Alii

Nui Mi (High Chief/King) Edmund Kelii Silva, Jr.

c/o Alii Manao Nui (Chief Advocate) Lanny Sinkin
P. O. Box 944
Hilo, Hawaii 96721
(808) 936-4428
lanny.sinkin@gmail.com

MI (THE CROWN) BY APPEARANCE

OF ALII MANAO NUI (CHIEF ADVOCATE)

KINGDOM OF HAWAII
IN THE SUPREME COURT

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS

Edmund Kelii Silva, Jr., Alii Nui Mi (High Chief/King) and Petitioner herein, seeks
declaratory judgments from this Supreme Court on factual and legal issues related
to the April 2, 2015 arrest by the United States of America, by and through, the State
of Hawaii and County of Hawaii, of people taking action to prevent the construction
of the Thirty Meter Telescope on the sacred mountain Mauna a Wakea (hereinafter
Protectors.

Because the United States of America arrests and prosecution of the Protectors in
the United States of America court(s) may lead to rulings that infringe on the rights
of the Crown, the Kingdom, the Subjects of the Kingdom, the participants in the
Hawaiian Independence Movement, and other Hawaiian Nationals, Petitioner seeks
the following declaratory judgments from this Honorable Supreme Court:

Declaratory Judgment 1: The Committee of Safety seizure of the Queen in 1893
constituted high treason against the Kingdom.

Declaratory Judgment 2: The attempted overthrow of the Kingdom Government
would not have succeeded had it not been for United States support of the
treasonous attempt.

Declaratory Judgment 3: Queen Liliuokalanis protest of the overthrow reserved all
rights belonging to the Crown, the Kingdom Government, and the subjects of the
Kingdom.

Declaratory Judgment 4: The actions of the United States Minister in supporting the
plan by the Committee of Safety to seize the Queen and annex the Kingdom to the
United States constituted acts of war in violation of the United States Treaty with the
Hawaiian Islands dated December 20, 1849.

Declaratory Judgment 5: The United States Ministers support of the Committee of

Safetys plan to seize the Queen and annex the Kingdom to the United States made
the United States Minister a co-conspirator with the traitors.

Declaratory Judgment 6: The Provisional Government had no legitimacy.

Declaratory Judgment 7: The United States Ministers recognition of the Provisional
Government formed by the traitors constituted another act of war in violation of the
United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands dated December 20, 1849.

Declaratory Judgment 8: The United States Ministers recognition of the Provisional
Government continued the Ministers participation in the conspiracy of traitors.

Declaratory Judgment 9: Had the United States Minister denied recognition to the
Provisional Government, it is reasonable to conclude that no other nation would
have recognized the Provisional Government.

Declaratory Judgment 10: The failure of the United States Government to take
effective steps to restore the Queen to her throne violated the United States Treaty
with the Hawaiian Islands dated December 20, 1849.

Declaratory Judgment 11: Had the United States restored the Queen to her throne,
the Ministers recognition of the Provisional Government would have been nullified.

Declaratory Judgment 12: Had the United States nullified its recognition of the
Provisional Government, it is reasonable to conclude that other nations recognizing
the Provisional Government would have withdrawn such recognition.

Declaratory Judgment 13: The United States recognition of the Republic of Hawaii
violated the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands dated December 20,
1849.

Declaratory Judgment 14: The first attempt to annex the Kingdom to the United
States failed.

Declaratory Judgment 15: The Republic of Hawaii had no authority to propose
annexation of the Kingdom to the United States.

Proposed Declaratory Judgment 16: The Treaty of Annexation submitted to the
United States by the Republic of Hawaii Senate failed to achieve ratification.

Declaratory Judgment 17: The United States Joint Resolution seeking to annex the
Kingdom to the United States had no legal effect.

Declaratory Judgment 18: The United States attempts to annex the Kingdom of
Hawaii failed because those efforts perpetuated a crime.


Declaratory Judgment 19: The attempted transfer of Kingdom lands from the
Republic to the United States had no legal effect.

Declaratory Judgment 20: The United State placement of the Hawaiian Islands on
the United Nations list of non-self governing territories confirmed that annexation
never took place.

Declaratory Judgment 21: The United States plebiscite on Statehood failed to be
performed in a legally effective manner.

Declaratory Judgment 22: The Admission Act making Hawaii a State within the
United States Union is simply one more act in furtherance of the conspiracy to
extinguish the Kingdom and seize its lands.

Declaratory Judgment 23: The United States representation to the United Nations
that the Statehood Plebiscite served as a basis for removing the Hawaiian Islands
from the United Nations list of non-self governing territories constituted a fraud
upon the United Nations.

Declaratory Judgment 24: Given that the United States never effectively annexed
the Kingdom of Hawaii, the Kingdom still exists.

Declaratory Judgment 25: Given that the United States never effectively annexed
the Kingdom of Hawaii, the joint resolution attempting annexations section
abrogating the treaties of the Kingdom was similarly ineffective.

Declaratory Judgment 26: The United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands dated
December 20, 1849 is still in effect.

Declaratory Judgment 27: Given that the Treaty is still in existence the appropriate
relationship between the Kingdom and the United States today is sovereign to
sovereign.

Declaratory Judgment 28: The lands of Mauna a Wakea belong to the Crown.

Declaratory Judgment 29: The telescopes on Mauna a Wakea represent a long
history of trespass onto Crown lands.

Declaratory Judgment 30: The Thirty Meter Telescope would be an additional
trespass.

Declaratory Judgment 31. The Thirty Meter Telescope also represents a significant
threat to the ecological systems on the Mountain.

Declaratory Judgment 32: The traditional faith of the Hawaiian people is still
practiced.

Declaratory Judgment 33: The mountaintop of Mauna a Wakea is a protected area
within the traditional faith of the Hawaiian people.

Declaratory Judgment 34: The construction of telescopes on Mauna a Wakea is a
desecration of a sacred site.

Declaratory Judgment 35: The Thirty Meter Telescope would be an additional act of
desecration.
Declaratory Judgment 36: The United States extraterritorial arrest of a Kingdom
subject, exercising her ri6ht to practice her faith by protecting a site sacred to her
faith, violated Article XI of the United States Treaty with the Hawaiian Islands dated
December 20, 1849.
Declaratory Judgment 37: Citizens of the Kingdom, acting on behalf of the Crown,
have an obligation and civic duty to prevent ecological harm and desecration of
sacred sites.

Declaratory Judgment 38: In the absence of a restored law enforcement capacity
within the Kingdom, the responsibility to enforce the law devolves upon the citizens.

Based on those declaratory judgments, the Petitioner seeks the following

Conclusion of Law 1: Subjects of the Kingdom acting to prevent the construction of
the Thirty Meter Telescope by peaceful resistance are fulfilling their obligation as
citizens of the Kingdom.

Conclusion of Law 2: In the absence of Kingdom law enforcement capacity, subjects
of the Kingdom acting to prevent the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope are
acting out of necessity.





Respectfully submitted,






_____________________________________________




Alii Manao Nui Lanny Sinkin




Chief Advocate for the Crown and Kingdom





Appearing for Alii Nui Moi Edmund Kelii Silva, Jr.

Dated: May 18, 2015