Talk:Kenneth O'Keefe/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Kenneth O'Keefe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Initial autobiography from O'Keefe

This was initially submitted to Wikipedia by Ken O'Keefe, on my advice, when I first came across Wikipedia. It's autobiographical nature simply reflects a misunderstanding on O'Keefe's part as to what he thought Wikipedia was. Christiaan 9:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From the article:

My desperate need to escape the heartbreak led me to depart for Hawaii where my dear friend Dave happened to have moved. I was a pathetic little self pitying guest but he did so well to tolerate me in this time. I wanted Ruth back no matter what and within one month I returned to San Diego to collect her, definitely one of the happiest moments of my life. Our relationship did improve in many ways after this and our chapter of life in Hawaii was mostly wonderful. But there were still hard times and in particular was a miscarriage after 10 weeks of pregnancy that Ruth had by me, which she recalls as one of three total. This was devastating all around but especially for Ruth. Ruth has had two children not by me and she always reckoned that my Gulf War exposure to DU and or experimental drugs by the U.S. Military was the cause of the miscarriages. The more I have learned of these issues the more inclined I am to agree with her. We finally were married in 1999 after six years together, in a simply beautiful traditional Hawaiian wedding on a gorgeous sunny beach. It was at this time I decided to legally take her family name and alter my legal name; hence I now Kenneth Nichols O’Keefe. Ruth will always remain my first true romantic love and it is fair to say that I grew into manhood with her. But we finally separated for good however not long after the marriage, after nearly seven years together.

My love of the ocean and idyllic home in Hawaii lead me to become a SCUBA instructor and eventually I earned technical ratings as a deep diver and cave diver. Later I obtained a U.S. Coast Guard Captains License

I volunteered to crew with the legendary Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Paul is one of the founding fathers of Greenpeace and modern conservation direct action in general. And this commitment to action is what compelled him to leave Greenpeace when it strayed from its direct action roots and became the self-promotional resource consuming giant that it remains today. Paul is a highly controversial marine conservationist who has directly and organizationally been responsible for sinking nine commercial whaling ships and ramming four drift netters (illegal ships that set up to 50 mile long nets which catch everything that crosses their path). In ramming the drift netters he has ripped the power blocks off the sides of these ships forcing them to abandoned their illegal fishing and return to port for expensive repairs.

During this time I became a trusted friend of Paul’s, later I crewed with him again and became the Regional Director for the Sea Shepherds in Hawaii. He is a man that I have absolute respect for and his influence can be seen in virtually all that I do with regard to direct action. It has truly been an honor to know him, learn from him and ultimately to earn his respect.

Paul says what many do not want to hear and could care less about popularity, he cares about results, and so do I. He is reviled by some of the most ruthless of people; he is continually maligned by so-called “friends” of conservation. He has been called everything from a capitalist to a cultural imperialist to a terrorist. And yet, with all of these ludicrous accusations and aggressive actions his top priority of non-injury to life has been maintained 100%, nobody has been seriously hurt or killed by Paul’s actions. Popularity is completely and utterly unimportant to Paul and in this we are one.

While in Hawaii I sought to earn the understanding and respect of the Hawaiian people (kanaka maoli). So I immersed myself in Hawaiian history and learned of the massive injustice that was done to them, at the hands of the U.S no less. Knowledge converted into action lead to me becoming intimately involved in the Hawaiian independence movement. So much so that I dropped out of my dive business for 8 solid months and worked on my full-length documentary and first Universal Kinship Society production. It documents the historical facts with regard to Hawaii and is entitled ‘The United States of Hypocrisy – Hawaii, the Tibet of the Pacific’. In the film I formally charge and literally prove the U.S. government guilty of committing past and present fraud and genocide against the Hawaiian People through the use of ‘blood quantum’. During this exact time I became the target of U.S. agents, specifically traffic police and the highly corrupt traffic courts. In one incident I was handcuffed and nearly taken to jail for “not having an approved dive float”. The customers I had with me at the time (who were coincidentally aware of my political activities) were shocked. One was a doctor from Canada and the other an NGO founder from New York; both wrote statements of what I have just described.

More ominous was the action of U.S. Judge William Fong; he issued an $11,000 ‘Bench Warrant’ for my arrest in November 2000 of which I can prove I was absolutely innocent by virtue of official court transcripts. Only those of incredible stupidity or complicity would deny that I have been directly targeted for my political activities and all proof of this has been officially and legally recorded. I was forced to fight U.S. judges and I did so with court transcripts to prove it. The entire dialogue of my courtroom exchange with the dishonorable Judge Fong being so short that I will write it as appears on the official court transcript word for word, italics mine;

MISS TOM (COURT CLERK): 17 through 21 Kenneth Nichols.

THE DEFENDANT (ME): Yes here.

MISS TOM: He’s present. Please step forward, Mr. Nichols.

THE DEFENDANT: I am here as a courtesy of the court and I am also here to exercise my constitutional and common law rights.

THE COURT (JUDGE FONG): Kenneth Nichols. Kenneth Nichols. Issue an absolute no recall bench warrant. Set bail at 11,000 dollars.

THE DEFENDANT: Bench warrant, is that correct?

THE COURT: Call the next case.

THE DEFENDANT: I would like it to be noted by the court that I have—(cut off)

THE COURT: Call the next case, please. Remove him from the courtroom.

THE DEFENDANT: That would be a violation of my rights of constitutional amendment--(cut off)

THE COURT: Remove him from the courtroom. (Court Bailiff removes me)

Now that’s the American justice I know. To give some perspective, an 11,000 dollar bench warrant would generally be issued for someone charged with a violent crime such as assault with a deadly weapon. I was (falsely) charged with expired vehicle safety tags and registration!

Eventually I even took a hidden camera into a U.S. court that was violating several ‘inalienable’ and constitutionally ‘protected’ rights including the right of a ‘Free Press’ (Article I – Bill of Rights).

What I reluctantly but inevitably realized was that I was affectively being neutralized by having to constantly defend myself in their corrupt and rigged system. Regardless of this I loved my life in Hawaii and my extended Hawaiian family and I had no intention of leaving. But in 1999 I publicly renounced U.S. citizenship at U.S. Federal Hearings on ‘Reconciliation’ with the Hawaiian people and swore under oath my allegiance to the Hawaiian Nation, that allegiance remains intact to this day. In accordance with International Public Law I am in fact a legitimate and lawful Hawaiian national/citizen. On March 1, 2001 I traveled to a foreign consulate as required by U.S. law in order to legally renounce my U.S. citizenship. I did so in Vancouver, Canada. On that day I swore under oath my lawful intent to formally renounce and handed over my U.S. passport. Along with signing the required documents I also included a ‘Declaration of Expatriation’ in which I detail the undisputed historic facts with regard to Hawaii and my inherent right to expatriation. Although this ‘right to self determination’ (expatriation, renunciation) is backed by international law, human rights law and even U.S. law I was to receive my passport and a letter from the United States Department of State claiming that I did not truly ‘intend to renounce U.S. citizenship’ and therefore my ‘request is denied’. This process was to be continued shortly.

A Resolution - To Proclaim To The Nations Of The World The Lawful Hawaiian Governments Formal Policy Of Non-Violence (Author Ken O'Keefe)

In early 2001 I wrote the ‘Non-violence Resolution’ above that was later ratified by the de jure (lawful) Hawaiian Government Legislature into Hawaiian Kingdom Law. I initiated and wrote this resolution because it was, and still is my belief that the U.S. will ‘create’ an ‘incident’ in Hawaii, such as a terrorist action, and use this to destroy the peaceful, lawful and noble independence movement of Hawaii. I cite the 1989 invasion of Panama as an excellent example of my rational concern in this regard… then came 9/11.

Life became unbearable in the fever pitch of blind patriotism and vengeance in the wake of 9/11. I lived on a military outpost (Hawaii) with Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines with 3000 plus nuclear weapons; arguably the most important strategic site for the U.S. Global Domination purposes. I was already legally guilty of ‘seditious conspiracy’ for having sworn an oath to an opposing government and nation. I was responsible for exposing U.S. terrorism and oppression n Hawaii and laying out in documentary form the process of legal remedy for the kanaka maoli in order to ‘reinstate’ the government and nation, the same nation that the U.S. had admitted to stealing in U.S. Public Law 103-150. I was also guilty of the purposely vague charge of ‘sedition’ and all tolled I was in the same category as Puerto Rican nationals who fought for their independence and ended up spending nearly two decades in a U.S. prison for seditious conspiracy charges. One of whom I had met personally, Alicia Rodriguez. In addition, since I was/am not violent or morally wrong in any way with my activities I was genuinely concerned about potential FBI framing for things I would never do, but could easily be framed for; such a proven and easy way to eliminate legitimate dissent in the ‘Land of the Free’. Planting ‘evidence’ such as a large stash of drugs or perhaps explosives and following through on the already existing bench warrant would not be difficult at all. The dwindling numbers of those ignorant and or prosperous enough to still buy into the due process of law illusion and “freedom” crap of America will doubt what I say here, but those with their eyes open will certainly understand. Those who are true activists or revolutionaries will most definitely understand.

During this time and to this day the unlawful $11,000 bench warrant remains active. At any point for me, should I enter America, U.S. federal or state agents can ‘legally’ bust down my door arrest me, thereby eliminating me and my activities at least temporarily. With post 9-11 legislation such as the so-called ‘Patriot Act’, I could literally be taken by federal agents and held without access to an attorney, no contact with family, held indefinitely in a secret location and even beaten; all in accordance with America’s new laws. I shit you not, this is America today. Of course I would have to be linked to ‘terrorists’ in some way, which is really not an issue of truth as much as it is a matter of how badly you are pissing off the dictatorship of America. In light of these realities, I faced a major decision; should I stay or should I go? Based on intelligent reflection, strategic analysis, concern for my human rights, and most importantly my ability to continue the fight against ecological destruction, oppression, war and potential World War III, I chose to leave. In November 2001, just after the passage of the traitorous ‘Patriot Act’, under ongoing threat of imprisonment, after considerable research into international, asylum and human rights law, I left my paradise home of Hawaii, my family, my business and a life that most would kill for in order to officially seek political asylum in Holland.

I survived the initial asylum phase even after Dutch immigration officials committed fraud in an attempt to have critical documents supporting my asylum request removed from my comprehensive file. They did this because the first phase of the procedure was their best chance to get rid of me, but this backfired big time as I am all too aware of how corrupt government systems are. All of this is now officially on record with the Dutch Minister of Justice. They reluctantly approved my application to the second phase of the procedure and I was sent to a refugee camp in the Northern most region of the country, Stadskanaal.

It is there that I lived for two months in a small four bedroom flat with six refugees from African nations. All of whom would rather be in Africa were it not for war and lack of economic opportunity our Western raping and pillaging colonialist legacy has insured. Along with some of them I am still officially a refugee. One of the most despicable realities of refugee life is the fact that even as a legal refugee you are essentially not permitted to obtain legal work in Holland. Well not quite, refugees can work at the refugee centers, for 50 Euro cents an hour! I knew several who took this bullshit wage because it was all they had. I lived with a doctor from Ethiopia who was also licensed in Russia who descended into truly destructive alcoholism while in this welfare dependency. Contrary to what most antagonists of refugees think, not only would refugees not even for a second come to our cold northern countries if they had their way, the vast majority would work longer and harder for less just to have the same standard of life most of us complain about. Holland; a 21st century model state for tolerance and human rights.

My ability to deal with this system was much easier because of my familiarity with it, and with the help of a wonderful Dutch volunteer named Jan I was blessed to obtain pro bono services of Holland’s best asylum attorney, Pieter Bogaers. He has represented me ever since. This man has spent dozens of hours with me and countless others from all over the world who would otherwise be among the countless victims of the modern refugee system. He knows my story as good as anyone with substantial documents in support of my asylum claim and he serves as a credible source of confirmation of all that I have said. As it stands I am awaiting a court date in which my case will be presented. This procedure could be next month or next year.

After having been in the asylum procedure for seven months I had still not heard back from the U.S. State Department regarding my renunciation so I demanded to get a response from them with my July1, 2002 ‘International Notice’ which was posted on my web site (www.uksociety.org) from that day forward. On that same day U.S. Consulate officials returned my passport to me for the second time explaining that the State Department had once again ‘denied’ my ‘request’ for renunciation. I informed the official that if he returned the passport to me that I would burn it before international media who were waiting for me outside the consulate. This dialogue was additionally witnessed from a cameraman from Al Jazeera who was there to cover the story. The U.S. official then informed me that burning the U.S. passport is a violation of U.S. federal law; I replied by saying, “ok”. I then exited the building and restated the inherent right to self determination and my lawful status as a stateless ‘World Citizen’ with allegiance to my entire human family and my home, Planet Earth. Reaffirming my total lack of allegiance to the U.S. Government… and then I burned the passport. Seventeen days later I received a new letter from the State Department; amazingly the U.S claimed yet again that I remain a U.S. citizen! Essentially they argue that nation/state governments determine who I/we are as human beings; we do not have this right. This time they claimed that absent ‘citizenship’ with another nation I could not renounce. The hypocrisy of this is incredible since the State Departments own forms, the same forms that I had signed and sworn by twice, the same forms I have in my possession today, their official renunciation forms state the following, word for word;

RENUNCIATION OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP - STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING THE CONSEQUENCES AND RAMIFICATIONS OF RENUNCIATION

1. I _____Kenneth Roy Nichols _____ have the right to renounce U.S. citizenship.

Deletion?

I find it bizarre that there is no listing of his renunciation of US citizenship on this biography, there is no listing of his participation in Gulf War One on this page. In fact there is no listing of much of what first bought him to the attention of the world's media i.e. being a Iraq war veteran who denounced the war on Iraq and renonced his citizenship, also the fact he has some cool tats on his hands that say World citizen is pretty hardcore and noteworthy in terms of bodyart. --Omar418 (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The large majority of the content that previously existed was badly sourced. Much of it was just interviews where O'Keefe claimed something. Much of it was from sources that were heavily biased, and lack journalistic credibility. Things can be added back, but they must have solid indpendent sources. The type that actually check facts. --Rob (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...

I'm wondering if maybe we should just scrap this whole thing, and start again. This all seems to have been written by the man himself. I don't think we should rely solely on a person's own word for information about them. I think that everything in the Wikipedia should be verifiable from published sources. I know there is published information about this man (see e.g. here, here, here - although actually those are first-person accounts, too - and here), but I can't even find his date of birth in the information online, let alone most of the more intimate details of his life... If we want to end up with an article consisting only of verifiable material, wouldn't it actually be quicker to start from scratch, and build the article up using the published sources, rather than searching this mess for facts which might be verifiable, and then trying to verify each one? (Okay, this probably contradicts a lot of things I've said before, but I never claimed to be consistent... ;) -- Oliver P. 11:50, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well I think that maybe his birthdates and service details in the military are verifiable (philosophically speaking), and I would tend to mostly trust them, even if the only source we had for them at this time was the document above. How big a deal his company was or the marine rescue activities etc. not to mention what his actual relationship was with any single celebrity is a bit tougher, but if BBC1 made a profile of him, maybe that is verifyable, even if not by us and not at this time. So conceivably someone could come around later, and fix any possible mistatements based on the admittedly not terribly confidence inspiring document above. On the balance I would probably give the benefit of the doubt for those details which it would be possible to check, if we really cared enough, and which someone may yet correct. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 12:25, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

I was under the impression that self-written articles were faux pax. Personally I think it should be submitted to the deletions voting page. Quick Google search shows that if there is a predominant man named Kenneth O'Keefe, it's not this one. This seems more egotistical (and possibly political) then anything else. If he wants his auto-biography up so bad he should simply leave it under his personal space from his user-name link. Oberiko 16:05, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agree, although he has done some interesting (and to my mind very idiotic) things. Clearly has a problem fitting in, but no crime in that. If he actually "organized" the fools that allowed themselves to be taken advantage of by Saddam, then I say let his name stand here in infamy - Marshman 03:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OMG I just realized that the first proposal for totally scrapping this page was made during 2003, and now it's 2010 and a whole 6 years have passed, and the article has not onlly been re-written, but is more imformative then ever. I think tha's good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.56 (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

this page submitted for deletion

Vanity page for non-notable, apparently added by the individual himself, see rant on talk page. Don't vote yet, apparently it is not entered into the system correctly yet. --Silverback 11:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think he's notable enough, but I think the content has changed quite a bit from 2005 as well. kzm (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ken or Kenneth?

There is also a page on football coach Ken O'Keefe, whom I suspect is a different person. I've fixed a couple of incorrect links, pointing them here instead. But if Ken and Kenneth are the same, these pages should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 08:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are different people. I'll disambiguate at Ken O'Keefe now.

It's not clear why this page was ~~merged~~ redirected to Human shield action to Iraq in this Dec. 2006 edit, as the outcome of the Jan. 2005 deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Kenneth O'Keefe was "keep", not "merge". Empty Buffer (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Al Jazeera wrongly referenced

Reference 4 should link to Al Jazeera English because Al Jazeera is a different news service which is only in Arabic. I don't know how to change references so I'm mentioning it here in the hope that someone who knows how to edit references will see this and fix it. PlumeDeNorm (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix that now. Empty Buffer (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome, thanks for fixing it. He was also interviewed twice over the past 24 hours on Al Jazeera English, giving his response to Israel's accusation that he is a terrorist. Here are the links to the interviews Al Jazeera English have uploaded to their YouTube channel, if you'd like to add them too... By phone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx03ZTt7Zuk, on camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z82VocK-C8c PlumeDeNorm (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Watch This Space!!

Watch the Hard Talk interview he just did on the BBC! It is no doubt on You-Tube... Then watch the old black and white Che Guevara footage! Che LIVES! The conviction, the rage, ..just watch!!!--Oracleofottawa (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

LoL ;-)1812ahill (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

The article says he has legally renounced his US citizenship, and in the same sentence says he holds Hawaiian citizenship. I looked into it, and he has gone through the process of renouncing US citizenship several times, which was denied because he claimed he was a Hawaiian national (no such nation existing any longer since it has become a state). Does anyone know what his exact LEGAL citizenship status is, aside from his claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.156.141 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism from unregistered "editor"

Ken O’Keefe’s information has been routinely vandalized since the first article about him was submitted. This is no surprise considering the well established presence of “editors” in Wikipedia who are hostile to verifiable, sourced information about the USA and Israel that is unflattering. Vandalism then takes the form of attacking the people who are critical of American and Israeli policies.

In the latest edits it cannot be said for sure that there was vandalism but sources were ignored and new information placed that had the consistent theme of discrediting O’Keefe and overturning sourced facts. As one example a new edit removes the reference to O’Keefe as a ‘survivor’ and instead states he was ‘attacking’ the ‘Israeli’s ‘boarding’ the ship. Given that no Israeli’s were killed and at least 9 passengers were killed (with over 50 injured), ‘survivor’ would be far more accurate than ‘attacker’.

In another edit it is said in reference to Ken O’Keefe replacing his US Passport with a ‘World Passport’, that it is a ‘document issued by a private organization which has no legal effect in the United States or many other countries. ‘ The editor here fails to mention other pertinent facts that are stated in the Wikipedia ‘World Passport’ article which affirms its authority with regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (specifically article 13) and certain nations that recognize the passport in a de facto and de jure manner. Regardless, the point of the article about Ken O’Keefe is not to debate the merit of the passport, but simply to enlighten the reader about O’Keefe as a person.

In another edit the “editor” adds ‘he claimed’ to the following; On November 30, 2000, then Kenneth Nichols was issued with a bench warrant for his arrest in the amount of $11,000; he claimed that court transcripts prove that this was unlawfully issued and O'Keefe posted the warrant as proof of being targeted by the US Government.

The ‘claim’ is supported by the actual court transcript precisely as the article states. Thus there is no need to add ‘claimed’, it is supported and sourced. And this is the theme of the edits throughout, where valid sources are given, the word ‘claim’ is inserted repeatedly. Far from improving the article, it simply distracts from the sourced information.

In another edit the word ‘Occupied’ is removed; In 2004 O'Keefe founded P10K and attempted to organise a group known as the "P10K Force", a group of 10,000 Westerners intended to act as international observers in the Occupied Palestinian territories

The removal of Occupied is very transparent, there is simply no question that Palestine is occupied, established in law and beyond any doubt. The removal of this word gives good cause to think that the “editor” is in fact a shill for Zionist propaganda.

In another edit: O'Keefe claimed involvement in the provision of initial first aid to a seriously wounded passenger and claimed to have attacked and disarmed two Israeli Commandos. He claimed to have helped to disarm one commando of his assault rifle and himself took possession of a 9mm pistol from… It is said here that O’Keefe claimed to ‘have attacked and disarmed two Israeli Commandos’. The insertion of ‘attacked’ is an outright lie which is countered by the recent BBC Hardtalk interview in which O’Keefe says directly that he did not assault the commandos, but simply disarmed them.

The “editor” leaves little doubt as to what his purpose on Wikipedia is, and the people who will be harmed are the readers.

With acknowledgement that the article needs improving, the edits of this unregistered, malicious editor shall be undone. Mmcitizen101 (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Does every comment that detracts from O'Keefe's sainthood count as "OMGGG PRO-ISRAELI BIAS THOSE ZIONIST BASTARDS" in your eyes? Honestly, this entire page reads much more like a PR excerpt from his website than an unbiased encyclopedia article documenting a subject. Additionally, this man is a nobody. He has not accomplished anything and is hardly a household name. He has had almost no impact on anybody's lives and seems to be one of those people who just seeks attention at any and all costs. Other have made this assertion and have been making it since 2004 on this page.

As for "attack" vs. disarm, taking O'Keefe's word from an interview on it is entirely circular reasoning. He says this so it's right because he said it so it's right because he said it so...... I suggest you watch the videos shot and note that the commandos were indeed attacked.

However, you are probably incapable of taking in such information as fanatics such as yourself are quite adept at plugging your fingers in your ears and shouting nonsense about "JEWS DID IT AND WTC" at the top of your lungs.173.59.114.16 (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hawiian nation

Sources in this article which include direct references to 'The Law of Nations' and 'UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW 103-150' clearly show that the 'Hawaiian Kingdom', 'Kingdom of Hawaii' and 'Hawaiian nation' are all lawfully established names for the nation of Hawaii which was overthrown in 1893 with the direct participation of the US government.

Extracts from 'UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW 103-150'; Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation...

Whereas, on January 14, 1893... 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;

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.

In light of these admissions in the form of a resolution that was passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton, the notion that Hawaii does not have citizens, a government or indeed a de jure status as a nation is counter to the facts. Furthermore, the Hawaiian had treaties with dozens of sovereign nations including Japan, Britain and the United State, among many others. These treaties were never rescinded, accordingly they are in themselves proof of the existence of a Hawaiian nation. According to international law on many counts the nation of Hawaii cannot be extinguished unless the completion of a genocide has taken place. Although claims of genocide are being made, the completion of a genocide is not. To the contrary, there are Hawaiian nationals, there are many legal claims in US courts intending to recover admittedly stolen land by the United States and their is a functioning Hawaiian government, acting on the mandate of its 'Amended Constitution of 2000'. To reject this is to reject the right of self-determination and the sourced information in this article. Barring a verified exposure of false information in the sourced information, the claim that Hawaii is not a nation and does not have citizens is simply false.

Furthermore, if would be editors feel compelled to argue that Hawaii is not, never was, a nation, and therefore cannot have citizens/nationals, then they should conduct the needed research and look to the article about Hawaii first and foremost.

Meanwhile it is required to undo this malicious revision that rejects Hawaiian historical facts as the unregistered editor (69.181.249.92) has reinserted his agenda; another possible vandalism. Mmcitizen101 (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't deny that Hawai'i used to be a distinct entity and apart from the USA. I simply reject your claim that it is today and can award citizenship that is separate and disctinct from American citizenship. You are doing the mathematical equivalent say claiming 2+2=5 when you cite some apology and extrapolate that into modern sovereignty. You also ignore the fact that Queen Liliuokalani did indeed "yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands." That hasn't happened. So no, Hawai'i isn't a sovereign nation and all such claims are without basis. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What you are doing is rejecting the rights of the injured party, the right of self-determination, in favour of the admitted criminal. You cannot even seem to acknowledge Hawaii as a nation, instead referring to it as a 'distinct entity'. PUBLIC LAW 103-150 acknowledges Hawaii as a nation that has never been extinguished. This alone trumps your entire position. In addition, conspiring to overthrow a sovereign nation is an international crime. The US admitted to this crime in the form of a law. Once again, in that law the nation is both acknowledged to have existed and to never having been relinquished. That is the United States government. In truth you are arguing with the US government, not the editors who simply state the facts regarding O'Keefe's publicly verifiable citizenship, of which there are several sources. To support your position you cite Queen Liliuokalani's 'Protest letter', written in 1893 under protest and under duress, with the stated intention of saving life, this in no way negates the fact that the US PUBLIC LAW 103-150 states that Hawaii (thus Hawaii's Queen) '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.' With that your assertion is completely baseless, one more time, the US themselves admit the claim to Hawaii as a nation has never been relinquished, it even makes direct reference to the 'monarchy', (the Queen). You then try to go one step further and deny that any Hawaiian nationals exist today. You defy the US's own admission, then try to further the crime by using this article as a platform to reject the very existence of the nation and its citizens. Dangerous grounds indeed; surely that is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

We have gone from Kenneth O'Keefe having naturalized as a Hawaiian citizen to a debate about whether the Hawaiian nation can or does exist. We can do this till the end of time but that is not the subject to which this article is about. The subject is Kenneth O'Keefe and whether you agree or not, the man has verifiably served within the Hawaiian government, he has authored laws for that government, and he has naturalized as a Hawaiian citizen, facts remaining true no matter what your view of Hawaiian history. What is happening here is this article is becoming a platform for political agendas that are counter to the facts. Mmcitizen101 (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to point you to the relevant bits of the article on Hawai'i:

and finally,

Hawaiian sovereignty movement#Responses to the sovereignty movement

- 69.181.249.92 (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in any of the Wikipedia articles you cite changes the fact that there is an ongoing independence movement in Hawaii, that among those involved are 'citizens' of the Hawaiian nation, distinct from the State of Hawaii. International law is also cited within the sources to verify the validity of the claims of the Hawaiian people. Additionally there is a US law making clear that the claimants to the admittedly stolen national lands (Hawaii) have given up no rights to their nation. Legitimate media sources are used to support O'Keefe's status as a 'Hawaiian citizen' and thus the issue here is accuracy in the content of the article, clearly he is a verifiable Hawaiian citizen according to the guidelines of Wikipedia. The continuation of this argument is counter to the interests of the users of Wikipedia and truth in general. A request for a Wikipedia editor to intervene has been made by myself, I stand behind the facts that expose your edits political and injurious. Mmcitizen101 (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Hawaii is not recognized as an independent country by any other country, that should be mentioned in the article. Just using "Hawaiian citizen" is misleading. There should be links to the articles about the Hawaiian independence movement, so a reader get more information if they so chose. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Unlawfully issued warrant

Does the source in Dutch make the claim that the warrant was unlawfully issued? I still don't see where O'Keefe even makes that claim, although I guess you could say he implies it by bolding parts of the quotes he provides in his self published source. If there's no RS that says it, we can't state it as fact or that it's "strongly suggested". I'll change it to "O'Keefe claims" for now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Malicious deletion of content despite 17 credible sources

New content was added to this page based on copious amounts of news coverage regarding the report on the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla conducted by the fact-finding mission of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). This report is the most valid, independent investigation of the events of the Gaza flotilla and thus has been heavily covered in the media, from BBC, The Guardian to independent media across the spectrum. The content added to Kenneth O'Keefe's article gives context to his personal involvement and is supported by the 17 sources provided. Despite this, within three minutes of the new content being added, all of the content was removed and without so much as an explanation. Are we to believe that 17 sources were checked within three minutes and that it was concluded in three minutes that the new content was not in line with the sourced material? What has happened here is plain to see, the “editor” does not like the conclusions of the fact-finding mission of the UN and is trying to deprive people of their knowledge of it. That is a grave disservice to Wikipedia’s readers and counter to the intention of Wikipedia. It is for people to decide what they think about credibly sourced content, not for a clearly biased “editor”. I may feel strongly one way or the other, but unless there are credible sources to support any content I add, I cannot add the content. Knowing there are people who wish to hide the truth regarding certain issues, I sourced the added content beyond the call of normal practice.

Having been the one who has read all of the sourced material and added the new content, I challenge anyone to dispute the legitimacy of the new content; not based on their personal views, but on whether the material is inline with Wikipedia policies and most of all, the sourced material provided.

Barring this all we have here is yet another malicious attack on a Wikipedia article intended to shield people from the truth as reported by 17 provided sources. Surely this will not be allowed to stand, I thus undo the action of this attack so that people will have the sourced information they deserve.Mmcitizen101 (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. You added information into the lead that is not in the article. Second, the information you added about the report is not relevant to O'Keefe. Was he summarily executed? Is he mentioned in the report? Third, please read WP:BRD. And WP:AGF while you're at it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

O'Keefe is a survivor of an Israeli attack and that is verified by the sources, but survivor was replaced by "passenger" and attck was simply deleted by LibiBamizrach. The context that was then added was put their to support the cerdibility of using survivor and attack; these words help to explain what Mr. O'Keefe is "most known for". Unlike 'No More Mr Nice Guy' I will refresh my memory on the cited material he points to, I will do this to make sure that the added material will make this article better, despite any attempt to prevent the addition of meaningful content.Mmcitizen101 (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What you should really do is add a main link to the Gaza flotilla raid article in the appropriate place in this article. Also, you can't call him a "survivor" without a RS using that description. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Content has been added with great care and to appropriate places, all of it is sourced with great care and attention to detail. The article is improved significantly and gives much greater depth and context. What must be emphasised is the maticulous use of sources, although the added content itself is very minimal, it is supported/sourced above and beyond most articles on Wikipedia.Mmcitizen101 (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources you added to the lead even mention O'Keefe. Adding a million sources is not required. The source does have to say exactly what you're trying to put into the article though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The extra sources are provided purely to negate malicious deletions and arguments over the validity of the content. Regardless the "survivor" tag is now referenced with several sources, never mind the fact that of the roughly 600 passengers on the Mavi Marmara, over 50 were shot and 9 killed. With those sorts of figures everyone who was not killed is a survivor; especially a guy who came into direct contact with commandos who were killing people. Either way, the sources are now provided.Mmcitizen101 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

None of these sources are reliable, and even it they were, we can't state in Wikipedia's neutral voice that the blockade is "illegal" or that he was a "survivor". At best, we can attribute such claims to those making them, and do so in the article body, not the lead. Finally, there is no need to provide references in the lead, let alone a dozen references for the same thing. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)