“…unlike Taiwan in Lin v. United States, which the Court used to justify the application of the political question doctrine, the Hawaiian Kingdom had been recognized as a sovereign State…”
Video still: Lynette Cruz / Olelo Community Media
In her Order, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, states, “Plaintiff argues that the Court misapplied the political question doctrine and erred in holding that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint. In this regard, Plaintiff’s motion is an attempt to reargue the merits of his case. Plaintiff has not identified any intervening change in controlling law or new evidence that compels the Court to reconsider its prior ruling.”
It is the position of the Plaintiff that the Court erred and committed a grave error because unlike Taiwan in Lin v. United States, which the Court used to justify the application of the political question doctrine, the Hawaiian Kingdom had been recognized as a sovereign State since December 19, 1842 by U.S. President John Tyler.
Plaintiff will appeal this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. According to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has 60 days from date of the Order to file an appeal since Defendants are U.S. government officers.
A U.S. District Court “accepts as true all the factual allegations contained in the complaint when reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).” Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164 (1993).
In other words, the court has accepted, and the Defendants have not denied, the factual allegations in the amended complaint that the rights of the Plaintiff have been violated as a direct result of the Defendants’ violation of the Lili’uokalani assignment, but the Court cannot move on the matter because, in its eyes, the political question doctrine prevents it.
This is very different from a case being dismissed under Rule 12(b)6, which is failure state a claim upon which relief can be granted, i.e. the Lili’uokalani assignment fails to exist or is not an executive agreement, thereby Plaintiff cannot sue.
To learn more about David Keanu Sai v. Hillary Clinton, et al., click here.
