Keanu Sai claimed “diplomatic immunity” shielded him from fraud allegations
In a recent case, subsequent to the case where David Keanu Sai was found guilty of a second-degree felony in 1999.
The Office of Consumer Protection is very clear on his claim to “Diplomatic Immunity”.
The consumer protection agency, in response, called Sai’s claim to diplomatic immunity “ludicrous” and “without merit.” The agency then addressed the issue point by point.
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’s authority to serve in a representative capacity of that government, and (iii) the individual is not engaging in conduct excepted from immunity.
In the agency’s view, the three–David Keanu Sai, Dexter Kaiama, and Rose Dradi–sell homeowners facing foreclosure a package of services which is supposed to rescue the consumers’ homes by relying on Sai’s beliefs about Hawaiian sovereignty (see yesterday’s post, “Two sovereignty advocates hit with allegations of mortgage rescue fraud“).
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’t work in state or federal courts, even if they believe it is ultimately a valid argument and believe it should be accepted by the justice system.
“Although 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,” the agency said.
It gets weirder and more interesting pretty quickly.
Sai responded to the allegations by triggering the option to move the case out of state court and into federal court.
Sai argued that the federal court should have jurisdiction “because the State of Hawai‘i seeks remedies involving Sai who [is] a foreign diplomat.”
Sai claimed he is a foreign diplomat because he has “served as Minister of the Interior and Agent for the Hawaiian Kingdom.” And, he says, he is therefore protected by diplomatic immunity against charges like those raised by the OCP.
First, OCP made the obvious point that the United States does not recognize the Hawaiian Kingdom and, therefore, Sai simply isn’t entitled diplomatic immunity based on his supposed position.
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.
It bears noting, however, that Sai’s claim to the Kingdom is but one of many. As reported by Honolulu Magazine in November 2009, Sai is but one of “[m]ore than 10 factions [that] currently claim to be the legitimate government of the Hawaiian kingdom.” (Michael Keany, “Contenders to the Throne,” Honolulu Magazine, November 2009.)
“Diplomatic immunity turns on whether the United States recognizes the foreign government and an individual serving as a duly authorized representative of that government,” OCP continued. ”Here there is no recognition, diplomatic immunity fails….”
Finally, according to OCP, diplomatic immunity does not extend to activity engaged in for personal profit.
The Office of Consumer Protection noted, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (“VCDR”) and the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978, recognize several exemptions to the protection of diplomatic immunity, including on exception for “an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.”
In short, don’t expect any deference to be given to Sai’s claims of diplomatic immunity.
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.
A few points to start with.
- David 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.
The Blount report took no oath when collecting testimony, it was mostly done in secret, and there was no congressional cross-examination. 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. Read more at: www.MorganReport.org
- 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. 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. 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. Reference: https://disruptarian.com/recognition
- He insists that annexation must happen by treaty, but there are many countries that were annexed in many different ways, not all by treaty. And when the annexation request comes from the government of the country that wishes to be annexed, that point is moot. Reference: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/annexation-territory
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.