St. Thomas Law Review by Professor Boyle and Whistleblower's Leuren Moret, Aaron Ardaiz (dec.), and Amelia Gora's Comments on Professor Boyle
Reposted by Amelia Gora (2016)
and Comments by Amelia Gora
(2018)
RESTORATION OF THE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF HAWAI`I UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Professor Francis Anthony Boyle
Mable Smyth Hall, Honolulu, O'ahu, Hawai`iDecember 28, 1993
[An edited and updated version of this testimony was published in
St. Thomas Law Review, Volume 7, Summer 1995]
I'm very happy to be here this evening with you, and I'm
very honored that the Sovereignty Commission would invite me
to come and speak this evening. I also want to express my
gratitude to Bumpy Kanahele and the members of the Ohana
Council who have been serving as my sponsors here, for the
week that I'm here.
Now as I understand it the Sovereignty Commission is looking
into models, examples, of where the native people of Hawai'i
can go in light of the state legislation that has been
adopted and also now in light of the recent federal statute
that has just been signed into law by President Clinton.
And I've been asked to come here tonight to discuss one
particular model, for the future, for Native Hawaiian people
to consider. Understand I was not invited here to go
through all the possibilities that you might have. I'm
happy to comment on some of them if you have questions and
give you my opinion about them. And understand its not for
me to tell Native Hawaiian people what to do. You have to
decide for yourselves. But, one thing I can do is to
describe a particular vision of the future; how you might go
about achieving it; what would be the consequences; what
would be the basis of authority for doing it; particularly
in light of public law 103-150 signed by President Clinton.
When I read the public law for the first time, the first
thought that occurred to me is that now the United States
government, after one hundred years, has finally and
officially conceded, as a matter of United States law, that
Native Hawaiian people have the right to restore the
independent nation state that you had in 1893 when the
United States government came and destroyed it. And also
then that as a matter of international law the Native
Hawaiian people have the right to go out now and certainly
proclaim the restoration of that state. I'm not talking
about the State of Hawai'i as part of the United States of
America. Rather I am talking about an independent state
under international law, and ultimately someday a member of
the United Nations organization and other international
organizations.
Now here there is a recent example that had been pursued by
the Palestinian people who in 1988 decided of their own
accord to proclaim their own state, and this was a decision
taken by the Palestinian people as a whole. It was subject
to a majority vote because there was not unanimous consent,
but even those who opposed agreed to be bound by a majority
vote. In 1988 they unilaterally proclaimed their own state,
in a declaration of independence. This unilateral
declaration of independence eventually led to the
Palestinian state being recognized today by one hundred
twenty-five (125) nation states in the world. Now, you
don't read about that much here in the United States,
because the United States government is one of the few
governments in the world to oppose the Palestinian state.
But almost all of Latin America, Africa, and Asia recognize
the existence of the state of Palestine. Again, these are
indigenous people, like Native Hawaiians, striving for their
right of self-determination. And indeed the Palestinians
have the requisite votes to be admitted to the United
Nations organization as a sovereign independent nation
state, and yet it is the threat of a United States veto that
had prevented the admission of the state into the United
Nations organization. But even then this has not prevented
the vast majority of the states in the world from
recognizing the existence of their state. And even most of
Europe would accord them formal de jure diplomatic
recognition if not for pressure brought to bear by the
United States government, and so many of the European
states, which are the last holdouts, are today according
them de facto recognition as an independent state - that is
they are treating them as if they are an independent state
without formally coming out and announcing it.
So this is one model to consider that I'll discuss. Not
that the plight of the Palestinians are on all fours with
Native Hawaiians, but there too you have a situation of
massive violations of fundamental human rights and people
living under a regime of military occupation. In their case
for the last forty-five years, in your case for the last 100
years. So I'll be discussing some of the parallels with
that process, and what could be the Native Hawaiian process
in the event that you were to decide to move in that
direction.
And understand I'm not here to survey all of the
possibilities you might have. I'm prepared to comment on
them. There are other things you could consider - autonomy;
returning to Article 73 status at the United Nations;
semi-sovereignty. There are various different types of
status. But again from my perspective, this is the route
that other people in your situation have chosen to go, and
there is ample authority and precedent under international
law for the Native Hawaiians to decide to move in that
direction.
Now let me start by saying that, how can this be done, why
can you do it? That is, what I am suggesting is that you
not ask the permission of the United States Congress to
declare independence, but rather you exercise your right of
self-determination, that has been afforded to you, the
Hawaiian people, by the United Nations Charter, Article 1,
paragraph 2:
"The purposes of the United Nations are to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."
Now, if you were to do this, or consider doing this, there
are four characteristics, requirements, for the creation of
an independent state. I submit - as I'll point out as I go
through the analysis - that the Native Hawaiian people,
Kanaka Maoli, have all the requirements you need to go ahead
and do this if this is your choice, this is your decision.
First, we need a fixed territory, and clearly we have the
Hawaiian Archipelago. Second, a population, a
distinguishable population of people, the Native Hawaiians,
those who would trace their ancestry back before the
appearance of Europeans on these lands. Third, a
government, and here you have your communal structures, the
Kupunas - Kekune Blaisdell, my friend - and the Kupuna
Council, that you've traditionally had. You don't need a
government along the lines of the federal government of the
United States or the State of Hawai'i to have a government.
Rather what you need is a way to organize your people to
govern your relations among each other, and clearly you have
that. And fourth, the capacity to enter into international
relations, to deal with other states, and to keep your
commitments. As I understand it, there are already states
in the Western Pacific region that support the Native
Hawaiian people and probably would be prepared to give you
diplomatic recognition as an independent state if this is
your desire. And I also suspect, like the Palestinians,
there would be a large number of states - certainly in the
third world, that have come out of a colonial situation, in
Latin America, Africa, and Asia - that would also be
prepared to recognize you as an independent state, and enter
into diplomatic relations with you. Whether you would
someday be allowed into the United Nations of course would
depend on the U.S. veto, but even there, the U.S. veto does
not go on forever. Eventually they lifted the veto on the
admission of Vietnam to the United Nations, despite the
enormous hostility towards the people of Vietnam, and
Vietnam became a member nation of the United Nations
organization.
So that being said as preliminary, introductory remarks, I'd
like to go through the public law on a line by line basis
and give you my analysis of it. And indeed I would
encourage all of you, as Native Hawaiians, to study this.
It makes it very clear what happened to you. And this is
now officially recognized as a matter of United States
domestic law. You should be able to take this law any time
you're in court and haul it out and show it to the judge and
the jury, and say, "This is the law; this is what has
happened to me and my people, and I am basing my conduct,
whatever I am doing, on the basis of this law. It cannot be
denied any more." As a litigator before the International
Court of Justice, I would be able to take this law to the
World Court and say, "The United States government has now
officially conceded that it illegally invaded and occupied
the Kingdom of Hawai'i, and for this reason the native
people of Hawai'i would be entitled to a restoration of
their independent status as a sovereign nation state, to go
back to what they were before the U.S. invasion, to undo the
damage that had been done."
Now this is styled as an apology, and one might say: Yes,
an apology is certainly here and it's long overdue. But
it's also not enough. When a government commits a severe
violation of international law, as happened here, they just
don't apologize and walk away. Damages are required,
reparations, and - in extraordinary circumstances -
restitution, that is to return the situation to what it was
before the violation. Especially when you have a treaty
violation and in the case of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, there
were three treaties on point, in law, with the United States
government that were violated by means of the invasion.
This violated international law at the time, the basic
principle - pacta sunt servanda - treaties must be obeyed.
It even violated the terms of the United States Constitution
at that time. Treaties were the "supreme law of the land,"
and the invasion and annexation of Hawai'i in violation of
those treaties not only violated international law, but the
United States Constitution itself.
So an apology is certainly a start, but we really now have
to deal with the consequences. What are the implications of
this apology, of this law? And that is the topic of what
I'm speaking here tonight, what might be some of the
implications of this law. And indeed, the implications, I
submit, are what you, the Hawaiian people, are going to make
of this. It is for you to decide the implications, not the
Congress, not the State of Hawai'i government, but the
Hawaiian people, pursuant to your right of
self-determination. What will be the implications of this,
as you see it? What do you want?
It's clear then, they admitted in the law that they
overthrew the Kingdom of Hawai'i. A clearly illegal act,
under the standards of international law in existence at
that time, no question or doubt about it.
In a meeting this morning, this afternoon, I was speaking
with Judge Nakea on behalf of the Graces, and he said:
Well, yes, but in the United States law, the United States
government has always been able to extinguish the right of
native peoples, and the Supreme Court has seen nothing wrong
with that. I said: Well, that might be the case with
respect to Native Americans living in the United States, but
here in Hawai'i you're in a very different situation. You
had these three treaties, one of which was a treaty of
friendship, and commerce and navigation, that established
good relations between two sovereign states, and they
violated that, too. And this issue, a treaty of this
nature, came up most recently in the World Court in the
Nicaragua case, when the World Court condemned the United
States government for violating a treaty of friendship,
commerce, and navigation, for mining the harbors in
Nicaragua. And certainly the World Court can do the same
thing for overthrowing a monarch, and overthrowing and
destroying an entire sovereign nation state. And here then
you have the Congress of the United States of America
admitting that in one of its own laws. And that's very
clear, this admission, what we lawyers call an "admission
against interest." They have admitted what they did, and
they have then opened this Pandora's Box. How should this
be remedied? And again the one point to keep in mind here
is that it is now for the Hawaiian people to decide the
appropriate remedy, not the Congress. They're the
criminals. They've admitted what they've done now, for the
last one hundred years - and that the American presence,
then, in Hawai'i, for the last hundred years, has been
nothing more than an illegal, colonial, military occupation
regime.
The next sentence goes on - and here remember it's important
when reading through this act, the so-called whereas
clauses: these are official findings of fact and law, by
the Congress of the United States. These findings bind all
state and federal courts here in Hawai'i. And again I was
pointing this out this afternoon to Judge Nakea with respect
to the case of Mike and Sandra Grace, that the court and
judges are bound by these findings of fact. They can no
longer be contested or denied. They're stuck with them.
"Whereas, prior to the arrival of the first Europeans in 1778, the Native Hawaiian people lived in a highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistent social system, based on communal land tenure, with a sophisticated language, culture, and religion."
That concedes that Native Hawaiians at that time and as of
today still have the one requirement for an international
state, which I mentioned, a government. You had a means to
govern yourselves as a people. Congress has effectively
conceded it right there. It still is in existence today.
And this is a type, a system of government that is
historically separate and apart from the State of Hawai'i or
the United States federal government. It is still there, it
still works today. I've seen it since I arrived here on
Sunday with my visits with Bumpy and the Ohana Council - the
people of Hawai'i providing shelter, food, housing,
education, dispute settlement procedures and mechanisms.
The types of things that you did a hundred years ago, before
the U.S. invasion, to some extent you're still doing today,
and it would simply be a question of expanding those types
of functions that you provide to your own people.
In the case of Palestine, this is building the state from
the ground up, where the Palestinian people rejected
participation, acquiescence, collaboration, with Israeli
military occupation forces, and proceeded to provide social
services to their own people: health, education, judges,
dispute settlement, whatever. That is building the state
from the ground up. That's how you build a state. No one
is going to give it to you. I doubt very seriously that the
U.S. Congress tomorrow is just going to pass a statute and
give you a state and say, "Here." Rather you go out and
say: We're creating our state. There it is, and we ask you
to recognize the state, and then the consequences from
there.
The next sentence:
"Whereas, a unified monarchical government of the Hawaiian Islands was established in 1810 under Kamehameha I, the first King of Hawai'i."
Again, Congress admitted, you had a government. You had a
state. It was there. It was viable and functioning. It
was internationally active. This was not a situation that
the U.S. government maintains with respect to Native
Americans. Now here they're wrong, too. They maintain that
Native Americans did not have a states type structure that
they had to recognize, because it was somewhat different
from the structures of government that Europeans brought to
the North American continent. We know they're wrong. The
Native Americans did have a governing structure. It's just
the Europeans didn't want to recognize it, and wanted to
steal the land.
But putting that aside, you're in a very different situation
here from Native Americans. Now Congress has conceded what
they will not concede for the Native Americans - that you
had a state, that it was a state just like any other state
in existence at that time - just like the United States of
America - and was entitled to as much respect and dignity.
And Congress has now conceded this point. That's why when I
read in the newspaper on Monday about this visit by the
Secretary of the Interior Babbitt, and his question, "Should
Native Hawaiians become treated by the federal government
like the Native Americans?" And my response to reading that
is, "Why would you want to do that?" Those of you who had a
chance to view the tape of the San Francisco Tribunal - and
I encourage those who haven't seen it to watch it, Kekuni
has it, Kekuni participated - you'll see that Native
Americans are up against genocide and extermination. That's
the policy of the federal government, with respect to Native
Americans. So I don't understand why Native Hawaiians would
want to buy into a system and be treated in the system in a
way that ultimately would lead to your extermination. And
that's certainly the way large numbers of Native Americans
see it. That was the purpose of the San Francisco Tribunal,
and then I'd encourage you, if you haven't seen that tape,
have a look at that tape. So whatever you do, I would
certainly caution you against trying to seek the same type
of treatment that the federal government has doled out to
the Native Americans, because we know where that will lead.
Moreover, on the basis of this statute, you're entitled to a
lot more than what they give the Native Americans. And
that's not to say that, in my opinion, the Native Americans
aren't also entitled to establishing themselves as
independent nations, if that is their desire. But the
difference here is that your right to do this, the predicate
to do this, has now been recognized by the United States
Congress itself. Whereas the Congress has never recognized
this for Native Americans, and I doubt the U.S. Congress
ever will, because if they did that, they would eliminate
the whole basis of pseudo-legitimacy upon which the United
States Congress rests, land, title, and everything else.
And I doubt very seriously that they'll want to do that.
The next paragraph:
"From 1826 to 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, entered into treaties and conventions to govern commerce and navigation"
- and friendship. Now they didn't put the word "friendship"
in there, they wanted to delete it, but the treaty was
friendship, commerce, and navigation. So here they're
admitting that the invasion, overthrow, occupation,
annexation, starting in 1893, on up, violated all these
treaties, violated basic norms of international law, even in
existence at that time, and that was a pretty bad time, one
must admit. You had states going to war, people killing
each other, the strong doing what they will, the weak
suffering what they must, pretty much like today in the New
World Order. But again, here, the United States Congress
taking the position: Yes, this behavior was illegal under
international law even in accordance with the minimal
standards at that time. And again this distinguishes the
case of the Native Hawaiians from the Native Americans,
where they have yet to admit that there was anything wrong
under international law with the way they treated the Native
Americans, and if you read all the supreme court cases, they
say: Well, this is just the right of conquest, and those
were the rules in existence at that time. But what they're
saying here is: No, this was not just a question of right
of conquest, but treaty violations. They were violated.
It violated international law. It even violated the terms
of the United States Constitution at the time where treaties
were the "supreme law of the land." So again, legally
you're in a much different, much better situation than
Native Americans.
The section on the Congregational Church - well, as I
understand it, there is an attempt being made to have
reconciliation. I'll skip over that one.
"On January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens, the U.S. Minister, conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful government ."
So again, they concede that the government of the Kingdom of
Hawai'i was the lawful government at that time, and that an
official agent of the United States government conspired to
overthrow the government of Hawai'i. So the United States
government is bound by the actions of its agent, of its
Minister. And so they can't say, "He did it, and later on
we condemned what he did." You know the President did shed
a crocodile tear or two over what he did, did he not, right?
There was a statement, whatever. That's not enough. Of
course it isn't. If the Minister did it, it's just the same
as the President doing it. There's no difference. The
President is bound by the actions of his Minister. And the
United States government was bound by the actions of the
Minister. So it was the United States government that
conspired to overthrow the lawful government of the Kingdom
of Hawai'i. Again, an internationally illegal act at the
time it was done.
The next paragraph continues,
"Pursuant to the conspiracy naval representatives called armed forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation on January 16, 1893, and to position themselves near the Hawaiian government buildings and the ['Iolani] Palace to intimidate the Queen [Liliuokalani] and her government."
Notice the use of the word "invade." Today we like to use
euphemisms such as "incursion," right? That's another word
for invasion. But here they call an invasion an invasion,
right? That's what it was, a clearly illegal act, an
invasion in violation of treaties and international
agreement, an invasion in violation of international law,
and the United States Constitution, the overthrow of a
lawful government. And again, under international law when
you have a violation of treaties of this magnitude, the
World Court has ruled that the only appropriate remedy is
restitution. Damages are not enough, reparations are not
enough - that is the payment of money - or giving you an
island over here and saying, "Here, you can have that
island." No, restitution, to restore what you once had,
that is the Kingdom of Hawai'i, your independent nation
state, this is the appropriate remedy, if that is what you
want, for what was done.
Now it goes on from here, reciting the sorry history of what
happened, the establishment of the provisional government.
Well, that's not entitled to any legitimacy at all. It was
imposed by raw, naked, brutal military force, at the point
of a bayonet, gunboat diplomacy, by the United States
Government just as was practiced in many other countries,
only here now Congress is finally admitting this.
And again, pointing out in the next paragraph, that the
establishment of this provisional government was without the
consent of the Native Hawaiian people or the lawful
government of Hawai'i and violated all of the international
treaties and agreements. So under international law, you
would not call this a provisional government - I certainly
wouldn't call it that - you would call it a government of
military occupation. And certainly I would suggest that
would be an appropriate way to think about it. That is, you
had military forces here and then you had a civilian arm of
the military occupying regime.
You see the same thing today in the occupied Palestinian
lands, where you have the Israeli occupying forces here and
they have then set up a civilian arm of their military
occupational authorities to administer the civil affairs of
the Palestinian people. These matters by the way are
currently the subject of the negotiations between the PLO
and Israel today, about the withdrawal of (1) the civilian
military occupation arm, and then (2) the military
occupation forces themselves. And indeed the September 13
agreement signed by Arafat and Rabin calls for the
dissolution of the civilian occupation arm and then the
withdrawal of the military occupation forces themselves.
So I submit that this "provisional government" is really the
civilian arm of a military occupation force, and that then
is the predecessor to the current government of Hawai'i that
administers you today. Again, following the implications of
the public law, that the state government of Hawai'i
occupies a similar position. And then of course you have
federal occupying military forces here keeping it in power.
Again, somewhat similar to the arrangement you have in
Palestinian lands.
We then come to the very famous statement by your Queen.
"That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America,"
and you are aware of the rest of the language. Well, she
made it very clear here that this statement and her later
abdication was procured under duress and force. In other
words, it could not be treated by anyone as a valid
surrender of sovereignty by the Native Hawaiian people at
all. And she made that very clear in this language. So in
other words she was simply bowing to superior power, but not
as a matter of right or of law. And I've done a similar
thing myself in the Bosnia case in the world court, where I
pointed out in a file communicating with the World Court,
that the so-called Owen-Stoltenberg plan to partition the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was concluded, or
arguably still might be concluded, by means of threats and
duress, compulsion and coercion, and therefore was invalid,
would be invalid, under international law, and the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties. This type of behavior
still goes on today. But your Queen, a very powerful
person, made that clear, that she was simply yielding to
superior force, and thus preserving the rights of her people
for the future, their right of self-determination, their
right to restoration of their sovereignty.
The law goes on, where Congress admits:
"Without the active support and intervention by the United States the insurrection would have failed for lack of popular support and insufficient arms."
And I was reading this little letter by the fellow who
traces his ancestry back to one of the missionaries who
pulled this thing off [Thurston Twigg-Smith] saying: Well,
in saying you know, we should stop all this debate, these
are real genuine patriots, et cetera, et cetera, and of
course they were entitled to do what they did. Well,
apparently he didn't bother to read the law. Okay, he can
say whatever he wants, but Congress has now made it very
clear what happened. And he can argue till the cows come
home but this is now the law. He'd better read it. And in
fact Congress has condemned what his ancestors had done.
And now the simple question is: Where do the Native
Hawaiian people want to go from here?
Well, again:
"The U.S. Minister raised the flag and declared Hawai'i to be a protectorate of the United States."
Well, of course that's nonsense. They didn't protect
anything, did they? There was no need to protect Hawai'i,
what, from itself, from its own people? Who was threatening
Hawai'i at that time? It was the United States. They
needed protection from the United States, so this is absurd.
It's entitled to no legal validity at all at the time, or
even now, and that's basically what Congress is saying.
Again, the Blount Report:
"Military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government."
Again, they admit that, that they acted illegally under
international law. But an admission is not enough. The
implication, then, of these admissions, by Congress, by the
Blount Committee, is that there must be restitution. The
Hawaiian people have a right to be returned to the situation
they were in, as of January 17, 1893. This is their right
if that's what they want. They disciplined the Minister and
forced him to resign his commission. Well, they should have
done that, of course they should have, but that should not
have been the end of the process. The overthrow should have
been reversed. They had the authority to do it, the
President could have done it if he had wanted to, he just
didn't do it. So this is simply eye washing. It's nice
that they finally conceded these points, but it's not enough
under international law.
Now I don't know how the Native Hawaiians feel about it. I
suspect maybe they'd agree with me that it's certainly not
enough. Where it should lead from here you know is another
issue. Again I'm trying to point out line by line that this
resolution clears up all these matters, all debate, all
argument, and it makes it very clear you have a right of
restoration, of restitution, to proclaim your state. And
you don't need the permission of Congress to do this.
Congress might not like it, but they're kind of stuck with
their own law, are they not?
The message to Congress by President Cleveland. Well again,
he admitted all this:
"An act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress."
Clearly admitting that this was illegal behavior of the most
heinous type. "A substantial wrong was done," calling for
the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy. Now of course
that wasn't done, but that doesn't change the legal
situation. Today, a hundred years later, you have a right
to restore it yourselves, if that's what you want to do.
You don't need to petition Congress to do it. Congress has
given you everything you need right here to do it, if that's
what you want to do. And the United Nations Charter
provides the rest of the authority to do it.
Now, again I won't go through all of the paragraphs here
because I take it all of you have read it. The Newlands
Joint Resolution provided for the annexation of Hawai'i.
Where's the authority for this? None. They stole the land,
invaded the country, displaced the government, and now they
annex it. This issue was addressed by the Nuremberg
Tribunal in 1945, where the Nazi government tried to
maintain that some of the annexations of foreign territory
that it had undertaken before and during the Second World
War were entitled to legal recognition. The Nuremberg
Tribunal itself in 1945 said, "No, annexations are invalid,
prior to the conclusion of a peace treaty." The United
States government and the President conceded they've engaged
in acts of war, they're occupying, they put themselves at
war with your people. Now they've annexed it, but the
annexation has no validity under international law. If as
part of the peace treaty between Hawai'i and the United
States you want to concede them some land that's up to you,
that's your choice. Or if you want to give them operating
facilities for a base upon the payment of funds and rent or
something, that's for you to decide, but now they have
effectively in this law invalidated the entire annexation.
The whole legal basis for it has now been invalidated.
And I was pointing this out to Judge Nakea this afternoon.
If the annexation of the land is invalid, then where does
the title come from, who has title to the land? It's the
Native Hawaiian people who retain title to the lands of
Hawai'i, as a matter of international law. Not the federal
government, not the state government, but the people
themselves. That's the implication here, certainly as I
read this section, as an international lawyer. And again
these finding of fact and conclusions of law are now
officially set forth by Congress, so it's only one step, as
I'm trying to point out here. What are the implications
then of these findings of fact and conclusions of law?
Certainly as I see it, I'm trying to spell out line by line
what the implications are.
So again,
"The Newlands Resolution, the Republic of Hawai'i ceded sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States."
But again the Republic of Hawai'i never had sovereignty over
the Hawaiian Islands. We've already determined that the so-called Republic of Hawai'i was the civilian occupying arm of
a military occupation authority. It had no sovereignty.
Military occupation forces, even though they are there and
are present, do not exercise sovereignty over the
territories they occupy. Sovereignty remains in the hands
of the displaced sovereign. This is black letter
international law. This is the issue at stake in the Middle
East peace negotiations between the Israelis and
Palestinians. The Israelis do not have sovereignty over the
West Bank, the Gaza strip, and East Jerusalem. They're a
military occupation authority. They exercise administrative
powers, but they do not have sovereignty. They never had.
The sovereignty remains in the hands of the Palestinian
people, and they have proclaimed a state. Again I submit
there is a parallel here for Native Hawaiian people.
Sovereignty resides in your hands. And this so-called
Republic never had sovereignty to cede to the United States,
and that's pretty clear just reading through the resolution
and moving one step forward from the analysis set forth
here.
"The Republic of Hawai'i also ceded 1,800,000 acres of crown, government, and public lands of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, without the consent or compensation of the Native Hawaiian people, or their sovereign government."
Once again, they had no authority to do this, for the
reasons I've already spelled out here. The government of
the Republic of Hawai'i was a military occupation authority,
the civilian arm, without any sovereign claims to the land
under the laws of military occupation, the laws of war.
There was nothing to cede, they had no power to cede
anything. And the title then, to the land, rested and still
rests, under international law, with the Native Hawaiian
people.
Again I was trying to point this out this afternoon to Judge
Nakea. How can it be said that the Graces trespassed on
their own land? You can't trespass on your own land. And
the trespassers then become the State of Hawai'i, and the
land developers, and the golf courses, and the resorts. So
what this statute does is point out that the whole situation
is completely turned around on its head. It now changes the
whole way certainly that these authorities should be looking
at the matter. They're the trespassers and the criminals.
You are simply the Native Hawaiians asserting your rights
under international law. And now this arrangement, as it
were, this reversal of positions, between who is the
criminal and who is the victim, who is asserting their
rights and who is violating their rights, has been
effectively conceded by Congress.
And in this regard I'd encourage all Native Hawaiians to
know what are your rights. Get a copy, a little hand copy
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and carry it
around with you. Your rights are in here. With respect to
what Bumpy Kanahele and his people are doing out on the
beaches, in the settlements, Article 25,
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and their family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services."
They have a right to have housing, that's clear. The State
of Hawai'i has no right to throw you out of your own homes,
even if those homes are nothing more than tents on a beach,
they're still your homes. Where is their right now, if they
ever had any, after the passage of this act? I don't see
it. It's not longer there. The same way with respect with
the attempt to destroy your temples. Places of worship,
Article 18 of the Declaration,
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes freedom to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."
So where is the right of the State of Hawai'i, or a real
estate developer, or a resort developer, to destroy any of
your temples, when these are your temples, this is your
land, your right to worship is guaranteed in the Universal
Declaration. I don't see that right any more, and indeed it
will be very hard for them to argue that right now that this
law has been passed. I won't go through the applicability
of all the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the
activities of Native Hawaiians here in relations of state
and federal governments. Again I'd encourage you to get
this from Amnesty International. They have them available.
Read through it, and understand what your rights are, and
proceed to assert them in your dealings with the state and
federal government.
"Whereas, the Congress annexed Hawai'i and vested title to lands in Hawai'i in the United States."
Clearly illegal. We've already seen it. The annexation was
invalid. You can't get title from the Republic of Hawai'i
because they never had title in the first place. They had
no sovereignty. They were nothing more than a military
occupation power, and a military occupation power cannot
validly transfer title to land. Again, black letter
international law. That is why today the United States
government condemns the settlements in occupied Palestinian
land. Settlements are illegal. You can't transfer title,
the occupying power can't sell land legally. I mean they
can do it, but that doesn't make it lawful. It's invalid.
It is illegal. So an occupying power can't sell land, they
don't control title or sovereignty. They can administer,
but that's all, arguably, they can do. In theory, they're
obliged to leave, not to stay.
"Whereas, the Newlands Resolution effected the transaction between the Republic of Hawai'i and the United States government."
Again, it's entitled to no validity at all, since it's based
on an illegal invasion, violation of treaties, violation of
principle of pacta sunt servanda. We could be here all
night discussing violations of law that accrued as a result
of this.
And again they admit,
"The indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to inherent sovereignty through a plebiscite or a referendum."
This gets back to the question of what happened, back in,
what '59, right? What validity was that entitled to? Well
now Congress is saying: None. And I would say even before
this, none, because you didn't have a plebiscite conducted
by the United Nations organization itself, which would have
been a requirement if Article 73 of the UN Charter had been
carried out. The U.S. didn't do that. So Congress is
effectively conceding now that the so called vote is
meaningless, as a matter of international law and United
States domestic law. So you're not bound by it. Rather I'm
suggesting you're now free to determine your own fate
pursuant to the principle of self-determination in Article
1, paragraph 2 of the United Nations Charter.
Let me skip down. Again, I don't want to go through all
this, take up all your time.
"Whereas, the long-range economic and social changes in Hawai'i over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have been devastating to the population and to the health and well-being of the Hawaiian people."
Well that's an understatement. The Hawaiian people have
been subjected to the international crime of genocide, as
determined and defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention,
and the 1987 Genocide Convention Implementation Act, the
Proxmire Resolution. That is clear. That was one of the
findings of the San Francisco Tribunal. That was one of the
key findings of the tribunal held here this summer
concerning Hawai'i [Ka Ho'okolokolonui Kanaka Maoli]. And I
submit, having argued genocide myself to the International
Court of Justice, and having convinced them that genocide is
going on in Bosnia-Herzegovina, I personally would have no
difficulty at all in convincing the World Court that
genocide has been practiced by the United States government
against native Hawaiians. Now, that's bad enough, but where
does that lead you? I submit where it leads you is back to
the creation of a State. One of the few and only
protections a people have from being exterminated by means
of genocide, is their own state and ultimately United
Nations membership.
This is what happened to the Jews - right? - from 1939 to
1945. They did not have a state. They did not have
membership in the League of Nations. So everyone looked the
other way and they were exterminated and wiped out. Today
the situation is being replayed in respect to the Bosnians.
The Bosnians do have a state and they do have U.N.
membership and it is the one thing they have that is keeping
them from going the same way as the Jews. And the
Palestinians recognize this, too. That they had to proclaim
a state, in order to protect themselves from be being
annihilated. So a state, an independent sovereign nation
state is one way a people who are threatened with
extermination by means of genocide can attempt to protect
themselves. And according to the statistics that Kekuni
Blaisdell presented to the San Francisco Tribunal that
native Hawaiian people are threatened with extinction by the
year 2030. So this is something that has to be given very
serious consideration. What is the best way to protect the
existence of your people, as a people? Is it to accept the
same status as Native Americans, which I guess Secretary
Babbitt is considering graciously giving you? Or is it to
proclaim your own state, and then ultimately seek
international recognition and finally U.N. membership?
Again, this is for you to decide. You have to consider the
alternatives because ultimately it's your future and that of
your children and your children's children that is at stake.
Now in the final "whereas" clause, they say,
"It is proper and timely for Congress to acknowledge the historic significance of the illegal overthrow."
Before then they only talked about an overthrow, they didn't
concede it was illegal, although it violated all these
treaties, but now they say it is illegal. So in other
words, they're agreeing with what I'm telling you. It was
illegal. If you had any doubt, now even Congress is
agreeing. It was an illegal overthrow. It had no validity
at all. The fruits of this overthrow are entitled to no
recognition as being valid today. And that calls into
question title to all the land here. Who's land is it?
Well, from what congress seems to be saying to me its the
land of the Native Hawaiian people.
Then they talk about reconciliation efforts, support the
reconciliation efforts. Well, of course I'm in favor of
reconciliation. But there's more to it than that. Again,
under international law, if you have a violation of this
nature the appropriate remedy is not simply reconciliation,
apology or reparations, but restitution. That is, to set
right the harm that had been done. To restore the situation
to what it had been before the violation in 1893. And there
is a very famous case by the World Court, the Chorzow
Factory case, would be the authority for this. So in other
words, sure, have reconciliation. But what about
restoration? That clearly is what you're entitled to.
Now we get to this Section 1, Acknowledgment and Apology.
Again, they repeat, "Illegal overthrow," so it's not simply
me interpreting the significance of the various whereas
clauses, but now in the operative provision of the statute:
resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America, in Congress and Senate, and signed
by the President. This was an illegal overthrow.
"Acknowledges the historical significance of this event which was ultimately the suppression of the inherent sovereignty."
So notice what they're saying. The Native Hawaiian people
still have sovereignty. The
sovereignty inheres in you.
And now it is for you to decide what to do with this
sovereignty. Because the state of Hawai'i, the federal
government, are as I said, the civilian arms of the military
occupation authority. And military occupation authority do
not have sovereign powers. The sovereignty resides in the
people. And that is clearly the implication of Section 1 of
the operative provision of the statute.
Paragraph 3 apologizes for the overthrow, "With the
participation of agents of the United States." Again, if
you had any doubt about what I was telling you before,
about the U.S. government being responsible for the actions
of its ministers, they've now called these people "agents."
So their conduct, their illegal conduct, binds the United
States government, which means the United States government
then, is under an obligation to undo the harm that was done.
But even if they don't, the Native Hawaiian people have a
right to act to undo that harm. And again if you doubt
about that, the rest of the sentence says, "The deprivation
of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination..."
So in other words, Congress has conceded that the Native
Hawaiian people have a right to self-determination. What
does that right include? Well, as I said, self-
determination of peoples under the U.N. Charter reads, a
right to a state of your own and to membership ultimately
someday in the United Nations organization, just like the
188 other states that are currently members of the United
Nations today.
[Section] 4 expresses its commitment to acknowledge the
ramifications. What are the ramifications? Well, that is
the subject of my discussion tonight. If you followed the
analysis that I presented before, then I put forward here
what I believe are the ramifications, the implications, of
the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. Now, whether
that's the direction you want to go, that is up to you, for
you to decide, not me.
And then again finally in the definitional section, where
they talk about Native Hawaiians,
"Any individual who is a descendant of the aboriginal people, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty, in the area that now constitutes the state of Hawai'i."
Again, affirming that the native people of Hawai'i were and
by implication still are the sovereign authority in these
lands, not the state, not the federal government, but the
Native Hawaiian people themselves. Well, based then on this
public law, and going through it line by line, I would
express the opinion that today the Kanaka Maoli have the
right exercise self-determination as a people in accordance
with the U.N. Charter, and proclaim an independent state, if
that is your desire. And, join the world community of
states as an independent nation state. This also means that
you have the right to determine your political status, your
type of governmental organization to govern yourselves
through customary systems. And freely pursue your economic,
social, cultural development in accordance with Article I of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The United States government is party to that first
treaty. That treaty also recognizes the right of Native
Hawaiians to freely dispose of your natural wealth and
resources, without prejudice to obligations arising out of
international economic cooperation. This is your land.
These are your natural resources. Whatever powers are
exercised by the state and federal government are those of a
colonial occupation military regime. But the sovereignty
still resides in the hands of the Native Hawaiian people.
You have the territory necessary for a state. The Hawaiian
Archipelago, the lands that you had before the invasion of
1893. You would be entitled to claim a 12 mile territorial
sea and a 200 mile exclusive economic zone, in accordance
with customary international law and the Law of the Sea
Treaty of 1982.
The second requirement of an independent state are the
people. And, again Congress has recognized the Kanaka Maoli
people are a group of people with sovereignty, sovereign
powers. You have lived here forever. You are the original
inhabitants and occupants of these islands. You have always
been in possession of your land. And so you would be
entitled to reestablish an independent sovereign nation
state in that land. Possession is nine tenths of the law.
You're still here, you're still living in your homes, you
are still occupying your land. And it might be true that
the state and federal governments are illegally
dispossessing you. But you are still going back in there,
you're still building settlements, you're still occupying
it, and your staying there. And that's all that
international law requires, and as I have suggested, that
certainly is your right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Who would be your citizens? Well certainly the citizens
would be those who are descendants of the Kanaka Maoli, who
occupied and exercised sovereignty in Hawaii, prior to the
Europeans in 1778. You would trace your ancestors back.
Again, it would be your right to determine who your citizens
are.
I take it you would reject this blood percentage that has
been set up by the United States government. This is
reminiscent of Nazi laws, that were applied to decide who
was Aryan. And those laws in turn were patterned on laws in
the American South, on miscegenation, who was a black and
who was a white.
The way this is normally done by most states today, a state
is free to determine who its own citizens are. And
certainly you would be free to determine that all those who
could trace their ancestors back to 1778 would automatically
become citizens of the new state.
Now, what about those who are living here who are not able
to trace their ancestors back? What about them? Again this
is an issue that has confronted several states today. For
example, in the Baltics, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia,
where you have large number of Russian citizens left behind
as a result of the Russian Soviet occupation for the last 50
years, which is about half the amount of time you're dealing
with. And the Baltic states, the three of them have taken
different approaches. For a period of time I advised the
Republic of Lithuania under President Landsbeagis, who was
the hero and leader of their independence movement, who lost
an election and the people voted the communists back in, so
I no longer advise them. But they've taken a very generous
approach to those Russians who remain, trying to integrate
them into their society.
And certainly the Hawaiian state could the position that
you'll set up a procedure to provide citizenship to all
people who are habitual residents of the new state of
Hawai'i as of a certain date, which would mean those who
have lived here continuously five years, ten years, whatever
cut off point you want, two years, are also themselves
entitled to become citizens of this state on a level of
equality with everyone else, but they have to apply for it.
It would not be automatic, as would be the case with the
Native Hawaiians, who would automatically become citizens.
And again there are precedents here in the way the
Palestinians are dealing with this. They too have a
diaspora population. You have large numbers of Hawaiians
all over the world who had to leave. Approaching it this
way would enable you to allow all them too to claim Hawaiian
citizenship, if that is the case, if that's what they want
to do, and to return. The Palestinians did it that way.
They set up a state and said: We're setting up a state for
all Palestinians everywhere in the world. So in theory
those who want to be citizens of the state can claim it and
be admitted. There is also the situation that you have a
large number of Jewish settlers living in occupied
Palestine. And the Palestinians have taken the position
that they are prepared to accept a certain number of Jewish
settlers as citizens living in their state on a basis of
equality with everyone else, provided that they are prepared
to be peaceful and law abiding and to be treated as equals.
So there are precedents for the new state of Hawai'i to take
a similar position for those non-native Hawaiians who live
here, and saying: We don't want you to leave. We're
setting up an inclusive state. We want you to stay. And
you would simply have to apply for citizenship in the new
state. It could be done in a way that they would not have
to renounce their U.S. citizenship if that's what the Native
Hawaiians decide. That could be a big issue for the current
generation of non-native Hawaiians living here. It probably
would not be a big issue for the next generation. They
would be Hawaiian at birth, entitled to citizenship at
birth, and probably whether they would claim U.S.
citizenship wouldn't be all that important. But for those
who are here who are U.S. citizens it would be possible to
allow for them to become dual nationals. That is they would
apply for Hawaiian citizenship without having to give up
U.S. citizenship. And this would be fully consistent with
United States law. I was born in the United States, but I
applied for Irish citizenship. My family's Irish, and I
have Irish citizenship and an Irish passport. The Irish
have been subjected to genocide, too. We know what it's all
about. We are a diaspora people, too. We have people all
over the world. And so we have an inclusive form of
citizenship that allows people to claim it without having to
give up whatever other citizenship they have as well. And
the Native Hawaiian state could approach the question of
citizenship in a similar way.
Now, I've already discussed that the system of government,
again the third requirement that you would need, and I
believe you have it, for an independent state. You have
your Kupuna system. And as I said, Congress has recognized,
in the language I quoted to you,
"A highly organized, self-sufficient, social system based on communal land tenure, maintaining order through mediation."
That's all you need, and you have that. So you would simply
work that out, the implications of that system on a state
basis, that is the new Hawaiian state's basis. That would
be the way the new Hawaiian state would be governed, not the
current situation as you see it today.
And finally the capacity to enter into international
relations. And again here, I think that if you were to
declare an independent state you would probably obtain
recognition in that capacity from a fairly large number of
states. I could not predict the number of states that would
recognize you. I don't know. You would have the same
problems in the equation of the Palestinian state. We
didn't know how many states would recognize the Palestinian
state back in August of 1988, before it was created. But
here it is December of 1993, and there are 125 states that
recognize the state of Palestine. And someday hopefully the
state of Israel will recognize the state of Palestine. The
state of Palestine already recognizes the state of Israel,
and you can have peace and reconciliation between those two
people as well.
So I could not predict how long this would take, what would
be the consequences, how many states will recognize you, but
I take it that the plight of the Hawaiian people is
generally well known in the world, and there's a great deal
sympathy. For a variety of reasons the Palestinians have
had an uphill struggle and battle in obtaining that
recognition. So it might be that you would be able to
obtain recognition quickly. And especially if you pursue
this process in accordance with principles of peaceful,
non-violent struggle. And I submit that's the most
effective technique you have today. And if you doubt me,
you should read Gandhi's book, Satyagraha, Non-Violent Civil
Resistance. It's about 300 pages long. And it explains how
Gandhi threw the mighty British Empire out of India without
using force. People power, what we call it today. And I
submit that the Native Hawaiian people would be able to do
the same thing, moving in this direction and adopting the
techniques of peaceful, non-violent action, which is what
Gandhi called for.
Well, those conclude the comments, the formal comments I had
to make this evening. Again, this is presented not as a
solution to any problems. My assignment here tonight as I
understood it was to sketch, briefly, one outline, one
alternative, that the Native Hawaiian people can consider,
among other alternatives that are available to you.
Obviously you could tell by some of the comments I've made,
that I had some problems with a few of the other
alternatives that have been presented to you, but ultimately
it is your choice to make, not the choice of the United
States Congress, not the choice of the State of Hawai'i, and
with all due respect to the commissioners here. But it is
the choice of the Native Hawaiian people. They have the
right to self-determination, they have the inherent
sovereignty, and that fact has now even been recognized by
the United States Congress itself. So it's no longer just
me up here as a law professor giving you an opinion as a law
professor. But rather the opinion I'm giving you tonight is
based up these formal findings of fact and law by the United
States Congress.
Thank you very much.
and
Whistleblower Leuren Moret's Comments on Professor Boyle:
Professor Boyle Argues for the Kingdom of Hawaii to FIGHT, yet He Is Not A Friend to Our Kanaka Maoli....(and Bumpy, et. als. Can't See It)
SOVEREIGNTY CONVERSATIONS Francis Boyle Speaks 8 20 21 2016 Nation of Hawai'i 6hr 20min
Views: 86
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora on - We have to watch Boyle...notice that he moves towards VIOLENCE............we are a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation....Leuren Moret also says to Watch Boyle ----one world order activist he is.... see
“Francis A. Boyle— the Hague & the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal” (Dissenting Op-Ed)
Francis Boyle“Francis A. Boyle— the Hague & the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal” (Dissenting Op-Ed)"What an absurd concept that Francis A. Boyle is a “hero” to anyone other than Francis A. Boyle. A close review of his record will reveal that his ‘accomplishments’ have been at the best subjective, and his many announcements of those ‘accomplishments’ have always either preceded or shortly followed a ‘new book’ as the case here". James Harrison
Co-founder, North American Intertribal Missions (See below).
By Leuren Moret, M.A., PhD, ABD
As an international radiation expert witness and participant in 3 war crimes tribunals, and two of Tun Dr. Mahathir's War Crimes Conferences (2007, 2009), I have provided information below that may be useful in understanding the recent attacks by Francis A. Boyle on the judges and parties involved in the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal for Palestine. Below are my comments, including an Op-Ed statement by James Harrison, Co-founder of the North American Intertribal Missions.
Leuren Moret
THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF FRANCIS A. BOYLE'S CAREER, WHICH HAS OFTEN FOCUSED ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, HE HAS BETRAYED AND UNDERMINED THEIR LEGAL EFFORTS TO OBTAIN JUSTICE THROUGH THE COURTS (SEE ARTICLE BELOW). HE HAS BETRAYED THE NATIVE AMERICANS, HAWAIIAN SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT, AND NOW IN FACT... THE PALESTINE MOVEMENT AMONG MANY OTHERS.
FRANCIS A. BOYLE SERVES AS A CONSULTANT TO THE "AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE", A FRAUDULENT AND ORGANIZED CRIME COMMITTEE, CLAIMING TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PACIFIST QUAKERS (KNOWN ALSO AS "FRIENDS"), BUT IN FACT WAS SET UP AND FUNDED BY TWO JEWISH GANGSTERS IN PHILADELPHIA WHO PROCEEDED TO USE THE COMMITTEE AND DIRTY MONEY TO ATTACK AND DESTROY THE QUAKERS FOR THE PAST 60-70 YEARS. (FOR THOSE WHO ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE QUAKERS, THEY ARE A PROTESTANT GROUP OF PACIFISTS ORIGINATING IN FRANCE AND THE UK, WHO HISTORICALLY HAVE OPPOSED WAR BY REFUSING MILITARY SERVICE, AND INSTEAD GO TO WAR ZONES TO ASSIST THE VICTIMS OF WARS - ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CONFLICT. THEY WERE AWARDED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.)
AFTER 9/11, FRANCIS A. BOYLE CRITICIZED THE POLICIES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND "...also claimed that the Bush administration "would welcome the outbreak of a Third World War" and "is fully prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons against Muslim and Arab states and peoples." (WIKI) IN FACT, THE US GOVERNMENT HAS HAD A POLICY AND PRACTICE OF USING ON THE BATTLEFIELD 5 KT AND UNDER TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS (SINCE ABOUT 1990), RADIOLOGICAL (DEPLETED URANIUM) WEAPONS SINCE 1990 ON LEBANON, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AS WELL AS EXOTIC WEAPONS SUCH AS D.I.M.E. IN GAZA, LEBANON, YUGOSLAVIA, IRAQ, AND AFGHANISTAN THAT CAUSE 100% TUMORGENESIS WITHIN 3 MONTHS AND 100% DEATH WITHIN 9 MONTHS IN THOSE EXPOSED TO D.I.M.E. EXPLOSIONS. FRANCIS A. BOYLE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH HANS VON SPONECK, DENNIS HALLIDAY, AND MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY (ALL UN OPERATIVES AND AGENTS) HAVE CONSPIRED TO BLOCK ALL EFFORTS TO CHARGE THE US GOVERNMENT WITH WAR CRIMES RELATED TO THE INDISCRIMINATE AND GLOBAL EFFECTS FROM THE USE OF NUCLEAR, RADIOLOGICAL AND EXOTIC WEAPONS IN THOSE COUNTRIES.
FRANCIS A. BOYLE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH HANS VON SPONECK, DENNIS HALLIDAY, AND MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY (ALL UN OPERATIVES AND AGENTS) HAVE CONSPIRED TO INFILTRATE AND CONTROL CITIZEN ORGANIZED TRIBUNALS (SUCH AS THE ONE HELD IN ANKARA, TURKEY FOR IRAQ), AND TO ELIMINATE CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC AND OTHER EXPERTS FROM PROVIDING SCIENTIFIC AND WELL DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE THAT TACTICAL NUCLEAR AND RADIOLOGICAL WEAPONS WERE ILLEGALLY USED IN COUNTRIES SINCE 1990, AS WELL AS EXOTIC WEAPONS SUCH AS D.I.M.E. THEY HAVE ALSO CONSPIRED TO HIDE THE HORRENDOUS GLOBAL EFFECTS OF SUCH WEAPONS WHICH ARE CAUSING A GLOBAL DECLINE IN POPULATION, FERTILITY, AND AN EPIDEMIC OF INTERSEX (MALE AND FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE CELLS IN THE REPRODUCTIVE TISSUES IN THE SAME ORGANISM) AND CONJOINED TWINNING, IN ANIMALS AND HUMANS SINCE 1990.
FRANCIS A. BOYLE "has urged Iran to sue the United States in the International Court of Justice in order to discourage a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and prevent the imposition of new sanctions by the U.N. Security Council", A MOOT AND HYPOCRITICAL POINT, AND WHICH IS USELESS TO PURSUE, SINCE THE WIDESPREAD CONTAMINATION OF IRAN FROM NUCLEAR MATERIALS USED ILLEGALLY BY THE US AND THE UK IN IRAQ (SINCE 1990) AND AFGHANISTAN (SINCE 2001), HAS RESULTED IN THE MOST EFFICIENT FORM OF NUCLEAR WAR, FROM HIGH RADIOACTIVE RAINOUT THROUGHOUT IRAN, RESULTING IN SEVERE GENOCIDAL BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS IN THE IRANIAN POPULATION - ALL SECRETLY MONITORED BY THE UN. JUST TO MAKE THE AGENDA AND INTENDED GENOCIDAL CONSEQUENCES VERY CLEAR - SINCE 2002 THE PEAK NUMBER OF US AND UK BOMBING RUNS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN HAVE BEEN SYNCHRONIZED WITH THE MONSOON CYCLE TO REACH MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY OF RAINOUT OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS ON IRAN FROM WEST (IRAQ) AND EAST (AFGHANISTAN) OVER IRAN. FRANCIS A. BOYLE HAS HYPOCRITICALLY RECOMMENDED TO IRAN AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS THAT THEY SHOULD SUE THE UNITED STATES IN INTERNATIONAL COURTS, SUCH AS THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, WHICH HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER THE US BECAUSE THE US IS NOT A SIGNATOR TO ANY OF THEM. THE ONLY COURT WHERE THE US CAN BE TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES IS THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES (OAS), AND WAS SUCCESSFULLY SUED THERE FOR WAR CRIMES IN GRANADA, RESULTING IN THE US REBUILDING HOSPITALS IT HAD ILLEGALLY BOMBED WITH DEPLETED URANIUM.
FRANCIS A. BOYLE Boyle "is a harsh critic of Israel, Zionism, and American foreign policy towards Israel. In May 2008, Boyle offered to "represent Iran in an international tribunal for trying the Zionist regime on charges of genocide of Palestinians"", WHEN IN FACT ISRAEL HAS CARRIED OUT A POLICY OF CARPET BOMBING THE GAZA-ISRAELI BORDER WITH DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS WHEN WINDS WERE BLOWING FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN COAST TOWARDS ISRAEL, CARRYING HUGE AMOUNTS OF FRESH AND CONCENTRATED DEPLETED URANIUM DUST AND SMOKE DIRECTLY INTO ISRAEL (AWAY FROM GAZA!) REPEATEDLY EXPOSING THEIR OWN POPULATION. THIS HAS RESULTED IN THE MOST PRECIPITOUS DROP IN SPERM COUNT AND QUALITY (IN ISRAELI MEN) IN THE WORLD AS REPORTED BY FERTILITY CLINICS AND SPERM BANKS IN ISRAEL. ISRAELI SOLDIERS HAVE BEEN WARNED BEFORE GOING INTO WAR, THAT IF THEY WANT CHILDREN IN THE FUTURE, THEY SHOULD MAKE DEPOSITS IN SPERM BANKS BEFORE BEFORE ENTERING THE THEATER OF CONFLICT. THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT ALSO MOVED SETTLERS INTO THE AREAS OF GAZA WITH THE HIGHEST RADIATION LEVELS FROM ISRAELI DUMPING OF NUCLEAR TRASH IN GAZA, AND SENT SETTLERS TO THE LEBANON ISRAELI BORDER TO THE NORTH AFTER THE ATTACK ON LEBANON, WHERE CARPET BOMBING WITH DEPLETED URANIUM BUNKER BUSTERS INCLUDED 4TH GENERATION NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE SAME BOMB, CAUSING A DIABETES EPIDEMIC IN SETTLERS CHILDREN WITHIN 6 MONTHS. ISRAEL SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH WAR CRIMES NOT ONLY AGAINST PALESTINE, BUT ALSO FOR DELIBERATELY DESTROYING THEIR OWN POPULATION WITH NUCLEAR MATERIALS.
FRANCIS A. BOYLE, HANS VON SPONECK, DENNIS HALLIDAY, AND MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY HAVE WORKED TOGETHER AS PART OF A LARGER PATTERN OF INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES, OFTEN WITH LINKS TO THE UN, IN CONCERT WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES - WHO INSTITUTIONALLY COMPROMISE THE INSTRUMENTS OF INVESTIGATION TO ENSURE NO CONSEQUENCES FOR THE OFFENDING AGENCIES. FOR EXAMPLE, WITH REGARD TO FUKUSHIMA, THE MOST RECENT AND SERIOUS NUCLEAR DISASTER IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY:
The Mainichi, Nov. 11, 2013: NRA chairman blocks interviews with Fukushima residents over exposure doses [...] NRA Chairman Shunichi Tanaka intervened to limit such interviews to friendly local government leaders, the Mainichi Shimbun has learned.
http://enenews.com/top-nuclear-official-blocks-interviews-with-peop...
IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, CIVILIAN POPULATIONS BECAME THE REAL TARGET OF WARS AND A GLOBAL ZIONIST DEPOPULATION AGENDA. IT TURNS OUT THAT THE ROCKEFELLERS, ROTHSCHILDS, AND QUEEN ELIZABETH, AS WELL AS WINDSCALE/SELLAFIELD NUCLEAR DUMPING INTO THE IRISH SEA, IN THE UK, THE GLOBAL USE OF DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS FROM CANADIAN URANIUM BELONGING TO QUEEN ELIZABETH, AND THE US MILITARY AS THE DELIVERY SYSTEM, HAVE BEEN MAJOR PLAYERS IN THAT AGENDA. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HOME OF THE MANHATTAN PROJECT, WILL FOREVER BE KNOWN AS THE "UNIVERSITY THAT POISONED THE WORLD", THE CEMENT OF MASSIVE CORRUPTION LINKING ALL POLITICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ELITES ACROSS THE GLOBAL SPECTRUM.
IN CONCLUSION, FRANCIS A. BOYLE'S ASSOCIATION WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA, EXPOSES HIS HIDDEN AGENDA AND TIES TO THE FINANCIAL INTERESTS AND GENOCIDAL AGENDA OF THE ROCKEFELLERS: AGENTS OF THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND AND THE CITY OF LONDON GLOBAL FINANCIERS. FRANCIS A. BOYLE'S CLEVER REPUTATION THAT HE HAS CREATED AS A "CHAMPION OF VICTIMS" OF COLONIALISM AND OTHER FORMS OF INJUSTICE, IS THE BEARD HE PLACES UPON THE GENOCIDAL ZIONIST AGENDA THAT HE HAS SYSTEMATICALLY CARRIED OUT FOR HIDDEN INTERESTS.
Wednesday, December 12th, 2012 | Posted by Veterans Today
“Francis A. Boyle— to the Hague” (Dissenting Op-Ed)
“Francis A. Boyle— to the Hague”
—
By James Harrison
Co-founder
North American Intertribal Missions
—
“The world is a dangerous place; not because of those who would do evil; but because of those who look on and do nothing”. Albert Einstein
—
What an absurd concept that Francis A. Boyle is a “hero” to anyone other than Francis A. Boyle. A close review of his record will reveal that his ‘accomplishments’ have been at the best subjective, and his many announcements of those ‘accomplishments’ have always either preceded or shortly followed a ‘new book’ as the case here. See “Wikipedia”.
In regards to his being an “advocate for Native America”—as he often relates; we have not been able to find a single reference to his “disavowal” of “U.S.C. Title 25, subtitled “Indians”; (an arrogant and typically American misnomer) a blatant violation of the US Constitution’s Article 6, “All treaties are supreme Law”. In reference to that; our research has revealed more than twenty years ago after a careful search of the more than 200 treaties with the USA and the Native American tribes there is NOT ONE SINGLE REFERENCE to that body of “illegal Federal Law” found in any of those treaties.
Indeed, that volume of Federal Law” was not “introduced” until 1883 with the ‘first illegal act’; “The seven major Crimes Act”– almost twenty years AFTER the last treaties were signed; making the ‘treaties’—null and void—-or “abrogating them—–or in very simple speech: all of us who are Native Americans born AFTER 1883 were ‘prisoners of war’ in our own country. Those treaties were “delivered “to the Tribes” in “Capitulation” BY the US Government as acts of “peace” ending decades of bloody war from the illegal seizure of the Native American “homelands”. The Native American People are still at war with the USA.
We teach our children that the “Americans” “bought that land from the French”—-who did not own it. Then they were not brave enough to invade France—in “retaliation”; when they realized that “we” did not recognize the “French ownership” of the territory which we had been fighting each other over, for thousands of years; so they turned on us; and THEN could not win either. It is a well known historical fact that the US Government does NOT “make treaties with those they can defeat”. They could not defeat us, even when they used germ warfare and weapons of mass destruction——so they surrendered to us when they brought peace treaties to us: then they “broke, violated, and dishonored them”. Dr. Boyle would have at least “mentioned” “somewhere” his opposition to “illegal, treaty violating legislation if he were an “advocate for Native America”—–we will be most happy to retract this section if one of his “many fans” will refer us to his “wise words on the subject”.
Dr. Francis A. Boyle has “held himself up” (often, actually) as a “legal expert” as “professor of Law” and an “advocate of due process” etc.
In reality, he has recently revealed through the “same process” that HE is guilty of
Obstruction of Justice; in ‘his case’; Violation of USC Title 18 Chapter 73, with multiple infractions, see below ‘*’; when he failed to file the proper charges against the “FBI/CIA Agents” who, as he relayed in his story; revealed their “on going conspiracy” when they “attempted” to “have him betray the confidence/inform upon/against those of his Arab American or Muslim American clients”.
This was a “conspiracy” by those Agents to violate the “constitutional guarantees of due process” of their fellow Americans; (they were not seeking information on foreign nationals; foreign nationals are not subject to the same “constitutional guarantees”) then they asked Dr. Boyle to assist them do the same to ‘His’ “fellow Americans”. When he failed to file the proper criminal charges against those ‘Agents’ he “failed to act” in his capacity as an “officer of the court; i.e. a Lawyer”—-THIS FAILURE TO ACT was a violation of the law as well as his oath as an “officer of the court” and a “member of the bar”. In his own lack of actions he has revealed himself to be a fraud and a charlatan.
These crimes by the ‘Agents’ and Dr. Boyle were of the “Federal Level” as well as “Local” since they were violations of the US Constitution which historically, to those of us in Native America in reality and “practice” seems to be a ‘very’ ‘very’ convenient document for most of America. This reveals him to be a charlatan and a fraud of international standing.
For the “International Level of Crimes”—-there presently exists a large and historical record that Dr. Boyle cannot deny being aware of. This “compounded his crime,
“Obstruction”; by the following:
The very revelation that these requests by the ‘Agents’ was a common plot, during a time of war makes their crime of “Conspiracy” to “violate the constitutional guarantees of their fellow Americans” a direct violation of International Law; i.e. Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes. “Dr. Boyles” own absence of action —was “Obstruction of Justice” and in that; Crimes against Humanity, during a time of War—making them “War Crimes” for which there ARE NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS for Dr. Boyle or the “Agents”.
This is an important point that the reader must understand. We intend to have these charges answered, sooner or later; inThe Hagueor International Court of Justice.
- Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora on
- Delete
- That the USA and its allies sat in judgment at the Nuremberg Tribunals I and II just two generations ago convicting many former enemies, German, Japanese and others; for War Criminals, and for the very same crimes presented here. This is a blatant fact that not even the most ‘arrogantly and willfully ignorant American’ could deny. It is impossible for any rational individual to perceive that the “famous” Dr. Francis A Boyle would have not known these very facts; indeed, he is “lauded” as a “professor of law” “most often by himself in writing”—–and THEN he ‘sells books about it’.
We believe the evidence reveals that Dr. Boyle is a War Criminal of the vilest manifestation since his entire career was based upon the Law; and his cowardly violation of it with his intentional inaction was most egregious. That the “Agents” ‘*’ were also guilty of the same crimes is another matter of fact that most Americans seem to readily accept apparently as “normal” behavior for “their” FBI; since the majority of their own Federal Officers are often as corrupt as the criminals they are charged with investigating while they use millions in US Tax money to investigate them.
The charges we are seeking to be filed against Dr. Francis A. Boyle are listed below. ‘*’
The “Agents” charges would and should also be listed but their names and those of their superiors are known only by themselves and Dr. Boyle. Obviously Dr. Boyle is keeping those names secret for now. We contend with the available evidence, widely published, with admissions from Dr, Francis A. Boyle in writing and interviews which are available at several forums; that he should be charged with the following:
Most importantly since he has already publicly confessed in writing; he does not warrant a trial but simply a sentencing hearing at the “Hague” for his violations listed here.
(*) United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 73 with “specifications.” as well as the following
Section: 1505. Obstruction of Proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees.
‘Sec.’ :1510. Obstruction of Criminal Investigations, etc
‘Sec.’ :1511. Obstruction of Local or State Law enforcement (we presume on university property but if not certainly a violation of Illinois Statutes)
‘Sec.’ :1512 Tampering with a witness, victim, or informant
‘Sec.’ :1513 Retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant (the ‘Arab/Muslim American clients he “did not betray” were in essence retaliated upon when he failed to file the charges allowing the “Agents” to proceed with their conspiracy).
-2-
We have challenged Dr. Boyle to file “slander” or “defamation” charges against us.
Indeed, being “warriors” we would gladly and with much enthusiasm meet him on the “battle field of civilized combat”; in any of “his” nation’s corrupt courts.
He could even write another book about it; if we are successful, it will be “written” from his prison cell.
As for those of us who are Native Americans; remember this, our sisters and brothers; “we” have been here in North Central and South “America” for well over 15 thousand years. Long before the Chinese “called themselves the Chinese”; before any of the “Great Civilizations” invented themselves; long before the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims invented their jealous and vindictive “God”, invented themselves; then began killing each other by the thousands over their jealous vindictive “God”. Long before “Mr. Columbus” “stumbled” upon the “West Indies”. The “Americans” as well as the rest of the “world” are simply a “mark on the wall of Native America’s own evolution”.
We were here long before any of them ‘invented’ themselves; will be here long after the rest of them kill each other off.
We will remain. Each day that passes; theUSAhas a new chance to make the necessary changes to become the “true leader” of the world, but only by “example” of the “positive”.
Each day that passes theUSAreveals that they do not have the integrity or the courage to make those changes; each day that passes they slide deeper into the “pit” they have “excavated” for themselves.
“If theUSAwere any other criminal nation the ‘Americans’ would invade the
USAto keep the world safe; and they would be justified”………..
For publications/announcements of Mr. Boyle’s revelations see:
xxxxx(terms of service edit)
A footnote to “all our relations”: (and for those of you who are not Native American)
Dr. Boyle reminds this author of the “cautionary tail” or story or myth (as you prefer)
Of “Beautiful Snake”: The “young man/woman” in the forest is singled out by speech by “Beautiful Snake” when it says to him/her “hello young one, I need your assistance in a very important task.” To which the person replies “oh I know of you, you are ‘Beautiful Snake’, and your speech will mystify me, and you will lie to me and trick me, and bite me, and I will die”. To which the snake replied “Oh but not YOU dear one, YOU are special to me; and if you assist me I will reward you more handsomely than you can even imagine”
“All I need is for you to pick me up, and carry me across that very cold stream to the other side, once we reach there I will reward you” and “this I promise you; never to harm you but to reward you for not only your bravery, but your trust in me”. The young person considers these words and in spite of all that they have been told, they pick the snake up, and with great difficulty and struggle reach the other side of the stream, and just as the snake is lowered to the ground; it bites them on the hand. The young person stumbles back in surprise and pain from the “Venom” and in great emotion they proclaim to the snake; “but you lied to me, you tricked me, am I going to die?” to which “Beautiful Snake” replies; “well yes you fool you are going to die; but you knew what I was when you picked me up”.
As for ‘Dr. Boyle’;
“A lie travels half way around the world; while the truth is putting on its shoes”—
Mark. Twain
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/12/francis-a-boyle-to-the-hagu...
“Francis A. Boyle— the Hague & the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal” (Dissenting Op-Ed)Aaran Ardaiz (dec.) also was against Boyle:"Aloha Keoki:Francis Boyle was wrong!First of all, as a University Profession and man of law, he was raised in the knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. Also, he knows that your name is very personal and that there is distinction between the properly spelled name in the English-language and the ALL CAPITALIZED or PARTIALLY CAPITALIZED (One name in all CAPS) name, at law. A typical legal and popular belief by most is that America is a “Democracy” under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. IT IS NOT! America is still a “Republic” and has “Private Citizens” who are “sovereigns” by virtue of their birth within one of the 48 “contiguous” “States” of the Union. Hawaii is not a State in the Union of the American Republic! It is blatantly repugnant to Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution that requires all “States” to be “republican in form”. The de facto STATE OF HAWAII IS REPUGNANT, IT NOT BEING REPUBLICAN IN FORM FROM THE VERY BEGINNING! Of all people, Francis Boyle should have been fully aware of that fact which makes his position as an expert, of question. Whereas Hawaii is not and never has been a “State”, it is only a U.S. Congressional created corporation of very limited authority. If “Native Hawaiians” (as Francis Boyle states) try to throw anyone out, they will be arrested and jailed because they are not documented as “Hawaiian Nationals” of the aina, where their rights are. They are “U.S. citizens” and would be treated in the courts as such. Boyle knows this, he being a lawyer.Hawaiians are not “sovereigns”. They are (when under their own Hawaiian Kingdom National laws), “National Citizens” and if there is a Monarchy in place, “subjects” of the Crown. That is fact and that is Hawaiian citizenship law. Hawaiians born here are really still Hawaiians. They have just misplaced their citizenship allegiance. REASON: They have never taken oaths of allegiance in a competent circuit court of jurisdiction (there are none in Hawaii) or in a U.S. Department of Immigration Office before a lawful judge (there are none of those here in Hawaii either) as they are under foreign oaths, not as prescribed under U.S. or Hawaiian National laws. Hawaiians born to the aina are not really U.S. “citizens”. They only think they are. When Hawaiians take out STATE OF HAWAII or U.S. IDENTIFICATION CARDS, they should first notice that the government has unlawfully changed your name from their proper and lawful birth name to a fiction, ALL CAPITALIZED NAME. This, as I mentioned, is a deprivation of your birth rights by having you sign away those rights (notice your signature to the right of the fiction name.) That signature, which is your living “Seal” of consent and approval, gives the corporate government the right to say you are their corporate, fiction “citizen”. It is an “implied consent” which is rolled over into an “implied contract” once you start answering to and honoring the fiction name that they own. You now belong to them, without right of any kind, only privileges granted by licensing, which is a means of control over the U.S. “Freeman” and the Hawaiian Private Citizen, also being “freeborn”.I am a grateful person who has come to understand the true Hawaiian meaning of “Aloha” for each other and others beyond ourselves. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government and its Puppet STATE OF HAWAII function under the principle that if they can capture you as a “corporate fiction citizen” within their jurisdiction i.e. “U.S. citizen”, “Native Hawaiian” and “Taxpayer” (another contract) you are no longer free, but owned. This is simply accomplished by getting Hawaiians to forfeit their birth names (where their Hawaiian rights are preserved) by their own signatures “Seal”.As mentioned in my previous response to all, “Native Hawaiians” are “U.S. citizens” by “implied contract”. Please read my previous response to Mark of the past day or two. Hawaiians who really believe in freedom for themselves and their families should not want to be “Native Hawaiians”, “U.S. citizens” or “corporate public citizens”. These are all U.S. Taxpayers! They should want to be “Hawaiian Nationals” and “Private Citizens” of their aina… Ko Hawaii Pae Aina, H.I.I agree with your belief that we should kill them with Aloha. That we should do, but with our birthrights restored to each of us as documented Hawaiian Nationals on our own Hawaiian Aina, Ko Hawaii Pae Aina, H. I.Aloha in Christ Jesus,Aran Ardaiz"***************More...“Francis A. Boyle— the Hague & the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes ...
exopolitics.blogs.com/.../francis-a-boyle-the-hague-the-kuala-lumpur-wa...Nov 13, 2013 - Leuren Moret. THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF FRANCIS A.BOYLE'S CAREER, WHICH HAS OFTEN FOCUSED ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS ...
Amelia Gora - Professor Boyle IS NOT a Good Guy! The... | Facebook
Thomas Ah Yee: So the renowned Proffesor (Boyle) is not made out to be who he is. ... Amelia Gora: yep...info from Leuren Moret a depleted uranium expert, ...
Missing:francisALERT: FRANCIS A. BOYLE, ET.ALS. (ALL UN OPERATIVES AND ...
maoliworld.ning.com/.../alert-francis-a-boyle-et-als-all-un-operatives-and-a...Apr 12, 2015 - 1 post - 1 authorLeuren Moret. The following link is a brief history of the Kingdom of Hawaii/Hawaiian Kingdom (which is not the same as Francis A. Boyle:.Podcast Show #28 - Boiling Frogs Post
May 1, 2010 - Professor Francis Boyle discusses the October 2001 anthrax attack, the .... @dutchbradt Leuren Moret is an acknowledged expert on depleted ...DU as stealth weapon - Hartford Web Publishing
A Global Pact Against Depleted Uranium: By Francis Boyle, 24 April 2005. ... Depleted uranium is WMD: By Leuren Moret, Battle Creek Enquirer , 9 September ...DU Ammo Fired In Mideast Worse Than Hiroshima/Nagasaki
... has been fired, asserts nuclear authority Leuren Moret, "The genetic future of ... War Syndrome(GWS)," writes Francis Boyle, a leading American authority on ...Archive | Leuren Moret: Global Nuclear Coverup | Laurens Battis
www.leurenmoret.info/archive/The Repository of Materials Published by Leuren Moret BS, MS, PhD and Associates.
Missing:francisboyleProf Francis Boyle | Eyre International - Bringing You The News No ...
https://eyreinternational.wordpress.com/tag/prof-francis-boyle/Nov 24, 2011 - Posts about Prof Francis Boyle written by Peter Eyre. ... Leuren Moret(a US nuclear lab whistleblower) describes how DU violates the Geneva ...
Leuren Moret: Global Nuclear Coverup - About - Google+
Leuren Moret: Global Nuclear Coverup - Leuren Moret, Global Nuclear Coverup, ... Halliday, Francis Boyle, Matthias Chang - Hello - My name is Leuren Moret, ...ACADEMIC FREEDOM CONFERENCE II: Are there Limits to Inquiry ...
Aug 17, 2016 - 10:00 AM-11:00 AM/CT: Francis A. Boyle, Ph.D., noted Professor of ... 1:00-2:00 PM/CT: Leuren Moret earned her B.S. in geology at U.C. Davis ... - Reference: http://maoliworld.com/forum/topics/professor-boyle-argues-for-the-kingdom-of-hawaii
- CONCLUSION AND EVIDENCE by Amelia Gora (updated 2018)
- "IN CONCLUSION, FRANCIS A. BOYLE'S ASSOCIATION WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA, EXPOSES HIS HIDDEN AGENDA AND TIES TO THE FINANCIAL INTERESTS AND GENOCIDAL AGENDA OF THE ROCKEFELLERS: AGENTS OF THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND AND THE CITY OF LONDON GLOBAL FINANCIERS. FRANCIS A. BOYLE'S CLEVER REPUTATION THAT HE HAS CREATED AS A "CHAMPION OF VICTIMS" OF COLONIALISM AND OTHER FORMS OF INJUSTICE, IS THE BEARD HE PLACES UPON THE GENOCIDAL ZIONIST AGENDA THAT HE HAS SYSTEMATICALLY CARRIED OUT FOR HIDDEN INTERESTS." - Leuren Moret's post at the above link" My observations of this is the UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, the U.S. President Obama's alma mater seems to be the active collection of those who have been assisting in the plans of ONE WORLD ORDER/NEW WORLD ORDER ......remember that Judge Fenton Booth was the Judge in place for the COURT OF CLAIMS, Queen Liliuokalani's case...,,,, he claimed that the crown lands belonged to the office and not to the Queen, et. als.....it appears that Booth was put in place by Cleveland to defraud Hawaiians of lands, etc......out of the Illinois law books shows that the taking of Hawaiian Lands was a HEIST......then you have Obama who was schooled in Illinois Law School moving towards One World Order/New World Order......the Joseph Booth's descendants are perpetuating the wrongs, evils from Joseph Booth a "nigger" hating, booze drinking, vulgar individual who arrived on the English ship in 1847 and tried to claim Hawaiian lands........Kamehameha III documented that Joseph Booth had a life interest and his descendants/heirs could NOT inherit......OHA dear friends are a continuum of the moves along with their SELL OUT people listed in the above article are set in place to continue to set up Hawaiians because the kanaka maoli, the Royal Families exist and are and remain the true land owners in the Hawaiian Islands/the Hawaiian archipelago.......like a chess game....can you see the players, the criminal activists? ....and thanks to Crabbe, he has thrown a royal wrench into their criminal momentum.........Thank you Dr. Crabbe for impeding the move to further commit war crimes against our Hawaiian people, thank you Leuren Moret for further exposing the dishonorable Professor Boyle who wholly supports the crimes of humanites against our Hawaiian people and many other INNOCENTS.......the problematic Pirates of the World are the U.S., England, and the bankers...... the wrongful PLUNDERING UPON INNOCENTS is Truly NOT O.K. ---thanks also to the monopoly news media - the Star BULLitin they have also exposed themselves...War Crimes in the Hawaiian Islands with the players named... well, the impeachment process needs to be made which does not only include OBAMA but his friends, such as Abercrombie, Collette Machado, Ozwald Stender, et. als. Exposed, pending criminal issues, War Crimes against our Hawaiian people, the American people and Many Innocents who have been wrongfully Warred with etc. May God Help Us All, and May we have continued strength to prosecute, imprison, etc.....aloha. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtvlBS4PMF0
***************************************************************************************Ua Mau Ke Ea o Ka Aina I Ka Pono - Kauikeaouli/Kamehameha III - Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora on
- correction:
Greetings Everyone,The following information has been posted and important for all to know...........One World Order Activists are Moving in the Hawaiian Islands along with the entity of the State of Hawaii, an illegal entity which created Hawaiian Homes, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, etc. are moving along with OBAMA /President Obama who pursues the "
recognition of a Native Hawaiian government" which makes our Hawaiian people devalued through the blatant stealing of lands, monies, water, mineral rights etc. by signing their names to a Native Hawaiian Roll supported by OHA/ Office of Hawaiian Affairs which engages corrupt, treasonous individuals for the purpose of helping themselves/raping unknowing people who are under stress, duress, usurpation, coercion, victims of genocide, etc. since 1893 (earlier if you review the history, issues, devious activities targeting our unknowing people).Dr. Crabbe is in the hot seat at the present time with One World Order Activists against him.The following post is purposeful because this shows a steady, ongoing maneuver by criminal deviants in a concerted effort, once again to defraud our families, our people over lands, monies, assets, water, mineral rights, etc. of a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation documented since the time of Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli who was my great great great grandfather.Treaty(ies) remain in place with many nations and the Hawaiian Kingdom/Kingdom of Hawaii et. als.It is advised that everyone take notice and be advised that our assets have been wrongfully, criminally used by deviants, to supply monies, investments for WARS/War against Innocents and that's Not O.K. ---- the corporations/ organizations includes the Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estates/KSBE/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estates who did invest in Goldman and Sachs, etc. included in the organizations are the entity State of Hawaii, Hawaiian Homes, OHA/ Office of Hawaiian Affairs who also promotes the theft, the heist of kanaka maoli as well.The further PLUNDERING UPON INNOCENTS is Not O.KQuestions, Comments welcomed.aloha,Amelia GoraActing Liaison of Foreign Affairs, a Royal person - Hawaiian Kingdom/Kingdom of Hawaii/ He Mokupuni Pae Aina o Hawaii/Ko Hawaii Pae Aina/Hawaiian Islands/Hawaiian archipelago. - Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora on
- Delete
- 26 mins · Honolulu, HI · Edited ·...See More
Greetings Everyone,Additional References recorded at youtube.com :- Amelia Gora posted a discussionLegal Notice: Queen Liliuokalani's Will Documents Her Denial of Having Signed A Trust With Criminals....Research Uncovers Her True Trustees and Her FamiliesLegal Notice: Queen Liliuokalani's Will Documents Her Denial of Having Signed A Trust With Criminals....Research Uncovers Her True Trustees and Her Families by Amelia Gora, one of the True Trustee Descendants, aRoyal person, House of Nobles member, Acting Liaisonof Foreign Affairs - Hawaiian Kingdom (2014) Li...
Sudden Rush- Messenjah's (Feat.Amy Hanaialii Gilom)
- by sablancpm
- 5 years ago
- 9,976 views
Sudden Rush- Messenjah's (Feat.Amy Hanaialii Gilom) - Amelia Gora posted a discussionKanaka Maoli Moving Forward Amidst "Privateering Is Legalized Piracy" Issues Documented Since 1856off of Facebook:Donna Blevins WillardWhat about all the people who live here now? What about all our kuleana lands? What about a military, who is going to protect us? How we going to vote? Who’s going to be the leader? What about he businesses already here? What about the people that were born here but are not kanaka maoli? Who gets to vote on issues and leaders? Ho...
Yo, Ho, Ho, and a Bottle of Rum!!
- by midnafan22
- 4 years ago
- 1,072,170 views
EDIT: I am almost to one million views. Holy crap!
OKAY PEOPLE!! Listen, I just made this video I made just for fun, I was around fifteen at the time it was made! I tried my best to match descript... - Amelia Gora posted a discussionSon of a Bitch /Sandford B. Dole/Sanford B. Dole - Terrorist, Usurper of Queen Liliuokalani : The Privateer, Pirate, Parasite, Treasonous Person Documented....Sanford DoleGovernor of HawaiiIn office 14 June 1900 – 23 November 1903Appointed byWilliam McKinleyPreceded byPosition EstablishedSucceeded byGeorge CarterPresident of HawaiiIn office 4 July 1894 – 14 June 1900Preceded byPosition EstablishedSucceeded byPosition AbolishedPersonal detailsBorn23 April 1844 Ho...
Liliuokalani on Film more at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFdbSOLZW9W-s67P60A66nQ
- by AlohaKavebear
- 2 years ago
- 8,201 views
Old video clips of her Majesty Queen Liliuokalani in the 1910s just before her death. Taken from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LTTo6ZjPDQ andhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm_iUuzHyKU - Amelia Gora posted a discussionJesus Christ's Chronological History & More...... A Christmas PostA CHRONICLE HISTORY OF JESUS, WHO WAS BORN IN NOVEMBER AND NOT ON DECEMBER 25 - CHRISTMAS DAY compiled by Amelia Gora (2013) Jesus Christ born: late November of 5 B.C. Jesus Christ had 12 disciples: 1) ANDREWAndrew was the brother of Peter, and a son of Jonas. He lived in Bethsaida and Capernaum and was a fisherman before Jesus called him. Originally he was a disciple of John the Baptist (Mark 1:1...
Jesus is Just Alright - Doobie Brothers
- by Carey McGleish
- 3 years ago
- 336,412 views
Performed by the Doobie Brothers in HD with stunning sound quality.
This is a gospel song written by Arthur Reynolds and first recorded by Reynold's own group, The Art Reynolds Singers, on their... - Amelia Gora posted a discussionFraud, Conspiracy(ies), Treason, etc. Active in Present Days and the Past or EXPOSING CORRUPTION, CONSPIRACY, ETC.
- *****************************
- The Hawaiian Kingdom/Kingdom of Hawaii Existed since 1810 when Kamehameha was recognized as being the King, and although dethroned, U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani Twice (2x).
- Reference: http://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/2017/11/vol-vi-no-676-part-1a-queen.html
- aloha.
- More References:
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
Allen et al. vs. Scalia
Let us pretend that Scalia was on the floor of the U.S. Senate in the summer of 1898. Sen. William V. Allen of Nebraska and others would have reminded him that a joint resolution is only an act of Congress. It has no power to reach out and acquire foreign territory or a foreign country.“A joint resolution if passed becomes a statute law. It has no other or greater force. It is the same as if it were entitled ‘an act.’ That is its legal classification,” said Allen. “It is therefore impossible for the government of the United States to reach across its boundaries into the dominion of another government and annex that government or the persons or property therein.“But the United States may do so under the treaty making power, which I shall hereafter consider.”In addition, Allen said, “Mr. President, how can a joint resolution such as this be operative? What is the legislative jurisdiction of Congress? Does it extend over Hawaii? May we in this anticipatory manner reach out beyond the sea and assert our authority under a resolution of Congress within the confines of that independent nation? Where is our right, our grant of power, to do this? Where do we find it?“The joint resolution itself, it is admitted, amounts to nothing so far as carrying any effective force is concerned. It does not bring that country within our boundaries. It does not consummate itself.”Moreover, Sen. Thomas Turley of Tennessee stated:“It is admitted that if the Joint Resolution is adopted, the Republic of Hawaii can determine whether or not it will accept the provisions contained in the joint resolution. In other words, the adoption of the resolution does not consummate the transaction.“The Republic of Hawaii does not become a part or the territory of the United States by the adoption of the joint resolution …”Sen. John Coit Spooner of Wisconsin added his view: “Of course, our power would not be extraterritorial.”United States Library of Congress
Sen. A.O. Bacon, who questioned the constitutionality of the United States’ proposed annexation of Hawaii.Sen. A.O. Bacon of Georgia made the same point: “Under the law of the equal sovereignty of states, one independent and sovereign nation such as the United States cannot take another nation, such as Hawaii, by means or its own legislative act.”Bacon noted that if the United States could take Hawaii by joint resolution, it could so take Jamaica. If that were true, any nation could acquire any other. Hawaii could annex the United States. “If the President of the United States can do it in the case of Hawaii, he can with equal propriety and legality do it in the case of Jamaica …”Sen. Stephen White of California noted annexation by joint resolution was unprecedented: in American history: “… there is no instance where by a joint resolution it has been attempted not only to annex a foreign land far remote from our shores, but also to annihilate a nation, to withdraw it from the sovereign societies of the world as a government.”On the issue of the constitutionality of the use of a joint resolution, Bacon made it clear: Hawaii could only be acquired by a Treaty. “If Hawaii is to be annexed, it ought certainly to be annexed by a constitutional method; and if by a constitutional method, it cannot be annexed, no Senator ought to desire its annexation.”Finally, Bacon — one of the most senior members of the Senate — predicted that the annexation of Hawaii by joint resolution would do great damage to the Constitution and the Union.“If we pass the joint resolution, we enter upon a revolution which shall convert this country from a peaceful country into a warlike country. If we pass the resolution, we transform this country from one engaged in its own concerns into one which shall immediately proceed to intermeddle with the concerns of all the world.“If we pass the joint resolution, we inaugurate a revolution which shall convert this country from one designed for the advancement and the prosperity and the happiness of our citizens into one which shall seek its gratification in dominion and domination and foreign acquisition.”Native Hawaiians have forgotten that many Americans stood with them in 1898. After all, the Treaty of 1897, the only legal means for taking Hawaii, failed not because the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii failed to ratify the Treaty. It was the United States Senate that did not ratify the Treaty.In conclusion, the joint resolution could not acquire Hawaii. Moreover, it was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia’s comments are evidence of the pervasive and widespread falsehoods as to annexation that have spread to the highest political and judicial offices in the United States. The myth of annexation is a deliberate deception that has oppressed the people of Hawaii for 122 years.Historic quotes above are from Volume 31 of the Congressional Record pages 6142 to 6712, the verbatim record of the Senate debate in 1898.About the Author
CONTRIBUTOR
Williamson Chang
Williamson Chang is a professor of Law and member of the faculty senate at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Professor Chang has been teaching at the University of Hawaii School of Law for 37 years. He specializes in water rights, Native Hawaiian rights, the legal history of Hawaii and conflict of laws.Dear Dr. Conklin:
The Joint Resolution was not capable of ratifying the Treaty of 1897. The Treaty of 1897, drafted by representatives of both the Republic of Hawaii and the United States specified the manner in which the Treaty was to be ratified by both countries: Article VII of the Treaty states:
ARTICLE VII.
This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part; and by the President of the Republic of Hawaii, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, in accordance with the constitution of said Republic, on the other; and the ratifications hereof shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate at the city of Washington, this sixteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven.Article VII is an agreement between the United States and the Republic of Hawaii that ratification shall take only a certain form: The United States shall ratified by “the President of the United States, and with the advice and consent of the Senate,”... This phrase clearly refers to Article II of the United States Constitution which provides as follows:
Article II, Section 2 [1] He [The President of the United States] shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,...”.When a treaty, as agreed to by two nations, specifies the means of ratification, the parties must ratify in the manner so specified. A treaty is not deemed ratified unless done so by the terms both nations agreed. The Joint Resolution is an act of Congress, a law and mere legislation. The Joint Resolution required a majority vote of the House to pass. It went on to the Senate where it only required a majority vote to pass. Whether or not it received a two thirds vote is irrelevant. Article II, Section 2, [1] makes clear that the House does not participate in the ratification of a treaty with a foreign power—except in the case of a treaty by which Congress directly admits a foreign state as State in the Union. This was the case as to Texas.
Most important, the Republic of Hawaii did not consider the Joint Resolution to be ratification of the Treaty of 1897. The Republic of Hawaii considered the terms of the Joint Resolution to vary significantly, by the interpretation of the Republic of Hawaii, from the terms of the Treaty of Hawaii. These two instruments, the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution were different documents, with different meanings. A treaty is formed only when both nations have a perfect meeting of the minds—usually when both agree to the same document.
The Republic of Hawaii made its objection to the use of the Joint Resolution as ratification, which the United States claimed very clear. The letters from A.S. Hartwell, Special Envoy of the Republic of Hawaii that Hartwell sent to President McKinley in October of 1899 make clear that the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution of Annexation to constitute ratification of the Treaty of 1897. In this first quote, Hartwell points out, as of October 25, 1899, that ratification by the United States did not ratify the Treaty. This statement was made long after the Joint Resolution became effective, July 7, 1898. Thus, the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution be a ratification of the Treat.
Under the authority given to the President of Hawaii by the Hawaiian constitution, to negotiate a treaty of political union with the United States, subject to ratification by the Hawaiian Senate, such a treaty was negotiated and signed by the authorized plenipotentiaries of each country, and was ratified by the Hawaiian Senate but not by the United States Senate. Consequently, that instrument failed to accomplish or to become evidence of a cession of Hawaii to the United States.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
General Hartwell specifically noted in his letter to President McKinley that the Joint Resolution was not a ratification:
Upon the enactment of the Newlands resolution in the place of a ratified treaty, and its full equivalent, I respectfully submit that something was required in the nature of a ratification whereby official notice could be given to Hawaii that the United States had agreed upon annexation.
The inchoate treaty provided in its seventh article for an exchange of ratifications “at Washington as soon as possible,” Until such exchange, or something equivalent to it, there could be no cession accomplished by mutual agreement.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
The Treaty of 1897 was laid before the United States Senate during the fall of 1897. It was not withdrawn by the President. It still lay before the United States Senate in July of 1898 when the Senate debated the Joint Resolution. So long as the Treaty lay before the Senate, as ratified by the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii on September 9, 1897,—ratification according to Article VII of the Treaty was the only means by which the United States could conclude that treaty with the Republic of Hawaii.
Any other means, such as the use of a Joint Resolution is ruled out by the language the United States, itself, agreed to. Moreover, the use of the Joint Resolution violates the enumerated powers allocated over foreign affairs to the President and the United States Senate. Lastly, the last requirement of Article VII was never completed. There never was an exchange of ratifications in Washington as required by Article VII.
A.S. Hartwell, on behalf of the Republic of Hawaii pointed out to President McKinley that the terms of the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution of 1898 differed a to a critical term. As such, the two instruments have different terms. The Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution cannot be combined to form a single Treaty. Hartwell pointed out that the treaty proposed June 16, 1897 and the Joint Resolution differed as to material terms:
The Treaty in its first article declares that “all the territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii;” thus securing to Hawaii a distinct political status which is not secured by the wording in the Newlands resolution.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].In conclusion, the Joint Resolution of 1898 30 Stat 750, did not ratify the Treaty of Annexation 1897 [June 16, 1897].
Very truly yours,
Williamson Chang,
Professor of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
William S. Richardson School of Law.Reply · Unlike · 1 · Follow Post · March 10 at 2:22pm
- Permalink Reply by on
- Dear Dr. Conklin:
The Joint Resolution was not capable of ratifying the Treaty of 1897. The Treaty of 1897, drafted by representatives of both the Republic of Hawaii and the United States specified the manner in which the Treaty was to be ratified by both countries: Article VII of the Treaty states:
ARTICLE VII.This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part; and by the President of the Republic of Hawaii, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, in accordance with the constitution of said Republic, on the other; and the ratifications hereof shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.
In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles and have hereunto affixed their seals.Done in duplicate at the city of Washington, this sixteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven.
Article VII is an agreement between the United States and the Republic of Hawaii that ratification shall take only a certain form: The United States shall ratified by “the President of the United States, and with the advice and consent of the Senate,”... This phrase clearly refers to Article II of the United States Constitution which provides as follows:
Article II, Section 2 [1] He [The President of the United States] shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties , provided two thirds of the Senators present concur,...”.
When a treaty, as agreed to by two nations, specifies the means of ratification, the parties must ratify in the manner so specified. A treaty is not deemed ratified unless done so by the terms both nations agreed. The Joint Resolution is an act of Congress, a law and mere legislation. The Joint Resolution required a majority vote of the House to pass. It went on to the Senate where it only required a majority vote to pass. Whether or not it received a two thirds vote is irrelevant. Article II, Section 2, [1] makes clear that the House does not participate in the ratification of a treaty with a foreign power—except in the case of a treaty by which Congress directly admits a foreign state as State in the Union. This was the case as to Texas.
Most important, the Republic of Hawaii did not consider the Joint Resolution to be ratification of the Treaty of 1897. The Republic of Hawaii considered the terms of the Joint Resolution to vary significantly, by the interpretation of the Republic of Hawaii, from the terms of the Treaty of Hawaii. These two instruments, the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution were different documents, with different meanings. A treaty is formed only when both nations have a perfect meeting of the minds—usually when both agree to the same document.
The Republic of Hawaii made its objection to the use of the Joint Resolution as ratification, which the United States claimed very clear. The letters from A.S. Hartwell, Special Envoy of the Republic of Hawaii that Hartwell sent to President McKinley in October of 1899 make clear that the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution of Annexation to constitute ratification of the Treaty of 1897. In this first quote, Hartwell points out, as of October 25, 1899, that ratification by the United States did not ratify the Treaty. This statement was made long after the Joint Resolution became effective, July 7, 1898. Thus, the Republic did not consider the Joint Resolution be a ratification of the Treat.
Under the authority given to the President of Hawaii by the Hawaiian constitution, to negotiate a treaty of political union with the United States, subject to ratification by the Hawaiian Senate, such a treaty was negotiated and signed by the authorized plenipotentiaries of each country, and was ratified by the Hawaiian Senate but not by the United States Senate. Consequently, that instrument failed to accomplish or to become evidence of a cession of Hawaii to the United States.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
General Hartwell specifically noted in his letter to President McKinley that the Joint Resolution was not a ratification:
Upon the enactment of the Newlands resolution in the place of a ratified treaty, and its full equivalent, I respectfully submit that something was required in the nature of a ratification whereby official notice could be given to Hawaii that the United States had agreed upon annexation.
The inchoate treaty provided in its seventh article for an exchange of ratifications “at Washington as soon as possible,” Until such exchange, or something equivalent to it, there could be no cession accomplished by mutual agreement.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
The Treaty of 1897 was laid before the United States Senate during the fall of 1897. It was not withdrawn by the President. It still lay before the United States Senate in July of 1898 when the Senate debated the Joint Resolution. So long as the Treaty lay before the Senate, as ratified by the Senate of the Republic of Hawaii on September 9, 1897,—ratification according to Article VII of the Treaty was the only means by which the United States could conclude that treaty with the Republic of Hawaii.
Any other means, such as the use of a Joint Resolution is ruled out by the language the United States, itself, agreed to. Moreover, the use of the Joint Resolution violates the enumerated powers allocated over foreign affairs to the President and the United States Senate. Lastly, the last requirement of Article VII was never completed. There never was an exchange of ratifications in Washington as required by Article VII.
A.S. Hartwell, on behalf of the Republic of Hawaii pointed out to President McKinley that the terms of the Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution of 1898 differed a to a critical term. As such, the two instruments have different terms. The Treaty of 1897 and the Joint Resolution cannot be combined to form a single Treaty. Hartwell pointed out that the treaty proposed June 16, 1897 and the Joint Resolution differed as to material terms:
The Treaty in its first article declares that “all the territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii;” thus securing to Hawaii a distinct political status which is not secured by the wording in the Newlands resolution.
See Letter of Alfred S. Hartwell, Special Agent of the Government of Hawaii in Washington D.C. to President McKinley, October 25, 1899. [From the Manuscript Collection the Papers of A.S. Hartwell, Archives of State of Hawaii].
In conclusion, the Joint Resolution of 1898 30 Stat 750, did not ratify the Treaty of Annexation 1897 [June 16, 1897].
Very truly yours,
Williamson Chang,
Professor of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
William S. Richardson School of Law.Reply · Unlike · 1 · Follow Post · March 10 at 2:22pmAmelia Gora · Works at Self-EmployedJr Kuroiwa sad to see that many kanaka maoli don't know the true history....know that Premeditation has been uncovered which shows the conspiracies, the pillaging, piracy of a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation by broke ass/bankrupt nations including the U.S. and England....readhttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F0CE6DC1F3FEF33A2575AC0A9679C94629ED7CF for starters then read all 537 issues of the IOLANI - The Royal Hawk news on the web theiolani.blogspot.com or accelerate your learning by reading the latest Legal Notice to President Obama, Governor Ige, et. als. because the Royal Families still exist...the land owners, the true Hawaiian Kingdom exists whether anybody likes it or not...and are the only parties to the permanent Treaty of 1850 at http://theiolani.blogspot.com/2015/03/special-posting-saturday-3715.html oh by the way Scalia is bound by the U.S. Constitution because the treaty supersedes State, Federal laws....and it was locked in place before the usurpation of the American people as documented by the bankers Secret Constitution in 1871 with the information thanks to and by whistle blowers Karen Hudes, World Bank; Vladimir Putin, Russia - who denounces One World Order/New World Order, etc. which can be seen at http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/updated-chronological-history-of-our-queen-liliuokalani-by-amelia and http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/updated-chronological-history-of-our-queen-liliuokalani-by-amelia by the way appears that my letter is the only one on the whitehouse website http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/formsubmissions/54/c1dc2d2b35964f0392b21da2d9b05b42.pdf bet you that even you don't know that the U.S.A. became the U.S. and the American Empire documented in court case Peacock vs. the Republic of Hawaii in 1899.....bet you didn't know that the treasonous persons/conspirators/pirates /pillagers also placed Queen Liliuokalani back on the throne for a day in 1915 to celebrate the European's Balboa who visited the Pacific Ocean in 1514, etc....... empower yourself with knowledge, then blast the hell out of those who lie.......and by the way spread the truth and deny that the entity House of Representatives turned conspirator, treasonous persons supported by the U.S. and the American Empire, turned Provisional government, then Republic of Hawaii, then Territory of Hawaii, and State of Hawaii by U.S. President Eisenhower's executive order, are successors to our Hawaiian Kingdom as claimed in "THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII TO REGISTER AND CONFIRM ITS TITLE TO CERTAIN LAND SITUATE IN LAHAINA, ISLAND OF MAUI, TERRITORY OF HAWAII, AND KNOWN AS PA PELEKANE" (1912), HAWAII REPORTS Vol 21, Supreme Court of Hawaii, RH 345.4 H32 v.21 pg. 177
"That the Territory, as successor to the Kingdom of Hawaii, has obtained title to this lot by prescription."
There was no treaty of Annexation, the Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli's heirs and successors exists and are parties to the 1850 Treaty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States of America....,. ;) Many nations are watching us because we're from a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation and we're surrounded by Pirates/Pillagers etc....wicked lot.... aloha.........the best to Kanaka Maoli, Konohiki, Assistant Konohiki, and Friends
Reply by Amelia Gora on Delete
Amelia Gora · Works at Self-Employed
Texas was taken over, occupied by the same sugar planters from the Hawaiian Islands who occupied Mexican Territory, then had the U.S. Calvary help to protect their asses/er assets....that was a good Freudian slip...lol.......anywayz if you view the characters involved, you'll see that even today many of the Texans have their roots, relatives residing in the Hawaiian Islands....for example, the Cutter family in the Hawaiian Islands and their relative who moved over from Texas named Linda Lingle who became Governor....and recently she's back in the news http://bipartisanpolicy.org/person/linda-lingle/....red flags because the 'One World order activists seems to be spanning from the Hawaiian Islands, Texas, and Illinois with the Booth families........fyi....the Booth's are Obama's families by the way...... they are also Confederate General Robert E. Lee's bloodlines who was one of the heirs of George Washington's whose wife was a stock holder in the Bank of England........Obama is from a pirate, pillaging banker family being part of ( faggot )Charles Reed Bishop's sister who was a namesake of Bernice Pauahi Bishop., Charles Reed Bishop who was married to Bernice Pauahi Bishop was a banker, whose lover was William Lee, an American Consulate worker, attorney, judge.... anywayz see http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/exposing-obama-charles-reed... The Booth family appears to be tied to the One World Order, etc. due to the descendants being part of the auto sales (including Cutter - cousin of Linda Lingle); food chain - Foodland; airline industry, and the Bank of Hawaii....the bankers....their ancestor Booth was a "nigger hating" Englishman documented....his widow married into the Long's family (could it be the Long's Drugs chain? - research incomplete)... he had a son John Booth who went missing around the time U.S. President Lincoln was shot/assassinated..... also the Bush family also has its roots in the Hawaiian Islands....they have cousins here....and appears Candoleeza Rice too...the Rice family on the outer islands, etc..... observing that the various players, the pirates, pillages of the Hawaiian Islands and the world are the same people who have their wealth off of our Hawaiian monies, the Middle East areas due to the oil ---- car companies---airlines connections.... oh, interestingly the Court of Claims that Queen Liliuokalani entered in over the Crown Lands.which was claimed Ceded by the treasonous persons...Booth declared that the Ceded lands belonged to the office and not Queen Liliuokalani, etc.....(do you see more of the criminal wrongs? the wrongs by criminal deviants with roots from the same families?).....had Fenton Booth as the newly appointed Judge of the period...he was from Illinois....the same area where Obama attended school....the same think tank that houses the One World Order/New World Order activists.... hope everyone also smells something stink too....http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/exposing-obama-thru-genealo... also see what the greed is all about in the following film by Kili Kekumano and watch a LepreCON Pirate named (former Governor and Congressman) Neal Abercrombie explain it well in his greedy little low life way.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjELyim8q80 oh by the way Kamehameha's families/the Royal Families exists.... the heirs are here fyi.....and the entity State of Hawaii who claim to be successors of the Kingdom of Hawaii are Not related to us! Empower yourselves with knowledge folks and watch all the greedy players who are not even kanaka maoli! ;)
aloha.Reference:- http://maoliworld.com/forum/topics/judge-scalia-a-disinformer-or-un...
- othe references:
13) 1897-
President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalanihttps://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2JkZjMxMzEtMDIyNi00YW…14) 1897 – Annexation Opposition by Queen Liliuokalani found by researcher Kiliwehi Kekumano: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wOGJmZjg4MmQtNWRjMS00NT…Annexation Opposition (page 2) https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wNWVlMTc0MjEtZWZiZS00Y2…Annexation Opposition (page 3) https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wY2RjYzZmNjQtMjUxYi00Zm…Annexation Opposition (page 4) https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wNmY2Mzk3ZTctZDEyMy00Yz…15) The Hawaiian Disgrace http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F70A1FF7345D11738…16) Shameful Conspiracy https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6Gs4av5Se1wN2Y2YjAwOTItOTEwMC00Mz…Told ya, we're surrounded by PIRATES, PILLAGERS, Criminal Devians, Racketeers, American MAFIA......... reference on Mafia, etc.: http://theiolani.blogspot.com/2012/04/legalnotice.html http://theiolani.blogspot.com/2012/05/iolanipart1.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrY9eHkXTa4 Redemption Song
- Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora on
- Delete
- More References: http://maoliworld.ning.com/forum/topics/hawaiian-kanaka-maoli-homel... theiolani.blogspot.com http://myweb.ecomplanet.com/GORA8037
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNh-D1wb0bw Drunken Sailor - Rapalje
- Permalink Reply by on
- 2015 -
On Annexation of Hawaii, Scalia Fails Constitutionality Test
A joint resolution of Congress doesn't empower the United States to acquire another country. Only a treaty can do that.
In Civil Beat recently, Justice Antonin Scalia, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, made two critical points on the annexation of Hawaii: First, he stated that a joint resolution of the United States could acquire the territory of Hawaii — a foreign, sovereign and independent nation state. Second, he stated that the Constitution permitted the use of a joint resolution instead of a treaty.He was wrong on both points.First, a joint resolution is merely a law, an act of Congress. It has no power to acquire the territory of a foreign, sovereign state. If such a thing were possible, Hawaii itself could have, by an act of its Legislature, acquired the United States. Second, the only mode by which the United States could acquire Hawaii, an independent and sovereign nation like the United States, would be by treaty.Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
In answering a student’s question regarding the United States’ annexation of Hawaii, Supreme Court Justice Scalia overlooked important constitutional provisions.Second, the acquisition of Hawaii by a joint resolution of Congress would undermine the Constitution. The use of a joint resolution in place of a treaty would be an “end run” around an enumerated power — the power over foreign affairs that is delegated solely to the president and the Senate. The House has no power as to foreign affairs and does not vote on or ratify treaties.Moreover, the use of joint resolution to accomplish a treaty with a foreign sovereign undermines the super-majority required of the Senate as to the ratification of treaties. The Senate must ratify such measures by a two-thirds majority of those Senators present.This is made clear in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Clause 2: “[The President] shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur …”The inability of President William McKinley to garner the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify the Treaty of Annexation of 1897 led the administration to seek annexation by a mere act of Congress — a joint resolution. The administration could pass a joint resolution but not a treaty. This is precisely why McKinley attempted to annex by joint resolution.https://www.civilbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/image5.jpg" alt="McKinley"/>
President William McKinley, whose administration sought the annexation of Hawaii.Many are ignorant of or deceived about the joint resolution and the acquisition of Hawaii. Many do not know the specifics of the U.S. Constitution or the history of Hawaii. Yet, we expect more from Justice Scalia, for he has great power over the future of Native Hawaiians. His exchange with Jacob Bryan Aki, as published in Civil Beat, showed a surprising lack of constitutional knowledge. Aki, a Hawaiian student at George Washington University, asked Justice Scalia the following question during a class visit to the Supreme Court on Feb. 11:“Does the Constitution provide Congress the power to annex a foreign nation through a joint resolution rather than a treaty?”Scalia answered by first turning the question back at Aki. “Why would a treaty be needed,” he asked. “There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from annexing a foreign state through the means of a joint resolution. If the joint resolution is passed through both the U.S. House and Senate, then signed by the president, it went through a ‘process.’ ”
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
Comments
Amelia Gora also posted at http://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/.../us-president...
ManageLikeShow more reactions· Reply · Remove Preview · 1 minManageLikeShow more reactions· Reply · Remove Preview · 1 minAmelia Gora https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89BlFxuyqYQ
EDIT: I am almost to one million views. Holy crap! OKAY PEOPLE!! Listen, I just made…YOUTUBE.COMLikeShow more reactions· Reply · Remove Preview · Just nowKingdom of Hawaii Review: U.S. President Cleveland's Messages About Hawaii - Includes Evidence of Two Letters Prepared for Mr. Willis to Deliver, Treaties Still Applicable, etc.
Views: 3Replies to This Discussion
- Permalink Reply by
- EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, December 18, 1893.To the Senate of the United States:In compliance with a resolution passed by the Senate on the 6th instant, I hereby transmit reports of the Secretaries of State and of the Navy, with copies of all instructions given to the respective diplomatic and naval representatives of the United States in the Hawaiian Islands since the 4th day of March, 1881, touching the matters specified in the resolution.It has seemed convenient to include in the present communication to the Senate copies of the diplomatic correspondence concerning the political condition of Hawaii, prepared for transmission to the House of Representatives in response to a later resolution passed by that body on the 13th instant.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, December 18, 1893.To the House of Representatives:In compliance with a resolution passed by your honorable body on the 13th instant, I hereby transmit a report of the Secretary of State, with copies of the instructions given to Mr. Albert S. Willis, the representative of the United States now in the Hawaiian Islands, and also the correspondence since the 4th day of March, 1889, concerning the relations of this Government to those islands.In making this communication I have withheld only a dispatch from the former minister to Hawaii, numbered 70, under date of October 8, 1892, and a dispatch from the present minister, numbered 3, under date of November 16, 1893, because in my opinion the publication of these two papers would be incompatible with the public interest.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 13, 1894.To the Congress:I transmit herewith copies of all dispatches from our minister at Hawaii relating in any way to political affairs in that country, except such as have been heretofore laid before the Congress.I also transmit a copy of the last instructions sent to our minister, dated January 12, 1894, being the only instructions to him not already sent to the Congress.In transmitting certain correspondence with my message dated December 18, 1893, I withheld a dispatch from our present minister, numbered 3 and dated November 16, 1893, and also a dispatch from our former minister, numbered 70 and dated October 8, 1892. Inasmuch as the contents of the dispatch of November 16, 1893, are referred to in the dispatches of a more recent date, now sent to Congress, and inasmuch as there seems no longer to be sufficient reason for withholding said dispatch, a copy of the same is herewith submitted. The dispatch numbered 70 and dated October 8, 1892, above referred to, is still withheld for the reason that such a course still appears to be justifiable and proper.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 20, 1894.To the Congress:I transmit herewith dispatches received yesterday from our minister at Hawaii, with certain correspondence which accompanied the same, including a most extraordinary letter, dated December 27, 1893, signed by Sanford B. Dole, minister of foreign affairs of the Provisional Government, addressed to our minister, Mr. Willis, and delivered to him a number of hours after the arrival at Honolulu of a copy of my message to Congress on the Hawaiian question, with copies of instructions given to our minister.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 22, 1894.To the Congress:I transmit herewith copies of dispatches received from our minister to Hawaii after the arrival of those copies which accompanied my message of the 20th instant. I also inclose, for the information of Congress, copies of reports and a copy of an order just received by the Secretary of the Navy from Rear-Admiral Irwin, commanding our naval forces at Honolulu.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 2, 1894.To the Congress:I transmit a communication from the Secretary of State, accompanying a dispatch received a few days ago from our minister at Hawaii.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, February 12, 1894.To the Congress:I transmit herewith two dispatches received a few days ago from our minister at Hawaii, and a reply to one of them from the Secretary of State, in which a correct version is given of an interview which occurred November 14, 1893, between the Secretary of State and Mr. Thurston, representing the Provisional Government at Washington.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 16, 1894.To the Senate and House of Representatives:I transmit herewith, for the information of Congress, a communication from the Secretary of State, covering the report of the Director of the Bureau of the American Republics for the year 1893.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 19, 1894.To the House of Representatives:I herewith transmit copies of certain dispatches recently received from our minister at Honolulu.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 19, 1894.To the Senate:On the evening of the 16th instant I received a copy of a resolution passed by the Senate, requesting the transmission to that body of all reports and dispatches from our minister at Hawaii, and especially a certain letter written to him by Mr. Dole, President of the Provisional Government.On the same day I received from the State Department a copy of a dispatch from Minister Willis, accompanied by various exhibits. I was not able to send them to the Senate on that day. The Senate adjourned that afternoon until to-day, and thus prevented the submission until now of these papers.The next day after the receipt of the Senate resolution, and on the 17th instant, other dispatches were received from Mr. Willis at the State Department. They were copied with all possible haste, and are now submitted at the first meeting of the Senate since their receipt. They include the letter mentioned in the Senate resolution and the answer of Minister Willis to the same.Since the 18th day of December last, when I submitted to the "broader authority and discretion of the Congress" all matters connected with our relations with Hawaii, I have with the utmost promptness transmitted to the Congress all dispatches and reports relative to the subject, and I am not aware of any dispatches or documents in the remotest way connected with these relations which have come to the possession of the State Department or the Executive and been withheld from the Senate.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, March 7, 1894.To the Senate of the United States:I transmit herewith a report submitted by the Secretary of State in response to the resolution of the Senate dated January 23, 1894, requesting communication of correspondence exchanged between the Government of the United States and the Governments of Colombia, Venezuela, and Hayti.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 7, 1894.To the Congress:I transmit herewith copies of certain dispatches lately received from our minister at Hawaii, together with copies of the inclosures which accompanied such dispatches.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 8, 1894.To the Senate of the United States:I transmit herewith a report furnished by the Secretary of State in response to a resolution of the Senate of the 1st instant, making inquiry respecting the present condition of the Virginius indemnity fund.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, D.C., March 14, 1894.To the Senate:I herewith transmit a report5 of the Secretary of State of the 14th instant, concerning the several inquiries in the resolution of the Senate addressed to him under date of the 9th instant.GROVER CLEVELAND.EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, July 24, 1894.To the Congress:I herewith transmit a communication from the Secretary of State, covering a dispatch from the United States minister at Honolulu.GROVER CLEVELAND.TWO LETTERS (Important: Also Documented by Ingersoll, Orator and Attorney)EXECUTIVE MANSION, Washington, July 30, 1894.To the Congress:I herewith transmit a communication from the Secretary of State, covering two dispatches from the United States minister at Honolulu.GROVER CLEVELAND.TREATY APPLICATIONS AFFECTING THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, ENGLAND, ETC.EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 9, 1895.To the Senate and House of Representatives:I submit herewith certain dispatches from our minister at Hawaii and the documents which accompanied the same.They disclose the fact that the Hawaiian Government desires to lease to Great Britain one of the uninhabited islands belonging to Hawaii as a station for a submarine telegraph cable to be laid from Canada to Australia, with a connection between the island leased and Honolulu.Both the Hawaiian Government and the representatives of Great Britain in this negotiation concede that the proposed lease can not be effected without the consent of the United States, for the reason that in our reciprocity treaty with the King of Hawaii he agreed that as long as said treaty remained in force he would not "lease or otherwise dispose of or create any lien upon any port, harbor, or other territory in his dominion, or grant any special privilege or right of use therein, to any other power, state, or government."At the request of the Hawaiian Government this subject is laid before the Congress for its determination upon the question of so modifying the treaty agreement above recited as to permit the proposed lease.It will be seen that the correspondence which is submitted between the Hawaiian and British negotiators negatives the existence on the part of Hawaii of any suspicion of British unfriendliness or the fear of British aggression.The attention of the Congress is directed to the following statement contained in a communication addressed to the Hawaiian Government by the representatives of Great Britain:We propose to inform the British Government of your inquiry whether they would accept the sovereignty of Nicker Island or some other uninhabited island on condition that no subsidy is required from you. As we explained, we have not felt at liberty to entertain that question ourselves, as we were definitely instructed not to ask for the sovereignty of any island, but only for a lease simply for the purpose of the cable.Some of the dispatches from our minister, which are submitted, not only refer to the project for leasing an uninhabited island belonging to Hawaii, but contain interesting information concerning recent occurrences in that country and its political and social condition. This information is valuable because it is based upon the observation and knowledge necessarily within the scope of the diplomatic duties which are intrusted solely to the charge of this intelligent diplomatic officer representing the United States Government at Hawaii.I hope the Congress will see fit to grant the request of the Hawaiian Government, and that our consent to the proposed lease will be promptly accorded. It seems to me we ought not by a refusal of this request to stand in the way of the advantages to be gained by isolated Hawaii through telegraphic communication with the rest of the world, especially in view of the fact that our own communication with that country would thereby be greatly improved without apparent detriment to any legitimate American interest.GROVER CLEVELAND.
- Permalink Reply by
- NEUTRALITY - Also Applicable to Hawaii
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas by a proclamation dated the 12th day of June, A.D. 1895,34 attention was called to the serious civil disturbances, accompanied by armed resistance to the established Government of Spain, then prevailing in the island of Cuba, and citizens of the United States and all other persons were admonished to abstain from taking part in such disturbances in contravention of the neutrality laws of the United States; andWhereas said civil disturbances and armed resistance to the authority of Spain, a power with which the United States are on terms of peace and amity, continue to prevail in said island of Cuba; andWhereas since the date of said proclamation said neutrality laws of the United States have been the subject of authoritative exposition by the judicial tribunal of last resort, and it has thus been declared that any combination of persons organized in the United States for the purpose of proceeding to and making war upon a foreign country with which the United States are at peace, and provided with arms to be used for such purpose, constitutes a "military expedition or enterprise" within the meaning of said neutrality laws, and that the providing or preparing of the means for such "military expedition or enterprise," which is expressly prohibited by said laws, includes furnishing or aiding in transportation for such "military expedition or enterprise;" andWhereas, by express enactment, if two or more persons conspire to commit an offense against the United States any act of one conspirator to effect the object of such conspiracy renders all the conspirators liable to fine and imprisonment; andWhereas there is reason to believe that citizens of the United States and others within their jurisdiction fail to apprehend the meaning and operation of the neutrality laws of the United States as authoritatively interpreted as aforesaid, and may be misled into participation in transactions which are violations of said laws and will render them liable to the severe penalties provided for such violations:Now, therefore, that the laws above referred to, as judicially construed, may be duly executed, that the international obligations of the United States may be fully satisfied, and that their citizens and all others within their jurisdiction, being seasonably apprised of their legal duty in the premises, may abstain from disobedience to the laws of the United States and thereby escape the forfeitures and penalties legally consequent thereon, I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States, do hereby solemnly warn all citizens of the United States and all others within their jurisdiction against violations of the said laws, interpreted as hereinbefore explained, and give notice that all such violations will be vigorously prosecuted; and I do hereby invoke the cooperation of all good citizens in the enforcement of said laws and in the detection and apprehension of any offenders against the same, and do hereby enjoin upon all the executive officers of the United States the utmost diligence in preventing, prosecuting, and punishing any infractions thereof.In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed,[SEAL.]Done at the city of Washington, this 27th day of July, A.D. 1896, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and twenty-first.GROVER CLEVELAND.By the President:RICHARD OLNEY,Secretary of State.TREATIES CONTINUE TO OPERATE:EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 11, 1897.To the Senate:I transmit herewith a treaty for the arbitration of all matters in difference between the United States and Great Britain.The provisions of the treaty are the result of long and patient deliberation and represent concessions made by each party for the sake of agreement upon the general scheme.Though the result reached may not meet the views of the advocates of immediate, unlimited, and irrevocable arbitration of all international controversies, it is nevertheless confidently believed that the treaty can not fail to be everywhere recognized as making a long step in the right direction and as embodying a practical working plan by which disputes between the two countries will reach a peaceful adjustment as matter of course and in ordinary routine.In the initiation of such an important movement it must be expected that some of its features will assume a tentative character looking to a further advance, and yet it is apparent that the treaty which has been formulated not only makes war between the parties to it a remote possibility, but precludes those fears and rumors of war which of themselves too often assume the proportions of national disaster.It is eminently fitting as well as fortunate that the attempts to accomplish results so beneficent should be initiated by kindred peoples, speaking the same tongue and joined together by all the ties of common traditions, common institutions, and common aspirations. The experiment of substituting civilized methods for brute force as the means of settling international questions of right will thus be tried under the happiest auspices. Its success ought not to be doubtful, and the fact that its ultimate ensuing benefits are not likely to be limited to the two countries immediately concerned should cause it to be promoted all the more eagerly. The examples set and the lesson furnished by the successful operation of this treaty are sure to be felt and taken to heart sooner or later by other nations, and will thus mark the beginning of a new epoch in civilization.Profoundly impressed as I am, therefore, by the promise of transcendent good which this treaty affords, I do not hesitate to accompany its transmission with an expression of my earnest hope that it may commend itself to the favorable consideration of the Senate.GROVER CLEVELAND.NOTICE TO SENATORS TO TAKE NOTICE OF A PROCLAMATION NOT REVEALED.BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas public interests require that the Senate should be convened at 12 o'clock on the 4th day of March next to receive such communications as may be made by the Executive:Now, therefore, I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim and declare that an extraordinary occasion requires the Senate of the United States to convene at the Capitol, in the city of Washington, on the 4th day of March next, at 12 o'clock noon, of which all persons who shall at that time be entitled to act as members of that body are hereby required to take notice.Given under my hand and the seal of the United States, at Washington, the 24th day of February, A.D. 1897, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and twenty-first.[SEAL.]GROVER CLEVELAND.
By the PresidentRICHARD OLNEY,
Secretary of State.SUMMARYThe above selected articles of U.S. President Cleveland shows that U.S. President Cleveland did indeed return Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani in 1894 AND 1897.The Neutrality, Treaties, etc.were still in operation with Great Britain, and other nations.Although the words appears to have been carefully recorded, subtle information was given to those who were well aware of what President Cleveland conveyed in his Proclamations, etc.Research incomplete.aloha.
- Permalink Reply by
- Reference: MAKA ALA THE SLEEPING GIANT - Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 by Amelia Gora (2017)IOLANI - The Royal Hawk news on the web 675 issues to dateOLELO TV show by Hawaiian Bryan on News in Hawaii, etc.
Footnotes
1 (return)See pp. 377-378.2 (return)See pp. 395-396.3 (return)See Vol. VIII, pp. 353-355.4 (return)See pp. 348-349.5 (return)Relating to the coined silver money and the products of India, Russia, and the Argentine Republic.6 (return)Relating to the probable retaliatory action of foreign governments for the proposed imposition by the United States of a duty on sugar.7 (return)See pp. 368-369.8 (return)See pp. 94-97.9 (return)See pp. 440-441.10 (return)See p. 439.11 (return)See p. 477.12 (return)See Vol. VIII, pp. 517-518.13 (return)See p. 478.14 (return)See pp. 553-556.15 (return)See p. 476.16 (return)See p. 557.17 (return)See pp. 561-565.18 (return)See pp. 501-510.19 (return)See pp. 167-172.20 (return)Upon trial for desertion and conviction of absence without leave only, the court may, in addition to the limit prescribed for such absence, award a stoppage of the amount paid for apprehension.21 (return)Including first and excluding last.22 (return)In specifications to charges of larceny or embezzlement the value of the property shall be stated.23 (return)See pp. 439, 531-532.24 (return)See p. 477.25 (return)See p. 624.26 (return)See pp. 561-565.27 (return)See pp. 567-568.28 (return)See p. 632.29 (return)See p. 634.30 (return)See p. 633.31 (return)See Vol. IV, pp. 466-469.32 (return)See Vol. V, pp. 307-322.33 (return)See p. 9334 (return)See pp. 591-592.35 (return)See Vol. VIII, pp. 741-742.36 (return)See p. 624.37 (return)See pp. 450-451.38 (return)Of the second class 52,348,297 was county-free matter.39 (return)See pp. 701-711.40 (return)See pp. 501-510.41 (return)See pp. 501-51042 (return)See p. 58443 (return)See pp. 501-51044 (return)See pp. 155-156.End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, by Grover Cleveland *** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GROVER CLEVELAND *** ***** This file should be named 14137-h.htm or 14137-h.zip ***** This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: http://www.gutenberg.net/1/4/1/3/14137/ Produced by Juliet Sutherland, David Garcia and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team. Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. *** START: FULL LICENSE *** THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at http://gutenberg.net/license). Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg-tm License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.net), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided that - You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. - You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official page at http://pglaf.org For additional contact information: Dr. Gregory B. Newby Chief Executive and Director gbnewby@pglaf.org Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit http://pglaf.org While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: http://www.gutenberg.net This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.************************
U.S. President Cleveland Gave Hawaii Back to Queen Liliuokalani Twice(2x), With Legal and Researched Information Showing The Existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii
4:06
2:35
0:47
4:56
No comments:
Post a Comment