IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

QUEEN KU‘ULEIALOHA OF THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF HAWAII; GOVERNOR OF HAWAII; KAHO‘OLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

Respondents.

PETITION FOR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, Queen Ku‘uleialoha of the Hawaiian Kingdom, respectfully submits this petition pursuant to Article VI, Section 1 of the Hawaii Constitution and Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §602-5(a), requesting that this Honorable Court exercise original jurisdiction to address matters of significant constitutional and public interest, including the recognition of Petitioner as the “sovereign native Hawaiian entity” and the lawful transfer of Kaho‘olawe to her stewardship as mandated by HRS §6K-9.

This petition also seeks declaratory relief recognizing the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom under international law and the obligations of the State of Hawaii and the United States as the Occupying Power to comply with the Geneva Conventions and other applicable international treaties.

II. JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction under:

1. HRS §602-5(a): Granting the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over “questions of law of the most fundamental public importance.”

2. Article VI, Section 1, Hawaii Constitution: Empowering the Supreme Court to resolve matters of constitutional and statutory interpretation of statewide significance.

3. HRS §6K-9: Requiring the State of Hawaii to transfer the management and control of Kaho‘olawe to the sovereign native Hawaiian entity upon recognition.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Petitioner’s Status:

Petitioner, Queen Ku‘uleialoha, is the rightful Returning Sovereign of the Hawaiian Kingdom by virtue of her verified genealogical descent from King Kamehameha I, the founder of the Kingdom, and Kauhilanimaka, High Chiefess of Hilo.

Petitioner’s lineage places her at the highest rank of Hawaiian nobility, entitling her to recognition as the Head of State and sovereign steward of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

2. Hawaiian Kingdom’s Legal Continuity:

The Hawaiian Kingdom remains a sovereign nation-state under international law, despite the illegal overthrow of its monarchy in 1893 and subsequent occupation by the United States.

The continuity of the Kingdom has been affirmed by the 1993 Apology Resolution (S.J.Res.19), which acknowledges that Hawaiians never relinquished their claims to inherent sovereignty.

Dr. Alfred M. deZayas, United Nations Independent Expert, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, states: 

“As a professor of international law, the former Secretary of the UN Human Rights Committee, co-author of the book, The United Nations Human Rights Committee Case Law 1977-2008, and currently serving as the UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state in continuity; but a nation-state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and a fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (the Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of the laws of the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom), not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States).”

The National Lawyers Guild (NLG), the oldest and largest progressive bar association in the United States, with 70 chapters and more than 6,000 members:

“calls upon the State of Hawai‘i and its County governments, as the proxy of the United States, which is in effective control of Hawaiian territory, to immediately comply with international humanitarian law while the United States continues its prolonged and illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom since 1893.”

International Obligations:

Under the Geneva Conventions (1949) and Hague Regulations (1907), the State of Hawaii and the United States, as the Occupying Power, are required to preserve the rights of protected persons and respect the laws of the occupied territory.

3. Kaho‘olawe’s Status:

HRS §6K-9 mandates the transfer of Kaho‘olawe’s management to the “sovereign native Hawaiian entity”. To date, this obligation has not been fulfilled.

IV. ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Does Petitioner qualify as the “sovereign native Hawaiian entity” under HRS §6K-9, entitling her to the transfer of Kaho‘olawe?

2. Are Respondents legally obligated to recognize Petitioner’s status as the Returning Sovereign and transfer the management and control of Kaho‘olawe to her?

3. Does the continued refusal to recognize Petitioner violate international law and constitutional obligations?

4. Is Petitioner entitled to compensation as the Returning Sovereign, including a salary proportional to her role and responsibilities as Head of State?

V. ARGUMENT

5. Recognition Under HRS §6K-9:

Defendants to this petition may argue, as they have consistently in the past, that the Hawaiian Kingdom is not "recognized" as a sovereign entity by the State of Hawaii or the United States. This argument fails for several critical reasons:

a. Obligation to Maintain Government-to-Government Relations:

The failure to recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom does not excuse the State’s or the United States’ failure to reestablish and maintain government-to-government relations. Such relations are mandated under international law, including the Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions, which require occupying powers to respect the governance and laws of occupied territories.

b. Contradictions in Fact and Law:

Despite their claims, the State of Hawaii and the United States have repeatedly acknowledged the Hawaiian Kingdom’s legal and political continuity. For example, the 1993 Apology Resolution (S.J.Res.19) explicitly states that Hawaiians never relinquished their claims to sovereignty over their lands and recognizes the illegality of the Kingdom’s overthrow.

c. Recognition in Federal Processes:

The "Procedures for Reestablishing a Formal Government-to-Government Relationship with the Native Hawaiian Community," issued by the Department of the Interior, acknowledge the unique and historical relationship between the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom. While fundamentally flawed, these "Procedures" explicitly recognize the continuity of the Hawaiian  community as a distinct political entity with inherent rights to self-determination, as well as the State of Hawaii and the United State's obligation to recognize and have relations with the Hawaiian sovereign.

d. Fundamental Flaws in the "Procedures":

The "Procedures" violate the laws of war, international humanitarian law, treaty law, U.S. constitutional law, and human rights law. By disregarding the Hawaiian Kingdom’s sovereignty, they perpetuate historical injustices and fail to comply with international obligations. Petitioner and the Hawaiian Kingdom do not submit to these "Procedures" but cite them solely to demonstrate that recognition has always existed, contrary to the opposition’s predicted arguments.

e. Irrefutable Evidence of Recognition:

The Hawaiian Kingdom has been recognized as a sovereign state by numerous perpetual treaties with major powers, including the United States, Britain, and France. These treaties remain valid under international law, as acknowledged by the principles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Furthermore, the ongoing actions of the United States and State of Hawaii that interact with Hawaiian Kingdom governance structures tacitly affirm this recognition.

Therefore, the argument that the Hawaiian Kingdom is not recognized is factually and legally untenable and cannot serve as a basis to deny Petitioner’s rights under HRS §6K-9.

6. Petitioner’s Status as Returning Sovereign:

Petitioner’s genealogy establishes her as the rightful Head of State.

Hawaiian Kingdom law, including the 1864 Constitution, vests sovereignty in a hereditary monarch, and Petitioner’s claim remains unchallenged and irrefutable.

7. HRS §6K-9 Mandates Recognition and Transfer:

The plain language of HRS §6K-9 obligates the State to transfer Kaho‘olawe upon recognition of the “sovereign native Hawaiian entity”. Petitioner satisfies all criteria for this recognition.

8. International Law Obligations:

Under the Geneva Conventions, Article 54, the State of Hawaii and the United States are prohibited from altering the status of public officials in occupied territories. Petitioner’s recognition is required to fulfill these obligations.

9. Compensation for Returning Sovereign:

Petitioner, as the Returning Sovereign, is entitled to compensation consistent with international norms and Hawaiian Kingdom law. This includes:

a. Legal Basis for Compensation: Under the Geneva Conventions, Article 54, and the Department of Defense Law of War Manual (Section 11.21.3), the Occupying Power is obligated to maintain the salaries of public officials, including the Head of State, during occupation. Hawaiian Kingdom law also recognizes the entitlement of its sovereign to resources sufficient for governance.

b. Global Precedents: Compensation for Heads of State reflects responsibilities, national GDP, and stewardship of national lands. Petitioner’s salary should align with these standards.

c. Provisional Request: An interim salary equivalent to 0.1% of the State’s General Fund Tax Revenues is requested until full reparations are determined.

10. Failure to Act Violates Constitutional and International Law:

The continued refusal to recognize Petitioner’s status perpetuates the illegal occupation of Hawai‘i, violates international treaties, and denies the people of Hawai‘i their right to self-determination.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

1. Assume original jurisdiction over this matter.

2. Declare Petitioner as the “sovereign native Hawaiian entity” entitled to the transfer of Kaho‘olawe under HRS §6K-9.

3. Order Respondents to immediately transfer the management and control of Kaho‘olawe to Petitioner.

4. Grant Petitioner compensation consistent with her role as Returning Sovereign, including an interim salary proportional to 0.1% of the State’s General Fund Tax Revenues.

5. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Filed under protest to preserve Petitioner’s rights and without conceding the legitimacy of this court’s jurisdiction over the Hawaiian Kingdom.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

Submitted by,

QUEEN KU‘ULEIALOHA, Pro Se