(c) Copyright 2019
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
M.Coleman@mdx.ac.uk
Michelle Coleman
Associate Lecturer in Law
Middlesex University, London
October 11, 2019
Aloha Professor Coleman,
I'm writing to you in regard to a presentation you have organized in London on October 15, 2019, where David Keanu Sai will gain publicity and credibility for a bogus political/historical theory and associated fundraising scam. First I'll describe his publicity, so that you and the general public can discover the nature of his theory and financial scam. Then I'll provide very clear evidence proving that his theory is factually false because of things he says and especially because of facts he fails to mention. Finally I'll ask you to use your event on October 15 to cross-examine him regarding the evidence I am providing about the falsity of his theory. Or if you choose to treat the event as a sort of wine and cheese party without breaching decorum by introducing contrary evidence, at least please publicize a short internet URL so that attendees and the general public can learn about opposing views after they have had time to recuperate from the event. As a professor at a prestigious university, you surely would not want your event to be a forum for Mr. Sai to spew political propaganda while not allowing the presentation of opposing facts -- now would you?
Here is the webpage URL providing the same content as what's in this letter:
tinyurl.com/SaiColeman101519
Mr. Sai is using your university venue to carry out the usual procedure of a con artist: he relies on the fact that you and your audience are probably not well informed about Hawaii's history and the issues surrounding Hawaiian sovereignty. Therefore he can give his well-rehearsed performance on your theatre stage without danger that anyone might have the knowledge or inclination to cross examine him or ask him questions that might show the falsity of the story he weaves. He will then use the event for publicity and fundraising, citing your event as evidence that his views are being taken seriously by a prestigious institution and that nobody was able to successfully challenge his bogus theories.
Sometimes his hosts at these events might be simply unaware of what he's doing, but usually the hosts are willing and eager accomplices delighted to give him the forum and publicity. Since you are a university professor, I'm hoping you will use this opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Sai during his performance so that your audience can be aware of counter-arguments and the need for intellectual rigor on these topics; and I'm providing you with historical facts you can use in such an academic inquiry. However, if you feel that the time allocated for Mr. Sai's performance is too limited for serious investigation of his claims, then I urge you to make my information available to the public by posting a brief announcement of it before, during, and after the event.
I am providing herewith an internet URL allowing anyone to read the details provided in this letter. Please send this URL before the event to people who have registered for tickets to attend it; and post it at the event; and post it on your own university webpage and/or course syllabi for anyone who might later read about Mr. Sai's presentation and would like to be more thoroughly informed about the issues.
Here is the webpage URL providing the same content as what's in this letter:
tinyurl.com/SaiColeman101519
Thank you for your attention to this mtter.
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
46-255 Kahuhipa St. Apt. 1205
Kane'ohe, HI 96744-6083
tel (808) 247-7942
e-mail Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
Website: "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Thinking Carefully About It"
http://tinyurl.com/6gkzk
Book: "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State"
http://tinyurl.com/2a9fqa
============
DAVID KEANU SAI'S PUBLICITY FOR HIS PRESENTATION AT MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY IN LONDON ON OCTOBER 15, 2019, INCLUDING A 57-MINUTE VIDEO DESCRIBING HIS THEORY AND HIS WEBPAGE TOUTING HIS LATEST FUNDRAISING INVESTMENT SCAM
David Keanu Sai is publicizing his presentation "The United States' Prolonged Occupation of Hawai
His publicity also includes a slick YouTube video of 57 minutes laying out the theory he will be presenting:
The video mentions a campaign he has recently undertaken to sell a fraudulent new issue of Hawaiian Kingdom bonds to raise money allegedly to finance his expenses in creating a newly revived independent nation of Hawaii, containing a clause that the bonds will not be redeemable until more than 5 years after the United States has been forced to disgorge the State of Hawaii and there is no longer any U.S. control over Hawaii [of course that will never happen, so Keanu gets to spend all the money now and will never be called upon to repay it later].
====================
EVIDENCE PROVING THAT MR. SAI'S POLITICAL/HISTORICAL THEORY IS FALSE: ISSUES INCLUDE TREATY OF ANNEXATION BETWEEN HAWAII AND UNITED STATES; HOW INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII BY HEADS OF OTHER NATIONS ESTABLISHED THE REPUBLIC AS RIGHTFUL SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT TO THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM AFTER REVOLUTION OF 1893 OVERTHREW MONARCHY (THUS THE REPUBLIC HAD THE RIGHT TO OFFER THE TREATY OF ANNEXATION); THERE WAS NO U.S. MILITARY "OCCUPATION" OF HAWAII AFTER A SMALL U.S. PEACEKEEPING FORCE PULLED OUT A FEW WEEKS AFTER THE REVOLUTION (THUS THE TEMPORARY REVOLUTIONARY PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND ITS PERMANENT SUCCESSOR REPUBLIC, WERE NOT A U.S. PUPPET REGIME)
The following truths are conveniently left out of Mr. Sai's presentations, or directly contradict Mr. Sai's assertions. Here's the order of discussion. Details follow the list.
1. There is a Treaty of Annexation between Hawaii and the U.S. The treaty was offered by the internationally recognized Republic government of the still-independent nation of Hawaii in 1897; and that offer was accepted by the U.S. in 1898 by a method the U.S. had the right to choose for itself. It establishes the lawful sovereignty and jurisdiction of the U.S. over Hawaii. There is no belligerent military occupation.
2. The Republic was internationally recognized as the lawful, rightful successor government of Hawaii by letters in 11 languages to President Sanford Dole that were personally signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 19 other nations on 4 continents during the last half of 1894. Photographs of the letters are provided. BRITISH PEOPLE PLEASE TAKE NOTE: one of those letters was signed by Queen Victoria, who had a longstanding personal relationship with Hawaii's Princess (later Queen) Lili'uokalani and Queen Kapiolani, who together had attended Victoria's Golden Jubilee in London; and also with King Alexander Liholiho Kamehameha IV's wife Queen Emma (1/4 British ancestry), and Victoria was godmother to Queen Emma's baby Prince Albert [note his name] to whom Victoria had sent a crib still on display in Queen Emma's Summer Palace. Queen Victoria's personal letter of recognition addressed to "Our good friend" Sanford Dole, the "President of the Republic of Hawaii" and signed "Your good friend Victoria" was a devastating moral and political blow to Hawaii's royalists who still imagined Lili'uokalani was their queen.
3. The monarchy was overthrown on January 17, 1893 and replaced with the temporary, revolutionary Provisional Government under President Sanford Dole. Within two days the local consul of every foreign nation that had a consulate in Honolulu sent a letter to President Dole granting de facto recognition to the PG until such time as the consul could get instructions from his national government regarding full-fledged permanent recognition. Each letter was only a sentence or two long, and the text was published both in the Honolulu government newspaper and later in the Morgan Report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs (content and sources provided). De facto recognition meant that henceforth government relations, passports, contracts, etc. would be conducted with the PG and no longer with the ex-queen. Of course all revolutions are by definition illegal. Some are aided by other nations. For example the American revolution could never have succeeded without massive numbers of soldiers and ships from France. But in Hawaii a small force of U.S. peacekeepers, sent ashore to protect American lives and property against credible threats of rioting and arson, were not needed, did not patrol the streets or take over any buildings or give help to the revolutionaries, and were sent back to their ship after a few weeks. After that there were no more U.S. troops in Hawaii until annexation; hence no "occupation" or puppet regime, contrary to Mr. Sai.
------------
1. Treaty of Annexation
Mr. Sai, and all Hawaiian secessionists, like to say there is no Treaty of Annexation; and therefore the U.S. has no lawful jurisdiction in Hawaii; and therefore U.S. military bases in Hawaii are evidence that Hawaii is under a longstanding belligerent military occupation. They like to say that the U.S. joint resolution annexing Hawaii was merely an internal, municipal law that was only capable of affecting things inside the borders of the U.S. on the continent; they say such an internal law has no power to reach out and grab a foreign nation like Hawaii any more than Hawaii could pass a law to reach out and grab the U.S. or Britain or any other place.
But the fact that the U.S. used a joint resolution to ratify the Treaty does not mean there is no Treaty. And it certainly does not mean that the U.S. reached out and grabbed Hawaii against its will. Every sovereign nation, including the U.S., has an absolute right to decide for itself what method it will use to ratify a treaty. Whatever method it uses is, of course, its own internal decision. It may freely choose to use a method different from its usual method, and no outside government or person has any standing to interfere or block that decision. If both the nation offering a treaty and the nation accepting the offer are the internationally recognized lawful governments of their sovereign independent nations, and they both freely agree to the treaty by whatever method each government chooses to use on that occasion, then the treaty becomes the law of both nations; and all other nations having diplomatic relations with either treaty-partner are obligated to abide by the terms of the merger as agreed in the treaty.
Note that there was no reaching out by the U.S. and grabbing Hawaii against its will. The Treaty was first ratified by the Hawaii legislature and offered to the U.S.; then later ratified by the U.S. Congress.
In Hawaii the royalists, who had been the losers in the revolution five years previously, strongly opposed the Treaty. There was speculation that if a vote was taken in Hawaii, annexation would lose (however, neither U.S., Hawaiian, nor international law requires a vote by the people). A petition against annexation containing about 21,000 signatures gathered in 1897 was rediscovered in the U.S. National Archives on the centennial of annexation in 1998. Copies of the petition were displayed throughout Hawai'i in 1998, together with some of the original pages; and many ethnic Hawaiians took great pride in finding the signatures of their ancestors. There was allegedly another petition containing about 17,000 signatures, demanding the restoration of the monarchy; but that petition was apparently never presented to Congress because it cannot be found in the U.S. Archives (and indeed it cannot be found anywhere despite diligent searching).
In the U.S. the term of President Grover Cleveland (Democrat isolationist) came to an end. He had aggressively blocked annexation and had even used gunboat diplomacy to try to intimidate Hawaii President Dole, as late as December 1893, to resign and restore the Queen (see part 3 below). William McKinley (Republican expansionist) won the election in November 1896 and became President on inauguration day, March 4, 1897.
In the U.S. there was strong opposition in both the Senate and the House from isolationists who did not want the U.S. expanding to acquire colonies abroad, and from Southern Senators and Representatives who did not want competition from Hawaiian cane sugar and also did not want dark-skinned Hawaiians and Asians becoming part of America. Heated debates raged for months. In the end the Senate approved the treaty by vote of 42-21; the House approved it 209-91; President McKinley signed it. The same method of the U.S. approving a Treaty of Annexation by means of a joint resolution had been established as a precedent 53 years earlier when the independent nation Republic of Texas offered a treaty in 1845. No nation ever filed a protest with either Hawaii or the U.S. regarding either the overthrow or the annexation, although Japan used diplomatic and military maneuvers to try to block annexation because massive immigration had made Japanese the largest ethnic group in Hawaii.
For in-depth analysis and numerous references, see
"Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now."
"Was the 1898 annexation illegal?"
"Book Review of William M. Morgan Ph.D., PACIFIC GIBRALTAR: U.S. - JAPANESE RIVALRY OVER THE ANNEXATION OF HAWAII, 1885-1898 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2011)"
"Is there a Treaty of Annexation between Hawaii and the United States? Dialogs between Williamson Chang and Ken Conklin"
For detailed discussion about false claims regarding the number of signatures on the anti-annexation petition of 1897, and the percentages of ethnic Hawaiians and of Hawaii's total population represented on the petition, see this webpage and especially detailed note#3:
---------------
2. The Republic was internationally recognized as the lawful, rightful successor government of Hawaii by letters in 11 languages to President Sanford Dole that were personally signed by Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 19 other nations on 4 continents during the last half of 1894. Photographs of the letters are provided, along with Lili'uokalani's personally signed letter of abdication and oath of loyalty to the Republic (January 24, 1895), at
Of special note for the people of Britain: A photo of Queen Victoria's 2-page letter to President Dole, recognizing the Republic as the rightful successor government, together with Conklin's explanation of its political significance, is at
See additional details at
Those letters of recognition came about because immediately after the Constitution of the Republic was adopted and the Republic was proclaimed on July 4, 1894, President Dole sent a letter to each local consul asking them to forward the letter and the Constitution to the head of state of the government they represented, requesting full-fledged diplomatic recognition of the Republic.
Hamilton Library at the University of Hawaii (Manoa) has several versions of the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii. For example, they have two different draft versions, three different formatings of the final version, and a final version which incorporates also an account of the proceedings of the constitutional convention. The Constitution was published in 1894 in both Hawaiian and English languages. A pdf of a scan of the 53 pages of the final version in English is at
At the end of the Constitution there were also pages 54-56 comprising the certification of the Constitution -- especially interesting because of the names of at least five ethnic Hawaiians who were members of the Constitutional Convention. Below the copied text of the 3-page certification are some historical/political comments by website editor Ken Conklin.
[start page 54]
The Constitutional Convention, convened in Honolulu, Island of Oahu, Hawaiian Islands, on 30th day of May, A.D. 1894, pursuant to the provisions of Act 69 of the Acts of the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands, entitled "An Act to Provide for a Constitutional Convention," approved the 15th day of March, A.D. 1895 and pursuant to the Proclamation of the President summoning said Convention to assemble, having framed and adopted the Constitution herein before set forth; now it is hereby declared, enacted and proclaimed by the Executive and Advisory Councils of the Provisional Government and by the elected Delegates, constituting said Constitutional Convention, that on and after the Fourth day of July, A.D. 1894, the said Constitution shall be the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii and the Supreme Law of the Hawaiian Islands. Done in Convention by unanimous consent this third day of July, A.D. One thousand eight hundred and ninety four. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.
For further information including names of all the delegates [5 of the names are ethnic Hawaiian] see
From the publication of its Constitution on July 4, 1894 until annexation in August 1898, the Republic was the government of the still-independent, sovereign nation of Hawaii, transitioning from the temporary revolutionary Provisional Government which had held power beginning January 17, 1893. Thus for five and a half years Hawaii had remained an independent nation after its monarchy was overthrown, under the firm hand and wise leadership of President Sanford B. Dole. For biographical information and surprising genealogical links to some of today's ethnic Hawaiian leaders see
"Sanford Ballard Dole -- Elected Legislator and Appointed Supreme Court Justice of the Kingdom of Hawaii; President of the Provisional Government and of the Republic of Hawaii; Governor of the Territory of Hawaii, and Presiding Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Territory of Hawaii"
--------------
3. The monarchy was overthrown on January 17, 1893 and replaced with the temporary, revolutionary Provisional Government under President Sanford Dole.
The first tentative recognition by the family of nations that a revolution had occurred took place during the first two days after the revolution. Letters of recognition were sent to President Sanford B. Dole on January 18 and January 19, 1893 by the Honolulu consuls representing Chile, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Mexico, Russia, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Japan, Italy, Portugal, Britain, United States, Denmark, Belgium, China, Peru, France. (that's the order in which their contents were copied into the Morgan Report).
A local consul normally has very little authority to speak on behalf of his government, but is the highest-ranking diplomat in town authorized to handle routine matters for the nation he represents. Some of the local consuls were businessmen who represented several different nations on a part-time basis, whenever their services were needed to help Hawaii residents or foreign travelers get visas, export-import licenses, or legal representation in case of arrest. It must be remembered that there was no internet, no telegraph or telephone communication between Hawaii and the rest of the world, and no airplanes; thus it would take a long time before news of the revolution could travel abroad and before letters seeking and granting full diplomatic recognition could be sent by ship around the world. During the first two days after the revolution of January 17, 1893, the local consuls in Honolulu of every foreign nation having diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii sent letters of de facto recognition to President Dole, acknowledging that the Provisional Government now held power and that the foreign nation would do business with the new Provisional Government until such time as further instructions regarding full-fledged (de jure) recognition could be gotten from the foreign capitols. The text of those initial letters of de facto recognition were published in the Honolulu newspapers and were also later published in the Morgan Report (an official document of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs) in February 1894 on pp. 1103-1111. Full text of those very short letters can be seen at:
The speed of those de facto recognitions is astonishing. For example, the Communist Chinese revolution required several years until Mao completed the government takeover on October 1, 1949; and the Cuban Communist revolution needed several years until Fidel Castro's government took control in 1959; and in both China and Cuba it took many years before the U.S. and some other nations recognized those governments even on a merely de facto basis. But in Hawaii the success of the revolution was so obvious, including the surrender of the Queen through a letter of protest, that de facto recognition happened within two days.
Of course all revolutions are by definition illegal. Some are aided by other nations. For example the American revolution could never have succeeded without massive numbers of soldiers and ships from France. But in Hawaii a small force of U.S. peacekeepers, sent ashore to protect American lives and property against credible threats of rioting and arson, were not needed, did not patrol the streets or take over any buildings or give help to the revolutionaries, and were sent back to their ship after a few weeks. The Morgan Report includes sworn testimony that the peacekeeprs behaved so properly that some royalists believed the peacekeepers were there to protect the Queen against the anticipated revolution.
The revolutionary Provisional Government seized power on January 17, 1893, overthrowing the monarchial government. The PG immediately sent a Treaty of Annexation to the U.S., which outgoing President Benjamin Harrison (Republican expansionist) sent to the Senate, but it took time for a ship carrying the Treaty to get there, and then the Treaty languished in the Senate because the election of November 1892 had produced major changes. U.S. President Grover Cleveland (Democrat isolationist) took power on inauguration day March 4, 1893. He then promptly pulled the Treaty of Annexation out of the Senate, and sent his personal emissary Mr. Blount to Honolulu with orders to destabilize the Provisional Government, try to restore the Queen, and write a report blaming the U.S. for the overthrow of the monarchy. Blount was never confirmed as ambassador by the Senate, but he arrived in Honolulu with documents declaring him "Minister Plenipotentiary With Paramount Powers" meaning that he spoke with full powers and authority of the President (plenipotentiary) and he outranked outgoing Minister Stevens, who had been President Harrison's confirmed ambassador ( because Blount had "Paramount Powers"). The moment Blount stepped ashore on April 1 he ordered the few remaining U.S. peacekeepers to leave Honolulu, after which there were no more U.S. military men in Hawaii until annexation (thus no military "occupation" as claimed by Mr. Sai). By later in the Summer Blount had finished interviewing royalists in a hotel next door to the Palace, he had written his report which Grover Cleveland kept secret until the end of the year, and he returned to America.
President Cleveland's new ambassador Albert Willis arrived in Honolulu, but did not present his diplomatic credentials to President Dole. Instead he met with ex-queen Lili'uokalani in secret at least twice, as though she was still Queen. Willis offered Lili'uokalani the terms of a hypothetical deal which he would then present to President Dole if she agreed to it. Would she please agree to pardon the members of the Provisional Government and the revolutionaries who had overthrown her, in return for them resigning and restoring her to the throne? She refused angrily and said "I will behead them." Willis was shocked, but tried a second time with the same result. By December Willis still had not presented his credentials to President Dole. Dole wrote a message to Willis saying there were rumors about what he was doing and asking him to stop. Willis sent a letter to Dole ordering Dole to step down and restore the Queen! [As though Dole was an American owing allegiance to the U.S. President, when in fact Dole was native-born in Hawaii]. Dole sent a blistering 17-page reply saying hell no, and that although Dole would like Hawaii to be annexed to the U.S., Grover Cleveland would not allow it, and therefore Hawaii remains a sovereign independent nation and the U.S. should stay out of Hawaii's internal affairs.
See full text of The Willis letter to Dole at:
At roughly the same time as the letters were being exchanged the U.S. Navy was conducting drills offshore Honolulu, firing cannons and staging mock troop invasions, for the purpose of threatening the Provisional Government and bolstering the hopes of the royalists. For further information Google
Has any so-called "puppet regime" refused to knuckle under to its master in the face of such powerful attempted intimidation? Mr. Sai is either ignorant of, or else lies and suppresses, the extent of Grover Cleveland's opposition to the Provisional Government and his effort to force the PG to resign and restore the Queen. These historical facts clearly prove that the Provisional Government was in no way a puppet regime of the U.S.; and neither was the PG's successor the Republic of Hawaii.
When gunboat diplomacy failed, Grover Cleveland then published the Blount Report blaming America for the overthrow of Hawaii's monarchy, wrote a message to Congress asking Congress to figure out what to do (hoping Congress would authorize a full-fledged military invasion of Hawaii to restore the monarchy). Instead, the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs held hearings for a month in open session with witnesses under oath and facing severe cross-examination. The result was the 808-page Morgan Report containing transcripts of the testimony and various reports on Hawaii's economy and history.
The report concluded that the Hawaiian revolution was done entirely by an armed militia of local men without any help from the U.S. peacekeepers. And shortly after that report was published the Senate passed a resolution calling for the U.S. (i.e., President Cleveland) to keep hands off Hawaii and let Hawaii manage its own internal affairs.
Additional references:
"Was the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy illegal? Was it a theft of a nation owned by kanaka maoli and stolen by non-kanaka maoli?"
U.S. apology resolution 20th anniversary -- A resolution was introduced in the Hawaii legislature to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the U.S. apology resolution; and testimony was offered to the Hawaii legislature in the form of a substitute resolution explaining that the apology resolution is filled with falsehoods, has produced bad consequences, and should be repealed.
Bruce Fein, a nationally renowned attorney specializing in Constitutional law, wrote a booklet published June 1, 2005 by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. That booklet is entitled "Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand." Mr. Fein's essay is of special interest to scholars because of his analysis of the apology resolution of 1993 as well as the provisions of the Akaka bill. It can be downloaded in pdf format here:
So-called executive agreements between Hawaii Queen Liliuokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland -- the new Hawaiian history scam by Keanu Sai
Ken Conklin Ph.D. vs. Keanu Sai Ph.D. -- Dialog regarding a theory that Hawaii Queen Liliuokalani and U.S. President Grover Cleveland had executive agreements, still binding today, which would require the U.S. to disgorge Hawaii and recognize its continuing sovereign independence
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
===============
MR. SAI'S TACTIC IN HIS LONDON PERFORMANCE IS THE SAME TACTIC HE ALWAYS USES IN OTHER PERFORMANCES: HIS FRIENDLY ACCOMPLICE/HOST PROVIDES A PLATFORM WHERE NOBODY WHO DISAGREES WITH MR. SAI IS ALLOWED TO PRESENT CONTRARY INFORMATION OR TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM EXCEPT FOR VERY BRIEF FRIENDLY SUPPORTIVE QUESTIONS AT THE END. EXAMPLES ARE PROVIDED OF OTHER SIMILAR PERFORMANCES, INCLUDING PRE-BUTTALS SUBMITTED AHEAD OF TIME (LIKE THIS ONE) WHICH WERE NOT ALLOWED INTO THE DISCUSSION OR MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AUDIENCE (WILL THE SAME THING HAPPEN THIS TIME?). HOW MR. SAI (LIKE OTHER CON ARTISTS) CLAIMS UNIQUE EXPERTISE AND DISMISSES OPPONENTS AS UNQUALIFIED, WHILE NEVER DIRECTLY RESPONDING TO SUBSTANTIVE POINTS OR PROOFS.
Mr. Sai often spends time at the beginning of his performances trying to convince his audience that he is an expert and anyone who opposes him lacks the academic qualifications to engage in dialog on such topics. But of course arguments over fact should be judged by actual evidence rather than by appealing to authority or academic certification. Mr. Sai earned a Ph.D. in the notoriously politicized and leftwing department of "Political Science" where he passed courses only by agreeing with professors and not offending them. Mr. Sai likes to say that the scholars on his dissertation committee were internationally renowned experts on international law and Hawaiian history; and that the final step in getting his degree was to go through a grueling "dissertation defense" where he was rigorously cross-examined; and that the fact that they passed him proves that his theories are correct. But of course that's nonsense. The way it works in the social studies, including Hawaiian studies, Black studies, womens studies, Political science, etc. is that a Ph.D. candidate chooses his own dissertation advisor, and together they choose other members of the committee who agree with their leftwing viewpoint on the candidate's topic. The role of committee members is to help the candidate find published material confirming that viewpoint which can then be cited in numerous footnotes giving the appearance of scholarly rigor. There is no demand to take account of contrary evidence; indeed, it's customary to simply ignore it (as Sai continues to do in his public appearances without fear of cross-examination). The final "dissertation defense" is not a rigorous cross-examination with oppositional questions; it's more like a street-theatre performance where admirers can observe and cheer, followed by celebrations. The whole thing is a setup. The best proof of this is that, so far as I am aware, there has NEVER been a "dissertation defense" that produced a "FAIL" grade. Everyone passes their dissertation defense, much like kids today get participation trophies for being on sports teams even if the team has a bad record and the individual kid never scored. The only thing a Ph.D. in Political Science guarantees is that the holder spent years bowing down low enough to leftwing professors to get them to confirm that the holder's theories are plausibly aligned with received, established dogma. There is no academic freedom, only well-documented conformity. The situation is similar to what scholars endured in the Middle Ages, when no book could be published without first getting a "nihil obstat" (does not contradict church doctrine) certification from a Roman Catholic Cardinal, and hopefully also an imprimatur (thumbs up!).
Unlike Keanu Sai, Ken Conklin earned bachelors and masters degrees in Mathematics, honors in liberal arts with distinction in Mathematics, and numerous honor society memberships including Phi Beta Kappa (Liberal Arts), Pi Mu Epsilon (Mathematics), Bronze Tablet (University of Illinois special honor for top one percent of graduating class), etc. Mathematics is noted for demanding deep thinking, logical deduction, and rigorous proofs -- skills which become ingrained in character and transfer to all other subjects. Mathematicians are accustomed to using intuition to delve deeply into the structure of Mathematics to discover a truth, and then spending years to prove their theorem by logical deduction from axioms, or to disprove the work previously done by someone else. Their work is judged by other experts in the same sub-specialty. Conklin then earned a Ph.D. in Philosophy, which again requires deep thinking and rigorous argumentation similar to legal briefs, like lawyers apply laws to facts to draw conclusions. Philosophers have a broad mandate to branch out into areas of specialization where they acquire expertise greater than what they had in their previous academic studies. Before coming to Hawaii Conklin authored 43 scholarly articles published in refereed academic journals, focusing on Mathematics, Philosophy, and Education. Since coming to Hawaii permanently in 1992, Conklin's area of greatest expertise has become Hawaiian sovereignty. He has produced a book and hundreds of essays on that subject published on his large website and in numerous newspapers and magazines. For more biographical information about Ken Conklin, please visit webpage
In the end it's not academic certificates, degrees, or publications which determine whether statements are true. Facts and logic are far more effective in deciding what's true, rather than relying on appeals to authority or personal attacks against proponents.
There are numerous previous occasions when Mr. Sai has used his tactic of giving a performance in front of an accomplice/host, with a small audience present in the room and a potentially much larger audience through contemporaneous streaming video or YouTube video for later consumption. The accomplice/host is chosen by Mr. Sai because they believe in his theories and want to provide publicity and credibility to help him; while the venue and invitational nature of any live audience make it a certainty that there will be no serious opposition or cross-examination. On several of these occasions Ken Conklin was able to act quickly, in the short time after the announcement and before the event, to provide proof that Mr. Sai is telling falsehoods and should be cross-examined. But of course Sai escaped without any contrary questioning.
The most recent such event was a series of three 3-hour power-point presentations by Mr. Sai before a committee of the Maui County Council that deals with issues of land titles and zoning. A webpage provides links to You-Tube videos of the first two performances in May and June of 2019, and a 20-page rebuttal by Ken Conklin which was sent to the committee after the first performance and asking the committee to use the information in it to cross-examine Mr. Sai during his second performance. No committee member acknowledged receiving the rebuttal; so when a third performance was announced Ken Conklin sent the rebuttal again and also sent tweets and publicly visible emails and blog posts to ensure that his rebuttal would be seen by the public and could not simply be ignored by the committee. Nevertheless, the rebuttal was only mentioned very briefly in a dismissive tone during the hearing; and there was no posting of any YouTube video of that third performance. Two of the members of the Maui County Council committee that hosted Mr. Sai and refused to cross-examine him are now featured as his allies (and always were his allies) in the 57-minute YouTube video touting Sai's Hawaiian Kingdom bond scam. They are committee chair Tamara Paltin and vice-chair Shane Sinenci. The video is at
For details and links, including links to videos of the first two performances and full text of the 20-page rebuttal, see this webpage:
In November of 2013 Mr. Sai gave a lecture in Zurich Switzerland to a group of retired Swiss diplomats, in a college lecture hall with a few dozen students attending. The person who orchestrated the event was University of Hawaii professor Niklaus Schweizer, now retired, who was for many years the Swiss consul in Honolulu and also an activist in numerous Hawaii groups pushing for Hawaiian independence. One of the board members of the "Swiss Diplomats" in Zurich was Max Schweizer, presumably a family member of Niklaus. Ken Conklin had time to create a detailed pre-buttal to the points Mr. Sai was likely to raise, and sent it timely to the hosting committee in Zurich. The webpage pokes fun at Mr. Sai and also provides the entire prebuttal including the detailed proofs rebutting many points. See
Keanu Sai got started in the Hawaiian sovereignty scam biz by proclaiming himself Regent pro-tem of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. He claimed land titles in Hawai'i are junk because the overthrow, annexation, and statehood were all illegal. He collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from hundreds of clients for bogus title searches and warranty deeds. He caused grief to property owners, messing up the real estate industry and mortgage banking for more than a year by filing bogus land title warranty deeds at the Bureau of Conveyances. On this webpage are a description of the process Mr. Sai followed to get himself established as Regent pro-tem, and a lengthy series of newspaper articles reporting the rise and fall of his "Perfect Title" company.
Mr. Sai's conviction on the felony charge of attempted grand theft (of a house) is the only time he actually faced opponents in a setting where facts and logic could be brought to bear; and he lost. It's especially interesting because it was a jury trial at his request -- a multiracial jury of varying educational backgrounds listened to Sai and his attorneys for many days as they presented their theories of history and law; and in the end he was found guilty in a unanimous decision "beyond a reasonable doubt." That means that not a single juror believed that his theories might be reasonable. He then chose not to appeal the decision -- he apparently realized that his theories would not stand up under scrutiny by a judge trained in law and logic.
In December 1999, two weeks after his felony conviction, Keanu Sai staged a televised fundraiser 6 hours long, from the grounds of Iolani palace, to raise money for his World Court scam. It wasn't really the World Court, but merely a panel of three arbitrators paid $10,000 each by Mr. Sai, who met in a room at the Hague (with the splendor of the flags of many nations) to hear a so-called "dispute" between Keanu Sai, regent pro-tem, vs. Lance Larsen, Keanu's friend and a subject of the Kingdom. Lance had been jailed for repeatedly driving without license plates or driver license. Larsen sued Sai for failing to protect Larsen against the illegal State of Hawaii. Sai and Larsen filed hundreds of pages of documents in which they agreed on all the historical issues about illegal overthrow etc., and disagreed only about whether Sai owes money to Larsen for failure to protect him. Sai and Larsen knew that arbitrators are required to accept as true everything which both parties agree upon, and rule only on whatever is disputed. They were hoping the arbitrators would publish a ruling that the Kingdom of Hawaii still exists, and issue the ruling from the Hague, home of the World Court, with all those flags flying. But in the end the arbitrators issued an "Award" (i.e., decision) that merely said case dismissed, unable to make any ruling or continue deliberations because the real dispute is between Sai/Larsen vs. the U.S. which is not a party to the hearings (because Sai and Larsen had dismissed the U.S. and numerous other nations very early in the process). Despite the very disappointing result, Sai loudly trumpeted that the "World Court" had recognized the continued existence of the Kingdom of Hawaii; and professors of Hawaiian Studies were happy to repeat that nonsense in their classes. See a more detailed analysis of the World Court scam, including a sarcastic spoof entitled "Conklin vs. Santa Claus for Non-delivery of Presents; U.S. to pay damages to both" at
There have been more recent examples of Sai using his tactic of presenting his theories in a setting where there will be no cross-examination. He states his theories, lists "defendants" who must reply, gets lots of publicity and puts fear into the hearts of people who don't deserve it, and then simply moves on when a case is dismissed or a gambit fails.
(April 2015). Does an 1864 treaty between Switzerland and the Kingdom of Hawaii remain in force? Can the treaty be used as a basis for charging a Swiss banker with war crimes for foreclosing on a mortgage in Hawaii? Can the treaty be used by a Swiss citizen residing in Hawaii to demand that the Swiss government seek restitution from the private entity State of Hawaii for the war crime of pillaging regarding taxes it forced the Swiss citizen to pay and for rendering his property deed valueless?
Helping foreign diplomats understand the history of U.S. sovereignty in Hawaii and the legitimacy of the relationship between their nations and Hawaii. [Lawsuit against U.S. by Mr. Sai seeks to add foreign nations as defendants, because in the mid 1800s they had treaties of friendship and commerce with the Kingdom of Hawaii which they have now allegedly breached by failing to come to the aid of the Kingdom when it is under belligerent military occupation by the U.S., sort of like Lance Larsen sued Mr. Sai as regent of the Kingdom for failing protect Larsen, a subject of the Kingdom, against criminal prosecution by the U.S. puppet regime [fake] State of Hawaii.]
On May 13, 2019 retired Honolulu newspaper reporter Ian Lind wrote a blog entry entitled "Two sovereignty advocates hit with allegations of mortgage rescue fraud"
Mr. Lind stated: "In a series of legal filings in both state and federal court since the beginning of 2018, the consumer protection agency alleges the scheme involves David Keanu Sai, an activist scholar who has vigorously promoted his own theory that the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom invalidates subsequent laws and land titles; attorney Dexter Kaiama, who has defended a number of sovereignty activists with arguments based on Sai
=================
Send comments or questions to:
You may now
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright October 11, 2019
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
https://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/middlesex-university-london-to-host-dr-keanu-sais-presentation-on-hawaiis-occupation-and-war-crimes/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=CF6CaLAMh98
https://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/bonds/
The application a customer can fill out to apply for bonds can be downloaded at
hawaiiankingdom.org/bonds/application_for_bonds.pdf
and an instruction at the bottom instructs the victim to send the application, including payment, to an anonymous post-office box in Honolulu. By copy/pasting that address
P.O. Box 2194, Honolulu, HI 96805-2194
into Google we can see that the same box has been used for about 20 years for other secretive activities of Mr. Sai and his associates.
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/TreatyOfAnnexationHawaiiUS.html
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/annexation.html
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/PacificGibraltarBookReview.html
http://big11a.angelfire.com/DialogsChangConklinTreatyAnnex.html
"Book Review: Noenoe Silva, Aloha Betrayed: Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Colonialism"
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/noenoealohabetrayed.html
https://historymystery.kenconklin.org/recognition-of-the-republic-of-hawaii/
https://historymystery.kenconklin.org/2008/04/05/recognition-of-the-republic-of-hawaii-britain/
"The Republic of Hawaii was given formal diplomatic recognition as the rightful government of Hawaii by at least 19 other nations from July 1894 through January 1895. Liliuokalani herself proclaimed the Kingdom was finished and swore her oath of loyalty to the Republic. Also Japan, in April 1897, raised the status of its office in Honolulu from Consulate to Legation (a status not previously accorded during the Kingdom period)."
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/big60/RepublicRecognitionDeJure.html
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/big60/ROHConst.pdf
"Republic of Hawaii Constitution adopted July 4, 1894"
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/big60/RepubHawConst1894.html
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/dole.html
and
"Sanford Ballard Dole -- His Political Biography"
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/dolebiog.html
http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=DIPLOMATIC_RECOGNITION_OF_THE_PROVISIONAL_GOVERNMENT
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/doleusdemandrestorequeen12191893.html
and the full text of President Dole's refusal at:
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/dolerefusal12231893.html
"Black Week" Hawaii 1893
https://morganreport.org/
A good way to delve into it is to start with Outline of Topics
https://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Outline_of_Topics
and also "Morgan's Gems
https://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Morgan%27s_Gems
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/overthrow.html
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/ApologyReso20thAnniv.html
https://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/AkakaHawaiiDividedFeinJune2005.pdf
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/SaiExecutiveAgreementsScam.html
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/DialogConklinVsSaiReExecAgreemnts.html
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/SaiFantasiesSwissDipl111113.html
"Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. Who is Ken Conklin? What does he look like and sound like? What is his background? What does he believe in? Why did he come to Hawaii? Why does he pick on ethnic Hawaiians?" at
https://www.angelfire.com/bigfiles90/ConklinBio.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=CF6CaLAMh98E
"Ken Conklin Ph.D. vs. Keanu Sai Ph.D. -- Dialog regarding Sai's presentation to a committee of the Maui County Council in May-June 2019 in which Sai relies on false assertions that Hawaii is under a continuous prolonged belligerent occupation by the United States from January 1893 to now; that the State of Hawaii is an illegitimate puppet regime; that therefore land titles in Hawaii are not valid."
http://big11a.angelfire.com/DialogSaiConklinMauiCCLandOccup.html
"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
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/SaiFantasiesSwissDipl111113.html
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/fraudperfecttitle.html
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/fraudhague.html
https://www.angelfire.com/big09/SaiSwissTreaty1864WarCrimes.html
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/SaiForeignDiplomats.html
https://www.ilind.net/2019/05/11/two-sovereignty-advocates-hit-with- allegations-of-mortgage-rescue-fraud/
Ken_Conklin@yahoo.com
