Renouncing Step 4 - Seeking Political Asylum in the Netherlands
One month after I received my passport back from the State Department with its "decision" to deny my renunciation came 9-11. I had already had significant problems with the U.S. authorities for my political conduct but it became unbearable after 9-11. If I had stayed, especially knowing the U.S. Government at the highest levels was truly responsible for 9-11, I would have ended up in prison for something I did not do. I know that most in America have no idea that their government actually frames political dissenters, but that did not change the facts for me. I had to go.

I studied human rights law extensively and learned each persons rights with regard to asylum. The following is the document I handed over to the Dutch authorities upon formally requesting political asylum. Before I did this I filled out all the same renunciation documents and re-renounced at the American Consulate in Amsterdam.

Declaration of Kenneth Roy Nichols - in Request of Political Asylum  

I was born a national of the United States of America and I have committed the political crimes of Sedition, Seditious Conspiracy and arguably, Treason by working to overthrow the U.S. Government in Hawaii.  This latter crime is a crime punishable by death.  I have come from the United States of America's unlawfully occupied territory of Hawaii.  I am a refugee who has formally renounced his U.S. citizenship in Vancouver, Canada on March 1, 2001.  By virtue of Public International Law and Human Rights Laws that affirm the right of self-determination, I cannot be considered anything but, a stateless person. 

In accordance with International Public Law (the Law of Nations), the Dutch Aliens Act of 2000, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the Geneva Convention on Refugees of 1951, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, the New York Protocol of 1967, I hereby exercise my inherent human rights by lawfully requesting political asylum in the Netherlands. 

'There are certain cases in which a citizen has the absolute right, based upon reasons drawn from the very compact of civil society, to renounce allegiance to his country and abandon it.' - The Law of Nations - Chapter XIX Section 223

‘Everyone has the right to a nationality.  No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.'

'Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.’ - United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Art. 15(1,2), Art. 14(1) 

‘Considering that the United Nations has, on various occasions, manifested its profound concern for refugees and endeavored to assure refugees the widest possible exercise of these fundamental rights and freedoms.’

'The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.' - Geneva Convention on Refugees - Preamble, Article 3

'All persons are equal under the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.  In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.' - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Article 26

To: Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND);

I intend to enforce all of my human rights as dictated by the rule of law.  It is a reality however that I come from the most powerful political, economic, social and military force ever known.  It is a fact that this country, the United States of America, has become so powerful that it now enjoys the privilage of being a rogue state that is effectively exempt from the rule of law and is now completely out of control.  A rogue nation who is indisputedly the primary terrorist state in the world today. 

Terrorism - 'The use or threat of violence to intimidate or cause panic, especially as a means of affecting political conduct.' - Black's Law Dictionary - 7th Edition

A state that cloaks itself with the lie of 'national security' in order to unleash its terrorist agency, the CIA.  Which than conducts overt and covert  terror operations on all those who would oppose its selfish and destructive foreign policies.  A nation that has instilled fear through the ever present threat of violent force throughout the globe.  I have only succeeded in shielding myself from this fear because my love of truth, justice, and peace, which is far greater than my very real fear of covert U.S. retalliation.  I have instead chosen to speak out against the nation of my birth who I consider to be the greatest threat to the safety and security of all people alive today.  I would rather die than continue in any way to acquiesce in what has been openly referred to as "the New World Order" by U.S. presidents Reagan, and Bush Sr. and Jr..  A world order so blatantly intending to shield the U.S. from world opinion and the rule of law while increasing its power and control of the entire planet.  Indeed the U.S. is well on their way  to achieving the ultimate goal of total global domination.  I ask you, what will this mean to the majority of people on this planet?  I will remain a stateless refugee for the rest of my life before I participate in the selfish insanity of the controlling powers of America today and its pathetic client state governments who are selling their national souls in return for protection and economic gain.    

It is with great concern that I acknowledge that few nations, if any, are not already caught within the web of U.S. power.  I have chosen to come to the Netherlands because I acknowledge it as perhaps the finest example of a free society in national terms on earth.  I am not naive however about its governments relationship with the U.S.  I have come to the Netherlands with an open mind but I recognize this relationship as injurious to my case for asylum.  Options of nations like Iraq or Libya for instance are not desirable because I do not want to be associated with any terrorist period.  If the Dutch Government injures its own integrity by rejecting my request for asylum based on the politically motivated Amsterdam Protocol that has led to America being so irroneously labeled a 'safe country,' I will move on, but not until fighting all the way to the International Court of Justice if necessary.               

The United States of America - A 'Safe Country'?

I came to the Netherlands as a refugee based on a thorough understanding of the laws and conventions (as written - not politically interpreted) which protect the human rights of all people.  These same laws and conventions which have been popularly endorsed by citizens throughout the European Community and are now formally adopted as European Laws.  Central to these laws is the Geneva Convention on Refugees which has subsequently become fully incorporated into Dutch Law via the Dutch Aliens Act .  Within this act, a definition is given concerning who is a refugee.

’A refugee is someone who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.' - Geneva Convention on Refugees - Article 1 (A) Section 2

The above paragraph has been the accepted standard of what defines a refugee.  By this definition I am without question a legitimate refugee.  Virtually all of the laws and conventions further clarify the necessity of not discriminating against refugees based on their 'country of origin.'  Despite the uniform consensus of the laws, the political reality of Europe has created a policy that is an absolute contradiction and insult to the intent of human rights laws regarding refugees.  This policy manifests itself via the 'safe country of origin' lists (which the Netherlands currently subscribes).   This injurious list disqualifies candidates by discriminating against them by of all things, their country of origin.  This is a pure example of politics corrupting law. 

"By declaring the refugee a social and humanitarian problem, which should not become a cause of tension between States, and by regulating it in this manner, the 1951 Convention [on refugees] works to ensure that no discord is sown among Contracting States. It does so not least by depoliticising the process of refugee status determination through employing a universal definition linked to a judgement of individual circumstances not State behaviour. It also works on the basis that all asylum applications should be processed, without discrimination or favour regardless of inter-State concerns. The new proposal [the Amsterdam protocol on asylum applications from EU countries] would work to the contrary, by making refugee protection depend on highly inter-State consultations and specific judgements about the behaviour of States". - UNHCR, Geneva:  Protocol on Asylum for nationals of EU Member States: preliminary observations April 1997
The policy is highly injurious to human rights in general but when applied to the United States it becomes a glaring example of U.S. power and domination.  I will provide several reports and excerpts of reports by non-governmental organizations which refute the politically motivated listing of America as a safe country.  I must demand in the interest of preserving my rights, discovery regarding the information used to identify America as safe.  If this demand for discovery is ignored and no evidence or reports can be produced than it can only be concluded that America cannot be identified as 'safe.'  I personally consider it an insult to the intelligence of myself and the Dutch officials reviewing my case by induldging in debate regarding whether the U.S. is a safe country.  Especially when an individual such as myself publicly acuses top level politicians in America with conspiracy to commit fraud and genocide against the Hawaiian people, exposes the fact that the U.S conducts more terror operations than any other nation, group, individual etc., and even commits treason based on the laws of the U.S.  I am guilty of all these things and shame on those who would so ignorantly claim that I am safe in America.  Most who would claim this are cowards who would never consider walking a day in my shoes and who hide behind laws perverted by politics.  This is a dangerous trend and I am intent on my case becoming a 'declaratory precedent' that will serve to remove politics from the realm of human rights law.  

I am prepared for the safe country of origin list that includes America being used as the reason for denying my request for asylum.  Because of this I have actively sought out media attention in an attempt to take this case beyond the politically subject institution of the IND and allow the Dutch people to also observe their government at work.  To the credit of Dutch and European media, they have seen the merits of my story and it is already reaching audiences in the the print, radio, and television mediums.  I am confident that when the seemingly predetermined rejection of my request happens it will only intensify the scrutiny on the treatment of all refugees.  All I ever wanted was a fair application of the asylum laws as written, but I have already had critical documents removed from my file by IND agents without my knowledge.  I have had a report making false statements on my behalf, and I have been told outright that my case has no merit based on my country of origin.  In light of these facts I am compelled to use every ability and resource available to me in defense of my human rights.  In doing this I must first shatter the ludicrous notion of America as a safe country. 

'In 1999, the U.S. continued to exempt itself from many of its international human rights obligations, particularly where international human rights law granted protections or redress not available under U.S. law. In ratifying international human rights treaties it typically carved away added protections for those in the U.S. by adding reservations, declarations, and understandings. Even years after ratifying key human rights treaties, the U.S. still failed to acknowledge international human rights law as U.S. law. Moreover, the U.S. was behind the rest of the developed world by failing to ratify the key international instruments on women's rights and workers' rights, and virtually alone in the world in failing to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the only other nation that had not ratified the treaty was Somalia, which had no functioning government).'

'In response to the president's December 1998 executive order to implement human rights treaties, an Interagency Working Group on Human Rights Treaties (IWG) started to examine relevant issues such as the application of the death penalty and treatment of refugees in the United States. According to the executive order, the IWG was required to institute training and guidance for local and state governments so that they honor the U.S.'s human rights obligations; to review reservations, declarations, and understandings that the U.S. attached to ratified treaties to ensure that they were warranted; to review proposed legislation to ensure that it was in conformity with human rights obligations; to facilitate the production of treaty compliance reports; and to promote the ratification of human rights treaties. To its credit, the IWG-which included representatives from the National Security Council, Justice Department, Labor Department, and from other agencies-consulted with human rights groups, but the working group's plan of action was unclear and as of October there had been no measurable improvement in U.S. compliance with key treaties.'
'Four years after it was due, the U.S. submitted its first compliance report on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in October 1999. The report acknowledged the existence of treaty violations in the U.S., but insisted that they were "aberrational" and unauthorized. Unfortunately, the report failed to confront adequately the limitations of legal protections for victims of abuse, ignored the widespread impunity enjoyed by abusive officials, exagerrated officials' commitment to implement human rights obligations, and failed to delineate steps it would take to address violations it acknowledged. The U.S.'s compliance report on the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was four years overdue and a second International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights compliance report became due.'

'The U.S. disregard for international human rights standards was not limited to domestic matters. During the year, it continued to oppose human rights initiatives on issues of broad international interest, including antipersonnel landmines, child soldiers, and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The U.S. refused to sign a comprehensive anti-landmine treaty, signed by 135 other nations, while announcing that it would sign the treaty in 2006 if it is able to come up with alternative weapons before that date. It continued to block international efforts to end the use of child soldiers, arguing against a proposed optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child that would raise the minimum age for military recruitment and participation to eighteen. It also opposed a broad prohibition on the use of child soldiers as part of an ILO convention on the worst forms of child labor. And contrary to the principle of equal treatment under the law, the U.S. continued to oppose the ICC treaty and insisted upon special exemptions for United States citizens.' - Human Rights Watch - United States Report 2000

'The United States often criticizes other countries for applying lower human rights protection standards than international standards, but it does not follow international standards itself. The United States does not recognize the priority application right of the international law, and the Federal Government refuses to implement international conventions nationwide, but allows its states to go their own way.   The United States is one of only two countries not to join the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the other being Somalia) and is one of the few not to join the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.   The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is the first major international human rights convention the U.S. joined, but it was only approved in 1988, whereas the U.S. signed it in 1948. Another convention, the International Convention on Eliminating All Forms of Racial Discrimination, was approved in 1994, after being signed by the U.S. in 1966. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was approved in 1992, and the U.S. signed it in 1977. Approval of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is still pending and it was signed in 1977.   Although it is one of the founding members of the Organization of American States, the United States refuses to either approve the American Convention on Human Rights, or sign other human rights conventions the organization has approved.   When it joined the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the U.S. said that it would only implement the two within the limits of its own laws, which makes joining meaningless.   The United States has many reservations about the former, some of them considered by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in conflict with international law and the principles of the covenant.   The U.S. also tried to put obstacles to the path of drafting the optional protocol on the Convention on the Rights of the Child by the United Nations, establishing the International Criminal Court and the land mine issue Ottawa process and other issues.   Although the U.S. approved the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1994, it has not yet handed in a report on implementing it nor the first and second reports on implementing the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which should be handed in by November 1995 and November 1997.   The U.S. gave the cold shoulder to the visit request by UN Human Rights Committee special rapporteurs and did not pay due attention to suggestions made during and after their visit.   The United States does not have a good human rights record itself but likes to play the role of the "world's human rights policeman" and makes unwarranted accusations about other countries, resulting in strenuous objections and resistance by other countries.   The American government needs to keep its eyes on its own human rights situation, mind its own business, and avoid interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.' - Independant Chineese Report by Ren Yanshi - Beijing, March 1, 1999

The U.S. stands alone among the prosperous Western nations of Europe and North America in their   non-compliance and often hostile attitude towards human rights laws.  Only a nation of massive political power such as the U.S. could even think of having its national facade so effectively accepted among its Western neighbors.  In 1998 Amnesty International published a 150 page report detailing specific abuses of human rights in America regarding race, gays and lesbians, labor, police abuse, over-incarceration, prison conditions, the death penalty and the 'widespread impunity enjoyed by abusive officials' also noted by the 2000 Human Rights Watch Report.  Despite the facts making it clear that the U.S. is in reality, hostile towards human rights, intent on denying human rights in its so-called 'home of the free.'

‘No other industrialized country even comes close to imprisoning as high a percentage of its population. Included among these prisoners are also more than 3,600 death row inmates. While the vast majority of countries have abandoned capital punishment, the US has carried out over 700 executions over the last quarter-century.’ -  World Socialist Web Site 

Not only are prison populations and state sponsored executions increasing in America, but the current president, George W. Bush, is the leading U.S. executioner with 145 executions in the State of Texas as the then Governor.  The United States is in the company of the most violent and barbaric of nations in this regard.  It is worth noting that not one European nation is on the list below.  States that conducted executions in the year 2000 include;

AFGHANISTAN, BAHAMAS, BELARUS, BURUNDI, CHINA, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, EGYPT, GUATEMALA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAPAN, JORDAN, KUWAIT, MALAYSIA, PAKISTAN, PHILIPPINES, QATAR, SAUDI ARABIA, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, TAIWAN, THAILAND, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN. 

‘In 2000, 88 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA. In China, limited and incomplete records available to Amnesty International at the end of the year indicated that at least 1,000 people were executed, but the true figure was believed to be much higher. In Saudi Arabia, 123 executions were reported, but the total may have been much higher. Eighty-five people were executed in the USA. At least 75 executions were carried out in Iran. In addition, hundreds of executions were reported in Iraq but many of them may have been extrajudicial.’ - Amnesty International

Only China, Saudi Arabia and Iraq outranked the United States for executions in 2000!

I argue that no nation, can ever be logically listed as a safe country as long as it employs the death penalty, and in the case of America, regularly uses the death penalty for not only adults but minors as young as 16, mentally handicapped, and foreign nationals.

‘Eight prisoners under sentence of death were released from death row in 1999 after evidence of their wrongful conviction emerged, bringing to 84 the number of inmates released after being sentenced to death since 1973.  David Junior Brown was executed in North Carolina in November despite serious questions surrounding his conviction.  Foreign nationals charged with capital offences continued to be denied their right to seek assistance from their consulates, in violation of international standards.  The day before German national Walter LaGrand was due to be executed in Arizona, Germany filed a request for 'provisional measures' at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ issued an order for the execution to be halted. However, despite a recommendation from the Arizona parole board for a stay to allow the ICJ time to examine the appeal, Walter LaGrand was executed in the gas chamber on 3 March. The German government decided to pursue its legal claim against the USA in the ICJ.’  - Amnesty International

These undeniable realities feed my well-founded fear of much more dire forms of persecution to come.  Although all my efforts have been non-violent, I could easily be framed for violent actions and I would then be a 'seditious conspirator' guilty of 'high treason' and then I will face a horrendous life in a U.S. prison possibly on death row myself.  Once in prison, I can expect to be identified as a political dissident and the treatment within U.S. prisons for “troublemakers” like myself is not pleasant.  Even for minor offenses, life in a U.S. prison is frieghtening.  I ask all those reviewing my case to take the following letter and explain to me how the U.S. could possibly be considered safe?  Especially for me.

‘I've been sentenced for a D.U.I. offense.  My 3rd one.  When I first came to prison, I had no idea what to expect. Certainly none of this.  I'm a tall white male, who unfortunately has a small amount of feminine characteristics.  And very shy.  These characteristics have got me raped so many times I have no more feelings physically.  I have been raped by up to 5 black men and two white men at a time. I've had knifes at my head and throat. I had fought and been beat so hard that I didn't ever think I'd see straight again.  One time when I refused to enter a cell, I was brutally attacked by staff and taken to segregation though I had only wanted to prevent the same and worse by not locking up with my cellmate.  There is no supervision after lockdown.  I was given a conduct report.  I explained to the hearing officer what the issue was. He told me that off the record, he suggests I find a man I would/could willingly have sex with to prevent these things from happening.  I've requested protective custody only to be denied. It is not available here. He also said there was nowhere to run to, and it would be best for me to accept things.  I probably have AIDS now.  I have great difficulty raising food to my mouth from shaking after nightmares or thinking to hard on all this.  I've laid down without physical fight to be sodomized.  To prevent so much damage in struggles, ripping and tearing.  Though in not fighting, it caused my heart and spirit to be raped as well.  Something I don't know if I'll ever forgive myself for.’

‘The letter excerpted above was one of the first to reach Human Rights Watch in response to a small announcement posted in Prison Legal News and Prison Life Magazine, two publications with a wide audience in U.S. prisons. Having been alerted to the problem of prisoner-on-prisoner rape in the United States by the work of activists like Stephen Donaldson of the organization Stop Prisoner Rape, we had decided to conduct exploratory research into the topic and had put a call out to prisoners for information. The resulting deluge of letters--many of which included compelling firsthand descriptions such as this--convinced us that the issue merited urgent attention. Rape, by prisoners' accounts, was no aberrational occurrence; instead it was a deeply rooted, systemic problem. It was also a problem that prison authorities were doing little to address.’ 

‘The present report--the product of three years of research and well over a thousand inmate letters describes the complex dynamics of male prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse in the United States. The report is an effort to explain why and how such abuse occurs, who commits it and who falls victim to it, what are its effects, both physical and psychological, how are prison authorities coping with it and, most importantly, what reforms can be instituted to better prevent it from occurring.’                                                                                      Human Rights Watch

I have looked for the human rights reports investigating the Netherlands to see if there is any similarity between the U.S. and the Netherlands in this regard.  I was able to make only one viable conclusion after having done this, safe lists are politically rationalized insults to human intelligence and a direct violation of human rights laws.  I am opposed to safe lists period but if there was a candidate for such a list, it would be the Netherlands, not the United States.  It is ironic that the very means of protecting human freedom and dignity is fast becoming yet another victim of U.S. power.  I say once again, shame on those who would wish to spout unfounded professions of America the safe country as a justification for my human right to asylum being so unjustly denied.

'A US citizen, Ritt Goldstein, has applied for asylum in Sweden. Goldstein has strong evidence indicating that he was systematically harassed and threatened by police ever since he founded a coalition on civilian oversight of law enforcement. Swedish immigration authorities have turned down his application on the summary grounds that the US is an internationally recognised constitutional democracy. The final outcome of the case is likely to have international implications as regards the right of nationals from stable Western democratic countries to seek asylum in a EU country.'

'In light of the above, the handling of the Goldstein case is particularly disquieting. It indicates that, out of "inter-State concerns" (i.e friendly relations with the US) Sweden is already applying the logic of the EU Amsterdam protocol in dealing with an application from outside the EU. The final outcome of the Goldstein case is therefore likely to become a precedent with international implications. As a consequence of EU "inter-State concerns" it might soon become virtually impossible for citizens from "internationally recognised" (western) democracies such as the USA, Canada, and Australia to seek protection in Europe.'

'Ironically, such concerns do not appear to plague the USA. Last year, a German and a Swiss citizen were granted refugee status in the US. Nobody in Europe drew the conclusion that the USA thereby questioned the status of Germany and Switzerland as stable and constitutional democracies.' - Fortress Europe Report - 1998

Let us not ignore the humor in the above.  Here is the current understanding as established by our political representatives in the Western world.  America, which is by virtue of the facts, a truly hostile enemy of human rights who literally walked out on the United Nations Conferance on Racism in September 2001 (as a recent example).  On the domestic front has by virtue of the recently passed 'Patriot Act of 2001' manifested the legal means to incarcerate 'aliens' who need not be charged with a crime, 'indefinitely', based on 'secret testimony', in which the source of this testimony need never be revealed.  Is currently  incacerating more people (mostly non-violent criminals) than any nation in history.  Ranks #4 in the world in number of executions for the year 2000.  Has more firearms in the hands of its citizens than any other nation.   Is far and away the most violent state in regards to domestic crime in the developed world.  On the international front, almost single-handedly thwarted the international initiative in 1999 for a Global Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in spite of pleadings to the contrary world leaders and overwhelming public opinion around the world.  Has recently withdrawn from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and will now actively pursue a 'missile defense shield' that will undoubtedly have tremendously unmatched offensive capabilities.  Has perpetuated fear and terror by dropping more bombs on civilians than any nation over the last fifty yaers.  Has more nuclear weapons than all other nations combined and can blow up the world thousands of times over, while continuing to build more.  A state that provided economic and agricultural support to our then friend Saddam Husseien in 1988 just after he killed 5000-7000 Kurds through the use of chemical weapons.  Has led the way and insisted on continuing the unlawful sanctions that blatantly violate the Geneva Conventions which prohibit the targeting of civilians.  These same sanctions that have led to the death of at least 500,000 Iraqi children over the last ten years.  A policy former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright quite comfortably remarked was, "on balance, worth the costs."  Has been condemned as a 'war criminal' by the International Court of Justice in the last ten years for actions in Nicaragua.  Is home to the infamous 'School of the America's' (since renamed) in Fort Benning, Georgia, which trains people in the art of, among other things, 'interrogation techniques' (torture; as defined in Black's Law) 'psychological warfare and counterinsurgency' (terrorism; as defined in Black's Law).  A 'school'  that has produced human monsters who have enthusiasticly conducted bloodbaths throughout Central and South America with full U.S. support.  A state that has far and away produced more weapons of mass-destruction which it very profitably sells to all who can pay (and sometimes simply subsidizes with U.S tax dollars), such as Hussein (Iraq), Noriega and Torrijos (Panama), Mobutu (Congo), D'Aubuisson and the Atlacatl Battallion (El Salvador), Galtieri (Argentina), Suarez (Bolivia), Montesinos and Fujimori (Peru), bin Laden and the Taliban (Afghanistan), and the #1 individual mass-murderer (U.S. being the #1 state mass-murderer) in the last 50 years, Suharto (Indonesia).  A state thoughtfully refferred to by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., as having a government that is "the world's leading purveyor of violence," yet I cannot possibly have a need for asylum because European politicians have deemed my country of origin as 'safe'.  Perhaps what these politicians really mean is that I should just shut up and ignore the above and so much more and then I will be 'safe', as they are by their acquiessence.  I will not acquiesce and turn a blind eye to the massive injustice and suffering which is a direct result of Western ignorance, apathy, and outright collusion.  This whole reality would be laughable if it were not so tragic in its implications, and not just for me.  Adding insult to injury the United States has essentially deemed Switzerland of all places and Germany as 'unsafe' by permitting two of its citizens asylum in the U.S..  I would like an IND official to explain to me how this ludicrous understanding came about, by once again demanding 'discovery' on this issue in order to review the material used to determine the U.S. as a safe country.  If the Dutch Government intends to site the Goldstein case as a precedent used to deny my request for asylum without proper discovery on this issue then it does so at the expense of its national integrity. 

Kenneth Nichols - A 'Refugee'
Life in the United States - I am ‘unwilling to avail’ myself ‘of the protection of that country,’ ‘owing to such fear’ of continued and increasing ‘persecution’ based on my critical but objective ‘political opinion.’   The following sections will serve to prove that I do indeed have a ‘well-founded fear’ of  ‘persecution’ that is based on several factors.  It is my contention that I clearly fulfill the requirements as set forth by law and convention to be determined a legitimate refugee. 

Persecution
Harassment and Injury
The Right to Travel & to Earn a Living 
It is a reality for me that my livelihood in the U.S. demanded that I drive customers of my scuba diving business to dive sites.  This has lead to continual distress whenever confronted with the possibility of a routine traffic stop.  n the highways due to the fact that I now have over $12,000.00 in bench warrants unlawfully issued for my arrest (all issued for minor traffic complaints).  If pulled over by police I have a well founded concern for my safety in light of these bench warrants.

‘Police brutality - including misuse of pepper spray and police dogs, and deaths from dangerous restraint holds - and shootings by police in disputed circumstances, continued to be widely reported. Systematic human rights abuses were uncovered in several police departments. Several police departments, including the New York Police Department (NYPD), were reportedly under federal investigation, under a 1994 law which allows the Justice Department to sue police agencies accused of a ‘pattern or practice’ of abuses.  Many of the unarmed suspects shot by police were members of ethnic minority groups; some were shot while fleeing the scenes of minor crimes or during routine traffic stops.’ - Amnesty International

I have sought remedy for these unlawful warrants within my financial and time abilities to no avail.  The potential remedy of a lawsuit in federal court is not an option, as I have neither the time nor finances for this endeavor.  Yet, as a person of moral principle, I refuse to submit to a tyrannical court system simply to make my life easier.  This has compelled me for the last year to drive in fear (often times with customers) of becoming another statistic of a 'routine traffic stop.'   If I am pulled over for any reason I will be taken to jail or worse, even though I am a person committed to non-violence and humanitarian causes.  Despite this, my sizable bench warrants, and multiple tattoos clearly fit the classic violent criminal profile for America's police forces.  I have therefore developed a rational and substantial fear that a 'nervous cop' will identify me as potentially violent, and treat me in a violent manner. 

In May, New York City police officer Justin A. Volpe stunned observers when in mid-trial he pleaded guilty on charges that he tortured Abner Louima by forcing a stick into his rectum. The August 1997 incident took place in the bathroom at a police station house. A federal jury convicted another officer who allegedly assisted Volpe during the assault. Volpe's guilty plea followed the testimony of fellow officers who implicated him in the attack. The traditional code of silence among officers was weakened in this case, in part due to the gruesome details of the attack and in part due to pressure brought by prosecutors. Some officers face additional conspiracy and perjury charges related to the assault and its aftermath.'

'In February, West African Amadou Diallo was shot at forty-one times and struck by nineteen bullets fired by New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers. Diallo, who was unarmed, was shot by officers from the NYPD's Street Crime Unit. The shooting put the unit's practices, and the NYPD generally, under increased scrutiny, and the police commissioner and the mayor on the defensive. Investigations by the New York State Attorney General's office, the city's Public Advocate's office, the U.S. Justice Department, and the U.S. Civil Rights Commission proceeded, but few significant reforms appeared on the horizon.'

'These incidents crystallized concerns over the practices of the country's largest police force because of the viciousness of the attack reported by Abner Louima and the number of shots fired at Amadou Diallo-and the fact that neither were involved in criminal activities-but they were just the latest examples of a problem that has plagued the United States for decades. Unjustified shootings, severe beatings, fatal chokings, and unnecessarily rough treatment by police and sheriffs' officers occur in cities and towns throughout the country.' - Human Rights Watch - United States Report 2000

It is important to note that in the last three years there have been at least four alleged criminals shot dead by Hawaii police on the island that I lived.  None of these police were charged with a crime.  Additionally, the Honolulu police department is rampant with corruption and brutality of one kind or another. 

Over the last ten years ‘law enforcement officers’ ‘have killed 20,000 people in the United States’ (Human Rights Watch). 

Violations of Civil Rights
Unlawful ‘Bench Warrants’ & Rogue Judges
Battling the traffic courts on issues of jurisdiction and constitutionality I have proof beyond doubt, via official U.S. traffic court transcripts that my constitutional (civil) rights are being repeatedly violated.  This is  a direct result of my being unwilling to voluntarily relinquish my civil rights.  Consequently, I am continually living with the fear of police abuse and imprisonment.  This fear is partly based on unlawful ‘bench warrants’ (violating ARTICLE IV & VIII of the Bill of Rights) issued against me directing police to arrest me for;
‘Failure to appear’ in traffic court (for minor traffic complaints), despite the fact that official court transcripts prove my presence and response in the courtroom (See exhibit 1).  On this particular occasion an $11,000.00 bench warrant (bail) was issued for my arrest on November 30th, 2000. 

ARTICLE IV - ‘…no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,’ - United States Bill of Rights

A $200-500 bench warrant would typically be issued for a 'failure to appear' on an alleged first offense traffic violation like the one I was charged with in exhibit 1.   An $11,000.00 bench warrant would normally be reserved for violent criminals that pose a public safety risk, i.e. charged with assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery or other violent offenses. 

ARTICLE VIII - ‘Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed…” - United States Bill of Rights

If taken into custody I would have to post an $11,000.00 bail bond to be released or simply await arraignment in jail (delays would be expected).  I cannot afford and am unwilling to pay unlawful and  excessive bail, so awaiting trial in jail would be unavoidable.  This warrant is a clear violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States.

ARTICLE V & XIV -‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ - United States Bill of Rights

'Due Process of Law' has been continually and systematically denied in my cases.  Additionally, bench warrants have been issued for minor traffic complaints proved to be false.  A court officer has even assaulted me in court.  Even direct proof of innocence cannot protect a dissenter like myself from blatant violations of civil rights.  And this in the same court system sworn to uphold these civil laws.  Exhibit two serves as evidence of assault against myself by an unidentified person in plain clothes within a U.S. courtroom while peaceably exiting.  The judge within the transcript refers to this previously unidentified person as “Mr. Woody” and further refers to him as a “court officer.”   (See exhibit 2) 

'Four years after it was due, the U.S. submitted its first compliance report on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in October 1999. The report acknowledged the existence of treaty violations in the U.S., but insistedthat they were "aberrational" and unauthorized. Unfortunately, the report failed to confront adequately the limitations of legal protections for victims of abuse, ignored the widespread impunity enjoyed by abusive officials, exagerrated officials' commitment to implement human rights obligations, and failed to delineate steps it would take to address violations it acknowledged.' - Human Rights Watch Report 2000

As the injuries to myself increased I sought to document on videotape court proceedings for my own records and protection and for the production of a documentary revealing these unlawful courts.    

      Violation of ARTICLE I - 'Free Press'

ARTICLE I -‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;’ - United States Bill of Rights

I am a legitimate media (press) agent by virtue of my non-profit; tax exempt 501 (c) (3) organization, the Universal Kinship Society (See exhibit 3) that has the mission of;

‘Producing documentaries about ethical and ecological movements around the globe from an active participant point of view.’ - Universal Kinship Society Mission Statement

I was systematically denied the essential civil right of 'free press' (after identifying myself as a press agent and reading ARTICLE I aloud) in a public courtroom by two different judges in which I was able to not only charge, but also prove, ongoing civil rights violations in their court via their own official court transcripts.  Through the use of a hidden camera I was however, able to document the court proceeding in which my visible video camera was seized (the videotape never returned).  (See exhibit 1-V - videotape)

ARTICLE IV - ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…’ - United States Bill of Rights

Aside from the continual fear of incarceration I am additionally drained of emotional and financial resources in order to 'defend' myself in a thoroughly corrupt 'justice system.'  A system that blatantly violates its own 'supreme law.'  I have diligently strived for remedy, but it has become virtually impossible without spending more money and time (that I cannot afford) or simply turning myself in to a violent and corrupt jail system.  Now there is the ominous power of 'anti terror' legislation that virtually assures an increase in violations of civil rights.  (See exhibit 4)

‘Allegations that Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers from Rampart Station beat and shot unarmed suspects, planted evidence and lied to cover up their actions were being investigated by a special board of inquiry at the end of the year; more than a dozen officers had been fired or suspended.’ - Amnesty International

As recently as October 29th, 2001 I was handcuffed and threatened with arrest for 'scuba diving without a dive flag' and 'not providing identification' while conducting a scuba certification course at a public beach.  This persecution was carried out by an officer who knew of me and my “views.” This became clear by him stating, “He didn’t care how many nets I had recovered.”  Referring to ecological efforts of mine that have been well covered in local television and print media.  I was only able to avoid arrest in this case because apparently the officer did not know that warrants were issued for my arrest and by successfully providing a false surname and birth date.  This is a clear example of having to employ extraordinary measures in order to avoid arrest and incarceration.  Witnesses to this incident include the two students I was teaching.  One is a Child Psychiatrist from Toronto and the other a Technology Manager from New York City.  They were both amazed and appalled, and both of them are willing to corroborate my persecution in this incident. 

Russell xxxxxxxx - Toronto (416) 489-xxxx
Leonardo xxxxxxxx - New York (212) 874-xxxx

For me, incarceration is virtually unavoidable unless I leave the U.S., and the trends for prison populations here are staggering.  (See exhibit 5)

Life in a United States Prison, Sedition, Seditious Conspiracy, and Treason

Sedition
Sedition is an ominously vague crime that leaves much to the whims of those in the power to use this charge.  Sedition is defined in the authoritive text, Black’s Law Dictionary, as;

'An agreement, communication, or other preliminary activity aimed at inciting treason or some lesser commotion against public authority; advocacy aimed at inciting or producing - and likely to incite or produce - imminent lawless action.'
 
Seditious Conspiracy
Due to my direct involvement in the peaceful and lawful Hawaiian independance movement, and my highly critical of U.S. policy, the likely charge to be used against me (especially since the September 11th attacks) is the charge of seditious conspiracy.  Seditious Conspiracy is defined as;

  ‘A criminal conspiracy to forcibly;

'Force' is defined as;

  'Power, violence, or pressure directed against a person or a thing.'

'Power' is defined as;

• 'The ability to act or not
• Dominance, control, or influence over another'

From the historical perspective on how the United States treats dissidents like myself, I am already without doubt guilty of the charge of sedition and seditious conspiracy based on the legal definition of these crimes.  This does of course deny the higher laws of International Public Law that provides the 'right to resist.'

'...every State has the right to resist any attempt to deprive it of its rights, or of anything which lawfully belongs to it; for in so doing it is only acting in conformity with all its duties, which is the source of this right.  This right is a perfect one; that is, it carries the right to use force to make it affective.' - The Law of Nations

Admirably the Hawaiian movement for independance has chosen to use non-violence as its 'use of force.'  I have been and continue to be likewise committed to this principle.  But dissenters in America are targeted whether violent or not, and with the current wartime conditions, someone like myself is now more than ever a prime target for false imprisonment.  This is a very real fear for me.  Because I am generally against violence and have 100% support for non-violent resistance in Hawaii does not mean that I could not be framed for planning or carrying out violent acts, especially terrorist acts.

Conspiracy is the primary weapon employed to eliminate these types of 'subversives.'  I am unwilling to allow myself to become a falsely convicted non-violent political prisoner in the United States so that I can prove my 'well founded fear' of becoming one. 

My personal experiences and an overwhelming body of evidence confirms employment of economic deprivation, intimidation, physical beatings, political framing, terrorism, torture, judicial and extrajudicial executions by COINTELPRO (FBI), CIA, Secret Service, The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Military Forces, Federal and State Judicial Branches, the Executive Branch along with hired thugs and informants and mafia figures to control subversives is enormous.  Only the most naïve of people are unaware of these realities.  I will provide merely a tiny sample of those victims of political targeting by the U.S.  (See exhibit 6)  I can and will supply enormous evidence of all these tactics and how I qualify as I prime target if deemed necessary by the IND. 

I hereby reaffirm that I am a peaceful and non-violent person.  I have written the “Non-violence Resolution” that was formally adopted into Hawaiian Kingdom Law in the summer of 2001.  This resolution commits the Hawaiian Government to a course of law and a non-violent transfer of power.  (See exhibit 7)  In many ways however it is this belief in non-violence and law that makes me even more of a target.  As those who have successfully carried the message of non-violence almost uniformly become political prisoners or die by violence.  It is naïve at best to deny that I, along with anyone else who threatens the current power structure of America, cannot be easily be framed for violent actions, or planned actions (conspiracy) of violence.  No matter who the person, no one can withstand the immense power of the unmatched American propaganda machine.  Which can effectively find someone guilty and hanged before even going to trial.  Case in point, “we want Usama bin Laden dead or alive” - President George W. Bush.       

As shown in exhibit 6, the charge of conspiracy can be easily doctored.  Based on the historical records, prison is highly likely should I continue to dissent.  I will do so.  The likelihood of false imprisonment is exacerbated once again by current wartime conditions and the accelerating increase of power for the FBI, CIA, and all police and military within the U.S.  (See exhibit 8)  Recent ‘Anti-Terrorism’ legislation has seriously increased the power of the FBI and CIA.  Serious debate is already taking place regarding whether these agencies should be allowed to threaten family members of accused terrorists with violence, torture accused terrorists, and even assassinate them as well, legally! 

Once again, for myself the bogus charge of conspiracy will stem from my numerous public condemnations of U.S. Domestic and Foreign Policy, my formal renunciation of U.S. citizenship on March 1st, 2001, and most significant, the documentary I produced\directed entitled “The UNITED STATES of HYPOCRISY Hawaii - The Tibet of the Pacific.”  (See exhibit 2-V - videotape)  This documentary is a scathing indictment of the United States and I have directly charged contemporary high-level U.S. politicians with “conspiracy to commit fraud and genocide against the kanaka maoli” (aboriginal Hawaiians) by virtue of their using 'blood quantum' to measure race.  The documentary has already played extensively on publically controlled community television in Hawaii.  Although the impact of this is marginal at best.  More important, for the purposes of the conspiracy charge is my outlining of the reinstatement process within the documentary.  This reinstatement process is that by which the Hawaiian Nation has exercised its ‘perfect right’ under International Public Law to 'reinstate' the 'the inherent sovereignty' and protect its national honor.

'Nations and sovereigns should uphold their dignity by insisting that due honor be shown them, and above all by not permitting any offense against their honor.' - The Law of Nations 

Within my documentary I have additionally argued how the “New World Order” touted by Bush Sr. involves total U.S. domination of the world.  I contend that this threatens the safety of all nations and therefore all people (including Americans and Dutch).  I remind people of the 7000 nuclear weapons still within the U.S. arsenal (3000 in Hawaii).  Targeting mostly civilian targets around the world.  3000 nuclear weapons in the islands makes Hawaii the most dense area in the world for nuclear weapons.  And now, there exists the very real possibility of the Pakistani Government being overrun by angry militant Muslim factions within their own country.  These factions would then control nuclear weapons themselves.  In light of this, I am wondering just how close to global nuclear destruction we must get before critically addressing these very real dangers.      

Current Status of Citizenship

International Public Law, U.S. Domestic Law, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights all affirms the right of an individual to change citizenship. 

ARTICLE 15 - (2) ‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.’ - United Nations Universal Declaration of Rights

I have fulfilled my obligations as a U.S. citizen in enduring the lengthy and costly process of formally renouncing my U.S. citizenship.  (Exhibit 9) This process culminated on March 1st, 2001 with my sworn affirmation before U.S. Consul Steven Giegerich that my renunciation was genuine.  I declared then, and I declare now that I have no loyalty to the government of the country of my birth.  I officially relinquished my U.S. passport on March 1, 2001 (See exhibit 10) and demanded that if my Hawaiian citizenship was not acknowledged (See exhibit 11) that I be deemed 'stateless.' 

‘Once again, I demand statelessness over U.S. citizenship or acknowledgement of my existence as a lawful citizen of the Hawaiian Nation.  Either way, I am henceforth, not a United States citizen in any form or shape.’ - Taken directly from my renunciation statement

Soon after March 1st, I returned to Hawaii.  My reason for this is my sworn allegiance to the Lawful Hawaiian Government and their noble cause for independence.  I state emphatically that my primary reason for retuning to Hawaii was to help the Lawful Hawaiian Government exercise its perfect right to pursue independence based on International Public Law.

‘The Rule of postliminium is that by which the persons and property captured by the enemy are restored to their former status on coming again into the power of the Nation to which they belong.’ - The Law of Nations

On August 13th, 2001 a letter was sent to me from the United States Department of State signed by Ian Brownlee (see exhibit 12 ) stating that because I failed to;

‘…attempt to be documented as an alien under the Immigration and Nationality Act,’ I did not truly intend to renounce my citizenship.

It would have been foolish of me to even attempt to register as an alien as I was not allowed upon my request in Vancouver to have a copy of the documents I had just signed for renunciation of U.S. citizenship and the 'Certificate for Loss of Nationality.'  At the time of my return to Hawaii I simply had no proof whatsoever that I was anything but a U.S. citizen.  Nevermind the fact that U.S. consul never directed me to register as an alien even though they knew I was returning to Hawaii.  Furthermore, registering as an ‘alien’ ignores U.S. Public Law 103-150 which legally acknowledged the existence of the Hawaiian Nation in 1993.  As a citizen of the Hawaiian nation with the sworn allegiance to that nation I am as much a Hawaiian national as anyone.  I have as a result always felt compelled to continue in the effort for justice in Hawaii.  The State Department of the United States has been sent copies of the 'Repatriation Applications' for all such citizens of the Hawaiian nation.  They are aware of these citizens but are actively ignoring their existence.  By registering as an alien I would have been effectively consenting to the jurisdiction of the ‘de facto’ United States, and its immigration department.  This would have compromised the integrity and honor of the Hawaiian nations de jure status.  

‘…we therefore concluded that you did not intend to relinquish U.S. citizenship when you executed the Oath of Renunciation on October 12, 2000 (the date my original renunciation forms were received).  Accordingly, we cannot approve the Certificate of Loss of Nationality forwarded to us by the Embassy in Ottawa.  The Department of State considers you a U.S. citizen.’ - August 13, 2001 State Department response to Kenneth Nichols

This conclusion frightens me because I am fearful of being considered a U.S. citizen.  As such I can be framed and returned to the U.S.  Despite my fears the humor in the State Department stating  'we therefore concluded that you did not intend to relinquish U.S. citizenship when you executed the Oath of Renunciation on October 12, 2000' is not lost on me.  It is however perfectly in line with standard operating procedure for the U.S. government.  Ignoring laws, which do not favor its agenda, is routine.  While playing up laws, which support its agenda, is likewise, routine.  The State Department completely ignored my reference to its own federal law (U.S. Public Law 103-150) acknowledging the nation of Hawaii and instead shamefully pretends as if this nation does not exist.  

I can find no reference or precedent in law that says one who has fulfilled the obligations of renunciation can be compelled to remain a citizen of that nation.  Especially when he has legally and publicly declared he has no allegiance to that nation.  If any such law or precedent exists, it flies in the face of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention on Refugees, and International Public Law.  The United States seems to believe that its domestic laws supercede international laws, this is of course no surprise to those who have critically analyzed U.S. foreign policy.  I have only come to the Netherlands with a U.S. passport (that was sent back to me by the State Department) to insure that I could travel to the Netherlands in order to seek asylum.  I will now turn over my passport to the appropriate Dutch Officials with my attached response to the State Department (see exhibit 13) making it clear that I have now left the United States with absolutely no intent to return, indefinitely. 

I shall remain loyal to my extended Hawaiian family and their lawful, non-violent cause for independence,  but ongoing persecution is increasingly troublesome and I believe my presence in America with my particulr political ideology make me a liability for my direct family.  As a result, I am now compelled to leave Hawaii.
 
‘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 28 - ‘Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.’ - United Nations Universal Declaration of Rights

I intend to invoke all human rights in order to protect myself including, if necessary, Article 33 and Article 38 of the Geneva Convention on Refugees.  I hope this will not be necessary.  Due to my extraordinary effort to renounce U.S. citizenship I cannot reasonably be considered anything but stateless.  I am hopeful that Dutch officials will recognize this and provide me with a nationality of which I can be proud.  I would indeed be proud to be a Dutch citizen. 

ARTICLE  15 - (1) - ’Everyone has the right to a nationality.’ - United Nations Universal Declaration of Rights

Conclusion

I clearly fit the definition of refugee as defined in the Geneva Convention on Refugees, ARTICLE 1 (A) Section 2.  Based on this I have the lawful right to seek asylum in the Netherlands as prescribed by the Dutch Aliens Act.  Official U.S. Court documents and undercover videotape along with eyewitness accounts confirm an accelerating pattern of persecution in my birth nation.  This will logically lead to incarceration unless I acquiesce to tyrannical rule.  I am unwilling to do this.  My objectively critical political views and involvement in the Hawaiian Independence Movement make me a likely target for being framed of violent crimes or with the charge of seditious conspiracy.  I am especially concerned about the charge of seditious conspiracy, which would logically lead to a long-term prison sentence.  I am already virtually assured of incarceration if I were to remain in the U.S. due to unlawful bench warrants issued against me.  Once imprisoned I will assuredly be branded as a 'subversive' and would likely be exposed to already routine incidents of isolation, beating, rape, and possibly torture and death.  Understanding this reality I further acknowledge the horrible human rights record of president George W. Bush and the United States as a whole.  All of these risks inherent in remaining in the United States are unacceptable to me, and I am unwilling to risk any of the above injuries any longer.  Aside from acquiescence (also unacceptable), leaving the United States permanently is the only way to assure a halt to my persecution.  I have therefore left the United States to assure that this persecution does indeed end. 

I have come to the far more honorable nation of the Netherlands with the backing of law to support my application for asylum.  I have a solid case for asylum and this is how I prefer to enter the Dutch society.  Dutch Citizenship however, by any legal process, is my top priority.  I am a peace loving and tolerant person.  I have initial funds for survival but I wish to work as soon as possible.  I believe that the Netherlands is one of the few nations on the planet that I can truly feel free.  In being compelled to leave Hawaii I have chosen the Netherlands for this very reason.  I will not return to America!  I will abide by laws not injurious to human rights. 
Sincerely,

Kenneth Roy Nichols

I Kenneth Roy Nichols have legally taken the surname of my wife although this is not reflected on my U.S. passport.  I submit my marraige certificate (See exhibit 14) as proof of my legal right to the name of; 

Kenneth Nichols O'Keefe

I wish to move forward with the surname of O'Keefe if there is no objection by the IND.