Defending Foreign Diplomats Against Hawaiian Sovereignty Attack

article top

BY KENNETH R. CONKLIN PHD – Readers might remember Hawaiian independence activist David Keanu Sai in connection with the Perfect Title scam of the late 1990s. Here’s a large webpage containing numerous news reports, commentaries and explanations:

Readers might also remember Sai in connection with his “World Court” scam of the early 2000s as described at


In June 2010 Dr. Sai began his latest adventure by filing a lawsuit against President Obama, Governor Lingle, and numerous other government officials. The suit seeks actual and punitive damages for having prosecuted him in connection with the Perfect Title scam, and for illegally occupying Hawaii for more than a century. The suit claims that the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 and annexation of 1898 were illegal, that the U.S. lacks jurisdiction in Hawaii, that therefore the State of Hawaii as a U.S. subsidiary lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him, and that the U.S. should withdraw its allegedly illegal occupation of Hawaii. All lawsuit documents, along with Dr. Sai’s explanations, can be found on his webpage at

In November 2010 Dr. Sai filed a motion with the court to amend his complaint by adding 35 foreign nations as defendants. These are nations who “illegally” maintain consulates in Hawaii and recognize the sovereignty of the United States here. Dr. Sai posted on his webpage the fact that he sent the ambassadors of those nations a letter, and enclosures, describing his lawsuit and his motion to add them as defendants. His letter was politely worded but nevertheless challenges the legality of their actions. The clear implication is that they could be liable for actual and punitive damages to Dr. Sai and to the Kingdom of Hawaii, and that they should withdraw their consulates.

Because Dr. Sai has extended his frivolous lawsuit to involve those nations, I felt it would be a good idea to let those nations know that the revolution of 1893 and annexation of 1898 were legal, and that those nations did nothing wrong by their actions in the 19th Century or by their continuing presence in Hawaii under U.S. sovereignty in the 21st Century.

I sent letters to the federal ambassador and local Honolulu consul of each of those nations targeted by Dr. Sai which had given formal letters of recognition de jure to the Republic of Hawaii in 1894. All have the same basic content, except for the inclusion of historic documents unique to a particular nation. Here are excerpts from the letter I sent to the federal ambassador and local Honolulu consul of Austria. The complete letter is on a webpage at

I am writing to remind you about three diplomatic actions by your nation which absolve it of any responsibility for Mr. Sai’s arrest and conviction. Your nation behaved properly in Hawaii in 1893, 1894, and 1898.

(1) In January 1893, within a couple of days after the revolution, your local consul in Honolulu, and all the local consuls representing other nations, gave de facto recognition to the revolutionary Provisional Government (evidence provided below). Thereby they affirmed that the new Provisional Government had taken control and they would no longer do business with the defunct Kingdom government.

As Mr. Sai points out, the ex-queen delivered a letter to the revolutionary Provisional Government protesting her overthrow, blaming it on the U.S., and expressing her hope that the U.S. would intervene to undo it. In her protest letter she claimed to be surrendering to the U.S., not to the Provisional Government. But the insincerity of her letter is shown by the fact that it was delivered only to the Provisional Government who had actually defeated her. The protest letter was not delivered to the U.S. minister, nor was any copy of it ever delivered to the local consuls or representatives of any other governments. … the U.S. had no power or right to undo what had been done by a local militia of men with many ethnicities and many national origins. The revolutionary forces were not acting under orders from the U.S., and the Provisional Government was not an agent of the U.S.

Most importantly, all the local consulates in Honolulu, observing the facts on the ground, unanimously and immediately gave de facto recognition to the revolutionary government. It was clear to all neutral observers that the monarchy had ended. … Your nation had every right to recognize the new Provisional Government, and no obligation to consider the merits of a protest letter which your government had never seen and was unaware of, and which was founded on false premises. Your nation’s decision was a political one which it alone was entitled to make and which does not fall under the purview of any court.

(2) During the second half of 1894, following the establishment of the permanent new Republic of Hawaii, your national head of state, and the heads of state of all other nations who were major actors on the international stage, gave full-fledged recognition de jure by personally signing a letter to President Sanford B. Dole acknowledging him as Hawaii’s head of state (evidence provided below). Thus for more than 116 years your nation, and all others, have recognized that the Hawaiian monarchial form of government no longer exists, and that the Republic of Hawaii and its successors (Territory of Hawaii, and State of Hawaii under the United States) have been the legitimate governments. There is no evidence that your government had been informed of the ex-queen’s protest, or the alleged agreement between Liliuokalani and Cleveland, even a year later when your government recognized the Republic de jure. Furthermore, the mere fact that a deposed monarch protested her ouster did not impose any limitation on the right of your government to ignore any protest it might have known about and to choose to recognize the Republic.

(3) The Republic of Hawaii, internationally recognized de jure as a full-fledged member of the family of nations, exercised its sovereignty by offering a Treaty of Annexation in 1897, which was accepted by the U.S. in 1898. Thereupon your nation, and all other nations, accepted the jurisdiction of the U.S. to administer Hawaii’s previous diplomatic relations, in accord with a provision in the Treaty of Annexation. For 112 years since then your nation, and all others, have enjoyed commercial relations with Hawaii through the sovereignty of the U.S.

The letters of de facto recognition from January 1893 were printed in a Honolulu newspaper, and were reprinted in an official 808-page report of an investigation by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs published in February 1894. The full report with scholarly commentary can be seen at

Those letters as printed in the report have been pulled out and are available separately at

Here’s the letter from your country’s local consul as found there:

Honolulu, January 18, 1893.
To the Executive Council of the Provisional Government in Hawaii, Messrs. Sanford B. Dole, J. A. King, P. C. Jones, and Willinm 0. Smith:
GENTLEMEN : I have the honor to own receipt of your esteemed favor of yesterday’s date, and hereby take much pleasure to recognize and acknowledge on behalf of the Austro-Hungarian Government the present Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and that I shall do all in my power to further and support the same.
I have the honor to be, gentlemen, your most obedient servant.
H. P. GLADE, Austro-Hungarian Consul.

A Constitutional Convention and election of government leaders for the Republic of Hawaii was completed in July 1894. Emperors, Kings, Queens, and Presidents of at least 20 nations on 4 continents personally signed letters in 11 languages to Sanford B. Dole formally recognizing him as President of the de jure government of the Republic of Hawaii.

In January 1895, following the failure of an attempted counterrevolution in which she was convicted of being a co-conspirator, ex-queen Liliuokalani formally abdicated the throne. She wrote a document stating that the Kingdom was finished, signed an oath of allegiance to the Republic, and urged her supporters to do likewise. The ex-queen’s abdication and oath of loyalty to the Republic clearly negate and dissolve any alleged assignment of power or alleged executive agreement by the ex-queen. Thus your nation and all others are absolved of any claim for damages arising from your initial de facto recognition of the Provisional Government, your de jure recognition of the Republic, your acknowledgment of annexation, and your continuing recognition of the sovereignty of the United States in Hawaii.

Those original letters from heads of state, and the ex-queen’s abdication and oath of loyalty, remain stored in the Archives of Hawaii. Photographs of the originals (including some English translations and some accompanying diplomatic correspondence) can be seen at

The documents from your country are at

At your leisure you might want to read this webpage: “Hawaii Statehood — straightening out the history-twisters. A historical narrative defending the legitimacy of the revolution of 1893, the annexation of 1898, and the statehood vote of 1959.”





  1. Readers beware! Kenneth Conklin, is a misguided propagandist who uses half truths, and who quotes history in a vacuum (out of context) to mislead you! I would suggest you invite Mr. Sai to offer a rebuttal to this article, although perhaps it might be better to just let the lies continue, that way judgment will be thorough just as it was with the mighty Pharaoh of Egypt, who refused to obey Moses until at last his own firstborn fell dead. Anyone interested in the truth about American involvement in Hawaii during the periods before and after the overthrow, are advised to Read Annexation Hawaii by Thomas J. Osborne. I find that most of your posts on this subject ignore critical aspects of U.S. law, as well as the wider native sentiments that were expressed throughout this sorted history. I would remind your readers that America has long departed from its original “republican” traditions, becoming very much the complete antithesis of not only what it had set out to be, but what you naively assume it still is ( I would also point out the story of Nehemiah’s reform, where the “intrenched Israelites” (we’ll compare to Ken Conkline etal.), had to be “shaken” from their “house and labor” where they had prematurely bound themselves to a system that was not just foreign to them, but totally subversive of their heretofore exceptional system of governance. “And lo we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought into bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards” (Nehemiah 5: 1-13). The point here is that Americans like Conkline, are totally hypocritical to suggest they are interested in equality, since by condoning illegal occupation, which culminated in the Organic Act /Statehood 1959 (a complete fraud), they have bound themselves to a system that belies their traditions of non-intervention, anti-imperialism, the rule of law, limited government, equal justice etc. A true Republic would not accept such frauds for any such manufactured pretexts as we now understand the Committee of safety, the provisional government, and later the de facto Republic had crafted for political purposes. Faithful Americans would recognize along with the anti-Imperialists who fought against American expansionism in the Islands, that such tampering with the law to justify such evil ends was and remains your own undoing as a free country. Until you can see the error of your ways you can expect more boarder breaches, more government takeovers, and much more national debt. It’s called the law of reaping and sowing! God will not be mocked!

  2. you need to go back to school and learn what is truth, remember america you bring the truth we learn the truth now you don't want listen to the truth, amen.

  3. Oh Ken, not even worth reading it all and barely worth my time, but I'll just pick out this part…

    "Treaty of Annexation in 1897, which was accepted by the U.S. in 1898."

    Where exactly is that purported treaty, Ken? When was it ratified by the Senate? Any Library of Congress citation you can provide for that treaty? Where is it located in the archives? Where is the copy of it?

    Oh wait, that's right, the treaty was never ratified , aka "accepted." The treaty DOES NOT EXIST and it never did.

    Unable to actually accept the treaty, after the petitions representing the indisputable will of the Hawaiian population were submitted, the U.S. was forced by the Spanish-American War to pass a measly "joint resolution" to create the illusion of annexation in order to further their occupation of Hawaii. But the treaty was never ratified.

    You have zero credibility. You are a propagandist blow-hard. People should ignore you.

  4. ah kenny baby, 'tis better to be thought a fool and remain silent, then to speak and thus remove all doubt!

Comments are closed.