LANCE PAUL LARSEN VS. THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM

VOLUME I

22 May 2000

_______

A. The Issues Before the Arbitral Tribunal

B. Summary of Argument

C. Procedural Statement

CHAPTER I HAWAIIAN KINGDOM A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY OF NATIONS WITH TREATY RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CHAPTER II FIRST UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM

CHAPTER III SECOND UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW THE

GOVERNMENT OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM

CHAPTER IV THE PROLONGED OCCUPATION OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CHAPTER I MR. LARSEN’S RIGHTS AS A HAWAIIAN SUBJECT VIOLATED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AS A RESULT OF THE PROLONGED OCCUPATION OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CHAPTER II THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM’S OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF MR. LARSEN AS A HAWAIIAN SUBJECTS EVEN IN TIMES OF WAR AND OCCUPATION

1. This case comes before the Court, in accordance with Article I of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, pursuant to an agreement between the Claimant, Mr. Lance Paul Larsen, and the Respondent, the Hawaiian Kingdom requesting the Arbitral Tribunal to determine, on the basis of international law, whether

2. As the Claimant, Mr. Larsen submits the following responses to the Arbitral tribunal as his position:

(1) Yes, Mr. Larsen’s rights as a Hawaiian subject are being violated under international law as a result of the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands by the United States of America.

(2) Yes, Mr. Larsen does have redress against the Respondent Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as his government has obligations and duties to protect the rights of Hawaiian subjects even in times of war and occupation.

3. Mr. Larsen rests his case for these submissions on the following grounds:

4. The factual and legal basis for these grounds is the subject of this Memorial. Part One of the Memorial sets forth the historical background to the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands by the United States of America. Part Two then sets forth Mr. Larsen’s Statement of Claim, which contains a Statement of Facts Supporting the Claim, and a discussion of the issues before the Arbitral tribunal. Finally, Part Three sets forth Claimant’s submissions to the Arbitral Tribunal.

5. The steps by which this dispute came before this court are as follows:

6. On three separate occasions, in 1998, 1999 and 2000, Mr. Larsen petitioned Respondent, the acting Regency of the Hawaiian Kingdom, for redress of grievances resulting from the continual violation of Mr. Larsen’s rights as a Hawaiian subject.

7. On 4 August 1999, Mr. Larsen filed an original complaint for injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, against the United States Government and the Hawaiian Kingdom Government. In the federal lawsuit, Mr. Larsen accused both defendants of violating the 1849 Treaty of Commerce, Friendship and Navigation by allowing U.S. domestic law to be imposed within the territorial dominion of the Hawaiian Kingdom over the person of Lance Paul Larsen.

8. On 30 October 1999, Mr. Larsen entered into an Arbitration Agreement with the Hawaiian Kingdom submitting the dispute alleged in the complaint for injunctive relief to the Permanent Court of Arbitration for final and binding arbitration.

9. On 5 November 1999, United States Judge Samuel P. King signed a Stipulated Settlement Agreement between Claimant and Respondent ‘dismissing entire case without prejudice . . . and submitting all issues to binding arbitration.’

10. On 8 November 1999, Mr. Larsen initiated formal arbitration by serving upon Respondent a Notice of Arbitration ‘to initiate recourse to arbitral proceedings in compliance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration Optional Rules for Arbitrating Disputes between Two Parties of which only One is a State.’

11. On 3 December 1999, the parties entered into a First Amendment to the Notice of Arbitration, in which the parties agreed to conduct arbitration under the UNCITRAL rules rather than under the Optional Rules.

12. On 25 January 2000, the parties entered into a Special Agreement between Lance Paul Larsen and the Hawaiian Kingdom in which Mr. Keoni Agard, Esquire, was selected as the Appointing Authority for the case, and in which the issues to be decided by the same were further clarified.

13. On 28 February 2000, the parties entered into an Amendment to the Special Agreement of 25 January 2000 in which the parties agreed to ‘increase the composition of the Arbitral tribunal from one (1) arbitrator to three (3) arbitrators.

14. The present Memorial is now submitted pursuant to the Joint Letter from the Parties to the Permanent Court of Arbitration notifying the Court of a 45 day extension to file the Memorials, dated 25 January 2000, fixing 24 May 2000 as the date for the submission of the party’s first round of written pleadings.

15. From January 17, 1893, until the present time, the United States of America has been occupying the Hawaiian Kingdom in direct violation of the numerous treaties entered into between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States of America before 1893, the Hague Conventions IV and V of 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the Vienna Convention of the law of treaties, 1969. It is this occupation that has given rise to the injuries that bring Mr. Larsen before this Arbitral Tribunal today. While the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom is not an issue before the court, because the historical facts described below are not common knowledge, they are provided as historical information relevant to the legal situation in which Mr. Larsen’s rights are being violated.

16. On 28 November 1843, Great Britain and France formally recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as an Independent State, with "a government capable of providing for the regularity of its relations with foreign nations," thereby welcoming the Hawaiian Kingdom into the Family of Nations.

17. On 20 December 1849, a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation Between the United States of America and His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, was concluded and signed at Washington. Ratifications by both countries were exchanged at Lahaina, island of Maui, on 24 August 1850, and the treaty was in force from that date, for the term of ten years, and further until either of the contracting parties shall give notice to the other of its intention to terminate.

18. On 4 May 1870, a Postal Convention Between the United States of America and the Hawaiian Kingdom was concluded and signed at Washington "establishing and regulating the exchange of correspondence between the United States of America and the Hawaiian Kingdom."

19. On 30 January 1875, a Treaty of Reciprocity Between the United States of America and the Hawaiian Kingdom was concluded and signed at Washington "to strengthen and perpetuate the friendly relations which have heretofore uniformly existed between them, and to consolidate their commercial intercourse."

20. On 2 November 1883, a Convention Between the Post Office Department of the United States of America and the Post Office Department of the Kingdom of Hawaii, Concerning the Exchange of Money Orders was concluded and signed at Washington, the two nations "being desirous of facilitating the exchange of sums of money between the two countries."

21. On 6 December 1884, a Supplementary convention between the United States of America and His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, to limit the duration of the convention respecting commercial reciprocity concluded January 30, 1875 was concluded and signed at Washington, for the "increase and consolidation of their mutual commercial interests."

22. Despite the international recognition of the territorial dominion of the Hawaiian Kingdom prior to 1893, a handful of residents of the Hawaiian islands at this time conspired with United States diplomats and military forces to overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom government and to force annexation of the Hawaiian islands by the United States of America. In an attempt to effectuate these plans, on 17 January 1893, a self-declared "Committee of Safety" committed the crime of high treason as defined under § 1, Chapter VI of the Penal Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom by deposing the reigning monarch of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Her Majesty Queen Lili`uokalani, and her cabinet, and proclaiming the establishment of a "Provisional Government." The Committee issued a Proclamation and Orders Incident to the Change From the Monarchy to the Provisional Government on this day to document the attempted overthrow which reads in relevant part:

23. On that same day, Minister John L. Stevens, a United States diplomat assigned to the Hawaiian Kingdom, participated in the conspiracy and implicated the United States of America in the conspiracy by extending de facto recognition to the Provisional Government on behalf of the United States of America with the following statement:

24. On that same day, Minister Stevens further conspired with the Committee of Safety and further implicated the United States in the conspiracy by issuing orders to deploy marines and sailors from the warship the U.S.S. Boston into the city of Honolulu.

25. On that same day, in response to the above described events, and when informed of the risk of bloodshed that would result from total resistance, Her Majesty Queen Lili`uokalani issued a statement "temporarily" yielding her executive authority as the constitutional Monarch to the United States government, by its President, as a fact finder. At no time did the Queen yield any of her authority to the provisional government. In her protest letter, the Queen’s states:

26. On 14 February 1893, in an attempt to force the annexation of the Hawaiian islands by the United States of America, delegates of the Committee of Safety, who had traveled to Washington submitted a proposed treaty to John W. Foster, Secretary of State of the United States, for signature by the President of the United States and ratification by the Congress. The proposed treaty between the Provisional Government and the United States of America reads in part:

27. On 11 March 1893, Having already received and read Queen Lili`uokalani’s First Letter of Protest, newly elected United States President Cleveland acted righteously upon the Queen’s request for fact finding by withdrawing the proposed Treaty from the Senate and by dispatching James H. Blount, a former United States Congressman, as special commissioner, to Hawai’i in order to impartially investigate the causes of the so-called revolution and to report the findings of the same.

28. On 18 December 1893, based on the findings set forth in the reports of Blount’s investigation, President Grover Cleveland delivered a Message to the United States Congress whereby he reported fully and accurately on the situation in Hawai’i. In his message, the President describes the actions of members of the Committee of Safety, and of the Provisional Government on and around 17 January 1893 as "an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress."

In this speech, Cleveland also recognized that the "military occupation of Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly without justification, either as an occupation by consent or as an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American life and property." Motivated by a "desire to aid [the Queen and her supporters] in the restoration of the status existing before the lawless landing of the United States forces at Honolulu," President Cleveland pulled the proposed annexation treaty from the senate, and declared that "the past should be buried, and that the restored Government should reassume its authority as if its continuity had not been interrupted."

29. Undaunted by its inability to succeed at its first attempt of annexation, on 16 June 1897, several members of the defunct Committee of Safety, reorganized, this time as "The Republic of Hawaii" to negotiate and sign a second proposed Treaty of Annexation. This proposed treaty, if ratified by the United States Senate, would have provided for the annexation of the Hawaiian islands by the United States of America in the following manner:

30. On 17 June 1897, Her Majesty Queen Lili`uokalani, submitted to the Senate of the United States, a formal protest to the proposed treaty of annexation, which states in part:

31. Fortifying Her Majesty Queen Lili`uokalani’s Second Letter of Protest, a Petition Against Annexation, signed by 21,269 Hawaiian subjects and residents of the Hawaiian Kingdom to "earnestly protest against the annexation of the said Hawaiian Islands to the said United States of America in any form or shape," was also submitted to the United States Senate.

32. In the end, the United States Senate failed to acquire the required 2/3 vote required by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, to ratify the proposed treaty of annexation. Thus the United States has never acquired any lawful authority over the Hawaiian islands.

33. Because the United States has never ratified a treaty of annexation over the Hawaiian islands, the territorial sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom over the Hawaiian Islands has never been lawfully or legally diminished. Despite the inability of the United States of America to acquire sovereignty of the Hawaiian islands, the United States of America has been occupying the Hawaiian islands through its military presence in the Hawaiian islands and by imposing and enforcing its own municipal laws within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hawaiian islands since 1893. In addition, the United States of America imposes American laws within the Hawaiian islands by and through its political subdivision, the "State of Hawaii."

34. The United States of America has, on several occasions, recognized the illegality of its occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. First, in 1893, President Grover Cleveland recognized the illegality of the occupation in his message to Congress when he stated that the "military occupation of Honolulu by the United States on the day mentioned was wholly without justification, either as an occupation by consent or as an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American life and property."

35. Almost a century later, in a 1988 legal opinion entitled Legal Issues Raised by the Proposed Presidential; Proclamation to Extend the Territorial Sea, the United States Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel again acknowledged the illegality of the attempted annexation of the Hawaiian islands by a joint resolution. The opinion states that "it is . . . unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution." The opinion also quotes a constitutional scholar as writing:

36. Then, in a 1996 legal opinion entitled Validity of Congressional-Executive Agreements that Substantially Modify the United States’ Obligations Under an Existing Treaty the United States Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel again acknowledged the illegality of the attempted annexation of the Hawaiian islands, this time in light of the numerous international treaty obligations that the United States had previously entered into with the Hawaiian Kingdom. The opinion states that

The opinion also quotes a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court:

37. On November 23, 1993, the United States of America again recognized the illegality of its occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom when President William Clinton signed a Joint Resolution to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in which the following findings of fact are enacted into American municipal law:

38. Other international tribunals have also verified the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States of America. In 1993 Ka Ho’okolokolonui Kanaka Maoli, a People’s international Tribunal was held in Hawaii, to rule on issues surrounding the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands by the United States of America. Based on 147 testimonies, gathered in seven days on five different islands, and on additional written and video testimonies, the panel of international judges convened for the tribunal found that "Kanaka Maoli sovereignty has not been extinguished by the illegal actions of the United States . . . the Kanaka Maoli have been subjected to ongoing processes of genocide, both physical and cultural, at the hands of the U.S. government and the government of the State of Hawai’i."

39. While several attempts were made in the late 1800’s to properly annex the Hawaiian Kingdom to the United States of America, to this day the United States of America has never properly ratified any legal instrument to acquire sovereignty over the Hawaiian islands

40. On several occasions, the United States of America has acknowledged the fact that there was never a proper transfer of sovereignty. Specifically, President Grover Cleveland, in 1893, the Department of Justice, in 1988 and 1996, and President William Clinton and the 103rd Congress of the United States of America in 1993, have all acknowledged that "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."

41. To this day the United States of America has yet to acquire any lawful authority over the Hawaiian islands. Despite this fact though, the United States of America continues to impose its own domestic laws within the territorial borders of the Hawaiian Kingdom as an occupying power.

It is precisely this factual and legal background that has given rise to the Mr. Larsen’s injuries, which are discussed in Part Two of this Memorial.

42. In this Part of Claimant’s Memorial, the factual and legal basis for Claimant’s submissions will be discussed. It is Claimant’s position that his rights as a Hawaiian subject are being violated under international law as a result of the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands by the United States of America. It is also Claimant’s position that he is entitled to redress against the Respondent Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as his government has obligations and duties to protect his rights as a Hawaiian subjects even in times of war and occupation.

43. Claimant, Mr. Lance Paul Larsen, was born a Hawaiian Subject on 1 June 1953, in the city of Honolulu, within the territorial borders of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

44. Mr. Larsen, is a native Hawaiian by blood and a Hawaiian subject by nationality.

45. As a Hawaiian subject living within the Hawaiian Kingdom, Mr. Larsen observes and lives in accordance with the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

46. Mr. Larsen owns a 1987 white Jeep Comanche pick-up truck which he operates in accordance with the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. On the back of Mr. Larsen’s pick-up truck, a placard is mounted on which one of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom is quoted:

OF

47. On 29 November 1997, Mr. Larsen signed a sworn affidavit in which he stated the following:

1. I, Lance Paul Larsen am a native Hawaiian by blood and a subject by nationality.

48. Because Mr. Larsen follows Hawaiian Kingdom law instead of the laws imposed upon him by the United States of America, Mr. Larsen has been issued hundreds of traffic and motor vehicle tickets and citations by law enforcement officers employed by the United States of America, by and through its political subdivision the State of Hawaii.

49. Mr. Larsen has consistently responded to these citations by asserting his rights to travel under the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a Hawaiian subject, and by questioning the authority of the various State of Hawaii and United States employees and public officials that have charged him with these citations.

50. Mr. Larsen has asserted his rights as a Hawaiian subject and questioned the authority of the State of Hawaii both in writing and in person.

51. In writing, Mr. Larsen has drafted and filed with courts and other State of Hawaii legal institutions numerous written motions and memorandums asserting his rights as a Hawaiian subject and questioned the jurisdiction of the courts and public employees of the State of Hawaii.

52. In person at numerous court hearings and other required appearances, Mr. Larsen has orally asserted his rights as a Hawaiian subject and questioned the jurisdiction of the courts and public employees of the State of Hawaii.

53. At no time has Mr. Larsen received any recognition of his nationality as a Hawaiian subject. At all times, the courts of the State of Hawaii have treated Mr. Larsen as an American citizen. Nor has any judicial officer provided Mr. Larsen with valid legal explanation for the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom or for the denial of his nationality as a Hawaiian subject. Indeed the judges and other employees of the State of Hawaii have ignored his questions and assertions, choosing instead to participate in a legal scheme that attempts to extinguish the Hawaiian nationality and to impose American citizenship upon all Hawaiian nationals.

54. Despite Mr. Larsen’s attempts to assert his nationality and to protest the continual imposition of American laws over his person, Mr. Larsen has been convicted on the majority of the traffic and motor vehicle citations that he has received.

55. In sum, Mr. Larsen’s loyalty to his nationality, and to the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, constitutes criminal activity under the laws of the Occupying Power. While Mr. Larsen’s rights as a Hawaiian subject to follow Hawaiian Kingdom law are secured to him under Hawaiian Kingdom law and international law, the State of Hawaii has reacted to Mr. Larsen’s efforts to assert his nationality, by imposing citations, tickets, court appearances, fines, and even imprisonment over Mr. Larsen.

56. In March 1998, the Respondent government of the Hawaiian Kingdom re-established printed a Proclamation of the Regent of the Hawaiian Kingdom, pro tempore, in The Hawaiian News, in which it was declared that the "...Hawaiian Monarchial system of Government is hereby re-established," and the "Civil Code of the Hawaiian Islands as noted in the Compiled Laws of 1884, together with the session laws of 1884 and 1886 and the Hawaiian Penal Code are in full force." In the same issue of The Hawaiian News, the acting Office of the Regent of the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, also ran the following solicitation:

VOTER APPLICANTS MAY CONTACT
THE OFFICE OF THE REGENT AT:

850 Richards Street, suite 600a
Honolulu, Hawai’i 96813
Phone: (808) 538-3997
Fax: (808) 526-1991
E-mail: regenthk@lava.net

57. On 16 April 1998, Mr. Larsen did register to vote as a subject of the Hawaiian Kingdom with the acting Office of the Regent of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

58. Shortly after registering to vote with the acting Office of the Regent, on 20 April 1998, pursuant to Article 4 of the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom of 1864, Mr. Larsen formally petitioned the acting Office of the Regent, for assistance in his efforts to assert his Nationality as a Hawaiian Subject, and to protest the unlawful imposition of American laws over his person. In Mr. Larsen’s First Petition, he says the following about his ongoing struggles with the State of Hawaii:

In Mr. Larsen’s Petition, he formally requests assistance from the Office of the Regent in the form of:

59. In response to the above petition, on 18 June 1999, David Keanu Sai, acting Minister of the Interior for the Hawaiian Kingdom, did appear in Puna District Court, on the island of Hawai’i, and did testify as an expert witness about Hawaiian Kingdom law and about the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands by the United States of America. During direct examination, Mr. Sai answered the following questions as follows:

After considering a Motion to Dismiss filed previously in the case and the above testimony of Mr. Sai, the presiding Judge, Judge Sandra Schutte issued the following comments and ruling on Mr. Larsen’s Motion:

60. Shortly thereafter, on 4 August 1999, in an effort to bring the jurisdictional issues alleged by the Mr. Larsen to a competent court, Mr. Larsen filed an original complaint for injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, against the United States Government and the Hawaiian Kingdom Government. In the federal lawsuit, Mr. Larsen accused both defendants of violating the 1849 Treaty of Commerce, Friendship and Navigation by allowing U.S. domestic law to be imposed over his person within the territorial dominion of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

61. On 31 August 1999, pursuant to Article 4 of the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom of 1864, Mr. Larsen formally petitioned the acting Office of the Regent a second time for more assistance in his efforts to assert his Nationality as a Hawaiian Subject, and to protest the unlawful imposition of American laws over his person. In Mr. Larsen’s Second Petition, he makes the following assertions:

Mr. Larsen goes on to explain how he views the role of the Hawaiian Kingdom in this situation:

Mr. Larsen ends his petition requesting assistance from the acting Office of the Regent:

62. Despite Mr. Larsen’s efforts to assert his nationality and to protest the prolonged occupation of his nation, 4 October 1999, Mr. Larsen was illegally imprisoned for his refusal to abide by the laws of the State of Hawaii by State of Hawaii. At this point, Mr. Larsen became a political prisoner, imprisoned for standing up for his rights as a Hawaiian subject against the United States of America, the occupying power in the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands.

63. While in prison, Mr. Larsen did continue to assert his nationality as a Hawaiian subject, and to protest the unlawful imposition of American laws over his person by filing a Writ of Habeus Corpus with the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, Hilo Division, State of Hawaii.

64. Upon release from incarceration, Mr. Larsen was forced to pay additional fines to the State of Hawaii in order to avoid further imprisonment for asserting his rights as a Hawaiian subject.

65. On 4 January 2000, pursuant to Article 4 of the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom of 1864, Mr. Larsen formally petitioned the Council of Regency, by and through his attorney, a third time for assistance in his efforts to assert his Nationality as a Hawaiian Subject, and to protest the unlawful imposition of American laws over his person. In Mr. Larsen’s third petition, his attorney informs and updates the Council of Regency as to Mr. Larsen’s continual efforts to assert his Nationality as a Hawaiian Subject, and to protest the unlawful imposition of American laws over his person, and makes the following request:

66. Mr. Larsen’s rights as a Hawaiian subject continue to be violated by the systematic denial of his nationality and the systematic imposition of American laws over his person. Mr. Larsen will continue to suffer these injuries until the occupation of the Hawaiian islands comes to an end.

67. This Arbitral Tribunal has been convened to determine, on the basis of international law, whether

68. As the Claimant, Mr. Larsen submits the following responses to the Arbitral tribunal as his position:

(1) Yes, Mr. Larsen’s rights as a Hawaiian subject are being violated under international law as a result of the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands by the United States of America.

(2) Yes, Mr. Larsen does have redress against the Respondent Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as his government has obligations and duties to protect the rights of Hawaiian subjects even in times of war and occupation.

69. Mr. Larsen rests his case for these submissions on the following grounds:

The legal support for each of these arguments follows.

70. The prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands by the United States of America has resulted in grave violations of Mr. Larsen’s rights as a Hawaiian subject.

71. Mr. Larsen’s rights as a Hawaiian subject are protected, even in times of occupation by several international instruments including the fourth 1907 Hague Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, and the fourth 1949 Geneva Convention. Mr. Larsen’s rights as a Hawaiian subject are also protected by the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

72. Mr. Larsen’s rights as a Hawaiian subject are being violated in two distinct manners. First, his rights to his nationality are being violated. In other words, Mr. Larsen’s rights to enjoy his status as a Hawaiian subject are being denied as a result of the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands. Second, his rights as a Hawaiian subject are being violated. In other words, the rights and privileges that Mr. Larsen is entitled to as a Hawaiian subject have been denied as a result of the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands.

73. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights confirms that "Everyone has the right to a nationality," and that "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality."

74. Even in times of occupation, the nationals of the nation being occupied retain their nationality. Under both the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, it illegal for occupying forces "to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power." As Keith states in his work on international law "the local inhabitants do not owe the occupant even temporary allegiance; and the national character of the locality is not legally changed."

75. Because Mr. Larsen has never naturalized to become an American citizen, he remains bound, under international law, by the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 and Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 both confirm that the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom remain in effect despite the occupation of the Hawaiian island by the United States of America.

76. Because Mr. Larsen is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound by the laws of the United States of America and/or the laws of the State of Hawaii.

77. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, even when the occupying power sets up its own courts, those courts must apply the laws in force in the country before the occupation began. Article 67 reads: "The courts shall apply those provisions of law which were applicable prior to the offence, and which are in accordance with general principles of law, in particular the principle that the penalty shall be proportionate to the offence."

78. Under these international laws, all courts established by the United States of America within the so-called State of Hawaii should be applying the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Only those Hawaiian Kingdom laws that threaten the security of the Occupying Power or that discriminate against any protected persons may be disregarded. Thus the imposition of American municipal laws over Mr. Larsen, instead of the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, constitutes a violation of Mr. Larsen’s rights as a Hawaiian subject.

79. In addition, the courts and judicial officers of the occupying power are required to recognize the nationality of those people brought into their jurisdiction. Article 67 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also sets forth this requirement as law: "[The courts] shall take into consideration the fact that the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power." Pictet, in his work on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 illustrates this requirement as follows:

80. The requirement that courts of the occupying power acknowledge the nationality of the accused is especially relevant in the instant case where the courts of the Occupying Power are charging Mr. Larsen with conduct that was motivated by his "honourable motives" and his "patriotic sentiments" which have caused him to live in accordance with Hawaiian Kingdom law, despite the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands. Put another way, under the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which are still in force and effect, Mr. Larsen has committed no crime. But his loyalty to the laws of his own nation is criminal behavior under the laws of the Occupying Power. Thus it is precisely Mr. Larsen’s decision to live as a Hawaiian subject within the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom that has resulted in his illegal prosecution and imprisonment by the State of Hawaii.

81. Despite the international requirements that the United States of America respect the nationality of Mr. Larsen, the United States of America, by and through its political subdivision, the State of Hawaii has consistently denied or refused to recognize Mr. Larsen’s nationality. Specifically, those police officers who have pulled Mr. Larsen over for failure to abide by the traffic laws of the State of Hawaii, those court personnel and judges that have refused to acknowledge Mr. Larsen’s nationality at court appearances, those judges that have levied fines against Mr. Larsen for following Hawaiian Kingdom driving laws rather than the laws of the State of Hawaii, and those judges that have imprisoned Mr. Larsen for his efforts to assert his nationality have all violated Mr. Larsen’s rights as a Hawaiian subject, by refusing to acknowledge his nationality.

82. When Judge Sandra Schutte imprisoned Mr. Larsen for his decision to drive under the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, she not only applied the wrong law (United States law instead of Hawaiian Kingdom law), and violated his rights as a Hawaiian subject (by ignoring his nationality), she also issued a sentence in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (excessive for the crime). Article 67 reads in part "The courts shall apply only those provisions of law which are in accordance with general principles of law, in particular the principle that the penalty shall be proportionate to the offence." By sending Mr. Larsen to jail for his decision to abide in a peaceful and non-violent manner to the lawful laws of his nation, Judge Sandra Schutte further violated the rights of Mr. Larsen as a Hawaiian national. At this point, Mr. Larsen became a political prisoner, imprisoned for standing up for his lawful rights as a Hawaiian national within an occupied territory.

83. In sum, the United States of America by and through the State of Hawaii has attempted to extinguish the nationality of Mr. Larsen by criminalizing his attempts to assert and live according to his true nationality. In addition, the United States of America by and through the State of Hawaii has violated the rights of Mr. Larsen by systematically denying his nationality as a Hawaiian subject, by imposing American municipal laws over his person, and by imposing citations, fines and imprisonment over Mr. Larsen for his failure to abide by the laws of the Occupying Power. Despite this harassment, extortion, and illegal imprisonment, Mr. Larsen continues to live according to Hawaiian Kingdom law.

84. The Respondent Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, by and through the acting Council of Regency, has an obligation to protect the rights of Mr. Larsen, a Hawaiian subject, even in times of war and occupation.

85. The Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s obligation to protect the rights of Mr. Larsen as a Hawaiian subject is evidenced in all of the laws and statutes that have been enacted by the government for the good of its subject, including the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 1864; the Civil Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and the Penal Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

86. The Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s obligation to protect the rights of Mr. Larsen as a Hawaiian subject, as well as the rights of foreign nationals residing within the Hawaiian Kingdom, is also evidenced through the government’s entering into international treaties with foreign nations. For example, by signing and ratifying the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation between the United States of America and the Hawaiian Kingdom, the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom agreed that only Hawaiian Kingdom law would apply in the Hawaiian islands: "and each of the two contracting parties engages that the citizens or subjects of the other residing in their respective States shall enjoy their property and personal security in as full and ample a manner as their own citizens or subjects . . . but subject always to the laws and statutes of the two countries, respectively."

87. The Hawaiian Kingdom government’s obligations and duties with respect to its subjects has also been confirmed by the Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

88. The acting Council of Regency assumed these duties and responsibilities by re-establishing the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

89. The acting Council of Regency has acknowledged Mr. Larsen as a Hawaiian subject.

90. As Mr. Larsen’s government, the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom has an obligation under international law to take measures to stop the continual violation of his rights as a Hawaiian subject. This includes taking steps to end the occupation of the Hawaiian islands and the imposition of American laws over his person. Specifically, Article 5 of the Fifth Hague Convention of 1907, sets forth as law the requirement that "A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory."

91. The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-Operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (1970) also supports Mr. Larsens’s requests for assistance and demands for redress: This Declaration prescribes states’ duties as follows:

Thus the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom also has a duty to protect Mr. Larsen, despite his nationality as a Hawaiian subject, because he is seeking his rights to self-determination, freedom and independence. As explained by Benvenisti, in his work on occupied territories, "the peoples deprived of their enumerated rights are entitled . . . to struggle to secure them with the aim of removing the existing institutions, while other states have the duty to aid such actions."

92. The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (1974) further codifies the obligations of the Hawaiian Kingdom to intervene to protect Mr. Larsen’s rights: "[i]t is the . . . duty of all States, individually and collectively, to eliminate colonialism, apartheid, racial discrimination, neo-colonialism and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation and domination, and the economic and social consequences thereof."

93. As reported in the Statement of Facts Supporting Claim, on three separate occasions, Mr. Larsen has petitioned the acting Council of Regency seeking assistance in his efforts to assert his nationality and to end the unlawful imposition of American laws over his person.

94. While Keanu Sai, acting Minister of the Interior for the Hawaiian Kingdom, did appear in Puna District Court, on the island of Hawai’i, and did testify as an expert witness on Mr. Larsen’s behalf, this action did not prevent the continual imposition of American laws over Mr. Larsen. Indeed shortly thereafter Mr. Larsen was sent to jail by the State of Hawaii because of his efforts to assert his nationality and follow Hawaiian Kingdom law.

95. In order to fully protect Mr. Larsen’s rights, the Hawaiian Kingdom must take appropriate steps to end the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands, for as long as the occupation continues, Mr. Larsen’s rights will still be violated.

96. In sum, because of the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands, and the resulting denial of his nationality as a Hawaiian subject and imposition of American laws over his person, Mr. Larsen’s rights have been violated under international law. Mr. Larsen’s government, the government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, has a duty under both domestic and international law to protect the rights of Mr. Larsen as well as all Hawaiian subjects. While Mr. Larsen has requested assistance from the acting Council of Regency, the occupation and corresponding violation of his rights continues today. It is Claimant’s position that he does have redress against his government for failing to fulfill its obligations towards him.

In view of the facts and arguments set forth in this Memorial,

Mr. Larsen requests the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudge and declare that

1. Mr. Larsen’s rights as a Hawaiian subject are being violated under international law as a result of the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands by the United States of America.

2. Mr. Larsen does have redress against the Respondent Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as his government has obligations and duties to protect the rights of Hawaiian subjects even in times of war and occupation.

Upon affirmation of these submissions, Mr. Larsen further requests from the Arbitral Tribunal any clarification on what types of redress are available to him, specifically any redress, above and beyond petitioning the Council of Regency, that may force his government to end the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian islands. For example, the Hawaiian Kingdom could appoint Protecting Powers in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to help protect Claimant’s rights, or could submit a peace treaty to the United States of America which would end the prolonged occupation. Claimant respectfully looks to the Arbitral Tribunal to comment on the types of redress that are available to him.

Respectfully submitted, this 22 day of June, 2000,

___________________________________

Ninia Stacia Parks

Attorney for Claimant Lance Paul Larsen