passport burn
 


Renouncing Step 3 - Resopnse to United States Attempt to Deny Renunciation
Upon renouncing in Canada I returned to Hawaii with my U.S. birth certificate. I eventually receieved a response from the United States Department of State; my response is below.

 

November 13th, 2001

Mr. Ian G. Brownlee
United States Department of State
Washington D.C. 20520

Dear Mr. Brownlee:
 
   On August 13th a letter signed by you was sent to me regarding my renunciation of U.S. citizenship.  In this letter you stated that I;

“made no attempt to be documented as an alien under the Immigration and Nationality Act” upon my return back into Hawaii. 

This to me is quite humorous, as I had no proof whatsoever that I was anything but a U.S. citizen.  Imagine how silly I would have looked trying to convince the immigration officials that I was “stateless.”  Do you honestly believe that I would have done anything other than waste my time or theirs?  What is conspicuous in your assertion that I should have is your total denial of the undeniable presence of the Lawful Hawaiian Government.  I wonder if your Policy Review Department and\or Interagency Liaison will be as obvious in their denial?  Just in case the inconvenient presence of a de jure Hawaiian Government slipped your mind I shall submit some important facts for the third time now.  It is worth noting that you are as a federal government employee subject to federal laws.  I shall remind you of United States Public Law 103-150.  This law states (among other things);

  • “Whereas, on January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the “United States Minister”), the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii…”

It goes further to say;

  • “Whereas 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…”

Questions Requiring Response and Clarification

You were so kind to state in your letter to me that I was welcome to ask questions regarding your response.  So I will list several questions and I am truly exited to actually get specific responses.  Perhaps I have misunderstood the meaning of United States Public Law 103-150?  Maybe this federal law is subject to some sort of abstract interpretation that myself as a non-bureaucrat cannot understand.  I ask for your help in this.
  

  • In regards to the first paragraph of United States Public Law 103-150 above, I ask you, if a thief admits to stealing someone else’s property, should he be allowed to keep it?
  • Does the State Department recognize conspiracy to overthrow a peaceful, neutral, allied nation as a crime against International Public Law?

It is important to have a response from you on the above questions because it will clarify whether United States Public Law 103-150 is recognized by the State Department.  If it were not, it would explain your ignorance regarding the “perfect rights” of an injured nation under International Public Law.  This needs to be clear; there is indeed a competent functioning government in Hawaii.  Your department along with the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of the U.S. Government have all been duly notified as prescribed by law of the de jure Hawaiian Government. 

  • Is it possible that United States Public Law 103-150 is disingenuous and is ignored because it is now recognized by your government to be a tactical mistake that could very well lead to true independence for the Hawaiian nation?
  • Was United States Public Law 103-150 nothing more than an attempt to “open and notoriously” admit to international crimes with the intent of taking “adverse possession” of the Hawaiian national lands after several years when it could then use the argument of “tacit consent” that the de jure Hawaiian Government did not claim their stolen lands? 
  • Does the State Department in light of United States Public Law 103-150 acknowledge the right of the Hawaiian nation to employ the protocols of International Public Law and “reinstate” the de jure Hawaiian Government?
  • Does the State Department acknowledge the employment of International Public Law and reinstatement of the de jure Hawaiian Government on March 13th, 1999?
  • Has the State Department referred to the numerous notices mentioned previously regarding the presence of the de jure Hawaiian Government?
  • Has the State Department discredited this reinstated Hawaiian Government? Or are they simply ignoring this government in order to carry forward the strategy of taking adverse possession of the admittedly stolen national lands?
  • Does the State Department acknowledge the United States Government in Hawaii as the de facto government in light of United States Public Law 103-150?
  • Would it not be more intelligent for me to address the de jure Hawaiian Government in regards to my residency in Hawaii as opposed to the self admitted de facto U.S. Government and its Immigration Department? 
  • With regards to matters involving nationality and international disputes (i.e. the question of my nationality or relationships with other nations) does the State Department contend that U.S. domestic law supercedes International Public Law?
  • Is the State Department aware of the “Notice of Reclamation” posted in the legal section of the Honolulu Advertiser on September 9th, 2001?  If yes, why did the State Department not object to this notice according to law and dispute the reclaiming of the national lands by the de jure Hawaiian Government?  If no, are you now willing through this legal dialogue

Conclusions

I believe that the United States Government is hypocritical to the highest degree when it admits to stealing a nation then ignores the reinstatement of that nation.  I believe that the true intent of United States Public Law 103-150 was indeed to solve the problem of not having legal title to the national lands of Hawaii by taking adverse possession of these lands when the de jure government did not present itself.  I believe that United States Public Law 103-150 is a huge strategic blunder that requires active denial by ignoring the rightful claim of the inherent sovereignty which only a de jure government could exercise.  I believe that your will ignore the inconvenient conclusions above and once again expose the transparency of United States hypocrisy by referencing only those laws useful for your purposes.  It is my contention that the State Department is acting in bad faith by not addressing these questions.  By ignoring the questions and conclusion above it will serve as tacit consent to my conclusions above and thereby refute your contention that I had any obligation whatsoever to comply with an inferior de facto government agency in Hawaii. 

My Rights According to International Laws and Conventions
“But every man is born free, and therefore the son of a citizen, when arrived at the age of reason, may consider whether it is well for him to join the society in which he happens to be by birth.  If he does not find that it is to his advantage to remain in it, he has the right to leave it…” - The Law of Nations

ARTICLE 15 – (1) “Everyone has the right to a nationality.”  (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” - United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

So it is with great joy that I as a sovereign person have continued to remain free of the bondage that the United States wishes to impose on its so-called “free” citizens.  I want no part of your brand of freedom.  I demanded statelessness before and I demand it again.  International Law assures me this right as shown above.  And even U.S. law provides this right to me.  How absurd is your resistance to my rights especially when I hereby profess once again that I in no way have any loyalty whatsoever to the United States of America.  To the contrary I despise its foreign policy intent on the impoverishment of the “developing” nations.  Its hideous overt and covert operations responsible for the rape, torture, and murder of millions the world over.  Its embarrassingly hypocritical policy of condemning and destroying other nations (already victimized by your power) for having, or aspiring to have “weapons of mass destruction,” when you are hoarding, producing, and selling these weapons in a quantity never before seen in the history of human civilization. I despise the “home of the free” that has the world’s largest prison population, most all of which are minorities and non-violent.  I despise your complete corporate control of all meaningful media, which is used to deliver propaganda that would have made Hitler proud.  I despise your nuclear weapons that are the tool you use to terrorize the rest of humanity with.  I despise George W. Bush, and the rest of his conspirators in the federal government.  Most of all I despise your role in the “New World Order” which is serving to destroy all that is beautiful and precious within the human spirit and works to replace it with greed and power that will dominate every aspect of life on earth. 

Does this now make my position clear to you? 
Or would you like to maintain the ludicrous position presented in your letter, which stated;

“We have therefore concluded that you did not in fact intend to relinquish U.S. citizenship when you executed the Oath of Renunciation on October 12, 2000.”

Come now, let us enter into the realm of sanity and acknowledge that I did indeed intend to renounce all that is American in me.  Most importantly my U.S. citizenship.

The foundation of lies on which your institutions depend is cracking.  When the foundation begins to crack, the inevitable result is the destruction of what rests on this foundation.  To repair this is impossible without the infusion of universal truth.  Indeed the truth will set you free.  Lies however will only result in the status quo, which is like a speeding car about to crash into a brick wall.  Do not mistake my candor for wishing your speeding car to hit the wall; I much prefer the infusion of truth and its healing affects. 

What I love about America.  What I love is your Constitution and Bill of Rights that you defile in every way.  What I love are the Americans who have successfully seen through your lies and hypocrisy and are every day working to expose the lie of a “democratic” America.  What I love most is the vision many Americans hold for an America that actually strives to achieve its stated belief in “freedom and democracy.”

I wish now to make your job quite easy and painless.  Your letter stated that because I returned to Hawaii and did not file as an alien;

“Accordingly, we cannot approve the Certificate of Loss of Nationality forwarded to us by the Embassy in Ottawa.  The Department of State considers you as a U.S. citizen.” 

By the time you receive this letter I will be out of your country and I will not return!  Unless of course the infusion of truth occurs and I am a welcome guest.  I think it is safe to say that that is not going to happen any time soon.  Therefore I will not be returning.  I bid you farewell and wish you the same peace, love and happiness I do for all citizens of the planet.

“Accordingly, I do hereby approve my Certificate of Statelessness forwarded to me by virtue of International Public Law.  This Sovereign Citizen is hereby declared Stateless, until such time as he enters into the citizenship of a worthy nation.” 
      
It has been truly delightful to communicate with you.  Quite liberating indeed.  Your passport will be forthcoming; I shall only use it in order to leave your country.  Since I am not keen to provide any information about my whereabouts or me I wish you to send your response to the questions above to the following address

Kenneth Nichols
66-XXX Kam Hwy
Haleiwa, HI
96712

Should I receive nothing, this will serve (as mentioned before) as tacit consent for the conclusions I have made.  And it will be entered into the archives of the Lawful Hawaiian nation serving to further verify its perfect rights. 

Aloha & Peace Be Unto You,

Kenneth Roy Nichols

Step 4

 

 


 

  
image