The Kingdom of Hawaii and the US are still in conflict

And that conflict extends to rape by fraud law!

Marcelo Dapino, My Shot
Marcelo Dapino, My Shot


A little history….

Way back in 1889, the US, after several failed attempts, succeeded in unilaterally annexing the Hawaiian Islands. The coupe was motivated by a desire to obtain close, direct access to Guam and the Philippines during the Spanish American War.

But conflict over the independence of the Islands is ongoing. As recently as 2001, a complaint was filed with the United Nations Security Council demanding that Hawaii’s continuity as an independent state remain intact under international law. And judging by the disparity in laws over rape by fraud, I’d come down heavily on the side of an independent Hawaiian Kingdom!

The Hawaiian Kingdom Penal Code is pretty specific about protecting unmarried women against the crime of rape by fraud in Chapter XI-6:

Whoever, by conspiracy or by willful falsehood or deceit, seduces, causes or procures any unmarried female to commit fornication, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment at hard labor not more than two years.

The only statute that comes close to penalizing rape by fraud in the Criminal Code of the State of Hawaii is 707-733, (c) Sexual Assault in the fourth degree:

The person knowingly trespasses on property for the purpose of subjecting another person to surreptitious surveillance for the sexual gratification of the actor.

The term “surreptitious” is defined in normal parlance as “stealthy, sly, and sneaky.” One would need to argue that these definitions accurately describe the actions of the offender. Although the penetration of the offender is not specifically punished, his (or her) intent to eye-ball (peep) the victim for sexual gratification is. Unless they claim their eyes were closed during the act of penetration, this statute would seem to apply. Still, enforcement would be limited to an intrusion into a victim’s home since it requires a “trespass.”

Hawaii’s statutes currently punish sexual acts of coercion and abuse of authority.

Special Dedication

Kimberly Raya’s son plays for a high school marching band that’s been given the honor of performing in the upcoming Pearl Harbor Day Memorial Parade in Hawaii. This post is dedicated to her efforts to raise funds so she can share this unique experience with him. KIm helps countless abuse victims recover their dignity on her blog, LetMeReach, and I hope you will lend support to her for this special event by clicking the “Special Dedication” link above.

28 thoughts on “The Kingdom of Hawaii and the US are still in conflict”

  1. And the chances of Hawaii reverting back to the Kingdom of Hawaii so you can experience the joy of seeing Hawaiian men doing two years hard labor in prison over, say, telling a woman they own real estate in Los Angeles, and they garage a Ferrari there ,are fortunately not slim and none, but none and none.

    1. Tom

      Stop with the absurd rape scenarios already. Haven’t we established that the media’s ridiculous misinterpretations of this law will not fly in real life?

      1. It’ not your law, but you could could barely contain your giddiness (“I come own heavily In support!”) as you wrote about the possibility of this men-only, draconian vicious law (no Constitution, no American courts in the Kingdom ) having the power of the state behind it. Very telling. The law is so vaguely worded that of course men could and would go to prison there under my scenario. My what a vengeful, bitter woman. “Hell hath no fury” world here guys. Take notes. Two years in prison is twice the length of a maximum misdemeanor prison term (one year or less)

        1. Class A misdemeanor in AL- max is 2 years. Every state has its own penal code.

          The law is entirely gender neutral Tom. Problem is that the only examples you personally can think of have male offenders. Such is not the case; however. You are making the assumption that a state’s Assembly, a State’s Senate and a state’s Governor would pass a gender-specific law. Your assumption is flawed.

          1. did you read my post? I said the Kingdom of Hawaii law was NOTt your law, but nonetheless you were enthusiastically in support of this males only. draconian law. You are not gender specific because you can’t get away with gender specific laws in the u.s.a but a post like this makes me think that’s probably the only reason you are not males only. “Alabama”?What a great land of fairness,legal scholars, erudite lawyers, judges and courts and constututional law experts . Folks, it’s kind of pathetic that she has to go to Alabama as her model state. And the public list ( (full names cities and states for your suspects WAS up a few days ago when I called you on it and brought it to Leykis’es attention, BUT YOU’VE NOW PULLED IT. (“If you look further, you’ll see….blahblah’) My, you’re slick. How about acknowledging that the public list of men WAS up and you took it down?.

            1. I absolutely will acknowledge that it was up and I took it down.

              Even though I have the absolute right to report the information that is sent-in to the blog, I simply don’t want to give nay-sayers, who really don’t understand the laws on this type of information, something to complain about. Removing it was my way of insuring that commentors would stick to the point without that distraction. I never claimed anything other than that it was up and I took it down. It states so clearly on the post. So, super snooper, you caught me…. doing something that I clearly acknowledged.

              There are a few million people living in the state of Alabama who you just insulted. Among them are many lawyers, judges, etc. So I guess, in your opinion, all those Auburn Tigers and Alabama Crimson Tide folks are just idiots? And the Law Professors at Cumberland School of Law at Sanford University in Birmingham aren’t up to your standards.

              If I didn’t think you were a bigot before, you just changed my mind.

              1. wow Cumberland?o h of course Cumberland! i t’s a household name in the law school world. yeah what a bastion of educated people in that state…..over 50% of the white people here in the city of Seattle have college bachelor degrees, total% 46 or 47%. Boston is close to us in %’es. What’s the rate for Birmingham? 19%? lol You acknowledge the previous presence and subsequent removal of the list in the CADSUSPECTS section a place few bother to look at but you wouldn’t acknowledge it or admit in your reply to me , in “recent comments” a place everyone reads. You merely said “if you look further you’ll see that I don’t publish a publlc list”, giving the casual reader the impression that you’ve NEVER had such a list on your pages. slick.

                1. And the correct non-misleading answer to my post is- “If you look further you’ll notice that I NO LONGER publish a public list of men.” For some reason you couldn’t write that. take notes, guys.

                  1. Ms Short, you didn’t state that you liked the Kingdom of Hawaii’s law, but that a gender neutral version of the same law needed to be passed by the state of Hawaii legislature . no you stated in regards to Hawaii remaining a state or reverting to kingdom status -“And judging by the disparity in laws over rape by fraud, I’d com down heavily on the side of an independent Hawaiian kingdom!”.. woohoo! you go guys!! give those evil bad men two years at hard labor for gaining sex after deceiving women about their wealth level (the law simply states, among other things, “by deceit”-could be any kind of lies!) .Men, I’m glad I “snooped” and found his “gem” of a blog hidden away on her page. This blog , more than anything else, reveals in my opinion, Short’s vengeful vendetta-like anti-male mindset and it should care the bejesus out of us.. Take notes here, guys!!

                    1. you’re joking right?…”whoever, by conspiracy or willful falsehood or deceit ,seduces, causes or procures any unmarried female to commit fornication…” …this is gender neutral to you? please tell me you’re joking …I’m glad I caught this reply of yours before I departed…ill hang around for your response… then I’m out…

                    2. ….what response could someone possibly make to this anyway? “any unmarried female to commit fornication” the langauge is straight out of 1630s Salem.

                    3. im out… no time to wait ror a response…the only legit response is that you didn’t read the paragraph correctly or didn’t finish it

                    4. Tom, I’ll take the Kingdom of Hawaii’s Law over the state of Hawaii’s non law any day of the week. That doesn’t mean I’d be happy about it only focusing on the protection of women. I asked you a question that you seem to have interpreted as a statement.

                      And by the way, although you faulted me for how I stated my position in the comment section on the CAD Suspect list earlier, you apparently missed that I had previously stated, in the comments section, that I had removed it.

                2. Incorrect Tom. It states right on the post that I’ve removed the public display of the list. Here are the specific words that I open the post with: “I have decided to remove public exposure from this site.”

                  1. wrong! what is wrong with you! you state it on the cad suspects section only , in your reply to me in comments section you have one sentence and one sentence only. “IF YOU LOOK FURTHER YOU’LL NOTICE THAT I DON’T PUBLISH A PUBLIC LIST OF MEN”. that does not convey anything about a previous presence of a alist and the subsequent removal of the list,

                    1. the exact quote is -“AND IF YOU LOOKED FURTHER, YOU SEE THAT I DON’T PROVIDE A PUBLIC LIST.” again, the proper ly worded, non-misleading response to my post it – “and if you looked further, you see that I no longer provide a public list. NO LONGER .NO LONGER . NO LONGER.Do you really think people aren’t smart enough to see what you’re doing here? talk about self- delusional.

                    2. Tom-

                      I think I’ve made it clear both in response to your comment, and on the post for CAD Suspects that I’ve removed the list. I really don’t get what the problem is.

                    3. of course you see what the problem is with the wording of your statement. … for the sake of others, folks, i called her out on the list of men I saw on her page a few days ago(not knowing she had since taken it down) and she replied saying …” I don’t publish a list of men”…yeah she prefaced that with “If you look further you see” but the operative phrase here is the first one. …a normal response would be to admit to the list and inform me that she had taken it down. instead what she wrote gives the reader the impression that there never was such a list to begin with. She does the right thing in the CADSUSPECTS section with a properly worded statement but few people ever go there, in comparison to COMMENTS. People like you Ms. Short,r think you’re slicker and smarter than everyone else and no one will call you on stuff like this when you do it.. You’re mistaken. MEN. TAKE NOTES HERE.

                    4. “ahh is see…”..hahaHA you’re patronizing, snide little statement aside, no the CAD post (CORRECTLY WORDED) is NOT enough when you’re going to be misleading people in the comments section. your relpy is really bizarrely worded and designed to mislead, in my opinion.. again, a normal person would simply say “I no longer post the list of men-see cadsuspects for ful statement” or something to that effect hahahaha Ms. Short the sneaky little stuff you try to pull is so so easy to call out..hhaahaa

    2. Tom,
      I would like to know if you have any empathy for someone if they are actually suffering the horrible symptoms of trauma caused to them by someone that intentionally caused them harm? Also, do you know and understand the symptoms of trauma? Everyone knows that long term stress is dangerous, but add trauma to the mix and it can become life-threatening. I understand you not wanting someone going to jail for trivial reasons, but, I would like to hear your thoughts for a real victim. Thanks.

      1. All of the men that have posted on here including myself have empathy for a real female victim of trauma. Women don’t corner the market on compassion. Some , more than a few,are murderers and/or ice-cold heartless manipulators in fact. I doubt one of the 3% of Americans that are sociopaths Is among the male posters here. None of the anti- Short men posting here are talking about real victims of trauma. That’s not what the controversial parts of Short’s laws, which is what we males on here are posting about, are all about. There are already adequate laws on the books dealing with fraud, except maybe for the two or maybe three REASONABLE parts of her laws. A fake doctor with a fricking “probe”,he inserts into Women, you’ve got to be kidding me? And some joker fooling a woman into thinking he’s her lover? Go ahead and make both illegal in all 50 states. What sane male is against that?. The main problem with Short that we men have is that she is cleverly and in my opinion cunningly ,by putting these things all in the same basket, conflating these two or three reasonable aspects of her laws with her personal history-based passion to jail and imprison men for two years (her stated model is Alabama Class A misdemeanor- 2 years max sentence) for non-violent “crimes” concerning misrepresentations by men to women about their wealth religion and other matters (yeah we know its officially “gender neutral”, blah) whether it be with or without false documents and papers,photos etc. There is no assurance this law will be interpreted to only cover lying with accompanying false documents, although even that doesn’t merit arrest or any prison time, unless it’s part of a financial or other fraud covered already by present laws. What she is doing reminds me of when there is an omnibus bill sent to the President by Congress with all sorts of reasonable provisions and then two ringers about abortion put in the middle of the bill by right wing Republicans, with personal religious agendas.. Finally, to repeat, these “crimes” of various misrepresentations , assuming she got her laws passed,(she won’t) are nonviolent crimes, but as Leykis pointed out to her, a big part of her agenda is to water down and trivialize the definition of rape so that the courts and judges will view these men as “rapists” ,which is of course “reductio ad absurdum”.

        1. Tom,

          Unfortunately, you don’t really see the trauma that affects victims when they’re duped into sex. And that’s at the crux of this law. There are many ways to dupe them.

          The cases that lack responsibility on the part of the victim, or proof, won’t make it past a Prosecutor.

          But if you don’t support the victim’s right not to be defrauded of sex, you undermine the ability to punish all offenders who defraud, even in ways that you personally agree are a crime.

          Again, if you drive 56 in a 55 mile an hour zone, you’re speeding. If you take a dollar without the person’s permission, you are stealing.

          We don’t punish people who drive 56. We don’t punish people who steal $1. But we do recognize that they broke the law.

          There is a difference between sympathy and empathy. I believe a great many of the people who oppose this law have sympathy for some of the victims, but few feel emotional empathy regarding their plight.

      2. Anonymous,

        I don’t think Tom relates to the trauma that results from SexFraud. If he did, he would not think this crime was not “real rape.”

Comments are closed.