Update on Federal Lawsuit: Sai v. Clinton, et al.

From Dr. Sai…

UPDATE: MARCH 29, 2011 — On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia filed Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. The Court will determine whether to rescind and/or revise the Order or deny Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. Either way it will be appealed by either party to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, known informally as the D.C. Circuit. The U.S. Attorney in its Opposition made no mention of the misapplication by the Court of a 2009 federal lawsuit out of the D.C. Circuit, Lin v. United States, justifying the Court’s assertion of the political question doctrine as expounded in Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. As stated in Plaintiff’s Motion, in Lin v. United States, the D.C. Circuit, stated, “Once the Executive determines Taiwan’s sovereign, we can decide Appellants’ resulting status and concomitant rights expeditiously. (‘[T]he judiciary ordinarily follows the executive as to which nation has sovereignty over disputed territory, once sovereignty over an area is politically determined and declared, courts may examine the resulting status and decide independently whether a statute applies to that area.’)” The difference between Taiwan and the Hawaiian Kingdom is that recognition of Hawaiian sovereignty was afforded by the U.S. President [Executive] on July 6, 1844. Therefore, Plaintiff argues Lin v. United States cannot be used to invoke the political question doctrine in this case and therefore the Court “can decide [Plaintiff’s] resulting status and concomitant rights expeditiously.”

The fundamental question for the Court to determine is whether or not sovereignty of a country [state] can be withdrawn arbitrarily by the U.S. President [Executive] after it was previously afforded by his predecessor in office, namely President John Tyler. In the Motion to Reconsider, Plaintiff argues “Once recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State was granted by the Executive, see Amend. Compl. para. 11, Professor Oppenheim asserts that it ‘is incapable of withdrawal’ by the recognizing State. See Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, vol. I (3d. 1920), at 137. Professor Schwarzenberger also asserts, that ‘recognition estops the State which has recognized the title from contesting its validity at any future time.’ See Georg Schwarzenberger, Title to Territory: Response to a Challenge, Am. J. Int’l L., 51, no. 2 (1957): 308-324, at 316. Professor Craven opines, that Hawaiian sovereignty ‘may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States.’ See Matthew Craven, Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 1 Hawn. J.L. & Politics 508-544, 512 (Summer 2004).” Website for the lawsuit is at http://hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml.