Boggles, Bangles, and Beads
Only one is a verb . .
I am reposting Blogs that were mysteriously deleted when my prior Blogspot Account was disabled and my objections were ignored.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Breadcrumbs Sometimes Morph Into Gunpowder
A SUGGESTION OF NEED FOR A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE BAR ASSOCIATIONS OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SAMPLE MOTION IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF HAWAII REQUESTING THE APPOINTMENT OF A SELECT COMMITTEE OR ALTERNATIVELY A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE THOROUGHLY THE FOLLOWING UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL CONDUCT BY JUDGE McKENNA DURING THE COURSE OF HER ACTIONS WHILE ACTING AS PRESIDING JUDGE IN CIVIL NO. 03-1-0309-02, BEING APPELLANT’S ACTION FOR FRAUD IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT AND NOW ON APPEAL BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT AS NO. 27865:
1. THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECEMBER 16, 2004 FOUR HOUR SUDDEN NOTICE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE CALLED BY THE COURT BASED ON THE DECEMBER 06, 2004 PERJURED DEPOSITION TAKEN BY DEFENDANTS ON THE LAST DAY ALLOWED FOR DISCOVERY.
2. THE COURT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO RETURN TO COURT THE WEEK FOLLOWING THE SAID SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE TO ADVISE THE COURT AS TO WHETHER SHE WAS GOING TO ACCEPT DEFENDANTS’ SETTLEMENT OFFER AFTER PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUOUS REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE OFFER DESPITE HEAVY DURESS BY THE COURT ON DECEMBER 16, 2004.
3. THE COURT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER CONTINUING THE DECEMBER 16, 2004 ‘SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE’ TO NOON ON JANUARY 3, 2005 WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNABLE TO APPEAR AS ORDERED DURING THE WEEK FOLLOWING THE DECEMBER 16,2004 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE.
4. THE COURT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY TO HAVE PLAINTIFF PRESENT ON JANUARY 3, 2005 TO CONTINUE DECEMBER 16, 2004 UNCONSTITUTIONAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE OR PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WOULD BE DISMISSED.
5. THE TRIAL COURT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL STATEMENTS DIRECTLY TO PLAINTIFF AT THE LENGTHY DECEMBER 16, 2004 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT IT IS THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT THERE IS A NINETY FIVE PER CENT CHANCE THAT THE JURY WILL NOT BELIEVE PLAINTIFF AT TRIAL, AND IF SHE LOSES SHE WILL OWE DEFENDANTS A LOT OF MONEY FOR THEIR EXPENSES IN DEFENDING AGAINST HER SUIT.
6. THE STATEMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT TO PLAINTIFF AT THE DECEMBER 16, 2004 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE THAT SHE (PLAINTIFF) HAS NOT PROVED ANYTHING "SO FAR" AND, AS THE PLAINTIFF, THE ENTIRE BURDEN OF PROVING HER WHOLE CASE IS ON HER, AND THE DEFENDANTS WILL WIN AT THE TRIAL EVEN IF THEY DON’T PROVE ANYTHING, IF THE PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PROVE HER CASE ON HER OWN.
7.THE STATEMENT OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, TO PLAINTIFF, DURING THE LENGTHY DECEMBER 16, 2004 SUDDEN NOTICE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE THAT SHE (JUDGE McKENNA) IS GOING TO SPEAK AS A MOTHER OR A SISTER IN TELLING PLAINTIFF THAT SHE SHOULD ACCEPT THE DEFENDANTS’ SETTLEMENT OFFER AND "GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE."
8.JUDGE McKENNA’S STATEMENTS TO ATTORNEY LEE MIKI, REPRESENTING HAN AT A HEARING EARLY ON THE MORNING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 THAT HE IS TO HAVE HAN PRESENT IN COURT AT NOON TO CONTINUE THE DECEMBER 16, 2004 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, AND IF SHE IS PHYSICALLY OR PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNABLE TO APPEAR THEN HE IS TO ‘HAVE HER AVAILABLE BY PHONE,’ AND "IN ANY EVENT" HE (MR. MIKI) IS TO APPEAR.
9. EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN CIVIL CAUSE NO. 03-1-0309-O2 SSM (OTHER CIVIL ACTION i.e. FRAUD) AFTER DECEMBER 16, 2004
10.EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN CIVIL CAUSE NO. 03-1-0309-02 SSM (OTHER CIVIL ACTION i.e. FRAUD) BEFORE DECEMBER 16, 2004.
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
A. DENIAL BY THE CIRCUIT COURT IN MARCH 2005 OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD AS AN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT THE WITNESS INMI LARUE, WHO GAVE A PERJURED DEPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS ON THE LAST DAY ALLOWED FOR DISCOVERY IN THE CASE, i.e. DECEMBER 6, 2004, WHICH PERJURED DEPOSITION WAS USED BY THE COURT AS THE BASIS FOR A SHORT NOTICE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON DECEMBER 16, 2004 AS DESCRIBED ABOVE.
B. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND WAS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE PLAINTIFF HAD KNOWN INMI LARUE SINCE THE DAY LARUE INTRODUCED PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANT KANG IN THE YEAR 2000 IT WAS TOO LATE FOR PLAINTIFF TO SEEK TO ADD LARUE TO THE CASE AS A DEFENDANT IN MARCH OF 2005 BECAUSE IT WOULD CAUSE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS.
C. THE CIRCUIT COURT IMPROPERLY USED DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COULD BEGIN, BY MAKING EVIDENTIARY RULINGS AT THE PRE-TRIAL HEARING WHEN THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESERVED FOR TRIAL, WHERE PLAINTIFF COULD OFFER A FOUNDATION FOR THE EVIDENCE.
D. THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL USE OF THE MOTION IN LIMINE HEARING AND THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL REFUSAL TO GRANT MR. PHILLIPS MOTION FOR A SHORT DELAY IN THE TRIAL DATE, SO HE COULD PREPARE THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE FORCED PLAINTIFF’S THIRD ATTORNEY ARNOLD PHILLIPS TO, IN TURN, FORCE PLAINTIFF TO IMPROPERLY ACQUIESCE TO ILLEGAL TACTICS BY THE TRIAL JUDGE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL.
E. ALL OF WHICH DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF HER RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF THE SWORN DUTY OF THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE GUARANTY OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
F. THE INTENTIONAL SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE ESSENTIAL TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE BY WRONGFULLY GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT COLDWELL BANKER REAL ESTATE CORPORATION IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT AFTER WRONGFULLY SEALING SAID MOTION ILLEGALLY.
G. THE INTENTIONAL SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE ESSENTIAL TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW PERTAINING TO MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: (1) SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OF INMI LARUE’S BAD CHARACTER AND DISHONESTY AND CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS
(2) SUPPRESSING PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE ABOUT HER VISION PROBLEM (LEGALLY BLIND)
(3) SUPPRESSING PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE FROM HAWAII’S LEADING EXPERT ON THE ETHICS OF THE REAL ESTATE PROFESSION SHOWING THAT DEFENDANTS VIOLATED NUMEROUS ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THEIR PROFESSION IN THE COURSE OF DEFRAUDING PLAINTIFF
(4)SUPPRESSING PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE FROM ATTORNEY WAYNE LUKE CORROBORATING PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY THAT SHE WAS INSTRUCTED BY DEFENDANT KANG NOT TO MENTION A HOSTESS LICENSE TO MR. LUKE IN SEEKING HIS REPRESENTATION TO OBTAIN A LIQUOR LICENSE, BECAUSE KANG HAD AN ATTORNEY WHO WOULD HANDLE THE UPGRADE TO A HOSTESS LICENSE FOR HER AFTERWARD - AND THAT WOULD BE FASTER AND MORE ACCEPTABLE TO THE LANDLORD MICHAEL BRUSER THAN REQUESTING A HOSTESS LICENSE INITIALLY
(5)SUPPRESSING PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE THAT GARY GRIMMER, LEAD ATTORNEY FOR THE COLDWELL BANKER DEFENDANTS SUED DEFENDANTS’ PERJURED WITNESS FOR FRAUD SHORTLY BEFORE OBTAINING HER PERJURED DEPOSITION AGAINST PLAINTIFF, WITHOUT DISCLOSING THIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO PLAINTIFF, HER COUNSEL, OR THE COURT AND COLLUDED WITH ATTORNEYS FOR KANG TO OBTAIN A FALSE SWORN STATEMENT FROM THE WITNESS, INMI LARUE WITHIN DAYS AFTER FILING THE FRAUD SUIT AGAINST HER. ALL OF WHICH OCCURRED UNKNOWN TO PLAINTIFF IN THE FALL OF 2004 WHILE DEFENDANTS WERE VICIOUSLY DEPOSING PLAINTIFF.
(6)THE COURT FREQUENTLY BASED DECISIONS AND RULINGS ON “CASE LAW IN THIS JURISDICTION, WHICH I CANNOT CITE AT THE PRESENT TIME" AND ‘DISTINGUISHED’ THE MESSIER CASE CITED TO THE COURT BY PLAINTIFF -WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN AUTHORITY FOR ALLOWING THE SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE- AS "DISTINGUISHABLE BECAUSE THE MESSIER CASE ALLOWED DISPUTED EVIDENCE TO COME IN BECAUSE IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE, WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE (HAN) ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE PLAINTIFF IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE AND THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS OUT WEIGHS THE HELPFUL BENEFIT TO PLAINTIFF”
(NUMEROUS RULINGS LIKE THIS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT JUDGE McKENNA DOES NOT HAVE THE JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT OR THE LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS TO BE SERVING AS A PRESIDING JUDGE IN THE STATE OF HAWAII OR ANYWHERE ELSE.)
……(7)SUPPRESSING PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE THAT THE CARLSMITH LAW FIRM ATTORNEY WHO SUED INMI LARUE FOR FRAUD JUST BEFORE DEFENDANTS’ TOOK AND USED HER DEPOSITION AS A PERJURED WITNESS TO CAUSE JUDGE McKENNA TO CALL AN EMERGENCE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON DECEMBER 16, 2004 WHERE THE COURT ANNOUNCED THAT IN THE COURT’S OPINION THERE IS A NINETY FIVE PERCENT PROBABILITY THAT THE JURY WILL NOT BELIEVE PLAINTIFF BECAUSE INMI LARUE HAS A REAL ESTATE LICENSE WHICH SHE WOULD LOSE IF SHE LIED AT HER DEPOSITION, AND THAT CARLSMITH LAW FIRM ATTORNEY THAT SUED LARUE FOR FRAUD AND THEN VOUCHED FOR HER PERJURED TESTIMONY TO THE TRIAL COURT IN THIS (HAN) CASE IS GARY GRIMMER, LEAD ATTORNEY FOR THE COLDWELL BANKER DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
JUDGE McKENNA RULED THAT THE FRAUD SUIT AGAINST MS. LARUE "HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS (HAN) CASE" AND WILL NOT BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL.
It is worth noting that Gary Grimmer and his Law Firm withdrew as Counsel for The Coldwell Banker Appellees after seeing Appellant’s Opening Brief. This should not remove Mr. Grimmer or his Law Firm from the jurisdiction of the Appeals Court.
(8)Demonstrating at the Motions In Limine Hearing that someone with extensive knowledge of Inmi LaRue’s position concerning her felony convictions for fraud and moral turpitude had advised the court of Ms. LaRue’s defensive posture, which information the Court used to aggressively challenge Mr. Phillips attempt to overcome Defendants Motion In Limine, as to that evidence, by arguing to Mr. Phillips that the felony convictions should not be allowed as evidence at trial. This ruling included a ridiculous statement by the court that there is case law 'in this jurisdiction' that theft is not evidence of dishonesty, but the court 'could not provide the citation'. The court’s misuse of the power of judicial discretion forced Mr. Phillips to virtually abandon his legal arguments on behalf of Plaintiff at this hearing, and the jury trial never began due to this calculated, illegal, unconstitutional, criminal Hearing on Motions In Limine conducted by Judge McKenna on the eve of the trial.
(9)Many times in the course of proceedings in the Trial Court Judge McKenna simply ignored the position of the Plaintiff, without commenting or ruling. Examples include, but are not limited to the following:
A. Plaintiff’s REQUESTED FINDINGS OF FACT and REQUESTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW submitted at the end of the case.
B. Plaintiff’s REPEATED REQUESTS FOR APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OR OTHER INVESTIGATOR TO DETERMINE WHO WAS TELLING THE TRUTH TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND WHO WAS LYING TO THE COURT.
C. Plaintiff’s letter to the court informing Judge McKenna that after seizing Plaintiff’s business computer under an ex parte emergency Court Order based on false allegations claiming that Plaintiff and Mr. Hanna, her personal legal advisor, would delete evidence essential to the Defendants’ defense against her, unless the computer was seized forthwith - then Defendants admitted at the Motion In Limine Hearing, many months later, that the computer, which still had not been returned, contained no relevant evidence.
D. Accepting from Defendants’ attorneys the unsupported statement that their witness, Inmi LaRue feared for her life if Plaintiff was informed of LaRue’s address so a subpoena to appear at trial could be served. Instead Judge McKenna approved an alternate method of service whereby Defendants’ Counsel was to furnish Plaintiff’s Counsel, Arnold Phillips with the name and location of a “preacher friend of LaRue” who would be authorized to accept service for Ms. LaRue (who Plaintiff had reason to believe would absent herself from the jurisdiction to avoid testifying at trial so Defendants could rely on her perjured deposition and the Judge's bias in favor of Ms. LaRue's testimony at trial). The illegal court approved arrangement for serving Defendants’ witness LaRue was never implemented by the court or Defendants’ attorneys keeping Plaintiff from serving LaRue.
E. Ignoring Plaintiff’s letter to the court with copies to opposing counsel, after she was forced to proceed pro se, informing the court that after wrongfully seizing Plaintiff’s business computer Defendants counsel were instrumental in bringing about a groundless, expensive, three month intensive investigation of Mr. Hanna, her legal advisor by the FBI, which included but did not target Han and included a terrifying, for her, visit to her home by an FBI agent at the time Mr. Phillips and attorneys for Defendants were coercing Han, trying to force her to sign a document that said she had settled her suit on terms completely unacceptable to her and completely at variance from the alleged May 6, 2004 telephonic “Settlement Conference” which was conducted in her absence and without any notice to her by the court or Mr. Phillips. of the “settlement conference” or the settlement terms which were being discussed on This alleged "Settlement" caused Han's case to be removed from the jury docket for the following week by Judge McKenna on the afternoon of Friday May 6, 2004.
F. When Judge McKenna took up Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Disqualification in open court, the Court called that matter up for hearing and challenged Plaintiff’s knowledge of her own pro se Affidavit of Disqualification before ruling that the statute on disqualification had been reinterpreted "by case law in this jurisdiction, which the court could not cite at the moment" and the request for disqualification was denied.
11. An investigation of these and other irregularities in the Circuit Court handling of the Han case will likely lead to the discovery of serious, widespread illegal activity in the Hawaii Court System. This case cannot possibly be an isolated, atypical example of a single complete failure of the justice system, arising from unique intentional misconduct by a circuit court judge and numerous members of the Hawaii Bar.
Posted by Court Jester at 4:05 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Appeal Number 27865 Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, Corruption in Hawaii Circuit Court, GOOD vs. EVIL, HAN APPEAL NOW PENDING IN HAWAII COURT OF APPEALS
Sunday, January 18, 2009
the first breadcrumb dropped on the Internet about the Han case
On June 20, 2007 I began blogging for the first time in a hopeful, urgent, desperate effort to DO SOMETHING about the greatest injustice I have ever witnessed in my 45 years as a trial and appeals attorney. This is my first post, which is even more urgent and timely today than it was when first posted:
THIS IS THE FIRST POST:
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Justice in America IS for Everyone (or NOT)
WITHOUT JUSTICE AS A CONCERN OF EVERYONE THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF JUSTICE FOR ANYONE.
A Case In Point In Honolulu Affects Everyone In America
Re: Songi Han vs. COLDWELL BANKER REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, PAUL KANG, and COLDWELL BANKER COMMERCIAL PACIFIC PROPERTIES Ltd. Appeal Number 27865
Pending in the Intermediate Court of Appeals for Hawaii, in Honolulu
THE MOST IMPORTANT CASE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND THE LAW OF CONTRACTS PENDING TODAY - Help please!
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges fraud in a commercial real estate transaction by licensed brokers with a well-ADVERTISED reputation for professional ability and integrity.
A vicious, dishonest, intentional abuse of the superior legal position, created by the legislature in licensing these Professionals to benefit the public, including the Plaintiff, is the basis for the action.
The Plaintiff is even more dependent on the honesty of professionals than most of us. She is blind.
Defendants’ intentional fraud followed by premeditated interference with due process has damaged an impeccable Plaintiff (and all of us) irreparably. Defendants-Appellees’ cynical abuse of the civil judicial process damaged Plaintiff-Appellant and the people of The United States of America more, even, than the substantial damage inflicted by Defendants’ initial unethical and immoral real estate fraud.
It is actionable, legally and equitably, and morally reprehensible, for three (prestigious) law firms, their undisclosed Insurance Company clients, and their clients’ insureds to join together in a civil court proceeding to defend, in bad faith, over a period of three years, ("successfully") by contriving a false and fraudulent defense scheme, intended to further defraud the already defrauded Plaintiff, and to mislead the trial court. Defendants planned and carried out these devious strategies in the trial court to purposely turn a solemn civil suit into an “illegal chess game” weighted heavily in their favor.
In order to dishonestly defeat Plaintiff and her claims, Defendants colluded to prevent an impartial jury trial on serious fact issues involving allegations of fraud and misrepresentation by professional, licensed real estate agents. The surreptitious, unprincipled conduct by Defendants used the trial court to obtain an unjust, dishonest and fraudulent “victory by misdirection and attrition,” over a sincere, truthful, now depleted, and permanently double-damaged blind from birth Plaintiff.
The Supreme Court of Hawaii in a unanimous (patently irresponsible) ruling refused to review the case for “Lack of Jurisdiction” in a per curiam decision without explanation.
A Court of Law cannot be made a Party to Fraud. That would be a mockery of our Courts, Our Legal System, and of Justice herself. The Plaintiff needs your help to reverse this monstrous unjust ruling. Everything reported here is in the Appellate Record on file in Honolulu.
The Plaintiff is penniless as a result of the actions of the Defendants, and she has been deprived, viciously and unfeelingly, of her only opportunity to be self supporting and self reliant in this world, after devoting her life to creating the opportunity. The Defendants conspired to destroy a brave, sincere, intelligent woman when she entrusted to Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corporation, at their solicitation, her life's work.
THIS TRAGEDY IS ALSO A SINGULAR OPPORTUNITY FOR MEANINGFUL HUMANITARIAN AID FOR A REMARKABLY BRAVE INDIVIDUAL WHO, I BELIEVE, WILL MAKE A HISTORIC CONTRIBUTION TO HUMANITY IF ASSISTANCE IS PROVIDED.
Posted by Henotic at 1:07 AM
Labels: appeal case number 27865 Han vs. Coldwell Banker, that appeal case is my passion, The Intermediate Court of Appeals for Hawaii can publish a world changing decision
Posted by Court Jester at 7:32 PM 0 comments
Labels: Appeal Number 27865 Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, Corruption in Hawaii Circuit Court, GOOD vs. EVIL, HAN APPEAL NOW PENDING IN HAWAII COURT OF APPEALS
LITTLE PIECES THAT SHOULD BE FULLY INVESTIGATED
1. THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECEMBER 16, 2004 FOUR HOUR SUDDEN NOTICE ‘SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE’ BASED ON THE DECEMBER 06, 2004 PERJERED DEPOSITION SCHEDULED BY DEFENDANTS ON THE LAST DAY ALLOWED FOR DISCOVERY.
2. THE COURT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO RETURN TO COURT THE WEEK FOLLOWING THE SAID ‘SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE’ TO ADVISE THE COURT AS TO WHETHER SHE WAS GOING TO ACCEPT DEFENDANTS’ ‘SETTLEMENT OFFER’ AFTER PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE OFFER DESPITE HEAVY DURESS BY THE COURT ON DECEMBER 16, 2004.
3. THE COURT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER CONTINUING THE DECEMBER 16, 2004 ‘SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE’ TO NOON ON JANUARY 3, 2005 WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNABLE TO APPEAR AS ORDERED DURING THE WEEK FOLLOWING THE DECEMBER 16,2004 ‘SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE’
4. THE COURT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY TO HAVE PLAINTIFF PRESENT ON JANUARY 3, 2005 TO CONTINUE DECEMBER 16, 2004 UNCONSTITUTIONAL ‘SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE’ OR PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WOULD BE DISMISSED.
5. THE ‘TRIAL COURT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL STATEMENTS DIRECTLY TO PLAINTIFF AT THE LENGTHY DECEMBER 16, 2004 ‘SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE’ TO THE EFFECT THAT IT IS THE OPINION OF THE ‘TRIAL JUDGE’ THAT THERE IS A NINETY FIVE PER CENT CHANCE THAT THE JURY WILL NOT BELIEVE PLAINTIFF AT TRIAL AND IF SHE LOSES SHE WILL OWE DEFENDANTS A LOT OF MONEY FOR THEIR EXPENSES IN DEFENDING AGAINST HER SUIT.
6. THE STATEMENT OF THE ‘TRIAL COURT’ TO PLAINTIFF AT THE DECEMBER 16, 2004 ‘SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE’ THAT SHE (PLAINTIFF) HAS NOT PROVED ANYTHING YET, AND, AS THE PLAINTIFF, THE ENTIRE BURDEN OF PROVING HER WHOLE CASE IS ON HER, AND THE DEFENDANTS WILL WIN AT THE TRIAL EVEN IF THEY DON’T PROVE ANYTHING IF THE PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PROVE HER CASE ON HER OWN.
7. THE STATEMENT OF THE ‘TRIAL JUDGE’ TO PLAINTIFF DURING THE LENGTHY DECEMBER 16, 2004 SUDDEN NOTICE ‘SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE’ THAT SHE (JUDGE McKENNA) IS GOING TO SPEAK AS A MOTHER OR A SISTER IN TELLING PLAINTIFF THAT SHE SHOULD ACCEPT THE DEFENDANTS’ SETTLEMENT OFFER AND GET ON WITH HER LIFE.
8. JUDGE McKenna’s STATEMENTS TO ATTORNEY LEE MIKI, REPRESENTING HAN AT A HEARING EARLY ON THE MORNING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 THAT HE IS TO HAVE HAN PRESENT IN COURT AT NOON TO CONTINUE THE DECEMBER 16, 2004 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND IF SHE IS PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOCICALLY UNABLE TO APPEAR THEN HE IS TO ‘HAVE HER AVAILABLE BY PHONE,’ AND IN ANY EVENT HE (MR. MIKI) IS TO APPEAR.
9. EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN CIVIL CAUSE NO. 03-1-0309-O2 SSM (OTHER CIVIL ACTION i.e. FRAUD) AFTER DECEMBER 16, 2004
10. EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN CIVIL CAUSE NO. 03-1-0309-02 SSM (OTHER CIVIL ACTION i.e. FRAUD) BEFORE DECEMBER 16, 2004.
Posted by Court Jester at 3:30 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Appeal Number 27865 Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, Corruption in Hawaii Circuit Court, HAN APPEAL NOW PENDING IN HAWAII COURT OF APPEALS
SOME CRUMBS GATHERED ALONG THE TRAIL
Hon. Sabrina Shuey McKenna, Circuit Court Judge Div 22 Honolulu, Haw.
Han, Son Gi, Plaintiff in Civil Cause 03-1-0309-02 SSM First Circuit Court Div 22 and now Appellant in Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Appeal Number 27865
All Defendants – Kang, Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corporation, Coldwell Banker Commercial Pacific Properties,
The Doe Defendants named to hold places in the case for others such as Gary Grimmer, Coldwell Bankers’ Attorney, Michael Bruser, collusive landlord, other miscellaneous attorneys, judges and perjured witnesses, such as Inmi LaRue, and co conspirators such as Insurance Carriers
Labels: Corruption in Hawaii Circuit Court, HAN APPEAL NOW PENDING IN HAWAII COURT OF APPEALS, historic case under consideration now, The most important court case now on appeal in America
SOME CRUMBS ARE NOT WORTH FOLLOWING
When Inmi LaRue first introduced Paul Kang to Han, while Han and her sister Jennifer were eating dinner at Inmi’s restaurant Han told Kang that she had been looking for a qualified real estate agent to assist her in finding a location for a hostess bar business, but that she was not looking for a Korean agent because she felt that a Korean agent would not be qualified to handle the sophisticated commercial real estate job which she had need to rely on her real estate agent to fulfill. Mr. Kang instantly replied, “I am not a Korean real estate agent, I am Coldwell Banker.”
In a longer interview the following day Kang explained in detail the many advantages of hiring Coldwell Banker to be her exclusive agent with himself as her agent at Coldwell Banker. Han had heard favorably of Coldwell Banker, and so had her family who were lending her the money to start her new business.
Han agreed to make Kang and Coldwell Banker her exclusive agent and to notify the realtors that she had been working with that Mr. Kang had become her exclusive agent. When she asked should we have a signed document about this, Mr. Kang replied that he only required a signed document with clients that he did not trust, and in Han’s case it would not be necessary.
After showing her a number of properties, including one that she was already interested in, Mr. Kang persuaded Han that because of his personal friendship with Michael Bruser, the California landlord of the space Kang recommended highly above all others, he thought he could negotiate a favorable lease at a rental that would be below the market because he was very impressed with her business plan and he knew that eventually she would resell, offering him the listing for resale at a really good profit for both of them. In the meantime, he said, if his performance for her proved satisfactory he wanted her to always recommend him to her customers when someone was looking for a real estate agent. Miss Han learned well after taking possession of the space, spending her own money on expensive remodeling, and promoting her Grand Opening in the Korean language press in Honolulu, that a hostess bar was not a legal use in the space.
When she turned to Mr. Kang for help and advice about the problem he persuaded her that she should do her best to operate a regular bar (which would be legal) in the space while he looked for a buyer, because Michael Bruser was a wealthy, hard nosed business man who would sue her for everything she had and make it impossible for her to ever do business again in Honolulu unless she paid the rent for at least one year. Han still did not know that Kang and Coldwell Banker had been Michael Bruser’s real estate agent throughout the transaction. Kang handled all the paper work for Han and told her that “her attorney,” who worked for Coldwell Banker had secured the property for her with a five-year lease agreement to protect her investment as the property became more valuable.
In the year that followed Han became a voluntary slave to the business. She did nothing but get up and go to work, stay all day, and return home to pray all night trying to keep the business alive until Mr. Kang could find a buyer or until she had paid the rent for a year. During this time her dress size went from a size 14 to a size zero.
After she had been in the space for one year the landlord evicted her in response to her request for lower rent because she had developed an alternate plan, which involved contracting with a young people’s Promotions Company to use the space on weekends for events that drew the younger crowd of customers, and she was making enough money to pay a reduced rent.
Han was evicted on President’s Day weekend 2003 for non payment of back rent, which included the fraudulent sale to her of the fixtures and equipment included in her lease. This was negotiated by Kang after the lease, and added to her rent commitment by Bruser. Attorney Stephen Leong filed suit for fraud on her behalf in February 2004.
Han's Deposition was ongoing for six months from July 9, 2004 until January 2005, when the court own its own Motion terminated her deposition without allowing her attorney any opportunity for cross examination. Han was mercilessly insulted, verbally battered and abused in the presence of her attorney, who had replaced Mr. Leong, after to his entrapment and sentencing to prison.
Trial was set for January 30, 2005 before a jury, and on December 6, 2004 Inmi LaRue gave her perjured deposition to Defendants in a successful conspiracy to destroy Han and her case.
Posted by Court Jester at 1:25 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Appeal Number 27865 Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, GOOD vs. EVIL, HAN APPEAL NOW PENDING IN HAWAII COURT OF APPEALS
Saturday, January 17, 2009
BREADCRUMBS, MOMENTS OF CLARITY, AND STARS IN THE SKY - ALL SERVE AS TRAIL MARKERS FOR THE SENSITIVE
The impossibly difficult ordeal involved for Miss Han in appealing her case pro se, and in forma pauperis, is summarized briefly in her recent Request For Oral Argument. The eloquent Request, which required her full time effort for more than a year, was summarily denied in a short letter by her appeals panel. The Appeals Court a week after her filing of the laborious persuasive Request, with extensive portions of the Appeal Record attached mailed her a short one-page decision letter denying her request.
The only way another person can see (from) the first person’s perspective is to ‘look’ through the eyes of the first person. When the first person is blind the task becomes impossible for any sighted person. Virtually everything in their two worlds is different.
(The first person is always forced to compensate – except in therapeutic situations.)
Between the time Miss Han filed her suit for unconscionable fraud upon her by licensed professional real estate brokers and the time she filed her Appeal of the unconscionable decision against her by the trial court, she had to endure an ever increasing non-stop onslaught against her personally by a team of Honolulu’s top trial attorneys joined by some of her friends and her own professional advisors urging her not to go to court where she would be disrespected and unceremoniously trounced by callous, uncaring strangers including the court -with nothing to show for the shame of this mistreatment when it ended.
All her life she has been required to build on experiences that others would find demeaning and depressing. In her world, those two words have no meaning, for herself.
She knows a lot about humiliation by others, sadness, and regret, but there is no sense of personal failure. There has been none.
Miss Han spent her first years in the United States in single-minded devotion to bringing each member of her family to this country to live. Then she began searching for a way that she could be self-supporting and independent in her chosen homeland.
Sometimes accepting help from people she had chosen to trust, but always relying only on herself she tried countless avenues ‘til they proved to be dead ends. Then she deliberately moved to Alaska because a confident in NYC had told her that it was a place like no other, with clean, pure air and clean pure people combined with peacefulness which allows one to think objectively and without pressure. This seemed perfect at that time, and she moved there without hesitation with only twenty dollars to her name.
Because of the nexus between Alaska and Hawaii she learned in Alaska of a new business that she had never heard of which sounded promising to her. Hawaii is the only state in the United States which licenses Hostess Bars, based on oriental custom that originated with the concept of Geishas.
Miss Han traveled to Hawaii to investigate, prepared with the name of a Hostess Bar and owner known to her Alaska friend and located on the island of Kauai.
After the usual misadventures, she moved to Honolulu and accepted a position as a hostess in a hostess bar owned by a Korean woman who had offered to befriend Miss Han in Hawaii. Her name is Inmi Larue. As owner of the bar she was also the mama san, or proprietor in charge of the girls serving as hostesses.
More than ten years later Inmi Larue would deliver to the defense attorneys in Miss Han’s case a perjured deposition against Miss Han on the final day for discovery, just before the scheduled commencement of the jury trial in the case. This perjured deposition was given on December 3,2004. It contradicted the allegations of Miss Han’s complaint under oath, and provided the illegal basis for a summary judgment motion against Miss Han and an unconstitutional coercive ‘settlement conference’ scheduled on short notice by the trial judge to illegally force Miss Han to settle her lawsuit.
FLASHBACK:
When Miss Han accepted the position in Inmi LaRue’s hostess bar she was careful, as always, to be sure everything was clear ‘up front’ because she is ill equipped to deal with the confusion of conflicting claims and counter charges after the fact in any situation or relationship. Then, when Inmi LaRue failed to honor the up front agreement, which included payment to Miss Han and all the other employees regularly on time, Miss Han warned her mama san once and then quit her job when the warning was ignored. During the short time that Han worked there she had improved working conditions for everyone, and when she quit all the other hostesses voluntarily quit also and said that they would follow Han to her (then unknown) new employer.
Unknown to Han, Inmi LaRue went bankrupt in her hostess bar, shortly after that.
Han went on to become one of Honolulu’s most famous hostesses working for a different mama san, while learning and studying the business.
After much thought and success as a hostess in Honolulu, Han decided that she could be successful as the owner of her own top end hostess bar in Honolulu because it is the only business she found that was peculiarly suited to her abilities. There was no top end hostess bar in Hawaii, and although tourists from the mainland sought out low end questionable bars there was a significant clientele from the orient who repeatedly complained to her about the complete lack of a top end hostess bar.
Simply put at a top end hostess bar in Korea or Japan intelligent, cultured attractive girls sit with their customer and engage in conversation while the customer is allowed to touch the girls in a respectful way. Not surprisingly, clients with plenty of money happily and repeatedly visit these establishments and pay drink prices that are phenomenal.
The hostess bar splits the income from drinks with its hostesses. The entire operation is always completely law abiding, and is the type of business envisioned by the Hawaii Liquor Commission when issuing hostess bar licenses and licenses to girls as hostesses.
(Anthropologist, Anne Allison, discusses the range of conduct to be found in hostess bars in the Orient at length in a definitive scholarly study. Plaintiff cited the book to the trial court early in the case. NIGHTWORK ISBN 0-226-01487-8 paper)
Han quickly put the incident between herself and Inmi LaRue behind her. Her Father had wisely taught her that when she encountered unreasonable difficulty she should simply “turn around” and go another way, forgetting the problem she had left behind. Because of her superior intelligence and character and her father’s wisdom she has repeatedly survived what, for another, would have been fatally destructive circumstances.
When Han heard that Inmi LaRue had opened a Korean restaurant she became a ‘regular’ and saw Inmi there often, on what Han thought was a friendship basis. It was Inmi LaRue who introduced Han to Defendant Paul Kang, at her restaurant after Han told Inmi that she was planning to open her own hostess bar. The next time Han visited Inmi’s restaurant Ms. LaRue telephoned Mr. Kang to come and meet Han after telling Han that Kang, a Korean Real Estate Agent with Coldwell Banker, fluent in the Korean language, was the best possible agent in Hawaii to find a location for Han’s hostess bar. The subsequent deposition testimony by LaRue against Han was intentional perjury, and led to the prejudging of her case by a corrupt judge and the disgraceful dismissal of her lawsuit which forced her to Appeal the criminal decision to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, when the Hawaii Supreme Court erroneously refused her request for consideration of her Appeal in the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
Posted by Court Jester at 9:50 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: appeals court in Hawaii, historic case under consideration now
Friday, January 16, 2009
We Know Where This Trail Starts - The Question Now Is Where Does The Buck Stop
The story of Miss Han’s Appeal of her case is a reflection of the story of her life.
As the oldest child in the family that has supplied a line of queens to Korea’s throne she would have been destined to a position of royalty, but royalty must not be obviously genetically handicapped. That would reflect badly on the family and the marriage ability of her siblings. By the time she had four sisters and a brother she was living far away, with her paternal grandmother.
Her Father’s never-failing complete unconditional love became the lodestar of her physically dark world. Whatever her situation, whatever his – he was always present in her life as a loving, supportive, devoted father. He visited as often as he could; when he had to go he left Son Gi with the secure knowledge that he was always a force in her life.
To this day she has never lost the childlike innocence that came into the world with her.
There is an irresistible ferocity that underlies purity, sincerity and the inborn sense (not knowledge) of right and wrong. This quiet, observant blind child on one occasion when she was a teen, overheard her parents telling a younger sister that she could not go out as she planned to do that night. After something of a scene, Son Gi’s sister dressed in one of her fancy outfits and left. While life went on in the household that evening Son Gi found a pair of scissors and quietly entered her sister’s closet – where she cut and slashed her sister’s entire extensive wardrobe into scraps. When she knows something is right/wrong she has no fear, but there is a compulsion to act, to do something.
The trial judge in her case is a woman who has been a judge for twelve years, after first being a trial attorney. The judge is well connected politically, socially, and financially.
This judge serves on a small, select committee named by the Supreme Court of Hawaii to assist the court.
The cavalier, overtly arrogant sense of superiority established in her courtroom, in the name of the law, begs to be corrected - much like that of the ruler in the story of the emperor’s new clothes.
She has met her match. Whether everyone benefits or everyone suffers is now in the hands of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in and for the state of Hawaii.
Only one photo was posted -Google deleted it because of a complaint.
This is the photo that was posted:
Songi Han and her best friend
UPDATE November 27, 2011
The Court of Appeals REVERSED the trial court’s dismissal of Miss Han’s lawsuit and remanded the case back to Judge McKenna for further proceedings in accordance with the Decision on Appeal.
