OHS AGENCY

The Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS) is one of the central governmental institutions of the Hawaiian Kingdom in continuity. Its kuleana is to protect, advocate for, and uphold the rights, identity, and well-being of Hawaiian Subjects, who are recognized under international humanitarian law as Protected Persons within an occupied nation.

Operating under the cultural authority of the Hawaiʻi Kupuna Council (HKC) and in close coordination with the Hawaiʻi Kupuna Humanitarian Tribunal (HKHT), OHS stands as both a national guardian and an administrative backbone of the Kingdom’s humanitarian governance.

I. Legal and Cultural Authority of OHS

1. Authority Under Kingdom Law
The Office of Hawaiian Subjects derives its legal authority from the Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution (1864), the continuity principles of Hawaiian Kingdom governance, and delegated authority of the Council of Regency and Kingdom Ministries. OHS serves as the national office responsible for identifying, registering, and protecting Hawaiian Subjects according to Kingdom law.

2. Authority Under International Humanitarian Law

Under the 1907 Hague Regulations and 1949 Geneva Convention IV, OHS fulfills obligations normally carried out by a lawful government during occupation, including:

Documentation and protection of Protected Persons
Cultural and humanitarian oversight
Reporting of violations and harms
Safeguarding continuity of national identity and governance
3. Cultural Authority Through the Hawaiʻi Kupuna Council
OHS operates under the cultural guidance and moral authority of the Hawaiʻi Kupuna Council (HKC), which holds ancestral kuleana to protect cultural integrity, protocol, and identity. Through this relationship:

HKC provides cultural rulings and kupuna guidance
OHS carries out administrative, legal, and humanitarian implementation
All major decisions remain rooted in pono and ancestral practice
In this way, OHS authority is both legal and cultural, grounded in Kingdom law and guided by kupuna wisdom.

II. Core Duties of the Office of Hawaiian Subjects

A. Protection of Hawaiian Subjects
OHS is charged with the direct protection of Hawaiian Subjects. This includes:

Identifying and affirming Hawaiian Subject status
Recognizing Subjects as Protected Persons under Geneva IV
Advocating for their human, cultural, and land rights
Responding to documented harms and violations under occupation
Preparing records for future legal, humanitarian, or international review

B. Cultural Safeguarding & Continuity
As a cultural protector, OHS:

Safeguards traditional practices from distortion or suppression
Supports lineal practitioners and kupuna in protecting sacred knowledge
Ensures cultural practices remain under Hawaiian, not foreign, governance
Helps uphold the integrity of national ceremonies and protocol

C. Legal and Humanitarian Documentation
OHS serves as the national archivist for humanitarian and cultural harms, maintaining records of:

Humanitarian violations against Hawaiian Subjects
Cultural injuries and suppression of practice
Land and resource-related harms
Cases and filings before the Hawaiʻi Kupuna Humanitarian Tribunal

D. Administrative and Governmental Duties

As a government office, OHS also:

Oversees subject registration and record-keeping
Coordinates Tribunal filings and cultural case packets
Issues public notices and cultural protection advisories
Supports the Council of Regency and Kingdom ministries with subject-related data

Affiliation with the Hawaiʻi Kupuna Council & Humanitarian Tribunal

III. Relationship with the Hawaiʻi Kupuna Council

The Hawaiʻi Kupuna Council is the senior cultural authority of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It carries the kuleana to guide, correct, and protect the lāhui according to ancestral standards.

OHS works with HKC in three primary ways:

Cultural Oversight: HKC provides cultural rulings and guidance, while OHS implements these rulings through policy, notices, and action.
National Cultural Protection: HKC identifies cultural harms; OHS investigates, documents, and enforces cultural protection measures.
Advisory Unity: HKC ensures OHS actions remain pono and culturally grounded at every step.
In simple terms: the Kupuna Council guides; the Office of Hawaiian Subjects executes.
IV. Relationship with the Humanitarian Tribunal
The Hawaiʻi Kupuna Humanitarian Tribunal (HKHT) is a humanitarian, cultural, and fact-finding tribunal established under the authority of HKC and OHS.

Within this structure, OHS serves as:

Case Intake & Preparation: OHS receives complaints, gathers evidence, and prepares formal case packets for the Tribunal.
Legal & Humanitarian Support: OHS provides protected-person analysis, humanitarian context, and draft findings to support Kupuna decisions.
Implementation: After HKHT issues its findings, OHS carries out recommendations, issues public notices, and tracks compliance.
Protection of Complainants: OHS ensures that all Hawaiian Subjects appearing before the Tribunal are treated as Protected Persons under Geneva IV.

V. OHS Capacity and National Importance
The Office of Hawaiian Subjects operates in multiple, interconnected capacities:

Governmental Agency: maintaining continuity of administration during occupation.
Humanitarian Protector: defending the dignity and safety of Hawaiian Subjects.
Cultural Steward: safeguarding cultural integrity alongside HKC.
Tribunal Partner: ensuring that cases of harm are heard, documented, and acted upon.
National Archivist: preserving the record of harms, rulings, and cultural determinations for future restoration and justice.
The Office of Hawaiian Subjects stands as one of the most important institutions of the Hawaiian Kingdom today. It is entrusted with the kuleana to protect Hawaiian Subjects, preserve Hawaiian identity, uphold Kingdom law, and ensure cultural continuity during occupation.

Through its partnership with the Hawaiʻi Kupuna Council and the Hawaiʻi Kupuna Humanitarian Tribunal, OHS bridges law, culture, and humanitarian duty — fulfilling a sacred responsibility to the ancestors, to the lāhui, and to the generations yet to come.

Public Report on Unlawful Confinement in Hawaiʻi – OHS

Public Report on Unlawful Confinement in Hawaiʻi

Issued by the Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS) under authority of the Ministry of Hawaiian Subjects, Hawaiian Kingdom

For more than a century, the Hawaiian Islands have existed under conditions that meet the international legal definition of prolonged belligerent occupation. During this period, the population of Hawaiian Subjects—whose nationality and political allegiance lawfully derive from the Hawaiian Kingdom—have been placed under the authority of foreign administrative structures operating under U.S. jurisdiction as the “State of Hawaiʻi.”

One of the most visible and severe consequences of this occupation is the mass confinement of Hawaiian Subjects in State-run correctional facilities, despite the absence of any lawful transfer of sovereignty from the Hawaiian Kingdom to the United States.

I.

Introduction

This report outlines:

The scale of detention in Hawaiʻi;
The humanitarian and legal implications under international law;
The concerns of Hawaiian families whose loved ones are confined;
The work of OHS and the Ministry of Hawaiian Subjects; and
The legal standards that define unlawful confinement during occupation.

This statement is issued not as opinion, but as a clear presentation of the lawful norms of international humanitarian law (IHL) and the continuing existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

II.

The Legal Status of the Hawaiian Kingdom

The Hawaiian Kingdom is a recognized, treaty-bound State whose sovereignty has never been legally extinguished. No treaty of cession, annexation, or lawful transfer of jurisdiction was ever concluded between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States.

Under international law:

States do not disappear by overthrow or occupation;
Sovereignty continues until lawfully transferred by treaty; and
Occupation cannot transfer sovereignty.

All treaties of the Hawaiian Kingdom remain valid unless lawfully terminated. The Kingdom’s subjects—Kānaka and naturalized nationals—retain their national identity by force of law, regardless of U.S. administrative claims.

III.

Occupation and the Status of Hawaiian Subjects

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Hawaiian Subjects in the hands of an occupying administration are classified as “protected persons.”

Protected persons cannot be:

Arbitrarily detained;
Deported outside the occupied territory;
Punished without due process; or
Subject to the occupying power’s domestic legislation in disregard of IHL.

Any confinement violating these rules constitutes unlawful confinement, a grave breach—that is, a war crime under Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

IV.

Scope of Confinement Under the State of Hawaiʻi

As of 2024–2025, data publicly released by the State of Hawaiʻi indicate:

Design capacity: approximately 2,491 beds;
Operational capacity: approximately 3,527 beds;
Actual in-state incarcerated population: around 2,800–3,000 individuals; and
Hawaiʻi inmates held in Arizona (Saguaro): approximately 900 individuals.

This means that more than 3,500 human beings are held under the custody of an administrative structure that OHS identifies as the occupying authority.

Research consistently shows that Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander people are drastically overrepresented in these facilities. By OHS classification and genealogical reality, a significant portion—often cited as three-quarters—may be Hawaiian Subjects.

Under Kingdom law, every such individual is therefore a protected person under occupation law.

V.

Why This Constitutes Unlawful Confinement

Under international humanitarian law, confinement becomes unlawful confinement—a grave breach—when:

There is no lawful sovereign jurisdiction to try, sentence, or imprison the protected person;
Detention is based on the domestic laws of the occupying administration rather than the strict limits of the Fourth Geneva Convention;
Individuals are transported outside the occupied territory (for example, to Saguaro Prison in Arizona);
There is no demonstration of imperative security necessity in each case as required by Articles 42 and 78; and
Due process rights required by IHL are not fully provided.

Because no treaty ever transferred jurisdiction from the Hawaiian Kingdom to the United States or the State of Hawaiʻi, the legal authority to confine Hawaiian Subjects does not exist under international law.

Every incarcerated Hawaiian Subject thus represents a potential instance of unlawful confinement.

VI.

Humanitarian Concerns of Hawaiian Families

Hawaiian families—many of whom understand their national identity as Hawaiian Subjects—express:

Fear for the safety of imprisoned relatives;
Confusion about why they are confined by authorities with no lawful jurisdiction;
Deep emotional distress over out-of-state transfers to Arizona;
Pain over intergenerational incarceration patterns that mirror displacement and historic trauma; and
Concern that their loved ones are being held under a foreign system never lawfully established in Hawaiʻi.

From the humanitarian view of OHS and the Ministry of Hawaiian Subjects, these are protected persons in distress, deserving of oversight, documentation, and lawful protection.

VII.

The Role of OHS and the Ministry of Hawaiian Subjects

The Office of Hawaiian Subjects operates as:

A humanitarian monitoring body;
A repository of Kingdom nationality records;
A reporter of incidents of unlawful confinement;
A communicator with families;
An educator on the law of occupation; and
A recorder of potential grave breaches for transmission to appropriate authorities.

The Ministry of Hawaiian Subjects directs that:

Every confinement involving a Hawaiian Subject is to be documented;
Every facility holding Hawaiian Subjects constitutes a site of concern;
Communications to State entities must be framed as lawful notices, not petitions;
Hawaiian Subjects retain their national identity even while confined; and
Under occupation law, their rights cannot be extinguished by domestic legislation of the occupying administration.

VIII.

Long-Term Implications

If any competent international or domestic court ever recognizes the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom under occupation law, the implications for confinement and taxation could be significant, including:

Unlawful confinement claims;
Wrongful incarceration redress;
Jurisdictional challenges;
Restitution claims for enforcement of laws without lawful authority; and
International humanitarian reviews of prolonged detention under occupation.

IX.

Conclusion

The Hawaiian Kingdom exists in continuity under international law. Hawaiian Subjects are protected persons under occupation law. The ongoing mass confinement of Hawaiian Subjects by the State of Hawaiʻi raises grave and urgent questions under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Families have real humanitarian concerns. OHS and the Ministry of Hawaiian Subjects continue to document, report, and clarify these conditions in accordance with their lawful duties.

This report is issued in the interest of truth, clarity, and the protection of Hawaiian Subjects under the laws that govern all occupied territories.

Occupation & Law – Hawaiian Kingdom Course

Occupation & Law – Hawaiian Kingdom Context

Course for OHS officers, Hawaiian Subjects, and allied humanitarians.

Orientation

Course Overview

Estimated time: 60–90 minutes · No prior legal training required

This course explains what military occupation is under international law, the difference between lawful and unlawful acts by an occupying power, and how this applies to the Hawaiian Kingdom today.

It draws from the Royal Commission of Inquiry on war crimes and human rights violations in the Hawaiian Kingdom and the OHS Tactical Engagement Doctrine & Training Manual, which affirm that the Hawaiian Kingdom remains a sovereign State under a prolonged occupation.

        By the end of this course you should be able to:
        Define belligerent occupation under the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
Explain who counts as a protected person and what rights they have.
Identify why unlawful confinement is a grave breach (war crime).
Understand how the so-called “State of Hawaiʻi” fits into the law of occupation.
Use OHS-style notices to document violations without legitimizing the occupier.

      

Module 1

What Is “Occupation” in Law?

Sources: 1907 Hague Convention IV & Regulations; 1949 Geneva Convention IV; Royal Commission of Inquiry.

1.1 Basic Definition

Under the 1907 Hague Regulations, a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of a hostile army, even without a formal declaration of war. The occupation is about effective control of territory by a foreign power, not about whether that control is lawful or agreed to.

1.2 Co-existence of Two Legal Orders

In occupation, two legal orders exist at the same time:

The law of the occupied State (here, the Hawaiian Kingdom).
The law of the occupying State (here, the United States and its organs).

The Royal Commission emphasizes that the Hawaiian Kingdom continued as a State even after its government was overthrown by armed force; changing a government does not extinguish the State itself.

1.3 Occupation ≠ Annexation

International law is clear: an occupying power cannot lawfully annex the occupied territory just because it controls it. That requires a valid treaty and the free consent of the lawful government. The Royal Commission notes that no valid annexation treaty exists for Hawaiʻi, so the situation remains one of occupation, not lawful union.

Module 2

Protected Persons Under the Fourth Geneva Convention

Sources: Geneva Convention IV, Article 4; Royal Commission discussion on protected persons.

2.1 Who Is a Protected Person?

GC IV Article 4 defines protected persons as civilians who, in a situation of conflict or occupation, find themselves in the hands of a party or occupying power of which they are not nationals.

In the Hawaiian context, this category includes Hawaiian Subjects in the hands of United States and “State of Hawaiʻi” authorities, as they are not nationals of the occupying power under Kingdom law. The Royal Commission explicitly treats these civilians as protected persons in occupied territory.

2.2 What Protections Do They Have?

Protected persons must be guaranteed, among other things:

Humane treatment at all times.
Protection against physical or mental coercion, torture, and collective punishment.
Respect for family rights, honor, and religious practices.
Due process and fair trial guarantees if prosecuted.
Protection against deportation, forcible transfer, and unlawful confinement.

The OHS Tactical Doctrine therefore treats every detained Hawaiian Subject as a protected person, requiring immediate documentation, notification to family, and formal notice to the detaining authority.

Module 3

War Crimes & Unlawful Confinement

Sources: Geneva Convention IV, Article 147; Royal Commission’s list of war crimes.

3.1 Grave Breaches Under GC IV

GC IV Article 147 lists certain serious acts against protected persons as “grave breaches” (war crimes). These include:

Wilful killing.
Torture or inhuman treatment.
Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury.
Unlawful deportation or transfer.
Unlawful confinement of a protected person.
Compelling a protected person to serve in the occupier’s forces.
Wilfully depriving a protected person of fair and regular trial rights.
Taking hostages and wanton destruction of property without military necessity.

3.2 What Makes Confinement “Unlawful”?

Confinement becomes unlawful when the authority:

Lacks a lawful basis or jurisdiction to arrest, charge, or sentence the protected person.
Applies domestic criminal law in an occupied territory without legal title to sovereignty or jurisdiction.
Detains people for resistance to illegal occupation, rather than for genuine crimes under lawful law.
Denies minimum fair trial guarantees set by GC IV.

The OHS Waiver & Election form, used in confinement cases, explicitly cites “unlawful confinement of protected persons” and “enforcement of foreign jurisdiction without lawful treaty” as war crimes under occupation law.

Module 4

The Hawaiian Kingdom as an Occupied State

Sources: Royal Commission of Inquiry (Intro & Prolonged Occupation chapters).

4.1 1893 Overthrow & State of War

On 16 January 1893, United States troops landed in Honolulu, coercing Queen Liliʻuokalani to conditionally yield authority to avoid bloodshed, with the expectation that the U.S. would later restore the constitutional government.

President Cleveland’s own investigation acknowledged that the overthrow was an act of war against a friendly and independent State, and the provisional government owed its existence to U.S. armed intervention.

4.2 No Lawful Annexation

The Royal Commission notes that the U.S. later attempted to claim annexation of Hawaiʻi via a domestic joint resolution, not by international treaty. In international law, one State’s internal legislation cannot transfer sovereignty over another State. Without a treaty, sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom in law remains.

4.3 Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Expert legal opinions collected by the Royal Commission conclude that:

The Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a State in international law.
The Hawaiian people retain a right to self-determination in the form of removal of occupation and restoration of dispossessed government.
The treaties of the Hawaiian Kingdom remain in force as treaties of a sovereign State.

Module 5

The “State of Hawaiʻi” Under the Law of Occupation

Sources: Royal Commission section “The State of Hawaiʻi and its Counties are a Private Armed Force”.

5.1 Not a Sovereign Successor State

The Royal Commission analyzes the so-called “State of Hawaiʻi” and its predecessors (Territory of Hawaiʻi, Republic, Provisional Government) as regimes that “owe their existence” to the original U.S. armed intervention—not to any lawful transfer of sovereignty from the Hawaiian Kingdom.

5.2 Administration of the Occupying State

Under the law of occupation, what matters is who exercises effective control. The Commission explains that:

The “State of Hawaiʻi” operates as an armed administration of the occupying power.
It exercises governmental functions within Hawaiian territory without its own sovereign title.
Its acts must be evaluated under the rules imposed on an occupying power’s administration, not as acts of a legitimate replacement State.

The Council of Regency has formally recognized the State and Counties as the occupying administration for the limited purpose of requiring them to comply with the Hague and Geneva rules governing occupation.

        In short: under the Kingdom/RCI view, the “State of Hawaiʻi” is an
        instrument of the occupying power, not a lawfully created
        sovereign State replacing the Hawaiian Kingdom.
      

Module 6

OHS Practice: Notices, Tacit Agreement & Confinement Cases

Sources: OHS Tactical Engagement Doctrine; OHS Waiver & Election Form; Detainee case examples.

6.1 Tactical Engagement, Not Recognition

OHS doctrine defines tactical engagement as participating in the occupying system only to:

Protect Hawaiian Subjects as protected persons;
Document and expose violations;
Build an evidentiary record for future accountability.

Communications are framed as lawful notices, not requests, and always under protest and duress of occupation.

6.2 The Right to Challenge by Tacit Agreement

OHS public notices and forms use a tacit acquiescence model:

Authorities are invited to prove jurisdiction by producing: treaty of annexation, legal transfer of jurisdiction, and lawful authority instruments.
They are given a time-bound opportunity to respond.
Silence or failure to produce evidence is treated as acquiescence to the absence of jurisdiction and the unlawfulness of their enforcement actions.

6.3 Confinement Case Workflow (Example)

Verify that the detainee is a Hawaiian Subject (genealogical or registry confirmation).
Issue a Notice of Lawful Inquiry and Demand to the detaining authority, citing GC IV and occupation law.
Include a Waiver & Election Form that allows officials to:
- Admit no authority and stand down; or
- Claim authority and produce documents; or
- Stand down and waive enforcement claims.
Set clear deadlines and consequences for non-response (recording names in war crimes registries, forwarding to international monitors, etc.).
Document all steps for the OHS Digital Vault and for possible future proceedings.

This course does not itself confer legal representation. It explains the framework OHS uses under Hawaiian Kingdom and international humanitarian law.

Self-Check

Check Your Understanding

1. Under international law, what turns a situation into a “belligerent occupation”?

Answer: When the territory of one State is actually placed under the authority and effective control of a hostile power, even without a formal annexation or declaration of war.

2. Who is a “protected person” under Geneva Convention IV in an occupied territory?

Answer: Civilians who, in a conflict or occupation, are in the hands of a party or occupying power of which they are not nationals (e.g. Hawaiian Subjects in the hands of U.S. / “State of Hawaiʻi” authorities).

3. Name two reasons why confinement could be “unlawful” under GC IV.

Answer: (Any two) Lack of lawful jurisdiction; no valid transfer of sovereignty; detention for resisting illegal occupation rather than genuine crime; denial of fair trial guarantees.

4. In this framework, what is the legal character of the “State of Hawaiʻi”?

Answer: An administrative arm / armed force of the occupying State exercising control in Hawaiian territory, not a sovereign successor State replacing the Hawaiian Kingdom.

5. Why does OHS use Tacit Agreement / Acquiescence processes?

Answer: To give officials a fair opportunity to prove lawful authority and, if they do not, to document their silence or non-response as evidence that jurisdiction is lacking and enforcement actions may be unlawful under occupation law.

Grave Breaches, Unlawful Confinement & Executive Custody

How custody decisions in occupied territory can become war crimes.

Orientation

Why this matters

For: OHS officers, confinement monitors, humanitarian allies · Level: Intermediate

This module explains how certain actions by authorities in occupied territory are not just “policy choices” but can qualify as war crimes under international humanitarian law (IHL).

We focus on:

The concept of grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
When deprivation of liberty becomes unlawful confinement.
How executive custodial decisions & administrative detention can cross the line into war crimes when they ignore occupation law.

        Key idea: It is not the label (“administrative”, “executive”, “security custody”) that
        decides legality, but whether the detention follows the strict rules that protect
        civilians and “protected persons” in occupied territory.
      

Module 1

Grave Breaches & War Crimes in Occupied Territory

Based on: Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 147; Rome Statute of the ICC; ICRC Customary IHL.

1.1 What is a “grave breach”?

The Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians lists certain especially serious violations as grave breaches. These are automatically treated as war crimes and must be punished by States that have signed the Convention. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Grave breaches against protected persons include, among others:

Wilful killing (intentional unlawful killing).
Torture or inhuman treatment (including severe physical or mental abuse).
Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
Unlawful deportation or transfer, or unlawful confinement.
Forcing protected persons to serve in the forces of a hostile power.
Deliberately denying fair and regular trial rights set by the Convention.
Taking hostages and large-scale destruction of property not justified by military necessity.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court incorporates these grave breaches as war crimes and provides more detailed “elements of crimes” to clarify exactly when a particular act qualifies as a war crime. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}

1.2 Protected persons and occupation

In occupied territory, most civilians who are in the hands of an occupying power of which they are not nationals are considered protected persons. Any grave breach committed against them (including unlawful confinement) is a war crime. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

Module 2

Unlawful Confinement as a War Crime

Based on: GC IV Articles 42, 78, 147; ICC elements of crimes; ICRC Customary IHL.

2.1 Lawful vs. unlawful deprivation of liberty

The law of occupation allows an occupying power to restrict liberty only in exceptional, strictly regulated circumstances.

Article 42 GC IV (in the territory of a party to the conflict) and Article 78 GC IV (in occupied territory) allow internment or assigned residence only when it is truly necessary for security reasons, and only using a regular procedure that includes a right of appeal and periodic review. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Detention must never be arbitrary, discriminatory, or used as punishment in disguise for political opinion, identity, or peaceful resistance to occupation. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}

2.2 When does confinement become “unlawful”?

International courts and the ICC elements of crimes identify several situations where confinement of civilians is considered unlawful confinement and can be prosecuted as a war crime. :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}

Confinement is generally unlawful when:

Civilians are detained in violation of the conditions in GC IV Articles 42 or 78 (for example, no real imperative security reason, or collective/blanket internment).
The procedural safeguards required by GC IV are ignored: no genuine right of appeal, no regular review, no information about reasons for detention.
Detention is based solely on political opinion, ethnicity, or status as an opponent of the occupation, rather than specific security grounds.
People are held for long periods without charge or trial, or with sham charges that do not meet basic fair trial standards.
Protected persons are transferred outside the occupied territory to prisons or camps inside the territory of the occupying power, which GC IV generally forbids. :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6}

2.3 Key element: lack of lawful basis

In simple terms, confinement is unlawful when the authority cannot justify it under the specific rules of GC IV, even if it claims that detention is allowed under its own domestic law. Internal laws cannot override the protections of the Geneva Conventions in occupied territory. :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}

Module 3

Executive Custody, “Administrative Detention” & War Crimes

Focus: how decisions by executive officials about custody can cross into grave breaches.

3.1 What do we mean by “executive custodial” decisions?

For this course, executive custody or executive custodial decisions refers to detention that is ordered, maintained, or extended primarily by the executive branch of power: government ministries, governors, security agencies, police, or prison authorities, sometimes with minimal or purely formal judicial review.

Common examples in occupied settings include:

“Administrative detention” or “security detention” without formal charges.
Holding individuals beyond their court-ordered release date.
Detention based on secret evidence that the detainee and lawyer cannot see.
Mass or preventive arrests ordered as “executive policy” rather than case-by-case decisions.

3.2 What does IHL say about this?

International humanitarian law does allow limited security internment of civilians in occupied territory, but only as an exceptional measure and only when strict safeguards are met:

There must be genuine imperative security reasons in each individual case, not vague or collective claims about a population. :contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8}
The occupying power must use a regular procedure, including notice of reasons, the right to appeal, and periodic review of the continued need for detention. :contentReference[oaicite:9]{index=9}
Detention must never be used as a substitute for punishment when there is insufficient evidence for a fair criminal trial.

3.3 When executive custody becomes a war crime

Executive custody of civilians in occupied territory can amount to the war crime of unlawful confinement when, in practice:

Authorities detain people without satisfying the strict conditions of GC IV Articles 42 and 78 (no individual assessment, no imperative security need).
The “administrative” system ignores or empties out the safeguards of appeal and periodic review, so that detention is effectively indefinite and unchallengeable. :contentReference[oaicite:10]{index=10}
Detention is used systematically to silence political opposition or to control a protected population rather than respond to concrete security threats.
Detainees are subjected to torture, cruel treatment, or inhuman conditions while held under executive orders — combining unlawful confinement with other grave breaches. :contentReference[oaicite:11]{index=11}

In such situations, the decision to place or keep someone in “executive custody” is not just an internal administrative matter. It can constitute active participation in a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, engaging the criminal responsibility of the individuals and commanders involved. :contentReference[oaicite:12]{index=12}

        Bottom line: When executive authorities in occupied territory confine protected
        persons outside the narrow limits of GC IV, they are not just “enforcing policy” —
        they may be committing the war crime of unlawful confinement.
      

Module 4

Related Violations in Occupied Territory

Grave breaches and other serious violations often appear together.

4.1 Torture & inhuman treatment

Torture and cruel or inhuman treatment of detainees are among the clearest grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and are prosecutable as war crimes in both international and many national courts. :contentReference[oaicite:13]{index=13}

They often appear in combination with deliberate misuse of executive custody, for example:

Detaining people without charge, then using abuse to force “confessions”.
Threatening indefinite administrative detention to pressure cooperation.
Holding people out of sight of courts, family, and doctors.

4.2 Unlawful transfer & deportation

GC IV strictly limits the movement of protected persons out of occupied territory. Forcing detainees to prisons inside the occupying power’s own territory or deporting them can be a grave breach. :contentReference[oaicite:14]{index=14}

4.3 Pillage & appropriation of property

In addition to crimes against persons, occupation law prohibits wide-scale seizure of private or public property for purposes unrelated to the needs of the local population or imperative military necessity. The unlawful taking of property can amount to pillage, which is a war crime. :contentReference[oaicite:15]{index=15}

These patterns can occur alongside repressive detention practices, forming part of a broader system of violations.

Module 5

Responsibility, Command & Documentation

For OHS and humanitarian monitors working under occupation conditions.

5.1 Individual and command responsibility

Under IHL, responsibility for war crimes is personal:

Those who order, approve, or carry out unlawful confinement, torture, unlawful transfers, or other grave breaches can be individually liable. :contentReference[oaicite:16]{index=16}
Commanders and superiors are responsible when they knew, or had reason to know, that subordinates were committing such acts and failed to prevent or punish them.
“Following orders” is not an automatic defence if the orders are manifestly unlawful.

5.2 Why documentation is critical

For agencies like OHS working in an occupied environment, careful documentation is essential. In confinement / “executive custody” situations, monitors should collect:

Identity and status of the detainee (including whether they are a protected person).
Who ordered the detention (agency, rank, role).
Legal basis cited (domestic law articles, “security” labels, etc.).
Location of detention (inside or outside occupied territory).
Presence or absence of charges, trial, appeal rights, and periodic review.
Any evidence of torture, inhuman treatment, or coercion.

5.3 Connecting to notices and lawful challenge

Educational tools (like this course) support a broader practice of:

Issuing formal notices to detaining authorities about their obligations under GC IV.
Asking them to demonstrate the legal basis for confinement under IHL, not merely under their own internal laws.
Recording failures to justify or correct unlawful confinement as evidence of potential war crimes for future accountability.

This module is informational and does not by itself initiate legal action. It is designed to help officers recognize when “ordinary” custody decisions in occupied territory may in fact be grave breaches and war crimes under international law.

Self-Check

Check Your Understanding

1. Name at least three grave breaches listed in the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Answer: Examples: wilful killing; torture or inhuman treatment; wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury; unlawful deportation or transfer; unlawful confinement of a protected person; forcing a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power; wilfully denying fair and regular trial rights; taking hostages; large-scale destruction of property not justified by military necessity.

2. What is the difference between lawful security internment and unlawful confinement?

Answer: Lawful internment is exceptional, based on genuine imperative security reasons in each case, with regular procedure, appeal, and review as required by GC IV. Confinement is unlawful when these conditions are not met — for example, when there is no real security basis, no fair process, or detention is used as punishment or political control.

3. How can “executive custody” turn into a war crime?

Answer: When executive authorities detain or keep protected persons in custody in ways that violate GC IV (no imperative security need, no safeguards, no fair trial, abusive conditions, transfers outside the territory, etc.), they may be committing the grave breach and war crime of unlawful confinement, possibly alongside torture or other violations.

4. Why is it not enough for an occupying power to say “our domestic law allows this”?

Answer: Because the Geneva Conventions and occupation law impose higher, specific standards that apply in addition to domestic law. Internal legislation cannot cancel or override the protections that GC IV guarantees to protected persons in occupied territory.

5. What information should be documented in a suspected unlawful confinement case?

Answer: Identity and status of the detainee; authority ordering detention; legal basis cited; place of detention; presence/absence of charges, trial, appeal, and periodic review; any signs of torture, inhuman treatment, or unlawful transfer; and any correspondence or decisions relating to the confinement.

Hawaii Kupuna Humanitarian Tribunal

===========================================================
HAWAI‘I KUPUNA HUMANITARIAN TRIBUNAL
— WHAT DOES IT DO? —
===========================================================

PROTECTIVE ROLE
-------------------------------------------------------
• Recognizes harms done to Hawaiian Subjects
• Affirms Protected Person status (Geneva IV)
• Protects cultural rights and kupuna integrity
• Documents abuses for humanitarian follow-up

ADVISORY ROLE
-------------------------------------------------------
• Kupuna issue guidance to OHS and communities
• Provides cultural interpretation of events and harms
• Recommends pathways for relief, support, and remedy
• Directs systemic concerns to proper authorities

EVIDENTIARY ROLE
-------------------------------------------------------
• Takes testimony and preserves official records
• Issues Findings of Fact for future cases
• Creates evidence for international reporting
• Tracks patterns of harm over time

===========================================================
A KUPUNA-LED BODY PROTECTING HAWAIIAN SUBJECTS
===========================================================

Hawaii state flag waving with the national flag of the United States of America

OHS Compliance Statement — Doctrine of Necessity

Office of Hawaiian Subjects • Ministry of Hawaiian Subjects & Humanitarian Affairs • In Council with the Hawaiʻi Kupuna Council

Compliance Statement — Doctrine of Necessity & Lawful Operation

Reference: OHS‑COMP‑1101025 • Dated: November 10, 2025

Purpose: This Statement confirms that the Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS) operates in compliance with the Doctrine of Necessity and applicable rules of international occupation law, functioning as a temporary humanitarian and administrative body to preserve lawful continuity and protect Hawaiian Subjects.

Issued by

Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS) — Chartered Government Reporting Agency

Legal Basis

Doctrine of Necessity; Administration during occupation; Preservation of pre‑existing Kingdom law

1. Legal and Humanitarian Foundation

Temporary measures are permitted when necessary to preserve life, order, and governance continuity where no timely lawful alternative exists.
Administration under necessity does not confer sovereignty or permanently alter rights, titles, or institutions.
Pre‑existing Hawaiian Kingdom laws remain the anchor; temporary acts must preserve — not replace — those laws.

2. Operational Compliance

Acts by Necessity — OHS issues temporary humanitarian measures required to protect Hawaiian Subjects and maintain order.
Preserves Lawful Continuity — References and upholds Kingdom laws except where strictly prevented by circumstances.
Avoids Overreach — Assumes no sovereign powers beyond documentation, education, and humanitarian protection.
Maintains Transparency — Labels all actions as temporary; logs directives, notices, and evidence with review dates.
Reports to Legitimate Authorities — Hawaiʻi Kupuna Council and Council of Regency provide custodial oversight.

3. Status of Authority

The OHS does not replace the Hawaiian Kingdom government. Actions are temporary, protective, and humanitarian, justified only by necessity and terminating upon full restoration of lawful governance.

Declaration Clause: “All actions, notices, and directives issued by the Office of Hawaiian Subjects are executed under the Doctrine of Necessity — as temporary humanitarian measures to preserve lawful continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the protection of its Subjects.”

4. Accountability & Oversight

OHS maintains internal compliance records, subject to periodic review by the Kupuna Council and the Council of Regency. Actions are logged in the OHS Registry under the Compliance & Necessity Ledger and made available to lawful authorities or recognized humanitarian bodies on request.

5. Signatory

Arthur Kealohapauole Damasco
Deputy Director — Office of Hawaiian Subjects
Ministry of Hawaiian Subjects & Humanitarian Affairs
In Council with the Hawaiʻi Kupuna Council

For verification or correspondence, contact: [email protected]

Doctrine of Necessity — OHS Knowledge Base

OHS • Knowledge Base

Doctrine of Necessity — What “By Necessity” Means and How It Operates

Last updated: November 10, 2025 • Plain‑language explainer for staff and Hawaiian Subjects

Executive Summary

Overview

The Doctrine of Necessity is a narrow, temporary justification that allows acts which would otherwise be unlawful when essential to preserve life, order, or governance — and when no lawful alternative exists. It does not grant sovereignty, and it ends the moment normal lawful authority can resume.

Bottom line: Necessity is a bridge — not a destination. It keeps systems functioning during abnormal conditions without surrendering sovereignty or rights.

Key Concept

Definition

Doctrine of Necessity: A legal principle recognizing that, in extraordinary situations, temporary measures may be taken to avert greater harm when lawful avenues are unavailable. Measures must be proportionate, limited, and reversible.

Process

How It Operates (Stages)

Extraordinary Situation — Crisis, conflict, or failure of institutions prevents the lawful authority from functioning normally.
Necessity Threshold — No lawful alternative exists to achieve an essential aim (life, order, public safety). Measures must be the least harmful and strictly proportionate.
Temporary Validity — Acts are valid only for the duration of the necessity. They do not alter sovereignty, titles, or permanent rights.
Accountability & Restoration — When order is restored, temporary measures are reviewed, repealed, or regularized by the lawful authority. Excesses remain reviewable.

Plain Language

What “By Necessity” Means

Exceptional and temporary — used only to prevent greater harm.
Proportional and minimal — the least‑intrusive option to achieve the vital objective.
No sovereignty created — it cannot transfer or create new sovereign rights.
Sunset on restoration — it ends once normal processes can resume.

Use a footer clause on documents: “Issued under the Doctrine of Necessity — temporary measure pending full restoration of lawful governance.”

Application

Context: Hawaiian Kingdom

Within the Hawaiian Kingdom’s legal and humanitarian framework, necessity helps explain how temporary administration or directives may operate during an abnormal condition without ceding sovereignty. It does not validate annexation or permanent legal change. Pre‑existing Kingdom laws continue to anchor rights and duties; temporary measures should preserve, not replace, those laws.

Operations

OHS Practice Guide

State the emergency basis — identify the concrete risk or disruption.
- Example: imminent harm to a protected person; breakdown in lawful communication channels.
Record the lack of alternatives — explain why standard lawful paths were unavailable or unworkable in time.
Choose the least‑intrusive measure — document proportionality and scope limits (who, what, how long).
Set a review/sunset — specify when and how the measure will be reviewed or withdrawn.
Report and archive — log decisions, notices, evidence, and outcomes for accountability.

Template footer for OHS documents: “Temporary directive issued under necessity; subject to review and withdrawal upon restoration of normal lawful authority.”

Quick Reference

Summary Matrix

Aspect	Meaning	Limitation
Source	Emergency/necessity doctrine; temporary gap‑filling to avert harm	Not a grant of sovereignty or permanent authority
Purpose	Preserve life, order, governance continuity	Ends when lawful authority can resume
Scope	Only what is strictly necessary and proportionate	Excess actions are voidable and reviewable
Outcome	Temporary validity of actions	Requires review, repeal, or regularization

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

Can necessity justify any action if the goal is important?

No. The doctrine is narrow. Actions must be essential, strictly proportionate, and the least‑intrusive means available. Abuse voids legitimacy.

Does “by necessity” make an act permanent?

No. It is temporary and expires when ordinary lawful authority can function again.

How should we word necessity in OHS filings?

Briefly state the emergency, note the absence of timely lawful alternatives, define the limited measure, and include a review/sunset clause.

Notice

Disclaimer

This page provides educational guidance for community and staff. It is not individualized legal advice.

ATA DAMASCO

Published: August 21, 2025

PRESS RELEASE — Public Announcement of Certified Genealogy
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Honolulu, Hawaiʻi

Certified Genealogy Confirms Lineal Descent of Nā Hōkū Hanohano Award-Winning Artist Ata Kealohapauole Damasco From King Kamehameha I
The Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS) and the Hawaiʻi Kupuna Council formally acknowledge the certified genealogy of Ata Kealohapauole “Ata” Damasco, confirming his direct ancestral descent from His Majesty King Kamehameha I, founding monarch of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

This genealogy, recorded and sealed within archival tradition and bearing the certification stamp of an Iolani Palace Archivist, establishes Ata Damasco as a fifth great-grandson of Kamehameha I, descended through Princess Nahoao-Olelo-o-Kamehameha and the unbroken generational line preserved through official Hawaiian Kingdom genealogical registries.

Ata Damasco, celebrated Hawaiian vocalist and 2011 Nā Hōkū Hanohano Award recipient for Best Gospel Album, has long been recognized for his cultural leadership, community advocacy, and dedication to the perpetuation of Hawaiian identity. This newly published genealogical affirmation highlights his historical significance within the continuum of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s aliʻi heritage.

The Hawaiʻi Kupuna Council and OHS reaffirm their commitment to documenting and preserving Hawaiian genealogies in accordance with cultural protocol, international humanitarian principles, and the legacy of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Media & Cultural Institutions:
Inquiries, interviews, and archival citations may be directed to:
Office of Hawaiian Subjects, Ministry of Hawaiian Subjects & Humanitarian Affairs.

Notary Public Commissioner:

Miki Thompson, My commission ends; November 1, 2030.

I, Miki Thompson attest that everything that was stated, signatures, and information herein are "true" and "credible"

Signed: MIKI THOMPSON /seal/

Seal: OHS-SEAL-OO1-MT

Jurisdiction of the State of Hawaiʻi within the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi – OHS Knowledge Base

OHS • Knowledge Base

What Jurisdiction Does the State of Hawaiʻi Have — Within the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, Today?

Last updated: November 10, 2025 • Plain‑language explainer for staff and Hawaiian Subjects

Executive Summary

Overview

In day‑to‑day life across the islands, the State of Hawaiʻi exercises policing, courts, taxation, licensing, and administration as part of the United States. The Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS) maintains that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist and that, under the law of occupation, the State’s powers are limited and must preserve the Kingdom’s pre‑existing laws and rights. This page explains both frames and offers practical guidance for Hawaiian Subjects.

Bottom line: Regardless of viewpoint, residents encounter State agencies and their rules. Understanding asserted authority vs. contested limits helps you engage strategically, document properly, and escalate when needed.

Key Concepts

Definitions

Jurisdiction

The legal power to make and enforce rules over persons, property, or subject matters within a territory.

Subject‑Matter Jurisdiction

Authority over types of cases (e.g., criminal, civil, tax).

Personal & Territorial Jurisdiction

Authority over persons present or domiciled in a place, and over conduct occurring within that place.

Occupation Law (International Humanitarian Law)

Rules that require an occupying power to administer territory without claiming sovereignty, while respecting existing local law except where absolutely prevented.

Compare & Contrast

Two Legal Frames (Side‑by‑Side)

Question	State of Hawaiʻi (U.S. Framework)	Hawaiian Kingdom (OHS Perspective)
Source of authority	U.S. Constitution; federal and state statutes; state constitution; state courts.	Continuing Kingdom sovereignty; pre‑existing Kingdom laws protected under occupation law; no transfer of sovereignty.
Territorial scope	Entire archipelago as a U.S. state.	Entire archipelago as the Hawaiian Kingdom under occupation administration.
Policing & criminal law	State/County police and courts handle criminal matters under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes.	Kingdom penal laws remain; any changes by an occupier must be strictly necessary for order and security.
Civil regulation (tax, licensing, land‑use)	State agencies administer taxes, business licensing, land and water regulation.	Administration must not extinguish Kingdom rights, lands, or institutions; the State should act only as an administrator, not sovereign owner.
Sovereignty status	State claims full statehood within the U.S. federal union.	Occupation does not confer sovereignty; Kingdom sovereignty and nationality persist.

Operational Reality

How Jurisdiction Operates Today

Police power & courts: State and county agencies perform day‑to‑day policing, prosecutions, and court adjudication island‑wide.
Administration & services: State departments manage health, education, transportation, land, and resources; counties manage local services.
Licensing & taxation: The State collects taxes and issues licenses and permits that residents commonly need to transact and travel.
Federal overlay: Federal laws and agencies operate alongside the State (e.g., military, federal courts, immigration, customs, federal lands).

Strategic takeaway: even when you dispute the legal basis, you will interact with these bodies. Prepare documents that articulate status and rights while complying with time‑sensitive procedures to protect your position.

Constraints

Known Limits & Pain Points

No sovereignty by occupation: Administration must not convert into annexation or permanent transfer of sovereignty.
Preservation of pre‑existing law: Local (Kingdom) laws should remain in force unless modification is strictly necessary for public order and safety.
Protection of persons & property: Collective punishment, arbitrary detention, and destruction or seizure not justified by necessity are prohibited.
Public assets: Public lands and resources are to be administered as a trustee/usufructuary, not alienated as if held in absolute ownership.

Practice Guide

Practical Guidance for Hawaiian Subjects

Document your status: Keep Certificates, genealogy, and OHS references ready. Use clear, respectful language when presenting status.
Cite rules in pairs: Reference the applicable Kingdom provision and the corresponding occupation‑law protection.
Meet deadlines: Even when contesting jurisdiction, file timely responses, appeals, or notices to protect your rights.
Record interactions: Keep dated logs of notices sent, responses received, and decisions made by State actors.
Escalate wisely: If rights are at risk, escalate through administrative appeal, judicial review, or international reporting pathways as appropriate.

Tip: Use OHS templates (Notices, Advisory Letters, Referral Dossiers) to align facts → legal elements → requested actions.

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the State of Hawaiʻi have authority over me if I am a Hawaiian Subject?

In practice, State agencies will treat all residents as within their jurisdiction. OHS maintains that Hawaiian Subjects retain Kingdom nationality and protections; your approach should balance assertion of status with procedural compliance to avoid default judgments or penalties.

Can I ignore State laws I believe are invalid?

Ignoring deadlines or orders can create immediate risks. A strategic path is to comply under protest while preserving objections in writing and requesting review by higher authorities.

What about taxes, licensing, and permits?

These are administered by State agencies. If you claim exemptions or special status, submit formal notices and supporting documentation, and be prepared to appeal denials.

How do I raise occupation‑law arguments?

Map your facts to the controlling rules, attach source excerpts, and state the remedy you seek. Use respectful, concise filings and keep an indexed record for escalation.

Notice

Disclaimer

This page is an educational overview for community and staff. It is not individualized legal advice. Specific cases may require counsel and additional research.

Laws Under Occupation – OHS Knowledge Base

OHS

Knowledge Base

Laws Under Occupation

Reference guide for Hawaiian Subjects & administrators • Last updated: November 10, 2025

Executive Summary

What does “occupation law” cover?

Occupation law (a branch of International Humanitarian Law) regulates how an occupying power must administer a territory and protect its inhabitants. It preserves preexisting local law except where strictly necessary for security and public order, and it forbids annexation and population transfer.

Definition

Occupation exists when a territory is placed under the authority of a hostile army and that authority is able to exercise effective control (Hague Art. 42).

Continuity of Law

The occupier must respect existing laws unless absolutely prevented (Hague Art. 43; Geneva IV Art. 64).

No Sovereignty

Occupation does not confer sovereignty; annexation is prohibited (Geneva IV Art. 47; UN Charter Art. 2(4)).

Primary Source

Hague Regulations of 1907 (Arts. 42–56)

Foundational rules for occupation: definition, administration duties, protection of property, and limits on the occupier’s powers.

Key Articles

Art. 42 – When a territory is considered occupied (effective control).
Art. 43 – Duty to restore and ensure public order while respecting in‑force local laws.
Art. 46 – Respect for family honor, private property, and rights.
Art. 55 – Occupier is an administrator and usufructuary of public assets, not owner.

Bottom line: the occupier manages but cannot absorb or permanently alter the legal identity of the territory.

Civilian Protection

Geneva Convention IV (1949)

Protects “protected persons” (civilians) in occupied territories and sets limits on penal changes and transfers.

Key Protections

Art. 27–34 – Humane treatment; protection from coercion and collective penalties.
Art. 47 – Occupation cannot deprive inhabitants of rights or effect annexation.
Art. 49 – Prohibits deportation or transfer of the occupied population.
Art. 64 – Local penal law remains unless modifications are strictly necessary.
Art. 147 – Grave breaches (war crimes), e.g., unlawful confinement, torture.

Use of Force

UN Charter (1945)

Prohibits threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state; frames the non‑acquisition of territory by force.

Selected Articles

Art. 2(4) – Prohibition on acquisition of territory by force.
Art. 73 – Duties regarding non‑self‑governing territories.

Customary Law

Customary International Humanitarian Law

Widely accepted state practice and opinio juris that reinforce Hague/Geneva rules, binding even absent treaty ratification.

Core Rules (selection)

Preservation of existing institutions and laws unless absolutely prevented.
Protection of civilians and property; no forced population transfer.
No claim of sovereignty by the occupier.

Continuing Local Law

Hawaiian Kingdom Law (still in force)

Under Hague Art. 43 and Geneva IV Art. 64, the preexisting law of the Hawaiian Kingdom remains operative unless lawfully and necessarily modified for order and security.

Core Sources

1864 Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom – Supreme law of the land at the time of occupation.
Penal Code & Revised Laws (1846–1897) – Criminal and administrative codes.
Act of 1845 – Organization of Executive Departments.

Implementation note: In communications, cite the relevant Hawaiian provision first, then the occupation‑law rule that protects it.

Accountability

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)

Defines war crimes applicable in occupations; useful for referrals and legal memoranda.

Illustrative Provisions

Art. 8(2)(a)(vii) – Unlawful deportation/transfer or unlawful confinement.
Art. 8(2)(b)(viii) – Transfer of occupier’s population into occupied territory.
Art. 8(2)(a)(vi) – Willfully depriving a protected person of fair‑trial rights.
Art. 8(2)(b)(xiii/xviii) – Pillage; destroying or seizing property not justified by military necessity.

Quick Reference

Occupation Law Matrix: Rules → Practice

Category	Rule / Article	Practical Effect (OHS Use)
Definition	Hague Art. 42	Establishes occupation via effective control; frames all subsequent analysis.
Continuity of Law	Hague Art. 43; Geneva IV Art. 64	Hawaiian Kingdom laws remain; any penal changes by occupier must be strictly necessary.
No Annexation	Geneva IV Art. 47; UN Charter Art. 2(4)	Occupation cannot alter sovereignty or political status.
Protection of Civilians	Geneva IV Arts. 27–34	Humane treatment; ban on collective penalties; due process.
Property & Public Assets	Hague Art. 55	Occupier acts as administrator/usufructuary; no ownership transfer.
Population Transfer	Geneva IV Art. 49; Rome Statute 8(2)(b)(viii)	Deportation or inward settler transfer is prohibited; potential war crime.
Grave Breaches	Geneva IV Art. 147; Rome Statute Art. 8	Unlawful confinement, torture, and similar acts are prosecutable war crimes.

Operational Guidance

FAQ & Practical Notes

Which law do we cite first?

Cite the Hawaiian Kingdom provision first (continuing local law), then confirm its protection under Hague Art. 43 and Geneva IV Art. 64.

Does occupation change nationality?

No. Occupation does not change the nationality or political status of inhabitants (Geneva IV Art. 47).

What qualifies as a war crime in an occupation?

See Rome Statute Art. 8 and Geneva IV Art. 147 for grave breaches: unlawful confinement, transfers, torture, denial of fair trial, and pillage/destruction not justified by necessity.

How do we structure referrals or notices?

Map facts → legal elements. Use the matrix above; attach source excerpts in an annex for verification.

Source Links

Citations (for staff)

Hague Convention (IV) & Regulations (1907), Arts. 42–56.
Geneva Convention IV (1949), esp. Arts. 27–34, 47, 49, 64, 147.
UN Charter (1945), Arts. 2(4), 73.
Rome Statute of the ICC (1998), Art. 8.
Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution (1864); Penal Code & Revised Laws (1846–1897); Act of 1845.

Configure this section as staff‑only if needed on the website.

War Crimes Complaint Packet | Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS)

WAR CRIMES COMPLAINT PACKET

Filed: 02 SEP 2025 Time: 0845 HRS Agency: OHS

Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS) — Director: Kawika Kala‘i

Charge Sheet: War Crimes and Violations of International Law

Complainant: Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS)

Respondents: United States Government and State of Hawai‘i

I. Jurisdiction

This complaint is filed under the following legal framework:

1907 Hague Regulations (Articles 43, 46, 47)
1949 Geneva Convention IV (Articles 64–66, 147)

Additional Protocol I (Articles 75, 85)
Customary International Law of Occupation

II. Charges

Count 1 — Illegal Usurpation of Sovereignty

The United States and the State of Hawai‘i have unlawfully displaced the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Occupation law requires the maintenance of the existing laws of the occupied state unless absolutely prevented. Instead, U.S. domestic law has been imposed. Legal Reference: Hague Regulations (Art. 43).

Count 2 — War Crime of Unlawful Prosecution

Hawaiian Subjects are being arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned under foreign law by courts with no lawful jurisdiction. This constitutes the war crime of unlawful deportation, transfer, and confinement. Legal Reference: Geneva Convention IV (Arts. 64, 66, 147).

Count 3 — Denationalization & Forced Citizenship

Hawaiian Subjects have been forcibly reclassified as U.S. citizens against their will and nationality. This violates the prohibition against denationalization and the right to self-determination. Legal Reference: Geneva Convention IV, Art. 47; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 27.

Count 4 — Persecution on National Grounds

Hawaiian Subjects asserting their legal status face systematic harassment, arrests, and discrimination. This amounts to persecution under international humanitarian law. Legal Reference: Additional Protocol I (Art. 75).

Count 5 — Command Responsibility

U.S. Federal and State officials, including the President, Governor, Judiciary, Police, and Prison Wardens, bear direct responsibility for administering unlawful laws. Under the principle of command responsibility, individual leaders may be held personally liable for war crimes. Legal Reference: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art. 28.

III. Evidence

Historical record of the unlawful overthrow (1893).
Absence of lawful treaty of annexation.
Continuous enforcement of U.S./State laws against Hawaiian Subjects.
Arrest and imprisonment records of Hawaiian Subjects under U.S. statutes.

IV. Relief Sought

Recognition of Hawaiian Kingdom law as the governing authority.
Suspension of U.S. and State of Hawai‘i jurisdiction within the Hawaiian Islands.
Release of Hawaiian Subjects unlawfully detained.
Referral of responsible officials to international criminal accountability mechanisms.

ANNEX A — Doctrine of Retaliation and Liability of Officials under Administrative Duties

I. Principle of Liability

Under international law, government officials, civil administrators, judges, police, and prison staff are individually responsible when they enforce unlawful laws in occupied territory.

Nuremberg Principle IV (1945): Following orders does not relieve responsibility.
Rome Statute, Art. 25: Individual criminal responsibility applies to anyone aiding or abetting war crimes.
Rome Statute, Art. 28: Superiors are liable for failing to prevent unlawful acts.

II. Doctrine of Retaliation

Administrative officials cannot escape liability by claiming they were “just doing their job.” Civilian administrators (clerks, registry officers, judges, wardens) who process or enforce unlawful laws are direct participants in war crimes.

III. Applicable International Law

Hague Regulations (1907), Art. 43: Occupiers must respect local law unless absolutely prevented.
Geneva Convention IV (1949), Arts. 64–66, 147: Prohibits foreign penal law and recognizes unlawful confinement as a grave breach.
Additional Protocol I (1977), Art. 75: Protects against arbitrary detention and persecution.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Art. 9: Prohibits arbitrary arrest or detention.

IV. Penalties and Convictions

A. War Crimes
Acts: Unlawful confinement, unlawful sentencing, persecution.
Penalty: 10 years to life imprisonment under international tribunal or ICC authority.

B. Crimes Against Humanity
Acts: Systematic enforcement of unlawful laws.
Penalty: Life imprisonment, asset seizure, extradition under universal jurisdiction.

C. Precedents

Nuremberg Trials: Judges and bureaucrats convicted.
ICTY (Yugoslavia): Police chiefs and prison administrators convicted for arbitrary detention.
Eichmann Trial: Administrative official convicted for facilitating deportations.

V. Conclusion & Signatures

The doctrine of retaliation confirms that U.S. and State of Hawai‘i officials—legislators, judges, police, and wardens—are not shielded by office or duty. They face personal criminal prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity, with penalties including long-term imprisonment, loss of civil authority, and international accountability.

Submitted by:

Director: Kawika Kala‘i
Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS)

Co‑Submitted by:

Deputy Director: Arthur K. Damasco
Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS)

Knowledge Base

🛡️ Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS)
Lawful Authority & Mandate of the OHS and Hawai‘i Kupuna Council (HKC)
Issued by the Ministry of Hawaiian Subjects & Humanitarian Affairs – Kingdom of Hawai‘i
Filed: 2025 | Charter Reference: OHS-MOHSHA-HKC-2025-11032025-1

🧭 Index
Lawful Authority & Origin
Mandate & Authorized Functions
Legal Foundation & International Law
Official Notifications & Publications
Reporting & Coordination Channels
Violations & Offenses Cited
Occupation & Jurisdiction Defined
War Crimes & Accountability
Laws in Force
Hawaiian Subjects & Protected Persons
OHS & HKC Ongoing Operations
Key Citations & References

⚖️ Lawful Authority & Origin
Summary:
The OHS and HKC operate under the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom and are recognized under international law as lawful agencies under occupation.
Their foundation is necessity — not permission.
Authority Derived From:

Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution (1864)
Compiled Laws (1884)
Hague Convention IV (1907), Articles 42–56
Geneva Convention IV (1949), Articles 4 & 147
Royal Commission of Inquiry (2020) confirming continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom
OHS Governing Charter (2025) and Proclamation of Establishment
Administrative Structure:

OHS – Chartered Government Reporting Agency
HKC – Supreme Humanitarian & Cultural Advisory Council
📄 Primary Sources: OHS Governing Policy (Aug. 26, 2025); Proclamation of Establishment (Aug. 2025)

🏛️ Mandate & Authorized Functions
The OHS and HKC serve as the lawful guardians and representatives of Hawaiian Subjects under humanitarian law.
Core Functions:

Verification & Registry: Confirm and record Hawaiian Subject nationality.
Protection & Advocacy: File lawful petitions, including Writs of Habeas Corpus and Tacit Challenges.
Legal Notices & Orders: Issue citations, cease orders, and inquiries to foreign authorities acting without jurisdiction.
Education & Outreach: Train Subjects and educate institutions about Kingdom law and rights.
Reporting & Liaison: File official reports to the United Nations, ICC, and the Council of Regency.
📄 Source: OHS Proclamation & Tactical Doctrine

📚 Legal Foundation & International Law
The Hawaiian Kingdom remains a sovereign State under occupation — not annexed, not ceded.
Authorizing Legal Instruments:

Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution (1864)
Compiled Laws (1884)
Hague Regulations (1907)
Geneva Convention IV (1949)
Rome Statute (2002)
Permanent Court of Arbitration (Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, 1999)
Royal Commission of Inquiry (2020 & 2021 Reports)
These collectively affirm:

The Kingdom’s lawful continuity
The United States’ ongoing belligerent occupation
Hawaiian Subjects’ protected status under international humanitarian law
📄 Source: RCI Report (2020); RCI Preliminary Report on U.S. Recognition (2021)

📜 Official Notifications & Publications
Types of Lawful Notices:

Notice of Inquiry and Demand for Jurisdictional Clarification
Protection Notices (for detained Hawaiian Subjects)
Tacit Agreement Challenges (per international custom)
Public Citations & Orders for violations of Kingdom or humanitarian law
Publications Include:

Humanitarian reports to the ICC & UN
Public advisories on occupation violations
Lists of recognized Hawaiian Subjects & officers
📄 Example: “Tacit Challenge – Right to Challenge U.S. and State of Hawai‘i” (OHS, Oct. 13, 2025)

📨 Reporting & Coordination Channels
OHS Reports Are Submitted To:

Council of Regency (Hawaiian Kingdom Government)
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
International Criminal Court (ICC) – Office of the Prosecutor
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
Local humanitarian observers and verified family contacts
📄 Source: OHS Factsheet (2025)

🚨 Violations & Offenses Cited
Documented Violations Include:

Usurpation of sovereignty
Unlawful detention or confinement
Property confiscation or land theft
Jurisdictional overreach by foreign entities
Denial of rights to Protected Persons
Violators May Include:

U.S. federal or military agents
State of Hawai‘i officials or courts
Corporate and private actors enforcing unlawful jurisdiction
📄 Reference: Special Operations Charter (Oct. 2025)

🌎 Occupation & Jurisdiction Defined
The United States’ presence in Hawai‘i is an illegal occupation, not annexation.
Legal Definition:

A foreign power controls territory without consent or treaty.
No Treaty of Annexation or cession exists between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the U.S.
The State of Hawai‘i is a proxy apparatus of the occupying power.
OHS Jurisdiction:
Extends over all Hawaiian Subjects within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands, consistent with humanitarian and Kingdom law.

📄 Reference: OHS Tactical Doctrine (2025)

⚔️ War Crimes & Accountability
War crimes are serious breaches of international humanitarian law and carry personal liability for violators.
Recognized War Crimes (Geneva Convention IV, Art. 147):

Unlawful confinement or deportation
Denial of fair trial rights
Imposing occupier’s laws on protected persons
Destruction or seizure of property without necessity
Penalties:

Personal accountability before the International Criminal Court (ICC)
Potential life imprisonment or international sanctions for complicit officials
📄 Source: Royal Commission of Inquiry (2020); Hague & Geneva Conventions

📘 Laws in Force
The only lawful legal system in Hawai‘i is that of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
In Force:

Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution (1864)
Compiled Laws (1884)
Hague and Geneva Conventions
All U.S. and State of Hawai‘i statutes are null within Kingdom jurisdiction, except as temporary occupying regulations under international law.

👥 Hawaiian Subjects & Protected Persons
Definition:
Individuals holding Hawaiian Kingdom nationality before or after 1893 by genealogy or naturalization.

Status:

Protected Persons under Geneva Convention IV, Article 4
Entitled to humanitarian protection and repatriation
Exempt from foreign jurisdiction
OHS Registry:
Maintains official verification and ID issuance for Hawaiian Subjects worldwide.

📄 Source: OHS Governing Policy & Registry Protocols

🌺 OHS & HKC Ongoing Operations
2025–Present Initiatives:

Verification and documentation of Hawaiian Subjects
Legal advocacy for unlawfully confined individuals
Public education on Kingdom law and humanitarian rights
Preparation for treaty negotiations and full restoration of governance
Official Correspondence:
All communications must be addressed formally to:
📨 Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS)
Lawful Government in Continuity – Hawaiian Kingdom

Kawika Kala'i - Minister of OHS Affairs
[email protected]

Arthur K. Damasco - Deputy Minister of OHS Affairs : [email protected]

Chief Sheldon Waipa - OHS Chief Liaison : [email protected] Phone: +1(808) 313-0268

Hawaii Kupuna Council -

Kupuna Kahilihiwa - HKC President, Hawaii [email protected]

Note: These Official Agents are protected under the Kingdom and International laws. Anyone harrasses, attack, public defamation, or inflict injury upon them will be prosecuted on an international level. Zero tolerance - 0%.

📚 Key Citations & References
OHS Governing Policy (2025)
Proclamation of OHS (2025)
OHS Tactical Doctrine & Operations Charter (2025)
Royal Commission of Inquiry (2020)
Preliminary Report – U.S. Recognition of Hawaiian State (2021)
Tacit Challenge – Public Notice (2025)
Geneva Convention IV (1949)
Hague Convention IV (1907)

🔖 Disclaimer
This page represents the official, lawful statement of the Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS) and the Hawai‘i Kupuna Council (HKC) under the Hawaiian Kingdom Government in continuity, recognized by international humanitarian law.
All references to “State of Hawai‘i” or “United States” refer to the occupying power and its proxy entities. ALL Criminal Convictions imposed on ALL Hawaiian Subjects are null and invalid within the Kingdom of Hawaii. ALL U.S. & State of Hawaii Court sessions are illegally operating within the Kingdom of Hawaii. THIS IS A WAR CRIME!

OHS & HKC — Lawful Authority & Mandate | Knowledge Base

Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS) & Hawai‘i Kupuna Council (HKC)

Lawful Authority & Mandate under the Hawaiian Kingdom in Continuity — official knowledge base entry for public, agency, and humanitarian reference.

Official • 2025 Charter Ref: OHS‑MOHSHA‑HKC‑2025‑11032025‑1 Jurisdiction: Hawaiian Kingdom (Occupied)

⚖️ Lawful Authority & Origin

The OHS and HKC operate under the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom and are recognized under international humanitarian law as lawful agencies during occupation. Their foundation is necessity — not permission.

Foundational Instruments

Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution (1864)
Compiled Laws (1884)
Hague Convention IV (1907), Arts. 42–56
Geneva Convention IV (1949), Arts. 4 & 147

Charters & Proclamations

OHS Governing Policy & Proclamation (2025)
Special Operations Policy Charter (Oct 2025)
Royal Commission of Inquiry (2020)

Administrative Structure

OHS — Government Reporting Agency HKC — Supreme Humanitarian Council Ministry of Hawaiian Subjects & Humanitarian Affairs

🏛️ Mandate & Authorized Functions

Guardianship and representation of Hawaiian Subjects under Kingdom and humanitarian law.

Verification & Registry of Hawaiian Subjects; issuance of IDs & Certificates
Protection & Advocacy for detainees; Writs and lawful petitions
Jurisdictional inquiries; Notices; Citations; Cease & Desist orders
Education & Outreach to Subjects and public institutions
International reporting to UN, ICC, and the Council of Regency

📚 Legal Foundation & International Law

The Kingdom remains a sovereign State under occupation — not annexed, not ceded.

Authorizing Law

Hawaiian Constitution (1864); Compiled Laws (1884)
Hague Regulations (1907); Geneva Convention IV (1949)
Rome Statute (2002)

Recognitions & Findings

Permanent Court of Arbitration (Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, 1999–2001)
Royal Commission of Inquiry (2020 & 2021 Preliminary Report)

These instruments affirm the Kingdom’s continuity, the United States’ belligerent occupation, and the Protected Persons status of Hawaiian Subjects under international humanitarian law.

📜 Official Notifications & Publications

Notice of Inquiry & Demand (jurisdictional clarification)
Protection Notices for detained Subjects
Tacit Agreement Challenges to foreign agencies or officers
Public Citations & Orders for violations of Kingdom or humanitarian law
Reports & Submissions to ICC, UN, ICRC, and Council of Regency

📨 Reporting & Coordination

Primary Recipients

Council of Regency (Hawaiian Kingdom)
ICC — Office of the Prosecutor
United Nations — OHCHR

Humanitarian Channels

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
Authorized liaisons & family contacts

Protocol

All correspondence uses OHS letterhead, reference numbers, and is recorded for evidentiary continuity.

🚨 Violations & Offenses

Usurpation of sovereignty
Unlawful detention or confinement
Property confiscation; land seizure
Jurisdictional overreach by foreign entities
Denial of rights to Protected Persons
Obstruction of cultural practices & displacement

🌎 Occupation & Jurisdiction

A foreign power exercises control without a treaty of annexation or cession. The State of Hawai‘i operates as a proxy apparatus of the occupying power; this does not convey lawful sovereignty.

OHS jurisdiction extends to all Hawaiian Subjects in the occupied territory, pursuant to Kingdom law and international humanitarian law.

⚔️ War Crimes & Accountability

Serious Breaches (Geneva Convention IV, Art. 147)

Unlawful confinement or deportation of Protected Persons
Deprivation of fair trial rights
Imposing occupier’s laws on Protected Persons
Destruction or seizure of property not justified by necessity

Consequences: Personal criminal liability may attach to officials or agents before competent tribunals (e.g., ICC). Penalties can include long-term or life imprisonment.

📘 Laws in Force

Hawaiian Kingdom Constitution (1864)
Compiled Laws (1884) & subsequent Proclamations
Hague & Geneva Conventions (applicable under occupation)

Conflicting U.S. or State of Hawai‘i statutes are null within Kingdom jurisdiction except as temporary occupying regulations under international law.

👥 Hawaiian Subjects & Protected Persons

Definition

Nationals of the Hawaiian Kingdom by birth or naturalization (pre/post‑1893) as verified by genealogy and law.

Rights

Protected Persons (Geneva IV, Art. 4)
Humane treatment & communication
Preservation of nationality; repatriation & remedy

The OHS maintains the official Registry and issues Subject Verification Certificates and Identification Cards.

🌺 OHS & HKC Ongoing Operations

Now

Verification & documentation of Subjects
Advocacy for unlawfully confined individuals
Public education on Kingdom & humanitarian law

Contact

Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS)
Lawful Government in Continuity — Hawaiian Kingdom
📧 [email protected]

📚 Key Citations & References

OHS Governing Policy (2025); Proclamation of Establishment (2025)
OHS Tactical Doctrine; Special Operations Charter (Oct 2025)
Royal Commission of Inquiry (2020); RCI Preliminary Report on U.S. Recognition (2021)
Hague Convention IV (1907); Geneva Convention IV (1949)

This page is an official statement of OHS & HKC under the Hawaiian Kingdom Government in continuity.