An attorney who became the leading courtroom proponent of the “Kingdom defense”, the idea that those who consider themselves citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom are not subject to federal and state laws and, therefore, cannot be held accountable in criminal or civil courts, has abruptly resigned from the practice of law.
Dexter K. Kaiama announced his resignation from the state bar in a sworn declaration filed in the Hawaii Supreme Court on Thursday, December 29, at 6:54 p.m.
His resignation came in response to an order by the Supreme Court to “show cause…informing this court of any reasons as to why he should not be suspended from the practice of law immediately” for failing to cooperate with an active investigation of alleged misconduct carried out by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
The court, in its December 19 show cause order, said Kaiama “knowingly and wilfully failed to obey a lawful subpoena, issued by ODC under the authority of this court,” contrary to his duty, as an attorney licensed to practice law, to cooperate with the Disciplinary Counsel. He was given ten days to answer or face immediate suspension.
Kaiama, 63, also claims the title of appointed attorney general of the “Hawaiian Kingdom” headed by David Keanu Sai, one of several competing sovereignty groups that claim to represent a resurrected, reinstated, or reestablished Hawaiian Kingdom government.
He was admitted to the practice of law in Hawaii in October 1986.
In multiple cases and court filings over a number of years, Kaiama has used the legally-discredited notion that Hawaii’s annexation to the U.S. in 1898 wasn’t legal, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a state pursuant to international law and has been under a prolonged and illegal occupation, leaving Kingdom law still in effect. As a result, Kaiama has argued federal and state courts have no jurisdiction in civil or criminal matters.
Although this legal argument has never succeeded in court, Kaiama has nonetheless continued to push it in a number of criminal and civil cases in both state and federal courts, which has brought him into conflict with the Disciplinary Counsel and other agencies.
In 2019, the Supreme Court approved an ODC recommendation that Kaiama be publicly censured for accusing Circuit Court Judge Greg K. Nakamura of being a “war criminal.” Kaiama argued Hawaii is an “occupied territory” under the international laws of war and disputes properly belong in a military courtroom, and that Nakamura therefore was a war criminal for allowing the foreclosure case to go forward.
In June 2020, Kaiama was permanently barred from providing “legal services or any other assistance” to any homeowner whose property is facing actual or threatened foreclosure. The action came after the State Office of Consumer Protection filed a civil lawsuit alleging Kaiama had been part of a foreclosure defense scheme that violated the state’s Mortgage Rescue Fraud Prevention Act.
James Evers, attorney for the Office of Consumer Protection, referred the case against Kaiama in the foreclosure fraud to law enforcement agencies, and in late 2018 apparently filed a complaint with ODC against Kaiama based on the same investigative findings, triggering the case that has now led to Kaiama’s resignation.
Along with his response to ODC, which ended in his resignation announcement, Kaiama also filed a document in the Supreme Court record accusing the justices of the Hawaii Supreme Court, two 3rd Circuit judges, Evers (the Consumer Protection attorney) and attorneys and staff of the Disciplinary Counsel, of being war criminals for failing to recognize the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom and depriving Hawaiian nationals of fair trials during what the report calls the prolonged military occupation of Hawaii.
Kaiama filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii in 2021 on behalf of the Hawaiian Kingdom, bringing the same charges against a slew of defendants, including President Biden and a number of federal officials, then Hawaii Governor David Ige, members of the Hawaii Supreme Court, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and honorary counsels representing dozens of countries.
The government’s motion to dismiss the case is instructive.
“Plaintiff bases its claims on the proposition that the Hawaiian Kingdom is a sovereign and independent state. However, ‘Hawaii is a state of the United States . … The Ninth Circuit, this court, and Hawaii state courts have rejected arguments asserting Hawaiian
sovereignty.’”
“[T]here is no factual (or legal) basis for concluding that the [Hawaiian] Kingdom exists as a state in accordance with recognized attributes of a state’s sovereign nature,” the government argued, concluding Kaiama’s “claims are ‘so patently without merit that the claim[s] require no meaningful consideration.’”
In a Civil Beat column published in early 2014, I reviewed an earlier Hawaii Supreme Court decision responding to similar arguments.
In the latest case of this kind, decided earlier this year, the court went out of its way to reject arguments made by members of one Hawaiian sovereignty group that they were exempt from state law because they are “citizens” subject to the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom (State v. Armitage, decided January 28, 2014).
The case involved criminal charges filed against Henry Noa and two other members of the Restored Hawaiian Government (also referred to as the Reinstated Kingdom of Hawaii or Reinstated Nation of Hawaii) for landing on Kahoolawe in a demonstration they described as aimed at “reclaiming” Kahoolawe and all other public lands for their Reinstated Kingdom.
The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal charges on a technicality, but then took the occasion to systematically address the sovereignty arguments raised in this case and others.
The court acknowledged the state’s stated openness to resolving outstanding historical claims that might be asserted by Hawaiians based on the Legislature’s previous recognition of their “unrelinquished sovereignty.”
But the court said clearly that it could not, and would not, pick and choose among the claims of competing sovereignty groups.
“To date, no sovereign native Hawaiian entity has been recognized by the United States and the State of Hawaii,” and the court noted that there are “several” organizations vying for such recognition.
Whether or not an independent sovereign Hawaiian Kingdom exists is a political question and is not a matter for the courts to determine, the court ruled.
Only when a sovereign Hawaiian governing entity is recognized in the local, national and international arenas will it be granted the appropriate legal deference. Today, no group is able to claim such recognition.
The court also held that while the state Constitution protects “all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes,” building a native Hawaiian nation is not one of the fundamental rights protected by the constitution.
And the court noted that, contrary to a popular belief in sovereignty circles, “individuals claiming to be citizens of an independent sovereign entity are not exempt from the state’s laws.”
“’International law’ takes precedence over state statutes in only limited circumstances,” the court held. “These circumstances are not present when the dispute is concerned with domestic rights and duties.”
In addition, according to the court, the state “has a legitimate interest in the conduct of persons within its jurisdiction, and their conduct is amenable to reasonable state regulation, regardless of ‘international law.’”
See:
Attorney known for his use of the “Kingdom defense” apparently at odds with Disciplinary Counsel, iLind.net, 9/1/2022
Lawyer known for “sovereignty defenses” barred from future foreclosure assistance, iLind.net, 6/21/2020
More of the sovereignty movement’s pseudo-legal theories, iLind.net, 2/2/2020
Two sovereignty advocates hit with allegations of mortgage rescue fraud, iLind.net, 5/11/2019
Keanu Sai claimed “diplomatic immunity” shielded him from fraud allegations, iLind.net, 5/13/2019
Here’s Why Hawaii Judges Are Not ‘War Criminals’, Civil Beat, 5/11/2017
Dispute Muddies Already Confusing State of Sovereignty Claims, Civil Beat, 9/2/2015
The ‘Kingdom Defense’ Is a Dead End for Mauna Kea Protesters, Civil Beat, July 22, 2015
TMT protesters cling to discredited legal defense, iLind.net, 7/20/2015
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There has been far too much tolerance of this kind of kooky BS for far too long, and that has given some very fringe characters the notion that they can take all kinds of illegal actions and then simply whip out the kingdom card when the poi hits the fan.
There is no Hawaiian Kingdom. None. And even if there were some lingering vestige of a continuing Kingdom of Hawaii in exile or under occupation, it would not be subject to ad hoc control or membership limitation based solely on race or presumed royal lineage or mere loud assertion.
And since there’s no kingdom, there is no royalty, and thus there was no last princess, despite some very naive malihini headlines of late.
And while we’re at it, there are no crown lands, but only formerly crown lands, notwithstanding some racist beach bullying and even death threats toward law enforcement at Makua, and far-fetched legal hypotheses permeating on social media and inspired by the likes of Kaiama, Sai, and their foolish academic coddlers.
But remember: Telescopes are inherently evil. Because if we look carefully we might actually see something.
Ian, thank you for calling attention to Dexter Kaiama’s forced resignation from the practice of law. At least Kaiama behaved with better decorum than another, previous “Attorney General” of Keanu Sai’s fake Kingdom, Gary Dubin, who partnered with former Governor Waihe’e in another home foreclosure “rescue” company and weekly “Foreclosure Hour” radio broadcast. Dubin had been Sai’s A.G. during the “World Court” circus at the Hague, and then a year or two ago spent a long time kicking and screaming as the Hawaii Supreme Court slowly ripped away his law license, exercising due process with “all deliberate speed”.
But something is much more valuable than your news report about Kaiama’s loss of license, and your previous reports about Dubin’s demise: your persistence in tracking the legal topic you have named “the Kingdom defense.” Thank you for the numerous footnotes citing your writings on that topic.
Mr. Kaiama repeats the same fantasy as Mr. Sai, ultimately helping no one. It’s embarrassing and painful to watch. Revisiting an illusion through the courts just wastes tax payers money. Mr. Kaiama makes life harder for Hawaii residents and us, the K?naka Maoli. What a shame about the mortgage fraud, cheating his own people.
It’s my mistake for missing checking in with Mr. Lind’s, iLind, everyday. Until today, I missed this extremely informative, gathering of facts, article. As excellent is the article, so too are the comments. THANK YOU and Happy New Year.
Thank you. And remember that you can subscribe, which means you’ll receive email notices when new posts appear here. It makes it easier to track when I don’t manage a post every day. You’ll find the subscription info in the right sidebar.
It does appear those “kooky” Kingdom of Hawaii legal challenges may have reached the end of the road–and rightfully so.
But maybe all us should take a step back and not forget that Hawaii is home to a “royal palace”, “royal mausoleum”, and a “royal throne” all occupied by–you guessed it–“royalty”.
So it’s a bit premature to say game over.
Not in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine the proliferation of Indian casinos on the mainland. In some states, financial reparations for descendants of slaves is moving forward and getting real. San Bernardino voters approved a measure allowing county officials to initiate the process of seceding from the state of California. And the last President was a reality show star, and the current Vice-President referred to Hitler’s secret police as the “gazpacho”.
Politics is so unpredictable.
The sovereignty movement is growing and gaining more sympathy. Remember, all it usually takes to get anything done is fifty percent plus one. Keep a close eye on your politicians people.
It’s a little hard to understand your argument. Are you really suggesting that the continued existence of the palace, throne, and mausoleum demonstrate that there’s still a dormant kingdom? If so, that makes about as much sense as claiming that a stuffed dodo bird in a museum proves that the species is not extinct.
It’s wonderful that important structures and artifacts from the monarchy have been preserved. They’re priceless pieces of our state’s history, which we should all respect and seek to understand, and should never distort or deny. And to some, yes, they’re much more than that.
But where did you get the idea that “The sovereignty movement is growing and gaining more sympathy”? I don’t think that’s the case at all, or has been for years, and there doesn’t seem to be any visible evidence to support that. The much-ballyhooed “constitutional convention” a few years back was an epic flop and waste of money. In fact there’s no longer even much serious talk about pushing for federal recognition, a watered-down form of sovereignty but probably the only form that would have any possible chance of ever being enacted. It sure wasn’t any priority during the last election. And let’s remember that sovereignty does not equal kingdom or monarchy.
But yes, anything could happen. I suppose China could invade Hawaii to “liberate” it from evil US oppression, set up a puppet state and allow a new monarchy of Hawaiians to run things internally as long as they toe Beijing’s line. But that’s not likely any time soon. Nor is any other restoration of the kingdom, and certainly not any fringe kingdom pushed by kooks and scammers.
Sorry, but anyone is badly mistaken who thinks the issue of reasserting the continuing existence of a Hawaiian Kingdom or Hawaiian independence is dead as a dodo. Look up Resolution 22-262 which is scheduled for hearing this next Tuesday January 10 at Honolulu City Council. The resolution is written as though it merely commemorates La Ku’oko’a, a Kingdom holiday proclaimed 180 years ago to celebrate a joint proclamation signed by low-level diplomats from Britain and France in which those two nations recognized the independent nationhood of Hawaii and agreed with each other that neither of them would try to take over Hawaii. But when you read the actual contents of the resolution, it is a vicious attack against the USA and NOT merely to commemorate ancient history — it is explicitly an assertion by our City Council that the overthrow was illegal, annexation was illegal — AND a declaration of patriotic loyalty to the (allegedly) continuing independence of the Hawaiian nation. This is the kind of non-negotiable racially divisive crap that will eventually lead to violence if it is not strongly repudiated by the general public and especially by our elected representatives.
I wouldn’t put much stock in a mere resolution advanced by a feckless City Council that’s too spineless to say no to whoever pushed it on them. They could also proclaim that the official city bird is the dodo, but that won’t bring it back.
I want to share something which I believe is relevant to Mr. Lind’s article and some of the comments to that article. It’s a puzzle to me and I welcome any thoughts. Not that long ago you could go to Southern Povery Law Center and find an indepth story entitled “Hawai’i Suffering from Racial Prejudice” . This SPLC report partly highlighted Haunani K. Trask as a cause of “systemic racism” against “whites”. Even cited a poem she wrote (which depresses me to even think about). In addition SPLC had a “hate crimes” listing which included Hawai’i. I can no longer find any of this at SPLC and even the recent CB report about the 2 men who were indicted for a hate crime (beating up the man who moved into their neighborhood)…even that is not on the list (even though several people sent the report to SPLC). I have repeatedly asked SPLC why, but they have not replied. Add to that Stanford U. report about a speech Ms. Trask she made there. None of this can be found today. If anyone can access these reports please tell me how.
Thank you for inquiring about whatever happened to SPLC [and, by extension, its quarterly magazine “Intelligence Report”.]
I created a webpage in 2009 focused on two articles published in “Intelligence Report”. My webpage describes those articles and their significance; and then toward the bottom provides full text of both of those articles. As always when I copy other publications, I posted the clickable links where those 2 articles can be found in their original habitat. But when you click on those links you’ll see the SPLC articles have been purged by SPLC. I recall that a couple years ago there was some sort of internal conflict at SPLC, possibly accompanied by bankruptcy, and then SPLC’s publications took a radical turn toward the left, toward what today might be called the DEI “woke” agenda. As we know, Marxists often purge or twist history to suppress views they dislike, including things previously spoken or printed by their own institutional forebears. Thus you can no longer find what you so clearly remember; and you’re lucky they don’t stand you up in front of a wall for inquiring.
My webpage provides not only the full text of the 2 SPLC articles, but also numerous footnotes linking to several of my own webpages on specific topics, including text and links to some writings of Haunani-Kay Trask including the “poem” you mention but did not want to name because you find it unbearably racist (sort of like Colbert refuses to name former President T****. Enjoy!
Anti-Caucasian Racial Hate Crimes in Hawaii — Southern Poverty Law Center brings the issue to national awareness in a flawed but valuable Intelligence Report article.
https://www.angelfire.com/big09a/RacialHateCrimesHawSPLC.html
By the way, SPLC’s suppression of its own prior work reminded me that we have a Hawaii publication that for several years has openly engaged in prior censorship of views it dislikes. Honolulu Civil Beat has a policy whereby a chief editor (or in her absence a subordinate editor) review each and every online comment anyone tries to post, and they refuse to publish the ones they dislike. This is not about preventing foul language or criticisms of benefactor Omidyar — it’s entirely about straight-up viewpoint censorship. Over the years dozens of comments I have offered have never seen the light of day even though they are well-written in a semi-academic style (although expressed strongly) and on point. Of course as a privately-owned publication they have a right to do this. But what rankles me is that they deliberately create the impression that they are providing an open forum for discussion when in fact they are a propaganda factory for leftwing views, especially regarding Hawaiian sovereignty. I am considering creating a webpage entitled “Salon de Refuses” [Google it] to publish my rejected comments and a link to the article(s) I was trying to comment on. As an example, read the VERY lengthy article in Sunday’s Civil Beat which is Part 2 in a probably book-length series glorifying Kuhio, and here’s the short comment I tried to post early in the morning which never got published. As always, most of the comments are fawning and appreciative [the editors hope for financial donations].
—–
In this week’s lengthy installment of a multipart glorification of Kuhio, Kirstin Downey briefly says it’s untrue that Kuhio enlisted in the British army during South Africa’s Boer War. But then she admits that Kuhio actually did join side-by-side with British officers in more than 5 combat operations where Boers were killed. Downey admits Kuhio had years of military training and a long history associating with British royalty.
Let’s say that more pointedly so today’s sovereignty activists can judge whether Kuhio was the princely hero they imagine him to be. Kuhio, possible heir to Hawaii’s throne, abandoned his native land during a time of great political upheaval (annexation) and went into battle halfway around the world, fighting on the side of one White colonial power (British) against another White colonial power (Dutch) in a war to see which one would win control over the land of a poor, downtrodden dark-skinned indigenous population in Africa.