The state Office of Hawaiian Affairs administrator paid a controversial political scientist $25,000 to write a memo that calls into question the validity of OHA’s nation-building effort, even raising the question of whether the office’s trustees are committing war crimes by pursuing it.

But the board apparently has not been swayed by his arguments.

As part of his 44-page May 27 memo, David Keanu Sai, who contends that Hawaii is not part of the United States, recommended that OHA stop funding Kana’iolowalu, the nation-building effort, and refrain from pursuing federal recognition from the Obama administration. Both are key initiatives endorsed by OHA’s board of trustees.

Chairperson Colette Machado said in emailed responses to Honolulu Star-Advertiser questions that she would have hoped that OHA Chief Executive Kamana’opono Crabbe consulted the board before signing a contract with Sai on "such a sensitive issue."

Another trustee, Peter Apo, told the newspaper that Crabbe showed poor judgment in agreeing to pay $25,000 in OHA funds for the memo, which applies much of the research Sai did for his doctoral dissertation, which is available online, and other papers to OHA’s situation.

"I do question his judgment on that," Apo said.

Crabbe, OHA’s chief executive since January 2012, has the authority to spend up to $25,000 without getting prior board approval.

This is the second time in recent years that OHA has done business with Sai, who received his master’s and doctorate degrees in political science from the University of Hawaii and has long championed the idea that the United States is illegally occupying the islands.

OHA previously paid Sai $70,000 under a 2009 contract in which the agency agreed to help with his effort to publish a book based on his research on Hawaii land titles since the 1800s.

One of the provisions required that Sai present a manuscript within 12 months to his publisher, according to the contract, obtained by the Star-Advertiser through a records request. Nearly five years later, the book still hasn’t been published.

Sai said OHA recently agreed to an extension allowing him more time to work on the manuscript and has withheld a final payment of $5,000 until the book is published.

Sai’s initial research led him in the 1990s to co-found Perfect Title Co., which cited Hawaiian kingdom law to contend that existing land titles in Hawaii were defective. Sai said his book will detail how the title problem can be fixed.

Perfect Title shut down in 1997, and Sai eventually was convicted of first-degree attempted theft, a felony, for helping a couple try to reclaim an Aiea home that they lost through foreclosure. The couple’s actions were partly based on the company’s notion of invalid land titles — something the real estate industry pooh-poohed.

In written responses to Star-Advertiser questions, Crabbe said Sai was hired based on his claim that OHA trustees and staff could be accused of war crimes if they proceeded with funding Kana’iolowalu.

"It was part of a follow-up due diligence effort so I could protect trustees and OHA leadership of any risks that might be incurred," Crabbe wrote. "I also provided Dr. Sai’s memo to trustees so they could use it in their deliberations. I believe we should consider all points of view, even controversial ones, to fully understand this complex issue."

The memo cites numerous historical documents to make the claim — considered ridiculous and politically unfathomable by many — that the United States has illegally occupied the islands since the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and that the kingdom still exists.

Sai argues that the sovereignty of the Hawaiian nation has never been extinguished and that the state government, given its illegal status, has no jurisdiction in the islands.

Under international law, Hawaii’s status as an independent country is presumed to continue unless the United States can prove otherwise, according to Sai. The burden is on the United States to provide such proof, similar to the burden prosecutors face in overcoming a defendant’s presumption of innocence in a criminal trial, he added.

Sai has taken his arguments to several international bodies, including the United Nations, but none has ruled that the kingdom still exists.

State and federal judges repeatedly have rejected such arguments, and the OHA board similarly has not been swayed despite allegations of war crimes.

Machado told the Star-Advertiser that the board has chosen to continue with the nation-building effort and to seek federal recognition.

"Trustees expect the administration will carry out our directives," she wrote.

Crabbe said his administration is committed to that task.

Sai told the Star-Advertiser his intention was not to tell OHA officials what to do but to provide them with detailed, documented historical information so they can make informed decisions.

"I’m not some activist off the street," Sai said.

Since obtaining his advanced degrees, which included a focus on international law and relations, Sai has become known in certain circles for his expertise in Hawaiian kingdom history leading up to and following the overthrow.

Earlier this year, he was invited to make presentations at Harvard University, the University of Massachusetts and New York University, among other campuses, and to Hawaiian groups on the mainland.

In his memo and in an interview, Sai contended that the state of Hawaii lacks the authority under international law to collect taxes in the occupied kingdom. Individuals who spend such "stolen" money, such as on OHA’s nation-building effort, would be subject to prosecution for the war crime of pillaging, according to Sai.

The OHA board to date has approved nearly $4 million in expenditures on the nation-building effort.

The concern that some trustees voiced about the Sai memo mirrored the controversy that ensued when Crabbe wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry in early May seeking an opinion on the legal status of the kingdom.

Sai helped Crabbe write the Kerry letter, which the board promptly rescinded. Crabbe was taken to task for overstepping his authority by sending a document that didn’t reflect the agency’s or trustees’ position, according to the board.

The Star-Advertiser obtained the Sai memo and his two contracts through an open-records request.

OHA initially refused to release the memo, claiming it was confidential because the document contained recommended approaches and strategies related to the ongoing nation-building initiative.

When the newspaper asked the agency to cite specific provisions of the law to justify keeping the letter secret, OHA had a change of heart and released the document.