Supplemental memorandum:

? Lorenzo as authority on the subject of jurisdiction;
? Sovereign Immunity as a Defense;
? Jurisdiction by default is not appropriate (lack of recognition cases);
? Jurisdiction by default is not appropriate (lack of another's jurisdiction cases);
? Differentiation with other cases found among U.S. States;

Lorenzo as authority on the subject of jurisdiction;
The Commissioner has attempted to defeat the Petitioner's claim that the taxing
laws of the United States of America do not extend to Petitioner who is a Hawaiian national
and whose income was derived from other than United States sources. Commissioner
argues U.S. v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448 (9th Cir. 1993) as a primary basis of authority.
Commissioner's Motion to dismiss, page 7, 8 Lorenzo is not dispositive of the present
case.

In U.S. v. Lorenzo, the Defendants were indicted for their pro-active assertions of a
redemption scheme in which they submitted numerous forms to the Internal Revenue
Service declaring unreported income of others, including public officials, and claiming tax
refunds as a result of such unreported income. Their activities included signing and filing
with the IRS as well as using the U.S. mail to make those reports. When indicted on
numerous counts for their false reporting to the IRS, they defended on several grounds
including sovereign immunity as a result of their association with the Sovereign Kingdom of
Hawai`i..


In the present case, we are not in the criminal field. The Petitioner has not engaged
the IRS, has not submitted any reports to the IRS, has not instigated any activity with the
IRS. After Brown and Lorenzo were charged, they raised the defense of immunity.
Petitioner makes no such defense. Petitioner instead, challenges the jurisdiction of the laws
of the United States to attach his income and assets. These are two completely different
positions being raised in two very different proceedings, under completely different fact
conditions.

In the Lorenzo case, the court dealt at length with the issues related to the
appropriate interpretations of the income tax laws and the redemption scheme. The
"Kingdom of Hawai`i" issue was a minor point in the court's consideration of the case and
was treated summarily in the court's opinion. It said:

Appellants Brown and Lorenzo contend that they are Hawaiian nationals and
therefore the federal district court had no jurisdiction to hear this case . . . . The
appellants have presented no evidence that the Sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii is
currently recognized by the federal government or that they have received any
immunity arising from the existence of the Kingdom.

That single paragraph cited above was almost the complete statement by the court
regarding the Kingdom of Hawai`i defense. It would be error to apply that court's cursory
treatment of the questions of immunity and jurisdiction as holding in all questions which
incorporate the history of Hawai`i and the illegal activities of the United States of America
in the taking of Hawai`i during its period of colonization.


The petitioner has provided in earlier memoranda sufficient factual basis to conclude
he is not a citizen of the United States of America. He has further submitted sufficient
factual basis that he is not a resident within the territory of the United States of America.
The income petitioner earned over which the Commissioner is attempting to assess a tax is
income earned within the territory of Hawai`i. The evidence presented by the Lorenzo
defendants and those presented in this case is not the same. In fact, during the Lorenzo trial
and appeal, the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States had not yet passed and
signed the Joint Resolution of Apology to the Native Hawaiian People for the U.S.'s role in
the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy. It was finally signed by the president on
November 23, 1993. Thus, the court did not have the admitted facts by the U.S. Congress,
contained within that resolution, available for its consideration.

As we juxtapose the Lorenzo case with the present case, we should keep clearly in
mind the basic law on jurisdiction, that is first, that the constitutional and legislative taxing
jurisdiction of the United States is limited to personal jurisdiction over citizens and residents
of the United States of America, and second, the subject matter jurisdiction is limited to
income derived from United States sources.

Sovereign Immunity as a Defense;
In Lorenzo, the court determined the appellants presented no evidence that the
Sovereign Kingdom of Hawai`i is currently recognized by the federal government or that
they have received immunity from the existence of the Kingdom. Lorenzo, in fact, claimed
to be the "sovereign heir" of the Kingdom of Hawai`i. Thus, his defense of immunity was
unsuccessful.

In order to raise the defense of sovereign immunity, certain elements must be met.
The "receiving state" i.e., the state attempting to assert jurisdiction, must first recognize the
existence of the "sending" state, the one the defendant claims protection under, and
secondly, the "sending" state's diplomatic agent must be accredited to and accepted by the
receiving state. When these elements are met, the agent, spouse, minor children and other
dependents forming part of the household of that diplomat are immune from prosecution.
Restatement of the law (3rd) A.L.I. The FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW of the UNITED
STATES 464 Lorenzo, having failed to show that the U.S. recognized the existence of
the state called the Sovereign Kingdom of Hawai`i, naturally could not show any
accreditation as a diplomat or agent entitled to immunity.


John Marsh makes no claim to being a foreign diplomat upon U.S. soil. He makes
no claim for sovereign immunity as a sovereign heir of the Kingdom of Hawai`i. Instead,
his claim goes simply to the extent of jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution and laws. That is
a totally different question than the Lorenzo case.

Jurisdiction by default is not appropriate (lack of U.S. recognition cases)
It has been suggested that if a defendant fails to show the recognition of the United
States over his state's existence and jurisdiction over the defendant, than by default, U.S.
jurisdiction would apply. Applied to this case, that argument would be that if the
Petitioner fails to show the U.S.'s formal recognition of Hawai`i as a state in international
law, jurisdiction of the United States of America would automatically apply. That is not
how jurisdiction works, it is not a matter of default. If that was the case, the U.S. would be
able to extend its jurisdiction over territories under nations far removed from U.S. territory.
For example, the U.S.'s refusal to recognize the government of China would not give it
jurisdiction over the people in China. Its refusal to recognize the government of Viet Nam
would not give it jurisdiction over the people in Viet Nam. Its refusal to recognize the
government of Iraq, of Iran, of Nicaragua, or of any other land would not give it jurisdiction
over people within those territories. The recognition of a foreign government by the
United States resolves questions of international diplomatic relations, opening the way for
executive agreements, treaties, and other inter-state relations. It does not solve questions
of or provide additional basis for jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction by default is not appropriate (lack of another's jurisdiction cases)

Furthermore, jurisdiction over an individual is not accomplished by the failure of that
individual to show that he falls under another's jurisdiction and therefore not under that of
the U.S.A. Jurisdiction is exercised by the positive force of law, that is, regardless of
another country's shared jurisdiction over an individual, the U.S.A.'s jurisdiction can still
apply. For example, a citizen of a foreign country living within the United States of
America would be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America. He would
still be subject also to the jurisdiction of his country of citizenship as well. We can take
another situation, a person who is stateless, residing or traveling through a third country, or
within the global commons, on his own raft somewhere in the ocean beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of any country, would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of
America because he can show no other state's jurisdiction over him. If the U.S. was to
exercise jurisdiction over that person, it would have to come up with some better
connection to that person than merely the fact that he has no other state jurisdiction over
him!

Thus, the claim of jurisdiction over the petitioner can not be applied by default
whereby the failure of the Petitioner to prove another state's jurisdiction would provide the
basis for U.S. jurisdiction. Rather, a positive basis of jurisdiction must be shown. The
commissioner must show how jurisdiction does apply, without the argument of "default"
within its arsenal.

If recognition by the U.S. of the existence of a Hawaiian state is not required to
resolve the question of jurisdiction, what is required? Given the particular history between
Hawai`i and the United States of America, a specific treaty, validly arrived at, between
parties with sufficient capacity to engage in such treaty, ratified by each state as called for
within their domestic laws, permitting the extension of jurisdiction within another's territory
is required! See generally, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties U.N. Doc. A/Conf.
39/27


The U.S. having once recognized the Hawaiian "nation/state," that is a "nation which
also had a formal "state", i.e. a government which expressed the will of the nation, the
people of that territory", and the United States having recognized the territorial integrity of
that sovereign nation, for it to now extend its jurisdiction within that territory, it must show
a proper progression in its extension of jurisdiction. Has there been such a proper
progression of the extension of U.S. jurisdiction within the Hawaiian territory?

The confessions by President Grover Cleveland in 1893 (See President Grover
Cleveland's Message to the U.S. Congress of December 18, 1893) and by the Congress of
the United States and President William Clinton in 1993 (See Senate Joint Resolution 19,
Pub. Law 103-150) buttress the evidence replete within Hawaiian history that there has
been no proper progression. The overthrow of the Hawaiian state, that is the Hawaiian
Monarchial form of government, by the U.S. military and their co-conspirators, the
Committee for Public Safety, which than established the Provisional Government, also
referred to as "18 men representing nothing" (see Sanford B. Dole's statement in the
records of the Constitutional Convention of 1894), which than established a Republic of
Hawai`i, which than ceded Hawai`i to the United States of America, have been events
contradicting international law and the laws of the United States every step of the way.
Any claim to jurisdiction founded upon that history of illegality is groundless.

Differentiation with other cases found among U.S. States;

One of the commissioner's arguments has been that prior challenges to the
jurisdiction to the federal income tax laws based upon claims that various states are not part
of the United States have been consistently rejected. See commissioner's Motion to
Dismiss, 7 Petitioner's case is clearly distinguishable from all of those cases cited by the
Commissioner. On November 23, 1993, United States President William Clinton signed the
joint resolution of Congress apologizing for the role of the United States in the overthrow
of the Sovereign Nation of Hawai`i. Public Law 103-150 This public law came into effect
after the Lorenzo case was decided. No other State has obtained such a public confession
by the Congress of the United States or by its President. On this basis, the case of Hawai`i
and those of other States are clearly distinguishable.

The court will also see that the Hawaiian national conscious itself is vibrant in
Hawai`i. This claim by petitioner is not an individual claim of a tax protestor from Illinois,
California, Indiana, Idaho, or Utah. The claim by the petitioner is a voice mirrored by the
thousands of Hawaiian who have rallied in Hawai`i, asserting their identity as citizens of
Hawai`i and not of the United States of America. It is found in the songs celebrated
throughout Hawai`i, in the stories being told and retold, in the names of the people of this
place, in their recognition of their sacred times and sacred places, in the rallies, marches,
protests, and politics throughout Hawai`i. Hawai`i is clearly a case distinguishable from
all of those cited by the Commissioner in his Motion to Dismiss.


7