Hawaiian Kingdom Independence Blog

From Keanu re Sai v. Obama et al:

UPDATE. U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on behalf of Federal Defendants, files Reply in Further Support of Their Motion to Dismiss. To download Federal Defendants Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition go to http://hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml under “Court Docket Filings.” I will be periodically updating “Court Docket Filings” as documents are being filed with the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.

The gist of the Federal Defendants argument is that since the Hawaiian Islands became a State of the Federal Union in 1959 under “An Act to Provide for the Admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union,” Pub. L. No. 86-3, 73 U.S. Stat. 4, it’s a political question that bars the Court from hearing the case because they argue that the legal status of Hawai`i was committed to Congress and not the Court. The Federal Defendants have made no mention or argument relying on the “Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States,” 30 U.S. Stat. 750 (1898). The fatal flaw of this argument is that Congressional laws are limited to U.S. territory and have no force and effect beyond U.S. borders, and therefore Congress could no more annex the Hawaiian Islands than it could annex and bring Canada the Union a State. The 1959 Statehood Act was based on the 1898 Joint Resolution of annexation of the Hawaiian Islands and the 1900 Organic Act that established the Territory of Hawai`i. The Statehood Act did not annex, but merely attempted to transform the Territory of Hawai`i into a State of the Federal Union. The Federal Defendants have not denied the existence of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Agreement of restoration, both being executive agreements under the sole authority of the U.S. President in foreign relations.

From Keanu re Sai v. Obama et al:

UPDATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 — Plaintiff Dimisses Defendant Lingle, but Defendants Clinton, Gates, Willard remain. In Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lingle’s Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff admitted that he is not seeking to sue Defendant Lingle, but only listed her as a nominal (name only) defendant. To download the Notice, go to http://hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml under “Court Docket Filings.” I will be periodically updating “Court Docket Filings” as documents are being filed with the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. I will soon be filing an Opposition to Defendant Clinton, Gates and Willard’s Motion to Dismiss.

From Keanu re Sai v. Obama et al:

UPDATE. U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on behalf of Federal Defendants Clinton, Gates and Willard, filed a Motion to Dismiss (PDF) on September 13, 2010. The U.S. Attorney is joining the same defense made by Defendant Lingle and relying on the political question doctrine that the issue of Hawai`i’s legal status is committed to Congress under Congress’ constitutional authority to admit new States into the Federal Union, which therefore prevents the Court from hearing the case. An interesting note is that neither the State of Hawai`i nor the U.S. Attorney is relying on the 1898 Congressional joint resolution of annexation. Instead they are relying on the 1959 Statehood Act whereby Hawai`i was transformed from a U.S. Territory into a State of the Union. In my Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lingle’s Motion to Dismiss (PDF) I addresses this issue in detail. To download Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss go to http://hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml under “Court Docket Filings.” I will be periodically updating “Court Docket Filings” as documents are being filed with the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.