{"id":11826,"date":"2019-08-21T12:07:57","date_gmt":"2019-08-21T12:07:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/disruptarian.com\/blog\/does-david-keanu-sai-have-diplomatic-immunity-in-all-of-his-recent-fraud-allegations\/"},"modified":"2019-08-21T12:07:57","modified_gmt":"2019-08-21T12:07:57","slug":"does-david-keanu-sai-have-diplomatic-immunity-in-all-of-his-recent-fraud-allegations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/disruptarian.com\/blog\/does-david-keanu-sai-have-diplomatic-immunity-in-all-of-his-recent-fraud-allegations\/","title":{"rendered":"Does David Keanu Sai have “Diplomatic Immunity” in all of his recent fraud allegations?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Keanu Sai claimed \u201cdiplomatic immunity\u201d shielded him from fraud allegations<\/h1>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

In a recent case, subsequent to the case where David Keanu Sai was found guilty of a second-degree felony in 1999\r\n \r\n <\/g><\/svg><\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"David

David Sai Perfect Title<\/p><\/div>\n

The Office of Consumer Protection is very clear on his claim to “Diplomatic Immunity”.<\/p>\n

The consumer protection agency, in response, called Sai\u2019s claim to diplomatic immunity \u201cludicrous\u201d and \u201cwithout merit.\u201d The agency then addressed the issue point by point.<\/p>\n

The common law doctrine of head-of-state immunity is available where the United States government has officially recognized (i) the legitimacy of a foreign government, (ii) a particular individual\u2019s authority to serve in a representative capacity of that government, and (iii) the individual is not engaging in conduct excepted from immunity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the agency\u2019s view, the three\u2013David Keanu Sai, Dexter Kaiama, and Rose Dradi\u2013sell homeowners facing foreclosure a package of services which is supposed to rescue the consumers\u2019 homes by relying on Sai\u2019s beliefs about Hawaiian sovereignty (see yesterday\u2019s post, \u201cTwo sovereignty advocates hit with allegations of mortgage rescue fraud<\/use><\/svg><\/span><\/a>\u201c).<\/p>\n

But OCP says that after more than 100 attempts, no judge has ever blocked a foreclosure action based on the so-called sovereignty defense, a fact the three certainly know. So, according to OCP, they are committing a form of consumer fraud by selling something the three know doesn\u2019t work in state or federal courts, even if they believe it is ultimately a valid argument and believe it\u00a0should<\/em>\u00a0be accepted by the justice system.<\/p>\n

\u201cAlthough Sai would have the world think of him as an expert, in reality Sai is merely using his views on sovereignty to exploit people for his own personal gain,\u201d the agency said.<\/p>\n

It gets weirder and more interesting pretty quickly.<\/p>\n

Sai responded to the allegations by triggering the option to move the case out of state court and into federal court.<\/p>\n

Sai argued that the federal court should have jurisdiction \u201cbecause the State of Hawai\u2018i seeks remedies involving Sai who [is] a foreign diplomat.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sai claimed he is a foreign diplomat because he has \u201cserved as Minister of the Interior and Agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom.\u201d And, he says, he is therefore protected by diplomatic immunity against charges like those raised by the OCP.<\/p>\n

First, OCP made the obvious point that the United States does not recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom and, therefore, Sai simply isn\u2019t entitled diplomatic immunity based on his supposed position.<\/p>\n

Second, even if the U.S. did recognize the existence of the kingdom, Sai is only one of a number of people claiming to represent it, and therefore has no authority to be the true representative.<\/p>\n

It bears noting, however, that Sai\u2019s claim to the Kingdom is but one of many. As reported by Honolulu Magazine in November 2009, Sai is but one of \u201c[m]ore than 10 factions [that] currently claim to be the legitimate government of the Hawaiian kingdom.\u201d (Michael Keany, \u201cContenders to the Throne<\/use><\/svg><\/span><\/a>,\u201d Honolulu Magazine, November 2009.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cDiplomatic immunity turns on whether the United States recognizes the foreign government and an individual serving as a duly authorized representative of that government,\u201d OCP continued. \u201dHere there is no recognition, diplomatic immunity fails\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n

Finally, according to OCP, diplomatic immunity does not extend to activity engaged in for personal profit.<\/p>\n

The Office of Consumer Protection noted, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (\u201cVCDR\u201d) and the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978, recognize several exemptions to the protection of diplomatic immunity, including on exception for \u201can action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.\u201d<\/p>\n

In short, don\u2019t expect any deference to be given to Sai\u2019s claims of diplomatic immunity.<\/p>\n

Story from:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.ilind.net\/2019\/05\/13\/keanu-sai-claimed-diplomatic-immunity-shielded-him-from-fraud-allegations\/<\/use><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

As a follow up, I made this video dismantling David Sai's claims about the legality and legitimacy of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.<\/p>\n

A few points to start with.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \u00a0David Sai makes no mention of the Morgan Report that was a second investigation to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, after the informal report by James H. Blount.
    \nThe Blount report took no oath when collecting testimony, it was mostly done in secret, and there was no congressional cross-examination.\u00a0 On the other hand the report by John T. Morgan was done in the open, oaths were taken for testimony given, and witnesses were cross-examined by an equal number of both parties in congress.\u00a0 \u00a0 Read more at:\u00a0     www.MorganReport.org<\/use><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/li>\n
  2. David Sai never makes any mention of the recognition given to validate the Republic of Hawaii by all of the Hawaiian Kingdom's former allies and treaty holders.\u00a0 David Sai makes a point to mention that the Kingdom of Hawaii was in the “League Of Nations” and that he Hawaii had treaties with dozens of countries.\u00a0 What he fails to mention is that by 1895 all of those countries, which most had ambassadors\/diplomats in Honolulu and witnessed the overthrow from being on the ground when it happened, gave recognition that the saw the Republic of Hawaii is the legitimate successor to the Hawaiian Kingdom.\u00a0 Reference:\u00a0 https:\/\/disruptarian.com\/recognition<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. He insists that annexation must happen by treaty, but there are many countries that were annexed in many different ways, not all by treaty.\u00a0 And when the annexation request comes from the government of the country that wishes to be annexed, that point is moot.\u00a0 \u00a0Reference:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.encyclopedia.com\/history\/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases\/annexation-territory<\/use><\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    This video is a more complete version of the above, and it displays David Sai's argument that was presented on ThinkTech Hawaii in October 2017.<\/p>\n