The Apology Resolution is not "tantamount to a recognition that the [Hawaiian] Kingdom continues to exist." State v. Lorenzo , 77 Haw. 219, 221, 883 P.2d 641, 643 (1994) ; cf.Hawaii v. Off. of Hawaiian Affs. , 556 U.S. 163, 172, 129 S.Ct. 1436, 173 L.Ed.2d 333 (2009) (rejecting claim for injunctive relief based on the Apology Resolution). Denis cannot assert claims based the Hawaiian Kingdom's laws in federal court.

[132 Hawai'i 42] State argued, inter alia, that the court had jurisdiction, Petitioners admitted the violation, the relevant administrative rules and statutes were constitutional, and that the court was not the proper forum to recognize the Reinstated Kingdom of Hawai‘i as a sovereign nation. Petitioners filed a reply on July 26, 2007, asserting what they termed the "Lorenzo defense" based on the ICA's decision in State v. Lorenzo, 77 Hawai‘i 219, 883 P.2d 641 (App.1994), that future courts would consider evidence and arguments in support of recognition of the inherent sovereignty of native Hawaiians. Petitioners also maintained that they are citizens of a nation rather than a group and that "[t]he fact that there are other ‘groups' out there, or that the State is trying to create its own domestic dependent nation (as opposed to a true—sovereign nation—the type of nation for which Kahoolawe is held in trust) is not relevant to [the Lorenzo] defense."

His invocation of the Hawaiian Kingdom or international law, or his understanding of criminal law, does not affect the legitimacy of the United States or this district court. See United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993); State v. Lorenzo, 77 Haw. 219, 221, 883 P.2d 641, 643 (Ct. App. 1994); Kupihea v. United States, 2009 WL 2025316, at *2 (D. Haw. July 10, 2009); Waialeale v. Offices of U.S. Magistrate(s), 2011 WL 2534348, at *2 (D. Haw. June 24, 2011) ("The Ninth Circuit, this court, and Hawaii state courts have all held that the laws of the United States and the State of Hawaii apply to all individuals in this State."). This Court, and others, have repeatedly rejected Mo'i Kapu's arguments to this effect.

His invocation of the Hawaiian Kingdom or international law, or his understanding of criminal law, does not affect the legitimacy of the United States or this district court. See United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993); State v. Lorenzo, 77 Haw. 219, 221, 883 P.2d 641, 643 (Ct. App. 1994); Kupihea v. United States, 2009 WL 2025316, at *2 (D. Haw. July 10, 2009); Waialeale v. Offices of U.S. Magistrate(s), 2011 WL 2534348, at *2 (D. Haw. June 24, 2011) ("The Ninth Circuit, this court, and Hawaii state courts have all held that the laws of the United States and the State of Hawaii apply to all individuals in this State.").

His invocation of the Hawaiian Kingdom or international law, or his understanding of criminal law, does not affect the legitimacy of the United States or this district court. See United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993); State v. Lorenzo, 77 Haw. 219, 221, 883 P.2d 641, 643 (Ct. App. 1994); Kupihea v. United States, 2009 WL 2025316, at *2 (D. Haw. July 10, 2009); Waialeale v. Offices of U.S. Magistrate(s), 2011 WL 2534348, at *2 (D. Haw. June 24, 2011) ("The Ninth Circuit, this court, and Hawaii state courts have all held that the laws of the United States and the State of Hawaii apply to all individuals in this State."). This district court has previously rejected his arguments to this effect.

Moreover, his invocation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, international law, or the 1993 Apology Resolution, Pub. L. No. 1031150, 107 Stat. 1510 (1993), does not affect the legitimacy of the United States or this District Court. See United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993); State v. Lorenzo, 77 Haw. 219, 221, 883 P.2d 641, 643 (Ct. App. 1994); Kupihea v. United States, 2009 WL 2025316, at *2 (D. Haw. July 10, 2009); Waialeale v. Offices of U.S. Magistrate(s), 2011 WL 2534348, at *2 (D. Haw. June 24, 2011) ("The Ninth Circuit, this court, and Hawaii state courts have all held that the laws of the United States and the State of Hawaii apply to all individuals in this State.").

Nor does Vicente's invocation of alleged treaty violations provide a basis for this Court's subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that Vicente is a member of the Hawaiian Kingdom or that his alleged injuries resulted from the breach of a treaty between the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom. See United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993); State v. Lorenzo, 77 Haw. 219, 221, 883 P.2d 641, 643 (Ct. App. 1994); Kupihea v. United States, 2009 WL 2025316, at *2 (D. Haw. July 10, 2009); Waialeale v. Offices of U.S. Magistrate(s), 2011 WL 2534348, at *2 (D. Haw. June 24, 2011) ("The Ninth Circuit, this court, and Hawaii state courts have all held that the laws of the United States and the State of Hawaii apply to all individuals in this State."). Accordingly, the Court is without the authority to adjudicate these claims, and the Complaint is DISMISSED.

Individuals claiming to be citizens of the Kingdom and not of the State are not exempt from application of the State's laws. See id. at 55, 101 P.3d at 664;State v. Lorenzo, 77 Hawai‘i 219, 883 P.2d 641 (App.1994); State v. French, 77 Hawai‘i 222, 883 P.2d 644 (App.1994); Nishitani v. Baker, 82 Hawai‘i 281, 921 P.2d 1182 (App.1996); State v. Lee, 90 Hawai‘i 130, 976 P.2d 444 (1999).

Individuals claiming to be citizens of the Kingdom and not of the State are not exempt from application of the State's laws. See id. at 55, 101 P.3d at 664; State v. Lorenzo, 77 Hawai'i 219, 883 P.2d 641 (App. 1994); State v. French, 77 Hawai'i 222, 883 P.2d 644 (App. 1994); Nishitani v. Baker, 82 Hawai'i 281, 921 P.2d 1182 (App. 1996); State v. Lee, 90 Hawai'i 130, 976 P.2d 444 (1999).Id. at 487, 291 P.3d at 385.

Individuals claiming to be citizens of the Kingdom and not of the State are not exempt from application of the State's laws. See id. at 55, 101 P.3d 225, 101 P.3d at 664;State v. Lorenzo, 77 Hawai‘i 219, 883 P.2d 641 (App.1994); State v. French, 77 Hawai‘i 222, 883 P.2d 644 (App.1994); Nishitani v. Baker, 82 Hawai‘i 281, 921 P.2d 1182 (App.1996); State v. Lee, 90 Hawai‘i 130, 976 P.2d 444 (1999).