Pirate Eyes on Hawaii Series: The Hidden Entities Encouraging Some to Fight...examples: Atooi bullies, Professor Francis Boyle et. als.

Review

by Amelia Gora (2018)

The following was posted on a Facebook thread about the Atooi bullies, which we, the Royal Families don't support:

We maintain a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation....Atooi are not in sync ….sad to say that the moves that they did is their own doing.... breaking the rib(s) of OHA's employee is not the way to go...…….we are about rule of law, Treaty of 1849/1850 between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States ratified by Kamehameha III who maintained that we are a neutral non-violent nation....even Queen Liliuokalani stated the same...……...someone told me at the Iolani Palace yesterday that the Atooi group were paid by Coco Palms developers....info not verified.... but I have noticed that there have been efforts to get kanaka maoli moving to fight...example: Professor Boyle of Chicago University tried to have Bumpy Kanahele et.als. to move towards violence...I received messages from our friend Whistleblower Leuren Moret to watch out for Boyle see: http://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/.../st-thomas-law... ….so all interested kanaka maoli needs to find out who put those guys up to do what they did...a researcher was placed in jail by OHA's Collin Kippins who charged Kealoha Kuhia with going against a TRO/ Temporary restraining order and Kuhia was arrested, thrown into jail....and went missing for months....he was put into solitary confinement and came out broken, damaged...….then we found out he died? ...so do you suppose that OHA will do similar to a protected person who did wrong in an illegal, identity thieving entity called the State of Hawaii even though opposition to Statehood was made as a result of a legal notice that was answered by a Kamehameha descendant …… notice the moves of the Attorney General's office asking for millions to protect themselves, their illegal selves with pirate, pillaging, fraud, etc. documented showing their wrongs....and what's the talk about martial law..... everyone should watch those Atooi guys because we were also informed that one of those arrested was a SAMOAN...not a kanaka maoli…...for the purposes of justice, we must at least be watching what happens to those few and maintain that we are not associated with them....it appears that there are planned moves to encourage a fight against kanaka maoli, a planned effort to make a conflict against the allodial landowners in the Hawaiian Islands...…….please report any further activities of entities paying kanaka maoli or bullies getting paid to appear that they are having a conflict with the occupiers, the squatters, the pirates/pillagers/ frauds/genocide activists who are trying their best to get some fighting from a neutral nations people who are Not the ones who did wrong....

Manage

iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com

St. Thomas Law Review by Professor Boyle and Whistleblower's Leuren…

ReplyRemove Preview19m

Amelia Gora Note: the think tank for pirates, pillagers, One World order is at University of Illinois (Chicago), Harvard University, Yale University, and the University of Hawaii at Manoa. For more information about these issues read the articles at the IOLANI - the Royal Hawk news on the web..... another example of wrongs against our people come off of the article about General Alfred S. Hartwell who was selected to be a Judge by Harvard University......when he stepped off the ship, Kamehameha V - Lot gave him the title of ….he was assigned along with the many other generals, supported by many others, maneuvered to change the laws set in place such as the Crown lands, and eventually became the third wealthiest man in the Hawaiian Islands....helped to usurp Queen Liliuokalani, etc. Remember the moves by pirates documented and be aware of the ongoing deceptions played by controlled people such as the Atooi group, etc. https://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/.../pirate-eyes... reminding all that we are Not the ones who did wrong...empower yourselves with information and maintain the directions of Queen Liliuokalani who said that we continue from the time of Kamehameha III - Kauikeaouli and to remain a neutral, friendly, non- violent nation. aloha.

Manage

iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com

Pirate Eyes on Hawaii Series: Remembering the Criminal…

ReplyRemove Preview8m

***************
Reference:

Boar Kelli-ua

~~SpSonSsoSredS~~

13 hrs

JUST KNOW These FKN pirates right here are with the DE FACTO & not with the DE JURE
THEY ARE guilty of committing treason to our Monarchy aka KINGDOM OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS under our own Ko Hawaii Pae AINA Laws and Constitution
They have NO SOUL NO SPIRIT JUST A VEHICLE AND VESSEL WORKING FOR AND WITH THE DE FACTO CROOKS
If they only knew wat happens to souls that sell out like them

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling, people standing

Pono Kealoha Do you have the video link? When he tried to play king @ Coco Palms

Manage

Reply13h

Mahealani Martin Wtf!!!!

Manage

Reply13h

Kado Allesso Strom The guy never even show up just send his followers to take the fall real hero

Manage

Reply13h

Boar Kelli-ua Lol the crooks only li,e wrk wit dem cuz they scared of the real DE JURE Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands returning
🤙🏽🤦‍♂️😝😝😭

Manage

Reply13h

Kado Allesso Strom Boar Kelli-ua and the old laws I got you on that paybacks for sure will be a B when the time comes for them messing with the ohana for sure

Manage

Reply13h

Boar Kelli-ua Yes u got that right cuz 💯% they know they guilty Nd will b punished if the real kingdom with the real laws aka Hawaiian magnacarta returns 🙌🏼🙌🏼

Manage

Reply13h

Kado Allesso Strom Can’t wait cuz we are strong 💪

Manage

Reply13h

Write a reply...

Micah Henderson Is not da Hawaiian Donald trump ah? 🤣🤣

112

Manage

Reply12h

Crystal Vogele What is it with these guys!

Manage

Reply10h

Andrew Kuloloia He not even one KING.

Manage

Reply7h

Mahele Gomes Jr. AWE

Manage

Reply7h

Daniel Kahaialii What Kawai is wit Atooi?

Manage

Reply7h

Kaleo Bishop They look like Crooks!#truth

Manage

Reply6h

Dwayne K Akau Really Dane Gonsavles.

Manage

Reply4h

Tasha Cox King????ummmmm🤔 still trying to figure what's going on with these guys

Manage

Reply3h

Shane Niau Yup idiots 🤣

Manage

Reply3h

Ekolu Kalama Crabbe’s in the can syndrome. 🤦🏽‍♂️

Manage

Reply3h

Sheyenne Keliikuli Even if he can trace his lineage back to Kaumuali'i does not make him any type of ali'i in anyway. Ali'i of ancient times were reared to behave as an ali'i should from bebe time. I hope he knows that No matter how much kākau he put on his face, he will not become an ali'i. Smh 🙄

Manage

Reply3h

Lono Perry I get it and feel the sentiment when someone self-proclaims leadership and authority like this BUT... look for the other lesson Kanakas... truth be told, Atooi is actually doing things, stirring the bowl, got and getting ‘ĀINA and drawing attention to the issue we ku’e for too: Our land, water, and inherent birthright to our self-determination and sovereignty... Intention is good, tactics and direction...A’ole pono! Rather than blast Uncle Dane Gonsalves, I say Mahalo for teaching us about leadership. Maybe we need to stop criticizing every “leader” who makes moves for Lahui and realize WE ARE ALL LEADERS! Lead and be an example to your ohana, to your kula, when you hana pono, at all times believing in kapualoha. It is our collective commitment to lead by example with Hā, mana, and maopopo pono that will lead to our EA O KA ‘ĀINA I KA PONO!
Pau

Manage

Reply49m

Amelia Gora We maintain a neutral, friendly, non-violent nation....Atooi are not in sync ….sad to say that the moves that they did is their own doing.... breaking the rib(s) of OHA's employee is not the way to go...…….we are about rule of law, Treaty of 1849/1850 between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States ratified by Kamehameha III who maintained that we are a neutral non-violent nation....even Queen Liliuokalani stated the same...……...someone told me at the Iolani Palace yesterday that the Atooi group were paid by Coco Palms developers....info not verified.... but I have noticed that there have been efforts to get kanaka maoli moving to fight...example: Professor Boyle of Chicago University tried to have Bumpy Kanahele et.als. to move towards violence...I received messages from our friend Whistleblower Leuren Moret to watch out for Boyle see: http://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/.../st-thomas-law... ….so all interested kanaka maoli needs to find out who put those guys up to do what they did...a researcher was placed in jail by OHA's Collin Kippins who charged Kealoha Kuhia with going against a TRO/ Temporary restraining order and Kuhia was arrested, thrown into jail....and went missing for months....he was put into solitary confinement and came out broken, damaged...….then we found out he died? ...so do you suppose that OHA will do similar to a protected person who did wrong in an illegal, identity thieving entity called the State of Hawaii even though opposition to Statehood was made as a result of a legal notice that was answered by a Kamehameha descendant …… notice the moves of the Attorney General's office asking for millions to protect themselves, their illegal selves with pirate, pillaging, fraud, etc. documented showing their wrongs....and what's the talk about martial law..... everyone should watch those Atooi guys because we were also informed that one of those arrested was a SAMOAN...not a kanaka maoli…...for the purposes of justice, we must at least be watching what happens to those few and maintain that we are not associated with them....it appears that there are planned moves to encourage a fight against kanaka maoli, a planned effort to make a conflict against the allodial landowners in the Hawaiian Islands...…….please report any further activities of entities paying kanaka maoli or bullies getting paid to appear that they are having a conflict with the occupiers, the squatters, the pirates/pillagers/ frauds/genocide activists who are trying their best to get some fighting from a neutral nations people who are Not the ones who did wrong....

Manage

iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com

St. Thomas Law Review by Professor Boyle and Whistleblower's Leuren…

ReplyRemove Preview24m

Manage

iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com

Pirate Eyes on Hawaii Series: Remembering the Criminal…

ReplyRemove Preview1mEdited

Manage

iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com

Pirate Eyes on Hawaii Series: Remembering the Criminal…

ReplyRemove Preview13m

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`i
December 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.

See key excerpts of this testimony

Reference: http://www.alohaquest.com/archive/boyle_testimony.htm

and

Whistleblower Leuren Moret's Comments on Professor Boyle:

Amelia Gora note: Leuren Moret, depleted uranium expert, cautioned us about the moves of Boyle because he undermined the Palestinians and moves to undermine our Hawaiian people...... we can btw pick and choose some of his points less the use of violence.... http://maoliworld.com/.../professor-boyle-argues-for-the...

Professor Boyle Argues for the Kingdom of Hawaii to FIGHT, yet He Is Not A Friend…

MAOLIWORLD.COM

LikeReplyRemove Preview27 mins

Amelia Gora "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 STA'TES (OAS), AND WAS SUCCESSFULLY SUED THERE FOR WAR CRIMES IN GRANADA, RESULTING IN THE US REBUILDING HOSPITALS IT HAD ILLEGALLY BOMBED WITH DEPLETED URANIUM' ...be vigilant....... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fHywh73_bE

Sickness & Rads in Hawaii:Leuren Moret

YOUTUBE.COM

LikeReplyRemove Preview19 mins

Amelia Gora Know that every sovereign nation has the right to expel people from their nation....international law...Trump has the right idea....and as a sovereign nation, we too can do the same.... fyi http://iolani-theroyalhawk.blogspot.com/.../vol-vi-no-637...

Vol VI No. 637 - Trump did his Homework based on Osama Bin Ladin's Info from an…

IOLANI-THEROYALHAWK.BLOGSPOT.COM

LikeReplyRemove Preview11 mins

Amelia Gora should anyone even come to Hawaii as a tourist let alone live, pay taxes, support a criminal, deviant set up? ......complete with harmful experimentations from depleted uranium, GMO's etc.........aren't we in harms way....targets of hate by a premeditating, bankrupt, corrupt entity of the U.S. who has no jurisdiction? who's mucking up the world? who's mucking up our Hawaiian Islands at our expense..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k67ZZzWt1Hk all the more reason for our government to return ....which is why the Kingdom of Hawaii exists even now...

MK Ultra, Tavistock, HAARP & Mind Control - Leuren Moret

YOUTUBE.COM

LikeReplyRemove PreviewJust now

Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora on September 4, 2016 at 1:13pm

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)

1-BOYLE.ScreenHunter_1037-Dec.-12-23.02-320x253

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amelia Gora on September 4, 2016 at 1:14pm: 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)

http://bit.ly/1e4p7Is

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 14^th 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

https://www.facebook.com/surfkick/posts/10202021897528655

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: ~~francis~~

ALERT: 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 author
Leuren 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

www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010/05/01/podcast-show-28/

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

www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27a/index-dl.html

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

www.rense.com/general79/hiro.htm

... 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: ~~francis~~ ‎~~boyle~~

Prof 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+

https://plus.google.com/114494411737393398002/about

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 ...

https://memoryholeblog.com/.../academic-freedom-conference-ii-are-the...

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

John Lennon-Power To The People-Offical Video-HQ

John Lennon-Power To The People" lyrics Power to the people Power to the people ...See More

20 secs · Like · Remove Preview

***************************************************************************************

Ua Mau Ke Ea o Ka Aina I Ka Pono - Kauikeaouli/Kamehameha III

Saturday, January 19, 2019

Pirate Eyes on Hawaii Series: The Hidden Entities Encouraging Some to Fight...examples: Atooi bullies, Professor Francis Boyle et. als.

Boar Kelli-ua

Comments

Thursday, March 22, 2018

St. Thomas Law Review by Professor Boyle and Whistleblower's Leuren Moret, Aaron Ardaiz (dec.), and Amelia Gora's Comments on Professor Boyle

RESTORATION OF THE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF HAWAI`I UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Professor Francis Anthony 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

Replies to This Discussion

“Francis A. Boyle— the Hague & the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal” (Dissenting Op-Ed)

“Francis A. Boyle— the Hague & the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes ...

Amelia Gora - Professor Boyle IS NOT a Good Guy! The... | Facebook

ALERT: FRANCIS A. BOYLE, ET.ALS. (ALL UN OPERATIVES AND ...

Podcast Show #28 - Boiling Frogs Post

DU as stealth weapon - Hartford Web Publishing

DU Ammo Fired In Mideast Worse Than Hiroshima/Nagasaki

Archive | Leuren Moret: Global Nuclear Coverup | Laurens Battis

Prof Francis Boyle | Eyre International - Bringing You The News No ...

Leuren Moret: Global Nuclear Coverup - About - Google+

ACADEMIC FREEDOM CONFERENCE II: Are there Limits to Inquiry ...

No comments:

Post a Comment