State Judge rules Hawaiian Kingdom still exists

[grsjax]

Well we will see. I am sure this case will make for an interesting debate one way or the other. Going to be instructive to see how this plays out in court.

No matter how thin you slice it, its still balony.

[Wao nahele kane]

So the Kingdom of Hawaii still exists according to international law (Duly noted, Judicial Notice, woo who). The judge isn't bound by international law, the judge is bound by the Sovereign power of U.S. Laws and the judges jurisdiction has been upheld through the Supreme Court by virtue of it's position regarding the annexation of Hawaii.

Here's the bottom line -

International Laws effectiveness is no greater than the political will of the nations who give it its effectiveness allow it to be.
For example, if Hawaii had been illegally annexed by say... ElSalvador and the U.S. was eying Honolulu's ports. The U.S. might approach the Kingdom of Hawaii and strike a tentative deal of something along the lines - If the Hawaiian Kingdom would allow the U.S. to park the 5th fleet in its Honolulu harbors then the U.S. would agree to go to bat for the Hawaiian Kingdom to regain control of its islands through the world court and the heavy hitting international law (its personal Bully Pulpit) and by the newly found incredible now EFFECTIVE POWER of the world court, the U.S. is now miraculously justified in helping out its newly found friend called the Kingdom of Hawaii. So the U.S. tells ElSalvador (in no uncertain terms) to immediately relinquish the Hawaiian Islands back to the Kingdom of Hawaii. Should ElSalvador not comply... the U.S. would then exercise a little arm twisting and ElSalvador would then comply. Now if Russia all of a sudden took pity on ElSalvador because it struck a deal to position nuclear missiles on the Hawaiian islands... then we might have a stand off.

So... how many strong buddies does the Kingdom of Hawaii have that are willing to Tango with the USA and what would be in it for them?
And there you have it, the REALITY of true sovereignty (because it's no greater than your strength to retain it).

[ironyak]

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/pdf/Dissertation(Sai).pdf

Having read Dr Sai's dissertation awhile back, I think your explanation of the its views is fine Kaimana. There is a lot of intriguing material there, so my questions are prompted by an interest in some of the nuances and details beyond the general summary "Hawaii was illegaly annexed by the US."

Overall, the word "illegal" doesn't seem to stand well against thousands of international agreements passed by joint-resolutions of congress or the US Supreme Court's side-long support of the annexation by joint-resolution process. Whether or not this was sufficient for the transfer of territory and sovereignty is open for debate as the lines are not clear between when each ratification process might be required.

Kane and others raise some pragmatic questions regarding the commercial and military aspects that are worth considering. While clarifying the legal issues are important, they are only part of the situation and the realities of political power.

[Frank]

Aloha to all who have jumped into this very interesting thread...BEST discourse ever on PW...mahalo for the education (in adult terms and presentation)

[Kaimana]

Wao nahele kane- I agree with you but right now the main agenda is to get it recognized that Hawaii was illegally annexed. Right now barely anyone in the Hawaii itself even realizes this is an actual argument let alone the rest of the world.

[Wao nahele kane]

My concern regarding this movement matter is found in taking it to an extreme. These sorts of movements tend to attract a lot of loose wing nuts. These loose wing nuts can be easily manipulated by covert means for purposes not in alignment with the movements goals. To prove this sort of concern is valid - consider this. Recently a dominate world power made a statement to the U.S. to only prove a point but none the less a scenario that has taken place countless times in global struggles to retain power, leverage a position and or create internal instabilities.

The statement from this dominate world power consisted of offering to give the Kingdom of Hawaii automatic weapons to assist in regaining their lost sovereignty. Though it was merely to illustrate a point to the U.S. because the U.S. had been meddling in this other world powers affairs, it caused the U.S. to back off the matter (not that the U.S. would be in fear of an armed Kingdom movement because the people of the Kingdom can already go buy arms at Sports Authority etc. at any time and even secretly modify them). The U.S. backed off because the point was embarrassing politically.

So my concern is the loose wing nut factor that can lead to some serious violence. I can postulate a number of reasons why these wing nuts might be nudged by outside influences to create some havoc. Each of them results in very bad publicity for the Kingdoms movement and lands some partakers in prison for life and possibly many people dead. Dr. Sai may be inadvertently leading a few down a very dangerous path. He has no doubt lead several to loss of personal real property and unnecessary legal trouble already. He and his associates are testing the waters at the expense of those gullible enough to put their own fate on the line to test his theories. Those particular actions on his behalf, I have no respect for.

[Wao nahele kane]

Also, getting others to realize that Hawaii was illegally annexed for what purpose? Let's face it, "illegal" does not mean illegal in the usual sense of the word. "Illegal" is based on nothing more than an artifact of limited scenarios of international law recognitions regarding treaties.

Think about the following very carefully when citing the word "illegal".

The limited scenarios in recognitions of annexation treaties through international laws does not reflect in a violation of an international law. It merely means that international law does not officially recognize the methodology used to annex Hawaii but it does not mean that international law see's the treaty of annexation as a violation of its laws. Thus, the world court by mere technicality is forced to recognize Hawaii's last recognizable legal existence by virtue of its own underdeveloped recognitions.
This amounts to nothing in factuality. So we want to create a hornets nest and poke it with a stick at the same time. I fail to see the value in that. I can respect the desire to bring forward the history lesson but the way it's presented is very misleading when we apply it to reality and that can lead to a great deal of pointless harms.

[Wao nahele kane]

Here's a link to the arms for supporters of the Hawaiian Kingdom story.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015...o-want-ki/#!

This is a result of Dr. Sai's work. It has already undermined U.S. international affairs. Make no mistake that this will lead to relinquishment of the State of Hawaii by the U.S. It most certainly will not. I as many Americans and I'm sure native Hawaiians do not appreciate undermining our nations affairs internationally.

[Wao nahele kane]

The above is a direct proof that the world is not yet ready to respect the sovereignty of an independent Hawaiian nation. It has nothing to do with Hawaiians as a people, it has everything to do with where these islands sit globally. The world is still a very hostile place and though we piss and moan about the underhanded activity by the USA - consider the absence of rules on playing field globally and the agenda some of these other nations have. Now ask yourself, which one of these other nations do you want to see occupying Hawaii? That is a very real and factual scenario and not just an unjustified empty response to the matter.

I'd recommend putting the Hawaii National movement in the closet - because out of the closet today will serve no benefit for its interests. I'd also imagine anyone who has come here on PW and indicated support for the movement in a questionably violent manner may consider themselves on several US. agency potential terrorist watch lists. Yes, this matter is under very close scrutiny, don't end up on the questionable side.

It's a very real threat to U.S. security and not because the matter contains merit.

[Kaimana]

The article is fear mongering at it's finest. No Hawaiian sovereignty movement has said anything about arming itself or anything about a violent revolution. And the Chinese deny saying any of it.

quote:

---

Chinese Embassy spokesman Zhu Haiquan said he has never heard any Chinese officials use “such rhetoric as you mentioned.”

“It is either a serious misunderstanding or a rumor with untold intentions,” he said.

---

In all honesty, what does US security matter to Hawaii if it is an independent nation and being occupied by the US? If we become an independent nation, we will be a neutral one. Unless it directly effects us, we shouldn't get involved.

It's the US' fault for selling arms to Taiwan. Will the US ever learn there lesson about blowback?

And anyone believing that we will be taken over by another nation forcefully is also mistaken. Show me how many nations have been taken over by force by another nation in the last 50 years.

What's more likely is us being Nuked due to the US military presence here.