His Majesty Edmund K. Silva, Jr.

Nou Ke Akua Ke Aupuni O Hawaii

August 3, 2015

To:

Dr. David "Keanu" Sai

P.O. Box 2194
Honolulu, Hawaii 96805-2194
Email: anu@hawaii.edu

Subject: "Cease and Desist from Misrepresentation"

Aloha Dr. Sai,
This was a difficult letter for me to author, as I am a person that wants to support everyone who is
willing to stand up for a principal without compromising the truth. Some years back my detractors
suggested that being King of this nation was, to a certain extent, about character and they were
right, because it is. As king, there are many responsibilities that weigh upon my shoulders and one
of them is protecting our people from false information espoused by you and your attorney.
Your behavior is misleading, misdirected, dangerous and harmful to the sensibility and spirit of our
people. Many are already walking about with decapitated spirits not knowing whom they can trust
to lead and guide them. For them, discerning what is the truth has become emotionally challenging
and taxing upon their ability to reason because they still do wish to trust.
For this reason, I find myself having to compose this letter ordering you to cease and desist in
perverting the facts so stated in this narrative. Your actions have the propensity of destroying the
fabric of genuine faith, belief and innocence of our people, who are honestly longing to see all of us
united as one Nation. Your fabrication of the truth divides us and prevents unification.

Ka Puuhonua O Na Wahi Pana O Hawaii Nei

kingdomofhawaii.info
hmkingdomofhawaii@gmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_treaties_signed_by_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii
The United Nations Charter provides the rest of the authority to do it. (An autonomous independent sovereign nation-state contemplated
under Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States requiring the state as a person of international law
possessing the four qualifications of (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, c) government;
and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.)

Page 2

Therefore, it is with increasing disappointment that I watch you continuously misleading the
people. While much of your work is valuable and useful to the movement to restore our nation, you
seem to be incapable of controlling your impulse to exaggerate and even deliberately present a false
analysis to make it appear you are achieving great things.
The Molokai Case:
You emerged from a hearing in the case dealing with the Molokai fisherman to announce that the
Judge had declared that the Kingdom still exists.
In fact, the opposite was true. Dexter Kaiama filed a motion seeking to dismiss the case arguing that
the court lacked jurisdiction because the Kingdom still exists. The Judge DENIED the motion,
REJECTING the argument that the Kingdom still exists.
You then misrepresented what happened in court. You claimed that the judge had ruled that the
Kingdom still exists because he accepted into the record an opinion paper that you wrote, in which
you argued that the Kingdom still exists. You said that the judge taking judicial notice of that paper
constituted a finding that the Kingdom still exists.
As you well know, a judge can take judicial notice of a matter about which there is NO
CONTROVERSY. Would you have us believe that the proposition that the Kingdom continues to
exist is an accepted truth about which there is no controversy? I am sure that contention would
come as a complete surprise to the judges who have ruled otherwise and to the general public.
What your lawyer did was to submit a group of documents to the Court and ask that the Court take
judicial notice of the documents. All the documents except one were the type of documents that
could be accepted because there is no question about them. For example, no one contests the
contents of the Geneva Accords, so the Court can take judicial notice of the Geneva Accords.
Similarly, an excerpt from the Congressional Record is a document about which there is no contest.
Those are the types of documents your lawyer submitted until he got to the last document. Then he
asked the Court to include your opinion paper that concluded that the Kingdom still exists. The
judge allowed that paper to join all the others.
Which is more reasonable to conclude: your lawyer slipped one past the judge or the judge was
ruling that the Kingdom still exists?

Ka Puuhonua O Na Wahi Pana O Hawaii Nei

Nou Ke Akua Ke Aupuni O Hawaii
kingdomofhawaii.info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_treaties_signed_by_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii
The United Nations Charter provides the rest of the authority to do it. An autonomous independent sovereign nation-state contemplated under
Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States requiring the state as a person of international law possessing the
four qualifications of (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other
states.

Page 3

Even if you were so brazen as to argue the judge so ruled, how would you then explain his refusal to
find that he lacked jurisdiction because the Kingdom still exists? If he truly believed that the matter
of the Kingdoms existence is beyond dispute, why did he deny the motion to dismiss on those
grounds?
Most obviously, would a judge really make such a momentous ruling by granting judicial notice of
some academic paper on the status of the Kingdom and bury such a ruling in a series of rulings
taking judicial notice of other, non-controversial documents? Do you really believe that the judge
thinks he ruled that the Kingdom still exists?
Unfortunately, I do not think you believe the judge made such a ruling. I think that instead you
were willing to totally misrepresent what happened in the court in order to make it look like you
achieved some great ruling. That self-serving act has misled thousands of people into believing that
there was such a ruling when in fact there was no such ruling.
The Switzerland Case:
You filed a war crimes allegation against various individuals in the Hague.
Unfortunately, you or your attorney misunderstood the timing requirements and failed to file
necessary paperwork in a timely fashion, so the court dismissed the filing as untimely.
In the dismissal order, the Court took note of what you had argued. Your arguments included one
that the treaties entered into by the Kingdom are still viable today. The Court noted that you had
made that argument. While I would certainly agree with that argument, the court was merely
noting what YOU argued, NOT entering a ruling.
Yet you then announced publicly that the SWISS COURT had found that the treaties are still in
effect. The court actually dismissed your complaint as untimely and made no such ruling.
Again, your misrepresentation is deliberate. You knew full well that the court had dismissed your
complaint as untimely. How could the court have possibly ruled on the merits of a case dismissed
before it could be heard?
Similarly, you presented as remarkable that the court had named the individuals against whom you
had brought charges, demonstrating that those individuals would be potentially subject to war
crimes trials.

Ka Puuhonua O Na Wahi Pana O Hawaii Nei

Nou Ke Akua Ke Aupuni O Hawaii
kingdomofhawaii.info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_treaties_signed_by_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii
The United Nations Charter provides the rest of the authority to do it. An autonomous independent sovereign nation-state contemplated under
Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States requiring the state as a person of international law possessing the
four qualifications of (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other
states.

Page 4

There was nothing remarkable about the Court taking note of the names. The court did nothing
more than restate the names of the people that YOU named in your complaint, on its way to
dismissing your complaint.
In 2001, you went to the Hague with a case in the name of Lance Larsen. You returned proclaiming
that you had achieved some great legal victory.
In fact, much like the Molokai case and the Swiss case, your claim was hollow. The Arbitral
Tribunal essentially ruled that the United States was a necessary party and, because the United
States refused to appear, the Tribunal could not address the merits of the case. Because the
Tribunal did not hear the case on the merits, the Tribunal made no rulings that you could proclaim
as your achievement.
The Occupation of Hawaii:
You have just returned from a trip to New Zealand where you convinced an indigenous leader in
that country that the United States has committed war crimes. You convinced her that [t]he U.S.
unilaterally seized the islands of Hawaii back in 1898 for military interests during the SpanishAmerican war, and have remained there as illegal occupiers ever since.
https://tewhareporahou.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/allegations-of-war-crimes-against-newzealand-citizen-in-hawaii/
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Did the United States invade Hawaii in 1898? No.

Did the United States set up a military government in Hawaii in 1898? No.
Was the Republic of Hawaii an occupied country? No.
Did the rules governing the behavior of a military government in an occupied country apply
to Hawaii? No.
Did the Republic of Hawaii make an agreement that allowed the United States to use
Hawaii as a refueling station for U.S military forces engaged in the war? Yes.

This fallacy of occupation that you have foisted on the people is similar to your presentation on
General Orders 101. http://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/u-s-pacific-command-in-violation-ofgeneral-orders-no-101/
This directive to military personnel by the Secretary of War governed the behavior of MILITARY
PERSONNEL participating in the occupation of areas previously under Spanish rule during the
Spanish American War.

Ka Puuhonua O Na Wahi Pana O Hawaii Nei

Nou Ke Akua Ke Aupuni O Hawaii
kingdomofhawaii.info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_treaties_signed_by_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii
The United Nations Charter provides the rest of the authority to do it. An autonomous independent sovereign nation-state contemplated under
Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States requiring the state as a person of international law possessing the
four qualifications of (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other
states.

Page 5

The directive applied to the military governments established by the United States in Cuba and
Puerto Rico. Again, there was no military government in Hawaii to which the General Order might
apply.
As a footnote to your deception, you acknowledge that the United States annexed Hawaii through
a joint resolution on July 7, 1898. There was, therefore, no need for a military expedition into
Hawaii and certainly no application to Hawaii of General Order 101 issued on July 17, 1898, i.e.
after the annexation.
On your blog you state:
General Orders No. 101 is a lawful order that has not been complied with for over a century and
the excuse that the Order is not relevant because the U.S. Congress annexed the Hawaiian Islands by
a joint resolution of annexation on July 7, 1898 is also a violation of customary international law
previously recognized by the United States.
You attempt to dismiss the historical fact that the United States did not invade Hawaii in 1898 by
misdirecting attention to the argument that the annexation was not legally performed.
I agree with you completely that the annexation was illegal. That does not alter the FACT that the
United States did not invade Hawaii and set up a military government.
If you were just some crackpot researcher spinning out fanciful theories and artificial histories, I
would not bother with you. Unfortunately for all of us, there are hundreds of people who really
appreciate your work and believe what you say. Why you trade on your credibility to plant seeds of
false law, false history, and false analysis is beyond me. I just know that you have to stop
committing what amounts to a fraud on the people.
One of the effects of your misdirection is a failure to address our actual situation. The United States
overthrew the Kingdom Government and recognized a collection of traitors as the new government.
That action is similar to the creation of the Vichy Government in France by the German invaders in
World War II. When the Germans were driven out of France, the previous government was
restored and the Vichy government was dissolved.
In the case of Hawaii, the Vichy Government is still in place. Whether called the Provisional
Government, the Republic of Hawaii, the Territory of Hawaii, or the State of Hawaii, our nation has
been governed by the illegitimate spawn created by the United States overthrow of the Kingdom.

Ka Puuhonua O Na Wahi Pana O Hawaii Nei

Nou Ke Akua Ke Aupuni O Hawaii
kingdomofhawaii.info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_treaties_signed_by_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii
The United Nations Charter provides the rest of the authority to do it. An autonomous independent sovereign nation-state contemplated under
Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States requiring the state as a person of international law possessing the
four qualifications of (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other
states.

Page 6

In that sense, our nation is unique in the world today. We should address our real situation, instead
of trying to shoe horn our history into someone elses model.
I trust that I will not have to return to this topic because you will be far more careful about the
truthfulness and accuracy of your presentations in the future.
In closing:
True leadership is not about superiority, position, or prestige. Its about revealing and releasing the
potential of those around you. Leadership is not about the power of one, but facilitating the
greatness of many. I trust the integrity and character of our people, that they will follow the truth
and stand in support of all things pono.
I have warned you in the past about your tendency to misrepresent the truth. Attached is the
Proclamation I issued at that time. I do not see any improvement in your behavior since that
time.
Ua Mau ke Ea o ka Aina i ka Pono,

Edmund K. Silva, Jr.

Alii Nui Mi
cc:

Na Kupuna Council O Hawaii Nei ame Moku

Alii Manao Nui Lanny Sinkin
Chief Justice Kingdom Supreme Court
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Ka Puuhonua O Na Wahi Pana O Hawaii Nei

Nou Ke Akua Ke Aupuni O Hawaii
kingdomofhawaii.info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_treaties_signed_by_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii
The United Nations Charter provides the rest of the authority to do it. An autonomous independent sovereign nation-state contemplated under
Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States requiring the state as a person of international law possessing the
four qualifications of (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other
states.