KINGDOM

OF HAWAII
IN THE SUPREME COURT

Jennifer E. Pawlowski, Chief Justice

Case No. 0001-Civ-2015

consolidated with
Case No. 0002-Civ-20151

ORDER

Petitioners Moi Silva, the King of the Kingdom of Hawaii and Kingdom Citizen
Kaulia, filed petitions requesting this Court to make certain legal findings relevant to
the attempt of a foreign nation to prosecute Kaulia and other Hawaiian Nationals for
activities that Petitioners consider to constitute both legal and civic duties within
the Kingdom.

Petitioners submitted two Briefs in Support of the Declaratory Judgments
(collectively the Briefs).

The Petitioners confirmed service on the Hawaii County Prosecutor on May 18,
2015, State Attorney General on May 20, 2015, United States Attorney General on
May 21, 2015, and a representative for the Thirty Meter Telescope on May 20, 2015.
{None of the parties served filed a response within the time provided by this Courts
Order dated May 19, 2015.

Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the Court grants the following
declaratory judgments unless otherwise indicated in this Order:

1.
The Committee of Safety, whom was responsible for seizing Queen
Liliukolani in 1893, was comprised of Hawaiian subjects, U.S. Citizens and Non-U.S.
Foreigners.
The Hawaiian Kingdom Penal Code defines treason as follows:

Treason is hereby defined to be any plotting or attempt to dethrone or
destroy the King, or the levying of war against the Kings government, or the
adhering to the enemies thereof giving them aid and comfort, the same being
done by a person owing allegiance to this kingdom.

1 As the pleadings filed by Petitioner Ali'i Nui Mo'i (High Chief/King) Edmund Kelii
Silva Jr. (Moi Silva) of the Kingdom of Hawai'i and Petitioner Alapa'i H. Kaulia
(Kaulia), a citizen of the Kingdom of Hawaii (collectively hereinafter the
Petitioners) are substantially similar and seek the exact same declaratory judgments,
their cases have been consolidated and this Order has been filed in and is binding on both
matters.

1

Hawaiian Kingdom Penal Code, Chapter VI, 1.

Allegiance is the obedience and fidelity due to the Kingdom from those under
its protection.

Hawaiian Kingdom Penal Code, Chapter VI, 2.


An alien, whether his native country be at war or at peace with this kingdom,
owes allegiance to this kingdom during his residence therein, and during such
residence, is capable of committing treason against this kingdom.

Hawaiian Kingdom Penal Code, Chapter VI, 3 (emphasis added).

Thus, Hawaiian subjects, U.S. citizens residing within the kingdom and Non-U.S.
Foreigners residing within the kingdom, can commit treason.


An accessory before the fact to treason is guilty of treason, and shall be
subject to prosecution, trial and punishment there-for. . . . . .

Hawaiian Kingdom Penal Code, Chapter VI, 7.

Therefore, the Committee of Safetys seizure of Queen Liliukolani in 1893, in
an attempt to dethrone the Queen, constituted high treason against the
Kingdom of Hawaii. Additionally, any persons assisting the Committee of
Safety in this act of treason is also guilty of treason against the Kingdom of
Hawaii.

2. The United States, by its own admissions, supported the attempted overthrow of
the Kingdom of Hawaii government through diplomatic and military
representatives. Further, the United States has admitted that such an overthrow
would not have been possible without the United States for lack of popular support
and insufficient arms.

United States Public Law 103-150 (1993) (The Apology Act).

These admissions of fact lead to one conclusion:

The overthrow of the Kingdom Government succeeded because of the United
States diplomatic and military support of the overthrow.

3. In response to the attack on her throne, on January 17, 1893, Queen
Liliuokalani issued a protest. According to the wording of the protest, said protest
was made under duress based on the Queens concerns that her people would be
killed and a state of war created with the United States, if she did not yield her
authority.

After the Queen yielded her executive authority, an investigation was conducted by
the United States into the legitimacy of the overthrow. President Cleveland, in his
message to Congress, stated the Queen surrendered not to the provisional
government, but to the United States. She surrendered not absolutely and
permanently, but temporarily and conditionally until such time as the facts could be
considered by the United States.

Executive Documents on Affairs in Hawaii: 1894-95, U.S. House of Representatives,
53rd Congress, 457.

The wording of the protest itself reflects that the Queen fully expected to be
restored to her throne with the help of the United States. Furthermore, under
Kingdom law, any assent given by a person who has essentially been unlawfully
imprisoned is null and void, so her agreement to yield her throne is not enforceable,
and amounts to nothing more than extortion.

See Hawaiian Kingdom Penal Code, Chapter X, 3, and Chapter XIX, 1.

Queen Liliuokalanis protest of the overthrow reserved all rights belonging to
the Crown, the Kingdom Government, and the subjects of the Kingdom.

4. The December 20, 1849 Treaty between the United States and the Hawaiian
Islands (hereinafter the Treaty) specifically states:

There shall be perpetual peace and amity between the United States and the King of
the Hawaiian Islands, his heirs and his successors.

Treaty, Article 1.

Queen Liliuokalani was a successor to the King, and thus the United States and its
representatives had a duty, pursuant to the Treaty, to maintain peace with the
Queen. The illegal overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, which was supported by a
representative of the United States, being the United States Minister, violated the
express terms and conditions of the Treaty.

Further, in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover
Cleveland described the actions of the Committee of Safety as an act of war,
committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States
and without the authority of Congress.

United States Public Law 103-150 (1993) (emphasis added).

The actions of the United States Minister in supporting the plan by the
Committee of Safety to seize the Queen and annex the Kingdom to the United
States constituted acts of war in violation of the United States Treaty with the
Hawaiian Islands dated December 20, 1849.

5. The United States Minister cannot be a co-conspirator with the Committee

of Safety to commit treason against the Kingdom of Hawaii, as the Kingdom of
Hawaii Penal Code specifically exempts Ministers of foreign states from the
crime of treason.

See Hawaiian Kingdom Penal Code, Chapter VI, 4.

6. The formation of the Provisional Government was an illegal act, as it was done in
violation of Hawaiian Kingdom Penal Code, Chapter VI. Further, pursuant to the
Apology Act, the United States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition
to the Provisional Government was formed by the conspirators without the consent
of the Native Hawaiian people or the lawful Government of Hawaii and in violation of
treaties between the two nations and of international law.. . . .

United States Public Law 103-150 (1993) (emphasis added).

If an action is illegal, it cannot have any legitimacy. To say otherwise would
frustrate the intent and purpose of the laws themselves.

The Provisional Government was not legitimate.

7. For the reasons discussed in paragraph 4 above, the United States
Ministers recognition of the Provisional Government formed by the
Committee of Safety constituted another act of war in violation of the United
States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands dated December 20, 1849.

8. The United States Ministers recognition of the Provisional Government
does not amount to an act in furtherance of the conspiracy of those that
committed treason against the Kingdom of Hawaii, as foreign Ministers are
specifically exempt from committing the crime of treason.

See Hawaiian Kingdom Penal Code, Chapter VI, 4.


9. There are insufficient facts in evidence to conclude that other nations
would not have recognized the Provisional Government had the United States
Minister denied recognition to the Provisional Government.

10. As discussed above, the Treaty provided that there be perpetual peace and
amity between the United States and the King of the Hawaiian Islands, his heirs and
his successors.

Treaty, Article 1.

Once the United States was on notice of the criminal acts of its own Minister, its
military and the Committee of Safety, which included United States citizens, the

United States had a duty pursuant to the Treaty to take whatever measures
necessary to restore the Queen to her throne.

The failure of the United States Government to take effective steps to restore
the Queen to her throne and the Hawaiian Kingdom to independent status
violated the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands dated December
20, 1849.

The Court takes judicial notice that, to this day, the United States refuses to
establish a process for the Kingdom to be restored to its status prior to the
initiation of the overthrow.

11. The Minister was an agent of the United States, and was bound to follow any
course of action the United States chose.

Thus, had the United States restored the Queen to her throne, the Ministers
recognition of the Provisional Government would have been nullified.

12. There are insufficient facts in evidence to conclude that had the United
States nullified its recognition of the Provisional Government, other nations
recognizing the Provisional Government would have withdrawn such
recognition and no other nations would have extended recognition.

13. As discussed in Declaratory Judgment Number 4 above, the terms of the Treaty
dictated that there be perpetual peace and amity between the United States and the
Kingdom of Hawaii. Additionally, Article XVI of the Treaty specifically states:


Any citizen or subject of either party infringing the articles of this treaty
shall be held responsible for the same, and the harmony and good
correspondence between the two governments shall not be interrupted
thereby, each party engaging in no way to protect the offender, or sanction
such violation.

Treaty, Article XVI.


Thus, the United States recognition of the Republic of Hawaii, which was
formed as a result of a violation of the Treaty by United States citizens,
amounted to another violation of the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian
Islands dated December 20, 1849.

14. The first attempt to annex the Kingdom to the United States failed.

United States Public Law 103-150 (1993)

15. From the very language of the Apology Resolution, on July 4, 1894, the
Provisional Government declared itself to be the Republic of Hawaii.

United States Public Law 103-150 (1993)

This essentially replaced one illegal entity with another illegal entity, making any
action taken by that illegal entity null and void. In effect, it was simply an extension
and continuation of the acts of treason committed by the Committee of Safety aided
and abetted by the Minister of the United States.

Thus, the Republic of Hawaii, being an illegal entity, had no authority to
propose annexation of the Kingdom to the United States.

16. The Treaty of Annexation submitted to the United States by the
Provisional Government failed to achieve ratification from the Senate.

United States Public Law 103-150 (1993)

17. According to Gary Born, American courts, commentators, and other authorities
understand international law as imposing strict territorial limits on national
assertions of legislative jurisdiction.

Gary Born, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts, 3rd ed., (The Hague:
Kluwer Law International, 1996), 493.

In Rose v. Himely, 8 U.S. 241, 279 (1807), the U.S. Supreme Court illustrated this view
by asserting, that the legislation of every country is territorial; and in The Apollon,
22 U.S. 362, 370 (1824), the Court stated that the laws of no nation can justly extend
beyond its own territory. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or
rights of any other nation within its own jurisdiction. And however general and
comprehensive the phrases used in our municipal laws may be, they must always be
restricted in construction to places and persons, upon whom the legislature has
authority and jurisdiction. Any other conclusion would be at variance with the
independence and sovereignty of foreign nations. (Emphasis added).2

Thus, any laws passed by Congress can only effect the territory of the United States,
which at the time of the passing of the United States Joint Resolution, consisted
solely of the continent of North America.

Moreover, as one constitutional scholar wrote:

The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple
legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress
and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it
was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act . . . Only
by means of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States
be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial

2 While United States law does not bind this court, those laws do pertain to the
actors in this case, being Congress and the then President William McKinley.

forceconfined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose

legislature it is enacted.

1 Westel Woodbury Willoughby, The Constitutional Law of the United
States 239, at 427 (2d ed. 1929).

Additionally, when the issue of the annexation of Hawaii was brought to the
attention of Congress, Representative Ball characterized the effort to annex Hawaii
by joint resolution after the defeat of the treaty as a deliberate attempt to do
unlawfully that which can not be lawfully done.

31 Cong. Rec 5975 (1898).

Therefore, the United States Joint Resolution, prepared by Congress and
signed off on by President McKinley, which sought to annex the Kingdom to
the United States, had no legal effect.

18. There is insufficient evidence on the record to make the determination
that the United States attempts to annex the Kingdom of Hawaii failed
because those efforts perpetuated a crime.

19. As discussed above, the Republic of Hawaii was simply an extension of the
treason committed by the Committee of Safety and the Provisional Government, and
all acts taken by the Committee of Safety, the Provisional Government and the self-
declared Republic of Hawaii were illegal and in violation of the Treaty the United
States had with the Kingdom of Hawaii.

The attempted transfer of Kingdom lands from the Republic to the United
States had no legal effect, as the Republic of Hawaii was an illegal entity that
had no authority to transfer said lands.

20. According to the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) of 1949, Section III
Occupied Territories, Article 47, the effects of annexation on the rights of persons
within those territories are restricted:

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be
deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of
the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the
occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the
said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the
authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor
by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied
territory.

(Emphasis added)

This section implies an occupied territory is non-self-governing, whether annexed

or not. The occupied territory is non-self-governing because the Occupying Power
governs the dependent territory. Therefore a nation can simultaneously be
occupied, annexed and non-self-governing.

The placement of Hawaii on the United Nations list of non-self-governing
nations does not mean that the annexation of Hawaii never took place. Under
international law, the Kingdom of Hawaii can be occupied, annexed and non-
self-governing all at the same time.

21. In 1959, the United States held a plebiscite on whether Hawaii should become
a state within the United States (hereinafter Statehood Plebiscite).

Pursuant to United General Assembly, Fifteenth Session, 1541 (XV), Principles
which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to
transmit the information called for under Article 73e of the Charter, Annex,
Principle VI at 29, the obligation placed on the United States by designating Hawaii
as a non-self-governing territory was to move Hawaii to a full measure of self-
government in one of the following three ways: (a) Emergence as a sovereign
independent State; (b) Free association with an independent state, or (c) Integration
with an independent State.

The Statehood Plebiscite, however, offered only one question: Shall Hawaii
immediately be admitted to the Union as a State?

http://statehoodhawaii.org/images/plebballot.jpg


Thus, the Statehood Plebiscite offered only one of the three self-governing options,
excluding full independence and free association. As such, the Plebiscite violated
the principles that should have guided the United States as the supposed
administrator of this territory.

This violation of the principles appears to have been done intentionally, as revealed
in a letter from the United States Secretary of State John Foster Dulles to Senator
William F. Knowland dated June 26, 1956.

On this latter point I would like to add that reporting to the United Nations
on Alaska and Hawaii in no way implies any derogation of the United States
Governments sovereignty or responsibility over these territories.

http://statehoodhawaii.org/2009/08/01/statehood-countdown/

I fully agree that the United States should stop reporting on Alaska and
Hawaii at the earliest practicable moment. When we do cease reporting,
however, it will be greatly to our advantage if other Members of the United
Nations are satisfied with our decision that the two territories have, in the

language of the Charter, attained a full measure of self-government. Our

experience with the Puerto Rican case in the United Nations indicates that if
we cease reporting on Alaska and Hawaii, without granting the two
territories further steps towards self-government, we may be severely
criticized. I can assure you, however, that the United States alone has the
power to determine the constitutional status of territories under its
sovereignty, and that we have consistently maintained this position in the
General Assembly.

The grant of statehood to Alaska and Hawaii would provide the best means of
convincing other United Nations Members that the two territories have
achieved a full measure of self-government. Such a step would be generally
welcomed as a further indication of the traditional attachment of the
American people to the principle of self-determination.
Id.

Given the intentional violation of international requirements demonstrated by the
Statehood Plebiscite, the Statehood Plebiscite was not legally effective.

Further, the United States seems to have acknowledged the invalidity of the
Statehood Plebiscite by the following language of the Apology Act:

Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims
to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United
States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum

United States Public Law 103-150 (1993) (Emphasis added).

Therefore,

The Statehood Plebiscite failed to be performed in a legally effective manner.

22. After the legally ineffective Statehood Plebiscite, the United States admitted
Hawaii as a State within the Union.

The Admission Act, Public Law 86-3, 73 Stat. 4.

Because the Statehood Plebiscite was legally ineffective, any acts taken in reliance
on the Statehood Plebiscite would also be legally ineffective.3

3 In the United States, this is a concept known as the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Doctrine, whereby any evidence gained with the assistance of illegally obtained
information must be excluded from trial. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States,
251 U.S. 385 (1920). In this context, the result would be that in a trial in any
international court of law to determine the legal status of Hawaii, the Statehood
Plebiscite would have to be excluded from that trial due to the fact that it failed to

9


The Admission Act making Hawaii a State within the United States Union is
another act in furtherance of the treasonous acts to extinguish the Kingdom
and seize its lands, and is yet another violation of the Treaty between the
Hawaiian Islands and the United States. Further, because the Admission Act
was based on a legally ineffective Statehood Plebiscite, the Admission Act
itself is also legally ineffective.

23. After the Statehood Plebiscite, the United States represented to the United
Nations that Hawaii was now a state within the United States, and Hawaii was
taken off the list of non-self-governing nations.

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtml

The United States representation to the United Nations that the Statehood
Plebiscite, not conducted in accordance with international law, served as a
basis for removing the Hawaiian Islands from the United Nations list of non-
self governing territories, constituted a fraud upon the United Nations.

24. For the reasons discussed in Declaratory Judgment No. 17, above, because
the Joint Resolution attempting to annex the Kingdom of Hawaii was legally
ineffective and not supported by United States law, the Kingdom of Hawaii
still exists today.

25. For the reasons discussed in Declaratory Judgment No. 17 above, the Joint
Resolution section abrogating the treaties of the Kingdom was legally
ineffective, as the Joint Resolution did not extend beyond the then existing
borders of the United States.

26. Since the Joint Resolution did not legally abrogate the treaties of the
Kingdom, the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands dated December
20, 1849 is still in effect.

27. Given that the Treaty is still in existence the appropriate relationship
between the Kingdom and the United States today is sovereign to sovereign, as
specifically stated in the Treaty.

28.
The 1846 Mahele (division) transformed the lands of Hawai'i from a shared
value into private property, but left many issues unresolved. Kauikeaouli
(Kamehameha III) agreed to the Mahele, which divided all land among the
mo'i (king), the ali'i (chiefs), and the maka'ainana (commoners), in the hopes

comply with the legal standards laid out in international law. In other words, the
Statehood Plebiscite would amount to evidence of statehood obtained illegally.


10

of keeping the lands in Hawaiian hands even if a foreign power claimed

sovereignty over the Islands.

The king's share was further divided into Government and Crown Lands, the
latter managed personally by the ruler until a court decision in 1864 and a
statute passed in 1865 declared that they could no longer be bought or sold by
the Moi and should be maintained intact for future Monarchs. After the illegal
overthrow of the monarchy in 1893, Government and Crown Lands were
joined together, and after annexation in 1898, they were managed as a public
trust by the United States. At statehood in 1959, all but 373,720 acres of
Government and Crown Lands were transferred to the State of Hawai'i. The
legal status of Crown Lands remains controversial and misunderstood to this
day.

Overview of Who Owns the Crown Lands of Hawaii?, Jon M. Van Dyke, University of
Hawaii Press (emphasis added).

Given that the King is in place and that there is no Government separate from the
King yet in place to accept the return of the Government lands, the King is the
rightful owner of all lands that were once Crown or Government lands. Those lands
include Mauna a Wakea.

http://www.ulukau.org/elib/cgi-bin/library?e=d-0mauna-000Sec--11haw-50-20-
frameset-book--1-010escapewin&a=d&d=D0.4&toc=0

The lands of Mauna a Wakea belong to the Crown4.

29. The University of Hawaii is now attempting to construct a Thirty Meter
Telescope (hereinafter TMT) on the sacred mountain of Mauna a Wkea, a
mountain that is reserved to the exclusive stewardship of the Crown.

This Court takes judicial notice that, to date, the University of Hawaii
facilitated the construction of thirteen telescopes prior to the TMT.

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/mko/telescope_table.htm

As stated specifically in the Apology Act:

Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their
claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to
the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or
referendum .

4 It is worth noting that under Kingdom law, we do not see ourselves as owners of
any land within the Kingdom, but rather as stewards of the land. It is our obligation
as stewards to oversee and protect the land as we would or own family and loved
ones

11


United States Public Law 103-150 (1993) (Emphasis added).

This Court has seen no evidence that the University of Hawaii sought permission to
build the thirteen telescopes that are already in existence on Mauna a Wakea.
Under Kingdom law, any person who enters Crown lands without permission from
the King is guilty of trespass and must be prosecuted by the Minister of Interior.

Kingdom of Hawaii civil code, chapter 7, article 1, 40.

The telescopes erected on Mauna a Wakea without permission from the
Kingdom represent a long history of trespass onto Crown lands.

30. For the reasons discussed in Declaratory Judgment No. 29, above, the
erection of the TMT would be an additional trespass on Crown lands.

31. The TMT also represents a threat to the ecological systems on the
Mountain.

See e.g. http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/04/does-the-thirty-meter-telescope-pose-
environmental-risks/

32. The position of the Protectors of Mauna a Wakea is that the mountain is sacred
and the presence of the telescopes represents acts of desecration of the sacred site.
Traditional spiritual practitioners issued a statement raising the issue of faith and
traditional practices that have been oppressed running from the early 1800s and
continuing to this day. See Briefs, Exhibit 7.

http://kingdomofhawaii.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Temple-of-Lono-and-
Hale-O-Papa.pdf

Petitioners provided this Court with a document from the Temple of Lono, which
traced the prior history of the Temple of Lonos involvement with the issue of
protecting Mauna a Wakea. See Briefs, Exhibit 8.

http://kingdomofhawaii.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Faith-and-the-
Mountain-Final.pdf

As part of the Temples effort to recover its spiritual land base, the Temple
communicated its views on that issue to the United States Supreme Court. See
Briefs, Exhibit 9.

http://kingdomofhawaii.info/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/kingdomofhawaii.info_docs_Temple-of-Lono-Letter-to-
U.S.-Supreme-Court.pdf

12

Regardless of whether the United States and the State of Hawaii, in an attempt to
serve their own interests, want to claim that the traditional faith of the Hawaiian
people is not practiced, the traditional faith has been alive and well since before the
overthrow, and continues to be alive and well today. This Court has seen, on many
occasions, evidence of the practice of that traditional faith by the Hawaiian people.

The traditional faith of the Hawaiian people is still practiced.

33. As stated by the Imiloa Astronomy Center located in Hilo, Hawaii:

The Mountain of Wakea

The original name of Maunakea is Mauna a Wakea, or "Mountain of Wakea."
In Hawaiian tradition Wakea (sometimes translated in English as "Sky
Father") is the progenitor of many of the Hawaiian Islands, and of the
Hawaiian people. This mountain is his piko, or the place of connection where
earth and sky meet and where the Hawaiian people connect to their origins
in the cosmos.

"Realm of the gods"

As a sacred site, many of the physical features and environmental conditions
of the mountain are associated with Hawaiian gods and goddesses. Lilinoe,
Poliahu and Waiau are just a few of the deities associated with this place.

The summit of Maunakea was considered a wao akua, or "realm of the gods"
and was therefore visited only rarely by humans. The arduous trek to the top
was made occasionally by royaltyamong the last of those being
Kamehameha III and Queen Emma. This was also a burial site for some
royalty in ancient times. Today certain families still connect to this mountain
by leaving their babies' piko (umbilical stubs) at sites that are historically
significant to their ohana (family).

http://www.imiloahawaii.org/60/cultural-significance

According to the history of the faith practiced by the Hawaiian people as set
forth by the University of Hawaii, the mountaintop of Mauna a Wakea is a
protected area within that traditional faith.

34. For the reasons discussed in Declaratory Judgment No. 33 above, the
construction of telescopes on Mauna a Wkea amounts to a desecration of a
sacred site.

35. For the reasons discussed in Declaratory Judgment No. 33 above, the
construction of the TMT would be an additional act of desecration.

13

36. On April 2, 2015, Kaulia and 30 other protectors were arrested while attempting
to protect the sacred site of Mauna a Wakea from being further desecrated by the
construction of the TMT. This Court finds that such an arrest violates the terms
of the Treaty regarding the protection of religious practices.

The Treaty specifically addresses the practicing of religion by the people of the
Kingdom and the United States as follows:

It is agreed that perfect and entire liberty of conscience shall be enjoyed by
the citizens and subjects of both the contracting parties, in the countries of
the one of the other, without their being liable to be disturbed or molested on
account of their religious belief.

See Exhibit 2, Article XI to Briefs.

The United States extraterritorial arrest of a Kingdom subject, exercising his
right to practice his faith by protecting a site sacred to his faith, violated
Article XI of the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands dated
December 20, 1849.

37. Under the laws of the State of Hawaii, the desecration of a place of worship is
strictly prohibited and any person convicted of such a crime can be imprisoned for
up to one year, fined $10,000 or both.

Title 37, Hawaii Penal Code, 711-1107.

For the reasons stated above, the construction of the TMT would amount to the
desecration of a place of worship under the traditional Hawaiian faith. Thus, State
of Hawaii law enforcement officers, even if they did not feel obligated to abide by
Kingdom law on this very subject, had a duty to stop the construction of the TMT, as
it violates Title 37 of the Hawaii Penal Code, section 711-1107. The State of Hawaii
law enforcement officers breached this duty when they failed to arrest the people
involved in the attempted construction of the TMT and instead arrested Kaulia and
30 other Protectors of Mauna a Wkea.

In the absence of adequate protection for the sacred site of Mauna a Wakea from the
State of Hawaii law enforcement agency, the Hawaiian Nationals had a duty to
intervene in order to protect their sacred site.

Hawaiian Nationals, acting on behalf of the Nation, have an obligation and
civic duty to prevent ecological harm and desecration of sacred sites.

38. Since the Kingdom still exists today, and there is not of yet an official law
enforcement agency for the Kingdom, the responsibility of enforcing the law falls
upon its citizens. As Kualani is a citizen of the Kingdom according to citizenship
papers submitted to this Court, he had a duty to uphold the laws of the Kingdom.

14

In the absence of a restored law enforcement capacity within the Kingdom, the
responsibility to enforce the law devolves upon the citizens.

Based on the foregoing declaratory judgments, the Court makes the following
Conclusions of Law:

Conclusion of Law 1: Subjects of the Kingdom acting to prevent the construction of
the Thirty Meter Telescope by peaceful resistance are fulfilling their obligation as
citizens of the Kingdom.

Conclusion of Law 2: In the absence of Kingdom law enforcement capacity, subjects
of the Kingdom acting to prevent the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope are
acting as citizen law enforcement out of necessity.


Jennifer Pawlowski
________________________________________________________

06/03/2015
JENNIFER PAWLOWSKI, Chief Justice Presiding

DATE

15