Sai v. Obama – Point of Clarification

From Keanu re Sai v Obama et al

POINT OF CLARIFICATION. There appears to be some confusion regarding the federal lawsuit so I would like to take this opportunity to provide some clarification. Some believe that I’m asking the court to determine the legal status of Hawai`i as a sovereign and independent State. This is not so. Whenever a lawsuit is filed, whether criminal or civil, there has to be a dispute. By definition, a dispute is “a conflict or controversy; a conflict of claims or rights; an assertion of a right, claim, or demand on one side, met by contrary claims or allegations on the other.” My particular dispute is with the Federal Defendants (Clinton, Gates and Willard), who I allege are liable because as a result of not faithfully executing the Lili`uokalani assignment, which is to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, I was convicted of a felony under U.S. law through the State of Hawai`i, and since the indictment of attempted theft of real estate was manufactured, because you can’t steal or attempt to steal land, it also constituted a violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention and Title 18 U.S.C. §2441(c)(1) regarding warcrimes which is defined as depriving a protected person of a fair and regular trial. My trial was neither fair nor regular. I contend Federal Defendants are liable and they are supposed to say “no we’re not.” Instead of answering the complaint to deny or accept the allegations, the Federal Defendants chose to attack the complaint on procedural grounds, which I completely expected. Since I filed the lawsuit under the Alien Tort Statute, alleging I’m an alien (Hawaiian subject) and the violation of the treaty (Lili`uokalani assignment) took place outside of the United States (in the Hawaiian Kingdom), they had to attack procedurally because if they answered and responded to my allegations they accept the court’s jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute where I’m an alien and the violation took place outside of the U.S. So, in essence, the U.S. District Attorney would have to show that I’m not an alien, and to do this he would have to show that Hawai`i was lawfully annexed to the United States, thereby making the Hawaiian Kingdom to be the State of Hawai`i and my citizenship American and not Hawaiian.

In the U.S. Attorney’s motion to dismiss they said the complaint fails on 4 procedural grounds: (1) the court cannot exercise jurisdiction because Hawai`i was admitted as State of the Federal Union in 1959 by Congress and as such it’s a political question; (2) that Federal and State Courts in court decisions already determined that the Kingdom doesn’t exist and therefore I have no claim upon which relief can be granted; (3) the complaint was not written according to the rules; and (4) the Statute of Limitation ran out because a complaint should have been filed 6 years after Congress admitted Hawai`i as a State in 1959. My Opposition to their motion refuted all four: (1) the 1959 Statehood Act is an internal law of the U.S. passed by Congress and has no effect outside of U.S. territory, and therefore cannot be argued by Defendants without violating the Lili`uokalani assignment; (2) Federal and State Courts did not rule on the Kingdom because every decision stated the “defendants provided no evidence”; (3) the complaint had to be written in that form because this information was never presented before any court of the U.S., and also because I’m representing myself I am given latitude; and (4) the Alien Tort Statute provides a Statute of Limitations to actually be 10 years after an injury to an alien. In its reply to my opposition, the Federal Defendants did not press the 2nd and 3rd grounds, but are relying only on the 1st ground, which is that Hawai`i became a State in 1959. I then filed a response to their reply clarifying the weakness of their argument. An oral hearing should be set by the court in the near future.

The outcome of the pleadings is that it chiseled the matters regarding jurisdiction of the court, where the point of contention between the Federal Defendants and myself, as Plaintiff, is whether or not the 1959 Statehood Act prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction over the case because it’s a political question. The U.S. Attorney is arguing that I’m challenging the legality of the State of Hawai`i, and therefore the challenge is a political question because they content that the legal status of Hawai`i was committed to Congress and not the court. But I am not challenging the legality of the State of Hawai`i. Instead I am utilizing my indictment, conviction and sentencing by the State of Hawai`i as evidence of the violation of the Lili`uokalani assignment, and therefore my rights as a third-party beneficiary of the assignment. The State of Hawai`i can’t exist at the same time as the Hawaiian Kingdom. Since there is a presumption of continuity on the part of the Hawaiian Kingdom, because U.S. President John Tyler afforded recognition as an independent State in 1842, and President Cleveland entered into an agreement with the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Queen in 1893 temporarily assigning executive power to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, the U.S. Attorney cannot claim that Congress affected the status of the Hawaiian Kingdom by passing an internal law claiming Hawai`i was the 50th State in 1959, which is 66 years after the fact. The U.S. Attorney cannot get around the fact that Congressional laws have no force beyond the borders of the United States. Instead, what the U.S. Attorney was supposed to have done was show that the Hawaiian Kingdom became a part of the United States under international law, which would have succeeded the Lili`uokalani assignment and effectively allow Congress to transform Hawai`i from a Territory into a State of the Federal Union as well as having altered by alien status from a Hawaiian subject to a citizen of the United States.

Please pass this on to others you may feel would be interested in the lawsuit.

Keanu.