the continuance in force of the Hawaiian treaty with their predecessor States, the Hawaiian Kingdom will presume the continuance in force of its treaties with the successor States. The majority of Member States of the United Nations are successor States to treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom.

This position, taken by the Hawaiian Kingdom, is consistent with the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties. Article 24 states:

1. A bilateral treaty which at the date of the succession of States was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates is considered as being in force between a newly independent State and the other State party when:
a. they expressly so agree; or
b. by reason of their conduct they are to be considered as having agreed.
2. A treaty considered as being in force under paragraph 1 applies in the relations between the newly independent State and the other State party from the date of the succession of States, unless a different intention appears from their agreement or is otherwise established.

Since successor States, which include Member States of the United Nations, were unaware of the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom at the time of their independence, and its treaties with their predecessor States, Article 24(1)(a) and (b) could not arise. Therefore, under customary international law, in the absence of an express agreement or an agreement by conduct, the Hawaiian Kingdom will presume that its treaties continue in force, for two years from the receipt of this communication, with the successor States. Here follows the list of successor States to Hawaiian Kingdom treaties:

• 1875 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Austro-Hungarian Empire—Austria and Hungary.

• 1862 Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Belgium—Burundi, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rwanda.

• 1857 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and France—Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Vanuatu, and Viet Nam.

• 1851 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Great Britain—Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

• 1863 Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Italy—Libya and Somalia.

• 1871 Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Japan—Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea.

• 1862 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Netherlands—Indonesia and Suriname.

• 1882 Treaty between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Portugal—Angola, Cabo Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, and Timor-Leste.

• 1869 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Russia—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

• 1863 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Spain—Cuba and Equatorial Guinea.

• 1852 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway—Norway and Sweden.

• 1849 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States—Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Philippines.

The Hawaiian Kingdom has treaties with one hundred fifty-four Member States of the United Nations, of which fourteen treaties are with the original States, and one hundred forty treaties are with the successor States.

According to the UN complaint procedure, when the President of the General Assembly receives a formal complaint by a State, whether a Member of the UN or not, he will assess the complaint based on the rules of procedure and the established practices of the General Assembly. Because there is no practice to follow by the President, given this is the first time a complaint has been submitted to the General Assembly by a State under Article 35(2), he will have to be guided by what the Hawaiian Kingdom is seeking in its complaint.

The Hawaiian Kingdom is not seeking to resolve a dispute but is rather bringing to the attention of the General Assembly the situation in the Hawaiian Kingdom so that it can take certain actions to address the situation of an unlawful and prolonged occupation of a State under international law. What the Hawaiian Kingdom requests of the General Assembly is clearly stated in paragraph 2.3 of the Complaint.

The Hawaiian Kingdom herein files this Complaint as a Non-Member State, pursuant to Article 35(2) of the United Nations Charter, for the violation of treaties and international law and calls upon the United Nations General Assembly:

1. To ensure the United States of America complies with international humanitarian law and the law of occupation;

2. To ensure that the United States of America establishes a military government, by its State of Hawai‘i, to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom as it stood before the American invasion and unlawful seizure of the Hawaiian Government on 17 January 1893, and the provisional laws, proclaimed by the Council of Regency on 10 October 2014, that bring Hawaiian Kingdom laws to the current state; and

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 of the Hawaiian Kingdom, except for its temporary and limited authority vested under the law of occupation.

The Hawaiian Kingdom’s third request does not require collective action to be taken by the General Assembly. The individual Member States of the General Assembly would be obligated to take individual action themselves regarding the Hawaiian situation once they have been made aware of the Hawaiian situation by the Complaint.

Under Article 41(2) of the UN Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts committed by the United States against the Hawaiian Kingdom, “No State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach within the meaning of article 40, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation.” Article 40 provides, “This chapter applies to the international responsibility which is entailed by a serious breach by a State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law.”

Since the prolonged occupation and the commission of war crimes is a serious breach of peremptory norms of general international law, Article 41(2) is triggered once a State is made aware of the Hawaiian situation by the Complaint. As such, States are obligated to take individual action on the Hawaiian Kingdom’s third request to “not recognize as lawful the United States of America’s presence and authority within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, except for its temporary and limited authority vested under the law of occupation.” A General Assembly resolution is not required for a State to immediately act.

According to Minister Sai, “The contents of my letter to President Yang and the information provided in the complaint reflects the tedious work of the Council of Regency in carrying out its strategic plan to address the prolonged occupation of the country. The State of Hawai‘i now finds itself at a cross road to begin to comply with the law of occupation by establishing a Military Government according to the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan or face prosecution for war crimes. The State of Hawai‘i’s deliberate failure has not only provided the evidential basis for submitting the complaint as a Non-Member State of the United Nations, but to bring international attention to our situation.”

Minister Sai also stated, “Oxford University Press’ recent publication of my chapter “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire,” in the 2024 book Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age, has opened many doors for the Council of Regency that were not opened before. As the entire world is watching our history in Chief of War on Apple TV, they will now know our true history that followed those epic battles of Kamehameha I when we became a British Protectorate in 1794, Kamehameha’s consolidation of the island kingdoms into the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1810, transforming into a constitutional monarchy in 1840, becoming a sovereign and independent State in 1843, and its continued existence as a State under international law despite the prolonged American occupation since our country was invaded by U.S. Marines in 1893. To use the idiom for the filing of the UN Complaint, ‘We must strike when the iron is hot!'”

Dr. Keanu Sai is Interviewed on Minneapolis/Saint Paul FOX 9 “The Afternoon Shift” on the Annexation of Hawai‘i

Posted on by
45

Professor Jonathan Osorio, Dean of the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa’s Hawai‘inuiakea School of Hawaiian Knowledge, was contacted by the host of The Afternoon Shift on FOX 9 Minneapolis/Saint Paul if he or his colleagues from the university could be on his show to talk about the joint resolution of the annexation Hawai‘i that was signed in law on July 7, 1898.

Professor Osorio responded by stating, “I am copying two professors from UH, Kamana Beamer and Keanu Sai who might be interested. But you should be aware that Hawaiʻi was never annexed by the US. Both these scholars can attest to that.” Dr. Keanu Sai was able to do the interview.

BREAKING NEWS: MPD Detective calls upon Lieutenant Colonel Rosner of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard to comply with the Law of Occupation

Posted on by
3

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 7, 2025

HONOLULU, Hawaiian Kingdom—Press release from the office of Edward Halealoha Ayau. On July 7, 2025, Ayau, on behalf of his client Maui Police Detective Kamuela Lanakila Mawae, sent a letter to Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Michael Rosner of the Hawai‘i Army National Guard explaining the circumstances of his client’s concern that he may be criminally culpable for war crimes.

To download Ayau’s letter to LTC Rosner go to this link.

In the letter Ayau stated, “On June 3, 2025, I personally went to Attorney General Anne Lopez’s office in Honolulu to deliver a letter, on behalf of my client, explaining the circumstances of my client’s concern that he may be criminally culpable for war crimes by enforcing American laws in the County of Maui, which I am attaching.” He requested for the Attorney General “to make public a legal opinion that was formally requested by Senator Cross Makani Crabbe by letter dated September 19, 2024, pursuant HRS §28-3,” by June 11, 2025.

Ayau stated, “June 11th has passed, and the Attorney General has yet to make public that legal opinion providing rebuttable evidence that the Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist and that war crimes are not being committed. For you and all officials and employees of the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties, the significance of her failure to provide a legal opinion is an acknowledgment that Hawai‘i is an occupied State and not the State of Hawai‘i, and that war crimes are being committed. The Attorney General is the highest-ranking law officer of the State of Hawai‘i and her failure to provide a legal opinion that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States and not within the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom is a dereliction of her duty she owes to all officials and employees of the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties.”

Ayau goes on to state, “This is very concerning for my client because he is not only a law enforcement officer and employee of the County of Maui, but he is also the Vice-Chair of the Maui Chapter of the State of Hawai‘i Organization of Police Officers Union (SHOPO). Also affected by the dereliction of the Attorney General are SHOPO’s collective bargaining agreements. Because collective bargaining agreements are governed by Federal and State of Hawai‘i statutes, administrative agency regulations, and American judicial decisions, which all constitutes the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty, the silence by the Attorney General is a recognition that our collective agreements are void because they are a product of war crimes.”

Ayau apprised LTC Rosner of the work of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) that was established in 2019 to investigate war crimes in the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom. Ayau stated, “The Royal Commission of Inquiry has already published 26 War Criminal Reports since 2002 of State of Hawai‘i officials. Of significance, these officials include Governors David Ige and Josh Green, Mayors Derek Kawakami, Mitchell Roth, and Michael Victorino, and Supreme Court Justices Mark Recktenwald, Paula Nakayama, Sabrina McKenna, Richard Pollack, Michael Wilson and Todd Eddins. The Attorney General is also the subject of a war criminal report.”

Ayau also cited a very favorable book review, by Professor Anita Budziszewska from the University of Warsaw, of the Commission’s 2020 eBook “The Royal Commission of Inquiry: Investigating War Crimes and Human Rights Violations Committed in the Hawaiian Kingdom” that was published in the Polish Journal of Political Science in 2022. He stated, “It would clearly appear that the authority of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, established by the Council of Regency in 2019 with its mandate to investigate war crimes and human rights violations, is a legitimate commission of inquiry and whose reports, that have been published on its website, would serve as the evidential basis for prosecution of war criminals.” Ayau then states, “The Attorney General is up against a wall of law and evidence that renders the State of Hawai‘i and its Counties, established by American law, as unlawful and the product of the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.”

Ayau then cites Dr. Keanu Sai, who is head of the RCI, that sent LTC Rosner a letter explaining the circumstances that led to his military duty to transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government. Dr. Sai wrote, “It is now over a year since the Hawai‘i Army National Guard’s leadership became aware that the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation is being committed and that its their duty to put a stop to it by establishing a military government in accordance with U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.1, U.S. Army Field Manual 6-27—chapter 6, and the law of occupation. Major General Kenneth Hara’s willful failure to obey Army regulations, and resulting his dereliction of duty, has led to war criminal reports for the war crime by omission on himself, Brigadier General Stephen Logan, Colonel Wesley Kawakami, Lieutenant Colonel Fredrick Werner, Bingham Tuisamatatele, Jr., Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Jacobs, and Lieutenant Colonel Dale Balsis. As a result, you are, now, the most senior officer in the Army National Guard.”

Ayau refers to the Council of Regency’s 2023 Operational Plan for Transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government that would guide LTC Rosner in his performance of his military duty. On the Military Government of Hawai‘i, Ayau states, “It is my understanding of the Operational Plan that by transforming the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government, you, as the American Theater Commander, will be replacing Governor Josh Green with yourself as Military Governor just as General Douglas MacArthur replaced the head of the Japanese civilian government as Military Governor of the Occupied State of Japan in 1945. Like Japan, all officials and employees would continue to exist except for the State of Hawai‘i Legislature and the County Councils, which have been enacting American laws in violation of the law of occupation.”

“When you perform your duty,” Ayau states, “law enforcement officers, especially those of Hawaiian ancestry, would greatly benefit from their rights under Hawaiian Kingdom laws.” Ayau then refers to Dr. Sai’s statement of some of those benefits.”

Section 67. The following persons shall be exempt from all internal taxes: His Majesty the King; the Diplomatic Agents of Foreign Countries and their Attaches duly made know to the Department of Foreign Affairs. The following persons shall be exempt from personal taxes: All clergymen of any Christian denomination regularly engaged in their vocation; all teachers of youth employed in public or private schools for more than six months of the year; all soldiers in actual service and all volunteer soldiers duly enrolled and actually doing duty. Act to Consolidate and Amend the Law Relating to Internal Taxes (1883); 1884 Compiled Laws, p. 131.

4. That a certain portion of the government lands in each island shall be set apart, and placed in the hands of special agents, to be disposed of in lots of from one to fifty acres, in fee-simple, to such natives as may not be otherwise furnished with sufficient land, at a minimum price of fifty cents per acre. An Act Confirming Certain Resolutions of the King and Privy Council, passed on the 21st day of December, A.D. 1849, Granting to the Common People Allodial Titles for Their Own Lands and House Lots, and Certain Other Privileges (1850), also known as the Kuleana Act. According to the inflation calculator, $.50 in 1893 is equivalent in purchasing power to $17.77 in 2025.

Queen’s Hospital was established “for relief of indigent, sick, and disabled people of the Hawaiian Kingdom; as well as of such foreigners, and others, as may desire to avail themselves of the same.” Charter of Queen’s Hospital (1859) established by virtue of An Act to Provide Hospitals for the Relief of Hawaiians in the City of Honolulu and other Localities (1859).

“The Queen’s Hospital is, from the nature of its character, a quasi-public institution. When it was chartered it was provided that all Hawaiians, of native birth, should be treated free of charge. Foreigners were to be treated by payment of fees.” George W. Smith, a Trustee of the Queen’s Hospital wrote in an editorial, Honolulu Advertiser (1900a:2).

The 1886 budget provided $12,000 for the Queen’s Hospital. According to the Charter, the Queen’s Hospital would match those funds. According to the inflation calculator, $12,000.00 in 1886 is equivalent in purchasing power to $408,254.04 in 2025. Queen’s Hospital’s annual budget in 1886 was $816,508.08.

There is no right to bear arms in the Hawaiian Kingdom, which has similar gun laws like Japan. “2. The following persons are hereby declared to be authorized to bear arms, viz: All persons holding official, military or naval rank, either under this government, or that of any nation at peace with this kingdom, when worn for legitimate purposes. Penal Code, Chapter LIV—To Prevent the Carrying of Deadly Weapons (1869). Hawaiian law also provides for yearly licensing of firearms for hunting. Assault weapons are not hunting weapons.

Free trade with foreign countries not impeded by the American Jones Act, formally known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Under the Jones Act, foreign goods and products destined for Hawai‘i had to offload from foreign ships at designated American ports on the west coast, and then reloaded on ships destined for Hawai‘i. Under free trade, as the Hawaiian Kingdom had before American invasion and occupation, Hawaiian ports would be open for foreign goods and products to be off loaded directly and then continue to ports of the United States.

According to customary international law, the Hawaiian Kingdom not only has treaties with Austria, Belgium, Bremen, Denmark, France, Germany, Hamburg, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, but also with their successor States. Of the 193 Member States of the United Nations, the Hawaiian Kingdom has treaties with 154 of its Member States.

The Hawaiian Kingdom is also a recognized neutral State like Switzerland. As a neutral State, international laws protects its territorial integrity and independence. The territory of states whose neutrality is permanent is inviolable and gives rise to its neutral rights that its territory cannot be violated by belligerents. This neutral right proscribes belligerents from moving their troops across neutral territory or using neutral territory for belligerent purposes. These prohibitions have been codified under articles 2 through 4 of the 1907 Hague Convention V.

Under the provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom taxes for the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties would continue so that government service can be maintained. Tax collection by the Internal Revenue Service, however, would cease to be collected in Hawai‘i because these taxes are for American government services.

“The Attorney General’s dereliction of her duty to protect all officials and employees of the State of Hawai‘i and the Counties, to include my client,” Ayau states, “has now compelled him to not only continue to perform his duties as a police officer under the laws of 1893 and the provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, but to also call for the lawful transformation of the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government according to the Council of Regency’s Operational Plan. It is your military duty, as the most senior commander in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard, to immediately transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government in accordance with international humanitarian law, the law of occupation, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army regulations, so that the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation would cease and that Hawaiian Kingdom laws, together with the provisional laws, will be administered.”

Ayau closes his letter by citing a Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court case in 1847, Shillaber v. Waldo, on the court’s view of the rule of law and its tie to the Hawaiian Kingdom’s coat of arms. The Supreme Court stated, “For I trust that the maxim of this Court ever has been, and ever will be, that which is so beautifully expressed in the Hawaiian coat of arms, namely, ‘The life of the land is preserved by righteousness.’ We know of no other rule to guide us in the decision of questions of this kind, than the supreme law of the land, and to this we bow with reverence and veneration, even though the stroke fall on our own head. In the language of another, ‘Let justice be done though the heavens fall.’ Let the laws be obeyed, though it ruin every judicial and executive officer in the Kingdom. Courts may err. Clerks may err. Marshals may err—they do err in every land daily; but when they err let them correct their errors without consulting pride, expediency, or any other consequence.”

In his email to LTC Rosner, Ayau wrote, “I strongly yet respectfully urge a careful read and discussions with Lt Col Lloyd Phelps, the Staff Judge Advocate of the U.S. Army National Guard in Hawai‘i.”

Contact: Edward Halealoha Ayau, Esq.
Attorney for Maui Detective Kamuela Lanakila Mawae
(808) 646-9015
halealohahapai64@gmail.com

###

BREAKING NEWS: Hawai‘i Attorney General Acknowledges Hawai‘i is Occupied and that War Crimes are being Committed

Posted on by
43

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 12, 2025

HONOLULU, Hawaiian Kingdom—Press release from the office of Edward Halealoha Ayau. On June 3, 2025, attorney Edward Halealoha Ayau, on behalf of his client Maui Police Detective Kamuela Lanakila Mawae, hand delivered a 10-page letter to State of Hawai‘i Attorney General Anne Lopez. That letter addresses legal concerns regarding the status of Hawai‘i as an occupied State and potential war crimes being committed by law enforcement officers.

To download Ayau’s letter to the Attorney General go to this link.

In the letter, Ayau stated, “on behalf of my client, I am respectfully submitting to you a deadline by June 11, 2025, for you to make public the legal opinion, as formally requested by former Senator Crabbe, that clearly states, by citing sources of international law, i.e. treaties, custom, general principles of law, and judicial decisions and scholarly writings, that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States and not within the territory of the Kingdom.” He also stated that if “you do not make public your legal opinion by this day, my client will be forced to comply with the law of occupation.”

As of today, Lopez did not make public a legal opinion as requested by former Senator Crabbe. According to Ayau, “the significance of Lopez’s failure to provide a legal opinion that was formally requested back in September of 2024 is an acknowledgment that Hawai‘i is an occupied State and not the State of Hawai‘i, and that war crimes are being committed.”

In his letter to Lopez, Ayau referenced Judge James Crawford of the International Court of Justice who stated, there “is a presumption that the State continues to exist, with its rights and obligations…despite a period in which there is no, or no effective, government,” and he goes on to state that military occupation “does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State.”

Ayau also referenced Professor Matthew Craven, an international law scholar from the University of London (SOAS) that wrote a legal opinion on the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State under international law. Craven wrote, “If one were to speak about a presumption of continuity, one would suppose that an obligation would lie upon the party opposing that continuity to establish the facts substantiating its rebuttal. The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in other words, may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States, absent of which the presumption remains.” 

Ayau also referenced renowned expert and scholar, Professor William Schabas from Middlesex University London, who authored a legal opinion for the Royal Commission of Inquiry identifying war crimes being committed since January 17, 1893. One of those war crimes is the unlawful imposition of American laws and administrative measures within the territory of an occupied State, which is called the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.

Ayau stated in his letter, “If you do not make public your legal opinion by this day, my client will be forced to comply with the law of occupation where the Maui Police Department will continue to exist under the provisional laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom that was proclaimed by the Council of Regency in 2014 because it does “not run contrary to the express, reason and spirit of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom,” which is explained on page 222 of the Council of Regency’s operational plan to transition the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government, which I am attaching.”

Ayau further stated, “My client while continuing to perform his duties as a police officer, will call for the lawful transformation of the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government according to the Council of Regency’s operational plan. It is the legal duty of Lieutenant Colonel Michael Rosner, who is the most senior commander in the Hawai‘i Army National Guard, to immediately transform the State of Hawai‘i into a Military Government in accordance with international humanitarian law, the law of occupation, U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5100.01, and Army regulations, so that the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation would cease and that Hawaiian Kingdom laws, together with the provisional laws, will be administered. Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps is the Army National Guard’s Staff Judge Advocate to advise LTC Rosner of his military duties as the theater commander of the Occupied State of the Hawaiian Kingdom.”

Ayau also stated in his letter that Native Hawaiians, irrespective of blood quantum, comprise the majority of the citizenry of the Hawaiian Kingdom. He stated that as aboriginal Hawaiian subjects they have certain rights under Hawaiian Kingdom law.

Under Hawaiian Kingdom laws, aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are the recipients of free health care at Queen’s Hospital and its outlets across the islands. In its budget, the Hawaiian Legislative  Assembly would allocate money to the Queen’s Hospital for the healthcare of aboriginal Hawaiian subjects. The United States stopped allocating monies from its Territory of Hawai‘i Legislature in 1909. Aboriginal Hawaiian subjects are also able to acquire up to 50-acres of public lands at $20.00 per acre under the 1850 Kuleana Act.

The greatest dilemma for aboriginal Hawaiians today is having a home and health care. The average cost of a home today is $820,000.00. And health care insurance for a family of 4 is at $1,500 a month. According to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Native Hawaiian Health Fact Sheet 2017, “Today, Native Hawaiians are perhaps the single racial group with the highest health risk in the State of Hawai‘i. This risk stems from high economic and cultural stress, lifestyle and risk behaviors, and late or lack of access to health care.”

Ayau says, “The denial of Native Hawaiian rights under kingdom law for over a century can no longer be tolerated, and compliance with international law and the law of occupation will correct this international crime.”

Contact: Edward Halealoha Ayau, Esq.
Attorney for Maui Detective
Kamuela Lanakila Mawae
(808) 646-9015
halealohahapai64@gmail.com

###

BREAKING NEWS: Maui Police Detective asks Attorney General if He is Liable for War Crimes by Enforcing American Laws

Posted on by
16

NEWS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 3, 2025

HONOLULU, Hawaiian Kingdom—Press release from the office of Edward Halealoha Ayau. Today, Attorney General Anne Lopez received a 10-page letter, with attachments, from Edward Halealoha Ayau who is the attorney representing Maui Police Detective Kamuela Lanakila Mawae. That letter addresses legal concerns regarding the status of Hawai‘i as an occupied State and potential war crimes being committed by law enforcement officers.

In 2022, Mawae and Patrolman Scott McCalister requested legal services regarding Hawai‘i’s political status. They sought assurance that enforcing U.S. laws does not violate international law. On behalf of Mawae and McCalister, Chief John Pelletier formally requested legal services from Maui’s Corporation Counsel. Corporation Counsel’s response to Pelletier was evasive and did not address what was asked.

In 2024, a letter from Mawae and 36 other retired and active police officers urged Major General Kenneth Hara to establish a military government in Hawai‘i. ​They expressed concern over the lack of transition to military governance, which could implicate officers in unlawful actions. In that letter they stated, “It is deeply troubling that the State of Hawaii has not been transitioned into a military government as mandated by international law. This failure of transition places current police officers on duty that they may be held accountable for unlawfully enforcing American laws. This very issue was brought to the attention of the Maui County Corporation Counsel by Maui Police Chief John Pelletier in 2022.” Ayau noted that Hara did not perform his duty under international law and Army Regulations and consequently became the subject of the Hawaiian Royal Commission of Inquiry’s War Criminal Report no. 24-0001 for the war crime by omission.

Ayau’s letter referred to former Senator Cross Makani Crabbe’s request to the Attorney General dated September 19, 2024, for a legal opinion on Hawai‘i’s status, emphasizing the need for clarity on its legality. ​Crabbe made the request because of his concern that he and other members of the Legislature were committing war crimes by enacting American laws. Crabbe stated in his request, “As a Senator that represents the 22nd district, I am very concerned by these allegations that the State of Hawai‘i, as a governing body, is not legal because the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as an occupied State under international law.” The Attorney General has not responded, which Ayau stated is now at eight months since the initial request.

Ayau’s letter references legal opinions from scholars asserting the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence under international law. ​It highlights the absence of a treaty ceding Hawaiian sovereignty to the United States, questioning the legitimacy of U.S. claims to sovereignty over Hawai‘i and the impact it has on all law enforcement officers of the State of Hawai‘i and the four Counties. Ayau cites renowned expert and scholar, Professor William Schabas from Middlesex University London, who authored a legal opinion for the Royal Commission of Inquiry identifying war crimes being committed since January 17, 1893. One of those war crimes is the unlawful imposition of American laws and administrative measures within the territory of an occupied State, which is called the war crime of usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.

In the letter, Ayau stated, “on behalf of my client, I am respectfully submitting to you a deadline by June 11, 2025, for you to make public the legal opinion, as formally requested by former Senator Crabbe, that clearly states, by citing sources of international law, i.e. treaties, custom, general principles of law, and judicial decisions and scholarly writings, that the State of Hawai‘i is within the territory of the United States and not within the territory of the Kingdom.” He also stated that if “you do not make public your legal opinion by this day, my client will be forced to comply with the law of occupation.”

“In 1893, a political crime was committed by the United States against the Hawaiian Kingdom,” said Ayau, “and this led to the American theft of a country that was internationally recognized worldwide.” He then stated, “we are repatriating our country according to the rules of international law so that this American occupation will come to an end.”

To download Ayau’s letter to the Attorney General go to this link.

Contact: Edward Halealoha Ayau, Esq.
Attorney for Maui Detective Kamuela Lanakila Mawae
(808) 646-9015halealohahapai64@gmail.com

Hawaiian Kingdom has Treaties with 154 Member States of the United Nations

Posted on by
32

As an independent State in the nineteenth century, the Hawaiian Kingdom maintained treaties with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

Despite the unlawful overthrow of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by United States forces on January 17, 1893, international law provides for the continued existence of the Hawaiian State even when the United States unilaterally annexed the Hawaiian Islands on July 7, 1898, by a congressional law during the Spanish-American War. For information of the American occupation, see chapter 21 “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire” in Oxford University Press’ publication of Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age. Because the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist so do its treaties.

After the American overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government, States were led to believe that the Hawaiian Kingdom had ceased to exist and became a part of the United States in 1898. Shattering this narrative was the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence as a State and the Council of Regency as its restored government, in Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, in 1999.

The 20th century ushered in new States as successors to their predecessor States where the number of States in 1893 that numbered 44 would exponentially rise to 193 States that are members of the United Nations (“UN”). These successor States arose because of the First and Second World Wars and through decolonization of former colonial and trust territories.

When a successor State is established, the question arises regarding treaties of the predecessor State with a third State and whether it is binding or not on the successor State. For example, in June of 1961, New Zealand and Great Britain entered into a treaty that concerned air services between the former and the British territories of Western Samoa and Fiji. When Western Samoa became a successor State to Great Britain on January 1, 1962, the 1961 treaty remained binding on Western Samoa after its independence from Great Britain. In 1997, Western Samoa officially changed its name to Samoa.

According to the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, Article 24 states:

1. A bilateral treaty which at the date of the succession of States was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates is considered as being in force between a newly independent State and the other State party when: (a) they expressly so agree; or (b) by reason of their conduct they are to be considered as having agreed.

2. A treaty considered as being in force under paragraph 1 applies in the relations between the newly independent State and the other State party from the date of the succession of States, unless a different intention appears from their agreement or is otherwise established.

The successor States of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s treaty partners, were not aware, at the time of their independence, that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued to exist as a State, therefore, neither the newly independent States nor the Hawaiian Kingdom could declare “within a reasonable time after the attaining of independence, that the treaty is regarded as no longer in force between them.” Until there is clarification of the successor States’ intentions, as to a common understanding with the Hawaiian Kingdom regarding the continuance in force of the Hawaiian treaty with their predecessor State, the Hawaiian Kingdom will presume the continuance in force of its treaties with the successor States. The majority of Member States of the United Nations are successor States to treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom.

The Hawaiian Kingdom has treaties with 154 Member States of the United Nations. 14 treaties with original States and 140 treaties with their successor States.

HAWAIIAN-AMERICAN TREATY: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, and the Philippines.

HAWAIIAN-AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN TREATY: Austria and Hungary

HAWAIIAN-BELGIAN TREATY: Burundi, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rwanda.

HAWAIIAN-BRITISH TREATY: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

HAWAIIAN-DUTCH TREATY: Indonesia and Suriname.

HAWAIIAN-FRENCH TREATY: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Tunisia, Vanuatu, and Viet Nam.

HAWAIIAN-ITALIAN TREATY: Libya and Somalia.

HAWAIIAN-JAPANESE TREATY: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Korea.

HAWAIIAN-PORTUGUESE TREATY: Angola, Cabo Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, and Timor-Leste.

HAWAIIAN-RUSSIAN TREATY: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

HAWAIIAN-SPANISH TREATY: Cuba and Equatorial Guinea.

HAWAIIAN-SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN TREATY: Sweden and Norway.

VIDEOS of the Kamehameha Schools Presentation “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire: A Conversation with Dr. David Keanu Sai”

Posted on by
11

Below is the video of Dr. Keanu Sai’s presentation on his recent chapter “Hawai‘iʻs Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire” published by Englandʻs Oxford University Pressʻ Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age in December of 2024.

Below is the video of questions and answers of Dr. Keanu Sai following his presentation.

Kamehameha Schools Presents “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire: A Conversation with Dr. David Keanu Sai”

Posted on by
25

Dr. Keanu Sai, a graduate of the Kamehameha Schools Kapālama campus in 1982 has been invited by Kamehameha Schools Ka‘iwakīloumoku Pacific Indigenous Institute, in partnership with Kanaeokāna, for a presentation on March 5, 2025, with questions and answers to follow about his recent chapter “Hawai‘iʻs Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire” published by Englandʻs Oxford University Pressʻ Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age in December of 2024. No registration is required for this free public in-person event and light refreshments to follow.

The public is encouraged to attend because Dr. Saiʻs presentation will get into the operational plan for transitioning the State of Hawai‘i into a military government of Hawai‘i and the impact it will have on the population of Hawai‘i, e.g. health care, land, taxes, cost of living. The session will be recorded and uploaded on Kanaeokana’s website.

The session will be recorded and uploaded on Kanaeokana’s YouTube channel.

Book Launch Tomorrow at the University of Hawai‘i of Oxford University Press’ publication of “Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age” with a Chapter on the American Occupation of Hawai‘i

Posted on by
10

Tomorrow will be the official book launch of Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age published by England’s Oxford University Press in December of 2024. Dr. Keanu Sai is a contributor of a chapter in the book titled “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire.” In his chapter Dr. Sai

In his chapter, Dr. Sai covers: the legal and political history of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the evolution of governance as a constitutional monarchy, the unlawful overthrow of the government by United States troops in 1893, the prolonged American occupation since 1893, the restoration of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1997 by a Council of Regency, and the recognition of the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, and the Council of Regency, as its provisional government, by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, in the 1999-2001 international arbitration case Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom. He concludes his chapter with:

Despite over a century of revisionist history, “the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign State is grounded in the very same principles that the United States and every other State have relied on for their own legal existence.” The Hawaiian Kingdom is a magnificent story of perseverance and continuity.

THE EVENT WILL BE LIVE STREAMED ON FACEBOOK STARTING AT 3:30pm HI TIME

KITV Island Life Live—Dr. Keanu Sai talks about his recent publication by Oxford University Press on the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Posted on by
27

On KITV Island Life Live yesterday, Dr. Keanu Sai talks about his recent chapter titled “Hawai‘i’s Sovereignty and Survival in the Age of Empire” in a book Unconquered States: Non-European Powers in the Imperial Age. The book was published by Oxford University Press in December of 2024. Be sure to download Dr. Sai’s chapter by clicking the link above.

KITV Island Life Live—Dr. Keanu Sai Explains the American Invasion and Illegal Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government on January 17, 1893

Posted on by
2

On KITV Island Life Live yesterday, Dr. Keanu Sai explains the American invasion of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its unlawful overthrow of the government on January 17, 1893. This began a prolonged occupation that is now at 132 years.