Hawaiian Last King Kalakaua Killed by Drugs:
New Study Finds UH Researchers Misrepresented U.S. Navy Surgeon General’s Autopsy Report, and Neglected Related Takeover Plot in Hawaiian Genocide.
Evidence Shows Kalakaua Killed by Medical Manslaughter and Probably Murdered.
Honolulu, HI (4-18-17) A new medical-legal review of forensic and historic facts by Harvard-trained public health expert, Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz, evidences University of Hawaii (“UH”) psychiatrists misrepresented autopsy findings concluding King Kalakaua died of failing organ systems, concealing obvious drug side effects and caretakers’ negligence amounting to minimally manslaughter.
UH medical researchers, publishing in the esteemed Hawaiian Journal of History, were found to have breached common sense and ethics rules by fraudulently misrepresenting the last Hawaiian King’s obvious death from a combination of six prescribed and non-prescribed drugs, including opium, chloroform, marijuana, alcohol, cocaine and nicotine. The new evidence, and history of concealing medical-legal facts explaining the King’s mysterious death in 1891, raises justifiable outrage over growing evidence of murder and cover-up involving the Kings adversaries during the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy. The contested article was published by UH, whose founders were directly involved in the coup d’état.
The author of the charges of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation by UH professors, and manslaughter (1) by deceased U.S. Navy Surgeon General of the Pacific Fleet, Dr. George W. Woods, is Dr. Leonard Horowitz–an award-winning author, filmmaker, and whistleblower who conducted a review of psychiatrists John F. McDermott and Anthony P. S. Guerrero’s “Historical Clinicopathological Conference” report that Horowitz states is “worse than bogus since it obviously misrepresents medical-legal facts providing prima facie evidence of intentional concealments.”
The UH publication raises probable cause to consider murder or manslaughter of the King aided-and-abetted by the founders of the university identified in Horowitz’s review.
Ethical and criminal concerns are raised by historic facts tying UH founders to the businessmen that profited most from the King’s demise and Hawaiian genocide.
During the late 1800s, slavery and the merchant marine commercialized the “feel good” drugs– opium, alcohol, and sugar–in Hawaii, while the Kingdom’s immigration laws favored open borders and European competition with the U.S. and China.
Opium production during King Kalakaua’s reign was exploding. Five years after his mysterious death, 41,000 tons were produced and shipped from Afghanistan by mariner merchants. China used the bulk of it–a reported 39,000 tons, and Europe and America received the rest by sea through India and Hawaii, respectively. The mass market in America, and tax revenue for the Kingdom of Hawaii as an entry port to the United States was substantial. The King, recognizing the commercial value of Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor port in East-West trade, sought partnerships with governments and businessmen to finance his family and nation. The King even sought to establish, at the time of his death, a steam shipping enterprise that would directly compete against the companies already doing business in Hawaii.
Horowitz discovered that the widely-known coup that overtook Hawaii’s monarchy preceded The Harrison Narcotic Act passed by the U.S. Congress on February 9, 1909 (c. 100, 35 Stat. 614). This law curtailed the flow of opium to the U.S., and was passed eighteen years after King Kalakaua died on January 20, 1891; meaning that two decades of uninterrupted profits were gained by the King’s death, and subsequently Queen Liliuokalani‘s imprisonment.
Historic records now reveal the King died of hushed-up drug intoxications, mainly from opium and chloroform—facts concealed in medical science and the lay press until now.
Evidence for Negligence and Medical Manslaughter
By 1891, it was common knowledge in medicine that opium and chloroform being prescribed for the King were dangerous drugs.
Nearly 200 years earlier, British physician John Jones published Mysteries of Opium Reveal’d, calling attention to the risks of excessive use of opium, and its adverse effects. Other books about opium were published by George Young in 1750, the Treatise on Opium, and in 1793, Samuel Crumpe published the Inquiry into the Nature and Properties of Opium. Both experts mentioned addiction and withdrawal symptoms. In the Treatise on the Materia Medica, William Collen admitted in 1808 that opium interrupts message flow from nerves to brain and vice-versa causing the “abolishment of all painful sensitivity and any of other irritation from any part of the system.”
Accordingly, by the time King Kalakaua’s physicians at Queen’s Hospital in Honolulu prescribed for him opium, the doctors undoubtedly knew (or should have known) this drug was risky, and potentially deadly, as reported by medical doctor and anesthesiologist, Danilo Freire Duarte, in his comprehensive review of opium (Rev. Bras. Anestesiol. vol.55 no.1 Campinas Jan./Feb. 2005)
“The belief that opium would not cause individual or collective damage started to tumble in 1830, and in 1860 this drug had become a medical and social problem as a function of mortality data. According to these data, one third of all lethal poisonings were due to opium overdose, taken both as a source of pleasure and with suicide intentions.”
But opium was not the only drug being regularly given to King Kalakaua. The King was being prescribed Chlorodyne, containing a mixture of alcohol, cannabis, and chloroform, besides opium.
And this is evidence of fraudulent concealment and an ongoing conspiracy to defraud the public. It is well established and widely known that chloroform causes virtually all of the symptoms suffered by the King, including liver, kidney, heart, and nervous system problems. And this fact was obviously secreted, not simply grossly neglected, but intentionally concealed by the UH authors conducting a retrospective study of the King’s autopsy report by U.S. Navy Surgeon General, Woods.
It is unreasonable to conclude simple negligence. Doctors commonly know chloroform causes these ailments, and that the six-drug-combination the King consumed was obviously lethal. But these clear and convincing facts, and acts of the doctors caring for the King, were purposely hushed-up by UH medical investigators Guerrero and McDermott–two leading professors in psychiatry at the John A. Burns School of Medicine in Mānoa.
Instead of reasonably and responsibly reviewing the King’s medical history, and Dr. Woods’s autopsy report, the psychiatrists provided a transparently biased, pro drug, misleading review of the King’s death titled “The Last Illness and Death of Hawai‘i’s King Kalākaua: A New Historical/Clinical Perspective.” (UH Press. The Hawaiian Journal of History, vol. 49 (2015))
The fraudulent concealments by the UH agents prompted Dr. Horowitz to investigate the authors’ employer and motives, to help explain the censorship.
Dr. Horowitz’s further investigation draws attention to related concealments in the famous case of Jane Stanford, who was murdered by strychnine poisoning in Waikiki at the Moana Hotel on February 28, 1905.
The Related Murder of Jane Stanford
Jane Eliza Lathrop Stanford’s husband co-founded the Central Pacific Railroad, and from their wealth established Stanford University. After gifting a fortune to the Board of Trustee’s on June 1, 1903, Jane’s hands-on management of the institution’s affairs was severely challenged by her appointed President, David Starr Jordan.
Jordan was among the earliest and most vocal advocates for eugenics (racial hygiene), including sterilization programs. He conducted marine research on evolution in Hawaii, and viewed all other races, including native Hawaiians, as inferior to Anglos. He believed that “inferior races” threatened all whites and civilization (See: Eugenics in Hawaii published by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.)
Ms. Stanford resided in San Francisco, did not subscribe to Jordan’s agendas, and found herself subject to an assassination plot similar to the one suspected in the King’s demise.
Although reports are sketchy, it’s reasonable to assume Stanford socialized with Queen Liliokalani, King Kalakaua, and several of their common loyalists during extravagant parties held in San Francisco. Here the Hawaiian royals formed commercial alliances and sought financial and political support for their government.
History records two intentional poisonings of Jane Stanford, the second being lethal. Jordan immediately sailed to Honolulu from California to administer a fake medical review of Stanford’s assassination. The millionairess was strychnine-poisoned at the Moana Hotel in Waikiki five years after King Kalakaua was poisoned by the six-drug-combination.
Jordan’s “damage control” was instantly published by the Pacific Commercial Advertiser, on March 16, 1905. The Advertiser’s propaganda disregarded the official Coroner’s report published in the San Francisco Call a week earlier (on March 10, 1905). The Coroner concluded that Stanford had obviously died from strychnine poisoning, “the poison having been introduced into a bottle of bicarbonate of soda with felonious intent by some person or persons . . . .” And Jordan’s far-fetched diversions were widely recognized in historic accounts.
As facts accumulated in Dr. Horowitz’s study, it became unreasonable to reject the high probability that Stanford’s and the King’s poisonings were related. First, Jordan clearly had something to hide by rushing off to Hawaii to publish falsehoods about Stanford’s official autopsy, published mainly for Hawaii readers. Second, Jordan conspired with The Advertiser’s editor, Lorrin A. Thurston to conceal the felony. Third, efforts were obviously made to secret Jordan’s eugenics agenda, that would have inflamed Native Hawaiians. Forth, Jordan’s war against Stanford for control over the university was also censored. Fifth, and Jane’s presumed favor for the Hawaiian royals was neglected, including the “private car placed at [Kalakaua’s] service by the Southern Pacific Railway.” And sixth, Jordan and Thurston were politically and ideologically aligned.
As noted in Wikipedia, “Thurston was organizer of the Hawaiian League, which had forced King Kalākaua to agree to the ‘Bayonet Constitution’ of 1887 backed by the Honolulu Rifles armed militia,” that made Thurston a cabinet minister. “The 1887 constitution stripped the monarchy of most authority, took away many rights of native Hawaiians to vote in elections, and granted voting rights to American residents, even those who did not have citizenship in the kingdom. Thurston had been instrumental to terminating the existence of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi.”
Yellow Presses Conceal the University of Hawaii Endowment Scam
Dr. Horowitz “followed the money” while investigating the felonious drug poisonings and the UH publication’s blatant concealments. He learned that the UH was actually started by the successors-in-interest to Thurston’s cohorts in the “Big Five” companies, represented in the personage of Wallace Rider Farrington.
Farrington was the editor of the Honolulu Evening Bulletin—forerunner to Honolulu Star-Bulletin, later merged with The Advertiser’s successor, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Farrington’s reputation is tainted by his anti-Japanese, anti-Chinese, and anti-union propaganda that he regularly published. From start to finish, Farrington was financed by the Big Five companies, and was awarded with the political position of Territorial Governor of Hawaii.
Accordingly, the UH’s publication, and inception of King Kalakaua’s autopsy, is steeped in fraudulent concealments, organized crime, racial intolerance, and massive disinformation.
According to the university’s widespread propaganda, the UH was formed from the proceeds of land sales generated by the Morrill Act of 1862. But a key fraudulent concealment here is vetted by Dorothy T. Frye in her scholarly article, “Linking Institutional Missions to University and College Archives Programs: The Land-Grant Model,” published in the American Archivist, Vol. 56, Winter, 1993. Frye records in pertinent part:
Federal land-grant colleges were created by the Morrill Act of 1862, which granted “to the several states . . . thirty thousand acres for each senator and representative in Congress to which the States are respectively entitled,” on the condition that the income from the sale of these lands would be invested to provide a “perpetual fund” that would be used for the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college ….
Monies thus derived were to be spent only on maintenance and instruction; the states were required to select the location of the colleges and to provide funds for buildings and other facilities. . . . [Emphasis added.]
Obviously, Hawaii was not a “State,” so the Big Five Freemasons needed to contrive a way around the language of the Morrill Act.
Furthermore, Section 5 (2nd provision) of the Morrill Act expressly states that “No portion of said fund, nor the interest thereon, shall be applied, directly or indirectly, under any pretence whatever, to the purchase, erection, preservation, or repair of any building or buildings.”
Yet, the UH’s widespread propaganda exclusively credits this law for financing the entire academic institution, concealing the corrupt transactions by which “the mob” rules over “paradise,” similar to the concealments of the Kings drugging and Stanford’s poisoning.
In essence, the State’s principle commerce, justice system, and law enforcement rests upon a series of felonies, cover-ups, and “fake news” reports.
“In other words, the land originally stolen from the Hawaiian monarchy upon which the UH sits was secretly converted by alleged killers and thieves who washed their unjust enrichment through their banks, protected their racket by monopolizing the media issuing propaganda, and also established the State’s court system to indemnify themselves against discovery and liability.”
Where the Bucks Actually Stop
As mentioned above, Guerrero and McDermott’s fraudulent concealments, akin to medical scientific evidence tampering, perpetuates a public deception and conceals a multitude of crimes.
Dr. Horowitz meticulously researched the university’s origin and founders’ interests. He discovered apparent money laundering from land theft and drug trafficking characterized the University of Hawaii’s (“UH”) and medical school’s endowments.
Guerrero and McDermott’s obvious propaganda lends credence to a grand jury complaint filed by police investigator James Benish. Aware of that action in which the First Hawaiian Bank is named as a money laundering suspect, Horowitz investigated this financial institution and its sister Bank of Hawaii, whose founders are directly implicated in the overthrow of the monarchy, . . . and also, now, the King’s poisoning.
As mentioned, widely reported UH financial disclosures misrepresent the original financing that allegedly came from the United States Government to establish the university in 1907—six years after the King’s death , and two years after Stanford’s murder. But the Territory of Hawaii is now known to have been illegally established on August 12, 1898, following Queen Liliokalani’s arrest and hostile takeover of the Kingdom of Hawaii by these banking merchants, working with complicit federal officials.
Like Guerrero and McDermott’s fraudulent concealments, history books have hid the fact that the suspects–mostly Mormon Freemason “missionaries”–were foreign trade merchants transacting the sale of “land scrip” to their own enterprise at “one dollar and twenty-five cents, or less, per acre,” from money obtained by monopolizing the waterfront and foreign trade in opium and alcohol.
In other words, the land originally stolen from the Hawaiian monarchy upon which the UH sits was secretly converted by alleged killers and thieves who washed their unjust enrichment through their banks, protected their racket by monopolizing the media issuing propaganda, and also established the State’s court system to indemnify themselves against discovery and liability.
Today, the UH is largely controlled by the principle financial institutions generally controlling the State’s politics, economics, police and courts, with their reach apparent in the federal courts as well. (2)
Dr. Horowitz’s research tracked the progression of power from the Monarchy to the modern judiciary and corrupt court system.
Summarily, by October 1846 Freemasons William Little Lee and Charles Reed Bishop (Lee’s subordinate) arrived in Hawaii. Lee was a lawyer entrepreneur from New York. Bishop was his money manager. The two men were encouraged to stay to serve King Kamehameha III.
The Kingdom had come under French attack and British government duress for profitable control over the islands. East-West shipping of opium, gold, sugar, alcohol, and more was challenged. The Pacific merchant marine, competing government interests, and the Freemasons’ eugenics-like view that anyone other than white anglos, including Hawaiians, were of a “lower race” and susceptible to manipulation and eradication, appealed to Lee and Bishop as financial opportunities.
Lee represented the U.S. Government, and his secret society’s financial interests. Lee’s role was especially important. He organized the Hawaii court system and became its chief justice.
Lee’s partner, Bishop, was assigned to administer the Freemason’s financial accounts represented by Ladd & Co. This was the first commercial sugarcane plantation owner—the first international land speculation enterprise in Hawaii as well. Soon, Bishop started Hawaii’s first banks, and later inherited the largest landholdings in the islands.
Bishop and Lee administered Kamahameha’s investments in Ladd & Co. To liquidate the King’s interests, the partners auctioned off the company’s assets to agents administering the interests of Theo H. Davies & Co. The likely insider-trading deal resulted, in part, with Ladd & Co.’s and Theo H. Davies & Co. wharf being used by Charles Brewer of C. Brewer & Co. These entities joined the Big Five corporations dominating the harbor-front and Hawaiian economy to the present day.
In summary, these main entities of illegal influence over Hawaii include the First Hawaiian Bank, the Bank of Hawaii, and their non-profits, especially the Hawaii Community Foundation and the UH. These banks, their non-profits, and controlled labor unions, operate as virtual “fronts” for the Anglo-American “Christian” successors who started the “Big Five” corporations that merged or evolved into this most profitable, politically-powerful, and corrupt corporate enterprise in partnership with the U.S. Government.
Proof of King Kalākaua’s Poisoning: The Secreted “Partial Autopsy” Suppressed by the U.S. Navy
Purposeful omissions and misrepresentations to deceive people is fraud. And such “[c]onduct which forms a basis for inference is evidence.” United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 US 149, 154 (1923).
“Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character,” wrote the U.S. Supreme Court Judge Brandeis. (Id.) Silence by gross censorship is such evidence, and is apparent in the report by UH Psychiatry Department professors Guerrero and McDermott, dishonoring the John A. Burns School of Medicine in Manoa.
In their 2015 pseudo-scientific presentation, these doctors concealed conflicting interests protecting the UH establishment. This “inference” is established by their review of evidence provided in the “detailed report” by King Kalakaua’s attending physician who was at the Royal’s bedside during his final illness.
The “attending physician” was senior U.S. Navy surgeon in the Pacific Fleed, Dr. Woods. His “report revealed data not previously published, including a partial autopsy,” the UH authors wrote.
Their paymasters, the University of Hawaii’s Department of Psychiatry, was established in 1990 by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). The purported mission was “[t]o create a cadre of mental health researchers, whose scientific investigations result in effective, culturally appropriate prevention, intervention and clinical treatment strategies, which improve the mental health status of Native Hawaiians to the highest level possible.”
Apparently, medical doctors Guerrero and McDermott believe that Native Hawaiian’s “mental health” can be improved “to the highest level possible” by blatantly misrepresenting the King’s medical history, misinterpreting Wood’s report of clinical evidence classic for widely known drug damage, while omitting the King’s drug-related lifestyle risks as well, including “Coca wine” (i.e., “in Mariani”) containing cocaine, fed to the already overly medicated, liver intoxicated, kidney damaged King. The drink was permitted, and possibly prescribed, by Dr. Woods.
Kalakaua’s Wikipedia page makes this known, and further details the circumstances surrounding the King’s unexpected demise in San Francisco on January 20, 1891, at his Freemason “initiation” as follows:
George W. Woods, surgeon of the United States Pacific fleet. Against the advice of Dr. Woods, Kalākaua insisted on going to his initiation at Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (A.A.O.N.M.S.) on January 14. He was given a tonic of Vin Mariani that got him on his feet, and he was accompanied to the rites by an escort from the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine. The ceremonies did not take long, and he was returned to his suite within an hour. Two days before his death, he lapsed into a coma. Kalākaua died at 2:35 pm on Tuesday on January 20, 1891. The official cause of death, listed by US Navy officials was that the King had died from Bright’s Disease (inflammation of the kidneys).
Cocaine and alcohol is widely known in medicine today, like chloroform prescribed by the King’s doctors with opium and marijuana, to cause kidney failure and liver damage—material facts clearly neglected in the King’s autopsy and in the 2015 UH researchers’ censorship.
An additional material fact for a jury to consider is that the Freemasons who conspired to rob the King of his Kingdom, had a unnamed fellow Freemason “escourt” fetch the King from Dr. Wood’s at the time the cocaine-laced alcohol “Vin Mariani” was given to the King “to get him off his feet.”
Ironically, the “initiation” into the “spiritual” Order occurred two days before the massive shutdown of the King’s kidney and liver that sent Kalakaua to the spirit world.
The King had been “free of major illnesses for most of his life,” the UH medical experts wrote. “He circled the globe in 1881 and diaries reveal no mention of illness. . . . Of most concern was his meager urinary output, . . . This meant that toxic waste products, instead of being excreted in the urine, were building up in his system, poisoning it.” In his final days, “[i]rritation of the brain by toxins was suggested by intermittent right-sided paralysis and convulsions.”
Guerrero and McDermott updated “the cause of death” as “Uremic Blood Poisoning, to End Stage Renal Disease with Metabolic Encephalopathy.” In other words, “King Kalākaua’s poisoning was affecting the brain itself, accounting for the intermittent paralysis, convulsions, lapses of consciousness and eventual coma.” These researchers did note that the King was an avid alcoholic as well as tobacco user, but neglected further discussion, and made no mention of the cocaine alcohol concoction and opium chloroform prescription the King consumed.
Accordingly, it has been generally concealed for more than a century that Hawaii’s last male monarch, under the care of his Queen’s Hospital physician and U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet Surgeon General, was clearly killed by the overwhelming combination of six damaging drugs—opium, marijuana, alcohol, chloroform, cocaine, and nicotine (in tobacco) just prior to his sudden collapse in San Francisco under the “care” of the U.S. Navy that sought to acquire Pearl Harbor, and knew that the King had been negotiating with competing nations–Great Britain and China–over Pearl Harbor rights.
Curiously, the King’s health was not considered a serious factor at the start of his association with Dr. Woods, who supervised the King’s care aboard the U.S.S. Charleston.
This Navy flagship steamer was assigned to transport the King to and from San Francisco—a trip British Officials and Euro-Asian merchants feared would grant Pearl Harbor to the U.S.
Health was not an issue either during the busy two weeks the King spent socializing and negotiating business in California. His interests took him to San Diego aboard a special train car supplied by his friends, the Stanfords—another little known neglected but important fact considering Jane Stanford’s murder.
According to Guerrero and McDermott, Dr. Woods’s “partial autopsy” on Kalakaua’s body was “buried” in the Navy officer’s final report to Minister Cummins. Woods’s report was admittedly secreted by the press, including Hawaii’s main newspapers that represented the Freemasons’ interests.
Dr. Woods did state in his report that he was under orders to neglect a full autopsy. “[A] complete autopsy had been ‘opposed,’” the UH psychiatrists reported. “Thus it would have been improper, if not illegal, for him to use information from what he termed a ‘partial autopsy’ to add to the diagnosis of kidney disease as the cause of Kalākaua’s death.”
The UH reporters concluded simply that the King had died from a combination of kidney, liver, heart, and brain failure.
Opium Trade and Hawaii’s Ongoing Injustice
Opium sales skyrocketed during the years King Kalakaua reigned. Five years after his death, opium production worldwide was estimated at 41,000 tons with 39,000 tons consumed in China, and the rest shipped mainly from Afghanistan to Europe and America overseas, via India and Hawaii respectively.
In recent days, a few weeks after Judge Derrick K. Watson of the U.S. District Court in Honolulu blocked President Trump’s immigration law in favor of the State of Hawaii, at the same time blocking Justice Department efforts to increase border security to reduce damage to communities from drug traffickers, FBI Director James Comey appealed for legislative support to stop opium traffickers from creating a “nationwide drug crisis that’s penetrating communities of all shapes and sizes,” FOX News reported.
Comey said cartels are continuing to saturate the country with waves of “highly pure” heroin made from opium. Although he addressed mainly Mexican imports, 70% of the world’s opium comes from Afghanistan through Southeast Asia, with Hawaii the Pacific intermediary and gateway to America.
Largely attributable to the aforementioned corruption in Hawaii, “[d]rug overdose deaths in Hawaii increased by 83 percent from 2006 to 2014, a growth rate more than double the national average of 37 percent,” according to “the mob’s” own Star Advertiser (quoting the Centers for Disease Control). Prescription opioids and black market heroin made from opium account for the majority of drug deaths.
“Fighting it requires a complex strategy that involves not only traditional law enforcement but also market economics,” FOX reported Comey stating.
But “traditional law enforcement” in Hawaii protects the “market economics” controlled by the same merchants that misrepresented the King’s “inflammation of the kidneys,” fraudulently concealed UH financing, and precluded Queen Liliokalani from being compensated for the theft of her family’s land and nation. The Hawaii “mob’s” control the courts, law enforcement, and the media that heralds the “problem,” is the problem.
Crucial in securing Hawaii’s corrupt enterprise is the captured (“kangaroo”) courts that demonstrate a pattern of precluding due process and the discovery of evidence needed for citizens to obtain justice and compensation for their damages.
This pattern is well demonstrated by Judge Derrick K. Watson’s unconstitutional ruling in favor of the corrupted State in President Trump’s case, as wisely rebuked by five Ninth Circuit appellate justices. This example extends the same Hawaii judicial corruption suffered by Queen Liliuokalani following the King’s manslaughter.
In that case, Liliuokalani v. United States of America, (March 26,1910),4–9), best reviewed in The Rights of My People: Liliuokalani’s Enduring Battle with the United States 1983-1917 (by Neil Thomas Proto) attorney Sidney Miller Ballou represented the interests of the then Dole-administered conspiracy to deny the Queen her Crown Lands. Ballou, Proto explains, was reared in New England’s “disquieting intersection of missionary zeal, property acquisition, and the denigration of other people’s culture.” Ballou finalized the theft.
Quoting Proto liberally:
“In March 1908, Ballou sat on a panel of three
judges, including Chief Judge Alfred Hartwell that decided Territory of Hawaii v. Kapiolani Estate. Hartwell had a deep, well documented disdain for the constitutional monarchy and the Queen. He had drafted her abdication in 1895. Hartwell also was within that generation of Caucasian men who molded and treated the judiciary as an appendage of a council of elders. In the nature of a judiciary, Hartwell and Ballou looked backwards to precedents and a perspective that substantiated the political world both men personally had created and would ensure was unchallenged. They did so with respect to the Crown lands.” (391)
“The Kapiolani Estate also argued that if the [Dole-directed] Republic had acquired the Crown lands it did so illegally or without due process of law or paying compensation for taking it. The court refused to examine the argument. Justice Ballou agreed with the court’s conclusion that the ‘validity of the declaration in the Constitution of the Republic of Hawaii, under which the present title is derived, does not present a judicial question.’ Put differently, regardless of the argument’s merit or the fact that it was not uncommon for courts to examine and decide the merits of such an argument, Ballou and Hartwell declined to do so. [Precisely like Judge Watson did to deny Trump as well as Dr. Horowitz in another case.] To support its position, the court cited to precedents — earlier cases decided by other courts — that supposedly held the same way. Most of the earlier decisions the Hawaii Supreme Court cited actually involved a judicial determination on the merits of the argument presented, not a determination to avoid it. It made no difference. Ballou and Hartwell were engaged in the exercise of raw power.
“Liliuokalani could not litigate her claim before the Hawaii judiciary. Ballou and Hartwell had ensured it . . .
“When the Queen reached Washington and settled into the Shoreham Hotel, Associate Justice Sidney Ballou was in California. In late December, he addressed the Los Angeles Merchants Association. He sought to convey to the audience Hawaii’s commitment to increased trade and to ‘American interests.’ He also spoke directly about the Crown lands. “Under an arrangement with the national
government,” Ballou was quoted as saying, “the crown lands are now open to settlement under laws similar to the homestead enactments by Congress, and it is hoped to make the country one for white men, as against the proposition of being dominated by the Asians.” What he did not say to the merchants — perhaps because it never occurred to him — was that Liliuokalani had taken the position since 1893 that all of the Crown land’s income from such “white men” actually belonged to her.” (397)
In conclusion, even if Dr. Horowitz’s rebuke of the UH published propaganda evidencing a conspiracy to defraud people and conceal manslaughter that killed the King, in Hawaii, there is a ten-year statute of limitations on bringing a manslaughter case. Alternatively, there is no statute of limitations on murder and genocide.
Dr. Horowitz told this author in closing, “I pray these revelations will have a beneficial result on the administration of justice in Hawaii and elsewhere.”
(1) In the absence of direct evidence of murder, the proper charge given the circumstantial evidence is “involuntary manslaughter.” This is the unlawful killing of another human being without intent. The absence of the intent element is the essential difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. (In the case at bar, evidence is presently lacking for the element of intent, required for the charge of voluntary manslaugher or murder.)
In most states, involuntary manslaughter does not result from a heat of passion but from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while in the commission of a lawful act or while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony. Such is the case here, wherein defendants, arguably U.S. Navy and Queens Hospital, could argue Dr. Woods et. al., was simply providing the best medical care under the circumstances.
Quoting from The Free Dictionary online:
Generally there are two types of involuntary manslaughter: (1) criminal-negligence manslaughter; and (2) unlawful-act manslaughter. The first occurs when death results from a high degree of Negligence or recklessness, and the second occurs when death is caused by one who commits or attempts to commit an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor.
Although all jurisdictions punish involuntary manslaughter, the statutes vary somewhat. In some states, the criminal negligence type of manslaughter is described as gross negligence or culpable negligence. Others divide the entire offense of manslaughter into degrees, with voluntary manslaughter constituting a more serious offense and carrying a heavier penalty than involuntary manslaughter.
Many statutes do not define the offense or define it vaguely in common-law terms. There are, however, a small number of modern statutes that are more specific. Under one such statute, the offense is defined as the commission of a lawful act without proper caution or requisite skill, in which one unguardedly or undesignedly kills another or the commission of an unlawful act that is not felonious or tends to inflict great bodily harm.
Criminally Negligent Manslaughter A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide.
(2) Evidence for this claim includes Judge Watson’s rulings against President Trump, opposes by five Ninth Circuit Court Judges who could not justify Watson’s favor for the State as Constitutional.
Related Articles and Videos