Proclamation

 

Whereas, the Hawaiian Kingdom was governed until 1838, without legal enactments, and was based upon a system of common law, which consisted partly of the ancient kapu, and the practices of the celebrated Chiefs, that had been passed down by tradition since time immemorial. 

 

Whereas, the Declaration of Rights, proposed and signed by His Majesty King Kamehameha III on June 7, 1839, was the first essential departure from the ancient ways. 

 

Whereas, the Declaration of Rights of 1839, particularly recognized that there are but three classes of persons having vested rights in the lands;  1st, the Government (i.e. the King), 2nd, the landlords (Chiefs), and 3rd, the tenants (natives), and declared protection of the rights to both the chiefly and tenant classes to "...life, limb, liberty, freedom from oppression;  the earnings of his hands and the productions of his mind, not however to those who act in violation of the laws." 

 

Whereas, on October 8, 1840, His Majesty King Kamehameha III voluntarily divested himself of his absolute powers and attributes by promulgating a constitution that recognized three grand divisions of a civilized monarchy;  the King as the Chief Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary.   

 

Whereas, the Legislative Department of the Kingdom was composed of the King, the House of Nobles, and the House of Representatives, each of which has a negative on the other, with the King representing the vested right of the Government class, the House of Nobles representing the vested right of the landlord (Chiefly) class, and the House of Representatives representing the vested right of the tenant (native) class.

 

Whereas, on June 24, 1845, a Joint Resolution was enacted by the Legislature and signed into law, calling upon the Attorney General, to draw up a complete set of the existing laws, embracing the organic forms of the different departments, particularly the executive and judicial branches, with an outline of their duties and modes of procedure, which brought forth the First Act of Kamehameha III to Organize the Executive Ministries, the Second Act of Kamehameha III to Organize the Executive Departments, and the Third Act of Kamehameha III to Organize the Judiciary Department. 

 

Whereas, chapter V, part 1 of the Second Act of Kamehameha III to organize the Executive Departments, provides for naturalization or denization of aliens, and those aliens who had become Hawaiian subjects or Hawaiian denizens, in compliance with Kingdom law, "...shall be deemed to all intents and purposes, a native of the Hawaiian Islands - be amenable only to the laws of this kingdom, and to authority and control thereof - be entitled to the protection of said laws, and be no longer amenable to his native sovereign while residing in this kingdom, nor entitled to resort to his native country for protection or intervention," and "he shall be amenable for every such resort to the pains and penalties annexed to rebellion, by the criminal code," and "every foreigner so naturalized, shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of an Hawaiian subject."

 

Whereas, on September 27, 1847, the Legislature passed a law calling upon Chief Justice William L. Lee to establish a Penal Code and in the year 1850, a draft was submitted to the Legislature by the Chief Justice and signed into law by His Majesty King Kamehameha III, which had adopted the principles of the English common law. 

 

Whereas, eighteen years later, in 1865, the Judges of the Supreme Court were directed by an act of the Legislature, on June 22, to compile and ready to publish, the Penal Laws of the Kingdom, and in the year 1869, a revised Penal Code was published. 

 

Whereas, in 1851 the Hawaiian Kingdom Legislature passed a resolution calling for the appointment of three commissioners, one to be chosen by the King, one by the House of Nobles, and one by the House of Representatives, whose duty was to revise the Constitution of 1840 and on June 14, 1852 a new constitution was approved by both the House of Nobles and the House of Representatives, and signed into law by the King, but would not take effect until December 6, 1852.

 

Whereas, on April 6, 1853, Alexander Liholiho, was named successor to the Throne by His Majesty King Kamehameha III in accordance with Article 25 of the Constitution of 1852, which provides that the "...successor (of the Throne) shall be the person whom the King and the House of Nobles shall appoint and publicly proclaim as such, during the King's life..."

 

Whereas, on December 15th, His Majesty King Kamehameha III passed away and Alexander Liholiho ascended to the office of Constitutional Monarch, and was thereafter called King Kamehameha IV.

 

Whereas, a Joint Resolution was passed by the Legislature and signed into law in the year 1856, that called upon Prince Lot Kamehameha, Chief Justice William L. Lee, and Associate Justice George M. Robertson to form a committee to prepare a complete Civil Code, and to report the same for the sanction of the Legislature in 1858, and on May 2, 1859, the Civil Code was approved by both the House of Nobles and the House of Representatives, and signed into law by the King on May 17, 1859.

 

Whereas, on November 30, 1863, His Majesty King Kamehameha IV passed away unexpectedly, and consequently left the Kingdom without a publicly proclaimed successor, and on the very same day the Kuhina Nui (Premier) in Privy Council publicly proclaims Lot Kapuaiwa the successor to the Throne in accordance with Article 25 of the Constitution of 1852, and was thereafter called King Kamehameha V. 

 

Whereas, on July 7, 1864, a Convention was called by His Majesty King Kamehameha V to draft a new constitution, and between July 7 and August 8, 1864, each article in the proposed Constitution was read and discussed until they arrived at article 62, which defined the qualification for voters of the House of Representatives. 

 

Whereas, after days of debate over this article, the Convention arrived at an absolute deadlock, which resulted in  His Majesty King Kamehameha V's exercising of his sovereign prerogative, and dissolved the convention and proclaimed a new constitution on August 20, 1864. 

  

Whereas, in His Majesty King Kamehameha V's speech at the opening of the Legislative Assembly of 1864, he explained his abovementioned action of dissolving the Convention "and proclaiming a new constitution" by stating that the "...forty-fifth article (of the Constitution of 1852) reserved to the Sovereign the right to conduct personally, in cooperation with the Kuhina Nui (Premier), but without the intervention of a Ministry or the approval of the Legislature, such portions of the public business as he might choose to undertake..." 

 

Whereas, this public speech before the Legislative Assembly occurred without contest, and therefore must be construed as a positive statement of the approbation of the Kuhina Nui (Premier) as required by article 45 of the Constitution of 1852. 

 

Whereas, on December 11, 1872, His Majesty King Kamehameha V had passed away without naming a successor to the Throne. 

 

Whereas, article 22 of the Constitution of 1864 of the Hawaiian Kingdom provides that "..should the Throne become vacant, then the Cabinet Council, immediately after the occurring of such vacancy, shall cause a meeting of the Legislative Assembly, who shall elect by ballot some native Ali’i (Chief) of the Kingdom as Successor to the Throne..."

 

Whereas, on January 8, 1873, William Charles Lunalilo was elected as the successor to the Throne in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution of 1864, but one year later on the 3rd day of February, 1874, the King died without naming a successor and the Hawaiian Legislature once again met in special session to elect David Kalakaua to the office of Constitutional Monarch on February 12th, 1874. 

 

Whereas, on April 30, 1878, King David Kalakaua publicly proclaimed Lydia Kamaka’eha Dominis to be his successor to the Throne in accordance with article 22 of the Constitution of 1864, following the death of William P. Leleiohoku, heir-apparent, on April 10, 1877. 

 

Whereas, on October 16, 1886, the Hawaiian Legislature was adjourned by King David Kalakaua after it met in Legislative session for 129 days, and would reconvene in April of 1888 in accordance with article 46 of the Constitution of 1864. 

 

Whereas, in 1887 certain naturalized subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom and foreign nationals, which included citizens of the United States, met in a mass meeting to organize a takeover of the political power of the native population in the Kingdom, and thereafter a new cabinet council and a constitution was forced upon the King on July 7, 1887, without the consent or ratification of the Legislative Assembly.

 

Whereas, an election was made to organize a new Legislature under the constitution of 1887, but voters, which for the first time included foreign nationals, had to swear an oath to support the new constitution before they could vote.

 

Whereas, a new Legislature was elected while the former remained out of session, which was not properly constituted under the Constitution of 1864 nor the lawfully executed Session Laws of the Legislative Assembly of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

 

Whereas, in spite of the extortion of the Constitution of 1887, commonly known as the "bayonet constitution," the Constitution of 1864 and the Session laws of the Legislative Assembly enacted prior to July 7, 1887, still remain in full force and legal effect in the Hawaiian Kingdom as of today and have been in effect at all times, continuously since promulgation. 

 

Whereas, article 78 of the Constitution of 1864, provides that all "...laws now in force in this Kingdom, shall continue and remain in full effect, until altered or repealed by the Legislature;  such parts only excepted as are repugnant to this Constitution.  All laws heretofore enacted, or that may hereafter be enacted, which are contrary to this Constitution, shall be null and void." 

 

Whereas, on January 29, 1891, His Majesty King David Kalakaua passed away and his named successor, Lydia Kamaka’eha Dominis, ascended to the office of Constitutional Monarch and was thereafter called Queen Lili’uokalani.

 

Whereas, on May 28, 1892, Her Majesty Queen Lili’uokalani had named Princess Kawekiu Ka’iulani Lunalilo Kalaninuiahilapalapa as the successor to the Throne, but this proclamation cannot be construed to be binding and effective, because it remained subject to the consent of the House of Nobles, which had been out of session since October 16, 1886.

 

Whereas, article 22 of the Constitution of 1864 states in part, to wit; "...the successor (of the Throne) shall be the person whom the Sovereign shall appoint with the consent of the Nobles, and publicly proclaim as such during the King's life..." 

 

Whereas, in order to counter the effects wrought by the extortion of the constitution of 1887, Her Majesty Queen Lili’uokalani, drafted a new constitution that embodied the principles and wording of the Constitution of 1864, on January 14, 1893, and named the Royal Stirps in succession to the Throne, but this constitution and the named successors to the Throne was not law, and remained subject to be ratified by the Legislative Assembly, which has been out of session since October of 1886.

 

Whereas, in response to the drafting of the new constitution by Her Majesty Queen Lili’uokalani that would restore the political power of the native population, a "committee of safety" that represented the American and European sugar planters, descendants of missionaries, and financiers committed the crime of high treason as defined in chapter VI, §1, Hawaiian Penal Code, on January 17, 1893, by deposing Her Majesty Queen Lili’uokalani and her cabinet and proclaimed the establishment of a provisional government.    

 

Whereas, soon thereafter, when informed of the risk of bloodshed with resistance, Her Majesty Queen Lili’uokalani issued a statement "temporarily" yielding her executive authority as the constitutional Monarch to the United States Government, by its President, as a fact finder, rather than to the provisional government.  Thereafter all Government employees of the Hawaiian Kingdom were forced to sign oaths of allegiance to the provisional government.

 

Whereas, in violation of treaties entered between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States and basic principles of international law, the United States Minister assigned to the Sovereign Hawaiian Kingdom, being John L. Stevens, extended diplomatic recognition to the provisional government, that was formed without the consent of the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. 

 

Whereas, the report of a Presidentially established investigation conducted by former U.S. Congressman James Blount into the events surrounding the treasonous actions and overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, concluded that the United States diplomatic and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government. 

 

Whereas, in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on the illegal acts of the traitors, described such acts as an "act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress," and acknowledged that by such acts the Government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown.   

 

Whereas, President Cleveland further concluded that a "substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair" and called for the restoration of the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. 

 

Whereas, on November 11, 1917, Her Majesty Queen Lili’uokalani died, leaving the Throne vacant without naming a successor in accordance with Kingdom law, and the Royal Stirps having been declared under article 22 of the "draft constitution" of January 14, 1893, was not ratified by the Legislative Assembly in accordance with Kingdom law, and cannot be considered to be binding and effective.           

                       

Whereas, native Hawaiian subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom did not relinquish any of their vested inherent rights, which are secured to them by the Constitution and Laws of the Kingdom, and are capable of being exercised in compliance with Kingdom law. 

 

Whereas, on December 15, 1995, David Keanu Sai and Donald A. Lewis, both being native tenants of the Tenant class, decided to exercise their rights and powers as Hawaiian subjects, by forming a general partnership under the firm name of the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company, that was established under and by virtue of an "Act to Provide for the Registration of Co-partnership Firms," which provides that whenever "...any two or more persons shall carry on business in this Kingdom in co-partnership, it shall be incumbent for such persons to file in the office of the Minister of Interior..." 

 

Whereas, in the absence of the office of the Minister of Interior and in order to comply with this statute, the partners of the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company found it necessary and practical to register their deed of general partnership in the Bureau of Conveyances, being the only physical remnant of the Department of Interior of the Kingdom, today, which according to §1249, article LI, chapter XXVI, Civil Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Compiled laws of 1884, p. 405, "...there shall be a bureau in the department of the Interior to be called the Bureau of Conveyances."

 

Whereas, the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company, by virtue of its registered deed of general partnership in the Bureau of Conveyances, which said Bureau was established by §1249, can positively assert and claim to be part of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom. 

 

Whereas, article 1 of the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company's deed of general partnership provides that "the company will serve in the capacity of acting for and on behalf of the Hawaiian Kingdom government," and has "...adopted the Hawaiian Constitution of 1864 and the laws lawfully established in the administration of the same." 

 

Whereas, in the absence of the Government class and the Landlord (Chiefly) class, native Hawaiian subjects of the Tenant class, which included David Keanu Sai and Donald A. Lewis, would convey by Deeds of Trust all of their "vested" undivided right, title and interest in and to all the lands of the Hawaiian Islands to the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company, a general partnership, in Trust to carry out the duties as a company acting for and on behalf of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in such manner as Kingdom law prescribes for the best interest of all its beneficiaries to be hereafter consummated. 

 

Whereas, thereafter the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company acquired additional Deeds of Trust, namely document no.'s 96-004246, 96-006277, 96-014116, 96-96-026387, 96-026388, 96-028714, 96-024845, 96-032930, 96-044551, 96-044550, 96-047382, 96-047380, 96-047379, 96-047381, 96-056981, 96-052727, 96-060519, 96-032728, 96-057667, 96-057668, 96-060520, 96-061209, 96-061207, 96-056980, 96-052729, 96-063384, 96-063385, 96-063382, 96-057664, 96-019923, 96-046712, 96-063386, 96-063382, 96-063383, 96-066996, 96-061208 and 96-046711, all being registered at the Kingdom's Bureau of Conveyances. 

 

Whereas, the Deeds of Trust provided that the "...grantors, in consideration aforesaid and in order to more effectually carry out the intention of this deed doth hereby grant unto the said trustee, its successors and assigns full power to serve in the place of the absentee government, for the benefit of the same;  and in the name of the trust to institute and prosecute to final judgment and execution all suits and actions at law, in equity and in admiralty for any breach or violation of Hawaiian law, at the expense of the grantors;  and the same to defend if brought against the said grantors by any pretended proprietor or foreign government;  and to refer any matter in dispute to arbitration and the same to settle and compromise;  and to do all acts in the management of the affairs of said parties as if it were the absentee government in the capacity aforementioned."

 

Whereas, the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company, had a fiduciary duty toward its beneficiaries to serve in the capacity of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, until it is completely re-established in accordance with the terms of the 1864 Constitution and the laws lawfully executed previous to July 7, 1887.

 

Whereas, in order for the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom to be re-established an executive head of state must first be appointed in conformity with the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, to be the successor of Her late Majesty Queen Lili’uokalani. 

 

Whereas, in the absence of a named successor of her late Majesty Queen Lili’uokalani, article 33 of the Constitution of 1864 provides in part, to wit, that "...the Cabinet Council at the time of such decease (of the King) shall be a Council of Regency, until the Legislative Assembly, which shall be called immediately, may be assembled, and the Legislative Assembly immediately that it is assembled shall proceed to choose by ballot, a Regent or Council of Regency, who shall administer the Government in the name of the King, and exercise all the Powers which are Constitutionally vested in the King..."

 

Whereas, article 45 of the Constitution of 1864 provides that the "...Legislative power of the Three Estates of this Kingdom is vested in the King, and the Legislative Assembly;  which Assembly shall consist of the Nobles appointed by the King, and of the Representatives of the People, sitting together."

 

Whereas, pursuant to §771, article XXX, chapter XI, title 3, Civil Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Compiled Laws of 1884, p. 218, the "King (Monarch) appoints the members of the House of Nobles, who shall hold their seats during life." 

 

Whereas, between October of 1886, being the last legislative session to convene under Hawaiian Kingdom law, and December 15, 1995, the date of the establishment of the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company, all of the members of the House of Nobles, who held life terms, had died, namely:  J.S. Walker, J.E. Bush,  R.J. Creighton, J.O. Dominis, W.M. Gibson,  P. Isenburg,  J. Ka’ae,  J.M. Kapena, H. Kuihelani, J.H.S. Martin, P. Neumann, S. Parker, H.A. Widemann, C.R. Bishop, A.S. Cleghorn,  J.T. Dare, J.I. Dowsett, C.T. Gulick, C.H. Judd, P.P. Kanoa, J.L. Kaulukou, G.W. Macfarlane,  J. Mott-Smith,  J.P. Parker, G. Rhodes,  and S.G. Wilder .

 

Whereas, since the death of Her late Majesty Queen Lili’uokalani on November 11, 1917, there has been no Monarch to appoint individuals to the House of Nobles in accordance with the laws of the Kingdom, and consequently, there are no Noblemen to confirm a proclaimed successor to the Throne or in the absence of the same, to select a native Ali’i (Chief) to be Constitutional Monarch. 

 

Whereas, as a result of these unforeseen events, with a due regard to the United States' involvement in the "illegal overthrow" of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which affected the Legislative representation of the vested rights of the Government class (i.e. Monarch) and the Chiefly class (i.e. House of Nobles), the remaining class, being the Tenants, is the only class capable of reconvening the Hawaiian Legislature as the House of Representatives, to elect by ballot a Regent or Council of Regency. 

 

Whereas, in the absence of a Monarch to appoint a Regent or Council of Regency in accordance with article 33 of the Constitution of 1864, the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company, by its Trustees, resolved with exigence to assume the role and serve in the capacity of the Cabinet Council within the meaning of article 33 of the Constitution of 1864, by virtue of its becoming part of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, until the Legislative Assembly can be assembled.

 

Whereas, in these extraordinary circumstances, a Regent, pro tempore, should be appointed by the Trustees of the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company, serving in the absence of the Cabinet Council, to direct the Executive branch of Government of the Kingdom in the formation and execution of the election of the House of Representatives in accordance with article XXXI, chapter XI, title 3 of the Civil Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom, before a full time Regent or Council of Regency can be confirmed or amended by law.

 

Whereas, in order to receive an appointment to the public office of Regent of the Hawaiian Kingdom, pro tempore, by the said Trustees of the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company, in accordance with Article 33 of the Constitution of 1864, David Keanu Sai, on February 20, 1996, did convey by deed all of his fifty percent (50%) undivided right, title and interest as a general partner and trustee in and to the business of the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company, to Donald A. Lewis, the other general partner and trustee of the said trust company. 

 

Whereas, thereafter, in a simultaneous transaction, Donald A. Lewis, did convey by deed a one percent (1%) undivided right, title and interest in and to the business of the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company to Nai’a-Ulumaimalu, as a general partner and trustee of the said trust company, to maintain a co-partnership within the meaning of an "Act to Provide for the Registration of Co-partnership Firms." 

 

Whereas, on March 1, 1996, the Trustees of the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company having the fiduciary duty of serving in the absence of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, namely the Cabinet Council, had appointed David Keanu Sai to the public office of Regent, pro tempore, entrusted with the administration of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom during the absence of a Monarch, and shall hold office until such time as the Legislative Assembly (i.e. House of Representatives) shall hereafter convene to confirm or amend this appointment in accordance with article 33 of the Constitution of 1864.

 

Whereas, on June 30, 1996, the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company was dissolved in accordance with the provisions of its deed of general partnership, which provides that the company would "...remain in existence until the absentee government is re-established upon which all records and monies of the same will be transferred and conveyed over to the office of the Minister of Interior, to have and to hold under the authority and jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom." 

 

Whereas, by virtue of the appointment of the Regent, pro tempore, on March 1, 1996, as chief executive of the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and the Regent's authority to appoint the Minister of Interior under §30, chapter VI, title II, Civil Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Compiled Laws of 1884, p. 8, the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company, by its Trustees, did remise, release and forever quitclaim unto David Keanu Sai as appointed Regent of the Hawaiian Kingdom, pro tempore, all of its right, title and interest acquired by certain "deeds of trust" under the exclusive authority and jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom. 

 

Whereas, on February 28, 1997, a Proclamation of the Regent of the Hawaiian Kingdom, pro tempore, was printed in the March 9, 1997, issue of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser, proclaiming in part, to wit, that the "...Hawaiian Monarchical system of Government is hereby re-established," and the "...Civil Code of the Hawaiian Islands as noted in the Compiled Laws of 1884, together with the session laws of 1884 and 1886 and the Hawaiian Penal Code are in full force."

 

Whereas, article 46 of the Constitution of 1864 provides that the "...Legislative Body shall assemble biennially, in the month of April, and at such other time as the King (Regent, pro tempore) may judge necessary, for the purpose of seeking the welfare of the nation."

 

Whereas, §781, article XXXII, chapter XI, title 3 of the Civil Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Compiled Laws of 1884, p. 221, provides that the "...election of Representatives of the people to sit in the Legislature shall be held in all the districts throughout the Kingdom on the first Wednesday of February, every second year, at such places as shall from time to time be designated by the Minister of Interior, who shall give public notice of the same thirty days previous to the time of election."

 

Whereas, §784, article XXXII, chapter XI, title 3 of the Civil Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Compiled Laws of 1884, p. 227, provides that no "...alien shall be allowed to vote for representatives of the people," and presently there is confusion in the population of the Kingdom as to who are Hawaiian subjects and who are aliens.

 

Whereas, in order to alleviate the confusion of nationalities within the Realm and to execute the formation and reconvening of the House of Representatives in compliance with Kingdom law, a voter registration must first be initiated in conformity with "An Act to repeal an Act regarding the qualification of Electors," approved December 31st, A.D. 1864, and to Regulate the Qualifications of Electors for Representatives to the Legislative Assembly of the Kingdom, as noted in §1 thru §18 of the Civil Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Compiled Laws of 1884, p. 221, so that the distinction between Hawaiian subjects and aliens may be known.

 

Now, Therefore, I, David Keanu Sai, appointed Regent of the Hawaiian Kingdom, pro tempore, by virtue of the authority in me vested, and in accordance with article 28 of the Constitution of 1864, hereby proclaim that before the elections shall take place to reconvene the House of Representatives, a registration of voters within the Realm must first take place beginning on the 14th day of February, A.D. 1998, and extending to a time to be hereafter determined, so that subjects of the Kingdom may be apprised of their constitutional rights and voter qualifications;   and that all back taxes to be paid by qualified voters, in accordance with law, shall be computed at a rate of one dollar ($1.00) for each and every year  the qualified voter and his predecessors have been absent from the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom since the 17th day of January, A.D. 1893, to the date of the qualified voter's registration.

 

In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Hawaiian Kingdom to be affixed.

 

Done at the city of Honolulu, this 13th day of February, in the year one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight.

 

 

                                                [signed]           David Keanu Sai

                                                                        Appointed Regent, pro tempore

 

 

 

 

 

By the Regent, pro tempore:

 

[signed]

Colin K. Malani

Marshal of the Hawaiian Islands for the Attorney General