Read the full article here.
Read the full article here.
September 16, 2011
May 27, 2011
UPDATE: David Keanu Sai v. Hillary Clinton, et al.
The fundamental issue on appeal will center on whether or not a U.S. President can withdraw recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty…
Video still: Lynette Cruz / Olelo Community Media
Keanu Sai writes:
On May 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Civil Notice of Appeal from the Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint entered on April 6, 2011.
Since United States government officials are parties in the lawsuit, there is a 60 day window to file an appeal from the date of the Order. Appeals from the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., will take place at the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The sole issue on appeal is the U.S. District Court’s application of the political question doctrine, which it says prevents it from adjudicating Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
The fundamental issue on appeal will center on whether or not a U.S. President can withdraw recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty after a previous U.S. President afforded explicit recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty on July 6, 1844, thereby creating, as the U.S. District determined, a political question until Hawaiian state sovereignty is re-recognized by a subsequent U.S. President.
The Plaintiff maintains that international law prevents a recognizing state from de-recognizing another state’s sovereignty, because recognition of state sovereignty is a political act with legal consquences.
International law, however, does not prevent a recognizing state from de-recognizing another state’s government, which is often referred to as diplomatic recognition. Example: The United States recognized Cuba’s state sovereignty in 1925, but derecognized the Castro government in 1961. The withdrawal of the recognition of Castro’s government was not a withdrawal of the United States’ recognition of Cuban state sovereignty. Cuba continued to exist as a sovereign state, despite the derecognition of the Castro government.
April 18, 2011
UPDATE: David Keanu Sai v. Hillary Clinton, et al.
“…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
Keanu Sai writes:
On April 6, 2011, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issues Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider.
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.
March 29, 2011
UPDATE: David Keanu Sai v. Hillary Clinton, et al.
“The fundamental question for the Court to determine is whether or not sovereignty of a country can be withdrawn arbitrarily by the U.S. President after it was previously afforded by his predecessor in office…”
Keanu Sai writes:
On March 28, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia filed Federal Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [PDF] The Court will determine whether to rescind and/or revise the Order or deny Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. Either way it will be appealed by either party to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, known informally as the D.C. Circuit. The U.S. Attorney in its Opposition made no mention of the misapplication by the Court of a 2009 federal lawsuit out of the D.C. Circuit, Lin v. United States, justifying the Court’s assertion of the political question doctrine as expounded in Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. As stated in Plaintiff’s Motion, in Lin v. United States, the D.C. Circuit, stated, “Once the Executive determines Taiwan’s sovereign, we can decide Appellants’ resulting status and concomitant rights expeditiously. (‘[T]he judiciary ordinarily follows the executive as to which nation has sovereignty over disputed territory, once sovereignty over an area is politically determined and declared, courts may examine the resulting status and decide independently whether a statute applies to that area.’)” The difference between Taiwan and the Hawaiian Kingdom is that recognition of Hawaiian sovereignty was afforded by the U.S. President [Executive] on July 6, 1844. Therefore, Plaintiff argues Lin v. United States cannot be used to invoke the political question doctrine in this case and therefore the Court “can decide [Plaintiff's] resulting status and concomitant rights expeditiously.”
The fundamental question for the Court to determine is whether or not sovereignty of a country [state] can be withdrawn arbitrarily by the U.S. President [Executive] after it was previously afforded by his predecessor in office, namely President John Tyler. In the Motion to Reconsider, Plaintiff argues “Once recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an independent State was granted by the Executive, see Amend. Compl. para. 11, Professor Oppenheim asserts that it ‘is incapable of withdrawal’ by the recognizing State. See Lassa Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, vol. I (3d. 1920), at 137. Professor Schwarzenberger also asserts, that ‘recognition estops the State which has recognized the title from contesting its validity at any future time.’ See Georg Schwarzenberger, Title to Territory: Response to a Challenge, Am. J. Int’l L., 51, no. 2 (1957): 308-324, at 316. Professor Craven opines, that Hawaiian sovereignty ‘may be refuted only by reference to a valid demonstration of legal title, or sovereignty, on the part of the United States.’ See Matthew Craven, Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 1 Hawn. J.L. & Politics 508-544, 512 (Summer 2004).” Website for the lawsuit is at www.hawaiiankingdom.org
March 8, 2011
Executive agreements and their relevance to Hawaiian history
Dr. Keanu Sai to discuss “1893 Overthrow Settled Executive Agreement” Friday, March 18, at the Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort.
