Sai V. Obama

UPDATE: MARCH 13, 2011 — On March 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint. Plaintiff’s Motion concludes: “In its Order, the Court admits it could resolve this case “through a straightforward analysis of federal and international law,” but declines to do so because of the political question doctrine. As stated above, the political question doctrine is a flawed legal argument that fails to support Defendants’ motion to dismiss because the U.S. Executive recognized Hawai`i as a sovereign and independent State since 1844, and the Lili`uokalani assignment is an extension of that sovereignty fully recognized and adhered to by President Cleveland in 1893 in his negotiations with Queen Lili`uokalani, executive of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Accordingly, the Court’s analysis of case law, rules, statutes and the political question doctrine have no relevance to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants under the Lili`uokalani assignment, whereby this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. §1350. For these reasons set forth above, this Court’s Order should be reconsidered and Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied. The Motion, as well as all court filings, can be downloaded at http://hawaiiankingdom.org/sai-obama.shtml under the heading “Court Docket Filings.”

—– Original Message —–

From: Keanu Sai, Ph.D.

To: Hawaiian Society of Law and Politics

Subject: Update Federal Lawsuit: Sai v. Clinton, et al.

UPDATE: MARCH 10, 2011 — On March 9, 2011, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issues Order granting the U.S. Attorney’s motion to dismiss. In her opinion, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, states, “Plaintiff argues that he is not challenging the legality of the State of Hawaii and his conviction but is merely asserting a claim for a violation of the Liliuokalani Assignment under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. However, in order to find that Defendants have violated the Liliuokalani Assignment as alleged by Plaintiff—or even to conclude that Plaintiff is an alien capable of bringing claims under the Alien Tort Statute rather than a U.S. citizen—the Court would have to determine that the annexation of Hawaii by the United States was unlawful and void. As described above, that is a political question that this Court cannot decide. The fact that the answer might be gleaned through a straightforward analysis of federal and international law does not matter; “[t]he political question doctrine deprives federal courts of jurisdiction, based on prudential concerns, over cases which would normally fall within their purview.“ Lin, 561 F.3d at 506; see id. (“We do not disagree with Appellants’ assertion that we could resolve this case through treaty analysis and statutory construction; we merely decline to do so as this case presents a political question which strips us of jurisdiction to undertake that otherwise familiar task.“) (internal citations omitted). Therefore, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.“

What is profound is that the Court admits the existence of the executive agreements, which is the basis of Plaintiff’s claim for relief, and the case can be resolved through treaty analysis and statutory construction, but because of the political question doctrine they are unable to grant relief to the Plaintiff for tort injuries. An appeal will be made to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that will address why the political question doctrine should not prevent the Court from granting relief in an Alien Tort Statute case. The Court also distinguished between a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss on subject matter jurisdictional grounds, which assumes facts alleged in the complaint to be true; and a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for Plaintiff’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, where the basis of the lawsuit, which is the executive agreement, does not exist. The Court stated this is not a 12(b)(6) motion.
—
******************************

*************************
Keanu Sai, Ph.D.
P.O. Box 2194
Honolulu, HI 96805-2194
Website http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/

Keanu Sai, the Kanaka intervenor and the Alien Tort Claim statute.

On June 1, 2010 David Keanu Sai (Dr. Sai) filed an Alien Tort Claim in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia before the honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Dr. Sai has done a great job in presenting evidence to the court for the past and present continuing tort injuries committed against the Hawaiian subjects and their independent and neutral country managed by United States of America supporting and collaborating with one of its union member states State of Hawaii.  When Dr. Sai named the “Hawaiian Kingdom Subject”, he named the interests of all Hawaiian nationals.  Compelling a review of the files before the US district court alleging to represent Hawaiian subjects obligated duties to maintain the legal and imprescriptable rights Hawaiian subjects are deprived of by the American government and its collaborating agents.

Concluding that the rights of our Hawaiian subjects are not fully articulated as we understand our rights as nationals, Premier Alfred Napahuelua Spinney filed as an Kanaka intervenor in the case.  Since then another subject of the Kingdom (James Keka) has also filed a motion to intervene.  Improvements of our process in the American courts is the only direction we posses by bringing all the essential parties to the case and further cases to come and we anticipate many more kanakas intervening and filing independent law suits in the USA and International areana.

Two independent law suits are in preparation, one will file against one of Hawaii’s treaty country for its role it manages.

Dr. Sai’s statement of his filing.

Dr. Sai’s filing are linked on this page.

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.