On August 29, 2011 Ken Conklin published a webpage "So-called executive agreements between Hawaii Queen Liliuokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland -- the new Hawaiian history scam by Keanu Sai" at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/SaiExecutiveAgreementsScam.html
On September 1, 2011 a shortened summary of that webpage was published in Hawaii Reporter online newspaper, and is copied in full below.
On September 12, 2011 Keanu Sai published a response in Hawaii Reporter, which is copied in full below. Sai's very lengthy essay was merely a self-serving summary of his views and a description of his personal history, along with a character assassination calling Conklin an angry, bitter and self-centered man" and "driven by anger and hate." In his essay, Sai repeatedly raised doubts whether Conklin truly has a Ph.D. However, his essay did not in any way respond to any of the specific points of fact and logic which Conklin had raised regarding Sai's theory about the "executive agreements." Thus, the "dialog" entered into by Sai was focused on personalities and credentials rather than any substantive debate concerning his bogus new scam.
Ken Conklin posted a lengthy comment on Hawaii Reporter which shows up at the bottom of Sai's article, and is copied in full below. Conklin's comment provides confirmation from an independent investigative news report that Conklin really does have a Ph.D.; links to photocopies of refereed scholarly articles he published which include confirmation of his Ph.D. and his university affiliations; and links to audios and videos displaying that his personality is friendly and mellow, not angry or bitter. Conklin also takes note that Sai's essay was indeed angry and bitter, unlike Conklin's; and that Sai's essay never addressed the facts or logic which were the entire content of Conklin's September 1 article that Sai was allegedly responding to.
There were several other comments as well, by other people; and more comments on other blogs.
Here's the "dialog."
------------
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/debunking-the-latest-hawaiian-sovereignty-scam-2/123
Short URL:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=39228
Hawaii Reporter, September 1, 2011
Debunking the Latest Hawaiian Sovereignty Scam
BY KENNETH R. CONKLIN, PH.D. -- The Hawaiian sovereignty history twisters are doing it again. Keanu Sai, a convicted felon known for his "Perfect Title" and "World Court" scams, is now pushing his third one. Three strikes and you're out? Time will tell.
The "Executive Agreements" scam begins with an assertion about what happened in 1893 between Hawaii ex-queen Liliuokalani and the new U.S. President Grover Cleveland. According to his 2008 Ph.D. dissertation and newly published book, David Keanu Sai says there were two executive agreements between those heads of state.
(1) The "Liliuokalani Assignment" consists of her letter of January 17, 1893 protesting the overthrow of the monarchy. In that letter she says she is surrendering temporarily to the U.S. until such time as the U.S. reverses the revolution and restores her to the throne. Sai claims this created an executive agreement whereby the U.S. promised to govern Hawaii in accord with Hawaiian Kingdom law during the temporary period until Liliuokalani was back in power.
But there are many difficulties with this theory. Liliuokalani's protest -- her "assignment" of authority to the U.S. -- was delivered to the office of the revolutionary Provisional Government President Sanford B. Dole, not to the office of U.S. Minister Plenipotentiary John L. Stevens. It's not clear how long it took before the U.S. found out that it had supposedly entered into an agreement with the ex-queen -- indeed, the U.S. never accepted this "assignment." There was no executive agreement.
Everyone knew that Grover Cleveland had been elected President on November 8, 1892, but would not take office until March (as was normal back then). Cleveland was the ex-queen's personal friend. So Liliuokalani was engaging in a crass political ploy of claiming to surrender to a faraway friend who was likely to help her, instead of surrendering to the closeup enemy who had actually defeated her and would never undo the revolution. Also, after January 17 Liliuokalani no longer had any executive authority because the revolution had ousted her. And Cleveland did not become President until 6 weeks later. So even if the two of them had made an agreement, it was not an agreement by two heads of state which would carry the force of a treaty and would impose upon their successors an obligation to carry it out.
(2) The "Agreement of Restoration" is Keanu Sai's assertion that in November and December of 1893 U.S. Minister Plenipotentiary Albert Willis, acting on orders from President Cleveland through Secretary of State Gresham, promised Liliuokalani to restore her to the throne if she would promise to grant amnesty to the revolutionaries. After Liliuokalani twice refused to grant amnesty and insisted she would behead the revolutionaries, she finally wrote a letter agreeing to grant amnesty. Sai says this consummated an executive agreement obligating the U.S. to put Liliuokalani back on the throne, and the obligation is binding on all subsequent Presidents. Although Liliuokalani is long dead, Barack Obama must restore sovereign authority to the Kingdom of Hawaii as an independent nation, because of the "agreement" President Cleveland made to restore the ex-queen.
But of course Liliuokalani had no executive authority after January 17, so it was not possible for any agreement she made 10 or 11 months later to be regarded as tantamount to a treaty. In any case, no U.S. official ever promised to put Liliuokalani back on the throne. The U.S. did not own Hawaii, and had no right or authority to do such a thing. The Provisional government and President Dole were not a U.S. puppet regime, and there were zero U.S. peacekeepers remaining in Hawaii after April 1. The only promise made to Liliuokalani by U.S. officials was to serve as a mediator between Liliuokalani and Dole, and to ask Dole to step down, if Liliuokalani would guarantee to grant amnesty. When Liliuokalani finally did agree to amnesty, U.S. Minister Willis sent President Dole a strongly worded letter essentially ordering him to step down (that was the first time Dole had heard of this preposterous idea); but Dole replied on December 23 with an even more strongly worded letter refusing. There was never an executive agreement whereby the U.S. promised to restore the Queen. The U.S. could not make such a promise, any more than Ken Conklin could promise to give Haleiwa Bridge to a taxi driver who might take him there.
Keanu Sai's "Executive Agreements" scam is a continuation of his previous Perfect Title and World Court scams. And as in those previous scams, large sums of money are being paid by gullible people, mostly ethnic Hawaiians, who rely upon Sai's theories to file nonsensical title search documents in court whereby they hope to avoid mortgage foreclosure. This latest scam is not only historical malpractice but is also causing real hurt to many people. The state House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs (including some Republicans) passed a resolution with no dissenting votes, trumpeting Sai's Executive Agreements theories and calling for a joint House-Senate committee to hold hearings on how to implement them. Shame on that insane committee and every one of its members.
For details, see a new webpage at
http://tinyurl.com/3vdttyp
-------------------------
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/conklins-points-on-hawaii-sovereignty-not-valid/123
Short URL:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=39758
Hawaii Reporter, September 12, 2011
Conklin's Points on Hawaii Sovereignty Not Valid
BY DR. KEANU SAI PHD - This letter is in response to Dr. Ken Conklin's article printed in the Hawaii Reporter online on September 1, 2011, as well as the July 17, 2011 article by Andrew Walden in another publication. I have always refrained from responding to these types of articles, but I have since changed my mind in order to qualify and clarify a lot of misinformation being presented. As for Walden's article, I think Br. Christopher Fishkin did a fine job in his response, which can be read at the bottom of the article. But as for Dr. Conklin this response is all him, since he's been writing diatribes concerning my research and myself. He also tries to portray himself as an expert, which he definitely is not. In other words, he never warranted a response from me until now because there are some people who actually think Dr. Conklin has valid points. He doesn't.
First, here's a little background of myself. After I graduated from Kamehameha Schools in 1982, I attended New Mexico Military Institute, a military college, where I graduated in 1984 with a A.A. degree in pre-business and a commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve's early commissioning program. I then attended the University of Hawai`i at Manoa and graduated in 1987 with a B.A. in Sociology. While attending the university, I joined the 1/487 Field Artillery Battalion in 1984 to begin fulfilling my six-year obligation as a commissioned officer. I completed my obligation after serving ten years and retired as a Captain in 1994, where I served on both active and reserve status. My commands included Fire Direction Officer, Company Fire Support Officer, Battalion Fire Support Officer, and lastly as Battery Commander.
When I was promoted to Captain in 1990, I began to do research in the Hawai`i archives on my family's genealogy, and through this research I began to realize, through the actual records, a history of Hawai`i that I was not aware of or taught at either Kamehameha Schools or at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa. From a military perspective it was intelligence or “intel,” as we would call it, which is historical information I never knew. This resulted in delving deeper into the records and processing this information as if I was the Intel Officer for a battalion. In the military, a battle plan is never developed before the intel is processed. It is through this assessment of intel that battle plans arise. As officers, we were trained to view history as if it's a film of the past, run through the projector of today, on to the screen of tomorrow. The “film” is the intel, the processing of information is the “projector,” and the battle plan presents itself onto the of “screen of tomorrow.”
It became crystal clear that the Hawaiian Kingdom, being a recognized independent and sovereign state since 1843, continued to exist despite the overthrow of its government in 1893. This was a similar case in 1990 when the U.S. military overthrew the Iraqi government. By overthrowing Saddam Hussein's government, the overthrow did not equate to an overthrow of Iraq as a sovereign state. Governments and Sovereign States are separate and distinct. Governments exercise the sovereignty of the State, it does not constitute the State itself. In the Army, Field Manual 27-10 regulates occupations of foreign states, which succeeded the 1863 Lieber Code. Section 353 of FM 27-10 provides:
“Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the possession of enemy territory, necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power. Occupation is essentially provisional.
On the other hand, subjugation or conquest implies a transfer of sovereignty, which generally takes the form of annexation and is normally effected by a treaty of peace. When sovereignty passes, belligerent occupation, as such, of course ceases, although the territory may and usually does, for a period at least, continue to be governed through military agencies.”
There were two occupations of the Hawaiian Islands by the U.S. military, the first between January 16, 1893 and April 1, 1893, and the second from August 12, 1898 to the present. President Cleveland determined the first landing and occupation as “an act of war” and the second occupation was during the Spanish-American war. There is no treaty transferring Hawai`i's sovereignty to the United States, only congressional legislation (1898 joint resolution of annexation), which has no effect beyond U.S. territory. In other words, the U.S. Congress could no more pass a joint resolution annexing Canada today, than it could annex Hawai`i by joint resolution in 1898.
What has happened over the past 113 years is clear propaganda coupled with a revisionist history. In 1994, I decided to retire from the Army as a Captain and with this irrefutable evidence; I wanted to test the theory that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. My driving force was that a great wrong was done to my country and it had to be addressed and remedied. To do this would entail being respectful, responsible and accountable, but in doing this I knew full well that I would also be dealing with people who were disrespectful and irresponsible.
From the intel or historical information gathered came the plan to be executed, and this plan was to expose the prolonged occupation of my country by concentrating on real estate. What we were going to expose was that land titles could not be transferred since January 17, 1893, because in order to convey property in the Hawaiian Kingdom a person granting title was required to go before a notary public of the kingdom and thereafter record the deed in the Bureau of Conveyances. As a result of the illegal overthrow of the government, this act prevented land titles from being transferred because there were no lawful notaries and a lawful registrar for the Bureau of Conveyances after January 17, 1893. There was no lawful government since January 17, 1893. A very logical analysis.
On December 10, 1995, myself and Donald Lewis, a retired real estate broker and founder of Locations, Inc. (now Prudential Locations), established Perfect Title Company and the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company, both being companies established under the 1880 statute regulating co-partnership firms. Perfect Title exposed that all titles in the islands were defective since January 17, 1893. The effect that this information had was on the local escrow companies, title insurance and the real estate industry. The reason for the profound impact is that before a bank loans money to a borrower, they require the borrower to go to an escrow company to purchase title insurance, called a loan policy, to protect the bank in case there is a defect in the title, which would render the mortgage invalid. The purchase of title insurance is a condition of the loan and if the borrower isn't able to purchase the title insurance to protect the bank he doesn't get the loan. The lender's policy pays off the loan if there is a defect in title.
The escrow companies did not disclose the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government and the limitation of United States law to within United States territory. Absent a treaty, U.S. law has no effect in the Islands. However, title insurance was issued when there were clear defects. Perfect Title Company created havoc in the real estate industry because the title companies could not refute Perfect Title Company's reports. Somehow the title industry got the State of Hawai`i government involved, which led to a raid on the company by the Honolulu Police Department's white collar crime unit. Donald, the company's secretary, and myself were arrested outlandish allegations of racketeering, tax evasion and theft. After a couple months, these outrageous charges were dropped and Donald, one of our clients, and myself were indicted on first-degree attempted theft, a so-called class B felony. The fundamental problem with this indictment is that real property, which is immovable, is not the subject of theft—only personal property, which is movable, is the subject of theft. In fact, the general rule of larceny states:
“Common law larceny is the trespassory taking (caption) and carrying away (asportation) of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the possessor of the property. Larceny is a specific-intent crime. Real property is not the subject of larceny law. Moreover, only tangible forms of personal property are encompassed in the offense.”
If there were to be any charges filed it should have been conspiracy and fraud, but Perfect Title Reports could not be refuted. This led to my conviction of a manufactured crime, which is the basis of my federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C. against Secretary of State Clinton, former Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Willard of the U.S. Pacific Command for not faithfully executing two executive agreements entered into between President Cleveland and Queen Lili`uokalani. The manufactured conviction also smeared my name and reputation, which is also the basis of the tort injury in the federal lawsuit.
After returning from the Netherlands where I served as lead agent in arbitration proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in December of 2000, I entered the Political Science department at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa and graduated with a M.A degree specializing in international relations in 2004, and in 2008 I graduated with the Ph.D. degree specializing in international relations and public law. While I was a Ph.D. student in the program, I wrote a law journal article published in the Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics (University of Hawai`i at Manoa) in 2004, and I was invited by the editor of the Journal of Law and Social Challenges (University of San Francisco School of Law) to write another law journal article on the executive agreement, which was published in 2008. Both law journal articles were law reviewed, which means they were critiqued for accuracy and appropriate application of law, and Heinonline, being a publisher of law materials, published both journals online.
My doctoral dissertation centered on the legal history of the Hawaiian Islands that stemmed from Kamehameha I to the present. There were six professors on my committee that ranged from political scientists, law professors and a Hawaiian historian. Having successfully defended my doctoral dissertation, the committee's critique was not only welcomed but also greatly assisted me in refining the narrative and legal arguments I made. I also have two pending books that will be published by the University of Hawai`i Press, which includes my dissertation and a book on land titles.
I am assuming that Ken Conklin, has a Ph.D., only because he says so. I can't qualify my assumption though. At least for myself, anyone can check the authenticity of my Ph.D. in Political Science and my published articles and doctoral dissertation. I've also participated in a multitude of academic conferences throughout the world where I presented my research that can also be authenticated (curriculum vitae). On the other hand, I found no literature that has been “law reviewed” or even a doctoral dissertation that was successfully defended that Dr. Conklin could reference as to qualifying his opinion regarding the legal history of the Hawaiian Islands. From what I've heard, Dr. Conklin's Ph.D. was in Philosophy. Philosophy is not Political Science, and there is no specialty in Philosophy that covers international relations or public law as Political Science does. To say Philosophy is equal to Political Science would be to say Chemistry is equal to Business Administration
While I served as an Army officer, it was required to be qualified as you were being promoted from 2nd Lieutenant, to 1st Lieutenant, to Captain. The military schools under my belt included Field Artillery Officer Basic Course for Lieutenants, U.S. Air Force Air Ground Operation School for combined arms tactics, and Field Artillery Officer Advanced Course for Captains. In civilian life, my M.A. degree, and Ph.D. degree qualifies my expertise in international relations and public law, with particular emphasis on the legal and political history of my country—the Hawaiian Kingdom. I am also able to qualify and explain the actions taken at Perfect Title Company, the arbitration case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, and the complaint filed with the United Nations Security Council.
Independent authors also published articles on the arbitration and complaint filed with the U.N. Security Council in the American Journal of International Law and the Chinese Journal of International Law. These authors are law professors in the United States and Canada. I also have a new history book titled “Ua Mau Ke Ea (Sovereignty Endures): A Political and Legal Overview of the History of the Hawaiian Islands,” which is currently being used in classrooms in High Schools, the Community Colleges, the University of Maui College, and the University of Hawai`i at Manoa.
What can Dr. Conklin claim as qualifying his opinion, a self-published book that was not peer or law reviewed or his thirty commentaries published online? If I self-published a book and wrote thirty commentaries online, that wouldn't make me an expert. It merely attests to the fact that I paid for the publication of my own book, and I wrote thirty commentaries giving my opinion. If I were the one to peer review his book, I would rip it to shreds because it is full of assumptions, opinions, misinformation, and misinterpretations. He has no qualified opinion, which is why I never responded to his diatribe in the past.
I was raised in an extended Hawaiian family where my parents, grandparents, uncles and aunties, instilled in me to be respectful and responsible—to be “pono.” Since I chose to walk this path after retiring from the Army, I have seen the ugliness, the disrespect and the irresponsibility of people, but it has not swayed me in my firm conviction and belief in “pono.”
My country, the Hawaiian Kingdom, was and is multi-cultural and multi-ethnic, especially since I am not only aboriginal Hawaiian, but also Caucasian—my great grandfather, being Charles Reeves, is from Tennessee. The Hawaiian Kingdom is also a not so distant past, where my aboriginal Hawaiian great-grandparents were born in the 1880s, which is only two generations ago when Hawai`i was a vibrant country that had a U.S. Legation (embassy) in Honolulu and a Hawaiian Legation (embassy) in Washington, D.C. I also firmly believe in responsible education and that's why I teach at Windward Community College and also sit as a committee member for Ph.D. candidates at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa. Dr. Conklin seems to believe that if you keep repeating yourself over and over, people will eventually believe you and think you have valid points, especially if you have the letters Ph.D. at the end of your name. This is no scholar, but a self-indulging man who believes in conspiracy theories that center on race politics.
Dr. Conklin, if he really does have a Ph.D., is an angry, bitter and self-centered man, whose diatribe that he spews is neither respectful nor responsible. His opinions are unqualified, and whether he knows it or not he has provided an abundance of evidence that can be used in a lawsuit for libel and slander. If I were Dr. Conklin, I would be very careful what I write, but then again, I'm responding to an angry and bitter man and someone who is angry and bitter usually doesn't think straight. When I was in the Army, officer's who don't think straight would be relieved of their command. The basis for relieving the officer would be because it would place their men, which they lead, in harm's way. I am assuming Dr. Conklin never served as a commissioned officer in the military, nor would I assume he ever served in the military, so he wouldn't understand the level of responsibility an officer holds.
Tom Coffman, who was a United Press International Reporter, Government Reporter for the Honolulu Advertiser, and Political Reporter & Bureau Chief for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, published a revised edition in 2009 of his seminal book “Nation Within: The History of the American Occupation of Hawai`i.” His original publication in 1998 was titled “Nation Within: The Story of America's Annexation of Hawai`i.” In his revised edition, he explains why he dropped “annexation” and replaced it with “occupation.” Coffman states:
“I am compelled to add that the continued relevance of this book reflects a far-reaching political moral and intellectual failure of the United States to recognize and deal with its takeover of Hawai'i. In the book's subtitle, the word Annexation has been replaced by the word Occupation, referring to America's occupation of Hawai'i. Where annexation connotes legality by mutual agreement, the act was not mutual and therefore not legal. Since by definition of international law there was no annexation, we are left then with the word occupation. In making this change, I have embraced the logical conclusion of my research into the events of 1893 to 1898 in Honolulu and Washington, D.C. I am prompted to take this step by a growing body of historical work by a new generation of Native Hawaiian scholars. Dr. Keanu Sai writes, ‘The challenge for…the fields of political science, history, and law is to distinguish between the rule of law and the politics of power.' In the history of Hawai'i, the might of the United States does not make it right.”
Tom Coffman restated a sentence of my conclusion in my law journal article published in the Journal of Law and Social Challenges, titled “A Slippery Path Towards Hawaiian Indigeneity,” where I advocate responsible study and research into the ramifications of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government. I would like to close with rest of the conclusion of my article that followed the stated sentence made by Coffman that sums up why responsible education is needed.
“Rigorous and diligent study into the Hawaiian-American situation is not only warranted by the current legal and political challenges facing Native Hawaiians that the Akaka Bill seeks to quell, it is a matter of what is right and just. The ramifications of this study cannot be underestimated, and its consequences are, no doubt, far-reaching. They span from the political and legal to the social and economic venues situated in both the national and international levels. Therefore, in light of the severity of this needed research, analytical rigor is at the core and must not fall victim to political affiliations, partisanship or just plain bias.”
What appears to drive Dr. Conklin to do what he does is neither responsible nor respectful, but seems to be driven by anger and hate. I don't even know who he is except for what he writes, so I don't know why he's so angry. If there were anyone who should be angry that would be me after what transpired since 1994 as a result of exposing the truth that I can now qualify as a political scientist. But I'm not angry. I have a “kuleana,” a responsibility to continue where my Queen and former countrymen and women left off. I live by my kingdom's national motto uttered by King Kamehameha III on July 31, 1843 after the government was restored by British Admiral Thomas.
“Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka 'Aina I Ka Pono”
(The Life of the Land is Perpetuated in what is Right and Just).
For more information on my research and expertise please visit:
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/index.html
-------------------------
** Published on September 12, 2011 in Hawaii Reporter as a comment which appears at the bottom of Sai's article.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=39758
Reply to Keanu Sai's September 12 diatribe
BY KENNETH R. CONKLIN, PH.D. --
In his September 12 Hawaii Reporter diatribe at
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=39758
Keanu Sai repeatedly uses the words "angry", "bitter", and "hate" to describe me and my writing. But there's lots of evidence to the contrary. To see/hear my charming demeanor on display, look for videos and audio files linked on my autobiography webpage at
http://tinyurl.com/5c8xcy
One reason I felt compelled to create that webpage was because of a few sovereignty activists who, like Sai, were trying to do character assassination against me rather than engaging in serious discussion using facts and logic.
The Hawaii Reporter article I published on September 1
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=39228
has not one angry word. Dear readers, please read it again to confirm that. It attacks Sai's ideas, not his personality; except perhaps for the word "scam" which is indeed a perjorative, but accurate, description of his activities (especially the Perfect Title scam as documented in dozens of newspaper articles and in his felony conviction).
Anyone who compares the tone of my essays against the tone of Keanu Sai's September 12 article will see that it is Keanu Sai who is bitter and angry. I suspect the reason for his demeanor is because for more than two decades he's been cruising along giving speeches to admirers who never challenge his assertions. I'm guessing that even the UH Professors on his Ph.D. committee never seriously cross-examined him on what's in his dissertation and what's missing from it that might refute it. Now he's angry and bitter because this Ken Conklin fellow comes along and dares to publicly challenge him with facts and logic. Thus we are treated to Sai's personal attacks, and his lengthy mere reassertion of propaganda rather than counter-arguments against my facts and logic.
There is nothing whatsoever in his article posted September 12 which even tries to refute any of the substantive points I made in my article of September 1 regarding Sai's claims about "executive agreements." In particular, Sai repeated his usual stump speech about history, but said not one word to argue against my very clear and logical debunking of what he calls the "Liliuokalani Assignment" and the "Agreement of Restoration." I urge readers to examine carefully what I wrote in Hawaii Reporter on September 1, at
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=39228
and in the extended version referenced in that essay, at
http://tinyurl.com/3vdttyp
In his diatribe Sai repeatedly tried to smear me by questioning whether I truly have a Ph.D. Hawaiian sovereignty zealots love to make totally false personal attacks against their opponents in an effort to discredit them. The same smear Sai is trying was also tried eight years ago by the now-disgraced President of the University of Hawaii, Evan Dobelle, who said publicly that Conklin's Ph.D. was bogus. But independent reporter Bob Rees verified that the degree is real, and that the proof of its legitimacy was on file at Windward Community College in the form of Conklin's official transcripts from the University of Illinois, required before Conklin could be given a teaching position at Windward. Those records would have been easily available to the President of the University if he had bothered to check. Rees also took note that Dobelle and other UH officials were still dodging any discussion about or admission of the flagrant violation of academic freedom when UH gave zero support to Conklin a year previously when intimidation and threats of violence were directed against Conklin's pro-bono short-course on Hawaiian sovereignty. See "VERITAS AT THE UH" -- article by reporter Bob Rees published in The Honolulu Weekly newspaper for October 15-21, 2003 and copied, with the Weekly's cartoon now missing from the Weekly's archives, at:
http://tinyurl.com/44kcu
Further proof of my Ph.D., and background as a professor, can be found in approximately 45 scholarly articles I published in refereed academic journals focusing on the three areas of expertise I had before coming to Hawaii: philosophy, educational theory, and mathematics. Unfortunately that was before Al Gore invented the internet. But 14 of those articles have been scanned and are now on the internet. Several of those publications include a footnote where the journal's editor includes the Ph.D. with my name, and the name of the university where I was teaching at that time. The collection of 14 articles is at
http://tinyurl.com/pv8fx
Finally, Sai should know that people who have a Ph.D., especially in Philosophy, often branch out to acquire expertise in other subjects through research, analysis, and writing. For example, at the UH Center for Hawaiian Studies (now Hawai'inuiākea School of Hawaiian Knowledge), very few professors have a Ph.D. in Hawaiian Studies or "Hawaiian Knowledge" -- their degrees are typically in Political Science, History, Sociology, Anthropology, or even Women's Studies. Sai's own Ph.D. is in Political Science, so what's he doing speaking and writing about history, and the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and international law, and all his other favorite topics?
Just to make it very clear: my field of greatest expertise is now Hawaiian sovereignty. I have used my skills as a researcher, thinker, and writer to spend the last 19 years in full-time study of Hawaiian sovereignty issues including Hawaiian history, culture, language, and the sovereignty "movement" itself (including attending hundreds of sovereignty rallies, lectures, conversations, etc.) My expertise on Hawaiian sovereignty is far greater than it ever was in the fields of my B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.
---------------------
Additional comments, rearranged so that a comment appears immediately before any comment on that comment. Time stamps have been deleted because it appears they are based on the local time on the commenter's own computer rather than the time it was in Hawaii when the comment was either received or posted.
palani
September 12, 2011
People who cast aspersions on the academic credentials of others should tread carefully. I have no dog in this fight, but recent submissions to Hawaii Reporter by Mr. Conklin reflect a much better command of the written language and logical thinking than this clumsy and poorly argued screed. Mr. Sai may have earned a PhD from the University of Hawaii, but that speaks more to the institution's rather weak standing relative to its peers than to his own self-proclaimed expertise.
Horhai1
September 12, 2011
Not sure what article (s) you read but I have to concurr with sai, Concklin states that there was a revolution and that Dole and his cohorts were "revolutionist" there was no revolution it was a pure overthrow by gready business owners who used the United States military to back their attack on this nation and the Queen, just because you have a Hawaiian sounding name does not make you Hawaiian............................ as far as the letters "Queens Assignment" and Agreement of Restoration" they are still an open discussion and just because some one can " logical" infuse their opinion it does not make factual.
Puukukui
September 13, 2011
"...cast aspersions"~~~Unfounded. "I have no dog in this fight."~~~Disingenuous, at best. The rest of your posted comments is absurd and lacking a single kernel of truth to leaving you alone with "your opinions."
Puukukui
September 14, 2011
Mr. Conklin wrote: "Just to make it very clear: my field of greatest expertise is now Hawaiian sovereignty. I have used my skills as a researcher, thinker, and writer to spend the last 19 years in full-time study of Hawaiian sovereignty issues including Hawaiian history, culture, language, and the sovereignty "movement" itself (including attending hundreds of sovereignty rallies, lectures, conversations, etc.) My expertise on Hawaiian sovereignty is far greater than it ever was in the fields of my B.S., M.S., and Ph.D."
So Mr. Conklin. You claim to be a so-called "expert" on Hawaiian history, sovereignty issues, "Hawaiian Sovereignty" yada, yada, yada... - Anointing yourself an "expert" only makes you a wanna-be
You have yet to successfully and compellingly refute academically and/or in any legal context Dr. David "Keanu" Sai's Doctorial Dissertation. Your conduct and behavior shows illusions-of-grandeur. Some humility would not hurt yoly.u at all. In fact, it would benefit us all greatly.
Jere Krischel
September 13, 2011
The problem David Sai has (besides around issues of morality and taking advantage of people who buy into his pseudo-intellectual scams), can be summed up in four words: The Republic of Hawaii. The internationally recognized, sovereign and independent nation which followed the Kingdom of Hawaii, is always glossed over in David's narrative as an inconvenient truth. LIke it or not, the entire international community, every nation which ever had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom (including Queen Liliuokalani herself), recognized the Republic of Hawaii as the lawful successor to the Kingdom. Once that was done, there was never going to be a return to the Kingdom.
As a sovereign and independent nation, the Republic of Hawaii, regardless of its origin, had every right to sue for Annexation after surviving for four years under a hostile US Administration. This annexation was internationally recognized, and our Statehood was also internationally recognized by the UN when Hawaii was removed from the list of non-self-governing territories.
What David Sai sells is a compelling narrative of blame, and his victims buy his DVDs, his fake deeds, his t-shirts, and only give him more incentive to continue his deceitful ways.
Puukukui
September 14, 2011
Mr Krischel's has unwittingly broken a magicians cardinal rule...he has revealed his magician's trick - The art of deception e.g. The Republic of Hawaii, FRAUD and Mr. Krischel's choir-leading fails to qualify him and/or his claims to the level of experience and expertise as Dr. David "Keanu" Sai, Ph.D.. Surely, Mr. Krischel, the public is cognizant of these facts!
In simpler terms, Dr. David "Keanu" Sai, Ph.D. or as Mr. Krischel writes "David Sai" has earned his credentials. But more importantly, Dr. Sai has earned the respect and consideration of entire generations. A success that cannot be diminished or disqualified by Mr. Krischel's and Mr. Conklin's desperate ploys.
Gentleman...resistance is futile.
rsokolowski
September 13, 2011
The US military and US government did not overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii, members of the Kingdom of Hawaii overthrew the Queen and then ran the government. The US government did not initially recognize the overthrow and instructed the "new" government to reinstate the Queen. The question that needs to be asked is why would the US government us it's military to overthrow the queen and then not accept that new government? The answer is that the US military was used to protect life and property of US citizens residing in the Kingdom of Hawaii just like had been done several times in the past.
Puukukui
September 13, 2011
"the US military was used to protect life and property of US citizens residing in the Kingdom of Hawaii"...huh? Then why did the US Marines set up their camp & Gatlin Guns across of Iolani Palace? The closes "American property" was about 15 miles away. Unfounded and irresponsible to maintain such a discredited claim.
And yes, members (e.g. Hawaiian Kingdom Citizens) of the Hawaiian government committed "Treason" against Queen and Country...therefore were/are "INSURGENTS" much like the ones your country's military are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now that Dr. David "Keanu" Sai, Ph.D. has his work published and in the hands/classrooms of Hawaii's educators the nonsensical and unfounded prapaganda can be refutted absolutely.
Dave Wratchford
September 13, 2011
If we are going to revisit history why just go back to 1893? Kamehameha was not the original ruler of anything until he took it by force in 1810. I'm sure King Kalanikupule would have liked that overthrow reversed. And if Kamehamehas victory made him a legitimate ruler why doesn't Sanford Doles?
Puukukui
September 13, 2011
Chronology: Era + Rule of Law = Relevence. Sanford Dole broke laws and knew it! The only way he could rule was by/through Force of Arms eg. US Military. Prapaganda is a Weapon of Mass Destruction...it destroys/enslaves/corrupts millions and/or billions of minds!
keonaona
September 13, 2011
Keanu, you and your family are my Hero's.Nothing but Truth has passed your lips regarding our country. What you have on your side is God,our Kupuna's who were there, and the truth. There is much evil out there being conjured up by those who constantly attack you, but your Truth outshines and pierces thru their veil of darkness,confusion,lies and deceit.....We love you and May god continue to bless you and all that you do.
Puukukui
September 13, 2011
Dr. David "Keanu" Sai, Ph.D. has presented a well researched, factual and compelling doctorial dissertation. His thorough research into Hawaiian Society of Law & Politics penetrates the barriers of racism and prapaganda inflicted upon whole societies, here and abroad. Dr. Sai's work speaks for itself. It (Doctorial Dissertation) invites discussion and inquiries. The cruel, vicious and unfounded comments directed at Dr. Sai are not only unwarrented, they are socially divisive and reek of early American Colonialism and Eurocentric arrogance. One can only conclude (rationally that is) such comments are motivated by the fear, greed and loathing found in racism. Now, lets all work to end racism!
palani
September 13, 2011
Try using spellcheck next time, Puukukui. I forgot that logic and reason are Western concepts, so I guess Mr. Sai is exempted from their use, and his critics must be racist colonialists.
Puukukui
September 13, 2011
Irrelevent.
--------------
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM OTHER BLOGS
---------------
Scott Crawford called attention to Keanu Sai's article on Crawford's Hawaiian Kingdom Independence blog on September 13 at
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/?p=854
Dr. Sai sets Ken Conklin straight
Check out this essay from Keanu in Hawaii Reporter
* Link provided to Sai's article
2 comments to Dr. Sai sets Ken Conklin straight
Lima 'Ula
September 13, 2011
Dr. Keanu Sai has employed the Midas touch in his response every word has turned to gold…. little wonder he is the gifted charismatic idol to a whole generation of Hawaiian Nationals!
Ken Ng
September 14, 2011
Aloha. We know what is pono and what isn't. In this case we know who is pono and who isn't. And we know how to rectify the oppression of our occupation: a Free Hawai'i.
--------------------
** Highly respected investigative blogger Ian Lind gave a "shout out" to Ken Conklin, with some followups on later days; and the shoutout as well as the followups attracted comments from regular readers of Lind's blog. Here are excerpts directly relevant to Conklin and Sai's essays. For those not familiar with Ian Lind, he is a former newspaper reporter who has a far-left liberal viewpoint. He is married to far-left professor of Women's Studies Meda Chesney-Lind, and they live in Kaaawa with a large number of cats [Are the cats relevant as evidence of a man's political leanings? Does anyone know a man who has multiple cats and personally tends to their medical and social needs, who is not far-left politically?] Most of Lind's readers share his views. Lind's shout out was disturbing to some of his readers who were concerned that Lind might be straying to the wrong side of an argument; Lind's readers' comments prompted Lind to defend himself for posting the shout-out to Conklin. Some interesting discussions occurred regarding the need for careful examination of views that might be uncomfortable to discuss or are contrary to commonly-held opinions (i.e., politically incorrect).
--------------------
http://ilind.net/2011/09/04/a-shout-out-to-ken-conklin-some-sunday-reading/
Ian Lind's blog September 4th, 2011
A shout-out to Ken Conklin & some Sunday reading
I'll just tag a few bits of Sunday reading before we head out for breakfast with friends at Koolau Golf Course. With our range out of order, we're thrown off our normal Sunday routine of a puffy egg white omelet. So we'll go the commercial route today.
So, to the reading. Sometimes I'm very glad for Ken Conklin, and this is one of those times. He has taken the time to dismantle Keanu Sai's latest pseudo-history in a long essay: “So-called executive agreements between Hawaii Queen Liliuokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland — the new Hawaiian history scam by Keanu Sai.”
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/SaiExecutiveAgreementsScam.html
Thank you, Ken.
* Comment by Ken Stokes // Sep 4, 2011
Conklin's still spinning scam? zzzzzzzz
True, he gets mahalos for linking to the Willis-Dole letters…which everyone should read.
* Comment by Warren Iwasa // Sep 4, 2011
Thanks, Ian, for recognizing the work of Kenneth Conklin. Another article by him that deserves wide notice is “Hawaiian Language as a Political Weapon.” Anyone who values Orwell on language would find the article rewarding. It would have been a welcome addition to “The Value of Hawaii.”
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/HawLangPolitWeapon.html
* Comment by Dean Little // Sep 5, 2011
I could never understand what Conklin is defend ing when he attacks the Hawaiian past and present. Is it the civilization that used atomic weapons on Micronesia as merely a test and then finds it too costly to supply medical services for the pain and suffering it caused?
* Comment by Leinanij // Sep 6, 2011
I wouldn't have guessed Ian that you would ever support a blatant Hawaiian hater, bigot and liar like Ken Conklin who compares Hawaiians to Nazis. This makes me very sad.
* Comment to Leinanji by Ian Lind // Sep 6, 2011
I don't want to leave you sad…I'll try to post a full response. For now, I'll just point out that I'm not endorsing Conklin's range of views. I have moderated or declined a number of his comments here that were off the edge. However, I do appreciate his scrutiny of Sai's positions, which desperately need to be very carefully examined and criticized where appropriate. He's been given a free ride locally because few people want to engage at that level. That's unfortunate, in my view.
* Comment by Kali // Sep 10, 2011
Back in the 1990s, I met a few people who would faithfully watch Rush Limbaugh's TV show. They hated Limbaugh and were not themselves conservative, but they said that loved the way that he would skewer Democrats. I watched the show and was shocked that Limbaugh did not really skewer anyone, he would simply show video clips of Democratic politicians.
For instance, on the show I saw a video clip of Bill Clinton on the campaign trail at a state fair, with something like a wet t-shirt contest right next to him. Clinton had a microphone, and he told the audience “This is great! You guys have no idea what I had to sacrifice in order to run for President….” I was shocked.
Maybe that is the appeal of certain of Ken Conklin's writings. One does not have to agree with him in order to enjoy the way that he easily pokes holes in the rather weak arguments of those he opposes.
But I still prefer Pierre Omidyar to Conklin. Rather than impose an ideology on society, Omidyar subsidizes a newspaper that simply asks questions. That kind of questioning eats away at the status quo and its assumptions.
But it is a scary thing to ask questions because one never knows where they will lead. ...
------------
http://ilind.net/2011/09/05/kingdom-based-claims-still-being-used-to-block-foreclosures/
Ian Lind's blog of September 5
Kingdom-based claims still being used to block foreclosures
There was a section down a ways in Ken Conklin's essay referred to here yesterday yesterday was a brief description of the latest foreclosure flim-flam being sold to Hawaiians. It's an important reference.
In summer 2011 people are reportedly paying $2900 to a real estate firm “Laulima LLC” which then gives them a slightly individualized printed standard document the size of a book which, the customers are told, they can submit in court as evidence that they own their property under the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom with no need to pay any mortgage to modern “owners” whose land title is not valid, due to the overthrow of the monarchy.
Actually, as I read their materials, the company's “research” is designed to support claims against title insurance policies based on alleged faulty title.
The company's claims were described by its president, Kale Gumapac, in legislative testimony in February 2011.
Here's the beginning and ending of their theory:
Deeds of conveyance of real property and mortgages afterJanuary 17, 1893 cannot be considered lawfully executed because the Registrar of Conveyances or notaries public were not lawfully vested with the authority to acknowledge the execution of deeds of conveyance and mortgages because they were insurgents and members of the so-called provisional government and its successor the Republic of Hawai'i–not officers of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Since August 12″ 1898, execution of deeds of conveyance of real estate and mortgages also cannot be considered lawfully executed because these insurgents were maintained under the Territory of Hawai'i government, and only Hawaiian subjects can serve as the Registrar of Conveyance and notaries public. Because Hawaiian Kingdom law was not being administered, it in effect, renders all conveyances of real estate and mortgages securing the repayment of loans within Hawaiian territory since January 17, 1893 to the present null and void. The notary public and Registrar of of Conveyances were not competent to execute deeds or mortgages.
It's not a new theory. It was promoted by Perfect Title back in the 1990s, which led to criminal charges. Keanu Sai, one of the Perfect Title principals, is now a consultant to Laulima.
Recently Laulima has been crowing about several district court decisions in favor of owners fighting foreclosures, including a case involving Laulima president Kale Gumapac.
Gumapac writes on facebook:
I just received the signed order from Judge Harry Freitas that dismisses the foreclosure on my house and renders the writ of possession by Deutsche Bank moot. I have attached the order to this note at the bottom. Laulima Title and Search Claims LLC has won 3 precedent setting cases in Hawaii and this is one of them. Mahalo to Dr. Keanu Sai, Dexter Kaiama and Momi Kapahu-Glushenko for their dedication and hard work. We will submit a claim for a defect in title on my owner's title insurance policy with this order order attached signed by the judge. The title insurance company will have to pay on 2 policies. One to the lender and one to the owner. “Pupukahi i holomua!”
The implication is that the courts have given some credence to the theory that all post-1898 land transactions are flawed, but a look at the details shows this isn't true at all.
These recent district court decisions follow a ruling by the Intermediate Court of Appeals in May (DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY v. WAYNE PEELUA).
In this case, the bank had been granted a writ of possession, and the owner appealed.
The court cited a statute providing, in part, that district courts do not have jurisdiction where there are questions about the validity of the title to the property are at issue. The appeal court didn't address the specific claims. It's limited finding was simply that the district court could not rule on the disputed title.
I'll underscore that point. The court did not address whether any of the title claims raised were valid or not, but simply that they had been put forward. The appeals court concluded that, as a result, the district court should not have granted the writ of possession. The writ and judgement were vacated.
Although Gumapac and Laulima appear to be saying the court's decision validates their claims, it appears that is far from the case. The decision was procedural only.
What's also interesting here is the persistence of this kind of claim even while the criminal cases against another group which pushed a similar Kingdom-based theory are pending in federal court.
By the way, a superseding indictment was issued September 1 in the pending case against Mahealani Ventura-Oliver, John Oliver, and their co-defendants.
* Comment by line of flight // Sep 5, 2011
The problem with Ken Conklin's analysis, however, is that it makes assumptions and determinations about Hawaiian history that Sai's followers will not accept.
A more insightful analysis that works towards communicating with his true believers would be to use Kingdom law as it existed before 1893 to demonstrate that even in the absence of a legally valid contract on Sai's reading of international law, Kingdom courts, in equity, would still have required people who received a benefit in a bargained-for exchange, to be required to perform their promises (to pay or repay their debts).
* Comment continues at length, followed by lengthy back-and-forth concerning title insurance and Kingdom law, but nothing about the "executive agreements."
----------------
http://ilind.net/2011/09/13/reminder-always-check-the-footnotes/
Ian Lind's blog for September 13
Reminder: Always check the footnotes
Last week, a friend left a very critical comment about my shout-out to Ken Conklin for his critique of recent writings of David Keanu Sai. I promised to get back to the issue. Here goes…. Should I apologize in advance that this is longer than I wanted it to be, and I realize few people will get through it all? Yes, but, that aside….
Sai and others making similar arguments don't get their fair share of serious criticism, constructive or otherwise. In part, there's political correctness involved. People are just reluctant to be seen as publicly critical of things Hawaiian. Hawaiians ourselves are usually more inclined to shy away from open criticism and conflict, and just work around differences. It's an island thing we grow up with. We live on an island, so don't fight unless absolutely necessary. The media, along with most politicians, also seem to believe Hawaiian issues are another “third rail” of public life to be avoided.
So that's one reason I think Conklin makes a positive contribution with his point-by-point rebuttals of Sai, even if they lead him (too often) to offensive comments that are easily taken as insensitive at best, racist at worst. Ideally, he would be creating space for others to think and write critically about the issues, but that still hasn't happened. I'm not saying that we need more anti-Hawaiian criticism, but Hawaiian claims shouldn't be off-limits for the strict scrutiny we apply to other political arguments.
Tackling Sai's writing isn't easy. I discovered that several years ago when another friend handed me one of Sai's articles and asked for my feedback. I read through it to get the overall shape of the argument, then returned to the beginning to check the references and footnotes, where I quickly bogged down.
Why? Footnotes. I learned my lesson about the importance of checking footnotes some time back. It was about 1989, and the city council was debating the proposal for an elevated rail system put forward by then-Mayor Frank Fasi. I was working as senior advisory to Neil Abercrombie, then a member of the Honolulu City Council representing District 5, from Manoa down to parts of Waikiki.
One day a well-dressed realtor appeared at Neil's office and was referred to me. He had a compelling story to tell. He alleged that one of the proposed rail routes to the edge of Waikiki was being pushed by Hawaii's senior senator and, if approved, would result in a windfall for the senator and friends who had an interest in a particular property along Ala Moana Boulevard. He said it had all been documented, and left me with a long report, carefully footnoted, laying out the evidence.
Although a Democrat, I had come out of a “good government” background, having served as state director of Common Cause. If a documented case of political manipulation of the rail process for private gain existed, I was ready to recommend appropriate action. So I sat down with the document and read it through carefully, noting that its footnotes referenced documents filed with the Bureau of Conveyances. Those documents must be dynamite, I thought to myself, and off I went in pursuit of knowledge.
At the bureau, I began pulling out microfilms containing the documents cited in those footnotes. It didn't take long to figure out that they were part of a self-referencing and deceptive web of plausible untruths. Almost all of the referenced documents, most with elaborate and provocative titles, turned out to have been originated by the same person who wrote the report that, in turn, relied on them as external “evidence.” A few of the documents were simply quoted out of context, and on closer reading offered no support at all. By the time I finished the session, it was clear the entire conspiracy tale was an elaborate fabrication.
In the 20+ years since, the same person who put together this fabricated report has been accused on numerous occasions of theft and fraud, sometimes accused of defrauding people he ostensibly was “helping.” He is currently awaiting trial in Northern California on federal charges including wire fraud, conspiracy, blackmail, and witness tampering.
And that brings me back to the arguments of Keanu Sai. I haven't found the precise article of his that my friend had solicited comments about, but its claims were similar to those in a 2004 column written for the newspaper of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (“Experts validate legitimacy of international law case“).
The column points to a legal commentary by attorneys David J. Bederman and Kurt R. Hilbert, appearing in the American Journal of International Law, and later reprinted in the Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics. It examines an attempt made by Sai and others to get the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) to arbitrate (through the Permanent Court of Arbitration) the dispute (such as it is) over the status of Hawaii and the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Sai writes:
The commentary correctly explained that at “the center of the PCA proceeding was … that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that the Hawaiian Council of Regency (representing the Hawaiian Kingdom) is legally responsible under international law for the protection of Hawaiian subjects, including the claimant. In other words, the Hawaiian Kingdom was legally obligated to protect Larsen from the United States' ‘unlawful imposition [over him] of [its] municipal laws' through its political subdivision, the State of Hawai‘i.”
The reader would be justified in thinking that the author of the commentary was affirming the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the rest of Sai's argument. However, the quote, as presented by Sai, omitted a crucial phrase defining the statement simply as describing Sai's position, not commenting on it.
At the center of the PCA proceeding was the argument that Hawaiians never directly relinquished to the United States their claim of inherent sovereignty either as a people or over their national lands, and accordingly that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist… (etc.)
Through careful editing, Sai conveys the mistaken conclusion that the quote was affirming of his position rather than merely being descriptive. That's a huge and meaningful difference, and Sai's approach smacks either of intellectual dishonesty or very sloppy scholarship.
The commentary's real focus is not on Hawaii or the argument about the Hawaiian Kingdom, but rather on the reasoning of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in rejecting Sai's case and the problems of this reasoning as they address other issues going forward.
The authors conclude the tribunal was “clearly correct in rejecting this (Sai's) claim,” which described as “curious—and collusive,” but argue that the claim should have been rejected immediately because the tribunal's rules apply only to commercial disputes and not to noncommercial, political arguments.
This award raises important questions concerning the use of the doctrines of standing and indispensable third parties in the context of international arbitrations, and also concerning the Tribunal's application of the ICJ's Monetary Gold principle. From the outset of the proceedings, it was clear that the parties were in conflict not with one another, but with the United States. The Tribunal properly recognized that the “function of international arbitral tribunals in contentious proceedings is to determine disputes between parties, not to make abstract rulings.” As such, the Tribunal could have based its ruling initially on the lack of a legal dispute. Absent a legal dispute, the UNCITRAL Rules do not apply, irrespective of party agreement.
This commentary, and at least one other cited by Sai, never reached the substantive issues pushed by Sai, but revolved around procedural questions. And Sai's seizing on parts of the procedural debate as validation of his substantive political positions appears to be as flawed as Laulima LLC's attempt to equate a procedural dismissal of a District Court summary possession action with a court validation of their claims that all titles since the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom are defective.
All of this is a very long-winded explanation to my friend as to why I tolerate or look past Ken Conklin's personal political views in order to encourage the debate over the many questionable claims about the Hawaiian Kingdom made by Keanu Sai (and others).
------
* Comment by Kala // Sep 13, 2011
Conklin looks like your evil twin….just as smart, less hair.
* Comment by James Lindblad // Sep 13, 2011
I am a big fan of arguing the issues fully and support all open debate. I can argue either side of any issue I debate. Good work Ian.
* Comment by Leinanij // Sep 13, 2011
E kala mai ia'u Ian. You have been and always will be a writer of the truth. Mahalo nui loa i?[sic] ‘oe no na mea a pau.
* Note by Ken Conklin: the question mark is a typographical error which should be the letter "a". The Hawaiian says: Great thanks to you for all the things [you do]
* Comment by Hawaiino // Sep 13, 2011
Conklin is the messenger.
Do not kill the messenger; no matter his taste in clothes, his tone of voice, his attitude, imperious or otherwise.
It doesn't pay to kill the messenger…Conklin (and Ian) is just that. And, both are enjoyable to read !
* Comment by well done // Sep 14, 2011
No need apologize, Ian. I think many people are reading your entry as we speak. Many people on these islands do shy away from constructive criticism and arguments — but they love to read all about the hidden details! That's why so many of us wish more hidden details appeared more often in the local media.
* Comment by Claire // Sep 14, 2011
Ian, you earned my respect way before this post.
Thanks to you (and Ken Conklin) for having the courage to write about the important topics that don't get discussed in the open. Yes, by all means, let's continue the conversation.
Sincerely, an even bigger fan of yours.
* Comment by Wailau // Sep 14, 2011
I disagree with Ken Conklin, but I admire his willingness to challenge conventional wisdom regarding the historical basis for Hawaiian entitlements. In any community but especially one as racially and culturally mixed as this one, it is sadly wrong to base political entitlements on race. Blood doesn't matter; culture does. Mixing is the metaphor that illuminates us, not futile attempts at distillation.
* Comment by Ken Stokes // Sep 14, 2011
Speaking of footnotes…
Conklin's links to the Willis-Dole letters from late-1893 offer great reading for those who may dispute his conclusions, including his view that Cleveland was interfering with the “internal affairs” of the Provisional Gov't. when he demanded Dole's resignation and restoration of the Queen.
As Willis' letter makes clear, Cleveland was accepting responsibility for creating this “affair” (by landing the troops and initially recognizing the gov't) in the first place (11 months earlier), so there was nothing “internal” about it.
* Comment by Ken Conklin submitted to Ian Lind on Sep 14, 2011
Hi Ken Stokes. I still remember you from a meeting about 13-14 years ago at Kekuni's house, at a time when I was leaning in the direction of supporting the independence movement; and another one or two at UH. Say hi to your partner Puanani Rogers.
Ken, you wrote "there was nothing 'internal' about it." [the Hawaiian revolution of 1893]. Oh yes there was. And the U.S. Senate said so after a two month investigation under oath and cross examination.
As you point out, Willis' letter to Dole in December 1893 makes clear that Cleveland was blaming America [as lefties today often love to do!] for the overthrow of the monarchy. At roughly the same time, Cleveland sent the Blount Report to Congress along with Cleveland's strongly worded message blaming the U.S. for the overthrow and turning the matter over to Congress for further action. It's my own belief, although I cannot prove it, that Cleveland wanted Congress to approve sending troops to overthrow Dole and put Liliuokalani back on the throne.
But then something very interesting happened. The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing about the Hawaiian revolution. The hearing ran for two months (January and February 1894), open to the public (unlike Blount's "investigation" which was done in secret; worse than Abercrombie; Ian take note!) with testimony under oath and severe cross examination (unlike Blount who administered no oath and was eager to believe all the royalists he spoke with).
In late February the committee published its 808-page report including its conclusions and the transcripts of what the witnesses had said. The committee concluded that the U.S. peacekeepers did not take over any buildings, did not patrol the streets, spent their time in barracks waiting to be called but never needed, did not enter the Palace grounds nor point their guns at the Palace, did not give any food or ammunition or any other assistance to the local revolutionaries.
Among the interesting facts about the committee report are the fact that the Senate was controlled by the Democrats (Cleveland's own party), and of course the chairman of the committee, Senator Morgan, was also a Democrat. The committee totally repudiated the Blount Report. There was even testimony under oath from men who had been interviewed by Blount in Honolulu, who told the committee that Blount had falsely reported them in the Blount Report as having said things opposite to what they had actually told Blount (i.e., Blount was a liar).
The committee took testimony from several of the U.S. peacekeepers including enlisted men, officers at several ranks, the captain of the ship, Minister Stevens, etc. always asking them "Exactly what happened? What day? What time of day? Who gave the orders?" etc. It also took testimony from several highly respected native-born subjects of the Kingdom who had served for many years as department heads under several monarchs and were not involved in the revolution.
Shortly after publishing the Morgan Report, the Senate passed a resolution that basically slapped Cleveland in the face, telling the U.S. to keep its hands off the internal affairs of Hawaii. And remember, the committee chair and a majority of the Senate were Democrats, same as Cleveland.
I am very proud to have served as co-editor of the Morgan Report webpage. After several years when the sovereignty activists had scanned the Blount Report using government money, but conveniently ran out of money before they could get around to the Morgan Report, Jere Krischel and I worked together (with zero money but lots of respect for history) to put Morgan on the internet so everyone can read it easily. Jere did the scanning and OCR work from the original document; he and I both did the proofreading and editing to correct OCR errors, and we both (mostly I) wrote summaries of all the testimonies and special sub-pages pulling together information on specific topics from throughout the report. See especially the "Outline of Topics" and the "Morgan's Gems" linked on the right-hand side of the front page at
http://morganreport.org
** Note from Ken Conklin about how I will respond in case there's a certain type of rebuttal:
I'm sure Ken Stokes or some other sovereignty activist will respond with "See the apology resolution. PL 103-150" where the U.S. (under a Democrat Congress and Democrat President) blamed itself for the overthrow. But if he or anyone else makes that response, then I will say that a lot of stuff in the apology resolution is false or distorted; see a splendid scholarly analysis by Constitutional law expert attorney Bruce Fein at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/AkakaHawaiiDividedFeinJune2005.pdf
And, remembering that Inouye was the leader in the 60-minute Senate debate on the apology resolution, it's entirely appropriate to attack his credibility by showing that Inouye has told falsehoods more than once on the floor of the U.S. Senate about Hawaii's history
"Lies told on the U.S. Senate Floor by Senators Inouye and Dorgan Regarding the Akaka Bill"
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/big60/AkakaInouyeDorganLies.html
and
"The myth of the shredded Hawaiian flag -- a false claim that the Hawaiian flag removed from Iolani Palace on annexation day August 12, 1898 was cut up into pieces distributed to the annexationists as souvenirs of their victory over the Hawaiian people" [Inouye also told that lie on the Senate floor] at
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles2/HawnFlagCutUpSouv1898.html
Nancy // Sep 15, 2011
Ian, regarding your words in the third paragraph: Facts aren't “racist,” “insensitive” or “anti-Hawaiian.” We need to get past that kind of thinking so we can have an open, honest discussion about these and other matters, regardless of how “sensitive” they are.
People who use hot-button words to describe those they perceive to be enemies are using fear to keep the truth buried. It's insulting and dishonest. Like the people who squawk about “socialism” every time Barack Obama's name comes up. (Why socialism is such a terrifying concept to these people is another question entirely.)
For the record, I find Ken Conklin to be annoying as hell, but he's also a tireless researcher. For that, I commend him.
** Ian Lind, owner of the blog, chose to somewhat edit my comment noted above, and he created a new blog item for it the following day, at
http://ilind.net/2011/09/15/1894-congressional-has-contemporary-testimony-about-hawaiian-revolution/#comments
1894 Congressional has contemporary testimony about Hawaiian “revolution”
September 15th, 2011
Ken Conklin emailed this comment yesterday after running into trouble getting through my spam filter. It points to some interesting information, and I thought it worth sharing. The links to the Morgan Report lead to contemporary accounts of the events of 1893 taken during testimony given under oath before a U.S. Senate committee.
Hi, Ken Stokes. I still remember you from a meeting about 13-14 years ago at Kekuni's house, at a time when I was leaning in the direction of supporting the independence movement; and another one or two at UH.
Ken, you wrote “there was nothing ‘internal' about it.” [the Hawaiian revolution of 1893]. Oh yes there was. And the U.S. Senate said so after a two month investigation under oath and cross examination. That little thing you wrote is typical of the historical half-truth zingers put out there by sovereignty activists. Unfortunately it requires considerable information to disprove it, and of course I need to provide lots of footnotes since otherwise you'll just say I'm making it all up.
As you point out, Willis' letter to Dole in December 1893 makes clear that Cleveland was blaming America for the overthrow of the monarchy. At roughly the same time, Cleveland sent the Blount Report to Congress along with Cleveland's strongly worded message blaming the U.S. for the overthrow and turning the matter over to Congress for further action. It's my own belief, although I cannot prove it, that Cleveland wanted Congress to approve sending troops to overthrow Dole and put Liliuokalani back on the throne.
But then something very interesting happened. The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing about the Hawaiian revolution. The hearing ran for two months (January and February 1894), open to the public (unlike Blount's “investigation” which was done in secret; worse than Abercrombie; Ian take note!) with testimony under oath and severe cross examination (unlike Blount who administered no oath and was eager to believe all the royalists he spoke with).
In late February the committee published its 808-page report including its conclusions and the transcripts of what the witnesses had said. The committee concluded that the U.S. peacekeepers did not take over any buildings, did not patrol the streets, spent their time in barracks waiting to be called but never needed, did not enter the Palace grounds nor point their guns at the Palace, did not give any food or ammunition or any other assistance to the local revolutionaries.
Among the interesting facts about the committee report are the fact that the Senate was controlled by the Democrats (Cleveland's own party), and of course the chairman of the committee, Senator Morgan, was also a Democrat. The committee totally repudiated the Blount Report. There was even testimony under oath from men who had been interviewed by Blount in Honolulu, who told the committee that Blount had falsely reported them in the Blount Report as having said things opposite to what they had actually told Blount (i.e., Blount was a liar).
The committee took testimony from several of the U.S. peacekeepers including enlisted men, officers at several ranks, the captain of the ship, Minister Stevens, etc. always asking them “Exactly what happened? What day? What time of day? Who gave the orders?” etc. It also took testimony from several highly respected native-born subjects of the Kingdom who had served for many years as department heads under several monarchs and were not involved in the revolution.
Shortly after publishing the Morgan Report, the Senate passed a resolution that basically slapped Cleveland in the face, telling the U.S. to keep its hands off the internal affairs of Hawaii. And remember, the committee chair and a majority of the Senate were Democrats, same as Cleveland.
I am very proud to have served as co-editor of the Morgan Report webpage. After several years when the sovereignty activists had scanned the Blount Report using government money, but conveniently ran out of money before they could get around to the Morgan Report, Jere Krischel and I worked together (with zero money but lots of respect for history) to put Morgan on the internet so everyone can read it easily. Jere did the scanning and OCR work from the original document; he and I both did the proofreading and editing to correct OCR errors, and we both (mostly I) wrote summaries of all the testimonies and special sub-pages pulling together information on specific topics from throughout the report.
See especially the “Outline of Topics” and the “Morgan's Gems” linked on the right-hand side of the front page at
http://morganreport.org
Comment by Ken Stokes // Sep 15, 2011
Hardly a “half-truth zinger”, that! Simply a plain reading of Willis' Dec '93 letter.
==============
** Note added November 8, 2013: See new webpage:
"Keanu Sai's Hawaiian history fantasies underlying his adventures with the International Criminal Court, the community of diplomats, and the Hawaii mortgage market. The alleged Liliuokalani Assignment, and the alleged Executive Agreement of Restoration" at
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/SaiFantasiesSwissDipl111113.html
The webpage linked here includes a letter to the "Swiss Diplomats" group in Zurich disproving Keanu Sai's claims and asking the diplomats to cross-examine him when he made a presentation on November 11, 2013
==============
Send comments or questions to:
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
You may now
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
Published September 11, 2011 by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
