1  2  3  4  5

HENRY CLAYTON, Presiding Judge MINISTRY OF JUSTICE First Federal District Court 'Nato Indian Nation P.O. Box 141 Manti, Utah 84642 Office: (435) 835-8168     Fax: (435) 835-8668

		IN THE FIRST FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
6
		WESTERN REGION
7
8

			)
9			)
			)
10			)	DECLARATION, FINDINGS, ORDERS,
		IN RE,	)	DECISIONS AND OPINIONS
11			)	OF THE COURT
			)
12			)
		THE KINGDOM OF HAWAI'I NATION	)
13			)
			)
14			)
		EX PARTE APPEARANCE	)
15			)	Case No. H10407010SCKH
			)
16		____________________________________		Presiding Judge Henry Clayton

17
		DECLARATION
18
		The Court having received acknowledgment and written request of King Akahi Nui in
19
		and for the Kingdom of Hawai'i Nation by way of the Rule nisi, IN RE in EX PARTE
20
		APPEARANCE, this Court acting in and for King Akahi Nui as the Kingdom of Hawai'i Nation
21
		has legal and proper authority and jurisdiction under color of Historical Indigenous customary
22
		law, the Kingdom of Hawai'i Constitution, International law, and United States law to bring this
23
		cause of action solely pertaining to the matters herein presented to this Court and the officers
24
		thereof. Petitioner did appear in court and by way of invitation to various State and U.S.
25
		1

 

Comments about this page below

1		Governmental agencies was unopposed for this ex-parte hearing at the appointed time and
2		place.
3		King Akahi Nui on behalf on the Kingdom of Hawai'i have petitioned this Court to
4		determine the validity and authenticity of King Akahi Nui and the Kingdom of Hawai'i Nation. By
5		invitation the State and U.S. Governmental officials were properly notified to participate in the ex
6		parte hearing and to provide testimony and/or evidence on their behalf and chose not to be
7		present.
8		THE COURT HEREBY DECLARES, that the legal and Historical customary rights issues
9		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
		2

DECLARATION 1 2
FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ORDERS, DECISIONS AND OPINIONS 10 11

Countries visiting our site:

Albania
Algeria
American Samoa
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bermuda
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo (Brazzaville)
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
Estonia
Ethiopia
European Union
Fiji
Finland
France
French Polynesia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guam
Guatemala
Guernsey
Guyana
Honduras
Hong Kong S.A.R. China
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Ivory Coast
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Macao S.A.R., China
Macedonia
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Myanmar
Namibia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nigeria
Northern Mariana Islands
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palestinian Territory
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Swaziland
Sweden
  Switzerland
Taiwan
Tanzania
Thailand
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Feedjit Live Stats

1		the original inhabitants were to give up their original (Ancestral) title to the land through legal
2		notification then provided with some kind of just monetary compensation, then all is well in Zion.
3		Hence and therefore, the seeds of International law and supremacy were planted.
4		AND FURTHER, that within the "The Right to Occupy the Land" the ultimate identity of
5		indigenous peoples wherein their Jurisdiction, historical customary rights (Legal constructs).
6		Judicial powers, obligations, duties, responsibilities, etc. not only to each others communities
7		and individual governments but also to other entities, communities, governments and non-
8		governmental agencies, coexist.
9		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.
20
21		FINDINGS OF FACT
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
		3

DECLARATION 1 2
FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ORDERS, DECISIONS AND OPINIONS 10 11

 

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

1		government by recognition did file a request to 'Nato Indian Nation's Court, on behalf of the
2		Kingdom of Hawai'i, to hear an ex-parte Petition filed by King Ahahi Nui in and the Kingdom
3		of Hawai'i
4		AND FURTHER, that "Tribal courts are primary and exclusive forum for disputes
5		regarding tribal government issues and for interpretation of tribal laws." (Lower Brule Const. V.
6		Sheesley's Plumbing & Heating Co. Inc., 84 B.R. 628; In re Marriage Limpy, 636 P.2d 266;
7		Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, Mont., 107 S.Ct. 971). Tribal court can also be the forum for
8		civil disputes between Indians and non-Indians. "Tribal courts can be the primary forum for
9		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."
		4

DECLARATION 1 2
FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ORDERS, DECISIONS AND OPINIONS 10 11

 

www.jstor.org/pss/20068680
openjurist.org/480/us/9/...
tribal-institute.org/LISTS/...

1		Our court ruling and the following substantiated this decision: "In situations of federal-
2		tribal government interaction where the federal government must decide what tribal entity to
3		recognize as the government, it must do so in harmony with the priciples of tribal self-
4		determination. See Wheeler, 811 F. 2d 552. In this instance; there is neither statutory nor
5		tribal authority, (e.g., In terms of a constitutional provision or council enactment granting BIA
6		authority) to warrant any BIA intrusion into the internal affairs of the Tribe. The Tribe's general
7		council establishes its own rules."
8		THEREFORE, the two issues presented for adjudication and opinion within the Kingdom
9		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.
		5

DECLARATION 1 2
FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ORDERS, DECISIONS AND OPINIONS 10 11

 

Public Law 103-150

 

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

1		AND FURTHER, on the afternoon of January 17, 1892, a Committee of Safety that
2		represented the American and European sugar planters, descendants of missionaries, and
3		financiers deposed the Hawaiian monarchy and proclaimed the establishment of a Provisional
4		Government; the United States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition to the
5		Provisional Government that was formed by the conspirators without the consent of the
6		Kingdom of Hawai'i in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law;
7		soon thereafter, when informed of the risk of bloodshed with resistance, Queen Liliuokalani
8		issued the following statement yielding her authority to the United States Government rather
9		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.
		6

DECLARATION 1 2
FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ORDERS, DECISIONS AND OPINIONS 10 11

1		ALSO, within Public Law 103-150 Section 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND APOLOGY,
2		part (3) the Congress apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United
3		States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i on January 17, 1893 with the participation of
4		agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians
5		to self-determination; part (5) The Congress urges the President of the United States to also
6		acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i and to support
7		reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.
8		IN THE SECOND PLACE, Petitioner filed with this court on 19 Janauary 2004 a
9		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
		7

DECLARATION 1 2
FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ORDERS, DECISIONS AND OPINIONS 10 11

1		construct places the throne and stewardship of King directly upon the shoulder of King Akahi
2		Nui as the only legally authorized and proper representative of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. This
3		also places the responsibility of the direction of the Congress of the United States to the
4		President of the United States to reconcile the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i.
5		(Public Law 103-150)
6		AND FURTHER, pertaining to the construct of perpetuity as it is defined as follows:
7		"Continuing forever. Legally, pertaining to real property, any condition extending the
8		inalienability or property beyond the time of a life or lives in being plus 21 years. A perpetuity is
9		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
		8

DECLARATION 1 2
FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ORDERS, DECISIONS AND OPINIONS 10 11

 

Precedents sub silento:
Latin
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.

1		and being legally unopposed in his assertion and exercise of his Independent Inherent
2		Indigenous Sovereign Rights has established himself and his nation to the world.
3		ALSO, under the legal constructs of Federal Indian Law pertaining to Indigenous
4		peoples, the constructs of Protection against De Facto Termination, Protection against
5		Encroachment Due to Nonuser, Protection against Modern Statutes, unity of Recognition, The
6		Right to Change, The Permanency of Existence and Unity of Territory would still apply and the
7		United States by Treaty would be bound under their own law to adhere to the actions of King
8		Akahi Nui and this court.
9		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.
23
24
25
		9

DECLARATION 1 2
FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ORDERS, DECISIONS AND OPINIONS 10 11

1		ORDERS, DECISIONS AND OPINIONS
2		THE COURT ORDERS, that King Akahi Nui and the Kingdom of Hawai'i post notice of
3		the Court along with the original Petition to the illegal State of Hawaii, the United Nations and
4		the United States; and further,
5		IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT, that King Akahi Nui is the legal, proper and
6		authorized monarch of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. Also that the Kingdom of Hawai'i under the
7		"Divine Right of Kings" in perpetuity, has never voluntarily abdicated nor relinquished its
8		Independent Inherent Indigenous Sovereign status; and further,
9		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
		10

DECLARATION 1 2
FINDINGS OF FACT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ORDERS, DECISIONS AND OPINIONS 10 11

1		Court as it deems appropriate in all fairness and equity and to be in the best interest of King
2		Akahi Nui and the Kingdom of Hawai'i in the execution of their duties and obligations to their
3		citizens.
4
5		Dated this 15th day of July, 2004

6  7  8  9  10  11  12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
		11