(BIVN) – A lawsuit filed by Dr. Keanu Sai against President Donald Trump to compel the United States to comply with international law in regards to the Hawaiian Kingdom has been dismissed.

On September 11, a federal court judge dismissed Sai v. Trump, concluding the court is without jurisdiction to review the claims because they involve a political question.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan opined:

Before the court is David Keanu Sai’s pro se Petition against Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America; Philip S. Davidson, Commander of the Indo-Pacific Command of the United States Navy; and David Ige, Governor of the State of Hawaii. Sai describes himself as the “Chairman of the acting Council of Regency” representing the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and body politic.” Petition ¶ 16. He alleges that the United States committed War Crimes, 18 U.S.C. § 2441, as well as acted in derogation of the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, and “international humanitarian laws,” when it “invaded Hawaii” in 1893 and subsequently made the island a part of the U.S. See, e.g., Petition ¶¶ 5, 8, 79-92, 169-205. Citing the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702, and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), Sai asks this court to enjoin the President from continuing any actions with respect to Hawaii that allegedly violate these laws.

Sai also names roughly thirty-four heads of state, leaders of the United Nations, and the Chairperson of the Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration as “Nominal Respondents. . . not ‘because any specific relief is demanded as against [them], but because [their] connection with the subject-matter is such that the [Petitioner’s] actions would be defective . . . if [they] were not joined.’” Petition ¶ 14 (internal quotations and alterations in the original). Sai appears to contend that these foreign officials, entities and bodies failed to remain neutral with respect to U.S. and Hawaii relations, thereby becoming parties to the “war” between the United States and Hawaii and, consequently, violating both the Hague and Geneva Conventions. See id. ¶¶ 16, 18, 109.

For the reasons set forth below, the court will dismiss Sai’s Petition sua sponte.

“Because Sai’s claims involve a political question, this court is without jurisdiction to review his claims and the court will therefore DISMISS the Petition,” Judge Chutkan concluded.

At a recent talk at Uncle Robert’s in Kalapana, Sai explained why he sees the dismissal as a victory.

“The Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed in Washington D.C. United States federal district court on June 25th, 2018,” Sai explained to the crowd, showing slides depicting the court filings. “Before September – I was actually contacted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington D.C. asking for additional time to answer the complaint. The way cases work, you file the complaint. If they don’t answer within a time period, they default. That means you win the case. That’s how it works. So, the U.S. attorney was asking for additional time to respond because she wants to address it, whatever. I said, fine. No way you can falsify this stuff. This thing has gone through doctoral committees, peer review, Law Review. Okay, we’ll go through a U.S. attorney now and you found something? You found the Treaty of Annexation? That’s the only way you can change this.”

“What ends up happening is the judge – the federal court judge – dismisses the case by an order. On 9/11,” Sai said, showing the memorandum of opinion. “She says ‘because Sai’s claims involve a political question, this Court is without jurisdiction to review his claims and the court will therefore dismiss the petition.’ They’re only talking jurisdiction, so they can’t review the claims. They actually accept the factual allegations as true. See, that’s what I’m getting from it, but I need the court to tell me that. Not me trying to say what I’m interpreting, right?”

Sai turns to a case from 2008. “The same court in Washington D.C. dismissed a case concerning Taiwan as a political question under Rule 12 (b)(1) in Lin v. United States. The federal court in its order stated that it must accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint when reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to rule Rule 12 (b)(1).”

“That is the key that just – pop – opened the lock,” Sai said. “Now everything comes out. So what are those factual allegations in the complaint that was accepted as true because they dismissed it as a political question?”

“The factual allegations were stated in paragraph 79 to 205 under the headings From a State of Peace to a State of War, The Duty of Neutrality by Third States, Obligation on the United States to Administer Hawaiian Kingdom Laws, Denationalization through Americanization, The State of Hawaiʻi as an Armed Force, the Restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, Recognition De Facto of the Restored Government, War Crimes 1907 Hague Convention, and War Crimes 1949 Geneva Convention. Under each of those headings is all the facts that speaks to these violations,” Sai stated. “So what they’re saying is – well, federal court can’t look at it, the executive has to. Well, what does the executive go to? They go to international law. Where are we in international law? Permanent Court of Arbitration. Remember, fact-finding?”

“This is now a statement coming from the federal government admitting that everything here is true,” Sai asserted. “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. It’s just which court. Makes sense?”

Sai’s Hawaiian Kingdom blog writes about the political question doctrine in a recent post.

“The US attorney in Washington D.C. filed a motion,” Sai said. A request to allow the U.S. attorney “to answer the complaint in light of the order dismissing, because the US attorney knows that by the judge dismissing it as a political question she is admitting all the factual allegations are true and she wants to try to address it. And it was denied.”

“So, that means this can be now used at the UN Human Rights Council, it can be used in other cases,” Sai said. “This is the US statement acknowledging Hawaiʻi is occupied and war crimes are being committed.”