May 31, 2008
Aloha lawsuit for sale
By Dave Segal, Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Aloha Airlines, which has been on a fast track to liquidate its assets since filing for bankruptcy in mid-March, said in federal District Court yesterday that it plans to sell the legal claim in its 2006 lawsuit against go! parent Mesa Air Group Inc. to the highest bidder.
"A lawsuit is no different than a propeller," said James Wagner, an attorney for Aloha Chapter 7 trustee Dane Field. "It's an asset and we're going to sell it."
He said a motion would be filed Monday or Tuesday and an auction likely would be held the following week.
Wagner said the likeliest bidder would be Yucaipa Cos. LLC, which is Aloha's majority shareholder and second secured creditor behind Aloha's primary lender, GMAC Commercial Finance LLC. Wagner said Mesa also could be a possible bidder.
"As you can imagine, there's probably very few bidders for this asset," Wagner said.
A winning bid by Yucaipa, which is owed $106.7 million, would allow it to control the lawsuit, while a bid by Mesa would be, in essence, an out-of-court settlement. Aloha is suing Mesa for alleged predatory pricing that helped force Aloha out of business, as well as for allegedly misusing confidential information obtained during Aloha's first bankruptcy.
Last month, Mesa settled a suit with Hawaiian for $52.5 million over the misuse of confidential information.
However, Mesa General Counsel Brian Gillman said yesterday that "we haven't even considered bidding" on the Aloha lawsuit.
"We believe the case is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the case in any proceeding," he said.
Wagner said that unless Mesa decides to settle, Wagner said Yucaipa likely would be the winning bidder. In that case, Aloha creditors would have to wait until the end of the lawsuit to share in any possible recovery.
GMAC, which initially was owed about $49 million, still is due about $34 million following the sales of Aloha's aviation contract services and cargo divisions. If there is additional money left after GMAC is made whole, then Yucaipa would be next in line for up to the $106.7 million it is owed.
Both GMAC and Yucaipa have said they would give 5 percent of any recovery to Aloha.
Federal Judge David Ezra chastised both parties' attorneys yesterday for letting the case sit for two years with very little action. He said he wouldn't allow the case to sit around as "a bargaining chip."
"We're going to be on the fast track in this case and it's not going to be decided two years from today," Ezra said. "This is a case of some importance to the community, and it's also important to the Mesa shareholders."
The trial is scheduled for Oct. 28.
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (05-02-08): Judge David Ezra’s undisclosed conflicting relationships with members of the Hawaii Judiciary Selection Commission:
April 20, 2000
Trust played role
in effort to fund
Ige campaign
in effort to fund
Ige campaign
Campaign laws could have
been violated and it could
have lost its tax-exempt status
been violated and it could
have lost its tax-exempt status
Kamehameha Schools coordinated political donations from its outside lawyers to state Sen. Marshall Ige's campaign in what could be a violation of campaign spending laws.
Records subpoenaed by the attorney general's office show that the $6 billion charitable trust played a role in the 1994 campaign contributions to Ige from attorneys C. Michael Heihre and Cheryl Nakamura and the law firms of Ashford & Wriston, Dwyer Imanaka Schraff Kudo Meyer & Kudo and Ching Yuen & Morikawa.
The documents -- discovered last year in the office of former trust manager Namlyn Snow -- include binders containing detailed logs of the attorneys' contributions to the Ige campaign, as well as photocopies of canceled checks to pay for the contributions.
Each attorney or firm contributed $250, for a total of $1,250. All of the checks were received by the Ige campaign on Aug. 17, 1994, and were deposited together in the campaign's bank account on the following day, suggesting that the contributions were bundled by Bishop Estate representatives.
Trust attorneys familiar with the documents said it was clear that Snow, who died last year, had a part in obtaining the donations.
The lawyers added that the estate's interim board of trustees turned over the documents to the attorney general's office and is complying with the state's investigation.
On Monday, the Star-Bulletin reported that an investigation by the attorney general's office had found that the estate engaged in a massive attempt to influence legislation and direct tens of thousands of dollars to isle politicians during the tenure of previous board membersRichard "Dickie" Wong, Henry Peters, Lokelani Lindsey, Gerard Jervis and Oswald Stender.
The findings of the attorney general's inquiry, along with documents relating to the law firms' contributions to the Ige campaign, were turned over to the state Campaign Spending Commission last week, which has opened a separate investigation of the trust.
Bob Watada, executive director of the state Campaign Spending Commission, also declined to discuss the law firms' contributions to Ige. But speaking generally, Watada said bundling of contributions could be seen as a campaign contribution made under a false name,which is illegal.
Federal law also bars tax-exempt trusts from making campaign contributions or taking part in a political election. Violations could lead to the loss of a charity's tax-exempt status.
The latest disclosure comes as Ige is facing misdemeanor charges for alleged campaign finance abuses. The charges stem from an allegedcampaign laundering scheme involving Bishop Estate's architecture and engineering firms. Ige has pleaded not guilty, and a trial is scheduled for next month.
Birney Bervar, Ige's attorney, declined comment on the latest development involving his client's campaign finances.
Attorneys with the Ashford & Wriston and Dwyer Imanaka firms had no response, while Bill Yuen of the Ching Yuen firm said he could not recall the circumstances of the contributions.
Nakamura, who does civil litigation work for the trust at the law firm of Rush Moore Craven Sutton Morry & Beh, said she remembers purchasing the fund-raiser tickets and attending the event with her parents. Nakamura, who lives in Ige's district, added that she may have purchased the tickets with the assistance of Bishop Estate personnel.
Heihre, formerly known as C. Michael Hare, said his donation to Ige was a personal contribution on his own checking account. But Heihre, a partner in the Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright firm and former chairman of the state Judicial Selection Commission, said he could not recall if he discussed his contribution to Ige with Kamehameha Schools personnel.
Each of the law firms that contributed to the Ige campaign has billed the trust tens of thousands of dollars each year for legal work. Last year, the estate paid the Cades Schutte firm about $1.8 million.
~ ~ ~
March 3, 2004
Lingle gets recommendations
for two judgeships
for two judgeships
Pacific Business News (Honolulu)
Gov. Linda Lingle has released two lists provided to her by the Judicial Selection Commission from which she will make one appointment to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit to fill the vacancy created by the Dec. 31 retirement of Dan Kochi.
The other appointment will be to fill a vacancy created by the addition of a seventh associate judge to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, the governor's office said Wednesday.
"In her continuing effort to maintain openness in her administration, Gov. Lingle has again elected to make the lists available prior to making the appointments," the governor's office said in a statement.
Nominees to fill a vacancy in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit:
Bert Ayabe.
James Hershey.
Ronette Kawakami.
Gerald Kibe.
Dale Lee.
Michael Tanigawa.
Nominees to fill the vacancy of Associate Judge, Intermediate Court of Appeals:
Alexa Fujise.
Victoria Marks.
Richard Perkins.
Michael Town.
Frances Wong.
The commission does not rank the candidates. Lingle has 30 days from receipt of the lists to make her selections. The governor's office invited public comment to Governor.Lingle@hawaii.gov or by fax to (808) 586-0006, by March 19.
~ ~ ~
Board Minutes December 2007
MINUTES
HAWAII STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
BOARD MEETING
HAWAII STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
BOARD MEETING
1132 Bishop Street, Suite 906
Honolulu, HI 96813
Honolulu, HI 96813
Thursday, December 20, 2007, 11:30 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
President Jeffrey Portnoy called the meeting to order at 11:40 a.m. with a quorum present. The following persons were present for all or part of the meeting:
Officers Present
Hugh Jones (by phone)
Robert Godbey
Directors Present
Roxann Bulman (by phone)
Jackie Erickson (by phone)
Gregory Frey
Geraldine Hasegawa
Ronette Kawakami
Carol Kitaoka
Steven Songstad (by phone)
Trudy Burns Stone
Suzanne Terada
Jodi Kimura Yi
Nichole Shimamoto
Board Members Absent
Alfred Castillo
Steven Chow
Janice Kim
Others Present
James Branham
Darren Ching
Rai Saint Chu
Mark Gallagher
Michael Gibson
Joanne Ha’o
Jill Hasegawa
Philip Hellreich
James Kawachika
Ralph La Fountaine
Catherine Levinson
Douglas Moore
HSBA Staff
Iris Ito
Debra White
Hisae Ishii-Chang
- - -
... e. Judicial Selection Commission – JSC Chair Rosemary Fazio and JSC members Philip Hellreich, Susan Ichinose, Shelton Jim On, and Ralph La Fountaine were present to describe the JSC procedures. Ms. Fazio shared JSC concerns over HSBA’s involvement in the judicial selection process. She referred to an earlier report by the American Judicature Society which stated that it would be more helpful if HSBA gathered comments on the list of judicial candidates which are presented to the appointing authority by the JSC, an issue which has already been addressed by the HSBA Board. Ms. Ichinose stated that JSC is doing more now in the way of trying to get more applicants, visiting neighbor islands to discuss the judicial selection process, working on an electronic application form, etc. President Portnoy welcomed the HSBA-elected representatives on the JSC to come to board meetings more often and report on its activities. ...
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT – Ms. Flanigan encouraged board members to refer to the HSBA website for all of its activities and even links to the Judiciary’s opinions/calendar. She reported that in 2007, fifty CLE programs were presented and 101 CLE hours offered.She also commented that there were many questions and much confusion on the registration forms, especially question 5 regarding pro bono reporting and question 6 regarding professional liability insurance reporting....
b. Board Procedures on Judicial Appointments – Board members who agreed to review the current board procedures on judicial/executive appointments and present recommendations to improve upon those procedures have met once and will continue to work on proposed amendments to the board procedures.
c. Proposed Amendment to Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 7.2 (see agenda item 6.c. and Exhibit C) - Ms. Flaniganreported HSBA is awaiting specific language changes from the Disciplinary Board on this proposed rule that would allow a percentage fee assessment for not-for-profit lawyer referral services....
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Access to Justice Report (see agenda item 7.a. and Exhibits D and E) - Delivery of Legal Services to the Public Committee Co-chair Mike Gibson presented the proposed resolution of the Access to Justice Hui and asked for HSBA’s support. He noted that results of the legal needs assessment conducted by the Hui indicate that 80% of the legal needs of the poor in Hawaii are unmet.
Action taken: After some discussion, a motion was made, seconded, and carried without opposition to support the proposed resolution of the Access to Justice Report. Ms. Flanigan commented that this is a major commitment of the Board, strategic plan, and staff....
~ ~ ~
... Since 1987, the year in which the trustees were forced to make public the amount of their fees, they have received in excess of $40 million. Fees paid over the past three years have averaged $900,000 per trustee, per year.
The distracting thing about this piece of the mosaic is that people made responsible for preserving $5 to $10 billion of wealth, and carrying out an educational mission that is as important as it is unique, arguably ought to be highly paid.
We think the more important issue is the credentials of the specific individuals who are being paid these large sums of money. Given the estate's ability to pay big-league compensation, one would expect to find an array of phenomenally talented trustees. Yet somehow, with the exception of Oswald Stender, the Bishop Estate trustees simply don't measure up to the job.
Trustee selection
Many people are under the impression that the justices of Hawaii's Supreme Court are legally obligated to select Bishop Estate trustees because that's what the princess put into her will. Not so. Clearly, they don't have to do it. The justices acknowledged as much in 1989 when they refused the request of a woman named Sadie Smith to pick the trustees of her charitable trust.
Acknowledging the obvious impropriety of making trustee selections in their official capacity, the justices tell us they are acting as individuals when they select Bishop Estate trustees. This is a distinction without meaning. To be blunt, it's a dodge.
The reality is that Bishop Estate trustees are selected by five individuals who through no coincidence are also justices of the state Supreme Court. The further reality is that these same five individuals are virtually certain to be called upon to decide cases involving the trustees they select (the estate has been before the Supreme Court at least 18 times in the last 13 years). At a minimum, this creates the appearance of a conflict.
Some people wonder why the justices would stretch logic and judicial ethics to the breaking point just to do something they clearly don't have to do, and then do it poorly.
Can we be blamed for questioning the justices' collective judgment in other areas? After all, if the justices exercise questionable judgment in their individual capacity when selecting trustees, why shouldn't we expect equally questionable decisions in their official capacity? Worse, if selection of trustees is influenced by politics (as we believe it is), why shouldn't the public assume that judicial decisions are equally political?
It is imperative that the Supreme Court enjoy the trust and respect of the entire community. According to Democratic Rep. Ed Case, "The Supreme Court's trustee appointment role has the real potential of undermining and perverting our judicial system, starting with the judicial selection process. Getting out of the Bishop Estate trustee selection business is the single biggest thing the court could do to enhance the court's standing with the public." We agree.
Because that's what the will says
More than 100 years have passed since Mrs. Bishop's death, and if she were here today, she unquestionably would decide some things differently. For example, the princess named five men, who happened to be haole, as the initial trustees of her trust. Does that mean she wanted all future trustees to be of that same make up? Of course not.
In fact, the justices and trustees have themselves occasionally ignored the language of the will -- perhaps with good cause. For example, the will says the schools should be primarily vocational, and only secondarily college preparatory. That's changed. The will also specifically expresses a desire that the schools benefit orphans and others in indigent circumstances, and makes no mention of admissions based on academic ability. Again, the will's instructions have been modified to deal with the demands of the time.
The will specifically provides that the trustees must be "persons of the Protestant religion," and no court case has said that such a requirement is invalid. Yet the current justices of Hawaii's Supreme Court, acting as individuals and not as a court, have indicated that they will ignore the will in this respect when selecting new trustees.
Taking refuge in the literal words of the will is more of an excuse than a reason.
Judicial Selection Commission
To understand why each member of the court would insist upon doing something that we consider unethical, it helps to consider the circumstances of their own selection.
The Judicial Selection Commission is an attempt to take politics out of the selection of judges and justices. A "reform" idea out of the 1978 Constitutional Convention, the commission is a bipartisan group that reviews potential applicants and submits a list to the governor for selection. Previously, the governor alone nominated judges.
One of the most powerful duties of the commission is to decide -- by itself -- whether any judge, or justice, will be retained for another term of 10 years.
We believe that most of the people who served on the commission over the years have been public spirited, well intentioned and capable. But no process, no matter how well designed, will work properly when individuals are determined to manipulate it. For instance, we believe that during the period John Waihee was governor it was common for him to confer ahead of time with several commission members who then would strive to get a predetermined name on each list.
In the words of someone who served on the commission during those years, "If a few members decided ahead of time to do their best to get a particular name on a list, they probably were able to do that. No one is so naive as to think there isn't a certain amount of horse trading going on."
According to a prominent Democratic politician, "The commission always seemed to have at least a few people whose first and foremost allegiance was to Governor Waihee. With people like Warren Price, Tom Enomoto, Michael Hare and Gerry Jervis on the commission, it was easy to get one particular name on a list. The thing, though, is that it already had been determined who was going to get the appointment."
This was the era when the commission put 36-year-old Sharon Himeno on a list for the Supreme Court, from which she was selected by Governor Waihee. It bothered some people that Himeno was Attorney General Warren Price's wife and that she wasn't considered an exceptional lawyer.
But the bigger concern for many was an allegation of a serious ethical lapse in connection with a family corporation's apparent $3 million profit on a back-to-back purchase/sale of a mainland golf course involving Himeno's client, the state Employees' Retirement System. Her nomination to the state's highest court seemed to be based on the fact that she and Price had directed their good friend John Waihee's gubernatorial campaign.
When Judge Walter Heen was interviewed as an applicant for the Hawaii Supreme Court, he was asked by Hare "what kind of person" he might select as Bishop Estate trustee, if he ever had the opportunity to do so. According to David Fairbanks, a current member of the commission, such a question, if asked, would have been "totally improper."
That this question was asked of a candidate for the Supreme Court, by a member of the Judicial Selection Commission, illustrates how the trustee-selection power of justices played a significant role (with respect to some members of the commission) in the consideration of candidates for the state's highest court.
Hare's law firm has been paid more than $10 million in legal fees by the Bishop Estate since 1992. It's an excellent firm, but we find it hard to believe that's the reason it was selected by the trustees.
~ ~ ~
October 20, 1997
‘Most people wouldrun for cover’ from...
Bishop Estate’slegal army
Bishop Estate’slegal army
The estate employs a hostof well-connected, top attorneys
When it comes to its legal armament, few can match the arsenal that Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate can bring to the courtroom.
The $10 billion charitable trust -- the state's largest private landowner -- employs an army of well-connected attorneys that includes a former governor, two former state attorneys general and the former chairman of Hawaii's Republican Party.
The estate's outside legal team also lists House Judiciary Chairman Terrance Tom and Bill McCorriston, a former assistant U.S. attorney who has represented former Mayor Frank Fasi and was on the city Charter Commission.
"With this kind of legal cannon pointed at you, most people would run for cover," said Beadie Dawson, attorney for Na Pua a Ke Ali'i Pauahi, which has criticized trustees' management of Kamehameha Schools.
"They've (hired) every good litigation attorney in town."
The estate maintains that it hires attorneys for their expertise. Waihee and Tom were hired because they are good attorneys and not because of their political ties, the estate said.
McCorriston, who is representing the estate in Attorney General Margery Bronster's investigation of the trust, added that the trust is like any major corporation that hires lawyers to represent its diverse legal interests.
For instance, for leasehold and litigation matters, the estate relies on Mike Hare and the Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright law firm. The Verner Liipfert firm conducts much of its Washington, D.C., lobbying, while McCorriston's firm, McCorriston Miho Miller Mukai, has done mostly land-use work, McCorriston said.
Bishop Estate trustee Gerard Jervis considered joining the McCorriston Miho firm several months ago as an outside counsel. But Jervis said he decided against the move because of his heavy workload with the estate.
Jervis denied any conflict since he didn't join the firm.
Jon Miho, one of the firm's founders and a friend of Jervis', added that if Jervis had joined McCorriston Miho, it would have made it more difficult for the firm to do work for the estate.
Jervis also shares close political ties with Washington, D.C.-based Verner Liipfert through its local partner Waihee. Jervis served on theJudicial Selection Commission during the Waihee years.
Verner Liipfert -- whose mainland offices lists former U.S Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, former Republican presidential candidateRobert Dole and former Texas Gov. Ann Richards on its roster -- also employs prominent labor-relations attorney and former Hawaii GOP head Jared Jossem and Renton Nip, who served as state Land Use Commission chairman during the Waihee years, in its local office.
Former Attorney General Warren Price and his successor, Robert Marks, through their firm serve as outside counsels to Verner Liipfertand have conducted legal work for the estate.
To be sure, the legal work for the estate can be lucrative. According to its tax filings, the estate's nonprofit unit paid nearly $4.2 million in legal fees during the year ending June 30, 1996.
More than half, or $2.75 million, went to Cades Schutte, which does the legal work for the estate's leasehold conversions and some of its real-estate litigation.
Waihee's firm, Verner Liipfert, earned $844,245, while the Ching Yuen & Morikawa firm -- whose partners include longtime Waihee friend Bill Yuen -- was paid $580,603.
The estate paid McCorriston Miho $223,079 in legal fees for the fiscal year 1995 and another $235,050 for the 1993 fiscal year.
Randall Roth, University of Hawaii law professor and co-author of a scathing report that helped launch Bronster's investigation of the estate, criticized the large amount of legal fees that the estate pays each year -- especially since it is a nonprofit organization.
While the estate's attorneys are among the top in town, Roth believes that political connections probably play a key role in who gets selected for its legal work.
"This strikes me as an exorbitant amount of money for a charity to be spending on legal fees, especially when it has its own legal department," said Roth. "We can only wonder if the money is well-spent."
The estate declined to disclose the amount of legal fees that its for-profit units incur each year. But recent news reports said the estate spent $500,000 to defend an $86.7 million lawsuit that film producer Frederick Field filed in 1995 over soured real-estate investments on the mainland.
An estate subsidiary, Royal Hawaiian Shopping Center Inc., wracked up at least $500,000 in legal bills in the McKenzie Methane Corp. legal battle.
The estate sued the Houston-based natural gas company's founder Mike McKenzie in 1992, alleging that fraud and mismanagement led them to lose some $60 million in the venture.
The company filed for bankruptcy protection in 1994 and was sold to the estate, which now says it has been able to recoup much of its losses in McKenzie Methane.
McKenzie denied the estate's fraud allegations, saying its hardball tactics have made his life a legal nightmare.
He said the estate wrongly accused him of stealing money from Hawaiian children and that the estate's attorneys hired private investigators -- two former FBI agents -- to harass him.
"It's been five years of hell," said McKenzie.
"They've used their money, power and influence to beat the heck out of me."
Suer of estate finds it
tough to hire a lawyer
When Bobby Harmon filed a wrongful termination suit against Bishop Estate in February, he couldn't find a lawyer to take his case.
The former president of the estate's in-house insurance company, P&C Insurance Co., was turned down by eight local law firms because they either did business with the estate or wanted to, said John Goemans, Harmon's attorney.
Some were just afraid to oppose them, he said.
"The reality is that it's virtually impossible to take on the estate," said Goemans.
Harmon sued the estate after the estate sued him for releasing confidential information.
The estate said Harmon was fired for cause and that the firing was upheld by a stateDepartment of Labor review, which denied him unemployment benefits.
Documents released by Harmon contained false and defamatory allegations, the estate has also said.
A Circuit Court judge recently ruled that Harmon violated a court order not to disclose estate information. The court also said that Harmon did not act in bad faith since he was acting on advice of his lawyer.
For Goemans, the Harmon case underscores the estate's clout in Hawaii's legal community and the difficulties of opposing it. Goemans said his client has run up about $20,000 in legal bills.
"Few have the capability of resisting a $10 billion behemoth with an unlimited supply of lawyers who have a clear modus operandi of deluging opponents with paper," Goemans said.
|
* * *
For more, see: www.kycbs.net/Dots-Judiciary-Selection-Commission.htm
~ ~ ~
Judge David A. Ezra is expected to testify as to the reasons he did not recuse himself from this case due to multiple and material conflicts of interests.
Three basic issues in this case are: 1) IMPARTIALITY; 2) FREEDOM OF SPEECH; and 3) RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY.
An news article in 2006 in “Hawaii’s Most Wanted” had this to say about Judge David Ezra’s views on these issues:
JUDGE DAVID EZRA: IMPARTIALITY IS PARAMOUNT
By Chuck Cordill, HMW, 2006
He’s one of the most well known and visible figures in Hawaii. Turn on the TV or radio, open a local newspaper, and chances are you’ll see his name-- just not in the “Seen around Town” society columns or “People in the News” segment. Outside his office, he tries his best to blend in and go about life with his family; catch a movie, enjoy the evening at a nice restaurant. The nature of his job demands a high level of public anonymity....
As a Chief Judge for the Hawaii District of the U.S. Court’s Ninth District, David Alan Ezra must insulate himself from much of the goings on in the community. He’s careful about what functions he attends, who he meets with, and where he is seen. Anything considered remotely political is strictly off limits. He takes his position seriously and ardently strives for an image of judicial neutrality. Some may deem this social posture as aloof, withdrawn. But to Hawaii’s Chief Federal jurist, it’s necessary.
“Federal Judges may not ever engage in any political activity, may not make any campaign contributions nor attend campaign functions,” said Ezra. “There are a good many social functions that I’m invited to attend but unable to do so because of my position.”
The principle of insulation is essential, says Ezra, to avoid any potential appearance of conflict of interest and to preserve the integrity of the Court. He also says that receiving lifetime appointments as opposed to having to seek election helps maintain that integrity....
“In addition to being Hawaii’s Chief Federal Judge and my position on the Judicial Conference, I am also a member of the Committee on the Administration of the U.S. Bankruptcy System, on which I chair the long-range sub-committee,” said Ezra.
He’s also a member of the governing body of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, as well as a member of the Executive Committee of the Federal Judges Association. In addition, he sits on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by designation. “Needless to say, I wear a lot of different hats,” he quips.
As a Federal Judge, Ezra is an independent guardian of the U.S. Constitution and bases his decisions upon his interpretation of it. He and the other Hawaii Federal Judges handle cases that deal with U.S. law within the District’s jurisdiction....
As a guardian of the Constitution, Ezra often considers matter of free speech. Ironically, his position dictates that he can’t enjoy some of the very freedoms he defends.
“There are canons of professional ethics that we must and should follow,” said Ezra. “We are under a lot of restrictions about what we can and can’t talk about. One of my most important jobs is to uphold the right of free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution. But by being a Federal Judge, I’ve largely given up that right to speak out on issues I may be concerned about. That’s the way it has to be.”
“I’m pretty “middle-of-the-road” in terms of my views in respect to the constitution,” said Ezra. “You should not change the Constitution, its meaning, or import simply based on what the social tendencies and tastes of the day are. I’m also cognizant that back when the Constitution was drafted by our founding fathers, I seriously doubt they would have or could have known what our modern life would be about. We presently deal with things like electronic privacy and the Internet, things that the founders couldn’t possibly have contemplated. So, you have to then determine whether the Constitution applies to a case and if so, how? You can’t simply say, “There is no Constitutional right here because it isn’t mentioned in the original text.” You do have to look at the law in view of what is happening today. Having said that, you don’t change or interpret the Constitution to suit your own needs or just on a philosophical whim. The Constitution is a very important document that has only been amended a few times in our history. Judges don’t have the right to amend the document according to their personal likes. But we also need to view it with a mind of what’s going on today.”...
In the most simple of terms, a judge is like a baseball umpire or football referee. They are not on either side, but there to insure the game is played fairly and that the contest is conducted under prescribed guidelines. So where does the Judge stand in the whole dynamic judicial process? The ancient philosopher Socrates said of Judges, “Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially.” In theory, the prosecution represents the interests of law enforcement and the public, and the defense represents the constitutional rights of the accused. The judge presides as an unbiased mediator, or as Ezra describes, “An advocate for neither side, but an advocate for the interests of Justice.”
“My job is to be an adjudicator, to make sure there is a level playing field,” said Ezra. “I need to insure both sides have the opportunity to fairly present their case and that the defendant has a presumption of innocence under the Constitution. I also have to insure the government has an ample opportunity to present its case and that the burden of proof lies with the government. If a defendant chooses to represent them self, I have to see that they are afforded a fair opportunity to present their defense. It’s my responsibility that the jury is properly instructed about how to handle a case and that they reach a collective decision that is reflective of an impartial consideration of the facts, without prejudice or bias.”
Ezra’s chief role in the courtroom is to insure the rules are followed and neither side takes unfair advantage of the other. The rules of courtroom litigation dictate what can and cannot be done. As a Federal Judge, Ezra uses three regulatory guidelines-The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence. His job is to make sure every case he hears follow all of these guidelines....
“Quite frankly, I’ve never found it difficult to be impartial,” said Ezra. “I approach that area pretty pragmatically. It’s simply not my job to make that determination. Besides, I’m busy enough up there making sure everyone gets a fair trial; I don’t have time to pick and choose sides. I never have done that and I never will.”
The only exceptions are the rare instances when a defendant waives a jury trial and the judge is called upon to be the “Trier of Fact.” In that case the judge also makes the determination of guilt or innocence. Still, Ezra says this is very rare and the determination best comes from a jury of one’s peers....
“...I have ruled for the Federal Government in a number of cases and I have also ruled against that same government in a number of cases, many of them very important. I decide the cases based on the facts of the law, not on any personal prejudice or opinion, that’s the job people expect me to do.”
Copyright 2006, Hawaii's Most Wanted Magazine
~ ~ ~
David C. Farmer, Successor-Trustee vs. Harmon
(Formerly Woo vs. Harmon & Nicholson vs. Harmon)
U.S. District Court For the District of Hawaii
—
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT
—
A few words of explanation:
In his "MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO DISAPPROVE APPOINTMENT OF DAVID C. FARMER AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE", filed with the Court on August 24, 2007, the Trustee's attorney, Steven Guttman, Esq., of the law firm, Kessner Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga, stated to the Court:
"... Harmon is once again attempting to create issues of conflict where none exist by attempting to draw connections between phantom dots."...
Mr. Guttman does not elaborate beyond this simple statement of HIS PERSONAL OPINION, as to WHICH of the thousands of connections I have cited that he wishes the Court to accept, without question, as being merely "phantom dots". In other court filings, Mr. Guttman has characterized my Motions as consisting of "conspiracy theories" -- again with no specific references.
Despite these unnamed "phantom dots" and "conspiracy theories", the Court has blithely and unquestionably gone along with Mr. Guttman's opinions and has repeatedly denied ALL Motions that I have made. In fact, both Courts involved have ruled that the Court Clerk shall not accept any future filings from me without the Courts' prior approval - which it has repeatedly declined to give.
Therefore, due to the fact that I continue to discover new, material FACTS almost daily, I am preparing a set of NEW EXHIBITS in which I intend to document the financial, professional, personal, and political connections between the many various entities involved in this case.
~ o ~
The following is a listing of named witnesses in this case who have factual connections with the subject entity. Each underlined name has been linked to a detailed description of that witness to enable the reader to more easily CONNECT THE DOTS TO...
LEARN MORE ABOUT AIPAC:
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (04-11-08): Trustee James B. Nicholson failed to disclose that he was the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee for Defendant’s witness, Peter Savio, even though he was asked specifically if he had any business, professional, personal or political relationships with Mr. Savio:
August, 2003
Hawaii’s Top 250 Companies:
New To The List: Whoa, Savio!
Hawaiian Island Homes' debut is marked by acrimony
By Kelli Abe Trifonovitch, Hawaii Business Magazine
Any interview that focuses on Peter Savio's new company, Hawaiian Island Homes Ltd., will soon focus on another Top 250 company,Central Pacific Bank. Says Savio: "They're malicious. They're vicious. I am going to become a stockholder in Central Pacific Bank. I am going to reform that institution. Their mistake was they stomped me. They didn't kill me. I'm coming back. I'm going to have fun with them."
Go back to the year 2001. Savio Inc., a holding company for eight real estate sales and development companies, was No. 56 on the Top 250, with $134.6 million in 2000 gross sales. But in 2001, Savio Inc. filed for Chapter 7 liquidation, and Peter Savio and his wife filed for personal bankruptcy protection. Savio says he was forced into the bankruptcies because CPB gave him just five days to move from his second-floor offices at 931 University Ave. Savio says he had been in a workout plan with a number of lenders after he started experiencing cash-flow problems in the mid-1990s. But CPB forced his hand.
"The only way to stop them was, I had to file for personal bankruptcy. So to save my employees and everything else, I filed for personal bankruptcy - one of the most difficult decisions I've ever had to make. But I was really pissed at Central Pacific Bank for doing that," he says.
"It was tough," he adds. "Basically I lost everything. Lost my house. Lost everything. Had to basically come back from nothing."
Today, Savio is more than back. His real estate company, Hawaiian Island Homes Ltd., lists 2002 gross sales of $177 million. Its office is downstairs in the same building that Savio Inc.'s once was. And the company is No. 27, ahead of CPB Inc. (No. 49), something Savio will rejoice to read. Savio says, "I've decided that my goal is to beat them in the Top 250. … just so we can say, 'Nannynannybooboo!'"
That's not all. "My short-term and my long-term goal is to reform Central Pacific Bank," Savio says. "I think I'm going to buy the bank."
Ann Takiguchi, Central Pacific Financial's communications officer, says, "We made every effort to work with Mr. Savio, and it is unfortunate that he is blaming us for his situation. Out of respect for our customers' privacy, we have no further comment. As a matter of bank policy, we don't comment on the affairs of our customers."
Bankruptcy court filings show that Central Pacific Bank claimed that Savio Inc. owed it about $1.5 million when Savio filed for bankruptcy in 2001. The Internal Revenue Service and Pitney Bowes Credit Corp. also listed claims of about $2,000 each.
The court-appointed trustee for Savio Inc.'s bankruptcy case, attorney Jim Nicholson, says the only unencumbered asset of the estate, a unit in the Diamond Head Beach apartment building, was sold for $375,000 in June 2003.
Gross sales for Savio's other new company, Hawaiian Island Development, were not reported for this year's Top 250, so one thing is for sure: Next year, he'll be back. Says Savio: "We're going to set up a new holding company called, 'I Hate CPB.' No, my attorney said I couldn't do that. I have a warped sense of humor, OK? But anyway, the new holding company is going to be Ohia Holdings."
Knowing Savio, there is marked symbolism in that choice. After all, the Ohia tree can be found growing in the middle of old lava flows.
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (03/18/08) - David Farmer is the Trustee for Mid-Pac Lumber Company; with original bankruptcy judge beingJudge Lloyd King; with current judge being Robert Faris; and with a major creditor of Mid-Pac being lessor, Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate. In my RICO lawsuit, I explained how many of the lessees of Bishop Estate properties were overcharged for their pro rata share of insurance coverages due to the fraudulent overcharges made by broker, Marsh & McLennan, and by insurance carriers, Chubb Group and XL Insurance Company:
~ ~ ~
NEW DISCOVERY (03/10/08):
March 10, 2008
Replacing top judge is Lingle’s jurisdiction
Gov. Lingle will pick the next chief justice unless
the people alter the Constitution
the people alter the Constitution
By Ken Kobayashi, Star-Bulletin
Gov. Linda Lingle says she wants the next chief justice of the Hawaii Supreme Court to be a hard-working legal scholar who will not legislate from the bench.
Candidates would not be favored if they were prosecutors, "but it wouldn't hurt their chances, either," the Republican governor said in a recent interview with the Star-Bulletin.
Although Attorney General Mark Bennett has been mentioned in legal circles as a top contender, the governor said it is too early to mention any names.
But in explaining the qualities she would like to see in judges, Lingle made clear that she believes they should interpret laws and leave legislation to elected officials.
Her remarks suggest that her appointment of the state's next chief justice could be monumental for the five-member high court. Known for a long tradition of rendering "activist" decisions, the court has been hailed by civil rights advocates but criticized by others as going beyond reviewing and applying the laws.
Lingle's appointment would be the first time that a Republican governor would name a chief justice in more than 40 years. Democratic Gov. John Burns appointed William Richardson in 1966, and Democratic governors appointed the next two: Herman Lum and the current chief justice, Ronald Moon.
The only way Lingle would be prevented from making the appointment is if state lawmakers place on this fall's ballot -- and voters approve -- a proposed constitutional amendment to lift the mandatory retirement for judges who turn 70.
Unless the state Constitution is amended, Moon must retire when he turns 70 on Sept. 4, 2010, about three months before Lingle's term expires.
The state Senate approved a controversial measure last week that raises the mandatory retirement age to 80, and sent the proposal to the state House. But key senators acknowledge that it will be difficult for the amendment to pass because voters rejected a similar proposal in 2006 that eliminated the mandatory retirement provision. Voters rejected the amendment by 80,000 votes, 58 percent to 35 percent.
"It's an uphill battle," said Sen. Brian Taniguchi, Senate judiciary chairman. "I'm not going to die if the bill dies."
Senate President Colleen Hanabusa agreed with the prognosis. "I'm not sure it will make it out of the Legislature because we just put it on the ballot," she said.
Taniguchi maintained that he views the proposal as a civil rights issue against age discrimination and a "compromise" by retaining the retirement age but raising it to 80.
Opponents, including Lingle, contend the measure is aimed at preventing her from naming the next chief justice.
Bennett and City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle, who opposed the 2006 proposal, submitted testimony in opposition to the current measure before Taniguchi's committee last month.
The proposal's supporters include the Hawaii Government Employees Association and the Japanese American Citizens League.
Republican Sen. Fred Hemmings, who voted against the measure last week, said in an interview that the proposal was "petty politics at its worst."
"I think they (Democrats) will try to do whatever they can to put it on the ballot," he said.
Taniguchi said he believes Moon is doing an "all-right job," but said the motivation behind the measure is not to keep him as chief justice. The senator noted that Moon was a Republican before he got to the bench.
BETS ARE ON BENNETT
The speculation that Bennett will be Lingle's choice has been fueled by his role as a trusted adviser to the governor. In addition, his was one of three names Lingle submitted to the White House for a lifetime tenure as a U.S. district judge here. In 2005, President Bush choseMichael Seabright, now a federal judge, from the list.
The speculation prompted Taniguchi to ask Bennett at last month's hearing about the chief justice's job.
In an interview, Bennett gave the same answer he gave to the senator: If the job somehow opened up now, he would not apply for it.
"My plans right now are, when I'm done as attorney general, to return to private practice and/or teach," he said. "But I would not even begin to speculate about what my feelings might be in two years."
Lingle's appointment would be subject to Senate approval. The Democratic-dominated Senate has rejected some of her appointments, including Ted Hong to the Circuit Court and Randal Lee to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.
But if Lingle gets the names for Moon's replacement early in 2010 and her appointment is rejected, she would be able to name another person from a list of four to six names submitted by the Judicial Selection Commission.
If the Senate rejects all of her choices, the commission would chose the chief justice from its list, according to the state Constitution. The commission's selection would not be subject to Senate approval.
Hanabusa said "it's almost positive" that Bennett will be appointed by the governor. She said one of the criticisms is that he is sometimes almost "overzealous" in representing the administration over the legislative and judicial branches. Hanabusa cited his efforts against the mandatory retirement amendment that was placed before the voters by the Legislature in 2006.
"I think people are watching because they have concerns," she said.
Hemmings, however, said he is a "big fan" of Bennett and applauded him for his work with prosecutors and police in pushing for legislation. "It's hard to deny his success and record," Hemmings said.
Another name mentioned is Mark Recktenwald, a former assistant U.S. attorney who was Lingle's director of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs before the governor named him chief judge of the Intermediate Court of Appeals last year.
Hanabusa said Recktenwald is considered a good administrator and would have support, but indicated senators might wait to see how he does as the chief appeals court judge.
Recktenwald said he has been chief judge for only about 10 months and is focused on doing a good job. "I haven't given consideration to anything else," he said.
SAME-SEX SHUTDOWN
Lingle's appointment would oversee a Hawaii Supreme Court whose history includes expanding the public's rights to beaches and surface waters; recognizing the rights of native Hawaiians go onto private property for traditional religious and food gathering practices; and striking down laws the court believed infringed on the rights of criminal defendants.
In its landmark and highly controversial case, the high court issued a 1993 decision that paved the way for same-sex marriages in Hawaii. That ruling prompted state lawmakers to complain that the court was creating new law, and it led to a constitutional amendment that essentially negated the ruling.
"I continue to try to reflect what the public would like to see in a judiciary, and that is a judiciary that really interprets the laws that elected people pass rather than try to make law as a judge from the bench," Lingle said.
Lingle notes that unlike the three previous Democratic governors, she is not a lawyer who might be familiar with judicial candidates. She suggests that helps bring a fresh prospective to her judicial appointments.
Because her appointments are for 10-year terms, the judges Lingle has selected -- and will select -- will remain on the bench for years after she leaves office.
Lingle said she wants her legacy to be that the courts will be a place where people "get a fair shake."
"I think the very highest achievement you can have for a judiciary is that the average citizen of a state or of a country will get fair treatment no matter who they are," she said.
~ ~ ~
The Judicial Selection Commission reviews and evaluates applications for all judicial vacancies, and vote, by secret ballot, to select qualified nominees. Established by a 1978 state constitutional amendment, the Commission is governed by the Judicial Selection Commission Rules.
The names of the nominees are then forwarded to the appropriate appointing authority. The governor is the appointing authority to nominate judges of the Supreme Court, Intermediate Court of Appeals, and Circuit Court for an initial ten-year term. The governor selects appointees from a list of not less than four and not more than six names submitted by the Judicial Selection Commission. The commission submits a list of at least six names to the chief justice who nominates judges for district and district family court to six-year terms. All nominations are subject to confirmation by the state senate.
The Commission also determines whether a justice or judge shall be retained in office. The Commission publicizes the fact that a justice or judge is seeking retention so that all persons who might have an interest in the matter be informed of the opportunity to comment.
Comments about justices and judges seeking appointment or retention should be submitted to:
Comments about justices and judges seeking appointment or retention should be submitted to:
Contact Information:Judicial Selection Commission
417 South King Street
Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813-2902
Telephone: (808) 538-5200
The Commission is composed of nine members, no more than four of whom may be lawyers. The members, who serve staggered six-year terms, are selected or elected as follows:
417 South King Street
Honolulu, Hawai`i 96813-2902
Telephone: (808) 538-5200
The Commission is composed of nine members, no more than four of whom may be lawyers. The members, who serve staggered six-year terms, are selected or elected as follows:
Chairperson
| ||
Chairperson
| ||
Philip Hellreich
|
Vice-Chairperson
| |
Secretary
| ||
Member
|
Term
|
Appointing/Electing Authority
|
Susan Ichinose
|
04/02/07 - 04/01/13
|
(Bar)
|
Frederick Okumura
|
04/02/07 - 04/01/13
|
(CJ)
|
Melvin I.Chiba
|
04/02/02 - 04/01/08
|
(Senate)
|
Rosemary T. Fazio
|
04/02/03 - 04/01/09
|
(Bar)
|
Thomas Fujikawa
|
04/02/03 - 04/01/09
|
(House)
|
Philip Hellreich
|
04/02/03 - 04/01/09
|
(Governor)
|
Shelton G.W. Jim On
|
04/02/05 - 04/01/11
|
(Governor)
|
Ralph R. LaFountaine
|
04/02/05 - 04/01/11
|
(House)
|
Sheri N. Sakamoto
|
04/02/05 - 04/01/11
|
(Senate)
|
Frederick T. Okumura
|
04/02/07 - 04/01/13
|
(CJ)
|
~ ~ ~
JAIL 4 JUDGES
The Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, J.A.I.L., is a single-issue national grassroots organization designed to end the rampant and pervasive judicial corruption in the legal system of the United States. J.A.I.L. recognizes this can be achieved only through making the Judicial Branch of government answerable and accountable to an entity other than itself. At this time it isn't, resulting in the judiciary's arbitrary abuse of the doctrine of judicial immunity, leaving the People without recourse when their inherent rights are violated by judges.
~ ~ ~
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
~ Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887.
~ ~ ~
Email (National Center): VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org
~ ~ ~
HAWAII CHAPTER
Email (Hawaii): molokaiman@flex.com
~ ~ ~
'Hawaiians-Only' Lawsuit Thrown Out
Judge: Plaintiff Has No Right To File Suit
HONOLULU -- U.S. District Judge David Ezra dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of state-run Hawaiians-only programs Thursday, saying that the man who filed the lawsuit has no legal standing to file the complaint.
Moiliili resident Patrick Barrett challenged his being denied access to the Hawaiian Homelands program and other Hawaiian programs asunconstitutional racial discrimination.
In regards to the Hawaiian Homelands program, Ezra noted that because Congress created the Hawaiian ancestry requirement, the lawsuit wasn't valid because the U.S. Government was not named as a defendant.
"He accepted our argument that the United States needed to be a party to the lawsuit, and the United States hadn't been sued,"Department of Hawaiian Homelands attorney Robert Klein said.
The lawsuit also challenged business loans made by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to people of Hawaiian ancestry. But Ezra ruled that Barrett had no legal standing because he wasn't serious about getting an OHA loan.
"He didn't take any steps including completing an application before he filed a lawsuit," OHA attorney Sherry Broder said. "So the court ruled he didn't have a real case or controversy."
Ezra also ruled that Barrett, who is considered disabled by the Social Security Administration, was not serious about challenging Native Hawaiian gathering rights."
"It's a good day," OHA chairwoman Haunani Apoliona said. "Of course we're realists and pragmatists knowing that anyone else can file another lawsuit."
Ezra pointed out that his ruling on the motion to dismiss Barrett's lawsuit had nothing to do with the merits of the case, only his legal standing to file a complaint.
Barrett's attorney said that he would appeal the decision and possibly re-file the lawsuit with additional plaintiffs.
"This issue is not going to go away and neither are we," Barrett's attorney, Patrick Hanifin said.
"I can certainly say we are prepared to defend the case on the merits," Broder responded. "The history of Native Hawaiian people is exactly the same as the history of other native people. And there's no reason why Native Hawaiians shouldn't be treated the same as Navajos who have reservations and have trust funds."
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
February 8, 2008
Kamehameha Schools settled
lawsuit for $7M
lawsuit for $7M
Kamehameha Schools paid $7 million to settle a lawsuit filed by an anonymous student who claimed the schools' Hawaiians-first admissions policy violates civil rights laws, according to an attorney involved in the case.
Terms of the confidential settlement have been a closely guarded secret since it was signed in May just before the U.S. Supreme Court was to decide whether to hear the case.
The settlement ended a four-year effort by a non-Hawaiian teenager, known only as John Doe, to enter the Kamehameha Schools system.
Attorney John Goemans — who planned the legal action, found the plaintiff and brought the case to Sacramento private attorney Eric Grant to litigate — revealed the amount of the settlement in an exclusive interview with The Advertiser.
"The amount of the settlement is important public information that should be disclosed by a charitable institution that receivestax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service," Goemans said in a telephone interview.
The lawsuit challenging the schools' admissions policy was the first case of its kind to reach the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court and stirred enormous controversy in Hawai'i.
Critics of the settlement pointed out that additional legal challenges could still be mounted against the admissions policy, and news of the$7 million that the schools paid could increase the chances of new lawsuits.
Local attorney David Rosen, who made news last year by actively seeking plaintiffs for a new challenge to the admissions policy, said yesterday he is preparing a suit against Kamehameha Schools.
Kamehameha Schools, previously known as Bishop Estate, is a nonprofit organization with assets of $7.7 billion.
Grant, appearing yesterday at a University of Hawai'i law school symposium on the lawsuit, known as John Doe vs. Kamehameha Schools, declined to discuss the settlement when told that Goemans had disclosed the $7 million figure.
Kamehameha Schools' lead attorney in the lawsuit, Kathleen Sullivan, a former dean of the Stanford University law school, also declined comment.
"Terms of the settlement are inviolate," said Sullivan, also a participant at the UH symposium yesterday.
Ann Botticelli, spokeswoman for the Kamehameha Schools board of trustees, also declined to comment on Goemans' statements or the size of the settlement.
The settlement says that anyone who discloses its contents is subject to a $2 million penalty, but Goemans said he was not a party to the agreement and never signed it.
Goemans, who is recovering from heart surgery, said yesterday that he was opposed to the $7 million settlement but that "it was the client's decision" to accept it.
PART OF TAX RECORD
Goemans said an attorney representing Grant breached the confidentiality clause by mailing a copy of the agreement to Goemans last year.
Goemans added that Kamehameha Schools must disclose details of the settlement on its 2007 tax return, which is due to be filed later this year, and on annual financial reports the charity is required to file with the state attorney general's office and with the state court.
Tax returns of nonprofit institutions such as Kamehameha Schools are public records under federal law. The institution's annual financial accountings — which date to its founding by Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop in 1888 — are also open to the public.
Kamehameha operates three campuses — its flagship at Kapalama Heights on O'ahu, one on Maui and another on the Big Island — for the benefit of children of Hawaiian ancestry.
The institution plays a central role in Hawai'i society, in part because of its financial clout and in part because of its mission to educate children of Hawaiian ancestry. It is also the state's largest private landowner.
There are about 70,000 school-age children with Hawaiian blood, and 5,400 students were enrolled at Kamehameha's various schools last year. Kamehameha served 30,000 other children and adults through outreach programs and through its support of charter schools.
TO SUPREME COURT
Hawai'i federal Judge Alan Kay initially dismissed the John Doe lawsuit in November 2003, upholding the schools' argument that the admissions policy helped address cultural and socio-economic disadvantages that have beset many Hawaiians since the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.
The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned it in a three-judge decision in 2005. That ruling prompted protest rallies, prayer vigils and other gatherings around the state in support of the schools.
Lawyers for Kamehameha Schools then asked that all members of the appellate court review the matter and the full court reversed the three-judge panel's decision by an 8-7 vote in December 2006.
Grant then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, and last May, on the eve of the high court announcement on whether it would take the case, the matter was settled out of court.
"We didn't think that there was a strong possibility (of losing) but that risk is always out there," J. Douglas Ing, chairman of the Kamehameha board of trustees, said in announcing the settlement in 2007. "There are no guarantees and there certainly were no guarantees from our lawyers that we would win the case."
Grant, the attorney for John Doe, said after the case was settled, "Obviously, a settlement is not exactly what either side wanted. But it is something both sides eventually came to terms on."
SPATS OVER FEES
Goemans is involved in a continuing dispute with John Doe, whose identity has never been revealed, and with Grant over how much money Goemans should receive for his part in the case.
Grant received 40 percent of the overall settlement — $2.8 million — although he had to sue the plaintiff and the plaintiff's mother in federal court in Sacramento last year to collect the money, according to Goemans and federal court records.
That collection lawsuit was filed in June after Kamehameha had paid the $7 million settlement. The dispute over the payment of Grant's fee was settled and dismissed in September.
Goemans said he asked John Doe and Jane Doe for 25 percent of the total settlement — $1.75 million — but has not yet received a response.
Grant filed a separate lawsuit against Goemans in California state court last year regarding how much compensation Goemans is owed for his part in the case.
That suit is still pending, although Goemans said he believes it is groundless and will be dismissed.
Grant yesterday declined comment on the collection lawsuit he filed in Sacramento against his own clients or the related action he filed against Goemans.
Goemans said he has received $20,000 in compensation to date from John Doe and his mother and is contemplating filing a new legal action of his own against them.
No comments:
Post a Comment