Keanu Sai v. Obama, Clinton, et al  I met with Keanu a couple weeks ago, shortly after the Olelo taping that is posted below. Often, when I meet with him, I have this unsettled feeling of falling into a rabbit hole, as if I had descended into Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass and ended up in a real-life chess game. However, I do not think of Keanu as the Red Queen, but rather as Alice, aka the White Queen, standing up to face the shifting historical manipulations of the Red Queen– otherwise known as the U.S. foreign policy of 1898, the year Hawaii had officially become occupied by the U.S. and surreptitiously claimed as a territory.  When/if Keanu presents his case to a D.C. District Court, I suspect it will be a bit like the End Game, and we will begin to awaken from this dream of occupation. From an UPDATE Keanu posted on a listserve dated July 30, 2010:

[Keanu] received a call from Christian Natiello, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, requesting an additional 30 days to respond to the amended complaint he received on July 26, 2010, and said that he had no problem with extending the time to respond. The U.S. Attorney now has 90 days, rather than 60 days to respond and that an answer to the complaint should be expected no later than mid-September.
This suggests that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is taking this very seriously and that the Office of Legal Counsel is involved with figuring out how to proceed.

obama suit in dc court from David Keanu Sai on Vimeo.

go to original: David Keanu Sai v. Barack Obama, et al KANE`OHE, HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, JUNE 1, 2010 — Dr. David Keanu Sai, a national of the Hawaiian Kingdom, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Washington, D.C., against President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, Pacific Command Commander Admiral Willard and State of Hawai`i Governor Lingle. The civil case was assigned no. 1:10-CV-00899CKK. This case arises under the Alien Tort Statute and the Plaintiff filed the suit as a Hawaiian subject for injuries suffered when he was wrongfully convicted of a so-called felony by the State of Hawai`i in violation of an Executive Agreement dated January 17, 1893, referred to as the Lili`uokalani assignment. The Lili`uokalani assignment legally bound President Cleveland and his successors in office, to include President Obama, to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law, not U.S. law, by virtue of a temporary and conditional assignment of Hawaiian executive power by Queen Lili`uokalani made under a threat of war by U.S. forces that illegally landed on Hawaiian territory. This temporary and conditional assignment of Hawaiian executive power remains today in the office of the U.S. President. The Plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment by the Court declaring the 1898 Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States (30 U.S. Stat. 750) to be unconstitutional under U.S. law as well as a violation of Hawaiian sovereignty, and is also seeking permanent injunctive relief, redress, restitution, disgorgement, and other equitable relief against Defendants, which includes the State of Hawai`i, for violations of the Lili`uokalani assignment and other treaties that the United States government has ratified. JULY 15, 2010 — Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint with the Federal Court in Washington, D.C. removing President Obama as one of the Defendants but all other Defendants remained. In Fitzgerald v. Nixon (1982) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the President has complete immunity from civil lawsuits. Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Plaintiff to amend the complaint without permission from the Court if there was no response filed by the Defendants with the Court beforehand. Although President Obama was removed as a Defendant, the case is still referred to as Sai v. Obama, et al. UPDATE: JULY 30, 2010 — Assistant U.S. Attorney Christian Natiello for Washington, D.C., contacted the Plaintiff and requested an additional 30 days to respond to the Amended Complaint he received on July 26, 2010. Consent for the request was given. The initial 60 days began when the U.S. Attorney received the Summons and the initial Complaint on June 14, 2010, which now gives the U.S. Attorney 90 days to file an answer with the U.S. District Court. An answer to the Amended Complaint should be expected no later than mid-September.

Additional Materials and Information

Dr. Sai has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Hawai`i at Manoa specializing in international relations and public law, with particular emphasis on the legal and political history of the Hawaiian Kingdom. His doctoral dissertation is titled “The American Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom: Beginning the Transition from Occupied to Restored State.” Dr. Sai also served as lead agent in international arbitration proceedings (Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom) at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands (1999-2001); filed a Complaint with the United Nations Security Council on July 5, 2001; and has numerous articles on the legal status of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent State. In the Federal complaint filed today, Dr. Sai alleges the violation of an executive agreement entered into between Queen Lili`uokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom and President Grover Cleveland of the United States in 1893, whereby Hawaiian executive power was temporarily and conditionally assigned to the President to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law throughout the Hawaiian Islands. This executive agreement, known as the Lili`uokalani assignment (January 17, 1893), was assigned under threat of war, and binds President Cleveland’s successors in office in the administration of Hawaiian Kingdom law until such time as the Hawaiian Kingdom government has been restored in accordance with a second executive agreement between the Queen and President, known as the Agreement of restoration (December 18, 1893), whereupon the executive power would be returned and the Hawaiian Kingdom would grant amnesty to those individuals who participated or supported the 1893 insurrection. In U.S. v. Belmont (1937), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that executive agreements entered into between the President and a sovereign nation does not require ratification from the U.S. Senate to have the force and effect of a treaty; and executive agreements bind successor Presidents for their faithful execution. Other landmark cases on executive agreements are U.S. v. Pink (1942) and American Insurance Association v. Garamendi (2003). In Garamendi, the Court stated, “Specifically, the President has authority to make ‘executive agreements’ with other countries, requiring no ratification by the Senate or approval by Congress.” Dr. Sai alleges that President Barack Obama, being the successor in office to President Cleveland, is legally bound to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom until the Hawaiian Kingdom government is restored in accordance with the Agreement of restoration. The suit was filed under Title 28, United States Code, §1350, “Alien’s action for tort,” for maliciously prosecuting and convicting Dr. Sai for complying with Hawaiian Kingdom law, whereby the prosecution and conviction were violations of the Lili`uokalani assignment; the 1907 Hague Convention, IV; and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV. §1350 provides that “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” In the complaint, it states that the Hawaiian Kingdom became a full member of the Universal Postal Union in 1882, and currently has treaties with Austria-Hungary (June 18, 1875), now Austria and Hungary; Belgium (October 4, 1862); Bremen (March 27, 1854) now Germany; Denmark (Oct. 19, 1846); France (September 8, 1858); French Tahiti (November 24, 1853); Germany (March 25, 1879); Great Britain (March 26, 1846); Great Britain’s New South Wales (March 10, 1874), now Australia; Hamburg (January 8, 1848), now Germany; Italy (July 22, 1863); Japan (Aug. 19, 1871, January 28, 1886); Netherlands (October 16, 1862); Portugal (May 5, 1882); Russia (June 19, 1869); Samoa (March 20, 1887); Spain (October 9, 1863); Sweden and Norway (April 5, 1855), now separate States; Switzerland (July 20, 1864); and the United States of America (December 20, 1849). On July 7, 1898, the United States unilaterally annexed the Hawaiian Islands for military purposes by enacting a joint resolution of annexation through its Congress over protests by the Queen and political organizations representing the people of Hawai`i that was filed with the U.S. State Department in the summer of 1897, and a 21,269 signature petition protesting annexation that was also filed with the U.S. Senate on December 9, 1897 by Senator George Hoar (R-MA). On August 12, 1898, the Hawaiian Kingdom was occupied during the Spanish-American War and the Hawaiian Kingdom has since been under prolonged occupation under the guise of a U.S. territory. Presently, Hawai`i serves as headquarters for the largest U.S. Unified Combatant Command in the world, the U.S. Pacific Command, which controls 20.6% of lands (nearly 200,000 acres) throughout the islands under troop commands of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. The complaint alleges that the U.S. military’s presence has been and continues to be a violation of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s status as a Neutral State under international law and the laws of occupation. According to the complaint, the United States misrepresented Hawai`i to be a part of the United States since the Spanish-American War by enacting Congressional laws claiming to have annexed the Hawaiian Islands in 1898; to have established the Territory of Hawaii in 1900; and to have transformed the Territory of Hawai`i into the State of Hawai`i in 1959. The complaint alleges that these actions by the Congress are in direct violation of the 1893 executive agreements, and that the Congress has no force and effect beyond U.S. territory. In a 1988 U.S. Department of Justice legal opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, acting Assistant Attorney General Douglas Kmiec stated, “It is unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution. Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.” According to Dr. Sai, “The U.S. Congress could no more annex the Hawaiian Islands in 1898 by passing a joint resolution when it was at war with Spain, than it could annex Afghanistan today by passing a joint resolution while fighting the war on terrorism. U.S. laws do not have extraterritorial force and are limited and confined to U.S. territory. Only through a treaty of cession with the Hawaiian Kingdom could Hawai`i’s territorial sovereignty be ceded or transferred to the United States, the 1893 executive agreements and other international treaties being superseded, and only thereafter could Congressional laws be legally enforced throughout the Hawaiian Islands without violating international law.” Among the alleged misrepresentations that the United States made to the international community:
  • That the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands was lawfully ceded to the United States by a treaty of cession in 1898;
  • That the international treaties between the Hawaiian Kingdom and other sovereign States were superseded by the United States’ treaties with those States;
  • That United States laws and not Hawaiian Kingdom laws governed the Hawaiian Islands to include taxation, tariffs and duties; and
  • That the Hawaiian Islands is the territory of the United States through the State of Hawai`i and not the Hawaiian Kingdom, being a sovereign State, which has been under prolonged occupation since the Spanish-American War.
Dr. Sai’s complaint alleges Obama, Clinton, Gates, Willard and Lingle with violating the Lili`uokalani assignment, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and for allowing the State of Hawai`i to have maliciously indicted, prosecuted and convicted Dr. Sai of a manufactured felony count of attempted theft of real property on March 7, 2000 for adhering to Hawaiian Kingdom laws, which by definition constitutes a “war crime” under Title 18 U.S.C. §2441(c)(1). The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, including punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution, to prevent and remedy any violations of the Lili`uokalani assignment and the international laws of occupation. # # # For more information about this law suit, contact: Dr. Keanu Sai at: 808-383-6100 or email:]]>

2 comments for “Keanu Sai v. Obama, Clinton, et al

  1. admin
    September 12, 2010 at 7:58 am

    From Dr. Keanu Sai:

    Recently, I’ve been asked by some of you explain the case as some may not be familiar with the legal jargon and what exactly is the approach I’m taking regarding this case.
    Whenever a civil tort (injury suffered) case is filed in the U.S. District Court, the Plaintiff (or the party who instituted the case) has to specifically establish his claim he’s seeking a remedy under or in other words “a claim upon which relief can be granted” by the District Court where the complaint was filed. The Federal District courts have limited jurisdiction (authority) to hear certain cases, which means a person can’t file any case in the Federal court, because it may be a matter for the State courts to hear. This is because the United States is a federal government (two-tier governance) with the National government at the top and the State governments below. The Alien Tort Statute, 28 United States Code §1350, is a federal statute that allows aliens (non-U.S. citizens) to file a complaint for injuries (torts) suffered because the National government violated a treaty or international law whereby the alien’s rights were protected and secured. Under this statute, the U.S. District Courts have jurisdiction to hear these cases brought by aliens. So I filed my lawsuit under the Alien Tort Statute whereby my rights as a Hawaiian subject (alien under U.S. law) secured under the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment were violated when I was maliciously prosecuted and convicted under U.S. law, when I should have been prosecuted under Hawaiian Kingdom law. So my “claim upon which relief can be granted” by the District Court, is the Lili`uokalani assignment (being a treaty), and the Alien Tort Statute gives the court jurisdiction to hear this type of case. My alien standing is also based upon the legal standing of Hawai`i being an independent and sovereign state and not a State of the Federal Union.
    In my amended complaint, there were defendants Clinton, Gates and Willard, and nominal (name only) defendant Lingle, but I didn’t make that clear in the amended complaint. The real defendants, being National (Federal) government executive officers are the ones that can be sued under the Alien Tort Statute, but the nominal defendant Lingle cannot because she’s not a federal government executive officer, but rather a State government executive officer. This is why Lingle was not served with a summons in the original complaint. As a nominal defendant, she’s only a defendant in name only because I needed to list her in the complaint because my prosecution and conviction, which is the evidence of the violation (tort) took place under State of Hawai`i law and not Federal law, so as she is a successor to Governor Cayetano, Lingle was a necessary party to join with the real defendants. The real defendants are represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christian Natiello from the District of Columbia.
    When a complaint has been filed, the defendants have to respond in one of two ways. They can “answer” the complaint under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whereby they accept or deny the allegations, but if they “answer” they would accept the jurisdictional basis of the complaint, which is that I’m an alien and Hawai`i is not part of the United States. The other alternative is to challenge the substance of the complaint by proving to the court that something in my complaint is defective and the case should be thrown out. This is done by a “motion to dismiss” under rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I fully expected the defendants to not “answer” but rather challenge the substance of the complaint, which is my standing and therefore the jurisdiction of the court.
    In Lingle’s “motion to dismiss” they tried to argue, among other things, that she wasn’t served correctly with a summons and that the court cannot have jurisdiction to hear the case because the question of the legal status of the State of Hawai`i was committed to Congress who admitted Hawai`i as a State in 1959. The problem with this is that I’m not asserting the jurisdiction of the court under the Alien Tort Statute to challenge the legal status of the State of Hawai`i, but rather my rights as an alien under the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment. To argue Congress’ authority to admit new states, would assume that the 1893 executive agreement (assignment) was superseded or repealed, but the problem is that Lingle did not even address the 1893 assignment, which is the basis of the lawsuit, and how it was superseded in order to allow Congress to admit a new State in 1959. An interesting note also, is that Lingle’s motion mentioned nothing about Hawai`i being annexed by a Congressional joint resolution in 1898, but rather relied on Congress’ authority to admit Hawai`i as a State.
    In other words Lingle’s motion to dismiss did not effectively challenge my standing as an alien under the Alien Tort Statute, and if she was the real and only defendant, I would have followed up with a motion for partial summary judgment regarding count 1 of my amended complaint. Count 1 states: “the PLAINTIFF requests the Court declare that the Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States is unconstitutional and void.” Counts 2 and 3 deal with my prosecution and conviction. A partial summary judgment is where a judge determines that an element of the complaint is not disputed, which in this case would be the Lili`uokalani assignment, so there’s no need for trial on this particular issue. Because the defendant did not dispute the assignment of executive power or show that it was lawfully superseded, the Congressional joint resolution of annexation would stand in direct violation of the assignment, which is a treaty under U.S. law. In other words, the joint resolution would be in direct violation of the President’s authority in foreign relations by virtue of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. foreign relations law also states that “there is an obligation to repeal a law illegally annexing a foreign territory.” (paragraph 69 of the Amended Complaint). The U.S. Attorney has to file their response, which will probably also be a “motion to dismiss,” by Monday (Sep. 13th). In its motion, it will have to show that I’m not an alien and that Hawai`i was lawfully annexed, which superseded the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Agreement of restoration, both being sole executive agreements.

  2. admin
    September 14, 2010 at 11:45 am

    From Keanu Sai:

    UPDATE. U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on behalf of Federal Defendants Clinton, Gates and Willard, filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 13, 2010. The U.S. Attorney is joining the same defense made by Defendant Lingle and relying on the political question doctrine that the issue of Hawai`i’s legal status is committed to Congress under Congress’ constitutional authority to admit new States into the Federal Union, which therefore prevents the Court from hearing the case. An interesting note is that neither the State of Hawai`i nor the U.S. Attorney is relying on the 1898 Congressional joint resolution of annexation. Instead they are relying on the 1959 Statehood Act whereby Hawai`i was transformed from a U.S. Territory into a State of the Union. In my Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Lingle’s Motion to Dismiss I addresses this issue in detail. To download Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss go to under “Court Docket Filings.” I will be periodically updating “Court Docket Filings” as documents are being filed with the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *