Proclamation: Declaration of Rights

Proclamation: Declaration of Rights

Written by:  Edmund Keli'i Silva, Jr

As I continue to unfold my destiny to restore the Kingdom of Hawai'i,  I am receiving input from the people.  In a recent survey of those who support the restoration of the Kingdom,  one question asked what concerns people had about the restoration.  One of the highest percentage choices - at 50% - was retaliation by the United States.

The level of this concern is a sad commentary on the reputation of the United States.  The concern is,  unfortunately, based on historical behavior towards political movements, individuals,  and foreign nations pursuing policies or goals contrary to what the United States defined as in the highest interest of the United States.

The Kingdom restoration movement is actually an opportunity for the United States to correct a historical injustice and improve their reputation.  There are those within the United States who understand and support that goal.  There are others who care not about their country's reputation and willingly pursue policies and practices that will only bring further disrepute upon their nation.

The survey concern and recent activities suggested the need for a clear statement about the rights of those pursuing restoration of the Kingdom.  all of the discussion below applies at both the individual level and the organizational level.  Actions taken to intimidate me or otherwise interfere with my exercising my function as King fall within the prohibited actions.

Many of you understand that the restoration of the Kingdom is a spiritual imperative carrying the potential for healing the Human Family and restoring harmony between the Human Family and the rest of the Natural World.  This statement will address the more mundane aspects of the restoration effort.

First and foremost,  by definition,  the movement to restore the Kingdom of Hawai'i movement is a political movement.

Many of the activities of this movement are carried out in the islands of Hawai'i, where the United States occupation continues and where the United States laws regulate the activities of the occupying power.

In this instance,  the most important regulatory provision is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  That amendment guarantees certain rights critical to any political movement to restore the Kingdom of Hawai'i.

Today,  speech has taken on many forms,  such as websites, blogs,  and social media that complement the traditional newspapers,  magazines,  and other such publications.  All of these media are protected under the First Amendment.

A recent United states Supreme Court decision extended First Amendment rights to corporations based on the court's finding that corporations are people for purposes of applying First Amendment protections.  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 588 U.S. 310 (2010).  This decision found limits on corporate contributions to political candidates to be an unconstitutional infringement on free speech,  equating money with speech.

This decision is applicable to those who contribute or consider contributing funds to the Kingdom restoration movement.  If money is speech,  then contributing money to a political movement is political speech.  Interfering with the ability of a political movement to receive funding would be a violation of the constitutional rights of both the movement and the donor.

Such interference can take the form of attempts to intimidate contributors,  attempts to intimidate financial institutions receiving and disbursing funds, and abusing official authority to prevent the movement from receiving funds.  Such interference can also take the form of asserting requirements that are not based in law.

To be specific on that last point,  the Patriot Act may apply to determining the bona fides of large contributions to the restoration effort.  Once the bona fides of the funds is established,  the provisions of that act cannot be used to prevent contributions to our movement from being made or received because the movement is not engages in any activities that violate that Act.

The goal of the restoration movement is the peaceful termination of the United States occupation of the Hawaiian Islands.  That goal is not the overthrow of the United States government.  Nor is it an attempt to secede from the United States.  Just as Poland regained its independence after World War II,  the Kingdom seeks nothing more than its rightful restoration to the community of independent nations.

The legitimacy of the restoration movement is confirmed by the Apology Resolution,  United States Public Law 103-150;  by the United states Congress considering partial restoration of the Kingdom through what was known as the Akaka Bill;  through enactments of the State of Hawai'i Legislature,  and numerous books and other publications discussing the history of the illegal overthrow and annexation of the Hawaiian Islands.  This movement began the day Queen Lili'uokalani was overthrown and continues today.

The restoration movement is further protected under the freedom of speech provision because the United states Supreme Court interpreted that amendment to include the freedom of association.  NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).  The Court specifically recognized that to make speech effective could require joining with others.  Those seeking restoration of the Kingdom of Hawai'i government have a constitutionally-protected right to join together for that purpose.

The First Amendment also protects the right of assembly.  Any actions taken to interfere with or otherwise disrupt gatherings seeking to further the restoration work would violate that provision of the United States Bill of Rights.

The protected nature of the Kingdom restoration movement,  whether we are discussing speech,  contributions,  association,  or assembly,  is quite clear and unambiguous.

There is further protection provided by United states laws.  For example,  title 18, U.S.C.,  Section 241,  Conspiracy Against Rights, makes it a crime to  "conspire to injure,  oppress,  threaten,  or intimidate any person of any state,  territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States,  (or because of his/her having exercised the same)."

Such protection is specifically applicable to actions by officers of the government.  Title 18,  U.S.C.,  Section 242,  Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law  ("This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute,  ordinance, regulation,  or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges,  or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United states.")  This same law applies broadly.

"Acts under 'color of any law'  include acts not only done by federal, state,  or local officials within the bounds of their lawful authority;  provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under  'color of any law,'  the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting of pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties."

I understand that there are elements within the United states government for whom the Constitution and laws are merely a façade behind which terrible and illegal acts are carried out.  I can only trust that those who do value that the rights of the movement to restore the Kingdom of Hawai'i are in no way abridged.

I am communicating the above reminder to those in the highest positions of the United States government,  to our supporters,  and to other interested parties domestically and internationally.

O wau ka i ho'opale i ka pono,

Edmund K. Silva, Jr

Written on January 11, 2013

Stamped with the Royal Seal

Kingdom of Hawai'i