Kingdom of Hawai'i
Sovereign Nation of God

His Royal Majesty Akahi Nui
Sovereign Heir of the Hawaiian Islands
and Trustee of the KINGDOM OF HAWAI'I NATION MINISTRY TRUST
Poste Box 2845, Moku aina O Wailuku,
Mokupuni O Maui, Ke Aupuni O Hawai`i



U.S. President George W. Bush
Office of the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington D.C. 20500
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9252

First Lady Laura Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington D.C. 20500
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9276

The Honorable Bill Frist
Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington D.C. 20510-1103
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9290

The Honorable Daniel Inouye
722 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9313

The Honorable Lindsey Graham
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9337

U.S. Vise President Dick Cheney
Office of the Vise President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington D.C. 20500
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9269

U.S. Secretary of the Interior,
Gale Norton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington D.C. 20500
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9283

The Honorable John McCain
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510-0303
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9306

The Honorable Daniel Akaka
141 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9320

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney General
Jonorable Alberto R. Gonzales
440 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington D.C. 20530-0001
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0289


Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc1 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski
709 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9344

The Honorable Norm Coleman
320 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9368

The Honorable Maria Cantwell
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9382

The Honorable Harry Reid
709 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9405

The Honorable Pat Roberts
109 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9429

The Honorable John Rockefeller
531 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9443

The Honorable Ken Salazar
702 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9467

The Honorable Rick Santorum
711 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9481

The Honorable Charles Schumer
313 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9504

The Honorable Barbara Mikulski
503 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9528

The Honorable Byron Dorgan
322 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9351

The Honorable Ted Stevens
522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9375

The Honorable Gordon Smith
404 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9399

The Honorable Arlen Specter
711 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9412

The Honorable Olympia Snowe
154 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9528

The Honorable Richard Shelby
110 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9450

The Honorable Jeff Sessions
335 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9474

The Honorable Paul Sarbanes
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9498

The Honorable Mel Martinez
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9511

The Honorable Bill Nelson
716 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9535


Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc2 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

The Honorable Ben Nelson
720 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9542

The Honorable Jack Reed
728 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 3150 0000 3045 9566

The Honorable Patty Murray
173 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9580

The Honorable Edward Kennedy
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9603

The Honorable Patrick Leahy
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9627

The Honorable Trent Lott
487 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9641

The Honorable Jon Kyl
730 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9665

The Honorable Frank Lautenberg
324 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9689

The Honorable Blanche Lincoln
355 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9702

The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9726

The Honorable Barack Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9559

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
361A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9573

The Honorable Mark Pryor
257 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9597

The Honorable John Kerry
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9610

The Honorable Carl Levin
269 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9634

The Honorable Herb Kohl
330 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9658

The Honorable Mary Laudrieu
724 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9672

The Honorable Joseph Lieberman
355 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9696

The Honorable Chuck Grassley
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9719

The Honorable Tim Johnson
136 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9733


Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc3 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

The Honorable Orrin Hatch
104 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9740

The Honorable Chuck Hagel
248 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9764

The Honorable Kay Hutchison
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9788

The Honorable James Infofe
453 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9801

The Honorable Debbie Stabenow
133 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9848

The Honorable John Sununu
111 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9825

The Honorable James Talent
493 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9856

The Honorable George Allen
204 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9863

The Honorable John Warner
225 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0302

The Honorable Evan Bayh
453 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9900

The Honorable Judd Gregg
393 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9757

The Honorable Johnny Lsakson
120 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9771

The Honorable James Jeffords
413 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9795

The Honorable Richard Lugar
306 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9818

The Honorable Lamar Alexander
302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9832

The Honorable Wayne Allard
521 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9849

The Honorable John Thune
383 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9870

The Honorable Max Baucus
511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9887

The Honorable Craig Thomas
307 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9894

The Honorable David Vitter
516 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9917


Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc4 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

The Honorable Robert Bennett
431 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9924

The Honorable Joseph Biden
201 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9931

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman
703 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9948

The Honorable Christopher Bond
274 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9962

The Honorable Hillary Clinton
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9986

The Honorable Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0005

The Honorable John Ensign
356 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0012

The Honorable Jim Bunning
316 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0043

The Honorable Saxby Chambliss
416 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0067

The Honorable Conrad Burns
187 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0043

The Honorable George Voinovich
524 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 0265

The Honorable Ron Wyden
230 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 0296

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9955

The Honorable Russell Feingold
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3045 9979

The Honorable Michael Enzi
379A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 9993

The Honorable Richard Durbin
332 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0229

The Honorable Sam Brownback
303 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0036

The Honorable Pete Domenici
328 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0050

The Honorable Mike DeWine
140 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0074

The Honorable Elizabeth Dole
555 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0098


Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc5 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

The Honorable Thomas Carper
513 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0104

The Honorable Lincoln Chafee
141A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0128

The Honorable Jim DeMint
430 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0142

The Honorable Tom Coburn
172 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0166

The Honorable Thad Cochran
113 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0180

The Honorable Susan Collins
461 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0203

The Honorable Larry Craig
520 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0272

The Honorable Jon Corzine
502 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7003 0500 0001 9704 8404

Micah A. Kane, Chairman
HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION
1099 Alakea Street, 20th Floor
Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0241

The Honorable Christopher Dodd
448 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0111

The Honorable Richard Burr
217 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0135

The Honorable Robert Byrd
311 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0159

The Honorable Mark Dayton
123 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0173

The Honorable Michael Crapo
239 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0197

The Honorable Kent Conrad
530 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0210

The Honorable John Cornyn
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0227

Governor Linda Lingle
415 S. Beretania Street
Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii
Certified Mail 7002 3150 0000 3046 0234


Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc6 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

RE: Akaka Bill S.147 A/K/A the Federal Recongnition Bill

NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO AGENT, NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE

NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATION OF THE SOVEREIGN'S WRIT(S) OF PROHIBITION WITH ORDER(S) TO ANSWER, WITH ATTACHED EXHIBIT(S) "A" THROUGH "H", AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII AND THE UNITED STATES, AND NOTICE OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAWS OF NATIONS, WITH ORDER TO ANSWER WITH A DEFENSE BASED ON TRUE AND LAWFUL DOCUMENTED FACTS OF EVEDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAY(S)

I, Majesty Akahi Nui, King of the Hawaiian Islands, aboriginal inhabitants Na Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i nationals and Hawaiian citizens of the lawful independent nation, am of 100% royal lineage of Liloa (k) and Akahi-a-Kuleana (w) formally issue this NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATION OF THE SOVEREIGN'S WRIT(S) OF PROHIBITION WITH ORDER(S) TO ANSWER, WITH ATTACHED EXHIBIT(S) "A" THROUGH "H", AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII AND THE UNITED STATES, AND NOTICE OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAWS OF NATIONS, WITH ORDER TO ANSWER WITH A DEFENSE BASED ONTRUE AND LAWFUL DOCUMENTED FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS(S) to U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, Honorable Senator John McCain, Honorable Senator Bill Frist, Honorable Senator Daniel Inouye, Honorable Senator Daniel Akaka, U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton, Senator Maria Cantwell (WA), Senator Bryon Dorgan (ND), Senator Daniel Inouye (HI), Senator Gordon H. Smith (OR), Senator Norm Coleman (MN), Senator Lindsey Graham (SC), Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK), Senator Ted Stevens, Honorable Senator Harry Reid, Honorable Senator Arlen Specter, Honorable Senator Pat Roberts, Honorable Senator Olympia Snowe, Honorable Senator John Rockefeller, Honorable Senator Richard Shelby, Honorable Senator Ken Salazar, Honorable Senator Jeff Sessions, Honorable Senator Rick Santorum, Honorable Senator Raul Sarbanes, Hororable Senator Charles Schumer, Hororable Senator Mel Martinez, Honorable Senator Barbara Mikulski, Honorable Senator Bill Nelson, Honorable Senator Ben Nelson, Honorable Senator Barack Obama, Honorable Senator Jack Reed, Honorable Senator Mitch McConnell, Honorable Senator Patty Murray, Honorable Senator Mark Pryor, Honorable Senator Edward Kennedy, Honorable Senator John Kerry, Honorable Senator Patrick Leahy, Honorable Senator Carl Levin, Honorable Senator Trent Lott, Honorable Senator Herb Kohl, Honorable Senator Jon Kyl, Honorable Senator Mary Laudrieu, Honorable Senator Frank Lautenberg, Honorable Senator Joseph Lieberman, Honorable Senator Blanche Lincoln, Honorable Senator Chuck Grassley, Honorable Senator Tom Harkin, Honorable


Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc7 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

Senator Tim Johnson, Honorable Senator Orrin Hatch, Honorable Sentor Judd Gregg, Honorable Senator Chuck Hagel, Honorable Senator Johnny Isakson, Honorable Senator Kay Hutchison, Honorable Senator James Jeffords, Honorable Senator James Infofe, Honorable Senator Richard Lugar, Honorable Senator Debbie Stabenow, Honorable Senator Lamar Alexander, honorable Senator John Sununu, Honorable Senator Wayne Allard, James Talent, Honorable Senator John Thune, Honorable Senator George Allen, Honorable Senator Max Baucus, Honorable Senator John Warner, Honorable Senator Evan Bayh, Honorable Senator David Bitter, Honorable Senator Robert Bennett, Honorable Senator George Voinovich, Honorable Senator Joseph Biden, Honorable Senator Ron Wyden, Honorable Senator Jeff Bingaman, Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein, Honorable Senator Hillary Clinton, Honorable Senator Michael Enzi, honorable Senator Barbara Boxer, Honorable Senator Richard Durbin, Honorable Senator John Ensign, Honorable Senator Jim Bunning, Honorable Senator Sam Brownback, Honorable Senator Pete Domenici, Honorable Senator Saxby Chambliss, Honorable Senator Mike DeWine, Honorable Senator Conrad Burns, Honorable Senator Elizabeth Dole, Honorable Senator Thomas Carper, Honarable Senator Christopher Dodd, Honorable Senator Lincoln Chafee, Honorable Senator Richard Burr, Honorable Senator Jim DeMint, Honorable Senator Robert Byrd, Hororable Senator Tom Coburn, Honorable Senator Mark Dayton, Honorable Senator Thad Cochran, Honorable Senator Michael Crapo, Honorable Senator Larry Craig, Honorabel Senator Johm Cornyn, Honorable Senator Susan Collins, Honorable Senator Kent Conrad, Honorable Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, and Honorable Senator Jon Corzine.

"Based on the King's word and based on STATE OF HAWAII'S authority being drawn from the government of the United States (see U.S. Senate Bill Public Law 103- 150, November 23rd, 1993), the United States President and entire United States Congress having repeatedly DEFAULTED on Jurisdiction (See Exhibit "B" attached; DECLARATION OF DEFAULT February 4, 2003 [ Three (3) DECLARATION (S) with Exhibits], & DECLARATION OF DEFAULT April 6, 2003), based on UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 31, 1995 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE (See attached EXHIBIT "C" ), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEB 8 1995 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE (See attached Exhibit "D") Case Number: CV 94- 00876SPK), and UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (See attached Exhibit "E" ) No. 95-15433 DC# CV-94-876-SPK FILED JUL 10 1955 ORDER AUG 4 1995 AFFIRMED before: RLETCHER, KOZINSKI and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges; based on my position as King to the land and people based on the LAWS OF NATIONS and all International TREATIES and CONVENTIONS between the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States, based on your own U.S. Constitution, Section 8, Article 1: To define and punish Piracies and Feleonies committed on the high seas, and Offences against the LAWS OF NATIONS [emphasis added], based on the best interests for the common welfare of the public, and based on necessity for the preservation of the nation (SEE LAWS OF NATION), EXHIBIT "H" Congressional Record 1898 volume XXXI June 25, 1898. This serve as formal


Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc8 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATION OF THE SOVEREIGN'S WRIT(S) OF PROHIBITION WITH ORDER(S) TO ANSWER WITH ATTACHED EXHIBIT(S) "A" THROUGH "H". AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII AND THE UNITED STATES, AND NOTICE OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAWS OF NTIONS, and ORDER TO ANSWER WITH A DEFENSE BASED ON TRUE AND LWAFUL DOCUMENTED FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAY(S). Refer to U.S. Senate Bill Public Law 103-150, November 23rd, 1993. My position as King to the land and people, Na Kanaka Maoli, as well as all subjects of any ethnic background is clear to all those who can see. I shall endeavor to fill the grant of sovereighnty over the Nation with the help and support of all those who reside upon and within the Kingdom of Hawai'i Nation.

Governor Linda Lingle, Micah A. Kane, Chairman, HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION, U.S. Senator Bill Frist, U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka, U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton, Senator Maria Cantwell (WA), Senator Bryon Dorgan (ND), Senator Daniel Inouye (HI), Senator Gordon H. Smith (OR), Senator Norm Coleman (MN), Senator Lindsey Graham (SC), Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK), Senator Ted Stevens, (AK), Honorable Senator Harry Reid, Honorable Senator Arlen Specter, Honorable Senator Pat Roberts, Honorable Senator Olympia Snowe, Honorable Senator John Rockefeller, Honorable Senator Richard Shelby, Honorable Senator Ken Salazar, Honorable Senator Jeff Sessions, Honorable Senator Rick Santorum, Honorable Senator Paul Sarbanes, Hororable Senator Charles Schumer, Hororable Senator Mel Martinez, Honorable Senator Barbara Mikulski, Honorable Senator Bill Nelson, Honorable Senator Ben Nelson, Honorable Senator Barack Obama, Honorable Senator Jack Reed, Honorable Senator Mitch McConnell, Honorable Senator Patty Murray, Honorable Senator Mark Pryor, Honorable Senator Edward Kennedy, Honorable Senator John Kerry, Honorable Senator Patrick Leahy, Honorable Senator Carl Levin, Honorable Senator Trent Lott, Honorable Senator Herb Kohl, Honorable Senator Jon Kyl, Honorable Senator Mary Laudrieu, Honorable Senator Frank Lautenberg, Honorable Senator Joseph Lieberman, Honorable Senator Blanche Lincoln, Honorable Senator Chuck Grassley, Honorable Senator Tom Harkin, Honorable Senator Tim Johnson, Honorable Senator Orrin Hatch, Honorable Sentor Judd Gregg, Honorable Senator Chuck Hagel, Honorable Senator Johnny Isakson, Honorable Senator Kay Hutchison, Honorable Senator James Jeffords, Honorable Senator James Infofe, Honorable Senator Richard Lugar, Honorable Senator Debbie Stabenow, Honorable Senator Lamar Alexander, honorable Senator John Sununu, Honorable Senator Wayne Allard, James Talent, Honorable Senator John Thune, Honorable Senator George Allen, Honorable Senator Max Baucus, Honorable Senator John Warner, Honorable Senator Evan Bayh, Honorable Senator David Vitter, Honorable Senator Robert Bennett, Honorable Senator George Voinovich, Honorable Senator Joseph Biden, Honorable Senator Ron Wyden, Honorable Senator Jeff Bingaman, Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein, Honorable


Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc9 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

Senator Hillary Clinton, Honorable Senator Michael Enzi, honorable Senator Barbara Boxer, Honorable Senator Richard Durbin, Honorable Senator John Ensign, Honorable Senator Jim Bunning, Honorable Senator Sam Brownback, Honorable Senator Pete Domenici, Honorable Senator Saxby Chambliss, Honorable Senator Mike DeWine, Honorable Senator Conrad Burns, Honorable Senator Elizabeth Dole, Honorable Senator Thomas Carper, Honarable Senator Christopher Dodd, Honorable Senator Lincoln Chafee, Honorable Senator Richard Burr, Honorable Senator Jim DeMint, Honorable Senator Robert Byrd, Hororable Senator Tom Coburn, Honorable Senator Mark Dayton, Honorable Senator Thad Cochran, Honorable Senator Michael Crapo, Honorable Senator Larry Craig, Honorabel Senator Johm Cornyn, Honorable Senator Susan Collins, Honorable Senator Kent Conrad, Honorable Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, and Honorable Senator Jon Corzine, in the matter of the Akaka Bill, Senate Bill 147, a.k.a. the Federal Recongnition Bill, you are hereby formallly NOTIFIED that you are in VIOLATION OF THE KING'S WRIT(S) OF PROHIBITION WITH ORDER(S) TO ANSWER, (See attached EXHIBIT(S) "A" THROUGH "H"), AND IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII AND THE UNITED STATES, AND NOTICE OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAWS OF NATIONS (SEE LAWS OF NATIONS, SEE ALSO LAWS OF THE SEAS).

I, Majesty Akahi Nui demand to challenge all of the named above Governor Lida Lingle, Micah A. Kane, Chairman, HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION, U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Senator John McCain, U.S. Senator Bill Frist, U.S. Representative Ed Case, U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka, U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton, U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Cosponsors of Senator Daniel Akaka are listed as follows; Senator Maria Cantwell (WA), Senator Bryon Dorgan (ND), Senator Daniel Inouye (HI), Senator Gordon H. Smith (OR), Senator Norm Coleman (MN), Senator Lindsey Graham (SC), Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK), Senator Ted Stevens (AK), Honorable Senator Harry Reid, Honorable Senator Arlen Specter, Honorable Senator Pat Roberts, Honorable Senator Olympia Snowe, Honorable Senator John Rockefeller, Honorable Senator Richard Shelby, Honorable Senator Ken Salazar, Honorable Senator Jeff Sessions, Honorable Senator Rick Santorum, Honorable Senator Paul Sarbanes, Hororable Senator Charles Schumer, Hororable Senator Mel Martinez, Honorable Senator Barbara Mikulski, Honorable Senator Bill Nelson, Honorable Senator Ben Nelson, Honorable Senator Barack Obama, Honorable Senator Jack Reed, Honorable Senator Mitch McConnell, Honorable Senator Patty Murray, Honorable Senator Mark Pryor, Honorable Senator Edward Kennedy, honorable Senator John Kerry, Honorable Senator Patrick Leahy, Honorable Senator Carl Levin, Honorable Senator Trent Lott, Honorable Senator Herb Kohl, Honorable Senator Jon Kyl, Honorable Senator Mary Laudrieu, Honorable Senator Frank Lautenberg, Honorable Senator Joseph Lieberman, Honorable Senator Blanche Lincoln, Honorable Senator Chuck Grassley,

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc10 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

Honorable Senator Tom Harkin, Honorable Senator Tim Johnson, Honorable Senator Orrin Hatch, Honorable Sentor Judd Gregg, Honorable Senator Chuck Hagel, Honorable Senator Johnny Isakson, Honorable Senator Kay Hutchison, Honorable Senator James Jeffords, Honorable Senator James Infofe, Honorable Senator Richard Lugar, Honorable Senator Debbie Stabenow, Honorable Senator Lamar Alexander, honorable Senator John Sununu, Honorable Senator Wayne Allard, James Talent, Honorable Senator John Thune, Honorable Senator George Allen, Honorable Senator Max Baucus, Honorable Senator John Warner, Honorable Senator Evan Bayh, Honorable Senator David Vitter, Honorable Senator Robert Bennett, Honorable Senator George Voinovich, Honorable Senator Joseph Biden, Honorable Senator Ron Wyden, Honorable Senator Jeff Bingaman, Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein, Honorable Senator Hillary Clinton, Honorable Senator Michael Enzi, honorable Senator Barbara Boxer, Honorable Senator Richard Durbin, Honorable Senator John Ensign, Honorable Senator Jim Bunning, Honorable Senator Sam Brownback, Honorable Senator Pete Domenici, Honorable Senator Saxby Chambliss, Honorable Senator Mike DeWine, Honorable Senator Conrad Burns, Honorable Senator Elizabeth Dole, Honorable Senator Thomas Carper, Honarable Senator Christopher Dodd, Honorable Senator Lincoln Chafee, Honorable Senator Richard Burr, Honorable Senator Jim DeMint, Honorable Senator Robert Byrd, Hororable Senator Tom Coburn, Honorable Senator Mark Dayton, Honorable Senator Thad Cochran, Honorable Senator Michael Crapo, Honorable Senator Larry Craig, Honorabel Senator Johm Cornyn, Honorable Senator Susan Collins, Honorable Senator Kent Conrad, Honorable Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, and Honorable Senator Jon Corzine.

DEMAND to receive your defense based on lawful and true documented evidence of facts of jurisdiction within twenty (20) days(s) dated from day, hour, minute, and seconds of receiving this true and lawful document. Failure to do so will result in a JUDGEMENT OF DEFAULT rendered against you.

SEE LAWS OF NATIONS BOOK I.;
§11. The law of nations is the law of sovereigns,
§18. A nation has a right to every thing necessary for its preservation.,
§20. Of its right to every thing that may promote this end.
A nation or state has a right ot every thing that can help to ward off imminent danger, and kept at a distance whatever is capable of causing its ruin; and that from the very same reasons that establish its right to the things necessary to its presevation. (17),
(17) Salus populi supreme est lex. Upon this priciple it has been established, that for national defence in war, it is legal to pull down or injure the property of any private individual.,
§22., (19) See Book 1. chap. xxiii. §283, as to the duty of all nations to prevent the violation of the law of nation. -C.,
§23. The rights it derives from these obligations.,
§38. Of the sovereign.,

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc11 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

§39. It is solely established for thesafety and advantage of society.,
§40. Of his representative character.,
§41. He is intrusted with the obligations of the nation, and invested with its rights.,
§42. §43. His rights in this respect.,
§45. §46. The extent of his power.
§49. In what sense hi is subject to the laws.,
§50. His person is ascred and inviolable.,
§53. The obedience which subjects owe to a sovereign.,
§58. Of successive and hereditary states. The origin of the right of succession.,
§160. To enforce them.,
§162. How he is to dispense justice.,
§173. Right of pardoning.,
§191. Attacking the glory of a nation is doing her an injury.,
§204. Its right over the parts in its possession.,
§244. Eminent domain annexed to the sovereignty.,
§245. Government of.,
§255. The sovereign may subject it to regulations of police.,
§278. Jurisdiction over lakes and river.,
SEE LAWS OF NATIONS BOOK III;
§4. It belongs only to the sovereign power.(137)
§5. Defensive and offensive war.,
§26. What is in general a just cause of war.,
§27. What war is unjust.,
§28. The object of war.,
§30. Proper motives.,
§33. War undertaken merely for advantage.,
§34. Na-,
§35. How defensive war is just in an evident cause.,
§37. How an offensive war is just or unjust.,
§45. Another case more evident.,
§51. Declaration of war.(142)
§57. Defensive war requires no declaration.,
§66. What is lawful war in due force.,
§67. It is to be distinguished from informal and unlawful war.,
§68. Grounds of this distinction.,
§69. Who is an enemy.(147)
§70. All the subjects of the two states at war are enemies.,
§71. and continue to be enemies in all places.

Enemies continue such wherever they happen to be. The place of abode is of no consequence here. It is the political ties which determine the character. Whilst a man continues a citizen of his own country, he is the enemy of all those with whom his nation is at war. But we must not hence conclude that these enemies may treat each other as such, wherver they happen to meet. Every one being master in his respective country, a neutral prince will not allow them to use any vilence in his territories.,
§83. When a nation is allowed to assist another.

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc12 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

In order, to judge of the morality of these several treaties or alliances, - of their legitimacy according to the law of nations, we must, in the first place, lay down this incontrovertible principle, that It is lawful and commendable to succour and assist, by all possible means, a nation engaged in a just war; and it is even a duty incumbent on every nation, to give such assistance, when she can give it without injury to herself. But no assistance whatever is to be afforded to him whi si engaged in an unjust war. There is nothing in this which is not demonstrated by what we have said of the common duties of nation towards each other. (Bool II. Ch. I.) To support the cause of justice when we are able, is always commendable: but, in assisting the unjust, we partake of his crime, and become, like him, guilty of injustice.,
§86. Tacit clause in every warlike alliance.,
§87. To refuse succours for an unjust wa is no breach of alliance.,
§89. It never takes place in an unjust war.

As the most solemn treaties cannot oblige any one to favour an unjust quarrel (§86): the casus foederis never takes place in a war that is manifestly unjust.,
§90. How it exists in a defensive war.,
§98. Or who are in an offensive alliance with him.,
§99. How a defensive alliance as-

Even a defensive alliance made expressly against me, or 9which ammounts to the same thing) concluded with my enemy during the war, or on the certain prospect of its speedy declaration, is an act of association against me; and if followed by effects, I may look on the party who has contracted it as my enemy. The case is here precisely the same as that of a nation assistin my enemy without being under any obligation to do so,k and choosing of her own accord to become my enemy. (See §97).
§103. Neutral nations.(151)
§119. Passage of troops through a neutral country.,
§120. Passage to be asked.,
§121. It may be refused for good reason.,
§135. A passage may be refused for a war evidently unjust.,
§138. The right ot weaken an enemy by every justifiable method.,
§139. The right over the enemy's person.,
§160. Principles of the right over things belonging to the enemy.(164)
§161. The right of seizing on them.,
§162. What is taken front the enemy by way of penalty.,
§164. Booty.,
§165. Contributions.
§183. An unjust war gives no right whatever.,
§184. Great guilt of the sovereign who undertakes it,
§185. His obligation.,
§186. Difficulty of repairing the injury he has done.,
§187. Whether the nation and the military are bound to any thing.,
§195. Whether the nation and the military are bound to any thing.,
§204. Definition of the right of postliminium,(173)
§206. How it takes effect.,
§212. Whether this right extends to their property alienated by the enemy.,

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc13 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

§217. Why always in force for prisoners.,
§219. How the rights and obligations of prisoners subsist.,
§225. Source of the neccessity of such an order.,
§227. Precise meaning of the order.,(179)
§230. Volunteers.
The noble view of gaining instruction on the art of war, and thus acquiring a greater degree of ability to render useful services to their country, has introduced the custom of serving as volunteers even in foreigh armies; and the practice is undoubtedly justified by the sublimity of the motive. At present, volunteers, when taken by the enemy, are treated as if they belonged to the army in which they fight. Nothing can be more reasonable: they in fact join that army, and unite with it in supporting the same cause; and it makes little differece in the case, whether they do this in compliance with any abligation, or at the spontaeous impulse of their own free choice.,
§266. From what authority they emanate.,
§287. Foundation of the sovereign's rights against the rebels.,
§288. Who are rebels.,
§289. Popular commotion, insurrection. sedition.,
§296. Conduct to be observed by foreign nation.,
SEE LAWS OF NATIONS BOOK IV.;
§5. Of the disturbers of the public peace.,
§6. How far war may be continued.,
§14. Whether peace can be made with an usurper,
§38. How many ways a treaty of peace may be broken.,
§39. By a conduct contrary to the nature of every treaty of peace.,
§43. Justifiable self-defense is no breach of the treaty.,
§46.3. By the violation of any article.,
§47. The violation of a sigle article breaks the whole treaty.,
§54. Right of the offended party against him who has violated the treaty.,
§57. Every sovereign,
(See LAWS OF NATIONS Cont...)

SEE also ALL internation Treaties and Convention between the United States and the Kingdom Hawai'i. See also LAWS OF NATION:

§245. Government of
Besides the eminent domain, the sovereighty gives a right of another nature over all public, common, and private property, - that is, the empire, or the right of command in all places of the country belonging to the nation. The supreme power extends to everything that passes in the state, wherever it is transacted; and, consequently, the sovereign commands in all public places, on rivers, on highways, in disert, &c. Every thing that happens there is subjest to his authority.
SEE ALSO LAWS OF NATIONS:
§278. Jurisdiction over lakes and rivers.

The empire or jurisdiction over lakes and rivers is subject to the same fules as the property of them, in all the cases which we have examined. Each state naturally possesses it over the whole or the part of which it possesses the domain. We have see (§245) that

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc14 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

the nation, or its sovereign, commands in all places in its possession.

SEE LAWS OF NATIONS Cont...)

DEMAND to receive your defense based on true and lawful documented evidence of facts of jurisdiction within twenty (20) days dated from day, hour, minute, and seconds of receiving this true and lawful document.

Whereas on January 16, 1893 the unlawful military invasion of the Kingdom of Hawai'i committed by U.S. Naval forces (See U.S. Public Law 103-150), whose forces have never been withdrawn, and subsequent international crime of Genocide, as determined and defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention, and the 1987 Genocide, Convention Implementation Act, the Proxmire Resolution (See St. Thomas Law Review). See also international treaties and conbentions between the United States and the Kingdom of Hawai'i, SEE LAWS OF NATIONS, see also LAWS OF THE SEA.

Whereas in 1993 the United States President and U.S. Congress signed US Public Law 103-150, a joint action by the Legislative and Executive Branches of United States- the only bodies authorized to make war by the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973 - which binds the United States, through tacit approval, to an undeclared war (see LON page 255), an unjust war (see LON page 262), an offensive war (see LON page 236), and an irregular and unjust war (see LON page 258, "an irregular and unlawful war, which is more properly called BRIGANDAGE (definition: "robbery and banditry as perpetuated by a band of robbers" Blacks Law Dictionary). Undertaken without any right, and even without apparent grounds, it can give rise to no lawful effects, nor confer any rights upon the author of it. A Nation that is attacked by enemies of this sort is not under any obligation to observe towards them the rules belonging to formal war; it may treat them as outlaws." LON page 258. The United States is guilty of and continues to be guilty of BRIGANDAGE and all U.S. officials in Hawaii, insluding military, federal, state, county, and local, are serving as outlaws in the eyes of internation law. (See LAWS OF NATIONS cont...)

WHEREAS by the grace of God, the Kinddom of Hawaii is still in existence today (See: LARSEN -V- HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, IN THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION, Thursday, 7th of December 2000, CASE NO 99001, Peace Palace, The Hague, The Netherlands. On page 167 at lines 28 to 30 of the transcripts, [Professor James Crawford] The President. "The Hawaiian Kingdom does not exist solely in the opinion of Mrl Larson. It exists." (Emphasis added) The Kingdom of Hawai'i is not a conquered nation (See Official Protest of Queen Liliuokalani to Washinton D.C., See also U.S. Public Law 103-159, SEE LAWS OF NATIONS)

WHEREAS His Royal Majesty Akahi Nui, the Sovereign of The Kingdom of Hawaii, domiciled on Mokupuni O Maui, Ke Aupuni O Hawaii, whose POSITIVE IDENTITY and VENUE, GENEALOGY AND LAWFUL RIGHT TO THE THRONE and CROWN is without lawful challenge and ESTABLISHES with recourse, the one the true KINGDOM OF HAWAI'I NATION and the ONLY LAWFUL MONARCHY OF THE KINGDOM (See Registrar's Office, commonly

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc15 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

referred to as the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Bureau of Conbeyances" by the unlawful STATE OF HAWAII, Doc. No. 93-060570).

WHEREAS, His Royal Majesty Akahi Nui, Sovereign Heir to the Crown and Throne of Hawaii (Doc. No. 93-060570 Public Notary Second Judicial Circuit, and Document Number 92-162874) rightfully possesses ownership and Allodial Title to the real property described in Docket Numbers; Oahu T.M.K. (1)-1 throught 9- ALL ALL ALL, Maui T.M.K. (2)-1 through 6- ALL ALL ALL. Hawaii T.M.K. (3)- 1 though 9- ALL ALL ALL, Kauai T.M.K. (4) 1 through 5 ALL ALL ALL (See Registrar's Office, commonly referred to by the unlawful STATE OF HAWAII as the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Bureau of Conbeyances, Allodial Land Title Doc No(s): 2002-005573 Thru 2002-005574, 2002-005575 Thru 002-005577 Thru 2002-005578. 2001-005579 thru 202-005580) See also attached EXHIBIT "F" Hawaii Bureau of Conbeyances Public Search.

WHEREAS The creation of the unlawful "STATE OF HAWAII" by United States agents, officials and citizens is ultimately rooted in an act of undeclared, unjust, offensive, and and irregular and unjust war (see U.S. Public Law 103-150, See LAWS OF NATIONS, See The U.S. Constitution, Section 8, Article 1: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the LAWS OF NATIONS [emphasis added]), and is not a lawful governing entity or STATE, but rather a creature of the United States, having no legitimate authority or jurisdiction over the people or lands of the Hawaiian Islands, the creation of which by the United States was effedted in severe viloation of the Treaty of 1849 between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Hawaii. No notice of ternimation of this treaty was ever made in accordance with the terms specified in Article XVI of the December 20, 1849 treaty between the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii, therefore this treaty is still legally binding, AND ALL U.S. LAW IMPOSED IN HAWAII IS INFERIOR.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that the "Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

SEE: U.S. Constitution, Section 8, Article 1: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the LAWS OF NATIONS (emphasis added)

WHEREAS "He who violates his treaties violates at the same time the Law of Nations, for he shows contempt for that fidelity to treaties which the Law of Nations declares sacred. He is doubly guilty, in that he does an injury both to his ally and to alll Nations and the human race as well. On the observance and fulfillment of treaties depends the mutual security of States, and no dependence could be placed upon future agreements, if past ones were not observed. All Nations have the right to check a Nation which shows a contempt for his treaties, which violates them

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc16 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

and treads them underfoot. Such a Nation is a public enemy which attacks the froudations of the common peace and security of Nations. The sovereign who fails to keep his promises on clearly trivial grounds deserves to be treated as an enemy of the human race. LON page 188.

WHEREAS The United States further admits in U.S. Public Law 103-150 that "the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their ingerent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;" (Emphasis added) That admission by the United States Congress and President in 1993 completely invalidates: the 8/21/59 Statehood election (see UN Charter, Article 73); the Newlands Joint Resolution signed on July 7, 1898 by President McKinley which purports to provide for the annexation of Hawaii and the subsequent purported ceding of 1,800,000 acres of crown, government and public lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii by the so called Republic of Hawaii, and purporting the authority to immediately cease all treaties existing between Hawaii and foriegn nations, and replace them with United States treaties with such nation; the United States Congressional ratification of the purported cession and Congressional vesting of title to the lands in Hawaii in the United States (all of which has been established to be BRIGANDAGE); the April 30, 1990 Organic Act signed by President McKinley which purported to provide a government for the territonewly established so called Territorial Government and it's relationship to the United States; and the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. Again, all invalid and in fact, BRIGANDAGE. "an irregular and unlawful war, which is more properly called BRIGANDAGE (definition: "robbery and banditry as perpetuated by a band of robber" Blacks Law Dictionary). Undertaken without any right, and even without apparent grounds, it can give rise to no lawful effects, nor confer any rights upon the author of it." LON page 258, emphasis added.

WHEREAS January 16, 1893 The Seed of Poisonous Tree of Doctrine (unlawful overthrow connitted by U.S. and the U.S. military force (4) Executive Council S.B. Dole, J.A. King, P.C. Jones, W.O. Smith, who administered the Executive Departments of their unlawful Government which consisted of (14) members S.B. Dannon, A. Brown, L.A. Thurston, F.F. Morgan, J. Emmeluth, H. Waterhouse, J.A. McChesney, F. Wilhelm, W.R. Castle, W.G. Ashey, W.C. Wilder, C. Bolte, that they have created the POISONOUS DOCTRINE of law which was taught since the illegal overthrow of 1893 to this present day. The illegitimate Provisional Government, Illegitimate Republic of Hawai'i illegitimate Territory of Hawaii, and now the illegitimate stae of Hawai'i perpetuates of the Poisonous Tree of Doctrine (illegal law practiced in the Judicial System and Government), a criminal act. The laws of the STATE OF HAWAII, and the COUNTY ORDINANCES are the practiced by every Attorney, Judge,

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc17 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

Justice, Court, and all those that are affiliated with their laws.
Whereas the indigenous Na Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States. (U.S.P.L. 103-150 11/23/93).
Whereas the well being of the indigenous Na Kanaka Maoli Hawaiian people is intrinsically tied to their deep feelings and attachment to the land. (U.S.P.L 103-150). The indigenous Na Kanaka Maoli were the original inhabitants of the island archipelago, Hawai'i. Na Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian people's) oral traditions are passed on through chants, legends, myth and mo'oku'auhau or genealogies, and trace the origins of the ancient ancestors. Na Kanaka Maoli is a part of Io's (God's) creation and Io;s creation is a part of them. In Na Kanaka Maoli language term which expressed this harmonious fundamental relationship was lokahi, unity. Related terms expressing this fundamental relationship was "aloha'aina," love the land "malama' aina" care for and protect the land. Aloha'aina, love the land, aloha in Ke akua, love of God, aloha kekahi i kekahi, love one another, expresses the three precepts which formed the core of Na Kanaka Maoli philosophy, world view and belief system. It is land, Akua and each other, particularly our 'ohana or extended family.
Na Kanaka Maoli traced their lineal ancestry to historical figures and ultimately, through them, to various deities and god of the land, ocean, forest and nature. The land and all nature was the source of existence for Na Kanaka Maoli not only as the origin of humanity, but also as the source of natural resources for day-to-day subsistence. Na Kanaka Maoli related to the land as an ancestor and dear friend giving its various moods at different times of the year; nurturing it with loving care. They did not possess or own the land or its abundant resources. This was inconceivable. Instead, they maintained steward ship over it planting and fishing according to the moon phased and the changes from rainy to dry seasons. The traditional Na Kanaka Maoli access to the resources they would need for subsistence and to allow for steward ship over the land to

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc18 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

the lineal descendants associated with particular ancestral and akua. The recognition of the Kingdom of Hawai'i was always in existence.1 The U.S. invasion in 1893. By virtue of its sovereign integrity as a member of the international community, Hawai'i had exclusive jurisdiction over its nationals within its defined territory, i.e., the Hawaiian Islands, the authority over such process by which the United States of America and her creation, the state of Hawai'i, now asserts its jurisdiction over the indigenous Na Kanaka Maoli, Hawaiian citizens acting within the Hawaiian territory are several:

1- the laws of nations including treaties, and customary international laws.
2- internal laws of sovereign nations.
3- the United Nations Charter and subsequent U.N. acts to carry out the terms of the charter.

Both of these states were recognized in the international community as sovereign. Among the attributes of sovereignty were the exclusive right of a state to govern and exercise jurisdiction over its own citizens within its territories.2 Sovereignty remain in effect for states unless and until certain circumstances occur which properly changes the relationship between such states and other states or changes the relationship citizens and territories to existing states.
What are the those circumstances which were appropriate to have affected the change in lawful relationship between four international bodies the Kingdom of Hawai'i, the United States of America, Indigenous Na Kanaka Maoli, (Hawaiian citizens) and Hawaiian territory? The continued exercise of U.S. jurisdiction over Hawai'i is unlawful.

A.     Under Traditional International Law Principles

a.On January 16, 1893, the nation of Hawai'i was recognized as a sovereign and

___________________________________

1This memorandum uses the term Kingdom of Hawai'i and a number of other terms to refer to as the nation of Hawai'i, the Hawaiian Kingdom, Hawaiian nation. The term nation here is not meant to be in derogation of the full international rights and privileges of those entities termed "states" or "nation-states" in international law but instead should be read with equal status with those
2Schooner Exchange v McFaddon 11 U.S. 116, 135 (1812)
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc19 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

independent nation equal in international rights as other similarly recognized nations of the world. The Hawaiian nation had treaties and executive agreements with other nations and peoples, including the United States of America, Belgium, Bremen, Denmark, France, the German Empire, Great Britain, Hanburg, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Netherlands. New South Wales, Portugal, Russia, Samoa, Spain, Swiss Confederation, Sweden, Norway and Tahiti.3

b.The United States of America was equally recognized as a sovereign and independent nation equal in international rights as other states of the international community.

c.The laws of nations.which included both international customary laws and the treaties in existence between the nation of Hawai'i and the United States of America were binding upon these two nations regarding their conduct towards one another.4

d.The United States of America conspired to overthrow the Hawaiian nation and committed aggression against the nation of Hawai'i in violation of international law.5

e.As a direct consequence of the U.S. misconduct, a puppet regime was established in Hawai'i, denominated first, the Provisional Government, and later the Republic of Hawai'i.6

f.The Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawai'i were not governments of the people, by the people, or for the people but were primarily the creatures of the minority Anglo-Saxons who believed in the doctrine of divine right of the minority to govern the majority.7

g.The United States of America executed treaties of annexation with de facto

___________________________________

3Digression from the Spirit of Self-Determination and Hawaiian Sovereignty pp. 5-6
4See Grover Cleveland's Meassage to the Joint Houses of Congress December 18, 1893 Richardson, A compilation of messages and Papers of the President 1789-1908 Vol. IX (1993 )
5Cleveland's Message, infra, U.S. Acknowledgment and Apology for the Qverthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, S J. Res 19 103d Congress 1st Sess PL 103-150 (l07 Stat 1510) 1993
6See note 3 pp. 14-15
7See infra at pp. 13-14
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc20 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

governments promoted and supported by the United States of America, i.e. first, the Provisional government in 1893, and the Republic of Hawai'i in 18978

h.Queen Lili'uokalani wrote letters of protest to president Benjamin Harrison and to the President-elect Grover Cleveland who was about to take office, When President Grover Cleveland took office, he rejected the request of the Provisional Government to annex Hawaii.

The majority of the na Kanaka Maoli petitioned United States against annexation of their nation: The heading on Hui Aloha 'Aina's petition read: PALAPALA HOOPII KUE HOOHUI AINA "Petition Protesting Annexation"9

i.On November 1896 William McKinley, a Republican, was elected president of the United States, replacing the Grover Cleveland. McKinley was inclined to annexing Hawaii. In early 1897 McKinley agreed to meet with a committee of annexationists, L. Thurston, F. Hutch, and W. Kinney. In June 1897 McKinley signed treaty of annexation with representatives of the Republic of Hawaii.

B.     Under Internal Laws of the United States of America

a.Both treaties of annexation were never consented to by two-thirds (2/3rds) of those presented in the United States Senates as required of all treaties in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.10 The Congressional Record FIFTY FIFTH CONGRESS SECOUND SESSION VOLUME XXXI WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1898. On June 25, 1898 (2/3rds) 10 years and 35 nays voted against annezation of the Kingdom of Hawaii. (see exhibit "H").

b.The organic act presumptively extending U.S. citizenship (sec. 4) to Hawaiian

___________________________________

8See note 3 pp. 13-14
9Ku'e: The Hui Aloha 'Aina Anti-Annexation Petitions 1897-1898, compiled by Nalani Minton and Noenoe K Silva
10U.S. Constitution Art. 2. sec. 2
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc21 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

citizens and descendants of them as well as asserting jurisdiction over the territory (sec.2) and citizens of Hawai'i was not properly grounded in that it was based upon the previous resolution on 1898 of annexation of Hawai'i (The Newlands Resolution, infra note).11

c.Subsequent applications of laws by the United States of America upon citizens and activities engaged within the territorial limits of Hawai'i were based upon a presumption of appropriate taking of jurisdiction over Hawaiian citizens and Hawaiian territories. These applications of law are only as valid as the foundations provided by the joint resolution of annexation of 189812 and the Organic Act of 1900. But if the instrument of annexation is illegitimate, all subsequent acts founded on the initial act are equally unlawful.
Fruit of poisonous Tree Doctrine bears the poisonous fruits

What is happening to United States of America "in God we Trust" and its de facto state of Hawaii.

C.Under U.N. Process of Decolonization

a.Independent of the historical international relationship between the nation of Hawai'i and the United States of America by virtue of the U.S. membership in the United Nation specifically, under Article 73 of the U.N. Charter, the U.N. Charter obligated the United States of America and other metropolitan states found in similar circumstances, as a matter of sacred trust, to bring about self-government of people within territories.

b.The United States of America has continued assertion of jurisdiction over Hawai'i territory and its citizens.13 Unknown to most of the people in Hawai'i, in 1946 under the charter of the United Nations at Article 73, the United States was charged with bringing self-government

___________________________________

11See note 3 pp. 12-15
12Newlands Resolution of July 7, 1898; 30 Stat. 750; 2 Supp. R.S. 895
13See note 3 pp. 16-22
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc22 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

to Hawai'i.14

c.The Hawai'i "statehood" vote, the U.S., reported to the U.N. that it "had met its responsibility" under Article 73. Believing this to be true, the U.N. General Assembly by Resolution 1469 (XIV) in 1959 relieved the United States of America of further responsibility to report to the U.N. on Hawai'i.

The U.N. General Assembly subsequently adopted its Declarauon on the Granting of independence to colonial Countries and People, (GA Res. 1514 (XV) 14 of December 1960) and formed the Special committee On The Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting on Independence to Colonial Countries and People. That declaration and the activities of the special committee reflect that the actions taken by the United States in Hawai'i did not meet the standard of self-governance required under Article 73. The exercise of self-determination in Hawai'i has not been accomplished. The plebiscite taken in 1959 failed to meet the requirements of the exercise of self-determination for at least two reasons; the U.S. government altered the "self" in defining who qualified to participate in the process, and limited the choices which the people should have had only to a form of integration within the United States of America (territorial status or statehood), not to independence.15


CHRONOLOGICAL FACTS OF STATEHOOD

On August 21, 1959, Hawaii illegitimately became a fiftieth state when U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower declared that "the procedural requirements imposed by the Congress on the State of Hawaii to entitle that state to admission into the Union have been complied with in all respects."

___________________________________

14Principles Which Should Guide Members in Determining Whether of not an obligation Exists to transmit the Information. Called for in Article 73(e) of the Charter of the United Nations. Annex to GA Res. 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960
15The Admission Act of March 18, 1959, Pub Law 86-3, 73 Stat 4.
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc23 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

While the colonial establishment has subsequently annually celebrated August 21 as a State holiday, only since about 1990, have we Kanaka Maoli begun to learn that the 1959 Statehood process was a fraud.

In 1946, at the time of the founding of the United Nations (UN), Hawaii was placed on the UN List of Non-Self-Governing Territories (colonies) eligible for decoloniztion as a consequence of the U.S.'s forced annexation of Hawaii in 1898.

According to the UN Charter, Chapter XI, Article 73, the U.S., as the administering (colonizing) power in Hawaii, had a sacred trust... to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the people concerned, their political, economic, social and educational advancement... and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions." The U.S. intentionally failed to fulfill this "sacred trust" responsibility to the colonized Kanaka Maoli people.

Instead, aware that the UN was under pressure to refine a decolonization process that was to become General Assembly Resolution (UNGAR) 1514 in 1960, the U.S. moved to ensure that Hawaii (and Alaska) would be incorporated as states of the Union before 1960.

March 12, 1959, the U.S. Congress passed the Hawaii Statehood Admission Act (PL.86-3), before a vote on the issue by the colonized Kanaka Maoli people, in violation of the Kanaka Maoli right to self-determination.

Later, on June 27, 1959, a Statehood Plebiscite in Hawaii posed only one option on the ballot: immediate statehood. The colonial establishment trumpeted statehood as "equal opportunity and autonomy." The only other (unstated) option was for Hawaii to remain as a territory. No reference was made to two other options-independence or free association-as provided by UNGAR 742 of 1953.

All U.S. citizens in Hawaii, including U.S. military personal, were permitted to vote, instead of only the colonized Kanaka Maoli people who were the only island residents eligible

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc24 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

for the exercise of self-determination and who comprised only 16 percent of the resident population. The vote outcome was as predicted with a large majority in favor of immediate statehood.

On September 17, 1959, unknown to the general public, the U.S. misinformed the UN the "Alaska and Hawaii had attained full measure of self-government as admitted states".

On December 12, 1959, without public announcement, the misinformed UN General Assembly approved Resolution 1469 nothing that the people of Alaska and Hawaii have effectively exercised their right to self-determination and clarified some specific features, conditions and outcomes of the UN decolonization process:

The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the UN and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation.

All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Inadequacy of political, economic, social and educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or color, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc25 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

the United Nation. The colonized Kanaka Maoli in particular have never been publicly informed of the foregoing historical events.
This history does not appear in textbooks and is not taught as part of the core curriculum in the island colonial schools.

STATEMENT OF CASE:

a.The U.S. is obligated to conduct itself in international affairs in accordance with international law.

The U.S. Constitution has incorporated treaties of the United States of America with other states as "the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges of every State shall be bound thereby16." The U.S. Constitution explicitly recognized the validity of international law when if conferred to Congress the right to define and duty to punish offenses against the law of nations.17 The United States Supreme Court has already stated that it must take judicia1 notice of international customary law.18

"The United States has concluded that it has a trust obligation to indigenous Hawaiians because it bears a responsibility for the destruction of their government and the unconsented and uncompensated taking of their lands. U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman to the U.S. Supreme Court"19

While internation law may differ from municipal, internal or domistic laws in that internal laws have a system of enforcement while the enforcement of international law is uncertain at best, the fact that a law is enforceable doesn't make it law. Rather, the fact that it is law demands its Obedience, whether enforceable by arms or by moral conscience.20 Grover

___________________________________

16U.S. Constitution, Art. VI.
17U.S. Constitution, Art. I sec.8 Piracies & felonies-10
18The Paquete Habana: the Lola 175 U.S. Reports 677 (1900)
19Ka wai Ola o OHA vol 16, number 8, 'Aukake 1999 pg. 1 & pg. 9
20See Fetzmaurice, "The Foundation of the authority of International Law and the Problem of Enforcement," 19 Modern L. Rev. 1, 1-2, 8-9 (1956); Weston, Falk and D'Amato, International Law and World Order, West Publishing Co. 1980 p. 116 et seq.
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc26 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

Cleveland, in addressing the joint houses of the U.S. Congress, declared that:

The considerations that international law is without a court for its enforcement, and that obedience to its commands practically depends upon good faith, instead of upon the mandate of a superior tribunal, only give additional sanction to the law itself and brand any deliberate infraction of it not merely as a wrong but as a disgrace.

The U.S. Constitution itself requires courts to view treaties as part of the Supreme Law of the Land21 Furthermore, it is a fundamental doctrine of International Law that a state may not excuse itself for violations of international law on the basis that its municipal constitution or laws permitted violations of such international laws.22

Thus, every court in the United States is obligated to look beyond the mere legislative pronouncements of the Congress and hold up these transactions of the U.S. government with regards to Hawai'i against the backdrop of international law and the Constitution of the United States.23

B.The transactions engaged in by the U.S. in its dealings with Hawai'i in accordance with international law in its pattern of conduct attempting to annex Hawai'i to the U.S. The United States had formally recognized Hawai'i as an international personality, recognizing the Nation of Hawai'i as a sovereign" independent nation state. The treaty of Friendship, Commerce, Navigation and Extradition (hereafter FCN&E) proclaimed November 9, 1850, declared, "There shall be perpetual peace and amity between the United States and the King of the Hawaiian Islands, his heirs and his

___________________________________

21U.S. Constitution, Art. VI
22Werner Levi, Comemporary International Law: A Cincise Introduction, Westview Press, Colorado, 1979 at p. 25; Article 13, Declaration of Rights and Duties of States adopted by the International Law Commission 1949; The judgment at Nuremberg, 1 International Military Tribunal, of the Major War Criminals 171 (1947)
23See also Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon 11 U.S. 116, 135 (1812)
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc27 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

successors.24 The U.S. was to violate this treaty time and again.

By 1873, U.S. Minister to Hawai'i Henry Pierce, bent on annexation, informed U.S. Secretary of State Fish that annexation would be achieved only if "...the planters, merchants and foreigners... will induce the people to overthrow the Hawaiian Government, establish a republic, and then ask the United States for admittance into its Union"25 The U.S. government was not limited to merely writing letters between high officials. On January 15, 1873, Major General and commander of the United States Army Military Division of the Pacific, John Schofield, (formerly Secretary of War) and Brigadier General B.S. Alexander of the Corps of Engineers, arrived in Hawai'i pretending to be on a vacation. Instead, they were spies to report about "the defense capabilities of [Hawai'i] different ports and their commerce facilities, and to examine any other subjects that may occur to you as desirable, in order to collect all information that would be of service to the Country in the event of war with a powerful maritime nation. They submitted a secret report on the great value of Pearl Harbor as a port to provide a safe harbor to protect several hundreds ships. This report was kept secret until 1897 when it was declassified to support annexation in Congresss.26

By 1882, the U.S. President administration was engaged in encouraging the destabilization of the Hawaiian government through discussion with Lorrin Thurston. The Arthur administration assured Thurston that the U.S. government would look with great favor to an annexation treaty should there be a revolt and overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and a new government formed.

___________________________________

24Art. 1 p. 908 William M. Malloy, Treaties Conventions International Acts Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers 1776-1909. Vol. 1, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1910.
25Letter from Pierce to Fish, February 17, 1873, house Executive Document, 53 Congress 2nd Session, Washington, D.C. 1895, hereinafter cited as the Blount Report, p. 153; Rich Budnick, Stolen Kingdom; an American Conspiracy. Aloha Press 1992, pp.36 & 37.
26Budnick at p. 37&38; Blount Report at pp. 153, 154, & 158.
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc28 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

The U.S. government subsequently sent to Hawai'i annexationist John L. Stevens, as its Minister Plenipotentiary. Stevens was well known as an annexationist. As editor of the Kennebec Journal for time, in partnership with U.S. Secretary of State Blaine, he and Mr. Blaine wrote numerous articles for the annexation of Hawai'i.27 On March 8, 1892, he requests instructions from Blaine on how far he may deviate from established international rules and precedents in order to advance the goal of destabilization and annexation of Hawai'i.28

By 1892, U.S. Harrison administration, itself, as on the same course as the Arthur administration 10 years earlier, encouraging Thurston toward the destabilization of Hawai'i29 On the 17th of January, 1893, through the connivance of the U.S. Minister plenipotentiary, with Thurston, the Hawaiian monarch was forced to yield her authority to the US. government by the aggression of the U.S. military upon Hawaiian soil.30

Everyone of these acts was in violation of international law, both as a matter of customary international law31 as well as the FCN&E treaty. They were also in contradiction to the much earlier declaration of the U.S. President to the Congress on December 31, 1842, recognizing Hawai'i independence and pledging never to take possession of Hawai'i.32

___________________________________

27P. Laenui, "Three Days in January" The Overthrow if the Hawaiian Monarchy. acompanion booklet to a Nine Hour Radio Broadcast of the Event of the Century, Hawaiian National Broadcast Corporation, Honolulu, 1993 at 12.
28Ibid at 10. Blount Report p. 182
29Gavin Daws, Shoal Of Time; A history of the Hawaiian Islands, U.H. Press, 1974, p. 266
30President Grover Cleveland's Message to the Congress of the United States on December 18, 1893, Executive Doc. no. 47, 53rd Congress, 2nd Session, House of Representative; Apology Bill, PL. 103-150; Liliu'okalani, Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen, Tuttle Press Tokyo 1965
31"acts of aggression constitutes international crimes against the human species." Unanimous resolution of 18 February 1928 of 21 American republics at the Sixth (Havana) Pan-American Conference. International Law & World Order, Note 20, supra, at p. 155; By 1893, acts of aggression were already contrary to international law in the Americas and in the South Pacific. Kazi Aktar Hamid, Self-Determination; The Case Study of Hawai'i, Dissertation for the degree the Doctor of Laws (LL.) 4 November 1991, University of Ottawa, p. 246-247.
32Dispatch from Pageot, French representative in Washington, to Guizot, French minister of Foreign Affairs, no. 55, June 11, 1844, AMAE (paris), Etats Unis, Vol. C.
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc29 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

In Article 6(a) of the Nuremberg Charter, we find Crimes Against Peace; namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.33 The United Nations General Assembly at its first session in 1946 recognized the principles set out in the Nuremberg Charter.34

The United States committed crimes against peace under the law of nations by planning and implementing the use of force to overthrow the Hawaiian monarch without any provocation by her official representatives. United States President Cleveland in addressing the joint houses of Congress on December 18, 1893, stated it accurately when he said, "candid and thorough examination of the facts will force the conviction that the Provisional Government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States." The United States Congress, in its apology bill signed by President Clinton on November 23, 1993, was equally explicit when it stated:

"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..."35 The U.S. Congress 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. The United States government is bound by the actions of

___________________________________

33Judicial Decisions, International Military Tribunal (Nurenberg). Judgment and Sentences; 41.
34U.N. General Assembly Resolution 95(1), U.N. Doc. A/6. at 188 (1946).
35Apology Bill, PL. 103-150, Cleveland's Message, infra, U.S. Acknowledgment and Apology for the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, S.J. Res. 19, 103d Congress, lst.Sess, PL. 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510) 1993.
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc30 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

its agents, of its ministers.36 If The President was bound by the actions of the minister. The United States government conspired to overthrow the lawful government of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, which was an internationally illegal act at the time it was done, and is currently acknowledged by President Clinton and congress.

The next paragraph continues, "pursuant to the conspiracy... naval representatives called armed forces 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 Liliu'okalani and her government."37 Congress significantly calls an invasion an invasion. That is what it was, a clearly illegal act, an invasion in violation of treaties and international agreements, an invasion in violation of international law, and an invasion in violation of the United States Constitution the overthrow of a lawful government.

Under the international law when you have a violation of treaties of this magnitude, the World Court has ruled that the only appropriate remedy is restitution.38
The Kingdom of Hawai'i, that is our independent nation state. This is the appropriate remedy.

The Public Law goes on from here, reciting the sorry history of what happened, the establishment of the provisional government.39 Well, that is not entitled to any legitimacy at all.

___________________________________

36See Nuclear test case (Austl. v. Fr) 1974 L.C.J. 252 (Dec. 20). where the International Court held that: It is well recognized that declaration made by way of unilateral acts, concerning legal or factual situations, may have the effect of creating legal obligations. Declaration of this kind may be, and often are, very specific. When it is the intertion of the State making the declaration that it should become bound according to its terms, that intention confers on the declaration the character of a legal undertaking, the State being thenceforth legall required to follow a course of conduct consistent with the declaration. All undertaking of this kind. If given publicly, and with an intent to be bound, even through not made within the context of international negotiations, is binding. ld. at 267. (holding France bound to statements made be government ministers). But see Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990) ("The United States is neither bound nor estopped by acts of its officers or agents in entering into an arrangement or agreement to do or cause to be done what the law does not sanction or permit.")
37Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law No.103-150, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510.
38Case conserning the Factory at Chorzow, 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17, at 47 (Sept. 13). But see J. Patrick Kelly, The Changing Process of International Law and the Role of the World Court, 11 Mich. J. International Law 129, 159 (Fall 1989} ("actual practice indicates that compensation is now governed by the doctrine of unjust enrichment rather than a right of restitution").
39"Whereas, on the afternoon of January 17, 1883, a Committee of Safety that represented the American and European sugar planters, descendants of messionaries, and financiers disposed the Hawaiian monarchy and proclaimed the edtablishment of a provisional government." Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution. Public Law No. 103-150. 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1510-11.
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc31 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

It was imposed by raw, naked, and brutal military force, at the point of a bayonet, (gunboat diplomacy), just as was practiced in many other countries, only here now Congress has finally admitted this. The next paragraph points out 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 agreemcnts.40 So under international law, you would not call this provisional government. You would call it a government of military occupation. That is, we had military forces here and then we had a civilian arm of the military occupying regime.

The occupied Palestinian lands where the Israeli occupying forces have set up a civilian arm if their military occupation authorities to administer the civil affairs of the Palestinian people."41 The negotiations centered around the withdrawal of the civilian military occupation arm, and the withdrawal of the military occupation forces themselves.42 The September 13, 1993 agreement calls for the dissolution of the civilian occupation arm and then the withdrawal of the military occupation forces themselves.43

Therefore, this "provisional government" referred to in the Public Law is really the

___________________________________

40"Whereas, the United States minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition to the Provisional government that was formed by the conspirators without the consent of The Native Hawaiian people to the lawful governrnent with Hawai'i and in violation of treaties between the two nations of international law." Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law No. 103-150, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1510-11.
41See J. Timothy McGuire, lnternational Law and the administration of Occupied Territories. Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, 8 Emory International Law Rev. 383 (1994).
42See David I. Schulman, The Israeli-PLO Accord on the Declaration of Principles on interim Self-Government Arrangements; The First Step Toward Palestinian Self-Determination, 7 Emory International Law Rev. 739 (Fall 1993); Gumar Halley, Issues Confronting the Return of Palestinian Arab Refugees After the 1993 Declaration of Principles on lnterm Self-Government Arrangements, 8 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 149 (1994).
43Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-government Arrangements. Sept 13, 1993. 1st-PLO, art. VI, 32 I.L.M. 1524, 1527.
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc32 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

civilian arm of a military occupation force. That was the predecessor to the current government of Hawai'i that administers to us. Again, following the implications of that law, the state government of Hawai'i occupies a similar position to that provisional government. The federal military forces here keeping it in power.

We then come to the statement by our precious so loved Queen Liliu'okalani, "that I yield to the superior force of the United States of America,"44 She made it very clear that this statement and her later abdication were procured under duress and force 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. She was simply bowing to superior power, but NOT as a matter of right or of law.45

In a parallel case. communicating with the World Court, the Owen-Stoltenberg plan46 to partition the republic. of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was concluded, by means of threats and duress, compulsion and coercion. It was therefore invalid, under international law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties."47 Our Queen Liliu'okalani a very powerful person, and preserving the rights of her people under duress, she committed an act now seen as "under extreme duress".

The law goes on, with Congress admitting that [w]ithout the active support and intervention by the United States... the insurrection...would have failed for lack of popular support and insufficient arms.48 And in 1893 "the minister raised the flag and declared Hawai'i to

___________________________________

44Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution Public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510 1511.
45See Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of The Crime of Genocide (Bosnia & Herzpgpvina v. Yugoslavia), 1993 I.C.J. 325 (Sept. 13).
46See Alan C. Laifer, Note, Never Again? The Concentration Camps in Bosnia Herzgovina; A legal Analysis of Human Rights Abuses, 2 New Eur. L. Rev, 159, 187 (Spring 1994).
47" A treaty is viod if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force on violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations." Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, supra note 12, at art. 52.
48Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law No. 103-150, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1512.
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc33 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

be a protectorate of the United States."49 They did not protect anything, did they? Was there a need to protect Hawai'i 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. Hence, The occupation was entitled to no legal validity at all at the time and is not now. That is basically what Congress is saying.

The Blount Report states that "military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government."50 Again, this is further admission that the United States acted illegally under international law. The implication then. of these admissions by Congress, by the Blount Committee, is that there must be restitution.51 Na Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people, Na po'e O Hawai'i have a right to be returned to the situation they were in, as of January 17, 1893. The federal government disciplined the minister and forced him to resign his commission. The overthrow should be reversed. The President could have done it if he wanted to; he just did not do it. President Cleveland's message to congress admitted all this. "An act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress."52 The President clearly admitted that this was illegal behavior of the most heinous type. A "substantial wrong" was done, calling for the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy.53 The United Nations Charter.54

___________________________________

49Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law 103-150, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1512.
50ld. ("Presidential established investigation conducted by Congressman James Blount into the events surrounding the insurrection and overthrow").
51See Nark A. lnciong, Note, The Lost Trust; Native Hawaiian Beneficiaries Under (he Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 8 Ariz. J. Int'l & Compo L. 174, 191 n.34 (1991) ("The Blount Report. found that the overthrow ... had been illegal ... and that Liliu'okalaru [should] be restored to power").
52"whereas, in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on the illegal acts of the conspirators." Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law No. 103-150, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1511.
53Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, public Law No. 103-1501993 U.S.c.c.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510. 1511.
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc34 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

The Newlands Joint Resolution55 provided for the annexation of Hawai'i in 1893. Where is the authority for this? There is none. They stole the land, the country, displaced the government, and now they have annexed it. This very issue was addressed by the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945, where German 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 valid prior to the conclusion of a peace treaty.56

The United States government and the President conceded that they engaged in acts of war, that they are occupying our land and that they put themselves at war with our people.57 The United States annexation has no validity under international law. The US. have effectively, in this law, invalidated the entire annexation. The whole legal basis for it now been invalidated.

The annexation of the land is invalid, then where does the title come from, who has title to the land? It is Na Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people who retain title to the lands of Hawai'i, as a matter of international law. It is not the federal government, not the state government, but Na Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people themselves. That is the implication here. The truth of the findings of facts and conclusions of law are now officially set forth by Congress.

"[T]he Newlands Resolution, the...Republic of Hawai'i ceded sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States."58 But the Republic of Hawai'i59 never had sovereignty

___________________________________

54U.N. Charter, art. 1, & 2.
55Newlands Resolution, Public Law No. 55, 30 Stat. 750 (1898).
56"[I]t was held that, by 1939, the rules on belligerent occupation [that it does not transfer sovereignty] been recognized by all civilized nations and were regarded as being declaratory of the law and customs of war." George Shwwarzenberge. 2 International Law 165 (1965) (citing Nuremberg Judgment, International Military Tribunal, Cmd. 6964 at 65 (1946))
57Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law 103- 150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510.
58Id. at 1510.
59Mililani B. Trask, Historical and Contemporary Hawaiian Self-Determination. A Native Hawaiian Perspective, 8 Ariz. J. Int'l Compo L. 77, 91-95 (1991).
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc35 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

over the Hawaiian Islands. We have already determined the Republic of Hawai'i was the civilian occupying arm of a military occupation forces. Sovereignty remains in the hands of the displaced sovereign. This is black letter international law.60

"The Republic of Hawai'i ceded 1,800,000 acres of crown, government, and public lands of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, without the consent of or compensation to Na Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people, or sovereign government.61 The Republic had no authority to do this. 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 and the laws of war. So they had no power to cede anything. The title to the land rested and still rests, under international law, with the Kingdom of Hawai'i Na Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people.

Our Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i, Hawaiian people of the Kingdom of Hawai'i cannot "trespass" on our own land. The trespassers are the state of Hawai'i, the land developers, the golf courses, and the resorts. What this fact does is point out that the whole situation is completely turned around on its head. It now changes the whole way that these US and state authorities should be looking into this matter. The federal government is the trespasser and the criminal. The Kingdom of Hawai'i is Na Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people asserting our rights under international law. This reversal of positions between who is the criminal and who are the VICTIMS, and between who is asserting their RlGHTS and who is violating our rights has been effectively conceded by Congress.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights.62

Article 25 of Declaration provides that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate

___________________________________

60"[A]nnexation of occupied territory is a violation of intemational law... Title to the territory in question must not change until there is complete subjection (debellatio) or a peace treaty has been put into effect." Gerhard Von Glahn, Law Among nations 768 (1992).
61Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1512.
62Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess, 61.
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc36 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

for health, well-being of themselves and their family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services."63 In 1994 a survey was done in the state. Na Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people were ranked #1 as highest in poverty, ill health, homelessness, and imprisonment. The state of Hawai'i has no right to throw anyone of our Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people out. Where is the governments right? Article 18 of the Declaration provides that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This includes freedom to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."64 The state of Hawai'i, real estate developers, or resort developers, has no right to destroy any of what our ancestors have created as Heiau to worship on our lands or burial sites to respect. Under Article 18.

"Whereas, the Congress...annexed Hawai'i...and vested title to the lands in Hawai'i in the United States.65 This is clearly illegal. The annexation was invalid. The United States cannot get title from the Republic of Hawai'i because the Republic of Hawai'i 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 intemational law.66 The occupying power cannot sell land legally. You cannot transfer land title. It does not make it lawful, but invalid. It's illegal Occupying power cannot sell land legally. All transactions that were done, are all invalid. It is illegal. It's all arguably, they are obliged to leave, and not to stay.

The law goes on to state; "Where, the Newlands Resolution effected the transaction between the Republic of Hawai'i and the United States government.67 The Newlands Resolution

___________________________________

63ld. at art. 25.
64ld. at art. 18.
65Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution.Public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1512.
66"Belligerent, occupation does not transfer sovereignty. Instead it transfers to the occupant the authority to exercise some rights of sovereignty." Yon Glahn, supra note 58 at 774. See also
67Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law, No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.)1510, 1512.
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc37 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

is entitled to no validity at all, since it is based on an illegal invasion, a violation of treaties, and a violation of the principle of pacta sunt servanda.68 Many numerous and repeated violations of law have accrued as a result of this.

Congress admits that "the indigenous Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people never directly relinquished their claims to ... inherent sovereignty... through a plebiscite or a referendum69 The U.N. General Assembly subsequently adopted its Declaration on the Gantion of Independence to Colonial Countries and peoples, (GA Res 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) and formed the Special Committee On The Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples. That declaration and the activities of the special committee reflect that the actions taken by the United States in Hawai'i did meet the standard of self-governance contemplated under Article 73. The exercise of self-determination in Hawaii [Hawai'i] has not been accomplished. The plebiscite taken in 1959 failed to meet the requirements of the exercise of self-determination for at least two reasons; the U.S. government altered the "self" in defining who qualified to participate in the process, and limited the choices which the people should have had only to a form of integration within the United States of America (territorial status or statehood), not to independence.70 The vote is meaningless, as a matter of international law and of United States domestic law Pursuant to the principle of self-determination in article 1, Paragraph 2 of the United Nations Charter."71

The Public Law more admissions "Whereas, the long-range economic and social changes in Hawai'i over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have been devastating to the

___________________________________

68See Martin Hession, The Legal Framework of European Community in Intermational Environmental Agreements, 2 New Eur. L. Rev. 59, 103 (Spring 1994).
69Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law, No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.)1510, 1512.
70U.N. Charter art. 73, The Admission Act of March 18, 1959, Public Law 86-3, 73 Stat. 4.
71U.N. CHARTER art. 1 paragraph 2
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc38 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

population and to the health and well-being of the Hawaiian people."72 A survey done in Hawai'i in 1994 the Hawaiian people rank number 1 in poverty, ill health, homelessness, and imprisonment. The Hawaiian people have been subjected to the international crime of Genocide, as determined and defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention.73 and the 1987 Genocide Convention Implementation Act,74 the Proxmire Resolution. That was one of the findings of the San Francisco Tribunal The key findings held here concerning Hawai'i Ka Ho'okolokolonui Kanaka Maoli.

In the International Court of Justice, they have been convinced that Genocide is going on in Bosnia-Herzegovina.75 There is no reasonable doubt my next step is the World Court. GENOCIDE has being practiced by the United States government against Na Kanaka Maoli Hawaiian People.
This will take my people, Na Kanaka Maoli back to the creation of a nation and will bring protection for Na Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) people and the Hawaiian Citizens of Hawai'i. I, Majesty Akahi Nui, King of the Hawaiian Islands will not at all even consider what Secretary Babbitt is considering as the same status as Native Americans. My people are' not even as close to the same status of a Native American. My people are Na Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i and the people not of the race are Hawaiian citizens.

"It is proper and timely for Congress to acknowledge the historic significance of the illegal overthrow."76 It had no validity at all. The Resolution then addresses support for the

___________________________________

72Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N (107 Stat.) 1510, 1512.
73Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, January 12, 1951, 78 U.N.T.S. 277.
74Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987, Public law no. 100-106, 102 Stat. 3045 (1987).
75See Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of The Crime of Genocide (Bosnia & Herzogovina v. Yugoslavia, 1993 I.C.J. 325 (Sept. 13.)
76Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1511.
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc39 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

reconciliation efforts.77 Under international law for a violation of this nature, the remedy is restitution78 To set right the harm that has been done to restore the situation to what it had been before the violation in 1893 See the Chorzow Factory case79

Section 1, acknowledgment and apology80 The law again repeats, "illegal overthrow. " the significance of the various "whereas" clauses were "resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress and Senate, and signed by the President81 This provision of the law recognizes the illegal overthrow and "acknowledges the historical significance of this event which was ultimately the suppression of the inherent sovereignty.82

Paragraph 2 apologizes for the overthrow "with the participation of agents of the United States83 The U. S. government again is responsible for the actions of its ministers, Congress now calls these people "agents" Their illegal conduct, binds the United States government. The United States government is under an obligation to undo the harm that was done. But even if the United States does not, I, Majesty Akahi Nui and my Na Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian people) have our right to act to undo the curse of injustice in the World Court It is presently active in the World Court. The rest of the sentence reads, "the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination.84

Congress has conceded that the Native Hawaiian peoples have the right to self-determination. Self-determination of the people is under the U.N. Charter provides a rights to

___________________________________

77ld.
78Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzow, 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17, at 1 (Sept 13).
79ld.
80Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution, Public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1513.
81ld.
82ld.
83ld.
84ld.
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc40 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

full sovereignty.85

Paragraph 4 expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications.86 The ramifications, and the implications, of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i

The definition section, Congress defines Native Hawaiians as "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'i87 Our right to determine our political status, our government, through customary systems, and to freely pursue our economic, social, and cultural development in accordance with article 1 of both the International Covenant on Civil Political, 'Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights88 This affirms that the Kingdom of'Hawai'i is still in existence. The descendants of the aboriginal people still lives which affirms the existence of the Kingdom of Hawai'i The sovereign authority of these lands.

I, Majesty Akahi Nui has been recognized by the illegitimate government that I am a descendant of 1778 on 12th of March 1998.
It is not the state or the federal government, but the Hawaiian people. The sovereignty is still and will always remain in the hands of my people Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i. The territory is the state. The Hawaiian Archipelago, the lands before the invasion of 1893. We claim a twelve mile territorial sea and a 200 mile exclusive economic zone, in accordance with customary international law and the Law of the Sea Treaty of 198289

Congress has recognized Na Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i with sovereign powers. We are the original inhabitants and occupants of these islands. We have always been in possession of our

___________________________________

85U.N. CHARTER art. 1, paragraph 2.
86Overthrow of Hawai'i Resolution. Public Law No. 103-150 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. (107 Stat.) 1510, 1513.
87ld
88International Covenant on Civil Political, Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. GA. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No 16 at 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (l966).
89United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/l22, reprinted in 21 I.L.M. 1261 (1982).
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc41 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

land. Our sovereign nation the Kingdom of Hawai'i was always in existence because the race still lives Na Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i (Hawaiian people).
Our rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.90

WHEREAS His Royal Majesty Akahi Nui is the Sovereign Heir and King of the Hawaiian Islands :

Affirmation of Mokupuni O Oahu and Palmyra,
Mokupuni O Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe
Mokupuni O Hawaii
Mokupuni O Kauai and Niihau
Bureau of Conveyance Doc no(s): Deeds 2002-005573 thru 2002-005574 (Oahu)
T.M.K. (1)-1 Through 9 -ALL-ALL-ALL,91 Deeds 2002-005579 thru 2002-005580
(Maui) T.M.K. (2)-1 Through 6 -ALL-ALL-ALL,92 2002-005577 thru 202-005578
(Hawai'i) T.M.K. (3)-1 Through 9 -ALL-ALL-ALL,93 and 2002-005575 thru 2002-005576
(Kauai) T.M.K. (4)-1 Through 5 -ALL-ALL-ALL94
L 1848, p 22 C.C. p. 37495


Affirmation of One Hundred Percent Direct Lineal Royal Descent of
The Royal House of Akahi

Genealogy of Majesty Akahi Nui

Ulu ke kane O Kapunun ke wahine hanau Nanaie ke kane O Kahaumokuleia ke wahine hanau Nanailani ke kane O Hinakinau ke wahine_hanau Waikulani ke kane O Kekauilani ke wahine hanau Kuheleimoana ke kane O Mapunaiaala ke wahine hanau Konohiki ke kane O Hikaululena ke wahine hanau Wawena ke kane O Himamahuia ke

___________________________________

90Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III), U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948), reprinted in 21 I.L.M. 1261 (1982).
91STATE OF HAWAII Bureau of Conveyances Recorded Doc No(s) 2002-005573 thru 2002-005574
92STATE OF HAWAII Bureau of Conveyances Recorded Doc No(s) 2002-005579 thru 2002-005580
93STATE OF HAWAII Bureau of Conveyances Recorded Doc No(s) 2002-005577 thru 2002-005578
94STATE OF HAWAII Bureau of Conveyances Recorded Doc No(s) 2002-005575 thru 2002-005576
95CROWN, GOVERNMENT, AND FORT LANDS, ENUMERATED L 1848, P. 22 C.C. P. 374. AN ACT RELATING TO THE LANDS OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING AND OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc42 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

wahine hanau Akalana ke kane O Hinakawea ke wahine hanau Mauihope, Mauimua, Mauiakalana ke kane O Hinakealohaila ke wahine hanau Nanamaoa ke kane O Hinakapaekua ke wahine hanau Nanakulei ke kane O Kehaukuhonna ke wahine hanau Nanakaoko ke kane O Kohihiokalani ke wahine hanau Heleipawa ke kane O Kookookumaikalani ke wahine hanau Hulumanailani ke kane O Hinamaikalani ke wahine hanau Aikane ke kane O Hinahanaikamalama ke wahine hanau Puna ke kane Hema ke kane O Ulamahahoa ke wahine hanau Kahai ke kane O Hinauluohia ke wahine hanau Wahieloa ke kane O Koolaukahili ke wahine hanau Lake ke kane O Hikawaelena ke wahine hanau Luanun ke kane O Kapokulaila ke wahine hanau Kamea ke kane O Popomaili ke wahine hanau Pohukaina ke kane O Huahuakapalei ke wahine hanau Hua ke kane O Hikimolulolea ke wahine hanan Pau ke kane O Kapohaakia ke wahine hauau Huanuikalalailai ke kane O Kapoea ke wahine hanau Paumakua ke kane O Manokalililani ke wahine hanau Haho ke kane O Kauilaianapa ke wahine hanau Palena ke kane O Hikiwainui ke wahine hanau Hanalaaiki, Hanalaanui ke kane O Mahuia ke wahine hanau Lanakawai ke kane O Kalohialiiokawai ke wahine hanau Laau ke kane O Kukamolimolialoha ke wahine hanau Pili ke kane O Hinaauaku ke wahine hanau Koa ke kane O Hinaaumai ke wahine hanau Ole ke kane O Hinamaileilii ke wahine hanau Kukohu ke kane O Hinakeuki ke wahine hanau Kaniuhi ke kane O Hiliamakani ke wahine hanau Kanipahu ke kane O Hualani ke wahine hanau Kalahumoku ke kane O Laamea ke wahine hanau Ikialaamea ke kane O Kalamea ke wahine hanau Kamanawa- a-Kalamea ke kane O Kaina ke wahine hanau Onokaina ke kane O Kuamakani ke wahine hanau Kua-i-makani, Kanahae ke kane O Kapiko ke wahine hanau Kuleana-a- kapiko ke kane O Keanianihooleilei ke wahine hanau Akahi-a-kuleana ke wahine Kanepahu ke kane O Alai-aka-na-koko ke wahine hanau Kalapana ke kane O Makeamalamaihanae ke wahine hanau Kahaimoeleaikaaikupou ke kane O Kapoakauluhailaa ke wahine hanau Kalaunuiohua ke kane O Kaheka ke wahine hanau Kuaiwa ke kane O Kamuleilani ke wahine hanau Hukulani, Manaiea, Kahoukapu ke kane O Laaukapu ke wahine hanau Kaholanuimahy ke kane O Neula ke wahine hanau Kiha ke kane O Waea ke wahine hanau Liloa ke kane O Akahi-a-kuleana ke wahine hanau Umi-a-Liloa ke kane O Kulamea ke wahine hanau Kapunanahuanui-a-umi ke kane, Umi-a-Liloa ke kane O Makaalua ke wahine hanau Nohon'aa-a-umi, Umi-a-Liloa ke kane O Kapukini ke wahine hanau Keliiokaloa ke kane, Kean'enuiaumi, Umi-a-Liloa ke kane O Piikea-a-piilani ke wahine hanau Aihakoko, Kumalaenuiaumi ke kane O Kekaikaakuloulamiokahiki ke wahine hanau Makuakaumanamana ke kane O Kapohelemai ke wahine hanau I ke kane, Umi-a-liloa ke kane O Mokuahualeiakea ke wahine hanau Akahiilikapu ke wahine Kahakumakaliua ke kane O Akahiilikapu ke wahine hanau Kauaihalaniwailuan ke wahine, Keliiokiohi ke kane O Mamauakoko ke wahine hanau Akahikameenoa ke wahine, I ke kane O Akahikameenoa ke wahine hanau Kanekukailani ke wahine, Akahinui ke wahine, Mahiololi ke kane O Kanekukailani ke wahine hanau Umi-a-emaku ke wahine, Kauakehiakua ke kane O Umi-a-emoku ke wahine hanau Kanekapolei ke wahine, Kalanikupuapaikalaninui ke kane O Akahinui ke wahine hanau Kaleiwohi ke kane O Kailipakalua ke wahine hanau Pauelua ke kane O Kaluai ke wahine hanau Akahi ke wahine, Kalanimoku ke kane O Akahi ke wahine, Kikai ke kane O Akahi ke wahine hanau Nahuina ke kane, Kamakaia ke kane O Akahi ke wahine hanau Hanakahi ke kane, Pomaikai ke kane O Akahi ke wahine hanau Kahele ke kane, Kauhi ke kane, Kahope ke kane O Akahi ke wahine hanau Halemano ke kane, Waha ke kane O Akahi ke wahine hanau Kaluakini, Kapapu, Kaanaana, Kalama, Kaiama ke kane O Akahi ke wahine hanau Kekapu/Inoale, Kapaa ke kane O Akahi ke wahine, Nahuina ke kane O Kawao ke wahine, Nahuina ke kane O Oulu ke wahine hanau Alale, Nahuina ke kane O Kamaliiwahine ke wahine hanau Kaluakini ke kane,


Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc43 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

Halemano ke kane O Pua Kaialiilii hanau Victoria Halemano ke wahine, William Kalei ke kane O Victoria Halemano ke wahine hanau Elizabeth Kalei ke wahine, Kunewa ke kane O Kaanaana ke wahine Keoahu ke wahine hanau William Keoahu Akahi ke kane O Maria Kaahanui ke wahine hanau Akahi liilii ke kane, Paahaa, Akahi, Walahio, Waleo, Kino, Kawailanaliilii, Kaaiohi, Akahi ke kane O Malaea Kaawalauole ke wahine hanau Samuel Akahi ke kane O Elizabeth Kalei ke wahine hanau Samuel Akahi ke kane, Pauhao ke wahine, Momi ke wahine, Kenona ke wahine, Irene ke wahine, Harriet ke wahine, Edward ke kane, Akahi Nui ke kane O Grace Mokihana Grshiken ka wahine hanau James Kawika Akahi ke kane O Holly Firreria ke wahine, Keoni kaina Akahi ke kane O Elizabeth Kahae ke wahine, Haili Akahi Pua ke wahine, Kaulana Aulike Akahi ke wahine, Lopaka Akahi ke kane, Muai Lokelani Akahi ke wahine.

Mahalo Anakala Andrew Taki Akahi eha Mookuauhau

Affirmation of Direct Lineal Royal Descent from KALAMA

Keakealanikane
Keawekuikekaai
Kaaloaikanoa


Palena
Kauhiwalea
Kaleikapuainui
Kamakaikia
Hanakahi

Naihekukui
Kauikeaouli
(Kamehameha III)
Kaleimakalii
Kihawahine
Umihulumaka


Kaneiaulukahonua
Kelei
Kahiwakaumu
Akahi
Piipii


I a.k.a. Kepooku
KALAMA
(Queen Kalama)
Keawekuikekaai
Kaaloaikanoa
Palena
Paia
Luahine
Kauhiwalea
Kalaikapuainui
Akahi, w.
Hanakahi
Naihekukui
Kalua, w.
KALAMA HAKALELEPONI
Keaweawe

 

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc44 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM


Do you have a defense based on lawful governmental foundation and lawful jurisdiction over the soil of the Hawaiian Islands or oboriginal Na Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i (Hawaiian people) by the illegitimate state of Hawai'i and its entities since January 16, 1893 and to this present day in 2004? (Read Justice O Connor Opinion USSC) The apology letter from the U.C.C. (United Church Of Christ), U.S. P.L. 103-150 and Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) 1992 National Convention RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING SUPPORT FOR THE RESTORATION OF HUMAN, CIVIL, PROPERTY AND SOVEREIGN RIGHTS OF HAWAII'S INDIGENOUS PEOPLE.

Yes ( ) Please explain in full with attached lawful documentation of original evidence truth of law WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS.

No ( ) No Jurisdiction

Sworn Officials of the United States of America, being duly sworn on oath, deposes say; That the foregoing question is answered to the best of his or her knowledge and behalf

FAILURE TO ANSWER WITH A DEFENCE BASED ON TRUE AND LAWFUL DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF RECEIVING THIS NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATION OF THE SOVEREIGN'S WRIT(S) OF PROHIBITION WITH ORDER(S) TO ANSWER, WITH ATTACHED EXHIBIT(S) "A" THROUGH "H", AND BIOLATION OF KINGDOM OF HAWAII AND THE UNITED STATES, AND OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAWS OF NATIONS WITH ORDER TO ANSWER WILL RESULT IN A DEFAULT JUDGEMENT RENDERED AGAINST YOU

 

___________________________________
signature

___________________________________
Print name

___________________________________
Position

Subscribed and sworn to before me

this_____day of , ___________, _______

___________________________________
Notary Public, de facto state of Hawai'i
My commission expires: _______________

 

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc45 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

LIST OF CONTENTS

1) LAWS OF NATIONS

2) ALL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII AND THE UNITED STATES

3) U.S. Constitution Section 8, Article 1

4) Article VI of the U.S. Consitiution

5) Article XVI of the December 20, 1849 treaty between the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii

6) Official Protest of Queen Liliuokalani to Washington D.C.

7) U.S. Senate Bill Public Law 103-150, November 23rd, 1993

8) U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973

9) 1948 Genocide Convention

10) 1987 Genocide Convention Implementation Act, the Proxmire Resolution (See St. Thomas Law Review).

11) LON page 255, LON page 262, LON page 236, LON page 258

12) LARSEN -V- HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, IN THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION, Thursday, 7th of December 2000, CASE NO 99001, Peace Palace, The Hague, The Netherlands. On page 167 at lines 28 to 30 of the transcripts

13) UN Charter, Article 73

14) Registrar's Office, commonly referred to as the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Bureau of Conveyances" by the unlawful STATE OF HAWAII, Doc. No. 93-060570

15) Doc. No. 93-060570 Public Notary Second Judicial Circuit, and Document Number 92-162874 (Registrar's Office, commonly referred to as the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Bureau of Conveyances" by the unlawful STATE OF HAWAII

16) Registrar's Office, commonly referred to as the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Bureau of Conveyances" by the unlawful STATE OF HAWAII, Allodial Land Title Doc No(s): 2002-005573 Thru 2002-005574, 2002-005575

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc46 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

thru 2002-005576, 2002-005577 thru 2002-005578, 2002-005579 thru 2002-005580

17) Newlands Joint Resolution signed on July 7, 1898

18) April 30, 1900 Organic Act

19) Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920

20) See ALL Footnotes 1 through 95

21) The Royal House of Akahi Nui

22) EXHIBIT "A"
Maui News report March 1, 2004

23) EXHIBIT "B"
DECLARATION OF DEFAULT February 4, 2003 (Three (3)
DECLARATION(S) with attached Exhibits), DECLARATION OF DEFAULT April 6, 2003)

24) EXHIBIT "C"
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 31, 1995 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE Case Number: CV 94-00876SPK

25) EXHIBIT "D"
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 8, 1995 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE Case Number: CV 94-00876SPK

26) EXHIBIT "E"
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-15433 DC# CV-94-876-SPK FILED JUL 10 1995 ORDER AUG 4 1995
AFFIRMED before: FLETCHER, KOXINSKI and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges

27) EXHIBIT "F"
Hawaii Bureau of Conbeyances Public Search

28) EXHIBIT "G"
PROTEST OF QUEEN Liliuokalani June 17, 1897

29) EXHIBIT "H"
CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS volume XXXI June 25 1898 2/3rd voted against the annexation.

 

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc47 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

EXHIBIT "A"

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc48 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM


EXHIBIT "A" page 1 of 11


EXHIBIT "A" page 2 of 11


EXHIBIT "A" page 3 of 11


EXHIBIT "A" page 4 of 11


EXHIBIT "A" page 5 of 11


EXHIBIT "A" page 6 of 11


EXHIBIT "A" page 7 of 11


EXHIBIT "A" page 8 of 11


EXHIBIT "A" page 9 of 11


EXHIBIT "A" page 10 of 11


EXHIBIT "A" page 11 of 11


EXHIBIT "B"

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc49 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

Kingdom of Hawai'i
Sovereign Nation of God

Majesty Akahi Nui Trustee
Poste Box 2845
Moku aina O Wailuku, Mokupuni O Maui,
Ke Aupuni O Hawai`i



KINGDOM OF HAWAII
Sovereign Nation of God


Demandant

Vs.

The 107th Congress of the United
States of America, 1 to 1000 John Does
and Jane Does

Respondent(s)


]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

S.81, S.746, S.1783, S.86, S.87, S.1210, S.23335, S.231, S.2262, S.2711, S.1, S.91, S.1905, S.414, S.1597, S.1216, S.1005, S.2797

REFUTATION TO ANSWER WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAY(S) DECLARATION WITH AN ANSWER OF TRUE AND LAWFUL DOCUMENTED FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAY(S).
RECORD OF EVIDENCE IN EXHIBIT "A"

DECLARATION OF DEFAULT
IN THE MATTER OF

S.81, S.746, S.1783, S.86, S.87, S.1210, S.23335, S.231, S.2262, S.2711, S.1, S.91, S.1905, S.414, S.1597, S.1216,S.1005, S.2797

The above Demandant(s) Kingdom of Hawaii, Sovereign Nation of God under His Majesty Akahi Nui King of the Hawaiian Islands, indigenous aboriginal inhabitants Na Kanaka Maoli, Hawaii Nationals and Hawaiian Citzens of the lawful independent nation.

EXHIBIT "B" page 1 of 27


COME NOW, the Demandant(s) Kingdom of Hawaii, Sovereign Nation of God under His Majesty Akahi Nui King of the Hawaiian Islands, indigenous aboriginal inhabitants Na Kanaka Maoli, Hawaii Nationals and Hawaiian Citizens of the lawful independent nation; and hereby file their Declaration of Default against The 107th Congress of the United States of America, 1 to 1000 John Does And Jane Does, the RESPONDENTS(S).

That on the 1st day of October 2002, time on or about 1022, DECLARATION WITH AN ORDER TO ANSWER WITH TRUE AND LAWFUL FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAY(S) was received and signed for by A. MEONITE as follows:
See record of evidence Exhibit "A" as attached.

I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the Kingdom and Islands of Hawaii to be affixed on the 4th day of the second month in the Holy year of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ tow thousand and three.

EXHIBIT "B" page 2 of 27


EXHIBIT "B" page 4 of 27


Kingdom of Hawai'i
Sovereign Nation of God

Majesty Akahi Nui Trustee
Poste Box 2845
Moku aina O Wailuku, Mokupuni O Maui,
Ke Aupuni O Hawai`i



KINGDOM OF HAWAII
Sovereign Nation of God


Demandant

Vs.

The 107th Congress of the United
States of America, 1 to 1000 John Does
and Jane Does

Respondent(s)


]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

H.R.617, H.R.1250, H.R.562, H.R.5155, H.R.1433, H.R.2538, H.R.2538, H.R.2262, H.R.2538, H.R.5269, H.R.1337, H.R.2620, H.R.4825, H.R.3853, H.R.1, H.R.2927, H.R.3853, H.R.1034, H.R.1118, H.R.1217, H.R.17, H.R.4868.

REFUTATION TO ANSWER WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAY(S) DECLARATION WITH AN ANSWER OF TRUE AND LAWFUL DOCUMENTED FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAY(S).
RECORD OF EVIDENCE IN EXHIBIT "A"

DECLARATION OF DEFAULT
IN THE MATTER OF

H.R.617, H.R.1250, H.R.562, H.R.5155, H.R.1433, H.R.2538, H.R.2538, H.R.2262, H.R.2538, H.R.5269, H.R.1337, H.R.2620, H.R.4825, H.R.3853, H.R.1, H.R.2927, H.R.3853, H.R.1034, H.R.1118, H.R.1217, H.R.17, H.R.4868.

The above Demandant(s) Kingdom of Hawaii, Sovereign Nation of God under His Majesty Akahi Nui King of the Hawaiian Islands, indigenous aboriginal inhabitants Na Kanaka Maoli, Hawaii Nationals and Hawaiian Citzens of the lawful independent

EXHIBIT "B" page 5 of 27


nation.

COME NOW, the Demandant(s) Kingdom of Hawaii, Sovereign Nation of God under His Majesty Akahi Nui King of the Hawaiian Islands, indigenous aboriginal inhabitants Na Kanaka Maoli, Hawaii Nationals and Hawaiian Citizens of the lawful independent nation; and hereby file their Declaration of Default against The 107th Congress of the United States of America, 1 to 1000 John Does And Jane Does, the RESPONDENTS(S).

That on the 1st day of October 2002, time on or about 1022, DECLARATION WITH AN ORDER TO ANSWER WITH TRUE AND LAWFUL FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAY(S) was received and signed for by A. MEONITE as follows:
See record of evidence Exhibit "A" as attached.

I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the Kingdom and Islands of Hawaii to be affixed on the 4th day of the second month in the Holy year of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ tow thousand and three.

EXHIBIT "B" page 6 of 27


EXHIBIT "B" page 8 of 27


Kingdom of Hawai'i
Sovereign Nation of God

Majesty Akahi Nui Trustee
Poste Box 2845
Moku aina O Wailuku, Mokupuni O Maui,
Ke Aupuni O Hawai`i



KINGDOM OF HAWAII
Sovereign Nation of God


Demandant

Vs.

U.S. Secretary of the Interior
Gale Norton, 1 to 1000 John Does
and Jane Does

Respondent(s)


]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

S.81, S.746, S.1783

REFUTATION TO ANSWER WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAY(S) DECLARATION WITH AN ANSWER OF TRUE AND LAWFUL DOCUMENTED FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAY(S).
RECORD OF EVIDENCE IN EXHIBIT "A"

DECLARATION OF DEFAULT
IN THE MATTER OF
S.81, S.746, S.1783

The above Demandant(s) Kingdom of Hawaii, Sovereign Nation of God under His Majesty Akahi Nui King of the Hawaiian Islands, indigenous aboriginal inhabitants Na Kanaka Maoli, Hawaii Nationals and Hawaiian Citzens of the lawful independent nation.

EXHIBIT "B" page 9 of 27


COME NOW, the Demandant(s) Kingdom of Hawaii, Sovereign Nation of God under His Majesty Akahi Nui King of the Hawaiian Islands, indigenous aboriginal inhabitants Na Kanaka Maoli, Hawaii Nationals and Hawaiian Citizens of the lawful independent nation; and hereby file their Declaration of Default against The 107th Congress of the United States of America, 1 to 1000 John Does And Jane Does, the RESPONDENTS(S).

That on the 1st day of October 2002, time on or about 1022, DECLARATION WITH AN ORDER TO ANSWER WITH TRUE AND LAWFUL FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAY(S) was received and signed for by B. UPPIN as follows:
See record of evidence Exhibit "A" as attached.

I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the Kingdom and Islands of Hawaii to be affixed on the 4th day of the second month in the Holy year of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ tow thousand and three.

EXHIBIT "B" page 10 of 27


EXHIBIT "B" page 12 of 27


Kingdom of Hawai'i

Sovereign Nation of God

Majesty Akahi Nui
P.O.Box 2845
Moku'aina O Wailuku, Mokupuni O Maui,
Ke Aupuni O Hawai'i



KINGDOM OF HAWAII
Sovereign Nation of God

Vs.

The President of the United States
George Bush Jr.;
U.S. Secretary of Interior, Gale Norton;
U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney
General John Ashcroft; Linda Lingle,
Daniel Akaka, Lamar Alexander,
Wayne Allard, George Allen, Max
Baucus, Evan Bayh, Robert Bennett,
Joseph Biden, Jeff Bingaman,
Christopher Bond, Barbara Boxer,
John Breaux, Sam Brownback,
Jim Bunning, Conrad Burns, Robert
Byrd, Ben Campbell, Maria Cantwell,
Thomas Carper, Lincoln Chafee,
Saxby Chamblis, Hillary Clinton,
Thad Cochran, Norm Coleman, Susan
Collins, Kent Conrad, John Cornyn,
Jon Corzine, Larry Craig, Michael
Crapo, Thomas Daschle, Mark Dayton,
Mike DeWine, Christopher Dodd,
Elizabeth Dole, Pete Domenici, Byron
Dorgan, Richard Durbin, John Edwards,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

S.344

REFUTATION TO ANSWER
WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAY(S)
DECLARATION WITH AN
ORDER TO RECEIVE
AN ANSWER OF TRUE AND
LAWFUL DOCUMENTED FACTS OF
EVIDENCE OF
JURISDICTION WITHIN (20)
TWENTY DAY(S)

RECORD OF EVIDENCE
IN EXHIBIT "A"

EXHIBIT "B" page 13 of 27


John Ensign, Michael Enzi, Russell
Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Peter
Fitzgerald, Bill Frist, Bob Graham,
Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, Judd
Gregg, Chuck Hagel, Tom Harkin, Orrin
Hatch, Earnest Hollings, Kay Hutchison,
James Inhofe, Daniel Inouye, James
Jeffords, Tim Johnson, Edward Kennedy,
John Kerry, Herb Kohl, Jon Kyl, Mary
Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg,Patrick Leahy,
Carl Levin, Joseph Lieberman, Blanche
Lincoln, Trent Lott, Richard Lugar, John
McCain, Mitch McConnell, Barbara
Mikulski, Zell Miller, Lisa Murkowski,
Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson,
Don Nickles, Mark Pryor, Jack Reed, Harry
Reid, Pat Roberts, John Rockefeller, Rick
Santorum, Paul Sarbanes,Charles Schumer,
Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, Gordon
Smith, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter,
Debbie Stabenow, Ted Stevens, John
Sununu, James Talent, Craig Thomas,
George Voinovich, John Warner, Ron
Wyden, Neil Abercrombie, Anibal
Acevedo-Vila, Gary L. Ackerman, Robert B.
Aderholt, Todd W. Akin, Rodney
Alexander, Thomas H. Allen, Robert E.
Andrews, Joe Baca, Spencer Bachus, Brian
Baird, Richard H. Baker, Tammy Baldwin,
Frank W. Jr. Balance, Cass Ballenger,
Gresham J. Barrett, Roscoe G. Bartlett, Joe
Barton, Charles F. Bass, Bob Beauprez,
Xavier Becerra, Chris Bell, Doug
Bereuter, Shelley Berkley, Howard
L. Berman, Marion Berry, Judy Biggert,
Michael Bilirakis, Rob Bishop, Sanford D.
Jr. Bishop, Timothy H. Bishop, Marsha
Blackburn, Earl Blumenauer, Roy Blunt,
Sherwood Boehlert, John A. Boehner,
Henry Bonilla, Jo Bonner, Mary Bono,
John Boozman, Madeline Z. Bordallo,
Leonard L. Boswell, Rick Boucher, Allen
Boyd, Jeb Bradley, Kevin Brady, Robert A.
Brady, Corrine Brown, Henry E. Jr. Brown,
Sherrod Brown,Ginny Brown-Waite,
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

EXHIBIT "B" page 14 of 27


Michael C. Burgess, Max Burns, Richard
Burr, Steve Buyer, Ken Calvert, Dave
Camp, Chris Cannon, Eric Cantor,
Shelly Moore Capito, Lois Capps,
Michael E. Capuano, Benjamin L. Cardin,
Dennis A. Cardoza, Brad Carson, Julia
Carson, John R. Carter, Ed Case, Micheal
N. Castle, Steve Chabot, Chris Chocola,
Donna M. Christensen, Wm. Lacy Clay,
James E. Clyburn, Howard Coble, Tom
Cole, Mac Collins, Larry Combest, John Jr.
Conyers, Jim Cooper, Jerry F. Costello,
Christopher Cox, Robert E.(Bud) Jr.
Cramer, Philip M. Crane, Ander Crenshaw,
Joseph Crowley, Barbara Cubin, John
Abney Culberson, Elijah E. Cummings,
Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Artur Davis,
Danny K. Davis, Jim Davis, JoAnn Davis,
Lincoln Davis, Susan A. Davis, Tom Davis,
Nathan Deal, Peter A. DeFazio, Diana
DeGette, William D. Delahunt, Rosa L.
DeLauro, Tom DeLay, Jim DeMint, Peter
Deutsch, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-
Balart, Norman D. Dicks, John D. Dingell,
Lloyd Doggett, Calvin M. Dooley, John T.
Doolittle, Michael F. Doyle, Dreier,
John J. Jr. Duncan, Jennifer Dunn, Chet
Edwards, Vernon J. Ehlers, Rahm
Emanuel, Jo Ann Emerson, Eliot L. Engel,
Phil English, Anna G.Eshoo, Bob Etheridge,
Lane Evans, Terry Everett, Eni F.H.
Faleomavaega, Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah,
Tom Feeney, Mike Ferguson, Bob Filner,
Jeff Flake, Ernie Fletcher, Mark Foley,
J. Randy Forbes, Harold E. Jr. Ford, Vito
Fossella, Barney Frank, Trent Franks,
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, Martin Frost,
Elton Gallegly, Scott Garrett, Richard A.
Gephardt, Jim Gerlach, Jim Gibbons,
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Paul E. Gillmor, Phil
Gingrey, Charles A. Gonzalez,Virgil H. Jr.
Goode, Bob Goodlatte, Bart Gordon, Porter
J. Goss, Kay Granger, Sam Graves, Gene
Green, Mark Green, James C. Greenwood,
Raul M. Grijalva, Luis V. Gutierrez, Gil
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

EXHIBIT "B" page 15 of 27


Gutknecht, Ralph M. Hall, Jane Harman,
Katherine Harris, Melissa A. Hart, Dennis
J. Hastert, Alcee L. Hastings, Doc Hastings,
Robin Hayes, J.D. Hayworth, Joel Hefley,
Jeb Hensarling, Wally Herger, Baron P. Hill,
Maurice D. Hinchey, Ruben Hinojosa,
David L. Hobson, Joseph M. Hoeffel, Peter
Hoekstra, Tim Holden, Rush D. Holt,
Michael M. Honda, Darlene Hooley, John
N. Hostettler, Amo Houghton, Steny H.
Hoyer, Kenny C. Hulshof, Duncan Hunter,
Henry J. Hyde, Jay Inslee, Johnny Isakson,
Steve Israel, Darrell E. Issa, Ernest J. Jr.
Istook, Jesse L. Jr. Jackson, Sheila Jackson-
Lee, William J. Janklow, William J.
Jefferson, William L. Jenkins, Christopher
John, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Nancy L.
Johnson, Sam Johnson, Timothy V.
Johnson, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Walter
B. Jones, Paul E. Kanjorski, Marcy Kaptur,
Ric Keller, Sue W. Kelly, Mark R. Kennedy,
Patrick J. Kennedy, Dale E. Kildee, Carolyn
C. Kilpartick, Ron Kind, Peter T. King,
Steve King, Jack Kingston, Mark Steven
Kirk, Gerald D. Kleczka, John Kline, Joe
Knollenberg, Jim Kolbe, Dennis J.
Kucinich, Ray LaHood, Nick Lampson,
James R. Langevin, Tom Lantos, Rick
Larson, John B. Larson, Tom Latham,
Steven C. LaTourette, James A. Leach,
Barbara Lee, Sander M. Levin, Jerry Lewis,
John Lewis, Ron Lewis, John Linder,
William O. Lipinski, Frank A. LoBiondo,
Zoe Lofgren, Nita M. Lowey, Frank D.
Lucas, Ken Lucas, Stephen F. Lynch,
Carolyn McCarthy, Karen McCarthy,
Betty McCollum, Thaddeus G. McCotter,
Jim McCrery, Jim McDermott, James P.
McGovern, John M. McHugh, Scott
McInnis, Mike McIntyre, Howard P.
"Buck" McKeon, Michael R. McNulty,
Denise L. Majette, Carolyn B. Maloney,
Donald A. Manzullo,Edward J. Markey,
Jim Marshall, Jim Matheson, Robert T.
Matsui, Martin T. Meehan, Kendrick B.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

EXHIBIT "B" page 16 of 27


Meek, Gregory W. Meeks, Robert
Menendez, John L. Mica, Michael H.
Michaud, Juanita Millender-McDonald,
Brad Miller, Candice S. Miller, Gary G.
Miller, George Miller, Jeff Miller, Alan
B. Mollohan, Dennis Moore, James P.
Moran, Jerry Moran, Tim Murphy, John P.
Murtha, Marilyn N. Musgrave, Sue Wilkins
Myrick, Jerrold Nadler, Grace F.
Napolitano, Richard E. Neal, George R. Jr.
Nethercutt,Robert W.Ney, Anne M.
Northup, Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Charlie Norwood, Devin Nunes, Jim Nussle,
James L. Oberstar, David R. Obey, John
W. Olver, Solomon P. Ortiz, Tom Osborne,
Doug Ose, C.L. "Butch" Otter, Major R.
Owens, Michael G. Oxley, Frank Pallone Jr.,
Bill Pascrell Jr., Ed Pastor, Ron Paul,
Donald M. Payne, Stevan Pearce, Nancy
Pelosi, Mike Pence, Collin C. Peterson,
John E. Peterson, Thomas E. Petri, Charles
W. "Chip" Pickering, Joseph R. Pitts,
Todd Russell Platts, Richard W. Pombo,
Earl Pomeroy, Jon C. Porter, Rob Portman,
David E. Price, Deborah Pryce, Adam H.
Putnam, Jack Quinn, George Radanovich,
Nick Rahall J. II, Jim Ramstad, Charles B.
Rangel, Ralph Regula, Dennis R. Rehberg,
Rick Renzi, Silvestre Reyes, Thomas M.
Reynolds, Ciro D. Rodriguez, Harold
Rogers, Mike Rogers, Mike Rogers, Dana
Rohrabacher, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mike
Ross, Steven R. Rothman, Luville Roybal-
Allard, Edward R. Royce, C.A. Dutch
Ruppersberger, Bobby L. Rush, Paul Ryan,
Timothy J. Ryan, Jim Ryun, Martin Olav
Sabo, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez,
Bernard Sanders, Max Sandlin, Jim Saxton,
Janice D. Schakowsky, Adam B. Schiff,
Edward L. Schrock, David Scott, Robert C.
Scott, James F. Sensenbrenner Jr., Jose E.
Serrano, Pete Sessions, John B. Shadegg,
Clay E. Shaw Jr., Christopher Shays, Brad
Sherman, Don Sherwood, John Shimkus,
Bill Shuster, Rob Simmons, Michael K.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

EXHIBIT "B" page 17 of 27


Simpson, Ike Skelton, Louise McIntosh
Slaughter, Adam Smith, Christopher H.
Smith, Lamar S. Smith, Nick Smith, Vic
Snyder, Hilda L. Solis, Mark E. Souder,
John M. Spratt Jr., Fortney Pete Stark, Cliff
Stearns, Charles W. Stenholm, Ted
Strickland, Bart Stupak, John Sullivan, John
E. Sweeney, Thomas G. Tancredo, John S.
Tanner, Ellen O. Tauscher, W.J. (Billy)
Tauzin, Charles H. Taylor, Gene Taylor,
Lee Terry, William M. Thomas, Bennie G.
Thompson, Mike Thompson, Mac
Thornberry, Todd Tiahrt, Partick J. Tiberi,
John F. Tierney, Partick J. Toomey,
Edolphus Towns, Jim Turner, Michael R.
Turner, Mark Udall, Tom Udall Fred Upton,
Chris Van Hollen, Nydia M. Velazquez,
Peter J. Visclosky, David Vitter, Greg
Walden, James T. Walsh, Zach Wamp,
Maxine Walters, Diane E. Watson, Melvin
L. Watt, Henry A. Waxman, Anthony D.
Weiner, Curt Weldon, Dave Weldon, Jerry
Weller, Robert Wexler, Ed Whitfield, Roger
F. Wicker, Heather Wilson, Joe Wilson,
Frank R. Wolf, Lynn C. Woolsey, David
Wu, Albert Russell Wynn, C. W. Bill
Young, Don Young, 1 through 5000
John Does and Jane Does.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

DECLATATION OF DEFAULT
IN THE MATTER OF
S.344, and jurisdiction regarding the Native Hawaiian and Na Kanaka Maoli
People of Hawaii

The above Demandant(s) Kingdom of Hawaii, Sovereign Nation of God under His Majesty Akahi Nui King of the Hawaiian Islands, indigenous aboriginal inhabitants Na Kanaka Maoli, Hawaii Nationals and Hawaiian Citzens of the lawful independent nation.

COME NOW, the Demandant(s) Kingdom of Hawaii, Sovereign Nation of God under His Majesty Akahi Nui King of the Hawaiian Islands, indigenous aboriginal inhabitants Na Kanaka Maoli, Hawaii Nationals and Hawaiian Citizens of the lawful independent nation; and hereby file their Declaration of Default against The President of the United States, George Bush Jr.; U.S. Secretary of Interior, Gale Norton; U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General John Ashcroft; Linds Lingle, Daniel Akaka,

EXHIBIT "B" page 18 of 27


Lamar Alexander, Wayne Allard, George Allen, Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Robert Bennett, Joseph Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Christopher Bond, Barbara Boxer, John Breaux, Sam Brownback, Jim Bunning, Conrad Burns, Robert Byrd, Ben Campbell, Maria Cantwell, Thomas Carper, Lincoln Chafee, Saxby Chamblis, Hillary Clinton, Thad Cochran, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Kent Conrad, John Cornyn, Jon Corzine, Larry Craig, Michael Crapo, Thomas Daschle, Mark Dayton, Mike DeWine, Christopher Dodd, Elizabeth Dole, Pete Domenici, Byron Dorgan, Richard Durbin, John Edwards, John Ensign, Michael Enzi, Russell Feingold, Dianne Feinstein, Peter Fitzgerald, Bill Frist, Bob Graham, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley, Judd Gregg, Chuck Hagel, Tom Harkin, Orrin Hatch, Earnest Hollings, Kay Hutchison, James Inhofe, Daniel Inouye, James Jeffords, Tim Johnson, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Herb Kohl, Jon Kyl, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Joseph Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Trent Lott, Richard Lugar, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Barbara Mikulski, Zell Miller, Lisa Murkowski, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Don Nickles, Mark Pryor, Jack Reed, Harry Reid, Pat Roberts, John Rockefeller, Rick Santorum, Paul Sarbanes, Charles Schumer, Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Debbie Stabenow, Ted Stevens, John Sununu, James Talent, Craig Thomas, George Voinovich, John Warner, Ron Wyden, Neil Abercrombie, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Gary L. Ackerman, Robert B. Aderholt, Todd W. Akin, Rodney Alexander, Thomas H. Allen, Robert E. Andrews, Joe Baca, Spencer Bachus, Brian Baird, Richard H. Baker, Tammy Baldwin, Frank W. Jr. Balance, Cass Ballenger, Gresham J. Barrett, Roscoe G. Bartlett, Joe Barton, Charles F. Bass, Bob Beauprez, Xavier Becerra, Chris Bell, Doug Bereuter, Shelley Berkley, Howard L. Berman, Marion Berry, Judy Biggert, Michael Bilirakis, Rob Bishop, Sanford D. Jr. Bishop, Timothy H. Bishop, Marsha Blackburn, Earl Blumenauer, Roy Blunt, Sherwood Boehlert, John A. Boehner, Henry Bonilla, Jo Bonner, Mary Bono, John Boozman, Madeline Z. Bordallo, Leonard L. Boswell, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, Jeb Bradley, Kevin Brady, Robert A. Brady, Corrine Brown, Henry E. Jr. Brown, Sherrod Brown, Ginny Brown-Waite, Michael C. Burgess, Max Burns, Richard Burr, Steve Buyer, Ken Calvert, Dave Camp, Chris Cannon, Eric Cantor, Shelly Moore Capito, Lois Capps, Michael E. Capuano, Benjamin L. Cardin, Dennis A. Cardoza, Brad Carson, Julia Carson, John R. Carter, Ed Case, Michael N. Castle, Steve Chabot, Chris Chocola, Donna M. Christensen, Wm. Lacy Clay, James E. Clyburn, Howard Coble, Tom Cole, Mac Collins, Larry Combest, John Jr. Conyers, Jim Cooper, Jerry F. Costello, Christopher Cox, Robert E. (Bud) Jr. Cramer, Philip M. Crane, Ander Crenshaw, Joseph Crowley, Barbara Cubin, John Abney Culberson, Elijah E. Cummings, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Artur Davis, Danny K. Davis, Jim Davis, Jo Ann Davis, Lincoln Davis, Susan A. Davis, Tom Davis, Nathan Deal, Peter A. DeFazio, Diana DeGette, William D. Delahunt, Rosa L. DeLauro, Tom DeLay, Jim DeMint, Peter Deutsch, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart, Norman D. Dicks, John D. Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Calvin M. Dooley, John T. Doolittle, Michael F. Doyle, David Dreier, John J. Jr. Duncan, Jennifer Dunn, Chet Edwards, Vernon J. Ehlers, Rahm Emanuel, Jo Ann Emerson, Eliot L. Engel, Phil English, Anna G. Eshoo, Bob Etheridge, Lane Evans, Terry Everett, Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Tom Feeney, Mike Ferguson, Bob Filner, Jeff Flake, Ernie Fletcher, Mark Foley, J. Randy Forbes, Harold E. Jr. Ford,Vito Fossella, Barney Frank, Trent Franks, Rodney P.

EXHIBIT "B" page 19 of 27


Frelinghuysen, Martin Frost, Elton Gallegly, Scott Garrett, Richard A. Gephardt, Jim Gerlach, Jim Gibbons, Wayne T. Gilchrest, Paul E. Gillmor, Phil Gingrey, Charles A. Gonzalez, Virgil H. Jr. Goode, Bob Goodlatte, Bart Gordon, Porter J. Goss, Kay Granger, Sam Graves, Gene Green, Mark Green, James C. Greenwood, Raul M. Grijalva, Luis V. Gutierrez, Gil Gutknecht, Ralph M. Hall, Jane Harman, Katherine Harris, Melissa A. Hart, Dennis J. Hastert, Alcee L. Hastings, Doc Hastings, Robin Hayes, J.D. Hayworth, Joel Hefley, Jeb Hensarling, Wally Herger, Baron P. Hill, Maurice D. Hinchey, Ruben Hinojosa, David L. Hobson, Joseph M. Hoeffel, Peter Hoekstra, Tim Holden, Rush D. Holt, Michael M. Honda, Darlene Hooley, John N. Hostettler, Amo Houghton, Steny H. Hoyer, Kenny C. Hulshof, Duncan Hunter, Henry J. Hyde, Jay Inslee, Johnny Isakson, Steve Israel, Darrell E. Issa, Ernest J. Jr. Istook, Jesse L. Jr. Jackson, Sheila Jackson-Lee, William J. Janklow, William J. Jefferson, William L. Jenkins, Christopher John, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Nancy L. Johnson, Sam Johnson, Timothy V. Johnson, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Walter B. Jones, Paul E. Kanjorski, Marcy Kaptur, Ric Keller, Sue W. Kelly, Mark R. Kennedy, Patrick J. Kennedy, Dale E. Kildee, Carolyn C. Kilpartick, Ron Kind, Peter T. King, Steve King, Jack Kingston, Mark Steven Kirk, Gerald D. Kleczka, John Kline, Joe Knollenberg, Jim Kolbe, Dennis J. Kucinich, Ray LaHood, Nick Lampson, James R. Langevin, Tom Lantos, Rick Larson, John B. Larson, Tom Latham, Steven C. LaTourette, James A. Leach, Barbara Lee, Sander M. Levin, Jerry Lewis, John Lewis, Ron Lewis, John Linder, William O. Lipinski, Frank A. LoBiondo, Zoe Lofgren, Nita M. Lowey, Frank D. Lucas, Ken Lucas, Stephen F. Lynch, Carolyn McCarthy, Karen McCarthy, Betty McCollum, Thaddeus G. McCotter, Jim McCrery, Jim McDermott, James P. McGovern, John M. McHugh, Scott McInnis, Mike McIntyre, Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, Michael R. McNulty, Denise L. Majette, Carolyn B. Maloney, Donald A. Manzullo, Edward J. Markey, Jim Marshall, Jim Matheson, Robert T. Matsui, Martin T. Meehan, Kendrick B. Meek, Gregory W. Meeks, Robert Menendez, John L. Mica, Michael H. Michaud, Juanita Millender-McDonald, Brad Miller, Candice S. Miller, Gary G. Miller, George Miller, Jeff Miller, Alan B. Mollohan, Dennis Moore, James P. Moran, Jerry Moran, Tim Murphy, John P. Murtha, Marilyn N. Musgrave, Sue Wilkins Myrick, Jerrold Nadler, Grace F. Napolitano, Richard E. Neal, George R. Jr. Nethercutt, Robert W. Ney, Anne M. Northup, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Charlie Norwood, Devin Nunes, Jim Nussle, James L. Oberstar, David R. Obey, John W. Olver, Solomon P. Ortiz, Tom Osborne, Doug Ose, C.L. "Butch" Otter, Major R. Owens, Michael G. Oxley, Frank Pallone Jr., Bill Pascrell Jr., Ed Pastor, Ron Paul, Donald M. Payne, Stevan Pearce, Nancy Pelosi, Mike Pence, Collin C. Peterson, John E. Peterson, Thomas E. Petri, Charles W. "Chip" Pickering, Joseph R. Pitts, Todd Russell Platts, Richard W. Pombo, Earl Pomeroy, Jon C. Porter, Rob Portman, David E. Price, Deborah Pryce, Adam H. Putnam, Jack Quinn, George Radanovich, Nick Rahall J. ll, Jim Ramstad, Charles B. Rangel, Ralph Regula, Dennis R. Rehberg, Rick Renzi, Silvestre Reyes, Thomas M. Reynolds, Ciro D. Rodriguez, Harold Rogers, Mike Rogers, Mike Rogers, Dana Rohrabacher, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mike Ross, Steven R. Rothman, Luville Roybal-Allard, Edward R. Royce, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Bobby L. Rush, Paul Ryan, Timothy J. Ryan, Jim Ryun, Martin Olav Sabo, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez, Bernard Sanders, Max Sandlin, Jim Saxton, Janice D. Schakowsky, Adam B. Schiff, Edward L. Schrock, David Scott, Robert C. Scott, James F. Sensenbrenner Jr., Jose E.

EXHIBIT "B" page 20 of 27


Serrano, Pete Sessions, John B. Shadegg, Clay E. Shaw Jr., Christopher Shays, Brad Sherman, Don Sherwood, John Shimkus, Bill Shuster, Rob Simmons, Michael K. Simpson, Ike Skelton, Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Adam Smith, Christopher H. Smith, Lamar S. Smith, Nick Smith, Vic Snyder, Hilda L. Solis, Mark E. Souder, John M. Spratt Jr., Fortney Pete Stark, Cliff Stearns, Charles W. Stenholm, Ted Strickland, Bart Stupak, John Sullivan, John E. Sweeney, Thomas G. Tancredo, John S. Tanner, Ellen O. Tauscher, W.J. (Billy) Tauzin, Charles H. Taylor, Gene Taylor, Lee Terry, William M. Thomas, Bennie G. Thompson, Mike Thompson, Mac Thornberry, Todd Tiahrt, Partick J. Tiberi, John F. Tierney, Partick J. Toomey, Edolphus Towns, Jim Turner, Michael R. Turner, Mark Udall, Tom Udall Fred Upton, Chris Van Hollen, Nydia M. Velazquez, Peter J. Visclosky, David Vitter, Greg Walden, James T. Walsh, Zach Wamp, Maxine Walters, Diane E. Watson, Melvin L. Watt, Henry A. Waxman, Anthony D. Weiner, Curt Weldon, Dave Weldon, Jerry Weller, Robert Wexler, Ed Whitfield, Roger F. Wicker, Heather Wilson, Joe Wilson, Frank R. Wolf, Lynn C. Woolsey, David Wu, Albert Russell Wynn, C. W. Bill Young, Don Young, 1 through 5000 John Does and Jane Does.

Robert B. Aderholt, Ed Case, Michael N. Castle, Steve Chabot, Neil Abercrombie, Brad Sherman, John Shimkus, Lamar S. Smith, Jose E. Serrano, Christopher H. Smith, Pete Sessions, Jim Saxton, Don Sherwood, E. Clay Jr. Shaw, John R. Carter, Chris Chocola, Vic Snyder, Adam Smith, F. James Jr., Mark El Souder, John B. Shadegg, Edward L. Schrock, Stephen F. Lynch, Conrad Burns, Carolyn McCarthy, Bobby L. Rush, Ric Keller, Marcy Kaptur, Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Michael K. Simpson, Adam B. Schiff, Rodney Alexander, Thomas H. Allen, Joe Baca, Spencer Bachus, Richard H. Baker, Robert C. Scott, David Scott, Chris Bell, Fortney Pete Stark, Charles Wl Stenholm, Christopher Shays, Nick Smith, John M. Jr. Spratt, Hilda L. Solis, Cliff Stearnes, Ted Strikland, Gary L. Akerman, James Cl Greenwood, Tim Murphey, Joe Wilson, Ed Whitfield, Jim Bivvons, Jim Gerlach, Richard A. Gephardt, Scott Garrett, Elton Gallegly, Doc Hastings, Steven R. Rothman, Ralph M. Hall, Bernard Sander, Sam Johnson, Robert E. Andrews, Brian Baird, Frank W. Jr. Balance, Gresham J. Barrett, Joe Barton, Charles F. Bass, Xavier Becerra, Nancy L. Johnson, Cass Ballenger, Tubbs Jones, Paul E. Kanjorski, Loretta Sanchez, Tammy Baldwin, Timothy V. Johnson, Walter B. Jones, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Todd, W. Akin, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Jim Ryun, Sue W. Kelly, Mark R. Kennedy, Patrick J. Kennedy, Dale E. Kildee, Scott McInnis, John M. McHugh, Christopher John, Martin Frost, Dennis J. Hastert, Deborah Pryce, Tom DeLay, Nancy Pelsi:

That on the   24th   day of February 2003, time on or about  12:42 pm , DECLARATION WITH AN ORDER TO RECEIVE AN ANSWER OF TRUE AND LAWFUL FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAYS(S) was signed for by  W. LIVINGSTON  and received as follows:
See record of evidence Exhibit "A" as attached.

Lamar Alevander, Wayne Allard, George Allen, Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Robert Bennett, Jeff Bingaman, Christopher Bond, Barbara Boxer, John Breaux:

That on the   25th   day of February 2003, time on or about  5:57 pm , DECLARATION WITH AN ORDER TO RECEIVE AN ANSWER OF TRUE AND LAWFUL

EXHIBIT "B" page 21 of 27


FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAYS(S) was signed for by  W. LIVINGSTON  and received as follows:
See record of evidence Exhibit "A" as attached.

Carl Levin, James Talent, Debbie Stabenow, Arlen Specter, Zell Miller, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Richard Lugar, John Kerry, Ted Stevens, Olympia Snowe, Jeff Sessions, Russel Feingold, Perer Fitzgerald, Bill Frist, Lindsey Graham, Ernest Hollings, Chuck Grassley, Chuck Hagel, Rick Santorum, Paul Sarbanes, Don Nickles, Harry Reid, Barbara Mikulshi, Patty Murray, Mark Pryor, Maria Cantwell, Ben Campbell, Jack Reed, Jim Bunning, Dianne Feinstein, Bob Graham, Judd Gregg, Charles Schumer, Richard Shelby, Gordon Smith, John Warner, George Voinovich, Blanch Linclon, Ron Wyden, Sam Brownback, Frank Lautenberg, Joseph Lieberman, Tim Johnson, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Patrick Leahy, Thad Cochran, Bill Nelson, Norm Coleman, Hillary Clinton, Ben Nelson, Susan Collins, Trent Lott, James Jeffords, Lisa Murkowshi, Thomas Carper, Kent Conrad, Saxby Chamblis, Kay Hutchison, Daniel Inouye, Tom Harkin:

That on the   24th   day of February 2003, time on or about  6:17 pm , DECLARATION WITH AN ORDER TO RECEIVE AN ANSWER OF TRUE AND LAWFUL FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAYS(S) was signed for by  D. FERNANDEZ  and received as follows:
See record of evidence Exhibit "A" as attached.

Johm Sununu, Edward Kennedy, Craig Thomas, Johm Rockefeller, Pat Roberts, Robert Byrd, Daniel Akaka, Max Baucus:

That on the   27th   day of February 2003, time on or about  5:19 am , DECLARATION WITH AN ORDER TO RECEIVE AN ANSWER OF TRUE AND LAWFUL FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAYS(S) was signed for by  J. HERATH  and received as follows:
See record of evidence Exhibit "A" as attached.

Ike Skelton, Steny H. Hoyer, Bart Gordon, Raul M. Grijalva, Jane Harman, Katherine Harris, Virgil H. Jr. Goode, Phil Gingrey, Robert E. Jr. Cramer, Jim Cooper, Max Sandlin, Linda T. Sanchez, Martin Olav, Edward R. Royce, Paul Ryan, Timothy J. Ryan, Zoe Lofgren, Frank A. Lobiondo, Alcee L. Hastings, Melissa A. Hart, Wm. Lacy Clay, Donna M. Christensen, John Linder, Ron Lewis, Larry Combest, Mac Collins, Howard Coble, James E. Clyburn, Jim McCrery, Thaddeus G. McCottoer, Karen McCarthy, Betty McCollum, William O. Lipinski, Porter J. Goss, Ken Lucas, Bob Godlatte, Christopher Cox, Roy Bunlt:

That on the   27th   day of February 2003, time on or about  11:44 am , DECLARATION WITH AN ORDER TO RECEIVE AN ANSWER OF TRUE AND LAWFUL FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAYS(S) was signed for by  W. LIVINGSTON  and received as follows:
See record of evidence Exhibit "A" as attached.

John Lewis, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Wayne T. Gilchrest, Paul E. Gilmor, Frank D.

EXHIBIT "B" page 22 of 27


Lucas, Charles A. Gonzalez, Nita M. Lowey:

That on the   28th   day of February 2003, time on or about  11:49 am , DECLARATION WITH AN ORDER TO RECEIVE AN ANSWER OF TRUE AND LAWFUL FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAYS(S) was signed for by  W. LIVINGSTON  and received as follows:
See record of evidence Exhibit "A" as attached.

US Attorney General John Ashcroft:

That on the   24th   day of February 2003, time on or about  4:32 am , DECLARATION WITH AN ORDER TO RECEIVE AN ANSWER OF TRUE AND LAWFUL FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAYS(S) was signed for by  H. JOHNSON  and received as follows:
See record of evidence Exhibit "A" as attached.

US President George Bush Jr.:

That on the   24th   day of February 2003, time on or about  6:01 am , DECLARATION WITH AN ORDER TO RECEIVE AN ANSWER OF TRUE AND LAWFUL FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAYS(S) was signed for by  M. NALDO  and received as follows:
See record of evidence Exhibit "A" as attached.

US Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton:

That on the   24th   day of February 2003, time on or about  10:39 am , DECLARATION WITH AN ORDER TO RECEIVE AN ANSWER OF TRUE AND LAWFUL FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAYS(S) was signed for by  K. NORNOO  and received as follows:
See record of evidence Exhibit "A" as attached.

Linda Lingle:

That on the   21st   day of February 2003, time on or about  7:17 am , DECLARATION WITH AN ORDER TO RECEIVE AN ANSWER OF TRUE AND LAWFUL FACTS OF EVIDENCE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN (20) TWENTY DAYS(S) was signed for by  D. DANG  and received as follows:
See record of evidence Exhibit "A" as attached.

I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the Kingdom and Islands of Hawaii to be affixed on this sixth day of the fourth month in the Holy year of our Lord and Savior Iesu Kristo two thousand and three.

EXHIBIT "B" page 23 of 27


U.S. Postal Service Signature Confirmation Receipt Numbers:

EXHIBIT "B" page 25 of 27


EXHIBIT "B" page 26 of 27


EXHIBIT "B" page 27 of 27


EXHIBIT "C"

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc50 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

 

NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATIONS & OFFENCES
WITH ORDER TO ANSWER
Page 73 of 82EXHIBIT "C" page 1 of 2


EXHIBIT "D"

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc51 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

 

NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATIONS & OFFENCES
WITH ORDER TO ANSWER
Page 76 of 82EXHIBIT "D" page 1 of 2


EXHIBIT "E"

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc52 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM


back

NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATIONS & OFFENCES
WITH ORDER TO ANSWER
Page 73 of 82EXHIBIT "E" page 80 of 82

EXHIBIT "F"

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc53 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

EXHIBIT "F" page 1 of 1

http://166.122.230.66/boc/search.php?offset=24&Name=Nui&SearchBy=GR&DateFrom=... 11/5/2003 back


EXHIBIT "G"

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc54 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM

Official Protest to the Treaty of
Annexation

Presented by Lili'uokalani in Washington D.C.

June 17, 1897

I, Liliuokalani of Hawaii, by the will of God named heir apparent on the tenth day of April, A.D. 1877, and by the grace of God Queen of the Hawaiian Islands on the seventeenth day of Janauary, A.D. 1893, do hereby protest against the ratification of a certain treaty, which, so I am informed, has been signed at Washington by Messrs, Hatch, Thurston, and Kinney, purporting to cede those Islands to the territory and dominion of the United States. I declare such a treaty to be an act of wrong toward the native and part-native peopple of Hawaii, an invasion of the rights of the ruling chiefs, in violation of international rights both toward my people and toward friendly nations with whom they have made treaties, the perpetuation of the fraud whereby the constitutional government was overthrown, and, finally, an act of gross injustice to me.

Because the official protests made by me on the seventeenth day of Janauary, 1893, to the so-called Provisional Government was signed by me, and received by said government with the assurance that the case was referred to the United States of America for arbitration.

Because that protest and my communications to the United States Government immediately thereafter expressly declare that I yielded my authority to the forces of the United States in order to avoid bloodshed, and because I recognized the futility of a conflict with so formidable a power.

Because the President of the United States, the Secetaary of State, and an envoy commissioned by them reported in official documents that my government was unlawfully coerced by the forces, diplomatic and naval, of the United States; that I was at the date of their investigations the constitutional ruler of my people.

Because neither the above-named commission nor the government which sends it has ever received any such authority from the registered voters of Hawaii, but drives its assumed powers from the so-called committee of public safety, organized on or about the seventeenth day of January, 1893, said committee being composed largely of persons claiming American citizenship, and not one single Hawaiian was a member thereof, or in any way participated in the


demonstration leading to its existence.

Because my people, about forty thousand in number, have in no way been consulted by those, three thousand in number, who claim the right to distroy the independence of Hawaii. My people constitute four-fifths of the legally qualified voters of Hawaii, and excluding those imported for the demands of labor, about the same proportion of the inhabitants.

Because said treaty ingnores, not only the civic rights of my people, but, further, the hereditary property of their chiefs. Of the 4,000,000 acres composing the territory said treaty offers to annex, 1,000,000 or 915,000 acres has in no way been heretofore recongnized as other that the private property of the constitutional monarch, subject to a control in now way differing from other items of a private estate.

Because it is proposed by said treaty to confiscate said property, technically called the crown lands, those legally entitled thereto, either now or in succession, receiving no consideration whatever for estates, their title to which has been always undisputed, and which is legitimately in my name at this date.

Because said treaty ignores, not only all professions of perpetual amity and good faith made by the United States in former treaties with the sovereigns representing the Hawaiian people, but all treaties made by those sovereigns with other and friendly powers, and it is thereby in violation of international law.

Because, by treating with the parties claiming at this time the right to cede said territory of Hawaii, the Government of the United States receives such territory form the hands of those whom its own magistrates (legally elested by the people of the United States, and in office in 1893) pronoounced fraudulently in power and unconstitutionally ruling Hawaii.

Therefore I, Liliuokalani of Hawaii, do hereby call upon the President of that nation, to whom alone I yielded my property and my authority, to withdraw said treaty (ceding said Islands) from further consideration. I ask the Honorable Senate of the United States to decline to ratify said treaty, and I implore the people of this great and good nation, from whom my ancestors learned the Christian religion, to sustain their representatives in such acts of justice and equity as may be in accord with the principles of their fathers, and to the Almighty Ruler of the universe, to him who judgeth righteously, I commit my cause.

Done at Washinton, District of Columbia, United States of America, this seventeenth day of June, in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-seven.

Liliuokalani

Joseph Heleluhe }
Wokeki Heleluhe } Witnesses to Signature.   back


EXHIBIT "H"

Akaka Document 2005.wps scnatc55 of 55 page(s)7/20/2005 12:06 PM



back

The Laws of Nations

§ 11. Of a state that has passed under the dominion of another.
But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations.

The law of nations is the law of sovereigns; free and independent states are moral persons, whose rights and obligations we are to establish in this treatise.

(10) The student desirous of enlarging his knowledge upon this subject should read Locke on Government; De Lolme on the Constitution; 1 Bla. Com. 47; Sedgwick's Commentaries thereon; and Chitty Junior's Prerogatives of the Crown as regards Sovereignly and different Governments; and see Cours de Droit Public Interne et Externe, Paris, A.D. 1830. — C.

(11) See the advantages and disadvantages of each of those forms of government shortly considered. 1 Bla. Com. 49, 50. — C.

1. Nor shall we examine which of those different kinds of government is the best. It will be sufficient to say in general, that the monarchical form appears preferable to every other, provided the power of the sovereign be limited, and not absolute, — qui [principatus] tum demum regius est, si intra modestiζ et mediocritatis fines se contineat, excessu potestatis, quam imprudentes in dies augere satagunt, minuitur, penitusque corrumpitur. Nos stulti, majoris, potentiζ specie decepti, dilabimur in contrarium, non satis considerantes cam demum tutam esse potentiam quζ viribus modum imponit. The maxim has both truth and wisdom on its side. The author here quotes the saying of Theopompus, king of Sparta, who, returning to his house amidst the acclamations of the people, after the establishment of the Ephori — "You will leave to your children (said his wife) an authority diminished through your fault." "True," replied the king: "I shall leave them a smaller portion of it; but it will rest upon a firmer basis." The Lacedζmonians, during a certain period, had two chiefs to whom they very improperly gave the title of kings. They were magistrates, who possessed a very limited power, and whom it was not unusual to cite before the tribunal of justice, — to arrest, — to condemn to death, — Sweden acts with less impropriety in continuing to bestow on her chief the title of king, although she has circumscribed his power within very narrow bounds. He shares not his authority with a colleague, — he is hereditary, — and the state has, from time immemorial, borne the title of a kingdom. — Edit. A.D. 1797.

(12) This and other rules respecting smaller states sometimes form the subject of consideration even in the Municipal Courts. In case of a revolted colony, or part of a parent or principal state, no subject of another state can legally make a contract with it or assist the same without leave of his own government, before its separate independence has been recognised by his own government, Jones v. Garcia del Rio, 1 Turn, & Russ 297; Thompson v. Powles, 2 Sim. Rep. 202; Yrisarri v. Clement, 2 Car. & P. 223; 11 B. Moore, 308; 3 Bing. 432; and post. — C. (The United states v. Palmer. 3 Wheat. 610. See Cherriot v. Foussat, 3 Binn. 252.)

(13) Of course, the words "at present" refer only to the time when Vattel wrote and it is unnecessary to mention otherwise than thus cursorily the notorious recent changes. — C. back

§ 18. A nation has a right to every thing necessary for its preservation.
Since then a nation is obliged to preserve itself, it has a right to every thing necessary for its preservation. For the Law of Nature gives us a right to every thing without which we cannot fulfil our obligation; otherwise it would oblige us to do impossibilities, or rather would contradict itself in prescribing us a duty, and at the same time debarring us of the only means of fulfilling it. It will doubtless be here understood, that those means ought not to be unjust in themselves, or such as are absolutely forbidden by the Law of Nature.

As it is impossible that it should ever permit the use of such means, — if on a particular occasion no other present themselves for fulfilling a general obligation, the obligation must, in that particular instance, be looked on as impossible, and consequently void. back

§ 20. Of its right to every thing that may promote this end.
A nation or state has a right to every thing that can help to ward off imminent danger, and kept at a distance whatever is capable of causing its ruin; and that from the very same reasons that establish its right to the things necessary to its preservation. (17) back

§ 22. And to avoid every thing contrary to its perfection.
A nation therefore ought to prevent, and carefully to avoid, whatever may hinder its perfection and that of the state, or retard the progress either of the one or the other. (19) back

§ 23. The rights it derives from these obligations.
We may then conclude, as we have done above in regard to the preservation of a state (§ 18), that a nation has a right to every thing without which it cannot attain the perfection of the members and of the state, or prevent and repel whatever is contrary to this double perfection. back

§ 38. Of the sovereign.
THE reader cannot expect to find here a long deduction of the rights of sovereignty, and the functions of a prince. These are to be found in treatises on the public law. In this chapter we only propose to show, in consequence of the grand principles of the law of nations, what a sovereign is, and to give a general idea of his obligations and his rights.

We have said that the sovereignty is that public authority which commands in civil society, and orders and directs what each citizen is to perform, to obtain the end of its institution. This authority originally and essentially belonged to the body of the society, to which each member submitted, and ceded his natural right of conducting himself in every thing as he pleased, according to the dictates of his own understanding, and of doing himself justice. But the body of the society does not always retain in its own hands this sovereign authority: it frequently intrusts it to a senate, or to a single person. That senate, or that person, is then the sovereign. back

§ 39. It is solely established for the safety and advantage of society.
It is evident that men form a political society, and submit to laws, solely for their own advantage and safety. The sovereign authority is then established only for the common good of all the citizens; and it would be absurd to think that it could change its nature on passing into the hands of a senate or a monarch. Flattery, therefore, cannot, without rendering itself equally ridiculous and odious, deny that the sovereign is only established for the safety and advantage of society.

A good prince, a wise conductor of society, ought to have his mind impressed with this great truth, that the sovereign power is solely intrusted to him for the safety of the state, and the happiness of all the people; that he is not permitted to consider himself as the principal object in the administration of affairs, to seek his own satisfaction, or his private advantage; but that he ought to direct all his views, all his steps, to the greatest advantage of the state and people who have submitted to him.1 What a noble sight it is to see a king of England rendering his parliament an account of his principal operations — assuring that body, the representatives of the nation, that he has no other end in view than the glory of the state and the happiness of his people — and affectionately thanking all who concur with him in such salutary views! Certainly, a monarch who makes use of this language, and by his conduct proves the sincerity of his professions, is, in the opinion of the wise, the only great man. But, in most kingdoms, a criminal flattery has long since caused these maxims to be forgotten. A crowd of servile courtiers easily persuade a proud monarch that the nation was made for him, and not he for the nation. He soon considers the kingdom as a patrimony that is his own property, and his people as a herd of cattle from which he is to derive his wealth, and which he may dispose of to answer his own views, and gratify his passions. Hence those fatal wars undertaken by ambition, restlessness, hatred, and pride; — hence those oppressive taxes, whose produce is dissipated by ruinous luxury, or squandered upon mistresses and favourites; — hence, in fine, are important posts given by favour, while public merit is neglected, and every thing that does not immediately interest the prince is abandoned to ministers and subalterns. Who can, in this unhappy government, discover an authority established for the public welfare? A great prince will be on his guard even against his virtues.

Let us not say, with some writers, that private virtues are not the virtues of kings — a maxim of superficial politicians, or of those who are very inaccurate in their expressions. Goodness, friendship, gratitude, are still virtues on the throne; and would to God they were always to be found there! But a wise king does not yield an undiscerning obedience to their impulse. He cherishes them, he cultivates them in his private life; but in state affairs he listens only to justice and sound policy. And why? because he knows that the government was intrusted to him only for the happiness of society, and that, therefore, he ought not to consult his own pleasure in the use he makes of his power. He tempers his goodness with wisdom; he gives to friendship his domestic and private favours; he distributes posts and employments according to merit; public rewards to services done to the state. In a word, he uses the public power only with a view to the public welfare. All this is comprehended in that fine saying of Lewis XII.: — "A king of France does not revenge the injuries of a duke of Orleans." back

§ 40. Of his representative character.
A political society is a moral person (Prelim. § 2) inasmuch as it has an understanding and a will, of which it makes use for the conduct of its affairs, and is capable of obligations and rights. When, therefore, a people confer the sovereignty on any one person, they invest him with their understanding and will, and make over to him their obligations and rights, so far as relates to the administration of the state, and to the exercise of the public authority. The sovereign, or conductor of the state, thus becoming the depositary of the obligations and rights relative to government, in him is found the moral person, who, without absolutely ceasing to exist in the nation, acts thenceforwards only in him and by him. Such is the origin of the representative character attributed to the sovereign. He represents the nation in all the affairs in which he may happen to be engaged as a sovereign. It does not debase the dignity of the greatest monarch to attribute to him this representative character; on the contrary, nothing sheds a greater lustre on it, since the monarch thus unites in his own person all the majesty that belongs to the entire body of the nation. back

§ 41. He is intrusted with the obligations of the nation, and invested with its rights.
The sovereign, thus clothed with the public authority, with every thing that constitutes the moral personality of the nation, of course becomes bound by the obligations of that nation, and invested with its rights. back

§ 42 His duty with respect to the preservation and perfection of the nation.
All that has been said in Chap. II. of the general duties of a nation towards itself particularly regards the sovereign. He is the depositary of the empire, and the power of commanding whatever conduces to the public welfare; he ought, therefore, as a tender and wise father, and as a faithful administrator, to watch for the nation, and take care to preserve it, and render it more perfect; to better its state, and to secure it, as far as possible, against every thing that threatens its safety or its happiness. back

§ 45. The extent of his power.
The prince derives his authority from the nation; he possesses just so much of it as they have thought proper to intrust him with. If the nation has plainly and simply invested him with the sovereignty, without limitation or division, he is supposed to be invested with all the prerogatives, without which the sovereign command or authority could not be exerted in the manner most conducive to the public welfare. These are called regal prerogatives, or the prerogatives of majesty. back

§ 49. In what sense he is subject to the laws.
But it is necessary to explain this submission of the prince to the laws. First, he ought, as we have just seen, to follow their regulations in all the acts of his administration. In the second place, he is himself subject, in his private affairs, to all the laws that relate to property. I say, "in his private affairs;" for when he acts as a sovereign prince, and in the name of the state, he is subject only to the fundamental laws, and the law of nations. In the third place, the prince is subject to certain regulations of general polity, considered by the state as inviolable, unless he be excepted in express terms by the law, or tacitly by a necessary consequence of his dignity. I here speak of the laws that relate to the situation of individuals, and particularly of those that regulate the validity of marriages. These laws are established to ascertain the state of families: now the royal family is that of all others the most important to be certainly known. But, fourthly, we shall observe in general, with respect to this question, that, if the prince is invested with a full, absolute, and unlimited sovereignty, he is above the laws, which derive from him all their force; and he may dispense with his own observance of them, whenever natural justice and equity will permit him. Fifthly, as to the laws relative to morals and good order, the prince ought doubtless to respect them, and to support them by his example. But, sixthly, he is certainly above all civil penal laws, The majesty of a sovereign will not admit of his being punished like a private person; and his functions are too exalted to allow of his being molested under pretence of a fault that does not directly concern the government of the state. back

§ 50. His person is sacred and inviolable.
It is not sufficient that the prince be above the penal laws: even the interest of nations requires that we should go something farther. The sovereign is the soul of the society; if he be not held in veneration by the people, and in perfect security, the public peace, and the happiness and safety of the state, are in continual danger. The safety of the nation then necessarily requires that the person of the prince be sacred and inviolable. The Roman people bestowed this privilege on their tribunes, in order that they might meet with no obstruction in defending them, and that no apprehension might disturb them in the discharge of their office. The cares, the employments of a sovereign, are of much greater importance than those of the tribunes were, and not less dangerous, if he be not provided with a powerful defence. It is impossible even for the most just and wise monarch not to make malcontents; and ought the state to continue exposed to the danger of losing so valuable a prince by the hand of an assassin? The monstrous and absurd doctrine, that a private person is permitted to kill a bad prince, deprived the French, in the beginning of the last century, of a hero who was truly the father of his people.4 Whatever a prince may be, it is an enormous crime against a nation to deprive them of a sovereign whom they think proper to obey.5 back

§ 53. The obedience which subjects owe to a sovereign.
As soon as a nation acknowledges a prince for its lawful sovereign, all the citizens owe him a faithful obedience. He can neither govern the state, nor perform what the nation expects from him, if he be not punctually obeyed. Subjects then have no right, in doubtful cases, to examine the wisdom or justice of their sovereign's commands; this examination belongs to the prince: his subjects ought to suppose (if there be a possibility of supposing it) that all his orders are just and salutary: he alone is accountable for the evil that may result from them. back

§ 58. Of successive and hereditary states. The origin of the right of succession.
When a nation would avoid the troubles which seldom fail to accompany the election of a sovereign, it makes its choice for a long succession of years, by establishing the right of succession, or by rendering the crown hereditary in a family, according to the order and rules that appear most agreeable to that nation. The name of an Hereditary State or Kingdom is given to that where the successor is appointed by the same law that regulates the successions of individuals. The Successive Kingdom is that where a person succeeds according to a particular fundamental law of the state. Thus the lineal succession, and of males alone, is established in France. back

§ 160. To enforce them.
The best laws are useless if they be not observed. The nation ought then to take pains to support them, and to cause them to be respected and punctually executed: with this view she cannot adopt measures too just, too extensive, or too effectual; for hence, in a great degree, depend her happiness, glory, and tranquillity.

§ 162. How he is to dispense justice.
The executive power naturally belongs to the sovereign, — to every conductor of a people: he is supposed to be invested with it, in its fullest extent, when the fundamental laws do not restrict it. When the laws are established, it is the prince's province to have them put in execution. To support them with vigour, and to make a just application of them to all cases that present themselves, is what we call rendering justice. And this is the duty of the sovereign, who is naturally the judge of his people. We have seen the chiefs of some small states perform these functions themselves: but this custom becomes inconvenient, and even impossible in a great kingdom. back

§ 173. Right of pardoning
The very nature of government requires that the executor of the laws should have the power of dispensing with them when this may be done without injury to any person, and in certain particular cases where the welfare of the state requires an exception. Hence the right of granting pardons is one of the attributes of sovereignly. But, in his whole conduct, in his severity as well as his mercy, the sovereign ought to have no other object in view than the greater advantage of society. A wise prince knows how to reconcile justice with clemency — the care of the public safety with that pity which is due to the unfortunate. back

§ 191. Attacking the glory of a nation is doing her an injury.
Since the glory of a nation is a real and substantial advantage, she has a right to defend it, as well as her other advantages. He who attacks her glory does her an injury; and she has a right to exact of him, even by force of arms, a just reparation. We cannot, then condemn those measures, sometimes taken by sovereigns to support or avenge the dignity of their crown. They are equally just and necessary. If, when they do not proceed from too lofty pretensions, we attribute them to a vain pride, we only betray the grossest ignorance of the art of reigning: and despise one of the firmest supports of the greatness and safety of a state.

(56) This observation properly refers to ante, § 124, p. 54.

1. See the Memoirs of Comines.

2. Of this small army, "eleven hundred and fifty-eight were counted dead on the field, and thirty-two wounded. Twelve men only escaped, who were considered by their countrymen as cowards that had preferred a life of shame to the honour of dying for their country." History of the Helvetic Confederacy, by M. de Watteville, vol. i. p. 250. — Tschudi, p. 425.

3. Vogel's Historical and political Treatise of the Alliances between France and the Thirteen Cantons, p. 75, 76. back

§ 204. Its right over the parts in its possession.
This right comprehends two things: 1. The domain virtue of which the nation alone may use the country for the supply of its necessities, may dispose of it as it thinks proper, and derive from it every advantage it is capable of yielding. 2. The empire, or the right of sovereign command, by which the nation directs and regulates at its pleasure every thing that passes in the country.

§ 244. Eminent domain annexed to the sovereignty.
Every thing in the political society ought to tend to the good of the community; and, since even the persons of the citizens are subject to this rule, their property cannot be excepted. The state could not subsist, or constantly administer the public affairs in the most advantageous manner, if it had not a power to dispose occasionally of all kinds of property subject to its authority. It is even to be presumed, that, when the nation takes possession of a country, the property of certain things is given up to the individuals only with this reserve. The right which belongs to the society, or to the sovereign, of disposing, in case of necessity, and for the public safety, of all the wealth contained in the state, is called the eminent domain. It is evident that this right is, in certain cases, necessary to him who governs, and consequently is a part of the empire, or sovereign power, and ought to be placed in the number of the prerogatives of majesty (§ 45). When, therefore, the people confer the empire on any one, they at the same time invest him with the eminent domain, unless it be expressly reserved. Every prince, who is truly sovereign, is invested with this right when the nation has not excepted it, — however limited his authority may be in other respects, back

If the sovereign disposes of the public property in virtue of his eminent domain, the alienation is valid, as having been made with sufficient powers.

When, in case of necessity, he disposes in like manner of the possessions of a community, or an individual, the alienation will, for the same reason, be valid. But justice requires that this community, or this individual, be indemnified at the public charge: and if the treasury is not able to bear the expense, all the citizens are obliged to contribute to it; for, the burdens of the state ought to be supported equally, or in a just proportion. The same rules are applicable to this case as to the loss of merchandise thrown overboard to save the vessel. back

§ 245. Government of
Besides the eminent domain, the sovereignty gives a right of another nature over all public, common, and private property, — that is, the empire, or the right of command in all places of the country belonging to the nation. The supreme power extends to everything that passes in the state, wherever it is transacted; and, consequently, the sovereign commands in all public places, on rivers, on highways, in deserts, &c. Every thing that happens there is subject to his authority. back

§ 255. The sovereign may subject it to regulations of police.
It must also be observed, that individuals are not so perfectly free in the economy or government of their affairs as not to be subject to the laws and regulations of police made by the sovereign. For instance, if vineyards are multiplied to too great an extent in a country which is in want of corn, the sovereign may forbid the planting of the vine in fields proper for tillage; for here the public welfare and the safety of the state are concerned. When a reason of such importance requires it, the sovereign or the magistrate may oblige an individual to sell all the provisions in his possession above what are necessary for the subsistence of his family, and may fix the price he shall receive for them.(66) The public authority may and ought to hinder monopolies, and suppress all practices tending to raise the price of provisions — to which practices the Romans applied the expressions annonam incendere, comprimere, vexare. back

§ 278. Jurisdiction over lakes and rivers.
The empire or jurisdiction over lakes and rivers is subject to the same rules as the property of them, in all the cases which we have examined. Each state naturally possesses it over the whole or the part of which it possesses the domain. We have seen (§ 245) that the nation, or its sovereign, commands in all places in its possession. back

(68) As regards private rights, there is no legal presumption that the soil of a navigable river belongs to the owners of the adjoining lands, ex utraque parte, or otherwise, Rex v. Smith, 2 Doug. 411. {Palmer v. Hicks, 66 Johns Rep. 133.}

(68a) (5 Wheat. Rep. 374, 379; 3 Mass, Rep. 147.) [This note was anomalously numbered (1) in the original]

(69) As to what is a sufficiently long and undisturbed possession, by the law of France, Jersey, and England, in general, see Benest v. Pipon, Knapp's Rep. 67.

(70) As to the rights of alluvion, or sudden derelict in general, see The King v. Yarborough, 1 Dow Rep. New Series, 178; 4 Dowl. & Ry. 799; 3 Barn. & Cres. 91, S.C.; 5 Bing. 163, 169; 1 Thomas Co. Lit. 47, in note; Scuites on Aquatic Rights; Chitty's General Practice, 199, 200. {2 Johns. Rep. 322; 3 Mass. Rep. 325; 2 Hall's L. Journ. 307; 5 Hall's L. Journ. 1, 113.)

(71) This principle of the law of nations has been ably discussed as part of the municipal law of Scotland and England in Menzies v. Breadalbone, 3 Wils. & Shaw, 235; and see The King v. Lord Yarborough, 1 Dow. Rep., New Series, 179; and Wright v. Howard. 1 Sim. & Stu. 190; Rex v. Trafford, 1 Barn. & Adolph. 874, and Chitty's General Practice, 610. {4 Dall. Rep. 211; 13 Mass. 420, 507; 3 Har. & McHen. 441; 2 Conn. Rep. 584; Coxe's Rep, 460.) back

(72) That is permitted as well as a bank or groove to prevent an alteration in the current. Rex v. Pagham, 8 Barn. & Cress. 355; Rex v. Trafford, 1 Barn. & Adolph. 874; 2 Man. & Ryl, 468; 1 Moore & Scott, 401; 8 Bing. 204. (in error.)

(73) See note 72.

(74) But this doctrine seems questionable. See Wright v. Howard, 1 Sim. & Stu. 190; and Mason v. Hill, 3 Barn. & Adolph. 304; Chitty's General Prac. 191, 192. Even a right of irrigating at reasonable times may qualify the absolute and general right to the use of the water for working a mill.

(75) See note 74, ante, p. 122, back

BOOK III. OF WAR

§ 4. It belongs only to the sovereign power.(137)
As nature has given men no right to employ force, unless when it becomes necessary for self defence and the preservation of their rights (Book II. § 49, &c.), the inference is manifest, that, since the establishment of political societies, a right, so dangerous in its exercise, no longer remains with private persons except in those encounters where society cannot protect or defend them. In the bosom of society, the public authority decides all the disputes of the citizens, represses violence, and checks every attempt to do ourselves justice with our own hands. If a private person intends to prosecute his right against the subject of a foreign power, he may apply to the sovereign of his adversary, or to the magistrates invested with the public authority: and if he is denied justice by them, he must have recourse to his own sovereign, who is obliged to protect him. It would be too dangerous to allow every citizen the liberty of doing himself justice against foreigners; as, in that case, there would not be a single member of the state who might not involve it in war. And how could peace be preserved between nations, if it were in the power of every private individual to disturb it? A right of so momentous a nature, — the right of judging whether the nation has real grounds of complaint, whether she is authorized to employ force, and justifiable in taking up arms, whether prudence will admit of such a step, and whether the welfare of the state requires it, — that right, I say, can belong only to the body of the nation, or to the sovereign, her representative. It is doubtless one of those rights, without which there can be no salutary government, and which are therefore called rights of majesty (Book I. § 45).

Thus the sovereign power alone is possessed of authority to make war. But, as the different rights which constitute this power, originally resident in the body of the nation, may be separated or limited according to the will of the nation (Book I. § 31 and 45), it is from the particular constitution of each state, that we are to learn where the power resides, that is authorized to make war in the name of the society at large. The kings of England, whose power is in other respects so limited, have the right of making war and peace.1 Those of Sweden have lost it. The brilliant but ruinous exploits of Charles XII. sufficiently warranted the states of that kingdom to reserve to themselves a right of such importance to their safety. back

§ 5. Defensive and offensive war.
War is either defensive or offensive. He who takes up arms to repel the attack of an enemy, carries on a defensive war. He who is foremost in taking up arms, and attacks a nation that lived in peace with him, wages offensive war. The object of a defensive war is very simple; it is no other than self defence: in that of offensive war there is as great a variety as in the multifarious concerns of nations; but, in general, it relates either to the prosecution of some rights, or to safety. We attack a nation with a view either to obtain something to which we lay claim, to punish her for an injury she has done us, or to prevent one which she is preparing to do, and thus avert a danger with which she seems to threaten us. I do not here speak of the justice of war: — that shall make the subject of a particular chapter; — all I here propose is to indicate, in general, the various objects for which a nation takes up arms — objects which may furnish lawful reasons, or unjust pretences, but which are at least susceptible of a colour of right. I do not, therefore, among the objects of offensive war, set down conquest, or the desire of invading the property of others: views of that nature, destitute even of any reasonable pretext to countenance them, do not constitute the object of regular warfare, but of robbery, which we shall consider in its proper place.

(136) See definition of war and of the king's sole right to declare it, as regards England, per Sir Wm. Scott, The Hoop 1 Rob. R. 196; Nayade, 4 Rob. Rep. 252; Bro. Ab. tit. Denizen, pl. 20. and Chitty's L.N. 28, 29, 30. — C.

(137) The right of declaring war is, by his prerogative, vested in the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Bro. Ab. tit. Denizen, pl. 20. The ship Hoop, per Sir W. Scott, 1 Rob. R. 196, post, 432. — C. {And, by the Constitution of the United States, in Congress. Art. 1 § 8.}

1. I here speak of the right considered in itself. But as a king of England cannot, without the concurrence of parliament, either raise money or compel his subjects to take up arms, his right of making war is, in fact, but a slender prerogative, unless the parliament second him with supplies. — Ed. 1797. back

§ 26. What is in general a just cause of war.
The right of employing force, or making war, belongs to nations no farther than is necessary for their own defence, and for the maintenance of their rights (§ 3). Now, if any one attacks a nation, or violates her perfect rights, he does her an injury. Then, and not till then, that nation has a right to repel the aggressor, and reduce him to reason. Further, she has a right to prevent the intended injury, when she sees herself threatened with it (Book II. § 50). Let us then say in general, that the foundation, or cause of every just war is injury, either already done or threatened. The justificatory reasons for war show that an injury has been received, or so far threatened as to authorize a prevention of it by arms. It is evident, however, that here the question regards the principal in the war, and not those who join in it as auxiliaries. When, therefore, we would judge whether a war be just, we must consider whether he who undertakes it has in fact received an injury, or whether he be really threatened with one. And, in order to determine what is to be considered as an injury, we must be acquainted with a nation's rights, properly so called, — that is to say, her perfect rights. These are of various kinds, and very numerous, but may all be referred to the general heads of which we have already treated, and shall further treat in the course of this work. Whatever strikes at these rights is an injury, and a just cause of war. back

§ 27. What war is unjust.
The immediate consequence of the premises is, that if a nation takes up arms when she has received no injury, nor is threatened with any, she undertakes an unjust war. Those alone, to whom an injury is done or intended, have a right to make war. back

§ 28. The object of war.
From the same principle we shall likewise deduce the just and lawful object of every war, which is, to avenge or prevent injury. To avenge signifies here to prosecute the reparation of an injury, if it be of a nature to be repaired, — or, if the evil be irreparable, to obtain a just satisfaction, — and also to punish the offender, if requisite, with a view of providing for our future safety. The right to security authorizes us to do all this (Book II. §§ 49-52). We may therefore distinctly point out, as objects of a lawful war, the three following: — 1. To recover what belongs, or is due to us. 2. To provide for our future safety by punishing the aggressor or offender. 3. To defend ourselves, or to protect ourselves from injury, by repelling unjust violence. The two first are the objects of an offensive, the third of a defensive war. Camillus, when on the point of attacking the Gauls, concisely set forth to his soldiers all the subjects on which war can be grounded or justified — omnia, quζ defendi, repetique, et ulcisci fas sit.1 back

§ 30. Proper motives.
I call proper and commendable motives those derived from the good of the state, from the safety and common advantage of the citizens. They are inseparable from the justificatory reasons, — a breach of justice being never truly advantageous. Though an unjust war may for a time enrich a state, and extend her frontiers, it renders her odious to other nations, and exposes her to the danger of being crushed by them. Besides, do opulence and extent of dominion always constitute the happiness of states? Amidst the multitude of examples which might here be quoted, let us confine our view to that of the Romans. The Roman republic ruined herself by her triumphs, by the excess of her conquests and power. Rome, when mistress of the world, but enslaved by tyrants and oppressed by a military government, had reason to deplore the success of her arms, and to look back with regret on those happy times when her power did not extend beyond the bounds of Italy, or even when her dominion was almost confined within the circuit of her walls.

Vicious motives are those which have not for their object the good of the state, and which, instead of being drawn from that pure source, are suggested by the violence of the passions. Such are the arrogant desire of command, the ostentation of power, the thirst of riches, the avidity of conquest, hatred, and revenge. back

§ 33. War undertaken merely for advantage.
Whoever, without justificatory reasons, undertakes a war merely from motives of advantage, acts without any right, and his war is unjust. And he, who, having in reality just grounds for taking up arms, is nevertheless solely actuated by interested views in resorting to hostilities, cannot indeed be charged with injustice, but he betrays a vicious disposition: his conduct is reprehensible, and sullied by the badness of his motives. War is so dreadful a scourge, that nothing less than manifest justice, joined to a kind of necessity, can authorize it, render it commendable, or at least exempt it from reproach, back

§ 34. Na-
Nations that are always ready to take up arms on any prospect of advantage, are lawless robbers: but those who seem to delight in the ravages of war, who spread it on all sides, without reasons or pretexts, and even without any other motive than their own ferocity, are monsters, unworthy the name of men. They should be considered as enemies to the human race, in the same manner as, in civil society, professed assassins and incendiaries are guilty, not only towards the particular victims of their nefarious deeds, but also towards the state, which therefore proclaims them public enemies. All nations have a right to join in a confederacy for the purpose of punishing and even exterminating those savage nations. Such were several German tribes mentioned by Tacitus — such those barbarians who destroyed the Roman empire: nor was it till long after their conversion to Christianity that this ferocity wore off. Such have been the Turks and other Tartars — Genghis Khan, Timur Bec or Tamerlane, who, like Attila, were scourges employed by the wrath of Heaven, and who made war only for the pleasure of making it. Such are, in polished ages and among the most civilized nations, those supposed heroes, whose supreme delight is a battle, and who make war from inclination purely, and not from love to their country. back

§ 35. How defensive war is just or unjust.
Defensive war is just when made against an unjust aggressor. This requires no proof. Self-defence against unjust violence is not only the right, but the duty of a nation, and one of her most sacred duties. But if the enemy who wages offensive war has justice on his side, we have no right to make forcible opposition; and the defensive war then becomes unjust: for that enemy only exerts his lawful right: — he took arms only to obtain justice which was refused to him; and it is an act of injustice to resist any one in the exertion of his right. back

§ 37. How an offensive war is just in an evident cause.
In order to estimate the justice of an offensive war, the nature of the subject for which a nation takes up arms must be first considered. We should be thoroughly assured of our right, before we proceed to assert it in so dreadful a manner. If, therefore, the question relates to a thing which is evidently just, as the recovery of our property, the assertion of a clear and incontestable right, or the attainment of just satisfaction for a manifest injury, and if we cannot obtain justice otherwise than by force of arms, offensive war becomes lawful. Two things are therefore necessary to render it just: 1, some right which is to be asserted — that is to say, that we be authorized to demand something of another nation: 2, that we be unable to obtain it otherwise than by force of arms, Necessity alone warrants the use of force. It is a dangerous and terrible resource. Nature, the common parent of mankind, allows of it only in cases of the last extremity, and when all other means fail. It is doing wrong to a nation, to make use of violence against her, before we know whether she be disposed to do us justice, or to refuse it.

Those who without trying pacific measures, run to arms on every trifling occasion, sufficiently show that justificatory reasons are, in their mouths, mere pretexts: they eagerly seize the opportunity of indulging their passions and gratifying their ambition under some colour of right. back

§ 45. Another case more evident.
It is still easier to prove, that, should that formidable power betray an unjust and ambitious disposition, by doing the least injustice to another, all nations may avail themselves of the occasion, and, by joining the injured party, thus form a coalition of strength, in order to humble that ambitious potentate, and disable him from so easily oppressing his neighbours, or keeping them in continual awe and fear. For an injury gives us a right to provide for our future safety, by depriving the unjust aggressor of the means of injuring us; and it is lawful and even praiseworthy to assist those who are oppressed, or unjustly attacked.

Enough has been said on this subject, to set the minds of politicians at case, and relieve them from all apprehension that a strict and punctilious observance of justice in this particular would pave the way to slavery. It is perhaps wholly unprecedented that a state should receive any remarkable accession of power, without giving other states just causes of complaint. Let the other nations be watchful and alert in repressing that growing power, and they will have nothing to fear. The emperor Charles V. laid hold on the pretext of religion, in order to oppress the princes of the empire, and subject them to his absolute authority. If, by following up his victory over the elector of Saxony, he had accomplished that vast design, the liberties of all Europe would have been endangered. It was therefore with good reason that France assisted the protestants of Germany: — the care of her own safety authorized and urged her to the measure. When the same prince seized on the duchy of Milan, the sovereigns of Europe ought to have assisted France in contending with him for the possession of it, and to have taken advantage of the circumstance, in order to reduce his power within just bounds. Had they prudently availed themselves of the just causes which he soon gave them to form a league against him, they would have saved themselves the subsequent anxieties for their tottering liberty. back

§ 51. Declaration of war.(142)
THE right of making war belongs to nations only as a remedy against injustice: it is the offspring of unhappy necessity. This remedy is so dreadful in its effects, so destructive to mankind, so grievous even to the party who has recourse to it, that unquestionably the law of nature allows of it only in the last extremity, — that is to say, when every other expedient proves ineffectual for the maintenance of justice. It is demonstrated in the foregoing chapter, that, in order to be justifiable in taking up arms it is necessary — 1. That we have a just cause of complaint. 2. That a reasonable satisfaction have been denied us. 3. The ruler of the nation, as we have observed, ought maturely to

consider whether it be for the advantage of the state to prosecute his right by force of arms. But all this is not sufficient. As it is possible that the present fear of our arms may make an impression on the mind of our adversary, and induce him to do us justice, — we owe this further regard to humanity, and especially to the lives and peace of the subjects, to declare to that unjust nation, or its chief, that we are at length going to have recourse to the last remedy, and make use of open force, for the purpose of bringing him to reason. This is called declaring war. All this is included in the Roman manner of proceeding, regulated in their fecial law. They first sent the chief of the feciales, or heralds, called pater patratus, to demand satisfaction of the nation who had offended them; and if, within the space of thirty-three days, that nation did not return a satisfactory answer, the herald called the gods to be witnesses of the injustice, and came away, saying that the Romans would consider what measures they should adopt. The king, and in after times the consul, hereupon asked the senate's opinion: and when war was resolved on, the herald was sent back to the frontier, where he declared it.1 It is surprising to find among the Romans such justice, such moderation and prudence, at a time too when, apparently, nothing but courage and ferocity was to be expected from them. By such scrupulous delicacy in the conduct of her wars, Rome laid a most solid foundation for her subsequent greatness. back

§ 57. Defensive war requires no declarations. He who is attacked and only wages defensive war, needs not to make any hostile declaration, — the state of warfare being sufficiently ascertained by the enemy's declaration, or open hostilities. In modern times, however, the sovereign who is attacked, seldom omits to declare war in his turn, whether from an idea of dignity, or for the direction of his subjects. back

§ 66. What is lawful war in due force.
Those formalities, of which the necessity is deducible from the principles and the very nature of war, are the characteristics of a lawful war in due form (justum bellum). Grotius says.4 that, according to the law of nations, two things are requisite to constitute a solemn or formal war — first, that it be on both sides, made by the sovereign authority, — secondly, that it be accompanied by certain formalities. These formalities consist in the demand of a just satisfaction (rerum repetitio), and in the declaration of war, at least on the part of him who attacks: — for defensive war requires no declaration (§ 57), nor even, on urgent occasions an express order from the sovereign. In effect, these two conditions are necessarily required in every war which shall, according to the law of nations, be a legitimate one, that is to say, such a war as nations have a right to wage. The right of making war belongs only to the sovereign (§ 4); and it is only after satisfaction has been refused to him (§ 37), and even after he has made a declaration of war (§ 51), that he has a right to take up arms.(145)

A war in due form is also called a regular war, because certain rules, either prescribed by the law of nature, or adopted by custom, are observed in it.(146) back

§ 67. It is to be distinguished from informal and unlawful war. Legitimate and formal warfare must be carefully distinguished from those illegitimate and informal wars, or rather predatory expeditions, undertaken either without lawful authority or without apparent cause, as likewise without the usual formalities, and solely with a view to plunder. Grotius relates several instances of the latter.5 Such were the enterprises of the grandes compagnies which had assembled in France during the wars with the English, — armies of banditti, who ranged about Europe, purely for spoil and plunder: such were the cruises of the buccaneers, without commission, and in time of peace; and such in general are the depredations of pirates. To the same class belong almost all the expeditions of the Barbary corsairs: though authorized by a sovereign, they are undertaken without any apparent cause, and from no other motive than the lust of plunder. These two species of war, I say, — the lawful and the illegitimate, — are to be carefully distinguished, as the effects and the rights arising from each are very different. back

§ 68. Grounds of this distinction.
In order fully to conceive the grounds of this distinction, it is necessary to recollect the nature and object of lawful war. It is only as the last remedy against obstinate injustice that the law of nature allows of war. Hence arise the rights which it gives, as we shall explain in the sequel: hence, likewise, the rules to be observed in it. Since it is equally possible that either of the parties may have right on his side, — and since, in consequence of the independence of nations, that point is not to be decided by others (§ 40), — the condition of the two enemies is the same, while the war lasts. Thus, when a nation, or a sovereign, has declared war against another sovereign on account of a difference arisen between them, their war is what among nations is called a lawful and formal war; and its effects are, by the voluntary law of nations, the same on both sides, independently of the justice of the cause, as we shall more fully show in the sequel.6 Nothing of this kind is the case in an informal and illegitimate war, which is more properly called depredation. Undertaken without any right, without even an apparent cause, it can be productive of no lawful effect, nor give any right to the author of it. A nation attacked by such sort of enemies is not under any obligation to observe towards them the rules prescribed in formal warfare. She may treat them as robbers,(146a) The inhabitants of Geneva, after defeating the famous attempt to take their city by escalade,7 caused all the prisoners whom they took from the Savoyards on that occasion to be hanged up as robbers, who had come to attack them without cause and without a declaration of war. Nor were the Genevese censured for this proceeding, which would have been detested in a formal war.

(142) See in general, Grotius, B. iii. c. iv. s. 8: and 1 Chitty's Com. Law, 378. — C.

1. Livy, lib. i. cap. 31.

(143) But there seems to be no absolute necessity for a formal declaration of war to render it legal. See observations of Sir William Scott, in Nayede, 4 Rob. Rep. 252; Chitty's Law Nat. 29, 3. But in England the king must have assented to a war to render it strictly legal. Brooke's Abrid. tit. "Denizen," pl. 26; The Hoop, 1 Rob. Rep, 196. — C. {The late war between the United States and Great Britain was declared by Act of Congress, June 18th, 1812. (Laws U.S. 1812, p. 227.) But war had existed, in fact, from March 4th until May 13th, 1846, between Mexico and the United States, without any formal declaration. The act of Congress of 13th May, 1846, declares that, "by the act of the Republic of Mexico," war existed between the countries. (Laws U. States, 1846, p. 14.)}

2. See Sully's Memoirs.

(144) See in general 1 Chitty's Com. L. 414. — C.

3. It is remarked as a very singular circumstance, that Charles the Second, king of Great Britain, in his declaration of war against France, dated February 9, 1668, promised security to French subjects who should "demean themselves properly," — and, moreover, his protection and favour to such of them as might choose to emigrate to his dominions.

4. De Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. i. cap. iii. § 4.

(145) Ante, the notes to the same sections. — C.

(146) It has been laid down, that whenever the king's courts are open in a given country, it is time of peace in judgment of law; but, when by hostile measures such courts are shut up or interrupted, then it is said to he time of war. Earl Lancaster's case. Hale's Pleas Crown, Part I. c. 26, p. 344; Co. Litt. 249 b. cited, and other points as to what is war; Elphinstone v. Bedreechund, Knapp's Rep. 316. But at present, when in courts of justice, whether of Common Law, Equity, Admiralty, or Prize Court, it becomes necessary to ascertain what is, or not, evidence of a war, or a peace or neutrality, the same is now usually determined by distinct acts of the state. Upon this question, the following cases are material: — Sir Wm. Grant (in case of Pelham Burke, 1 Edward's Rep. Appendix D; 3 Camp. 62; Blackburne v. Thompson, 15 East, 90, S.P.) observed, that, in order to ascertain whether or not a war or state of amity or neutrality subsists, it always belongs to the Government of the country to determine in what relation any other country stands towards it; and that is a point upon which courts of justice cannot decide; (i.e. without evidence aliunde as to the declarations or resolutions of Government;) and the most potent evidence upon such a subject is the declaration of the state. And if the state recognises any place as being or as not being in the relation of hostility to this country, that is obligatory on courts of justice. Per Lord Ellenborough, 3 Camp. 66; and see other instances and authorities, 1 Chitty's Commercial Law, 393-4. — C. (See, also, The U. States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. Rep. 634, 635.)

5. Lib. iii. cap, iv.

6. See chap. xii. of this book.

{(146a) Pirates may be lawfully captured by the public or private armed ships of any nation, in peace or war; for they are hostes humani generie. The Mariana Flora, 11 Wheat. Rep, 1.}[This note was numbered (1) by Chitty.]

7. In the year 1602. back

CHAP. V.
OF THE ENEMY, AND OF THINGS BELONGING TO THE ENEMY.

§ 69. Who is an enemy.(147)
THE enemy is he with whom a nation is at open war. The Latins had a particular term (Hostis) to denote a public enemy, and distinguished him from a private enemy (Inimicus). Our language affords but one word for these two classes of persons, who ought, nevertheless to be carefully distinguished. A private enemy is one who seeks to hurt us, and takes pleasure in the evil that befalls us. A public enemy forms claims against us, or rejects ours, and maintains his real or pretended rights by force of arms. The former is never innocent; he fosters rancour and hatred in his heart. It is possible that the public enemy may be free from such odious sentiments, that he does not wish us ill, and only seeks to maintain his rights. This observation is necessary in order to regulate the dispositions of our heart towards a public enemy. back

§ 70. All the subjects of the two states at war are enemies.
When the sovereign or ruler of the state declares war against another sovereign, it is understood that the whole nation declares war against another nation; for the sovereign represents the nation, and acts in the name of the whole society (Book I. §§ 40, 41;) and it is only in a body, and in her national character, that one nation has to do with another. Hence, these two nations are enemies, and all the subjects of the one are enemies to all the subjects of the other. In this particular, custom and principle are in accord. back

§ 71. and continue to be enemies in all places.
Enemies continue such wherever they happen to be. The place of abode is of no consequence here. It is the political ties which determine the character. Whilst a man continues a citizen of his own country, he is the enemy of all those with whom his nation is at war. But we must not hence conclude that these enemies may treat each other as such, wherever they happen to meet. Every one being master in his respective country, a neutral prince will not allow them to use any violence in his territories. back

§ 83. When a nation is allowed to assist another.
In order, now, to judge of the morality of these several treaties or alliances, — of their legitimacy according to the law of nations, we must, in the first place, lay down this incontrovertible principle, that It is lawful and commendable to succour and assist, by all possible means, a nation engaged in a just war; and it is even a duty incumbent on every nation, to give such assistance, when she can give it without injury to herself. But no assistance whatever is to be afforded to him who is engaged in an unjust war. There is nothing in this which is not demonstrated by what we have said of the common duties of nations towards each other. (Book II. Ch. I.) To support the cause of justice when we are able, is always commendable: but, in assisting the unjust, we partake of his crime, and become, like him, guilty of injustice. back

§ 86. Tacit clause in every warlike alliance.
As it is only for the support of a just war that we are allowed to give assistance or contract alliances, — every alliance, every warlike association, every auxiliary treaty, contracted by way of anticipation in time of peace, and with no view to any particular war, necessarily and of itself includes this tacit clause — that the treaty shall not be obligatory except in case of a just war. On any other footing, the alliance could not be validly contracted. (Book II. §§ 161, 168.)

But care must be taken that treaties of alliance be not thereby reduced to empty and delusive formalities. The tacit restriction is to be understood only of a war which is evidently unjust; for otherwise a pretence for eluding treaties would never be wanting. Is there question of contracting an alliance with a power actually at war? It behooves you most religiously to weigh the justice of his cause: the judgment depends solely on you, since you owe him no assistance any further than as his quarrel is just, and your own circumstances make it convenient for you to embark in it. But when once engaged, nothing less than the manifest injustice of his cause can excuse you from assisting him. In a doubtful case, you are to presume that your ally has justice on his side; that being his concern.

But if you entertain strong doubts, you may very fairly and commendably interpose to effect an accommodation. Thus you may bring the justice of the cause to the test of evidence, by discovering which of the contending parties refuses to accede to equitable conditions. back

§ 87. To refuse succours for an unjust war is no breach of alliance. As every alliance implies the tacit clause above mentioned, he who refuses to succour his ally in a war that is manifestly unjust is not chargeable with a breach of alliance. back

§ 89. It never takes place in an unjust war. As the most solemn treaties cannot oblige any one to favour an unjust quarrel (§ 86): the casus fœderis never takes place in a war that is manifestly unjust. back

§ 90. How it exists in a defensive war.
In a defensive alliance, the casus fœderis does not exist immediately on our ally being attacked. It is still our duty to examine whether he has not given his enemy just cause to make war against him: for we cannot have engaged to undertake his defence with the view of enabling him to insult others, or to refuse them justice. If he is in the wrong, we must induce him to offer a reasonable satisfaction; and if his enemy will not be contented with it, then, and not till then, the obligation of defending him commences. back

§ 98. Or who are in an offensive alliance with him.
Thirdly, those, who, being united with my enemy by an offensive alliance, actively assist him in the war which he declares against me, — those, I say, concur in the injury intended against me. They show themselves my enemies, and I have a right to treat them as such. Accordingly, the Switzers, whose example we have above quoted, seldom grant troops except for defensive war. To those in the service of France, it has ever been a standing order from their sovereigns, not to carry arms against the empire, or against the states of the house of Austria in Germany. In 1644, the captains of the Neufchatel regiment of Guy, on information that they were destined to serve under Marshal Turenne, in Germany, declared that they would rather die than disobey their sovereign and violate the alliances of the Helvetic body. Since France has been mistress of Alsace, the Switzers who serve in her armies never pass the Rhine to attack the empire. The gallant Daxelhoffer, captain of a Berne company in the French service, consisting of 200 men, and of which his four sons formed the first rank, seeing the general would oblige him to pass the Rhine, broke his espontoon, and marched back with his company to Berne. back

§ 99. How a defensive alliance as-
Even a defensive alliance made expressly against me, or (which amounts to the same thing) concluded with my enemy during the war, or on the certain prospect of its speedy declaration, is an act of association against me; and if followed by effects, I may look on the party who has contracted it as my enemy. The case is here precisely the same as that of a nation assisting my enemy without being under any obligation to do so, and choosing of her own accord to become my enemy. (See § 97).

CHAP. VII.
OF NEUTRALITY — AND THE PASSAGE OF TROOPS THROUGH A NEUTRAL COUNTRY.

§ 103. Neutral nations.(151)
NEUTRAL nations are those who, in time of war, do not take any part in the contest, but remain common friends to both parties, without favouring the arms of the one to the prejudice of the other. Here we are to consider the obligations and rights flowing from neutrality.

§ 119. Passage of troops through a neutral country.
An innocent passage is due to all nations with whom a state is at peace (Book II. § 123); and this duty extends to troops as well as to individuals. But it rests with the sovereign of the country to judge whether the passage be innocent; and it is very difficult for that of an army to be entirely so. In the late wars of Italy the territories of the republic of Venice and those of the pope sustained very great damage by the passage of armies, and often became the theatre of the war. back

§ 120. Passage to be asked.
Since, therefore, the passage of troops, and especially that of a whole army, is by no means a matter of indifference, he who desires to march his troops through a neutral country, must apply for the sovereign's permission. To enter his territory without his consent, is a violation of his rights of sovereignty and supreme dominion, by virtue of which, that country is not to be disposed of for any use whatever, without his express or tacit permission. Now a tacit permission for the entrance of a body of troops is not to be presumed, since their entrance may be productive of the most serious consequences. back

§ 121. It may be refused for good reasons.
If the neutral sovereign has good reasons for refusing a passage, he is not obliged to grant it, — the passage in that case being no longer innocent. back

§ 135. A passage may be refused for a war evidently unjust.
Finally, as we are not bound to grant even an innocent passage, except for just causes, we may refuse it to him who requires it for a war that is evidently unjust, — as, for instance, to invade a country without any reason, or even colourable pretext. Thus Julius Cζsar denied a passage to the Helvetii, who were quitting their country in order to conquer a better. I conceive, indeed, that policy had a greater share in his refusal than the love of justice; but, in short, justice authorised him on that occasion to obey the dictates or prudence. A sovereign who is in a condition to refuse without fear, should doubtless refuse in the case we now speak of. But if it would be dangerous for him to give a refusal, he is not obliged to draw down the impending evil on his own head for the sake of averting it from that of his neighbour: nay, rashly to hazard the quiet and welfare of his people, would be a very great breach of his duty.

(151) The modern illustrating decisions upon neutrals, and neutrality, will be found collected in 1 Chitty's Commercial Law, 43-64, 383-490; Id. Index, tit. Neutrals, and in Chitty's L. Nat. 14, 34-54, 153; and Id. Index, tit. Neutrals. — C.

1. The following is an instance: — It was determined by the Dutch, that, on a vessel's entering a neutral port, after having taken any of the enemies of her nation prisoners on the high seas, she should be obliged to set those prisoners at liberty, because they were then fallen into the power of a nation that was in neutrality with the belligerent parties. — The same rule had been observed by England in the war between Spain and the United Provinces.

(152) It must be a continuance only of such customary trade. See Home on Captures, 215-233; De Tastet v. Taylor, 4 Taunt. 238; Bell v. Reid, 1 Maule & Selw. 727; and an able speech of Lord Erskine, 8th March, 1808, upon the orders in Council; 10 Cobbett's Parl. Deb. 935. It has even been holden that a British-born subject, while domiciled in a neutral country, may legally trade from that country with a state at war with this country. Bell v. Reid, 1 Maule & Selwyn, 727. — C.

2. See other instances in Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. iii. cap. i. § 5, not. 6.

3. The Pensionary De Witt, in a letter of January 14, 1654, acknowledges that it would be contrary to the law of nations to prevent neutrals from carrying corn to an enemy's country; but he says that we may lawfully prevent them from supplying the enemy with cordage and other materials for the riffing and equipment of ships of war.

In 1597, queen Elizabeth would not allow the Poles and Danes to furnish Spain with provisions, much less with arms, alleging that, "according to the rules of war, it is lawful to reduce an enemy even by famine, with the view of obliging him to sue for peace," The United Provinces, finding it necessary to observe a greater degree of circumspection, did not prevent neutral nations from carrying on every kind of commerce with Spain. It is true, indeed, that, while their own subjects sold both arms and provisions to the Spaniards, they could not with propriety have attempted to forbid neutral nations to carry on a similar trade. (Grotius, His. of the Disturbances in the Low Countries, book vi.) Nevertheless, in 1646, the United Provinces published an edict prohibiting their own subjects in general, and even neutral nations, to carry either provisions or any other merchandise to Spain, because the Spaniards, "after having, under the appearance of commerce, allured foreign vessels to their ports, detained them, and made use of them as ships of war." And for this reason, the same edict declared that "the confederates, when blocking up their enemies' ports, would seize upon every vessel they saw steering towards those places." — Ibid. book xv. p. 572 — Ed. A.D. 1797.

(153) What are contraband goods, see 1 Chitty's Comml. L. 444-449, and Chitty's L. Nat. 119-128. — C.

4. In our time, the king of Spain prohibited all Hamburgh ships from entering his harbours, because that city had engaged to furnish the Algerines with military stores; and thus he obliged the Hamburghers to cancel their treaty with the Barbarians. — Ed. A.D. 1797.

5. Grotius, ubi supra.

(154) As to the right of visiting and searching neutral ships, see the celebrated letter of the Duke of Newcastle to the Prussian Secretary, A.D. 1752; 1 Collect. Jurid. 138; and Halliday's Life of Lord Mansfield; Elements of General History, vol. iii. p. 222, Marshall on Insurance, book i. ch. 8, sect. 5; Garrels v. Kensington, 8 Term Rep. 230; Lord Erskine's Speech upon Orders in council, 8 March 1808; 10 Cobbett's Parl. Deb. 955; Baring upon Orders in Council, p. 102. Clearly at this day the right of search exists practically as well as theoretically.

The right of search, and of the consequence of resistance, and of the papers and documents that ought to be found on board the neutral vessels, are most clearly established by the best modern decision; see Barker v. Blakes, 9 East Rep. 283, and numerous other cases, collected in 1 Chitty's Commercial Law, 482-489; Chitty's L. Nat. 190-199. The international law upon the subject will be found admirably summed up by Sir Wm. Scott, in his Judgment in the case of the Maria, 1 Rob. Rep. 346, and 1 Edward's Rep. 208, confirming the authority of Vattel, and on which he thus concludes: "I stand with confidence upon all fair principles of reason, — upon the distinct authority of Vattel, and upon the institutes of other great maritime countries, as well as those of our own country, when I venture to lay it down that, by the law of nations, as now understood, a deliberate and continued resistance of search, on the part of a neutral vessel, to a lawful cruiser, is followed by the legal consequences of confiscation." And see Dispatch, 3 Rob, Rep. 278; Elsabe, 4 Rob. Rep. 408; Pennsylvania, 1 Acton's Rep. 33; Saint Juan Baptista, 5 Rob. Rep. 33; Maria, 1 Rob. Rep. 340; Mentor. 1 Edward, 2668; Catherina Elisabeth, 5 Rob. Rep. 232. See the modern French view of the right of visitation and search, Cours de Droits Public, tom. i. p. 84. Paris: A.D. 1830. — C. {And the American, The Eleanor, 2 Wheat. Rep. 345; The U. states v. LaJeune Eugenie, 2 Mass. Rep. 409; The Marianna Flora, 3 Mass. Rep. 116; Maley v. Shattuck, 3 Cranch, 458.}

(155) As to papers and documents that ought to be on board, see 1 Chitty's Commercial Law, 487-489, and Chitty's L. Nat. 196-199, and authorities there collected. The owner of the neutral vessel has no remedy for loss of voyage, or other injury occasioned by the reasonable exercise of the right of search (infra note), but he may insure against the risk; Barker v. Blakes, 9 East. 283. — C. — {See Maley v. Shattuck, 3 Cranch, 458.}

(156) Particular states have relaxed the rigour of this rule, and, by express treaty, granted immunity, by establishing a maxim, "Free ships, free goods;" see instances, 5 Rob. Rep. 52; 6 Rob. Rep. 24, 41-358. — C.

6. {See the rule as recognised by the United States. The Nereide, 9 Cranch, 110.} — "I have obtained," said the ambassador Boreel, in a letter to the Grand Pensionary, De Witt, "the abrogation of that pretended French law, that enemies' property involves in confiscation the property of friends; so that, if henceforward any effects belonging to the enemies of France be found in a free Dutch vessel, those effects alone shall be liable to confiscation; and the vessel shall be released, together with all the other property onboard. But I find it impossible to obtain the object of the twenty-fourth article of my instructions, which says, that the immunity of the vessel shall extend to the cargo, even if enemies' property," De Witt's Letters and Negotiations, vol i. p. 80, — Such a law as the latter would be more natural than the former. — Edit. A.D. 1797.

(157) (Schwartz v. The Ins. Co. of North America, 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 117.) — But, in these cases, the freight to be paid is not necessarily to be measured by the terms of the charter party, 1 Molloy, 1-18; and Twilling Ruet, 5 Rob. Rep. 82. — C.

(158) 1 Chitty's Commercial Law, 440; Grotius, b. iii. c. vi. § vi; Marshall on Insurance, b. i. c, viii. § v. The loss of voyage and damage may be insured against; Barker v. Blakes, 9 East, Rep. 283. — C.

(159) As to violation of blockade in general, see the modern decisions, 1 Chitty's Commercial Law, 449 and 460-492; Chitty's L. Nat. 129-144, and 259; and see, as to the distinction between a military and commercial blockade, and their effect, 1 Acton's Rep. 128. On a question of violation of blockade, Sir W. Scott said, "three things must be proved — 1st, the existence of an actual blockade; 2dly, the knowledge of the party supposed to have offended; and 3dly, some act of violation, either by going in or coming out with a cargo laden after the commencement of the blockade." In case of Betsy, 1 Rob. Rep. 92, and Nancy, 1 Acton's Rep. 59. — C. — {Fitzsimmons v. The Newport Ins. Co., 4 Cranch, 185.}

7. Plutarch, in Demetrio.

8. Grotius, ubi supra.

9. Plutarch's Life of Agesilaus.

10. Book ii. chap. ii. § 13, note 5.

11. By the Eleans, and the ancient inhabitants of Cologne. See Grotius, ibid.

12. The author of the "Present State of Denmark," written in English, pretends that the Danes had engaged to deliver up the Dutch fleet, but that some seasonable presents, made to the court of Copenhagen, saved it. Chap. x.

(160) At present, by the general law of nations, the whole space of the sea, within cannon-shot of the coast, in considered as making a part of the territory; and, for that reason, a vessel taken under the cannon of a neutral fortress, is not a lawful prize. Ante, book i. chap. xxxiii. s. 289, p. 129; Marten's L.N. b. viii. chap. vi. s. 6; and see 1 Molloy, b. i. chap. iii. s. 7; and chap. i. s. 16. (The Ann. 1 Gall. Rep. 62.) And Professor Marten observes, that when two vessels, the enemies of each other, meet in a neutral port, or where one pursues the other into such port, not only must they refrain from all hostilities while they remain there, but should one set sail, the other must not sail in less than twenty-four hours after Marten's L. Nat. b. viii. c. vi. s. 6. Sir W. Scott, in the Twee Gebroeders. 3 Rob. Rep. 162-336; and the Anna, 5 Rob. Rep. 373, observes, that no proximate acts of war are in any manner to be allowed to originate on neutral ground, and explains and elucidates what preparatory acts of warfare there ought, or ought not, to be tolerated; and see 1 Chitty's Com L. 441 to 444. So we have seen that even a sentence of condemnation of ship or goods as prize cannot legally lake place in a neutral country. Ante, and Flad Oyen, 1 Rob. Rep. 115; 8 T.R. 270; Atcheson's Rep. 8, note 9; and see Haveloch v. Pockwood, Atcheson's Rep. 33, 43. — C back

§ 138. The right to weaken an enemy by every justifiable method. Since the object of a just war is to repress injustice and violence, and forcibly to compel him who is deaf to the voice of justice, we have a right to put in practice, against the enemy, every measure that is necessary in order to weaken him, and disable him from resisting us and supporting his injustice; and we may choose such methods as are the most efficacious and best calculated to attain the end in view, provided they be not of an odious kind, nor unjustifiable in themselves, and prohibited by the law of nature. back

§ 139. The right over the enemy's person. The enemy who attacks me unjustly, gives me an undoubted right to repel his violence; and he who takes up arms to oppose me when I demand only my right, becomes himself the real aggressor by his unjust resistance: he is the first author of the violence, and obliges me to employ forcible means in order to secure myself against the wrong which he intends to do me either in my person or my property. If the forcible means I employ produce such effect as even to take away his life, he alone must bear the whole blame of that misfortune: for, if I were obliged to submit to the wrong rather than hurt him, good men would soon become the prey of the wicked. Such is the origin of the right to kill our enemies in a just war. When we find gentler methods insufficient to conquer their resistance and bring them to terms, we have a right to put them to death. Under the name of enemies, as we have already shown, are to be comprehended, not only the first author of the war, but likewise all those who join him, and who fight in support of his cause. back

CHAP. IX.
OF THE RIGHT OF WAR, WITH REGARD TO THINGS BELONGING TO THE ENEMY.

§ 160. Principles of the right over things belonging to the enemy.(164)
A STATE taking up arms in a just cause has a double right against her enemy, — 1. a right to obtain possession of her property withheld by the enemy; to which must be added the expenses incurred in the pursuit of that object, the charges of the war, and the reparation of damages: for, were she obliged to bear those expenses and losses, she would not fully recover her property, or obtain her due. 2. She has a right to weaken her enemy, in order to render him incapable of supporting his unjust violence (§ 138) — a right to deprive him of the means of resistance. Hence, as from their source, originate all the rights which war gives us over things belonging to the enemy. I speak of ordinary cases, and of what particularly relates to the enemy's property. On certain occasions, the right of punishing him produces new rights over the things which belong to him, as it also does over his person. These we shall presently consider. back

§ 161. The right of seizing on them.
We have a right to deprive our enemy of his possessions, of every thing which may augment his strength and enable him to make war. This every one endeavours to accomplish in the manner most suitable to him. Whenever we have an opportunity, we seize on the enemy's property, and convert it to our own use: and thus, besides diminishing the enemy's power, we augment our own, and obtain at least a partial indemnification or equivalent, either for what constitutes the subject of the war, or for the expenses and losses incurred in its prosecution: — in a word, we do ourselves justice.

§ 162. What is taken front the enemy by way of penalty.
The right to security often authorizes us to punish injustice or violence. It is an additional plea for depriving an enemy of some part of his possessions. This manner of chastising a nation is more humane than making the penalty to fall on the persons of the citizens. With that view, things of value may be taken from her, such as rights, cities, provinces. But all wars do not afford just grounds for inflicting punishment. A nation that has with upright intentions supported a bad cause, and observed moderation in the prosecution of it, is entitled rather to compassion than resentment from a generous conqueror: and in a doubtful cause we are to suppose that the enemy sincerely thinks himself in the right. (Prelim. § 21); Book III. § 40.) The only circumstance, therefore, which gives an enemy the right to punish his adversaries, is their evident injustice, unsupported even by any plausible pretext, or some heinous outrage in their proceedings: and, on every occasion, he ought to confine the punishment to what his own security and the safety of nations require. As far as consistent with prudence, it is glorious to obey the voice of clemency: that amiable virtue seldom fails of being more useful to the party who exerts it, than inflexible rigour. The clemency of Henry the Great was of singular advantage in co-operating with his valour, when that good prince found himself compelled to conquer his own kingdom. Those who would have continued his enemies if only subdued by arms, were won by his goodness, and became affectionate subjects.

§ 164. Booty.
As the towns and lands taken from the enemy are called conquests, all movable property taken from him comes under the denomination of booty. This booty naturally belongs to the sovereign making war, no less than the conquests; for he alone has such claims against the hostile nation as warrant him to seize on her property and convert it to his own use.(165) His soldiers, and even his auxiliaries, are only instruments which he employs in asserting his right. He maintains and pays them, Whatever they do is in his name, and for him. Thus, there is no difficulty, even with regard to the auxiliaries. If they are not associates in the war, it is not carried on for their benefit; and they have no more right to the booty than to the conquests. But the sovereign may grant the troops what share of the booty he pleases. At present most nations allow them whatever they can make on certain occasions when the general allows of plundering, — such as the spoil of enemies fallen in the field of battle, the pillage of a camp which has been forced, and sometimes that of a town taken by assault. In several services, the soldier has also the property of what he can take from the enemy's troops when he is out on a party, or in a detachment, excepting artillery, military stores, magazines, and convoys of provisions and forage, which are applied to the wants and use of the army. This custom being once admitted in an army, it would be injustice to exclude the auxiliaries from the right allowed to the national troops. Among the Romans, the soldier was obliged to bring in to the public stock all the booty he had taken. This the general caused to be sold; and, after distributing a part of the produce among the soldiers, according to rank, he consigned the residue to the public treasury. back

§ 165. Contributions.
Instead of the custom of pillaging the open country and defenceless places, another mode has been substituted, which is at once more humane, and more advantageous to the belligerent sovereign — I mean that of contributions. Whoever carries on a just war has a right to make the enemy's country contribute to the support of his army, and towards defraying all the charges of the war. Thus, he obtains a part of what is due to him; and the enemy's subjects, by consenting to pay the sum demanded, have their property secured from pillage, and the country is preserved. But a general who wishes to enjoy an unsullied reputation, must be moderate in his demand of contributions, and proportion them to the abilities of those on whom they are imposed. An excess in this point does not escape the reproach of cruelty and inhumanity: although there is not so great an appearance of ferocity in it as in ravage and destruction, it displays a greater degree of avarice or greediness. Instances of humanity and moderation cannot be too often quoted. A very commendable one occurred during those long wars which France carried on in the reign of Louis XIV. The sovereigns, seeing it was their mutual interest as well as duty to prevent ravage, made it a practice, on the commencement of hostilities, to enter into treaties for regulating the contributions on a supportable footing: they determined the extent of hostile territory in which each might demand contributions, the amount of them, and the manner in which the parties sent to levy them were to behave. In these treaties it was expressed, that no body of men under a certain number should advance into the enemy's country beyond the limits agreed on, under the penalty of being treated as freebooters. By such steps they prevented a multitude of disorders and enormities, which entail ruin on the people, and generally without the least advantage to the belligerent sovereigns. Whence comes it that so noble an example is not universally imitated? back

CHAP. XI.
OF THE SOVEREIGN WHO WAGES AN UNJUST WAR.

§ 183. An unjust war gives no right whatever.
HE who is engaged in war derives all his right from the justice of his cause. The unjust adversary who attacks or threatens him, — who withholds what belongs to him, — in a word, who does him an injury, — lays him under the necessity of defending himself, or of doing himself justice, by force of arms; he authorizes him in all the acts of hostility necessary for obtaining complete satisfaction. Whoever therefore takes up arms without a lawful cause, can absolutely have no right whatever: every act of hostility that he commits is an act of injustice. back

§ 184. Great guilt of the sovereign who undertakes it.
He is chargeable with all the evils, all the horrors of the war: all the effusion of blood, the desolation of families, the rapine, the acts of violence, the ravages, the conflagrations, are his works and his crimes. He is guilty of a crime against the enemy, whom he attacks, oppresses, and massacres without cause: he is guilty of a crime against his people, whom he forces into acts of injustice, and exposes to danger, without reason or necessity, — against those of his subjects who are ruined or distressed by the war, — who lose their lives, their property, or their health, in consequence of it: finally, he is guilty of a crime against mankind in general, whose peace he disturbs, and to whom he sets a pernicious example. Shocking catalogue of miseries and crimes! dreadful account to be given to the King of kings, to the common Father of men! May this slight sketch strike the eyes of the rulers of nations, — of princes and their ministers! Why may not we expect some benefit from it? Are we to suppose that the great are wholly lost to all sentiments of honour, of humanity, of duty, and of religion? And, should our weak voice, throughout the whole succession of ages, prevent even one single war, how gloriously would our studies and our labour be rewarded! back

§ 185. His obligations.
He who does an injury is bound to repair the damage, or to make adequate satisfaction if the evil be irreparable, and even to submit to punishment, if the punishment be necessary, either as an example, or for the safety of the party offended, and for that of human society. In this predicament stands a prince who is the author of an unjust war. He is under an obligation to restore whatever he has taken, — to send back the prisoners at his own expense, — to make compensation to the enemy for the calamities and losses he has brought on him, — to reinstate ruined families, — to repair, if it were possible, the loss of a father, a son, a husband. back

§ 186. Difficulty of repairing the injury he has done.
But how can he repair so many evils? Many are in their own nature irreparable. And as to those which maybe compensated by an equivalent, where shall the unjust warrior find means to furnish an indemnification for all his acts of violence? The prince's private property will not be sufficient to answer the demands. Shall he give away that of his subjects? — It does not belong to him. Shall he sacrifice the national lands, a part of the state? — But the state is not his patrimony (Book I. § 93): he cannot dispose of it at will. And, although the nation be, to a certain degree, responsible for the acts of her ruler, — yet (exclusive of the injustice of punishing her directly for faults of which she is not guilty), if she is responsible for her sovereign's acts, that responsibility only regards other nations, who look to her for redress (Book I. § 40, Book II. §§ 81, 82): but the sovereign cannot throw upon her the punishment due to his unjust deeds, nor despoil her in order to make reparation for them. And, were it even in his power, would this wash away his guilt and leave him a clear conscience? Though acquitted in the eyes of the enemy, would he be so in the eyes of his people? It is a strange kind of justice which prompts a man to make reparation for his own misdeeds at the expense of a third person: this is no more than changing the object of his injustice. Weigh all these things, ye rulers of nations! and, when clearly convinced that an unjust war draws you into a multitude of iniquities which all your power cannot repair, perhaps you will be less hasty to engage in it. back

§ 187. Whether the nation and the military are bound to any thing.
The restitution of conquests, of prisoners, and of all property that still exists in a recoverable state, admits of no doubt when the injustice of the war is acknowledged. The nation in her aggregate capacity, and each individual particularly concerned, being convinced of the injustice of their possession, are bound to relinquish it, and to restore every thing which they have wrongfully acquired. But, as to the reparation of any damage, are the military, the generals, officers and soldiers, obliged in conscience to repair the injuries which they have done, not of their own will, but as instruments in the hands of their sovereign? I am surprised that the judicious Grotius should, without distinction, hold the affirmative.1 It is a decision which cannot be supported, except in the case of a war so palpably and indisputably unjust, as not to admit a presumption of any secret reason of state that is capable of justifying it, — a case in politics which is nearly impossible. On all occasions susceptible of doubt, the whole nation, the individuals, and especially the military, are to submit their judgment to those who hold the reins of government, — to the sovereign: this they are bound to do by the essential principles of political society, and of government.

What would be the consequence, if, at every step of the sovereign, the subjects were at liberty to weigh the justice of his reasons, and refuse to march to a war which might to them appear unjust? It often happens that prudence will not permit a sovereign to disclose all his reasons. It is the duty of subjects to suppose them just and wise, until clear and absolute evidence tells them the contrary. When, therefore, under the impression of such an idea, they have lent their assistance in a war which is afterwards found to be unjust, the sovereign alone is guilty: he alone is bound to repair the injuries. The subjects, and in particular the military, are innocent: they have acted only from a necessary obedience. They are bound, however, to deliver up what they have acquired in such a war, because they have no lawful title to possess it. This I believe to be the almost unanimous opinion of all honest men, and of those officers who are most distinguished for honour and probity. Their case, in the present instance, is the same as that of all those who are the executors of the sovereign's orders. Government would be impracticable if every one of its instruments was to weigh its commands, and thoroughly canvass their justice before he obeyed them. But, if they are bound by a regard for the welfare of the state to suppose the sovereign's orders just, they are not responsible for them.

1. De Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. iii. cap. x. back

§ 195. Rules of the voluntary law of nations.
But nations cannot, in their dealings with each other, insist on this rigid justice. By the rules of the voluntary law of nations, every regular war is on both sides accounted just, as to its effects (§ 190); and no one has a right to judge a nation respecting the unreasonableness of her claims, or what she thinks necessary for her own safety (Prelim. § 23). Every acquisition, therefore, which has been made in regular warfare, is valid according to the voluntary law of nations, independently of the justice of the cause and the reasons which may have induced the conqueror to assume the property of what he has taken. Accordingly, nations have ever esteemed conquest a lawful title; and that title has seldom been disputed, unless where it was derived from a war not only unjust in itself, but even destitute of any plausible pretext.

§ 204. Definition of the right of postliminium(173)
THE right of postliminium is that in virtue of which persons and things taken by the enemy are restored to their former state, on coming again into the power of the nation to which they belonged.(174)

§ 206. How it takes effect.
Persons return, and things are recovered, by the right of postliminium, when, after having been taken by the enemy, they come again into the power of their own nation (§ 204). This right, therefore, takes effect as soon as such persons or things captured by the enemy fall into the hands of soldiers belonging to their own nation, or are brought back to the army, the camp, the territories of their sovereign, or the places under his command.

§ 212. Whether this right extends to their property alienated by the enemy.
When a town, reduced by the enemy's arms, is retaken by those of her own sovereign, she is, as we have above seen, restored to her former condition, and reinstated in the possession of all her rights. It is asked whether she thus recovers such part of her property as had been alienated by the enemy while he kept her in subjection. In the first place, we are to make a distinction between movable property not recoverable by the right of postliminium (§ 202), and immovables. The former belongs to the enemy who gets it into his hands, and he may irrecoverably alienate it. As to immovables, let it be remembered that the acquisition of a town taken in war is not fully consummated till confirmed by a treaty of peace, or by the entire submission or destruction of the state to which it belonged (§ 197). Till then, the sovereign of that town has hopes of retaking it, or of recovering it by a peace. And from the moment it returns into his power, he restores it to all its rights (§ 205), and consequently it recovers all its possessions, as far as in their nature they are recoverable. It therefore resumes its immovable possessions from the hands of those persons who have been so prematurely forward to purchase them. In buying them of one who had not an absolute right to dispose of them, the purchasers made a hazardous bargain; and if they prove losers by the transaction, it is a consequence to which they deliberately exposed themselves. But if that town had been ceded to the enemy by a treaty of peace, or was completely fallen into his power by the submission of the whole state, she has no longer any claim to the right of postliminium; and the alienation of any of her possessions by the conqueror is valid and irreversible; nor can she lay claim to them, or, in me sequel, some fortunate revolution should liberate her from the yoke of the conqueror. When Alexander made a present to the Thessalians of the sum due from them to the Thebans (see § 77), he was so absolutely master of the republic of Thebes, that he destroyed the city and sold the inhabitants.

The same decisions hold good with regard to the immovable property of individuals, prisoners or not, which has been alienated by the enemy while he was master of the country. Grotius proposes the question with respect to immovable property possessed in a neutral country by a prisoner of war.2 But, according to the principles we have laid down, this question is groundless: for, the sovereign who makes a prisoner in war, has no other right over him than that of detaining his person until the conclusion of the war, or until he be ransomed (§§ 148, &c.); but he acquires no right to the prisoner's property, unless he can seize on it. It is impossible to produce any natural reason why the captor should have a right to dispose of his prisoner's property, unless the prisoner has it about him. back

§ 217. Why always in force for prisoners. Nevertheless, and for this very reason, there is an exception to be made here in favour of prisoners of war. Their sovereign is bound to release them at the peace (§ 154). But, if he cannot accomplish this, — if the fate of war compels him to accept of hard and unjust conditions, — the enemy, who ought to set the prisoners at liberty when the war is terminated, and he has no longer any thing to fear from them (§§ 150, 153), continues the state of war with respect to them, if he still detains them in captivity, and especially if he reduces them to slavery (§ 152). They have therefore a right to effect their escape from him, if they have an opportunity, and to return to their own country, equally as in war time; since, with regard to them, the war still continues. And in that case, the sovereign, from his obligation to protect them, is bound to restore them to their former condition (§ 205). back

§ 219. How the rights and obligations of prisoners subsist. It is sufficiently evident from the premises, that prisoners are to be considered as citizens who may one day return to their country: and, when they do return, it is the duty of the sovereign to re-establish them in their former condition. Hence it clearly follows, that the rights of every one of those prisoners, together with his obligations (or the rights of others over him), still subsist undiminished, — only the exertion of them is, for the most part, suspended during the time of his captivity. back

§ 225. Source of the necessity of such an order.
But, though an order from the sovereign be necessary to authorize the subjects to make war, that necessity wholly results from the laws essential to every political society, and not from any obligation relative to the enemy. For, when one nation takes up arms against another, she from that moment declares herself an enemy to all the individuals of the latter, and authorizes them to treat her as such. What right could she have in that case to complain of any acts of hostility committed against her by private persons without orders from their superiors? The rule, therefore, of which we here speak, relates rather to public law in general, than to the law of nations properly so called, or to the principles of the reciprocal obligations of nations.

§ 227. Precise meaning of the order.
In declarations of war, however, the ancient form is still retained, by which the subjects in general are ordered, not only to break off all intercourse with the enemy, (179) but also to attack him. Custom interprets this general order. It authorizes, indeed, and even obliges every subject, of whatever rank, to secure the persons and things belonging to the enemy, when they fall into his hands; but it does not invite the subjects to undertake any offensive expedition without a commission or particular order. back

§ 230. Volunteers. The noble view of gaining instruction in the art of war, and thus acquiring a greater degree of ability to render useful services to their country, has introduced the custom of serving as volunteers even in foreign armies; and the practice is undoubtedly justified by the sublimity of the motive. At present, volunteers, when taken by the enemy, are treated as if they belonged to the army in which they fight. Nothing can be more reasonable: they in fact join that army, and unite with it in supporting the same cause; and it makes little difference in the case, whether they do this in compliance with any obligation, or at the spontaneous impulse of their own free choice. back

§ 266. From what authority they emanate.
All safe-conducts, like every other act of supreme command, emanate from the sovereign authority: but the prince may delegate to his officers the power of granting safe-conducts; and they are invested with that power either by an express commission, or by a natural consequence of the nature of their functions. A general of an army, from the very nature of his post, can grant safe-conducts: and, as they are derived, through mediately, from the sovereign authority, the other generals or officers of the same prince are bound to respect them.

CHAP. XVIII.
OF CIVIL WAR.

§ 287 Foundation of the sovereign's rights against the rebels. IT is a question very much debated, whether a sovereign is bound to observe the common laws of war towards rebellious subjects who have openly taken up arms against him? A flatterer, or a prince of a cruel and arbitrary disposition, will immediately pronounce that the laws of war were not made for rebels, for whom no punishment can be loo severe. Let us proceed more soberly, and reason from the incontestable principles above laid down. In order clearly to discover what conduct the sovereign ought to pursue towards revolted subjects, we must, in the first place, recollect that all the sovereign's rights are derived from those of the state or of civil society, from the trust reposed in him, from the obligation he lies under of watching over the welfare of the nation, of procuring her greatest happiness, of maintaining order, justice, and peace within her boundaries (Book I. Chap. IV). Secondly, we must distinguish the nature and degree of the different disorders which may disturb the state, and oblige the sovereign to take up arms, or substitute forcible measures instead of the milder influence of authority. back

§ 288. Who are rebels. The name of rebels is given to all subjects who unjustly take up arms against the ruler of the society, whether their view be to deprive him of the supreme authority, or to resist his commands in some particular instance, and to impose conditions on him.

§ 289. Popular commotion, insurrection. sedition. A popular commotion is a concourse of people who assemble in a tumultuous manner, and refuse to listen to the voice of their superiors, whether the design of the assembled multitude be levelled against the superiors themselves, or only against some private individuals. Violent commotions of this kind take place when the people think themselves aggrieved: and there is no order of men who so frequently give rise to them as the tax-gatherers. If the rage of the malcontents be particularly levelled at the magistrates, or others vested with the public authority, and they proceed to a formal disobedience or acts of open violence, this is called a sedition. When the evil spreads, — when it infects the majority of the inhabitants of a city or province, and gains such strength that even the sovereign himself is no longer obeyed, — it is more usual more particularly to distinguish such a disorder by the name of insurrection. back

§ 296. Conduct to be observed by foreign nations.
Foreign nations are not to interfere in the internal government of an independent state. (Book II. § 54, &c.) It belongs not to them to judge between the citizens whom discord has roused to arms, nor between the prince and his subjects: both parties are equally foreigners to them, and equally independent of their authority. They may, however, interpose their good offices for the restoration of peace; and this the law of nature prescribes to them. (Book II. Ch. I.) But, if their mediation proves fruitless, such of them as are not bound by any treaty, may, with the view of regulating their own conduct, take the merits of the cause into consideration, and assist the party which they shall judge to have right on its side, in case that party requests their assistance or accepts the offer of it: they are equally at liberty, I say, to do this, as to espouse the quarrel of one nation embarking in a war against another. As to the allies of the state thus distracted by civil war, they will find a rule for their conduct in the nature of their engagements, combined with the existing circumstances. Of this we have treated elsewhere. (See Book n. Chap. XII and particularly §§ 196 and 197.)

1. An instance of this occurs in the transactions which took place after the insurrection at Madrid, in 1766. At the requisition of the Cortes, the king revoked the concessions which he had been obliged to make to the insurgent populace, but he suffered the amnesty to remain in force.

2. The prince of Condι, commander of Louis XIII.'s forces against the reformed party, having hanged sixty-four officers whom he had made prisoners during the civil war, the Protestants resolved upon retaliation; and the duke de Rohan, who commanded them, caused an equal number of Catholic officers to he hanged. See Memoires de Rohan. The duke of Alva made it a practice to condemn to death every prisoner he took from the confederates in the Netherlands, They, on their part, retaliated, and at length compelled him to respect the law of nations and the rules of war in his conduct toward them. Grotius, Ann. lib. ii.

3. See the historians of the reign of Louis XIII. back

BOOK IV.
OF THE RESTORATION OF PEACE; AND OF EMBASSIES

CHAP. I.
OF PEACE, AND THE OBLIGATION TO CULTIVATE IT.

§ 5. Of the disturbers of the public peace.
But those disturbers of the public peace, — those scourges of the earth, who, fired by a lawless thirst of power, or impelled by the pride and ferocity of their disposition, snatch up arms without justice or reason, and sport with the quiet of mankind and the blood of their subjects, — those monstrous heroes, though almost deified by the foolish admiration of the vulgar, are in effect the most cruel enemies of the human race, and ought to be treated as such. Experience shows what a train of calamities war entails even upon nations that are not immediately engaged in it. War disturbs commerce, destroys the subsistence of mankind, raises the price of all the most necessary articles, spreads just alarms, and obliges all nations to be upon their guard, and to keep up an armed force. He, therefore, who without just cause breaks the general peace, unavoidably does an injury even to those nations which are not the objects of his arms; and by his pernicious example he essentially attacks the happiness and safety of every nation upon earth. He gives them a right to join in a general confederacy for the purpose of repressing and chastising him, and depriving him of a power which he so enormously abuses. What evils does he not bring on his own nation, lavishing her blood to gratify his inordinate passions, and exposing her to the resentment of a host of enemies! A famous minister of the last century has justly merited the indignation of his country, by involving her in unjust or unnecessary wars. If by his abilities and indefatigable application, he procured her distinguished successes in the field of battle, he drew on her, at least for a time, the execration of all Europe. back

§ 6. How far war may be continued.
The love of peace should equally prevent us from embarking in a war without necessity, and from persevering in it after the necessity has ceased to exist. When a sovereign has been compelled to take up arms for just and important reasons, he may carry on the operations of war till he has attained its lawful end, which is, to procure justice and safety. (Book III § 28.)

If the cause be dubious, the just end of war can only be to bring the enemy to an equitable compromise (Book III. § 38); and consequently the war must not be continued beyond that point. The moment our enemy proposes or consents to such compromise, it is our duty to desist from hostilities.

But if we have to do with a perfidious enemy, it would be imprudent to trust either his words or his oaths. In sucli case, justice allows and prudence requires that we should avail ourselves of a successful war, and follow up our advantages, till we have humbled a dangerous and excessive power, or compelled the enemy to give us sufficient security for the time to come.

Finally, if the enemy obstinately rejects equitable conditions, he himself forces us to continue our progress till we have obtained a complete and decisive victory, by which he is absolutely reduced and subjected. The use to be made of victory has been shown above. (Book III. Chap. VIII., IX., XIII.) back

§ 14. Whether peace can be made with an usurper
When an unjust conqueror, or any other usurper, has invaded the kingdom, he becomes possessed of all the powers of government when once the people have submitted to him, and, by a voluntary homage, acknowledged him as their sovereign. Other states, as having no right to intermeddle with the domestic concerns of that nation, or to interfere in her government, are bound to abide by her decision, and to look no farther than the circumstances of actual possession. They may, therefore, broach and conclude a treaty of peace with the usurper. They do not thereby infringe the right of the lawful sovereign: it is not their business to examine and judge of that right: they leave it as it is, and only look to the possession in all the affairs they have to transact with that kingdom, pursuant to their own rights and those of the nation whose sovereignty is contested. But this rule does not preclude them from espousing the quarrel of the dethroned monarch, and assisting him, if he appears to have justice on his side: they then declare themselves enemies of the nation which has acknowledged his rival, as, when two different states are at war, they are at liberty to assist either party whose pretensions appear to be best founded back

§ 38. How many ways a treaty of peace may be broken.
Equitable agreements, therefore, or at least such as are supportable, are alone entitled to the appellation of treaties of peace: these are the treaties which bind the public faith, and which are punctually to be observed, though in some respects harsh and burdensome. Since the nation consented to them, she must have considered them as in some measure advantageous under the then existing circumstances; and she is bound to respect her promise. Were men allowed to rescind at a subsequent period those agreements to which they were glad to subscribe on a former occasion, there would be an end to all stability in human affairs.

The breach of a treaty of peace consists in violating the engagements annexed to it, either by doing what it prohibits, or by not doing what it prescribes. Now, the engagements contracted by treaty maybe violated in three different ways, — either by a conduct that is repugnant to the nature and essence of every treaty of peace in general, — by proceedings which are incompatible with the particular nature and essence of every treaty of peace in general, — by proceedings which are incompatible with the particular nature of the treaty in question, — or, finally, by the violation of any article expressly contained in it. back

§ 39. By a conduct contrary to the nature of every treaty of peace.
First, a nation acts in a manner that is repugnant to the nature and essence of every treaty of peace, and to peace itself, when she disturbs it without cause, either by taking up arms and recommencing hostilities without so much as a plausible pretext, or by deliberately and wantonly offending the party with whom she has concluded a peace, and offering such treatment of him or his subjects as is incompatible with the state of peace, and such as he cannot submit to without being deficient in the duty which he owes to himself. It is likewise acting contrary to the nature of all treaties of peace to take up arms a second time for the same subject that had given rise to the war which has been brought to a conclusion, or through resentment of any transaction that had taken place during the continuance of hostilities. If she cannot allege at least some plausible pretext borrowed from a fresh cause, which may serve to palliate her conduct, she evidently revives the old war that was extinct, and breaks the treaty of peace. back

§ 43. Justifiable self-defence is no breach of the treaty.
Justifiable self-defence is no breach of the treaty of peace. It is a natural right which we cannot renounce: and, in promising to live in peace, we only promise not to attack without cause, and to abstain from injuries and violence. But there are two modes of defending our persons or our property; sometimes the violence offered to us will admit of no other remedy than the exertion of open force; and under such circumstances, we may lawfully have recourse to it. On other occasions, we may obtain redress for the damage and injury by gentler methods; and to these we ought of course to give the preference. Such is the rule of conduct which ought to be observed by two nations that are desirous of maintaining peace, whenever the subjects of either have happened to break out into any act of violence. Present force is checked and repelled by force. But, if there is question of obtaining reparation of the damage done, together with adequate satisfaction for the offence, we must apply to the sovereign of the delinquents: we must not pursue them into his dominions, or have recourse to arms, unless he has refused to do us justice. If we have reason to fear that the offenders will escape, — as, for instance, if a band of unknown persons from a neighbouring country have made an irruption into our territory, — we are authorized to pursue them with an armed force into their own country, until they be seized; and their sovereign cannot consider our conduct in any other light than that of just and lawful self-defence, provided we commit no hostilities against innocent persons. back

§ 46. 3. By the violation of any article.
Lastly, the peace is broken by the violation of any of the express articles of the treaty. This third way of breaking it is the most decisive, the least susceptible of quibble or evasion. Whoever fails in his engagements annuls the contract as far as depends on him: — this cannot admit of a doubt. back

§ 47. The violation of a single article breaks the whole treaty.
But it is asked whether the violation of a single article of the treaty can operate a total rupture of it? Some writers,2 here drawing a distinction between the articles that are connected together (connexi) and those that stand detached and separate (diversi), maintain, that, although the treaty be violated in the detached articles, the peace nevertheless still subsists with respect to the others, But, to me, the opinion of Grotius' appears evidently founded on the nature and spirit of treaties of peace. That great man says that all the articles of one and the same treaty are conditionally included in each other, as if each of the contracting parties had formally said, "I will do such or such thing, provided that, on your part, you do so and so;"3 and he justly adds, that, when it is designed that the engagement shall not be thereby rendered ineffectual, this express clause is inserted, — that, "though any one of the articles of the treaty may happen to be violated, the others shall subsist in full force." Such an agreement may unquestionably be made. It may likewise be agreed that the violation of one article shall only annul those corresponding to it, and which, as it were, constitute the equivalent to it. But, if this clause be not expressly inserted in the treaty of peace, the violation of a single article overthrows the whole treaty, as we have proved above, in speaking of treaties in general (Book II. § 202). back

§ 54. Right of the offended party against him who has violated the treaty.
When the treaty of peace is violated by one of the contracting parties, the other has the option of either declaring the treaty null and void, or allowing it still to subsist: for a contract which contains reciprocal engagements, cannot be binding on him with respect to the party who on his side pays no regard to the same contract. But, if he chooses not to come to a rupture, the treaty remains valid and obligatory. It would be absurd that he who had been guilty of the violation should pretend that the agreement was annulled by his own breach of faith: this would, indeed, be an easy way of shaking off engagements, and would reduce all treaties to empty formalities. If the injured party be willing to let the treaty subsist, he may either pardon the infringement, — insist on an indemnification or adequate satisfaction, — or discharge himself, on his part, from those engagements corresponding with the violated article, — those promises he had made in consideration of a thing which has not been performed. But, if he determines on demanding a just indemnification, and the party in fault refuses it, then the treaty is necessarily broken, and the injured party has a very just cause for taking up arms again. And indeed this is generally the case; for it seldom happens that the infractor will submit to make reparation, and thereby acknowledge himself in fault.

1. Lib. iii. cap. 20, § 28.

(191) And see, ante. Book III. c. 3, as to what are just causes of war. — C.

2. See Wolf. Jus Gent. §§ 1022, 1023.

3. Lib. iii. cap. xix. § 14. back

§ 57. Every sovereign
Every sovereign state then has a right to send and to receive public ministers; for they are necessary instruments in the management of those affairs which sovereigns have to transact with each other, and the channels of that correspondence which they have a right to carry on. In the first chapter of this work may be seen who are those sovereigns, and what those independent states, that are entitled to rank in the great society of nations. They are the powers to whom belongs the right of embassy. back


United States Constitution
Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution

back

U.S. Constitution: Article I
Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/

back

U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm back
LARSEN -V- HAWAIIAN KINGDOM, IN THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION http://www.alohaquest.com/arbitration/pdf/Counter-Memorial_Larsen.pdf

 


Countries visiting our site:

AL Albania
DZ Algeria
AS American Samoa
AG Antigua and Barbuda
AR Argentina
AM Armenia
AU Australia
AT Austria
AZ Azerbaijan
BS Bahamas
BH Bahrain
BD Bangladesh
BB Barbados
BY Belarus
BE Belgium
BZ Belize
BJ Benin
BM Bermuda
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina
BW Botswana
BR Brazil
BG Bulgaria
BF Burkina Faso
KH Cambodia
CM Cameroon
CA Canada
CV Cape Verde
CL Chile
CN China
CO Colombia
CG Congo (Brazzaville)
CR Costa Rica
CI Côte d'Ivoire
HR Croatia
CY Cyprus
CZ Czech Republic
DK Denmark
DJ Djibouti
DM Dominica
DO Dominican Republic
EC Ecuador
EG Egypt
EE Estonia
ET Ethiopia
EU European Union
FJ Fiji
FI Finland
FR France
PF French Polynesia
GE Georgia
DE Germany
GH Ghana
GR Greece
Guam
GT Guatemala
Guernsey
GY Guyana
Honduras
HK Hong Kong S.A.R. China
HU Hungary
IS Iceland
IN India
ID Indonesia
IQ Iraq
IR Iran
IE Ireland
IL Israel
IT Italy
CI Ivory Coast
JM Jamaica
JP Japan
JO Jordan
KZ Kazakhstan
KE Kenya
KW Kuwait
KZ Kyrgyzstan
LV Latvia
LB Lebanon
LR Liberia
LY Libya
LT Lithuania
MO Macao S.A.R., China
MK Macedonia
MW Malawi
MY Malaysia
Maldives
ML Mali
MR Mauritania
MX Mexico
FM Micronesia
MD Moldova
MN Mongolia
ME Montenegro
MA Morocco
Myanmar
NA Namibia
NL Netherlands
NZ New Zealand
NG Nigeria
Northern Mariana Islands
NO Norway
OM Oman
PK Pakistan
PS Palestinian Territory
PA Panama
PY Paraguay
PE Peru
PH Philippines
PL Poland
PT Portugal
PR Puerto Rico
QA Qatar
RO Romania
RU Russia
KN Saint Kitts and Nevis
SA Saudi Arabia
SN Senegal
RS Serbia
SG Singapore
SK Slovakia
SI Slovenia
SO Somalia
ZA South Africa
KR South Korea
ES Spain
LK Sri Lanka
SD Sudan
SZ Swaziland
SE Sweden
CH  Switzerland
TW Taiwan
TZ Tanzania
TH Thailand
TO Tonga
TT Trinidad and Tobago
TN Tunisia
TR Turkey
UG Uganda
UA Ukraine
AE United Arab Emirates
GB United Kingdom
US United States
UY Uruguay
VU Vanuatu
VE Venezuela
VN Vietnam
YE Yemen
ZM Zambia

 


Feedjit Live Stats
Hawaii the fake State

About the Book

The book comes from an evaluation of findings after more than twenty eight years of political review and lawful study; investigation and determining facts of law; and, of actual events and of unlawful actions by the Federal United States Government; its deceptive and fraudulent claim over a foreign, sovereign and "neutral" nation; actual evidence of misleading legal documents of false claim for a Statehood in the American Union of States that does not lawfully exist and that can never exist. It is a revelation of past historical events with supporting documentation revealing to a new generation of Americans and Hawaiian Citizens on how they have lost their birth names and birthrights, as well as their Citizenship as "Private Citizens" within their respective nations. How they have been deviously removed from their birth State's Constitutions and "State's common-law" and their National Constitutions (of the American Republic of States and of the Hawaiian Kingdom) to a lesser Washington D. C. "Federal Emancipated Slave citizenship" (14th Amendment) under Article 1 Section 8 of that very same Constitution of the American Republic and its Union of States.

 

 

Home | Top

 

 

Ku`e against Akaka Bill in Kailua
Posted: January 1, 2010 at: share.shutterfly.com/

Ku`e against Akaka Bill in Kailua Ku`e against Akaka Bill in Kailua 2 Ku`e against Akaka Bill in Kailua 3 Ku`e against Akaka Bill in Kailua 4 Ku`e against Akaka Bill in Kailua 5 Ku`e against Akaka Bill in Kailua 6 Ku`e against Akaka Bill in Kailua 7