Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 11 U.S. 116, 135 (1812) 25
The Case of the S.S. `Lotus', (France v. Turkey), Permanent Court of International Justice, [1927] P.C.I.J., ser. A, No. 10 25
The Judgment at Nuremberg, 1 International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals 171 (1947) 15, 26
The Paquete Habana; the Lola, 175 U.S. Reports 677 (1900) 15, 26
United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448 (9th Cir. 1993) 2

II. CONSTITUTION, STATUTES, LEGISLATIVE & PRESIDENTIAL ACTS

Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress of 23 November 1993, 107 Stat. 1510, Public Law 103-150, (SJ Res. 19, November 23, 1993) 5, 6
Admissions Act of March 18, 1959, P.L. No. 86-3 4, 5
Grover Cleveland's Message to the Joint Houses of Congress, 18 December, 1893, Richardson, A Compilation of the messages and Papers of the Presidents: 1789-1908, Vol. IX (1908) 5, 12, 18, 26
Newlands Resolution, 30 Stat. 750; 2 Supp. R.S. 895 12, 20
Organic Act of April 30, 1900 c 339, 31 Stat 141) 13, 20
Title 26 of the United States Code 1, 2
U. S. Constitution, Art. VI 14, 25, 26
U.S. Acknowledgment and Apology for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, S.J. Res. 19, 103d Congress, 1st Sess, PL 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510) 1993 7, 12, 18, 21, 24, 26
U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, 8 Piracies & felonies. -10 15
U.S. Constitution, Art. 2, 2 24

III. TREATIES & CONVENTIONS

Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, Navigation and Extradition of 1850 13, 16

IV. WRITINGS OF EMINENT SCHOLARS, TEXT BOOKS

Restatement 3d of the Law, The Foreign Relations Law of the U.S. 411, 412 3, 4
1 M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law 1 (1963) 26
Bradford W. Morse and Kazi A. Hamid, American Annexation of Hawai`i: An example of the Unequal Treaty Doctrine, Connecticut Journal of International Law Vol. 5, No. 2, Spring 1990 26
Fitzmaurice, "The Foundations of the authority of International Law and the Problem of Enforcement," 19 Modern L. Rev. 1, 1-2, 8-9 (1956) 15
International Law and World Order, Weston, Falk and D`Amato, West Publishing Co., 1980 15, 18
Self-Determination: The Case Study of Hawai`i, by Kazi Aktar Hamid, Dissertation for the degree of the Doctor of Laws (LL.D) 4 November 1991, University of Ottawa 18
Thomas Paine, Common Sense 9
Werner Levi, Contemporary International Law, A Concise Introduction, Westview Press, 1979 15, 26

V. MULTI-NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS DOCUMENTS

Declaration of Rights and Duties of States, International Law Commission, 1949, Art. 13 15, 26
Judicial Decisions, International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg). Judgment and Sentences, 41 American Journal of International Law 174 (1947) 19
Principles which Should Guide Members in Determining Whether or not an Obligation Exists to Transmit the Information, Called for in Article 73(e) of the Charter of the United Nations, Annex to GA Res. 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960 14
Sixth (Havana) Pan-American Conference 18
U.N. Charter 13
U.N. General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) of 10 December 1948, Article 21(3) 23
U.N. General Assembly Resolution 66 (I) 1946 13
U.N. General Assembly Resolution 95(1), U.N. Doc. A/6. at 188 (1946) 19
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 22, 1969, Articles 51, 52, 53 26

VI. OTHERS

iv, 12 "Three Days in January" The Overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy, P. Laenui, Hawaiian National Broadcast Corporation, Honolulu, 1993 17
Declaration of Independence In Congress, July 4, 1776 23
Dispatch from Pageot, French representative in Washington, to Guizot, French minister of Foreign Affairs, No. 55, June 11, 1844, AMAE (Paris), Etats Unis, Vol. C 19
Hawai`i's Story by Hawai`i's Queen Lili`uokalani, Tuttle Press, Tokyo, 1965 18
Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council's Final Report 2
Historical and Analytical Review of Hawaiian Sovereignty, Exhibit A 11 House Executive Document, 53 Congress 2nd Session, Washington, D.C. 1895 16-18
Ke Kia`i, Native Hawaiian Advisory Council, August 1, 1994 12, 22
Pacific Commercial Advertiser 12, 22
Shoal Of Time: A HISTORY OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, Gavin Daws, U.H. Press, 1974 18, 21
Stolen Kingdom; AN AMERICAN CONSPIRACY, Rich Budnick, Aloha Press, 1992 16, 17

I. PETITIONER'S SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER'S POINTS

On the grounds that the petition fails to make a specific justiciable allegation of error and of supporting facts, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue asks this court to dismiss the petition. (Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss at Paragraph 6) The error which Petitioner Marsh raises before this court is clear - the United States of America lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner. The supporting facts for this allegation is that he is a citizen of the Nation of Hawai`i, an independent sovereign nation not subject to the laws of the United States of America, specifically Title 26 of the United States Code. Petitioner will elaborate on these facts in the body of this memorandum.

The Commissioner furthermore claims that jurisdictional challenges to the federal income tax laws applied to states of the United States and to persons residing therein have been repeatedly rejected. (Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss at Paragraph 7) But comparisons of Hawai`i and Hawaiian nationals to American states lawfully admitted into the U.S. union and to U.S. citizens constitutes a dishonest form of argumentation. The Hawai`i case and those of other States are not comparable. Only in the case of Hawai`i has there been a confession by the U.S. Congress and two presidents of the United States that the steps in the process of the annexation of Hawai`i was improper. Only in the case of Hawai`i was there a fully established independent nation recognized in the international community overthrown with the assistance of the United States and without the consent of the people, annexed to the U.S. Because of this unique history, today, only in Hawai`i, is there a recognized process of Hawaiian sovereignty, endorsed by the State of Hawai`i and encouraged by the U.S. Congress. (See Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council's Final Report attached hereto as Exhibit D) Further amplification of the Hawai`i case reflecting the differences with other States will be set forth in this memorandum.

The Commissioner cites United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448 (9th Cir. 1993) as case authority for the rejection of Petitioner's claim based upon the Court of Appeals determination that "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." (Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss at Paragraph 8) Petitioner makes no claim to immunity arising from the existence of the Kingdom. Immunity grants are within the province of the host government when a criminal defendant is under prosecution within that government's judicial proceeding. The present proceeding is not a criminal proceeding and the defense of immunity is not at issue. As regards the presentation of evidence of the recognition by the U.S. government of the Sovereign Kingdom of Hawai`i, this memorandum will present irrefutable evidence of the Federal government's recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom, such recognition which has been made explicit subsequent to the Lorenzo case, and will present evidence that the Federal government has not terminated such recognition in a manner consistent with the U.S. Constitution or international law. Finally, the recognition of a sovereign nation by the U.S. government is not dispositive on the point of whether or not the U.S. laws have jurisdiction over persons not their citizens for act committed upon non-U.S. territories. Thus, on that point, the Court of Appeals erred in approaching the question of jurisdiction on whether or not the U.S. recognized the existence of an independent nation. For example, the U.S.' refusal for many years to formally recognize China due to difference in views over Taiwan did not extend U.S. jurisdiction to China's citizens within her territory. U.S. jurisdiction applies to U.S. territory, U.S. citizens or nationals, or to subject matters in which the U.S. has significant interest recognized within the international community as such. (See Restatement 3d of the Law, The Foreign Relations Law of the U.S. 411, 412 ) The memorandum which follows will further discuss this point.

The Commissioner alludes to the fact that the events upon which Petitioner complaints occurred a century ago and therefore, he fails to raise real tax disputes. (Commissioners Motion to Dismiss at Paragraph 9, emphasis in original) This unique attempt by the Commissioner, to create an arbitrary time limitation of action, is unsupported by general and common sense principles of law. It is an insult to history and the historical precedents which have been established throughout American history. The Commissioner attacks the very principle of stare decisis.

The views of the Petitioner concerning events which occurred a century ago happen to be shared by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President today! The congressional apology for those events were made 100 years following those events. The ramifications of those events are still issues which the U.S. congress is attempting to address. These are events which the Hawai`i legislature is trying to address. These are events which the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is trying to address. These are events which have given rise to over 22,000 Native Hawaiians voting in 1996 in support of electing delegates of a Native Hawaiian convention to propose a Native Hawaiian form of government. The memorandum which follows will further discuss this point.

II. INTRODUCTION TO HAWAI`I'S UNIQUE SITUATION

Let us begin with the legal theory upon which the government presumes jurisdiction of the petitioner and over the territory of Hawai`i. The story is the same for both petitioner and territory: In the Joint Resolution of Annexation of July 7, 1898, 30 Stat. 750, the United States Congress adopted the treaty of annexation between the Republic of Hawai`i and the United States of America, annexing Hawai`i to the United States of America. On April 30, 1900, the Organic Act was passed (c339 31 Stat 141) organizing Hawai`i as an incorporated territory of the United States of America, extending U.S. jurisdiction over the territory of Hawai`i and citizenship to Hawaiians. On August 12, 1959, the citizens of Hawai`i voted to enter the union of the United States as a State and were subsequently admitted and the laws of the United States applicable to State territories and State citizens are now fully applicable to the Hawai`i case. (Admissions Act of March 18, 1959, P.L. No. 86-3)

On those often repeated grounds, the laws of the United States have been applied to Hawaiian citizens and over Hawai`i's territory. Finally, in recent days, there have been a startling revelation that the story was not complete, that there are numerous parts of the story left out, crucial parts which should have serious consequences to the conclusion of the applicability of U.S. laws. These revelations are that the actions of the United States were actually in violation of the U.S. Constitution and of the laws of nations. These revelations also disclosed that the Republic of Hawai`i was, in fact, not an appropriate party to have engaged in a treaty of annexation of Hawai`i but was in fact a puppet government of recent vintage, placed into position of authority through the delinquency of the United States and a handful of American businessmen in Hawai`i. What are the consequences of U.S. laws over Hawaiian citizens and Hawai`i's territory given the facts shown by this newer appreciation of historical events?

Two sources of information, unimpeachable in this court, is provided for the court's consideration. The first is the message to the United States Congress of December 18, 1893 by U.S. President Grover Cleveland. (Petitioner's Exhibit B) The second is the joint resolution of the U.S. Congress of 23 November 1993, 107 Stat. 1510, Public Law 103-150, (SJ Res. 19, November 23, 1993). (Petitioner's Exhibit C) That second document actually incorporated Cleveland's message when it recited, ". . . in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on the illegal acts of the conspirators, described such acts as an `act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress', and acknowledged that by such acts the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown." (emphasis added) This court is required, therefore, not only to take judicial notice of the existence of these two documents, but to accept the historical details as controlling.

The public policy expressed by the United States Congress and joined by the President of the United States is to "acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people. . ." That reconciliation has not been limited by the U.S. Congress to a single or a class of activities or arenas in which the work is to be carried out. That call for reconciliation has not exempted the Tax Court or the Internal Revenue Service. That call has set no limitations. Every function of the government of the United States of America is subject to examination against the Constitution of the United States as well as the enactments of the Congress of the United States of America, signed by the president of the United States.

Within the State of Hawai`i, much has taken place in this attempt at reconciliation. The Hawai`i State government has supported the Native Hawaiian people in their determination of their own government. A plebiscite was taken in 1996 and 22,000 Native Hawaiian people chose to begin the process of reforming the Hawaiian nation and setting forth the relationship between that nation and the United States of America. (See Exhibit D, the Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council's final report to the Hawai`i State Legislature, dated December 1996)

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has suggested that these events occurring more than a century ago should be of no consequence today. The U.S. Congress, however, has determined that a very different tact should be taken. It has begun a process of revisiting these events and have in fact, encouraged efforts of reconciliation. The Congress has declared, . . . it is proper and timely for the Congress on the occasion of the impending one hundredth anniversary of the event, to acknowledge the historic significance of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, to express its deep regret to the Native Hawaiian people, and to support the reconciliation efforts of the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians.

The U.S. Congress, for its part, has confessed to the illegal activities engaged in by agents of the United States in the invasion and overthrow of an independent nation. In providing the framework for further analysis of these events, it concluded:

The Congress-- (1) on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893, acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people;
(2) recognizes and commends efforts of reconciliation initiated by the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians;
(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;
(4) expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and
(5) urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.

The Joint Resolution to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to the Native Hawaiian on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, 107 Stat. 1510, Public Law 103- 150, (SJ Res. 19, November 23, 1993) was subsequently signed into law by President William Clinton on 23 November 1993.

The case of Hawai`i is special. It is inappropriate to compare the historical relationship of Hawai`i and the United States of America with the other States of the United States. Hawai`i has a history as an independent nation unmatched by any other State. It continues to have palaces honored as such in the formal and informal society. It comes from a unique cultural root and it continues to maintain that cultural root in all aspects of its society. Its people share a special quality of cohesion and sense of distinctiveness based on a conglomeration of factors including cultures, history, language, and way of life. It is geographically separated from the U.S. continent by thousands of miles of blue water. It was taken by the United States in violation of U.S. and international law. The U.S. Congress has accepted the fact that its relationship with Hawai`i was less than honorable and has called for reconciliation with the Native Hawaiian people. All of these are unique defining factors for Hawai`i.

A review of the historical foundation will set forth that the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States of America were both states within the international society of states, both of whom obligated themselves to the laws of nations, the treaties which existed between them, and were naturally obligated to obey their own domestic laws. A review of events against the grid of these three systems of laws will bring us to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the taxing laws of the United States of America does not extend to the petitioner in the present case. The petition of John Marsh does nothing more than take up, in good faith, the expression of the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States of "its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people." In this spirit, the petitioner asserts that the proper framework within which to consider the interacting history between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Hawai`i are three - 1) international law (which includes treaty law), 2) U.S. law and 3) Hawaiian Kingdom law.

Against this backdrop, the petitioner presents its case that the Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional as applied to John Marsh and is a violation of international law as applied to John Marsh.

III. ON JURISDICTION AND PETITIONER MARSH

. . . A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. THOMAS PAINE, IN HIS

PREFACE TO COMMON SENSE

The taxing authority of the United States Congress is not omnipotent . It is limited by the Constitution of the United States as well as by International Law which has been made part of the domestic law of the United States. Specifically, the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress to tax is limited to such that it has no power to assess a tax upon non-nationals or non-citizens of the United States of America who maintain neither domicile nor residence within the territory of the United States. Nor does the taxing authority extend to such persons for activities which have no substantial connection with the United States of America.

Mr. Marsh claims nationality in the Nation of Hawai`i by virtue of his Hawaiian ancestors who were nationals of Hawai`i as well as his declaration of national allegiance. There has been no act committed by himself nor by his national forefathers which constitute the legitimate loss of that nationality.

In accordance with Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights respecting the right to a nationality which shall not be arbitrarily denied, Mr. Marsh asserts his Hawaiian nationality and disclaims any U.S. citizenship.

Mr. Marsh is not so naive as to not realize how his position flies in the face of the customary view of Hawai`i as a part of the United States of America. Such view, replete throughout the Commissioners's motion, however, is grounded not upon a legitimate progression of political acts condoned in international or domestic laws. Instead, they have become accepted simply by the practice of custom, aided by the power of might on the part of the U.S. government.

The historical record is clear. An independent nation, Hawai`i, was invaded and overthrown by a foreign state, the United States of America. The U.S. subsequently proceeded to annex Hawai`i's territory as its own. The U.S. took the Hawaiian nationals and declared them U.S. citizens. Hawaiian nationals never freely consented to their territories being ceded to the United States of America or to their loss of Hawaiian nationality, nor to their gaining U.S. citizenship. The U.S. government subsequently imposed U.S. laws, including the taxing laws, upon these Hawaiians.

Thus, our right to self-determination were violated by the United States, and in that violation, the U.S. asserted jurisdiction over our territory and nationals.

IV. FOUNDATIONS FOR APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The apology of the United States Congress (Pub. Law 103-150, See Exhibit C) sets forth the basic historical background which can be used as a framework for analysis. Along with that record, we also provide the court with further examples not elaborated upon in the congressional resolution.

A. As of January 16, 1893, the Nation of Hawai`i was recognized as a sovereign and independent nation equal in international rights as other similarly recognized nations of the world. Hawai`i had treaties with many nations, including the United States of America, Belgium, Bremen, Denmark, France, German Empire, Great Britain, Hamburg, Hong-Kong, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New South Wales, Portugal, Russia, Samoa, Spain, Swiss Confederation, Sweden and Norway, and Tahiti (Historical and Analytical Review of Hawaiian Sovereignty, Exhibit A (hereafter, Historical Review)).

B. As of January 16, 1893, the United States of America was recognized as a sovereign and independent nation equal in international rights as other states of the international community.

C. The laws of nations which included both international customary laws and the treaties in existence between the Nation of Hawai`i and the United States of America were binding upon these two nations regarding their conduct towards one another.

D. The United States of America committed and carried out a conspiracy and acts of aggression against the Nation of Hawai`i in violation of international law.

E. As a direct consequence of the U.S.' misconduct, a puppet regime was established in Hawai`i denominated first, the Provisional Government and later the Republic of Hawaii.

F. The Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawaii were not governments of the people, by the people or for the people but were primarily the creatures of the minority Anglo- Saxons who believed in the doctrine of divine right of the minority to govern the majority.

G. The United States of America executed a treaty of annexation with a de facto government promoted and supported by the United States of America.

H. Both treaties of annexation were never ratified by two-thirds (2/3rds) of those present in the United States Senate pursuant to the United States Constitution.

I. The treaty of Friendship, Commerce, Navigation and Extradition between the Nation of Hawai`i and the United States of America of 1850 has never been properly terminated.

J. The Organic Act of April 30, 1900 ch. 339, 31 Stat 141, presumptively extending U.S. citizenship (4) to Hawaiian citizens and descendants of them as well as asserting jurisdiction of the United States of America over the territory (2) and citizens of Hawai`i was not properly grounded and violated international law.

K. Subsequent applications of laws by the United States of America upon citizens and activities engaged within the territorial limits of Hawai`i based upon a presumption of appropriate taking of jurisdiction over Hawaiian citizens and Hawaiian territories were only as valid as the predecessor organic act and therefore lacking in validity.

L. Independent of the historical/international relationship between the Nation of Hawai`i and the United States of America, an additional requirement of international law was placed upon the United States of America by virtue of the U.S.' membership in the United Nations, specifically, under Article 73 of the U.N. Charter.

M. The U.N. Charter obligated the United States of America, as a matter of sacred trust, to bring about self-government of people within territories deemed non-self governing. Hawai`i was designated as such a territory. (U.N. General Assembly Resolution 66 (I) 1946)

N. Self-governance for the people of a non-self governing territory requires the choice of a political status which includes a range of selections from integration within the metropolitan state exercising administrative responsibility over the territory to complete independence from that metropolitan state.

O. There has never been the application of self-governance or self-determination in Hawai`i, contrary to the obligation of the United States of America to do so, resulting in the continued assertion of jurisdiction by the United States of America over Hawai`i's territory and its citizens.

P. Petitioner asserts his citizenship in the Nation of Hawai`i, the citizenship of his ancestors, and by virtue of this citizenship, is not a citizen of the United States of America. Neither the Petitioner nor his ancestors have disavowed their Hawaiian citizenship, or with the understanding of the historical events and significance of said events, undertaken citizenship in the United States of America.

V. DISCUSSION

Given this background, we come face to face with fundamental issues:

A. Was the U.S. obligated to conduct itself in international affairs in accordance with international law?

The U.S. Constitution has incorporated treaties of the United States of America with other states as "the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges of every State shall be bound thereby." The U.S. Constitution explicitly recognizes the validity of international law when it conferred to Congress the right to define and duty to punish offenses against the law of nations. The United States Supreme Court has already stated that it must take judicial notice of international customary law.

Although, by and large, international law is unenforceable, that should not detract from the fact that it is law, imposing upon party states on a moral basis, their obedience to it. Grover Cleveland, in addressing the joint houses of the U.S. Congress, (See Exhibit B) declared that: The considerations that international law is without a court for its enforcement, and that obedience to its commands practically depends upon good faith, instead of upon the mandate of a superior tribunal, only give additional sanction to the law itself and brand any deliberate infraction of it not merely as a wrong but as a disgrace.

The U.S. Constitution itself requires courts to view treaties as part of the supreme law of the land (Article VI). Furthermore, it is a fundamental doctrine of international law that a state may not excuse itself for violations of international law on the basis that its municipal constitution or laws permitted violations of such international laws.

Thus, this court is obligated to look beyond the mere legislative pronouncements of the Congress and hold up these transactions against the backdrop of international law and the Constitution of the United States.

B. Were the transactions engaged in by the U.S. in its dealings with Hawai`i in accordance with international law?

The U.S. violated international law in its pattern of conduct attempting to annex Hawai`i to the U.S. To begin, the United States had formally recognized Hawai`i as an international personality, recognizing the Nation of Hawai`i as a sovereign, independent state. The treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation and Extradition (hereafter FCN&E) proclaimed Nov. 9, 1850, declared, "There shall be perpetual peace and amity between the United States and the King of the Hawaiian Islands, his heirs and his successors." The U.S. was to violate this treaty time and again. By 1873, U.S. Minister to Hawai`i Henry Pierce, bent on annexation, informed U.S. Secretary of State Fish that annexation would be achieved only if ". . . the planters, merchants, and foreigners . . . will induce the people to overthrow the (Hawaiian) Government, establish a republic, and then ask the United States for admittance into its Union." The U.S. government was not limited to merely writing letters between high officials. On January 15, 1873, Major General and commander of the United States Army Military Division of the Pacific, John Schofield, (formerly Secretary of War) and Brigadier General B.S. Alexander of the Corps of Engineers, arrived in Hawai`i pretending to be on a vacation. Instead, they were spies to report about "the defense capabilities of [Hawai`i's] different ports and their commerce facilities, and to examine into any other subjects that may occur to you as desirable, in order to collect all information that would be of service to the Country in the event of war with a powerful maritime nation." They submitted a secret report on the great value of Pearl Harbor as a port to provide a safe harbor to protect several hundred ships. This report was kept secret until 1897 when it was declassified to support annexation in Congress.

By 1882, the U.S. Presidential administration was engaged in encouraging the destabilization of the Hawaiian government through discussion with Lorrin Thurston. The Arthur administration assured Thurston that the U.S. government would look with great favor to an annexation treaty should there be a revolt and overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and a new government formed.

The U.S. government subsequently sent to Hawai`i, annexationist John L. Stevens, as its Minister Plenipotentiary. Stevens was well known as an annexationist. As editor of the Kennebec Journal, for a time, in partnership with U.S. Secretary of State Blaine, he and Mr. Blaine wrote numerous articles for the annexation of Hawai`i. On March 8, 1892, he requested instructions from Blaine on how far he may deviate from established international rules and precedents in order to advance the goal of destabilization and annexation of Hawai`i. By 1892, the U.S.'s Harrison administration, itself, was on the same course as the Arthur administration 10 years earlier, encouraging Thurston toward the destabilization of Hawai`i. On the 17th of January, 1893, through the connivance of the U.S. Minister Plenipotentiary, with Thurston, the Hawaiian monarch was forced to yield her authority to the U.S. government by the aggression of the U.S. military upon Hawaiian soil.

Every one of these acts was in violation of international law, both as a matter of customary international law as well as the FCN&E treaty. They were also in contradiction to the much earlier declaration of the U.S. President to the Congress on December 31, 1842, recognizing Hawai`i's independence and pledging never to take possession of Hawai`i. In Article 6(a) of the Nuremberg Charter, we find Crimes Against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.

The United Nations General Assembly at its first session in 1946 recognized the principles set out in the Nuremberg Charter.

The United States committed crimes against peace under the law of nations by planning and implementing the use of force to overthrow the Hawaiian monarch without any provocation by her official representatives. United States President Cleveland in addressing the joint houses of Congress on December 18, 1893, stated it accurately when he said, "a candid and thorough examination of the facts will force the conviction that the Provisional Government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States." The United States Congress, in its apology resolution signed by President Clinton on November 23, 1993, was equally explicit when it stated:

Whereas, on January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the "United States Minister"), the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawai`i conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawai`i;

Whereas, in pursuance of the conspiracy to overthrow the Government of Hawai`i, the United States Minister and the naval representatives of the United States caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation on January 16, 1893, and to position themselves near the Hawaiian Government buildings and the `Iolani Palace to intimidate Queen Lili`uokalani and her Government. (See Exhibit C)

Thus, the U.S. action in Hawai`i resulting in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, the establishment of the Provisional Government and the subsequent change of name to the Republic of Hawai`i were all part of the scheme to extinguish the life of an independent, peaceful, trusting and sovereign state and integrate its territory and citizens into the United States of America. These chains of events propelled by agents of the United States government all constituted numerous breaches of international law. The fact that the U.S. Congress in 1898 via the Newlands Resolution and 1900 via the Organic Act took a hand in these transactions, attempting to obviate the trail of deceit, thievery and lawlessness does not overcome the fact of U.S. delinquency measured against the laws of nations.

C. Was the treaty of annexation valid?

The Republic of Hawai`i was not a party which had capacity to engage in such a treaty. The fraud of the Republic of Hawai`i as representative of the people of Hawai`i, or of the proper recipient of transfer of sovereignty from the Hawaiian nation, was manifest. In Hawai`i, no one (outside of the Constitutional Convention which cooked up this Constitution for the Republic of Hawai`i) was permitted to vote for or against the constitution. The members of the convention were appointed by Sanford Dole (19 consisting of himself and eighteen others) or elected by the "qualified" voters (18). To qualify to vote, one needed to disavow any loyalty to Queen Lili`uokalani and pledge his support to the Provisional Government. There was absolutely no semblance of the Republic of Hawai`i being representative of the people, for the people or by the people of Hawai`i. It was merely a self-declared government. Indeed, on that day, James B. Castle spoke for William Armstrong declaring:

Americans assemble here today amidst novel and serious events, to make a new declaration of independence, and of principles, broader and wiser than the declaration of 1776; to make the solemn declaration, that the intelligent minority in every community, have the inalienable right to good government, which they are justified in securing, holding themselves responsible only to God and their own consciences for the just and proper use of power in their hands. . . . . . the Anglo Saxon . . . may demonstrate to the world, that they can hold the supreme power, at first, for the good of all, and gradually educate, and lead the men of other races, up to their standards of good government, and finally and safely, distribute that power among all races here.

On this anniversary of the declaration of independence, we are called upon, for the first time, to restate its principles, in a new form and with broader truths. We solemnly declare, with the experience of a hundred years behind us, that minorities in number, have the inalienable right to good government, and they are commissioned to secure and maintain it, holding themselves responsible to God and their own consciences, for the just and proper use of the power organized and used to obtain it.

Today, the challenge comes to us from thoughtful men of America, that we hold this fort in the central sea against the alien races until they have learned to march with steady step to the music of our own civilization and can be safely enlisted in our own garrisons. (Emphasis added)

Jim Bartels, historian and curator of `Iolani Palace described the formation of the Republic of Hawai`i as follows:

"Its founding on the Fourth of July, with declarations of liberty and freedom, was a brutal irony. The republic was founded on the premise that nearly every Hawaiian and every Japanese and Chinese in the Islands - the great majority of the population - was by nature, unworthy of citizenship. Without their consent, all these people, their children, their property and their country were turned over to a new nation in which they were denied the hope of freedom or democracy."

The United States presence in Hawai`i was plainly visible throughout the day of the ceremony, July 4, 1894, declaring the Republic of Hawai`i into existence. It was obvious that the Republic of Hawai`i was not representative of the will of the people but instead the instrument of supremacists led by a handful of Anglo Saxons. To have entered into a treaty with such a government was not mere error. It was fraudulent on the part of both parties, the representatives of the United States of America and the hooligans who called themselves the Republic of Hawai`i. It was a fraud against the international community as well as the citizens and residents of the Nation of Hawai`i. It was a repudiation and insult to the principle of self-determination which the forefathers of the United States of America took such great pains in establishing as a preemptory norm of international law when they wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The principle contained in the U.S. declaration is also contained in the various documents of the United Nations extolling the right to self-determination. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares in part:

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

The treaty itself is void, for it conflicted with a preemptory norm of general international law, that is, a treaty can only be signed by proper parties.

It this particular case, the treaty is doubly void because not only was the Republic of Hawai`i an illegitimate government, but it gained its position and power through the direct actions of the United States of America. Both the Republic of Hawai`i and the United States of America were operating with unclean hands! Both were working hand in hand with each other to steal the Nation of Hawai`i from the people of Hawai`i. They passed papers between themselves in a self- promotional campaign, knowing full well that there were no substance to the documents called the Constitution of the Republic of Hawai`i, the Treaty of Annexation, or the Joint Resolution of Congress. A government de facto does not become a government de jure when working with an international co-delinquent to effectuate the termination of the life of a nation. The appropriate term for such transactions is thievery, an indictment upon the governments and the men who participate in the execution of the relevant acts. The international response to this thievery is the disdain by peoples and nations throughout the world societies to the succeeding government which pretends authority over the victimized people, territory and nation.

This so-called treaty of annexation is therefore void ab initio. The provisions of a void treaty have no legal force upon the citizens of the Nation of Hawai`i. Those adversely affected by the performance of such a treaty have the right to require the parties who have caused injury to establish as far as possible, the injured party's position that would have existed if the acts had not been performed. The first step toward that remedy for the Defendant in this particular case is to have this court deny jurisdiction of the Plaintiff and the court over the Defendant.

D. Does the Newland's Resolution containing the treaty of annexation measure up even to the U.S. Constitutional requirement?

Article II, 2 of that fundamental document requires all treaties to be ratified by 2-thirds of those present in the U.S. Senate. It made no exception for the McKinley Administration, it made no exception for Hawai`i, it made no exception for special opportunities of thievery, it made no exceptions at all! The Newland's Resolution, through which the treaty of annexation between the United States of America and that fraudulent puppet government, the Republic of Hawai`i, glided through the U.S. Congress, never received the requisite vote of the U.S. Senate. It failed to pass the requirement of the Constitution of the United States of America.

E. Does the internal laws of the United States of America have extra-territorial jurisdiction over Defendant?

The primary restriction imposed by international law upon states is that they may not exercise powers in any form in the territory of another state except by virtue of permission derived from custom or treaty. In Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 11 U.S. 116, 135 (1812), Chief Justice Marshall asserted "the jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself." The laws of the United States of America, therefore, have no extra-territorial jurisdiction beyond its national borders, unless permitted by customary or treaty law. There are no customary law which permits the taxing laws of the United States to apply to the Defendant, a citizen of the Nation of Hawai`i and therefore not of the United States of America, for income obtained solely within the territorial boundaries of the Nation of Hawai`i.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

Seven fundamental principles of international and domestic laws provide the legal foundation in this matter.

1. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States and to the extent the Internal Revenue Code or any other law contradicts or violates the constitution, such laws are unconstitutional and unenforceable. U.S. Constitution, Art. VI

2. International law applicable to and binding upon the United States of America are a part of the supreme law of the land and to the extent the Internal Revenue Code or any other internal law contradicts or violates such international laws, the internal laws are unconstitutional and unenforceable. U.S. Constitution, Art. VI, The Paquete Habana; the Lola, 175 U.S. Reports 677 (1900); Restatement of the Law (Third), THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES Chapter Two, Status of International Law and Agreements in United States Law;

3. The United States of America and all of its branches of government must conduct its international affairs in accordance with international law. 1 M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law 1 (1963); U.S. Constitution, Art. VI

4. A state in international law or individuals acting as agents of the state may not excuse themselves for violations of international law on the basis that its municipal or internal constitution or laws permitted such violations. Werner Levi, Contemporary International Law, A Concise Introduction, Westview Press, 1979 at p. 25; Declaration of Rights and Duties of States, adopted by the International Law Commission, 1949, Art. 13; The Judgment at Nuremberg, 1 International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals 171 (1947)

5. The activities and transactions engaged in by the United States of America in its dealings with and with regards to Hawai`i was not in accordance with international law. The Judgment at Nuremberg, 1 International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals 171 (1947); Bradford W. Morse and Kazi A. Hamid, American Annexation of Hawai`i: An example of the Unequal Treaty Doctrine, Connecticut Journal of International Law Vol. 5, No. 2, Spring 1990; Grover Cleveland's Message to the Joint Houses of Congress, 18 December, 1893, Richardson, A Compilation of the messages and Papers of the Presidents: 1789-1908, Vol. IX (1908) (see Exhibit B); U.S. Acknowledgment and Apology for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, S.J. Res. 19, 103d Congress, 1st Sess, PL 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510) 1993 (see Exhibit C);

6. A treaty of Annexation must be entered into between proper parties, without coercion, and consistent with the internal rules of both state parties. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 22, 1969 at Articles 51, 52, 53;

7. The internal laws of a state does not have extra-territorial jurisdiction unless the person over which jurisdiction is sought is a citizen of such state or the activity alleged to have been committed has special significance to the state. Werner Levi, Contemporary International Law, A Concise Introduction, Westview Press, 1979 at p. 116;

The United States of America is a delinquent under international law as well as under its constitution. Its proceeding with the attempt to assess a tax upon the petitioner is an unlawful act. The tax court should stop it.

Restatement (third) of the Law The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, 411, 412, As Adopted and Promulgated by The American Law Institute, May 14, 1986 411. Jurisdiction to Tax: The Basic Rule
(1) A state may exercise jurisdiction to tax a person, natural or juridical, on the basis of
(a) nationality,
(b) domicile, or
(c) residence.
(2) A state may exercise limited jurisdiction to tax a person, natural or juridical, on the basis of
(a) presence or doing business in its territory, or
(b) ownership of property located in its territory.
(3) A state may exercise jurisdiction to tax
(a) property located in its territory, or
(b) a transaction that occurs, originates, or terminates in its territory or has some other substantial
connection to the state.

412. Jurisdiction to Tax: Basic Rule Applied
(1) A state may exercise jurisdiction to tax the income of
(a) a person, whether natural or juridical, who is a national, resident, or domiciliary of the state, whether the source of the income is within or without the state;
(b) a natural or juridical person who is not a national, resident, or domiciliary of the state but who is present or does business in the state, but only with respect to income derived from or associated with presence or doing business within the state; and
(c) a natural or juridical person who is not a national, resident or domiciliary of the state and is not present or doing business therein, with respect to income derived from property located in the territory of the state.
.....

This memorandum uses the term Nation of Hawai`i to refer to that state oftentimes referred to as the Kingdom of Hawai`i, the Hawaiian Islands, Hawai`i, the Hawaiian nation, the Nation of Hawai`i or in some other fashion, describing that internationally recognized independent, sovereign state whose international status is further described in the accompanying Exhibit A. The use of the term nation here is not meant to be in derogation to the full international rights and privileges of those entities termed "states" or "nation- states" in international law but instead should be read with equal status as those.

Cleveland Message to Congress, Exhibit B, Apology Resolution, Exhibit C, Historical Review, Exhibit A
Historical Review, Exhibit A
July 5, 1894, The Pacific Commercial Advertiser; Extract from Ke Kia`i, Native Hawai`i Advisory Council, 1994; Interview with Jim Bartels, 9 August 1994
Treaty of Annexation (Newland's Resolution) of 1898.
Principles which Should Guide Members in Determining Whether or not an Obligation Exists to Transmit the Information, Called for in Article 73(e) of the Charter of the United Nations, Annex to GA Res. 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960
U.S. Constitution, Art. VI.
U.S. Constitution, Art. I, 8 Piracies & felonies. -10.
The Paquete Habana; the Lola, 175 U.S. Reports 677 (1900)
See Fitzmaurice, "The Foundations of the authority of International Law and the Problem of Enforcement," 19 Modern L. Rev. 1, 1-2, 8-9 (1956); International Law and World Order, Weston, Falk and D`Amato, West Publishing Co., 1980 p. 116 et seq.
Werner Levi, Contemporary International Law: A Concise Introduction, Westview Press, Colorado, 1979 at p. 25; Article 13, Declaration of Rights and Duties of States adopted by the International Law Commission 1949; The Judgment at Nuremberg, 1 International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals 171 (1947)
Art. 1, p. 908 Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers 1776 - 1909, William M. Malloy, Vol. 1, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1910. (This treaty has never been terminated by the U.S. government or the Nation of Hawai`i.)
Letter from Pierce to Fish, February 17, 1873, House Executive Document, 53 Congress 2nd Session, Washington, D.C. 1895, hereinafter cited as the Blount Report, p. 153; Stolen Kingdom; AN AMERICAN CONSPIRACY, Rich Budnick, Aloha Press, 1992, pp. 36 & 37.
Budnick at p. 37 & 38; Blount Report at pp. 153, 154, & 158.
"Three Days in January" The Overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy, a companion booklet to a Nine Hour Radio Broadcast of the Event of the Century, P. Laenui, Hawaiian National Broadcast Corporation, Honolulu, 1993 at p. 12.
Ibid. Blount Report p. 182.
Shoal Of Time: A HISTORY OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, Gavin Daws, U.H. Press, 1974, p. 266.
President Cleveland's Message to the Congress of the United States on December 18, 1893, Executive Doc. no. 47, 53rd Congress, 2nd Session, House of Representatives; Apology Resolution; Hawai`i's Story by Hawai`i's Queen Lili`uokalani, Tuttle Press, Tokyo, 1965.
Acts of aggression constitutes international crimes against the human species. Unanimous resolution of 18 February 1928 of 21 American republics at the Sixth (Havana) Pan-American Conference. International Law & World Order, Ibid. at p. 155; By 1893, acts of aggression were already contrary to international law in the Americas and in the South Pacific. Self-Determination: The Case Study of Hawai`i, by Kazi Aktar Hamid, Dissertation for the degree of the Doctor of Laws (LL.D) 4 November 1991, University of Ottawa, p. 246- 247; Human Rights, Self Determination and The Right to Resistance: The Case Study of Hawai`i, by Dr. Kazi Aktar Hamid, 1994, Kyles, Eapen, Alamgir And Associates, Wash. D.C., P. 174.
Dispatch from Pageot, French representative in Washington, to Guizot, French minister of Foreign Affairs, No. 55, June 11, 1844, AMAE (Paris), Etats Unis, Vol. C.
Judicial Decisions, International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg). Judgment and Sentences, 41 American Journal of International Law 174 (1947).
U.N. General Assembly Resolution 95(1), U.N. Doc. A/6. at 188 (1946). 30 Stat. 750; 2 Supp. R.S. 895.
Organic Act of April 30, 1900 ch. 339, 31 Stat 141.
Daws at pp. 280 - 281.
See Apology Resolution, (Exhibit B)
July 5, 1894, The Pacific Commercial Advertiser.
Extracted from Ke Kia`i, Native Hawaiian Advisory Council, August 1, 1994; Interview with Jim Bartels, 9 August 1994.
The Declaration of Independence In Congress, July 4, 1776.
U.N. General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) of 10 December 1948, Article 21(3).
See Apology Resolution.
The Case of the S.S. `Lotus', (France v. Turkey), Permanent Court of International Justice, [1927] P.C.I.J., ser. A, No. 10
7