Does the State of Hawai'i lack legal existence?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the State of Hawai‘i lack legal existence because of illegalities in Hawai''s statehood process? (including the removal of Queen Lili‘uokalani by “superior force,” unratified treaties of annexation, confusion of “joint resolution” with “enactment,” Presidential recognition of Hawai‘ian independence, an executive agreement to restore the royal government, “armed invasion,” an Admission Act passed without a vote of the people, a fraudulent ballot, and unqualified voters illegally voting) 2. Are inhabitants of the islands consequently not “citizens of Hawai'i” for purposes of Diversity Jurisdiction? | -1PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Melvin Keakaku Amina and Donna Amina, Pro Se, respectfully petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (18-16786) in this case. | OPINION BELOW The Memorandum of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Unpublished. (App., la). Judgment was entered 12/10/2020. (App., 1a) The opinion of the district court (App., 1b) is unreported. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on 12/10/2020. (App., la). A timely petition for ‘ rehearing was denied on 04/05/2021. (App., 1c) The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254 (1). STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED The pertinent statutes and _ constitutional provisions involved are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b)(2); Act of April 30, 1900, C 339, 31 Stat 141 (Territory Act); Act of March 18, 1959, Pub L 86-3, 73 Stat 4 (Statehood Act); Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. STATEMENT cc -2This case presents questions of broad practical importance to everyone in Hawaii: (1) Does the State of Hawai'i lack legal existence (and Union membership) because the removal of Queen Lili‘vokalani by “superior force” was not a lawful act, and because a correct count of the lawful votes would show that Hawai‘ian statehood was not approved, and for the other reasons set forth here? (2) Are the Aminas, and others similarly situated, “citizens of Hawai'i’ for purposes of Diversity Jurisdiction? And possibly: (3) Does the Federal court in Hawai'i lack legal existence? 1. Legal Background i. Both treaties of annexation were never consented to by two-thirds (2/3rds) of those present in the United States Senate. ii. The Organic Act of 1900 presumptively extending U.S. citizenship (sec. 4) to Hawai‘ian citizens and descendants of them as well as asserting jurisdiction over the territory (sec.2) and citizens of Hawai'i was not properly grounded in that it was based upon the previous resolution on 1898 of annexation of Hawai'i (The Newlands Resolution). A joint resolution is not an enactment and is restricted to the boundaries of the United States. The key to Hawai'rs legal status remains with the 1893 executive agreement between two heads of state: President Grover Cleveland and Queen Lili‘uokalani. iii. US President John Tyler recognized Hawai‘ian independence on December 19, 1842. In November of 1893, President Cleveland negotiated an agreement to fully restore the government of Queen -3Lili‘uokalani under the condition she grant amnesty to all involved in her overthrow. A formal declaration accepting Cleveland’s terms of restoration came from the queen in December 1893. This executive agreement between President Grover Cleveland and Queen Lili‘uokalani is binding under both international and US federal law. iv. United States President Cleveland in addressing the joint houses of Congress on December 18, 1893, stated it accurately when he said, “candid and thorough examination of the facts will force the conviction that the Provisional Government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States.” See also Public Law 103-150, which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. The United States had formally recognized Hawai'i as an : international personality, recognizing the Nation of Hawaii as a sovereign, independent natio