The Governor gets Citations for Violating Crimes

OHS Files Citations With International Bodies Alleging Grave Breaches in Hawaiʻi; Governor Named in Notice for Alleged Due-Diligence Failures

Honolulu / The Hague — The Office of Hawaiian Subjects (OHS) has submitted a series of formal citations and evidentiary notices to international bodies seeking further investigation into alleged violations occurring in the Hawaiian Islands, according to documents reviewed by this outlet. The filings assert continuing violations after notice and name senior State officials—including Josh Green—for alleged failures of due diligence and oversight following receipt of formal warnings.

What the Citations Allege

The OHS submissions contend that, after formal notice was served, certain actions continued without halt or cure, including alleged unlawful confinement of civilians claimed to be Protected Persons, failure to separate detainees from general populations after notice, and obstruction of humanitarian oversight. The filings emphasize that continuation after notice is treated in international humanitarian law as willful conduct, elevating exposure from administrative error to potential grave-breach analysis.

International Referrals and Investigative Requests

According to the record, OHS transmitted materials to multiple international bodies for preliminary review and investigative measures, including the International Criminal Court via its Office of the Prosecutor. The submissions request assessment of jurisdiction, admissibility, and gravity—standard thresholds that determine whether a preliminary examination proceeds.

Governor’s Office Named for Oversight Questions

The notices do not adjudicate guilt. They assert that, as chief executive, the Governor holds non-delegable oversight responsibilities and that receipt of a formal notice triggers a duty to review, mitigate, and respond. The filings allege that silence or inaction after service constitutes evidentiary inaction, potentially engaging command-responsibility considerations if violations persist.

Military Coordination Raised in the Record
The OHS materials further reference communications and meetings involving U.S. military interests, arguing that negotiations framed around operational or security considerations did not relieve civilian authorities of obligations under occupation and humanitarian law. The filings characterize these interactions as context for the alleged continuation of acts after notice, not as findings of criminal culpability.

Why ‘Notice’ Matters

Legal experts note that in humanitarian-law frameworks, notice fixes knowledge. Once knowledge is established, each additional day of the alleged conduct may be treated as a continuing violation, increasing potential exposure for individual officials and institutions alike. The OHS submissions repeatedly anchor timelines to dates of service to establish this element.

State Response Pending

As of publication, this outlet has not seen a publicly released written response from the Governor’s office addressing the specific allegations cited in the OHS notices. The filings themselves invite cure, mitigation, and documented response as means to reduce exposure and halt continuing allegations.

What Happens Next

International bodies typically proceed in stages—information intake, preliminary examination, and, if thresholds are met, formal investigative steps. OHS officials say additional documentation will be provided upon request. State officials may submit counter-submissions or demonstrate genuine domestic proceedings, a factor that can affect international admissibility.