HENRY CLAYTON, Presiding Judge
First Federal District Court
'Nato Indian Nation
P.O. Box 141
Manti, Utah 84642
Office: (435) 835-8168
    Fax: (435) 835-8668
First Federal District Court  
12   ) 
13   ) 
14   ) 
15   ) Case No. H10407010SCKH
16  ____________________________________  Presiding Judge Henry Clayton
 The Court having received acknowledgment and written request of King Akahi Nui in
 and for the Kingdom of Hawai'i Nation by way of the Rule nisi, IN RE in EX PARTE
 APPEARANCE, this Court acting in and for King Akahi Nui as the Kingdom of Hawai'i Nation
 has legal and proper authority and jurisdiction under color of Historical Indigenous customary
 law, the Kingdom of Hawai'i Constitution, International law, and United States law to bring this
 cause of action solely pertaining to the matters herein presented to this Court and the officers
 thereof. Petitioner did appear in court and by way of invitation to various State and U.S.



FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


 Governmental agencies was unopposed for this ex-parte hearing at the appointed time and
 King Akahi Nui on behalf on the Kingdom of Hawai'i have petitioned this Court to
 determine the validity and authenticity of King Akahi Nui and the Kingdom of Hawai'i Nation. By
 invitation the State and U.S. Governmental officials were properly notified to participate in the ex
 parte hearing and to provide testimony and/or evidence on their behalf and chose not to be
 THE COURT HEREBY DECLARES, that the legal and Historical customary rights issues
 surrounding the Kingdom of Hawai'i on one hand are unique yet on the other hand entail
10  common issues that are found facing all indigenous communities and governments throughout
11  the entire planet. Some of these common issues involve the areas of Self-Government, The
12  Right to Adopt and Use Their Own Form of Government, Taxes, Regulate Property, Administer
13  Justice, Prohibition of Alienation, Permanency of Existence, Unity of Territory, Jurisdiction,
14  Constructs of Law and the ability to enforce Jurisdiction and Law.
15  THUSLY, for more than 500 years the main issue surrounding various International
16  Governments search for supremacy has been and still is the control, use and benefit of those
17  elements and constituents that encompass the basis for all human infrastructure in the form of
18  "The Right to Occupy the Land"
19  "The Right to Occupy the Land" and who has the superior right in the land became the
20  main issues surrounding the forced occupation of the Americas during the early part of the 16th
21  century. As these issues arose from the legal question of the "Right of Discovery". the King of
22  Spain conferred with his own legal counsel Sr. Francisco Vitoria pertain to this question.
23  Over the period of several years legal arguments were presented on both sides of the issues.
24  In the end the "Right of Discovey" was abandoned as an unlawful and invalid construct of law.
25  The only acceptable alternative involved the mutual cooperation and consent of the original
  inhabitants (Indigenous peoples) who held the original (Ancestral) title to the land. Therefore, if


FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


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
GT Guatemala
GY Guyana
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
ML Mali
MR Mauritania
MX Mexico
FM Micronesia
MD Moldova
MN Mongolia
ME Montenegro
MA Morocco
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


 the original inhabitants were to give up their original (Ancestral) title to the land through legal
 notification then provided with some kind of just monetary compensation, then all is well in Zion.
 Hence and therefore, the seeds of International law and supremacy were planted.
 AND FURTHER, that within the "The Right to Occupy the Land" the ultimate identity of
 indigenous peoples wherein their Jurisdiction, historical customary rights (Legal constructs).
 Judicial powers, obligations, duties, responsibilities, etc. not only to each others communities
 and individual governments but also to other entities, communities, governments and non-
 governmental agencies, coexist.
 The most puzzling aspect of this coexistence is the lack of a serious and humane
10  definition of the infrastructure of "Inherent Indigenous Sovereignty", particularly as it pertains to
11  the Indigenous people. Therefore, the infrastructure of "Inherent Indigenous Sovereignty". as it
12  pertains to Indigenous peoples, has yet to be defined or quantified within the realm of self-
13  determination or within the constructs of law, from the non-indigenous point of view.;
14  THEREFORE, the most competent forum to define, quantify and construct the
15  infrastructure of "Inherent Indigenous Sovereignty" is within the confines and jurisdiction of the
16  Indigenous community themselves. HENCE, "The Right to Occupy the Land" and the
17  identification of the aspects of the infrastructure of "Inherent Indigenous Sovereignty" lies within
18  our own jurisdiction and responsibility as the only and superior competent beneficiary of these
19  definitions and constructs.
22  NOW, relating to the infrastructure dealing with the issue of Jurisdiction of this Court.
23  This Court finds the Kingdom of Hawai'i and 'Nato Indian Nation have established government-
24  to-government relations and the acts of Comity and Reciprocity apply. The Kingdom of Hawai'i
25  established the "Treaty of Alliance of 1812", wherein the United States submitted themselves to
  the Constitutional government of the Kingdom and its judicial system. The Kingdom of Hawai'i


FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Links to videos are made available to you as a resource for your own research and evaluation
not as an endorsement.



 government by recognition did file a request to 'Nato Indian Nation's Court, on behalf of the
 Kingdom of Hawai'i, to hear an ex-parte Petition filed by King Ahahi Nui in and the Kingdom
 of Hawai'i
 AND FURTHER, that "Tribal courts are primary and exclusive forum for disputes
 regarding tribal government issues and for interpretation of tribal laws." (Lower Brule Const. V.
 Sheesley's Plumbing & Heating Co. Inc., 84 B.R. 628; In re Marriage Limpy, 636 P.2d 266;
 Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, Mont., 107 S.Ct. 971). Tribal court can also be the forum for
 civil disputes between Indians and non-Indians. "Tribal courts can be the primary forum for
 private civil disputes (Lowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante Mont., 107 S.Ct. 971) even between
10  Indians and non-Indians (Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 98 S.Ct. 1670)." This also includes
11  exhaustive remedy, "Tribal court remedies must be exhausted before issue may be considered
12  by Federal Court (Lowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante Mont., 107 S.Ct. 971; Pittsburg & Midway Coal
13  Mining Co. v. Watchman, 52 F3d 1531)."
14  SPECIFICALLY, in a case adjudicated on behalf of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes of
15  Skull Valley, Utah this Court administered the court proceeding of ex-parte in relation to the
16  issue of the Goshute's tribal council. In a briefing paper to the Assistant Secretary - Indian
17  Affairs thru the Deputy Commissioner of Indian Affairs from the Acting Director, Office of Tribal
18  Services over the issue: "Whether the actions of the non-IRA tribal Beneral Council of the Skull
19  Valley Band to remove its elected leadership on September 22, 2001, and elect new leadership
20  should be recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as well as other federal agencies, and
21  banks."
22  On page two of the briefing paper the Acting Director, Office of Tribal Services
23  recommended: "OTS recommends that the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs take action to
24  immediately acknowledge the change of leadership of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes, and
25  recongnizes the Hon. Marlinda Moon, Chairperson; Hon. Sammy Blackbear Sr., Vice-Chair, and
  Hon. Miranda Wash, Secretary."


FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9




 Our court ruling and the following substantiated this decision: "In situations of federal-
 tribal government interaction where the federal government must decide what tribal entity to
 recognize as the government, it must do so in harmony with the priciples of tribal self-
 determination. See Wheeler, 811 F. 2d 552. In this instance; there is neither statutory nor
 tribal authority, (e.g., In terms of a constitutional provision or council enactment granting BIA
 authority) to warrant any BIA intrusion into the internal affairs of the Tribe. The Tribe's general
 council establishes its own rules."
 THEREFORE, the two issues presented for adjudication and opinion within the Kingdom
 of Hawai'i Petition and presented in open court are as follows: The Kingdom of Hawai'i as the
10  only legally authorized government of the indigenous and adopted population throughout the
11  Hawaiian Archipelago and Surrounding waters. Secondly, the Kingdom of Hawai'i as the only
12  legally authorized possessor of the Ancestral Title to all lands, territory and chattels including all
13  natural resources associated with said Ancestral Title.
14  THE COURT HEREBY FINDS, in the first place the United States recognized the Queen
15  Regent and Kauikeaouli, King of the "Sandwich Islands" as the Historical Inherent Indigenous
16  Sovereign over their subjects and people and declared them to be perpetual as contained within
17  The Commerce Treaty of 1826, The Alliance Treaty of 1849, The Treaty of Reciprocity of 1875,
18  The Supplementary Treaty of 1884 and The 103rd Congress Joint Resolution 19 of 1993 a.k.a.
19  Public Law 103-150 (Apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the illegal
20  overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i).
21  ALSO, within Public Law 103-150 the United States Congress acknowledged the
22  conspiracy of a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, inclulding
23  citizens of the United States, the United States Minister assigned to the Sovereign and
24  Independent Kingdom of Hawai'i. As a result of this conspiracy the United States Minister and
25  the naval representatives of the United States caused armed naval forces of the United States
  to invade the Sovereign Indigenous Kingdom of Hawai'i on January 16, 1893.


FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Public Law 103-150


Treaties between the Hawai'i Kingdom and United States
Nation Flags Treaties Hawai'i


 AND FURTHER, on the afternoon of January 17, 1892, a Committee of Safety that
 represented the American and European sugar planters, descendants of missionaries, and
 financiers deposed the Hawaiian monarchy and proclaimed the establishment of a Provisional
 Government; the United States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition to the
 Provisional Government that was formed by the conspirators without the consent of the
 Kingdom of Hawai'i in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law;
 soon thereafter, when informed of the risk of bloodshed with resistance, Queen Liliuokalani
 issued the following statement yielding her authority to the United States Government rather
 than to the Provisional Government:
10  "I Liliuokalani, by the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian
11  Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and
12  the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have
13  established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom.
14  That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister
15  Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed
16  in Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government.
17  Now to avoid and collision of armed forces of the United States, and perhaps the loss of
18  life, I do this under protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the
19  Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its
20  representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign
21  of the Hawaiian Islands".
22  Done at Honolulu this 17th day of January, A.D. 1893.
23  This illegal possession of the Inherent Indigenous Sovereign Kingdom of Hawai'i
24  continued until on August 21, 1959, Hawai'i illegally became the 50th State of the United States,
25  and continued until today as an illegal possession of the United States.


FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


 ALSO, within Public Law 103-150 Section 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND APOLOGY,
 part (3) the Congress apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United
 States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i on January 17, 1893 with the participation of
 agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians
 to self-determination; part (5) The Congress urges the President of the United States to also
 acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i and to support
 reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.
 IN THE SECOND PLACE, Petitioner filed with this court on 19 Janauary 2004 a
 Declaration of Facts (Several volumes of documents on file with the court) wherein King Akahi
10  Nui established his Ancestry and Line of Authority by birth (See Exhibit "A" and "B" within
11  Declaration on file). King Akahi Nui establishes his "Divine Right" as King of the indigenous
12  people and Kingdom of Hawai'i a.k.a. the "Sandwich Islands", as a direct descendant of Queen
13  Liliuokalani. King Akahi Nui has presented his claim in various venues i.e. State courts of
14  Hawai'i, U.S. Federal Courts and International courts and to this date his claim as King has not
15  been legally challenged nor recended.
16  THUS, the doctrines of "Four Corners", preponderance of evidence, acquiescence and
17  the "Divine Right of Kings" are sufficient to establish King Akahi Nui's claim in perpetuity since
18  the acquiescence of Queen Liliuokalani.
19  WHEREIN, the most important being the "Divine Right of Kings", and is defined as: "The
20  right of a King to rule as posited by the partiarchal theory of government, especially under the
21  doctrine that no misconduct and no dispossession can forfeit the right of a monarch or his heirs
22  to the throne, and to the obedience of the people. This theory was in its origin directed, not
23  against popular liberty, but against papal and ecclesiastical claims to supremacy in temporal as
24  well as spiritual affairs". (pg. 479 Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition, "Divine right of kings")
25  THEREFORE, no dispossession, especially by illegal means, by anyone, can cause the
  forfeiture of the rights belonging to the monarch by way of ancestral lineage. This legal


FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


 construct places the throne and stewardship of King directly upon the shoulder of King Akahi
 Nui as the only legally authorized and proper representative of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. This
 also places the responsibility of the direction of the Congress of the United States to the
 President of the United States to reconcile the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i.
 (Public Law 103-150)
 AND FURTHER, pertaining to the construct of perpetuity as it is defined as follows:
 "Continuing forever. Legally, pertaining to real property, any condition extending the
 inalienability or property beyond the time of a life or lives in being plus 21 years. A perpetuity is
 a limitation which takes the subject-matter of the perpetuity out of commerce for a period greater
10  than a life or lives in being and 21 years thereafter, plus ordinary period of gestation." And more
11  specifically in relation to the "Perpetuity of the King", the legal construct as follows: "That fiction
12  of the English Law which for certain political purposes ascribes to the king in his political
13  capacity the attribute of immortality; for, though the reigning monarch may die, yet by this fiction
14  the king never dies, i.e. the office is supposed to be reoccupied for all political purposes
15  immediately on his death. (pg. 1141 Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition, "Perpetuity" and
16  "Perpetuity of the King")
17  IN CONCLUSION, King Akahi Nui has the authority and jurisdiction to establish a court
18  to hear complaints pertaining to the Kingdom of Hawai'i including but not limited to issues
19  involving the Kingdom and its citizens. The First Federal District Court of Nato Indian Nation by
20  way of Invitation of King Akahi Nui, Custom/Tradition, Federal Indian Law, Internation Law and
21  Precedents sub silento has jurisdiction to hear this case and apply its order, dicision and legal
22  opinion. This court can also apply its orders, opinions and decisions under the Renvoi Doctrine
23  and within the construct of the Rule nisi.
24  FURTHER CONCLUDED, that King Akahi Nui is the literal and natural descendant of
25  Quenn Liliuokalani, the last active living monarch of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. King Akahi Nui in
  establishing his Ancestry and havinng exercised his lineal rights as King over a period of years


FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Precedents sub silento:
Under silence. Without notice being taken. If a case is decided against precedent, the newer case is said to have over-ruled the previous decision sub silentio.


Renvoi Doctrine:
The process by which a court adopts the rules of a foreign jurisdiction with respect to any conflict of laws that arises.
In some instances, the rules of the foreign state might refer the court back to the law of the forum where the case is being heard.


rule nisi:
(law) A procedure which calls upon a party to show cause as to why a proposed rule should be applied by the court.


 and being legally unopposed in his assertion and exercise of his Independent Inherent
 Indigenous Sovereign Rights has established himself and his nation to the world.
 ALSO, under the legal constructs of Federal Indian Law pertaining to Indigenous
 peoples, the constructs of Protection against De Facto Termination, Protection against
 Encroachment Due to Nonuser, Protection against Modern Statutes, unity of Recognition, The
 Right to Change, The Permanency of Existence and Unity of Territory would still apply and the
 United States by Treaty would be bound under their own law to adhere to the actions of King
 Akahi Nui and this court.
 AND FURTHER, that Petitioner as the Kingdom of Hawai'i has continued from time
10  immemorial as an Independent Inherent Indigenous Sovereign Government in and unbroken
11  chain of existence and authority and has never relinquished its Independent Inherent
12  Indigenous Sovereign status as submitted by the "Divine Right of Kings" in perpetuity.
13  AND, the United States by Congressional admission (Public Law 103-150) that
14  representatives of the United States and some of its citizens conspired and did overthrow, with
15  force, the Kingdom of Hawai'i government. Also over a period dating from 1893 to 1950 did
16  continue to illegally suppress the legal and proper government of the Kingdom of Hawai'i, even
17  to the point of illegally instituting the Kingdom of Hawai'i as the 50th state of the United States.
18  Also, during this period the illegal Republic of Hawaii did illegally transfer rights, title and interest
19  of 1,800,000 acres of land including all mineral interests to the United States.
20  ALSO, the illegal State of Hawaii and the United States are constrained by their own
21  Congress, the United Nations and International Law to recongnize the Kingdom of Hawai'i and to
22  make reparations and reconciliation.


FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


 THE COURT ORDERS, that King Akahi Nui and the Kingdom of Hawai'i post notice of
 the Court along with the original Petition to the illegal State of Hawaii, the United Nations and
 the United States; and further,
 IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT, that King Akahi Nui is the legal, proper and
 authorized monarch of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. Also that the Kingdom of Hawai'i under the
 "Divine Right of Kings" in perpetuity, has never voluntarily abdicated nor relinquished its
 Independent Inherent Indigenous Sovereign status; and further,
 IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT, that all right, title, interest and mineral interest
10  were taken illegally and must be restored to the Kingdom of Hawai'i through King Akahi Nui
11  through the process of reconciliation; and further,
12  IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT, that in accordance with the edict of the
13  Congress of the United States within Public Law 103-150 it is the responsibility of the President
14  of the United States to reconcile with the legal, proper and authorized monarch of the Kingdom
15  of Hawai'i; and further.
16  IT IS THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, that King Akahi Nui and the Kingdom of Hawai'i
17  should immediately commence diplomatic relations with, including but not limited to, the United
18  States; and further,
19  THIS COURT ORDERS, that these Declarations, Findings, Orders, Decisions, Opinions
20  and Clarifications cannot be duplicated or transmitted in any form without the express written
21  consent of this Court; and further,
22  THIS COURT ORDERS, that without affecting the finality of the order, this Court
23  expressly reserves the right to make orders, decisions and opinions necessary to clarify and
24  enforce these orders; and futher,
25  THIS COURT ORDERS, that all relief requested in this cause of action and not
  expressly granted is reserved to the Court, subject only to the determination and approval of the


FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


 Court as it deems appropriate in all fairness and equity and to be in the best interest of King
 Akahi Nui and the Kingdom of Hawai'i in the execution of their duties and obligations to their
 Dated this 15th day of July, 2004






Home | Top

Kingdom of Hawaii ruleLine Please leave your comments relative to the content within the page. Also, don't leave your Email address or phone number, use our contact form to leave any personal info in a private Email to us. Mahalo

All Hawaiian Land Deeds

Kauai | Oahu | Maui | Hawaii | Palace

Kauai includes Niihau
Maui includes Molokai, Lanai & Kahoolawe
Oahu includes Palmyra