Reinstatement Chronology

Rein­state. To rein­stall; to reestab­lish; to place again in a for­mer state,… Black’s Law Dictionary

Whereas the King­dom of Hawai’i, hav­ing been in exile for one-hundred seven years due to an unlaw­ful over­throw of its gov­ern­ment de jure, has exer­cised per­fect right to reestab­lish its proper sta­tion as an inde­pen­dent nation within the com­mu­nity of nations.
—The Pre­am­ble of the Amended Hawai­ian Con­sti­tu­tion of 2000

Hawai’i was an inde­pen­dent nation that had diplo­matic and com­mer­cial ties with coun­tries around the world prior to its unlaw­ful coup d’état in 1893 and sub­se­quent annex­a­tion by the United States in 1898.

Hawai’i will be an inde­pen­dent nation again. Very soon.

The law­ful gov­ern­ment of Hawai’i was never destroyed. It was never for­mally dis­solved in an offi­cial act of law.

Queen Lili’uokalani — the con­sti­tu­tional monarch of Hawai’i at the time of the over­throw — never con­sented to the occu­pa­tion of the United States. Her sub­jects never con­sented to for­eign rule.

The law­ful Hawai­ian Gov­ern­ment remained in a state of exile Until March 13, 1999, when a gov­ern­ment pro tem was estab­lished in accor­dance with pub­lic inter­na­tional law and Hawai­ian King­dom Domes­tic Law. This re-established gov­ern­ment ful­filled the posi­tion of oblig­a­tion taken by the United States of Amer­ica in U.S. Pub­lic Law 103 – 150.

This tem­po­rary gov­ern­ment had one pur­pose: REINSTATE THE LAWFUL KINGDOM OF HAWAI’I.

Notices were sent to over half of the worlds nations pro­claim­ing Hawai’i’s intent to rein­state its gov­ern­ment de jure.

A cit­i­zen­ship drive was con­ducted amongst all the res­i­dents of the Hawai­ian Islands in order to iden­tify a dis­tinct pop­u­la­tion. The vot­ing dis­tricts of the King­dom of Hawai’i were rein­sti­tuted and the eli­gi­ble vot­ers elected a leg­is­la­ture on Novem­ber 6, 1999.

In March of 2000, this leg­is­la­ture amended the Hawai­ian King­dom Con­sti­tu­tion that was left in sus­pen­sion for the last 107 years. The cit­i­zens rat­i­fied this amended con­sti­tu­tion in a plebescite on April 29^th, 2000.

With a rat­i­fied con­sti­tu­tion in place, the Gov­ern­ment of Hawaii is operational.

The rat­i­fi­ca­tion of the Amended Hawai­ian Con­sti­tu­tion of 2000, it was decided, would not be done solely by the Leg­is­la­ture of Hawai’i. It was agreed that the Con­sti­tu­tion would be rat­i­fied directly by the cit­i­zens in a plebescite vote.

On Sat­ur­day, April 29^th, the Rat­i­fi­ca­tion Vote of 2000 was held in every dis­trict of the Hawai­ian Islands. A win­ning major­ity needs two-thirds of the total num­ber of vot­ing dis­tricts. That would cur­rently require no less than six­teen districts.

The Amended Hawai­ian Con­sti­tu­tion of 2000 was passed with a major­ity of twenty dis­tricts in favor of rat­i­fi­ca­tion and four dis­tricts against.

With an approved con­sti­tu­tion, the peo­ple of the nation known as Hawai’i are now in the process of ful­fill­ing the laws within it. The first pri­or­ity was to com­plete the other two branches of government.

Appli­ca­tions to the Office of the Prime Min­is­ter were con­sid­ered. All appli­cants to the office were required to appear before a review com­mit­tee estab­lished by the leg­is­la­ture to deter­mine if they met the nec­es­sary qual­i­fi­ca­tions. One per­son emerged with the con­fi­dence of the com­mit­tee. The find­ings of the com­mit­tee were for­warded to the full legislature.

On June 17, 2000, the leg­is­la­ture declared Henry Noa the uncon­tested win­ner and was sworn in as the Prime Min­is­ter of the King­dom of Hawai’i. On July 23, 2000 the Prime Min­is­ter appointed indi­vid­u­als to his Exec­u­tive Cabinet.

The imme­di­ate goal of this re-emerging gov­ern­ment is to notify the gen­eral pub­lic of its intent to exer­cise its rights. To this end, sev­eral three-day long Nation­wide Demon­stra­tions have been con­ducted simul­ta­ne­ously on the five major Hawai­ian Islands in Octo­ber & Novem­ber of 2000 and in Jan­u­ary and March of 2001.

In May of 2001, five offi­cers of the Rein­stated Hawai­ian Gov­ern­ment attended the week-long Asian Devel­op­ment Bank­ing Con­fer­ence held in Hon­olulu. Their objec­tive was to inform the del­e­gates of the 53 mem­ber nations of the national rein­state­ment process under­way in Hawai’i.

In August 2001, the national leg­is­la­ture of the Rein­stated Hawai­ian Nation passed the RECLAMATION NOTICE, which for­mally lays claim to all land and per­sonal prop­erty pos­sessed by the nation prior to its over­throw in 1893. This res­o­lu­tion was reprinted in its entirety in the Sep­tem­ber 9, 2001 Sun­day edi­tion of the Hon­olulu Adver­tiser, for­mally noti­fy­ing the gen­eral pub­lic that the Rein­stated Hawai­ian Gov­ern­ment is the true and right­ful own­ers of the national lands of the Hawai­ian archipelago.

To fur­ther demon­strate the con­se­quences of this his­toric res­o­lu­tion, a Vigil for Jus­tice and Peace was held from Novem­ber 2 to Novem­ber 9, 2001. Six­teen sights were erected on state and county prop­er­ties through­out the island chain with­out any per­mits. The vigil was con­ducted peace­ably for the entire week. Since then, more vig­ils have occurred on a monthly basis. These vig­ils have gained the atten­tion of the local media and inter­na­tional human rights advocates.

On August 31, 2003, the Rein­stated Hawai­ian King­dom pub­licly pub­lished its for­mal NOTICE OF INITIATING THE TRANSITION OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY and juris­dic­tion from the United States. Appear­ing in the news­pa­per with the largest cir­cu­la­tion in the Hawai­ian Islands, it warned that all acts of aggres­sion done against it would be con­sid­ered vio­la­tions of inter­na­tional law in accor­dance with the Uni­ver­sal Dec­la­ra­tion of Human Rights.

With the for­mal release of this pub­lic notice, the stage is finally set to exer­cise per­sonal rights reserved to our cit­i­zens as autho­rized by our government.

The world will wit­ness the re-emergence of this sov­er­eign nation.

Jus­ti­fi­ca­tion in Law

The Truth. And its appli­ca­tions in law.

God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth in unity and blessed­ness.
—the first line of The Dec­la­ra­tion of Rights, Both of the Peo­ple and Chiefs (1839), regarded as the Hawai­ian equiv­a­lent to England’s Magna Carta

Hawai’i was, by right and def­i­n­i­tion, an inde­pen­dent nation. To under­stand the appli­ca­tion of laws that obliges the U.S. and the coun­tries of the world to observe the emer­gence of Hawai­ian nation­hood, there are points in fact and points in law that must be acknowl­edged first.

Major Events in the Polit­i­cal His­tory of Hawai’i

On Octo­ber 8, 1840, King Kame­hameha III autho­rized the Hawai­ian King­dom Con­sti­tu­tion, which described the shar­ing of gov­ern­men­tal power between the monarch and the par­lia­ment. This doc­u­ment marked Hawai’i’s depar­ture from absolute monar­chism. The Con­sti­tu­tion demon­strated the King’s com­mit­ment to domes­tic wel­fare and adher­ence to the law of nations.

In Jan­u­ary of 1893, before Queen Lili’uokalani could insti­tute a revised con­sti­tu­tion with more demo­c­ra­tic reforms (i.e., allow­ing all sub­jects the right to vote, as opposed to just male landown­ers), the law­ful gov­ern­ment of Hawai’i was over­thrown in a coup d’état devised by a group of wealthy landown­ers advo­cat­ing annex­a­tion to the United States. They were aided in this stroke of state by the U.S. for­eign min­is­ter to Hawai’i and a detach­ment of U.S. Marines.

Demand­ing rem­edy for this unlaw­ful act, Queen Lili’uokalani sent her for­mal let­ter of protest to U.S. Pres­i­dent Grover Cleve­land. While Cleve­land did insist on the rein­state­ment of Hawai’i’s law­ful gov­ern­ment, the annex­a­tion­ists’ friends in the U.S. Con­gress waited for a pres­i­dent sym­pa­thic to their agenda. They got their wish with the 1896 elec­tion of William McKinley.

The annex­a­tion­ists installed their gov­ern­ment de facto, renamed the nation the Repub­lic of Hawai’i, then con­veyed the islands to the United States on August 12, 1898. All Hawai­ian sub­jects — both kanaka maoli (per­sons of abo­rig­i­nal Hawai­ian ances­try) and kanaka ‘e (those of for­eign eth­nic­ity) — were col­lec­tively nat­u­ral­ized as U.S. nation­als on that day.

Ele­ments of a Nation

There are four con­di­tions to qual­ify as a nation: Ter­ri­tory, Pop­u­la­tion, Sov­er­eignty, and Gov­ern­ment. These are accepted stan­dards that are artic­u­lated in pub­lic inter­na­tional law. Before it was annexed to the United States, the King­dom of Hawai’i ful­filled these qualifications.

With­out a doc­u­ment from the law­ful Hawai­ian Gov­ern­ment con­sent­ing to U.S. occu­pa­tion, the ces­sion of the Hawai­ian Islands to the United States depended on the removal or obfus­ca­tion of these four con­di­tions of nationhood.

GOVERNMENT was the first to be sus­pended: the monarch was removed and the par­lia­ment emp­tied. This sep­a­rated the cit­i­zenry from their elected rep­re­sen­ta­tives and impaired their abil­ity to exer­cise their polit­i­cal author­ity — their SOVEREIGNTY. The absence of a chief exec­u­tive and a leg­isla­tive body made it pos­si­ble for the gov­ern­ment of the annex­a­tion­ists to con­vey con­trol of the islands to Amer­ica, thereby reclas­si­fy­ing the entire Hawai­ian POPULATION as U.S. nationals.

It is the uncon­firmed sta­tus of the final con­di­tion — TERRITORY — that revealed the imper­fect claim the United States has on the Hawai­ian Islands.

And it was shown for all the world to see in 1993.

The Queen’s Protest Let­ter and the U.S. Apol­ogy Resolution

The 1893 Protest Let­ter of Queen Lili’uokalani is an appli­ca­tion in inter­na­tional law. In the let­ter, she pro­claims her “protest against any and all acts done against myself and the Con­sti­tu­tional Gov­ern­ment of the Hawai­ian King­dom…” Fur­ther in this doc­u­ment, she demands the undo­ing of the wrong­ful actions of the United States. Amaz­ingly, the guilty party — the U.S. Con­gress — responded to this law application.

A cen­tury later, U.S. Sen­a­tor Daniel Akaka includes the Queen’s Protest Let­ter in a res­o­lu­tion he intro­duces to Con­gress. Either by acci­dent or by design, his “Apol­ogy Res­o­lu­tion” exposes the truth of who law­fully pos­sesses Hawai’i.

On Novem­ber 23, 1993, this joint res­o­lu­tion is signed by U.S. Pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton. For­mally known as U.S. Pub­lic Law 103 – 150, it acknowl­edges the over­throw of the King­dom of Hawai’i and apol­o­gizes to Native Hawai­ians for the United States’ par­tic­i­pa­tion in the over­throw. A joint res­o­lu­tion adopted by both houses of Con­gress and signed by the Pres­i­dent has the effect of a law.

And as law doc­u­ments go, this is a signed con­fes­sion. Within its text is this admission:

…the indige­nous Hawai­ian peo­ple never directly relin­quished their claims to their inher­ent sov­er­eignty as a peo­ple or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monar­chy or through a plebiscite or referendum;

Why would Con­gress allow such a state­ment into United States Pub­lic Law? To dis­tin­guish its lia­bil­ity. The U.S. gov­ern­ment knows that it does not law­fully pos­sess the Hawai­ian Islands. The gov­ern­ments of the United States and the State of Hawai’i pre­side in the islands in the absence of the gov­ern­ment de jure. The U.S. also knows that if the law­ful gov­ern­ment does not step for­ward to answer this apol­ogy, it can con­tinue to legally claim domin­ion over Hawai’i.

In order to show the world that it is com­ply­ing with the prin­ci­ples of inter­na­tional law, the United States was required only to offer a means of rec­on­cil­i­a­tion. But the U.S. is nei­ther obliged to rebuild the law­ful gov­ern­ment nor is it respon­si­ble to show the Hawai­ian peo­ple how to do it. That is the job of the kanaka maoli.

It was the bur­den of the kanaka maoli to rebuild the gov­ern­ment that could answer the apol­ogy and keep the United States in com­pli­ance with the terms of inter­na­tional law. The three branches of gov­ern­ment were erected, a dis­tinct pop­u­la­tion was iden­ti­fied, and the inher­ent sov­er­eignty would be restored.

This was no sim­ple task. It has taken four years.

Efforts toward man­i­fest­ing this author­ity began on June 8, 1996.

Man­i­fes­ta­tion of Authority

Build­ing a nation. One step at a time.

Proof can be had from the works on the nat­ural law that lib­erty and inde­pen­dence belong to man by his very nature, and that they can not be taken from him with­out his consent…But the whole body of the Nation, the State, so long as it has not vol­un­tar­ily sub­mit­ted to other men or other Nations, remains absolutely free and inde­pen­dent.
—The Law of Nations (1758)

Hav­ing learned the hid­den sig­nif­i­cance of the U.S. Apol­ogy Res­o­lu­tion, KAONA — an affil­i­a­tion of pri­vate cit­i­zens ded­i­cated to teach­ing all laws rel­e­vant to nation­hood — was cre­ated in June of 1996. Its pri­mary goal was to edu­cate the pub­lic to a process described in pub­lic inter­na­tional law used to restore nations which have suf­fered from for­eign inva­sion and conquest.

The mem­bers of KAONA gave pre­sen­ta­tions in every dis­trict of Hawai’i. The process they advo­cated was described in The Law of Nations, a text on inter­na­tional jurispru­dence. This book was used by the framers of the Amer­i­can Con­sti­tu­tion dur­ing its com­po­si­tion. The mis­sion­ary William Richards taught the law of nations to King Kame­hameha the Third in 1839. KAONA would teach these laws to all who attended their presentations.

Fore­most among these prin­ci­ples was that all nations — like peo­ple — enjoy and exer­cise rights, and are bound to observe the oblig­a­tions cor­re­spond­ing to such rights. Specif­i­cally, a nation has an oblig­a­tion to pre­serve and per­fect its own exis­tence and must exer­cise rights to that end. In order to revive the author­ity that lay sus­pended for more than a cen­tury, the descen­dants of the founders of the King­dom of Hawai’i had to reclaim the proper sta­tus of nationhood.

Indi­vid­ual kanaka maoli came from every island to par­tic­i­pate in a series of con­ven­tions ded­i­cated to rais­ing a gov­ern­ment iden­ti­cal to the one over­thrown. It was hoped that enough peo­ple would vol­un­teer to tem­porar­ily occupy the high offices of the leg­isla­tive, exec­u­tive and judi­cial branches.

This would accom­plish two objec­tives: con­firm the sta­tus of being the proper claimant to nation­hood, and lay the ground­work to nat­u­ral­ize all those who were will­ing to become citizens.

Reviv­ing the GOVERNMENT

On March 13, 1999, del­e­gates rep­re­sent­ing all twenty-four dis­tricts of the King­dom of Hawai’i attended a con­ven­tion in Punalu’u, a com­mu­nity on the north­ern side of the island of O’ahu. Twenty-four kanaka maoli vol­un­teered to serve as their dis­tricts’ rep­re­sen­ta­tives in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives pro tem. Another twenty-four vol­un­teered to serve in the House of Nobles pro tem, com­plet­ing the bicam­eral par­lia­ment of the Hawai­ian government.

In accor­dance with the Hawai­ian King­dom Con­sti­tu­tion, this leg­is­la­ture elected a monarch pro tem who, in turn, appointed indi­vid­u­als to the Exec­u­tive Cab­i­net pro tem and the Supreme Court pro tem.

With this tem­po­rary gov­ern­ment of vol­un­teers in place, these fifty-six offi­cers for­mally agreed to not exer­cise any of the pow­ers of their offices. Their sole respon­si­bil­ity was to sign up all those res­i­dents of Hawai’i who were will­ing to aban­don their cur­rent nation­al­ity and become cit­i­zens of the King­dom of Hawai’i.

Iden­ti­fy­ing the POPULATION

Another law prin­ci­ple states that cit­i­zen­ship is based on alle­giance, not race. Hawai’i is a land of many eth­nic­i­ties. The pro tem gov­ern­ment decided that the offer to become a cit­i­zen would be extended not only to kanaka maoli, but also to Hawai­ians (all those res­i­dents born in Hawai’i not of abo­rig­i­nal Hawai­ian ances­try) and to for­eign­ers (all those res­i­dents born else­where not of abo­rig­i­nal Hawai­ian ancestry).

Through­out the year, the pro tem offi­cers con­ducted a pub­lic­ity cam­paign for this rein­state­ment ini­tia­tive. Ads were placed in the clas­si­fied and pub­lic notice sec­tions of each island’s news­pa­pers. Infor­ma­tional pam­phlets with con­tact num­bers were dis­trib­uted to the gen­eral pop­u­lace. Two or three times a week, the pro tem offi­cers and other vol­un­teers waved signs at busy inter­sec­tions in their home towns dur­ing peak traf­fic times.

Reg­is­tra­tion booths were set up in pub­lic places so that all who were ready to com­mit could apply to this process. Since they had the inher­ent right to return to their nation, the kanaka maoli who signed up com­pleted Appli­ca­tions of Repa­tri­a­tion. Those Hawai­ians and for­eign­ers who chose to com­mit their loy­alty to this process com­pleted Appli­ca­tions of

Nat­u­ral­iza­tion. Copies of these appli­ca­tions were then sent to U.S. Sec­re­tary of State Madeleine Albright.

The eli­gi­ble vot­ers result­ing from this cit­i­zen­ship drive were qual­i­fied to cast bal­lots in the first par­lia­men­tary elec­tion of the King­dom of Hawai’i in over a cen­tury. Affi­davits of Can­di­dacy to the Office of Rep­re­sen­ta­tive or the Office of Noble were made avail­able to all those who were inter­ested in serv­ing as a leg­is­la­tor. The dead­line to par­tic­i­pate in this elec­tion as a voter and/or a can­di­date was Sat­ur­day, Octo­ber 30, 1999.

Exer­cis­ing the SOVEREIGNTY

On Sat­ur­day, Novem­ber 6, 1999, all twenty-four vot­ing dis­tricts selected the indi­vid­ual they wanted to serve them in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives. The vot­ers of each island also selected those indi­vid­u­als who would serve them in the at-large seats of the House of Nobles. The elec­tion of these forty-eight leg­is­la­tors marked the return of the leg­isla­tive branch of the true and right­ful gov­ern­ment of Hawai’i.

Among the res­o­lu­tions passed by the tem­po­rary gov­ern­ment was the sus­pen­sion of the offices of the exec­u­tive and judi­cial branches upon the eve of the par­lia­men­tary elec­tion. Unlike the March 13^th con­ven­tion, the elected leg­is­la­ture would not imme­di­ately rein­state the exec­u­tive branch by installing a monarch. It became their duty to deter­mine what form of gov­ern­ment the cit­i­zens wanted: con­sti­tu­tional monar­chy or par­lia­men­tary democracy.

The leg­is­la­tors’ and cit­i­zens’ pri­mary respon­si­bil­ity was to address this con­cern by updat­ing the Hawai­ian King­dom Con­sti­tu­tion for the first time in 113 years.

Gov­ern­ment De Jure

Pre­served in law by our ancestors.

Per­fect­ing itself for our descendents.

Whereas the King­dom of Hawai’i, hav­ing been in exile for one-hundred seven years due to an unlaw­ful over­throw of its gov­ern­ment de jure, has exer­cised per­fect right to reestab­lish its proper sta­tion as an inde­pen­dent nation within the com­mu­nity of nations.
—The Pre­am­ble of the Hawai­ian Con­sti­tu­tion of 2000

Revis­ing the Constitution

On Jan­u­ary 15, 2000, the elected leg­is­la­ture of the King­dom of Hawai’i con­vened for the first time in 107 years in Ana­hola, a com­mu­nity on the island of Kaua’i. The leg­is­la­tors of the tem­po­rary gov­ern­ment vacated their offices and wit­nessed the swearing-in of their elected successors.

The objec­tive of this con­ven­tion was to retrieve the nation’s con­sti­tu­tion from sus­pen­sion and update it for the twenty-first cen­tury. Last amended in 1887, the Hawai­ian King­dom Con­sti­tu­tion con­sisted of eighty-two arti­cles which described the func­tions and pow­ers of the monarch, the par­lia­ment and the courts of record; as well as the nat­ural, polit­i­cal and civil laws enjoyed by the cit­i­zenry. Con­sol­i­dat­ing the 82 arti­cles into ten arti­cles of related sub­ject mat­ter, a draft con­sti­tu­tion was adopted. The leg­is­la­tors were respon­si­ble for dis­trib­ut­ing copies of the draft to the cit­i­zens for their review and input. Before recess­ing, the leg­is­la­ture agreed to recon­vene at a con­sti­tu­tional con­ven­tion on March 10, 11 & 12, 2000 in Waimea, a town on the big island of Hawai’i.

In prepar­ing for this con­sti­tu­tional con­ven­tion, a pro­to­col was fol­lowed that allowed the indi­vid­ual cit­i­zen to sub­mit draft leg­is­la­tion for con­sid­er­a­tion at three suc­ces­sive lev­els: first, review within the dis­trict; then, review amongst all dis­tricts of the island; and finally, review by the entire leg­is­la­ture. A dead­line for sub­mit­ting amend­ments was set, copies of the amend­ments from those islands that met the dead­line were made, and each leg­is­la­tor received their copies upon arriv­ing at the convention.

The leg­is­la­ture spent the entire con­ven­tion exam­in­ing and re-examining the draft con­sti­tu­tion and every sub­mit­ted amend­ment. After much debate, a con­sti­tu­tion with lan­guage sat­is­fac­tory to the leg­is­la­ture was agreed upon. Among the fea­tures intro­duced into the con­sti­tu­tion were:

• Mak­ing the Office of the Monarch cer­e­mo­nial, with the monarch serv­ing as a national symbol
• Estab­lish­ing an Office of the Prime Minister
• Allow­ing the cit­i­zens — rather than the leg­is­la­ture — to elect the Prime Minister
• Insert­ing direct democ­racy into the leg­isla­tive pro­ce­dure of pass­ing laws of the land
• Extend­ing the right to vote to women
• Extend­ing the right to vote to indi­vid­ual cit­i­zens who are not landowners
• Remov­ing the monarch’s Privy Coun­cil, but retain­ing the Exec­u­tive Cab­i­net Ministers
• Reserv­ing the right to retrieve the Kingdom’s pub­lic laws placed into sus­pen­sion 107 years ago
• For­mally nam­ing the leg­is­la­ture the Mana Kau Kanawai (“the body empow­ered to make laws”)
• Refer­ring to the nation as “Hawai’i”
• Reserv­ing the abil­ity to intro­duce and rat­ify addi­tional amend­ments to the constitution

Copies of this final draft were sup­plied to each leg­is­la­tor for dis­tri­b­u­tion to the cit­i­zens. The rat­i­fi­ca­tion of this con­sti­tu­tion would not be done solely by the Leg­is­la­ture. It was agreed that the Amended Hawai­ian Con­sti­tu­tion of 2000 would be rat­i­fied by the cit­i­zens in a plebescite vote.

On Sat­ur­day, April 29^th, the Rat­i­fi­ca­tion Vote of 2000 was held in every dis­trict of the Hawai­ian Islands.

A win­ning major­ity needs two-thirds of the total num­ber of vot­ing dis­tricts. That would cur­rently require no less than six­teen districts.

The Amended Hawai­ian Con­sti­tu­tion of 2000 was passed with a major­ity of twenty dis­tricts in favor of rat­i­fi­ca­tion and four dis­tricts against.

With an approved con­sti­tu­tion, the peo­ple of the nation known as Hawai’i are now in the process of ful­fill­ing the laws within it. The first pri­or­ity was to com­plete the other two branches of government.

Appli­ca­tions to the Office of the Prime Min­is­ter were con­sid­ered. All appli­cants to the office were required to appear before a review com­mit­tee estab­lished by the leg­is­la­ture to deter­mine if they met the nec­es­sary qual­i­fi­ca­tions. One per­son emerged with the con­fi­dence of the com­mit­tee. The find­ings of the com­mit­tee were for­warded to the full legislature.

On June 17, 2000, the leg­is­la­ture declared the uncon­tested win­ner and sworn him in as the Prime Min­is­ter of the King­dom of Hawai’i. On July 23, 2000 the Prime Min­is­ter appointed indi­vid­u­als to his Exec­u­tive Cabinet.

The process of ful­fill­ing the laws of the Hawai­ian Con­sti­tu­tion continues.